Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1890-05-07
committee sent dispatch from Mil
waukee to Washington, D. c., we be-

I TEp6HI Bennett law
which is so ambiguous that it gives opportunit
for too much misconstruction. But while de
clar1ng for the repeal of the Bennett law, tn,
convention will undoubtedly recommend in 1t
place new compulsory education law proyid
ing for the teaching of English in all schools
but removing what seems to be the objections
ble features of the present law.
What does that mean? Does it mean
perhaps, that the law is just and ac
ceptable? Or are those gentlemen Sc
ignorant that they are incapable of un
derstanding the Bennett law? The un.
derslgned was until now a good Repub.
llcan, and has far better opinion OF
the Republican leaders at Milwaukee
And that the entire Republican party
is not willing to support the Bennett
law, wa most obviously demonstrated
at the Madison conference. According
to all appearance the meeting has been
bination; it has shown that outside OF
the immediate following of the two
gentlemen, the leaders of the Repub-
lican party are not in love with the
Bennett law in any shape.
3. Ex-Gov. Mccullough, and now
Republican senator of Illinois. has ex-
| pressed himself against all such school
laws as the Republicans of Illinois and
| wisconsin have passed. He SAYS that
he intends to work with all his might
against the Objectionable school law.
and against any law that might inter-
fere with the parochial schools. Re-
member that this gentleman is prom
lnent and intelligent Republican.
a. Why are some of the foremost
Congregationalists opposed to the Ben
nett law? What they have to say on
that subject can be seen from the fol-
lowing:
President Merrill Is one of the foremost Con.
gregatlonalists of Wisconsin. and his remarks
| are regarded as very significant You remem-
Der the Hoard faction of the Republican party
at hrst tried hard to make it appear that the op-
position to the law came principally from the
Catholic denomination; finally, they had to ad-
| NIT that the Lutherans were the chief oppon-
enfs. and then Lutherans were spoken of as if
| their religion was inconsistent with good citf-
zenshlp They will have to abandon that posi-
| tlon- as they ill have to admit that thousands
| npon thousands of Christians who belong to
| neither the Lutheran nor the Catholic church,
oppose the scheme to have the home SO subject
ed to the state. The thinking that is being done
| in the Christian homes of Wisconsin bodes no
good to the combination of the Turner's Horace
Rublee, ". D. Hoard ard other inidels.
From this you ought to be able to see
that we have simply stated what con-
cessions the Republican leaders and
other prominent men have made in re-
gard to the Bennett law. Therefore,
how a man can say the opponents will
not, or can not, understand the Bennett
law, m1srepresent it, etc., is entirely in
expllcable. If gentleman speaks for
the Bennett law and endeavors to argue
the question in a fair way, well that we
| can understand, and is very justifable.
But If a person only denounces, that is
ungentlemanIy.
Vo11 cold ~, xvo,,r IL -
ceal the real grounds of our opposition
to the Bennett law How you can con-
sclentiously make such a statement is
entirely incredible to me, as our COM
mlttee has sent you one of Chr. Koer-
ner's pamphlets, wherein the grounds
for our opposition are er fanodanaento ex-
planned. From your statement, how
ever, [ must necessarily conclude that
you do not as yet know why we are op-
posed to the Bennett law. Therefore,
the following points may be of import
ance to you. We are opposed to the
Bennett law because it is unnecessary
and unjust. For
l. Compulsory education as far as it
may be necessary to the welfare of the
state, has already been sufficiently pro-
vided for by laws passed in 1879 and
1888
2. 1t empowers the school board ar
bitrarily to decide that child must
during the compulsory period of twelve
weeks attend school in the district ia
which it resides, which fact, of course,
prevents the parents from selecting for
their children better school outside
of their own district
3. 1t cOnfers upon the school board
the authority of approving of private
school or not, just as it pleases; and,
indeed, there are instances on record
of school boards that have maliciously
abused their right, prosecuted Chris
tian parents and unjustly oppressed
private schools
f. In providing that a child must
consecutively attend a school during
the compulsory period, the law in
| fringes, in many cases, upon the sacred
rights of Christian parents to take their
children to church, if such holiday hap
pen to occur in the period when the
attendance should be consecutive.
| Furthermore, | kindly request you to
publish the following resolutions adopt
ed by some Lutheran congregations on
the Bennett law:
Whereas The states of Illinois and Wisconsin
have enacted laws detrimental, if not indeed,
destructive to our parochial school system it is
| Ohio Northwestern district
l. That we as Lutherans are in no sense op-
ponents of the common schools of our country;
we consider them a public necessity and willing
ly pay the tax levied upon US for their mainte
nance.
2. We readily recognize the English language
as the official language of this country and that
the same continue so to be- and that all chill
dren should be educated to master the same.
3. Bot that in the education of children, more
important matters should be considered than
the mere knowledge of some particular language
| and that education should be wholly based up
| on religious and moral foundation.
4. Since public schools are non-rel eligious, and
of necessity must SO remain. they do not offer
| our children that which we, as Lutheran Chris
tians owe them and it is therefore to us sacred
matter of conscience to establish and maintain
our own Christian schools
| threaten to destroy our (parochiaf) schools, our
conscience is weighed down and the guaranteed
rights of conscience abridged.
6 We therefore protest in all earnestness, ap-
pealing to the constitution of our laws in gener-
al and to those of the separate states in particu-
lar, against the laws above mentioned and de-
mand their immediate repeal IN so far as our
own parochial schools are disturbed by them.
T. We recommend to all members of our sew
eral congregations to antagonize these laws and
at the ballot box without consideration of party
/ differences, to vote only for such candidates as
will pledge themselves to effect the repeal o1
these laws.
8. In case any CT our congregations are legal
ly prosecuted for the violation OF these laws we
a SSiS