Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1875-12-09

WHILE we have the unofficial decla.
rations of the oracles among the Demo
cratic press and puny fellows, such as
the st. Clairsville Gazette, that there is
"nothing in" the idea that the Cath
olics desire to control In their interests
the public schools, thus destroying
their secular character, and changing
them into Sectarian institutions, we
have the following official announce
ment from Bishop McQuaid, of Ro-
chester, New York, which he publishes
to the world through the Buffalo
Courier, a Democratic paper:
sour object is to gather in the chill
dren in large cities, whose parents are,
many of them, too ignorant or lack
time to give them proper (?) instruc-
ton. The State cannot reach all these
children, but we can Compulsory eiu-
cation Is the law in New York and we
do not ask the State to pay for the re-
ligious influences we throw around
these children, bat simply for the Sec
ular teaching they receive. We erect
the buildings, provide the teachers,
who shall, however, be subject to the
examinations required by the State,
and then for q nominal rental we al
low the State full control Of these
schools during the ordinary schoo.
hours, in which time only secular inl
struction shall be given. Before and
after such hours we propose to give the
pupil such religious (PapaD teaching as
we deem essential to the education OF
youth"
This is not our version of the Catholic
plan, but the Bishops own statement
in plain terms, in a Democratic organ.
In East st. Losis, the Catholics elect
cd board of directors for local Pub
lie School, and rented the basement of
one of their churches for the school,
having the children hear mass regu-
larly. In the case above referred to,
the Bishop does not give any guaran.
tee that he can gather in these children,
whom the State cannot reach, beyond
his own assertion. But even assuming
that he can, he disavows any desire to
give them q secular education. All
that he wishes TO do is to give them q
religious" education. But, if he can
gather them in for secular education,
he certainly can collect them also for
religious education. Why, then, should
the State be taxed in order that Bishop
McQuaid may be enabled to have a
place In which to teach the dogmas of
his Church at public expense, for this
is all his proposition to build and rent
school.houses to the State amounts to?
The Bishop, it will be seen, does not
ask the State to pay for sectarian tesch-
ing, directly, but only to pay the ex-
penses OF the schools in which CathOli-
cism is taught. There is distinction
drawn, here, but it is a distinction
without difference. The State might
ss well pay for Catholic schools, direct
ly, as to pay for them substantially in
this indirect way. The pretext which
he makes is altogether too thin and
Jesuiticsl. The State will never pay
the Catholic Church rent for places
where he may preach and teach Ro.
manism any more than any other ism
merely for the consideration of giving
the pupils a secular education in the
same places.
We hope that our young friend Of the
Ga.ettc, in the light Of the multiplicity
OF fundeniable proofs that are brought to
his netIce every day, that the Catholic
Church, through various devices, are
attempting to get control of the public
schools and the youth of the country,
will cease holding up his hands in holy
horror at the mere mention of the idea
by Republican paper, and frankly ad-
NIT, that this powerful and subtle ene-
my to American institutions Is SEEK
ing to insinuate itself into the families
and plant itself upon the very hearth
stones Of our Protestant homes.