(Front Cover) BULLETIN OF STATE TEACHERS COLLEGE KIRKSVILLE, MISSOURI VOL. XXIII APRIL-MAY, 1923 Nos. 4-5 PUBLISHED MONTHLY Entered as second class mail matter April 29, 1915, at the post office at Kirksville, Missouri under the Act of Congress of August 24, 1912 Accepted for mailing at special rate of postage provided for in section 1103, Act of October 3, 1917, authorized July 26, 1919 JOURNAL PRINTING COMPANY KIRKSVILLE, MISSOURI (Page 2) TO MY FATHER AND MOTHER (Page 3) CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. General Administration........13 II. Financial Administration..........29 III. Public Education..........85 IV. Public Utilities Administration.............189 V. Agricultural Administration...........211 VI. Health Administration .............228 VII. Highway Administration..........247 (Page 4) INTRODUCTORY NOTE For several years the State Teachers College at Kirksville has encouraged its faculty to publish monthly bulletins appertaining to improvement in thought content and functioning of instruction in their several specialties. Thereby habits of investigation become factors in daily life on the campus. The spirit of research increasingly characterizes mental movements of the faculty. The monotony of personal repetition and the trend toward running in well worn grooves are more easily avoided. Consciousness of being the author of something stimulates constructive ideality. I think it is well for colleges to take note of such facts as these, because the alert and promising ones among students at large select their colleges on the basis of the productive scholarship and the teaching skill of the faculty men and women. Our typical bulletins usually represent co-operative studies in the several departments. This volume, on Public Administration in Missouri, represents a special investigation by Professor Eugene Fair of the Department of Political Science, and comprises a dissertation for the Ph. D. degree. It is all the more gratifying because it points to the highest attainment in scholarship by a colleague. JOHN R. KIRK, President. State Teachers College Kirksville, Missouri March, 1923. (Page 5) PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IN MISSOURI BY EUGENE FAIR, A. M. Professor of Political Science in the State Teachers College Kirksville, Missouri Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, in the Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University KIRKSVILLE, MISSOURI 1923 (Page 6) PREFACE Professor Howard Lee McBain of Columbia University suggested making this study of Missouri Administration. His guidance and encouragement have been invaluable to the writer. The Board of Regents and President of the State Teachers College at Kirksville have been generous and appreciative in permitting leaves of absence and in printing this volume as a bulletin of the school. The State Historical Society of Missouri, through its secretary, Mr. Floyd C. Shoemaker, placed its great collection at the service of the author and rendered help in numerous ways. A number of the members of the faculty of the University of Missouri have given helpful suggestions, but special thanks are due Professor J. D. Elliff for the use of manuscript material. Many state officials have supplied information. The cuts used in Chapter VII. were loaned by Mr. Edwin S. Austin, Secretary of the State Highway Commission. The writer’s wife has rendered aid in ways too numerous to mention and so grateful acknowledgment is given. Professors Blanche Emery and Felix Rothschild, colleagues in the State Teachers College, have been of great assistance. The former read the galley proof, the latter prepared the executive organization chart. E. F. State Teachers College, Kirksville, Mo. March, 1923. -6- (Page 7) CHAPTER OUTLINES CHAPTER I. GENERAL ADMINISTRATION. See Administrative Organization Chart. CHAPTER II. FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION. I. Territorial System, 1804-1820: 1. Development of the territorial government in general. 2. Governmental needs of the people during the period. 3. Two chief ways of supplying the needs. 4. Units of financial administration and the local financial machinery. 5. Beginnings of financial administration for the territory distinct from that of counties—the territorial treasurer and auditor. 6. Relation between sources of local and territorial revenue. 7. Conclusion. II. System Under the First Constitution, 1820-1865: 1. Financial provisions of the Constitution of 1820. 2. The first revenue act. 3. General financial condition of the state in 1820—the loan office experiment. 4. Development of financial administration, 1820-1865: a. Personal services and sources of revenue. b. Extension of purposes for which revenue was used. c. Development of local taxation. d. Rates of taxation. e. Financial administrative machinery. f. Some of the problems of the period as shown by the messages of the governors. g. Conclusion. III. System Under the Second Constitution, 1865-1875: 1. Financial provisions of the Constitution of 1865. 2. First revenue act—creation of state and county boards of equalization. 3. Some important changes during the period. 4. Extension of purposes for which revenue was used. 5. Development of local taxation. 6. Rates of taxation. 7. Some outstanding problems of the period. 8. Conclusion. IV. System Under the Third Constitution, 1875-1923: 1. Financial provisions of the Constitution of 1875—especially limitations on the taxing power. -7- (Page 8) 2. Amendments bearing on financial matters. 3. General financial condition of the state following the adoption of the Constitution and survey of revenue legislation up to 1917. 4. Sources of revenue. 5. Extension of purposes for which revenue was used. 6. Rates of taxation. 7. Financial administrative machinery up to 1917. 8. Crisis of 1917—extension of the sources of revenue and creation of the tax commission: a. How new sources of income replenished the treasury. b. Main purposes of the tax commission and how it attempted to carry them out. c. Assessment and equalization in relation to the state tax commission and the state board of equalization. d. Struggle over assessment at cash value. e. Rate-fixing authorities in the several localities. f. Other financial problems connected with the crisis of 1917. 9. The present system—comments and conclusions: a. Sources of revenue— (1) Property tax. (2) Income tax. (3) Corporation franchise tax. (4) Inheritance tax. b. Operation of the present financial machinery, especially in regard to the general property tax and centralization of authority. c. Cost of state government. d. Purposes for which money is used. e. Method of appropriating and expending money—lack of budget system and centralization of authority and responsibility. f. Conclusion. CHAPTER III. PUBLIC EDUCATION. I. Introductory Statements. II. Period from the Spanish-French settlements to the first legislative act on Education, 1824. III. First attempts to found a common school system, 1825-1839: 1. The Act of 1825: a. Introductory statements. b. Unit of school administration. c. The school board. d. Sources of revenue and the financial administration. e. Educational administration. (Page 9) 2. The Act of 1835: a. Introductory statements. b. Unit of school administration. c. The school board. d. Sources of revenue and the financial administration. e. Educational administration. 3. The State School Fund. 4. Conclusions. IV. Actual Beginnings of a Public School System, 1839-1853: 1. The Act of 1889: a. Unit of school administration. b. The school board. c. Sources of revenue and the financial administration. d. Educational administration. e. Conclusions. 2. Development of Public Schools During the Period. V. Development of State and County Supervision, and Growth of Organized School Districts, 1853-1865: 1. The Act of 1853: a. Introductory statements. b. Units of school administration: (1) County commissioner. (2) State superintendent of schools. c. The school board. d. Sources of revenue and the financial administration. e. Educational administration. 2. Development of Public Schools from 1853-1865. VI.Reorganization and Re-establishment of the Public School System, 1865-1874: 1. Introductory statements. 2. Educational provisions of the Constitution of 1865. 3. The Act of 1866: a. General statements. b. Unit of school administration. c. School officials. d. Sources of revenue and the financial administration. e. Educational administration. f. General educational development. 4. The Act of 1868 and its operation. 5. The Act of 1870 and its operation. VII. Development from 1874 to 1923, with an Analysis of the Present System: 1. The Act of 1874: a. Reasons for its adoption. b. Unit of school administration. c. School officials. (Page 10) d. Sources of revenue and the financial administration. e. Educational administration. 2. Development of public school system from 1874 to 1923 as seen through legislation and the reports of the state superintendents. 3. The present system of public education—elementary and secondary education: a. The state superintendent of public schools—organization and powers. b. The state board of education. c. The county superintendent of public schools—organization and powers. d. Classification of school districts—common, consolidated, town, city. e. Certification of teachers. f. Textbooks. g. Teachers’ institutes. h. Public libraries. i. High schools—state and teacher training courses—vocational education. j. Schools for negroes. k. Special schools for defectives: (1) Schools for the blind and deaf. (2) Special classes for defective children. (3) State home for children at Carrollton. (4) Boys’ Reformatory, Industrial Home for Girls, Industrial Home for Negro Girls. 1. Compulsory attendance law. m. School finances — sources of school revenue — value of school property — the average levy — items of expenditure. n. General statistics. o. State Teachers’ Association. 4. Higher education: a. The University of Missouri. b. The Teachers’ Colleges. 5. Conclusion. CHAPTER IV. PUBLIC UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION. I. Introductory statements: 1. Brief history. 2. Purpose of the Public Service Commission. II. Jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission. III. The Public Service Commission at work: 1. General office. -10- (Page 11) 2. The legal department. 3. The rate department. 4. The engineering department. 5. Statistics and accounts department. 6. Stock and bond issues. 7. Gas, electric, heat and water department. 8. Telephone and telegraph department. IV. Conclusion. CHAPTER V. AGRICULTURAL ADMINISTRATION. I. Introductory statements. II. Brief historical survey: 1. Primitive period to 1840. 2. Period of transition, 1840-1860. 3. Period of rapid growth, 1860-1890. 4. Period of depression, 1891-1900. 5. Period of prosperity and rising prices, 1901-1920. III. Agricultural administration at the present time: 1. The state board of agriculture—organization, powers, workings. 2. The state college of agriculture. 3. Other state administrative organs. 4. Voluntary farm organizations. IV. Conclusions—especially noting the tendency toward centralization in 1921. CHAPTER VI. HEALTH ADMINISTRATION. I. Introductory statements. II. Historical survey: 1. Period of local control. 2. Creation of a state board of health, 1883—its organization and powers. 3. Health laws from 1883 to 1921. III. The present State Board of Health—its organization and functions: 1. Organization of the board. 2. General powers of the board. 3. Collection of vital statistics. 4. The laboratory. 5. Preventable diseases. 6. Child hygiene. 7. Venereal diseases. 8. Rural sanitation. 9. Division of sanitary engineering. -11- (Page 12) 10. Public health nursing. 11. Bureau of licensure. IV. Local health authorities: 1. Deputy state commissioners. 2. County hospitals. V. Auxiliary aids to health administration. VI. Conclusion. CHAPTER VII. HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION. I. Introductory statements. II. Brief historical survey: 1. The territorial period—absence of central control. 2. Period from 1820 to the Civil War—excessive number of special legislative acts. 3. Period of purely local administration—from the Civil War to 1907. 4. Period of centralization of administrative power—1907-1923. III. The “Centennial Road Law,” 1921: 1. Organization of the highway commission. 2. Powers of the highway commission. 3. Sources of revenue for building roads—state, federal. 4. Policy of the new highway commission—especially regarding the designation of roads and apportionment of funds. 5. Work of the highway commission as seen through its bureaus. IV. Conclusion. -12- (Page 13) PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IN MISSOURI CHAPTER I. GENERAL ADMINISTRATION. Each one of Missouri’s three constitutions has substantially stated that “the powers of government shall be divided into three distinct departments—the legislative, executive and judicial—each of which shall be confided to a separate magistracy, and no person, or collection of persons, charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments, shall exercise any power properly belonging to either of the others, except in the instances in this constitution expressly directed or permitted.”1 A like statement is commonly made in the constitution of every commonwealth of the United States. A difference in the character of powers given to each department would seemingly account for the lines of division among them. A careful examination, however, of the nature and kinds of powers of each of them, fails to disclose such a reason. This lack is especially evident as between the executive and judicial departments, both of whose activities are being looked upon more and more by political scientists as “policy executing,” while those of the legislative department are considered “policy determining.”2 It is proposed in this study of Missouri government to deal with the “policy executing” or administrative branch in some of its more important phases; namely, finance, utilities, education, health, agriculture, highways. Wherever centralization has taken place an attempt will be made to measure the outcome. Before examining these particular phases of administration, however, it is proper to point out the place held in the general administration of the state by the many officers, boards, bureaus, departments, and commissions. The constitution of Missouri provides for only seven of the state “policy executing” officials—governor, lieutenant-governor, secretary of state, state auditor, state treasurer, attorney-general, and superintendent of public schools.3 The positions of all other state administrative authorities with few exceptions, are created by statue law. All these officers are “nominated by a primary election held at the regular polling places in each precinct on the first Tuesday of August” of the same year the President of the United States is elected. Each 1Const. 1820, Art. II; Const. 1865, Art. Ill; Const. 1875, Art. III. 2Goodnow, P. J., Politics and Administration, p. 17. Ford, H. J., The Rise and Growth of American Politics, Ch. 28. See Burgess, John W., Political Science Quarterly, Vol. X, p. 420, for different view. 3Const. 1875, Art. V, Sect. 1. 4Sects. 4823, 4824, R. S. 1919 ; statewide primaries and elections are held biennially. The state superintendent of public schools is not nominated and elected the same year the other officers are. (Const. 1875, Art. V, Sect. 2.) -13- (Page 14) is elected by popular vote for a term of four years, the governor and treasurer being “ineligible to re-election as their own successors.”5 The qualifications of all these officers are stated in the constitution. Their salaries are fixed by statute.6 The constitution vests in the governor “the supreme executive power” of the state, and places upon him the responsibility of seeing that the laws are “faithfully executed.”7 The extent to which these general powers of the governor are exercised depends a great deal upon his personality and capacity for leadership. The governor has a number of other important powers which are more specific. As is shown by the administrative organization chart, at the beginning of this study, his power to appoint other officers is quite extensive, most of this power being vested in him by statute law. His power of removal in actual practice is closely limited. He may require information from any other state executive officer concerning the affairs of his office. He is commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the state “except when they shall be called into the service of the United States.” He may grant reprieves, commutations and pardons. In his relation to the legislature, he may veto bills, call extra sessions of the General Assembly, and give the legislature information through his messages.8 Evidence is plentiful on every hand to prove a tendency to centralize more power in the hands of the governor, especially when he is of the same political faith as the majority party in both houses of the legislature. The governor’s position as a political party leader has a very close connection with his position as head of the administration of the state. The constitution makes it the duty of the secretary of state “to be the custodian of the seal of the state, and authenticate therewith all official acts of the governor, his approval of laws excepted.” It is also his duty to “keep a register of the official acts of the governor, and, when necessary, attest them, and lay copies of the same, together with all papers relative thereto, before either house of the General Assembly whenever required to do so.” The secretary of state has a long list of functions given him by statute law. Some of the most important of which have to do with automobile licenses and elections. Most of the powers of the state auditor are given him by statute law, even though he occupies a very important place, especially in authorizing the expenditure of the state’s money. The constitution gives more attention to the duties of treasurer than to those of the auditor.10 The funds of the state are in his keep 5 Const. 1875, Art. V, Sect. 2. 6 Const. 1875, Art. V, Sects. 5 and 19; Sect. 10977, R. S. 1919. 7 Const, 1875, Sects. 4 and 6. 8 Const. 1875, Art. V. 9 Const. 1875, Art. V, Sects. 20 and 21. 10 Const. 1875, Art. X, Sects. 15 and 16. -14- (Page 15) ing. In arranging for the deposit of the current funds of the state, the treasurer, along with the governor and attorney-general, has considerable power. Although the attorney-general occupies a place of commanding importance in administering the laws of the state, few of his powers are mentioned in the constitution. His extensive powers are conferred by statutory law. It is his duty to give legal advice to the various state officials, boards, commissions, and local officials when called upon to do so. He also represents the state in suits by or against the commonwealth—in a word, he is the state’s law officer.11 Little is said in the constitution about the-important powers of the state superintendent of public schools, but the legislature has clothed him with many functions, the tendency being to increase them at each biennial meeting of the General Assembly.12 He has general supervision over the entire educational interests of the state.13 He makes many rules and regulations governing elementary and high schools, his powers of inspection being very extensive. He apportions the state school moneys to the various counties and St. Louis City, and, like all the above-mentioned state officers, is an ex-officio member of a number of important boards. That there is a tendency to centralize more powers in his hands is seen clearly in the laws on vocational education, teacher-training, and physical education.14 As would be expected, the lieutenant-governor must have the same legal qualifications as the governor. In case of the inability of the governor to carry on the work of his office, the lieutenant-governor takes his place. As lieutenant-governor he has no important legal administrative duties. 15 There are at present no statewide elective officials in Missouri which are not provided for in its constitution. The numerous boards, bureaus, commissions and departments are constituted either through appointment or ex-officio means, or both. It will not be amiss to say a word about each, even though some of them, like the seven officials spoken of above, figure very largely in the special phases of our subject. None is more important than the public service commission. Missouri has had such a commission since 1913.16 Its five members, each of whom the governor appoints for a term of six years, get the highest salaries of any board or commission in the state (i. e., $5,500 each per year). It has engineering, accounting, railroad rate, electric light, water and gas, and telephone departments. It supervises and 11 See Index R. S. 1919, p. 37. 12 See Laws of 1921 under heads of schools; also R. S. 1919 under head of schools. 13 Section 11398 R. S. 1919. 14 Ch. 102, Arts. 5 and 6, R. S. 1919; Laws of 1921, p. 641. 15 Const. 1875, Art. V, Sects. 15 and 16. 16 Laws, 1913, p. 556; Ch. 95, R. S. 1919; Laws, 1921, pp. 583, 584. -15- (Page 16) regulates the service of all the railroads, express companies, sleeping car companies, telephone and telegraph companies, street railways, electric light, gas, and heating companies operating in the state. If these companies are doing only an intrastate business, the commission, subject to appeals to the courts, may fix the rate of charge for services. Should any one of these companies wish to sell stocks or bonds, it must have the permission of the commission. Missouri started to regulate railroads through a commission of three elected by popular vote in 1875.17 This commission had added to its duties, in 1889, that of regulating and inspecting grain in public warehouses. The railroad and warehouse corbmission continued in existence until 1913. At that time its warehouse and inspection duties were largely taken over by a commissioner, who is appointed and may be removed by the governor.18 Its other functions came under the control of the public service commission. The work of the grain and warehouse commissioner extends to all parts of the state where enough grain is handled to pay for the inspecting and weighing. The standards of the United States government are used. All inspectors working under the commissioner have a license from the federal government. This is wise, since so much of the transportation of grain is interstate. The weight of nearly 110,000 cars of grain is given each year. There are lOO people who work under the commissioner, most of them being located either in Kansas City or St. Louis. The fees from inspecting and weighing much more than pay the employees.19 The state board of agriculture is one of the most useful in the state. The governor, state superintendent of schools, and the dean of the College of Agriculture at Columbia are members ex-officio. There is a member from each congressional district, appointed by the governor for a term of four years. This board has a very active secretary, and since it is so large, much of the actual work is carried on by him.20 There is a “bureau of marketing farm products” under the direction of the board of agriculture.81 This bureau is headed by a high-salaried commissioner appointed by the board. There is also a state veterinarian, who is appointed by and may be removed at will by the board of agriculture.21The state veterinarian is ex-officio member and secretary of a board of three who make up the veterinary examining board. The other two members must be veterinarians; they are appointed by the governor for terms 17 Laws, 1875, p. 112. 18 Laws, 1913, p. 354; Laws, 1889, p. 124. 19 Ch. 49, Art. 2, R. S. 1919; Official Manual, 1921-22, p. 875; Laws, Extra Session, 1921, p. 70. 20 Ch. 109 Art. 1 R. S 1919 21 Ch. 109, Art. 16, R. S. 1919; Laws, 1921, Extra Session, p. 29. 22 Ch. 109, Art. 9, R. S. 1919. -16- (Page 16a) MISSOURI STATE EXECUTIVE ORGANIZATION 1923 Voters Supt. of Public Schools Advisory Board for Vocational Education 6 Auditor Secretary of State Governor Lieutenant Governor Treasurer Attorney General SENATE Mine Inspector Warehouse Commissioner Finance Commissioner Beverage Inspector Food and Drug Commissioner Oil Inspector Game and Fish Commissioner Industrial Inspector Commissioner of Labor Statistics Supt. of Insurance Department Adjutant General Hotel Inspector Board of Poultry - 6. 3 other ex-officio Advisory Members Veteninary Examining Board 3 1 of 3 ex-officio Board of Agriculture 1 of 3 of those ex-officio Board of Horticulture - 9. 3 of these ex-officio Board of Accounting - 5 Board of Dental Examiners -5 Public Senate Commission - 5 Trustees of Fruit Experiment Station 3 Tax Commission 3 Board of Barber Examiners 3 Board of Health 7 Board of Registration and Examination for nurses - 5 Board of Embalming - 5 Osteopathic Examining and Registration Board 5 Board of Visitors for the University - 5 Library Commission - 5 2 of 5 Superintendent of Schools and President of University Soldiers Bonus Commission 3 Adjutant General Ex-officio 1 of 3 Board of Optometry 5 Board of Pharmacy 5 Commission for the Bling - 5 Board of Charities and Corrections - 7 Governor ex-officio 1 of 7 Negro Industrial Commission - 16 Bureau of Geology and Mines - 5 Governor ex-officio 1 of 5 EX-OFFICIO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Stallion Registry Board 1 Dean of College of Agriculture 2 Sec States Board Agri 3 State Veterinarian 4 Chairman Department Animal Husbandry State University State Fair Board Board of Agriculture Ex-officio Board Board of Equilization. 1 Governor 2 Auditor 3 Treasurer 4 Attorney General 5 Sec. of State Fund Commission same as State Board of Equilization barring Secretary of State Board of Education 1 Superintendent of Schools 2 Governor 3 Secretary of State 4 Attorney General Permanent Seat of Government Board 1 Governor 2 Auditor 3 Treasurer 4 Secretary of State 5 Attorney General Public Printing Commission 1 Secretary of State 2 Auditor 3 Treasurer State Library Board - 5 Superintendent Schools Ex-officio Chairman of Board Capitol Commission - 4 Appointed by Permanent seat of Government Board State Librarian Appointed by the Supreme Court Board of Trustees for State Historical Society of Missouri. Selection and number determined by Constitution of Society. Board of Law Examiners - 5 Appointed by the Supreme Court. HighWay Commission - 4 State Geologist ex-officio 5th member but has no votes Board of Curators of State University - 9 Regents of Teachers College Kirksville - 7 State Supt. Schools ex-officio 1 of 7 Regents of Teachers College Warrensburg - 7 State Supt. Schools ex-officio 1 of 7 Regent of Teachers College Cape Girardeau - 7 State Supt. Schools ex-officio 1 of 7 Regent of Teachers College Springfield - 7 State Supt. Schools ex-officio 1 of 7 Regents of Teachers College Maryville - 7 State Supt. Schools ex-officio 1 of 7 Lincoln University Jefferson City - 7 State Supt. Schools ex-officio 1 of 7 Board of Managers School for Deaf Fulton - 5 Board of Managers School for Bling St. Louis - 5 Trustees of Federal Soldiers Home St. James - 5 Board of Managers Confederate Soldiers Home Higgensville - 5 Board of Managers. Eleemasynary Institutions. State Hospitals for Insane at Fulton, St. Joseph, Nevada, and Farmington. Colony for feeble minded at Marshall, Mo State Sanitorium at Mt. Vernon - 5 Health Supervisor Ex officio Member of Board Commissioners of Penal Institutions; State Penitentiary, Jefferson City; Boys Reformatory, Boonville. Industrial Home for Girls, Chillicothe. Industrial Home for Negro Girls, Tipton - 5 All officials, Board and Commissions on right of Chart are appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate. Those on left without such confirmation. Elective officials Single appointment officials Appointive Boards and commissions figures indicate number of members (Page 16b) (Page 17) of two years. Examinations are held at least once a year wherever the board cares to hold them.23 The state board of horticulture consists of six members, appointed by the governor for terms of four years, from as many districts into which the state is divided, not more than three members can be of the same political party. The governor, state superintendent of schools, and “the professor of horticulture of the state university” are ex-officio members. Most of the work of the board is carried on by a paid secretary, who is chosen by the board from without its own number.24 There is a board of three, appointed by the governor for terms of six years, which has charge of the fruit experiment station at Mountain Grove. A paid manager and inspector, appointed by the board for terms of four years, have actual charge of the work of the station.25 There is a poultry experiment station at Mountain Grove. The government of the station is in the hands of a board of six members appointed by the governor for terms of three years. They must come from different sections of the state, and not more than three can belong to any one political party. There is an advisory board made up of the governor, dean of the College of Agriculture, and secretary of the state board of agriculture.26 The main work of the station is in the hands of the director, who is also secretary-treasurer of the board. There is a stallion registry board composed entirely of ex-officio members—namely, the dean of the College of Agriculture of the University of Missouri, the secretary of state board of agriculture, the state veterinarian, and the chairman of the department of animal husbandry of the University of Missouri.27 For a few years, beginning in 1913, Missouri had a land reclamation department, headed by a commissioner appointed by the governor, but the law creating such was recently repealed.28 After the regular session of the legislature adjourned in 1921 there was some question about the legal status of the office of hotel inspector, since the office was abolished and its functions conferred upon the superintendent of public welfare. The act creating the latter office was suspended by referendum. The governor sought the opinion of the attorney-general. The latter ruled that the governor could appoint a hotel inspector, but advised taking the question to 23 Sect. 13438, R. S. 1919. 24 Ch. 109, Art. 2, R. S. 1919; same reference for horticultural society. 25 Ch. 109, Art. 3, R. S. 1919. 26 Ch. 109, Art. 5, R. S. 1919; see same article for state poultry association. 27 Section 4364, R. S. 1919. 28 Laws, 1921, p. 459. -17- (Page 18) the supreme court. After the inspector was appointed, this was done through quo warranto proceedings, and the court sustained the view of the attorney-general. The inspector is appointed by the governor for a term of four years. 29 The legal status of the board of immigration is involved somewhat in the same way, but the governor has appointed no one and so the board is not in existence. Another board which has considerable to do with farm interests is the state fair board. There are nineteen members, and they are the same persons who make up the state board of agriculture. They have a different secretary, however, who carries on the active work of the board.30 The legislature at its regular session in 1921 undertook to consolidate most of these agencies which have to do with agriculture into one department and place a commissioner at its head.31 This bill was subjected to referendum and was rejected by the voters at the November election in 1922. Missouri has a number of administrative authorities who deal with finances. There is a state tax commission, composed of three members appointed by the governor and removable by him for cause. Their terms are six years, and not more than two can be of the same political party.32 The legislature, at its regular session in 1921, passed a bill abolishing the tax commission and vesting its powers in a budget commissioner.3 This bill was held up by referendum and rejected by the voters in the November election of 1922.34 In the meantime, the legislature, meeting in special session, appropriated money to continue the work of the commission.35 When the tax commission was created in 1917 it was supposed that it would largely take the place of the state board of equalization, but the two boards did not work very well together for a time.** Unlike the tax commission, the state board of equalization is an ex-officio board made up of the governor, treasurer, auditor, secretary of state and attorney-general. Unlike the former board, also, it is created by the constitution: “The duty of said board shall be to adjust and equalize the valuation of real and personal property among the several counties of the state.”*7 Another financial board, ex-officio, and made up of the same of 29 Section 5888, R. S. 1919; Laws, 1921, p. 495 and Addenda; Appendix B, Attorney-General Opinions, 4-10-1922. 30 Ch. 109, Art. 6, R. S. 1919. 31 Laws, 1921, p. 125. 32 Laws, 1917, p. 542; Ch. 119, Art. 4, R. S. 1919. 33 Laws, 1921, p. 170. 34 Laws, 1921, p. 3. 35 Laws, Extra Session, 1921, p. 12. 36 Evidenced by comparing appropriations for 1917 and 1919—Laws of 1917, p. 16; Laws of 1919, p. 36. 37Const. 1875, Art. 10, Sect 18. -18- (Page 19) ficials as the board of equalization, barring the secretary of state, are the fund commissioners. Their position has become rather strikingly important, since Missouri has voted $60,000,000 in road bonds and soldiers’ bonus bonds of $15,000,000.38 The legislature in 1921, at its regular session, created a finance department and gave to it the functions previously exercised by the state banking department, the state bank commissioner, the bureau of building and loan supervision, the supervisor of building and loan associations, and the soldier settlement board.39 At the head of this department is a commissioner of finance appointed by and holding his office at the pleasure of the governor. This law of 1921 shows some degree of consolidation.40 Since 1909 Missouri has had a board of accountancy. It is composed of five members appointed by the governor for terms of five years. This board examines and licenses public accountants.”41 Missouri has many other licensing and examining boards. There has been, since 1899, a board of examiners for barbers.42 As now constituted, the board consists of three members appointed by the governor for terms of four years.43 The legislature of 1897 provided for a state board of dental examiners.44 It now consists of five members, appointed by the governor for five-year terms.45 A law of 1895 provided for a state board of embalming.46 The board consists of five members, appointed by the governor for terms of five years. No more than three can belong to the same political party.47 The state board of health consists of seven members, appointed by the governor for terms of four years. In addition to its other functions, which will be discussed later, it conducts the examinations of all applicants for practicing medicine, surgery, midwifery and chiropody, and grants state licenses to the same.48 Missouri’s first board of health was created in 1883.49 Since 1905 Missouri has had a board of law examiners.50 It consists of five members. They are appointed by the supreme court for such terms as the court may determine. The examiners certify the 38 Ch. 123, Art. 3, R. S. 1919; Laws of 1921, Extra Session, p. 127; Laws of 1921, Second Extra Session, p. 12 ff. 39 Laws of 1921, p. 393. 40 Ch. 107, R. S. 1919; Ch. 108, Art. 1, R. S. 1919. 41 Ch. 91, R. S. 1919. 42 Laws, 1899, p. 44. 43 Laws, 1921, p. 156. 44 Laws, 1897, p. 166. 45 Ch. 112, R. S. 1919. 46 Laws, 1895, p. 174. 47 Ch. 32, R. S. 1919. 48 Ch. 41, R. S, 1919. 49 Laws, 1883, p. 95. 50 Laws, 1905, p. 48. -19- (Page 20) result of their examinations to the supreme court, by which licenses are issued to the successful applicants.51 There is a board of registration and examination for nurses, consisting of five members appointed by the governor for terms of three years.52 The origin of this board goes back to 1909.53 A recent law created an optometry board. It consists of five members appointed by the governor for terms of five years.84 There is also a board of osteopathic registration and examination. Such a board was created by a law of 1903.55 There are five members, appointed by the governor for terms of five years, and not more than three can be of the same political party.56 A board of pharmacy was created by an act of the legislature in 1909.57 It consists of five members appointed by the governor for terms of five years.58 Missouri has a number of administrative authorities whose duties are largely inspectional. The grain inspection department has been mentioned. There is what is known as a beverage inspection department, headed by a beverage inspector who is appointed by the governor for a term of four years. This office was created by a legislative act in 1919.59 For a half century there have been laws concerning hotels and innkeepers, but an office of hotel inspector was created for the first time in 1917.60 The act of 1921 abolishing the office was not sustained by the people.61 A legislative act of 1909 provided for the office of food and drug commissioner.62 The legislature in its 1921 regular session undertook to abolish this office and create in its stead the office of supervisor of public welfare, who would have, in addition to his duties of inspecting foods and drugs, those of oil, hotel and beverage inspection.63 This bill was subjected to a referendum and voted down at the November election, 1922.64 The food and drug commissioner is appointed by the governor and holds office for four years. He is subject to removal by the governor for cause. 65 51 Ch. 5, R. S. 1919; Missouri Manual 1921-1922, p. 854. 52 Laws, 1921, p. 524. 53 Ch. 89, R. S. 1909. 54 Laws, 1921, p. 532. 55 Laws, 1903, p. 248. 56 Ch. 79, R. S. 1919; Laws, 1921, pp. 540, 542. 57 Laws, 1909, p. 472; the first board was created in 1881—Laws, 1881, p. 130. 58 Ch. 29, R. S. 1919. 59 Ch. 49, Art. 1, R. S. 1919. 60 Laws, 1917, p. 306. 61 Laws, 1921, p. 405. 62 Laws, 1909, p. 514. 63 Laws, 1921, pp. 589, 405, 406. 64 Laws, 1921, p. 3. 65 Sect. 5729, R. S. 1919. -20- (Page 21) The officer of state oil inspector was created by a legislative act in 1909.66 This officer is appointed by the governor for a term of four years.67 Factory inspection by the state dates back to 1901, at which time a factory inspector was provided for.68 The duties of this inspector were somewhat broadened in 1919, and the office is now known as the industrial inspector.69 This inspector is appointed for a term of four years by the governor. A state mine inspector was provided for in 1887.70 He is appointed by the governor for a term of four years.71 Outside of those administrative authorities which are connected with the regular charitable institutions, there is considerable public charity work carried on by other means. There was a commission for the blind created by the legislature in 1915.72 The commission is composed of five persons, appointed by the governor for terms of five years. Two recent constitutional amendments, accepted by the voters in 1916 and 1920, respectively, have placed Missouri in an advanced position in its charity to the blind.73 The amendment of 1916 permits the legislature to pension the blind, and that of 1920 makes it mandatory upon the legislature to levy a tax of from one-half cent to three cents on each one hundred dollars assessed valuation of the taxable property of the state to cover the pensions for the blind. If any balance is left from the levy after the pensions have been given, it may be used for the support of the blind commission. Up to the present time there has been no balance. Missouri has a state board of charities and corrections, created by a legislative act of 1897.74 The governor is ex-officio member of the board. There are six other members, appointed by the governor for terms of six years. Two of the board must be women. Of the other four, not more than two can be of the same political party. The powers of this board have been rather rapidly increased, due especially to the passage of a number of children’s laws.75 Acting somewhat as an organization for charitable purposes is the Missouri state negro industrial commission, created by a legislative act of 1919.76 It consists of sixteen members, one from each 66 Laws, 1909, p. 566. 67 Sect. 6055, R. S. 1919. 68 Laws, 1901, p. 197. 69 Ch. 54, Art. 5, R. S. 1919. 70 Laws, 1887, p. 218. 71 Sect. 7494, R. S. 1919. 72 Laws, 1915, p. 223; Ch. Ill, Art. 11, R. S. 1919; Laws, 1921, pp. 25, 69, 15, 421. 73 Laws, 1915, p. 411; Laws, 1919, p. 759; Laws, 1921, p. 554. 74 Laws, 1897, p. 45; Ch. Ill, Art. 1, R. S. 1919; Laws, 1921, pp. 29, 192, 90, 470. 75 E. G., establishment of home for children, Laws, 1921, p. 89. 76 Laws, 1919, p. 82; Laws, 1921, p. 30. -21- (Page 22) congressional district, appointed by the governor for terms of four years. Aside from some of those discussed, there are a number of other administrative authorities whose functions may be classified as largely educational. Such is the “board of education,” created by the constitution, the members of which are all ex-officios. They are the superintendent of public schools, governor, secretary of state, and attorney-general.77 They have “general supervision over the entire educational interests of the state” and a few duties in regard to school moneys. There is a state advisory committee for vocational education composed of the state superintendent of schools and five others appointed by him annually. There must be one with experience in agriculture, one employer, one representative of labor, one with experience in home economics, and another with experience in commerce. The law provides for conferences between this committee and the “board of education.”78 Missouri has had a bureau of geology and mines since 1889.79 It is in charge of a board of managers consisting of the governor, who is ex-officio president of the board, and four others, appointed by him for terms of four years. The working force of the bureau is the state geologist appointed by the board. He appoints his own assistants. “The object of the work of the bureau is to increase production and further development of the mineral resources of the state.”80 This bureau is independent of the bureau of mines and mine inspection. The legislature created the office of game and fish commissioner in 1909.81 He is appointed by the governor for a term of four years. The state historical society of Missouri, with headquarters at Columbia, was made a trustee for the state in 1899.82 The administration of the affairs of the society is in the hands of a board of trustees and an executive committee constituted in such a way as the society provides in its constitution. A paid secretary is employed by the executive committee. He carries on the active work of the society. The uses and growth of the society have been very marked in the last few years. There is also a Missouri library commission, with headquarters at Jefferson City, whose work is independent of that of the historical society. The commission was created by a law of 1907. It consists of the state superintendent of schools and president of the state university, ex-officio members, and three other persons appointed by the 77 Const. 1875, Art. 11, Sect. 4; Ch. 102, Art. 14, R. S. 1919. 78 Sect. 11279, R. S. 1919. 79 Ch. 75, R. S. 1889. 80 Ch. 40, R. S. 1919; Missouri Manual 1921-1922, p. 837. 81 Laws, 1909, p. 519; Ch. 37, R. S. 1919. 82 Ch. 112, R. S. 1899; Ch. 42, R. S. 1919; for details see Eleventh Bien. Rept. (1921-22), p. 3, State Hist. Soc. of Mo. -22- (Page 23) governor for terms of six years. The commission employs a paid secretary who carries on the active work.83 There is also an administrative official called the state librarian who has charge of the “state library” in the supreme court building at Jefferson City. This official is appointed by the supreme court and holds office at their pleasure. The act creating the office dates back to 1879.84 The “state library” is independent of the two organizations spoken of just above. There is a bureau of labor statistics whose origin goes back to 1879. The original law and the one forty years later start off in much the same way, namely: “There is hereby established a separate and distinct department, which shall be called the bureau of labor statistics.” The head of the bureau is called a commissioner, and is appointed by the governor for a term of four years. 85 An administrative organ of great importance is the “insurance department.” Its origin dates back to 1869. At its head is a superintendent, appointed by the governor for a term of four years. The governor may suspend the superintendent, and, with the consent of the senate, remove him.86 An officer of considerable importance, especially in times of crises, and at the present in administering the soldier bonus law, is the adjutant-general. He is appointed by the governor with a term not fixed.87 Missouri had, from 1913 to 1917, a board of paroles and pardons, but the “department of penal institutions” has been vested with the powers of the board. 88 Since 1912 the constitution of the state has been so amended that the state government has been allowed to raise $5,000,000 for a new capitol building, $60,000,000 for road building, and $15,000,000 for soldiers’ bonus.89 Special administrative agencies were created to carry out the projects involved. For the purpose of building the capitol, a commission of four was created. They were chosen, two from each leading political party, by the permanent seat of government board.90 The work of this commission has met with universal approval in the state. 83 Laws, 1907, p. 353; Ch. 60, Art. 2, R. S. 1919. 84 Laws, 1879, p. 206; Ch. 60, Art. 1, R. S. 1919. There is a state library board composed of the state superintendent and four others appointed by the state board of education for four-year terms. 85 Laws, 1879, p. 164; Ch. 54, Art. 1, R. S. 1919. 86 Laws, 1869, p. 23; Ch. 50, Art. 1, R. S. 1919; place in taxation. Missouri Manual, 1921-1922, p. 852. 87 Laws, 1868, p. 77; Ch. 66, Art. 1, R. S. 1919. 88 Laws, 1913, p. 227; Laws, 1917, p. 155; Laws, 1921, p. 548. 89 Laws, 1911, p. 450; Laws, 1919, p. 757; Laws, 1921, Extra Ses¬sion, p. 197. 90 Laws, 1911, p. 108. -23- (Page 24) There is little question but what the new highway commission was modeled after the capitol commission. There are four members on the former, two from each of the leading political parties. The state geologist is ex-officio member, but has no vote. They are appointed by the governor for regular terms of six years. The commission appoints the chief engineer.91 The soldiers’ bonus commission consists of the adjutant-general and two others appointed by the governor.92 There is a permanent seat of government board, made up entirely of ex-officio members, namely, the governor, attorney-general, auditor, secretary of state, and treasurer.93 Their main appointee is called the commissioner of the permanent seat of government. There is also a public printing commission, made up entirely of ex-officio members, namely, secretary of state, auditor, and treasurer.94 Each one of Missouri’s educational institutions is governed by a board of its own. The state university is the only one recognized by the constitution. “The government of the state university shall be vested in a board of curators to consist of nine members to be appointed by the governor, by and with the advice and consent of the senate.”95 Not more than one can come from the same congressional district, and not more than five can belong to any one political party Their terms are six years, three being appointed every two years.96 Each one of the five state teachers’ colleges has a board of regents, six of whom must reside in the district where the college is located and one of whom must be from the county where the college is situated. The state superintendent of schools is ex-officio member of each board. Not more than four of each board, including the superintendent, can belong to the same political party. The appointive members are chosen by the governor, two being appointed every two years. Their terms are six years.97 The government of Lincoln University, a school for the higher education of the negro race, is vested in a board of curators composed of six members appointed by the governor for terms of four years. The state superintendent of schools is the ex-officio seventh member. Three of the appointive six must be negroes. There are no restrictions as to politics.98 91 Laws, 1921, Extra Session, p. 131. 9Laws, 1921, Second Extra Session, p. 7. 93 Ch. 84, R. S. 1919. 94 Ch. 89, R. S. 1919. 95 Const. 1875, Art. 11, Sec. 5. 96 Ch. 102, Art. 18, R. S. 1919; for board of visitors, Sect. 11572, R. S. 1919. 97 Ch. 102, Art 17 R fi 1Q1Q 98 Ch. 102, Art. 17a, R. S. 1919; Laws, 1921, p. 86; Laws, 1921, Extra Session, p. 75. -24- (Page 25) The Missouri School for the Blind at St. Louis and the Missouri School for the Deaf at Fulton are both classed as educational institutions. Each has its own board of managers, composed of five members appointed by the governor for terms of four years.99 All except two of the state eleemosynary institutions are now under the control of one board of managers.100 Those under one board are the four state hospitals for the insane, located respectively at Fulton, St. Joseph, Nevada and Farmington; the colony for the feeble-minded and epileptic at Marshall, and the Missouri State Sanatorium at Mt. Vernon. The board for these institutions consists of six members appointed by the governor for terms of four years. Three are from each of the two leading political parties. They appoint a health supervisor, who becomes an ex-officio member of the board. The governor names one of the six president, the latter being the only salaried member of the six. The confederate soldiers’ home at Higginsville is under the control of a board of five managers, appointed by the governor for terms of four years. Each manager must have served in the army or navy of the confederacy.101 The federal soldiers’ home at St. James is controlled by a board of trustees composed of five members, appointed by the governor for terms of four years. At least three must have served in the volunteer army or navy of the United States.102 Down to 1917, Missouri’s penal institutions were governed by separate boards. Each subsequent legislature has amended the law considerably, but has kept to the one board system for all. 103 These institutions are the penitentiary at Jefferson City, the boy’s reformatory at Boonville, the industrial home for girls at Chillicothe, and the industrial home for negro girls at Tipton. They are under the control of a board of five commissioners, appointed by the governor for terms of four years. Not more than three can be of the same political party. The governor is obligated to designate one of the commissioners as director, and may at his discretion name one as warden, one as farm commissioner, and another as parole commissioner. The largest and most important unit of local rural government from the standpoint of both the state and local administration is the county. Missouri had twenty-five counties when admitted to the Union in 1821. There are now 114 counties, and the city of St. Louis.104 Barring a few limitations in the constitution, the county 99 Laws, 1921, p. 645. 100 For change from separate boards to one board, compare Ch. 11, Art. 6, R. S. 1919, with Laws, 1921, p. 380. 101 Ch. Ill, Art. 14, R. S. 1919. 102 Ch. Ill, Art. 15, R. S. 1919. 103 Laws, 1917, p. 155; Ch. Ill, Arts. 16 to 22, inclusive. R. S. 1919; Laws, 1921, p. 548. 104 See Shoemaker, Floyd C., A History of Missouri and Missourians, pp. 253, 254. -25- (Page 26) is completely the creature of the state legislature so far as making laws for it is concerned.105 The smallest division of the county is what is known as the common school district, the average number in each county being about eighty. The largest division of the county is the township, which in most counties is purely for administering local justice and keeping order for the county. Twenty-four counties have the organized township. In such counties the township is a unit of local self-government. Missouri is divided into congressional town-ships, but these are purely for the purposes of locating land. Every county in the state has the following officials: a county court, made up of three members, one elected at large and each of the other two from one of the two districts into which the county is divided; a probate judge; clerk of the circuit court; clerk of the county court; recorder of deeds (in thirty-five counties the same person is both recorder and circuit clerk); prosecuting attorney; sheriff; treasurer, coroner; public administrator, and superintendent of schools. Each county has an assessor and collector, except the twenty-four which have the organized township. Each, except a very few, has also a highway engineer, the office being combined in some counties with that of the surveyor. Each official is elected by the voters of the county for a term of four years, with the exception of the two district judges of the county court and the prosecuting attorney, Who are elected for two years. These thirteen to seventeen officials in each county, together with the circuit judge and juries, administer not only the laws for their respective counties, but are the main agencies through which the state acts in the county. The municipal communities in Missouri are classified on the basis of population. All towns not incorporated and having less than 500 inhabitants are by statute declared villages. Should a community wish to become a fourth class city, it must have a population of at least 500 and less than 3,000; a third class city, at least 3,000 and less than 30,000; a second class city, more than 27,500 and less than 75,000. Any community of over 75,000 may become a first class city,106 The United States census statistics for 1920 show that 46.6 per cent of the population of Missouri lived in cities of 2,500 or more. Of these about 772,000 lived in St. Louis and 324,000 in Kansas City. Barring some important limitations in the constitution, a municipality in Missouri is completely the creature of the state legislature so far as making laws for it is concerned.107 The mayor is the chief executive, officer in Missouri municipalities, except in towns and villages where he is called chairman of the board of trustees. The ordinance-making body in cities of the first and second class is called the common council; in cities of the fourth class, board of aldermen; in towns and villages, 105 Const. 1875, Art. 9. 106 Sections 7610, 7611, 7612, 7613, 7614, 7621, R. S. 1919; Laws, 1921, p. 484. 107 Const. 1875, Art. 9. -26- (Page 27) board of trustees. Most municipalities have a marshal, police judge, clerk, assessor, and tax collector. From this survey of general administration some safe conclusions may be drawn. One is that the number of elective state officials, though probably too great in number, is not nearly as great as in some other states.108 There is no tendency, either, to increase the number of elective officials, unless through a compromise measure in the soon to be proposed new constitution there is created a popularly elected state board of education. The main object, however, in the creation of this board, is to get a non-elective state superintendent of schools. 109 Again, during the last twenty-five years, the number of appointive boards, bureaus, commissions, and departments has increased rapidly. There has been much overlapping of related functions. This is Obvious to all and is evidenced by a recent statement of Governor Hyde: “The state government has run to seed with commissions, boards, bureaus and appointive departments which overlap each other in jurisdiction and make for inefficiency and unnecessary expense in the conduct of the activities of the state.”110 It is clear that there has been considerable centralization and consolidation of late in the penal, eleemosynary and financial administration. It can hardly be denied that there should be further centralization and consolidation in the financial administration. There are nearly a dozen agricultural agencies which should be placed under one responsible head. The same may be said of the public welfare, inspectional and educational agencies. Again, with the administrative authorities now existing, because of the method and term of their appointments, it is next to impossible to hold them responsible to the appointive authority, which is usually the governor. Should further consolidation come, it will no doubt come as it has recently in relation to the history of the several agencies. There appears to be no tendency to increase the number of ex-officio boards. There are now seven purely ex-officio boards, namely, the board of education, board of equalization, the fund commission board, the public printing commission, the stallion registry board, and the state fair board. It would appear reasonable that an ex-officio members of a board should have special fitness for the work he is to do, but this is evident in none of these purely ex-officio boards, except in the last two mentioned, since they are all elective officials. It is observable, however, in boards like those for high 108 E. G. See Administration Chart in Butts, Alfred B., Public Administration in Mississippi. 109 File No. 11; Sections 12 and 13, Const. Convention of Missouri, 1922. 110 St. Louis Globe Democrat, Dec. 7,1922. -27- (Page 28) ways and eleemosynary institutions that the ex-officio member is an expert in his field. In most of the work being done by the many administrative organs of the state, there is need for continuous study of facts with a view to the formulation and carrying out of well thought out plans. This calls for expert service, and the persons who get into this service should get there because of merit. Missouri has no civil service examination plan, and so most of the appointive offices are filled with the political party consideration too much in mind. Loosely jointed as the system is, Professor Dodd is of the opinion that much improvement could be made were the governor not only give the power of appointment, free from senatorial advice and consent, but also given real responsibility through absolute power of removal. 111 111 Dodd, Walter F., State Government, p. 262 ff. (Page 29) CHAPTER II. FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION. I. Territorial System, 1804-1820: 1. Development of the territorial government in general. From the time when what is now Missouri became a part of the United States until it became a state of the Union, 1803-21, it passed through four phases of government (excluding the temporary military administration of Captain Amos Stoddard). By an act of 1804, the Louisiana Purchase was divided into two parts; the upper, called the District of Louisiana, was placed in charge of the governor, secretary and judges of Indiana territory.1 The next year, upon the protest of the people of the district, .it was organized into a territory of the first class, known as the territory of Louisiana, and given their own governor and judges.2 In other respects the form of government remained the same. This form remained for seven years, when the territory was advanced to the second class and became the territory of Missouri.3 This change provided for a house of representatives, elected by the voters of the territory, and a council of nine members, appointed by the President of the United States from a list of eighteen persons nominated by the territorial house of representatives. In 1816 the territory was advanced to the third and highest class. This entitled it to an elective council.4 This form continued until 1820, when Missouri really became a de facto state government. In 1821 it became legally a state.5 “The population of the District of Louisiana in 1804, exclusive of Indians,- was between six and ten thousand; in 1810, it had increased to about twenty-one thousand; in 1820, to something over sixty-six thousand. Throughout the territorial period the people were engaged largely in agricultural pursuits, with lead mining, after a primitive fashion, and trading as additional occupations. A description of the conditions in 1811 tells us that the prevailing method of exchange was barter, while peltry and lead were recognized as money. 2. Governmental needs of the people during the period. “The methods of business and the habits of life were of the simple character and on the limited scale that would be expected of a frontier people. It follows from the conditions of life in the newly organized territory that the needs of the state during this period were very limited. The functions of the government extended little further than the protection, in the narrowest sense, of life and property, the 1 Mo. Terr. Laws, pp. 1-4, Ch. 1 and 2. 2 Mo. Terr. Laws, Ch. 3. 3 Mo. Terr. Laws, Ch. 4. 4 Mo. Terr. Laws, Ch. 5. 5 Shoemaker, F. C., Missouri’s Struggle for Statehood, p. 254. -29- (Page 30) maintenance of highways, and such general duties as are inseparable from an organized society. There was little to suggest the modern complex industrial and social system that has resulted in the extension of the functions of the state to the maintenance of public schools, the regulation of railroad and express companies, the oversight of sanitary conditions, and, in general, to the protection of the public from the infringement of its social as well as of its individual rights. The early limit of state activity was the result of existing conditions which required no more, rather than of any theory as to the proper bounds of government functions. Indeed, there is ample evidence in the regulations concerning ferries and mill charges that what the community sought was a reasonable recognition of its welfare, regardless of any question as to invasion of the domain of individual freedom. “The financial operations were correspondingly limited and the financial history of this period is concerned only with, the simpler phases of revenue and expenditures. Questions concerning public debt, public improvements, and the more serious phases of revenue and expenditure did not appear until later times."6 3. Two chief ways of supplying the needs. The people of the territory, as an organized group, had two means of supplying their needs, namely, personal services and revenue. Military duty and maintenance of roads were the two chief forms of personal service.7 Those subject to military service were required to furnish their own arms and equipment.8 In the maintenance and construction of roads, the amount of service which was required of able-bodied males of full age was fixed by the act of 1806 at from two to thirty days annually, the number of days assessed depending on the amount of property owned.9 Among the earliest laws we find one providing for a revenue system.10 From this and numerous other laws, it can readily be seen what are the sources of revenue during the period. There are four, to witness, fees, licenses and taxes. Generally speaking, fines were but incidentally sources of revenue. The case was different with fees. A great deal of the work done by the government was paid for in fees. In most cases the fees were retained by the persons performing the service.11 Another source of revenue consisted of license charges. The first revenue law required ferrymen and merchants who sold goods not produced in the district to pay for licenses. To these were added 6 Hicks, Frederick C., Territorial Revenue System of Missouri, Pub. of Mo. Histor. Soc., Vol. 1, p. 26. 7 Ibid., p. 27. 8 Mo. Terr. Laws, Ch. 5. 9 Mo. Terr. Laws, Ch. 28. 10 Mo. Terr. Laws, Ch. 4, Oct. 1, 1864. ll For schedule of fees, see Missouri Terr. Laws, Ch. 45. -30- (Page 31) numbers of others later, such as keepers of public billiard tables, physicians, proprietors of unauthorized lotteries, and peddlers. “In establishing rates, the law usually either fixed a definite sum or set limits within which those charged with the administration of the law determined the amount. To what extent revenue and to what extent regulation were involved in the license charges cannot be definitely determined * * * but it is highly probable that revenue was a leading consideration in most cases.”12 The objects upon which taxes were levied were three, namely, real property, personal property, and unmarried men. The law of 1804 did not include very many items of real estate. They were, according to Hicks, “all houses in town, town lots, out lots and mansion houses in the country valued at $200 and upwards, water and windmills.” By the end of the territorial period nearly all real property was included. “The personal property taxed at first included only stock and slaves and not all of these. Of the stock, there were taxed, horses, mules, asses, and neat cattle three years old and upwards, provisions for which are found in the law of 1804 and remain throughout che period. The rates charged were usually ad valorem on real property and specific on personal property, though there were exceptions to both. “Throughout the period there was a poll tax levied on able-bodied single men possessed of limited property. In 1804 all were taxed who did not have taxable property to the amount of $400; this limit was subsequently reduced to $100 and afterwards raised to $200. The tax varied. In 1804 it was placed at from fifty cents to $2; in 1806 it was fixed at $1; in 1808 it was not to exceed $1; and in 1815 it was fixed at fifty cents.”13 4.Units of financial administration and the local financial machinery. It was noticed in Chapter I that all units of local government were creations of the commonwealth and subordinate thereto, but in the development of Missouri the districts which became the first counties antedated the organization of the territory itself. Once the territory was organized, the districts already existing were assumed as legal units. “No specific regulation of district or county boundaries was made until Governor Howard, in his proclamation of 1812, designated provisional county lines.”14 “From the first the counties occupied a prominent place in the government. They were the units through which administration was effected. Indeed, the first revenue law made provision neither for territorial revenue machinery nor even for territorial revenue.* In a 12 Hicks, Frederick C., Territorial Revenue System of Missouri, Pub. of Mo. Histor. Soc., Vol. I, p. 31. 13 Ibid., pp. 32, 33. 14 Ibid., p. 34. -31- (Page 32) study, then of the financial administration, the county is the starting point. In many cases the laws enacted by the regular legislative body of the territory made only general- regulations, leaving it to the discretion of local authorities to determine the specific provisions which should be enforced. So there was needed a local administrative body which, within the limits set by the territorial legislature, should make regulations and oversee their execution. It is evident that this portion of the administrative machinery gave considerable trouble. Frequent changes were made. No fewer than six plans were tried within the seventeen years constituting the territorial period.”15 It is at once seen that there was a need for listing and valuing property. The first revenue law and succeeding ones required property owners to supply to the sheriff the county lists of their taxable property. When these were properly made out, the next step was to determine the amount of money needed in taxes and give the lists to the collectors. Just as now, however, there was failure to hand in lists and also danger from false lists. Again, ad valorem rates necessitated valuation; hence for these reasons there was need for assessment. Just as in the general administration of finances, several assessment plans were used so several plans were used for equalizing assessments.16 During the whole of the territorial period the sheriff was collector of taxes, and save from 1806 to 1808, when the office of county treasurer existed, the sheriff had charge of the county funds until ordered by proper authorities to pay them out.17 5. Beginnings of financial administration for the territory distinct from that of counties—the territorial treasurer and auditor. A system of financial administration for the territory distinct from the county was begun in 1806, when the office of territorial treasurer was created.18 Four years later the office of territorial auditor was created. He was also ex-officio auditor of St. Louis County. Four years later, 1814, a separate auditor’s office was created for the territory.19 The treasurer and auditor were both appointed by the governor. 6. Relation between sources of local and territorial revenue. Until 1806 all revenue went into the county treasury for county purposes. In that year “twenty per centum of the whole amount of money ordered to be levied and raised in any one year in each of the said districts shall be paid by the collectors to the territorial treasurer, 15 Hicks, Frederick C., Territorial Revenue System of Missouri, Pub. of Mo. Histor. Soc., Vol I, p. 34; p. 35 for plans. 16 Hicks, Frederick C., Territorial Revenue System of Missouri, Pub. of Mo. Histor, Soc., Vol. I, pp. 36, 37. 17 Ibid., p. 37. 18 Mo. Territorial Laws, Ch. 21. 19 Ibid., Chapters 79 and 107. -32- (Page 33) to defray the territorial expenses.”20 It is Professor Hicks’ opinion that up to about 18l5, territorial revenue was of incidental importance only. “The entire revenue system was revised in 1815, and at that time the sources of revenue for the territory and the county were almost entirely separated. Only slaves remained an object of taxation common to both.”21 Generally speaking, license charges, special fees and fines, and taxes op certain classes of real estate were assigned to the territorial revenue, while taxes on certain kinds of personal property and unmarried men were assigned to the county revenue. 7.Conclusion. “The early revenue system, compared with that existing today, presents many points of difference. Of these, three are especially noteworthy: there was no general property tax; there was no attempt to tax intangible personal property; and there was a separation of territorial and local sources of revenue. The early system confined itself to real property and tangible personality. The explanation of this is apparent. Intangible personality formed a comparatively insignificant part of the property. It is doubtful if there were any stocks and bonds, at least during most of the period, and the amount of the mortgage indebtedness must have been small.”22 It may be said in conclusion that the territorial revenue system was very well suited to the conditions of the period. II. System Under the First Constitution, 1820-1865: 1. Financial provisions of the Constitution of 1820. It is not necessary in this study to say anything concerning the exciting events surrounding the admission of Missouri to the Union. The constitution adopted in 1820 remained the organic law of the state until 1865. During this period of forty-five years, a number of amendments were made, and parts of the constitution were really suspended for a time by the state conventions meeting in 1861, 1862, and 1863.23 Few of these concerned finances. In fact, Missouri’s first constitution had little to say about finances, but what it did say is worthy of note. A number of officials who had been, and continued, carrying out revenue laws were provided for:—“A state treasurer shall be biennially appointed by a joint vote of the two houses of the general assembly, who shall keep his office at the seat of government”;24 “There shall be an auditor of public accounts whom the governor by and with the advice and consent of the senate shall appoint. He shall continue in office four years, and shall perform 20 Ibid., Ch. 20, Sect. 26. 21 Hicks, Frederick C., Territorial Revenue System of Missouri, Pub. of Mo. Histor. Soc., Vol. I, p. 38; Mo. Terr. Laws, Ch. 140. 22 Hicks, Frederick C., Territorial Revenue System of Missouri, Pub. of Mo. Histor. Soc., Vol. I, p. 38. 23 Proceedings of Convention, Appendix, p. 3 ff. 24 Const. 1820, Art. 3, Sect. 31. —33— (Page 34) such duties as may be prescribed by law. His office shall be kept at the seat of government.”25 There was to be in each county a sheriff elected every two years by the voters of the county unless the general assembly provided otherwise. An amendment to the constitution, ratified by the general assembly at its session of 1850-1851, provided for the popular election of both the treasurer and auditor of the state for a four-year term.26 There were also certain limitations on the power of taxation. Article 10 provided that no tax should be levied on the property of the United States nor should lands belonging to persons outside the limits of the state ever be taxed higher than the lands belonging to persons residing within the state. Again, “that the general great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare . . . that all property subject to taxation in this state shall be taxed in proportion to its value.”27 The general assembly was obligated to preserve from waste and damage lands granted by the United States for the use of schools in each township and apply the funds in strict conformity with the objects of the grant. The lands left by the United States government and funds accruing from the same for the support of the university were to be looked after carefully.28 Internal improvements were to be encouraged by the general assembly. Roads and navigable waters are mentioned specifically, and the right to appropriate funds for these objects is given.29 Permissive power is given the legislature to incorporate one banking company but no more. This bank was limited to five branches, its capital stock was never to exceed five millions of dollars, and at least one-half of this amount was to be reserved for the use of the state.30 In the matter of expenditure of money, no money was to be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of an appropriation made by law, and an accurate account of the receipts and expenditures of public money was to be made annually.31 No limitation was placed on the debt contracting power of the legislature until 1858. By a constitutional amendment the maximum limit was then placed at thirty millions of dollars.32 2.The first revenue act. The first revenue act of the state was passed in 1820.33 It made some chages in the system then in operation in the territory. The law provided for a tax on banks of one-quarter of one per cent on the 25 Const. 1820, Art. 4, Sect. 12. 26 R. S. 1855, p. 95. 27 Const. 1820, Art. 13, Sect. 19. 28 Const. 1820, Art. 6. 29 Const. 1820, Art 7. 30 Const. 1820, Art. 8. 31 Const. 1820, Art. 3, Sect. 31. 32 Laws, 1858-59, p. 3. 33 Mo. Terr. Laws, p. 730. -34- (Page 35) whole amount of the capital stock. This is the first corporation tax in Missouri. The amount of the tax on each banking company was ascertained by the state auditor. The amount was certified by the auditor to the sheriff of the county where the banking corporation was located. He notified the company and the latter paid the tax directly to the state treasurer. A clearer view of the developments which follow will be had if the essential features of the first revenue act are sketched out. The objects taxed are named definitely and the rate given on each. This rate was usually ad valorem, though the tax on bachelors was an exception.34 It was the duty of the several county courts to appoint annually in their respective counties one assessor and one collector, one person could not serve as both for the same year.35 It was made the duty of each assessor to go to “every part of his county” and cause to be delivered to himself written lists, on oath or affirmation, of property taxable by law. The property was to be listed as of January 1st preceding the assessment and the lists had to be in by the succeeding June 1st. In case an individual did not carry out the provisions of the law, it was the duty of the assessor to make out the lists and value the taxable property. Penalties were imposed on individuals who disobeyed or did not carry out the law. Once the lists were delivered to the assessor, it was his duty to value each article at its worth in money, assess the tax thereon, and deliver a certificate specifying the value of each item to each person delivering a list. When the above work of the assessor was done, he prepared in alphabetical order two general lists of names of persons having taxable property, one of the residents of the county and the other of the non-residents, together with the value and assessment of their property. These general lists were then delivered to the clerk of the county court on or before the first of July in every year. The county court was empowered to hear appeals on assessments made by the assessor and correct and change what he had done—in other words, they formed a board of equalization as among the property of individuals. Once the county court had acted as an appeal body, it ordered triplicate general lists made out by its clerk. One was sent to the state auditor, one was delivered to the collector of the county, and another was kept in the office of the county clerk. Before entering upon his duties, the collector had to give a bond, approved by the county court, in double the amount of taxes he was 34 The tax on bachelors was abolished in 1822 and_ a poll tax levied on each free male inhabitant. The tax varied from time to time—Mo. Terr Laws, 1, p. 1013. 35 The county court was composed of three members appointed by the governor for terms of four years. See Terr. Laws. Ch. 277. —35— (Page 36) to collect. In case of collection on the bond, the money was to go to the state auditor. The collector then had to sign three receipts, each showing the gross amount of taxes to be collected on each object of taxation in the county. One remained in the county clerk’s office, one was sent to the state auditor, and the other to the state treasurer. The law gave a perpetual lien on all lands, houses and lots, made taxable for the payment of taxes and arrearages of taxes. Sele of the property for taxes was permitted. Most of the money coming from fines, fees and forfeitures was paid over by the clerks of the several courts of record to the county collector, though some of these which went to the sheriff were paid directly to the state treasurer. It was the duty of the several collectors and sheriffs within the state to pay over, on the first Mondays of June and December, to the state treasurer all moneys due the state. The tfeasurer receipted these officials and sent a duplicate of the receipt to the state auditor. In the matter of county revenue, the county courts were empowered “to levy and cause to be collected in their respective counties, such taxes as shall from titne to time be necessary for defraying county expenses, on all property made taxable by law for state purposes; provided that the said county tax shall never exceed fifty per centum of the amount of tax imposed by law on the same objects in any one year.”36 It was the duty of the county court to estimate the amount of money needed during each year. The county collector collected the county taxes in the same way he did the state taxes. He was placed under bond by the county court and penalties were fixed for his not carrying out the law. The money collected for the county was turned over to the county clerk, who was ex-officio treasurer of the county. Thus early in the state’s history there was rounded into* form much of the framework of the financial administration of today. There was no general property tax, but the legislature stated in the law what were the objects of taxation. The legislature fixed the rate for state purposes on the principle of taxing the different objects of taxation at different rates, leaving to the county court the power to fix the county rate with the “fifty per centum” limitation. The assessment and collection of taxes, save the bank tax, is made by local Officials with practically no provision for state supervision or control. Although license charges, special fees and fines, as in the territorial period, are assigned to the state revenue, all property made taxable for state purposes is also taxable for county purposes. So, differing from the territorial period, the sources of most of the revenue for both state and county are the same. It is seen, too, that the assessor, as he is today, was required to value each article at its 36 In 1831 this was raised to one hundred percentum, in order that the counties might pay Off their debt. Terr. Laws, 1, p. 259. —36— (Page 37) money value, and that the work of the assessor, as it is today, was reviewed by a higher local authority. As today, also, the state’s money went to the state treasurer, to be paid out by him only through appropriation by the legislature and an order from the state auditor and the county’s money through an order by the county court to the county treasurer. 3.General financial condition of the state in 1820—the loan office experiment. Although the population in Missouri had increased rather rapidly from 1804 to 1820 (from about 10,000 to 66,000), the years just following her admission were marked by financial depression. This is evidenced by Governor McNair’s message of June 6, 1821.37 “It has been heretofore impossible to establish a regular system of finance and to give to our resources their utmost productive quality. This cause, together with the enlargement of the expenses made necessary by the change and organization of the government, has rendered the receipts of the treasury inadequate to its necessary disbursements.”38 There was scarcity of sound currency, and there were no adequate banking facilities. It was undoubtedly with a view to relieving the financial distress that the legislature established loan offices.39 “In 1821 the general assembly passed the famous loan certificate act, authorizing the officers of the treasury to issue certificates to the amount of two hundred thousand dollars of denominations from ten dollars to fifty cents, which were receivable at the treasury in payment of taxes and moneys due to the state and were payable to the officers of the state for salaries and were also loaned to the citizens on mortgages or on personal security. These certificates were held by the United States Supreme Court to be bills of credit and therefore prohibited by the constitution of the United States.40 One-tenth of the certificates were redeemed each year by the terms of the act, so that when the case was finally decided in the Supreme Court of the United States, all of them had been redeemed. The court held, reversing the Supreme Court of Missouri, that the invalidity of the certificate was a good defense to a note given in consideration of a loan of the same. It was urged that they were not made legal tender, but the court held that was not an essential quality of bills of credit, although it might be their most pernicious quality.”41 37 Missouri Gazette and Public Advertiser, p. 443. 38 The total territorial appropriations for 1818, 1819 and a part of 1820 were about $22,280, while the state appropriations for the remainder of 1820 and a part of 1821 were about $49,250. Terr. Laws, pp. 625, 775. 39 Terr. Laws, 1, p. 760. 40 Craig v. Missouri, 4 Peters 410. 41 Judson, F. N., Law and Practice of Taxation in Missouri, p. 19. —37— (Page 38) 4. Development of financial administration, 1820-1865: a. Personal services and sources of revenue. Throughout most of the period from 1820 to 1865 the main forms of personal service, in the militia and on the roads, continued in a very similar way to the territorial period. Persons subject to service on the roads were subject to fine in case they failed to comply with the law42. In the general road act of 1835 it is provided that “all able-bodied male inhabitants over the age of eighteen years and under the age of forty-five years having resided in this state three months and in the district one month, shall work on roads and public highways at least two days in each year.” All persons, non-residents included, being the owners of any real estate, were to pay a road tax on the same not exceeding one-half of the state tax chargeable on the same. All such persons, however, could discharge such tax by working on the roads at the rate of seventy-five cents a day.43 The general revenue act of 1855 permitted the service to be paid for in money.44 The sources of revenue for the period under the constitution of 1820 are practically the same at the beginning as in the territorial period, namely, fines, fees, licenses and taxes, but during the period there is an extension of these sources. This is but natural when the increasing population and wealth and changes in social conditions are noticed.45 In 1833 a general corporation tax law was passed.46 “Railroads were introduced in the state during this period, the first charters being granted in 1837; but no railroads wefe built until 1850, and no general system of railroad taxation appears to have been inaugurated until after the adoption of the constitution of 1865, that is, in 1871. Prior to this date, railroads were taxed like other incorporated companies, except where the general charter of the railroad prescribed a different method. In some cases these special charters provided exemption from taxation for a term of years.47 In 1835 license taxation was extended and a general levy of one-eighth of one per cent was placed on houses and improvements.48 A law of 1841 included money and notes as taxable property.49 At the same time, in addition to the license taxes, an ad valorem tax was placed on all money brokers and exchange dealers, on all bills of ex 42 Terr. Laws 1, p. 955. 43 R. S. 1835, p. 546. 44 R. S. 1855, Ch. 137. 45 Population in 1820 was 66,586; in 1860, 1,182,012; in his message of Jan. 3, 1861, Governor Jackson estimated the value of slaves at $100,000,000. 46 Terr. Laws, 2, p. 377. 47 Judson, P. N., Law and Practice of Taxation in Missouri, p. 23. 48 R. S. 1835, p. 528. 