ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors][merged small]

HENRY F. DURANT, Esq.:-
:-

Dear Sir,--The undersigned are desirous that your Argument in the Eliot School case should be more widely circulated, and therefore request that you would furnish a corrected copy of the same for publication,

And oblige, yours, &c.,

BOSTON, March 31, 1859.

ARTHUR B. FULLER,

Pastor New North Church.

JOHN W. DADMUN,

Pastor of the First Methodist Church.

N. M. GAYLORD,

First Universalist Church.

G. W. BLAGDEN,

Senior Pastor of the Old South Church.

THE ELIOT SCHOOL CASE.

On Monday, the fourteenth day of March last, the public were much excited by the announcement that there had been an open rebellion in the Eliot School, one of the largest grammar schools in Boston, and that all the Catholic children had refused to obey the established regulations of the School Committee in regard to the reading of the Holy Scriptures and the recital of the Ten Commandments. Over three hundred pupils peremptorily refused to obey these regulations, and were therefore dismissed from the school.

On the following Wednesday, a complaint was made in the police court by William Wall, the father of one of the pupils, against McLaurin F. Cooke, the second or sub-master of the school, charging him with an assault and battery upon his boy, Thomas J. Wall. The trial was protracted for a number of days, and necessarily postponed on account of the public business, until the twenty-fifth of March, when this argument was addressed to the court on behalf of the defendant. The following facts, which appeared at the trial, are referred to in the debate.

On Sunday, the 6th of March, there was a meeting in a basement room of St. Mary's Church, a church of the Jesuits, on Endicott Street, at which a few of the Eliot School children, and some of the parents, were present. What took place did not fully appear, although it was admitted that some directions were given to the children by Father Wiget, the priest, in regard to repeating the Ten Commandments in school. On the Monday morning following the boy, Thomas J. Wall, refused to join with the other scholars in repeating the Ten Commandments, saying that he did not know them. He was reminded by the teacher that he had always been in the habit of repeating them before, but still persisted in his denial. He was then taken to Mr. Mason, the Principal of the school, who told him that he must not attend school until his father came with him, and the matter was inquired into. On Wednesday the father brought back his boy, and gave directions that he should repeat the commandments, as the others did, or that he should be punished severely. On Thursday he came again and asked if his son

had obeyed the regulations, and was told that he would not be required to do so until the next Monday. He then repeated the order to punish the boy severely, if he refused, and gave very particular directions not to dismiss him from school, if he disobeyed, but to keep him and punish him severely. On the Sunday following the children, about nine hundred in number, who attended St. Mary's Church, were all collected and instructed by Father Wiget, that they must not repeat the Ten Commandments, or join in the Lord's Prayer, and he threatened them with exposure from the altar, if they disobeyed him. On Monday there was a general disturbance and disorder in the different school-rooms during the usual reading of the Bible. The boys scraped with their feet, and made much disturbance by whistling and muttering; they afterwards all refused to say the Lord's Prayer, or recite the Ten Commandments. It was testified that the boy Wall was the most active, and appeared to be the one to whom the others looked as foremost. He was called to the teacher's desk and examined, and then was whipped for his misconduct. It was claimed that the boy was severely whipped, but the evidence of a physician who was called by him, showed that the whipping was not severe, and that all marks or effects of it disappeared the next day.

The boy and his father were called as witnesses, and among other things, the boy said that a brass medal silver washed was given to him by Father Wiget the night before he was called as a witness. This took place at the Jesuit's house, but the boy said he did not know why the medal was given him, and could not recollect any thing said to him at the interview, except "to go home to his supper." The defence was placed upon the ground, that the regulations of the school were proper, and that there was a planned and concerted rebellion to overthrow the discipline of the school, and set the master's authority at defiance, and that such misconduct not only justified, but required a much more severe punishment than was given. The counsel for the prosecution took the ground that the school regulations were illegal and unconstitutional, and thus the great question in the cause was raised.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »