SPEECH OF HIRAM KE T CHUM, ESQ. BEFORE A. COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE OF THE STATE OF NEW-YORK, IN RELATION TO THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF THE CITY OF NEW-YORK, AND IN REPLY TO THE REPORT OF THE HON. JOHN C. SPENCER, SUPERINTENDENT OF COMMON SCHOOLS, ON THE SAME SUBJECT. NEW- YORK. Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library Gift of Seymour B. Durst Old York Library SPEECH In Sekate : Albany, May 1841. COMMON SCHOOL MONIES. Speech of Hiram Ketchum, Esq., before the com- mittee on Literature, (composed of Senators Root, Hunter and Verplanck,) in behalf of the Public School Society of the City of New-York, relative to the plan and report of the Secretary of State -respecting the distributions of the Common School Monies in that city. Mr. Ketchum rose and addressed the committee as follows : Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee : As a member of the Board of Public Schools of the cay of New-York, and in behalf of the Public School Sociery, 1 now appear here ; and I will, by leave of the committee, make a few remarks upon the report which has been referted to it. The subject discussed in this report is one of great interest to the city of New- York. It affects the cause of education, and especially of the education of the poor; and as the Public School Society has long had the principal charge of that matter, and as they believe that the statements, the inferences, and the reasoning con- tained in this report of the Secretary of State, are calculated to affect injuriously that cause, they have prayed that their views miyht be laid before the .Senate, aad sent in their memorial to that effect. The Senate having appointed a committee to hear the Public School Society, I now appear to make such remarks as occur to me — premising that, pro- bably, at no very late day, the Society, by way of memorial or remonstrance, will lay their objections to this report before the Senate and the public, in a more permanent form, than they will now be pre- sented to the committee. In this report, drawn up with great ability, as every paper and document emanating from the Secretary of this State is drawn up; in this report, I say, thet& is contained a brief history of the legislation upon the subject of the distribution of the school monies in the ciiy of New-York. As this passage occupies but a short space, I will take leave to read it. At page 2, the Secretary says : ''It is essential to the proper consideration of the subject to understand the history of the legislation that has been had in reference to it ; and particularly in relation to the Public School Society of the city of New -York. "The first law relating to that portion of the school monies apportioned to and raised in the city of New- York, was passed in 1813, and will be found in the first volume of the Revised Laws of that year, at page 267. It directed those monies to be distributed " to the trustees of the Free School Society, the Orphan Asylum Society, the Economical School, the African Free School, and the trustees of such in- corporated religious societies in said city, as now support, or hereafter shall establish chanty schools within the said cily, who may apply for the same." The act directed that the sum thus distributed should be applied to the payment of the wages of the teachers, and to no other purposes whatever. As these were all charity schools, it is obvious that the Legislature intended that the school monies appor- tioned to the city, as well as those raised by tax, should be consecrated to the education exclusively of the indigent. Under this act, apportionments were annually made to the schools enumerated, arftd to those established by some eight or ten of the different religious denominations, until the year 1324. By chapter 276 of the Session Laws of that year, the j above mentioned act was repealed, and the common | council of the city was authorized to designate " the \ societies or schools which should be entitled to re- ceive a share of the school monies, and prescribe the i rules and restrictions, under which such monies shall 1 be received by such societies or schools respectively." j Pursuant to this act, the common council have de- 1 signated the schools of the Public School Society, ! and six or eight other schools, to which all the pub- I lie monies have, since 1826, been distributed, with j some variations in different years, as to the other ! schools. From the annual reports and other docu- | ments, a statement has been compiled, from which ' it appears that more than one million of dollars has been paid to the trustees of the society, under its ; different names, sioce 1813, out of the public monies | appropriated by the State, and raised by tax on the ; city for school purposes, and that S125,243 57, have 1 been paid to the other schools before mentioned. "The Public School Society was originally incor- porated in 1805, by chapter 108 of the laws of that session, which is entitled "An act to incorporate the society instituted in the city of New- York, for the establishment of a free school for the education of poor children, who do not belong to, or are not pro- vided for by any religious society." In 1808 its name was changed to " The Free School Society of New- York ;" and its powers were extended " to all chil- dren who are the proper subjects of a gratuitous edu- cation." By chapter 25 of the laws of 1826, its name was changed to "The Public Scbool Society of New- York ;" and the trustees were authorized to provide for the education of all children of New- York, not otherwise provided for, " whether such children be or be not the proper subjects of gratuitous education ; and to require from those attending the schools, a moderate compensation ; but no child to be refused admission on account of inability to pay." This brief history of the distribution of the school monies in the city of New- York (continued Mr. K.,) is accurate so far as it goes; but the Secretary has left out some particulars which we deem of some importance in this discussion. In the first place : — these monies were originally appropriated to the payment of teachers, and to no other purpose; but after the Lancasterian system of education had been introduced into the city of New- York and the Free School Society had been esta- blished, it was found that, under the monitorial sys- . tern, so great was the number of children attending these schools, that a larger amount of money was 4 drawn from the public school fund than was neces- sary to pay the teachers; and in the year 1817 the surplus was permitted by the Legislature to be ap- propriated by the Public School Society for the pur- chase of books, and stationary, and other incidental expenses attending the education of children ; so that, from thai time, the Public School Society drew its quota, and applied it not only to the payment of teachers, but also to those other purposes which I have named. This privilege was at that time enjoyed exclusively by the Public School Society ; and I suppose that the principle upon which the exclusive privilege was granted, was that the Free School So- ciety—for so it was then called — was incorporated exclusively for the purposes of education, and of educating poor children, and there was, therefore, in the constitution of the Society itself ; in the act of its incorporation, no inducement or motive for mal-ap- plication or mis-appropriation of the funds ; and hence it was, I presume, that the Legislature in its wisdom saw no danger in trusting whatever funds were drawn by that institution, to be applied not only to the payment of teachers, but for the general purposes of education. This, then, is one omission which the Secretary has made. The second omision is, that the Secretary has not attempted to account (as I think, he should have done) for the reason why the public school monies in the city of New- York were differently applied from those in the country. In the country, as the Committee well know, the amount, as in the city, re- ceived from the common school fund is paid over to the proper officer in the county. The county has to raise by tax an amount equivalent to the sum thus received, and then it passes into the hands of Com- missioners chosen by the people in their respective Districts. In the city of New- York, however, no legislation of that description was provided. The money was paid over to the Chamberlain, and the Chamberlain was directed to pay it to certain desig- nated societies — of which the School Society was one, and all religious societies maintaining charity schools ; the Orphan Asylum and some others being specified. Now, it seems to me that in order to have pre- sented the subject fairly and fully, the Secretary should have accounted for this difference. I will at- tempt to account for it now. In the country, that portion of the common school fund