49 Laws, 1841, p. 125. —38— (Page 39) change, notes, bonds and other securities, and on all money on hand, taken, kept, or negotiated in their business as such “other than such which is the property of citizens of the state except themselves.” The same law levied a tax upon the property of every corporation “over and above its capital stock." It was made the duty of the president of the company to deliver to the assessor a list of all shares of stock in the company. The tax assessed was paid by the company, and the latter had the right to recover from the owner the tax paid. The collector could sell the stock of the company in case the tax was not paid. Not only are notes, bills of exchange, bonds and money included in the revised revenue law of 1845, but also household furniture “to include silver and gold plate kept for use or ornament, used by any one family, above the value of two hundred dollars.”50 There had been from the beginning of the period a uniform license tax on merchants, but during the period the legislature not only provided for a graduated license tax but an ad valorem tax on their goods. This ad valorem tax was finally declared unconstitutional.51 In many cases farmers were exempted from this license tax and still are.52 The range of license taxes was extended in 1847 to include lawyers, doctors and peddlers of pills, graduated for the first two and uniform for the last.53 By the same act, just referred to, in addition to the poll tax, an income tax of one per cent was levied on all salaries. These taxes applied to both public officials and private individuals, even including the compensation of the members of the legislature, but they were to be used for state purposes only. The wages or salaries of farm laborers were exempted. The tax on lawyers was contested, but was held constitutional. However, the license taxes on lawyers, doctors, and on salaries were soon repealed.54 The last general revenue law of the state before the constitution of 1865 went into operation was passed in 1861.55 This act shows excellently the growth in varied forms of wealth since 1820. Not only is there an enumeration of many more classes of personal property, but there are a number of kinds of property declared exempt from taxation, such as property of the United States, of the state, cities, counties, and schoolhouses. In fact, the objects taxed are so numerous and all inclusive, and the objects exempted so definitely stated, that it must have been relatively easy for the constitution makers of 1865 to establish the principle of the general property tax. 50 R. S. 1845, p. 927. 51 Laws, 1849, p. 68; Judson, F. N., Law and Practice of Taxation in Missouri, p. 31. 52 See Laws of 1847, p. 96; R. S. 1919, Sect. 13093. 53 Laws, 1847, p. 123. 54 Simmons v. State, 12 Mo. 268; Laws, 1849, p. 112; Laws, 1851, p. 251. 55 Laws, 1861, p. 61. —39— (Page 40) b. Extension of purposes for which revenue was used. Along with the extension of the sources of taxation came, as might be expected, an extension in the uses of the revenue. One of the most important concerned the schools. The constitution of 1820 not only obligated the legislature to look after the school lands and funds, but said plainly “one school or more shall be established in each township as soon as practicable and necessary, where the poor shall be taught gratis.”56 The first school law, 1825, made every congressional township a school district, gave permissive power to the people of the district to organize for school purposes, and provided that the proceeds from the sale of the sixteenth section of land in each township should be set aside for the benefit of the township. The fund was to be administered by the county court until the district was organized.57 The administration of the funds of the organized school district was in the hands of a board of five trustees who were given the power to divide the district into precincts. If the expenses of the school in each precinct exceeded the appropriation by the board, the latter, on the petition of two-thirds of the householders of the precinct, could supply the deficiency by levying a tax on those in the precinct who sent pupils to the school in proportion to the number of pupils sent. In 1835 a law provided for making up the deficit in a precinct in a similar way.58 Up to 1839 the school funds were administered on the theory that they would be sufficient to maintain schools for those who were unable to pay, and as a consequence local taxation for schools developed slowly.59 In that year both a state and county school fund was established. The former consisted of moneys deposited with the state, according to an act of Congress passed June 23, 1836, the proceeds of the saline lands and all lands vested in the state by escheat or by purchase or forfeiture for taxes; the latter to consist of money paid into the county coming from fines, penalties and forfeitures. Each congressional township was kept as a school district, and the sixteenth section fund was administered by the county court of the county.60 Provisions were made, also, for continuing to have the congressional township divided into more than one school district, the inhabitants of each district having the privilege of voting a school tax on themselves of not to exceed fifty per cent of the state taxes for “purchasing sites, erecting school buildings and furnishing the same.” The law also contains a provision for apportioning the school moneys to the various school districts under the condition 56 Art. 6, Sect. 1. 57 R. S. 1825, 2, p. 711. 58 R. S. 1835, p. 561. 59 Judson, F. N., Law and Practice of Taxation in Missouri, p. 36. 60 Laws, 1839, p. 112. —40— (Page 41) that the school in each be kept open at least three months in the year and in charge of a qualified teacher. In 1853 a law was passed providing “that hereafter twenty-five per centum of the state revenue shall be set apart and become state school moneys, and shall be distributed annually for organized school townships.”61. The amount of money subject to apportionment in 1860 was slightly over $260,000.62 The year preceding nearly $200,000 was raised by the several districts to erect school buildings.63 It was not until 1864 that the trustees of a school district were permitted to levy a district tax for the support of the school. This was not to exceed, in any one year, one hundred and fifty dollars in a district.64 Thus we see the beginning of local taxation for school support. A survey of a part of the data in the state auditor’s report for the year 1860 gives a fair indication of the sources and relative alnounts of revenue from these various sources for state purposes. There are the various licenses from which a total revenue of about $136,000 was derived in the fiscal year of 1860. They were as follows: Merchants’ license, dramshop license, auction license, peddlers’ license, clock peddlers’ license, ferry license, billiard license, money brokers’ license, and foreign agency license. There were, in round numbers, 160,000 persons who paid an aggregate of $60,000 in poll taxes; somewhat over 29,500,000 acres of land valued at nearly $233,000,000, which returned taxes of almost $460,000; slightly over 119,000 town lots, valued at nearly $18,000,000, which returned taxes of about $38,000. There were nearly 112,000 slaves, valued at about $44,182,000, upon which were paid slightly over $88,000 in taxes; taxes on money, bonds and notes brought in about $68,000; valuation of personal property, about $41,000,000, upon which were paid taxes of nearly $82,000. This same report of 1860 of the state auditor’s gives clear evidence, too, of the increased number of uses for revenue, especially in the various funds. There are funds for building the capitol, militia, state library, interest, road and canal, saline, internal improvement, state lunatic asylum, state school moneys, and redemption of lands. The state also had the seminary fund, the state school fund, and outright stocks invested in the bank of the state of Missouri to the amount of $1,103,300. Before the end of the period, the state stood back of railroad bonds to the amount of $23,701,000. The treasurer’s report for the years 1859 and 1860 is still further evidence of the extended uses of state money. Money is expended not only on the civil officers and the general assembly, but for assessing and collecting the revenue, criminal cases, printing laws and journals and distributing the same, copying laws and journals, pub 61 Laws, 1858, p. 151. 62 State Superintendent’s Report, 1860, p. 265. 63 Ibid., p. 263. 64 Laws, 1864, p. 104. —41— (Page 42) lishing decisions of the supreme court, taking the census, deaf and dumb asylum, institute for the blind, geological survey, district agricultural societies, regulating banks, and the penitentiary. c. Development of local taxation. This same period also sees the widening of local taxation and the uses of public money. This has been noticed in connection with rates for schoolhouses and their support, and also counties being allowed by the legislature to make their rates equal to the state rates. During this period, also, special assessments for local improvements began to be made. It was contended that these kinds of local assessments violated the state constitution on the ground that all property subjected to taxation was to be taxed in proportion to its value. The supreme court of the state, however, did not agree with these contentions.65 d. Rates of taxation. From 1820 to 1865 the rates of taxation for both state and local purposes varied, the latter always bearing a certain fixed ratio to the former. This whole matter of rates is tersely summarized by Judson as follows:66 “The first levy under the state organization was twenty-five cents on every one hundred dollars, and counties were authorized to levy fifty per cent of this rate. In 1831 the rate was reduced to sixteen and two-thirds cents, and in 1837, to twelve and one-half cents. At this time, however, the county tax was limited to the same rate as the state tax. In 1844 the rate was increased again to sixteen and two-thirds cents, and the county tax was limited to,double this rate, that is, to thirty-three and one-third cents. The county court of St. Louis county, however, was empowered to impose an additional tax of one-twentieth of one per cent in order to pay jurors summoned in several courts of the county. In 1855 the rate of state taxation was twenty cents on the hundred dollars and the county tax remained unchanged, that is, at forty cents on the one hundred dollars, except in St. Louis county. These rates continued throughout the period except when increased during the Civil War." e. Financial administrative machinery. The financial administrative machinery at the end of the period"67 is essentially the same in outline as at the beginning. Assessments were made by the county assessor, who was elected by the voters of the county for a term of two years.68 The county court, composed of three members, elected by the voters of each county for terms of six years, heard and determined appeals from the assess 65 Crow v. State, 14 Mo. 237; Newby v. Platte Co., 25 Mo. 258. 66 Judson, F. N., Law and Practice of Taxation in Missouri, p. 38. 67 1820-1865. 68 Laws, 1861, p. 64. —42— (Page 43) ments by the assessor.69 A sheriff elected for a term of two years by the voters of each county was ex-officio collector. The positions of the state auditor and state treasurer, now popularly elected, as has been noticed, were about the same as at the beginning of the period. An examination of everything said about finance by the various governors of the period in their messages shows that they felt themselves acutely responsible for the way the financial administration was carried on. Most of the time they must have wielded a considerable influence, and so it is germane to our subject to discuss briefly some of the financial problems of the period as revealed in these messages. f. Some of the problems of the period as shown by the messages of the governors. A number of problems arose in connection with the assessment and collection of taxes. In his message of November 21, 1826, Governor Miller mentions that the state revenue has decreased since 1821 while the population and taxable wealth have greatly increased. He stated that there were 2,290,579 acres of land subject to taxation whereas only 1,955,807 acres are assessed. Due to the fact that the owner was supposed to deliver his tax list to the assessor, he thinks it is the non-resident land owner who has largely escaped. To remedy this, he suggests that a list of all taxable lands be kept in the state auditor’s office, and that the auditor send each year a list of such to the assessors of the several counties.70 Governor Dunklin, in his message of November 18, 1834, points out that the expenses for collecting the taxes are too high, and cites figures to prove his contention. He recommends that the sheriff be both' the assessor and collector and that he be paid for his work exclusively by his county. Regarding the inequality in taxation, he said: “I find it difficult to suggest a suitable remedy for the present inequality in the burden of taxes, produced by such a variety of opinion in the assessors as regards the value of the property. By the constitution, all property must be taxed according to its value, and, if that is fixed by the assessor in each county, there may be as many prices to the same species of property as there are counties. Lands in one county capable of producing sixty bushels of corn per acre, may be assessed at fifty cents; while lands in another, no ways superior either in fertility of soil or proximity to market, may be rated at twenty times that price.” To remedy this inequality, he suggests that the state auditor be required to make an estimate, derived from licenses and direct taxes, of the sum needed by the state to defray its expenses, and that he be directed to “make an apportionment of the amount among the several counties every year, conformably to some equitable basis to 69 R. S. 1855, p. 534; Laws, 1861, p. 69. 70 Senate Journal, 1826, p. 11. —43— (Page 44) be fixed by law.” He further suggests that in making the apportionment the basis might be the same as that for direct taxes.71 Governor Dunklin’s suggestions do not seem to have brought relief, since Governor Boggs, in a message in 1836, said: “In some counties lands of the same quality are valued fifty or one hundred times higher than in other counties. I would suggest, if the present system is continued, that the assessor be required to swear every person owning taxable property, both as to the amount and value, estimated at what he could get for it in cash.”72 In 1842 Governor Reynolds called attention to a difficulty in collecting taxes. There were over two million acres of land upon which delinquent taxes were due. Most of the owners resided out of the state. This land could become forfeited to the state for nonpayment of taxes, but as soon as forfeited it was subject to taxation for county purposes. Added to this, the fact that there was no provision for the sale of the lands for taxes caused the state to find itself on the homs of a dilemma.73 About a decade after this Governor Price noted a problem arising in connection with the assessment and collection of taxes. As the law stood, the compensation of the assessor depended upon the number of people assessed. The chief guide in getting the names of owners was frpm the tax book of the previous year. “The change of ownership occasions the assessment of the same property twice or thrice for the same year. The collector is charged with the whole amount of taxes assessed, from which it often happens, after the real owner has paid the taxes, that the lands are sold in the name of a former one.”74 Thrice noted, as other governors had done, the great inequalities in the assessment of lands. He suggested, too, as other governors had done, that lands be numerically listed, so that injustice in the payment of taxes and sale of land for delinquent taxes be lessened.75 Many times, during the period from 1820 to 1865, the state was in peed of more funds than were being received. There was a small floating debt throughout the period. Another kind of debt was in the form q!* bonds invested in the Bank of the State of Missouri, established in 1837, and loans to the railroads in the early fifties; and still another kind was caused by money borrowed from special funds of the state itself. “At this point it will be well to notice three peculiar sources of income of the commonwealth, created by the enabling act and specially set apart by the constitution of 1820, for they play an important part in the history of the commonwealth debt: (1) Saline Fund (after 1837 the School Fund), the 71 Senate Journal, 1834, p. 14. 72 Senate Journal, 1836, p. 16. 73 Senate Journal, 1842, pp. 24, 25. 74 Senate Journal, 1854, p. 16. 75 Senate Journal, 1854, p. 242. —44— (Page 45) proceeds of twelve salt springs and the six sections of land adjacent to each; (2) Three Per Cent Fund (later the Road and Canal Fund), three-fifths of the five per cent of the net proceeds of the sale of public lands in the commonwealth, all of which was to be used for internal improvements—two per cent applied by the United States to roads leading to Missouri and three per cent by the commonwealth on its own highways and future canals; and (3) Seminary Fund, the proceeds of the sale of two townships of land to be used for school purposes. These three items of revenue are connected with the debt of Missouri only in that their funds were often borrowed to meet demands on the commonwealth—his sort of indebtedness (one hand owing to the other) Was common in the early history of the commonwealth. For example, an act of February 13, 1833, authorized the governor to buy in the commonwealth debt (provided that he could get it at par) and to pay for it by borrowing at six per cent from the saline and seminary funds. The same act also empowered him to meet any demands on the commonwealth which exceeded the regular revenue by a loan from these funds at six per cent; this, however, had been done previous to this act”76 Governor Dunklin in his message of November 18, 1834, speaks briefly of the seminary and saline funds. At that time these two funds together amounted to nearly $90,000, about $57,000 of which had been borrowed by the state.77 In his message of January 14, 1835, this same governor points out that he thinks the best way to invest these funds would be to charter a bank of discount and deposit, “extending to it the usual privileges of dealing in money.”78 Soon after this these funds were invested in the stock of the Bank of the State of Missouri. As the value of the stock fluctuated, so did the returns and value of these funds.79 The relation of the state to banking institutions is of no mean importance during this period. It has been noticed that in 1835 Governor Dunklin advocated the investing of the school funds in a bank of discount and deposit. The Bank of the State of Missouri was chartered in 1837.80 Governor Boggs, in his message of November 20, 1838, has considerable to say about the newly established bank. It “commenced its operations but a short time previous to the general suspension of specie payments by the banks throughout the Union. This circumstance precluded the possibility of its rendering that aid to the country which its friends so generally anticipated at the time of its charter.” However, “The institution has maintained its credit unimpaired, and 76 McCulloch, A. J., The Loan Office Experiment in Missouri, p. 14; Ibid, p. 14, for summary of debt of Missouri, 1826-1836. 77 Senate Journal, 1834, p. 12. 78 Senate Journal, 1835, p. 167. 79 Governor M. M. Marmaduke considered this a bad investment of these funds; Senate Journal, 1844, p. 25. 80 Laws, 1837, pp. 11-24. —45— (Page 46) now stands among the first of the kind in the Union, and may be considered as in successful operation.”81 A number of changes in the bank law were suggested in this message. A message of Governor Reynolds’ in 1842 not only indicates that the state had a very loose control over the various banking institutions, but that the bank of the state was not above adverse criticism. In apparent disgust, he said: “The power of establishing banks and authorizing the issue of paper currency has been regarded, hitherto, as pertaining to the sovereignty of the state, but it seems now to be considered, by those regardless of the laws and of the constitution, as incident to the sovereignty of county courts and town corporations. . . . I regret to say that, in the introduction and circulation of depreciated paper, the Bank of the State of Missouri is not without blame.”82 Two years later Governor Marmaduke points out that the small dividends declared by the bank have seriously impaired the benefits which should have come to the schools.83 Governor Edwards’ criticisms of the bank are vitriolic—“In the wisdom, prudence and patriotism of the bank, if we judge the future by the past, but little confidence can be reposed.”84 Governor King, in his message of January 3, 1851, is not,so bitter in his criticisms, but does “recommend such measures as will entirely disconnect the state” from the bank.85 Three years later Governor Price pointed out the difficulties in not rechartering the bank after its charter expired in 1857. The legislature acted in 1855 and extended the term of the charter to 1861.86 In a message of 1856, Price recommended the still further extension of the charter of the bank in the event of the rejection of a then pending amendment to the constitution providing for what soon became known as a free banking system. This amendment was accepted.87 An extensive banking act was therefore passed in 1857.88 That the workings of this law were imperfect is evidenced by Governor H. Jackson’s message in 1857.89 He recommended that some one of the banks in St. Louis be made a clearing house in which all the banks and branches should keep a sufficiency of means to protect their issues at par value; that all banks should be required to publish their weekly statements on the same day, and to show the amount due to depositors and their discounts; that it should be the duty of the bank commissioners, whenever a bank or a branch 81 Senate Journal, 1838, p. 19. 82 Senate Journal, 1842, pp. 18, 19. 83 Senate Journal, 1844, p. 24. 84 Senate Journal, 1848, p. 23. 85 Senate Journal, 1851, p. 23. 86 Senate Journal, 1854, p. 14; Laws, 1855, Adj. Sess., p. 13. 87 Laws, 1855, p. 4; Laws, 1857, p. 6; Senate Journal, 1856-57, p. 17. 88 Laws, 1857, p. 14. 89 Senate Journal, Adj. Sess. 1857, p. 8. -46- (Page 47) bank failed, to redeem its circulation at the counter of the clearing house. The constitutional amendment and new banking law of 1857 indicate clearly that the people of the state wished their government to withdraw from the banking business but at the same time to exercise a rather rigid supervision and control over private banks. Probably nothing had so driven these ideas home as the condition from time to time of the circulating medium. In 1842 Governor Reynolds spoke strongly on the absence of a sound circulating medium, due to wildcat banks and incorporations.90 The state was flooded with depreciated currency from other states. Two years from that time conditions had improved considerably, according to Governor Marmaduke. He said depreciated money from other states had ceased to circulate.91 Nearly a decade later, however, Governor Price pointed out that the state was again flooded with depreciated paper money from other states. 92 It is hard to measure the effects of the banking act of 1857 upon the mediums of exchange. It was Governor Stewart’s opinion, October 22, 1857, that we had entered upon an enlarged but safe system of banking, but he thought the financial difficulties of the country would check progress for the time.93 Speaking a few days later, the governor noted the general suspension of specie payments, but held that the banks had kept within the limits of what has been considered heretofore legitimate rules, and that it was only because the banks formed one of the general system co-extensive with the Union that they failed.94 The banks soon resumed specie payments, but were forced to suspend again the latter part of 1860.95 “In doing this they only conformed to the action of the banks of other states.” The governor advocated that the banks be excused from the penalties of suspension and the same course was pursued by his successor, Governor C. P. Jackson.96 Jackson held it “to be one of the most important duties of the government to secure to its citizens a sound circulating medium.” This view was in thorough accord with the constitutional amendment of 1857 which provided that any bank established by the legislature should “be based on specie capital, and made liable to redeem its issues in gold and silver.” Neither excellent constitutional law nor well-framed words of the governor could, however, weather the storms of the Civil War. g. Conclusion. Surveying the period as a whole from 1820 to 1865, it may be 90 Senate Journal, 1842, p. 16. 91 Senate Journal, 1844, p. 15. 92 Senate Journal, 1858, p. 242. 93 Senate Journal, 1857, Adj. Sess., p. 24. 94 Senate Journal, 1857, Adj. Sess., p. 64. 95 Senate Journal, 1860-1861, p. 35. 96 Senate Journal, 1860-61, p. 54. —47— (Page 48) safely said that the financial administration of the state was carried on in rather a careful, conservative way. There were faults in the assessment and collection of taxes, in the handling of the state’s special funds, in the management of banks and corporations, and in connection with the circulating medium, but these faults were detected and remedies sought. If the state auditor’s report may be taken as a fair guide, the most crying needs for corrections in the financial administration, at the end of this period, were found in connection with the assessment, levy, and collection of taxes. He remarked: “If, instead of levying three distinct taxes, as at present, the amounts were consolidated, the amount realized by the state would be greater, the operation of the law more equal, the labors of clerks, assessors and collectors greatly simplified, and the duties of this office now very arduous would be materially lightened. The auditor is now required to make three separate and distinct settlements with every collector in the state, whereas, were the different rates of taxation consolidated, he would have but one settlement to make with each. Let the whole amount, say thirty-two cents (the rate is now thirty-one and one-sixth cents) upon one hundred dollars, be assessed and collected. Let the collectors make their settlement with the auditor, and when the revenue is paid in, the auditor can make the necessary apportionments (as is done at present for the school fund) and place them to the different funds. “Under the operation of the present law, the taxes for the benefit of interest and asylum funds are not equally assessed and collected in the various counties of the state. In the last two years several counties have failed to pay the interest and asylum fund tax.”97 The auditor further suggested, should the changes suggested above be made, that “a provision be adopted in regard to licenses, requiring the levying of the same rate of taxation upon all descriptions of licenses, as upon other property.” One seeks in vain for any successful remedies correcting the marked inequality of assessments as among the several counties of the state. In the assessment and collection of taxes, there is found little superintending control on the part of the state. The popular election of most of the tax officials at the end of the period is in marked contrast to the system of appointment by central authorities at the beginning, and no doubt helped to further decentralize the financial administration. III. System Under the Second Constitution, 1865-1875: 1. Financial provisions of the Constitution of 1865. The constitution of 1865 was declared in force July 4, 1865, by Governor Fletcher.98 Missouri was no longer a slave state, but the sufferings of the Civil War were evident. The assessed taxable wealth of the state in 1865 was nearly $262,355,000, over $30,000,000 less than 97 Auditor’s Report, 1861, p. 29 ff. 98 Note on Const. 1865, R, S. 1865. —43— (Page 49) in 1860. Recovery was on, however, before the war closed. Immigration began again.99 The census report shows that Missouri increased in population during the decade from 1860 to 1870 by over 500,000. The state prospered materially after the Civil War. \ The constitution of 1865 made practically no changes in the financial administrative machinery which obtained just before its adoption. The constitution made provision for a state auditor and state treasurer, elected by the voters of the state for terms of two years. A sheriff for each county, elected by the voters thereof for two years, was provided for.100 There was a provision similar to one in the constitution of 1820, “that all property subject to taxation ought to be taxed in proportion to its value.”101 Furthermore, the general assembly was forbidden “exempting any property of any named person or corporation from taxation.”102 This last provision was reenforced by another section which read as follows: “No property, real or personal, shall be exempt from taxation, except such as may be used exclusively for public schools and such as may belong to the United States, to this state, to counties or to municipal corporations within this state.”103 Heretofore the kinds of property to be taxed had been specifically named; in 1865 the principle was that taxes should be levied on all property, real and personal. This principle has not been changed since 1865. There were drastic financial limitations on banks, corporations and individuals; all were forbidden issuing anything which circulated as money. Charters of private corporations were not to be revived or re-enacted, but the legislature was obliged at its first session to enact laws enabling any of the existing banks of issue to reorganize as national banks under the act of congress, and provide for the sale of stock owned by the state in the Bank of the State of Missouri. Private corporations could be formed only under general laws.104 As an example, the school fund could be in United States bonds. The financial provisions on education were much more definitely drawn than in the constitution of 1820.105 In the matter of drawing money from the treasury, there were the same limitations as in the constitution of 1820.106 As might be expected, definite provisions were made concerning the credit of the state, though no limitation was placed on the debt contracting power of the government. “The credit of the state shall 99 Judson, F. N., Law and Practice of Taxation in Missouri, p. 51. 100 Const. 1865, Art. 5, Sects. 16 and 22; Art. 13, Sect. 8. 101 Const. 1865, Art. 1, Sect. 30; Life Association of America v. Assessors, 49 Mo. 513. 102 Const. 1865, Art. 4, Sect. 27. 103 Ibid., Art. 11, Sect. 16. 104 Const. 1865, Art. 8. 105 Const. 1865, Art. 9. 106 Const. 1865, Art. 11, Sect. 6. —49— (Page 50) not be given or loaned in aid of any person, association or corporation; nor shall the state hereafter become a stockholder in any corporation or association except for the purpose of securing loans heretofore extended to certain railroad corporations by the state.” An apparent rigid limitation was also placed on the debt contracting powers of counties, cities and towns. “The general assembly shall not authorize any county, city or town to become a stockholder in or to loan its credit to any company, association, or corporation, unless two-thirds of the qualified voters of such county, city or town, at a regular or special election to be held therein, shall assent thereto.”107 Based on this permissive rule in the constitution, the legislature passed, in 1868, what was popularly called the “township aid act.”108 On the authority of this act, millions of dollars were raised by municipal townships to help build railroads.109 2. First revenue act—creation of state and county boards of equalization. The first general revenue law under the constitution of 1865 was passed in 1866.110 The principle of the general property tax is enunciated in the opening section of the act—“taxes shall be levied on the following persons and objects: all male persons over the age of twenty-one and under fifty years, and on all property, real and personal, except as stated in the next section.” The poll tax was fixed at one dollar and the state rate was forty cents on the hundred dollars assessed valuation. No change is observable in the matter of licenses, fines, forfeitures and fees. With exceptions to be noted below, the financial administrative machinery was quite similar to that at the last of the preceding period. There was the popularly elected assessor and the popularly elected sheriff who served as ex-officio collector. Each held office for two years. The county court, composed of three members elected for terms of six years, fixed the county levy.111 They were allowed to tax all property and licenses made taxable by law for state purposes, but in no case was the county tax to exceed the state tax by more than “one hundred per centum for the same time.” The revenue act of 1866 provided for both a state and county board of equalization. The state board was composed of members of the state senate and the lieutenant governor. It was made their duty “to equalize the value of real and personal property among the several counties in the state.” Once the state board had made the equalization, 107 Const. 1865, Art. 11, Sects. 13 and 14. 108 Laws, 1868, p. 92. 109 Later on the authority was extended to parts of townships, Laws, 1870, p. 92; for litigation over this act, see Judson, Taxation in Missouri, p. 73 ff. 110 Laws, 1866, p. 125. 111 R. S. 1865, Ch. 137. —50— (Page 51) it was the duty of the state auditor to transmit to the county clerk of such county the valuation for the property of his county. The clerk was then to send copies to both the county assessor and the county board of equalization. The law provided that each county should have a board of equalization (St. Louis County excepted) composed of the county clerk, who was secretary but had no vote, the presiding judge of the county court, the county surveyor, and the county assessor.112 It was made their duty to equalize the “assessment and valuation” of property within the county with the limitation that they could not reduce aggregate value of the property below that fixed by the state board of equalization. The state had therefore set up finally better machinery for correcting the inequalities in taxation. In 1868 the law requiring manufacturing companies to pay taxes on their property as individuals, not on the value of their shares of stock, was extended to other corporations named in the general statutes.113 3.Some important changes during the period. A general revision of the revenue laws was made in 1871 and 1872. Governor Brown advocated the adoption of a uniform system of taxing the railroads. The legislature agreed with him and gave the state board of equalization the power to assess and collect taxes upon the railroads.114 For the first time since Missouri had become a state, the poll tax was omitted.115 “In the same year a certificate of indebtedness dated July 1, 1872, was issued to the board of education for the public school fund for the sum of $900,000 with interest at six per cent, this representing the proceeds of the sale in 1866 of the stock in the state bank Which had belonged to the school fund, these proceeds having been paid in by the purchaser in bonds of the state which had been cancelled.”116 “The new regime, inaugurated by the constitution of 1865, made a radical change in the matter of local taxation for school purposes. This was in a measure necessitated by the demoralization and destruction of the Civil War. Not only had the distribution of the state school moneys been suspended, but many schoolhouses had been destroyed, and school, county and township funds had been lost or impaired. During the two years succeeding the close of the Civil War, fifteen hundred school buildings were erected at a cost of nearly $1,500,000, this sum being one-half greater than the estimated value of the school property at the close of the war.”117 112 A law of 1872 made all members of the county court members of the county board of equalization, Laws, 1872, p. 87. 113 Laws, 1868, p. 147. 114 Laws, 1871, p. 56. 115 Laws, 1872, p. 80. 116 Judson, F. N., Taxation in Missouri, p. 63; State v. Bank of the State of Missouri, 45 Mo. 528; Laws, 1871, p. 42. 117 Judson, F. N., Taxation in Missouri, p. 63. —51— (Page 52) The constitution of 1865 provided that no township or school district should receive any portion of the public school fund unless a free school should be kept therein for not less than three months during the year, and, in case the public school fund was insufficient to sustain a free school fer at least four months in every year, the general assembly was permitted to provide by law for raising the deficiency by levying a tax on all taxable property in each county, township or school district, as they thought best.118 The legislature in 1866 made each congressional township a school district “for all purposes connected with the general interests of education” in each township. Sub-districts were, however, recognized. The township board was permitted to continue the schools beyond the four-month period and levy a tax on the township for that purpose in case a majority of the voters voting at an election decided so to do.119 If the vote was in the negative, any sub-district could vote in a similar manner to continue its school longer. The township board was abolished in 1874 and the sub-districts were made the units of school administration. The directors in each district were permitted to keep the school open for four months during the year, and longer if authorized by a majority vote of the people. By a majority vote, also, the voters of the district determined what the rate of taxation should be for both current expenses and building purposes, but in neither case was the rate to exceed one dollar on the one hundred dollars assessed valuation.120 4. Extension of purposes for which revenue was used. A glance at the state treasurer’s report for the years 1873 and 1874 shows that the purposes for which revenue was used had been extended considerably during the period. As examples, expenditures were then made for normal schools, Lincoln Institute, and a board of immigration. 5. Development of local taxation. 6. Bates of taxation. The development of local taxation is especially noticeable in the matter of railroads and schools. The state auditor’s report for 1875- 1876 shows that the aggregate bonded debt of the counties, townships and cities was about two and one-third times greater than the state debt. The state tax rate, in connection with the debt and interest on the same, is very well summarized by Judson:—“The state tax during this period was first forty cents on the $100 in addition to the special military tax for the redemption of the military bonds. The ordinance of the constitutional convention authorizing the tax upon railroads for payment of the state debt, also provided for the sale of the railroads, and authorized a tax of one-fourth of one per cent for the pay 118 Const. 1865, Art. 9, Sects. 7 and 8. 119 Laws, 1866, p. 178. 120 Laws, 1874, p. 149. -52- (Page 53) ment of the debt. In 1867 the general assembly levied this tax, and also directed the application of the moneys received from the United States in reimbursement of war expenses, after deducting $1,500,000 for the school fund and for the payment of outstanding military bonds, to be applied in paying overdue coupons on the state bonds, the coupons not provided for being refunded in new bonds. The amount realized from the sale of the railroads under the state’s lien was also applied in payment of the debt, the bonds of the state being received in payment for the railroads. Interest payments were resumed on January 1, 1868, having been suspended since July 1, 1861. The amount of the debt on January 1, 1868, was $23,941,000. The amount paid into the state debt funds from the government reimbursement fund was $3,070,682.63. On January 1, 1869, the debt was reduced to $18,654,000. The annual interest paid in 1868 was over $1,400,000. The tax rate thereafter was a revenue tax of twenty-five cents, reduced in 1872 to twenty cents, and an interest tax of twenty-five cents. The county tax being limited to twice the state revenue tax, it was eighty cents in 1865, fifty cents in 1870, and forty cents in 1872.”121 7.Some outstanding problems of the period. During the period several financial problems arose which are rather clearly discussed by the various state auditors. There was the common complaint that personal property and corporate wealth was escaping taxation because much of it was not assessed.122 In one instance it is stated that the fault is due to the fact that assessors are popularly elected. The report for 1874 shows that $70,000,000 worth of corporate wealth had escaped taxation. In the report for 1872 (page 6) the great cost of assessing and collecting the taxes is pointed out. About 9 per cent of the total amount collected was spent in this way, nearly double that spent in other states for these purposes. About 28 per cent of taxes were also delinquent, nearly one-half of which the auditor thought never could be collected. The great amount of delinquencies was likely due to the fact that the collector had no clear power to seize and sell personal property for taxes, and that the legislature had passed a number of stay laws.123 One begins to see, too, the difficulties of having the sources of local and state revenue the same. The auditor 124 says the aggregate state tax for all purposes amounts to only nine-twentieths of one per cent upon all the taxable wealth of the state, while in some localities the aggregate for both state and local purposes is as high as five per cent. It is suggested that the fight to lower local taxes should not be extended to the state taxes. 121 Judson, Taxation in Missouri, p. 64. 122 Auditor’s Report, 1868, p. 187; for two years ending Dec. 31,1874, p.X. 123 Auditor’s Report, 1873-1874, pp. XII, XIV. 124 Auditor’s Report, 1874, p. XIV. —53— (Page 54) Most of the criticisms of the state auditors on the state board of equalization are favorable. Some difficulty was experienced in its time of meeting in relation to the time of meeting of the county boards of equalization, in that the former board sometimes met too late for the latter boards to get the valuations it had made. Confusion in the revenue laws and hence in their enforcement is noticeable about 1870.125 The legislature strove to correct this by the general law in 1872.126 The financial burdens of the state in 1865 were not inconsiderable. There was the floating debt, bonds invested in the Bank of the State of Missouri, and the railroads and the war debt, amounting in all to about $36,000,000. In 1868 the auditor reported that the total debt was about half that amount, that the school fund had been doubled, the floating debt paid, taxation reduced nearly one-half, and that the credit of the state ranged higher than that of any other former slave state.127 This recovery may be explained not only on the basis of the careful administration which the auditor claims for the state government, but largely because of increasing wealth in the state in comparison with its relative needs. The taxable wealth of the state in 1865 was $262,354,932; in 1875 it was $556,444,456. While the state debt was being sliced in two, local debts increased by leaps and bounds. “The state debt on January 1, 1875, including the $900,000 certificate of indebtedness issued in 1872, was $17,735,000, and the annual interest, $1,074,590. The aggregate county, township and city indebtedness was reported as over $41,000,000.128 8. Conclusion. Taking the period as a whole, the most evident tendency toward centralization of financial administration is seen in the creation and work of the state board of equalization, which, as has been noticed, equalized values as among counties and assessed and collected the taxes on railroads. The two years preceding the adoption of the constitution of 1875 witnessed a rather severe financial and industrial depression. The state auditor’s reports show that taxable wealth in the state had decreased more than $50,000,000. The years immediately following the war were marked by undue speculation, an excessive issue of bonds by local communities, abuse of the power of special legislation, and a great deal of political conflict because of the disfranchisement of southerners. Local taxes had increased. These conditions are reflected in the constitution of 1875 and most emphatically so in the financial limitations on the legislature. 125 Auditor’s Report, 1870, p. 2. 126 Laws, 1871-1872, p. 80. 127 Auditor’s Report, 1868, p. 190. 128 Judson, Taxation in Missouri, p. 66. —54— (Page 55) IV. System Under the Third Constitution, 1875-1923: 1.Financial provisions of the Constitution of 1875—especially limitations on the taxing power. The varied experiences under the first constitution had shown that it was dangerous to lend the state’s credit, so the constitution of 1865 prohibited such lending. Similar experiences from 1865 to 1875 had driven home the same fact about lending the credit of localities. Such loans in either case were prohibited by the constitution of 1875.129 The debt contracting powers of both state and local governments were severely limited. Should the legislature contract a debt of more than $250,000 for any one year, it must have the consent of two-thirds of the voters voting the question.130 Local communities could not go in debt for any one year in excess of the revenue for that year without the consent of two-thirds of the voters thereon. Even with this consent there was the further restriction that the debt of any such locality should not exceed five per cent of the taxable property therein.131 Furthermore, such state debts, with interest, had to be paid in thirteen years, and in the localities, within twenty yeras. Although exemptions could be made by general laws, the principle of the general property tax, as enunciated in the constitution of 1865 was continued in the constitution of 1875.132. Following the two previous constitutions, in apportioning taxes, the constitution of 1875 said: “All property subject to taxation shall be taxed in proportion to its value.”133 Evidently to make doubly sure that the legislature showed no special favor to corporate wealth, a new section was written in, forbidding the legislature to surrender its power to tax corporations and corporate property.134 In order to prevent any discrimination among the same kinds of objects taxed, the rule was laid down that taxes should be uniform upon the same class of subjects within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax, and such taxes could be levied and collected only for public purposes and by general laws.135 For the first time the rates of taxation for both state and local purposes were limited by constitutional enactments,136 and the valuation for both purposes had to be the same. A maximum rate of twenty cents on the hundred dollars valuation was fixed for state purposes, with the further proviso that when the assessed valuation 129 Const. 1875, Art. 4, Sects. 45 and 47. 130 Const. 1875, Art. 4, Sect. 44. 131 Const. 1875, Art. 19, Sect. 12. 132 Const. 1865, Art. 11, Sect. 16; Const. 1875, Art. 10, Sects. 6 and 7. 133 Const. 1875, Art. 19, Sect. 4. 134 Const. 1875, Art. 19, Sect. 2. 135 Ibid., Art. 10, Sect. 3. 136 Ibid., Art. 10, Sects. 8 and 11. —65— (Page 56) exceeded $900,000,000, the rate should not exceed fifteen cents. Because of this proviso, the state sustained a loss of revenue in 1892 of about $400,000.137 The rates for local purposes varied according to no scientific plan; in counties the variations were according to assessed value, sometimes increasing and sometimes decreasing with the increase in the valuation. In the cites the basis was population, the rates being allowed to increase according to the population. With the exception of cities of one hundred thousand population or more,138 the local rate for school purposes could not exceed forty cents on the hundred dollars assessed valuation. The rates in school districts, formed of towns and cities, could be increased to one dollar by a majority vote of the taxpayers, and, by the same process, to sixty-five cents in other districts. For building purposes the rates in all localities could be increased when approved by two-thirds of the voters voting thereon. The general assembly was also forbidden to impose a tax on any county, city or town or other municipal corporation, or the inhabitants thereof, for county, city, town or other municipal purposes.139 On the other hand, these communities were not released from their proportionate share of state taxes. The two previous constitutions had provided that no money should be paid out of the treasury except as appropriated by law, and an amendment was proposed in 1870 which prohibited any appropriation or donation by the state or local communities in aid of any religious purpose or organization.140 All of these restrictions were placed in the constitution of 1875 and others were added.141 Even the order in which the appropriations were to be made was set forth.142 Not less than twenty-five per cent of the state revenue, exclusive of the interest and sinking fund was to be applied annually to the support of the public schools.143 Again, the legislature was forbidden to give or to authorize any county or community to give public funds or anything of value to any individual or corporation except in case of public calamity.144 The constitution of 1865 permitted the school fund to be invested only in United States bonds. The constitution of 1875 permitted, in addition, investment in the bonds of the state of Missouri.145 Closely 137 Auditor’s Report, 1891-1892, p. 21. 138 Rate in these could be sixty cents. This provision on sixty cents came as an amendment adopted in 1902. See Laws, 1905, p. 322. 139 Const. 1875, Art. 10, Sect. 10. 140 Const. 1820, Art. 3, Sect. 31; Const. 1865, Art. 11, Sect. 6; Laws, 1870, p. 501. 141 Const. 1875, Art. 4, Sect. 43; Art. 11, Sect. 11. 142 Ibid., Art. 4, Sect. 43. 143 Ibid., Art.' 11, Sect. 7. 144 Ibid., Art. 4, Sects. 46, 47. 145 Const. 1865, Art. 9, Sect. 6; Const. 1875, Art. 11, Sect 9. —66— (Page 57) connected with this are the sections on banks. State banks were forbidden, nor could the state own stock in any bank or corporation or be liable for the same. Any act of the legislature creating a corporation or association with banking powers (except banks of deposit or discount) had to be submitted to a vote of the people of the state.146 The financial administrative machinery provided in the constitution of 1875 did not differ to any extent from that of the constitution of 1865, except as to the state board of equalization. Heretofore this board had been a creation of the legislature and consisted of the lieutenant-governor and the state senate. Now it was a creation of the constitution, and consisted of the governor, state auditor, treasurer, secretary of state, and attorney-general.147 This took out of the hands of the legislature the power to set up a real central, scientific, efficient control over the local valuation of property, but it was without question better than no central control at all. 2. Amendments bearing on financial matters. Of the one hundred and five amendments proposed to the constitu tion of 1875, thirty-seven have been adopted. A large number of those adopted relate to finances. It has been noticed that the constitution of 1875 prohibited the giving of public money or things of value to any individual or corporation. This made public pensions an impossibility. In 1892 an amendment was adopted which permitted the legislature to authorize cities to pension disabled firemen.148 Two similar amendments have been adopted in behalf of the deserving blind.149 Two amendments have been adopted permitting special levies for road purposes.150 In chapter I it was noted that the constitution was amended allowing the issuance of $60,000,000 in road bonds and that two further amendments supplemented this.151 The limitations on local indebtedness were changed in 1920 by adopting a new section in place of the old.152 The-same year, certain cities were given a wider latitude in building waterworks, electric light and ice plants.153 Two financial amendments of importance for the time were approved in 1900. One authorized St. Louis to aid the St. Louis World's Fair by issuing five millions of dollars in bonds, the other permitted 146 Const. 1875, Art. 12, Sects. 25 and 26. 147 Ibid., Art. 10, Sect. 18. 148 Const. 1875, Art. 4, Sect. 47; Missouri Manual, 1893-1894, p. 53. 149 Laws, 1917, p. 583; Laws, 1921, p. 708. 150 Laws, 1909, p. 906; Laws, 1921, p. 706. 151 Laws, 1921, p. 707; Laws, 1921, Extra Sess., p. 193 ; Laws, 1921, Second Extra Sess., p. 40; St. Louis Globe Democrat, Dec. 7, 1922. 152 Laws, 1921, p. 703; see Loeb, Journal of the Const. Convention of 1875, Vol. I, p. 47 ff., for history of this matter. 153 Laws, 1921, p. 708. —57— (Page 58) the legislature to appropriate one million dollars from the state sinking fund for an exhibit at this Fair.154 By 1901, the state bonded debt had been reduced to a small amount which it was clear would be extinguished in the near future. There remained, however, certificates of indebtedness to the public school and state seminary funds, which had been created by the using of these funds for the purchase and retirement of equivalent amounts of state bonds. As the certificates furnished a safe and profitable investment for the two funds, the legislature submitted an amendment making them practically perpetual, but providing for the investment of future accumulations in these funds in approved county, municipal and school district bonds. The same amendment made provision for a state interest tax not exceeding three cents on the hundred dollars valuation, to pay the interest on these certificates. This amendment was ratified in 1902.155 Amendments were adopted in 1920 and 1921 providing for a soldiers' settlement fund and a soldiers' bonus.156 As has been noted, too, it took an amendment to provide bonds for erecting the capitol building. The financial restrictions of the constitution of 1875 are evident and outstanding, and in the minds of many people have been hindrances to the development of the state. 3. General financial condition of the state following the adoption of the Constitution and survey of revenue legislation up to 1917. The state recovered rather rapidly from the financial and industrial depression of the early seventies, but there was a slump in the total taxable wealth in 1879.157 The total assessed wealth in 1880 was slightly over $558,360,000. In 1890 the total assessed wealth was nearly $862,773,000.158 For a number of years after the constitution of 1875 went into effect, the state auditors’ reports show that the revenue collected for payment of the interest and public debt more than equaled the amount for current expenses. After 1885 the figures show a reverse, and, as has been noticed, the state debt was largely extinguished by 1901. The revenue legislation under the constitution of 1875 up to the time of the crisis of 1917 was largely directed to perfecting the details of the system and the machinery for collecting and assessing the general property tax, particularly with reference to certain classes of subjects. For example, in 1877 manufacturers were made taxable in the same manner as merchants, and in the same year an act was 154 Laws, 1905, pp. 316,317. 155 Loeb, Journal of the Const. Convent. 1875, Vol. I, p. 46. 156 Laws, 1921, p. 709; Laws, 1921, Second Extra Sess., p. 41. 157 Auditor’s Report 1879-80, p. XXI and XXIII. 158 Auditor's Report 1889-90, p. 19. —58— (Page 59) passed for the assessment and collection of taxes upon the property and franchises of bridges, telegraph and express companies.159 During the same year, great changes were made in the laws regulating the collection of delinquent taxes.160 Other examples concern the personal property of residents held in other states, powers of the state board of equalization, and the date of assessment.161 4. Sources of revenue. The sources from which revenue was derived were extended rather slowly until 1917. Finding the state needed more revenue, largely because of the cut in the tax rate, the state auditor recommended in 1892 that a collateral inheritance tax law be passed.162 A collateral inheritance tax law was passed and went into operation in 1899.163 The total sum received from this source in 1916 was nearly $450,000.164 The dramshop license fees were increased from time to time until the revenueTto the state from that source was over $900,000 in 1916.165 The state began to tax foreign insurance companies on their premiums in 1895. From this source came considerable revenue by 1916.166 The fees from the inspection of oils over and above expenses were of some importance as a source of revenue.167 Throughout the period, up to 1917, real property remained the main source of income. One auditor voiced his complaint very clearly about real property bearing more than its proportionate share of taxes. “Usually small property holders who comprise the mass of the taxpayers faithfully return their property and promptly pay their taxes, while capital, lynx-eyed, grasping and vigilant, is at all times reaching for profits but shrinks from burdens."168 To get at those escaping taxes on their personal property, this auditor recommended an income tax. 5. Extension of purposes for which revenue was used. The extension of the purposes for which revenue was used is revealed clearly in comparing the estimated needs of the state at the beginning of the period and at the end.169 The amount needed at the beginning for a biennium was about $2,700,000; at the end, about eight times that. 6. Rates of taxation. The regular state revenue tax rate from 1875 to 1891 inclusive was twenty cents on the one hundred dollars assessed valuation; from 1892 to 1920 inclusive, fifteen cents; during the last biennium it was 159 Laws, 1877, pp. 298, 391; Judson, Taxation in Missouri, p. 88. 160 Laws, 1877, p. 385; Judson, Taxation in Missouri, p. 224. 161 Laws, 1881, pp. 177, 178; R. S. 1899, Sects. 9125 to 9129. 162 Auditor1s Report 1891-92, p. 24. 163 Laws, 1899, p. 328. 164 Auditor’s Report 1915-16, p. 58. 165 Auditor’s Report 1915-16, p. 665. 166 Laws, 1895, p. 198; Auditor’s Report 1915-16, p. 10. 167 Laws, 1909, p. 566; Auditor’s Report 1915-16, p. 11. 168 Auditor’s Report 1875-76, p. XX. 169 Auditor’s Report 1875-76, p. VI; Ibid., 1919-20, p. 41. —59— (Page 60) seven cents for 1921, and 10 cents for 1922. From 1876 to 1888 inclusive, the rate for interest and payment of the public debt was twenty cents on the one hundred dollars assessed valuation; from 1889 to 1902 inclusive, ten cents; for 1903, three cents; from 1904 to 1910 inclusive, two cents; from 1910 to 1920, three cents, including capitol building tax.170 The capitol bond rate in 1921 was one cent, and for the same year, the rate for pensioning the blind was two cents, making a total state rate, for the year, of ten cents.171 7. Financial administrative machinery up to 1917. The organization and legal powers of the various Organs of financial administration, with the exception of the state board of equalization, which has been noted, and the state tax commission, to be noted, have not been fundamentally changed since the general revenue acts of 1866 and 1872. There is the popularly elected county assessor, whose term was changed from two to four years in 1895.172 The collector's office was separated from the sheriff’s in 1905, and the former's term made four years.173 The law, however, permits the same person to be elected to both offices.174 In practice no county elects the same person to both of these offices.175 Twenty-four of the one hundred and fourteen counties have township organization and these twenty-four do not have county collectors or assessors.176 In the township organization counties, each township has a clerk who is ex-oflficio township assessor and a collector who may also serve as the constable. The township trustee is ex-oflficio township treasurer.177 All of these officials are elected by the voters of the township for terms of two years. In these same counties the county treasurer is ex-oflficio collector for the whole county for certain purposes.178 The popularly elected county treasurer’s term was changed in 1907 from two to four years.179 There is the county court, which took on its present organization in 1877.180 This body fixes the county tax rate within constitutional limits and apportions the county money among the various funds, and does many other things connected with the county finances.181 There was a county board of equalization, constituted in the same way as such board was under the constitution of 1865, with the proviso 170 Auditor’s Report 1919-20, p. 609; Laws, 1921, Extra Sess., p. 186. 171 Laws, 1921, Extra Sess., p. 180; Laws, 1921, p. 556; in 1922 there was three cents additional to pay the soldiers’ bonus. 172 Laws, 1895, p. 41. 173 Laws, 1905, p. 272. 174 R. S. 1919, Sect. 12875. 175 Missouri Manual, 1921-22, p. 175. 176 Ibid., p. 204. l77 R. S. 1919, Sect. 13181. 178 R. S. 1919, Sect. 13226. 179 Laws, 1907, p. 449; R. S. 1919, Sect. 9528. l80 Laws, 1877, p. 226; R. S. 1919, Ch. 21, Art. 5; see above, Ch. 1. 181 R. S. 1919, Sects. 12863 and 12866. —60— (Page 61) in the law that, in any county having adopted township organization, the sheriff of the county should be a member of the board.182 As one studies the workings of the financial machinery of the period from 1875 to the present, especially through the state auditors’ reports, certain things stand out very clearly. One is a plain lack of a centralized control or even supervision over the many organs which spent the state’s money, with regard not only as to how they spend it, but what their needs were. The statement made by the auditor in 1882 183 expresses the matter very well: “The amounts required for the maintenance of state institutions are the estimates submitted to me by those entrusted with their management. I have no satisfactory means of ascertaining the wants and necessities of these institutions other than from the officers controlling them, and as they are the trusted agents and servants of the state, I have received and adopted their estimates as being the proper amounts for which appropriations should be made. In like manner I have adopted the estimates of heads of departments as being the proper amounts necessary to be appropriated for their respective departments.” More than a decade ago the legislature provided for an auditing apd junketing committee, composed of members of the legislature appointed by the governor, whose duty it is to visit the various state institutions just before the regular meeting of the legislature and report to the legislature.184 These committees never have the time, means, and sometimes not the understanding, to be of any special value. Beginning in 1896,185 state auditors constantly recommended that more aid be given their office in enforcing the revenue laws, especially in the matter of auditing the books of state institutions and providing for a uniform system of book-keeping for all fiscal agents of the state. In his report for 1913-14 (p. 4), the auditor comments favorably upon the law of 1913 which allowed him two men to audit the books of the state institutions. He reported that all the state institutions then had a uniform system of keeping books. The law of 1913 also contained provisions for the state auditor’s office, and for auditing the books of the county officers and other local officers.186 This can be done, however, only when the county takes the initiative and asks for it. During the years 1919-1920, the books of eleven different counties were examined. It was found that a total of over $18,000 was due to the state, and nearly $85,000 to the counties. The total expense of the examination was about $36,000, about one-third of which expense was paid by the counties.187 182 R. S. 1919, Sect. 12820. 183 Auditor’s Report 1881-82, p. LIX. 184 Laws, 1909, p. 21. 185 Auditor’s Report 1895-96, p. 32. l86 R. S. 1919, Sect. 13301. 187 Auditor’s Report 1919-1920, p. 78. —61— (Page 62) The present state auditor remarked recently that there are as many systems of keeping books in the various counties as there are counties. In his last report he recommended that the law in force relating to the examination of books, accounts, statements, and settlements of county, city and township officers, etc., be repealed, and that a new chapter relating to the same subject be enacted, in order that authority be given to the state auditor to make an examination of county offices at least once in each two-year period.188 In the assessment and collection of taxes early in the period, statements were made that millions of dollars in notes, bonds and mortgages were escaping taxation, and there was considerable trouble in collecting delinquent taxes.189 Personal property could be sold for delinquent taxes on the same, but real estate could not, to the extent of taking the title away from the owner. As a result some paid their personal property tax and did not the real estate tax, defying the collector to collect the tax. Shortly, however, the state supreme court held that a tax sale conveyed title. This decision helped to solve the delinquent tax matter.190 Near the end of the century it is evident that the law was and had been interpreted so that assessors could not fix the value of property. The state auditors recommended that the various assessors be given this power and the owners of property merely describe their property to the former.191 By about 1900, the lack of uniformity in assessment and equality of taxation began to press home on the administrative officials. They began to interpret that part of the constitution which said that “all property subject to taxation should be taxed in proportion to its value.” It was recommended that all property be assessed at one-half of its market value.192 Eight years later another interpretation was given—“The greatest fault lies in the officials who under the law are sworn to do their duties in connection with their official acts and yet who flagrantly violate the same. Most of the defects can be cured if officials can be compelled to take all classes of property at their actual cash value.”193 The succeeding auditor said: “I do not agree with the report of my honorable predecessor that all classes of property should be taken at their actual cash value.” He thought it would work a hardship upon the poorer and middle classes and greatly increase the burdens on farm lands and live stock.194 It will be noted later how this question was fought over in the financial crisis of 1917. Others sought relief from the financial difficulties by advocating l88 Ibid., p. 78. 189 Auditor’s Report 1875-76, p. XI; 1876-78, p. XVI; 1879-80, p. V. 190 Auditor’s Report 1879-80, p. XVI. 191 Auditor’s Reports 1897-98, p. 30; 1899-1900, p. 32. 192 Auditor’s Report 1899-1900, p. 31. 193 Auditor’s Report 1907-08, p. 36. 194 Auditor’s Report 1909L10, p. 36. —62— (Page 63) a general overhauling of the revenue laws.195 A law was passed in 1901 creating a so-called tax commission, composed of three persons, two of whom were appointed by the governor, the third being the attorney-general.196. They prepared and submitted to the legislature a rather extended report and digest of the revenue laws and decisions of the courts. They were obligated by the law of 1901 to “draft and file with the governor a general revenue measure,” but this they failed to do, giving as their apparently plausible excuse that the legislature was so hedged about by the constitution that no statutory change could be made “in the general system of taxation now in force.197 The legislature made little use of this report, and nothing was done by it to frame a general revenue law. The evils of the state financial system became more apparent, however, as time went on. Governor Folk appointed a commission, on his own initiative, composed of six of the best tax experts in the state, including the attorney-general. He laid their report before the legislature in 1907.198 They concurred in the opinion of the commission of 1903 “that no change can be made in our revenue system correcting the existing inequalities without amending the constitution of the state.” They thought the separation of the sources of state and local revenue lay at the “basis of any substantial reform.” No reforms of any importance came out of these reports, but they were valuable in calling people’s attention to facts. The thing that finally caused all administrative officials to take notice and helped more than anything else to cause new revenue laws to be passed in 1917 was the fact that the state was “running behind.”199 Even the state auditor who came to office in 1908 criticising his predecessor for advocating assessments at cash value, but making no suggestions himself for a change in our revenue system, found himself remarking six years later that a commission should be appointed to examine the system, and that the entire revenue law should be repealed and a new one enacted in its place.200 8. Crisis of 1917—extension of the sources of revenue and creation of the tax commission: a.How new sources of income replenished the treasury. By 1917 the evils of the revenue system were better known than ever. Demand that something be done was universal, and what made the demand so insistent was the fact that the state could not meet, under the old system, its financial obligations. This leads us to discuss the “crisis” of 1917 in its varied important bearings, with a view to understanding the financial administration of the present. 195 Auditor’s Report 1901-02, p. 31; Ibid., 1903-04. 196 Laws, 1901, p. 203. 197 Missouri Tax Commission Report, 1903, p. 4. 198 Appendix of Journals of the General Assembly, 1907. 199 Auditor’s Report 1915-16, p. 5. 200 Auditor's Report 1912-14, p. 45. —63— (Page 64) Governor Gardner, in his inaugural message of 1917, faced the crisis with courage.201 After mentioning the biennial deficit of $1,800,000, the great decrease in revenue from liquor licenses and the abolishing of the contract system in the penitentiary, he said: “This brings us face to face with a crisis. Our general revenue fund costs the people of Missouri about $1.70 per capita. In Illinois the per capita rate is $4.50. The average per capita tax of the United States is $5.03.” He then recommended the following, to raise the required revenue: (1) Increasing the collateral inheritance tax from 5 per cent to 7% per cent; (2) a general inheritance tax; (3) a corporation franchise tax; (4) a state income tax, to be based on 10 per cent of the federal rate; (5) raising the saloon licenses; (6) a mortgage recording tax; (7) a secured debt tax; (8) fees for inspecting soft drinks; (9) fees for inspecting spirituous liquors. He estimated that such revenue measures, when put into operation, would bring in an additional $4,500,000 for the next biennium.202 The total amount received from the operation of the new laws was about $2,400,000, the largest amounts coming from the corporation franchise tax, the inheritance tax, and the income tax, respectively. This increased amount was enough, however, to liquidate the floating debt and leave a small balance.203 In 1919 Governor Gardner estimated that the advent of national prohibition would deprive the state of $2,500,000 in revenue for the years of 1919 and 1920. He recommended that the income and corporation franchise tax rates be raised, to make up for the loss.204 This was done, with results which more than met the expectations of the governor.205 The result was that both Governor Gardner and his successor, the present Governor Hyde, recommended the lowering of tax rates all along the line.206 This was done, the rates and resulting revenue being clearly shown in the report of the state tax commission for 1921-22.207 The evidence is ample, therefore, to show that since the new revenue laws were passed in 1917, the state has had sufficient funds to cover the appropriation bills signed by the governor. 201 Appendix Journals of General Assembly, Vol. I, Serial No. 2. 202 The legislature took these recommendations seriously and enacted laws accordingly—Laws, 1917, pp. 114, 230, 237, 524, 317, 319, 539 307. 203 Gardner’s Bien. Mess., Vol. I, Append, of Journals, Fiftieth Gen¬eral Assembly, p. 11. 204 Ibid., Spec. Mess, on Revenue, p. 3. 205 Auditor’s Report 1919-20, pp. 6, 7, 8; Gardner's Bien. Mess., Vol. I, Append. Journals of Fifty-first General Assembly, p. 6. 206 Append. Journal of Fifty-first General Assembly, Vol. I, p. 6, and Serial 7, p. 4 ff. 207 Index, Taxation Rev. Laws, Extra Sess., 1921, and Rept. Tax Comm., p. 22 ff. —64— (Page 65) b.Main purposes of the tax commission and how it at¬tempted to carry them out. The important financial problem since 1917 has not concerned sources of revenue. It has been concerned with finding such administrative machinery as will insure that the revenue laws are carried out fairly and justly. A word has already been said in this chapter about two temporary tax commissions. The time was now ripe for the creation of a permanent commission. Mr. Gardner recommended the creation of a permanent tax commission to supervise and enforce the revenue laws, to give information to the general assembly, recommend methods of economy and efficiency in all departments of the government, and prepare a budget. The legislature of 1917, following the governor’s ideas, passed a law creating a permanent tax commission.208 The organization of this commission has been sketched in Chapter I. “The purpose of the state tax commission act may be briefly stated as two-fold: (a) To enforce the revenue and taxation laws; (b) to enforce economy in the expenditure of public funds. In other words, the act contemplates compulsory administration of all tax laws, in strict conformity to the constitution and statutes, so that public income shall be gathered from all taxpayers as nearly as practicable with the equity and justice expressed by the law itself, whatever the law is; and secondly, it contemplates such a supervision of administrative offices and expenditures as will secure for the taxpayer the greatest possible return of public service at the least possible cost.”209 “A popular delusion is that the tax commission has to do only with the supervision of assessment under the ad valorem tax law. Supervision of assessment is one, but only one, of many duties given the commission. Upon it has been conferred the same power of supervision over all other and various revenue laws, old and new; and upon it has been conferred the same supervisory power over expenditures through divers channels. The large supervisory powers extend not only to the income and outgo of the state, but to income and outgo of the counties, cities, towns, villages, townships, roads, school districts, and sub-divisions of the state.”210 The new tax commission, with Cornelius Roach, a former secretary of state, as its chairman, was appointed and began its work in June, 1917. Its first work was of an educational nature. Thousands of “letters, circulars and articles were written, mailed and published.” Conferences with the assessors of the state were held. They were appealed to for co-operation in enforcing the laws.211 Since all of its 208 Laws, 1917, p. 542. 209 Report of Tax Commission 1917-18, p. 5. 210 Ibid., p. 6. 211 Report of Tax Commission 1917-18, p. 11. -65- (Page 66) work is so near the present, and since it considered nearly every important financial administrative problem of the state, it is germane to our subject to examine with some care its program other than of an educational nature. Not only did the commission try to clear away the delusion that it existed only to supervise the assessment under the ad valorem tax law, but it tried to do away with other erroneous notions as well. There was a prevailing notion that the commission was brought into existence “to increase taxes generally.”212 The commission emphatically combatted this notion in the following words: “Let it be repeated that Missouri has complete home-rule in taxation from the smallest municipal sub-division to the largest, the state itself.” “In the school district, the board of directors, or the board of education, or the vote of the electorate, has power to fix a levy within constitutional limits. A majority vote of the people was required to adopt the constitution. The people gave the school board the power to make a limited levy. Beyond that the board must get a majority vote of the people to authorize a levy. That is home-rule for school taxes. “In city, town or village, board of aldermen or board of trustees for city, town or village purposes has levying power limited and controlled as school boards are. That is home-rule in municipal taxes. No city or town has any higher tax than its people authorize. “In county affairs, the county court has power to make the annual levy for taxes, within prescribed constitutional limits, for county purposes. That is home-rule for county purposes. “For state purposes, the members of the legislature fix the rate of levy within constitutional limits. These members are all locally elected. This is home-rule in state affairs. “In addition to the maximum limits of levy for taxes put into the constitution by a vote of the people, each member of a school board, city council, county court, and state legislature for the exercise of the limited levying power he has, must be elected to his place of trust by a vote of the people. That makes the system of home-rule in taxation as complete as possible to conceive of. For the levying of every dollar of public funds, the people’s approval is a prerequisite. “The taxing power is the power to levy. Taxes are high or low, in exact proportion as the rate of levy is. That rate only determines the amount of taxes. There is no law fixing minimum rates of levy. However large assessed valuation grows, rates of levy may continue to be lowered. The total amount of taxes to be collected can be controlled absolutely and solely by the rate of levy, and the fixing of the rate of levy is always and entirely in the hands of local officers, locally elected. Thus it is that home-rule in taxation in Missouri is complete. “School boards, city councils and county courts must always fix 212 Ibid., p. 9. -66- (Page 67) the rate of levy after the assessed valuation is equalized and known, and after the aggregate number of dollars to be collected is also known. The rate of levy is always the last factor in taxation to be determined. “What has been said in the foregoing about error and delusion, let it be well understood, relates only to the general property, or ad valorem tax. So far as the state is concerned, this ad valorem tax is relatively a small matter and fast becoming a relatively much smaller matter. The state is getting the bulk of its revenue for its support from other sources.”213 The commission carefully explained that taxation had three factors: (1) Assessed valuation; (2) amount of taxes; (3) and rate of levy; and that the three factors developed in the order named. This was to correct a widespread notion that rates of levy were fixed before the assessed valuation was determined. c. Assessment and equalization in relation to the state tax commission and the state board of equalization. The evils connected with the assessment of property were clearly set forth. “The taxpayer made an annual return and that return, whether true or false, has generally gone unchallenged. It is, therefore, but natural that great inequalities exist in valuations. Under such system with no supervision whatever, no enforcement of existing law, much property has never been returned at all. The effect of such omissions and tax evasions has been to simply shift the burdens to someone else’s shoulders. When a big industrial property in a large city worth nearly five million dollars is assessed at $55,000, the tax thus evaded is shifted to the shoulders of the farmer, whose property has been going on the tax books admittedly under-valued, though not so largely under-valued as such city properties. “The practice of under-valuing and hiding has grown to be a scandal. Careless inattention, wilful knavery, helpless ignorance, simple honesty, non-enforcement of law and lack of supervision have resulted in the return of property all the way from ‘no return at all to more than one hundred per cent of value.’”214 The commission went to work on the “slacker values,” since they had power “to make taut all slack assessments, subject only to the power granted by the constitution to the state board of equaliza¬tion.”215 To Jackson County’s slack assessment was added $273,- 000,000; to St. Louis City, $254,000,000; to Buchanan County, $48,- 000,000; to St. Louis County, $41,000,000; to Jasper, $20,000,000; to Greene, $11,000,000. Numbers of other counties felt the hand of the tax commission upon them in the valuation of property.216 213 Report of Tax Commission 1917-18, pp. 9 and 10. 214 Report of Tax Commission 1917-18, p. 10 ff. 215 Ibid., p. 11; Const. 1875, Art. 10, Sect. 18. 216 Report of Tax Commission 1917-18, p. 12. —67— (Page 68) It was obvious to the commission that money, notes and bonds were escaping taxation “chiefly because they were unretumed and unlisted.”217 Assessors were asked to search for this kind of property and notify the commission of the owners of unlisted “credits.” These efforts gave results. “Money, notes and bonds, as of June 1, 1916, were assessed at about $118,620,000, as of June 1, 1917, about $203,- 934,000.” The taxes due on this uncovered property for one year under the average rate of levy for 1917 amounted to $3,568,843. Three members constituting a majority of the state board of equalization, ruthlessly disregarding the earnest efforts of the tax commission and the very laborious work of the assessors, reduced the money, notes and bonds valuation of $203,933,937 to the indefensibly low level of $119,990,698. This order of the equalization board on this one class of property—a class most notorious for dodging taxes—relieved the owners of money, notes and bonds of approximately $1,469,006 m state and local taxes and thus transferred that amount of taxes “to the shoulders of the owners of farms, town lots and other property.”218 Thus, it is seen that the results of the tax commission’s work in uncovering property and recommendations in equalizing assessments were more apparent than real, and the open conflict between the constitution-made board of equalization and the statute-made tax commission is evidenced strongly. Speaking of the total value of real and personal property, the tax commission said: “The assessed and equalized value of real estate and personal property assessed by local assessors in 1916 was $1,750,215,293. In 1917, this value, under the tax commission’s supervision, was $4,017,986,413 (exclusive of railroads and other public utilities), and, when equalized, became $1,898,085,530. The state board of equalization members made a reduction of $2,119,900,883, disregarding the standard of valuation fixed by law, ignoring the statutory rules plainly requiring equalized value to be substantially the true value, usurping the power of the local assessor, and taking action that was tantamount to assessing—instead of equalizing.”219 In this conflict between these two financial administrative bodies there was no question that the board of equalization could legally finally adjust and “equalize the values of real and personal property among the several counties of the state.”220 The struggle between the majority of the state board of equalization and the state tax commission continued unabated for nearly two years. The original tax commissioners finally all resigned, and the governor appointed other men in their places in May, 1919.221 The legislature of 217 Ibid., p. 13. 218 Report of Tax Commission 1917-18, p. 14. 219 Report of Tax Commission 1917-18, pp. 14, 101, 139. 220 Laws, 1917, p. 548. 221 Sec. Bien. Report Tax Commission, p. 5. -68- (Page 69) 1919 refused to support the commission through appropriations, except in a nominal way.222 In 1921, the personnel of the commission again changed, and the legislature made the same appropriation as had been made in 1917.223 In the meantime, through the election of 1920, the personnel of the state board of equalization, with one exception, had changed.224 The commission during 1919 and 1920 did not much more than merely exist, and there is no indication of a struggle between it and the board of equalization.225 The present commission, appointed in 1921, has had harmonious relations with the state board of equalization and has been able to do more effective work. The latter took most of its recommendations in equalizing values.226 d. Struggle over assessment at cash value. In the conflict between the two bodies, one fundamental question was ever present—Shall property be assessed at “actual cash value”? The first tax commission held strongly for cash value assessments, citing the state constitution, statutes, court decisions and successful practice in other states, to support their views.227 A second argument cited to support full value assessment was that having “put it on the books, it is subject to public inspection, and if it departs even in the slightest degree from what is accepted by the public as the actual value, the variation is plainly noticeable; and when variation is noticeable, criticism follows, and when criticism follows, remedies are applied.”228 Still a third argument was that if a fractional value were employed, the rate would have to be correspondingly high to raise the amount wanted. “The lower the rate that is levied on anybody’s property, the easier it is for anybody to pay his taxes.”229 As has been noted above, the majority of the members of the state board of equalization did not agree with the tax commission. They gave as their reasons: (1) that “the total assessed valuation of the city of St. Louis on money, bonds, notes and other evidences of indebtedness, as returned by the assessor and recommended by the tax commission” was too low and they were “not willing to place large speculative values on other classes of property in the counties while these classes of enormous value in the city escaped taxation entirely. We have accepted the valuations made by the assessors on about fifty per cent in value of the real estate of the state.”230 222 Laws, 1917, p. 16; Laws, 1919, p. 36. 223 Third Bien. Report Tax Commission, p. 3; Laws, 1921, Extra Session, p. 12. 224 Missouri Manual, 1919-20, p. 188; 1921-22, p. 834. 225 Second Bien. Report Tax Commission, p. 5. 226 Third Bien. Report Tax Commission, p. 36 ff. 227 First Bien. Report Tax Commission, pp. 93-100, 14, 28, 29, 30, BI¬SS, 58, 64, 67, 74, 78-82, 84, 86, 88, 103. 228 Ibid., p. 80. 229 Ibid., p. 81. 230 First Bien. Report Tax Commission, p. 145. —69— (Page 70) (2) “Many of the most striking inequalities in valuations are found in the returns of the assessors and in the recommendations of the tax commission.”231 (3) Since the secretary of the treasury of the United States had made an appeal to all the states to make no in¬creases in the taxes to be paid by railroads, “we believe it is the patriotic duty of this state to comply with this request, and, of course, it would be inequitable and unfair to increase the taxes on real estate and all classes of personal property without making corresponding increases in the taxes of the railroads.”232 It is apparent that the state board of equalization did not argue the legality or the fundamental merits of cash value assessment. However, the power to equalize was in their hands and that they did this on a fractional basis is admitted in their own words, quoted just above. The change in the personnel of the state board of equalization in 1921 brought a changed view. This board was unanimous in the opinion that property should be assessed “at its full and lawful value.” They were moved to take this view because of the law’s mandate and “because under the present method of assessment, the local schools have been hampered and cramped by lack of revenue and cannot improve their condition without it. Meanwhile, more than eighty counties have been compelled to allow their warrants to go to protest.”233 Another change in the personnel of the board may result again in fractional valuations. In any event, a non-expert political board, with little time to devote to the matter, has the power to accept or reject at will the recommendations of an expert commission which devotes all of its time to the duties assigned it. This condition of affairs could be remedied by recognizing in the constitution the power of the tax commission to equalize values as among the counties, and abolishing the state board of equalization. e. Rate-fixing authorities in the several localities. Other problems were prominent during the financial crisis of 1917. Taken as a whole, the tax commission brought forth facts, or made examinations of and suggested solutions for these problems. One of the most persistent and important concerned rates of taxation. The rate-fixing powers have already been mentioned in this chapter.234 The constitutional limitations on these powers have also been pointed out, but the idea prevailed in many places that a higher assessed valuation meant higher taxes. The commission strongly maintained that this was not true and stated that the rate of levy was the one adaptable and variable factor in taxation, that the law 231 Ibid. 232 Ibid., p. 146. 233 Hyde’s Message, Journals Gen. Assembly, Vol. I, Ap. Serial 3, p. 9. 234 See First Bien. Report Tax Commission, p. 9. —70— (Page 71) contained no minimum limit, suggested that the assembly could and should lower maximum rates within constitutional limits in order to prevent local authorities from going to excess.235 The relation of rates to the assessed valuation and the various financial organs was well pointed out by the chairman of the tax commission in 1918, in addressing the assessors of the state: “There was no intention, and there is not any intention now on the part of anybody that I know of, to allow high rates to stand after full valuation has gone on the books. I want to call the attention of this conference to the changes in the situation confronting us this year. Last year the assessors and the tax commission had to depend upon the possibility and the probability of a special session for the readjustment of rates. When you made your assessment and got your full valuation, you had to explain to the taxpayers that the intention was to reduce the rate. When you did this, all opposition vanished, as it should. Opposition should exist until that assurance is given, because there would be no sense in piling up needlessly more money in the treasury of the state, county, school district, or city than the officers can use. That would be senseless. There is no intention to do that. The coming year the legislature will convene in regular session on the first Wednesday in January. By that time everybody should know what the assessed valuation of his county is, and what the total assessed valuation of the state is. The legislature will have the information when it meets. The state board of equalization does not meet to equalize until the fourth Wednesday in February, and rarely ever issues certificates of its conclusions until the last week in March. * * * The legislature will have January, February and most of March to enact laws lowering and readjusting rates. If a full assessment has been made, the legislature will be free to lower the rates. If the legislature lowers the rates, the state board of equalization will be compelled to equalize on the full value as assessed, because under the new laws passed by the new legislature, the rates will be so low that substantially full valuation will be necessary to get enough revenue to carry on normal public activities.”236 Thus would the tax commission force the hand of the board of equalization through legislative action on the rates. The legislature of 1919 did not follow these suggestions, but that of 1921 did.237 f. Other financial problems connected with the crisis of 1917. In noting the relation of tax rates to interest rates, the commission pointed out that “the normal total tax rate should not exceed one-tenth of the current interest rate. When the tax rate goes above that level, something is abnormal, or radically wrong.”238 An 235 Ibid., p. 81; Const. 1875, Art. 10. Sect. 1; 178 Mo. 222. 236 First Bien. Report Tax Commission, pp. 82, 83, 98, 99. 237 Laws, 1921, p. 678; Extra Sess., pp. 186, 111, 119, 75, 180. 238 First Bien. Report Tax Commission, p. 35. —71— (Page 72) instance is cited of a person who, had he listed the cash he had in a bank, would have had to pay a higher rate of taxation on it than he was receiving in interest.239 Glaring and numerous inequalities in assessments were pointed out. One assessor, believing in “uniformity,” assessed each house and lot in a certain block at $1,200. The best one was worth at least $6,000; the least valuable, $2,000. “Thousands of similar cases may be found all over Missouri.”240 The commission believed that the main remedy for this inequality in assessment was assessment at cash value, and that the sales method of determining actual cash value could be relied upon. Tables were prepared showing rank inequalities on the basis of the sales method.241 The relation between investment of money, notes and bonds to tax rates was clearly pointed out by Governor Gardner when he said that “a loan made in Missouri must yield returns equal to those obtainable in any other part of the world.”242 It was his opinion that our taxing system had driven investment money out of the state. Another problem closely associated with assessment at cash value concerned the relations between the assessors, their respective county courts, and taxpayers. “Just so long as there is a big margin between ‘assessed’ value and ‘full’ value, with power to levy rates as high as the present statutory and constitutional maximums, there will be unjust and inordinately high taxes; for, to get more taxes, members of county courts, as members of county boards of equalization, have only to advance assessed valuations to suit their whims. All this may now be done without violating any law, and without consulting the taxpayers’ wishes.” “To control this indefensible situation, there is but one solution, viz., enforce the full valuation law so that the county board of equalization has no opportunity to legally advance the ‘assessed* valuation and, at the same time, make the statutory maximum rate so low that with the full valuation and the highest legal rate permissible, only as much taxes can be levied as are necessary to conduct economical government. Make the law such that if any additional revenue is raised, the taxpayers’ consent must first be obtained.”243 A question also arose concerning the distribution of state moneys, once collected. It was shown that nearly 100 of the counties received more money back from the state than they paid in. It was contended by some, especially from wealthy counties, that this was inequitable. These counties have been called “pension counties.” Cash value assessments, however, would likely not change this situation and it probably should not be changed, since the distribution of 239 Ibid., p. 81. 240 Ibid., p. 29. 241 Ibid., pp. 35-50, 51, 57. 242 First Bien. Report Tax Commission, p. 55. 243 Ibid., p. 258. —72— (Page 73) funds for schools and roads are and should be made on the basis of population rather than wealth.244 Since the origin of the tax commission in 1917, it was made its duty to “fully inform itself concerning all expenditures of public funds by whomsoever and for whatsoever purpose made and the necessity therefor.”245 Based on this section and other parts of the law, the commission submits every two years a so-called budget.246 While containing some useful information and suggestions, this so-called budget has few of the characteristics of a real budget. The work of the commission up to this time has been largely concerned with the supervision of the assessment and collection of taxes. It has not had the force at its command to make a thorough-going study of the financial needs of the state or the expenditure of the moneys appropriated. Again, should it make such a study, there is nothing in the statutes to obligate the legislature or executive to accept its recommendations. A comparison of its recommended expenditures and the appropriations made by the legislature shows that the latter has paid little heed to the tax commission. The crisis of 1917 passed, we find ourselves practically in the present, so it is germane that we draw conclusions and try to get a picture of existing conditions. 9. The present system—comments and conclusions: a. Sources of revenue— It has been noted that the sources of revenue greatly expanded in 1917. However, the most important single source of revenue is still the general property tax, even though this source was eclipsed by the income tax in 1921. “For the last two years the sources of revenue for the state were as follows: 1921 1922 Income Tax $ 4,794,495.75 $ 2,567,768.84 Corporation Franchise Tax 2,962,876.37 1,445,732.64 Inheritance Tax 1,229,001.34 1,339,091.91 Property Tax 3,328,809.13 3,279,970.00 Income from fees, interest, insurance 2,693,667.67 2,890,105.62 and incorporations $15,008,856.26 $11,522,669.01 The total state revenue for the two years was $26,551,525, of which $5,583,773.29 was raised from fees, interest, insurance, etc., and $20,497,751 from direct taxes. Analyzing these figures further: 54 per cent of the total state revenue was contributed by the income, corporation, franchise and inheritance taxpayers; 21 per cent by fees, interest, insurance, etc., and 25 per cent by the ad valorem property taxpayers. Of the direct taxes, 68 per cent was paid by income, corporation, franchise and inheritance taxpayers; 32 per cent by the 244 First Bien. Report Tax Commission, pp. 56, 85. 245 Sect. 12831, R. S. 1919. 246 Ch. 119, Art. 4, R. S. 1919. —73— (Page 74) property taxpayers.”247 The motor vehicle license tax, which is used entirely for the construction and maintenance of roads, is not included in the above. This tax totaled nearly $3,500,000 in 1922.248 (1) Property tax. The general property tax in Missouri is looked upon universally as an ill success. “The chief defect lies in the fact that nowhere under this system has the assessing officer been able to place upon the rolls all the taxable property within his jurisdiction.”249 The result of this tax evasion is that the burden of the general property tax falls upon real estate and tangible personal property. This evasion may be due somewhat to the local assessors, who are controlled politically by the very people they are supposed to assess, but a strict enforcement of the law would probably defeat its very purpose by causing money to be invested in tax-free securities or driving it out of the state. A number of remedies to cure these inequalities of the unmodified general property tax have been suggested. Drastic laws to secure disclosure have usually failed. Exemptions of intangibles have been suggested, on the grounds that they represent merely evidences of ownership of tangible property which cannot escape or that income taxes get most of the intangibles.250 Another solution is offered in the classified property tax.251 The classified property tax has produced much more revenue from intangibles, and thereby reduced the rates.252 Missouri would have to have a constitutional amendment in order to make a classification law. This has been done in a number of states.253 It is conceded, however, on every hand that all attempts to reach intangible property under the general property tax have proved failures. It was the belief of the National Tax Associations Committee of 1917 that the personal income tax would reach income from intangible property fully and fairly at the only place where it can be taxed without running the risk of unjust double taxation, that is, at the domicile of the recipient.254 They recommended, therefore, that property taxation be confined exclusively to tangible property. The present Missouri tax commission, while admitting the futility of getting a full assessment of intangible property, urges the assessors to make every effort to list this kind of property.255 Thus are the as 247 Kansas City Star, Jan. 4, 1923, Gov. Hyde’s Message to 52d Gen. Assembly, Jan. 4, 1923. 248 Statement from Secretary of State’s Office, Jan. 4, 1923. 249 J. T. Waddill, Agent Present Missouri Tax Commission. 250 Dodd, State Government, p. 430. 251 The Minnesota Tax Commission Report, 1914. 252 See File 13, Const. Convention of Missouri, 1922. 253 Const. Convention Bulletin No. 4, 111. Leg. Reference Bureau, pp. 250, 251. 254 Sect. 14 of National Tax Association’s Committee Report, 1917. 255 Third Bien. Report Tax Commission, pp. 12,13. —74— (Page 75) sessors and commission placed on the horns of a dilemma, one of which is the constitution and the laws and the other the impossibility of listing this kind of property. The question of the taxation of intangible property has created a bone of contention between the cities and the country. “The country claims, and in a large measure truthfully, that its personal property is visible and therefore accessible to the assessor, whereas he says his city brother keeps his personal property in his safe deposit box and does not tell the assessor the number thereof. The city brother counters, Which also carries much truth, that valuations of his country brother’s property is away below par.”256 A good example of this is the item of money, which is not set out in the assessment returns as a separate item, but is included with notes and bonds. The total amount of all three of these as returned by the assessors for 1919 was $175,563,586. The time demand individual deposits of money in the bank at the time of making the assessments in 1919 amounted to $724,714,978.257 In many instances, however, if this money had been assessed at cash value, the total tax rates would have amounted to more than the interest rates; hence the horns of another dilemma. Although the tax commission has “the exclusive power of orig¬inal assessment of railroads, railroad cars, rolling stock, street railroads, bridges, telegraphs, telephones, express companies, and other similar public utility corporations, companies and firms,”258 it is admitted that valuation of this kind of property is exceedingly difficult. The present tax commission takes into consideration a number of factors such as cost less depreciation, capitalization of earnings, the annual tax return made by each utility, earnings, market value of their securities, physical values; following the data of the interstate commerce commission where possible.259 The way this class of property is assessed affects rather vitally an important source of income. Many other instances could be cited to show that most of the inequalities in taxation in Missouri are connected with the general property tax, and not the least are due to a loose-jointed administrative machinery. Before trying to picture this machinery, it is proper to speak briefly of the other sources of income. (2) Income tax. During the Civil War, an income tax law was passed.260 It did not remain in operation very long, but long enough to be declared 256 Second. Bien. Report Tax Commission, p. 11. 257 Second Bien. Report Tax Commission, p. 12. 258 Ch. 119, Art. 4, R. S. 1919. 259 Third Bien. Report Tax Commission, p. 10; Second Bien. Report Tax Commission, p. 20. 260 Laws, 1864-65, p. 112. The first income tax law of any sort was enacted in 1847, but remained in operation only a short time. Laws, 1847, p. 123. —75— (Page 76) constitutional by the supreme court of the state.261 Hardly had the income tax law of 1917 gone into operation before it was attacked in the courts, but its constitutionality was also sustained.262 It was argued in its passage that such a tax was imposed according to ability to pay. It was thought, too, that such a tax would bring about equality of sacrifice among the payers. The total returns to the state from this source for the last two years have been cited. The tax is universally considered just and equitable, but there is a vital objection to the way it is administered. Though the lists are taken by the assessors and the tax, wh^ch is due in June of each year, is collected by the various collectors, the state auditor is the chief administrative official. A clerk in his office handles the details, but has not an adequate force to administer the law properly. It is a common belief that many who should, do not make out their returns.263 In each report the tax commission has recommended that the administration of this law be placed in its charge.264 Since the inception of the income tax in 1917, the rates have varied, being now one per cent.265 (3) Corporation franchise tax. With certain exceptions, the corporation franchise tax is levied on the capital stock issued and outstanding and surplus of all corporations, domestic or foreign, doing business in the state. The rates have also varied.266 The tax is due in May of each year and is administered mostly by the tax commission, although the state auditor, treasurer and attorney-general have some part in the operation of the law.267 This law, too, has been subject to considerable litigation, but up to this time it has been sustained by the courts.268 On the whole, little complaint, however, is heard, either about the merits of this law or its administration. (4) Inheritance tax. In 1917 Missouri repealed its collateral inheritance tax law and passed a direct inheritance tax law. 269 The amended law of 1921 increased the exemptions, but the figures cited above show that the total collected in 1922 was greater than in 1921. Many arguments were and are used in support of the law—“the limitation of inherit 261 43 Missouri 479. 262 First Bien. Report Tax Commission, p. 175. 263 St. Louis Globe-Democrat, Jan. 15, 1923. 264 Third Bien. Report Tax Commission, pp. 25, 22; Third Bien. Budget, p. 112. 265 Laws, 1917, p. 524; R. S. 1919, Sect. 13106; Laws, 1921, Extra Session, p. 187. 266 Laws, 1917, p. 237; Sect. 9836 ff., R. S. 1919; Laws, 1921, Extra Session, p. 122. 267 Third Bien. Budget Tax Commission, p. 112. 268 Gov. Hyde’s Message, July 11, 1921, Vol. I, Append. House and Senate Journals; Third Bien. Rep. Tax Commission, p. 24. 269 Laws, 1917, p. .114; Ch. 1, Art. 21, R. S. 1919; Laws, 1921, Extra Session, p. 26. —76— (Page 77) ance, reduction of swollen fortunes, diffusion of wealth, co-heirship of the state, curtailing special privileges accruing to the recipient, equalizing the income from fortuitous or accidental causes, dividing costs of administration, apportioning benefits from receiving property without giving toil or service.” The most potent argument was based on the back tax theory, i. e., that many owners had escaped taxes on intangible property.270 Although the constitutionality of the law was attacked almost immediately in the courts, it was. sustained and the tax is looked upon with more favor than any other.271 The administration of the law is lodged jointly with the attorney-general and the state treasurer. The present tax commission, following its predecessors, has recomended that it be given this administration.272 b.Operation of the present financial machinery, especially in regard to the general property tax and centralization of authority. Subject to all the tests of a model tax system, the general property tax in Missouri is on the whole a failure, but so long as it, with other taxes, brings in enough revenue to meet the state’s expenses, no changes may be expected from those in official positions, in fundamental principles of the system. The financial history of the state proves this conclusively. However, those in authority have not been averse to suggesting improvements in the administrative machinery.273 At the foundation of this administrative system is the local assessor. “Unless he is a man of good judgment, familiar with values, endowed with sufficient moral courage to be fair, and diligent enough to find and place all property in his district on the assessment rolls, his work invariably fall's short of the legal standard, and usually results in the grossest injustice.”274 As has been noted, each county except the twenty-four having township organization has an assessor elected for a term of four years. Outside of the city assessors, this makes up a body of nearly four hundred people. Waiving the objections to popular election and various local influences, they cannot be said to be especially fitted for their work by previous training or experience.275 “In the bygone days when this country was sparsely settled and land, livestock and simple household goods comprised the tangible wealth for most part, and intangible wealth hardly existed, the making of an assessment 270 First Bien. Report Tax Commission, pp. 161, 162. 271 State ex rel. McClintoch et al. v. Guinotte, 275 Mo. 298; Second Report Tax Commission, p. 10. 272 Third Bien. Report Tax Commission, p. 26. 273 Second Bien. Report Tax Commission, pp. 10, 16; Third Budget, Ibid., p. 112. 274 “Method of Selecting Assessors,” 1914; First Bien. Report Missouri Tax Commission, p. 231. 275 Second Bien. Report Tax Commission, p. 19. —77— (Page 78) was a comparatively simple matter, but in these more complex days with their multitudinous forms of taxable property ranging from asses to aeroplanes, from bonds to bagpipes, to compile a true assessment of all taxable wealth in a county demands the service of an expert.”276 There are no special qualifications for the office in Missouri.277 The ideal system in the machinery of assessment would make the assessor as independent of local influence as the internal revenue department of the federal government,278 but, because of local feeling, the more practical system for Missouri would follow the model system of 1917 and only go so far as to abolish all township assessors and place the power of removal of all assessors in the hands of the state tax commission, providing, however, for assessment districts large enough to warrant the employment of a full-time expert on assessments.279 As has been noted, there is an intermediate link between the local assessor on the one hand and the tax commission and state board of equalization on the other, in the county board of equalization which has power to equalize property as among individual owners.280 The county court is also given power to remedy erroneous assessments, and, under certain conditions, a special court of appeals, composed of the county clerk and two justices of the peace whom the former may select, can take the place of the county board of equalization.281 So long as there is not a complete separation of the sources of state and local revenue, which does not now seem desirable,282 and granted that an expert district assessor could be had and that power to appeal to the state tax commission could be had for individual owners, there would seem to be little need for the intermediate links mentioned above. There are the same number of collectors of the general property tax as there are assessors. Outside of the slight supervision of the auditor’s office, there is practically no state supervision.283 As a general rule there is more struggle to get the office of county collector than any other county office. The reason is obvious—it carries the largest salary. Every outstanding tax authority today is for a permanent state 276 Second Bien. Report Tax Commission, p. 19. 277 Kentucky has a law requiring assessors to pass an examination— Ibid. 278 Ibid., p. 17. 279 First Bien. Report Tax Commission, pp. 253, 254; Ibid., pp. 230- 234. 280 Ch. 119, Art. 3, R. S. 1919. 281 Sects. 12817, 12813, R. S. 1919. 282 Model System, 1917, First Bien. Rep. Tax Commission, p. 256; Dodd, State Government, p. 430. 283 Auditor’s Report, 1919-20, p. 78. —78— (Page 79) tax commission or commissioner. “We will merely say that neither the system of taxation which we recommend nor any other can be expected to give satisfactory results in states that refuse to place in the hands of some permanent central authority the administration of taxes upon incomes and inheritances, the original assessments of certain classes of property, and general supervisory powers over the assessment of all property subject to local taxation.”284 In connection with the crisis of 1917, the legal and working relations between the state board of equalization and the state tax commission were brought down to date. There is no question but what the tax commission has been of great value in supervising the assessments and in doing away with the great disparity among the counties. Before 1917, for example, the lands in the rich counties of Saline and Platte were assessed very little higher than the lands in counties like Barry, where they are worth not more than one-fourth as much.285 With its limited force, the commission seems to have always worked hard to secure uniformity in proportion to value throughout the state. They have made visits; sent out letters, bulletins and questionnaires; held conferences; given rulings on questions involving the laws; made a study of the soil map of the various counties; studied the comparative values of land in the various counties as summarized in the United States census reports, and given hearings.286 The supervisory powers of the commission are probably sufficient, if it were allowed enough funds to carry them out. However, it would be well to give them the power to order “re-assessment and, if necessary, to appoint appraisers to re-assess any property that local officials have not assessed in accordance with the law.”287 In such cases the commission should be allowed to act as a board of appeal. They should also be given the power to remove local assessors, after a hearing. The Missouri tax commission now has the power of original assessment of most of the property of statewide character. This power should be widened so as to include all of it, together with all public utility companies of every sort.288 In administering the inheritance, income and corporation franchise taxes, there should be much greater centralization in the hands of the tax commission. Few, if any, would question the contention of the present tax commission which runs as follows: “From the observation and experience of the tax commission, it recommends to the general assembly the consideration of placing the administration 284 Model System, 1917, First Bien. Rep. Tax Commission, p. 254. 285 Third Rep. Tax Com., p. 32; Journal of Board of Equalization, 1917, p. 14. 286 Third Rep. Tax Commission, pp. 5-9. 287 TFirst Bien. Rep. Tax Comm., p. 255. 288 First Bien. Rep. Tax Commission, p. 254; Third Bien. Rep. Tax Commission, pp. 11, 26. —79— (Page 80) of all tax laws, with the exception of the ad valorem tax, in the hands of one department. At the present time the inheritance tax, the income tax, the corporation franchise tax, which produce most of the revenue for state purposes, are assessed and collected by three different departments. The combination of these in one department would not only be more economical in that it would reduce overhead expense, but would also reduce the number of agents or inspectors, together with their expenses. It would also bring about a much more thorough administration of each of these tax laws. The experience of this department shows that vesting the authority of all tax laws in one body and making that body the custodian of all records relating to such laws, the information gathered with regard to one will assist in the enforcement of the others. The complete administration and enforcement of these three laws might increase the revenue from these sources so that the ad valorem tax might be greatly reduced. It is needless to report to you that unless those laws are properly supervised, particularly the income and inheritance tax laws, the revenue therefrom will continue to decrease. The departments administering them have been seriously hampered on account of lack of power and appropriation, but even under those handicaps have shown wonderful returns.”289 There is little question that the state board of equalization should be abolished and the tax commission given its powers.290 By doing this, the final authoity to equalize property assessment would be centered in one authority which could give great and continuous attention to the subject and bring to bear on the matter expert knowledge and experience. This should mean greater economy and co-ordination of effort. The prevailing opinion in tne state seems to be that the commission should be appointed as it is now, and for the same term.291 There is now a move on foot to change the number on the commission from three to four, in order that each leading political party may have an equal number. The commonly agreed conspicuous success of the capitol commission and the apparent initial success of the highway commission have no doubt had their influence toward making this proposal. “The aim of this bill is to take Missouri’s tax! problems out of politics, and to lodge the responsibility for the administration of the tax laws equally between the Republican and Democratic parties, so that the candidates of neither will hereafter have the opportunity or occasion to inject the tax question into political campaigns as it was injected into the recent campaign.”292 It is clear that centralization of tax administration in Missouri 289 Third Budget Tax Commission, p. 112. 290 File No. 13, Constitutional Convention of Missouri, 1922, p. 29. 291 Ibid., p. 15; St. Louis Globe-Democrat, Jan. 15,1923. 292 St. Louis Globe-Democrat, Jan. 15, 1923. —80— (Page 81) has developed very slowly, especially from the creation of the first state board of equalization in 1866 until the crisis of 1917. Since 1917 the movement has been more rapid, but, as has been noted, there are a number of other important steps which should be taken in this direction. c. Cost of state government. The cost of state government in Missouri is comparatively small. This is well illustrated by Governor Hyde in his message of January 4,1923: “In Kansas City, the total per capita tax burden is $102.92— Per Cent The federal government collects $52.70 51 The city, county and schools - 45.92 45 The state collects 4.30 4” He showed that the distribution in St. Louis City was about the same as in Kansas City, and continued: “As to the other cities and strictly rural districts, the figures are not available. In these the total per capita tax is much less, but the percentages above given would not be radically changed. The total state revenue of the state of Missouri was (per capita) for the last two years only $3.90 annually. It is fair to assume that the percentage of the total annual per capita tax burden imposed by the state would average around 6 per cent. This percentage is so small as to be comparatively negligible.” It was further pointed out that the average taxation per acre for state purposes was 2% cents, and that all the counties except four drew back more school money than they paid in property tax to the state revenue. d. Purposes for which money is used. No one would question the governor's further statement: “The purposes to which the state revenue is devoted must affect any correct estimate of its justice or necessity.” Illustrating: During the last two years the state revenue was devoted to the following purposes: Education. Common and high schools $ 9,105,590.96 University, teachers' colleges and Lincoln Institute 4,678,857.58 Schools for the blind and deaf 503,219.19 Total for education $14,287,667.73 Eleemosynary institutions .....$ 1,926,078.25 Courts, appellate and circuit, criminal costs, penal insti-tutions, assessing and collecting revenue $ 3,551.049.78 “Considering the balance in revenue on hand two years ago, the balance now on hand, the deficiencies paid out of the old balance, and all proper charges against the new balance, the total expenditures out of the state revenue fund will be about 24% million dollars. Of this amount 58.3 per cent went for educational purposes, 8 per cent for eleemosynary purposes, 14.4 per cent for courts and the machinery of the law generally. These three indispensable state services ab —81— (Page 82) sorbed 80.7 per cent of the total state expenditure. All other state expenditures combined absorbed out of the revenue fund only 19.3 per cent of the total, or less than one-fifth of the total state tax and only about 1 per cent of the total tax burden."293 e. Method of appropriating and expending money—lack of budget system and centralization of authority and responsibility. However small may be the cost of the state government and legitimate the purposes of the expenditure, it is patently evident that Missouri needs a scientific budget system. Of course there is the state auditor whose chief business is to see that no more money is paid out than has been appropriated, and the treasurer, who is responsible for the safe keeping of the money and who can pay it out only on an order from the auditor. There are the usual sections in the constitution on how the money of the state shall be deposited and the time for which it may be appropriated, but there is no definite, centralized administrative control and responsibility in these matters.294 In a word, there is an absence of a state financial policy such as is found in a number of the states.295 In the campaign of 1920, both great political parties went on record in favor of a budget system.296 A budget department was created by the legislature in 1921, but the law was defeated by a referendum vote in 1922.297 A number believed, undoubtedly, that since the governor could appoint and remove at will the head of this department, partisan politics would manifest itself. Conscious of the duplication and waste in expenditure of the public money, the present governor, in his message of Jan. 4, 1923, was emphatic in his recommendation of a budget system: “The solution of the whole question of economy lies in an effective budget department. To estimate the receipts and expenditures for the information of the legislature is fine as far as it goes, but if economy is to be effected, it must be enforced. “The assessment and collection of the revenue, including income, inheritance and the corporation franchise tax; the supervision of purchases and state expenditures generally; the elimination of waste and overlapping; the investigation and study of our state government as an organization and of our taxation as a science—these are 293 Missouri’s debt consists of certificates of indebtedness, soldier bonus bonds, and a few millions of dollars of road bonds, the sum total not being large enough to impair her credit in any sense, since the grand total of taxable wealth on June 1, 1921, was over $4,616,000,000—Third Bien. Rep. Tax Commission, p. 98. 294 Const. 1875, Art. 10, Sects. 15,16, 19. 295 Dodd, State Government, p. 435, especially the footnotes. 296 Governor Hyde’s Message, Jan. 4, 1923. 297 Ibid., Laws, 1921, p. 170. —82— (Page 83) all related activities. They are 365 days per year tasks, requiring unflagging energy, study and zeal. They should be carried out by a non-partisan board, armed with plenary powers and given a fund sufficient to carry on their work.” Many specific instances were shown of how savings could be effected. As examples, state officials and institutions largely make their purchases with no restraint except the limits of the appropriations; there is duplication of printing and service in similar departments; the state purchases food, clothing, beds and medicines for nearly 10,000 people, yet gets very little advantage from quantity purchases. The present tax commission has shown that the assessing and collecting of the general property tax costs about 12 per cent of the $3,200,000 collected, whereas it costs only about 3% per cent to collect the corporation franchise tax and about 3 per cent to collect the inheritance tax.298 In a scientific budget system there must be not only unified plans of proposed state expenditures and means for raising revenue to meet the expenditures; but these plans must come from the head of the executive department and “the legislature must organize to consider the budgeting proposal as a unit, with full information as to why appropriations are asked.”299 That is not all; there must be continuous supervision of the execution of the budget, and this supervision is best vested in the hands of the governor. At each session of the legislature a careful report of the financial administration during the preceding fiscal period should be presented, and the legislative department should have full power to make investigations of the financial administration.300 There should be built up in Missouri a permanent expert personnel in the financial administration as well as in other departments of the government. “Such a permanent personnel should be non-political, and a tradition should be built up, as in Great Britain, that such a personnel should serve with equal fidelity the leaders of either party.”301 f.Conclusion. Throughout the history of Missouri’s financial administration, and even at the present, few signs are visible of attempts to consider the system as a whole and thereby profit by the successes and failures of the past. Matters financial have been allowed to go along, generally, as they were, so long as enough revenue came to the state’s coffers to supply what the legislature and executive officials considered the reasonable needs of the state. Throughout this history, however, the state has always been honorable in its financial transactions. 298 Third Budget Tax Commissioin, p. 112. 299 Dodd, State Government, p. 439. 300 Ibid., pp. 441, 442. 301 Ibid., p. 442. —83— (Page 84) Though real centralization of administration is seen mainly from 1917 on, there is still great need to consider the system as a whole and to perfect the steps along the lines of suggestions made just above. Irrespective of political parties, there are evidences in practically all the late official documents dealing with financial matters that the people of the state are being convinced that a scientific budget system is a necessity; that administrative officials as a whole should not be dismissed just because a few of the leading state offices change heads at quadrennial elections. The past success of the bipartisan capitol commission and the apparent present success of the bipartisan state highway commission, both of which have pursued the policy of getting and retaining employees because of merit and not because of their politics, have helped drive these convictions home. It is generally conceded, too, that Missouri is “close” politically. Because of this, every part of the financial administration is subject to increasing scrutiny and criticism. Because of this, too, there is an increasing popular demand on the part of independent voters that most of the personnel of the administrative departments get and hold their positions because of merit and that alone. Taking conditions as a whole, both from the standpoint of the immediate past and of the present, it appears that Missouri is ripe for some thoroughgoing, constructive financial reforms. —84— (Page 85) CHAPTER III. PUBLIC EDUCATION. I. Introductory Statements. It is proper, partly from the standpoint of important educational developments and mostly because of well known historical considerations, to divide the history of public education in Missouri into the following periods: (1) Earliest times to 1825; (2) from 1825 to 1839; (3) from 1839 to 1853; (4) from 1853 to 1865; (5) from 1865 to 1874; (6) from 1874 to the present time.1 With the exception of the first period and important miscellaneous matters which arise in almost every period, the administration will be studied from the following viewpoints, to-wit: (1) The unit of school administration; (2) the school board; (3) sources of school revenue and financial administration, and (4) educational administration. II. Period from the Spanish-French settlements to the first legislative act on Education, 1824. Missouri’s first schools were private. They began during the Spanish-French period, were carried on by the village priests and private school teachers, and were confined to the towns. From a very early date, St. Louis, St. Charles and Ste. Genevieve had schools of this kind. The subjects taught were mostly the elementary branches, although the languages were taught, and, in the girls* schools, music and the “graces.” Tuition was charged in the private French schools.2 After the coming of the Americans, in 1804, the private and village priest schools continued, but the Protestant ministers and the private American schoolmasters began giving instruction in the towns and scattered settlements of the interior. The most important school, however, which appeared in this period was the district subscription school. The families in a community employed a teacher and paid him in proportion to the number of children sent by each family. Sometimes a log schoolhouse was built by the community and sometimes the school was conducted at the home of the teacher. This kind of school gradually spread over Missouri, as the American settlers found their way into the interior, frequently preceding the news¬paper and the court house. This was really the forerunner of the public elementary school, but it continued many years after the latter was started. Before the end of this period, the academy and the ladies* seminary appeared, in which were taught what we would call 1Unpublished article of Prof. J. D. Elliff of the University of Missouri, p. 1; to be referred to hereafter as Elliff. 2Shoemaker, A History of Missouri and Missourians, p. 327. —86— (Page 86) high school subjects.3 The boards of trustees of numbers of these were incorporated by the general assembly.4 Although neither the United States nor the territorial government passed any laws during this period providing for a system of public education, each made beginnings toward that end. In 1611 Congress, in a law providing for the sale of public lands in the territories of Orleans and Louisiana, made a provision therein for the reservation of the sixteenth section in each township for the support of the public schools.5 The intention of Congress is evident in the law of June 4, 1812, which marked another step in the growth of the territory, and changed its name to Missouri: “Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged and provided for from the public lands of the United States in said territory in such manner as Congress may deem expedient.”6 During the same month,7 Congress passed an act which was specific in its provisions regarding aid to towns and villages. The titles to many town lots were uncertain, so this act provided “that all town or village lots, common field lots and commons in and adjoining and belonging to the towns and villages of the territory which are not rightfully owned or claimed by any private individual, or held as commons belonging to such town or village, or that the President of the United States may not think proper to reserve for military forces, shall be and the same are hereby reserved for the support of schools in the respective towns or villages aforesaid: provided, that the whole quantity of land contained in the lots reserved for the support of schools in any town or village shall not exceed one-twentieth part of the whole lands included in the general survey of such towns or villages.” Considerable difficulty was encountered in getting the titles settled so that the towns and villages could get possession of the lots.8 Further educational impetus came from Congress in the act enabling Missouri to become a state. The first proposition offered to the Missouri convention for acceptance or rejection was that “section numbered sixteen in each township, and when such section has been sold or otherwise disposed of, other lands equivalent thereto, and as contiguous as may be, shall be granted to the state for the use of the inhabitants of *\such township for the use of schools.”9 Thus was the law of 1811 confirmed. 3Shoemaker, A History of Missouri and Missourians, pp. 327, 331. 4Mo. Terr. Laws, Vol. I, pp. 189, 517, 636, 652, 945. 5United States Statutes at Large, Vol. II, p. 621. 6U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. II, Ch. 95. 7Ibid., p. 750, June 13, 1812; Scharf, History of St. Louis, pp. 323, 832 8Elliff, pp- 4-5; Scharf, History of St. Louis, p. 832; Phillips, A History of Education in Missouri, p. 6. 9Mo. Terr. Laws, Vol. I, p. 630. —80— (Page 87) The convention was not unmindful of the proposition submitted and so they provided in the first constitution that “schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged in this state, and the general assembly shall take means to preserve from waste or damage such lands as have been or hereafter may be granted by the United States for the use of schools within each township in this state, and shall apply the funds which may arise from such lands in strict conformity to the object of the grant: one school or more shall be established in each township as soon as practicable or necessary, where the poor shall be taught gratis.”10 In obedience to these obligations of the organic law, the first legislature of the state, at its first session, passed “an act to prevent waste on school lands.”11 Under the provisions of this law the county court was obligated to appoint five respectable householders, commissioners of school lands in each respective county. These commissioners were further obligated to lease or rent the school lands for any period, not to exceed five years, and, under the direction of the county court, invest the proceeds accruing, but in no instance could they sell these lands. The act just discussed was amended at the first session of the second general assembly. The amended law made it the duty of the county court to appoint two commissioners of school lands in each township. These two commissioners possessed all the powers and were subject to the same restrictions as were the former five, with the added power, under the direction of the county court, to build a school house “for the benefit of education” in the township when sufficient funds had been raised for that purpose.12 These were the only two general laws on public education passed before the general school law of 1825.13 It is obvious that during this first period the chief interest of those in authority in public education was in its support. This interest seems to have come more from the United States government than from Missouri, and was of more benefit for the future than during the period itself. There are a number of reasons why no system of public education was established. Many of the communities were widely scattered and were of the pioneer character which naturally has to look first to the preservation of life and property.14 10 Const. 1820, Art. 6, Sect. 1. 11Terr. Laws of Missouri, Vol. I, p. 697. 12Mo. Terr. Laws, Vol. I, p. 1005. 13St. Louis was incorporated into a school district in 1817—Ibid., p. 521—but the first public school was not opened there until 1838—Shoemaker, Missouri and Missourians, p. 328. 14Brackenridge, Views of Louisiana, p. 113. This author points out, however, that there were few settlements in the territory no matter how insignificant, but that contrived to have a school in which reading, writing and a little arithmetic were taught;p. 117. —87— (Page 88) Much of the population came from the southern states and had been unaccustomed to a system of public education. There was, as has been noticed in Chapter II, a meagerness of public revenue, especially for school purposes. Then, too, there was a disposition to look upon school education as a private matter and only for those who could afford it. This idea was in line with the other idea mirrored in the first constitution, that free public education was a matter of charity on the part of the government rather than as a duty and a necessity for the furthering and the preservation of democratic ideals. Again, the needs of those who were interested in school education were partially supplied, at least, by the schools they had. III. First attempts to found a common school system, 1825-1839: 1.The Act of 1825: a. Introductory statements. The first attempt on the part of the state to found a public school system of any sort came in 1825 with the passage of a law entitled “an act to provide for the management and protection of the school lands and for the establishing and governing of the common schools.”15 The provisions were essentially devoted to the management and protection of the school lands. It may be that, under the conditions, this' is the best that could have been done. There is no indication that any public school was established under the provisions of this act, but the opportunities given to counties and districts to take care of and accumulate school funds are not unimportant matters.16 b. Unit of school administration. By this act each township and fractional township, as surveyed under the authority of the United States, constituted a school district, but if a fractional township contained less than one hundred acres of the sixteenth section, the county court could attach the fraction to an adjoining township, and the two became one school district. The inhabitants of each school district could be organized as a corporation by the county court upon the presentation of a petition to the latter body signed by at least two-thirds of the householders. Each school district, when once organized, was subject to no control on the part of the county and to no executive control on the part of the state.17 Neither is there a provision for the combination of two or more school districts. c. The school board. The corporate powers of the district were vested in a board of five trustees elected annually by the qualified electors of the district. No provision was made for gradual change in the member¬ship of the board; all were elected each year. The board had con 15R. S. 1825, Vol. II, p. 711. 16Elliff, p. 9. 17 Sect. 22 provided that the General Assembly could have control. —88— (Page 89) trol of both the financial and educational * administration of the district. Until the school district was organized, the law provided for the temporary administration of the school lands through three commissioners, appointed by the county court, in each municipal township.18 These commissioners had about the same powers and limitations placed on them as the two commissioners had under the law of 1822.19 d.Sources of revenue and the financial administration. Once the district was organized, however, all the powers of the commissioners and of the county court in regard to school lands were vested in the board of trustees of the district, with the probable wise provision that they could not sell the lands. It was the duty of the county court to order the transfer to the district treasurer of all moneys credited to such district. The board had power to provide for school houses and their necessary equipment. It could also divide the district into “two or more school precincts for keeping school.” Once such division was made, the board was obligated to divide the net proceeds of school moneys “among the several precincts according to the number of persons therein between the ages of six and sixteen.” The board had no general power to levy taxes, but, should there be a deficiency in any precinct, the board, upon a petition of two-thirds of the householders of that precinct, could levy and collect a tax to supply the deficiency. Such a levy could be made, however, only on those who sent pupils to the school, and must be in proportion to the number of pupils sent by each. There was some recognition, however, of the principle of free public education in that the trustees were to determine the number of poor children who should be educated during the year free of expense. It is clear that this provision would tend to set off the free pupils as a class of paupers and cause taxpayers to protest against exemptions.20 No adequate fund accumulated under the provisions of this act, so agitation was started for the sale of the sixteenth section. Another reason for the sale was that people wanted the lands, since in many cases they were the choice lands of the township, and it was felt that they might be obtained at nominal prices. The upshot was that the legislature in 1831 authorized the sale of these lands.21 The minimum price at which the lands could be sold was $1.25 per acre, which was, no doubt, in many cases, far below their actual value. The methods providing for selling the land and looking after the money appear safe enough on their face, but it may be that many 18See R. S. 1825, p. 769, on townships. 19Mo. Terr. Laws, Vol. I, p. 1005. 20EUiff, p. 11. 21Laws, 1824-1836, Vol. II, p. 261. —89— (Page 90) counties had the same experience as Platte. “The sixteenth sections were squatted upon, and no one dared to bid against the Squatters’ for their lands. They, therefore, got their lands at the minimum price of $1.25 an acre. The principal of the township school fund (of this county) is only $21,000. Had there been a fair sale, the fund would now be $200,000."22 It is hard to get exact data on the care and sale of the sixteenth sections. In 1850 the secretary of state, who was ex-officio superintendent of common schools, reported that there had been 1,132,920 acres sold and that slightly more than half of this amount had been sold for the sum of $727,000. The county clerks reported to him that the average value per acre of that remaining unsold was eighty-seven cents.”23 State Superintendent of Schools Parker in his report in 1869 remarked: “If the prudent and liberal spirit of the general government had been properly appreciated, and this noble grift of land, amounting to over 1,208,120 acres of land at the time the state was established in 1820, as prudently and wisely husbanded, the public schools might now be supported from the proceeds of the various school funds without the necessity of resort to private taxation."24 e. Educational administration. The act of 1825 contained some rather detailed provisions on educational administration, but there was no provision for super¬vision by state or county officials. It was assumed, however, that the board of trustees might not be qualified to do the supervision work, so the law provided for a board of visitors, consisting of not to exceed nine members, to be appointed by the board of trustees. The visitors were to “superintend and direct the general instruction of scholars.” The board of visitors was to visit the schools “once at least in every three months.” Although the board of trustees appointed the teachers, they were restricted in their appointment to those who had certificates issued by the board of visitors showing that they had satisfactorily passed an examination held by the visitors. Then, again, the board of visitors could remove the teachers. The term for which the teacher was to be chosen is not mentioned. The trustees were to determine annually the number of pupils to be educated gratis and the visitors selected the gratis pupils who should attend school. It is gratifying to know that in the selection of pupils, visitors and teachers, the law forbade any preference on account of religious opinion. 22Paxton, Annals of Platte County, p. 46, published in 1897; the lands in Platte were sold about 1842. See Missouri Intelligencer, Nov. 22, 1834, for an unsparing criticism of these land sales. 23Senate Journal Append., 1850, p. 141. 24Third Report of State Superintendent of Schools, p. 25. A law of 1833 changed somewhat the method of sale of the sixteenth sections and probably not to the benefit of the school funds, Laws of Missouri, 1824-36, p. 359. -909- (Page 91) The curriculum of each common school was regulated to the extent that there should be taught reading, writing, arithmetic, and English grammar. There is nothing to indicate that other subjects could not be placed in the curriculum. The act does not provide in express terms what the age of the pupils shall be, but “inasmuch as it was provided the school funds of a district which had been subdivided into precincts should be divided among the several precincts according to the number of persons therein between the ages of six and sixteen, it is probable that it was the intention to establish these as the minimum and maximum ages of pupils.”25 2. The Act of 1835: a. Introductory statements. The law of 1825 proved ineffective in helping to establish a public school system and what caused this ineffectiveness probably more than any other thing was the manner of the disposal and lack of care of the funds in connection with the sales of the sixteenth sections.26 The legislature recognized the need for better school laws, and during its session in 1833 authorized the governor to appoint “three suitable persons to form a system of common primary school instruction, and to report at the next meeting of the legislature.”27 The three persons were appointed and their report was laid before the legislature by the governor November 28,1834.28 An analysis of the law of 1835 29 bears out the statement of the committee recommending it to the house that “it contains many of the provisions of the old law, and is in fact a revision of it, with the addition of some new principles.”30 Like the previous school acts, much of it deals with school lands. The provisions for the sale of these lands, in spite of the evident dissatisfaction with the operation of former laws in this respect, did not differ greatly from those found in the law of 1831, except that the powers vested by the earlier law in a commissioner were given to the county court, which gave no bond for the safekeeping of funds. b. Unit of school administration. Under the act of 1835, the school district could either be the township, as previously, or a subdivision of the same, not exceeding 25Elliff, p. 13. 26There is an unsparing criticism of these sales in the Missouri Intelligencer, quoted from the Salt River Journal, Nov. 22, 1834. 27Laws of Missouri, 1824-1836, Ch. 279. 28House Journal, 1834-35, p. 90. This report was ordered printed but it is not found in the Journals, but see Journals of the House, 1834-35, p. 366; also Missouri Intelligencer, Feb. 28, 1835; speech by Mr. Gordon, Ibid., March 7, 1835. 29R. S. 1835, p. 561. 30Missouri Intelligencer, March 21, 1835, for the report of this com¬mittee; the chairman presented a strong plea for free public education. —91— (Page 92) four in each township. The incorporation of the inhabitants of a township into school districts could not take place until the sales from the sixteenth sections of land amounted to $800, unless, upon a petition by a majority of the inhabitants of any township, the county court cared to incorporate them before the amount had reached that figure. Should the trustees of two or more townships care to combine their funds in establishing a school, they could do so, with the consent of the county court. Each township was required to pay tuition in proportion to the number of children furnished by it between the ages of six and eighteen. The chairman of the board of trustees of each township reported the number of children in each township subject to a tuition charge, a joint report of this data was made to the county court, and the latter apportioned the funds to each township accordingly. An attempt was made in this act to bring the local units of organization into closer contact with the state government. The county court was obligated to make to the secretary of state, every two years, a report of the amount in the permanent school fund of each district, and an abstract of the reports sent to the courts by the boards of trustees in the county. Furthermore, there was created an ex-officio board of commissioners for literary purposes, composed of the governor, secretary of state, state auditor, state treasurer, and attorney-general. It was made the duty of the secretary of state to lay before this board the reports sent him by the county courts, and the board was to report to the general assembly any defects in the school laws and make recommendations to remedy these defects. We thus see the first step toward the creation of a state department of education. c. The school board. The school board of trustees had substantially the same power as in the law of 1825, but now consisted of three instead of five members. A trustee must have the qualifications of a member of the house of representatives of the state, and must have contributed one dollar as a “benefactor of common schools.” d. Sources of revenue and the financial administration. The law of 1835 made provision for a county school fund in addition to the township fund. The county fund was derived from three sources, to-wit: (1) All fines and forfeitures collected for the use of the state or county were appropriated for the benefit of education in the county; (2) donations from benefactors of common schools; (3) taxes. The second and third of these sources need some explanation. The clerk of each court, if the latter so desired, procured a book large enough to register the names of at least 5,000 people. In this “Register of Benefactors of Common Schools” was written the names of all persons who wished to become benefactors in giving a sum of —92— (Page 93) money for the encouragement of the schools. The benefactor could name a certain district as the beneficiary of his contribution. An important step was taken in school taxation. Whereas the act of 1825 provided for taxation upon persons sending pupils to school, the act of 1835 established the principle of taxation for public education on the basis of the amount of property held. The tax was county-wide, levied by the county court if voted by a two-thirds vote of the voters of the county, and limited to three and one-third cents on the hundred dollars assessed valuation. The moneys accruing to the county school fund were to be divided annually among the several incorporated school districts in proportion to the number of children of school age in each district. No district was to receive any part of this money after its permanent school fund amounted to $2,400. The principle of free public education was still further recognized in that the trustees were to maintain a school in each incorporated school district for at least six months in every year “in which school all children between the ages of six and eighteen years permanently residing in the district shall be free to enter as scholars."31 If the school fund was not sufficient to keep the school going that length of time, then the trustees were to apportion the deficit among those sending children to the school in proportion to the number sent. If the income amounted to more than enough for a six months' school, the trustees were empowered, if desired by a majority of those who had children of school age, to provide for a school lasting the full year, the deficit, if any, to be apportioned as above. In those districts where the school funds amounted to $2,400, it was the trustees’ “duty absolutely to furnish or provide for keeping a school for the year.” Different from the act of 1825, the county court under the act of 1835 had nearly all the control over school moneys, but was limited in that it must, with the exception noted, apportion these among the school districts according to the number of persons in each between the ages of six and eighteen. e. Educational administration. The provisions on educational administration remain about the same as in the former law, save there was added to the curriculum, geography . . . “and such other branches of education (theology excepted) as the funds may justify.” It is obvious that the “new principles” in this law were: a more definite subdivision of the township for school purposes; a provision for a combination of districts; the attempt to have some supervision on the part of the state in getting local data and using it; centralization of the power over funds in the county court; introduction of the ideas of taxation on the basis of property and that schools were 31 Section 34. —93— (Page 94) free to all within certain ages; and the establishment of a county school fund. 3. The State School Fund. Enough funds and proper supervision were two of the greatest needs of the schools of this period.32 It has been pointed out how the township and county school funds originated and how the amounts of both could be increased by the local communities through taxation, but the same causes which operated in the previous period to hinder the growth of a public school system were still present. There was necessity for a statewide movement in order to have inore adequate funds for the schools. Such a necessity was seen and is expressed in a law of 1837 which marks the creation of a state school fund. This fund is now separate and distinct from the township and county funds, and so it was from the beginning. The state fund was derived from two sources, to-wit, the saline and surplus revenue funds. The United States government in 1820 had granted to the state not to exceed twelve salt springs with six sections of land adjoining each.33 The legislature was forbidden to sell or lease these springs, at any one time, for a longer period than ten years, without the consent of Congress. This consent was given in a “rider” to “an act to create the office of surveyor of the public lands of the state of Louisiana.”34 The proceeds from the sales were to be invested in a fund, the income from which was under the direction of the legislature for the purpose of education in the state and for nothing else. These lands were sold, and the proceeds made a part of the state school fund, “the Common School Fund.”35 The total amount realized from these sales in 1838 was about $40,000.36 The United States government had a surplus in 1836 and Congress decided to distribute it among the states on the basis of their representation in Congress.37 Missouri’s part was slightly over $382,000.38 The legislature in 1837 made this, also, a part of the “Common School Fund.” The way the “Common School Fund” was administered is of importance and warrants a brief statement even beyond the period we are discussing. It was to be invested by the governor in the stock of any bank incorporated by the state. If no such bank was incorporated, the governor was empowered to invest the fund “not now loaned or invested” in some safe and productive stock. Whenever the fund amounted to $500,000 or more, the interest and profits accruing thereon, or so much as the legislature might direct, was to be appropri 32Elliff, p. 21. 33See Enabling Act, Terr. Laws, Vol. I, p. 630. 34U. S. Statutes, 1824-35, Ch. 116. 35Laws, 1836-37, p. 117. 36House and Senate Journals, 1838-39, p. 44. 37U. S. Statutes, 1836-1845, Ch. 115, Sect. 13. 38House and Senate Journals, 1838-39, p. 44. -94- (Page 95) ated to the payment of "teachers in the common schools.”39 The same general assembly which created the state school fund chartered the Bank of the State of Missouri,40 and hence the governor invested the common school fund in this bank. From the standpoint of income, the investment proved unfortunate. So small were the dividends that Governor Marmaduke was impelled to say in his message of November 18, 1844, that “judging from the experience of the last four years, the seminary and common school funds will be rendered almost useless if they depend on the profits arising from their investment in the bank.”41 The income was rather small, and it was an exception when any apportionment was made as provided in the law of 1837. However, the fund was left in the bank until 1866.42 4. Conclusions. Reviewing the period from 1825 to 1839, it is evident that the people did not take advantage of the laws passed to establish a system of public education. The laws, however, gave them this opportunity and especially the opportunity to accumulate school funds, in local districts, counties, and for the whole state. The accumulating funds were important foundation stones for the present free public school system. Besides the reasons already mentioned why the public school system did not really go into operation, a further evidence may be cited from the history of Jackson County, which is probably typical: "The people having no one whose business it was to visit their schools and explain the law to them, and set the system before them with all its advantages, were prone to hold to the old system of ‘pay schools.'”43 The establishment of a state school fund was the logical step leading to a state department of education. This step was taken in the next period. IV. Actual Beginnings of a Public School System, 1839-1853: 1. The Act of 1839: The period from 1839 to 1853 is initiated by the act of 1839.44 The whole state now begins to be one of the units of administration in that a state department of education is created. As created by the act of 1839, the department consisted of a superintendent of common schools, chosen for a term of two years by a joint vote of the two houses of the general assembly, and an ex-officio board of commissioners of the state school fund, composed of the governor, attorney-general and superintendent of schools. Each county clerk of the county was required to send to the state superintendent an annual report showing the whole number of townships and school corporations organized for school purposes in this county, designating especially 39Laws, 1836-37, p. 117. 40Ibid., p. 12. 41Senate Journal, 1844-45, p. 24. 42Auditor’s Report 1865, p. 20. 43History of Jackson County, p. 239, published in 1881. 44Laws, 1838-39, p. 112. —95— (Page 96) those who had made necessary reports to the clerk, with a certified copy of these reports. a. Unit of school administration. The congressional township, under this act, formed a school township, not district as heretofore. The district was a part of the school township, but had a separate organization. A fractional part of a township could be attached by the county court to an adjoining township to form one school township. A school township could be organized for school purposes by a majority of the qualified voters of the township petitioning the county court for such organization. The first township meeting, by a majority vote, determined the number of school districts which should be immediately formed and organized in the township. After the first meeting, the directors of the township had power to divide the township into districts. However, this act did not affect any district heretofore organized. b. The school board. The corporate powers of the school township were vested in a commissioner of common schools, not fewer than two nor more than four inspectors, and a township clerk. The commissioner and inspectors were ex-officio school directors of the township. The officers of the school district were three trustees, a clerk, and collector. Township and district officers were chosen annually by the voters in their respective units, with the exception of the commissioner, who held office for two years. The township directors, when organized, had charge of the financial administration of the public moneys apportioned to the township, and supervision over the districts in such township. The district trustees had power over the educational administration of their respective districts. c. Sources of revenue and the financial administration. There are provisions, too, concerning the state public school fund. This fund was now divided into three parts, to-wit: (1) all moneys from the surplus revenue fund; (2) the proceeds from the saline lands and all lands vested in the state by escheat, purchase or forfeiture; (3) interest dividends, proceeds and profits of such moneys and lands until a distribution was authorized by law. The capital of the fund was under the control of the commissioners of the state school fund mentioned just above. They were empowered to direct this to be invested by the state auditor in the public stocks of Missouri or the United States or the Bank of the State of Missouri. The accruing income from this fund was called “state school moneys,” and once the school fund amounted to $500,000, these “moneys” could be apportioned among the organized townships of the state. The act of 1839 continues the county school fund, but names the income from this fund “county school moneys.” Provisions are made that such “moneys” should be annually apportioned by the county -96- (Page 97) court among the several school townships in the same manner and according to the same conditions prescribed for the state school moneys. The act also continues the township school fund. The interest on this fund, the rents, issues and profits of its lands and all fines, forfeitures, damages for trespass or waste of the townships’ lands were called “township school moneys.” These moneys were to be paid out by the county court on order of the commissioner of each township. More than any of the previous laws, that of 1839 recognized the necessity for local taxation. In a school district, the majority of those voting at an annual school election could, for the purpose of building a school house, levy a rate of taxation not to exceed fifty per cent of that imposed by law for state purposes. This levy was to be made on all taxable inhabitants of the district and on non-residents who held property there.45 Teachers’ wages were paid out of the moneys apportioned to each township, coming to the school trustees through the school commissioner. If this apportionment was not sufficient, the trustees could “collect the residue of such wages, excepting such sums as may have been collected by the teacher, from those liable to taxation.”46 There was a unique provision that if the necessary fuel for the school was not provided for out of the local taxes, each person sending a child to school was to furnish his proportion of the fuel unless exempted by the trustees on account of poverty. The apportionment of the income from school funds is an important matter. The apportionment of the state school moneys was restricted to districts which had been organized for school purposes. A further restriction was that in no case should the total amount distributed each year exceed the income of the preceding year, nor should it exceed sixty cents for each white child between the ages of six and eighteen resident in the district. Another condition of distribution was that a report should be made by the school trustees showing that a school had been kept in this district by a qualified teacher for at least three months during the year, and that the state school moneys received had been applied according to law. This restriction on the time of holding school may have prevented some communities from organizing their districts, for in 1841,47 the superintendent of the common schools was empowered to apportion the state school moneys among all the organized school districts which had reported the number of children of school age, but no further money was to be had until the report of the directors showed that the state school moneys had been applied according to law. The county and township moneys were administered by the county court, the distribution being limited in the same way as were the 45 Laws, 1839, pp. 133, 136. 46Ibid., Sect. 32. 47Laws, 1840-1841, p. 143. —97— (Page 98) state school moneys. Different from the act of 1835, the money accruing from taxation was the only money which could be used to equip schoolhouses. d. Educational administration. The educational administration which had been under the control of the township directors was now placed in control of the district trustees, subject to supervision by the township directors. In addition to this supervision, the board-of-visitors idea was retained, consisting of the commissioner of the township and not less than two nor more than four inspectors elected annually in the township. This board of visitors had general supervision over all the schools of its township, and, in carrying out their duties, the inspectors were required to visit each school within their township at least once a year. The duty of the board of visitors to examine teachers and grant certificates remained. As in former acts, no provision was made for the term of the teacher. It is probable that teachers were chosen for one year. The certificate of the teacher, in order to be valid, must have been dated within the year he was teaching. Detailed and long as the act of 1839 is, we find no statement on the curricula. School corporations in the towns and villages which had received lands and lots from the United States by the act of 1812 were dealt with in this act. The corporate powers of the town and village schools were vested in a single board of directors consisting of not less than five nor more than nine members, and they had in these districts the combined powers of the township board of directors and the district board of trustees. The treasurer of each school corporation was ex-officio school commissioner for the schools of his town or village. No local tax was provided for, but these districts received their proportionate share of the state and county school moneys, provided they reorganized under this act. The board of visitors consisted of not less than three nor more than five inspectors of common schools, appointed annually by the school directors. They had the same powers as the township inspectors. e. Conclusions. The law of 1839 was long and complex, and had a great many details. It largely depended on the people in the several localities for its execution, hence it, no doubt, should have been simple and clear.48 However, with all of its weaknesses in these respects, it was adopted in some communities almost at once,49 whereas we have no evidence that any schools were organized under the provisions of the acts of 1825 and 1835.50 48 For a defense of a detailed law, see first report of the superintendent of common schools, Senate Journals, 1840-41, p. 531. 49Senate Journals, 1840-41, p. 528. 50Elliff, p. 30. (Page 99) 2. Development of Public Schools During the Period. The first report of the state superintendent of schools, submitted to the general assembly in 1841,51 shows that in 1839 public schools were organized in forty-five townships in seventeen out of seventy- eight counties of the state. From thirty-eight of these townships, reports were made to the clerks of the respective county courts. The number of organized school districts in the above forty-five townships was one hundred and fourteen on the last day of December, 1839, from seventy-eight of which reports were made to the township directors. The amount of public school moneys received during 1839 was slightly over $1,600, but no part of this came from state school moneys; it all came from county and township funds. Nearly $2,200 is reported to have been paid in teachers’ wages. This was derived from tuition and local taxes.52 The greater part of the revenue accruing from local sources came from the funds derived from the sale of the township school lands. In the report of the state superintendent, just referred to, he brought out that 98,477 acres had been sold previous to the year 1841, for which $208,119 was received. This was an average price of slightly over $2.00 per acre. According to the state superintendent of schools, this was far below the value of the land, and could only be accounted for by the fact that combinations were frequently entered into by bidders to divide the land among themselves at the minimum price. Hence the generations to come were cheated out of some of their heritage. The general assembly in 1841 made the secretary of state ex-officio superintendent of common schools.53 This was probably done out of considerations of economy,54 but it was poor economy, since the secretary of state could not have had time and probably not the inclination to carry on this work thoroughly. The second report of the superintendent of common schools, which has the reports from the counties for 1841, shows on its face a decline in the organization of public schools. However, the first apportionment of state school moneys was made during this year, and so the thirteen counties which reported organized schools received sixty cents, the maximum amount, for each child of school age in each district in which an organized school had been taught by a qualified teacher. The total apportioned amounted to nearly $2,000. This was taken out of the nearly $20,000 dividend realized from the Bank of Missouri, the rest being added to the principal of the state school fund.55 51 Senate Journal, 1840-41, p. 527. 52Elliff, p. 30. 53Laws, 1840-41, p. 142. 54The first superintendent of schools received $600 per year; the secretary of state received half that amount as ex-officio superintendent. 55Senate Journal, 1842-43, p. 467; the amount ranged from $37.80 in Livingston to $534.60 m Boone—Boone getting nearly twice as much as the next highest county. —99— (Page 100) Common schools evidently existed in more than the thirteen counties which were benefited by the state’s distribution in 1842, for the state superintendent indicated that other reports had been sent in but did not contain the particulars required by law. It may be that officers in some of the counties were careless and that some had difficulty in understanding the law. These difficulties and the fact that only 13 out of 78 counties received an apportionment in 1842 must have set up some opposition to the law of 1839. Governor Reynolds may have anticipated an attack on the law, since, in his message of November 22, 1842, he earnestly recommended the continuance of the law in its present form, a similar law having been successful in other states and this one but imperfectly tested in Missouri.56 The governor’s message was taken up in the house, and the committee on education was instructed “to inquire into the expediency of abridging and amending” the act of 1839 so as to “better enable the citizens of the several townships to avail themselves of the benefits of the school fund.” This committee reported to the house February 13, 1843.57 They strongly supported the governor’s views, indicating that the plan of education then in operation was rapidly developing. They thought that an indiscriminate distribution of the public school money would “not only injure the cause of public instruction, by lessening the inducements now held out for the organization of common schools, but would also fail to produce any beneficial results to a community that would regard such apportionment in the light of an annual stipend, and that would give no assurance of its proper application.” The house adopted the views of the committee. The faith of those who defended the law of 1839 was justified, for the third report of the state superintendent of schools58 showed twenty-eight counties reporting organized schools, and the number of organized school districts increased from 102 to 202. These counties received the second apportionment of the state school moneys in February, 1843. The state school moneys amounted to over $17,000, the state’s amount of the dividend declared by the Bank of Missouri January 1, 1843. However, the maximum rate of apportionment per child of school age was limited to sixty cents. Hence the total amount distributed was slightly in excess of $6,000. This left a comparatively large surplus of school moneys, which, had not the law been changed, would have been added to the state school fund, as it had been previously. In 1842 the state superintendent of schools had urged a change in the law,59 so that there should be apportioned to each child of school age a greater amount. In the second place, he called attention to the uncertainty of the 56Senate Journals, 1842-43, p. 31. 57House Journal, 1842-43, p. 67. 58Journal of House, 1844-45, Append., p. 171. 59Senate Journal, 1842-43, p. 472. —100— (Page 101) Bank of Missouri declaring further dividends, and urged that any surplus remaining after the apportionment had been made be retained as a fund for future apportionments. The general assembly acted favorably on both of these suggestions. The maximum ratio of apportionment for each white child of school age in the organized school districts was increased to one dollar, and the commissioners of the state school fund were authorized to retain in the treasury, subject to distribution, any balance remaining after an apportionment of the state school moneys.60 The good sense of this was soon evident, since the bank declared no dividend the next year. The report made by the counties in 1843 shows school organizations still increasing. Forty-two counties reported, with a combined total of 224 organized school districts.61 The failure of the Bank of Missouri to declare a dividend in 1844 restricted the apportionment to the surplus remaining from the last apportionment. This surplus, with interest, amounted to nearly $12,000, being nearly double the amount apportioned in 1843. The total number of organized school districts, along with the number of children of school age, had so increased that the apportionment amounted to only fifty-four cents per child.62 The state superintendent of schools, in his third annual report,63 commended “most heartily” the law of 1839. He thought the prejudice against the system it established had nearly died out. He held that its details constituted a great merit. He was also for Governor Edwards’ suggestion in reference to the establishment of a normal school at public expense64 The reports made by the counties in the years 1844 and 1845 show a steady growth in public school organization. Ten additional counties reported organized school districts in 1844, making fifty-two in all. This number was increased by two in 1845. The increase in the number of organized school districts was even more significant—223 in 1843, 382 in 1844, 575 in 1845.65 Fortunately the Bank of Missouri declared dividends in 1845. The apportionment was made soon afterwards on the basis of the reports of 1844, the total amount apportioned being about $16,500. The ratio was fifty-two cents for each child.66 The next year the bank dividend permitted the apportionment of a still larger total sum, nearly $24,000, 60Laws, 1842-43, p. 127. 