IA216 
 .089 
 

 
 ^0^ 
 
 .0^ 
 
 
 "^^n^ 
 
 
 ^°'^. -.^ 
 
 
 
 Vv 
 
 

 .r" A 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 '• '^^ A^ ^'^%i/k^. ^-tr. cV^ * 
 
PRICE TEN CENTS. 
 
 OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS: 
 
 AkL T\[E\ iRij'. uj<. Alii, rni' V \or? 
 
 A I.F/TI-I-!!-; T)Frj\'KRKI> ]:V 
 
 HON. EDMUND V. DUNNK, 
 
 nilKF JUSTICK OK THE SUPREME COL'RT OV ARIZONA, 
 
 JN IMK HAI.r. OK HOL'SK OK KKl'KKSKNTATIVKS (>!• JIIK I Kkkf'l OKI A 1, 
 LKCrSI-ATIkK OF TUCSON, KKBRUAKy, 1H75. 
 
 NEW YrH<K: 
 
 I'l; Ji r. [<- HED 15 V THOMAS I), i < i A X. 
 \o. 37 Barclay Strekt. 
 
 1875. 
 
OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS: 
 
 ARE THEY FREE, OR ARE THEY NOT? 
 
 A LECTURE DELIVERED BY HON. EDMUND F. DUNNE, 
 
 CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, 
 
 In the Hall of the House of Representatives of the Territorial 
 
 Legislature of Tucson, February, 1875. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 [This Lecture was published in the San Francisco Mo7t- 
 itor and in the New York Freeman s Journal, and has 
 been so warmly received and so highly commended by 
 prominent gentlemen of both clergy and laity, that upon 
 the request of a large number of intelligent gentlemen, 
 the Publisher has been induced to issue it in its present 
 more convenient and permanent form.] 
 
 The occasion of the delivery of this lecture was, that 
 a grand ball was gotten up in Tuscon during the session 
 of the Legislature there, in January, 1875, to raise funds 
 to start a public school building. As Catholics are not 
 illowed their share of the school money in Arizona, some 
 ot them refused to patronize the ball. The result was 
 that the friends of the public schools, as now managed, 
 got very much excited and made many angry comments 
 upon the conduct of Catholics who declined to join in the 
 ball ; whereupon Judge Dunne asked for the use of the 
 hall of the House to explain the reasons-for the position 
 taken by the Catholics in the matter. Permission was 
 unanimously granted, and nearly every member of both 
 Houses attended the lecture. The hall was filled to its 
 utmost capacity by ladies and gentlemen of the vicinity. 
 The Right Rev. J. B. Salpointe, Vicar Apostolic of 
 Arizona, was present, 
 
 A day or two afcer the lecture, a bill v\as introduced in 
 the Legislature providing for corporate schools such as 
 Catholics desire. It came within one vote of passing in 
 the Council. 
 
THE LECTURE. 
 
 At 7 :30 Jud,2:e Di'nne came Rirward ami spoke as follows : 
 Ladies and Gextlemkx — I desire first to thank the members of the 
 House of Representatives for their kindness and courtesy in placing 
 /this hall at my disposal this evening. I hope the use I shall make of 
 it will not be unsatisfactory to them as legislators, in a light in which 
 it has never before been considered by them. Next, I wish to thank 
 you, ladies and gentlemen, for this unexpectedly large and certainly 
 most flattering response to my invitation to allow me an oj)portunity of 
 presenting certain views on this most important subject of education. 
 I appreciate this compliment the more because there are so many who 
 consider there is no need of any discussion en this subject, that they 
 have arranged everj-thing in this matter already, and that there is noth- 
 ing more to be said about it. 
 
 The attitude of one party in the discussion in which I shall presently 
 engage, reminds me of a cartoon I saw a short time ago in one of the 
 London comics. A French company, with French money after great 
 labor, care and expense, built the Suez Canal for the privilege of a toll 
 on the tonnage of vessels passing through it. The English merchants 
 began, as the company thought, to take an unfair advantage in the 
 matter of calculating the tonnage ; the company protested, but in vain. 
 The company then declared they would put out the signal-lights along 
 the canal, so that it could not be used, until the dispute was adjusted. 
 On this. England, as usual, blustered terribly as to the fearful things it 
 would do if any action was had to prevent the management of the canal 
 in the particular way in which England desired it to be managed. The 
 cartoon gave a bird's-eye view of the canal ; a signal station in the fore- 
 ground ; the President of the French company mounting a ladder to 
 extinguish a light, and the typical John Bull standing below shaking 
 his fists and boiling over with rage, shrieking, " Don't you dare tf) put 
 
 out tho.se lights, you scoundrel, or Ell I " The Frenchman turns 
 
 with a look of amused astonishment and says quietlv : '• Have you zen 
 bought ze canal, Monsieur Jean Bull .' " The cartoon brought England 
 to its senses, and it then concluded to be a little reasonable and discuss 
 the question on its merits. 
 
 TIIK M.VJORITY REFU.SE TO DI.SCU.S.S THE QUF.STION. 
 
 Now there is a good deal of this John Bull bluster in the pending 
 
 discussion about an amendment propo.sed to our .school law. There 
 
 is a certain class among us who want the public schools managed in a 
 
 certain way, and this class at the present moment happen.s to be in the 
 
O OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS: 
 
 majority, and so, under our form of government, are able for the mo- 
 ment, to gratify their desires, and manage things just as they like. 
 There is a certain other and quite numerous class which says that, 
 while it approves of the fundamental idea of providing free schools for 
 educational purposes, there are some details as to the working of 
 the system which are so unsatisfactory to them, that they can get no 
 benefit at all from the system, the way it is now worked, and, as parties 
 interested, they propose that the amendments they desire and ask, be 
 considered ; that faith and honest discussion be had upon them ; 
 and if they can be shown to be in accordance with reason, good sense 
 and the general public wclfire, that they be adopted. How are these 
 propositions received ? Are they listened to like any other prop()si- 
 tion to amend important jiublic laws ? By no means ! On this 
 point the present accidental majority act \try strangely. They im- 
 mediately fly into a passion ; they will hardly allow the proposition 
 to be made ; they don the war-paint at once and shriek, " Don't you 
 dare to touch our publicschools or we'll run you into the .sea. '" Where- 
 upon it seems pertinent to us to inquire of this majority, " Have you 
 then bought the public schools.? Are they ivwr schools.? Have we 
 no voice in their management .? Have we ceased to be citizens of this 
 country, and been relegated to a class whose rights no one is bound to 
 respect.? Have ve no longer a voice in the making of laws for this 
 Territory .? Are we serfs, slaves, vassals — from whom taxes may be 
 wrung to support institutions from which, as they are now managed, 
 we can derive no benefit, and must not dare open our mouth to state 
 what we consider our grievances, on pain of being threatened with exile 
 and death .?"' Is not that a strange kind of talk to ])roceed from an ac- 
 cidental majority in a Republican form of government .^ And hew 
 long is it probable that a majority which talks that way can maintain 
 itself.? 
 
 THE MAJORITY MUST DISCUSS THE (;)UESTION. 
 There is a real and substantial grievance existing. It appears hartl 
 upon a large body of people. They are burdened with an annual tax 
 to support institutions from which they can derive no benefit. They 
 feel that the action of the majority in this case is not only an inroad 
 upon their pockets, but an outrage upon their rights. They assert 
 that a species of legalized robbery is being perpetrated upon them to 
 an enormous and insupportable extent. No outrage of this kind can 
 be perpetrated for any great length of time in a free country. There- 
 fore it is useless for the present majority to get into a passion about this 
 matter, and try to bully it through. Neither is it entirely in accord- 
 
ARE THEY FREE, Oli ARE THEY NOT? 3 
 
 ance with the spirit of our institutions to incite a social war on this 
 question, and seek to proscribe, ostracize and malign those who happen 
 to differ in opinion from the present majority as to h^w free schools 
 can be best cf)nducted for the general good. The majority talk a great 
 deal about the duty of peojjle being liberal in their views ; but what 
 they seem to mean is, that the liberality ought to be all on one side ; 
 that other people ought to yield to them in everything. But as to any 
 yielding on their part, no ! — not the ninth part of a hair. 
 
 MONARCHISTS SAY REPUBLICANS CANNOT REASON. 
 
 Are you (and I speak now to the general majority on this question 
 throughout our country), are you, by your actions on this matter, dis- 
 posed to confirm the great argument made against our republican form 
 of government by the advocates of monarchy in Europe .'' Do you 
 know what Lord Brougham, one of the greatest of P'.uropean political 
 ■writers, says of us on this point.'* Listen ; here are his words: 
 "When the predominance of one party in a Democracy has been fully 
 established, there is no safety for those who differ with it by ever so 
 slight a shade. The majority being overwhelming, all opposition is 
 stifled. No man dare breathe a whisper against the prevailing senti- 
 ments, for the popular violence will bear no contradiction. Hence 
 the suppression of wholesome advice, the concealment of useful truths. 
 It becomes dangerous to declare any opinion, however sound, which is 
 unpalatable to the multitude. Truth must no more be told to the 
 tyrant of many heads than of one. Nay, mere flattery becomes the 
 food generally offered up ; and he who goes before others in the extra- 
 vagance of his doctrines, or the violence of his language, outbids his 
 competitors for popular favor. This vile traffic is alike hurtful to the 
 people, and to those who deal in it. The former are pampered and 
 spoiled, the latter are degraded and debased. * * * In the United 
 States, as all travellers are agreed, the tyranny of the multitude exceeds 
 the bounds of all moderate popular influence. No person dares say 
 anything that thwarts the prevailing prejudices or the popular opinions 
 of the day." (IIL Brougham Polit. Philos., p. 120.) 
 
 Are you going to admit the truth of all this by the manner you treat 
 our complaints in this matter.^ Have you not, to a great extent, already 
 done .so .■* When a man has the hardihood to express his honest con- 
 victions on this subject, and seeks to give his reasons therefor, do the 
 people generally tr}' to consider those reasons, or do they close their 
 ears against his argument and begin to abuse him, charging him to be 
 a senseless bigot, a secret enemy to the fundamental principles of our 
 Government, a traitor at heart, and one against whom the machinery 
 
4 OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS : 
 
 of our social organization should be vigorously directed to effect his 
 entire destruction ? How is it about this ? Are you sure you are 
 treating this matter in accordance with the general spirit of our con- 
 stitutions ? I hope you will notice a little the manner in which your 
 neighbors talk and act on this question. If you do, I am confident 
 you will find a great deal in the conduct of the majority which, upon 
 candid reflection, you must thoroughly condemn. 
 
 I desire to pay full tribute to the liberal, sincere and honest pur- 
 pose of those who have come forward to meet me here to-night. I see 
 here many representatives of the majority whose general action I con- 
 sider so much in conflict with the spirit of our institutions ; but those 
 who came here to listen to my arguments take themselves out of the 
 rule of their class. They assert their mental superiority to the majority 
 of that class; they prove themselves true Americans, true Republicans, 
 true Democrats ; people worthy of self-government ; people who are 
 willing to "hear" before they "strike." 
 
 GENERAL PROPOSITIONS STATED. 
 And now, ladies and gentlemen, let us come to the question. We, 
 that is, those for whom I now argue maintain — 
 First — That the State has no right to teach religion. 
 Second — That the State has no right to teach irreligion. 
 Third — That the State has no inherent right to teach at all. 
 