which goes to each county, is paid as a sort of premium or advance to induce the establishment and maintenance of common schools. The state says to the respective counties, we will give you so much ; and this is given as an advance, or premium, or bonus, for the estab- lishment and maintenance of these Common Schools throughout the country. In the country, the schools so established and so participating in this fund, are the schools in which the children of the county — the children of the poor of the county— as well as the offspring of persons of property, generally receive their elementary education. The tax-paying part of the community — those who are called upon to raise this equivalent tax, (in the first place, in order to re- ceive the fund from the State, and in the second place to provide for the erection of school houses in the respective school districts) — this tax-paying part of the community, I say, have for the most" part, their own sons and daughters educated in these very schools which are established and maintained by this money. Therefore, it will be plainly seen that this tax-paying community which and which alone elects the Commissioners in towns — which alone elects the Trustees in districts, have a direct personal interest in electing suitable persons ; because those very per- sons are to take charge of the education of their ehildren. There is probably very little danger that any thing like party politics will mingle up in the election ot these officers — because these very officers are to perform a most important and interesting duty to the children of the very men who are called upon to pay the tax. Not so in the city of New-York. — There, by the law enacted in the year 1813, this fund was originally expressly appropriated to the educa- tion of the indigent — of the poor— of the children of those who do not pay tax — to those who are the proper subjects of gratuitous education; and none but charity schools, none but the children of the poor, none but the proper subjects of a gratuitous educa- tion were to be benefitted at all by this portion of the fund so received from the State, and by the equiva- lent portion so raised by tax. To this the tax-pay- ers in the city of New- York consented ; because if the first objection to such a law had been made on the part of that city, it would not have passed in this form. This was undoubtedly a matter made to fall in or acquiesce with the wishes of the delegation from the city of New-York ; because the Legislature never would have undertaken, without such acquiescence, to have made that distinction ; therefore, I say, that the citizens of New- York, through their representa- tives here, consented that the bread which the State had provided lor their own children should be given to the poor ; they voluntarily parted with it, and gave it to the indigent among them. Thus, then, we see that the fund was given to the indigent by those who spoke for the people of the city of New-York in the Legislature ; and i have but this hour heard that a man whose name is dear to us all — De Witt Clinton — was the man who princi- pally represented the wishes of city of New-York at that time. It was De Witt Clinton that spoke in behalf of the city of New-York — who made this provision. And inasmuch as this was a gratuity, a charity for the poor people of that city, she chose that the mo- ney should pass through the hands of certain almo- ners of her own choice. She chose that the Free School Society, the Orphan Asylum Socety, the re- ligious bodies which maintained schools there, at that time, should be her almoners. Suppose, at that day, it had been proposed, as it is now proposed.by the Secre- tary, that the people should choose commissioners — that the tax-paying portion of this people(beeause none others then were, or now are, entitled to voteon these matters in thecountry) shouldchoose commissioners, there was lacking that powerful motive which would influence freeholders, and the tax-paying portion of the community, to elect proper men lor the perform- ance of this duty — the motive which was to be found in the fact, that their own children were to be edu- cated by these very persons. This probably may account very sensibly for the fact that in the city of New-York the portion of the school fund allotted to her was to be distributed by these almoners of her charity whom her representatives thought proper to designate. Now, I ask, was there any thing incon- sistent with sound principle in this? Is there any thing in it which violates the principle of the largest liberty, and the purest democracy, of which we hear something in this Report 1 In the city of New-York, as I shall have occasion to show by-and-bye — ana more or less I suppose it is so in all the states of Christendom — there are voluntary associations — charitable associations — associations composed of men, incorporated or otherwise, who are willing to proffer their services; to feed the hungry; to clothe the naked ; to visit the destitute, and to see to the application of funds set apart for their relief. Such men are always to be found in large cities; men of fortune, men of leisure, men of benevolence, who are willing to associate together for benevolent objects, 5 and who are usually made the almoners of the cha- rity of others. Such is the case in the city of New- York. That is the usual mode, (as I shall have oc- casion to show, though it can scarcely be necessary to do it before this intelligent Committee,) that is the usual mode of distributing funds there, and expe- rience has demonstrated that it has been attended with good and wholesome results. The city of New- York chose, therefore, to adopt this mode of distri- buting her monies; and this probably is one of the reasons why this dist uction between the city and the country was incorporated in the act of 1813. Another reason undoubtedly was. that in a city such as New- York, there is more or less political excite- ment mingling in every public measure. All who have lived there knows that, especially within a few years past, we have had a degree of political ex- citement which has been^very inconvenient; and that at all times, in a close and dense population, more of that excitement and heat are felt than pre- vails amongst the more sparse population of the country, and probably, possibly, it entered into the consideration of the wise men (for if they were like him whom I have named, they deserve that appella- tion in its highest sense) in the legislature of that day, that, for the purpose of keeping this matter out of the vortex of party and political excitement, this money should be paid over to, and distributed under, the superintendence of agents consisting of these re- spective societies. This, then, it seems to me, is an- other omission in this Report of the Secretary. I speak with deference. And the third omission is, that the Secretary has failed to tell us why the act of 1824 was passed, which gives the money provided by the Slate, to the Common Council of the city of New- York, to be distributed by them as they might think proper. I will supply the omission. Anterior to the year 1824, the legislature desig- nated the institutions and schools which should participate in this fund. These were the Free School Society, and religious societies supporting charity sahools, and some others. About the year 1822, (I would premise, however, that the religious societies, and all except the Public School Society, were re- stricted in the use of these funds to the payment of teachers,) but about the year 1822, a society called the Bethel Church of the City of New-York, ob- tained a privilege similar to that which had been granted to the Public School Society, and applied the surplus, after the payment of teachers, to the pur- chase of stationery and the erection of buildings. The operation of that plan was this: — inasmuch as that society, in common with all others, drew per head for the number of children taught in the schools, or rather for the number of children placed on the re- gister of the schools, to be taught, this Bethel Church, under the direction of Johnson Chase at that time their pastor, gave small presents and re- wards, to induce children to come in. They came in, and their names were put on the register ; and when the yearly account came to be made out, they drew for the number of children on the register, and the consequence was, that a large portion of the fund was appropriated to the erection of buildings belong- ing to the Bethel Church, thus using the common school fund of the city of New-York, and the equi- valent tax paid there, to the erection of religious tem- ples to be used by a particular denomination of chris- tians. Before this law of 1822 was passed, and while the sum received was specifically appropriated to the payment of teachers, the Bethel Church, or rather their pastor, evaded the law in the following