Author
Title
Imprint
19— «7372 - 2 OPO
SPEECH
OF
THE RIGHT REV. DR. HUGHES,
DELIVERED
On the 16th, nth and 21st days' of June, 1841.
BEING
A REVIEW AND REFUTATION
OF
THE REMONSTRANCE OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY,
AND
THE ARGUMENT OF HIRAM KETCHUM, Esq,,
THEIR COUNSEL,
BEFORE
A COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
AGAINST
THE REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE
ON THE SUBJECT OF
COMMON SCHOOL EDUCATION.
*&&**> \ ^C^4^&Of.
■><$►*<:
Specially Reported for the New York Freeman's Journal,
BY DR. J. A. HOUSTON.
NEWYORK:
PUBLISHED AT THE OFFICE OF THE FREEMAN'S JOURNAL,
150 FULTON STREET.
1841.
\A
S PEE C H
S
OF , ;
THE RIGHT REV. DR., HUGHES,
DELIVERED
On the 16th, 17 th and 'Hist days' of June, 1841.
BEING
A REVIEW AND REFUTATION
OF
THE ARGUMENT OF HIRAM KETCHUM, Esq.,
COUNSEL FOR THE FUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETTj
S BEFORE
A COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
AGAINST
THE REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE
ON THE SUBJECT OF
COMMON SCHOOL EDUCATION.
Specially Reported for the New York Freeman's Journal,
BY DR. J. A. HOUSTON.
NEWYORK
PUBLISHED AT THE OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK FREEMAN'S JOURNAL.
NO. 150 FULTON STREET NEW YORK.
1841.
PREFACE
BY THE PUBLISHER
It has been thought advisable, for the information of those not con-
versant with the history of the matter, to accompany the annexed Report
of Bishop Hughes' late speech at Carroll Hall, with a brief statement of
the course which the agitation of the question of Common School Education
in the city of New-York, has taken during the past eighteen months.
Differing from the rest ot the state, the city of New- York, or rather, the
Common Council of that city, to whom a discretionary power on the
subject was given by the Legislature, has for more than fifteen years past
confided to a private corporation, styled " The Public School Society of
New- York," almost the entire charge and business of Common School
education ; together with the management, disposition, and control of the
public fund raised by taxation and otherwise for that purpose.
Much dissatisfaction had been felt with the system and the exclusive
privileges of this society, especially among that portion of the community
professing the Catholic faith, whose religious feelings and conscientious
convictions were, not only not regarded, but violated, in so serious a
manner by the teachings, and the irreligious or adverse influences brought
to bear on the minds of the pupils, that they, almost without exception,
withheld their children from the schools of the Society. In these circum-
stances they established such free schools for the education of their
children, as their limited means enabled them to provide ; and they
repeatedly petitioned the Common Council of the city, that a portion of
the School Fund should be appropriated to the support of those schools.
under such regulations as the Council might prescribe. The prayer of
the petitioners was, however, invariably denied. But the petitioners
still persevered. — Numerous and crowded public meetings were held on
this subject in the city of New- York, during the past year, by those who
were aggrieved, and who were interested in promoting the cause of uni-
versal education. A determined spirit was manifested by all to effect a
reform, and break down the monopoly, which secured th<? management of
this most important interest of education in the hands of an irresponsible
few. A petition for relief was again presented to the Common Council
by the Catholics, and they prayed to be heard in its support before the
Board, by counsel, or otherwise. The Public School Society remonstrated,
and prayed to be heard in opposition. The 29th of last October was desig-
nated by the Common Council for hearing the different parties on this
subject : and on that day and the following one, a most important and
IV
highly interesting debate took place before the united Boards of Aldermen
and Assistants. The Right Rev. Dr. Hughes maintained the discussion on
the part of the petitioners, and Hiram Ketchum and Theodore Sedgwick,
Esqrs., spoke on the other side, as counsel for the Public School Society,
assisted by several other gentlemen. The result, notwithstanding the
clear and unanswerable reasoning of Bishop Hughes, was, as it had been
on former occasions, adverse to the petitioners. Their application was
denied.
