PROCEEDINGS 
 
 mi sf 
 
 Ol^ BALTIMORE, 
 
 IN REFERENCE TO THE USE OF THE HISTORY OF 
 MARYLAND IN THE SCHOOLS, 
 
 From September, 1876, to June, 1877. 
 
 BALTIMORE: 
 
 KELLY, PIET & CO., PRINTERS, 
 
 174 W. Baltimore Strkkt. 
 
 1877. 
 
PROCEEDINGS 
 
 %iii of 
 
 '^ 
 
 Ifll 
 
 iMis w^^% 
 
 OF BALTIMORE, 
 
 IN REFERENCE TO THE USE OF THE HISTORY OF 
 MARYLAND IN THE SCHOOLS, 
 
 From September, 1876, to June, 1877. 
 
 BALTIMORE: 
 
 KELLY, PIET & CO., PRINTERS, 
 
 ]74 W. BALTIMORE Street. 
 
 1877. 
 
i^z 
 
OFFICE OF THE 
 
 COMMISSIONERS OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS, 
 
 Baltimore, June 5th, 1877, 
 
 At a meeting of the Board on this date, Mr. Phelps offered 
 the following, which was adopted : 
 
 "Resolved, That the recent proceedings of the Board on the 
 subject of the History of Maryland, including the several re- 
 solutions and reports relating thereto, since September, 1876, 
 be printed for the use of the Board under the direction of the 
 Committee on Printing." 
 
 December 5th, 1876, Mr. Plaskitt offered the following : 
 
 '^Resolved, That a portion of the History of the State of 
 Maryland be read in the Grammar Schools every day, so that 
 the children may learn something of the history of their native 
 State." 
 
 December 12th, the above resolution being under considera- 
 tion, Mr. Plaskitt said : 
 
 Mr. President : — In connection with the resolution which 
 I offered at the last meeting of this Board, the spirit of which 
 seemed to be misapprehended by some of the members, I desire 
 to offer a few words of explanation. As a citizen, and mem- 
 ber of the Board, I have always felt a degree of pride in the 
 history of my native State. I know of no State of our Union 
 whose record is more honorable, and I know of none of which 
 her citizens are less proud. Take Massachusetts, and you will 
 find every man, woman and child, not only familiar with mat- 
 ters of its own history, but lauding to the third heaven 
 everything pertaining to its past, its present, its future. New 
 York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, even little Delaware, and every 
 other State, save Maryland, has a local pride in her history, a 
 faith in her influence and ])restige that puts to blush our lack 
 of a just proclamation to all of our State's merits. 
 
 Let our rising generation be educated as to what our fathers 
 have done, achieved and suffered for, that they may appreciate 
 and honor their lives, and aim to achieve in their day and gen- 
 eration something for which their names may be inscribed 
 upon our roll of honored men, for nothing is more calculated 
 to teach admiration, love and fealty to our institutions than 
 familiarity with them, and at the same ratio of historical neg- 
 
lect in education, it will take but another generation to forget 
 that we ever had a Key, to write the Star Spangled Banner ; 
 a McComas, who saved Baltimore; a six gun battery; a Bla- 
 densburg; a Charles Carroll, of Carrollton ; and the gallant 
 Howard, of Cowpens; and many others of the old Maryland 
 Line who never knew such word as fail ; or even any history 
 Avhatever, and now only preserved in homoeopathic doses. 
 Let whatever little is left be instilled into the youth, and as 
 our State and city may have a great future, let there be incul- 
 cated a respect for home — cherished memories of her past and 
 hopes for her future — for as you intensify the admiration for 
 your State, you foster encouragement for her prosperity and 
 .stimulate to action the elements of her material wealth. 
 
 I therefore trust it will accord with the judgment of this 
 Board to embrace permanently within its schedule of studies 
 this compendium of our State history. 
 
 The resolution was referred to the Committee on Books, on 
 motion of Mr, Bayly. 
 
 December 19th. A communication from John Murphy & 
 Co., on McSherry^s Histot^y of Maryland, was referred to the 
 Committee on Books. 
 
 Same date. Mr. Weatherby offered the following : 
 
 ^'Jiesolved, That the History and Constitution of Maryland 
 be made an examination study in the Public Schools of our 
 City, and that hereafter all candidates for admission to the 
 Female High Schools and Baltimore City College be required 
 to pass a satisfactory examination in them ; and that the 
 teachers in the several schools be notified of this action of the 
 Board ; and that the Book Committee be instructed to furnish 
 such text-books as are provided for in the scliedule." 
 
 Mr. Bayly moved to amend to include also the History and 
 Constitution of the United States. 
 
 The amendment was accepted. 
 
 Mr. Hamel moved that the order shall not go into effect 
 until after the 10th of February next. 
 
 Mr. Bayly moved that the matter be referred to the Com- 
 mittee on Examinations, with instructions to report at the 
 next meeting of the Board. 
 
 The motion was adopted. 
 
 January 2d, 1877. Mr. Hendcrsofi, from the Committee on 
 Examinations, reported the following resolutions. 
 
 (Signed) James A. Henderson, 
 John A. Wright, 
 
 AV^M. P. TONRY, 
 
 H. E. Shepherd. 
 
"Resolved, That the History of Maryland and the History 
 of the United States be placed on tlie list of studies required 
 for the examination of applicants for the position of Second 
 Assistants in Primary and Grammar Schools. 
 
 "JResoIved, That this committee recommend the adoption of 
 the resolution of this Board of December 19th, in reference to 
 History, with the amendment that the time now given to 
 Algebra be given to History, and that History be made an 
 examination study only in the first grade of the Male Grammar 
 Schools, and that it be read in the other grades referred to in 
 the 128 of the Rules of Order of this Board." • 
 
 Laid over under the rule. 
 
 Same date. Mr. Poe offered the following: 
 
 "Hesolved, That the report of the Committee on Examina- 
 tions, presented this evening, be made the special order for 
 Tuesday, 16th instant." Adopted. 
 
 January IGth, 1877. Mr. Phelps presented communication 
 from Mr. J. T. Scharf and Turnbull Bros., proposing to pub- 
 lish a History of Maryland, &c., which was referred to the 
 Committee on Books. 
 
 Same date. The resolutions, on the study of History, offered 
 ■by the Committee on Examinations, January 2d, were taken up. 
 
 Mr. Phelps offered the following proviso to be annexed to 
 the second resolution. 
 
 " Provided that the compendium of the History of Mary- 
 land now on the list be and is hereby referred to the Commit- 
 tee on Text-Books for examination as to whether the same 
 substantially complies with the requirements of the Act of 
 1872, chapter 377, providing that text-books shall contain 
 nothing of a sectarian or partisan character, and that until the 
 report of said committee shall have been acted upon by the 
 Board, the use of said compendium shall not be considered as 
 made obligatory by the above resolution." 
 