manner : The teacher was employed at a large salary ; he re- ceived the salary with the understanding that while he received it in one hand, with the other he should make over a portion to the church; so that the church received, after all, a portion of the funds paid to teachers. This alarmed the Public School Society, and the community of the city of New- York, and the So- ciety and the Corporation immediately sent a memo- rial up here praying that the provision of the law giving peculiar privilege to the Bethel Baptist Church might be repealed. Hence ensued a contest which lasted two or three years before the legislature — in which the people of the city of New-York took great interest — and which was a very exciting contest even here, in the city of Albany. Here was seen to be an attempt made to take away the public school nnd of the city of New-York for the purposes of the Bethel Church ; and the city authorities, and the as- sociations participating in the fund, all became alarmed. We came here and discussed this matter; and our proposition was then, to restrict these religious soci- eties to the poor children of parents statedly wor- shipping with those societies. This was thought to be a fair proposal. The subject was discussed on various successive occasions, until at lengih it was seen, by those who examined it, that this matter of paying the school fund to religious societies, where- by the doctrines of particular religious sects should be sustained and supported by this fund, was a vio- lation of a great fundamental principle. It was the union of Church and Stale which the laws and the institutions of this country abhor. It was taking the funds of the people — the tax received oui of the pockets of the people — and applying it to the esta- blishment and promotion of religious societies. Well ; — although it is a good thing to have these re- ligious societies, yet it was seen that a vital principle was here violated. Hence, after many discussions in the Assembly chamber, (discussions at which all the members were invited to attend — and almost all of them did attend— for we had generally a quorum, although ii was before a committee night after night,) — the committee of the Assembly at length made a report favorable to the prayer of the memorial ; but suggesting in that very report whether even so much as was granted in the proposition referred to was not a violation of sound principle ; whether in fact reli- gious societies ought to participate in the enjoyment of the fund at all, because, by such participation, the Jew might be made to support the doctrine of the Christian ; and, vice versa, the Christian that of the Jew; the Catholic of the Protestant ; the Protestant of the Catholic, and so on. After much discussion, — after the subject had been agitated before the Legis- lature week after week;— (as a member of the Pub- lic School Society, I attended here six weeks,) — after a great contest, in which we had to contend against the Bethel Church, the Episcopal Church, the Dutch Church, the Methodist Church, and the Roman Catholic Church, the bill came from the other House to the Senate; and there was discussed before a committee by the gentleman who is now Bishop of the State, Doctor Onderdonk — on the one side — and a member of the Board of Public Schools on the other. This was at the adjourned session of the legislature,^ the fall of 1824, the session having been continued over from the spring to the tall. In this fall session of 1824, I say, it was that this dis- cussion was had ; the committee of the Senate seeing that the subject was involved in difficulties, and that it required a knowledge of local feelings which they did not, and could not possess here in the Legisla- ture, inserted an amendment in the bill of the House, declaring that they would refer the matter to the city of New- York, and that the corporation should dispose of the school fand apportioned to that city, as they might please. And here I ask leave to say to the committee, that this power never had been 6 asked for by the corporation ; that it never had been asked for by the Public School Society ; but that the committee of the Senate, (and a most intelligent committee it was. I do not recollect all the names, at the moment, but I know that Mr. Suydam was one,)— that committee decided that they were so ig- norant of the peculiarities of the New- York popula- tion, with reference to this question, that they were incompetent to decide it rightly ; and they, therefore, of their own motion, incorporated this section in the act, giving power to the corporation of the city of New-York, to dispose of this fund as they thought best. Thu3 the power was granted. Now, ihe pro- position of the secretary in this report is, that the Legislature shall resume this power ; that that which the Legislature of 1824 thought proper to give, of their own motion, as I have said— for in behalf of the Public School Society no such grant was asked ; and I felt great hesitation on the part of the Com- mon Council, whose memorial 1 bore, whether we should accept the grant — whether it would not be better to leave the disposition of the school fund here. We were fearful of local difficulty. We did not want the power vested in the corporation; the cor- poration did not want it ; and I never gave my con- sent to it until after consultation with the President of the Free School Society at tbat time, De Witt Clinton, then residing here — and who said it was more proper that the corporation should exercise this power. It was then accepted. Now, I maintain that if the proposition of the secretary, that the Le- gislature should resume this power, is to be adopt- ed, it is incumbent on him to show that the power thus delegated to the corporation, has been abused I say it is incumbent upon him to prove this fact. Here is the Legislature delegating a power— granting it to agents selected by the people; composed of the Common Council of the city of New- York. Before this grant, the representatives of the people of the city of New- York in this- Legislature^ unquestion- ably had the sole power of indicating the course of legislation as to the disposition of the fund appor- tioned to that city. The Legislature never would have undertaken to say, that these funds should be used in one way in the city of New-York, and in another way in the country, except so far as they were authorized to say it by the consent of members representing the city and country respectively. This is according to the usual course of legislation ; local in i ts operation. Well, then, said the Committee of the Senate in 1824, instead of having this matter indicated to us by twelve or thirteen gentlemen who represent the city of New- York in the Assembly, and one or two that may represent them in this body, we will say to the Common Council of that city, selected by the people— the chosen agents of the people— that they may distribute this fund as they think proper, and the question now is, have these agents abused that power so as to make it requisite that the Legislature should resume it ? Sir, I submit, with great deference, whether in this mat- ter, the onus of proof does not lie upon those who ask the Legislature to resume it? I submit if the burthen of showing that there has been an abuse of power— that the agent has been an unfaithful agent, does not devolve upon those who desire to take the power away? Now, has it been abused? I ask, has the corporation abused the power, thus volun- tarily, without any request on their part, granted to them? That is a question which 1 now propose to discuss. Immediately after the passage of this act, or, as soon as in the course of public business it could be attended to, namely, on the eleventh of April, 1825, (for it was anterior to that, that the Committee was appointed,) this matter was taken up by the Com- mon Council of the city of New-York, it was re- ferred by them to the law committee, and this is the preamble to the report made on the day above men- tioned : "The committee on laws to whom were referred the 4th section of the act of the Legislature of this state, relating to Common Schools in the city of New-York, passed the 19th November, 1824 ; the memorials of the trustees of the Charity School attached to the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church of the city of New- York— of the trustees of tie First Protestant Episcopal Charity School in the city of New-York, and of the trustees of the Metho- dist Episcopal Church, praying respectively for a participation in the Common School fund— and also the report of a committee of the trustees of the Free School Society, on the distribution of the said fund, proposing a change in the constitution of that society, so as to admit children of all classes to their schools, for a compensation not exceeding fifty cents per quarter, with power to remit in- proper cases, Report." The