BOARD OF REGENTS PROPOSE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS,

This original board of regents was the first representative body since the Dutch rule to make any official or public deliverance looking to the organization of a State public school system. Technically, it had no legal authority or responsibility concerning elementary schools, and it so understood. Indeed, there were no such schools at the close of the war, and the prevalent, if not the universal, idea was that society itself was not chargeable with any responsibility in that connection. But the wisest statesmanship of the day was in that board of regents. In a musty book of records, now in the archives of Columbia College, and as to the custody of which that institution and the board of regents have held contrary opinions, there is to be found the journal of the board during the three years when that college constituted the entire university, and when the functions of the regents were mainly confined to the supervision of the same. In this book there is a record which is certainly of interest to us.

On the 31st of January, 1787, the board appointed a committee, in the language of the record, "to take into consideration the present state of the university, and to report as soon as possible the measures necessary to be adopted to carry into effect the views of the legislature with respect to the same, and particularly with respect to Columbia College." The committee consisted of the mayor of New York, and Messrs. Jay, Rogers, Mason, Livingston, Clarkson, Gros, and Hamilton. The report was presented at a meeting held February 16, 1787, adopted, and ordered to be transmitted to the legislature. From the nature and verbiage of this report, as well as the order in which the names of the committee appear, it seems reasonably clear that Hamilton drafted it. After setting forth the various difficulties which the board had experienced and suggesting the necessary remedies, the committee went outsid of its prescribed duty and, so far as I know, made the first public and official presentation of the necessity of common schools maintained by public authority, in the following words:

"But before your committee conclude, they feel themselves bound in faithfulness to add that the erecting of public schools for teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic, is an object of very great importance, which ought not to be left to the discretion of private men, but be promoted by public authority. Of so much knowledge no citizen ought to be destitute, and yet it is a reflection as true as it is painful that but too many of our youth are brought up in utter ignorance. This is a reproach under which we have long laboured unmarred by the example of our neighbors, who, not leaving the education of their children to chance, have widely diffused throughout their State a public provision for such instruction.

"Your committee are sensible that the regents are invested with no funds of which they have the disposal, but they nevertheless conceive it to be their duty to bring the subject in view before the honorab'e the legislature who alone can provide a remedy."

Nothing came of this. The legislature passed the act which the board submitted, but it contained no mention of common schools. It is impossible to discern in any of these early educational statutes any acknowledgment of the principle that the State should be responsible for elementary schools. They provided for and aided colleges and academies only, quite possibly in the belief that thereby elementary education would le promoted ind.rectly and perhaps most effectualiy.

GOSPEL AND SCHOOL LANDS,

It is indeed strange how little mention there was of schools in those early legis lative sessions. In a comprehensive act of the legislature in Febriary, 1789, providing for the sa e of certain public lands of the State, the surveyor-general was directed to lay out twenty town hips, so that each should contain 100 lots of 250 acres each, and sell the same, except that he should reserve, near the center

of each township, one lot, which should be devoted to the support of the gospel, and one other to the support of schools. Here is the origin of the gospel and school moneys which have mystified so many minds. This action, however, contained no recognition whatever of the common-school principle. It was only an admission of the propriety of public encouragement to churches and schools, and that on equal terms.

FIRST STATUTE FOR AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.

In 1791 an act was passed authorizing six gentlemen, of whom the first was Robert R. Livingston, to receive certain moneys arising from excise fees and fines in the town of Clermont, in the county of Columbia, and not wanted for the relief of the poor," and to build a schoolhouse and maintain a school therewith. Here is the first authority of the new Commonwealth for an elementary school. But it meant little. It levied no tax. It permitted a town to use for a school moneys which would legally go to the support of the poor, and which were not needed for that purpose. It put the almshouse and the school on about an equal footing.

FIRST GENERAL STATUTE ENCOURAGING ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.

But in six years after their first utterance, the board of regents recurred to the matter persistently and heroically. In 1793 and 1794 and 1795 the board urged the matter in their annual reports, and the stanch old governor likewise talked strongly and soundly in the legislative ear. In the latter year he spoke in this fashion:

"While it is evident that the general establishment and liberal endowment of academies are highly to be commended, and are attended with the most beneficial consequences, yet it can not be denied that they are principally confined to the children of the opulent, and that a great proportion of the community is excluded from their immediate advantages. The establishment of common schools throughout the State is happily calculated to remedy this inconvenience, and will therefore engage your early and decided consideration."

These influential appeals brought from the legislature of 1795 a law entitled "An act for the encouragement of schools," which became the substantial corner stone of a State elementary school system. It appropriated $100,000 each year for five years from the State treasury" for the purpose of encouraging and maintaining schools in the several cities and towns of this State, in which the children of the inhabitants residing in the State shall be instructed in the English language, or be taught English grammar, arithmetic, mathematics, and such other branches of knowledge as are most useful and necessary to complete a good education." This was a grand and noble thing to do. The appropriation was munificent when we consider the valuation upon which it was levied. The entire assessable valuation then was but about $100,000,000. The same rate upon our valuation would yield nearly $3,500,000 as the annual State appropriation for common schools now, which, by a curious coincidence, is precisely what the State does appropriate. The State was then heavily in debt; it is free from debt now. But in addition to the appropriation, the act required each town to raise by tax half as much more as it received from the State appropriation. It did not authorize this; it required it. In the assembly, when the bill was under consideration, a motion was made to provide that each town should share in the appropriation only upon condition that it should raise one-half as much more by local taxation. The proposition was voted down. The house said. No, there shall be no conditions or uncertainty about it. We will make this appropriation; we will require each town to raise half as much more as we give it, and we will set up the machinery

which will insure its proper expenditure for elementary schools. This was not only a grand and a noble, but it was a heroic thing to do.

But in other ways this first general school law reveals the handiwork of the best statesmanship. It stated the purpose of the law accurately and felicitously. It provided a system for allotting the appropriation and for the annual election of not less than three nor more than seven commissioners in each town, who were to supervise and direct the system. This appropriation was not intended to pay the full expense of the schools. It was only to assist. It was reasoned that the people in localities would associate together because of this assistance, and open schools. The act contemplated the organization of school districts in the country, provided for the election of trustees, and set forth their powers and duties. In short. it brought into being the elements of a State school system, and gave shape and form to that system, in essential particulars, as it exists to-day.

Wise and courageous as were the men who framed this great statute and breathed the breath of life into a common-school system (and they were wise and courageous beyond their generation), yet they had no conception of, and gave no adhesion to, the doctrine now pervading the school system, that it is the duty of the State to provide by common tax an elementary school within easy access of every home, and that a good English education at general expense is the rightful inheritance of every child of the Commonwealth. They advanced to the point of believing that the State should encourage schools, and even to the point of believing that it might rightfully do this in a substantial way through its power to levy and collect taxes. But they still believed that, primarily, the responsibility rested upon each individual to educate his offspring, and that only when he failed to do this, private or public charity might properly aid the unfortunate.

It seems strange, in view of the fact that the State had previously confided its educational interests, so far as it had acted at all, to the board of regents, and that the common-school system was established largely through the influence of that board, that it did not give the regents supervision of the new system. But it did not do so. On the contrary, the bill recited that special provision had previously been made for encouraging colleges and academies and provided that nothing contained in this act should be construed as extending to such institutions. In 1800 a strong movement was made for continuing the provisions of the act of 1795 for another five years. It succeeded in the house, but failed in the senate, near the close of the session, by a close vote. Each succeeding year for five years the governor urged the subject, but nothing was done. Evidence is not wanting to show that the unfortunate delay and neglect resulted from differences as to the best course to pursue, and particularly as to whether the administration of the system should be given to the regents. In 1805 the foundations of a permanent comn.on-school fund were laid, and from that time, in spite of some neglect and hind' ances innumerable, the common-school system has, with unvarying uniformity, grown in strength and in efficiency. In 1798 the reports received showed the organization of 1,352 schools, with 59,660 pupils. In 1815 there were 2,755 districts and 140,106 pupils. In 1830 there were 9.063 districts and 499,424 pupils. Last year there were 1,803,667 pupils in the common schools of the State.

PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY OF NEW YORK CITY.

Even the briefest narration of the development of the State school system would be unfaithful which failed to make mention of a great organization known as the "Public School Society of the City of New York." It was chartered by the legislature in 1805, and was composed of the foremost citizens of the metropolis. Its object, as stated in its charter, was to establish "a free school in the city of New York for the education of such poor children as do not belong to or are not provided for by any religious society." This illustrates the prevailing sentiment of

of each township, one lot, which should be devoted to the support of the gospel, and one other to the support of schools. Here is the origin of the gospel and school moneys which have mystified so many minds. This action, however, contained no recognition whatever of the common-school principle. It was only an admission of the propriety of public encouragement to churches and schools, and that on equal terms.

FIRST STATUTE FOR AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.

In 1791 an act was passed authorizing six gentlemen, of whom the first was Robert R. Livingston, to receive certain moneys arising from excise fees and fines in the town of Clermont, in the county of Columbia, and "not wanted for the relief of the poor," and to build a schoolhouse and maintain a school therewith. Here is the first authority of the new Commonwealth for an elementary school. But it meant little. It levied no tax. It permitted a town to use for a school moneys which would legally go to the support of the poor, and which were not needed for that purpose. It put the almshouse and the school on about an equal

footing.

FIRST GENERAL STATUTE ENCOURAGING ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.