 Mr. Weatherby offered the following as a substitute : 
 
 ^' Resolved, That the History of Maryland be made an 
 exercise study for at least one period in every week in all of 
 the several grades of the Grammar Schools." 
 
 A division of the question was called for and ordered. 
 
 The question recurring on the first resolution, it was adopted. 
 
 After some discussion, indicating a misunderstanding on the 
 part of some of the members concerning the wording of the 
 second resolution, on motion of Mr. Poe the matter was re- 
 committed. 
 
 January 23d. Mr. Henderson, from the Committee on 
 Examinations, submitted the following report : 
 
6 
 
 *' The Comnnttee on Examinations, to whom was referred 
 the subject of tlie study of history m our schools, begs leave 
 to present the following resolutions as its report: 
 
 *' Resolved, That the History and Constitution of Maryland 
 be made an examination study in the first grade, and be read 
 in the second grade of the Male Grammar Schools, and that 
 the time now given to Algebra in these two grades be given to 
 History. 
 
 " Rcsoh-ed, That the History of Maryland be read in the 
 first and second grades of the Female Grammar Schools. 
 
 "Resolved, That the Committee declines to recommend any 
 Text Book, believing that matter to belong more properly to 
 the Committee on Books. 
 
 "Resolved, That the committee be discharged from the 
 further consideration of the subject. 
 
 " (Signed) James A. Henderson, 
 " Wm. p. Tonry." 
 
 Same date. Mr. Wright also submitted the following report 
 on the subject : 
 
 Report of the Committee on Examinations. 
 
 " Resolved, That the History of Maryland be read three 
 times a week in the first and second grades of the Male and 
 Female Grammar Schools, accompanied and illustrated by 
 comments and explanations. 
 
 "Resolved, That in the judgment of this committee the 
 
 removal of Algebra from the Grammar School curriculum, 
 
 and the substitution of History as an examination study would 
 
 be inexpedient and positively injurious to the Grammar Schools. 
 
 " (Signed) Jno. A. Wright, 
 
 Henry E. Shepherd, 
 Henry A. Wise, 
 Jno. T. Morris." 
 
 Both reports were laid over under the rule. 
 
 January 30th. Mr. Hamel submitted the following report : 
 
 " To the President and Board of Comm'rs of Public Schools : 
 
 "The Committee on Text Books, to whom was referred the 
 resolution offered by the member from the. Ninth Ward look- 
 ing to the reading of the History of Maryland daily in the 
 Grammar Schools, beg leave to report adversely to the resolution. 
 " Inasmuch as the subject has already been reported upon 
 by the Committee on Examinations, and will be called u^) for 
 
action this evening, the committee ask to be discharged from 
 the further consideration of the subject. 
 " Respectfully submitted. 
 
 " (Signed) Geo. L. Hamel, 
 Jno. p. Foe, 
 Chas. E. Phelps, 
 Jno. T. Morris. 
 
 "Resolved, That the committee be discharged from the 
 further consideration of the report." 
 
 Report accepted and resolution adopted. 
 
 Same date. The reports submitted by the Committee on 
 Examinations at the last meeting relating to the History of 
 Maryland were taken np. (See page ) 
 
 Mr. moved that the report, signed by four members 
 
 of the committee, be adopted. 
 
 ' Mr. Phelps moved to amend by annexing to the first reso- 
 lution of said report the proviso offered by him January 16tii. 
 {See page ) 
 
 Mr. Tonry called for a division of the question that the vote 
 on the proviso be taken separately, and it was so ordered. 
 
 The question was called on the adoption of the proviso, and 
 it was adopted. 
 
 After some discussion Mr. Hamel called the previous ques- 
 tion, and the call was sustained. 
 
 The question then recurred on the adoption of the resolutions 
 of the report above mentioned, and they were adopted. 
 
 February 20th. A communication from Messrs. Onderdonk 
 and Murphy concerning the History of Maryland was, on 
 motion of Mr. Plaskitt, referred to the Committee on Books, 
 with instructions to report at the next meeting of the Board. 
 
 February 27th. Mr. Hamel from Committee on Books 
 reported progress on the matter referred to them, and would 
 be prepared to report at the next meeting of the Board. 
 
 March 6th. Mr. Hamel from the Committee on Books 
 submitted the following report: 
 
 The Committee on Text-Books to whom was referred the 
 compendium, entitled "A liistori/ of Maryland, upon the basis 
 of McSherry, from its settlement to 1867, with illustrations, &c., 
 for the use of schools, by Henry Onderdonk, A. M.,'^ published 
 by John Murphy & Co., with instructions to inquire and report 
 whether the same is in conformity with the Act of 1872, chap- 
 ter 377, which confers power upon the Board of Commissioners 
 of Public Schools of Baltimore City, " to select text-books for 
 the schools of said city; provided such text-books shall con- 
 
8 
 
 tain nothing of a sectarian or partisan character," respectfully 
 report : 
 
 That after a careful examination of the work, particularly 
 that portion of it from chapters 26 to 35, inclusive, of the 
 edition of 1872, which in its present form has never been 
 adopted by the Board, the committee lind that the compendium 
 in question does contain, in that part of it referred to, matter 
 of a partisan character within the letter and spirit of the Act 
 of 1872, chapter 377, and that the former edition of 1868, in 
 that part of it from page 243 to page 251, inclusive, is open to 
 the same objection. 
 
 The committee further state that, when the edition of 1868 
 was under consideration by a former Board, its admission was 
 objected to upon the ground now stated and other grounds, and 
 after considerable controversy the work was admitted by a 
 vote of less than a majority of the Board. 
 
 Another work, covering in a measure the same ground, was 
 about the same time admitted into competition with it, and 
 after a brief struggle, Creery's Catechism of History almost 
 entirely superseded Onderdonk's Compendium, which, although 
 nominally (the edition of 1868) on the list of books, has been 
 for some years disused in the schools. Experience has proved 
 that while the work was used in the schools, its effect was to 
 stir up political dissensions among the pupils, and cause dis- 
 satisfaction to numbers of their parents and friends. 
 
 Since this subject has been pending before the committee, 
 two communications have been referred to it, one from Col. 
 Scharf, author of the Chronicles of Baltimore, offering for 
 adoption a History of Maryland now in preparation by him, 
 under the patronage of the Legislature of the State, and one 
 from Mr. Onderdonk and Mr. Murphy jointly, offering to re- 
 vise the Compendium in question, and issue a new edition for 
 the use of the schools. 
 
 The committee arc of opinion that it would be premature 
 and inexpedient to attempt to decide in advance between the 
 two contemplated publications, and that such decision can only 
 be properly made when they shall have been so far advanced 
 towards completion as to enable an intelligent judgment to be 
 l)assed upon their comparative merits. 
 
