A HISTORICAL STUDY OF SOME EFFECTS OF DUAL CONTROL
IN THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM,
1854-1904

By
RICHARD LEWIS CANUTESON

A THESIS

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State College of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Division of Education

1950

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER

FACE

I. Establishment of the Regents
II. Origins of the Common School System
III. Development of Supervision

79

V. Financial Support and the Free School Issue
VI. Constitutional Convention of 1867-1868
Twenty-five Years of Friction

VIII. The Crooker Reports; The Convention of 1894
IX. Campaign for Unification:
X. Unification Accomplished
XI. Conclusions

21
50

IV. Teacher Training

VII.

1

1897-1901

100
148
184
243
274
336
392

BIBLIOGRAPHY

397

APPENDIX

417

LISI OF TABLES

PAGE

TABLE
I. A Comparative View of the Returns of Common
Schools for Different Years Since 1816
II.

46

Average Monthly Salaries Paid to Teachers for
Years 1345-1847, Exclusive of Room and Board

98

III. Financing Common Schools in Mew York State,

112

1796-1850
IV. Vote by Counties on Re-submission of Free
School Law

129

V. Estimated Payments and Receipts "by Counties
under $300,000 State Tax

132

VI. Amounts Collected by Rate Bills Compared with
Total Expenditures for Rural Schools

142

VII. Compari 3on of Expenditures, and Number of Schools
and Hum ber of Pupils Supervised by the Department
of Public Instruction and the Regents

267

VIII. Regents Elected under the Unification Law, with
Judicial District Represented and Term of Years

iv

384

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE

PAGE

I. Dual Control of Education In New York State,
1784-1904

xii

II. Functions of the Two Educational Departments
and Points at Which They Overlapped

xiii

III. Educational Organization Under the Unification
Act of 1904

391

v

by the university, as are public and private secondary
schools.

The regents' examinations which loom so large in

the thinking of educators from other states, are still the
subject of some discussion as to their advantages and dis­
advantages, but they are recognized by many educators as a
usefUl means of evaluation of instruction, in addition to
their value for transfer and college entrance.
In all theBe respects the regents are a daily force
in the life of the people of New York.

Their influence is

still powerful,.as may be seen from the controversy which
raged in 1948 during the process of establishing the State
University system, and which ended with an informal agree­
ment in which the supervisory influence of the Board of
Regents was reoognized, while the State University trustees
took over the actual control of the units of higher educa­
tion of whioh the state-wide system of public higher educa­
tion is composed.

That the regents still have their faith­

ful adherents is seen in the introduction in the legislature
in 1950 of a proposal to return the State University system
to the actual control of the Board of Regents.
This study grew out of an original interest in the
process by whioh the state system of supervisory control
over the public schools developed.

As the "spade-work" on

this project progressed, there appeared evidenoes of the
friction whioh existed for a half-century between the Board
vii

INTRODUCTION
It is perhaps difficult for those who are not resi­
dents of New York State to realize the extent to whioh the
University of the State of New York, through its betterknown component, the Board of Regents, enters into the daily
life of the people of the state.

The writer has had the

experience of mentioning the regents to persons in other
states, to he

met with a pitying glance and a remark, n0h,

yes, those regents' examinations In

What these persons do

not realize is that regents' examinations are hut one small
item in the manifold ways in which the University of the
State of New York spreads its influence throughout the state.
The University, through the Board of Regents, controls
the entire public educational, system of the state.
present time,

At the

the hoard has supervisory power over the State

University system, consisting of over thirty institutions of
higher education.

Through various departments and bureaus,

the University of the State of New York also controls the
state system of public education, as well as the state
library and museum.
In other ways the influence of the university is felt.
Every lawyer, doctor, dentist, veterinarian and pharmacist
displays on his office wall a certificate bearing the seal
and name of the university.

Public.libraries are chartered

"by the university, as are public and private secondary
schools.

The regents' examinations which loom so large in

the thinking of educators from other states, are still the
subject of some discussion as to their advantages and dis­
advantages, hut they are recognized by many educators as a
usefhl means of evaluation of instruction, in addition to
their value for transfer and college entranoe.
In all these respects the regents are a daily force
in the life of the people of New York.

Their Influence is

still powerful, as may be seen from the controversy whioh
raged in 1948 during the process of establishing the State
University system, and which ended with an informal agree­
ment in whioh the supervisory influence of the Board of
Regents was recognized, while the State University trustees
took over the actual control of the units of higher educa­
tion of whioh the state-wide system of public higher educa­
tion is composed.

That the regents still have their faith­

ful adherents is seen in the introduction in the legislature
in 1950 of a proposal to return the State University system
to the actual control of the Board of Regents.
This study grew out of an original interest in the
process by whioh the state system of supervisory control
over the public sohools developed.

As the "spade-work" on

this project progressed, there appeared evidences of the
friction which existed for a half-oentrry between the Board

vii

of Regents, controlling the secondary and higher Institu­
tions, and the department of public Instruction, which had
the supervision of the common and normal schools.

She

existence of this friction was confirmed in a conversation
with an executive of the state education department, who
offered valuable suggestions as to sources of information.
Further investigation revealed new materials which
would lend themselves to the writing of a bit of educational
history which seems particularly timely because of the
relationship of the Board of Regents to the debates over the
State University system.

It has seemed to the writer that

those who are interested in this recent phase of educational
history should be interested in a survey of the roots of this
opposition to a body of public officers whioh has been a part
of the state educational system for 166 years.

Some of the

greatest names in the history of New York have been listed
on the membership of the Board of Regents:

John Jay,

Alexander Hamilton, Morgan Lewis, John Vanderbilt and three
Livingstons were members of the original board.

Philip

Schuyler, Ezra L'Hommedieu, John Jay and Frederick William
Baron von Steuben were listed by the act of 1787.

Other b

appear throughout its history.
Investigation revealed further that the evidences of
this friction in the educational system were still looked
in the source materials of history, and had not been made
viii

the subject of an organized, study by any historian of today.
The Board of Regents had been the subject of a study com­
pleted in 1893 by Sidney Sherwood as a doctoral dissertation
for Johns Hopkins University.

However the theme of the

study had been the development and organization of the
university.
For these reasons it has seemed to the writer that a
useful historical study could be made of this little-known
but timely phase of Hew York's educational history.
The materials and the methods used have been those
of the careful historian:

documents, legislative records,

session laws, legislative documents and reports, minutes
and reports of the regents, reports of the meetings of
educational bodies, and so far as possible for a little
color, reports from periodicals and the press.

In the pro­

cess of collecting the materials, it has been necessary to
use the services of many libraries, for the materials have
been quite widely scattered.

One particular difficulty

encountered lay in the fact that many of the documents
needed, dating back as far as 1784, were fragile, sometimes
fragmentary, usually requiring the greatest of care.

Some

of these early volumes were but bundles of pages; and some
were used whioh were partially burned away, showing where
they had been rescued from flames, perhaps in a library fire,
perhaps saved from destruction by someone who recognized
ix

their value.

Early files, for example, of session laws and

legislative journals, were very incomplete and necessitated
patient checking from library to library to fill the gaps.
Another source of difficulty was the actual lack of
some materials, such as those destroyed in a disastrous fire
in Albany in 1911, in which considerable quantities of docu­
mentary materials were burned.

In such oases it has been

necessary to refer to carefully selected sources of other
types to complete the story as well as possible.
A third source of difficulty in collecting material
for this study is the relative scarcity in this state of
newspaper materials in bound form.

She state library at

Albany has the best collection of materials, but files of
local dailies and weeklies, whioh might supply comment, seem
to be largely lacking in upstate areas.

Shis it has been

necessary to do much work aotually in the state library,
which has been a necessarily pieoe-meal accompaniment of a
teaching assignment.
She study itself has been divided into two distinct
areas.

It seemed desirable to survey in the early chapters

the establishment of the state educational system, In order
that the bases of oonfliot might be the more apparent.

In

this section, therefore, has been included the early history
of the Board of Regents, and in somewhat more detail, as
being more comprehensive, the development of the common school
x

system.

Supervisory control, teacher training and financial

support have also been traced to the point where the common
school system was well established.
In chapters six to ten are presented in generally
chronological order the episodes involving not only friction
between the Board of Regents and the department of public
instruction, but also points of attack on the regents and
the system of higher education from other sources.

In these

chapters effort has been made, through the use of oarefully
selected quotations, to indicate the point of view of the
person or organization offering the criticism.
Figure I is an attempt to diagram the dual control
during this period while Figure II is an effort to clarify
the funotions of the branches and the points at whioh they
overlapped.
In these final chapters also the process by which
the two departments were by legal action unified into one
educational control has been described.

Because this period

of conflict covered almost exactly fifty years, from 1854 to
1904, it has seemed desirable to consider the study a unit
within these limits, and leave to later writers with a
better perspective the story of the controversy over the
State University.

xi

it

~ FIGURE I
DUAL CONTROL OF EDUCATION IN NEW YORK STATE,

178H-190H
Common Schools under
Dept, of Pah. Instruc­
tion or equivalent

Higher Institutions under
Bd. of Regents of the Uni­
versity of the State of N.Y.

1780
178U: Bd. of Regents estah.
1787? Revised University law
1790
First Common School Law 179!
1800
Common School Fund 1805
1810

Common School System 1812

1820

Office of Supt.aholishedl821

1830
-

Office of Supt. of Pah. 185^
Instruction established

18^0
1850

1853? tTnion ^ree School law;
conflicting jurisdiction

I860
Proposals to "unify11 186'
control of schools • to
1875

1870
1880

1890
Attacks on regents hy
Supt. legislative prohe

169^
to

1897

1900

UNIFICATION

1.867? Proposal in Convention
to abolish regents

L879? State Assn. plan to give
regents control over ed.
1886- Attacks on regents hy
L889
Governor Hill
I89U: Regent8 given constitu­
tional status
1898190U: Unification movement

FIGURE II
FUNCTIONS OF THE TWO EDUCATIONAL DEPARTMENTS
AND POINTS AT WHICH THE! OVERLAPPED

Chancellor
Executive Board
of
Albany Normal
Secretary

Higier Education

Deputy
Superintendent

Assistant

Secondary Educa­
tion

Private
Academies

Common

ee §Ehs!)
Bldgs.,
f Study
Eqpt.

* 8

11

3UPERINTEf
f’UbLIC IN!

BOARD OF
REGENTS

Schools

Deputy

Teacher Education

Normal
Schools

Training
.. Classes.
(Academies)

CHAPTER I
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE REGENTS
In this opening chapter we shall survey the origin of
the New York educational system, devoting a little attention
at the outset to the colonial schools.

Thereafter, for the

major portion of the chapter, we shall review the process hy
which the unique system known as the University of the State
of New York, and itB governing hody, the Board of Regents,
came into heing.
The original Butch settlers of New .Amsterdam brought
with them a few teachers, who were primarily ministers of
the Butch Reformed Church.

Official recognition of the needs

of education in the colony resulted in the arrival of Adam
Roelandsden-^ who oame with Governor Van Twiller in 1633.
Under the Butch regime schools were free, and open to all
who wished to attend.2

The teachers who followed the nine-

year regime of Roelandsden are reported to have nkept school
in hired houses.113 Mention of the collection plate having

•^Samuel Sidwell Randall, History of the Common School
System of the State of New York.H r o m its origin in 1795 to "
•Ene present time (flew York: ivison, Blakeman, Taylor '& C o . ,.
18711, p. 3.
2Ihid., p. 3.
3An drew Sloan Braper, Origin and Bevel opment of the
Common School System of the State of New York (Syracuse:
C. W. Bardeen, 1903), p. 22.

2
"been passed to raise money to build a schoolhouse "which has
as yet been built only with words"4 indicates that the Dutch
colonial educational system had its weaknesses.
Further difficulties are indicated by action of the
governor and council of the colony who, after receiving com­
plaints that the people of certain villages had not paid for
the support of schools, ordered the delinquents to pay their
share under pain of legal process.5

Petition from the popu­

lace to Governor Stuyvesant resulted in 1658 in the establish*
ment of a classical school, of whioh Dr, Alexander Carolus
was appointed principal.6

He was allowed an annual salary

of $187.50 from the colony, plus six guilders from each
student, was provided with a house and garden, and author­
ized to practice medicine in addition to his instructional
activities.7
While some difference of opinion exists as to the
extent of English interest in colonial schools after the
acquisition of Hew York, it is evident that there was no
great measure of official encouragement given.

Permission

was granted to establish schools here and there in the
colony;8 and the new charter granted by William and Mary

4Ibid., p. 24.
5Ibid., p. 25.
6Ibid., p. 25.
7Ibid.. pp. 26-27.
8 Randall, op. cit., p. 4.

3
required, the appointment of a schoolmaster in each parish
of the colony, selection to he made hy the ministers,
deacons and elders of the church,9

For the most part educa­

tion In New York under the English regime was under the
influence, at least, of the Church of England, as shown hy
the recurring stipulation in the Instructions to the gover­
nors that no person should he allowed to come from England
to teach without license from the Archbishop of Canterbury?1-0
and hy the fact that most of the schools were maintained hy
the English organization known as the Society for the Propa­
gation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts,

loyalty and conform­

ity were essentials for teaching under this organization.*^
The conservative and restrictive aspects of this
policy are further seen in the letter of the lieutenantgovernor, transmitting to the home office the request of the
offioials of King*s College for a charter granting certain
particular privileges.

The letter urged the granting of the

privileges nnot only on account of religion, hut of good
policy, to prevent the growth of republican principles whioh
already too much prevail in the colonies.

9Ihid., p. 4.
-*-°E. B. O^allaghan, ed., Documents Relating to
Colonial History of the State of flew Yorlc~(All
bany: Weed.
Parsons & Co., 18^3), Vol. Ill, p. 685“.
■^Draper, o p . cit., pp. 29-30.
12Ihid., pp. 31-32.

4
The British had scarcely shaken the dust of New York
Gbity from their feet after the conclusion of the Treaty of
Paris when we find in the January, 1784, message from Gover­
nor George Clinton to the legislature this statement, his­
toric in the annals of New York educational history:
Neglect of the education of youth is among the evils
consequent on war— perhaps there is scarce /sic7 any­
thing more worthy your attention, than the revival and
encouragement of seminaries of learning; and nothing hy
which we can more satisfactorily express our gratitude
to the Supreme Being for his past favors; since piety
and virtue are generally the offspring of an enlightened
understanding.
Ahout a month later a Senate committee under the
chairmanship of James Duane, a former governor of King’s
College, introduced a hill hearing the title "An act for
establishing a university within this state."14

On March 30

there was presented to the Senate a petition dated six days
before and signed hy all the remaining governors of the col­
lege, reviewing the previous charter, citing the death or
departure of many of the governors, and the inconsistency of
the old charter with existing conditions, and praying for an
alteration of the charter "as well as an extension of the
privileges of the said college so as to render it the mother

lsNew York (State), Messages from the Governors, ed.
hy Charles Z. Lincoln (Albany: J. B. Lyon do., 1^09)7 Vol.
II, p. 200.
14New York (State), Senate Journal, 1784 (Albany:
E. Holt), p. 34.

5
of an University to be established within this state. • • ,
#n15

ike petition bore the signatures of George Clinton,

Richard Morris, James Duane, Gerard Banclcer, Egbert Benson,
J. H. Livingston, Samuel Prevoost, John Rodgers, John Morin
Scott, Leonard Lispenard, John Livingston, William Walton,
and Samuel Bayard, Jr.16
Referred by the Senate to committee of the whole "to
be taken into consideration with the bill for establishing
a University,11 the petition resulted in a merger of the
movement to establish a university with that to amend the
charter and privileges of the college.

On April 16, 1784,

Mr. Williams reported for the committee of the whole that
the bill had been altered in title to read "An act for
granting certain privileges to the college heretofore
called King's College, for altering the name and charter
thereof, and erecting an University within this state."17
In this form the bill was passed three days later by the
Senate,18 and on April 21 by the Assembly.

It became law

after approval on May 1 by the council of revision.18

15Sidney Sherwood, University of the State of New
York: Origin, History and Present Organization (kegents'
Bulletin No. 11, January, 1^93. Albany: University of the
State of New York, 1893), p. 220.
16Ibid., p. 221.
•^Senate Journal. 1784, p. 100.
18Ibid., p. 102.
19Ibid., p. 135.

6
Under the act of May 1, 1784, all the former rights,
privileges, and immunities of the
corporation . . . known by the name of the Governors of
the College of the Province of New York . • • are vested
in the regents of the university of the state of New
York.20
The law also provided for five classes of regents:
1. Perpetual or ex officio regents, including the
governor, lieutenant-governor, president of the senate pro
tern, speaker of the assembly, mayor of the city of New York,
mayor of the city of Albany, the attorney-general and the
secretary of state.232. Two regents from each of the twelve counties then
existing.22
3. Clerical regents were provided for, but the act
was not clear as to whether there should be one representing

20New York (State), LawB of New York, 1777-1801
(republished by Secretary of State. Albany: “Weed, Parsons
& Co., 1886), Vol. I, p. 687.
21Ibid., p. 687.
22

Ibid., p. 687. Henry Brookholst Livingston and
Robert Harpur, New York; Walter Livingston and Christopher
Yates, Albany county; Anthony Hoffman and Cornelius Humfrey,
Dutchess county; Lewis Morris and Philip Pell, Jr., Orange
county; Christopher Tappan and James Clinton, Ulster county;
Christopher P. Yates and James Livingston, Montgomery county;
Abraham Bancker and John C. Dongan, Richmond county; Mathev
Clarkson and Rutger Van Brunt, Kings county; James Townsend
and Thomas Lawrence, Queens; Ezra L'Hommedieu and Caleb
Smith, Suffolk county; John Williams and John McCrea, Wash­
ington county, were named as county regents by the act.

7
all denominations or one representing each denomination.23
4. Founder*s regents:

Whenever a new school or col­

lege should be founded in the state, endowed with an amount
which would produce the yearly value of a thousand bushels
of wheat, the president and another representative of the
new institution became founder*s regents upon the admission
of the school or college to the University of the State of
New York.24
5. The professors and tutors of the colleges admitted
to the university were to be ex officio regents, capable of
voting in matters

appertaining to their college, except

where they were personally interested.2®
Under this

act the appointment of regents was placed

in the hands of the governor with the advice and consent of
the Council of Appointment, the county representation to be
maintained.

26

Power granted to the regents for administrative pur­
poses included making of ordinances and by-laws; determina­
tion of salaries; removal of presidents, professors, fel­
lows, tutors or servants who were found after a hearing to
have abused their trust; levying of fines not to exceed the
value of one bushel of wheat; and the suspension or expulsion

23Ibid., p. 687.
24Ibid., p. 689.
25Ibid., p. 690.
26Ibid., p. 688.

8
of student8 for not more than twenty days, unless a hearing
were held.27 Religious bodies were granted the privilege of
endowing professorships, to the annual value of not less than
two hundred bushels of wheat, the regents to administer the
endowments. 28
Thie regents were granted power to elect their own
officers, including a chancellor, vice-chancellor, secretary,
and treasurer; and to make ordinances for the government of
the colleges whioh should compose the university.

In exer­

cising ti^e power of appointment of faculty and staff of the
colleges, the law stipulated that no religious qualification
or oath should be required.

The regents were authorized to

hold prop erty to the annual value of forty thousand bushels
of wheat for the use of the general objects of the university
and to found or endow schools and colleges in other parts of
the state, to be considered a part of the university subject
to control and visitation of the regents.

At the same time

the act asserted the right of any persons to establish col­
leges independent of the university system.

The regents

were also authorized to grant, not only the degree of
bachelor of arts, but any degrees conferred by universities
in Europe.29

27 Ibid., p. 688.
28'ibid., p. 689.
29Ibid., pp. 688-689,

The act as passed soon proved to he unsatisfactory in
various respeots.

The members of the Board of Regents were

too widely scattered to attend meetings.

The clergy found

the original provision for the election of a denominational
member or of denominational members

a m b i g u o u s . 30

Columbia

College found that the law provided her with too few repre­
sentatives.

Aside from the strictly Columbia representation,

whioh could vote only in matters relating to the college,
the institution was represented only by Governor Clinton,
Mayor Duane of New York, Attorney-General Benson, and Secre­
tary of State Scott, while among the twenty-four county mem­
bers, only Henry B. Livingston and Robert Harpur from New
York, could be counted on to take a Columbia point of view.31
Consequently Governor Clinton* s message of October 18;
1784, contained the following suggestion:
It is found by experience that some of the laws of
the last session, particularly the act establishing an
university in this state. . • require amendment, as
well to render them more easy in their execution, as
more effectual in their operation. The officers act­
ing immediately under them are directed to state, for
your information, the defects whioh have been dis­
covered.
The resulting act must have had the effect of turning

SOgherwood,

cit., p. 225.

31Ibid., p. 225.
^ M ess a g e s from the Governors. Vol. II, p. 220.

10
the Board of Regents into a veritable legislative assembly,
for thirty-three additional regents were provided, twenty
from Hew York city and thirteen from the counties.

Sherwood

speculates that the latter were added to quiet the opposition
of the rural areas to packing the Board of Regents on behalf
of Columbia College.33

Among the twenty new members from

Hew York appear the names of John Jay, John H. Livingston,
Alexander Hamilton and Morgan Lewis, the latter subsequently
governor.34

The effect of this bill was to increase the

county representation to fifty-seven, with twenty-two, in­
cluding the two original members, from Hew York.35
The difficulty of obtaining a quorum from the widely
scattered membership was obviated by the simple device of
permitting the chanoellor, vice-chancellor or senior regent
(in date of appointment) to call a meeting with eight other

33Sherwood, 0 £. cit•, p. 226.
^ T h e act named John Jay, Samuel Prevost, John H.
Livingston, John Rodgers, John Mason, John Ganoe, John
Daniel Gros, Johann Ch; Kunze, Joseph Delaplain, Gershon
Seixas, Alexander Hamilton, John Lawrence, John Rutherford,
Morgan Lewis, Leonard Lispenard, John Cochran, Charles Mo
Knight, Thomas Jones, Malaohi Treat and Hicholas Romain of
Hew York; Peter Yates, Matthew Vischer and Heenlock Woodruf
of Albany; George I. L. Doll of Ulster; John Vanderbilt of
Kings; Thomas Romain of Montgomery; Samuel Buel of Suffolk;
Gilbert Livingston of Dutchess; Hathan Kerr of Orange;
Ebenezer Lockwood of West-chester; John Lloyd, Jr., of
Queens; Harmanus Garrison of Richmond; and Ebenezer Russell
of Washington.
35Laws, 1777-1801. Vol. II, p. 30

11
members.36

However, the act provided that a meeting must

be advertised in a public newspaper for two weeks previous
to the date,37 and stipulated that the annual meeting of the
regents should be held at the same time and place as the
legislature.38
The confusion regarding the clerical regents was
eliminated by a provision authorizing the clergy of eaoh
denomination to elect one regent.

The law also required the

holding of the annual meeting of the regents on the day fol­
lowing the legislative session, unless that day fell on Sun­
day, and authorized the treasurer of the state to advance
twenty-five hundred podnds for the use of Columbia College,
the regents to be held accountable.39
During the ensuing year the meetings of the Board of
Regents were composed almost solely of Columbia members, the
rural members finding it difficult to get to meetings held
in New York city.40

At subsequent meetings in 1785 and 1786

some care was taken to place country members on committees,
particularly one appointed in 1786 to determine ways and
means of npromoting literature throughout the state.n4-*-

:

36rbid., p. 30.
37Ibid.. p. 30.
SSlbid.. p. 31.
39
Ibid., p. 31.
4 0...
Sherwood, 0£. cit., pp. 229-230.
4 1Ibid.. p. 231.

12
During the period from April 24, 1786, until the last
day of January, 1787, there was no meeting of the Board of
Regents.

When they convened in annual session on the lat­

ter day, nearly all of the members present were of the
Columbia faction.

A committee was appointed

to take into consideration the present state of the
University and to report as soon as possible the meas­
ures necessary to . . . carry into effect the views of
the legislature with respect to the same and particu­
larly with respect to Columbia college. • • ,42
When the Board of Regents met again two weeks later,
a report was presented by the committee, recommending that
each college should be entrusted to its own corporation with
competent powers, but under such subordination to the regents
as should be considered necessary.

The report also urged

the establishment of academies and a system of public elemen­
tary schools.43 On February 16, the day following the meet­
ing of the regents, Hamilton introduced a bill into the legis­
lature, whioh appears to have been drafted as a part of the
regents1 committee proposal, for it bears the title
An act to render more effectual an act entitled, An
act for granting certain privileges to the college,
heretofore called King’s college, for altering the name
and charter*thereof and erecting an University within
this state.44

42Ibid., p. 232.
43Ibid., pp. 234-235.
44
Ibid., p. 235.

13
This hill, after first and second readings, was committed
to the committee of the whole, from which it appears not to
have emerged.
About a weeh previous to the meeting of the Board of
Regents and the presentation of its report, a petition pray­
ing for the establishment of an academy at East Hampton had
been presented to the Senate and had been referred to a com­
mittee consisting of Ezra L'Hommedieu, Thomas Treadwell,
Isaac Stoutenburgh and John Vanderbilt.45

Apparently the

committee devoted some attention to the preparation of a
university bill, for the Senate Journal reports on Febru­
ary 27 that Mr. L ’Hommedieu stated it as the opinion of his
committee that such a bill should be brought in.

The

Senate adopted the suggestion and ordered him to present
such a bill, which, according to the same notation, was
ordered to second reading.46
Sherwood declares that Samuel Buel, one of the
signers of the East Hampton petition, was a regent, and knew
that the law intended that the Board of Regents should estab­
lish and govern academies.

He declares further that the

petitioners were evidently afraid that if their academy were
founded under the law of 1784, their assets would be subject

45New York (State), Senate Journal. 1787 (Albany:
Samuel & John loudon), p. £3“.
46Ibid., p. 43.

14
to the control of a Board of Regents dominated toy members
Interested chiefly in Columbia.

It is Sherwood's further

belief that the resolution presented by the regents at this
time indicated that the Columbia "ring” discerned the trend
of events and felt a priofc of conscience.47
On February 28, the day after introduction, L'Hommedieu's bill was ordered to committee of the whole.48

There

a fight evidently ensued, for the minutes show four succes­
sive reports of "progress" and requests for leave to sit
again.49

In the meantime the Board of Regents held no meet­

ings until March 8, the date of the fourth report from the
committee of the whole.

On that day a meeting of the board

mustered a rather large attendance, but chiefly members of
the Columbia faction.

Realizing the need for further action,

the board toolc steps to merge their legislative campaign
with that being waged by the committee under L'Hommedieu. A
regents' committee was appointed
to consider of /sio7 the most proper means for procuring
an act of the legiiBlature for amending the charter of
the University, either in conformity to . . . the reso­
lution . . . of the 15th of February last or with such
alterations as may be found necessary. . . ,50

47Sherwood, 0£. oit., p. 237.
48Senate Journal. 1787, p. 44.
49Ibid., pp. 46. 51-53.
50Sherwood,

ojj .

cit. . p. 239.

To this committee were appointed the speaker of the Assembly,
Richard Varick; the mayor of New York, James Duane; Alexander
Hamilton, John Jay, Ezra L fHommedieu, and John Williams.^*
I,*Hommedieu apparently accepted the appointment to the
regents1 committee, for he attended the next and subsequent
meetings of the board.52 This maneuver on the part of the
regents evidently eliminated the obstacles which had pre­
vented passage of a bill, and the measure introduced for the
committee by Hamilton, was adopted by the Senate after con­
siderable debate, on March 20, 1787.53
After further legislative maneuvering in the Assembly
the bill passed that body in amended form on April 1 1 . The
Senate concurred in the amendments the following day, and on
the 13th the bill became law after approval by the council
of revision.55
The law as enacted designated the corporate name of
the University as "The Regents of the University of the
State of New York," and provided for the appointment of

51Ibid., p. 239.
52Ibid., p. 240.
53Ibid., pp. 245-246.
54New York (State), Assembly Journal, 1787 (Albany:
E. Holt), p. 153.
55Senate Journal, 1787, pp. 84, 86.

16
twenty-one regents.56

The law provided for the filling of

vacancies, election of officers, calling of meetings, etc.
It declared the general powers of the corporation as to hold­
ing of property, and the like, to he substantially the same
as under the previous law.57
The regents were authorized under the new law to
grant degrees above that of bachelor or master of arts; to
appoint presidents of colleges and principals of academies
if the trustees failod to do so for a year; and to apply at
their discretion any funds available, exoept those set aside
for a specific purpose.

They were also "authorized and

required" to visit and inspect colleges and academies.58
They were further empowered to incorporate colleges upon
petition from cities or organizations, under such conditions
as they might approve, but such chartered bodies were to
have the same powers ail Columbia.

The latter institution

was authorized to retain the property and other rights of
King's college.59

56The regents appointed were John Rodgers, Egbert
Benson, Philip Schuyler, Ezra I !Hommedieu, Nathan Carr,
Peter Sylvester, John Jay, Dirok Romeyn, James Livingston,
Ebenezer Russell, Lewis Morris, Matthew Clarkson, Benjamin
Moore, Eliardus Westerlo, Andrew King, William Lynn,
Jonathan G-. Tomkins, John McLonald and Frederick William
von /iio7 Steuben.
57Laws, 1777-1801, Vol. II, pp. 524-525.
58Ibid., p. 527.
59Ibid., p. 527.

17
In a number of respects the law differed from the
previous enactment.

It required the Board of Regents to

charter academies if the application complied with the fixed
conditions, and appeared likely to promote literature .6 0
The academies thus chartered were given the usual corporate
powers, but their income was limited to nthe value of four
thousand bushels of wheat .” 6 1

The trustees were authorized

to make regulations, appoint and remove officers, teachers,
etc., fix salaries, and fill vacancies in the Board of
Trustees.

The regents were designated as the Board of

Visitors of the academies .6 2

If the plan of instruction in

the academy were approved by the regents, its students would
be admitted to any college by examination by its faculty.
Any academy which the regents considered sufficiently ad­
vanced could be erected into a college.6®
Repeating the previous requirement that there should
be no religious tests for presidents or professors, the law
stipulated that no professor or tutor of a college might be
a trustee thereof, and the principal or president, while a
trustee, was not to vote on his own salary.

Further, the

law declared that ”no trustee, president, principal, tutor,
fellow or other offioer of any college or academy” should

60Sherwood, op. cit., p. 250.
61Ibid., p. 250.
6 2 laws»

1777-1801, Vol. II, p. 530.

6 ®Ibid.,

p. 530.

18
be a regent of the university .6 4 Sherwood says:
The result of this law was two-fold. Theoretically,
it lessened the rigor of state control of the system,
by emancipating the colleges from the actual government
of the regents. Practically, it widened the scope of
this state control, by emancipating the regents from the
monopolizing control of Columbia .6 5
B y chapter fifty-nine of the statutes of 1813 the
law providing for the organization and government of the
university underwent minor changes.

To the twenty-one

regents previously provided for were added the governor and
lieutenant-governor of the state as ex officio members .66
Three regents might request a meeting, and eight were de­
clared to constitute a quorum .67 The regents were given
statutory authority over the funds to be expended by law for
"promotion of literature."6®

In other respects the law was

practically the same as the previous enactment.6®
The literature fund referred to in the act had been
established by an act passed in 1790, vesting in the Board
of Regents title to a tract of land adjacent to lake George,

6 4 Ibid.,

p. 530.

6 5 Sherwood,

oj>. cit., p. 251.

66New York (State), Session Laws. 1813 (Albany:
H. C. Southwiok & Co.), Vol. II, p. 260.
6 7 Ibid..

p. 260.

6 8 Ibid.,

p. 261.

69Ibid., pp. 260-261.

as well as G o v e rnors Island in New York Bay, to "be used for
the support of literature.

The aot provided further an ap­

propriation of a thousand pounds from the state treasury
for the same purpose .7 0 Under another enactment of 1801,
providing for four successive lotteries, each to raise twen­
ty-five thousand dollars for the support of education, the
regents were to receive half the proceeds.7^
With the exception of an act of 1842 which added the
secretary of state, in his capacity as superintendent of
common schools, to the Board of Regents, no further changes
are to he noted in the organization or functions of the
regents during this preliminary period.

In chapter four,

outlining the development of New York education during the
period when the superintendent 1 s duties were performed hy
the secretary of state, reference will he made to activities
of the Board of Regents, particularly in connection with
teacher training.
We have observed in this chapter the establishment
of the University of the State of New York with its govern­
ing body, the Board of Regents.

Conceived originally as a

means of control for the statefs one institution of higher
learning, the University developed into a statewide system
of higher education similar to the French university system,

70 Iaws,

1777-1801, Vol. Ill, pp. 162-165.

7 1 Ibid.,

Vol. V, pp. 299-300.

20
in which the Board of Regents acted as the controlling body
for the secondary and higher institutions of learning founded
in the state.

With some changes designed, on the one hand,

to eliminate the overpowering control of Columbia college,
and on the other, to give the colleges and schools more con­
trol over their own affairs, the Board of Regents continued
to function quietly, granting charters, visiting the institu­
tions under its jurisdiction, granting degrees, and d i s t r i b ­
uting the sums available under the literature fund.

CHAPTER II
ORIGINS OF THE COMMON SCHOOL SYSTEM
As we have noted in the Introduction, the primary
purpose of this study is to trace the points of friotion "be­
tween the Board of Regents and the Superintendent of Public
Instruction, showing the factors which oaused this friction,
and their results.

It is the purpose of this chapter to

relate in sufficient detail the establishment of the common
school system in New York, and to lay the foundation for the
discussion of the points of issue which later developed.
In the previous chapter we have seen that the legis­
lation creating the Regents of the University provided for
their supervision of the academies and colleges of the
state.

No provision was included for the establishment of

a common school system.

For the next quarter century

efforts in behalf of an elementary school system were
sporadic and generally ineffective.
In an act of 1789 is contained a provision looking
to the eventual support of education, req.ui.ring the survey­
or-general to survey twenty townships, each containing one
hundred tracts of two hundred and fifty acres each, to be
offered for sale.

The statute stipulated, however, that

near the center of each township one lot should be reserved

22
for the support "of the gospel" and one for schools.^
Three years later the annual report of the Regents
of the University contained this suggestion:
On this occasion we cannot help suggesting to the
legislature the numerous advantages whioh . . . would
accrue . . . from the institution of schools in various
parts of the state, for the purpose of instructing
children . . . in reading . . . end so much of writing
and arithmetic, as to enable them . . . to transact
with accuracy and despatch, the business arising from
their daily intercourse with each other. The mode of
accomplishing this desirable object, we respeotfully
submit to the wisdom of the legislature .2
Repetition of this point of view by the regents dur­
ing the two following years® brought support from Governor
George Clinton, who in his message of .1795 expressed himself
thus on the subject of public education:
While it is evident that the general establishment
and liberal endowment of academies are highly to be
oommended, end are attended with the most beneficial
conseqLuenoes, yet it cannot 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

% e w York (State), Laws of New York, 1777-1801
(republished by Secretary of StaEe. Albany: Weed, Parsons
& Co., 1886), Vol. Ill, p. 6 6 .
Randall (History of the Common School System of the
State of New York, 1671, p. 9) is authority for the aFaiement tEat unsurveyed land owned by the state at that time
exceeded seven million acres, chiefly in the northern and
western parts of the state.
^TTew York (State), Senate Journal, 1792 (Albany:
Francis Childs & John Swain), p. 90.
IX

New York (State), Senate Journal, 1794 (Albany:
Childs & Swaine), p. 16.

23
establishment of common schools throughout the state,
is happily calculated to remedy this inconvenience and
will therefore re-engage your early and decided consid­
eration.
On January 11, 1795, the Assembly placed in the hands
of a committee consisting of Jonathan H. Havens of Suffolk
county, David Brooks of Dutchess, David Pye of Orange,
Ebenezer Purdy of Westchester, Daniel Gray of Rensselaer,
Adam Comstock of Saratoga, and Richard Furman of Hew York,
the governor's recommendation on the subject of common
schools.

From this committee Chairman Havens on February 39

reported an "Act for the encouragement of schools" which
e
passed both houses and became law on April 9, 1795.
This act appropriated for five years the sum of
twenty thousand pounds annually for
the purpose of encouraging and maintaining schools in
the several cities and towns in this state, in which
the children of the inhabitants . . . shall be instruted
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 English education .6
The law specified the amount appropriated to each county,
and required the boards of supervisors to raise one-half

% e w York (State), Messages from the Governors, ed.
by Charles Z. Lincoln (Albany: J. B. Lyon C o . , 1909), Vol.
II, p. 350.
SLaws, 1777-1801, Vol. Ill, pp. 626-631.
6Ibid., p. 626.

the state allocation by tax upon the towns .7

The statute

further provided that each town should elect annually from
three to seven commissioners to direct and supervise the
schools of the town and apportion the public money among
O
the districts.
The inhabitants of the towns were author­
ized to "associate together for the purpose of procuring
good and sufficient schoolmasters, and for erecting and
maintaining schools . . . ,"9 and to appoint two or more
trustees for each d i s t r i c t . T h e public money was to be
distributed to the districts according to the number of
days of instruction as reported by the trustees.
And if it shall at any time appear to the said com­
missioners that the abilities or moral character of the
master or masters of any schools, are not such that they
ought to be entrusted with the education of the youth,
or that any of the branches of learning taught in any
school, are not such as are intended to receive enoour*agement from the moneys appropriated by this act,
the commissioners were required to notify in writing the
trustees, who were then required to conduct the school in
such a fashion as to obtain the approval of the commission­
ers.^

Under this act, in sixteen of twenty-three counties

7 Ibid.

pp. 627-628.

8 Ibid.

p. 629.

9 Ibid.

p. 630.

1 0 Ibid.

p. 630.

^Ibid.

p. 630.

25
reporting, 1352 schools were organized in which nearly sixty
thousand children received instruction .12
When the act expired it was not renewed.

In his

message of January 28, 1800, Governor John Jay again called
the attention of the lawmakers to the condition of the com­
mon schools:
Among other objects . . . I earnestly recommend to
your notice. . . . our institutions for the education
of youth. The importance of common schools is best
estimated by the good effects , . • where they most
abound and are best regulated .1 3
A resolution offered in the Assembly proposing to
revise and amend the act of 1795, and appropriate $50,000
annually for schools for a period of five years, was passed
March 25, 1800, by a vote of fifty-seven to thirty-six, 1 4
and accordingly a clause to this effect was inserted in the
annual supply bill by a vote of fifty-one to thirty-five .15
The clause was eliminated in the Senate, however, nineteen
to sixteen .15
A manifestation of the peculiar attitude and strange

12Samuel Sidwell Bandall, The Common School System of
the State of New York (Troy: Johnson & Davis, 1861), p. 7.
13Messages from the Governors. Vol. II, p. 453.
14New York (State), Assembly Journal. 1800 (Albany:
Loring Andrews), p. 221.
1 5 Ibid.,

p. 269.

15New York (State), Senate Journal. 1800 (Albany:
Loring Andrews), p. 122.

sense of fitness which pervaded early America in connection
with the support of education-*-7 appeared on the New York
statute hooks in 1801 in the form of a law authorizing and
directing the establishment of four lotteries, each to
raise $25,000, half of this amount to he paid to the Regents
of the University "for the support of literature" and the
other half to he paid into the treasury for the encourage­
ment of common schools .-*-8

An amendment to the law subsequent­

ly directed the comptroller to Invest the proceeds of the
lotteries in real estate, pending provision by the legisla­
ture for use of the funds .-*-9
The following year Governor Clinton reasserted his
position on common schools in his annual message to the
legislature:
The system for the encouragement of common schools
having been discontinued, and the advantage to morals,

17The educational historian H. G. Good in his History
of Western Education (New York: MacMillan, 1948) notes thax
"Boarding the teacher was a form of school support, and it
was not the only example of 'payment in kind . 1 An Ohio
teacher in 1825 contracted to accept Indian corn at thirty
cents a bushel, and a governor of Massachusetts paid the
expenses of his son at Harvard College in the same commodity.
Rents from lands or fish weirs, income from herds of cows,
contributions, bequests, license fees collected from banks,
theaters, liquor sales, and marriages, occupational taxes,
and rate bill, and other items were among the sources of
funds applied to schools before taxation was fully accepted."
pp. 421-422.
1 8 L aws,

1777-1801, Vol. V, pp. 299-300.

-*-9New York (State), Session Laws, 1803 (Albany:
Charles E. & George Webster), p. 350.

27
religion, liberty and good government arising from the
general diffusion of knowledge being universally admit­
ted, permit me to recommend this subject to your delib­
erate attention. The failure of one experiment for the
attainment of an important object ought not to discour­
age others .20
A year later, no legislative provision for education
having resulted from his previous suggestion, the governor
tried again:
The establishment of common schools has at different
times engaged the attention of the legislature, but al­
though its importance is generally acknowledged, a
diversity of Bentiment respecting the best means has
hitherto prevented the accomplishment of the object.
The diffusion of knowledge is so essential to the
promotion of virtue and the preservation of liberty,
as to render arguments unnecessary. . . ./S7duoation
. . . tends to prevent those evils in society which
are beyond the sphere of legislation.2^
In the sessions of 1803 and 1804 proposals were intro­
duced in the legislature by Jedediah Peck, from the joint
oommittee on the governor*s message, implementing that por­
tion of the message, but both failed to receive favorable
action .22
Of Jedediah Peck, to whom, Randall says, was due more
than to any other man the credit for establishing the common

20Messages from the Governors, Vol. II, p. 512.
2 1 Ibid.,

p. 528.

22Uew York (State),
John Barber), pp. 112,136,
(Albany: John Barber), pp.
Assembly adjourned leaving
whole.

Assembly Jounral. 1803 (Albany:
237-238; Assembly Journal, 1804
121, 192. In-'both oases, the
the bill in the committee of the

school system,**® Judge Hammond says in his Hi story of Politi­
cal Parties in New York:
Judge Peck, although a clear-headed, sensible man,
was an uneducated emigrant from Connecticut. His ap­
pearance was diminutive, and almost disgusting. In
religion he was fanatical, but in his political views
he was sincere, persevering and bold; and although meek
and humble in his demeanor, he was by no means destitute
of personal ambition. He was an itinerant surveyor in
the county of Otsego, then a new and uncultivated part
of the State. He would survey your farm in the day time,
exhort and pray in your family at night, and talk on
politics the rest of the time. Perhaps on Sunday, or
some evening of the week, he would preach a sermon in
your schoolhouse. . . . It is due to this plain, unlet­
tered farmer to add, that he was intent upon making
some permanent provision for /the public sohools7 and
that he formed the project of"~establishing the CTommon
School Fund . . . ; that he never lost sight of it; and
that to his indefatigable and persevering efforts,
aided by Mr. Adam Comstock of Saratoga, another unedu­
cated and plain, but clear-sighted . . • man, we are
principally indebted for our School Fund and our
Common School System. What military chieftain— what
mere conqueror by brute force, has conferred so deep,
so enduring an obligation upon posterity ? 2 4
That George Clinton was not alone in his advocacy
of a common school system is shown in the message of Gover­
nor Morgan lewis, sent to the legislature in special ses­
sion in the fall of 1804:
In government resting upon public opinion, and
deriving its chief support from the affections of a
people, religion and morality cannot be too sedulously

2 ®Randall,

24

1871, oja. cit.. p. 10.

Jabez P. Hammond, History of Political Parties in
New York (Cooperstown: H. & E. Phinney, 1 8 4 6 , 2 vols.J,
V o T . T T p p . 123-124.

£9
inculcated. To them soienoe is an handmaid; ignoranoe
the worst of enemies. Literary information should then
be placed within the reach of every description of
citizens, and poverty should not be permitted to ob­
struct the path to . . . knowledge. Common sohools
under the guidance of respectable teaohers, should be
established in every village and the indigent should
be educated at public expense. . . .28
In a special message February 4, 1805, Governor
Lewi 8 recommended that all the state lands be applied to
the support of oolleges and sohools, the entire fund to be
under the administration of the Regents of the University
under such regulations as the legislature might presorlbe.
He proposed that the power be given to the regents to ap­
point for each district three trustees, who would be
authorized to locate sohoolhouse sites, ereot sohoolhouses,
employ teaohers, use the district funds, and levy taxes on
the district when neoessary to raise further sums to sup­
port the school and educate the indigent.2®

This sug­

gestion, however, failed to find favor in the eyes of the
27
lawmakers.
On April 2, 1805, the legislature approved
a bill providing that the proceeds of the next five hundred
thousand acres of land sold by the surveyor-general should
be applied as a common school fund, to be invested until the
interest had reached the sum of $50,000, after which an

OR

Messages from the Governors. Vol. II, pp. 550-551.
2 6 Ibid..

pp. 557-558.

27New York (State), Senate Journal, 1805 (Albany:
John Barber), p. 32. Committed to committee of the whole,
February 4, 1805. No record of aotion in committee.

annual distribution should be made to the districts .2 8 This
act, says Randall, laid the foundation for the fund for sup­
port of common sohools .28
An increment to the fund resulted from the passage,
at the same session, of an act to incorporate the HerchantsT
Bank of Hew York.

B y the charter law, the state reserved

the right to subscribe without payment for three thousand
shares of the capital stock of the bank, which with the
interest and dividends expected to be accrued, were to be
applied as a fund for the support of common schools and
expended as directed by the legislature .3 0

Subsequent en­

actments of March 13, 1807, and April 8 , 1808, authorized
the comptroller to invest the sums thus obtained, with funds
resulting from the literature lotteries, in the purchase of
additional stock of the Merchants' Bank, the residue to be
loaned .31
With these exceptions the statute books are empty of
legislation concerning common sohools during the five years
from 1806 through 1810.

In the latter year Governor Daniel

D. Tompkins referred to the subject of public education in

28New York (State), Session laws, 1805 (Albany:
Charles E. & George Webster), pp. 126-127.
2 8 Randall,

1851, o

oit., p. 9.

®°Session l a w s , 1805, p. 65.
31New York (State), Session Laws, 1807 (Albany:
Websters & Skinner), p. 84; New Tfork (Staie), Session laws,
1808 (Albany: Websters & Skinner), p. 243.

31
the following paragraph from his annual message:
I cannot omit . . . inviting your attention to the
means of instruction for the rising generation. To
enable them to perceive and duly to estimate their
rights; to inculcate correct principles and habits of
morality and religion, and thus to render them useful
citizens, a competent provision for their education is
all-essential. The fund already appropriated for com­
mon schools already produces an income of about twentysix thousand dollars, annually, and is daily becoming
more productive. It rests with the legislature to
determine whether the resources of this state will
Justify a further augmentation of that appropriation
as well as to adopt a plan for its application and
distribution .32
In response to a resolution from the legislature the
comptroller reported that the school fund receipts to that
date amounted to $151,115.69, of which $29,100 had been in­
vested in the stock of the Merchants 1 Bank, $114,600 loaned
according to law, and the balance remained in the state
treasury .3 2
In January, 1811, Governor Tompkins again alluded to
the needs of common schools:
The mode of applying the fund set apart for the
encouragement of common sohools, and the means of adding
to the liberal patronage which has been already extended
for the promotion of learning and the consequent advance­
ment of the cause of morality and religion will form
part of the interesting matters which ought to attract
your notice .3 4

32
Messages from the Governors. Vol. II, p. 660.
33
Mew York (State), Senate Journal. 1810 (Albany:
Solomon Southwiok), p. 115.
34
Messages from the Governors. Vol. II, pp. 675-676,

32
This suggestion, supplemented probably by a greater
degree of readiness on the part of the legislature, resulted
in the passage of a law authorizing the governor to appoint
a commission of five members to report on a plan for the
organization and establishment of common schools .®5

Under

the act, the governor appointed as commissioners Jedediah
Peck, John Murray, Jr., Samuel Russell, Roger Skinner and
Robert Macomb .®5
The significance of their report in the annals of
common school education in New York is suoh that extensive
quotation seems justified.
. . . Education as the means of improving the moral
and intellectual faculties, is . . . a subject of the
most imposing consideration. To rescue man from that
state of degradation to which he is doomed, unless
redeemed by education; to unfold his physical, intel­
lectual and moral powers; and to fit him for those
high destinies which his Creator has prepared for him,
cannot fail to excite the most ardent-sensibility of
the philosopher and statesman. • . .
The commissioners think it necessary to represent
. . . the importance and absolute necessity of educa­
tion. • • . The expedient devised by the legislature
is the establishment of oommon sohools; which being
spread throughout the state and aided by its bounty,
will bring improvement within the reach and power of
the humblest citizen. This appears to be the best
plan that can be devised to disseminate religion,
morality and learning throughout a whole country. All

^ N e w York (State), Session Laws, 1811 (Albany:
Websters & Skinner), p. 335.
36
Messages from the Governors, Vol. II, p. 707.
3 7 Ibld.,

p. 718.

33
other methods, heretofore adopted, are partial in their
operation and circumscribed in their effects. Academies
and universities . . . cannot be considered as operating
impartially and indiscriminately, as regards the country
at large. The advantages of the first are confined to
the particular districts in which they are established;
and the second . . . are devoted almost exclusively to
the rich. In a free government, where political equality
is established, and where the road to preferment is open
to all, there is a natural stimulus to education. • . .
In populous cities . . . sohools are generally established
by individual exertion. In these cases • . • the expenses
of schools are divided among a great many. It is in the
remote and thinly populated parts of the state . . • that
education stands greatly in need of encouragement. . . •
Every family . . . must either educate its own children,
or the children must forego the advantages of education.
These inoonveniences can be remedied best by the
establishment of common sohools, under the direction and
patronage of the state. In these schools should be
taught, at least, those branches of education which are
indispensably necessary to every person in . • . h i s
duty as a useful citizen. Reading, writing, arithmetic,
and the principles of morality are essential. . . .38
The Commissioners then outlined a plan for the estab­
lishment of a common school system:
1. Each town to be divided into districts by three
commissioners elected by the voters of the town.
2. Three trustees to be elected in each district to
administer the school.
3. The income of the school fund to be divided among
the towns according to population.
4. The township quotas to be sub-divided among the
districts according to the number of children five to
fifteen years of age.
5. Each town to raise by annual tax an amount equal
to the amount of state aid.
6.

The gross amount of money received from state aid

S8Ibid., pp. 719-720.

34
and the annual tax to he applied to payment of the wages of
the teaohers.
7. The whole system to he under the supervision of
an officer appointed hy the Council of Appointment.
8 . The districts to raise hy tax a sum sufficient to
huy the necessary land and erect school buildings .3 9

The commissioners declared themselves to he
deeply impressed with the importance of admitting . . .
such teachers only as are duly qualified. The respect­
ability of every school must necessarily depend on the
character of the master. To entitle a teacher to assume
the control of a school, he should he endowed with the
necessary literary qualifications not only, hut with an
unimpeachable character. He should also,he a man of
patient and mild temperament.
*A preceptor,* says
Rousseau, *1b Invested with the rights, and takes upon
himself the obligations, of both father and mother.*
And Quintilian tells us that *to the requisite literary
and moral endowments he must add the benevolent disposi­
tion of a parent . ’4 0

The Commissioners have deemed it proper to recommend
to the Legislature the appointment of an officer, whose
duty it shall he to superintend . . • the interests and
watch the operation of the Common School system.4-**

The Commissioners cannot conclude this report without
expressing . • . their deep Bense of the momentous
subject committed to them. . . . It is a subject . . .
intimately connected with the permanent prosperity of
our political institutions. The American empire is
founded on the virtue and intelligence of the people.
But it were irrational to oonceive that any form of
government oan long exist without virtue in the people.
. . . And the Commissioners cannot hut hope that that

Ibid., pp. 721-722.
4 0 Ihid.,

pp. 725-726.

4 1 Ihid.,

pp. 727-728.

35
Being who rules the universe In justice and In mercy,
who rewards virtue and punishes vice, will most gra­
ciously deign to smile benignly on the humble efforts
of a people in a cause purely His own. . . ,4 2
Concrete results from this report appeared in an act
passed by the legislature on June 19, 1812.

Section I pro­

vided that the Council of Appointment should elect a super­
intendent of common schools, who was to establish an office
at the seat of government, and to receive a salary of $300.
after he had given notice of the first distribution of state
school money under the act.

His duties were stated to be

"to digest and prepare plans for the better organization of
the common school fund;"

to prepare and report estimates

.

of expenditures of the fund; to superintend the oolleotion
of the moneys belonging to the common school fund; to super­
vise the sale of school lands; to give information to the
legislature; and "generally to perform all such services
relative to the

welfare of

sohools as he shall be

directed

to perform. . . ,"4 3
The statute directed that the school fund was not to
be distributed until the income reached $50,000, and that
amount was to be divided annually until $60,000 could be
apportioned, after which the amount was to be $60,000

4 2 Ibid.,

43

p. 728.

New York (State), Session Laws, 1813(Albany:
H. C. Southwiok & Co.), Vol. I, p. 258.

until it reached $70,000, etc .4 4

The comptroller was

authorized to loan the interest received after the:'first
distribution.

Notice was to he given hy the superintendent

to the county clerks thirteen months in advance of the
distribution.

Town meetings during this interim were to

vote whether to levy a fund for support of sohools, in
amount equivalent to the state apportionment.

Any amount

so voted hy the town meetings was to he added hy the hoards
of supervisors to the regular town levy colleoted hy the
county treasurers.

Towns were authorized to levy twice the

amount of the state money if they desired.4®
The towns were authorized and required to elect three
school commissioners, and also not over six persons as inspec­
tors of common schools, to act jointly with the commissioners
in making inspections and examining and certifying teachers .4 6
The commissioners were authorized to divide the towns into
districts .47
District meetings were empowered to adjourn their
sessions, to appoint a moderator, select a site for a school
building, vote taxes for building, repairs, fuel "and
appendages," and elect three trustees, a clerk and a

^ I h i d . , pp. 258-259.
4 5 Ihid.,

pp. 259-260.

4 6 Ihid.,

p. 260.

47

Ibid., pp. 260-261.

37
collector.

The trustee was required to make out the tax list

to levy on the inhabitants, and was authorized to call
AO

special district meetings.
The act further provided a penalty for persons
elected school officers, who refused to serve, and fixed a
penalty for illegal voting at district meetings.

Tenure of

officers was declared to continue until a successor had been
elected and qualified, and vacancies were to be filled in
the same manner as provided by law for town officers.
The statute stipulated that the "avails " 4 9 of the
common school fund were to be distributed to the towns ac­
cording to the latest census figures ,5 0 and to the districts
according to the number of children of ages five to fifteen
resident in the district.

A penalty was provided for making

false returns on school funds.5^

Trustees were required to

report annually to the town commissioners of common schools
the length of the term for which the sohool was maintained,
the number of pupils, the amount of state money received
and how it was expended.

The commissioners were required

in their turn to report to the county clerks, and these were

4 8 Ibid..

pp. 261-262.

AQ

A term frequently used at that period, referring t o
the expected income from a fund or souroe of income estab­
lished by law.
50

Session Laws, 1813, Vol. I, pp. 263-264.

51Ibid., pp. 264-265.

to report to the superintendent of common

s c h o o l s .

Clos­

ing sections of the act referred specifically to Albany,
Hudson, and Schenectady, and provided for the re-distribution of the state money as new towns were established.®®
In January, 1813, under the act of 1812 Governor
Tompkins and the Council of Appointment named as superintend*
ent of common schools a young lawyer, Gideon Hawley, who was
to occupy the office until February, 1821, and thereafter to
continue his distinguished service to Hew York state educa­
tion until his death.

Hawley, the son of a clergyman, was

educated at Hamilton College, from which he graduated in 1
1809, and at which he remained for a year as tutor.

After

beginning study for the ministry he was assailed by too
many doubts as to Calvinistic theology to be a conscientious
minister, and thereupon abandoned the theological course far
the study of law, being admitted to the bar of the Supreme
Court of Hew York in 1812.

He determined to seek his pro­

fessional fortune in one of the western settlements of the
state, and had reached Auburn on his journey when he re­
ceived word of his appointment as superintendent of common
schools.

After returning to Albany he continued to practice

law to supplement the small salary attached to the office

5 2 Ibid.,

p. 265.

5 3 Ibid.,

pp. 265-266

39
of superintendent .®4
John V. L. Pruyn in the remarks referred to above
says of Mr. Hawley:
Mr. Hawley at once gave to his official duties his
■best efforts and energies, and always looked to his
services in this department as by far the most import­
ant of his business life. He believed that he could
justly claim to have done more than any other person
to organize and establish on broad and sound principles
our common school system.5®
Jabez I). Hammond describes Hawley thus:
. . . a young lawyer, . . . of habits indefatigably
industrious, modest and retiring, but possessing great
benevolence of heart, vigorous intellectual powers,
and high literary attainments .56
The annual reports to the legislature as submitted
by Hawley give sojne indication of the difficulties which he
encountered in the administration of the law.

The first

report in 1814 advised the legislators that
although no official returns have been reoeived from
which an estimate might be formed of the beneficial
operation of the act, yet satisfactory evidence has
been obtained, that in many cases its operation has
been prevented by the refusal, or neglect of the

54John V. L. Pruyn, "Remarks on the Life and Charac­
ter of the late Gideon Hawley, LL. P." Reprint from the
Proceedings of the Convocation of the University of the
State of New York (Albany: no publisher given, 1870),pp. 1-2.
5 5 Ibid.,

p. S.

jr

Hammond, ojo. cit.. Vol. I, p. 346.

40
towns to comply with its provisions. . . .5^
The report also pointed out that there were certain imper­
fections in the law which ought to he remedied.

In one

section, while the law seemed to contemplate that the
county treasurer should receive and apply the state funds,
no penalty was prescribed for his failure to do so .5 8

An­

other section was so worded as to leave open the possibility
that if one town met the requirements as to school taxation,
it might conceivably receive the full county quota if all
other towns failed to qualify, and it might be forced to
equal this sum by taxation .58

Hawley pointed out further

that the authority given the town commissioners to erect or
alter districts might be abused, and that the law did not
constitute the trustees of a district a corporation in the
sense of ability to hold title to district property .6 8 Also,
the provision that the distriot tax was to be levied on the
basis of the preceding town tax might operate to exempt
from taxation for the ourrent year, at least, persons who
had not paid the previous town tax.6*- Still other sections
needing revision referred to the possible personal liability

57
New York (State), Senate Journal. 1814 (Albany:
H. C. Southwick, for S. Southwick), pp. 77-V8.
5 8 Ibid.,

p. 78.

5 9 Ibid.,

p. 78.

6 0 Ibid.,

pp. 78-79.

6 1 Ibid.,

p. 79.

41
of trustees for the wages of teaohers, the requirement of
giving notice in writing to all the residents of the dis­
trict when a meeting was to be held, and the need of defin­
ing the requisites of a legal district meeting .6 2

Hawley

further proposed that the law be so amended as to require
the boards of supervisors to levy the tax provided in the
law.6g
Evidently the legislature considered H a w l e y ^ points of
criticism to be well taken, for an act passed April 15, 1814*
re-enacted the common school law with the modifications sug­
gested:
1. The county treasurer was required to apply for and
receive the state money .64
2. Limitation was placed on the power of the town com­
missioners to alter districts. Ho changes could be made
between April 15 and June 15 of any year without permission
of the trustees concerned .65
3. Town quotas of school money not claimed were to
be retained by the county treasurer and added to the appor­
tionment for the next year .66
4. An apparent effort to prevent omission of inhabit­
ants from payment of taxes as indicated in Hawley 1 s criticism
was found in instructions to trustees to nraise the sum
voted for . . . on all the taxable inhabitants residing in
such district, agreeable to the assessment of the last

6 2 Ibid.,

p. 79.

6 gIbid..

p. 80.

6% e w York (State), Session Laws. 1814 (Albany:
Websters & Skinner), p. 211.
6 ®Ibid.,

p. 214.

66Ibid.. p. 211.

42
preceding town tax, and on other taxable. Inhabitants in
such district on the last assessment roll.®®"
5. To clear the question of the liability of trustees
for the payment personally of teachers* wages, the revised
law declared it to be "the duty of the trustees . . . to pay
the wages of such teachers out of monies which shall come
into their hands . . . so far as . . . sufficient for that
purpose. . . ."®8
6 . The requirement that all inhabitants receive a
written notice of district meetings was replaced by author­
ity to read the notice, and leave written notice only when
the voter was not at home. 9

7. Powers of the district meetings were defined in
detail in Section XIII of the act. Further protection for.
the district is found in the provision "no district meeting
held as aforesaid, shall be taken or deemed illegal for
want of due notice to any of the said freeholders or inhab­
itants of such district: Provided, The omission to give
such notice be not willful and des'igned. " 70
8 . The supervisors of each county were required to
levy the tax on towns, equal to the amount apportioned by
the state, the levy to be made at the annual meeting.
Towns were permitted to raise as much as three times as
much as the state provided, to be levied by the board of
supervisors.l±

An illustration not only of a point of view with
regard to the compulsory features of the law, but of
Hawley's reaction to such an attitude is seen in a special
report which he submitted to the legislature at a fall ses­
sion in 1814.

The legislature had received and had

6 7 Ibid..

P« 217.

6 8 Ibid.,

P. 218.

6 9 Ibid.,

P. 215.

7 0 Ibid.,

PP . 215-216

7 1 Ibid.,

P« 2 0 2 .

43
referred to him a petition from Hezekiah Pettit and other
residents of the town of Lexington praying that they be
relieved from the provisions of the common school act requir­
ing the payment of taxes for support of schools.

The exemp­

tion was asked on the grounds that the petitioners’ rights
as free citizens were being infringed upon, that the taxes
were imposed for purposes beyond the proper sphere of legis­
lation, and that the taxes were assessed on those who had
no concern with common schools.

Therefore the petitioners

were being burdened without return of benefit.7**
In a vigorous statement, Hawley declared that
It is neither matter for surprise nor disappointment,
that this class of men should complain of a law which
regulres them to contribute for the education of their
neighbors’ children. No other result was ever expected
from them. 3
They assume that because they have no children they have no
interest in education.

But the legislature realized the

fallacy of this argument; their journals and law books
attested their acceptance of the principle that
all men are alike interested in the establishment, sup­
port and encouragement of Common Schools. . . • For
whoever contributes to the diffusion of knowledge among
his neighbors, although he may not have any children of
his own to participate in it, will nevertheless find
his account in the greater security of peace and

72

*New York (State), Senate Journalt 1815 (Albany:
H. C. Southwick, for S. Southwick), p. l80.
7gIbid., p. 180.

44
prosperity of his neighborhood .74
Those less able have always been the objects of concern of
the law, and since the exactions are not burdensome, the
tax was merely an extension of the principle that the
lesser is subservient to the more important interests of
society.

If the tax portion of the act were repealed com­

mon schools would languish.

A neighboring state supports

schools by taxes, in spite of a large school fund, to the
amount of twenty cents on one hundred dollars, while the
tax complained of in this state amounted to less than one
cent and seven mills on the same amount.

It was his

opinion, therefore, that "the prayer of the petitioners is '
not reasonable, and ought not to be granted."7®
Several incidents during this period are interesting
as indicating the attitude of the time toward financial aid
for education.

In Hawley 1 s report for 1816, covering the

operations of the previous year, occurs this passage:
The beneficial operation of the act has also
visible in the pecuniary aid which many schools
derived from it. A perpetual annuity of twenty
lars, whioh is the average sum received by each
trict under the act, ought not ± 9 be considered
trifle unworthy of any account.7®

been
have
dol­
dis­
a

74Ibid., pp. 180-181.
75Ibid.. p. 181.
76

New York (State), Assembly Journal, 1816 (Albany:
J. Buel), p. 495.

45
Later in the same report is a reference to his awarenesB of
his duty to provide advice and direction to the schools in
methods and course of studies,
and the necessary instructions on these
be cheerfully prepared and communicated
schools . . . if the Legislature should
provide for the expense of printing and

subjects would
to the several
think proper to
publishing. . . 7

In the same year a section of an act passed by the legisla­
ture allowed the superintendent postage for his official
letters, after three years incumbency in the position .78
Two years later the legislature allowed him an increase in
salary from $400.00 to $700.00, the initial $100.00 increase
having been provided by the act of 1814.79
In 1819, following recommendations by Hawley in his
report of the previous year, the legislature enacted a
revision and consolidation of the common school law .8 8
Here again, the influence wielded by Mr. Hawley is evident
in the degree to which the rather minor revisions of the
act conform to his suggestions, and in the statement by
Randall that "so great was the public confidence" in Hawley,

7 7 Ibid.,

p. 496.

78

New York (State), Session Laws. 1816 (Albany:
Websters & Skinner), p. 293.
79
Ibid.. p. 295.
80
New York (State), Session Laws. 1819 (Albany:
J. Buel), pp. 187-208.

that he was invited to he present and explain his recommen­
dations .81

The legislature underscored this public confi­

dence by an act of April 10, 1820, allowing Hawley another
$400.00 increase in salary .8 2
Growth of the common school system under Hawley1s
administration i B shown in Table I below.

TABLE I
A COMPARATIVE VIEW OP THE RETURNS OF COMMON SCHOOLS
FOR DIFFERENT YEARS SINCE 1816+

Year

Total
Number
Districts

toumber
Districts
Repotting

Amount of
State Aid
(Dollars)

Number
Children
Taught

Total
Children
5-15 yrs.

1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821

2755
3713
3264
4614
5763
6332

2631
2873
3228
3844
5118
5489

$55,720
64,634
73,235
93,010
117,151
146,418

140,106
170,386
183,253
210,316
271,877
304,559

176,449
198,440
218,969
235,871
302,703
317,633

♦Information from Annual Reports of Superintendent
of Common Schools for years indicated.
In Table I the most noticeable fact is that the
number of ohildren taught increased more rapidly than the
number of children of school age represented in the popula­
tion.

In 1816 roughly fourteen out of every seventeen

Ol

Randall, 1871, op.oit., pp. 33-34.

82

New York (State), Session Laws, 1820 (Albany:
J. Buel), p. 113.

children were in school at some time during the sohool term,
while in 1821 the proportion was approximately thirty out of
thirty-one ohildren.

This percentage is particularly inter­

esting in view of Superintendent RicefB estimate of 1864
that only fifty-eight per cent of children were in school
as a result of the operation of the rate-hill system.

The

difference in percentages may also be due in part to opera­
tion of social and economic factors.
The report made to the legislature on February 21,
1821, was Hawley's last as superintendent of common schools.
In the course of a political struggle between the rival
forces of Martin Van Buren and Be Witt Clinton, the Van
Buren party took control of the Council of Appointment and
began a wholesale dismissal of Judicial, administrative and
military officials.®®

Hawley was swept from office with

the rest, and in his place was put an Albany lawyer named
Welcome Esleeck.®^

While apparently attempting to condone

on political grounds the action of the council, Hammond has
this to say of the removal of Hawley:
But there is one act of this Council, which, in my
Judgment admits of no reasonable apology— the removal
of GIDEON HAWLEY from the office of superintendent of
Common Schools. Mr. Hawley had, by great skill and
labor, formed our Common Sohool system. All who know
him, . . . admit . . . h i s peculiar fitness, for that

®®William M. French, "Gideon Hawley” in New York
History. XX (April, 1939), 158.
84
Hammond, 0£. cit., Vol. I, p. 571.

48
office. On the able and faithful discharge of his
duties depended not the temporary success of this or
that party, but, in a considerable degree, the weal
or woe of the rising generation. . .
Esleeck's tenure of office was to be brief.

An act

of the legislature passed April 3, 1821, contained the fol­
lowing succinct provision:
And be it further enacted, that the office of super­
intendent of common schools be, and the same is hereby,
abolished, and the duties heretofore required of him
shall be performed by the secretary of state .86
Thus ended, with the abrupt removal from the educa­
tional scene of Esleeck, who was characterized by Hammond
as a "mere collecting attorney ,"8 7 the initial and perhaps
critical phase of common school education in New York.

In

his earlier work Randall pays tribute to Hawley 1 s skill
and perseverance in organizing and supervising the common
school system:
To no individual in the state, are the friends of
common school education more deeply indebted for the
impetus given to the cause of elementary education in
its infancy, than to Gideon Hawley. . . . The founda­
tions of a permanent and noble system of popular edu­
cation were strongly and securely laid by him. . . .8 8

8 5 Ibid.,

Vol. I, pp. 570-571.

86

New York (State), Session Laws, 1821 (Albany:
William Gould & Co.), p. 243^
87 Hammond,

88

o£. cit., Vol. I, p. 571.

Randall, 1851, ojo. cit., pp. 18-19.

49
In this fashion we have seen the establishment of a
system of common sohool education, in three separate phases.
First, the responsibility was left entirely upon the local
community, with no aid and no legal basis.

There followed

a short-lived period of state assistance to local education,
with no broad basis of state supervision or prescription of
functions.

After another period in which the weight of sup­

port lay entirely upon the local community, the state legis­
lature established a relatively strong system of common
school education, with a state supervisory officer, and
legally prescribed functions and duties for a local hier­
archy of school officials.

The eight years of Gideon

Hawley1s tenure of office witnessed a steady growth in the
number of schools and the total number of pupils attending,
as well as in the amount of state support.

Curing this

time the legislature twice revised the basic act to elimin­
ate faults and to strengthen the legal foundations.

Further

developments in this story will be the subject of the next
chapter.

CHAPTER III
DEVELOPMENT OF SUPERVISION
During the period of twenty-five years following the
abolition of the superintendenoy of common schools, and
while the position was combined with the secretaryship of
state, developments within the system looked chiefly to
strengthening the financial support of eduoatlon, to the
better supervision of local schools, and to the provision
of an adequate number of better-trained teaohers.

During

the forties and early fifties, however, the question of
free schools became a perennial and explosive issue whioh
dominated the state educational scene.

In this chapter we

shall consider the development of supervision.

In a later

chapter we shall trace the rise of and the temporary set­
back to the free school movement.

In this discussion, the

measures for financial support will be considered as the
prelude to the free school movement, since the two phases
are closely related.
We have seen (of. supra, p. 36) that the sohool law
of 1812 had provided for the election in each town of three
commissioners and not over six inspectors, who were to have
some supervisory powers over the schools.

With the amend­

ments inoluded in the revised common school act of April,HL4

51
these officials continued to exercise a degree of control
over the local districts during the major portion of this
period.

The commissioners were the sole means of contact

“between the districts and the superintendent ex officio in
Albany.
Suggestion for the improvement of control over the
local districts resulted first from fear that the local
authorities were nsubverting” the means provided for sup­
port of sohools.

In his annual message of 1826 Governor

DeWitt Clinton pointed out that the superintendent of common
schools laoked both the time and the authority to visit
schools in person, and recommended that the legislature pro­
vide "visitorial authority” to detect abuses in the applicar
tion of sohool funds, to examine methods of instruction and
to suggest improvements.!
In the same year another weakness of the system was
revealed in a passing statement in the report of John C.
Spencer for the literature committee of the Senate, to
which had been referred the section of the executive mes­
sage mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

Speaking of the

effect of incompetent teachers, the report pointed out that
the teachers were licensed by town inspectors,
themselves generally and necessarily incompetent to

!]Jew York (State), Messages from the Governors, ed.
by Charles Z. Lincoln (Albany: J. B. Lyon (So., 1909), Vol.
Ill, p. 117.

52
determine upon /si£7 the qualification of candidates,
and willing to "Sanction such as the trustees, feel able
or disposed to employ. . . .
A year later the first report of Azariah C. Flagg as
superintendent of common sohools suggested that
. . . the system of inspection might he improved by
the appointment of competent persons to visit the
sohools of a oounty or a larger district, to investi­
gate the mode of instruction, the qualifications of
teachers, and the application of the public money,
and to inquire into all the operations of the sohool
system. Such inspectors would aid the sohools by
their advice, and add to the stock of intelligence
on the subjeot of education, by collecting informa­
tion in relation to the condition of the sohools and
the manner in which they are conducted. . .
It was, however, to be fourteen years before this sugges­
tion received legislative approval.
In May, 1835, a report from the assembly committee
on colleges, academies and common schools^ was accompanied
by a bill proposing to establish a separate department of
public instruction under an official to be called the sec­
retary of public instruction.

He was to be appointed for

a three-year term by the legislature and to serve as ex
officio chancellor of the University of the State of New

2New York (State), Senate Journal. 1826 (Albany:
E. Croswbll), p. 157.
®New York (State), Assembly Journal, 1827 (Albany:
E. Croswell), Appoadix A, p. 4.
^ e w York (State), Assembly Journal. 1835 (Albany:
E. Croswell), p. 859.

53
York.

He was to have supervision over the common schools

as well as over colleges and academies .5

Action, however,

was postponed.”
This proposal two years later drew the disapproval
of Governor William Marcy, who recommended instead the pro­
vision of an additional deputy to assist the secretary of
state in his work as superintendent of oommon schools.

The

governor also advised transference to the superintendent of
common sohools of the general supervision of the academies,
including the departments for training of teachers.

Therein

he hinted at one of the major sources of conflict between
the regents and the superintendent of public instruction,
which will be the subject of the later chapters of this
study .7

This suggestion was partially implemented by a

provision of chapter 241, laws of 1837, requiring institu­
tions in which teachers of oommon sohools were or should be
instructed, to make an annual report to the superintendent
of oommon schools.

The law also required that with respect

to organization and management of the training departments
and the course of study offered, the schools should be
governed by such directions as the superintendent should

5New York (State), "Report of Committee on Colleges,
Academies and Common Sohools on • • • Communications /relat­
i n g to public instruction," Assembly Document No. 38%, 1835
(Albany: E. Croswell), pp. 7-%I
6Assembly Journal. 1835. p. 924.
7
Messages from the Governors, Vol. Ill, pp. 614-615.

54
iBsue .8
Governor William E. Seward's annual message of Janu­
ary 1, 1839, described "visitation" aa "the very prinoiple
of life to all seminaries of instruction."9

She message

pointed out that the regents were "by virtue of their office
visitors of the colleges and academies, and the town in­
spectors served the same function for oommon schools.
How utterly this duty of visitation has fallen into
disuse, your own observation and.the public voice
abundantly testify. The office of inspector of oom­
mon sohools is unhappily always involved in the politi­
cal organization of parties. Generally it falls, by
custom strong as law, upon young men engrossed by pri­
vate affairs. Its duties confer, in public estimation,
nothing of the dignity, and maintain little of the
importance, which would induce their faithful execu­
tion.
Governor Seward's remedy for this situation envis­
aged a department of education with a superintendent appointed by the legislature, and a board of education com­
posed of delegates from subordinate bodies in the counties.
Supervision of the schools would be exercised by the county
boards, with general powers of regulation possessed by the
state board of education.

Of these, only the superintendent

would be under salary, and the terms of office should be

% e w York (State), Session laws, 1837 (Albany:
E. Croswell), p. 231.

g

Messages from the Governors. Vol. Ill, p. 743.

1 0 Ibid..

p. 743.

long enough to insure competence .11
Almost on the heels of this pronouncement by Governor
Seward oame the appointment on February 4, 1839, of John C.
Spencer of Ontario county as secretary of state and ex
officio superintendent of common schools.

Spencer promptly

secured the passage of a law authorizing him to appoint
county boards of visitors, who were to serve without pay
and to visit the schools in each county, reporting to the
superintendent suggestions for their improvement .1 2

The

boards of visitors, who were according to Randall appointed
from among the most intelligent oitizens of the counties
without regard to party ,1 3 recommended with much unanimity
the establishment of a system of county supervision under
the direction of the state superintendent.1^
On April 13, 1840, Spencer sent to the legislature
an abstract of the reports of the county boards of visitors.
The report pointed out that at least half of the sohools in

^ I b i d .. p. 744.
12Hew York (State), Session Laws, 1839 (Albany:
E. Croswell), p. 304.
1 7%

Samuel Sidwell Randall, History of the Common School
System of the State of Hew York, from its origin in 1^95 to
the present time (Hew York: Ivison, felakeman, Taylor & C o . ,
T87l), p. i o t :
1% e w York (State), "Communication from the Superin­
tendent of_Common Sohools transmitting the reports of the
visiters /sic7 of Common Schools," Assembly Document H o . 307,
1840 (AlbanyT Thurlow Weed), pp. 6-1(5".

56
the state are not visited at all by the town inspectors,
and that in many cases where there was an inspection it was
"slight and superficial" and resulted in no benefit.

Many

of the county boards of visitors recommended the abolition
of the office, and the superintendent was "constrained" to
agree with them.-1-®
Spencerfs own recommendations, accompanying the re­
port, exhibited the foroefulness and progressive thinking
which brought forth paeans of praise for him from Randall,
who served as his deputy, and as acting superintendent after
Spencer was appointed Secretary of War in President Tyler*s
cabinet in October, 1841.

The recommendations included

(1 ) appointment of deputy superintendents in each county;
(2 ) extension of teacher training in academic departments;
(3) establishment of an educational publication to serve
the interests of the schools; (4) uniform textbooks; (5)
vaccination of children attending public Bchools; (6 ) in­
struction in vocal music; (7) extension of the terms of
commissioners and trustees; (8 ) voluntary organizations of
county boards of education, and town, oounty and state
associations for improvement of oommon sohool education;
and (9) establishment of graded schools in larger towns and
cities, under local superintendents .16

1 5 Ibid.,

p. 5.

1 6 Ibid.,

pp. 10-14.

57
On April 15, 1840, the assembly committee on colleges,
academies and common schools reported a bill embodying some
of the suggestions made by S p e n c e r . T h i s passed the
Assembly on May 12^® but died in the Senate.^*®
In the session of 1841 amendments to the second title
of the fifteenth ohapter of the revised statutes provided
the suggested ohanges in the method of supervision.

Section

six of the law reduced the number of town inspectors to two
and provided that these two could legally certify a teacher.2®
A more extensive supervisory arrangement was established in
Section 26, which authorized the election by the county
boards of supervisors, of a county deputy superintendent,
or two in counties having more than two hundred schools.
The two-year tenure of office could be terminated by the
supervisors.

In addition to specific powers such as visit­

ing and inspecting schools, "inviting the town inspectors
to do likewise," examining the management, course of study,
text books, buildings and facilities, advising with trustees,
licensing and annulling certificates of teachers, etc., the

1 7 Ibid..

pp. 5-9.

18New York (State), Assembly Journal. 1840 (Albany:
Thurlow Weed), p. 1427.
19New York (State), Senate Journal. 1840 (Albany:
Thurlow Weed), pp. 561-577. No action after bill committed
to third reading, May 13.
2®New York (State), Session Laws. 1841 (Albany:
Thurlow Weed), p. 237.

58
county deputy was clothed hy clause three of the section
with general power
to promote sound education, elevate the character and
qualifications of teachers, improve the means of
instruction, and advance the interests of the schools
committed to his charge.2*
The county deputies might resign their offices hy
letter to the county cleric, who was empowered to fill the
vacancy until action could he taken hy the supervisors.
They were subject to the authority of the state superin­
tendent of common schools, to whom they were required to
make reports.

Their salary was a per diem amount of two

dollars limited to a yearly maximum of five hundred dollars
half to he paid hy the county and half hy the state .2 2
The act also provided for an appropriation to sup­
ply to every school district for three years a copy of the
suooessive issues of the District Sohool Journal, then
edited hy Francis Dwight of Geneva .2 3
The report of the superintendent of common schools
for 1842 indicated that reports to date showed that county
superintendents had heen appointed in every county except
Lewis, Putnam, Riohmond, and Wyoming, and that in Buffalo,
Rochester, Brooklyn, Troy, Utica, and Hudson the schools

21Ihid., pp. 243-244.
22Ihld., pp. 244.
23
Ihid.. p. 242.

59
had been organized as city superintendencies under special
law .2 4
In February of that year the vacancy then existing
in the superintendency ex officio was filled by the appoint­
ment of Samuel Young of Saratoga.

Young came to the office

with a definite opinion that the system of county superin­
tendency was impolitic and inefficient, and with a fixed
determination to eliminate it.

However, after attending the

annual convention of the oounty superintendents in Utioa,
which Handall says he was induced to do with much diffi­
culty,2^ and after hearing the discussions which marked the
sessions, he changed his opinion and became a strong and
enthusiastic supporter of county supervision .26
Young1s point of view was apparently shared by many
others, for petitions began to appear in the legislative
halls, demanding the repeal of the portions of the law of
1841 which had provided for the county superintendents,
declaring that the office was "uncalled-for, unnecessary,
useless and expensive," that the town inspectors could per­
form the duties as well, and that the money so spent could

‘^ e w York (State), "Report of Superintendent of Com­
mon Schools," Assembly Document No. 12, 1842 (Albany: Thurlow
Weed), pp. 12; 25-29.
2 ®Randall,

26

1871, ojs. cit.. p. 140.

New York (State), "Report of Superintendent of Com­
mon Sohools," Assembly Document N o . 14, 1845 (Albany: Carroll
& Cook), pp. 32-53.

60
better be used for well-qualifled teachers.2^ The petitions,
however, were reported on adversely by the assembly commit­
tee on colleges, academies, and common schools on April 2, 2 8
and the house agreed to the report .2 9 The committee report,
known as the Maclay report, asserted that the exposure of
the defects and evils of the schools pointed to the need for
better teachers ;3 0 that education increased the earning
power of workers ;31 and that failure of the system at any
point should be charged to injudicious appointments rather
than to failure of the law .3 2
Secretary Young1s report on common schools for 1843
dwelt at length on the weaknesses of the common school
system ,3 3 which will be touched upon hereafter, and de­
clared that
county superintendents properly qualified for the dis­
charge of their functions, possessing a competent

2 New York (State), "Report of Committee on Colleges,
Academies and. Common Schools on petitions for repeal of act
/dire c t i n g appointment of Deputy Superintendents," Assembly
Document N o . 168, 1842 (Albany: Thurlow Weed), p. 2;
2 8 Ibid.,

pp. 7-8.

29

New York (State), Assembly Journal, 1842 (Albany:
Thurlow Weed), p. 748.
g0 Ibid., p. 5.
glIbid., p. 7.
g8 Ibid.. pp. 7-8.
ggNew York (State), "Report of Superintendent of Com­
mon Schools," Assembly Document N o . 14, 1843 (Albany: Carroll
& Cook), pp. 23-26.

61
knowledge of the moral, intellectual and physical
sciences, familiar with all the modern improvements
in elementary instruction, and earnestly intent on
elevating the condition of our common schools can do
more to accomplish this desirable result than all the
officers connected with the system .*54
Among his recommendations were included suggestions that
the town commissioners and inspectors of schools be abolished,
and a town superintendent be substituted; and that the appel­
late Jurisdiction in local sohool disputes, previously
vested in the state office, should be put in the hands of
the county superintendents with right of further appeal to
Albany .36
During that session of the legislature the suggestions
made by Young were for the most part included in a measure
enacted into law, which abolished the town commissioners
and inspectors, and placed their duties in the hands of an
annually elected town superintendent, who was to be bonded
for the accurate performance of his duties, and was to
receive the munificent salary of a dollar and a quarter per
day for time "necessarily spent in discharge of duties."3®
The act also provided that there should be two county super­
intendents in all counties having more than one hundred and
fifty districts, and made the county superintendent removable

g4 Ibid., p. 35.
35_. . ,
Ibid., p. 36.
36
New York (State), Session Laws. 1843 (Albany: C.Van
Benthuysen & Co.), p. 163.

62
by the superintendent of common schools instead of hy the
hoard of supervisors.

The law forhade payment of the

state's share.of the superintendent's salary unless an
appointment had heen made to the position, and unless the
reports from the county were filed as required.

Appellate

jurisdiction was vested in the county superintendent.

Gen­

eral licenses for teaching issued hy the county superintend­
ent were to he valid anywhere in the county, while those
issued hy the town superintendent, or special licenses, were
to he acceptable only in the town in which issued.

The

state superintendent on the recommendation of the county
superintendent, might grant an individual a license valid
anywhere in the state.3 7
Both the annual message of Governor William C. Bouc3c
and the oommon sohool report of Secretary of State Young
for 1844 refer ; in complimentary terms to the results of
this act.

The governor spoJce of the "general approbation

and concurrence" with which the new form of supervision was
m e t ,38 and the secretary wrote enthusiastically of better
prepared teachers, demolition of harriers between districts,
greater interest in schools and sohool visitation hy parents,
and more satisfactory exertions on the part of the county
superintendent s .38

3 7 Ibid.,

pp. 164-167.

38
Messages,from the Governors, No. XV, pp. 66-67.
39
New YorJc (State), "Report of Superintendent of

63
During the following year the county superintendents
were increasingly on the defensive in some sectors of the
state.

In his annual report for 1845 Secretary of State

Benton took occasion to come to their defense, calling at­
tention to the improvement in the standards of education in
common schools, and an increase in public interest in edu­
cation.
Seventy county officers . • . distinguished for
their devotion to the cause of education, and for their
scientific attainments and moral worth, acting under
the immediate direction and supervision of the State
Superintendent, . . . and operating . . • through the
agency of the trustees upon the teachers of nearly
eleven thousand school districts, must necessarily
exert a powerful influence in carrying forward the
spirit of improvement, in diffusing knowledge and in
promoting the advancement of sound learning .4 0
The Governor^ message of January 7, 1845, had men­
tioned the fact that the
substitution of a county superintendent of schools in
the place of the former town commissioners, has given
rise to discontents in some of the counties.4*
In April the state convention of county superintendents,
meeting at Syracuse, discussed the movement to abolish the

Common Schools,” Assembly Document No. 34, 1844 (Albany:
Carroll & Cook), pp. 18-19.
4 0 New York (State), "Report of Superintendent of Com­
mon Schools," Assembly Document N o . 3 0 . 1845 (Albany:
Carroll & Cook), pp. 10-TTI

^ Messa^es from the Governors. Vol. IV, p. 115.

64
office .4 2

Secretary of State Nathaniel S. Benton, address­

ing the convention, declared that he favored the continuance
of the present system, and appreciated fully the importanoe
of the services rendered by the superintendents.

He de­

clared that he understood that memorials from some fourteen
oounties urged the abolition of the position, that he be­
lieved the opposition to be largely political, and that the
superintendents should be doubly prudent in carrying out
their duties .4 3 In July the firBt state teachers* conven­
tion in the state, also in Syracuse, declared in a resolu­
tion for the continuation of the county superintendents .4 4
It might be of interest at this point to insert a
survey of some of the prevailing conditions in common
school education found by the county superintendents to
exist a century ago.

Statistics for this summary were

taken from the report covering the year 1844, and oommunicated to the legislature in 1846.
In the 11,000 school districts, 216,380 pupils were
instructed for less than two months, and only 147,000 for
more than four months, and only 46,018 for eight months or
more .4 5

The county superintendents personally visited

4 2Randall,
4 gIbid..

44
45

1871, ojd. cit., p. 207.

p. 207.

Ibid., p. 212.

Hew York (State), "Report of Superintendent of
Common Sohools." Assembly Document No. 30, 1846 (Albany:
Carroll & Cook), pp. 7-8.

65
9,306 common schools, finding tho following conditions among
others:

7,566 buildings were of framed wood, 567 of brick,

519 of stone and 552 still were log buildings.

Of these

2,760 were declared to be in a bad condition of repair, and
2,700 in ordinarily good condition.
found in 6,462 districts.

No playground space was

Nearly 5,000 schools had abso­

lutely no privy accommodations, and 2 , 0 0 0 had but one for
both girls and boys .4 6 Average wages of male teachers were
$13.37 per month in winter and $14.25 in summer; and of
women teachers, $7.00 and $ 6 .00 .4 7

Of a total of $1,087,984

spent for teachers' wages, over $458,000 was obtained from
rate bills charged to parents .4 8
At a special session of the legislature in November,
1847, the foes of county supervision accomplished the pas­
sage of a measure abolishing the office .4 8 According to
Handall, four principal factors contributed to the passage
of the act:

(1 ) injudicious selection of appointees by the

supervisors; (2 ) appointment on the basis of political in­
fluence; (3) appointment of persons wanting in ability and
moral character; and (4) objection on the part of the local
units to paying the required half of the superintendent's

4 6 Ibid..

p. 14.

4 7 Ibid.,

p. 17.

4 8 Ibid.,

pp. 28-29.

49

New York (State), Session Laws. 1847 (Albany:
Charles Van Benthuysen), Vol. II, p. 456.

66
salary.5?
This result had "been achieved in the face of powerful
support from many quarters for county supervision.

In 1843

and again in 1845 the assembly committee on colleges,
academies, and common schools had investigated the opposi­
tion and had reported to the Assembly in favor of retention
of the system.5^

In the latter year the report had stated

that
no benefit would be likely to accrue from abolishing
the office . . . which would not be more than counter­
vailed /si£7 by the evils that would necessarily ensue.
. . • TEese officers have . . . done more for the cause
of primary education within three years, than had been
done for half a century previously .52
In his annual report for 1845 to the Massachusetts State
Board of Education Horace Mann had declared,
The great State of New York, by means of her County
Superintendents, State Normal Sohool and otherwise, is
carrying forward the work of public education more
rapidly than any other State in the Union, or any
country in the world .5 3
Addressing the state convention in Syracuse in April of

5 0 Randall,

1871 ,oja. cit., pp. 232-233.

51

New York (State), "Report of Committee on Colleges,
Academies and Common Schools on petitions for and remon­
strances against repeal of . . . act /Eirecting7 appointment
of Deputy Superintendents," Assembly document No. 100, 1845
(Albany: Carroll & Cook), p. 17.
5 2 Ibid.,

53

pp. 12, 15.

Cited in Randall, 1871, og. cit., p. 235.

67
that year, another of the great personages in American
education, Henry Barnard, had termed the system of county
superintendence the most admirable feature of the Hew York
system.5^
Responding to a request for his views, John C.
Spencer, in a letter dated March 24, 1846, declared that
all methods of securing adequate supervision over schools,
other than by county supervision, had failed from the gross
neglect of the town inspectors, who were themselves incompe­
tent to carry out their duties .55
Results of the abolition of the county superintendenoy were thus listed by Randall: (1) lack of connecting
link between districts and the state superintendent; (2 )
interference with means of settling controversies; (3) lack
of check on misuse of public funds; (4) lack of source of
information concerning details of school operations.5®

In

his annual report for 1847, Secretary Benton pointed out
the impossibility of supervising the local schools from the
superintendents office.5^

Secretary Christopher Morgan in

1849 renewed the attack on the friends of abolition, declar­
ing that an intermediate officer was needed between the

5 4 Ibid..

p. 235.

5 5 Ibid.,

p. 237.

56 .
Ibid., pp. 239-240.
5^Hew York (State), "Report of Superintendent of
Common Schools," Assembly Document Ho. j>, 1848 (Albany:
Charles Van Benthuysen), p. 62.
—

68
state superintendent and the nine hundred town superintend­
ents.

He asserted,

The territory is too large, its subdivisions too
many, its relations too diverse, the local offices too
many, and the interval between the department and them
too wide, to permit that aotual and minute supervision
which is necessary to an efficient administration of
the school laws .5 8
Morgan recommended to the legislature passage of one of two
bills, one repealing the act of 1847 and restoring the
county superintendents, and making them elective; and the
other providing for election of a superintendent in each
assembly district, except in areas having city superintend­
ents .59 In spite of support from Governor Hamilton Pish,
expressed in his messages of 184960 and 1850,61 the legis­
lature took no action on the proposals which Morgan renewed
and reiterated in his report of 1850.
Morgan also urged the establishment of some form of
intermediate supervision in the report of 1850, pointing out
again the difficulty of corresponding with the nine hundred
local officials, and of obtaining the necessary statistical

58Hew York (State), "Report of Superintendent of
Common Schools," Assembly Document H o . 20, 1849 (Albany:
Weed, Parsons & Co.), p. 4IT,
5 9 Ibid.,

p. 40.

’ 60
Messages from the Governors, Vol. IV, p. 429.
^ Messages from the Governors, Vol. IV, p. 479.
62
Hew York (State), "Report of Superintendent of

information needed for the ‘business of the department .6 3
He renewed his recommendation that a superintendent should
be elected for each assembly district, with powers similar
to those formerly held by the county superintendents .6 4

He

repeated his arguments almost verbatim in his report of
1851.65
A resolution of the Assembly passed July 10, 1851,
authorized the governor to appoint a suitable person as a
commissioner td prepare a common school code for the state.
In a letter of August 4, Governor Washington Hunt notified
Samuel S. Randall of his appointment,
in consideration of the many services you have rendered
to the cause of common school eduoation in this State,
and of your eminent qualifications for the discharge of
the duty .66
Randall’s report was a comprehensive document running
to forty pages, and the accompanying school code included
forty-seven more.

He proposed three changes in the then

existing system, which he had incorporated in the proposed

Common Schools," Assembly Document No. 50, 1850 (Albany:
Thurlow Weed), pp. Il-12.
63
Ibid., p. 1 0 .
6 4 Ibid.,

p. 1 1 .

65
New York (State), "Report of Superintendent of
Common Schools," Assembly Document N o . 2 1 , 1851 (Albany:
Charles Van Benthuysen), pp. 8-9.
66
New York (State), "Report of Commissioner for Codi
fying the • . . law relating to common schools," Assembly
Document N o . 21, 1852 (Albany: C. Van Benthuysen), p. 5.

1.

Separation of the office of superintendent of com­

mon schools from that of secretary of state, and establish­
ment of a separate and distinct department .67
Randall's report asserted that this change was "not
only . . . imperatively required by considerations of pub­
lic policy, but . . . fully in accord with publio senti­
ment ."6 8

He pointed out that since the office of superin­

tendent had been placed upon the seoretary of state, the
latter 1 s duty had been increased to include obligations as
commissioner of the land office, of the canal fund and the
canal board; trustee of the state library, of the capitol
and other state buildings; and regent of the university.
At the same time the number of school districts in the
state had grown from seven thousand to twelve thousand, and
the number of ohildren under instruction from three hundred
forty thousand to nearly eight hundred thousand; the amount
of public money apportioned had increased from sixty thou*
sand dollars to nearly a million dollars .69 The duties had
furthermore multiplied in consequence of the increase in
the number of appeals, the lack of an intermediate officer
to communicate information to the individual districts, and

71
the additional work required from the apportionment of the
eight hundred thousand dollars state tax.7^

Said Randall,

Neither public policy nor a just regard to those
considerations which should actuate the legislature
in the distribution of civil employments, require that
aa unnecessary and onerous accumulation of duties :
should be devolved upon any public officer .71
2. Substitution of a permanent mill tax upon all
taxable real and personal property in the state, in lieu of
the present eight hundred thousand dollar state tax.

This

will be taken up in chapter V.
3. Restoration of the office of county superintendent,
in a modified form, subject to restrictions and limitations
dictated by experience "is . . . absolutely Indispensable
to the efficient administration of the common school system
of the State."7** The result of the establishment of the
county system of supervision, Randall1s report asserted,
was thorough and universal inspection of the schools by the
county superintendents, who
. • • personally examined the condition of every
school . . . , ascertained the qualifications of the
teacher, his mode of instruction, government and dis­
cipline, and the progress made by the pupils; . . .
pointed out such defects as • . . demanded reformation;
and by personal appeals, . . . lectures and public
addresses, enlisted the energies and affections of

70Ibid., pp. 9-10.
71 Ibid.,

72

p. 1 1 .

Ibid., p. 17.

parents and residents of the district in the welfare
and improvement of the shhool. . . . He enquired into
the administration of the affairs of the district,
counselled and advised with its officers, inspeoted
all its arrangements with regard to . . . suitable
school houses, out houses, play grounds, scientific
apparatus, text books, maps, globes, charts, do., and
. . . adjusted . . . all those controversies . . . and
dissentions which prove so fatal„to the union and har­
mony of school districts. . . ."^
In placing in the proposed code a provision for
county superintendence, Randall attempted to eliminate
some of the previous objections by conferring on them the
functions of general supervision, cooperation with the town
superintendents, and hearing and deciding appeals and con­
troversies, leaving to the county superintendent the deci­
sion as to visitation of the schools.^

He also proposed

that the county superintendent be elected for three years
by the town superintendents, meeting as a board for that
purpose, that the duties be defined, and the salary be
paid from the school fund on certificate of the state super­
intendent that the duties had been faithfully performed.
Randallfs report declared that no change in the
fundamentals of the state school system were proposed, but
that certain "substantive changes" were suggested:
1.

A change of procedure in the formation of new

districts, to prevent hasty aotion or undue influence.^®

73
2. Simplification of qualifications of voters at
school district meetings, and extension to include unmar­
ried females liable to taxation for district purposes.7®
3. Distribution of public money among the districts
by the town superintendent according to the number of
pupils actually attending and the average time attended .77
4. Provision for assumption by the district meeting
of costs resulting from suits against district officers,
and appeal to the state superintendent if the district did
not so vote.7®
5. Permission for districts to pool their district
library funds to establish town libraries .79
6.

Requirement, not merely direction, that trustees

make out tax lists within thirty days.®®
7. More stringent provisions for accountability of
trustees.
8.

Provisions to facilitate separation of informa­

tion from joint districts for reporting purposes.
9. Improvement in provisions relating to teachers 1
institutes.

7 6 Ibid..

p. 33.

77 Ibid.,

pp. 34-35.

7 8 Ibid.,

pp. 35-36.

79

Ibid.. p. 37.

80Ibid.. pp. 38-39.

74
10.

Extension of facilities for schools for colored

children .81
In his message of January 3, 1854, Governor Horatio
Seymour recommended the separation of the offices of secre­
tary of state and superintendent of common schools.8**
Chapter 97 of the session laws, passed March 30, 1854,
directed the legislature to elect "by Joint ballot every
three years a superintendent of public instruction to ex­
ercise the powers formerly held by the secretary of state
as superintendent of common schools.

The law allowed the

superintendent a salary of two thousand five hundred dol­
lars per year plus three thousand dollars for clerical
service.

The third and fourth provisions of the law were

again indicative of the oonflict that was shortly to appear
between the new department and the Board of Regents, for in
section three the law specified that it should be the duty
of the superintendent to visit
as often as may be practicable, such . . . of the com­
mon schools, academies and other literary institutions
of the state as he may deem expedient. • • •
Section four made the superintendent an ex offioio member
of the Board of Regents.8®

8 1 Ibid..

p. 39.

82Messages from the Governors. Vol. IV, p. 716.
8®Hfew York (State), Session laws, 1854 (Albany: Weed,
Parsons & Co.), pp. 230-232.

75
Under this law, the legislature in April, 1854,
elected Victor M. Rice of Erie county as the first superin­
tendent of public instruction, over Samuel S. Randall, who
as runner-up was appointed deputy superintendent.

Mr. Rice

had previously been city superintendent of schools in
Buffalo.

Randall continued as deputy only until June, when

he became city superintendent of schools in New York.84
The matter of supervision did not rest at this point,
however.

In his annual message to the legislature in 1855

Governor Myron H. Clark referred to the necessity of "aotive
and intelligent supervision" in improving the schools.85
The first annual report of Superintendent Rice included a
recommendation that provision be made for election of school
commissioners for each county or assembly district, with a
salary large enough to interest capable men who would devote
full time to the position.88
In April, 1856, the legislature provided by law for
the election by the boards of supervisors of the counties
comprising eaoh assembly district of a county sohool commis­
sioner, for the term ending January 1, 1858.

If a county

included more than one assembly district,: there should be a
commissioner for each district, but more than one commissoner

84Randall, 1871, op. cit.. pp. 323-324.
85
Messages from the Governors. Vol. IV, p. 797.

86

Randall, 1871, 0£. cit.. pp. 325-326.

was authorized for districts having more than one hundred
and forty schools.

Beginning with the fall election of

1857, commissioners were to be elected by ballot.

They

were given the usual powers to visit and examine schools,
inquire into management, courses of study, condition of
buildings, etc., and make recommendations to trustees. They
were forbidden to act as agent for any author, bookseller
or publisher, or to receive any commission or reward for
recommending any book or apparatus.

Powers also included

those of examining candidates for teaohers1 licenses, and
of annulling licenses after hearing.

They were required to

organize teachers1 institutes at least once each year, and
do anything necessary to promote sound education, and
advance the interests of schools.

Commissioners were to

receive a minimum salary of five hundred dollars payable
from the income of the United States Deposit Fund, which
might be increased by boards of supervisors from county or
district funds.87
Under this system Superintendent Van Dyok reported
in 1859 that although the assembly district system was
somewhat inconvenient, and subjected to some local oomiialit,
it was on the whole productive of "highly beneficial results,
and he urged that it be left untouohed by the legislature

87
New York (State), Session laws, 1856 (Albany:
J. Munsell), pp. 285-289.

77
until its value could be assessed.88

Three years later

Superintendent Keyes declared that the district system had
demonstrated its superiority over the previous arrangement
/town superintendents onl^T" and was growing in public
favor.89
In this chapter we have traced the development of the
idea that the common school system requires not only state
supervision, but local control as well.

We have seen that

in the early days of the common school system, local con­
trol meant principally inspection of schools and licensing
of teachers, while the role of the state official was
limited chiefly to the administration of the school funds
and the compilation of reports.
Eventually the common school system outgrew this
simple arrangement, and an intermediate unit of supervision
became necessary.

The result was the establishmantt of the

county deputy system, on such an imperfect basis that its
opponents accomplished its abolition.
was re-established

Eventually the system

on a more workable foundation.

At the

same time the looal unit of the township was found to need
more efficient supervision, unrelated to the exigencies of
politics, which led to the establishment for a time of the

88Randall, 1871, op. cit., p. 338.
89Ibid., p. 348.

78
township superintendent in place of the local inspectors
and commissioners.

Thus by trial and error, and by experi­

mentation, a system of supervision arose, but behind each
of the efforts and the errors lay the urgent need for a
strong and efficient common school system.

CHAPTER IV
TEACHER TRAINING
We have previously noted (supra, p. 34) the strong
statement of the members of the Peek committee ooneerning
the qualifications of teachers.

We have also noted in

other sections of chapter II the legal requirements of the
basic common school acts relating to inspection of schools
and the lioensing of teachers.
It is obvious that the statement and the legal re­
quirements referred to indicate that the fathers of the
common school system were aware that schools could be only
as good as the teachers were able to make them.

In this

chapter we shall observe further efforts in the dlreotion
of providing better teachers, as a second important aspect
of the history of the establishment of our common school
system.
During the formative years of the state Bohool system
no provision was made for special education for teaohers of
common schools.

Evidence that some control was necessary

is seen in the provision of the revised basic school act of
1814 which required the town inspectors to examine and
certify teachers, and gave them power to annul teachers1

certificates on three days* notice to the trustees.3- In­
direct evidence of the prevalent idea that some control was::
required is fbund in the provisions for inspection of
schools with respect to "the proficiency of the scholars,
and the good order and regularity of the schools."2
Governor LeWitt Clinton* s annual message of 1825
recommended to the legislature consideration of the educa­
tion of teachers on the monitorial plan,3 in which he had
become very much interested as a result of the arrival in
New York of Joseph Lancaster, originator of the system.^
Governor Clinton’s message of 18S6 again urged the
need of better educated teachers:
The vocation of a teacher in its influenoe on the
character and. destiny of the rising and all future
generations, has either not been sufficiently under­
stood or duly estimated. It is or ought to be ranked
among the learned professions. With a full admission
of the merits of several who now officiate in that
capacity, still it must be conceded that the informa­
tion of many of the instructors of our common schools,
does not extend beyond rudimental education. . . . I
therefore recommend a seminary for the education of
teachers in the monitorial system of instruction. • . .

% e w York (State), Session Laws. 1814 (Albany:
Websters & Skinner), p. 2217
2Ibid.. p. 222.
®New York (State), Messages from the Governors, ed.
by Charles.Z. Lincoln (Albany: J. B. Lyon.Co., 1909), Vol.
Ill, p. 61.
4
H. G. Good, History of Western Education (New York:
MacMillan, 1948), p . T f B f l . ---------------------

g

Messages from the Governors, Vol. Ill, p. 116.

A committee of the state Senate considered the gover­
nor's suggestion and reported that since there were over
seventy-six hundred districts in the state, one seminary of
instruction for teachers would he insufficient to meet the
demand.

For the present the academies and colleges must he

depended upon to supply the needs of the schools.®
The committee report, communicated hy the ahle John C.
Spencer, hlamed much of the inefficiency in teaching to two
conditions:

(1) the tendency of trustees to hire the cheap­

est teacher available, and usually for only a minimum term,
and (2) the incompetence of inspectors to license teachers.
Ho remedy was suggested to enforce longer terms, hut the com­
mittee proposed a local licensing hoard, possibly on a
county basis.^

The committee pointed out that the regents

distributed the income of the literature fund to the acade­
mies on the basis of the number of classical students in­
stead of the number taking English courses.

It suggested

that if the regents were unwilling to change the basis of
apportionment, the legislature might provide funds to place
the English students on the same basis as the olassical
students.

It also suggested the possibility of distribut­

ing such additional funds according to the number of students
who were subsequently licensed as teachers.

The committee

^Ibid., Vol. Ill, footnote p. 117.
n
Hew York (State), Senate Journal, 1826 (Albany:
E. Croswell), p. 157.

82
further could see no reason why seminaries for "females"
should not share alike with those for males in distribution
O

of state funds.
The following year Governor Clinton returned to the
attach in his legislative message, reminding the lawmakers
that of the eight thousand teachers employed in the state
"too many are destitute of the requisite qualifications,
and perhaps no considerable number are able to teach beyond
rudimental instruction."

The governor wondered whether "the

minds and morals of the rising . . . generations" should be
"entrusted to the guardianship of incompetence."9
nothing resulted from this inquiry in the way of
legislation, save a reiteration in the revised code of laws
of 1827 requiring commissioners and inspectors of common
schools to examine all persons offering themselves as can­
didates for teaching positions, as to "moral character,
learning and ability" and to examine the schools and give
advice to trustees and teachers.
The report of Secretary of State A. C. Flagg for
1831 expressed his gratification for the "increased atten­
tion which men of intelligence are bestowing upon . • •

8Ibid., p. 158.
9Messages from the Governors. Vol. Ill, p. 159.
^8New York (State), Session laws, 1827 (Albany:
E. Croswell), pp. 313-314.

common school education."11

He referred to a memorial from

citizens of Rochester urging the establishment of a seminary
for the training of teachers.12

Flagg reviewed recent sug­

gestions for teacher training and recommended the conversion
of more academies to make them "the nurseries for teachers."
He believed that the small number of academy graduates who
taught school could be traced to the small salaries paid.1®
The first definite step in the direction of teacher
training was taken in 1834, when the legislature enacted a
law authorizing the Board of Regents to distribute to acade­
mies under their visitation any of the revenues of the lit­
erature fund in excess of twelve thousand dollars, to be
used for educating teachers of the common schools.1^
Under this act, a plan was reported to the regents
at their meeting of January 8, 1835, and subsequently
adopted,

in academy was selected in each of the eight sen­

ate districts, and "a department engrafted upon it for the
education of teachers."1®

Because of the insight offered

11New York (State), "Report of Superintendent of Com­
mon Sohools," Assembly Document Ho. 15, 1831 (Albany:
E. Croswell), p. 10.
12Ibid.. p. 10.
13Ibid., pp. 18-13.
14New York (State), Session Laws. 1834 (Albany:
E. Croswell), p. 426.
15

x New York (State), "Report of Superintendent of Com­
mon Schools," Assembly Document N o . 6, 1836 (Albany:
E. Croswell), p. 41.
~

into teacher training methods of a century ago, the proce­
dure followed is reported in some detail.
According to the report of the superintendent of com­
mon schools, each academy selected received from the litera­
ture fund an amount sufficient to purchase the following
items of equipment:

an orrery /planetarium7, a numeral

frame and geometrical solids, a pair of globes, a movable
planisphere,.a tide dial, an optical apparatus, "the meohanical powers," a hydrostatic apparatus, a pneumatic apparatus,
a chemical apparatus, one hundred specimens of mineralogy,
an electrical machine, instruments to teaoh surveying, a
map of the United States, a map of Hew York State, an atlas,
a telescope, and a q u a d r a n t . I n addition, one hundred
ninety-one dollars was appropriated for additions to the
library of each school.

For operation, each school was to

receive annually from the literature fund four hundred
dollars to pay the salary of a tutor, "which, in addition
to the means of the academies, was deemed adequate. . •
She stated curriculum of the teaohers* training
course was listed as follows:

the English language; writing

and drawing; mental and written arithmetic and bookkeeping;
"Geography and General History combined"; history of the
United States; geometry, trigonometry, mensuration and

16Ibid., p. 4.
17Ibid., pp. 41-42.

surveying; natural philosophy and the elements of astronomy;
chemistry and mineralogy; constitutions of the United States
and of Hew York State; "Select parts of the Revised Statute^
and the Duties of Public Officers"; moral and intellectual
philosophy; and the principles of teaching.

The report

added that the regents contemplated adding algebra to the
list.18
The term of study included three years, of eight
months each, the four months vacation coming in the winter
to enable students, if necessary, to teach a district sohool
to supplement their means.

Each student was subject to

public examination at the end of the term of training.19
The department was organized in 1825, and to secure
some degree of uniformity the principals were invited to
meet a committee of the Board of Regents in Albany in
September, 1845.

The session, lasting several days, and

attended by the principals of seven of the eight designated
academies, resulted in substantial agreement as to the
management of the teacher training departments.88

Superin­

tendent John A. Dix pointed out, however, that the suooess
of the plan to provide adequately trained teachers depended
in part upon the willingness of the legislature to provide

18Ibid.. p. 43.
19Ibid.. p. 43.
20Ibid.. p. 43.

the means of employment at fair salaries.^
The eight originally designated schools included
Erasmus Hall Academy, Kings county; Montgomery Academy,
Orange county; Kinderhook Academy, Columbia county; St*
Lawrence Academy, Potsdam, St. Lawrence county; Fairfield
Academy, Herkimer county; Oxford Academy, Chenango county;
Canandaigua Academy, Ontario county; and Middlebury Academy,
22

Wyoming c o u n t y . L a r g e l y due to the greater cost of liv­
ing to the students, the department in Erasmus Hall Academy
was not successful, and in 1836 it was transferred to Wash­
ington Academy, at Salem, Columbia county.23
When in 1837 the state became the beneficiary of the
United States deposit, Governor Maroy recommended in his
message that the legislature devote "a liberal portion" of
the income of the fund to the uses of the academies, with
the purpose of "rendering them more efficient as seminaries
for educating common school teachers."24

The following year,

chapter 237 of the session laws added the sum of twenty-eight
thousand dollars of the income from the United States deposit

21Ibid.. p. 43.
22
Hew York (State), "Report
Common Schools," Assembly Document
E. Croswell), pp. 1&J-143.
23
Hew York (State), "Report
Common Schools," Assembly Dooument
E. Croswell), p. 22.

of Superintendent of
Ho. 17, 1839 (Albany:
of Superintendent of
H o . £, 1837 (Albany:
~

24Me ssages from the Governors. Vol. Ill, p. 612.

fund to the literature fund, and specified that any academy
receiving seven hundred dollars or more from this source
must maintain a department for teacher training.25
As noted previously in this chapter, Governor Marcy
anticipated the subsequent confliot between the Board of
Regents and the superintendent of public instruction with
his suggestion that the teacher-training departments, then
under the superintendence of the regents, as were the
academies in general, be transferred to the jurisdiction of
the superintendent of common schools.25
The legislature responded to this suggestion with
the passage of an act requiring that
The institutions in which departments for the instruc­
tion of common school teachers are or shall be estab­
lished, shall make to the superintendent of common
schools an annual report of the condition of those
departments . . . and in respect to the organization
and management of the departments and the course of
Btudies therein, the said institutions shall be gov­
erned by suoh direction as he may prescribe.2”
Superintendent Dix’s report for 1838 continued the
campaign for better teaching preparation:
The intellectual condition of every school will be
in proportion to the skill and capacity of the teacher.

25New York (State), Session laws. 1838 (Albany:
E. Croswell), p. 223.

26

Messages from the Governors. Vol. Ill, p. 614.

27Rew York (State), Session Laws. 1837 (Albany:
E. Croswell), p. 231.

His ability to teaoh necessarily assigns the limit, in
most cases, to the intellectual improvement of his
pupils. A teacher . . . who possesses the requisite
learning, zeal and ability to teaoh, rarely fails to
Inspire his pupils with his own love of knowledge. .
. . Hfith such an instructor a school becomes, what
Justice to our free institutions demands that it
should be.28
Superintendent Dix called attention to the increase
in the number of teachers being trained in the academies,
from 108 in 1835, to 284 in 1837, which was still small in
comparison to the number of teachers employed.

However, he

asserted, the small number enabled these better trained
teachers to compete advantageously in the employment market.29
He suggested that the number of academies training teachers
be increased to sixteen, or two for each senate district, or
possibly three, with an appropriation of five hundred dol­
lars for each school.®0
Under the act of 1838, increasing the distribution
of funds by the Board of Regents, seven additional teacher
training departments were established:

Amenla Seminary,

Dutchess county; Albany Female Seminary; Troy Female Semin­
ary; Genesee Wesleyan Seminary, Livingston county; Cortland
Academy; Rochester Collegiate Institute and Ithaca Academy.®^

28Hew York (State), "Report of Superintendent of
Common Schools," Assembly Document Ho. 13, 1838 (Albany:
E. Croswell), p. T3T.
29Ibid., p. 21.
30Ibid., pp. 21-22.
31

Hew York (State), "Report of Superintendent of

89
Erasmus Hall Academy had established a department in October,
1839, by order of the Board of Regents, but at the time of
this report no students were registered.®2
Superintendent John C. Spencer’s report for 1840
pointed out the lack of information concerning some of the
departments, since the act providing for them Imposed no
penalty for failure to abide by the terms of the act.®® He
believed, however, that the establishment of the departments
had had "a favorable influence on the character and quali­
fications of teachers."

He suggested that a certificate

from an academy offering a teachers’ training course shouldentitle the possessor to teaoh anywhere in the state without
further certification.®4
A report in 1841 by a committee of two appointed by
the superintendent to investigate the training departments
for common school teachers, commented favorably on the
value of the courses.

The Rev. Dr. Potter of Union College,

one of the two members, expressed the definite opinion that
more benefit would result from the establishment of a
normal school in the state oapital

Common Schools,11 Assembly Document No. 120. 1840 (Albany:
Thurlow Weed), pp. §0-91.
®8Ibid.. p. 16.
®®Ibid.. p. 16.
M Ibid., P. 17.

A

where it oould enjoy the supervision of the Superin­
tendent of Common Schools and be visited by the mem­
bers of the legislature.35
In his report of that year, however, Spencer expressed
the belief that normal schools would be much more expensive
to establish, equip and maintain, while accomplishing no
more than the academy teacher training departments were
achieving at much less cost.

He recommended that state aid

for teacher training be extended to all academies, and that
in counties where no academy existed a normal sohool might
be set up.36
A resolution of the Board of Regents dated May 4,
1841, apportioned three hundred dollars to each of the fol­
lowing academies for maintaining for a period of six months
a department for instruction of common school teachers:
Montgomery Academy, Kinderhook Academy, Delaware Academy
(Delhi), Washington Academy (Salem), St. Lawrence Academy
(Potsdam), Fairfield Academy, Hamilton Academy, Hobart Hall
Institute (Holland Patent), Rensselaer Oswego Academy
(Mexico), Franklin Academy (Prattsburg), Ithaca Academy,
Canandaigua Academy, Cortland Academy (Homer), Middlebury
Academy, Rochester Collegiate Institute, and Fredonia

35New York (State), "Report of Superintendent of
Common Schools," Assembly Document No. 100, 1841 (Albany:
Thurlow Weed), p. Ifei.
g6Ibid., p. 21.

91
Academy.

The Grammar School of Columbia College, Amenia

Seminary, Albany Female Academy, Troy Female Seminary,
Genesee Wesleyan Seminary and Oxford Academy were required
to maintain departments as a result of receiving seven hun­
dred dollars annually from the literature fund.
Superintendent Samuel Young1s report for 1843 asserted
that the teacher training departments in the common schools
had
practically failed in the accomplishment of the great
object for whioh they were instituted— the special
qualification of teaohers for the common schools.®®
The report pointed out further that little had been
accomplished which would not have been accomplished in the
ordinary work of the aoademies, and many which were not
sharing in the state bounty were doing as much effective
work as those receiving the additional grant.

Mr. Young

declared that the state assistance was spread over too
great an area, with each of sixteen schools receiving three
hundred dollars per year.

The total, he believed, should be

divided among not more than four institutions, which might
in time develop into efficient normal schools.®®
37
New York (State), "Report of Superintendent of
Common Schools," Assembly Document No. 12, 1842 (Albany:
Thurlow Weed), pp. 16-17.
CtQ

Npw York (State), "Report of Superintendent of
Common Schools," Assembly Document No. 14, 1843 (Albany:
Carroll & Cook), p. 17.
39
Ibid., pp. 17-18.

92
Superintendent Young further suggested that an appro­
priation might he made from the literature fund to establish
and maintain a normal school in Albany
where it might annually be examined by the representa­
tives of the people, during the sessions of the legis­
lature.^0
As an argument for this proposal he pointed to the example
of Massachusetts, where four normal schools had been estab­
lished in the few years following the opening of the first
in Lexington in 1839.41
That educational science is far behind all others,
is a fact recognized and conceded by all who are compe­
tent to judge. . . . The habits-and instincts of wildd
animals have been carefully investigated, in order that
they might be moulded to domestication and trained to
utility, but the different propensities of children,
according to the old system of training, are not to be
studied or regarded. All varieties are to be treated
in the same manner, and whipped into uniformity.42
The superintendent’s report pointed out that "normal
schools" were not an innovation in New York, having been in
operation on a limited scale in New York City, and more
recently at Kingsboro in Fulton county.

He quoted excerpts

from the reports of the county deputies, to point further
the need for more skillful teaching.4®

^ I b i d . , p. 18.
^ G o o d , 0 £. oit.. p. 446.
42
Assembly document No. 14, 1843, pp. 18-19.
4 gIbid., p. 19.

The report for that year and the next, of Deputy
Superintendent F. B. Sprague of Fulton county, indicated
something of the scope and methods of the Kingsboro Normal.
The school opened on September 6, 1842, with an enrollment
of forty students, which shortly grew to over sixty, in­
cluding both men and women, some with experienoe in teach­
ing.44 The term of instruction covered eight weeks.4®

The

curriculum included arithmetic, involving fundamentals and
i

problems as well as advanced phases such as ratio, propor­
tion and the "rule of three"; algebra, natural philosophy
and geometry; penmanship under "an accomplished writing
master"; geography, including
a general exercise of the whole school . . • repeating
in concert . . . twice the names of the different
States and Kingdoms of the_world, with their capitals,
the oceans, seas, gulphs /sio7, bays, principal lakes,
rivers &c. . . . This exercise is followed by a lecture
on the globe.46
For some undisclosed reason the sexes were separated
for the study of English grammar, which included parsing
and syntax, lectures by students on difficult points of
grammar, correction of errors, and mistakes in daily con­
versation.

One composition a week was included in the

^ I b i d., pp. 172-173.
4®New York (State), "Report of Superintendent of
Common Schools," Assembly Dooument No. 34, 1844 (Albany:
Carroll & Cook), p. 293.
46
Assembly Document N o . 14, 1843. p. 173.

94
curriculum.

Daily work was done on orthography and the

sounds of letters.

Of the work in oral English, as it

would be designated today, a rather extended quotation
seems desirable:
Great attention is given to elocution and reading.
In addition to a daily exercise in concert by the whole
school in recitation including the elementary sounds of
the English language, difficult specimens in articula­
tions and the best and most diffioult pieces in our
language; five students declaim every day, so that each
young gentleman has an opportunity to declaim several
times during the term. The exercises are intended to
cultivate and improve the voice, train the organs of
speeoh, improve the articulation, pronunciation and
taste of the pupil. The classes are required to de­
fine the most important words in their lessons, and
much care is taken to have them understand the meaning
of what they read. . . .Attention is given to the
grammatical and rhetorical pauses, emphasis, quantity
and quality of voice and everything necessary to enable
the pupil to read with beauty, foroe and variety.^7
As to results, the 1844 report of Deputy Superintend­
ent Sprague asserted that at least three-fourths of those
who attended the first normal school term taught a better
school than they had done previously.

He found indications

of more life and animation among the teachers, and more
interest among the students, in those schools.^®

A second

eight-week term was held in the spring of 1843, and another
in the fall of that year.

Improvement was sufficiently

marked as to indicate the desirability of reducing the term

47Ibid.. p. 174.
48
Assembly Document H o . 3 4 . 1844. pp. 293-294.

95
for the spring of 1844 to four weeks.49
As a result of the suggestion made in the 1843 report,
the Board of Regents withheld from the sixteen selected
academies the amounts previously granted for support of
teachers1 classes.

Superintendent Young in his report of

the following year declared that the sum of four thousand
eight hundred dollars thus made available would not be suf­
ficient to establish four normal schools, since only first
class teachers should be employed, and salaries for suoh
persons should be at least one thousand five hundred dollars
per year.50
An increase in teachers1 institutes was a direct
result of the appointment of oounty superintendents, the
%

first suoh organization having been set up in Tompkins oouniy
in 1842 by Superintendent Jacob Denman.

These voluntary
/

courses of study, lasting two or three weeks, were widely '
attended.

Salem Town, a popular lecturer at the institutes,

reported in this same year to Young that three suoh sessions
which he attended as a lecturer had included a total of 266
women and 170 men teachers.

According to Townvs statement,

the institutes* curricula usually included orthography,
English grammar, arithmetic, geography "with the use of the
globe," analysis of words, reading "by sentences and

49Ibid., p. 294.
50Ibid.. p. 30.

paragraphs in an easy and elegant manner," mensuration,
algebra "at an hour not interfering with any of the regular
exercises," and music, although the latter was not a regular
part of the program.

51

As a result of the reports and experiences with
institutes, Young1s report reoommended that the legislature
enact a law appropriating to the uses of teachers* institutes
the amount formerly set aside for training departments in
academies.

While the amount thus provided for an institute

in each county would be small, it would aid in providing
space, additional lecturers, and a little equipment.5**
During the session of 1644 the legislature climaxed
these efforts in the direction of teacher training by the
passage of an act providing for an appropriation of nine
thousand six hundred dollars from the literature fund for
the establishment of a normal school in Albany, placing the
institution under the joint control of the Board of Regents
and the superintendent of common schools by specifying that
the funds appropriated were to be expended under their
joint supervision.

Section two of the act provided an

operating budget of ten thousand dollars, also from the
literature fund.

The joint jurisdiction was provided for

specifically in section three:

97
The said school shall be under the supervision, man­
agement and government of the superintendent of common
schools and the regents of the university. The said
superintendent and regents shall from time to time,
make all needful rules and. regulations . . . and ;
•
provide in all things for the good government and
management of the said school. They shall appoint a
hoard . . . of five persons, of whom the said superin­
tendent shall he one, who shall constitute an executive
committee for the care, management and government of
the said school. . .
Thus the legislature showed an early example of the
tendency, to he noted, more frequently later, to step over
the previously hard-and-fast lines of demarcation which had
separated the common school system from the higher educa­
tional system of the state.
That the normal school was not considered as meeting,
at least in early years, the needs of the Bohool system for
trained teachers, is shown in the report of the superin­
tendent for 1846, stating that teachers1 institutes and
"teachersT drills" had heen held in nearly thirty counties,
attended hy over three thousand teachers.

The report reoom-

mended that since schools must he taught hy licensed
teachers, the state well might provide for some payment of
expenses for the teachers who attended.®^

There is no

indication in the statute hooks that the legislators then

®®New York (State), Session Laws, 1844 (Albany:
C. Van Banthuysen), pp. 464-463.
® % e w York (State), "Report of Superintendent of
Common Schools," Assembly Document N o . 30, 1846 (Albany:
Carroll & Cook), pp. 46H47.

98
a c c e p t e d the suggestion.

It would seem pertinent to close this discussion of
the early efforts for improved teacher training with
statistics from the 1848 report of Superintendent Benton.

TABLE II
AVERAGE MONTHLY SALARIES PAID TO TEACHERS FOR
YEARS 1845-1847, EXCLUSIVE OF ROOM AND BOARD*

Males
Females

1845
Winter Summer

1846
Winter
Summer

$13.37

$14.25

$14.16

$15.77

$15.10

$16.80

7.00

6.00

7.37

6.02

7.68

6.31

1847
Winter
Summer

♦New York (State), "Report of Superintendent of
Common Schools," Assembly Document N o . 5, 1848 (Albany:
Chas. Van Benthuysen), p. LSI
~
While the statistics show some improvement, there is
a distressing unwillingness shown to recognize the equiva­
lent value of the services of men and women teachers, and
very little tendency to improve the salaries of the latter.
In summarizing the principal factors in the estab­
lishment of the common school system, we have thus far
observed the growth of the fundamentals of the elementary
school, and we have seen that as the system expanded, the
need for supervision and for better teaching were recognized
as basic to good schools.

From the layman1s idea of

inspection and licensing as means of providing good teaching,
we progressed to the educator^ idea of better trained
teachers, expressed by such forward-looking individuals as
John C. Spencer and John A. Dix in the super intendency, and
later, in the local areas, by suoh men as county deputies
Jacob Denman of Tompkins county, father of the teachers1
institute, and F. B. Sprague of Fulton county, in whose
jurisdiction was established the first county normal school.
In our next chapter we shall complete the survey of
the establishment of the common sohool system by outlining
briefly the principal facts in the financing of elementary
schools, and the efforts to make them more nearly free to
the masses of the people.

CHAPTER V
FINANCIAL SUPPORT AND THE FREE SCHOOL ISSUE
In the two previous chapters we have traced the
history of supervision and the training of teachers.

In

this chapter we shall show how the common schools were
financed in their early years, and how the development of
the state eduoational program led to a demand for tax sup­
port and free schools.
We have noted in chapter I that in Dutch colonial
times schools were free, being supported for the most part
by contributions and by assessments levied on-the populace.
During the English regime schools were largely of the Eng­
lish church charity type, being supported by the English
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts.
Lack of any information to the contrary leads one to
believe that during the early years of statehood New York
schools were supported either entirely by local effort or
possibly in part by religious organizations.

No measure to

provide any public support for education appears on the
statute books prior to 1789.

Then the legislature passed

an act requiring the state surveyor-general, in all subse­
quent surveys of state land, to set aside two lots in each

101
township for gospel and school purposes.1

The following

year, an act of the legislature placed in the hands of the
Board of Regents title to a tract of land lying adjacent to
Lake George, Governor*s Island in New York harbor, and a
grant of one thousand pounds from the treasury, to be used
according to the Judgment of the regents for the support of
literature.2
We have also seen in chapter 2 the passage of the
Havens act of 1795, the first definite effort to establish
a school system as well as the first specific provision for
state assistance to local education, a provision which ex­
pired at the end of five years and was not renewed.
Mention has also been made of the establishment of
lotteries for the support of literature, provided in an act
of 1801.

The four lotteries were each intended to raise

twenty-five thousand dollars for education, the proceeds to
be paid to the Board of Regents after each drawing, half to
be devoted to common schools and the other half paid into
the literature fund.

Thomas S. D. Gelston and Philip Ten

Eyck of New York, Smith Thompson of Poughkeepsie, Elisha
Jenkins of Hudson, Daniel Hale of Albany, and John Lovett of
Lansingburgh were designated as managers and given authority

^ e w York (State), Laws of New York. 1777-1801 (re­
published by Secretary of State. Albany: Weed, Parsons & Co.,
1886), Vol. Ill, p. 66.
2Ibid.. pp. 162-163.

