Littleton Dennis Teackle, of Somerset, who afterward became superintendent, in accordance with its provisions.

Mr. Teackle states that "the terrene superficies" of the State is 10,000 square miles, or 400 districts of 5 miles square; the population, exclusive of cities and villages, is 20 to the square mile; of these 30 per cent are children between 5 and 15 years of age, making 6 to the square mile; competent teachers of primary schools may be had at an annual salary of $300. The subdivision of the State into school districts of 5 miles square would convey instruction within a convenient distance from every door; 400 teachers would cost $120,000, who would teach 60,000 pupils at the moderate price of $2 a year for each child. After adding something for cities and villages and for increase of popu lation, he shows that the whole cost per annum would be less than 62 cents per capita for each inhabitant. In confirmation of these figures he states that "all the official reports under the public authority, either in New England, New York, or Philadelphia, testify that the cost of education has been reduced to one fifth of what it was under the old system of private schools."

The act of 1825 provides for a State superintendent, appointed by the governor and council; nine commissioners of primary schools for each county, appointed by the justices of the levy courts; a suitable number of discreet persons, not exceeding 18, also appointed by the levy courts, who, together with the commissioners, shall be inspectors of primary schools. The commissioners and inspectors held office for one year, or until the appointment of their successors. A fine of $10 was imposed upon persons appointed commissioners or inspectors who refused to serve or neglected to take the oath required to "well and truly execute" the trust reposed without favor or partiality. It was the duty of the commissioners to divide their respective counties into a suitable number of school districts, and when this had been done to notify the taxable inhabitants of the districts of the time and place of the first district meeting. The district meetings appointed a district clerk, a district collector, and three trustees, to designate the site for the schoolhouse, to vote a tax on the resident inhabitants for the purposes of purchasing a site, building a schoolhouse or repairing it, and furnishing it with necessary fuel, books, stationery, and appendages. The clerk kept the records of the district and the collector collected the tax according to a rate list made by the trustees. The trustees received the money collected by the collector and expended it in buying the site, building, repairing, and furnishing the schoolhouse. They also agreed with and employed the teachers from those who held certifi cates of approbation from the inspectors of schools, and reported to the commissioners the length of time a school had been kept in their district, the moneys received by them and how expended, the number of white children taught, and the number of white children residing in their district between the ages of 5 and 15 years, inclusive.

The commissioners of each county received from the treasurer of the Western Shore all moneys payable to their county for school purposes, apportioned it among the several school districts which had substantially complied with the provisions of the law, according to the number of children between the ages of 5 and 15 years living in each district, and paid it to the district trustees, who were required to expend it in paying the salaries of the teachers employed by them, and for no other purpose. Failure to comply with the provisions of the law on the part of a district forfeited its share of the funds, which was turned in to be reapportioned the next year. Failure to comply on the part of the county forfeited its share, which went into the fund for next year's county apportionment. The commissioners made reports to the clerk of the county, embracing the same matters as were contained in the reports of the trustees to the commissioners; the county clerk reported for his county to the superintendent annually, and the superintendent reported to the legislature.

The inspectors examined all persons who offered themselves as candidates for teaching primary schools in their respective counties, and gave them on approbation certificates to the effect that they believed the candidate to be "of good moral character and of sufficient learning and ability and in all other respects well qualified to teach a primary school." The signatures of two inspectors were sufficient to render a certificate valid. The inspectors also visited the schools quarterly, examined the scholars, and gave advice to teachers and trustees. It should rather be said the officials named were intended and required by the law to perform these various duties, than that they did perform them, for it may be doubted whether the system ever went into actual operation fully in any one county. The law was operative only in such counties as might adopt it by a majority vote at the next election for delegates, and the actual work could not commence fully until the money apportioned by the State for payment of teachers' salaries was sufficient. A majority of voters adopted it in thirteen counties, viz, Harford, Baltimore, Anne Arundel, Calvert, St. Mary, Charles, Prince George, Montgomery, Frederick, Talbot, Queen Anne, Kent, and Cecil. Itwas rejected in six counties: Worcester, Somerset, Dorchester, Caroline, Washington, and Allegany; but petitions came to the legis lature praying to be admitted by that body to the benefits of the act from numerous citizens in these counties. Although Mr. Teackle, the chairman of the committee on education, asserted in 1827 that “when it is established upon a basis which can not be shaken that knowledge will ever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives, it can not be doubted that the patriotic statesmen of this legislature will cordially concur in the generous sentiments of the executive," and be "equally animated with an ardent hope and zealous endeavor to perfect a system which may be acceptable to the people and promote

the intellectual and moral improvement of the rising generation, and thereby conduce to the strength, energy, and durability of our free institutions," we are not much surprised to learn from the governor's message of 1828 that "the law for the establishment of primary schools, so well received by the people, is believed to be so defective that but a very partial attempt has been made to carry it into effect; and without revision and material amendment it will be useless." It had two cardinal defects, the first of which was due to the fact that its provisions were largely borrowed from States in which the people were trained in local political action in the township system, while the people of Maryland had no such training. The second was the want of adequate provisions for raising money sufficient to carry it out even on the fal lacious basis of the Lancaster system, in which one teacher was deemed sufficient for the instruction of any number of children up to 400 or 500 that could be brought together in one schoolroom.

