have as much effect as we could wish? They certainly do have some weight with the community, and we owe it to ourselves and to the great interests we represent, to speak out when we are fairly agreed, and let those hear who will.

Now, consider this matter of simplifying our spelling, a question in which teachers should be and are especially interested, realizing daily, as they must, what a painful and stultifying burden upon childhood our irregular spelling is. We have just heard from this platform a plea in behalf of both child life and adult life from one of the foremost students of etymology in the world, the man who had charge of the etymological department of the Century Dictionary, that monument to American scholarship, and who today is editor-in-chief of the great new forthcoming edition of Worcester. In his address he has spoken not only for himself but for the whole body of scientific philologists, both in England and America, including Max Müller, Dr. Murray, Dr. Skeats, Dr. Ellis, our own Professor Whitney, Professor March, the whole body of them without an exception. Not only so. While as an expert in the special department concerned he makes this strong plea, he likewise speaks for men eminent in letters and science, such as Tennyson and Darwin, both of whom were earnest advocates of reform, both serving for some years as vice presidents of spelling-reform associations; W. E. Gladstone, the eminent statesman, who was very outspoken in support of the cause; Bulwer Lytton, who was just as outspoken; Bishop Thirlwall, John Stuart Mill, and a long list of like eminent men. The eminent men of letters in our own country, whose sentiments Professor Scott has voiced, are such as Whittier, Charles Sumner, Chief Justice Waite, Andrew D. White, Professor David Swing, Dr. W. T. Harris, W. D. Howells, Brander Matthews, Dr. William R. Harper, Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler, and many more. The arguments in favor of the reform are simply unanswerable. There is absolutely no valid argument against it, except the inconvenience of making a change. Can there be any doubt as to how this body of teachers stands or is going to stand on this question? Are we going to continue to have it said to us that this is not a proper subject for this Association to express itself on or take an active interest in? I hope not. When the time comes that this cause can command the support of a fair majority of this body, in the name of justice and humanity let it speak out. Let it say to our people that the majority of the teachers of this country believe that our lawless, inconsistent spelling ought to be and can be rectified, and that they are ready to support all moderate and reasonable steps to that end.

Think for a moment where the weight of this Association ought to be thrown at this moment, and what effect it might have in regard to the teaching of English to the Filipinos. We know what our illogical spelling costs us and our children; how it stands in the way of the foreigner who comes to our shore and his children, and retards the Americanizing of them; how it handicaps our foreign missionaries in their efforts; how it keeps the noblest and easiest language under the sun from quickly becoming the worldlanguage. Now, in the Philippines there are eight million semi-barbarous people, each tribe speaking nothing but its own local language or dialect, and this whole population, by inevitable natural laws, is bound to remain in a disintegrated, unnationalized condition until it comes into possession of one common universal tongue. This question of language is the great obstacle in the way of a general administration of law among them. In the judgment of all who have to do with the civil government of these islands, the one most important and essential thing that we can give these people is to give them our language, our speech (and mind you the English speech is speech, is what we utter, not writing). It is chiefly because of this political or administrative necessity that we are sending the American teacher twelve thousand miles to them and requiring them to pay him (or her) out of their own pockets to teach them to talk English. Yet, so far as the printed form is concerned, we are giving the English tongue to them in the same antiquated, irrational, oppressive spelling that we use ourselves. Think of the responsibility that rests upon us in regard to these people; think of the inestimable advantage it would be to them to acquire our language quickly and easily; think of the opportunity

we now have to give it to them in an easy, improved, consistent spelling, so that the mas tery of our printed English would be a simple, logical process, easy both to child and adult, and thus contribute to their mastery of spoken English. Then think of sending our teachers, and the great expense entailed, to have them labor and waste time and strength over the same petty abominations of English spelling that cause so much worry and discouragement for our own children, and which must have the same effect among the Filipino children, besides retarding the development and progress of the whole people. Is it not absurd? Is it not cruel ? If this Association were alive to the situation would not an expression from it touch our people? Could it escape the duty? The con. stitution of this body declares that one of its objects is "to promote the cause of popular education." Can any man name any one thing that would do more to promote the cause of education, both among ourselves and among our island wards, than the rationalizing of our spelling? Of course he cannot. How, then, can anyone say that the active support of this cause by resolution, or by example, or by devoting some of our funds to help guide the movement along sensible lines, would be outside of the proper sphere and function of this Association?

EDUCATIONAL CONDITIONS AND PROGRESS IN CHINA DR. C. M. LACEY SITES, SECRETARY OF THE EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHINA AND SPECIAL DELEGATE TO THE FORTY-FIRST ANNUAL CONVENTION OF THE NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION, SHANGHAI, CHINA

Ladies and Gentlemen of the National Educational Association :

I feel myself in duty bound, first of all, to acknowledge the courtesy of your committee in inviting me to present in person, from this platform and in this presence, the greetings which I bear from the Educational Association of China.

It is but six weeks today since I left Shanghai; and it was only a week previous, and at the same port, that the Educational Association of China closed its fourth triennial meeting. Something in the atmosphere of that meeting seemed to speak of large sympathies. Western education in China has not yet outlived the enthusiasm of youth. A magnificent empire awaits its conquest, and the vision of victory looms large in the soul of the teacher, tho he well knows that as yet the battle is but begun.

The resolution, in pursuance of which I stand before you tonight, directs me, in presenting to you the cordial greetings of the Educational Association of China, to add "the assurance that, under the difficult conditions which beset us in China, we are striving to advance the interests of true education, and are meeting with results that give us the highest hope for the future."

We come to you, teachers of America, to gain the inspiration of your highest ideals, and to find the strengthening that comes with sympathy and the consciousness of a common purpose.

China, it may be, has become a trifle trite as a topic for discussion in

America within the past two years; and, worse yet, anything in the way of information emanating from Shanghai is, I regret to learn, subject to rigorous sifting before being acceptable as the simple truth. But, my friends, the war is over; the yellow journalists have mostly gone away; a period of reconstruction has begun. But reconstruction in China is a tedious process, because very little of the old structure is ever torn away at one time.

The part taken by the United States in that war, which diplomacy still regards as an unbroken peace, was only less distinguished and honorable than her part in the diplomacy which, in 1900, saved central and southern China from the terrors of war, and which still interposes its strong hand, unarmed save with the might of conscious rectitude, between China and the spoliations of peace.

I cannot forbear, in this presence and in this city, which by its heartiness has won our hearts, to link with the name of John Hay, whose diplomacy always wins because it is always right, that of John Goodnow, our accomplished consul-general at Shanghai, whose diplomacy must be always right because it always wins-diplomat, man of business, and an American to the core.

I have said that reconstruction in China has begun. In no branch of government has the reform movement shown more signs of promise than in education. But reform and progress in China are only relative terms. Like the movement of a glacier, they can only be measured at considerable intervals of time. To appreciate the recent reform edicts of the Chinese government, we must go back at least to the attempted reforms of 1898. Turn to the record of the acts of the imperial government, as inspired in that year by the arch-reformer Kang Yu-Wei, and you will be struck first with the remarkable fact that they are almost identical with the edicts of last year. There was the same denunciation of abuses in civil service examinations, the same order for the abolition of the classic essay and for the substitution of tests in modern science, politics, and history. There was the same provision (on paper) for a national school system, in which western subjects should have a place, grading down from the Imperial University at Peking and the colleges in provincial capitals to secondary, elementary, and primary schools in every town and village.

At the famous coup d'état in September, 1898, the empress-dowager, representing the conservative element, locked up the emperor in his palace prison, and, taking the reins of government again in her own. hands, checked the mad career of progress. Then the reactionary movement, insane with its own success, gained strength until it culminated in the Boxer outburst of 1900. And here we are met by a second remarkable fact that the reform edicts of 1901 were put forth by the same empress-dowager who defeated reform in 1898. No such reforms were demanded by the foreign plenipotentiaries who prescribed the terms of

peace at Peking. The bitter lessons taught by foreign invasion and foreign exactions of indemnity induced this voluntary repentance, the acknowledgement that western nations had sources of power which China had not and which she had urgent need to seek.

Herein is one element of promise, that these edicts, providing for educational and administrative reform, are put forth by a party at court which represents conservative opinion. The element of doubt in the situation lies in this, that in China legislation and administration are almost absolutely divorced-especially when the new law is an imperial law whose enforcement must depend upon provincial and local officials.

The results of these edicts are difficult to define with precision. The most salient characteristic of Chinese social life is its inertia, in both physical senses of the word; it shows a readiness to respond to impulses in the line of its prejudices and superstitions, as seen in the facility with which a demagog can arouse a mob; and it shows a painful deliberation about putting in practice any new régime which does not give clear promise of material advantage.

Another notable characteristic of Chinese culture is its delight in putting forth perfect precepts, expending all its moral energy in formulating rules and reserving none for the enforcement of them.

Nevertheless, some hopeful beginnings have been made toward carrying out the educational scheme of the government. For many months the Peking Gazette, the oldest governmental organ in the world, has contained, in nearly every issue, some new report or order concerning schools, examinations, or the sending of Chinese youth abroad for western education. The viceroys and governors in all the provinces have reported their plans for provincial colleges and schools of lower grade. Some of these institutions have already been inaugurated. Most of you have heard of the college established at Chi-nan-fu, the capital of Shantung, by the governor, Yuan Shi-kai, who has since become viceroy of the metropolitan province of Chih-li. He called to the presidency one of the leaders of our educational association, Dr. W. M. Hayes, who had been for years president of a large American mission college in the same province. The regulations of this new provincial college, as organized by Dr. Hayes, have been sent out by imperial edict as the model for all the other provinces.

Since his promotion to Chih-li, Viceroy Yuan has established a similar college in that province, and has called to the presidency Mr. C. D. Tenney, an American of long and successful experience as an educator in North China. In addition, he has taken the remarkable step of appointing Mr. Tenney inspector of schools for the province-a step which, if the progressive viceroy is not balked by conservative influences at court, is likely to lead to momentous consequences. It presages, in

fine, the establishment of a trained, English-speaking supervisorate over the newborn public-school system of China.

While on a visit to Peking in February last I had the pleasure of seeing the inauguration there of a government secondary school under the new régime. It is maintained partly from provincial and partly from city funds; but its special patron is the governor of Peking, Chen Pi, who has often been denounced by the foreign press as notoriously reactionary. The school was opened in modest quarters, but the old Chinese buildings had been neatly renovated and equipped with desks and blackboards to accommodate eighty students in the first-year class. These students are selected by competitive examination, and devote five days of the week to English subjects, including the sciences. The course is laid out for six years. The teachers are all natives; the director of English studies is a Chinese gentlemen who is also an English scholar, a graduate of Greenwich, England.

Other examples might be given. I have merely sought to show that educational reform by governmental action in China is not a myth.

Still more significant, perhaps, because more indicative of general sentiment, is the establishment of schools by private, or semi-official, initiative. Scores of schools, and a few so-called colleges, for the special teaching of western languages and sciences, have been endowed by the gentry and officials, some of them before the recent reform edicts, but most of them since. Some, like the Nanyang College at Shanghai, and the former Tientsin University and Imperial University at Peking, have a number of foreign specialists on their staff of instructors.

But self-activity is the all-important thing; and nothing I have seen in China interested me more than the Industrial School at Peking, which is purely Chinese and entirely unofficial in its endowment and its management. It was founded by a Chinese gentleman of wealth and of aristocratic birth- and aristocracy in China implies scholarliness-a man who some twenty years ago won the supreme prize of scholarship of the empire, the "optimus" in the palace examination of the Tsin-tze or Doctors of Philosophy. Associated with him in the conduct of the school is his son, who, traveling abroad as an attaché of legation, not only learned our language, but became imbued with our ideas of industrial training. The manufacture of cloisonné, of furniture, of rugs, the printer's trade, and I know not how many other trades, are here taught to men and boys of the poorer class, who thus are trained to self-support. Here is duplicated in China, by Chinese, the same ideal of a practical philanthropy and enlightened patriotism which inspires a St. Bartholomew's Mission or the Educational Alliance in New York, or an Armour Institute in Chicago.

If, thus, we find some activity of government and of private initiative in educational organization, what of the attitude of the people? As to the regard in which learning is held, in the abstract, the question is not