But in six years after their first utterance, the board of regents recurred to the matter persistently and heroically. In 1793 and 1794 and 1795 the board urged the matter in their annual reports, and the stanch old governor likewise talked strongly and soundly in the legislative ear. In the latter year he spoke in this fashion:

"While it is evident that the general establishment and liberal endowment of academies are highly to be commended, and are attended with the most beneficial consequences, yet it can not be denied that they are principally confined to the children of the opulent, and that a great proportion of the community is excluded from their immediate advantages. The establishment of common schools throughout the State is happily calculated to remedy this inconvenience, and will therefore engage your early and decided consideration."

These influential appeals brought from the legislature of 1795 a law entitled "An act for the encouragement of schools," which became the substantial corner stone of a State elementary school system. It appropriated $100,000 each year for five years from the State treasury “for the purpose of encouraging and maintaining schools in the several cities and towns of this State, in which the children of the inhabitants residing in the State shall be instructed in the English language, or be taught English grammar, arithmetic, mathematics, and such other branches of knowledge as are most useful and necessary to complete a good education.” This was a grand and noble thing to do. The appropriation was munificent when we consider the valuation upon which it was levied. The entire assessable valuation then was but about $100,000,000. The same rate upon our valuation would yield nearly $3,500,000 as the annual State appropriation for common schools now, which, by a curious coincidence, is precisely what the State does appropriate. The State was then heavily in debt; it is free from debt now. But in addition to the appropriation, the act required each town to raise by tax half as much more as it received from the State appropriation. It did not authorize this; it required it. In the assembly, when the bill was under consideration, a motion was made to provide that each town should share in the appropriation only upon condition that it should raise one-half as much more by local taxation. The proposition was voted down. The house said, No, there shall be no conditions or uncertainty about it. We will make this appropriation; we will require each town to raise half as much more as we give it, and we will set up the machinery

which will insure its proper expenditure for elementary schools. This was not only a grand and a noble, but it was a heroic thing to do.

But in other ways this first general school law reveals the handiwork of the best statesmanship. It stated the purpose of the law accurately and felicitously. It provided a system for allotting the appropriation and for the annual election of not less than three nor more than seven commissioners in each town, who were to supervise and direct the system. This appropriation was not intended to pay the full expense of the schools. It was only to assist. It was reasoned that the people in localities would associate together because of this assistance, and open schools. The act contemplated the organization of school districts in the country, provided for the election of trustees, and set forth their powers and duties. In short, it brought into being the elements of a State school system, and gave shape and form to that system, in essential particulars, as it exists to-day.

Wise and courageous as were the men who framed this great statute and breathed the breath of life into a common-school system (and they were wise and courageous beyond their generation), yet they had no conception of, and gave no adhesion to, the doctrine now pervading the school system, that it is the duty of the State to provide by common tax an elementary school within easy access of every home, and that a good English education at general expense is the rightful inheritance of every child of the Commonwealth. They advanced to the point of believing that the State should encourage schools, and even to the point of believing that it might rightfully do this in a substantial way through its power to levy and collect taxes. But they still believed that, primarily, the responsibility rested upon each individual to educate his offspring, and that only when he failed to do this, private or public charity might properly aid the unfortunate.

It seems strange, in view of the fact that the State had previously confided its educational interests, so far as it had acted at all, to the board of regents, and that the common-school system was established largely through the influence of that board, that it did not give the regents supervision of the new system. But it did not do so. On the contrary, the bill recited that special provision had previously been made for encouraging colleges and academies and provided that nothing contained in this act should be construed as extending to such institutions. In 1800 a strong movement was made for continuing the provisions of the act of 1795 for another five years. It succeeded in the house, but failed in the senate, near the close of the session, by a close vote. Each succeeding year for five years the governor urged the subject, but nothing was done. Evidence is not wanting to show that the unfortunate delay and neglect resulted from differences as to the best course to pursue, and particularly as to whether the administration of the system should be given to the regents. In 1805 the foundations of a permanent common-school fund were laid, and from that time, in spite of some neglect and hindrances innumerable, the common-school system has, with unvarying uniformity, grown in strength and in efficiency. In 1798 the reports received showed the organization of 1,352 schools, with 59,660 pupils. In 1815 there were 2,755 districts and 140,106 pupils. In 1830 there were 9.063 districts and 499,424 pupils. Last year there were 1,803,667 pupils in the common schools of the State.

PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY OF NEW YORK CITY.

Even the briefest narration of the development of the State school system would be unfaithful which failed to make mention of a great organization known as the "Public School Society of the City of New York." It was chartered by the legislature in 1805, and was composed of the foremost citizens of the metropolis. Its object, as stated in its charter, was to establish a free school in the city of New York for the education of such poor children as do not belong to or are not provided for by any religious society." This illustrates the prevailing sentiment of