by counties or school districts shall not exceed five mills on a dollar in any one year, and shall not be subject to a redivision, as hereinbefore provided in this section."

The law passed by the General Assembly to carry into effect the above provision of the Constitution, is expressed in nearly the same language, a few words being added to render the meaning more perspicuous It reads as follows:

All sums of money derived from State funds, which are unexpended in any year in any public free school district, shall go into the general school fund of the State for redivision the next year, and, all sums derived from county or district funds unexpended in any year, shall remain a part of the county or district funds respectively, for use the next year. But no sums derived from county or district funds shall be subject to redivision outside of the county or district respectively.

1. The above clearly designates the proper disposition of unexpended sums of State school money, and also of district school money. The former must be redivided, the latter must remain where it is, being subject exclusively to the control of the district board. County school money is apportioned among the districts of a county. It becomes thereby subject to the order of the district boards. Now, if any of this money thus apportioned remains unexpended by any district at the close of the school year, shall it be regarded as belonging to such district for its exclusive use the next year, or shall it go back into the general county school fund and be reapportioned among the several districts the next year? Opinions differ.

2. Why must unexpended State school money, apportioned among the counties, go back into the general school fund of the State for redivision the next year? Doubtless the law presumes that where a county does not use all the State money allotted to it, it does not need it all. What the county does expend is the measure of its needs. What it does not expend is a surplus not needed, and therefore should go back to the general fund for redivision. Does not the same reasoning apply to unexpended balances of county school money apportioned to the different districts? Is there any argument in favor of the redivision of unexpended State school money that does not apply with equal force to unexpended county school money, inasmuch as both State and county money must be applied to the payment of teachers' salaries, and to no other purpose?

3. But some such view as the following is presented: In a given county are two adjacent districts, A and B. District A has managed its affairs carefully and economically. It has provided schoolhouses; kept the schools in operation; paid the teachers, and has saved from the successive apportionments of county money five or six hundred dollars above all expenses. District B has managed badly; it not only has no money, but is in debt to the teachers. B therefore wants a redivision; A does not. A does not propose to have the money saved by careful, economical and judicious manage. ment go to make up the deficiencies consequent upon carelessness, mismanagement, or worse.

Furthermore, it is suggested that if county school money remaining unexpended at the close of the school year in any district is to be redivided, a district would have no incentive or encouragement to practice economy in the use of its county money; and, therefore, wasteful expenditure would be the result. That these views are plausible and worthy of consideration cannot be denied. But we see no reason whatever why the same condition of things may not exist in different districts in regard to State money as in regard to county

money.

4. But what may or may not be expedient as an original question, is not the thing to be ascertained. Our business is to find out, if practicable, what is the true meaning and intent of the constitution and law, and to be guided thereby.

If the constitution intended to prohibit absolutely the redivision of county school money, why was the little word "a" used before the word redivision, and why was there added the clause, “as hereinbefore provided in this section." If the sentence had closed with these words, "and shall not be subject to redivision," the meaning would have been perfectly clear, the prohibition absolute. So then, the clause "as hereinbefore provided in this section" surely could not have been added for the sake of clearness. For this purpose it is useless and worse than useless. It must have been added for some other purpose. Unexpended sums of (State) money shall go into the general school fund (of the State) for redivision (among the counties) the next year; but unexpended sums of county and district money shall not go into the general school fund of the State for redivision among the counties. It shall not be subject to a (such a) redivision, as hereinbefore provided in this section in the case of State money, but may be subject to some other kind of redivision.

5. The law above quoted is not inconsistent with the constitution. The second clause of the law is as follows: all sums derived from county or district funds unexpended in any year shall remain a part of the county or district funds respectively, for use the next year. These funds shall not, therefore, be merged in State funds and subject to a redivision such as is provided for State funds. It may be said that this is all the clause means. But it may be construed to mean more. Unexpended district funds shall remain a part of the district funds for use the next year, and county funds unexpended in any year shall remain a part of the county funds for use the next year. How are county funds to be used next year? They are to be apportioned among the districts of the county. Then if there are county funds unexpended this year, and they are to remain a part of the county funds for use next year, shall they not be used next year like the other county funds are used, that is, apportioned among the districts?

