such an organization, while securing responsibility, efficiency and respect, would be less than that of the present system, if the Clerks and Treasurers of districts were relieved of their duties, and their pay transferred to this Board. It would consolidate the whole business of the public schools in a county administration, would secure accurate accounts and prompt reports, and would greatly strengthen the popular interest in each county in the cause. At the same time, it would provide all the advantages of the district system, by retaining local control over the schools in the hands of the District Directors, whose duties being thus simplified, would enable them to devote the necessary time to contracting with teachers, visiting the schools, and providing comfortable buildings and appointments. It would tend to secure higher qualifications in the County Superintendents in those counties where little care is taken to elect a capable incumbent, to require that each candidate for the position shall be examined by a Board of Examiners, to be appointed by the County Board of Education; thus giving better promise of filling the office with a man of "literary and scientific qualifications."

In happy contrast to the delinquencies I have noticed, which have served as obstructions to the harmonious working of the system, I take pleasure in stating that several of the counties have managed their school affairs with great intelligence and public spirit, and have employed as agents zealous and capable men. Such instances have invariably demonstrated how successfully the schools may be conducted, and how powerfully they may be made to answer the benign intention of the Legisla

ture, where proper support and co-operation are invoked, and where friendly, instead of hostile, elements, are called to their aid. Indeed, the striking contrast thus presented between the employment of County Superintendents who have been permitted, by reasonable compensation and encouragement, to bring to their work their whole energies and attainments, and the hostile policy of some, necessarily resulting from the election of inefficient and poorly paid Superintendents, triumphantly vindicates the wisdom of the county supervision, which the law intended to create and organize. In the case of counties. where there have been no Superintendents to look after the interest of the schools, or where they have been unremunerated and inefficient, or where they have been instructed by the Court not to discharge their delicate and responsible duties, there can be no evidence, and consequently no guaranty, that the fund apportioned to them has not been wasted or misapplied, or that the schools have been opened and conducted according to law, since there is no official report, and no responsibility in these cases. The effort to conduct a system of public schools, based upon combined State and county co-operation, would prove a failure without county supervision, as is clearly demonstrated in those counties that have neglected to avail themselves of the advantages which have been derived by other counties from such a necessary feature of organization. Every business, and especially every system, which has need for as many agents and employees as the public school system, must necessarily have its supervisors, who must be well and carefully selected, and reasonably compensated for their services. It

is universally recognized in every other enterprise as a necessity to success, and in no instance is the money expended deemed either a waste or an extravagance. This principle has been universally applied to the public schools of all our cities, and its advantages have never been disputed or denied. There could be no tolerable organization without it—no system, no method, no government, no responsibility, no statistical experience, no progress, no success. The weakness of such a school system was well illustrated by that which prevailed in our State before the war. There was a State Superintendent, who was a mere financial custodian, but no County Superintendents. I have searched in vain for any records. which attest the existence of any progressive, popular, universal school system, where the schools were under the sole direction of District Commissioners. It is true that, in some isolated cases, some benefit was derived from these schools, and from the fund appropriated to them. But the evidence is overwhelming, in the vast amount of illiteracy prevailing, that it utterly failed to reach the great masses of the people. And are not the schools in the rural districts, and the children in the country, entitled to equal facilities for advancing their education as those in the cities? If a wise and careful superintendence of the city schools is deemed indispensable, can any reason be shown why it is not equally important to the country schools, which have not the same facility for massing, organization and inspection, and therefore require more earnest and determined efforts to effect these purposes? No such reason can be given, but, on the contrary, there are additional grounds for deeming such organization and

supervision more necessary in consequence of their isolated, struggling and straggling situation, which increases the importance of a common responsibility, method and visitation. It seems certain, that without such supervision and visitation, the idea of a universal system of free schools must be abandoned in the rural districts, which must inevitably add to the already alarming exodus of population from the farming areas to the towns and cities, and ensue in the consequent retrograde of agricultural prosperity and depreciation of farm values. The cities will continue to present the educational advantages which have been found to add so greatly to their wealth and population, or will rather strive, from year to year, to improve upon their present advancement; for there is no city which has ever enjoyed these advantages that will readily abandon them. The country schools, being left to the feeble, isolated and uncertain struggle under local directors, who, in a large majority of cases, as appears from official reports, never "darken the doors" of the school rooms, and having no responsible head and no definite organization, must gradually grow worse and worse under such management, until all aspiring citizens, who can, will emigrate to other States, or to cities, where some of the blessings of civilization and of the age may be successfully sought and enjoyed. It is sometimes said that the schools need no supervision, and that Superintendents' salaries would be better applied to the teachers. This would be a sound statement if it could be shown that unity, homogeneity and organization were not more necessary to the success of a school system than poor teaching; and that it is the only way to avoid the latter, in very

many cases, where so many teachers, for the proper training of whom adequate provision will always be necessary, are required. We must either have isolated schools, with no system and no responsibility, or we must choose to have a County Superintendent with unification and a proper responsibility. Which of the two is the better way, it is not difficult to decide. And if we have a County Superintendent, it follows that he should receive such pay for his services as is reasonable and just. The duties that come to his share are equally as important to the interests of the county, and of every person in it, as those of any other county officer. And where his labors are well and faithfully performed, they are equally as arduous, and require more culture, judgment and capacity than are necessary for many other county officers. Why there should be so much hesitation in awarding to him such compensation as will secure proper attention from a good and competent man, is one of the problems which can only be solved by ascribing it to the novelty of an established system of free schools in our State. County supervision exists in twenty-seven States of the Union and eight of the Territories, and I might here accumulate much testimony, of the highest character, of its actual value from most or all of these States and Territories, which unite in the position that its abolition would greatly mar, if not actually destroy, the unity and efficiency of the system. But I will cite one authority in which the statement is so clear, and the argument so forcible, as to compel conviction. The State Superintendent of Missouri, in his report of 1873, sententiously says:

"Are the country schools to combine for any purpose