New York has for several years raised by State tax about three million dollars for the support of the public schools; the rest of the amount necessary for their maintenance is raised by local taxation. The amount of money annually expended for public educational interests is between eleven and twelve million dollars; and no tax is more cheerfully paid than that which is levied for the purpose of preparing the children of to-day to become good citizens in the future.

soon.

Mr. LEMMON thought this a question that cannot be answered too On its settlement much of the work of the future must depend. It is a question of equal importance to the older settled communities of the East, to the thousands that are to-day organizing society in the West, and to the South in its attempt to recover from the mistakes of the past. We believe that mental, moral, and physical development should be guaranteed to every child; that our Government depends upon the intelligence of the people for its very existence; that it is only in schools organized, controlled, and in great part supported by the State that the mass of the children ever will or can be educated; and that the State should make ample provision for the school training of all its children. How can this educational work be done by the State in the best manner and at the least expense? For a century we have been trying experiments, and to-day we find that no two States have exactly the same system. Each one of these systems has its weak and its strong points. Can we combine these best features in a system that shall be better than any that has yet been tried? Reference has been made to the East and to what has been done there. You of the East can speak from experience. Your plans have been tried longer than have ours of the West. Some of us have not tested any system long enough to learn its real worth; we expect to get many valuable lessons from your experience. If your plans are not the best, we do not, after you have tried them so long, want to be forced to test them ourselves. As to the subdivision of territory for school purposes he would ask, What should be the unit of subdivision in a State educational system? Two general plans of districting a State for school purposes have been tried. They may be designated as the independent district and the township plans. Kansas has had the independent district plan for seventeen years and is not satisfied with it. It has been given a fair trial, and if it could be successful anywhere it would be so in that State, because most of the inhabitants have been educated in eastern schools. They believe in education. They know its advantages and they are determined that the State of their adoption shall stand second to none. They are the kind of people who make the best of everything. They have dotted the prairies with school-houses that would be a credit to any State in the Union. Year by year they have increased the length of the school term and improved their methods of instruction. Under this system of districting much has been accomplished, but many are now inquir

Ing it another and a better plan cannot be devised. Some of the defects of the independent district system may be briefly stated as follows:

First. It requires too much machinery. Kansas now has about five thousand of these school organizations, requiring a little army of fifteen thousand district officers. It is impossible to secure complete and accurate reports of the work done and money expended in many of these districts.

Secondly. The wishes of some influential men in the neighborhood are too often followed in the formation of school districts and the selection of sites for school-houses. This gives districts of greatly varying sizes, shapes, school population, and taxable property, and school-houses often very inconveniently situated.

Thirdly. The influence of the teacher and the progress of the school are too likely to be impaired by neighborhood quarrels that are constantly arising. The management of the school should be removed as far as possible from these local disturbances.

Fourthly. Under this plan of districting it is next to impossible to secure systematic work in the schools of any given territory. Each district is a little kingdom in itself, having nothing in common with its neighbors. Its text books, rules, plans, and general school arrangements may be unlike those of any surrounding districts.

Many other defects of this system might be stated. The longer it is tried the more apparent its defects become. The people of Kansas are tired of it, and are ready to take a step forward in building up a State school system. In Illinois each congressional township is a school district. Mr. Lemmon thought that that plan cannot be recommended for a State having thousands of school-houses already built. In Kansas they would try to secure the enactment of a law making each municipal township a separate school organization. This will do away with four-fifths of the officers, and give a system under which they hope to make more rapid growth in the future than in the past.

Mr. JILLSON, ex-State superintendent of South Carolina, said that while uniformity of systems might be desirable theoretically, it would be unsafe unless there were an equal development of educational experience and spirit in all localities. His own experience led him to oppose election as a method of choosing school officers, because candidates are very often quite incompetent and difficult to get rid of. He would suggest: 1. That there should be a State board of education, to consist, perhaps, of the governor, because he is the chief executive officer of the State; of the attorney general, because he is the State's chief legal adviser, and of three other gentlemen connected with eminent institutions of learning in the State; one of these should be appointed by the governor once every three years, and one for one year. Such a plan would create a vacancy in the board at the end of each year.

