tions too obvious for discussion, we must remember that they were then new, and that in the then existing state of opinion nothing could safely be taken for granted. Much the same must be said of some of the ablest addresses. They may appear to us unduly labored, and as abounding in platitudes or pedantry; but they did not originally create any such impression. No one can place a proper valuation upon those old volumes unless he appreciates that they belong to an early stage of a great movement, which was more strongly marked by moral earnestness than by intelligent insight. In respect to common schools the situation was novel· Men were not importing from the East and setting up in the West, as in the case of churches and courts of law, completed institutions; they were seeking to create ideals as well as schools. Everything was in an experimental stage. It was quite in the nature of things for the trustees of the Cincinnati common schools to seek counsel of the College of Teachers. Nobody saw the way clearly, but all were seeking to find it. The death of this excellent association, which had apparently long passed the dangers of infancy, has never been satisfactorily explained. Mr. Venable ventures no theory. Mr. Mansfield remarks that "the duty of organization and publication, in fact, that of practically sustaining the association, fell mainly on the working teachers of Cincinnati, and for this reason, probably, it ultimately died away and lost its popular character." The history hardly sustains this view. Mr. Mansfield's further remark that the college had accomplished its object in exciting popular interest in education, and impelling many persons to its support who had the ability and influence to form the present system of public schools in Ohio," is probably nearer the mark. Even if the establishment of the Ohio school system was not as common an object as he represents, the college had no doubt done its peculiar work, while the work that next needed to be done was of another kind and called for different machinery. The time was at hand when, owing to the multiplication of those interested in the subject and improvements in the means of communication, State associations were to be formed and maintained. It was no longer necessary to collect men from a dozen or twenty States in order to hold a successful educational meeting. The present Ohio Teachers' Association was formed in 1847, two years after the college ceased to exist, and there had been a still earlier one similar in character. The whole West north of the Ohio River was soon covered over with educational associations, State, county, and sectional, which no doubt afforded better facilities for doing the work in hand than a distant central organization. In fact, the promotion of such organizations was one of the things that the college existed to accomplish. Reference to local associations and conventions are frequent in its records. In a sense, therefore, the college had done its work too well. For the time, the smaller associations that took its place answered men's purposes, and when they again sought the basis of a larger organization they found it in the country and not in the Mississippi Valley. The American Institute of Instruction, organized at the same time as the Academic Institute, the forerunner of the college, has lived until the present time, and is now a vital organization; but a slight examination of the history of the two societies shows the conditions surrounding them to have been very different. For one thing, the American Institute, notwithstanding its national name, has been from the first practically a New England association, serving directly a territory not much larger than the State of Ohio; while the College of Professional Teachers, having a name that at once suggested a local habitation embraced twenty States. CHAPTER XIV. THE UNITED STATES NAVAL ACADEMY AT ANNAPOLISITS ORGANIZATION AND METHODS OF TRAINING. By EDWARD S. HOLDEN, Sc. D., LLD. CONTENTS.-I. Sketch of the history of the United States Naval Academy.-II. Officers, professors, and instructors attached to the United States Naval Academy in 1897-98.-III. Regulations for the admission of candidates.-IV. The course of instruction.-V. The marking system.VI. Practical instruction.-VII. The Naval War College and Torpedo School at Newport, R. I. An examination of the methods of instruction at the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis and of the United States Military Academy at West Point is of importance in a twofold point of view. These Government schools profess to educate, and do educate, hundreds of young men to a considerable degree of intellectual proficiency. The records of the graduates of these schools in civil life abundantly prove this point. They also train their students to a certain special efficiency and competence, which depends in a very large measure on the moral influences exerted at the two academies. The latest proof of the efficient training provided by the United States Naval Academy is afforded by the splendid operations of the fleet commanded by Admiral Sampson in the blockade of Santiago de Cuba in 1898, and in the naval battle fought there under his orders by graduates of the Academy, which resulted in the total destruction of the Spanish vessels opposed to him. Efficiency of this sort is a kind of virtue, and it is only to be obtained by training the whole man-his character as well as his intellect. It is not to be had by intellectual influences alone. The United States Military Academy at West Point was founded in 1802, nearly a century ago. The United States Naval Academy at Annapolis was founded in 1845. The experiences of these years of peace and the stress of several wars have won for the graduated cadets of these institutions-for the officers of the Army and Navy-the respect and confidence of the American people. If there has been trouble at an Indian agency through unfair and greedy management of the Indians, an Army officer is ordered there to establish peace and fair dealing. It is a practically universal opinion, borne out by statistics, that his administration will be, on the whole, just, intelligent, and strictly honest; that he will conduct himself like a good public servant and a worthy citizen. Corresponding complications with the authorities of small foreign States in Central America, in the West Indies, and among the islands of the Pacific have time and again been adjusted by officers of our Navy without excessive friction and in a satisfactory manner. It is admitted on all hands that the officers of the two services are honest and competent. The officers are the graduated cadets. What, then, is the system of training that produces results which are, on the whole and making every allowance for exceptions, so satisfactory? It is the object of the present chapter to set forth the principles on which the two public Government schools are organized and adininistered. Especial attention will here be paid to the organization and management of the United States Naval Academy. The Report of the Commissioner of Education for the year 1891-92, vol. 2, pp. 767–774, contains a reprint of part of an article by the present writer on the United States Military Academy, to which those who are interested are referred. Certain matters are there considered at greater length than in the present chapter.1 An inquiry of the sort may have some pertinence at this time, when so much thought is bestowed on the question