those of the grammar school teachers. Considering the large number of women in comparison with the small number of men, the added amount in budgets for schools would be prohibitive in many cases.

In one school with forty-two teachers, four of the seven men will have their salaries reduced with the adoption of this second plan. In another school with forty-one teachers, five of the nine men will suffer the same fate. The question arises: Will these men stay or go?

In one instance, a superintendent, after preliminary negotiations with two men for high school positions, changed his plans after the passage of the equal pay law and secured women.

The tendency of men to prepare themselves for leading positions is seen in the increasing number in summer schools. A few years ago few if any in the schools I know best did any summer work. During this past summer, nine of the thirteen principals attended either Columbia University, Rochester or Cornell summer sessions. Many women also availed themselves of the privileges thus provided.

Still another plan would be to retain men by placing them in positions of leadership where work is differentiated from that of women. Hence they would receive unequal pay for unequal work. Many men have already been doing work in school activities outside of regular classroom duties whereby an added salary has been and could be legitimately paid.

Some school boards have been accused of resorting to subterfuges, that is "bootlegging" on the equal pay law, but such is not their desire nor intention. They feel that men are essential to school progress and the development of the pupils to a degree that warrants suitable compensation according to economic considerations.

If the equal pay law seems to be reducing the number of desirable men teachers, there will be an even greater tendency to make the work of men and women unequal than there is now. Shall we have, therefore, a system of secondary schools in which, as now in the elementary schools, leadership is in the hands of men, and all or most of the classroom work is done by woman teachers. The tendency of this law is to make work unequal in order to make the pay unequal.

Dutton and Snedden state as follows:

In European countries, there is universally a considerable difference in favor of the man. The gradual withdrawal of men from the teaching profession in America has been largely due to the fact that for a given expenditure the employing authorities could usually get a more cultured and better trained woman than man.

It is a widespread belief among educators and other students of education, that youths, and especially boys, should be taught by men as well as by women. The harmfulness of having children taught exclusively by women teachers is not yet a demonstrated fact, but is strongly held as an opinion, so that many boards are willing to offer a considerable premium to obtain men for a given place, since the living expenses of men are more, necessarily, than those of women, and men are being constantly tempted into other callings.

In order to void "bootlegging" against the statute, and to live up to the letter and spirit of the law, it has seemed reasonable to some to make this discrimination in the positions held by men and women and to grant the added compensation to men and thus check to some extent the decline in the number of men which has been observed with some consternation by those concerned with the administration of public education.

FIFTH SESSION

October 17, 1924, 8.15 p. m.

CHESTER S. LORD, CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITY, presiding CHANCELLOR LORD: This State is expending millions of dollars annually for the education of its young people. It is furnishing broad courses to fit for professional life; it offers technical courses for vocational employment, all with intent to nourish and strengthen and develop the mind, and to inspire to the upbuilding of intellectual life. The State is expending this money, not to help a boy to make his living, but to help him to become a good citizen, to fit him to take part in public affairs, to legislate, to direct, to defend the State whenever occasion requires. It becomes, therefore, the duty of the educator to inspire the student to seek high ideals of excellence. If he is a student of law, the precept and the example of the highest type of judge or lawyer may be cited in example. If a student of architecture, the highest ideals of the great architects must be studied and understood and so on.

and ever has been is the

than in states

This country's greatest need today need of men of integrity and ability in the public service. Nowhere is there greater need of high ideals - of education manship, diplomacy and common politics. The very life of the Republic depends on these qualities in public men.

If one is asked for an example of highest ideals in public service, the answer is not far to seek.

It is with delight, I am sure, that we welcome here tonight this great Nation's Secretary of State. Few men have taken more important part in the affairs of this State and Nation. Few men have

more completely gained and retained the confidence of the people. For a score of years his public service has been marked by brilliant effort and absolute integrity of purpose. We may search in vain

for any stain on his reputation.

I ask you to listen to this American of supreme achievement the Honorable Charles Evans Hughes.