61Third Report of Superintendent of Schools, House Journal Append., 1844-45, p. 182. 62The total number of children of school age reported in organized school districts in 1843 was 22,371, as compared with 10,839 in 1842. 63House Journal Append., 1844-45, p. 169. 64Message of Governor Edwards, House Journal, 1846-47, p. 25. 65House Journal Append., 1846-47, pp. 146, 170. 66Ibid., p. 146. —101— (Page 102) but the school population had so increased that the ratio per child was still only fifty-four cents.67 The increase in the number of children of school age was partly due to a change in the maximum school age from 18 to 20 years. This was provided for by act of March 27, 1845 68 which made no material change in the law of 1839. The fourth annual report of the state superintendent of schools, made in November, 1846, was very hopeful, and he predicted that within two years from that date school moneys would be apportioned “to the children in every county in Missouri.”69 He deplored the loss to the schools by investment in the stock of the Bank of Missouri. The superintendent was no mean prophet. The amount apportioned in 1847 was slightly in excess of $48,500, the ratio being eighty-eight cents for each child of school age. Sixty counties reported 958 organized school districts.70 The apportionment of 1848 was made to 90 counties, six less than the total number in the state. As might be expected, this growth in organized school districts brought about a corresponding increase in the enumeration of school children. Before the apportionment of 1848 was made, the total enumeration received a large addition because of a law passed in 1847.71 This law changed the basis of enumeration and apportionment. It provided that the distribution of state school moneys among all the counties of the state should be made on the basis of the number of children of school age in each, excepting from the apportionment the cities, towns and villages which had had special grants of land from the United States government. The children of every township were included, irrespective of whether a township had organized schools or not. If a township did not have organized schools, the money apportioned to it was to be loaned out by the county court. The total amount of state moneys distributed in 1848 was greater by over $8,000 than it had been in 1847, but the number of children enumerated had so increased that the ratio for each child was only forty cents, less than half the amount reoe&ved the previous year.72 The state superintendent was so struck with the reduction of the ratio that he gave as his opinion that in a very short time the amount to be received by each child would be too small an inducement to parents and guardians to keep up that organization “which alone can entitle them to the use of the money.”73 67Ibid., p. 170. 68 Pamphlet on acts relating to common schools published in Jefferson City, 1851, under cover Missouri Laws—School, 1847-1879, Art. I, Sect. 17. 69House Journal Append., 1846-47, p. 124. 70Senate Journal Append., 1848-49, p. 39. 71Laws, 1846-47, p. 129. 72Senate Journal Append., 1848-49, p. 52. 73Ibid., p. 2. —102— (Page 103) He does not censure the law of 1847, however, but holds that its basis is correct both in theory and practice. He suggests, therefore, that the state school fund be increased. In making his sixth report, in 1850, the state superintendent of schools admitted that he had worked under difficulties. He noted that the law of 1847, changing the basis of the apportionment of state school money, repealed by implication that part of the act of 1845 which required the transmission to the state superintendent abstracts of the reports of school directors. “Such reports have been generally discontinued, and the superintendent can know nothing officially of the condition of our common schools, or of the practical operation of the system.” Furthermore, in the enumeration sent in by the county clerks in 1849, some reported the number between the ages of five and twenty and part between the ages of six and twenty. This was due to the conflicting acts of March 6 and March 12, respectively.74 The first act repealed that part of the existing law pertaining to the school age of children so as to include all between five and twenty years. The subsequent act placed the ages back as they were, six to twenty. The state superintendent, in spite of his handicaps, estimated the whole number of townships and school corporations organized for school purposes at 900, and the “number of school districts, parts of districts and separate neighborhoods at 1,600.”75 The total amount of money apportioned in 1849 was nearly $60,000. Ninety-two counties received the benefit, four failing to report. The ratio which the apportionment was based on was thirty- nine cents for each child reported between the ages of six and twenty years.76 The number of children reported was nearly 151,000. The bank failed to declare a dividend in 1850, so the amount apportioned for that year was only about $28,000. Ninety-five out of the 100 counties received the benefits, five failing to report. Most of the school reports were based on the school age of five to twenty years. The state superintendent used these ages in making the apportionment. The total number of children reported was slightly over 173,000. This increase in the total enumeration, coupled with the reduction in the total amount apportioned, combined to reduce the ratio to the very small sum of 16 cents for each child enumerated. The state superintendent, in his seventh report, in 1850 also gave data on some investigations he had made relative to the county and township school funds. His data on school lands has been cited above in this chapter, but he notes further that the revenue from the county school fund is “doubtless” being diverted to general county purposes. It was his opinion that in many counties the only income available for school purposes, aside from that derived from taxation, was the 74Laws, 1849-50, pp. 123, 122. 75Senate Journal Append., 1850-51, p. 140. 76Ibid., p. 161. —103— (Page 104) irregular amount derived from the state school fund. Under such conditions, it was difficult for schools to be permanent or prosper.77 The superintendent wished to remedy, the situation, so he suggested: (1) That Congress be memorialized to pass a law authorizing the relinquishment of the sixteenth section of land when it was not worth the minimum price per acre as fixed by law, and the substitution of another section of greater value; (2) that the school law be so amended that the county school moneys be faithfully applied to their proper objects; (3) that the state school funds be withdrawn from the state bank and be invested so as to yield a larger and more certain income. Some action was taken in school legislation by the sixteenth general assembly, but not along the lines suggested by the state superintendent. Acts were passed which added to the school fund of each county the military fund of that county and the “fines that accrue to and are payable into the county treasury.”78 By a third act of 1851, the net proceeds of the sale of all swamp lands was made a part of the county school fund of the county in which the land was located, with the exception of ten of the southeastern counties.79 All three of the laws mentioned seek to increase the amount of the county school funds, but do not provide for better safeguards for their care. The bad effects of the law of 1847 continued. School directors discontinued sending their reports to the county clerks, so it was very hard for the state superintendent to get reliable information. No such neglect was shown by the counties in sending in their reports of children of school age, all but six sending in such reports in 1850 and only eight failing to report in 1851. The total amount of state moneys apportioned in 1851 was nearly $70,000. The ratio was 40 cents for each child reported between the ages of five and twenty, the total number of children reported being nearly 176,000.80 The amount apportioned in 1852 was nearly $58,500. About 194,000 children between the ages of five and twenty were reported, the ratio per child being 30 cents.81 The decrease in the total amount for 1852 was due to a decrease in the dividends of the Bank of Missouri. 77 Senate Journal, Append., 1850-51, p. 142. 78Laws, 1851, pp. 246, 281. The military fund was derived from a commutation fee of twenty-five cents assessed upon all “free white male able-bodied citizens between the ages of 18 and 45” who did not belong to an organized volunteer company. The county collector of each county was authorized to collect and pay over to the state treasurer the commutation money in the same manner as other state revenue was collected and paid over. The revenue accruing under this act was kept as a separate fund. Laws, 1846-47, p. 99. 79Laws, 1851, p. 239. 80 Senate Journal Append., 1852-53, p. 310. 81Ibid., p. 324. —104— (Page 105) That the system of public education was not working as it should may be inferred from the definite, clear statements of the state superintendent of schools in his seventh report.82 Among a number of Suggestions, he made the following prominent ones: (1) That the office of state superintendent should be separate and distinct from that of the secretary of state; (2) that all township school officers should be dispensed with, and an officer for the whole county, to be known as county commissioner or county superintendent, be substituted in their place.83 The superintendent characterized the system instituted by the law of 1839 as & failure. He thought the failure was due more to defects of organization than to its mode of administration. “At present the system is characterized by township in¬spectors, officers upon whom devolve the important duties of examining teachers and inspecting the schools. Each township, having its own board of inspectors and examiners, instead of being a part of a general system is practically separate and distinct, and as such, attended with all the evils of dissimilar standards of education and methods of instruction in the same county and deprived of the benefits of a system of supervision that would subject all the schools of the county to the inspection of the same person or persons.”84 Another defect of the system was pointed out in no uncertain words: “Among the numerous defects of our system, it must be admitted that no one stands out so prominently and obviously from the rest as the want of an adequate supply of properly qualified teachers.”85 Most of the evils spoken of above could be remedied, the superintendent thought, through a state superintendent clothed with proper power and devoting all his time to the work, a county superintendent working in a similar way in each county; and the establishment of a state normal school. Another urgent need was school houses. The act of 1839 permitted the purchase of school house sites and erection of buildings by means of a tax levied upon the inhabitants of the districts. It is probable that this tax was very unpopular and difficult to collect, since many of the inhabitants of the districts must not have been patrons of the school and so objected to a tax which, they thought conferred no direct benefits upon them.86 In observing the progress in the public school system from 1839 to 1853, and in observing schools organized in most of the counties, 82Ibid., pp. 283-296. 83A township superintendent was also suggested. 84Senate Journal Append., 1852-53, p. 286. 85Ibid., p. 288. 86For description of a one-room school house, see eighth Report of State Superintendent of Schools, Senate Journal Append., 1854-55, pp. 201-202. —105— (Page 106) one cannot draw the conclusion that most of the children of school age attended the public schools by the latter date. After due allowance is made for those who attended private schools, it must be conceded that a great many did not attend any school. There must have been a great deal of indifference on the part of many people.87 The income from township, county, and state funds could not be relied upon as steady, adequate sources of support. The school surroundings were evidently not very attractive.88 In studying the eighth report of the state superintendent of schools, from 1853-54,89 it becomes evident that only a few more than one-third of all the children of school age lived in townships in which there were organized schools. Making a liberal allowance for those who attended private schools, it is probable that more than one-third of the total number of children of school age did not attend any school.90 This condition alone, since the law of 1839 had been tried for thirteen years, necessitated a revision of the school laws. In the period from 1839 to 1853, the following developments in school administration may be summarized: (1) Creation of the office of state superintendent of schools, at first elected by the two houses of the general assembly, but the secretary of state made ex-officio such in 1841; (2) an ex-officio state board to handle the state school fund; (3) the county clerk is made a school officer; (4) have a township commissioner and township clerk, the first no doubt suggesting the idea of a county commissioner; (5) a district smaller than a township, with its three trustees, clerk, and collectors; (6) a rather clear working out of the several kinds of funds, with a distinction between them on the one hand and moneys on the other; (7) a method of apportioning state funds to local communities along with a number of practical working relations between local and state authorities; (8) local taxation for building purposes; (9) centering most of the local educational administration in the districts smaller than the township. It was during this period, too, that the University of Missouri was made a state institution, though it did not receive an appropriation from the state until 1867.91 87Ibid., p. 200. 88“With regard to our district school houses, they are the old kind, 10 by 12 log cabins, with one door in the middle and one oblong window extending from the door casing to the corner of the house. Who has seen one, has seen the counterpart of nine-tenths of the school houses in the state—low, dismal, dreary things, in an open place to themselves, with missiles of every description scattered around them, even the view cause enough for the fever and ague of the whole neighborhood.” Ibid., pp. 201, 202. 89Senate Journal Append., 1853-54, pp. 198 ff. 90Elliff, p. 41. 91Laws, 1867, p. 173. Shoemaker, Missouri and Missourians, p. 335. —106— (Page 107) V. Development of State and County Supervision, and Growth of Organized School Districts, 1853-1865: 1. The Act of 1853: a. Introductory statements. The thirteen-year experience with the law of 1839 and the few amendments we have noticed that were made to it, developed conditions which called for a revision of the school laws. The necessities for a change, together with suggested remedies, have been noticed, especially in connection with the state superintendent’s report of 1850.92 Governor King in 1850 made practically the same recommendations as had the state superintendent.93 These recommendations were not adopted immediately by the general assembly, but finally, at the extra session of the 17th general assembly which met in August, 1852, a resolution94 was offered, and adopted early in the session, providing that a committee of five be appointed to prepare a plan for the organization and government of common schools in Missouri. The committee was instructed: (1) To provide for fewer officers in each school township and reduce the number of school commissioners to one; (2) to more clearly and distinctly define the duties of each officer; (3) to simplify the laws governing school townships and districts and make suggestions as to the best means of increasing the school fund. The committee was further instructed to meet at the capital ten days before the meeting of the general assembly in December, 1852, to carry out their plans. Out of their work we get the general school law of 1853.95 b. Units of school administration and school board. The law of 1853 almost abolished the township as a unit of school administration. The only organ of administration was the township meeting and the only power it had was to organize the township for school purposes by laying it off into school districts or changing such districts. The former township offices were abolished, their duties being divided up between the county commissioner and the school district officers. Districts became the real units of local school administration. The officers of the district were a board of three trustees, all elected annually by the voters of the district. They chose one of their own number clerk, and had charge of the educational administration of the district, assessed the taxes voted at the annual school meeting, and were required to make out and deliver to the county commissioner annually a rather detailed report of the condition of the schools of their district. 92House Journal, Append., 1850-51, p. 139. 93House Journal, 1850-51, pp. 44, 45. 94House Journal, Extra Session, 1850, p. 109 ; for official acts leading up to the resolution, see House Journal, 1850-51, p. 77, and Senate Journal Append., 1850-51, p. 229. 95Laws, 1852-53, p. 147. —107— (Page 108) (1) County Commissioner. Under the act of 1853, the county became much more important as a unit of school administration. Following the official recommendations mentioned above, the office of county school commissioner was created. The commissioner was chosen for a two-year term by the county court. The latter was empowered to pay the commissioner for his services a sum not exceeding $2.00 per day for not more than lOO days per year.96 He had a number of important duties. He was required to apportion the state, county and township school moneys among the several school districts of his county according to the number of white children between the ages of five and twenty. It was his business, too, to find out the school enumeration of the county, to number the school districts, and to make and transmit annually to the state superintendent of common schools “a report showing the number of organized school townships and school districts in the county, the number of white children residing in each township and district; also, the whole number of white children in the county over the age of five years and under twenty; the number of teachers employed, distinguishing how many are males and how many are females; the amount of money paid for teachers’ wages and what portion thereof was derived from the common school fund; the length of time schools have been taught in each district; the general condition of the schools; and such other information as may be required by the state superintendent.”97 It was the duty of the commissioner to visit and inspect every school district in the county at least once a year, deliver public lectures, direct the general course of instruction, and advise on the textbooks to be used, and give general advice to trustees and teachers on the management of their schools. He also examined and granted certificates to persons desiring to teach. These certificates were valid for one year only, unless endorsed by the commissioner, and covered the following subjects: Reading, spelling, writing, English grammar, geography, history, arithmetic, and other branches “usually taught in the public schools.” It is thus seen that legally the county commissioner bears a very important relation to both the state and the district as units of school administration. (2) State Superintendent of Schools. The act of 1853 restored the office of state superintendent of schools as a separate office. The first superintendent under the act was appointed for one year by the governor and his successors were elected by the voters of the state for a term of two years. His powers are set forth in some detail.98 In addition to the powers and duties 96The sum could be $3.00 in St. Louis. 97Laws, 1852-53, p. 158. 98Laws, 1852-53, p. 148. —108— (Page 109) given him by the acts of 1839 and 1845, he was required to visit each county in the state at least once during his term of office and deliver lectures on educational subjects. He was also required to aid the county commissioners in getting more uniformity in textbooks and the course of study. c. Sources of revenue and the financial administration. The sources of revenue and the financial administration remain nearly the same as under the law of 1839, with one very important exception, i. e., '“Hereafter twenty-five per centum of the state revenue shall be annually set apart and become state school moneys, and shall be distributed annually for the support of organized school townships.”99 This plan is still followed, and is, without question, the most important addition ever made for the support of the schools. The state now had two general sources of school income: (1) that derived from the school fund; (2). that derived from the general state revenue. The increased amount to be distributed, together with the different sources from which it was derived and the desire to encourage the growth of organized school districts but at the same time put a premium on those that had organized, led to a change in the distribution of the school moneys. Only organized districts shared in the distribution by the law of 1839. As has been noticed, this was changed in 1847 to include unorganized school townships.100 The law of 1853 represents a combination of these two ideas. It runs as follows: “The superintendent of the common schools shall, in the month of January in each year, apportion the state school moneys arising from the interests, dividends, proceeds and profits of the state school fund, amongst the several counties and townships organized and unorganized, in proportion to the number of white children above the age of five and under the age of twenty years, as shall appear from the last annual reports, and shall apportion the state school moneys annually set apart from the revenue among the organized school townships and schools incorporated in towns and villages according to the number of white children between said ages.”101 On account of the uncertainty of the income from the seminary and state school funds, a permissive act was passed in 1853 102 which gave the governor the power to invest these funds in other hands than the state bank. Nothing ever came of this, probably due to the restrictions placed on the governor in carrying out the provisions of the act. 99Laws, 1852-53, p. 151. 100Laws, 1846-47, p. 129. 101Laws, 1852-53, p. 149; for the first distribution on this basis, see Senate Journal Append., 1854-55, p. 294. 102Laws, 1852-53, p. 146. —109— (Page 110) Evidently the legislature realized more than ever the necessity for local taxation for school purposes.103 It has been pointed out that the law of 1839 limited the local rate to 50 per cent of the state rate. The law of 1853 made no restriction on this basis. d. Educational administration. After what has been said in various connections, only a word should be added about the educational administration provided for under the act of 1853. Outside of the general supervision, the educational administration was in the hands of the district trustees. The board of visitors, provided for in previous acts, was abolished and their duties were lodged with the county commissioner. The curricula is mentioned only in that the English language and its rudiments should be taught in all the schools. The previous school laws on towns and villages remained unchanged. 2. Development of Public Schools from 1853-1865. In accordance with the law of 1853, the governor appointed J. W. Henry to serve as state superintendent of schools for the calendar year 1854.104 His report to the general assembly does not give very much information, but it must be remembered that he had little chance to get such. He explains why only 65 out of the 103 counties were apportioned money from the 25 per cent revenue fund, and recommends that they get their proportionate share in the next apportionment. He reported the number of children of school age in 1853 to be 233,327, of which only 80,605 were in organized school townships. The latter received 92 cents each from the “revenue school moneys” and 42 cents each from the income from the state school fund. The apportionment to all others was 42 cents each, coming wholly from the income from the state school fund. A law of 1855,105 following the suggestion of the state superintendent, permitted the 38 counties left out to have their share. The first popularly elected state superintendent, E. C. Davis, entered office January 1, 1855, and made, in November of that year, an extremely interesting report.106 By the time he made his report, he had traveled over the state and found that the people were pleased with the new law. The objection to the county commissioner on account of expense was disappearing, because it was found that his services were not only valuable, but his salary was often less than 103The uses of the local tax were still restricted to building school houses and the necessary things which go with the building, Ibid., p. 160; money of private individuals was no doubt used to help pay the teacher’s salary—Ibid., Art. 5, Sect. 4—but nothing is found in this law concerning orphans and children of indigent parents. 104Senate Journal Append., 1854-55, p. 199 ; House Journal Append., Adj. Sess. 1855, p. 129. 105Laws, 1854-55, p. 185. 106House Journal Append., Adj. Sess. 1855, p. 129. —110— (Page 111) the clerk’s fees had been under the old law. The total amount of school money apportioned by the state in 1855 was slightly over $178,000, of which nearly half went to those not reported in 1853 for the apportionment of 1854. The total number of children of school age reported in 1854 was slightly over 260,000, of which only about 26,500 were in unorganized townships. Deducting the amount apportioned for 1854, this allowed the children in organized districts, for 1854, 38 cents each, and in unorganized, 27 cents. In contrast with today, it is pertinent to note that out of the 260,000 children only about 74,000 were taught in the public schools; that of the some 2,300 public school teachers only 440 were women; that the lowest average paid per month to teachers was $7.30 for women teachers in one of the counties, and the highest average per month was $35 for men teachers in one county. Of the more than $266,000 paid out for teachers in 1854, only slightly more than $159,000 came from the state common school fund.107 The total number of school houses reported was 1,572, and the amount “contributed” to build school houses was $30,487. Mr. Davis attempted to introduce uniformity in both courses of study and textbooks.108 He suggested dividing each school into five classes. It is not stated how many years should be given to each class. The program was ambitious and ranged from spelling and reading in the first or infant’s class to such subjects as chemistry, philosophy and astronomy in the fifth class. He also recommended the establishment of union or high schools in the towns and cities, the establishment of a normal school, and the formation of teachers’ institutes in every county. Comparable to the revision session of 1845, no great changes were made by the revision session of 1855.109. The next report of the state superintendent of public schools was made in January, 1857.110. All this report showed was the money apportioned by counties and the number of children to whom it was apportioned for the years 1855 and 1856. Another report was made in October, 1857.111 This gave additional statistics and made a number of suggestions and comments and a strong plea for a normal school. In order to convince the general assembly, he cited the fact that there were in the state 3,858 organized school districts and only 2,889 107House Journal Append., Adj. Sess. 1855, p. 156. 108Ibid., p. 144. 109Qualifications for the state superintendent were given—R. S. 1855, Art. 1, Sect. 9—St. Louis was allowed to incorporate under this act—Ibid., Art. 8, Sect. 35-^-Town and village school districts were given some additional advantages—Ibid., Art. 2, Sect. 8—but these were taken away in 1861. See Laws, 1860- 61, p. 89. 110House Journal Append., 1856-57, p. 423 ; for resolution calling for report, House Journal, 1856-57, p. 71. 111Senate Journal Append., Adj. Sess. 1857, p. 112. —111— (Page 112) teachers, leaving 969 districts without teachers.112 Of the 2,889 teachers, 2,156 "were raised and educated abroad."113 Superintendent W. B. Starke, who made the last two reports spoken of above, made another report in December, 1858.114 Taking these reports together, we have important statistics for the years 1855 to 1858, inclusive. The data shows a sound growth in public school education, viewed from most any angle. There was a very rapid increase in the number of children of school age, the amount of taxation for school houses, and the amount paid for tuition. The total amount apportioned, and hence the rate of apportionment, did not keep pace with these figures.115 Two rather important laws relative to the county commissioner were passed by the legislature in 1859.116 One permitted county courts to pay such a salary to the commissioner as they thought suitable; the other took the power of appointment away from the county court and made the office elective for a two-year term. The next report of the state superintendent was made in December, 1859. It is the most elaborate ever made, up to this time. On the whole, steady progress is shown. A still more elaborate report was made in January, 1861.117 This was the last report of Superintendent Starke. He served from 1857 until his office was abolished in 1861 by an ordinance of the state convention.118 Evidently Mr. Starke was an aggressive, hard-working officer. His reports grew more systematic and comprehensive from year to year. He saw the need for better and more teachers, a normal school, teachers' institutes, teachers' circulating libraries, uniformity of courses and textbooks, district school libraries, better school buildings and furniture. In his last report there are cuts of model school houses and furniture. The following statistics taken from his last report help to show something of the condition of the public schools in 1860 and the progress they had made.119 Number of children of school age 385,639 Number attending the common schools 170,837 Number of organized school districts 5,254 Number of school houses 4,277 Number of teachers 5,670 Amount subject to apportionment, state school moneys, Jan., 1860 $262,956.11 112Senate Journal Append., Adj. Sess. 1857, p. 116. 113Ibid. 114House Journal Append., 1857, p. 3. 115"The state school fund was increased somewhat at about this time through income from sale of saline lands—Ibid., p. 6. 116Laws, 1858-59, Vol. I, pp. 69, 70. 117Senate Journal Append., 1860-61, pp. 107-280. . 118Ordinances passed at the various sessions of the Missouri State Convention, 1861-62, p. 5; the duties of the office were to be discharged by the secretary of state. 119Senate Journal Append., 1860-61, pp. 263, 265. —112— (Page 113) Amount apportioned 262,234.52 Amount raised for tuition 405,080.01 Amount raised to build and repair school houses 194,309.81 Amount paid teachers during the year 667,314.53 Amount derived from township fund 140,044.98 Amount derived from fines and penalties 60,560.98 During Mr. Starke’s term of office the number of school children had increased over 100,000; the number of school districts, nearly 1,400; the number of teachers, nearly 2,800; the amount subscribed in tuition, over $271,000. These figures show a marked growth in sentiment for public school education in spite of the fact that there were over 100,000 children of school age who attended neither public nor private schools.120 Superintendent Starke estimated that there were nearly 100,000 attending “colleges, high schools, female seminaries and other private institutions of the state.”121 Relative to numbers, then, the public were taking the lead of the private schools. However, there were nearly 1,000 organized school districts without school houses, and the state school fund was insufficient to maintain the schools for more than three months during the year. Mr. Starke spoke of the extreme apathy of the people in some districts toward the schools. “Hundreds, perhaps I might say thousands, of school districts in Missouri have no school beyond the time that can be paid for by the pittance of public money.”122 He advocated the distribution of state moneys to such districts on the condition that they raise an equal amount. Before Mr. Starke went out of office, two school laws were passed which must have been of considerable interest to the people of that time. One provided that the school year should begin on the first Saturday of April, instead of the first Saturday in December, and that the election of the trustees should be on the same day. It was also stated in this act that trustees could not employ a teacher for a longer period than they themselves were elected.123 The other law required all teachers in the public schools to understand the English language and use it as a medium of communication in the schools.124 It is one of the tragedies resulting from the Civil War that the progress of the public schools was stopped so suddenly. The first effect of the war was the suspension, by a joint resolution of the general assembly, of the apportionment of state school moneys for 1861.125 The state convention meeting in Jefferson City in July, 1861, repealed this joint resolution,126 but no apportionment was made for 120Senate Journal Append., 1860-61, p. 108. 121Ibid., p. 262; Mr. Starke estimated that there were 109 academies and 32 colleges in the state in 1859. 112Ibid., p. 109. 123Laws, 1860-61, p. 89. 124Ibid., p. 90. 125Laws, 1861, Called Sess., p. 73. . . , 126Ordinances passed at the various sessions of the Missouri State Convention, 1861-62, p. 4. —113— (Page 114) the year 1861, due, without question, to the need of money to carry on the war. The abolition of the state superintendent’s office has been noticed. The same ordinance abolished the office of county school commissioner in each county except St. Louis. His powers and duties, except those of visiting and lecturing in the schools, were given over to the county clerk. No state apportionment was made for the year 1862.127 The secretary of state explains clearly why this was not done. There was almost an entire suspension of the public schools, most of the counties sent in no reports, and, considering other needs, the revenue was not sufficient. In March, 1863, a joint resolution of the general assembly suspended the apportionment of the state school moneys until November, 1863.128 The legislature which met in November, 1863, passed a law in the following February providing that the secretary of state, as ex-officio superintendent of schools, should, on or before June 1, 1864, apportion the state school moneys then on hand in proportion to the number of children reported in each county for the year I860.129 The secretary of state, in his report of December 26, 1864, stated that he had made the apportionment in May of that year.130 The apportionment amounted to nearly $170,000, being made on the ratio of 44 cents for each child. An important act relating to school taxation was passed in 1864.131 This law gave the trustees of a school district the power to levy and collect a tax “for the payment of teachers and the support of the schools,” providing the amount raised did not exceed $150 during the same year. “These acts relating exclusively to the school fund and local taxation for the support of schools served to keep the system up to a certain extent, but it is difficult to realize the condition of the common schools of the state at this time. Many of the districts were unorganized, the schools in nearly every county were practically suspended, and it was often impossible to find enough citizens in a school district who could take the test oath and thus preserve their school organization, while marauding bands throughout the state made it impracticable to send out the school money for distribution even if it could have been spared for such purpose. At the close of the war steps were immediately taken to reorganize the common schools. This reorganization was accomplished by the provisions in regard to education in the new constitution and the general school law of 1866, 127Senate Journal Append., 1862-63, p. 82. 128Laws, 1862-63, p. 40. 129Laws, 1863-64, p. 105. 130House Journal Append., 1864-65, p. 151. 131Laws, 1863-64, p. 104. —114— (Page 115) which characterizes the fourth period in the history of educational administration in our state.”132 VI.Reorganization and Re-establishment of the Public School System, 1865-1874: 1. Introductory statements. Just preceding the adoption of the constitution of 1865, a few rather significant steps were taken which should be noticed. Acting upon the recommendation of the secretary of state, as ex-officio superintendent of schools, the general assembly, on February 20, 1865, suspended the apportionment of the state school moneys until its session in November of that year.133 At the same session, a law was passed “in relation to school trustees and employment of teachers.” It provided that “no person who is or* has been in open rebellion against the federal government” or the government of the state, or had given aid and comfort to the enemies of either, or was known to be of doubtful loyalty, could serve as a school trustee. In the employment of teachers preference was to be given to disabled and discharged soldiers, or the widows or children of such. This law was, of course, an aftermath of the Civil War, and no doubt the first part of it resulted in keeping up the disorganized state of the public schools.134 The most significant law, however, passed just at this time was the one re-establishing the office of superintendent of public schools under the title of superintendent of public instruction.135 This act provided that the superintendent was to hold office by appointment of the governor until January 1,1866, and, until the school laws were revised, he was to perform the same duties and obligations as formerly devolved on the superintendent. James H. Robinson was appointed superintendent of public instruction and began his work in March, 1865. He issued a report in November of that year.136 It was his judgment that the general assembly acted wisely in suspending the apportionment law for 1865, since he had only fifty-four reports from county commissioners. He recommended that the general assembly order an apportionment before April, 1866, and reported that there was nearly $66,000 ready for apportionment. The conditions of the schools he found hard to describe, and school houses were universally bad. The test oath was found a serious detriment to the organization of the schools. “Shall the children be deprived of an education because their fathers and mothers are or have been rebels?” some of the county commissioners asked him. He favored the most liberal legislation in behalf of the “freedman’s child.” 132Elliff, p. 56. 133House Journal Append., 1864-65, p. 605; Laws, 1864-65, p. 126. 134Ibid., p. 127. 135Laws, 1864-65, p. 127. 136Senate Journal Append., Adj. Sess., 1865-66, Vol. II. p. 105. —116— (Page 116) In this matter the superintendent was following the sentiment of the legislature, which had several months previously enacted that the word "white” should be struck out of the revised general school law of 1855. However, separate schools were to be maintained for colored children.137 2. Educational provisions of the Constitution of 1865. In 1864 the legislature provided for a constitutional convention.138 It met in St. Louis in January, 1865, and finished its work in April of the same year.139 Judging from its journal, the committee on education must have devoted considerable care to its work.140 Article 9 of the Constitution of 1865 is devoted entirely to education. Its financial provisions have been discussed in Chapter II. By this article the general assembly was obligated “to establish and maintain free schools for the gratuitous instruction of all persons in the state between the ages of five and twenty-one years.” Permissive power was given to establish separate schools for children of African descent, but all funds provided for the support of the public schools were to be apportioned in proportion to the number of children, without regard to color. The general assembly was also given the power to pass a compulsory attendance law. A state board of education was created, composed of the superintendent of public instruction, the secretary of state, and the attorney-general. This board was given supervisory powers over public instruction, and their duties were to be prescribed by law. The superintendent was made the president of the board. His qualifications must be that of a state senator, he was popularly elected, and his term of office was four years. The general assembly was also obligated to establish and maintain a university as soon as the public school fund would permit. In a word, the principle of a free public school system was recognized in the organic law of the state. 3. The Act of 1866: a. General statements. The law of 1866 is entitled “an act to provide for the reorganization, supervision and maintenance of common schools.”141 Carrying out the spirit of the constitution of 1865, this act not only undertook to establish free public elementary schools throughout the state, but gave the opportunity to establish high schools. There is an attempt, too, to establish a just system of taxation for school purposes. Greater stress also than ever before is placed on skilled supervision. The law represents a considerable departure from that of 1853, harks 137Laws, 1864-65, p. 126. 138Laws, 1864-65, p. 24. 139Journal Missouri Const. Convention, 1865, pp. 6, 249. 140Ibid., p. 199. See also Report of Commission on Education to the Convention, pamphlet published in St. Louis, 1865, eight pages. 141Laws, 1865-66, pp. 179-190. —116— (Page 117) back in some respects to the law of 1839, but is the forerunner of some of the laws of today. b. Unit of school administration. Following the law of 1839 the congressional township was made the most important unit of local school administration. There was a township board which looked after general educational matters in the township. The former school districts or fractional parts thereof were designated as sub-districts and were under the management and control of a board of directors who. were in turn subject to the township board. It was undoubtedly intended that these local units should be made to work in close co-operation, especially through the state and county superintendents. c. School officials. The board of directors of each sub-district was composed of three members elected by the qualified voters therein for a period of three years, one retiring each year. This board was given power “to manage and control its local interests and affairs.” They employed the teacher, but could not dismiss him without the permission of the township board; in fact, all rules and regulations made by the sub¬district board had to be approved by the township board. The township board was, ex-officio, composed of the sub-district directors who had been appointed clerks of their respective local district boards. The township board was a corporate body, and so was invested with the title, custody, and care of all school houses and school property of the sub-districts. They were invested with full control over all high schools in the township. This act revived the county commissioner’s office in the form of the county superintendent of public schools, popularly elected for a two-year term. Under the direction of the state superintendent, he was given the “immediate supervision of all matters pertaining to public school education in his county.” Among other duties, he was made the adviser of school officers and teachers under his jurisdiction, and was required to hold a teachers’ institute at least twice a year, unless the number of teachers was not sufficient. He had ample duties to keep him busy all the time, but was not to serve more than sixty days during the year unless ordered by the county court. In any event, the latter fixed his salary; thus the office was at the mercy of the county court. The act of 1866 enumerated the specific powers of the state superintendent of public schools. His salary was fixed at $2,500 a year, and he was allowed one assistant at $2,000 a year. The law reads as if it were the intention that the superintendent should exercise some real supervisory powers. A rather unique provision obligated him to spend annually at least ten days in each congressional district. —117— (Page 118) d. Sources of revenue and the financial administration. Like the act of 1853, that of 1866 provided for township, county and state funds. The sources of the first two remained the same, but that of the latter was augmented as follows: (1) “All moneys, stocks, bonds, lands or other property now belonging to any fund for the purposes of education, except those wherein the vested rights of townships, counties, cities or towns would be infringed”; (2) the net proceeds from the state tobacco warehouse; (3) proceeds of all sales of lands and other property and effects that may accrue to the state by escheat or for sale of estrays, “unclaimed dividends or distributive shares of the estates of deceased persons, or from fines, penalties or forfeitures,” and grants and gifts to the state not otherwise appropriated. The state board of education had charge of the state school fund and the local funds remained in charge of the county court. In the matter of school taxation there was much more freedom than ever before. The voters of any township had the power to vote a tax to establish a central or high school in their township and also a tax for keeping up the school for a longer period than four months. The last tax could be voted by any sub-district on itself. The township board could, without a vote, levy a tax upon any sub-district for the purpose of purchasing a school house site and erecting or repairing a school house thereon. No rate of taxation was fixed. The successful working of this latter provision depended, of course, upon the good sense of the township board. e. Educational administration. The places of the local boards and the county and state superintendents in the educational administration has been pointed out to a considerable degree. The examination of teachers and granting of certificates rested with the county and state superintendents. The subjects teachers were to pass in are specified in the law. The certificates when issued were valid only in the counties for which they were given and for a period of not less than six months nor more than two years. It was the duty of every teacher to become a member of an institute as soon as one was organized in the county. The township board had the power to determine the studies to be pursued and the school books to be used in the several schools under their control, subject to the approval of the state superintendent.142 Whenever the enrollment of the colored children in a township exceeded twenty the township board was required to establish a separate school for them. If the average attendance in such colored school fell below twelve, the board had authority to discontinue the school for a period not to exceed six months. If the number of colored children in any township was less than twenty, their educa 142Ibid., p. 176. —118— (Page 119) tion was left to the discretion of the township board. The schools for colored children were to be of equal grade with those for the white. A separate act was passed in 1866 providing for the organization of schools in cities, towns and villages.143 This was a local option law, the voters accepting or rejecting it as they saw fit. f. General educational development. Mr. T. A. Parker was the first state superintendent working under the act of 1866. He submitted his first report in January, 1867.144 Although by no means brief, a great deal of the report is taken up with reports from various county superintendents. At the time the report was made, the law had been in operation only a short time, and it was hard to get reliable statistics. Mr. Parker’s next report,145 in January, 1868, shows a great advance in the school system. The report is perhaps the clearest and most comprehensive of any written up to this time. He gives not only the total amount in the state school fund, but the specific items of it; not only the total number of children, of school age, but the proportionate numbers of whites and blacks, males and females. The teachers are classified according to sex, there being about 300 more women now than men. School houses were listed according to the material out of which they were constructed, brick, stone, frame, log, there being more of the - latter than of all the rest put together. Various items of expenditure are also given and the sources from which the money came. The number of children of school age in the state was 476,192, of which only 169,170 were in the public schools. There were 4,840 public schools, 4,135 public school houses, 6,262 teachers in the public schools, 4,534 primary and intermediate schools, 99 high schools, $467,319 raised by taxation for teachers’ wages, $432,167 for building, repairing and furnishing school houses, and $174,655 state school moneys apportioned. In the operation of the law the superintendent found there were too many officers. He recommended that there be only one director in each sub-district, instead of three. The legislature followed this suggestion and passed a law accordingly.146 There were complaints, too, about the wide power of the township board in levying taxes. They had been, no doubt, indiscreet in some townships, and so the trouble. The state superintendent recommended a limitation on this power. 4. The Act of 1868 and its operation. The result of these complaints and suggestions was the amended 143Laws, 1865-66, p. 190. On limitation on tax rate, Ibid., p. 194. 144Report of superintendent of public schools to the 24th General Assembly; the reports from now on are under separate cover and will be referred to as Report.” 145Report to 24th General Assembly, Adj. Sess. 146Laws, 1868, p. 165. —119— (Page 120) school law of 1868.147 The unit of school administration was not changed, but the power to employ and dismiss teachers, fix their salaries, levy a tax for the building and equipping of school houses, was taken from the township board and given to the director of the sub-district. The amount of tax for building purposes for one year could not exceed two per cent of the taxable property of the sub¬district, unless ordered otherwise by a majority of the voters therein. The township board was composed of the directors of the sub-districts. Other parts of the law were made clearer and somewhat simplified, especially in regard to collecting and handling money. The officers under the amended law did not take up their duties until about September, so the report of the state superintendent for January, 1869, gives no data on the operation of the amended law. In this report, which Mr. Parker calls the third,148 is given an historical sketch of public education in Missouri from the beginning through the Civil War.149 The statistics he gives show creditable progress. Mr. Parker did not wish to see the law amended "except in a few unimportant particulars,” but he advocated strongly the establishment of six normal schools, located in as many districts in the state.150 He suggested that the county getting the site of such a school be required to erect the building and furnish it and give the grounds. Mr. Parker reported that every county was organized for public school purposes. He found the main obstacles in the way of growth to be "the pride of wealth” which opposed the free school, and objection to taxation for the support of the schools. The money derived from state and local school funds was still inadequate. He spoke of how local funds had been diverted from their purposes and was of the opinion that something should be done about it. It is germane to notice at this point the condition of these local funds. The house of representatives introduced a resolution, February 9, 1869, calling upon the state superintendent for a report on the condition of school funds and for recommendations for any legislation necessary to "more effectually preserve them for the purpose intended.”151 In response to this, the superintendent submitted, one week later, a special report.152 He tabulated the township funds by 147Laws, 1868, p. 165. 148The first two reports issued by Mr. Parker were not numbered, and neither were some of the previous reports. Had this "third” report been numbered in regular order, it would have been the nineteenth. Superintendent Shannon changed back to the old system in 1876, but in changing the numbering he overlooked the report of Nov. 1, 1865; hence the present numbering is wrong by one count. 149Third Report, 1869, p. 24 ff. 150Third Report, 1869, p. 16. 151House Journal, 1869, p. 343. 152 Special Report, pamphlet, 7 pages. —120— (Page 121) counties, but remarked, citing cases to prove what he said: “In some cases the funds have nearly been lost through inattention, in others have been diminished through mismanagement, and in some others perverted by palpable violation of the laws.”153 No tabulated or even general statement was made relative to the amount of the county funds. “The county school fund is composed of the amounts received from the sales of lands in the several counties, except the sixteenth sections or lands selected in lieu there¬of, also the amounts paid into the county treasuries from fines, penalties and forfeitures.” He recommended that an act be “passed requiring county courts to cause the receipts from fines, penalties and forfeitures to be invested in the irreducible county fund, and the income therefrom apportioned.” The state fund is tabulated, the total amount being nearly $1,674,000, most of which was invested in United States bonds. This was in accord with the constitution of the state.154 The constitution and laws were also very explicit about how the local funds should be invested, but these rules had been flagrantly disregarded.155 The superintendent recommended that a law be passed so that the diverted local funds might be ferreted out and made productive for the schools. He believed that about $1,000,000 could be restored. An adjourned session of the same legislature passed a law, following his recommendations.156 The state board of education acted in accordance with this law and made their first report to the legislature in 1871.157 Through the employment of attorneys in each of the congressional districts, the board made a rather thorough investigation. After citing many facts to support their conclusion, the board made this significant statement: “Had the original 4,300,900 acres been properly preserved for the objects to which the general government and the state appropriated them, and had the sales of these lands been honestly conducted and accounted for, the state would now have a county school endowment amounting to not less than $12,000,000”; whereas they estimated the actual amount in existence at less than $4,000,000. The responsibility for this loss was placed squarely on the policy of the legislature, which permitted the various county courts to handle these funds without even giving bond for the discharge of their functions. The board closed its report by making recommendations for the safe handling of these funds, but nothing came of it in the legislature. “Undoubtedly the provisions of the act relating to this investigation of the school funds defeated the very object for 153The total of the township funds in 1868 was $978,073—Report, 1868, p. 6. 154Const. 1865, Art. 9, Sect. 6. 155Ibid., R. S. 1865, Ch. 46. 156Laws, 1870, p. 159. 157Senate and House Journal Append., 1871, p. 201. —121— (Page 122) which it was enacted, since the courts were authorized to fix the compensation of the attorneys, and, as in many cases the justices were responsible for the loss to the school funds, they would not pay an attorney to prosecute them.”158 The inactivity of the legislature may show an important connection between many of its members and the various county courts. The investigation made, however, was worth while in that it gave the public a chance to know, from an authoritative source, that children had been robbed of their rightful inheritance. 5. The Act of 1870 and its operation. The state superintendent in his fourth report, January, 1870, held that there was no necessity existing for a change in the basis or principal features of the school laws, but he suggested some changes in what he considered details.159 The legislature of 1870 acted upon his recommendations and made some changes.160 The statistics presented in this report show an increasing amount spent on public school education. However, not half the children of school age were attending the public schools. The law of 1870 kept the characteristic features of the laws of 1866 and 1868. The congressional township was therefore retained as the essential unit of school administration, but a return was made to the three-directors system of 1866 in the subdistricts. A different plan of compensation for the county superintendent was made. A few changes were also made in the manner of collecting and taking care of money. A study of the state superintendent’s reports for the years 1870 to 1873, inclusive, shows, on the whole, reasonable progress in the development of the public school system.161 The eighth report, made in January, 1874, showed that considerably more than half of 705,817 children of school age in the state were attending the public schools; that there were 7,829 public schools, 9,676 teachers, and 7,224 public school houses. The income from the state apportionment was nearly $352,000; from the county fund, $181,546; from the township fund, $187,222; and from local taxation, $1,496,433. The revised law of 1870, however, proved unpopular, as did the two preceding general laws of 1868 and 1866. Throughout the period from 1865 to 1874 valiant efforts were made by the state superintendents to unify and coordinate the system. Superintendent Parker in his fifth and last report sums up the defects and suggests im provements.1** “The two great systems under which the schools in this country are organized are the township system and the inde 158Elliff, p. 73. 159Fourth Report, p. 19. 160Laws, 1870, pp. 138-158. 161These are the years covered by the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth -122— (Page 123) pendent district or subdistrict system. Under the township system a board of education is chosen, who have the entire control of schools in the township, with a director or trustee to manage the local affairs in each subdistrict, but whose every act must be in strict accordance with the regulations of the township board. “In the district or subdistrict organizations, each school is managed by a local board or single trustee or director, who has the entire control of all the affairs connected with the school. “The committee, in drafting the bill for the legislature, did not seem to understand that harmony cannot exist in a combination of these two great systems. Sovereign power must exist somewhere, but if it is so evenly balanced between the parties that each claims the exclusive right to administer it, the object for which the power was created will be lost sight of in the strife of the contending parties to gain the ascendancy. “The attempt to establish a township system in this state thus far has proved a failure and will so continue until we have political township organizations. * * * “In this state we have congressional townships, that is, townships with geographical limits established under the survey made by the authority of the general government, but without any authority whatever from any source to conduct their own affairs. The power even to control the sixteenth section of land set aside by Congress for the benefit of the schools in the township is given to the county court.” Superintendent Parker gave an analysis of the school law which showed “a strange commingling of the 'duties’ of the local and township boards.” As if heralding the law of 1874, he says:163 “I am firmly convinced that until the state is subdivided into township organizations, that any attempt to force the township system on the state will prove futile.” Just preceding his death in June, 1871, Superintendent Divoll, who succeeded Mr. Parker, was trying to find out the wants of the people in the matter of school legislation.164 This canvass was followed up by Superintendent Monteith, who filled out the unexpired term of Mr. Divoll. His conclusions do not differ from those of Mr. Parker. In the four years preceding the school law of 1874, a study of the annual letters from county superintendents to the state superintendent165 reveal prevailing dissatisfaction with the general law of 1870. Only one report out of dozens said that “most of our people interested in affairs pertaining to schools have read the new school law, and it is my opinion that it should not be changed in any particular for years to come.”166 No doubt there was a prevailing senti 163Fifth Report, p. VIII. 164Sixth Report, pp. 5. 29. 165See Reports of State Superintendents. 166Sixth Report, 1872, p. 91. —123— (Page 124) ment, however, that "the law had been changed so often that school officers could not keep track of its requirements.”167 There are many reports, so many, in fact, that they must represent prevailing sentiment, that say that the obstacles in the way of the improvement of the schools are excessive school taxation and the conflicting provisions in the school law.168 VII. Development from 1874 to 1923, with an Analysis of the Pres¬ent System: 1. The Act of 1874: a. Reasons for its adoption. Superintendent Monteith in the eighth report,169 for the year 1873, points out that the chief objections found to the then present school law concerned the office of county superintendent and the office of township clerk, who was the school treasurer of his township. He did not recommend, in so many words, that the former office be abolished, but said that if in deference to public opinion it should be abolished, he would recommend in place of the school office that of county school commissioner with the power of visitation omitted. He thought there could be considerable saving by abolishing the office of township clerk. In a previous report170 he said, in reference to leakage through clerks: "By some remarkable mathematics, the state school fund of last year, as apportioned from the office of the state superintendent and receipted by county clerks to the state auditor, comes back from the accounts of township clerks more than $50,000 less than when it started from the state treasury. This makes a commission of sixteen per cent for the handling of the school fund instead of two per cent.” The reasons which have been given and the liberal fair view taken of educational matters by the Missouri senate 171 all had their part in causing the passage of the general school law of 1874. b. Unit of school administration. This law of 1874 172 was about the same in length as the general school law of 1870. It made some important changes in the latter law. As a unit of school administration, the township was abolished. All subdistricts organized under other acts were designated school districts. Each was made a body corporate. The school matters in each district were administered by a board of three directors elected for terms of three years, one being elected each year. All the powers which did belong to the township boards were conferred on the dis 167Ibid. 168Ibid., pp. 40, 97, 102. 169Eighth Report, pp. 10, 11. 170Seventh Report, p. 27; Ibid., p. 29, for a very interesting statement on "legislation versus growth.” 171Ninth Report, p. 7. 172Laws, 1874, pp. 147-168. —124— (Page 125) trict boards.173 The state superintendent and county commissioner had only nominal supervision over the latter, hence the local board was practically free from all control. c. School officials. The office of county commissioner was created to take the place, in some ways, of the county superintendent. He was elected at the annual district school meeting in. April for a term of two years. His duties were to examine teachers for certificates, grant certificates, collect the school statistics from the various parts of the county, and send a condensed report of them to the state superintendent. Any county that cared to have county supervision and use the whole time of the county commissioner could do so by a majority vote of those voting on the question. The former duties of the township clerks were taken over by the district clerks who were appointed by the district boards, held office during their pleasure, and without pay, thus getting away from the objection of payment for handling school moneys. d. Sources of revenue and the financial administration. Under the act of 1874, the township county and state school funds were left as provided for in previous laws. However, since the Civil War and up to 1875, a number of steps had been taken to augment the state school fund,174 so by that year the total amount was slightly over $2,910,00c.175 Although the local school moneys were still under the direction of the county officials, no fees were paid out for the management and care of these except to the county treasurer, such amount as the county court deemed advisable, to the county clerk “five cents for every hundred words and figures in the school tax book,” and to the county collector the same per cent as was allowed by law for collecting other taxes.176 The rate of taxation was limited both for building and general school purposes to one per cent of the assessed valuation for each purpose for any one year. These taxes had to be voted by a majority of the voters at the annual school meeting of the district. The qualified voters in their annual meeting had the power to vote a sum not exceeding $20 a year for the school library. Whenever a tax was necessary for a school for colored children, it was levied on the taxable property of the whole township.177 173An exception to this statement was that when high schools were established, they were to be controlled by presidents of the district boards. 174See Const. 1865, Art. 9, Sect. 6; Laws, 1865-66, p. 15; Laws, 1871, p. 48; Laws, 1871-72, pp. 42-45; Laws, 1867, p. 166; Spec. Rep. Supt. Pub. Schools Feb. 16, 1869; Laws, 1867, p. 167; Laws, 1872, p. 149; Laws, 1875, p. 22; Elliff, 82-84. 175Twenty-sixth Report, p. 14. 1766Laws, 1874, p. 162. 177Ibid., p. 164. —125— (Page 126) e. Educational administration. In the matter of educational administration, it was made the duty of the board of district directors to contract with and employ legally qualified teachers and dismiss them, to visit the schools and exercise supervision over them, and to make all needful rules and regulations. A certificate good for one year was granted by the county commissioner, should the person pass a satisfactory examination in what were generally known as the common school branches. A certificate lasting a longer time, but not to exceed two years, was issued should the applicant pass an examination, in addition, in the elements of natural science and physiology. For the purpose of securing uniformity of textbooks, a meeting of the presidents of the boards of education of cities, towns and villages, and directors of districts, was to be held at the county seats of the various counties on the first Tuesday in January, and every five years after that.178 The minimum and maximum school age was fixed at five and twenty-one years, respectively. The former provisions of the law on cities and towns were left unchanged. The time for school clerks to make their reports was changed from October to on or before May 1. This necessarily made the reports for 1874 incomplete, since many of the clerks did not become acquainted with the new law until after May 1, 1874. 2. Development of public school system from 1874 to 1923 as seen through legislation and the reports of the state superintendents. Superintendent Monteith, in his ninth report, made December 31, 1874,179 summarized the main features of the law as follows: “1. It is so systematic in arrangement and division of subject as to admit of easy amendment. 2. It is powerful enough in its main provisions to secure as good schools as those of New York, Michigan, Illinois or Kansas. 3. It is more stringent in its penalties for neglect of school duty than the law in either of the states just named. 4. By placing the management of the schools in the hands of the people, it is only brought into close similarity to the laws of those states where schools are best and most popular.” Mr. Montieth in this report recommended a few changes in the law, and urged “a restoration of supervision or visitation of schools to the county school officer.” The year following Mr. Montieth’s last report, Missouri adopted the Constitution of 1875. The struggles and experiences of those who had tried to place the free public school system on a firm foundation, on the whole, had reward in this document, except in the limitation on maximum tax levies which has already been explained in Chapter II. It would be difficult to prove, however, that the educational 178Laws, 1874, p. 157. 179Ninth Report, p. 7. —126— (Page 127) article180 of the Constitution of 1875 is much improvement, if any, over a similar article in the Constitution of 1865. Much of it is similar, so a statement of the differences will make the provisions of 1875 understandable. The minimum and maximum school ages were fixed at six and twenty instead of five and twenty-one. In section two, there is a new provision which states that the income from all school funds shall be paid annually to the several county treasurers to be distributed by them according to law. The provision that not less than twenty-five per cent of the state revenue, exclusive of interest and sinking fund, shall be aplied annually to the support of the public schools is a new one. More care is shown in the new constitution with regard to preserving the county school funds intact. The state board of education was enlarged by making the governor a member. A governing board of nine curators was provided for the University. Soon after the constitution was adopted, Superintendent Shannon181 expressed the opinion that the article on education in the new constitution was a decided improvement on the same article in the old. He thought that in nearly every feature where the old was permissory, in regard to the legislature, the new was mandatory. However, he held that the article on revenue and taxation in so far as it related to school taxes, at the stage of the state's beginning development, was an unfortunate mistake, if not a serious blunder182. A number of the provisions of the -school law of 1874 conflicted with the Constitution of 1875. It was the task of various legislatures to harmonize these parts. The Missouri legislature has enacted no general school law since 1874. Before describing the system as it exists today, it is well to point out the important developments from 1874 to the present time. Superintendent R. D. Shannon probably very well described the public system in Missouri at the beginning of this period: “On taking charge of the public school interests of Missouri, January last, there was committed to me a trust, by courtesy called a system. Yet there was no definitely established and fixed order of management and conduct throughout, no strong ligaments binding the different parts together. It was a ‘system' without system.''183 He thought there were three causes for this unsatisfactory condition: (1) “The most prolific, perhaps, may be said to be defects in the school law, occasioned chiefly by frequent changes; * * * (2) apathy of the people, naturally bred by a want of familiarity with and an incertitude of the meaning of the law itself; * * * (3) too great laxity of administration of the law." 180See Const. 1875, Art. 11. 181Twenty-sixth Report, p. 5. 182Ibid., p. 6. 183Twenty-sixth Report, Jan., 1876, p. 6. —127— (Page 128) Mr. Shannon advocated a number of things in this report, hut none of them found their way into law. In his next report he recom¬mended three amendments to the school law: (1) A provision for county supervision; (2) a law requiring teachers to attend teachers’ institutes; (3) an increase in the school term from four to six months.184 Again the legislature turned a deaf ear, but they did change the law some relating to schools in cities, towns and villages.185 The terms of the directors were so changed that half of them were elected every two years. During the same year a law was also passed which permitted the board of trustees of each school district to provide for a sinking fund to redeem outstanding bonds of the district.186 In the twenty-eighth report, the superintendent frankly admits that the statistics presented with the report are full of inconsistencies, contradictions and absurdities, but in spite of the difficulties under which the work was carried on, the schools were steadily improving, especially in the number of well qualified teachers. In the next report, made January 8, 1879, the superintendent points out that the main defect of the law is a lack of means of executing it. There was an impossibility of an immediate and effective communication between the state department and local officers. He thought county supervision could remedy this. Complaints had been made that higher branches had been introduced into the schools to the detriment of the common school subjects, but it was shown that out of 10,000 school districts in the state, not more than lOO had anything more than the merest elementary course of study. He estimated, too, that there were not more than 300 graded schools and not more than than 30 “with full high school curricula.” He showed, too, that the provisions of the law of 1874 on textbooks had been a failure. The general assembly which met in 1879 made a few changes in the school laws. One provided that two members of the school board in a city, town or village should be elected annually.187 Another made it the duty of the county court to collect and invest at the highest rate of interest, on good security, the county school fund, and to faithfully apply the income to the support of the schools.188 The thirtieth report of the superintendent, submitted in 1880, is optimistic. There had been, during the past year, an improvement in attendance, length of school term, qualifications for teachers, and care of school moneys. In the next report, submitted January 5, 1881, the legislature was urged to remove the inconsistencies in the school law and make it conform to the constitution. The general assembly followed this advice by making the law agree with the constitution 184Twenty-seventh Report, pp. 10, 11. 185Laws, 1877, p. 407. 186Laws, 1877, p. 38. 187Laws, 1879, p. 200. 188Ibid., p. 205. —128— (Page 129) in the matter of school age.189 Another act190 made it lawful for the public school fund to be increased by gifts of money or property, real or personal.191 A change was also made in the state school fund,192 whereby the $2,009,000 of state bonds belonging to the school fund and the $900,000 certificate of indebtedness issued in 1872 were consolidated into certificates of indebtedness payable thirty years after date with interest at 6 per cent. Superintendent Shannon made his thirty-third report in January, 1883. Aside from the usual statistics, it contains a very clear, brief history of the various school funds.193 He stated that Missouri had at that time the largest amount of permanent, productive school funds of any state in the Union. The legislature of 1883 made no important changes in the school law,194 even though the state superintendent held that the failures of the school system were more numerous than its successes—“because of an exceedingly defective school law.”195 In the thirty-fourth report, made in January, 1884, by Dr. Shannon's successor, W. E. Coleman, it was stated that decided improvement had been made in the public schools of Missouri during the year past, and he showed, in some detail, in what respects. Among many imptovements was a willingness among all classes to extend the school term, pay better salaries, to erect better school buildings, and more interest was shown in the teachers' institutes. In the thirty-fifth report, made in January, 1885, Superintendent Coleman made very definite and pointed recommendations of changes in the school law.196 This time the legislature followed substantially the recommendation of the superintendent, and a number of amendments were made to the law of 1874. An unorganized territory was given the right to organize when it contained twenty or more pupils of school age. If it contained a less number, it could by petition of its qualified voters be attached to an adjoining district.197 An additional qualification was made for school director in that the person must be a resident taxpayer;198 the process by which teachers were employed was definitely worked out;199 orphan children having no permanent homes were permitted to attend school in any district in which they found a temporary home;200 uses of any moneys arising from 189Laws, 1881, p. 203. 190Laws, 1881, p. 208. 191Const. 1875, Art. II, Sect. 6. 192Laws, 1881, p. 204. 193Appendix to 33d Report, pp. 1-23; also Report, pp. VII to X. 194For school fund, see Laws, 1883, p. 180. 195Thirty-third Report, p. XIV. 196Thirty-fifth Report, pp. 10-13. 197Laws, 1885, p. 237. 198Ibid., p. 239. 199Ibid., p.240 200Ibid. -129- (Page 130) taxation, except for the purposes for which they were levied and collected, were strictly prohibited, and it was further provided that the income from state, county and township funds should be used only for the payment of teachers’ warrants;201 physiology and hygiene were added to the course of study;202 the issuance of fraudulent warrants was looked after by requiring the president of each board to record his signature with the county treasurer;203 the law providing for uniform textbooks was repealed;204 the state superintendent was required to apportion the state school moneys in July, and county clerks were required to apportion the county moneys and taxes in August.205 There were a number of other laws passed.206 The provisions regarding the apportionment of school moneys was especially wise, as it changed the time of apportionment from March to July and thus placed the moneys in the hands of the county treasurers for use at the beginning of the school term in September.207 The statistics submitted in the thirty-fifth report, covering the period from April 3, 1883, to June 30, 1884, are indicative of the growth of the public schools. The number of children of school age was 778,122, and 527,452 fwere enrolled in the public schools. The total amount apportioned from the state school moneys was slightly over $602,000, being 78 cents for each child enumerated. The chief source of revenue, however, was from local taxation, the amount raised by this means being nearly $2,783,000. In his thirty-seventh report, January 5, 1887, Superintendent Coleman spoke of the beneficial results of the amended school laws, especially in the matter of finance.208 The general assembly in 1887 made some changes in the law. The time for making the enumeration upon which was based the apportionment of school moneys was changed from June to the first fifteen days in May. Hence county clerks could make their reports a short time before the apportionment was to be made.209 The powers of town and city school hoards were enlarged by giving them authority to continue their schools for a term of not less than seven nor more than ten months in the year, providing such continuance did not increase the levy on the one hundred dollars valuation above forty cents.210 201Ibid., p. 242. 202Ibid., p. 243. 203Ibid., p. 241. 204Ibid., p. 244. 205Laws, 1885, p. 244. 206Ibid., pp. 244-250. 207Elliff, p. 94. 208Thirty-seventh Report, p. 5. 209Laws, 1887, p. 262. 210Laws, 1887, p. 266. —130— (Page 131) During the same year one-third of the state revenue was appropriated for the use of the public schools, instead of one-fourth, as formerly.211 This amount has been appropriated by each general assembly since that time. In his thirty-eighth and thirty-ninth reports, made in December, 1887, and January, 1889, respectively, the state superintendent recommended some changes in the school laws, but none of these came to a head until the revision session of the legislature in 1889.212 School districts were required to extend the term of their schools to six months. If they did not, they were deprived of their apportionment of public school moneys for the year.213 It was made unlawful for colored and white children to attend the same school;214 the law concerning optional county supervision was amended;215 some change was made in the certification law.216 Separate acts were passed on the organization of schools in cities, towns and villages.217 In the fortieth report, made in January, 1890, Superintendent Goleman commented on the “many valuable improvements to the school law,” and expressed the belief that each county should be compelled to accept county supervision instead of leaving it to a vote of the people. Up to that time, only two counties had adopted it, Jasper and St. Louis. Superintendent Coleman made his last report, the forty-first, in January, 1891. “During the eight years of his administration, the following important changes were made in school administration: The beginning of the school year was changed from April 1 to July 1. The minimum length of school term was increased from four to six months. The textbook law was repealed. The state teachers’ association adopted a plan for articulating the high schools with the state university, and a teachers’ reading circle and county commissioner’s convention was organized.”218 Superintendent Coleman’s last recommendation to the general assembly meeting in 1891 went unheeded, but they did pass a county institute law.219 An institute was to be conducted for four weeks in each county, under the direction of a county board of three members. The conductor and instructors of the institutes granted all certificates, which were of three grades. This same law provided for a state training school for conductors and instructors in institutes. This school was under the control of the state board of education. 211Ibid., p. 4. 212Laws, 1889, pp. 214-248. 213Ibid., p. 219. 214Ibid., p. 226. 215IIbid., p. 235. 216Ibid., p. 232. 217Laws, 1889, pp. 249, 255. 218Elliff, p. 98. 219Laws, 1891, p. 211. —131— (Page 132) Another law provided for uniform textbooks throughout the state.220 The law was administered through a board of five members, the state superintendent being ex-officio member and president of the board and the other four appointed by the governor for five-year terms. The adoptions were to be made for a period of five years. The law did not apply to any district having a population over 100,000. Superintendent Wolfe, in his first report,221 explained the institute law, saying that its primary object was the licensing of all teachers not licensed by the state normal schools by well equipped boards of instructors instead of individual commissioners. Another object was to give to teachers a month’s training under efficient teachers. The state training school for teachers had, during the first summer, an enrollment of 320, and the institutes enrolled 7,811. Mr. Wolfe was very enthusiastic jover these institutes. He and a committee of the state teachers’ association, in 1891, formulated an educational policy which would push them further This policy included three main items, to-wit: (1) A system of district and state institutes; (2) a district school course of study; (3) an educational commission to form an educational policy for the guidance of the general assembly on school legislation. Seeing the disadvantage of the small district in the matter of taxation, a return to the township unit was suggested. The forty-third report, made November 23, 1892, shows the increasing value of the institute work. He found the law meeting with some opposition, chiefly, he thought, because it demanded more time, labor and money than teachers had expended heretofore. Mr. Wolfe argued strongly for increased support of all the schools and a closer organization of all educational agencies. His report was made with the expectations that the work of the committee of the state teachers’ association, mentioned above, would have influence with the general assembly of 1893. These expectations were not realized. Not only were no laws of any importance passed, but a fight was made on the institute law, which resulted in its amendment and the repeal of the section relating to the state training school.222 In his next report,223 Mr. Wolfe spoke of the necessity of an educational commission made up of people who were not all in the teaching profession, and also the reasons for the apparent failure of the plans of the educational committee of the state teachers’ association. He also strongly advocated the introduction of nature study into the elementary schools. 220Laws, 1891, p. 26. 221Forty-second Annual Report, Jan. 5, 1892. 222Laws, 1893, p. 251. 223Forty-fourth Report, Jan. 3, 1893. —132— (Page 133) In his next report,224 Superintendent Wolfe still further emphasized the value of nature study, and discussed at some length the advantages of “investment” and “organization” in education. He included in this practically every force in education. He made some excellent recommendations to the general assembly, among others, to establish county supervision. None of these recommendations were accepted in the form of laws. The only school law of importance passed by the general assembly in 1895 was one permitting four or more public school districts to consolidate and form a public high school.225 Superintendent John R. Kirk succeeded Mr. Wolfe as head of the Missouri school system. In his first report,226 he devoted a great deal of space to model school buildings and their furnishings. His explanations of these are so clear and definite that they are easily understood. He strongly advocated the articulation of all schools into a system. He thought there should be a law providing for the careful inspection and supervision of all rural schools. “Enormous sums of money are being wasted because the blind are leading the blind in several thousand lonely country school houses.”227 He made a strong plea for high schools, stating that more than 93 per cent of the school population never reached the high school. It was his notion, too, that growth in industrial and kindergarten education was a sign of progress. The statistics taken from Mr. Kirk’s first report will help show the progress made by the public schools since 1885. The school enumeration shows a school population of 944,935. Of this number, 644,577 were attending the public schools. The total amount of state school moneys apportioned was slightly over $804,000. There were 10,000 public schools, and 14,487 teachers. The average salary paid teachers while teaching was $45 per month. Over $6,451,000 had been spent during the year on the public schools. Superintendent Kirk’s chief recommendation in his next report228 concerned the introduction of industrial education in the high schools and agriculture in the elementary schools. The general assembly passed few school laws during its session in 1897. One related to school directors in cities of 300,000 or over.229 The one most germane to our subject created a new state textbook commission, composed of the state auditor, attorney-general, president of the Kirksville Normal School, the state superintendent of schools, and one practical teacher, to be appointed by the governor. 224Forty-fifth Report for year ending June 30, 1894. 225Laws, 1895, p. 266. 226Forty-sixth Report, Jan. 16, 1896. 227Forty-sixth Report, Jan. 16, 1896, p. 16. 228Forty-seventh Report, Jan. 8, 1897. 229Laws, 1897, p. 220. —133— (Page 134) The books selected were to be used for five years, or until otherwise provided by law. None of the provisions of the act applied to cities having- a population of 50,000 or over.230 Superintendent Kirk, in his third report,231 devotes considerable space to school administration considered from many angles, and, after remarking that of late the Missouri general assembly had been extremely conservative in enacting school legislation, recommended that measures be passed on the following subjects, to-wit: (1) An act to compel school boards to erect buildings that were sanitary and comfortable; (2) an anti-cigarette law; (3) revision of the law on institutes and certification of teachers; (4) county supervision law;232 (5) instruction in agriculture and horticulture in the rural schools; (6) three-year term for superintendent in cities and towns; (7) deposit school funds in banks paying highest rate of interest. In his last report233 Mr. Kirk emphatically expressed the notion that the school law should be revised. “The school law of Missouri is a crazy quilt from which shreds are pulled and to which irregular patches are added by each general assembly.” He urged consolidation, transportation, state aid to high schools, a new law on county institutes, sanitary school buildings, free textbooks with district ownership. As has been too often the case, the general assembly of 1899 made unimportant changes in the school laws.234 Superintendent Carrington, in his first report,235 said it would be the aim of his administration to bring about a thorough articulation of all of the schools of the state, “to see such an organization as will prevent overlapping of work and disintegrating influences.” In his second report236 he recommended legislation on the following matters: (1) A county board of education with supervisory powers over the examination of teachers and over the district schools; (2) free tuition in high schools for rural pupils, their home districts to pay the tuition; (3) consolidation of small school districts into township school districts; (4) state inspection of small high schools. The general assembly acted favorably on some of these recommendations. A law was passed providing for a county board of education,237 consisting of three members with terms of two years. The county commissioner was ex-officio one member, the county court appointed one member, and the other was appointed by the state board of education. This board had power to examine teachers and grant certificates, the questions used in the examinations being furnished 230Laws, 1897, p. 22. 231Forty-eighth Report, Jan. 5, 1898. 232The report shows that only six counties had county supervision. 233Forty-ninth Report, Jan. 4, 1899. 234Laws, 1899, pp. 358, 361. 235Fiftieth Report, Jan. 1, 1900. 236Fifty-first Report, Jan. 3, 1901. 237Laws, 1901, p. 246. —134— (Page 135) by the state superintendent. Slight changes were made in the certification law. This board was authorized to arrange for an annual teachers’ institute. Another law provided for the establishment of school libraries.238 There was a consolidation act which permitted the consolidation of three or more common school districts and a village district with other districts. The organization and government of the consolidated district was made the same as that for cities, towns and villages.239 This law was taken advantage of in Jackson County almost at once.240 Mr. Carrington, in his third report,241 devoted considerable space to a sketch of the growth of the public school system from 1875 to 1899, the work of the state teachers’ association from its beginning, and a historical sketch of the school funds. Two constitutional amendments were adopted in 1902 which related to school matters. One provided for the extension of the certificates of indebtedness in which the state school fund was invested, and the other authorized certain sized cities to levy more taxes for school purposes.242 In the fourth report of Mr. Carrington243 he advised the legislature to pass laws providing for county supervision, for the classification by the state superintendent of all high schools, for the establishment of more normal schools, to repeal the institute law and substitute for it an approved summer school and a three-day county teachers’ association. The general assembly, in 1903, spent considerable time on school matters. The bills most discussed related to textbooks, a fourth normal school, and county supervision. None of these finally became laws. A law was passed repealing the summer institute law and substituting in its place one for a three-day teachers’ association.244 Another law gave the state superintendent power to classify the public high schools of the state and fix a minimum course of study for each class.245 He was also obligated to inspect any high school that made application for inspection. The more beneficial results of the then recent school laws were pointed out by Mr. Carrington in his next report.246 A sketch is given of the public schools of Missouri from 1808 to 1875. A number of errors are made, but it is valuable.247 238Laws, 1901, p. 205. 239Ibid., p. 249. 240Jackson Examiner, Independence, Mo., Nov. 7, 1902. 241Fifty-second Report, Jan. 1, 1902. 242Const. 1875; Vol. I, R. S. 1919, Art. 10, Sects. 26, 11. 243Fifty-third Report, Jan. 7, 1903. 244Laws, 1903, p. 269. 245Ibid., p. 264. 246Fifty-fourth Report, Jan. 1, 1904. 247Elliff, p. 109. —136— (Page 136) In the next report248 the following legislation was recommended: (1) County supervision made compulsory in every county; (2) repeal of the textbook law; (3) provision for ten or more junior normal schools conducted for twelve weeks during the summer under the direction of the state board of education. The general assembly repealed the textbook law, but passed no law to take its place.249 A rather inadequate compulsory education law was passed.250 Two new normal schools were also established.251 Mr. Carrington’s next report252 reviews the work of his administration up to that time. He found the greatest need to be high school opportunities for rural school children. He reported that a great deal of money had been spent for buildings and libraries. The statistics given are worth citing for their own sake and for the sake of comparison ten years before this. There were 1,000,874 children of school agC in the state; of this number, 420,958 were in the rural schools, with an average daily attendance of 150,269. There were, in the cities and towns, 307,841 enrolled, with an average daily attendance of 220,397. There were 10,365 rural and 7,020 city and town teachers, There were 9,388 rural and 589 city and town districts. The average rate of levy was 48 cents in the rural districts and 82 cents in the cities and towns. The apportionment of state school moneys was $1.34 per child. There was a total expenditure for all school purposes of $10,000,000, of which $850,000 was raised by local taxation. In his last report253 Superintendent Carrington gives data to prove that the compulsory attendance law was responsible for an increased attendance, but points out how it could still be improved. Among other suggestions he asked the legislature to provide for official supervision of rural schools, for the creation of a state textbook commission, for permission to allow school boards to use incidental funds in purchasing books and furnishing them to patrons at cost. He suggested conditioning the apportionment of all state school moneys upon districts holding an eight months’ term of school and paying each teacher a minimum of $400 annually.254 The state teachers’ association, in its meeting at Moberly in December, 1906, advocated, with a few additions, practically the same program.255 The general assembly meeting in 1907 paid some heed to these recommendations. A law was passed increasing the school term from six to eight months, provided a levy of 40 cents on the $100 assessed 248Fifty-fifth Report, Jan. 1, 1905. 249Laws, 1905, p. 302. 250Ibid., p. 146. 251Laws, 1905, pp. 297, 299. 252Fifty-sixth Report, Jan. 3, 1906. 253Fifty-seventh Report to 44th General Assembly—date of submission not given. 254Certain exceptions were made to these conditions. 255Elliff, p. 113. —136— (Page 137) valuation, together with public moneys apportioned to the district, was sufficient. If a district did not comply with this law, it forfeited its share of the state school money for the ensuing year.256 A law providing for transportation of pupils, under certain conditions, was also passed.257 An act was also passed to help orphan children.258 Still another act permitted school boards to employ, with certain limitations, superintendents for a period of two years.259 The textbook matter was provided for by creating a county commission in each county.260 In counties not having county supervision, this commission was to be composed of the county board of education. In other counties, the county superintendent was ex-officio member, one member was appointed by the county court, and still another by the state board of education. A county commission thereafter selected the textbooks for each county for a period of five years, with exceptions in the cases of some cities and towns and schools affiliated with the University of Missouri. The general compulsory school law was left unchanged. A few other laws of minor importance were passed.261 Superintendent Gass, in his first report,262 made a strong plea for consolidation, noting how slow the movement had been in Missouri; reviewed the county textbook adoptions, the school library movement, high school inspection, the articulation of village and rural schools, and stated that “the paramount educational need of the state remains, as it has been for years, an efficient state-wide system of county supervision.” At the time this report was made, twenty counties had adopted supervision. In his next report263 Mr. Gass places state-wide county supervision at the head of his list of recommendations to the legislature. In addition, he suggested laws on special state aid to weak districts, strengthening the compulsory attendance law, promoting the consolidation of districts and the establishment of large school units, special state aid to high schools, physical inspection of school children, annual meeting of county school officers, and the securing of more efficient teachers. In reviewing the school legislation of the revision session of 1909,264 Mr. Gass stated that sixty-six bills had been introduced pertaining to schools. The most important which passed related to 256Laws, 1907, p. 433. 257Ibid., p. 424; for number of schools affected, see Fifty-eighth Report, p. 26. 258Laws, 1907, p. 425. 259Ibid., p. 428. 260Laws, 1907, p. 434. 261Ibid., pp. 427, 426, 429. 262 Fifty-eighth Report, Jan. 2, 1908. 263Fifty-ninth Report, Jan. 7, 1909. 264Sixtieth Report, Jan. 3, 1910. —137— (Page 138) county school supervision265 the renumbering of districts;2656 compulsory attendance,267 and a minimum salary and state aid to weak districts.268 A rather thorough revision was made of a part of the school law.269 A county superintendent’s convention was held during this year. The state superintendent thought it of great value.270 In his next report271 Mr. Gass reviewed the helpful school legislation since 1906, showed the great growth in the number and efficiency of high schools, and made a number of recommendations to the legislature. Superintendent Evans, the successor to Mr. Gass, praised very highly the school legislation of the general assembly of 1911,272 but, taken as a whole, the laws passed must be considered as of a minor character, with the exception of the apportionment law273 and certification law.274 In his list of school needs he insisted that a full and harmonious co-operation of all the educational forces of the state was the most important. Mr. Evans, in his second report,275 spoke of the success of the two important laws mentioned just above,276 and made a number of recommendations for the improvement of the laws, among others being one to increase the salary of county superintendents and further aid to consolidation. In his third report277 he recalled the complete success of the legislative committee of the state teachers’ association in getting the school laws passed which they, the governor and himself wanted. They had to do with: (1) Preparation of better teachers for the rural schools; (2) weak schools, both rural and in towns; (3) subsidized consolidation.278 This report showed, too, the ever increasing importance of the state teachers’ association. In his last report279 Mr. Evans spoke of having visited all high schools in the state which desired inspection. His inspectors and the school visitor of the University of Missouri cooperated in this mat 265Ibid., p. 12; Laws, 1909, p. 822. 266Ibid., p. 772. 267Ibid., p. 847. 268Ibid., p. 806. 269Revision of Ch. 154, Articles 1 and 2, R. S. 1899; see also Sixtieth Report of state superintendent, bottom pp. 10, 47, and Laws, 1909, p. 770. 270See Sixtieth Report, p. 16. 271Sixty-first Report, Jan. 5, 1911. 272Sixty-second Report, Jan. 2, 1912. 273Laws, 1911, p. 398. 274Ibid., p. 407. 275Sixty-third Report, Jan. 8,1913. 276Mr. Evans spoke later of “truly astonishing results” following the passage of these laws—Sixty-fourth Report, p. 6. 277Sixty-fourth Report, Dec. 31, 1913. 278Laws, 1913, pp. 732, 725, 721; see also pp. 728, 729. 279Sixty-fifth Report, Jan. 6, 1915. —138— (Page 139) ter. A strong plea was made for the county as the unit of local school taxation and administration. * * * “Oh, for a Cato to drive into the ears of Missourians: ‘The district school system must be abolished.’ ”280 He recommended, too, that the constitution be so changed that there be a real state board of education who should select the State superintendent of schools.281 Statistics in this report show that the total school enumeration was 923,963; the total enrollment, 706,364; the total days attendance, 83,945,876; the average daily attendance, 515,233; the average length of term, 163 days; the total expenditure, $17,696,052; the total number of teachers, 19,440; and the average annual salary, $500. Mr. Gass was again elected superintendent iu 1914; hence the next report was made by him.282 He devoted special attention to the high schools, which at that time numbered 458, nearly half of that number being first class. He placed at the forefront of his recommendations the need for an educational commission to study educational conditions and laws with a view to submitting a new educational code for the consideration of the general assembly. He advocated, too, a new constitution for the state, and believed in a county unit for school administration. Upon the death of Mr. Gass in 1916, Mr. Uel W. Lamkin was appointed by the governor to fill out his unexpired term. Mr. Lamkin therefore made the next report.283 Feeling that there should be greater co-operation among the state educational institutions and the state superintendent’s office, Superintendent Gass called a conference of their representatives at his office early in 1916. This resulted in some important agreements which were published in the report just mentioned. No definite recommendations to the legislature were made in Mr. Lamkin’s first report. At the time of making the next report,284 the United States was in the World War, but Mr. Lamkin stated that the schools must be maintained at an even higher degree of efficiency than before the war. He was outspoken in his statement of the needs for more adequate revenue for school purposes, and especially for more adequate salaries for elementary school teachers.285 It was indicated that probably the most important law enacted in 1917 was the one taking advantage of the Federal Smith-Hughes Act, which provided for prevocational and vocational schools.286 By this time, too, a conference agreement had been made by the various state educational 280Ibid., p. 13. 281Ibid., p. 17; also for other important recommendations. 282Sixty-sixth Report, Jan. 3, 1916. 283Sixty-seventh Report, Jan. 30, 1917. 284Sixty-eighth Report, Jan. 3, 1918. 285For clear statistics, Ibid., p. 10 ff. 286Laws, 1917, p. 512; Sixty-eighth Report, p. 28 ff. —13ft— (Page 140) institutions and the state superintendent.287 A state-wide investigation of the rural schools had also started.288 The results of this investigation are shown in Mr. Lamkin’s last report.289 These investigations attracted wide attention throughout the state. The leading recommendation in this report was for a state board of school administration. He took the view, too, that the state superintendent of schools should not be an elective official. A great deal of this report was taken up with the report on the Missouri school survey,290 the state-wide investigation spoken of just above. Plans for the administration of the Smith-Hughes Act were also outlined. The legislature, at the revision session in 1919, passed a law which increased the salary of county superintendents fifty per cent;291 the compulsory attendance law was improved;292 more aid was given to the state superintendent;293 and the name of each normal school was changed to that of teachers college.294 Superintendent Baker succeeded Mr. Lamkin, and in the former’s first report295 he spoke favorably of the larger school unit, held that there must be larger revenue for the schools and especially more adequate salaries for teachers, and advocated a physical education law. He showed that 105 out of the 600 approved high schools and three pri¬vate colleges were offering the teachers’ training course. Superintendent Baker, in his second report,296 recommended the county unit as a matter of first consideration. In addition he advocated higher qualifications for teachers, a physical education law, and a minimum wage law. After a long, bitter fight, a county unit law was passed in 1921.297 The law was suspended by referendum,288 and defeated at the polls in 1922. A physical education law was passed,299 state aid for teacher training courses was increased,300 more state aid was given to vocational education,301 the requirements for third grade county certifi 287Ibid., p. 62. 288Ibid., p. 67. 289Sixty-ninth Report, Jan. 9, 1919. 290Sixty-ninth Report, pp. 37-113. 291Laws, 1919, pp. 694, 695. 292Ibid., p. 681. 293Ibid., p. 696. 294Ibid., p. 687. 295Seventieth Report, Jan. 1, 1920. 296Seventy-first Report, Jan. 1, 1921. 297Laws, 1921, p. 616. 298Ibid., p. 3 Addenda. 299Ibid., p. 641. 300Ibid., p. 651. 301Ibid., pp. 30, 690. —140— (Page 141) cates were raised,302 and higher salaries for teachers in weak districts were provided for.303 Superintendent Baker's third report,304 and the last one now in print, gives an interesting brief history of Missouri schools from 1821 to 1921, a table showing the state apportionment of school moneys from 1842 to 1921, and an account of the teacher training work in high schools. The legislature is now in session (1923) and just what it will do on the matter of school laws would be difficult to predict. 3. The present system of public education—elementary and secondary education: a. The state superintendent of public schools—organization and powers. Missouri’s present public school system is based on the general school law of 1874 and amendments and new laws which have been made since then. 305 At the head of this system is the state superintendent of public schools. As has been noted, such an office, known as the superintendent of common schools, was created in 1839, the secretary of state becoming ex-officio such two years later. The law of 1853 separated the two offices again. This plan continued until 1861, when the two offices were again united. The separation of the two came again through the Constitution of 1865, and the law of 1866, and has remained so to the present time.306 The organization of this office was discussed in Chapter 1. It may be added that no professional qualifications are required for this office, that he must give a bond “in the penal sum” of $10,000 acceptable to the secretary of state, and that he must keep his office at the seat of government. The present office force is made up of eighteen persons, excluding the clerical help.307 He has a number of important powers. It is his duty to “exercise such supervision over the educational funds of the state as may be necessary to secure their safety and correct application and distribution according to law.”308 He has power to obtain, from any authority dealing with school matters, copies of records and any other information relating to school funds and the condition and management of the schools. It is his duty “annually, before August 15th” to “apportion the public school fund applied for the benefit of the public schools among the different counties.”309 There are a number of bases of apportionment. For every teacher, principal and supervisor “actually employed for the entire term” the county gets fifty dollars. A teacher 302Ibid., p. 653. 303Ibid., p. 637. 304Seventy-second Report, Jan. 1, 1922. 305Ch. 102, R. S. 1919; Laws, 1921, under the head of schools; School Laws, 1921, published by the state superintendent. 306Twenty-sixth Report, p. 3. 307Seventy-second Report, p. 4. 308Ch. 102, Art. 10, R. S. 1919. 309R. S. 1919, Sect. 11179. —141— (Page 142) employed for less than half the term is not counted, and for one employed more than half time and less than nine-tenths, twenty-five dollars is apportioned. Again, only twenty-five dollars is apportioned for the teacher of any district in which the average attendance the preceding year has been less than fifteen pupils per day. For each teacher whose salary is one thousand dollars or more per year, one hundred dollars is apportioned. Fifty dollars is apportioned for each teacher in any district that employs only two teachers, “one of whom is colored and one white.” These apportionments for teachers are all based on the principle that every teacher is paid from public funds. “After these teacher apportionments have been deducted, the remainder of the state school fund to be apportioned shall be divided by the total number of days’ attendance of all the pupils of the public schools of the state, and the quotient thus obtained shall be called a pupil daily apportionment. The amount apportioned to each district shall be determined by multiplying this pupil daily apportionment by the total number of days’ attendance of all pupils of each district.”310 In order to get the information upon which to base the apportionments, the clerk of each school district makes a report annually, between June 15 and June 30, to the county clerk. The latter makes a summary of these and sends them to the state superintendent on or before July 15. It is the duty of the state superintendent, once the apportionment is made, to certify the amount apportioned to the state auditor, “also to the county clerk of each county, stating from what source the same is derived, which said sum the several county treasurers shall retain in their respective county treasuries from the state fund.”311 It is the duty of the state superintendent to cause to be printed, at his discretion, the school laws in a separate volume, with such instructions and blanks as he may deem necessary. These are for the use of school officers.312 It is also his duty to make an annual report to the general assembly, if in session;313if not, the report is made to the governor. It is his business to show in this report “the condition and amount of all funds and property appropriated for the purposes of education”; to give a statement of the estimates and accounts of the expenditure of public funds of every description; to make a statement of the number of public schools in the state, the number of pupils attending such schools, their sex, and the branches taught; to state the number of teachers employed, their sex, the average amount of wages paid to such teachers, statistics showing the amount of pro 310R. S. 1919, Sect. 11179. 311See Ibid. for duty of county officers in apportionment and conditions districts must meet in order to get the apportionment; see Sect. 11181, R. S. 1919, for state superintendent’s power to correct error in apportionment. 312Sect. 11334, R. S. 1919. 313Sect. 11336, R. S. 1919. —142— /p> (Page 143) fessional training had by teachers in the schools of the state; to give his plans for the management and improvement of public schools “and such other information relative to the educational interests of the state as he may deem expedient.”314 It is made his duty or that of his deputy to confer and advise with all persons having anything to do with the public schools, to visit and inspect schools and make suggestions, about the work being done, to attend and assist in the meetings of teachers, directors and patrons. He has authority to classify the public high schools of the state into first, second and third classes, under certain conditions as to subject matter taught.315 All the work completed in an accredited high school must be given full credit in requirements for entrance and classification in any educational institution supported in any way by state appropriations. The governing boards of state educational institutions are required to report to the state superintendent each year concerning their institutions and these reports are published as a part of the state superintendent’s annual report. He has authority to examine teachers and grant certificates of qualifications to those who pass satisfactory examination and for certain specified reasons he may revoke such certificates.316 The state Superintendent each year holds a five-day convention of the county superintendents of the state, at which matters of common interest are discussed.317 He is required, also, to furnish annually each county superintendent with a list of publishers who have complied with the textbook law.318 In his opinions, given to school officials and others, the superintendent is assisted by the attorney- general.319 There are many questions which come up which the superintendent must answer. After speaking of his office rooms at the capitol building, one superintendent describes the work of his office thus: “Here are found the state superintendent of schools and his chief assistant; rural high school and teacher training inspectors; vocational education supervisors, statisticians, clerks, stenographers and others who handle the enormous daily business transacted in these office rooms. “When we know there are far over twenty-one thousand teachers in the state who need attention and seek information, we get a faint idea of the immensity of the necessary correspondence. Hundreds of perplexing questions must be answered in a courteous and satisfactory manner. Hundreds and even thousands of circular letters 314Sect. 11336, R. S. 1919. 315Sect. 11337, R. S. 1919. 316Sect. 11334, Ibid. 317Sect. 11351, Ibid.; Seventy-second Report, p. 169. 318Sect. 11376, R. S. 1919. 319Seventy-second Report, p. 27. —143— (Page 144) are sent out giving needed information to superintendents, teachers or pupils.”320 Considerable time of the state superintendent is taken up with service on the several boards of which he is a member ex-officio. The amount of administrative control he exercises on these boards depends almost altogether on his personality. It has been noticed that he is the president of the state board of education and member of the state board of agriculture, the advisory board of vocational education, the library commission, the board of regents of each of the five teachers' colleges and the board of curators of Lincoln University. He is also ex-officio chairman of the state library board.321 b. The state board of education. As was pointed out in Chapter I, the composition of the state board of education is fixed by the constitution.322 In spite of the lack of professional requirements, the state superintendent of schools is the one member of the board who has had some standing as a teacher before becoming a member of his board. Although the law makes it the duty of this board “to take the general supervision over the entire educational interests of the state,”323 it really turns out that little of such power is exercised by the board as such. With the exception of the state superintendent, all the other members are extremely busy with the duties of their own offices. The board is given the power to look after the investment of the state school funds, to see that the swamp lands or funds arising from them are used for the benefit of the respective counties, and to ascertain from all the counties what disposition has been made of state school moneys distributed to them annually. If the moneys have been diverted it is their duty to collect the same and return them to their proper channels.324 The state board of education is named as the state board, designated in the federal act, for carrying out the provisions of the vocational education law.325 The state advisory committee, which the state superintendent appoints and of which he is the head, seems to have much of the real power in this matter. There is some dispute at the present time over the power of the state superintendent to appoint the assistants to carry out the provisions of this law.326 Superintendent Charles A. Lee, the present incumbent, defeated Mr. Baker for re-election to the office. As might be expectd, the latter's entire force were Republicans,327 and the former would want his entire 320Ibid., p. 14. 321Sect. 7188, R. S. 1919. 322Const. 1875, Art. 11, Sect. 4. 323Sect. 11398, R. S. 1919. 324Sects. 11399 to 11401, R. S. 1919. 325Sects. 11269 to 11294, R. S. 1919. 326Sect. 11280, R. S. 1919. 327Official Manual of Missouri, 1921-22, p. 22. —144— (Page 145) force to be Democrats. However, a short time before Mr. Lee took office, the state board of education, made up then entirely of Republicans, met and approved the appointments of the vocational education assistants which the outgoing superintendent made. It. is rumored that a fight is brewing over this matter, and that unless the present state superintendent is allowed to make these appointments, the legislature, which is controlled by the Democrats, will not make appropriations to carry on the vocational work. Such are the vagaries of partisan politics. Although there seems to be a tendency to confer more regulatory powers upon the state board of education,328 it is evident that the conferring of such power is the only way to profit from the federal laws on vocational education, and that, on the whole, the statement of Professor Loeb still remains true that “our experience has shown that the legislature will not confer any effective regulatory powers upon an ex-officio board of education.”329 This refusal to confer such power, especially in reference to the state superintendent, is an advantage to the latter, since the personnel of the state board is ex-officio. In fact, the danger of conferring any sort of power is not only shown in connection with the vocational laws, but also in the power to appoint a member of each county textbook commission.330 There is little tendency, therefore, to centralize public school administration in the state board of education. Such centralization as hais taken place, other than through the state institutions, has been in the state superintendent’s office. c. The county superintendent of public schools—organization and powers. As has been noticed in this chapter, the office of county school commissioner was created by the law of 1853, abolished by an ordinance of the state convention at the opening of the Civil War, revived by the law of 1866 under the title of county superintendent of public schools, changed by the law of 1874 so as to take away from the office real supervisory powers, but leaving it as a county optional supervisory office, and finally made compulsory in every county in 1909. As the state superintendent is head of the public school system of the state, so is the county superintendent head of the county school system. The county superintendent is elected at the annual school election in April by the qualified voters of the whole county for a four-year term. The occupant of this office must be at least twenty-four years old, a citizen of the county, must have taught or supervised schools as his chief work during at least two of the four years next 328In addition to the vocational education law, see the rehabilitation laws, Laws, 1921, p. 690. 329Sixty-seventh Report, Superintendent of Schools, p. 24. 330Sect. 11369, R. S. 1919. —143— (Page 146) preceding his election, or shall have spent two years next preceding his election as a student in college, and must hold a diploma from one of the teachers' colleges or the school of education of the state university, or hold a state certificate, or a first grade county certificate.331 As in the case of the state superintendent, vacancies other than of an expiring term are filled by the governor.332 He must have his office at the county seat or some other place in the county where there is a court of record.333 “During his term of office, the county superintendent shall not engage in teaching or in any other employment that interferes with the duties of his office as prescribed by law.”334 His time is further governed by having to spend five days in conventions called by the state superintendent, or twenty days in the state university or one of the state teachers' colleges, or in some other manner approved by the state superintendent. He can be penalized by losing one-fourth of his salary, if he does not fulfill these requirements.335 The amount of salary received by the county superintendents varies according to the population of the several counties, the minimum being annually $1,050 and the maximum, with an exception,336 $2,250.337 In any case the state pays $400 of the yearly salary out of the general revenue fund.338 Considering the important duties placed upon them and the salaries received for other educational supervisory work in the' state, the compensation of the county superintendents is not sufficient.339 It is doubtful, however, whether there will be much sentiment for its increase so long as the office is elective and affords such little opportunity for professional advancement. The most general power of the county superintendent is that of “general supervision over all the schools of the county except in city, town and village school districts employing a superintendent who devotes at least one-half of his time to the direct work of supervision.’’340 In carrying out this general power he must visit each school under his jurisdiction at least once a year, examine the classification of pupils, the methods of instruction, the manner of discipline, 331Sect. 11343, R. S. 1919; for comparison of qualifications of state superintendent, see Const. 1875, Art. 5, Sect. 16. 332Sect. 11343, Ibid. 333The county court determines the place, passes on his bond, and must furnish him an office room—Ibid. 334Sect. 11351, R. S. 1919. 335Sect. 11351, R. S. 1919. 336Sect. 11353, R. S. 1919. 337Sect. 11352, R. S. 1919; Laws, 1921, p. 652. 338The county superintendent is allowed annually not to exceed 25 per cent of his annual salary and $3.00 each for teachers under his jurisdiction, expenses for traveling, clerical help—Sect. 11354, R. S. 1919. 339See “salaries” in index, Seventy-second Report, State Superintendent. 340Sect. 11346, Ibid. —146— (Page 147) the order maintained, the result secured, and make such suggestions to teachers and school boards as he may deem advisable; inspect the physical school surroundings of the pupils and report the same to the board in writing; examine the school records and see that they are kept according to law; furnish annually statements to the district clerk showing the assessed valuation of their respective districts; receive and, if properly made, approve estimates and enumeration lists and turn the same over to the county clerk;341 assist the district clerk, when necessary, in making reports, and see that all warrants have been duly issued “by order of the board,” either for services actually rendered or for material actually furnished.342 It is the duty, also, of the county superintendent to hold annually not fewer than six public meetings for educational purposes at different points in the county. One of these meetings for a two days’ duration must be held at the county seat “just prior to the opening of the fall term of school.” He is obligated to adopt a course of study and a plan for grading the schools of his county and forward three copies of this to the state superintendent, one copy to each teacher employed in the county, and one to each district clerk. It is his duty to inaugurate and maintain a system of final examinations and graduation of pupils who complete the state course of study for rural schools. It is his duty, also, to examine the records of the county, so far as they relate to school funds and school moneys, and see that the law is strictly observed, and be present at the August term of the county court to give such information as may be of importance to such court regarding the school business of the county. “The instructions of the state superintendent shall be his guide in the interpretation and execution of the law.”343 The county superintendent has other important powers in relation to public meetings. He may organize a county teachers’ association and hold it on the last three days in some week during the last four months of the calendar year.344 It is his duty to call together once each school year the presidents and clerks of the school boards of the various school districts of the county, to consider questions pertaining to school administration.345 The county superintendent has important relations with the state superintendent other than those mentioned. It is the former’s duty, under the direction of the latter, to condense and return to the office of the state superintendent of schools, on or before the 31st day of August of each year, the educational statistics of the county. The 341See notes Sect. 11346, R. S. 1919. 342Sect. 11346, R. S. 1919. 343Sect. 11347, R. S. 1919. 344Sect. 11348, Ibid. 345Sect. 11356, Ibid., for duties and compensation of these school officers in attendance, see Sect. 11357, Ibid. —147— (Page 148) county superintendent must see that the school officers are supplied with copies of the school law and the necessary blanks for making reports, and perform such other duties as the state superintendent may require. Under penalty of losing their last month’s salary, each teacher must make a term report to the county superintendent, giving name, classification and grade of each pupil.346 In order to secure uniformity in reporting, all necessary blanks are furnished by the state superintendent to the county superintendent, who in turn sends them to the local school officers.347 The county superintendent has two appointive powers. One is the case of an unsettled dispute over the formation of a new school district,348 in which instance he may appoint a board of arbitration. The other is in the case of the inability of the regularly constituted authorities to fill a vacancy on the board of school directors,349 in which instance the county superintendent may act. Another important function of the county superintendent is that of examining teachers and granting certificates to them.350 The law provides he shall hold three public examinations of two days each during the year. All questions given, however, are prepared by the state superintendent. Three grades of certificates are issued by the county superintendent: Third grade, valid for one year, and second grade, for two years, in the county “for which they are issued,” and first grade, for three years in the state. The subjects in which teachers are examined for these certificates are named in the law as well as the percentage grade which must be made.351 Besides the scholastic requirements, each applicant for a certificate who has had four months’ experience in teaching is graded by the county superintendent on teaching ability and management. Seemingly, we get a centralization of power in the hands of the state superintendent in the matter of preparing questions, but there is a provision in the law “that the county superintendent * * * shall have authority to prepare questions, conduct examinations, grade papers, and issue certificates to applicants who for good and sufficient reasons could not attend the last regular examination.”352 The certificate issued under these conditions is good only during the school year it is issued, and the written papers on such examination have to be filed for a time in the county superintendent’s office. The method of giving examinations for county certificates is rather definitely fixed by the state superintendent. Within three days 346For exception where more than one teacher is employed—Sect. 11349, R. S. 1919. 347Sect. 11350, R. S. 1919. 348Sect. 1201, Ibid. 349Sect. 11216, Ibid. 350Sect. 11358, Ibid. 351Ibid. 352Ibid. —148— (Page 149) after the examination is held the county superintendent must forward to the state superintendent all the papers of all applicants for first grade certificates and of all other applicants who request it. The state superintendent grades the papers, keeps a record of the grades, and certifies them to the proper county superintendent. The papers are also returned and are kept in the county superintendent’s office for one year after they are written.353 Many county superintendents have told the writer that they prefer a law which places the grading of all papers in the hands of the state superintendent. It was the opinion of those competent to know among State Superintendent Baker’s office force that their office graded at least seventy-five per cent of all the papers, as it was.354 It is the business of the county superintendent to pass on the moral character of applicants for county certificates under his jurisdiction, and keep a true record of the grades made by applicants in examinations conducted by him. The county superintendent must indorse without examination second grade certificates from other counties in Missouri upon the payment of a fee of $1.50.355 The law specifies the fees to be collected by the county superintendent from those who take examinations, and what shall be done with the fees.356 A statute also states under what conditions the county superintendent may revoke a certificate.357 County superintendents are forbidden to issue complimentary certificates.358 It may be concluded without question that within the county the tendency has been, since 1909, to centralize more power in the hands of the county superintendent, but in studying his powers in relation to the state superintendent, power has undoubtedly been centered more in the latter’s office. This is seen in the certificate requirements, the making of reports, attendance on conventions or in schools, interpretation of laws, suggested courses of study, inspection of rural schools and numbers of other ways. The amount of supervision done in person by the county superintendent is of necessity very limited. This is seen at once when one considers that the area in the average-sized county is 600 square miles and that the separate school districts average about 80 to the county. With the improvement of roads and use of the automobile, the superintendent can do more than in the past, but at the best, under present conditions, close supervision is an impossibility. 353Sect. 11359, Ibid. 354For qualifications necessary for certificates or renewal of same, see Sects. 11360, 11361, R. S. 1919; Laws, 1921, p. 653. 355Sect. 11362, R. S. 1919. 356Sect. 11363, Ibid. 357Sect. 11364, Ibid. 358Sect. 11367, Ibid. —149— (Page 150) d. Classification of school districts—common, consolidated, town, city. School administration from the viewpoint of the whole state centers around the state superintendent, just as from the viewpoint of the whole county it centers around the county superintendent. The law classifies all other units of administration as follows: “First, all districts having only three directors shall be known as common school districts; second, all districts outside of incorporated cities, towns and villages, which are governed by six directors, shall be known as consolidated school districts; third, all districts governed by six directors and in which is located any city of the fourth class, or any incorporated town or village, shall be known as town school districts; and fourth, all districts in which is located any city of the first, second or third class shall be known as city school districts.”359 There are between 8,500 and 9,000 common school districts in Missouri. The government and control of the district is “vested in a board of directors composed of three members.”360 They are chosen by the qualified voters of the district at the annual school meeting in April for three-year terms, one being elected each year.361 Back of this board is the annual school meeting, composed of the qualified voters of the district, which still retains considerable power, especially in determining the length of the school term beyond eight months, the rate of levy for school purposes in excess of forty cents, and the rate of levy for building purposes.362 The board of directors of a common school, like the school board in any other kind of district, have power, and it is their duty, to make all needful rules and regulations for the organization, grading and government of the school district; to suspend or expel a pupil for bad conduct; to admit nonresident pupils and fix their tuition fees, with certain exceptions;363 to employ and contract legally with qualified teachers;384 to take or cause to be taken the enumeration of the school population (over six and under twenty), with exceptions in cities of over 50,000, of the district and forward the same to the county clerk;365 to forward to the county clerk on or before May 15 of each year an estimate of the amount of funds necessary to sustain the schools for the year, and amounts to be expended for other purposes;366 to provide under certain conditions for separate schools for colored children.367 359Sect. 11123, R. S. 1919. 360Sect. 11213, Ibid. 361Ibid.; Sect. 11209, R. S. 1919; each board elects its own clerk. His duties are outlined in detail in the statutes—Sects. 11215 to 11217, 11219 to 11223. 362Sect. 11210, Ibid. 363Sect. 11135, Ibid. 364Sects. 11137,11138, Ibid. 365Sect. 11140, Ibid. 366Sect. 11141, Ibid. 367Sects. 11144 to 11146, Ibid. —150— (Page 151) It is the duty of the board in every kind of district to visit the schools under their care, examine into their condition and the progress of the pupils, advise and consult with the teachers, and exercise such supervision as will best promote the interest of the schools.368 Under certain conditions, also, any board may provide for the gratuitous education of persons between five and six and over twenty years of age, resident in their school district.369 It is made the duty of the common school board to order the district clerk to draw warrants on the county treasurer in favor of any party to whom the district has become legally indebted.370 The way the payment is to be made and the form of the warrants are detailed in the law.371 The board may request the county court to lend the funds of the common school district when these are accumulating beyond their wants.372 In spite of the centralizing influences which have been going on through the offices of the state and county superintendents of schools, and in spite of the detailed provisions of the law on common school districts, their boards of directors and their teachers, it is a fact that they remain in many respects a law unto themselves. This is not to be wondered at when their comparative isolation, lack of means and community spirit, and absence of close supervision are considered. Practically none of the common school districts even attempts to provide for high school work.373 This means, of course, that thousands upon thousands of the youth of Missouri do not even have the opportunity to attend high school. Considered from every angle, Superintendent Evans was not beside the point eight years ago when he exclaimed, “Oh, for a Cato to drive into the ears of Missourians, ‘The district school system must be abolished'"374 Although there has been for more than twenty years a law permitting common school districts to form a joint high school,375 only one high school is now organized under its provisions. The tendency away from the common school district unit has been mostly through the consolidation movement. In 1901 a consolidation law was passed,376 but little headway was made under this act.377 Some progress in consolidation began to be made after the passage of the Buford Consolidation Act in 1913. 378 In the meantime, state superintendents had not been inactive in their efforts to improve the rural 368Sect. 11139, R. S. 1919. 339Sect. 11141, R. S. 1919. 370Sect. 11222, Ibid. 371Ibid.; Sect. 11223, R. S. 1919. 372Sects. 11228, 11229, R. S. 1919. 373Laws, 1921, p. 635. 374Sixty-fifth Report, State Superintendent of Schools, p. 13. 375Sect. 11218, R. S. 1919. 376Laws, 1901, p. 249. 377Seventieth Report, p. 22. 378Ibid; Laws, 1913, pp. 721, 725. —151— (Page 152) schools. Superintendent Gass, in 1909,379 began a system of classification of rural schools. This has been a contributing factor toward consolidation. Hundreds of schools have been placed on the approved list.380 They are classified as standard and superior and definite standards are required by the state superintendent.381 “Before a school can be placed upon either the standard or superior list, it must be inspected by either the county superintendent or rural school inspector and recommended for approval. The certificate granted shall be in force so long as the requirements are fully maintained. These schools should be inspected and graded each year. Any school failing to maintain the standard will be omitted from the list published the succeeding year.”382 The statutes permit the consolidation of two or more common school districts for elementary school purposes.888 There are other ways in which consolidation may take place: “Three or more common school districts, or a village district having less than two hundred children of school age by the last enumeration, together with two or more adjoining districts, may be consolidated into a new district for the purpose of maintaining both primary (elementary) schools and a high school.” The proceedings followed in such a consolidation are the same as where two or more common school districts form for elementary school purposes.384 Or “the qualified voters of any community in Missouri may organize a consolidated school district for the purpose of maintaining both elementary schools and a high school.”385 When a consolidated district is formed in the last two ways mentioned, it has the same organization and government as a town school district.386 There are certain other conditions which must also be met. One is that the consolidated district must contain an area of at least twelve square miles or have an enumeration of at least two hundred children of school age, and must not contain at the time of its formation any town or city district that has by the last enumeration two hundred children of school age.887 The method of forming consolidated districts is set forth in considerable detail in the laws.388 Transportation of pupils can be provided by the voters of the con¬solidated district, but if they do not, it is the duty of the board of 379 Sixtieth Report, p. 22. 380Seventy-second Report, p. 119. 381Seventy-first Report, p. 51, for requirements. 382Ibid. 383Sects. 11201, 11202, R. S. 1919. 384Sect. 11255, 11201, Ibid. 385Sect. 11257, Ibid. 386Sect. 11238, Ibid. From this point on, the only consolidated districts considered will be those formed under the provisions of Ch. 102, Art. 4, R. S. 1919. 387Sect. 11258, R. S. 1919. 388Sect. 11259, Ibid.; Laws, 1921, p. 654. —152— (Page 153) directors to maintain an elementary school within two and one-half miles, by the nearest traveled road, of the home of every child of school age within the district.389 However, if the attendance in any elementary school, during any month, falls below ten, the school board has the power to close such school for the remainder of the term and provide for the transportation of the pupils to some other elementary school in the district.390 There are provisions for state aid to consolidated districts. Under certain conditions such a district may get as much as $2,000 state aid for the erection of their school building,391 and $25 per year for each square mile or fraction thereof in area of said district.*** Under certain conditions, too, the state aids weak consolidated districts in case they have not the funds to maintain an eight-months elementary school.392 Another very simple way is provided for practical consolidation whenever a part of or an entire school district adjoins a city, town or village school district. If ten qualified voters of the adjoining district petition their board for an election, such must be called, and if the majority of the votes cast favor annexation, the city, town or village district can annex them by a majority vote of all the members of their board.394 There is overwhelming proof for the need of enlarging the common school district unit, both from the standpoint of taxation and administration.395 Superintendent Baker cited the advantages of consolidation ascertained from actual experience.396 “1. It is cheaper to maintain the same kind of school for less money or a better school for the same amount of money. 2. Better trained teachers can be secured. 3. More and better supervision is provided. 4. A higher per cent of attendance, especially above the age of fourteen. 5. More country boys and girls receive high school education at home. 6. More pupils may remain in school to the end. 7. Many more social advantages offered. 8. School house becomes a community center. 9. As the school grows, a broader, larger course of study may be offered to suit the needs of the community.” 389Sect. 11260, R. S. 1919. 390Sect. 11260, R. S. 1919. 391Sect. 11263, Ibid. 392Sect. 11264, Ibid. 393Sect. 11265, Ibid. 394Sect. 11252, Ibid.; one of the best cases of such kind of consolidation is at Gilman City, Mo. 395See Governor Hyde’s Mess. 51st Gen. Assem., Feb. 15, 1921, Ap¬pend. House and Senate Journals, Vol. I. 396Seventieth Report, Jan. 1, 1920, p. 23. —158— (Page 154) At the time Mr. Baker made his report there were 162 consolidated schools in Missouri. Of that number, 141 were maintaining high schools. A few were tranporting the pupils and a very few provided teachers* cottages. “While the consolidation plan is not a panacea for all the ills of the public schools, it is the best law on the statutes of Missouri today for the reorganization of the rural schools. The consolidated school does offer better equipment, better trained teachers, better supervisors than a one-room school.”397 It is a matter of common knowledge that the agitation and campaign for the county unit law materially hastened consolidation in many places in Missouri. It has been noticed that “all districts governed by six directors and in which is located any city of the fourth class or any incorporated town or village shall be known as town school districts.”398 However, with the exception of the cities of St. Louis, Kansas City and St. Joseph,399 the laws applicable to “city school districts” do not differ from those applicable to “town school districts.”400 Further¬more, the administrative organization in each one is the same as in “consolidated school districts.” It is germane to discuss this organization at this point. The government and control of such districts is vested in a board of education of six members, each with a three-year term, two being elected each year at the annual school election (not meeting as in the common school district). Vacancies are filled in the same manner as for a board of directors in a common school district.401 Each board has a president, vice-president, secretary and treasurer. All are chosen by the board itself. As in the case with all other kinds of school boards in Missouri, no compensation is allowed a member of the board as such,402 but the secretary and treasurer may each be allowed a small, limited compensation.403 The board has all the powers and duties of a board of directors of a common school district, and a number in addition. It is only necessary to point out those additional. It is their duty, when the demands of the district require more than one public school building, to divide the school district into wards and erect buildings therein and furnish the same.404 They may also establish high schools and sell school property which is no longer needed.405 Under certain restrictions, they may establish and maintain libraries, public parks and 397Ibid. 398Sect. 11123, R. S. 1919. 399Ch. 102, Arts. 15 and 16, R. S. 1919. 400For classification of villages, towns and cities, see Fair, Government and Politics in Missouri, p. 122. 401Sect. 11216, R. S. 1919. 402Sect. 11215 and 11240, Ibid. 403Sect. 11266, Ibid. 404Sect. 11241, Ibid. 405Ibid. —154— (Page 155) playgrounds.406 Such boards are required to continue the public schools in their district for a period of not less than eight months nor more than ten months, with an exception in the case of extension of time for physical training.407 They also appoint the judges for the annual school elections, except in cities and towns exceeding 2,000 in population and under 100,000.408 City, town and consolidated school boards may also accept gifts for the erection and endowment of libraries and purchase of books, and lend such endowment upon the same security and in the same manner as is required by law for the capital school fund of the county.409 Such boards are obligated by law to select depositories for the funds of the school district in the same manner as provided by law for the selection of county depositories. They may lend any moneys held in payment of outstanding bonds under the same terms as is provided by law for “loaning county and school moneys.”410 There are separate acts applicable to school districts in cities of 75,000 and less than 500,000 population and in cities of 500,000 inhabitants or over, respectively.411 The one has a six-member board, the other a twelve.412 In considering as a whole the school administration of these large city districts, they are much freer from outside control than other kinds of school districts. Missouri has no school administrative units for high schools alone. Looking at all units of school administration which have been discussed, the following appraisement by Governor Hyde is no doubt the truth: “The difficulty lies not so much in our town and city schools. In general the schools of the cities are efficient and well supported. The teachers employed are generally competent, and not so grossly underpaid. The terms of schools are reasonably long, the buildings good, the courses of study $re well planned, high schools are accessible. In the country, terms are short, buildings only fair, courses of studies offered are scant, teachers underpaid; high schools, inaccessible. In the city, schools are crowded; in the country, only half attended.”413 e. Certification of teachers. There is no better illustration of the growth of centralization in school administration in Missouri than that found in the certification of teachers. From the time of the first general school law there has been a recognition of the fact that anyone who taught in the public schools should have some special qualifications. The judges of these 406Sect. 11243, Ibid. 407Sect. 11244, R. S. 1919. 408Sect. 11251, Ibid. 409Sect. 11267, Ibid. 410Sect. 11268, Ibid. 411Ch. 102, Arts. 15 and 16, R. S. 1919. 412Sects. 11404, 11456, R. S. 1919. 413Message, Feb. 15, 1921, Append. 51st Gen. Assembly, Vol. I. —155— (Page 156) qualifications were at first purely local, but with the growth in power of the offices of the state and county superintendents, especially the former, and of the state educational institutions, local authorities with no professional qualifications themselves for judging have been deprived of these powers. One section of the law sums up very well the sources of certificating power: “No teacher shall be employed in any school supported by the public funds, or any part thereof, until he has received a certificate of qualification therefor, signed by the county superintendent of the county, the state superintendent, or a certificate or diploma issued by the state university or some teachers’ college of this state, entitling him to teach in the public schools.”414 Of the more than 20,000 persons actually teaching in the state, it is safe to say that more than half have only the first, second or third grade county certificate.415 The kinds of certificates issued, the time of their duration, and the manner of issuing have been discussed in connection with the powers of the county superintendent. ‘One common requirement for all county certificates is that the applicant must have a good moral character. To obtain a third grade certificate, the applicant must pass an examination in the following branches: Spelling, reading, penmanship, language lessons, geography, arithmetic (including business forms and rules), English grammar, United States history, civil government (including the government of Missouri), physiology and hygiene, with special reference to the effect of alcoholic drinks and stimulants and narcotics generally upon the human system, agriculture and pedagogy. To obtain a second grade certificate, the applicant must pass an examination, in addition to the subjects just mentioned, on algebra and literature; for the first grade, all the branches mentioned for third and second grade, and, in addition, one branch of history, either ancient, medieval and modern, or English, and one branch of science, either physical geography, physics or elementary biology. In addition, to obtain a first grade certificate, the applicant must have eight months’ experience in teaching and maintain an average grade of 90 per cent; to obtain a second grade, the average grade must be 85 per cent; and for a third grade, 80 per cent. If the grade in any subject falls below 60 per cent, no certificate of any sort can be granted.416 All applicants for first and second grade certificates must present evidence that they have completed four years of accredited high school work, or its equivalent. The same qualification is required for applicants for third grade certificates after September 1, 1927.417 414Sect. 11160, R. S. 1919; Sect. 11137, Ibid. 415Govemor Hyde’s Message, Feb. 15,1921, Append. House and Senate Journal, Vol. I. 416Sect. 11358, R. S. 1919. 417Sect. 11360, R. S. 1919; Laws, 1921, p. 653. —156— (Page 157) It may be the words “or its equivalent” have been taken undue advantage of, but it should be remembered that it is the state superintendent’s duty to prepare the questions, and more and more does it become the function of his office to grade all the papers. There is veritable centralization, therefore, even in the issuing of county certificates. The state superintendent of schools issues several kinds of certificates. A certificate valid for one year only may be granted to an applicant who has secured a teaching position in the state, providing the applicant has had two years of standard college work. This certificate is not subject to renewal, but may be converted into a five-year state certificate by meeting certain conditions, among them being the submission of fifteen hours of college credit in education. Should the applicant fail to submit sufficient credits to obtain the five-year certificate, he may complete the work by examination or by submitting approved summer school grades.418 “Applicants who hold the A. B. degree or its equivalent from any standard college may be granted a five-year certificate when at least twenty hours of work in educational subjects have been completed.”419 Applicants who have had at least two years of standard college work may receive a life certificate after forty months of successful teaching and after meeting present requirements for five-year certificates and passing an examination in five professional subjects which were not used in securing the five-year certificate.420 A three-year certificate will be granted graduates of recognized senior colleges who have completed eighteen hours in education as specified by the state superintendent. After sixteen months’ successful teaching in Missouri, this certificate may be converted into a life certificate.421 A three-year certificate is also issued to graduates of standard junior colleges who have taken a minimum of twelve hours in education, as specified by the state superintendent. After twenty- four months of successful teaching, sixteen months of which has been done in Missouri, this three-year certificate may be converted into a five-year state certificate.422 The state superintendent issues a two-year certificate to the graduates of the teacher training course of first class high schools. This is valid in any county in the state. After thirty-two weeks of successful experience and one term’s successful work in a teachers’ college or the state university or standard college or university, the holder can receive a first grade county certificate.423 The superintendent issues a two-year rural state certificate to those who have 418Seventy-second Report, Supt. Schools, p. 178. 419Ibid. 420Ibid. 421Ibid. 422Ibid, p. 179. 423Seventy-second Report, p. 179. —157— (Page 158) done a certain amount of required high school work.424 This certificate is not subject to renewal. A three-year certificate is granted by the state superintendent to the graduates of the training schools of the large cities. After sixteen months of successful experience in teaching, the holder of such certificate may be granted by the state superintendent a professional certificate valid to teach for life in any public school in the state.425 Certificates are also granted in special subjects.426 Upon completion of certain required work which totals 120 semester hours, the University of Missouri through its School of Education grants a life certificate. This same school grants a two-year state certificate which requires a completion of 90 hours of college work.427 All five of the state teachers’ colleges grant certificates; one is known as the regent’s or thirty-hour certificate and is valid for two years. They grant a life certificate with what is known as their 60- hour and 90-hour diplomas, and a life certificate is also awarded to a student who graduates with the degree of Bachelor of Science in Education.428 Lincoln University has certificating powers similar to those of the teachers’ colleges.429 It is evident that the certificating powers are so many and so varied in their requirements as to be confusing. There is need, if not for the centralization of powers in one authority, at least for a standardization among the authorities that issue the certificates. As the matter is now, the highest standard for the two-year certificate is maintained by the state university, then come the teachers’ colleges, state superintendent and county superintendents. Barring the county superintendents who do not issue them, the same statement is true about life certificates. There is little question but what the conference agreement of state educational institutions and the state superintendent of schools430 has helped to establish uniformity and a much closer co-operation among these authorities. f. Textbooks. Taking Missouri’s educational system as a whole, both from the viewpoint of the past and the present, there is little tendency toward centralization in the methods of adopting text-books. There have been, as has been noticed, two state text-book commissions, each adopting books for a period of five years.431 There had been no state uniformity up to the time of the creation of these commissions, neither 424Ibid. 425Ibid., p. 180; Sect. 11312, R. S. 1919. 426Seventy-second Report, State Supt. of Schools, p. 180. 427University of Missouri Bulletin, Gen. Series, 1921, No. 9, pp. 98, 100. 428Seventy-second Report, pp. 197-220. 429Seventy-second Report, p. 221, and latest bulletins of all these schools. 430Sixty-eighth Report, 1917, State Supt. Schools, p. 62. 431Laws, 1891, p. 26; Laws, 1897, p. 22. —158— (Page 159) has there been since. A county text-book commission for each county was created in 1907.432 The only uniformity which obtains today is within the county,433 and this is by no means universal, since the uniformity does not apply to cities having more than 1,000 children of school age, as shown by the last enumeration, and in towns having high schools affiliated with the state university.434 Neither does the uniformity law apply to districts which furnish free text-books,435 and there are many of these in the state. However, most of the common school districts which furnish free text-books adopt the same books which have been adopted by the commission of the county where they are located. The county text-book commission is composed of the county superintendent, one appointed by the state board of education, and another by the county court.436 The appointive members must be teachers, and their terms are two years.437 Salesmen of text-books are excluded from appointment. The commission must meet annually, but except where adoptions are being made, there is no need for more than a one-day meeting. The appointive members alone receive a compensation of $5.00 a day and traveling expenses, but the pay is limited to six days during any one year.438 It is the duty of this commission to adopt from the authorized state list,439 a uniform series of text-books for use in the schools of all the districts of the county.440 The adoptions are made for a period of five years, and the books are used exclusively as the text-books for that time.441 There are provisions in the law dealing with changes of textbooks, considerations in their adoptions, sale by dealers, exchange prices, penalties for using other than the adopted books, supplementary books, furnishing text-books to poor children, statements publishers must make, unlawful combinations to control prices, penalties for selling without license, and penalty for bribery.442 432Laws, 1907, p. 434. 433Ch. 102, Art. 13, 1919. 434Sect. 11371, R. S. 1919; Sept. 11388 requires the exempted districts to take some affirmative action if they do not accept the county adoptions. 435Sect. 11394, R. S. 1919. 436 Sect. 11369, Ibid. 437For list of commissioners’ terms expiring April, 1923, see Seventy- second Report, State Supt., p. 5. 438Sect. 11370, R. S. 1919. 439A copy of every book offered for sale, with prices, must be filed with the state superintendent—Sect. 1372, Ibid. 440Sect. 11371, Ibid.; this section states exceptions. 441Sect. 11378, R. S. 1919; for filing fee, bond, list of publishers and duty of same, see Sects. 11373 to 11377, Ibid. 442Sects. 11379 to 11393, R. S. 1919; persons selling text-books must name secretary of state as agent for citation in suits—Sect. 11397, Ibid. —159— (Page 160) If a majority of those voting on the proposition so desire it, any school district in the state may have free text-books. They are paid for out of the incidental funds. If that fund is not sufficient, the lower grades have preference, beginning with the lowest grade. Such books are the property of the school district.443 Whenever the board of any school district certifies to the county court that they are furnish¬ing text-books free of charge to all the pupils in at least the first four grades, it is the duty of the county court to apportion annually to such school district its proportion of the county foreign insurance tax moneys.444 The money so apportioned shall be used only for the purchase of free text-books.445 g. Teachers’ institutes. Teachers’ institutes extending over a period of a week to four weeks and attended by thousands of teachers no longer exist in Missouri. The needs for these have been supplied by the crowded summer schools of the state institutions. It is the duty, however, of the state board of education to establish ten or more institutes for colored teachers, appoint instructors, and make all rules and regulations therefor.446 Grades made in these institutes must be accepted by county superintendents in lieu of examinations. This same rule holds good of grades made by anyone in the summer term of state educational institutions and in such other schools as may be approved by the state board of education.447 The very fact that teachers may make approved grades in these summer schools has been a big contributing factor in increasing their attendance. h. Public libraries. Perhaps the closest and most important adjuncts to a free public school system are free public libraries. Something has already been said in Chapter I about the state library, the state library commission, and the importance of the library of the State Historical Society of Missouri at Columbia. These, together with the libraries of the various educational institutions and such libraries as the Mercantile Library in St. Louis, accommodate many people, but they do not begin to reach the large mass of readers. Every community worthy of the name needs a free public library not only as a means for “diffusion of knowledge” among school children, but among all the people. Missouri has a state library board, four of whom are appointed by the state board of education for four-year terms, and the fifth is the state superintendent of schools, who is ex-officio chairman.448 It is the business of this board to select, classify and list suitable books 443Sect. 11394, Ibid. 444Sect. 11395, Ibid.; for basis of apportionment, see Sects. 6390, 6391, R. S. 1919. 445Sect. 11397, Ibid. 446Sect. 11365, Ibid. 447Sect. 11366, Ibid. 448Sect. 7188, R. S. 1919. —160— (Page 161) for school libraries, supplementary reading and school reference books. They enter into contracts with publishers to furnish these books at the lowest possible cost to the districts. It is the duty of the state superintendent to send to the school district clerks the selected list of books, together with the price.449 For the purpose of purchasing school libraries, supplementary and reference books, district boards of directors must set aside, out of the levy made for incidental purposes, not less than five nor more than twenty cents per pupil enumerated in the district each year.450 These books are to be purchased from the selected list until the number reaches one hundred. Missouri has sufficient laws permitting the establishment of free public libraries by any city, incorporated village or township,451 and a recent law permitting any county to establish and maintain a free public library,452 but the development of free libraries in the state has been a very slow process. According to a late report,453 there are less than seventy free public libraries in the state. There is little question but what there should be greater centralization of the library administrative authorities maintained by the state. The state library board, the state library commission, the state library in connection with the supreme court and the incipient library of the general assembly454—all have their headquarters in Jefferson City. Though they exist for somewhat different purposes, there seems little reason why they should not all be controlled by one board, with the state superintendent of schools as one of the members. In many instances they must use the same material, and there must be considerable needless duplication in buying books. The separate organizations cause a needless overhead expense to the state. Again, their combined efforts could be much more effective in furthering the free public library movement in the state. The organization that is in charge of the State Historical Society of Missouri, located at Columbia, since it has made such a conspicuous success with the means at its command, could widen its usefulness and be of still greater benefit to the state if it had full charge of the work now being done by the four library authorities mentioned in the preceding paragraph.455 i. High schools—state and teacher training courses—vocational education. Reference has been made from time to time in this chapter to 449Sect. 7189, Ibid. 450Ibid. 451Ch. 60, Arts. 5 and 6, R. S. 1919. 452Laws, 1921, p. 461. 453The Lib. Messenger, July, 1922, pp. 6-14, published by the Mis¬souri Library Commission. 454Ch. 60, Art. 3, R. S. 1919. 455For brief statements concerning the State Historical Society of Missouri, the Missouri Library Commission and the state library, see Missouri Manual, 1921-22, pp. 848, 862, 865. —161— (Page 162) public high schools. With an exception in St. Louis, there was no public high school in the state until after the Civil War.456 Practically all the work in secondary school education was carried on by the private and denominational academies and the so-called colleges and seminaries. Interest in the academies waned after public high schools began to be opened.457 In fact, it is not too much to say that in many respects the high school fulfills all the educational functions once carried on by all the schools in the state above the elementary schools. The earliest public high schools in the state were in the three large cities, and “were established by the local city or town board virtually without any actual authority to do so.’’458 Later they did this under the provisions of the law of 1866,459 which gave them such power. “The general school law of 1874 expressly provided that the common school branches should be taught, but there was nothing in it to prevent boards from having other subjects taught, when there was a necessity for them, and the teachers were willing to assume this added burden. Superintendent John Monteith, in his report for 1874, in discussing this matter, said that it was entirely a local problem as to whether or not a board should provide for a high school department. He further states that such a matter should be determined by the public sentiment of the community, and that whenever there are children ready for high school work and the people are willing to assume the burden of an additional tax, it is quite proper to establish the high school. This legal status of the early high school occasioned much discussion among educators and in the local communities where there was a growing need for such an institution. Even Dr. Laws, then president of the University, on several occasions expressed very grave doubts as to whether or not the local community should undertake the burden of supporting a high school. * * * At the same time, about 1875, the agitation for high schools was being carried on in the states of the Mississippi valley, notably Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota. The result of all this agitation and discus¬sion was that without any very definite legal status in many of these states, the high school simply came into being to meet the need of the people who wanted more advanced work than the ordinary elementary school could afford. Missouri simply joined in this movement.”460 The first big step in the regular, organized growth of high schools in Missouri was taken by the state teachers’ association in 1886. That year they appointed a committee to prepare a plan of co-operation between the high schools and the University. They also invited the academies and colleges to share in the plan. They submitted their 456Phillips, History of Education in Missouri, p. 63. 457Ibid., p. 54. 458Ibid., p. 60. 459Laws, 1866-67, p. 192. 460Phillips, History of Education in Missouri, pp. 61, 62. —162— (Page 163) report in 1888.461 The plan was accepted by the University and its preparatory course was revised in 1889.462 A University inspector was soon appointed. It was his duty to visit approved high schools and others seeking approval, and determine whether or not they met the standards required by the University.463 Superintendent Coleman, in his report for 1889, named the four-year high schools. There were 27 of them. Thirty-eight towns reported three-year high schools, and about 65, two-year high schools. The University approved list for 1890 included only nineteen high schools and five academies. These schools had in attendance during that year 10,086 pupils and graduated 982. The University list eight years later included 76 high schools and academies, there being only a few of the latter and as many more applying for approval.464 For that year these schools enrolled 21,609 pupils and graduated 2,334. Authority was given the state superintendent in 1903 to inspect and classify high schools,465 but little could be done on account of a lack of appropriations. Such was made in 1907.466 By 1909 the law on classification and inspection of high schools was formed very much as it is today,467 and the marked growth of high schools still continued. The state superintendent’s report for that year gave a list of 115 first class, 40 second class, and 77 third class high schools. It was indicated, too, that as many as 420 schools were doing high school work, that there were 34,741 high school pupils, 4,160 graduates, and 1,651 persons teaching high school subjects. It would seem that in the inspection and classification of high schools the work of the state superintendent’s office and that of the University would duplicate each other. Some duplication has taken place, but there has generally been little difficulty about this. There has been ample work for both forces, and they have co-operated by accepting each other’s reports.468 At the present time, by common consent, the University inspector looks after the schools who have or wish membership in the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools and the private and denominational secondary schools, leaving all the rest to the state superintendent’s office. These two groups include, at present, about 120 schools.469 461Ibid., p. 55, for this report. 462Ibid., p. 57. 463Ibid., p. 59; the legislature abolished the preparatory department of the University in 1893—Laws, 1893, p. 264; the University discontinued this department in 1897—Phillips, p. 59. 464Ibid., p. 67. 465Laws, 1903, p. 264. 466Laws, 1907, p. 4. 467Sects. 10923, 10924, R. S. 1909. 468For method of cooperation during Superintendent Evans’ term, see Sixty-fourth Report, 1913, p. 10. 469Seventy-second Report, State Supt., p. 102; oral statement made by Professor J. D. Elliff, University High School Visitor. —163— (Page 164) The authority of the state superintendent to classify high schools and prescribe minimum courses of study for each class has been noted. No school can be classed as a first class high school which does not maintain a four-year course of standard work in English, mathematics, science and history for a term of at least nine months in the year, and which does hot employ the entire time of at least three approved teachers in high school work. The same conditions apply to second class high schools, except the number of years are three and the teachers two; and for third class, except the number of years are two, with at least eight months in the year and one teacher.470 It is the state superintendent’s duty to prescribe rules governing the inspections and examinations of these schools, and keep a record of the same and publish a list of such schools.471 An examination of the Missouri statutes will show that there are not many laws concerning high schools as stich. Hence much is left to the discretion of the State superintendent. By reason of this authority, “the work has been standardized and each and every school offers practically the same course of study. This system of standardization has proved to be invaluable, and students may change from one high school to another in the state with but slight interruption to their high school work.”472 The state superintendent has for a number of years recommended that every high school teacher have at least two years of standard college work. “In general, the requirements in a first and second class high school require that at least ten hours of advanced work be completed in some accredited higher institution for every subject that is being taught”; and in a third class high school, a minimum of five hours.473 From time to time the superintendent publishes a high school course of study.474 One of the most effective means which the state superintendent has of centralizing power in his hands, over the high schools, is through the operation of the state aid laws. The state aid provisions in the statutes are such478 that “every approved high school in the state meeting certain requirements stipulated in the law and not already receiving some other form of state aid, may receive state aid to an amount not to exceed $800.”475 “Consolidated schools maintaining an approved high school and offering an approved course in agri 470Sect. 11337, R. S. 1919; see Sect. 11241, Ibid., for authority of a community to establish high schools. 