LCIIl 
 
 PAPERS ON EDUCATION. First Series, 34. 
 
 A pATHOLIC VIEW OF 
 EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
 CURTIN A 
 
 %«4808S*^ 
 
A CATHOLIC VIEW OF 
 
 EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES 
 
 - A PAPER - 
 
 BY 
 
 J. C. CURTIN, A.M., 
 
 Editor of The New York Tablet. 
 
 NEW YORK : 
 E. STEIGER. 
 
 1879. 
 
Q^^. 
 
 S>-<»<Ay~t^'<:Jt. Q t'^-t.iii,<i.• v-^-.+ »■ '^ y\ 
 
 ^'i- 
 
 I <?■*''' 
 
A CATHOLIC VIEW OP 
 EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 We approach with diffidence a subject so often discussed 
 by the ablest debaters in our Legislatuie, and so often 
 elaborately treated by the most gifted writers, Catholic and 
 non-Catholic, to be found in the country. Indeed, in a 
 Catholic point of view, we may well say that the subject has 
 been exhausted, and that, with a logical precision, lucidity 
 of arguments, and force of illustration sufficient to satisfy 
 any but the most determined enemies of freedom of education. 
 Scarcely an original feature of interest can be introduced in 
 an essfty on the subject; the most one can now aim at is to 
 give the essence of the arguments on the more salient points, 
 solely for the purpose of impressing on public opinion the 
 justice of Catholic claims to consideration. Those claims 
 are now cordially endorsed l:)y nearly seven millions of the 
 citizens of this Republic. Not one quarter of one per-cent 
 could be found among the Catholic body at present' in the 
 United States to deny the necessity of religious, denomi- 
 national education. 
 
 Not more than a decade ago, there were not a few among 
 the Catholic body who gave no support to separate Christian 
 education. Their refusal to recognize and patronize schools 
 in which Catholic dogma was taught and tlie principles of 
 Catholic morality enforced, was dictated by reasons which 
 experience showed them to be as false as they were unjust. 
 Comparatively wealthy Catholics did not wish to be regarded 
 as the patrons of schools in which the children of the poor 
 and helpless were educated, even though their teachers were 
 men and women who had sacrificed every worldly enjoy- 
 ment, to do the noblest and most practically benevolent work 
 tiiat the true disciples of Christ could select. 
 
— 2 — 
 
 An idea has also been prevalent, generally among Protest- 
 ants, and among many Catholics, that the standard of 
 efficiency, and progress in the separate schools was not 
 equal to that pursued in those maintained by the money of 
 the commonwealth. The experience of a few years has 
 largely, if not entirely, removed these erroneous impressions 
 and opinions. No Catholic, however high-minded and 
 punctilious, can object to having his son stand up in a class 
 with the child of a fellow-worshiper cleanly, if not fashion- 
 ably dressed, when he cannot object to such an arrange- 
 ment in the law-established schools with the descendants of 
 Jews, Infidels, or Materialists. AVaiving altogether that 
 charitable condescension which has ever been the charm 
 of society in Catholic countries, we should be ashamed to 
 appear reluctant to refuse to our own body a courtesy im- 
 perative by the constitution and practice of our public 
 educational system. 
 
 Besides, denominational education has assumed such 
 proportions both here and in the Dominion of Canada, and 
 has branched into such a variety of highly-organized and 
 well-conducted departments, that no Catholic can be at a 
 loss to select an institution educating that class whose com- 
 pany he may deem suitable for his children. It is a fact 
 too patent to need confirmatory argument, that both 
 Catholics and Protestants who have the means to do so, 
 send their children to be educated at private institutions. 
 The wealthy Catholic in New York, or the wealthy Puritan 
 in Massachusetts will rarely or hardly ever think of sending a 
 child to a common school, whilst there is a college, an aca- 
 demy, or a respectable institution for primary instruction 
 open for his reception. All private educational institutions 
 in the United States, as well as in every other part of the 
 civilized world are fundamentally and practically denomi- 
 national. The religious opinions of those who do not agree 
 with the conductors and teachers of these institutions, may 
 be scrupulously respected in many of them, (we know that 
 
— 3 -T 
 
 they are in Catholic colleges and convent schools,) never- 
 theless, the chililrcn of the great majority of the parents 
 who patronize such institutions breathe the same religious 
 atmosphere in which they have been nurtured from their 
 childhood. And here we may, without prejudice, or 
 denominational vanity claim for the Catholic teaching 
 bodies, generally religious, who conduct our colleges and 
 academies, male and female, an honorable freedom from 
 that proselytizing spirit so often detected in similar insti- 
 tutions coniluctcd by Protestants. The most devoted 
 professors of that religion so often slanderously reviled as 
 ever trying to impose their dogmas on those who disagree 
 with them, have in these instances given a lesson of tolerance 
 and courtesy that may be well copied by all religious 
 denominations. We could point to some of the most promi- 
 nent citizens in the United States and the neighboring 
 Dominion who have sent their children to Catholic institu- 
 tions and have expressed the highest satisfaction at the 
 result. It is said, that Lord Byron sent his daughter to a 
 convent under the impression, tliat if people arc religious 
 at all, they cannot be too much so. We know, the eccentric 
 but honest poet had not a very practical acquaintance with 
 the moral and disciplining inilucnce of religion in general, 
 but the beautiful vision of a poet's mind could not long defer 
 a selection so much sought' for, and so much practically 
 used by the greatest business men of the world. The ob- 
 jection to mixed education is more manifestly displayed in 
 the United States than in any other part of the civilized 
 world. Why then, do they cling so persistently to a system 
 that is not recognized in the most despotic governments of 
 Europe ? 
 
