The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1875-09-29
Central 4lrr5bptrrlan,
PUBLIC MONEY FOR PRIVATE SCHOOLS


PUBLIC MONEY FOR PRIVATE SCHOOLS
The Common Council of Petersburg, Va,
recently voted an appropriation of 81, 900 to
a Roman Catholic sehOol-a brief notice Of
which appeared in this paper some weeks
ago. We are gratifed to state that upon
the application of some gentlemen who,
with other citizens, were not prepared to
have the public funds dealt with in that
style, an injunction was served upon the
Council restraining it from proceeding further
in this matter. The question being thus
taken before the court Will be determined in
due time.
Meanwhile an article appears in one Of
the city papers under the signature of I. },
Wilson, a Priest, as We are informed, of the
Roman Catholic Church in that place. 1t
is intended to be justification of what he
calls the claim of his Church there, for the
kind of appropriation made. After care
ful examination, the intelligent reader will
hardly know whether to be vexed or amused.
With quite a parade of the forms Of logic
and argument, we obtain about as sesnt
pattern of that valuable article as can well
be conceived. If it did not take up more
space than the thing is worth, the entire
piece would be inserted for the inspection and
amusement of our readers. Here is the first
part-about one third of the Whole-Which
may be taken as a specimen.
TO THE PUBLIC.
Understanding that the appropriation made in
favor Of our projected Catholic School, By the Com
mon Council of this city in their last meeting, gave
rise to no small share Of comment and a dissatis-
faction publicly expressed By an injunction drgU-
nleRt, deem it expedient to explain TO the pubic
the grounds on which | asked said appropriation,
and the conditions on which would consent to re-
eeive it if granted. Between the dates Of July 25
and August the lst, in this year. l explained TO
five or six gentlemen, members of the Common
Council my intention to petition them at an early
future, for So 600, to enable me to Establish a
branch school OF the Sisters Of Charity in this city.
Very reasonably and in accordance with my own
natural antielpations, they asked how could sup
a L
Gentlemen, if the arguments which l am now
about to adduce prove not clearly and support not
incOntrOVertibly, the justice of my claim, don t
want YOU so much as to mention It. lSt ArgU.
naent lie the Catholic church be the only church
m this, OF indeed, IN any other city, that Is dOctr
ally denied the advantages aecruing from the pub
lie system Of education, | deem 1t right and lust
that a special appropriation be asked and granted
her, in order that her children may be educated,
aud her members acknowledged to be taxpayers
in which relation they are supporters OF the public
system Of education, and, in this particular, sup
pOrters of every church save their own. But our
church is such one. Therefore, | am logically
bound to conclude that the appropriation is justly
asked and as such, can be legitimstely granted.
The first premise Of this argument is conditional,
but the condition being verified, 1t necessarily be-
comes absolute. Now the condition is verified in
the second premise, in which l absolutely say that
we are doctrnaLy and hence positively denied the
advantages derivable from this educational system.
For were the denial not dOetrina l most assuredly
would avail myself of the Public School facilities
of education and, by so doing, would relieve my
congregation, and be relieved myself Of the oner.
Gus obligation Of supporting ParOchiQL Schools,
which entail upon Us yearly expense Of 81 700
But the denial Is d0ctrnQl and, such, olnds not
only me, but my ecclesiastical supcrOrs also to Its
observance. 1T then these premises be admittedly
true, the conclusion cannot be denied, namely
granted; conclusion which is clearly Irresistible.
There is no necessity for dsseetiug this
exposition BY piecemeal. Two questions car
ry with them the pith of the whole.
1. What does the Rev. Mr.. Wilson mean
by assuming that the Catholic Church is the
only church in Petersburg or elsewhere that
is doctriaally denied the advantages socru-
ing for the public system of education -
We have the Priests positive assertion that
it is so; and it was so asserted in the City
Council By one of its members. But we
call for the proof. What is meant by being
" aoetrinally' denied advantages given to
others? Give Us the answer TO that, with the
facts authenticated, and then we can under
stand the case better. The rub is just there,
and it viii not do to wrap this vital point in
obscure goneralides.
2. Again we beg leave to inquire what is
meant by this sentence-"B the denial is
doetriaal, and, as such, binds not only NJ,
but my ecclesiastical superiOrs also to its OBJ
seryanee." Does this mean that the Roman
Catholic Bishop in Virginia forbids the Ro-
man Catholic parents from sending their
children to the common schools, and requires
the Priests under his jurisdiction to enforce
the order? This, we know, is the order of
the day in some others parts of the country,
and the demands Of these same Roman Cath
olics for special appropriations of the public
funds for their seetarian schools, is produc-
ing deep and widespread agitation. We
think we understand that matter correctly,
and it is our purpose to meet it, whenever
the time comes for that question in Virginia.
For the present We only ask on this point,
what is meant by this reference by the
Priest to his "saperiors 2' If it binds them
all together to this course, how is it that no
move has been made under " doctriaay
difficulty whatever that may mean) here in
the city of Richmond
The other parts of this remarkable pro-
duction, especially the economical view, show
ing how much the city of Petersburg will
save By this seclarian operation, may be
: Il.