from Queen Anne's, (Mr. Spencer,) had care-
fully examined the section, he would have given
no such construction to it. It was the duty of
every one in debate to analyze and distribute the
elements of a proposition until he had made the
whole perfectly comprehensible. And he thought
he could, by that process, make it clear as any
proposition in Euclid, that the gentleman from
Queen Anne's was wrong.
It proposed to confer on the Legislature a
power to borrow not exceeding one hundred
thousand dollars, on certain conditions touching
the taxes that were to be laid to pay any debt
that might be contracted in pursuance of that
power. This article further authorised the Le-
gislature to borrow fifty dollars, to meet tempo-
rary deficits in the treasury, without imposing
taxes to pay such debts, in addition to these
powers to contract debts, he contended that the
section under consideration, gave to the Legisla-
ture power to appropriate money without limit)
and to pledge the faith of the State without limit,
for purposes of education. He conceded that
the power to borrow money fur any purposes,
was limited. But insisted, that as the taxing
power was unlimited, and as this section gave an
unlimited power to appropriate and pledge the
faith of the State for education, that the restric-
tions touching the power to create a State debt,
would not check the wildest extravagance in the
expenditure for education to associations, corpo-
rations or individuals.
He then took up the section, as amended, read
and examined it, and contended that it gave to
the Legislature an unlimited power to appropri-
ate money from the treasury for education.—
Looking at the construction of the section, he in-
sisted that no language could be clearer. He
presumed that the true effect of the proposition
would, by and by, be permitted to appear in the
action of the Legislature under it; for no one
supposed that the sum of one hundred thousand
dollars would be sufficient for the establishment
of a system of education. The gentleman from
Montgomery, (Mr. Davis,) had very frankly told
the Convention that his object was to educate
every child in the State. Yes, they are all to be
educated from this great fountain here. The
proposition of the gentleman from Cecil, (Mr.
Constable.) to limit the taxing power of the Le-
gislature, was rejected, because the Convention
could not see what exigency might arise hereaf-
ter, to render it necessary to exercise this taxing
power. Under the section) as now amended,
the Legislature would have the right to pledge
the faith of the State without issuing bonds and
they might go on to make contracts to build col-
leges and establish a splendid system of educa-
tion, and then the people throughout the State
would feel themselves called on to sustain this
system, based, as it would be, on the plighted
faith of the State. If the state House should
happen to be burned, the Legislature would not
be compelled to create a debt for re-building it,
but would pledge the faith of the State and en-
force a tax on the people to re-construct the
building, and thus redeem the pledge. In like
manner they could build colleges, academies and |
seminaries of learning, and thus redeem the
pledge. They would do this the more readily,
because they would know that no man of high
principle would hesitate to contribute to a tax to
redeem the pledged honor of the State.
Mr. DAVIS felt the peculiar position in which
he was placed, but at the risk lie knew he had
to encounter, in meeting three such able oppo-
nents as had taken the floor against his amend-
ment, he would venture a few words in reply.
The gentleman from Frederick, [Mr. Thomas]
objected to the amendment, because Frederick
county had raised alarge school fund, and would
contribute her unequal share. So, says the gentle-
man from Baltimore city, [Mr. Presstman,]
has Baltimore done; and he will not consent
that Baltimore shall be taxed to educate the
children in the counties.
Well, sir, what has the unequal distribution of
the present school fund, which the gentleman
complains of, to do with propositions now before
the Convention? What are we here for, but to
reform the past, and provide for the future? My
proposition is prospective in its character. It is
only to save something from this general lock-
ing up of the resources of the State, to aid its
carrying out a system of common school educa-
tion, as is recommended by the committee upon
education, of which he was a member.
He had told his people that he should endeav-
or to introduce into the Constitution a provision
for the establishment of a system of education;
and if he stood alone, he should strive to obtain
it.
Had the gentleman from Frederick read the
report on education, he would have seen that a
uniform system was provided for, and intended
to apply to the whole State alike, not excepting
the rich and populous county of Frederick, and
the city of Baltimore; and had he have expected
this question to come up to-day, he would have
been prepared to prove, that it is far cheaper to
educate the children of the State, than to main-
tain them in ignorance. Go to your jails, your
penitentiaries, and your alms houses, and you
find them filled with the ignorant and unlettered.
In a report which he had seen from the peniten-
tiary at Philadelphia, it has stated that the
per centage of those who had passed through
their common schools, was very small—while
that of those, who could not read or write, was
overwhelmingly large.
Gentlemen need not fear that the legislature
will make any very large appropriation for this
purpose. The difficulty was to get them to make
any provision at all. At the proper time, if not
now blocked up, he intended to indicate a plan
for this object.
He was gratified at the large vote in favor of
his amendment. He hoped the motion of the
gentleman from Frederick to reconsider would
not prevail.
Mr. MERRICK made some remarks which will
be published hereafter.
Mr. EGE obtained the floor.
And the Convention adjourned, until to-mor-
row, at ten o'clock. |