 It is nearly a decade since Bishop McQuaid, of Rochester, 
 in a series of lectures, challenged the pul)lic opinion of the 
 United States, and the civilized world to deny the claims of 
 Catholics to freedom of education. There were many squibs 
 on the Bishop's arguments with the usual venom and foul- 
 
_ 4 -^ 
 
 play issued fforn the superficial and bigoted portion of our 
 journals and periodicals. Did they refute his argumentrf ? 
 We invite the intelligent reader to the lectures and the 
 correspondence on them. The only journal that made 
 serious comment on the arguments of the Bishop was Tlie 
 Neiv York World, and its only plea was that the State 
 should stand in the })lace of teacher, parent, and citizen, 
 and make good subjects of all within its control. What the 
 writer objectively aimed at, the proof of the fact that our 
 common-school system is adequate to the moulding of good 
 citizens, was beyond the reach of the controversial weapons 
 within his power of utilizing. The words ''good citizen" 
 are, if taken for their intrinsic merit, of very deep signifi- 
 cance. A youth may be very loyal, sincerely devoted to the 
 institutions and traditions of his country, ready to shed his 
 blood at any time for the Stars and Stripes, and may yet 
 be a very bad citizen. 
 
 It is quite possible that a youth may have the greatest 
 enthusiasm for republican principles, despise every accident 
 of despotic regime, and be yet a scandal to those who are 
 born under what are calle<l tyrannical governments. Could 
 we Avith confidence point to our youth, more especially those 
 educated in the common schools, as cosmopolitan models ? 
 The serious conviction of our own people, and the obser- 
 vation of strangers who would wish to regard our society 
 with a favorable eye, will not warrant such a conclusion. 
 There is undoubtedly by public and statistical record more 
 immorality and more profanity among the youth of the 
 United States than is to be found in the same class in any 
 civilized nation on the globe. Should any foe of Christian, 
 denominational education assert that Catholics have their 
 quota of moral delinquents, we will not deny the truth of the 
 statement, in its general application, but we will and can 
 deny it in reference to those who have secured the educa- 
 tional training designed and formulated for them by the 
 Catholic Religion. 
 
— o — 
 
 Of all the Catliolic youth in the country suffering tlie 
 penalty of the law for public misdemeanors, or under the 
 curse of vicious habits, very lew have bccli blessed with a 
 Catholic Christian education. 
 
 "Give us fair-play," said Bishop McQuaid, and that is 
 all we desire. We have no objection to State-supervision of 
 our schools, provided the State, as it ought to do, respect 
 our honest, convictions: that education without tlie moral 
 training that ensures its heavenward direction has a demor- 
 alizing tendency. When separate schools were tirst organized 
 with very limited resources and very often with a limited 
 staff, the objection to tlieir efficiency may have been, in part, 
 well-founded. Now, in the merely secular departments, 
 they can challenge the keenest public criticism, whilst the 
 religious atmosphere breathed in them, has won the ut- 
 most confidence from Catholics and gained the admiration 
 of numerous, fair-minded Protestants. 
 
 Tlie writer in The Istw York World, and every one else 
 who endorses his opinion on our public system of education, 
 will fail to establish their only point of significance, that 
 the public schools have made good citizens, and will con- 
 tinue the good work, as long as they are in existence. Let us 
 quote some of the words of a savant, one who will not be 
 credited with a friendly leaning to the Catholic view of the 
 subject. The following extract is taken from a Boston jour- 
 nal, and we give it in its naked honesty and terrible signif- 
 icance: 
 
 ''Prof. Agassiz has of late given a portion of his time to 
 an investigation of the social evil, its causes and growth, and 
 the result has filled him with dismay, and almost destroyed 
 his faith in the boasted civilization of the nineteenth century. 
 He has visited and noted down the houses of ill-fame through- 
 out the city of Boston and has drawn from the unfortunate 
 inmates many sad life stories. To his utter surprise, a 
 large number of the unfortunate women and girls traced 
 their fall to influences which surrounded them in the public 
 
— 6 — - . 
 
 schools."' Is it possible to liave a stronger denunciation? 
 And we might add: Is it possible to have it from a stronger 
 authority? However moral and high-minded may be the 
 teachers in public institutions, their sphere of usefulness in 
 the cultivation of the spiritual and better part of the youth- 
 ful nature is so limited, that the result in the fair view of 
 education is necessarily a failure. 
 
 No Baptist, if honestly believing the doctrine heiDrofesses, 
 can give the child of a Catholic, or an Episcopalian, the idea 
 of Christian regeneration that would be accepted by the 
 child's parents or guardians. Thousands of instances are on 
 record in which the freedom given to the teacher in the 
 law-established schools has been perverted to proselytizing 
 purposes. The mass of Irish Catholics, as well as the, Ger- 
 man Catholics, when emigrating to the United States and to 
 Canada, were fully impressed with the idea that there was 
 even-handed justice for all denominations in public edu- 
 cational institutions. They were very soon disabused, and 
 the loss of confidence in the good I'aith of those to whom 
 they intrusted their children, was the primary cause of a 
 demand for separate education. It is the duty and ought 
 to be the glory of the majority in any civilized country to 
 respect the just claims of the minority to consideration. The 
 most revolting episodes in ancient and modern history have 
 sprung from a denial of this standard political mxixim. 
 
