The morning star and Catholic messenger. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1868-1881, 1875-10-10

more right as against the state IN one res
pect than anotherf This is evidently
Communism. 1t is claiming as right
what is only charity, and is one of the
most dishonest and dangerous principles
that have struck root into the fermenting
soil of modern society.
But supposing the State has necessity
for the education of all it's citizens, and
therefore right to it, and suppose that the
youthful citizen has right to be educated
by the State in default of "some one" else
to do it; does it follow that the State can or
ought to provide schools for all the child
ren7
There lie certainly no such sequence. The
utmost consequence that could be deduced
from such premises would be that where
that "some one" was not at hand the State
might assume the 20 locun PARENTS" and be
godfather to the unfortunate child. The
right of the State and the right of the child
.'citizen" cannot possibly exist outside of
the case Of destitute children whose parents
or friends are unable to provide them with
the rudiments of education. In such cases
we believe that any State, no matter how
purely business corporation, would have
the right to step in aud furnish such educa
ton, whether its charter expressly granted
the power or not. This is on the principle
of humanity which creates hospitals for the
destitute sick, founding asylums for aban-
doned babes, and soup-houses for the fam.
ishing, though the Constitution or charter
may be silent as to any such power. Some
thing stronger than any constitutfon-the
universal public consent-sanctions it.
Why discuss whether that consent implies
an obligation or charity on the part of
society7 Or why extend the aid beyond
the cases of the destitute in matters
of education any more than in the other
butlic works of relief AS we'll have pub
lie nurseries for all babes, hospitals for all
the sick, and public free restaurants for
all the people, as free schools for all the
children.
1t is strange, considering its OWE adms-
sions, that the Bulletin can arrive at the
result of general system of State schools.
1t says:
Our correspondent surely would not compel
every one to wait for a rndimentary education
until he can pay for it. "No," he may say "but
let the ohilds parents pay for it," But what if
the parent can not? In such case we say that
for its infant citizen what must be infinitely
profitable to him as well as for the benefit Of
the State.
Now this is exactly what we ourselves
say. If! If the parent cannot, then let
the State act; bat In that case only. How
pcany such cases are there in this city out
side of charitable institutions Not enough
to fill one of the dozens of great edifces
embraced in the machinery of that enor-
nous usurpatfon, our public school system.
The reasonable, the proper, the right thing
to do would be to let the State pay small
rate of tuition for every pauper child at
any respectable school to which its parents
should prefer to send him. This would be
charity, or justice, as you may choose to
call it, but would not be an insolent usur-
patton.
But let us concede this also. Let US ad-
NIT the Spartan right of the State to stand
in "loco parentis,"t to be in fact the parent
of all the children and to provide education
for all of them, and we come to another
most glaring Inconsistency of the Bulletins
1t says:
An illegal tax assessed by usurped authority,
improperly distributed, employed by partisans
for base purposes, an unnatural mixing of
races in schools, the dismissal of meritorious
teachers, the employment of the immoral and
impure in schools, and the Wholesale plumber
of the school fund, all discouraging and all
disgusting, are not arguments for the abolition
of the system, but urgent reasons for the reform
here or wherever abuses may occur.
The Bulletin can see objections to the
" mixing of races" but cannot understand
how others may object far more scrupu-
lousy to the mixing" of religions; it
can easily remedy its own evil by providing
schools, but will not hear of such
a thing in behalf of those citizens who want
separate schools on moral or religious
grounds. Is not this inconsistency Is it
not the most despotic exercise of an abso
lutte majority power, worse and more
bigoted than the Monarchical power aud
policy of European countries7
A..