Again, the last clause of the law declares that no sums derived from county or district funds shall be subject to redivision outside of the county or district respectively. What need of any such provision if all redivision of such funds is prohibited? Why prohibit redivision outside of a county, if it cannot be done anywhere?

To a number of inquiries touching this question, addressed to this office, the answer we make is, that the law allows a redivision of unexpended county school money, and implies such redivision should be made.

But as a different view of the question has heretofore prevailed, or, at any rate, as it has not been customary, so far as we are informed, to redivide the unexpended county funds, and, therefore, as superintendents and county and district boards have not been shaping their action in view of the interpretation herein given, it is not deemed expedient to insist upon the enforcement for the present year of our view of the question.

Reports of District Clerks as to the Virginia School Register.

We have received a few responses to our request in the October JOURNAL, that district clerks would report to this office the number of teachers contracted with, and the number supplied with the pre

scribed Register. But we want a report from the clerk of every district board in the State. Do district clerks get the JOURNAL? Do all of them read it?

IF THE County superintendent, as the chief executive school officer of his county, will, by his action, impress those with whom he comes in contact, that he is using his best efforts, even in what may appear to be trivial matters, to further the interests of his schools, other officers will be influenced by his example to greater earnestness and activity. Let the experiment be made.

District Trustees.

Circular No. 12, issued to Superintendents August 12th, calling for lists of district boards of trustees, brought us complete reports from many of the counties. Some Superintendents, however, have not responded, while others have been content to forward such imperfect returns that no proper record can be made of the organization of these boards. Repeatedly has attention been directed to the importance of this matter. It may be true in some instances that the records have not been so kept that accurate lists could be prepared without trouble. Still a fixed purpose to meet all just requirements of the duties assigned superintendents, would soon correct irregularities and prevent that confusion sure to follow negligence.

Whenever a change is made in any district board, whether it be the re-appointment of an old trustee, or the substitution of a new for a former one, let the superintendent note the fact in his official record book, and report to this office, according to form 514. By strict adherence to this simple plan, one important part of the machinery of the school system would be kept in good working order. This office would be kept in regular communication with trustees, as the JourNAL would find its way into the hands of all district clerks. In this connection we commend to attention remarks on the EDUCATIONAL JOURNAL, in the July number (1886).

Superintendents' Monthly Reports.

For the information of some of our superintendents, we beg to invite attention to the following regulation of the Board of Education, School Law, section 347, page 124:

Superintendents of schools shall make a monthly report to the Superintendent of Public Instruction, in form to be prescribed by him, which report shall be due at the office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction on or before the fifteenth day of the month next succeeding, and every superintendent whose report fails to arrive by the aforesaid date shall be subject to a fine of five dollars for the first day of delay and one dollar additional for each day's delay thereafter ; provided, the whole amount of the fine shall not exceed one twelfth part of his salary; and the secretary of the board is hereby instructed to call upon each delinquent superintendent to show cause within thirty days why the fine should not be entered against him.

We wish superintendents to bear in mind that this regulation is in full force. Some may experience the effects of non-compliance with its provisions, as it is the purpose as well as the duty of this depart ment, to "take care that the school laws and regulations be faithfully executed" (Sec. 23, page 35).

We again repeat the request that all the questions in the report be answered in some way. If the answer is "none," write "none." If any question is left wholly unanswered, the report is unsatisfactory.

Peabody Education Fund.

A copy of the report of the "Proceedings of the Trustees of the Peadody Education Fund at their twenty fifth meeting, New York, 6th October, 1886," has been received at this office. We have read the report with great interest and pleasure. It contains an address to the Board of Trustees, eleven members thereof being present, by Hon. Robert C. Winthrop ; a report of the Nashville Normal College, by Dr. Eben S. Stearns; and the report of Hon. Samuel A. Green, secretary and general agent pro tem.

The address of Mr. Winthrop is characteristic of that distinguished gentleman, broad in view, elevated in tone, catholic in principle.