 The able and fair portion of our public press would be as 
 hard on any Christian State, that would force the Jews to 
 pay taxes for an education in which they had no faith, as 
 they are on Pagan Rome for torturing the Christians and 
 forcing them into the gloom of the catacombs. And yet if we 
 look to home, Ave can find reason for very strong comment 
 and very serious censure. The masses of the Catholic people 
 in the United States are poor, and they are taxed to support 
 the public schools, and must either send their children there, 
 or pay for their education elsewhere. In many cases, they 
 are very badly able to afford this double payment. It would 
 
— 7 — 
 
 seem as tliougli the Government of the United States wished 
 to starve them into compliance with a system in which they 
 have no confidence. Numbers of Catholic parents, under 
 the impression, that some sort of instruction is better than 
 none for their children, send them to the schools which they 
 neither admire, nor would select if they had a free choice. 
 Our public indignation would be freely and forcibly expressed 
 if Catholics were so treated in the Protestant Slates of 
 Europe. But it so happens that they are not, and it is more 
 to our shame, that we have not a single precedent for our 
 system in ancient or modern history with the exception of 
 Sparta. That old monarchy would hardly be selected as a 
 model by any Christian comraonwealih in the nineteenth 
 century. Its inflexible code and rigid discipline were suited 
 to make military automatons and in.-pirc them with a 
 fanatical zeal for certain of the social virtues. But neither 
 Athens nor Thebes had grinding codes, and their chivalry 
 was proved to be equal, if not superior, to that of Sparta at 
 Marathon and Leuctra. The morals of the Spartans, as a 
 general rule, were far from being models to the sister states; 
 nor can the United States boast that her system of public 
 instruction has succeeded in making model citizens. 
 
 It is a surprise to thoughtful men all over the world that 
 such a system is upheld in our free Republic, in spite of the 
 example set by the nations of Europe and the newly-formed 
 Dominion of Canada. It is regarded, and justly so, as a 
 tyrannical imposition fostered and perpetuated by a false, tra- 
 ditional maxim. The public-school system usurps the right of 
 the parent and inteifercs with the legitimate influence of the 
 ministers of Christ in the domestic circle. The only plea for 
 such a system is, that it is open to all, that it is purely secu- 
 lar, and that religious instruction is banned by the law. But 
 the public schools are not really free, else how do we hear so 
 many objections to the reading of a certain version of the 
 Bible to which Catholics especially have a conscientious 
 objection ? If Jews or Infidels were very serious in their 
 
convictions, or resolved to take out practically the tenets 
 which they profess, how could the advocates of our public 
 system meet their objections? It is impossible, and free 
 America lias to bear the stigma of being the only civilized 
 educational tyrant on the globe. 
 
 It is only a few montlis ago, tliat some thousands of 
 German religious, banished from their homes by a man whose 
 autocratic rule is a disgrace to German independence, came 
 to tlie United States, and tlieir fate was not only pitied, 
 but paraded as an instance of inhuman criiclty, by nearly 
 every medium of literature and public opinion in the country. 
 But how strange, that in the zeal of our boasted freedom 
 and love of justice, there is something wanting in our polit- 
 ical, and social tactics which we could remedy by copying 
 from despotisms! Prussia, before the era of the Bismarckian 
 regime, was a model in her system of public instruction, and 
 all nations went to copy from iier programme. Can we 
 boast in the United States, that we are as liberal as Prussia ? 
 Prussia is and has been, since her advancement to a 
 prominent position in the political world, the very em- 
 bodiment and representative of Protestant Europe. Has 
 she used the power of the majority to crush the minority? 
 No, she early and wisely learned the princi})le that edu- 
 cation to be useful must be really Christian, that it must be 
 doctrinal and practical, and that, as all cannot believ^e alike, 
 each should, have the right to be reared in his own faith, to 
 learn its doctrines, and to fulfill its duties and discipline. 
 Prussia has done her duty; she followed the liberal example 
 of France and Austria, and the late Franco-Prussian struggle 
 showed how faithful and true were her Catholic subjects. 
 It was that very confidence, we unhesitatingly declare it, 
 that made Catholic subjects throughout what is now called 
 the German empire so true to the flag of Prussia. 
 
 Austria supports schools, colleges, and universities for a 
 Protestant minority. The British government has supplied 
 separate education for the Catholics, and for the Protest- 
 
ants dissenters of England, Traditional and deep-rooted 
 liatred seems to urge her to still deny to the Irish people 
 the justice she extends to her subjects in all her colonies. 
 She does not refuse freedom of education to the Hindoos, 
 the Mohammedans, or the Maoris. Ireland she wanted 
 Protestantized and denationalized, iMit she signally failed 
 in her eflbrt to corrupt the faith of that singularly Catholic 
 people. The national schools in Ireland are practically as 
 denominational as if the names of the majority of the Christian 
 body wiiose children attend them, were written over the 
 door. The priest of the parish is the patron of the national 
 school, and the Keligion of the majority is taught where his 
 voice is prevalent. 
 