It is rather of interest as marking the acceptance of the principles of modern public education than as directly accomplishing much in educating the youth of that period. But from this time the State is fully committed, and, though lack of means, due to debts contracted in the energetic pursuance of schemes for internal improvement and to other causes, prevented the realization of a State system of education before the period of the civil war, the duty of providing primary schools. throughout the State was fully recognized, and many efforts, partial and general, were made to fulfill it. The volumes of the laws are crowded with special acts for counties, for districts in counties, for individual schools, showing a vast amount of scattered effort which doubtless was not entirely without results. Indeed, in some counties fairly good primary schools existed before 1856, when Governor Ligon, speaking of the State at large in his message to the legislature, says: The system of public instruction in Maryland (if we except the city of Baltimore, whose public schools are an honor to the State and reflect the highest credit upon all intrusted with their management) is in a state of the most utter and hopeless

The act of 1825 provided that the establishment and regulation of public or primary schools within the city of Baltimore shall be vested in the mayor and city council of Baltimore: Provided, That if the said mayor and city council shall not, within the space of five years after the passage of this act, establish a system of public education within said city, then this act to be in full effect within the city of Baltimore. An ordinance was passed in 1828 appointing commissioners and directing that 6 male and 6 female schools be established, but adequate funds were not provided. At the date of the first report, 1829, but 2 male and 1 female schools had been established. They were on the monitorial (Lancasterian) system, and in 1831 male school No. 2 had 300 pupils, under 1 teacher. The progress of the schools was at first slow, and not until after the Central high school for boys and the Eastern and Western high schools for girls were established was their progress rapid and continuous. It is not intended to attempt here to write the history of the public schools of Baltimore. It may be remarked, however, that while the history of schools in the State shows that public education proceeds from higher to lower, the history of the city school system shows that a system of elementary schools does not prosper until crowned by institutions for higher education.

prostration. Our plan of public instruction must be constructed anew, made uniform in its operations throughout the State, supported more liberally by State and county resources, and, above all, it should be made subject to some controlling, supervisory power, through whom all its operations should be annually communicated and made public, or it will fail to meet the exigency of our condition or be attended with any public benefit.

PRIMARY SCHOOLS versus ACADEMIES.

The following abstract from the returns of schools and academies of the several counties in the State of Maryland receiving annual donations from the treasurer, over and above the funds assigned for the support of free and county schools, will afford a view of the condition of secondary education at this period:

The struggle to divert the funds pledged to the support of higher education for the support of secondary education had scarcely ended in the complete victory of the academies when a new struggle began which had for its aim the diversion of the donations to academies to the support of primary schools. Mr. Teackle reported to the house February 8, 1827:

The committee on public instruction, who were instructed to inquire into the expediency of withdrawing the donation from colleges, academies, and schools, have had the same under consideration and are decidedly of opinion that it would be inexpedient to withdraw the munificence of the State from those institutions. Experience has proved that they can not exist without the aid of public patronage, and the withdrawing of that aid would operate to their destruction and in effect give to the rich a monopoly of the higher branches of education, as men of wealth can afford to support their sons at distant colleges or universities, whilst the middling and even lower orders of society would be deprived of the means of acquiring a classical education, which is now presented by the seminaries endowed in their neighborhood, and in the deficiency of the necessary qualifications consequent upon that deprivation they would be shut out from the fair prospect of competition and the equal pretensions which they would otherwise enjoy for public employment or professional elevation.

In 1831 an effort was again made to secure the funds donated to academies for primary schools. An order was submitted "that the committee on education be instructed to inquire into the propriety and expediency of withdrawing the donations from the several colleges and academies of this State for the purpose of appropriating the same to the support of primary or county schools," but the order was rejected by the house. On the contrary, a resolution was passed that the treasurer equalize the donations granted to the academies and schools in the several counties, so as to give $800 for each county, to be paid by him to the academies and schools ratably for each of those counties which do not now receive that sum. The decisions of the courts in two cases that came before them served to protect the academies from direct attack in the future. Abingdon Academy was incorporated in 1829. The trustees applied to the legislature for an annual donation of $300, which was granted on condition of deeding their property to the State. In 1831 the legislature appointed a new board of trustees, but a suit having been carried to the court of appeals it was decided to be a violation of the rights of the old corporation, forbidden by the Constitution of the United States, and therefore void. The case of the regents of the University of Maryland vs. Williams may be considered as the Dartmouth College case of Maryland, and put a check to the direct assault upon the endowed schools for some time.

Upon the failure of the system so well received in 1825 and a few years thereafter, the efforts for primary education were directed rather to the establishment of county systems or individual schools than to the perfection of a general system. The State did not secure a general system until the year 1865. In the meantime the plan of incorporating trustees for a particular institution, as the academies were incorporated, was readily utilized for schools of lower grade. Between 1821 and 1831 but few academies were incorporated; after the latter date they increased in some counties rapidly, but retained in many cases only the form of organization. Divide and conquer seems to have been the policy of the friends of the lower schools in some counties, while in others all efforts in this direction were successfully resisted. Let us follow the academies in each county to the year 1860. The character of the instruction and the efficiency of these schools of course differed greatly in different sections, and from time to time.

Cecil County.-West Nottingham, 1811; Elkton, 1817; Perryville, 1839; Washington, 1840; Port Deposit, 1842. The donations seem to have been retained undivided by West Nottingham and Elkton. The trustees of Perryville and Washington were annually elected by the subscribers.

Kent County.-Washington College, 1782; Georgetown School, 1798; Shrewsbury Academy, 1816; Millington, 1827. In 1811 $800 was restored to Washington College; in 1834 $300 was withdrawn and