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

time in pointing them out. This table show
the cost Of education, on the single item Of tut
tion, to be fraction Of dollar over Eve dollars
per scholar in average daily attendance The
minimum cost is about three dollars, and the
maximum COSTS nearly twelve dollars per schol,
ar in average daily attendance. These facts
adduced from the official statement of the high,
est school officer in the Stpte, render unnecessa.
~ any argument to show that the distribution
of the school fund, under the existing law, Il
10 violation of every principle of justice, equi.
ty, and right. l need not detain the House,
to make critical analysis Of this table of sta
tistics, to show that the law distributes with az
unequal and partial hand educational privile.
ges to the youth of the State This will be oh.
vious on it's mere perusal.
But,to return tothe argument Of my friend from
Meigs He says, "The State, being sovereign,
has a right to tax the property Of the State for
the education of the people Of the State" BY
adopting the 'inexorable logic of the gentleman,
we shall have no difficulty in proving that the
State has the right to tax the property of the
State to feed, to clothe, and do divers other
things for the people of the State. But, II we
should adopt the same method of distributing
fund raised for these purposes that the gentle.
man from Meigs advocates, and that the law
prescribes, for the distribution of the school
fund, we should soon hear loud cry Of COM
plant coming up from those parts of the State
where the cost Of food is the greatest; as II
would be found that the amount of money that
would be received there would be wholly mad
equste to meet the wants of the people. But,
from those parts Of the State where food Is
more cheap and living comparatively inexpens.
i've, there would come up no note of dissatis-
faction; for there, there would be surplus to be
expended for the luxuries Of life, or in such
manner as the benefciaries Of the State should
elect, Nothing is more evident than the fact
that pro rata distribution of money will not
afford equal facilities for education.
But, says my friend from Meigs, in his re-
port, "the State is the guardian of all her chill.
dren. By her sovereign power, she assumes to
tax the property, wherever found within her ju-
risdiction, for the benefit of these her wards
Having thus created common'fund, shall she not
act with an impartial justice in its distribution 2"
Most certainly, my friend, that is just what
desire. 1t is because impartial justice is not
meted out by this law that complain; and
when the gentleman shall have examined this
question, and be satisfied, as he must bc, that
impartial justice cannot be done under the law,
trust he will concur with me in the opinion
that it should be modified, IL il cannot be re
pealed. If the Constitution requires us to keep
an unjust Law upon the statute book, let US
make itas tolerable as we can.
Again, it is asked: "But would il be Ell
ther just or impartial to distribute to such of
her wards as happened to live within ten miles
of Cincinnati, or Cleveland, or Columbus,
twice as much Of this common fund as to those
who may happen to live half mile further,
II that should be across a county liner" In an.
swer to the latter question, l say emphatically,
If 1t requires twice as much money to keep the
Former at school the same length of time it does
the latter-that is, if the cost of education is
twice as much to the former as to the latter
they should, as matter of Justice and equity,
receive twice as much money.
Mn. SToUr-Mr. Speaker, rise to question
of order. The bill before the House, the gem
tleman has stated, relates to reduction OF the
school tax. His remarks are upon the distribu-
ton of the school fund. His speech don't fit
the bill 40,
The SPEAKER = The Chair is of opinion
that the gentleman from Hamilton ia in or
der. o.r - ....n
Mn. WRloHT-Mr. Speaker, am aware that
il Is weakness of the gentleman from Mon
roe, to allow himself to get into state of high
nervous excitement whenever this question is
discussed. Monroe county receives from the
school fund about three times as much as she
pays into it, and makes an annual net gain of
about $4,000 by the operation. II this bill
should pass, she will only receive bonus of
oue-third the amount. This, apprehend, is
the cause Of my friends uneasness at this time.
II be will hear me patiently, do not despair Of
him that, the distribution of the
school fund is subjectpertinent to- the question
before the House. No one will suspect the |
gentleman of faithlessness to his constituency |
Upon this question. Let me entreat him not to
gnore justice, though his constituents should |
profit by his act. know justice is on the side
advocate, and II it were possible for gen.
lemen here to divest their minds from the bias
which self.intorest has produced, should have
10 doubt as to the result of the vote on this BILL
II IL fails now, shall still look hopefully to the
uture. ..-
Now, Sir, II the friends of the State school |
ax had only attempted to make Il sufficient to
Ius.ain our schools for the period required,
without resorting to local taxation at ALL the in.
ustce and inequality would have been 60 pal.
psble, and It's oppression SO grievously burden.
1ome to portion Of the State, that open rebel.
lion, II not absolute secession, would have been
Ihe result OF the law, IL the latter had been
fashionable in those. days. While, on the other
hand, counties Of less wealth, and greater rela.
live enumeration of youth of school age, would
have received more money than they could ex.
pend under the law; for the School fund can on,
ly be applied in payment Of teachers. But why
should the State, if she proposes to educate
''her wards" as my friend says, confne her be.
nevolence to providing money for the payment
Of teacnersl Books, houses, and incident.
Al expenses, are as indispensable to the school