471Sect. 11338, Ibid. 472Seventy-first Report, State Supt., p. 22. 473Seventy-first Report, State Supt., p. 22. 474Ibid., p. 23; see also Seventy-second Report, p. 79. 478Ch. 102, Arts. 5 and 6, Sects. 11263, 11264, R. S. 1919; Laws, 1921, p. 651. 475 Seventy-second Report, State Supt., p. 81. —164— (Page 165) culture may receive state aid to an amount not to exceed $800, depending upon the area of the school district. “Teacher training schools may receive state aid as follows: (1) If only one teacher training school is maintained in the county, $1,500 may be set aside for this school; (2) if two schools are maintained, $1,200 may be apportioned for eacn school; (3) if three schools are located in a county, $800 may be released to each school. * * *”477 Rural schools which establish an approved high school may receive state aid to the amount of $300.478 “The state and federal governments have made liberal appropriations for the vocational courses in agriculture and home economics. The maximum state aid for these courses for the present school year are vocational agriculture, $1,800; vocational home economics, $600. The following amounts were set aside for the school year of 1920-21 for high schools receiving the different forms of special state aid:478 Consolidated high schools $124,050.00 Teacher training schools 85,344.00 High schools receiving aid under what is known as the Wilson Act 160,942.61 Vocational schools 146,900.00 Total $517,236.61” In commenting on these figures, the superintendent said: “The result that naturally follows is a closer co-operation between the high schools of the state and the department of education. Certain requirements specified by law and others laid down by the state superintendent of schools must be fully met, otherwise state aid is withheld. I am of the opinion that the laws providing for special state aid for high schools have accomplished much in securing us higher standards of efficiency in Missouri schools.”480 Reference has already been made to the power centralized in the hands of the state superintendent with reference to aid given teacher training high schools and the certification of their graduates. His power does not end here. He not only selects the first class high schools which are permitted to give the teacher training courses in their junior and senior years,481' but he prescribes the conditions of admission to the teacher training classes, determines the courses of instruction, the rules and regulations under which such instruction shall be given, and the requirements for graduation.488 The teacher training law has been in operation for nearly a 477Ibid., p. 81. 478Sect. 11211, R. S. 1919; Laws, 1921, p. 637. 479Seventy-second Report, State Supt., p. 82. 480Ibid., p. 82. 48lSect. 11298, R. S. 1919. 482Sect. 11302, R. S. 1919. —165— (Page 166) decade.483 A great need was felt for better prepared teachers in the rural schools. There has been a steady increase in both the number of schools taking advantage of this law and the number of the graduates. The first year of its operation, 76 schools installed the work. They graduated 638 who were quickly placed in teaching positions. During the school year ending June 30, 1921, there were 128 schools, with 885 graduates.484 All the demands for the course cannot be filled because of lack of appropriations. As a general rule, the teacher training graduates are welcomed by the county superintendents.485 Probably all educational leaders in Missouri would agree the school requirements for any teaching position should be far beyond that of first class high school graduation, but it must be remembered that ten years ago there were many more people than now assuming the role of teacher who had never even entered a high school. This centralizing force of the state superintendent, through the teacher training courses, has been a big influence in raising the standards for rural school teachers. The vocational education .law with reference to high schools has been in operation only about five years.486 There are two centralizing influences at work in the operation of this law, the state and the federal government, since the state must appropriate an equal amount to the federal grant for the same period.487 A sufficient analysis has already been made of the vocational education law to show that the state superintendent is the determining force in its execution. In speaking of the state board of education, true enough, the law runs “that such board of education shall establish standards and annually inspect, as a basis for approval, all public prevocational and vocational schools, departments and classes receiving state or federal moneys for giving training in agricultural, industrial, home economics or commercial subjects, and all schools, departments and classes receiving state or federal moneys for the preparation of teachers and supervisors of such subjects”;488 but it states further that these shall be entitled to such state and federal moneys on the condition that 483Laws, 1913, p. 732; for regulations of the state superintendent and syllabus of courses which have been followed since, see Sixty-fourth Report, State Supt., pp. 189-220 for courses added to original syllabus, see revised teacher training syllabus for 1920, published by the state superintendent. 484Seventy-second Report, State Supt., p. 97; for list of the schools, Ibid., p. 101. 485Ibid., p. 98; see Ibid., p. 99, for qualifications of teacher training instructors, their medium salary and their demonstration work. 486Laws, 1917, p. 512; Ch. 102, Art. 5, R. S. 1919. 487Sect. 11293, R. S. 1919; in case the state fails to make appropriations, a provision of the law permits local districts and state institutions to take advantage of the federal act—Sect. 11277, Ibid. 488Sect. 11278, Ibid. —166— (Page 167) they are approved by the state superintendent of public schools as to site, plant, equipment, qualifications of teachers, admission of pupils, courses of study and methods of instruction. Superintendent Lamkin, in his report for 1916-17,489 stated how the federal aid should be apportioned as among teachers of trade and industrial subjects; teachers, supervisors and directors of agricultural subjects; teachers of home economics subjects. The standards and regulations for the organization and administration of the schools were outlined, together with specified requirements for the courses, and suggestions of various kinds were made. In Mr. Lamkin’s next report490 he showed that seven public high schools were teaching vocational agriculture, eleven vocational home economics, and three were doing the trade and industrial work. In the last available report491 the rapid growth in vocational education is shown. The number of schools offering the vocational agriculture has more than doubled each year since it started, 76 high schools, with a total enrollment of 2,049 students, having offered the course during the school year ending June, 1921. Many more wished to offer it. There were 35 schools carrying on the work in vocational home economics, with a total enrollment of 3,051 students, and as many more wanting it. Nine cities had part time continuation schools operating under the act. Several of the large cities were carrying on the work in the trades and industries, giving instruction to 7,256 students. The vigorous, effective centralized control on the part of the state superintendent’s office in vocational education is as evident as in the teacher training work. Such control does not seem to be displeasing to the communities which are thus supervised by the state. Other communities have seen the 'Value of these courses and are constantly trying to take advantage of what seems to be a most practical form of education. Although not connected with high school work, it is not amiss to state at this point that Missouri has taken advantage of another federal act relating to rehabilitation of persons disabled in industry.492 The money to carry on this work is raised in a similar way to that for vocational education, and the execution of the law is in the hands of the same board. Hence, again, power is centralized in the hands of the state superintendent.493 Should communities take advantage of it, a recent physical edu 489Sixty-eighth Report, pp. 28-57. 490Sixty-ninth Report, p. 137. 491Seventy-second Report, State Supt., pp. 22-27. 492Laws, 1921, pp. 690, 30. 493See Seventy-second Report of State Superintendent, p. 61, for the way the rehabilitation work is conducted. Ibid., p. 4, for personnel of those who superintend the work. —167— (Page 168) cation law494 will place still more power of supervision in the hands of the state superintendent.495 Although the state superintendent has three rural school inspectors, his closest, most direct and efficient control is exercised over the high schools. He has two high school inspectors, a teacher training inspector, four supervisors of vocational education, and an assistant director of this same.496 High schools have continued to increase in numbers in Missouri. According to the last available report,497 there were 396 first, 94 second, and 166 third class high schools in Missouri, with 64 reported as unclassified. When one considers a summary of general high school statistics,498 it becomes evident that the most rapid one growth, in the same length of time, in educational development and administrative centralization has been in connection with the high schools. Such development has helped at the same time to raise the standards in the elementary schools and set up a goal to which aspiring rural communities could repair, and since there is such a close affiliation between the high schools on the one hand and the educational institutions on the other, it stands without question that as more graduate from high schools, more will go to college. j. Schools for negroes. It has been observed that colored children cannot attend the same school that white children do, but that provision must be made for their education.499 The statutes also provide for the establishment of high schools for colored children.500 These laws, however, are really limited to St. Louis County, and are, therefore, not of wide application. The negro population in most of the school districts is so sparse that it is found more desirable to send the colored children either to another district or to the elementary and high school departments of Lincoln University. Most of the negro population in the state is in the considerable sized cities, but with the exception of the very largest of these, most of them do not feel that it is wise to establish high schools for colored children. There is little question but what Missouri is somewhat neglectful of public school education for negro children. School authorities are mindful of this neglect. The last legislature showed some interest by creating the office of a “state negro inspector of negro schools,”501 who is appointed by and under the direction of the state superintendent of public schools, and by in 494Laws, 1921, p. 641. 495See Seventy-second Report State Superintendent, p. 16, for suggestions on this law. 496Ibid., p. 4. 497Ibid., p. 85. 498Ibid., p. 319. 499Sects. 11144-11146, R. S. 1919. 500Sect. 11256, R. S. 1919; Laws, 1921, p. 611. 501Laws, 1921, p. 64. —168— (Page 169) creasing the appropriations for Lincoln University.502 Outside of the largest cities, it would seem better for all concerned to turn over the problem of the education of the negro children of the state to the state superintendent of schools, and so centralize power in his office that he could be held responsible. k. Special schools for defectives: (1) Schools for the blind and deaf. Not long before the Civil War the state legislature began to show some interest in the education of defective children. Acts were passed establishing “an asylum for the deaf and dumb”503 and for the education of the blind.504 Even for some time after the Civil War the financial support given by the state was meager,505 but it was enough to assure the establishment of permanent institutions at Fulton and St. Louis, respectively. During most of their history these were classed as eleemosynary institutions. The legislature in 1921, however, classified them as educational institutions506 and made more liberal appropriations for their support.507 The institution for the blind is a boarding school running nine months of the year. Children attend it from all parts of the state. They must be under twenty-one years of age, free from contagious diseases, and “have good mental and physical capacity for instruction.”508 No charge is made for board and tuition. The institution maintains a kindergarten, eight grades, and a four-year high school, the latter being on the approved list.509 While the children study many of the same subjects which are taught in the public schools, special stress is placed on subjects which will make them self-supporting when they leave the school. All children in the state between the ages of seven and twenty- one who are too deaf to be taught >in the public schools can attend the school for the deaf on about the same terms as those who attend the school for the blind. The ordinary common school branches are taught and also a number of trades.510 (2) Special classes for defective children. Rather recently the legislature made provision for special classes for defective children.511 Whenever, in any school district, there are found ten or more children who are blind, or who are deaf, or who are crippled, but yet able to be moved about, or who are feeble 502Ibid., p. 87. 503Laws, 1850-51, p. 211. 504Ibid., p. 59. 505Laws, 1875, p. 69. 506Laws, 1921, p. 645. 507Laws, 1919, p. 90; Laws, 1921, p. 82. 508Missouri Manual, 1921-22, p. 780. 509Seventy-second Report, State Supt., p. 95. 510Missouri Manual, 1921-22, p. 781. 511Laws, 1919, p. 679; Laws, 1921, p. 629. —169— (Page 170) minded and yet capable of instruction, the school board of the district may provide appropriate instruction in a special class for such groups of ten or more of each class of defectives. Transportation must be provided for those who cannot otherwise attend. The same laws apply to speech defectives, when there are fifty or more in any district, except they need not be segregated in special classes. The instruction given is limited to the elementary school grades and must be under the regulations of the state superintendent of schools, who inspects and approves the classes. State aid to the amount of $750 per annum for each teacher employed wholly in such instruction, under certain conditions, is given. A school district may also establish a special class for twenty or more children who, while not feebleminded, are on the border line of mental deficiency, and for each teacher wholly employed in this kind of service, the district receives $300 per annum provided the teacher is specially trained for the work.512 In carrying out these laws, the state superintendent has published his regulations.513 They go into considerable detail concerning the administration of the law and how the types of classes and individuals are to be instructed. Here is an important educational work to be performed, and again the commonwealth has centralized the control in the hands of the state superintendent. Should the legislature give him sufficient help to administer the law effectively, the value of this kind of work can hardly be overestimated. (3) State home for children at Carrollton. Closely akin to these provisions for educating defective children are those which recently established a state home for children under the charge of the state board of charities.514 Its purpose is to provide a temporary home for neglected and dependent children of sound mind and under seventeen years of age, giving them proper care and instruction, especially in the industrial arts, until they are placed in permanent family homes. Although the first appropriation of $50,000 for this home was not large, it does show a willingness on the part of the legislature to start in the right direction. (4) Boys’ Reformatory, Industrial Home for Girls, Industrial Home for Negro Girls. In 1887 515 the legislature established an industrial home for girls and a reform school for boys. An industrial home for negro girls was established in 1909.516 As has been pointed out, all of these are under the control of the penal institutions board, and so are classified 512For cases where the state board of charities may act, see Sect. 11150, R. S. 1919. 513Seventy-second Report, Superintendent of Schools, p. 69. 514Laws, 1921, p. 89; the home is located at Carrollton, Missouri Manual, 1921-22, p. 832. 515Laws, 1887, pp. 274, 278. 516Laws, 1909, p. 599. —170— (Page 171) as penal institutions. However, considerable school work is carried on in these institutions. Little work is done beyond the grades, courses in the industries being stressed. Only those between the ages of seven and twenty-one are supposed to be admitted. For the highest good of these incorrigible boys and girls, it would probably be much better if these institutions were under the control of the state board of charities and corrections. They would no doubt be able to place much greater stress on educational and reform features of these institutions than can be done under the present control. 1. Compulsory attendance law. Missouri has a compulsory attendance law,517 most of which was formulated in 1905 and 1907.518 It applies to children between the ages of seven and fourteen, with liberal provisions for excepting those instructed at home and in private and parochial schools. The children are required to attend the school for the entire time of its session. There are also provisions for those attending between the ages of fourteen and sixteen, if they are not engaged in some regular and lawful service for at least six hours a day. The county superintendent of schools in each county is required to select a person of good moral character as an attendance officer. Consolidated town and city school districts need not be under the county attendance officer, provided they appoint attendance officers of their own. An unfortunate feature of the law is that county courts fix the compensation of the attendance officer and the law limits the pay to $4.50 per day and actual traveling expenses.519 It is a matter of common knowledge that many county courts either refuse to allow any compensation or fix it at such a low figure that no fit person can afford to serve.520 While there are no definite, up-to-date, convincing statistics on the effects of the compulsory attendance law,521 the results on the whole must be considered good. Most people know what the law means, and some are keenly aware that one of the bases of the apportionment of school moneys is that of the daily attendance of pupils. “The school board in districts having over 10,900 inhabitants may establish and maintain from the public school funds one or more special truant or parental schools in the district for habitual truants or those who are incorrigible, vicious, or immoral * * * and therefore need special attention and instruction.”522 There are few districts of that 517Ch. 102, Art. 9, R. S. 1919; Laws, 1921, p. 635. 518Laws, 1905, p. 146; Ibid., 1907, p. 428. 519It is the duty of practically every school officer in the state to see that the compulsory attendance law is enforced, but of course the personal work they can do is very much limited. 520For opinion of attorney-general on this point, see Seventy-second Report, State Supt., p. 32. 521See Sixty-fourth Report, Supt. Schools, p. II, Ind^ex; Sixty-seventh Report, Ibid., p. 147 ff. 522Sect. 11327, R. S. 1919. —171— (Page 172) size in the state, and then, again, such schools are not at all popular with progressive school people. There is a form of the compulsory attendance law which applies to part-time schools.523 All school administrative authorities realize that there is need for constant vigilance in enforcing such compulsory attendance laws as there are, and that the law on county attendance officers needs to be so strengthened that an adequately paid, efficient county attendance officer shall be on duty every day while the schools are in session. m. School finances — sources of school revenue — value of school property—the average levy—items of expenditure. Many references have been made in this chapter and Chapter II to school finances, and it is proper now to describe and appraise them as they are at present. The chief sources of school revenue in Missouri are not different from those in most of the other states.524 They are: (1) invested funds; (2) state taxation; (3) local taxation; and (4) federal funds. The invested or permanent funds consist of: (1) the state school fund, now totaling $3,159,000 and invested in school fund certificates,525 and the seminary fund, now totaling $1,239,839.426 invested in seminary fund certificates;526 (2) the permanent county fund, amounting to $9,270,348.15;527 (3) the permanent township fund, totaling $2,394,646.86;428 (4) the permanent special district fund, amounting to $113,758.56.429 Practically no complaint is heard about the laws governing these funds or the way they are handled. Missouri seems to have passed beyond the state of dissipating her school funds. The law permits gifts to the school funds.530 On the matter of state taxation, it has already been said that the legislature, according to the constitution, must appropriate at least 25 per cent of the general revenue for the benefit of the elementary and high schools, and that for many years it has appropriated 33% per cent. The method and conditions of apportionment have been discussed. The amount of funds apportioned annually by the state superintendent of schools have more than doubled during the last ten years. The total apportionment in 1911 was $1,789,912.87; in 1921 it was $4,461,550.17. The total days’ attendance has increased from 523Sect. 11328, R. S. 1919. 524Dutton and Snedden, Administration of Public Education in the United States, 1913, p. 147. 525Auditor’s Report, 1919-20, p. 36; for laws on sources of this fund and laws governing the same, see Const. 1875, Art. 11, Sects. 6, 9; Ch. 102, Art. 21, R. S. 1919. 526Auditor’s Report, 1919-20, p. 36; for laws on sources of this fund, see Const. 1875, Art. 11, Sects. 6, 9; Ch. 102, Art. 22, R. S. 1919. 527Seventy-second Report, State Supt. of Schools, p. 253; for amount each county has, Ibid., p. 251; Const. 1875, Art. 11, Sects. 8, 10; Ch. 102, Art. 2, R. S. 1919. 528Ibid. 529Ibid. 530Ch. 102, Art. 23, R. S. 1919. —172— (Page 173) 77,696,694 in 1912 to 93,043,647 in 1921, and the amount apportioned for each day’s attendance from one cent to $2.97.531 Barring the less than $200,000 derived from the permanent state school fund, all of this came from state taxation. Just recently532 a determined fight was made in the Missouri House of Representatives to get 50 per cent of the general revenue appropriated to the elementary and high schools, but a large majority of the members saw that, with state sources of revenue no larger than they are, such an appropriation would seriously cripple the various state institutions.533 Important as are these sources of school revenue from the state, the all important source is that from local taxation. Because of this, as has been indicated, hundreds of communities felt the cramping effects of the constitutional limitation on taxation, and especially the fractional assessments. The large amount raised by local taxation is seen at once, when it is stated that the grand total receipts of the elementary and high schools for the school year ending in 1921 were $45,588,986.30.534 The sources of school revenue from the federal government in aid of the public schools amounts to about $190,600 per year.535 The large part of this is expended on the vocational education work in the high schools. There is a large investment in school property in the state. The last report536 shows that the estimated value of school sites and buildings was $88,048,822; that of equipment, $7,525,271. The items of expenditure are as follows: teachers’ wages, $21,- 352,796.54; incidental expenses, $6,677,719.96; building purposes, $7,138,246.98. This left an unexpended cash balance on hand July 1, 1921, of $10,420,222.82.537 The variations in the district levies for school purposes were many. That more was being invested is shown by the fact that the average school levy per $100 assessed valuation was sixty cents. The value of all taxable property in the state was $3,580,117,876.20. There were 33 districts that made no levy, 676 had a levy under twenty cents; 2,562 ran from twenty to forty cents; 1,453 had forty cents; 1,525 ran from forty to sixty-five cents; and 3,125 had sixty-five cents and over.538 531Seventy-second Report, State Supt., pp. 60, 61. 532St. Louis Globe Democrat, Feb. 7, 1923, especially an editorial. 533The writer, as a member of the House in 1921, recalls not only a similar fight but also a determined effort to keep the special state aids to high schools from being appropriated out of the 33 1-3 per cent—Laws, 1921, p. 29. 534Seventy-second Report, State Supt., p. 269; Ibid., for assessed valuation of districts. 535Laws, 1921, p. 30. 536Seventy-second Report, State Supt., p. 269. 537Ibid., p. 253. 538Seventy-second Report, State Supt., p. 253. —173— (Page 174) When the constitutional limitation on the rate of the levy is borne in mind in connection with the assessed valuation, the lack of equal educational opportunities becomes evident in many of the districts. Eighty-one districts had an assessed valuation of less than $10,000; 53 from $10,000 to $20,000; 181 from $20,000 to $30,000; 357 from $30,000 to $40,000; 577 from $40,000 to $50,000; 744 from $50,000 to $60,000; 1,238 from $60,000 to $80,000; and 6,206 more than $80,000.539 This inequality would have been greatly done away with had the county been accepted as a unit for taxation, for a careful computation reveals that the average assessed valuation of the proposed county unit districts would have been $15,000,000. Furthermore, the consolidation and centralization of control under the county unit would have permitted greater economy, since statistics show that 756 districts had an average attendance fewer than 10; 1,545 had from 10 to 15; 3,490 from 15 to 25; 2,073 from 25 to 40; and 1,510 over 40.540 That is not all; 69 schools had less than a four-month term; 524, from four to six months; 2,504, from six to eight months; 5,502 had eight months; and 775 more than eight months.541 n. General statistics. That the people of the state support the public schools more strongly than they ever have, however, is shown by the figures on the enumeration and enrollment. The total number of white children enrolled for 1921 was 691,818, and the total number of colored was 32,891, making a grand total of 724,709. The total enumeration for 1921 was 907,186. Most of the districts were reported as having some sort of a library, but a fair majority, only, had complied with the library law. Nearly $364,000 was spent for books during the year.542 That the state educational institutions and teacher training high schools have done considerable to prepare better teachers, but have much yet to do, is shown by the following: Of the 21,567 teaching, 5,123 held life certificates from the state institutions; 1,030 held two-year state certificates from the same; 762 held life state certificates from the state superintendent; 361, five-year state; 173, state rural; 1,187, teacher training certificates; and 693 held special certificates. There was a total of 12,238 county certificates; 2,050 were first grade; 3,220, second; 4,368, third; and 2,600, special. Therefore, about four-sevenths of all those teaching in Missouri are certificated through the lower grades of certificates. Furthermore, about 2,400 teachers were reported as not having had any high school work.543 539Ibid., p. 269. 540Seventy-second Report, State Supt., p. 268. 541Ibid. 542Ibid. 543Seventy-second Report, p. 269. —174— (Page 175) The statistics show, too, the rapid “turn-over” among teachers. There were 3,451 who had had no previous experience; more than 5,000 who had had two years or less; and 9,906 were in their present positions for the first time. A study of the tables on “comparison of town and country schools” and “summary of general high school statistics” shows up the rural schools in an unfavorable light.544 They do show, however, more assessed property per child for the country, and that the rural districts are spending much more per child for what they get than the other districts. A larger unit for taxation and centralization of administration within the enlarged unit are feasible remedies for these defects. They were offered in the county unit bill but without avail. o. State Teachers’ Association. The most powerful, aggressive and unselfish supporter of progressive public school education in Missouri is the state teachers’ association, with its allied district and community associations. Nearly 17,000 teachers of the state belong to the state association. The first meeting of the association was held in 1856,545 and it has been meeting annually since, with the exception of the Civil War years, 1861-65,546 and the epidemic year, 1918. Its attendance is so large that it alternates between St. Louis and Kansas City for its meetings. “The state teachers’ association may be said to have been the timekeeper for educational progress for the state. One needs only to follow through the resolutions of this body to see how thoroughly this statement is true. The teachers’ institute, normal schools for professional training, high schools, county supervision, better rural schools, better school houses, etc., all have come only after many resolutions and efforts of this association.”547 4. Higher education: a. The University of Missouri. As in the case of the common schools, some means were provided for the support of a state university before the institution itself existed. The attitude of Congress even during Missouri’s territorial period has been set forth.548 The main idea of this attitude is best gleaned from the Enabling Act.549 In this act one entire township * ** “together with other lands heretofore reserved for that purpose” were reserved for the use of a “seminary of learning.” The total amount in acres has been estimated at 46,080. The attitude of the people of the state, as has been noted, was shown in the first constitution.550 544Ibid., pp. 318, 319. 545Phillips, History of Education in Missouri, p. 243; Dean Phillips gives a brief account of each meeting down to 1902—Ch. 8. 546Ibid., p. 258. 547Ibid., p. 284. 548U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. II, p. 621. 549Mo. Terr. Laws, Vol. I, p. 631. 550Const. 1820, Art. 6. —175— (Page 176) The state university was not established, however, and located until 1839.551 The first board of curators consisted of fifteen persons chosen by the state legislature. The school opened in 1840 552 and the first commencement exercises were held in 1843. Until after the Civil War, the university must indeed be classed as a “Struggling institution.” The returns from the “seminary” lands were small, and it received no direct appropriation until 1867.553 The direct statements concerning the university in the constitutions of 1865 554 and 1875 555 have been noticed. The last constitution brought about a change in the number on the board of curators, and the method of their appointment. The organization of the board has been explained in Chapter I. The legislature has regularly made appropriations to the university since 1867, but too much of the time they have not been sufficient to permit growth comparable to that in neighboring states which have no more wealth than Missouri. All departments of the university are located at Columbia except the School of Mines and Metallurgy, which is at Rolla. 556 Different from Iowa and Kansas, the college of agriculture is a part of the university. 557 The board of curators has the powers usually vested in such a board. They have “power to appoint and remove, at discretion, the president, dean, professors, instructors and other employees of the university; to define and assign their powers and duties, and to fix their compensation” 558 They prepare financial statements, the most important one being that for the legislature containing a list of the receipts and disbursements of the institution during the preceding biennial period. 559 They have power to confer “such degrees as are known to and usually granted by any college or university. 560 There is a minimum age limit of sixteen oh all persons entering the university, the conditions of admission being prescribed by the board of curators. The board is permitted to charge reasonable fees. It has been noticed that the University stopped admitting students for high school work before the end of the nineteenth century. However, its school of education maintains an observation high school on the campus at Columbia.561 551Laws, 1838-39, pp. 173-187; for brief statement of location and early history, see Phillips, History of Education in Missouri, p. 171. 552Ibid. 553Laws, 1867, p. 9—an appropriation of $10,000. 554Const. 1865, Art. 9, Sect. 4. 555Const. 1875, Art. 11, Sects. 5 and 6. 556The school at Rolla is controlled by the board of curators of the university under practically the same conditions as any other department. 557Ch. 10, Arts. 18 to 20, 22. 558Sect. 11530, R. S. 1919. 559Sect. 11541, Ibid. 560Sect. 11548, Ibid. 561University of Missouri Catalog, 1921, p. 93. —176— (Page 177) Upon the completion of the required work, the usual undergraduate degrees are conferred, and the same statement holds good for the graduate school.562 A considerable number are graduated each year with the Master of Arts degree, but a very few with the degree of Doctor of Philospohy.563 Like all the other educational institutions of the state, the University of Missouri is coeducational. Before about 1871, only mer were admitted.564 With the exception of the period of the Great War, the enrollment in the university has shown a steady increase for many years. The enrollment for 1920 at Columbia was 5,334 students, and at Rolla, 510, making a total of 5,844. The enrollment for the year 1922 was 5,869 at Columbia, and 712 at Rolla, making a total of 6,581, an increase Of 737 for the biennial period.565 These numbers do not include those enrolled in the extension division, which were 502 and 872 for the years 1920 and 1922, respectively. The University of Missouri has membership in the Association of American Universities.566 The total appropriations by the legislature during the biennial period which closed December 31, 1922, amounted to nearly $3,000,000.567 The disbursements during the same period were well over $4,500,000, the amounts spent over and above the appropriations by the legislature coming chiefly from the United States government and from fees collected from students.568 The appropriations made by the legislature for the school of mines at Rolla for the same period totaled $533,000 more, and their disbursements amounted to about $225,000 in excess of that.569 The chief need of the university at present is adequate support for its faculty members. Notable increases have been made in the salary scale of the institutions belonging to the Association of American Universities. “The advance x in the salary schedule of the universities of the middle west has been such during the past few years as to leave Missouri practically at the bottom of the list, for the increase in salaries at Missouri has been notably small. This situation is a very unfortunate one, since it makes it possible for the universities of neighboring states, which can offer larger salaries and better equipped departments, to entice away our best men. The loyalty of our faculty, however, has been such that while our loss has been grievous, it is not irreparable if the remedy is immediately applied.”570 562Ibid., p. 63. 563University of Missouri Catalog, 1921, p. 332. 564Report of Curators, 1871, p. 60; Ibid., 1872, p. 23. 565Biennial Report of Board of Curators, Dec. 31, 1922, p. 8. 566Ibid., p. 5. 567Laws, 1921, p. 66; Ibid., Extra Sess., p. 13. 568Biennial Report of Curators, 1922, pp. 37, 38; see Ibid., p. 37, for amounts from endowment funds. 559Ibid., pp. 72, 73. 570Ibid., pp. 5 and 6. —177— (Page 178) The need for increased support is probably more evident in the school of education and college of agriculture than anywhere else. For several years there has been a persistent demand on the part of progressive teachers of the state for expansion of the work of the school of education. Because the school has not been able to comply with this demand, for lack of funds, “scores of Missouri teachers have been compelled to seek training in other universities.”571 In reporting on the college of agriculture, the board of curators say what is generally admitted: “The general efficiency of the college of agriculture in respect to its college teaching work and its experiment station investigations has declined during the past biennial period. This decline is due to the inadequacy of the funds available to maintain the institution at its former standards of efficiency.572 Should the university receive sufficient funds and obtain an administrative leader who would insist on some of the best minds on the faculty doing much less clerical work and much more research work, the institution’s value to the state as a graduate school would be almost unlimited. No other state institution attempts to do graduate work. b. The Teachers’ Colleges. The organization of the five state teachers’ college boards and that of Lincoln University has been mentioned in Chapter I, and the demand from time to time for normal schools has been referred to in this chapter. This demand reaches back nearly to the time of the establishment of the University of Missouri. “Massachusetts was scarcely more than committed to its new institution for training teachers (1839) when the obvious value of the plan was recognized and similar schools were advocated by educational officers in other states. In Missouri, except for the War’s interruption, there was a persistent and steadily widening campaign from 1842 until the school at Kirksville was established in 1870. State superintendents and secretaries of state who served ex-officio at times in their stead, urged the usual arguments in annual reports, and one governor (1844-48) came forward with an elaborate plan for a combined industrial and pedagogical school. Home teachers for home schools as against inferior foreign or imported teachers was a popular cry in a state where one-fourth of the districts had no teachers and three-fourths of those that had teachers secured them from outside the state. As to the precise nature of the desired institution, proposals varied from a normal department in the university to a scheme for an independent school in each congressional district, eight in all; but the only early legislation on the subject was an act of 1849 establishing a professorship of theory and practice of teaching in the state university and a system of two-year scholarships for each county * * * all to be 571Ibid., p. 25. 572Ibid., p. 12. —178— (Page 179) financed with an annual appropriation of $1,000. The university took no action. In 1856 the Missouri state teachers’ association, at its first session, passed resolutions in support of normal schools, possibly inspired thereto by Horace Mann, who attended the meetings. The movement had local effect the following year in the establishment of the St. Louis city normal school, later known as Harris Teachers College. But the war halted the efforts for state schools until, at its meeting ten years later (1866), the reorganized teachers’ association took up the subject again in an emphatic memorial to the general assembly.”573 “The prospect was not unfavorable, therefore, when, in 1867, Joseph Baldwin came from Indiana to open his normal school at Kirksville. Although a private venture, it was started as an avowed forerunner of a state system, and Baldwin entered at once into an energetic campaign to place it on that footing.”574 After great effort from a number of sources, the legislature finally passed an act providing for the establishment of two normal schools575 and another constituting Lincoln Institute, a normal school for colored teachers.576 The first two normal schools were under the control of a single central board of seven persons, consisting of the state board of education and four others, two from each normal school district577 being appointed by the governor. A third normal school for southeast Missouri was provided for in 1873,578 and the next year the change from a central board to local boards was made.579 It was then that the board for each took on the form we have today. Laws in 1905 provided for the establishment of two more normal schools, in southwest and northwest Missouri, respectively.580 For more than a decade after their founding, the very right of the normal schools to exist was questioned by the legislature,581 and they had no constitutional right to such existence as had the university. There were many reasons for this opposition, but perhaps the strongest was the lack of a strong sentiment for popular education.582 573Bulletin No. 14, Cargenie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1920, p. 34—to be referred to from now on as Carnegie Bulletin No. 14, 1920. 574Ibid. 575Laws, 1870, Adj. Sess., p. 134. 576Ibid., p. 136. 577The counties north of the Missouri River constituted the first, and those south, the second normal school district. 578Laws, 1873, p. 79. 579Laws, 1874, Adj. Sess., p. 143. 580Laws, 1905, pp. 297, 299; for method used in locating the normal schools, see Cargenie Bulletin No. 14,1920, p. 35; Violette, E. M., History of the First District State Normal School, pp. 48-61. 571Violette, Hist, of First Dist. Nor. Sch., p. 82. 582See Ibid., 268, 270, 271 for tables showing appropriations for the three normal schools from their beginning to 1905-06; also Carnegie Bulletin No. 14, 1920, p. 441, for appropriations to 1917-1918. -179- (Page 180) “This policy of near-starvation could not fail to react seriously on the operation and reputation of the schools. In fact, continued financial embarrassment in the face of pressing opportunity seems to have been the principal cause of their weakness. Every new student that could be corralled, and every old student that could be retained, was valuable both for his fees and as a means of additional pressure on the legislature for more funds.”583 There were really no academic standards of admission to these schools; hence there could be, with their limited support and large number of short-time students, few standards upheld.584 “On the other hand, the university and better colleges were stead¬ily climbing upward; admission requirements were gradually advanced; students entered at least for the year, and usually for the entire course. While the normal schools were necessarily local in their sympathies, the colleges, and particularly the university, were seeking their places in the larger fraternity of scholars and were jealous of the standards that placed them there. The normal schools were victims of an isolated statutory and economic situation that governed completely the material with which they dealt and the terms of their own operation, while the higher schools were lifted and carried along more or less by the current of national educational opinion.”585 In the absence of an agency to bring about an understanding between the normal schools and the university, it is little wonder that friction arose just as soon as the recognition of credit appeared. Much friction did occur, but this has happily largely passed away since the conference agreement of state educational institutions and the state superintendent of schools in 1916.586 The names of the normal schools were changed to teachers’ colleges in 1919.587 This worked no great change in their status, but only recognized legally what had been a fact for a number of years. Like the board of curators of the university, each board of regents of a teachers’ college is a corporate body, and has the general control and management of the college and can make all needful rules and regulations for the guidance of students enrolled and enforce obedience to these rules; they have the power to appoint and dismiss all officers and teachers, and may determine their compensation and the commencement and termination of their terms of office. Before removals, a president or teacher has the right to make a defense before the board. They may prescribe courses of instruction which shall include such subjects as are usually taught in teachers’ colleges, normal schools, or schools of education. They may also 583Camegie Bulletin No. 14, 1920, p. 39, 584Ibid., p. 40. 585Ibid. 586Sixty-eighth Report, State Supt., p. 62. 587Laws, 1919, p. 687. —180— (Page 181) confer such degrees as are usually granted by teachers’ colleges and normal schools, “Each board may make such rules and regulations for the admission of students as may be deemed proper.”588 The board must make a financial report to the state superintendent of schools each year, and the treasurer of the board must make such a report biennially to the general assembly.589 Taken as a whole, the statutes designate the powers of the boards of regents much more in detail than they do those of the board of curators of the university. Decided increased financial support for the teachers’ colleges began about the time the last two were established,590 and, barring a short time during the Great War period, such support has been kept up on the part of the legislature. The total appropriations for the five colleges for the last biennium was over $2,644,000.491 However, the appropriations have not kept pace with their growing needs. Since the Great War the * enrollments have increased rapidly, especially in the summer term, which in all these schools is an integral one-fourth of the year’s work. The college at Springfield now has the lead in enrollment for the entire year; then come Kirksville and Warrensburg, with about the same number, Gape Girardeau, and lastly, Maryville. The college at Kirksville enrolled, during the year 1921-22, 1,829 different students, a very small per cent of these being of high school rank.592 The several kinds of certificates issued by the teachers’ colleges have been described. All of the teachers’ colleges confer the bachelor’s degree in education. This presupposes four years of approved high school work and the regular four years’ work in college. According to the conference agreement of 1916, practically every student who receives this degree may enter the graduate school of education in the University of Missouri without any conditions. From June, 1921, to June, 1922, ninety persons received the B. S. Degree at Kirksville. The number of students doing senior college work in these colleges is constantly increasing. Enrollment of any high school students except in the demonstration schools will, no doubt, soon be a thing of the past. Warrensburg has already made such a step. So far as the curricula of the teachers’ colleges are concerned, each is a law unto itself, but the character of problems each has to meet is so similar that there are many points of uniformity about their courses of study and various activities. Their underlying purposes are the same, the chief one being to prepare the best possible teachers for the public schools of the state. They have come to be teachers’ colleges in the real sense of the word, and hence their articulation with the state university is an easy matter. 588Sect. 11500, R. S. 1919. 589Ch. 102, Art. 17, R. S. 1919. 590Carnegie Bulletin No. 14, 1920, p. 441. 591Laws, 1921, pp. 63, 64. 592Bulletin, June, 1922, p. 70. —181— (Page 182) Although the legislature in 1921 changed the name of Lincoln Institute to that of Lincoln University593 and appropriated more money for its support594 than ever before, it is by no means a university. There are only slightly over 900 colored teachers in the entire state,595 but, as has been noticed, they must be educated separately from white teachers. The only places where colored children have an equal opportunity for school education with the whites are in the largest cities. This being the case, Lincoln University does afford a better place for most of the negroes to go to school than the home environments. Most of the work done in the school is that of an elementary and high school character. The industrial and vocational work is very well suited to the needs of the students. “The academic work is of a highly formal character.”596 The statement made in 1916 that “the chief weaknesses in the institution appear to arise, first, out of a lack of capable leadership, and, second, out of too little protection from political disturbance,”597 holds good for too much of the history of the institution. Since Missouri will likely continue to educate the colored race separately from the whites, the former deserve much better opportunities than they have had up to this time. 5. Conclusion. It is well, in conclusion, to try to measure the results of such centralized control as has been attained in public school administration, and to suggest what further steps should be made in such control. An examination of the educational clauses in each constitution plainly indicates the increased interest which the state has shown in public education. On the whole the same can be said of the laws which have been passed on the subject of education. This increased recognition came about slowly and haltingly in most cases. Taking the period before the Civil War, it must be conceded that the chief interest which the state administration showed in the public schools was through the support given by the apportionment of school moneys. The corresponding obligation of the state to assume its rightful duties of at least partial supervision of the school administration did not develop as rapidly as it should, although there was a beginning in the work of state and county superintendents. However, since the Civil War, not only has the increased state financial support been more stable and sure, as witnessed by the requirement in the last constitution that one-fourth of the general revenue must be appropriated for the benefit of the public schools and the actual practice of the legislature to appropriate one-third, 593Laws, 1921, p. 86. 594Ibid., p. 65. 595Seventy-second Report, State Supt., p. 269. 596Carnegie Bulletin No. 14, 1920, p. 386. 597Ibid. —182— (Page 183) but there has been a tendency to centralize administrative power in the hands of the state superintendent and the state institutions. This is seen especially in the superintendent’s control of the distribution of money for and direct supervision over the teachers’ training and vocational education courses in the high schools. Equally, if not more important, is his power to inspect and classify high schools and prepare courses of study for the common schools. The power of articulating the elementary schools with the high schools and the high schools with the higher educational institutions has properly mostly merged into the hands of the state superintendent. Not only has there been useful centralization in the aspects just mentioned, but it has come to be a well recognized desire that the state superintendent and state board of education shall take special care of the permanent school funds of the state, and that the various county courts must not only preserve well the permanent local school funds, but increase them where possible. The dissipation of any of these funds is a thing almost unheard of at the present time. The preservation and increase of these funds, together with special aid to weak districts on the condition that they lengthen their school term, have made it possible for most districts to have at least an eight months’ term.598 The idea is still prevalent among some members of the legislature that there should be increased state aid without the necessary component of increased state control. 599 The actual centralization of much of the power to grant certificates to teachers in the office of the state superintendent and the state institutions is a vast improvement over the power of the non-professional local boards to do so. There is still, however, a loophole in the power of the county superintendent to issue certificates. Taken as a whole, however, the power to issue certificates is very much decentralized. Concerning the power to adopt text-books, decentralization rather than centralization has taken place within the last twenty-five years. There are as many text-book commissions as there are counties. Then again, the free text-book law, which gives the right to a district to choose its own books, and the right given to hundreds of consolidated, town and city districts to adopt their own texts still further decentralizes the power. There is little disposition on the part of leading school people to return to the state text-book board, and with better standards for teachers, a disposition to get away from the “text-book grind,” a recognition of the fact that conditions are varied in the state, and the fear of venality on a large scale, it is doubtful whether 598Figures were quoted recently on the floor of the Missouri House which showed that for 1922, 7,655 districts had as much as an eight months’ term, 131 had from six to eight months, 253 had four to six, and 21 had less than four.—St. Louis Globe-Democrat, Feb. 7, 1923. 599Ibid. —183— (Page 184) further centralization in this respect needs to take place until a reorganization is brought about in the state administration. However, belief in the venality of many county text-book commissions is heard constantly. There has been a gratifying centralization of authority through the state course of study and the annual examinations given to those pupils in the eighth grade who wish a certificate of graduation signed by the state superintendent. The state superintendent or one of his force often addresses these eighth grade graduates who assemble from all over a county to obtain their certificates at the hands of the county superintendent. There appears to be a desire on the part of most of the county superintendents to carry out the wishes of the state superintendent regarding the state course of study, and henee these usually delightful county meetings are signs of helpful co-operation all over the state between the state superintendent and the county superintendents. This kind of co-operation takes place, too, in the annual meeting of the latter with the former at the state capital. These meetings have undoubtedly and justifiably centralized considerable control in the hands of the state superintendent. They give points of contact, a chance to compare plans and ideas, and to get authoritative statements and explanations of those things which the state superintendent wishes carried out. Considering the comparative isolation of county superintendents, these meetings afford a better chance to hear some of the best educational authorities in the country, and these authorities generally back up the progressive program for which the state superintendent stands. The compulsory attendance laws in Missouri are of comparatively recent date. In most of the rural counties there are no effective forces to keep them in operation. The loopholes in the law have been noticed. It is very doubtful whether the entire enforcement should be left to local authorities unless the law could be so changed that the county court is compelled to pay the attendance officer a living salary. As the matter stands, there is need for centralization of the power in some manner, in order to make the law workable. There is a distinct lack of central control in establishing and supervising free public libraries in Missouri. Such libraries are not only a valuable adjunct to a free public school system, but are useful to the general public. The county public library law passed in 1921, though in an optional form, is possibly as far as the legislature will go for some time; but were it possible to make it apply to every county, and then give large supervisory powers to a reconstructed state board of education, Missouri would make much more desirable advances in this matter. In measuring the results of centralization, the question may well be asked, Have the laws which have been passed aided such? While —184— (Page 185) the answer cannot be in the affirmative in every case, it can be in most cases, especially during the last twenty-five years. Superintendent Evans was not beside the mark when he said,*00 in speaking of new laws: “The new certification plan established uniform standards throughout the state and caused teachers to flock into the normal schools to meet the new requirements. By the new scheme of appor¬tionment the state definitely promotes local initiative and efficiency, and commits itself to the policy of equalizing opportunity for children. Truly astonishing results have followed the enactment of these laws.” These laws, however, were not left to localities to accept or reject, as they saw fit. They were statewide in their application and in their administration. They had been sponsored by the state organization of teachers and were for the best interests of all concerned with public education. The same statements can be made about county supervision, inspection and classification, teacher training and vocational education laws. It is obviously clear that for the higher educational institutions, in so far as the governing board is concerned, Missouri has the decentralized system. With the raising of the standards of the teachers’ colleges, a more reasonable, sympathetic attitude on the part of the state university, and with most of the inspection and classification of high schools placed in charge of the state superintendent’s office, the conference agreement of 1916 came to be the logical and sensible sequence to follow. The enforcement of this agreement through a committee composed of a representative from the university, one from the teachers’ colleges, serving in rotation, and one from the state department of education, has had a salutary effect. The heads of these institutions, especially the teachers’ colleges, have many conference meetings, generally preceding and while the legislature is in session. That they must come to a number of agreements is unquestioned.*01 These presidents also exchange many letters concerning matters of common interest. All of these voluntary steps have been of great value to the educational interests of the whole state. In the matter of the curricula, business management, and any carefully planned educational program for the whole state, each of the six state institutions largely goes its own way, which, by and large, means the way of each president. Some of the representatives of these institutions have stressed the number of students enrolled so long, both before legislative committees and in public, that it has 600Sixty-fourth Report, State Supt., 1913, p. 6. 601The three largest teachers’ colleges are asking for the same appropriation for salaries for 1923-24—Budget, Third Bien. Report, State Tax Commission, p. 47. The successful move to change the names of these schools to teachers’ colleges caused the presidents to work together. —185— (Page 186) become the chief basis of judgment in determining the amount of appropriations.602 Though Missouri has made some notable advancement in her educational system, not the least being the development of the standard four-year teachers’ colleges, it is germane to indicate along what lines still further progress may be made, especially through more centralization of authority. When the state educational institutions are considered in relation to each other and to the state superintendent of schools, it must be admitted that there is decentralization rather than centralization of control. “Whatever steps may be taken in Missouri or elsewhere in the name of progress in educational organization, it is safe to say that they will represent in some form the present inevitable tendency toward simplification by centralizing power and responsibility in the hands of a few individuals—and those fitted to use it. Most of the notable gains in educational administration during the past quarter century have been of this nature. They have come first in cities where the problem could be grasped by one brain and the treatment be worked out at one desk. Gradually the principle has been applied to counties and larger districts where wiser selection of officers, bet¬ter compensation and larger powers will yet work vast improvement.”603 It must be admitted, too, that the whole state of Missouri has become increasingly important as a unit of educational administration. This being the case, the question at once arises concerning the authority to carry on this administrative work. “The only successful plan hitherto discovered has been to obtain the services of the best trained minds available, regardless of cost, and about these leaders to build an organization with adequate powers. Through this means the state hopes first to study and understand itself, and to have its needs translated into educational terms that may be embodied into suitable legislation. It aims, further, to gather and prepare the most profitable educational information for the benefit of all in the state who may need it. Most important of all, it aims through this authority to make and enforce standards wherewith to express for the state as a whole the educational will and ideals that it could not realize in the isolated efforts of its parts. As the economy and profit of state regulation has become apparent, its scope has steadily enlarged; it affects in varying ways school buildings, equipment and finances; attendance and curricula; the health of pupils and the duties of school directors. But the greatest and by far the most important feature of its extension has been its jurisdiction over qualifications of the 602The writer knows from personal experience that representatives of the several state institutions or their loyal supporters enter into competition to see who can get the largest appropriations; this is especially true regarding building appropriations. 603Carnegie Bulletin No. 14, 1920, p. 63. —186— (Page 187) personnel engaged in instruction and supervision, reaching sometimes even to the selection and pay of important local officers.”604 “To work its will successfully, experience has shown that a state must have a central educational authority possessing well-trained intelligence in technical affairs, coupled with full power and responsibility in its field, both completely shielded from political influences.”605 “How can an organization on these principles be brought about in Missouri? The best educational opinion will concur in the conclusion that the present system of local normal school (teachers’ college) boards is a disadvantage and should be abandoned. * * * Informed opinion will likewise agree that it is a serious weakness to have a state superintendent elected by the people as a partisan, and that he should be replaced by a skilled officer, chosen solely for his ability, on a tenure of ‘good behavior,’ and responsible to a group of intelligent laymen. The absolute need for concerted action between these two authorities—the one responsible for training in state institutions and the other for administration at large—suggests at once the advisability of placing both functions under one board of representative citizens who shall harmonize their joint operations and insure that the educational interests that are supported by the state be developed in a wise and mutually helpful manner. Such a step would be unprecedented in the management of state educational affairs in America. It is, however, the logical outcome of a powerful impulse toward unity that for years has been actuating the experiments in educational administration all over this ‘country.’ ”606 This unification of forces could be brought about without changing the constitution, save as to office of state superintendent. The present teachers’ colleges could, by statutory enactments, be placed under the formal control of the board of curators of the university. They and the school of education in the university would then make up a “state division of education” fully organized and equipped to provide for all phases of the professional training of teachers for the public schools of the state.”607 “The plan suggested would at once make it possible to consolidate all of the state’s teacher training agencies under one educational direction as well as under a single formal government. With this in view, the affairs of these five colleges, together with the university school of education, should be placed under the direction of a new board, consisting of the head of these six units, with whom should sit also the president or chancellor of the university and the state superintendent of public schools. This board would constitute not merely the responsible authority for the management of certain in 604Ibid. 605Ibid., p. 64; see Ibid., 64 and 65, for elaboration of this idea. 606Ibid., p. 65; see Ibid., pp. 63 to 70, for an excellent discussion of the reorganization of state educational control. 607Ibid., p. 56. —187— (Page 188) stitutions; it would be a board of expert men in complete charge of the preparation and supply of all teachers for the state, and the regulation of such lateral interests as the high school training classes in their professional aspects should be under its control. Its decisions would be reported to the board of curators of the university for approval, and might, of course, be vetoed by it. Such action, however, would certainly be rare; the habit of a competent group would be to study a measure with such thoroughness as to admit of but one conclusion before seeking final approval thereon.”408 The expert board should have the power to nominate the entire personnel of instruction and administration, the election being formally made by the board of curators. Such a plan would go far to remove the local and political demands made now upon the heads of the state institutions, would likely assure a much better business administration than is now in vogue, would stop the competition that now goes on before the legislature and thereby assure a more stable and steady support, would remove the state superintendent’s office from party politics and, what is best of all, permit a thoroughgoing, uniform plan of preparing teachers and studying scientifically all educational problems. In such a plan the state superintendent of schools should be considered quite as important as the president of the university, and should be paid as large a salary. This plan would articulate well, too, with the county as the local unit of both educational and financial administration. The almost complete breakdown of the district as a unit for both these purposes has been shown conclusively over and over again. There is not an educational authority of any standing in the state but what believes in and—if he has courage—advocates the county as a local unit. The county should have an elective board who would in turn appoint the county superintendent and his assistants. It would likely be wise to so arrange it that the expert state board could remove county superintendents for cause. This would help assure close co-operation with the state administration and be a desirable link in a well-ordered system which would not be working for the system’s sake, but for the sake of the youth of the state. Such centralization and unification of effort, through reasonable state aid in the non-wealthy counties, would make it possible for every boy and girl in the state to complete a fully approved four-year high school course, and that without leaving the parental roof. Outside of furnishing a much better standard of school work, it would, considering the returns, be a much more economical system. But even though such centralization should cost more money, no better investment could be made, providing the expert leaders proved worthy of their duties and the lay board of curators stood by them by explaining and justifying their plans before the people. 408Ibid., pp. 56, 57. —188— (Page 189) CHAPTER IV. PUBLIC UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION. I. Introductory statements: 1. Brief history. Regulation of public utilities through an effective state administrative authority is a matter of rather recent growth.1 It has been only a decade since the creation of the Missouri Public Service Commission.2 Only a few important changes have been made in the law which brought it into existence.3 As has been pointed out, Missouri had a railway commission from 1875 to 1913.4 This commission, however, reached only one great public utility and that not very effectively, not only because it lacked real power, but its elective character gave no assurance that its members would be especially fitted for their work. Considering all public utilities, before the advent of the public service commission, they were regulated in two ways, to-wit: (1) By the general assembly through regulatory statutes. (2) “By municipalities through enactment of franchise ordinancesand other ordinances regulating service.”5 As in other states, the regulatory statutes were of two kinds: “those establishing hard and fast rules as to standards for service and those fixing maximum charges as to rates.”6 They usually applied to railroads and dealt with such matters as penalties for failure to furnish cars and the fixing of maximum fares for passenger and freight service. “These statutes were almost invariably the subject of long litigation in the federal courts, resulting in many cases in decisions enjoining state officers from enforcing the statutes, on the ground that they were confiscatory and in violation of the constitution of the United States.”7 There was little attempt on the part of the legislature to regulate the more local utilities such as gas, water, electric, and telephone companies. The regulation of these was left to the communities served and was mostly at first in the form of franchises which fixed maximum rates. The franchises were often the result of long drawn out negotiations between the respective city councils and the public utilities. The regulation of the service was usually through ordinances which prohibited certain practices. Not long before the creation of its public service commission, public utilities commissions 1Dodd, State Government, p. 77. 2Laws, 1913, pp. 556-651. 3Laws, 1917, pp. 434-441; Ch. 95, R. S. 1919. 4Laws, 1875, p. 112; Laws, 1889, p. 124. 5Report of the Missouri Public Service Commission, 1921-22, p. 1. 6Ibid. 7Ibid. —189— (Page 190) were provided for in first class cities.8 These local commissions dealt with both rates and service. Under these two systems the public corporations were actively engaged in politics. City councils were sometimes controlled by them and their lobbying ran rampant around the legislature. There is little question but that venal individuals must have blackmailed corporations which wished to take no part in politics and that many people, especially in the smaller municipalities, felt themselves powerless to deal with the corporations. The most progressive and unselfish individuals and corporations welcomed the coming of the public service commission panoplied “with full power and authority and with the necessary machinery in the way of rate experts, engineers, accountants, and telephone, electric and gas experts to enable them to go into the technical side of matters and deal with the subject in an entirely rational manner and in harmony with the constitution and laws of the land requiring fair dealing with both the public and the utility. This form of regulation has resulted in at least one outstanding fact, namely, that it has tended to lessen the activity of these corporations in political matters.”9 2. Purpose of the Public Service Commission. While it is true that it is a primary duty of the public service commission to protect the public “against exorbitant charges and unfair practices on the part of the utility,”10 it is equally true that the utility should not be treated unfairly or have its property confiscated. So the Missouri statutes require the commission to fix “just and reasonable rates with due regard, among other things, to a reasonable average return upon the value of the property actually used in the public service, and to the necessity of making reservation out of income for surplus and contingencies.”11 Although the Missouri Commission was created on the eve of the great war with all of its economic uncertainties, there was hardly any opposition to the body for a number of years. “The public appreciated the relief which the commission gave in matters of service, Particularly the rural districts found that they at last had a body to which they could complain of unfair practices of railways in matters of furnishing adequate depots, freight houses, stock yards, cars, and many other things pertaining to the service.”12 Furthermore, a number of orders were made lowering, but very few raising, rates. But as the war went on apace prices of labor and materials began to rise and continued to do so until 1921. There was, of course, an increased cost in the operation of public utilities. The prices of commodities not controlled by the public * service commission were 8Laws, 1909, p. 138. 9Report of the Public Service Commission, 1921-22, p. 2. 10Ibid. 11Sect. 10456, R. S. 1919. 12Report of Mo. Public Service Commission, 1921-22, p. 4. —190— (Page 191) raised at once to meet this increased cost. Public utilities, however, could not raise their rates until they had orders from the public service commission. Once they made application for a raise in rates, it took time to get it done. Investigations and hearings had to be made and in the meantime the old unremunerative rates must be charged. The application for a raise in rates was often opposed by public officials. “The commission, in passing upon these cases, necessarily had to use the operating expenses for a year prior to the hearing as a basis for estimating the future operating expenses of the company.”13 So, since prices continued to soar, the utility had to make application for further increase in rates. Encouraged by ignorant and sometimes scheming politicians, perhaps, the majority of people in many municipalities became suspicious of the public service commission. But rates had to be raised in order to save the service for the public and prevent bankruptcy.14 Furthermore, it is a fact that in some of the communities which had municipally owned plants, and hence were free from taxes and the obligation to pay dividends, rates were raised.15 In one of these the mayor made a persistent fight to abolish the commission.16 The commission, however, sets forth a number of tables which show, from 1914 to 1922, that operating costs increased more than lOO per cent and that rates on an average were increased less than 50 per cent.17 That the commission has not stultified the purposes of its existence and has been responsive to the decline in prices is shown by the data for the first six months of 1922. Although 75 per cent of the cases during the period of the rise in prices were decided in favor of the utilities, 55 per cent were decided in favor of the public during the six months just mentioned.18 II. Jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission. The jurisdiction of the commission is very broad. It is given general supervision over all railroads, street railroads, express companies, all kinds of car companies, steamboat companies operating upon the waters of the state and all other common carriers. The commission is authorized and required to examine the same and keep informed as to their general condition, their capitalization, their franchises and the manner in which their lines and property, owned, leased, controlled or operated, are managed, conducted and operated, 13 Ibid. 14Reliable figures show that from 1913 to 1920 fuel costs increased 238 per cent, metal products 186 per cent, building materials 308 per cent, and common labor from 19 cents an hour to 56 cents— Ibid., pp. 6-12. 15Ibid., p. 13. 16Mayor Marshall of St. Joseph. 17For tables, Report of Public Service Comm, of Mo., 1921-22, pp. 12-17. 18Ibid., p. 18. —191— (Page 192) not only with respect to the adequacy, security and consideration afforded by their services, but also with respect to their compliance with all the provisions of law, orders and decisions of the commission and their charter requirements.19 The commission is also given general supervision of all gas, electric and water corporations as these terms are defined by the public service commission law.20 The service rates and charges of all such plants are placed under the supervision and control of the commission. The commission has the same kind of powers over the telegraph and telephone corporations and all heating companies.21 The supervision of the issuance and approval of all stocks, bonds, notes and other evidence of indebtedness issued by such corporations and utilities are placed in control of the commission.22 The commission has power to investigate, determine and fix just and reasonable rates, fares and charges of all utilities under its jurisdiction.23 It has many other powers, but these are the chief ones. During its existence the commission has had jurisdiction “over approximately 1,500 utilities each year”24 and they have usually been classi¬fied by it as follows: steam railroad corporations; interurban and street railroad corporations; steam and electric corporations; express companies; sleeping car companies; electrical corporations and municipalities; gas corporations and municipalities; water corporations and municipalities; heating corporations only; combination gas and electric corporations; combination electric and water corporations; combination water and gas corporations; combination electric and heating corporations; combination electric, water and gas corporations and municipalities; combination electric, heating and gas corporations; combination electric, heating, gas and water corporations; telephone corporations; telegraph corporations.25 The first public service commission organized the personnel of the force into departments based both on the different classes of public utilities, and the nature of the work to be done. “The plan of organization is somewhat of the so-called ‘New York’ and ‘Wisconsin’ plans.”26 The departments are said to be so co-ordinated that each co-operates with any other.27 The departments as organized in the beginning are largely the same in form today. They are as follows: (1) general office, (2) legal, (3) rate, (4) engineering, (5) statistics and accounts, (6) gas, electric, heat and water, (7} telephone and telegraph, (8) stocks and bonds. 19Sect. 10425, R. S. 1919; First Annual Report, 1913, p. 9. 20Ch. 95, Arts. 1, 4, R. S. 1919. 21Ch. 95, Art. 5, R. S. 1919. 22Sects. 10465-10468, 10481-10485, 10506-10510, R. S. 1919. 23Sects. 10455, 10456, R. S. 1919. 24Report, 1921-22, p. 20. 25Report, 1916, p. 9. 26Report, 1913, p. 12. 27Ibid. —192— (Page 193) III. The Public Service Commission at work: 1. General office. The commission has a secretary wno has general cnarge of its office and superintends its clerical business.28 There are now something like a dozen persons who carry on the work of the general office. An up-to-date filing system is used, the rules of the commission are printed in pamphlet form and are free to anyone who cares to have them. These rules run, “Rules of Practice and Procedure and Forms Governing Matters Before the Commission,” and are observed in all formal proceedings before the commission. “One of the commendable features of commission regulation is the simplicity of the practice and procedure before the commission. While much discussion has been going on the last few years of needed reforms in the rules of procedure before the courts, such reforms have been actually put into practice before the public service commission. Any citizen of the state may file his own complaint and conduct his own case before the commission, and the hearing before the commission is conducted without regard to the technical rules of evidence or practice obtaining in the courts, with the result that the commission is able to ascertain the essential facts and administer justice much more quickly, economically and efficiently under its simple form of practice than it could do under the technical rules of evidence and practice obtaining in the courts. While many of the decisions of the commission have been reviewed in the courts, no claim has ever been made in any review proceeding in court that the simple form of practice before the commission has operated injuriously or prejudiced the rights of anyone, and the simplicity of the practice has been uniformly commended by attorneys and parties having cases before the commission.”29 So far as is practicable the -commission hears complaints at the places where they originate. This allows those interested1 to attend without extra expense and also gives the commission a chance to get acquainted with local conditions at first hand. A hearing may be held by one commissioner. This has been a great advantage in expediting business. “In cases of great importance, or those involving extreme legal or technical questions, one, two or three commissioners may be assigned to conduct such hearings, and in some instances the full commission hears such complaints.”30 After the evidence is taken, both the complainant and defendant are permitted to file briefs and argue the case before the full commission at Jefferson City, if they so desire. There are two kinds of general complaints filed before the commission, the formal and the informal. For the year ending December 1, 1920, 564 formal cases were docketed, and the year preceding there 28Sect. 10417, R. S. 1919. 29Report, 1919-1920, p. 18. 30Report, 1913, p. 15. —193— (Page 194) were 378.31 Up to November 1, 1922, the commission had docketed all told about 3,500 formal cases, most of which concerned capitalization and the regulation of service.32 In addition to the formal cases the commission handles a great volume of informal complaints. “Every day letters are received from different parts of the state complaining about telephone connections, overcharges, placing of railway cars, etcetera. These matters are taken up by the commission with the utilities either by correspondence or by telephone.”33 Up to November 1, 1922, the commission had docketed, all told, 3,100 informal complaint numbers. These numbers often represent from two to 50 complainants under each number, the number being used to keep an index of the files.34 In carrying on the work of its general office the commission has from time to time issued what are known as conference rulings. They are for the information of the public as well as the utilities coming under their jurisdiction. “They express the views of the commission on informal inquiries involving special facts or requiring interpretation and construction of the law, and are to be regarded as precedents governing similar cases.”35 The publication of these rulings has been beneficial and instructive to the public and has saved much time of the commission.36 An example of one of these rulings is based on section 87 of the law of 1913 and runs as follows: “It is the opinion of the commission that a telephone corporation cannot furnish free of charge a telephone to a railroad corporation to be installed and used by such railroad corporation for its or the public use free of charge at a railroad station in this state.”37 2. The legal department. The legal department of the commission consists of a general counsel, assistant counsel and one stenographer. Outside of advising the commission on the interpretation of the various provisions of the public service laws quite a number of suits were inherited from the board of railroad and warehouse commissioners, since the powers of the latter in regard to public utilities were given to the public service commission.38 The public service commission was not in existence many months before they were in considerable litigation on their own account. One of the first cases involved the question of whether or not the commission had the power to authorize an increase in railway rates above 31Report, 1919-20, p. 24. 32Report, 1921-22, p. 20. 33Ibid., p. 37. 34Ibid., p. 38, for an interesting example of how an informal complaint was handled. 35Circular 5, Pub. Service Comm., Aug. 1, 1913, p. 3. 36Report, 1914, p. 11. 37Circular 4, Aug. 1, 1913, p. 5. 38For clear brief statement of the status of these cases in 1913, see First Report, 1913, pp. 16-20. —194— (Page 195) the maximum prescribed by the statutes of the state.39 The commission claimed it had no such power. Thereupon, the railroad company, which held it did have, applied to the supreme court of Missouri for a writ of mandamus to compel the public service commission to hear its complaint. The court held that under the law40 the commission did have the power to authorize an increase in rates and charges by railroad companies above those named as the maximum by the statutes, and therefore that a writ of mandamus should issue requiring the public service commission to hear the complaint.41 Hardly had the commission begun its work before the question of the relationship between interstate and intrastate rates came up. Some railroads charged three cents per mile for interstate passengers, which railroads were compelled by the Missouri laws to charge only two cents for intrastate passengers. The public service commission together with similar bodies in Oklahoma and Arkansas brought a complaint before the interstate commerce commission on the ground that such interstate charges were unjust, unreasonable and discriminatory. The case was heard and decided against the complainant.42 There was a case of similar import regarding the carriage of railroad ties.43 In making the final decision in this case the supreme court of the state came to a similar conclusion to that of the interstate commerce commission. There was a case involving the kind of rates charged on the shipment of grain from Missouri points to Kansas City, Missouri, which had, by a decision of the supreme court of the state, a different outcome. 44 The highest court in the state also upheld the public service commission in its order to a group of railroad companies concerning team track storage charges.45 The commission was also upheld by the same court in its order to compel a railroad company to maintain and repair certain overhead bridges at street crossings in the city of Macon.46 An order of the commission to two railroad companies to form an interchange track at Macon met with a reverse by the supreme court of the state.47 An interesting case of a compromise settlement is found in the Webb City water case. It involved the franchise provisions and rates for water service. The parties concerned in the agreement included the supreme court of the state, the city, the utilities company and the 39Report, 1914, p. 12; State ex rel. Missouri Southern R. R. Co. v. Public Service Commission of Mo., 259 Mo. 704. 