almost absolutely worthless, so that 'the fund must suffer a loss, unless some plan of gradation of lands be adopted. It is futile to expect that the State will realize all that is due on the lands forfeited. Interest, taxes, penalty and forfeiture added to the appraisal will, in very many cases, prevent the sale. This subject should receive earnest attention. I would recommend that the 16th section lands now unsold be thrown open to actual settlers in tracts of from 40 to 160 acres; that no advance payment be required, except the annual interest of 7 per cent. To secure actual occupancy two years interest might be required in advance. The settler should have the privilege of purchasing the land at any time after a term of seven years, or of retaining posession for any number of years, during which he pays the annual interest. The objection that settlers would go upon the lands for a year or two and strip them of whatever is valuable and then forfeit them, is an objection in force against the present system, and it must be met in the same way, by the faithfulness of the officers whose duty it is to protect the School Lands from trespass, beyond what is absolutely necessary to occupancy and improvement. By glancing at the list of forfeited lands it will be seen that a very large share is held by non residents. It appears to me that this measure would secure the settlement of these lands and eventually their sale, or in case of forfeiture, they would come back to the State increased rather than lessened in value.

Aside from the loss to the immediate Productive Fund, the following extracts from the Report of the School Land Commissioners will show an absolute loss in the matter of loans:

"MORTGAGED LANDS FORFEITED IN 1858-9.

"We have endeavored by inquiries and a somewhat extensive correspondence, to gather reliable information concerning the value of the mortgaged lands forfeited to the State in 1858 and 1859, and also as to the responsibility of the mortgagors.

"The number of forfeited mortgages in 1858 was: School Land Loans, 49; Drainage Fund, 2. Total, 51. These Lands were mortgaged to secure loans amounting to $23,628 89, and now bid in by the State for $1,195 30. The actual value of these lands at average selling rates, as shown by correspondents' estimates, is $5,200.

"The number of forfeited mortgages in 1859 was: School Land Loans, 102; University, 3; Drainage Fund, 11. Total, 116. These are held by the State as security for loans

amounting to $51,811. The actual value of these lands at average selling rates is estimated by correspondents at $22,870. Probably they would not bring half that sum under the hammer. But if they are sold at the highest estimates, the State will lose over $46,000 during both years. As many outside city and village lots are included in this forfeited list, we have adopted rules which will probably save the State from loss on such loans in future. No unimproved outside lots are received as security; and all improved lots so received must be worth, apart from perishable improvements, three times the amount of the loan granted. We have also inserted a clause in the appraisers' affidavit blanks which makes it imperative on the officers personally to examine the land with a view to the particular appraisement in ques

tion."

The Commissioners make many excellent suggestions upon the care of the School Lands, which should be very seriously considered by the Legislature.

The legislation of last winter bearing upon this subject was wise, and I trust it may be allowed time to prove itself

So.

Excessive county taxation has been the cause of many forfeitures. To this there was no check so long as the State gave the county credit for its full tax on State Lands. Chapter 306 of Laws af 1860 furnishes an excellent check on this source of injury to the School Fund, and will in the end prove beneficial to the counties themselves, as it will secure a term of years of lighter taxation in lieu of one or two years exces sive taxation. At the same time it will increase the wealth of the county promoting settlement.

The design of the Legislature as expressed in section 26 of chapter 28 of Revised Statutes seems to fail of execution, from the fact that the Commissioners have not before them any means of knowing what are "pine lands." It is not to be expected that purchasers will indicate what lands are "pine lands," and thus subject themselves to the necessity of paying the full purchase money in advance. The Swamp Lands should be appraised and the "pine lands" designated in the appraisal, so that the Commissioners may have before them authority to demand full purchase money in advance. This may prevent the immediate sale of these lands, but must secure their sale as fast as demanded, without any danger of loss to the State. The immediate expense of such appraisal will be more than counterbalanced by the ultimate benefits to be derived from it.

3

The causes of large forfeitures may be briefly stated as follows:

1. Many of the lands were sold when speculation ran high, and purchasers have failed to realize their expectations.

2. The lumbering interests of the State have been serious. ly crippled during the past three years, and purchasers of pine lands have no inducements longer to continue paying interest. It may be well for the State that such is the case. Judging from the past, the lands would have become less valuable each year. The State, with proper care, may realize more from them than it would have done had the financial revulsion been delayed a few years.

