The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-01-26
STATE EDUCATIONAL BOARD.
President Burroughs Responds to
Statements of President Swain.
the Editor of the indianapolis Journal:

TO the Editor of the Indianapolis Journal:
The views of President Swain, of the
State University, regarding the present
contention for the reorganization of the
State Board of Education, as these appear
in your issue of this morning are interest
ing. Something remains, however, to be
said on the other side.
L think it is quite generally conceded by
at least almost everyone, that the present
controversy began in connection with the
so-called Geeting bill, to which objection
was made by the Indiana nonstate presi-
dents in the following language, which was
given by their committee, instructed by
them at the time, to the Legislature and to
the public:
1--WE object to the method by which it Is
proposed i'm the general educational bill to
advance the qualifications of the county
and city superintendent only in so far as
the present Capitalization of school power
is thus increased while the State Board of
Education is organized as at present"
At the invitation of the House committee
on education of 1897, the nonstate presidents
came before it for hearing. At the con-
clusiOn of that hearing they were requested
to suggest amendments to the BILL They
did SO and the outcome was an amendment
of the bill by the House committee re-
organizing the state board by removing the
eX-Officio representation of the state schools.
When the vote came in the House on the
bill as amended by the House committee, the
enacting clause was struck out, as the re-
suit of the influence of members of the
state board, and the bill was killed by the
state people. The reasons given by them
selves were that with the ex-officio repre-
sentation of the state schools removed, the
bill was ''emasculated; 1t was an orange
out of which all the pulp had been taken"
1T was evident that the ground of the nom
state men had been we'll taken when they
had formulated their position in their first
instructions to their committee as above
quoted.
AS to the statement that the Indiana nom
state presidents represent only part of the
nonstate schools of Indiana, it is only
little while since the state people were
charging in the public press that these
nOnstate presidents were connected in all
sorts of alliances, public and private with
nonstate normals and what not, in order to
accomplish their hidden purposes Now the
complaint is that they have not formed al
liances enough Truly, it is hard to please!
The simple fact, however, is that the non
state presidents in their contention are the
representatives and moutnpiece of many
thousands of citizens, voters and taxpayers
throughout the State. Very many grad
yates of the state schools are joining with
them in their appeal to the Legislature, be-
cause they feel that their own schools are
being greatly injured by the uncompromts-
ing zeal Of would-be friends. Among the
Signers of a petition urging the reorganiza-
ton of the state board, in a given county
town, state-school men numbered 12l2 per
cent. of the total The controversy is one
of the people of the State of Indiana with
the Board of Education as now organized.
A brief word as TO the public schools and
this contention. When we turn back to the
six messages of Caleb Mills as One of the
People" coming to successive legislatures
year after year, from 1916 to 1852, when we
read his four letters to the constitutional
convention on the subject of education in
1850 and 1851; when we read his three re-
ports as superintendent OF public instruction
from 1880 TO 1851, and when we ma In these
documents principles bearing on the welfare
of the common schools, more extensive and
more pervasive than the Geeting bill ever
suggested; among other things seven
months school everywhere, advanced work
in the country schools, higher scholarship
among teachers and supervisors; when we
remember that DR.. Boone, formerly of the
State University and author OF the History
of Education in Indiana has said. For
thirty years, after 1916. there is almost no
phase of Indiana educational movement
that was not indebted to- or hinged upon,
Prof. MISS recommendations-in indeed,
there have been no considerable develop
ments in the system within the last twenty
years before 1S91) that have not followed
his recommendations, we are led TO be-
lieVe that credit for the larger part, to say
the least, of what the state board has done
for the common schools since 1865 belongs to
Mills, the nonstate man. When again we
consider what has been done during these
years to build up the State higher schools,
while many of the recommendations of Mills
in the interests of the common SCHOOLS that
are perfectly feasible have been held in
allegiance, we believe that a state board or
ganized. as Caleb Mills suggested years ago,
without any ex-officio representation of the
States higher schools upon it, is impera-
lively called for While we care for our
higher state schools. let US care for our
common schools first Reorganize the state
board along the lines the nonstate men de-
sire and reforms in the common schools
will come at once.
A final word as TO the charge that the
nonstate presidents have not been critical
enough Of the state board Continuously
the nonstate men have been pressed with
this sophistical dilemma, abuse the three
state presidents or admit you have no
case" 1T is said that, after a bitter and
vindictive speech once made by a celebra-
ted lawyer, the following words were found
written in pencil on the margin of his brief
No case abuse opposing counsel. The
nonstate presidents have a case The MEM
bers of the Legislature of both houses know
il. The people of Indiana know II. 1t is the
case of the people of Indiana, of the COM
mon schools of Indiana, of the educational
future of Indiana against the State Board
Of Education Of Indiana as now organized.
Whatever has been said about the nonstate
presidents or shall be said about them, they
will not abuse anybody. They We're not
built that way and they would not make
a success of fl G.. $. BURROUGHS.
Charlottesville. Ind. Jan. %.