 The schools in the Dominion of Canada were practically 
 as denominational as they are now, before the separate 
 system was introduced. The only difference is that the 
 people are satisfied, now, that a legislative appropriation 
 l)artially, if not entirely, in a spirit of fair-play, is made in 
 their interest. Nobody in the Dominion of Canada com- 
 plains that the common-school system has suflered from the 
 better opportunities and facilities offered to Catholics. 
 Nor would the system in the United States suffer if a liberal 
 compromise were made with those whose demands are 
 recognized as just by the deepest thinkers and most 
 conscientious men in the Union. The libei-al majority of 
 Lower Canada granted the request of their non-Catholic 
 fellow-subjects, and the Orange and Calvinistic elements, 
 the most determined opponents of freedom of education, were 
 shamed and actually forced into a liberal grant to the 
 minority in the Sit^ter-Province. 
 
 Thos. D'Arcy McGee, in his very able speech on the sub- 
 ject, in July 1858, thus challenges the opinion of the non- 
 Catholic members of the Canadian Parliament: 
 
 "At the late Anglican synod in this city, a report in 
 favor of separate schools was read, and would have been 
 adopted, but the Hon. John Hillyard Cameron pointed out, 
 
— 10 — 
 
 that they could have all they wanted under the present law. 
 Among Presbyterians, Methodists, and otiier religious 
 bodies, there are many advocates of combining religious and 
 secular instruction in tlie daily teaching of children. In 
 Lower Canada the British Protestant population are a mere 
 moiety. Are they in favor of abolishing their own schools ? 
 Ask the honorable members who especially represent them, 
 if that is the case. {No one rises to ansiver in the affirma- 
 tive.) Why then not observe the common Christian rule of do- 
 ing unto others as we would wish to be done by and allow the 
 Catholic minority in Upper Canada to educate their children 
 in peace? To honorable gentlemen on this side of tlie House, 
 with whom I generally always agree on other questions, I 
 would say, educate your children in your OAvn way, but allow 
 us to educate ours ; we do not want to interfere with your 
 common schools, we only want to keep our own children 
 out of them. The principle for which we contend is the same 
 which leads men to resist paying for a State-Church, in which 
 they do not believe, and the arguments which uphold the 
 one, carried a little farther, will uphold the other." Turning 
 towards the Speaker of the Assembly, the gifted orator 
 concluded in the following strain: ^' Are we to win a name 
 for liberality by running into downright indifferentism ? 
 No, Sir, no. In genuine liberality, in charity and courtesy, 
 I desire not to be outdone by any member of the House ; 
 but I desire also to love the lessons taught me in my youth 
 by ray own parents ; I am quite content with my own 
 religion ; I have children to whom I desire to transmit it as 
 their best inheritance ; and I cannot, therefore, subscribe 
 for one moment to the doctrine that the State — the 
 political power of the day — can exonerate Christian parents 
 from selecting, protecting, and directing the education of 
 their own children." AVe wish that space would allow us to 
 quote more of McGee's forcible, oratorical appeal for justice 
 to the minority of Upper Canada. We have purposely se- 
 lected that portion embracing the appeal to the non-Catholic 
 
— 11 — 
 
 representatives of communities which demanded and enjoyed 
 freedom of education in the Lower Province. We have 
 already stated that tlie great majority of our comparatively 
 wealthy citizens, Protestant and Catholic, have practically 
 expressed their want of confidence in the public-school system, 
 by selecting for their children private institutions in which 
 the course of instruction is, beyond a doubt, religious and 
 denominational. Should the subject, as it may l)e, before 
 long, be one of national or State political issue, any orator 
 in the Union advocating the Catholic view, could make the 
 same appeal with the same success to fellow-representatives 
 that McGee did in the Canadian Legislature. It is, then, 
 as we must acknowledge to our shame, only on the pour, 
 that our public system is by legal enactment, forcibly im- 
 posed. The poor of this commonwealth have the least 
 chance of religious instruction or direction outside of the 
 school-house. It is impossible for their parents, however 
 well-inclined to give proper attention to their spiritual 
 needs; very often, if they had the time, they would be found 
 intellectually unsuited for the task. It is equally impossible 
 for clerical zeal to find a remedy in all instances. Before 
 the civilized world, the United States must bear the stigma 
 of want of sympathy with a class which is an especial object 
 of concern to all civilized governments. 
 
 In the poor-houses and public reformatories throughout 
 the British empire, the rights of conscience are respected ; 
 and the poor waifs of society are at least provided with those 
 spiritual appliances best suited for their regeneration. Can we 
 boast of so much in the United States? We cannot, and the 
 civilized world regards our neglect as the cause of our moral 
 degeneracy and social debasement. Austria, long the main- 
 stay of the temporal power of the Popes, in the very hey-duy 
 of her power and influence in Europe, was a model to civilized 
 nations in her protection of the educational privileges of 
 the minority of her subjects. We quote the language of 
 McKay, a recognized standard authority on the subject : 
 
— 12 — 
 
 "The most interesting and satislactory feature of tlie 
 Austrian system is the great liberality with which the govern- 
 ment, though so staunch an adherent and supporter of the 
 Romanist priesthood, has treated the religious parties who 
 differ from themselves in their religious dogma. It lias been 
 entirely owing to this liberality, that neither the great 
 number of the sects in Austria, nor the great difference of 
 their religious tenets has hindered the work of the education 
 of the poor throughout the empire." 
 
