QUCL* $ &&1..0

Why We Need

Church Schools

CHARLES W. MEYERS

THIRD EDITION

Revised and Enlarged

PRICES BY MAIL, POSTPAID:

Single Copy - 10 cents

12 Copies - - $ 1.00

100 “ - - 6.00

500
“ - - 25.00

1000 “ - - 40.00

Special rates on larger quantities.

Address

CHAS. W. MEYERS,

612 S. Flower St.,

Los Angeles, Calif.



Nihil Obstat

FRANCIS J. CONATY

Imprimatur

*1* JOANNES J. CANTWELL



Why We Need Church Schools
By CHAS. W. MEYERS

It is the purpose of this paper to show the absolute necessity of

parochial and private schools. To do this, we shall arrange the argument

in a series of five propositions, each of which shall be clearly stated,

and then proved by the testimony of the highest Catholic and Protestant

authorities.

This discussionds made imperative by the fact that there is a general

and persistent effort just now, to abolish all private and Church schools,

and substitute the Public School in their stead. Several powerful anti-

Catholic and atheistic organizations are back of this movement, and

already their aggressive activities have extended over a dozen states.

Although this movement is professedly patriotic, and claims that it was

instituted to counteract the so-called enemies of the Public School, yet

it is primarily and essentially an anti-Catholic movement. The intense

bigotry connected with this agitation is clearly apparent, in the following

declaration published in the “New Age,” May, 1922, pp. 281-2:
“The Towner-Sterling Bill must pass! There must be compulsory educa-

tion In the public schools up to, and including, the eighth grade! No one,
not heartily in favor of the public school system in the United States, shall
have anything to do with the administration of, or instruction in, our public
schools! Finally, ho one, male or female, who cannot be shown to be a product
of the public school, shall be eligible to any office of trust or profit in the
United States, or in any state!”

This is bigotry with a vim, and exhibits in its true character, the

real animus which lies back of this whole crusade against Church and
private schools. To give this anti-parochial school bill the color of
constitutional impartiality, its authors innocently (?) styled it the

“Compulsory Education Bill,” distinguishing only between “public” and
“private” schools, in order to conceal the real anti-Catholic spirit that

prompted the whole movement. The distinguished editor of Brann’s
Iconclast struck the heart of the matter when he said:

“The fact that every leader and every organization back of the fight to
do away with the parochial schools is anti-Catholic proves conclusively that
enmity toward Catholicism is the real motive back of this agitation.

“Were there no prejudice against Catholics, if the anti-Catholic crusade
did not exist, no movement to do away with private schools would ever have
been inaugurated in any state in the union.

“The citizen, who lines up with the opponents of the parochial school
need not fool himself by posing as a friend of the public school. He is lining
up on the side of bigotry, and might as well recognize that fact first as last.

“The anti-parochial school fight is merely a phase of the anti-Catholic
crusade.”—Brann's Iconclast, August, 1922.

Now how shall we counteract this cruel crusade against our Church
Schools? Manifestly, by showing that the Church School is absolutely
indispensable to the highest welfare of both Church and State. This
we propose to do now in the five following propositions:

We Stand for Church and Private Schools

—

Because Our State Schools Omit Moral and Religious Culture.
All true educators, both Catholic and Protestant, know that no system
of education is complete that leaves out moral and religious training;
and no Catholic has ever criticised the public schools on this point more
severely than many leading Protestant scholars have done. Here are
a number of statements selected from hundreds:



—2—

Prof. C. H. Henderson, one of the leading educators of our country,

declared:

“Judged by their fruits, the public schools of America have not been
successful, because they have failed to lay their foundations in the most
profound region of the human spirit—its religion.”

Rev. Dr. David H. Greer (Episcopal) said before the General Epis-

copal Convention:

“The Episcopal Church is not satisfied with the present system of public
schools, because religion is not taught in them.” (Washington, D. C., October

2, 1898.)

So far have our public schools failed in this matter of religious

instruction, and so deplorable have been the results, that Dr. Newell

Dwight Hillis of Brooklyn, New York, felt obliged to say:
“Our public school system may be held responsible for 16,000 murders

annually and for a crop of 10,000,000 morally illiterate boys and girls, because
denominational jealousies prohibit the Ten Commandments and fundamental
ethics from being taught in our public schools.”

This is a rather severe judgment to pass on our public schools; and

some men, like Rev. Dr. Truett, of Dallas, Texas, have denied the truth
of it; but Dr. Hillis’s statement is supported by many other able writers.
Mr. C. T. Wettstein, in an article entitled, “Does Education Without

Religion Create Criminals,” says:

“Dr. Hillis does not stand alone in this opinion. There are many prominent
men in our country (and in Europe) whose opinions agree exactly with that of
Dr. Hillis, that education without religion creates criminals and immorality.”

Here are some of the other prominent Protestants who hold the
same opinion:

Rev. Dr. E. T. Wolf, professor at Gettysburg Theological Seminary,

said before the Evangelical Alliance, as reported in the Philadelphia

Press, December 4, 1901:

“Moral training has for the most part been cast out of our public schools.
Every faculty, except the highest and noblest, is exercised and invigorated; but
the crowning faculty—that which is designed to animate and govern all others

—

Is contemptuously ignored; and, unless its education can be secured, our young
men and women will be graduated from our schools as MORAL IMBECILES.
This country is facing a grave social problem.”

Mr. Alfred G. Talley, Chief Assistant District Attorney of New York
City, in speaking of juvenile criminals, said:

“We are turning out a nation of pagans from our public schools. If the
public who read the newspaper accounts of holdups, burglaries and murders
knew the ages of the prisoners held for them they would be startled. The
proportion of them that are acts of boys and girls between fourteen and
nineteen is alarming.”

Dr. James S. Martin, Pittsburgh, Pa., Supt. National Reform Asso-

siation, made this startling statement only a few months ago:

“We have sown to the winds of secularism in public education and are
now reaping hell's whirlwind of anarchy and crime. The crimes and anarchy
rampant in the land is but a standing demonstration of the failure of our

public school system, which finds no place for the word of God in the training

of the young citizen.”

Many non Catholic scholars also show their decided appreciation of

the Catholic attiuude toward this question.

The late President Harper, of Chicago University, says: “It is difficult

to foretell the outcome of another fifty years of our educational system, which

trains the mind only, but for the most part leaves the moral side untouched.

The Roman Catholics meet this difficulty, while our Protestant churches utterly
Ignore it.”

