Knoxville weekly chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1875, 1871-05-10
OUR CITY SCHOOLS.

The claim made by Father Finnegan on
behalf of his people is prosecuted by him
in way calculated to disarm the decided
opposition it deserves. He says, i'll a letter
published elsewhere, that the Catholics do
not demand that we shall break up our
system of common schools, but simply
that they shall be allowed to take their
share of taxes and organize schools of their
own. We have endeavored to show that
such policy would result, first, in the de-
struction of our common schools 1. C.,
schools open to all creeds-to the rich and
poor, the jew and Gentle; and, second,
in giving over to the Priests the control of
public fund for the organization and
management of Catholic schools--schools
that, in their teaching and tendency are
anti-American and subversive, as we be-
lieve, of the principles of our Government.
Both of the results-the destruction of one
kind and the encouragement of another
class of schools-we think would be n great
public calamity.
But Father Finnegan says they do not
demand the destruction of our schools
We know they. do not demand it, but that
Is their Interior purpose. The demand
they seek to enforce, if conceded as to their
church-or as to eUery dissatisfied parent
Father Finnegan insists-must, of course
be conceded as to the Baptists, Jews, or
any other denomination. The very pollen
they contend for is, therefore, fatal to union
or common schools. The very object of the
public school system would be by such a
policy utterly defeated. We say therefore
that the claim of theCatholics, once granted
opens the door to numerous subdivisions
of the fund, and to the utter humiliation
of the school system. This is lust exactly
what we believe is wanted, but lust what
10 of ait dot, IL.
not be done. What reason is there for this
division of the fund? Father Finnegan
says they do not like our school system
Well, they knew we had such schools be-
fore most of them came to America, lust
as they knew we had many other features
| of government that did not suit their
church, and If they thought taxation to
support the schools and the other objection
| able features of our institutions was not
consistent with freedom, they ought not
to have come here. But if their church is
| infdHiblc, what fear have they to allow
their children to be educated, as Jews and
Dnltarians are, with other denominations {?
The very few Objectionable features in
school books of which Father Finnegan
complains ought not to shake a powerful
church to its foundation. But if they are
really fearful of the consequences of such
tharat sfl,',rl t""' 'inI- t',s, - eouIse can
TO do, and no one objects
But we most seriously object in this di-
vision of public money, because it goes into
the hands of the Priests and would become
It most powerful agent for furthering the
schemes of that church. Father Finnepon
may be right and We may be wrong, but
we know, i'll many sections where the
church Is strong and bold, the paramount
allegiance of the church to the Pope is dis
tlnctly asserted as well in political rs re-
ligious matters. To encourage the extension
OF such n church by aiding them with
public money to establish purely sectarion
schools to be controlled by their Priest,
and the Pope, would be to build uD under
the protection ofthe Government n mower
hostile to ii in its spirit and objects We
say therefore, that we oppose the division
OF inns tund because it would result in estab-
llsning purely sectarian schools through
publi' aid, policy we oppose whether
those schools are Catholic or Methodist
But we do not desire to press this discus
sion further, lest it might seem that Father
tlnnegan was at the disadvantage of con-
tending with two. We have answered only
few points. There is too much to be said
on the subject to cover all the points in one
or two articles. lone ofNery MANY, and
Rather Finnegan are welcome to carry ONT
their discussion, and we will be Glad TO
furnish them on alternate days such space
as they may need. We know such able
minds Will always carry on the controveY-
sy literally and fairly and we think the
public want to hear both sides fully Dre-
sented, as the great importance of the sub
ect merits.