108
to adopt whatever measures seemed proper for the selling of
tickets and the drawing of prizes.

They were required to

give bond, and to deposit in hanks all receipts in excess
of five thousand dollars.®
In 1805 a special message of Governor Morgan Lewis
called attention to the need of a system of education, and
pointed out that funds were prohahly lacking from ordinary
revenues.

The only apparent source of income for the pur­

pose was the one million, five hundred thousand acres of
state land still remaining, which might he estimated at a
value of one million dollars, yielding perhaps sixty thou­
sand dollars per y e a r . 4

He suggested that once the lands

were appropriated for support of education, the legislature
might outline the prooedure and turn the administration
over to the Board of Regents, which might he given power to
district the state and appoint trustees, as well as allot
the funds available for state assistance.®
The legislature which heard this suggestion passed
two acts for the support of common schools.

An act of

March 86, 1805, incorporated the Merchants1 Bank of New
York, and authorized the state treasurer to suhsorihe for

gIbid.. Vol. V, pp. 899-300.
% e w York (State), Messages from the Governors, ed.
hy Charles Z. Lincoln (Albany: J. B. Lyon Co., i9t)§), Vol.
II, p. 556.
5Ibid.. p. 557.

one thousand shares of the stock, not to he paid for hy the
state, "which said shares and the dividends to accrue there­
on are hereby declared to he a fund for the support of com­
mon schools. . .
A favorable report from the ^oint committee appointed
to consider the governor's message on education resulted in
the passage on April 2, 1805, of a law setting aside a half
million acres of unappropriated state lands as a permanent
fund for common schools.

The act authorized the comptroller

to invest the income from the land and the interest on the
funds thus obtained until the annual interest from the ac­
cumulated amount reached the sum of fifty thousand dollars.
Thereafter it was to he distributed hy the legislature for
the support of schools.^
In 1807 the governor suggested, and the legislature
enacted, a law authorising the comptroller to invest the
proceeds of the literature lotteries and the hank stock
owned hy the state.

This provision was modified hy a law

of 1808.8
In his annual message of 1810 Governor Daniel D.
Tompkins alluded to the needs of education and pointed out

6New York (State), Session Laws, 1805 (Albany:
Charles & George Webster), p. 65.
7Ibid.. pp. 126-127.
^hffew York (State), Session Laws, 1807 (Albany:
Wehsters & Skinner), p. 84; New York (State), Session Laws,
1808 (Albany: Wehsters & Skinner), p. 243.

104
that the income of the common school fund then amounted to
about twenty-six thousand dollars, and the fund was becom­
ing increasingly productive.

Said the Governor,

It rests with the legislature to determine whether
the resources of this state will justify a further aug­
mentation of that appropriation as well as to adopt •
. . a plan for its application and distribution .9
A report from the comptroller indicated that receipts for .
the common school fund amounted to $151,115.69,of which
twenty-nine thousand one hundred dollars had been invested
in additional stock of the Merchants 1 Bank and one hundred
fourteen thousand six hundred dollars loaned according to
the authorization of the legislature.

The remainder was in

the treasury.-*-®
Examination of the condition of the common school
fund by a committee of the Assembly revealed that the
comptroller had loandd $114,600, of which only $7,752 had
been repaid.

As a result of the report the legislature

passed a measure supplementing to some extent the common
school fund, and limiting loans by the comptroller to stock
in specified banks.

If such were not available for invest­

ment, first mortgages on real estate could be accepted with
a limit of one thousand dollars per person on such loans.

Q
^Messages from the Governors. Vol. II, p. 660.
-*-®Hew York (State), Senate Journal.1810 (Albany:
Solomon Southwiok), p. 115S.

The act also provided for collection of overdue loans, past
and future, hy the attorney-general .11
The report of the Peck committee, appointed hy the
governor, and referred to in chapter I I , included a tabula­
tion on the condition of the common school fund, from which
the following is adapted:
Asset b 1^
Bonds and mortgages on lands sold
hy surveyor-general
3,000 shares, capital stock of
Merchants 1 Bank
300 shares of capital of Hudson Bank
Mortgages on loans outstanding
Bonds and sureties
Bond of Mechanics 1 Bank, Hew York
Arrears of interest due on bonds and
mortgages
Balance in state treasury, Bee. 31,

$240,370.67
150,000.00
15,000.00
101,924.52
3,000.00
10,000.00
35,831.13
2.338.37

1811

$658,464.69
Revenue
Annual interest on bonds and
mortgages
Bividends on hank stock
Probable collections from persons
refusing to domilitary duty
Proceeds of clerk1s office of
Supreme Court

$21,766.95
14,850.00
1,600.00
7.000.00
$45,216.95

The commissioners pointed out that if the interest
reached fifty thousand dollars and were divided among the

^Messages from the Governors, Vol. II, pp. 660-661
1 2 Ibid..

pp. 722-723.

449

towns in the state, the share of each would he very

small.

However, the state funds were to he used exclusively

to pay wages, and it was definitely not the intention that
the state should hear the entire "burden.

For that reason

the proposed act presented hy the commissioners would
require the district to raise hy tax sufficient funds to
provide a lot and a building and keep it in repair.1®
She act of June 19, 1812, establishing the common
school system, provided for the distribution of fifty thou­
sand dollars hy the superintendent of common sohools to the
towns on the basis of census figures, and hy the towns to
the districts according to the number of children aged five
to fifteen.

The superintendent might not distribute more

than fifty thousand dollars per year until the available
interest enabled him to distribute sixty thousand dollars.
Any surplus of interest over the fifty thousand might be
invested by the comptroller.

The general management of the

school fund including plans for its "better organization,"
reports of estimates, collection of outstanding amounts, and
sale of school lands was entrusted to the superintendent of
oommon schools.1^

Towns were required to raise by tax an

amount equal to that provided by the state, and might vote

1 3 Ibid.,

pp. 723-724.

^ N e w York (State), Session laws. 1812 (Albany:
Wehsters & Skinner), pp. 258; 2 6 3 - 2 ^ 7 “

107
as much as twice the amount of state aid .3-5
About a year later, in April of 1813, the legislature
passed an act setting aside as a permanent fund for common
schools the net proceeds of lands sold after April 2, 1805,
and of the residue of lands up to five hundred thousand
acres.

The act provided for loan by the comptroller of

school funds for not over two years at seven per cent,
secured by mortgage.

It also extended for two years the

time for payment of outstanding loans if the arrears of
interest were paid.

The comptroller was authorized, however,

to demand additional security in suoh cases .16
That an obstacle to distribution of funds appears is
evident from the language of a law of March 4,1814, requir­
ing the treasurer on warrant of the comptroller to distribute
the funds for common schools in the proportion oertified by
the superintendent.1 7

Ho information, however, is available

as to the situation which provoked the enactment.
The 1814 revision of the basic common sohool law con­
tinued the earlier provisions for state aid, with a few modi­
fications.

The law specifically provided that whenever the

surplus of interest over the amount last distributed amounted

1 5 Ibid.,

pp. 259-260.

16New York (State), Session Laws. 1813 (Albany: H. C.
Southwick & Co.), Vol. I, pp. 532-534.
17New York (State), Session Laws, 1814 (Albany:
Websters & Skinner), p. 29.

to ten thousand dollars, the amount next distributed should
be ten thousand dollars more than the previous year.

The

superintendent was required to apportion the money to the
counties according to population, and the boards of super­
visors were to distribute the funds to the towns.

The act

also increased the amount that towns could raise by tax to
three times the sum apportioned by the state.
B y the time a further adjustment became necessary in
1819, the amount of state money available had increased to
seventy thousand dollars.

A law of that year continued the

ten thousand dollar units of increase provided in the earlier
laws, and required the county boards of supervisors to raise
by tax an amount equal to the state aid.

Town meetings were

authorized to add the same a m o u n t T r u s t e e s were required
to make out a rate bill, assessing parents for the balance
due over and above state funds and money raised by tax.2®
It would be well at this point to oall attention to
the fact that during these years the Board of Regents had
been distributing to academies the proceeds of the litera­
ture fund, which had been augmented as noted by the lot­
tery laws.

Up to 1818, according to Governor DeWitt Clinton’s

message of that year, the thirty-eight incorporated academies

1 8 Ibid.,

pp. 210-223.

19

New York (State), Session Laws, 1819 (Albany:
J. Buel), pp. 188-189.
2 0 Ibid.,

pp. 2 0 1 -2 0 2 .

109
had received about one hundred thousand dollars from the
income of the fund ,21 and in the following year the regents
divided some four thousand dollars among the academies .2 2
An act of 1819 added to the literature and common school
funds equal shares of quit-rents received by the state from
lands whioh had been sold.2®

As a result, the governor was

enabled to report in 1822 that the common school fund had
grown to $1,139,130.57 from which an income of over seventyseven thousand dollars was received; while the literature
fund amounted to $99,535.82, netting the academies over five
thousand dollars.2^
In the meantime an act of 1819 had revised the form
of the school fund, setting aBide for common school use
loans under acts of 1792 and 1808, Merchants' Bank stock,
proceeds of lands in the military tract which were or might
be escheated to the state, and fees from the clerks of the
supreme court.

These loans had been established as a result

of the severe economic conditions prevailing after thee d o s e
of the Revolution, and the shortage of a circulating medium.
An issue of two hundred thousand pounds, or about half a
million dollars in bills of credit of various denominations,

21Messages from the Governors. Vol. II, p. 904.
2 2 Ibid..

23

p. 967.

Session L a w s . 1819, p. 298.

24Messages from the Governors. Vol. II, pp. 1099-1100.

110
was distributed to counties through loan officers according
to supposed need.

These were to be invested in bonds and

mortgages, in order to get the notes in circulation.

The

expedient, really a loan of the credit of the state, in a
form which was legal tender under some circumstances, was
so successful that another loan in money was authorized in
1792, and a third in 1808.

The amounts.added to the common

school fund by the act of 1819 included the unpaid balances
of the loans, the full amount of the first loan, and
$449,076.00 of the third loan which was still outstanding.2®
The act turned into the general fund of the state the
rest of the former school fund aside from the items men­
tioned, and continued the system of adding ten thousand
dollars whenever available, to the amount distributed.2®
The next year an act of the legislature ordered the distri­
bution of the entire amount of eighty thousand dollars pre­
scribed by the law of 1819, the deficit to be paid out of
the state treasury .2 7
B y 1825 the common school fund was yielding ninetyeight thousand dollars,2® and the following year the legis­
lature ordered the distribution of one hundred thousand

2®New York (State), "Report of the Superintendent of
Public Instruction," Assembly Document No. 95, 1857 (Albany:
C. Van Benthuysen), pp. 20-21.
26 „
Session Laws, 1819, pp. 274-275.
27
New York (State), Session Laws. 1820 (Albany:J.Buel"),
p. 28.
— — — —
2®Messages from the Governors. Vol. Ill, p. 61.

dollars for school purposes 29 and provided that any excess
of appropriations over income of the common school fund
should be made up from the general fund of the treasury .3 0
No significant change in the financing of the common
school system occurred from this point until 1837.

Table

III shows the increase in the amount available in the fund,
the annual income, amounts paid to the support of education,
total available to districts from state aid and taxes, and
the amount paid by rate bill, the latter item after 1828.3^
In June, 1836, Congress provided by law for the
"deposit!1 : with the states of the treasury surplus .3 2 The
following January in his message to the legislature Governor
Maroy took up the matter of the use to which the income
should be put, recommending that it be used for support of
education, both the common schools and the academies .3 3
A year later the legislature provided for the dis­
tribution of the income of the federal deposits which
amounted to about five million dollars.

The sum of one

hundred ten thousand dollars was to be apportioned annually

29New York (State), Session Laws. 1826 (Albany:
S. Croswell), p. 350.
3 0 Ibid.,

p. 355.

31

New York (State), "Report of Superintendent of
Common Schools," Assembly document N o . 2 1 , 1851 (Albany:
Chas. Van Benthuysen), p. 38.
*xo

Charles H. Wiltse, John C. Calhoun, Nullifler
(Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill do., Inc., 1949), pp. 262-267.
Sfytessages from the Governors, Vol. Ill, pp. 612-613.

112

TABLE III
FINANCING COMMON SCHOOLS IN NEW YORK STATE, 1796-1850*

Year

Capital

Annual
Revenue

•
1796
1797
1800
1801
1806
1807
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835

• • • • •

$57,757.
183,162.
307,164.
390,637.
428,177.
483,326.
558,464.
636,758.
822,064.
861,457.
934,015.
982,242.
971,361.
1,103,940.
1,229,076.
1,215,526.
1,152,630.
1,155,827.
1,172,913.
1,288,309.
1,319,886.
1,353,477.
1,611,096.
1,684,628.
1,661,081.
1,696,743.
1,704,159.
1,735,175.
1,754,046.
1,791,321.

$49,250.
50,000.
49,622.
377.
not stated
do
do
24,115.
26,480.
36,427.
45,216.
47,612.
57,248.
57,539.
64,053.
69,555.
68,770.
70,556.
78,944.
77,144.
77,417.
72,515.
75,315.
82,815.
86,429.
81,381.
89,034.
94,626.
100,678.
80,013.
93,755.
109,117.
104,390.
131,006.

Am't Rec*d Am*t Pd.
by
on Rate
Districts Bill
•

Annually
Fd. from
State
.Treasury
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•

No distribt'n made
until the
revenue
amounted
to
$50 ,000 .
• • • • •

$48,376.
46,398.
54,799.
59,933.
59,968.
59,930.
79,957.
80,104.
80,000.
80,000.
80,000.
80,000.
80,000.
1 0 0 ,0 0 0 .
1 0 0 ,0 0 0 .
1 0 0 ,0 0 0 .
100,000.
1 0 0 ,0 0 0 .
100,080.
100,080.
100,080.
1 0 0 ,0 0 0 .

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•

• • • •
• • • •

0

0

0

0

•

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

$55,720.
0
0
0
0
64,834.
0
0
0
0
73,235,
0,0
0
0
93,010.
0
0
0
0
117,151.
0
0
0
0
146,418.
0
0
0
0
157,195.
0
0
0
0
173,420.
0
0
0
0
182,820.
0
0
0
0
182,741.
0
0
0
0
182,790.
0
0
0
0
185,720.
0
0
0
0
222,995.
0
0
0
0
232,343.
0
0
0
0
214,840. $297,048
238,611. 346,807
244,998.
374,001
305,582. 358,320
307,733. 369,696
308,137
316,153.
312,181. 419,878
313,376. 425,560

113

ZABLE III (Continued.)

Year

1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850

Capital

$1,875,191.
1,917,491.
1,919,647.
1,932,421.
2,033,807.
2,036,625.
1,968,290.
1,975,093.
1,992,916.
2,090,632.
2,133,943.
2,170,514.
2,211,475.
2,243,563.
2,290,673.

Annual
Revenue

$118,486.
94,349.
102,994.
117,472.
103,400.
96,073.
90,092.
107,370.
133,826.
113,458.
123,158.
131,551.
117,220.
122,140.
137,524.

Annually
Pd. from
State
Treasury

Am*t R e o Td Am't Pd
by
on Rate
Districtsi Bill

$1 0 0 ,0 0 0 . $335,895. $436,316.
1 1 0 ,0 0 0 .
335,882. 477,848.
113,793.
374,411.
521,477.
275,000.♦ 633,685. 476,443.
275,000.♦ 658,951. 483,749.
285,000.♦ 676,086. 468,688.
275,080.♦ 660,727. 509,376.
265,080.+ 639,606• 447,565.
275,080.+ 725,066. 458,127.
275,080.+ 772,578. 460,764.
271,073.+ 829,802. 462,840.
275,820.* 858,594. 466,674.
284,902.*
• • • •
• • • •
285,028.
846,710. 489,696.
285,000.
• • • •
• •• • •

A s s e m b l y Document No. 21, 1851. p. 38, adapted.
♦Including $165,009 from the revenue of the United
States Deposit Fund.

114
to the common schools in the manner prescribed by law.

The

districts were required to maintain a school taught by a
qualified teacher for at least four months instead of the
three months 1 minimum then required.

An additional amount

of fifty-five thousand dollars was to be distributed to the
districts for the purchase of school library books, with the
proviso that after three years the amount might be used
either for books or teachers 1 wages as the district meeting
might determine.

The literature fund received twenty-eight

thousand dollars to be added to the- twelve thousand dollars
then available for distribution by the Board of Regents to
academies with proper buildings, libraries, and apparatus,
and with a preceptor as a member of the faculty.

The law

then specified that the remainder of the inoome, after
certain grants to colleges, should be added to the common
school fund, and the method o f :investment was outlined in
some detail.®^
Prom this statement of the means of support provided
for public education in New York up to the middle of the
century, we may turn to the development of the movement
which led first to acceptance, and then to partial rejec­
tion, of the ideal of free tax-supported education in the
common schools.

In the early years of the nineteenth

century, when the lancasterian system was in vogue, a small

®4New York (State), Session laws, 1838 (Albany:
E. Croswell), pp. 280-223.

115
group of Friends in New York City, with a little assistance
outside of their number, formed a Free School Society, sub­
sequently renamed the Public School Society.

The state

granted a charter to the group for the education of children
not provided for by sectarian schools.

An early attempt to

collect a fee from those able to pay resulted in a decline
in enrollment, the poor refusing to exhibit their inability
to pay .3 5
It was the schools which resulted from the efforts
of this organization to which Governor DeWitt Clinton alluded
in his message of 1825.

He pointed out that there was no

known instance of crime having been committed by any one of
the thousands who had been educated in the free schools of
New York City .36 The following year the Governor returned
to the subject, praising the arrangement made between the
Free School Society and the city of New York for converting
the free schools into public schools.

He suggested that the

state provide for "gratuitous education in our superior
seminaries of indigent, talented and meritorious youth.n3^
The suggestion was renewed in the message of 1828.38
Governor Marcy adopted a similar point of view in
35h . G. Good, History of Western Education (New York:
MacMillan, 1948), pp. 404-405.
36
Messages from the Governors. Vol. II, p. 61.
37
Ibid.. Vol. Ill, pp. 115-116.
g8Ibid.. p. 213.

i

116
1834:
Republics should he ever mindful of this important
truth, that to he free, man must he educated. Without
a knowledge of his rights, he will never properly
estimate nor long maintain them. Our enjoyment as
individuals— our usefulness as members of society—
our privileges as citizens of a free government, are
all founded on education .39
The annual report of the superintendent of common
schools for 1836 indicated a trend toward increased tax sup­
port, and,therefore, a corresponding diminution in the col­
lection of rate hills.

According to the report, 269 towns

in the state, of a total of 789 towns outside of Row York
City, had taxed themselves for more than the minimum re­
quired by law, and in most cases up to the maximum of twice
the minimum amount required by law.^O
During the mid-forties the subject of "free" or taxsupported schools appears more and more frequently in the
reports of supervisory officers and in such publications as
the District School Journal.
At the state convention of county superintendents,
held in Syracuse, in April, 1845, a standing committee re­
ported to the convention a resolution favoring the estabHshmait

3 9 Ibid.,

40

p. 454.

Rew York (State), "Report of Superintendent of
Common Schools," Assembly Document R o . jj, 1836 (Albany:
E. Croswell), pp. 17-18.
~

117
of free schools .41 The following year, as the state conven­
tion for the revision of the constitution approached, the
nominating convention for delegates in Allegheny county
adopted the following resolution:
Resolved, that as all our institutions are to he sus­
tained and perpetuated by the intelligence of the masses
. . . we recommend to the favorable notice of the dele­
gates to the state convention the necessity of making
ample provision for the maintenance and encouragement
of a liberal system of common school education, securing
to one and all the rudiments of an education entirely
free from direct cost or charges, and that the present
common sohool fund be increased for that purpose .4 2
That this procedure was not unusual was indicated by an
editorial in the District Sohool Journal of June, 1846, de­
claring that in many counties the delegates had been particu­
larly instructed to advocate the adoption of free schools.4®
In August of the same year, an editorial in the
District Sohool Journal pointed out the labor and time re­
quired to prepare the rate bills, and their inequality as a
means of financing schools.

In many caBes, the editorial

asserted, parents had to keep their children out of school
because they were unable to pay;.the assessment and the
trustees would not exempt them as provided by law .4 4

As to

41"Free Schools," District School Journal, VI
(August, 1845), 92-93.
42Cited in Distriot Sohool Journal, VII (May, 1846),39.
43
"The Free Sohool System," Distriot School Journal.
VII (June, 1846), 50.
44
"The Free School System," Distriot Sohool Journal,
VII (August, 1846), 93.

118
the cumbersome features of the system, the following excerpts
from Superintendent Morgan*s annual report of 1849 are
indicative:
The trustees employ a qualified teacher, for stipulated
wages. At the close of his term they give him an order
upon the town superintendent, for such portion of the
public money as may have been voted by the distriot. . . .
If the public money is not sufficient to pay" the teacher*s
wages, the trustees proceed to make out a rate bill for
the residue, charging each parent, or guardian, according
to the number of days* attendance of his children. Under
the present law, the trustees have power to exempt
indigent persons, and the amount exempted is a charge up­
on the district, and may be immediately collected by. tax,
or added to any tax thereafter levied. After the rate
bill is completed, thirty days* notice of its completion
is given by the trustees, one of whom must be in attend­
ance on a day and place appointed in said notice, once
a week for two successive weeks, to receive payment; and
during the whole of the said thirty days, any person may
pay to either of the trustees, or to the teacher, the
sum charged to him. . . . At the expiration of the
thirty days, if all the persons named in the rate bill
have hot voluntarily paid, the trustees put it with
their warrant, in the hands of the distriot collector,
who has the same authority to collect it, by levy and
sale of goods, as a town collector. The collector . . .
is allowed thirty days to make his return to the
trustees .4 0
Superintendent Morgan pointed out further that the
system therefore often entailed a thirty or sixty day wait­
ing period before the teacher could collect the balance of
the wages due him.

A slight error might subject the

trustees to a suit by persons who had overpaid a few cents.

45New York (State), "Report of the Superintendent of
Common Schools," Assembly Document N o . 2 0 . 1849 (Albany:
Weed, Parsons & Co.), pp. 41-42.

The exemptions often amounted to only five or ten dollars,
but since they constituted an additional tax levied on the
district, they required the time of a collector.

While the

law authorized the courts to deny costs to plaintiffs in
suits for overpayment, and permitted boards of supervisors
to levy court costs against a district as a tax, the time
and trouble to the trustees was not inconsiderable.

The

rate bill system constituted a burden upon those who objected
to being certified as indigent, and often induced parents to
condone absence and truancy, sinoe fewer days’ attendance
meant a smaller charge .46
In the meantime, during this discussion, the consti­
tutional revision convention met in Albany on June 1, 1846.
In the course of its deliberations, on June 5, the educa­
tion committee, headed by Henry Nicoll, offered a draft of
Article IX, summarized as follows:

(1) All proceeds of

state lands were reserved for the common sohool fund; (2 )
the legislature was required to take steps to provide for
the secure investment of the income from lands; (3 ) revenues
from the United States deposit fund were reserved solely
for the common school fund; (4) all existing appropriations
from the deposit fund income were continued for the period
speoifled in the acts; (5) the literature fund was continued

in force for one year, and thereafter all appropriations
were to be paid from the common sohool fund; (6 ) a provi­
sion was to be submitted to the people separately;

direct­

ing and authorizing the legislature to provide by law for
free education for all persons between the ages of four and
sixteen, the expense to be met by taxation.4^
.After considerable parliamentary maneuvering the
education committee^ article was reduced to the single
paragraph which appeared in the final draft of the consti­
tution;
She capital of the Common School Fund, the capital
of the Literature Fund, and the capital of the United
States Deposit Fund, shall be respectively preserved
inviolate. The revenue of the said Common Sohool Fund
shall be applied to the support of common schools; the
revenues of the said Literature Fund shall be applied
to the support of Academies; and the sum of twenty-five
thousand dollars of the revenues of the United States
Deposit Fund shall each year be appropriated to and
made a part of the capital of the said Common Sohool
Fund .48
B y the time Superintendent Christopher Morgan issued
his vigorous defense of free schools in his report of 1849,
eleven municipalities in the same state, with one-fifth of
the total population, had established free schools by state
law, approved hy local referendum;

New York, Buffalo,

47

"The Convention— Free Schools," District Sohool
Journal, VII (September, 1846), 113.
48"The Constitution of the State of New York,"
Distriot School Journal, VII (January, 1847), 188.

Brooklyn, Syracuse, Rochester, Lansingburgh, Williamsburgh,
Poughkeepsie, Flushing, Newton, and Bushwick.

Three other

cities— Albany, Troy and Utica— had so reduced the incidence
of rate hills that they could he considered as practically
free-school areas.^
The following quotation from Morgan*s report indi­
cates the trend of the argument for free schools:
The security of property is one of the paramount
objects of government, hut how shall that security he
attained? By the stern restraints and crushing force
of military power? . . . There is a moral and intellec­
tual power in the universal education of the people,
which furnishes more abiding security for persons and
property than disciplined armies.
Property must he taxed to support a soldiery. Why
should it not contribute to a system of protection which
may preclude the necessity of armies /sic7. Crime and
pauperism are too often the results oHT ignorance. The
detection of the one, and the support of the other, are
mainl^effeoted by the imposition of taxes upon prop-

On March 26, 1849, the legislature passed an act pro­
viding that all common schools in the Btate should he free
to residents of the respective districts between the ages of
five and twenty-one years .51

The act required the boardB of

supervisors at their annual meeting to levy on and collect
from the taxpayers of the counties an amount equal to the

49

Assembly Document N o . 2 0 . 1849. p. 44.

^Qlbid., pp. 48-49.
51New York (State), Session Laws, 1849 (Troy: Albert
W. Skinner & Albert West), p. 192.

state aid apportioned to the county.

This sum was distrib­

uted among the towns and cities in the same manner as the
state funds.

Distriot trustees were to prepare an estimate

of the amount needed to operate the school in addition to
the funds obtained from the state and the county tax.

This

additional amount was to be raised by tax in the district.
The act carried a repealing

clause affecting inconsistent

sections of previous laws, and provided for a referendum in
November, 1849.

If approved, the act was to be in effect
50

on January 1, 1850.

An amending act of April 11, 1849,

made the law effective immediately after the referendum, and
authorized trustees to call special meetings following the
approval of the act.®®

At the fall election, the act was

accepted by a majority of 157,921~only four counties re­
turning majorities against it .5 4
Confusion Beveral times compounded resulted from the
passage of the act.

In more than half the counties the

boards of supervisors had adjourned their annual sessions
before the act became effective, and had made no provision
for the county tax.

In these counties the districts were

left to bear the additional tax burden.

5 2 Ibid..

pp. 192-194.

5 3 Ibid.,

p. 561.

As a result of

^ S a m uel Sidwell Randall, History of the Common School
stem of the State of New York, from its origin in 1795 to .
g. present time (New York: Ivison, Blakeman7 T a y T o r & C o .,
1871;, p. 254.

f

determined opposition at the district meetings, supplemented
by appeals to the selfish interests of large property owners
and childless taxpayers, many districts reduced the term of
the sohool year to the four months* minimum permitted by law?5
The legislature was showered with petitions urging the
repeal or modification of the free school act.

The following

examples are taken from the Assembly Journal for the 1850
session:

on February 21st, five petitions; on the 23rd,

thirteen; on the 26th, seven; on the 27th, seven; on the
28th, thirteen; on March 6 th, eight; on the 7th, thirty; on
the 8 th, sixteen; on the 9th, eighteen; on the 11th, fiftyBix; on the 13th, ten; on the 14th, twelve .55

In the

Assembly the majority of these petitions were referred to a
select committee which considered them and reported in a
rather lengthy document.

The committee referred to the com­

mon school as
the great nursing places of our heroes and statesmen;
the places in which are to be formed our future rulers;
where our own wise and learned men are to receive the
rudiments of their education, and where the great mass,
the laboring and hardy yeomanry of our land,'are to re­
ceive the whole of theirs.5”

55New York (State), "Report of Superintendent of Common
Schools ,*1 Assembly Document Mo. 21, 1851 (Albany: Chas. Van
Benthuysen), p. 14.
56New York (State), Assembly Journal. 1850 (Albany: Weed,
Parsons & Co.), pp. 410,4^6, 460, 482, 4 9 4 7 ^ 4 , 611, 635,
639, 653, 677, 695.
57New York (State), **Report of Select Committee on Peti­
tions for the amendment or repeal of the Free School Law,**
Assembly Document N o . 150, 1850 (Albany: Weed, Parsons & Co.)
p. 1 .

The committee report outlined the history of common sohool
education and of the development of the common school fund.
It termed the income of two hundred and eighty-five thousand
dollars from the fund na magnificent sum for a State to set
apart for . . . the education and cultivation of immortal
minds ."®8

The report then asserted that the superintendent

of common schools had found that some forty-six thousand
children were kept from school by the operation of the rate
bill system.59

Reviewing the passage of the free sohool act,

the committee declared that difficulties should have been
expected, but instead the average term of school by hasty
action had been reduced from eight months to five or six.6®
The committee found several principal objections to
the law:

(1 ) the unequal rate of taxation necessary to

maintain the required term of school; (2 ) the increase in
taxation needed; (3) the power of district meetings to reject
estimates and prevent schools from being kept open more than
the minimum term.6^

The committee agreed unanimously on the

need for relief, and the majority favored amendment rather
than repeal of the law.
views:

They offered a bill embodying their

(1 ) elimination of the district tax in favor of a

double tax on the county with a town levy equal to state aid;

5 8 Ibid..

59

p. 8 .

(2 ) power for districts by vote to use library money for
payment of wages; (3) apportionment of two-fifths of public
money to districts equally, and the rest according to the
number of children attending four months or more; (4) elim­
inate the power of distriot meeting to overrule the trustees;
(5) use the rate bill to cover cost of operating more than
eight months; (6 ) authorize the district to determine the
method of providing fuel and board for the teachei?.6^
The minority report objected to most features of the
proposal.

The members; criticized the diversion of library

funds and the use of the rate bill, as well as the compulsory
features of the law.

They objected that the method of taxa­

tion would be inequitable, and would result in a general tax
amounting to eight hundred eighty-five thousand dollars in­
stead of three hundred twenty-five thousand dollars under
the old law.

They believed in free schools, supported by

the state.6®
As a result of the opposition to the free sohool bill
the proposal to amend the act was lost in the Senate, which
sent to the Assembly instead a bill to re-submit the free
school question to the voters at the fall election of 1850.
When it became apparent that the obnoxious bill could not be
amended, the Assembly agreed to the Senate proposal,

126
April 10, 1850.

The bill provided that if the voters

approved repeal it should be effective ten days after the
canvass of the votes was completed.6^
Immediately following the passage of the re-submission
act an intensive campaign was launched by the friends of free
schools.

In his history of free schools Thomas E. :Finegan

devotes over one hundred pages to documentary materials
related to the campaign .6 5

Typical among the items in the

campaign were addresses before teachers 1 institutes and
professional groups, editorials in newspapers, and letters
to the press from proponents of the law .66

An address of

W. L. Crandall before the Onondaga county teachers* insti­
tute at Syracuse, April 20, 1850, occupied more than eigh­
teen closely printed pages, and closed with this peroration:
To all we say, let not the plaintive wail go up to
heaven from thousands upon thousands of children in
this state, in November next, that the great State of
New York shuts the doors of her schoolhouses in the
faces of the poor, and the light of knowledge from their
souls, let not the trying alternative be placed before
the poor, intelligent, refined and high-souled mothers
of this State, to be certified as paupers, or have their
children deprived of the inestimable blessing of a school
education, let this cup of bitter agony pass from them.
How will they breathe *freer and deeper*, when, at the
close of that election, the shout goes up from the glad

64
New York (State), Session laws, 1850 (Albany: Weed,
Parsons & Co.), pp. 804-805.
AA
Thomas E. Finegan, Free Schools (Fifteenth Annual
Report of the Education Department, Yol. I) (Albany: Univer­
sity of the State of New York, 1919), pp. 314-419.
^5Ib i d . , passim.

127
voices of their children, 'Our school is freeI *67
Whereupon the institute adopted resolutions approving the
call for a state convention of friends of free schools, to
be held in Syracuse in June.6®

The call for the meeting

originated the previous day in the convention of town superCO
intendents of Onondaga county. *
There shortly appeared in the columns of the Syracuse
Daily Star a series of "Free School Pepper-Corns," signed by
Peter Ploughshare, and probably, says Finegan, written by
Crandall.7®

At the suggestion of Horace Greeley and others

that not enough time would be allowed for the assembling of
a suitable convention in June, the date was advanced to
July 1 2 .71

A circular dated May 18 and signed by the

Syracuse Free Sohool Committee, with Crandall as secretary,
was sent out in large humbers .7 2

Arrangements were made

with various railways for convention rates, and a meeting of
ladies was arranged to coincide with the convention.7®
Ten days before the convention was scheduled to meet

67lbid.. PP . 332-303
6 8 Ibid.,

P. 333.

6 9 Ibid.,

P. 334.

70

Ibid., PP . 335-339

7 1 Ibid.,

P* 348.

7 2 Ibid.,

P. 342.

7 gIbid.,

P» 356.

128
Crandall issued a prospectus of a proposed publication to be
called the Free Sohool Clarion, or which he was to be the
editor, and which was to be issued weekly until one week
ft A

after the election. *
The free school convention gathered enthusiastically
and amid a good deal of oratory, adopted in the course of
two days a series of resolutions in behalf of free schools,
and established a statewide organization to carry on the
fight for the law .75
On the other side of the fence the opponents of the
law were not idle.

A mass meeting of the opposition was

held at Hampton, Oneida county, on August 22, and adopted a
series of resolutions condemning the principle and the method
of taxation for free schools .75

An opposition sheet entitled

the Independent Freeman appeared, published at Jefferson,
Chemung county .77
Y/hen the smoke of battle had cleared away, the total
vote showed 71,912 against repeal, 46,874 for repeal, or a
statewide majority of 25,038 against repeal.

However, as

shown in Table IT, the majority for the law was principally
rolled up in the urban areas, many of which already had free

74 Ibid.,

p. 358.

7 5 Ibid.,

pp. 361-364.

76

Ibid., pp. 382-386.

77
‘ Ibid., p. 386.

129

TABLE IV
VOTE B Y COUNTIES ON HE-SUBMISSION OF FREE SCHOOL LAW**

County

♦Albany
Allegany
Broome
C attar augus
Cayuga
Chautauqua
Chemung
Chenango
Clinton
Columbia
Cortland
Delaware
♦Dutchess
♦Erie

Against
Repeal

For
Repeal

5,272
1,626
175
979
230
1,630
180
2,470
70
1,828
1,997
2,028
2,923
1,743

Ebsox

Franklin
Fulton and Hamilton
Cenesee
Greene
Herkimer
Jefferson
♦Kings
Lewis
Livingston
Madi son
♦Monroe
Montgomery
♦New York
Niagara
♦Oneida
♦Onondaga
Ontario
Orange

579
443
973
1,132
1,379
50
2,106
10,076
*

964
1,051
642
68

1,042
37,827
1,292
897
1,926
742
909

130

TABLE IV (Continued)

Against
Repeal

County

Orleans
Oswego
Otsego
Putnam
♦Queens
♦Rensselaer
Richmond
Rockland
St. Lawrence
Saratoga
Schenectady
Schoharie
Seneca
Steuben
Suffolk
Sullivan
Tioga
Tompkins
Ulster
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Westchester
Wyoming
Yates
Total

For
Repeal

. 1,312
471
1,720
114
508
3,806
861
112

1,069
1,134
52
2,548
303
1,361
368
273
1,654
2,517
237
704
1,008
2,137
2,272
1,545
661
71,912

46,874

* Counties in which a free sohool municipality was
located
♦♦Hew York (State), "Report of Superintendent of
Common Schools," Assembly Document H o . 2 1 , 1851 (Albany:
Chas. Van Benthuysen), p . 357

schools,

The rural counties for the most part stood solidly

for repeal, and in some counties the majority for the law
was slim, as it was, indeed, in three of the opposition
counties.
In the succeeding session of the legislature, a re­
vised law was passed, under pressure of the large opposition
rolled up in the rural counties.

The new law reiterated the

principle that the schools were free to all between the ages
of five and twenty-one.

It required the state to raise by

taxation on real and personal property the Bum of eight
hundred thousand dollars to be allocated to the oounty
treasurers subject to the order of the superintendent of
common schools.

The apportionment to the counties by the

superintendent was to be according to assessed valuation of
property.

One-third of the money from the general tax, and

one-third of that from other sources, was to be apportioned
before January 1 of each year to the districts from which
reports had been received.7®
In his report for 1851 Superintendent Morgan pointed
out the inequalities in the proposed tax, which are exhibited
in Table V, adapted from statistics provided by the superin­
t e n d e n t s report.

Morgan urged a more equitable and fair

distribution for the benefit of the poorer distriots.

7®Uew York (State), Session Laws. 1851 (Albany:
Chas. Van Benthuysen), pp. &(?2-296.

This

132

TABLE V
ESTIMATED PATMENTS AND RECEIPTS B Y COUNTIES UNDER
$800,000 STATE TAX*

County

County Pays

Albany
Allegany
Broome
Cattaraugus
Cayuga
_
Chautauque /sic7
Chemung
Chenango
Clinton
Columbia
Cortland
Delaware
Dutohess
Erie
Essex
Franklin
Fulton
Genesee
Greene
Hamilton
Herkimer
Jefferson
Kings
Lewis
Livingston
Madi son
Monroe
Montgomery^
New-York /sio7
Niagara ~ ~
Oneida
Onondaga
Ontario
Orange

$20,224.99
4,560.93
2,554.47
4,593.48
12,954.57
6,223.55
3,672.66
5,159.22
2,137.33
12,696.76
2,716.99
4,489.26
23,288.92
18,877.10
1,034.48
2,130.63
1,496.50
7,709.76
3,299.18
399.03
7,802.23
8,648.54
47,940.21
1,947.81
12,879.34
8,035.27
18,240.42
3,535.42
305,295.33
6,340.28
15,447.37
20,114.18
16,618.15
14,604.63

County Receives

$23,733.74
12,312.25
7,927.22
9,266.75
15,254.55
14,297.74
7,276.34
12,255.73
9,607.39
12,893.40
7,703.91
11,361.89
16,931.96
24,153.63
7,710.36
5,741.46
5,706.75
8,860.07
9,815.95
578.08
11,495.21
19,865.17
24,170.83
6,210.19
10,195.61
12,589.62
21,777.43
9,105.18
114,025.33
10,612.42
26,039.90
21,555.04
13,082.61
16,042.11

133

TABLE V (Continued)

County Pays

County

County Receives

Orleahs
Oswego
Otsego
Putnam
Queens
Rensselaer
Richmond
Rockland
St. Lawrenoe
Saratoga
Schenectady
Schoharie
Seneca
Suffolk
Steuben
Sullivan
Tioga
Tompkins
Ulster
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Westchester
Wyoming
Yates

$6,056.98
8,550.03
6,671.96
3,956.02
13,932.46
16,942.41
2,286.41
3,007.28
4,308.88
8,889.60
3,738.14
2,183.25
7,443.95
7,321.30
8,181.02
1,870.57
2,327.79
4,889.20
6,529.71
1,224.00
7,878.63
8,672.39
24,043.57
5,330.71
5.194.75

$7,938.58
14,879.20
15,514.41
4,072.34
9,782.78
19,147.82
4,199.82
4,220.70
19,152.73
12,740.13
5,108.09
9,979.06
7,670.43
10,621.33
15,873.79
5,752.22
6,897.61
11,723.73
15,022.34
4,579.16
12,456.62
13,058.96
14,614.12
8,356.32
6.381.89

Total

$800,000.00

$800,000.00

♦New York (State), "Report of Superintendent of
Common Schools," Assembly Document N o . El, 1851 (Albany:
Chas. Van Benthuysen), pp. 36-37.

A

was partially accomplished by the provision requiring distri­
bution of part of the money raised, to districts which had
made their reports.
Reference has previously been made (chapter III) to
Samuel S. Randall*s suggestion in his proposed code of school
lawB that a permanent mill tax be substituted for the
$800,000 state tax.78
may be summarized thus:

Randall*s argument for this change
(1) An individual would pay a fixed

amount based on assessed valuation of his property as deter­
mined by town assessors; (E) the trivial sum of one dollar
per thousand would allow all schools to be kept open for
the entire year without further charge to parents; (3) the
mill tax would be permanent and self-adjusting to the needs
of the schools; (4) by the elimination of rate bills the
odium of exemptions would be removed; (5) wherever adopted,
public support of education had had desirable social
results.88
Randall*s report pointed out further that the
schools were free only to the extent that they could be
supported from the proceeds of the $800,000 tax, after
which the cost was assessed to the parents by rate bill.
The reports of the superintendent showed that over one

78New York (State), "Report of Commissioner for codify­
ing the . . . laws relating to common schools," Assembly
Document N o . 2 1 , 1852 (Albany: Chas. Van Benthuysen), p. 11.
80Ibid., pp. 11-14.

million four hundred thousand dollars had been spent for
wages and apparatus for an average eight months' term, and
it might be assumed that one million five hundred thousand
dollars would be needed to support the schools completely*
A mill tax on the current valuation plus the income from
the state funds would provide one million four hundred thou­
sand dollars, which Randall declared would support the
schools for ten m o n t h s . I t

is to be noted that he had

previously stated that one million five hundred thousand
dollars would be needed for eight months.
In his report of 1852 Superintendent Henry Randall
characterized Randall's proposed one mill tax as "a measure
fraught with incalculable blessings to the cause of universal
education," and declared that
It is utterly incompatible with all sound principles
of legislation to declare in one breath that 'common
schools throughout the State shall be free to every
child between the ages of five and twenty-one years*
and in another to provide for the compulsory imposition
of a rate bill.! . . .
A further step toward free education resulted from
the passage of the union free school act of 1853, which
among its other provisions authorized the boards of such

81Ibid., p. 16.
82
New York (State), "Report of Superintendent of
Common Schools," Assembly Document N o . 25, 1852 (Albany:
C. Van Benthuysen) , pp. 13, 16.

136
districts to raise money "by tax for support of the school
and the payment of teachers* wages.83
The report of Superintendent E. W. Leavenworth for
1853, submitted by Henry S. Randall early in the following
year, urged the enactment of the mill tax as a substitute
for the fixed amount, and asserted that the mill tax idea
seemed acceptable to all parties.

In his argument Leaven­

worth pointed out that the only basis on which a state tax
for education could be supported was that education was a
common concern as much as the support of government.8^

He

recommended that the method of allocating state aid should
be revised, distributing one-third equally to all districts,
the remainder to be divided among districts having a given
number of pupils.®®
A new basis of apportionment of state aid appeared
in the first annual report of Victor M. Rice, the superin­
tendent of public instruction under the law of 1854.

He

recommended the apportionment of part of the state money on
the basis of attendance, with the purpose of improving
attendance.8®

Still another proposal with a familiar ring

83New York (State), Session Laws. 1853 (Albany:
Parsons & Co.), p. 831.

Weed,

®^New York (State), ’’Report of Superintendent of Com­
mon Schools,” Assembly Document N o . _7, 1854 (Albany: C. Van
Benthuysen), pp. lk-13.
85Ibid.. pp. 20-21.
8®New York (State), "Report of Superintendent of
Public Instruction," Assembly Document N o . 7_, 1855 (Albany:
C. Van Benthuysen), p. 9.

137
is found in the second report of 1855, suggesting a district
quota for each teacher in a district employing more than one
teacher.®*^

Rice also proposed a tax for school purposes,

based upon wealth.

He defended the policy established by

the act of 1851, of taxing some areas in excess of the
amount returned by the state in state aid, declaring that
"the tax, being founded upon a recognized necessity, should
vary with the needs it is intended to supply."®®

He further

recommended (1) re-interpretation of the union free district
law to insure that districts could raise all funds by law
instead of having to resort to rate bills; (2) specific per­
mission to any district to vote enough taxes to pay wages.
During the following seven or eight years relatively
little progress is apparent in the free school movement. In
his report of 1861 Superintendent H. H. Van Dyck recommended
revision of certain "ambiguous and contradictory" provisions
in the union free school law, which required a two-thirds
vote to create such a district and the same percentage to
vote funds at an annual meeting.

In cities or incorporated

villages taxes could be levied without any vote.®®

Later in

®7New York (State), "Report of the Superintendent of
Public Instruction," Assembly Document No. 615, 1856 (Albany:
C. Van Benthuysen), pp. 14-15.
88
Ibid., pp. 15-19.
89
New York (State), "Report of Superintendent of Pub­
lic Instruction," Assembly Document N o . 4 5 , 1861 (Albany:
C. Van Benthuysen) , p. 9.

138
the message Van Dyck asserted that
a free school supported by rate bills is such an anomaly
as could be found sanctioned nowhere else save in the
*Code of Public Instruction* in the State of New York.90
Difficulties in assessing the rate bills appear as
the cause of an interesting revelation in the annual report
of Superintendent Emerson W. Keyes in 1862.

Keyes, referring

to the lack of exact attendance records to enable trustees
to assess rate bills accurately, quoted the report of a
county school commissioner:
In more than half the districts they have no regular
book for keeping the daily and weekly roll, and I very
frequently find the teacher*s roll on scraps of paper
thrown amongst other loose papers in the desk or drawer,
to which all the scholars have free access; or carried
in the teacher*s pocket; and in two or three instances
I have been fortunate enough to find it in the teacher*s
hat.91
As a result of this and similar instances of record­
keeping Superintendent Victor M. Rice in 1864 prepared a
register of attendance on his own responsibility after the
legislature had disregarded his pleas for authority to do
so.92

9°Ibid., pp. 15*16.
91

New York (State), **Report of Superintendent of
Publio Instruction," Assembly Document N o . 5, 1862 (Albany:
C. Van Benthuysen), pp. 10-11.
“
92New York (State), "Report of Superintendent of
Public Instruction." Assembly Document N o . 7 5 . 1865 (Albany:
C. Wendell), pp. 45-46.

A further extension of the use of attendance of pupils
as a basis for apportionment of state funds appeared in the
law books of 1864, when the legislature set aside part of
the state aid funds to be distributed on the basis of aver­
age daily attendance.93
A reading of the reports of this period gives rise to
the definite impression that Superintendent Rice was a vigor­
ous individual.

In the report of 1864 he returned to the

periodic attack on the rate bill with the statement that it
impossible to read the reports from the common school commis­
sioners without the conviction that the rate bill was a
serious impediment to school attendance, and that the free
school was essential to secure education for all youth.94
The following year he analyzed the statistics resulting frcm
his record-keeping system and came to the conclusions that
over fifty-eight per cent of all children were out of school
at some time, and that the failure to attend resulted in a
loss to the state of $2,320,588.08 in "benefit of educa­
tion."95
In Rice*s mind, the remedies for the situation were
twofold:

improve the quality of teaching, and make the

93Ibid., p. 45.
94Ibid., p. 46.
95
New York (State), "Report of Superintendent of
Public Instruction," Assembly Document No. 90, 1866 (Albany:
C. Wendell), p. 21.

140
schools free.

The first he would accomplish "by providing

more normal and training schools; encouraging the establish­
ment of teachers1 institutes, with skilled instructors pro­
vided by the state; and increasing the salaries of the school
commissioners so that they might spend their entire time at
the business of supervision.96
Establishment of free schools, in Rice's opinion, was
Justified on the basis of the principle that nthe property
of the State should educate the children of the State," and
he quoted the precedents of previous laws providing for tax­
ation for school purposes.
If the hundreds of thousands intellectually starved
by the operation of the odious rate bill could rise up
in contrast with those generously nourished by the free
system, the revolution in favor of the latter would be­
come an "irrepressible conflict" which would result in
the total overthrow of that slavish love of gain, which
denies the common brotherhood of man, and ignores the
divine command, "love thy neighbor as thyself."97
Chief among the several recommendations which Rice
made in closing his report were (1) increase of the state
mill tax to one full mill to diminish looal taxation for
schools; and (2) elimination of rate bills, making the
schools "free . . .

as the air and the sunlight;" and estab­

lishment of additional normal schools "in such eligible

96Ibid., p. 23.
97Ibid., p. 25.

places as shall offer the greatest Inducements by way of
building, school apparatus, e t c . " "
In his annual report of 1867 Rice proposed a half­
mill increase in the state tax, to pay the entire cost of
education for a required term of twenty-eight weeks, the
districts to be authorized to raise more by district taxa­
tion to provide better services or a longer term, thus
abolishing the rate bill and making all schools f r e e . "
Before proceeding to the passage of the free school
law of 1867, attention should be called to the status of
the rate bill and t6 other opinions regarding it.

Table

VI shows the growth of the amounts collected by rate bills
over a ten-year period in comparison with the total expendi­
tures of schools in rural areas.

In Appendix I have been

collected a number of statements from the 1866 report of
the superintendent, indicating definitely that rural opinion
as reflected by the school commissioners, at least, was not
whole-heartedly in accord with the official opinion at
Albany.
Before the legislature of 1867 had been very long in
session, friends of the free school movement set their pro­
gram in motion.

On January 30 Smith Weed of Plattsburg, a

98Ibid.. pp. 56-57.

99

New York (State), "Report of Superintendent of
Public Instruction," Assembly Document N o . 79. 1867 (Albany:
Chas. Van Benthuysen), p. 30.

142

TABLE VI
AMOUNTS COLLECTED B Y RATE BILLS COMPARED
WITH TOTAL EXPENDITURES FOR RURAL SCHOOLS*

Rate Bills
Pet. of Rural
Expenditure

Year

Total Rural
Expenditures

Amount
Raised

1857

$1,824,934.87

$427,956.07

1858

1,988,664.20

390,515.50

19.63

1859

2,033,933.51

414,062.72

20.35

1860

2,032,118.69

420,257.98

20.68

1861

1,993,197.56

397,215.87

19.93

1862

2,075,129.51

407,009.57

19.27

1863

1,915,685.62

363,741.05

18.98

1864

2,167,868.61

429,892.52

19.83

1865

2,763,563.40

655,158.78

23.71

1866

3,450,125.84

709,025.36

20.55

23.45*

♦Information from Annual Re-ports of Superintendent
of Public Instruction, 1858-1867 inclusive.

member of the board of education in that community for over
half a century,^-00 gave notice that he would shortly ask
leave to introduce a bill to nmake the common schools of the
State of New York free to all and to provide for the govern­
ment and maintenance of said schools."101

This bill, intro­

duced on February 2 came before the Assembly on special
order on March 18, and was recommended for passage with an
amendment to the title specifically stating that one purpose
of the bill was to abolish rate b i l l s . F o u r

days later

the bill was passed by the Assembly by a unanimous vote,
82 to 0.103
On the Senate floor the bill met with little delay,
being favorably reported on by the literature committee on
March 28, five days after being received from the

Assembly.^

It was passed by the Senate on April 11 by a vote of 24 to
3.105
While the free school bill was still before the
legislature, Superintendent Rice in a special report of

100Finegan, ojs. cit., p . 546.
101New York (State), Assembly Journal. 1867,(Albany:
C. Van Benthuysen), Vol. I, p. 223.
102Ibid.. pp. 268, 755.
10gIbid., p. 873.
104New York (State), Senate Journal. 1867 (Albany:
C. Van Benthuysen), p. 484.
105Ibid., p. 777.

144
February 15, 1867, asserted that schools should be made free
for the benefit of indigent parents, who
having too much pride to ask to be exempted from paying
their rates, keep their children away rather than be
put down upon the list of indigents. . . . The parsimo­
nious keep their children at home rather than pay the
amount required to defray teachers1 wages after the
public money has been applied.106
Rice pointed out that the whole school attendance of
592,511 was only seventy per cent of the entire number of
children between five and twenty-one years, and the actual
attendance, amounting to 263,401, was only thirty^one per
cent of the total number of children.10^
If we make allowance for sickness, for distance from
the schoolhouse, for impassable roads and bad weather,
for employment in various kinds of labor, on the farm,
in the shop or manufactory, or in household dutieB, for
vagrancy and truancy,__the number of absentees will still
be a formidable sum /sic7, to be accounted for by some
reason operating generaTly and powerfully.10®
Rice declared further that the schools could be made entire­
ly free in the rural districts by a state tax increased to
one and one-fourth mills on the dollar, a mode of raising
money fully in accord with the established policy of the

IQg

New York (State), "Special Report of Superintendent
of Public Instruction in relation to education in this
country and Europe," Assembly Document N o . 237, 1867 (Albany:
C. Van Benthuysen), p. 5?.
107
Ibid., p. 57.
108Ibid., p. 58.

4

145
state, and of the

principle that nthe property of the State

shall educate the

children of the State."109

The education of the people is a matter of common
concern, and a state tax for the support of schools is
the most equitable and Just, since it distributes the
burden of taxation in proportion to the ability of tax­
payers. The rate bill is a violation of equity and
Justice, for it imposes upon the indigent and the poor
a tax, under a plausible name, not upon their property,
for they have none, but upon their affection and solici­
tude for their children.I*0
As passed by the legislature, the law of 1867 was a
thorough revision

of the previous consolidated school law

of 1864.

only those sections relating to the free

To note

school question, Section 5 amended the law to provide for a
state tax of one and one-quarter mills for the Bupport of
s c h o o l s . S e c t i o n 8 authorized the districts to vote a
tax to make up any deficiency in amounts needed to pay
teachers' wages after the state aid had been so applied,
and specified that if the inhabitants failed to vote the
tax as prescribed, the trustees might raise the necessary
sum without formal authorization.

Section 26 of the new

law specifically eliminated rate bills by requiring that
all money for support of schools, heretofore raised by rate

109Ibid., p. 58.
11QIbid., p. 59.
^^TJew York (State), Session Laws, 1867 (Albany:
Weed, Parsons & Co.), Vol. I, p. $66.
112Ibid., p. 967.

bills, must be provided by t a x . ^ ®
In his report for 1868 Superintendent Rice pointed
to statistics received from school districts, indicating
substantial increases in several aspects of school activity:
In time of maintaining schools per year
Number of teachers employed twentyeight weeks or longer
Amount paid for teachers' wtjges
Average increase in compensation
Number of children of school age
Average daily attendance
Value of school houses and sites

9.4 per cent
88
141
28
32
74
178

per
per
per
per
-per
per

cent
cent
cent
cent
cent
cent*^

We have reviewed in this chapter the course of finan­
cial support for the common schools, noting that in the
early poet-Revolutionary War period, financial support was
scanty and strictly local, and save for a period of five
years there was no organized program of state support until
the establishment of the common school fund in 1805 and the
organization of the common school system in 1812.

From

these simple beginnings we have traced the common schools
through the period of development of state responsibility
for an increasing portion of financial support, and have
seen the practice of assessing parents for school purposes
give way to full tax-support from state and local sources.

115Ibid.. p. 976.
■^^New York (State), "Report of Superintendent of
Public Instruction," Assembly Document N o . 8 0 , 1868 (Albany:
C. Van Benthuysen & Sons), p. TTSI

147
With this chapter we bring to a close the summary of
the historical development of the state system up to the
point at which all of the basic features of the educational
program have been established.

In the following chapters,

we shall show the results of the hit-or-miss legal basis
for the school system, in the form of points of issue be­
tween the supervisory departments.

CHAPTER VI
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1867-1868
In the remaining chapters of our study it is proposed
to review in some detail the points of issue which developedfrom time to time between the Board of Regents-, which was
charged originally with the control of secondary and higher
education, and the department of public instruction, estab­
lished in 1854, and given the supervision of common and
union free schools.

There were several reasons for the

friction which appeared sporadically between the two con­
trolling bodies.

First, the laws which created portions of

the school system or amended their functions, assigned overlapping or conflicting duties to the two departments.

Second,

the incumbents of the superintendenoy of public instruction
were frequently vigorous or contentious individuals who
found occasion to criticize the existing arrangements.
Third, a growing spirit of opposition to the Board of Regents
became evident.

This opposition stemmed first from the

opinions of those who objected to supporting the regents
when the board had apparently failed in the purpose for which
it was believed to have been created, that of establishing a
state university system.

Further opposition appeared later

in the half-oentury (1854-1904) as a result of the

establishment of the system of regents1 examinations, which
were often criticized hy school personnel and others as ob­
structive to the complete development of secondary education.
This spirit of criticism and the friction between the
departments waxed and waned at intervals, reaching a crescmdo
in the constitutional convention of 1867-1868, in which a
member of the Board of Regents itself was its most outspoken
critic.

It appeared at times in the form of proposals to

change the type of control through legislative enactments.
Finally it reached a new high point in the declining years
of the nineteenth and the first years of the twentieth
centuries, and culminated at last in the Unification Act of
1904.

This enactment established the state department of

education under a commissioner, but left the Board of Regents
in undisputed general control of the stateTs educational
system.
Two statutes are responsible for much of the friction
which developed between the common and secondary school
systems during the period oovered by this part of the study.
The first was the so-called Union Free School law of 1853,
which authorized the establishment of union free school
districts by vote of the inhabitants.

These districts were

given extensive corporate powers to raise money by tax, for
ordinary school purposes as well as for capital ..outlay; to
employ teachers; to take and hold real estate; to manage
the schools within the district, and to receive non-resident

150
pupils.1

One of the provisions which brought about dissen­

sion granted to these union free districts the power to
establish academic departments which would have all the
privileges given to academies by earlier statutes.

Another

source of dispute was the matter of supervision over these
academic departments.

The law provided that

Every academical department so to be established. . .
shall be under the visitation of the regents of the
university, and shall be subject in its course of study
and matters pertaining thereto (but not in reference to
the buildings or erections in which the same is held,
except in cases where the buildings aforesaid are separ­
ate from those of the common school department) to all
the regulations made in regard to academies by the said
regents. In such departments, the qualifications for
the entrance of any pupil shall be the same as those
established by the said regents for admission into any
academy of the state under their supervision.2
Thus arose the peculiar situation whereby districts
whose common school grades were subject to the Jurisdiction
of the superintendent of public instruction, might establish
academic departments which were under the supervision of the
Board of Eegents.

Yet the law explicitly stated that in

cases where the two departments occupied the same building,
the portions of the premises occupied for academic instruc­
tion were subject to the authority of the board of education,
which was under the superintendent of public instruction.

3-New York (State), Session laws, 1853 (Albany: Weed,
Parsons & Co.), pp. 828-834.
2Ibid.. p. 835.

A

The latter, in torn, had. authority over the physical premises
of academic departments in such cases hut no control over
admission requirements or the course of study.
A law of 1854 provided for the election of a superin­
tendent of public instruction every three years by the legis­
lature.

To this official the law delegated the powers of

control over educational matters which had been exercised
by the secretary of state since the abolition of the super­
intendency in 1821, following the summary removal of Gideon
Hawley.

The language of the law provided another possible

source of trouble:
It shall be the duty of the state superintendent to
visit, as often as may be practicable, such of the com­
mon schools, academies and other literary institutions
of the state as he may deem expedient; to inquire into
liEe course of"TnaFruotlon, management and discipline of
such institutions, and to report the results of such
visitation and inspection annually to the legislature.®
/Italics in this passage are mine,7
The state superintendent was also made an ex officio member
of the Board of Regents,4 a possible source of embarrassment
in some of the controversies that were to result.
The number of union free schools was increasing
rapidly during the period under consideration.

It was a

natural accompaniment to the development of high schools

^New York (State), Session'Laws, 1854 (Albany: Weed,
Parsons & Co.), p. 231.
4Ibid.. p. 232.

15E
and the consequent decline of the academy as a force in
secondary education.

The provisions quoted, therefore,

loomed considerably larger, especially in the minds of
several incumbents of the superintendency who found the
division of authority irksome.

We shall see instances in

which this point of view crept into their reports, and
later in this chapter charges that organized opposition to
the Board of Regents stemmed from the superintendent1s
office.
The first serious attack on the activities and pre­
rogatives of the Board of Regents took place during the ses­
sions of the constitutional revision convention held in
Albany, beginning in June of 1867.

It is the purpose of

this chapter to indicate the principal steps in this chal­
lenge to the Board of Regents, and to exhibit some of the
arguments used against the board.

Spearheading the struggle

was George William Curtis of Richmond county, chairman of
the convention's education committee, himself a member of
the Board of Regents, and later to be chancellor of the body
which he had attacked in the convention.
Opponents of the board took early action to place
their case before the convention.

The nature of the attack

is shown in a communication to the convention from S. B.
Woolworth, secretary of the regents.

According to the

regents' statement, a number of petitions were circulated
in various parts of the state, accompanied by a circular

153
letter dated in Albany, August 19, 1867, of which the fol­
lowing is the text:
The accompanying memorial requires no word of explana­
tion from us. It shows, clearly and conclusively, the
absurdity and comparative uselessness of the corporation
concerning which it treats. Other reasons than those we
have given might have been adduced, which, with many
persons, would doubtless have been of equal weight. But
it was thought better that nothing be said on points
which, on account of differing opinions, might furnish
grounds for dispute.
The memorial is sent to you in the belief that you
fully indorse the free school law of 1867, and desire
the complete triumph of the free school system, applied
as well to the higher as to the common schools.
But that triumph can never come until our system of
education becomes a single system; and to make its
coming at all probable within the next twent.v years,
the action asked for in the memorial, seems to us an
imperative necessity.
Please get as many names (of voters) subscribed to
the memorial as you can in the time, and send it to
some member of the Convention, from your district,
before or by the second day of September. If not sent
before, send it on that day, whether you have five, or
a hundred names, later than that.will be too late to
accomplish your purpose. Only a few names, well known
in the county, will be of great service here.
Will it be too much to hope, that, although the time
is short, and the call unexpected, your response willlbe
cheerful, prompt and effective.®
The letter was signed "in behalf of free schools" with the
names of Thomas Oloott, James H. Armsby, M. P. Cavert,
Alexander S. Johnson, Aldeh March, and John H. Reynolds.6

5

New York (State), Documents of the Convention of the
State of New York, 1867-1866 (Albany: Weed Parsons & (To.)",
Vol. V, No. 167, p p . 3-4.
£
°Ibid., pp. 3-4. It is to be noted that the name of

154
The tenor of the petition can "be seen from the digni­
fied reply of the special committee of the Board of Regents,
consisting of Chancellor John V. I. Prnyn, Alexander S.
Johnson, George S. Perkins, Erastus C. Benedict, and Robert
G. Rankin.7

In its reply the committee declared that the

petition and circular indicated lack of clear understanding
of the purpose of the legislature in instituting a univer­
sity; that the regents did not consider it their special
duty to defend the legislative enactments of the past eighty
years; and that while they disclaimed any intent to influence
the action of the convention, they believed it to be the
duty of the regents to submit a statement regarding certain
matters in the petition.®
The first allegation, that the legislature in the act
of 1787 abandoned the original idea of erecting Columbia
College into a university, the regents declared"to be inac­
curate, since the intent of the law was rather to establish
other colleges of coordinate rank under the supervision of

Alexander S. Johnson appears among the signers of the circu­
lar letter quoted above, urging unification, and the same
name is given in the next paragraph as one of the regents*
committee which replied to the circular. Since there is no
identification of either of these individuals, there is no
way of knowing whether one person or two are indicated.
Since the surname is common, it is reasonable to assume that
the similarity is merely coincidental.
7Ibid., p. 12.
®Ibid., p. 4.

A

155
Q
the regents "as a federal head.”
The petition alleged further that the legislature
"by the act of 1787
"by a mere figment of the law, instituted within this
State an University without location, without buildings,
without endowments, without professors and without
students.10
The regents' committee replied that the object of the laws
was instead "an impartial, comprehensive and elevated system
of supervision and control" over the colleges of the state,
and no provision was contemplated for a university in the
usual sense.11

The committee further pointed out that the

legislative journals over the years had indicated that the
legislature had never become convinced of the "absurdity and
comparative uselessness" of the University of the State of
New York.1^
The petitioners charged that although eighty years
had passed since the founding of the university, the regents
had never attempted to establish a university or any such
institution, and were "without funds and destitute of all
means for accomplishing the purpose for which they were
created."