Determined not to abandon what they considered to be a just and re-
publican principle, the friends of freedom of education in the city of New-
York, notwithstanding the adverse issue before the Common Council, pre-
pared petitions, and forwarded them to ihe Legislature of the State, during
its recent session at Albany, setting forth the grievances under which they
laboured, and praying for redress. The matter was referred by the
Senate to the Hon. John C. Spencer, Secretary o r State and Superinten-
dant of Common Schools, who made a report unfavorable to the present
exclusive system, and distinguished alike by its clear and statesmanlike
views, its liberal, just, and patriotic principles, and its unanswerable
arguments — and in it he recommended that the system of Common
School education prevailing throughout the state should be extended to
the city of New-York.
The Public School Society, alarmed for the existence of their exclusive
and unnatural prerogatives, sent a remonstrance to the legislature, against
granting the petition oi those who felt aggrieved by their system ; and
they also procured leave to be, and were, heard on the subject before a
committee of the Senate, by their counsel, Hiram Ketchum, Esq. The
petitioners were also heard at the same time before the same committee,
by their counsel, James W. M'Keon, and Wright Hawkes, Esqrs. The
committee subsequently reported a bill to the Senate, in conformity with
the recommendation of the Secretary of Stale, which bill, after an ani-
mated debate, was postponed, by a vote of the Senate, to the second
Tuesday of January next, by a majority of o?ie. Many of the senators,
however, who voted for the postponement, stated, that they did so, in
order that they might have opportunity for obtaining more information on
the subject, and not from any particular objection to the general features of
the bill.
Mr. Ketchum's speech before the Committee, was elaborately reported,
and published in the daily papers in the city of New- York, on or about
the 10th of June instant, and the able speeches of Messrs. M'Keon and
Hawkes not having been reported, the Right Rev. Dr. Hughes undertook
and delivered before a crowded and overflowing audience, on the evenings
of the 16th, 17th, and 21st of June instant, a conclusive refutation of Mr.
Ketchum's argument. The Bishop adopted this viva voce mode of review,
in order to save the expenditure of time and labor, which would be neces-
sarily attendant upon a written reply. The speech will, therefore, be
found to exhibit all the freedom and freshness of an extemporaneous
address ; a circumstance which will not be found to detract in any manner
from its force or interest.
The speech of Bishop Hughes was specially reported for the New- York
Freeman's Journal, in the most full and accurate manner; and for greater
convenience, and to preserve it in a more permanent shape, it is also
published in the present pamphlet form.
New-York, June, 1841.
SPEECH
OF THE
RIGHT REVEREND DR. HUGHES,
ON THE SUBJECT
OF
COMMON SCHOOL EDUCATION.
Public notice having been given in the daily papers of the city, that
Bishop Hughes would, on the evening of Wednesday, the 16th of
June, commence a Review and Refutation of the argument which
was made by Hiram Ketchum, Esq., before a Committee of the
Legislature, at Albany, in opposition to the Bill and Report of the
Secretary of State, on the subject of Common School Education in
the city of New York, a very large and respectable assemblage con-
vened at half-past seven o'clock, on that evening, at Carroll Hall, to
hear the address of the Bishop.
The Hon. Luther Bradish, Lieutenant-Governor, and several Se-
nators of the State, who were then in attendance, in the city of New
York, as members of the Court for the Correction of Errors, were
amongst those present.
At the hour, specified in the notice, the meeting was organised
by the appointment of Thomas O'Connor, Esq., as chairman, and
Bernard O'Connor, Esq., Secretary.
Right Rev. Bishop Hughes then rose and spoke as follows : —
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, The subject of education is one
which at this time agitates more or less every civilized nation.
If we look across the ocean we find it the subject of discussion
in France — in Prussia — in Holland — in Belgium — in Ireland —
and even in Austria. It is not surprising, then, that this sub-
ject, which has but lately attracted the attention of governments,
and of nations, should become one of deep and absorbing interest.
