amendment should be adopted, an opportunity would be lost of providing for the education of the poorer classes of society, and that the gentleman might as well amend his amendment, and say-that all the children of the commonwealth may be taught therein who shall pay, and none others.

Mr. CHAMBERS said, that although very desirous of accommodating every gentleman as far as he could, yet he found it absolutely neces sary to abide by the amendment in the shape in which it now was.

Mr. CURLL, of Armstrong, rose to say that the amendment of the gentleman from Franklin, met his views. As the delegate had omitted the word "common," as he (Mr. C.) suggested on Saturday, had better be done, he would vote with pleasure for the amendment, and against all others.

66

Mr. INGERSOLL, of Philadelphia county, asked for the yeas and nays. Mr. STEVENS, of Adams, said that he should be obliged to vote against the amendment. The objection made by the delegate from Lancaster, was conclusive. He did not know that any degradation was to be attached to the words "common schools." He wanted an amendment so framed as to say to our law-givers that every person is entitled to go to the schools gratis. And, unless the word schools " ex vi termini implied that, there was nothing in the amendment which recommended itself to our favor. He preferred the report of the committee to any amendment, except that offered by the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, (Mr. Ingersoll.) If that was to be negatived, he trusted that every other amendment would be, until we came to the report of the com mittee. He confessed that even to it he entertained a very great objec tion, on account of the word children." When the proper time should arrive, he would move to strike it out, and for the saine reason that applied to the word "poor," with which it was connected, and because the constitution spoke of teaching the poor, in a tone intimating disgrace. Here should be no legal paupers, and no invidious distinctions of this kind ought to be incorporated in an organic law. He was, therefore, opposed to letting the constitution remain unaltered in this respect. He did not wish to leave it at the option of the legislature to exclude any person from going to school, and receiving instruction. But, if this committee should agree to retain the word "children," they were adapting it to age also. The schools were to be opened not only to youth, but to age and igno rance, also. He was an advocate and supporter of the school law of Pennsylvania, and when, in the legislature, a motion having been made to fix a certain number of years at which an individual could be admitted, he moved to strike out the word "children," and insert all the ignorant," and the amendment was carried by acclamation. He trusted that we were not going to make a retrograde movement, and at this late day shut the doors of our school houses against a man who was conscious of his being ignorant, and desirous to obtain instruction. He would vote against all the amendments, except that of the delegate from the county of Philadelphia, which was as broad and comprehensive as he desired. If, however, it should be negatived, then he would vote for the report of the committee, amended as he proposed.

Mr. READ, of Susquehanna, hoped that the amendment would be agreed to. It was, in his opinion, the most perfect one of any that had yet been

before the committee. It differed from his own only in this particular, that it contained the word "common." He had inserted it in his original amendment; but afterwards, in order to meet the views of those who disliked it, he moved to strike it out. He considered this amendment, as modified, even better than his own. It was better, because by it we got rid of the pauper system. He thought it very evident that we must either take this amendment, or the old constitution. He trusted that the amendment would be adopted without a dissenting voice.

Mr. FULLER, of Fayette, conceived that the gentleman from Adams, (Mr. Stevens) must be mistaken in supposing that the amendment of the gentleman from Philadelphia county, Mr. Ingersoll) precluded any class =of individuals from attending the schools. Mr. F. then read the following resolution, as offered by Mr. I:

"The legislature shall provide by law for the immediate establishment of common schools in school districts of every county of the state, wherein all persons may receive instruction at public expense, at least three months in every year, in the English or German language, as may be by law directed."

Mr. STEVENS explained-that he had spoken of the report of the committee, which contained the word "children."

Mr. BARNITZ, of York, was in favor of the amendment offered by the delegate from the county of Philadelphia, (Mr. Ingersoll) and against that proposed by the gentleman from Franklin, (Mr. Chambers.) He was afraid, from certain indications he perceived, that the committee were inclined to support the amendment of the gentleman from Franklin. If we were to be defeated, he thought it wise in gentlemen to submit to their destiny, and die gracefully.

Mr. BROWN, of Philadelphia county, said, he was originally opposed to the introduction of the word "common," but, on farther reflection, he had come to the conclusion that it was susceptible of another meaning, as for instance-common education. He had no desire to limit the action. of the legislature in reference to the important subject of education. On the contrary, he wished them to have as much constitutional power as would enable them to carry out, to the fullest extent, the public sentiment. If, in a few years hence, the people should desire the establishment of higher schools, he thought that the legislature should possess sufficient power to grant what they wanted. He believed that at the present time, the city and county of Philadelphia were establishing a higher school. It was designated so in contradistinction to what were called "common" schools. He could wish to see higher schools established in every county in the state; but, from what he could learn, he apprehended there was little probability of that being done. With regard to the second section, and as to what would be its fate, it was impossible for him to say. He maintained that no provision ought to be inserted in the constitution, the effect of which went to prohibit the establishment of schools of every kind. The legislature should have the power to estab lish other schools besides common schools. He intented to vote against the amendment of the gentleman from Franklin, (Mr. Chambers) and also, against that of the delegate from Philadelphia county, (Mr. Ingersoll.) He would perhaps vote for the report of the committee, if the words

VOL. V. T

go

at public expense" should be stricken out. If the committee should back to the clause in the constitution, as he thought they would, they could strike out the word "gratis." He would prefer that this should be done, rather than that the word "common" should be introduced into the constitution, by the adoption of the amendment of the delegate from Franklin, which, as he had already said, he would vote against.

Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, observed that he preferred the exist ing constitution to the amendment of the gentleman from the county of Franklin, (Mr. Chambers) which was, to strike out the words "that the poor may be taught gratis," simply, because his amendment put in the word "common.' Noah Webster, that prince of lexicographers, defines the word "common" to mean:

"Belonging equally to more than one, or to many indefinitely; as life and sense are common to man and beast, the common privileges of citi zens; the common wants of men, belonging to the public; having no separate owner. The right to a highway is common-general-serving for the use of all. Universal; belonging to all; as the earth is said to be the common mother of mankind. Public; general; frequent; as common report. Moral; ordinary; as the common operations of nature; the common forms of conveyance; the common rules of civility."

A man who is not ashamed of his origin, may be unwilling to send his children where they may be branded with the charge of poverty.

If the report was not adopted, he thought it would be better to strike out the words, "in such manner that the poor be taught gratis," from The first section of the present constitution. He disliked that provision, because, it set a mark on the poor, as distinguished from the rich, and, in carrying out the law, made it necessary to record the name of the indi vidual two or three times, as one of the poor, first, on the assessors list, then on the school directors list, and finally on the school list. Some people might not, in after life, like very well to have their origin and history recorded in this way. In this republican country, people did not always like to be traced to a humble origin-though, for his own part, he was not ashamed of his own origin. It was well known that a feeling of repugnance at this distinction, had prevented many persons from accepting the means of education, thus offered by the commonwealth. He was anxious also, to keep out of our fundamental law, a recognition of the existence of two classes of society here ;-for society, without such aid, was apt enough to divide itself into classes, and to establish broad distinctions between them. When we provided that the people should be educated at the public expense, only on condition that they were cer tified and recorded as paupers, they would refuse to avail themselves of the offer. That was the reason that the school acts, under this constitu zional provision, had failed, and that feature we must leave out of the new system, or it would not work well. He was for leaving out the word "common" which occurred in the amendment, for if we had uncommonly good schools, as he trusted we should, he at least hoped that we should have those in which the higher as well as the common branches of education were taught. We had already commenced the establishment of academies, wherein the classical branches were taught, and he hoped they would be cherished under the new system. One academy was to be established in each county, as preparatory schools for

the colleges. He would like to see such a system in operation, as would afford the means of classical education to every child that desired it, without going beyond his own neighborhood. He wished to provide means for the education of teachers, and for elevating the rank of that profession in society. That must be the groundwork of any system that we adopted, for at present the teachers of the common schools were generally uneducated, and a sort of odium rested upon the whole profes

sion.

He would adopt such a system as would enable every man's child to obtain a good classical education, if he wished it, and although such an education was not always necessary for the purposes of common life, still it was an undeniable truth, that the more intelligent and enlightened our people become, the more likely will they be to transmit, unimpaired, to posterity, the rich inheritance of our fathers.

