Spirit of Jefferson. [volume] (Charles Town, Va. [W. Va.]) 1844-1948, 1890-03-11
MISCELLANEOUS.
Senator Faulkner Against the
Blair Bill.

/
The Baltimore Sun of Feb. %, in
its report of the previous days SEN
ate proceedings, says:
At two O'Clock the Blair educa-
tional bill came up as the unfinished
business, and Mr.. Faulkner addressed
the Senate in opposition to it. He
said that the earnest and persistent
advocacy by the Senator from New
Hampshire. (inspired by motives
pure and above criticism, supported
by Senators on the Democratic side
of the chamber whose Judgment and
counsel has had great weight in in
luencing public sentiment in favor of
it, made it eminently proper that
those who differ from them should,
with perfect candor, be ready and
willing to give the reason for tile
faith they held. In his judgment
the bill was. freighted with the gray
est evils to the whole country, and
more especially to those States which
Git was assumed) would be more
benefited than others by its enact
ment. Its passage would commit
Congress to such an unrestrained
construction of constitutional power,
and would establish such novel and
almost unprecedented Interpretation
of the ''general welfare clause, that
he should not hesitate to appeal to
the courtesy of the Senate to bear
with him while he presented the
reasons which would influence his
action, and entered on its records
solemn protest against the approval
of the constitutionality equity or
wisdom of the act. Three questions,
he said, presented themselves at the
threshold which would have to be an
lswered In the affirmative by those
who supported the bill. These were:
First, is the bill sanctioned by the
provisions of the federal constitu-
tion? Second, are its provisions,
which effect the distribution of the
fund between the States and between
the two races in the States just and
beneficial? Third, is it the part of
wisdom and of practical statesman
ship for the national government to
embark on this boundless sea of un-
restrained and unlimited legislation /?
He took the negative of these three
propositions, and went on to argue
in support of his view of the uues-
tion, quoting largely from the de-
bates in the federal convention. from
the decisions of judges and from the
writings of recognized pubIicists and
statesmen. From these he argued
that the este blishment of common
school system was necessarily com
mitted to ;the care and control of the
States. The principles laid down
by Chief Justice Marshall in the case
of Gibbons against Ogden, restrain
ing any attempt at encroachment re-
served to the respective States or to
the people, never had been uues-
toned or qualified by subsequent de-
cisions of the Supreme Court, and
he preferred to build his record on
that foundation rather than on the
shifting opinions of active politicians
or on the irresponsible and unrelia-
BILE patchwork of precedent. Com
ing down to the practical provisions
of the bill, Mr.. Faulkner pointed out
the inconsistency of first distributing
the fund within the States between
the two races, on the basis of the
school population of each, so that
while on the basis of illiteracy the
colored schools at the South ought to
receive S36, 100000 and the white
schools s13,OO0,0 900, those figures
Con the other basis) would be re-
versed and the white schools would
receive $4,000, 900 more than the
colored schools.
Mr.. Blair asked whether it was not
proper to apply the money so that it
would reach the white children and
the colored children alike?
Mr.. Faulkner replied that the bill
had been justified on the ground OF
its relieving illiteracy in the States,
and yet, when the fund go into the
States one-third more would be given
to the white than to the colored chill
dren on the basis of school popuIa-
ton, while the ilIiteracy of the col
ored children was forty per cent.
greater than that of the white chill
dren. That contradicted the princi-
pie of the bill.
Mr. Blair said that was a mfsap-
j prehension Of the bill-a manifest
error-and was about to explain it,
but Mr.. Faulkner declined to yield
the floor for that purpose, and pro-
ceeded with his argument. He de-
clared that the bill, instead of its
being Gas BIr. Blair had described it)
a new declaration of independence,
would be a national declaration on
the part of Congress of antagonism
to the common school system, and
would invite friction and discord be-
tween the sections. He referred to
the fact that the State of Kentucky,
which wouidreceive 1916, 900 under
the provisions of the bill, the State of
Arkansas, which would receive 81,
$50, 200, and the State Of Texas,