The Brooklyn Eagle (New York) tells us that “our whole machinery of

education, from the kindergarten up to the university, is perilously weak at

this point. We have multitudes of youth who have no intelligent sense of the



—3—

difference between right and wrong. The great Roman Catholic church is
unquestionably right in her contention that the whole system, as it now exists,
is morally a negation.”

New York Times, March 1, 1910, says: “The movement of the Roman
Catholics to secure a system of education which shall not ignore religion is a

movement in the right direction. Their self-sacrificing effort in maintaining
their parochial schools for this purpose ought to cause us Protestants to blush,

when it is compared with our indifference in this matter.”

Because Catholics have criticized the defectiveness of the public

school work, many Protestants hastily conclude that Catholics are

hostile to the whole matter of state education. This is not true.

The true attitude of the church toward the public school is very

clearly stated by the Rt. Rev. John F. Noll, D.D., in “Our Sunday

Visitor”:

“The Catholic church is in no sense inimical to the public school. On the
contrary, she wishes it well and shows her approval of it by copying its

curriculum as far as it goes. The parish school is not an unfriendly rival of
the public school, but it aims at supplementing the three Rs and accessory

branches by teaching a fourth R—-Religion and the moral virtues. The public
school aims at preparing the child for this life; the parochial school for this

life and the life to come. The public school occupies itself with secular lore
only; the parochial school with the secular and spiritual. The public school
emphasizes loyalty to country; the parochial school to God and country. The
religious school enjoins respect for law and authority not merely as a civic,

but also as a conscientious duty.”

Another one of the clearest statements of the true Catholic attitude

toward public schools is the following, published by The Catholic

Laymen’s Association of Georgia:

“We strive to get the people to understand our true educational ideas—

*

namely, that we do not desire to control the public schools, nor to hinder
education, nor to force Catholicity] upon unwilling minds; but that we desire
universal education, ana would have it free where possible, and would make
it compulsory where necessary. And while we have no fault to find with those

ts4<*e~-‘OW»- -fa tehj who wish their children to attend the public schools, for
ourselves we prefer a school where religion is taught.”

But while Catholics do not oppose the public school because it is

public, yet they are obliged to refrain from sending their children to the

public school, simply because it does not teach religion and morals.

For this fidelity to the law of God, Catholics have been grossly mis-

understood and misrepresented. What has been the Church’s faithful
devotion to God has been falsely interpreted as her stubborn and
intolerant antagonism to the public school. Fair-minded Protestants,

however, have appreciated and deplored this false judgment.

Hon. Amasa Thornton, of New York, said in the North American
Review, 1898:

“The Catholic Church has insisted that it is her duty to educate her
children in such a way as to fix religious truths in their young minds. For
this she has been assailed by the non-Catholic population. For this, Catholics
have been charged with being enemies of the people and of the flag. But any
careful observer can see that the only people as a class who are teaching
their children in the way that will secure for the future the best civilization
are the Catholics.”

We stand for Church and Private Schools, in the Second Place

—

2
Because It Is Impracticable for the Public Schools to Teach

Religion and Morals.

The foolish assertion that has so often been made, that Catholics
took the Bible out of the public schools, is perfectly absurd. The truth
is, this was done by Protestants long ago. The first kind of public
schools we had in the United States were the “common schools” of
New England, instituted and operated by the theocracy of the “Pilgrim



4

Fathers/’ This began soon after the “Landing of the Pilgrims.” These

schools were thoroughly religious but intensely Calvinistic. So vigorous

and intolerant was their Calvinism that by the year 1827 the distin-

guished non-Catholic, Horace Mann, became so disgusted with it that

he began to create a strong public sentiment against the teaching of

religion in the “common schools.” In this same year he went so far

as to secure the passage of a bill through the Massachusetts Legislature

making it “unlawful to teach anything in the common schools intended
to presulyte the children to the faith of any particular sect.” In this

way, Mann attempted to sweep away the very foundation of Puritanism,
which he cordially hated. This was the first step toward the elmination

of religious teaching from the public schools of the United States, and

it was done by a Protestant!

This was followed up by other Protestants until 1840, when all the

public schools in the United States were secularized. And it was not
opposition to religion that caused this elimination of religious teaching

from the public schools, but merely the practical difficulty of providing

suitable religious instruction for children of different denominations.

Catholics met the difficulty by establishing schools of their own. Most

of the Protestant churches accepted the non-religious school and

attempted to provide for the religious instruction of their children in

the home, the Sunday school and the Church. But the home, the Sunday

school and Church have failed adequately to do the work expected of

them, so Protestants are now quite generally trying to put religion
back into the public school.

The rapid multiplication of contending denominations has produced

a complicated situation, which, it must be admitted, is not an easy one

to adjust, to the satisfaction to all parties. And who are these parties?
They are the people belonging to all the different religious bodies of
the country. The children connected with these different churches
constitute the students of the public schools, and this fact makes it

impossible to introduce into the schools any uniform course of religious

instruction. What would suit one, would not suit another; hence, it is
impracticable, in such a complicated situation, for the state schools to

include religious training in their curricula.

Now, how shall we solve this difficulty? There seems to be but
one possible solution, and that is, that each church shall have the right

to have its own church schools, in which to instruct its own children.

This is the Catholic idea, and it is also the idea of many Protestant
Christians. Even those who do not definitely favor parochial schools,
still believe that religious instruction should, in some way, form a part

of every system of education; and the very fact that Jews, Lutherans,

Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, and indeed, all church-

going people, believe in some method of religious culture in education, is
clear proof that the principle behind the parochial school idea is endorsed

by churchmen of all creeds. But seeing the insuperable difficulty of
having religious instruction in the public school, many prominent
Protestants have finally come to a definite endorsement of the parochial
school.

Rev. Dr. E. P. Morgan of New York says:
“Our country contains many various religious bodies, and hence the Bible

cannot be used in our public schools. Why then, should we not all have parish
schools? The Catholic Church is right in holding that children and youth
should have religious instruction in connection with their whole course of
learning, and therefore, they provide parish schools. All of our churches ought
to do the same.”



—5 -

Many different efforts have been made to introduce the Bible and
religion into the public schools, but they have all been failures, simply

because of the presence of numerous religious sects and factions who

hold widely different and contradictory views , about religion.

One of the sanest discussions of this question appeared some months

ago in the Akron (O.) Times. The Editor judiciously observes:

“With all respect to the sincerity and good intentions of the individuals
and organizations carrying on a campaign for placing the Bible in the public
schools, we feel that the movement is one of mistaken zeal. We are inclined
to think, as many fair-minded citizens must think, that efforts to force the
Bible into the curriculum of the public schools are inconsistent with the

religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution, and calculated to work for
harm instead of good.

“If there were but one Bible and one religion—but one interpretation of
the Bible—the problem would not be a problem at all. But there are numerous
versions of the Scriptures, and each version is variously interpreted. Manifestly,

there can be no unanimity in the matter, and any attempt to make an official
designation as to what is the ‘real' Bible, or what interpretation of the ‘real'
Bible is correct, simply amounts to a partnership between Church and State.
The public schools are supported by taxation which falls in equal proportion
upon all citizens regardless of their religious beliefs or unbeliefs. Nothing
could be less American than the taxation of one sect for the propagation of a
doctrine in conflict with its own creed.”

The wide-awake Editor of “Truth and Light” has also clinched the

argument on this question in the following pungent paragraphs:

“To read the Bible in public schools, without comment, as some Protestants
advocate, would do more harm than good. Children are naturally inquisitive.
They could not be forbidden to ask questions without arousing their suspicions.
Teachers would either be compelled to explain certain texts or confess
ignorance. If the latter, they would lose the respect of their pupils. If they
tried to answer, their exegesis would be equivalent to teaching religion at the
expense of the State. The State has no right to tax the citizen and then use
his money for the purpose of discrediting his religious convictions.”

“The great men who established our government foresaw the possibility
of such a conflict, and provided for complete separation of Church and State.

“They also wisely decided that public schools, supported by general
taxation, should be and forever remain free from sectarian control and religious
prejudice. But they freely granted to every church the right to support, at its
own expense, parochial schools, in which the religion of its choice would
be taught.

“This is the only possible solution.”

Again, We Stand for Church Schools

—

3 Because Church Schools Save the State Many Millions of Dollars
in School Expenses.

The Catholic Church, in order to give her children religious
instruction, has found it necessary to establish her parish schools and
has been willing to submit to the injustice of paying her proportion of
the school taxes, and then in addition to this, supporting her own
schools, at her own expense. In this way, she pays taxes from which
her children get no benefit whatever. In other words, she pays her
proportion toward the education of Protestant children, and then educates
her own children at her own expense. This seems like a pretty plain
case of “taxation without representation.”

Ex-President Taft is quoted as having given utterance to the follow-
ing in 1892, in Cincinnati, in behalf of the Catholics of that city:

“These Catholics, paying their proportion of the taxes, are constrained
every year, on conscientious grounds, to yield to others their right to one-third
of the school money, about $200,000 a year. That is to say, these people are
punished every year for believing as they do, to the extent of $200,000; and
to that extent those of us who send our children to these common schools
become beneficiaries of Catholic money. What a shame for non-Catholics to
have their children educated with money robbed from Catholics!”



Even the bigots themselves, who originated and are fostering this
cruel crusade against the parochial schools, are forced to admit that

Catholics suffer the injustice of paying a double school tax. The rabid
“New Age” (May, 1920; p. 213), says:

“As matters now stand, Catholics virtually pay two school taxes; (1) a
compulsory tax to the State for the support of the public school system, and

(2) a voluntary tax, or contribution, for the support of their parochial schools.

It is a hardship, but it is up to them to take a common-sense view of the
matter and pay only one tax, that to the State, and altogether abandon the
parochial schools as unnecessary.”

Here we have a most marvelous piece of cold-blooded inpudence.
A careful student of the situation in Oregon tells us that

—

“In Oregon alone, it is estimated that there are 14,000 children in the
elementary private schools who will be compelled to attend the public schools
by the proposed legislation, and, alloting thirty-five children to each class
room, it will require four hundred new class rooms for the additional pupils.
With the average cost of $15,000 a room, the total outlay would be $6,000,000
for new school buildings. The average cost of the maintenance and operation
of the elementary schools of Portland is $72.35 a pupil, or about $70 a pupil
for the State at large. Fourteen thousand new pupils would cost the taxpayers
$980,000 per annum. In addition the annual interest on the $6,000,000 which
would be required for new buildings would be $300,000. The depreciation is
fixed at about one and one-half per cent, or $90,000, and thus the annual
increase in overhead charges would be $1,370,000, with $6,000,000 invested in
new buildings.

“The estimated cost of Catholic school buildings in Oregon, which would
be closed if the constitutional amendment becomes operative, is $1,000,000.
There are approximately one hundred buildings in which Catholic schools are
conducted in the State.”

In a recent issue of the Sunday Visitor, Monsignor John F. Noll,

D.D., gives us the following enlightening facts about New York and
Chicago:

“When school opened in New York City in September, 1922, it was
discovered that there were still 116,000 children who must be put on ‘part
time.’ At the beginning of the year there were 148,000 such children. Just
think how the situation would be aggravated if the more than 100,000 children
of the parochial schools of the city were compelled to knock at the doors of
the public schools for admission. At the recent meeting of the Board of
Education of New York City, a $64,000,000 building program was approved,
which it will take four years to execute. The Board authorized the building
of sixty-two new elementary school buildings, besides many additions, the
purchase of eighty-four elementary school sites, the erection of eight high
school buildings, and the purchase of ten high school sites. All these structures,
when completed, would accommodate 111,430 pupils, a total just about equivalent
to the number of children attending the Catholic schools of New York City.
Therefore, if the Catholic schools were closed, $64,000,000 more would be needed,
and the city would have to engage and pay 2,500 additional teachers, at an
expense of $7,000,000 annually. The school budget for New York City, as
it is for the year 1923, is $95,805,130.

“In Chicago, according to Superintendent Mortensen, 40,000 children are

on ‘part time’ attendance during this school term. The Board of Education
authorized $22,000,000 for the construction of eight new buildings and fifteen
additions to structures now in use. ‘But,' said Mr. Mortensen, ‘if attendance
increases at the past rate, the part time problem will not be solved.' The
superintendent gave the further information that 30,000 children are attending
portable schools. If regular school buildings are to be erected for these, he

said, $20,000,000 more will be needed. Again, consider the panic which would
ensue, if 100,000 parochial school children were to be turned over to the city

for public school education. It would require $50,000,000 additional for buildings

and $7,000,000 annually for extra teachers.”

But the most complete, comprehensive, nation-wide statement on this

subject is presented in the following account given by the National

Catholic Welfare News Service. It is an elaborate array of facts and
figures that is worthy of careful study:

“The total number of children in private schools of all types in 1918, the
last year for which data is available in the United States Bureau of Education,



was practically 2,000,000. At the average per capita cost of schooling in public

schools this would mean an additional cost to the public school authorities of
$81,500,000, if these children were all attending public schools.

