Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

12 THE BULLETIN OF THE CATHOLIC LAYMEN'S ASSOCIATION OF GEORGIA CATHOLICS AND EDUCATION; A DEBATE. (Continued From Page Seven) thoughtful, plain, to the point, and free of any of that foolish talk which has been too common in late years about Catholics being opposed to enlighten ment and the Church being an enemy of education. The good temper in which you treat the attitude of Catholics as you see it, towards education, and the excellent high-tone you infuse into your article, indi cating at once serious consideration and broad Chris tian feeling on your part, prompt me to think that an equally serious and considerate treatment of the Cath olic attitude written by a Catholic, will not be unwel come to you. It is not my mind to engage you in controversy. It is not my object to oppose anything you have said. It is not my wish to change your thought, or to influence the thought of your readers against the bill pending in congress which you discuss. I merely desire, with your permission, to outline in a general way, the Catholic attitude toward education as such, toward our public school system as such, and toward the so-called Smith-Towner bill which looks to the creation of a secretary of education as a separate department of our national government, treating each separately and briefly. It may assist us if we reverse the order above and dispose of the Smith-Towner bill. The Catholic Hier archy of America has twice met in formal session since this legislation was first proposed in congress, without expressing opposition to the bill. The first Sunday in Lent this year, in all the Catholic Churches of the country, a Pastoral Letter, the joint expression of the Bishops and Archbishops of the whole United States, was published. It dealt with various matters, including the attitude of Catholics towards education, which it treated at length; but the proposal incorpo rated in the Smith-Towner bill was not mentioned. You have possibly read this Pastoral Letter; if not, I shall be glad to present you or any reader of The Index requesting it, a complete copy. A number of Catholic papers frankly oppose the Smith-Towner bill. Other Catholic papers take a different attitude. Some organizations of Catholics also have by resolution expressed earnest opposition. Others are silent. Some of the most loyal and de voted Catholics I know favor the bill. Others favor the principle, but feel that in the present unsettled conditions its passage would give an impetus toward centralization in government that might prove harm ful. Still others oppose the principle, but not on religious grounds. It may not be said, therefore, that Catholics as a body are opposed to the bill. Nor can it be said that those among Catholics who are opposed to it, are opposed on religious grounds. Their opposition, for the most part, and where it exists, rests on the same ground that Dr. Charles Eliot, the Honorable Champ Clark, Mr. Herbert Hoover, Sen ators Calder, Frelinghuysen, McComber, Williams, Thomas, Kane, Chamberlain and others, none of whom is a Catholic, rest their opposition. In more quarters than one, throughout the nation, there exists a genuine fear, not particular to any class, party or denomination, of the government going any further in the way of centralization. Without saying that the steps taken in this direction during the war were unnecessary, or any more than necessary, there is a strong feeling that it is time for a sharp intake of that line. The Smith-Towner bill as originally in troduced, was so plainly susceptible of a construction that would give to the federal department proposed an undue power over State educational systems, that the author himself amended the measure with an eye to preventing that. Whether or not that amendment is quite efficacious, I would not presume to say. It has not entirely set at rest the opposition, if it has quieted it at all. Laws are not always construed by public officials, or by the courts, strictly in accord ance with the intention of the men who draw them up. The opposition to the Smith-Towner proposal may be mistaken; it may not be regarded as unen lightened, unpatriotic, or altogether without reason. In 1872, when Bismarck was pressing the cele brated May Laws upon the German people there was considerable opposition shown to those provisions looking to the centralization of the schools of the German States under the control of the Empire. Among the leaders of the opposition was Bishop Ket- teler, a Catholic, although the opposition was not confined to Catholics. In a pamphlet entitled “The New Prussian Bills,” issued during the controversy, Bishop Ketteler warned the German people of the danger such a measure invited, pointing out how its provisions would “overthrow, one after another, the safeguards of the freedom of the people, and trans plant the super-State systems of the pagans to Ger man soil.” The warning was not heeded. Germany built up the most thorough-going, best manned, best equipped, richest funded systems of schools, perhaps ever known; but with disastrous consequences, be cause her education was not free, and where education is not free the taint of servility spreads and sinks in more and more with each generation. If Catholics seem to be more sensitive than others to such a dan ger, it is only the way of minorities, who suffer first, and are the greatest sufferers from any transgression of the liberties of the people. So much for the Smith-Towner bill, with its pro posal to put in the hands of one person the patronage and power incident to the annual distribution as a free gift a hundred millions of dollars. As to that part of the Democratic platform which declares that “Co operative federal assistance to the States is immedi ately required for the removal of illiteracy, for the increase of teachers salaries and instruction in citi zenship for both native and foreign-born,” it is not open to the objections urged against the creation of a federal department with enormous power. Direct appropriations to the States for the purposes men tioned, with authority to State-elected officials cover ing its distribution (which in some form is the only alternative to the centralization plan that both Demo- carts and Republicans refused to indorse), would re pose deserved confidence in our State governments