 Here, as elsewhere, it has been seen demonstrated, that 
 such diflflcLilties may be easily overcome, when a govern- 
 m.ent understands how to raise a nation in civilization, and 
 wishes earnestly to do so. 
 
 As a positive proof of our assertion that the more wealthy 
 and intelligent portion of our citizens prefer denominational 
 to merely secular institutions, we quote the following from a 
 recent issue of The Western Christian Advocate, a Methodist 
 journal of high standing : 
 
 "An examination of the statistics of colleges proves that 
 the average number of students in the denominational 
 colleges is greater than the average in the non-sectarian. 
 Christian parents of all sects seek to give their children 
 Christian education, wliilst those who think nothing of 
 religion are indifferent to where they are sent, and therefore 
 make no difference between the colleges. One is a positive 
 influence, the other only a negative one. We may conclude 
 that the great principle of religious education adopted in 
 the early colleges of America, will remain unchanged by 
 the rationalistic reasoning of the secular converts." 
 
 The truths contained in this quotation from a respectable 
 authority are potent arguments in support of religious 
 training for the young. The wi iter refers to those educated 
 in colleges and educational institutions of a higher degree. 
 It only embraces that class who have the means to send 
 their children to the more expensive houses of learning. If 
 parents show an anxiety to have children somewhat ad- 
 
— 13 — 
 
 vanced in years recoive a religious training, why should tlie 
 same healtliy influence be overlooked in the moulding of the 
 pliant child? That wise and eminent Protestant statesman 
 Guizot thus discourses on the subject : ''In order to make 
 popular education truly good and socially useful, it must be 
 fundamentally religious. It is necessary that national edu- 
 cation should be given and received in the midst of a 
 religious atmosphere, and that religious impressions and 
 religious observances should penetrate into all its parts. 
 Religion is not a study, or an exercise to be restricted to a 
 certain place and a certain hour ; it is a faith and a law 
 which ought to be felt everj'-where, and which after this 
 manner alone can exercise all its beneticial influence upon 
 our minds and our lives." 
 
 This is very positive and convincing te>timony from one 
 of the ablest, most clear-sighted and conscientious statesmen 
 of Europe. Even were Guizot alone irt his convictions on 
 the subject of education, his opinion would be valued accord- 
 ing to his reputation. But wlien that opinion is endorsed 
 by a host of the greatest statesmen and philosophers on both 
 sides of the Atlantic, it becomes endowed wilh paramount 
 value. Afrer a careful and earnest study of the difficult 
 question, and after exhausting every half-way expedient, 
 the most eminent statesmen of Europe — the well known 
 leaders of Protestant public opinion have come to the same 
 conclusion as Guizot. 
 
 We will briefly quote from a few of the leading public 
 men of modern times. ' 'Public education," says Lord 
 Derby," should be considered as inseparable from Religion; 
 the contrary system is the realization of a foolish and 
 dangerous idea." 
 
 Lord Derby's opinion is forcibly supported by the language 
 of Lord John Russell and Mr. Gladstone. The former 
 declared that Religion should regulate the entire system of 
 discipline in the Normal schools which he proposed to have 
 established, "Every system which places religious education 
 
— 14 — 
 
 in the back-ground is pernicious." Tlie last quotation 
 summarily embraces the sentiments of Mr. Gladstone on the 
 absorbing topic of education. He was the originator and 
 advocate of a large installment of justice to Irishmen on the 
 land-question, and he lost power in an effort to give them 
 greater freedom and facilities in the higher course of edu- 
 cation. He is as liberal as men of great intellectual power 
 and grasping, political ambition usually are under similar 
 circumstances. He did not, like Lord Derby and Lord 
 John Russell, altogether falsify his private confirmed 
 opinions by public practical action in the case of one relig- 
 ious denomination. He would give the Catholic Irish a 
 measure of justice limited by his desire of political power 
 and his own peculiar views of retaining it. 
 
 Derby and Rus3ell would grant to English Sectaries and 
 English Catholics educational privileges they absolutely 
 denied to the mere Irish. 
 
 American statesmen of mark seldom, or never; interlard 
 their public discourses with references to the school-question. 
 The speech made at Des Moines on the eve of the recent 
 Presidential election by the man then at the head of the 
 Republic, however it may be intentionally aimed at the 
 claims of the Catholics, when properly analyzed, is really in 
 their favor. 
 
 ''Encourage free schools," said President Grant, "and 
 resolve that not one dollar appropriated for their support 
 shall be appropriated for thesuppport of sectarian schools." 
 
 Now, if the President's language were really directed 
 against Catholic claims, as we believe it was, it devolves 
 upon him or those who endorse his ideas to prove that the 
 pul:)lic schools are really fiee. But this they cannot do. 
 If they were really free, even in the sense generally adopted 
 by their supporters, it is more than probable, that neither 
 here, nor in the Dominion of Canada, would we ever hear 
 of a complaint on the part of Catholics. Protestants insist 
 that tlie Bible must be read in the schools, to protect tliem 
 
— 15 — 
 
 from the stigma of a totally irreligious character. Catholics 
 have a conscientious objection to the version used in the 
 schools, and there is no need of argument or illustration to 
 prove how Jews, Free-thinkers, and Atheists feel on the 
 subject. 
 
