1

most comprehensive, and serves as a covert for those who are driven from other positions, it will be first approached.

The words of the Constitution are as follows: "The Legislature shall provide by law for the establishment of district schools, which shall be as nearly uniform as practicable, &c."

The objector assumes that the uniformity required must be in extent of instruction given, and inasmuch as the instruction given in a majority of our schools must be limited to the common English branches by reason of their poverty or sparsity of population, therefore constitutional uniformity would be violated by the admission of other branches into any of our schools supported by public funds and by taxation.

Admitting the correctness of the premises, the legitimate result of such reasoning must prove an absurdity, for thus would the poorest and least advanced schools become the standard to which all others must be reduced. No such design could have been entertained by the intelligent framers of our Constitution. Had such been their intention, they would very naturally have prescribed the course of study to be pursued in our district schools.

i

The language of the Constitution seems most easily explained upon the supposition that it is addressed to the Legislature, and forbids the passage of any act that shall secure to any district peculiar privileges not accorded to all alike, while at the same time it demands such legislation as shall establish all schools upon a uniform basis as to their rights and privileges. In a word it is a uniformity of possibilities and not of actualities. It opens a wide field and invites all to enter, upon precisely the same conditions, and still further encourages a healthy rivalry. It says whatever is made the absolute duty of a common school you must each perform, and whatever privileges are accorded you may share. To this all will probably assent, and the next point to be discussed is: What are the duties and what the privileges of the Common or District School? What did the framers of our constitution mean, when they provided that the Common School should be free to all between the ages of 4 and 20? The answers to these questions can alone be found in the technical meaning of the words "Common" or "District school." Neither Webster nor Worcester settle the question in dispute between those who affirm that the term has always been applied exclusively, to such schools as were devoted to instruction in Reading, Writing and Arithmetic, and those who claim that it embraces within its province other and higher branches, almost without limit. Law Dictionaries are also silent upon the point. If then we can find no definition in words that shall be authoritative, we must look to practices. But practice has materially changed since the first establishment of Common Schools. We must then, in fairness, confine ourselves to the practice of the older states at the time our Constitution was framed. The Constitutions and Statutes of other States in force previous to 1847, will give us some clue to the popular opinion relative to Free Schools at that time, since the Laws of a State are very properly supposed to reflect the public opinions of that State. Further than this, Opinions and Practices generally accord At the outset, let it be remembered that it is not the name, but the principle we wish to establish and though in the illustration of the subject the terms Primary School,

Grammar School and High School may occur, they are but parts of a system founded upon the broad principles of free tuition to pupils of certain ages. So long as we confine ourselves to those schools which were supported entirely by Public Funds and taxation of property, and opened their doors alike to rich and poor, the argument will be fair, although names may vary.

Connecticut and Massachusetts strive for the honor of introducing upon American soil the Free School system. They shall be consulted first. One must be mentioned first, but the friends of the other may transpose their order if they so desire.

The Constitution of Connecticut adopted in 1818 contains these words: "Public or Common Schools, and for the equal benefit of all the people of the State."

The Legislature acting under that Constitution in 1841, gave to School Districts the power "to establish and maintain Common Schools of different grades;" the schools of higher grade to be public and supported at Public Expense. Certificates were to be given to teachers setting forth the branches the candidate is capable of teaching, provided no certificate shall be issued to a person not qualified to teach Reading, Writing, Arithmetic and Grammar thoroughly, and the rudiments of Geography and History. Connecticut demanded certain branches to be taught in her Common Schools and made special provision for instruction in other and higher branches several years before our Constitution was adopted and all under the name of Common or Public Schools.

The Constitution of Massachusetts reads thus: "It shall be the duty of legislatures to cherish the interests of literature &c., especially the University at Cambridge, Public Schools and Grammar Schools in the towns." Here the term Grammar Schools is introduced, but the difference in terms is of little or no weight since the principle of free tuition is the one really at issue. The Massachusetts statute of 1826 required schools to be established wherever 50 families were found, in which should be taught all the lower English branches. For every 500 families a school should be opened for instruction in additional branches of History, Book-keeping, Surveying, Geometry and Algebra. For every 4000 inhabitants in any one town a still higher grade should be established for instruction in Latin, Greek, History, Rhetoric and Logic. The statute also makes provision that any town not containing 500 families may provide for instruction in higher branches.

In the State of New York there are no specifications as to branches to be taught, and no implications as to what they may be. But for years before the adoption of our Constitution the Common Schools of New York afforded facilities for instruction in the higher English Branches.

The first Constitution of the State of Ohio after making provision for Public Schools says, "The doors of the said schools, Academies and Universities shall be open for the reception of scholars, students and teachers of every grade, without any distinction or preference whatever." "Schools and the means of instruction shall forever be encouraged by legislative provision."

Ten years previous to the framing of our Constitution the Statutes of Ohio contained the following provision: "Directors may determine the

studies to be pursued in each school, so that Reading, Writing and Arithmetic shall be taught in the English Language; Provided, that nothing in this act shall be so construed as to prevent any other language, in addition to the English, from being taught in the Common Schools at the discretion of the Directors." Incorporated towns, cities and boroughs may establish schools of different grades."

The Statutes of New Hampshire of 1812 appropriate the School Money exclusively to the keeping of the English School or Schools for teaching Reading, Writing, Arithmetic and Grammar, together with such other branches of English Education as are adapted to advance the Schools. In any District having more than 50 scholars, the pupils may be divided into two or more divisions according to age or acquirements, or both.

The Constitution of Michigan provides for "Primary Schools." The Statutes of 1843 give to Inspectors power to classify schools according to advancement of pupils, into two or more classes, and to require that such pupils be taught in distinct schools or departments.

Some of the cases cited go so far as to include in prescribed studies for the district schools, the Higher English Branches and the Languages. Others, by providing for gradation of schools, indirectly declare that the full idea of a Public School embraces instruction in higher branches than Reading, Writing and Arithmetic. The practice of all District Schools in making provision for instruction in higher branches as rapidly as circumstances demanded, but adds to the testimony in favor of a broader and more comprehensive system of instruction than the one assigned to the Common School by the persons whose objections we are answering.

While the larger part of the work properly belonging to the District School must, from the very nature of the case, be given to instruction in the fundamental branches of an English education, all the testimony adduced goes to show that the Common School, even in its technical meaning as derived from the practice of States where Common School Interests have been fostered, is not confined to that work.

It remains to be shown that the first and succeeding Legislatures of our own state, have accepted this broader view of the Common School. The first Legislature of the state had peculiar duties assigned them. They were to frame the laws in conformity with the Constitution. It is presumed that they studied the Constitution thoroughly. Its provisions were fully understood by them. They show their understanding of the meaning of the term Common School by the 79th and 80th sections of am act adopted by them in 1848, relating to Public Schools.

"Sec. 79. Whenever the Superintendent of any town shall deem that the interests of any of the schools will be best promoted by so doing, he may form a single district of any two or more districts therein, and classify the pupils into two or more classes, according to their proficiency and advancement in learning, and require that such pupils be taught in distinct schools or departments, as classified by them, &c. &c.

"Sec. 80. The said Superintendent may also, upon the application of the district board of any district, classify the pupils therein in the manner prescribed in the preceding section, &c. &c."

These sections provide for a classification of pupils according to ad

vancement, without limit as to number of departments or extent of ad

vancement.

In the year following, these sections were left out, and another substituted, fixing the branches that should be taught in the English language, embracing the Common English branches, "and such other branches as the district board may determine upon.' The law therefore, fixes no limit to the studies that may be pursued in the district schools, (after providing that certain branches shall be taught,) except in the discretion of the District Board; and among the duties assigned the District Board is, the one of determining the text books that shall be used, without any restriction as to their extent or character. Subsequent legislation has made provision for the establishment of High Schools to be supported at public expense, and to be free to all children between the ages of 4 and 20 years.