3. Excessive taxation of non-resident landholders. From some of the counties where the largest amount of forfeited lands is found, the taxes are from 7 to 27 per cent. of the appraised value of the lands as sold by the State. Much of this land will in a few years be eaten up by the taxes. Were these lands rapidly increasing in value, so large a per centage upon their first cost might be very light taxation after all. With the Swamp Lands it can hardly be said that any great increase of value above the appraisal is justly expected. The very fact of their forfeiture indicates no great increase in value. Admitting them to have doubled in value, and taking the very lowest per centage of taxation it would give 3 1-2 per cent. upon their valuation, an unusual rate of taxation anywhere.

2.-SCHOOL OFFICERS.

There are in the State 743 Town Superintendents, and 12,633 District Officers, besides the members of City Boards of Education, and the two extra officers required in each Union School, as established by law. The County Clerks, also, and the County Treasurers become school officers, either in making reports or distributing moneys. The whole number of officers directly connected with the schools of the State cannot be less than 13,500. Of these officers the Town Superintendents and Districts Clerks to the number of almost 5000, are the most directly connected with, and responsible for the prosperity of our schools. The officers of the several towns and districts should be men of education, good common sense and practical honesty. These requisites are enforced by two considerations. 1. The interests of the State so essentially depend upon the right education of her citizens; and 2. The pecuniary interest, as shown by the large amount of money annually expended for schools.

The first of these considerations should be of most weight, yet is so intimately related to, and in some cases dependent upon the second, that they may not be considered separately.

The question whether any change is needed in number or prescribed duties of school officers, is one proper to be considered here.

I would advise a change from Town Superintendency to a system of

COUNTY SUPERINTENDENCY.

Rather, I would transfer the duties of the Town Superintendent, so far as regards examination of teachers, and general supervision of the schools to a County Superintendent, making the Town Clerk ex-officio Town Superintendent, so far as distribution of moneys, and transmission of reports are concerned.

My reasons for deeming a change necessary, may be briefly stated.

1. The system of Town Superintendency has not the confidence or support of a large majority of the people.

2. It has not, in itself, the elements necessary to secure that confidence and support.

Frequent interviews with the most prominent educational men of this and other States, and letters from all parts of the State, from many Town Superintendents themselves, are the ground of my first statement. Here I would introduce testimony extracted from letters written on this and other subjects:

Says one:

"I have seen little good from the office of Town Superintendent. I think a County, or Assembly District Board, whose chairman shall be Superintendent, would suit better than any thing I have heard proposed.

Another writes:

"I believe that a County Superintendency would greatly improve our school system. Without increasing the expense, it would secure more efficient supervision, more thoroughness and uniformity in the examination of teachers, improved modes of instruction and discipline, better text books, and in all respects improve the condition of the schools of the State."

Another:

"Let us have County Superintendents by all means. The present arrangement is next to worthless. Our schools, under it, have no supervision at all. I speak of the general working of the system. There is, occasionally, a man elected superintendent of a town, who will sacrifice his time and neglect his business, to visit schools and do what he can for them; but such men are rare.

"If we can have County Superintendents who are competent men, something could be expected from their individ. ual supervision of schools, and their unity of action and effort as a State Board."

Another writes:

"An examination by one or more county examiners,would obviate, very considerably, the evils now felt, which result from the present method of examining and licensing teachers. I am not clear that it would be possible for a county officer to give all the personal supervision necessary to all the schools in the county, or that the community would be satisfied with what he could give, though, to be sure, the schools get next to none now. Might not a town officer have special supervision in his own town, subject to the general supervision of a county officer, by whom all certificates to teachers should be granted?"

Testimony like the above is abundant, but I will give place to witnesses, who have tested the matter throughly in other States. They are men of large experience, and know "whereof they affirm." Their testimony will be found to favor County Superintendency, as opposed to Town Superintendency.

Says the Hon. H. H. Van Dyck, Superintendent of schools for the State of New York, "The experience of another year, and a wider range of observation, enable me to speak in renewed terms of commendation of the system of school supervision in operation in this State. Two things are the necessary concomitants to this favorable expression. These conditions are, a proper discrimination on the part of the electors exerted in the choice of School Commissioners and a willing ness on the part of that officer to discharge his whole duty. I speak advisedly in saying, that where these requisites are conjoined, there no substantial complaint against the system will be heard. * Least of all should there be a disposition for change, unless something better than the doubly

*

*