MR. WHITE:--I have just read the Review of Governor Tazewell's Report
to the Legislature, upon the subject of a Deaf and Dumb Asylum, in your
last number, and am sorry to find that, amongst many things which I
like, it contains some misstatements which, I think, do great injustice
to that document, and to its author; and which I must therefore beg
leave to correct.
In the first place, in noticing that part of the paper in which the
Governor argues that as the last census shews that the whole number of
deaf mutes in our State is only about four hundred and twenty-two, and
the experience of other States, particularly Pennsylvania and
Connecticut, has proved that only one-fifteenth of the whole number in
any community can be drawn to such an institution, it is fair to
conclude that the actual number of pupils who could be drawn to our
asylum would not exceed twenty-eight; the Reviewer remarks that the
Governor "seems to have founded his argument upon the supposition that
the deaf and dumb pupils to be educated at the proposed asylum in
Virginia, are to be maintained from their own resources, or the private
liberality of their friends; whereas the very object of applying for
legislative aid, is to enable many of these indigent children of
misfortune to obtain instruction at the public expense." But this is
obviously a misapprehension of the document; for the Governor says
expressly in a passage quoted by the Reviewer himself, "the question
seems to be resolved into this,--Can the Legislature reasonably promise
itself, that _by the employment of any means which it ought to use_, it
may concentrate at any point within this State _sufficient inducements_
to draw thither the proper number of such pupils?" But it is quite
apparent that among the "any means," and "sufficient inducements,"
which he was here speaking of, he included a provision for the support
of indigent pupils, as a matter of course. Indeed, the very _object_ of
the establishment, as the Reviewer himself remarks, _implies_ the
propriety of such a provision, and the whole tenor of the Report
accordingly takes it for granted throughout.
But the Reviewer asks: "If this was not the ground of the Governor's
reasoning, why does he suppose that not more than one-fifteenth of the
whole number of deaf mutes could be induced to resort to a seminary for
instruction?" Why, for the reasons which he has so clearly stated, and
which the Reviewer ought to have understood; that such had been the
experience of other States, particularly Pennsylvania and Connecticut,
and there was nothing to authorize the hope of a different result in
our own case. Yet he asks, "Does he mean that a larger number could not
be obtained if the public expense were proffered for their education
and subsistence?" Undoubtedly he means this; for he says expressly in a
passage which the Reviewer quotes, that in those States to whose
experience he refers, "the _most liberal means_ have been employed to
attract to their long established asylums _all_ of that class who might
be induced to resort thither;" and he adds still more explicitly in
another passage which the Reviewer does not quote, but which he ought
to have read, speaking of the same institutions of Pennsylvania and
Connecticut, "The only other aid" (besides acts of incorporation,)
"which either of these seminaries has ever received since, from the
several States within the limits of which they are situated, has been
_the appropriation of a sum of money annually to pay for the
instruction of a certain number of persons, the children of citizens of
these States respectively, whose parents were in such indigent
circumstances as not to be able to defray the charge of their
education_." It is apparent, then, that the Governor's reasoning on
this point is entirely sound; whilst the criticism of the Reviewer upon
it is founded altogether upon a mere misconception of his own.
But taking it for granted that the number of pupils in our asylum would
not exceed twenty-eight, the Governor proceeds to inquire whether it
would not be better to provide for the support and education of them,
that is, of the indigent ones of course, at the asylum of one of our
sister States, rather than to establish a new seminary for them within
our own bounds; and suggests several reasons in favor of such a course.
First, it would aid the cause of science, which he thinks would be much
better promoted, in the "more sublime and long-hidden" branches of it
at least, by all communities sending in their contributions to a common
stock, wherever that may happen to have been first begun, rather than
by their separately exerting themselves to domesticate those mysterious
novelties prematurely within their respective bounds. Secondly, it
would save money, which is the sinews of charity as well as of war, and
ought therefore to be husbanded with great care. And thirdly, and above
all, the proceeding, or rather perhaps the principle which it involves,
would tend to strengthen the union, and bind the states together. Thus
he says: "To all this let me add, that if there is any thing better
calculated than any other to cement our union, and to keep bright the
chain which I trust will bind these states together while time lasts,
it will be found in the contribution of each to objects approved by
all, without any jealous regard to the actual spot at which such a
general good may commence. If a generous spirit of this sort is but
once manifested, its effects will be soon seen and felt by all. Acts of
kindness will not fail to induce forbearance, and to generate sympathy.
When each State shall feel that for the aid it requires to accomplish
any object of general utility, it may rely confidently on its
co-states, there will be no more applications to the federal government
to pervert the language of the constitution, in order to accomplish the
unholy scheme of robbing a minority to enrich a majority. Then those
who contend but for the spoils of the vanquished, may be safely left to
the contempt which such a motive cannot fail to inspire with all the
generous and the good. It would have been worthy of Virginia to set
such an example; it is worthy of her to imitate that which others have
already taught."
Now these views of the Governor may not be exactly correct, and I
freely acknowledge that I do not adopt them myself; but what is there
in any of them, I ask, that ought to excite the alarm, or kindle the
indignation of the Reviewer? Obviously nothing at all. Yet after
quoting them at full length, he proceeds to comment upon them in the
following words: "It is in these passages that we think lurks the
fallacy, and we might add the _mischief_ of the Governor's views. He
sets out first by deprecating all legislative interference on the
subject." Where? In what part of the Report? For I have not seen such a
thought in it; and I have read the whole, though the Reviewer it seems
has not; and the passages under his notice most certainly do not
suggest any thing like it. On the contrary, they directly advise that
the Legislature _shall_ interfere in the case, although not precisely
in the Reviewer's way. But he goes on: "'Let us alone' is his cardinal
maxim, and the maxim of the school of politicians to which he belongs.