40Sect. 10456, R. S. 1919. 41 For action of commission, see Public Service Commission Reports, Vol. 3, p. 1; see also general rate cases, Report, 1917, pp. 12 to 14. 4231 I. C. C. 532. 43Report, 1916, p. 22. 44Ibid., p. 21. 45Report, 1915, p. 12. 46Ibid., p. 13. 47Ibid. —195— (Page 196) public service commission.48 Another case in which the element of compromise enters but with the commission as the determining force was that of the (Kirksville light rate case.49 It has been noticed that the commission is given certain powers over utilities in regard to issuing bonds. A contention over this matter arose between the commission and the Union Pacific Railroad Company, the company contending that the supervisory regulatory powers given the commission were unconstitutional with reference to the bond issues they proposed to make.50 After considerable litigation the supreme court of the state sustained the contention of the railroad company. An early case which the commission settled in its own way, without an appeal to any court, pertained to the filing and publishing of telephone rates. The commission issued an order that this be done and the company finally complied.51 The supreme court sometimes dismisses a complaint on the ground that the commission has no jurisdiction. This is shown in the Missouri Valley Realty Company case, wherein the supreme court of the state decided that the commission should have dismissed the case “inasmuch as the relief sought was injunctive in its nature and required the commission to exercise a function exclusively judicial.”52 Sometimes an order of the commission is reversed in a circuit court of the state, and the former being convinced that the complainants are satisfied with the service, do not appeal to the supreme court of the state. This is evidenced in the Sunny Slope Train Service case.53 Sometimes, too, the utility does not appeal from the decision of a circuit court affirming the commission’s order.54 Then again a utility may ask for a review of the case in court and then ask dismissal before it comes to trial.55 The orders of the commission reach almost every phase of railway management. As an example the commission amended the rules of carriers relative to the storage of baggage. The order was affirmed by the circuit court, but, on being appealed to the supreme court of the state, the latter held that the “order was unreasonable, discriminatory against interstate travelers and should be set aside and vacated.”56 Occasionally an order or motion of the public service commission is reviewed by the supreme court of the United States. An important 48Report, 1916, p. 24. 49Report, 1915, p. 14. 50Report, 1917, p. 17; for cases in which the Supreme Court decided fees should be paid, see Sects. 15,16, Report, 1918, p. 30. 51Report, 1916, p. 21. 52Report, 1917, p. 20. 53Ibid., p. 21. 54Ibid., Osage County spur track case. 55Ibid., p. 22, coal rate case. 56Report, 1917, p. 22. —196— (Page 197) instance of such a motion being sustained is that of the Missouri railroad cases.57 At times the supreme court of the state sustains the commission’s order in part and reverses it in part. A good instance of this is the Columbia telephone case.58 The valuation fixed by the commission was not disturbed, the court holding that since the rates of the company were determined by the commission to be reasonable, in view of the valuation found and prescribed, the company should not complain of such valuation. Other portions of the commission’s order dealing with regulation and incidental charges were affirmed and still others reversed. ‘‘During the pendency of the review proceeding a very considerable sum collected by the company, through operation of these incidental charges, was impounded by the Cole County circuit court, and after the supreme court decision the circuit court upon application of the legal department (refers to public service commission) caused the distribution of this fundi to the persons who had paid it to the company.”59 It is within the province of the public service commission to order a railroad to build a new depot, but its order may be reversed by the supreme court of the state, as in the Macon depot case.60 Sometimes the supreme court of the state and the commission agree and have their judgment reversed by the supreme court of the United States. An instance of this is the Union Pacific fee case.61 This involved the legality of the payment of a fee assessed by the commission and paid into the state treasury by the railroad company based upon a bond issue submitted by the company to the commission and approved by the commission. After the decision by the supreme court of the United States the legislature of Missouri made an appropriation returning the money to the railroad company. An utility may ask a court* to suspend an order of the commission pending the litigation on the same. This was done in the case of the Charleston light case,62 but the circuit court refused to make the suspension. The public service commission may order a railroad company to operate sleeping cars between certain Missouri points even though it entails an operation loss on a branch line when considered alone and not as a feeder to main line traffic.63 57Report, 1915, p. 9. 58Report, 1917, p. 22; for similar instance, see California train service case, Report, 1918, p. 28; for right of commission to value a water plant, see Report, 1917, p. 23. 59Ibid., p. 23; for an instance of the commission’s order being sustained by the Supreme Court of the state and the money impounded going to the utility, see the Columbia gas case, Report, 1918, p. 27. 60Report, 1917, p. 30. 61Report, 1919-20, p. 25. 62Report, 1916, p. 26. 63Report, 1917, p. 21. —197— (Page 198) At times an appeal from an order of the commission will he taken, after passing through the state courts, to the supreme court of the United states, and there be dismissed on the ground that no substantial federal question is involved. This is evidenced in the Sedalia Water Company case.64 The public service commission has had an important part in fixing express rates in the state. It inherited a group of such cases from the railroad and warehouse commissioners. Several companies had succeeded in getting temporary injunctions in a federal district court against the enforcement of certain express rates fixed by these commissioners. These were dismissed at the cost of the companies, the rates in question were set aside by the public service commission and the express companies filed new schedules of rates.65 The powers of the commission might easily infringe upon the police power of the state. This is illustrated in the Moberly viaduct case.66 The action of the commission was sustained by the supreme court of the state. “The principal and important issue decided was that a contract between a city and a railroad for separating the grades of a street and the road at the crossing by constructing a subway, whereby it was agreed that if the bridge or supports were changed it should be by mutual consent, the city and the road each paying half the cost, was void as against public policy, as limiting the exercise of its police power by the state.” It is within the province of the commission to compel a railway company to operate trains on certain spur tracks; it threatens to abandon. This is evidenced in the Missouri Southern Railway mandamus case.67 On the other hand, the supreme court of the state has kept the commission from compelling a railway company to furnish cars for the shipment of ties in carload lots.68 The question has arisen as to whether or not a certain company was a public utility. The Danciger and Company cases illustrate this. This company was ordered by the commission to restore electric service to certain customers in the town of Weston. When the case reached the supreme court of the state the court held that the facts did not show that the company was a public utility and so it was not subject to the jurisdiction of the commission.69 The question has also arisen as to whether or not a railway company might destroy the use of its road as a common carrier. This was tried out in the Ozark Valley Railroad case. The public service commission resisted the application of the company before the federal district court, but the application of the company was sustained and 64Report, 1919-20, p. 25; see also the Fulton telephone case, Ibid., p. 26; see also K. C. Railway fare case, Report, 1919-20, p. 26. 65Report, 1914, p. 17. 66Report, 1917, p. 23. 67Report, 1919-20, p. 26. 68 Report, 1918, p. 29. 89Report, 1918, p. 30. —198— (Page 199) an order made by the court allowing the sale of the road with the right of the purchaser to “junk” the same.70 Of the more than fifty cases in litigation which had been pushed to a conclusion from the beginning of the commission until November 30, 1920, a large majority found their way to the supreme court of the state and in a majority of cases, too, the orders of the commission were wholly sustained. However, enough cases have been cited to show that a court of some kind has the final verdict in the most important cases, and the question at once arises as to whether or not any court should be allowed to take away the power to decide what is “reasonable” and “unreasonable” but should confine itself purely to questions of law. These cases illustrate the fact, too, that with the force at its command, the legal department of the public service commission must be kept very busy. 3. The rate department. Another department of the public service commission, now known as the railroad, but formerly named the rate department, “has direct supervision over the rates and service condition, other than grade crossings, of the railroads, express and Pullman companies. This department represents the commission before the interstate commerce commission in rate matters and prepares the testimony and exhibits, submits the case at the hearing and prepares the briefs for final submission.”71 This department is in the hands of a chief-rate expert and a clerk.72 Through its work the commission keeps a complete file of freight tariffs between all points in Missouri and from all points in Missouri to points in other states. The manner of filing all of these tariffs is carefully supervised by the railroad department;73 the form of filing the tariff schedules follows those of the interstate commerce commission. When there is an advance or reduction in shipping rates, the commission gives information on the same to the shipping interests. Both the state and federal laws contemplate that tariffs shall be filed at stations at least thirty days prior to their going into effect. “The federal courts have held that the fact that such tariffs were not filed at stations thirty days in advance of effectiveness, but were filed with the interstate commerce commission, would not void the issue.”74 Since the most important feature in the filing of tariffs is to enable the public to know the rates, this decision caused hardship. The Missouri commission follows the rule of requiring that the carriers file the tariffs with their agents before they do with the commission. 70Report, 1918, p. 31; see Ibid., Illinois Southern Railroad case for a different outcome. 71 Report, 1919-20, p. 34. 72Mo. Manual, 1921-22, p. 871. 73Report, 1913, p. 20; 1916, p. 31. 74Report, 1913, p. 22. —199— (Page 200) Not only are the current tariffs kept, but the filing system is such that ready reference may be made to the canceled tariffs of five years previous.75 The commission has power to suspend changes in rates that may be filed and conduct an investigation relative to the same.76 “All complaints filed with the commission against transportation companies are submitted to this department for informal handling. This handling is either by correspondence or by personal investigation of an employee of this department, and pending such investigation the complaints are known as correspondence complaints. The shipping public secures a greater benefit from the results of these informal complaints, upon the whole, than are secured from formal complaints, as these informal complaints often disclose practices which are general throughout the state but not contrary to any rule of law or order of the commission. The investigation results in calling such practices to the attention of the officials of the carriers and in such instances they are speedily removed. Questions of train service, inadequate depot facilities, inadequate side track facilities, live stock loading chutes, and service in general, are handled in this way.’’77 Early in its existence the commission adopted most of the inter¬state commerce commission’s scheme of express rates.78 The general schedule of rates proved very satisfactory. When it had been in existence more than three years, only five complaints against the rates had been made to the commission.79 During the war the federal government had practically complete power over the express companies. The consolidation of the five express companies into what is known as the American Railway Express company has without doubt made the work of the commission simpler. Once the control of the federal government was over, the public service commission followed the lead of the United States labor board and permitted increases in the rates of express companies and the wages of their employees.80 An increase in sleeping car rates was also allowed by the commission at about the same time.81 Although the commission’s control over freight and passenger rates in Missouri has been valuable and marked, it is limited by federal authorities and the state courts in so many ways, and so interstate has most commerce become, that the question at Once arises whether it would not be better to vest all such power in the interstate commerce commission. However, it must be kept in mind that the centralization of this control in the public service commission 75Report, 1914, p. 19. 76Report, 1916, p. 31. 77Report, 1917, p. 33. 78Report, 1913, p. 27; Ibid., 1914, p. 24; Ibid., 1915, p. 25; Ibid., 1916, p. 33; Ibid., 1917, p. 35; Ibid., 1918, p. 35; Ibid., 1919-20, p. 35. 79Report, 1917, p. 35. 80Report, 1919-20, p. 36. 81Ibid., p. 35. —-200— (Page 201) has been a distinct advance beyond the days of the railroad and warehouse commissioners. 4. The engineering department. The personnel of the engineering department is made up of a chief engineer,82 six assistant engineers and a statement clerk. The duties of this department consist of: (1) appraisal of all property over which the commission has jurisdiction, (2) all matters relating to investigation of accidents on steam and electric railways, (3) all matters relating to protection, alteration and elimination of grade- crossings, (4) inspection of steam and electric railway properties, (5) investigations to determine the necessity and safety of switch and side track connections, (6) all matters relating to steam and electric railway signal systems and interlocking plants, (7) all matters relating to steam and electric railway clearances, (8) all matters relating to street railway traffic studies and service, (9) ivestigation relative to applications for certificate of convenience and necessity, filed by steam and electric railways, (10) all drainage investigations. (11) all investigations relating to necessity of filtration of water supplies, intakes, etc., and approval of plans for same.83 Although these varied items indicate the numerous functions of the engineering department, as a matter of fact most of its time is spent in that of valuation, or appraisal. The six assistant engineers are divided into two crews and are continually in the field making inventories and determining values. “This force is not as large as it ought to be to meet the demands that are made upon the commission by the respective communities for valuations of utility properties. The commission has under its jurisdiction about 1,400 gas, electric, water and telephone utilities, to say nothing of street railways and steam railways. However, the commission is enabled with the force it now has to make valuations in the most urgent cases and through their experience make estimates of values in cases where detailed appraisals cannot be made. In such cases the commission makes estimated tentative values. Experience has shown that the estimated tentative values are seldom too high. In gathering information as to the value of a property these engineers go over the entire plant in minute detail, inspecting and inventorying the same. They separate the units not in use from those that are used and useful which are inventoried separately. It is only the useful parts of the plant that are included in the valuation for a rate base. The engineers in making up the inventory endeavor to learn and determine the date, as near as possible, when respective units were installed. After they have completed their inventory they then go into the records and files of the company and examine its vouchers and books to find out 82The chief engineer has been with the commission since its beginning—Report, 1921-22, p. 22. 83Report, 1919-1920, p. 38. —201— (Page 202) just what the utility paid for the respective units as of the date when the same was installed. * * * In the event the records of the com¬pany have been lost or destroyed, which is quite often the case for parts of plants which have been in operation for a great number of years, * * * the engineers, from data contained in the commission’s offices and compiled by the engineers as to prices of materials and of labor as of the date in question, estimate the original cost of that part of the plant for which the actual records are not available. When they have assembled the entire matter, a written detailed report is then submitted to the commission for its information, which report is introduced in evidence at the time of the hearing of the case, and the engineers at the time likewise present; oral testimony in detail, enlarging upon the written report. In making a valuation the engineers include only the actual physical property of the plant installed and in operation. They allow nothing for franchises, going concern or any other intangible item.84 5. Statistics and accounts department. The regular personnel of the statistics and accounting department consists of a chief accountant, six assistant accountants and a clerk.85 The regular activities of the department may be classified as follows: 1. “Audit of books and records of steam railroads, express companies, telephone companies, gas, electric, water and heating utilities, in order to ascertain original eost, capitalization, income, expenditures, operating statistics and rate of return earned, to be used in valuation, capitalization and rate making cases. 2. “Drafting accounting systems and forms of annual reports for utilities. 3. “Analyzing accounting and statistical exhibits and evidence presented by utilities in valuation, capitalization and rate making cases. 4. “Compiling financial and operating data from annual reports of Missouri utilities for other commissions, municipalities, civic leagues, traffic associations, utilities, brokers, attorneys, and sundry petitioners for such information. 5. “Compiling comparative statistical data from annual reports of utilitieS. 6. “Examining and recording verified semi-annual reports of realization from bond and stock issues authorized by the commission and the distribution of such proceeds. 7. “Advising verbally and by correspondence the various utilities in matters pertaining to accounts and statistics.”86 84Report, 1921-22, pp. 22, 23; Ibid., pp. 24, 25, for appraisals which have been made by the commission and the supplementary work done by the statistics and accounting department. 85The chief accountant has been with the commission almost from its beginning. Report, 1921-22, p. 31. 86Report, 1919-20, p. 45. —202— (Page 203) As in the engineering department, the six assistant accountants are continuously in the field making audits of the, books and records of the utilities to determine whether or not they are charging reasonable rates. They are divided into two crews. Up to November 1, 1922, the department had audited about 120 utilities.87 Additional accountants wsould enable the commission to reach many more communities, “but * * * the commission has been able with the accounting staff which it has to fully protect the rights of the public in reference to rate increases.”88 Accusations have been made that companies “put up jobs” on the commission and its experts. In answer to this the present commission says that not only do the accountants “examine the books and ledgers of the utility, but verify every item thereof by requiring the production of paid vouchers showing to whom the money was paid, together with the detailed items for which the same was paid.”89 It is evident that the data collected by both the engineering and statistical departments is used in determining the value of a utility. Although “original cost is considered by the commission the main element of value,” it does not control wholly.90 6. Stock and bond issues. The public service commission has certain powers in supervising stock, bond note issues, and other evidences of indebtedness. It has no separate department for this activity, but this work alone more than justifies the existence of the commission.91 It is provided irt the law that corporations may issue such securities for five purposes only: (1) Acquisition of property; (2) construction, completion, extension or improvement of its facilities; (3) for the discharge or lawful refunding of its obligations; (4) for the improvement of its service; (5) for the reimbursement of moneys actually expended for (1), (2) and (3) from income or from any other moneys in the treasury of the corporation not secured by or obtained from the issue of securities within five years next prior to the filing of the application, providing the applicant shall have kept its accounts and vouchers of such expenditures in such manner as will enable the commission to ascertain the amount of money so expended and the purposes for which such expenditures were made.92 In considering applications for authority to issue securities the commission requires the applicant company to produce one or more of its officers who can testify before the commission as to the full 87Report, 1921-22, p. 26; for list of audits made since April 30, 1921, Ibid., p. 31. 88Ibid., p. 32. 89Ibid., p. 33; Ibid., p. 26, for the principal items charged on the books in plant account which represent no value. 90Ibid., p. 27, Minn, rate case, 230 U. S. 434. 91Report, 1921-22, p. 34. 92Report, 1916, pp. 88, 89. —203— (Page 204) and complete “financial condition” (as that term is defined in the rules of the commission) of the applicant, its financial ability to pay all interests and dividends on its stocks and bonds theretofore issued, and the particular purpose or purposes for which stocks or bonds are to be used by the applicant.93 The company also has to report on the sale of the bonds from time to time, and these reports are checked up to see that the law is carried out. The commission makes a special study of the conditions surrounding the sale of the bonds, but the state is not held liable, to pay any evidences of indebtedness authorized by the commission.94 Regarding the purchase of securities approved by the commission, the latter quotes with its full approval from the annual report of the public service commission of the state of New York, second district, for the year 1913, as follows: “While the commission, as it has frequently stated in its opinion, does not in making authorizations of securities in any way guarantee that the securities so authorized are a good or safe investment, yet its object is to render the company's financial statements and make its own conclusions constitute such basis that the investor will not be misled. It is believed that no other single agency will in the end result in better service or lower rates than an effective regulation of the financing of public service corporations.”95 With the exception of the last two years and the first few years of the life of the commission, applications to the commission for stock and bond issues have not been very numerous.96 This was due to war conditions. ‘‘Immediately after the decline in prices in the fall of 1921 and the spring of 1922, the utilities began to flood the commission with applications for additional capital issues. This is graphically illustrated by the amount of stock and bond issues authorized by this commission. In the year 1921 the commission authorized stocks and bonds to the extent of $25,602,512. During the ten months ending November 1, 1922, the commission authorized a total capitalization of $304,874,203.88, and in addition thereto 1,350,050 shares of no par stock.97 A great part of this is not new capital invested, but the reorganization issues are supervised and controlled by the work of the commission just the same. 7. Gas, electric, heat and water department. The gas, electric, heat and water department of the commission has a varied and important field of work. The personnel consists of 93Ibid., 89. 94Ibid., 90, 91. 95Report, 1914, p. 85. 96Up to 1918, however, the commission had supervised the issuance of securities totaling the enormous sum of $1,484,961,750.80— Report, 1918, p. 20. 97Report, 1921-22, p. 35; for prevention of excessive bond issues and relation of bond issues to watered stock, Ibid., p. 28. —204— (Page 205) a chief engineer, assistant engineer and clerk.98 The duties of the department may be outlined as follows: 1. “The keeping of an accurate official record of all corporations and municipalities furnishing gas, electric, heating or water service in this state which come under the jurisdiction of the commission in accordance with the definitions provided by the public service commission law. 2. “Attention to all correspondence and verbal requests for information coming before the commission on matters pertaining to the furnishing of gas, electric, heating or water service and allied technical subjects in general. 3. “Adjustment of all correspondence complaints involving gas, electric, heating and water service. 4. “The filing of the schedule of rates of gas, electric, heating and water utilities. 5. “General inspection and test of service meters. 6. “General supervision of matters pertaining to quality of gas, electric, heating and water service. 7. “General supervision of construction and operation of equipment by gas, electric, heating and water utilities in so far as the public interest, public health and protection of public and employees is concerned. 8. “Miscellaneous technical work in connection with formal complaints and investigations before the commission involving gas, electric, heating and water utilities.”99 One of the first important things done by this department was to get the various utilities to file with them their schedules of rates and charges. The fact that these schedules are published and open for inspection removes largely the universal suspicion of discrimination. The utilities have been greatly benefited, in comparing with their own, other schedules and methods of various companies.100 The filing of these schedules has now become a regular routine matter. Up to 1915, however, this department thought its most constructive act was collecting and compiling the various rules of different commissions and of utilities themselves regarding standards and quality of service.101 These were digested and then along with the experience of the commission, used in making up a general order issued to the utilities.102 An important feature of the order was that requiring a certain accuracy of gas, electric and water meters, fixing periods of tests and requiring plants to maintain facilities for such tests.103 98Mo. Manual, 1921-22, p. 871. 99Report, 1915, p. 38; for fuller account, see Reports, 1913, 1914, pp. 47 and 39. 100Ibid., p. 40. 101Ibid., p. 40. 102General Order No. 20, Oct. 1, 1915. 103Report, 1915, p. 40. -205- (Page 206) For the first three years of the commission’s life a great many complaints of various sorts were received which went before the gas, electric, heat and water department.104 In 1916 the informal complaints were confined to a few things such as charge for meter, or charge for extending service into new or unprofitable territory.105 Very few informal complaints alleged unjust or discourteous treatment. The question of unduly high bills and accuracy of meters did not come up so much. Working arrangements had been made with the University of Missouri so that the utilities could have their instruments or provers tested and standardized. Consumers could have meters tested at the same place.106 In the year 1916 very few complaints ever reached the formal docket. The year 1917 witnessed a sudden and pronounced increase in the number of complaints filed with the commission. The war conditions which caused increases in rates, curtailment of service and limitations on extensions provoked a great deal of protests107 In fact, these protests have only recently abated. It is little wonder that this department was kept very busy and that in 1920 it made the following statement: “Additional help could be used very advantageously. If funds were available the department could well use additional expert help in studying and advising in the field the utilities that cannot afford such help. The expense of this work would be more than returned to the public due to the economy of operation that should follow.”108 That there is a wide field for the expansion of the work of this department especially in the matter of supervision, counsel and advice, when the numbers and comparative isolation of‘most of the utility plants are considered, is without question.109 At the end of the year 1920 the commission had listed 548 utilities. Most of these were owned by corporations, only 146 being municipally owned. Out of the total of 548, there were 423 furnishing electric service, 154 water service, 46 gas service and 10 heating service.110 8. Telephone and telegraph department. The personnel of the telephone and telegraph department consists of a chief telephone expert and a clerk.111 In order to conduct this department properly there must be accurate knowledge of the engi 104Report, 1913, p. 48; 1914, p. 42; 1915, p. 46. 105Report, 1916, p. 44. 106Ibid., p. 44. 107Report, 1917, p. 55. 108Report, 1919-20, p. 54. 109Report, 1919-20, pp. 56-71. 110Ibid., pp. 54-55; the law of 1913 was amended in 1917 so that municipally owned water plants were excluded from the jurisdiction of the commission—Laws, 1917, p. 433; it is the commission’s idea that this amendment was harmful—Report, 1917, p. 56. 111Mo. Manual, 1921-22, p. 871. —206— (Page 207) neering principles involved in the construction and operation of telephone and telegraph properties. The duties of this department are as follows: 1. “The keeping of an accurate official record of all corporations furnishing telephone or telegraph service, or both, in this state, which comes under the jurisdiction of this commission in accordance with the definitions provided by the public service commission law. 2. “Attention to all correspondence and verbal requests for information coming before the commission on matters pertaining to the furnishing of telephone or telegraph service and allied technical subjects in general. 3. “Adjustment of all correspondence complaints involving telephone or telegraph service. 4. “The filing of the schedule rates of telephone and telegraph companies. 5. “General inspection and test of telephone and telegraph service. 6. “General supervision of matters pertaining to telephone and telegraph service. 7. “General supervision of construction and operation of equipment by telephone and telegraph qompanies in so far as the public interest, public health and protection of public and employees are concerned. 8. “Miscellaneous technical work in connection with formal complaints and investigations before the commission involving telephone and telegraph companies. 9. “Inventories and appraisals of telephone and telegraph properties for rate-making or bond-issue purposes and testimony before the commission relative thereto.”112 By 1916 each telephone and telegraph company coming under the jurisdiction of the commission had filed its schedule of rates. This was a great benefit. Hardly a day passed without a request for information relative to the rates of some one of these companies. Not only may these inquiries be answered first hand, but the fact that all rates, charges and rules of practice are published and open for inspection has helped remove the suspicion of discrimination.113 There has never been much difficulty in administering the public service law so far as the telegraph companies are concerned. There are only two and these are parts of systems which reach far beyond the borders of Missouri. For more than a decade before the inception of the commission’s work the telephone business had been handled by two factions; “the one representing the associated interests of the corporations having their origin directly or indirectly in the Bell patents on the first telephone invention; the other group consisting of 112Report, 1916, p. 64. 113Ibid., p. 65. —207— (Page 208) ‘Home,’ ‘Mutual’ or other local companies capitalized and operated usually within the territory they serve.”114 There was an intense competition between these two factions. That the public service commission has been of great aid in bringing about better relations is unquestioned. This has been of value to the public. By 1915 the telephone department of the commission had been instrumental in having the smaller telephone companies throughout the state systematize their rules and regulations pertaining to the handling of their business with their subscribers and with the public at large.115 This was done through having them file not only their rate sheets, but also a copy of their rules prescribing the method of handling their business with the public. Many of the companies had no such rules before the creation of the commission, hence there has been great benefit conferred here both on the companies and the public. The history of the informal and formal complaints before the commission concerning the telephone and telegraph companies is very similar to those on other utilities. The war time conditions greatly disturbed what appeared to be the orderly development of good relations between all of these utilities and the public. The taking over by the federal government of the control of the telephone and telegraph companies from August 1, 1919, although producing some confusion, awakened a wider public interest in these utilities to the end that better service could be given through consolidation of exchanges in towns wherein more than one company was operating. The most notable case of such consolidation was in Kansas City.116 This is one of the contributing reasons, no doubt, that there has been no appreciable increase in the number of telephone companies for the last five years.117 Great as has been the value of the public service commission in many ways, it can be said that it has done no greater one service than that in connection with the telephone companies. IV. Conclusion. From this survey of the work of the commission it may be reasonably concluded that “there is no department of the state that performs a greater service that affects and protects the daily civil rights of the public as does the public service commission.”118 Though often attacked, as favoring the utilities, it may be said in its defense that not a single decision of it has been reversed by the supreme court of the state on the ground that a rate fixed by the commission was unreasonably high, whereas numerous decisions of the commission have been reversed by the court on the ground that a rate fixed by the commission was so low as to result under the constitution in the 114Report, 1913, p. 57. 115Report, 1915, p. 64. 116Report, 1919-20, pp. 72-74. 117Report, 1916, p. 65; 1917, p. 72; 1918, pp. 74-87; 1919-20, pp. 75-88. 118Report, 1921-22, p. 44. —208— (Page 209) confiscation of the property of the utility.119 This indicates that the commission resolves the doubts in favor of the public. Though we speak of the utilities and the public as separate entities, they can hardly be considered so, since there are thousands of private individuals in the state who have invested their money in the utility companies. As an example, “we find that in 1920 the combined investment in Missouri in electric, gas, water, heating and street railway plants was about $350,000,000 and their gross revenue was about $60,000,000, and they had in their employ about 20,000 employees. That in addition to the above there was invested in telephone systems about $65,000,000 with about 8,000 women and 5,000 men employed. Large extensions and further investments have since been made. These companies pay to labor in this state and for materials and supplies about $90,000,000 annually, and in 1921 paid $6,492,290 in taxes.”120 The centralization of power in a state commission to supervise, regulate and control the various utilities discussed in this chapter has proved wise. The system, or rather lack of system, of a so-called divided control proved unworkable. The regulation of rates and services, the valuation of properties, the supervision of the issuance of securities are all better cared for by the state commission, which is in continuous session, devotes all of its time and study to the question of utility rates and service, aided by its experts on engineering, valuations, accounting, rates and services. It is, so far as can be ascertained, far removed from politics and local prejudice and is therefore fair and impartial in its decisions. It proceeds in all of its work with little regard for technical rules of practice or evidence with the purpose of securing just and adequate service for the public in return for fair and reasonable rates.121 Out of this centralized control in the commission comes economy and uniformity of regulation and hence the absence of conflict and confusion. The importance of the public service commission law has been well described by Judge Lamm:122 “That act is an elaborate law bottomed on the police power. It evidences a public policy hammered out on the anvil of public discussion. It apparently recognizes certain generally accepted economic principles and conditions, to-wit, that a public utility (like gas, water, car service, etc.) is in its nature a monopoly; that competition is inadequate to protect the public, and, if it exists, is likely to become an economic waste; that state regulation takes the place of and stands for competition; that such regulation, to command respect from patron or utility owner, must be in the name of the over-lord, the state, and to be effective must possess the power of intelligent visitation and the plenary supervision of 119Ibid., p. 45. 120Ibid., p. 46. 121Report, 1918, p. 17. 122254 Mo. 534. —209— (Page 210) every business feature to be finally (however invisibly) reflected in rates and quality of service. * * * The act, then, is a highly remedial one, filling a manifest want, is worthy of a hopeful future, and on well settled legal principles is to be liberally construed to further its life and purpose by advancing the benefits and retarding the mischief struck at. * * * He who reads that act and does not see a complete rounded scheme for dealing with the business of public utilities at every spot where the shoe pinches the public or the utility, reads it to little purpose.” Looked at from a purely economic point of view, the commission is worth much more to the state than it costs.123 123The total appropriation for the commission’s support for the years 1921-22 was $236,600—-Laws, 1921, pp. 6, 27; the total amount of fees collected by the commission for the years 1919-20 was $63,232.25—Report, 1919-20, p. 90. —210— (Page 211) CHAPTER V. AGRICULTURAL ADMINISTRATION. I. Introductory statements. Although the very large and considerably sized cities in Missouri have been for many years increasing in population much more rapidly than most of the rural counties, it still remains true, as it always has been, that agriculture is the most important industry in the state. As compared with other states, “it ranks from fifth to eighth in the annual value of all crops and normally stands fourth in the number and value of live stock.”1 It ranks sixth in the number of farms and in the number of acres in farms, and seventh in the value of farm lands and farm buildings. In 1920 the state had 263,004 farms embracing 34% million acres. “The total value of these farms, including land and buildings, live stock and machinery, was over 3% billion dollars.”2 II. Brief historical survey: 1. Primitive period to 1840. Following Mr. Shoemaker, the most scholarly writer on Missouri history, the history of agriculture in Missouri may be divided into five periods, to-wit: (1) The primitive period to 1840, (2) period of transition from 1840 to 1860, (3) period of rapid growth from 1860 to 1890, (4) period of depression from 1890 to 1900, (5) period of prosperity and rising prices from 1900 to 1920.3 Agriculture in Missouri down to 1840 was in a very primitive condition. The farm house was largely sufficient unto itself. Each farm was cultivated largely not to make money, but to provide for the necessities of life. Money was made at times in buying and selling lands, but that was not a regular business with most farmers. The acreage of cultivated land was small and there was very little farm machinery. Corn was the main crop, but was poorly cultivated because of the lack of good plows. Some wheat was raised, but it was difficult to prepare the ground for this crop also, and still more difficult to harvest and thresh it. By the end of this period the average annual production of corn was only 17 million bushels and that of wheat one million. Had there been a surplus, however, the difficulties of transportation were so great that it would have been of little value. “The river steamboat was just entering its great phase of usefulness, the dirt road was impassable half the year, and the railroad had not arrived in Missouri.”4 Although the land was not easy to clear, a very few acres of cleared land were usually sufficient to furnish food for a family. Because of the abundance of cheap 1Shoemaker, A History of Missouri and Missourians, p. 272. 2Ibid. 3Ibid., Part VI, Ch. 3. 4Shoemaker, History of Missouri and Missourians, p. 273. —211— (Page 212) land and wild game it was easy to make a living farming, but difficult to make money at it. The comparative ease in making a living farming, under the conditions mentioned must be the main reason why practically no laws were passed during the period which provided for the encouragement of agriculture.5 2. Period of transition, 1840-1860. During the next period, 1840-1860, agriculture became a money making business. Farming as a means of making a living became more of a secondary matter. Land became more valuable as much of it was taken up by the settlers. Better farm machinery was introduced; the reaper, the iron plow and the thresher had appeared. This meant that more grain could be produced. By the end of the period about 73 million bushels of corn and 4 million bushels of wheat were produced annually. Transportation improved; the dirt roads were better, steamboat traffic flourished and the railroad had appeared. St. Louis and other markets were growing rapidly. There was a great increase in the total population of the state.6 This period, too, witnessed the passage of a number of laws whose purpose was to encourage agriculture. Several of these excused the farmers from paying license taxes when they bartered their goods.7 There were laws' passed incorporating a state agricultural society,8 but they were soon repealed.9 Most of the laws which were passed, however, provided for the incorporation of county agricultural societies, the first one being that for Jackson County in 1841.10 The first considerable number were incorporated in 1855,11 with a goodly number following in 1859.12 There were also a number of stock importing companies incorporated in 1855.13 The same year saw the incorporation of two wine companies" and a hemp improvement company.15 It may be observed that the period from 1840 to 1860 shows toward the end an increasing local interest, so far as laws are concerned, in agriculture, but only a slight movement, which soon abated, toward state-wide organization and financial support. 5An act was passed in 1836 to encourage the organization of county agricultural societies—Laws, 1836-37, p. 1. 6Ibid., pp. 274-276. 7Laws, 1840-41, p. 7; 1842-43, p. 8; 1846-47, p. 97. 8Laws, 1852-53, p. 16; Laws, 1854-55, p. 338; these laws provide^ for a small state appropriation to the state society. 9Laws, 1855, Adj. Sess., p. 8; this repealing law provided for district agricultural societies. 10Laws, 1840-41, p. 7. 11Laws, 1854-55, pp. 216, 305, 309, 392, 399, 419; Laws, 1855, Adj. Sess., pp. 160, 253, 256, 266, 293. 12Laws, 1858-59, pp. 3, 4, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18. 13Laws, 1855, Adj. Sess., pp. 135, 312, 322, 336. 14Ibid., pp. 140, 244. 15Ibid., p. 204. —212— (Page 213) 3. Period of rapid growth, 1860-1890. The period from 1860 to 1890, with the exception of the war years and the depression in the seventies, was one of great agricultural expansion.16 There was a rapid increase in population, most of which was rural, and large areas of new land were brought under cultivation. Better agricultural machinery was introduced. By the end of the period corn was averaging 103 million bushels a year and wheat 17. The increase in bushels in the oats crop was marked as well as in the tons of tame hay. The live stock had a great growth and better breeds were introduced. In most cases the value per head of live stock also increased. Throughout this period of expansion farm wages showed only small increases.17 On the threshold of this period the legislature created the state board of agriculture.18 The members of the board were named in the acts creating it (ten besides the ex-officio members) with the exception of the presidents of district and county presidents of agricultural or horticultural societies, who were to be ex-officio members. Other provisions were made in the law for the co-operation of all local agricultural societies with the state board. Although the board was created in 1863 “owing to the scattered location of the members and disturbed condition of the state, or other causes, it did not meet for some time.”19 An organization was finally effected in March, 1865.20 This board had very few powers and was poorly supported by the state, the first appropriation being $100.00. In 1867 the legislature amended slightly the revised statutes of 1865 which pertained to county agricultural and mechanical societies,21 and provided for the printing of the reports of the state board of agriculture.22 The next year by a concurrent resolution of the general assembly the state board of agriculture was empowered to appoint a state entomologist.23 The agricultural and mechanical college and the school of mines and metallurgy were soon established,24 the board of agriculture having taken a prominent part in the establishment.25 The next year considerable more money than heretofore was appropriated to the state board of agriculture and the horticultural so 16Shoemaker, Hist, of Missouri and Missourians, p. 277. 17Ibid., p. 277. 18Laws, 1863-64, p. 43; 1864-65, p. 4. 19Laws, 1864-65, p. 4. 20Report, 1865, p. 7. 21Laws, 1867, p. 3. 22Ibid., p. 192; with few exceptions there has been an annual report printed separately since 1865. 23Laws, 1868, p. 299. 24Laws, 1870, p. 15. 25Mumford, F. B., The Missouri Historical Review, Vol. 15, p. 294. —213— (Page 214) ciety26 and greater care was shown in looking after endowment lands of the schools of agriculture and mines.27 For several years following 1871 a number of minor laws on agriculture were passed which showed the widening interest in the subject.28 In 1877 the personnel of the state board of agriculture was increased by adding the governor, state superintendent of schools, president of the state university, and the dean of the college of agriculture as ex-officio members.29 Only minor laws followed in 1881, but they concerned more phases of agriculture than ever before.30 In 1885 the office of state veterinary surgeon was created.31 This officer was appointed by the board of curators of the state university and the dean of the college of agriculture.32 In 1887 a much larger appropriation than ever before was made to equip the agricultural college and farm33 and two years later the legislature took advantage of the federal law of March 2, 1887, and assented to the establishment of an agricultural experiment station in connection with the college of agriculture.34 The establishment of the state board of agriculture, the school of agriculture, the offices of state entomologist and veterinarian, and the agricultural experiment station, together with numerous minor regulations which concerned agriculture, all show a distinct trend in this period toward greater state administrative control in agricultural affairs. 4. Period of depression, 1891-1900. The period from 1890 to 1900 “was as a whole the worst ever experienced. The depression was nation-wide and prices dropped to low levels. The average price of corn was only 29% cents, and although the average production was slightly higher than in the ’80s, the average value was one-seventh less. Wheat dropped to an average of 62 cents a bushel and the total average value decreased one-third. Agricultural organizations sprang into new life and attempted to obtain relief through political action. The entire country was prostrate for several years from a business standpoint, but conditions began to materially improve toward the close of the period.”35 At the beginning of this period the board of agriculture was re 26Laws, 1871, p. 6; $4,000 annually for the board and $1,000 annually for the society. 27Laws, 1871, p. 38. 28Laws, 1871-72, pp. 45, 53; 1873, pp. 70, 72; 1875, p. 97; 1877, p. 6. 29Laws, 1877, p 5. 30Laws, 1881, pp. 120,127, 137, 229, 235. 31Laws, 1885, p. 43; the law was amended in 1887—Laws, 1887, p. 28—and in 1889—Laws, 1889, p. 278. 32Board of curators alone given the power in 1889, Ibid. 33Laws, 1887, p. 11. 34Laws, 1889, p. 319. 35Shoemaker, History of Mo. and Missourians, p. 278. —214— (Page 215) organized and given more powers.36 The only ex-officio members were now the governor, dean of the agricultural college and state superintendent of public schools. The governor appointed the other members, one from each congressional district. Thus the present board organization comes into existence. Numerous important duties are given the board, such as that of examining the college of agriculture and experiment station each year, holding farmers’ institutes, appointing the state veterinarian,37 and having charge of all “appropriations of money made by the state for the purpose of aiding the development of agriculture, excepting appropriations made to the agricultural and mechanical college and experiment station.”38 In spite of the fact that this was a period of business depression, the appropriations for the state board of agriculture had nearly doubled at the end of the period over what they were at the beginning.39 The same statement can be made regarding the college of agriculture. By the end of the period, too, a number of laws on various phases of agriculture had been passed which had never been considered before. There was a law providing that cities of over 300,000 should furnish a market place for farm products,40 one providing that the state experiment station should analyze commercial fertilizer and that its sale should be regulated,41 another on the making and sale of imitation butter,42 and another on the labeling of skim milk cheese.43 Just at the end of the period the legislature provided for the establishment of a state fair under the control of the state board of agriculture.44 It held its “initial exhibition” in the fall of 1901.45 A state poultry association was incorporated in 1899.46 This was a voluntary association with the governor as an ex-officio member of their executive board, the other members of which were chosen by the members at large. While it cannot be said that rapid gains were made toward state control in agricultural administration and support during the closing decade of the nineteenth century, it must be admitted that no ground was lost, and, furthermore, that the main centralizing forces, the state board of agriculture and the college of agriculture, were on a surer footing than ever, both in support by the legislature and in the 36Laws, 1891, p. 35; Laws, 1893, p. 27. 37Ibid., p. 37. 38 Ibid., p. 36. 39Laws, 1891, p. 8; 1899, p. 6. 40Laws, 1891, p. 66. 41Laws, 1893, p. 171. 42Laws, 1895, p. 26. 43Laws, 1897, p. 105. 44Laws, 1899, pp. 208, 42. 45First premium list announcement, p. 9. 46Laws, 1899, p. 42. —215— (Page 216) popular estimation. Missouri agricultural interests were in a posi¬tion to move forward. 5. Period of prosperity and rising prices, 1901-1920. The last period in the agricultural development of Missouri, from 1901 to 1920, may be called one of “prosperity and rising prices.”47 It has five characteristics, to-wit, great agricultural prosperity in general, “rising land and produce prices, better farming as a result of agricultural education and higher priced land, increased production, and decreasing rural population.”48 The general prosperity “found expression in better homes and schools, improved farms, higher standards of living, finer live stock, better machinery, good roads, automobiles, and easier working conditions.”49 During the decade from 1900 to 1910 land doubled in value. The prices for grain and live stock showed a steady advance. To offset some of the profits to the farm owner fertilizer costs advanced and the price of farm labor doubled.50 “The Missouri farmer not only became more prosperous and received higher prices for his products during this period, but he also became a better farmer. Through the agricultural college of the university of Missouri, he and his children received instruction in scientific farming, in increasing the yield of crops, in improving the breeds of stock, and in building up the fertility of the soil. The state board of agriculture through its bulletins, reports, and lecturers, was another educational force of great service. Various agricultural organizations, including the farm bureaus and the county agents, carried this better farming campaign to every door. County and state fairs were held. The big agricultural papers and magazines now reached every rural community and were read by tens of thousands of Missouri farmers. Even the large city dailies issued a weekly edition devoted largely to agricultural news. Agriculture was included in the course of study in grade and high schools and in the state teachers’ colleges. Everywhere and by every means the Missouri farmer received aid, encouragement, and instruction in better farming. “As a result of better farming and of higher prices for agricultural products, production increased’51 From 1911 to 1920 the average annual yield of corn was 177 million bushels, that of wheat was nearly 37 million bushels. With all the general prosperity and rising prices most of rural Missouri was decreasing in population during the two decades from 1900 to 1920.52 The increased interest and support of agriculture are mirrored in the laws of the first two decades of the twentieth century. The 47Shoemaker, Hist, of Mo. and Missourians, p. 278. 48Ibid. 49Ibid. 50Ibid., p. 279. 51Ibid., pp. 279, 280. 52Ibid., Part VI, Ch. 1, especially the maps, p. 257. —216— (Page 217) increased support of the state board of agriculture is indicative of the attitude toward other state and even local agricultural organizations. The total appropriations for this board for the years 1901 and 1902 were $41,100. Up to 1909 the increasing support was not marked, but there was an increase,53 and from that time on a marked increase,54 the total appropriations for the years 1919 and 1920 being about $175,000.55 This does not include the item of $127,000 for the state fair.56 On the whole those years of slowly increasing support of agriculture showed a meagerness of laws on the same subject, although a chair of dairy husbandry in the college of agriculture was created in 1901,57 and county courts were authorized to establish and maintain county agricultural experiment stations with the aid and co-operation of the state agricultural experiment station.58 Beginning in 1909 much more activity was shown in the aid and encouragement of agriculture. During that year the law on county agricultural societies was amended and probably improved,59 a special act aiding agricultural extension work under the direction of the state board of agriculture was passed,60 and a dairy bureau was created and placed under the control of the same board.61 Two years thereafter an appropriation was made to the college of agriculture to aid the corn growers association62 and county courts were permitted to appropriate money in aid of county agricultural societies.63 In 1913 a county farm advisor act was passed64 backed by state aid.65 This law authorized any county court to employ a county farm advisor, who was to act under the supervision and direction of the state college of agriculture. Aid was also provided for county fairs and county agricultural societies.66 A special appropriation for a soil survey, in co-operation with the federal government, was made to the college of agriculture.67 The state experiment station also received a special appropriation.68 In 1915 a slight change was made in the state board of agriculture and, under certain conditions, it was permitted to move its 53Laws, 1901, p. 6; 1903, p. 6; 1905, p. 6; 1907, p. 6; 1909, p. 11. 54An apparent exception is 1913—Laws, 1913, p. 19, but this is made up by appropriations to other related interests. 55Laws, 1919, pp. 12, 13. 56Ibid., p. 17. 57Laws, 1901, p. 257. 58Laws, 1907, p. 207. 59Laws, 1909, p. 106. 60Ibid., p. 119. 61Ibid., p. 113. 62Laws, 1911, p. 28. 63Ibid., p. 88. 64Laws, 1913, p. 193. 65Ibid., p. 22. 66Ibid., p. 107. 67Ibid., p. 22. 68Ibid. —217— (Page 218) office from Columbia to Jefferson City.69 The state took advantage of the federal Smith-Lever Act and appropriated on this account over $65,000 to the state college of agriculture.70 The appropriations for “farmers’ institutes, including women’s institutes,”71 were greater than ever. In 1917 county courts were permitted to appropriate money to aid county farmers’ institutes or short course studies held in cooperation with the state board or college of agriculture.72 The same legislature passed a law regulating the handling of milk, cream and ice cream.73 The stallion registry board, spoken of in Chapter I, now? came into existence.74 The legislature of 1919 showed the influence of farm organization development outside of official circles. A state bureau of marketing was established under the direction of the board of agriculture,75 provisions were made for the collection of farm statistics,76 the incorporation of agricultural co-operative associations,77 and a new “uniform seed” law was passed.78 During this last period of development the state agricultural administration, as evidenced by the laws, became more evident and powerful, the main forces centering around the state board of agriculture and the state college of agriculture. Legally these two bodies are independent of each other, and, as has been noticed in Chapter I, there are a number of farm organizations supported by the state which have no legal connection with each other or either one of the above bodies. In other words, agricultural administration in Missouri is greatly decentralized. III. Agricultural administration at the present time: 1. The state board of agriculture—organization, powers, workings. In turning to the study of the agricultural administration of the present it is fitting to begin with the state board of agriculture, whose organization has been sketched out in Chapter I. It is the evident intention both in law and practice to keep the board entirely divorced from party politics.79 In order to insure considerable permanency in the board only one-fourth of the appointive members’ terms expire each year.80 69Laws, 1915, p. 97. 70Ibid., p. 5. 71Ibid. 72Laws, 1917, p. 132. 73Ibid., p. 129. 74Ibid., p. 134. 75Laws, 1919, p. 109. 76Ibid., p. 110. 77Ibid., p. 116. 78Ibid., p. 141. 79Sect. 11934, R. S. 1919; Official Manual, 1921-1922, p. 823. 80Sect. 11935, R. S. 1919. —218— (Page 219) The members of the board are non-salaried and therefore their main duty is to choose wisely the persons who carry on the active work of the board. There is no more important official employed by the board than the secretary, who receives only a fairly good salary.81 Due no doubt to his efficiency, the same person has been secretary for nearly a decade. The secretary is really the executive officer of the board and has charge of their suite of offices at Jefferson City.82 The board has over thirty paid employees, the highest salaried one being the marketing commissioner.83 They have an agent in marketing, a marketing stenographer, and a marketing clerk. Other employees are as follows: a state veterinarian, office deputy veterinarian, ten field deputy veterinarians and three stenographers for the veterinary work; two farmers’ institute lecturers; a seed and feed officer; a state dairy commissioner; an assistant and a dairy clerk; a chief clerk with several assistants. There are, residing in all important points in the state, between 200 and 300 non-salaried deputy state veterinarians.84 The state board of agriculture has supervision over “all the legalized departments and institutions of the state which are for the advancement of agriculture. It shall as a body, or by a committee selected by the board, be a board of examiners of the state agricultural and mechanical college and experiment station.”85 The board “shall have charge of the veterinary service of the state, the appointment of the state veterinarian, and, with the advice of the veterinarian, of deputies, inspectors and other assistants. It shall be the duty of the board, through its secretary, to gather crop and stock statistics, meteorlogical data and information as to the best and most profitable means of farming, stock raising, fruit growing, etc., and publish the same in bulletins as frequently as may be deemed expedient; to hold farmers’ institutes in different parts of the state for the purpose of giving instruction in agriculture; to make an annual report to the general assembly of the state, embracing the proceedings of the board for the past year, and an abstract of the reports and proceedings of the several agricultural societies of the state, accompanied by such recommendations, including especially such a system of public instruction on those subjects, as may be deemed useful.”86 The board is also empowered to hold extension courses for farmers in the various counties of the state, in co-operation with the county court.87 81Official Manual, 1921-22, p. 823. 82One of his well-known duties is that of issuing an annual year book, Sect. 11941, R. S. 1919. 83Ibid., p. 825. 84Ibid. 85Sect. 11938, R. S. 1919; the law explains that this is not done to limit in any way the power of the board of curators. 86Ibid. 87Sect. 11939, R. S. 1919. —219— (Page 220) It is made the duty of the board to “collect through the assessors information concerning actual crop acreages and other essential agricultural and country life statistics, and disseminate the same.”88 Uniform blanks are furnished by the state board to the assessors for that purpose. As a means of centralizing to some extent the expen¬ditures, “all appropriations of money made by the state for the purpose of aiding the development of agriculture, excepting appropriations made to the agricultural and mechanical college and experiment stations, shall be made to the board of agriculture and by it expended as the legislature shall specify.’"89 These are the general powers and duties of the state board of agriculture. Its financial support by the legislature was considerably more for the years 1921-22 than ever before.90 Dean Mumford of the college of agriculture summarizes the more important activities of the board as follows: “The administration of the veterinary service, farmers’ institutes, bureau of markets, bureau of dairying, the commercial feeding stuffs and pure seed laws, and the management of the state fair.”91 “The activities of, the board of agriculture in recent years have been chiefly in the direction of the development of the regulatory projects for the improvement of agriculture. The board of agriculture is an important part of the administrative machinery of the state, having in charge the administration of agricultural legislation intended to protect the producer and regulate commerce in agricultural products.”92 Though the general powers of the board of agriculture have been stated, it is proper to mention briefly the administrative organs which are under both its direction and supervision. Such is the bureau of dairying, dairy products and imitations.93 The head of this bureau, appointed by the board, is the state dairy commissioner.94 The duties of this officer are outlined in great detail in the law. The state fair is under the control of the board of agriculture but with a different president and a paid secretary of its own.95 The fair is held annually at Sedalia and is for the purpose of “encouraging the development of the agricultural, horticultural, mechanical, mineral, stock raising and all other industrial interests of the state 88Sect. 11941, Ibid. 89Sect. 11940, Ibid.; does not include, however, independent boards, like the poultry board. 90Laws, 1921, pp. 13, 14; Laws, 1919, pp. 12, 13; the appropriations for the state fair for the years 1921-22 were more than double that of the preceding biennium—Laws, 1919, p. 17; Laws, 1921, p. 19. 91Mo. Historical Rev., Vol. 15, p. 294. 92Ibid., p. 295. 93Ch. 109, Art. 4, R. S. 1919. 94For historical note on this office, see Sect. 11973, R. S. 1919. 95Official Manual, 1921-22, p. 823. —220— (Page 221) of Missouri.”96 Thousands from all over the state attend the fair each year. The state veterinarian, whom the board of agriculture appoints and removes at will, is looked upon generally as one of the most important officers of the board. His duties are outlined in detail in the statutes.97 Broadly they are “to aid and assist in developing and protecting the live stock interests of the state.” The state board of agriculture has the power to appoint a “state inspector of apiaries to aid and assist in the protection of the honey industry in the state * * * and for the prevention and suppression of contagious or infectious diseases among honey bees.”98 There is a state marketing bureau in charge of a commissioner appointed by the state board of agriculture.99 It is the business of this bureau to “investigate the marketing of farm products, including the cost of production and distribution thereof, furnish advice and assistance to producers, distributors and consumers, and promote effectual and economical methods of marketing farm products.”100 All commission merchants selling farm products must have a license from the commissioner. Further powers and duties of the commissioner as well as duties of commission firms are outlined in the amehded law of 1921 101 That the state board of agriculture thinks very highly of this bureau is shown by the fact that the commissioner is by far their highest paid employee. The state board of agriculture is quite active in farmers’ institute work. Although the college of agriculture and the state teachers’ colleges do a great deal of work in assisting farmers’ societies, farm bureaus, farmers’ clubs, and country life clubs, the state board of agriculture, through its lecturers, probably does more of this work than any one state institution. The law provides for the co-operation of farmers’ organizations, through their respective county courts, with either the state board or the state institutions. 102 The state board of agriculture, through its agents, has consid¬erable power over the manufacture and sale of “commercial feeding stuffs.”103 The duty of enforcing the “uniform seed” law regulations are also in the hands of the state board of agriculture.104 2. The state college of agriculture. As has been noticed, the college of agriculture, located at Columbia, is a division of the University of Missouri. “The federal law 96Ch. 109, Art. 6, R. S. 1919. 97Ch. 109, Art. 9, R. S. 1919. 98Ch. 109, Art. 10, R. S. 1919; Laws, 1921, p. 146. 99Laws, 1921, Extra Sess., p. 29. 100Ibid., p. 30. 101Ibid., pp. 29-36. 102Ch. 109, Art. 19, R. S. 1919. 103Ch. 109, Art. 18, R. S. 1919. 104Ch. 109, Art. 14, R. S. 1919. —221— (Page 222) has determined the character of the instruction * * * in the following words, ‘the leading object shall be, without excluding further scientific and classical studies and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts in such a manner as the legislators of the states may respectfully prescribe.’ ”105 Some of the federal funds, as has been noticed, go to the school of mines and metallurgy. After speaking of the rapid increase in the enrollment in the college of agriculture from 1907 to the Great War, Dean Mumford mentions the influence of the college on the state at large. “The institution, through the farmers trained at the college, has had a profound influence upon Missouri agriculture. At the present time (January, 1921) more than 400 young men who have received instruction in the college of agriculture return each year to the management of Missouri farms. More than 4,000 farmers in Missouri have received training in the college of agriculture. “Each year in January, for one week,1 the college gives a short course in agriculture in the subjects of animal husbandry, soils, farm crops, horticulture, entomology, dairy husbandry, rural economics, and home economics. It was estimated that 3,500 farmers and their wives attended this event in January, 1920. The state board of agriculture furnishes the evening programs for this Farmers’ Week event and through their co-operation the visitors to the college of agriculture have had an opportunty to hear some of the greatest agricultural authorities in America. “The agricultural experiment station, established in 1887, is a division of the college of agriculture. Its purpose is to serve the industry by making original investigations of the problems of the farmer. It is an attempt to bring to agriculture the benefits of modern scientific investigation. It has made important investigations on all lines of agriculture and has a large staff continuously at work making investigations in soil management, improvement of field crops, animal nutrition, plant pathology, horticulture, insect diseases, animal diseases, poultry farm management and rural sociology. The director of the experiment station (dean of the college of agriculture) publishes annually a report, including a list of the projects and significant results of value to agriculture. The station issues bulletins reporting the results of its work. The publications are free to Missouri citizens. “The agricultural extension service, founded June 8, 1914, is also a division of the college of agriculture, and its purpose is to carry directly to the farmers themselves the results of the investigations made by the experiment station. Its organization includes specialists in the various important phases of agriculture and so-called county 105Mumford, F. B., Missouri Historical Review, Vol. 15, p. 292; Ch. 102, Art. 19, R. S. 1919. —222— (Page 223) agricultural agents. The latter are located in the counties and are constantly available for help in the solution of problems of production and distribution. The agricultural extension service, like the experiment station, has a special federal appropriation which is available only on the condition that the state appropriate an equal amount for the same purpose.”106 One of the most important phases of administrative work carried on by the college of agriculture is through the county farm bureaus.107 The law defines the bureau as “a county organization formed for the purpose of co-operating with the University of Missouri college of agriculture in carrying out the provisions of the Smith-Lever Act of congress approved May 8, 1914, composed of not less than 250 bona fide farm owners or residents with an annual membership fee of not less than one dollar per member fully paid up, its constitution and by-laws formally adopted and its officers elected and installed.108 The county court may appropriate out of the general revenue funds of the county such sums as it may deem proper to support the farm bureau.109 Six objects of the county farm bureaus are set forth in the law, to-wit: (1) to promote the development of profitable and permanent systems of agriculture, (2) to assist in securing wholesome and satis¬factory living conditions in the country, (3) to encourage the development and successful growth of all rural social and educational institutions, (4) to assist in safeguarding rural public health through community co-operation, (5) to develop better economic and business methods and practices in farm and home life, (6) to co-operate with all individuals, groups, institutions and organizations whose purposes are in accord, with objects set forth in this section.110 In order to carry out these objects, all the funds appropriated by any county court to a county farm bureau must “be used to pay the salaries and necessary expenses of men and women, either or both, trained in agriculture and home economics, respectively, to serve as county agricultural agents, county home demonstration agents and county boys’ and girls’ club agents.’”111 More than half of the most progressive counties in the state have taken advantage of this farm bureau law and the county agents 106Mumford, Mo. Hist. Rev., Vol. 15, pp. 292-293; for amounts of aid received, Biennial Report of Board of Curators, 1921-22, pp. 37, 38. 107Ch. 109, Art. 15, R. S. 1919. 108Sec. 12136, R. S. 1919. 109Sect. 12135, Ibid.: County courts must appropriate the money for not less than three years nor more than four. Sect. 12142, Ibid. 110Sect. 12137, R. S. 1919. 111Sect. 12138, Ibid.: at the close of each year the county farm bureau must make a financial report to the county court, Sect. 12141, Ibid. —223— (Page 224) in close co-operation with the college of agriculture are of untold benefit to farmers.112 There are 60 counties out of the 114 which have county farm agents and ten which have county home demonstration agents. The maximum state and federal aid for any one county for all these purposes is $1,550 annually. Due fo economic conditions the movement has spread slowly for the last two years, but it is more than holding its own.113 There are laws permitting the establishment and government of county agricultural experiment stations by county courts in conjunction with the state experiment station,114 but none have been put into operation and probably will not be, if the popularity of the farm agent work continues. 3. Other state administrative organs. There are a few state administrative agricultural organizations which have little or no legal connection with either the state board or college of agriculture. Such is the state board of horticulture, the organization of which was described in Chapter I.115 It is the duty of this board “to promote the science of fruit culture in the state of Missouri, to organize the fruit growers of the state under such names as they may choose, for the purpose of affording a systematic means of gathering useful information for the use of the board, and to publish the same for the benefit of the fruit growers and farmers of the state of Missouri.”116 The fruit experiment station at Mountain Grove is under the control of an independent board of trustees. Its purpose is to experiment with different kinds of fruits.117 A part of its work is in cooperation with the state experiment station at Columbia.118 Another independent board is that under the name of “the Missouri state poultry association.”119 It is made the duty of this board to promote and encourage the poultry industry in all its branches. In carrying out this general duty, it helps organize the poultry raisers of the state, gathers information and publishes the same in bulletins, ll2See Biennial Report of Board of Curators, 1921-22, pp. 61-65, for names and salaries of agents; Ibid., p. 18, for federal appropriation available for extension services; for an interesting brief history of farm bureau development in Missouri, see Mumford, Mo. Hist. Rev., Vol. 15, p. 290 ff. 113Oral statement of Dean Mumford, Feb. 24, 1923. 114Ch. 109, Art. 8, R. S. 1919. 115Ch. 109, Art. 2, R. S. 1919. 116Ibid.; an appropriation of $10,000 to the state board of agriculture for the biennium, was made in 1921 for the promotion of horticulture—-Laws, 1921, p. 20. 117Ch. 109, Art. 3, R. S. 1919; the state appropriation to the station for the last biennium was $49,000—Laws, 1921, p. 20; for brief description of the station see Official Manual, 1920-21, p. 836. 118Sec. 11963-11966, R. S. 1919. 119Ch. 109, Art. 5, R. S. 1919. —224— (Page 225) holds institutes and exhibitions and provides for lectures. Probably the most important activity of the board is that of governing the state poultry experiment station at Mountain Grove.120 Another board of considerable importance to some farmers, which is independent of other agricultural administrative agencies, is the stallion registry board. The law sets forth its duties in detail.121 4.Voluntary farm organizations. Numerous voluntary farm organizations have sprung up in Missouri from time to time. Some of these have undertaken to organize all the farmers irrespective of their special interests, others have had only special interests of a particular type of farming in mind. Both have been potent influences in agricultural administration in the state. Of the voluntary organizations of a general nature those which receive the most popular attention and are perhaps the most powerful are the farmers’ clubs, federated into a state organization called the Missouri Farmers’ Association, and the county farm bureaus federated into the Missouri Farm Bureau Federation. “The purposes of the farmers’ club movement in Missouri are chiefly co-operative buying and selling and the promotion of agricultural legislation favorable to the agricultural industry. This organization has accomplished a real service, particularly in demonstrating to farmers that it is possible for them to co-operate in a business way and that by so doing they have been instrumental in protecting their economic interests.”122 Something has already been said about the county farm bureaus and their work in connection with the college of agriculture. Missouri was the first state to form a federation of these bureaus. This was done in 1915.123 By 1920 forty-one counties had reorganized their farm bureaus “and definitely related themselves to the state farm bureau federation.”124 The average membership per county at that time was over 800. Each of these state-wide organizations publishes a paper which is read widely among farmers.125 As a general rule, where one of these organizations is strong in a county, the other is weak. Some of the farmers’ organizations which are interested in a particular type of farming and which have had an important influence on farming in Missouri are as follows: The corn growers’ association, the Holstein breeders’ association, the Duroc-Jersey breeders’ asso 120Official Manual, 1921-1922, p. 878; the state appropriations to the experiment station for the last biennium amounted to $91,160— Laws, 1921, p. 23. 121Ch. 27, Art. 12, R. S. 1919. 122Mumford, Mo., Histor. Rev., Vol. 15, p. 283. 123Ibid., p. 290. 124Ibid. 125The Missouri Farm Bureau News; The Missouri Farmer. —225— (Page 226) ciation, the saddle horse breeders’ association, the draft horse breeders’ association, and the agricultural dairy association.126 IV. Conclusions—especially noting the tendency toward centralization in 1921. That state agricultural administration in Missouri is decentralized is at once evident. The legislature in 1921 realized this and, in order to prevent overlapping of functions, conflicts, confusion and hence bring about greater efficiency and economy, undertook to bring about considerable centralization.127 The act of 1921 created a state department of agriculture, placed at its head a commissioner of agriculture and combined and united under its control the following boards and official authorities: The state fruit station and board at Mountain Grove; the Missouri state horticultural society; the state board of horticulture; the stallion registry board; the department of land reclamation; the board and bureau of immigration; the state grain and warehouse commissioner and grain inspection department; the state board of agriculture; the state fair and the state fair board. This act was subjected to the referendum and defeated at the November election, 1922.128 There is little question but what the centralization which would have been brought about by this act, had it gone into operation, would have been a step in advance and probably would have furnished ground for still further centralization. “The tendencies in agricultural legislation during recent years have been nearly all toward the centralization of authority and placing of the details of power of administration into the hands largely, if not wholly, of one man. A rather careful examination of the agricultural laws of all the states leads the unbiased and unprejudiced person toward favoring the commissioner form of agricultural administration, either with or without a board for advisory and appeal authority.”129 This proposed reorganization, however, did not pay regard, to any extent, to the various kinds of agricultural administration which are carried on. The general phases of this administration may well be grouped as (1) those of teaching, (2) of experimentation, and (3) those of an inspectional character.130 Since most of the teaching work centers now at the university, and wisely so, it would seem proper that it should all be centered there, including all lecturing and demonstration activities now in the hands of any other organization. This would not mean that such work could not be done by the state teachers’ colleges and even the state board of agriculture, but it would mean that there would be a centralized planning author 126Mumford, Mo., Histor. Rev., Vol. 15, p. 291. 127Laws, 1921, p. 125. 128Roster of State and District Officers, 1923. (Sec. States office) p. 28. 129Official Manual, 1921-22, p. 821. 130Butts, Pub. Adm. in Miss., p. 261. —226— (Page 227) ity to unify effort, economize time and money, and avoid wasteful overlapping. Such centralization would fit in well with the proposed plan of placing all state educational institutions under the control of one board. The same statement should be made about experimentation work. All things considered, the most important experimental activities are now carried on by the experiment station at the state university, and properly so. The fruit and poultry experiment stations should be under the management and control of the University of Missouri. It would be better for them, and for the university, and, what is much more significant, more beneficial to the people they serve. Analogous to the arguments in favor of a greater centralization in educational administration, all these activities would be practically freed from local control, their lobbying would cease in the legislature, their work could be much better co-ordinated, all with the end in view of reaching as many interested people as possible. Outside of its inspectional work the same thing may be said of the state board of horticulture and the horticultural society. As to all other agricultural administrative work the argument cited from the Official Manual just above is convincing. It is doubtful whether the state board of agriculture as now organized should be longer retained except purely in an advisory capacity. All inspectional activities should be centralized in the hands of one person ap¬pointed by the board of curators of the university. He should be as high salaried as the dean of the college of agriculture, with as high qualifications for his particular work. He and the dean together with the important heads in their two fields of work might well form an expert board whose business it would be to survey every phase of agriculture, study the problems, form constructive, co-ordinated plans and carry them out. Back of them would stand the lay board, the curators, helping to popularize and defend their action, aiding them with wise counsel. In other words, Missouri should go further than centralize the administrative work of agriculture in the hands of a commissioner and college of agriculture. These two forces should be co-ordinated and brought together legally through a lay board, to the end that if they did not blend their efforts of their own free will into a harmoniously working whole, the remedy would be at hand to compel such. Such a combined force would, with its well thought out plans moving steadily forward and protected from the gusts of politics, do much to make the various farm interests realize the essential unity of their problems with those of the city dwellers. Viewed from every angle such centralization and co-ordination as has been suggested could hardly fail to mark a decisive forward step in Missouri agricultural administration. -227- (Page 228) CHAPTER VI. HEALTH ADMINISTRATION. I. Introductory statements. Not only has Missouri two large centers of compact population in St. Louis and Kansas City, but so well connected by railway and automobile, are the other considerable sized cities with these two centers that most of the problems of health of one community relate themselves directly to those of every other. The comparative ease and increasing amount of travel along with the increasing exchange of food products help also to make Missouri’s health problems one. However, the rural and city populations each still have problems uniquely their own. While the rural population has the advantage of the out of doors and greater freedom of physical movements, they generally as in most other activities, show a lack of organization and sympathy with the best rules of health which is not so evident in the large cities. In the physical examination of rural children for example, results showed that “the percentage of defects is as great, at least, as it is in the city schools.”1 II. Historical survey: 1. Period of local control. Needful as has been the state-wide control in the health affairs of the state, most of this control has been and is now in the hands of local authorities. Although from the beginning of the nineteenth century there were rather distinguished physicians in the state,2 the state legislature passed no law on the subject of health until a decade after the state was admitted to the Union. The first law was one permitting the city of St. Louis to establish a public hospital.3 The legislature explained why the law was passed as follows: “Whereas, the position of the city of St. Louis, upon an intersecting point in two great highways, the one leading from the north to the south, and the other from the east to the west, is such as to concentrate many of the good citizens of Missouri, and strangers from other states at that place, at all seasons of the year; and whereas, many of those strangers annually become sick and some of them, who are poor, languish and die for want of proper means for their recovery; and whereas, it is represented to this general assembly, that the erection of a public hospital, in or near the said city, would greatly contribute to the relief of suffering humanity; therefore—Be it enacted—-etc.” The next law of the legislature, having to do with health, also concerned St. Louis. It was an act incorporating the Medical Society of Missouri in that city.4 The next act was an inspection law providing 1Report State Board of Health, 1919-20, p. 30. 