rounding a teacher's employment are frequently such as to drive an independent and self-respecting person to other work at no better pay. For these and other reasons not necessary here to enumerate, the greater number of persons who commence teaching. do so upon the understanding that it is only a temporary expedient and not a permanent means of livelihood. This has made it exceedingly difficult to secure the requisite number of persons completely or even measurably adapted to the instruction of the schools. This has been largely so from the beginning, but the fact has been more prominent in recent years because the qualities which constitute a good teacher, and the vast importance of having such qualities in every schoolroom, have come to be so much more generally understood.

The best statesmanship of New York appreciated this matter from a comparatively early date, and at once began special efforts for training competent teachers for the schools. In his annual message to the legislature, in 1826, Governor DeWitt Clinton referred to the subject in these words:

"With a full admission of the merits of several who now officiate in that capacity, still it must be conceded that the information of the instructors of our common schools does not extend beyond rudimental education; that our expanding population requires constant accessions to their numbers; and that to realize these views it is necessary that some new plan for obtaining able teachers should be devised. I therefore recommend a seminary for the education of teachers. A compliance with this recommendation will have the most benign influence on individual happiness and social prosperity."

In his annual message in 1827 the governor recurs to the subject with added emphasis, and goes so far as to recommend a central school in each county for the special education of teachers. In that very year the legislature added $150,000 to the capital of the literature fund “to promote the education of teachers."

From this time there was much discussion of the subject until a statute was enacted in May, 1834, which authorized the regents to spend a portion of the literature fund in specially educating teachers, and this brought into existence the teachers' classes in the academies. The sum of $500 was given to purchase books and apparatus for an academy in each of the senate districts as they then existed, and the further sum of $400 was given for the support of an instructor in each academy.

The classes for teachers were opened in these academies in the autumn of 1835. In succeeding years the appropriations were increased, and thus the number of classes was multiplied. This work has been continuous to the present time. A year ago the supervision of these classes was transferred from the board of regents to the department of public instruction, and this year the appropriation was raised from $30,000 to $60,000.

In April, 1843, the first teachers' institute was held at Ithaca. There were 28 teachers present, and the session continued two weeks. These gatherings of teachers were at first voluntary, but soon came to be regulated and supported by the State. In later years they have been held with regularity in each commissioner district, and teachers have been paid for attendance, while attendance has been compulsory.

In 1844 the first State normal school was opened at Albany. Others have been established from time to time until now there are ten of these institutions, and the eleventh is to be opened in the coming autumn. These schools have real estate worth $1,400,000, and furniture and apparatus valued at $150,000 more. Last year they had, all told, 6,468 pupils and graduated 537. The State paid for the maintenance of these institutions last year $272,581.85. In March last the name of the original school was changed to that of "The New York State Normal College," and it will hereafter receive only pupils who have more fully completed their work in subject-matter in the ordinary schools, and will devote its entire

the time concerning the relation which society should sustain to common education better than any language o' mine can do it. In acting up to the spirit of the times, and in carrying out the beneficient objects for which it was create 1, this society won the gratitude of the ages. It received public and private contributions and tuition fees for the support of its work, it controlled all the public schools in the city for nearly fifty years, and exerted a strong influence upon the educational o; inion of the country. At its dissolution in 1873 it had supervised the instruction of 600,000 children, and it turned over to the board of education of the city of New York property worth more than 8150 000,

What this society was doing in the city of New York was being done in one way or another to a greater or less extent, by associated effort in all the cities and towns of the State.

GROWTH OF THE SYSTEM.

The fact that the State assumed to regulate the affairs of the schools to some extent as well as the aid which it gave them, coupled with the growing pub te interest in them and the ardor of the professional educators, steadily promoted the growth and deve o; ment of the system till, in the judgment of the most epetent and impart al witnesses it clearly led the educational work of the country. In his anual report for 18, Hora e Mann,cretary of the board of education of Mascictiserts says The great State of New York is carrying forward the work of pròl e education, more rapaly than any other State in the Union, or any other co intry in the world " Ani Henry Bart,ard, of Conne ticut, at the first meeting of your assocat ou in the same year said "I have watched the progressIVO improv ment in the organ at.on and admin strat: n of te school system of this great State with intense interest and regard it at this time as superior to any other of which I have any know'elge, for its extent, its liberality, its eflcieni y, as the general iste.gen e and activity with which its widespread affa rs are adran, ste v Ihese will be reega ed at once as great names periaj s the Kreatest in the history of common-schoo development the country

THE RATE BILL.

The early leg slation »« m« t» have been framed on the beef that the incor, of tre State suli-a fund and tie tax epia, to one-half its share wil h each distrit was required terase, would su; port the schools but thwa found to be in a les quate an 1 then it was prov-led that the set,ools shoul, be mentines, a specified tinseca 1 ver a. It . at any descency in “ur ds sho 1, 1 be collected from fie patrons in :roportion to †, e itter lace of the relir n. This gaver me to It was ty a tax exted up in parents i "report on to tur of days wh. h their cla ren atter del te school. The am vin's ra se】 1a ti 1€ Was weren't poor,« der ab e In CAN WANN 24,00 in 1840, 8475,000 11 18 7, The average sum attı ally en estel

of t..

the rate bri

the

ཨཎྜ ས ཝཱ་ 【* ༔

...o is wish the state has known was o -r

thefit of a m ༄་ས་འZe འའི་£k, ཅི་ WAL) 18 & Custome 1 t› be int r

རོམ ་ལ་:,-:s furefaus and matained at pr

In 1849 the legislature submitted the question to a vote of the people, and the returns showed 249,872 in favor of making "the property of the State educate the children of the State," and 91,951 against it. The opponents were not content. In 1850 they procured legislation resubmitting the question, and the returns showed 209,616 against the rate bill, and 184.303 for the old system. Still the opponents were not content. In 1850 a kind of compromise was effected, and the controversy was attempted to be settled by restoring the rate bill and levying a State tax for $800,000, to be distributed with the school money. This tax, increased to larger amounts, has been annually raised since, and is technically known as the free-school fund."

But, as a general thing, the cities would not tolerate the rate bill. At their solicitation the legislature, from time to time, passed special acts creating a board of education with general powers and duties, and in this manner set up an organizel school system in each city. These special laws ordinarily authorized taxation adequate to the entire support of the schools, and thus the rate bill became obsolete in most of the cities at a comparatively early day.

In the meantime the union free-school district system" became legally permissible, and met with considerable favor. It authorized districts to combine and establish a graded school and meet the expenses by a general tax, thus obviating the necessity for the rate bill in communities adopting it. In 1867, under the impetuous and able leadership of Victor M. Rice, the rate-bill system was finally abolished, and the principle that the schools should be absolutely free to all and supported at public and general expense was fully and triumphantly established.

WHAT HAS PROMOTED THE GROWTH OF THE COMMON-SCHOOL SYSTEM.

Now, permit me, in as few words as I can well employ, to speak of the distinguishing characteristics which have made our State s hool system the leading influence in developing the inte lectual and therefore the material life of the Commonwealth, and have constituted it a model for other States, so far as their representatives have had the foresight and the courage to follow it. It may fairly be said that these are four in number:

1. State support

2. Extent and manner of supervision. 3. Technical training of teachers.

4. Cooperative effort.

STATE SUPPORT.

The State has not at all times done all that her ardent educators have asked. Her generosity has been so munificent that their standard has been high and their expectations great. For many years her authority has been potent and her bounty plenteous. Passing the first splendid appropriation, before the dawn of the nineteenth century, to which I have previously adverted, we find that in 1805 she laid the foundation of a permanent common-school fund, and provided for its increase, until last year it amounted to $4,0-0,00). Acting upon the commonly accepted theory of the times, large sums were appropriated year after year to encourage schools. At an early day the State began the policy of requiring localities to raise by tax such additional amounts as were necessary to maintain schools, and authorized all communities to levy such additional amounts as they saw fit for the same purpose.

More than fifty years ago the State initiated the school district library system, and since that time has annually made a liberal appropriation to maintain the same. It is true that portions of this money have been diverted to other uses and that the whole matter needs revision now, but it is equally true that the millions of volumes which the fund his supplied greatly enhanced the efficiency of the schools and promoted the mental growth of the people of the State. In 1851 it

disavowed the oil doctrine that education was the rightful inheritance of the opulent, but ought to be doled out in reasonable quantities as a charity offering to the poor, adopted the principle that the property of the State should educate the children of the State, and began regularly to levy a State tax for schools, an i commenced the int.nal appropriation of the "free school fund." Under this policy the amount raised by general and lo al taxation for common schools in the State has rapidly advanced from $1,600,000 in 1850 to $3,700,000 in 1860, $10,000,000 in 1870, and nearly $17,000,000 last year.