 Now, I do not deny that the questions raised are the most serious 
 ones that were ever proposed to the law-making power of any State, 
 ai-'d, therefore. I shall, in all subsequent stages of this argument — for 
 I expect it to last for some time— freely admit that there is a tremen- 
 dous conflict of opinion among men in general on these propositions, 
 and I shall patiently listen to every argument produced against them, 
 and so far as it naturally becomes incumbent on me, shall do my best 
 to honestly answer all such arguments ; but I cannot admit that there 
 is any difficulty about the true decision on the question. I think the 
 truth of the proposition will be evident to every person candidly exam- 
 ining the subject, and who may be admitted to have a reasonably cor- 
 rect idea of what a Slate is and what "education" means. Also, I 
 must, in justice to my side of the argument, remind you, as you very 
 well know, that I could not reasonably be expected to be prepared at 
 this moment for a full consideration of so important a question. You 
 know that I have very recently come among you, that I am now en- 
 gaged in holding a session of the Supreme Court, that this discussion 
 has been suddenly precipitated by local action, and that what I say now 
 is almost "off-hand ;" but it will do for a beginning. I will open 
 
ARE THEY FREE, DR ARE THEl NOl? 5 
 
 the argument fur you. Vou have among you the keenest and sliar])esr 
 intellects in the land, and some of them will very probably find some 
 I)oints I have not fully covered, and I may have to acknowledge a hit, 
 now and then, which will require explanation ; but, if I cann(jt, in the 
 ■close, make a good case, I shall find no fault if ycju show good reason 
 for deciding against me. Also, I must necessarily, in the brief time 
 which I can have for setting forth our position, often confine myself to 
 stating which I conceive to be the truth in the matter without fully ar- 
 guing it. That will come more in detail hereafter. 
 
 THE STATE MUST NOT DIRECTLY INTERFERE Wnil KKI.I- 
 GIOUS TEACHING. 
 
 Now for the first proposition, that the State has no riglit to teach re- 
 ligion : "Oh, we admit that,'' y(ju will say ; "we will admit that as 
 fully as you wi.sh. No need of any discu.ssion about that. " I would 
 be glad to know that you admitted it, and were willing to admit it, with 
 all its necessary consequences. Some people say they full}' admit a \iXi)- 
 position ; but when you make an application of the admission which 
 necessarily follows, and which they do not like, they "go back on you," 
 as you say here, and claim that they admitted it with that qualification. 
 They will nor argue as to whether it necessarily follows, but will stolid- 
 ly maintain that the exception is a part of the general proposition. 
 They will then neither admit nor deny generally, nor state any prposi- 
 tion to which they will unqualifiedly adhere. They "stand mute." In 
 England they used to have i\iQ peine fork ei dure for such cases ; and if 
 there ever was a case where, playfully speaking, its application could 
 be ju.stified, it is where a person pretends to argue, and insists upon 
 arguing, and yet will not take any decided ground upon the point in 
 issue, as I fear I may have to charge this majority with doing, in some 
 things, before I get through. 
 
 Well, you admit, then, that the State has no right U) teach religion. 
 The State 
 
 MUST NOT INDIRECTLY DO THAT WHICH SHE IS FORBIDDEN 
 lO DO DIRECTLY. 
 
 Herein comes our second proposition, that the State has no right to 
 teach irreligion — that is, to teach in such a manner as to seriously in- 
 terfere with the religious education of the child. Now we come to 
 what some people claim to be debatable ground. 
 
 When the public school system of this country was first brought 
 forward, it was established on the theor}' that the State had a right to 
 insist that the children of the country should receive instruction in 
 
g OTTR PUBLIO SCHOOLS : 
 
 virtue, morality and knowledge, in order that they might become good 
 citizens. You will please notice that virtue and morality were ]nn first, 
 and knoM'lcdge — that is, mere intellectual culture — was put last, as it 
 should have been. (See the early State Constitutions on the matter. ) 
 Under this theory, public schools were established, and what were 
 claimed by the State to be principles of virtue, morality and general 
 knowledge, were taught. After a while a great many people became 
 dissatisfied with the system, so far as it professed to teach principles of 
 virtue and morality — the most important things. Prayers were offered 
 up in the schools, and versions of the Bible were read and commented 
 upon by teachers who had their own views on the subject. Objections 
 were made to these comments. To satisfy these objections a modifica- 
 tion of the system was admittetl, that hereafter the Bible should be 
 read "without note or comment. ' It ran for a while in this way ; but 
 then the objection was made that the versions of the Bible read were 
 not true versions, and that, therefore, the Bible, truly speaking, was 
 not read, and false notions in religion were thus taught. 'I'hen another 
 modification of the system was permitted, which forbade the reading of 
 any version of the Bible whatever. The majority thought that, now 
 they had got the school law in such shape, all would be satisfied ; but 
 it was found that there still remained a large class which claimed that, 
 even-without any direct teaching of religion, the system as managed, 
 had the effect to teach irreligion, and they asked to be allowed to with- 
 draw their children from the so-called public schools, and educate them 
 in virtue and morality themselves, in separate schools, and receive 
 their proper share of the public money. 
 
 DRAWING THE LINE. 
 
 Charles Lamb, dear, delightful Elia, says all people draw the line 
 somewhere, and that he believed in drawing it at roast pig ; that roast 
 pig was one of the most delicious things in existence, and that any man 
 who differed with him as to the paramount excellence of roast pig was 
 not to be trusted. Now, right here on this point — the demand for 
 separate schools, where the principles of virtue and morality might be 
 taught in accordance with the wishes of the parents — the present acci- 
 dental majority concluded to draw the line, and stand upon it ; and 
 there's the fight, there's the issue, there's the proposition we have to 
 discuss. The present majority declare they will stand or fall by the 
 system on this point ; but while they have the right to say they will 
 stand or fall in their support of the system on this point, they have no 
 right nor power to say that the si's/tf/i shall thus stand or fall. We have a 
 
ARE THEY FREE, OR ARE THEY NOT ? 7 
 
 Avord to say in the matter ourselves, and, if our views prevail, the present 
 majority becomes simply a minority, and then "they will know how 
 it is themselves." They will then find that all their talk about our peo- 
 ple being opposed to the education of the masses, and their people 
 being in favor of it, is mere talk. Then, for the first time in their lives, 
 they will be compelled to prcxve their case, not assert it, as they have 
 been doing. They may think they have read history, properly speak- 
 ing, but they have never done it. They read Macaulay and INIgtley 
 and Froude, and such writers, confessed partisans, and think they un- 
 derstand the case. They have simply read the brief on their side. But 
 suppose I should hear the argument on one side only in my Court, and 
 decide accordingly, how would you as a whole like it, and how near 
 do you think I would get to a true understanding of the point in issue } 
 No ; I have to hear both sides. How many of the majority have done 
 it on this question .' and how do they dare decide without examining 
 both sides } They would impeach me if I undertook to do it, where 
 even a paltry hundred dollars was involved ; and in turn, I suppose. I 
 may have the liberty of impeaching them, and charging that they will 
 be false to their duty, as citizens of this Republic, if they dare decide 
 on such a momentous issue as this now pending, without patientlv and 
 reasonably hearing, and dispassionately considering, the arguments on 
 both sides. And if, after such hearing, they fail to do their best to 
 carry the policy of the law as indicated by the adoption of the different 
 amendments referred to — namely, that, wherever a grievance is shown to 
 exist, they should endeavor to so amend the law as to abate such griev- 
 ance. It will be a poor argument to say that the law cannot be im- 
 proved upon. Did all wisdom die with the framers of the law as it 
 stands .' Is there no room for further progress .'' 
 
 PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE OF RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION. 
 
 Now, let us look at the line of the argument. Those for whom I 
 have, perhaps rashly, undertaken to speak, claim, first, that education 
 is a harmonious development of all the faculties — moral, mental and 
 physical ; and that of all training in education, the moral — that is, re- 
 ligious — training is the most important. 
 
 I know that many dispute this proposition ; but the Book of books, 
 whose teachings all among us who recognize any authority at all in re- 
 ligious matters reverently accept, proclaims this truth in a thousand 
 ways. It is the Alpha and Omega of the book, and is summed up in 
 the phrase, " What shall it profit a man to gain the whole world and 
 lose his own soul .-'" If we turn from the pages of Inspired Wisdom 
 
{^ OUR riTBLIC S'.'HOOLS ETC. 
 
 to those writers who are guided by reason alone, we find that the great' 
 est men of all ages and all civilizations have given their unqualified 
 assent to this proposition. 
 
 Where the placid waters of the grand Pacific leave the shore of bright 
 Cathay, ages and ages ago the words of old Confucius rang out clear 
 and strong, that without morality there could be no society. From 
 thence we can make the circuit of the globe, touching all civilizations 
 as we pass, until we plant our feet again upon our beloved Pacific 
 slope ; and wherever we look we shall find this doctrine taught by the 
 master minds of every age and every clime. 
 
 Away back in the country of the Brahmins, in the Ordinances of 
 INIenu — claimed to be older than the books of Closes — we find the para- 
 mount importance of religious instruction fully recognized. In its twelve 
 books, and more than twenty-five hundred sections, it establishes the 
 law in all things — divine and human, public and private, civil and 
 criminal, social and political — but it treats first of all of the Supreme 
 God, next the duty of knowing His law, next the penalty for despising it. 
 " Whatever man * * shall treat with contempt these two roots of the 
 law (Sru/i, revelation, and Smith', tradition), he must be driven as an 
 atheist and a scorner of revelation from the company of the virtuous." 
 (Ch. 2. Sec. II. p. 14. Jones' Inst. Hindu Law.) 
 
 Coming a little farther West, we find that Zoroaster, the prophet and 
 law-giver of the ancient Persians, in the Azvs/a, their Book of books, 
 places the same doctrine first in importance. In the wilds of Arabia 
 we find the code of ^Nlahom-rt, the Koran, given to the world. Every 
 one of its ninety-four chapters begins with the words, " In the name of 
 the most merciful God," and from beginning to end it accords with the 
 doctrines before enounced — so much so, indeed, that we find a great 
 poet declaring, in the mellifluous language of the people among whom 
 we are here dwelling : 
 
 " No hay mas que iin solo Dies —dice el Christiano ; 
 No hay otra Dios qui Dios — el Africano." 
 
 The Hebrew Talmud, in its six principal books, gives precedence to 
 religious instruction, as you will find if you consult either the Palestri- 
 nian or the Babylonian compendium. 
 
 The grandest of the old Pagans, the broad-browed Plato, whose 
 genius carried him beyond all the knowledge of his people, gave noble 
 testimony in favor of the paramount importance of religion, which the 
 wisdom of over twenty centuries has not been able to successfully con- 
 tradict. He says : " Ignorance of the true God i^the greatest pest of 
 
ARE THF.Y FllE::, OH ARE TIIEY NOT? 9 
 
 all republics ; therefore, whoever destroys religion destroys the founda- 
 tion of all human society." i^Lib. X de Leg.) 
 
