The Arizona sentinel., 1876-01-08

! 4 F. k0 8l- AdlflSSS H# give ,- . <. place E. our aCi4uaas--E.u. 5EF-
 In the following article, taken from the Chicago ISnaes of fNovem- Der 3Oth, we are almost certain we recognize the style of our honor able and distinguished friend, MT. J. w. Onahan, of that city.
 CHICAGO, Nov. 27. There is no surject or topic-sa- cred or prOfane-to the discussion of which the average American will not bring a fair measure of calmness, and rational judgment except one, and that one is the public school question. Concern ing every other issue or principle he will listen to argument and reason, no matter whether it be the subject of religion or of tariff; but when you approach the ques- ton of the public schools, his ears are closed and his heart steeled against you.
 To him the public schools are more sacred than religion itself. Nay, d minister may deny the Godhead with impunity; vener- able judge may scOtf at the proofs of the Divinity of the resurrection of Christ; notable and distinguish ed public men may scout all the evidences of Christianity-even d president, with characteristic le- witty, may mock at the most sa- cred truths of revealed religion and none of these will excite more than a passing or partial com ment. But, let a Catholic give expression, in speech or writing, to any sentiment derOgatOry to the pnblic schools, and at once he is mathematical by press and public.
 In the present temper of popu- lar opinion, it is idle to expect that the conscientious convictions of the Catholics upon this import ant question will meet with fair treatment: still less is it likely that they will be allowed the just weight and consideration to which, as a question of abstract justice, they are fairly entitled. I do not say that The IFnaes will suppress any expression of opin- ion from Catholics. Whatever else might be charged aginst Ihe Times, it is, at all events, tolerant and fair in allowing both sides to be heard in it's columns {; but there is no chance to carry on a discussion with a newspaper.
 But, to come to the point, what is the Catholic view respecting this moOted school question?
 I take it for granted that an oc casional irresponsible opinion from a correspondent, or private indi- dual, is no just or adequate cri- terion. Certainly claim no au- thority to speak for the Catholic body a large; and my views are entitled to weight (so far as they assume to be CathOlic) only as they are intrinsically true and cor robOrated by proofs easily accessi- ble. Every authoritive utterance of the Catholic Church inculcates the duty and obligation of uniting religious teathing with secular training. In word, it is inn pressed upon every Catholic that religion and education must go hand in hand; that as young mind acquires a knowledge of things necessary for this world, it should at the same time be well grounded in the truths of religion. | The Catholic idea is: First God, then the world, if you please. The pubIic-schOOl idea is: First the world, then God, or, no God, as may happen.
 4 Catholic, then, is bound by his convictions and by the teach ings of his church to give his children a Catholic education, and this, experience has taught, can be done, only (speaking generality in Catholic schools. Now l SUD- nose that no fair minded person will deny the right or the justice of Catholics acting in this matter according to their convictions, when they have force of religion and conscientious duty to support them. So long, then, as we con
 tent ourselves with the erection
 and maintenance of Catholic schools and pay for them out o1
 our own pockets, you make nc
 objection; but when a Catholic ol rises to remOnstrate against the
 unfairness and injustice of taxing
 him for the support of schools which he is debarred from uslng' while at the same time he is pay
 ing heavily to support Catholic