Mr. Wadsworth - Aye.

The Secretary Mr. Wafer. (No response.)

The Secretary - Mr. Wagner.

(No response.)

The Secretary

(No response.)

The President

names when called.

The Secretary

Mr. Ward.

Some of the gentlemen are prevented from hearing their
There is too much audible conversation.

Mr. Wafer.

Mr. Doughty - May I be recorded in the affirmative?

Mr. Ryan - I ask that my name be called.

Mr. Donovan-I ask that my name be called.
The President - Mr. Donovan's name will be called.
The Secretary - Mr. Ryan.

The President - Mr. Mann's name will be called.

-

The President - Mr. Dahm's name will be called.
The Secretary - Mr. Dahm.

Mr. Dahm -Aye.

The President - Mr. Angell's name will be called.
The Secretary - Mr. Angell.

The President Mr. Ahearn's name will be called.

The Secretary - Mr. Ahearn.

Mr. Ahearn - Aye.

The President - The Secretary will recapitulate the vote.

The Secretary- Those supposed to have voted in the affirmative are: Mr. Adams, Mr. Ahearn, Mr. Aiken, Mr. F. C. Allen, Mr. Angell, Mr. Austin, Mr. Bannister, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Baumes, Mr. Bayes, Mr. Beach, Mr. Bell, Mr. Bernstein, Mr. Berri, Mr. Betts, Mr. Blauvelt, Mr. Bockes, Mr. Brackett, Mr. Brenner, Mr. Bunce, Mr. Burkan, Mr. Buxbaum, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Clinton, Mr. Cobb, Mr. Coles, Mr. Cullinan, Mr. Dahm, Mr. Daly, Mr. Dennis, Mr. Deyo, Mr. Dick, Mr. Donnelly, Mr. Donovan, Mr. Doughty, Mr. Dow, Mr. Drummond, Mr. Dunlap, Mr. Dunmore, Mr. Dykman, Mr. Eisner, Mr. Endres, Mr. Eppig, Mr. Fancher, Mr. Fobes, Mr. Fogarty, Mr. Ford, Mr. Franchot, Mr. Frank, Mr. Gladding, Mr. Green, Mr. Greff, Mr. Haffen, Mr. Hale, Mr. Heaton, Mr. Hinman, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Jones, Mr. Kirby, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Landreth, Mr. Latson, Mr. Law, Mr. Leary, Mr. Leggett, Mr. Lincoln, Mr. Linde, Mr. Lindsay, Mr. Low, Mr. McKean, Mr. McKinney, Mr. Mandeville, Mr. Mann, Mr. F. Martin, Mr. L. M. Martin, Mr. Mathewson, Mr. Meigs, Mr. Mereness, Mr. Mulry, Mr. Newburger, Mr. C. Nicoll, Mr. D. Nicoll, Mr. Nixon, Mr. Nye, Mr. M. J. O'Brien, Mr. O'Connor, Mr. Olcott, Mr. Ostrander, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parker, Mr. Parmenter, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Pelletreau, Mr. J. S. Phillips, Mr. S. K. Phillips, Mr. Potter, Mr. Quigg, Mr. Reeves, Mr. Rhees, Mr. Richards, Mr. Rosch, Mr. Ryan, Mr. Ryder, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Sargent, Mr. M. Saxe, Mr. Schoonhut, Mr. Schurman, Mr. Sears, Mr. Sharpe, Mr. Sheehan, Mr. Slevin, Mr. A. E. Smith, Mr. E. N. Smith, Mr. R. B. Smith, Mr. Stanchfield, Mr. Standart, Mr. Steinbrink, Mr. Stimson, Mr. Stowell, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Tuck, Mr. Unger, Mr. Vanderlyn, Mr. Van Ness, Mr. Wadsworth, Mr. Wafer, Mr. Ward, Mr. Waterman, Mr. C. A. Webber, Mr. Weed, Mr. Westwood, Mr. Wheeler, Mr. C. J. White, Mr. Wickersham, Mr. Wiggins,

Mr. Williams, Mr. Winslow, Mr. Wood, Mr. C. H. Young, Mr. F. L. Young, and Mr. President.

Those supposed to have voted in the negative:

Mr. Marshall.

I was unable to hear my name. I ask that I be allowed to

vote in the affirmative.

The President - Mr. Lindsay's name will be called.

The Secretary- Mr. Lindsay.

Mr. Lindsay Aye.

The President - Of those voting on the question of the adoption of this amendment, 142 votes have been cast in the affirmative, and one in the negative. The proposed amendment having received the affirmative vote of the majority of all delegates elected to the Convention, it is adopted. The Secretary will continue the call.

The Secretary - No. 820, by the Committee on Education. To amend Section 1 of Article IX of the Constitution, in relation to the supervision and control by the State of the education of children.

The President

rules.

- The proposed amendment is now open for debate under the

Mr. Schurman - Mr. President, I move its adoption.

This proposed Constitutional Amendment now before us was unanimously adopted by the Committee on Education. I explained in the Committee of the Whole dealing with the proposed Constitutional Amendment in the form in which it then was that the Committee on Education had given hearings to all interested and had carefully considered every aspect of the question. The amendment in its present form was adopted to meet the objections which were presented in the discussion on the order of third reading.

It will be recalled that the suggestion was made that the language of the proposal might authorize interference with religious instruction in denominational schools. Nothing, however, could have been further from the desire and intention of the Committee on Education. They, consequently, reconsidered the language of the amendment in the light of the objections presented. And they now unanimously submit the proposal in the amended form in which it is before this Convention.