“The actual number now in such schools is much larger, for in 1920 there
were enrolled in Catholic elementary and secondary schools, according to the

Directory of Catholic Colleges and Schools, compiled by Rev. Dr. James H.
Ryan, 1,925,511 pupils. At the average cost of $40.76 per child, given by the

United States Bureau of Education as an outlay for current expenses in the

public schools, this represents a saving of $78,483,827 to the public school

authorities. At the average cost of buildings and equipment per child enrolled

in public schools, it represents a saving of $215,600,000. The cost of providing
buildings and equipment for the Catholic children now attending parochial
schools, if required to attend public schools, would be $278,368,798.

“In round figures, then, the additional financial burden which the bigots
would place upon the shoulders of the people would amount to nearly $400,000,000
for school buildings and equipment alone. On top of this, more than $150,000,000
annually would be required over and above the present cost of public education."

These astonishing figures should certainly open our eyes to the fact

that, even from a financial standpoint alone, our church and private

schools are simply indispensable. But while this is a weighty considera-

tion, there are other reasons, for these schools, which are still more

important. This brings us now to our fourth proposition.

We Stand for Church and Private Schools

—

Because the State Has Neither the Moral nor the Constitutional
Right to the Exclusive Control of Schools and Education.

It is a generally accepted ethical principle that it is the right and the

duty of every responsible parent to control the education of his children,

provided such education is not vicious. and hurtful to society; and any

violation of this principle, either by an individual or an institution, is

essentially unjust, and therefore immoral.

Dr. Nicholas Murray, the distinguished president of Columbia

University, a Protestant scholar of high rank, has this to say on the

relation of Parents and the State in the education of children:

“Education is primarily and fundamentally a parental and family privilege
and duty. The parents of a child are responsible before God and man for its
upbringing and its preparation for an honorable and useful life. It is an
essential part of their civil liberty to train their children in such wise and In
such form of religious faith as they may prefer and choose.

“In our American theory, the State steps in, not to monopolize education
or to attempt to cast all children in a common mold, or forcibly to deprive
them of all religious training and instruction, but merely to prevent damage to
Itself. It offers a free opportunity to every child to receive elementary
education, and usually much more than that, in tax-supported schools. But
It Is in no sense the business of the State, in our American political philosophy,
to attempt to monopolize education or to prevent the freest choice by parents
of the teachers and schools of their children.

“This measure is exceedingly dangerous, in that it strikes directly at the
authority and dignity of the family, at religious training of every sort (since
tax-supported schools may under no circumstances offer such training), and at
that complete education which is the only training worth having."

The same thought is also emphasized by the Most Reverend Arch-
bishop O’Connell, of Boston, in a paper communicated by His Eminence
to the Catholic Educational Association, from which we quote the
following:

“This right of parental possession is a natural right with its foundation
In the very fact of birth; and that right involves the right of the parent to
feed, clothe, and to educate the child physically, intellectually, and morally.
These rights involve corresponding duties, and these the parent may neither
evade nor ignore. Any State invasion of these rights or government interfer-
ence with these duties Is a violation of liberties that are God-given and which
are by us Inherited from those who gave America national Independence.



“This does not mean, however, that the State has no competence as an
educator and no legitimate functions in the field of education. The very purpose
of its existence, the protection of private rights and the promotion of peace

and happiness in society, suggests the right and the duty of the State to

Interest itself actively, under certain well-defined circumstances, in the training

of its citizens. While always expected to foster and facilitate the work of
private educational agencies, and to supplement the educational efforts of the
citizens, there are times when the State must act, if its children are to be
worthy citizens and competent voters."

* * * * *

“Further than this the State cannot go without trespassing upon the rights

of its subjects. It may encourage and promote education, but this does not
necessitate a monopoly. It may provide schooling for children who would
otherwise grow up in ignorance, but this; is a supplementary right, not a
primary and underived one. It may use constraint to bring such chidlren to
Its schools, but when parents otherwise furnish proper education it cannot
compel them to send children to the educational institutions it has established,
nor can it exercise exclusively the function of education. And all this, because
education is a parental not a political right, and the State exists to promote

the welfare and to protect the rights of its citizens, not to antagonize or
injure them. Different teaching than this comes only from those who know
and care little of human rights, and less of the legitimate functions of a
constitutional democracy."

This whole matter is admirably summed up in the following clear
statements, made by Rev. Dr. Edwin V. O’Hara, of Portland, Ore.:

“The primacy of the home among social institutions is a fundamental
principle of all religions. That the child belongs to the family is a teaching
of religion and common sense; that it belongs to the State is an aberration of
State paternalism. The acid test of any social measure Is Its effect on the
home, and judged by this standard the proposed invasion of parental rights
stands self-condemned.

“We proclaim the following principles: That the family is a more ancient
and a more fundamental social institution than the State; that to parents
belong primarily the right and the obligation of educating their own children;
that only when parents fail to do their duty by their offspring has the State
a right to interfere; that these rights of parents are primitive and inalienable

and may not be violated by the State without injustice; that the rights of
parents to educate their children and to choose the instructors for their own
offspring is the most sacred and inamissable of human rights, and the exercise
by the State of its police power to drag children from the homes of parents
who are capable of and willing to perform their full duty in the education of
their children, would be an indelible stain on the fair name of a free country,
and an importation of tyrannous principles heretofore foreign to American
traditions."

Just here we beg to note that even the most rabid enemies of the
parochial schools, in their saner moments, admit the truth of this conten-

tion. The bitter and erratic “New Age,” which has repeatedly asserted
that all “Catholics should be disfranchised,” forgot its bigotry once, and

made the following sensible admission:

“If any church contends that religion should be a part of school training,
then the only honest position such a church can take is to establish its own
parochial schools." (“New Age,” Oct. 1920; p. 460.)

If this be true, why in the world, then, is there such a persistent
and damnable crusade against the parochial schools?

But this “national” idea of education is also un-American. We use
this term here in a purely historic sense, to show that this “national”
idea is contrary to all the traditional ideals of American history. It has

no precedent in the history of our country.

The absurd claim has been made that “public education, supported
and supervised by the State, was the original educational program,” as

adopted in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1642-47.

