was to save something for the education of this
numerous class that his motion was intended to
provide,
Mr. CHANDLER here suggested the propriety of
postponing the further discussion of this subject
until after the vote of the House had been taken
on the motion to reconsider. The discussion of
the subject of education would then be more pro-
perly before the House.
Mr. DAVIS thanked the gentleman from Balti-
more county for his suggestion, in which he, (Mr.
D„) concurred; but the gentleman would see that
what he had said had been forced from him. If
the motion to reconsider should prevail, the op-
ponents of the system of education would then
move to reject the whole proposition to relieve
the gentleman from Frederick, and those who
were now on the record with him against the
proposition He repeated what he had said yes-
terday, that with the aid of the statistics at hand,
were the Convention disposed to listen to them,
he would be able to prove that a great expense
would be saved to the State by the adoption of a
system of education, because, as has been justly
said, ignorance is the parent of idleness—idleness
of vice and immorality, with its concomitant
crime—and crime with all its attendant expense,
of loss first—then detection, conviction, and pun-
ishment—unless the party gets "scot free" to
perpetrate other injuries and depredations.
The question was then stated to be on the mo-
tion to re-consider the vote adopting the amend-
ment of Mr. DAVIS.
Mr. PRESSTMAN asked the yeas and nays, which
were ordered, and being taken, resulted as fol-
lows:
Affirmative— Messrs. Bell, Welch, Lloyd, Col-
ston, Constable, Chambers of Cecil, McCullough,
Miller, Spencer, Grason, George, Thomas, Shri-
ver, Gaither, Biser, Annan, Sappington, Stephen-
son, McHenry, Thawley, Hardcastle, Gwinn,
Stewart of Baltimore city, Brent of Baltimore
city, Sherwood of Baltimore city, Presstman,
Ware, Schley, Fiery, Neill, John Newcomer,
Michael Newcomer, Weber, Hollyday, Slicer,
Parke, Ege, Cockey and Brown—39,
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, President, Bla-
kistone, Dent, Hopewell, Ricaud, Lee, Chambers
of Kent, Mitchell, Donaldson, Dorsey, Wells,
Randall, Weems, Merrick, Chandler, James U.
Dennis, Crisfield, Dashiell, Hicks, Hodson, Golds-
borough, Eccleston, Bowie, Sprigg, McCubbin,
Bowling, McMaster, Fooks, Davis, Kilgour, and
Smith—31.
So the vote was re-considered.
The question then recurred on the adoption of
the amendment of Mr. DAVIS.
Mr, GRASON made some remarks which will
appear hereafter.
Mr. CHAMBERS rose to correct impressions
which might be made, by what had been said,
on the minds of those who had not investigated
the history of the school fund. The origin of the
school fund, dated a long way beyond the birth
day of Carroll county. The first legislation in
relation to this subject, will be found to have
been more than a century since,
55 |
A word or two in reference to the colleges—
he meant the two colleges which were made the
university, in 1784. By their charters in 1782
and 1784, the Legislature had engaged to endow
the colleges, if individuals would advance the
funds necessary to establish them. The condi-
tion was complied with, and in 1784 the endow-
ment was granted.
Thus was produced a state of things, which in
the view of those who had charge of the colleges,
brought them completely within the principles
established in the supreme court of the United
States, in the case of the Dartmouth college, and
others of a similar class. In these cases it had
been declared that such contracts were inviolable
by the State, It. happened, however, subsequently,
that persons occupied seats in these legis-
lative halls, who entertained notions in regard to
the education of our citizens, very different from
those entertained by our intelligent and judicious
ancestors. Such notions, as we now hear from
some quarters, obtained the ascendancy, and the
colleges were, deprived, arbitrarily, as they sup-
posed, of these endowments. At the time this
alleged violation of their constitutional rights was
perpetrated, there was on our statute book a law
by which the State could be sued, by any of her
citizens having a just claim against the State.
The colleges supposed they could avail them-
selves of this law, to bring the matter fairly be-
fore the supreme court, and after a long course
of fruitless effort, to obtain justice by an appeal
to the Legislature) were preparing to adopt the
only remedy left them, and institute suit.
The law was then repealed, and the opportu-
nity of contesting the power of the Legislature
thereby denied. Subsequently, at a late period,
and under the influence of a higher sense of jus-
tice and legal obligation, a compromise was ef-
fected, and an annual sum granted to the col-
leges, which was given and accepted expressly
as a satisfaction in full, for their very large de-
mands. The terms of the resolution granting the
annuity and the acquittance executed by the col-
leges, would prove this. Such was a brief his-
tory of the transactions between the State and
these colleges.
A friend near him, [Mr. Randall,] had just of-
fered him the book containing the charter, sub-
scription list, and early proceedings of Washing-
ton college, by which it would appear that the
contributions toward the establishment of that
institution, amounted to ten thousand pounds.
Mr. EGE asked the gentleman to read the re-
solution.
Mr. CHAMBERS said the resolution was not be-
fore him, but he would read what was immedi-
ately under his eye. It was the first item on the
list of subscribers, and is in the words follow-
ing:
"His Excellency, George Washington, Esq,
General and Commander-in-Chief of the armies
of the United States, as an earnest of his good-
will, fifty guineas."
Mr. EGE said:
That when he asked the gentleman from Kent,
to read the resolution to which he had referred, |
