Year: 1873

There are those who object to COM
pulsory educotion on the ground that a
law forcing education upon all, would
be an infringement of natural right, and
so be antagonistic to the principles of
free government.


To this it may be replied, that a free
government does not imply individual
freedom in everything. 1t is emphati-
calIy true that we live in a free land,
and probably the freest in the world and
still our statute books contain many pro-
hibitory laws that receive almost uniyer-
sal approval, and that interfere no less
with personal right than would one COM
pelling the education of every proper
child. The truth is, that when we be-
come citizens of a given country, if we
know what we are doing, we voluntarily
surrender many personal rights for the
sake of the assistance and protection the
government can give us in the pursuit of
lawful business, or innocent pleasure
We are free to the extent of making this
surrender, aud of accepting this protec-
ton, but no more.


The State has the right, voluntarily
granted it by each of its citizens, to pre-
hibit any practice, or enjoin any service,
that the good of the majority shall re-
ouire. Hence, Sabbath-breaking, liquor
| selling, profanity, disturbing public as
semblies, and many other practices are
all prohibited by law, while in the same
manner the people are enjoined, among
| other things. to keep open suitable high
WAYS, maintain public schools, and to
care for the friendless poor.


And it is a fact well known to the
merest child that the property of those
having no children to educate is taxed
the same as that of those having many.
This tax is levied on the ground that the
public schools are conducive of good or
der, industry, economy, intelligence and
morality.


The reasoning for the taxation in ques,
ton is clearly apparent, torcible and
right, while it may be applied with IN
creased emphasis to the subject of COM
pulsory education.


AS every free-holder is obliged to sup
port the common schools for the good OF
society. so should every scholar be
obliged to attend these schools for the
good of society.


In fact the purpose of taxing those
having no children to educate will never
be fully realized till all are brought un
der the influence, and receive the bene
fits of our schools.


There are none who appreciate this
truth more than do these same tax
PAYERS. They are among the most ear
nest and consistent advocates OF comput
sorry education.


Said Secretary Adams in 1865: 81
is exceedingly difficult to meet and re
fute the arguments of those who, per
haps somewhat reluctantly paying
their taxes for the support of schools
accompanying their compliance witt


the law with the assertion that if yol


compel man having no children to con
tribute. whether he be willing or not, t.
the schools which educate the children
of men who can pay nothing, you ough
on the other hand to compel those TO
whose benefit the schools are thus pro


vided by compulsory taxation, to avail
themselves of the benefits thus proffere'
, by compulsory enactments II necessary
!, The argument would run as follows
The absolute necessity for general dlf
: fusion of knowledge and intelligence /


order to secure the safety and perma
nence of republican government IS
, nalpable that it is supposed to furnlsh
, iooical and sufficient base upon when I


test the right of the State to enforce
General taxation of all property to SUI
fain system of free schools that alon
: can generally diffuse the needed know
edge and intelligence.


But if the indispensability OF TINS ger
3 eral diffusion of knowledge is suincleI
f to vindicate the propriety OF enforclh
taxation to support schools as inat.s
| of State safety and self-preserov,a!.loi J,


then on the same grounds it is sufflclen