 Respectfully submitted, Geo. L. Hamel, 
 
 John P. Poe, 
 Ch. E. Phelps, 
 John T. Morris, 
 Henry E. Shepherd, 
 Wm. p. Tonry. 
 
9 
 
 Resolved, That the Committee on Text-Books be and they 
 are hereby authorized to take such steps as in their judgment 
 may be necessary to secure the presentation to the Board at 
 the earliest moment,- of a School History of Maryland, which 
 will be in conformity with the provisions of the Act of 1872, 
 chapter 377, and be suitable in other respects for use in our 
 Public Schools. 
 
 Same date. Mr. Phelps presented the following : 
 The undersigned minority of the Committee on Text Books, 
 to whom was referred the Compendium entitled "J. History of 
 Maryland, upon the basis of McSherry from its settlement to 
 1867, with illustrations, &c,, for the use of schools, by Henry 
 Onderdonk, A. M ," published by John Murphy & Co., with 
 instructions to inquire and report whether the same substan- 
 tially complies with the Act of 1872, chapter 377, agreeing in 
 the main with the conclusions reported by the majority of the 
 committee, respectfully reports the following as the reasons 
 which have led him to concur in those conclusions : 
 
 The public school system exists for the equal benefit of all. 
 It is supported by taxation, levied indiscriminately upon citi- 
 zens of all classes, creeds, and parties in the community. 
 Hence, all citizens of all schools of opinion upon controverted 
 subjects are equally entitled to participate in its benefits, with- 
 out priority or preference, without invidious distinctions, and 
 without partiality towards, or prejudice against, any class or 
 party of law-abiding citizens in the community. 
 
 The Act of 1872, ch. 377, confers power upon the Board of 
 Commissioners of Public Schools of Baltimore City "to select 
 text-books for the schools of said city, provided such text- 
 books shall contain nothing of a sectarian or partisan character." 
 
 Chapter 16, Sec. 2. The plain language of the statute set- 
 tles beyond all doubt the following propositions : 
 
 1. The power of the Board to select books is conditioned 
 upon the selection of a certain class of books, namely — those 
 which contain nothing of the character indicated; so that the 
 selection of any book which does not belong to this class is an 
 unlaivful exercise of power. 
 
 2. The law does not contemplate that a book, in order to be 
 excluded from the power of selection by the Board, should be 
 both sectarian and partisan. It is enough if it be either the 
 one or the other. 
 
 3. The law docs not mean that such a book should be obnox- 
 ious throughout its entire contents to be excluded. It is 
 
10 
 
 enough if the book 13 found to contain anythhig which may 
 reasonably be characterized as either sectarian or partisan. 
 
 As to the definition of these terras there can be no mistake. 
 The only difficulty is in the application of them to any par- 
 ticular subject matter. 
 
 Generally speaking, all will admit that a book contains sec- 
 tarian or partisan matter when it uses language which evinces 
 a manifest bias towards, or prejudice against, any particular 
 school of controverted religious or political opinion. 
 
 It so happens, however, that there are no subjects of general 
 concern so peculiarly calculated to arouse human feelings, enlist 
 sympathies, excite passions, and awaken prejudices, as questions 
 connected with religion and politics. 
 
 Hence, it is often found difficult to get two men of equal 
 intelligence, but of discordant creeds or hostile parties, to 
 agree in pronouncing a given proposition to be either sectarian 
 or partisan, when that proposition entirely accords with the 
 pecular sentiments of one of them. Persons under the influ- 
 ence of these feelings are often absolutely unable to perceive 
 that which to all others may be perfectly apparent. There is 
 nothing more common in such cases than the almost uncon- 
 scious resort to a species of fallacy known as the irrelevant 
 conclusion. The individual denies that the proposition is 
 sectarian, for instance, because it is true, or he denies that it is 
 partisan because it is true, whereas the abstract truth or falsity 
 of the given proposition is not the question at issue, but sim- 
 ply this, whether the proposition in question, be it true or 
 false, is not a proposition which embodies some distinctive 
 dogma of a theological school, or some distinctive principle of 
 a political party. It may be taken for granted that all relig- 
 ious professors or adherents of party implicitly receive as 
 unimpeachable truths the distinctive dogmas or principles 
 which are the symbols of the faith or the badges of the cause 
 to which they respectively adhere. It is exactly at the points 
 where these dogmas or these principles conflict that sectarian- 
 ism and partisanship come in. Hence, it is clearly not a 
 satisfactory defence against the charge of sectarianism or par- 
 tisanship to allege that the matter in question is true, when 
 the truth of the matter is the very point at issue between con- 
 flicting sects or factions. The defence, to be an adequate one, 
 must go one step farther, and be able to show that not only is 
 the matter in question true, but its truth is universally, or at 
 least generally, conceded by all classes of the community, 
 without distinction of sect or party. 
 
11 
 
 It will be observed that the foregoing principles are appli- 
 cable only to simple propositions, or isolated statements of a 
 distinct single fact or opinion. But inasmuch as every writing 
 professing an historical character is designed to produce a series 
 of effects or impressions upon the mind of the reader, and as 
 each of these impressions is in turn created by the aggregate 
 etiect as a whole of a series of facts or statements connected 
 together by some definite and preconceived plan of selection 
 and arrangement existing in the author's mind, the question of 
 bias as respects such a writing is obviously not limited -to the 
 consideration of each individual fact or statement of the series, 
 as so many distinct and isolated propositions, but extends to 
 the whole drift and tenor of the completed narration, to the 
 impression evidently sought to be produced by it as a whole, 
 and to the tone and coloring imparted to it by means of the 
 important processes of selection, omission and arrangement. 
 
 That this is true, must be apparent from the office and func- 
 tion of history, which is to marshal tlie procession of events 
 not only in the order of time, but in the order of importance, 
 and to discriminate between events and circumstances which 
 are important, and those which are trivial and insignificant. 
 Obviously, the historian must absolutely reject a vast mass of 
 detail in respect to which, however, the public may be said in 
 some sense to have an interest. These form the material for 
 history, and in the selection and arrangement of his material 
 begins the office of the historian, and with selection and 
 arrangement it may also be said to end, for with the mere 
 matter of style we are not concerned. 
 
 But selection and arrangement imply a preconceived plan or 
 method, a principle and a jjurpose, existing in the mind of the 
 author. The method may be judicial or it may be forensic. 
 If the method be one of cold, severe, judicial indifference, and 
 be worked out consistently and with intelligence, the result 
 will be an impartial history. If the method be forensic, that is, 
 with the intent to array evidence in support of a tiieory or of 
 a cause, the result cannot possibly be an impartial history, but 
 must of necessity be a biased document. And this will be 
 none the less true, notwithstanding the fact that each and every 
 item of the mass of evidence so arrayed may be absolutely and 
 independently true. It may not contain the whole truth. It 
 presents but a part of the case. The otlier side has yet to be 
 heard. 
 
