St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-08-22
THE WISCONSIN ISSUE.


the Bennett law against the field, or,
perhaps, to state it more properly, it
unites the field against the Bennett
law. 1t goes even farther than this
for in his speech of acceptance Gov.
HOARD takes step in advance of
either the Bennett law or the party
platform in the direction OF Know
Nothingism.
The Wisconsin Republican platform
seeks to oil the rough places in its adj
vocaey of the Bennett law by explaining
away some of the most unpopular con-
structions that have been given it, but
Gov. HOARD knocks those explanations
in the head with one blow by declaring
that the Bennett law means all that it
says, and if reelected governor he in
tends to enforce it according to his own
Interpretation of the law. We admire
the governors honesty, but we do ques-
ton his sagacity.
The principle involved in this Ben
nett law is more far-reaching than the
party leaders or the party organs will
admit. They seek to evade the
real question by arousing the pre-
judices of native Americans against
citizens of foreign birth. and by exciting
religious dissension. 1t is not ques-
ton, as one of the Republican organs
states it, of ''where the foreign churches
are combined against the teaching of
the English language in the public
schools" That is clear misStatemen
of the issue. Nor is it question, as
stated by another organ, of "a church
declaring that the state shall not pre-
scribe compulsory instructio in the
English language for the children of
this country"
The issue, so far as it relates to the
Catholic and Lutheran churches, was
plainly and forcibly presented in a
letter recently published in the New
York Times from two Lutheran clergy
men in Connecticut, in which they say {;
1--WE believe that when we pay our taxes
for the support of the public free schools
of this land-we do this gladly-we have
a right before God and man to put up
our school houses. train our teachers,
and support our own schools, that our
children may be taught and trained in
morals and religion as our conscienceS
tell us they ought to be taught and
trained"
That IS statement of the ground Of
Catholic and Lutheran objection to the
Bennett law, which is clearly in con-
sonance with both the letter and the
spirit of the federal constitution. 1t is
not within the power Of the state to re-
strict the freedom of conscience, even
though it be done under the guise of
securing national blessing. No one
denies the benefit of thorough assim-
ilation of the mass of foreign material
which is constantly cast upon the coun-
try. But there are ways to do that
within strictly constitutional limits, and
it is being done elsewhere without the
aid of the Bennett law as rapidly as it is
being done in Wisconsin under the
operation of the law. Hence. it is beg
ging the question to say such legislation
is necessary to produce assimilation.
Therei is no danger, either immediate
or remote, that the people who live in
America will ever be anything else
than Americans. All this talk about
the danger ofestablishing an Ireland, a
Germany. or Bohemia Oh American
soil is all tomfoolery and the meanest
sort of political clap trap.
The real principle involved in the
BENNETT law is the right of the state
to interfere with the private affairs of
the individual citizen. Amy private
gentleman has the unquestioned right
to maintain private school in his home
absolutely free from state dictation.
He has the right to prescribe course
of instruction for his children, regard
less of whether French, German or
Choctaw is included III the course, and
the state has no constitutional power to
Interfere with him, because lie is SIM
ply exercising a right inherent to every
American citizen. The paroehial school
stands on precisely the same footing.
1t is private school maintained by an
aggregation of private citizens for their
exclusive benefit. They foot the bills,
and consequently have the right to pre-
scribe the course of instruction for
those schools. The state has no more
right to invade the parochial school
than it has to invade private gymna-
stun and direct that certain system of
athletic exercises should be enforced.
There is no one making a kick
against the right of the state to
prescribe course of instruction
in its own schools. The free schools
are public institutions, and are
subject to state domination. AS long as
the citizen contributes his share of the
tax toward defraying the expenses of
tue free school, he has performed all the
duty that the state has Alright to require
of him. If he doesn't choose to avail
himself of the benefit of these schools,
it is his privilege as an American citi-
zen not to do SO. You can take horse
to water, but you can't make him drink
unless he is inclined to. Surely an
American citizen ought to have the
same privilege of enjoyment of in
herent rights that a dumb animal has.
If the principle involved i'll the B en-
nett law, the right of the state to in
| wade private concerns, is once eStab-
| liShed, who can fix limit to the scope
of its operations? What affair of a
private nature can be kept sacred from
governmental Intrusion? What rights
| can the citizen have that the govern
| ment will be bound to respect? There
is a grave constitutional question un-
derlying this Bennett law which af-
fects the personal liberty of the citizen,
and which the people of Wisconsin
should not overlook. The Bennett
law is ostensibly aimed at the foreign
born element. Yet, in reality, it is a
blow at American citizenship. 1t is
subversive of the fundamental princi-
pies of American institutions, and is a
menace to popular government.
MIXED PICKLES.
l. -