rapidly developing into university proportions, but which is only in part under the control of the state. The legislature of 1911 made provision by which in course of time the thirteen so-called state normal schools may be purchased by the public authorities and become state institutions in reality. Hitherto these normal schools have been private corporations enjoying large annual grants from the state, the control of the state being limited to a right to select a certain proportion of trustees upon the nomination of the holders of stock. The control of this stock has in general become highly centralized, and has often been exercised commercially rather than educationally.

Delaware had no college in actual existence at the time of the Morrill grant, but Newark College, which had closed its doors some years before, was granted the federal appropriations, upon condition that the state should appoint one-half of the board of trustees. This institution, now known as Delaware College, forms the head of the state system of education. Delaware has no state normal school; the state aids its prospective teachers to study in the normal schools of Pennsylvania.

In Maryland, also, the federal grants were given to a private corporation, the Maryland Agricultural College, one of the oldest institutions of the kind in the Union, upon the state being given the privilege of naming one-half of the trustees. The Johns Hopkins University has received occasional small grants of state funds. There is also an institution entitled the University of Maryland, but it is in no sense a state university such as is met with elsewhere; one old endowed college, St. John's at Annapolis, and various more recent professional schools governed each by its own trustees are merely grouped together under this nominal title. The District of Columbia has no institution of higher education either under any measure of governmental administration or connected organically with the high school or public school system of Washington. Congress, moreover, occupied with its larger duties, has so neglected, as the local legislature for the district, to throw safeguards around the establishment of institutions that, under the general laws of the district, any three citizens, no matter how meagre their qualifications, may incorporate themselves as a university and confer any degree, except in medicine. It is not necessary for them to procure any endowment, to own any equipment, or even to have any habitat beyond a post-office address. The curriculum is entirely within their control, and they might legally confer bachelor's, master's, and doctor's degrees upon every person in the United States, or in the universe, upon the sole condition of the willingness of the recipient. The only condition that is

generally enforced is a financial one. Washington has therefore become logically the home of a large number of institutions whose dishonest practices are immensely aided by the apparent prestige of a location at the federal capital, and by the astounding privilege which enables these enterprises to say truly, that they are "incorporated under the provisions of an Act of Congress." It is impossible to believe that the many educated men in both houses of Congress will not gladly terminate this abuse, whenever the college authorities that are among their constituents shall generally request it.

The Atlantic states, south of Washington, and the South Central states classify themselves in two groups according to their attitude toward the public administration of higher education. West Virginia, Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Arkansas have concentrated all of the state institutions of higher education into a single state university. In all of these states except Georgia and Tennessee, this state university represents a development of the state agricultural and mechanical college which was originally endowed by the federal grants. In Kentucky the state agricultural college has recently become the state university. In Florida the state university is subject both to a board of trustees and to the visitorial jurisdiction of the state board of education, which consists of the governor and certain elective officials who are popularly styled his cabinet. In West Virginia there is a state board of control in addition to the regents of the state university. Oklahoma has a similar state board, with even more extensive powers. Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, and Oklahoma have each several, sometimes competing, state institutions of higher education. In Virginia a commission has been endeavoring to reduce all such actual and possible conflicts into one comprehensive and harmonious educational program. Mississippi has attempted to solve this problem by constituting a Board of Trustees of the Higher Educational Institutions of the State of Mississippi."

The states of the North Central and Western divisions fall into several typical groups. Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Wyoming, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, and California have centered all of the state's functions with regard to higher education under one administrative control in a single state university. Indiana has two state institutions of higher education under separate control, but the work of each so complements that of the other that together the two form practically one state university. Indiana University is unique among state universities in intrusting the election of all of its trustees to the State Board of

Education and to the alumni of the institution. Montana, South Dakota, and Iowa have not given their state universities the complete control of the higher education of the state, but in these states all state institutions of higher education are under the control of a single board.

North Dakota, Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Washington, and Oregon have each two or three separate state institutions of higher education, each under separate government. While these several institutions in a single state often compete, they do not all pretend to be state universities. A state university is admitted, at least formally, to be the head of the educational system, while the other institutions, chiefly agricultural and mechanical colleges and schools of technology, however their work may overlap that of the university, merely claim to perform certain of the functions of a state university. Oregon has a " Board of Higher Curricula " to prevent such duplication. In Ohio, on the other hand, there are, at least in theory, three state universities. The Ohio State University at the capital, evolved from the state agricultural and mechanical college, and having received large appropriations during the last decade, is rapidly attaining a position of prominence among state universities. But Ohio also recognizes Ohio University at Athens, and Miami University at Oxford, as state universities, and gives them a measure of state aid. These universities, to the measure of their financial ability, endeavor to compete with the university at Columbus, and the confusion so produced is perhaps the chief reason that the educational system of Ohio is less efficient than that of some of the neighboring commonwealths.

In Michigan, where the idea of a state university first attained large development and influence, there are, apart from the normal schools, three state institutions of higher education with some degree of competition between them. The powers of the regents of the University of Michigan exceed those in other states. The grants originally made to the university by the federal government, and the incomes from these grants, are under the immediate control of the regents. The legislature has no power over them, although it can give or withhold appropriations from the state treasury.

In general, then, in most of the Atlantic states the state support of higher education is confined to the general support of schools of technology and to state grants to privately endowed academic and technical institutions. Half of the other states in the Union have state universities that include technical education. The other half have both state universities and state technical schools.

The attitude of the several groups of states toward the public support of higher education is indicated by the following fractions representing the proportion of students in tax-supported as compared with privately supported or endowed universities, colleges, and schools of technology:

of the North Atlantic states have of their students in endowed

institutions

of the South Atlantic States have of their students in endowed institutions

of the South Central states have of their students in endowed

institutions

of the North Central states have of their students in tax-sup

of the Western division have

ported institutions of their students in tax-sup

ported institutions

In six of the Western states practically no higher education is provided except by tax-supported institutions. This is true nowhere else except in Delaware, while its neighbor, New Jersey, is the only state that has no primarily tax-supported institution of higher education.

The attitude of the several groups of states to the public support of education in general may be judged from the following percentages representing the proportion of students of various grades in tax-supported as compared with privately supported or endowed institutions. These proportions of students in tax-supported institutions are:

North Atlantic states, 15% college, 96% normal school, 80% high

school students

South Atlantic states, 43% college, 78% normal school, 71% high school students

South Central states, 41% college, 63% normal school, 72% high school students

North Central states, 56% college, 86% normal school, 80% high school students

Western states,

87% college, 92% normal school, 84% high school students

The North Central and the Western states thus appear at least one-third more interested in publicly supported education than the South Atlantic and the South Central states; the North Atlantic states occupy a middle position among the five divisions. The same relation is preserved when the percentage of children enrolled in the public schools is also considered. The position of the North

Atlantic states is especially interesting by reason of the strength and prestige of the long established, privately endowed institutions of higher education, and the fact that their independence has allowed an unusual development of publicly supported normal schools and public schools generally, until both of these are more largely attended in this than in any other section of the country.

II. NEW YORK SCHOLARSHIP LAW

[Chapter 292, Laws, 1913.]

SECTION 70. State Scholarships Established. 1. State scholarships are hereby established in the several counties of the State, to be maintained by the State and awarded as provided by this act. 2. Five such scholarships shall be awarded each county annually for each assembly district therein.

3. Each such scholarship shall entitle the holder thereof to the sum of one hundred dollars for each year which he is in attendance upon an approved college in this State during a period of four years, to be paid to or for the benefit of such holder as hereinafter provided, and out of a fund which is hereinafter created.

SECTION 71. Scholarship Fund of the University of the State of New York. 1. The scholarship fund of the University of the State of New York is hereby created. Such fund shall consist: a. Of all money appropriated therefor by the legislature;

b. Of all money and property hereafter received by the State, the Regents of the University or the Commissioner of Education by gift, grant, devise or bequest for the purpose of providing funds for the payment of such scholarships and of all income or revenue derived from any trust created for such purpose.

2. Such fund shall be kept separate and distinct from the other State funds by the State Treasurer, and payment shall be made therefrom to the persons entitled thereto in the same manner as from other State funds, except as otherwise provided by this act. 3. Whenever any such gift, grant, devise or bequest shall have been made or any trust shall have been created for the purpose of providing funds for such scholarships, the incomes or revenues derived therefrom shall be applied in maintaining scholarships in addition to those to be maintained by appropriations made by the State Legislature, as provided herein, and no part of such income or revenue shall be applied for the maintenance of State scholarships hereinbefore established for each county. Such additional scholarships shall be equitably apportioned by the Commissioner of Edu