Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen and Honorable Judges: The question before you, "Should Education Be Compulsory?" is a question of much importance, both to the citizen and the public. To insist that every child in Illinois should attend school a certain number of years would require that much of our legislation and many of our customs should be changed. We can safely say that any interference with a man's private affairs is contrary to the spirit of our American institutions, and for this reason any attempt to introduce an argument from the practice in Europe is not a good one, for the reason that man has been more completely governed in the Old World. We must look at the case as it will affect our own condition, and not as it affects others. It is illogical for me to say to my neighbor, have your child educated, and he must be, although you are in bed sick and that child is your only support. Only the greatest reasons will justify that interference with the rights of the individual citizen. Every parent is naturally constituted the guardian of his children, and is most capable to tell what is for their benefit. Every father by nature seeks the welfare of his children, and any attempt by law to make him do it is apt to prove useless. But we are met with the argument that the good of the state requires that each citizen be educated. Granted, but let the state furnish facilities for education, and there its duty stops. The last speaker told us that ignorance is the cause of crime and that most of our jails and prisons are filled with ignorant and uneducated people. You cannot prove this to be true, for it is utterly exploded by facts. The inmates of our jails and prisons are in the majority educated people. You cannot say that each one of the inmates of our jails and prisons has no education any more than you can say that ignorance is the cause of crime, for most of the expert criminals that are in our jails and prisons are educated men. Herbert Spencer, one of the best Social Science philosophers living, has shown this to be true, and has shown that the educated criminal can stare you out of countenance every day in the week. You can no more prove that ignorance is a cause of crime than the neglect to use soap is a cause. The truth is, deviltry is born in a man, and you cannot educate it out of him one time in a hundred. You must look for a better argument, for that is utterly exploded by facts. Should education be compulsory, then, for the benefit of the child? The welfare of posterity is a great question and worthy of your consideration. But we can safely assume that in this day and country everyone that wants an education can get it; and when you come right down to the facts in the case, the man who is educated is the man who thirsts for knowledge. All the cramming you can give will not make an educated man. Many a man who has never been inside of a school-house is better educated than some who have gone through college and hold diplomas. But the minute you say that the youth of the land must be educated, you involve yourself in absurdity. You cannot logically say that he must go to school till he is fourteen years old, as the law is in Germany, for it is clear to all that some will learn much more in that time than others. Some may be sick so as not to be able to keep up with their grades. If education should be compulsory then it is manifest that you should have a certain amount. For instance, the pupil should understand the common school learning, to make a good citizen under the compulsory law; he should understand the constitution of his state and the United States and the laws and spirit of American institutions. He should understand the laws of health, so as to preserve his own life and the life of others. Church people might insist that the welfare of the state and the individual demands that he understand how to preach. Here you have the student that is through our public schools, a lawyer, a doctor and a preacher, or three learned men rolled into one. It would take a pretty good lifetime to make a complete citizen under the law of compulsory education. You may say that what I propose is an absurdity, but it is an absurdity into which your own argument leads you; it is the natural conclusion of your own logic. The fact is, that the same reasoning that will justify compulsory education will justify a state church and compulsory attendance at such church. In both cases the good of the citizen and the safety of the state are the objects sought, and both are illogical, un-American and tyrannical in their tendencies. If you have compulsory education who shall say how far it shall go—you have no more right to say than I have. Now, I want you to understand that I am not opposed to general, universal education. I am in favor of it, but to compel it is improper and unjust. By adopting compulsory education you take away the support of the widow, even if she be in bed sick with her bony fingers unable to support herself. Adopt compulsory education then and you begin to rob the citizen of his liberty. If you can say how much or whether he shall be educated, then you can say what she shall eat and wear. All arguments for compulsory education are dangerous to individual liberty, and for these reasons, while I am in favor of liberal and general education, I am utterly opposed to its being compulsory.