Title: Revised record of the Constitutional Convention of the State of New York, May 8, 1894, to September 29, 1894. Revised and indexed by Hon. William H. Steele ... Published under direction of Hon. Charles E. Fitch. Content: I. May 8-August 1.--II. August 1-23.--III. August 23-September 6.--IV. September 7-29.--V. Documents. Delegates' index. General index and synopsis.
Author:
· New York (State). Constitutional Convention (1894)
· Fitch, Charles E. (Charles Elliott), 1835-1918.
For similar materials, try:
· New York (State)--Constitution.
Other Information:
· Publisher: Albany, The Argus Company, printers, 1900.
· Description: 5 v. 24 cm.
Page 689
The Delegates of the People of the State of New York, in Convention assembled, do propose as follows:
Article IX
Section 1. The Legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free common schools, wherein all the children of the State may be educated.
Page 690
Mr., Holls --- Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of regularity, I make the usual motion to strike out the section.
Mr. Chairman, in beginning the discussion of the article upon education, it is not my purpose to detain the committee or this Convention by any attempted display of oratory. No words of mine can add anything to the importance of the interests involved in education and the report which has been made by the committee, and which is Document No. 62, upon the files of all the members, contains such explanatory matter of the article itself as amply suffices for an introduction to the whole discussion of the subject. The time of this Convention is now too limited and too precious for more.
The first section which we have reported, and which is new, explains itself. Of all the United States of America, New York, New Jersey and Delaware are the only States which to-day have not a similar analogous provision in their fundamental laws. As has been stated by the committee in their report, imagination cannot possibly picture the State of New York refusing to provide education for all her children; and hence the objection might be made that the section was unnecessary. But this argument has not been held to apply to many other matters which are thought to be fundamental, and in view of the policy of the State of New York toward all education, and to which more reference will undoubtedly be made during this debate, we consider it of importance that at the head of the educational article there should be a section announcing in no uncertain terms the interest of the State of New York in the foundation of all its prosperity, the free common schools. I now withdraw my motion to strike out the section, and unless amendments are offered I hope the Secretary will read section 2.
Mr. Campbell --- Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to section 1: Insert in line 3 of page 1, after the word, “State,” the words, “whose education is not provided for by their parent or guardians.”
Mr. Campbell --- Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, in offering this amendment I do it so that the people of this State may express in their organic law the propostion and principle that the parent of every child in this State is charged with the duty to educate that child, and has the right, proceeding from that duty, to provide the means by which his duty will be performed. The free schools of this State are the outgrowth of the performance of the duty and the exercise of the right of parents in the education of their children.
Page 691
These schools were not established by the State acting as such or in a formal manner, but by the people themselves, each parent acting in his individual capacity, and all the people co-operating heartily in the performance of the parental duty to educate his children; a duty which Chancellor Kent has called a sacred trust given to parents by their Creator, and a right which they have by the law of nature. The free public schools of this State have, therefore, become sacred to the people and to every home and to every heart. They are the schools of the people in the most intimate sense; because they sprung spontaneously from the people before the foundations of the government. Hence, the public schools of America have grown to be the admiration of the world.
Every attempt to better their condition and make more
general their beneficent action in improving and increasing secular knowledge
naturally and at once excited the enthusiastic support of the people who created
them. Hence, there has been introduced to this Convention a new article of the
Constitution expressing the principle of universal education, and directing the
Legislature to use the power of the State to foster that principle, and,
perhaps, to enforce adhesion to that principle.
It is proposed to enact an organic law, directing the
Legislature to provide for the maintenance of a system of schools wherein all
the children of the State may be educated. The reason for making this change are
given by the Committee on Education in its report to the Convention recommending
the passage of the article proposed to us. This is what the report, among other
things, contains: “Your committee, therefore,
recommends the adoption of section 1 as an explicit direction to the Legislature
to provide ‘for a system of free schools wherein all the children of the State
may be educated.’ This requires not simply schools, but a system; not merely
that they shall be common, but free, and not only that they shall be numerous,
but that they shall be sufficient in number so that all the children of the
State may, unless otherwise provided for, receive in them their education.”