The regents' committee did not believe that

9Ibid., p. 6.
10Ibid., p. 6.
i:LIbid.. p. 6.
12Ibid., p. 8.

156
refutation other than that contained in the previous section
was necessary.
The petition went on to declare that the fact that
the University of the State of New York existed only in the
statute was
a reproach to the State, and a source of shame and
mortification to scholars, citizens of the State, who
commune with scholars in other lands.
The reply of the regents pointed to twenty-seven colleges of
law, liberal arts and medicine and two hundred academies
under the supervision of the Board of Regents.

These insti­

tutions had property and endowments worth eight and a half
millions of dollars; salaries paid to faculty amounted to
three-fourths of a million annually;
students attended each year.

and about 40,000

Instead of being a "source of

shame" many of the institutions included had attained high
reputation.-1-®
The petition alleged further that the real connection
of the regents with liberal education was
of the slightest character, consisting mainly in receiv­
ing and digesting for the legislature, the reports of
such academies and colleges as voluntarily may report to
them, and in distributing to such schools the moneys

13Ibid., p. 8.
14Ibid., p. 9.
15Ibid., p. 9.

157
from time to time appropriated lay the S t a t e . ^
The regents pointed out the extent of the information con­
tained in their annual reports, and quoted the revised
statutes as requiring the colleges and academies to "make
such returns and reports to the Regents . . .

as the

17

Regents shall from time to time require.nA

The petition asserted that the Board of Regents was
charged with no duty which may not he performed as well,
or better, by some other agency; and has, in no proper
sense, the care and control of any educational interest
that would suffer should it be no longer continued.1®
The regents1 reply declared with dignity that
They owe it, however, to those who have preceded them,
as well as to themselves, to say that the duties of the
board have been discharged with fidelity, and with an
earnest purpose to promote the interests entrusted to
its care.19
As to the assertion in the circular that the action
urged was imperative to assure the complete triumph of free
schools, the committee was at a loss to know what was meant,
for the regents had never been hostile to free schools.

The

regents further could not see that they stood in any way as

16Ibid.. p. 9.
17Ibid., p. 10
Ibid

p. 11

Ibid

p. 11

158
an obstacle to making all academies free.

The state would

probably provide means of support from the treasury when
ready to do so, and until then, to require the academies to
be free by law would destroy all but those of ample endow­
ments.^®
The regents pointed, in closing, to the values result­
ing from the growth of the state library and the state
cabinet of natural history as "invaluable aids to investiga­
tors in both science and literature" and declared that the
annual convocations had resulted in a closer union between
the academies and colleges.21
In January, 1868, the committee on education pre­
sented the proposed article on education to the convention
in committee of the whole.

So far as the purposes of this

study are concerned, the essential portion was Section 4,
which is given below for reference:
Sec. 4. The legislature, at its first session after
the adoption of this Constitution, shall elect, in joint
ballot of the Senate and Assembly, a superintendent of
public education, who shall hold his office for four
years and until his successor is appointed. He shall
have such powers, and perform such diities, and receive
such compensation as may be prescribed by law.
The Legislature at the same session shall create a
State Board of Education to consist of seven members;
of which board the Superintendent of Public Education,
the Secretary of State and the Comptroller, ex officio.

20Ibid., p. 11
21Ibid., p. 12

159
shall form a part; and the other four members shall be
elected or appointed as shall be provided by law.
The State Board of Education shall have general
supervision of all the institutions of learning in this
State, and shall perform such other duties as the legis­
lature may direct. The term of office and the compensa­
tion of the members shall be prescribed by law.22
It will be readily seen that the proposed article
would accomplish "unification" of control of the state's
educational institutions by the abolition of both the Board
of Regents and the superintendent of public instruction, and
the substitution of a state superintendent of public educa­
tion and a state board of education.
There ensued, a two-day debate on the article whioh
ran to some seventy pages of material in the official pro­
ceedings.

Mr. Alvord of Onondaga county at once proposed

an amendment eliminating paragraph one of the section, and
substituting the following:
The office of the superintendent of public instruction
is abolished. The powers and duties of such office shall
be performed by the Secretary of State; and a separate
bureau may be established in his office for that purpose
by law.
In support of his proposal Alvord argued that the
functions of the office had previously and with satisfaction

22New York (State), Proceedings and Debates of the
Constitutional Convention of the State of ftew York.‘T86ft-68
(Albany: Weed, Parsons & Co.), Vol. IV, p. 2841.
23Ibid., p. 2841.

160
been exercised by the secretary of state.

The constitution

of 1846 had not provided for any independent state officers,
the inference from this argument being that the establish­
ment of the superintendenoy in 1854 had been without consti­
tutional sanction.

The increase of the number of officials

without regard for constitutional intent had resulted in dif­
fusion of responsibility and lack of interest.

The secretary

of state had been reduced to a mere clerk, except for work
as canal and land commissioners, hence he did not spend much
time in Albany.

The superintendent of public instruction

had been made a financial officer, capable of drawing on the
treasury, thereby by-passing the comptroller.

It it were

necessary to have a bureau in the secretary1s office to carry
on the work of the superintendent of public instruction, the
legislature should have power to establish i t . ^
Opponents of the Alvord proposal argued that constitu­
tional power existed in the legislature to perform all acts
not expressly forbidden, hence the establishment of the
superintendency had been legal.

The best interests of the

schools required the services of a full time officer and the
abilities of the best educator available; and the advances
made in education would be lost if Alvord1s proposal were
carried?5

94.

Ibid., pp. 2841-42.

25Ibid., pp. 2842-43.

From this point we are concerned with the rather
remarkable performance of George W. Curtis who, as chairman
of the committee, and thus charged with the defense of the
proposed article, became the spokesman of the forces of op­
position to the Board of Regents.

In the process of report­

ing this section of the debate, it becomes advisable to
resort to rather extensive quotation from the journal of the
convention.
Curtis confessed a degree of embarrassment as he
addressed the members, for the proposed article
virtually supersedes the Board of Regents . . . and I
am a regent. I am, therefore, forced into the ungra­
cious position of seeming to aim a blow at my . . .
colleagues.26
He pointed out that the state system of education included
common schools and union free schools under the jurisdiction
of the superintendent of public instruction, and academies
and colleges subject to the control of the Board of Regents??
Before proceeding to his attack upon the power and
prestige of the Board of Regents, Curtis reviewed briefly
the history of the board, calling attention to the fact that
among the one hundred and five members to that date had been
some of the most illustrious names in New York State history:

26Ibid., p. 2843.
27Ibid., pp. 2843-44.

John j[b 1g 7 Schuyler, George Clinton, John Jay, James Kent,
De Witt Clinton, Washington Irving.

The regents were

elected "by the legislature for life terms which could he
terminated by the legislature, or by the board itself for
failure to attend meetings.
out salary or fee.

Regents served the state with­

Curtis then proceeded to the first of

his overt attacks upon the board:
. . . Their action is noiseless. They
make no appear­
ance in the newspapers.
So quiet is their action .. .
that at certain times it has been gravely suspected
that they had probably ceased to exist at all. Now . . •
it is undeniable that for a long period there has been
a feeling on the part of the people of the State that
the regents were a name. They have fallen into disre­
pute. I will not say . . . to what this may be attri­
butable. Scholars shrug their shoulders and smile.
Intelligent men, familiar with the affairs of the State,
ask, "What is the Board of Regents; what are their
functions?" There are citizens of the State who have
even gone so far as to demand to see the University of
the State of New York. There are other citizens who
have a vague idea that the University of the State of
New York iB the institution in the city, which is the
university of the city; and so far had this idea gone,
so common and general had this feeling become ;i that the
late poet Halleck, in one of his letters, humorously
remarks, "I am becoming as ignorant of books and their
authors as a9president of a college or a regent of a
university."*35
Curtis referred to the argument in the communication
from the Board of Regents, that the colleges and universi­
ties of the state under the supervision of the regents con­
stituted a university in the sense that Oxford and Cambridge

28Ibid., p. 2844

•

163
were universities:
♦ . . therefore every college in this State, from
Niagara to Montauk . . . by an unblushing fiction . . .
are to be collectively called the University of the
State of New York . . . Of all practical romances in
the State, this is the most prodigious, of all vision­
ary institutions-this is the most visionary; nor in
all history do I know of any institution with which to
compare this except it be that of which Carlyle makes
mention in his Sartor Resartus, the celebrated univer­
sity of Weissnichtwo, which being interpreted means,
the university of ”1 am sure I don’t know where.”29
Curtis next turned his attention to the extent of
the authority of the regents over the institutions under
their supervision, asserting that their influence derived
from their visitorial power, which he disposed of in these
words:
It is simply a power which practically consists in
the reception every year . . . from these colleges . . .
of a report, which I am very glad to state contains a
great deal of the details of educational information.
But . . . for any authority that the board has, for any
real right of supervision, I think you will look in vain.
If any college in this State should decline to send in
its annual report to the regents . . , the result would
simply be, I presume, that the regents would remonstrate,
possibly, and that would be the end of the matter. . • .
If the Board of Regents should go into any college of
this State whatever, and assert any kind of authority,
in the name of the State, the Board of Regents would be
simply laughed at, and shown the door. . . .3°
Curtis dismissed the board’s power of charter with a
statement that charters might also be issued by the legislatux®,

29Ibid., p. 2844.
30
Ibid., pp. 2844-2845

and eliminated the regents from consideration with this
remark:
. . . The Legislature of the State, holding this
power in their hands, look upon this institution, this
Board of Regents, as an extremely ancient and venerable
hody, not costing the State very much money, and upon
the whole not worth rooting out of the corner of the
Capitol in which it is to be found. 1
Turning to the activities of the regents with regard
to academic education Curtis listed the powers of the regents
to charter, visit and inspect academies, to report upon their
condition, and to distribute to them the literature fund,
"upon certain conditions which they themselves prescribe."3**
However, said Curtis, since this duty is performed for the
board by the secretary of the regents and his clerical
assistants, was it desirable that a separate board should be
longer maintained?®3
Curtis conceded that there was no reason for any
hostility on the part of the regents toward the department
of public instruction, since their interests were the inter­
ests of education.

He further admitted that the Board of

Regents was an inexpensive department, but even that small
cost would be reduced if the functions of the board should

31Ibid., p. 2845.
32Ibid., p. 2846.
33Ibid.. p. 2846.

"be given to a ‘bureau in a department of public education.3^
He forestalled the expected argument that the pro­
posed article would mix politics with education by pointing
out that, if Alvord's amendment were accepted, politics
would enter through the person of the secretary of state,
who would bring politics into education if he were politi­
cally influenced in any way.

However, Curtis declared, the

risk of mixing politics with education was a chance that
every state must take.®®

He closed his argument with the

following interesting peroration:
Sir, in regard to the ancient and honorable body
with which I have the honor to be associated, at most,
if this section shall be adopted . . . my fate is
theirs. If they go I go. If the ship is wrecked, I
too am left weltering in the water. I honor with every
man what is justly ancient. No man more than I per­
ceives its value. If I could consult my personal respect
and feeling for my colleagues; if I could for a moment
consider my own personal pride; if I could yield to the
charm that inheres in long tradition, I should as heart­
ily oppose as I now sincerely approve and commend to the
most earnest consideration of the committee the section
which the Committee on Education has reported.36
During the debate which continued in committee of the
whole on the education committee's report, Mr. Hale of Essex
county rose to the defense of the Board of Regents.

He could

see no reason for doing away with the distinction between

34Ibid., p. 2846.
35Ibid., pp. 2847-2848
36Ibid., p. 2828.

166
the two classes of schools, and asserted the opinion that
if the Board of Regents had fallen into such disrepute Curtis
should sever his connection with it.

He Believed that the

fact that the hoard kept out of public notice was a credit
to it, and that abolition of it by constitutional provision
would merely serve to verify the common mistaken ideas about
it.

He also referred to the memorial which had been circu­

lated, which was believed to/have emanated from the office
of public instruction, and stated his belief that the number
of petitions received in opposition to the regents were
fewer than the number demanding their retention.

He could

not see the connection between the Board of Regents and the
free school law.

Nothing in that law demanded the abolition

of the board.37 Hale continued:
The age of the Board of Regents has been referred to.
It has been characterized as an "antiquated body" and
the charge of "old fogyism" has been brought against its
members. . . . I will admit that this board has certain
old fogy attributes, which we do not see now-a-days as
often as we would like to. . . . This board of gentl&men
has, without any pay or reward whatever, performed the
duties that are imposed upon it, and . . . has performed
them well. I know it is exceedingly "old fogyish” for
men to work in this generation without pay, and I find
that the committee have guarded in this section against
the continuanoe of such ’.atrocious "old fogyism" by
inserting in the section . . . a constitutional provi­
sion that "the term of office and compensation of the
members shall be prescribed by law." Therefore, if this
section shall be adopted, we shall have one modern
improvement; in place of officers who performxtheir
duties without pay, we shall have a board of gentlemen
who, I have no doubt, will stand up and draw handsome

37Ibid., pp. 2853-2854.

A

167
salaries without flinching.®®
Mr. Hale could see no objection to calling the aggre­
gation of colleges a university.

He believed that if the

people objected to the name, a change could easily be made
through the legislature.

If the Board of Regents should be

abolished, the legislature which created it should do so.
Since the legislature had refrained from exercising this
power for seventy years, he was in favor of letting it
alone.®®
Mr. Alvord then withdrew his original amendment and
substituted for it another reading:
The Secretary of State shall be superintendent of
public education, and he shall have such powers and per­
form such duties as may be prescribed by law.4®
A. J. Parker of Albany stated that the secretary of
state had ample time for the duties of superintendent of
public education, since it was well known'that the position
of secretary had deteriorated to a "mere clerkship" except
for the work carried on on the canal and other boards.

He

had been a member of the Board of Regents for ten years and
believed that the board had faithfully discharged its duties.
Although the members were chosen by partisan vote in the

®8Ibid., p. 2854.
39
Ibid.. p. 2855.
40Ibid., p. 2857.

168
legislature, the actions of the board had never been partisan.
He took exception to the use of the term antiquated as
applied to the board, and supported HaleTs declaration that
the board was antiquated only in that it performed its
duties well without pay.41
Aye, it is antiquated, antiquated in one respect, that
it is the only institution left in this State where pub­
lic duties are discharged from merely patriotic motives,
and without compensation.- • . . They have a higher compen­
sation in the consciousness of a public good. . . . Why
does the gentleman from Eichmond decry the institution
known as the Board of Regents . . . ? It is antiquated;
so are many other things. The Christian religion itself
would fall under that condemnation. Why does he seek to
remove gentlemen who are willing to serve without pay,
to give their time and talents to the State without com­
pensation, and to appoint a board that shqll be politi­
cal in its character, and.that shall be paid out of the
treasury of the State?42
Parker asserted that the circular referred to pre­
viously had originated with a few men in Albany.

Before the

convention adjourned in September, only twenty-six petitions
had been presented in favor of abolishing the Board of
Regents and fifty remonstrances against it.

In reply to a

question from Curtis as to whether the remonstrances came
from the Board of Regents, Parker replied that Curtis was a
member and should know.

He further declared that no college

or academy had urged the abolition of the regents, while ten
colleges and over fifty academies had sent in remonstrances

41Ibid., p. 2857.
42Ibid., pp. 2857-2858.

169
against their abolition.43

Parker further declared that the

last report of the regents showed their ability to get
reports from the academies and colleges.

He called atten­

tion to the quality of the annual convocations, and asserted
that public opinion would not approve the abolition of the
regents.44

In his closing remarks he outdid even the final

statement of Curtis to whom he refers:
. . . When my friend from Richmond concluded his
eloquent remarks, he could not refrain from singing in
solemn and beautiful notes his own death song, in view
of his approaching dissolution as a member of this
board. He spoke in tones also solemn of the wreck
which was about to be made; the ship that was to be
stranded, in which he was a passenger with the rest.
He saw around him the raging billows, and the scattered
spars, and the regents (of whom he was one) struggling
in the briny deep. . . . I trust, sir, that this is only
a picture of the imagination, and that it will pass by
as an idle dream, but if . . . he makes this great
sacrifice for the public good, or rather for the good
of gentlemen who are to be appointed to office on good
salaries, he must not forget that he was the pilot that
directed the ship upon that treacherous shore; he will
not be able to excuse himself as did Palinurus of old,
that he fell into slumber, for he has steered the ship
upon the rocks with his eyes wide open; and I can tell
him that if there should be a wreck he may well hang up
his dripping garments in the temple of Neptune as a vo­
tive offering for his escape, for the people willjihold
him responsible for the great wrong he has done.43
Parker was asked whether the regents, if the proposed
article were adopted, would not still have oontrol of the
state library and the geological collections.

He replied,

43Ibid., p. 2858.
^ I b i d . , p. 2859.
45
Ibid., p. 2859.

4

170
"I do not think they will have control even of the
mastodon.1146

This brought laughter from the convention.4*^

Mr. Verplanck of Erie county objected to placing
control of education in the hands of the secretary of state,
asserting that the superintendent of education should have
no other duty, and should go about visiting schools which
the secretary would never do.

He moved to strike out from

the proposed section four the portions providing for the
establishment of the state board of education, eliminating
all the rest of the proposed section.48

He defended the

use of the term university, which had been adopted at the
suggestion of Alexander Hamilton, and never seriously ques­
tioned since.

He declared that the popular idea that the

regents sat in their offices and received reports was
erroneous, the annual report showing that the members of the
board had personally visited over sixty institutions.48

This refers to a mastodon whose remains had recently
been excavated at Cohoes and donated to the State Cabinet of
Natural HiBtory.
^ Proceedings and Debates of the Constitutional Con­
vention , lfl67-6 g T voTr^EV. t>. 2857.
48

49

Ibid., p. 2860.

The Journal b of John V. L. Pruyn, who was then
chancellor of the Board of Regents, show many entries to
support this statement of Mr. Verplanck, for Mr. Pruyn was
meticulous in his reporting not only of the visits he made,
but of the meetings which authorities of the institutions
had with him and his suggestions to them. A few years pre­
vious, in the late spring of 1862, Mr. Pruyn had reported
in detail a tour of visits made in the company of Dr. Woolworth, in the course of which they traveled 108 miles by
team or horse and carriage, in addition to travel by train.

171
Verplanck suspected, that, since the new hoard would
be salaried, it would be attached to the party patronage.
He reported a suspicion abroad in the state that the motive
for replacing the regents came not from the superintendent’s
office but from "learned and scholarly men having a great
interest in the Cornell University" who "fear something from
the Regents . . .

or hope for something from a new board."®®

This idea met emphatic rejection from Mr. Gould of Columbia
county and Curtis, who scoffed at the idea that opposition
to the regents resulted from any jealousy on the part of any­
one connected with Cornell.
Continuing the debate, Mr. Smith of Pulton county in
a long statement reviewed the history and activities of the
Board of Regents, detailing especially the many activities
of the board which were not familiar to the general public.
He then struck at the proposed new board, asserting that its
proponents proposed
to substitute for this body of able men . . . of broad
views, . . . ripe scholarship, willing to devote their
time and talents to the interests of the State, and the
interests of education, without any compensation whatever
. . . a body of hirelings! . . . These men that I have

The carriage journey took them from Port Plain to Cherry
Valley, thence to Cooperstown, Hartwick Seminary, Gilbertsville, Norwich, Oxford and Chenango Porks. Pruyn, Memo­
randum Book as Chancellor of the Board of Regents, p. 17.
In MSS. and Document Division, New YorkHState library.
^Proceedings and Debates of the Constitutional Con­
vention, 1867-68, Vol. IV, p. 2861.
51Ibid., p. 2861.

172
named would not— one of them— appear before the legis­
lature and ask for an appointment to office. . . . But
make it a salaried office, and for a term of years, and
you would have six-by-nine politicians, brawling, ignor­
ant, low, cunning men, who understand political jugglery,
besieging the legislature for the appointment. In a
little while . . . we should see the sacred interests of
education committed to the care of men wholly unfitted
for the important trust. . .
Mr. Smith poihted out further that the long term of
the regents enabled them to become familiar with the educa­
tional needs of the state.

He asserted that until the con­

vention began its sessions he had never heard any doubt
expressed as to the efficiency and usefulness of the Board
of Regents.

He ventured a guess that all the petitions

originated with persons who considered themselves champions
of the common schools, who sent the petitions out to teachers
to be circulated and sent in.
I have been unable to see any good reasons for abol­
ishing the Board of Regents. . . . let it still exist
and serve the State in the interests of education, as
it has done for more than eighty years. It is increas­
ing its activity, and extending its usefulness more and
more every year. It is faithfully serving the State
without any compensation. . . . I trust that this Con­
vention will pause long before they . . . blot out
forever from the activities . . . of the State, that
ancient, useful and honorable body, the Regents of the
University. ^
Mr. Alvord, presumably exhibiting some effeots of
the eloquence of the proponents of the Board of Regents,
52

Ibid., pp. 2862-2864.

53Ibid., p. 2865.

proposed at this point to amend the section by eliminating
the clause concerning the fixing of a salary by the legisla­
ture, and adding a no-salary clause.

He believed that the

regents would be willing to serve the new board in an
advisory capacity, or if eliminated, some of the members
would serve the state on the new board.

He echoed the argu­

ment that the original proposal would result in membership
being sought for financial and political reasons.54

Gould

supported this motion, asserting that control of education
should be in the hands of men trained for the work.

He,

however, did not want to detract from the credit due the
Board of Regents, and charitably deolared that the regents
should retain control over the geological hall and the state
library.55
Mr. Verplanck asked Gould if the regents would wish
to continue in office merely for the purpose of managing
the library and geological collections.

Gould replied that

it would be no more a misnomer to call them regents of the
university under those circumstances than it was now.

He

asserted that he had been told by college presidents that
they hardly knew of the existence of the regents, and
declared that the board so far as education was concerned
was ‘‘simply a farce."

He doubted whether the convocations

54Ibid., pp. 8865-2866.
55Ibid., p. 2867.

accomplished any real good, and stated flatly that all the
educational functions of the regents were performed "by the
secretary alone, who would undoubtedly he continued as a
member of a new board.55
Mr. Gould could not see how Jealousy could be alleged
between the common schools and academies.

He did not know

the secret motives of the signers of the petitions and be­
lieved they had acted in good faith.
Mr. Smith then quoted from a memorial just handed to
him, urging abolition of the Board of Regents:
There is an antagonism between private and public
schools. In all the villages in which academies have
been incorporated and established, it has been diffi­
cult, and for the most part, impossible, to get a vote
in the district school meetings to raise money neces­
sary to build sufficient and decent sohool-houses for
the accommodation of children whose parents are not
able to pay..their tuition in the academy.57
To Gould*s statement that the quotation indicated
rather Jealousy of the academies against the common schools,
Alvord replied that the petition quoted emanated from "pro­
fessed friends of the common schools."5®
E. A. Brown declared that he was unable to see the
reason for the petitions asking abolition of the Board of
Regents.

Referring to the alleged antagonism between the

56Ibid., p. 2868.
Rtf

Ibid., p. 2869.
58Ibid., p. 2869.

175
common and higher school systems, he read from the petition
a statement asserting that
colleges and academies are generally . . . denominational
schools, patronized and supported as well as founded by
the various religious denominations. The public money
appropriated to them is, therefore, indirectly used in
propagating religious tenets or . . . in aid of compet­
ing sects. y
A few minutes later Alvord declared this statement to he a
"libel."60
Mr. Alvord read further from the petition, noting
that the first two names signed to it were those of clerks
in the office of public instruction.
Possessing wealth and influence enough to control the
action of the majority of voters, the patrons of the
academies have opposed any liberal provision for the
eduoation of their less favored neighbors. Thousands
and thousands of the children of the poor have thus
been deprived of proper school facilities; a poor
school-house and a cheap teacher have been good enough
for them. We do not believe in the propriety of encour­
aging, by the distribution of the public money, the con­
tinued existence of such academies as directly or indi­
rectly obstruct the free school system. . . . We object
to discrimination against the poor and in favor of the
rich. We hold that a Christian State should make ample
provision for the many before it is lavish in its pro­
visions for the few.61
Alvord asked whether the convention should lend itself to
the campaign which had been launched in favor of the oommon

59Ibid., p. 2870.
60Ibid., p. 2872.
61Ibid., p. 2871.

176
schools and against the higher institutions.

He declared

that the money appropriated to the academies had been a mere
pittance.62
Mr. Hale replied to CurtisT charges that the regents
lacked authority over colleges and academies hy quoting the
law which "authorized and required" the regents or their
committees to visit and inspect colleges and academies, and
report on their visits.

The law further authorized the

regents or their committees to require proof or information
verified by oath, and gave them the power possessed by the
legislature to send for persons or papers.

The law further

required all colleges and academies subject to the regents
to make annual reports not later than November 1, but Hale
acknowledged that the regents could act upon the reports
only by reporting the facts to the legislature.63
Mr. Curtis returned to the fray with an assertion
that the opponents of the education committeefs proposal
were attempting "sedulously and harmoniously" to confuse the

I

issue, which he declared to be simply one of determining
which was the most practical system for the state.

He de­

clared that the arguments in behalf of the regents could be
summed up in two statements:

the Board of Regents was an

old institution and they had performed their duties acceptaHy.

62Ibid., p. 2872.
63Ibid., pp. 2872-2873

177
He agreed to the latter in general, hut thought that age,
however charming and romantic, was principally desirable in
such things as wine, hut not in hread or eggs.

He could see

no reason for two hoards of education in the state.

He

thought that education should he under the control of a hody
with "vast and energizing influence," coming fresh from the
people.6^
Mr. Smith declared that, since the existing system
had worked well for eighty years, the hurden of proof should
he on those who proposed a change to show the necessity for
it.

He thought that the reference to two hoards was inaccur­

ate; the only hoard then in existence was the Board of
Regents, of which the superintendent of public instruction,
a single officer, was an ex officio member-.

He declared it

was becoming evident that "this raid upon the Board of
Regents" had originated in the convention in a spirit of
hostility to the cause of higher education.

There was no

feeling of hostility to common school education on the part
of the regents.

As late as 1867 they had urged the extension

of normal school education to provide better teaching for
the common schools.

He questioned whether a hoard of seven

serving for pay would he more likely to foster and advance
the cause of education than the regents had done.

Proponents

of the new proposal urged that education should he a unit;
he believed that it was then a unit and that the regents

64

Ibid., pp. 2873-2874.

sought to maintain it as such
If the regents have not possessed the confidence of
the people, why has not the legislature "been asked to
abolish the board? If there is to be any change, let
it be left to the legislature, let us not put the
matter into the Constitution, but leave it flexible and
plastic in the hands of the legislature, to be molded
and shaped in the future as the wishes of the people
and the interests of education may demand. 5
A. J. Parker declared that there could be no doubt
that a deep-seated hostility to colleges and academies was
at the bottom of the movement.

He quoted from the memorial

concerning the statutory provision for matching local appro­
priations for apparatus.

The petition asked why this bounty

was conferred on the few academic scholars, and not on the
million primary pupils.

This passage proved to him that

hostility to the academies was the basis for the attack on
the regents, and he stuck to his point in a spirited passage
of words with Curtis.6^

He asserted that the memorial had

definitely come from the office of the superintendent of
common schools, and the convention should not encourage
hostility to higher education by giving consideration to the
proposed change.

He reminded the convention that if the

Board of Regents was antiquated, so also was the Magna Carta,
and denied that there was any instance in which the regents
had dealt with any school in a partisan manner.

65Ibid.. p. 2877.
66Ibid., pp. 2878-2879.

He charged

again that a desire to create jobs was behind the proposed
change.67
The convention, still in committee of the whole,
accepted the amendment by Alvord providing that the secretary
of state should be superintendent of common schools with
such duties as the law might prescribe, and.voted down a
motion of E. A. Brown that the committee of the whole should
rise.

It failed to take action by a tie vote of 23 to 23,

with no quorum voting, on Verplanok's motion to strike out
all after the first paragraph of the proposed section; then
carried a motion to allow the committee of the whole t£> risB,
report progress, and obtain permission to sit again.®®
On the following day, January 21, 1868, the conven­
tion again went into committee of the whole on the Verplanck
proposal to strike out all of the section after the first
paragraph.

Mr. McDonald of Ontario county offered a motion

providing for a superintendent of public instruction elected
by the voters of the state, and a board of education selected
according to provision of the legislature, but serving with­
out pay.69
Mr. Verplanck opposed the McDonald proposal, repeat­
ing earlier statements that the Board of Regents had always
been able and non-partisan, and that the legislature had

67Ibid., p. 2880.
68Ibid., p. 2881.
CQ

Ibid., p. 2882.

180
never considered its abolition.

Mr. Smith of Fulton county-

pointed out that the McDonald proposal made the superintend­
ent the head of the new "board of education, and that he
would thus exert such political power as no officer should
possess. 70
Mr. Curtis replied with some heat to the Smith and
Verplanck arguments, asserting that there waB no conspiracy
against the academies; that the change was not sought be­
cause of hostility to or criticism of the regents, and that
the opposition to date had not indicated any valid reason
why the single control should not be adopted.

He declared,

The committee come to this subject with minds as un­
prejudiced as to any subject which has been submitted
to any committee, . . . feeling . . . that this . . .
cornerstone of the safety, prosperity and permanence of
republican institutions, should have no divided or un­
certain care.71
Mr. Alvord was opposed to putting the proposed change
into the constitution, for it it proved to work badly it
would have to stay as it was until a new constitution could
be made.

The Board of Regents was composed of erudite men,

who, it is true, were not teachers, professors or college
presidents, but who were capable as a result of both political
experience and general education.

Instead of eliminating the

regents, they should be made the single power in education

70Ibid., pp. 2886-2887.
71Ibid., pp. 2887-2890.
9

with, control of the common schools also.7**
M. I. Townsend insisted that the opposition to the
committee’s proposal must come directly from the Board of
Regents itself, and that the new hoard would he no more
subject to political influence than the old.

He thought the

committee’s aim was to have a
living, active man, and not a cleric in a coal hole in
one of the State offices, to he at the head of public
instruction. 3
The committee of the whole voted to rise and report
progress, and to consider the article further in convention.7^
Mr. Hadley proposed that the section should he amended by
making the superintendent elective rather than appointive.
He believed that the official should he provided for by law
rather than in the constitution, hut at least he should he
elective.

The convention after brief debate voted down his

amendment.73
A proposal to modify the statement of duties of the
education hoard to include such supervisory duties as were
exercised by the Board of Regents was ruled out of order.7®
The convention next voted down the Alvord amendment to
72ibid.. pp. 2892-2894.
73Ibid.. pp. 2894-2895.
74Ibid., p. 2897.
75Ibid., pp. 2902-2903.
76Ibid.. pp. 2903, 2906.

182
substitute the secretary of state for the superintendent of
public instruction.77

After some further maneuvering

Verplanck1s earlier motion to strike out all of the section
after the first paragraph, which would eliminate the pro­
posed state board of education, was accepted.78

Finally,

on motion of Mr. Folger, the convention agreed to strike
out all the section not affected by the Verplanck amendment,
which of course eliminated the provision for a state super­
intendent of public education.

To this motion Curtis gave

his support.79
The net result of this maneuvering so far as changes
affecting the two competing departments were concerned, was
exactly nothing, except for a thorough airing of the dif­
ferences in opinion.

Since the constitution except the

Judiciary article was rejected by the voters at the fall
election of 1869, nothing would have resulted even had one
of the hotly-debated proposals been adopted.
Thus ended the first serious threat to the prestige
of the Board of Regents.

It is interesting to notice that

in spite of the vigor of the debate in the convention the
dignified calm of Chancellor Pruyn seemed hardly to be
ruffled by the storm, if one is to guess from the rather

77Ibid.. p. 2906.
78Ibid., pp. 2907-2908.
79Ibid., p. 2908.

183
meager entries in his journals.

Under date of August 29,

1867, he mentions meeting with the education committee of
the convention, and says:
The Committee, especially Mr. Curtis, the chm. seem
to he in favor of a board of seven or nine members to
supersede the Regents and the Supt. of Public Instruction.
I expressly avoided saying anything as a member of the
Board of Regents but among other things pointed out the
result of a paid board, that is, that it would become a
political board.80
The following day Pruyn mentions simply that he, Dr.
Y/oolworth and Mr. Perkins again "went before the Com. of the
Convention on Education and discussed the subject further."81
His final entry in the matter, under date of September 3 of
the same year, states that he attended a meeting of the
board which he had called, in consequence of the "application
now pending before the legislature to abolish the board.
committee on the subject was appointed with power."®2

A

Since

the legislature was not then in session, Pruyn evidently
refers to the discussion in the convention.
In the following chapter we shall see several efforts
made to accomplish by legislative action the changes pro­
posed in the convention, and the fate of these proposals.

80Pruyn Journals, Vol. 5, August 29, 1867.
Q-^-Ibid., August 30, 1867.
82
Ibid., September 3, 1867.

CHAPTER VII
TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF FRICTION
Almost immediately after the roar of battle in the
constitutional revision convention of 1867-68 had died away,
the struggle was renewed in the halls of the legislature.
During the 1869 session a hill was introduced under the
title "An act to abolish the Board of Regents of the Univer­
sity, and to establish a State Board of Education."

The

committee on public education of the Assembly reported to
the house instead a proposed resolution which was carried:
Resolved, that the Superintendent of Public Instruc­
tion be and he is hereby instructed to inquire into the
propriety of abolishing the present Board of Regents of
the University, and to report to the next legislature,
without expense to the State, what legislation, if any,
is necessary to place our academies, colleges and free
schools under a more efficient administration.1
Obedient to these instructions, Superintendent Abram
R. Weaver in his annual report for 1870 devoted some fifteen
pages to a consideration of the assembly resolution.

The

first part of his report was a reasonably accurate and objec­
tive survey of the powers and duties of both the superin­
tendent of public instruction and of the Board of Regents.
He summarized, also quite objectively, the arguments used
^ e w York (State), Assembly Journal, 1869 (Albany:
The Argus Co.), Vol. II, p. 1983.

185
by proponents of a change in administration:
. . . It is charged, by the advocates of the proposed
change, that the Regents are a cumbersome body, without
effective vitality; that they occupy a part of the field
without cultivating it; that they deal in ceremonies
instead of practical measures; and that their influence
tends to perpetuate an unnatural and unfortunate sever­
ance of the schools into two systems, under the control
of two distinct departments, and the consequent division
of educational interests, efforts and resources; and,
further that the Superintendent of Public Instruction
has too much power. They contend that the State should
have but one system, and that it should be a unit; that
all schools, of whatever class or grade, which the State
in any degree fosters or controls, should be embraced in
that system, and that it should be administered by a
board of education.^
Mr. Weaver pointed out that the movement in the legis­
lature was substantially a repetition of what had taken place
in the convention, with the differences that in the former
case it had been proposed to retain the superintendent, and
to put both him and the state board of education on a consti­
tutional basis.®

He asserted his belief that it was for the

legislature to determine, as had been charged, whether the
powers of the superintendent were too great.

It was his

judgment based on familiarity with the office that the head
of the department of education should be a single officer,
acting upon his own responsibility, not as the agent of a

% e w York (State), "Report of Superintendent of Public
Instruction," Assembly Document No. 84, 1870, (Albany: The
Argus Go.), p. 64.
3Ibid., p. 65.

186
■board, and that he should be accountable to the legislature.4
Most of the duties performed by the superintendent were
routine in that they were prescribed by the statutes, which
the board would be bound to follow, and it would be necessary
for a board to be in almost constant session unless it dele­
gated its authority to an agent.

Such an arrangement would

constitute an "incongruous organization."6

He declared that

if a board of education were created, it should be made sub­
ordinate to the head of the department.6
Proceeding to the Board of Regents, Superintendent
Weaver was hardly consistent.

He admitted that the contem­

plated university had not been established, and stated flat­
ly that the organization of the regents was defective, with
regard both to their own work and their relationship to
other departments.

He continued:

It is doubtless the case also that membership has at
times been disposed of as a complimentary recognition
of eminent personal respectability and position, without
reasonable grounds for expectation that the required
service would be rendered; and yet I believe that the
body has at all times embraced a goodly number of work­
ing members, earnestly devoted to their duties. . . .7
Mr. Weaver conceded however, that while accusations
against the regents had been abundant of late, there had
4Ibid.. p. 65.
5Ibid., p. 65.
6Ibid., p. 66.
7Ibid., p. 66.

187
"been no proof that they had not performed their duties
creditably.
The burden of the complaint against
they have been faithless to the duties
them under existing laws, but that the
from their supervision are not such as

them is not that
imposed upon
results arising
might be desired.®

Pointing out the limited nature of the powers of the regents,
the report continued in more favorable tones:
If it is desirable to exercise a more careful and
scrutinizing supervision over the colleges and academies^
it may be accomplished by means of legislation, without
abolishing the Board of Regents. The charge, that they
have done little for those institutions, is answered by
the fact that they have had little authority and means
to do with.
If the higher institutions were not so vigorous as the com­
mon schools, it was because they had not had such ample
resources and "thorough administrative discipline," since
the state had never undertaken to provide free academic
instruction.'1'®
The academic departments in the union free schools
were free only by local voluntary taxation.

Public funds

apportioned to union free schools might be used only for
the common school grades.

Those academies which remained

continued to exist because they had neither been absorbed

8Ibid., p. 66.
9Ibid., p. 67.
10Ibid., p. 67.

188
by the community nor proscribed by the state.
Mr. Weaver called attention to the fact that the
state system of common school education was organically a
unit consisting of 11,750 schools supported according to a
general plan.
To unite with these schools the academies as now
organized, would not produce uniformity. The associ­
ation of chartered academies, charging for tuition,
with free public schools, would constitute not a homo­
geneous system, but an incongruous combination......
The only process by which they can be assimilated is
to charge for tuition in the common schools, which is
not contemplated, or to make the academies free, which
. . . is the logical sequence of the proposition to
unite them. . . .12
The higher institutions should have supervision, but
Y/eaver did not think that the control of common schools
should be committed to the charge of a body established
particularly to visit academies and colleges.

Such a board

should be a branch of a single-headed department of govern­
ment, and the board should report to that officer instead
of to the legislature.-1-®

He did not believe there was any

reason for the creation of two education departments report­
ing to the legislature, nor did the duties performed demand
the continuation of two departments.-1*^

^ I b i d . , p. 67.
12Ibid., p. 68.
13Ibid., pp. 71-72.
14Ibid., p. 72.

189
It is no more essential that the Regents remain an
independent body in order to carry out faithfully the
duties imposed upon them, respecting colleges and
academies, than that the school commissioners, who per­
form similar duties in respect to the common schools,
should have an organization independent of the depart­
ment, and also report directly to the Legislature.15
Mr. Weaver "believed there should "be unity of control
over all institutions deriving any portion of their support
from the state, or organized under its laws or charters.
However, it would not "be necessary to abolish the Board of
Regents or create a new board.

A new board could not re­

place the Bchool commissioners, nor could it perform the
duties then assigned to the regents with greater fidelity
or ability, and the expense of such a board would be much
greater.-1-6
He recommended (1) a limitation of the term of office
of regents thereafter elected to a definite number of years,
and that (2) the Board of Regents be made part of the depart­
ment of education, required to visit and inspect the normal
schools and to report to the superintendent, who would in­
corporate their report in his to the legislature.-1-^
Two days after the passage of the assembly resolution
which brought forth Weaver1s report, Mr. Van Pelton in the
Senate offered the following resolution, which was passed:

15Ibid., pp. 72-73.
16
Ibid., p. 73.
17Ibid., p. 74.

190
Resolved, that the Regents of the University "be
instructed to report to the next legislature, what, in
their judgment, should he the powers of a hoard of
visitation of the colleges and academies of the State,
and whether any change in the organization of that
hoard is desirable to render it more efficient in the
supervision of those institutions.
In the journals
under

of Chancellor Pruyn there appears

date of November 25, 1869, reference to a meeting of

a committee of regents appointed to consider the senate
resolution.

Pruyn says in his conservative fashion that the

committee, consisting of regents Benedict, Johnson, PerldLns,
and Leavenworth, "canvassed the matter in all its aspects,
8a the draft of a report to the Legislature is hereafter to
he considered."^-9
Early in January, 1870, the chancellor referred again
to the matter, reporting a meeting with Judge Johnson at the
regents’ office.

He further reports that they saw Superin­

tendent Weaver, and that Weaver was "decidedly of the opinion
that his department must he managed and controlled by one
head— not by a Board."

Weaver believed, according to Pruyn,

that a hoard was necessary for the supervision of the col­
leges and academies, under whatever name it might he, hut
that the present hoard

might he classified into groups as to

l®New York (State), Senate Journal, 1869 (Albany:
The Argus Co.), p. 1152.
l^John V. L. Pruyn, Memorandum Book as Chancellor of
the Board of Regents, November 25, 1B6T, In"ilSS. and Document Division, New York State Library.

191
terms of office, resulting in continuity in membership.20
Late in March the Board of Regents handed to the
Senate its reply to the resolution of the previous spring.
The report pointed out that the public common schools were
supervised by public officers, headed by the superintendent
of public instruction, whose powers must necessarily.ybe
extensive, and whose decisions must be final.

If the

academies and colleges were institutions of the same nature
as the public schools, their supervision by the state would
necessarily be of the same comprehensive character as that
given the common schools.

Since, however, these institutions

have had their origin chiefly in voluntary private action,
and are mainly supported by the payment of tuition fees, it
seems obvious that the state cannot extend to them the same
detailed supervision exercised over the public sohools.2^However, the report continued, the academies and
colleges were, in their relation to the state, quasi public
institutions, which demanded watchfulness and guardianship
on the part of the state, as the authority which had given
them*, corporate existence.

The funds of these institutions

were chiefly raised by subscription, with some small grants
from the state, therefore the statefs responsibility was

2®Ibid., January 6, 1870.
21New York (State), "Special Report of Regents of the
University,11 Assesmbly Document N o . 82, 1870,(Albany: The
Argus Co.), p. &0.

192
mainly to see that the funds were properly applied.22
A board of visitation, in the opinion of the regents,
should have the following powers:

(1) The board should

have exclusive power to incorporate colleges and academies
under general regulations.

With this power the legislature

should not interfere, except to modify the organic laws
under which it was exercised.23 (2) The board should have
power to require reports in the forms which it should pre­
scribe, of "the literary and financial condition" of each
institution, and the manner in which its affairs had been
conducted.

(3) The board should have power to investigate

the affairs and condition of any institutions whenever
necessary in the judgment of the board or its representatives.
(4) The board should have power of personal visitation by
its committees or officers, and of adopting any measures
which in the judgment of the board would be calculated to
improve the character of academic or collegiate education
offered in the institution, and "to bring the academies and
colleges into united and harmonious action as parts of the
University of the State."

The use of coercive powers or the

infliction of penalties would seldom be required and would
not be desirable.
22Ibid., p. 30.
23
This statement referred to the several cases in
which the lagisLsrtrore had incorporated schools without the
approval of the regents, in some cases without requiring
the financial endowment which the regents demanded.
Assembly .Document No. 82, 1870, p. 31.

193
The regents then referred to the second question in
the resolution, whether any change in the organization of
the "board would be desirable to make it more efficient in
the performance of its duties.

The regents declared that

they then possessed most of the powers which they had listed
as desirable for a board of visitation, for the statute con­
ferred on them the powers ”to visit and inspect” and ”to send
for persons and papers.”

Since the board served without pay,

it was not reasonable to expect as much activity from it as
from an organization on salary.2®

Then appears a paragraph

which could be considered as a direct reply to the critics
of the board:
The work of the Board has been quiet and unostenta­
tious, but constant. It has been performed by gentle
influences and kindly advice, and not by the exercise
of coercive power. The Regents have never asked far an
extension of their powers, and they are of the opinion
that the powers now possessed. . . are as large as any
visiting board requires.2®
The tenure of office of the board, the report ad­
mitted, was usually long.

However, the ex officio members

changed frequently, and non-attending members were replaced.
The fact that only six members constituted a quorum facili­
tated the holding of meetings.

The report referred also to

the other duties of the board:

the supervision of the state

cabinet of natural history, and of the state library with

25Ibid., p. 32.
26Ibid., p. 33.

194
its system of state and international exchanges of materials;
the direction of the teachers1 training classes, and with
the superintendent,

of the state normal school at Albany;

and the maintenance

of the state boundary markers.

board believed that

no extension of its powers or

its organization would

The

change in

be necessary.27

On April 12 of that same year a bill was introduced
into the Assembly by Mr. Flagg of Rensselaer county, pro­
posing to create a department of education, and Mto reorgan­
ize the board now known as the Regents of the University of
the State of Mew York.”2®

Four days later Flagg for the

committee on public education reported in favor of the pas­
sage of the bill.

The house agreed to the report and sent

the bill to committee of the whole.

However, on motion of

Flagg the bill was returned to the committee on public
education.2®
The Journals of Chancellor Pruyn at this point, under
date also of April 16, indicate something of the purposes
behind the bill.

In his usual reserved fashion he reported

that the bill had been receiving considerable attention from
him and Dr. Woolworth, secretary of the Board of Regents. He
stated further that Flagg, .chairman of the education committee,
27Ibid.. p. 33.
2% e w York (State), Assembly Journal, Vol. II, 1870
(Albany: The Argus Co.), p. 1052.
29Ibid., p. 1247.

195
had advised them of the hill, and had declared that they
should have a hearing.

However, the committee had overruled

him and directed him to report the hill, "at which he is
much annoyed."

A certain Mr. Cassidy, not otherwise identi­

fied, who according to Pruyn had had much to do with the
proposal, had admitted that the purpose was political, the
aim heing to re-elect Weaver as head of the state public
school system under another name, and without waiting for
the regular time of election during the next term of the
legislature.

Pruyn objected to this political move, saying

that if a new law was needed, one should he framed which
would he less objectionable to the regents.

He disliked the

proposal in the hill that the regents should report to the
superintendent and not to the legislature.

There was no

excuse for such a proposal, nor was it warranted by the
facts.

Further, he thought that it was unnecessary to in­

crease the Board of Regents to thirty members.3®
also interviews with Cassidy,

He reported

and with Superintendent Weaver

and Cassidy jointly:
I stated my objections to the proposed law on all
grounds very frankly & canvassed the different provi­
sions of the Act— To some of them I said the Regents
I believed would have no objections— and that a law
might be proposed comparatively unobjectionable. Mr.
W. promised to consider the matter & let me know his
views. . . . Mr. Corning, Governor Hoffman, Judge
Perkins, Mr. Snow /“? 7 of the Assembly knew nothing

30Pruyn Journals. April 16, 1870.

196
about the proposed movement.®-*-

On Monday, April 18, the committee on public education
through Flagg reported the bill with amendments.

The house

agreed to the report and ordered the hill engrossed for
third reading.

On further motion by Flagg the bill was

ordered printed immediately and put on special order for
twelve o'clock noon on the following Y/ednesday.®2

Efforts

made by Alvord when the bill came up on special order, to
amend it, eliminating among other features the requirement
that the regents report to the superintendent, were defeated,
and the bill was passed by the Assembly by a vote of seventyone to thirty-six.®®
In the Senate the bill was subjected to considerable
maneuvering, and after being passed by the upper house by a
vote of eighteen to ten,®4 was returned to the Assembly with
only the enacting clause left as it had emerged from the
senate education committee.

The senate version, which was

much .like the assembly bill, provided for a rather thorough­
going revision of the educational control system.

The

department of public instruction and the office of

31Ibid., April 16,1870.
®2Assembly Journal. 1870, Vol. II, p. 1305.
®®Ibid., pp. 1374-1375.
® % e w York (State), Senate Journal. 1870 (Albany:
The Argus Co.), p. 965.

197
superintendent were to be abolished, and in their place was
set up a department of education and the office of state
superintendent of education.

The present superintendent

was to occupy the new office for three years, after which
the legislature in joint ballot would elect a superintendent
the first Tuesday in April every third year.

The powers of

the superintendent of education were to be those of the
present office plus any to be thereafter conferred, and the
salary was to be $5,000 annually.

The Board of Regents was

to consist of nineteen members, the present members holding
office for life.

Vacancies caused by death or resignation

were to be filled by the legislature for ten year terms.
The bill retained the disputed provision that reports of the
regents should be made to the superintendent, and required
the regents to visit and inspect the normal schools, which
would be governed locally by boards of nine trustees ap­
pointed by the superintendent.

Distribution of the litera­

ture fund, heretofore paid by the comptroller on certificate
of the regents, was now to be by certificate of the superin­
tendent on recommendation of the regents.

A similar provi­

sion was inserted covering funds in aid of teachers* training
classes.

Any act relating to the regents, not inconsistent

with this law, should be continued in force.aa

The bill in

this amended form passed the lower house on April 26.ae
^ Assembly Journal. 1870. Vol. II, pp. 1828-1830
a6Ibid.. p. 1830.

198
Several rather indefinite references in Chancellor
Pruyn1s diary at this point indicate that there had been an
agreement with members of the Senate to protect the interests
of the Board of Regents.

He felt quite definitely that the

substitution which took place in the Senate showed "bad faith
in some quarters."37

On this same day Pruyn took his case to

the governor, who was out of town, and the chancellor left
word that he wished to see the chief executive as soon as he
returhed.38
A week later Pruyn, accompanied by Erastus Corning,
whom he had seen the previous Sunday about the matter, and
by Mr. Benedict of the Board of Regents, called on Governor
Hoffman.

The matter of the Flagg bill as passed was

thoroughly aired in the conversation with the governor,
including the charge of bad faith in the maneuvering which
had resulted in the passage of the amended bill.

Exactly

what had taken place during this parliamentary activity is
somewhat difficult to determine, since the printed bills for
that period do not seem to be available.

The situation must,

therefore, be reconstructed from such references as those in
the Pruyn Journals.

Pruyn reported that Governor Hoffman,

to his surprise, said that someone in Weaver*s office had
told the governor’s secretary that someone in behalf of the
37Pruyn Journals, April 30, 1870.
g8Ibid., April 30, 1870.
39Ibid., May 7, 1870.

regents had attempted to prevent the passage in the Senate
of the amended hill, which apparently had heen reasonably
acceptable to the regents.39

Therefore friends of the

measure had felt Justified in restoring the more extreme
assembly measure.

Pruyn "utterly denied" the truth of this

rumor, and pointed out that in a note from Dr. Woolworth to
the governor, it had been noted that the delay in the pro­
ceedings was caused not by opposition from the board but by
Weaver who had retained the amended bill from Thursday to
Saturday.

In the meantime Pruyn had seen Mr. Murphy, chair­

man of the senate education committee regarding the bill.
Pruyn surmised that Weaver had regretted agreeing to the
amendments, and that the scheme had been devised to restore
the original bill.

He felt that this was true because

Weaver’s deputy had stated to Dr. Woolworth on Saturday that
the amended bill amounted to nothing so far as the regents
were concerned.4®
A week later Pruyn’s Journal showed the following
entry:
Among my letters this A.M. I found one from Senator
Murphy on the Regents bill, showing a clear violation
of good faith on the part of Mr. Weaver, who notwith­
standing his agreement to the bill as amended . . . by
the Senate Oommittee, interfered to procure the passage
of the bill as i_t came from the Assembly. I sent Mr.
Murphy’s letter to Governor Hoffman— Kept a copy and

39Ibid., May 7, 1870.
4°Ibid., May 7, 1870.

200
read, it to Mr. Corning, who is to see the Governor.41
^Italics in original7
It appears that Governor Hoffman was affected, in
some degree "by

the revelations resulting from these conver­

sations, or by

the influence of Corning,or possibly by

considerations of policy in other respects, for there is no
evidence in any of the official records of any further
action on the bill.

There is no record of the bill being

returned without executive approval, either in the legisla­
tive journals,

nor in the executive messages. Evidently it

was allowed to

die without action- on the part of the gover­

nor.
The matter of changes in control of education appar­
ently rested at that point, for the next reference we have
been able to find in the literature examined is under date
of January 30, 1874, in the Pruyn Journals.

The Chancellor

reported a visit from Edward Sheldon and Pr. MoVicar:.* whom
he erroneously describes as the "superintendents'1^
state normal schools at Oswego and Potsdam.

of the

Their purpose

was a discussion of means of lifting the office of superin­
tendent of public instruction out of party politics, with
the possibility of having him appointed by the Board of
Regents.

They suggested as a further alternative that the

41Ibid., May 15, 1870.
42
At this period the chief executive officer of the
normals was called "principal.11

201
powers of the department might "be given to the regents.
Pruyn replied that the regents had never asked for further
powers, "but would assume any given to them "by the legisla­
ture.43
We /Pruyn and Woolworth7 cordially agreed with them
on the importance of making an effort to put the office
on an independent stable footing, in order that it might
command the highest order of ability in the incumbent.
They intend to make a thorough effort to carry out their
views, sensible that there are great difficulties in the
way, especially with the politicians.44
Apparently there were criticisms abroad of the
regents and especially of the academies in the state, for
about three weeks later Chancellor Pruyn refers to such
disapproval in his journal, ascribing it to "the legislature
and the press," and says that he and Dr. Woolworth had pre­
pared statements on the subject, and that they had gone over
the matter with Rev. Dr. Upson, another member of the Board
of Regents.43

Evidently the criticism in the legislature

had resulted in action in the Assembly rejecting an appropri­
ation to academies, undoubtedly the annual appropriation for
teachers1 training classes, since the literature fund allot­
ment could not be held up.

Ten days after the reference

noted above, Chancellor Pruyn entered in his journal a note
that this action of the Assembly and "the proposal to give
4aPruyn Journals. January 30, 1874.
^IbidL., January 30, 1874.
45Ibid., February 17,1874.

202
to the Regents the power to appoint the Superintendent of
Public Instruction" had occupied a large share of his time
for the past two or three weeks.4®
On March 2, Mr. Bostwick of Ithaca introduced into
the Assembly a bill bearing the innocuous title "An act
relative to public instruction."

It was, as usual, referred
AtJ

to the committee on public education.

A similar bill was

introduced in the Senate by Mr. Wood, and was duly committed
to the keeping of the committee on literature.4®
The following day we find in the journals of Chancel­
lor Pruyn the statement that by request of the Committee of
the Friends of the Academies, he appeared before the finance
committee of the Senate in behalf of attempts to restore the
$125,000 grant to academies, which had been eliminated in
the Assembly.

He says simply that he "made remarks . . .

as to the legal status and the work and position of the
Academies" but states that after he left to attend a joint
meeting of the education committees of the two houses,
Weaver made a violent speech attacking the academies.49

At

the joint meeting of the education committees Pruyn stated

46Ibid., February 27, 1874.
4^New York (State), Assembly Journal. 1874 (Albany:
Weed, Parsons & Co.), Vol. I, p. 464.
48Hew York (State), Senate Journal. 1874 (Albany:
Weed, Parsons & Co.), p. 313.
4.0

Pruyn Journals. March 3, 1874.

203
that the regents had nothing to do with the proposal under
consideration, in which he was corroborated by Bostwick and
McVicari'.

During the more than twenty-five years of his

connection with the board, the regents had never sought
power, but they would faithfully endeavor to discharge any
duty entrusted to them.®®
The Board of Regents continued to press their position
in the days following, while the Bostwick and Wood bills were
still in committee.

On March 6 and 7, Pruyn reports confer­

ences in the regents* office on the matters before the legis­
lature, and an interview between him and Senator King.®-1*
Three days later he reported an encouraging interview with
Governor Dix:
He is opposed to any interference with the Board—
His relations with it date back more than a third of a
century & he is familiar with its workings.52
The next day the Board of Regents following a long, informal
discussion of the proposals before the legislature, appointed
a committee of five with Chancellor Pruyn as chairman to
present the views of the board to the legislature:
The resolution affirmed the point of view which I had
taken unofficially in all the discussions with members
of the legislature and others, that the Board did not

®°Ibid., March 3, 1874.
51Ibid., Maroh 6-7, 1874.
52Ibid., March 10, 1874.

204
seek power, and would endeavor to meet any responsibil­
ity which might he thrown upon itrr53
On the 15th Pruyn states simply that he and members
of the regents1 committee, including Leavenworth, Pierson
and Upson, attended the joint meeting of the education com­
mittees of the legislature to consider the question of the
method of appointing the superintendent of public instruc­
tion.®^

On the 20th, two days after the bills were reported

favorably by the respective committees and referred to com­
mittees of the whole,55 Pruyn reports that
Mr. Bostwick, chm. of the Education Com. of the
Assembly dined with us. His home is at Ithaca— He is
a bright, pleasant person. 6
In the Assembly on March 19, on motion of Alvord, the
bill was made a special order for March 26, immediately
after the reading of the journal.

After the committee of

the whole had considered the bill and reported progress,
Alvord again moved a special order for March 30, which was
agreed to, and after the second consideration, the bill was
again made a special order, this time for April 2.

There­

after the Assembly Journal carried no reference to the bill

53Ibid., March 11, 1874.
54

Ibid., March 15, 1874.

55

Assembly Journal, 1874, Vol. I, p. 698; Senate
Journal, 18fr4, p. 382'.
56Pruyn Journals, March 20, 1874.

205
until April 10 when it reappeared with the same title as
the senate bill and was sent back again to committee of the
whole.®7
In the Senate the progress of the companion proposal
was a little more expeditious.

Considered in committee of

the whole on April 2, the bill was made a special order for
1:45 P.M. on April 3, when it was ordered engrossed for the
third reading.

Under an amended title "An act to unify

supervision of schools in the State of New York" it was
passed by the Senate April 3 by a vote of 21 to 4.58
In the meantime the matter of the election of a super­
intendent had become a current item of business.

Mr. Pruyn,

presumably hoping to see the office filled by a more amenable
individual, saw one General Rathburn on April 2 at the sug­
gestion of Mr. Bostwick, to find out if Dr. Anderson of
Rochester would accept the nomination for superintendent.
The general thought not, but ftould not attempt to answer for
Anderson, and before a reply could be had the caucus was
postponed a week because of the legislation pending in the
two house s.
The senate bill to unify supervision reached the
Assembly on April 6 and was reported favorably by Bostwick
57Assembly Journal. 1874. Vol. I. pp. 714. 782. 828.
1087.
58
59

Senate Journal, 1874, p. 530.

Pruyn Journals. April 2, 1874.

206
for the education committee two days later.

Sent to committee

of the whole, it was made a special order for Thursday even­
ing, April 9, and after consideration was again put on
special order for April 14, in the evening.

At that session,

after unsuccessful attempts to amend the bill, it was
returned to the committee on public eduoation, from which it
did not, apparently, emerge.

At any rate, there is no further

reference to it in the journals of that session.60
While these proceedings were under way the legislature
on April 7 elected Neil Gilmour as superintendent of public
instruction.6^
What the proposed change in the control of eduoation
may have been, lacking any other information as to the. con­
tent of the bill, is indicated in the report of the Sheldon
and MoVicar visit to Pruyn, supported by an editorial in
School Bulletin in September, 1874.

The editorial reviewed

the unsuccessful attempt of a few years since to unify the
Bystem by putting the superintendent of public instruction
at the head of both the common and secondary school systems.
The recent effort appeared to be based upon the theory that
the superintendent could be removed from politics by making
him the secretary of a state board of eduoation.
be accomplished in one of three ways:

This could

(1) by abolishing the

60Assembly Journal, 1874, Vol. I, p. 927; Vol. II,
pp. 995, 1034, i 644, 1134-1I3ST
61Pruyn Journals. April 7, 1874.

207
Board of Regents and uniting its functions with those of the
department of public instruction, v/hich had been tried and
had failed; (2) by abolishing the office of superintendent
and giving all control to the regents; or (3) by creating a
new board of education to v/hich all educational matters
would be entrusted.

The time seemed, according to the

writer, to be propitious for attempting the third method,
but objections appeared in the legislature to establishing
an entirely new board, with the result that an effort was
made to create a new board out of the existing Board of
Regents.

According to the School Bulletin writer, a board

of nine members was proposed, to be classified in January,
1875, into three groups, to hold office for one, two and
three years, new members to replace them to be appointed by
the governor for six years.

To this board would be entrusted

all educational matters, and the secretary to be elected by
the board should be superintendent of public instruction.
When the time came to elect a new superintendent under the
old law, with the new proposal still hanging fire, the elec­
tion was carried out, and the proposed law died in the legis­
lature.

The School Bulletin hoped that the legislature

would not let the matter rest until the system of education
should be made a unit.

Although the union free school law

gave a possible opening for the absorption of the academic
system by the common schools, there would still remain the
fact that the law prescribed two different systems of

208
supervision.®2

Three hills intended to settle the difficulties be­
tween the department of public instruction and the Board of
Regents went into the legislative hoppers in the Assembly
during the term of 1875, and one was introduced into the
Senate.

The official journals are as usual scanty in their

information as to the content of the bills.

Mr. Sherman1s

proposal of February 15 was entitled nAn act to unify the
supervisory department of the educational system of the
State.11 Mr. Vosburgh's bill of March 12 bore the title "An
act to create a department of education and to reorganize
the board known as the Regents of th? University of the State
of New York."63

Both were reported adversely by the com­

mittee on public education on May 6.64
A little more consideration was given to the third
bill introduced on February 18 by Mr. Hepburn under the
title "An act to unify the supervisory departments of the
State."

It received, with amendments, the approval of the

committee on public education, and went to committee of the
whole on April 2.63

On April 7 the bill was reported as

having been engrossed,but no mention appeared of its having

^"Unifying our School System." School Bulletin, 1
(Sept., 1874), 1.
63New York (State), Assembly Journal, 1875 (Albany:
Weed, Parsons & Co.), pp. 283, 479.
64Ibid., p. 1370.
65
Ibid., pp. 303, 648.

209
'been considered in committee of the whole.

Later on the

same day it was re-committed to committee of the whole, and
exactly a month later we find the house agreeing to Hepburn*s
motion that the bill be considered in the first committee of
the whole which was not full.6**

The following day, May 8,

it was reported favorably from committee of the whole and
ordered to third reading.67
further mention of the bill.

From that point, there is no
The senate bill, introduced

on February 10 by an individual not named, failed to receive
any action.68
Lacking the text of any of these proposals, it is
necessary to look elsewhere for information.

In the pages

of the School Bulletin, still in its first year, is a refer­
ence to a unification bill '’prepared by the Joint committee"
for introduction into both houses, but there is no identifi­
cation of the committee.

The story continued with the state­

ment that the principal defect in the bill lay in the fact
that it was a proposal of one department to swallow up the
other.
When any swallowing is to be done, the question at
once arises whether the whale is to swallow Jonah or
Jonah the whale, with a vigorous side issue as to which

66Ibid., pp. 680, 699, 1375.
67Ibid.. p. 1409.
68New York (State), Senate Journal, 1875 (Albany:
Weed, ParsonB & Co.), p. 143T

210
is the whale.69
The hill, according to the report, proposed the subordina­
tion of the state department to the regents, and had little
support to ehable it to meet the objections of the state
superintendent.

Those who had fostered a similar proposal

last year were now silent, considering the plan hopeless.
The bill had been "so plucked to pieces by the committee
that it lacks the vigor of the original draft," said th have
been prepared by Superintendent Levi S. Packard of Saratoga
Springs.70
Considerably more information was offered by the
story concerning the Hepburn bill and its author.

Mr.

Hepburn was described as
a young man, clear headed, a ready and graceful speaker;
in a word just such a man as our educational interests
demand in the legislature. 1
He was elected to the legislature while still serving as
school commissioner in St. Lawrence county.

His bill, while

not likely to pass, had several worthwhile points:

(1) It

provided for a board of education consisting of one member
from each of the eight judicial districts, plus the
lieutenant-governor, speaker of the Assembly, comptroller

69(Untitled Editorial), School Bulletin, 1 (Mar.,
1875), 56.
7QIbid., p. 56.
71
Ibid., p. 56

SIX
and chief Justice of the Court of Appeals.

