also, that graduated tuition fees or rate-bills were legalized. It was also the year of the constitutional convention and the prominent free school fight centering there. (Shearman, 212246, 256-259) In the next message of this official (1851) he was awake to the question and insisted that the legislature should immediately fulfill the provisions of the constitution as to free schools. (Shearman, 262) Governor Parsons (1855) urged the lawmakers to fulfill this obligation, but they gave no heed to his suggestion. Governor Bingham (1857) and Governor Wisner (1859) both urged the legislature to take action, but without any definite results except more rate-bill legislation and a reënactment of the two-mill township tax.

John D. Pierce was the first state superintendent and an ardent proponent of free schools. He was largely responsible for the form of the educational laws of 1837-1838. At a later time Mr. Pierce elaborated more fully his position in the following words: "It was my purpose from the beginning to make all our schools free in every case, from the lowest to the highest-free from ratebills and tuition bills. I assumed the position that the property of the state should be holden for the education of every child in it. But the wealth of the state has ever opposed free schools and yet no class is more deeply interested in the education of all. There is no safety in the midst of debased ignorance. It was urged that while our University should be open to all our young men, we surely were not called upon to admit others without charges for tuition." (Mich. Pioneer Coll., 1: 37-45) Mr. Pierce believed that free and universal education was necessary for the state and for the individual. (Hoyt and Ford, Chap. 9) Speaking of the individual he has this to say: "By means of the public schools, the poor boy of to-day without protection of father or mother, may be the man of learning and influence to-morrow and he may accumulate and die the possessor of tens of thousands; he may even reach the highest station in the Republic, and the treasures of his mind may be the richest legacy of the present to the coming generation." (Ibid., 17) For society education is "to advance the interests of the whole people." (Ibid., 98) As a member of the Constitutional Convention of 1850, he worked with Crary and others to secure the section on free schools. Franklin Sawyer, Jr. (1841-1843) insisted very strongly that "the property of the state ought to be held liable for the education of all

within its borders." (Shearman, 62) O. C. Comstock (18431845) seems to have left no expression concerning free schools. Ira Mayhew (1845-1849 and 1855-1859) exerted considerable influence on the development of schools and school support. His book, Means and Ends of Universal Education, helped to form opinion on matters of popular education. In 1858 he published the results of an investigation of the Union schools and thus helped to advance this type of school. Francis W. Shearman (1849-1855) was influential in formation of favorable opinion and securing legislation. (Supt. Rept., 1853, 6-7)

John M. Gregory (1859–1864) in his first report claimed that "the public sentiment of the state demands that education should be made free to every child." He protested against the system of distribution of school taxes and urged that distribution be based on need per district. He made a plea that the state assume the burden of furnishing universal education. (Supt. Rept., 1859, 19, 61) Again, in 1862, he urged the adoption of a more equitable distribution of school taxes. He also showed by use of the amount of school income then available that free schools were possible for six months in the year if the money was rightly distributed. (Supt. Rept., 1862, 4, 82) His recommendations about this were repeated in 1864. (Supt. Rept., 8) In 1863 he blamed all the evils of the rate-bill system upon the bad apportionment of money. (Supt. Rept., 27)

Mr. Gregory was succeeded by Oramel Hosford, who held this office, 1865–1872. In 1868 Mr. Hosford set forth the question of free schools at great length in his annual report. This has already been described. This was undoubtedly the most important thing which he did with reference to free schools. It had considerable influence in bringing the legislation of the following year. These officials in the main believed in, and wrote and spoke in favor of free schools and better means of support for them. Their work in their annual reports, their communications with school officials, their opportunity to influence legislation at the state capitol and their public addresses made their work a very important factor in the actual development of free schools.

The first reports made by county superintendents appear in 1867, the office having been established that year. The superintendent of Cass County called attention to use of rate-bills and their influence on breaking up attendance. He further pointed

