tions. Will the gentleman now propose to fol-
low out the rule of the General Assembly which
said that it should be divided into two parts?
Mr. BLAKISTONE replied, that such was not the
object of his proposition. He would explain,
In 1833, a resolution was adopted by the Legislature
apportioning the school fund. In 1834,
the first appropriation of any large amount lor
works of internal improvement was made by the
Legislature. This act also made a distribution,
and referred to the resolution of 1833. In 1836,
the eight millions bill passed The gentleman
would perceive now, that the resolution of 1833
applied solely to the existing school fund, and
whatever amount of revenue might accrue under
the act of 1834. There was no particular appropriation
of funds by the act of 1836. But in
1840, when it became necessary to levy taxes to
meet the indebtedness of the State by paying the
interest thereon, a provision was incorporate. I
that the fund paid in the different counties and
the city of Baltimore should be distributed ac-
cording to the amount paid in. His proposition
embraced that view, that the appropriation of
1834 should be applied according to the resolu-
tion of 1833; but that the appropriation arising
from the eight millions loan regulation, should be
distributed among the counties and the city of
Baltimore in proportion to the amount respectively
paid by them. Does the gentleman understand
it?
Mr. GWINN. Perfectly.
Mr. BROWN asked the yeas and nays, which
were ordered.
Mr. HOWARD wished only to say that he should
vote in the negative, merely upon the ground
that he had no reason to think that the Legisla-
ture would violate the faith of the State. He
did not like to place an injunction upon the Le-
gislature directing them to preserve the faith of
the State, He saw no reason to apprehend that
they would violate it. He thought it would be
casting a reflection upon the Legislature, if they
should pass this amendment. .
Mr. BUCHANAN concurred in the remarks of
the gentleman from Baltimore county. He, (Mr.
B.,) had precisely the same difficulty, and he
thought his friend from St, Mary's had better
withdraw the proposition. It would give him
great pleasure to vote with him, hut it would
seem like a reflection upon the Legislature.
Mr GWINN did not concur with the gentle-
men who had preceded him In 1833, the Le-
gislature undertook to apportion the school fund,
giving one-half to the counties and city of Bal-
timore, as units, and apportioning the remaining
half among them according to the number of
white inhabitants which they contained. This
rule is evidently unjust. Counties, as counties
have certainly no claim to a fund for purposes
of education. Municipal divisions do not require
instruction in primary schools; but the population
of these districts do require it, and the claim
of a white citizen in one of these, stands upon
an equality with a white citizen in any other.
The only proper rule of apportionment is one |
regulated by the number of individuals in each
county.
Mr. DAVIS begged leave to inform the gentleman
from Baltimore city, that in 1833, the peo-
ple of that city held a town meeting, and sent a
delegation to Annapolis to ask the Legislature to
pass the very law to which he [Mr. Gwinn,] had
referred; and one of the reasons for asking the
Legislature to pass this law, was because it pro-
vided an equitable distribution of the school fund.
He had the proceedings of the meeting at his
room, and would obtain them.
Mr. GWINN could only reply, by stating that
the city of Baltimore had changed its mind since
1836, and he presumed in 1853, a change might
also take place
Mr BRENT, of Baltimore city, desired the
gentleman from St Mary's to amend his propo-
sition, so as to say that by existing laws, the
fund which distributed according to the propor-
tions paid in.
Mr. BLAKISTONE desired every body to under-
stand the position which he had taken. There
was no concealment about it. if his object was
not accomplished, the gentleman could see by the
act whether it was or not. The resolution passed
in 1833, distributed the school fund in this pro-
portion—one-half according to the white popu-
lation, and the balance was divided into twenty-
one equal parts, giving to each county, and to
the city of Baltimore, an equal share. In the
law making appropriations for works of internal
improvement for the Baltimore and Ohio rail
road, for the Susquehanna rail road, and for the
Baltimore and Ohio canal, passed in 1834, refer-
ence was had to the resolution of 1833 so that
whatever fund which might arise to the State
from these appropriations, was to be distributed
in the same way. In 1836, the eight millions
bill was passed.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city, desired the
gentleman to say, if from an examination of the
law, he did not believe that the fund was, by ex-
isting law pledged to an equitable distribution
among the counties and city of Baltimore, either
according to population, or according to the pro-
portion paid in?
Mr. BLAKISTONE replied that he would answer
the gentleman in a few moments.
All the provisions, up to 1834, were covered
by the resolution of 1833, to be distributed in
this ratio : One-half according to the white po-
pulation. and the other half divided equally
among the counties and city of Baltimore, In
1840, when it became necessary to raise, by tax-
ation, a fund to meet the State's indebtedness,
and to save the State from bankruptcy, a provi-
sion was incorporated, that each county and the
city of Baltimore should receive hack this fund
in the proportion that they contributed. For instance,
if the city of Baltimore paid in a hun-
dred thousand, and the county paid in ten thou-
sand, Baltimore received ten times the benefit of
the county. This was the object,—this was the
principle.
Mr. HOWARD. That does not include the law
of 1833. |
