River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1890-10-23


prior TO last springs election, he has aid I'd the
Democratic party or voted q Democratic ticket,
unless il be at me local election. II is a mat
ter OF common knowledge that twenty four
hours before his nomination for mayor OF Mil
waukee he was prominent advocate OF the
Bennett law. The only evidence OF his being
Democrat thstI have been able to find since
his Sudden conversion is the. startling, but
Pecksni Gan, assertion -madea~by him in
Chicago TO newspaper reporter that the
Democratic party did not want the com
mon schools run by Pinkerton detectives or
Republican constables Nomination FOR OF.
fice silenced his mouth and sttfied his con
vctions. ON the other hand. when the Demo.
cratic politicians who are now running the
machine began TO make war on the common
schools or political purposes, they knew that
when the Bennett law passed the Legislature
1t was in no sense party measure. They knew
that II was unanimously recommended by the
committee on education They knew that IL
passed the Assembly without dissenting
voice or vote. They knew that II passed the
Senate with but one feeble cutlery against it.
They knew thar il was regarded as a Just and
wise measure in aid OF common schools and for
the benefit OF the children OF the State.
They knew that they could not denounce the
Legislature that passed the law without con-
demnation OF the Democratic members OF that
body. And so they sought to fix the responsible
lily OF passage Of the law upon Governor
Hoard Hoard might have shielded himself.
He might well have said that inasmuch as the
measure was noapartisan and had been en-
acted by the Legislature without opposition
that 1t would have been resumption on his
part to veto the Law. But Governor Hoard did
not finch. He anew the peril, and, like the
brave soldier that he is, faced it, He had been
educated in the common schools. He disre-
gardod the clamor and clap-trap Of cheap Demo-
cratic politicians. He passed by as the idle
wind the fears Of timid Republican political
managers. He saw only his duty to stand by
the little school house." and he swore
that the gates OF falsehood, OF big
otry, Of priestcraft and political chicanery
should not prevail against IL. He plainly told
his party that & they did not want to nominate
him on the compulsory education platform TO
get some Other candidate and he would step
out Governor Hoard is bright example of
what the common school has done, can do, and
will do for the young mea OF the Nation. And
stand here tonight TO pay tribute to his truth,
his manliness, and his age. l stand here
tonight TO declare that in this State there is
no scholar learned though he may be in the
classics. who is his superior in knowledge OF
the plain Saxon tongue or in power and ability
to declare thought in the English language.
Here the two men-Mr Peck, who in a
single hour was willing TO abandon principle
for Office, Governor Hoard, who was wi ling to
abandon Office for principle. 1t would be a
frightful thing for the Democratic party in case
Of the election OF Mr. Peek, il he should have
another attack OF sudden conversion and with
in twenty four hours after being sworn into Of
flee change again 20 a Republican, or perhaps
TO Prohibitionist or perehance to humorist.
What is this law concerning which such a
rumpus has been made: What is this law that
has been denounc ID by Democratic conven-
tion as unwise, unnecessary, undemocratic, and
unconstitutional: II is chapter $40 Of the gen
-
parent or otherperson having under his control
a child between the ages of seven and fourteen
years shall annually cause such child to attend
some public or private day school in the city,
town or a strict in which he resides for period
not less than twelve weeks in each year. Sec
tion provides penalty u not less than IS nor
more than SD for each violation of the law by
the parents or persons having control of the
child. But IL further provides that any such
child shall be excused from attendance at
school required by this act by the board OF ed
ucation or school directors of the city, town or
district in which such child resides upon its
being shown to their satisfaction that such
person so negleeting is not able to send such
child to school, or that instruction has other.
wise been given for like period of time TO such
child in the elementary branches commonly
taught in the public schools, or that such child
has already acquired such elementary branches
of learning. or that his physical or mental con
dtion is such as to render attendance incXpe-
dent and impracticable.
Now, il is claimed by the enemies OF the com
mon schools that the law is unjust, because it
compels the parent to send his child to school
In the city town, or district where he resides,
and that he can not send him TO school any
where else TO learn the elementary branches
prescribed by the act. Nothing is farther from
the truth. II is a settled rule Of construction
adopted by the courts, and a rule often applied
In - hat in
constituting a statute all parts and provisions OF
the act shall be construed together-in other
words construed IS whole Were the rule
otherwise there is hardly a statute enacted but
some provisions or sections would be in conflict
with other provisions and sections. Construed
in the light II this rule, which is sensible and
fair il is apparent that section is modified by
section 2, for in section 2 il is distinctly pro-
vided that the child shall be excused from at
tendance upon its being shown that instruction
has otherwise been given for a like period
OF time to such child in the elementary branches
monty taught in the public schools
or, that such child has already &C
quired such elementary branches. Where
may such child acquire such elementa
ry branchesf Obviously, anywhere. Where
may such instruction be Otherwise given for q
Ike period OK tinei Undoubtedly. anywhere
Either at home at private school, at a paro
chial school, at a'y other school or place in the
world. Another we'll settled rule of construction
OF statutes adopted by all courts is. that the
court will look into the intent of the statute
10 see what thing is TO be accomplished, OF
what evil is to be remedied. Now the intent of
the Bennett law plainly is that every child in
the State between the ages of seven and
fourteen years shall be taught or shall acquire
the elementary branches commonly taught In
the pubic schools which in the law are de1omi-
mated reading, writing, arithmetic, and United
tat intent the
law is that every child between the ages pre-
sGribed shall receive some education in the
elementary branches named in order to ut him
to do business and discharge the duties of q
citizen when he becomes man. To do this he
may attend public or private day school in the
city. town, or district where he resides, or he
may acquire a knowledge of these elementary
branches somehow or somewhere e.sa. " he
does this the law is complied with. aud the pro
visions of the statutes satisfied and be is ex
cused by the terms Of the statute from attend
ance upon either public or private day school
Constituting sections I. and OF the statute to
gether the law is just and fair and gives the
parent the utmost liberty as to the place where
his child shall be educated.
Is there any thing uuwise, unnecessary or un
democratic in the statute providing for the
compulsory education of little children be
tween the ages Of seven and fourteen years. Il
So then it was unwise, unnecessary and un
democratic IOf tnt ShNioui 70 CoiHHiiuu. SUI
fer little children to come unto Me and forbid
them not"
And unless these Democratic educational re
formers are prepared to maintain that paren
has a right TO bring up his child in utter ig
norance and that the State has no power Il
compel the child to be taught, or to acquire Tho
simple branches that fit him for business, thai
enable him to vote and discharge the duties OF Z
citizen intelligently then the Bennett law is q
just and beneHcent statute.
Mr.. Fclkner then entered upon an
elaborate legal argument to show that
the right to trial by jury is not denied
those who are prosecuted under the pro
visions of the Bennett law. lie con
tinued:
The statement in the Democratic platform
that the provisions for its enforcement place
the accused at the mercy OF the school directors
ana deny his right Of trial by jury is wiilfu
misrepresentation known TO BE- such by every
lawyer worthy the name in the convention
There never has been doubt among homes
men and honest lawyers about the right OF tn
by jury under the Bennett law, or about TN
constitutonality of TIE law. The naked asser
ton that the right OF trial by jury is denied b.
the Bennett law, and that the law is unconstl
tutional, made by interruptions political liars
is not sufficient to cast suspicion upon tn
validity Of the law The Chicago Herald tol'
| the plain truth when it said editorially in II
issue of October 5 the educational issue wa
raised In Wisconsin by a few Milwaukee dema
/ bo ~ Win il The