- -These schools were neither national nor secular. They had no
national character at all, and were strictly sectarian, and they were



—9—

finally abandoned because they were instituted and controlled by a self-

constituted Calvinistic Theocracy which was absolutely antagonistic to

civil and religious liberty—a veritable union of Church and State which
no liberty-loving American could tolerate. Roger Williams, the poor

witches, the poor Quakers and the poor Papists might tell us some

wonderful stories about the memorable experiences they had among

these model educators. That such schools, in which Calvinism was

stuffed by legal force into the heads of unwilling pupils, should be

pointed out as the norm and pattern of our American school system, is

perfectly preposterous! They were the most intolerant sectarian schools

that were ever instituted in America.

The most complete refutation of this foolish claim that we have

seen anywhere is given by the Georgia Catholic Laymen’s Association

in their splendid little pamphlet on “Catholics and Education” (p. 13).

It is so thorough and forceful that we cannot refrain from quoting it

at some length:

“There is no trace of the public school in our American foundations. It
is not mentioned in our national Constitution. It was not mentioned in any
of the constitutions of the original States. It did not exist in the Colonies. It

did not exist in the States for more than fifty years after the formation of
the Union. All of the foundations of our country were laid without the public
school. All of the traditions of our country were formed without the public
school. All of the builders of our country were educated without the public
school. Not one who signed our Declaration of Independence, or who fought

in our American Revolution, or who helped to frame our American Constitution,
ever saw a public school. The United States had been going for a century
before we had a President who was educated in the public school; anl almost
that long before we had a Senator, a Congressman, a State legislator, a Gover-
nor, a Judge, who was educated in the public school. There is no greater folly
than to say the public school is a part of our American foundations; no gre'ater
fallacy than to say every citizen should be required to educate his children
in the public school and no other.

“The State-school idea is not American. It did not originate in our
country, but in Prussia, and although greatly modified in its adaptation,
nothing can erase the Prussian stamp of its origin.”

The same thought is expressed, in a little different form, by the
prominent non-Catholic Editor of the “Liberty Magazine,” Washington,

D. C. This Protestont Editor condemns the “Towner-Sterling Bill” in

the following caustic terms:

“The proposed law is an innovation upon all American laws and customs
because private and religious schools have always been allowed and encouraged
in the American republic and have been regarded as essential to the stability
of good government and good citizenship due to their benign and spiritual
influences.”

* * * * *

“It is un-American in that it violates both the spirit and the ideals of
true Americanism as conceived by the founders of this great American republic
who sought to grant both civil and religious liberty to every citizen without
State? interference so long as he conducted himself as a good citizen, respecting
the same and equal rights of others.”

* * * * *

“It is Prussianism of the old type because before the great war the
Prussian Kaiser compelled all children to attend the public schools in the
grammar grades, and no denominational elementary schools were permitted In
the German empire; but since the German republic has been established,
private and sectarian schools are freely allowed to operate without govern-
mental Interference.”

.. • . • ' * * •



—10—

“In fact, every one of the founders of the American republic and the
framers of our Federal Constitution were educated entirely In private and
sectarian schools. Our government was operated and maintained by citizens
who received their entire education in private and parochial schools during the
first fifty years of our national existence. The public school system never came
Into existence until the private and parochial schools were financially unable
to give a liberal education to all who were clamoring for It. The public school
system came Into existence as an afterthought to educate the poorer classes
that could not afford to send their children to the private and parochial
schools.”

Yes, the public school was an “afterthought” that did not come into

our American life until near the middle of the last century; and this new
“national” idea of putting all schools under the exclusive control of the

Federal Government is so very recent that we cannot think of it as
anything but an untried modern innovation.

And yet, its proponents have the hardihood to tell us that it had
its origin in our “American foundation!”

Rev. Dr. James H. Ryan, in his able article on “Democracy and the

School,” has well said:

“The American attitude toward education has been to encourage private
schools. It is only recently that certain propagandists have attempted to
stampede the American people into a reversal of this traditional attitude
toward private education by loudly proclaiming the State's right to educate
every child in the State school, no matter what the parent thinks.

“This ‘national' idea in education is a new one; so new that it has
scarcely thrown off its academic swaddling clothes.

“Far from being an American Ideal the ‘national' school is about as un-
American a thing as ever appeared on the stage of our national Hfe.

“If this is not the philosophy of Prussianism, the word means nothing.
The day when the American father surrenders his right over his child to the
nation will mark the beginning of the end of American democracy. This Is
not prophecy. It is a plain statement of fact, based on the inevitable law of

cause and effect.”

This scheme for federalizing our schools is not even good modern

Prussianism; it is the old cast-iron Prussianism of Bismarck, under

whose iron rule all elementary private and religious schools were closed

up, and all education was put under the exclusive control of the govern-

ment. To call this “Americanism” is ridiculous in the extreme. When
our Americans went over there and knocked this old Prussianism out

of the German Government and made it democratic, the Germans them-

selves had sense enough to appreciate the favor and to throw off the old

Bismarckian Prussianism and adopt American ideals. Hence, they have

done away with the exclusive State control of schools, and are today

allowing private and parochial schools to flourish, unhindered. These

wise American educational reformers might actually learn a lesson or

two about “Americanism” from these democratic Prussians! It is

remarkable that the political trend of these American reformers and

that of the modern Prussians are exactly in opposite directions. While

the Prussians are progressing toward Americanism, these “reformers”

are retrograding toward the old Bismarckian Prussianism. Just now,

when the progressive Prussians are beginning to act like Americans,
these “smart” Americans are beginning to act like old, out-of-date

Prussians! Yet, they would have us believe that their “national” scheme

of school control is American!

Is it possible that these far-seeing propagandists can’t see this

glaring inconsistency?

Now, we propose to show briefly, that this federal scheme of school
control is also unconstitutional. It is contradictory to the established

principles of our American democracy, as expressed in such fundamental



—11—

American documents as the “Federal Constitution,” the famous “Ordi-

nance of 1789,” and all the constitutions of the several States.

The Constitution of the United States contains the two following

clearly expressed provisions, intended to safeguard the civil and religious

rights of every American citizen:

“Amendment 1. Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

“Amendment 14, Art. 1. No State shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” etc.

These two articles of our Federal Constitution are the perennial

safeguards of our civil and religious rights; and neither the United

States Congress nor the Legislatures of any of the separate States, are

permitted to make any laws that would abridge or conflict with these

rights.

On this point, Dr. James H. Ryan says:
“Amongst the principles which underlie the democratic belief, there is one

generally accepted as fundamental; namely, the right of the parent to educate

his child as he sees fit. In the great democracy of the New World, the right
to establish private schools, provided they meet certain required standards,
has never been questioned either by the Federal or State governments.”