Let the appointment of

a State superintendent be placed in the hands of this board, with power and authority to remove for cause. In this, as well as in all other cases,

the authority to appoint should always be supplemented with power to remove for cause.

2. A county board of education, consisting of the county superintendent and two other members, to be appointed by the State board of education.

3. A board of school trustees for each township or school district, consisting of three members, to be appointed by the county board of education.

4. A city board of education, to be appointed by the State board of edu cation, or by the mayor by and with the consent of the board of aldermen, and to be clothed with authority to appoint the city superintendent.

Forbearing to discuss in detail the various powers and duties to be conferred upon these several educational boards, the speaker added that all educational matters and interests should be as far removed as possible from the influence of partisan politics. As to the means and methods of raising funds for the support of public schools, he would mention three sources of school revenue, namely: First, a general State levy for public school purposes; second, a poll or capitation tax; third, a local levy. It should be a condition that no city, town, or school district should be entitled to receive its pro rata share of the proceeds of the general State school levy unless it would by voluntary action on the part of its qualified electors levy upon itself a reasonable local school tax. The proceeds of the State school levy should be apportioned on the basis of school attendance. Those school districts which have tried the experiment of local taxation for public school purposes have increased the same from year to year and have augmented the efficiency and number of their public schools in a corresponding ratio. In the city of Charleston, for instance, they have an annual local school levy of one and onehalf mills, and they are able, by means of their local taxation, together with the poll tax and their portion of the State levy for public school purposes, to continue their public schools for ten months in the year, and their schools are very good indeed, the best in the State. The ultimate efficiency and success of any system of common education depend, in a great measure, upon the public spirit of the people on the question of local school taxation. The gentleman from New York has spoken of State legislatures as bodies to be relied upon in the grave and important matters of educational interests and welfare. Mr. Jillson could not agree entirely with this opinion. He believed it to be the best and safest plan to have school officers appointed, and to have some quick and sure methods of disposing of such officers when they do not do their duty.

President Wickersham then introduced to the Department Hon. George B. Loring, M. C., of Massachusetts, and Hon. Edwin Willits, M. C., of Michigan. At his invitation, Mr. LORING spoke as follows:

Gentlemen, I do not feel authorized to take part in this discussion of the organization of the schools in the various States, more especially as I understand that Mr.