 Cicero, of whom comment is unnecessary, was forced to the same 
 conclusion. He, too, says on this : " Plato, thou reasonest well." He 
 declares "it is necessary that the citizens should be first persuaded 
 of the existence of gods, the directors and rulers of things, in whose 
 hands are all events ; who are ever conferring on mankind immense 
 benefits ; who search the heart of man ; who see his actions ; the spirit 
 of piety which he carries into the practice of religion, and who distin- 
 guish the life of the pious man from that of the ungodly man.'" {Denat. 
 deor. 2. ) 
 
 Seneca, too, the great moralist, writes : "The first thing is the wor- 
 ship of the gods, and faith in their existence ; we are next to acknow- 
 ledge their majesty and bounty, without which there is no majesty." 
 (Epist. 95.) 
 
 Following civilization in its westward course, let us see what they say 
 in France. I could cite a hundred authorities, but I will take one al- 
 most universally respected in America, because of the careful study he 
 made of our institutions — De Tocqueville. On this point he says : 
 "Religion is no less the companion of liberty in all its battles and its 
 triumphs, the cradle of liberty and the divine source of its claims. The 
 safeguard of morality is religion ; and morality is the best security of 
 law, as well as the surest pledge of freedom. " (I Dem. in Am., p. 44.) 
 
 What do they say in England ? I shall quote authorities I am sure 
 few of you will question. Professor Huxley, whom certainly, none of 
 you will accuse of narrow views in religious matters, says : "I protest 
 that, if I thought the alternative were a necessary one, I would rather 
 the children of the poor should grow up ignorant of both those mighty 
 arts — reading and writing — than that they should remain ignorant of 
 that knowledge to which these arts are means." (L,ay Sermons. ) 
 
 Hekhert Spencer, one of the shining lights of what radicals call ' ' ad- 
 vanced thought," scoffs at the idea that mere intellectual culture can 
 make, or does make, good citizens. He says : " Are not fraudulent 
 bankrupts educated people, and getters-up of bubble companies, and 
 makers of adulterated goods, and users of false trade-marks, and re- 
 tailers who have light weights, ^nd owners of unscaworthy ships, and 
 those who cheat insurance companies, and those who carry on racing 
 chicanery, and the great majority of gamblers .' Or, to take a more ex- 
 treme form of turpitude, is there not among those who have committed 
 murders by poison, within our memories, a considerable number of the 
 educated, a number bearing as large a ratio to the educated classes as 
 
10 OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS: 
 
 does the total number of murderers to the total population? This be- 
 lief in the moralizing effect of intellectual culture, flatly contradicted by 
 facts, is absurd, a priori. What imaginable connection is there be- 
 tween learning that certain clusters of marks on paper stand for certain 
 ■words, and the getting of a higher sense of duty ? * * * How does the 
 knowledge of the multiplication table, or quickness in adding or divid- 
 ing, so increase the sympathies as to restrain the tendency to trespass 
 upon our fellow-creatures ? This irrclation between such causes and 
 such effects is almost as great as that between exercise of the fingers and 
 strengthening the legs. One who should by lessons in Latin hope to 
 gain a knowledge of geometry, or one who should expect practice in 
 drawing to be followed by an expressive rendering of a sonata, would 
 be thought fit for an asylum ; and yet he would be scarcely more irra- 
 tional than are those who, by discipline of the intellectual faculties, ex- 
 pect to produce better feelings." (Spencer's Sociology.) 
 
 Now, let us follow the star of empire across the Atlantic, and wc 
 shall find the same sentiment re-echoed by the ' ' Father of our Country. '' 
 Our own Washington has left us these words of warning : " Let us with 
 caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained with- 
 out religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined ed- 
 ucation on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both for- 
 bid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of re- 
 ligious principles." (Farewell Address.) 
 
 We have here an overwhelming amount of authority from the teach- 
 ings of the wisest men of every age, reaching back to the farthest 
 glimpses we catch of the dawn of civilization among men, and extend- 
 ing down along the path of history in glorious array until we come to 
 the davs in which we ourselves live, move and have our being. Are 
 you willing to turn aside from the aggregated wisdom of the world, and 
 throw yourselves into the embrace of a few mad fanatics, who think they 
 are wiser than the whole world ; who scoff at the experience of ages, 
 and declare that everything is wrong, that ever}^body has been mistaken 
 in everything ever since the world began, and that they are the only 
 ones who have any correct idea about anything connected with the 
 social order } Are you ready to admit that to be right you must reject 
 all the old ideas about divine authority,*reward of industry and sanctity 
 of home, and accept the proposition that the true idea is divinity in 
 majorities, communism in property, and freedom in love ; that all au- 
 thority is in the majority ; that all holding of worldly goods is theft, 
 and that all holding of wives in marriage is tyranny } Is it possible you 
 are willing to accept propositions which, by necessary consequence, 
 
ARE THEY FREE, OR ARE THEY NOT? H 
 
 lead to these doctrines ? I'lie fellows who preach these things are gen- 
 erally uneasy spirits, wild Bohemians, reckless devils, who never have 
 any property or wives of their own, and who acknowledge no law but 
 their own will ; and I can very easily understand why they wish to have 
 license to make as free as they like with the possessions of others. But 
 why a serious, practical people, such as the Americans claim to be, 
 should be found consorting with such a crowd, I do not understand ; 
 vet they are keeping step with the communists in the onward march 
 to socialism as faithfully as the latter could wish. AH that communists 
 ask is that the will of the majority shall be the only law, and Americans 
 are gradually accepting the principle, and are thereby preparing for 
 themselves, in the near future, a struggle for the preservation of the 
 American States, compared with which the one we have recently passed 
 through would be nearly what a dress parade is to actual war. 
 
 THE THEORY OF THE MAJORITY AS TO RELIGIOUS INSTRUC- 
 TION. 
 Most of you will probably tell me that you agree with all I say about 
 the necessity of religious instruction ; but that the only difference be- 
 tween us on that point is as to where it shall be given ; that, in your 
 opinion, this religious instruction can be given sufficiently well at 
 home, and once a week in special schools organized for that purpose, 
 commonly called Sunday schools ; and that the effect of this home and 
 Sunday teaching will not be seriously interfered with by sending the 
 child six days out of seven to schools where all religious teaching is 
 ignored. Is not that a very perfunctory manner of disposing of so im- 
 portant a subject.? Has not the moral tone of our community, under 
 the operation of this theory, already fallen below thai standard at which 
 a nation is safe even in the hands of its own people .' Do we not need 
 more morality in the community, more people who believe in God ? 
 Are not our public men too corrupt ? and do they misrepresent the 
 people as n^uch as many think ? Is there not a screw loose somewhere 
 in our social organization .' and do you not think that the system of ig- 
 noring religious instruction six-sevenths of the time in the life of our 
 young people has something to do with it ? Is not such a consequence 
 the natural outcome of such a system ? Can we maintain our social 
 organization without a high standard of morality.? and do you think 
 we shall get it from a system of godless education ? Can any society 
 keep long together which has not the divine idea as the very centre of 
 the system about which all things revolve, towards which all things tend, 
 and which directs and controls every part of the organism ? Can so- 
 
12 OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS : 
 
 cietv, founded without this idea, liavc any lasting, cohesive power in 
 it ? Must not a society soon resolve itself into its individual elements, 
 and the scattered fragments fly asunder in all directions ? 
 
 I grant that, in your case, your proposition is true. It is true that 
 your children do not find the influence of the public schools, so far as 
 it is manifested by actual expression of opinion, to be seriously in con- 
 flict with their home or Sunday teaching ; and you ar^ right enough in 
 upholding the public schools for your children if you are satisfied with 
 them ; but the very fact that your proposition is true, so far as your chil- 
 dren are concerned, is or ought to be sufficient, without any larther 
 talk, to prove that it is not true so far as our children arc concerned. 
 Here are two classes of children receiving at home and on Sundays 
 diametrically opposite instruction on religious questions. For six days 
 in the week they are exposed to a common influence— negative or posi- 
 tive, I don't care which — in religious matters. Now, is it necessary to 
 have any farther talk, to prove — to demonstrate, one might almost say — 
 that just so far as that influence is satisfactory to the parents of one class 
 it must, to the same or greater extent, be unsatisfactory to the parents of 
 the other class ? Being a matter of conscience, it is not capable of com- 
 promise, nor a subject that can be generally averaged by balancing 
 against it some worldly r,d\antage obtained by the association com- 
 plained of It puts a dead lock on the machinery of the system so far as we 
 are concerned. The machinery can be readjusted so as to enable us to 
 use it, and with no injur)- to the machine. But you say. Hands ofT! 
 Why so.? Are we not part owners of the concern ? If you want to run 
 it for your own exclusive benefit, why don't you first ofter to buy us 
 out.? But, no ; you insist that you shall have all the benefits, but that 
 we shall help bear the expense the same as if we were being fairly dealt 
 with. Is not that rather a high-handed proceeding ? Is there much 
 justice or equity in that kind of conduct ? Suppose the tables were 
 turned, do you think you would be of the same opinion still ? Suppose 
 we had a school here composed in the main of children who think as 
 I do, teachers all of my opinion, studying from textbooks, written and 
 colored as far as possible, to favor my opinion, without directly stating 
 it, would you be willing to send your little children to such a school, 
 six days out of seven, simply because we might be able to say, " We 
 do not, in express words, teach our doctrine there f " And suppose some 
 of vou say you would, what would that prove ? Would it prove any- 
 thing more than this, that you do not care as much about your opinions 
 on religious subjects as we do, or that you do not think the effect of those 
 silent influences on the mind of your child would be any serious objec- 
 
AltE THFA' VilEi:, Oil ARE THEY NOT? 13 
 
 tion ? Is not that all it would prove ? Some of you may not have any 
 religious convictions. Some of you may be indifferent to all religious 
 -opinions. Some of you may take the ground I have often heard Ameri- 
 cans take, that it is wrong to teach a child any religious doctrine ; that 
 you should not prejudice its mind ; that you should let it choose for 
 itself when it grows up, free from any previous bias. Such people may 
 be willing to send their children anywhere ; but because they are of that 
 opinion, does that give them any right to say that nobody else ought to 
 "have a different opinion .' This question cuts deep. Wherever we have 
 had a majority — and there has been any considerable number who 
 claimed they could not, in conscience, attend our schools — we have set 
 you an example of liberality ; we have accc^rdetl to such minority the 
 same privileges we now ask of you. In Lower Canada we were nine to 
 one against you, nearly twice as great a majority as you have over us 
 here, yet we gave you there the very liberty we now demand. We 
 liave done it in every country in Europe where we had power, and the 
 substantial grievance existed. You do not believe this ; but, as I told 
 you before, you are not well read upon the subject. You have been 
 reading one side only. When you come to examine the whole case 
 you will be astonished — nay, you will be amazed — to see how your in- 
 telligences have been played upon by partisan writers. Some of you 
 may think you are very liberal in consenting to tolerate our religious 
 faith in this countr}', and that we ought to be very modest in our j)rc- 
 tensions. Permit me to remind you that you do not tolerate us here. 
 No ; no more than we tolerate you. None of us arc here by toleration ; 
 we are all here by right. Will you accept the declaration of the Supreme 
 Court of the State of Ohio as some authority in this proposition ? Here 
 is what that Court says : " It is not by mere tolkkation that every in- 
 dividual here is protected in his belief or disbelief He reposes not 
 upon the leniency of government, or the liberality of any class or sect 
 of men, but upon his natural, indefeasible rights of conscience, which, 
 in the language of the Constitution, are beyond the control of any humax 
 authority." (Bloom vs. Richards, 2 Ohio St., 387 ; IMcGatrick vs. 
 Wason, 4 Ohio St., 556.) You may think we attach too much impor- 
 tance to this question of religious instruction ; but that is our affair, 
 not yours. 
 
