destruction of the state, but the power is indisputable. The tyranny of the majority may even be justified by the right of the majority, but the safeguard against such tyranny is in the education of the people. Education protects the people against themselves but the right cannot be gainsaid. A day or two ago, at Gettysburg, amid the monuments that gratitude has dedicated to valor, upon that historic spot, and among the veterans who have survived the crucial conflict there witnessed, the chief magistrate of this commonwealth, in a speech of singular felicity of diction and patriotic fervor, repeated and emphasized the words of the martyred president, uttered upon that same battle-field, that immortal sentence defining the republic, its principle, its purpose, its powers: "Government of the people, by the people, for the people." Invoking this high sanction what shall stand in the way of the people, in the exercise of their sovereignty, of themselves, by themselves, and for themselves, instituting and maintaining education, in all its grades throughout the land? To sum up the whole matter, let us quote the admirable exposition of Professor Huxley: "If the positive advancement of the peace, wealth, and the intellectual and moral development of its members are objects which the government, as the representative of the corporate authority of society, may justly strive after, in fulfilment of its end-the good of mankind - then it is clear that the government may undertake to educate the people. For education promotes peace by teaching men the realities of life and the obligations which are involved in the very existence of society; it promotes intellectual development, not only by training the individual intellect, but by sifting out from the masses of ordinary or inferior capacities, those which are competent to increase the general welfare by occupying the higher positions; and, lastly, it promotes morality and refinement by teaching men to discipline themselves, and by leading them to see that the highest, as it is the only permanent content is to be attained, not by groveling in the rank and steaming valleys of sense, but by continued striving toward those high peaks, where, resting in eternal calm, reason discerns the undefined, but bright, ideal of the highest good-" a cloud by day, a pillar of fire by night.

So much for the argument, and with this I might be content, elementary and fragmentary as it has been, but, in this presence,

some reference to historical data seems pertinent. The people, in their sovereign capacity, have had little doubt as to their right, or indecision as to their duty, in the premises. Colonial policies, although under theological domination, were as liberal as colonial means allowed, and sufficient for the sparsely settled colonial communities. The colonial governments considered it a legitimate function and solemnly incumbent upon them to create and control institutions of higher learning, and, if necessary to support them; and from such institutions came the men who molded the destinies of states and founded the nation. With the birth of the nation, however, it became informed both in its head and throughout all its members, with those enlarged views of education, as essential to the public weal, which have taken form in educational appropriations and endowments, or in the corollary of these, the exemption from taxation of property that is in actual use for educational purposes. The fathers had no doubt of the wisdom of such policies, and some of them comprehended in their thought, the erection of a national university, which, to-day, has strenuous championship from some of our most prominent educators. President Washington, in his first message to congress said: "Nor am I less persuaded that you will agree with me in opinion that there is nothing more deserving your patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge in every country is the surest basis of public happiness. In one in which the measures of government receive their impressions so immediately from the sense of the community as ours it is proportionately essential," and he continued "whether this desirable object will be best promoted by affording aid to seminaries of learning already established, by the institution of a national university, or by any other expedients, will be well worthy of a place in the deliberations of the legislature." John Adams was a stanch advocate of higher education, and made constant record of his sentiments. To the educational committee of Kentucky, he wrote as follows: "The wisdom and generosity of the legislature in making liberal appropriations of money for the benefit of schools, academies and colleges, is an equal honor to them and their constituents, and a proof of their veneration for letters and science and a portent of lasting good to North and South America and to the world." James Madison, in his second annual message said: "Whilst it is

universally admitted that a well instructed people alone can be permanently a free people, and whilst it is evident that the means of diffusing and improving useful knowledge from so small a proportion of the expenditures for national purposes, I cannot presume it to be unreasonable to invite your attention to the advantages of superadding to the means of education provided by the several states a seminary of learning instituted by the national legislature, within the the limits of their exclusive jurisdiction, the expense of which might be defrayed or reimbursed out of the vacant grounds which have accrued to the nation within those limits." Even Thomas Jefferson, although not so pronounced as were some of his contemporaries in favor of federal aid to education, admitted its propriety in one of his messages, and was unreservedly committed to the principle of state aid. He was the father of the University of Virginia. Apostle of republicanism as he was, jealous of the interference of the state in individual concerns, his deliverances being constantly quoted by the disciples of laissez faire, he drafted the plan of that university which the state established and has constantly nourished. In this plan he says: "And this brings us to the point at which are to commence the higher branches of education, of which the legislature requires the development; those for example, which are to form the statesmen, legislators and judges, on whom public prosperity and individual happiness are so much to depend; to expound the principles and structure of government to develop the reasoning faculties of our youth, enlarge their minds, cultivate their morals and instil into them the precepts of virtue and order

