SEC. 4 provides that five days prior to prosecution under the act the board shall cause written notices to be served; and if on hearing of the prosecution the court is satisfied that the party has caused the child to attend as provided, in good faith and with intent to continue, the penalty shall not be incurred.

"SEC. 5. No school shall be regarded as a school under this act unless there shall be taught therein, as part of the elementary education of children, reading, writing, arithmetic, and United States history in the English language."

SEC. 6. Prosecution by the authority of and in the name of the school board, and all fines and penalties for the benefit of school moneys.

"SEC. 7. Jurisdiction to enforce the penalties herein described in this act is hereby conferred on justices of the peace and police magistrates within their respective counties."

SEC. 8 pertains to truancy.

SECS. 9-13 relate to employment of children under thirteen years of age, prohibiting it except under a permit from judge of county court.

"SEC. 14. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage and publication.

"Approved April 18, 1889."

A law in Illinois of a similar character was nearly coincident with the above law. It will be convenient to treat the laws as essentially the same, without separate detail of minor circumstances, in the two States, but it will be well to point out the differences that existed in the laws themselves.

Section 1 of the Illinois law required attendance for at least sixteen weeks, eight of which were to be consecutive, at some public day school in the city, town, or district where the child resides, the time to begin with the opening of the first term of the school year or as soon as notice is served. Fine $1 to $20 and stand committed till costs are paid. The words of section 5, Wisconsin, are included in section 1, Illinois.

Sections 2, 3, Illinois, pertain to truancy.

Section 4, Illinois, resembles section 6, Wisconsin, but requires prosecution to be in the name of the State.

Section 5, Illinois, corresponds to section 7, Wisconsin, but adds "judges of the county court."

The Illinois law had no provisions regarding employment of young children; a subject treated in another law. It was approved May 24, 1889.

The opposition that at once made itself manifest was centered upon the Bennett law as it was called, of which the Illinois law was treated as a duplication. It was plain that there was an intention to secure similar legislation in adjacent States. The Lutherans were thoroughly roused. Various synods took action, and a mass of literature from a Protestant source was added to that which had been accumulating for over half a century almost wholly in discussion of the Roman Catholic view. In June, 1889, the Lutheran Synod of Wisconsin adopted this declaration: "We are not enemies of the public schools; we consider them and declare them to be a necessary institution. We are ever willing to pay our taxes for the support of the public schools. We are opposed to any and every grant of public school funds to private schools. But we insist upon enjoying the privilege of founding private schools with our own means, of regulating them and governing them, without external interference, according to our conviction and according to sound principles of pedagogy, for the sake of making our children loyal and good citizens. We therefore protest against the assertion which has been made by so many, and even by officers of the State, that our Lutheran Church is hostile to the public schools, and that our parochial schools are a standing menace to the public schools.”

In a pamphlet entitled The Bennett Law and the German Protestant Parochial Schools of Wisconsin. Christ. Koerner cites cases of arbitrary ruling in Illinois where the power of approving a school was abused. In one case directors of three

districts are said to have approved a German Lutheran school which the directors of a fourth district refused to approve, and the father of a child attending from this last district was therefore fined.

As the law has ceased to have any interest except as a matter of history, with its lessons for the future, some of the objections that died with it may be passed over. There are some points that will have value till some kind of settlement is reached and accepted as to religious instruction or the use of the Bible in public schools. Mr. Koerner quotes this provision of the constitution of Wisconsin: "The right of every man to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of his own conscience shall never be infringed, nor shall any control of or interference with the rights of conscience be permitted, or any preference be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship."

He goes on to say: "With this constitutional provision the Bennett law, if enforced, will come into conflict. Our children we hold, should, if possible, constantly be surrounded by a religious, a Christian atmosphere. Now in our public schools knowledge of God and Christ and love and fear of God are not taught, and can not be taught, for they are established for all children whose parents wish to make use of them. In order, therefore, to give their children Christian instruction and training, very many German congregations in this State have established parochial day schools, which, as a rule, are well attended; we support these schools at a great expense because our conscience demands that we bring up our children in such manner, in a Christian school."

#

German Protestants of the city of Milwaukee, after affirming their loyalty to the public schools

Resolved, That as the Bennett law is in direct opposition to the personal liberty of conscience guaranteed us in the constitutions of the United States and of this State, we will oppose the same with all lawful means in our power and endeavor to have the same repealed.

"And as execution of this law, so far as we are concerned, is intrusted to our city officials, be it

"Further resolved, That we will use our influence at the coming city election and will vote for such candidates only as are opposed to the Bennett law.”