But of all these nations there is, perhaps, not one which has placed
education on that basis on which it is destined successfully, in
the end, to repose.
In countries in which the inhabitants profess the same reli-
gion, whatever that religion may be, the subject is deprived of
many of its difficulties. But in nations in which there is a va-
riety of religious creeds, it has hitherto been found one of the
most perplexing of all questions, to devise a system of education,
which should meet the approbation of all. This subject has
engaged the attention of our own government. In every State
of the Union it has already been acted upon more or less
fully. And in all these instances whether we regard Europe, or
regard this country, we find that there is not a solitary instance
in which religion, or religious instruction in a course of education,
has been proscribed, with the exception of the city of New York.
And this proscription of religion in this city is not an act of
public authority. There is no statute authorising such an act; it
has been the result rather of an erroneous construction put upon a
statute, and which has been acquiesced in, rather than approved,
for the last sixteen years. In the operation of that system, Ca-
tholics felt themselves virtually excluded from the benefits of
education. Very shortly after that construction of the law was
adopted, they felt themselves obliged to proceed in the best way
that their poverty would allow for the education of their child-
ren. And whilst they have been taxed with the other citizens,
up to the present hour they have received no benefit from the
system supported by that taxation ; but on the contrary, after
having contributed what the law required, have been obliged to
throw themselves back upon their own resources, and provide,
as well as they might, the means of educating their children.
We have, from time to time, complained of this state of things.
It has frequently been broughtbefore the notice of the public. A So-
ciety — professedly the friend of education — having exercised su-
preme control over the whole question, we had no resource but
to apply to that tribunal, which the law had authorised to use its
discretion in distributing the money set apart for the purposes of
education. We always insisted, in good faith, that the object —
the benevolent object of this government was the education of
the rising generation, and we never conceived that the question
of religion, or no religion, had entered into the minds of those phi-
lanthropic public men who first established this system for the
diffusion of knowledge. We applied, as I have remarked, at dif-
ferent times, to the tribunal to which allusion has been already
made, and did so even till a very recent period, because before
we could apply to the legislature of the State, it was requisite
to comply with the forms prescribed, and that we should be first
rejected by the Common Council of this city, to whom the State
legislature had delegated the discretionary power to be exereised
in the premises. That course was regarded necessary, and we
adopted it. The result was as ive anticipated — denial of our re-
quest — and then it was that we applied to the legislature of the
State — submitted to them the grievances under which we labor-
ed, in the full confidence that there we should find a remedy.
Both before the Common Council and the Senate of this
State, the means, which have been taken to defeat the proper
consideration of our claims, have been such as we could not have
anticipated in a country, where the rights of conscience are re-
cognised as supreme. The test has been put, not as to whether
we were proper subjects for education, but whether we were
Catholics ! And in the course of the examination on which I am
about to enter I shall have occasion to show, that from the be-
ginning to the end, the one objeet of the members of the Public
School Society has been to convince the public, that we were
Catholics, and they, it would appear, calculate as the conse-
quence, that if we were Catholics, then we had no right to obtain
redress, or hope for justice.
In the course of my remarks, I shall be obliged to refer to dis-
tinctions in religion, the introduction of which into the discus-
sion of this question, is ever to be much regretted ; I shall have
to speak of Catholics and of Protestants, and when I do so, let it
be understood, that I do not volunteer in that, but the course pur-
sued by that Public School Society, has imposed upon me the
necessity to refer to these religious distinctions, and in doing so
I trust I shall be found to speak of those who differ from me in
matters of religion with becoming respect. I am not a man of
narrow feelings— I am attached sincerely and conscientiously
to the faith which I profess, but I judge no man for professing
another. In the whole of my intercourse with Protestants, my
conduct has been such they will be ready to acknowledge, in Phi-
ladelphia an* elsewhere, that I am the last man to be accused of
bigotry. But I feel that I should be unworthy of that estimation
— that the denomination to which I belong would be unworthy
of sustaining that position, which they are ambitious to occupy
in the opinion of their fellow-citizens of other creeds, if they
were to submit to the insult added to the injury inflicted on
them by these men. I, for my own part, feel indignant at the recent
attempt made to cast odium upon us, and our cause, and it is be-
cause that turns entirely on the question of religion, that I shall be
obliged to speak of Catholics and of Protestants, and refer to
those distinctions which should never have been introduced.
