clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Proceedings and Debates of the 1867 Constitutional Convention
Volume 74, Volume 1, Debates 201   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space
but these funds are placed beyond the control of every
parent and guardian in the State; those who bear the
burdens are denied all share in their direction.
Mr. George advocated his amendment. The people of
Baltimore wanted their own system secured to them by
constitutional enactment. They did not want it left to
the dangers of log-rolling in the Legislature.
Mr. Howard said gentlemen from Baltimore did not
seem to care what became of the counties so they got
their own system. He wanted this Convention to place
the seal of condemnation on this present outrageous sys-
tem. He did not hesitate to say that it was odious to the
people of Cecil county; that the standing of the teachers
was not as high as under the old system, and that the
means of education were limited, although the expenses
had been so enormously increased.
Mr. Barnes said if there was anything dear to the peo-
ple of Baltimore, it was their system of public schools.
That system had grown step by step for forty years,
until now the scale of education was as high as that of
any institutions of learning in the country. They desired
their own system, but they did not want to interfere with
the counties, and on this point his friend from Cecil, (Mr.
Howard, ) was mistaken. They were perfectly willing for
the counties to have any system which suited them.
Mr. Kilbourn explained that the report of the commit-
tee did not provide for a uniform system, but that it
would be competent for Baltimore to have a separate sys-
tem, if she desired it.
Mr. Stoddert was disappointed at the action of the com-
mittee. The people of Charles county felt more on this
subject than on any other, and they had looked to the
Convention for relief.
Mr. Gill had been in favor of the report of the commit-
tee, but after hearing the debate he had changed his
mind. He was here as a representative of the city of
Baltimore to watch over and protect her interests, and he
would not consent that one atom of the school system of
Baltimore should be disturbed. He wanted that system
intact, wanted it a separate system, and was not willing
that it should be left to legislative discretion. He was
201


 
clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Proceedings and Debates of the 1867 Constitutional Convention
Volume 74, Volume 1, Debates 201   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives