Year: 1861

/ dSdiiSJ llG uIHSuulueulS 10 luG CcuOOl l1h W
proposed by Mr.. Montgomery of Sutter. We
would gladly publish the speech in its en-
tirety, but want of space forbids it. We re-
gard it as unansw erabe and trust the de-
cisive vote 10y which the Montgomery proro-
sition was defeated in the House on Wednes-
day Isl nays and IL ayes, will have the
effect to prevent further agitation in that di-
rection, for all time to come The following
are extracts from the speech:


| am aware that those who advocate this
measure profess that they have no purpose in
view but the perfection, completeness and eX-
tension of educational conditions and advan-
tages, but | would recommend those persons
to begin in another way. | object to the
manner in which they propose to begin to
carry out such an end. Some of them say
that the schools of California, or those of a
portion of the State, are dens of infamy, are
pestiferous in their character, are but sowing
the seeds of immortality and dsath where they
exist. But. as a remedy for these great abuses,
for this great curse in our land if it exists do
they propose to renew their efforts to obtain
the passage of euch laws or enforce such re


strictions as will bring about a better cOndi-
ton of things? / think not. What, then, do
they propose? If understand them, and
think | do, they propose to withdraw por


tion of the children of the State from what
are now known as the common schools of the
State The proposition or purpose in view is
better stated to ne outside of this hall by
citizens of distinction, who are interested in
passing this Act which we are uow discuss
ing, than 10y the gentlemen who have dis
cussed it here Their proposition to me is
plainly stated-so plainly that he who runs
may read and understand it. They say first
that the schools are now unfit for the recep-
ton of their children, or the children Of their
people, They say they are common contrib
utors to the funds that are consumed in the
support of the schools, and that as the schools
are unfit for their children, therefore they
have right to withdraw their children from
those schools. That part of the proposition
] admit, but deny that it follows as neces-
sity, in common honesty and fairness, that
they should also be entitled to receive a pro
rata proportion of the common school moneys
of the State to be used under their direction
for the support such schools as they may
establish. They say that this right exists in
nature. Who, they ask is so well entitled to
the care, custody and training of child as
its natural parent? They invoke the social
faculties of mankind to aid them in this argu-
meEt, because they draw contrast between
a system they propose and the one that now
exists, by showing you that on the one hand
the Government of the State claim the con-
troll and jurisdiction of the children of the
State, for the purpose of public education,
while on the other hand they assert that no
such relation should be permitted or author
lied while the parent lives who gave exist


ence to his offspring and whose greatest care
is for his advancement and happiness.


Now, having stated their object, as think
fairly, let us see how well and how fully, as
citizens Of this great State, they are perform
ing their duties, not only to their children
but to the community, to their country and
to posterity, They state that the schools are
unfit, 10y reason of not being sufficiently e!e


waited in character either in an educational
or moral point of view. They say that the
children whom they propose to withdraw
represent a fraction of at least two-ifths of
the children of the State. Does it comport


with the duty of the citizen, or the duty of a
man who puts himself forward as a standard
of moral excellence, TO argue that because the
schools are unfit, therefore he must withdraw
from them his efforts, and that these schools
| that he denounces as being such dens oC in
fanny and corruption and as preparing the
way that leads down to death, shall continue
to exist TO form the receptacle Of the other
three tifths of the children Of this State? Does
their duty not consist rather as citizens, as
men owing duties to the body polite and the
social body, and, if you please, to the eternal
salvation Of mankind in resolving and re-
resolving that any evils existing in connec-
ton with our public school system shall
cease, it, by the exercise of their greatest ef-
fort it can be made to cease? Suppose that
each of Us should withdraw from every part
of the community where we find error to pre-
vail and leave those engaged in its inculca-
tion to 90 on, what kind OF society would you
have? How soon would it be that we should
not have u public institution of any kind in
our land of such character as to challenge
respect Again, let me reason that PROPOSE
tion little further If be conceded that
because these schools are unfit, these people
shall have the privilege Of Withdrawing their
children and at the same time receiving their
pro rata of the public money; if it be con-
cedcd that that course comports with their
duty, then what, ask, is to hinder the other
three-ftths from Withdrawing also from what
are deuomiuated the public schools of the
State? What right or duty exists with two
tirths of our people that is not equally the
right and duty of the other threefifths If
the schools are unfit for the children of two
titths of our people, are they not in Heavens
name, as unfit for the remainder2 Who are
they that say that what is utterly unfit, in
moral point Of view, 20 be participated in by
"A portion of our people is good enough for
the remainder. There is only one class Of ar
gument that can reconcile the case, namely,
that it is the duty of each fractional part Of
the community to take care OF itself that
there is no such thing as common bond that
unites mankind, a common duty, or a common
allegiance to Justice and law, and the great
interests of society | apprehend that few of
these gentlemen could be found to assert such
propositions when nakedy presented Sur
round the argument with whatever specious-
ness you please, describe the excellence of
the schools that will follow as the result of
this pro rata distribution of the School Fund :;
and yet this cause cannot be reconciled to
duty, or to what each and every man, or class
of men, in the community, owes to all and to
each


There is or has been question raised in
the progress Of this discussion, both here and
by the public press, as to where this move
ment comes from. 1t is charged by gentle
men here, and by newspapers outside, that it
comes exclusively from body of our citizens
known as Roman Catholics, and more than
that, it has its origin not with the body of
the Roman Catholic people, but with the
Clergy of that denomination or Church. For
| the purpose of my argument, it is perhaps not
material that that question should be deter
mined. | do know, however, as a matter Of
personal knowledge, that the movement comes
in great part if not entirely from the Clergy
of that Church, and need we wonder at it