The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1886-03-12
"rNrIELpINC rnEIuDICEs.


Our neighbor Of the Herald, in at.
tempting to reply to our article criti-
rising that paper for snssring at Sena-
tor Maxsy and Morgan because they
saw it to oppose the Blair Educational
Bill on constitutional grounds, says
"Our nsighbor of the DEMocRAT dis
ssnts from former remarks we have
made upon the subject, because We were
no. respectful enough in mentioning
his state rights feelings" Now in all
Oandor, neighbor, did we say single
word about our estate rights feelingap
Did we, even by implication, say that
you had not been respectful to our
estate rights feelingsp Is IL not true
that you manufactured the above state
ment out Of whole cloth The Herald
also says that the real incentive Of those
who oppose the bill is their objection to
the education Of the colored race. It
seems to think that mona but those whO
have, in former years, proclaimed the
fundamental doctrine of the rights of
the states, oppose the bill. Bless your
soul, neighbor, we adjure you to open
your eyes to the fact that the very
ablsst Republicans in the Senate op-
posSd this bill on the ground that its
PROVISIONS we're an infraction Of the
rights of the states, sod that is why. we
called you to account for sneSring at
Msxey and Morgan, Democrats, and
allowed Ingalls,, Plumb, Hawley and
other Republicans to go unchallengsd,
when they we're boldly proclaiming their
opposition to the bill on the very same
ground. We know that our neighbor
is Republican Of the most "unyislding
prejudices," but we did not suppsss
that he would allow these prejudices to
lead him into such trap as this.
SO strong was the opposition on con-
stitutionAl grounds, that when the bill
came up on its final passage in the Sem
ate, that body, on motion Of Senator
George Of Mississippi, decided by a
unanimous vote, that nothing in the
bill shall be construed to mean that an
independent school system is being set
up, but that the objsc. Of the hill is
only to extend aid to the state govern
ments. The gratuitoas statement of
the Herald that those who oppose the
bill do SO because they are opposed to
the education of the colored race Is as
groundless as the one above quoted.
Is it to be said that ingalls, Of Kansas,
Republican ofs'unyislding prejudices,"
but one of the ablest Republican Ssna-
tors, is opposed to The education of the
cSlored race, simply because he opposed
the Blair bill, or that HAwley, Plumb
and other Republicans are opposed to
such education because their oaths as
Senators required them to be faithful to
the provisions of the constitution
Now, as to the hint Of our neighbor
thas the objsetioos to this bill arise out
Of opposition to the education Of the
colored people in the South, we have
this to say. That if be had followed
the debate on this bill from day to day
In the Senate he would not have indulg-
ed in such charge at all. All Of these
Senator'S, especially these Of the South,
who opposed the bill, expressed them
selves heartily in favor of the educa-
tion of the colored people. As to cur
own views on that subject, we would |
say that if anything would induce us
TO yield up constitutional objection to
a measure of this kind, if we entsrtaia-
ed one,it would be the jesire to see the |
colOred people of the South educated |
and put upon the same intellectual plane
with the whites. Does our neighbor |
understand our position