 WHAT THE MINORITY SAY ON TIILS I'OINT. 
 Now, then, we come to a practical proposition, on which we do not 
 agree at all ; and if we can reasonably show that our religious instruc- 
 tion, given at home and in the Sunday school, is seriously interfered 
 with by the present system, and to an extent which, in conscience, 
 
14 OUR VUKLIC S«.:HiH)LS : 
 
 vc cannot sanctii^n. then your jirciposition is refuted, and our plea for 
 separate schools, where this most important of all instruction can be 
 given and the effects of it maintained, stands good ; for remember 
 what I said to vou in the beginning about necessary consci'uonce. You 
 have admitted the paramount necessity of religious instrucliim. This, 
 moans, by necessary consequence. That nothing whatever shall bo al- 
 lowed to stand in the way of religious instruction ; that whatever seri- 
 ouslv conflicts with it must yield. This is your own admission. All 
 that is necessary now for us to make our case, is to show that the system, 
 as at present managed, </ots seriously interfere with the religious instruc- 
 tion we desire to give our children. Now if you would receive as proof 
 on this point the admisions of some of your own leading Protcstani 
 ministers, I would have no difliculty whatever in making our case. 
 They frankh" admil that any Catholic child wlu^ attends the public 
 school is almost certain to lose his faith, that millions of children oi' 
 Catholics in this country have been drawn from the faith of their fathers 
 by this means alread}- ; anil then they rub their hamls and joyfully ex- 
 claim : "The good work goes bravely on !" They say to their zealous 
 ailherents : " Keep up the system as it is, and by means of it we can 
 destroy the faith o( millions and millions of Catholic children in this 
 country. Keep up the cry for our juiblic schools ; force Catholics to 
 send their children there, and by means of the machinery at our com- 
 mand, our text books, our teachers, and our children, we will grind 
 the Catholicity out of them." Do you call for proofs.' I think it pro- 
 bable there is not one of you who has not heard the declaration made 
 by Protestant ministers and teachers in more or loss express terms, or 
 who does not at heart really believe it. 1 have often heard it made. 
 Bishop McQuaid, in the lecture I herein refer to, says: "A famous 
 Presbyterian minister openly avowed that the Bible and the Common 
 Schools were the two stones of the mill that would grind Catholicity out 
 of Catholics. " A ^Methodist minister boasted that Catholics had lost 
 in twelve years 1,900,000. In corroboration of the statement. Rev. 
 Dr. Cl.vrk, of Albany, an out-spoken bigot, who tells more truths than 
 his friends care to have him tell, says, "that multitudes have yioldod 
 to the influence of our institutions, and that the most eftectual agency 
 in this work has been our admirable public school system. " 
 
 Is this, after all, the explanation of the singular conduct of tlic ma- 
 jority whenever we complain of the working of the system ? Is this 
 the reason why they wish to smother all discussion as to the opera- 
 tion of the law. Does this account for the singular frenzy, whether 
 ' stimulated or real, which they exhibit whenever we ask for an inquiry 
 
ARE THEV FllKE, (JJl ARE THEY NOT ? 15 
 
 into tnc subject? \\'c do not admit to y(ju that it is the reason of 
 our opposition to the systcnri as now managed ; we do not insinuate 
 it — we charge it in the plainest, boldest, stnmgcst language we can 
 command. We oppose the present management of the system, for 
 the very reason that your Protestant ministers give in support of it ; 
 that it docs grind Catholicity out (A Catholic children ; that it does 
 directly nullify our religious teaching ; and, therefore, that it does, in 
 some instances, indirectly teach your religion, and in all other cases 
 directly teaches irrcligion. There arc eight million Catholics in this 
 country, who will show in this that they have one of the greatest griev- 
 ances of which any people were ever able to complain ; for what is 
 more sacred than the faith of one's father ? Now, you may refuse to 
 receive the authority of your own ministers and teachers in this manner. 
 If so, we must ojjcn the discussion here, dc novo, though of course we 
 shall not allow ytni t(j set aside altogether the declarations of your own 
 representative men. 
 
 You say our jjroposition is wrong, because it seeks to make the State 
 interfere with religion, by having it taught in schools supported by the 
 State. Now wc are arguing here at cross purposes. One or the other 
 of us is either mistaken or insincere. You say the State should not 
 meddle with religion. So do we, and yet we do not agree. The truth 
 is, wc agree on the major but differ on the minor. Your syllogism is : 
 the State should not meddle with religious teaching ; the Public Schools 
 do not meddle with it ; therefore, so far they are right. We say, the 
 State should not meddle with religion ; the Public Schools do meddle 
 with it ; there, so far, they are wrong. We must discu.ss the minor. 
 
 Now, look at your proposition, that attendance in the Public Schools, 
 as they are now managed, will not seriously conflict with the religious 
 training given in the Sunday school, in the case of our poor children. 
 You must remember that this question mainly concerns the poor. The 
 rich of all classes who value religion send their children to private 
 schooLs. The mass of poor children get no religious training at 
 home of much practical value. You say, then, that the child can be 
 sent for an hour or two on Sunday to the church, and that that will be 
 sufficient training in its religious belief; that that will be sufficient to 
 give it a good, healthy practical, and abiding religious faith. Is this 
 proposition reasonable on its face .'' Docs it not carry its own refuta- 
 tion with it .'* We all know how powerful are the effects of association 
 on adult minds, fully formed and fully convinced of certain truths ; but 
 with the tender, unformed, imitative but not reasoning mind of a child, 
 association and example are the most powerful and effective of all 
 
16 OUK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 
 
 teachers. A child cannot understand general principles, bnt it can 
 imitate an example perfectly. You may give it elaborate lectures once 
 a week on the truths of religion ; but, if you j)lace it in the remaining 
 six days of the week in an institution where religion is ignored, you 
 only lose the opportunity of making a ])ractical application of those 
 principles in the way you understand them, whidh it is admitted you 
 have the right to do, but you subject it to all manner of counter influ- 
 ences. You value the retention of these principles by your child 
 dearer than you do your life. You know that it is only by infinite 
 labor, unceasing diligence, and careful example, that you can hope to 
 get these principles firmly implanted ; and yet, at the verj' time you 
 are trying to do this, and at the only time in life when it can be done, 
 you arc asked to expose your child to an association where he will find 
 those principles met by flouts, scofls, sneers, laughter, ridicule and 
 contempt — influences most potent with the youthful mind. Is it pos- 
 sible you can claim that such associations will not seriously interfere 
 with these principles ? Why, even mathematically speaking, is it not 
 at least six to one that it will ? Can anychiUl be expected to assert and 
 act upon its principles, under such circumstances.'' Does it not re- 
 quire an unusual amount of moral courage for the adult man to an- 
 nounce his principles or convictions in a community where such prin- 
 ciples are not to say merely unpopular, but are hated and despised .' 
 AVhy, I have drawn down a storm of indignation on ni}- head in this 
 community, away out here on the frontier, where people are said to be 
 so large-minded, so free from bias, so tolerant of all opposing views, 
 for simply daring to utter my honest convictions on this very matter. 
 I know of exhibitions in this community, consequent on this declara- 
 tion of my opinions, which, if pointed out to me by a critical foreigner 
 disposed to question the liberty of speech among us, would cause me 
 to blush for my countrymen. Do you think it reasonable to ask me to 
 send a little child of mine, upon whose tender mind I am trying to im- 
 press my opinions, as I have a right to do, six days out of seven, into 
 a community composed in the main of children of these same people 
 who think my opinions so bigoted, heretical and damnable .' Is it 
 reasonable to say to me that my child will not be seriously influenced 
 in its opinions by any association it may meet with there ? Are you 
 mocking me when you talk thus, for surely you cannot seriously main- 
 tain such a proposition.' You may say to me that my child must ex- 
 pect to meet with a conflict of opinion as to these principles. Yes ! 
 when I have completed its education, and when I send it out to act its 
 part in the battle of life, I am willing it should ; but I want to have 
 
ARE THEY FREE, OR ARE TlIKi NOT.'' 17 
 
 a chance to form some defmite opinions iirst, and understand the rea- 
 sons for them, not to sji^nnv up another Frankenstein — a creature formed 
 like a man in all respects, except that the moral f.iculties are left out : 
 an intellectual monster turned loose upon society, with no other motive 
 in life than to gratify its desires and keep out of the penitentiary ! 
 
 SUMMARY OF WHAT THE MINORITY CLAIM. 
 I have attempted to state to you our argument. I know, in the hur- 
 ried preparations I have made, I have not done it justice ; but the 
 main points are these : 
 
 1. Religious instruction is of paramount importance. 
 
 2. Each parent has the right to say what religious instruction his 
 child shall receive. 
 
 3. We cannot, in conscience, send our children to the public schools 
 as they are now managed, because they nullify our religious instruction. 
 
 4. The public schools are public property, supported by public funds, 
 in the management of which the whole public has an equal right to be 
 heard, and to have the interests of the whole public considered. 
 
 5. We have a right to demand that such change shall be made as 
 will enable us, in conscience, to avail ourselves of the system of main- 
 taining schools by enforced taxation, so long as we are contributing to 
 the support of that system. 
 
 6. We have a right to present amendments which will be satisfactory 
 to us, and urge their adoption. 
 
 7. On such presentation, it is the duty of the majority, if the existence 
 of the grievance is proved, either to adopt the amendments offered by 
 us. or some others which will subserve the general welfare. 
 
 8. If the majority refuse to do either of these things, it is their duty 
 either to give us the portion of the fund we have ourselves paid in, and 
 let us manage it ourselves, or else relieve us from the obligation of mak- 
 ing such payment. 
 
 SOME OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 
 I have stated our propositions. I have supported them by such 
 argument as at present occurs to my mind. I shall present other argu- 
 ments when I come to answer objections. Now, let us see what these 
 objections are. At the very outset I am met with this argument by 
 many persons : " What is the use of raising this question .'' It is merely 
 making a fight for nothing. The majority are dead set on this matter, 
 and you can never move them. Will you disturb things and evoke a 
 discussion which can be only time lost after all ? I must claim that 
 that is a very poor argument. Some one has .said that one great differ- 
 
18 OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS: 
 
 ence between a man and a mule is, that a man can change his mind, 
 but that a mule can't. Now, I believe we have a good many men in 
 this community who can reason. I feel so confident of it that I am 
 willing to undertake an argument with them. I have seen majorities 
 change ere now. Some years ago an old and valued friend of mine in- 
 troduced a certain bill in the California Legislature ; and you may judge 
 how little prospect of success he had when I tell you that, before he 
 could" ask its reference to the proper committee, one of the majority 
 broke in on him, and moved to lay it on the table. Another moved an 
 amendment, that the bill be pitched out of the window, which latter 
 motions prevailed. It was, as I am informed, then resolved that the 
 bill was too filthy a thtng for any officer of the House to touch, and that 
 the Sergeant-at-Arms should get a fire tongs, and by means of them ex- 
 ecute the will of the House. Well, ther&was a cheerful fight for a man 
 to enter on, surely ! Now, do you know that I sat in that very Leg- 
 islature onlv a few years after, and saw that same identical bill i)asscd 
 almi)st by acclamation ? That was the bill to allow negroes to testify 
 in courts of justice. So you see fights may be won, even though they 
 don't look very promising at the start. When one has right on his 
 side, he must win among a free people sooner or later, if he is only 
 true to his cause. We feel that we are right in this matter ; that we 
 are entitled to our belief, and that it is a matter of conscience for us to 
 declare that belief — nay, to proclaim it everywhere, to blazon the truth 
 upon our banners, and then — what.' Fold them carefully, and hide 
 them away, lest some off"ence be taken ? No ! Our duty is to fling 
 them to the breeze, sound the note of battle, throw ourselves, body and 
 soul, into the fight, do our "level best" to win ; then, if the Fates be 
 against us, if the glory of victory is to be reserved for other warriors 
 later in the fight, why, so be it ; but we shall have done our duty. No 
 man can do more, and no man can claim to be a man if he is content 
 to do less. 
 
