presume

as one of the defects of the present system. I believe, also, that in all nations where the common school system is carried into effect, this has been a point of difficulty; and we have heard it stated by members of this body, that this was one of the difficulties in carrying the system into effect in the different parts of the state in which they reside. I that the legislature would act with all care and circumspection in any regulations which they might make of this kind-but, I think also, that we should not place any provision in the constitution which might seem to be of a prohibitory nature. If the provision was made to extend to "all persons in the commonwealth; the legislature would not, of course, have the power to limit it to children. I think that the amendment, if adopted, will go far to destroy the good effects which now result from the establishment of the common school system. I shall feel myself compelled, therefore, to vote against it.

Mr. STEVENS said, that he had but a few words to say in answer to the remarks of the gentleman from Erie, (Mr. Sill.)

I can

I admit, said Mr. Stevens, that the report of the secretary of the com monwealth, as superintendent of common schools, does recommend that children of a certain age only, should be taught in the public schools; and I will state also that that is the only part of his report to which I not yield my approbation. That portion of the report found no favor with the legislature, and I hope it will never find favor with any deliber ative body in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. There are but a few states in which the common school system has been carried into opera tion, where such a limitation has been admitted.

In the state of Vermont, and also in several of the adjoining states, the only preliminary question which the law requires is this-Is the applicant ignorant is he desirous to learn? There may be many persons at the commencement of a free school system in a state, who may be above the age of children-may be at the age of puberty-and who have never had an opportunity to avail themselves of the benefits of education. We know there are such in our own state. opportunity of learning, if they are disposed to learn? Would you close Would you deprive them of the the door against them, and, by refusing them an admission, compel them to remain in ignorance for ever? There are a vast number of persons who may, in early life, have lived in other states, and who may come into the state of Pennsylvania at the age of twenty or twenty-one years. Are all such to be excluded? Will you tell them that, because they have not the means to instruct themselves, you forbid them being instructed at all-but that they must continue through life as ignorant as they are now! Is there any age in human existence when ignorance is desirable, or even to be tolerated? Will you give the sanction of your high authority to such a doctrine as this? I remember very well, at a former period of my life, and in another state, what was the operation of this system, as extended to all persons. I have myself been a teacher in New England. I have taught married men of thirty years of age. I have taught persons of all ages between the age of four and thirty-and it was this very fea ture which seemed to me to constitute the great beauty of the whole system. It was thrown open to all the ignorant, and I shall be sorry to see knowledge and the means of acquiring knowledge, confined to any There is no reason to fear that our schools will ever be too

one age.

full; the heart of a patriot should rejoice even at the most remote prospect of such a contingency. Could there be any sight more pleasing than to see your whole population, crowding, with anxious steps, to the gates of knowledge? This very system has tended to open that prospect to our view, wherever it has been adopted. In the borough in which I live, the average number of scholars, before the adoption of this system, was one hundred and thirty-five; and, since its adoption, that number has increased to an average of three hundred and seventeen-and with only the same amount of population. We have abundant evidence in this fact, that there are a vast number who wished to be educated, but who were not willing to receive an education under the old system. I hope that the amendment will not be agreed to.

Mr. CURLL said, that he felt very desirous that the amendment to the amendment should prevail. He also, like the gentleman from Adams County, (Mr. Stevens) had taught a school for a period of nine or ten years; and, (said Mr. C.) I have frequently had in my school in Chester county, men and women older than I was at the time. If I rightly understand the present school law, no persons above the age of fourteen, are permitted to go. Few persons have received an education by the time they are fourteen years of age. Will intelligent men in this body, stand up for a liberal system of education, and yet not permit those to partake of its benefits, who are taxed for its support? This is a wrong principle, and I hope it will not be acted upon here.

And the question was then taken on the amendment to the amendment, and was decided in the affirmative-yeas 54, noes not counted.

So the amendment to the amendment was agreed to.

And the question was then taken on the amendment as amended, and the same was agreed to.

The question then recurring on the adoption of the section, as amended: Mr. DICKEY called for the yeas and nays on the amendment as amended, and they were ordered.

Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, rose and said, that he begged gentlemen, before they acted finally on this section, to reflect what they were about to do. If they negatived this proposition, they would, in fact, decide that there should be no constitutional provision on the subject of education.

