stoutest, generally practiced more successfully in flogging his monitor than in figuring in his sand-box, and where but too often the master lounged through two or three hours in the morning and as many in the afternoon in gazing down upon the intellectual pandemonium beneath his rostrum, diversifying his intellectual labors by not infrequently bringing his rattan in as a "thirdsman" between the stout baby and the cowardly baby monitor. The only argument ever advanced in its favor was its cheapness. It was cheap-very cheap. Sand and rattan were its chief returns.

The poor results of the monitorial schools started the agitation in Pennsylvania in favor of schools supported by taxation, whilst the odious distinction between rich and poor, the latter being schooled at public expenses under the constitutions of 1790 and 1838, helped the movement in favor of schools free to all. Judge Samuel Breck, whose parents migrated from Boston to Philadelphia in order to escape the taxes which the former city imposed, entered the senate of Pennsylvania and secured the passage of an act to establish free schools. There were only three negative votes in the senate and but one in the house. However, an unexpected storm of opposition followed in which Governor Wolf, who had signed the bill and was its chief advocate, was defeated. During the struggle for its repeal at the next session of the legislature, Thaddeus Stevens made the greatest speech of his life and won for himself the title of "Savior of the Common Schools of Pennsylvania." The plan provided for a system of schools free to all and supported by a system of taxation that was designed to reach the purses of all. A poll tax was imposed in order that every individual might be made to contribute something toward the common schools. The payment of an appropriation by the state was conditioned by the levy of local tax sufficient to run the schools during the minimum term fixed by law. The combination of the two plans of taxation was better than if either state taxation or local taxation had been adopted as the sole means of raising revenue, for the following reasons:

1. People are ever ready to tax themselves for the sake of getting money out of the state treasury.

2. The state appropriation can be made a means of securing compliance with the provisions of the school law.

3. If the state raises all the money for school purposes, the average citizen loses inter- ' est in the schools after he has no more children to educate.

4. If all the funds are raised by local taxation, the sparsely settled districts have difficulty to raise money enough to secure good teachers.

THE HISTORY OF TAXATION

If the taxation of the leading states were studied in its genesis and development, it might be possible to compare them in detail, to point out the merits and defects of each plan, and to indicate the mistakes which future legislation should avoid as well as the directions in which existing systems can be improved. The committee did not have the sources of information for a comparison of this kind, and hence was obliged to limit its efforts to an investigation of the best way of spending the money which is raised for school purposes by existing methods of taxation,

It is gratifying to report that the State Teachers' Association of Indiana is at work upon a very exhaustive study of the problems of taxation for school purposes in that progressive commonwealth.

THE TAXING POWER

In a representative form of government the taxing power belongs to the legislature, but may be delegated by an act of assembly to the city councils, or to the board of directors, or to the people assembled in town meetingwhere the power may be said to belong originally. The policy of fixing the tax rate at the town meeting is characteristic of New England. The power of fixing and levying the rate is delegated to the township board in Pennsylvania and other states which have the township system with the exception of Indiana where the township trustee fixes the levy, whilst in the southern states this is the function of the county board. The large cities which delegate the power to councils often report more pupils than school seats, because there are objects dearer to the heart of the average councilman than the education of his neighbors' children. In general it may be said that the officials who have the power to levy taxes should be directly amenable to the people. The schools will then be as efficient as the people wish them to be. In any event it is hard to keep the schools far in advance of public opinion even tho the schools be controlled by the United States government.

LIMITATIONS OF THE TOWN MEETING PLAN

In reply to a question about the town meeting as an agency for fixing the tax rate, one prominent educator in New England writes:

1. The town meeting is probably the most blundering form of government that has ever been devised. This has been known to be true ever since the day when a similar body condemned Socrates.

2. Nevertheless it is the best form of government in the world, (a) because of its tremendous educational inspirational power; (b) because of the fact that, however it may blunder, it has such flexibility that blunders can usually be righted; (c) because more than all other institutions of government in the world, it does give opportunity for the man who has the talent for leadership, to develop that talent and make himself a leader. As they said in the French Revolution, "Carrière ouverte aux talens.”