 HOW THE SYSTEM IS WORKING. 
 
 The next grand argument I hear, is this : ' ' The system is working 
 verv well as it is. It is one of the most glorious institutions of our 
 country. It provides for the education of the poor of all classes, giving 
 them an opportunity to get that knowledge which will enable them to 
 rise from their poverty and become worthy citizens of this great Re- 
 public ; that, in a country with universal suft'rage, the education of the 
 masses is necessary to prevent the Republic from going to destruction, 
 and that this is the only means by which it can be done. 
 
AEE THEY FREE, OR ARE THEY NOT? 19 
 
 Well, in the first place, there are two questions which must be answered 
 
 in the affirmative before it can be said that the system works well as it is. 
 
 First — Supposing that the children of the masses do attenfl the schools, 
 
 is the instruction given there such as would naturally tend to make 
 
 good citizens ? 
 
 Second — Do the children of the masses attend the schools as .estab- 
 lished ? or, if they do not attend, is it because they have no insuperable 
 objection to attending ? 
 
 We contend that the first question cannot be answered in the affirma- 
 tive, and refer to Herbert Spencer, as one authority in support of such 
 contention, and would refer to more and argue the question fully, were 
 it not that, after warning you of your error — if you are willing to patron- 
 ize such schools — we have no objection, personally, to your doing so. 
 We deplore the results that will, in time, inevitably flow from the sys- 
 tem, and shall probably, from time to time, warn you nf the conse- 
 quences, and implore you to save the youth of this country, and the 
 country itself, from the evils of godless education ; but, if we cannot 
 persuade you to try to save your children, we ask to be permitted to 
 tr}' to save our own. 
 
 We contend that^the second question cannot be answered in the 
 affirmative. We allege that the children of the masses do not attend 
 the schools, and that an immense number refuse to attend because they 
 cannot, in conscience, do so. 
 
 In denial of the allegation that the system works well as it is, I shall 
 present some statistics taken from an able lecture on this subject by the 
 learned Bishop McQuaid, of Rochester, New York, delivered in Cleve- 
 land, Ohio, the 17th December, last. He says: "In the city of 
 Rochester, the system is tottering under a load of High School, with 
 Latin, Greek, French, German, Music, Drawing, and contingent ex- 
 penses. To cut down expenses, they have resolved to buy no more 
 feather dusters and charcoal. Yet in Rochester, taking their own 
 figures for one of the most favorable months in the year, they have only 
 a few over 7,000 children in their schools ; the Catholics have about 
 5,000 children ; the Lutheran, Episcopalian and private schools have 
 about 1,600 — in other words, only about one-half of the children at- 
 tending schools in the city are in the Public Schools." 
 
 Evidently the system is not working very well in Rochester ! It will 
 not do to say the schools are open, and that the rest could attend if 
 they wished. There are 5,000 of them in one body who cannotattend 
 on account of conscientious objections— religious objections, which 
 every one is bound to respect. He says further: "The system is 
 breaking down in Cleveland, Ohio, because there are there over 7,000 
 
20 OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS : 
 
 children in Christian free schools, and not in the Public Schools : l)e- 
 cause. in Cincinnati, nearly one-half of the children in the city going 
 to school are to be found in Christian free schools ; because in New 
 York city, there are about 30,000, and a like number in Brooklyn, 
 whose parents prefer Christian to Public Schools. There are manu- 
 facturing villages in the Xew England States, as Chicopee, Putnam, 
 Baltic and others, in which the proportion is still greater. I have heard 
 of one place having 400 children in its Christian schools, and only 
 thirty in the common schools." (See Lecture referred to.) 
 
 If you will examine the Catholic Directory for 1874, you will thid re- 
 ports from our sixty Bishoprics and Archbishoprics in the United States, 
 showing that there were nearly half a million chiUlrcn in attendance at 
 Catholic schools in this country in the year 1874, and that over one- 
 third of a million were being educated in Catholic free schools, all of 
 whom are by right entitled to their share of the Public School fund, but 
 who arc deprived of it now by the unjust antl arbitrary legislation of 
 the present majority. To give some instances in round numbers, you. 
 will find 1. 000 in Wheeling, 2,000 in Springfield, 3,000 in Louisville, 
 4,000 in Erie, 5.000 in Hartford, 6,000 in Galveston, 7,000 in Boston, 
 8,000 in Albany. 9,000 in ^lilwaukee, 10,000 iij Alton, 11. 000 in St. 
 Louis, 12,000 inBufi!a!o, 15,000 in Detroit, 17,000 in Pittsburgi. 
 18,000 in Brooklyn, 22,000 in Philadelphia, 21,000 in Newark, 22,000 
 in Chicago, 23,000 in Cincinnati and 42,000 in New York. These 
 numbers are for the diocese in each case, not merely for the city named. 
 
 These are startling figures in reply to your claim, that the system is 
 giving general satisfaction as it is, and we havtj only just begun to ope- 
 rate outside of the system, having been unable to obtain justice within 
 it. Large as these figures are, you will find them doubled, trebled and 
 quadrupled in the coming years, as fast as we are able to erect new 
 buildings to supply our wants. 
 
 \Vill you amend the law now while these hundreds of thousands of 
 bright, sharp young Americans are willing to accept amendments, or 
 will you wait.' Do you think, if you wait till tfiese legions of trained 
 minds come upon the scene as voters and workers in this fight, keenly 
 alive to the injustice which throughout all their years of childhood 
 has been perpetrated upon them, that you will get better terms than 
 are offered now .' And if you think you might be willing to agree to 
 a just arrangement then, how much better to do it now } 
 
 It is true, the system is breaking down ; but it is not we who are de- 
 stroying it. \Ve are giving it double the aid o( any other class of peo- 
 ple. \Vc pay our money regularly in support of it, and do not burden 
 it with t!ic care of our children. We do not think the svstem of free 
 
ARE THEY FREE, OR ARE THEY NOT? 21 
 
 •education will ever l)rcak tlcjwn in this country : it certainly never will, 
 as far as our pcoj)le are concerned. 'I'lie thini,'' that will break down, 
 one of these days, will l)e Aour unwise, illiberal and arbitrary mana.ti^e- 
 -.ncnt. It will not be long before llie wiser heads among you will rea- 
 lize that the present Procrustean policy is unjust in principle and per- 
 nicious in results ; then a jiroper change will be made, and tlie system, 
 endowed with new life and receiving the hearty support of all classes 
 of our people, will begin in earnest the great work of truly educating 
 the children of this countty ; then it will be a system that .\.1I can de- 
 fend and support, but not till then. 
 
 Wherever you look you will find there is a very large proportion of 
 the children who do not and cannot avail themselves of the system as 
 now managed. And how is it, right here in your own town '■: 1 am a 
 new cumer here, and, cif course, cannot speak of my own knowledge : 
 but I have asked a friend to get the figures for me, and to be particu- 
 lar and get them correct. I'hey have been given to me by him as 
 follows, which any of you can verify : Public school, boys y6 ; girls, 
 29. Sisters' school, 89. Parochial school, 69. Mr. Spring's school, 12. 
 One private school, 8, another 9, or 312 in all. Out of this 312 how 
 many are in the Public Schools .'' Only 125 — a great deal less than one- 
 hall.^ Evidently the system is not working very well here either, where, 
 notwithstanding that all are taxed, more than half refuse to attend ; 
 yet these 125 children get all the money, and the 187 get nothing. By 
 the school census it appears there are over 900 children in this country. 
 Your system is conducted in such a way that, with all your efforts, you 
 can only get 125 into your schools, and yet in your apportionment you 
 arc allowed money for over 900 children, and you educate only 125. 
 Now, is this fair.' Why should the money not be divided equally.' 
 The fund is gathered from the whole people ; why should not the whole 
 people have the benefit of it .' Is there any difficulty in making the 
 division. I tell you, if you were the ones that were hurt by it. you 
 would find a way to divide it. 
 
 Now, as a practical people, in a free country, legislating for the gen- 
 eral good, claiming to allow full religious freedom, what arc you going 
 to do under the circumstances .'' Can you .say, in the face of these facts, 
 that the system is working well as it is.' Can you say that a system 
 works well which taxes one-half of the people for the exclusive benefit, 
 practically, of the other half, and particularly when this is not a taxa- 
 tion of the rich for the benefit of the poor, but notoriously a taxation 
 of the poor for the benefit of the rich } for it is undeniable that the 
 great majority of the children who are now excluded from the schools 
 on account of religious convictions are the children of poor people 
 
22 ^nii pi'];lic schools: 
 
 — cluUlrcn ^A llio laboring- classes who can very ill atVord to j)ay a tax 
 at all, but to whom it becomes an absolute oppression to pay first a tax 
 for gorgeous Public School buiUlings, wherein the children of the rich 
 may get their Latin. Greek. Frejich, German and Music, gratis — things 
 which it is a mockery to the poor to say they may also have if they wish 
 — and then, after that, draw upon their scanty savings for money to 
 build tlicir own school houses, and provide their own teachers for their 
 own children, ami then pay you, after all, an additional tax on these 
 same school buildings that they have been obliged to erect for them- 
 selves ? Can you lo<.>k us in the face and say that such a system works 
 very w ell as it is ? Oh, yes ; it works very well, as far as you are ci.>n- 
 ccrned. Vou get our money and (.lo ncit have to expend it upon our 
 chiklren. It enables you to build jxilaces oi' learning, to engage the 
 most skillcil professors, to establish Normal schools, to carefully train 
 your teachers : and no wonder you like it. 'I'hen you are so very gen- 
 erous, withal, as to boast to us of the superiority (.)f your schools, built, 
 in great part, with our money ; and p(,>int contemptuously to the little 
 showing we have been able to make with the little you have left us. 
 
 Did you ever hear the fable of the Boys and the Frogs .-' It wasverv 
 good fun for the boys, but death to the frogs, ^\'e don't wonder th; t 
 YOU are satisfied with the system. It's "' nuts" for you, we know, and 
 the longer we stay out the better you like it, provided always we pay. 
 But do you think such a system can last vety long in this countiy ? I 
 tell you if you want to save the system, }ou had better begin and doctor 
 it a little, before it is too late. It can't last always, the way things are 
 going on now, and it is the part of wise men to conciliate in time. 
 You are, by your own acts, forcing the ]>eople, whom }ou charge as 
 being opposed to the system, into the very j)osition which will render 
 them independent of it. You are compelling them to build their own 
 schools by thousands, and to accustom themselves to voluntarily su])- 
 port them. Is not that actnally driving them into a position of inde- 
 pendence ? When they get their school houses all built anil their 
 machinery fully organized, what need will they have of your system .- 
 and how could you expect them to favor it when it had operated on 
 them in that manner.^ This question is really worthy of your consider- 
 ation. CHir demands ought to receive respectful attention, and not 
 be so contemptuously cast aside. 
 
