The Manitowoc pilot. [volume] (Manitowoc, Wis.) 1859-1932, 1891-01-01

for specious demagogy, willful misrepre-
sentation and hypocritical assumption OF
judicial fairness is the paper read by Supt.
Wells before the State Teachers Assocla-
ton. Time will not permit full review
of the paper and only its most glazing alb
surdities can be noticed.
Mr.. Wells says that under the Bennett
law German gymnasium would be no
school if tranferred to Wisconsin.
But the German gymnasium is not
here and Wisconsin Is not expected to
legislate with reference to conditions in
Germany.
Besides if the German gymnasium were
here, students would have obtained a
knowledge of the elementary branches
contemplated by the Bennett law before
being eligible to admission to the gym
nasium.
Mr.. Wells, presumably, was elected to
look after public instruction in WIscon-
sin. not to concern himself with affairs in
Germany, nor to what extent laws pass
ed by the Wisconsin legislature might
conflict with conditions existing in for
eign countries.
Mr.. Wells perceives no linguistic train
ing in the study of arithmetic and sneers
at the Wisconsin legislature for having
made the discovery that training in
language may be had through exercises
in arithmetic.
His years of experience as county su-
perintendent seem to have been woful-
ly deficient in results, if he failed to learn
that language is improved by a study of
arithmetic.
The aggregate fines which may be i'm
posed in any one year under the Bennett
law appalls Mr.. Wells. The remedy is
in the hands of the person who violates
the law. A person who is a petty thief
may ply his trade so persistently as to be
in Jail almost continually: Would Mr..
Wells abolish the law Furnishing petty
larceny for this reason?
While county superintendent, Mr..
Wells had numerous 'INvoCATIoNs," Eye
gods, what dignity this mortal must
have hadD but all were for bad purpose.
SO Mr.. Wells infers that as the people
are more inclined to be wicked than vir-
tuous it Is dangerous to invest them with
power. 1t is possible the "invocations"
were made with a full sense of the pre-
objections of the person to whom they
were addressed.
Mr.. Wells touches upon the right OF
trial by jury. The law provides that the
board is to excuse the parent from the
operations of the law if shown to their
satisfaction" ETC., and because the board
need not bring an action, that is, need
not sue the parent for seeming viola
ton of the law, the right OF trial by jury
is denied
Again, if after complaint is made and
the penalty incurred, the parent con-
cludes to yield obedience to the law, the
penalty for former violation is remitted.
And this is a denial OF the right OF trial
by jury according to Mr.. Wells!
When he is state superintendent and
has numerous "invocatiors" to settle diff
ticulties, won't his Interpretation of law
be the wonder of the age!
Mr.. Wells is guilty of stupid and
malignant lie when he says the law
makes the board the compliments, pre-
secutors, judge and jury upon the vital
issues" This is hard language to use
with reference to the head of the state
department but nothing milder fittingly
describes Mr.. Wells arguments. The law
IN opening every avenue possible to the
person who violated its provisions, to es-
cape punishment when he is inclined to
yield obedience, grants absolutory pow
ers to the board and this benefcense is
tortured into a hardship.