I bring my argument on this point, then, to a close; and I present a test of its validity, which, as it seems to me, defies denial or evasion.

In obedience to the laws of God and to the laws of all civilized communities, society is bound to protect the natural life of children; and this natural life cannot be protected without the appropriation and use of a portion of the property which society possesses. We prohibit infanticide under penalty of death. We practice a refinement in this particular. The life of an infant is inviolable, even before he is born; and he who feloniously takes it, even before birth, is as subject to the extreme penalty of the law as though he had struck down manhood in its vigor, or taken away a mother by violence from the sanctuary of home where she blesses her offspring. But why preserve the natural life of a child, why preserve unborn embryos of life, if we do not intend to watch over and to protect them, and to expand their subsequent existence into usefulness and happiness? As individuals, or as an organized community, we have no natural right, we can derive no authority or countenance from reason, we can cite no attribute or purpose of the divine nature, for giving birth to any human being, and then inflicting upon that being the curse of ignorance, of poverty, and of vice, with all their attendant calamities. We are brought, then, to this startling but inevitable alternative, the natural life of an infant should be extinguished as soon as it is born, or the means should be provided to save that life from being a curse to its possessor; and, therefore, every State is morally bound to enact a code of laws legalizing and enforcing infanticide or a code of laws establishing free schools.

--

The three following propositions, then, describe the broad and everduring foundation on which the common-school system of Massachusetts reposes:

The successive generations of men, taken collectively, constitute one great commonwealth.

The property of this commonwealth is pledged for the education of all its youth, up to such a point as will save them from poverty and vice, and prepare them for the adequate performance of their social and civil duties.

The successive holders of this property are trustees, bound to the faithful execution of their trust by the most sacred obligations; and embezzlement and pillage from children and descendants have not less of criminality, and have more of meanness, than the same offences when perpetrated against contemporaries.

317. Repeal of the Connecticut School Law

(Message of Governor Cleveland to the Connecticut Legislature, in May, 1842. In Barnard's American Journal of Education, vol. 1, p. 677)

In 1837 the first American State Board of Education was created by the Legislature of Massachusetts, and in 1838 the Legis

lature of Connecticut, under the inspiration of Henry Barnard, one of its members, created a similar board. Henry Barnard was appointed its first Secretary, and from 1838 to 1842 gave his best efforts to the creation of an educational sentiment and to the establishment and improvement of schools in Connecticut, for the munificent salary of $3.00 a day. What promised to be the beginning of a new era in education in that State was soon cut short by a succeeding Legislature, acting under the inspiration of a Governor opposed to the new ideas. In his message to the Connecticut Legislature, in May, 1842, Governor Cleveland said:

An opinion was advanced some years since, calling in question, to some extent, the beneficial influence of the School Fund, as it has been applied; and the Legislature, by way of experiment, established a Board of Commissioners of Common Schools; and, under the belief that some essential improvements might be made, an officer has been employed, at considerable expense, to visit the various schools in the State with reference to their improvement. As a part of the same plan, provision was subsequently made by law for paying the visitors of the district schools one dollar a day for their services. The reason for the imposition of this tax, which, when the number of districts and committee-men is considered, will appear to be a considerable sum, has never been apparent. From time immemorial, it has been deemed a part of the obligations which competent men owed to society, to attend to these duties; and no inconvenience had ever been experienced. Until the spirit of benevolence and good-will to men shall cease to burn in the hearts of our people, I anticipate no difficulty in following, in this respect, in the path of our fathers. Without questioning the motives of those by whom these experiments were suggested and adopted, I think it obvious, that the public expectations, in regard to their consequences, have not been realized; and that to continue them, will be only to entail upon the State a useless expense. In conformity with this opinion, and in obedience to what I believe to be the public sentiment, I recommend the repeal of these laws.

In addition the Governor successfully used his personal influence with the members of the Legislature, and secured the repeal of the law creating the Board, the abolition of the Union-Schools law, and other progressive legislation. The Union-Schools law was regarded as a "dangerous innovation," because it "created by law schools of a higher order."

318. Horace Mann on the Repeal of the Connecticut Law (Massachusetts Common School Journal, 1846. Reproduced in Barnard's American Journal of Education, vol. 1, p. 719)

After commenting on the progress of education in Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Massachusetts, Mann has the following to say of Connecticut.