Thus
the committee, by stating in their report that the schools are to be provided
for those children who are not otherwise provided for,
recognizes the right of parents to educate their children, for it is not
possible to imagine that the children not educated in the public schools can be
otherwise educated or have their education otherwise provided for them by their
parents. The committee could not question that right
with any hope of assent from us. It is a right superior in the parents to that of any other person,
superior to any right that might be asserted by the State or any other aggre-
Page 692
gation of persons. This Convention,
therefore, instead of denying the right of the parent to educate their children,
is about to provide all the means of secular education that any parent can ask,
to enable him to fully perform his sacred, bounden duty to educate his child. It
would seem, therefore, that since the right of the parent to direct the education of
the child is undeniable, and is meant to be conceded here, that it is
wiser to express it in the Constitution than to leave it unexpressed, and,
therefore, capable in the near future of denial or controversy.
In order that this truth may be certainly and definitely
expressed, I have proposed the amendment to section 1, which will provide that
the children of those parents who do not provide for their education may be
educated in the public schools. If parents choose to educate their children at any other than the public
schools, then they cannot be compelled to send them to the public schools.
It will leave parents
entirely free to use private schools to accomplish their purpose and perform
their duty of education. But it may be answered that the section as
proposed without any amendment is permissive only, and simply gives the
inhabitants of the State a privilege of which they may or may not avail
themselves at their option. No man can tell, however, what the courts may hold
in construing this section of the Constitution if it be not amended in the
manner I have proposed.
Should the Legislature, in obedience to the mandate of
section 1, as it now stands, provide by law for one great system of free common
schools, with all the teachers, books and appliances sufficient to provide means
to educate all the children of the State, including the three or four hundred
thousand who are not now attending the public schools, would it be unreasonable
for the courts to hold that the grant of such a power implied a grant of the
power to compel the people to accept and use the system to the exclusion of any
other means of education. If any one should prefer any of the numerous
kindergarten schools or academies now conducted by private endeavor and
enterprise to those provided by the State, a conflict between the individual and
the State would inevitably arise. A controversy might be precipitated, which,
before it was ended, would injure the common schools beyond the possibility of
repair. And it could end only in settling the law to be that the right of the
parent could not be interfered with. We can avoid the possibility of such a
dispute by adopting this amendment.
The amendment contemplates nothing more than to say in effect that where the education of the child is neglected for any cause by the parent or guardian, or is not provided for by them, then the
Page 693
State,
in the exercise of its subordinate right on the same subject, may step in
and perform the neglected duty of the parent. The words supplied by the proposed
amendment are words which the committee, judging from its report, inadvertently
omitted to insert in the section, and which it is manifestly our duty to supply.
A constitutional amendment should never leave our hands which will be uncertain
or difficult of explanation or construction, or capable of more than one
construction which will need any construction. It
should be capable of comprehension by the simplest mind of ordinary man or
woman. I believe the amendment I propose will accomplish that end with
respect to section 1 of the proposed article and I urge its adoption.
Mr. Holls --- Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposed by the
gentleman from New York is, in my opinion, entirely unnecessary, and for that
reason very objectionable, for it adds to the language of the section without
adding at all to its sense. We might with equal propriety say: “All the
children of this State who are not otherwise provided for” --- and I believe
that is the sense of the gentleman’s argument --- or we might say, “all the
children who are healthy enough to go to school,” or “who live near enough
to school-houses to go to school.” The section, as it stands here, in
no way interferes, directly or by implication, with the sacred right of the
parent and the family first to educate their children if they wish to do so.
It simply says that the
State of New York, as a fundamental part of its policy toward all of its
inhabitants, shall provide for a system of schools wherein if required --- for
those words, in my opinion, are fairly implied --- all the children of the State may be educated;
and that, of course, means if required by the parent. The addition of
the words proposed by the gentleman from New York might with equal propriety be
construed that children who have parents should not be sent to the public
schools, but that the parents should be required first to educate them at home.
It is absolutely unnecessary. There is nothing here, and there was nothing further from the mind of
the committee than a denial of the rights of the family, or of any imputation
upon private schools of any character, and it is impossible for me to see by
what language it might be read into that amendment. For these reasons I
sincerely hope that the amendment will not prevail.
The Chairman put the question on the adoption of Mr. Campbell’s amendment, and it was determined in the negative.