The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-09-29
TFrom the Bulletin If Dec. q. 1871
PUBLIC EDUCATION.

rather than to clothe feed, and house him? Or
in other words why should one man be taxed tt
defray the expenses Of educating another man't
children?
Education is a luxury; whilst food, clothing
and a house of some kind to live in, constitute
the necessities of life. Charity is neither Q
moral nor legal obligation imposed upon indi,
yiduas in society, and as policy OF government
it is in violation of the fundamental principles OF
political science. In society and under no
code Of morals is il 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 becevolence
might excuse If it could not justlfy-but 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-thus
violated?
This is a grave and suggestive inquiry, and un-
less satisfactorily answered by the most cogent
reasoning, the whole fabric OF public education
should fall to the ground.
1t is not enough that education can be shown
10 be great blessing, source Of comfort and
the KEY to the possession of power, etc. IL may
be all these and more, but that is the greater
reason that to be enjoyed it should be paid for by
the possessor.
eminent are the protection of person and prop
erty, ANY act of government subversiyo or IN
violation of these duties, ID not only wrong 10
principle and dangerousin practice, but is fraught
with evil as precedent AS taxation Tor pubic
education is 80 manifestly in violation OF the
rights OF property, 1T is well to scrutinize with
severity the arguments used in advocacy OF the
system.
Two reasons are employed in defense Of edu-
cation at the public expense, which really merge
into one, as will appear in the course OF this
discussion.
The first arguments, that our government, rest
ing upon the popular will and controlled by the
Ia .ntt1 hl IlnIu mimi
tered nor continue to exist unless the people are
educated and intelligent. This argument, it wall
be observed, is founded exclusively upon aWeOri,
or deductive reasoning. Practically it rests upon
the assumption that the education dispensed in
our public schools enables voters to select wiser
and better men for official position, than if they
(the voters) we're self-educated or not educated
at all As ours is a representative government,
this is the only manner in which Intelligence, or
that owledge derived from scholastic educa-
ton, can act upon the government to make 1t
better or worse. In answer to this argument, |
would appeal to every mans experience, and ask
him if the people use discriminating intelligence
or are benefited by their scholastic education in
the selection of candidates? Are the representa-
tives chosen by the peop.e-now when education:
is generally dffused-wiser, more learned, more
virtuous and publc-spirited than they were in
the early days Of the Republic when education
was restricted to the few2
But the power of distinguishing right from
wrong, the foolish from the wise, and the wicked
from the virtuous-all that is claimed for educa-
ton in this connection-is Of infinitely lie 9 inn
portance than the disposition to exercise it, This
argument is Of no weight, unless it can be shown
that the disposition to do right as well as the
power of discriminating between right and wrong,
is implanted, nurtured, improved and rendered
more active by scholastic education. Hence the
whole argument finally hinges upon the moral
influence OF scholastic learning, and not on tn
intelligence 1t confers.
But granting that general education is essen
al m fha rtty nd inns ppa IF no
ment, it is no argument to prove That the right
of property should be violated to disseminate
knowledge; but an excellent argument for estab-
fishing an educational qualification as essential
to the exercise OF the elective franchise. 1t
would be, ia addition, an incentive to industry
and thrift, by which nations, as well as individ-
mails, are made prosperous-and OF the most salu-
tary influence on the national character, by rem
dering the people in all things self reliant.
But the argument principally relied on in justi-
fca,ion of education at the public expense, is
that the educated are more virtuous or less ois-
posed to crime than the uneducated, and as the
acknowledged duty Of government is to pr Jtect
person and property by REFRESHING crime, this
end is more effoctua ly accomplished by prevent
ing crime through the agency of education than
by furnishing the criminal after the perpetratipn
OF the offense. This theory rests nearly alto |
gether upon assumption, but IL attempted to be |
proved inductively by sta istics showing that a |
large majority of criminals are either entirely |
uneducated or have received but an Indifferent
education.
Statistics on this subject are partial and ncon-
elusive, for although it may be acknowledged |
that criminals In the majority ignorant or in
differently educated, yet this fact alone estab- |
fishes nothing, unless it can be shown that the
proportion of uneducated criminals to the edu- |
Gated is greater than the proportion which the
uneducated bear to the educated classes in the |
community. BY parity OF reasoning it can be
proved that wearing broadcloth has salutary
influence in preventing crime, as very few crimi- |
,,ala WAS Of Afotio Of
this kind are Of no value in determining the |
question at issue, because they fail to consider
other circumstances which would influence the
result.
They TAX. no account of the pecuniary condi- |
ton, the poverty or wealth, but only regard the
education OF the people as a means of determin- |
ing their moral status, whereas we all know, |
that the criminal classes as rule are not COM |
posed OF the rich and comfortable, but of the |
needy and INDECENT, and that poverty and want
of education are also Inseparably associated; |
hence any statistics by which the moral influence |
of scholastic education is attempted to be estab-
hshed, are Of no value to that end, unless many
other circumstances are also embraced in the in
quiry, aud especially the social condition and
pecuniary resources OF the criminal.
But granting that education acts as q pre-
yentive OF crime it should by no means follow |
that government should educate the people, al
though doing so would be in the exercise of its
legitimate functions, as it would depend on how
far the result was sufficient to justify the expense
and the evil Of sacrificing principle. In exeu-
pllfication, although it Is acknowledged that |
poverty is the fruitful of crime, yet itdoes
not follow that government for the purpose OF
decreasing the crime, should, at the expense Of
the more opulent, subsidize the poor to place
them above the temptations OF want. The evils
that would follow would be immeasurably greater
than those attempted to be removed.
Tho stimulus to labor and the hope of acqur-
ing property would be destroyed, and in the de-
struction of property society would be dissolved,
and civilization, with all its attendant blessings
would go down in the general ruin. This is Com
munism, and public education is gigantic step
lat least in principlel in that direction.
But statistics do not prove that crime and want
OF education are coincident with each other, for
PRISON statistics, taken on the continent of Eu-
rope and Great Britain, show that the proper
ton of criminals to the whole population is
greater in Scotland than in many parts of France
and Germany, where the people are not so we'll
educated
This fact, taken into consideration with others,
would lead to infer that we ma st look to other
causes than education to account for the preva-
leDce OF crime In any community.
A nd baa fatla 10 -