The herald., 1897-01-28
"A PROTEST" ANSWERED

"A NJ ESI AN . w EnED
To the Editor Of the Los Angeles Her
aid: Again Bishop Montgomery has
seen At to make an indirect attack upon
the public school system, this time in
the public press and under the form of
"A Protest" and, as he alleges, "as cit
iZen and taxpayer" but he signs himself
Bishop of Monterey and Los Angeles"
The occasion, or excuse, rather, of the
bishops attack was a sermon by DR.. Chi
chester i'll Emmanuel Presbyterian
church to the graduating class of the
Normal school on Sunday, January a.
1897, which sermon the bishop declares
to be In violation of the constitution of
the state. Either the bishop is a very
poor lawyer or he is porly advised. Dr.
Chichester had perfect legal right to
preach the bacalaureate sermon at the
time and in the place, and to the people
and in the manner and for the purpose
he did He violated no provision. either
express or implied. Of the constitution.
He did not teach nor attempt to teach
sectarian creeds in the schools nor to the
schools. He did not advise ESQ far as
the report Of the sermon goes) any of
his hearers to teach any creed or relig-
ous doctrine in the schools, but he did
urge a strong personality Christ
inspired personality-and he quotes from
Tennyson and cites Mr.. Gladstone as
the most marked personality of the age.
The bishop says the characters used in
Illustration were our blessed Lord and
ST Paul, and that he believes as strongly
in these personages as DR.. Chichester.
but he objects on behalf of the Jews and
non-believers, and he bases his objec-
tions on the fact that the sermon was
violation of the constitution. He grows
indignant and closes by saying: "It is
not right; it is not honest" / would like
to ask the bishop: Is it ignorance or dis
honesty that causes him to allege that
sermon to be violation of the consti-
tuition?
For the bishops edification insert the
clause of the constitution referred to:
Article TX, section 8, reads as follows:
mo public money shall ever be ap-
propriated for the support of any secta-
rian or denominational school, or any
school not under the exclusive control
of the officers of the public schools; nor
shall any sectarian or denominational
doctrine be taught or any instruction
thereon be permitted, directly or indi-
rectly, in any of the common schools of
this state"
Now has any Jew or non-believer OBJ
jected to the sermon of DR.. Chichester?
Have the Jews grown SO poor in advo-
Gates as to appoint a Catholic Christian
as the defender of their rights? Does
any Jew or non believer consider that
Dr. Chichester violated or invaded his
constitutional rights? 1 venture to an
swer no, not one.
But the bishop has attempted to make
an excuse of the Jew to attack the public
schools. The bishop is opposed to the
public schols and would change them into
parish schools for the poor and pay
schools for the rich, and he never lets
an opportunity slip to array opposition
to them. The last time it was in an ad-
dress in which he attempted to tickle the
vanities of the rich with select pay
schools, etc. Now he appeals to the con-
stitution in behalf Of the Jews and the
non-believers, though he himself pro-
fesses to be a Christian. What next?
H. T. GORDON.
Los Angeles Ian 27