The New Northwest/1871/October 27/Free Schools for Oregon
FREE SCHOOLS FOR OREGON
Is the title of a well written pamphlet of forty pages, containing the lecture delivered at Salem before the Marlon County Teachers' Institute, Aug. 17th, by our young friend, J. A. Waymire, Esq.
This is, perhaps, the most elaborate and valuable contribution among the many pleas for free schools that has ever emanated from a confessed Oregonian.
Mr. Waymire has given a plentiful supply of facts and figures; enough, we would think, to start from his habitual lethargy the dullest Oregonian and fill him with an earnest conviction of the necessity of doing something more than we are doing for the education of our youth, more than half of whom do not attend school at all, or so irregularly as to make no progress in their schooling.
On pages 28, 29 and 30, under the subhead of "What Oregon Is Doing," is a terse synopsis of the present educational condition in this State, which compares very well with the old slave-holding States before the war, when the rich aristocrats opposed school tax, educated their children at private and select schools, while the children of the poor, always by far the greater number, were forced into mental starvation and degradation.
Let every inhabitant of the State read what "Oregon Is Doing," and firmly resolve that the next time Mr. Waymire looks at the statistics he can report a commendable progress in our educational condition, even if we are not ready to adopt the "American Free School System," the practicability of which I think Mr. Waymire has fully demonstrated in the succeeding pages of his lecture.
On pages 36, 37 and 38 will be found a statement of "Our School Funds," to which I would invite the attention of everybody concerned in the education and training of youth.
Mr. W. says, "Our State has a rich endowment for her schools." I thought so once, and thousands besides, who immigrated to this coast, came over the great desert with the happy prospect of ample provisions for the education of their posterity. Let me whisper to you, friend W., that the rich endowment is non est.
Do you call that a rich endowment which does not yield enough revenue to keep a 1½ month's school In a year? Why, sir, as compared with the States of Illinois, Iowa and other new Western States, we are poorly endowed. A single county of the States aforenamed has a greater fund than the whole State of Oregon.
It is indeed true that our good and generous Uncle Sam did set off upon paper a most princely inheritance to the children of Oregon, but what, with the snow-capped ranges of mountains, which cool our air and furnish us with perennial streams of purest water; the waste alkali flats and scoriated hills; the elevated table lands of grand extent, fit only for pasturage; the giving of section and half-section claims in the rich and fertile valleys to actual settlers in advance of the surveys, by which most of the 16th and 36th sections were blotted out of the original bequest; and last, though not least, the robbery committed by the last Legislature and the Governor, Grover, by which the 500,000 acres of land set apart by the Constitution of the State as an irreducible school fund were given away to a private corporation, the educational prospects of the aforesaid children will come out at the little end of the horn so far as the rich endowment goes.
It is true we have 75,000 acres for a State University and 90,000 acres for an Agricultural College, making 105,000 acres. But what the children are most interested in knowing is, "How much money will it bring?" Where is this land? In the Willamette or other valleys? Is it mountain or sand plain? Is it worth one cent or one dollar per acre? Will it ever be worth any more than it is now? Can it be sold at all? The same questions must be asked about those lands selected in lieu of the 16th and 36th sections, called indemnity lands.
The so-called rich endowment depends for its richness upon the answer to these questions; and until they are answered don't let us talk about the balance of the proceeds of the 500,000 acres, after paying the $200,000 and interest to the Canal and Locks Company for their disinterested labor in behalf of the State.
There is no balance of the proceeds of the 500,000 acres. There never will be any if the funds and lands are managed as the law provides.
That little Lock Bill effectually gobbled up the whole of that irreducible school fund. There are no means of knowing what amount could be realized from a judicious handling of the 500,000 acres; — probably $1,000,000, which, at 12 per cent. per annum, would yield $120,000, and, with the other funds, would give us a free school six months in a year. Whatever they are, are gone — all gone — not even so much as the baseless fabric of a vision left to the children of the State to compensate them for the loss of that rich endowment.
The fact is, that, owing to the peculiar geographical character of Oregon and the peculiar circumstances attending the transfer of the laws of this State by the General Government, our rich endowment for school purposes has dwindled down to a very small affair.