OUR CONSTITUTIONAL HERITAGE

CHARLES EVANS HUGHES, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE UNITED STATES

It is a pleasure to come out of the murky political atmosphere into the clearer air which is not vitiated by the smoke pouring out of partisan chimneys. But while we detach ourselves from partisan

controversy we may profitably reflect upon some of the questions as to our form of government which current discussions suggest. The Constitution of the United States is not a fetich. It was devised as a practical scheme to give adequate national authority without sacrifice of what was deemed to be essential local autonomy. It proceeded from the people and created, under an arrangement of delegated and reserved powers, organs through which the will of the people could be expressed. The question is always a pertinent one whether these organs are adequate and what changes are desirable and practicable. A practical scheme, formulated 137 years ago, which met exigencies arising after the struggle for independence and satisfied thirteen commonwealths with a population of less than 4,000,000, might not be suitable for a population of 110,000,000 with the interlaced activities of the twentieth century. Impartial consideration of existing conditions should either heighten our respect for the institutions which have proved themselves to be adaptable to unforeseen and unimaginable conditions, or should aid us in securing advisable modifications. Mere panegyric and mere impatience with whatever exists are of little value.

We

The root of our system is found in the principle of duality. are familiar with the basic compromise of the Federal Convention which maintained the state governments, put them under prescribed limitations, created a Senate in which the states should have equal representation, and at the same time provided for a House of Representatives in which representation should be according to population. on a stated basis, thus representing the people and not the states. This arrangement disposed of what George Mason at the outset thought was the most prevalent idea of "instituting a great national council or parliament on the principles of equal, proportionate representation, consisting of two branches of the legislature invested with full legislative powers" and making "the state legislatures subordinate to the national by giving the latter a negative upon all such laws as they judge contrary to the principles and interests of the Union." The question of the inequality of states was a troublesome one but the convention was not prepared to adopt the alternative that "a map of the United States be spread out, that all the existing boundaries be erased, and that a new partition of the whole be made into thirteen equal parts." The convention left the existing states as they were, with their differences in extent of territory, in wealth and in population, and in giving to these states equality of representation in one branch of the Federal Legislature it secured the assent of the small states, while by the organization of the other branch on a

national basis it made possible, as has well been said,

that could endure."

66

What shall be said of this dual system in the light of our presentday experience? At the time of the Federal Convention there was. already apprehension in New England that there would be migration to the West and that great states would be formed beyond the Ohio which would affect the political balance. It was also feared that the inhabitants of new states might be subject to foreign influence. Gouverneur Morris thought that the rule of representation ought to be so fixed as to secure to the Atlantic states a prevalence in the national councils. 'The new states," said he, "will know less of the public interest than these, will have an interest in many respects different, in particular will be little scrupulous of involving the community in wars, the burdens and operations of which would fall chiefly on the maritime states." Colonel Mason replied that if the new states were made part of the Union they ought to be subject to no unfavorable discriminations. The latter view prevailed and the provision was adopted that new states might be admitted by the Congress into this Union, and this power, as the Supreme Court of the United States has held, extends only to the admission of new states on an equal footing with their sister states. Any condition repugnant to such equality of status is void.

Thirty-five new states have thus been admitted into the Union. The sort of inequalities which gave concern to the Federal Convention are even more striking at this time. We now have five states with a population of over 36,000,000, who have ten senators, and five other states with a population of less than 1,250,000 who also have ten senators. According to the census of 1920 we had seventeen states, no one of which had more than 1,000,000 in population and altogether had a population of less than 9,000,000, but they had thirty-four senators, or more than a third of the entire Senate. Compare New York, with its population of over 10,000,000, Pennsylvania with 9,000,000, and Illinois with 7,000,000, on the one hand, with Nevada having about 80,000, Wyoming 200,000 and Delaware 225,000. When the question of inequality was discussed in the Federal Convention, Hamilton asserted that there was no coincidence of interests among the larger states that ought to incite fears of oppression in the smaller. Madison, with prophetic vision, conceived that the difference of interest lay not between the large and small, but between the northern and southern states.

Considering the situation as it is today, it would appear that one consequence of the creation of new states, and of having so many