It

The substitute was opposed by Mr. J. D. PIERCE, for the reason that it would be found difficult to levy a tax upon the districts. had been attempted and failed. He was in favor of free schools, and a State tax. Mr. RAYNALE was also opposed to the section and the amendments, being of opinion that it was safer left with the Legislature to establish by law a system of common schools. Mr. BAGG was in favor of free schools-free as the air we breathe-and proposed a further amendment, providing that the Legislature should establish a system of primary schools, such schools to be kept up at least three months free, without charge of tuition, to all children between the ages of four and twenty-one years. Mr. ALVORD thought that the spirit of the age made it obligatory on the convention to provide that schools should be kept up, and was in favor of a tax to pay for free schools. Mr. HANSCOM was in favor of obliging the Legislature to provide for a system of free schools, and of leaving the details to it. Mr. VAN VALKENBURG believed that the Convention was called upon to establish a system of free schools-was unwilling to leave it with the Legislature, except to manage the details. The chairman of the committee, Mr. WALKER, said the committee had discussed the proposition to raise a definite sum per scholar, throughout the State, but the difficulty was, if the sum was fixed, it must remain so until the constitution was amended. Mr. CORNELL offered an amendment, providing that the Legislature should establish free schools throughout the State and provide for their support, and that after applying the school and such other funds as shall be set apart for the support of such schools, the balance should be raised by a tax upon the taxable property of the State. Mr. WHIPPLE regarded this question as the most important one that had come before the Convention, and was of the opinion that the people were prepared for and wished a free school system. The chairman of the committee thought the proposition of Mr. Leach, of Genesee, was of the same character as that adopted in New York, and which contained the elements of discord. He had been advised by a letter of the Superintendent of schools of that State, that if any attempt should be made to change the school system of Michigan, we should avoid raising any portion of the tax in the school districts.

Another amendment was offered by Mr. FRALICK, as follows:

Sec. 3. The Legislature shall provide by law for a system of primary schools, by which such schools shall be kept up and supported in each school district, at least three months in every year; and any school district neglecting to keep up and support such a school, may be deprived of its proportion of the public funds; and a tax shall be levied on the several townships and cities of the State, upon the whole taxable property in such townships and cities respectively, for the support of such schools, provided such tax shall not exceed the amount of in any one year, for all children between the ages of four and eighteen years, in any township or city, and the amount of such tax in each township or city shall be distributed to the several districts therein, keeping a three months' school, in proportion to the number of children between the ages of four and eighteen years, returned from said districts respectively.

The amendment was opposed by Mr. N. PIERCE, who believed the greatest difficulty in New York had arisen from authority given to districts. He was in favor of imposing a tax upon the taxable property of the State, but that it should be limited to two mills upon the dollar, and the remainder should be collected by a tax on the district, or the persons sending to school, or the property of the town or district. Mr. CRARY said, substantially, that the school system now in operation was as good a system as ever was devised, and had been copied by several States. It took from 1843 to the present time to perfect it, and the Convention had better leave it to the action of the Legislature, to provide for free schools by such a system or mode as it thought best, either by general taxation, or tax levied in districts, counties or township.

The difficulty in New York was the inequality of taxation. The committee on education had, however, neglected an important feature-they made no provision for a forfeiture of the public money, if a district neglected to keep a school for a certain time. If we were going to have a system of free schools, there should not only be a forfeiture of public money, but a penalty for neglecting to comply with the law. He was willing to leave it to the Legislature, as long as a public officer was kept, whose business it was to attend to the cause of education-he believed that such an officer was requisite to sustain and forward the cause of education, and that it was necessary that each State should employ one; but that if such officer was dispensed with, he should consider the cause of education in danger;

while with such an officer, the subject would be kept before the peo ple, and the cause would flourish. Mr. MOORE was in favor of establishing the system of free schools upon a thorough basis, and wished to see it immediately adopted. Mr. TIFFANY thought the Legislature would adopt the system when the people demanded it. The question being taken on Mr. LEACH'S substitute as amended, it was not sustained. Mr. BUSH was in favor of leaving the establishment of a system of free schools to the Legislature, and was opposed to the provision reported by the committee. The following extract contains the substance of his argument:

The provision as reported gives the power to raise revenue sufficient to make schools free: first, to the township, and in case of deficiency, the deficit to be raised by the school district. Experience has shown us that great inequality in taxation will exist in different locations of the State; it but proposes to make permanent in the constitution the system that was commenced under the liberal provisions of our present constitution by the statutes of 1838. The Legislature then, actuated by the purest patriotism, provided that any deficiency that might exist, after using their proportion of the primary school interest fund, might be raised upon the taxable property of the school district. The inequality that existed in the districts was so great, and so apparent, that the system fell at once into disrepute. One district would, by economy, cause a school to be kept up without resorting to oppressive taxation; another, perhaps in the same township, by prodigality and extravagance, levied a tax upon the property of their district, ostensibly for the support of schools, which the property holders were neither able nor willing to bear. This evil existed in some portions of the State to so great an extent as to affect the relative value of real estate, and necessarily led to a modification of the law. I therefore am opposed to the provision as reported, believing that the same evils would result from its operation, and the consequences would be more disastrous from a constitutional provision, in consequence of permanency, than from a repealable law.

