|
|
|
mittee, the distinguished gentleman from Harford, (Mr.
Farnandis, ) he would not now make it.
Mr. George proposed the following as an additional sec-
tion:
"The public schools of the city of Baltimore shall be a
separate organization under the control of the mayor and
city council of said city. "
Mr. Kilbourn wanted this matter left to the Legisla-
ture, and hoped the gentleman from Baltimore, (Mr.
George, ) would withdraw his amendment. He (Mr. K. )
had been for abolishing the present system by constitu-
tional enactment, but after the arguments of the gentle-
man from Harford in the committee he had been content
to leave it to the Legislature, but in no shape or form
would he consent that the system should continue one day
beyond the time indicated in this article, but thought it
best to adhere to the report of the committee. The com-
mittee had ample evidence of the almost entire voice of
the people of Maryland against the system. The reason
why he was willing to leave this matter to the Legisla-
ture was because he was thoroughly convinced that no
section of the State would send a delegate to the Legisla-
ture who would not be in favor of abolishing the present
system. The enormous expenses of the system, the mode
of raising the money and the mode of expending it, and
the power of the superintendent, are all reasons why this
system should be dispensed with. The committee had
abundant evidence that the reports made to the Legisla-
ture, to the people and to this Convention are not founded
in truth. The aggregate cost of books is stated at $64, -
000, when by examination of the details it has been as-
certained that the amount is one hundred per cent greater,
or $128, 000. To show the working of this in the coun-
ties, the superintendent receives the books and passes
them over to the teachers and the teachers to the scholars,
and in this shifting of responsibility the cost of the books
to the scholars is enhanced 100 per cent. They had abund-
ant proof that the intolerant misrepresentations of the
superintendent had not been unadvisably made. The
whole system has radical, fundamental objections. It
would be supposed that it would be right to commit the
expenditure of the funds to those who contributed them,
200
|
|
|
|
 |
