New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1850-06-08
FUT 7 % ITIUuut
The BROOKLYN Board Of Education.


ing Of this week, decided upon the claims Of the
Orphan Asyums to distributive share of the Com
mon School fund. The decision is too remarkable
to be passed over without notice. and as this mat
ter has already been the subject Of some comments
IN The Tribune, it will, presume, be OF sufficient
public interest to warrant an examination some
what in detail.
The claim is founded upon law passed in 1873,
which provides that "The Orphan Asylums OF the
City Of Brooklyn shall participate in the dstribu
tion Of the school moneys raised in said city in pro-
portion to the number of children between the ages
of four and sixteen who have been under the
charge of said societies during the past year and
instructed ia such manner as is usual in Common
Schools and shall hereafter be annually entitled TO
such dstributye share in the same manner and 10
the same extent as is now or shai be provided IN
respect 10 the Common Schools OF said city
Although il was intended that the Asy lums should
have participated in the fund distributed in lsis
vet the law was passed late in The session that
there was no opportunity OF getting an application
before the Board Of Education. In the following
wear ns49ithere was some lnformality in the mode
of making the application and the claims were
passed over in silence and distribution was made
of the whole fund to the District Schools As il no
law had been passed for the benefit ofthe Asylums
IL il little singular that respects one OF these
institutions such course should have been taken,
as the President OF the Board was not only ap-
prized of the law but was well acquainted with
the affairs of the Asylums, and could with little
pains have saved their share. Subsequent pro-
ceedings have shown that the claim was not popu-
lar in the Board of Education IL appears 10 have
been determined from the first 10 resist It. IL was
perhaps too much to expect that any one in the
Board should risk his own influence or involve
-. &c. IL.
lum which is managed by tadies and has no p0iRt-
cal consequence.
The case, however seemed 10 be a hard one
and was submitted TO the State Superintendent
for his advice and direction, who thereupon made
an order on the 18Th Of October, ls49, authorizing
and requiring the Board Of Education of Brooklyn,
at their next apportionment OF school money 10
appodion and pay over to the Orphan Asylums So
cetes the share of public money due to them under
the law of 1913 for the year Sfs ls49 aud 1850, not
withstanding the omission Of said Societies to re-
port in accordance with the provisions Of the laws
relating to Common Schools, such omission having
been satisfactorily explained TO him, which order
was officially communicated TO the Board IN the
same month that it bears date.
Early in the present year application was made
by both Societies, under this order, to the Board
of Education, and all the acquisitions OF law were
otherwire duly complied with This was before
anything had been done by the Board with the
fund which they had TO distribute. In the mean
time, the Law Committee to whom the order had
been referred reported by their Chairman, Judge
Greenwood in which report the ri sht OF the state
Superintendent TO excuse omission for the last TWO
years and TO direct payment OF the arfear, was
fully admitted but en- opinion was expressed tha'
the law itself did not authorize Distribution Oh any
pert Of the fund except what was raised ia the CITY
by a CITY tax excluding what was derived from
the county and the State. NO action was taken
upon the report. The application oil the AsyiuniS
was then referred to the same Committee ana re-
port to the same effect was made, but neither was
any action taken upon this-but WIN tne "hois
matter before them undecided, the Board proceed.
cd TO make distribution Of the entire fund without
reserving anything for the Asy lums upon the con
tingencv Of their claims being allowed nor indeed
was there any reference 10 the claims. From the
report Of the Committee on Distribution, and the
proceedings of the Board thereon it could not have
been inferred that any such claims existed. such
transaction it is to be hoped is without precedent
II more resembled the administration OF law by
Turkish Csdi than by a board OF American cit
zens, acting merely as trustees for puOc benefit
1t may be thought that there was still reserved
power that would enable the Board to provide for
these claims Such was plainly not the view Of
many members-perhaps those who were most &C
tive in getting the appropriation through without
including the Asylums In the subsequent discus
sion the argument was boldly advanced by infuen-
tia members that the fund having been distributed
there could be nothing done FOR the Asyums the pre-
sent year One can hardly resist the conviction
that it was supposed in the Board that the whole
subject had thus been got rid Of for the present,
and nothing but the attention of the public, which
was beginning TO be directed to the subject, per-
haps, has brought the Board 10 making any decision.
They have finally decided. l propose now to
examine it in order to see whether it has been
done in the spirit Of concession and anxious regard
for public interests Of sinister opposition and IN
avowed prejudices.
In the first place the recommendation Of the Law
Committee uniting the distributive share to the
part of the fund that is raised by tax in the City,
has been adopted, including what the City receives
as its portion Of the County tax and the cores
ponding amount bestowed by the State.
In the next place, rule OF distribution Is adopt
ed IN respect 10 the Asylums differing from that
which is adopted in respect TO the District Schools,
by which the former are defrauded Of the greater
part OF what justly belongs to them the details OF
which Ubiquitous scheme will be presently given.
Lastly, they reject the claim so far respects the
two preceding years, and refuse compliance with
the order OF the State Superintendent.
As to the first, with all due respect TO the Chair
man OF the Law Committee, it appears TO me that
the construction of the law is too plain to require
the opinion OF lawyer. Any man Of common
sense can see what was intended. What motive
could there have been for discrimination. Ifthe
Board OF Education have got the money. il Is evi.
dent that il must have been raised somehow; and
if the Common Council had even gone out of the
City to obtain tiff they had in fact, borrowed il
upon the credit of the City, if when brought there
and placed under the control Of the Board of Edu.
cation, II il to be deemed within the terms of the
law as a fund raised in the City But forbear
to discuss this point further Ifit requires srgu.
ment (which il seems to me il does not this is not
the proper place for going into it more al large.
In respect 10 the rule OF distribution. the Board
Of Education have substantially in distributing to
the District Schools had reference to the number of
children actually taught with only the modification
that sufficient amount is given to eyery school TO
support a qualified teacher. Ii is not necessary
here to inquire whether this rule is in conformity
with law. The Board itself cannot question 4
without impeaching their own honesty.
According TO the report OF the CITY Supernten.