Page images

tion of the fourth article of the Constitution, so that the word “ biennially” shall read annually.

Mr. McMillan of Ohio, moved that a committee be appointed to nominate officers for the ensuing year. Resolution adopted.

The chair named the following gentlemen as said committee: Messrs. McMillan of the Western, Bulkley of the Middle, Philbrick of the Eastern, and Drury of the Southern sections of the Union.

The calling of the states was then resumed. There being no delegate in the house from New Jersey, Mr. CRUIKSHANK formerly resident there, answered for that state. Mr. KERR, Superintendent of Schools, Pittsburgh, responded for Pennsylvania, when that state was called.

Prof. John Young, of the North Western Christian University, Indiana, was now introduced as the next lecturer. Prof. Young announced his subject to be “The Laws of Nature.”

After a masterly and logical development of the idea of “God in Nature," the speaker drew a graphic picture of the chaos that would follow the disorganization or suspension of these laws.

He traced the existence of positive law in animate and inanimate nature, up to man, and in him found the crowning wonder of creation—the wonderful adaptation of every function to his highest good. Even his passions are the wise appointment of the Creator. In their use are happiness and harmony, only in their abuse are there evil and suffering.

The speaker entered minutely into the composition of man's mental and moral forces.

Mr. RICKOFF, from the committee in relation to change of place of meeting, reported, that in view of all the circumstances, a change is inexpedient. The report was adopted.

The Association then adjourned till 9 o'clock, to-morrow morning.


In the absence of the President, Mr. PHILBRICK was called to the chair.

The Secretary being absent also, Mr. B. T. Hoyt was chosen Secretary pro tem.

Rev. Dr. AYDELOTTE of Cincinnati, on being called upon, offered an appropriate prayer.

Mr. LONGWORTH of Cincinnati, sent an invitation to the Association, inviting the body to visit his house, gardens and wine cellars. The invitation was accepted, and the thanks of the Association returned.

Mr. RICKOFF announced the arrangements in reference to the Railroad accommodations, and return tickets.

The following subject, “Parochial Schools, are they in Harmony with the Spirit of American Institutions?" having been proposed by • a committee, was called up and discussed.

Mr. KNOWLTON of Cincinnati, understood “Parochial Schools” to be another name for Denominational Schools. He thought theolog-. ical dogmas and scientific and literary truths had nothing in common which required that the former must be taught at the same time as the latter. He would not deny that Denominational Schools might do good in cases where, by appealing to denominational prejudices, pupils were obtained who would not otherwise have attended. But he was opposed to distinctive denominational schools.

Mr. Hoyt thought Parochial Schools were not inimical to the spirit of Republicanism.

Hon. HORACE MANN believed that any institution which stifled discussion or relied upon authority without investigation, was wrong and hostile to progress. A school might be distinctively denominational, and yet encourage discussion, and in such a case, it would not be injurious. But when a school was denominational and forbade all inquiries into the soundness of its denominational foundation, it was hurtful. He thought that only by inquiry could that harmony and unity of religious belief be reached, which we expected to have when men inquired honestly and earnestly for truth.

The discussion was here interrupted by a call for a song from Prof. Paige, which was given, and with fine effect.

Mr. PHILBRICK was then announced as the lecturer for the morning; the subject of his lecture was “Moral Education."

On motion of Mr. B. T. Hoyt, the following resolution was passed unanimously:

Resolved, that the thanks of this Association be tendered to Mr. Philbrick for his able and truly excellent address on that most important of all subjects “ Moral Culture," and that a copy of the same be solicited for publication.

Mr. CRUIKSHANK called up his resolution on the proposed alteration of the Constitution. The amendment was unanimously adopted.

A communication was received from Mr. ABEL SHAWK, inviting the Association to witness an exhibition of his new Steam Fire Engine, and to appoint a committee to examine the same and report the

result of their observation and examination. The invitation was accepted, and the following gentlemen appointed on the committee, viz: Valentine, Philbrick and Read.

Letters were received and read from Messrs. Wiley of S. C., M. Conant and D. B. Hagar of Massachusetts, and George L. Farnam of New York, giving reasons for their absence, and at the same time expressing great interest in the success and prosperity of the Association.

The Association then adjourned till 2 o'clock p. m.

Afternoon Session. The Association met according to adjournment. Mr. VALENTINE Vice President, in the chair. The minutes of the previous day were read and approved.

Mr. CRUIKSHANK, on behalf of the Board of Directors, presented a list of names of persons for membership, who were elected.

Mr. BULKLEY, from the committee on nominations, reported a list of officers. The report was accepted, and the President, by vote of the Association, was directed to deposit a ballot containing the names reported by the committee. The President deposited the vote, and then declared that the persons named by the committee were unanimously elected. The list of officers is as follows, viz:

ANDREW J. RICKOFF, Cincinnati, O.

