aided by the United States. That said committee have leave to report by bill or otherwise."

Resolved, That a committee of five be appointed at this meeting to continue this work and to bring it more prominently before Congress and the people.

Mr. WILSON then read the remainder of the report as follows:
The Committee on Resolutions has to report the following:

That the members of the National Educational Association express their gratification at the recommendations in favor of education made by the President of the United States in his several messages-also at the action of Congress in appropriating a part of the increased sum which is needed for the more efficient working of the Bureau of Education. And they most earnestly recommend to Congress that a liberal appropriation be made for the special purpose of enlarging the pedagogical museum which has already been commenced in that Bureau.

That the thanks of the Association are due to the Railroad Companies that have given us facilities for travel at reduced rates, and to the Hotels that have made reductions from their usual terms.

That our thanks are cordially tendered to the Citizens and His Honor, the Mayor, and the Board of Education, of Philadelphia, for the hearty welcome extended to the Association, and for the measures adopted to secure their convenience and comfort while in session.

That we return our hearty thanks to the several local committees of Philadelphia-the Committee on Railroads, the Committee on Hotels, the Committee on the Place of Meeting, the Committee on Finances, the Committee on the Press, the Committee on Invitation and Reception, and the Joint Committee, for their energetic and successful efforts to promote the interests of the Association and the public.

That we return thanks to the ladies and gentlemen who so kindly furnished the Association with music.

That the thanks of the Association be given to the trustees of Public Institutions-Permanent Exhibition, Academy of the Fine Arts, Academy of the Natural Sciences, Franklin Institute, Teachers' Institute, Institution for the Blind, Institution for the Deaf and Dumb, University of Pennsylvania, Girard College, Wagner Free Institute of Science, Mercantile Library, Philadelphia Library, Pennsylvania Historical Society, United States Mint, Masonic Temple, Memorial Hall, School of Design for Women, American District Telegraph Company-that have kindly opened their doors to us during the week.

That our thanks are due and are hereby tendered to Dr. JOHN HANCOCK, the retiring President, for the ability, impartiality, and courtesy that have marked his conduct as the presiding officer of the Association.

Respectfully submitted,

J. ORMOND WILSON,
LEMUEL MOSS,

E. T. TAPPAN,
EDWARD DANFORTH,

W. E. SHELDON.

Committee on Resolutions.

The report was unanimously adopted, and ALEX. HOGG, College Station, Texas, J: D. PHILBRICK, Boston, Mass., W: H. PURNELL, Newark, Del., W: A. BELL, Indianapolis, Ind., and GUSTAVUS J. ORR, Atlanta, Ga., were appointed the committee ordered in the fifth resolution offered by Prof. HOGG.

The Secretary, still presiding, made an appeal for life memberships, etc., with the following results:

JOHN KRAUS, New York, N. Y. ($18).

Mrs. MARIA KRAUS-BOELTE, New York, N. Y. ($18),

W: E. SHELDON, Boston, Mass. ($10).

NORMAN A. CALKINS, New York, N. Y. ($18).

EDWARD SHIPPEN, Philadelphia, Pa. ($18)*.

Those marked with a star paid at the meeting. Those who had previously paid $2 for membership at the Philadelphia meeting were to pay $18 additional to become life-members, and those who had been lifemembers on the old basis of $10, become life-members on the new basis by paying $10 additional.

On motion of W: F. PHELPS, it was ordered that all donations should be credited on life-memberships if the person making the donation should at any future time decide to become a life member.

W: F. PHELPS, J: HANCOCK, J. L. PICKARD, E. E. WHITE, G: P. BROWN, and W: A. BELL, each subscribed for 10 copies of the Volume of Philaadelphia proceedings, and J. P. WICKERSHAM for 50 copies.

On motion the Association adjourned till its next annual meeting. Pending this motion, the Secretary called to the platform the retiring President, Dr. JOHN HANCOCK, who delivered a closing address.