The amendment provides that a tax shall be levied upon the whole taxable property of the State, and shall, when collected, be distributed among the districts, in proportion to the number of scholars, in the same manner as the primary school fund is now distributed. As a friend of universal education, I go for this measure, believing that the whole property of the State should be taxed for the education of the children of the State. Under this system, schools may be free, and will be free, if wisdom characterize the action of those whose duty it becomes to carry out this principle. The only question with me is this: the amendment provides that the Legislature shall provide for levying a tax, &c. I would prefer the word may to the word shall, although probably the effect will be about the same. Action cannot be enforced until it is deemed expedient-an imperious mandate

is no more important than a mere permission, unless sanctioned by the public will, and when so sanctioned, either is effectual.

Mr. Fralick moved to amend the section as follows:

Strike out all after "shall," in first line, and insert "provide for a system of primary schools, by which a school shall be kept up and supported in each school district, at least three months in every year; and any school district neglecting to keep up and support such a school, may be deprived of its equal proportion of the interest of the public fund. And the Legislature may levy a tax on the whole taxable property of the several townships or cities of this State for the support of said schools."

The amendment was opposed by Mr. Britain, whose views are evinced in the following extract from his remarks:

We should provide for two things: one is equal taxation-the other, that the rising generation shall be instructed. But it has been said that the Legislature had the power, and we are asked why they did not exercise that right. I answer, that the will of the people has been defeated by the talents of men like the gentleman from Wayne. Numerous petitions were received last winter by the Legislature, praying for free schools. Why was it not granted? Not because there was a feeling against it, but because those opposed to it pointed to the assembling of this Convention-that it had better be left until that time.

I am not satisfied with this amendment, because it surrenders the principle. If it cannot be established for six months, let it be for three; but I hope that we shall not be satisfied with any amendment short of that. Every collection of taxes by a district, is liable to be unequal.

This would be extremely unwise and unjust. The true theory of government, as understood at the present day, requires the whole property of the State to support the government of the State, instituted for the protection of said property. And no fact has been more satisfactorily established than the fact that the property of the State can more cheaply educate the people of the State, and maintain the government over an educated people, than it can support a government over an uneducated people; and that a tax for educational purposes is but an interest tax for the protection of property, and should be paid equally by all taxable property protected.

If these premises be true, the duty of this Convention must be apparent. It is alike bound by justice and sound policy to provide by a tax upon the whole people, for the most economical and perfect protection of the whole property, instead of leaving it subject to the payment of onerous taxes for the support of government, over a population but half educated by the limited means heretofore drawn with so much injustice from parents and guardians, who possess comparatively but a small share of the property of the State.

There is another argument in favor of free schools, which addresses itself to higher motives, and the soundness of which is perhaps quite

as well established as the former. It is this: the children of the State are the property of the State, and entitled to support, education and occupation, whether their immediate guardians are able to give it to them or not.

This theory, resting upon the character, and resulting from the obligations of our civil compact, formed for the purpose of supporting, protecting and benefitting each other, claims that the present generation is bound by the strongest obligations of duty, to support, educate and qualify for self-government, the rising generation; and so many means are already provided by law for the accomplishment of these desirable ends, that to a discriminating mind, the only wonder is, that more direct, just and efficient means have not been adopted for the accomplishment of so desirable an object. But, Mr. Chairman, the most difficult questions connected with this subject are, the best method of raising the means, and of insuring their economical expenditure. If you raise the whole amount by a State tax, there may be difficulty in securing an economical expenditure, as the immediate interests of persons interested with the expenditure, will be to draw as copiously from the fund as practicable. If you raise a part of it by State tax, and permit the districts or townships to raise the balance by district or township tax, or a capitation tax, or by rate bills, as they may deem expedient, some will raise by district, some by township, and some by capitation tax, while others will collect by rate bills, from parents and guardians.

The property of a district supporting its schools exclusively by a tax upon property, would pay a higher tax than that of a township. supporting its schools in part upon rate bills; dissatisfaction would inevitably be the consequence, and the system might be broken down by the crafty property-holder, before it received a fair trial. I think that all the burdens we impose should be imposed equally. That the best method of accomplishing this will be to raise a large portion of the school moneys by a State tax, and the balance by a uniform tax, as far as the interests of education will permit, beyond the control of the district. A school in every district should be free during a part of each year, to all scholars residing in the district, and made free from expense to all who are unable to pay; and also made as nearly free from expense to all as shall be consistent with a guaranty of an economical expenditure of the public moneys; and the tax for the support of such schools should, as far as practicable, be a State

tax.

Mr. CRARY said by the present system we have about 33 cents per scholar-the tax upon the district-the residue raised by a rate bill. We have thus three sources of revenue at the present time, and many persons are not prepared to go further than the method suggested by the substitute. Some wish to make it imperative, but I do not think that it is desirable to levy a tax, and I will give my rea

sons.

It is a pretty thing to have a beautiful theory, but sometimes the practice is very different. Difficulties will arise under the general tax system. If you levy a tax-a tax for the whole State-who