 To determine, therefore, whether a given historical writing 
 is an impartial or a one-sided history, reference must be made 
 
12 
 
 not only to what it contains, but to what it omits. The ques- 
 tion is, upon what principle has the author selected out of a 
 mass of iacts some particular facts and rejected others. If 
 upon inspection of the rejected facts they appear to be of that 
 trivial and insignificant character which manifestly does not 
 deserve preservation, then the silence of the book respecting 
 them will be a justifiable omission, and not a suppression. 
 
 But, if, on the other hand, upon looking outside the work^ 
 it is discovered that testimony has been omitted which includes 
 a considerable number of circumstances quite as prominent 
 and characteristic as many of those inserted, and the essential 
 character of the omitted facts is to qualify or supplement the 
 recorded facts, and that to such a degree that a fair impression 
 of the whole case cannot be made in their absence, then you at 
 once detect in this discovery one of the most infallible proofs 
 of bias in the writer. He is found availing himself of the his- 
 torian's privilege of selection in order to make up a brief. His 
 idea of a prominent fact is found to be a fact that makes for 
 his side, and a fact that makes against his side is to him an 
 insignificant fact. 
 
 When facts are too notorious to be easily suppressed, much 
 the same effect may be produced by judicious arrangement. 
 
 Arrangement is to history what perspective is to the graphic 
 art. The prominent events and characters are brought to the 
 front and centre, the subordinate events and characters are 
 grouped around the leading ones, or shaded off* into the back- 
 ground. A biased writer may thus include every incident of 
 any moment, and may yet so contrive to bring every fact that 
 supports his favorite theory into the foreground in bold relief, 
 and every fact that makes against it into the background or in 
 the shade, as to create the impression he desires. There is in 
 a French picture gallery a piece professing to represent the 
 surrender of Cornwallis, which makes the Count Rochambeau 
 the principal figure. Washington is there, but he is assigned 
 a subordinate position. An effect precisely similar may be, 
 and often is, produced by a like judicious arrangement by the 
 partial historian. 
 
 In writings professedly argumentative or controversial, there 
 is of course no attempt to disguise the prepossession of the 
 writer. His position as an advocate is perfectly understood 
 from the outset, he makes no professions, either express or 
 tacit, of judicial indifference, and his arguments are addressed 
 to a tribunal or to a public equally accessible to the opposing 
 champions, and supposed to be perfectly competent to make all 
 
13 
 
 necessary allowances for the known bias of eitlipr, and to decide 
 the points at issue between them upon the merits of the whole 
 <!ase, and the just balance of all the testimony adduced on both 
 sides. 
 
 On the other hand, a writing professing to be a history, and 
 particularly such a compendium as to be adapted to the use of 
 schools, if })repared for the purpose of advocating a cause, 
 whether that be the main object or merely incidental, will of 
 necessity avoid all direct professions of partisanship, and dis- 
 guise or attempt to disguise party spirit under an appearance 
 of candor, and this even without intentional bad faith on the 
 part of the zealous writer, who is himself probably the person 
 first imposed upon by the device. So far from being a lit- 
 erary phenomenon, nothing in literature is more common than 
 a decided bias in a professedly impartial work, veiled under a 
 thin gauze of candor. 
 
 The author of the essay on the " Conduct of the Under- 
 standing" says : 
 
 "It is very hard to meet with any discourse wherein one 
 may not perceive the author not only maintain (for that is rea- 
 sonable and fit), but inclined and biased to one side of the 
 question, with marks of a desire that that should be true." 
 
 And then, after exposing some of the devices resorted to in 
 such cases, he adds : 
 
 " This is plain and direct sophistry, but I am far from think- 
 ing that wherever it is found it is made use of with design to 
 deceive and mislead the reader. It is visible that men's pre- 
 judices and inclinations by this way impose often upon them- 
 selves, and their affection for truth, under their })repossession, 
 in favor of one side, is the very thing that leads them from it." 
 
 Before proceeding to apply the foregoing principles to the 
 particular book, it is necessary to settle a preliminary question, 
 and that is, whether the principle of the Constitutional right 
 of a State to withdraw from the Union, or in other words, the 
 doctrine of secession, is a partisan doctrine within the terms 
 and meaning of the act of 1872, ch. 377. It will then be 
 considered whether the work necessarily inculcates that doc- 
 trine. 
 
 The question, it will be observed, is not whether the doctrine 
 of secession be correct or not as an abstract constitutional ques- 
 tion, either at the present or at any former time. Upon that 
 question, men may honestly diilcr now, as they have differed 
 heretofore, without reference to the issue now made, which is 
 simply whether the doctrine of the right of secession is or is 
 
14 
 
 not in the sense of the law a distinctively partisan doctrine. 
 It it important that this distinction be kept closely in sight, 
 since upon it the whole question will turn. 
 
 Nor is it necessary for any purpose now in view to consider 
 the question in its sectional aspect, as one upon which parties 
 have in the past been arrayed geographically, or to decide 
 whether in the meaning of the law, a principle becomes any 
 the less partisan because also sectional. So far as concerns the 
 subject in hand, the range of observation may be limited to 
 the City of Baltimore, or perhaps extended to the State of 
 Maryland. And properly so, in any view of the case, since, 
 even regarding the question in its sectional aspect, the line 
 which divided the sections did not run outside of this City and 
 State, but ran directly through the heart of both. In fact the 
 line of separation, in its passage through this community, ceased 
 to be a physical, territorial line, and became in the strictest 
 sense political, dividing not only parties, but rupturing churches, 
 society and even families. 
 
 If the doctrine of secession had been held in common by all 
 classes of the tax paying community which supports the public 
 school system, then the question whether it would be lawful 
 and right to inculcate that doctrine through the agency of that 
 system, would be an altogether different question from that 
 now presented. 
 
 But if the principle were advocated by one party of that 
 community and opposed by another, then the principle wa& 
 distinctively partisan within the meaning of the law, and any 
 text-book found to inculcate it is an unlawful text-book in the 
 Public Schools of Baltimore. 
 
 As a matter of fact, it is sufficiently notorious that during 
 the entire period of the civil war this community was divided 
 in sentiment upon that identical issue. Old party lines were 
 for the time obliterated, all other issues forgotten, and the two 
 great parties which confronted each other in this city and 
 throughout the State, were the parties which affirmed on the 
 one side and denied on the other the validity of the very doe- 
 trine in question. 
 