Now, if neither the Federal Government, nor any of the State gov-

ernments have ever question this right, on what grounds can Oregon, or

any other State, propose now to violate this right? Indeed, in proposing
such a measure, Oregon is acting contrary to her own constitution,
which distinctly declares: “No law shall in any case, whatsoever, control
the free exercise and enjoyment of religious opinions or convictions.”

If this be true, then, if any citizen of Oregon holds the “religious

conviction” that it is his God-given right and duty to educate his own
children, Oregon has no powe^, even according to her own constitution,
to prevent it. Can Oregon claim the right to violate 1 her own constitu-
tion, as well as the Constitution of the United States? Has Oregon, or
any other State, the right to do what even the Congress of the United

States is not permitted to do?

A Lutheran writer very properly declares:
“Under the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Oregon

you enjoy religious liberty; that is, the liberty to worship according to the
dictates of your conscience, and to rear your child according to your religion.
If you see fit to send your child to a school in which the religion of your
choice is taught, not one day in the week, but every day, and the whole
training of the child is permeated by such religion, the State, under the
constitution, must not prohibit you from doing so. This bill, if enacted, will
prohibit you from doing so. Therefore, this bill is manifestly unconstitutional.”

A prominent citizen of Oregon also asserts that “the passage of such a
bill is equivalent to repudiation of the time-honored American principle of
religious liberty. . . . The founders of the republic never dreamed of a
compulsory system of education of any kind; the framers of the Constitution
never held that parental rights were subordinate to, or proceeded from, the
wishes of a majority which might be swayed by hate or prejudice or ignorance.
The constitutionality of the Oregon bill will be tested on these grounds. It
certainly makes the child a ward of the States, whether the parents wish it or
not; and it is undeniably at loggerheads with the spirit of the Constitution.”

The Bay City (Mich.) Times-Tribune declared emphatically:
“From no point of view can this sort of legislation be defended and it is

next to a certainty that the courts, after reading the American Constitution,
will not be slow to point out how the Oregon measure is without sufficient
foundation upon which to stand.”

Two years ago, when this question was up in Michigan, the attorney-
general of that State advised that the proposed measure was unconsti-

tutional; and, in harmony with this opinion, Justice Fallows, a member
of the Supreme Court of that State, expressed the following judgment:



—12—

“The proposed amendment is in conflict with the fourteenth amendment
of the Constitution of the United States.

“While the proposed amendment is very carefully worded to attract votes,
It takes from the parents the privilege of educating their children in parochial
or private schools; indeed, it takes from them the right to exercise any control
over the education of their own offspring and gives such right to the State.
It prohibits the conduct of the business of educating children by private parties,
denominations and corporations organized for that purpose under the laws..

“That these schools may be regulated by the State is admitted on ail
hands, but that their existence may be prohibited by State mandate is an
entirely different proposition. Before the business of conducting these parochial
schools can be outlawed and prohibited, their prohibition must bear some
reasonable relation to the public good, or the public health, or the public morals,

or the public safety or the public welfare. The right to regulate I concede;
the right to prohibit I deny.”

These emphatic statements from eminent legal authorities should

convince us, beyond all question, that the exclusive State control of

schools and education is unconstitutional.

Not only would this proposed amendment to a State constitution

violate the Constitution of the United States, but it would also violate

the governmental principles set torth in another of the most famous

State documents in American history. The celebrated “Ordinance of
1789,” penned by Thomas Jefferson, and signed by George Washington,
was virtually an agreement, “forever unalterable,” between’ the Federal

Government and the “Northwest Territory,” as to the principles that

should form the basis of the constitutions and laws of any states that

might ever be formed out of this Territory. One of the principles of
this famous “ordinance” is this:

“Religion, Morality and Knowledge being necessary to good government
and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever
be encouraged.”

Now, just a little thoughtful examination of the wording of this

document should make it perfectly clear to any logical mind that the
framers of this “ordinance” associated “religion” and “morality” with

“schools” and “education.” If they believed that religion and morality

were to be fostered by schools and education, then as a logical necessity

they must have regarded religion and morality as an essential part of

true education. There is no escape from this conclusion.

Again, another important principle in this noted document is the

one that insures civil and religious liberty. It distinctly declares:

“No one, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner, shall ever
be molested on account of his mode of worship or his religious sentiments.”

Now, the “religious sentiments” of a great host of peaceable, law-

abiding American citizens—Catholics, Protestants, Jews and others

—

demand that they be privileged to exercise their “inalienable,” God-given

right to school their children in their own religious faith, and this
famous “ordinance” guarantees that right to them.

Thus, it is clear that this recent proposed amendment, which would

“molest” the “religious sentiments” of law-abiding American citizens,

would be a grcss violation of the “Ordinance of 1789.”

This brings us now to our fifth and last proposition. We stand for
Church and Private Schools

—

Because the Welfare and Safety of Our Nation Depends Upon It.

Among the serious features of this proposed federal scheme of
education, the two most dangerous ones are: (1) The violation of

Constitutional authority, and (2) The Secularizing of all Primary and

Secondary Schools.



—13—

These two things, if carried out, would be destructive of the very

foundation of our democracy, and of the moral integrity of our future

citizenry. The violation of Constitutional authority is bound to produce

either autocracy or anarchy—sometimes the two in succession—and the
exclusion of moral and religious training from our elementary and

secondary schools is bound to lower the morals of our people, especially

of the children who are to be the citizens of the next generation.

It is well known that religious and moral culture is the very basis

of good citizenship. It seems clear, then, that the welfare and security

of our nation depends, (1) on absolute loyalty to constituted civil

authority, and (2) on the development of high moral character in our

citizens. Now, it is these very two conditions of our country's prosperity

and safety that would be destroyed by this proposed scheme to federalize

and secularize our schools.

The un-Christian and un-American character of this proposed

measure is very clearly shown up in a late article in “America,” by John

McGuinness. Under the title, “The Bulwark of Freedom,” Mr. McGuin-

ness says:

“Christian education is the one essential factor in the life of our republic.

As our government derives its power from the people who enjoy universal
suffrage, its life depends on a virtuous citizenship. Hence, it is Imperative that

religion and morality be made a part of our educational system, else we will
ultimately destroy through legislation our whole moral fabric, the foundation

of the government. This is no idle fancy. Listen to the Father of our Country

in his farewell address:

“
‘Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,

religion and morality are the indispensable supports. . . . Let it simply

be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the
sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the Instruments of
investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the
supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. . . . It is a
popular government. This rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to
every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look
with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?'