For this very reason the greatest care, the severest economy, should be bestowed upon its management. For this reason the people of this State should never rest until the work of tho last Legislature be undone and the 500,000 acres restored to the irreducible school fund, where the people placed it by the adoption of our Constitution.
LETTER FROM MRS. GRIFFING.
Washington, D. C.
Mrs. A. J. Duniway, Editor of the New Northwest:—
Dear Madam:—Your name has been proposed for Member of the National Woman Suffrage Committee (headquarters at Washington, D. C.) by our mutual friend, Mrs. L. DeForce Gordon. It gives me great pleasure to invite your co-operation with the Committee, and shall he happy to hear at your earliest convenience that you will accept the position.
Our position is probably known to you, and is the simple outgrowth of a rapidly developing public sentiment in behalf of woman's political and civil equality. From all parts of the country the demand now comes for united action, and, to secure this, fundamental knowledge on this subject must be extended to those called upon to act — and the Committee are straining every nerve to put this whole argument in favor of woman's voting, and the evidence that she is now entitled to vote under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution, into the hands of all who manifest any interest individually or through a representative to us.
What we ask of members of this Committee is, help to organize committees or societies — in their localities or in any way most effective — to circulate petitions asking for "a Declaratory Act" of Congress, the coming session, that will strike down the State laws that now, contrary to the Supreme law of the land, "deny" and "abridge" the right of woman to exercise the rights of a citizen of the United States, which is the only hindrance to her exercise of the elective franchise over the whole country to-day. You will see how important is this work. We send you blank petitions. Another part of our work, and not less important, is the circulation and sale of our publications and the collection of money therefrom, and by other means to print tracts and bear current expenses. Our "Address to the Women of the United States," containing a pledge and declaration of sentiment, invites all women favoring the same to send their names in autograph that is, on a slip or on a sheet with a page of names accompanied with one dollar for printing fund — the same to be placed in the great National Autograph Book, which is already nearly filled with the names of noble and live women — to be kept in the archives of the nation. If more than one dollar can be spared, let it come — and to all such contributors we respond with a History of the Movement for twenty years, lately published by Mrs. Paulina W. Davis. You will readily see that this constitutes the bone and sinew of our movement. Without it we cannot print and continue our educational work — that is, without the money. Contributions are of course solicited in any and all ways, that may best please the taste or suit the convenience of the members of the Committee and by each one's effort, though it may be of small amount, we shall accomplish the work we propose to do, and, I trust, shall realize our hope of the speedy and peaceful enfranchisement of woman.
I have written quite explicitly to indicate our programme of work, and hope soon to hear of your favorable decision and be able to forward you the samples of our cheap tracts and Constitutional argument, and so feel the support of your strong arm in the State of Oregon.
The Oregon Statesman, in discussing the question of woman suffrage, attempts to palm off nearly a column of special pleading on its readers for argument against the measure, the following sentence from which is a fair specimen:
"We believe in treating woman with all the consideration she can reasonably demand, but we are not prepared to force political privileges upon her against her will."
Of course men are to be the only judges as to what shall constitute her reasonable demands. Women, like slaves, must be passive. The hypocritical talk about "forcing political privileges on woman against her will" is too bald and transparent to require note or comment to make it apparent to ordinarily intelligent readers. A novice in governmental requirements would naturally conclude, on reading that class of American newspapers of which the Statesman is a type, that voting was compulsory; that the citizen to whom the "privilege" was granted had no alternative but to devote his time to politics, day and night, week-days and Sundays, to the exclusion of other business matters—attend caucuses, go to the polls on election days at the risk of life or limb, or be fined and imprisoned for neglect of political duties. Every State and National election demonstrates that armies of voters neglect to vote; and so long as masculines exclusively shall continue to engineer our political system, by which thieves, roughs and rowdies exercise a controlling influence, both at conventions, caucuses and the polls, so long will the better classes continue to absent themselves from the polls, and will only interest themselves in political matters when to do so in the interest of personal friends or for local improvements.—Pioneer.
WOMAN UNDER THE LAWS OF WASHINGTON TERRITORY.