 Parties were thus divided not only in point of opinion, as- 
 to the right or wrong of secession as a question of law, but 
 upon nearly all essential matters of fact connected with it.. 
 They differed upon even the fundamental facts which were 
 averred in justification or in condemnation of it. There wasf 
 the like difference in this State as to the numbers of people 
 who respectively took sides upon these questions. Each party 
 
15 
 
 claimed that it was tiic jieoplc. There was also a difference 
 of opinion upon each military or political transaction as it 
 occurred. One party denounced as an outrage what the other 
 party applauded as an act of self-defence. And up to the pre- 
 sent time, no tribunal has been clothed with jurisdiction to 
 settle these disputes as between these parties. They still re- 
 main open and controverted questions. In one sense, the mere 
 result of the war may be said to have determined the main 
 question practically. But the result of the M'ar could not 
 change the minds of men upon a question of constitutional 
 law, or upon a question of fact, or upon a question of mixed 
 fact and opinion upon any matter arising during the contest. 
 
 Men differ upon many of these questions to-day just as 
 radically as they differed at the time they were fresh and liv- 
 ing issues. 
 
 Whoever stirs up these controverted questions, brushes off 
 the dust now beginning to settle over them, revives the emo- 
 tions that belonged to them, still lingering in the memories of 
 V he men who acted, fought, sympathized or suffered, and does this 
 Avith the spirit of a zealot, may be sure of exciting in others 
 the same spirit, and will again array against each other in the 
 attitude of useless and senseless controversy men who, from 
 the change of times and issues, are no longer really hostile, 
 and who may be to-day working harmoniously together under 
 a common name for common objects. 
 
 And such an agitation at the present day will not simply 
 be a useless and senseless controversy, but positively mischiev- 
 ous, as fanning into flame the smouldering embers of civil 
 strife, provoking mutual crimination and recrimination, tear- 
 ing open wounds now well nigh healed, but still sore and 
 tender, and, worse than all, perpetuating those embittered and 
 rancorous resentments under cover of which incendiaries scatter 
 their fire-brands, demagogues make their most dangerous ex- 
 periments upon the peace of society, and corrupt men rob the 
 public, and by means of which good and true men find their 
 efforts in the direction of fraternal reconciliation and public 
 honesty continually thwarted and baffled. 
 
 Mischiefs such as these the law has wisely endeavored to 
 guard against by enacting its prohibition against the introduc- 
 tion into the public schools of any writings whose tendency is 
 to make those schools seminaries of political agitation. The 
 law contemplates a public education of youth absolutely free 
 from any attempt to control political as well as religious pro- 
 
16 
 
 clivities. The children are left to find their political bias 
 where they get their sectarian training at — home. 
 
 Tested by these principles, it may be regarded as too clear 
 for controversy, that the abstract question of the right of seces- 
 sion, and the entire class of controverted questions of opinion, 
 law and fact, connected with it, are essentially and distinctively 
 partisan, within the letter and spirit of the law. The fact that 
 the principle of secession is no longer professed as such by any 
 existing party, either State or national, can hardly be relied on 
 to relieve the principle of its partisan character in any sense 
 requisite to justify under the law its inculcation through the 
 agency of the public school system. 
 
 After once determining upon the character of the principles 
 applicable to the inquiry directed by the Board, it is not diffi- 
 cult to apply those principles to the work in question, and 
 particularly to the concluding chapters 26 to 35, inclusive, 
 covering the entire period of the civil war. 
 
 On page 226, Sec. 2 of Ch. 26, the "right of separation 
 from the Union" is first brought into notice as a right which 
 had been " asserted and exercised," the fundamental facts 
 claimed in its vindication are forcibly presented, and no refer- 
 erence is made to any denial of those facts or counter-state- 
 ments. 
 
 In the next section (3), what the author calls " Northern 
 views," are professed to be given, but upon inspection they 
 will be found to bear exclusively upon the question of consti- 
 tutional km, without reference to any of the controverted /rtcfe 
 in the case. 
 
 It will thus be seen that a strong point is made at the outset 
 in behalf of the cause which the author is observed to be 
 already making his own, and in Sec. 4, page 227, authority is 
 referred to in order to sustain it. 
 
 In Sec. 5, by means of a pathetic and glowing diction, the 
 cause is painted in attractive colors, and impressively com- 
 mended to the interest and sympathy of the young. 
 
 In Sees. 6 and 7, the antagonistic cause is inadequately pre- 
 sented, a series of facts and circumstances necessary to its 
 comprehension omitted, and in this deformed shape it is pre- 
 sented to excite the aversion and prejudice of the young. 
 
 In Sec. 8, the writer assumes a controverted fact, and thus 
 unequivocally places himself upon one side of the controversy. 
 That the actual figures are given in a subsequent chapter (Ch. 
 30, Sec. 5, page 257) from which (and also from Sec. 16 on 
 page 268) a careful student might draw an inference inconsis- 
 
17 
 
 tent with the assumption in question, only shows judicious 
 arrangement. The impression made by Sec. 8, page 228, is 
 distinct and complete in itself, that the people of Maryland 
 were from the first identified with the cause of secession. 
 
 In Sec. 9, " invasion " is the term applied to the anticipated 
 arrival of the "Northern forces." If it be said that the 
 writer in this section is considering a merely hypothetical case, 
 contingent upon the contemplated secession of the State, it 
 will appear by reference to Sec. 29 on page 236, and Sec. 13 
 on page 274, that the terms "invaders" and "aliens " are used 
 to characterize the Union forces when actually present. 
 
 In Sec. 10, the doctrine of secession is distinctly presented 
 as a " natural and constitutional right," and " the people of 
 this State," without any exception, represented as believing it. 
 
 In Sec. 11, the exception to the unqualified terms of Sec. 10 
 is separated from the main proposition which it should have 
 accompanied and qualified, and assigned an inferior position. 
 With respect to this exception, it is to be noted — 1st, That it 
 is itself an assumption of a controverted fact, and open to the 
 same observations already made on Sec. 8. 2d, That it is 
 couched in such language as to make the attitude of the " not 
 inconsiderable minority" appear odious and offensive, in con- 
 nection with the impression in favor of secession already made 
 by the language of the previous sections. 
 
 Section 12 is candid and fair down to the last sentence, 
 which broadly claims the city of Baltimore, together with the 
 southern counties, as a unit in favor of the initial movement 
 towards secession. 
 
 In Sec. 28, as well as in the sections intervening between 12 
 and 28, the people of Baltimore without exception are identi- 
 fied with the riot of the 19th April, 1861. 
 
 The same section (28) is also remarkable for the oblique, 
 but emphatic manner in which the writer again distinctly in- 
 culcates the doctrine of secession as a "sovereign right," and 
 arraigns the "Acts of the Federal Government " as aggressive, 
 tyrannical and a usurpation of power subversive alike to politi- 
 cal and personal liberty. 
 
 The concluding paragraph of the section shows an effort, 
 doubtless sincere, on the part of the writer, to maintain his 
 balance by dealing candidly with "each side," but as he con- 
 fined his view exclusively to the legal aspect of the case, this 
 paragraph is open to the same observation already made in 
 section 3. 
 
