The Washington critic., 1886-02-13
WASHINGTON. FEB. 10, 1886.
THE EpUCATIoSAL BILL.

The Blair educational bill is pending
again in the Senate, and the discus
sions which II elected in that body
during the last Congress are likely to
be repeated in this. The subject was
exhaustivcly considered then and little
that is new can be said upon it now.
We can conceive of nothing as having
occurred in the interim to change the
opinions of the friends of the measure,
and It may be that It's opponents have
discovered nothing to modify their OBJ
iections.
Mr.. Morgan is still in the forefront
of the opposition, with II clearer field
before him now that Mr.. Garland is
not there to confute him. He still
argues that the bill can find no foot
hold in the general welfare clause of
The Constitution. lie is still haunted
with the idea that it in some way con.
templates an unwarrantable invasion OF
the States. lie does not believe that
the whole country should be taxed for
the benefit of particular localities. He
protests that the Government has no
more right to make appropriations for
the public schools of State than for
its churches or dispensaries.
Itisindced impolitic and dangerous
contrary to the theory of our institu-
tions-for Congress to step over State
lines and meddlc with the affairs Of In.
dependent sovcreignties, and there is
nothing so distasteful to the States rs
the presence Of Federal machinery
within their borders. For all this we
hear of no particular objection to the
machinery of the general postoflice.
States are quite willing to have the
Government improve their waterways
and harbors. They make no outcry
against the erection of public build
ings. They will not rise in revolution
against bankruptcy law; even uni
form system of divorce would not en-.
danger their peace. They will not
object to system of coast defenses
and the military Gordon that will thus
be thrown around tn EN-.
Yet here is q bill that intends no
trespass whatever on State rights. 1t
simply makes an appropriation, which
the States are free to accept or reject
II is worked by no Federal machinery.
IT creates no Federal officers. Not
even by indirection does II infringe
upon the sovereignty Of States. 1t
provides for the general welfare with
out even suggesting the presence of the
General Government. There is nothing
in 1t any more incompatible with the
self-respect than with the safety of the
States.
The friends of the bill, however,
might rest their case on single propo-
stion and challenge the opposition to
answer it,
If the General Government, under
the plea of military necessity and in
open violation Of the Constitution,
having turned loose upon the South
several millions of illiteratc people and
invested them with franchise, the
nature of which they had no ointelligent
understanding of, cannot find warrant
in the general welfare clause of the
Constitution for contributing out of the
public treasury to the repair of great
public wrongs consequent upon its
action, then the general welfare clause
is an unmcaning superhuity, which a
sense of national sclf-respect should
make haste to eliminate.
The intention of the bill is not Sc
much to help individual States as to
help the Union of States. The Gov.
eminent assumed momentous re.
sponsibility when 1t freed the slaves
and made them voters, and while no.
body asks that 1t should undo that
which it has done, justice deman Is
that 1t should make all possible amends
for that which it has undone. States
that can meet the emergency without
assistance are free to decline it. Those
that need it ought to have it for the
sake Of our common prospcrity-foI
the sake Of higher civilization, which
is our common hone and rlorv