Immediately after this address the meeting was turned over to the citizens of Philadelphia. Dr. J. A. PAXSON, President of the Permanent Exhibition, made a brief address, and called EDWARD SHIPPEN, Esq., to the chair.

Mr. SHIPPEN after making a brief address introduced Col. JOHN W. FORNEY, who spoke for a short time on the importance of the educational interests of the country.

Next Mr. SHIPPEN introduced HENRY W. BENTLEY, "a practical man and friend of EDISON," who proceeded to entertain the Association with the phonograph and EDISON's electric chemical telephone. His experiments were highly successful and were greatly enjoyed by all present.

Mr. SHIPPEN next introduced WALT WHITMAN, "New Jersey's favorite poet," who said he would make no speech.

The following persons were then called on for short speeches:-J. P. WICKERSHAM, JOHN EATON, ALEX. HOGG, J. L. PICKARD, Miss HELEN HOADLEY, of Tennessee, E. E. WHITE, W. E. SHELDON, and EDWARD MCPHERSON, "the representative of the Press in Philadelphia." All responded except Miss HOADLEY, who afterwards regretted that she did not speak.

As the meeting adjourned it was announced that the audience would be entertained by the performance of H. M. S. Pinafore by a company of children.

DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER INSTRUCTION.

First Day's Proceedings.

TUESDAY, JULY 29, 1879.

The Department of Higher Instruction met in the Laboratory on the first floor of the Girls' Normal-School Building, Philadelphia, at 3 o'clock

P. M.

The President, ELI T. TAPPAN, LL. D., of Kenyon College, Gambier, Ohio, called the department to order.

The Secretary being absent Prof. E. BENJ, BIERMAN, A. M., of LebanonValley College, Annville, Pa., was elected Secretary.

The President made an explanation of what had been done by the Executive Committee in the way of preparation for this meeting.

CHARLES KENDALL ADAMS, LL. D., Professor of History in Michigan University, being absent, the President presented, and by request, read the Doctor's paper on

COLLEGE DORMITORIES.

The influence of College Dormitories in our system of education may be considered from two points of view. We may estimate their effect; first, upon our colleges as corporations; and secondly, upon students as individuals. It will serve our purpose to inquire into these different relations in their order.

I. Upon the welfare of the College.

A college cannot exist without. students, it can hardly be said to be prosperous without a considerable number of students. To secure such an attendance, especially in the early history of an institution, dormitories may be an imperative necessity. Whether or not such necessity exists, depends, of course, upon the circumstance of each given location. The twelve or thirteen hundred students who annually seek the advantages of Harvard University, would probably find it difficult if not impossible to procure lodgings at reasonable rates were they dependent solely upon the vacant rooms offered by the citizens of Cambridge. President ELIOT remarked some years ago on this subject substantially, as follows:-"The question of dormitories or no dormitories is not an open one with us; dormitories are simply an imperative necessity." In other localities the same necessity, for the same or other reasons, may exist. Either the high prices of rents or the large number of students in proportion to the inhabitants of the college town may call upon the college authorities to furnish for their students the requisite accommodations.

Then, too, it may be urged that even where dormitories are not what may be called an imperative necessity, they are at least in some sense an element of power. They doubtless assist the institution in its effort to secure a hold upon public attention. They furnish an effective means of appeal to private generosity, for the reason that money contributed for a dormitory building assists at the same time the student and the college. Then there is still another consideration of weight. As human nature is, it is probably true that thousands of dollars may be secured for the erecting of imposing buildings bearing the name of the donor, where hundreds are wanting for the purchase of libraries and museums. It matters little that the most crying need of our colleges is an increase of the general fund for the defrayal of current expenses. Even generosity is not exempt from the weaknesses of human nature. The showy immortality offered by an imposing building with an imposing name is much more tempting than the sure and speedy oblivion of a bequest sunk in the general fund of the college treasury. The general fund may be, is indeed sure to be, the more important, but it is far less conspicuous. It is no very base characteristic of human nature that it desires to have its good deeds recognized and remembered. Such a recognition is afforded by a handsome structure, and even if the structure be erected at the expense of the donor's heirs rather than at his own expense, it still whispers the somewhat alluring promise of a permanent conspicuity and of a perpetual remembrance of good deeds,

It would be unjust to convey the impression that these motives violate essentially the predominant motives of the benefactor.

