The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1896-12-06
STATE AID
To EDUCATION
Hv L. a. Yates. .. ID

tian; and any act 10y the State that would
! kare tendency directly or indirectly
Ia damage the cause of religion on cripple
| the Christian church in her enterprise anG
! effort 10 more permanently establish the
| Christian religion, would BE- not only TIA
| grant wrong to the people. but danger
Gus solecism in government. To educate
a PEOPLE Gf such ii thing were posslbiel
in nothing but the forms and dogmas OF
morals and religion, would be to make
Ignorance the mother Of devotion" and
retard the progress OF the world. And
on the other hand, to educate people
| wholly outside of morals and religion,
would be to foster and propagate infidel-
ity and turn the commonwealth into per
dition, and therefore, rs it is not, and
ought not to he, the business of the State,
to teach religion, it follows that the Chris
tian church must be left free by the State,
and unhurt by legislation, to carry for
ward Christian teaching pari pasu with
higher education. And this is true, be-
cause higher education necessarily touch
es the sphere Of the spiritual and, unguid-
ed by the life and teachings of the Christ,
becomes a menace to society and dan
gerous to the commonwealth.
The Methodist Episcopal Church,
South, represented by the North Carolina
Conference, does not, l apprehend, pro
pose to put itself in opposition to State
aid to education. It only proposes that
such aid shall be in accordance with
justice to all and damage to none. 1t re-
cognizes the fact that the University Mt
Chapel Hill is embedded in the economic
and social life of the State, and it does
not propose to try to revolutionize the
State in a war of determination against
the institution
But inasmuch as a very large majority
of the taxpayers of North Carolina are
represented by their UNCONVENTIONAL col
leges, which they support, the State ought
not to retax them for the purpose Of Civ
ing free tuition in higher education to Il
few at the expense of the many. Higher
education at the University, therefore,
ought not to be given ut the expense of
the State, unless taxes could be increased
so as to offer free tuition to all alike.
To discuss the Righteousness or feast
bility of such theory as this is n waste
of time. since practically the thing is inn
possible.
To thus give tuition to a few does not
and perhaps cannot work to the benefit
of the really needy, but would necessarily
let in large per cent. of those who would
be able to pay The theory in its best
practice, is unequal and unjust and plain
~ contrary to the principles Of a republi-
can form of government, and it puts the
State in hurtful competition with Chris
tian colleges. Moreover it is contrary to
Al oe &h, of
the State, who tamthemselves to support
their own colleges, for the State to retaX
them to give higher education free to
few who do not wish to go to q Christian
college. Let all such pay their way at
Chapel Hill or be independent enough to
establish a college of their own. We
therefore favor State aid to the Uniyer-
sity, but only In so far as it Is necessary
TO keep up the institution, and to secure
the salaries of the faculty, in case at any
time the receipts from tuition and private
endowment are insufficient. These prin-
ciples commend themselves to every mans
conscience, and are so plainly right and
just as to require no argument. OF course,
such funds as are held by the University
from private endowment are in the hands
of the trustees to be used for free schol-
arships, or in any way which may seem
to them best.
In the next place, we put ourselves on
record as fayoring the application OF
the States appropriation Of money to de-
yelop a more efficient common school sys-
TEN for all the poor children of the State,
to the end that the destitute and ignorant
may have the uplifting help Of at least
q common school education.
We regard the State Normal and In
dustrial School at Greensboro, and the
Agricultural and Mechanical College at
Raleigh, as standing at the head Of the
common school system; and we favor
State aid to those institutions within the
sphere designated by their charters, and
in strict accordance with the objects set
forth by the State in their organization.
The NJ. II. church South, can humbly
boast of its freedom from sectarianism-
1t seeks to propagate the christian rell-
gion, and not sectarianism. Christian
education is too broad to be forced along
the grooves of mere sectarian dogmas
But to be in opposition to christian edu-
cation is to be in favor of it's opposite,
which is infdelity. Such a state for
christian is an absurdity and an inn
possibility. Christian legislators, there
fore, cannot cripple christian colleges by
setting up State competition with these
colleges, in higher education, without
endangering one Of the axioms of liberty
--"justice to all and favors to none"
Those persons who SO strongly favor
free tuition, by State taxes, at the Uni
versity, have surely never thought of
what an open door they are making for
troubles not for ahead, if the signs Of the
times go for anything, and these troubles
not from the christian colleges by any
means. Better be careful of free doors.
/ intend this paper to be in the nature
Of compromise between the two extreme
opinions that divide the people Of North
Carolina upon the subject Of State aid
to higher education. If there be any,
which I am disposed to doubt, who are
determined to covertly wage war upon
the Christian colleges of the State, they
l.. +oIy nf n hOtjdTs