One only of the New England States proves recreant to duty in this glorious cause the State of Connecticut. Favored for half a century, in the munificence of her endowments, beyond any of her New England sisters, she is the only one which, for the last few years, has not merely been stationary, but has absolutely retrograded; and now, if she promises to be useful at all, it is as a warning and not as an example. A common ancestry, an identity of general interests and pursuits, a similar position in regard to the other States of the Union, and a similar duty to furnish them with high example and encouragement, has led us all to expect that we should have, not only the sympathy, but the active coöperation, of Connecticut, in this common cause. We not only expected it, we believed it. Events seemed auspicious. The year after the Massachusetts Board of Education was established, an organization almost identical in its form, and entirely so in its object, was created in Connecticut. For carrying out its measures of reform and improvement, an agent was selected - Henry Barnard, Esquire — of whom it is not extravagant to say that, if a better man be required, we must wait, at least, until the next generation, for a better one is not to be found in the present. This agent entered upon his duties with unbounded zeal. He devoted to their discharge his time, talents, and means. The cold torpidity of the State soon felt the sensations of returning vitality. Its half-suspended animation began to quicken with a warmer life. Much and most valuable information was diffused. Many parents began to appreciate more adequately what it is to be a parent. Teachers were awakened. Associations for mutual improvement were formed. System began to supersede confusion. Some salutary laws were enacted. All things gave favorable augury of a prosperous career. And it may be further affirmed, that the cause was so administered as to give occasion of offence to no one. The whole movement was kept aloof from political strife. All religious men had reason to rejoice that a higher tone of religious and moral feeling was making its way into the schools, without giving occasion of jealousy to the one-sided views of any denomination. But all these auguries of good were delusive. In an evil hour the whole fabric was overthrown. The Educational Board was abolished. Of course, the office of its devoted and faithful Secretary fell with it. As if this were not enough, the remedial laws which had been enacted during the brief existence of

the Board, and which might have continued and diffused their benefits without the Board, were spitefully repealed.

The whole educational movement in Connecticut, or rather, the body in which the vital movement had begun, was paralyzed by this stroke. Once or twice, since, it has attempted to rise, but has fallen back prostrate as before.

319. The Struggle for Free Schools in Norwich, Connecticut (Address by the Reverend J. P. Gulliver, at the inauguration of the Norwich Free Academy. In Annual Report of the Superintendent of Common Schools of Connecticut, 1856)

The following selection is illustrative of the slow and patient struggle that had to be carried on by those favoring the establishment and improvement of schools, often allowing the opposition to talk itself out before any substantial progress in developing or improving schools could be made. What was true for Norwich was true for many other places, in the middle of the nineteenth century.

Movements were commenced about twenty years since, for a reorganization of the public schools of the Second School Society of Norwich. The usual opposition, originated by a few narrow-minded taxpayers, and fanned into life by ambitious demagogues, was arrayed against the measure, and it was finally defeated. The whole community had, however, been agitated with the subject, and much good seed had been sown, which has since borne beautiful fruit. For ten years the citizens of Norwich made the best they could of a set of disjointed schools, thrown together with scarcely any attempt at gradation, governed by six independent districts, and some forty school officers, and supported entirely without taxation. Good men labored hard; but almost in vain, to secure for the people, under the existing system, good schools.

An effort was then made, with still greater earnestness, to improve the schools, without any attempt at re-organization. They were regularly visited. A monthly meeting of the visitors was held, at which the condition of each school was minutely reported. Every possible effort was made to elevate the schools. The success was, however, but partial. After a trial of two years, the gentlemen, whose valuable time had been given to the effort, came unanimously to the conclusion that without a consolidation of at least the more central school districts, and the thorough grading of the schools, and the taxation of property for the support of schools, this labor would be thrown away. The board, accordingly laid before the school society a proposition for inaugurating such a change. This was the signal for a storm! A few (but only a

few) of the heavy tax-payers were the first to smell treason. They passed the word to a set of men, who flourish in their own esteem, by exhibiting their powers in thwarting what others attempt to do. The usual cry was raised, "a school for the rich!" The prejudices of poor men were appealed to. This class, who were to be most benefited by the change, were excited to oppose it. Men who had been paying rate bills for years, clamored against the proposition to support schools by taxing property. Parents, who had bitterly complained that their children could not be as well educated as those of the wealthy, refused to accept a plan which was to bring the highest order of schools within their reach, at a mere nominal expense. The intelligent portion of the community were, however, thoroughly aroused. Meeting after meeting was held. Crowds attended and listened to the discussions. Light was rapidly diffused. The opposition became desperate. All manner of offensive personalities were made use of to intimidate those who were inclined to be champions of the good cause. Still, it was apparent, by incidental votes, that a large and an increasing majority were in favor of the proposed change. This majority, however, forbore to press the question to a decisive vote. They publicly avowed their intention to postpone final action, until the whole community should have fully examined the question, and arrived at an intelligent decision upon it.

This concession was taken advantage of. At an adjourned meeting where it was generally understood no decisive action was to take place, the opposition collected a large force, very many of whom were not legal voters, and, in the absence of the great body of the friends of the measure, voted the indefinite postponement of the whole subject. No sooner had this been accomplished than a general regret was expressed at the result, even among those who had boisterously aided in the movement. Many declared, that had they expected to succeed, they would not have opposed the measure. Their leaders, instead of receiving the coveted meed of applause from their followers, for the victory, were overwhelmed with reproaches. In these circumstances, the friends of reform judged it wise to cease all further agitation of the subject, and to leave the responsibility of the consequences upon those who had chosen to assume it. The administration of the schools was accordingly left in their hands. They appointed such officers as they chose, and no attempt was made in any form, for two years, to interfere with their wishes. During this time, the schools sunk to a lower level than ever. Even the most ignorant and prejudiced could not fail to see and feel the evil. The attendance constantly diminished, until it was ascertained that only about one-third of the children, between the ages of four and sixteen, attended school at all. The feeling of the community on the subject was becoming intense. The attention of the people having been so thoroughly aroused by previous discussion, every defect was