The following platform was adopted by the anti-Bennett law State convention, held at Milwaukee June 4, 1890:

"I. We, citizens of Wisconsin, in convention assembled, in order to protest against the so-called Bennett law, in the first place consider it necessary to defend ourselves against false representations calculated to prejudice our cause, and do therefore declare:

"1. We are not enemies of the English language; on the contrary, we endeavor to furnish our children the very best instruction therein.

2. We consider public schools necessary, but maintain that parents have the right to establish and select for themselves schools for their children.

“3. We claim no part of the public school fund for the use of parochial or other private schools.

"4. We are not opposed to a law prohibiting the employment of children in factories, nor to an enactment providing for reasonable compulsory attendance at school, nor do we object to an interference by the State with schools conducted contrary to the public order and morality.

"II. But we protest against the so-called Bennett law, because it unnecessarily and unjustly curtails our civil and religious liberty; for it

"1. Offers the school boards an opportunity of determining arbitrarily that a child, during the period of enforced attendance, must attend a school in the city, town, or district to which it resides, thus depriving parents of the right to send their children to a better or more suitable school outside the district.

"2. It compels parochial and other private schools to observe the time or times

of attendance fixed by school boards, without regard to the rights and customs of churches or their schools.

"3. It prescribes certain studies as also the medium of instruction therein; furthermore, its wording is such as to afford school boards ample opportunity to usurp powers not given them, although the State and its officers have no right to interfere with the management of parochial and other private schools.

"III. We therefore declare that, regardless of former party affiliations, we shall vote for such candidates only as pledge themselves to work for the repeal of the Bennett law.

"IV. As patriotic citizens, maintaining human rights, both civil and religions, advocating sound principles of education, and with no enmity toward the English language, opposed, however, to all measures tending to oppress the immigrated citizens or to suppress their native tongue, we call upon all those who cherish liberty, regardless of party and nationality, to join us in the effort to have this unnecessary, unjust, and discord-breeding measure repealed."

A committee of the Illinois district of the Missouri Synod put forth a pamphlet of objections, among which were:

"The law is an infringement of the liberty of conscience guaranteed by the constitution of Illinois.

"The law interferes with the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship.

"The law denies to the defendant in suits under the law the right of a fair trial and defense against injustice and malice.

"The law establishes a dangerous precedent for future encroachments upon religious parental educational privileges.

"The law is responsible for a dangerous element introduced into politics; members of Christian churches are compelled to enter the arena of politics in the defense of their religious rights.

"The law

schools."

#

manifests an inimical spirit toward private and parochial

The pamphlet incorporates an extract of a discourse delivered in Ohio in 1889 defining the Lutheran position upon parochial schools:

"Why is it that we Lutherans go to the trouble of erecting and maintaining parochial schools?

**

"Let me say right here that we Lutherans are not bent upon opposing our public schools. We are aware that for many reasons our civil authorities are obliged to erect and maintain schools, and we are glad to see them take an interest in the education of our country's children so as to make them intelligent citizens. We know that a large number of our country's children would be left without any instruction whatever by their parents if our State authorities did not look to their education. For this reason we cheerfully and willingly pay our taxes for public institutions of learning. It is our desire that not a cent of these taxes be expended for sectarian purposes, but that every cent be used in the interest of the public and community at large. We seek to discourage all attempts that are being made to appropriate money from the public school fund for private and denominational schools.

#

"Our parochial schools are institutions of learning, where the attending pupils receive an education in reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, history, and grammar, but in connection with these secular branches of knowledge they are daily instructed in the histories and doctrines of the Bible, so that on their dismissal from school they are thoroughly acquainted with the law and commandments of their God and the way unto salvation. And if I were asked to give a brief reply to the question why we Lutherans erect and maintain such schools, I should answer, Because we know it to be our sacred duty to give our children a thorough Christian education, and we are convinced that under present circumstances this duty may best be performed by means of congregational schools.

會

*

*

*

"You will allow me to say a few words in regard to the prevailing Sunday-school system. Common sense and experience tell that the Christian education which children derive by means of our Sunday schools must needs be very superficial. We can not be satisfied with having our children instructed an hour a week in matters that pertain to the eternal salvation of their immortal souls. We are convinced, and this conviction of ours is based on experience, that if our children are to receive a thorough knowledge and lasting impression of the Bible, its divine truths and commandments, they are in need of daily religious instruction. The law of God will have to be called to their minds, explained to them, and brought home to their hearts by competent teachers day after day. And that is what we are aiming at in our parochial schools. In all discipline exercised in our schools we strive to make the word of God the governing element. And even the secular sciences taught in our schools are pervaded by a Christian spirit. That is what we, under present circumstances, deem the best if not the only correct method of bringing up our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; and that is the reason why we Lutherans make it a practice to establish, build, and maintain parochial schools.”

The (Lutheran) Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and other States, in June, 1889, adopted the following statement:

"1. By the law of nature, as well as by Divine command, parents are entitled and in duty bound to provide for the education of their children.

