The morning star and Catholic messenger. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1868-1881, 1872-11-24
Tho School Petition.


MANY Of our reaaers will, to-day. hnd
invited to sign petition 40.
dressed to the coming Legislature ana
Making q partition Of the Common school,
fund. It is known that not only Catholics,
but many Others among tho Episcopaiians, |
Presbyterians, and others protesting Chris-
tianity, as we'll as among the Jews, favor
the movement. They are sincerely desir-
GUS of educating the children OF their poor
under the religious influences OF their own
creed and of their own morality, yet find it
very difficult to collect the pecunlary
means necessary for sach an undertaking.
1t, therefore, very naturally suggests itself
to them, that fair proportion OF the puo-
lie school fund should be devoted to that
purpose.
On general principles, applicable to every
body, and every creed, the arguments IN
favor of and against this' proposition are
very simple. Its advocates say that every
parent has the indefeasible right of select
inc the school and teacher for his child.
Its opponents say that this frittering away
| of the school fund among sectar'an SCHOOLS
| would actually destroy the public school
system.
| To which it is answered that it could
not destroy that system if parents pre-
ferred it's schools for their children, and il
they did not, why should the system be
continued
There is no doubt that parent has pre-
ferences (sometimes very marked ones) al
to the schools which he will patronize. He
may doubt the skill or good will, or ever
morality of certain teacher. He may
not like the system pursued, or the book
used at q certain establishment. If he Ii
rich, he consults bis own judgment in thi
matter, and follows his own preference
Has not the poor man just as sacred
right in this respects He may not have
dollar to spend on the education of hi
child, but ought the State to refuse him it
aid in that behalf except on condition tina
he sacrifice every sentiment of parental so
licitude in the matter3 Granted that tn
,, poor child has right to a certain amount Q
State aid for its education, ought this al
=, to be withheld unless the father yield u
!, every prerogative of q parent which tn
weather. man is 30 careful to exercisef
The sentiment is one which is unworth
of refined and liberal age. Let US re
spect the wants of the child of povert
1t but let us respect ALEC the dignity Of tn
d parent. Don't force him to entrust hi
II child to a teacher between whose view
and his owp, there is hopeless antago
: nism, and who is perfectly independer
of his feelings and desires. The p
vs rental instinct has right to be hear
o and to control. If the father prefers d.
cidedly to send his son or daughter, to
4 school in which he has confidence, the
It can be no reason for thwarting him in tn
wish. 1t is but a privilege which his mo
fortunate neighbor elaine and uses. WI
Should he be deprived of it in contem
,v for his povertyf
of We are persuaded that if the Legislatu
no of our State is once convinced that mul'
he tudes of our honest, bard-workinS citize
of are in this very predicament, if it is ma
b. to know that conscientious poverty is
y. priyed of this public boon because of
w assertion of parental rights and parent
duties, it will listen to their prayer, it W
p permit the poor man to make his oN
.ir selection of q school for his child and y
dy come to his aid in paying for its tuition.
ks The amount asked would be very trifi
es, say $40 year for each poor child-a
ed that would be decided economy in &C
ne trast with the present system. Let ever
no BODY sign who really believes in the rig'
g, of parents in the matter, and the ISIS
,ts cannot be doubtful. ... .., '