The Superior times. [volume] (Superior, Wis.) 1870-1912, 1890-10-04


of both the child and the state.
). The statement. originated by the Ger
man Republican LutheranS and shame
leSsly reiterated in the Democratic state
platform as bid for their votes. that this
law denies to those prosecuted for its yio-
lation the right of trial by jury. is abso-
lutely untrue. and can only be made with
dishonest intent to deceive those who have
not read the law. The procedure under
the law is this: Suits to enforce the pen
altieS imposed by the law can be instituted
only by authority of the school board men
elected by the people of the district Tex
cept in some cities where school commits
SiOnerS are elected by the Common Couu-
Gill; the person charged with violating the
law is given five days notice of his default
before suit is begun, and If, upon the hear
ing of any such prosecution, it shall APP
pear to the satisfaction of the
court mot the school board) that be-
for or after the receipt of such notice, such
person has caused his child to attend the
school as provided in the law. in good faith
and with intent to continue such attend
ance, then the penalty shall not be in
cured. But if no such showing is made.
the prosecution proceeds. before the
justice, and the defendant. rs in all cases
before justice, MAY DEMAND AND HAVE
JURY.
4. The charge of uncOnSttutionality is.
presumably. based upon the alleged denial
of trial by Jury. and falls to the ground
with the dsproval of that charge.
s. The cry of ''paternaliSm' Is noisy,
shallow clap-trap, designed only to deceive
the unthinkmg. is this objection sincere
The same platform which denounces this
law as ''paternal' contains a declaration
in favor of laws prohibiting child labor III
factories. etc., and in favor OF compulsory
education-though not in the English Ian
gGage. A parent III the full exercise of
his natural paternal rights, unabridged by
humane and necessary legislative rcStrIc-
tons, has the right to permit. or even 70
compel his child TO work in 4 factory. and
II bring him ND wholly without education
OF any kind or degree, and a law which.
for the good Of the child and the protec-
tlOn Of the state. depriveS him of those
natural rights. is fully as open to the charge
Of ''paternaiiSm' as a law which goes one
step farther and provides not only that he
shall keep his young children out of fac
torres 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 10
be citizens. No law is ''paternaE in any
Objectionable sense which does not tran
Scend the bounds Of the legislature legiti-
mate power.
If the German Republican Iutherans
and their allies the makers OF the Demo
cratic platform are sincere in their ap-
proyal of the compulsory education statute
in force prior to the passage OF the Ben
net law. is it not a fair and logical infer
ence that their loud and vehement opposi-
tion 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 demanding that
the Bennett law he repealed, all their OS-
tcnSiblc objections to il having been proved
tC be grOundleSS?
CHURCiI-STATE POLITICS.
Since the enactment of this law churches
have. for the first time III the history OF
the state, entered the political arena as
churches: the German Republican Lu-
theran Church has held caucuses to devise
means of etfccting the repeal Of the law: 1t
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 abandoncd: II has reSortcd to all
known political methods to accomplish its
purpose: it has entered into an unholy
alliance with the Democratic leaders to de
liver the German Republican Lutheran
vote to the Democratic party. for this elec-
ton only, receiving as consideration
therefor a pledge that the Ben
nett law, shall be repealed. and a
church. entering the field as thoroughly
organized and equipped political power.
has demanded and is demanding that the
state stutify itself and hetray its trust by
baSely cOnceding that 1t has neither the
right nor the power to demand that its
children and future citizens receive Ger
tain limited amount of instruction., in
branches purely secular, in the legal Ian
guage of this country.
This attempt on the part of church. by
the manipulation of party politics aided
by church caucuSeS. to compel the state to
submit to ecclesiastical dictation in matters
relating only to secular education. raises
an issue of the greatest Importance, traught
with grave suggestions of future danger,
and its evil results. if the enemies of En-
secular affairs are allowed to triumph
at the polls. are incalculable. There
is no reli gIous question at issue, no right
of the church at stake, to Justify this church
interference. The parOchIal schools may
give their religious instruction in German.
may give all their instruction i'll German,
without violating any requirement of the
Bennett law. The law does not attempt
to dictate to the parent where he shall edu-
cate his child: it only says to him you must
give YOUR child some education. and as a
part of that education you must cause him
to be taught English. Nor Is there here
any legitimate question of encroachment
on parental rights. The state has not IN
vaded the domain Of religious belief or of
parental authority. The warfare is made
from the other side. The German Repub-
hcan Lutheran Church is the aggreSSOr.
demanding that the state surrender one OF
its undoubted prerOgatlyeS: that it make a
cOwardly and dishonest disclaimer of a
right and duty which all free states possess
and exercise. 1t is not the state attempting
to abridge the liberties OF its citizens. but
the churches endeayoring to encToaCh on
the functions and power of the state, and
the issue thus forced upon the people 10y
the arrogance of the German Lutheran Re
publcans is by far the graycst and most
vital question involved III the state cam
paipn. We have confined our remarks
largely to the German Lutheran Church.
but we resent ecclesiaStic interference in
state affairs by any church, as dangerous
to the liberties of the people, un-American
and un-DemOcratic.
DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM.
Unwise or unfaithful leaders of the
great and honorable Democratic party
have, by the platform framed by them and
adopted by the recent state convention,
pledged that party to the championship of
the alleged grievances of the German Re
publican Lutherans and their church: TO
the caUse of church against state on the
question Of secular education. to the APP
proyal of this most unwise. unh0ly and
undemocratic amaIgamdtiOn OF church
and state: to the surrender by
the state. llIlltl threat bl tIit
ecclesiastical lash. of its undOubtcd
right to demand the education of its chill
dren in the legal language of the state: 10
the unconditional repeal Of the Bennett
law. The attitude into which the party IS
thus sought to be forced is essentially un-
American. un-patTiotic and un-Democrat-
ic. and is hostile to the best interests OF the
state and of every child within its bOr-
derS.
And all this shame has been brought
upon the party merely to gain. for this one
election, the votes of those who boast that
they are not and will not become Demo
Gratis, but will return to the Republican
party as soon as having used the Demo
cratic PARTY as their tool for tnat purpose
they shall have brought il to its Knees.
such course is not only immoral and I'M
principled. but. like all immortality, it Is a
stupid blunder as we'll.
THE DUTY OF DEMOCRATS.
The question now confronting us IS shall
We as Democrats, give our sanction Ia
such base prostitution OF the party WeloFe
and Shall we Democrats Dpr-