3. The town meeting, of course, becomes impracticable after the community reaches a certain size. In Massachusetts this limit has been set at twelve thousand (12,000) population, which would give about twenty-five hundred (2500) voters.

4. Is the town plan of raising the school money entirely satisfactory? It is not. Nothing on earth is entirely satisfactory. Parsimony and favoritism and seven other devils all have their say in town meeting without doubt, and yet having had experience as a superintendent of schools in four county towns and one city, I am best satisfied with the town meeting plan.

Another gentleman of very wide experience and observation writes:

In Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts the state fixes a minimum rate of expenditure per pupil. The town meetings must vote this much money, but can go above it as much as they see fit. After years of observation of town meetings in this section, I

am of the opinion that they have outlived their usefulness, but people who have lived here all their lives still believe in the town meeting.

Salaries of teachers in Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire-yes in Massachusetts-are pretty nearly as low as the Pennsylvania standard. Of course, salaries of principals of high schools and superintendents in Massachusetts are high, and that tends to make the average high enough to cover the deficiency in the salaries of assistant teachers. In Maine and New Hampshire, I doubt whether salaries of country teachers average more than $30 a month. In Lowell, Lawrence and many other cities of Massachusetts the salaries of teachers are not as high as that earned by girls in domestic service. This, of course, has operated to lessen the efficiency of teaching by driving out of the profession the more competent and by continually lowering standards so as to let in the least efficient. Were it not for Boston, Brookline, Newton, and Springfield, the salaries of teachers in New England would tend downward from even the present low standard rather than upward.

It will thus be seen that even in the state with the best educational sentiment the law, as in days of old, must be made to serve as a schoolmaster to the people. The fixing of a minimum levy which the town meeting must vote is only a counterpart of the legislation in Indiana, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania, which fixes the minimum salary. Pressure upon a legislature often accomplishes what average public opinion could never accomplish thru a town meeting, or thru popular vote, or thru the representatives of the people in a township or county board.

Every tax-paying body should be limited by statute to a maximum rate beyond which taxes cannot be imposed except by vote of the people.

How can the taxpayer be made to see that the money expended in the right education of the children is the best investment of public money ever made, and that it is fully as much the duty of the patriot to pay a just share of tax for the support of the schools as it is his duty to cast a vote or carry a gun? In addition to lines of argument indicated in the paper read before the national council in 1902, the following statement of Prof. Ely is both suggestive and convincing.

I was educated largely at public schools, and it is doubtful' whether I should have been able to finish my school education had not the schools been supported by taxes; for where schools are supported by fees, the fees must be high in order to defray expenses, if the schools are of superior quality.

My educational advantages have been of pecuniary value to me, while the personal satisfaction which I derive from them is to me beyond price. I have become a taxpayer, and with no children of my own at public schools, I am helping to educate other men's children. If in the course of my life I pay in taxes for schools twenty times what I have I ever received from taxes levied for my education, I shall nevertheless think I have been well repaid, and shall always experience a feeling of profound gratitude for those who establish the American public school system. While I individually gain, the community also gains because it receives back more than it has paid out. This holds generally with regard to wise expenditures for educational purposes. The chief factor in production is man, and the better he is prepared for industrial pursuits by suitable training of head and hand, the larger will be the quantity of economic goods produced, and the more rapid the accumulation of wealth. A present burden may lessen future rates of taxation by increasing the taxable basis of a state or city.

