Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1861-04-10

this fund, that It would, for this reason, be OBJ
npxious to them. And with 30 large an army Of
Office holders arrayed in opposition to the bill,
there would be but little hope Of Its becoming
q law. Besides, fear this House isnot pre-
pared to vote for 90 radical q change, in the
mode of distribution, as the adoption Of the
compound rule just suggested would involve.
But, am unwilling to believe that majority
of the members of this House will not vote for
this bill when they are In possession of the
facts, which propose to submit to their con-
sideration. ofl G' -i
The law, as before stated, provides that a
mill and q half on the dollar valuation on the
grand list of the taxable property Of the State,
shall be levied and assessed annually for the
support of common schools. The proposition
contained in the bill now before the House is
simply to reduce this tax toia half mill, making
II one. e.third Of the present amount. The advo-
Gates Of State tax because it is Consttu-
tional requirement., cannot object to the bill; for
it recognizes their theory In providing for the
tax; aud although Il does not remove the
Objectionable feature of the law, It lessons 1t in
so great ratio, that those who are now OPP
pressed by it will be reconciled to wait for time
and further enlightenment Of public sentiment
to accomplish complete reform. The ends of
justice will be approximated by the passage of
this bill, and the practical operation of the law
will not be affected in the slightest manner.
True, the change ia not 30 radical as could
wish. There. are other changes should like to
see made. The school system needs simplifi.
cation. It should be divested Of some excres
cences that have been attached to it by in.
discreet friends. But 1t will require time to
effect thorough reform. ...l
Mr.. DAVIS, of Tascarawas-Mr. Speaker, l
desire to ask the gentleman from Hamilton,
whether his bill proposes any other change in
the law than the reduction of the taxi
Mr.. WRIeHT-Mr. Speaker, thought had
so distinctly and emphatically stated that the
bill before the House proposed no other change
in the law than the reduction Of the State school
tax, that there could be no misspprehension as
to its object. It seems that was mistaken.
Mr.. Speaker. my friend, the gentleman from
Meig5, (M:. Plants) the efficient chairman of
the standing committee on Schools and School
Lands, made the ablest and most Ingenious ar
yument in support of Sec. 63 Of the achool law
hat have heard since have had the honor of
, place on this floor, in report which he made
70 this House last session, on H. B. No. Sc, re.
its indefinite postponement. AS a
member of that committee, then dissented
from the argument of my friend, as will be seen
,y reference to the report, which will be found
IN page l49 of the Appendix to the House
Journal for 1860. To that report, the writer
lays: "The only theory upon which your com.
nittee can Justify tax at all for the purposes
IF education is, that the State, being sovereign,
mas right to tax the property Of the State
If this theory is not sound, then the whole sys.
;em is built upon fallacy, and ought to fall
But, If the principle is right, then the money,
wherever in the State collected, ought to be ap.
,ropriated to the education of the children of
he State, wherever they may be found" Now,
ssuming that the theory in reference to the
light of the State to tax the property of the
tate, for the purpose of education, is correct,
oes it follow, as a logical sequence, that the
money should be distributed in the manner pre-
cribed 10 the law, and advocated in the report 7
f the cost of education were equal in all the
ounties of the State, this mode of distributing
he school fund might answer the ends of jus.
Ice. Here let me refer to page 70 of the sew
nth annual reportof the Commissioner of Com.
non Schools, and call the attention OF members
0 the following: