prosecute these inquiries, for want of proper information from the guardians of the poor.

On the 8th of April, 1846, a resolution was passed (Pamphlet Laws, 1825-6, page 4-6), requiring the commissioners of the counties, to report annually to the Legislature "the number of poor children educated at the public expense.'

An act was passed June 13th, 1836 (Pamph. Laws, 1836, page 525), "To consolidate and amend the several acts relating to a general system of education by common schools;" establishing and organizing several other school districts, and providing for teachers, and taxes to support them; and several acts were theretofore, and afterwards passed, extending "free schools" to other parts of the State, and indicating rules of direction, management, &c.; but no change was made in the character or qualification of the beneficiaries.

On the 7th of April, 1849, an act was passed (Pamph. Laws, 1849, page 441), directing that "every township and borough shall form a common school district;"—organizing directors, with power to assess and levy taxes, build schoolhouses, and appoint teachers, "for the education of every individual between the ages of five and twenty-one years, who may apply for admission."

By this recital it will be seen, that the only constitutional provision, and which is restrictive of all legislative authority, is, "that the poor may be taught gratis."

That the first enactment used the words, "children between the ages of five and twelve years, whose parents are unable to pay for their schooling."

That the words in the next act are "for all the indigent orphan children, boys between six and fourteen years, and girls between five and thirteen years of age."

That the act next after this twice uses the words, "poor children."

That the Supreme Court adopted this restrictive language of "the children of the poor."

That in this connection, commissioners were directed to “investigate the causes of pauperism ;”—and to report "the number of poor children educated at the public expense."

And that no other interpretation or construction for fifty-nine years was put upon the words referred to in the Constitution, except to determine the ages within which "the poor may be taught gratis."

That this was the definition of the word "poor," from the adoption of the constitution in 1790, retained as it was amended in 1838. That the understanding of the words, as to the character or description of "the poor" persons to "be taught gratis," was ascertained and determined in 1809, and repeated by the Legislature and the Supreme Court, for more than thirty years, to be "children under the age of thirteen and fourteen years;". and that all the legislative, judicial and popular interpretations of this "poor school" power has been limited to "children" within these ages, "whose parents are unable to pay for their schooling;"-until in 1849, when the constitution, and all former laws on this subject are abolished, without any authority or suggestion from the people; and a common school" system is established throughout the State ;-$200,000 of the public moneys appropriated thereto, with directors and comptrollers, authorized to levy taxes for buying lands and building houses, for supporting a "sufficient number of schools, for the education of every individual between the ages of five and twenty-one years;" and to confer academical degrees in the arts, as are now conferred by the University of Pennsylvania (Pamph. Laws, 1836, 527), is a humiliating commentary on the republican professions of contempt for titles! A more bold and arbitrary invasion of constitutional and judicial law was never perpetrated in a free country; and it may not excite the least surprise, that in less than seven months this luxuriant harvest-field should have stimulated the convocation of a self-constituted "national assembly."

These schools, at which "the poor shall be taught gratis,” have been made a pretext for great wrongs.

The language is, "that the poor may be taught gratis." The argument that any other person but a pauper, is intended by the word "poor," is absurd; the word "teaching," in this connection, means what is understood by "victuals". that is, what is necessary, and no more.

This construction has never been denied; the effort has been to dodge and get round its truth by plausible and sympathetic appeals to excuse, and not to justify the abuse.

The test of the constitution for admission to these schools, to wit: "the poor," is never put.

The result of its application would be a laughable curiosity. The palpable inconsistency between the rule and the practice will be shown.

Take, for example, the county of Philadelphia for 1848. The children of all the paupers in the almshouse were with their parents, where they were kept at school, and bound out. None of these poor children were out of the almshouse. Only four hundred paupers received out-door aid from the Guardians of the Poor. These persons were all too old for, and they had no infant children.

During this same year there were kept in full operation in that county, two hundred and thirty-six free schools, to "teach the poor gratis," at which there was an aggregate number all the time of 40,290 scholars, at an outlay of $202,614 27, for school-houses, and an annual tax of $285,330 60, for the expense of "teaching the poor gratis"—more than all the other expenses of that county! This will be found to be a scholar at an annual expense of more than $7 70 for each taxable inhabitant of the city of Philadelphia: and 4,538 scholars more than there were persons between the ages of five and twenty years, (35,752) by the census of 1841, in the city and county of Philadelphia.

Pennsylvania and Philadelphia are taken for examples. The same rules, it will be seen, apply to all the States.

No poor man ever asked for this; it is asked for by the lazy and the dishonest, and the political knaves who cringe and court them. The poor are abundantly provided for, schooled and bound out to learn pursuits of honest industry; they are not ignorant of their rights, or backward in demanding them; they have had no occasion to complain; nor have they ever found fault with the benevolent solicitude bestowed by the Poor House Guardians upon their children. In the United States, this charity is performed with parental and religious fidelity; the tear and the lisp of the pauper child finds a passport to every heart.

A member of the American Congress, some years since, in a debate upon, and in vindication of the free labor of the north, said:

That a pauper boy in Pennsylvania had been schooled and bound out from an almshouse to a farmer, afterwards became a school teacher, a surveyor, a prothonotary, a lawyer, a member and Speaker of the House of Representatives, and that he then was the Attorney General of that State.

It would have been superfluous if the speaker had added, that his pauper boy was a gentleman of the first rank, as a

scholar and a jurist, and that he had no cause to feel ashamed of, nor was he ashamed of his origin.

There is no lack of these pupils from the free schools of mind and industry, all over the country; none such from the free schools of extortion are now recollected.

Perhaps the legal test, "children of the poor," would have shut out every individual of this 40,290 persons, who unlawfully used and consumed, within twelve months, in Philadelphia, more than half a million of the people's hard earnings, and every cent of which has been extracted from them against law.

There is no legislative vote, or order of any County Board, or Board of County Commissioners, assessors or auditors, comptrollers or directors of schools-no affectations of benevolence or religion, that can sanction this flagrant disregard and violation of law.

It is not authorized upon the ground of a general power to legislate for the public good; for their authority as to this is not left open, but restrained by the express words of the constitution.

The notion that if this is not law, it should be, and that the end justifies the means, is a hypothesis as fallacious as it is audacious and false.

And the position may be fairly put and maintained, that a common school, such as is now established in Pennsylvania, is in direct violation of the constitution of that State, and of the first elements of the free institutions of the United States; and that if any of the constitutions of the other States contain express clauses for their establishment, such as is in the Pennsylvania statutes, they are void.

The States have all pledged themselves for the perpetual and inviolable toleration of religion. The constitution of the United States directs that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Congress has ruled that under this restriction it had no power to stop the Sunday Mails; and it necessarily follows, that any compulsory instruction, for improving or mending the morals, whether it be in school houses or meeting houses, is unlawful; and that there is no authority in the United States to force a tax upon the people for the support of a common church, or a common school, or any other place designed for moral instruction. They may have an implied power to protect and promote the

arts and sciences, by patronizing seminaries where they are taught, as they have a right to protect and promote the purity of religion, by forbidding blaspheming; but they have no power to "make any establishment of religion," under the pretext of restraining profanity; nor to establish any schools for the amelioration or reformation of human depravity, and mending the heart, under pretence of teaching the poor.

They cannot compel any one to go to a church or a school; they cannot force any one to listen to, or receive instruction, moral or religious; nor can they force the people to pay for its "establishment."

There must be free toleration for both in the United States; and no authority exists, by direct or indirect means, to exact one cent from any man, for any purpose or object in this respect, except for the promotion of "the arts and sciences in seminaries," and "the schooling of the poor;" neither of which involves or embraces the abuse referred to.

It is therefore clear that there is no constitutional power anywhere given to tax the people for a common school for every individual from five to twenty-one years of age, for the mere purpose of improving their minds, without regard to their poverty, and to be used as the common schools are now used, for the schooling of all persons indiscriminately between these ages.

The health of the body is of as much importance to life, as the improvement of the mind. If a law was made providing for the establishment, at the public expense, of hospitals and conservatories for the accommodation of every sick and hungry individual, between the ages of five and twenty-one years, who may apply for admission, without any test of poverty, it would be as reasonable and just as this common school law, and would be no less in open contempt of the first elements of the social compact.

Both are agrarian, and both demand from society more than is necessary. This is all that the public is bound to do. They owe each other necessary support and protection, but no more. That which is not necessary is a luxury, which the public is not bound to pay for. Too much of this has been forced upon the people in other countries, and in the United States they have resolutely repudiated these oppressions.

If it is proposed by schools, not named and defined, for the poor, up to thirteen or fourteen years of age, to improve or change the heart; if the real intention is to produce moral and