18 
 
 In Sec. 29, the doctrine of secession is again distinctly incul- 
 cated, and the people of Maryland generally again claimed in 
 its support. 
 
 Assuming to pronounce the verdict of tiie State, the author 
 in its name charges the purpose of the Government to be one 
 of "subjugation and conquest," and denounces the Government 
 troops in sensational language which to the minds of school 
 children can convey no idea but that those troops were mur- 
 derers. 
 
 The impression distinctly aimed to be produced upon the 
 young mind by the whole chapter, may bo thus summed up: 
 
 1. Secession was a constitutional right. 
 
 2. The people of Maryland advocated it. 
 
 3. They were only kept from exercising it by fear of danger. 
 Incredible as it may seem, the succeeding chapters contain 
 
 nothing to show that if secession was a constitutional right in 
 1861, it is not equally constitutional now. So far as the book 
 teaches anything, it teaches the doctrine of secession as a pre- 
 sent subsisting constitutional right, and as such commends it 
 to the belief and adoption of the pupils in the Public Schools. 
 The only cause to the contrary shown is in the text of the 
 present Constitution of Maryland printed bodily in the Appen- 
 dix, and the special reference to the 2d article of the Declara- 
 tion of Rights in Sec. 15, on p. 286, taken in connection with 
 the views expressed in Sec. 5, pp. 276-7, indicates that in the 
 mind of the author the right of secession, even under the Con- 
 stitution of 1867, is still an open question in this State. 
 
 It will scarcely be deemed necessary to canvass separately 
 each section of the succeeding chapters. They are throughout 
 consistent with the one already reviewed, in tone, spirit, color- 
 ing and effect. A broad foundation having been laid by estab- 
 lishing the constitutional right of secession as a question of law, 
 and the advocacy of it by the people of Maryland as a question 
 of fact, each step in the struggle for power or existence is 
 treated from that stand-point exclusively. 
 
 The aim and effort of these chapters is an arraignment of the 
 Government and of the party which supported it, at the bar 
 of the Public Schools. 
 
 It has been claimed in vindication of the work that the 
 facts it contains are true. 
 
 The answer to this is, that the material facts it omits are 
 also true, and a book which gives only the facts of one side is 
 a one-sided book. 
 
 It is characteristic of all wars, and especially of all civil wars, 
 
19 
 
 that the case of either party consists mainly in an accusation 
 of the opposite party. 
 
 As both parties are made up of individuals who are fallible 
 because human, it rarely happens that all the right is on one 
 side and all the wrong on the other. It is usually the 
 case in such quarrels that the right and wrong of the con- 
 troversy are mixed, so mixed indeed that honest and well- 
 meaning people are often very much perplexed to decide 
 between them, as unable to determine upon which side the 
 balance of right or wrong preponderates. 
 
 The most cursory perusal of the history of the civil war as 
 told in the book now in question, discloses a case altogether 
 unprecedented and anomalous, of a civil war in which all the 
 right was on one side and only unmixed wrong on the other. 
 Not only so, but it discloses a case of a war in which the 
 party represented as aggressive did not even pretend to prefer 
 any charge or accusation against the other, excepting only that 
 of the lawful exercise of a constitutional right upon valid, and, 
 so far as appears, conceded grounds in point of fact. 
 
 In the author's treatment of the party opposed to him and 
 of the Union officers and soldiers, especially those of Mary- 
 laud, the evidences of bias are perhaps more numerous and 
 striking than in any other part of the work. It is here that 
 the historian's privilege of selection, omission and arrangement 
 has been availed of most liberally to instil prejudice, and to 
 accomplish this end many important facts, material to the 
 truth of history, have been either slighted or actually sup- 
 pressed. 
 
 Proofs and illustrations of this will at once occur to any 
 well-informed reader of the book. Some of the more striking 
 instances will be selected. 
 
 The reputation of Reverdy Johnson as a jurist and states- 
 man may be said not to need the endorsement of this work to 
 perpetuate his memory with the bar and people of Maryland. 
 But to the children of our Public Schools who are given this 
 work to learn as containing all that is deemed of importance 
 for them to know about the public men of our State, and 
 whose memory it seeks to burden with a large number of 
 names as figuring in Maryland history, more or less distin- 
 guished or obscure, it seems hardly fiiir that they should have 
 wholly kept from them the fact that such a man as Reverdy 
 Johnson ever existed, to shed lustre upon the bar of his native 
 State, and after representing her in the National Senate and 
 Cabinet to accept a seat in the lower house of her Legislature 
 
20 
 
 in a time of public emergency. Incredible as it may seem, 
 however, the name of Reverdy Johnson is never once so 
 much us mentioned, whether as lawyer, Attorney General, 
 Senator, or Foreign Minister, in a book which professes to 
 teach the Public Schools all that is worth knowing of the con- 
 spicuous characters of Maryland history, and which has 
 immortalized the names of " Messrs. Yellott, of Baltimore 
 City; Lynch, of Baltimore County;" " Thos. H. Gardner, 
 Clerk of the Criminal Court ; Col. Thomas R. Rich, aid to 
 the Governor ; Alfred Evans and Thomas Sewell." Pp. 249, 
 262. 
 
 By joint resolution of the General Assembly of Maryland 
 in 1849, the thanks of his native State were tendered to Major 
 John R. Kenly, " for distinguished gallantry displayed in the 
 field during the recent war with Mexico," and by joint resolu- 
 tion passed in 1862, the thanks of the State were again 
 tendered to General Kenly for "his early, prompt and distin- 
 guished services in the cause of his country." 
 
 It will scarcely be believed, even after what has already 
 been said, that the officer whose military record had thus been 
 made the property of the State, has been virtually cashiered 
 by a political opponent in the name of History, his name sup- 
 pressed in that connection in whicli it was entitled to appear 
 with honor (see Sec. 20, p. 220), and a mere incident of his 
 later military career in obedience to orders singled out for the 
 evident purpose of holding him up to the odium which the 
 writer has studiously thrown around the position of the Federal 
 Provost Marshal. (Sec. 6, p. 252 ; Sec. 10, p. 254.) 
 
 In Sec. 10, p. 260, a handsome and well-merited compliment 
 is offered to the soldierly qualities of the Confederate army 
 which followed General Lee into Maryland, in September, 
 1862, the words of commendation being quoted from and credi- 
 ted to a Northern source, ending as follows : " If enduring 
 great hardships without a murmur, and most bravely and 
 heroically fighting, are evidences of good soldiers, seldom has 
 the world witnessed better than those who composed the army 
 of General Lee." 
 