Mr. DICKEY said, that he also would ask gentlemen to reflect before they voted, and he would also remind them that if this section as amended was negatived, we should then fall back upon the first section of the seventh article of the constitution of 1790. He hoped that the section as amended would be negatived, and that we should again return to the first section of the old constitution.

The gentleman from Adams, (Mr. Stevens) is anxious (said Mr. D.) to put off the decision of this question, until it shall come up on second reading in convention. Sir, I hope that we shall avoid that course. 1 dread the effect of opening this question to be again agitated from one end of the commonwealth to the other-of again hearing the cry of "school or no school"-of "school men and anti-school men?" I am anxious that we should leave the system, as we found it when we commenced our labors here-progressing in the respect and affections of the people

The superintendent of common schools does not state in his report, as one of the def cts of the present system, that the poor should be educated gratis. This is not once made on objection by him. He makes use of the following language:

"An inspection of the column of defects, is both instructive and encouraging. Of the districts that have expressed an opinion as to the merits of the system, only four are wholly opposed to it, while twenty one declare that they have discoved no defects. One hundred and fifty five, pronounce the general want of state appropriation, and fifty-six, the want of a school house funds, to be its chief defects. Thirty-two are oppo sed to the amount of general taxation; and fifteen wholly opposed to, and four in favor of increasing or continuing the poll tax. Seventy five are in favor of paying directors, treasurers and secretaries; six say there are too many, and eight complain of want of attention by directors. Fourteen demanded a limitation of the age of pupils, and twenty-four state the want of competent teachers, to be the greatest defect of the system." [Annual report of the superintendent of common schools of Pennsylvania, read in senate, February 18, 1837.]

So (continued Mr. D.) the superintendent does not allege that the prin ciple of teaching the poor gratis, is a defect in the existing system. And yet the gentleman from Adams, (r. Stevens) proposes that this provis ion should be stricken out of the constitution, and that we should thus take away the guaranty which the poor now have, that they shall be edu cated at the expense of the commonwealth.

Looking to the direction which this debate has taken, it would be well, Mr. Chairman, to inquire how these words, "that the poor shall be taught gratis," came to be inserted-to look to the object which the framers of the constitution of 1790 had in view-what were the reasons which gor erned them--and who it was that introduced the principle. For this pur pose, I will read a few sentences from page 211, of the history of the proceedings of the convention of 1790.

"It was moved by Mr. WILSON, seconded by Mr. HUBLEY, to insert the following section, in the seventh article of the proposed plan of govern ment, viz:

"SECT. 1. A school or schools shall be established in each county for the instruction of youth, and the state shall pay to the masters such salaries as shall enable them to teach at low prices.'

At page 244 of the same book, you read that when, on a subsequent day, Mr. WILSON's motion was considered, Mr. M'KEAN, once the governor of this state, made a motion which was seconded by Mr. FINDLAY, of Westmoreland-a democrat known to every man in your commonwealth --to add the words " and the poor gratis." And of the subsequent proceedings, we find the following account in the same book :

"It was then moved by Mr. PICKERING, seconded by Mr. EDWARDS, to postpone the said section, in order to introduce the following in lieu thereof;

"The legislature shall provide, by law, for the establishment of schools throughout the state, in such manner that the poor may be taught gratis.

"And the question on postponement being taken, it was determined in the affirmative.

"A motion was then made by Mr M'LANE, seconded by Mr. LINCOLN, to insert after legislature," the following-" as soon as conveniently may be."

"Which was agreed to and the section as amended was adopted."

And in this manner continued (Mr. D.) was originated the principle which we now find in the constitution of 1790. And in all the complaints which we have heard, have we once heard that this principle formed any portion of the ground work of those complaints against the present system of education, or that it has been pointed out as impeding the progress of that system? I have never yet heard such a complaint. Why then should we give cause for agitation in the commonwealth, on this subject -merely for the sake of striking out the words "the poor shall be taught gratis" and when we were to gain nothing by it?

