254 HISTORY OF OHIO. 



During these seventeen years, there were, a few persons, iu 

 different parts of the state, who opposed this course of legisla- 

 tion. And here we introduce to the reader, Ephraim Cutler, of 

 Washington county, near Marietta, who was one of the framers 

 of our state constitution. He had succeeded in his motion, so to 

 amend the original draft of that instrument, as to make it the 

 imperative duty of the general assembly, to support " religion, 

 morality and knowledge, as essentially necessary to good gov- 

 ernment." And the constitution goes on to declare " that schools 

 and the means of instruction, shall forever be encouraged by 

 legislative provision." This provision, remained a dead letter 

 until, in December 1819, Judge Cutler, its author, being then 

 a member, of the general assembly, introduced a resolution for 

 thit purpose, and was appointed chairman of a committee, on 

 schools. He introduced a bill, into the house of representa- 

 tives, for regulating and supporting common schools. This 

 bill, after being much injured, by amendments, passed the low- 

 er branch of the legislature, but, was either not passed in the 

 senate, or so modified, as to render it useless. This state of 

 things continued, until, in December 1821, the house of repre- 

 sentatives, appointed five of its members, to wit: Caleb Atwa- 

 ter, Lloyd Talbot, James Shields, Roswell Mills and Josiah 

 Barber, a committee, on schools and school land.''. To that com- 

 mittee, was referred a great number of petitions from the occu- 

 pants of school lands, in almost every part of the state. This 

 committee devoted nearly all its time, to the subjects submit- 

 ted to its charge. All the acts of the legislature, relative to 

 the school land were carefully examined, and this committee 

 came to the conclusion, that, inasmuch as the legislature were 

 the mere trustee of the fund set apart by congress, for the sup- 

 port of common schools, not a few of these acts were void, because 

 they were destructive to the interests of the people, whose 

 children were to be educated by this grant. The trustree, the 

 committee believed, had the power to so manage this fund as to 

 increase its value; but, the trustee had no power to destroy the 

 fund. The committee, saw all the difficulties which surround- 

 ied the object of their charge; as well as the delicacy of their 