The eight ap­

pointive members were to serve for six years.

(2) This

board was to appoint a state superintendent of education or
public instruction.

(3) The board was to be divided into

three bureaus, each under a secretary nominated by the
superintendent and confirmed by the board.72
An editorial in the same issue, while denying that
the writer would like to see the state department subordin­
ated to the regents, attacked the public school system in
disagreement with attacks on the regents in the Albany and
Troy papers.

The editorial declared that it was far from a

demonstrated fact that the public school system of the state
had covered the whole field of even preparatory education,
and pointed out examples of retrogressive activity in
several of the larger high schools.

The editorial then

continued with some heat:
Y/hen we read of the public school system of New York,
that it is "acknowledged the best in the world," and
that the Board of Regents is a sham, we feel inclined
to ask which department keeps paying out $55,000
annually for libraries, with the certain knowledge that
most of it will be used for other purposes; and under
which system an investigation is now in progress in one
of the largest cities of the State to see whether the
principal of the High School has not, in defiance of
statute law, so changed the High School course as to
exclude half the children who would be glad to attend;
in another large city the Board of Education has spent
months in disgraceful wrangling as to which members
took bribes, which members lied, and which members stole
the school house privies; while in a third large city

72Ibid., p. 56.

212
the president of the Board of Education has paid to the
Superintendent of Public Instruction $15,000 for seduc­
ing his wife? These are not savory facts, but they are
facts which the daily newspapers have within three
months thrust into the faces of a hundred thousand
school children.
After this blast the Bulletin apparently continued
publication, for the June, 1875, issue contained a report
concerning the Hepburn bill, which it declared had "very
wisely not been called up" after it was approved by the
committee of the whole.

The story described Hepburn’s

speech in behalf of the bill as "about the only educational
speech of the session."

In it Hepburn urged that the state

superintendency be freed from dependence upon politics and
made responsible to a board of education.1^4
The School Bulletin again stepped into the contro­
versy when it published in its September, 1875, issue a
statement signed by the editors:
The Bulletin, without committing itself before hand
to any particular plan, will inquire into the expediency
of uniting the two departments at present under the con­
trol, of the Regents of the University and of the Super­
intendent of Public Instruction. The Editors will seek
for such information and invite such discussion of the
subject as may aid in determining whether this unifica­
tion is demanded by the best interests of education in
the State, and how, in that case, it may be best brought
about.

Ibid., p. 56. B y "Superintendent of Public Instruc­
tion" in the quotation above is evidently meant the city
superintendent.
74
"Educationlin the Bate Legislature," School Bulletin.
1 (June, 1875), 92.
"The School Bulletin," School Bulletin, 2 (Sept.,
1875), 6.

213
The signers of the statement included. Edward North of Hamil­
ton College, as chairman; Jonathan Tenney, deputy state
superintendent; Daniel J. Pratt, assistant secretary of the
Board of Regents; Henry B. Buekham, principal of Buffalo
normal school; Samuel Thurher, principal of Syracuse high
school; Andrew McMillan, superintendent of schools at Utica;
and Daniel C. Parr, principal of Fort Edward union school.^6
In December of the same year the regents fell under
further criticism, this time from Professor J. H. Gilmore
of the University of Rochester, and president of the Roches­
ter board of education, in an address before the annual con­
vention of commissioners and superintendents of schools.
Characterizing the regents as na body of tolerably
well educated and entirely well-to-do gentlemen” Professor
Gilmore continued:
The University has a name . . . but h O w l b c a l habita­
tion; that is, it has no buildings, delivers no lectures,
hears no recitations. It does, however, conduct examin­
ations and confer degrees. It also has funds at its
disposal (largely in excess of the legal 40,000 bushels
of wheat per annum) which fact induces us to treat the
body in question with due respect and consideration.
The principal duty of the "Regents” now-a-days is to
propound examination questions and pay, for an indefinite
period, a certain sum per capita, for those who have
satisfactorily answered their questions and are presumed
to be pursuing a higher course of education.
The matter of "Regents examinations” is therefore one

76tv.,
Ibid., p. 6.

214
77
of prime importance. . . .

Professor Gilmore at this point became a little more
charitable, and asserted that the regents had done so much
to invigorate and unify education in the state "that no sane
man would deliberately cast contempt upon them."

But even

the regents may have made mistakes, and unless they were
more than human could not expect to escape criticism for
those mistakes.

Professor Gilmore did not believe that the

apparent purpose in founding the University of the State of
New York had been fulfilled, and having thus failed, the
regents had turned to chartering and examining high schools
and academies.
tions:

He had three criticisms of regents1 examina­

the subjects in which the regents did not examine

were largely neglected; teachers cram for examinations with
"minute and technical information instead of trying to im­
part broad and generous views"; and finally, the examination
fever leads to ungenerous and unhealthy rivalry.
Professor Gilmore's charges were answered by C. W.
Bardeen, publisher of the School Bulletin, who asserted that
most of his objections applied to "all test examinations,"
and indeed to all tangible rewards for honest labor.

The

regents did not claim the system was perfect, but had done

77 njhe New York State Convention of Commissioners and
Superintendents," School Bulletin, 2 (Feb., 1876), 86.
78lbid., p. 86.

good work in furnishing a basis for apportionment of the
$40,000 available to the regents; it had furnished a test
of uniformity in comparing schools; and had Increased the
thoroughness of teaching in the elementary branches.
At the July, 1876, University convocation an argument
for the unification of the system of supervision was advanced
from the ranks of secondary education.

Principal W. W.

Dawley of Amsterdam Academy, in a paper on "Supervision and
State Aid" argued that the supervision of all schools should
be in the hands of a single individual or department.
office of state superintendent should be abolished.

The
The

authority of the superintendent and of the regents should be
centered in one body.

In support of his proposal, he said:

The State University is properly the head of our
system of education. Owing to the ability, age and
experience of its members, the Board of Regents should
constitute the supervising body proper. This board
should have the final determination in choosing all
school-directing officers. 0
At the University convocation of 1879 the following
resolution was adopted:
Resolved, That this convocation is now, as it has
always been, in favor of some plan of unification which
shall not injure or compromise the interests of higher
education, which are especially entrusted to the regents
of the university of the state of New York, and will

79Ibid., p. 86.
® % e w York (State) University,
University Convocation. 1876 (Albany:

'Proceedings of the
The Argus CoTT, p. 124*

heartily co-operate with the educational bodies in the
state in attempts to realize such a plan.
Resolved. That a committee of seven members of this
convocation be appointed by the chancellor, who shall
be empowered to confer with other bodies, and assist in
carrying out such a plan of unification as shall meet
the approval of the board of regents.81
The committee appointed under the resolution consisted
of Professor Mears of Hamilton College, Dr. Wilson of Cornell,
Dr. Steele of Elmira, and Principals Bradley of Albany,
Sheldon of Oswego, Clarke of Canandaigua, and Bacon of
Syracuse.82
The Rochester Democrat and Chronicle gave editorial
approval to the resolution and the appointment of the com­
mittee.

The editorial called attention to two evils in the

common school system:

"its intimate association with poli­

tics," and the autocratic powers of the superintendent.
Every three years, there is witnessed, at Albany, a
disgraceful scramble for the office of superintendent.
It is a fat office, with a salary of $5,000, and allow­
ance for traveling fees, and the appointment of a deputy
with $3,500 annual pay and a number of clerks. It goes,
as doubtless it is right it should, to a member of the
party which happens to be dominant in the legislature,
and always involves a heated, and sometimes an acrimon­
ious strife. The usual appliances of politics are in­
volved. Members are button-holed by rival candidates,
the influence of their various "sisters and cousins and
aunts" is brought into requisition, and it is hinted

81New York (State) University, "Proceedings of the
University Convocation, 1879," Senate Document N o . 41, 1880
(Albany: Charles Van Benthuysen), pp. 481-482.
88Ibid.. p. 486.

217
that even corrupt agencies have been employed in can­
vasses particularly earnest. The office has thus been
dragged through the mire of politics, and it is not
strange that sometimes the best politician, rather than
the man most competent from the education view, has
succeeded in grasping the prize.83
The Rochester editor also insisted that the powers of
the superintendent should be modified, or at least his deci­
sions should be subjected to review.

If disputes from

districts were taken to him for decision rather than to the
courts, there was no appeal from his verdict.

This, the

editorial declared, was a power that should not be vested in
any man, however worthy.

The editorial asserted further

that there was no need for separation in the supervision of
higher and elementary schools, and that there was a tendency
to bring the regents closer to the common schools.

There

was a growing conviction that the Board of Regents should be
entrusted with work ”commensurate with its traditional
importance,11 and that it should be ’’made less ornamental and
more useful.”

It was not contended that the Board of Regents

as then constituted was just the body to have larger powers
of supervision, but some such body should be endowed with
these additional powers.84
The smoldering conflict between the two departments
of government again burst into the open during a session of

83Rochester (New York) Democrat and Chronicle,
July 15, 1879.
84Ibid., July 15, 1879.

the state teachers1 association held at Penn Yan in July,
1879.

A committee on supervision and the licensing of

teachers "brought in a majority report signed "by all but one
member of the committee.

The report recognized the need of

working out a plan of supervision and licensing, but believed
that the details of any such plan could not be effectively
developed so long as the responsibility for supervision con­
tinued to be divided between the regents and the department
of public instruction.

Therefore the committee considered

it essential that some form of unification be adopted to
enable a suitable plan of supervision to be developed.

They

recommended that unification be accomplished by giving to
the Board of Regents the powers then possessed by both
departments.

The regents should then be authorized to

appoint a superintendent of public instruction who would be
in charge of public schools under the direction of the
board.®®
The one dissenting member of the committee, a Mr.
DeGraff, presented a minority report.

Terming the proposal

for unification "revolutionary*1 and therefore "dangerous,"
he asserted his opposition to the establishment of a board
rather than a single executive officer.

The work of the two

departments was entirely distinct, and it was unwise to
ignore the needs of the present institutions by placing

85nThe State Teachers* Association," School Bulletin.
5 (Aug., 1879), p. 180.

control in the hands of one office.

After a lengthy dehate

the report was returned to the committee with instructions
to report the following year.®®
The controversy at the Penn Yan meeting led to a
long communication signed "C" in the September, 1879, issue
of the School Bulletin, in which the names of the majority
signers of the committee report were given as School Commis­
sioner J. B. Riley, Plattsburg; Dr. Malcolm McVicar, Potsdan
Normal; Superintendent B. B. Snow, Auburn; Dr. J. H. Hoose,
Cortland Normal; and Superintendents D. Beattie, Troy;
H. R. Sanford, Middletown; H. Kiddle, New York and L. S.
Packard, Saratoga Springs.

The letter declared that the

majority report had also the endorsement of the convocation
committee on unification.®^
"C" identified Mr. DeGraff as a member of the teachers1
institute staff, which was subject to the Jurisdiction of the
state superintendent, and stated that DeGraff had been work­
ing with the committee until the institute instructors had
been summoned to Albany.

From that point on DeGraff had been

in opposition to the program outlined by the committee.®®
"C" guoted DeGraff1s report as claiming that the
normal schools should unite against unification, for the

®6Ibid., p. 180.
87

"Unification of Our School System," School Bulletin,
6 (Sept., 1879), p. 4.

88

Ibid., p. 4.

220
department had defended them in the past.

nCn pointed out

that the superintendents report had added fuel to news­
paper criticism of the normals "by quoting comparative figures
of the cost of educating a graduate at the various institu­
tions:

Buffalo, $1492.88; Brockport, $1471; Oswego, $337.29;

and Albany, $316.77.

He pointed further to a statement in

the superintendents report of 1876 to the effect that the
normal schools need not monopolize teacher training; city
high schools and the academic departments of union free
schools could graduate competent and successful teachers.
The result of this lukewarm attitude, nG n asserted, had been
an attack on the normal schools in the legislature in
January, 1877, in which a brief hearing had resulted in the
vindication of the program of the normal schools.89
The letter closed with an ardent appeal for the legis­
lature, if it was to elect another superintendent the follow­
ing April, to redeem itself and
honor the state by appointing a man and a scholar whom
all educators can honor and gladly follow for his un­
impeachable integrity; for his ability to assume and
retain leadership in all educational discussions and
plans,for his single-mindedness in serving the cause,
rather than himself; for his noble Christian character
and moral courage to stand unswervingly by the right;
for his extensive and practical acquaintance with
legislative, state and eduoational affairs; for his
fearlessness in advocating lines of progress which
his Judgment should approve; and for his cooperative
sympathy with the noble body of educators who sustain
the educational reputation of our great State. Such

Ibid., pp. 4-5

221
a man can be found In the State, and he should be
appointed, the educators demand him as their leader.90
Although there was obviously a considerable amount of
discussion and agitation in educational circles concerning
the matters covered in this communication, little direct
evidence has been found in the materials available for this
study.

It is necessary to draw conclusions based partly on

the actual language of the material, and partly on the
language of the critics.
The charge of lukewarmness toward the normal schools
made by ”C ” in his letter is hardly borne out if one accepts
at its face value the language used by Superintendent Gilmour
in his annual report of 1878.

He referred to the investiga­

tion in the legislature the previous year, and asserted in
very definite language his faith in the value of the normal
schools and the quality of their instruction.

He quoted at

length from previous reports which he and his predecessors
had made in support of his defense of the institutions.^
On the other hand Mr. Gilmour embroiled himself to an
extent with the authorities at Brockport and Potsdam by an
order directing the suspension of any academic instruction
being given in the normal schools, and limiting practice
schools to a registration of 250 elementary pupils.

Both

90Ibid., p. 5.
9‘*Hew York (State), ’’Report of Superintendent of
Public Instruction,” Assembly Document H o . J7, 1878 (Albany:
Jerome B. Parmenter), pp. 38-44.

222
institutions replied, quoting the terms under which the
normals were established, which included the maintenance for
the village of the facilities which the parent institution
had been providing.

Gilmour thereupon withdrew a step,

suspending his order pending legislative determination of
the s i t u a t i o n . W h e t h e r he was influenced in his original
order by the fact that some of the criticism of dual control
and some of the agitation for unification had been supported
by individuals connected with the normals is an interesting
matter for speculation.

Attention is called to the fact

that Dr. McVicar, one of the signers of the majority report
on unification at Penn Yan, was principal of the normal
school at Potsdam; and Dr. Sheldon of the convocation com­
mittee on unification, was principal at Oswego.
It is quite evident that Superintendent Gilmour was
influenced by the unification issue in his feud with the
local authorities at Cortland normal in 1880.

One of the

signers of the majority report at Penn Yan had been Dr.
James H. Hoose, principal of the institution at Cortland.
The same year Dr. Hoose had also urged unification in a long
address to the state association of school commissioners,
art

meeting at Ithaca.
In the spring of 1880, as the time approaohed for the

92
93

Ibid., pp. 51-69.

"Unification of Our School System," School Bulletin,
6 (Sept., 1879), p. 4.

223
election of a superintendent, the School Bulletin speculated
on the possibility of a change, and reported the general
assumption that Mr. Gilmour would he re-elected.

Mr. Bardeen

based his belief on the grounds that the superintendent had
the party majority behind him, and had served the party
faithfully while carrying out a conservative policy.

Among

the arguments advanced by the opposition was the time-honored
statement that "it was time for a change," and the more
damaging charge that Gilmour had been the author of a text­
book bill which would require the use of a set of textbooks
chosen by a committee of which he would be a member.

That

belief was generally held despite the superintendents
denials.

Also serious was the widespread opposition to

Gilmour's deputy, A. A. Keyes, who the previous year had
engaged in an altercation in the public press with Regent
Fitch, an editorial advocate of unification.9^

After the re-

election of Gilmour, Bardeen stated in the columns of his
periodical that the superintendent had freely let it be known
that he would take revenge on those who had opposed his
re-election.9^
Whether or not these factors entered this particular
situation, Gilmour on June 28, 1880, demanded by letter the
resignation of Principal Hoose of Cortland, and notified
QA

"The State Superintendency," School Bulletin. 6
(Mar., 1880), p. 79.
95
"The Czar of All the Russias in American Education,"
School Bulletin, 6 (July, 1880), p. 131.

224
the secretary of the local board of his a c t i o n . I n
response to a resolution of the local board Gilmour replied
that his action resulted from "personal observation for
several years,11 and a conviction that the cause of educa­
tion in the state would thereby be served.

He also advised

the board that they were not asked to share the responsi­
bility for the removal of Hoose, and said quite bluntly,
that in his official acts he was not amenable to the board.97
Dr, Hoose replied on July 8, declining to resign, and
on the 12th Gilmour notified him that he had written to the
local board withdrawing his approval of HooseTs employment.
The superintendent supported his action with an opinion from
Attorney-General Hamilton Ward, that he had the right to
withdraw approval of the appointment of a teacher.9®
On July 13 Gilmour wrote the local board at Cqrtland,
giving his reasons for demanding the resignation of Hoose.
He charged Principal Hoose with being incompetent, ineffi­
cient and inattentive to his duties.

Particularly signifi­

cant in view of the general attitude of schoolmen toward
the controversy is this statement from the letter:
It haa long been evident to me that cordial relations,
such as should exist, could not be maintained between
96New York (State), "Report of Superintendent of
Public Instruction," Assembly Document N o . 11, 1880 (Albany:
Weed, Parsons & Co.), p. 31.
97Ibid., p. 31.
98
Ibid., pp. 31-32.

225
the Cortland Normal School and this Department, as long
as Dr. Hoose was principal of the one and I was at the
head of the other.

v

I pass by without notice, and indeed as unworthy of
notice, affronts and insults which I have received from
the late principal of the normal school in your village,
but as head of this Department . . . 1 do remember that
for years past Dr. Hoose has been, in season and out of
season, the avowed and pronounced enemy of this Depart­
ment, and that he has labored with all his strength for
its abolition. 9
The local board a few days later passed a resolution
refusing to concur with Mr. Gilmour's action, and on August 4
Gilmour directed Professor James M. Cassety of Fredonia
Normal to go to Cortland as acting principal.

This action

he also supported with an opinion from the attorney-general
At the same time Gilmour notified the members of the faculty
individually to report to Professor Cassety and obey his
instructions.

The local board refused to accept Cassety as

principal, whereupon he was directed to go to the village of
Cortland and establish an office if refused access to the
normal premises.

Gilmour also advised Professor Cassety that

approval of appointment would be withdrawn from any faculty
member who refused to follow his instructions.-1-^
On the day set for opening the fall term, Cassety was
on hand at the normal school, as were Dr. Hoose, the members
of the local board, townspeople and students.
" ibid.. pp. 34-35.
100Ibid., pp. 37-39.
101Ibid., pp. 40-41.

The president

226
of the local 1)00x4 announced that school would open under
the direction of Dr. Hoose.

When Cassety demanded a hearing,

he was refused the use of the chapel, "but allowed to make an
announcement to the assemblage in the corridors.

His demand

that he he given custody of the official records and he
allowed to take control was met with a flat refusal from the
local hoard.

Thereupon Cassety directed the teachers to

leave the building, and withdrew himself, accompanied hy six
faculty members.

Six others remained with the local forces.^

Superintendent Gilmour then withdrew approval of the
appointments of the six rebelling faculty members, and noti­
fied the principals of the other normal schools to accept as
transfers any students from Cortland who wished to continue
their courses.

On the 7th of September Gilmour issued an

order formally closing the normal school at Cortland
until such time as the lawful orders and directions of
the Department of Public Instruction . . . are obeyed
by the local board of said school, and until said
school shall be organized and opened in conformity t
the laws of the State relating to normal schools.103
After an agreement to submit the case to the general
term of Supreme Court had been found illegal, the attorneygeneral, for Mr. Gilmour, began proceedings for a writ of
mandamus to compel the local board to termihate the appoint­
ment of Hoose, and to recognize Cassety as the head of the
102Ibid., pp. 41-42.
103
Ibid., pp. 44-45.

287
school.

The opinion of Justice Martin did not examine

the question whether a mandamus was the proper remedy, hut
declared that on the merits of the case, the application for
mandamus must he granted.-1* ^
In his report for 1880, in which he outlined the dis­
pute with the Cortland authorities, Gilmour expressed his
point of view in these words:
It seems to me plain that if the officer, charged hy
law with the general supervision, management and control
of the State normal schools, is to he made the mere
coadjutor of local hoards of trustees, with no power to
act except upon their recommendation; and if he is to
he compelled to retain in position principals, and other
teachers, whom he believes to he incompetent, or who
openly and willfully defy his instruction, simply be­
cause the local prejudices of a majority of a local
hoard demand it, the schools should hereafter he denom­
inated "local11 and not "State" normal schools. . .
This point of view would deserve more consideration
were it not for the very strong indication in the quotation
on pages 224 and 225 above that Hoose1s "incompetence" and
"inefficiency" were closely connected with his opposition to
Gilmour as superintendent.
At the beginning of the second term of the school
year the normal school at Cortland was "reopened" under
Professor Cassety, with replacements for the Hoose seceders

104
Ibid., p. 48.
105Ihid., pp. 49-55
106Ihid., p. 56.

228
on the faculty.

Some fifteen or twenty older students

objected to a ruling of the new principal requiring a re­
view of the previous tern^s work, and applied for admission
at Oswego.

The seceders declared that they left because

Principal Cassety threatened to expel them for not regis­
tering on the first day of the term, and because the teach­
ers had taunted them for their failure to gain admission at
Oswego.

When they were denied authority to enter there,

they went in a body to the normal school at Ypsilanti,
Michigan, of which Dr. McVicar had become the head.

On

February 24, 1881, the local board filed an appeal from the
Martin decision.

Feelings continued to run high, and Gilmour

was hung in effigy by townspeople when he visited Cortland.10*^
During the spring of 1881 Dr. Hoose was appointed
city superintendent at Binghamton at a substantial inorease
in salary, and with the understanding that he could return
to Cortland if the courts ruled in his favor.108
The appeal from the Supreme Court decision was argued
before the Court of Appeals on January 31, 1882, and a
decision was finally rendered on April 18.

The court ruled

that an attempt to exercise the sole power by either the
superintendent or the board was not in the provisions or
intent of the normal school laws of 1866 or 1869, and that

107njjotes on the Cortland Matter," School Bulletin.
7 (Mar., 1881), p. 85.
^^(Item) School Bulletin, 7 (June, 1881), p. 134.

229
claiming the right of summary dismissal deprived the teacher
of the tenure of employment provided by the law.

In refusing

to recognize Cassety as principal, the local hoard had not
omitted any of its duties.

The court therefore reversed the

findings of the general term of Supreme Court and denied the
writ of mandamus.
Accordingly, on April 26, 1882, Hoose resumed the
principalship at Cortland, with the six faculty members whose
positions had been vacated by action of Superintendent
Gilmour.

The report of Cortland normal to the superintendent

of public instruction for the year 1883 carries a somewhat
stiff footnote from the superintendent pointing out that
Professor Cassety and Dr. Hoose had been in charge during
part of each of the two preceding years, and that the
attendance figures given in the report were inacourate.HO
The sequelae to the "Battle of Cortland" can be recon­
structed only in part from the available documents.

When

the seism at the school occurred, the faculty divided equally.
Frank S. Capen, James M. Milne, Martha Roe, Mary F. Hendrick,
Clara E. Booth, and Mrs. Lottie T. Corlew obeyed the instruc­
tions of Cassety when he temporarily abandoned the field
after failing to be heard by the.local board at the opening

109"The Cortland Controversy Decided," School Bulletin,
8 (Mar., 1882), pp. 121-123.
•^^New York (State), "Report of the Superintendent of
Public Instruction," Assembly Document No. 25, 1883 (Albany:
Weed, Parsons & Co.), p. 151.

230
of the term.

The rest of the faculty, Dr. Thomas B.

Stowell, S. J. Sornberger, Mrs. Emily P. Halbert, Elizabeth
Rase, Emily E. Cole, and Sara A. Saunders, remained loyal
to Dr. Hoose.

With him they went into exile when the

initial court decision rendered them Jobless after they had
carried on the work of the school in the face of Gilmour1s
order closing it in September, 1880.
Y/hen the courts eventually ruled in favor of HooBe,
he re-assumed his duties at the school, and with him returned
the six teachers whose appointments Gilmour had officially
11?
disapproved for sticking with Hoose.
Apparently there
was no retaliation against the six who stayed under Professor
Cassety, for in the succeeding reports they continued to be
among the faculty of the school.
Several members of the two groups resigned not long
after the "battle."

These included Mrs. Corlew, who left

her post a few weeks after Hoose resumed w o r k ; ^ 3 Elizabeth
Rase, who resigned in 1884,114 and Mrs. Halbert in 1889.115
^■^New York (State), "Report of the Superintendent of
Public Instruction," Assembly Document H o . 1 1 . 1881 (Albany:
Weed, Parsons & Co.), p. 42.
112
Assembly Document N o . 25, 1883. p. 151.
113Ibid., p. 153.
114
New York (State), "Report of the Superintendent of
Public Instruction," Assembly Document N o . 8 f 1885 (Albany:
Y/eed, PaTBons & Co.), p. 184.
115
New York (State), "Report of the Superintendent of
Public Instruction," Assembly Document N o . 7, 1890 (Albany:
James B. Lyon), p. 244.
“

231
Martha Hoe was not listed in the faculty for 1895-1896, hut
had heen on the list the previous year.
tion of a resignation.^6

There was no men­

These four women are mentioned

together because they do not appear to have found employ­
ment at any of the other state normals.

There is no way of

knowing whether they went into other types of teaching, or
whether they retired.
Dr.;Capenvresigned at the same time as Miss Rase, and
does not appear on the faculty lists of any of the state
normal schools until 1888, when he was appointed principal
117
of the newly opened normal at New Paltz. x
He left this
position in 190 0 . ^ ®

Likewise there is no mention of

Cassety in any of the records consulted until he appeared in
the 1887 report of Buffalo normal as the newly appointed
principal and professor of "didactics."
as being from Albany.*^®

He was then listed

He was still holding the position

in 1904-1905, when this study

e n d s . 120

H ^ N e w York (State), "Report of the Superintendent of
Public Instruction," Assembly Document No. 6£, 1896 (Albany:
Wynkoop Hallenbeck Crawford Co.), p. 310.
117

New York (State), "Report of the Superintendent of
Public Instruction," Assembly Document N o . _7> 1889 (Troy:.
Troy Press Co.), p. 24131
118
New York (State), "Report of the Superintendent of
Public Instruction," Assembly Document N o . 8 4 , 1900 (Albany:
J. B. Lyon), p. 225.
119

New York (State), "Report of the Superintendent of
Public Instruction," Assembly Document N o .
1887 (Albany:
The Argus Co.), p. 104.
120flew York (State), "First Annual Report of the
State Education Department," Assembly Document N o . 4 5 , 1905
(Albany: State Education Department), p. 201,

232
Milne and Stowell both resigned at Cortland in 1889,
the former to become principal of the normal school at
Oneonta, and the latter to become principal at Potsdam
normal.-1-21

Milne remained at Oneonta until 1898, when he

retired-1-22 while Stowell was still listed as principal at
Potsdam in 1904.-1-23
Of the remaining women teachers, Miss Saunders left
Cortland in 1895 to become teacher of methods at Brockport,
at a $200 increase over her original munificent salary of
$700.-1,24

In the 1905 report she was listed as supervisor

of the training department.-1-23

Miss Hendrick resigned from

her position of thirty-five years duration at Cortland in
1904.

The official report stated that her resignation occa­

sioned "keen regret" and that "both the school and the state
lost a most efficient and faithful public servant."

Miss

Booth was still listed as a member of the faculty.-1-2®
A little more remains to be said of Dr. Hoose. Accord­
ing to the official report for 1891 his salary was raised

1 pi

Assembly Document H o . _7» 1890, PP» 198, 234, 244.
l22Hew York (State), "Report of the Superintendent of
Public Instruction," Assembly Document H o . 56, 1899 (Albany:
Wynkoop Hallenbeck Crawford Co.), p. 17*0.
123Assembly Document

Ho. 45,

•^^Assembly Document

Ho. 67, 1896, p. 298.

~L23Assembly Document

H o .4 5 , 1905, p. 196.

126Ibid., pp. 206-207.

1905, p. 243.

233
from the $2500 which he had received for a number of years
to $2800 "by the state superintendent."1**7

This report had

not long been off the presses when the School Bulletin
reported that Dr. Hoose had been asked to resign, this time
by the local board, on June 8, 1891.128
In reporting the episode, Bardeen asserted that his
support of Hoose on the previous occasion had cost his
publication $10,000 in subscriptions, for Gilmour had
instructed institute.conductors and school commissioners to
use their influence against the magazine.

After the elec­

tion of Draper as superintendent for his first term, Hoose
came to the Bulletin office and castigated Bardeen for sup­
porting W. J. Milne against Draper, and thereafter avoided
Bardeen so far as possible.^ 9
In May, 1891, Hoose was warned by the local board
that his policies were not in harmony with theirs.

Draper

advised Hoose in a long letter on July 28 that his time was
short, and that he had best resign.
days later, refusing to do so.

Hoose replied a few

Draper then advised Hoose

that he was upholding the action taken by the local board
on June 8, removing Hoose and appointing in his place

iSTjjew York (State), "Report of the Superintendent of
Public Instruction," Assembly Document N o . 7_t 1891 (Albany:
James B. Lyon), p. 164.
128
"Matters at Cortland," School Bulletin, 17 (August,
1891), p. 147.
129Ibid., pp. 145-146.

234
Dr. Francis J. Cheney.
There is no further evidence in the materials consulted
as to the subsequent activities of Hoose.

The names of the

students who seceded and went to Ypsilanti are not available
in these records, and there is no way of knowing whether any
of them ever came back although ddtailed lists of graduates
were published every year.
One interesting fact appeared from the research upon
which this second report was based.

Not one of the individ­

uals who later became a principal of another school found a
place on his faculty for any of the individuals who had sup­
ported the same cause as he during the Cortland seism.
Whether there was any particular reason for this situation
is not evident from the materials at hand.
Criticism of the Board of Regents came from a differ­
ent direction shortly after this episode.

In his annual

message of January 5, 1886, Governor David B. Hill reviewed
the past history and the activities of the regents and came
to the conclusion that there was no reason for their con­
tinued existence.

Their visits and inspection were "of rare

occurrence," the information contained in the regents1 annual
reports being obtained from reports to the board.

The;honor­

ary degrees granted were "held in a certain esteem" but since

130Ibid., pp. 146-147

235
the regents were
generally regarded as a purely ornamental "body, and
membership a sort of pleasaht retreat for respectable
gentlemen of literary tendencies.131
the degrees lacked the value attached to those granted by
established institutions of learning.
The few colleges or academies being established by
charter from the Board of Regents, Governor Hill continued,
could as well be established under general laws.

The librar­

ian of the state library was amply qualified to perform all
the duties of the office, as was the director of the state
museum.

Further, the work of organizing the regents* exam­

inations and the teachers* training classes was being ade­
quately performed by the secretary of the Board of Regents
and his staff,13^
I think there is no necessity for the official exist­
ence of the Board of Regents. Its corporate name is
deceptive and misleading. Its powers and duties can be
intrusted to other and appropriate hands without detri­
ment to the public interests, thereby saving to the
State the annual expense of its maintenance and dis­
pensing with the anomaly of a two-headed educational
system and the confusion of a divided and sometimes
conflicting superintendence in the same public schools.133
Declaring that the superintendent of public instruction had

131

New York (State), Messages from the Governors, Vol.
VIII (1Q85-1891), p. 169.
; _
lg2Ibid., p. 169.
lggIbid., p. 170.

been given ample power and "undivided responsibility," with
all the office machinery necessary for supervision and
administration of the school system, Governor Hill came to
the point of his attack on the regents:
I recommend that the Board of Regents be abolished;
that its powers and duties relating to the schools be
transferred, to the Department of Public Instruction,
and that its other powers and duties necessary to be
provided for be transferred to other appropriate
departments and offices already established and main­
tained by the State.1,54
Mr. Bardeen*s School Bulletin reported that the gov­
ernor’s attack had the effect of starting in motion a move­
ment to subordinate the regents to the department of public
instruction, under the leadership of Professor Comfort of
Syracuse University, and supported by a segment of the state
press.

The Bulletin editorialized however, that

No such action_is likely to be taken but the fact
that imputation £sio7 upon the Regents is so.sure to
provoke this extreme action on the side shows how
firmly intrenched the Regents are and how unlikely
they are to be obliterated by the unappreciative sneer
of a demagogue.1,50
In the same issue there was reported a comment which
indicates to some extent the confidence felt by members of
the board in their supporters throughout the state.

"When

do you think Governor Hill’s attempt to abolish the Board of

134Ibid., p. 171.
135
"Doom of the Board of Regents," School Bulletin.
12 (Feb., 1886), p. 63.

237
Regents will succeed?"
lyn was asked.

Regent St. Clair McKelway of Brook­

"When the Board of Regents gets over the

habit it has had for a century of surviving Governors," was
his reply.136
The governor^ message, plus the ever-present resent­
ment over the continued existence of the Board of Regents,
brought forth the usual rash of legislation intended to
change the status of the board or to abolish it altogether.
On March 9, 1886, Assemblyman Greene of Orange county intro­
duced a bill for the abolition of the regents.

The bill was

adversely reported by the committee on public education,
about a month later, but the lower house refused to accept
the report and returned the bill to the committee.

On May 5

the committee again reported the bill for consideration of
the house, and it was sent to committee of the whole, in
which there is no record of any action on the proposal.13^
In his message of 1887 Governor Hill renewed his
attack with a repetition of his recommendation that the
regents be abolished and their powers transferred.138

In

the Assembly on February 8, Mr. Greene again introduced a
bill to abolish the Board of Regents.

On being reported by

136.Ibid.. p. 63.
13^New York (State), Assembly Journal, 1886 (Albany:
Weed, Parsons & Co.), Vol. I, pp. 453,500, 859; Vol. II,
p. 1386.
138
Messages from the Governors, Vol. VIII (1885-1891),
p. 301.

238
the committee on public education on March 2, the hill was
returned to the committee, and when it was again reported
out on March 17, the house refused by a vote of 42 to 59 to
consider it in committee of the whole. ***3^

In the Senate in

the same session Mr. Wemple introduced a similar bill, which
was not reported out of the committee on literature.140
During the same session the School Bulletin reported
that a bill proposing unification, drawn by President
Sheldon of the state association of school commissioners had
been introduced in the Senate and Assembly.-1*4-1* Reference to
the house journals indicates that the bill was introduced in
the Senate by Mr. Sloan on January 31, 1887.

After being

reported by the committee on literature on February 9 for the
consideration of the house, it was sent back to the committee,
from which it apparently did not emerge.-1*4*2 There is no
reference in the Assembly Journal to any bill other than that
introduced by Mr. Greene.

This was not the association bill,

since the Bulletin had stated that Mr. Erwin was to introduce
the Sheldon bill.-1*43

^3% e w York (State), Assembly Journal. 1887 (Albany;
The Argus Co.), Vol. I, pp.
460, 666.
14®New York (State), Senate Journal. 1887 (Albany;
The Argus Co.), p. 306.
141

142

(Item), School Bulletin. 13 (Feb., 1887), p. 63.
Senate Journal. 1887. pp. 81, 135.

143School Bulletin. 13 (Feb., 1887), p. 63.

239
Governor Hill was persistent in his opposition to the
regents, and in his annual message of 1888 recommended for
the third time the abolition of the board and the transfer
of its powers to the department of public instruction.

The

stated purpose of this move was the
unification of the supervision of the educational inter­
ests of the State, and the abolition of unnecessary ahd
ornamental offices.144
Again in 1889 Governor Hill reiterated his demand for
the abolition of the Board of Regents and the reassignment
of its powers.14®

This time the Journals of the legislature

are bare of any proposals in this direction.

Instead the

legislature passed a bill which received the executive ap­
proval, revising and consolidating the statutes relative to
the University of the State of New York.'1’46

The only other

act referring to the controversy in any way transferred the
Jurisdiction of teachers1 training classes in high schools
and academies to the department of public instruction.147
This, however, might well be considered a reasonable move,
for the supervision of teacher training in the normal schools
was under the Jurisdiction of the department, with the

144m essages from the Governors, Vol. VIII (1885-1891),
p. 479.
145
x Ibid., p. 680.
146

New YorJc (State), Session Laws, 1889 (Albany:
Banks & Bros.), pp. .7222-728.
147Ibid., p. 165.

240
exception of Albany, in which case the regents were repre­
sented on the board.
In 1886 Andrew S. Draper was elected superintendent
of public instruction.

His career previous to election had

been largely in law and public service.

After his gradua­

tion from Albany Law School in 1871, he practiced law in the
city until he was appointed in 1884 by President Arthur as
one of the judges of the United States Court of Alabama
Claims.

He was elected to the legislature in 1880 and

served on the committee on public education.

After his ap­

pointment to the executive board of Albany normal in 1882,
he was active in securing new buildings for the institution.
In spite of the interest thus indicated in educational
affairs, his election to the superintendency was widely op­
posed by educators on the grounds that he was a politician
and lacked experience for the position.^®
In spite of this opposition Draper became one of the
most popular and successful of the incumbents of the office.
He was much sought after as a speaker at educational meetings,
and addressed such gatherings in at least eleven states.
During his term as superintendent he was also president of
the national association of superintendents.-^®

^48New York (State), "Report of the Superintendent of
Public Instruction," Assembly Document H o .
1895 (Albany:
James B. Lyon) (Appendix, Exhibit No. 1: New York State
Teachers Association), pp. 43-44.
149Ibid., p. 43.

241
Reference is here made to the election of Draper and
the attitude of the educators of the state "because during
his term of office internal friction between the two depart­
ments was almost non-existent.

In his report for 1889, for

example, Draper made this statement:
I deem it proper to say that reflection and experience
convince me that the arrangement which has so long
existed in this State by which the common school inter­
ests are administered and supervised by this Department
and the academic interests by the Board of Regents of
the University is a wise and useful one. Between these
two classes (& school work there is a natural and welldefined line of separation. It is undoubtedly better
for each to continue under the supervision of an author­
ity especially sympathetic with its circumstances and
calculated to promote its interests. It is only impor­
tant that the functions and prerogatives of each of the
State educational authorities shall be clearly under­
stood, that the line of demarcation between them shall
be well defined, to the end that there may be no divi­
sion of,-responsibility and no possibility of clashing.

On this note of harmony we shall close the story of
a period in which the Board of Regents and its program was
almost continuously on the defensive from attacks from the
department of public instruction, from the legislature, from
the executive mansion, and from a segment of the educational
fraternity.

We have seen that in spite of these onslaughts

the powers of the Board of Regents remained practically un­
diminished, and its prestige undamaged.
In the next chapter we shall note that the harmony
i

between the two departments has come to a rather abrupt end.
^ O A s s embly Document No. 7, 1889, p. 45.

242
We shall also survey the attempts to change the status of
one or the other of the two departments in the constitution­
al revision convention of 1894, and the triumph of the
Board of Regents.

We shall further survey the attacks made

hy Superintendent Crooker upon the policy of spending state
funds for support of higher education.

As the turn of the

century neared, unification Became a subject for widespread
discussion which will be a further item in the following
chapter.

CHAPTER VIII
THE CROOKER REPORTS; THE CONVENTION OF 1894
In this chapter we propose to review two aspects of
the controversy between the departments of education.

On the

one hand, we shall survey the activities of the education
committee of the constitutional revision convention of 1894,
and the action which resulted in giving constitutional
status to the University of the State of New York and the
Board of Regents.

On the other hand, we shall report on the

attacks made by Superintendent James F. Crooker on the
friends of higher education.

These pronouncements indicate

the narrowness of viewpoint which was exhibited by some in­
dividuals who took part in these controversies.
The pleasant relations existing between the Board of
Regents and the department of public instruction under Super­
intendent Draper were dissipated by the first report of
Superintendent Crooker in 1893.

The report cited the facts

that teachers1 salaries had increased, in weekly rate, only
eighty-nine cents for cities and eleven cents for rural
areas, and continued:
It isjny__opinion that a vast amount of the public
moneys /si<3/ is diverted from the original purpose in
furnishing higher education to a small number of a
favored class, who, in most caseB, are well able to

244
obtain it without the aid of the State. Would not more
benefit aoorue to the masses, to the indigent, . . . if
it could go toward increasing the salaries of oommon
school teachers and thereby secure the services of a
better, more efficient corps for primary and common
schools? • . .■*■
Mr. Crooker believed that the state should be liberal
in its support of normal schools ahd teachers1 training
classes, which were doing much to improve the quality of
teaching in the common schools, but there was doubt in many
minds whether the state should go further in the direction
of higher education.

The obligation of the public toward

the support of a free public education should be more closeJy
defined, and the essential subjects to be studied should be
more carefully selected.
We want fewer studies and those which are more useful
to the masses, and these should be taught more thoroughly.
. . . We need less trigonometry and more business arith­
metic; less botany and French and more and better penman­
ship; less popular fads and more common sense. . . . If
the State deems it wise that greater expenditure for
school purposes should be made, instead of appropriating
increased sums for academic education, examinations in
law and medicine, university extension, and all such
schemes which are of doubtful propriety for the State to
meddle with, it were a thousand fold better to appropri­
ate money for the establishment of kindergarten schools
in the large cities.2
A reply to Superintendent Crooker*s charges was

% e w York (State), "Report of Superintendent of
Public Instruction," Assembly Document N o . _7, 1893 (Albany:
James B. Lyon), pp. l4-lb.
“
2Ibld., pp. 19, 24.

245
provided in an address to the summer oonvooation of the
university, held early in July.

James T. Edwards, who had

been at various times a member of the state Senate, and
principal of a school in Maryland, referred in a prepared
address to the "amazement and emphatic opposition” with
which schoolmen had received CrookerTs remarks.

Asking

"what were the questionable expenditures" referred to,
Edwards asked whether they were not made according to law,
and whether "questionable" referred to the method of admin­
istration or to the propriety of appropriating money for the
purposes mentioned.

In these charges the superintendent had

"thrown down the gage of battle at the feet of this conven­
tion, composed of the friends of higher education."

Edwards

asked if the high schools were not free schools, which all
might attend if they chose to do so.

Not all young people

attend high schools, but enough oof them did so to make it
possible to say that the high sohools and academies were the
peoplefs colleges.2
Regent Charles E. Fitch at the same session came
specifically to the defence of the regents in a formal
address.

He asserted the university had united in a single

organization institutions which still maintained their
autonomy, and were amenable to the university only for

New York (State) University, Proceedings of the
Convocation of 1895. Regents Bulletin No. 22 (Albany:
University oT~the State of New York), pp. 307-308.

246
violations of their charters.

The Board of Regents

has had supervision, rather than authority, has been an
adviser rather than a ruler. And yet, this gentle super­
vision has woven cords of sympathy “between the various
institutions, has given them unity of purpose • • • and
has made them collectively worthy of State pride. . . .4
Listing the enterprises which the Board of Regents had in­
augurated, Regent Fitch declared that in their activities
would be found the most distinguished outcomes of recenteducational activity in the state.

These accomplishments

included the state library and museum, uniform examinations,
traveling libraries, the state library school, regents*
bulletins, inspections and extension services.5
Aristocratic only in name, it /the University/ is one
of the most democratic of educational bodies. The al­
legation that it was ever segregated from the masses,
remote and inaccessible, effete and inefficient, was a
gross misconception, or s wilful perversion on the part
of those who published it. It has administered the
trusts confided to it with scrupulous fidelity, and the
funds it has distributed have had democratic application.6
Superintendent Crooker resumed his attack on the ap­
plication of state funds to secondary education in his annual
report for 1894, charging that the "unfortunate dual system
now in vogue" deprived the weaker and poorer districts of
thousands of dollars annually, to the advantage of cities

^Ibid., p. 324.
5Ibid.. pp. 325-326.
6Ibid., p. 325.

and richer areas.

The Bchool fund, raised by equal tax on

property in the state, should not be encroaohed on for the
benefit of special privilege.

The application of the sum

set aside for "the questionable plan of paying premiums to
a number of the larger and wealthier districts for special
purposes" to the needs of the poorer distriots would result
in material improvement.^
Many parents, Crooker declared, were abandoning their
farms and moving to towns and larger cities to give their
children the opportunity for an education available in urban
areas.

If the diversion of funds could be stopped, and bet­

ter teachers made available to the rural schools, this move­
ment away from the farm would cease.®
Superintendent Crooker charged further that a decrease:
of over 40,000 in attendance in rural schools in the past ten
years could be attributed to the practice of diverting state
funds to "paying premiums on certain acquirements of scholar­
ship."9

The fact that seventy-four per cent of rural chil­

dren attended school some portion of the year as against
only forty-seven per cent of city children, indioated to
Crooker that rural people cherished the privileges of educa­
tion.
7
New York (State), "Report of the Superintendent of
Public Instruction," Assembly Document N o . 4 2 . 1894 (Albany:
James B. Lyon), pp. 7-8.
8Ibid.. p. 10.

The country schools should receive our tenderest care
and hearty support. On the common district sohool, that
little red house on the hill, in the valley or by the
wayside, depends, to a very large extent, the welfare of
the State. There the great masses of our future citizens
of sterling and honest principles of manhood receive their
inceptive training. Prom such schools come many of the
men who determine at the "ballot box what kind of govern­
ment we shall have; some of the most prominent and dis­
tinguished citizens who make and execute our laws. It
is there that many of the most successful business men •
. . receive their first training. Therefore these
schools should not be overlooked or weakened by neglect,
or through schemes of favoritism to others.10
Mr. Crooker returned to this argument at a later
point in his report, asserting that the first duty of the
state in education was to provide sound, useful instruction
for all children within its borders,.

About ninety per cent

of children had to leave school after completing the study
of the oommon branches, and the elementary schools should
therefore be the chief concern of the state program of
education.
It is to the thousands of children whose education is
necessarily limited to the elementary classes that the
State must look • • . for the mass of its citizens, not
to the comparative few who are enabled by more fortu­
nate surroundings to graduate from high schools, aoademies and colleges.11
Superintendent Crooker further took issue with the
practice of pushing ohildren into higher branohes of learn­
ing before they were well grounded in the elementary subjects,

249
arguing that education should be thorough, that children
should have time to digest knowledge and be trained to
think, and that a better education would result from the
more thorough knowledge of fewer books.1**
Education . . . should be practical and general. It
should include the entire mass of the people, not solely
or particularly a few favored by fortune. It should aim
at the thorough instruction of the many, not the special
aggrandizement of the few. Public funds intendedfor
general educational purposes should be primarily devoted
to the elementary schools. The people . • • want their
children to read, write, spell and cipher correctly
before they seek diplomas and academic honors.
Mr. Crooker took issue with Edwards for criticizing
his previous report at the university convocation of that
year.

He asserted that he was thoroughly in favor of higher

education, but did not believe that it should be acquired
by the few at the expense of the many.
Our public sohool system was established for the bene­
fit of all the people. . . . Any new-fangled theory of
educational diversion from this system calculated to
disturb its development or to deprive it of one dollar
of the funds that rightly belong to it, should be
promptly and per sever ingly resisted by every true friend
of education.14
Replying to the questions whether the expenditure to
which he had referred as "questionable" were so because of

12Ibid., pp. 36-37.
18Ibid.. pp. 37-38.
14Ibid., pp. 43-44.

propriety or 'because of the method of administration,
Crooker asserted that even if they were made according to
law, they were not neoessarily just and equitable.

She

word "questionable0 also referred to the method of adminis­
tering educational affairs through two departments, with
resulting friction and unnecessary expense.

It was also

questionable to pay our state funds to schools as "premiums
for pupils who pass examinations on questions sent out to
them," for every dollar of the money so spent belonged
rightfully to the elementary schools.

The practice of pay­

ing these "bounties on percentages of examinations" was con­
sidered by many educators as "narrow in its educational ten­
dencies and vicious in its practices.
The books of the state comptroller showed that
$226,989 had been paid out annually for higher education.
There is no reason or Justice in a system that would
divert large sums of the sohool moneys for the benefit
of less than two per cent of the school population.
Those with the ambition to gain a higher education would
get it without special aid from the state.
These facts are presented for the purpose of inducing
closer scrutiny and investigation into the present dual
system of school management and the divided responsibil­
ity of the disbursement of the sohool moneys with a
view of economy and the correction of evllltendencies.

251
The unnecessary expense of sustaining two eduoational
departments is sufficiently great, alone, to entitle
this question to serious consideration, and as a matter
State economy, I most respectfully recommend that the
legislature in its wisdom adopt measures to change this
dual system into a single-headed, responsible manage­
ment of all State eduoational interests, by which a
great deal of expense may be spared. . . .17
At the university convocation of that year Chancellor
Anson J. Upson referred to the charges by Superintendent
Crooker:
. . • You know that in hunting about for some real or
imagined point of attack upon the regents of the Univer­
sity those who represent the demagogues in eduoation
have suddenly become Inspired with a surprising mission­
ary zeal to benefit the neglected rural districts. • . •
Although they themselves now distribute millions to
school districts in all parts of the state, yet such are
the necessities of these remoter rural districts as now
seen for the first time by these sharp-eyed benefactors,
that the income of this little fund /the literature fund7
must be taken away from the poor, struggling boys and *"
girls of the academies and high schools and distributed
at the rate of less than one cent a day to teachers who
are no more necessitous than others, but who happen to
live in the country!*^
Chancellor Upson was sure that this display of benevolence
had done no harm, and that the discussions had brought to
thoughtful people a knowledge of educational methods which
they otherwise would not have had.

Principals of high

schools and academies had done well in presenting the truth
to the public.
17Ibid., pp. 47-48.
18New York (State) University, Proceedings of the
Convocation of 1894. Regents Bulletin No. 28 (Albany; Univer­
sity of the gfEate of New York), pp. 166-167.

However, he continued, such attacks should not he
possible.
These frequent conflicts, these attacks by the depart­
ment of public instruction and necessary defense by the
regents, this endeavor to divide our educational forces
. . . into two hostile camps of public educators, ought
not to continue. . . . B y combining the two departments
together /sic7 into one, by constitutional unification,
if you ple’asg, such friction should be made forever
impossible.-1-9
Principal John P. Mullany of the Academy of the
Sacred Heart, Syracuse, oame to the defense of the regents
in an address, declaring that the regents system eliminated
prejudice, fostered a healthy spirit of emulation among
pupils and teachers, and accepted the Catholic sohools on
the same footing as other schools in the state.2®
James T. Edwards, who had replied to Crooker*s charges
in the convocation of 1893, repeated his defense of second­
ary education in another prepared address.

He referred to

the growth of academies to a total of 442 with nearly
40,000 students, and declared that schoolmen had viewed with
amazement the efforts of Crooker to change the state policy
on secondary education.

There were two questions before the

convocation for discussion at the moment:

why should the

state continue to assist secondary sohools, and why should
not their supervision and control be assigned to another

agency?

She department of public instruction proposed the

discontinuance of appropriations to secondary schools, and
the unification of the two departments.2^
Mr. Edwards referred to the superintendents charge
that money was being spent in "questionable11 ways, and as­
serted that the burden of proof was upon Crooker to show
that the changes he proposed would be productive of better
results than those previously secured.

The measures sug­

gested called for a reversal of the traditions and practices
of the state for over a century.22
Mr. Edwards declared that while he was chairman of
the senate education committee, he had made an Investigation
of the status of the school funds, and had found that the
capital of the United States Deposit fund had been
$4,014,520.71 on October 1, 1839, and exactly the same on
the same date in 1891.

During that period the fund had pro­

duced over $12,000,000, of which over nine millions had been
paid to the common schools, and over three millions to
secondary and higher education.23

He reminded his audience

that only $106,000 had been "diverted" to secondary educa­
tion, which would add only one cent a day to the wages of
teachers.

This sum was small compared to the over five

million dollars spent by the state for the common schools.2*
According to Crooker himself there were few districts
that could not support a good school on a tax of one-half of
one per cent.

Further, the secondary schools were furnish­

ing the common sohools with the hulk of their teachers, since
only three thousand of the thirty-two thousand teachers in
the state were normal school graduates.

She secondary

schools stimulated the common schools to do better work, so
that students would do creditable work if they went further
in school.25
Education did work downward rather than upward, for
there were colleges in this country before there were common
schools.

Secondary schools antedated common sohools in Hew

York, and the regents were instrumental in establishing the
common sohool system.

Edwards referred to the fact that

thirty-nine of the fifty-six signers of the Declaration of
Independence were college-educated, and the percentage of
college-educated men in the higher ranks of government office
was very large.

Higher education must be made available, for:

It offers to every citizen a ladder up which he may
mount to the highest round of bantage and power. This
is true democracy. Make it possible, because of the
poverty of the individual or the illiberality of the
state, for humble youth to secure mental culture, and
you subordinate them thereby to an educated class; for

255
it must never be forgotten that education means power
of control.26
A state should make it as easy as possible for its
people to develop their talents, and for them to become
wise.

These considerations should cause the state to refuse

to abandon the policy which had been followed regarding
secondary schools.

There should be no narrow jealousy be­

tween departments of the eduoational system, and all grades
of schools should unite to accomplish the education of men
and women to become wise and virtuous citizens.2^
Mr. Edwards thought that time would not permit him
to discuss the question of unification of control.

It

would, however, be a gain to have the department of public
instruction taken out of politics.

The office was then

quite definitely partisan, while regents had usually been
selected because of their "integrity, conspicuous ability
and unselfish devotion to the cause of education."28
Principal Joseph E. King of the Fort Edward Collegi­
ate Institute led the discussion on the Edwards paper, and
raised the question:
In the interest of a conservative and wise progress
educationally, what shall the professors and teaohers of
the state ask of the constitutional convention?29
26Ibid., pp. 227-229.
P7

g Ibid.. pp. 229-230.
28Ibid., p. 230.
29Ibid., p. 235.

Mr. King offered two proposals, which he defended in
his remarks:
1 That in rewriting the constitution, the regents shall
be duly recognized as a constituent part of the organic
structure of the commonwealth, the manner of the elec­
tion of their successors, the tenure of their offices,
their compensation being prescribed, and their powers,
prerogatives and duties being defined.
2 That among the powers and duties of the board of
regents shall be thg-election of the superintendent of
public instruction.®0
The purpose of the first provision would be to assure
the continuation of the beneficent supervision of the regents.
The second provision would "secure needed unity in our double­
headed system of education . . . without violence or any un­
necessary friction."

The only thing that saved the present

arrangement from being a monstrosity was the good sense of
officials on both sides.

The Siamese twins seemed able to

get on tolerably well, but one would scarcely wish to take
them as models.
Our situation educationally today is undignified,
unwise, unsaXdc and unworthy of the great state of New
York in the last decade of the 19th oentury. Let us
rise up together and aid in building an eduoational
structure symmetrical, substantial and enduring, that
shall be a safe shelter and furnish doors of opportunity
for our children's children and that shall be a worthy
model and an object lesson to our sister states.

30Ibid., p. 235.
glIbid.. pp. 235-237.
g2Ibid., p. 239.

0. D. Robinson of Albany reported that the prin­
cipals1 council, appointed annually by the Associated
Academic Principals, had become concerned over the attacks
from the department of public instruction.

Since the

regents did not think it correct for them to engage in
public debate, the principals1 counoil had taken up the
matter, and had sent on March 24, 1894, a letter to all
heads of academies and high sohools asking each one to take
what steps he could in behalf of the regents.

They had also

drawn up a letter which was sent to 1200 editors stating as
positively as possible in "three solid pages" the situation
as the principals understood it.33
lest anyone think that they had gone out of their way
to do an unseemly or unkind thing, Robinson offered an
anecdote as explanation.

According to his story, Abraham

Lincoln had found himself in an open field near an irate bull
who set out in pursuit.

The bull was gaining on Mr. Lincoln,

who,however, managed to reach a nearby haystack.

In the

course of the pursuit around the haystack Mr. Lincoln found
himself gaining on the bull, and seizing a stake from the
stack, began to lay it on the bull's sides.

The animal bel­

lowed piteously, but Mr. Lincoln, still laying the stick on
lustily, inquired, "Well, who began this, anyway?"3^
On July 5, 1894, Andrew S. Draper came to the defense

of the regents in an address to the convocation.

Referring

to Crookerfs excoriation of the spending of money for higher
education, Draper declared that the attacks indicated "an
unfortunate obscurity of vision as to the best interests of
the elementary schools" as well as of the secondary institu­
tions.

The teachers themselves knew that they should be

products of good secondary sohools, and few of them would
desire increases in salary at the expense of the high
schools.®®
Mr. Draper reviewed the history of the two sohool
systems, and pointed out that the regents had been instru­
mental in obtaining the law providing for elementary sohools.
However, there was a considerable amount of suspicion of the
"Columbia College crowd" on the Board of Regents, and the
legislature refused to place the supervision of the common
schools in the hands of the university.

Instead the law

deliberately provided for a second department.®6
Mr. Draper realized how common was the criticism of
the two-headed system, but he did not sympathize with this
spirit.

The best interests of the common sohools required

supervision and administration separate from that of the
higher institutions.

A plan of control which would work

well in another state would not serve in New York.

No

state board of education could have accomplished in a

hundred years what the two departments had accompli shed.37
The status of the university and of the department
of public instruction was the subject of an intensive inves­
tigation by the education committee of the constitutional
revision convention, which was in session from May 8 to
September 29, 1894.

The committee held twenty-one meetings,

and presented to the convention a report which was a compre­
hensive summary of the arguments presented in its sessions
as well as in the controversy which raged before and after
the convention.

The committee report acknowledged the aid

and suggestions of many of the foremost educators of the
state, who had either appeared before the meetings or pro­
vided prepared statements.3®
Section 2 of the committee's proposed Article IX
gave constitutional status to the Board of Regents in these
words:
The corporation created in seventeen hundred and
eighty-four, under the name of the Regents of the
University of the State of New York, is hereby con­
tinued under the name of the University of the State
of New York. It shall be governed, and all its
corporate powers exeroised by not less than nine
regents.39
The section was intended to give recognition and
37Ibid., p. 268.
38
New York (State), Revised Record of the Constitu­
tional Convention of 1894 (Albany: The Argus Co.. 1900),
Vol. V, p. 6$3.

permanence to the university, while leaving its powers and
duties in the hands of the legislature.

This seemed to he

the solution desired by the most competent eduoators in the
state.

The committee admitted that the two distinct co­

ordinate departments of public education formed a system
without theoretical unity, but with a great deal of com­
plexity.

However the university was the oldest institution

in the state and had "survived unchanged all the vicissitudes
of more than a century,"^0
At the Paris W o r l d s Pair in 1889 the grand prix had
been awarded to the regents of the university in recognition
of the fact that Napoleon had modeled the National University
of Prance upon the form established in New York.

At the

Columbian Exposition in Chicago in 1893 a special award and
recognition was given to the university because of the large
number of illustrious oitizens who had served as regents
without compensation.

New York remained the only state in

the union to have a separate department devoted to higher
education, and was therefore the only state which recognized
that all forms of education were the concern of the common­
wealth.

It was true, the committee report admitted, that

there had been "grave objections and severe criticism" con­
cerning this point of view, but there could be no question
as to the policy of the state.^

The report re-stated the position taken by speakers
in the university convocation, that education works down­
ward from the higher institutions.

Higher education in this

state had been a chief factor in developing the elementary
and secondary schools.

In the words of President Seth Low

of Columbia:
. • . Elementary and secondary education, as systems
which have been made available to great masses of men,
have followed the dissemination of light that has pro­
ceeded from the universities as light shines from the
stars in the wide arch of heaven. It is the stars that
have made the light, not the light that makes the
stars.42
The committee believed the people realized that if
the educational system should be struck from the top, the
bottom would be paralyzed, and that it would be impossible
to have an effective, Isolated system of common sohools.
Only from the secondary and higher schools could competent
teachers for the common schools be obtained.

The committee

estimated that five-sixths of the common school teachers of
the state had received part or all of their advanced educa­
tion in the high schools and aoademies of the state, and
not over one-tenth were graduates of the normal schools.

In

the words of one superintendent, expeoting the oommoh sohools
to flourish without the higher institutions would be like
expecting infancy to maintain itself.

If state support of

higher education were withdrawn, the result would he class
education in its worst form.

The rioh would send their

children to private sohools, and the poor would have no
advanced education.

The withdrawal of the rich from the

elementary sohools would result in attendance at these
schools becoming a badge of indigence.4®
The importance of the public high school system was
seen from statistics released by the United States Commis­
sioner of Education, showing that more than two-thirds of
the pupils in secondary schools were attending public high
schools.44
The committee report stated the belief of the members
that the department of public instruction had performed its
duties as faithfully as possible under the handicap of hav­
ing no organic connection with the rest of the eduoational
system.

Unification of the entire system would tend to

increase the efficiency of the department.

The office of

superintendent of public instruction could continue to be
one worthy of the best talent in the state.4®
The committee quoted with approval the statement of
Huxley that an educational system should be a ladder with
its foot in the gutter and its top in the university, every
step and rung complete and within the reach of every climber.
43Ibid., p. 698.
^ I b i d . , pp. 698-699.
45Ibid., p. 699.

263
The committee recognized with regret that there was a break
in the progression in the state system; not a fatal break,
but a serious one.

The members were unanimous in their

agreement on the abstract principle of unification, but
there were many views as to the method of accomplishing it.
Two methods had been suggested:
First: to make the office of superintendent of public
I

instruction elective by the Board of Regents, holding office
either for a fixed term or at the pleasure of the board.
Second* the creation of a new central authority which
would unite in itself the functions of both departments.
A third method, the subordination of the regents to
the department, had not been seriously considered by the
committee.
An essential factor in addition to the setting up of
a complete and harmonious plan, was the removal of the
educational system from the domain of party politics.

All

critics of the school system were agreed that little improve­
ment could be expected so long as public service connected
with the schools could be considered among the party spoilB.
The committee believed that the public had become convinced
that this step must be taken.

The principal argument for

the first proposal was that although the superintendent was
invariably eleoted on partisan grounds by the legislature,
►

—

-

-

^ I b i d . , p. 700.

_

.

■_

-

-

-

-

m

the regents could he expected to make a selection on the
basis of competence.

The principal argument against the

second proposal was the likelihood that partisan politics
would be strengthened rather than diminished.^
After hearing all arguments on unification, the com­
mittee had been unable to agree upon any constitutional pro­
vision.

Many of the proposals were extremely tentative.

The wisest expedient, therefore, seemed to be to place the
university in the constitution to protect it from "hasty or
ill-advised legislation," but leaving further action to the
legislature.^®
That Superintendent Crooker was not at all impressed
with the action of the convention and the committeeTs state­
ment of the case for the regents and the cause of higher
education, is evident in his report of 1895.

He referred to

his previous allusions to the "injustice and deleterious
effects of the dual-headed system" in the management of
public eduoation, and re-asserted his stubbornly held
opinion that a large sum of money which rightfully belonged
to the common school funds was being withheld and devoted
to a purpose entirely at variance with the spirit of
free public education. This diversion is wrong in
principle, wrong in application, and vicious in its

265
tendencies and results.^9
This double-headed educational management, in the
opinion of Mr. Crooker, was the "most peculiar feature in
this state or in any other."

No other department in the

state had two heads to manage its affairs.

One branch of

the educational system distributed part of the school funds
according to "its own peculiar and independent rules" while
the other branch apportioned the money according to law.
The one branch distributed money to a few schools as a
premium on the results of examinations taken by a few pupilB,
while the other distributed funds to all

schools without

regard to their character or the grades of scholarship. This
resulted in some schools receiving an extra apportionment
beyond their proper legal share.

This was unfair, since the

extra funds usually went to districts well able to meet all
demands.

