The sun., 1905-09-19
THE CITY SCHOOLS.
Public support Of Schools Under Heisieus
Control Impossible.


To rHE EnIToR or The Sun .-S,r: Under
the heading The Schools OF the CITY your
paper OF Septembe is contains an interesting
letter from the Rev. Thomas A. Thornton
which demands an answer. not SO much be.
cause your correspondent 10 ignorant OF
what follows, for every educator In touch
with current periodical literature has had
his attention called to 1t. but because the
wider audience to which he addressed him-
self through your columns will carry away
false impression OF injustice done 70 her
Catholic citizens by the city OF New York.
Al the outset ooncede the thoronghness
Of the Catholic schools, because l do not
wish to befog the m ain question and accept
the figures Of the reverend father as correct.
because their greater or less accuracy is nov
material. Whnt cannot accept Is the oon-
Cluslon that the Catholic Church through lts
school system ought to get the liberal spirit
Of fair play" in the shape in which 1t Is sought.
namely, In dollars and cents.
Parenthetically, l would call the readers
att ention to the fact that II the i%0 Catholic
schools were put on the exceptional basis OF
the several schools mentioned In the Char-
ter "the small pittance of assistance asked
for in the letter Of Father Thornton would
amount to 10000 x $i5=)Sl 200 900 annually;
and as we have 1t on his authority that within
ten years "the Catholic register will count
not &c. 900 but $50. 600 names the "pittanoe
which the city would have to hand over to the
Catholic school treasury would be S2.25o 600
per year.
1t is un- American to ask as charity what
It is ours to demand as right II the claim
for SIS per child Is Just. then the claim Tor
$40. the full sum spent by the citv on eaoh
child. is a right. Why did not Father morn.
ton appeal for the $40 for each Catholic child
In the parochial schools? Why does he try
to create public sentiment in his favor when
the proper course would be an appeal to the
lawn akers or law dispensers? These aues-
tions bring out factor which the letter STU
dlously avoids the difference between the
parochial and the city school. That differ
ence is contained in the words religious
control
the otsen adm ftnGSS tSe ehiden as % ali the
citizens and are under the control OF Board
ahos G. dnS1So sdSoos a2s msSs s pp h
Catholic children may attend them. They
are under Catholic control; that Is, the @tne
authorities. Thus it is that what was put
as an educational problem really assumes
religious character; this religious element
cate cory.
The prop,rtiety Of c9ntTbptio1s M Of pSGf
aeRoe se Of s
Of New YORK Catholic schools actually raises
effect, as the one which was discussed and
negatiyed at Washington last winter; here
II Is the appeal for State contributions to
1t was the attempt to introduce the teaching
OF religion in schools supported by State
Both ettempts are futile, because they
dash against the solid rock Of the Constitu-
ton of the United States. Until that docu-
ment is amended the absolute separation Of
Church and State obtains and will obtain in
this country. Whether these cases come
under the head of the article. which estab-
matter for newspaper controversy, but the
question. must eventually be answered by the
Supreme Court OF the United States.
There is not tho slightest doubt of the issue
In my mind. DANIEL A. HuEBsCH.
MoNTCLAIR. Sept. Is.