The Hood River glacier. (Hood River, Or.) 1889-1933, 1922-11-02
PROMINENT CITI-
ZENS OPPOSE BILL

our liberties. 1t is true that even in a
democracy in time of great national
peril people may with justice be asked
to give up their personal freedom-as
in the operation of the selective ser
vice-but if popular government is to
endure ssuch surrender of rights must
he kept to the lowest minimum and
should be made only when the larger
liberties of the people are imperiled.
Religious freedom the stronghold of
political liberty. Where religious lib
erty has been won political freedom
has soon followed. On the other hand
history makes it plain that the sacrifice
Of religious liberty means the over
throw of political rights.
2. The proposed measure is unfair
to the public schools. To attempt to
make the public schools the beneficiary
of such restrictive narrowing legisla-
tion will destroy the independence and
initiative of the public school itself.
Our public schools came into existence
because the private schools are in
adequate to provide education for ALL
The public school has developed amaz-
ingly. This development has been due
partly to the competition of private
schools and to the freedom of expert
mentation in method and organization
which they have helped to foster.
Though under the present system there
will always be few private schools
there is place for them-the public
institution does not need the artificial
stimulus of the proposed legislation to
become increasingly dominant in the
field of education.
3. The measure should be defeated
because its underlying philosophy is
essentially autocratic. 1t looks upon
the child as primarily the ward of the
state. In democracy the child does
not exist for the state so much as the
state exists for the child. To interfere
with the rights of families and to at
tempt to relieve parents of natural re-
sponsibilities is a social danger. The
state has an obligation in fixing the
standards of education and in insisting
that these standards shall be main
tained. The parent has the inherent
right to say where and under whose
instruction this education shall be OBJ
tained.
The schools are open-and rightly so
to teachers of all religious faiths and
of none. Nearly all teachers possess
tions for their work. However, there
will always be substantial minority
of teachers who are obnoxious to some
parents. Should not the parent be per-
mitted to withdraw his child from the
guidance of teacher whose influence
he feelseto be baneful? Much has been
said about certain teachers who are in
the public school room clad in the garb
Of religious order. This is wrong.
But the passage of this measure will
compel parents in those districts to
send their children to those teachers
whether they will or not. This bill in
no way affects this situation except to
make instruction in private schools
crime. If this bill passes a Prostestant
must be compelled to send his children
to Catholic teacher if the board en-
ploys such.
a. The measure is wrong in tendency
as well as in principle. as it establishes
an exceedingly dangerous precedent.
If private schools of primary grade can
be abolished there is no reason why
some other group of enthusiasts should
not compass the destruction of private
schools of secondary and collegiate
rank. The principle is absolutely the
same. We should then have education
fully controlled by the state. This
means that education would degenerate
into propaganda to support the theories
of some political or social group. In
the name of free eduational thought
the bill should be defeated.
3. In the interest of brotherliness
this measure should be defeated. The
attempt to foist such law on Oregon
must ultimately fail. Under the pro-
visions of this bill if it passes it will
not go into effect until September. 1926.
Its sponsors anticipate four years of
litigation following that date before
its status is finally settled. The social
and political life of Oregon is already
at fever heat on this question. To
have this question agitated for eight
years more, to have 1t fought back and
forth in the courts will create a bitter
ness and social poison deadly in their
effects. The proposed legislation is
unChristian because it engenders strife
and fosters intolerance in this fateful
day of the worlds history when all
civilization is suffering and longing
for that sincere and inclusive friendli-
ness that shall encompass all classes
and all creeds. Sincerely,
L. B. Gibson, A. ]. Derby,
S. j. Moore, G. H. Vaughan,
z. Annala, John Baker,
Allison Fletcher, W. r. Collie,
Geo. A. Wuest, Mary E. Wuest,
L. N. Blowers. Geo. M. Galloway,
r. J. Mclsaac, ID. L. Pierson,
Mrs. Frances Mol
Ter, W. H. Boldly.