A RESPECTABLE portion of the Roman Catholics of New York City, representing undoubtedly the opinions and wishes of the Church in that diocese, have made application to the authorities for a share of the money raised by general taxation for the support of schools, and these petitioners state distinctly that they desire their share in order to carry on their system of education. They admit, as all seem to attest, that general education is essential in a republic, and they willingly pay the tax that is imposed upon them to secure education to children in whom are the future statesmen, divines, and philosophers of our country, and, unfortunately, a different and less desirable portion of the community. But, in common with a considerable number of their fellow citizens, they believe that religion is the true basis of all education, and they believe that without the religious support education may become, as it usually does become, the means of mischief; elevating and refining the crime, but not lessening its general injury.

Religion did at one time constitute

VOL. IX.-I

a portion of the instruction of public schools, but when a denomination found that the tendency of that teaching was unfriendly to them, that it was sectarian indeed, a demand was made for a share of the general fund, that the benefit of instruction might be enjoyed by those who paid their assessed proportion, but were excluded from the benefit of its application. Then the idea of teaching religious dogmas was disavowed, and the public schools were said to be not irreligious but non-religious and unsectarian. They never were such. In the books, and in some of the practices, there was what seriously offended the consciences of those who asked for some of the funds.

But it is not the books nor the small practices that gave the occasion for the new movement in New York. The Catholics do not want non-religious schools; they think that religion is one of the elements of education, and they think if a choice is to be made between religion without school learning and school learning without religion, they would take the religion.

But people do not agree on that point; many think that the concession is sufficient that has professedly separated public school education from religion. The Catholics think that such a concession is more than sufficient; they would not have religion separated from education. education. But, as upon the subject of education, there is a wide difference of opinion; the Catholic would not wound the consciences of their fellow-citizens by making their own creed an element of public school instruction, nor will they admit the right of others to interfere with their children's creed while in the public schools. Still less will they consent to have the minds and the characters of their children moulded by nonreligious teaching.

The Catholics of New York do not ask that State supervision of schools should be relinquished. They ask that the general direction of schools, sustained entirely or in part from public taxation, should be submitted to some common law; but as they pay their share of that taxation, they believe that in submitting to the ordinary general direction of the State, they should not be made to feel that they were paying to have their children reared in the neglect of the important doctrines and practices of the Church. Or, that paying their share of the taxation, they should be compelled to double their contributions for education by maintaining their own schools for the sake of their creed. As the views of the Catholics of New York are, and must be, those of their co-religionists in other parts of the country, and therefore in Philadelphia, it is not strange that the newspapers, not Catholic, in this city should have referred pointedly to the movement in New York. And it will appear no more strange that an individual who is a Catholic should feel and express an interest in the matter, and try, if permitted, to show the reasonableness of the request of the

New York Catholics and the consistency of granting that request.

It is said by those who oppose the application of the Catholics of New York City, that it is presumptuous in them to suppose that the people at large will consent to grant to citizens of one denomination what is not allowed to those of other creeds.

We do not see that the prayer of the Catholics need be denied because people of other religious denominations do not ask for the same. It does not appear that others desire the same, certainly they do not desire it upon the same grounds of conscience.

It is further opposed to the New York Catholic prayer that secular learning is enough for the schools, and that learning may be had therein by children of all denominations, while the religious education may be imparted separately by the respective clergy of the different denominations.

That might do if religion was not considered the principal element of morals, and especially that which is to be the motive and reward of good action. To make the child go to a secular school in which nothing is taught but the contents of the grammar, the arithmetic, or the history, and to look to an occasional lesson upon religion, is to give very little weight to that which most Christians and Jews believe to be "the one thing needful to peace and comfort in this world, and the one thing essential to happiness in the world to come." Besides, most folks think that religion, instead of being an independent quality, which is too refined for mixture with earthly mould, too pure to be placed in contact and associated with worldly motives and business schemes, is the purifying and sanctifying quality to move, direct, and accompany all other qualities and attainments. And just in proportion as "religion is identified with all other acquisitions are those attainments operative in a useful direction."

3

This early association of religion with other qualities is pointed out in Scripture as the means of withholding the passions from the moral danger of life, and sustaining men in the trials and misfortunes which beset them here. How then can it be best to keep separate secular and religious instruction? How is it possible to infuse into the qualities of the child's mind, into his daily attainments, the saving influence of a religious lesson that comes only by accident, or which are given without the evidence that they are of little consequence, unless they influence all other acquirements, leavening the loaf, and giving it healthy and nutritive qualities? And, to keep up the figure, the attempt to separate secular education, that is to be of public benefit, from religious instruction, would be not unlike the effort of the poor housewife who uses her best flour and purest salt and freshest water to compose her bread, and saves the yeast, which is used as an ingredient of the loaf, for a separate diet at the table.

