The New York herald., 1921-12-14

vers;ty went so far as to declare at one
hearing that there was a systematic
effort being made to "de-Americanize
the British Empire.
The four text books that are accused
of spreading anti-American propaganda
are Barnes's American History for
Grammar Grades, by Everett Barnes. a
public school principal OF Brooklyn
ttart's History of the United States by
Prof. Albert Bushnell Hart, head of the
history department of Harvard Uni
verslty and a well known author ana
publicist; "Our United States" by Prof.
William Il. Guitteau. Superintendent of
Schools Toledo; "a History of the
United States for Schools" by Andrew
C. Mclaughlin. head OF the department
of history at the University of Chiago.
and Claude II. Van Tyne, head of the
department of history at the University
OF Michigan.
The Hart history has been regarded
as standard In the public schools for
many years. while the other publica-
tions are of more recent date and have
only lately been accepted on the school
lists. The Barnes history and the Van
Tyne history have been the objects Of
the most bitter criticism, the other two
DOCKS only 10 a lesser degree.
Included i'm the list of books which
the critics would like TO have banned
or at least partly deleted is a small
publication containing Burkes Speech
on Cancellation With America and a
preface by Prof c. II. Ward of the
Taft School at Waterbury, Conn. In pre-
pairing the student for q study of the
speech Prof. Ward dismisses the idea
that the American people in ITS quar-
relied with the British nation, but points
out that the principal difficulty arose
over the attitude of George III, who
was regarded as a tyrant.
Think Controversy Serious.
The subcommittee OF twenty-one re-
CARDS the controversy as serious and far
reaching in its effects, not only upon the
educational system in this city but the
possibility that the anti-British propa-
ganda might be spread to other cities
and ultimately be responsible for de-
priving students of some of the very
best text books available. Should the
committees report decide in favor of
the critics, 1t is regarded as a foregone
conclusion that the controversy will be
taken to other States, while a final de-
cision here by a body of competent
go far. it Is said, to quieting any further
activities OF a similar nature in other
cities.
The following Is the passage from
Wards preface most frequently COM
planned Of by the critics in that it is
alleged to absolve the British people
from responsibility for the Revolution
and to promote an unwarra1.ed bias
toward Great Britain in the minds OF
high school pupils.
las long as there turks in the back
OF American consciousness" says Prof.
Ward, "a suspicion of tyranny in 1775
so long will misunderstanding prevent
the English speaking nations from
working In accord to develop Anglo
Saxon freedom. II every high school
student knew that the Governmental OPP
preston that caused the American Rev.
olution was made in Germany our de-
mocracy would be more secure. Not
until the younger generation has learned
to distinguish between the English free
dom OF 1875 and the slavery that they
may have from Prussia will America
return to that unsuspecting confidence
in the mother country which Is vital to
the future progress OF democracy
throughout the world.
THE American Revolution was not an
attempt of England to tyrannize over
the colonies. but was a quarrel fomented
by a German King as part of his pro-
gramme of despotic ambition
A teacher Of history in one of the
schools in Brooklyn was asked by THE
NEW YORK HERALD yesterday to express
his opinion of this offending passage,
and he stated in reply that he believed
It TO be an accurate presentation Of the
situation in the colonies at that time.
He emphasized his view, moreover, by
pointing out that in the Declaration of
Independence George III. is mentioned
by name as the offending party rather
than the British people as a nation.