OLYMPIA, W. T., Sept. 20th, 1871.
Mrs. A. J. Duniway—Madam:—I have read with interest several numbers of your excellent paper, and have felt as if I should be glad to contribute a mite in assisting the good work of reforming our laws, so as to place our feminine population in a not less eligible position than the hardier sex.
I have not seen any criticism upon the almost universal system of legislation, on the exemption of property from execution for debt, wherein there is nearly always partiality against the widow and in favor of the husband and wife. For instance, in this Territory, a man, married or unmarried, as a professional man is entitled to a library and other property to the value of hundreds of dollars, which cannot be taken for debt; whereas the widow and children of such man are deprived of any such exemption in their favor. The working or the law is thus: A red-gloved lawyer or physician with a library worth $500, and wardrobe worth $300, may settle in this Territory and get in debt to a widow for washing and ironing his clothes, and not one cent's worth of his $800 worth of property can she claim. But let her call the physician when half a dozen children are sick of measles, and his charge of $3 per visit holds half the value of her small property of $800 liable for his debt.
I have not had occasion to examine the statutes of other Territories or States on this coast, but I imagine a similar state of case will be found to exist in others. You will find what I have stated on pages 86, 87, 88 of statutes published in 1869.
This letter is not for publication, but merely to suggest what you may not have noticed and assist you in preparing a suitable article on this subject. It is by calling public attention to these wrongs that a correction of the abuse may be expected.
With sentiments of respect I am
P. S. You can can see the hardships wrought against the widow of a lawyer or physician. While he is alive and able to assist his wife in the rearing and education of the family, they are favored with an exemption of $700 or more; the moment she becomes a widow, and when she most needs help and protection, the law withdraws and deprives her and her children of the benefit of this exemption, when every consideration for charity and humanity would say that she should rather have increased than diminished protection.
"We Wait for an Answer."
Under this head the New York Standard takes occasion to make a covert attack on Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony, on account of sympathy alleged to have been manifested towards Laura D. Fair, now under sentence of death for shooting Mr. Crittenden, a lawyer of eminence, who had deserted his wife and family, and had, for years, given himself, soul and body, to the woman who finally avenged not only her own wrong, but the wrongs of his wife, by meteing to him his just reward. It is not our intention to justify Mrs. Fair in her act, but that Crittenden met a fate he richly deserved no one will deny.
Had Mrs. Crittenden shot both Mrs. Fair and her recreant and most guilty husband, the world would have upheld her. We have here to do simply with the Standard in regard to the article under the above caption. It may perhaps appear a hard thing for a woman's paper to utter; but if the editor of the Standard were a woman, and had some spite towards the ladies against whom it makes repetition of a slanderous report, we would account for the presence of that article in its columns.
But what motive the editor of the Standard could have in giving further circulation to a matter calculated to cast a shadow on the proceedings of two ladies whose conduct and motives have always been, and now are, above suspicion, we are at a loss to guess. We must reiterate that that article appears to us the fruit of a longing desire or hope that the ladies named may have done something censurable, and worthy of withering rebuke. To throw the shadow of a doubt on these women is a crime against all society, as well as against the noble, fearless women themselves. To utter a falsehood, and then apologise and contradict it, is no compensation to the injured party, nor yet to public morality, which is outraged thereby. To publish a malignant falsehood, and qualify it with a feeble, languidly expressed hope that it may be a mistake, or malicious misrepresentation of the press, should be poor consolation to a conscience not wholly seared by its own lascivious and free-love doctrines and practices.
We maintain that a visit to the prisoner, man or woman, incarcerated for crime, of whatever character, is always in order with really virtuous and honorable women. If Jesus forgave the woman taken in adultery, and said to the thief on the cross, "This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise," we should like to know what there is, or can be criminal, or needing any answer or explanation in the visit of two respectable, intelligent ladies, with world-wide reputation for ability and purity of life, to the cell of the vilest creature alive for the purpose of condolence, or any other purpose such women could go for?
We wait for an answer also. We would like to know when the writer of that article became possessed of the immaculate virtue that scoffs at sympathy with the fallen, and whether such virtue would not be more seemly if a little less ostentatious. Revolution.