They simply have weight enough to determine the direction which generosity shall take. At most they are simply an additional incentive to incentives already nearly strong enough. Nor should it be inferred that no benefit is conveyed to the college treasury by the erection of dormitories. On the contrary, the general fund is increased by nearly the full amount of the rents to be collected from students. The sum of the whole matter, therefore, is, that while in other forms of benevolence the benefactor confers a benefit and soon looses the credit of his good deed, in this, he confers the benefit and preserves the credit. This last fact may not be regarded as important, but it is probably often of sufficient weight to secure bequests that otherwise would not be granted. There is, then, some force in the assertion that dormitories furnish an efficient means of appeal in behalf of colleges. If education consisted merely in good lodging-rooms for students, it is probable that ours would need to give us very little anxiety.

Another consideration of some weight in behalf of dormitories is the fact that the buildings help to impress the imagination of the people. It is probably true that the majority of people are ruled by their imaginations. We are not impressed by what things are, but by what they seem to us. It is certain that handsome school buildings are not without their inspiring influence upon the minds of children and adults. Children are beckoned on to the high school by a handsome high-school building. The same power is exerted to a certain extent by college buildings. Many a

boy has been inspired with a desire to secure a collegiate education by the effect upon his fancy of a view of the buildings of some college or university. Still further, it may even be said that many colleges lay stress upon pictures of buildings more or less accurate for the work of drawing students to themselves. We may think the device is an unworthy one, we may denounce it, we may sneer at it; but it still remains true that the imagination is powerful, and that all such devices are a tribute to its power.

Now take the country through, and sweep the dormitories away, how much would there be left of many of our colleges,-let us say to impose upon the imagination of either the wise or the foolish? Or, to put the question more fairly, if dormitories had never been erected, how much in the place of some of our colleges would there have been with which to impress the imaginations of our youth?

There is still another benefit to the college as a corporation derived from the system of dormitories.

It is in the fact that the life of the student who occupies a room in the college building is somewhat more closely identified with the college, and therefore, that his attachment to the institution after leaving it is somewhat stronger. How much weight is to be attached to this consideration it is not easy to determine, but it is, perhaps, not altogether without its importance. The student whose days and nights are literally spent in the college buildings, whose friendships and acquaintances are restricted nearly or quite to college companions, is quite likely to look back in after life to the days spent in college with peculiar interest and affection. The German student, it has often been noticed, acquires an affection for his teacher such as is seldom or never known in America, but he establishes no affection for the university as such. Students congregate from all parts of Germany to celebrate the anniversary of a favorite professor; but seldom to celebrate an event in the history of the university. The reason is that in Germany the professor is the real object of interest, while in America the object of interest is the college or university. Nor is this distinction a fact of small importance. Our colleges are dependent in very large measure upon the good will of their alumni; it is indispensably necessary therefore that the alumni should be ardently attached to the college. It is also to be noted that in a country like ours, where the professions are open to non-graduates as well as to those who have secured a degree, the tendency of our youth to secure a liberal education depends largely upon the representations of college life made by college graduates. It is even possible that the pranks of students with the traditions of which most college dormitories abound, have an inviting influence upon some who might otherwise feel a repugnance to the devotion required by a liberal education. If dormitories tend to strengthen a love for collegiate life, or to sweeten the remembrance of college days, their influence in this respect ought not to be overlooked or despised.

In the discussion thus far, I have considered the welfare of the college quite independently of the welfare of the student. There is a sense, it must be confessed, in which this separation of interests is quite unworthy of our consideration. Can a college have any prosperity apart from the