Committee consisted of Samuel Cowdrey, Elisha W. King, and Thomas Bolton, Esquires. They patiently heard all parties (continued Mr. K.) 1 believe the hearing occupied one or two evenings. The Methodists were represented ; the Dutch were represented; the Episcopalians were represented; and the Public School Board was represented. The whole matter was fully and fraukly discussed ; and- this principle, whether or not religious societies ought to participate in this fund was fully gone into; and so far as the churches were represented, and so far as my learned associate was concerned, (the Hon. Peter A. Jay,) these various questions were dis- cussed with great ability. The report of the Law Committee is long ; it seta forth the arguments on both sides, and, the conclu- sion, contains the following passage : — "In the per- formance of this duty, they have felt all the import- ance and responsibility of the task assigned to them, and while they would willingly have retired from the appointment; and do each individually wish that the Legislature had passed the necessary law on this subject, on the recent application to them lor that purpose, yet your committee cannot permit them- selves to hesitate or falter in the course of public duty, when that course is plainly manifest to their understandings. Your committee will not conceal, either their own private and personal wishes, at the commencement of their duties, that the well-organ- ized churches and religious societies in our city, might be permitted to continue in the reception of a part of this fund as heretofore. But the weight of the argument as urged before them, and which they have endeavored to condense in this report, and the established constitutional and political doctrines which have a bearing on this question, and the habits and modes of thinking of the constituents at large of this Board, require, in the opinion of your com- mittee, that the Common School fund should be distributed for civil purposes only, as contradis- tinguished from those of a religious or sectarian de- scription." This report was adopted by the Common Council with entire unanimity, it is believed. That conclusion was ratified by their constituents ; and I believe that every one of the religious societies,, or nearly so, excepting the Roman Catholics, ac- quiesced in that decision. But that society year after year has come before the Common Council and renewed their request for a separate portion of the school fund. With the best feelings for the appli- cants, in a spirit of kindness ; with every disposition to do whatever could be done for them, year after year, and without respect to rjolitics,. whether the 7 one party was in the ascendant, or the other party was in the ascendant, the Common Council have, with almost entire unanimity, disallowed that re- quest ; and I believe that never in either Board, since the division of that body into two Boards, has there been but one dissenting voice raised against the ratification of that decision. Now, if the committee please — who have complained'? The Roman Catho- lics. Our fellow-citizens, the Roman Catholics, are as much entitled to be heard there and here as any other citizens ; for, when acting in a political capa- city, we know no difference of religion. The request which was made and urged by ihem conjoined with many powerful Protestant sects and denominations of christians, and which was refused to them jointly, has been over and over again refused to them sepa- rately. No disrespect was intended then. The Common Council, and every person engaged in the discussion of the question on behalf of the Common School Society, took great care to say, " we do not reject you because you are Roman Catholics f 1 and as evidence of this truth, we give you the fact that we have rejected similar applications from powerful Protestants ; — but we reject your request because we believe that a sound general principle will not allow xt§ to grant it. I say that the Corporation has been desirous, so far as that body possibly could, so far as they felt themselves at liberty, consistently with the main- tenance of a sound general principle, to accommo- date these parties. They have granted a privilege out of this fund to the Roman Catholic denomina- tion, which has not been granted to any other. The Sisters of Charity, so called, under direction of the Roman Catholic Church, and connected with it, (I believe I am right— if not I should be happy to be corrected,) established a most benevolent institution in the city of New-York, called the Orphan's' Asy- lum,— the Roman Catholic Orphan's Asylum. They took into this institution poor and destitute orphans. They fed them and clothed them most meritorious- ly,— and they thus relieved the City of New- York of the maintenance of many who would otherwise, probably, have been a charge UpoiKit. After long discussion, and with some hesitancy, yet overcome by the desire to oblige, and aware of the limitation arising from the very nature of that institution, the Corporation did permit the Catholic Orphan Asylum to receive money from this fund ; and during the last year, it received some §1462 fox the education of about one hundred and sixty-five children,— in com- mon with the institution for tht blind, and the deaf and the dumb, and those other benevolent and Chris- tian institutions which are altogether of a Catholic character in the most comprehensive acceptation of that term,— as they are under no sectarian influence or government. Thus thisrSociety, under the direction of ihe Sisters of Charity, — ladies devoied to the Roman Catholic Church, who are themselves Ro-. man Catholics, and given up to the service of that Church,— this Society, I say, has been permitted to draw this sum of S1462 in one year. But when the question came, " Shall their schools be permitted to draw from the fund ?" the Corporation had to say, and they have said, over and over again, though most reluctantly, we cannot grant you that. Upon the last application made for this purpose, the subject underwent thorough and prolonged discussion before the Board of Aldermen, and the argument wasconduc- ted, on the side of the Roman Catholics with signal ability by the Right Reverend Bishop Hughes of that Church. The hall of the Common Council w-as crowded to overflowing; the avenues were crowded, tnd erowded I believe I may say, without any inten- tion of saying what is erroneous, by persons belong* ingto that denomination. The subject, I repeat, enderwenta very full and free discussion ; and, after that had terminated, the Board of Aldermen gravely considered and discussed the subject; and at length, after some delay, came to the conclusion that they would go and visit the schools. Some of the members of the Board of Public Schools, feeling sensibly alive on the subject, expressed to me an apprehension that this was a mere evasion, and they feared that the question had now become mingled with politics. But, I said, wait, gentlemen ; let them go and see your schools, — it is a natural desire, they ought to go. It is a great and delicate question, and they ought to be acquainted with it in all its details. They went and visited the Public Schools, and the Roman Catholic Schools, and they incorporated the result of thei deliberations in a report which I have before me, and from which I shall quote by and by. It is drawn up with great ability, and the decision was, with but one dissenting voice, that the prayer of the petition should be rejected ; and it was rejected. Who, then, complain of the operation of this system 1 Our fel- low citizens, the Roman Catholics. Failing to ac- complish their purpose through the Common Coun- cil of the City of New-York, they come and ask it here. Failing in their application to a body of repre- sentatives to whom they have applied year after j year, and who represent a population in which is in- termingled a greater mass of Roman Catholic voters j than in any other district of the State of New- York j —failing to get from the hands of a body thus con- i stituted, the redress for the grievance which they j complained of, they come here and ask it of you. j I say they come here, because I will presently show j you from their memorials, that none but they come I here. J Now, I beg leave again to refer to the report of the Secretary, he says : ''The memorials presented at the present session represent that the legislative enactments on the sub- ject of public instruction in the city of New-York, require a fundamental alteration to bring the bene- fits of the common school education within the reach I of all classes of the population ; that the original in- i tent of those enactments was to enable every school which should comply with the law, to share in the ! common school fund ; that this design has been de- j feated by the construction put upon the statutes by ' the common council of the city, in designating