But it is argued by some who oppose the prayer of the New York Catholics, that the favorable response thereto would be unreasonable, and perhaps unsafe, as the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, and other denominations might demand the same division of the public funds on their behalf. We do not mean to say that they would not be justified in making the claim, or that the authorities would not be right in granting it. Of course if we would defend the claims of the Catholics in this respect, and justify a favorable response thereto by the authorities, we should not be less favorable to similar claims from other religious denominations. But we may say that some of those other denominations do not ask for such a distribution. Their non usiter of their own rights may perhaps, among themselves, be urged against the claim; we hope not, but their neglect

should not vitiate the claims of those who have "asked" and who do now urge their petition. If the Methodists, Baptists, and other denominations respectable by number and social position see no evil in the separation of religious from secular education, then they may be doing well to continue the separation, at least they are exercising a right.

With Catholics, however, it is a matter of conscience. They believe that the creed of their church is true; that the doctrines of that church are a part of those which are essential to good citizenship, as well as to eternal happiness. Or, what is quite to the purpose, they believe that good morals depend much on early education, on instruction that includes religion.

It may be said on the opposing argument, that other large denominations do not so believe. We know that, and their conscience dictates according to their creed, and they should not be compelled to violate that conscience, in order to obtain that for which society was formed.

But it is the conscience of the Catholic of which we are now speaking. The conscience of some citizens of other denominations are not wounded at the neglect of religious teachings, or the primary instruction of their children. They are willing to take similar lessons in the schools, and trust to other means for obtaining that religious teaching which is so necessary for obtaining the religious instruction morals.

SO necessary to

The Catholic believes differently; and he thinks that in a government like this under which we live, his conscience is entitled to respect as fully as the conscience of any other citizen. It is no answer to say that on the school question, other denominations have not asked for a distribution of the school money, because it is seen that it is no violation of their conscience to have their

children educated out of the influence of their own religious creed. We are speaking of the religious conscience.

But it is said, "if the Catholic petition is granted, it will be legislating or administering the laws in favor of one denomination."

So far as the question is confined to the assistance of the Catholic school, certainly the distribution is in favor of the Catholic denomination. But the granting of a clear right is not to be regarded as an evidence of partiality.

But suppose the request should be granted to the Catholics upon the grounds that they believe that religious education should mingle with the teaching of the school, and that therefore their part of the taxes for schools should be devoted to the maintenance of schools to which they could conscientiously send their children. Would such a respect for the conscience of a large Christian denomination paying a full share of the fund be improper, or unprecedented in the legislation of State and country? We think not.

During the exigencies of the late civil war, the demand for men to fill the depleted ranks of the "Union army" was so urgent that a price as high as eight hundred dollars was paid to secure a substitute for a drafted citizen. Meantime the draft went

on.

Some were drafted and some enlisted in the ranks. Some were drafted whose circumstances, business, and domestic affairs rendered it almost impossible for them to leave home for the army. Many kept up a constant payment, a sort of standing insurance against draft, because one of the family had fallen on the field, and they were all that were left for the comfort and maintenance of the bereaved and dependent relatives. Yet at the next door, perhaps, a stout healthy citizen, with a family of four or five stalwart sons, was looking complacently upon the rupture in their neighbor's family circle, and the

depletion of the treasury, hastened by the necessity of paying for a substitute. This father and his sons were all going forth to their pleasure or their business with no fear of the draft, with no apprehension of a demand for money to procure their exemption.

And why was this difference at such a moment, in the circumstances of the two neighboring families?

The reason is plain and reasonable. One family that lost children on the field of battle, and paid a high price to secure the exemption of others, were not conscientiously scrupulous about bearing arms; so they bore arms, and bore the consequences. Those that sent none of their members to the field at the call of the nation, and paid nothing for substitutes, were conscientious in their refusal to bear arms or to assist in war by payment to secure substitutes. And the laws of the nation and of the State respected their consciences, and exempted them from the draft, which forced others to be soldiers, or compelled others to pay for a substitute.

Yet while those men who had no religious scruples on the subject of defending and maintaining the Union against the fiercest rebellion that has a record, were spending their means and their blood for the national cause, in which all were concerned, the men who professed a scruple on the subject of war went forth to their daily business, securing its profits, augmented by increased demand and diminution of competition, and themselves and their families and their wealth protected by the sacrifices of the blood and treasure of their less scrupulous neighbors.

Yet we do not find the secular or the religious papers condemning the respect which the law and its administrators paid to the conscience of the enemies of war.

But if the consciences of the Friends and Mennonites, and others, are so