Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-03-17
SATURDAY..........MARCH II, 1883
The Blair Bill-"Pedagogue.' -

The Blair Bill" Pedagogue,"
Pedagogue" writes 10 the Lynch
burg Adrdicc concerning the BLAIR bill
letter which shows what manner of
man is. He represents usas having at
tempted to bulldoze the opponents OF
the bill in our comments upon the article
which he recently published in the
Lynchburg Adrancc, whereas our article
contained not one word to justify "Peda-
gogue in bringing that charge against
us. We expressly said that we would
not charge him with intentional misrep-
resentation.
In his vain effort TO justify his falsifi-
cation of the facts as TO how the money
10 be appropriated under the BLAIR bill
is to be distributed, "Pedagogue " has
recourse to device which can have no
other effect than TO place him in worse
predicament than he was in before.
He quotes the BLAIR bill as providing
that in no case is the amount granted
80 State or Territory TO be greater than
the sum spent 10y that State or Terri
tory during the previous year, and
then deliberately proceeds to argue
his case as if that bill provided that each
State should draw as much money I'M
der lis operation rs she expended
for education the year before ! To illus
trate, the BLAIR bill provides, in effect,
that Illinois shall not receive more I'M
der that bill in 1890 than she expended
In 1889 for purposes of education. Let
us suppose that she expends over seven
millions in 1899: Will that fact entitle
her TO draw over seven millions in 1890 !?
SO argues "Pedagogue," but every
body else knows that that provision
will do nothing more than prevent Hi
,nois from drawing more in 1890 than
that sum. The amount to which she
will be entitled will be in no degree in
creased by the fact that she taxed herself |
more than her share of money under the
BLAIR bill will amount to. What shall |
be said of "Pedagogue ?
We have given the true figures here |
fofore. They will be found in the |
Congressional Record of January
81, 1888, page 772. From those
figures it appears that during the
eight years OF the operation of the BLAIR
bill Illinois is to get 81, S0l, 6l6. 46 Ar
kansas, 81, SOB, 1907 Iowa, S577, 1924
North Carolina, s.. 749, l21.37 Virginia,
'$5,332, 49S. 25 Alabama, $3.50, S4S. 45 !;
Massachusetts, only 81, l52, ll6.61 South
Carolina, 81, 592, 792. &c; Rhode Island,
1907, 2l044; Tennessee, S5,089, 262. 60 I;
Vermont, 1896, 236 81 Georgia, Sc, 49,
4S2.66; New Hampshire, Sll7, 2l6.30 ; |
and 80 on to the end of the chapter.
II Virginia is TO receive five millions
in eight years she will receive an average
of over six hundred thousand dollars a
year. But as the same amount is not TO
be distributed each year she will during
the third year and during no other year
receive little over a million OF dollars.
Did she expend enough money last
year on her schools to enable
her to draw q million of dollars
under the BLAIR bill? Examine Super
intendent BUcHANAN's last annual re-
port, and you will find that the total
amount expended in Virginia last year
on her schools was Sl,704, 1915. 02-that
Is to say, 1912, 471.17 from the common
treasury; county funds, 1920, 1884, %;
district funds, S42l, 131. 49; and the re-
mainder from other sources. But with
in the meaning of the BLAIR bill it was
all expended by Virginia under the laws
of Virginia. 1t would be a mere quib-
BILE to contend that these two last !
amounts were not money expended by
the State for if there were any posi-
bility that the proper officer would be |
knavish enough TO put so narrow a con-
struction upon the law, the two last |
items could be made payable into the
State Treasury before the third year ar
rived
We will add that Virginia would re-
ceive the first year, 1884, 772.57; the |
second, $500, 592. "a; the third, 81 ,O3S,-
1885; the fourth, 5000, 29191; the
fifth, S76l, 7S5. AZ the sixth, 1923, 279.01;
the seventh, s4S4, 772.57; the eighth
S346, 266.12. 1t is clear, therefore, that
there cannot be doubt as to her right
to draw the entire amount of over five |
millions of dollars during the eight |
years.
The reader will now understand that !
"Pe3agogue, without single fact to /
excuse him for the gross misrepresenta-
ton, deliberately stated to the readers of |
the Advance that the States he named |
would receive the sums they might ex-
pend for educational purposes the year
before they drew their respective quotas
under the BLAIR bill We turn him over
to the tender mercies OF the Lynchburg
Advance and its readers. IL he made
his misstatements in ignorance he should
hereafter keep out of the papers. II
with intent to deceive, he should be kept
out.
.-------------