the Public School Society to receive nearly the whole amount of that fund belonging to the city ; that this society being a corporation, has acquired the entire control of the system of public education ; that the tax-payers who Contribute to the fund, have no voice in the selection of those who administer the sys- tem, or control over the application of the public moneys." That is to say, (continued Mr. K.,) that at the last session, memorials were presented by the Roman Catholics, as such. The present, we are left to infer, are presented by citizens generally, not as Roman Catholics. Let us see how the truth of the matter j stands. Here is the first memorial : — I " To the Horn Legislature of the State of New- I York :— The memorial of the undersigned, residents 1 of the city of New-York, respectfully showeth, — j That your memorialists being members of the Ca- tholic Church, and connected with the several Ca- j thohc congregations in the city of New- York, would ' respectfully represent to your Hon. body," &c. This, (continued Mr. K.,) is from the first memo- ' rial presented by them as Catholics. It was pre- sented in the session of 1840; and referred to the Hon. Secretary last year. He did not think proper 8 to make a report upon. that; but then comes a' second memorial from citizens generally, and on that he makes a report. The second is a memorial presented the twenty-second of February, 1841. It says: — "That your memori lists are deeply interested in extending the advantages of education to every child in the commonwealth, regarding it as the best means ot perpetuating tue blessings ot our republican insti- tutions, anil of correciing those evils in society which are beyond the sphere of legislation." " Ii is alleged by thousands of our populaiion, that their conscientious scruples have been disregarded in the formation of the system of instruction adopted by the Public School Society. The confidence of this class of our citizens has been entirely withdrawn from the Institution, and they complain of the seve- nty of the oppression which compels ttie n to submit to the decision and government of agents irresponsi- ble to the public, and in wnose appointment the electors are not permuted to participate," &c. Among the first signatures to this memorial, re- marked Mr. K., are those of Joseph O'Connor, James B. O'Donnell, Patrick Leach, and others. I never saw this memorial until this morning, but I perceive one name attached to it, as a sort of family name; Patrick Farrell — three times in succes- i sion — and what is very singular, the hand- writing seems to be very much alike. Be that as it may, 1 am satisfied, from what I have seen, that this is as much a memorial from Roman Catholics as the other was. The secretary in his report, in the pas- sate which I have read, admits that the first memo- rial came in a shape not calculated, probably, to be | very impressive. He says, — " At the last session, memorials of a similar cha- racter from a large number of Roman Catholics, cit- izens of New- York, were referred to the undersigned, upon which he was unable during that session to re- port. Although these petitioners have the same equal and common rights with all other citizens to submit their gnavances to the Legislature, and ask for redress, yet the circumstance of presenting them- selves in a character of a religious denomination, is, ia itself, unfavorable to that impartial consideration of the subject which its importance demands." Probably, (continued Mr. K.,) that circumstance was discovered by the secretary's sagacity, between 1640 and 1841 ; and this second memorial, therefore, \ is from citizens of New- York ; but I believe I may j safely affirm that, if not exclusively, it is almost al- together signed by Roman Catholics. As the secre- tary justly remarks, however, they hare a right to apply here ; they have a right to ask the Legislature to overrule the decision of the corporation, although it may be supposed that in that corporation they would have as fair a chance of being heard, and of having the merits of the controversy rightly adjudi- cated, as here, still they have the right to come. Now what do they complain of? One of their com- plaints is that the people are not represented in this Public School Society ; that here is an agency used for a great public purpose which the people do not directly choose; and they complain of the Public School Society being a close corporation. 1 suppose that if the Corporation had granted the prayer of their memorial, — to allow their societies, that is to say, Saint Patrick's church, and all such churches as belong to the Roman Catholic denomi- nation in the city of New- York to participate in this fund,— I suppose they would not have seen precisely that such great evils and dangers to liberty were to be apprehended from the distribution of the funds to these churches and the Public School Society. 1 think it fair to conjecture that if their corporations, be they close or be they open, could have participa- ted in that fund, we should not have heard any thing ot their extreme regard for the liberties of the people. But no maiter whether we should or should not, they have aright to be heard whatever their motives may be; no matter what might have deterred them from coming here, they have a right to be heard, and their arguments must be met and answered here, or else ttiey must receive the action of the legislature in their favor. All thai 1 admit. Bui what is their complaint? As wil appear by these memorials and from the summary contained in the report ot the Secretary, they complain that this money is paid to a close corporation, — that the religious scruples o; a larne portion oi our tellow citizens are violated by this distribution of funds. Now, I wish to call the attention of the Commit- tee to the fact now to be staled ; — there is no com- plaint in these memorials, hur will you hear any from any source, that the Puimc School Society does noi furiiis to ah the children who attend their schools a good literary education ; there is no com- plaint that in these schools, children arc noi tau-ht to read, write, and cypher ; that they are not taught the elements of geography, astronomy, an i ot Eng- lish Grammar as well as they could be taught. There is, I say, no complaint ol thai description ; and, with in* exception of complaints about tue tenden- cies of the institution, there are no complaints against its actual operation ; but the complaint is that some of the citizens cannot from conscientious scruples, send iheir children lo these schools. Now, I invite the particular aitention of the Committee to this, which 1 deem most important — that whatever may be said of the tendencies of these institutions, whatever may be said of the evil of the general principle contained in the alleged fact that these agents are not chosen directly by the people nor responsible to t. era; yet in the long lapse of thirty-five years of the operation of this So- ciety, and from the year 1813 to the present time, uunng which these Common School mo- neys have been received, there is no complaint THAT THEY HAVE EVER FAILED TO GIVE A GOOD education. There is no complaint that the system has so far operated injuriously, excepting that such is the course of religious education, or more properly speaking, the want of rel gious education, that the Roman Catholic cannot conscientiously send their children to our schools. But they do object that they cannot send their children to these schools, — that those children, many of them eminently the subjects of a gratuitous education, cannot partake of the benefits of the fund on account of conscientious scrupled. Now, this is the very point which, year after year, has been discussed before the Common Council, and which, year after year, has been decided by that body. What is it? The Roman Catholics com- plain, in the first place, that they cannot conscien- tiously send their children to the Public Schools, be- cause we do not give religious instruction in a defi- nite form, and of a decided and definite character. They complain, in the second place, that the school books in common use in the Society, contain passa- ges reflecting upon the Roman Catholic Church. And they complain, in the third place, that we use the Bible without note or comment, that the school is opened in the morning by calling the children to order and reading a chapter in the Bible, — our com- mon version. These are the three grounds on which they base their conscientious scruples. Now, I pro- pose most respectfully to consider them. In the first place, our books contain occasional passages reflecting on the Roman Catholics. It is true that in our ordinary school books, the most approved of the day, there is an occasional passage winch may 9 be considered as reflecting injuriously on the Roman Catholic Church. We have all read, I suppose, as children, and I do not know but that this description may be one of those contained in these books, of the martyrdom of John Rogers, in the reign of Queen Mary. That reflects on the Roman Catholic Church ; and there is an occasional passage which speaks of the Roman Catholic Church as Protestant divines, essayists, and orators, sometimes allow themselves to speak of that church. The Public School Society have offered, if the Catholics will point out these offensive passages, to erase them all from the books. They have said to the Bishop of that church, and to a committee of that church, " we can find passages enough of good English for our reading books without these; — and if you will have the goodness to take these books and point out these offensive passages, we pledge ourselves to have them erased.? 