If any "favoritism" were to be shown through the

payment of extra state money, it should "in the name of
charity" be shown to the poor districts.50
Superintendent Crooker reasserted the ancient argu­
ment that the regents had no authority over the schools at

^ N e w York (State), "Report of the Superintendent of
Public Instruction," Assembly Document N o . 3 4 , 1895 (Albany:
Wynkoop Hallenbeck Crawford Co.), p. 54.
50Ibid., pp. 54-55.

all,

51

and stated his opinion that their relations were so

slender that if severed, the schools would feel only relief
at being released from the need of cramming for examinations.
The regents had no authority over organization or management
of schools, their curricula, hiring or licensing of teachers,
the boundaries of districts, or any controversies.

He then

went back thirty years and quoted from Mr. Curtis* statement
to the constitutional revision convention of 1867-1868.52
Mr. Crooker pointed out that if anyone should suggest
that there should be one state treasurer to look after school
funds, and another to take care of other revenues, he would
be regarded as wild and irresponsible.

Such a proposal would

be no more absurd than the existing system of control of edu­
cation.

The claim that the Board of Regents cost the state

very little could not be substantiated, since the comptrol­
l e r ^ books showed that during the preceding year the regentB
51

This statement by Crooker does not conform to the
facts as found in Section 14 of the revised university law
of 1889, pp. 724, 723: "The Regents shall by themselves or
their committees of officers have full power to examine into
the condition and operation of every institution in the
University, and shall Inspect the same, and require of each
an annual report verified by the oath of its presiding of­
ficer and including such particulars as may be prescribed
by the Regents. . . . For refusal or oontinued neglect on
the part of any institution of the University to make the
report required by this section. . . the Regents may suspend
the charter or any of the rights and privileges of such
institution.” In Section 3 the University had been defined
as ”all the institutions of academic and higher education
which are now or hereafter may be incorporated in this State.”
‘"•'Assembly Document No.34, 1895. pp. 55-56.

267
had received over $185,500.®®
Table VII indicates the cost of comparative items of
expense in the two departments, according to figures given
by Crooker in his report.

TABLE VII
COMPARISON OF EXPENDITURES, AND NUMBER OF SCHOOLS
AND NUMBER OF PUPILS SUPERVISED B Y THE DEPART­
MENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION AND THE REGENTS*

Salary list, exclusive of
Supt. and deputy
Transportation
Postage
Stationery
Other office expenses
Number schools supervised
Number pupils enrolled

Department

Regents

$ 15,900.01
1,065.14
970.65
842.07
4,269.04

$ 43,251.19
2,424.20
1,820.00
1,87.6.87
8,200.69

12,015
1,083,228

499
63,872

•

♦New York (State), "Report of Superintendent of
Public Instruction," Assembly Document N o . 34, 1895 (Albany1:
Wynkoop Hallenbeck Crawford Co.), p. 60.

There is no indication of the reason why the superin­
tendent excluded from this tabulation his own salary and
that of his deputy, since there is little doubt that the
figure given for the regents included the salary of the

5gIbid., pp. 59-60.

secretary of the hoard.

It should he noted that the total

of departmental expenditures in Tahle VII is $23,046.91.
At another point in his report Crooker gives the expendi­
tures in hehalf of his department as $41,109.61.54
Mr. Crooker believed that the state appropriation
for the support of the regents was a useless expense, and he
again protested against taking away any portion of the state
money from the common school fund, to sustain two departments,
and to practice "favoritism” toward one branch of the school
system at the expense of another.

There was no excuse for

giving rich districts in cities five or six thousand dollars
extra, when additional support, if any, should he given to
poor districts to enable them to maintain a school.®®

The

constitution as revised in 1894 had provided against payment
of public school aid to private or parochial institutions,
and the legislature should prevent the spending of any money
by the regents on the basis of examinations.®®
In support of his argument Crooker quoted Superintend­
ent Charles W. Cole of the Albany schools as urging that
regents1 guestion papers be no longer used as a test for
admission to high school.

Mr. Cole proposed using guestion

papers which he would prepare on the basis of their own

54Ibid., p. 120.
55Ibid., p. 61.
56Ibid., p. 62.

269
course of study.

He Had no objection to using regents*

papers with the understanding that they would be regarded
as incidental, and not be considered as a factor in the pro­
motion of pupils.

However, if it was found that regents*

examinations continued to be **incubin on the work of the
schools, he would not hesitate to advise their abandonment
at once.®7
Hr. Crooker admitted that regents* examinations might
be in some ways beneficial, but he could not see why they
should be conducted by an educational office outside the
department of public instruction, which had Jurisdiction over
all other educational matters in the schools in which the
examinations were used.®®
At the university convocation of 1895, Chancellor
Upson made the only allusion to the controversy with the
department of public instruction.

He was in a cheerful mood

when he referred to the action of the convention the previous
year, and declared that by their approval the people had
expressed their confidence in the university.

The people

might rest assured they had made no mistake in confirming the
privileges and responsibilities of the university, for:
never in the history of the University for the 111 years
of its life have these privileges been appreciated so

57Ibid., p. 62.
58Ibid., p. 62.

highly or these obligations obeyed so faithfully.59
B y a joint resolution of the Senate and Assembly
adopted during the 1895 session, a thorough investigation
was undertaken of all the administrative offices of the
state.60

A subcommittee investigated the Board of Regents,

and handed in a report which absolved them from any form of
administrative inefficiency or wrong-doing.

The subcommittee

report pointed out that the original purpose of the study was
to determine what legislation might be necessary to provide
the university with the means of carrying out its responsi­
bilities.

However, the committee found itself faced with

complaints against the secretary of the regents, which it was
felt had to be investigated thoroughly in justice to the
"high character of the Regents and the persons particularly
involved."6^The committee found that under the direction of Secre­
tary Melvil Dewey many changes in administrative praotioe
and procedure had been carried out, giving rise to the com­
plaints.

The committee wished it understood at the outset

59New York (State) University, Proceedings of the
Convocation of 1895. Regents Bulletin No. 32 (Albany: Univer­
sity of the Staie of New York), pp. 752-753.
60New York (State), Assembly Journal. 1895 (Albany:
James B. Dyon), Vol. I, p.
tfew York (State), Senate
Journal, 1895 (Albany: James B. Lyon), Vol. I, p. 165.
®*^New York (State), "Report of the subcommittee of the
joint committee of the Senate and Assembly appointed to inves­
tigate the State departments," Assembly Dooument N o . 89, 1896
(Albany: Wynkoop Hallenbeck Crawford Co.), pp. 3-4.

271
that

no charge or i n t i m a t i o n w a s m a d e to i nvolve i n any
r e s p e c t the o f f i c i a l a c t i o n or p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r of
a ny m e m b e r of the B o a r d of R e g e n t s . ® 2

The committee felt that the complaints resulted from the
opposition of individuals of the "vigorous, not to say ag­
gressive" policy of Mr. Dewey, who had overturned obsolete
practices and reorganized both the operation and the person­
nel of the office.

The members felt that the opposition

stemmed from those who were unwilling to accept the new
methods.

No charge had been made that the methods used were

intended to exert an injurious effect on the cause of educa­
tion.

The report then came to the point of its findings as

to the complaints:
A man endowed with the progressive spirit, energy and
will displayed by Professor Dewey might be expected to
incur opposition, if not hostility, to his conception of
the duty and responsibility of office.63
Charges that he used his office for private purposes
were undoubtedly made against Dewey for the purpose of creat­
ing unfavorable opinion and hampering his plans.

The charges

were made so directly and publicly that they became serious
matters.

It would not have been fair to Dewey to withhold

the statement that he repeatedly demanded a most thorough

62Ibid., p. 4.
6gIbid.. p. 5.

investigation into any insinuation or charge made against
him, or any of his official acts.

Witnesses were therefore

called, and their testimony failed to substantiate a single
charge made against Dewey*s integrity and official conduct.64
In weighing all the testimony taken . . . no other
result could he reached by the committee than that the
charges were not only not sustained, but that in the
means and Bpirit in which they were brought and per­
sistently prosecuted, they were vexatious, frivolous
and detrimental to the public interests.6®
The committee went thoroughly into the details of
friction between Secretary Dewey and Dr. James Hall, the
state geologist.66

Of their investigation of the organiza­

tion and management of the regents* office, the committee
said:
A most thorough and systematic organization . . .
was observed in every department, and it is the opinion
of the committee that the management of the University
in all of lts-ramifications is wisely and economically
administered.
On this triumphal note, so far as the regents are
concerned, we bring to a close the history of another period
of attack and counter-attack by the opponents and friends of
the Board of Regents.

The history of the period as it has

been related indioates quite fully the extent of the public
64Ibid., pp. 5-6
65---

I
£73
support which the regents commanded.
In the next chapter we shall describe the occurrences
of the first portion of the final seven-year period of this
wtudy.

During this time, 1897 to 1904, the discussion of

unification began to wax furious, and finally culminated in
1904 in the passage of the aot which unified the educational
system of the state.

Because of the detailed nature of this

particular portion of the study, it will be necessary to
break it rather arbitrarily into two chapters.

CHAPTER XX
CAMPAIGN FOR UNIFICATION:

1897-1902

In the previous chapter we noted the attacks made on
the Board of Regents by Superintendent Crooker, and the
achievement of constitutional status for the regents in the
revision convention of 1894.

Particular attention should he

directed to the latter fact, for it furnished a principal
argument for the pro-regents1 faction in the unification
campaign to follow.
In this chapter the efforts for unification of the
educational departments reach full stature, accompanied hy
widespread discussion in the state press and in eduoational
meetings, and marked hy a disturbing degree of acrimony on
the part of the principal contestants.

However, it will

appear that the offensive seems to have heen taken for the
most part hy persons connected with the offioe of the state
superintendent•
The friction between the two educational departments
crept into the proceedings of the university convocation in
June, 1897.

In the afternoon session of Tuesday, June 28,

Charles Z. Lincoln, chairman of the state statutory revision
committee brought the matter into his discussion of a pro­
posed new education law.

After sketching briefly the history

of the statefs educational system, Lincoln touched upon the

split between the two departments in these words:
University supervision . . . has expanded far beyond
the original conception, including now not only the pri­
vate educational institutions . . . first embraced in
the University, but also reaching down into the common
schools. Our predecessors began at the top to build
the educational system, and it was nearly 30 years
after the establishment of the University before a per­
manent general system of education was fully established.
The development • . . has been spasmodic, and not always
satisfactory nor consistent, and this result may be
attributable to some extent at least to the dual char­
acter of educational legislation.1
Lincoln pointed out that the idea of public education
precluded limiting the jurisdiction of the department of
public instruction to theelementary schools, and further,
that the action of the legislature in giving to the depart­
ment control over the normal schools and the power to license
teachers, indicated an intention on the part of the lawmakers
to use both the department and the Board of Regents indis­
criminately in carrying forward a program of education
"from kindergarten to c o l l e g e . T h e dual role of the super­
intendent, as ex officio member of the Board of Regents, he
asserted, should not be overlooked in adjusting the questions
of jurisdiction between the two branches of the state system.®
The most troublesome point at which the activities of

^ e w York (State), University, Proceedings of the
Convocation of 1897. Regents Bulletin No. 42 (Albany: t/nivar­
sity of the State of New York), p. 292.

2

276
the two departments touched was in the academic divisions of
the union free schools.

The provision giving the regents the

right to assume the supervision of these academic departments,
which were in many cases mere extensions of the common school
programs, resulted in a
supervision coordinate in some respects with that pos­
sessed hy the superintendent of public instruction. The
consequence is that in a large number of schools there
is a double supervision* with a double__appropriation and
distribution of public funds, and it /is/ almost inevit­
able that differences of opinion will“ arise, if not
actual friction, concerning methods and details of admin­
istration.
The solution to the difficulty, Lincoln declared, lay
in the establishment of a clear line of demarcation between
the two departments.

Absolute consolidation is probably not

practicable at this time.

Both departments must, therefore,

be continued, but the sphere of activity of each should be
clearly defined.

Elimination of the overlapping supervision

of the two departments in academic matters could be accom­
plished by limiting the supervision of the regents to those
academic departments which were chartered as high schools,
with a separate faculty and definitely separate quarters,
leaving to the superintendent of public instruction juris­
diction over all tax-supported schools except the independent
high school departments.®

4Ibid., p. 298.
5Ibid., pp. 299-300.

277
Eventual settlement of the educational problem would
seem to require the establishment of a state hoard of eduoation, which was the subject of some attention by the consti­
tutional convention in 1894.

Such a board might be given

power to choose the managers or trustees of the university,
as well as the superintendent, and have power also to super­
vise the entire Btate system of education.®
The statutory revision commissions bill was intro­
duced into the Assembly on February 21 by Mr. Kelsey.1^ The
bill attempted to combine the consolidated school law and
the university law, so far as supervision was concerned.

It

apparently succeeded in making a satisfactory combination,
for at their meeting of January 29 the regents had discussed
the bill at length and agreed to make no objection to the
wording.®

However, while agreeing to the thirty-year mini­

mum age limit for regents, and the dropping of two ex
officio and four eleotive regents to reduce the number, the
board questioned the wisdom of making eleotive regents
honorary at the age of seventy.®

6Ibid., pp. 301-302.
rt
Hew York (State), Assembly Journal. 1898 (Albany:
Wynkoop Hallenbeck Crawford Co.), Vol. I, p. H .
Q

New York (State) University, Minutes of the Board of
Regents. 1898 (Albany: University of the Siate of New York!,
p. 475.
9Ibid.. p. 475.

278
They approved the requirement that a majority of
regents must constitute a quorum, and the attempt to provide
a sharp line of demarcation "between the work of the superin­
tendent and of the university.

Acknowledging that there was

considerable overlapping in function, the board proposed that
everything pertaining to high school, academic, higher and
home education, including libraries and museums, be placed
under the university, leaving kindergartens, primary and
grammar schools, normal schools and training classes for
teachers under the superintendent.

This plan would require

the regents to transfer the system of preliminary examina­
tions, while they would assume the power to apportion all
funds for secondary education.
Specifically, and further, the bill provided that the
term of the superintendent should be increased from three to
six years, apparently in an effort to minimize the political
influence charged in the elections.

The elective regents

were to hold office during good behavior, but as vacancies
occurred they were not to be filled until

the number of

regents had been reduced below fifteen, which was fixed as
the number of elective members.H
The bill contained a peculiarly worded and obscure
provision which created a considerable amount of discussion:

10Ibid., pp. 475-476.
llnihe Proposed Education Law" (editorial), School
Bulletin. XXIV (Mar., 1898), p. 184.

279
Sec. 18. Supervision under this chapter exclusive.--•
Where a school or institution is subject to the super­
vision of the department of public instruction, the
university, the school authorities, or other school
officers, or two or more of them, such supervision is
exclusive.
No comment has been found which throws any light on the in­
tent of the commission in including this section.
On March 26 a substitute was reported for the Kelsey
bill.

The substitute was printed and returned to the commit­

tee on rules from which it did not emerge.
At the December, 1898, meeting of the Associated
Academic Principals occurred a passage of words between
Superintendent Skinner and Secretary Dewey over improvement
of standards in teaching, which illustrate the degree of feel­
ing between the departments and the tendency of Skinner to
take the offensive.

Dewey, arguing for improved standards

of certification of teachers, said that the people were pro­
tected by law against unprepared dootors, lawyers and veter­
inarians.

Skinner bristled and wanted to know if Dewey

could point out a single instance in which the New York state
schools were defective.

The secretary replied merely that

he did not think anyone thought them to be perfect.
Later in the same session Dewey proposed a grant of

12Ibid.. p. 125.
13

Assembly Journal. 1898. Vol. Ill, p. 2329.

14”The Academic Principals” (editorial), School
Bulletin. XXV (Jan., 1899), p. 98.

an extra one hundred dollars for a high school teaoher with
certification beyond the minimum requirement.

Again Skinner

bristled and said, "You will give an extra hundred dollars
for the high school teacher.

What will you do for the

teachers in the primary department?"

Dewey bowed and

replied, "I should leave that matter entirely to the able
direction of the State Superintendent, who has charge of the
primary department•"1®
At this same session the principals engaged in a warm
debate on that portion of Lincoln*s proposal, made at the
convocation (p. 276 supra), that the university give up the
supervision of academic departments in union free schools
not entirely separate from other departments of the school.
The general tenor of the debate indicated a feeling that the
regents should retain control.

Principal Baldwin of West

Hebron in particular gave testimony as to the aid received
from the regents in a junior grade sohool which had no pros­
pect of becoming a full-fledged high school for lack of
community resources.

Mr. Ainsworth, the deputy superintend­

ent, argued for transfer to the department.

In reporting

the debate in the Sohool Bulletin Mr. Bardeen commented that
the tone of the discussion showed hostility toward Dewey on
the part of the members of the department of public instruc­
tion.16

281
Unification was a main topic of conversation during
the session of the legislature that year.

The statutory

revision commissions bill was revived in practically the
same form, including the peculiar section on "exclusive
supervision."-*-7

The bill was the subject of discussion at

what Bardeen referred to as a "lunch" given by James Russell
Parsons, Jr. of the regents* office on February 6, at which
Governor Theodore Roosevelt, Superintendent Skinner, Secre­
tary Dewey, Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler of the Educational
Review, and Bardeen were present.

Governor Roosevelt

expressed his opinion that consolidation of the departments
would result in simplicity, economy and efficiency.

At his

suggestion the remainder of the group spent the afternoon
exploring the matter.

As a direct result of this conference

Senator Horace White asked the revision commission to bring
in a new proposal for a commissioner of education appointed
by the governor with the consent of the Senate, with three
deputies to take over the work of higher, secondary and
primary education.

This arrangement would supersede the

department as well as the Board of Regents.
In his annual report issued in March, 1899, Superin­
tendent Skinner placed the blame for the dual administration
of education on "piecemeal legislation."

He pointed out that

^"Proposed Education Daw" (editorial), Sohool
Bulletin, 2£V (Feb., 1899), p. 107.
18(Item), School Bulletin, XXV (Mar., 1899), p. 131.

28 2
the state would not maintain two tax departments, or two in­
surance departments, and asserted that it was proposed "in
certain quarters" to extend "this pernicious system" to the
licensing of teachers, dividing the authority between the
department and the Board of Regents.
Mr. Skinner urged that a line of demarcation be drawn
between the two departments and the work performed by them.
He proposed that the department be given control of all
schools maintained by general taxation, with authority to
license all teachers for these schools and to apportion and
distribute funds provided by the state.

The department

should also have charge of teacher training institutions.
He would give to the Board of Regents supervision over
private schools and others not maintained by taxation, as
well as all libraries, including sohool libraries, and ex­
aminations for admission to professions.20
Superintendent Skinner declared that this line of
demarcation was
plain, natural, easily understood by everyone, and
avoids all useless waste of money in maintaining two
branches of the state government performing substan­
tially the same work.
The only objection he had heard was based on the "purely

19

New York (State), "Report of the Superintendent of
Public Instruction," ’’
A ssembly Document No. 56, 1899 (Albany:
Wynkoop Hallenbeck Crawford Co.), pp. 1P9.
20Ibid., p. 9.

283
sentimental reason" of the ancient and historic position of
the Board of Regents.2*The superintendent also referred to the proposed
legislation drawn up hy the statutory revision commission,
and declared that he had heard no objection to it from any
city, from any of the 114 school commissioners, or from any
one of the 60,000 school officers or 30,000 teachers.

He

supported the hill as heing intended to stop "this constant
encroaching hy one department on the field occupied hy the
other."22
As the legislative session drew toward its close, it
appeared increasingly unlikely that any decision would he
reached.

Under the influence of Governor Roosevelt, Senator

White and Judge Lincoln had heen conferring frequently with
representatives of the two warring departments in the hope
of finding a workable solution.

Dr. Butler pointed out

editorially that Dewey and Skinner seemed to he approaching
the question with "excellent spirit and temper."2®
The White hill which resulted from these discussions
was reported favorably in the Senate.

The hill empowered

the governor to appoint a commissioner of education at a
salary of $7,000, to take office April 1.

He would take

21Ibid.. p. 9.
22Ihid., pp. 10-11.
2®"Educational Unification in New York State" (editor­
ial), Educational Review. XVII (Apr., 1899), pp. 410-411.

284
over all powers of the superintendent, as well as supervision
of the 522 high schools.

He might conduct examinations,

issue diplomas and college entrance certificates, and appoint
or remove his subordinates, chief among whom would be one
deputy at $6,000 per year and three at $5,000.

The regents

would keep all other powers previously held and in addition
control the state teachers1 library. ^
Amendments resulting from these discussions came be­
fore the Board of Regents at its spring meetings.

On April 6

the board adopted resolutions based on a proposal by Regent
McKelway, protesting against the bill to establish a state
commissioner of education as "unnecessary, violent, revolu­
tionary and unjust."
It would wipe out the department of public instruc­
tion without cause shown for its effaoement; it would
build upon its ruins a new department of government, the
creation of which has been asked by none of the schools,
academies or colleges of this state; it would make that
department liable to the abuses of political mismanage­
ment and of partizan /sic7 error and evil which have
more than once in other fields involved our state in
scandal . . . ; it would bring, far more than at present,
our system of common school instruction within the play
and purview of politics and within the methods and
schemes of professional politicians; it would aggrandize
powers in the commissioner and in his deputies which no
educator should approve, no statesman sanction and no
friend of upright or scientific government contemplate
without indignation and alarm. . . .
^(Item), Sohool Bulletin. XXV (Apr., 1899), p. 161.
*^New York (State) University, Minutes of the Board
of Regents. 1899 (Albany: University of the State of New
York)7 PP» 517-518.

The regents further protested vigorously against the
proposal to separate the high schools from the university
for they "have been its peculiar care and are the special
pride and the beloved wards of this department . . ."26 The
high schools were the foundation upon which the work of
higher education had been built, and the graduation certifi­
cates from high school gave the right to go on to professional
study.

The board favored unification, but pending that

achievement, preferred the present conditions as the lesser
evil.27
On April 24 the regents met again to discuss the
measure, and to protest against proposed amendments.

They

asserted that certain features of the bill would tend to
increase and perpetuate dual administration, and to expose
educational control to political and partisan influence.
They urged that rather than pasB hasty and ill-considered
legislation, the matter might better be left until the next
year, to allow more discussion.

However, if legislation

were to be passed at this session, the regents declared
themselves in a formal resolution
. . . ready to favor heartily any well-considered law
which will secure unification of the educational system
of the state and its preservation from political inter­
ference and intrigue and to accept any change which the
legislature may deem wise, as to their tenure of office,

26Ibid.. p. 518.
27Ibid., p. 518.

286
the increase or diminution of their number, or the con­
tinuance of the present members of the board or of the
University staff.28
In another series of resolutions offered by Regent MoKelway,
the board reiterated its objections to the arbitrary effaoement of the department of public instruction, and called at­
tention to the "earnest and pathetic insistence" of the high
schools that they retain their position in the university.
We reiterated our desire for a unification that
unifies, our remonstrance against unification with
unification left out, and our conviction that the
proposed aggrandizement of one department should have
a better defense than the opportunity or purpose to rob
another, by the forced transfer of the high schools
from our Jurisdiction, under which they have prospered
and rejoiced from the first, to one against which they
protest. . . .29
The board offered the opinion that the close of a
contentious session was not a propitious time for the settle­
ment of a "revolutionary polioy" in the educational system.
Snap judgments should be avoided, and the right of the
people to publicity and discussion should be recognized.2®
An editorial in the May, 1899, issue of Educational
Review summarized the arguments on the matter of unification,
and criticized the revision commission bill for not providing
for unification.

Dr. Butler pointed out the inescapable fact

28Ibld.. pp. 519-520.
29Ibid.. p. 520.
30Ibid., pp. 520-521.

that since the regents had. been given a constitutional posi­
tion, the only way to unify was to subordinate the superin­
tendent to the regents, but public opinion did not seem to
be ready for this step.

One alternative would be the making

over of the Board of Regents, to which its members would not
agree.

Therefore, the only remaining method would be to draw

a line between the activities of the two divisions.

That

line could be properly drawn between state-supported schools
on the one hand, and private and state-aided schools on the
other.31
Dr. Butler took occasion also to criticize the regents
for their unwillingness to surrender the supervision of the
high schools, which he declared should be examined, super­
vised and inspected by the same authority as supervised the
elementary schools.
tion

However, he admitted that their resolu­

of April 24 showed a sbftening of their attitude.

Our sense of humor, however, is sufficiently acute to
cause us to smile when the Regents, as the proprietors
of what is perhaps the best organized political machine
in the State, lay so much stress on the chance of poli­
tics entering the sohool system. All politics is not
by any means party politics.32
Hr. Bardeen, whose attitude throughout the argument
was consistentlypro-regents, asserted

a little later that

31 "The Educational Situation in New York State”
(editorial). Educational Review, XVII (May, 1899), t>t>. 511512.

288
the failure of the White bill was probably for the general
good.

He listed five reasons why the high schools should

remain under the regents1 control:

(l) tradition; (2) their

present condition was due to the fostering care of the board;
(3) they belonged under the care of a department committed
to furtherance of higher education; (4) if it made no differ­
ence which department controlled them, why change; (5) the
new bill would not make the superintendent subject to the
regents, merely elected by them, and he would have six years
to do as he wished with the secondary system.

nIt is sound

sense to let well enough alone.0®®
The June, 1899, issue of Educational Review presented
a comprehensive survey of opinion on unification.

Fourteen

prominent educators, including editors of school publica­
tions, principals, superintendents, the deputy state superin­
tendent, members of the Board of Regents, and the seoretary
of the regents, participated in the discussion.
Deputy Superintendent Ainsworth admitted at the outset
that unification was desirable.
We need two departments of public education as much
as we need two bank departments, two insurance depart­
ments, two governors, two railroad tickets for a single
Journey, or as much as the proverbial dog needs two
tails.®
®®»»The Charge of High Schools0 (editorial), School
Bulletin, XXV (June, 1899), p. 207.
®^D. E. Ainsworth and others, °Educational Legislation
for New York State,0 Educational Review, XVIII (June, 1899),
p. 43.

He defined unification as the placing under the head
of a single department all that educational work which the
state is required to carry on.

Division of this work at any

artificial point resulted in friction, and in waste of energy
and public funds.

He then examined the claims of the regents

that they were entitled to retain control by virtue of their
ancient traditions, and their status as a non-politioal body.
So far as control over the common schools was concerned, tra­
dition was no argument, for the regents had no relationships
with them prior to the union free school aot of 1853.®®
Mr. Ainsworth then turned to the charge that the
superintendency was a politioal office, while the regents
were non-political:
Bear in mind that the Regents are elected by the same
body and in the same manner as the superintendent of pub­
lic instruction, with the curious distinction, however,
that when the legislature, on joint ballot, elect a
Regent they always select a saint, and when electing a
superintendent of public instruction they invariably
select a sinner. 6
Mr. Ainsworth asserted that he had participated in
the election of several regents, and he had never known one
to be elected because of "any known or suspected fitness for
public-sohool work."

Senator Depew was elected solely be­

cause he was a "genial, accomplished and ardent Republican."

35Ibid., pp. 43-44.
36Ibid., p. 44.

Father Sylvester Malone was selected beoause he was a
cultured priest, and because It was thought desirable to
have a representative of the Catholic Church on the Board
of Regents.

Dr. Watson was elected because Senator Conklin

told the legislature to elect him.®^
Mr. Ainsworth found it a little amusing to hear the
regents protesting against transferring the control of the
high schools to the department of public instruction for
fear of political influence.

James R. Parsons, Jr. who was

in charge of the high schools under the regents, was a
Democrat, originally appointed to the department of public
instruction by a Republican, "from which department he was
rescued 'like a brand from the burning1 and translated to
the Regents1 office."

The deputy superintendent wondered

whether Senator Depew, Governor Roosevelt, the secretary of
state, the lieutenant-governor, St. Clair MoKelway, Whitelaw
Reid, Charles E. Fitch, and several others whom he listed
had no politics.
Perhaps it is by the divine law of predestination or
foreordination, and not by politics that these Regents
have managed to secure about all the good offices tha
Republican party has had to gjve, during the last twentyfive years. . . .
Mr. Ainsworth did not care what the official at the

291.
head, of the new system would he called, nor how he was
selected.

He wished the legislature to create an office

which would have full authority over public education.

The

regents might, in line with their historic traditions, super­
vise the education of doctors, lawyers, chiropodists, veter­
inarians, and bookkeepers, and spend the voluntary aid the
state might provide for private education.

The proposed

White bill would correlate the kindergarten, the primary
school, the grammar school, and the high schools as a single
unit.®9
C. W. Bardeen, editor of the School Bulletin, was
more concise.

He listed his views in tabular form of which

the following is a summary:
1. The two departments should be consolidated.
2. The Board of Regents should occupy the same posi­
tion with relation to the state that a board of education
did to a city. This might make necessary a change in the
constitution of the board but the name and present functions
should continue.
3. The board should elect a superintendent for at
least a six-year term, with a salary of $7,000 aB a minimum.
His powers should not be reduced, and the power of the
regents should be limited to his election.
4. The regentB should continue to supervise high
schools. Their influence had resulted in the improvement of
a number of small schools in order to obtain regents* stand­
ing.40
Melvil Dewey, secretary of the Board of Regents, listed

39Ibid., pp. 46-47.
^°Ibid., pp. 47-48.

292
four poihts on which he believed there was general agreement:
1. The time had come for unification.
2. The educational system should be divorced from
politics as much as possible.
3. There should be a board to grant and alter charters
and perform acts which could not be trusted to an individual.
A "carefully constituted board" between the legislature and
the officer in charge of education was needed.
4. There should not be a second board independent of
the regents. This would increase the confusion.^
Mr. Dewey proposed the reform of the Board of Regents,
and outlined several suggested ways of accomplishing this
purpose.

Among the suggestions were retention of the present

board, changing of the tenure to a fourteen-year term with
retirement at seventy, elimination of all present regents and
election of new ones, and establishment of an entirely new
board.

Mr. Dewey also gave his attention to the matter of

election or appointment, listing the various proposals made
without expressing any particular opinion.

However, continu­

ation of election by the legislature seemed "at least next
to best, with the preseumption in its

f a v o r . " 4 **

Mr. Dewey next listed the proposals made for dealing
with the department of public instruction:
1.
Place the department in the same relation to the
university as the departments of college, high school and

^ I b i d . , pp. 50-51.
42Ibid., pp. 51-52.

home education.
2.
Give the superintendent larger legal powers than
the otherdirectors, but make him subject to the ordinances
of the regents.
3. Give the superintendent autonomous powers over
public education as then constituted, subject to power of
the regents to appoint and remove him.
4.
Give the superintendent the powers listed in the
preceding paragraph and in addition entire autonomy in ap­
pointments and salaries.43
Regent Charles E. Pitch of Rochester approved of the
editorial in the May issue of the Educational Review, with
certain modifications, principally life tenure for regents.
He pointed out that sentiment for unification had long
existed, but had been chiefly of academic interest, with
wide variation in the proposed means by which it was to be
accomplished.

The failure of the convention of 1894 to

arrive at any satisfactory solution was a case in point.

He

thought that the election by the regents of both the secre­
tary and the superintendent would give the educational system
"coherence, dignity, economical management, and freedom from
party politics.1,44
He regretted that the regents had turned down the
proposal of the superintendent that he be elected by the
regents, but given power to supervise the high schools.
that agreement had been reached it was probable that

If

unification would have been accomplished by the 1899 legis­
lature.

He believed that election by the regents would be

preferable to appointment by the governor.

Some governors

would make good appointments regardless of political pressure,
others would not.

The regents might conceivably be influenced

by politics but never had been.

He thought the number of

elective members should be reduced, through death or resigna­
tion, to nine.

He did not believe they need be educational

experts, but rather "as they have been, broad, fair-minded
men with general knowledge of educational matters."^5
Dr. Albert Leonard, editor of the Journal of Pedagogy,
believed that all educational institutions of the state from
kindergarten to university should be in the hands of a single
department headed by a commissioner of education, with clearly
defined duties.

Since men "like Theodore Roosevelt are not

always found in the governor*s chair" some means should be
found of assuring the election of a person of special fitness
for the office of commissioner.

The best way would appear to

be election by a board, and that might be accomplished by
changing the law providing for election of regents.

Election

by the board would remove the matter from politics.
Charles Z. Lincoln, chairman of the statutory
revision commission, outlined the policy of the commission

in presenting bills to the legislature in 1898 and 1899.
He had left the laws relating to the Jurisdiction of the
two departments virtually untouched, but the legislature
did not wish to pass the bill in this form.

He pointed out

that the regents had some Jurisdiction in about five per
cent of the eleven thousand districts, with about three per
cent of the school population subject to them.

He believed

the time had come for concentration of Jurisdiction.^7
The senate committee on education proposed by way of
solution to abolish the superintendent and the department and
establish a state department of education under a commission­
er. appointed by the governor with exclusive powers of super­
vision over public schools.

This plan would have.Mhad the

effect of eliminating the university from public school
affairs.

Before the legislature adjourned the bill was

modified to provide for election of eight more regents repre­
senting the Judicial districts, for fourteen-year terms.
These regents and the governor would have power to elect the
commissioner of education.

The bill was left in this form

at the end of the term.^®
However since the university was provided for in the
constitution, Lincoln continued, probably the easiest way to
achieve unification would be to reorganize the board, and

296
give it power to supervise all schools.

This would involve,

undoubtedly, legislating the present board out of office and
creating a new one, probably of not over nine members.

This

board should elect the superintendent or commissioner, who
would have the powers formerly held by the superintendent.
Such a plan would preserve the university with its historic
traditions, and still provide unification of the educational
system.49

But no plan of consolidation would be adopted

unless the regents and the superintendent were willing to
surrender their power and Jurisdiction and;.unite on a plan
of reorganization.50
Superintendent W. H. Maxwell of New York City, confined
himself largely to stating principles which he belieged
should underlie any proposed legislation:
1. Removal of state educational officials from
politics.
2. Accomplishment of this aim by placing appointment
in the hands of the regents, and requiring scholastic and
professional qualifications.
S.
Limiting the Jurisdiction of state officials to
the inspection, investigation and classification of institu­
tions, not qualifications of students.
4.
officials.

Limiting of inspections to one type of state

President William J. Milne of Albrany State Normal

49Ibid., pp. 66-67.
50Ibid., p. 68.

297
College criticized the White hill for failing to provide a
settlement of the points of issue between the two departments.
It was not a unification bill, for it merely transferred
some schools from one Jurisdiction to the other.

The don-

flicts between the departments were not conflicts of person­
alities but arose instead from the irrational legislation
which created the difficulties.

The people wished a single

department of education instead of the nanomalous duality"
which existed, and they wanted the end of political influence
in school matters, neither of which was accomplished by the
White bill.51
Dr. Milne believed that the best method of unifying
the educational system was to place all control in the hands
of the regents, with some possible modifications of the
organization of the board.

The commissioner of education

should be elected by and responsible to the regents.5^
Superintendent Charles R. Slcinner argued in his usual
forcible fashion for a plan of unification which would place
under one head all institutions receiving support from the
state.

He could see no way in which state aid would be

endangered if the high sohools were placed under the control
of the department of public instruction.

Such a change icuLd

strengthen the school system by relating the high schools

51Ibid., pp. 70-71.
52Ibid.. p. 72.

more closely to the primary and grammar grades.53
Regent T. Guilford Smith of Buffalo suggested that
the question of tenure for the regents might be compromised
by fixing an age at whioh regents would become emeritus
regents.

As a result the board would receive the benefit

of the activities of the members and of their counsel in
later years.®^
Commenting on the questions raised by these varying
opinions, Dr. Butler, while admitting that the regents were
a constitutional body and that unification through them was
the most direot way, pointed out that they were subject to
many criticisms.

He declared that the regents were neither

popular nor representative, and charged that they were chosen
for political reasons.

He further asserted that the regents

had a "well-oiled political machinery for deluging the press
and the legislature with letters and protests" and that these
taotics had caused indignation and resentment.

For these

reasons the law governing the selection and tenure of the
board had to be modified before unification could be accom­
plished.®®

The board was too large, and should be reduced

in number of elective members as well as by elimination of
the ex officio members.

The simplest method might be to

abolish the present board by law and start againfrom the

299
ground up.56
Dr. Butler proposed that a department of education
be established, combining the university and the department.
The university should continue to have control of higher and
professional education, and non-tax-supported secondary
schools, while the department would control all publicly
supported schools.

He further proposed that eight new

regents be appointed by the governor and Senate, for fourteenyear terms, with retirement at seventy.

The existing regents

would not be replaced as their positions became vacant.

These

new ’’regents of education” would elect the superintendent, who
would be granted all the powers of the earlier office, with
new powers granted by the law.

Such a plan would result in

unification and draw a plain line between the two parts of
the educational system.
Reviewing educational legislation in an address to
the regents convocation on June 26, 1899, Regent Whitelaw
Reid pleaded for the extension of education in tune with the
times:
The true educational reformer is not he who would
improve our system by narrowing it— by maJcing war on the
high schools, academies or colleges . . . or by holding
them up to public distrust as aristocratic . . . /but/
would widen the system to meet the more varied wants“ of
the . . . broader life the twentieth century is soon to

56Ibid., p. 78.
57Ibid., pp. 78-79.

300
UBher in. . . .®8

Regent Reid declared that the right of the people was
an educational organization which would give the hest promise
of "wise, economical and efficient administration."

He de­

clared that he had no guarrel with the existing system and
had taken no part in the agitation for change, nor so far as
he knew, had any memher of the Board of Regents, hut the talk
of ohange was in the air.®8

He referred to the report of the

education committee of the 1894 constitutional convention,
which deplored the lack of connection between the common
schools and the regents-supervised academies, and declared
that unification would be to the advantage of all.88

He

agreed that the wise course lay in the direction of a unified
system, but aBked whether the result should be accomplished'
by
leveling down the whole system and intrusting it to a
superintendent of common schools or by leveling up and
intrusting it to a board which should merely add the
selection on purely non-partizan /sio7 and educational
grounds of a superintendent of common schools to its
old and comprehensive duties. . . . 1

®®New York (State) University, Proceedings of the
University Convocation of 1899, Regents Bulletin No. 48,
(Albany: university of TiEe State of New York), p. 223.
59Ibid.. p. 223.
60Ibid., pp. 223-224.
61Ibid., p. 224.

He asserted that the Board of Regents had no interested
motive in the controversy; it was the one body whioh served
the state entirely without pay, giving its services as a
matter of public duty.

The real question was whether the

public, if it appreciated this service, wanted the regents
to continue to exercise their powers.
The true question to be settled, Regent Reid declared,
was the natural method of accomplishing unification, if that
was what the state wanted.
to be followed, why not?

If this natural method was not
He argued the propriety of entrust­

ing the state educational system entirely to the regents, on
the grounds that the board was the first and oldest state
body appointed for educational purposes, and that the common
school system had sprung from the academies, colleges and
universities.6®
Only two reasons, Mr. Reid declared, could be asserted
for "leveling down” the system to the control of the superin­
tendent.

One was the frank avowal of the desirablility of

putting the educational system in partisan control.

The

other reason was the asserted necessity for putting the
educational system in the hands of an officer directly re­
sponsible to the people, or to the legislature.6®

Three

results would follow the placing of educational control in
the hands of an elected official:

direct political control,

ultimate sectarian control, and consequent deterioration of
the reputation of the state system.
Referring to the criticisms of the Board of Regents,
Reid stated that the first argument was that there wereitoo
many ex officio Mornamental" members, without whom the board
would be more efficient.

He replied that the board should

have the benefit of the practical good which would come from
consulting with the governor and other state officials.
other argument declared that the board was too large.

An­
If the

board was not too large for a population of a million or less,
is it now too large for a state with seven or eight times as
many people?

As to method of appointment, he did not believe

that appointment by the governor would necessarily be better
than the present Method.6^

Reorganization, said its propon­

ents, would get rid of the old men on the board.

The prin­

cipal argument of those who complained of the regents was
not lack of activity but too much activity.6®
The needless abandonment of machinery that workB well
for an untried arrangement is not necessarily reform. .
. . Tearing up a system that has been working well for a
century is not the unification of the system.66
The members were personally indifferent to the decision that
might be made, but they believed that the regents were never

303
so active, or had ever exerted so much a guiding and restrain­
ing hand on educational activities as now.67
On Tuesday, June 27, 1899, the afternoon session of
the convocation was devoted to a discussion of the issue of
unification.88
Vice-Chancellor W. C. Soane emphasized that two points
should he kept in mind:

consideration for the opinions of

others, and the fact that the end to he achieved rather than
the method hy which it was reaohed, was the important factor.
He reminded the convocation that no regent present had the
right to speak for the hoard.

He had become tired, however,

of the implication that the regents were "fossilized," and
*

"creatures of the legislature."

So far as he was concerned

he was nobody1s creature hut Almighty God* s.69
Superintendent Skinner voiced his disappointment at
finding that no representative of the Board of Regents was
to appear in the discussion.

He asserted that the existing

educational situation was "awkward, irritating and unneces­
sary."70
Yfe deceive ourselves if we imagine there is no fric­
tion in our educational system. There is friction, and
continued friction means a breaking down of the machinery

67Ibid., p..231.
68Ibid.. pp. 268-318.
69Ihid., pp. 268-269.
70Ihid., p. 270.

304
We all want unification. If we can agree upon an accept­
able definition and then unite in securing such unifica­
tion it will he a happy day for every eduoational worker
in this state. . . . The question is not whether a partic­
ular department shall control a particular school, hut
one of legitimate Jurisdiction and proper government.
What is unification? . . . unification of a state school
system means that all public schools maintained in whole
or in part by public taxation should be placed under one
administrative head. Locate that head where you will,
but make one head. . . . It matters little by what name
the chief eduoational officer of the state is known; . .
. or . . . whether he be elected by the legislature,
appointed by the governor, or chosen by the people; but
the great advantage to be gained is the establishment of
the principle of unification. . . .71
Superintendent Skinner declared that the regents' idea
of simply making the state superintendent elective by the
regents would not give unification, but would mean absorption,
and would make the superintendent subservient to eminent men
without practical knowledge of the needs of the schools.

He

reviewed the legal provisions by which the state department
exercised authority over the high schools as well as the com­
mon schools, and declared that there was no reason why the
high schools should not be under the exclusive jurisdiction
of the superintendent.7^

high schools, according to

Skinner, were not a separate part of the educational system,
but a part of the system itself, established on the initia­
tive of the people for the benefit of all children.

He

would favor the enlargement of the scope of the high sohool,

71Ibid., pp. 271-272.
?2Ibid., pp. 272-273.

making education in the nearest one free to all.7®
Mr. Skinner referred to a pamphlet circulated through
the state by Regent Pliny T. Sexton, containing a number of
editorials on the subject of unification and legislation,
which he asserted to be "unworthy of dignified journalism in
the discussion of a public question."

With the exception of

certain newspaper quotations, all but two of the editorials
were from papers edited by members of the Board of Regents.
He called particular attention to an editorial from the
Brooklyn Eagle. edited by Regent MoKelway, which represented
the department of public instruction
as a political institution conducted on political prin­
ciples and controlled by professional politicians, seek­
ing extension of power for themselves and actuated only
hy hope of personal gain.74
He stated that he had brought up the matter of the editorials
in the April 24 meeting of the Board of Regents, and as a
result MoKelway had apologized for them and promised to make
reparation, which had not been done.

Sexton had apologized

for his part in circulating the pamphlet, but had continued
to do so.7®
Unification, according to Skinner, would accomplish
four results:

306
1. It will place under the absolute control of one
department all schools for whose support the state holds
itself responsible.
2. It will simplify administration, centralize respon­
sibility, lessen expenses, prevent double supervision, inspec­
tion and apportionment.
3. It will forever settle the question that the high
schools are to be considered as apart from the public sohool
system of the state. . . .
4. It will settle definitely, at least, the boundaries
of the legitimate work of the eduoatiohal departments of the
state, determine their powers and preclude encroachment by
either on the province of the other, and thus secure . . .
harmony and efficiency.
By letter from Andrew S. Draper, formerly superintend­
ent of public instruction and then president of the University
of Illinois, came a statement notable for its defense of the
regents as well as its moderate tone in the faoe of the argu­
ment raging within the state circles.

In behalf of the

regents President Draper said in part:
If I had not proved it by what I have said and done
in years gone, it would be idle to say now that I have
boundless respect for the Regents of the University. We
have no other state educational organization in America
. . . whose origin carries us back 116 years. Its mem­
bers have not ordinarily been professional educators; it
was not desirable that they should be, but they have been
foremost citizens of the state and deeply interested in
the oulture of her people. The work of this board tor
higher education is neither equaled nor paralleled in the
country. Its work is admired and is being copied by the
friends of advanced learning throughout the land. It is
well for Hew York educationists to revere such an organi­
zation, and add to and improve its work to the end that
it may be at all times in the front of educational

76

Ibid.. pp. 277-278

307
progress and freshly adapted to the needs of higher
learning of an imperial state.77
However, Dr. Draper declared, he believed it would
have been a mistake if elementary eduoation had been placed
under the Board of Regents.

This was seen when the state

established a department under a superintendent td supervise
the common schools.
The administration of the affairs of more than 11,000
school districts . . . can only be efficient through
authority which can settle disputes speedily, inexpensive­
ly and conclusively. . . . Under this plan there has
grown a vast system of elementary schools of marked and
very uniform excellence, and it is there to be revered,
upheld and improved.
President Draper declared that he had never felt
strongly as many had that the dual system was particularly
harmful to the educational interests of the state,

in

apparently almost unanimous desire for the unification of
the departments constituted a strong argument for the combin­
ation.

This was also desirable to avoid possible political

influence as well as to eliminate friction.

Draper referred

to his own experience in having been eliminated as superin­
tendent by the legislature on political grounds.

As a result,

he had advised the education committee of the 1894 convention
to vest the power to appoint the superintendent in the Board

77Ibid.. pp. 278-279.
78

Ibid., p. 279.

308
of Regents, "but leave his powers as they were.

If appoint­

ment in this manner would eliminate friction as well as
political influence, it would he a desirable move.^®

He

declared that he was opposed to any impairment of the powers
of the superintendent, who must have freedom, independence
and permanence of tenure as long as he merited it by "a
judicious and fearless and aggressive exeroise of the powers
delegated to him. . . .
President William J. Milne of the Albany normal col­
lege stated that unification was no new idea, that it had
been agitated years ago, and on one occasion action of the
legislature abolishing the Board of Regents would have
accomplished that end, but Chancellor Pruyn had used his
influence to prevent the governor from signing the bill.®l
He believed that as the two departments became larger and
more influential the conflict between them would become
greater and the evils would increase.®2
President Milne believed that in addition to the.two
methods of unification which had been proposed, there was a
third method— unification under a board of regents, not
necessarily the present one, whioh should elect a general
administrative officer to take charge of all educational

^®Ibid.. pp. 280-281.
80
Ibid., p. 281.
81Ibid., p. 282.
82
Ibid., p. 282.

affairs.

As to the qualifications to he expected, the com­

missioner should he a
man of liberal education; . . • a hroad general scholar
. . . thoroughly acquainted with the problems . . .
foremost in educational circles; . . . a practical
educator, not a theorist, hut . . . a man whom the pub­
lic would respect. . . .8g
President James M. Taylor of Vassar College expressed
his surprise that no one up to that moment had suggested the
appointment of a commission by the legislature to make a
thoroughgoing investigation of the matter.

He believed that

the line that must be followed was unification under the
regents, since the university was safeguarded by the consti­
tution.

It seemed to him that the appointment of the super­

intendent for a long term, possibly life tenure, should be
placed in the hands of the regents, so that he might be, as:
a result of the long tenure, free from interference after
election.

However, a certain measure of reorganization

should be accomplished; for example, it seemed to him absurd
that the law barred from the Board of Regents men who were
in closest touch with the colleges and

schools.®^

Principal D. C. Farr of Glens Falls Academy did not
agree with the superintendent1s expression of surprise that
the regents were not represented in the disoussion.

8gIbid., pp. 285-286.
84Ibid., PP. 292-294.

He

310
thought that a body of men who had labored for over a cen­
tury in behalf of education needed no representation.

The

regents had made the secondary schools of the state their
monument, and the peers of any in the world.

He was not

surprised at the failure of the bill introduced in the legis­
lature at the last session.

The people evidently recognized

that it was unwise to entrust the eduoational interests of
the state to a department that might be changed by politioal
means every three years.

No one had given much consideration

to a proposal to reduce the number of regents and deprive
them of their powers.

The people were not so ungrateful for

the service of the regents to the cause of education in the
state.8®
Practical school men wanted unification to eliminate
the confusion resulting from failure or refusal of one depart­
ment to reoognize credits for work done under the Jurisdiction
of the other.

The school men of the state wanted a credit­

able system which would be a unit throughout.

All the schools

were part of the same system, but the secondary schools
should remain under that body whioh was the parent of the
state school system.86
Dean James £• Russell of Teachers1 College, Columbia
University, offered two principal points for consideration.

85Ibid., pp. 295-296.
86Ibid., pp. 296-297.

First, "because the secondary schools, for the supervision of
which the university was particularly organized, were origin­
ally intended for college preparation, the idea had got
abroad that the university stood for aristocracy.

That, he

believed, was an unfortunate error, for the regents were
representative men and their activities in behalf of educa­
tion testified to their interest in general education.

How­

ever, life tenure of the regents tended to perpetuate the
idea of aristocracy.®1^

The possibility of frequent change

and resulting political influence through the department of
public instruction made the university the better basis for
future development.®®
His second point concerned the teachers.
So long as that greatest power within the profession,
the power of certification of teachers and the testing of
their work is granted to a department that changes, that
may change or that is subject at any rate to influence
for political reasons, just so long is the position which
we hold precarious.
The profession of law would not accept certification from a
non-professional board; medicine and dentistry had their
boards for examining candidates.
If it is expedient that those who are to look after
the welfare of our molars should have a special examining

board, . . . those who are to look after the spiritual
and intellectual welfare of our children should at least
have such consideration. 0
Referring to President Taylor’s suggestion of a com­
mission to investigate the matter of unification, Dean Rus­
sell proposed that since it was then too late to have a
commission from the legislature ready to report at the next
session, it might be desirable for the two departments, if
they were as disinterested as they professed to be, to join
in appointing a commission to investigate the matter of
eliminating the friction between them.

He suggested that

each department appoint five persons, these ten to select
another, perhaps as chairman; funds might well be available
from a popular subscription taken among the teachers of the
state.^
C. W. Bardeen lauded the work done by the two depart­
ments in their respective fields, and pointed out that the
election of the superintendent of public instruction by the
Board of Regents, although desirable, would not remedy out
of hand all the evils existing, such as dual inspection and
examination.^2

He recalled the efforts he made to urge the

re-election of Superintendent Draper, which hinged upon the
vote of one Democratic assemblyman, a former schoolman.

He

313
recalled also the statement of an assemblyman which indicated
that the recent re-election of Superintendent Skinner could
likewise have been changed by one vote.
When it is in the hands of a single politician . . •
to turn out of office a superintendent whose administra­
tion is giving satisfaction and who has the confidence
of the teachers of the state, it is time some other
method was substituted. . . . 3
He urged further that no change be made in the Board of
Regents.

The board as then constituted consisted of distin­

guished men, "respectable and reliable."

He did not agree

with the suggestion of President Taylor of Vassar that educar
tors be added to the Board of Regents.
That shows he has never been a superintendent, for
of all unhappy elements on a board of education, the
retired schoolmaster is most dreaded by those who have
had experience.®*
Deputy Superintendent Ainsworth then launched a vigor­
ous attack on the opponents of unification.

In the course of

his discussion he attacked Regent McKelway of Brooklyn for
having said that the present talk of unification arose from
hungry politicians.

95

He castigated Secretary Dewey because

the last regents* report criticized the work of normal schools
and stated that the trustees* reports from common school dis­
tricts were full of useless information.
93Ibid., p. 304.
94Ibid., p. 305.
95Ibid., p. 313.

He charged that

the occasion for the demand for unification was the constant
interference of the Board of Regents with the work of the
department of public instruction.
As long as you divide the educational work of the
state at any artificial point, . . . the disturbance
and discontent still will remain. '
Regent St. Glair McKelway concluded the debate by
offering a resolution:
Resolved, that it is the Judgment of this convocation
that the superintendent of public instruction should be
elected by the regents of the University.
Resolved, that this general statement be made known
to the next legislature with the suggestion that in
carrying it into effect the details of legislation,
dealing with the existing departments, might well be
recommended by a commission to be appointed by the
governor and to include representatives from each of
the two departments and from the educational staff of
the state. ”
On motion of Principal H. P. Warren of Albany Academy
the statement of the sentiment of the convocation, contained
in the McKelway resolution, was referred to a committee of
five, directed to report at the beginning of the session the
following morning.

The vice-chancellor, presiding, appointed

to the committee Principal Warren, President Milne, Deputy
Superintendent Ainsworth, Dean Russell, and Superintendent

315
Charles I. Andrews of Seneca Fal l s . "
At the opening of the session on Wednesday morning,
June £8, Principal Warren on "behalf of the committee pre­
sented the following resolution as the unanimous report of
the committee:
Resolved, that this convocation request the governor
to name an honorary commission representative of the
various educational interests of the state, which shall
consider ways and means of unifying the present education­
al systems and give such assistance as the statutory
revision commission may desire in the preparation of a
"bill to be submitted to the legislature at the opening
of the next session.100
In accordance with the resolution of the convocation
Governor Roosevelt appointed as members of the educational
unification commission Frederick W. Holls, Daniel H. MoMiHan,
Judge Joseph F. Daly, William Kernan, Robert F. Wilkinson,
Secretary Melvil Dewey, and Deputy Superintendent Danforth E.
Ainsworth.101
A slight difference of opinion may be noted in the
comments available on the appointment of the commission.

Dr.

Butler described the appointments editorially as "admirable”
and said that
__ New Yorkers will recognize in these names a thoroly
/ sic7 strong and representative body of men, skilled in
"ibid., p. 213.
1Q0Ibid., pp. £13-214.
101New York (State), Messages from the Governors, ed.
by Charles Z. Lincoln (Albany: J. B. Lyon Co., 1909), X,
p. 114.

316
framing and executing important public policies.102
An editorial in the Ithaca Daily News pointed out that the
convocation resolution had called for appointment of a com­
mission representative of the various educational interests
of the state.

The commission appointed by Governor Roosevelt

consisted of.five lawyers, plus the two representatives of
the warring educational factions.103

Mr. Bardeen, however,

characterized the appointments as "a wise and happy choice.nl°4
Remarks by Superintendent Skinner at the summer meet­
ing of the State Teachers* Association at Utica were addi­
tional evidence of the uncompromising attitude of the depart­
ment.

In the course of an address on school progress

Skinner attacked the regents, especially Sexton, McKelway
and Reid, and oharged the speakers at the university convo­
cation had been packed in favor of the regents.

Reporting

the remarks, Bardeen stated that before the convocation
opened, some regents expressed an opposite opinion to him,
thinking the speakers had been packed against them.

Skinner

asserted that the election of the superintendent by the
regents would be unwise, undemocratic, unpatriotic and unre­
publican, but had a few minutes before contradicted himself

102"Educational Unification in New York" (editorial),
Educational Review. XVIII (Dec., 1899), p. 517.
103
"State Educational Matters" (editorial), School
Bulletin, XXVI (Jan., 1900), p. 103.
10^"The Educational Unification Commission" (editorial),
Sohool Bulletin, XXVI (Nov., 1899), p. 41.

"by proposing that the superintendent he so elected, and that
the regents on their side give up the supervision of the
high schools.

3 05

During the course of his remarks Skinner

said rather sarcastically that any regent would consider it
a punishment to have to take one of their own examinations.
Bardeen added that a principal sitting near him had remarked
that if Skinner had to take one of his own examinations in
drawing he would find a new cure for obesity.

He commented

further that Skinner's remarks had created a had impression.1®6
In a later issue of his magazine Bardeen pointed out
that instead of the convocation program heing packed for the
regents, Skinner had heen allowed to make the opening speech
and his deputy, Ainsworth, the closing remarks.10?
The educational unification commission held its first
meeting in Albany on November 27, with all members except
McMillan present.

Holls was named as chairman.

Present at

the meeting by invitation were Superintendent Maxwell of
New York City, President Milne of Albany state normal, Prinr
cipal Boynton of Ithaca high school, Principal Goodrich of
Utioa high school, President Taylor of Vassar, and Bardeen.108
105

"Shall the Superintendent of Public Instruction be
elected by the Regents?” (editorial), School Bulletin, XXV
(July, 1899), p. 230.
1Q6Ibid., p. 230.
10?«Superintendent Skinner and Unification” (editorial)*
School Bulletin, XXV (Aug., 1899), p. 251.
108

”The Educational Commission” (editorial), School
Bulletin, XXVI (Deo., 1899), p. 59.

318
Dr. Milne told the commission that sentiment for
unification was almost universal, and that a new law should
he framed with reference to principles, not individuals. He
proposed the election of a commissioner of education hy the
Board of RegentB, to assume the powers of the superintendent .109
Superintendent Maxwell agreed on the need of unity, hut pro­
posed conferring additional powers on the chancellor instead
of creating a new officer.110

Principal Boynton urged that

control over the state department of public instruction should
he given to the regents, and he approved making the chancellor
the executive officer.

Bardeen agreed with the latter idea,

urging change hy evolution, not revolution.

Ha would make

no change in the hoard, in view of its honorable existence
for over a century.

He was doubtful if a better system

oould he devised, and felt that the life tenure of the
regents ruled out political pressure.111
Early in December the legislative committee of the
Associated Academic Principals met in Albany and appointed
Principals D. C. Farr of Glens Falls and 0. D. Robinson of
Albany to represent them before the unification commission.11^
A week later, on December 14, a special unification
committee of the Board of Regents adopted a "simple and
109Ibid., p. 59.
110Ibid., p. 59.
111Ibid., p. 60.
112
"Shall New York Schools be made a Political Machine?"
(editorial), School Bulletin, XXVI (Dec., 1899.), p. 84.

319
excellent plan" to unify the educational system with the
chancellor, elected hy and responsible to them, as the chief
executive officer.

Present as members of the committee were

Chancellor Anson J. Upson, Vice-Chancellor William C. Doane,
Whitelaw Reid (as proxy for Chauncey Depew as well as a mem­
ber in his own right), St. Clair McKelway and Pliny P. Sexton.
The committee decided to recommend their plan to the gover­
nor's commission, and drew up a statement which was presented
to the commission later that evening.^3
The regents1 committee expressed its approval of the
commission's reported intention of placing the educational
system under the board, and especially commended the idea
of making the chancellor the head of the proposed system.
Such an arrangement would attract the notice of the best tal­
ent in education.

They deprecated any needless change in the

board or in the powers of the department.

They felt that

unification was supported by clear sentiment throughout the
state.

The plan which they referred to, they understood,

had been approved by Mr. Ainsworth.

It could be put into

effect at once with only three changes each in the consoli­
dated school law and in the university l a w . ^ 4

The commit­

tee implemented its proposal with two draft bills making
the necessary changes in the l a w s . ^ 3
^ ■ ^ e w York (State) University, Minutes of the Regents
of the University. 1899 (Albany: University of tEe State of
New' York), pp. 5o3-554.
114Ibld.. pp. 554-555.
115

Ibid., pp. 555-556.

320
Mr. McKelway urged the adoption of the plan, for it
would accomplish unification in the simplest way on the line
of least resistance.

It was a conservative plan and one the

regents were prepared to defend.

Principal Farr, on behalf

of the state principals, supported the regents, maintaining
that their life tenure kept them out of politics, and that
prejudices against them dated back many years, since the
board had rendered invaluable service to education for the
past fifteen years.

He protested against combining the high

schools and elementary schools in one department, for "we
believe that the inherent differences in the nature and char­
acter of such schools make their union . . .

an impossibil­

ity."116
The report of the regents1 special oommittee met with
the approval of McKelway*s Brooklyn Daily Eagle, as might be
expected, which on the following day declared editorially
that "The way to unify is to unify."

The commission might

not accept the plan, but the legislature would have to respect
public opinion or give up the idea of unification.
No balance of selfishness in the legislature can be
struok to spoliate education in the name of unification.
That is an interest from which rapacity must keep its
hands removed.117

■I 1 g

"Shall New York Schools be made a Political Machine?"
(editorial), School Bulletin, XXVI (Dec. 19, 1899), p. 84.
117ngj]ie yfay .fc0 xjnify is to Unify" (editorial), cited
in School Bulletin. XXVI (Dec. 19, 1899), pp. 84-85.

321
The New York Mall and Express referred to the "lucid
report" of the regents1 committee and described their plan
as simple and effective.

The report well illustrated "the

difference between expert knowledge and vague theorizing."116
Almost immediately there was evidence that the unifi­
cation commission had not given serious consideration to the
report of the regents* special committee.

On December 16 the

New York Tribune reported that the commission had sent to
Governor Roosevelt a plan said to have been worked out by
Ainsworth, which had met with the approval of Holls, McMillan
and Wilkinson.3"1-9
The substance of the commission report is given by
the committee on unification of the Board of Regents and in
its own report to the legislature.

The commissioners pro­

posed to establish a department of education, consisting of
the university and the department of public instruction,
headed by an executive official called the chancellor of the
university.

He was to exercise all the executive powers then

vested in the superintendent and the Board of Regents.

The

university was to be "continued as the legislative head of
the department."

The lieutenant-governor, secretary of state

and superintendent of public instruction were removed as ex
officio regents, leaving only the governor in that oapacity.

118njjjciucational Unification" (editorial), cited in
School Bulletin. XXVI (Dec. 19, 1899), p. 85.
A "Report on School Unification" (editorial), cited
in School Bulletin, XXVI (Dec. 19, 1899), p. 85.

322
On reaching the age of seventy, elective regents would become
honorary regents without the privilege of voting.

The number

of regents was fixed at fifteen, the number to be reduced by
not filling vacancies.

Instead of being elected by the two

houses of the legislature, regents would be appointed by the
governor with the approval of the Senate, and the same method
would be used to elect the first chancellor.
would elect succeeding chancellors.
five bureaus to be established:

The regents

The proposal called for

public instruction, higher

education, home education, law, and administration and
finance, each headed by a director appointed and removable
by the chancellor.

Bureau heads would select their subordin­

ates under the civil service law.

The superintendent would

be continued as director of the bureau of public instruction
until the end of his elective term.1^
While expressing a feeling that the details of organ­
ization might well have been left to the direction of the
regents, the committee felt that there were other aspects of
the proposal more worthy of comment.

The regents felt that

the opening statements of the commission's plan gave support
to the principles that unification was desirable, that it
should preferably be accomplished through the regents with
the chancellor as head of the system, and that it was desir­
able to keep the system free from "the influence of partisan

^Minutes of the Regents, 1899, p. 557.

323
politics.”121
However, the committee felt that the commission had
been led into one "radical error," found in the proposal by
which the governor would select the first chancellor.

They

could see no reason for giving such a power to the governor;
they felt that the commissioners would realize that "the
example once set of thus making chancellors would likely be
imitated," and there was grave danger that the "similarly
appointed successors would owe their selection to willing­
ness to comply with the demands of political managers."
Avoidance of such danger should be a prime consideration in
any plan for unification.122
The commissioners1 proposal that the regents of the
University elect the chancellors, after the first one,
concedes the fitness of the regents for such a duty,
which may be regarded as their service of greatest value
to the public. The selection of capable, non-partizan
/sic/ chancellors oannot be expected uniformly from
"other than just such a non-partizan board.1®3
The regents* committee further doubted the wisdom of
naming a fixed term for the chancellors, or of giving them
such unlimited power to name their subordinates.

The duties

of the office should be executive, and the regents should,
preferably, be the repository of the power to govern the
system.
121Ibid.. pp. 557-558.
122Ibid., p. 558.
12gIbid.. p. 559.