 FIGHTING A PRINXIPLK. 
 
 We are not asking for much. We ask only to have the use of our 
 own money. I imagine that when you come \o count it out to us. 
 
ARE THEY FREE, OR ARE THEY NOT ? 23 
 
 and sec liow small a sum it is — for we arc, as a class, very poor peo- 
 ple, and do not pay a very large tax compared with the revenues of a 
 State, though it is large to us — you will be astonished that we make 
 such a fuss over so little. You may probably be inclined to feel as the 
 highwaymen did toward the Scotchman ? Did you ever hear tlicstor}-? 
 A Scotchman was assailed by three highwaymen who claimed his money 
 or his life. He made a des[)erate resistance, seriously injuring his op- 
 ponents, and only after a hard fight was he overpowered. When they 
 came to "investigate"' him, they found nothing on him but a battered 
 old sixpence. 
 
 "Why the deuce take the feller," said one; "if he made such a 
 fight for that, I suppose if he had eighteen pence he would have killed 
 the whole of us. " 
 
 You see they did not understand the motive of his resistance. Like 
 us, he was fighting on principle. He did not want to be robbed. 
 
 H.vMPDEX refused to pay a few shillings of ta.K in the way of ship 
 money. It did not amount to much, but it brought to the block the 
 head of one of tlie proudest and most royal kings that ever sat upon a 
 throne. It convulsed a nation, changed the civilization of a people, 
 and struck terror to the hearts of king.s and emperors throughout the 
 civilized world. Oh, I tell you the rights of a people are a dangerous 
 thing to trifle with. True, we have now, thank God, an easier way to 
 settle such disputes. The silent, soft-falling ballot does the work with 
 us, quietly, effectually, swiftly and securely. Do you think that rem- 
 edy will not be resorted to if all other arguments fail.'' Do you wish 
 to face such a fight ? and are you willing to placidly declare that you 
 will yield to nothing but force in this matter ? 'I'hat there shall be no 
 discussion.' Do you sustain the previous question on me.' If so, it 
 is you who force us to vote on the main question. 
 
 ARE WE TRYING TO IJREAK DOWN THE SYSTEM ? 
 This great, final, and, as you allege, overwhelming objection, is this: 
 that if we grant this privilege to one set of people all the others will 
 claim it and our public schools will be broken up. Now it seems to 
 me a very singular objection to make a law intended to render justice to 
 all parties, that, if passed, nearly everybody will accept the benefits 
 of it. Why, I should think that would be one of the strongest argu- 
 ments that could be urged in its favor. But how can you reconcile 
 that proposition with the other one you assert with equal vehemence, 
 that everybody but he is satisfied with the .system as it is.' You must 
 be v.Tong in one or other of these propositions. It is clearly impo.ssible 
 that everybody but us can be satisfied with the present system, and 
 
24 ouii :pui5Lic schools : 
 
 think it the best that can be devised ; anil yet, that if you should per- 
 mit a change, everybody wouKl eagerly avail himself of it. Now, which 
 of those arguments will you stanil on ? I cannot contend against both 
 in the one breath. It seems to me that cither you must give up your 
 proposition that everybody but us is satisfied, and admit that there is a 
 general widespread dissatisfaction on this subject of religious etiucauon. 
 and that therefore the system needs overhauling and readjustment, and 
 that our claims are just, or else you must give ui> }-our other prop.osi- 
 tion, that to allow us to witlulraw wouUl break up the svstcm. 
 
 1 cannot pretend to argue with you on these two conllicling proposi- 
 tions until you ileclare which one ol' them }-ou maintain to be true ; 
 but perhaps 1 mav be permitted to throw in this remark : W'liat is the 
 vital princi|)le in this law which makes it a s\stem ? What is there 
 .systematic about a public sclxnU which distinguishes it from any othci- 
 school ? Two things 1 imagine, }"ou will claim, anil two things only : 
 l''irst, that in the i)ublic school, tuition is free ; but that is not a suf- 
 ficient distinction, for our parochial schools are also free. Second — 
 and this we admit and claim is the only vital clement distinguishing 
 the system-- that the fund to maintain these schools is raised by uniform 
 taxation enforced by law. Now, how would permitting jxirticular 
 scluM)Is to be established and receive their share of the fund interfere 
 with the distinguishing ]>rinciple ol' raising the fund by taxation ? Whv, 
 it is done every day now ! New schools are constantly being established 
 and their share of the fund allotted to them without experiencing an\- 
 difiiculty w hatever. It is a mere question of detail for clerks and accoun- 
 tants to settle. The aj)[)ortionmcnts we ask for could be more easilv as- 
 certained than tluise \-ou now make. .\t jtresent, when a new school 
 district is formed, you have to send a marshal all over the district and 
 lake a census of the children : you have to calculate the total number of 
 children, and the projiortion that nundier bears to the whole number 
 in that county, and then divide the fund in the .same projjortion. The 
 amendment we ask settles the whole matter, so far as we are concerned, 
 at the time the monev is paid, while the machinerv as to public schools 
 goes on as belore. .\ certain corporation is granted the right to cs- 
 tablisii .schools ; as the taxes are paid in the parties designate to which 
 corporation they want their tax to go. and if thev do not make such 
 designation it goes to the common fund. The amount is credited to 
 sucli corporation at once, or to the common fund. Everv three months 
 llie treasurer pays over the amount to which such corporation is entitled. 
 It is a tar simpler process than the one which is now used for Public 
 Schools. So there is no difiicultv on that score. 
 
ARE THEY FREE, OR ARE THEY NOT? 25 
 
 But you may say that a person miglit (jrdcr his tax to be paid to a 
 corporate school, and then send his children to a public school, to which 
 he has not contributed. Is there any difllculty about that? Would a 
 parent who prefers to send his children to the Public Schools order his 
 tax to be paid to a corporate school ? But there may be cases, you will 
 sav, where he would. Well, the cases would certainly be rare ; and have 
 you not machinery for the very same difficulty now ? You do not allow 
 a parent who lives in one district to send his children to the school of 
 an adjoining- district, because he has not contributed to that school, 
 and you have no difficulty in discovering and ])revcnting any evasion 
 of the law in this respect. I tell you all that is necessary to do this 
 thing is to have the will to do it. These matters of detail can be easily 
 arranged. 
 
 Then you fall back on your duplicate and conflicting proposition, 
 that to allow us to withdraw would break up the schools ; that every- 
 body would withdraw and there would be no funds left for the Public 
 Schools. Well, if all the children are withdrawn into these corporate 
 schools it is because the people unanimously prefer them. There 
 would then be no children unprovided for ; and what would you do 
 with a balance of funds if you had it, if you had no children left to edu- 
 cate .' Then, I am sure, you will double back and assert, that when you 
 sa}' cver}-body would withdraw, you mean that a great many would re- 
 main. I have to follow you all around to get at your argument. Now, 
 as to these children who remain. They are not orphans. Absolute or- 
 phans, with no one to look out for them at all, are provided for in 
 asylums. These children who remain in the Public Schools after every- 
 bod}' has withdrawn, as you say, have some rejjrcsentatives, and, if their 
 parents prefer the Public Schools, their taxes follow the children ; they 
 get their due and proper share first, like anybody else. Do voii want 
 them to have more than their share.'' They will get more than their 
 share by the amendments we propose, because all taxes not speciaily 
 directed to be paid to corporate .schools lapse to the Public Schools, 
 and the percentage of tax which will thus lapse through the carelessness 
 or indifference of the taxpayer will be very large. Do you ask where 
 the children shall go whose parents pay no tax ? Let ihcin do as they 
 do now ; go to whatever school they prefer. Do you ask if this would 
 not allow the different corj)orations to get rid oC their poor chi'.ilren, 
 and throw them into llic Public School by making their (^wn schools un- 
 {)lea.sant for them ? Don't be alarmed. The different corporations, 
 instead of drawing such children out, will be hunting them up and 
 drawing them into their schools, and making things there as pleasant 
 
20 OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS : 
 
 for Uicin as possible, In order to ,L(ive tlieni rcli^i^ious inslrucLi(Mi. The 
 people who like Public Schools, as at present conducted, will simjilvbe 
 put on the same footing, with the same rights and privileges, as those 
 who don't like them. Dcj you want more than this? Do \-ou want 
 an unfair advantage? Now, [ must follow you back tt) vour other 
 proposition, which is in direct conflict with the one I have just been 
 alluding to — I say alluding lo it. I can not argue until \ou ilecide 
 which one you choose. At j)resent }'ou have two propositions to mv 
 one; and when I ])ut my finger on you or one of them, like the 
 Irishman's (lea, you are not there, but sitting up ga_\- and lively on the 
 other one, ready to hop back the moment I make that other jjosition 
 unpleasant for you. You say, then, in the other [)roposition, that 
 everybody is satisfietl but us, and }ct elsewhere, that, to let us with- 
 draw, N\'ould break up the sj-stem. 
 
 EFFECT OF OUR Wl'PI IDRAWAl,. 
 You say that to let us withdraw will lireak up the .system. Why, 
 we have withdrawn our children already. All you have from us now 
 is our money, wliich you force from us against our will. Do you mean 
 to say that you cannot educate your children without our money, when 
 we show you that we value education so highly that we submit to the 
 robbery of that money, and vet, out of our own jjockets, educate our 
 own children besides, and pay taxes on the houses we (Xo it in, too, 
 while }-ou have exempted your own l)uildin;^s from all taxation? I 
 should think you woukl be ashamed to make that admission ; and 
 do you i'car your children will blush to think that, though possessed of 
 amjile means, you were not willing to pay your share of the cost of the 
 tuition, but compelletl them to accept a large portion of it, in the form 
 of an unwilling contribution from — to a great extent — the children of 
 their servants? thai, b\- an arbitrary exercise of ])ower, you took from 
 your servants' scant\' wages the money the}' needed for the etlucation 
 of their children, and compelled them to lavish it upon yours, and 
 build up fancy scluH)ls for them, where Latin, (Ireck, French, (lerman, 
 jNIusic, and all such high-lK)wn instruction, can be had by }-our children 
 free, while ours must be content with such rudiments of knowledge as 
 we can afford to ])av for out of our own pockets? And even this is no, 
 the limit oi \'our oppression. With all this injustice weighing down 
 upon us, to make us revolt against your management of the system, 
 you tlesire new means to liraw money from us. You get up balls, 
 parties, fairs, lotteries and such tlevices to lurnish l"unds to enable you 
 to outsliine us in the matler ^^{ splentlid school buiklings and general 
 outllt, to which we have no objection whatsoever. We do the .samt' 
 
