The Manitowoc pilot. [volume] (Manitowoc, Wis.) 1859-1932, 1890-10-02

shall be given in the English langu ge.
?. The pretense that the law attacks
or interferes with parochial schools has
its origin either in ignorance or in dis
honest intent to misstate the facts.
The only shadow of a foundation for
any such claim is that the law requires
that children be taught certain elemen-
tary studies in English, and that there
are parochial schools where that Ian
guage is an unknown tongue. There are
many who believe that English should
be taught in every school in the United
States, but this law does not go SO far as
to apply that rule to the State of Wiscon.
sin. Large sums are annually paid out
of the school fund for teaching German
in the public schools, and it might not
seem altogether unreasonable to ask the
parochial schools to teach little Eng
lish, butthis is not done, the state hav-
ing wisely refrained from making any
demand which might be construed as in
any manner interfering with private
schools. Under this law, if a parent
chooses to send his child to parochial
school, and the church sees fit to have
all the instruction in such school impart-
ed in foreign tongue, SO be it, only, in
that case let the parent see to it that his
child, growing up as a citizen of an En-
glish-speaking state, shall receive, in
some other school or at home, the requis-
ite amount of instruction in English,
and he will have complied with the law
1t is at once absurd and monstrous to ac-
cuse the state of unlawful usurpation of
power because, for its own self-protecton
and to secure the proper equipment of
its children for the duties of citizenship,
it demands that such children be taught
to speak, read and write the legal Ian
guage of the state. 1t is hard to believe
that any American citizen, whether of ma
tive or foreign birth, can honestly and
seriously object to a requirement so man
ifestly for the best interests of both the
child and the state.
3. The statement, originated by the
German Republican Lutherans and
shamelessly reiterated in the Democratic
state platform as a bid for their votes,
that this law denies to those prosecuted
for its violation the right.of trial by jury,
is absolutely untrue, and can only be
10 +I liclo-ac+
those who have not read the law The
procedure under the law is this: Suits
to enforce the penalties imposed by the
law can be instituted only by authority
of the school board, men elected by the
people of the district Except in some
cities where school commissioners are
son charged with violating the law is
given five days notice of his default be-
fore suit is begun, and if, upon the hear
ing of any such prosecution, it shall ap-
pear to the satisfaction of the court (not
the school board) that before or after the
receipt of such notice, such person has
caused his child to attend school as
provided by the law, in good faith and
with intent to continue such attendance,
then the penalty shall not be incurred.
But if no such showing is made, the pros
ecuton proceeds, before the justice, and
the defendant, as in all cases before a
justice, MAY DEMAND AND HAVE JURY.
4. The charge of funconstitutionalityi is,
presumably, based upon the alleged de-
NAL of trial by jury, and falls to the
ground with the disproval of that
charge.
5. The cry of "paternalism" is noisy.
shallow, clap-trap, designed only to de-
ceive the unthinking. Is this objection
sincere? The same platform which de-
nounces this law as "paternal" contains
a declaration in favor of laws prohibiting
child labor in factories, ETC., and in favor
OF compulsory education-though not in
the English language. A parent in the
full exercise of his natural parental rights,
unabridged by humane and necessary
legislative restrictions, has the right to
permit, or even to compel his Child to
work in factory. and to bring him up
wholly without education of any kind or
degree; and law which, for the good
of the child and the protection of the
state, deprives him of those natural
rights is fully as open to the charge of
"paternalism" as law which goes one
step farther and provides not only that
he shall keep his young children out of
factories and send them to school, but
that he must also see to it that they
are taught the language of the state of
which they are to be citizens. No law
is "paternal" in any Objectionable sense
which does not transcend the bounds of
the legislatures legitimate power.
If the German Republican Lutherans
and their allies, the makers of the Dem
ocratic platform are sincere in their ap-
proval of the compulsory education
statute in force prior to the passage of
the Bennett law, is it not a fair and logical
inference that their loud and vehement
opposition to this law is due to the fact
that it requires certain branches to be
taught in English? If they are not the
enemies of English education, what is
their true motive and object in demand
ing that the Bennett law be repealed,
all their ostensible objections to it having
been proved to be grourdless?
CHURCH-STATE POLITICS.
Since the enactment of this law
churches have, for the first time in the
history of the state, entered the political
arena as churches; the German Repub-
lCan Lutheran Church has held eau
cuses to devise means of effecting the
repeal of the law; it openly threatened
the Republican party with the loss of its
influence and the weight of its wrath if
the principles of that law were not
abandoned;i it has resorted to ell known
DOlitical methods to arcompIiSb it's mr.