3 Now, all this matter was gone into by the intelli- gent committee of the Board of Aldermen to whose action 1 have referred, — and I have their report be- fore me. They called for a, distinct and definite proposition from the Common School Society as to what they would do. I will read a few passages from the report : Proposition on behalf of the school society. " In compliance with the request of the Commit- tee of the Board of Aldermen, the undersignod Com- mittee of the New- York Public School Society, submit the following propositions as a basis of a compromise with their Roman Catholic fellow citi- zens on the subject of the Public Schools; which propositions they are willing to support before the trustees of the Society, and which they believe will be sanctioned by that Board. The trustees of the New- York Public School So- ciety will remove from theclass-booksin the schools, all matters which may be pointed out as offensive to their Roman Cathohc fellow citizens, should any thing objectionable yet remain in them. They will also exclude from the school libraries, (the use of which is permitted to the pupils, but not required of them,) every work written with a view to prejudice the mind of the reader against the tenets or practices of the Roman Catholic Church, or the general tendency of which is to produce the same effect. They will receive and examine any books which may be recommended for the use of the schools; and should such books be adapted to their system of instruction, and void of any matter offensive to other denominations, they shall be introduced so soon as opportunity may be afforded by a call for new books. Any suggestions in reference to alterations in the plan of instruction, or course of studies, which may be offered, shall receive prompt consideratioa-f and if not inconsistent with the general system of in- struction, now prevailing in the schools, nor with the conscientious rights of other denominations, they shall be adopted. The building situated in Mulberry- street, now oc- cupied by Roman Catholic schools, shall, if required for the use of the Public School Society, be purcha- sed or hired, on equitable terms, by the trustees, should such an arrangement be desired. Evers effort will be made by the trustees of the Public School Society, to prevent any occurrence in the schools which might be calculated to wound the feelings of Roman Catholic children, or to impair their confidence in, or diminish their respect for the religion of their parents. Anxious to keep open every avenue to such an ar- rangement as will lead to a general attendance of the Roman Catholic children at the public schools, I and fully aware that some things may have escaped their observation which might be modified without violation of the conscientious rights of others, the I undersigned wish it to be distinctly understood, that ! in offering the foregoing propositions, as the basis of an arrangement, it is not intended to exclude other propositions which the Roman Catholics may make, provided they do not interlere with the principles by which the trustees feel themselves bound." This portion of the report, (continued Mr. K.,) as will be seen, has reference to theseottensive passages. Now, every body will say that is a fair offer — we will strike them out. But, gentlemen of the com- mittee, 1 submit whether here, in this country, we must not in matters of conflicting opinions, give and take a little. I have no doubt thati can find some- thing in any public school book, of much length, j and containing much variety of matter, reflecting j upon the Methodists — upon the heated zeal, proba- bly, of John Wesley and his followers — reflecting ! upon the Episcopalians, the Baptists, and Presby- | tenans. Occasional sentences will find their way | into public discourses, which, if viewed critically, ana regarded in a captious spirit, rather reflect upon tiie doctrines of all those churches. Now 1 suDmit, with great deference to the com- mittee, whether this is a lair subject for conscientious scruples ? As I have had occasion to Glustrate here- tofore, we find something in relation to politics, too, about which we may disagree. There are some very elegant passages from Thos. Jefferson's works which have found tiieir way into our public school books. Some man, imbued with strong prejudices against Thos. Jefferson, may say, 1 cannot go Thos. Jefferson; my children shall never be instructed to read what Thos. Jefferson has said. On the other hand, there are many passages from the speeches of Mr. Webster which have found their way into school books; and a democrat may say, 1 cannot go Mr. Webster ; my children shall not be taught to admire him. And thus, if we are captious, we can find con ; scientious scruples enough. However, if it is bona fide a conscientious scruple, there is the end of it; we cannot reason with it. But, in the judgment of the Common Council, and as I think must be the case in the judgment of every man, the difficulty is got over by the proposition which has been made. The next complaint is, that we do not give religious education enough. The memorials, all of which are public — and the speeches and documents which have been employed, and which, if necessary, can be furnished to the committee — all go conclusively to demonstrate that, in the judgment of those who spoke for tiie Roman Catholic Church, we ought to teach religion in our public schools — not generally — not vaguely — not the general truths of religion; but that specific religious instruction must be given. Now, I hardly suppose that this deficiency can be made the subject of conscientious objection. The third and last complaint is, that our Catholic brethren cannot consent to have this Bible read in the hearing of their children. Now, on every one of these points, the trustees have been disposed to go as far as they possibly could in the way of accom- modation ; but they never yet consented to give up the use of the Bible to the extent to which it is used in the schools. I say the trustees have never yet consented to this surrender. But if they can have good authority for doing it, they will do it. If this Legislature, by its own act, will direct that the Bible shall be excluded, I will guarantee that it shall be excluded. Thus much for these conscien- tious scruples ; and having these scruples, the Ro- man Catholics say they cannot come in. They, however, are in favour of this bill, the outline of which is given in the Report of the Secretary. They 10 are here, from the Catholic Board of Trustees, in strong force, to aid the passage of some bill founded on the Secretary's Report. They will be satisfied with it, it will give them what they ask. Now, let us see how. There is no proposition contained in this Report that religious societies, as such, shall participate in this fund — none. It is too late in the day for any man to make that proposition. Anxious as the Secretary is to accommodate this matter, he does not say that religious societies shall participate in the fund. But what does he say? He says that the trustees of districts shall indicate what religion shall be taught in those schools ; that is to say, that you shall have small masses; that these small mass- es shall elect their trustees ; and as the majority of the people in those small masses may direct, so shall be the character of the roligious instruction im- parted. He assumes that there mustbe religious in- struction in the schools; that although the law makes no provision for it ; yet that it is left practically with the people themselves, through their trustees, to in- dicate the religious instruction that shall be given. I will read what the Secretary says, at page 11 of his Report: "It is by adopting the principle of the organiza- tion that prevails in the other parts of the State, which Will leave such parents as desire to exercise any con- trol over the amount and description of religious in- struction which shall be given to their children, the opportunity of doing so." Now, (continued Mr. K.) let us see how the argu- ment stands. The complainants here are the Ro- man Catholics. They