It will be observed that the difference between the proposal in its present form and in its earlier form lies in the fact that in its present form the proposal speaks of education first, in the free common schools, and secondly, elsewhere than in such schools. This classification was borrowed from the Education Law, having been inserted therein for the purpose of declaring the place in which the instruction required by the State may be received. The Education Law, § 620, states that the instruction required under this article shall be:

It has been, and will remain, the duty of the Legislature to fix the minimum standard of instruction which shall be obligatory upon pupils in attendance either at a public school or elsewhere than a public school. The statute now requires that a child who does not attend upon instruction at a public school may attend elsewhere upon instruction, provided such instruction is equivalent to the instruction given children of like age at a public school of the city or district in which such child resides. Where instruction is given elsewhere than at a public school the child must be in attendance during the same period of time as is required in the case of attendance at a public school. Whatever schools children attend, the length of vacations and the number of holidays must be the same.

It scarcely needs pointing out that the Legislature may, in the future, prescribe a different minimum standard from the present one. The Legislature may, in the future, vary the length of the vacation and the number of holidays, and the number of days of instruction, and the number of hours each day. If, in the exercise of this legislative power, the Legislature should increase the standard of instruction for children in the public schools of the State, then, in virtue of the power of supervision and control which the State now possesses it would be the duty of the department of education to see that children educated elsewhere than in public schools were receiving an education substantially equivalent to the enhanced education then prevailing in the public schools.

It will be observed that the supervision and control by the State in schools other than public schools is undertaken for the sake of guaranteeing the children an education of a certain prescribed standard. Extensive modifications may be made in the future, either in that standard itself or in the means used for realizing it, but whatever changes may in this regard be made, it will be the right and duty of the State, under the power of supervision and control which it now possesses, to insist that schools other than public schools shall satisfy such requirement. The supreme end in view with reference to such schools is equivalency of instruction. Supervision and control are means to that end.

Mr. President, I move the adoption of the pending amendment.

Mr. Cobb - Mr. President.

The President - Mr. Cobb.

Mr. Cobb Mr. President, I do not rise to make a speech on this question further than to express my humble opinion that it is very unwise to interfere with the present provision of the Constitution relative to public schools. The situation is a delicate one. We have our free public schools, the parochial schools, private schools, the schools maintained by various denominations. Now, so far as I know every one is satisfied with the present situation. Education has not suffered under the existing provision which is that the Legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free common schools, where all the children of the State may be educated. That education is a public function has been settled by the courts. Now, why introduce into this situation which is satisfactory to all sides the possibility of trouble? I think this Convention has received millions of these orange cards during this Convention, indicating the fear on somebody's part that the parochial schools were going to gain some advantage here, or that they had some ambitions in that direction. From the other side, there has been

expressed a fear that the State power would be further hardened and enlarged to their disadvantage. I do not think you can change a word in the existing provisions without introducing uncertainty, anxiety, trouble, confusion.

You take the first provision: "The State shall continue its supervision and control of the education of children in its free common schools", as contrasted with the present provision: "The Legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free common schools." It is undoubtedly to further enlarge and harden and fix the centralized power, so far as the free common schools are concerned. I know that in the rural districts they are not particularly anxious for anything of that kind. Take the second provision, "and shall exercise such supervision and control elsewhere than in such schools as it now possesses." What does that mean? Simply that they shall go along and exercise the powers they now enjoy. To understand it, you must examine the law of the State, the statutes and decisions. We constitu-tionalize and fix them at this particular moment, and say that the conditions that now exist shall continue. If it has any effect, it is not a beneficial effect. I do not see the necessity of it.

Then we go on and say: "and no powers in derogation thereof shall be conferred upon the local authorities of any civil division of the State." I have heard no argument that the schools have suffered or need a change. I do not know just how the present law is to-day. I do not know how it will affect a great many somewhat delicate matters that occur to me. For instance, in my own city, by a decision of the Court of Appeals, the city is aiding the orphan asylums there, which are denominational, and which are educating the children. We think it is to our advantage to do so. I do not know how this would affect the state of that law in that respect. I certainly think it is unwise to stir up this situation, to change this language, to introduce a lot of words and expressions which will have to be interpreted and to arouse suspicion and arouse antagonism to the Constitution.

I suppose that this bill will have to be recommitted unless it is voted down at this time. I don't know that I care to say anything further. I have not looked into the question. I have not prepared to make a speech, but I am expressing a pretty strong instinct, I feel, and one that is borne to me from all the people that I come in contact with, that this is one provision of the Constitution that might well be left alone.

If

Mr. J. L. O'Brian - Mr. President, speaking my own personal view I am opposed to this bill and shall vote in opposition to it. The speech which Mr. Cobb has just made has admirably expressed, I think, the common sense of the situation. This Proposed Amendment either changes the existing situation, or it does not change the existing situation. If it does not change the existing situation in regard to education, and supervision of public and private schools, then there is no necessity whatever for this measure. it does propose to change the existing order, then we would have a right to ask exactly how it would change the existing order, and what the effect of it would be, and in that particular I find among the lawyers with whom I have talked in this Convention considerable difference of opinion. For example, you provide here for a distinction between free common schools and the private schools of all sorts, something hitherto unknown in our Constitution, and as to those private schools as distinguished from the free common schools the proposers of this measure say that in the future the

•