out the difficulties inherent in the mode of distribution of school money then in use. (Supt. Rept., 1867, 37) The superintendent from Eaton County pointed out that the same difficulties existed in that county. (Ibid., 43) The superintendent of Kent County claimed that it was impossible, under existing laws, for several districts in that county to make their schools free. (Ibid., 64) John D. Pierce, who was in 1867 the county superintendent of Washtenaw County, said, "In my first report, January 1837, I affirmed the principle that the property of the state should be holden for the education of every child in it. Its good order and safety require it." (Supt. Rept., 1867, 116) Mr. Pierce still had the rate-bill to contend with; in this year it amounted to $3,050.31 for his county. Inasmuch as the average monthly salary of a teacher in that county was $16.83, and the average amount of money per teacher paid for instructor in rate-bills was $8.54, about one-half month's schooling was paid for by rate-bills. In other words, the schools were free 6.7 months and rate-bill schools .5 month. (Supt. Rept., 1867, 251-258) Thus out of about forty county superintendents, these four spoke specifically about the matters involved in the development of free schools while all the others complained about the bad conditions of schools. During that year but five counties out of all reporting included no rate-bills in their figures. (Supt. Rept., 1867, 254) The next year there were forty-seven county superintendents. The superintendent of Allegan County reported that he knew of no use of rate-bills in the county. (Supt. Rept., 44) Superintendent H. A. Ford of Berrien County issued a periodical or bulletin three times during the year, known as the Berrien School Journal, and sent it free to all school officers and teachers. In one number a "letter to the annual meetings" appeared, urging the abolition of the rate-bill and other reforms. He also furnished the county press material similar to this. He was able to report that the "relic of barbarism yclept the rate-bill, was wiped out in many districts and provision was made for better pay for teachers." (Supt. Rept., 1868, 51) In 1867 the amount raised by ratebills in this county was $2,787.58. In 1868 with an increase in expenditure, it was $2,570.77. From Branch County, the superintendent reported that they were "getting rid of the rate-bill as fast as possible." (Ibid., 54) In 1867 the total for Branch County was $3,177.64; a year later it was $2,828.37.

The superintendent of Cass County claimed that his teachers were embarrassed by rate-bill panics. "In those terror-stricken schools-with a teacher worthy of his hire-the cry of rate-bill by some skinflint would cause pupils to leave the schoolhouse as if it were on fire." (Ibid., 58) The superintendent of Clinton County reported better support by tax and said it prophesied "the early annihilation of the detestable rate-bills. He also urged legislative action to make all schools free. (Ibid., 63) From Hillsdale County came the report that one of the serious hindrances to success in the schools was the disgraceful rate-bill. "Nearly every director in this county signed a petition to be presented to the next legislature for the abolition of the rate-bill system." (Ibid., 73, 74) During the year the total amount of rate-bills had slightly increased. The superintendent of Ionia County went to every director in his county calling his attention to problems to be attended to and one of these was the rate-bill. He also reported better support of schools and probability of large decrease in use of rate-bill. (Ibid., 83-84) Superintendent Bicknell of Kent County urged legislative action to abolish the rate-bill so that Michigan could proclaim "the schools forever free." (Ibid., 98) The man in Macomb County emphasized the fact that seven out of eight union schools in the county were free. He also blamed the rate-bill for poor attendance. (Ibid., 103, 105) The testimony from Montcalm County was that when schools were free the attendance was good. The superintendent of Muskegon County said "the greatest drawback to our schools is that abominable rate-bill. I hope and pray that the next legislature will wrap it in its winding sheet and give it decent burial in a grave so deep that it will never be resurrected." (Ibid., 117)

The number of persons outspoken in 1867 among county superintendents was, as is shown, far greater than in 1866. This is partly explained by the work of the State Association of County Superintendents which discussed the question of ratebills and appointed a special committee to consider the matter. Several of the county superintendents published bulletins on school matters, maintained by advertising, and circulated them free to school officials and teachers. Many made use of the local papers to form sentiment. County superintendents were very influential in securing the free school law of 1869.

POLITICAL THEORY AND FREE SCHOOLS

The growth of free schools was one of the lines of development of our American society in harmony with the political theory of popular government. Popular government rests upon general suffrage of some sort. The worth of popular suffrage depends upon the degree of intelligence used in its exercise. This makes necessary some form of education which shall reach to and educate all voters. This argument appeared in many documents during the period of 1800-1870. One of the reasons back of the tuition exemptions in the various rate-bill laws was this belief. Still another, and more important, was the doctrine of equal opportunities for all. This is shown in the fuel exemption law of 1824, in section 16 of the rate-bill law of 1839, and in the exemption clauses of the rate-bill laws of 1856, 1860, 1862, 1863, and 1864. This is most pertinently stated by the visitor of Plainfield society, 1845. Even Mr. Barnard, when advocating the retention of tuition, would have it so low that all could use the schools. Porter's Prize Essay assumes this doctrine to a very large degree. Practically every one of the important state officials made use of the argument. An example is the statement of Governor Minor. The first argument quoted from Mr. Northrop is of this type. This doctrine, and the belief that popular education would eradicate distinctions, were used by the state board of education, 1866. The resolutions of the convention in Fairfield County (1856) assume this doctrine, but give it a more general application. The first statement of the platform adopted by the State Teachers' Association (1868) is one form of this argument. (See Appendix) The same argument is included in the petition of the Hartford Ministerial Association. (See Appendix) The article by E. F. S., on "How Shall our Schools be Supported," begins with this theory. (See Appendix) In these discussions, the theory received various formulations, and some extensions. One often used was that taxation for schools was the insurance of the rich that their property would be safe from criminals. While arguments were used that free schools would help to eliminate caste-like social distinctions, very few expressions exist to show