 The majority of the common schools in the United States 
 are practically Protestant and the children educated in them 
 breathe a Protestant atmosphere. 
 
 Besides, were they free in the sense alluded to, seven 
 millions of the inhabitants of the United States would still 
 have a conscieniious objection to the course of education 
 pursued in them. Catholics will ever have a serious ob- 
 jection to completely irreligious schools, because they are 
 firmly convinced that a Christian training is necessary for 
 the moral well-being of their children. 
 
 We have not yet given what we regard as the Catholic 
 idea of a free school. Here is our definition, and we think 
 it will be endorsed by every intelligent Catholic in the Union: 
 A free school is one in which every scholar can obtain an 
 education without violating the honest convictions of con- 
 science ; or should we wish to adopt some of the words of 
 President Grant, we may define a free school as one in 
 which education can be obtained ''unmixed with sectarian, 
 pagan, or atheistical dogmas." 
 
 We maintain that the public schools are not free cither in 
 the sense of the direct Catholic definition, or of that which 
 embraces the language of the ex-President. 
 
 The latter only adds a certain degree of analytical em- 
 phasis to the comprehensive strength of the former. 
 
 As we have already stated, seven millions of the most 
 devoted and sterling adherents of the American Union have, 
 nearly to a unit, expressed their dissent to the immoral tend- 
 ency of a system so open to sectarian, pagan, and atheistical 
 dogmas. 
 
 This dissent is nothing new, it is openly expressed by the 
 greatest intellects, Catholic and non-Catholic, on both sides 
 
— 16 — 
 
 of the Atlantic. The educational codes of all the continent- 
 al nations that have a public system, of the British Islands 
 and their dependencies have embodied provisions that show 
 it to be in accordance with the common sense and culture<l 
 experience of civilized mankind. 
 
 In childhood the mind is simple and docile, the soul pure 
 and candid, and the heart may be easily moulded for good or 
 evil. It is all-important for parents and educators to 
 remember that the first impressions are tlie last forgotten. 
 
 There is a moral sequence calculable with almost mathe- 
 matical precision during the three stages of human life in 
 Avhich religious culture is acknowledged to have paramount 
 influence. It is true that a pious child may, sometimes, 
 in after life be led astray by the force of passion or bad 
 example, but there is great probability that he will again 
 return to virtue and piety. 
 
 "Take care in j'ontli to form tlie heart and mind, 
 For as the twig is bent, the tree's inclined." 
 
 No words were ever penned by poet more morally pointed 
 or more philosophically sound. They derive undoubted 
 authority not only from the experience of the wisest and 
 best of mankind, but from tlie language of Scripture which 
 to Christians should be final in its judgments. See how well 
 their truth is sustained by that subtle and able philosopher 
 John Locke I ''The hard and valuable part of education is 
 virtue ; this is the solid and substantial good which the 
 teacher should never cease to inculcate till the young man 
 places his strength, his glory, and his pleasure in it."- 
 
 ''We shall never know," says Sir Walter Scott, "our real 
 calling or destiny, unless we have taught ourselves to con- 
 sider everything else as moonshine, compared. with the edu- 
 cation of the heart." 
 
 The most effective means of insuring proximate dissolute- 
 ness and ultimate ruin is to separate Religion entirely from 
 education. Intellectual culture, at best, can gain but an 
 ephemeral triumph. It cannot perpetuate the power and 
 
— n — 
 
 civilization to which a people in the meridian of tlieir great- 
 ness may attain. It failed to do so in mighty, proud, and 
 cultivated Rome. It would fail and more signally fail to do 
 so in the United States ; for the higher tlie cultivation of a 
 great and wealtiiy people without tlie guide and check of 
 Religion, the stronger and more alluring are the inducements 
 to vice and the steeper and quicker is the road to ruin. 
 
 If mere intellectual culture be incompetent for the pre- 
 servation of freedom and greatness, it is still more in- 
 competent to legenerate, or elevate a sinking people. It 
 cannot impart morality, nay, as a rule, it tends to its 
 destruction, and without morality, no people can be great 
 or powerful. 
 
 De Tocquevillc concludes his American Bepuhlic with tlie 
 following pertinent remark : "The safe-guarti of morality is 
 Religion.*** Religion is the companion of liberty in all its 
 battles and triumphs, 'the cradle of its infancy' and the 
 divine source of its claims ; it is the safe-guard of morality, 
 and morality is the best security of law, as well as the surest 
 pledge of freedom." 
 
 It is to obtain this security and this i)ledge as well as the 
 guarantee of a happy eternity that Catholics have always 
 contended lor the union of Religion with education. 
 
 To-day, more than ever, a thorough, religious education 
 is needed. The enemies of Christianity are making war on 
 its dogmas with more craft and power than at any former 
 period. 
 ' The impious rage of a Yoltaire, the revolting horrors of 
 some of the Atheists of the French revolution, or the solemn 
 sneer of men like Gibbon would be far less dangerous than 
 the insidious warfare now waged. 
 