ARE THEY FREE, OR ARE THEY NOT ? 27 
 
 things for our own schools. What we do protest against, however, is 
 this : You call upon us to join with you and aid you in the battle 
 against us ; and when one of us has the impudence to say. No ; not 
 while you continue to perpetrate upon us this glaring injustice ; you rise 
 en masse against us, you apply to us the most oficnsive epithets known 
 in your extensive vocabulary, and would seem to be willing, not only 
 to put us under a social ban, but actually sweep us out of existence. 
 Now, this would seem to us exceedingly comical were it not so decidedly 
 unpleasant. Is there not something ludicrous as well as painful to see 
 a person apply the lash to another with one hand, while at the same 
 time extending the other hand for alms, and abusing his victim soundly 
 if he does not give it.'' No ; be a little just to us before you abuse us 
 for not being generous to you. Give us a fair share in the benefits of 
 the system of supporting schools by enforced taxation, and you will 
 find us working hand in» hand with you, shoulder to shoulder, in all 
 h(}nest efforts to educate the children of our country. You will find 
 that, when you have gone to your farthest limits in self-sacrifice in con- 
 tributing to the cause of education, we will be flir in advance of you, 
 beckoning you on. We are paying now three taxes to your one for ed- 
 ucation ; we prove it by our acts. We honor you for your devotion to 
 the cause. We delight to sec the interest you take in it. We hope 
 you may always be devoted to j)opular instruction — the education of 
 the masses. True education is always divine in its nature, in this that 
 it draws us towards divinity. It is one of the most glorious things for 
 which a sacrifice can be made. Americans are nobly right in worship- 
 ing it ; but with them there is "a little rift within the lute," and they 
 must mend the rift to be able to produce harmonious results. Till 
 this be done all is discord. They must abandon the pagan idea that 
 intellectual culture is sufficient. They must recognize God. They 
 must give religious instruction as well as intellectual ; and they must 
 allow each parent to control the religious instruction of his child. Then 
 the system will be humanly perfect ; but until then all is wrong. Do 
 not be alarmed at a subdivision of the schools ; it may cost a little more 
 per capita ; but do you let us sacrifice all to the almighty dollar. With 
 subdivision schools we may not have such grand educational edifices ; 
 but palatial structures are not necessary for the success of education. 
 Some of our greatest men came from the log school-houses of the past, 
 and, even with subdivision, we can furnish all necessary accommoda- 
 tion. The principle is the main thing ; bricks and mortar, logs and 
 mud, are trifles in comparison. We say we are not .satisfied as things 
 now ^^o ; and even the New York Times, one of the most radical papers 
 on your side, in an article regarding the teaching of the German lan- 
 guage in the Public Schools of Ohio, says: "So long as the Public 
 vSchools exist they certainly ought to be founded on a plan which is 
 satisfactory to all cla.sses attending them." Just what we claim. 
 THE MAJORITY KNOW THEY ARE UNJUST. 
 Now, I know that your consciences are not easy on this matter, and 
 the reason I think so is that I can never get any of you to discuss the 
 ([ucstion on its merits — at least, I have never yet been able to do so. 
 When wo find a man charged with committing a wrong, who professes 
 
28 OUK PUBLIC SCHOOLS : 
 
 to be willing and anxious to vindicate himself yet will not discuss the 
 issue, but insists upon inquiring whether your wives," aunts, ' husbands' 
 grandfathers' uncle did not, on a certain occasion, do certain things, 
 then we infer that he is either trifling with us or that he knows" he is 
 guilty, and seeks to evade the issue. We have charged that you are 
 guilty of perpetrating on us an enormous fraud ; we make our proofs 
 that we have been robbed, are being robbed, and, unless you grant us 
 some relief, must continue for some indefinite time to submit to this 
 robbery. We charge that you are unfairly getting the benefit of this 
 robbery ; that you are a party to the fraud, and profiting by it, and we 
 ask relief. Now, you may think there is no truth in the charge, and 
 feel that you are not called upon to deny it ; but, if you do undertake 
 to deny it, let usargue the question at issue. Life is too short to argue 
 everything ; and let us settle one thing at a time — that is, if you arc 
 going to take issue with us ; let us settle the issue first, and then, if we 
 feel disposed, we can talk of other things afterwards. We desire to meet 
 you fairly in this matter, and discuss the issue with you in the best possi- 
 ble humor. It is a matter of public issue, in which we all feel a great in- 
 terest. If we can meet, discuss and agree on some plan which will be 
 satisfactory to all, well and good. We ought to try rational discussion 
 first ; if that fails to bring us to an agreement, then each party must 
 pursue his remaining remedies. The Hindoos say : "The snail can 
 only see the walls oi' his shell, and think it the grandest palace in the uni- 
 verse. " Let us come out of our shells, look around a little, and see if 
 we can't get some new ideas about things, and not imitate the action of 
 the cuttle fish, which, when pursued (so naturalists tell us), settles 
 down in the mud, and ejects a black secretion which so darkens the 
 waters all around it that its real position cannot be ascertained. 
 THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND EDUCATION. 
 
 Then you have another objection. You say you cannot yield to the 
 demand for separate schools, because the Catholic Church would im- 
 mediately withdraw its children and its money from the Public Schools, 
 and that the Catholic children would not be educated at all, because 
 the Catholic Church you choose to say, is opposed to the education of 
 the masses, and that it would teach. them nothing but the Catechism, 
 the Lives of the Saints and other things, which, you again choose to 
 say, are all nonsence. 
 
 First, your main proposition on this head is untrue ; second, it is 
 absurd. It is untrue that the Catholic Church is opposed to the edu- 
 cation of the masses. As the history of the Catholic Church is the his- 
 tory of the whole world for the last nineteen hundred years, it is rather 
 too large a subject to enter upon in detail in the limits of a lecture ; 
 so we deny general 1}-, and, as the lawyers say, cause to strike out yoiir 
 allegations on this head as scandalous and impertinent, and on this 
 motion ve will take issue with you upon any fitting occasion. We also 
 invite your attentions to what would generally be considered a fair test. 
 If there was ever a place where the Catholic Church had the power to 
 act, it was in Rome, while the Pope was not only the visible head of 
 the Cluirch, but also the actual head of the State. - If the Church were 
 opposed to the education (.'•i' the masses, there would of course have been 
 
ARE THEY FREE, OR ARE THEY NOT? 29 
 
 no free schools for them in Rome. Well, we aver it as a fact that dur- 
 ing the temporal reign of the present Pojje, the city of Rome possessed 
 a better system of free schools for the education of the masses than this 
 country has ever shown ; better taught free schools, and with a greater 
 percentage of the population attending them, than anything that has 
 ever been seen in the Public School system of America. Do you wish 
 to take issue with us on that proposition ? We claim thit, on the 
 trial, we can prove our allegations beyond question. 
 
 Your proposition, that the Catholic Church would not educate its 
 children in secular as well as Christian knowledge, is absurd, because 
 it would show that we would be unwilling to give up to you all the 
 legitimate prizes and enjoyments of life, and make our children hewers 
 of wood and drawers of water to you for all time. Nov;, do not expect 
 people to believe that we are quite so stupid as that. But we will 
 settle all dispute on this question right here. We will stipulate in the 
 amendments we ask, that no corporate schools shall receive its share of 
 the public funds unless it is taught by teachers of the same qualifica- 
 tions as those possessed by teachers in Public Schools of similar charac- 
 ter, and unless the teaching therein can be shown to be as satisfactory 
 in secular matters as that which obtains in Public Schools of like grade ; 
 and, if you like, we will also agree that no such school shall receive any 
 greater amount annually for each child taught in the Public Schools, if 
 you will make the agreement reciprocal. Give us a fair chance with 
 you in the matter of money, buildings and appliances, and we shall in- 
 vite comparison, not shun it. We shall be happy to engage in a gen- 
 jrous rivalry with you on that point whenever you like. 
 CATHOLICITY AND CITIZENSHIP. 
 
 You say again, many of you, "Well, Catholics don't make good 
 citizens, anyhow ; they don't acknowledge the unlimited authority of 
 the State, and we don't want to encourage their increase among us." 
 
 First — We don't ask you to encourage their increase — that will get 
 along without your help ; but whence do you drawyour right to try to 
 prevent it .'' Are not all religions free in this country.? Is not the 
 principle of religious liberty the corner-stone of this republic.?- Do 
 you propose to destroy this Government } 
 
 Second — Gentle Pharisees ? when did you learn to thank God that 
 you were better citizens than these other men .? Do you obey the laws 
 more faithfully, pay your ta.xes more regularly, give your lives more 
 freely for the maintenance of good government, than these other men.' 
 Since when, pray .? Oh ! but }'ou say occasions may arise when these 
 .other men will not obey the law. And how about yourselves .? Who are 
 (he people in this country who have talked most about higher law .? What 
 is the law.? The will of the majority, simply as a majority, you answer : 
 die will of the majority acting in accordance with the divine authority, we 
 reply. Between two classes giving such different an.swers, which one is 
 most likely to obey the law when it is, in truth, founded on justice, but 
 is repugnant to their feelings and injurious to their personal interests .' 
 Those who feel they must obey, because they are forced, or those who 
 submit from a sense of duty .? If you reject divine authority in govern- 
 ment, you acknowledge the right of every man, or body of men, to 
 evade or resist the law at will. You make the majority a mere mob, 
 
30 OUn PUBLIC SCHOOLS : 
 
 which it may be wise for the moment to obey, lest it crush you, but 
 whose commands you have the r/'g-/i/ to resist by every means in your 
 power ; or rather, accept your doctrine, and there is no longer any such 
 thing as right or wrong in anything. By it you abandon the whole 
 idea of moral accountability ; and yet you have the temerity to claim 
 that, under your theory, men would be better citizens than under ours I 
 
 RIGHT^ OF THE CITIZENS AND RIGHTS OF THE STATE. 
 
 Now, a word or two about my third general proposition, and 1 will 
 then close, as I fear I have already trespassed too much upon the good- 
 natured patience with which you have so far listened to me. 
 
 In that proposition I maintain that the State has no inherent right 
 to control it. The distinction between teaching and assisting the teacher 
 is as great as that between the architect who designs and directs the 
 construction of an edifice which shall be the wonder of distant ages, and 
 the workmen who build it ; or between the musical composer, whose 
 soul rises to such heights that he is able to comprehend the music of 
 the spheres and transmit it to us below, and the men who play the 
 notes he has written ; or between the great artist, under whose skillful 
 touch the pallid canvas becomes almost a thing of flesh and blood, 
 with power to chill the heart with horror or delight our souls with visions 
 of celestial beaut}', and the boy who grinds his paints ; or between the 
 poet, who brings all nature within his pen and sends words ringing 
 down the hill of time, and the publisher who prints hisw'orks and pays 
 his bills. That's the relation between the teacher and the State. The 
 true teacher is from God, and his brow is ever illumined by the halo of 
 His divine mission. The State is of the earth, earthly. It has its 
 humble office, to minister to the physical wants of the teacher, and pro- 
 vide him with the appliances necessary for his work. So long as it 
 does this well, let it have due commendation ; but when it presumes to 
 play professor, then fie sutor. It may assist; but control, never! When 
 it undertakes to control education, it interferes with religion, and de- 
 stroys both civil and religious liberty. The plea of necessity will not 
 cover it. It might with greater propriety say that some religious belief 
 is necessary to make good citizens, and organize a broad church, pre- 
 scribe its teachings, and say that, if people do not attend some other 
 church, they must attend that least once a week. There is no doubt but 
 tliaf e\er_\ good citizen ought to attend some church at least once a week : 
 but has the State a right tocompel him to do so } No ! because the con- 
 cession of that right would be the destruction of individual liberty. 
 
