The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-09-24
A nAnaEnous nEnEsY.

A publication called. Charities" re- gently made use of this expression: :: 'The schools are the natural guardians of the children, No more dangerous heresy than this could be promulgated It will be sad day for our civilisa- ton and our humanity If the time ever arrives when parents shall turn aver to the schools or to any other power the whole auty of training and guard ing their children. That this false and dangerous theory Is already widely es- abolished In practice is undeniable. It is not alone among the lowest and most vicious classes that children are neglected It is not altogether the very poor who allow their children to roam the streets. uncared for and un- restrained. preparing themselves for lives of criminal iawlessness. If none but the very poor or the vicious were guilty of neglect of their offspring we might admit that circumstances and conditions were largely responsible for great and growing evil.
 Unfortunately for humanity and for civilization this is not the case. Among the welI-to-do and the rich the same evil prevails and grows. The father is too much engrossed with business and money making, and the mother too strenuously occupied with the demands of society. to waste any time at such plebeian and antiquated business as caring for the little ones whom they have brought into the world, only to be discarded as one does a cast-off garment. All the poor little waifs, practically fatherless and motherless. are not children of the poor or the vicious. but they are just as much de- prived of parental guardianship and love and training.
 The theory that parents are not the natural guardians of their children has been to some extent practiced, but this Is the first time we have seen the idea advanced as an axiom in a reputable journal During school hours we ad- init that teachers ought to be the guardians of the children, whether they are or not. To great extent they are not, partly because of the number of pupils allotted to each teacher and partly because a majority of the teachers are not fitted. either by temperament or experience, to look after little children in a way that can only be done by loving and conscien- tions parents.
 It is a reversal of the order of na- ture. 1t Is contrary to the teachings of ization, to assert that "the schools are the natural guardians of the children. It is shifting of a solemn duty from the shoulders of those upon whom God and humanity have placed a sacred burden. There can be no natural guar dlans of the children except the par ents when the latter are living and are capable of the guardianship Chil- dren running uncontrolled and uncared for in the streets and highways are one of the greatest menaces threaten ing our civilization, for they are learn ing and practicins the lessons which will make criminals of them in the fu- ture. To quote from The Manufactur- er's Record:
 Perhaps if parents were permitted to have hand In bringing up their chill dren there might be more children to be brought up, and the hoodlumism that has become such an offense and which Is by no means monopolized by the depressed classes might be reduced to the minimum. But what else than lack of respect for law and decency is tioning acceptance of or impotent re- sIstance to the dogma of horde of thrifty theorists bowling about race suicide" but at the same time in in sisting upon greater and greater State interference with the rights and du- ties of parents, accomplishing more than any hundred other influences for encouragement of race sufcide?'
 The theory of Charities" is demor- alizing, dangerous and inhunSn.