cannot conscientiously have their children taught in these schools, because reli- gious instruction, in a definite form, is not given, and because the Bible is read. But when a school is formed in the sixth ward of the city of New-York, in which ward (for the sake of the argument we will assume) the Roman Catholics have a majority in the district ; they choose their trustees, and these trustees indi- cate that a specific form of religion, to wit, the Ro- man Catholic religion, shall be taught in that school —that mass shall be said there — and that the chil- dren shall cross themselves with holy water in the school, having the right to do so according to this Report, the Catholics being in a majority there. Then, and not till then, can these Roman Catholics conscientiously send their children to school — that is to say, their objections to this system are to be over- come by having a school to which they can consci- entiously send their children; and that school must be one in which religion is to be taught according to their particular views. Now, suppose that in any given district, there should be about 500 Roman Ca- tholic children, and 200 Protestant children. These Protestant children are compelled to worship ac- cording to the opinions of the majority — that is to say, they are compelled to be taught religion accord- ing to the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. I ask you, gentlemen, if that is not the tyranny of the majority ? The Secretary admits that a majority of the people, in a given district, has a right to indicate what religion shall be taught in the district school ; and to that religion, or that form, whatever it may be, the minority must submit. Thus, in a given dis- trict, the Protestant shall be taxed for the support of the Roman Catholic religion ; or, on the other hand, the Roman Catholic shall be taxed for the support of definite Protestant religion ; and thus, by abandoning the present system, we are to form and create a sys- tem which will overcome the difficulty. Is this rea- soning like an American statesman? I deny the Secretary's proposition. I affirm that it is false and erroneous from beginning to end. This school fund can never, under any circumstances, be made use of, or employed in teaching the particular doctrines, or particular dogmas, of any religious (re- nomination. If there were 500 in one district, and 1 but one man in that district that protested, he would have a clear right to do so. He has a right to say, I will not pay my money to teach the Roman Catho- lic religion — I will not pay my money to teach the Protestant religion — 1 will not pay my money ttf teach the doctrines of Tom Paine — I will not pay my money to teach the doctrine of those who affirm that my Saviour was an imposter. Imagine a district irr the city of New- York, where there is a majority of persons of this description, and where they shall teach their own doctrines, (for if the Secretary is right, these being in the majority, have a right to teach what religion they please.) I am supposing 1 an extreme, but possible case. Is this the scheme by which we are to get over the objections of those who alone complain of this system? No, sir. I affirm that the religion taught in the public schools* j is precisely that quantity of religion which we have I a right to teach \ it would be inconsistent with pub- j lie sentiment to teach less; it would be illegal to teach more. And, on this point, 1 am happy to see that the Secretary has one passage in his Report which expresses my views most fully, and which is couched in much better language than any which I could cm- ploy. At page 9, he says : " It is very true that the Government has assumed only the intellectual education of the children of the State, and has left their moral and religious instruc- tion to be given at the fireside, at the places of public j worship, and at those institutions which the piety of ! individuals may establish for the purpose. But it is i believed that in a country where the great body of j our fellow-citizens recognize the fundamental truths j of Christianity, public sentiment would be shocked by j the attempt to exclude all instruction of a religious j nature from the public schools : and that any plan | or scheme of education, in which no reference what- | ever was had to mora) principles founded on these j truths, would be abandoned by all. In the next j place, it is believed such an attempt would be wholly impracticable. No books can be found, no reading lessons can be selected, which do not contain more or less of some principles of religious faith, either directly avowed, or indirectly assumed. Religion- and literature have become inseparably interwoven, and the expurgation of religious sentiments from the productions of orators, essayists and poets, would' leave them utterly barren." Now (continued Mr. K.,) we have a right to say/ this. When the late head of this nation, (so suddenly, under the Providence of God, taken from us,) de- clared, as others, his predecessors, had declared be- fore him, that he bore his testimony in favor of the Christian religion, as received in this laud, he spoke as the representative of the American people. I am proud to say here, as an American, that there is no party in that : that, whatever difference of opinion might have existed politically as to the merits of thaf distinguished man, the sentiment thus uttered by him was an American sentiment, which will be re- sponded to by a vast majority of the people of this country — for, thank God, this is a Christian land. We belong to different denominations ;■ indeed, we are Episcopalians — we are Roman Catholics— we are Baptists — we are Methodists ; but there are great truths of Christianity which, as a people, we coin* cide in. And although the law cannot point out pre- cisely what those principles are. yet we can all feet them and judge of them. We haVe a right to teach our children, as we do teach them, that there is a God whose eye sees us— whopenetratesthe thoughts of our hearts— and that we are accountable being?. We have a right to inculcate these great religious principles, as the sanctions of that morality which* 11 we are bound to see enforced in these schools. The Legislature has nothing to do with religion specifi- cally; but so far as, by common consent, religion mingles itself with the approved literature of the country — and so far as it deals with great general principles from which morality derives its sanctions, the Legislature, and the schools, and every one under the patronage of this Government, has a right to recognize it. Beyond that, no such right exists: because the moment you go beyond that — you trample upon the conscience of this or that man, whose conscience you are bound to respect. But these general princi- ples, as properly stated here, must be recognized and are recognized in this land. In the schools we go thus far : we neither say nor do any thing to inter- fere with the peculiar sentiments of any sect or de- nomination. Our trustees are, and always heve been, composed of persons of all denominations. We have had, in our number, more than one excellent Roman Catholic, from time to time. We have had Episco- palians; we have had Baptists ; we have had Uni- versalists ; we have had respectable men of all sects — men who are willing to devote themselves, without fee or reward, to the service of their fellow- men. Precisely that amount of religion which would be approved and taught by a board thus constituted — that, I say, and these general truths only, have we a right to teach in institutions under the direction of the Legislature. The next objection to this system, as a system, and this is not an objection to existing schools— is, that it does not reach all the children who are the proper subjects of a gratuitous education. And here I will take leave to read an extract from the report of the Secretary, at page 16. He says: " Considering the various feelings and interests that would be called into action by such a system, there can be little doubt, that one oi its immediate effects would be to bring into the schools a large portion, if not the whole, of those who are now utterly destitute of instruction. With all the com- mendable and vigorous efforts of the trustees of the Public School Society, it cannot be denied that less than one-half the children, between four and sixteen years of age, in the cdy of New- York, are receiving the benefits of any education whatever. From the statements in the annual report of the Superintendent of Common Schools for the present year, (Assembly Document No. 100,) it appears that the whole num- ber of white children in New-York in 1840, over 5 and under 16 years of age, was 62,952. and that 30,753 only are returned as attending some school, leaving 32,194 who were not in attendance on any school whatever." Now, (continued Mr. K.,) I grant most freely