The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1875-10-14


the products of his capital and lab
at his dOor-it very often happen.
that the price offered for it ut ,
distance does not justify him il
paying for its tran n>portatiOn; and if i
be u product, as cotton, which requires the
mani pGlafion of the manufacturer before il
IS ready for use, the great distance between
the manufacturer and producer, and hence
| the absolute necessity for the employment
OF mIddIemen, necessarily leaves the farmer
| but small pittance for his labor. l am
not, however, calling attention 10 these
things with view of suggesting remedy,
| but simply to tmonstrate the fact that tho
| large amount of our capital and labor In
vested in this business does not, and may
add cannot, under existing circumstances,
yield l.rge profit.
Now, we turn to Massachusetts and find
her population largely engaged in manufac-
lures and commerce, her wealth largely In
vested in these branches of business,
and ample returns to her capital and
| labor invested in manufactures, secured
by the protection always afforded to
! this industry under the fostering care
of the general government; for no
matter whether the Whig or Democratic
party has been in power, we have always
had protective tariffs, tae only difference be-
ing this: when the Wings were in power
the protection was direct, and when the
Democrats were in power it was called incl
dental. But this branch of industry has
nearly always yielded handsome profits on
the investments. So that to-day that small
State, with rigorous climate and almost
sterile soil, as compared with Texas, is the
richest State in the Union except New York.
But this is enough, sir, | sald that op-
posed system of public free schools to be
supported by taxation, because it was not
adapted to the condition of the people of
this State and have endeavored to show
the CONDITION of our people by contrasting
the density of our population, our pursuits,
and our wealth with that of Massachusetts.
| have selected this Stite of Massachusetts,
to use in this compal ison, not only because
it is one of the smallest, most densely popu-
lated and wealthiest States in the Union,
but because its system of public schools
is regarded as the most perfect, and because
it spends more money upon its schools ham
ary other State in the Union, and for the
reason especially that the advocates of pub
lie free schools in Texas frequently point to
the success of the system in that State as a
reason for the adoption of like system In
this State. Grant, sir, that the condition
of Massachuse it's is adapted to the success
full and beneficial operation of system of
public schools; that the density of its pop
uation insures the attendance of all its
children at the schools; that its great wealth
enables it to pay the taxes necessary to sup
port the system without burdening the peo-
pie, and that public schools are prime want
of the people of that State--does it follow
that the condition of the people. of
Texas ueIuanus SUCH sysJrIHT Per-
L.,le 0f Al Ln oh nf q
more sparsely populated States can attend
public schools, but taxation to support
them reaches every man, woman or child
who owns property in the State. l
have shown the density of population
OF Massachusetts to be 1856 to the square
mile, while that of Texas is only about four
to the square mile. have shown the aver
age wealth of Massachusetts to haveibeen,
in 1870, nearly $500 per capita IL its pop
ulation, and it will probably reach now
$1,000 or $1700, while the most liberal esti-
mate for Texas will not bring its average
wealth to 1925. / have also shown that the
returns from capital invested in this State are
small. Now, sir, do we want public schools.
| may he answered, yes, if they do not cost
too much. The, experience of those States
which have tried them demonstrates that
,thcJ cost about 81 .000, 900 to the 100, 600 of
scholastic population, and our scholastic
population will now perhaps reach 800, 0OO.
Can we bear taxation to that extent, or to
the half of 1t. l say, no. And now, IN view
of the cost of a system of public free schools,
in view of our poverty-for say what we
lr. 1--we are the poorest State in the Union
and HE. ~of the sparsity of our popula-
ton and the unremumerative character OF
our capital, again ask, is such a system
Aifin fo n71Q n
wants2 And again my Judgment and con-
science both answer, no.
Now, sir, let US turn to the consideration
of this subject in another light9 What rela-
ton do these children from eight to, eigh-
teen years of age sustain to the State? Ale
they other than citizens2 What public du-
ties may the State require of them which 1t
dare not require of othersY Have they not
the same rights to the protection of the gov
ernment, both for their persons and proper
ty, that are enjoyed by other citizens? True,
there are restrictions of private nature I'M
posed upon them by the laws of nature, and
which are recognized by the laws of all civ
ilizcd countries-duty TO parents. The IA
ther has right to control their actions during
their legal infancy. So say all the law
writer's, English and American, but marx
you, at is the father, and not the State, upon
whom this right Is conferred. ana ask,
how dare government processing to be
free ruthlessly invade this sacred domain OF
private du1y and private right. What night
has it to lay violent hands upon these Amer
lean citizens who have not attained theil
majority to force them to attend particular
schools, study particular books under
particular teacherg Again, sir, by as'um
| ing the control of the children fol
educational purposes it deprives the father
of the sacred rights of parentage- 1t not
| only interferes with, but assumes the holi
est duties man owes to God. The thought
| full and conscientious father would nevel
willingly commit to the State the religious
instruction of his childrel. To him and t.
| him alone does he understand the DIVINE
| command 10 tram up his children in the nur
ture and admouition of the Lord, t. be ad
| dressed. And already, the Christian peo
pie of this country are rebelhng at TIN
.usurpation of power. and are denouncing
rs an indirect interference with the free ex
ercise of religious liberty. For they 'un
derstand religious liberty 10 imply not onl
the right of the parent To worship God &C
c riding TO the dictates of his own con
science, but as well, his night TO eirec
the religious training of his children