Dickinson, the secretary of the board of education in Massachusetts, will be here to speak for that Commonwealth and the work going on there in the cause of good learning. But I am interested in the business of education as you all are, and were I not I should be false to the traditions and sentiments of the people whom I represent. Massachusetts abounds in schools of every description: common schools, high schools, colleges, and industrial schools, devoted to teaching all the arts of life. In this work she stands by the side of the most active of her sister States, that she joins here in the admirable service of comparing the various systems in operation in our country and of endeavoring to ascertain the most effectual method of orgđuizing a uniform system throughout the country. The investigation is interesting. Useful as the plan now in operation is acknowledged to be, I am impressed with the idea that there is room for improvement. Are you all confident that the system of graded schools is perfect in all its operations? Have we not reduced the work of education too much to the artificial operation of machinery, and cooled the inspiration and ardor which should attend it? Does the system bring out well drilled and well grounded scholars, whose knowledge is general and available at all times? It may be that my doubts are unfounded in this matter, but a recent experience in the district which I have the honor to represent in Congress has arrested my attention and has filled my mind with grave apprehensions with regard to the important and intricate work of education which we have organized. Not many months ago a competitive examination of candidates for admission to West Point was instituted by my predecessor in Congress. The committee to whom the work was assigned was well selected, and the candidates to the number of twenty came from the high schools in the district. The examination was carefully and fairly conducted; and the questions, which were submitted in writing, were judiciously divided among the studies ordinarily pursued by scholars in the best organized schools. Of the twenty boys examined but one was found to be in any way fitted, and he, on examination at West Point, was rejected on so many points that he could not be nominated again. A second attempt followed with but little better success, ten boys having been examined and but one found so qualified as to secure for himself admission and good standing at the Military Academy. As the fruits of a graded system of schools, these facts are entitled to careful consideration. These boys may have been accomplished for certain specific purposes, they may have been well educated in the branches taught in the high schools whence they came; but they were manifestly deficient in general culture and in that varied accomplishment required for admission into the higher institutions of the land. The work devoted to them may have been well done, but it was not so done as to serve their purpose. Now, this was not so under a system once in vogue in our country, a system especially perfected in the county of Essex, in which my district is situated. That county has won an enviable reputation for its institutions of learning and for the large number of cultivated and able men whom it has sent into the various walks of life. For more than a century it has been renowned for its jurists, statesmen, theologians, scholars. Its leading minds have performed great service in every public walk. The colleges, all the institutions of higher learning, have been filled with its distinguished sons. In the days of her academical modes of education, when a classical school, so called, was to be found in all the large towns, and every district had its humble school-house for mixed and general education, the educated young men of Essex were so taught that they considered their presentation to higher institutions equivalent to admission. The cause of the change from this fortunate condition I will not undertake to discuss. I leave that for you who are engaged in the business which has brought you together. If, as I have suggested, more general culture is required, may not the high school system be so modified as to partake a little of the old academic method and to result in a little of the old academic accomplishment? Is there not a middle ground between graded and mixed education better than either? I leave these suggestions to your own investigation, with the assurance that I shall accept your verdict with confidence

and satisfaction, and shall be ready to consider the question more elaborately at some future time should an opportunity be offered. I am sure your deliberations will be of great value to the educational work of our country.

Mr. J. H. SMART, resuming the discussion, said that the weak point in the usual way of choosing a State superintendent is the danger of losing a competent and experienced officer by failing to reëlect him. A State superintendent, to be thoroughly useful, should be retained in office long enough to acquire the respect and coöperation of the teachers and the confidence of the legislature. This cannot be accomplished in a year or two. A properly constituted State board is a compensation for this evil to some extent. In Indiana the governor, the presidents of the State university and of the State agricultural college, the principal of the State normal school, and the superintendents of the three most populous cities form the board, of which the State superintendent is ex officio the presiding officer.

Dr. HENRY BARNARD remarked that there are great numbers of children now educated in the public schools who could not have been instructed by any other instrumentality.

Mr. HANCOCK said that if Mr. Loring is right the educators of the country are entirely wrong. He thought that the experience of the Essex district pupils had been very unfortunate. All his school work in Ohio had not shown any such case. He had known every candidate for admission to West Point from Cincinnati for fifteen years, and no candidate from the public schools had ever failed to pass the required examination.

President WICKERSHAM, reminding members that the subject of discussion was the organization of a State system, said that in Pennsyl vania the State superintendent is appointed for four years by the gov ernor and must be confirmed by a two-thirds vote of the State senate. This plan had been found to work satisfactorily; sometimes a State board had not worked so well. Directors of school districts are elected by the people. County superintendents are elected triennially by the directors of school districts. County and city superintendents may be, and have been, removed for cause by the State superintendent, or their pay can be suspended by that officer. The superintendents are thus a well organized corps of public servants; and this system has done great things for education in Pennsylvania.

Mr. HANCOCK thought that the people would not know the qualification of candidates for school director sufficiently well to elect the most suitable persons. This is the weak point in the Pennsylvania plan.

The matter was then referred to a special committee, consisting of Messrs. Hancock, Smart of Indiana, and Wickersham, with directions to report during the session.

Messrs. Newell of Maryland, Wickersham of Pennsylvania, Orr of Georgia, Bowman of Kentucky (University), Hancock of Dayton, Ohio, Tarbell of Michigan, Lemmon of Kansas, Gilmour of New York, and