Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1881-09-13
The Henkel School Bill.
From the shena ndoah Valley.

In b caro- puDllSu6u Ill yOuI AeaSu 0oA
issue of the Valley, I stated that would
give you for publication history OF
the School Bill, and at the same time
information in regard to the circum~
stances attending its passage, that the
people might know who were really
the friends of the measure.
AS the Richmond Wing has corrected
the statement made by it, and Hon. 81.
Fl. Riddleberger, in his speech at New
Market on the 22d instant, disclaimed
having anything to do with the bill, it
is useless for me to introduce testimony
to prove the assertions made In my card
of last week.
In the preparation of the bill am
glad to acknowledge the invaluable ser
vices of Judge George r. Calvert, q
gentleman of fine legal culture, whose
opinions have always respected; and
a gentleman who would not claim an
honor that did not of right belong to
him.
But the preparation Of the bill was
not the only difficult feature of the
measure. It was thought that the Re
adjusters, who had all the while been
clamorous for the schools, would give
the measure their earnest approval and
support. The bill was sent to the COM
mittee on the 9th day of December,
1873, and there slept until late in Feb
ruary of the following year. It will be
remembered that the finance committee
was decidedly Readjuster. But not
withstanding this the bill was not re-
ported. Nor did the committee ever
report it. After learning that it was
the purpose and intention to bury the
bill in committee, as patron of the bill
I took copy into the Senate Chamber,
and meeting Hon. John w. Daniel,
Maj Grimsley. c. T. Smith, and others,
I told them of the fate which my bill
had met in the House Committee. and
asked them if they could not get the
bill through the Senate, which would
bring the bill before the House direct,
and in that way I thought we could
beat the opposition party, and was OF
opinion that majority on the floor of
measure. These gentlemen at once
promised their support, and told me
that it could be gotten through the
Senate in very few days. The bill
came up and was in competition with
two or three ether propositions, and
was adopted unanimously. But while
it was adopted unanimously, reference
to the records will show that the names
of John E. Massey, Abram Fulkerson,
John Paul, and others Of the same faith,
are not recorded as voting for the bill.
They were, for some reason, absent
but had been present but short while
before. That they were In Mozart Hall
at the time will not explain their abb
sence satisfactorily. When the bill
came to the House, made motion to
take the bill up under a suspension of
the rules, that it might be put upon its
passage at once. Mr.. Harvie, of Amelia,
rampant Readjuster, opposed the mo-
ton in speech, which he followed
with q motion to send tho bill to the
committee-the same committee of
which he was member, and in which
the bill had been buried for more than
two months. When his motion was
lost and mine prevailed. and the ques-
ton came up on Its adoption. he nor
any Of his friends had the courage to
vote against it. Hence the journal re-
ports one hundred and eight V0tes for
the bill. Mozart Hall will explain the
whereabouts of many who did not vote
for the bill.
Having given you a brief history of
the bill and of the circumstances at
tending its passage, I will allude to
some of the results growing out of 1t as
q law upon our statute books.
The Richmond Wing of October 81,
1879, after giving a tabulated statement
of funds appropriated for school pur-
poses, says: "Thus under the Brokers
Bill and the Henkel Bill, the schools
are to get in script only 1891 1884 a
year or less, whereas they have got in
money, under the Funding Bill itself,
$3.50, 1868 year, or SIS. 147.19 year
more average in money than they are
,,rou,icod in oors,,f hx fho HouHo1 Dill ,,
Hon. FL. H. Riddleberger, in the same
year, stated the bill was not worth the
paper on which it was written"-'that
1t was not worth cancelled post
age stamp" Now, what is said of
the bill in 1881 after it has had one
years trial? The Wing has said, but
has corrected the statement since the
publication of my card, the so-called
Henkel Bill was written by the Hon.
H. Fl. Riddleberger. This article was
copied into the Virgini0e (Woodstock)
without any explanation whatever. The
Superintendent of Public instruction
in his school report. page 81, says -
"Under the Act of March 8, 1879, COM
monty called the Henkel Act, the
amount apportioned November %,
1879, was $449, SIS 95," and, page SO,
he says that December 9, 1880, under
the Henkel Act apportioned the
sum of 500, 1851 76. This shows that
$173, o54 81 more have been apportioned
to the public schools than the Wing of
1879 said there would be under the bill.
This is, however, in keeping with state
ments generally made by that journal.
1t is said that under the Henkel Bill
the schools get tbree-fourths of the
money to which they are entitled. |
This assertion is either the result of
ignorance or willful perversion of
facts. The schools are only entitled to |
the net amount collected and not the
gross sum assessed. The interest on
the literary fund, the capitation tax,
and ten cents nf the property tax are
dedicated to schools in the Constitution.
Neither the capitation tax nor the
property tax is all collected-hence the
bill, which anticipates the fund, only
provides for the spportionment Of the
xross amount due the schools. Refer
snce to the tax book will show that
a oorIv ouo- fourth nf the faYea assessed