These are the objects of that higher grade of education, the benefits and blessings of which the legislature now propose to provide for the good and ornament of their country, the qualification and happiness of their fellow-citizens, of the parent especially, and of his progeny, on whom all his affections are concentrated." The national university has not yet had being, but the nation has done much for higher learning. In the ordinance of 1787, of which Daniel Webster said: "I doubt whether one single law of any law giver, ancient or modern, has produced effects of more distinct, marked and lasting character," it was declared that "religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the

means of education shall forever be encouraged," and the compact was kept throughout all that magnificent territory embraced within the terms of the ordinance. By the distribution of the surplus revenue in 1837, 27 states received their respective portions of the public funds, and by far the larger number consecrated them to educational objects. The congressional land grant of 1862 was intended to endow in each state at least one college with special reference to teaching branches of learning related to agriculture and the mechanic arts. Aside from these trusts committed to the states, there have been grants of nearly 30,000,000 acres of land to institutions specifically named. Within the province of national benefaction and supervision are to be included the military and naval academies, the congressional library, the naval observatory, the national museum and Smithsonian institution, and withal the bureau of education which shows the vital and continuous interest the nation takes in educational matters throughout all the states and territories.

And the states? Time will not suffice to review their work. In the older states that work has been largely supplementary to private beneficence in aiding institutions which denominational zeal has inspired. In the newer states, the policy has been to adopt a system of public education that includes a university, but in both, the state has been an intelligent guardian of, if not a bountiful almoner to higher education. Rhode Island alone has never aided her university except by exemption from taxation. By the report of the commissioner of education for 1886-87, it appears that the states had then appropriated less than $28,000,000 to institutions of higher education, but something of this is approximate: the sum does not embrace the amounts derived by the states from the general government; it excludes appropriations to state libraries, museums etc., except as they are connected with colleges and universities, and of course, takes no note of expenditures for elementary or secondary education. The figures are not overwhelming in their magnitude, but the results achieved have been most satisfactory and have abundantly demonstrated the efficacy of the principle of state aid.

The educational policy of New York has been, from the first, eminently sound, conserving at once the manhood of the indi

vidual and the weal of the state. It has been conformed to the precept of that eminent son of the state, himself a pupil in the school of Jefferson, Horatio Seymour, who said: "If it is true that the intelligence, the virtue and the prosperity of society demand that some be highly educated, if the interests of persons and property are promoted by this, then the public welfare calls for schools where they can be taught. If common schools are demanded by the very nature of our government, then the interests of all our people demand that there should be those so highly educated, not only that they can carry them on, but more than that, who can by their influence keep alive in the public mind a sense of the value of such schools." New York has had two systems of education, separate in organization and conduct, yet not without vital points of contact. Upon the common school, the state has poured its unstinted millions. When higher education has needed largess, it has been freely bestowed. When the need has ended the largess has ceased, and constitutional inhibition has become the bulwark against sectarian assaults upon the treasury. Educational legislation has not been cast in a rigid mold of dogma or precedent. It has been flexible and responsive to times and circumstances. It has been radical when new departures were expedient; it has been conservative when crude experiments have been proposed or sciolism has menaced.

The university of the state has been unique in its constitution, preserving titles and tenures inhering in aristocratic bodies, yet democractic in impulse and in act. It has not been a single institution, but a congeries of colleges, academies and professional schools, each, however, retaining its autonomy, selecting its faculty and perscribing its curriculum, amenable only to the university for violations of its charter. Unlike the regents in some western states, invested with the powers of trustees, the New York board has had supervision, rather than authority, has been an adviser instead of a ruler. And yet, this gentle supervision has woven cords of sympathy between the various institutions, has given them unity of purpose through wholesome rivalries, and has made them collectively worthy of state pride. It has cohered them in this convocation which is generally and justly regarded as the leading American educational gathering of the year. New York may well glory in her dual scheme of edu