No one mar^s judgment or fidelity may safely "be relied
upon as to justify giving him anything like autocratic
power over interests of such magnitude. The record of
the regents should dispel apprehensions of their improper
exercise of power. They assuredly can have no selfish
desire to increase their uncompensated duties.
The regents1 committee then offered resolutions
affirming the interest of the hoard in the preservation of
the educational interests of the state, and in the need to
avoid political interference, which could he accomplished
only hy placing control with the regents.

They also, said

the resolutions, cordially accepted the avowed purposes of
the commissioners to establish a "benign and non-partizan
unification," and urged further consideration of the plan
which had been submitted to the commission on December 14,
or such modification of it as may be desirable.

The resolu­

tions further expressed the feeling of the board that it was
unwise to change the method of electing the members.

The

resolutions were signed by a majority of the committee,
Chancellor Upson, Reid, McKelway, and Sexton.^ 5
At the regents1 meeting on the following day, Decem­
ber 21, 1899, the report and resolutions were debated.
Martin I. Townsend offered a resolution urging the continued
election of the members by the legislature, which was
accepted and added to the report.

Superintendent Skinner

made a speech in which he accused the regents of being

325
unwilling to concede any dignities or powers in the inter­
est of unification.^-26
Secretary Dewey repeated an offer he had made the day
before to resign, and presented a written resignation, stat­
ing his wish to devote full time to the library and home
departments.

He said further that he believed that a

vacancy in the office of secretary might be a factor in
solving the question of unification.

He was not offering

his resignation simply to have it recorded and declined.-1-27
In the subsequent debate Dewey said that he agreed
with Skinner that more harm was being done to education by
"the heated discussion, misunderstandings and misrepresenta­
tions now so rife" than by friction between the departments.
He was prepared to make any personal sacrifioe to secure
harmony and peace among the educational workers of the state,
and was more than willing to withdraw his own personality
from the discussion.

Dewey specifically denied rumors that

he had fomented the discussion about unification so that his
own power might be extended over the common schools.

He had

always had a profound respect for the common sohool field
without any desire to be connected with it.

He had chosen

library work and home education as his career twenty-seven
years ago.-1-2®
126Ibid., p. 560.
127Ibid.. pp. 560-561.
128Ibid.. pp. 561-563.

326
Resolutions offered by Mr. Beach asserting it to he
the sense of the hoard that the duties of the departments
could hest he carried out separately, and deprecating any
legislation consolidating them, were voted down.

Vice-

Chancellor Doane, as the minority of the regents* speoial
committee, then moved substitution of a set of resolutions
which he had drawn up.

These proposals were lost hy a vote

of two to fourteen.
The hoard then voted separately on the three resolu­
tions.

The first, urging unification under the university,

was adopted eleven to five.

The second, urging the commission

to consider favorably the plan of the regents* committee, was
approved eleven to four.

The third, to continue election of

the hoard hy the legislature, was accepted thirteen to three.
On all of these expressions Skinner, Vice-Chancellor Boane,
and Regent Beach voted against the resolutions.-1-®®

The

regents further voted to continue their special oommittee.
later in the session they accepted with suitable expressions
of regret the resignation of Dewey. •L3-1’
The report of the commission*s proposals gave rise to
a variety of expressions in the press.

McKelway* s Brooklyn

Daily Eagle declared that the proposed method could he
counted on to secure political orthodoxy in the chancellor.
129Ihid., pp. 563-564.
lg0Ibid.. pp. 564-565.
131Ihid., pp. 565-566.

327
Referring to the transfer of many of the regents1 powers to
the proposed "bureaus, the Daily Eagle said:
The censure passed on the "board, the degradation to
which it is subjected, the humiliation put upon it, are
evident by any comparison of its present powers with the
shorn and shabby remnant which the plan would give it.1®**
The New York Tribune commented that the commission had
done a commendable thing in proposing unification under the
chancellor, but the best way to "stuff the administration of
the schools full of politics" would be to allow the governor
to name the chancellor, for there was no way to assure that
the method of the initial appointment would not be followed
after the eight years passed.
It is far easier to bestow authority than to recover
it, and if the power to appoint the Chancellor, with the
consent of the Senate, were given to the Governor at the
outset, it is pretty safe to assume that the politicians
would never let it be put beyond their reach.133
Further trenchant comment came from the New York Times:
To create a ten-thousand-dollar office and then put it
absolutely outside of politics in an undertaking beyond
the powers of any save the most resolute and celestialminded of men. . . • The act embodying these suggestions
should be entitled "in Act to Reduce the Board of Regents
to a State of Innocuous Desuetude."134
132"Educational Unification" (editorial), cited in
School Bulletin. XXVI (Jan., 1900), pp. 102-103.
"The Wrong Way to Unify" (editorial), cited in
School Bulletin, XXVI (Jan., 1900), pp. 100-101.
134"in Educational Plum" (editorial), cited in School
Bulletin. XXVI (Jan., 1900), p. 101.

Referring to the commissions proposals to retire
members of the Board of Regents at seventy, and allow the
governor to nominate the chancellor, the Times editorial
c ontinued:
Oily Gammon outdone! We put the old fogies on a
bade seat, where they will not be bothered with the
"duty or responsibility of a vote," and we strip the
rest of the board of all real power for eight years.
Then we say, "The power and dignity of the board of
regents have been increased." If the board of regents
is unworthy of confidence, why not frankly say so and
provide for its reorganization?135
Indicative of the temper of the dispute is a report
of remarks made by Ainsworth whose intemperate language has
been mentioned previously.

As reported by the Syracuse

Evening Telegram, Ainsworth launced an "unmerciful attack"
on the Board of Regents,calling them a lot of old men unable
to control the education of the state, and asserting that of
the twenty-three members not one of them spent more than a
minute and a half of the day at the work of public education.
"The board," he continued, "contains lawyers who are super­
annuated, editors out of positions, and clergymen . Just about
to die."

The last remark was the more out of place because

Father Sylvester Malone, one of the four members of the board
who was over seventy, was actually at that time upon his
deathbed, his passing being recorded on another page of the

135Ibid., p. 101

publication which reported Ainsworth* s remarks.
A statement from Melvil Dewey to Governor Roosevelt
expressed the minority opinion of the unification commission.
Dewey stated that he had accepted appointment to the commis­
sion with the status of a private citizen so that he might
point out any issues upon which he disagreed.

In addition

to a repetition of the argument that the regents should ap­
point the chancellor, Dewey declared that the salary proposed
for the head of the system was too high, for $7,000 was high
enough for the type of man who would accept the position
under the commissions proposals.

He pointed out further

that criticism had been leveled at the dual system of control
as being too expensive, but the commission plan proposed five
departments instead of two.

Still further, in establishing

a bureau of public instruction the plan failed to recognize
the important distinction between elementary and seoondary
education.

For this and other reasons, the dangers from the

proposal were greater than any good that could come from i t 1®7
Indication of the educational situation which the pro­
ponents of unification hoped to eliminate is found in a sum­
mary of the points at which duplication between the two
departments oocurred.

(1) There was duplication of reports

to the superintendent and the regents by the high schools.

136njhe Syracuse Meetings" (editorial), cited in School
Bulletin, 2X71 (Jan., 1900), p. 92.
137"Melvil Dewey*s Letter" (editorial), Sohool Bulletin,
XXVI (Feb., 1900), pp. 117-118.

330
(2) There was duplication of apportionment of state funds.
The department of public instruction apportioned $100 for
every teacher employed regularly in high school, but this
money could be spent only on elementary grades.

The regents

also distributed the same amount for each high school teacher.
(3) Inspection was duplicated.

Regents1 inspectors visited

high schools to check equipment and confer on courses.
Training class inspectors for the department of public
instruction visited all academies and high schools having
teachers1 training classes, and all academies to pass on
courses of study, under a law of 1895.

No agreement had

ever been made by which one department accepted the inspec­
tion made by the other.-*-®®
A communication to Bardeen from the principal of
Sherman Collegiate Institute at Moriah, N. 7., called atten­
tion to the fact that requirements by the department for
teachers’ examinations were so different from regents’
requisites in the same subject that two classes frequently
had to be maintained.

For example, Principal Brown stated

that the regents' examination in bookkeeping was based upon
double-entry while the department examination was based on
single-entry, and duplicate classes also had to be maintained
in English, physics and drawing.-*-®9
-*-®®nNeed there be Friction between the Two Departments?1
(editorial), School Bulletin, XXVI (Mar., 1900), pp. 144-145.
139"Is Unification Desirable?” (editorial), School
Bulletin, XXVI (Apr., 1900), p. 159.

331
In his annual message in January, 1900, Governor
Roosevelt gave some attention to the educational question.
He referred to the university as "an institution peculiar
to this commonwealth and one now venerable with its one hun­
dred and sixteen years of history," and praised its influence
on the standards of education.

He also mentioned the "vast

importance" of the work of the department.

The problem con­

cerning the work of the two departments was not whether
unification was desirable, but by what means it oould be
a t t a i n e d . G o v e r n o r Roosevelt then referred to the appoint­
ment of the special commission and the plan of unification
which they had adopted, praising it as "simple, effective,
and wholly free from political or partisan considerations."^Mr. Skin n e r ^ annual report for 1900 was a comprehen­
sive survey of the entire problem of friction and its causes,
and unification as a means of eliminating it.

Since we have

given a rather complete history of the movement during recent
years, there is little reason here to give more attention to
the report than to indicate those points at which Skinner
lists additional arguments in the controversy.
Early in his document Skinner charged the Board of
Regents with encroaching on the legal preserves of the
department in licensing teachers.

He quoted action of the

regents taken in December, 1898, requiring institutions

140

Messages from the Governors. X, pp. 113-114.

14aIbid., pp. 114-115.

registered in the university to employ as principal or
assistant only those graduated from a college or university
registered hy the university, with an additional year*s
training or three years* experience.142

This he declared to

he contrary to provisions of the consolidated school law
defining a qualified teacher as one possessing a valid cer­
tificate from the superintendent or from a school commissioner.^
Mr. Skinner related in some detail the story which we
have told in this chapter of the regents* plan for unifica­
tion, the discussion at the convocation and the appointment
and report of the governor*s commission.

He declared that

there prohahly had never "been 11so much personal ahuse, vili­
fication and impeachment of motives** injected into the dis­
cussion of an important educational question, and referred to
"calumny and ahuse heneath the dignity of any per son-’holding
public office."144

He charged further that "politics of a

most disgraceful character" had entered into the discussion,
consisting largely of "personal vituperation, untruthful
statements and false issues."

During all this, Skinner

declared, he had never deviated from his position that a clear
line must he drawn between the two departments and their work;
if that could not he done he was for any one of the three

142New York (State), "Report of the Superintendent of
Public Instruction, 1900," Assembly Document N o . 84 (Albany:
J.B. Lyon), p. 10.

measures for unification which, had been proposed.
Mr. Skinner also charged the Board of Regents with
defeating the non-resident tuition "bill to prevent any
improvement in education save through their department.^-4®
At the annual convocation of the university in June,
1900, the only apparent reference to the subject of unifica­
tion appeared in the address of welcome of Chancellor Upson.
On a note of triumph Dr. Upson declared:
We are still here. We have not been abolished. We
have hot been amended out of existence. The University
of the State of New York, with all its powers, is still
extant. For 38 years, since 1862, this convocation has
been held annually in this oapitol. Since 1784 . . .
the University has blessed the state, and is still here
to welcome friends of education. . . .^4”
Chancellor Upson referred to the events of recent
months and the debates and discussions over the report of
the governor*s commission, which he deolared had finally led
to a peaceful cooperation between the two departments. .
. . The incident seems to have been closed with satis­
faction to both sides and with benefit to education. • .

145Ibid.. p. 23.
^4®Ibid., p. 26. Careful search of the legislative
journals for these years fails to reveal any bill which is
identifiable as dealing with the question of non-resident
tuition. It has been necessary to depend on other sources
for the information.
147

New York (State) University, Proceedings of the
University Convocation of 1900. Regents bulletin No. 51
(Albany: University of iKe Si ate of New York), pp. 166-167.
148
Ibid., p. 168.

334
Evidence of the improved temper within educational
circles is found also in the report of Skinner and in the
annual message of Governor Odell.

The latter said merely

that the state*s only concern with the work of the two
departments was that it should he accomplished without fric­
tion,

The aimB of the two divisions were distinct hut not

conflicting.

"Between them it is believed an harmonious

temper now prevails."

There were a few points at which

their work was on parallel, though not necessarily identical
lines, which furnished no reason for antagonism.

Public

opinion would censure any person or policy causing "avoidable
discord" betY/een them.1^
Mr. Skinner devoted only a little over a page of his
annual report to the subject of unification.

Prom this brief

statement, in which he referred again to the controversy over
licensing of teachers, the following is indicative:
During a portion of the past year educational circles
were agitated from center to circumference by a somewhat
acrimonious discussion of the various phases of unifica­
tion. Eduoational conditions remain unchanged
reasonable degree of harmony has since prevailed.150
Still further evidence of a degree of peace is found
in the fact that Skinner’s reports for 1902 and 1903 were
silent on the subject.

Nor can any reference to the conflict

be found in the columns of Bardeen’s journal.
^^Messgjges from the Governors. X, pp. 226-227.
150
New York (State), "Report of Superintendent of Pub­
lic Instruction, 1901," Assembly Document N o . 67 (Albany:
J. B. Lyon), p. 9.

335
With this note of quiet after a period of intensive
controversy this chapter is brought to a close.

In the next

and final chapter we shall find the debate rising again in
1903, to be brought to an end by the accomplishment of
unification.

CHAPTER X
UNIFICATION ACCOMPLISHED
Agitation over unification reappeared. publicly in the
early months of 1903.

Two elements of the former situation

were the immediate causes of the revival.
In the legislature there appeared, another series of
bills to effect some form of revision of educational control.
In February Senator E. R. Brown introduced a bill
to organize a State Board
Regents of the University
to confer upon such board
the common schools of the

of Education in the Board of
of the State of New York and
complete Jurisdiction of /5ic7
State.1
"

Later in the month the committee on public education
reported the bill with amendments and the recommendation that
it be printed as amended and sent back to the committee, which
was agreed to.

Late in March the bill came forth again from

the committee with an identical report and recommendation,
and upon being returned to the committee did not reappear.^
Early in March Senator F. C. Stevens presented a bill
"to unify the educational system of the State under the
supervision of the regents. . . . "

Nothing further was heard

% e w York (State), Senate Journal. 1903 (Albany: The
Argus Co.), I, p. 93.
2Ibid., pp. 296, 681.

337
of this hill after it was sent to the committee on publio
education.®
On Maroh 1C, Senator Yf. L. Brown offered a hill
to provide for complete educational unification of the
public schools of the State hy establishing a line of
demarcation, placing the tax: supported schools under
control of the Department of Puhlio Instruction and all
others under the Regents of the University.
Sent to the committee on public education, this proposal,
like the others, failed to see the light again.4

A companion

proposal was introduced in the Assembly hy Mr. McNair with
like results.5
On April 3, Senator Stevens presented another hill
proposing to amend the university law with regard to the num­
ber of regents and their tenure of office, and still another
"to unify the educational system of the State under the super­
vision of the Regents."

These hills did not appear again

after being sent to committee.5
In the Assembly Mr. landon on April 7, offered compan­
ion hills to Stevens1 proposals as listed above, which met
with a like fate in committee.7

3Ihid., p. 370.
4Ihid., p. 413.
®New York (State), Assembly Journal. 1903 (Albany: The
Argus Co.), I, p. 877.
^Senate Journal, 1903, I, p. 827.
7Assembly Journal, 1903, II, p. 1831.

338
Another flurry resulted from a renewal of the contro­
versy over control of the non-resident tuition funds.

The

report of Superintendent Skinner for 1903 requested of the
legislature authority to spend $150,000 from the free school
fund to pay tuition to districts educating non-resident high
school students.

Interests friendly to the regents' control

of the secondary schools, and of the entire school system,
found reason to criticize Skinner for encroaohing on the
preserves of the hoard.

Mr. Bardeen in his School Bulletin

warned the state's educators that
The superintendent of public instruction and his
reckless deputy are up to their old tricks, and making
mischief again. For years they have been indefatigable
in efforts . . . to undermine their co-ordinate depart­
ment . . . the regents of the University, and have con­
stantly striven, upon one pretext or another, to absorb
the official functions of the regents.8
Further opposition to the proposal came in a letter
to the Associated Academic Principals from their legislative
and executive-committees.

The letter warned that treatment

of the matter as Skinner proposed would result in additional
supervision and inspection of high schools by the superin­
tendent, already acceptably performed by the university.

The

eventual result would be transfer of the academies to the
control of the superintendent, since no more duplication

8"Educational Marplots" (editorial), School Bulletin,
XXIX (Feb., 1903), p. 89.
.

could be permitted.^
Mr. Bardeen in the same Issue sent forth a solemn
warning to the. regents:
It is time for you to wake up. Probably like ordin­
ary mortals you like your ease and prefer to avoid
fighting, and do not hunger for any increase of official
responsibilities and duties. But your official existence
and the trust you hold are in peril.10
Bardeen was not concerned for the regents personally, but
for the educational institutions which they controlled.

Bo

such organization existed anywhere, and only through it or
one comparable to it could there be secured the "highest
and most beneficent development of public education."

It

was the present duty of the board to seek legislation to
protect that trust.
Whether you would or not, you have got to fight or
pass out of existence, and the latter fate is planned
for you by restless and unscrupulous adversaries. Pre­
pare yourselves for battle without a moment18 delay, and
be not content with simply a defensive attitude. Force
the fighting, and rallying as you easily can to your
support all of our most enlightened and disinterested
citizens, march on to that victory which will make you
the supreme and uplifting supervisors of the entire
public educational interest of the Empire State.11
On February 4, the Assembly committee on ways and

9"Aotion of the Academic Principals" (editorial),
School Bulletin. XXIX (Feb., 1903), p. 90.
10"A Word to the Regents" (editorial). School Bulle
tin. XXIX (Feb., 1903), p. 90.
1^Ibid., p. 90.

340
means held a hearing on the Merritt hill, which had been
introduced on January 22, to implement the superintendent’s
request for authority to spend school funds for non-resident
tuition.^

The chairman, James T. Rogers, stated at the

opening of the hearing that hoth departments had requested
this authority, and the question at issue was chiefly which
should he given the power.
Chancellor Doane in his argument in behalf of the
regents asserted that it was as illogical for the department
to ask for the funds as it would he for the regents to ask
authority to spend money for elementary schools.

Dr. W. S.

Aldrich, president of Clarkson Institute of Technology, said
passage of the hill would require an additional set of high
school inspectors.

Secretary Parsons of the Board of Regents

emphasized the double inspection and said it would not cost a
cent for the regents to administer such a fund.

Superintend­

ent Armstrong of Medina, speaking for the Associated Academic
Principals, said only one of three hundred letters he had
received from principals supported the Merritt hill.

Deputy

Superintendent Ainsworth, who except for Skinner was the
sole proponent of the department’s point of view, argued
that the superintendent had supervision over the high schools
now and their management would he better if he had more power.

•^Assembly Journal. 1903. I, p. 71.
•j rr

"Hearing before the Legislative Committee" (editor­
ial), School Bulletin, XXTX (Feb., 1903), p. 91.

341
Ainsworth then turned upon Si shop Soane, asking if he were
"after" Skinner, or after Ainsworth*s scalp /sic/,

Skinner

also defended the action of the department in asking for
the authority to spend the money.14
Suring the course of the hearing there was a sharp
exchange of words between Ainsworth and Bishop Soane.

The

deputy superintendent was reported as having used the expres­
sions "stick in the mud" and "trouble-maker" in speaking
heatedly to the chancellor, who replied in a good-natured
fashion.

Suring the argument Bishop Soane pointed to Ains­

worth and said, "I say to the superintendent of public
instruction, *Thou art he that troubleth Israel.*"1®
Mr. Ainsworth was also quoted as accusing the regents
of assuming a censorship over the department.
We are unable to make a move without the regents
knowing all about it, and this supervision comes from
an aristocratic, ecclesiastical and isolated body of
men. 6
The heat of the argument over the Merritt bill prompted
Skinner to issue a pamphlet early in March in support of his
measure.

In introducing his argument he asserted that the

14Ibid., pp. 91-92.
15Uew York American, Feb. 5, 1903, cited in "Hearing
before the legislative Committee," School Bulletin, XX3EX
(Feb., 1903), p. 92.
16New York Herald, Feb. 7, 1903, cited in "Hearing
before the legislative Committee," School Bulletin. XXIX
(Feb., 1903), p. 92.

department had been subjected to unjust criticism resulting
from “gross misrepresentations which have been industriouslycirculated throughout the state.

He declared that he was

not aware that the proposal to pay non-resident tuition had
ever been advanced from any other source, and referred to
his proposal in the annual report asking for the authority
so to use school funds.

He charged that his report had not

reached the press before Chancellor Doane in a public state­
ment denounced his proposition, and the cry was raised that
the regents were being attacked.

He denied that the plan he

proposed would take away any "right, privilege or prerogative
which they then enjoyed.18
Mr. Skinner took the regents to task for a statement
proposing to assume control of the whole educational system,
which he branded as retaliation for the Merritt bill.

He

declared that such action would remove the schools as far
away from the people as possible, for no member of the board
had "ever been elected because of any recognized service to
education, or because of any experience in public school
work."18

He repeated a statement he had previously made

about the regents:
Assuming to be afraid of political influence in the
17

Charles R. Skinner, Educational Situation at Albany:
Statement to the People (pamphlet) (Albany: 1903), p. 2.
18Ibid., pp. 2-3.
19Ibid., p. 3.

343
school system, politics of a most disgraceful character
has entered into the discussion of this questionpolitic s of a disgraceful character for the reason that
it has consisted largely of personal vituperation, un­
truthful statements and false issues.*0
Mr. Skinner declared that no district would he
deprived of itB academic department through passage of the
Merritt hill.

He favored secondary education, and believed

that the high standards achieved hy secondary schools was
largely due to the quality of teachers provided through the
training institutions and the uniform licensing system.

If

the proposal for payment of non-resident tuition should he
defeated, it would he due to the "jealous opposition" of the
Board of Regents.21
On April 23, Chairman Rogers of the committee on ways
and means introduced a hill which apparently was a substitute
for the Merritt hill.

Assisted hy certification from Gover­

nor Odell that immediate passage of the hill was necessary,
it was rushed through under suspension of the rules, hy a
vote of 123 to 1,

pg

Under the same pressure it passed the

Senate the same day, 27 to 22.23
The old battle over partisan influences was raging at
the same time.

On February 12, at a meeting of the regents

20Ibid., p. 3.
21Ibid., pp. 3-4.
22Assemhly Journal, 1903, III, p. 2900.
23Senate Journal, 1903, II, p. 1534.

344
at the home of Whitelaw Reid in Hew York, the following
statement was drawn up:
Recent manifestations of the evils arising from the
existing dual system of State supervision of public
education and an earnest conviction of the duty to take
and keep the schools out of politics have constrained
the regents of the University to advise and request that
by suitable legislation the exclusive power and duty of
such supervision be committed to their board. Their
unbroken record for more than a century shows that they
have not been eager for enlarged powers, and that in
the words of Governor Odell1s unsought but prized
ecomium, they have been "absolutely without partisan­
ship and actuated by the higher moti es and the purest
sentiments."
The supreme importance of the cause of public educa­
tion and the wrong of leaving it exposed to the danger
of partisan control needs neither stating nor urging,
and it must be plain that educational interests will be
promoted when such unified supervision removes that
danger and abolishes hurtful and unhappily frequent
contentions between the present two departments.24
It was this manifesto to which Skinner referred in his publio
statement reviewed above.
On February 26, the Oneida county Homeopathic Medical
Society passed resolutions condemning partisan influences in
education, and urging the legislature to enact measures giv­
ing control to the regents.

Similar action was taken the

following day by a meeting of school principals in Chenango,
Delaware and Otsego counties.2®

24"Appeal of the Regents of the University" (editorial),
School Bulletin. XXTX (Mar., 1903), p. 110. The manifesto
was signed by Chancellor Doane, Vice-Chancellor Reid, and
eleven members of the board.
25
"Examples for Imitation" (editorial), Sohool Bulletin.
XXIX (Mar., 1903), p. 109.

4

During the campaign, which has Just "been described, a
touch of levity was injected into the usually acrimonious
or contentious comment of the press.

In the Brooklyn Daily

Eagle of March 16, 1903, appeared a piece entitled "’The
Ragints Must Go* Says Mr. Dooley No. 2."

Mr. Dooley, proto­

type of the popular humorous character of the day, had been
"Shtudyin* the great quistion of ijjication in the State of
Noo York" and was searching for someone who did not have his
mind made up, to whom he might impart his new found informa­
tion.

His friend Mr. Hinnessy appeared to qualify, for he

admitted he had never "gradiated from any instatootion more
fancy than a hin coop."
In New York, said Mr. Dooley, there was a
dooal system of ijjication. I t ’s the Jooty uv ivry man
on each side to watch ivry man uv the ither side. They’s
a sooper’n ’tendent, and by the law he tinds to this an1
that. An* a board of ragints, an* by law it tinds to the
ither. An* now, they’re sorappin’ to decide who’s the
queen bee. The soop, he wants to tind to the ragints,
an* the ragints, they want to tind to the Soop. Great
is the cause of ijjication.
Mr. Dooley had come to the conclusion that the ’tagLnts”
must go.
Nineteen big, strappin* ragints . . . illicted for
life, Hinnessy. . . . I t ’s agin our politics, I. I t ’s
agin our blessed democracy fur to illiot a man fur life.
Y/here will the fellie that’s not illicted come in,
tell me that? The ragints must go. A n ’ is it a salary
they be gittin’? . . . Not a cent pollutes their hands.
I t ’s the glory they git, an1 the appreciation of the
people that they git. . . . For years and years they
have been soakin’ up with honor. I t ’s a shame, Hinnessy.
I t ’s dead wrong. I ’m for the Soop. . . .

346
Let him appint his dipity and let his dipity appint
nineteen assistant dipities. More money, sez I, for
the cause of ijjication. Let ivry dipity have a salary,
I sez, and 'build up the cause.
. . . The ragints is a monopoly, I sez. A n ’ the poor
Soop. . . . Shure h e ’s paid in money— palthry gold and
silver and green paper. . . . H e ’s sarved for years, and
no reward but a salary. An* now whin like the whale of
ould, he hez awlmost swallered those nineteen ragints,
puffed as they air with the salaries of their office,
the ungrateful ragints object, Hinnessy.
I t ’s a shame for thim to act so. Having done their
work, let them stip aside and give the Soop a ohanst.
Give him the high sohules. Let him show what he can do,
. . . Wy, hez he not run the institoots? An* could any
man find a way to go to sleep quicker than at an
institoot? . . . These min should be heard. • • . Give
them a chanst. . . . The department furiver! Kick the
ould ragints out. They’re blockin’ the path uv the
Soop ani his dipity. Lave them stip aside. Give the
politishins a chanst to put ijjication, in Noo York,
where it belongs, that is, where they kin git at it.
The ragints must go, sez I.2®
Further evidence of continued friction between the
two departments appeared during the early fall of 1903.

In

the spring of the previous year the legislature had amended
the consolidated school law, as noted in our discussion of
the non-resident tuition controversy, appropriating $100,000
or as much of it as necessary to pay tuition for high school
pupils from districts not having an academic department.
Payment was to be made on certification of the superintendent
and the chancellor. ^

Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Mar. 16, 1903, cited in " ’The
Ragints Must G o ’ Says Mr. Dooley No. 2,” School Bulletin.
XXIX (Mar., 1903), p. 138.
27
New York (State), Session Laws. 1903 (Albany: J. B.
Lyon), pp. 1211-1212.

►
347
The October issue of the School Bulletin contained a
list of schools of academic grade which had been approved
for non-resident contracts.

The list bore the signature of

Secretary Parsons of the Board of Regents.28

Skinner under

date of September 17, sent a tart letter to Parsons in reply
to a request for certain changes in the tentative list sub­
mitted to the superintendent.
^

Skinner said rather stiffly

that several schools listed in the request had been on the
earlier list, and he had notified them that they had been
approved.

He did not think that approval once given could

be legally withdrawn simply because the Board of Regents
objected to past acts of the school or someone connected with
it, such as failure to send in an acceptable report.29
Mr. Parsons replied with equal warmth— or laok of it—
reminding Skinner that he should not object to omitting
eight schools which had been on the tentative list when he
(Skinner) had left out fifty sohools which had been on the
chancellor’s tentative liBt.

Parsons then proceeded to

speak plainly:
You had no more authority to notify the sohools on
our tentative list that they had been approved finally
by the chancellor than he would have had to notify all
schools on your tentative list that they had been ap­
proved finally by the superintendent. Our tentative
list, like yours, was stamped plainly as tentative, and

28

‘

nTart Correspondence” (editorial). School Bulletin,
X2CX (Oct., 1903), pp. 27-28.
29Ibid.. p. 30.

like you, the chancellor stated in transmitting it that
it was subject to change. You must bear the responsi­
bility of having notified schools only tentatively ap­
proved by the chancellor that they had been finally
approved by him. . . ,30
A second indication of friction appears in a circular
letter issued by the Board of Regents early in October, 1903.
The circular denied reports that the board was abandoning
opposition to efforts to transfer the high schools to the
control of the superintendent.
The regents will never sanction . . . the attempted
change in the efficient supervision under which the extrar
ordinary development of these schools has been accom­
plished. . . • The regents . . . have no intention of
relaxing their efforts for the protection and advancement
of thg^welfare of any of the schools under their charge.
•

•

•

On April 23, 1903, a joint resolution was adopted by
the legislature providing for the appointment by the lieuten­
ant governor and the speaker of the Assembly of a special
joint committee.

This group, consisting of five members of

the Senate and seven of the Assembly,3*5 was given by the
resolution full power to investigate the educational inter­
ests of the state.

To accomplish its aims, it was authorized

g0Ibid.. p. 30.
31”The Struggle for the High Schools” (editorial),
School Bulletin. XXX (Nov., 1903), pp. 45-46.
3% e w York (State), ”Final Report of the Special Joint
Committee on Educational Unification,” Senate Document No.25.
1904 (Albany; Oliver A. Quayle), pp. 10, 228. The committee
consisted of Senators Lewis, E. R. Brown, Stevens, Townsend
and Grady, and Assemblymen Landon, Rogers, Apgar, Phillips,
Merritt, Palmer and MoKeown.

349
to hold sessions after the adjournment of the legislature
and outside the capital.

It had, further, power to "send

for persons and papers," to issue subpoenas, and to compel
witnesses to attend or produce for its use any hooks, papers
or documents.

The resolution directed the committee to

report to the legislature on or before February 1, 1904.
The committee in its report was required to recommend any
legislation necessary for the betterment of the educational
interests of the state.®®
Only two senatorial and six assembly members were
present.34

After some informal discussion the committee de­

termined to ask the two educational departments for a "chrono­
logical and historical record" of the development of each,
what institutions each controlled and in what instances there
was duplicate supervision.

The committee also decided to

obtain comparative data on the educational systems of other
states.

These assignments were handed to Secretary Parsons,

Superintendent Skinner, and Dr. Robert H. Whitten, sociolog­
ical librarian of the state library.

The committee then

adjourned until December 2.®®
At the adjourned meeting Dr. Whitten presented a com­
prehensive survey of the systems of educational control and
supervision found in the other states, as well as a summary
®®Ibid., p. 11.
®4Ibid., p. 12.
®5Ibid.. pp. 12-13.

350
of his report.®®

In response to questions Dr. Whitten said

that there was no other state with a hoard having life tenure
similar to the regents, and no other state with a double
system like that of New York.®7

Asked how many states had

a superintendent with no controlling hoard, Dr. Whitten said
that five states had no hoard at all, and in five others the
hoards merely controlled school funds.38
Secretary Parsons presented a comprehensive hrief
requiring some forty pages of the committee report, which
covered all the essentials of the history of the university
and the Board of Regents, the<:development of their activi­
ties, and the legal hases for their duties, as outlined in
earlier sections of this study.®8
Superintendent Skinner was laconic hy comparison with
a statement requiring less than half the space taken for the
secretary*s hrief.

He reported completely on the legal and

constitutional history of the common school s y s t e m . A t
36Ihid.. pp. 15-17.
37Ibid., pp. 21-22.
38
Ibid., pp. 25-26. Dr. Whitten*s report indicated
that there were state hoards of education with more or less
power in all states excepting Alabama, Illinois, Maine, New
Hampshire, and Ohio. In 28 of these 43 states the hoards
supervised the entire system. All had state superintendents
except Connecticut, Delaware and Massachusetts, and the
superintendent was usually a member or an executive officer
of the state hoard. In one state the superintendent was
elected hy the hoard; in two hy the legislature; in ten he
was selected hy the governor and in 32 elected hy the people.
39Ibid., pp. 26-68.
4°Ibid., pp. 73, 75

351
two points in his brief he paid his compliments to the
Board of Regents and their powers.

Referring to the union

free school act of 1853, he mentioned that the academic
departments in such schools were under the visitation of
the regents so far as courses of study were concerned.
This . . . is the first time . . . that the Regents
. . . were permitted to enter the public, common school
system. Every vestige of power which they have over the
tax supported school is given them by this ancient act.
This is the only statute which has ever been enacted
in the State . . . conferring upon the . . • Regents any
shadow of„ authority over the common tax supported
schools.41
Still referring to the union free schools, the superintendent
said, "The Regents may recommend changes in courses of study.
The local authorities may acquiesce or not.”4**
After listing some thirty-five "powers and duties" of
the superintendent, which boiled down to approximately
eleven categories, Skinner made his second point concerning
the Board of Regents:
The only power the Board of Regents have over a tax
supported common school is the right of visitation and
inspection. They cannot compel the performance of any
single act therein. /Ttalics in original^/43
Following the presentation of the briefs the joint

41Ibid., pp. 73, 75.
*

42Ibld., p. 75.
43Ibid., p. 87.

352
committee adjourned until December 3, to permit the members
to study the information provided.44

When the committee

reconvened and the discussion was opened, the chairman
expressed the opinion that the committee, to put an end to
the friction in the state educational system, could either
create a department of education as proposed in the White
bill of 1900, or adopt • a proposal similar to the Walter
Brown bill of 1902.

The latter repealed the provisions of

the law of 1853 which had given the Board of Regents visita­
tion powers over the academic departments of high schools
established under the union free school law.

This proposal,

the chairman declared, would draw a line between the activi­
ties of the Board of Regents and of the state superintendent.4®
Replying to a suggestion that the latter proposal
would not conform to the public expectation, Chairman lewis
agreed that "the educational interests of the State are com­
mitted to the proposition that there should be one supreme
educational authority in this State. . . ."46

Senator Grady,

objecting, declared that the committee would not meet public
expectations merely by attempting to settle conflicting
authority by the repeal of inconsistent statutes,
interjected:

lewis

"In other words, we won*t meet public expecta­

tion by chaining up the dog," to which Grady replied, "Mo,
44Ibld., pp. 88-92.
45Ibid., p. 94.
46Ibid., p. 95.

353
sir, you got to ldLll him."47
Senator Stevens proposed that the desired purpose he
accomplished hy establishing a commission, as nearly non­
partisan as possible.

The members would individually be

heads of educational departments, such as finance, law,
secondary education, etc., and collectively supervise the
work of the existing educational departments.

B y constitu­

tional amendment he would reduce the power of the Board of
Regents to control of the academies, the state library and
museums.4®
Senator Grady, called upon as senior member of the
committee, asserted that he would hold on to the Board of
Regents, but as a supervisory body, with experts heading
bureaus and responsible to the Board of Regents.49
Assemblyman Landon called attention to the tremendous
power exercised by the superintendent of public instruction.
With this power, from which there was no appeal, he could
annul or suspend the licenses of any or all of the 38,000
teachers, and condemn any sohoolhouse and demand its replace­
ment.

lewis added that if the district in the latter case

failed to carry out his mandate he could levy the tax and
provide for the construction of the building himself.

47Ibid., p. 95.
48Ibid.. p. 96.
0

49Ibid.. pp. 97-98.

Landon

354
insisted, there should he some power of appeal.®®
Senator Lewis suggested that the superintendent he
popularly elected and made presiding officer of the Board of
Regents and chief executive officer of the state educational
administration, with appeal from his decisions to the Board
of Regents.

He proposed further that the Board of Regents

he reduced in size hy not filling vacancies for a time, and
that the hoard he the final arbiter in case of dismissal of
bureau heads hy the superintendent .®^

There was some agree­

ment to Assemblyman Palmer's proposal that the regents he
appointed hy Judicial districts,

52

hut opposition to sugges­

tions that the dominant party he given majority power in the
hoard.®®
The committee, after further discussion, agreed that
the desirable aim of the committee and of educational inter­
ests alike was unification.®^
At the next meeting of the committee, held Beoember 21,
1903, Chairman Lewis in an introductory statement declared
that., after consideration of the briefs of the disputants, the
members of the committee had agreed that the two parties
should prepare and submit hills embodying their respective
50Ibid.

pp. 101-102.

®1Ihid.

pp. 103-104.

®2Ibid.

p. 104.

®3Ibid.

p. 104.

54Ibid.

pp. 106-107.

views as to the means of clarifying the educational system
of the state.^

The chairman proceeded then to read a com­

munication from Secretary Parsons stating that the Board of
Regents had considered the request for a bill or bills, and
would submit proposals "in ample season."

The secretary

also filed a brief in reply to that submitted at the earlier
meeting by Superintendent Skinner:
1. The superintendent1s brief appeared to be an argu­
ment designed to support three theses: (a) in the laws of
the state "common school" is synonymous with "public" or
"tax supported" school; (b) the superintedent of public
instruction had "sole and exclusive power of supervision"
over all public schools; (c) the powers of the Board of
Regents over public schools were limited to "right of visita­
tion and inspection" and did not include any compulsive
power.56
2. Powers of the university by definition in the uni­
versity law of 1892 /Chapter 3787 included academies as well
as higher and technical schools, "academies" being defined
in the statute as incorporated schools as well as academic
departments in union free schools.

Compulsive power was in­

herent in the section of the law permitting the regents to
exclude from the privileges of the university system any

55
Ibid., p. 109. No reference to such a proposal is
found in the minutes of the preceding meeting.
56Ibid., p. 110.

school failing to comply with the law or the ordinances of
the university.57

The consolidated school law of 1894

practically repeated the language of the union free school
act of 1853 in placing academic departments in union free
schools under the visitation of the regents and under their
jurisdiction with regard to their "courses of education."5®
The regents, having solo distribution of funds appropriated
for secondary education, had the power since the act of 1853
to enforce their regulations for the control of secondary
schools by withholding moneys due the school district for
secondary education.5®
According to the consolidated school law, all union
free sohools were "subject to the visitation of the Superin­
tendent of Public Instruction" who was "charged with the
general supervision of its board of education and their man­
agement and conduct of all its departments of instruction."60
The secretary found comfort in this statement, declaring
that there was no conflict, since the superintendent had the
power of visitation and the right to supervise the boards of
education, while the regents had power to visit the academic
departments and examine their courses of study.

He declared,

It is inconceivable that the legislature intended to
give the same powers to two different State departments
in the same act. The only reasonable interpretation of
the two sections is that the Regents were given certain
definite functions and the Superintendent was given cer­
tain other definite functions. The Superintendent has
power to compel the board of education to comply with
statutory provisions. The Regents have power to insist
on the observance of their regulations concerning the
educational work of the school.®^
3.

As to the interpretation of the term "common school,

which Superintendent Skinnerfs brief had declared on the
authority of the Century Dictionary to be synonymous with
"public school," Secretary Parsons quoted a different defini­
tion from the same volume to prove that the term meant
"elementary school."

From Bouvier's law Dictionary he

brought forth a definition of common schools as schools for
"general elementary education."62* on the basis of these
definitions, as well as the use of the expressions "common
school department" and "academical departments" in section 16
of chapter 433 of the laws of 1853, he insisted that the
legislature meant elementary school when it used the term
common school.®®
To further buttress his argument Secretary Parsons
found in the consolidated school law the following:
The Board of Education shall possess all the powers
and privileges, and be subject to all the duties in
61Ibid., p. 113.
62Ibid., p. 113.
63Ibid., p. 114.

358
respect to the common schools, or the common school
departments in any union free school in said districts,
which the trustees of common schools possess or__are
subject to under this act, . . . and to enjoy /sio7
whenever an academic department shall by them be 'estab­
lished, all the immunities and privileges now enjoyed
by the trustees of academies. • . . 4
To show that the superintendents themselves had been
wont to use the term common school as meaning elementary, he
quoted further from a decision of Superintendent Gilmour
in 1880:
The appeal is brought from the action of the trustees
excluding from the district school certain advanced
studies. This department will neither insist upon nor
prohibit the introduction and teaching of branches not
usually taught in the common schools of the State. . . ,66
Parsons found further comfort in the 1889 report of Superin­
tendent Andrew S. Draper:
I deem it proper to say that reflection and experience
convince me that the arrangement which has so long existed
in this State by which the oommon school interests are
administered and supervised by this department, and the
academic interests by the Board of Regents of the Univer­
sity, is a wise and useful one. Between these two classes
of school work there is a natural and well-defined line
of separation.66
Omitting still further multiplication of the evidence,
we find this final item:

.
115 .
115.

64Ibid., p. 114
65Ibid., p.
66Ibid., p.

m
But whatever the meaning of "common school," the fuht
remains that up to the time of the enactment of the union
free school lew-of 1853 there were no common schools in
the State except the elementary schools. Many of those
schools undoubtedly taught some academic subjects, as the
common district schools do today, but such teaching was
incidental. There were no academic departments organized
as such in public schools till /sic7 1853, and when pro­
vision was made for the organization of such departments
the supervision of theirficourses of education was placed
under the Regents. . . .
Secretary Parsons then proceeded to point out that in
the division of work between the two departments, assignments
had been made according to educational work rather than the
type of school,68

The transfer to the department of public

instruction from the Board of Regents, of training classes
for teachers, included all such classes in both public high
schools and academies.

The supervision of teacher training

in colleges had been assigned to the department also because
of its relationship to licensing of teachers.69

On the

other hand, the assignment of examinations for Cornell schol­
arships to the department was contrary to this provision;
the assignment should have been to the regents.1^8

Division

according to schools would have necessitated duplicate
organizations in such instances as examinations for scholar­
ships in academies and public high schools; examinations for

67Ibid., p. 117.
68Ibid., p. 118.
69Ibid., p. 119.
70Ibid., p. 119.

But whatever the meaning of "common school," the fact
remains that up to the time of the enactment of the union
free school laW:-of 1853 there were no common schools in
the State except the elementary schools. Many of these
schools undoubtedly taught some academic subjects, as the
common district schools do today, but such teaching was
incidental. There were no academic departments organized
as such in public schools till /sic7 1853, and when pro­
vision was made for the organization of such departments
the supervision of their.courses of education was placed
under the Regents. . . .
Secretary Parsons then proceeded to point out that in
the division of work between the two departments, assignments
had been made according to educational work rather than the
type of school.®®

The transfer to the department of public

instruction from the Board of Regents, of training classes
for teachers, included all such classes in both public high
schools and academies.

The supervision of teacher training

in colleges had been assigned to the department also because
of its relationship to licensing of teachers.®9

On the

other hand, the assignment of examinations for Cornell schol­
arships to the department was contrary to this provision;
the assignment should have been to the regents.7®

Division

according to schools would have necessitated duplicate
organizations in such instances as examinations for scholar­
ships in academies and public high schools; examinations for

67Ibid.. P* 117
68Ibid.. P» 118
69Ibid., P« 119
70Ibid., P» 119

pre-professional certificates in the two types of secondary
schools; and supervision of training classes in high schools
as. against the academies.7-*4.

Referring;to friction over the training of teachers,

Parsons cited a statement in Superintendent Skinner’s hrief
which had charged that the teacher training classes had
first heen placed hy the original law of 1834 under the Board
of Regents, hut the system had proved so unsatisfactory that
transfer to the department of public instruction had heen
made in 1889.

Parsons asserted that the change had heen

made not because the results were unsatisfactory, hut that
the regents had recommended the transfer on the understanding
that the differences between the two departments would he
removed as a result.72
Parsons next attacked Skinner's statement in the
recapitulation of powers of the superintendent, that the
superintendent had power to prescribe courses of study in
schools maintaining training classes.
Chapter 1031 of the Laws of 1895 gives to the Superin­
tendent the power to prescribe the course of study for
the training classes, hut no power to prescribe other
courses of study. He may, of course, assign training
classes to such schools only as furnish courses of study
satisfactory to him, hut he has no statutory power to
prescribe courses of study for those schools. • .

71Ihid., pp. 119-120.
72Ibid. . p. 121.
73Ihid., p. 122.

361
As a means of delimiting the activities of the two
departments, Parsons offered the following suggestions:
a. Give to the Regents sole supervision of courses
of study in academic education in all schools under
their jurisdiction, as was the case up to 1895. This
could he accomplished hy amending lines 8 and 9,
section 4 of Chapter 1031 of the laws of 1895.
h. Amend chapter 542, laws of 1903, for the payment
of non-resident tuition, vesting the administration of
the act entirely in the Regents.74
He asserted that these two acts produced the duplication of
work which was the cause of much of the friction.7®
The secretary, in closing his hrief, took vigorous
exception to the suggestion made hy Superintendent Skinner
that the legislature repeal that section of the union free
school aot placing academic departments in those schools
under the regents:
The action which the Superintendent . . . proposes
would destroy the strength of the Regents as an effec­
tive educational force. . . . F r o m the beginning the
supervision of courses of education in high schools,
academies and academic departments has heen, as it is
today, the chief function of the Regents, the heart of
their work, the foundation on which the whole system of
higher, professional and technical education rests.
They do not helieve the Legislature will sanction the
change, proposed hy Mr. Skinner, in the efficient super
vision under which the extraordinary development of our
secondary school has heen attained.7®

74Ihid.. pp. 122-123
75Ihid.. p. 123.
76Ihid., p. 123.

362
The chairman, introduced a letter in rebuttal from the
superintendent of public instruction:
. . . The . . . only satisfactory solution of the
present difficulty in educational matters . . . is to
establish a clear line of demarcation between the taxsupported schools and all other educational activity.
Under the Constitution the State must maintain a
system of common schools. . . . £which7 should be
maintained separate and distinct“from"’library work,
university work, technical, preparatory, private and
church schools— with no one of which it has a single
thing in common. It involves the taxing power, the
judicial power and the legislative power of the State
and should be administered by a State officer amenable
to the people, elected for a definite term, subject to
removal as other State officers and in the same way,
and be treated as a function of the government. . . .
The tax-supported common school is the most distinc­
tive American institution we have. It should be
officered, controlled and directed by interests owing
no allegiance . . . to any other. . . . This result
may be accomplished by the enactment of the Walter 1.
Brown bill of last winter.
. . . If the proposition . . . herein outlined does
not meet the approval of this committee, or . . . is
impossible of accomplishment, . . . this Committee
should consider the proposition of Senator Elon R.
Brown (in its finally amended form) as introduced last
year. . . .
. . . Should neither of these propositions meet with
the approval of this committee, . . . I would yield . . .
support to the bill Introduced by Senator Horace White
at the session of 1900, . . . bill No. 170. . . . 7
In the resulting discussion Superintendent Skinner
summarized the W. L. Brown bill as placing the tax-supported
schools uhder the department of public instruction and all

77

Ibid., pp. 124-126

363
others under the jurisdiction of the regents.*^®

The Elon

Brown bill provided for an elected board of education of
eleven members, eight elected by the majority in the legisla­
ture and three by the minority, to control all educational
activities in the state, public and private.

The White bill

provided that no regents should be elected to fill places
made vacant by death of members, until the number had been
reduced to fourteen.

The superintendent believed that the

number should be still further reduced to nine, a smaller
board being more easily administered.7^
Mr. Skinner further declared that the agitation involv­
ing the two departments had begun the previous winter over
the authority to distribute an appropriation requested of
the legislature for institutions designated to receive non­
resident students.

Skinner repeated his charge that the

regents had no .authority to enforce any decision.

He

declared that because the regents apportioned under the
Horton law of 1895 a quota of one hundred dollars to academic
departments when organized, plus threeooents per day for
attendance, the board believed it should also apportion the
money proposed

to be appropriated by the Merritt bill.

He

believed that the line of demarcation in supervision should
be established at the end of high school, representing the

78Ibid., pp. 126-127
79Ibid., p. 127.

364
end of public authority over the school.®®

n. . . I claim

that in the matter of this nonresident tuition none hut
public schools should participate in its distribution. . .
However, in view of a law of 1873 authorizing the re­
gents to distribute money to private academies, Skinner
asserted that the department would not object to such a
distribution if the legislature provided

the money.82

A plan for unification was presented8^>roposing to
unify all educational interests under the Board of Regents,
eliminating the ex officio members and reducing the board
to nine popularly elected officials, serving eight year
terms.

The chancellor, according to the proposal, would

also be elected by the people.

The newly elected regents

would by lot be designated to serve terms of two, four, six
or eight years, to establish continuity.

The Board of

Regents would appoint the superintendent of public instruc­
tion, any of whose decisions could be appealed to the board.
Yfith the exception of the power of appointing normal school
boards, the powers of the superintendent as then existing
would be continued.

During the life of the present regents,

the new board would co-exist with the old, authority shifting

80Ibid., pp. 128-130.
81Ibid., p. 131.
82Ibid.. p. 133.
83By Mr. Landon, from the tenor of the subsequent
diseussion. No name was given.

365
to the new as the existing members retired or died.84
The subsequent debate on the Landon proposal centered
largely on the method of selection of state school officers
as shown in the ambitious chart prepared by Dr. Whitten and
presented with his testimony at the outset of the hearings.8®
Senator Stevens presented a proposal which he admitted
was a composite of parts of the Brown and White bills as well
as others.

He suggested the establishment of a state depart­

ment of education, as had Brown,'under the executive author­
ity of a superintendent of education nominated by the gover­
nor with the advice and consent of the Senate, to serve until
January 1, 1905, his sucoessor to be elected for four years
by the people at the fall election.

The proposal included

as well the establishment of bureaus of public instruction,
higher education, home education, law and finance, under the
immediate control of a director, but subject to the superin­
tendent.

Directors would be appointed by the superintendent

with the consent of the Board of Regents, who could also
remove any director.

After the Board of Regents had been

reduced by death, resignation or removal to nine members,
the legislature should fill any vacancy subsequently occurring
by electing first from the First Judicial district, and so in
rotation, vacancies thereafter to be filled from the same

84

Senate Document H o . 25, 1904, pp. 138-139.

85Ibid., pp. 139-146.

366
district.

Not more than seven regents should he members of

the same party.

The superintendent was to have the same

powers as then possessed hut appeals could he taken from his
decisions to the Board of Regents, who might summon witnes­
ses and administer oaths.86
Debate on the Stevens proposal centered principally
on (1) the advisability of popular election of the superin­
tendent and/or the Board of Regents; (2) the possibility of
a one-sided political majority in a board elected by Judicial
districts; (3) the possible effects of the change in execu­
tive authority resulting from popular election for a r,*la*
tively short term; (4) the injection of politics into the
election of the superintendent; and (5) whether the popular
election of a superintendent and the legislative selection
of the Board of Regents would increase or decrease friction.87
Debate finally simmered down to a statement that all
were apparently agreed upon some form of unification in order
to centralize responsibility.

When a vote was called for

the committee was unanimously for unification under one
board.88
Discussion centered next on the manner of election of
the proposed board of education, particularly the Stevens

86Ibid., pp. 149-151.
87
Ibid., pp. 151-164.
88Ibid., p. 165.

367
proposal for election by Judicial districts.®9

Objections

to popular election included the necessity of eliminating
political influence, the difficulty of obtaining able men
for the proposed board, and the absolute necessity of
obtaining the ablest men available.

Senator Brown was con­

vinced that popular election would be productive of unsatis­
factory results, such as obtained in local school commission­
er and school board elections, and declared his conviction
that rather than risk such results the situation might better
not be changed at all.9®

In a test vote on the question of

whether the members of the proposed educational board should
be elected by the people of the state, Senator Brown and
Assemblyman Apgar- voted rtnon ;

Senators lewis (chairman),

Stevens and Townsend, and Assemblymen landon, Palmer and
Merritt approved the proposed method of election.9^
As the dayTs debate drew to a close, Senator Brown
called the attention of the committee to the fact that New
York City cast a disproportionately large vote, and would
therefore have a large voice in the selection of the pro­
posed board.

At the same time it maintained an educational

system practically autonomous as to control, but, as landon
pointed out, drew more state money for teachers1 salaries

89

Ibid., pp. 166-167.

90Ibid., pp. 167-172.
91Ibid., pp. 175-176.

368
than any other Judicial district in the state.
A new twist to the evidence of difference of opinion
between the two departments was revealed when the Joint com­
mittee re-convened in Albany on.the morning of December 22,
1903.

Appearing before the committee with a request to be

heard were Rev. Dr. George H. Ball, President of the Trustees
of Keuka Institute; F. 1. Damson of Cook Academy, and Dr.
Melville R. Webster, presiding elder of the Rochester District
and trustee of Genesee Wesleyan Seminary at Lima.

As spokes­

man for the trio, representing the academies of the state,
Dr. Ball presented a statement which he signed together with
M. H. Roberts, Chesbrough Seminary, North Chili; Rev. T. G.
Bissell, Genesee Wesleyan Seminary; Hosea Clark, Marion
Collegiate Institute, Marion; and F. L. Damson of Cook
qa
Academy, Montour Falls.
An extended excerpt from the
statement indicates the purpose of their appearance before
the committee:
Last winter the Legislature appropriated $100,000
for the payment of the tuition in academic studies of
scholars of academic grade from districts where no
school with academic facilities exist, subject to the
approval of the Chancellor of the University and the
Superintendent of Public Instruction. The Legislature,
of course, designed this money primarily to benefit
the students who, rather than the schools, needed such
provision. The Chancellor ruled, if the Attorney-General
held tenable such construction of the statute, that
scholars of the specified grade attending either academic

92Ibid., pp. 176-177.
93Ibid., pp. 179, 182.

369
departments of high schools, or Regents academies, should
each share equally in the appropriation, while the Super­
intendent rules that only such as attend the Academic
Department of High Schools shall be benefited, on the
plea that academies are private institutions and as such
should not in any form share in public funds. . . . As
the law now stands there is no appeal from the ruling of
the Superintendent, and as he declines to submit the case
to the Attorney-General* this exclusion of academic
scholars becomes absolute and final. A school law which
lodges such absolute power in one person should certainly
be amended.
We respectfully protest that this ruling is unjust. .
To the ruling that these academies are private insti­
tutions we object. Regents Academies . . . are created
under State control. . . . If any academy suspends oper­
ation, the entire property reverts to the disposal of
the Regents. . . . To receive public money from the State
for the increase of library or apparatus an equal amount
has to be raised by private contribution and then all
books and laboratory supplies purchased by such funds
belong to the State by reversion if the academy ceases
operation. . . . They are absolutely prohibited from
imposing any sectarian or denominational conditions in
the selection of trustees, directors or instructors or
for the admission of students. . . . It is vastly to
the interest of education that the grand work done by
the Regents during the last century should not be
obstructed or destroyed. This discrimination against
academies should cease. • . . The taxpayers should be
allowed to send their academic scholars to any public
institution which offers good academic instruction and
share in all appropriation funds byQthe State towards
the payment of their tuition. . . . 4
The brief offered two suggestions:

first, that the

committee recommend that the law be amended to permit non­
residents attending either a non-sectarian academy or a
high school academic department to share in state tuition
funds; and seoond, that the amount allowed be credited to

94Ibid., pp. 179-182.

370
the students* tuition hill, and the academies not he
restrained from charging additional tuition beyond the state
payments.95
Supporting the prepared statement, Dr. Ball pointed
out further that since the establishment of the department
of public instruction there had been an evident "trend
against academies" in the administration of the department.
As proof of his statement, he pointed out the evolution of
normal schools to train teachers at great expense, instead
of allowing the academies to perform that function; the
withholding by the superintendent from the academies of any
share of $60,000 appropriated by the legislature from the
free school and deposit funds for support of teachers*
training classes; the withholding of certificates from
prospective teachers who were graduates of regents* acade­
mies; the refusal of the superintendent to include regents*
academies, as stated above, in the list of eligible schools
which non-residents might attend under the tuition payment
provided in 1903, and in violation of an act of 1903 author­
izing free school districts not including an academic depart­
ment to contract for academic education with a regents!
academy in the district.

Dr. Ball concluded his statement

with an earnest declaration of the deepest interest of the
patrons and friends of the academies in whatever plan the

95Ibid., p. 182

371
committee might devise for improving the status of education
in the state:
They desire the ancient, well-settled policy of the
State respecting Academies shall continue; that their
investments shall not be practically confiscated; that
scholars who attend them shall share in public funds
equally with those who attend academic departments of
union free schools; that money they contribute to the
cause of education, in addition to the taxes they pay,
shall not work discrimination .against academies . • . ;
that graduates from these academies shall he welcomed
to the ranks of teachers in our public schools equally
with graduates, no better qualified, from tax-supported
schools.
. . . The most intelligent and public spirited
citizens of the State are exceedingly anxious that your
report to the legislature shall be Just and equal to alL
departments of our educational systems; that it shall
present a plan of unification which will cure the chafing
and expensive rivalry of the two departments; . . . that
under your advice the Legislature shall enact laws which
shall ensure that /5ic7 not only harmony and efficiency
in the administration-of educational matters, but increase
the enthusiasmggf our citizens in the support of all our
schools. . . .
Questioned by the members of the committee, Dr. Ball
declared it to be his opinion that the legislature might
well provide for a single board to supervise education and
that it made little difference whether the board so estab­
lished was appointive or elective, so long as the people
could be sure that capable men were selected.®7

Under fur­

ther questioning Dr. Ball stated that parents who sent their
children to aoademies, paying the rate there in addition to

96Ibid., pp. 185-186.
97Ibid., pp. 186-187.

372
taxes for the support of public schools, did so in the
belief that academies were superior in the supervision of
and control over the students, in such matters as regular
study hours.

He declared further in response to questions

from Superintendent Skinner that the academies attempted to
do more than prepare students for college; that his insti­
tution maintained a teacher of methods, trained in a normal
school, without benefit of assistance from the state for
that purpose; and that the school received an appropriation
for apparatus and attendance money from the regents, amount­
ing to about $800.9®
Following a period of further debate on the matter
of election or appointment of the regents or other members
of a proposed board of education, Senator Stevens presented
another bill which may be summarized:, as follows;
1. Establish a state department of education, headed
by a board of three commissioners, with supervision over
all..public schools maintained by public taxation.
2. Commissioners to be elected by the legislature,
two representing the majority and one the minority in
the houses.
3. The first commissioners to be elected for two,
four and six years, the members to determine by lot
which should serve for each term.
4. Chairman and secretary to be elected by the board
from their own number.
5. Chairman to supervise normal and high school

98Ibid., pp. 186-190.

373
education; secretary to have charge of records and legal
and financial matters; the— third member to supervise
primary and secondary /si£/ departments of the common
schools.
”
6. The commission to have power to decide all
questions then in the jurisdiction of the superintendent
of public instruction, their decision to be final."
There followed an almost interminable examination of
the Stevens proposal, picked apart word by word and phrase
by phrase.

The following quotation indicates the general

procedure:
Senator Stevens:
”The Commissioners of Public Educa­
tion shall possess all the powers of the Superintendent
of Public Education and such other powers as may be
necessary to give them complete and absolute control.”
Assemblyman Palmer:
Such powers as the Superintend­
ent of Public Education now possess by law.
Senator Stevens: The Commissioners of Public Educa­
tion shall possess all of the powers of the Superintend­
ent of Public Instruction.
Assemblyman Palmer: All the powers now possessed by
the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and . . .
such others as are hereinafter provided.
Senator Stevens: Together with such other powers as
is £sio7 necessary to give them complete and absolute
control of the tax-supported schools of the State.
The Chairman:
You are inviting a lawsuit there. I
think you want to define it so there won't be any question
for a lawsuit.
Your idea is all right, but you have got
to express it a little different there. I think Palmer's
suggestion is correct.
Assemblyman Palmor: Such other powers as are herein
or hereinafter provided.

"ibid., pp. 194-195

374
Senator Stevens: Such other powers as are herein or
hereinafter provided.
The Chairman:
"Herein” means in this hill; so what
does "hereinafter” mean?
Assemblyman Palmer: That is redundant, strike that
out, "herein” is enough.
The^g^airman:
vided.

Such other powers as are herein pro­

After two attempts, on January 7, 1904, to obtain a
quorum for a meeting in New York City had failed, the com­
mittee convened again in Albany on January 13.

A bill

drafted by Senator Stevens was discussed informally.

Sec­

tion one proposed to create a state department of public
education composed of three commissioners, two elected by
the legislature and one by the regents.
bill consisted of definition of terms.

Section two of the
Section three pre­

scribed the method of election of the commissioners to be
chosen by the legislature, stipulating that both should not
be members of the same political party, and that the three
commissioners should draw lots for the respective terms.
Section four provided the method of electing successors to
the commissioners, and section five the method of filling
vacancies.

According to seotion six, the commissioners would

receive $6,000 per year.

Section seven fixed the place and

date for the first meeting of the new board, and section
eight provided for transfer of powers from the department of

1Q0lbid. , pp. 200-201.

^

075
public instruction to the new department.

This section pro­

posed to vest in the new department complete power over all
common schools, including elementary, secondary and academic
departments of union free schools in which free instruction
is supported "by taxation.

Section nine provided for general

powers of the commissioners.

In section ten, detailing the

specific powers of the individual commissioners, the draft
"bill with due seriousness provided that the president of the
commission should he ex officio a regent, a trustee of
Cornell University and a manager of the Syracuse State
Institution for Feebleminded Children!-*-^
The president was also vested with power over normal
and secondary school education.

The secretary, in addition

to records and minutes, was charged with control over legal,
and financial matters, while the third commissioner was to
occupy his time with the supervision of elementary education,
enforcement of the compulsory education law, and education
and certification of teachers, through examinations, insti­
tutes, and training classes.

Of the remaining six sections,

the chief was section thirteen, abolishing the offices of
the superintendent of public instruction and his first and
second deputies.
On January 27 the committee convened again in Albany,
and upon calling the meeting to order the chairman, Senator

101Ibid.. pp. 211-215
10 2

’

x 6Ibid., pp. 216-217

376
Lewis, without further ado read to the committee a proposed
bill, which he described as “a legislative bill" which had
been “evolved from the various discussions and conferences
that have been held."

The bill, modified after its submis­

sion with the committee report, in two minor points, pro­
vided in section one for eleven regents to govern and
exercise the powers of the University of the State of New
York on and after April 1, 1904.
eliminated.

Ex officio regents were

Section two provided for election of the eleven

regents by the legislature in the manner then prescribed by
law.

The new election was to be from the ranks of the then

Board of Regents, the members being respectively elected far
terms from one to eleven years, their successors being named
for eleven year terms.

So far as possible, regents were to

be elected from each Judicial district.

Seotion three pre­

scribed the election by the legislature of a commissioner of
education, who might or might not be a resident of the
state.^*®®

The commissioner was to exercise the authority

and perform the duties of both the secretary of the Board of
Regents and the superintendent of public instruction, both
positions being abolished.

The commissioner was to receive

$7,500 per year plus $1,500 for expenses, and was to be
elected for six years, his successor to be elected by the
Board of Regents for an indeterminate term.

The commissioner's

103
The foregoing clause was added by amendment.

377
duties and powers, specified in section four, included gen­
eral supervision of all educational activities of the state,
creation of departments, and appointment of personnel and
fixing of salaries, subject to approval of the regents.

He

was authorized to apportion all money previously appropriated
for common schools and distributed through the superintendent
of public instruction, and for secondary education appor­
tioned by the Board of Regents.

These payments were to be

made "on warrant of the Comptroller.”^ ^
A somewhat acrimonious discussion followed, principal­
ly concerning the possible political results of selecting
the regents by judicial districts.

