The mirror. (Stillwater, Minn.) 1894-1925, 1902-10-02

n A recent issue of The MIRROR
there appeared an article written
i by our local savant, H. Slowgo,
Jr., being reply to MIR. Herbert
.Spencer's essay on State Education.
The article in question was presented
in very forcible manner; and the
many able arguments brought forth to
reinforce his conclusions show that he
has given the subject considerable at
tention. In replying to few of the state
ments made in the aforementioned arti-
Gle, 1 do so with the kindliest regard
neither being swayed by prejudice or
biased in the slightest degree. A critic
often finds it an easy task to review the
expressed opinions of another. No
matter how sincere an author may be-,
how logical his deductions, how well
arranged and cogent his argument, it
is an easy matter to pick out jewel
here and there and find an almost i'm
perceptible flaw.
While Mr.. SIowgo points out many
grievous errors in Mr.. Spencer's article
and advances numerous arguments to
prove that Mr.. Spencer's hypothesis is
not we'll founded, it appears to me that
some of his so-called facts are ques-
tionable. There exists today a wide
spread belief among deep-thinking
people that state education is serious
encroachment upon their rights. They
view the question from moral stand
pOint-the question of right and wrong
instead of one of expediency. The
fact that society in the aggregate is
benefited by such procedure does not
settle the legality of the question in
the least. From a moral aspect state
education occupies peculiar position.
The dissenters are ably championed by
Mr.. Spencer and other learned men Of
worldwide reputation. If the state
has the right to force upon its men,
bers compulsory education, then it pos
sesses the right to dictate what should
or should not be embodied in its cur
riculum, regardless of the opinions
parents hold in the premises. Accord
ing to this reasoning. it would possess
the undeniable right to enforce many
other measures upon its members. In
fact the states power would be un-
limited-autocrati to say the least.
In his concluding remarks Mr.. Slow
60 sums up some of the benefits which
he says have been derived from state
education. First he has this to say
about drunkenness: "The decrease of
drunkenness is in a great measure
attributable to the spread of educa-
tiOn." If this assertion is true, how do
you account for the fact that such
intellectual men as Shakespeare, Ben
johnson. Burns, Walpole, Fox and a
host of others INDUCED in Intoxicating
beverages? 1t is well-known fact
that these educated and cultured GEN
tlemen derived considerable amuse-
ment in seeing who could remain above
table the longest. 1t is also an unas-
sailable fact that among the edu-
Gated and cultured rich a sumptuous
wine cellar is the rule and not the ex-
ception. AS much care is bestowed in
filling their cellars as is given to the
selection of a piano. Education, how
ever, is doubtful factor in controlling
drunkenness. Theorists can easily
demonstrate on paper that education
will materially lessen crime, vice and
drunkenness, but when their elaborate
theories are brought into closer union
with experience, they fail to material
ize.
Sir Dyce Duckworth, honorary ply
sician to the Prince of Wales, lecturer,
etc., has this to say in connection with
drunkenness: "The enlightened ma
tions are the liquor drinking nations.
But the enlightened nations are not
temperate drinkers as nations. There
is no such thing as temperate drinking,
except by q small class, in any Of the
enlightened nations. -. No person
can deny the drunkenness of the highly
civilized and Christian countries, no
matter what may be the factor Of tenn.