 There is a veritable duel between Religion on one side and 
 moral turpitude, with pervcj-ted intellect at its back, on the 
 other. To what side the balance of power may lean, will 
 largely depend on the way the youth of future generations 
 are trained. Catholics are determined, that they shall be 
 
— 18 — 
 
 found on the side of that hallowed agent which purified and 
 civilized so large a portion of the world. Let us hope that 
 a more tolerant and enlightened spirit in the United States 
 may give them more ample means of estalolishing a system 
 of education that will afford the strongest and safest bulwark 
 against the inroads of vice and infidelity. 
 
Papers on Education 
 
 is the collective title of a Series of small pamphlets on educational topics, 
 selected as especially valuable and interesting. Most of these Addresses, 
 Lectures, or other Papers had been jjublished before, in newspapers, mag- 
 azines, reports, or otherwise; but it was thought that, in the convenient, 
 attractive, and yet inexpensive form of this Series, they would secure ad- 
 ditional and permanent attention. The following numbers of the Papers 
 oil Education are now issued, viz. : 
 
 1. The Science and Art of Education, 
 A. Lecture. — Principles of the Science of 
 liducation. A Paper. By Joseph Payne, 
 Professor of the Science and Art of Educa- 
 liou to the College ol' Preceptors, at Loudon. 
 
 (06 pages. 5 Cents; 10 copies $0.41.) 
 
 2. Teacliing Color. Extracts from Lect- 
 ures. By NoKMAN A. Calkins, First Assist- 
 ant Superintendent of Schools, New York 
 City. (23pp. 4Cts.; 10 c. $0.33.) 
 
 3. The Kindergarten engrafted on 
 the American Public -School System. 
 Extracts from Official Reports on the Public 
 Kindergartens of St. Louis, Mo. 
 
 (10pp. sets.; 10c. $0.22.) 
 
 4. Waste of Labor in the Work ol 
 Education. An Address. By P. A. Chad- 
 bourne, President of Williams College, Wil- 
 liamstowu, Mass. (20 pp. 3 Gts.; 10 c. $0.26.) 
 
 5. History of the Philosophy of Ped- 
 agogics. A Lecture. Pjy Charles W. Ben- 
 nett, Professor of History and Logic in Syr- 
 acuse University. (24 pp. sets.; 10 c. $0.30.; 
 
 C. A few Words to Parents. Being a 
 plea for the simultaneous education of head 
 and hand. By E. Steigeb. 
 
 (8 pp. 2Cts.; 10 c. $0.15.) 
 
 7. Moral Education in the Public 
 Schools. A Paper. By William T. Harris, 
 Superintendent of the Public Schools of St. 
 Louis, Mo. (24pp. 3Cts.; 10c. $0.30.) 
 
 8. Pestalozzi ; the Influence of his 
 Principles and Practice on Elementary 
 Education. ALecture. By Joseph Patne, 
 Professor of the Science and Art of Educa- 
 tion, at London. (24 pp. 3 Cts.; 10 c. $0.30.) 
 
 9. Common-School Teaching. A Lect- 
 ure. By Henry Kiddle, Superintendent 
 of Schools, New York City. 
 
 (44 pp. 5 Cts.; 10 c. $0.48.) 
 
 10. The Claims of FrtEbel's System 
 to be called "The New Education." A 
 Paper. By Miss Emily Shikbeff, of London. 
 
 (24pp. sets.; 10c. $0.30.) 
 
 11. The Political Economy of Higher 
 and Technical Education. An Address. 
 By Howard A. M. Henderson, Superinteud- 
 ent of Public Instruction of the State of 
 Kentucky. (24 pp. 3 Cts.; 10 c. $0.30.1 
 
 12. Education and Crime. A Paper. 
 ByS. H. White, Principal of Peoria County 
 Normal School, Illinois. 
 
 (16pp. 3 Cts.; 10c. $0.22.) 
 
 13. The Kindergarten and the Mis- 
 sion of Woman; my Experience as 
 
 Trainer of Kindergarten Teachers in 
 this Country. An Addres.s. By Mrs. 
 Maria Kraus-Bcelte, N. Y. 
 
 16 pp. 3 Cts.; 10 c. $0.26.) 
 14-. A Vindication of the Common 
 School, Free High School, and Normal 
 School Systems of Education, as they 
 exist in the State of New York. A Paper. 
 By J. H. Hoose, Principal State Normal and 
 Training Scliool, Cortland, N. Y. 
 
 (36pp. sets.; 10c. $0.41.) 
 
 15. Child Culture. An Address. By 
 Prof. Ezra S. Carr, Superintendent of Pub- 
 lic Instruction of the State of California. 
 
 (24 pp. 3 Cts. ; 10 c. $0.30.) 
 
 16. The Relations of Higher Educa- 
 tion to National Prosperity. An Ora- 
 tion, By Charles Kendall Adams, Professor 
 of History iu the University of Michigan. 
 
 (28 pp. 4 Cts.; 10 c. $0.33.) 
 
 17. The Kindergarten; its Place and 
 Purijose. An Address. By James Hughes, 
 Inspector of Public Schools and President 
 of the Teachers' Association of the Prov- 
 ince of Ontario. (4S pp. 6 Cts.; 10 c. $0.52.) 
 
