The Cambria freeman. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1867-1938, 1875-02-26
Communications.
LfBERTY.versus COMPULSORY EDU.


ton. 1t should not attempt any coefcive meas /
ures. but leave the people TO their own free 1
themselves of the means afforded. And this |
should be particularly the case when there are |
of education proposed. The rights of conscience
are sac cred and are rightly guaranteed by our |
saw whether our common school education is
entirely intellectual. or of mixed nature. viz,
sepei ali religious infiuencefrom hool train
ing, but the practice in many localities Is TO mix
with secular instruction. in either case tins
system of education is opposed to the reii- |
snrents who would send their children to such
would be running the rfsk OF hav-
ing their children educated at the expense of
losing their souls
When il is understood that the parties who
look upon common school education unfit
for them, consider the necessity Of religion
their religion 5 an necessary adjunct to Sec
thcv cannot natronize those schools from which
religion is excluded: or what they regard as
false religion is irculcated. So long, therefore.
as the State does not coerce children of those
parties to go to common schools, IL Tails chiefly
sis na %, sae is or ny be sy
tas, number. This should not be so un der our
iony our law-makers viii remedy this great in
Justice We are confident that it will be SO u-
snd not to ri the of a:ereater one,
should our Legislatures be encouraged. But,
OTIS and interested parties demanding ''compui-
sorry education. ~
The law OF coercion WOulu De opposed 10 tue
spirit of the Constitution, to the kefiiss OF otr
people, who are freenen and not serfs. II
The parent is the natural guardian of his chill
dreu-to him God has entrusted their care 1t
S d G,s as sI.s to- h Jest when the State ia"
terferes cocrcively it attempt. 10 change this
prdep oTeory S ehaipions feel should any authority
undertake to deprive him of the educational
stance, take his child and place it in a school to
which the parent is opposed on mahy gro uncs
his parental rights are invaded? Up to that
TIME he fondly imagined that the child was his,
ot,;cer cSmes along and rudely drags from un-
der hi, roof the onsPring o! his anection and
places it Ia an nov men u at s,;n Gan
iustinctiveiy reUoil at the contemp lation of
such repulsive pic nres ana & yer 'nns ms Is % .ne
eies of many are now strained. Nature and
the God IF nature tell the Gnu 70 'Hes & IN. ms
spected. The subyersion OF so great al nutnor-
ity may re productive OF very dire and u:sas-
ferrous consequences II is not well to meddie
with the law of nature or the Divine appoint
ment. Those who do SO will accomplish no
do hone W that this natural instinct of parental
guardianship is too @eepiy rooted in the breasts
for themselves and their offspring too intense
to permit them to give any countenance To this
unna tural and unjust law of coercion. l char
acterize the law as unjust. 1t prevents the pa
rent from receiving the fruit of the labor of
time Boys and girls too. fit to do many
kinds OF labor from the age of twelve TO six
teen years and by their earnings may bring to
their families much needed assistance. There
are many employnents at which a boy of the
ugc mentioned may earn dollar n day. and the
Instances are by no means unfrequent where
the chief suppnrt of the family depends upon
such means. w oiiid il not he the he ight OF in
Justice to compel that parertto forge the earn
: of his child which he so much needs. But
the law is ine xorahle-the child. although he
aud h,, pa rents are most willing, cannot earn
ANYTHING uu. .it3~ the period Determines by the
State. Let them sli,'er whit tihtte-s not,
III Statt IS
Another point worthy of consideration in
connection with the contemplated law is, IL
matters not what Objection or how many and
we'll founded they may be- The enid must go to
the district school. 1t may ne that the teacher
in that school is very poorly qualified. or may
not be liked 10y tie chiid-o his parents; the
teacher indeed may be their enemy. The asso-
ciations there may he of an objectona BILE char
acter. The directors may not, as is sometimes
the case (ride the Williamsburg correspondents
hate letter to the Altoona Trib'uIe), use their
authority in the proP.r direction: There are
nevertheless the child must OO Ia that district
scj,oSi-no choico-and he must study what Is
or Ills parents and friends might wish, Oh
what beautiinl priceless freedom that is :
How thoroughly in unison with our American
But we want all our people thoroughly edu
Gated. Humbuxi What nonsensei If a State
contents itself with placing within the reach
of the people the means of education, and is
impartial in the distribution of its means, the
people will use them so far AS is necessary, and
will be sufficiently educated so as to discharge
properly the duties of good citizens. States are
supposed not to enact any law conflicting with
the provisions of the constitution, one of which
is 1.-THE right of the people to be secure in their
persons :. against the unreasonable SET
cures" etc. Now, il appears to me that per-
son only epen toierally well versed in the knowl-
edge of law might find in said provision of the
constitution a sufficient proof to warrant him
in saying that seizing Il boy or girl of twelve,
fourteen or sixteen years of age and placing
him or her. sgainst his or her will. in a school
house, there to remain during a prescribed peri
od would be a violation o" the law of personal
liberty. The seizure would be unjust as well
as unreasonable, because there is no crime ac-
tually or virtually committed. The boy refer
res to is entitled to enjoy personal freedom un-
ill he forfeits it b,- soHe crime. Dut 1t will be
said ne violates the compulsory law, and that
is a crime. Yes but it must not be forgotten
we have under consideration. AnA our proof
against its being so is the case adducad. The
PERSONAL freedom OF the boy resulting from the
constitutional provision is prior to the law DE-
priving him of said liberty. 1t cannot be de-
of the Amehded CONSERVATION covers the case
supposed. and indeed nigh. in my opinion be
made ito AFFORD the HgiS OF protection to all ul-
offending youths: These personal seizures
this rough handling of innocent children by
State cficers-is not calculated to enhance in
the Juvenile breast much esteeni for American
Independence. Neither will the parent. whose
children are forcibly taken from them clearly
understand what is meant blythe above gt1aran-
tee of Psrsonal P freedom; ,.fon LIgsnTY SCR
rent number of Patronus organ tthe Standard
had time 70 see the light. Should that gentle
man again make his appearance in public print,
due attention will be given him.
NEAR sLAprowS, Fab. II, 1873
DEAR FREEMAN-In looking over the late Au-
ditors settlement in Cambria county. MS pub
lished by you, and comparing Ii with the Audi
tors settlement dated Januar 1874, there seems
to be some discrepancies between tie two re-
ports. If properly explained how the discrcp-
eDcics occurred, 1t might he of some benefit TO
the axpayers at large.
First, the Auditors report of January,
1874 show ed Il balance in the hands OF
Consiables of the taxes of 1873. 81 1850
Of that, according to the late set
tlemeut, there was since paid to
And that there remains in hands
CO0StdOles.-.--.- Soo % ,Sls -o
Balance to be accounted for. ...........e 1867
Qucry-What has become of the said $s2627?
Secondly. the Auditors report of Jam
uary. 1874, showed the amount then in
the hands of Collectors for lSI2 and
previous years to he. ............ ~, 15106
or that the late report shows to
have been since p'd Treasurer. 81 ,S04 Al
And remain'H z yet IN their hands
only. -. 509.75-2 314l6