Such are the laws and such the practices. Do they conflict with the Constitutions of the several states? There is a tribunal established in each state, whose duty it is to answer such questions when properly brought before it. What have been the decisions of Supreme Courts upon this matter? In a pretty thorough examination of the Supreme Court Reports of all the states where graded schools are established, I have been unable to find a single decision adverse to the practice. On the other hand but two decisions appear to have any bearing upon the subject, and both of these in the State of Massachusetts; one sustaining the inferior Court in the infliction of a fine upon a certain town for failing to maintain a High School, and the other of similar force with reference to a Grammar School. In the latter case the indictment found by the jurors of the lower Court, and which was sustained by the Supreme Court, was in words as follows:

The jurors on their oath present that the town of Dedham, in the county of Norfolk, at said Dedham on the 26th day of April, 1816, and from that time to the 26th day of April, 1817, did contain and still doth contain two hundred families and upward; and that said town of Dedham. at said town of Dedham, did, during all the time from said 25th day of April, 1816, to said 26th of April, 1817, neglect and still does neglect the procuring and supporting of a Grammar School Master of good morals, and well instructed in the Latin, Greek and English languages, to instruct children and youth in such languages, which is in subversion of that diffusion of knowledge and in hindrance of that promotion of education, which the principles of a free government require, and which the Constitution of the Commonwealth enjoins, and against the peace and dignity of said commonweath, and the forms of the statutes in such cases made and provided."

At the same time the principle was enunciated that " ' every inhabitant had a right to participate in the benefits of both descriptions of schools." It will be observed that the indictment rests upon the town of Dedham in its corporate capacity. The town could not procure and support a Grammar School Master except at public expense. The public funds could not support their schools Taxation must have been resorted to, and this for instruction in Latin and Greek, as well as in English. To be sure, a certain number of inhabitants must first be found within a town before these provisions could by law be made binding. But instruction in high

er branches was a possibility of Common Schools, while less than that number were found in the town. The simple circumstance of greater or less population did not change the general idea which the law makers of Massachusetts entertained of the Common School. It simply fixed a limit below which free tuition in higher studies could not be required of any

town.

The Constitution does not make absolute and definite provision for the support and maintenance of district High Schools, it is true; but as a part of a system of Common Schools it is definitely provided for. At least nothing in the Constitution can be so construed as to prohibit the establishment of such a system, so long as ample provision is made for instruction in the elementary branches. Common sense would lead to such an interpretation by any person not blinded by prejudice, who looks to the general design of a State School system. Thus far I think I am warranted in saying-the Constitution does provide that certain studies must be pursued, and others without limit may be, at the discretion of the people, who are taxed for their support..

Even if it be distinctly shown that the term Common School, at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, meant nothing more than a school for instruction in the common English branches, are we to be governed by past ideas, prevalent at a time when there was less demand for culture than at present? Our country has made rapid strides within the last quarter-century. Greater activity prevails everywhere, and in all departments of labor, mental as well as physical. We must keep up with these demands, in school matters, as we have in all that pertains to individual pursuits. We use not the machines of 25 years ago. We are not content with the slow modes of transporting men or messages that prevailed no longer ago than the time of the adoption of our Constitution. There is an eager stretching forward to still greater achievements. They can be wrought out only through better culture. Let us not madly attempt to stop this onward movement, but guard it and aid in bringing it to a suc cessful issue. This necessity, as well as others, may demand a change of Constitution, if it stand in the way. States sometimes outgrow Constitutions.

Turning to other opponents; of the 1st class named, there are several subdivisions. 1. Those who are opposed to all education-happily few, and needing no special attention in this State. Closely allied to them are those who object to free schools because they teach laboring men to think, and thus prevent their subjection to the wealthier classes, who, they say, are born to rule. Though less barbarous than the former, they are. fostering a system which certainly tends to barbarism. Still others claim that education is well enough, but the system of Free Schools is not to be tolerated because it takes their money to educate other people's children. Their plea is, generally, that Private Property cannot be taken for Public Use without some just compensation. Were an education like mere pecuniary possessions, this argument would have some weight. From its very nature it is self-diffusive. It cannot be kept for the exclusive use and benefit of the person possessing it. Every man is made better by every other man's advancement in knowledge. The State at large reaps the benefits of intelligent industry. There is a just compensation to every