The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1879-10-21

m AtatsStsesss -
.-sTsn { = OCTOBER q. 1879.
8 e 8, = and the Mecuno Bill
d. Tsa lgA.q Published one q y last ws cen
- .,,,r,,orted 10 be- an utteranse Of Dr..
,,ssssKa,s Cd The subject OF The M e y
1neab;,I. Tho Doctor shereupon wrote 20, %
{ inat pasper the following letter =, q.
s's~s s. a ON CaRs October III 1873. s
Z. gators Wings Ifswhat you pupi,sn y.
oh,,,t ma this morning was gotten aup3uy
ranrselyes Il As OF course intenae0 g
s iy an the Dispatch. IL sent to you l, ~.
r;o,,s,v. pronounce IL a baseiess 1000 800,
t;cn favored the McCuliocn se.ten .., ~
from the beginning, and TINS was An ~ .nth
friends of mine in the Legisfas'IS ~ aa,,si.
eidea az the question, as 4 can .s,s,..ansa
move. and have never saiu " s.., g ss
word inconsistent with this posltio,n: r,,a
ysI assume that you 30 not Wts st ~ liz
renresent me, and therefore ask you so o.Sa.
farilyS to correct this statement, " aeshst
meant iestingly or seriously. s,.h,s
81 have. as far as possible, kept ous - a
canvass as matter Of Official proprlcsy'
gnQ earnestly OSstAS ~ 80 : =. ~
"This is not for publication. .2
.S,cnad, CIV. II. RurrSER.
t.Sorry 10 have to write 30 hastily:
uP. g. II lust occurs to me tnat tnls
cnotation rnny be from an editorial IN the
Vhag OF last winter, and as Iswrote some
articles ANONYMOUSLY in favor OF Tead1 nst-
rnent. which were adopted as editorials, that
this article mar be thought 10 be mine. !
dislike to entertain such asupposst,en,S AM
wonIf, NOT mention it IT, I were not greapy
alta loss for u theory for accounting tor tn,s
thing. If such an idea exists in apypody,s
MIND II il mistake. / did not write tne
article or anything like it. wrote noLn,hg
for the Wing during the debate on tns M ss-
Culloch settlement; but l did write LOT
other papers In favor OF 1t, and can pi9uuoe
the articles.
The Whig published Dr.. RUFFSER's iee-
fer. but followed 1t with statement tnat
DR.. RUrrNEg had handed to the editor OF
that paper last winter an article containing
the words which the Wing had credited 70
him. This article the Wing reproduced.
It's immaterial what DR.. RUFFHER SAID
last winter. He was anxionsly interested
then for the welfare OF the PUBLIC schools.
He was DESTROYS OF having the school funos
secured to the schools. The whole article
shows that that was what the writer OF IL,
whoever he was, was aiter. Wequote what
the Wing regards as the giss OF it:
Nov is the time for the people to take
care OF themselves; and IL they negIect
their interest now they will awake to hnd
the mischief wrought and no remedy at
hand. II may be true that all OF those VINO
advocate the passage Of Mr.. McCulloch's
scheme ,oithout crossing q ~ or d0ttlng
an 81 are not opponents OF the Iree-
school system; but it is true that all tile
opponents OF the free-school system are
advocates OF the passage OF .McCu'lochs
plan ,uithcut change. The inference IS
plain"
The words in italics tell the whole story.
There had been no provision made in the
NcCULLoCH bill to secure the school 1unds
TO the schools. The friends OF the schools
were anxious to have that object effected IN
the McCULLoCH bill. We tried ourselves
to have that feature Incorporated IN tue SET
Element, going so far as to approach
the agents OF the proposed settlement on
the subject. They objected very naturally
that the boudholders abroad would not
understand such provision, which would
seem to them to imply that the Legislature
did not intend to carry out the bill in good
faith, because if the Legislature really be-
lieyed that the present rate OF taxation
would pay all the interest and also keep up
the schools, why was it necessary, they
would ask, to put such provision IN The
billi But the HENKEL bill accomplished
the same object. Tbe school funds nre
kept in the counties where raised except as
to one fourth OF them.
$50 much by way Of explanation. But
even il DR.. RUPFNEE had been at first OPP
posed to the MCCULLoCH bill, he is now its
warm friend. Read what he said last Fri
day, We quote - ":S .r..@
~ favored the ?. McCulock settlement
from the BEGINNING, and this 11aS kno,oa to
friends of mine in The Legislature on both
sides of the question, as l can a6anddntly
proue, and haze neuer said or ,1ritten
,oord inconsistent aoith this position"
9 Now, let us never hear another word as
tosDr., RuFFNER's opposition to the MoCUI-
LoCH bill. He has been forced by the enc
mics OF the bill to come out on the subject,
and above we have his solemn declaration
that he has always been in favor OF that
settlement.
Another gun is spiked. Let the news go
forth to the friends Of the public schools
throughout the Commonwealth.