Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1881-04-15

MEMBER OF the body pOl1tic 10 be represent
ed in the government which is TO determine
what are his natural rights and how they are
to be protected. II, as in the case Of minors,
slaves and women, he is in q certain sense
the property of a citizen in whom his rights
are vested rather than a citizen himself, then
he may be represented by the suffrage Of his
father, guardian master or over.lord, as the
case may be. His right to be represented
grows out Of his right to be protected, and
his right TO be protected is his divine right to
be and TO become the best possible for him
self in all things and all directions. Thus
in the history of human progress the divine
right Of kings is giving place to the divine
right Of governments, which is the divine
right Of man to an equality of rights and lib
berty of action with his fellow men.
Apply now these principles to the question,
What has government to do with education
Let II further be remembered that govern
ment is only the agency by which society ex-
presses and executes its will concerning le-
gitimate social purposes. When the officers
of government forget that this is their sole
function, when they use the opportunities
and powers entrusted to them for any other
purpose, they become usurpers and tyrants
They destroy the state they serve, even
though their usurpaton be in the name of
liberty aud religion. In the matter OF edu-
cation by the state these fundamental princi-
pies Of civil government have rarely been ap-
piled. In the absolute and constitutional
monArchies of Europe the education Of the
people is regarded as a duty which govern
ment owes to its subjects as a father to his
children. The king, in the theory even of such
patchwork government as England adores
and groans under, is bound graciously to do
for his dear children, the people, what they
s,,N Nlas- sv.f.~
competent TO do for themselves With other
things, his paternal heart may incline him to
seek their welfare by giving them some intel
lectual training. But most of all their we'll
being requires that he should give them relig-
ious training They need to be taught how
to worship God and obtain heaven. The
king therefore-and in these modern times,
the government of which he is only the royal
puppet-takes pains first of all to give them
religious training. In so far as he, in defer
ence to modern ideas, undertakes for them
the business of secular education, it is still
upon the parental theory, that whatever will
be of advantage TO them in any way II is his
province as a father 10 give them. The faith
ers Of New England, from whom the Ameri-
can system of education has been received,
established their schools under the influence
of this parental conception of government.
The king should provide for the education of
his people, but as a good Christian and son
Of the church be ought to consult his bishop
as TO the kind of education he shall give them.
The bishop, standing in the place Of God,
must require for them such an education as
both their present and eternal welfare de-
mand. The founders of our New England
commonwealths most naturally, well-nigh in
evitably in view OF their own training, under
took to perform all these parental duties for
themselves aud their children through the
powers and Offices Of government. Relg-
ious persecution was a natural consequence of
this conception of their duty and followed as
surely from their theory of the functions of
government us it does from the Roman Cath
olic theory. The struggle for religious liber-
ty was carried on in this country at the first
largely as a demand for equal rights by bod
les occupying the position of dissenters, and
these rights we're at last reluctantly granted
much after the English fashion, because they
could not be denied They were granted
too only so far as specific demands were
made and in reference to such demands II
thus happens that much confusion yet re-
mains both in our statutes and in the public
mind with reference to the relation OF gov
eminent to popular education. The remedy
for this confusion is the consistent and thor
ough carrying out of the principle Of protec-
tion as the sole function OF government in its
application to this subject The task fur
nishes one of the most difficult problems Of
craftsmanship but it must be undertaken
and the problem solved if our liberties are to
be maintained.
1t hath pleased our Creator to set his hu.
man children in families. To each one Of
us is assigned a long period of minority
During this period of dependence our par
ents are responsible TO us for our welfare and
to society for our conduct. When we reach
our majority that double responsibility is
transferred to ourselves, unless, indeed, we
happen TO be slaves or women. The aboli-
tion Of slavery in the civilized nations has
happily made it scarcely necessary 10 allude
to the former exception, and the gradual
elimination Of the fact of sex from the So
cial problem as a ground of civil discrimina-
tions, now going on in the modern world,
gives promise that the latter exception will
not need TO be made much longer. This
double responsibility of parents for their
children during the minority of the latter has
its natural laws and limitations. The duty Of
the parent TO his child is to give him every
thing in the way of physical, intellectual and
spiritual care and training which he can give
him, that the child may be and become the
best possible for himself. The duty Of the
parent to society in respect to the child is to
give him such training of every sort as shall
fit him to discharge the duties of citizenship I;
such, in q word, as shall prepare him to rep
resent himself in the exercise of the elective
franchise with such intelligence and self-re-
straint that he shall in no way impair the
rights of his fellow-citizens, such as shall pre-
pare him 10 serve the state to the best ad-
vantage when rightly summoned TO public
duty, as for example 10 serve as soldier or
legislator and such as will prepare him by
his own intelligent and voluntary conformity
to the laws to abstain from all criminal con-
duct either toward his fellow men individual
ly or society in general. 1t is evident at
once that the responsibility of the parent to
his child in the former respect is much wider
in its extent than in the latter. In the for
mer he is bound to do for his child all that
he can in the latter only so much as will
accomplish particular purpose. In view Of
my obligation to my child for his own sake it
may be my duty to give him the best legal or
art training the world affords. In view of my
obligation TO the state in respect to him it is
only my duty to give him such training that
he can earn an honest living, 30 as to be no
burden TO society, serve the state when justly
summoned and obey the laws of his own will.
In view of the former obligation / ought to
lthCu now " bcChIo iho biehhAABh VI Aho
life after death. In view of the latter 1 only
need to teach him how not TO hinder other
men in this life in their pursuit of the high
est good. Now there is theory of govern
ment which would transfer all responsibility
for the education of children in both these
respects to the state. We know it under the
various names of socialism or communism,
though not all socialistic theories go to this
extreme. 1t destroys both the family and
the church. Indeed it attempts an impossi-
bility, and by destroying society itself fur
nishes its own ultimate cure, the inevitable re-
turn of society to its own natural constitu-
ton. Such q process of cure, however, is
fearful to contemplate. 1t would be better
to return at once TO the medieval theory of
parental government with its political and
ecclesiastical tyranny. But no such return
is necessary. Only let men understand clear
ly what are the legitimate functions of gov
eminent, let them carefully maintain the in
tegrity and responsibility Of the family, let
them watch over and preserve the civil and
religious freedom of the individual, and nei-