 18. The Eegal Prevention of Illit- 
 eracy, A Paper. By B. G. Northrop, Sec- 
 retary Connecticut State Board of Educa- 
 tion. (32 pp. 4 Cts.; 10 c. $0.37.) 
 
 19. Education and Eabor. An Address. 
 By M. A. Newell, Principal of the Maryland 
 State Normal School and President of the 
 National Educational Association. 
 
 ■ 20 pp. 3 Cts.; 10 c. $0.2G.) 
 
 20. How to influence Little Children. 
 A Lecture. By Mrs. H. P. Lord, of Loudon. 
 
 (36pp. sets.; 10 o. $0 41.) 
 
 21. Manual Education. A Paper. By 
 C. M. AVoodward, Dean of the Polytechnic 
 School of Washington University, St. Louis. 
 
 (40 pp. 5 Cts.; 10 c. $0.44.) 
 
 22. Rules and Hints on the Theory 
 and Practice of Teaching. Prepared for 
 the Teachers of Public Schools. By Duane 
 Doty, Superintendent of Public Instruc- 
 tion, Chicago. (16 pp. 3 Cts ; 10 c. $0.22.) 
 
 23. Proposal for a Change in the 
 Plan of our Public Schools. An Address. 
 By Prof. A. Schneck, Detroit. 
 
 (28 pp. 4 Cis.: 10 c. $0.33.) 
 
 24. A Catholic View of Education in 
 the United .States. A Paper. By J. C. 
 CuRTiN, A. M., Editor rf the New York Tab- 
 Jet. (20 pp. 3 Cts.; 10c. $0.26.) 
 
These 24 pamphlets constitute the First Hun of the First Series 
 (in duodecimo) of the Papers otl TldncatiOH , which are together fur- 
 nished (direct by the Publisher oulj') lor |0.50, a sum which barely covers 
 the cost of production. — Single copies or quantities of any one of the 
 Piipevs "will be sent upon receipt of the price annexed to each. 
 
 The numbers of the Second Run of the Papers on Education 
 will be issued as fast as circumstances permit. To secure the regular re- 
 ceipt of the PaperSf prepaid by mail, as they are issued, it is necessary 
 to subscribe for them and remit $0 50 for each Run, which will contain 
 Ijamphlets aggregating not le.ss than 600 pages. 
 
 Differing both in appearance, and in contents from these small-sized 
 Papers oh J^dncation, there will be issued simultaneously another 
 Series under the collective title 
 
 SteUjer"^ Educational Pamphlets, 
 
 In size and type these Pamphlets will match the octavo pages of 
 the Cyclopeedia of Edacatioii, and the Year-BooJc of Educa- 
 tion, and their contents will be in the line of Educational Essays and 
 other articles similar to those of these two works, although more extended 
 than the limited space in these reference books admits. In other words, 
 Steiger^s Ed acational Pamphlets will present information on Edu- 
 cational Matters, within a v.ide range, giving, as occasion may offer, the 
 ideas and views of writers of all shades of opinion. 
 
 The main object of the issue of these Pamphlets is, like that of the 
 Papers on Education, to offer a suitable form of publication for val- 
 uable writings too limited in size for issue through the regular book-pub- 
 lishing channels, — Essays and Papers which would otherwise, by simple 
 publication in newspapers and reports, be buried, as it wero, under the mass 
 of other matter, and being unhand j' in form, be lost to those who have read 
 them ; whilst, on the other hand, they would remain unknown to the many 
 readers who will be reached by this inexpensive, though convenient and 
 altractive, mode of publication. Each of Steit/er's Educational 
 Pa nt 2)ltlefs, ho^-e\er Rmall, will be issued with a paper cover, and the 
 price will be very low. 
 
 The co-operation of the friends of education in the inosecutiou of 
 these undertakings will he welcomed. In carrying out his plans for further- 
 ing the interests of education in general, the undersigned desires, by the 
 publication of the Papers on Education and the Educational 
 Pamphlets, to secure for the best thoughts of leading educati)rs the 
 widest i:)Ossible dissemination. Authors of suitable Papers, for which this 
 means of publication is desired, are iiivited to place the same at the dis- 
 posal of the undersigned. 
 New Yokk, May, 1879. E. Stelger, 
 
E. Steiger, 
 
 Publisher, 
 
 Bookseller, 
 
 and Importer 
 25 Park Place, 
 
 Kew York 
 
 would hereby call attention to his extensive stock and 
 unsurpassed facilities for supplying 
 
 Brooks for Educational Institutions, 
 
 Terrestrial and Celestial GlolbeS, 
 
 Kiiiderg'arten Material, etc. 
 
 Information and Catalogues promptly furnished. 
 
 Office of 
 The Cyclopcedia of Education, 
 
 The Year-Booh of Education, 
 Steiger^s Educational Directory, 
 
 Steiger's Educational Bureau. 
 
 S^^ Steiger's Educational Bureau is accommodating Teachers 
 and Kindei'gartners with positions, Schools and Colleges with 
 Teachers and Professors, Parents and Guardians with Tutors and 
 Governesses, or information concerning suitable Educational Institutions 
 — all without charge to any party. 
 
 
 ^_j Murray Street 
 
 I 
 
 Barclay Street 
 
 m frvv", inn , ' , ,■ :i 
 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 029 445 892 A 
 
 E. STEIGER, 
 
 NEW YORK. 
 
 •^