“Washington plainly saw that if the secularists should ever succeed in
their designs of secularizing the State, America would not endure as a free
nation. And may we not truthfully ask, has not the decay of which Washing-
ton wrote already set in?

“Our enemies, in striking out the parish school, seek to remove the
greatest bulwark of the nation. Their acts brand them enemies of America as
well as enemies of the Church. Many of our foremost educators, ministers and
statesmen now see the real danger."

Not only Catholics, but a very large number of the most intelligent,

fair-minded Protestants appreciate fully the evil trend of this crusade

against the parochial schools, and also see clearly the sinister motive

which lies behind it, and have the sincerity and courage to speak out

openly and express their condemnation of it. Among these is the
courageous Editor of the “Liberty Magazine,” Washington, D. C., who
points out the following evil results that would necessarily grow out
of this “national” scheme of education. This courageous Protestant

declares:

“It is vicious legislation because it is conceived and born in bigotry, and
is the offspring of religious hatred and prejudice against a particular religion.
While we do not agree with many of the doctrines of the Catholic Church,
against whom in particular this legislation is aimed, yet that church is
entitled to the same rights and privileges under our constitutional guarantees
of civil and religious freedom as is any other church or citizen of the United
States, so long as they respect the equal rights, of others. A law that does
not respect the equal rights of ail citizens alike, irrespective of creed or
religion, is not worthy of the recognition of American jurisprudence.



—14—

“The proposed law is communistic in principle and practice, as it places
private and sectarian schools absolutely under the control of the State. This
proposed law is exactly what Bolshevist Russia has put into effect in order
to teach Lenine’s and Trotsky's ideals of atheism and anarchy.”

In the same spirit, Rev. C. S. Longacre, secretary of the Religious

Liberty Association, has some pointed things to say about the campaign

against parochial schools. Mr. Longacre, who is a non-Catholic clergy-
man, has the courage of his convictions as an American citizen. He
writes

:

“Both Oregon and Oklahoma are now testing the Americanism of their
citizens by submitting a proposition to them which involves the repudiation and
destruction of the great fundamental principle of religious liberty in the
proposed anti-parochial school amendments. Back of these amendments is a
sinister motive conceived by intolerance and born of prejudice, which aims to
abolish both private and parochial schools by Indirect methods and to crush
the desire and love of religious liberty out of the hearts of the people.

“A powerful organization is seeking to rob a large class of citizens of
the blessings of religious freedom so freely granted to them under our
Constitution to nurture and train their children in the fear of the Lord and
to worship God in harmony with the dictates of their own consciences. This
freedom granted to every American parent under our magnificent laws and
guarantees of human rights is the most cherished gift of all our temporal
possessions in the United States of America.”

As to what our attitude should be toward the bigots who are so
zealous in their efforts to destroy our Church schools, Roger W. Babson
gives us this wholesome reminder:

“The prosperity of our country depends on Christian education and leader-
ship. With the forces of evil, backed up by men and money, systematically
organized to destroy, we must back up with men and money our campaigns for
Christian education. Yes, the safety of our Nation depends on Christian
education.”

No greater calamity could possibly befall our great nation than
to have autocracy and centralization take the place of our glorious

American democracy. When that occurs we may as well write
“Ichabod” over the portals of our Temple of Liberty. We would do
well to heed the words of that eminent Protestant historian, John Fiske,

who in his “Critical Period of American History,” gives us this solemn
warning:

“If the day should ever arrive (which God forbid) when the people of the
different parts of our country should allow their local affairs to be administered
from Washington—on that day the progressive political career of the American
people will have come to an end and the hopes that have been built upon it
for the future happiness and prosperity of mankind will be wrecked forever.”

Brother Americans, the fight is on! Under the leadership of one

of the most powerful organizations in America ,there has been formed

a conspiracy whose determined purpose is to destroy all the elementary

private and religious schools of our country. Shall we permit it? Are
we too indifferent or stupid to stand up for our “inalienable” rights?
Shall we allow a set of bigots and political adventurers to drive us into
violation of the most sacred principles of our American democracy?

This diabolical conspiracy to crush our religious schools, is abso-

lutely contrary to the principles of the great statesmen who founded our
republic; and, hence, it is not only a Godless, but an unpatriotic scheme,

which should receive the uncompromising condemnation and unremitting

opposition of every true American citizen. It is anti-Christian and anti-

American, and every believer in civil and religious liberty, and every

champion of human rights should put forth his ceaseless and unrelenting
effort to defeat the infamous proposition.



—15—

For the benefit of those who may think that these serious predictions

of future trouble are overdrawn, or unwarranted, we will present here

a few illuminating statements made by the very men who are backing
up this crusade. Look at some of the following arrogant boasts. The

“New Age” (Aug., 1920; p. 354), declares openly:

“We have often frankly said . . . in so many words, that no avowed
Roman Catholic should be elected or appointed to any office of public trust
under the United States, or any State. . . . We propose to make it
impossible for the hierarchy to undermine and overthrow the Constitution (!)
of the United States, and substitute therefor the un-American doctrine of
Church and State."

Every well-informed man should know that this is a false alarm;
for in every crisis through which our country has passed throughout

her entire history, no class of American citizens have proved their

loyalty to the government more promptly and emphatically than our

Catholic citizens have done.

In another issue of the same paper we find this insolent threat,
based on a false and foolish assumption:

“There is just one way to get at the Romanists, and that is to disfranchise
every one of them until the Pope openly, specifically and without the slightest
reservation or equivocation, renounces any and every claim to temporal power
and authority, and releases every Roman Catholic in every land from any and
every obligation to support him in any such claim or pretense."

Here again we have an amazing exhibition of ignorance and bigotry.
But it is gratifying to know that not all Masonic papers, nor all
Masonic individuals, are of this type. There are reputable Masonic

papers which are not in sympathy with the “New Age.” In the February
number (1922) of the “Square and Compass,” a Masonic journal pub-
lished in Denver, the Editor comments as follows on the “New Age.” -

“The country is full of Masonic journals, and the remarkable monotone
.evoked from these harps of one string is wonderful in this sameness: I said
‘one string’—but in that I overstepped the mark—because they have two. The
first is devoted to the wonderful sky-blue-pink perfection of everything and
everybody to whom the name ‘Mason’ or ‘Masonry’ is attached; and the other
string is devoted to telling what a hell of an outrage the Roman Catholic
religion is, and what a blot it is on the world in general—and Masonry in
particular.

