National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1875-12-15
BISHOP GIBBONS AND THE PRESIDENT.

Bishop Gibbons, of Richmond, Va, has
pronounced against the popular education
and non sectarian amendments to the Con-
stitution of the United States, proposed and
recommended by the President His OBJ
jections, as stated by a representative of the
Richmond Dispatch, are of the most dis
ingenious, flimsy and Jesuitical character.
They beg the vital questions involved and
seek to divert the popular sentiment into
foreign channels by plausibly though in
directly disappearing the policy pro-
posed to be pursued. He jumps to the
conclusion that the proposed amendments
would transfer the system of common school
education of the States to the care of the
General Government, and thus centralize
in the hands of the latter great addition
to its present power and patronage. This
is all mistake. The proposition is simply
to prohibit States from expanding school
money raised by general tax from the citi-
zens of all religious opinions, and of no re-
ligious opinions, from being used to propa-
gate sectarian views of any sort The pro-
hibition would thus be general, applying
to all the States alike, and while guaran-
teeing a radimental education to all chill.
dren and youth. would leave their religious
training to the parents and to the Church
of their choice. This rudimental instruc-
ton acquired, it would be competent for
any child or youth to proceed in the higher
branches at such private institutions oflearn-
ing, religious or non-religious, sectarian or
non-sectarian, or to pursue such course of
reading for further instruction as they or
their parents and guardians may select.
What all this has to do with the questions
of personal liberty and State Rights, as is
assumed by this Roman Catholic prelate, it
is difficult to conceive. There Is not, as he
pretends, either amy dictation, 'tas to where
land how the parent must educate his
child" 1t simply provides means for
the education of all alike 10 q certain ex.
tent, but compels no one to use these
means. The only restriction proposed is
as to what may not be done by the States
with public educational funds that could
possibly outrage the consciences of any
portion of the numerous contributors to
those funds. 1t would be pleasure to be-
lieve that the Bishop was simply and earn
estly truthful and frank in his objections
to the propositions of the President, but it
is almost inconceivable that a man so
learned and so well versed in the affairs of
Governmentand education could innocently
SO twist and misconstrue the language of
the Presidents Message as he has contrived
to do if he is correctly reported in the
Dispatch.
His assumption that the taxation Of
Church property would be putting q
premium on infdelity and avarice" is
equally unfair and is Jesuitical way of
putting the question. By far the greater
portion of the Church property of the
country is owned by the wealthy members
of the communities in which the property
is located. This may not be true with
Catholic churches, but it is the case with
all Protestant denominations. People who
are able to own and hold large tracts of
property in populous cities should be able
to pay taxes upon it. The exemption of
such property from taxation simply sad
dies its proportion of the public expenses
upon property in the same vicinity that is
not exempt. Is this fairH Is there any
equity in this policyf II the Church
claims that it dispenses more than the
amount of its taxes in charities. does it not
force non-members to make the Church the
almoner of their charities? And is this forced
charity, thus extracted from the pockets
of unwilling contributors and diverted into
channels not Of their own selection, en-
titled to the blessings svouched to the
offerings of the cheerful giveri" As we
have previously stated, we have INDUCED
the hope that the amendments proposed by
the President on these subjects of educa-
ton and the taxation of Church property
would commend themselves to all parties
and sects as eminenty wise, just, equi-
table and proper, and that they might be
tremendously and promptly adopted with
the view of removing forever from the
arena of politics in this country all occs-
sion for sectarian and religious discussion.
If such course is not pursued 1t viii not
be the fault of the President or the Re-
publican party.