AFTERNOON SESSION.
The SPEAKER resumed the consideration of the special order - Mr. Butterworth's Compulsory education bill [H. R. 340]the question being on the engrossment.
Mr. HELLER. Mr. Speaker, this morning I thought perhaps I might vote for this bill, but during the discussion I have considered whether I should not vote against it. It involves a question of more importance than one might see at once: simply a question whether I shall control my own household, or whether I shall consent to give that control to the State or some one else. This is a serious question: one that conies right home to the heart of every man.
It seems to me that every father of a family should have the right to say when his children shall be educated. I have a family sir, and when you are legislating to authorize men to come into my family to see whether I am negligent about the education of my children, you are placing in the statute book a law which is contrary to the institutions of freedom the world over. It might be an absolute abuse of a child to compel him to march daily, one and a half miles to school during such weather as we have had this winter : and yet gentlemen are proposing to pass a law that might compel me to do so. I have no doubt that the friends of the bill mean well. I have nothing to say against its authors and supporters. But the spirit of the bill is wrong - it is wrong in principle. It is another clutch of the hand at the throat of freedom - to rob us of our rights, which we inherited from our fathers who fought and bled for the liberties of our country. The more I think on these things the more I feel impressed with objections to the bill: and while at the first I thought it would pass. I think now that it should not. I cannot forget that a large per cent of our people are emigrants from the old country. Then, the larger number of districts are sparsely settled - unlike the situation in old Connecticut and elsewhere. If the school house were at the door of every man it would remove this chief difficulty.
I have offered an amendment which was not entertained, to make the age of compulsory attendance from ten to seventeen years, where the bill says now from eight to fourteen: and I still think the bill is wrong there. We are here to act for the benefit of the people, and we ought not to outrage common sense. We should not act hastily. There is hasty legislation enough without this. But still, if there is a man on this floor who can change my mind as to the course of the argument which has directed me so far in this debate I would be glad for him to do so. It is right for a man to provide for his own family ; and it is his duty to; but you can't pass a law compelling him to do it. Yon cannot always compel by law that which common humanity requires without regard to law. So when you seek to place a law on the statute book to compel me to take my children and send them to a certain school for a certain time you are attempting to steal away from me what is my inalienable right. Only the other day you called upon the people to provide for the support of County Superintendents of the schools; but the time is coming, sir, when you must shorten the tail of your coat, and keep it within the bounds of reason.
I do not know, that this question has any connection whatever with the churches. Fortunately or unfortunately for me. I be- page: 479[View Page 479] long to no church; but I am admonished by them all. From one I learn devotion to the church: from another I learn to cut my coat according to my cloth: from another I learn to pray; and so I presume that no one like me would think to connect this question with reIigion. I think there is nothing of the kind in it.
The author of this bill has suggested that it is time to stop this discussion. I know gentlemen sometimes get tired of a dry debate; but the more debate the better the consideration: and we certainly have time to consider every matter here with all needful deliberation. Better to leave many things undone than to do anything wrong. Better not pass a measure than to pass it without due consideration. Doubtless I have myself cast some votes here unwisely; but in most of these cases I can justly plead that it was because I was forced to vote before I could be well ready.
I think I have now said enough to be understood as to my position on this question; it is not that I would do or say anything against the cause of education, but that I think, by opposing this bill, I shall be doing what will be ultimately for the benefit of the people. If I vote wrong on this question, all I can do is to pray that I may be forgiven.
Mr. WALKER. I have counselled with some of the friends of the bill, and with others who will vote against it unless it is changed; and I believe that if we strike out the third section it will strengthen it. The objectionable principle is that which would compel the trustee or other officer to make oath and prosecute the offender under criminal liability. And, as I have the consent of the leading friends of the bill I ask the unanimous consent of the House that that provision be now stricken ont.
Mr. WOOD objected.
Mr. WALKER. Then I will move to recommit the bill with instructions to strike out section three.
Mr. DIAL moved to amend the instructions so as to require the Committee to amend the bill by inserting a clause requiring all fines and penalties collected under this act to be equally divided between the informer and the school fund.
On the motion of Mr. BUTTERWORTH Mr. Dial's motion was laid on the table; and then, (Mr. Walker's motion having been adopted,) the bill was referred again to the Committee on Education.