 No exception can be taken to this tribute, either on the 
 ground of truth or propriety. An impartial historian, how- 
 ever, would be found doing equal justice to both sides. He 
 ^youl(l not, at least, while taking proper occasion to laud one 
 side, embrace every opportunity to disparage the other. The 
 idea of the Union officers and soldiers, and especially those of 
 Maryland, which this book offers to the children is very much 
 
21 
 
 the same as the impression which would be conveyed of the 
 Southern army by a prejudiced writer, who should ignore its 
 field record entirely, and detail minutely the transactions of 
 home guards and provost marshals in the rear. 
 
 See Sec. 26, p. 235, Sec. 29, p. 236, Sec. 3, p. 256, Sec. 6, 
 p. 257, Sec. 14, p. 268, Sec. 18, p. 269. 
 
 It is in fact one of the remarkable features of this work that 
 it takes no notice whatever of the part enacted on the theatre 
 of actual war by the soldiers of Maryland on either side. It 
 is nowhere so much as mentioned that Maryland was repre- 
 sented on any named field of battle, either under the stars and 
 stripes or the stars and bars. In thus ignoring the military 
 record made for Maryland by her sons under both the oppo- 
 sing flags, the writer may be said to have impartially sup- 
 pressed them all. But the book could have been easily 
 enlivened by many spirited touches of real history and a 
 more healthy and invigorating tone imparted to it, if the young 
 minds for whom it is designed had been sometimes relieved 
 from contemplating the envenomed feuds of factions chafing 
 against each other in civil strife, and inspired with something of 
 the devotion which actuated those sons of the State who lost or 
 hazarded life and limb for the sake of principle upon opposite 
 sides in the most colossal civil war recorded in history. 
 
 Upon ordinary principles of interpretation, which require 
 that the meaning of a passage should be gathered from the 
 whole context taken together, the language used in Sec. 6, p. 
 49, is susceptible of a construction which would place Jews and 
 Unitarians outside the pale of religious toleration. If such was 
 not the intention of the author, the language should be so mod- 
 ified as to exclude tlie construction indicated. 
 
 The main objection, however, on the score of sectarianism, 
 refers to Sec. 3, p. 25, Sec. 16, p. 29, and Sec. 21, p. 31, and 
 rather to what is omitted than to what is stated. In wholly 
 keeping out of view the point made by McMahon in his His- 
 tory of Maryland, pp. 243, 244, a biased view is presented, 
 unfairly discriminating in favor of one sect as against all 
 others ; an impression strengthened by the allusions in Sec. 3, 
 p. 14, Sec. 3, p. 25, Sec. 21, p. 31, and Sees. 4, 5 and 6, p. 65. 
 
 6th March, 1877. Ch. E. Tiielps. 
 
 The majority report was accepted and resolution adopted. 
 
 March 27th. Mr. Griffith ofi'cred a resolution looldng to 
 the reading of the History of Maryland in the schools. 
 
 The President ruled that the resolution cannot be enter- 
 tained without a reconsideration of the previous action of the 
 Board. 
 
22 
 
 April 10th. The President presented a communication from 
 J. Murphy & Co., concerning History of Maryland, which, 
 on motion of Mr. Griffith, was referred to the Committee on 
 Books. 
 
 April 17th. The President presented a communication from 
 J. Thos. Scharf on the History of Maryland, which was read, 
 and, on motion of Mr. Murray, referred to the Committee on 
 Books. 
 
 Same date. Mr. Hamel presented the following report : 
 
 To the President and Board of Commissioners of Public Schools: 
 The Committee on Text- Books, to whom was referred the 
 communication of Messrs. J. Murphy & Co., submitting the 
 revised Edition of Onderdonk^s History of Maryland, find 
 upon examination the objectionable matter expurgated and in 
 conformity of the State Law ; they therefore offer the following 
 resolution. Respectfully submitted, 
 
 G. L. Hamel, 
 C. E, Phelps, 
 John P. Poe, 
 Wm. p. Tonry, 
 Henry E. Shepherd, 
 Jno. T. Morris, 
 "William C. Atkinson. 
 
 Resolved, That the revised Edition of OnderdonFs His- 
 tory of 3Iaryland, submitted to the Board on the 10th inst. by 
 Messrs. J. Murphy & Co., Publishers, be, and the same is hereby 
 ordered to be used under the direction of the Superintendent, 
 in conformity with the resolution passed Jan. 30, 1877 ; pro- 
 vided, that nothing herein shall prevent the adof)tion at any 
 future time, of any other History of Maryland that the Board 
 may see proper to adopt. 
 
 Mr. Wright moved that the consideration of the resolution 
 be postponed one week, which motion was adopted. 
 
 April 24th. The report of the Committee on Books sub- 
 mitted at the last meeting, relating to the History of Maryland^ 
 was taken up. 
 
 Mr. Dalrymple offered the following amendment to the reso- 
 lution of the committee, viz. : 
 
 " Provided the same can be done without additional cost dur- 
 ing the present scholastic year." 
 
 Mr. Murray said : 
 
 Mr. President : — At the meeting of this Board held on 
 March 6th, of this year, the Committee on Books reported 
 
against the use of the Historij of Maryland as abridged by 
 Onderdonk in our Public Schools, on the ground that it was 
 obnoxious to the wise provisions of the State law of 1872, 
 chap. 377, which forbids the adoption of any book of a secta- 
 rian or partisan character for use in the schools. Wc all 
 remember the able manner in which the gentleman from the 
 Twelfth ward (Gen. Phelps) argued that the book under dis- 
 cussion was excluded under the statute, and without a dissent- 
 ing voice the Board decided that it should not be used. But, 
 did the Board intend to say that no history of our late unhappy 
 and fratricidal war should be read in our schools ? Did the 
 Board intend to say that the children of our schools should be 
 kept in ignorance of the stirring events which marked that 
 most eventful period ? 
 
 That we did right in excluding Onderdonk's history of the 
 war there can be no question in the minds of all reasonable 
 men, because, if we had had the ler/al right to adopt a history 
 which was so strongly marked by the political bias of the 
 author, we had no moral right to order the use of such a book 
 in an institution supported and patronized by people who are 
 divided between the two great political parties of the country. 
 
 I believe, Mr. President, and I am hap])y to believe it, that 
 this Board is sufficiently generous and considerate of the 
 rights of all persons to have excluded that history, even though 
 we had possessed the legal right to order its use. We have 
 proven conclusively our ability to rise above political and par- 
 tisan consideration, but I ask again, have we, by that act, de- 
 cided that we will have no history of the war ? That can be 
 decided only by a vote on the report and resolution of the 
 Committee on Books, now under discussion; but for myself 
 (and from conversation had with several members present I 
 know I am not alone), I can say that in casting ray vote 
 against Ouderdonk's history of the war, I did not intend to 
 vote against a fair and impartial history of that era. I am 
 opposed, unalterably opposed, to the use of any book purport- 
 ing to be a history of Maryland which omits all reference to 
 tlie war. There never was a time in the iiistory of this coun- 
 try in which more important and more stirring events occurred 
 than during the years 1861-'65 ; and even since 1865 import- 
 ant events have become history. And shall we have in our 
 schools a so-called history of Maryland which takes no notice 
 of events affecting our social, our commercial and our political 
 economy, with which the last sixteen years are crowded? 
 
