The Montgomery tribune. (Montgomery City, Mo.) 1892-1910, 1901-02-15
In MISSOURI.
Osnnsnications From the state S.
psrintendent Of Pvblic schools
lavits Consideration.
STATE or huaouRi.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
JKTTEHsoN CITY, Feb. q, 100

SkHHhhooN VIII ECU o. tSvh
Mr.. Editor: Since there seems to be soma
legislation On the Simmons bill. ash
that you give your readers the benefit Il
the following:
The parochiai school people have Justly
been opposing what IL generally known
as the Simmons compulsory bill. His
all schools by the public school Standard
to place the enforcement OF law In the
hands Of local public school boards. and
to prosecute before Justice courts. These
are. as I understand Il, the Objectionable
features.
Mr.. Simmons withdrew that bill and In
troduced. another known as bill No. 7f5,
which has been reported favorably by the
house committee on education. IL provides
~ that all children between . and II
shall attend some day school throo-
fourths Of Its school term. also those
from IL to ID unless legally employed.
% courts OF record may excuse those (a)
who nave completed tho common school
course, OBJ who can not provide proper
clothing. tc) who are either mentally or
physically incapaoitated, td) who live two
and a half milcH from any school. ts)
whose services arc absolutely necessary
&c support OF family, 10 who are taught
ut home: C) that cities OF a,oo or more
population may have attendance officers;
90 that cities Of 1000 or more may estnb-
iish truant or PARENTAL schools: 60 that
children between 5 and IA can not DO en-
ploycd In mines. factories. workshops and
mercantile establishments during school
hours unless accused from attending
school as above; go parents. guardians,
owners or operators OF mines. factories,
workshops and mercantile establishments
Who Violate the provisions OF this act
are SUBJECT to small fines. prosecution to
be made In courts OF record having GRIM
inal Jurisdiction. The bill IL especially
guarded Ia that II does not permit dis
elimination against any class Of schools,
all prosecutions are taken away from To-
cal authorities In rural districts. The bill
adhcres strictly TO tho purposes as ex-
pressed In Its title; act to enforce the
constitutional right OF every chlld 20 an
education and TO prohibit tho employ
fnent OF children during school houra."
IL is well known that the present state
superintendent OF schools has been very
consistently opposed to Compulsory Ed
ncation.' and Joined very earnestly IN .
hot contest on this subject at the State
Tcachcra' association In 1859.
No one could have been more positively
opposed to No. ti0 than he. lie was first
To call attention TO the Objectionable fsa-
lures OF II. lilo thinks, however, that
there IL a strong, growing demand for
such Regulation that will prevcntignorant,
selfish parents from depriying their chill
: dren OF an education. Tho provisions of
the bill will not work n hardship on any
one. IL prevents prosecutions before To-
cal. and perhaps. prcJudiccd courts. The
Dill In drawn so as TO be more especially
operative In large cities. while IL appIicr
To rural schools. public sentiment alone
must enforce II there.
A compulsory Law hat will In any way
deprive the parent OF that Inherent right
| To direct tho sntI.Atlon nf hla .AlIt .l...tl
be resisted by every one. Simmons bill
No. 30 does not do this. then why not
pass Il and stop this biennial unrest con
cernins II. Mcst respectfully,
". \. DARLINGTON,
State Superintendent Public Schools.