Mr. FULLER wished to know, he said, if the gentleman from Northampton would go for the amendment of the delegate from Franklin, striking out the word "common." That was what he had understood him to say. But he (Mr. F.) was opposed to the omission of that word, as its meaning was well settled in practice, and well understood by the people of the state.

Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, did not, he said, approve of that word, as it occurred in the amendment of the gentleman from Franklin. He preferred the amendment of the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, because, it told us what was meant by the word "common"-viz : education in English, German, or other language.

Mr. MANN said, the gentleman from the county, had been so accommodating in adopting the suggestions of different gentlemen, that he would propose one other modification of his amendment, in the hope that the gentleman would accept it, and believing, that it would secure the votes of several delegates for the proposition. It would certainly govern his own vote on the question. He wished the gentleman to strike out the words "or other language."

Mr. DICKEY abjected to the amendments, because they proposed, he said, to do that by the constitution which it had been attempted already to do by law. Our common school system was in progress under existing laws, and if they adopted this new plan, it would open the whole question again, whether we should provide the means of general education, on a broad and substantial basis or not. The present was a voluntary system, and, though in successful progress, it was not yet established. Out of nine hundred and odd school districts, the system is in operation in nearly seven hundred, and about two hundred and forty of them were still non-accepting districts, but, as he hoped, would very soon become accepting districts. He did not look upon it as any disgrace to the legisla. ture of Pennsylvania, or of any other state, to provide for the education of the poor and the unfortunate, at the expense of those who happened to be rich and more fortunate. Was it discreditable to the county of Montgomery, to raise four thousand dollars for the education of poor children? He considered it as creditable and honorable to the great men who founded the constitution of Pennsylvania, that they provided in the fundamental law, for the education of the poor, at the expense of the

rich-for the education of the poor and unfortunate, at least,-if all could not be educated at the public expense. He dreaded the innovations we were now making on this system. If we put the question of education to the people in a new form, he feared it might retard the operation of the present system, with which he believed, they were now well satisfied, and which, when fully carried out, would meet our wishes.

Mr. CHANDLER, of the city of Philadelphia, said, it was of very little consequence, what disposition was made of the section, inasmuch as the convention had succeeded in providing for establishing the schools. He would go for the amendment of the gentleman from Franklin, provided it did effect the principle object at which we aimed. It had been remar ked that the constitution of Massachusetts, said nothing of public schools. This was very true, and it was unnecessary that any provision should be made on the subject in that state. There the public school system preceded any legislation, for it was the offering of the town system. But the constitution of Massachusetts, contained a provision in regard to the university. Fearing that the people might relax in their love of classical learning, they introduced a provision for the appointment of trustees of the university. The constitution of New York, contained no provision on the subject of public schools. But, at the same time, it did contain a clause in relation to the salt springs, which belong to the state. Of much greater importance was the subject of education, and the establishment of common schools-which are the moral salt springs of society? He was disposed only to insist, that the poor should be educated, and, as to the phraseology of a provision, which would reach this end, he was indifferent. Let us remove every thing which may form an obstacle to this great object. He had been struck with the remark, that our attempts to provide for the establishment of schools and colleges, had been a failure. The provision had expired and the colleges too. We decorate the upper story of the edifice of education, and neglect the lower story. Our colleges remained empty, because the lower story was not first filled. He would not agree to strike out the word "common." The schools were common, and this did not signify other than that they were common to all-and open to all. They should lead all who were disposed to enter, from the alphabet to the poetry of Virgil and Homer. The university and the colleges should crown the system. Every dollar given by the state to these higher institutions, went to diminish the expense of education there. There was no provision, he believed, in the constitution of Pennsylvania for the support of the poor; and, indeed, we had no poor, except the decrepid and the old. None were poor who were young and healthful; and it would be unnecessary to recognize a distinction between the rich and the poor. Any person with two hands, unless disabled by sickness or age, is competent to maintain himself in this state; and when a person becomes a pauper, he is no longer of the class designated as the poor. He did wish to give the public schools the character of elemosynary institutions; and let there be nothing relating to them, that would remind any one that he was poor, or to impress him with a sense that he was receiving charity at the hands of richer persons. He liked the phrase "public schools," and there was no danger of its being misapprehended by the people. It was paying a poor compliment to the people of this commonwealth, to suppose that