New-York tribune., 1922-05-26
The Law and Common Sense

The Law and Common Sense
Constitutional law has its claims.
but so has common sense. In the
wrangle over the enforcement Of the
new education law this duality &C OBJ
legation is not always remembered.
A teachers license may be re
voked, says the law, when he is not
person Of good moral character or
when
Such person has, while citizen
OF the United States, advocated,
either by word of mouth or in writ
ing, a form of government other
than the government Of the United
States or of this state; CT that such
person has advocated, either by word
of mouth or in writing. a change in
tho form of government of the
United States or Of this state By force
violence or any unlopfW means.
The two clauses together are as
muddy as the Missouri River in
spring If the first foroids advo-
cacy of change in the form of gov
ernment by amendment or orderly
entertainment Of .he public viii it
is piece of nonsense and obviously
should be promptly torn from the
statute book.
No court is likely to sustain 80
extreme an Interpretation. The very
base of republican institutions,
which a specific clause Of the Con-
stltution guarantees to each state, is
that the people are the source Of
sovereignty, and may erect, as James
Wilson declared, such form of gov
ernment as seems good to them.
The second clause sets up a diff
ferent rule - namely, that change
cannot be by force This is sound
rcpublicanism. The ballot has been
substituted here for the bullet for all
time. Each citizen has an indie
feasible right to protection against
coercion, unbacked by due ascertain
ment Of the majority's will Those
who defend the contrary doctrine
are upholding the vital principle of
despotism.
With cloudy language in one part
of the law and clear language in an
other. common sense suggests that
the latter controls, especially as
the provision against force implies
there are other and lawful means
which may be employed to effect
change.
But common sense gives another
nudge. Haven't school patrons
rights as well as teachers? Does
teacher who trickily seeks to hide
his sympathy for Red violence be-
hind legal screens possess the moral
charac er that may BE demanded of
him? Many Of those who pretend
they are only orderly agitators are
falslfers and intend to poison the
rising generation if they can. What
binds the public to use Taxpayers
money to keep such pests in the
schools?
Moreover, since the Beginning Of
the public school system decency and
consideration for equality of rights
have led to many regulations. Every
one has liberty of religious opinion,
but II is everywhere deemed obiec-
tionable for a teacher to make his
sect conspicuous in the classroom.
The wearing Of vestments. for ex-
ample, has been forbidden. But the
course of the officers of the so-callod
Teachers Union has been such as to
suggest that they are not averse to
using their influence in ways that
necessarily give ofTense.
The teacher who has the spirit of
his job truly in him is not inclined
to abuse his place Hence the
strength of the conviction of parents
that the question bothering Superin-
tcndent Graves should be considered
from the administrative as we'll as
from the legal side.