Capital journal. (Salem, Or.) 1919-1980, 1922-11-04

III must be plainly WIlIIoh Vn ~
side of paper only. nmlted 70
400 words In length and signed
II with the name of the writer.
II Articles not meeting these spe-
cifieations will be rejected.
To the Editor:-Anent free
public schools. Thursday night
attended a lecture at the armory
by Mr.. Goshen and jotted down
several things he said. After con-
sidering them l feel impelled to
answer them through the press.
The gentleman contradicted
himself so continuously that |
shall devote myself to that phase
of what he said: "The great free
public school is behind every lib
erty in America" These are the
words he uttered. I do not believe
it to be true. Still, for the sake
of candor, let us assume 1T Is to
the letter. Then from the moment
compulsory school bill is passed
they are no longer free, and he
will overthrow the liberties he so
earnestly seeks to perpetuate. The
public school is only the medium
by which the oncoming generation
is taught the principles that give
us the liberty to enjoy our rights.
In the next breath he said;
This (bilD is not the abrogation
of any right" Webster defines
right, as that which just belongs
to one." And 1t is evident that
every man has a right to what is
lust. Now man may take from me
my money, my cattle, or even my
wife, but my right to them never
can be taken from me. ! only can
transfer my right And there are
certain rights that cannot be
transferred. For instance, the
right to vote that is inherently in
me as a free born American citi-
zen. II l could transfer this to
another he would have the right
to two votes.
This is what Is comprehended in
the declaration of independence,
when 1t says, "all men are en-
dowed by their creation with GER
tain inalienable rights" Inalien-
able is defined as that which
cannot be transferred" And lib
erty is mentioned as one Of the
chiefest of these rights. Man may
take from me my liberty, but my
right to 1t still remains.
Now abrogate means to abolish
and the gentleman said truly when
he said it did not abrogate any
right" No thinking man so con-
siders it. But thinking men do
hold that it abrogates their lib
erty.
He said: II am free from bigo-
try. | am no bigot." Well! Web
ster says a bigot is "a person who
is obstinately and unreasonably
attaches to a particular religious
creed, opinion, practice or ritual, ;"
and bigotry is unreasonable zeal
or warmth In favor of party
sect or opinion. Let us see how
the rest of his utterances come up
with this. He said: "The time has
come when we should have a. law
compelling all newspapers to be
published in English" Is that
excessive zeal in favor of an opin-
ion? l wonder how that law
would be in harmony with consti-
tutional provision for free speech
and free press? The next step
would be law forbidding any
speech but English In America.
But why be so partial to English ?
Why not speak only American?
He further said: The l. w. VS.
are a menace and the gov
ernment will eventually have to
say to them you can stay here II
you will respect our flag, our laws
and our free institutions. but II
not you may have your choice OF
two things, you may either be
taken to our shores and put on a
boat that will take you to the land
you love, or you may be lined ul
with your backs to the wall tc
meet the bullets of patriotic
American citizens" Is that the
sign of a bigot? 1t certainly Is
excessive warmth in favor of an
opinion.
l wish to show another contra.
dfction where he says he is In
faVor of the Compulsory" bill
ana in his closing remarks says
we do not want to dictate to any
mani The bill plainly is dictor
ial, debating where parents shal
educate their children, so hil
FA~%a - -.