During the argument

Assemblyman Palmer, one of the Democratic members who later
signed the minority report, objected to consideration of a
bill not previously' considered in committee, and accused
Senator Brown of "using /Kis7 hand quietly" to bring about
its consideration by the committee.

At the same time he

asserted that the minority had no particular objection to
the bill but wanted time to study it.

The chairman, however,

calling attention to the impending expiration of the com­
mittee, called for a vote on reporting it to the legislature,
which was carried eight to four, the dissidents being

104

In the original the last phrase read "on warrant
of the Commissioner." It was changed at the request of the
Comptroller to make it identical with other statutory pro­
visions of similar nature.
Senate Dooument Ho. 25, 1904,
pp. 219-222.

378
Senators Townsend and Grady (whose vote was registered in
absentia with the privilege of changing it), and Assemblymen
Palmer and McKeown.l®®
Under date of February 4, the four minority members
of the committee presented a dissenting report to the legis­
lature, particularly deploring the division of the committee
on party lines in the final vote on the proposed bill.106
The report stated
It is to be regretted that it has been deemed politic
by the majority of the joint committee to abandon all
idea of educational unification upon the lines of public
expectation, and to substitute therefor a plan of
educational centralization under reprehensible partisan
control. . .
The minority report objected further to the reduction
of the number of regents, certain to result in a greater
degree of subservience to party consideration, and the pro­
vision that the commissioner need not be a resident of the
state, which the minority believed to be a reflection upon
the qualities of educators of the state, and which seemed to
indicate that a candidate had already been determined upon.
The report also objected to the provision by which members
of a legislature having but one year left in office would
elect a commissioner for a six year term.
105Ibid., pp. 222-228.
106
. Ibid., p. 240.
107Ibid., p. 241.

Election for such

379
a term, plus election of the regents for indefinite terms,
the report asserted, is "an ingenious but none the less
vicious method of depriving the people of the state of all
its power in the matter of educational control."-**®®

The

report concluded,
The appeal of the people that our school system be
lifted out of politics, has been answered by attempting
to place it deeper in the mire of petty partisan
intrigue and control. There remains, however, to the
people the powor to work their will in this regard,
and we confidently hope for and expect its prompt
exercise. No more patriotic purpose . . . remains to
be accomplished by the people of this State. 09
The report included a draft bill almost identical
with the Stevens proposal of January 13, and described on
pages 374 and 375.-1--**®
In his annual message for 1904 Governor Odell came
out flatly for a line of demarcation removing the academic
departments from any control by the superintendent.

He

also urged the modification of the school laws to require
a three year academic course as a minimum requirement for
state aid as an academic department. •*■•*••*•

108Ibid., p. 242.
109Ibid., p. 243.
■*"^New York (State), "Minority Report of Special
Joint Committee on Educational Unification," Senate Document
N o . 2 7 , 1904, pp. 5-12.
^-^New York (State), Messages from the Governor s , ed.
by Charles Z. Lincoln (Albany: J. B. Lyon C o . , 1969), X,
p. 604.

380
On February 3, the majority bill was introduced, into
the legislature, with a title declaring the purpose to be
to provide that "the University of the State of New York"
shall be governed and its powers exercised by eleven
Regents, and to provide for their election, and to pro­
vide for a department of education and the election of
a commissioner of education.11*
The proceedings indicate that the Senate intended to
have the matter over with in a minimum of time.

The bill

was in the first instance reported to the committee of the
whole, then to the committee on public education.115

When

the latter reported it favorably a week later it was restored
to the committee of the whole, which two days later made it
a special order for the following Monday, February 15.114
On that day the committee of the whole reported in favor of
passage of the bill, and the following day it was ordered
engrossed.115

On February 17, to avoid the requirement that

the bill be on the members* desks for three days, Governor
Odell certified the necessity for immediate passage.116
After three attempts by Senator Grady to amend the bill had
been turned aside, it was passed 28 to 18, the members lining

^ ^ e w York (State), Senate Journal, 1904 (Albany:
Oliver A. Quayle), I, p. 99.
113Ibid., p. 99.
114Ibid., pp. 153, 176-177.
115Ibid., pp. 183, 195.
llfi
Ibid., pp. 209-210.

381
up exactly as they had on the last two Grady amendment s.
Sent to the Assembly the day after passage by the
upper house, the bill was reported February 19 for passage
without amendment,-*--1-®

On the twpnty-second it was made a

special order for the following day, when it was subjected
to a flurry of attempted amendment, three being offered by
Palmer, and one each by McKeown, Hornidge, Daly, Cahn, and
Ellis.

After these hazards had been safely surmounted the

bill passed the lower chamber by a vote of 94 to 4

5

.

It

became a law by the signature of the governor on March 8.120
During the period of consideration in the legislature,
Mr. Bardeen and the Associated Academic Principals led a
vigorous campaign against the bill.

The legislative commit­

tee of the principals* association pressed its members to
write members of the legislature urging defeat of the
measure.

121
x

Bardeen termed the bill in an editorial the

”Politification law,** and guoted Chancellor Doane as saying
that the bill provided for Nullification of the board of
regents, and for politicalization of all educational depart-

117Ibid., pp. 209-213.
■^8New York (State), Assembly Journal. 1904 (Albany:
Oliver A. Quayle), I, pp. 38d, 430.
119Ibid., pp. 457, 476-483.
-*-2®New York (State), Session laws. 1904 (Albany: J. B.
Lyon C o . ), I, p. 94.
l8l nProtest of Academic Principals” (letter), School
Bulletin, XXX (Feb., 1904), p. 104.

382
merits of the state.”

In the same editorial Bardeen referred

to the hill as ”a piece of vicious political legislation for
selfish partisan purposes.”122
Obviously the opposition resulted from the fact that
the hill provided for the reduction of the Board of Regents
from nineteen to eleven members, eliminated life tenure, and
called for the election of the commissioner of education by
the legislature, not by the regents.

A further objection

resulted from the provision in section four, abolishing the
offices of the superintendent and the secretary of the
regents, and transferring power Which the board had previous­
ly exercised over elementary and secondary schools, to the
commissioner.

These objections were the same arguments

advanced earlier by those who wished the department abolished
and all power centered directly in the Board of Regents,
preferably unchanged in any way.
The new law provided that the terms of the present
board should expire on April 1, after the election of the
eleven regents who would constitute the new board.
officio regents were eliminated.

Ex

The eleven regents were

to be elected for terms ranging consecutively from one to
eleven years, from those who were then members of the board,
with so far as possible, one from each judicial district.
Successors of those so elected would hold office for eleven

l22"The Politification Law" (editorial), School
Bulletin, XXX (Mar., .1904), p. 127.

.

years.

A district not represented should "be considered in

filling any vacancy.123
The law required the legislature to elect within ten
days a commissioner of education, not necessarily a resident
of the state, for a six-year term with an annual salary of
$7,500 plus $1,500 for expenses.

A successor to the first

commissioner was to he elected hy the board.12^

The commis­

sioner, in addition to supervising elementary and secondary
education, was to act as executive officer of the Board of
Regents.

He was given power to create such departments as

he thought necessary, and to appoint deputies and heads of
departments, subject to approval of the hoard.

The commis­

sioner might also, subject to approval of the regents, fix
salaries.

Aside from these limitations, the hoard had all

the powers it formerly possessed, plus the legislative power
to make all rules and regulations for putting the law into
effect.

The power of the regents over colleges, universities,

professional and technical schools, libraries and museums
was continued.123
All appropriations formerly made on certification of
both the superintendent and the regents were now to he appor­
tioned on certification of the commissioner.123
123Session Laws, 1904, I, pp. 94-95.
124Ibid.. pp. 95-96.
125

Ibid., pp. 96-97.

126Ihid., p. 97.

384
On March 9, the day following approval of the unifi­
cation law, the legislature elected Andrew S. Draper to the
new office of commissioner of education for the six-year
term to begin April 1, 1904.

On the same day the legislature

elected the eleven regents provided for in the

l a w .

-^7

Table VIII gives the result of the balloting for
members of the new Board of Regents.

TABLE VIII
REGENTS ELECTED UNDER THE UNIFICATION LAW, WITH JUDICIAL
DISTRICTS REPRESENTED AND TERM OF YEARS*

District

1
1
1
1
2
3
3
5
6
7
8

Name of Regent

Home

Whitelaw Reid
Charles A. Gardiner
Edward Lauterbach
Eugene A. Philbin
St. Clair McKelway
Albert Vander Veer
Charles L. Francis
William Nottingham
Daniel Beach
Pliny T. Sexton
T. Guilford Smith

New York
New York
New York
New York
Brooklyn
Albany
Troy
Syracuse
Watkins
Palmyra
Buffalo

Term

9
6
7
5
2
1
11
3
4
10
8

*"New Board of Regents" (editorial), School Bulletin,
XXX (Mar., 1904), pp. 127-128.
It will be noted that with district one represented four
times and district three twice, district; four had no

•^ 7New York (State), "First Annual Report of the State
Education Department," Assembly Document N o . 4 5 , 1905 (Albany
State Education Department), pp. 18-19.

385
r epr e sent at i on.^-28
Mr. Bardeen paid tribute to the newly elected commis­
sioner in his issue of March, 1903, hut said that Dr. Draper
"risks a great deal in coming hack to New York to administer
this law."-*-28

However Bardeen accomplished a complete and

hearty break with his recent attitude in the following issue,
in which his leading editorial was captioned "The Schools
ARE out of Politics."

Bardeen added the opinion that "few

inaugural addresses of governors or even presidents" were
"of greater significance or more far reaching importance"
than the first communication of Dr. Draper to the regents.I®8
Commissioner Draper’s "inaugural" was indeed so
framed as to put at rest the apprehensions of those who
opposed the unification law.

He called attention to the

duty of the commissioner and the regents to unify the dual
system of education, and declared that this duty was serious
and required deliberate and careful treatment.

He called

the revision in educational machinery decisive, but felt

128

"New Board of Regents" (editorial), School
Bulletin. XXX (Mar., 1904), p. 1S8. Regents who were legis­
lated out of office by the bill included Chauncey M. Depew
and Lewis A. Stimson of New York, Chester S. Lord of Brooklyn,
William Croswell Doane and Robert C. Pruyn of Albany, Y/illlam
H. Watson of Utica, Henry E. Turner of Lowville, and Charles
E. Fitch of Rochester.
l29"The Opportunity and the Man" (editorial), School
Bulletin. XXX (Mar., 1904), p. 130.
130”The Schools ARE out of Politics" (editorial),
School Bulletin. XXX (Apr., 1904), p. 155.

386
that it should "be possible to effect the change without
disturbance.
This creates a great educational opportunity which we
shall waste if we do nothing more than save a few dollars
and stop the agents of separate if not rival departments
from trampling upon one another.131
Dr. Draper assumed that it was their duty to bring
the parts of the educational system into "mutually helpful
association" with each other.

The subsequent statement was

particularly calculated to allay the suspicions of those who
anticipated evil from the new regime:
It will be necessary for us to supply some factors
if we are to administer this law harmoniously and make
the most of the educational opportunity. . . . I do not
think it well that our responsibilities should be
rigidly divided along the line that a severe construction
of the recent statute should mark out. Bodies legislate;
individuals execute. We shall invite failure if we con­
fuse legislative and executive functions. The people of
a democracy prefer that policies shall be settled by
more than one person; executive functions cannot be
exercised effectually by a board. . . . It seems to me
that the only sound and logical course— the only course
which promises agreeable relations and desirable results
— lies in the exercise by the board of full directory
authority and in the exercise by the commissioner of
free organizing and administrative powers over all the
educational work of the state.1 2
Dr. Draper referred to the unlimited authority of the
commissioner over appeals from district action, and suggested

1 OCT

•LO±"Commissioner Draper!s Inaugural" (editorial),
School Bulletin. XXX (Apr., 1904), p. 156.
132Ibid., pp. 156-157.

387
the possibility of providing recourse from his decisions to
a recognized judicial tribunal.

He further suggested that

"a sound educational policy demands that we shall plan for
the fullest measure of self-activity and self-management on
the part of the people."

A still further soothing note is

found in his suggestion that possibly the schools were being
over-inspected and over-directed, and the pupils in them
over-examined.

He regretted the need for making changes in

the personnel of the educational departments, and pledged
himself to making these changes on the basis of fitness only.
He deprecated the charges of politics which had been flung
at the new system, and asserted that no changes would be made
which were not supported by the consensus of educational
opini on.^®®
Dr. Draperfs closing paragraph was at the same time
a noble statement of principle and an humble plea for
assistance:
I am here without any manner of assurance concerning
any policy or appointment. I shall keep my freedom. I
shall make mistakes. I shall not refrain from doing
because of the possibility of mistakes. I will act when
the time comes in each case with all the information I
can get, and with the best judgment I have. When mis­
takes are discovered I will correct them openly. I will
welcome fair criticism, and heed it. I shall need con­
sideration, and I crave it. The circumstances claim all
that is in me; and it is my very earnest purpose to do
an unselfish, and, I hope, a distinctive educational

133Ibid., p. 157.

service to the Empire State.
It is a fair assumption that this direct and open
statement of policy and principle was a major factor in
establishing the new educational regime on a firm footing.
It reveals the moderation and wisdom which had made Dr.
Draper1s administration of the department of public instruc­
tion in the late 1880*s one of the most peaceful in the
whole period covered by this study, and justified his
selection for the difficult task of establishing the new
administration.

Mr. McKelwayTs Daily Eagle referred to his

communication as an ”epoch-making address” and said furthers
It is the expression of an honest, thoughtful, ear­
nest and unselfish mind. Without cant and without
pretense, it at once commands not only attention, but
respect.135
The favorable impression made by Dr. Draper1s initial
statement was reinforced by the plan of organization which
he prepared for presentation to the regents at
ing on April 6.

their meet­

The commissioner proposed classifying the

work of education for administrative purposes into the
familiar areas of elementary, secondary and higher education,
and suggested that each area be administered by an assistant
commissioner.

The first assistant should have charge of

134Ibid., p. 157.
135Brooklyn Daily Eagle. Apr. 8, 1904. cited in ”An
Epoch-Making Address',11 school Bulletin. XXX (Apr., 1904),
p. 169.

higher education, including professional and technical
schools, the state library, and the museum.

The second

assistant should have as his province secondary education
and training of teachers for secondary schools.

The elemen­

tary schools and the preparation of teachers for them should
be under the jurisdiction of the third assistant commissioner.
All three commissioners should have eq,u.al rank and the same
salary of $5,000.136
To carry on the professional and clerical work of the
department, the commissioner proposed the establishment of
nine bureaus:

law, examinations, inspections, accounts,

printing and publications, statistics and apportionments,
normal schools and other training activities, libraries, and
scientific work and museums.

He proposed that each bureau

be headed by a director nominated by the commissioner and
approved by the regents.

The remaining portions of the

report were composed of suggestions for implementing the
proposals outlined.^3^
After hearing Commissioner D r a p e r ^ initial statement,
the Board of Regents adopted a resolution designating him
as their chief executive officer, with the right of initia­
tive in making plans, but with the proviso that such plans
should not be put into effect without the approval of the

136

"Proposed Plan of Organization" (editorial), School
Bulletin, XXX (Apr., 1904), p. 157.
137

390
■board.

The resolution further conferred on him any execu­

tive and initiatory powers which he might not have under
the statute.138

The board elected Mr. Reid chancellor and

Mr. McKelway vice-chancellor, and unanimously confirred
Commissioner Draperfs appointments to the subordinate
positions.139

We see, with the organization of the State Education
Department under Commissioner Draper, the close of more than
a century of dual control of education, and of fifty years
during which the co-ordinate departments were frequently at
odds with each other over policies and powers.

An effort is

made in Figure 3 to represent by a diagram the relationships
existing under the new law.

1 3 % ew York (State) University, Minutes of the Regents
of the University, 1904 (Albany: University 'of the State of
New York), XII, pp. 25-31.

139

J-W!,|,Dr. Draperfs Appointments” (editorial), Sohool
Bulletin, XXX (Apr., 1904), p. 173.

FIGURE III
EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATION UNDER THE UNIFICATION ACT OF 1 9 0 U

BOARD OF REGENTS
(ll elected for
11-year terms)

[XaSTnlstrati^e^CIefl.^
■Accounts— Statistics i
Compulsory Attendance
1Examinations— Record^"

COMMISSIONER OF
,
EDUCATION
.
(Elected fry Regents)

DEPARTMENT OF

iJn^Mtions^^aw _ j

Commissioner's
Secretary
and staff

EDUCATION

Z

lAss't* Commissioner 1
|
for
J
fEleraentary Educationi

1

(Ass't. Commissioner j
1
for
!
JSecondary Education ^

U

L

.

.

.

1 Ass't.

!

j

lDivision of Llbrar- 1
j ies and Home
I
Education
I
1

1_________________ I

.

.

.

Commissioner 1
for
|
Hinder Education J

{Division of Science
1 (Museums, SclentifJ ic Investigations)
J--------------------

1

j
1

1

(Solid lines indicate statutory offices; dotted lines those established
under Commissioner Draper* s plan of organization

CHAPTER XI
CONCLUSIONS
From the evidence which has "been examined and presented
in this historical study, the following conclusions seem
reasonable.
1. In the early years of educational development the
legislature was satisfied to separate the control of the
lower schools from the supervision of the higher institutions.
2. Educational progress and the development of the
high school tended to break down the strict line of demarca­
tion between the two levels of education, and to alter the
position of the regents.

This process in turn was somewhat

retarded by the strong position of the academy in New York,
which resulted in a later appearance of a full-fledged state
secondary school system.
3. Friction which developed between the two divisions
of the educational system had several aspects:
a. Carelessness in drafting the basic educational
laws, resulted in overlapping jurisdiction.
b. This overlapping of jurisdiction resulted
definitely in duplication of effort in inspecting,
reporting and apportioning of funds.
c. Part of the friction resulted from the person-

393
alities of the individuals who held the office of super­
intendent.

We have indicated that there were friendly

relationships during the two terms of Superintendent
Draper, but there was friction both before and after
his tenure of office.
d.

Friction was aggravated by the presence of the

superintendent on the Board of Regents, especially when
he was engaged in criticizing the board.
4. The fact that the superintendent was elected by
the legislature for a relatively short term, three years,
tended to make him conscious of what could be done to
attract support from the lawmakers.

Among a certain class

of legislators, a sure way to do so would be to attack the
Board of Regents as the representatives of aristocratic,
entrenched authority.
5. The politics which were played in the department
seemed to be politics designed to strengthen chances of reelection, rather than politics in the usual sense of party
maneuvers.
6. The Board of Regents was attacked from other
sources, for several reasons:
a. It had failed to establish the university which
the law had seemed to envisage.

The common idea that a

university should be a visible entity resulted in attacks
from some quarters.
b. The life tenure of the regents was reason for

394
suspicion to some people.
c. The regents were regarded as aloof from the
schools, and aristocratic in their nature.
d. The members of the board were considered laymen
unacquainted with educational problems.
e. Some critics were opposed to any form of taxsupport or aid to higher education.
7. The university and the Board of Regents came very
close to being eliminated in 1870, but were saved by influ­
ence brought upon the governor.
8. The strength of the regents and their supporters
is shown by the failure of two constitutional revision con­
ventions to eliminate the board, and the action of the con­
vention of 1894 in according it constitutional status.
9. Unification as a desirable end, and a possible
means of ending the educational friction was suggested as
early as 1867, but the principal disagreement then, as
throughout the period of friction, was how to accomplish it.
10. The regents were able to command strong support
whenever the debate over unification, or the elimination of
one department, seemed to threaten their time-honored posi­
tion.

This support came chiefly from conservative elements

interested in maintaining the status quo, as well as from
the professional organizations of the state.

Support oould

generally be expected from the State Teachers* association,
the Council of School Superintendents, the Commissioners

395
and Superintendents' association, and particularly from the
Associated Academic Principals.
11. Plans and proposals for unification generally fell
into two types:

to give further power either to the superin­

tendent or to the regents; and conversely, to eliminate one
or the other.
12. As the controversy progressed into its later
stages, there were signs of an increasing'tendency to criti­
cize the regents, either because of fear of the influence
wielded by such members as Depew, Reid, or McKelway, or be­
cause of a possible feeling that the influence of the board
was increasing too greatly.
13. Actual accomplishment of unification, aside from
the legislative aspects, resulted from the appointment and
the personality of Draper, and his immediate moves to estab­
lish a definite pattern of relationship with the board.
An interesting subject of speculation, which would be
difficult to document, involves the experience of individuals
with regents' examinations, and the possible influence of
that experience on their attitude toward the board.

It is

certain that one of the most commonly mentioned objections
to maintenance of the regents was their administration of
examinations, and the injustice of apportioning funds on
this basis.
However, as we have stated in the general introduc­
tion to this study, the Board of Regents is a powerful and

396
familiar, as well as time-honored institution in the stateTs
educational history.

We believe that the study we have made

of the factors which indicated its influence, as shown by
its survival of the attacks made upon it, constitutes a
necessary contribution to the educational history of the
Empire State.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A.

STATE DOCUMENTS

1. Reports of Superintendent of Common Schools
New York (State), flReport of Superintendent of Common Schools
1814," Senate Journal, 1814 (Albany: H. C. Southwiok),
p p • 183-186•
"Report of Superintendent of Common Schools, 1816,"
Assembly Journal. 1816 (Albany: J. Buel), pp. 495-498.
t "Report of Superintendent of Common Schools, 1818,"
Assembly Journal. 1818 (Albany: J. Buel), pp. 476-479.
...— , "Report of Superintendent of Common Schools, 1819,"
Assembly Journal. 1819 (Albany: J. Buel), pp. 439-441.
— .— 9 "Report of Superintendent of Common Schools, 1820,"
Assembly Journal. 1820 (Albany: J. Buel), pp. 471-485.
--—

"Report of Superintendent of Common Schools, 1821,"
Assembly Journal. 1821 (Albany: J. Buel), pp. 556-572.

————— , "Report of Superintendent of Common Schools, 1826,"
Assembly Journal. 1826 (Albany: Leake & Croswell), pp.
18-23 and Appendix A, 37 pp.
, "Report of Superintendent of Common Schools, 1827,"
Assembly Journal. 1827 (Albany: E. Croswell), Part 2,
Appendix A, 61 pp.
"Report of Superintendent of Common Schools, 1828,"
Assembly Journal. 1828 (Albany: E. Croswell), Part 2,
Appendix C, 35 pp.
9 "Report of Superintendent of Common Schools, 1829,"
Assembly Journal. 1829 (Albany: E. Croswell), pp. 385388 and Appendix E, 24 pp.
t "Report of Superintendent of Common Sohools, 1831,"
Assembly Document No. 15, 1831 (Albany: E. Croswell)
71 pp.

398
New York (State), "Report of Superintendent of Common
Sohools, 1836," Assembly Dooument No. 6, 1836 (Albany:
E. Croswell), 126 pp.
“
t "Report of Superintendent of Common Sohools, 1837,"
Assembly Document No. 6, 1837 (Albany: E. Croswell),
121 pp.
"Report of Superintendent of Common Sohools, 1838,"
Assembly Document N o . 13, 1838 (Albany: E. Croswell),
109 pp.
— — - f "Report of Superintendent of Common Sohools, 1839,"
Assembly Document N o . 17, 1839 (Albany: E. Croswell),
163 pp.
, "Report of Superintendent of Common Sohools, 1840,"
Assembly Document N o . 120. 1840 (Albany: Thurlow Weed),
163 pp.
f "Report of Superintendent of Common Sohools, 1841,"
Assembly Document N o . 100. 1841 (Albany: Thurlow Weed),
138 pp.
m

-----, "Report of Superintendent of Common Sohools, 1842."
Assembly Document N o . 1 2 . 1842 (Albany: Thurlow Weed),
178 pp.
..—

, "Report of Superintendent of Common Sohools, 1843,"
Assembly Document N o . 1 4 . 1843 (Albany: Carroll & Cook),
397 pp.
"Report of Superintendent of Common Schools, 1844,"
Assembly Document No. 34. 1844 (Albany: Carroll & Cook).
698 pp.

— —

9 "Report of Superintendent of Common Sohools, 1845,"
A ssembly Dooument No. 30, 1845 (Albany: Carroll & Cook),
483 pp.
t "Report of Superintendent of Common Sohools, 1846,"
Assembly Document No. 3 0 , 1846 (Albany: Carroll & Cook),
5l pp.
$ "Report of Superintendent of Common Sohools, 1848,"
Assembly Document No. 5, 1848 (Albany: Chas. Van Bentnuysen), 156 pp.

t "Report of Superintendent of Common Sohools, 1849,"
Assembly Document N o . 20. 1849 (Albany: Weed, Parsons &
Co.), 143 p p .

Hew York (State), "Report of Superintendent of Common
Sohools, 1850,** Assembly Document Ho. 50, 1850 (Albany:
Thurlow Weed), 15V pp.
, "Report of Superintendent of Common Sohools, 1851,"
Assembly Document H o . 2 1 . 1851 (Albany: Chas. Van Benthuysen), 128 pp.
...... "Report of Superintendent of Common Sohools, 1852,"
Assembly Document H o . 2 5 , 1852 (Albany: C. Van Benthuysen), 128 pp.
# "Report of Superintendent of Common Sohools, 1854,"
Assembly Document H o . 7, 1854 (Albany: C. Van Benthuysen),
166 pp.
“
2. Reports of Superintendent of Publio Instruotion
Hew York (State), "Report of Superintendent of Publio
Instruotion, 1855." Assembly Document H o . 7, 1855 (Albany:
C. Van Benthuysen), 126pp.
“
.....( "Report of Superintendent of Publio Instruotion,
1856," Assembly Document H o . 6 6 , 1856 (Albany: C. Van
Benthuysen;, 160 pp.
t "Report of Superintendent of Publio Instruotion,
1857," Assembly Document H o . 9 5 . 1857 (Albany: C. Van
Benthuysen), 1 0 6 pp.
— —

9 "Report of Superintendent of Publio Instruotion,
1858," Assembly Document Ho. 6, 1858 (Albany: C. Van
Benthuysen), 86 pp.
~
# "Report of Superintendent of Publio Instruotion,
1859," Assembly Document H o . 8 2 . 1859 (Albany: Ch. Van
Benthuysen), 76 pp.
9 "Report of Superintendent of Publio Instruotion,
1860," Assembly Document H o . 5 0 . 1860 (Albany: C. Van
Benthuysen), 6 3 pp.
t "Report of Superintendent of Publio Instruotion,
1861," Assembly Document Ho. 45, 1861 (Albany: C. Van
Benthuysen), 64 pp.

— , "Report of Superintendent of Publio Instruotion,
1862," Assembly Document Ho. 5, 1862 (Albany: C. Van
Benthuysen), 13& pp.

400
New York (State), "Report of Superintendent of Publio
Instruction, 186S," Assembly Document No. 20, 1868
(Albany: Comstock & Cassidy), 4l2 pp.
1 "Report of Superintendent of Publio Instruotion,
1864," Assembly Document N o . 9 5 . 1864 (Albany: Comstock
& Cassidy), 288pp.
...... "Report of Superintendent of Publio Instruction,
1865," Assembly Document N o . 7 5 . 1865 (Albany: C. Wendell),
343 pp.
'
...... "Report of Superintendent of Public Instruotion,
1866," Assembly Document No. 90. 1866 (Albany: C.
Wendell), 380 pp.
— -— t "Report of Superintendent of Publio Instruction,
1867," Assembly Document N o . 7 9 . 1867 (Albany: Chas.
Van Bentiiuysen & Sons), 306 pp.
...... "Report of Superintendent of Publio Instruotion,
1868," Assembly Document N o . 8 0 . 1868 (Albany: C. Van
Benthuysen & Sons), 382 pp.
. f "Report of Superintendent of Publio Instruotion,
1869," Assembly Document N o . 9 2 . 1869 (Albany: The
Argus Co.), 3 4 9 pp.
— «— , "Report of Superintendent of Public Instruotion,
1870," Assembly Document N o . 8 4 . 1870 (Albany: The
Argus C o.), 340 pp.
f "Report of Superintendent of Publio Instruction,
1871," Assembly Document N o . 76. 1871 (Albany: The
Argus Co.), 396 pp.
—

— # "Report of Superintendent of Publio Instruction,
1872," Assembly Document
N o .5 2 . 1872 (Albany: The
Argus Co.), 382 pp.

— -— t "Report of Superintendent of Public Instruotion,
1873," Assembly Document N o . 166. 1873 (Albany: The
Argus Co.), 3 7 9 pp.
...... "Report of Superintendent of Public Instruotion,
1874," Assembly Document
N o . 66. 1874 (Albany: Weed,
Parsons & Co.), 40 b pp.
.— — t "Report of Superintendent of Publio Instruction,
1875," Assembly Document
No. 60. 1875 (Albany: Weed.
Parsons & Co.), 453 pp.

401
Hew York (State), "Report of Superintendent of Publio
Instruotion, 1876," Assembly Document H o , 1 5 . 1876
(Albany: Weed, Parsons & Co.), 435 pp..
— —

f "Report of Superintendent of Publio Instruotion,
1877," Assembly Document H o . 1 1 . 1877 (Albany: Jerome
B. Parmenter), 451 pp.
t "Report of Superintendent of Publio Instruotion,
1878," Assembly Document H o . J7, 1878 (Albany: Jerome
B. Parmenter), 3 5 4 pp.
“
1 "Report of Superintendent of Publio Instruotion,
1879," Assembly Document Ho. 6, 1879 (Albany: Chas.
Van Benthuysen A Sons), 231T"ppT

— t "Report of Superintendent of Publio Instruction,
1880," Assembly Document H o . 1 1 . 1880 (Albany: Weed,
Parsons A Co.), 285 pp.
— —

, "Report of Superintendent of Publio Instruotion,
1881," Assembly Dooument Ho. 11, 1881 (Albany: Weed,
Parsons A Co.), 651 pp.

— — -, "Report of Superintendent of Publio Instruotion,
1882," Assembly Dooument H o . 1 8 .1882 (Albany: Weed,
Parsons & Co.) , 3 4 # pp.
t "Report of Superintendent of Publio Instruotion,
1883," Assembly Dooument Ho. 25, 1885 (Albany: Weed,
Parsons A Co.), 406 pp.
— , "Report of Superintendent of Public Instruotion,
1884," Assembly Dooument Ho. 12, 1884 (Albany: Weed,
Parsons A tio.) , 434 pp”.
t "Report of Superintendent of Publio Instruotion,
1885," Assembly Dooument Ho. 8, 1885 (Albany:
Weed,
Parsons A b o . ) , 608 pp.
“
, "Report of Superintendent of Publio Instruction,
1886," Assembly Dooument H o . 17, 1886 (Albany: Weed,
Parsons A too,), 6 2 3 pp.
"Report of Superintendent of Publio Instruotion,
1887," Assembly Dooument Ho. 7, 1887 (Albany: The Argus
Co.), 90^ pp.
“
t "Report of Superintendent of Publio Instruotion,
1888," Assembly Dooument Ho. 7. 1888 (Troy: Troy Press
Co.), 1150 pp.
“

New York (State), "Report of Superintendent of Publio
Instruction, 1889," Assembly Dooument N o . 7.* 1889
(Troy:
Troy Press Co.), 9 ^ 3 pp.and Appendix 2*72 pp.
...... "Report of Superintendent of Publio Instruotion,
1890,"
Assembly Document
No.7,1890 (Albany:
James
B. Lyon), 3 34 pp.“ and Appendix""243 pp.
"Report of Superintendent of Publio Instruotion,
1891," Assembly Dooument No. 7, 1891 (Albany: James
B. Lyon), 7$4 pp. and AppencLLaf”367 pp.
, "Report of Superintendent of Publio Instruction,
1892,"
Assembly Dooument No.
7. 1892 (Albany:
James
B. Lyon)7"TO" pp." an'd"Appemx"38Trpp.
t "Report of Superintendent of Publio Instruotion,
1893,"
Assembly Dooument No.
7, 1893 (Albany:
James
B. Lyon), 901 pp. and Appendix"249 pp.
-— — t "Report of Superintendent of Publio Instruotion,
1894," Assembly Dooument N o . 4 2 . 1894 (Albany: James
B. Lyon), 2 vols.
— «— , "Report of Superintendent of Publio Instruotion,
1895," Assembly Dooument N o . 3 4 , 1895 (Albany: Wynkoop
Hallenbeok Crawford Do.), 2 vols.
—

, "Report of Superintendent of Public Instruction,
1896," Assembly Dooument N o . 67, 1896 (Albany: Wynkoop
Hallenbeok Crawford Co.), 2 voTs.
"Report of Superintendent of Publio Instruotion,
1897," Assembly Document No. 71, 1897 (Albany: Wynkoop
Hallenbeok brawrord Co.), 2” voTs.
9
"Reportof Superintendent of Public Instruotion,
1898," Assembly Dooument No. 64, 1898 (Albany: Wynkoop
Hallenbeok Crawford Co.), IT"voTs.
,
"Reportof Superintendent of Publio Instruotion,
1899," Assembly Dooument No. 56, 1899 (Albany: Wynkoop
Hallenbeok Crawford Co.), XT74 pp.
,
"Reportof Superintendent of Publio Instruotion,
1900," Assembly Dooument No. 84, 1900 (Albany: J. B.
Lyon), 1177 pp.
,
"Reportof Superintendent of Publio Instruotion,
1901," Assembly Document No. 67, 1901 (Albany: James
B. Lyon), ^25 pp.

403
New York (State), "Report of Superintendent of Publio
Instruction, 1902," Assembly Dooument No. 62, 1902
(Albany: James B. Lyon), 2 vols.
"Report of Superintendent of Publio Instruotion,
1903," Assembly Dooument No. 58, 1903 (Albany: The
Argus Co.), 2 vols.
"Report of Superintendent of Publio Instruction,
1904," Assembly Dooument No. 68, 1904 (Albany: Oliver
A. Quayle), 774 pp.
3. Report of State Department of Education
New York (State), "First Annual Report of the State Education
Department," Assembly Dooument N o . 4 5 . 1905 (Albany:
State Education Department), 838 pp.
4. Miscellaneous Assembly and Senate Documents
New York (State), "Communication from Superintendent of
Common Sohools, transmitting the reports of the visiters
/5io7 of Common Sohools," Assembly Dooument No. 307.
T83? (Albany: E. Croswell), 185 pp.
—

"Communication from Superintendent of Common Sohools,
transmitting the reports of the Visiters /sic7 of
Common Sohools," Assembly Dooument N o . 3ff7."“1840
(Albany: Thurlow Weed), 185 pp.
t "Final Report of Special Joint Committee on Educa­
tional Unification," Senate Document N o . 2 5 . 1904
(Albany: Oliver A. Quayle), £4$ pp.
"Minority Report of Special Joint Committee on Educa­
tional Unification," Senate Document No. 27, 1904 (Albany:
Oliver A. Quayle), 12 pp.
t "Petition of Inhabitants of Pompey . . . for repeal
of Free School Act, and remonstrating against the law
for establishing County or Assembly Distrlot Superin­
tendents," Assembly Document No. 166. 1851 (Albany:
Charles Van benthuysen) , 4 pp.

...... "Report of the Commission on Educational Unification,"
Assembly Dooument No. 17, 1900 (Albany: James B. Lyon),
16 pp.

404
New York (State), "Report of Commissioner for codifying the
. . . laws relating to common schools," Assembly Dooument
N o . 2 1 . 1852 (Albany: C. Van Benthuysen), 87 pp.
— — — , "Report of Committee on Colleges, Academies and
Common Schools," Assembly Dooument N o . 200. 1845 (Albany:
Carroll & Cook), 2fc pp.
"Report of Committee on Colleges, Academies and Com­
mon Schools on petitions for and remonstrances against
repeal of so muoh of the act relating to Common Sohools
as directs appointment of deputy superintendents,"
Assembly Document N o . 100. 1845 (Albany: Carroll & Cook),
pp.
"Report of Committee on Colleges, Academies and_Common Schools on petitions for repeal of . . . aot/directing7 appointment of deputy superintendents," Assembly
Document N o . 168, 1842 (Albany: Thurlow Weed), 8 pp.
...... "Report of Committee on Colleges, Aoademies and Com­
mon Sohools on several communications from the Superin­
tendent of Common Sohools and so muoh of the message of
the Governor as relates to public instruction," Assembly
Document N o . 582. 1855 (Albany: S. Croswell), 8 pp.
—

— , "Report of Select Committee on the petitions for the
amendment or repeal of the Free School Law," Assembly
Document N o . 150, 1850 (Albany: Weed, Parsons <4> Co.),
51 pp.
— f "Report of the subcommittee of the iloint committee
of the Senate and Assembly appointed to investigate the
State departments," Assembly Dooument N o . 89, 1896
(Albany: Wynkoop Hallenbeok Crawford Co.) ,~X7 pp.
"Special Report of the Regents of the University,"
Assembly Document N o . 8 2 , 1870 (Albany: The Argus Co.),
& PP.
— , "Special Report of Superintendent of Publio Instruo­
tion in regard to education in this country and Europe,"
Assembly Dooument N o . 257. 1867 (Albany: C. Van Bent­
huysen), 2bb pp.
5. Legislative Journals

New York (State), Assembly Journal. 1787 (Albany: E. Holt),
168 pp.

New York (State), Assembly Journal. 1800 (Albany: Loring
Andrews), 299 pp.
, Assembly Journal, 1803 (Albany: John Barber), 290 pp.
, Assembly Journal. 1804 (Albany: John Barber), 337 pp.
—

Assembly Journal. 1816 (Albany: J. Buel), 707 pp.
, Assembly Journal. 1817 (Albany: J. Buel), 869 pp.
--- , Assembly Journal. 1821 (Albany: J. Buel), 1141 pp.
, Assembly Journal. 1827 (Albany: E. Croswell), 2 vols.

— — -, Assembly Journal. 1835 (Albany: E. Croswell), 976 pp.
, Assembly Journal. 1840 (Albany: Thurlow Weed), 1622 pp.
— , Assembly Journal. 1842 (Albany: Thurlow Weed), 1187 pp.
Assembly Journal, 1850 (Albany: Weed, Parsons & Co.),
2 vols.
, Assembly Journal. 1867 (Albany: C. Van Benthuysen &
Sons), 2 vols.
, Assembly Journal. 1869 (Albany: The Argus Co.), 2 vols.
-—

Assembly Journal. 1870 (Albany: The Argus Co.), 2 vols.

— -— , Assembly Journal, 1874 (Albany: Weed, Parsons & Co.),
2 vols.
, Assembly Journal. 1875 (Albany: Weed, Parsons & Co.),
2 vols.
— --- * Assembly Journal. 1886 (Albany: Weed, Parsons & Co.),
2 vols.
, Assembly Journal. 1887 (Albany: The Argus Co.), 2 vols.
, Assembly Journal. 1895 (Albany: James B. Lyon), 3 vols.
, Assembly Journal. 1898 (Albany: Wynkoop Hallenbeok
Crawford Co.), 2 vols.
, Assembly Journal. 1903 (Albany: The Argus Co.), 3 vols.
—

— , Assembly J ournal. 1904 (Albany: Oliver A. Quayle),
3 vols.

406
New York (State), Senate Journal. 1784 (Albany: E. Holt).
147 pp.
Journal, 1787 (Albany: Samuel & John Loudon),
104 pp.
— , Senate Journal, 1792 (Albany: Francis Childs & John
Swain), 89 pp.
Journal. 1794 (Albany: Childs & Swaine), 84 pp.
Journal. 1800 (Albany: Loring Andrews), 131 pp.
Journal. 1805 (Albany: John Barber), 168 pp.
Journal. 1810 (Albany: Solomon Southwiok),
203 pp.
— . Senate Journal, 1814 (Albany: H. C. Southwiok, for
S. Southwiok), 4l8 pp.
J ournal. 1815 (Albany: H. C. Southwiok), 418 pp.
— , Senate Journal, 1826 (Albany: E. Croswell), 677 pp.
and Appendix.
Journal. 1840 (Albany: E. Croswell), 642 pp.
-, Senate Journal. 1867 (Albany: C. Van Benthuysen &
Sons), 1248 pp.
J ournal. 1869 (Albany: The Argus Co.), 1266 pp.
Journal. 1870 (Albany: The Argus Co.), 1269 pp.
J ournal. 1874 (Albany: Weed, Parsons & Co.),
121(5 pp.
J ournal. 1875 (Albany: Weed, Parsons & Co.),
1165 pp.
J ournal. 1887 (Albany: The Argus Co.), 1328 pp.
J ournal. 1895 (Albany: James B. Lyon), 2 vols.
-. Senate Journal. 1903 (Albany: The Argus Co.), 2 vols.
-. Senate J ournal. 1904 (Albany: Oliver A. Quayle),
2 vols.

M

407
6. Session Laws
New York (State), Laws of New York, 1777-1801, Republished
by the Secretary ofTtate, l M 5 (Albany: Weed, Parsons
& Co.), 5 vols,
— , itSession Laws, 1803 (Albany: Charles E. & George
Web sier), 404 pp•
, Session Laws, 1804 (Albany: Charles E. & George
Webster), 6 3 6 pp.
—

— , Session Laws. 1805 (Albany: Charles & George Webster),
644 pp.
, Session L a w s , 1807 (Albany: Websters & Skinner),
347 pp.
— » Session Laws. 1808 (Albany: Websters & Skinner),
419 pp.

— —

, Session Laws. 1811 (Albany: Websters & Skinner),
346 pp.

— —

» Session Laws, 1812 (Albany: Websters & Skinner),
605 pp.

—

— , Session Laws, 1813 (Albany: H. C. Southwiok & Co.),
582 pp.
— , Session Laws. 1814 (Albany: Websters & Skinner),
261 pp.
» Session Laws, 1815 (Albany: Websters & Skinner),
236 pp.

— —

, Session Laws, 1816 (Albany: Websters & Skinner),
296 pp.
, Session Laws. 1818 (Albany: J. Buel),

311 pp.

» Session Laws. 1819 (Albany: J. Buel),

339 pp.

, Session Laws. 1820 (Albany: J. Buel),

255 pp.

, Session Laws, 1821 (Albany: William Gould & Co.),
267 pp.
— , Session Laws, 1822 (Albany: Cantine

&

Leake), 367 pp.

408
New York (State), Session Laws, 1826 (Albany: E. Croswell),
428 pp.
, Session Laws

1827 (Albany: E. Croswell), 425 pp.

, Session Laws

1884 (Albany: E. Croswell), 648 pp.

Session Laws

1887 (Albany: E. Croswell), 620 pp.

, Session Laws

1888 (Albany: E. Croswell), 398 pp.

, Session Laws

1839 (Albany: E. Croswell), 433 pp.

, Session Laws

1841 (Albany: Thurlow Weed), 435 pp.

Session Laws
402 pp.

1843 (Albany: C. Van Benthuysen & Co.),

Laws

1844 (Albany: C. Van Benthuysen & Co.),

Laws

1847 (Albany: Charles Van Benthuysen),

— , Session Laws
West), 821 pp.

1849 (Troy: Albert W. Scribner & Albert

607 pp.
842 pp.

Laws

1850 (Albany: Chas. Van Benthuysen),

Laws

1851 (Albany: Chas. Van Benthuysen),

Laws

1853 (Albany: Weed, Parsons & Co.),

— , Session Laws
1179 pp.

1854 (Albany: Weed, Parsons & Co.),

879 pp.
1104 pp.
1386 pp.

Laws

1856 (Albany: J. Munsell), 392 pp.

Laws

1867 (Albany: Weed, Parsons & Co.),

2 vols.
Session Laws

1889 (Albany: Banks & Bros.), 905 pp.

Laws

1903 (Albany: J. B. Lyon Co.), 2 vols.

Laws

1904 (Albany: J. B. Lyon Co.), 2 vols.

409
7. Executive Messages
New York (State), Messages from the Governors, ed. by
Charles Z. Lincoln (Albany: J. B. Lyon C o , , 1909),
11 vols.
8. Convention Documents
New York (State), Documents of the Convention of the State
of New York, l 8'6T - 1 8 68'( 2Xb any: Weed, tar sons & Go.,
1868), 5 vols.
, Journal of the Convention. 1867-1868 (Albany:
Parsons & Co., lfi68), 5 vols.

Weed,

, Revised Record of the Constitutional Convention of
1894. Rev, by Wm. S 7 Steele (Albany: The Argus C o . ,
l9O0), 5 vols.
9. Publications of ;the University of the State of New York
New York (State) University, Proceedings of the University
Convocation of 1864 (Albany: CharlesTan Benthuysen,
1865), 103 pp.
— » Proceedings of the University Convocation of 1866
(Albany: CharlelTVan iBenthuysen), lhl pp.
— -- , Proceedings of the University Convocation of 1876
(Albany: Th eA r g u s Co.), 285 pp.
— —

, Proceedings of the University Convocation of 1879.
Senate DooumentTfo. 41, 1880 (Albany: Weed, Parsons &
Co.), 195 pp.
, Proceedings of the University Convocation of 1895.
Regents Bulletin No. 22 (Albany: trhe University of the
State of New York), 574 pp.
, Proceedings of the University Convocation of 1894.
Regents Bulletin No. 28 (Albany: The University of the
State of New York), 426 pp.
-, Proceedings of the University Convocation of 1895.
Regents Bulletinlro. 32 (Albany: The University of the
State of New York), 275 pp.

410
New York (State) University, Proceedings of the University
Convocation of 1896. Regents Bullexin’Tfo. 36 (Albany:
The University of ihe State of New York), 263 pp.
— ---- , Proceedings of the University Convocation of 1897.
Regents Bulletin’No. 42 IAlbany: The University of 'the
State of New York), 384 pp.
— i Proceedings of the University Convocation of 1898.
Regents Bulletin-N o . 45 (Albany: (Che University of the
State of New York), 495 pp.
, Proceedings of the University Convocation of 1899.
Regents Bulletin"!*o. 46 (Albany: ihe University of the
State of New York), 431 pp.
-— — , Proceedings of the University Convocation of 1900,
Regents jBulletirTNo. 5l (Albany: tfJtio tJniver siTy of the
State of New York), 390 pp.
, Minutes of the Regents of the University. 1860-1869
(Albany: Joel Munsell, 18737/ &69 pp.
— -- , Minutes of the Regents of the University. 1898
(Albany: The~'0hiv'ersity of"The State of hew York;, 38 pp.
— t Minutes of the Regents of the University. 1899
(Albany: The^OhiversIty of"The &taie of Sew York), 58 pp.
, Minutes of the Regents of the University. 1904
(Albany: TE? University of” the"State of New York), 116 pp
B. Periodical Articles
1. Articles
Ainsworth, D. E. and others, "Educational Legislation for
New York State," Educational Review. XVIII (June. 1899).
43-79.
------------------French, William M . , "Gideon Hawley." New York History. XX
(April, 1939), 153-160.----------- --------------2. Editorials
"The Academic Principals," School Bulletin,
1899), 97-98.

XXV

(January,

411
"Action of the Academic Principals,"
(February, 1903), 90.

School Bulletin. XXII

"Anneal of the Regents of the University." School Bulletin.
XXIX (March, 1903), 110.
~
"The Charge of the High Schools,"
(June, 1899), 807.
"Commissioner Draper*s Inaugural."
(April, 1904), 156.

School Bulletin. XXV
School Bulletin. XXX

"The Constitution of the State of Hew York," District School
Journal. VII (January, 1847), 185-190.
"The Convention— Free Schools," District Sohool Journal,
VII (September, 1846), 112-11^
"The Cortland Controversy Deoided," Sohool Bulletin. VIII
(Maroh, 1882), 119-122.
"The Cortland Quietus," School Bulletin. VII (March. 1881).
85.
"The Czar of All the Russias in American Education." School
Bulletin. VI (July, 1880), 131-132.
"Doom of the Board of Regents," Sohool Bulletin, XII (Feb..
1886), 63.
"Dr. Draperfs Appointments." School Bulletin. XXX (April,
1904), 173.
"Education in the Late Legislature," Sohool Bulletin. I
(June, 1875), 92.
"Educational Commission," School Bulletin. XXVI (December.
1899), 59-60.
"Educational Marplots,"
1903), 89.

School Bulletin, XXIX (February.
----------------

"An Educational Plum," School Bulletin, XXVI (January, 1900),

101-102 .

------------

"The Educational Situation in Hew York State." Educational
Review, XVII (May, 1899), 510-515.

"Educational Unification,"
1899), 85.

Sohool Bulletin, XXVI (Dec. 15,
--------------

412
"Educational Unification," School Bulletin, XXVI (January,
1900), 102-103.
"The Educational Unification Commission,"
XXVI (November, 1899), 41.
"Educational Unification in New York,"
XVIII (December, 1899), 517.

School Bulletin,

Educational Review.

"Educational Unification in New York State."
Review, XVII (April, 1899), 410-411.

Educational

"An Epoch Making Address," Sohool Bulletin. -XX (April. 1904).
169.
"Examples for Imitation." School Bulletin. XXIX (Maroh. 1903).
109.
"Free Schools," District Sohool Journal. VI (August, 1845),
92-93.
"Free Sohool System," District School Journal. VII (May.
1846), 39.
"The Free School System," District Sohool Journal. VII (Aug..
1846), 93-94.
"Hearing before the legislative Committee,"
XXIX (February, 1903), 91-92.
"Is Unification Desirable?"
1900), 159.
"Matters at Cortland."
145-147.

School Bulletin.

Sohool Bulletin. XXVI (April.

Sohool Bulletin. XVII (August. 1891).

"Melvil Dewey*s letter," Sohool Bulletin. XXVI (February,
1900), 117-118.
"Need there be Friction between the two Departments?" Sohool
Bulletin. XXVI (March, 1900), 144-145.
"New Board of Regents." Sohool Bulletin, XXX (March, 1904).
128.
"The New York State Convention of Commissioners and Superin­
tendents," Sohool Bulletin. II (February, 1876), 86-87.
"Notes on the Cortland Matter."
1881), 85.

Sohool Bulletin, VII (Mar..
---------------

413
"The Opportunity and the Man,"
1904), 130.

Sohool Bulletin. XXX (Maroh.

"The Politifioation Law," School Bulletin. XXX (Maroh, 1904),
127.
"The Proposed Education Law," School Bulletin. XXIV (March.
1898), 124-125.
"Proposed Education Law," Sohool Bulletin. XXV (February.
1899), 105-107.
"Proposed Plan of Organization," Sohool Bulletin, XXX
(April, 1904), 157-158.
"Protest of Academic Principals,"
(February, 1904), 104.

Sohool Bulletin. xxx

"'The Ragints Must Go' Says Mr. Dooley No. 2," School
Bulletin, XXIX (March, 1903), 138.
"Report on School Unification," Sohool Bulletin. XXVI
(December 19, 1899), 85.
"The School Bulletin," School Bulletin. II (Sept., 1875), 6.
"The Schools ARE out of Politics,"
(April, 1904), 155.

Sohool Bulletin, xxx

"Shall New York Schools be Made a Political Machine?" Sohool
Bulletin. XXVI (December 19, 1899), 84.
"Shall the Superintendent of Public Instruction be Elected
by the Regents?" Sohool Bulletin, XXV (July. 1899).
229-230.
"State Educational Matters," Sohool Bulletin, XXVI (January.
1900), 103.
"The State Superintendenoy," Sohool Bulletin, VI (Maroh,
1880), 79.
"The State Teaohers Association," School Bulletin, V (Aug..
1879), 179-180.
---------------"The Struggle for the High Schools,"
(November, 1903), 45-46.

Sohool Bulletin, XXX

"Superintendent SfcLnner and Unification,"
XXV (August, 1899), 251.

Sohool Bulletin.

414
"The Syracuse Meetings," Sohool Bulletin. XXVI (January.
1900), 91-92.
"Tart Correspondence,"
30.

Sohool Bulletin. XXX (October. 1903).

"Unification of our School System," School Bulletin. VI
(September, 1879), 4-5,
"Unifying our School Systems," Sohool Bulletin. I (September.
1874), 1.
"The Way to Unify is to Unify," Sohool Bulletin. XXVI
(December 19, 1899), 84-85,
"A Word to the Regents," Sohool Bulletin. XXIX (February.
1903), 90.
"The Wrong Way to Unify,"
1900), 100-101.

Sohool Bulletin. XXVI (January.

3. Untitled Editorials or Items
School Bulletin, I (Maroh, 1875), 56.
Sohool Bulletin, VII (June, 1881), 134.
Sohool Bulletin, XIII (February, 1887), 63.
Sohool Bulletin, XXV (Maroh, 1899), 131.
School Bulletin. XXV (April, 1899), 161.
Sohool Bulletin. XXIX (March, 1903), 109.
C. Newspaper
Rochester Demoorat and Chronicle. July 15, 1879.
D. Manuscripts and Historical Documents
O'Callaghan, E. B. (ed.) Poo laments Relating to Colonial
History of the State of New York (Albany: Weed, Parsons
& Co., 1553TTl5~vo 1 b “

Pruyn, John V. L . , Letter Book s b Chancellor of the Board
of Regents (MS S . i n j)ooumenT“Division, New York State
ITbrary)
Pruyn, John V. L . , Memorandum Book as Chancellor of the
Board of Regents (MSS, in Document Division, ETew York
State Library)
Pruyn, John V. L . , Private and Personal Journals (MSS. In
Document Division, frew York State Library) 11 MSS.
volumes, September 17, 1851 to Maroh 20, 1877.
E. Books, Monographs and Reprints
Alexander, CharleB B . , The University of the State of Mew
York and its Inspiration IAlb any: T h e tfnlver Bitv of the
S i S S T o T Sew Y » i r i O T y f 15 pp.
Broadhead, John R . , HiBtory of the State of New York (Mew
York: Harper & £ros., 1SF9), 2 vois.
Draper, Andrew S., Origin and Development of the Common
Sohool System of tfie State of New Y o r k T Syracuse: C. W.
Bardeen, 1913), 84 pp.
Finegan, Thomas E . , Free Schools: A Documentary HiBtory of
the Free Sohool Movement in New"~York State (lBthTnnual
Report of the Eduoation Department, Vol. I. Albany:
University of the State of New York, 1919), 682 pp.
Fitch, Charles E . , A History of the Common Sohool in New
York, in 50th Annual Report of the Superintendent of
Public Instruction, 1904 (Albany: Oliver A. Quayle,
1904), 114 pp.
Gifford, Walter J . , Historical Development of the New York
State High SohooITystern (Albany: J. B T T v o n Co.,
l S 5 £ 7 ,T05 pp.
Good, H. G . , History of Western Eduoation (New York:
MacMillan A C o ., IU48), 5?5 ppT
Hammond, Jabez D . , History of Politioal Parties in New York
(Cooper8town, N. Y.: H. & E. !l?hinney, 1346), 2 vols.
Hough, Franklin B . , Historical and Statistical Record of the
University of the State of Nsw York during the Century
from T784 t ~ l 3 5 £ TITSanyT T e e T T T a f sons & T o T S B ’57,
867 pp.

416
Lincoln, Charles Z., Constitutional History of Hew York
(Bochester: Lawyers' Cooperative Publishing C o . , 1906),
5 vols.
Murray, David, Historical Sketch of the University of the
State of Hew York (Albany: Weed, Parsons & Co., lU5I>),
3C pp.
Pruyn, John V. L . , "Remarks on the Life and Character of the
late Gideon Hawley, LL. D." Reprint from the Proceedings
of the Convocation of the University of the State of
Sew Yorlc, 1890 (Albany; no publisher given), 12 pp.
Randall, Samuel S., The Common School System of the State of
Hew York (Troy, S. Y.: io&nson & Davis, 185l), 408 pp.
Randall, Samuel S., History of the Common Sohool System of
the State of New York, from iis 0ri,
g in ih l'179S to the
Present Time TWeyf York: Ivison. Blakeman. Tavlor & Co ..
i m ) , '"4W - p p .
Sherwood, Sidney, University of the State of Hew York:
Origin, History, and PfeBent~^ganizatIon, Regents
Bulletin Wo. 11, January, 189^ (Albany: tJhiversity of
the State of Hew York, 1893), 201 pp.
Skinner, Charles, The Educational Situation at Albany
(Albany: 1903. Publisher and pages noi available)
Wiltse, Charles M . , John C. Calhoun, Hullifier (Indianapolis:
Bobbs-Merrill Co., 19?9), bll pp.

APPENDIX I
Excerpts from 1866 Reports of Sohool Commissioners
Relating to Effects of Rate Bills
(Source:

Annual Report of Superintendent of Public Instruc­

tion, 1866, pp. as indicated)
Cayuga county, First District, Israel Wilkinson:
"The new school law is deservedly popular; it is a long
step in the right direction; and when the Legislature will
allow the ’rate-bill' to be stricken out, we shall have a
school system in every respect worthy the Empire State.”
(p. 117)
Chenango county, Second District, Henry G. Green:
”1 think the attendance at sohool is affected, to some
extent, by rate-bills; although the want of interest on
the part of parents, in the welfare of their children,
serves to make the attendance much less than it would be.
. . ." (p. 131)
Columbia oounty, First District, H. Reynolds: ”Our
opinion is somewhat changed, relative to rate-bills. Make
the schools free and there would be a demand for better
teachers. How, many trustees fear to hire good teaohers,
lest the attendance may be small, and consequently, high
rate-bills." (p. 143)
Essex county, First District, Isaac D. Hewell:
"My
experience for the past year has led me to ohange my mind
in reference to rate-bills; they never inorease the attend­
ance, while they often diminish it." (p. 157)
Essex oounty, Second District, B. B. Bishop: "A
large proportion of the distriots have raised rate-bills
during the past year, and I hear but little fault found
with the practice." (p. 161)
Greene county, First Distriot, S. S. Mulford:
"From
the information I have been able to receive, I can not
believe that rate-bills prevent the attendance of scholars
to any great extent. A few districts may find fault,

418
generally toy way of excuse for employing cheap teachers. .
. . " (p. 165)
Greene county, Second District, George C. Mott:
"These make a material difference, in some districts, in
the attendance and the numtoer of days taught during the
year. There would toe far toetter attendance, and a greater
length of time taught, if the schools and texttoooks were
free to all." (p. 168)
Hamilton county, Charles S. Smith: "The 'rate bill'
system is unpopular; and I feel justified in saying, that
in the majority of districts, it has had the effect to
diminish the numtoer in attendance; and to seoure the em­
ployment of a teacher, (and in many oases low-priced ones
at that) just long enough to entitle them to the putolio
money. There are a few marked exceptions to this rule."
(p. 172)
Herkimer county, Second District, 0. B. Beals:
"Our
opinion . . . is that rate-toills in the majority of oases
operate injuriously upon the toest interests of our common
schools, and this idea is gaining ground in this district."
(p. 174)
Livingston oounty, First District, S. Arnold Tozer:
"While, upon the average,- a man may send his children to
school toy the payment of the latoor of one day and a half in
each year, still the rate-toill is the first consideration
in school matters. Teachers of questioned ability will
sell their time . . . to go through the routine of sohool
duties, and take, as a compensation, a sum hardly sufficient
to pay their store bills. The dread of a heavy rate-toill
is the pretext for employing that class of teachers." (p. 189)
Montgomery county, T. S. Ireland:
"I am not pre­
pared to say to what extent rate-toills affect the attend­
ance; in some districts, I have no doubt that children are
kept from sohool to avoid paying a rate-toill, tout generally
they are paid cheerfully, if the money has been earned."
(p. 216)
Niagara county, First District, J. F. H. Miller:
"Ho serious complaint of the rate-toill system has come to
my knowledge." (p. 225)
Oneida oounty, First District, Harvey S. Wilcox:
"In some localities, the attendance is diminished in conse­
quence of rate-toills; tout, generally, people are toeooming
more in favor of them." (p. 228)

419
Oneida county, Second District, Charles S. Pooler:
nOperate badly in some districts, by causing foheap teacher b *
to be hired. . • . Occasionally a poor family that should
have been exempted, and sometimes one not so poor, will keep
their children from school for fear of the rate-bill. Yet,
as no system of schools can be perfect, these ills are perhapB less than what would arise under a free system sus­
tained by a general tax.” (p. 222)
Orange county, First District, George K. Smith:
nI
am not prepared to say, that if all the schools were free,
the aggregate attendance would be materially increased at
once, although in time it would very naturally have that
result. Ignorant and stupid parents will let their chil­
dren run wild, whether they are obliged to pay for their
schooling or not. As I reported last year, 'best schools
pay the largest rate-bills1." (p. 245)
Orange oounty, Second District, John J. Barr: "As
nearly as I can find out by careful inquiry, rate-bills
have a tendency to reduce the attendance in our common
schools. . . • They have a tendency to • . . make the
trustees extremely cautious about hiring well qualified
teachers. . • • This rate-bill is one of the greatest
curses that rests upon the schools of the Empire State.”
(p . 248)
Putnam county, Second District, William Townsend:
"I think the effect of rate-bills has a tendency to stimu­
late, rather than hinder a good attendance. This may be
seen from the fact that in those schools which are sup­
ported almost entirely by the publio money, the inhabitants
care less about the kind of teacher they have, or the regu­
lar attendance of their children, than those who pay larger
rate-bills." (p. 271)
St. Lawrence county, Second District, Clark Baker:
” . . . provide against the fear of rate-bills and you will
have a law best calculated, in my judgment, to secure the
attendance of the children at sohool." (p. £89)
Saratoga county, Second District, Thomas McKindly:
"In most places, no detriment to the school, on the prin­
ciple that what costs something we value, M y observation
is, that where the rate-bill is the largest, there are
found the best teachers, the longest term, the most regu­
lar attendance, the best school. The effect of the ratebill is to keep the attention of the publio drawn to the
schools, the kind of teachers employed, and economy in the
expenditure of money." (p. 297)

420
Schenectady county, Rural District, Nelson T. Van
Natta:
"Rate-bills, in my opinion, do not materially af­
fect the attendance. Our schools which-pay the highest
rate-bill have the smallest attendance. The want of inter­
est in the inhabitants, and of thorough and live teachers
in our schools, affects the attendance more than anything
else." (p. 310)
Schoharie county, First District, Bartholomew
Becker:
"The people are generally in favor of the present
rate-bill system. The trustees generally exempt all in­
digent persons from the payment of teachers1 wages, or some
part thereof, so that all indigent children have the privi­
lege of attending school and becoming educated." (p. 312)
Schoharie oounty, Second District, A. C. Smith:
"X
am more and more convinced that the present system of pay­
ing a balance of teachers1 wages by rate-bill has a tendency
to decrease the attendance at sohool, by frightening many
who seem to think that every abwent-mark on the sohool reg­
ister will exempt them from the payment of a certain sum of
money. . . . It is true that there are many parents who con­
sider themselves too poor to pay a rate-bill, and who are
too proud to claim exemption, and, as a natural consequence,
their children are allowed to grow up in ignorance." (p. 315)
Ulster county, First District, Edgar Eltinge:
"...
Although the attendance is affected, yet I cannot say that
the popular sentiment is wholly in opposition to a ratebill. But . . . I am constrained to believe, that where the
taxable property of the district is made to bear the ex­
penses of a sohool, a greater interest is manifest in the
cause of eduoation, and, as a consequence, better schools
are sustained." (p. 350)
Washington oounty, First District, D. V. T. Qua:
"Rate-bills, I am convinced, in some measure affect the at­
tendance at school. I have known cases where children have
been withdrawn from school in consequence of the supposed
high wages paid a good and efficient teacher, thereby
destroying the sohool, and compelling the trustees to employ
cheaper teachers in order to reduoe the rate-bills." (p. 357)
Washington oounty, Second District, Thomas S. Whit­
more:
"I think the anticipated burthen of rate-bills does
not so much diminish the attendance of pupils during the
term that sohool is kept, as it tends to shorten the term
of sohool in the year, and causes trustees to seek and
employ low priced teachers. . . ." (p. 363)