and shown by experience to result in many cases, in disaster. There is a widespread conviction that education in morality and right conduct of life follows as of course from instruction in secular knowledge, and on all sides we find this fallacy proclaimed in the face of the fact that should be obvious, that without morality knowledge but increases the capacity of the bad to do evil. The great criminals are not confined to those ignorant of books. The selfish passions are not eradicated by training the intelligence. Hence, the Church insists that in the impressionable time of youth, the human mind and heart must be really educated in its always paramount duty to serve God as the end of being, and no system of education will ever be satisfactory that attempts in any way to escape this duty.

Here then is the crux of the question. The statesman says:
"I recognize and admire your position, and could I
accept the dogmas of your religion, I would be glad
to have them taught in the schools of the State; but
you must recognize my right of conscience as I recog-
nize yours. I am willing to abstain from teaching
my system of belief, and you should make a similar
concession. Let us have a colorless system, teaching
natural morality and leave the rest to home influ-
ence."

At first, as has been said, there seems to be no other way of solving the problem, and so little by little the public schools have been divorced from all religious influence, save such as creeps in from the personality of the teachers, and the great parochial system of the Catholic Church has been built up by its side.

Now as citizens, we have a right to look with alarm upon the effect produced on the comunity by the annual graduation of at least some proportion of the graduates of public schools, who have learned no morality higher that that which demands of them a line of conduct that will avoid conviction for crime; but under the general principles we have laid down, so long as there is no positive teaching contrary to morality, we have no right to object to the parental right exercised by so many of our fellow citizens to send their children to these schools. And frankly, we must recognize the exigencies of modern times, the diversity

of religious beliefs, the close asociation in the business and social affairs of life, especially in the United States, of persons holding all shades of belief. All these things, together with the widespread conviction that the State ought to provide a free education. for all children whose parents wish them to have it, should prevent us from attempting to undermine in any way the State-supported schools. Let us rather be glad that so many good men and women devote their lives to them, and hope that their limitations and drawbacks may be corrected and supplemented by home instruction in God-fearing morality and uprightness of life. But for ourselves, we cannot be silent so long as the unfairness of taxing us to support them, while supporting our own remains uncorrected. We are ready and willing to give to the State our taxes for all things within the function of the State, but we cannot in conscience support a system of education that in its logical tendency leads to atheism and materialism.

Let us meet those fair-minded men, who do not accept our faith, but who we hope may be convinced of the justness of our premises, with a solution that will not offend against the constitutional principles that all Americans ought to accept, viz: the inalienable right of private conscience, so far as it does not endanger public order and morality, and the free and separate Church supreme in all its functions, in a free State supreme in its functions.

How can this be done? The answer has already been given by many able students: let there be a recognition of the parochial school system, not only of the Catholic Church, but of any body religious, secular or ethical, that will give to its schools a standard of education responsive to the tests approved by experience as being sufficient. Let there be no payment or allowance for religious instruction, but a generous allowance for secular instruction, and a rigid scrutiny of educational methods.

In the language of an eminent jurist, Hon. Martin F. Morris, whose studies of the subject have qualified him to speak with authority:

"The problem is not an insoluble one. Let us establish schools of our own on the basis of the State system; let the education in these schools be given to

the satisfaction of the State, and when it has been
determined under the supervision of the State that
such education is satisfactory, let these schools be vir-
tually aggregated to the common school system - not
merged in it, but simply aggregated. It appears to
us, that legislative enactment to give effect to these
suggestions, are neither difficult nor impracticable if
the subject is approached in a spirit of reason and

conciliation." (Amer. Eccl. Rev. Vol. VII, p 13)

Undoubtedly any attempt to modify the present public educational system in the direction indicated by Judge Morris, in the present temper of the popular mind would be met by a storm of opposition It would be argued that it was but the entering wedge intended ultimately to destroy the most complete and satisfactory department of the State's work, and one nearest and dearest to the hearts of the people. As Catholics, and therefore kindly, temperate and long suffering men, we should deplore any action that would be sure to blow into flame the slumbering embers of religious animosity; but we fail in our duty if we do not attempt to educate the people to a just apprehension of our position. Neither is is right that we should be taxed to support a department of government intended, it is true, for the advantage of the entire community, but from the enjoyment of which we are precluded by the demands of conscience, nor can we sit quiet, while we see the State, although intending no harm to any religion, dealing the deadliest blows against all religion, by its negative attitude on a subject peculiarly requiring affirmative instruction in the plastic time of childhood and youth.

Even to those, who are denied the gift of supernatural faith, it must be evident that no State can preserve its liberties, where self-restraint and the peculiar teachings that have their efflorescence in the Christian religion, and lie at the basis of the highest modern civilization are systematically ignored in the education of its youth.

Therefore, both as citizens and patriots, we must concentrate our best efforts in the study of some method that will avoid the danger that has assumed most threatening proportions.

We are not alone in our general views. Writers who are widely separated from the Church have combated and are combating

this modern fallacy that instruction means education, and morality is the offspring of learning. It is obvious that we must have public schools, first because so many parents are unwilling or unable to educate their children privately, and second, because in the present temper of the public mind, they are considered the best means of raising the standard of morality, as the great masses understand the term.

Our duty is to show that the cause of public education will be in no wise endangered if the State will extend its aid to all denominational schools that are ready and willing to submit their system of secular education to the test it applies to those conducted directly by its own officials.

We do not ask aid for religious teaching, we accept loyally and heartily the principle that where there is a great divergence of religious belief among the masses of the population. it would be in the highest degree unjust to use the public moneys for any such purpose; but so long as the popular sentiment sustains the principle that the State should afford to all of its citizens a free education for their children, we have the right to ask that its system be adapted so as to permit its citizens of religious conviction, whatever be their shade of belief, to enjoy equally with others the benefits which they are taxed to provide.

REVEREND JAMES P. FAGAN, S. J.

BORN FEBRUARY, 1856

DIED APRIL, 1906

Rev. James P. Fagan, S. J., was born on February 20, 1856, in New York City. At the age of thirteen he entered St. John's College, Fordham. He made rapid progress in his studies. He entered the Jesuit Novitiate at Sault au Recollet in Canada, where he remained two years. He was sent for his higher studies to Rockhampton, England, made his philosophy in Louvain, Belgium, and completed his theological course at Woodstock, Maryland.

As scholastic he taught in Jersey City, and was professor of rhetoric at the Jesuit Scholasticate in Frederick, Md. As priest he taught at Fordham. He filled many important positions in the Society of Jesus, was associate editor of The Messenger, Socius to the Provincial, prefect of studies at Fordham, Georgetown University and St. Francis' Xavier's, New York City. The last three years of his life he spent as director of studies and Vice Principal of Loyola School, New York City.

Father Fagan was a firm believer in the Catholic Educational Association, and was identified with the College Department from the early years of its existence. He was a careful student of the tendencies of the times, and his remarkable address on "Educational Legislation in the United States," delivered at the Chicago Conference in 1901, is still remembered on account of its thoroughness and comprehensiveness.

The College Conference at the annual meeting in Cleveland adopted the following resolution:

The College Conference desires to express its regret and sympathy in the unexpected demise of Rev. James P. Fagan, S. J., who so ably and actively labored to promote the work of this Conference and of the Catholic Educational Association.