LETTER XV.

Cities. Villages. - History. - Superceded by a Judicious Organization of Towns and Counties. Saving of Taxes.

LET us read on.

"9. It shall be the duty of the legislature to provide for the organization of cities and incorporated villages, and to restrict their power of taxation, assessment, borrowing money, contracting debts, and loaning their credit, so as to prevent abuses in assessments and in contracting debt by such municipal corporations."

Behind those eight sections on banks, you find this short proviso concerning the organization of cities and villages -mere anomalies—but to the organization of the counties and towns this very verbose and explicit constitution has not devoted two entire lines; just as if banks and similar corporations were more important in political regard, than those political districts in which the public business. mostly is performed.

Mutual protection and chance of business induced men, in ancient times, to crowd together in favorable localities. Business is still the mother of cities and villages, but civilization does not require it more for protection. We have no more roving and robbing tribes and barons, the cause which induced people and government to crowd in cities together and make them secure by fortifications. Our policy at present should be to facilitate not at all by law the formation of cities and villages, because the latter are but small cities, and the first invariably centers of mischief and mobs, and not always homes of good sciences, wholesome arts, and exemplary morals, and therefore difficult to manage. Civilization is now not local but universal; a free press and liberty of industry in general have set up in every house a college, in every town a Paris, and promoted in every county as much culture as formerly were the boast of capitals, metropolises, and empires. Even business ceases to be building up cities at present, because railroads and steamers facilitate a separation of residence and office in many instances.

When influential speculators and their newspapers insist upon the consolidation of cities, as, Boston, and Charlestown, and Roxbury; or New York and Brooklyn; or Troy and Lansingburgh ; and achieve them, as in the case of Brooklyn and Williamsburgh, Philadelphia, etc., they mistake politics and the best interests of society entirely. The legislatures which support and sanction such consolidations purposely demoralize society by increasing artificially, the difficulty of ruling it.

This clause has not exercised any good influence upon the administration of the cities. They are all in difficulties in regard to finances, safety, and order. The defective administration of New York city requires sixteen millions of dollars, all told, while the expenses of the well-governed kingdom of Saxony amounts to only seven millions. But this state of things prevails not alone in New York. Providence, in Rhode Island, with forty thousand inhabitants, increasing in eight years about ten per cent, had, during this time, an increase of expenses at the rate of three hundred per cent, and of debts more than four hundred per cent. For the last two years the excess of expenditures over tax assessed is $518,000. It is obvious, then, that the reform of such evils must begin with the business and business districts. The axiom of one of the best statesman of our age, Jefferson, viz., "that government is the best which governs least," is only applicable to a society whose business districts are of the right size. As those overgrow, the government's business, expenses, taxes, debts, and difficulties will increase proportionately, notwithstanding all constitutions and axioms of the best men to the contrary. Still this clause is laudable because it has been dictated by a sense of economy. The current practice, however, differs from it.

People therefore, when called upon to vote upon consolidations of towns or cities, which are not decreasing in population, should invariably vote against it.

LETTER XVI.

Education. - Funds. - Instruction. - Communes. Girard. - Peabody.— Cooper. - Popular Education. — Popular Sovereignty.

You may be, perhaps, surprised by the head of the following article, because education proper is a strange subject for a constitution. But let us see.

ARTICLE IX.

Education.

“1. The capital of the common school fund, the capital of the literature fund, and the capital of the U. S. deposit fund shall be respectively preserved inviolate. The revenue of the said common school fund shall be applied to the support of common schools; the revenues of the said literature fund shall be applied to the support of academies, and the sum of $25,000 of the revenues of the U. S. deposit fund shall each year be appropriated to and make a part of the capital of the said common school fund."

Why this article is headed "education," instead of, perhaps, "financial," I can not say. The funds in question have been formed by special laws, which, of course, should never be violated by the legislature, as I remark again, and are to be managed accordingly. . Is it sound doctrine to have such funds in our country? The schooling or instruction of the young is not a political, but a simple domestic family affair, either taken care of by nurses, mothers, fathers, guardians, or by others engaged or appointed by them. Town-districts, often also called communes, have been, all over the world, since time immemorial, made use of for the organization of schools; and those, therefore, placed under the surveillance of the town officials, just as everything else of a little common interest, viz., streets, fences, brooks, rivers, commons, pastures, sidewalks, taverns, hotels, etc., and ruled by town resolves, by-laws, customs, etc. Church organizations often helped, also, to foster schools, but the state institution proper had nothing to do with it. Thus the money for schooling went directly from the pockets of the parents into those of the teachers.

such funds gave

Such schools were called commune or common, or town or public schools. These schools can be made very good, without the least interference of the legislature, provided that there are well-organized towns. Of course, the money constituting these funds comes from the people, where, if left, it would produce hundredfold interest; while, as permanent funds in the hands of state officials, who, according to the constitution, seem to be not always trustworthy, for, otherwise, this law would not so often speak about good faith, or violation of trust, they can not bring more than seven per cent., but never will bring that. Excuse me if I write about such things. I would not do it, if no chance for corruption, according to the daily reports. It is natural that all business of this kind, as schools, sciences, literature, arts, etc., if connected with the state, must partake of the predominant political character of the party in power. In a monarchy, all these things will be tinged with the policy of the court; in a republic, every party in power will try to gain influence upon them. Whoever is paid by the state is a state official, and must accordingly rule himself. History proves that, in spite of the Bible and everything sacred about our religion, the clergy depending upon the state are grasping at undue power, and we have, therefore dissolved this connexion. Still we make now the teachers state officials. Are they and clergymen not of the same human kind? In Europe, with a very few exceptions, sciences and arts are under political surveillance. Professors, savans, and writers are, especially when in the pay of the governments, so closely guarded that their products bear the stamp of political partiality, more or less. We should, therefore, never pay much attention to their school, university, and similar expedients to raise subservient scholars. To speak in sober earnest of education proper, as a political affair intrusted to politicians, is too curious a thing to dwell upon. There is no better board of education than the family. But the poor! the poor! Well, our present common school system, created by state laws, is positively not calculated to benefit the real poor people, but that class generally well able to pay teachers.

The city of New York pays more than one million dollars for common schools, normal schools, a free academy, etc., and, in 1857, there were 60,000 children not attending any school at

all, and of those in the 18th ward alone 2,631, among them 1,340 born Americans. For these children charitable ladies have established schools. The same happens in all towns. The present artificial, expensive system does not work better than the cheap, natural management carried out by families. The public morals now are rather worse than they were in the period before the system was adopted. It, too, interferes with charity and generous liberality. There are a great number of wealthy men among us who seem not to know how to spend their money; or, when arrived at the goal, how to dispose of their earthly treasure. As charity helps the poor children, so would wealthy men, if not interfered with by the state, help the schools in general. The liberal acts of Girard, Peabody, Cooper, and so many others, are proofs of what I am going to say. Also, in this regard, emulation and competition are powerfully at work. Education is the work of families. What errors are committed in families, no school will easily eradicate, no science remedy. Too often rather is a son, well educated by a mother, spoiled in public institutions! Neither schools nor sciences mould the character of men. I think that this article is superfluous in a constitution.

The inventive genius of our politicians enriches, from time to time, our language with new phrases, which serve them in their party warfare as weapons. What all the world, besides ourselves, has called common schools or public instruction, that they call now "popular education." I admit that people have a right to mould their own language, that words become sometimes uncurrent, and that the general use decides upon their value. Still, if phrases are manufactured for party purposes, the opponents must enjoy the privilege to examine them. I deny that there exists such a thing as popular education, in the proper sense of these words. If we have to attribute to families, and especially to the mothers, the care of the education of the young, then each family, each mother will and ought to pursue their own peculiar course or system; a fact which at once excludes the idea of a popular education—that is, an education of the whole people, by the families, according to uniform laws. This is, no doubt, an absurdity. But, if this phrase is tantamount to public or common instruction, then our legislatures, by meddling with it, plainly interfere, as they, alas! so often do, with the very old and good right of towns or