Eagle River review. [volume] (Eagle River, Wis.) 1890-1927, 1890-10-11
which shall be given in the English

2. The pretense that the law attacks or
interferes with parOchial schools has It's Or
igin either in ignorance or In dishonest IN
tent to mlsState the facts.
The only shadow of foundation for any
such claim is that the Law REQUIRES that
children be taught certain elementary
Studies in EngliSh. and that there are parO-
ehial schools where that languagesiS an I'M
known tongue. There are many who be-
sIeve that English should be taught in every
school in the United States, but. TINS law
does not go so far as TO apply that rule to
the state of Wisconsin. Large sums are
annually paid out of the school fund for
teaching German in the public schools,
and it might not seem altogether unreasOn-
able to ask the parochial schools. to teach
a little English, but this is not done, the
state having wisely refrained from max
ing any demand which might be con-
strued as in any manner interfering with
private schools. Under this law, it pa
rent chooses to send his child to parochlal
school, and the church sees tit to have all
the instruction IN such school impaired IN
q foreign tongue, SO be it, only, in that
case let the parent see to it that his child,
growing up as citizen OF an English
speaking state, shall receive, in some other
school or at home, the requisite amount or
instruction in English, and he Will have
complied with the law. 1t is at once
absurd and mOnStrOus to accuse the state
"SN$s>AoS3
for it's own self-prOtectiOn 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 language OF the state. lie is
hard to believe that any American citizen,
honestly and seriously object to require
ment SO manifestly for the best interests
of both the child and the state.
8. 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 vlo-
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 Coun-
cil); 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, 1t snail ap-
pear to the satisfaction of the
court (not 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
before justice, MAY DEMAND AND HAVE
A JURY.
4. The charge of unconstitutionality is,
presumably, based upon the alleged denial
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 deceive
the unthinklng. is this objection sincere :?
The same platform which denounces this
law as ''paterna" contains a declaration
in favor of laws prohibiting child labor in
factories, etc., and in favor of compulsory
education though not in the English Ian
guage. A parent in the full exercise of
his natural paternal rights, unabridged by
humane and necessary legislative reStric-
tons, has the right to permit, or even to
compel his child to work in a 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 protec-
Cion of the state, deprives him of those
natural rights. is fully as open to the charge
of ''paternalism" 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 (which they are to
be citizens. No law is ''paternal" in any
scend the bounds of the legislature legiti-
If the German Republican Lutherans
and their allies the makers of the Demo-
cratic platform are sincere in their ap-
prevail 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-
ton 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 be repealed, all their os-
tensible objections to it having been proved
to be grOundleSS?
CHURCH-sTATE POLITICS.
Since the enactment of this law churches
the state, entered the political arena as
churches; the German Republican Luz
theran Church has held caucuses 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 net abandoned; il has resorted 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 cleo
ton only, receiving as a consideration
therefor a pledge that the Ben
goodly share Of the offices. This
church, entering the field as thoroughly
organized and equipped political power,
has demanded and is demanding that the
state stultify itself and betray its trust by
basely conceding that it has neither the