The producers news. [volume] (Plentywood, Mont.) 1918-1937, 1927-01-28
Dick Writes Again in Ans
wer to McElroy's Article

EDITOR, PRODUCERS News.
Dear Sir:
VIII you kindly allow me little
more printers ink" in reply TO
Brother McElroyIs letter of January
18th, although it really doesn't mer-
it the dignity of an answer. Refer
ring to my lengthy letter of the pre-
vious week, he says, "he utterly fail
ed to show in any logical way what
he set out to do, viz: prove that there
was any valid reason for the school
teachers to use the children entrusted
to their care to solicit dimes and
niclels from the people of this COM
munity for some institution in Hell
ona." The Judge probably misunder-
stood what | was trying to show. l
was defending the principle Of col
lecting funds through the channel of
the school children in a general way,
over this and all other counties of
Montana. In taking this stand, /
was assuming as a basic premise
that the 'drive" would be properly
conducted. He says that the children
of his community were used without
the knowledge and consent of their
parents" Now it is possible that
proper wisdom was not exercised in
the case of the Plentywood drive.
That, I know nothing about. | have
the Judges word for it. But we
shouldn't generalize on a specific IN
stance and condemn the fundamental
principles of the system on this ac-
count, for it can easily be managed
so that it will work no hardship on
parents, pupil or the public. No
child should be persuaded and urged
to take up the work, even when his
parents are anxious to have him join
it, unless he feels that he should
help a homeless fellow being and
volunteers his services.
Anyone referring to my lengthy
article In recent issue of this pa
per may readily summarize some
thing like twenty observations and
facts which were fairly we'll esIab-
ilsheG, and which, | believe, contri-
butte to defend this society's meth
DDS of operation. They are, it seems
to me, productive of no injury to
any person or institution. AS l ana
lyze the situation, their practice Of
raising funds might concern, more
or less vitality, five persons or units
OF society, namely: the orphan, the
sects, the school, the pupil, and the
public. Now let US apply the acid
test to this practice to see wherein
1t is objectionable, in the form of five
questions as follows: ~ Does the
placement of a homeless child foist
a strange and inimical brand of reli-
glon upon him against his, or the
parents will ? (2) Does the prac-
tice discriminate against any oenom-
NATION! (3)'H Does it drag religion
into the public school system? ID
Does it WELD a deleterious influence
on the character of the soliciting pu-
Pill by making a "beggar" of him,
Cor in any other way)? (5) Is the
practice an appreciate imposition on
the general public? Every question
may readily be answered with an
emphatic mo" The practice clears
every hurdle of criticism. With no
valid and well-founded objection 20
it, and everything in its favor, it
commends itself as a most admirably
worthy enterprise. The incalculable
value of this work is self-evident; it
commends and defends itself. The
burden of proof that this method of
support is justifiable rests not with
me, as he intimates; rather, since
this system of promoting this chart
ty has been in practice over the state
70 rmany years, the burden rests
with him to prove that it is unjust
and pernicious. This, he has failed
to do. His attack in each letter is
as weak as diluted water Any
one can make statement; but it is