Year: 1875

Catholic clergy than Of the Catholic laity.
While the clergy Of that denomination seem
to be nearly unanimous in behalf Of breaking
up our pubic-school system, We do not be-
Geve that q majority Of the laity can be per-
suaded or influenced to support the move
ment. We're it otherwise, it would be
difficult to account for the mnny
strenuous efforts Of the Catholic clergy ev-
erywhere to dissuade their congregations
from sending their children to the public
schools. 1t is only in raro cases that Catholics
keep their children from the public schools of
their own motion. A unnnimity so remark
able, among SO large body as the Roman
Catholic clergy of this country, is certainly
worthy of being inquired into Why do they
oppose our pubic-school system? The rec
sons may be chased under the following
heads:


l. Because it is not, they claim, the prov
ince Of the State to educate its youth at all.


.. Because the public schools are ''god-
less schools, and because, therefore, Catho-
lies cannot conscientions1y send their children
to them.


5. Because Catholics ere taxedfor their sup
port spite Of the fact that they cannot avail
themselves Of the instruction and training
they afford for their children.


We shall briefly examine these reasons.


There are others beside Catholics who hold
that it is not the sphere or business Of the
State. to educate the children of its citizens.
Herbert Spencer, in England, is Of the opin-
ion. So was the late Gerrit Smith, in this
country. We agree as little with the two Inst
named gentlemen on this point as We do with
the Roman Catholic clergy. We insist that it
is not only the right, but the duty, Of the
State to educate its youth. Especially is it
the duty Of Republican nation to educate
them. Republics like our own are founded
on the supposition that man can govern him
self. But Ignorance and seH-govern1nent Gre
incompatible. Hence, if Republic is to
be maintained, those who constitute it must
be educated IF oil parents were in con-
dition to educate their own children, and had
the will to educate them, there would be no
necessity for the State to interfere to do it in
their stead


But there are millions Of parents who have
not the means of providing IN education for
their children, and millions who are not alive
to its importance Hence the necessity Of
State interference in the matter Of education
Hence the necessity Of public schools in
which the children Of the people may be edu-
Gated gratis. No nation can afford, in these
modern times, to allow its citizens to grow
upin ignorance. ef-preservation, If nothing
else, requires that it should see that they
are instructed. The educated is superior
to the uneducated man A nation Of
educated men is superior to nation
of Doors. Man is man only through his
mind Without education he can scarcely be
distinguished from the higher animals. In
the struggle for existence, to which nations
are as much subjected as individuals, the No.
ton in which intellect is most highly deve1-
oped will survive. Uncultured nations must
yield to them. It was the public-schoo1 sys-
TEN Of Germany more than Won Moltke's |
army that defeated the Trench, whose school |
system was ever deficient.


LEBN1Tz used to say that, if they would let |
him have charge OF public education 1or
century, he would change the world and Leib-
nitz was right to very great extent. Educa-
ton has changed the world to q great extent.
The child has right to education for the |
same reason that it has right to be human |
being. The parent who deprives his offspring t
Of an education commits a larceny upon
Them. Better ten times over deprive them of
IN arm or limb. But it is oil useless to
say that the State shall not educate I
he children Of the citizens. # the State
1oes not, and the parent cannot, the street
will # the State does not teach linn his
political duties, and afford him the means Of
making himself more useful member Of
society than he would be without an education,
y sending him to public school, the ch1nces
re that it will have to do it by sending him
o the House OF Correction or the Peniten-
iary. Therefore we advocate not only edu-
:ation by the State, but that education
hould be compulsory, not necessarily in q
,ublic school, but in some school, and in the
lsua branches OF a good English education
The State is the only body TINT can look after
he education of all her children and it
; her duty to do it by compu1so-
= means. Compulsory education may



o not reflect; but; as there is no alterna-
va but compulsory education in knowledge,
I compulsory education in crime, We choose
1e former. Only by advocating tho right Of
L men to ignorance is it possible to combat
ae States right to enforce education. For ell
1ese reasons, we c1aina the State has the
ght, and it is its duty, to support schools for
,e education Of its youth.
The second objection raised BY the Catho-
c clergy to our pubic-school system is not
lid one. They call the public schools
goddess" because no dogmaic religion is
ught in them. But in this country no other
stem Of public schools is possible. # dog
ATTIC religion is to be Taught in the public 1
hools, which creed or dogma shall it be :? {
be Roman Catholic, or the Jewish,
the Episcopalian, or the Presby- I
rian, or the Methodist, or the Bap- g
It. or the Unitarian? In this coun- f
, the State cannot employ teachers to q