The Lancaster ledger. [volume] (Lancaster, S.C.) 1852-1905, 1852-09-01

.erhSo wy oPPOfoeiou VI eAo SySeeHhtps
making a selfish application of the fund.
The parishoher complained that he was
taxed equally, to raise the fund, and that
he ought therefore, to receive back, his
proportionate amount of the fund, not ac-
eording to the object of the fund, but ac-
cording to the principle of taratian. Such
complaints induced the Legislature to es-
tablish representation in the House ofRep-
resentatives as the basis of distribution Of
the fund, allowing to each member of the
House $500, as the preportionate part Of
the .tund, to which his section was entitled.
This effectually placed the system under
the control of the Districts and Parishes,
instead of tho State. IL thus became a
mere District, or Parish institution. That
the Legislature had the power, to establish
such a basis Of distribution, can not be de-
MED, but that she infringcd the spirit and
meaning of the Constitution, in the exer-
else of the power, is equally clear to my
mind. The Constitution provides, that
"no money shall be drawn from the pub
lie treasury, but by the Legislative author
ity of the State" The plain, obvious pur-
pose of this clause of the Constitution, is
to establish the right of the State to all
monies paid into the government by means
of taxation. Is .
Taxation being the price paid by each
individual to the government, for the pro-
lection it offers to his life, limb, and prop
erty-protection stands as an equivalent
to taxation. The individual, therefore, has
no right of property whatever, in the mon
ey which, he pays to the support of gov
ernment, after he pays it into the hands
of the TaX7collector, who returns it over
to the State. 1t then becomes the exclu-
siSeproperty of the State. If this be true,
what right had the parishioncr to complain
and insist that he was entitled to such a
portion Of the Free School Fund, as was
equivalent to the amount his particular
parish paid into the treasury for educa-
tional purposes! Surely he had no right
to complain.
The money raised by tax for this pur-
pose, became as exclusively the property
ofthe State, as if it had been raised for
any other purpose whatsoever. The Leg
islature, therefore, infringed the spirit of
the Constitution, when she established the
present basis of distribution, simply, be-
cause she had the power, to establish what
tusis she pleased, by refusing to obey the
injunction-render to Cesar the things
that are Caesars.
The Legislature should have regarded
the Free School Fund as the exclusive
property of the State, and should have
distributed it among the several Districts,
and Parishes in the State, according to the
number of poor and INDECENT children in
each, who alone are properly, the subjects
of the Fund. The importance of educa-
ton, as well as the great want of it in the
State, loudly calls for change of the sys-
tenn in this respect. Feeling deeply, the
importance of the subject, our State was
induced to adopt the present Free School
system, with the hope of disseminating the
means OF education. The people, howev-
er, in the upper Districts of the State, have
reaped but little benefit from it; owing
to radical defects in the system itself, which.
have endeavored very briefly out clearly,
to point out. In view, then, of the i'm
portance of the subject, and the wants of
the people Of the State in this respect, it
is to be hoped that the Legislature will
eventually, so alter the present system as
to allay just complaint, and render salts
faction to all In thus replying to your
call, fellow cit zens, have endeavored to
lay before you my views upon the several
important subjects, upon hich, you asked
my opinions, with a candor and frankness
becoming my present position before you.
May you receive them kindly and find
them satisfactory. ...
With sentiments of the profoundest re-
spect, | am
... NJ. P. CRAWFORD.