INDIANA holds its Association at Indianapolis, at the same time with Illinois. We observe that opportunity is given—and this is the more usual and the better plan-for some discussion of the topics presented. It is somewhat tiresome to sit and listen for two or three days to a half dozen or more Addresses or Lectures however excellent, and not have any opportunity, as the sailor said who attended worship where they had no liturgy, to "jaw back."- A Convention of the County Examiners, not very largely attended, met at Indianapolis in November, the principal object of which was to bring about more uniformity in the methods of Examination. Heretofore their plan, from a defect in the law we suppose, seems to have been less systematic than our own. There appears to be a healthful, active spirit at wok in Indiana.

MICHIGAN. With the non-appearance for a long time, of the Michigan Journal of Education, that State seemed to have widened the distance across the lake that separates us. Prof. Sill's late visit among us has lessened the distance, and we hope he may be seen among our Institutes again the ensuing year. The Journal, we learn, has for some time been defunct, through the withdrawal of the State patronage; an emblem perchance of the approaching fate of our own Journal!

NEW YORK-Among the noticeable events during the year have been the Educational Convention in Oswego, called to examine the Pestalozzian System of Primary Instruction introduced there by the energetic Superintendent, E. A. Sheldon, Esq., through the labors of Miss M. E. M. Jones, from the "Home and Colonial Training School," of London,-and the recent publication of the Report of the Special Committee of the Convention. The opinion of the Committee, which embraced the names of W. F. Phelps, D. H. Cochrane and D. N. Camp, Principals of the Normal Schools of New Jersey, New York and Connecticut, is expressed in the following Resolutions:

Resolved, That in the opinion of your Committee, the System of Object Teaching is admirably adapted to cultivate the perceptive faculties of the child, to furnish him with clear conceptions and the power of accurate expression, and thus to prepare him for the prosecution of the sciences or the pursuits of active life; and that the Committee do recommend the adoption of the system in whole or in part, wherever such introduction is practicable.

Resolved, That the system of primary education, which substitutes in a great measure the teacher for the book, demands in its instructors varied knowledge and thorough culture; and that attempts to introduce it by those who do not clearly comprehend its principles, and who have not been trained in its methods, can result only in failure.

PENNSYLVANIA.-No meeting of the State Association has been held the past year, but a second Educational Convention convened in October last, at the call of Mr. Burrowes, the State Superintendent, the proceedings of which are of much interest. We quote in this number and the preceding one, from some of the Reports. Such Conventions we think may be of very great service, by bringing together educators of all classes, and seeking to systemize and harmonize the various educational agencies of a state. Pennsylvania is doing a noble and solid work. Her motto is-slow and sure.

BOOKS, &c.

SANDERS' RHETORICAL OR UNION FIFTH READER. S. C. Griggs & Co., Chicago. Ivison & Phinney, New York.

If fine white paper, clear and elegant printing, beautiful binding, and a choice variety of rhetorical and literary extracts, with judicious notes, biographical and otherwise, go to make up a desirable Reading Book for higher classes, this volume may claim to fulfil the conditions in an eminent degree. We think it an improvement that the selections are not so many of them as usual in such books, from heavy metaphysical writers. Such pieces interest philosophers, but not school-children.

MANUAL OF INSTRUCTION IN OBJECT LESSONS. By M. Willson, author of "Historical Series," School and Family Readers," &c. &c. Harper & Brothers, New York. S. C. Griggs & Co., Chicago.

This work is designed to accompany a series of School and Family Charts, in the preparation of which Mr. Willson has been assisted by Mr. Calkins, author of a previous work on Object Lessons. We have not seen the Charts, and can not therefore speak with proper intelligence of the whole plan; we observe however that Mr. Wells of Chicago (see advertisement in November number) says the book "furnishes more substantial aid to teachers in arranging and filling out a systematic course of object lessons than any other work that has yet been issed." This is a strong endorsement. To our own judgment the work seems a little over elaborate, but practical teachers are the best judges.

A MANUAL OF ELEMENTARY INSTRUCTION, Containg a Graduated Course of Object Lessons; by E. A. Sheldon, Supt. of Schools, Oswego, N. Y., assisted by Miss M. E. M. Jones and Prof. H. Krusi. Chas. Scribner, New York. Price by mail $1.25.

This work, which has appeared since the one noticed above, should, a priori, be the best we have in this country upon the subject. It embraces, first, through Prof. Krusi, (whose father was a pupil of Pestalozzi,) the views of a legitimate Pestalozzian, so to speak; then the results of the English adaptation of the system, as represented by Miss Jones, and finally the American adaptation, under the direction of Mr. Sheldon, whose practical experience in this direction we suppose to be very considerable, the Oswego schools having been the first to introduce the system thoroughly. But we have not yet seen the work. The advertisement of Mr. Sheldon's book, on a subsequent page, will give quite a good idea of its scope.

BROWN'S IMPROVED GRAMMAR. William Wood, New York.

This well known school-book has long held a leading place in the estimation of teachers, and has recently been further improved by the substitution of new matter in the place of the old "parsing exercises," while a much better and more extended plan of syntactical analysis is introduced. This new matter has been prepared by Henry Kiddle, Deputy Superintendent of Schools in the city of New York. Thus improved, this text-book will long and worthily maintain its ground, though we hope to see the day when the presentation of the subject of English Grammar will be much simplified.