Before taking up the report of the Secretary of State, I shall
refer briefly to the conclusion of the discussion before the Com-
mon Council. There we had, as you will recollect, legal gentle-
men, and reverend gentlemen, advocates of the Public School
Society, who had studied the question in all its bearings — volun-
teers andassociates, and colleagues on the same side, and through-
out that debate, the ground taken by them was, that if our pe-
tition were granted, favors would be conferred on us as a reli
gious denomination, tending to that -gainst which all the friends
of liberty should guard — a union of church and state. So long
as that idea was honestly entertained by these gentlemen, I could
respect their zeal in opposing us. But that idea has disap-
peared, and yet their opposition has become more inveterate than
ever.
The very last sentence of the speech of Mr. Ketchum before
the Common Council of the City of New York, was a declaration
that this Society, so far from desiring a collision of this kind
with us, were men of peace, to whom even the moral friction of
the debate was quite a punishment — that for them it would be
a relief if our system of education were assimilated in its exter-
nal aspect to that of the State. I will read his own words : —
Now, perhaps the gentleman may ask, if the system is to be changed, that we
should resort to the same course as is pursued in the country, where the people
elect their own commissioners and trustees. But if we do, the schools must be
governed on the same principles as these, and the only difference will be ir the
managers. And it' it is to come to that I am sure these Trustees will be very
willing, lor it is to them a source of great vexation to be compelled to carry on
this controversy for such a period.
They are very unwilling to come here to meet their fellow-citizens in a some-
what hostile manner. They have nothing to gain, for the soeiety is no benefit to
them, and they give days and weeks of their time, without recompense, to the
discharge of the duties of their trust.
I shall not now praise that Society. I have more than once
given my full assent to eulogiums on their zeal and assiduity j
but Mr. Ketchum praises them and they praise themselves, and
at this period of the controversy they are entitled to no praise
from the thousands and thousands of the poor neglected children
of New York, whom their narrow and bigoted views have ex-
cluded from the benefits and blessings of education.
I shall now, before proceeding farther, take up the report of
the Secretary of State, and commence with that portion of it in
which he gives a brief sketch of the origin of this Society : —
" The Public School Society was originally incorporated in 1S05, 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 provided for by
any religious society." In 1808 its name wasalteied to " The Free School Society
of New York ;" and its powers were extended " to all children who are the pro-
per subjects of a gratuitous education." By chap. '2:~> of the laws of 1826 its narrii'
was changed to " Ths Public School Society of New York ;" and the trustees'
were authorised to provide for the education of all children ot' 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 mo-
derate compensation ; but no child to be refused admission on account of inability
to pay.
"Thus by the joint operation of the acts amending the charter of the sociey,
of the statutes in relation to the distribution of the school moneys, and ot the
ordinance of the Common Council, designating the schools of the society as the
principal recipients of those moneys, the control of the public education of the
city of New York, and the disbursement, of nine-tenths of the public moneys
raised and apportioned for schools, were'vested in this corporation. It is a per-
petual corporation, and there is no power reserved by the legislatuie, to repeal or
modify its charter. It consists of members who have contributed to the funds
of the society ; and according to the provisions of the last act, the payment often
dollars constitutes the contributor a member for life. The members annually
choose fifty trustees, who may add to their number fifty more."
