Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1875-09-09


as the special order, and alter long
debate it was put OH its passage, anC
was lost, but on motion of Col. Piatt
who voted in the negative, the vote BY
which it was lost was recOnSidered
and the bill was laid on the table. Al
subsequent date it was again made
the special order for April 10, the day
preceding the sine die adjournment
and on that date it was taken up on
motion of Col. Piatt, and under mo-
ton for the previous question by Mr.
Stanton, of Cincinnati, which Was sus.
tanned, the bill was again put on its
passage, and was lost by vote of % in
the affirmative and % in the negative,
lacking but one vote of a Constitution.
al majority. See page 1856 II. j. fol
1867.
In justice to Mr.. Wright it is proper
to say that before the adjourned session
met he had resigned his seat to accept
a Federal appointment, and had not
therefore anything to do with this bill
beyond its introduction. AS to its ad-
vOcacy by Col. Piatt, whose speech in
its support was one of the ablest he ev-
er made, l can well understand. He
was and is a warm personal friend OF
the venerable Archbishop Purcell, and
l doubt not was persuaded there was
nothing in the bill which was not eaui-
BILE and just to all parties; and these
some arguments, plausible in their
| sOphistry, induced some fourteen Re
| publicans to vote for this bill, in the
belief that it could do no narm if it
passed. But Col. Piatt was not it's on
ly champion. The Hon. James w.
| Fitzgerald had been elected to fill the
vacancy caused by the resignation of
Mr.. Wright, and when this bill came
up for discussion James lifted I'D his
| voice in its behalf with such eloquent
yehemence that it excited suspicion,
and none felt more sorely its defeat
| than he did.
Now let US look at the bill. The
first section simply authorizes Boards
of Education to accept donations. Did
this require legislation? Did Hughes
and Woodward and McMicken ask
legislative authority to donate their
munificent gifts for educational pur-
poses to our city? L don't think any
of them ever thought of Legislature,
or we would not now be enjoying their
magnificent benefactions. Any Board
of Education has right to accept do
nations for educational purposes with
out legislative enactment, provided
the gifts are not trammeled by condi-
tions which cannot be lawfully carried
out.
The second section makes it the du-
ty of the Boards of Education accept
ing donations of school-hOuses to con-
tinue the schools organized therein by
enrolling the scholars and supplying
all that is necessary, and subjecting
such schools to the laws of the State
then in force. Now, surely, there was
nothing dangerous in this section, be-
cause the School Boards were bound
by pre-existing laws to do the very
things required of them by this section,
and for this, no legislation was requi-
red.
But the true inwardness of the whole
bill is contained in the third section.
1t contains the fang which was to
strike at the life of the common school
system, and L quote it again entire:
"SEC. 3. The power is hereby grant
ed to donors of such school property to
select from teachers duly qualified un-
der the laws now in force instructors,
carry on said schools"
Now, what does this mean if it does
not mean a Jesuitical evasion of the
Constitutional provision, which says
that No religious or other sect or sects
shall ever have any exclusive right to,
or any control of, any part OF the school
fluids of this State. This bill, so fair
and equitable on its face, does not ask
to control any portion Of the school
fund-it only asks supreme control of
the schools supported by the school
funds, through the power reserved to
appoint the teacher to instruct and
carry on said schools Does it require
any argument to prove that this bill
was deep laid scheme to pervert the
intention of the fathers as to the inde-
| pendence of our grand common school
system from the influence of all re-
ligious sects? / think not.
Now let us look at the vote. / find
by an examination OF the record that
there were about forty Democrats in
the House to about siXty-tive Rapubli-
cans; and / find that on the 10th of
April, 1867, when the bill was put on
its final passage, there were present
seventy-five members; and find that
while there were fourteen or fifteen
Republicans who voted with the De-
mOcracy to pass the bill. find that not
O. SinQle Democrat voted with US in the
negative to prevent its passage! Did
the alliance between the Democratic
leaders and Catholic leaders, which
materialized in the year Of grace 1875,
exist in 1867? If not, why not? And
if not, why is this thus?
Now, fellow-citizens, if this were the
only effort of this kind within our
knowledge, we might regard it as acci-
dental or exceptional, and attribute it
to the imprudent zeal of some zealot,
whose acts neither his party nor his
Church should be held responsible for;
but this effort is not exceptional, for
find that last June my friend, the Rev.
f. H. Brantz, the Catholic priest of
Paris, KY, made a similar proposition
is in substance as follows:
1.-THE School Board to take charge of
the Catholic school, choose text books,
and otherwise take control of the school
provided the same teachers that have
had charge of the school be retained
and paid reasonable compensation for
for services. The School Board reject
ed the proposition on the grounds that
the law made it binding on them to
choose teachers, and they could not al
low any other parties to select them;
that they would have room in tho en-
larged school-house for all who may ap-
ply next session, and thirdly, that the
means at their disposal would not justi-
fly the expenses incurred by this new
school,"
The same, or substantially the same,
provisions have been made and eva
sions attempted in Connecticut and
other New England States, but FORUM
ately without success; and in all these
efforts to break down the civil power
whose protecting arms are thrown
around the free school system support
ed by common taxation, we find its
enemieS allied with Democracy as the |