The miners' express. (Dubuque, Iowa) 1849-1854, 1849-07-25
e pl lsgay 10 4, ySs ae as, 500 $3.50
correspondence of the Miners
Express.
For the Express.
The School Law.

5 Z
DEAR SlR-ln my communication ofthe 9TH
inst. asserted that Tie School Billreported
by the School Committee, at the last session Of
tho General Assembly was not the same as
that which was finally agreed --bnt ono en-.
tircly different in its principles. In this com
munication shall endenvor 10 show that the
original bill or one analogous to il in principle,
was what the wants Of the acknowledgement.
Before analysing the provisions of that bill,
I shall lay down two propositions, which will
be assumed as the necessary foundation of q
School Law. The FIRST is, that the ultimate
TO be stained by any school law is the Guilt.
yation Of the intellect. The second is, that
The means towards the attainment Of that OBJ.
ject should Be consistent with th . end to be nj.
tanned.
To squander the School Fund upon a number
Of unnecessary officers, called School Fund
Commissioners, is not very scDnsistent with the
ultimate object Of q good School Law; and In
view of This now admitted truth, no provision
was made for the creation 81 such an officer id
the ofiginal school bill. after thcirpr term
Of service expired. So fur. then, did the origi.
nal proposition Of the School Committee keep
in view, and act constantly with the ultimate
object to be attaincd--viz: the cultivation Of
the intellect The school land is the only;
means furnished by the State toward the at
tainment of the final object, and consequently
the only means for the management Of which
the State can make a law. If this means be
not wholly sufficient for the purpose. the most
that the State can do by law, Is to direct hoo
the balance required may be cont buted: but
it cannot say, nor should any law be allowed.
to say. that parents SHALL send their children
to be educated; and that if the means furnished
by the State for The attainment Of that object
be insufficient, that the same compplsion shall
force them to contribute, according to positive
la W. for the furth or and final attainment Of the
ultimate object s
The State, assert ngain, cannots force edu-e
cation; the most II Ca ,ssdo, the most Ii ought
to do, is to encourage it, This, and this alone,
it can do by positive law. fit steps beyond
sellor; and this advice, or counsel, it gives by
directory s!atutes--which, by the way, no one
is bound to obey. For example-when the
school Jaw says, or directs, that the school dis
trict shall have power to levy tax TO build a
sehaol house, the districts may do Just IS they
please bout 1t; bot when it says that the school
lands shall be sold, and tho interest Of the pro.
cceds distributed to encourage education, it
will be donc--this part will be obeycd.
Is not tins exactly as it should be? Is it not
right that the ques' ion OF taxation should be
left with those who pay the tax? that the ques.
ton of what grade Of schools is wanting, and
when shall the school houses he built, should
be decided by those who wantth schools?
The original school bifE left 1t w1fefo', proper.s
ly belonged; and this is one, and perhaps the
only material feature Of the original preserved
in the present law.
The original bill aimc' OF tho attainment Of
other means conducive to the ultimate object,
by enacting that the school district should be
co-eAtensive with the election precinct, and
that its school affairs should be administered
by one board of directors. If this feature had
been retained, we shou Id have one board of d.
rectors and two paid officers in ach township,
instead Of at least half dozen different sets
Of directors, as we have in many townships,
and consequently twelve paid officers. Besides
getting rid of some ferty School Fund Commits
sioncrs, we should, by the adoption of this pro.
vision, get rid of at least one thousand paid Of
ticers, and five hundred inactive, good for-no.
thing boardsof directors.
1t is needlessto. pursue this analysis any fur.
ther;athe comparison already made will be SUI.
ficient to show that the present school law diff.
fers ma teTla!ly from tic original proposition
by the School Comm ittee--that they
differ materially on The only part Of the 81 stem
upon which the State can assume 4 he right OF
enacting positive law, VIZ: on the manage-
ment of the School Fund and the conditions
upon which II may be secured. III D ss'-
Now. wliat kind of sol sw do lhespe0s
pie want7 VaTi osis AZ mn be l,a aIs BesS5 fo9
this questions venture to . wlsci 4
# Il moi sent inent Of the ma iofity ans
egregionst decei we'd. hey want d slasp sD.ich
s6il taxi assasuyes ne best sscirity und
arising from The sale Of School Z lands sEhiss
oughtto be the lead atnre I'D u cflool iaw.
sinces assI havos d read this is the on.
part ~ the Inv upon " fiicls the State can
spsA u poei nthoritatively, for wlOis
prepared tbat q gsFs ne ststss