TAXATION FOR SCHOOL PURPOSES IN PENNSYLVANIA

In Pennsylvania, every township, borough, or city is a school district. Cities are divided into three classes. Philadelphia is the only city of the first class. Pittsburg, Allegheny, and Scranton are cities of the second class. All other cities belong to the third class. A city of the first class must have a population of a million or over. A city of the second class must have at least 100,000 inhabitants and less than a million inhabitants. In Philadelphia the amount of tax to be levied for school purposes is determined by councils. In all other districts the amount of tax to be levied is fixed by the board of education, generally known as the board of school directors or school controllers. The amount of school tax shall not exceed the amount of state and county taxes authorized by law to be assessed. At the time of the passage of this law, the amount authorized to be levied for state and county purposes was thirteen mills, ten mills for the latter and three for the former. The state tax has since been taken off real estate, but this does not affect the amount of school tax that can be levied, for the reason that it was the obvious intention of the law to fix that amount at thirteen mills on the dollar, and thus avoid the perplexing changes that would otherwise cripple the financial management of school affairs. This decision has been sustained by the supreme court. The board of directors, or controllers, may also levy at any time, not oftener than once in each school year, a special tax not exceeding the amount of the regular annual tax for such year. This special tax is usually spoken of as the building tax, and can be applied (a) for purchasing grounds; (b) for erecting and furnishing buildings; (c) for the accumulation of a fund for purchasing grounds and erecting buildings; (d) for the payment of a debt contracted in purchasing ground and erecting buildings; (e) for completing improvements in school buildings completed at the time of their erection; (f) for fencing and improving grounds in connection with the erection of buildings; (g) for the payment of fuel used in heating buildings; (h) for the payment of the expense of janitors employed in care of buildings.

In this way it is possible to assess twenty-six mills for school purposes, half for maintenance and half for building. Careful provision is thus made for teachers' salaries, free textbooks and supplies, and other expenses incident to the running of the schools, whilst suitable sums can be raised for the erection and equipment of new buildings.

A per capita tax of one dollar is levied and collected annually for school purposes for each and every male inhabitant of the age of twenty-one years and upward. School taxes are levied upon real estate and personal property. Burial grounds, churches, hospitals, universities, colleges, seminaries, academies, associations and institutions of learning, benevolence or charity, are exempt from taxation. Unsettled lands are required to pay school tax.

TWENTY-FIVE YEARS' PROGRESS OF PUBLIC EDUCATION IN
NORTH CAROLINA: A COMPARATIVE STATISTICAL

STUDY OF SCHOOL MAINTENANCE IN THE SOUTH
AND SOME RESULTS*

PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF CHARLES D. MCIVER, BY CHARLES L.
COON, OF THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC EDUCATION

PART I. - FINANCIAL ABILITY TO LEVY SCHOOL TAXES

The following tables show the present relative financial ability of North Carolina and other southern states to raise school funds by taxation, as compared with the country at large and with particular states; also the manner in which the South is making use of her ability in comparison with other parts of the country.

PROPERTY VALUATION OF NORTH CAROLINA AND THE UNITED STATES,

1850-1900

In any discussion of educational progress, the financial ability of the people in question must be considered, especially in making comparisons. The following figures are taken from Compendium of Census, 1890, Part III, page 954, and following, except those for 1900, which are based on the Statistical Abstract of the Department of Commerce:

Observe the following facts disclosed by the above table:

1. The losses of the Civil War account for the per capita wealth of North Carolina being the same in 1890 as in 1860.

2. The per capita wealth of the whole country in 1860 was only 42.3 per cent. more than that of North Carolina; in 1900, the per capita wealth of the country was 176.2 per cent. larger than that of North Carolina.

3. Notice that North Carolina, in 1900, was not yet as able financially to educate its children as was the country at large in 1860.

*All the figures used in this study are taken from the census of the United States, the reports of the United States Commissioner of Education, the state reports of superintendents of public schools, and other official documents. The references, calculations, and deductions are my own.-C. L. C.

†Not counting slaves as a part of the population but only as property. North Carolina had $391 per capita wealth of free population in 1850 and $542 in 1860, in comparison with $407 per capita for United States in 1850 and $588 in 1860.

These figures for 1900 are based on an increase of 45 per cent. in the wealth of the country from 1890 to 1900, which is the estimate of the Department of Commerce.