Let individuals take care of themselves, and of each other; but let not
government presume to thrust its paternal care upon the community." And
where does he get this idea from again? Not certainly from any thing in
the Report before him. And was it right, then, was it courteous in him
to travel out of the record to arraign the _political_ opinions of the
Governor, and the school of politicians to which he belongs? Was it
proper even to glance at such a martial topic in the amicable columns
of the _Literary_ Messenger? Or if it was, and if the Reviewer believed
that the favorite maxim of the Governor, and the school of politicians
to which he belongs, is, "Let us alone," did he think it fair to
represent him as holding it in all the extent of its terms, without
limitation or reserve? Or, is the maxim itself utterly and absolutely
false, to all intents and purposes whatever? And is there
nothing--nothing at all--to which it may be properly applied? Is there
nothing which the Legislature ought not to meddle with? If this is his
opinion, it is easy to see to what class of politicians _he_ belongs,
and it is one whose _latitudinarianism_--but I will not follow the bad
example which he has set me, and abuse your peaceable pages to expose
the danger of its doctrines, and the folly of its flights.
But the Reviewer proceeds: "In the next place, however, if the State,
according to his Excellency's notions, will officiously obtrude into
these private matters, why then let the funds of the Commonwealth go
abroad and enrich some sister State. These kind offices will brighten
the chain of union which binds the states together. They will teach us
all to rely more upon each other, and less upon the general
government.--This is the sum and substance of the Governor's reasoning;
and dangerous and fallacious as we believe it to be, we feel the
stronger obligations, coming from the high quarter it does, to resist
and refute it if we can." But is this a fair representation of the
Governor's reasoning? Is it not rather a gross caricature of it? For,
has the Governor hinted any thing like a proposal that our State should
send her funds abroad to aid all the institutions of her sister states,
instead of keeping them at home to support her own? On the contrary,
does he not say expressly, "I will not admit that there is a single
citizen within the limits of Virginia more desirous than I am to
domesticate here every thing needful to the well being of the State?"
And does he not accordingly take good care to confine his
recommendation of a contribution to the institutions of other states,
to cases of a peculiar character, in which, as in the instance of a
deaf and dumb asylum, the object in view is to furnish a small portion
of our citizens with the means of access to the "more sublime and
long-hidden truths of modern science?" And does he not, moreover,
declare it to be a part of his plan that every other State shall
reciprocate the generosity of ours, so as to return a pretty fair _quid
pro quo_ into our exchequer? And what is there, then, that is so very
"dangerous" in the Governor's reasoning? Nothing at all that I can see.
Yet our Reviewer is so much alarmed at it, or rather at a phantom of
his own imagination which he mistakes for it, that he flies off from
the true point of inquiry, and instead of calmly answering the argument
before him, as he might have done, breaks out into a warm and
impassioned strain of protestation against a mere figment of his own,
which is truly imposing; but unfortunately without object, and of
course without point. Thus he asks, "did any one ever dream that
Kentucky had given cause of offence to her sister states by erecting an
asylum for the poor deaf mutes? We apprehend not." Why then does he ask
the question? Has the Governor written any thing which fairly suggests
such a singular query? Or was the Reviewer himself dreaming when he
wrote? Yet he adds, "the truth is, that his Excellency the Governor is
entirely mistaken in his views upon the subject!"--whereas the truth
is, that his Highness the Reviewer is entirely mistaken in his views of
the Report. But he keeps on, and adds: "What a ridiculous business it
would be, if twenty-four families in the same neighborhood were to act
upon the principle, that each was to take care of all the rest in
preference to itself!" Very true; but it is his own idea. The
Governor's seems to be, that if the good old lady at the head of any
one of these families should choose to send her little deaf and dumb
daughter to the learned French master who was teaching a class of
_sourd-muets_ in her neighbor's house, instead of importing another
Frenchman, (or Yankee, who stands ready to take any body's place,) to
open a similar school in her own domicile, it might save money and
increase love--especially if all the rest would act on the same
principle in return. And is there any thing so very ridiculous in this?
The same sort of hallucination runs through the remainder of the
paragraph; but I cannot think it necessary to expose it any further.
I will only add that I agree entirely with the Reviewer in much, and
perhaps all, that he has written so handsomely in favor of internal
improvement, in the fullest sense of the phrase. I agree with him, more
particularly, and most cordially, in thinking that we ought, by all
means, to furnish and adorn our native state, as soon as possible, with
every thing that can promote her happiness and honor, and make her as
perfect and complete within her own limits, as any kingdom or
commonwealth on earth can be. Of course, I agree with him also in
condemning and stigmatizing, as he does, that abject and disgraceful
spirit of apathy which has so long paralyzed our citizens, but which, I
trust, we have now shaken off forever. But, at the same time, I am
persuaded that Governor Tazewell would cheerfully unite with us in
these views, to a considerable extent; and I cannot think it right or
fair to charge him, either directly or by implication, with errors
which, I am confident, he does not hold, and which, most certainly, he
has not avowed in his Report.