Compulsory Militarism

Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · Mar 29, 1900

FromThe American Sentinel, Vol. 15, No. 13.

Compulsory Militarism.

A GRAND ISLAND, Nebr., journal gives this statement of a case which came up in the public school in that city in February last, involving the question of the right of a public school board to make military drill compulsory upon the pupils. We give the substance of the report made by this journal.

The pupils of the public schools of Grand Island are exercised after school hours in military drill. One of the pupils, E. C. Hayman by name, refused to participate in the exercise, having been instructed by his father not to do so. For his refusal he was expelled from the school. His father sent him back the next morning. The professor told him that he was expelled unless he would agree to take part in the cadet drill, and when the boy refused to leave, the professor called in an assistant and went to police headquarters and swore out a warrant for the boy’s arrest. The boy was taken into

custody by the chief of police, and the case came up for decision in the court, where it was argued before a jury.

For some strange reason not stated, the judge ruled that the cause of the boy’s arrest should not be stated at the trial; whereupon one of the jurors arose and said:—

“Your honor, I am father of several children; I pay my taxes willingly, and I, as a member of this jury, rise to ask for information. Here is a boy who is ejected from our public schools and traduced into police court on a warrant which reads as though he was one of the lowest criminals, and yet the testimony of the State shows him to be a perfect gentleman in every respect; obedient and of spotless character. Yet the jury is prohibited from knowing a single point which led to the boy’s arrest. I say it is an outrage; that this jury has a right to know what this boy is arrested for. If the boy has always been an exemplary scholar in the schools, why should he be ejected and arrested? I say, your honor, that this jury has a right to know what caused this boy to be arrested.”

Nevertheless the judge still refused to allow this most essential piece of information to come before the jury.

The boy himself, when called to the witness stand, “stated that he had never been expelled from school before, neither had he any trouble with any teacher and his deportment cards were good; that on the evening of the 8th of February he was expelled from school, but here the court interrupted him from telling what he was expelled for, stating that if he referred to ‘that matter’ during the progress of the trial, he would be thrown into jail.”

At the conclusion of the boy’s testimony “attorney Glanville, for the State of Nebraska, addressed the jury to the effect that the orders of the school board should be obeyed, be they right or wrong; and that the justness of the case in question was no concern of ours.”

Then attorney Mitchell spoke for the defense. “He stated that he anticipated that the school board had made some ridiculous and foolish ruling which would not stand in court, and which was an attempt to take away parental rights of the parents over their own children; that he as a father and every other man of a family had rights over their children which no board or dictatorship dare molest and advised those who wanted forced militarism to go to Russia where they belong. For his part he was in this country for its freedom, and that if the school board had a right to compel school children to take militarism against the parents’ wish there was no longer freedom; that the board had just as much right to compel the scholar to join the football club, the skating club, or any other club, as they had the ‘cadets;’ that many parents did not believe in monarchy, militarism, or dictatorship, but on the contrary preferred to train their children for something good, something more elevating and more honorable than guns and swords; that guns and swords mean blood; that blood means murder, and that most parents have a higher ideal of their son’s future than such tyranny.” The jury retired, and to their credit, after being out three minutes, brought in a verdict of “not guilty.”

Unless the paper from which we gather these statements has greatly exaggerated the facts, it is difficult to see how the spirit of arrogant despotism could be carried much further than was done in this case. This is militarism unmasked. This is the spirit of it, which it will surely exhibit when it feels itself strong enough to do so safely. This is what will be in the public schools everywhere when militarism gets into the seat of power.

In this case in Nebraska this spirit met with a rebuke; and the school board voted to rescind the order making military drill compulsory, and to reinstate young Hayman in the school from which he had been expelled. But it was moved “that the military law be hereafter managed by the teachers in a similar manner to all other studies, i. e., allow scholars to attend school without the military drill, but grade them accordingly; or, in other words, when they had reached the period where they are entitled to a diploma in all other studies, the same could be refused on the ground that they did not take the soldier part.” And “This passed without modification.”

The journal from which we have quoted, cites for the benefit of the school board a ruling of the Nebraska Supreme Court relative to the rights of parents in selecting studies for their children, that “The parent has a right to make a reasonable selection from the prescribed studies for his children to pursue, and this selection must be respected by the trustees, as the right of the parent in that regard is superior to that of the trustees and the teachers.” The journal pertinently adds:—

“The action of the trustees of our city schools in expelling young Hayman for refusing to appear in dress parade and military drill after school hours, can plainly be seen to be in open violation of law and the legal rights of the parent in the premises. “The latter action of the board, namely, to withhold diplomas until the student or students have taken the prescribed cadet course, is equally illegal, so far as the laws governing our public schools are concerned. The school board, however, may be excused for the action taken on the ground that it was non-conversant as to the Supreme Court ruling in the premises, and the only honorable course now to pursue on the part of that body is to rescind its later action and hereafter conduct itself within the spirit and letter of the law.”