The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1876-11-11
The CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

no appropriations shall be made for SeCta-
rlan schools. He holds that the Legisla
lures of the States have the right, and
ought to give the public support to schools
of a religious sect. Mr. Harris is unaltera-
bly, opposed to all such appropriations, and
proposes to give his support to a constitu-
tional amendment which will forever settle
this vexed question:
To this you answer, that at the last ses-
sion of Congress Mr.. Roberts introduced
stitution:
" No law shall be hereafter enacted re-
speeding an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and
no nancy raiSed By tardtion far the supp0rt
Of tie public SchooLs, or dericed from arg
pH5y'c fund therefor, nor any Mnds dec0ted
thereto, shall ever be under the control of
any religious sect, nor shall any money so
raised, or lands so deroted, be divided among
religious sects or denominations
And then You tell your readers that
twas ignorant of the matter whereof he
i wrote and treated it in "wanton dis
regard OF facts"
OF course your object in all this was to
induce the voters to believe that Mr.. Rob
against him, and that the offering Of this
amendment was conclusive proof that he
was in favor of prohibiting the Legislature
from making appropriations for sectarian
purposes. you are correct-if this amend
ment, when adopted, would prevent such
appropriations-then | did most grossly mis-
represent Mr.. Roberts, and deserve rebuke;
but if, upon the other hand, you have mis-
stated the scope of that amendment, and 10y
this false representation have deceived, or
cndeavo!ed to deceive, the readers who rely
on you for true information, then the pub
lie will judge between us, and | am per
fcctly willing to abide by its verdict. Every
man must see, and presume even you will
admit, that the only thing which that
amendment prohibits is the appropriation
by the Legislature, of money raised By tara
ton, or other'rise for tie support Of public
sctools Here the prohibition ends. Be-
You'd this no restriction whatever is placed
upon appropriations for sectarian purposes.
And when Mr. Roberts offered this amend
ment he knew, and when you wrote your
article you knew, that the appropriations
which have been made in Maryland by the
Legislai ure and by the City Council of Bal
timorc, have been of money which was not
raised for the support of schools but which.
was part and parcel of the ordinary reve-
nues Of the State. | say Mr.. Roberts was
perfectly familiar with what had been done
il Maryland, and he drew that amendment
for the express purpose of allowing the con
tinuance of these appropriations; and that
when you wlote your article you knew
that it had been drawn in this adroit man
ner, with this one purpose in view, that no
restriction whatever should be placed on
the continuance of these sectarian appro-
prations You knew that the alarm, which
| the people of Maryland manifested on this
subject, was caused by the act of 1874 and
the appropriations made by The city of Bal
timore that after the acts of 1874 had ap-
propriated all the &" m0Hey raised by tara
ton for tie snpp0H Of puj!ic schools . to its
legitimate object, that it then proceeded to
appropriate, out of the ordinary revenues
of the State, drawn by taxation from its
citizens, money for the support of est.
, Mary's Industrial School. Union Protest
ant Intirmary, St. Joseph's General iospi
tai, st. Nincant's Asylum, Colored Obate
Sisters of Charity, House of the Good
Shepherd, Home of Friendless Children at
Easton, Hebrew Orphan Asylum, and
Church Home and Intirmary." You knew
that Mr.. Roberts's amendment placed no
more restriction on these applo priatioms
than if it had been blank paper; and you
knew from the Congressional Record, which
you grandioquently quote, that when
that amendment went to the Senate this
was the very objection made to it; that Mr..
Frelinghuysen pointed out in his speech
just how futile and deceptious this amend
ment was, and that a substitute was offered
which broadly declared that "no public
property and no public revenue y should be
appropriated for sectaran purposes. The
amendment OF Mr.. Roberts did not pre-
vent, and never was intended to prevent,
or i'll the slightest degree interfere with,
the appropriation Of money to sectarian
schools and other institutions. There was
nothing honest about it; from beginning to
end it was trick to satisfy the public de-
mand by the adoption of an amendment
which had nothing in it whatever. And
the true character of that amendment, its
utter iuefticiency and its total lack of power
to prevent sectaran appropriations were
well known to you, when, by your article
last week, you sought to make low fling
at me, and create in the minds of your
readers the belief that Mr.. Roberts had
shown himself by this amendment opposed
to sectarian appropriations.
have no doubt you will reply this was
substantially the Blaine amendment; if it
We're pertinent to the issue | could easily
show that it differed widely from the Blaine
amendment and upon a point which proves
that even this thing, poor and worthless as
it is, was never intended to become opera
tive, but was meant to lie dead letter
without any power in Congress to enforce
it: but please bear in mind that the issue
between us is: Did Mr. Roberts show his
desire, by this amsndment to prohibit APP
preparations for sectarian purposes? You
say he did. | say, and think have proved
that he did not; that SO far from doing so
he showed that he intended there should
lie no such prohibition. | have no fear
whatever that you will, in the slightest de-
gree, impair my position, and to your filings
| am utterly. indifferent.
l am yours respectfully, w. J. JONES.
Elkton, N0cemJcr SM, 1876.