T. W. VALENTINE, New York,

C. E. Hovey, Illinois, D. B. HAGAR, Massachusetts,

I. W. ANDREWS, Ohio, B. M. KERR, Pennsylvania,

A. DRURY, Kentucky, J. F. CANN, Georgia,

DANIEL READ, Wisconsin, J. S. ADAMS, Vermont,

J. N. McJilton, Maryland,
B. T. Hoyt, Iowa,

J. W. BULKLEY, Brooklyn, N. Y.


C. S. PENNELL, Missouri.

Counsellors, JAMES CRUIKSHANK, New York,

L. C. DRAPER, Wisconsin, W. E. SHELDON, Massachusetts,

ISAAC STONE, Illinois, S. R. GUMMERE, New Jersey,

E. P. COLE, Indiana, J. D. YEATES, Maryland,

R. McMILLAN, Ohio, S. I. C. Swezey, Alabama,

0. C. WRIGHT, Dist. of Columbia, J. B. Dodd, Kentucky,

H. C. Hickok, Pennsylvania, N. D. TIRRELL, Missouri,

C. PEASE, Vermont. C. C. NESTLERODE, Jowa,

The question of Parochial Schools was then called up from the table and further discussed by Messrs. Campbell, Phelps, Richards, Tuckerman, Young, Hovey and Mann.

Mr. Phelps of Indiana, had noticed that most of the ability of teachers in the country was opposed to Parochial Schools, but there were arguments in their favor not generally advanced. This was a free country, and every American citizen had a right to send his children to what school he chose. The Parochial Schools were in harmony with the spirit of our institutions. Many of our forefathers were educated in such schools. Lord Baltimore and Roger Williams, long before Public Schools were dreamed of, had shown toleration in education and religion. Free Schools were better than Parochial, but when the state failed to endow the former, the Parochial Schools were not only good, but necessary. Was it not better that children should be sent to institutions of learning under certain religious influences than be neglected and permitted to be idle altogether?

Prof. RICHARDS of the District of Columbia, would recommend to states the preservation of the education of children to a certain faith. The influence in favor of Parochial Schools had arisen because of the neglect of morals in the Public Schools. Only literary instruction had been there attended to; the hearts of the scholars had been allowed to go astray, and, therefore, Christian men and women, though in favor of Public Schools, had become alarmed, and advocated Parochial institutions. Parents wished their children to respect virtue and religion, that their soul as well as their understanding should receive some instruction. The Public School system was the system for the country, although Parochial should always exist. It must not be insisted that the latter were opposed to the spirit of the Constitution. The Public Schools were needed most, but both were necessary under the existing order of things. Such teachers of Public Schools should be selected as would pay attention to the morals of the scholars, and bring them up in the love of Christianity.

Mr. Cyrus KNOWLTON of Huges High School, said the Association was supposed to embrace the wisdom, the learning, the judgment of the schools of this country. The question before the Convention was very important, and much depended upon the opinion of the Association respecting the two schools. The Parochial and Public Schools were opposed to each other; they could not subsist. Some states had not yet adopted measures respecting schools, and the speaker hoped that they might adopt our Public School system.' The Parochial system had been fully tried; New England had been full of it, but it had not proven satisfactory. This was an age of great things; the country was growing; new states were about to be admitted into the Union, that would adopt school systems. Hence, this Association's opinion would be of value to those states—it was not for Ohio alone, nor any other state, but for thousands and millions unborn. The Parochial system was narrow, expensive, biased. He would rather his arm should be severed than the Bible should be removed from the schools, but he was opposed to the rule of sectarianism.

Prof. THOMPSON of Hanover College, Indiana, stated that some false ideas were entertained in respect to Parochial Schools—what little they meant was simply that they were under the support of a certain denomination. All denominations taught morality, and would instruct children well. What they learned at the Parochial Schools would not harm them. Where men were members of, and interested in, a church, they were harmonious, and understood each other; they were more apt to have a complete and thorough system. Parochial only meant a place where pure morals were taught. To say Parochial Schools were hostile to our institutions was an error, and a serious one; for they only taught Christianity, which was at the bottom of our government, sustained it, and gave it prosperity.

Mr. H. TUCKERMAN of College Hill, asked if a school taught by a person of any particular denomination was parochial, and said he thought not, strictly speaking; and if Parochial Schools, that were truly such, did not present that homogeneousness necessary to the character of Americans, was not parochial education opposed to progressive movement-apt to narrow men down, and make them see through others? Parochial Schools, truly such, generated caste and observance of forms, and induced progress in circles. They prevented foreigners from fully harmonizing with our citizens and adapting themselves to our institutions.

Parochial Schools have had ample opportunity for trial; until fifty years past the Public had had no chance. In England, so great in many things, the school system had not been successful because of its sectarianism. The Parochial Schools were established more for the glory of a denomination than for the cause of education. The teachers for such must be of the sect under which the school was established. First-class teachers could not be had, therefore. For God's sake, let the spirit of sectarianism not rest upon and blast the minds of the rising generation? The question was, whether the school should stand on its own foundation--not under the mere

« PreviousContinue »