The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1872-02-03
42d CONGRESS.
WASHINGTON, February 2.
HOUSE, e,

| blT. + rlhkEI'Bkhu presented memOrlAl
against the passage Of the Chicago relieI
bill as. impracIicable, unjust, unset,
tllng values, compllcaling the collection
Of revenue, as opening the way to fraud
and imposing on few classes the burden
Of a relief which should be borne equally
alike by law.
On motion Of Mr.. LYNCH the Secretary
Of the Treasury was requested TO give
information US To tonnage, &c, with
, respect to the trade of the United States
for the year 1870, with foreign countries.
The Indian Appropriation bill was
then taken up, and the amendment adopt
cd that no payment be made TO the hostile
tribes, and that deductions for Indian
depredatiOns are be be made, and the bill
then passed. tt .fs IL
Mr.. PERcE introduced a bill 10 pay the
College Of William Mary, in Virginia,
$65,0O0 for the de- truction made by dis
orderly soldiers during the war. The
House proceeded to consider the bill In
Committee OF the Whole.
Several bills lor tho extension ofpatcnts
were passed. ity4 ilfT ttt
The House then took up the bill to c.
tablish an educational fund by applying
the proceeds OF the sales Of public lands
to the education Of the people.
| MIR. MCIENRY made aspeech against
the bill.
MIR. FARNswORTII and others, however,
made objections TO the bill, and it went
over. 'h.s 'iIf''aN No..
Mr.. HUBBARD, of N. H., opposed the
bill, saying he regarded It as an opening
merely paving the way for the cOmpre-
hensive system Of national education, Tor
postal telegraph law, and lor other kin.
dred legislation, until every right hereto
fore regarded as being vested in the States,
will be absorbed by the general govern
ment.
Mr.. KERR also opposed the bill, and re-.
ierred to Mr.. HoAR's speech in support Of
is as being unworthy Of him, and as being
designed tomake false charges against the
Democratic party, in connection with
education. He characterized that speech
as extremely discreditable to Mr.. HoAR,
and unjust towards the Democratic party,
whose record in connection with educa.
tion was illustrious and glorious. The
State Of Indiana had to-day q munificent
educational fund OF about eight and half
million dollars.
Mr.. HoAR suggested that that fund
come from public lands. n..s.
Mr.. KERR-By no means.
Mr.. HoAR-No part OF it.
Mr.. KERR-I did not say it.
Mr.. HoAR-No, but ask you, that is
all.
Mr.. KERR then cited from what sour
ces the funds was derived. Three and a
half millions being from bonds issued by
the State, and about four millions from
public lands.
Mr.. HoAR-Then the gentleman admits
that the bill is precisely in the line of the
Democratic policy In better days F,sE
MIR. KERR-This bill is precisely out OF
line with the Democratic policy, and is
precisely in line Of the present and past
policy Of the Republican party towards
the States Of the Union. He proceeded 10
discuss the details OF the bill, and to state
his objecti0as 10 othem. One ol the objec-
tiOns which he had to the bill was that it
required not only system of free public
schools but of mixed public schools. lie
was in favor of giving free and equal
education TO all the children of the coun-
try, but he was not in favor Of that misera.
BILE system which did curse both races by
mixing them up in common schools.
Another objection was that the practical
operations would be to transfer the legal
control Of educational systems from the
rightful keeping Of the people ofthe States
to that of the Congress OF the United
States.
Blr. BIRD opposed the bill as being u
child Of the Freedmen's Bureau and
revival OF that system of legislation.
Mir. PARKER, Of N. H., opposed thebill
and claimed that the Democratic party
had always been the special champion Of
education. He referredtn the last MESA
ges OF the Governors Of New Hampshire
and New Jersey on that point.
Mr.. TOWNSEND, of Pa, advocated the
bill and replied to Mr.. PARKER's speech,
saying that the claim put forward by him
for the Democratic party reminded him
OF a very earnest temperance man down
East, who was in favor of the Maine liquor
law but opposed to its enforcement
Laughter. He made made q point rs
TO the illiteracy Of the Democratic States,
singing out, especially, Delaware. He
denied that the bill required mixed sys.
tenn of education.
Mr.. McNEELY offered an amendment
admitting printing material free of duty.
MIR. BURcHARD suggested certain
amendments. In the details OF the bill
he expressed his 10y at hearing the Dem.
ocrats avow themselves in favor OF educa-
tion, and that their only objection to the
State rights, but they had failed 10 show
any invasion Of State rights. The bill did
not compel or seek to compel or enforce
the free school system on any State. 1t
was simply intended to persuade States to
Establish free school system by offering
a portion OF the proceeds OF the public
lands.
MIR. SHELIABARaER advocated the pass
age o: the bill, and defended 1t against
the charge Of nconstitutionality. He
cited various acts of legislation which
formed precedents Tor the provisions Of
this bill.
Mr.. BIGGs defended his State, Della.
ware, from the assertions Of Mr.. Towns
END, Of Pennsylvania, and remarked that
that gentleman lived near the border line
Of Delaware, and 1t was no wonder that
he and others who weregiven to his prac-
tices should be little afraid OF the
whipping post. The insinuation against
the venerable member from Pennsylvania
was so ludicrous as to provoke laughter
all over the house. He next turned his
attention 10 the speech made by Mr.. HoAR
some weeks ago, in which some allusons
were made to the discredit Of Delaware,
and said that he would read the criminal
statistics Of the sanity State OF Massa-
chusetts; he would read the crimes in
their alphabetical order, and they used up
all the letters Oof the alphabet except the