He goes on to describe its different acts, by which its name and
other attributes were changed, until from being a Society to take
charge of the children that were not provided for by any religious
society, they came to have the control of the whole system of education
in New- York. The Report informs us, that the members of the
Public School Society are so by virtue of a subscription of ten
dollars — that they elect fifty trustees — that these fifty trustees have a
right to appoint fifty others, and then the number is completed — that
the City Council are members cx-officio, and this will, perhaps, go a
great way in explaining the unwillingness of the Common Council
to grant our petition.
The Society were so constituted, that when we went before the Com-
mon Council, we virtually went before a Committee of the Society.
In this state of things, the Governor of this State, with a patriot-
ism and benevolence that entitle his name to the respect of every
man that has regard for humane feeling and sound and liberal
policy, declared for a system that would afford a good common
education to every child. And though I have never before spoken
in public the name of that distinguished officer of the State, I do
now from my heart award to him my warmest thanks, and those of
the community to which I belong, for the stand he has taken on this
subject. An attempt has been made to victimize him because he
favoured Catholics — he dared to manifest a humane and liberal feel-
ing towards foreigners. He survived that shock however, and a
recent excellent document from him, shewing that he is not any
longer a candidate for public favour, authorizes me to say in this place,
that every man who loves his country and the interests of his race, no
matter what may be his politics, will cordially render the tribute of
esteem and praise to that Governor Seward.
[The Chairman had, on taking his place, requested the meeting to
refrain from interrupting the Right Rev'd. Speaker, or giving any de-
monstrations of applause, but here they could not restrain their feel-
ings, and testified their concurrence in the sentiments of the Bishop
in reference to Governor Seward, by a loud and enthusiastic burst of
applause.]
Governor Seward knew too well, — Bishop Hughes continued, — the
deep seated prejudices of a large portion of the community not to feel,
that he had nothing to gain by being the advocate of justice to Catholics.
But whatever may be that distinguished statesman's future history —
whatever his situation — however much thwarted and opposed, and per-
chance for a moment partially defeated by those who call themselves the
friends of education, it will be glory enough for him to have inscribed
upon his monument, that whilst Governor of New- York, he wished to
have every child of that noble State endowed and adorned in mind
and intellect, and morals, with the blessings of education. (Renewed
cheers.)
When, therefore, we presented, as every oppressed portion of the
10
community has a right to do, our grievances to the honourable Legis-
lature of the State, these gentlemen, who are represented by Mr.
Ketchum through a speech of nine mortal columns — as the humble
almoners of the public charity — these men who are burdened with
their load of official duty, — which they are willing, Mr. Ketchum
says, to put off — pursue us thither with unabated hostility. We sup-
posed that the Public School Society would acquiesce in the justice of
the plan of the Secretary. No! these humble men, all zeal for the
cause of education, enter the halls of legislation with a determined
spirit of opposition to us, which is, perhaps, unparallellcd, considering
the circumstances under which they acted.
One of the most difficult points in treating with these gentlemen,
is to ascertain, in what particular situation, and under what particular
circumstances, their responsibility may be discovered. They are, it
is said, but agents, they are wealthy and powerful — have every advan-
tage in opposing humble petitioners as we are, and with all these ad-
vantages they presented themselves there — not to dispute the justice
of our claims, nor the correctness of the ground on which the honor-
able Secretary placed the question before the Senate, — but to appeal,
even in the minds of Senators, to whatever they might tind there
of prejudice against the Catholic religion, and the foreigner and the
descendants of the foreigner.
One of the documents of which they made use, was published in
the "Journal of Commerce." This question had been in the Society
made the special order of the day for, I think, Friday, the 20th of
May. In the "Journal of Commerce" of the previous day, there
was published a most calumnious article, full of all those tiaditions
against our religion which the minds of the uneducated portion of some
of those denominations inherit, and the Agent of the Public School
|Society sent, as we should understand, to represent justice and truth
between citizens of the same country, is found distributing this paper
all over the desks of the Senators! On that very day it was supposed
that the vote on this very question would be taken, and the agent of the
Public School Society is found supplying the Senators — for I have a
copy of the papers thus furnished, with the member's name written at