Year: 1872

NIX. PRESIDENT u am opposed to this &C.


ademy grant, and to all academy grants on
general principle. know it is unpopular to


speak against granting money for education;


but as l shall vote against these appropria.


tions, will give some reasons for doing 80.
1t is undoubtedly a wise provision of any
State, particularly that of republican form
OF government, to educate the people. The
expense of educating the children supersedes
the necessity of sustaining standing army at
vastly greater expense; besides it gives
greater security to government, and greater
peace and happiness to society. Our own
State and most of the other States of the
Union, have wisely and justly determined that
the youth shall be educated by tax on all the
property of the State. There was time
in former centuries when this would have
been considered unjust and tyrannical. When
it would have been asked, and with some
plausibiity, "what right has the government
to tax my property for the education of other
mems chilarenI" In these days it is conced-
ed by all, that universal education is a neces-
sity for the security of good government and
the happiness of society, hence it is for the
interest of all, the rich and the poor, but
much more for the rich than the poor, because
the rich have more at stake.


Since it is by commen consent acknowl-
edged the duty of the State to see that the
youth are educated. the question arises, as to
what extent the State shall go in the matter.
There is undoubtedly a limit beyond which
the State would not be justified to exceed.
Perhaps there are those who would make pro-
vision for fitting all scholars for college. Pos
sbly there are some who would have the COL
legiate expenses paid by the general tax.
presume there are none who would 60 so far
as to have the State pay the students expenses
of getting profession, after he had graduated.
Then there is some limit beyond which the
State should not go, and now what IS that
limit! My own idea is, that the State is not
bound to pay the expense of education in the
higher branches, ard that she cannot be iusti-
fed in taxing the people for an education, the
chief benefits of which result to the student,
and not especially to the State. The COM
mon school education, though it benefits the
individual, is indispensable for the State.
And to my view the State is under much
greater obligation to look after the poorer
classes of children and see that all are educat-
ed to the common school standard, rather than
neglect the poorer classes, and provide fur
ther facilities for those who aspire to collie
gate education. Indeed think the State is
morally bound to inaugurate some effective
measures for educating the one-tenth part of
the children who now don't see the inside of
school house, or know a letter of the alpha
bet. The State-the guardian of the people
says to the Taxpayers, 81 want your money
to pay for the education of the youth of the
State" She says II call for this money for
the benefit of the commonwealth, for the bene-
fit of the people, the whole people, for the ed
ucation OF all the children of the State, thereby
makes secure our cherished political institu-
tions-the lives and property of individuals,
and Danish crime from our midst" The call
of the State is powerful, and the money must
be forthcoming, but does the State do her
duty! Is she not morally bound to see to it
that all the children are educated, when she
demands and receives the money for that pur-
pose?


l would say that the State, as guardian of
the public veal and public interests, had bet
ter withdraw her support and care from the
higher grades of schools and higher grades Of
scholars, if she cannot look after them with
out neglecting the lower grades. If need be,
the richer classes of society will look after
their own children and see that they are edu.
Gated, but not so with the poor and ignorant
classes; and it is from these poor classes
generally from those who are brought up in
the low haunts of cities and thickly settled
towns-we find our bad members of society
and criminals. Let the State institute some
means TO hunt out and bring to the schools
these ignorant and neglected children, bring
them within the influence of good society,
and give them at least a tolerable education.
Spend money freely to accomplish the work.
1t the parents of these children are poor and
cannot clothe them, the State should do it for
them. If the parents are in need of the SER
vices of their children, let the State give as
sistance equal to the services. Bring up the
lower classes of children to the common level.
am unwilling to admit that highly educated
0f a ssif fv IN tho Stat ba N
men Of ordinary education. True, we need
professional men. We need professors in our
colleges, we need well educated teachers, and
they are ornaments, as we'll as useful men,
bers, to society-but we need the mechanic,
the farmer, the merchant, and the common
workingman, as much as we need the highly
educated man. And think it will not be de-
MED that these men with a common school
education perform their duties and act their
parts, rs much for the benefit of the State
and society as do the professional or highly
educated men. The State has done we'll for
colleges, academies and high schools now
let them take care of themselves for a while,
and let US turn our attention to the poorer
classes. trust there is no fear that unless
we increase the facilities for acquiring a liber-
al education we shall fall into distress from
scarcity of professional men. There are no
indications of that kind at present.


We hear of no call upon the State to help
pay the expense for fitting young men to be
carpenters, blacksmiths, shoemakers, and
sailors, and yet these classes are more need
ed than the professional classes, and as useful
and worthy members of society.


The State has right to enforce education
to such a standard as will tend to make useful,
orderly. and respectable citizens, but beyond
that they have no moral right to tax the prop
erty to pay for it. That is to say, when the
education is wholly or chiefly for the present
and future benefit OF the scholar, the State
has no right to pay the expense of it.


We may sympathise with worthy, ambi-
tious young men, in their struggles for an ed.
ucation, or their struggles for wealth or for
political position, and we may if we choose
draw from our pockets that which will heir
them along; but the State has no equitable
right to order general tax for the paymen
Of such expenses. As a general thing, the
amount expended for teaching the language.
and higher branches goes for the benefit o.
the wealthier and higher classes of society, al
the students in those higher branches belong
mostly in those higher classes so that the
taxes drawn from the poor and middle classes
Il 1