The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1874-12-27
PUBLIC EDUCATION.

PUBLIC EDUCATION.
Editors B,uetin-I think that this is an appro7
pirate time to make the inquiry: Why should
be compelled to educate another mans child
rather than to clothe, feed and house him? Or,
In other words, why should one man be taxed to
defray the expenses Of educating another mans
children?
Education is q luxury; whilst food, clothing
and house of some kind to live in, constitute
the necessities Of life. Charity is neither q
moral nor legal obligation imposed upon indi-
viduals in society, and as policy of government
it is in violation of the fundamental principles OF
political science. In no society and under no
code of morals is it duty to relieve the most
pressing and absolutely necessary wants OF the
destitute. Then why should law intervene and
exact tax from industry; not to relieve the
wants of the impoverished which benevolence
might excuse if it could not justify to con-
tribute to the luxuries Of society?
Why are the rights Of property-the most
sacred and infinitely the most important Of
human institutions, and which governments are
instituted almost exclusively to protect-thue
violated?
This is grave and suggestive inquiry, and,
unless satisfactorily answered by the most cogent
reasoning, the whole fabric. Of public education
should fall 10 the ground.
II is not enough that education can be shown
10 be q great blessing, q source OF comfort and
the key to the possession Of power, etc. It may
be all these and more, but that is the greater
reason that to be enjoyed it should be paid for by
the possessor.
The primary and legitimate functions of gov
eminent are the protection Of person and prop
erty. Any act of government subversive or II
violation of these duties, 10 not only wrong in
principle and dangerous in practice but is fraught
with evil as precedent. As taxation for public
education is so manifestly in violation OF the
rights Of property, it is well to scrutinlze Will
severity the arguments used in advocacy OF the
system.
Two reasons are employed in defense OF edu
cetion at the public expense, which really merge
into one, as will appear in the course OF this
discussion.
The first argument il, that our government, rest
ing upon the popular will and controlled by the
people at large, can neither be wisely admins
tered nor continue to exist unless the people are
educated and intelligent. This argument, it viii
be observed, is founded exclusively upon praort
Or deductive reasoning. Practically it rests upor
the assumption that the education dispensed il
our public schools enables voters to select wisel
and better men for official position, than if the,
(they yoters) we're self.educated or not educated
1t all. As ours is q representative government
this is the only manner in which intelligence, O.
that knowledge derived from scholastic educa
ton. can act upon the government to make j
better or worse. In answ or to this argument,
would appeal to every mans experience, and asl
him if the people use discriminating intelligence
or are benefited by their scholastic education Il
the selection of candidates? Are the representa-
tives chosen by the people-now when educ atio1
is generally difused-wiser, more learned, NOR
virtuous and public-spirited than they were il
the early days Of the Republic when education
was restricted to the few?
But the power Of distinguishing right from
wrong, the foolish from the wise, and the wicke'
from the virtuous-an that is claimed for educa
ton in this connection-is Of infinitely less i'm
portance than the disposition to exercise it. Thi
argument is of NO weight, unless it can be show
that the disposition to do right, as well as tn
power of discriminating between right and wrong
is implanted, nurtured, improved and rendere
more active by scholastic education. Hence tn
whole argument finally hinges upon the mors
influence Of scholastic learning, and not on tn
Intelligence it confers.
But granting that general education is essen
tial to the purity and continuance of the Govern
ment, it is no argument to prove that the righ
Of property should be violated to disseminat
knowledge but an excellent argument for estat
hshing an educational qualification as essenti.
| to the exercise of the elective franchise.
would be, in addition, an incentive to industr
and thrift, by which nations, a. well as indivit
uals, are made prosperous-and Of the most sa
utary influence on the national character, by re,
dering the people in all things self reliant.
But the argument principally relied on in just
acation of education at the public expense,
} that the educated are more virtuous or less di
posed to crime than the uneducated, and, as tt
] acknowledged duty Of government is to prote
person and property by depressing crime, tn
! end is more effectually accomplished by proven
ing crime through the agency of education tha
by furnishing the criminal after the perpetratie
Of the offense. This theory rests nearly alt
eether upon assumption, but is attempted to
proved inductively by statistics showing that
large majority Of criminals are either. entire
uneducated or have received but an indlfierel
education.
Statistics ON this subject are partial and inco
!; elusive, for although it r:ay be acknowledge
that criminals are in the majority ignorant, or
differently educated, yet this fact alone esta
fishes nothing, unless it can be shown that Il
proportion of uneducated criminals to Il
educated is greater than the proporti'
which the uneducated bear to the educat'
classes in the community. By a parity
q reasoning it can be proved that wearing broa
Y cloth has . salutary influence in preventil
crime, as very few criminals wear this species
garment. Statistics of this kind are Of no val