"2. It is therefore the right and duty of all parents to select such schools for the education of their children as they are convinced will best promote the welfare of their children.

"3. In case parents neglect their duty the State is justified in compelling them, by appropriate legislation, to the discharge of their duty.

"4. If, however, the State assumes the right to educate, unless for such cause, it is an infringement of the natural right of parents.

"5. The conduct of the State in such case is, furthermore, unconstitutional, as the constitutions both of the United States and the State of Wisconsin proclaim liberty of conscience and religion, which liberty is set aside, not only by forcing upon anyone that which opposes his religion or is in conflict with his conscience, but also when a person is hampered in any manner in the free exercise of religion' and 'rights of conscience,' provided he does not act in open violation of law and morality.

"6. In view of the foregoing declarations we are compelled to combat with all lawful means in the courts such encroachments, and at the polls to withhold our vote from every candidate and party not publicly pledging themselves to do all in their power to bring about a repeal of the obnoxious sections of said [Bennett] law.

"7. To avoid all misunderstanding, we declare that we consider our public-school system a political necessity, and that we are willing to support it in the future as we have in the past. We are also convinced that by opposing said school laws we do not only contend for our inherent rights, but also best promote the true welfare of our free country. We finally declare most emphatically that it has always been and ever shall be our aim to provide in our parochial schools for the best instruction in the English language.”

The outcome was that the Lutherans as well as the Catholics defended their position so earnestly that the party in power in each State was displaced and the obnoxious laws were quickly repealed.

The intense feeling prevalent during the existence of the Bennett law has in large measure passed away, but the secularization of public institutions has gone on at a rapid rate, so that many institutions, including State universities, that lately had devotional exercises, no longer have them as part of their programmes.

INCIDENTAL INFLUENCES.

Rulison v. Post.-In this contest of the middle northwest incidental occurrences have had a great weight. For example, a decision is quoted in the anti-Bennett law pamphlet to establish the freedom of parents and guardians to determine the extent to which they will render the provisions of a common-school education available to the children of their charge. The same case has been cited to show that parents may properly object to participation in devotional exercises in school. The case did not directly involve the Bible or religion. It is in 79 Illinois and is known as Rulison v. Post. A school board laid out a compulsory course of study. A young lady under directions from home declined to study bookkeeping, and was therefor expelled by the principal under instructions of the school board. Thereupon suit for damages was brought against the teacher in the name of the young lady. The decision in the lower court was in her favor, and on appeal to the supreme court damages were allowed under such instructions that any other subject-the Bible, for example-might be inserted for bookkeeping in the assertion of the parental right to select or reject studies from those provided.

The Illinois flag law.-A law known as the "flag law" became operative in Illinois without the governor's signature, June 26, 1895. This law prescribed that a national flag not less than 4 feet by 8 feet should be kept floating from 9 a. m. to 4 p. m. every day when the institution was in session over every building used for educational purposes in the State, public, sectarian, or private, under penalty of misdemeanor, finable from $3 to $10 and costs for every day of neglect. Some friends of parochial schools interpreted it as a new effort to worry them. By a singular course of circumstances the suit under which the law has just been declared unconstitutional was against the State University, which had a flag on its principal building, but did not have a flag on every building.

The stress of this law may be clearer by contrast with the Massachusetts flag law of March 27, 1895, which requires school committees "to provide for each schoolhouse in which public schools are maintained a United States flag of silk displayed on the schoolhouse

or bunting not less than 4 feet in length grounds or schoolhouse buildings every school day, when the weather will permit, and on the inside of the schoolhouse on other school days." The Massachusetts law deals only with public schools, the minimum size of flag is but half as large as under the Illinois law, and the Massachusetts law allows some discretion as to hours and weather.

NATIONAL LEGISLATION.

The movement for the insertion of an explicit recognition of the Deity in the Constitution of the United States has been latterly obscured by efforts to remove all religious expression from official action. In 1876, Samuel T. Spear, D. D. (Presbyterian), gathered a series of his contributions to the (New York) Independent into a volumeReligion and the State, or the Bible and the Public Schools. In this volume he advocates the exclusion of the Bible from the common schools, and cites approvingly the amendment to the Constitution proposed by Hon. James G. Blaine in the House of Representatives that "No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect. Nor shall any money so raised ever be divided between religious sects or denominations."

President Grant in his message of December 7, 1875, had urged an amendment of similar tenor, as still earlier (1875) in a speech at Des Moines, Iowa, he said: "Keep the church and the state forever separate."

There are some who, like Horace Mann, consider church and state separated in the schools when the English Bible was read without note or comment. There are some who, like Samuel T. Spear, consider the Protestant public school, in which King

66