The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1890-02-13

charging the Lutherans with insist
ance on using the public schools to
teach whatever language they think
fit is a misrepresentation of their
position.
Furthermore, the worthy editor
says: "Our public school system was
never intended to = = : take the care
and supervision of parish, parochial
or other schools of learning This
is exactly what Lutherans have al
ways believed and they are in per-
feet harmony with the editor of the
TELEGRAPH COURIER But now
comes the critical point Section S
of the Bennett law provides: mo
school, (may it be we'll understood,
neither public nor private) "shall be
regarded as a school under this act,
unless there shall be taught therein
g = g reading, writing. arithmetic and
u. S. history in the English Ian
guage." The writer stands in a
close connection with parish school
of this city and he takes great pleas
ure in seeing the children educated
in the above four branches, and
would even like to see a few more
branches in the list 1t is not the
English that he as a Lutheran op-
poses. But how will our principle
stand in the face Of such a .. DIVISION
that the public school system is not
intended to take the s1berMSt0n of
parish schools. Can we give Section
S a different heading than "Super-
vision of all the schools, public and
private?' No, for Supervision it
means.
Again, the respected editor states:
"The objection which Lutheran
makes to the Bennett law seems to
rest on the assumption that the pub
lie school should not exercise the
right to use the most effectual meas
ures to secure the English education.
The writer does not exactly assume
this, but he believes that the meas.
ures taken by the public schools have
their limits. And these limits are
established by the constitution. If
the public school uses measures by
which the rights Of a number Of de-
voted citizens are endangered, its
measures go beyond such limits and
bear the character of intolerance and
are therefore unconstitutional. Now
there is no doubt that the measures
that are taken by the Bennett law 10
secure the end aforesaid are of that
kind for the simple reason that they
threaten the rights of parents to
have their children educated accord
ing to the dictates of their conscience.
And this brings us finally to the
main point of the article. The ed
itor writes, eve fail to see his (the
contributors reasons why the Ben
nett law is intended to cripple the
parochial schools Mr.. Editor, the
Lutheran has stated the reasons
very plainly, and he cannot under
stand that the worthy editor fails 10
see them. The law provides that
every child must attend school in
the district where it resides, it
speaks very plainly and its meaning
is ndisputable. 1t is not necessary
to use lawyers trick to vacate a
parish school Of all the children that
do not reside in the district in which
the school is located, even if it teach
es the required branches; but
it only requires school
board to enforce the law as
it stands. In fact, it's very hard
task to defend ones self if the as
sailant closes his eyes against every
reason that is brought before him,
saying: I fail to see his reasons
therefor. The undersigned likes to
see arguments that convince him of
the fallibility of this construction of
the quoted passage of the law, argu-
ments that convince him that it nee
eSS0r1Zy must be construed in such
way that all danger of the existence
of the Lutheran parish schools dis
LUTHERAN.