“Take the best known and widest distributed one of them all, ‘The New
Age,’ as an example. The January and February issues ‘scream’ with anti-
Catholicism."

Neither are all individual Masons so bitterly intolerant. We are
glad to learn, from those who claim to know, that many Masons in

Oregon and other States labored hard to defeat the anti-parochial school
bill. It is gratifying to know, too, that a large number of other non-

Catholics, besides many Masons, have proved their sincere devotion to
what they believe to be right by voting against the exclusive public

school. The average American is independent and tolerant, and is
willing fo grant to others the rights which he claims for himself. The
Hon. Joseph Scott, of Los Angeles, Calif., a staunch Catholic, recently

paid this compliment to the average American non-Catholic:

“Speaking with some little experience in my travels, and with some
positive views as to what the pages of history unfold, I have no hesitation in
saying that the non-Catholic American, taking him as a class, is the most
tolerant type of manhood in the world today.’’

All honor to a class of high-minded, independent American citizens,

who cannot be driven, even by their own organization, to violate the
sacred principles of civil and religious liberty! We are glad to believe
that the average American citizen, Catholic or non-Catholic, can be

depended on to do what he understands to be the right thing.



—16—

For every such blue-blooded, patriotic American we can but have

the highest respect. First your God; then your Country; then your

Order, if it is true to God and Country!

We wish it distinctly understood that we are not fighting the public
school, as such, but we are opposed to this new proposition that it
shall be the only school system in our country. While we are aware

of the defectiveness of the public school, yet we are willing that it
shall have its place in our educational system, but not the exclusive

control of it. We simply mean to defend our inherent, constitutional
right to have church and private schools, if we want them.

Now, from the foregoing declarations of some of our most eminent

scholars and educators, we are forced to conclude that it is absolutely
essential to the safety and welfare of our country that both Catholics

and Protestants shall have their own church and private schools in
which moral and religious culture shall be given.

If moral and religious training is necessary to the development of

the highest citizenship; and if such Christian training cannot be provided

by our State schools; then our American youth must be prepared for

Christian citizenship in schools established and maintained by the

churches.

Again, if morality and religion are essential to a nation’s safety and

prosperity; and if moral and religious culture can be acquired only in

our church and private schools; then the establishment and maintenance

of private and church schools is absolutely essential to our country’s

welfare. This is a crucial point which we dare not ignore. We have
already ignored it too long and allowed the situation to become deplor-

able. The alarming fact that 60,000,000 of our population—more than
50 per cent—have nothing whatever to do with churches and religion,,
is a solemn warning to us that we have already made frightful strides
in the direction of heathenism. This state of things is all the more

appalling when we consider the fact that 27,000,000 of this 60,000,000 are
young people below the age of 25, the very people who will control the
affairs of our country in the next generation. At the present rate, it is

only a matter of time when our dear Christian country will be wrecked
on the rocks of paganism. The only thing that can save our republic
from such an appalling fate is the active support and promotion of our

religious schools.

Now, we feel assured that under the five preceding propositions it
has been proved conclusively that we need church and private schools
for the moral, religious, economic and civic welfare of our country, and

even for the very safety and perpetuation of our American democracy.

Without these schools our country will go to the dogs.

Wake up, Christian Americans! This is no time for dozing and
dreaming. We’ve been at that too long already. And for Heaven’s
sake, don’t “walk in your sleep!” That’s more dangerous than standing
still. If you must sleep, go to bed; but if you are really pretending to

go somewhere, keep awake and know where you are going. Oregon is
our warning that going to sleep while a fight is on, is not a safe thing

to do. Not even “sleeping on your arms” is quite safe or sane while
the battle is raging. If you mean to fight, better stand on your feet
with your head on your shoulders and your face to the foe.

Our enemies are wide awake, and organized, don’t you forget it!
They know the value of men, money and leadership; and we, too, need



—17—

to appreciate the same, and organize ourselves, and keep organized, until

we have won the fight for God and Country. We need to note every
move the enemy makes, the instant he makes it, and never allow it to

gain strength by deliberation. “Eternal vigilance” is as necessary today

as it ever was. We want “minute men,” who, like the “Georgia Laymen’s
Association,” will “be there” when the fight begins, and stay there till

the foe is vanquished.

Let us take a hint from the wise old autocrat, Bismarck, who when

he was putting all the private and parochial schools of Prussia under

State control, used this significant motto: “Who Has the Schools
Has the Future!” Brother, do you see the significant truth lying at the

heart of this transparent sentence? And do you appreciate fully the far-

reaching possibilities and consequences involved in it? Here is a civic

sermon in a single sentence. Even the devil preaches a good gospel

sometimes.

It is unquestionably true that the future welfare of oun nation will

depend on the character of our schools, and the character of our schools

will be determined by the character of the men who institute and control
them. Now then, shall this Christian Nation have secularized schools
from which morals and religion have been eliminated by a set of bigots

and atheists, or shall we have schools controlled by Christian men in
which the principles of Christian citizenship shall be instilled into every

young American heart? Brother, which shall it be? Remember, “Who
Has the Schools Has the Future.”

As long as a spark of moral and religious sentiment fires our souls,

as long as a drop of patriotic blood courses our veins, and as long as we
retain the courage inherited from our heroic forefathers, so long shall

we not cease to resist this un-American and un-Democratic imposition.
As long as we treasure in our hearts the sweet memories of our Christian
fathers and mothers, we shall never allow the insidious schemes of a
set of atheists, socialists and bigots to undermine the inalienable

parental rights of the American home.

As loyal Americans, who cherish the civil and religious freedom for
which our heroic forefathers bled and died, let us stand shoulder to
shoulder, Catholic and non-Catholic, and defy and defeat these fanatical

bigots who are threatening to trample under foot the liberties of
American citizens. In the strength of our American manhood, and with
the weapon of our democratic franchise, let us crush this insidious
attack upon the very foundations of our American civilization. Our
Homes, our Schools, our Liberties, our Religion—all are calling for our
loyalty and service.



OUR SUNDAY VISITOR
COMES EVERY WEEK

HELPS PROTESTANTS

AND CATHOLICS

TO UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER BETTER

S
Answers Many Questions

Asl^ed by Protestants

Only Ten Years Old, and yet it has the

LARGEST CIRCULATION

of any CATHOLIC PAPER in THE WORLD

Only 75 Cents a year

Address:

OUR SUNDAY VISITOR PRESS
Huntington, Indiana