24 
 
 Why may not one secure a history of Maryland from 1861 
 down to the present time whicli will be a fair and an impartial 
 statement of facts as they have occurred, without any com- 
 ments of the author? Surely, sir, this is but a reasonable 
 claim. But if we adopt the resolution of our most excellent 
 Committee on Books, we decide that it is not a reasonable 
 claim. Hence, T am opposed to the resolution. 
 
 But it may be said, in reply to this point, that even if the 
 resolution is adopted, it expressly declares that it contains 
 nothing which shall prevent the Board adopting any other 
 book at any time, if it should be deemed advisable. Well, 
 sir, of course it imposes no legal restraint on the Board, as it 
 proposes no definite time during which we are to use the book ; 
 but I maintain, nevertheless, that the adoption of this resolu- 
 tion will be virtually a decision against the use of any history 
 of the civil war. 
 
 There is an old saying, familiar to us all, that " possession is 
 nine points of the law," and I would respectfully forewarn 
 every member who wishes an impartial history of the war to 
 be used in our schools, that he voted against any history by 
 voting for the introduction of Onderdonk's book. It Avill cost 
 a great many thousands of dollars (how many I am not pre- 
 pared to say) to introduce the book, and if we should wish to 
 make a change at any time, the press would teem with charges 
 of extravagance (at 20 cents a line), and it would be decried 
 as a most unwarrantable and unnecessary waste of the public 
 funds. And the charge would be true; but the responsibility, 
 if placed where it properly belonged, would lie with those who 
 vote for the book, if so be that it is adopted. 
 
 But, in the second place, Mr. President, I am opposed to the 
 resolution of the Book Committee, not only because if adopted 
 it shuts out all history of the war, but also because the book 
 whicli it is proposed to adopt is not a suitable one for use in 
 our Public Schools. To mention some of its minor defects : 
 First, the binding is not durable; the paper is not excellent; 
 the type is none of the best; and the illustrations are very 
 few in number, some of them entirely false, and all of them 
 most horribly executed. The portraits of Cecil Calvert and 
 Leonard Calvert, on pages 21 and 24, respectively, are purely 
 imaginary, by the artist's own confession, and if this were not 
 sufficient, the proof lies in the fact that there are no portraits 
 of them extant. 
 
 Let anyone look at the illustration on page 213, and say if 
 he could get the most remote idea of what it is intended to be, 
 until he reads under it, " Bombardment of Fort McHenry." 
 
But I bring a graver charge yet against the book : that of 
 inaccuracy in many of its statements of facts, and errors in 
 dates. 
 
 On the 6th of March the Committee on Books made a report 
 to the Board from which ihe following is an extract : — "Since 
 the subject has been pending before the Committee two commu- 
 nications have been referred to it, one from Col. Scharf, author 
 of The Chronicles of Baltimore, offering for adoption a history 
 of Maryland now in preparation by him under the patron- 
 age of the Legislature of the State, and one from Mr. Onder- 
 douk and Mr. Murphy, jointly, offering to revise the Compen- 
 dium in question, and to issue a new edition for the use of the 
 schools. The Committee are of opinion that it would be pre- 
 mature and inexpedient to attempt to decide in advance between 
 the two contemplated publications, and that such decision can 
 only be properly made when they shall have been so far ad- 
 vanced toward completion as to enable an intelligent judgment 
 to be based upon their comparative merits." 
 
 Now, Mr. President, the Committee knew on the 6th of 
 March what Onderdonk's abridgement would be with the his- 
 tory of the war expurgated, as well as they now know what it 
 is since that has been done. They had not one particle more 
 of information in their possession on the 17th April than they 
 had on March 6th, which would enable them to form "an 
 intelligent judgment based upon the comparative iiierits " of 
 the two books. If it " were premature and inexpedient" then 
 " to attempt to decide in advance between the two contemplated 
 publications," I ask how the Committee can consistently de- 
 clare that it is not premature and not inexpedient to decide the 
 point noii\ since one of the " contemplated publications " is 
 still in coi-itemplation only, and the other, if already completed, 
 is simply what it was before, except that the part which relates 
 to the war has been omitted. What great necessity has arisen, 
 since it was found that another history was to compete with 
 Onderdonk's, that the schools should be supplied with a his- 
 tory immediately ? We have done without it for a long time; 
 what need then is there of haste to rush this matter through 
 on the very tail-end of the school session? Surely, there can 
 be none; there is not an interest that will suffer by delay. 
 
 I ask for the adoption of no particular book. I only ask 
 tiiat time may be given that we may get the i)est, whichever 
 and whosever it may prove to be. 
 
 I therefore offer the following resolution as a substitute for 
 the report of the Committee, merely remarking that it only 
 
26 
 
 asks for what the Committee and tlie Board on Marcli 6th 
 decided was right, proper, and for the best interests of tiic 
 schools : 
 
 " Resolved, That the question as to what history shall be 
 introduced into the Public Schools be referred back to the 
 Committee on Books, with instructions to report to the Board 
 only after they have complied with the recommendations made 
 by them and unanimously adopted by the Board on March 
 6th, 1877. 
 
 Mr. Bernei moved to postpone the consideration of the sub- 
 ject one week, which was rejected. 
 
 The question was called on Mr. Murray's substitute, and it 
 was rejected by ayes 9, nays 9, as follows : 
 
 Ayes — Messrs. Dalrymple, Bernei, Hancock, Sinclair, Law- 
 ton, Ferry, Wright, Deale, and Murray. 
 
 Nays — Messrs. President, Hamel, Ives, Toury, Piaskitt, 
 Poe, Phelps, Griffith, and Ramsburg. 
 
 The question recurred on the amendment of Dr. Dalrymple, 
 and it was declared rejected. 
 
 The question then recurred on the adoption of the resolution 
 annexed to the report of the committee, and the ayes and nays 
 being called, resulted as follows : 
 
 Ayes — Messrs. President, Hamel, Bernei, Tonry, Piaskitt, 
 Poe, Phelps, Lawton, Griffith, and Ramsburg — 10. 
 
 Nays — Messrs. Dalrymple, Ives, Hancock, Sinclair, Ferry, 
 Wright, Deale, and Murray — 8. 
 
 Messrs. Atkinson and Roemer absent. 
 
 The resolution was declared adopted. 
 
X 
 
 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 11 Illllllilllllllllllilllllllllllllllill 
 
 014 434 341 4 ^ 
 
 "m