The gentleman from Adams says farther, with the hope of securing more favor for this amendment, that he will give his vote to send this article to the people, distinctly and separately from the rest, in order that their wishes and feelings may be directly expressed upon it. But, sir, when we come to take the vote on the question of separation, is it not doubtful whether a majority of the members of this convention can be found to vote for that separation? I am inclined to the belief that all amendments we may make here, will be embodied in the old constitution, and will then be submitted as a whole to the people. It will be a difficult matter, I think, to effect a separation of any one article from the rest. I hope, therefore, that the convention will leave the provision of the constitution of 1790, just where they found it; for I seriously apprehend that, if any amendment should prevail, laying an injunction on the legislature to educate all persons, of all ages, our common school system will be pros. trated forever.

Mr. STEVENS said, that it was not often that he saw the gentleman from the county of Beaver, (Mr. Dickey) resort to disingenuous arguments to support any position he might assume; and he (Mr. S.) was therefore, induced to believe that he had done it, in the present instance, through inadvertence rather than design. Still. said (Mr. S.) the gentleman's arguments are disingenuous. He speaks of the report of the superintendent of common schools, and says that the word "poor" has never been pointed out by him as an objection to the present system. Sir, it must be remembered that these reports come from the accepting districts; and the gentleman knows that, in those districts which have not yet accepted the law, there is no longer a pauper system at all. The objection is in the constitution; and the question was not proposed, what was the objec tion to the constitution, but what were the objections to the system? But, as the gentleman from Northampton, (Mr. Porter) has said, reject this amended section, and you will be left without any power at all. Is the committee desirous to bring about such a condition of things? Is there in reality so vast an anxiety in the mind of the gentleman from the county of Beaver, as to this school system, or is here something of that spirit operating on his mind which we saw in our little borough, when this system was adopted? Five of the nabobs, who supposed themselves to

be of purer blood than the plebeians, by whom they were surroundedwould not send their children to the free school, but they clubbed togeth er, and hired a master, and sent these young nobility to be instructed by him, lest they should sit by the side of those poorer children who had patches in their clothes. Sir, I fear that something of that spirit is manifesting itself among some of the members of this body: they do not like that this insidious distinction between the rich and the poor should be erased from the fundamental law of Pennsylvania. For my own part, I must say that I have no noble blood in my veins-and, if I had, I could not regard it as any thing to boast of I leave it to others to reap what happiness they may, from the self-satisfied feeling that they draw the springs of life from purer sources than their fellew-men, by whom they are surrounded. I have no communion with feelings such as these.

I trust, Mr. Chairman, that this amended provision will be adopted, at any rate for the present. If it is to be stricken out, let it be on second reading. And let us enjoy, at least for a few weeks longer, the reflection, that we have not yet destroyed that glorious principle of equality which lies at the very root of our republican institutions.

Mr. FORWARD, of Allegheny, said that he had already addressed the convention several times on the subject, and nothing but the deep anxiety that he felt in regard to it, could have induced him to trouble them again. He was the friend and advocate of popular education, and he believed it to be the very first duty of a republican government to educate the people, (if they were disposed to receive instruction,) partly at the public expense, and at their own. It was as well the duty of the people to receive instruction, as it was, that of the government to provide a part of it. But, notwithstanding this, we must take matters as we found them, and must look at society as it was now. It was vain and useless to look at theories. What, he asked, had we here? We had a constitution that embraced humanity-which provided, that the poor should be taught at the public expense. He had been astonished to hear the principle spoken of as though it were disreputable to the country. He was surprised to see gentlemen fired with indignation at the announcement of the well known fact that there were poor in the country, and that they did not recognise the christian duty, of educating them at the public expense. Not a single argument had been made here, which did not strike at the poor law. It was very easy to falter about the matter; but it was not argument. Was a man to be insulted, because he had a claim on the bounty of his country? He (Mr. F.) trusted not. What was the argument of the gentleman. He had drawn us a picture, but where did he get the original? Did he find it in those districts where the system had been received, and put in operation? Was there any thing in it? Nothing. Were the poor educated there? Yes, and with the rich. So, that that part of the constitution, which related to the poor, was a dead letter-was so in operation. And where was the harm, if the reputation of the state was saved by it? The poor and the rich were educated together. It was not there, then, that the gentleman found the original of his picture. Where did he find it? Why, in the non-accepting districts. He was for taking away from the non-accepting districts the least benefit-the least charity that might be conferred on them by the constitution. The gentleman from Adams, (Mr Stevens) and others were found rising in their place