In urging the claims of the High School as a necessary part of a Public School system, I shall meet with opposition from various sources. The most prominent opposers are:

1. Those who oppose the whole Free School system.

2. Those who subscribe to the idea of Free Schools only so far as they are designed to meet the necessities of the people and therefore object to any public support of schools for instruction in higher branches.

3. Those who, while they labor zealously for the promotion of higher education in the line of Private Schools, Seminaries, and Colleges, through mistaken zeal, decry the Public High School as a meddlesome rival.

4. Those who, convinced of the utter futility of the various objections urged by others, cover themselves with the broad mantle of unconstitutionality, and can find nothing in the letter or spirit of the Constitution that will warrant the establishment of High Schools.

Of these several classes there are various subdivisions.

For sake of convenience of arrangement I shall consider these various objections in an order differing from that in which they are stated.

As the constitutional question really lies at the foundation of all, is the most comprehensive, and serves as a covert for those who are driven from other positions, it will be first approached.

The words of the Constitution are as follows "The Legislature shall provide by law for the establishment of district schools, which shall be as nearly uniform as practicable," &c.

*An Address, delivered before the State Teachers' Association, at Janesville, July 30, 1862, by Hon. J. L. PICKARD, State Superintendent, and incorporated into his Report for the year 1862.

The objector assumes that the uniformity required must be in extent of instruction given, and inasmuch as the instruction given in a majority of our schools must be limited to the common English branches by reason of their poverty or sparsity of population, therefore constitutional uniformity would be violated by the admission of other branches into any of our schools supported by public funds and by taxation.

Admitting the correctness of the premises, the legitimate result of such reasoning must prove an absurdity, for thus would the poorest and least advanced schools become the standard to which all others must be reduced. No such design could have been entertained by the intelligent framers of our Constitution. Had such been their intention, they would very naturally have prescribed the course of study to be pursued in our district schools.

The language of the Constitution seems most easily explained upon the supposition that it is addressed to the Legislature, and forbids the passage of any act that shall secure to any district peculiar privileges not accorded to all alike, while at the same time it demands such legislation as shall establish all schools upon a uniform basis as to their rights and privileges. In a word it is a uniformity of possibilities and not of actualities. It opens a wide field and invites all to enter, upon precisely the same conditions, and still further encourages a healthy rivalry. It says whatever is made the absolute duty of a common school you must each perform, and whatever privileges are accorded you may share. To this all will probably assent, and the next point to be discussed is: What are the duties and what the privileges of the common or district school? What did the framers of our Constitution mean, when they provided that the common school should be free to all between the ages of 4 and 20? The answers to these questions can alone be found in the technical meaning of the words "Common" or "District School." Neither Webster nor Worcester settle the question in dispute between those who affirm that the term has always been applied exclusively to such schools as were devoted to instruction in reading, writing and arithmetic, and those who claim that it embraces within its province other and higher branches, almost without limit. Law dictionaries are also silent upon the point. If then we can find no definition in words that shall be authoritative, we must look to practices. But practice has materially changed since the first establishment of common schools. We must then, in fairness, confine ourselves to the practice of the older States at the time our Constitution was framed. The constitutions and statutes of other States in force previous to 1847, will give us some clue to the popular opinion relative to free schools at that time, since the laws of a State are very properly supposed to reflect the public opinions of that State. Further

than this, opinions and practices generally accord. At the outset, let it be remembered that it is not the name but the principle we wish to establish, and though in the illustration of the subject the terms Primary School, Grammar School, and High School, may occur, they are but parts of a system founded upon the broad principles of free tuition to pupils of certain ages. So long as we confine ourselves to those schools which were supported entirely by public funds and taxation of property, and opened their doors alike to rich and poor, the argument will be fair, although names may vary.

Connecticut and Massachusetts strive for the honor of introducing upon American soil the free school system. They shall be consulted first. One must be mentioned first, but the friends of the other may transpose their order if they so desire.

The Constitution of Connecticut adopted in 1818 contains these words: "Public or common schools, and for the equal benefit of all the people of the State."

The Legislature, acting under that Constitution, in 1841 gave to school districts the power "to establish and maintain common schools of different grades," the schools of higher grade to be public and supported at public expense. Certificates were to be given to teachers setting forth the branches the candidate is capable of teaching, provided no certificate shall be issued to a person not qualified to teach reading, writing, arithmetic and grammar thoroughly, and the rudiments of geography and history. Connecticut demanded certain branches to be taught in her common schools and made special provision for instruction in other and higher branches several years before our Constitution was adopted, and all under the name of common or public schools.

"It shall be the duty

The Constitution of Massachusetts reads thus: of legislatures to cherish the interests of literature," &c., "especially the University at Cambridge, public schools and grammar schools in the towns." Here the term grammar schools is introduced, but the difference in terms is of little or no weight since the principle of free tuition is the one really at issue. The Massachusetts statutes of 1826 required schools to be established wherever fifty families were found, in which should be taught all the lower English branches. For every five hundred families a school should be opened for instruction in additional branches of his. tory, book-keeping, surveying, geometry and algebra. For every four thousand inhabitants in any one town a still higher grade should be established for instruction in Latin, Greek, history, rhetoric and logic. The statute also makes provision that any town not containing five hundred families may provide for instruction in higher branches.

In the State of New York there are no specifications as to the branches