of the kind of training best fitted for the common (public) schools of the country. The general opinion of the country is very favorable to the public school and its merits and services are fully recognized. At the same time there are many thoughtful men who doubt whether the public schools of the whole land do all that they might to elevate and to confirm moral character, considering the extraordinarily liberal endowments bestowed upon them. Here, then, are two Government schools which do produce, on the whole and in the main, excellent results of the desired kind. May not the administration and organization of these special schools have some lessons of value to the administrators and teachers of the common schools of the whole country? I. SKETCH OF THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES NAVAL ACADEMY.? As early as 1794 an act of Congress prescribed that eight midshipmen should be attached to each vessel of the Navy. They were appointed from civil life by the President, and most of them knew nothing of the theory or practice of navigation. They learned their profession by practicing it from the outset, and they learned it, therefore, under great disadvantages in some respects. On the other hand, they were considered as sailors from the beginning and were taught in the hard school of experience. The Navy has never had better officers than some of these very midshipmen. About 1802 the midshipmen were instructed on board ship by the chaplain. In 1813 special schoolmasters were appointed for every large ship and each was charged with the instruction of 20 midshipmen. In 1814 the Hon. William Jones, Secretary of the Navy in the Cabinet of President Madison, recommended as follows: "I would suggest the expediency of providing by law for the establishment of a Naval Academy, with suitable professors, for the instruction of the officers of the Navy." The United States Military Academy, proposed as early as 1776, had been founded in 1802 and was in full operation, although it did not take on its present form and methods until 1817. About 1830 there were three "naval schools," so called, at Boston, New York, and Norfolk, respectively, where midshipmen were under instruction by chaplains and by schoolmasters. In 1835 provision was made for professors of mathematics. Their duty was to teach the midshipmen at sea or at shore stations. The salary attached to the position was respectable and men of ability were appointed. In 1848 the professors were made staff officers of the Navy, and the rank is still continued in the service, although most of the corps are not employed in teaching, but at the United States Naval Observatory, etc. In 1840 Prof. William Chauvenet, a recent graduate of Yale College, was appointed a professor of mathematics. After a short experience at sea, he was ordered to the Naval Asylum at Philadelphia to prepare midshipmen returning from sea service for It is perhaps worth noting that the writer is a graduate of the United States Military Academy, and that he has held commissions in the Corps of Engineers of the Army and the corps of professors of mathematics in the Navy, and has likewise served as a member of the board of visitors to both the military and the naval school. 2 Condensed from (a) Historical Sketch of the U.S. N. A., by Prof. J. Russell Soley, 1876, 348 pp., 8 vo., and (b) Annual Register, U. S. N. A., 1898-99, pp. 5-8. The United States Naval Academy, by Park Benjamin, New York, 1900, 486 pp., 8vo., was not printed when this chapter was written, but should be referred to by anyone who wishes to obtain a comprehensive view of the training of naval officers. their examination for the grade of passed midshipmen. Chauvenet had charge of the departments of mathematics and navigation; Lieutenant Ward, U. S. N., of the instruction in gunnery; and Prof. H. H. Lockwood, a graduate of West Point, was associated with them. Chauvenet was a man of first-rate ability as a scholar and as an administrator, and, although he had no real authority, his influence soon made itself felt at the school. The midshipmen in attendance saw the great advantages to be derived from good instruction previous to their examinations for promotion, and it was not long before Chauvenet's proposal to found a Naval Academy for the training of midshipmen was received with favor. The proposal was no new thing. It had been made as early as 1814, as already stated, and had been renewed and enforced by several able Secretaries of the Navy and by many of the best officers. The success of Chauvenet and his colleagues at the school in Philadelphia crystallized opinion and proved the practicability of the project. In 1845 Hon. George Bancroft became Secretary of the Navy and the plan for a permanent naval academy was proposed to him by various officers and civilians. In particular the success of the recent experiment at Philadelphia was laid before him. On June 13, 1845, Bancroft addressed a letter to the board of examiners of the Naval Asylum at Philadelphia, in which he asked their assistance in maturing a more efficient system of instruction for young naval officers. He suggests Fort Severn (Annapolis) as a suitable site for the school, and remarks that the present term of instruction is too short. "Might it not be well to have permanent instruction and to send all midshipmen on shore to the school?" He asks also for a plan of studies for the proposed school. The United States Naval Academy dates from this time. The board of examiners replied to it from the United States Naval Asylum on June 25, after consultation among themselves, and after hearing the opinions of Chauvenet and of his colleagues on the question of academic organization. The full and interesting history of the establishment of the Naval Academy may be read in Professor Soley's book, above cited by title. The following paragraphs are taken (with a few changes) from the register of the United States Naval Academy. The U.S. Naval Academy was formally opened October 10, 1845, under the name of the Naval School, with Commander Franklin Buchanan, U.S. N., as superintendent. It was placed at Annapolis, Md., on the land occupied by Fort Severn, which was given up by the War Department for the purpose. The course was fixed at five years, of which only the first year and the last were to be spent at the school, the intervening three years being passed at sea. This arrangement was not strictly adhered to, the exigencies of the service making it necessary, in many cases, to shorten the period of study. In January, 1816, four months after the opening of the school, the students consisted of 36 midshipmen of the date of 1810, who were preparing for the examination for promotion; 13 of the date of 1841, who were to remain until drafted for service at sea; and 7 acting midshipmen, appointed after September of the previous year. The midshipmen of the date of 1840 were the first to be graduated, finishing their limited course in July, 1846, and they were followed in order by the subsequent dates until the reorganization of the school in 1850. In September, 1849, the following board was appointed to revise the plan and the regulations of the Naval School: Commander William B. Shubrick, U. S. Navy. Commander Franklin Buchanan, U.S. Navy. Prof. William Chauvenet, U.S. Navy (a graduate of Yale). Capt. Henry Brewerton, U. S. Army, Superintendent U.S. Military Academy, West Point. 1 A copy of the letter is given in Soley's History of the Naval Academy, p. 43. |