of instruction in the small schools. Already the experiment has been made in forty of the ninety-two counties with satisfactory results. The abandonment of the weaker schools has been given a new legal sanction by recent legislation. The township trustee may upon his own authority abandon any school that has "an average daily attendance of twelve pupils or fewer," and consolidate the schools with those of an adjacent district. With the written consent of a majority of the voters of any school district he may, and upon their petition he must, take such action. While these laws do not explicitly authorize trustees to expend revenue for the transportation of pupils, a recent official opinion of the State Superintendent declares that they have that power. The stronger arguments seem to be in favor of consolidation.3 This movement emphasizes with force the contrast between the doctrines that prevailed seventy years ago and those of the present.

It has been said that Indiana was "the first State in the Union to incorporate it [the township system] into her educational code." However that may be, it was certainly an innovation of the greatest import. Gradually it came to mean the diminution of the expenses of administration, the equalization of opportunities within the township, the employment of more competent teachers with longer tenure, and greater professional interest and ambition. In the place of narrow localized interests and neighborhood quarrels and factions, it led to the expansion of interest, sympathy and civic pride so as to include the civil and educational welfare of each citizen of the larger community.

1 Bien. Report State Supt. Jones for 1899-1900, pp. 529–557.

2 Laws, 1901, pp. 159, 437.

$ Bien. Report State Supt. Jones for 1899 and 1900, pp. 526–8.

3. STATE AID AND CENTRAL CONTROL

In a more detailed examination of the centralizing tendency in school administration, the development of central control over school finances occupies an important place. It would seem to be a general principle that where an individual or a corporation, public or private, stands sponsor for an enterprise by furnishing periodically the means for its prosecution, some accountability to the promoters would be required. The grantor or benefactor wishes to know that the funds are wisely and economically expended for the particular purpose in view. It will be seen from the following pages that just as the State's financial interest in the schools increased, that is, just as it assumed, by means of general taxation or otherwise, the burdens of maintaining the system, so its control over the expenditures, reports and instruction increased.

The school revenues were derived from several sources: permanent funds, local and general taxation, fines, forfeitures, et cetera. Until consolidation was effected, in 1852, there was considerable difference in the objects of the expenditure and in the administration of the various funds. A clearer view of the subject may be obtained, therefore, by treating them separately.

I. The Congressional Township Fund. The first governmental endowment of the public schools in Indiana came from the Congress of the Confederation.' By the act enabling the people of Indiana Territory to form a Constitution and to organize a State government, the "sixteenth section" of land was again conditionally granted to the inhabitants of each township for the use of schools. The condition was accepted by the State, and the Constitution adopted in 1816 required the

1 Journal of Congress, ix, p. 171. See also p. 18.

U. S. Statutes, iii, p. 290.

General Assembly "to provide by law for the improvement of the lands and to apply any funds which might be raised from them or from any other quarter to the accomplishment of the grand object for which they are intended." The proceeds arising from the sale of such lands or otherwise obtained for school purposes, were to "remain a fund for the exclusive purpose of promoting the interest of literature and the sciences, and for the support of seminaries and public schools." The interpretation which was given to this language by the executive and judicial officers of the State government seems reasonable. It was held that this land had been granted to the inhabitants of each township for school purposes, and that the State control over the funds arising therefrom extended only to their protection and administration.3 While under this construction there was a ground for the exercise of State supervision to a certain extent, there was apparent justification of that deference which Legislatures continually showed towards local senti

ment.

Prior to 1843 there were tried three methods of managing school lands and the funds derived from them. During part of this time all three methods were in operation, and the choice of the plan was in each case left to the voters of the congressional township. At first the lands were put in charge of a "superintendent of school lands" or (in case of incorporation) of trustees in each congressional township.5 The second method gave to the inhabitants of a congressional township the privilege of selling their lands and

1 Constitution, 1816, art. ix, sect. 1, and Ordinance of 1816. Constitution of 1816, art. ix, sect. I.

36 Indiana Reports, pp. 87, 96.

'See page 28 above.

3 Laws, 1816–7, pp. 104, 106; 1818-9, pp. 57-9; Rev. Stat.; 1824, 379.

6 * Laws, 1826–7, p. 103; 1827-8, p. 112, and U. S. Statutes, iv, p. 558.

6

entrusting the proceeds to a "county school commissioner " elected by the people.' It was his duty to loan the money on proper security, and to distribute to each township the income from its own funds. He had no control over the school funds of any township which declined to sell its lands. This seemed to be a step towards local centralization. The opportunity to dispose of the lands was quickly seized, and by 1843 more than a million dollars was thus realized. While this policy provided funds for immediate use, it must be regarded as extremely short-sighted. Most of this land was sold at $1.25 per acre. If it had been carefully husbanded, it would now in many townships furnish annual revenue sufficient to maintain schools for ten months without one cent of local taxation for tuition purposes.2

The third experiment was made in 1831. The electors of the township were empowered to determine by vote whether or not the money derived from the sale of school lands should be loaned by the school commissioner or be deposited in the State loan office.3 The money placed in the loan office was to constitute "a perpetual fund, set apart for the purpose of township free schools;" and the faith of the State was solemnly pledged to the regular annual payment of interest at six per cent. to the township properly entitled to receive it. The school commissioner was still required to loan school moneys not deposited in the loan office.+ This step towards State centralization was neutralized by granting each township the right to retain or to recall the

1 Laws, 1828-9, pp. 12-18, 122-3; 1829-30, p. 150.

"See illustration of this fact in Supt. D. M. Greeting's Report for 1895 and 1896, pp. 293-5.

Rev. Stat., 1831, p. 468. The loan office under the superintendence of the State Treasurer had been created in 1828 for the purpose of loaning the funds of the Indiana College. Laws, 1827-8, pp. 127-130.

Rev. Stat., 1831, p. 468.

6

Laws, 1840-1, pp. 146–7.

money if the voters preferred to do so. In fact, little advantage was taken of this privilege, and the total amount on deposit with the Treasurer of State from 1831 to 1851 never at any one time exceeded $2,000.'

It has already been stated that from 1837 there was a growing conviction that a greater degree of centralization was absolutely necessary to secure any development of the school system. Messages of governors and reports of officers3 and legislative committees during the next five years, contained many urgent appeals for a thorough investigation of the school funds and for the establishment of the office of State Superintendent.

As early as 1819 there had been required of the local financial officers some sort of accountability to the boards charged with the county business. But this control was neither exacting nor efficient. In reference to the subject of education, Governor Bigger declared in his message of December, 1841, that it was almost impossible to ascertain the amount or the condition of the funds appropriated for the benefit of common schools. "This condition," he says, "points to the propriety of appointing some suitable agent or agents to examine into and report the general condition of the school funds of the State."5 The Legislature at that session did not respond heartily to this sensible suggestion. But the Auditor of State was so deeply interested in the matter that he proceeded upon his own responsibility to

1

Rep't Treas., 1835, Sen. Journ., 1835-6, p. 57; Rep'ts of Auditor, 1844, Doc. Journ., 1844-5, Pt. i, p. 48; Ibid., 1855-6, Pt. i, p. 286.

2 House Journ., 1839-40, p. 26, and Doc. Journ., 1840-1, House Reports, p. 115; Doc. Journ., 1841-2, House Reports, p. 148.

3 Report of Auditor, 1842, Doc. Journ., 1842-3, House Rep'ts, pp. 89-93. House Journ., 1838–9, pp. 414 to 427; Ibid., 1839-40, p. 393: Doc. Journ., 1840-1, House Rep'ts, pp. 513-17.

Doc. Journ., 1841-2, House Rep'ts, pp. 85-6.