In 1966 the State extended to local authorities the power to acquire land for school sites by the right of eminent domain. It is a lesson which the States of the Union have been slow to learn, and which some of them will apparently never learn, that the efficiency of a school system must necessarily depend largely upon the extent of support and the proper but complete exercise of State authority, Men who understand it not uncommonly lack the courage to say so. The Em aire State appreciate i this fact early, earlier than any other, and her statesmen have acted with wisdom and courage in the matter. Now for many years the authority and power of the State have been freely exerted in innumerable ways to the extenson and betterment of school property and the improvement of the schools

FATENT AND MANNER OF SUPERVISION,

When New York first took se ion, looking to the organization of common schools, town commissioners, with trustees in subdisricts were provided for. When the tine came to s about reine.ng the disconne, te 1 schoo's which, under her aid and encouragement, had been organized in her cities and towns and along her pictures,ue hi as des and valleys into s in thing life in organized and related sys tem she dil it through a genera system of supervisov o !, ers a plan w ich has since been put in operation in all the States of the Un. n, but in the adoption of which she clear y led the way.

In 18.2 an act was passe i prov ding for the appointment, by the counsel of appointment of a State superintendent of comm n schools I he ate stat ite a so provided for the election in each town, at the annual town meeting, of three cotalliss, shers to stip rintend and manage the affairs of the schools within their town. In 1814 this statute was reeta bed with some amendments among wisch Was a provision *l, a* there shoula so bectom natahtown meeting "awiti lo haber einka starts not to exsels,x, to act with the three commissione is AN

than 200 ml, sol districts they were to speast two depit es. Here we find the begilla lag of tin e un'y or district notifie

In 1843 the offices of town commissioners and inspectors were abolished, and provision was made for the election in each town, at town meeting, of a “town superintendent of common schools."

In 1847 the office of county deputy superintendent or county superintendent, as it had come to be called, was abolished.

In 1854, by a bill introduced by Hon. William H. Robertson, then and now the senator from the Westchester district, and always the steadfast and able friend of the schools, the State department of public instruction was organized and the office of superintendent of public instruction was created.

In 1856 the office of town superintendent was abolished and that of school com. missioner was again created.

Thus it will be seen that we have had supervision by State officers since 1812, by county or district officers from 1841 to 1847 and from 1856 to the present time, and by town officers from 1795 to 1856. The general features of this comprehensive plan of school supervision have affected the development of the school system most advantageously.

EMINENT SUPERINTENDENTS,

In the list of State superintendents some very eminent names appear.

Gideon Hawley was, in his way, truly a great man. Of lofty personal attributes and great natural dignity of character, yet modest and retiring in demeanor, he was methodical, painstaking, and persevering to the last degree, the ideal man through the period of construction and organization. For the paltry sum of $300 per year he perfected a system for the management of the school fund and for the organization of districts, provided for the fair and equitable distribution of the bounty of the State in each district, and set in operation the vast and intricate machinery of the State school system. The State never rewarded him for his disinterested labors, but posterity will not withhold the credit which is his due. Particularly fortunate was the State in its general superintendents from 1826 to 1845. This period is covered by the continuous administration of four great men—Azariah C. Flagg, John A. Dix, John C. Spencer, and Samuel Young.

The first had been in the legislature several years before coming to this work, and went from it to the office of comptroller of the State, which he filled from 1834 to 1816, and rounded out a reputation as one of the truly eminent men of the State.

Of General Dix the world knows. Before he put his great natural and scholastic abilities at the service of our school system he had been on a special and delicate mission to Denmark and received high military honors, including the office of adjutant-general of the State. He afterwards held innumerable positions of public trust, including those of Secretary of the Treasury, United States Senator, major-general in the United States Army during the civil war, and finally governor of this State.

Mr. Spencer was a graduate of Union, and had served one term as attorney-general, one term in Congress, and two in the State senate, and had served as a commissioner in the revising of the statutes of the State before he became superintendent of common schools, and was Secretary of War and Secretary of the Treasury afterwards.

Samuel Young had been in each house of the legislature, had served as canal commissioner from 1816 to 1840, and was the Democratic candidate for governor against Mr. Clinton in 1824. Incidentally it is amusing to recall that in more illiberal times than these he once denied an application to revoke the certificate of a teacher for dancing, card playing and drinking on the ground that he did the same things himself when a young man.

I speak of these four men with some particularity, not so much because they otherwise attained such great prominence as to recall the qualities which they