that if there is this number of children in the city of New- York who do not attend the schools on account of the defects in the system, the system ought -fo be either amended or improved, or if not susceptible of amendment, abolished, and a new system substitu- ted. But let us for a moment inquire into this mat- ter. There is some mistake in this census calcula- tion. There must necessarily be a mistake, because it makes out the number of 32,194 children who are not in attendance on any school whatever. We re- port the number of children on our books for the last year, at 23,000; and it is staled by the Roman Ca- tholics that tliere are about 8,000 in their schools; making an aggregate of 31,000; in the public and Roman Catholic schools. Deduct this from the ag- gregate census number, and the number remaining is 31,952. From this number no deduction is made for the children attending pay schools in the city, this number is large in the ward in which I reside, (Jth) I have heard a computation made that there are over one thousand pay scholars in this single ward — although this is more than the average in all the wards. There must, therefore, be some mistake ? the fact cannot be as it is here represented. I doubt whether the persons who took the census, were re^ markably accurate or particular in obtaining infor- mation respecting the attendance of children on schools. Error there manifestly is, somewhere. Upon it given day many children may not have been at school. There may have been a vast number of these children actually attending school, and yet who were absent on that particular day. The difference between the number of those who actually attend our schools, and the number on the register, is twenty per cent. ; that is to say, twenty children out of one hundi ed do not attend the schools daily. These children may be taken from school by their parents for various reasons ; they may be wanted, in the season, to sell radishes, or for one operation or another, by which their parents can realize a little profit from their labor ; and thus, at a given time, there may not be more than two thirds of the twenty-three thousand chddren above named in actual attendance. If, then, the inquiry is made on a given day, what is the number of children who go to school to-day, the answer would be given in that form ; and, therefore, you cannot thus arrive at just conclusions as to how many children are ede- cated ; and how many are left uneducated. The in- quiry is supposed to be how many children attend school 1 Many parents will not send their children when under six years ; and after that age, many of them are not kept at school more than three or four years. By the time they are ten or twelve years old, they will have acquired a knowledge of reading, wri- ting and cyphering— and other branches of educa- tion, which, their parents think, is all that is needed to prepare them for some employment. Therefore, there may be many children between five and six, not sent to school ; and there are many between that age and the age of ten or twelve, who have received what is supposed by their friends to be a competent education ; and a vast number between 12 and 16 are taken out, because, before the latter age, they can be made the instruments of profit to their parents. So that, in this calculation, you do not arrive at a result which shows you the number of children actually left uneducated. It is difficult to decide this point. The Public School Society made an investigation into the subject, with a view of making an applica- tion to the people for an additional lax ; this, I think, was in the year 1829, when the population of the city of i\ew-York was about two hundred thousand. They made the investigation in the best manner they could, and arrived at tne conclusion that there were about ten thousand children in the city who did not attend school. The Chairman of the Committee here made the following inquiry : In these 33,000 thus returned, are there any re- turns of children at select schools, or boarding sohools? Mr. Ketchum. Yes, sir. The Chairman. The number, then, includes those who are returned from your society, and are returned from other societies. Question by Mr. Verplanck. In this 23,000 who are educated at the public schools in New-York, are not children of ages between four and five years in- cluded 1 Mr. Ketchum. The city of New- York limits the age of children to between four and sixteen. Mr. Verpianck. Therefore, there must be a num- ber of children under five years not educated. Mr. Ketchum here stated, that there was a gentle-- 12 man present (Mr. Seton) who had in his possession all the statistical information requisite to answer any inquiries that might be put That gentleman had long been a visiter engaged in the service of these schools. He was more intimately acquainted with all the details than he (Mr. K ) could be, and would be happy to answer all inquiries. He had, indeed, come here for that purpose. Mr. K. then proceeded in his argument, as follows : Well, now, here is shown to be a large non-attend- ance. There is no doubt of the fact; we cannot deny it, and we do not wish to deny it. But does this non-attendance result from this system ? I say not. There is no non-attendance save from the children of our Roman Catholic fellow citizens, that can be pointed out on account of prejudice against the schools. There is non-attendance, as you will be told by gentleman of great practical knowledge on the subject, because parents will not send their chil- dren to school, or because the children will not go. There is a want of parental authority which leaves the children to say they will not go, and hence they grow up in idle and vagrant habits They would not go to any other school sooner than to this. The objec- tion is not to the school itself, but to the confinement. They will not go to school, and they cannot be made to go. What can we do ? Ttie gentleman upon my left (Mr. Seton) was employed many years in visiting; in g ing round from house to house for the purpose of inducing children to come in. We have now thirteen gentlemen em- ployed to visit one day in each week, from house to house, to induce and persuade these children to come in — to overcome objections and to get them in. That matter is under the charge of a Committee of the Board, and the result of their experience has been given. I believe that their exertions during the last year, were the means of getting in about nine hun- dred children ; but of this number, from the want of parental control, a small portion only remained more than a short time. Now, what system could bring in these children to a greater extent? There is no prejudice against the schools : there cannot be any. No one who visits the schools, and who observes the cheerfulness and the happiness which there pre- vails, can fail to see that there is not any ground of prejudice; you cannot have more attractive schools than these. But the great difficulty is that the chil- dren will not be persuaded to come; nothing but legal provision can make them, and, probably, we are not prepared for a resort to force. But our Com- mon Council have been very accommodating on this subject; they havegone hand in hand with thePub- lic School Society — they have acted on the most friendly terms, and, on one occasion, they passed an ordinance, (how long it remained in force I cannot say,) provid.ng that parents who did not send their children to some school, should not receive bounty, in the winter season, from the alms-house. That mode has been resorted to. There has been perfect co-ope- ration between the two bodies; yet, notwithstanding this, and all other attempts, there are children whom we could accommodate and who do not come; but I am bound to say, that our accommodations in some parts of the city are not such as will allow all to par- take of the benefits of the schools. That is no lault in the system ; but arises from the fact that the sys- tem itself is not carried out to the extent it ought to be. 1 believe that the trustees of the society have asked the Legislature" to help thetn to funds, to ena- ble tharn to build additional school-houses. Our great difficulty arises from the cost of school-houses, and the purchase of lots ; for, as you, gentlemen, well know, there is a great difference between the cost of a lot of land in the city and a lot in the country. The amount of money which would be required in the city of New-York, for the purchase of a lot or lots of land proper for the erection of a building, (to be three stories high with a basement,) which would accommodate our children under the Lancasterian system, and in which five or six hundred are edu- cated, would be as much as all the school-houses in a single county, and the lots too, would cost in the country. The great difficulty lies in getting the money. We have asked aid, and we shall undoubt- edly have to ask aid a