That the gentleman from St. Mary's appeared
to think that there was a moral obligation resting
upon them, lo carry out the peculiar phraseology
and meaning of the proposition he had introduc-
ed. If they would examine the subject, they
would see that the school fund up to 1835, was
not derived from taxation. They obtained it
from bank bonuses, a per centage on bank divi-
dends, etc, etc. He would ask the gentleman
from St. Mary's, whether he considered the re-
solution of 1833 as making a fair. equitable and
just apportionment of this school fund?
Mr. BLAKISTONE was very much inclined to be-
lieve he voted for it, and thought he would do so
again.
Mr. BROWN desired to know what the resolu-
tion did? It gave to the white population of
each county, to be apportioned to the counties
according to the while population, one-half.—
Nobody objected to this. But what next? It
gave the other half to the counties and the city
of Baltimore, each county as one. How this
thing passed the legislature he did not know. He
was not a member at the time. He objected lo
the inequality of the system, for under it. a coun-
ty with a small white population, obtained nearly
as much as a county with a large white popula-
tion. And yet they boasted about, educating the
children of the State.
It was an act of gross injustice, which should
be undone as soon as they could act upon it. if
they would examine the legislation of the State,
they would find that a large amount of money
had been expended for educational purposes.
They had the academy fund, and in the com-
mencement of the system, the smallest counties
received as much as the largest counties. It was
true, however, that one or two of the larger coun-
ties had received no increase of the academy
fund, by a special act of Assembly No man
would stand up and say that the apportionment
among the counties was just and equitable, and
yet the gentleman from St. Mary's desired to
make it a constitutional provision. the act of
1836, was very unjustly drawn. It was in the
hands of skilful men, and so framed as to do
gross injustice. And now the gentleman came
forward and told them that they must put this
provision in the Constitution, and thus perpetuate
an act of injustice, or if they did not do it, they
would commit a moral delinquency. Then he,
[Mi. D.,] was obliged to carry out what, in his
best judgment, was grossly unjust, or he was sub-
ject to the attack of the gentleman.
He made these remarks simply to vindicate his
course. He spoke from memory, having examin-
ed the subject a few years ago. He always had
considered the apportionment of the school fund,
to be as unequal as gentlemen, like his friend from
Prince George's (lawyer ) could possibly make it.
Their bills were pretty much drawn up out of
doors. From 1833, to the present day, the school
fund had been distributed unequally and unjust
among the counties of the State; assigning as
large an appropriation to the small counties, as
it did to the large ones. The very question arose,
had not the advantages to the State worked out
injustice ? He, for one, would give his word |
of honor to the gentleman from St. Mary's,
that he would not vote for any clause in the Con-
stitution to perpetuate this state of things.
The question was then taken on the amend-
ment of Mr. GWINN,
And it was rejected.
The question being on agreeing to the amend-
ment moved by Mr, BLAKISTONE.
Mr. BRENT demanded the yeas and nays on
his amendment,
Which were ordered.
Mr, DORSEY said that the alteration proposed
by the amendment, was a very unjust one. The
money was to be distributed, not in proportion
to the white population of the several counties
as it existed at the time when the fund to be
divided was contributed, but in proportion to
the white population of the counties, as it might
be, perhaps, fifteen or twenty years hence. The
population of Baltimore city having greatly in-
creased, as he hoped and believed it would do,
Baltimore, though now entitled to less than one-
third part of the fund, if now divided, would at
the time when the money was distributable,
upon the basis of white population, receive
more than a moiety.
If the distribution were to be made upon the
white basis, it ought to be apportioned amongst
the counties according to their white population
at the time their contributions to the fund were
made. And if at that time the population of Bal-
timore was but one-fifth of that of the whole
State, and the amount contributed by it was but
one-fifth of the whole contributions of the State,
yet in ten years to come it would probably be
entitled to one-half the fund; and if it were devis-
ible some thirty years hence, the white popula-
tion of Baltimore would entitle it to claim two-
thirds of the amount to be distributed; whilst the
counties which had contributed four-fifths of the
amount, and had at the time a white population
of four times the number of Baltimore city,
would receive but half the amount paid to the
city. This might be justice according to the
principles of numbers, "which makes might
right," but not according to any other system
of ethics or politics,
He hoped they would divide the money accord-
ing to the white population, as it was at the time
when the contributions were made, and not at
the time when the debt was to be paid,
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city, said that he
would modify his amendment so as to avoid the
alternative, and altered it so as to make it read
as follows:
"Provided that the said funds shall be distributed
so as to return the proportions respectively
paid in by each county and Baltimore city, and
the residue to be distributed equitably according
to the white population of this State, for pur.
poses of education."
Mr. BOWIE said that if he understood the ques-
tion, it was that the acts of 1833, '34, had refer-
ence only to the school fund—a fund which, as
every body knew, was not raised by taxation up-
on the people of the different counties, nor by the
counties in their municipal character as such, but |
