| Volume 107, Page 483 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
17 is not used—teachers are not examined according to requirements of the law—a tuition fee of $1 is exacted—and in every particular the School Sys- tem is as disconnected from the State Board of Education, as if Baltimore were in Virginia. The action of the late City Council has been equally de- monstrative. A resolution offered by the Chairman of Committee on Edu- cation, was passed with only one dissenting voice, to effect: "That the Board of Commissioners of Public Schools, be and they are hereby directed not to make or allow any change to be made in the Public School System in the City." The effect of this resolution would have been to fossilize the School System of Baltimore, with all its provisions, good, bad or indifferent; putting a dead lock on the wheels of progress. But the Second Branch refused to concur and thus checked the process of fossilization by adopting the following substitute: "Resolved, That a Joint Special Committee, consisting of three members of each Branch, be appointed to inquire as to the difficulties existing between the State Board of Education and the Board of Public School Commissioners of the City of Baltimore, and report as early as possible." This reasonable plan of adjustment was allowed by the First Branch to lay upon the table. The opinion of the City Counsellor and City Solicitor was invoked. Of the legal points raised, it does not become me to speak, but it is worthy of remark that while it is thought that the trainers of the Constitution intended to recognize for Baltimore a separate and distinct School System as organized and existing prior to the adoption of the law, and therefore not to come within the purview of the new system of Public Schools; yet the opinion proceeds to show wherein the law does affect the City Schools and invests the State Board of Education and even the State Superintendent with certain powers, and imposes upon them duties connected therewith, thus placing the Baltimore Schools, at the same time, both in and out of the law. The Baltimore School Board it was argued is relieved from obedience to the law requiring the use of a uniform scries of Text Books, because the City Schools were organized antecedent to the Act of Assembly of March, 1865; overlooking another section of the law which says "the uniform series of Text Books shall be used in every Public School and High School established or aided under this Act." The Baltimore Schools are certainly aided, receiving their proportion of the State Free School Fund, and of the 15 cent direct State tax as appropriated by the Superintendent. These questions need not be discussed in detail. The members of the Committee on Education will remember the response given to the delegation from Baltimore City asking to be relieved from the operation of the General Law. The Senate will remember the unanimous refusal to entertain a similar proposition presented in a letter from the President of the Baltimore School Board. The House of Delegates will remember the signal defeat of the effort of one of their number to amend every section of the school law so as to exclude Baltimore City. Tinder these circumstances it is astonishing that any doubt exists as to the intent of the act. or that there should bo any effort to attach to words other than their natural meaning. The Constitution requires the Gen- 3 |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, 1866
| Volume 107, Page 483 View pdf image (33K) |
|
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.
Maryland State Archives