 For the same reason the State has no right to attempt compulsory 
 education. There may be no school in the vicinity to which a parent 
 can conscientiously send his child ; and under such circumstances he 
 may side with Professor Huxley, and say he prefers to have his child 
 wait for another opportunity ; or, if necessary, grow up ignorant of both 
 those mighty arts of reading and writing, rather than have him imbibe 
 false notions as to his greatest duty on earth ; for of all desolation that 
 c^xn come upon a human being, there is none so appalling as the gloomy 
 thought that it has no religious faith, no settled idea of the origin or 
 end of its existence, no firm belief as to whether it is only an animal, 
 more or less beautiful, more or less intelligent, whose fate it is to live, 
 die, rot and be no more ; or whether it has an immortal soul hurrying 
 
ARE THEY FEEE, OR ARE THEY NOT? 31 
 
 on to an eternal world ; to meet there the great God who made all 
 things, and who is waiting, with outstretched arms, to receive his wan- 
 dering child and bless it with an immortal existence. No wonder they 
 who are in this desolation look with longing eyes and aching hearts 
 upon those who are so fortunate as to possess the priceless jewel of re- 
 ligious faith, and cry out in bitterness of soul, Oh ! call it a dream, if 
 you will : it is a beautiful thought, consoling in the ills of Hfe ; and 
 would to God that I could believe it ! No ; this claim to the absolute 
 control of our domestic affairs is a sacred right which Ave cannot yield 
 to the State. To do it, would be to accept the whole doctrine of social- 
 ism ; to proclaim ourselves communists at once ; to maintain that there 
 is no such thing as any divine law about anything ; and that there is no 
 right whatever which can be lawfully asserted against the will of the 
 majority. This is one of those terrible necessary consequences again. 
 AVhen you say the State is supreme in everything, you declare that, in 
 this countr}', a bare majority of the people may change at will the whole 
 social order in respect to every possible thing which may be imagined. 
 There is a great difference between having the power to do a thing and 
 having the right to do it. You may have numbers enough to give you 
 the physical power to do anthing you like, but the inherent right to do 
 it is another thing. When you once admit the paramount right of the 
 State to control the individual in matters of conscience, you give up the 
 whole principle of individual libert_v. You not merely open the door to 
 farther encroachment, you tear the door from its fastenings — nay, you de- 
 stroy the whole edifice ; you level all things before the advancing power of 
 the State ; you say to all men, there is no God but the majority, no 
 law but the law of numbers ; gain your majority, and all things are 
 at your mercy — life, liberty and property. When you admit that 
 the State may enter the sacred precincts of home and tear your child 
 from your arms to train it and teach it as it likes, because a majority 
 tlesire' to do so, then you also admit to them that you have no right 
 of any kind in your wife or daughters which they are bound to re- 
 spect ; you admit that this majority may, against your will, dissolve all 
 domestic ties, and call upon the members of your fimily to submit to 
 whatever outrages any wild, insane majority may choose to order ; you 
 admit that they may institute whatever of ancient Pagan rites they 
 please, and compel your wives and daughters to .submit to them. Are 
 you ready for the law of Lycurgus.'' Are you ready to say the State 
 may indicate to you which particular child you shall strangle in its 
 cradle because the ofiEicial physician decla.'-es that its physical develop- 
 ment is not satisfactory to the State .' Are you willing to say that the 
 State may limit the amount of property you may own, the kind of 
 house you may build, the clothes you shall wear, the food you shall 
 eat, the opinions you shall entertain, the faith you shall hold, the 
 woman you may marry, the wife yva may keep.'' Are you ready to put 
 yourself under the control of every communistic, socialistic agitator who 
 may choose to incite the multitude against you ? Are you ready to 
 deny God, destroy society, and send everything headlong to the devil ? 
 How can you say nobody will try to do any of these things ? What is 
 it rest-rains them from doing it now .^ Two things. First, the linger- 
 ing effects of a recognition of the divine law, for which law you now 
 propose to substitute the will of the majority ; second, the fact that the 
 
32 OUE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, ETC 
 
 doctrine has not yet been declared that there is no' individual libert- 
 But once admit the exclusive and absolute authority of the State in ail 
 things, or in anything which violates the liberty of conscience, and vou 
 sever ever}- bond which holds society together. You make the mad orgie 
 of the Commune days of Paris the norma! state of our existence, and 
 bring down upon us political anarchy, social chaos and universal ruin. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 We submit our propositions. Will you argue them or will you not .' 
 You have the power to say in what form this issue shall be determined. 
 The issue is made and it must be met. Repressive measures cannot 
 last forever in a free Republic. Why not discard the old tyrannical 
 idea of force, and examine and dispose of this matter in the calm, clear 
 light of reason ? Why not take a statesman-like view of this tremen- 
 dous coni^ict of opinion .^ Why not recognize that it docs exist, has 
 existed and probably always will exist .' Why not take it up and settle 
 it in such a way that no one hereafter can have good reason to disturb 
 it .'' There is no difficulty about it. The problem has been solved. 
 The work has been half done already ; we have only to complete it. 
 The Church, after infinite struggle, has been set free. All that remains 
 to finally, completely and satisfactorily dispose of the whole matter is, 
 to do for the school what you have done for the Church — that is, give 
 freedom of instruction to all. The manner. of supporting the school 
 or the Church is a matter of detail, not of principle — a matter of tax or 
 no tax, which you may arrange in either case as you wish, so long as 
 you give to each man his due ; but the freedom of teaching is a vital 
 principle, as to which both the Church and the school stand on the 
 same footing. The two are inseparable, and the work is only half done 
 •hile either is enslaved. You have no right to make a broad church, 
 -7hich all children must attend, for the school is the church of the chil- 
 dren, and the churcli is the school for the parents. So long as man 
 shall exist, this conflict of opinion may endure. You can have peace 
 on this question in but one of tv.-o ways, either by abolishing religious 
 belief, or by conciliating it. Even if you could abolish it, how long 
 would your social organization last .'' Not twenty-four hours. But we 
 cannot hope to abolish it, and we dare not if we could. There is but 
 one way left, and that is to conciliate it. ^\'e must labor at our laws 
 until we get them in such shape that no considerable body of our peo- 
 ple can honestly claim that they are the victims of a rank injustice ; and 
 of all questions on which it is necessary to be calm, considerate, atten- 
 tive and just, this question of religious convictions and religious rights 
 IS the most important. Unsettled questions in this matter have, above 
 all others, no mercy for the peace of mankind. Like the accusing 
 vision of the murdered Banquo, tney will not down. Why not cast 
 aside the errors of the past and seta bright example for the future.? 
 We are gathered together here from all parts of the globe, ^^'e are 
 laying now the foundations for a future State. Let us lay them broad 
 and deep— broad enough to cover every shade of religious belief, and 
 so deeply planted in the principles of justice that they may stand for- 
 ever. Let us set down upon our statute books a law which shall declare, 
 in truth as well as in words, that civil and religious liberty is here fully 
 guaranteed to all men ; that here all men may be, indeed, truly free. 
 
4i. PUSTET. 
 
 HT OF THE OEDEE OF RT. GEEGOEY, AND PEINTEE OF THE 
 HOLY APOSTOLIC SEE.) 
 
 [R & mmm 
 
 Regenskrg, (Bavaria,; 
 
 ISE^^^ YORK. 
 
 52 BAHCLAY STREET. 
 
 ci]srorTvr?^^Ti, 
 204 VIHE STREET. 
 
 IMPORTER OF 
 
 MM«^3 
 
 VESTMENTS, STATUES, &c, 
 
 AND SOLE AGENT FOR 
 
 MAYR'S ARTISTIC INSTITUTE, MUNICH. 
 
 Represented in New York by 
 A. DIEPENBROCK, 
 
 E. STEINBACK. 
 
FRELIGH'S REMt. 
 
 CURES 
 
 RHEUMATISM, NEURALGIA, GOb. 
 
 AND ^ 
 
 NERVOUS HEADACHE. 
 
 An internal remedy, which eradicates the caiise of these diseases from the 
 system. Carefully jn-epared from the prescription of an eminent physician, by 
 
 S. O. A. MURPHY, 
 
 SU(.;CESSOR TO 
 
 HINB^& MIRPiY, Wholesale Ernggi-;; 
 
 NO. 81 BARCLAY STREET, NEW YORK. 
 
 rr-iS" Ii' YOTTR Druggist does not kkep it, it will be forwarded on Kec 
 
 OF One Dollar. 
 
 St. AIalachi's Chitrch, 
 Arlii 
 Memtrii. Tfb, 
 
 Arlitigton, Mass., April isth, 1875. j 
 Tind ({• Murphy : Besides the benefit I have derived, uuder God's blessing, 
 from the use of iPrehghV Remedy, I have wiiuessed reraarkiiblo effects of its curing 
 
 qualities, in those who have carefully and regularly used it, both in my household, 
 and amongst poor people of my mission to whom I have given it. A sufiferor from 
 Rheumatism for the last twenty-five years, this v the first time I have given my tes- 
 timony in behalf of any lomody, and — auaolicitod. 
 
 Respectfully, .Joseph M. Fino.ti. 
 
 La ^alle College, / 
 Philadelphia, Nov. 15, 1874. 1 
 Messrs. Tliml d' Mnrplnj . In response to your favor just received, permit me to say 
 that several of our Brothers, suffering from Keuralqia have been geady relieved by 
 the use of Fnligh's lienndy, and thty speak highly iu its favor. 
 
 Yours respectfully, Brother Noa«. 
 
 Aberdeen, Miss., March 14, 1874. 
 MfSisr.t. Hhiil <t Mur/ihi/ : Enclosed you will find five dollars, for value of which 
 please send Freligh's Remedy. I suffered very much from Neural<;ia whi.e in New 
 York recently, and found mys«'lf much benefitted by it I would like to introduce it 
 into my practice Respectfully, W. A. Evans, M.D. 
 
 AtJSTiv, Texas, Sept. 6, 1873. 
 3/(".ss)-.'J. ITind & Murphij : 1 have been troubled with Chronic Rheumatism for about 
 two years, and could get no help. I used one bottle of youi Frehgh's Remedy, a; d I 
 am happy to tell you that I am entirely cured. 
 
 Charles Behnke, congress Avenue. 
 8an Francisco, Aug. 20, 1874. 
 Measrs Hind dr Murphi/ .' Gents— I have had the Rheumatism iu tlie back and limbs 
 for five years, and nothing has done me ;iny good but ooe bottle of Freligh's IJemedy 
 from you. Send me, bv WpIIs & Fargo's Express one dozen bottles, and I will pay on 
 deliverv. I will introduce the medicine l\f re, as there are a number of people troubled 
 with Rheumatism and other p ins Yours truly, 
 
 Jaues L. Kane, S. W. cor. Jackson and Kearney Streets. 
 

 >^"^' 
 
 
 .4^ 
 
 -.*^ 
 
 
 
 ^O. 
 
 _ 
 
f'^'^%. ^^^^^S ^ \ ^^K*' 4.^^^%. ^^y^^/ ^^ \ ^• 
 
 
 " •• * /^ 
 
 * J" o 
 
 y «... '^ ^'^ 
 
 
 0" * 
 
 
 l^ o. 
 
 ^^..c,^' 
 
 
 
 ^^ "k. 
 
 
 <^^ ^ o « o ^ ^