2Stevens, W. B., Centennial History of Missouri, Vol. 2, p. 65. 3Law of Jan. 18, 1831, Terr. Laws, Vol. II, p. 279. 4Laws, 1836-37, p. 222. —228— (Page 229) for a state inspector general of beef and pork. This inspector was appointed and removed by the governor and had a rather wide range of powers.5 Another law of a general nature soon followed which prohibited the vending or selling of poisonous drugs or medicines to minors and slaves.6 Otuside of an act changing the name of the medical society of Missouri to that of the St. Louis medical society7 no other health legislation was passed until the eve of the Civil War. At that time there was an act passed incorporating the “Good Samaritan Hospital” in St. Louis.8 Soon after that, the St. Joseph medical and philosophical society was incorporated.9 No other legislation pertaining to health was passed until 1879. That year a law was enacted, for the “promotion of the science of medicine and surgery.”10 It provided for and regulated the manner of the distribution of unclaimed dead bodies to medical schools. In 1881 a state board of pharmacy was created.11 With the exception of physicians who compounded their own prescriptions12 all pharmacists were required to register with the state board. No examinations, however, were required of those who were in the business at the time of the passage of the act, unless they failed to register within a specified time. In that case an examination was given by the board. The board consisted of three persons appointed by the governor for terms of three years and were not to be connected with any school of pharmacy. Although this law provided for some state control it can be seen at once how inadequate it must have been. In fact up to this time they were all inadequate and with the exception of the pork and beef inspection act, the act on selling poisonous drugs and medicines, and this pharmacy law they were all purely local laws. 2. Creation of a state board of health, 1883—its organization and powers. The creation of a state board of health in 1883 13 marks a considerable step toward state regulation and control. It consisted of seven non-salaried members appointed by the governor for seven year terms, but so arranged that not all their terms expired at one 5Laws, 1840-41, p. 92; This law must not have been in operation long if at all—no such law is found in the R. S. of 1845. 6Laws, 1842-43, p. 102. 7Laws, 1850-51, p. 578. 8Laws, 1858-59, p. 325. 9Laws, 1860-61, p. 373. 10Laws, 1879, p. 161. 11Laws, 1881, p. 130. 12By a law of 1883 physicians were required to register the same as other persons—Laws, 1883, p. 90. 13Laws, 1883, p. 95. —229— (Page 230) time.14 At least five of the members had to be physicians in good standing, graduates of reputable medical schools and residents of the state at least five years next preceding their appointment, but in the appointments there was to be no discrimination against the different systems of medicine which were recognized as “reputable.” The board was allowed a paid secretary. The board had the broad power of “general supervision over the health and sanitary interests of the citizens of the state.” It was their duty to recommend to the general assembly such laws as they deemed necessary to advance the sanitary condition of the state and to suggest such similar rules as they deemed wise to county and municipal authorities. In case of the existence of contagious or infectious diseases in any community or part of the state the board had the power to establish rather strict quarantine regulations therein. The state board of health also had supervision over the registration of births and deaths and it was made their duty to “prescribe such forms and recommend such legislation as shall be deemed necessary for a thorough and complete registration of vital and mortuary statistics throughout the state.”15 The secretary of the board was made the superintendent of such registration. Physicians, surgeons and accouchers were required to report to the county clerks all deaths and births which came under their supervision, with a certificate of the cause of the death and such correlative facts as the state board of health might require.16 Coroners were required to report to the county clerk deaths which came under their supervision together with the cause and mode of the same. The state board of health was also to take cognizance of any fatal diseases prevalent among the domestic animals of the state, find the nature and cause of such disease, publish the results of their investigations and suggest proper treatment for such animals. It was the duty of the board to make an annual report to the governor, such report to contain as much of the proceedings of the board, information concerning vital and mortuary statistics, knowledge respecting diseases, and such instructions on the subject of hygiene as might be thought useful by the board, for dissemination among the people. An initial appropriation of $6,000 was made to the board for the biennium. A separate act of 188317 regulating the practice of medicine and l4 The number on the board has remained the same up to the present time, but their terms have been changed to four years—Laws, 1893, p. 177. 15The mortuary and vital statistics law was repealed in 1893—Laws, p. 177. 16Physicians, surgeons and accouchers were required to register their own names with the county clerk. The clerk was required annually to send those names, together with the vital statistics registration to the state board of health. 17Laws, 1883, p. 115. —230— (Page 231) surgery in the state conferred considerable additional power on the state board of health. The board issued certificates to practice to all physicians who furnished satisfactory proof of having received diplomas or licenses from legally chartered medical institutions of good standing, of whatever school or system of medicine. Other persons desiring a certificate must take an examination given by the board of health. Every person holding a certificate from the state board of health was obligated to have it recorded in the office of the county clerk of the county where he resided. The examinations were to be of “an elementary and practical character, but sufficiently strict to test the qualifications of the candidate as a practitioner.” The state board of health could refuse certificates to individuals guilty of unprofessional or dishonorable conduct, and could revoke the same for like causes. Any person was regarded as practicing medicine within the meaning of the law who professed publicly to be a physician and prescribed for the sick or who appended to his name the letters “M. D.” The year 1883 witnessed the passage of a law regulating the practice of dentistry in the state.18 In order to practice such, one had to have a diploma from a reputable dental college unless such person was a bona fide practitioner of dentistry in the state at the time the act was passed. Physicians were also permitted to extract teeth. Persons practicing in the state at the time of the passage of the act were to file an affidavit of that fact* within a specified time, with the county clerk of their county. Others who wished to practice must file copies of their diplomas with the same officer. In both cases the clerk issued a certificate to the person filing. Although a penalty was attached for disobeying the dental law there was no special board to enforce its provisions as in the case of medicine and surgery and pharmacy. 3. Health laws from 1883 to 1921. After the creation of the state board of health, laws on the subject of health became more varied and numerous. A law of 188519 undertook to protect the health of women in the mercantile business by providing that the employer should have seats near the counter where they worked. A more important law of the same year20 made it obligatory for teachers to pass an examination in physiology and hygiene and that instruction should be given in the same in every school. In 1887 large powers were given councils in cities of the second class to “secure the general health of their communities.”21 The 18 Laws, 1883, p. 114. 19Laws, 1885, p. 150. 20Ibid., p. 243. 21 Laws, 1887, p. 53; the health powers of councils in cities of the third class were also increased, Ibid., p. 75. —231— (Page 232) same year a board was created, composed of the “professors and demonstrators of anatomy of the medical colleges and schools of the state”22 whose business it was to look after the distribution of unclaimed dead human bodies for dissection purposes. In 1889 the board of health in all cities of 300,000 inhabitants or over were empowered to appoint an inspector whose duty it was to prevent the adulteration of milk and cream.23 The law preventing children with contagious diseases from attending the public schools was re-enacted and strengthened.24 In 1891 it was made the duty of public authorities in cities with a population of 5,000 or more to appoint an inspector to look after the health and working hours of factory employes.25 The same year all cities and towns were given the power, by ordinance, “to license and regulate milk dairies and the sale of milk and provide for the inspection thereof.”26 Two years later the terms of the newly appointed members of the state board of health were shortened to four years and the board deprived of its powers in regard to mortuary and vital statistics.27 The examining powers of the board of pharmacy were somewhat widened in 1895,28 and all applicants for registration were subjected to a like examination. The same year a law was passed safeguarding infants from blindness.29 In 1897 the dentistry law of 1883 was repealed and a state board of dental examiners created,30 consisting of five persons appointed by the governor with regular five-year terms. New rules were laid down for registration and examination of dentists. Two years later the legislature passed a law to prevent the use of unhealthy chemicals or substances in the preparation or manufacture of any article used or to be used in the preparation of food.31 The same legislature enacted a law to establish a board of examiners for barbers and to regulate the occupation of a barber and to prevent the spreading of contagious diseases.32 In 1901 physicians were subjected to the same law, to become a licensed pharmacist, as other persons, and no person except a registered pharmacist could fill the prescriptions of physicians and dispense poisons.33 The same year the state board of health was given increased 22Ibid., p. 215. 23Laws, 1889, p. 92. 24Laws, 1889, p. 224; 1885, p. 247; 1883, p. 181. 25Laws, 1891, p. 159. 26Ibid., p. 163. 27Laws, 1893, p. 177. 28Laws, 1895, p. 169. 29Ibid., p. 153. 30Laws, 1897, p. 166. 31Laws, 1899, p. 170. 32Ibid., p. 44. 33Laws, 1901, p. 143. —232— (Page 233) powers over the registration and examination of persons proposing to practice medicine or midwifery.34 A county board of health was created composed of the members of the county court and a reputable physician appointed by them.35 This board in its county was given some of the same powers as the state board of health.36 It was the duty of the county board to report their proceedings to the state board of health and enforce such regulations as the latter desired. The legislature in 1903 passed an act permitting county courts in counties having a population of 150,000 inhabitants or more to establish a county hospital37 and made a slight amendment in the law regulating the practice of medicine.38 In 1903 the dentistry board was given more powers, the centralization of state control being evident.39 Druggists were definitely limited in the sale of cocaine and preparations containing this drug.40 The state board of health was permitted to admit to practice in Missouri physicians holding certificates from other states.41 The office of state dairy commissioner was created and given some rather important powers having to do with health.42 A state veterinary examining board, composed of the state veterinarian as ex-officio member and secretary and two other veterinarians appointed by the governor for two year terms, was created in 1905.43 The legislature in 1907 passed an act to prohibit the manufacture and sale of foods, drugs, medicines, beverages and liquors which were adulterated or misbranded, within the meaning of the law, and prescribed penalties for the violation thereof.44 Other laws were passed concerning the disposition of dead bodies and the practice of medicine and surgery.45 The latter showed an increased amount of state authority. In 1909 the pharmacy laws were repealed but the state board organization was retained with increased powers.46 An act was also passed creating the office of state food and drug commissioner, appointed by the governor, and defining his powers and duties.47 Another act regulated the transportation of dead human bodies by common 34Ibid., p. 207. 35Ibid., p. 180. 36Same powers as conferred in Sects. 7521-7523, R. S. 1899. 37Laws, 1903, p. 147. 38Ibid., p. 240. 39Laws, 1905, p. 213. 40Ibid., p. 145. 41Ibid., p. 212. 42Ibid., p. 133; amended considerably two years later—Laws, 1907, p. 246. 43Ibid., p. 209. 44Laws, 1907, p. 238. 45Ibid., pp. 356, 358, 359. 46Laws, 1909, p. 472. 47Ibid., p. 514. -233— (Page 234) carriers.48 Still another law was passed providing in detail for the registration of all births and deaths throughout the state by means of certificates of births and deaths and burial or removal permits.49 The administration of this law centered in the state board of health. A law providing for inspection of hotels was enacted and the office of state hotel inspector, appointed by the governor, was created to carry out its provisions.50 A nurse examining board was created the same year,51 consisting of five members appointed by the governor for three year terms. A number of minor health laws were passed at the same time, this year being especially prolific in such laws. The year 1911 showed a marked increase in the appropriations to the state board of health.52 This same year the inspectional duties of the food and drug commissioner were extended to practically every kind of food producing establishment.53 In 1913 the substantial financial support of the state board of health continued as it has ever since.54 During the same year a rather important law, providing for greater protection from occupational and industrial diseases, was passed.55 Sanitary drinking cups were to be provided in all depots and railroad cars, according to another law.56 Two rather significant health laws were enacted in 1915. One permitted counties to establish tuberculosis hospitals57 and the other authorized county courts and cities to employ trained nurses and to appropriate money to prevent the spread of tuberculosis.58 A revised dental law was enacted in 191759 which retained the some board organization as the old law but enlarged the board’s powers somewhat. A similar statement can be made about the hotel inspection law.60 A number of other laws provided for better health conditions for laborers.61 The year 1919 was a rather productive one in increasing the powers of the food and dairy commissioner.62 The state board of health’s powers were still further increased by giving it power to require the analysis of waters furnished and sold to the public.63 The work of 48Ibid., p. 664. 49Ibid., p. 538. 50 Ibid., p. 559. 51 Laws, 1909, p. 669. 52The appropriations had usually run from $5,000 to $15,000 for the biennium, but this time the total was $47,000, Laws, 1911, p. 11. 53Laws, 1911, p. 258. 54Laws, 1913, p. 23; 1921, p. 21. 55Laws, 1913, p. 402. 56Ibid., p. 188. 57Laws, 1915, p. 201. 58Ibid., p. 299. 59Laws, 1917, p. 252. 60Ibid., p. 300. 61Ibid., pp. 322, 323. 62Laws, 1919, pp. 353-369. 63Ibid., p. 370. —234— (Page 235) the board was also expanded along other lines.64 An act of 1917 had created the office of state beverage inspector.65 His powers were expanded in 1919.66 This survey of the health laws from the establishment of the state board of health until practically the present shows that the state government extended its powers in many directions never thought of in 1883 and, although there came to be a number of officials administering these laws, there was a considerable degree of centralization of authority in the state board of health. An examination of the reports of the state board of health from its origin to the present time indicates that it has tried to carry out its legal duties. During most of its history it has lacked adequate financial support. So long, too, as it had no definite way to collect and analyze vital and mortuary statistics its desires to help improve the health conditions of the state must of necessity be much limited in their expressions. This way was supplied in 1909 and the result has been a much greater influence on the part of the board. III. The present State Board of Health—its organization and functions: 1. Organization of the board. The composition of the present board has been indicated in Chapter I. It has been seven membered from the beginning and, with the exception of the secretary who is a member of the board, it is non-salaried.67 The reduction of the terms from seven to four years was of doubtful propriety, since it permits, on the part of the governor, too great a change in the personnel. At least five of the board must be physicians of good standing, graduates of reputable medical schools; and residents of the state for at least five years next preceding their appointment.68 The reports show that no lay element has ever appeared on the board. 2. General powers of the board. It is the duty of the board to safe-guard the health of the people of the state and to make a study of the causes and prevention of diseases. It has full power to make such rules and regulations as will prevent the entrance of “infectious, contagious, communicable or dangerous diseases into the state,”69 and to designate what diseases are of the character just mentioned.70 The state board of health may 64Ibid” p. 372. 65Laws, 1917, p. 307. 66Laws, 1919, p. 379. 67Report, 1884, p. 2; Sect. 5777, R. S. 1919. 68Sects. 5770, 5771, R. S. 1919. 69 Sect. 5772, R. S. 1919. 70 Sect. 5773, Ibid. The board has some power over prevalent diseases among domestic animals—Sect. 5778, R. S. 1919. —235— (Page 236) select a state commissioner of health.71 This they do by selecting one of their own number as both secretary and commissioner.72 The statutes require the board to establish the following divisions of its work, to-wit: (1) vital statistics, (2) laboratories, (3) preventable diseases, including tuberculosis, (4) child hygiene, and (5) venereal diseases.73 However, the board can establish “other divisions as it may deem necessary from time to time.”74 3. Collection of vital statistics. It is the duty of the state board of health to have charge of the “state system of registration of births and deaths, to prepare the necessary forms and blanks for preserving the records of the same, and to see that the laws on these matters are thoroughly and uniformly enforced.”75 The secretary of the state board is given supervision over and is registrar of the central bureau of vital statistics at the state capitol. For the purpose of enforcing the vital statistics law, the statutes make every city and town a “primary registration district.” The portion of the county outside the incorporated cities and towns may be divided, for registration purposes, in any way the state board of health sees fit.76 In order to collect the necessary statistics a local registrar for each registration district is appointed by the state board of health and he, with the consent of the state registrar, may appoint sub-registrars to help him.77 It is the duty of the attending physician or midwife to file certificates of birth with the local registrar, who in turn sends the names to the state registrar.78 A similar method is followed in regard to deaths and burials.79 The division of vital statistics for the collection of birth and death certificates has been in operation since February, 1910.80 “In normal times there is received each year approximately 72,000 of the former and 43,000 of the latter,”81 all of which are compiled and tabulated by the state board of health employees. “The state was originally divided into 1,076 registration districts, for each of which is appointed a local registrar. When possible a physician was appointed to these positions.82 71Sect. 5780, R. S. 1919. 72Official Manual, 1921-22, p. 840. 73Sect. 5774, Ibid. 74Ibid. 75Ch. 41, Art. 2, R. S. 1919. 76Sect. 5798, R. S. 1919. 77Sect. 5799, Ibid. 78Sects. 5808-5818, R. S. 1919. 79Sects. 5800-5806, Ibid.; there are also health statutes in regard to the transportation and disposition of dead human bodies—Ch. 41, Art. 41, R. S. 1919; Ch. 65, Art. 3, R. S. 1919. 80Report, 1918, p. 8. 81Ibid. 82Ibid. —236— (Page 237) The board of health has no more important duty than that of carrying out the laws on vital statistics. From the detailed facts which they collect is found a fundamental basis for surveying health conditions throughout the state. The board is able to know the number of deaths annually from such causes as typhoid fever, diphtheria, tuberculosis, measles, scarlet fever, cancer, pneumonia, suicide, accidents and homicides.83 Once health conditions are known solutions for problems arising out of these conditions may be applied.84 The state board of health has all along attempted to maintain statistical work at such a high standard that it would be acceptable to the United States census bureau. “The fact that the law requires the filing of a death certificate before burial, reasonably early, complete death returns are obtained. In 1911 the United States bureau of census accepted them as satisfactory, since which date Missouri has been included in the United States death registration area. For obvious reasons more difficulty has been experienced in perfecting the birth returns. However, as now received they are without doubt meeting the requirements of the United States bureau of census.”85 4. The laboratory. For some time the laboratory work of the state board of health was conducted by employees of the board, but, owing to limited appropriations, this was discontinued and is now carried on by the preventive medicine department of the University of Missouri.86 The chief work done in the laboratory is that of making bacteriological and sereological examinations.87 The forming of a tri-state sanitary area in the southwest part of the state in co-operation with the federal government and the health commissioners of Oklahoma and Kansas was really demonstration laboratory work.88 The same can be said of the limited survey conducted in 1919, to ascertain the prevalence of trachoma89 and the two state surveys made by the American Mental Hygiene Association.90 There is little question, however, but what the uses of the laboratory could be expanded to a great advantage.91 5. Preventable diseases. The general powers of the state board of health over preventable diseases have been noted. The law makes it very clear that the rules 83 Report, 1919-20, pp. 61-64. 84 To show the value placed on vital statistics by the state board itself, more than five-sixths of the pages of their last two reports are devoted to mortality tables—Ibid., 65-353. 85 Report, 1919-20, p. 9. 86 Ibid.; Official Manual, 1921-22, p. 843; the head of this department is designated as director of the public health laboratory— Biennial Report, Board of Curators, Univ. of Mo., 1921-22, p. 56. 87 Official Manual, 1921-22, p. 843; for summary of services rendered for one year by the laboratory, see Report, 1918, p. 11. 88 Report, 1919-20, p. 10. 89 Ibid. 90 Ibid., p. 10. 91 Report, 1918, p. 9. —237— (Page 238) of the state board shall, in case of conflict, supersede all local rules.92 This shows not only a necessary centralization of power in all cases, but especially is it one of necessity in the case of preventable diseases. An effective system of co-operation among federal, state and local authorities has been worked out in connection with preventable diseases. “A state-wide system of morbidity reporting has been established whereby the attending physician or householder is required to immediately report each case of communicable disease to his health officer, who in turn makes a weekly report upon the cases occurring within his jurisdiction to the state department of health. The compiled report for the entire state is then transmitted regularly to the surgeon general of the United States public health service in return for which the state commissioner of health and the deputy state commissioner of health are respectively commissioned collaborating and assistant collaborating epidemiologists of the United States public service, whereby they are accorded the government franking privileges for collecting said reports. * * * This system of reports is essential to the supervision of any public health work, for it is necessary to know how, when and where and under what conditions such diseases are occurring if they are to be intelligently combated and controlled.”93 The division of preventable diseases has undertaken to do something for the schools by requiring each deputy state commissioner of health to make an annual sanitary survey of each public school building and grounds within his jurisdiction.94 "These reports when tabulated will not only make interesting reading, but, in the light of present day intelligence, it will astound the average Missourian to know the unsanitary and dangerous environments into which a good proportion of the children, at least of the rural sections of this state, are being sent for their education. A large per cent of the rural school houses are improperly lighted, badly ventilated and poorly heated, causing the pupils continuous eye strain, frequent headaches, coughs and colds with their devitalizing effects. The drinking water supplies are rarely well protected and it is not infrequent to find no water supply whatever at the school. Likewise, innumerable schools are not provided with toilet facilities and a majority of those that are provided are not maintained in a decent or sanitary condition. This presents not only a question of health, but also one of morals.”95 The division of preventable diseases probably gets more attention than any other because of the excitement attached to any epidemic of contagious diseases. Sometimes communities are visited, upon re 92Sect. 5784, R. S. 1919. 93Report, 1919-20, pp. 6, 7. 94Ibid., p. 7. 95Ibid., p. 7. —238— (Page 239) quest, in order to assist in the control of quarantinable diseases. The division also adjusts hundreds of complaints through correspondence.96 6. Child hygiene. The division of child hygiene was created by the legislature in 1919.97 The general duties of the division are (1) to issue educational literature on the care of the baby and hygiene of the child; (2) to study the causes of infant mortality and the application of preventive measures for the prevention and suppression of diseases of childhood; (3) to supervise and regulate the physical inspection of school children in the public schools of the state. “The child hygiene division program includes (1) prenatal hygiene, in which an effort is made to educate expectant mothers through maternity centers and the distribution of educational literature with special stress on consulting, regularly, the family physician. (2) Infant hygiene includes the prevention of blindness, by education in the importance of treating the eyes of new-born children; infant clinics, education of mothers, and general care of the baby; and birth registration.97a (3) Pre-school hygiene embraces physical examinations and correction of defects before school entrance; vaccination and proper health habits and diet. (4) School hygiene includes an endeavor to secure complete physical examinations of school children; nutrition clinics; follow-up work by public health nurses to encourage the correction of physical defects; physical training, and proper school sanitation in order to have a safe supply of drinking water, sanitary means for excreta disposal and abolition of the common drinking cup and towel.”98 The child hygiene division has on its mailing list hundreds of mothers who receive information on how to take care of themselves and their babies. In co-operation with the United States public health service, the American Red Cross and Missouri Tuberculosis Association, the division had by the end of the year 1921 physically examined 2,000 children under school age and 125,000 school children. Instructions were also given in proper diet and health habits.99 “A health survey in 5,610 homes in twenty-three towns in the state was made to determine the percentage of birth registration and also to obtain data relative to the sanitary condition of the home, amount of milk used, relative income, prenatal examinations made with its bearing on the physical condition of the children and infant mortality.”100 96 Report, 1918, p. 11. 97 Laws, 1919, p. 375; Sec. 5775, R. S. 1919. 97a At the end of the year 1921, Missouri was not in the United States birth registration area because of incomplete statistics— Official Manual, 1921-22, p. 841. 98 Official Manual, 1921-22, p. 841. 99 Ibid. 100 Ibid. —239— (Page 240) The child hygiene division is headed by an assistant surgeon (reserve) of the United States public health service. Aiding him are ten field investigators, including two doctors and three nurses. “Splendid co-operative work is rendered by forty-four public health nurses in the state, thirty-four of whom are Red Cross county nurses.”101 In fact, all existing health agencies working in child hygiene co-operated with the constituted health officials of the state through the United States public health service. “It became the duty of the Missouri Tuberculosis Association to detail field agents for organizing purposes and to assist in state-wide publicity. The American Red Cross agreed to furnish nurses for district, clinic and health center work. The agricultural extension service of the University of Missouri detailed its home demonstration agents to conduct or assist in the conduct of nutrition clinics in schools. The parent-teachers’ association lent valuable aid in volunteer work in the schools, assisting the school workers. The W. C. T. U. * * * developed * * * the ‘big sister to expectant mother’ idea. The medical and dental professions gave valuable aid in physical examinations of school children and donated time to clinics and health center work. In a number of local communities health committees were formed. These committees were composed of local representatives of state organizations of a number of non-official health agencies. The success of the work has largely been due to the help secured through these committees.102 7. Venereal diseases. The division of venereal diseases was established in 1919.103 The United States government supported this work by furnishing half the funds and detailing an official to act as director.103a In carrying out the program of this division the federal government’s standard health program was put into force. This program has three general aspects, to-wit, (1) educational, (2) medical, (3) law enforcement.104 For the year ending in December, 1921, the division reported that educational motion pictures had been shown to more than 50,000 people, “Keeping Fit” and “Youth and Life” exhibits to more than 125,000 boys and girls, and that more than a half million of educational 101 Ibid. 102 Report, 1919-20, p. 19; Ibid., pp. 22-30, for some work accomplished. 103 Sect. 5575, R. S. 1919. 103a The budget for 1920 totaled over $63,000, about half of which was raised through other than state sources, since the legislature of 1919 had failed to “match dollars” with the federal government—Report, 1919-20, p. 48; the legislature of 1921 made an appropriation—Laws, 1921, p. 21. 104 Official Manual, 1921-22, p. 842. —240— (Page 241) pamphlets had been distributed.105 A number of free venereal clinics have been established in various parts of the state. According to the last available report these were treating more than 2,000 patients each month. The Wasserman tests are made for the board by the University of Missouri.108 More than 10,000 cases annually of venereal diseases were reported to the state board of health by physicians and hospitals in the state. Most of these were new infections.107 Co-operating with the division of venereal diseases is a protective social agent assigned by the United States interdepartmental hygiene board.108 8. Rural sanitation. It has been noticed that the state board of health could establish other divisions than those created by law. It has done this in a number of cases. One of these is the division of rural sanitation. The legislature of 1921 made an appropriation of $20,000 for rural sanitation.109 “The United States public health service and the International health board are each more than equaling the state appropriation in this work. This division investigates health and sanitary conditions in rural districts and small towns and gives technical and financial assistance to counties to encourage the establishment of model county health departments. This division is established to demonstrate the usefulness and economy of adequate health protection throughout the counties of the state. An extensive health survey is being made of seven southeast Missouri counties, particular attention being given to the prevalence of malaria and the possible methods of controlling it. As a result of this survey, definite and practicable recommendations will be made to communities in this area for better public health activities. Every county in the state has been offered financial and technical assistance in the establishment of model county health departments, one-half the expense to be borne by the county departments and the other half equally by the state and international health boards and the United States public health service. Model county health departments are now in operation in Green, Jasper, Polk, and Monroe counties. In addition, many other counties are requesting assistance in this work.”110 9. Division of sanitary engineering. It is made the duty of the state board of health to enforce adequate rules and regulations for the maintenance of a safe quality of 105Ibid. 106Ibid., p. 843. 107Ibid., only ten counties did not report. 108Report, 1919-20, p. 49; up to the time of this report most of the time of this agent had been spent in educational work trying to interest communities in their particular needs along the lines of venereal disease control and prevention of delinquency. 109Laws, 1921, p. 22. 110Official Manual, 1921-22, pp. 841, 842. —241— (Page 242) water dispensed to the public.111 To assist the board in the inspection and certification of the water supplies of the state, particularly those used for drinking and culinary purposes by common carriers engaged in interstate traffic, the United States public health service has detailed two men to work with the state board of health. These officials have carried on practically all the duties of this division.112 10. Public health nursing. The state board of health has a division of public health nursing. “Through an agreement between the state board of health and the southwestern division of the American Red Cross, the state supervising nurse for the Red Cross also became director of the division of public health nursing.”113 Her stenographic help is furnished by and her office is with the state board. The purpose of the division is to organize, co-ordinate and supervise public health nursing activities throughout rural Missouri. “The plan is to have communities such as counties, cities, villages, townships or otherwise designated communities, organized for public health nursing. The nurse will work with and under the direction of a committee composed of representative citizens of the community. In order to establish such a nursing service, there should be funds enough assured to carry the project for at least one year. The different branches of the work that may be undertaken by such a nursing service are: (1) Prenatal and infant welfare work; (2) maternity service; (3) school nursing; (4) control of communicable diseases * * *; (5) industrial nursing; (6) mental hygiene nursing; (7) care of the sick in their homes on the visit basis. “The following is a brief outline of some of the work accomplished by the thirty-four public health nurses employed in thirty counties of Missouri and paid almost entirely by local chapters of the American Red Cross. The outline covers the first six months of 1921: Number of schools visited, 939; number of pupils inspected, 27,488; number of pupils found defective, 18,761; class talks given, 1,367; home visits to school children, 1,924; number of bedside cases handled, 5,293; number of nursing visits, 6,950; number of infant welfare visits, 1,722; number of prenatal visits, 633; number of tuberculosis visits, 413; number of other visits, 3,834; number of public talks given, 1,208.”114 The health conditions found out as a result of the war gave a powerful impulse to the work of most of the divisions of the state health department. It seems as if the United States government has taken a more advanced position in this matter than the state govern 111Sects. 5787-5789, R. S. 1919. 112This division is really known in the law as that of “water and sewage”—Sect. 5788, R. S. 1919; see Report, 1919-20, p. 52, for inspections made. 113Official Manual, 1921-22, j. 843. 114Ibid. -242— (Page 243) ment. The strong initiative of the former has been a great help to the latter in enlarging its necessary powers over not only its assigned functions but over the local authorities as well. The state board seems to be cognizant of the fact, and rightly so, that, in order to carry out successfully the powers which have rather rapidly come to them in the last few; years, they must survey the field carefully in order to find out the needs and then wage a campaign of education before and while applying remedies. This appears to be the proper method in holding the recent ground gained and probably advancing further in centralized control. 11. Bureau of licensure. The state board of health is the only authority m the state which has the power to license practitioners of medicine and surgery, midwifery and chiropody.115 The preliminary requirements for and the subjects of examinations are set forth in considerable detail in the statutes. Graduation from an accredited four-year high school or its equivalent and from some medical116 college of four years’ requirements must be shown before the examination will be given to intending practitioners of medicine and surgery. Evidence of good moral character is also required. During the years 1919 and 1920 the board gave medical examinations on seven different occasions to 259 applicants. The applicants were examined in 15 different subjects. All passed except three.117 The state board may, at their discretion, admit to practice, without examination, legally qualified practitioners from any other state or territory of the United States, which has equal requirements to the state of Missouri. Reciprocal relations of some kind exist between Missouri and about 30 of the other states.118 Midwives are licensed only by examination, which is held at regular intervals. Only seven were licensed during the years 1919 and 1920.118a The state board of health1 also conducts examinations for those who wish to be chiropodists, the chief requirement being that they must have received a diploma from some recognized school of chiropody. Only six received licenses by examination during the years 1919 and 1920.119 IV. Local health authorities: 1. Deputy state commissioners. Not a little of the success of any state health program depends upon the willingness of individuals and local authorities to co-operate 115Ch. 65, Arts. 1 and 2; Ch. 41, Art. 4, R. S. 1919; Laws, 1913; Laws, 1921, p. 471. 116For some time the word “reputable” ran before the word “medical,” but this was omitted in the law of 1921. Many physicians think this lowered the standards of the profession. 117Report, 1919-20, pp. 14, 15; Ibid., for schools from which they came. 118Ibid., pp. 15, 16. 118aIbid., p. 17. 119Ibid. —243— (Page 244) with the central state authority. A recent law120 provides that the county court of each county shall appoint, for a three years’ term, a reputable physician as deputy state commissioner of health for the county. Thus the county is recognized as the unit of health administration in rural Missouri. If the county court fails to appoint, the state board of health may do so. Whichever authority makes the appointment fixes the compensation and expenses which are paid by the county. It is the duty of each deputy commissioner to enforce the rules and regulations of the state board of health throughout his jurisdiction.121 In cases of dereliction of duty or refusal to act the state board of health may remove a deputy commissioner.122 On the whole this law providing for the enforcement of the state laws through a deputy state commissioner should be effective. Perhaps its greatest weakness is found in the power of the county court to fix the compensation and expenses of the deputy commissioner. The distinct earmarks of centralization are found in the deputy commissioner being subject not only to the rules of the state board of health but also to their removal. 2. County hospitals. The statutes give the counties the opportunity to do a number of things along health lines. Under certain conditions a county may establish a tuberculosis hospital, or two or more counties may combine to do so. 123 A county may also establish and maintain a general county hospital124, and maintain in connection therewith a nurses’ training school. A number of progressive counties have taken advan¬tage of these laws.125 V. Auxiliary aids to health administration. There are a number of authorities in Missouri which may be considered auxiliary aids to health administration. The organization of most of these have been sketched in Chapter I. Such are the nurse examining board,126 the board of pharmacy,126athe osteopathic board,127 the board of dental examiners,128 the barber examining board,129 the board of embalming,130 the optometry board,131 the food 120Sect. 5732, R. S. 1919. 121His jurisdiction includes the whole county outside of incorporated cities which maintain a health officer who has been appointed deputy state commissioner of health—Sect. 5783, R. S. 1919; see Sect. 5785, Ibid., for cities excepted. 122Sect. 5783, Ibid. 123Ch. Ill, Arts. 25 and 26, R. S. 1919. 124Ch 111 Art 27 125See December, 1919, Bulletin, State Board of Charities and Corrections. 126Laws, 1921, p. 524. 126Ch. 29 R S 1919 127Ch. 79, R. S. 1919; Laws, 1921, pp. 540, 542. 128Ch. 112, R. S. 1919. 129Laws, 1921, p. 156. 130Ch. 32, R. S. 1919. 131Laws, 1921, p. 532. —244— (Page 245) and drug commissioner,132, the industrial inspection department,133 the Missouri state sanatorium at Mt. Vernon,134 the various phases of health work carried on by the educational institutions of the state, the state department of education, the eleemosynary institutions and the department of agriculture. VI. Conclusion. The schools of medicine of the University of Missouri, Washing¬ton University, and St. Louis University, respectively,135 the two osteopathic colleges at Kirksville, and some less important schools of medicine and osteopathy wield a great influence in carrying out the health laws of the state. It is easily noticeable that, taken as a whole, the health laws of the state are administered by many authorities. While there is some overlapping, especially in the inspection work, it does not exist to the extent it does in the agricultural administration. Furthermore, for the past few years the centralization of power in the state board of health has been especially prominent. The health surveys, the collection of vital statistics, but, what is more important than all these, the increased activities of the United States government as a result of the war, were contributing elements toward this centralization. With few exceptions the state has shown its faith in the initiative of the federal government by co-operating without any apparent conflict in the administration of health laws and in making increased appropriations. That they are entirely too small in comparison with some other state enterprises is unquestioned, but it is a fact that there is hardly any other administrative activity of the state which shows a more rapid growth considering the lateness of its start. On the question of should there be one examining and supervising board for medicine, osteopathy and chiropractic, the people of the state are without doubt divided. To say nothing of chiropractic, the comparatively low standards of osteopathic schools and examinations are being eliminated. This will go far to dignify the osteopathic profession and therefore increase the respect of the medical profession for it. There are a number of affairs in which greater centralization and more detailed supervision could come with profit. One is a law which would permit one or more counties to employ a full time health officer under the supervision and direction of the state board of health. It would be well to have, among other things, this officer administer carefully the law preventing the marriage of mental defectives.136 Another is a law, best administered by the county health officer, re 132Ch. 38, Art. 6, R. S. 1919. 133Ch. 54, Art. 5, R. S. 1919. 134Laws, 1921, p. 380. 135Most persons who study medicine in Missouri attend these schools. 136Laws, 1921, p. 469. —245— (Page 246) quiring the recording of all marriages with the vital statistics division of the state board of health. Although rapid advance has been made in health work the last few years through a more centralized administration and the work of the United States government, it is not at all clear that this will continue. The impetus given by the war to state health activities may well be increased, but to hold what was given is not an easy task since probably most people want to forget as quickly as possible everything connected with the war. —246— (Page 247) CHAPTER VII. HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION. I. Introductory statements. It has been only within the last decade that any considerable interest has been shown in the state legislature in a system of roads throughout the commonwealth built and financed by the whole state. The rapidly extending use of the automobile with the resulting mounting sums received by the state from auto license fees has been perhaps the main reason for this interest. The advantages of all the year around roads have been seen especially in getting farm produce to the larger centers of consumption and in the consolidation of school districts. The statement of Governor Hyde that “after all is said, the fact will still remain that good schools and good roads will go forward together” should not be questioned.1 There have been in the past and are still some handicaps in inaugurating and carrying out a state administered highway program. Among these are the great conservatism of large sections of the rural population and the lack of understanding and sympathy for this population on the part of the more progressive city populations. As will be seen later, these conflicting forces found it hard to agree in the legislature on any common program. Again the soil conditions, climate and topography vary so much throughout the state that even the rural legislators often found it hard to agree among themselves. However, they generally found enough common ground to unite, in case of a, conflict, against the representatives of the large cities. The recent plan of a road system, covering approximately 7,700 miles, penetrating every county and in the main connecting all the county seat towns,2 if carried out with economy and efficiency will, without much question, be only the beginning of road building and maintenance in the state. One of the most determining and successfully effective forces in initiating the recent program has been the aid offered by the federal government. The supervision and control of this government are strong guarantees that the plan outlined and begun will be carried out faithfully. II. Brief historical survey: 1. The territorial period—absence of central control. Long before white men came to what is now Missouri the Indians had their trails. The early white hunters often followed these trails. These may be called Missouri’s first roads. Some of these can still be traced. There is one in the northern part of the state which ran from “one mile east of Huntsdale, on the Missouri River, to Moberly 1Spec. Mes. Feb. 15, 1921, Ap. House and Sen. Journals, 1921, Vol. I. 2Laws, 1921, Extra Sess., p. 131. —247— (Page 248) and thence along the dividing ridge between the waters of the Chariton and those flowing to the Mississippi quite into Iowa. This is the route the old bee hunters pursued in the early days to gather honey in the upper Chariton.”3 As settlers began to find permanent homes a desire for better roads than mere trails took place. This was shown even before the close of the eighteenth century. An example of this is found in the case of Moses Austin. He came to Missouri in 1797 and began to mine lead near Potosi. He saw the necessity of better roads and in a few years one was opened from Potosi to Herculaneum. Mr. Austin also wished to see a road opened from Potosi to Boone’s settlement, on the Missouri, but this was not accomplished so soon.4 The first law on roads was enacted in 18065 It was of a general nature and applied to each district of the territory of Louisiana. According to its terms the court of quarter sessions in each district was to divide their district into as many road divisions as they thought proper and appoint one or more supervisors of roads in each division. The supervisors had charge of the making and repairing of roads. It was the court’s duty to appoint two road assessors for each division, who, together with the supervisor, were to assess annually on each able-bodied male person of full age not less than two nor more than thirty days of labor on the public roads. The assessment was to be made on each person as nearly as could be in proportion to their property. Under this law upon proper petition to the court of quarter sessions the court appointed a surveyor and three householders to view the proposed road and report to them. After considering the contentions of any objectors, the court could open up the road. Thus in the first road law all the authority for opening up and maintaining roads was vested in local authorities. In the next road law the hand of territorial authority is seen.6 This law was enacted in 1808. It authorized the governor to appoint three commissioners to lay out a road from St. Louis to Saint Genevieve and on to New Madrid. The expenses of opening up and maintaining the road were to be borne by the districts through which it passed in proportion to the distances.7 “This was probably the first legally authorized road west of the Mississippi River.”8 During the territorial period and up to 1822 several other road laws both of a special and a general character were passed, but broadly speaking, they varied only in detail from the two just discussed.9 The demand for better postal facilities was an underlying 3Encyclopedia of the History of Missouri, Vol. 5, p. 266. 4See Terr. Laws, Vol. I, p. 479. 5Terr. Laws, Vol. I, p. 86. 6Terr. Laws, Vol. I, p. 188. 7Ibid., p. 225. 8Ency. Hist, of Mo., Vol. 5, p. 367. 9Ibid., pp. 323, 425, 479, 548, 954, 1003, 1022. —248— (Page 249) reason for the opening up of roads. “In 1819 there were fifteen different mail routes in the Missouri territory.”10 It is obvious that there was little state administrative control during the territorial period. 2. Period from 1820 to the Civil War—excessive number of special legislative acts. In admitting Missouri as a state Congress made, among others, the following conditions: “That five per cent of the net proceeds of the sale of lands lying within the said territory or state, and which shall be sold by Congress from and after the first day of January next, after deducting all expenses incident to the same, shall be reserved for making public roads and canals, of which three-fifths shall be applied to those objects within the state under the direction of the legislature thereof, and the other two-fifths in defraying, under the direction of Congress, the expenses to be incurred in making of a road or roads, canal or canals, leading to the said state.”11 Thus was the legislature given an opportunity to have a permanent state road fund. The first constitution of the state had an article on internal improvements12 in which it was declared to “be the duty of the general assembly to make provision by law for ascertaining the most proper objects of improvements in relation both to roads and navigable waters.” The admission of the state to the union apparently marked no immediate change in the road laws or their administration.13 However, an early law of the state14 not only provides that the governor of the state shall appoint commissioners to survey and mark out certain state roads, but authorizes the state auditor to pay the expenses of doing the same out of the three per cent fund.15 No great number of road laws were enacted by the legislature until 1835.16 Although general laws were passed,17 most of them were special and provided for state roads. The authority to lay out a state road came from the legislature, this body naming commissions to do it18 or leaving the appointment to the governor,19 as in the law of 1808. Such a road passed through more than one county and was usually sixty feet wide. The expenses for laying out the road were 10Violette, History of Missouri, p. 9. 11Ordinance, July 19, 1820, R. S. 1825, p. 40; for laws applying to such funds, passed in 1822, R. S. 1825, p. 780. 12Const. 1820, Art. 7. 13For general road laws, see pp. 688-696, R. S. 1825; Terr. Laws, Vol. II, pp. 107, 287, 368. 14Law of Dec. 19, 1922; Terr. Laws, Vol. I, p. 1022. 15Same as the “three-fifths” coming from the U. S. government, mentioned just above. 16For laws which were enacted, see Terr. Laws, Vol. II, pp. 107, 136, 163, 175, 191, 233, 287, 362, 368, 378. 17Ibid., pp. 107, 368, R. S. 1825, 688-696. 18Ibid., p. 362. 19Ibid., p. 191. —249— (Page 250) either borne by the counties through which it passed or, as became a general practice after 1835, by the state from the three per cent fund. In any event the expenses of cutting out the road and maintaining it were borne by localities through which it ran.20 The other kind of highways may be called county roads, the authority for opening up and maintaining such coming from local communities, as is provided in the Revised Statutes of 1825.21 With two exceptions22 every legislature, from 1835 to the Civil War, passed numerous laws on roads.23 Most of these related to the establishment of state roads. It soon became a general rule in connection with the state roads for the legislature to pass an act naming the commissioners to establish the road and providing that the expenses of the commissioners be paid out of thd three per cent fund, which was apportioned among the several counties.24 “About 1848 the subject of plank roads began to be agitated in Missouri.”25 The legislature in 1851 passed some laws on the subject.26 Probably the first plank road built in Missouri was from Ste. Genevieve to Iron Mountain, about twenty-five miles. This was in 1852. Other plank roads were constructed in Missouri about the same time, or prior to 1856, but after that * * * there were no more built, and those already constructed were repaired with gravel and became gravel roads and some of them toll roads.27 Although the period from 1820 to the Civil War was one of great activity in the passage of road laws, practically the only control exercised by the state was in naming the commissioners to lay out state roads and providing for their payment from the three per cent fund. There is little indication of a state planning and building 20Ency. Mo. Hist., Vol. 5, p. 367. 2lR. S. 1825, 688-696; these were usually forty feet wide and were confined to one county. 22See Laws, 1852-53; Laws, 1856-57. 23For road laws of 1835 consult Terr. Laws, Vol. II, pp. 386, 430, 437, 446, 448, 453, 461, 463, 465, 479, 481, 486, 487, 500; R. S. 1835, pp. 544, 553. 24Terr. Laws, Vol. II, pp. 302, 305; Laws, 1836-37, pp. 108, 109, 118- 124; for list of roads and distances in Missouri in 1837, see Wet- more, Gazeteer of the State of Missouri, p. 269; Laws, 1838-39, pp. 255-293; Laws, 1840-41, pp. 234-301; Laws, 1842-43, pp. 314- 366; Laws, 1844-45, pp. 308-376; R. S. 1845, pp. 496-507; Laws, 1846-47, pp. 311-340; Laws, 1848-49, pp. 581-629; Laws, 1850-51, pp. 649-705; Laws, 1852-53, pp. 42-45; Laws, 1854-55, pp. 634- 685; R. S. 1855, Chs. 136, 137; Laws, 1855-56, pp. 488-514; Laws, 1856-57, pp. 172-173; Laws, 1858-59, pp. 195-294; Laws, 1859- 1860, pp. 668-751. 25Ency. Hist, of Mo., Vol. 5, p. 367. 26Laws, 1850-51, pp. 259, 274, 459, 477. 27Ency. Hist, of Mo., Vol. 5, p. 367; Laws, 1852-53, pp. 19, 22, 23, 41; Laws, 1854-55, pp. 61, 129, 176; see Laws, 1855-56, pp. 126, 127, 459, 209, 337, 375, 416, 467, 468 for plank, gravel and macadamized roads. —250— (Page 251) authority. There was a good chance to at least lay the basis of such authority in connection with the three per cent fund, and it appeared at first that the legislature might do so,28 but it was only appearance for laws were soon passed providing for the distribution of the fund among the counties.29 This policy of distribution was kept up throughout the period.30 The counties were often allowed to use the money for other than road purposes, under the guise of borrowing and loaning it. 3. Period of purely local administration—from the Civil War to 1907. The coming of the Civil War did not end by any means the passage of rather numerous road laws of a special nature.31 After 1865 the enactment of special road laws generally ceased, there was little legislation establishing the so-called state roads of the previous period.32 Even the shadow of state administration and control disappeared until 1907. The three per cent fund was distributed among the counties even down to the time it amounted to only a total of $5,000 for the biennium.33 Again not only were counties permitted to borrow and loan this fund, but they could transfer an unexpended balance to the county school fund,34 and in one instance the county was permitted to appropriate this fund to the building of a court house.35 So the idea of devoting this fund to “some great state object” seems to have vanished entirely with the passing of the years. Although there was an absence of special legislation in road matters from the Civil War to 1907, there was by no means an absence of general legislation. In fact it seems as if one set of laws hardly got into operation before others were passed to take their place.36 How 28In a preamble to an act of Jan. 22, 1829, the general assembly in speaking of the beneficent objects of Congress in relation to the funds arising from the sale of public lands it was stated that these objects could best be promoted “by vesting the same, in some manner, so as to secure to the state the regular payment of interest thereon, and the interest only to be appropriated to the purpose of the grant, until the principal shall have accumulated to a sufficient amount to effect some great state object,” Terr. Laws, Vol. II, pp. 166, 182, 300. 29Terr. Laws, Vol. II, pp. 302, 405, 491; R. S. 1835, p. 553; Laws, 1836-37, pp. 108, 109. 30R. S. 1845, p. 496; R. S. 1855, Ch. 136. 31Laws, 1862-63, pp. 118, 137, 138, 226-237; Laws, 1863-64, pp. 622- 644; Laws, 1864-65, pp. 116-120; R. S. 1865, Chs. 51-54, 64. 32Laws, 1868, p. 162. 33Laws, 1891, p. 6; 1893, p. 9; 1895, p. 7; 1897, p. 7; 1899, p. 8. 34Laws, 1868, p. 149. 35Laws, 1870, p. 194. 36Laws, 1868, pp. 149-159; Ibid., p. 160, for laws on private roads; Ibid., p. 162, for repeal of laws on state roads; Laws, 1869, p. 85; Laws, 1874, p. 135; Laws, 1883, p. 157; Laws, 1887, p. 245- 258; Laws, 1899, pp. 338-346. —261— (Page 252) ever, the same principle of local control through the county courts and township boards, in the case of township organization, runs through them all. 4. Period of centralization of administrative power—1907-1923. The year 1907 marks a real turning point in highway administration in Missouri. Although an automobile law had been passed in 1903,37 which regulated the operation and speed of these vehicles on the public streets and roads and provided for a license fee which went to the county general road fund, little state control was present. The automobile law of 190738 not only permitted local authorities to levy a license tax, but also provided that the owner of every automobile must submit to a number of state regulations and at the same time pay a registration fee of five dollars to the state. The proceeds from the license required was to be for the benefit of the “good road fund.” Out of these license fees from that time until now have come the “sinews of power” for a state road program.39 The creation of the office of state highway engineer40 was a hopeful step toward centralization in highway administration. This officer was appointed by and was under the supervision of the state board of agriculture. His duties were largely advisory and the initiative in all road matters still remained with the) various county courts. It was the duty of county courts, county highway engineers and other officers who had anything to do with road matters to give the state highway engineer, upon written request, all available information in connection with the building and maintenance of public highways and bridges.41 Helping to bring about centralization of road administration in each county and to supply useful data to the state highway engineer was the law providing for the appointment, by the county court, of a county highway engineer in each county.42 “These engineers were to have charge of the road work in their respective counties and the custody of any road working equipment belonging to such county and used in road work. No highway work could proceed without the recommendation of the county highway engineer, and the various road overseers were made subject to his orders.”43 “In 1909, the forty-fifth general assembly passed a law providing for the creation of a general state road fund,”44 to which all moneys accruing to the state from any general or special levy of taxes for 37Laws, 1903, p. 162. 38Laws, 1907, p. 73. 39The total annual amount from these fees in 1911 was only about $55,500; in 1922 was nearly $3,500,000—Typewritten letter from the Sec. of State’s office. 40Laws, 1907, p. 406. 41Ibid., p. 408. 42Laws, 1907, p. 401. 43Report, State Highway Commission, 1922, p. 8. 44Laws, 1909, p. 768. —252— (Page 253) road purposes, or derived in any way for the improvement or construction of public roads, were to be credited. This fund was to be apportioned and distributed to the several counties when such counties, or the citizens of such counties, provided the necessary funds to pay for at least one-half of the cost of such road improvement or construction. “The general assembly in 1913 enacted new legislation repealing a considerable portion of previous enactments and providing among other things for the appointment of a highway commissioner by the governor.45 Provision was also made for the creation of a county highway board in each county.46 This board was composed of three members appointed by the county court. The county highway engineer became a member of the board ex-officio. For a county having a population in excess of 75,000 the highway board was composed of the three members of the county court. Upon application of the county court of any county, the state highway commissioner was to make an investigation for the selection and establishment of inter-county seat highways, and that when so established such highways were to be recorded and known as state roads. “Another section of the law, directed the county highway board and the state highway engineer to select the most practical road from" any county seat to that of each of the adjoining counties for the purpose of establishing a system of county seat connecting highways. “It was further provided that the county highway board should let contracts for the dragging of these county seat highways. An annual appropriation by the state of fifteen dollars per mile for each mile of such inter-county seat roads in each county was authorized.”47 As the use of motor vehicles increased throughout the state and nation both Congress and the state legislature were stirred to further action in road matters. “In 1916 Congress recognized the necessity of securing some system of connecting roads throughout the various states of the Union, and a law was passed entitled ‘an act to provide that the United States shall aid the states in the construction of rural post roads and for other purposes.’ This act was approved July 11, 1916.” In 1917 the legislature passed the so-called Hawes road law.48 Among other things the law provided for a bi-partisan board of four members appointed by the governor with the consent of the senate. This board was empowered to appoint a state highway engineer. Two years later the Hawes law was modified by the McCullough- Morgan amendment.49 The bi-partisan board feature of four was 45Laws, 1913, pp. 697, 653. 46Ibid., p. 665. 47Report, State Highway Commission, 1922, pp. 9, 10. 48Laws, 1917, p. 485. 49R. S. 1919, Ch. 98, Art. 11. —253— (Page 254) retained50 and in addition to the state highway engineer a state highway superintendent and all other necessary employees were provided for. III. The “Centennial Road Law,” 1921: 1. Organization of the highway commission. The adoption of the constitutional amendment in 1920 permitting the issuance of $60,000,000 in bonds to be used in building hard surfaced roads,51 together with subsequent supplementary amendments,52 has given a great impetus to state road building and maintenance in Missouri. Following the adoption of this amendment the legislature at a special session, called chiefly for that purpose, passed a highway law, “the centennial road law.”53 The organization of the present highway commission has been noted in Chapter I. Although the “centennial road law” went into effect August 4, 1921,54 Governor Hyde took time and exercised extreme care in appointing the four commissioners provided for in the act.55 The personnel of the commission was entirely changed. The high character and business standing of the new commission is evident to all. The commission appoints the chief engineer, secretary, and legal adviser. The chief engineer as the executive head of the commission appoints, with its approval, such assistant engineers and other employees as may be necessary to carry on the work.56 Maximum salaries are fixed by the law of 1921. Legally the main office must be at the capital of the state, and the commission must hold its meetings monthly. “Out of the necessities of the work there has grown up an organization such as indicated on the adjoining chart. “In order to relieve the executive head of the large burden of routine operations, much of the detail of the administrative work of the department has been subdivided and alloted to the following bureaus: bureau of surveys and plans, bureau of bridges, bureau of construction, bureau of maintenance, bureau of audits. 50With one exception the personnel of the board of 1917 was left in tact—Report, State Highway Commission, 1922, p. 10. 51Laws, 1921, p. 707. 52Laws, 1921, Extra Sess., pp. 196, 193; Roster of State and District Officers of Mo., compiled by the Sec. of State, 1923, p. 24. 53Laws, 1921, Extra Sess., p. 131. 54Ibid., p. 167. 55The appointments were made Dec. 1, 1921, and were as follows: Theodore Gary, chairman; S. S. Connett, Murray Carleton and C. D. Mathews. 56On Jan. 14, 1922, the “Commission engaged the services of Rollen J. Windrow as consulting engineer and personal representative of the chairman. At its May meeting, B. H. Piepmeier was appointed as chief engineer of the commission. He assumed the duties of his office June 1st, 1922”—Third Bien. Rep. High. Commis., 1922, p. 11. —254— (Page 255) Organization Chart Missouri State Highway Commission Jefferson City Approved Oct. 19, 1922 Missouri State Highway Commission Per Cheief Engineer Legislatiure and Governor State Highway Commission Consulting Engineer Chief Engineer Legal Advisor Stenog Assistant Cheif Engineer Engr. Of Cont. Auditor Engr Of Maint Sec of Commission Bridge Engineer Engr of Surveys and Plans No.1 Div Eng. No.2 Div Eng. No.3 Div Eng. No.4 Div Eng. No.5 Div Eng. No.6 Div Eng. No.7 Div Eng. No.8 Div Eng.No.9 Div Eng. No.10 Div Eng. (Page 256) “Each bureau is in charge of a bureau head, who is in close contact with the chief engineer. Weekly reports by each bureau chief are made to the chief engineer. These reports are bound together and supplemented by a report of the chief engineer and then transmitted to the commission. In this manner each member of the commission is regularly informed of the operations of the department during the period between meetings of the commission. “Every employee is chosen strictly on his qualifications for the position to be filled. Every applicant is required to fill out an application form giving a brief account of his qualifications, his training and experience, previous employment, employers, and a list of referees having personal acquaintance with the applicant.”57 In carrying on its work the state has been divided into ten districts, or divisions.58 Each division is in charge of a division engineer, who maintains the kind of an organization indicated on the organiza¬tion chart.59 2. Powers of the highway commission. The powers of the commission, as set forth by the 1921 act, are numerous and varied. They are in brief as follows: to supervise highways and bridges which are constructed, improved and maintained in whole or in part by the state with state money, or by such money as is appropriated from the federal government; to prescribe rules and regulations, not inconsistent with the law, and fix the duties of all persons employed by the commission; to provide aid for county highway engineers, establish gradients, alignments and prepare suitable systems for maintenance of highways and bridges; to cause standard plans, specifications and estimates to be prepared for the repair and improvement of highways and the construction and repair of bridges by the civil subdivisions; to investigate and determine upon the various methods of road and bridge constructions adapted to different sections of the state; to compile statistics relating to public highways throughout the state; to be ready at all times to promote highway improvement throughout the state; to prepare plans, specifications and estimates for all state highways; to let contracts for the construction or improvement of state highways; to prescribe a system of auditing and accounting for all road and bridge moneys for the use of highway officials; to have power to construct, under its own direction and supervision, all roads, culverts and bridges as provided under the law; to determine the width of right of way, type of road surfacing and character of construction of the state highways; to have general supervision and control of all maintenance work on the state highway system. 57Ibid., pp. 89, 90. 58Ibid., p. 90, for map showing the divisions. 59 Ibid., for brief statement of the work of the division engineer and his force. —256— (Page 257) State Highway Department Ten Subdivisions in Missouri Scale Statute Miles -257- (Page 258) The commission is required to comply with the federal aid acts, and to report to the governor annually and the legislature biennially. It is also empowered to close highways when necessary and to purchase right of way. The commission also controls the placing of markers on the highways under its control. The commission works under a number of legislative limitations. The state highway system of hard surfaced roads is created by describing in a rather definite way the routes in and through the different counties. Highway work, so far as practicable, must be distributed uniformly over the state, and construction must begin as nearly as possible and practicable at the same time in each of the several counties. Each county must be allotted a minimum of' $6,000 per mile for such part of the state highway system as may be within the county. Provision is also made, for reimbursing counties and other civil subdivisions for such roads or parts of roads as may become a part of the state highway system to the extent of the value to the state at the time these roads were taken over, due consideration being given to the type of road the state would have constructed had such existing road not already been constructed. Any county or civil subdivision may have a higher type of road than that prescribed by the commission provided the additional cost of such road shall be borne by said county or civil subdivision. 3. Sources of revenue for building roads—state, federal. The $60,000,000 bond amendment has been noted. The legislature in 1921 passed laws60 empowering the board of fund commissioners to borrow sixty million dollars. They may issue bonds as an evidence of the indebtedness of the state of Missouri. The rate of interest must not exceed five per cent. Bonds are to mature in such annual installments as may be determined by the board, provided that no bonds may become due later than thirty years from the date of issue. A fund to be known as a state road bond interest and sinking fund is provided for. Money for such fund is derived from the registration fees of motor vehicles, less the cost and expense of collecting the same. In order to place back of the bonds the most stable credit of the state, provision is made that the bonds and interest on the same can be paid out of a fund to be derived from the levy and collection of a direct annual tax upon all taxable property in the state. There are a number of federal laws providing for aid in building highways.61 It is proper to give a digest of these at this point. “The first federal aid act62 which was passed in July, 1916, provides for the co-operation of the secretary of agriculture with the various states, through their respective highway departments, for the 60Laws, 1921, Extra Sess., p. 126; Second Extra Sess., p. 36. 61See Third Bien. Rep. State Highway Comm., 1922, pp. 13-32, for these federal laws. 62 39 Stat. 355. —258— (Page 259) construction of rural post roads; on condition that such roads shall be free from tolls of all kinds. For the purpose of carrying out the intention of this act, certain sums were at that time appropriated out of the federal treasury.63 "These amounts thus appropriated were to be apportioned to the various states in the following manner: "One-third in the ratio which the area of each state bears to the total area of all the states; one-third in the ratio which the population of each state bears to the total population of all the states; one-third in the ratio which the mileage of rural delivery routes and star routes in each state bears to the total mileage of rural delivery routes and star routes in all the states. "Any state desiring to avail itself of the benefits of this act shall submit to the secretary of agriculture through its highway department, project statements setting forth the proposed construction of any rural post road or roads therein. If the secretary of agriculture approves the project or projects, the state highway department furnishes such surveys, plans, specifications and estimates as may be required. "Items included for engineering inspection and unforeseen contingencies shall not exceed ten per cent of the total estimated cost of the work. “When the secretary of agriculture shall find that any project so approved by him has been constructed in compliance with said plans or specifications, he shall cause to be paid to the state treasurer the amount set aside for such project. The maintenance of roads constructed under the provisions of this federal act is to be the duty of the several states or their civil subdivisions. "In February, 1919, Congress passed an amendment to this previous act, providing that the limit of $10,000 per mile,, exclusive of the cost of bridges of over twenty feet clear span, be increased to $20,000 per mile. * * * “In November, 1921, Congress passed a further amendment providing for a national road system to consist of 7 per cent of the total road mileage, 3-7 of which is for inter-state roads, and 4-7 for intercounty roads. "The inter-state roads shall receive not over 60 per cent of the money allotted and the inter-county roads not less than 40 per cent. Provision was made for a two-year limit, after the appropriation for the year in which the available funds could be taken up. * * * "Another act was passed in June, 1922, making an appropriation for the Post Office Department, in which w;ere included additional sums for rural post roads. * * * The maximum amount of federal aid that could be expended per mile was reduced by this act from 63"For these and subsequent appropriations, see Third Bien. Rep. State Highway Comm., 1922, p. 64. —259— (Page 260) $20,000 to $16,250 for the year ending June 30th, 1923, and a further provision was made for a limit of $15,000 per mile.”64 Once organized with important powers in its hands and millions of dollars to spend, it was desirable for the commission to form a policy under which it might operate. This it began to do early in December, 1921.65 At that time each member of the commission pledged himself to conduct the highway program broadly and as nearly as possible with a vision of the needs of the state as a whole. The “centennial road law” provides for what is known as a primary system of roads of approximately 1,500 miles, and a secondary system consisting of 6,130 miles.66 At an adjourned meeting of the commission in February, 1922, the chief and consulting engineers were instructed “to start immediately an investigation of all practical routes that had been suggested for primary roads and to submit a report of their finds at an early meeting of the commission. It was further provided that as soon as the report was in the hands of the highway commission, the chairman should set a date for a public hearing of any and all interested parties in the various routes before a final decision would be made as to location.”67 On July 11th, 1922, the engineers submitted their report and recommendations for a system of state primary roads.68 This report was published and public hearings were held the latter part of the month and “at the meeting of August 1st, 1922, a resolution was passed adopting unanimously the report of the engineers for the 1,500-mile state primary system.”69 4. Policy of the new highway commission—especially regarding the designation of roads and apportionment of funds. The policy which the commission has followed in apportioning the road funds has been watched closely and perhaps with general satisfaction. Following closely the provisions of the law the commission announced that they would apportion one-third of the funds to the higher type roads “and, in addition thereto, $6,000 per mile should be taken from the remaining two-thirds of the fund and apportioned to these higher type roads.”70 The remainder of the funds are to be apportioned as follows: the commission determines the 64For all of the part quoted, see Ibid., pp. 63, 62, the grand total of federal aid available up to June 30th, 1923, is $13,402,290.08, and at the end of the year 1922, $7,621,925.52 had been taken up by the state—Ibid., p. 97; the value of trucks, tractors and other equipment given to the state by the federal government amounts to over $4,500,000—Ibid., p. 165. 65Third Bien. Rep. State Highway Comm., 1922, p. 62. 66Ibid., p. 70; Laws, 1921, Extra Sess., Sects. 26, 29. 67Third Bien. Rep. State Highway Comm., p. 69. 68Ibid., pp. 71, 73-83. 68Ibid., p. 71; see also map showing comparative population of cities over 2,500. 70Ibid., p. 70. —260— (Page 261) Missouri State Map Showing Comparative Population Of Cities Over 2500 Scale Isqin = 55555 State Primary System Additional Federal Primary System State Designated Roads Prepared by MO State Highway Dept. -261- (Page 262) mileage of the statewide road system in each county and apportions to that county an amount as ascertained by multiplying the sum of $6,000 by the total mileage in the county, deducting from such mileage any portion which had been included in the designated routes of the higher type roads. Furthermore the commission has announced that it would estimate the amount required by law, exclusive of the mileage of higher type roads, if any, and in case such estimates exceed an average of $6,000 per mile in any county or counties the apportionment would be increased to the amount of such estimate. Another policy of the commission regarding the federal aid act has been to designate some, 1,800 miles of roads as federal primary highways. It was found that the state was entitled to 1,800 miles of federal primary highways in addition to 1,500 miles of state primary roads. The commission has held that the federal primary routes must necessarily follow closely the designated state roads and that their importance in many instances will require the same type of construction as that used on the state primary system. Having these things in mind, together with the types of construction and estimates of cost, the commission designated the entire federal primary system. “Most communities that are not properly served with the state primary roads will eventually be served by the federal primary system or a secondary state road.’71 5. Work of the highway commission as seen through its bureaus. The varied and far-reaching work of the highway commission is perhaps best seen through the activities of its different bureaus. The bureau of surveys and plans makes surveys and studies in order to have the roads properly located. In doing this, consideration is given to the users of the road, to the safety of traffic, alignment and funds, cost of construction and economy of maintenance. “As the preliminary step to location, reconnaissance surveys are made of every possible route connecting two objective points. By this means it is usually possible to eliminate all routes but one or two. A detailed survey is then made of the routes not eliminated and from the data thus obtained, pencil plans are worked up so that the final choice of routes may be made.72 Before actual construction work begins on a given route further detailed plans and surveys must be made. These furnish the bases for bidding on the part of contractors. “After the survey of the selected route has been completed the notes taken in the field are turned over to a draftsman who places on paper an exact picture of the alignment, profile and various cross sections of the route, showing to scale the location of every detail that will enter into the cost of construction. The plans in this condition are then given to the designer and the exact type of construction 71Third Bien. Report State Highway Comm., 1922, p. 8; Ibid., pp. 82, 83, for federal primary system routes. 72Ibid., p. 123. —262— (Page 263) and maximum grades are decided upon. The designer with computers establishes in detail the grade line, determines the proper cross section to which the road is to be built, and checks the opening in the various waterways in which culverts are to be used and perfects the drainage.73 Computations are then made of the various things needed in the construction of the road and estimates of cost are prepared. Should it be a road project upon which federal money is to be used, a project agreement is prepared giving a description of the road, its location, connection with other roads, the purpose served, the proposed type of improvement and the amount of aid asked for. This agreement is then submitted to the federal bureau of public roads. There is a right of way section in the bureau of surveys and plans. The burden of securing the righti of way is still left to the local communities, but the state co-operates to secure unity of action. Since the adoption of the engineers’ report for a state primary system a number of field parties of the bureau have been busy making detailed location surveys for the primary roads recommended in the report. During the biennial period ending December 1, 1922, plans for 1,850 miles of road were prepared by this bureau.74 The bureau of construction has the task of taking up a project when the plans and estimates have been prepared by the bureau of surveys and plans. “The work of the bureau embraces the following lines of activities: receiving plans and contract estimates from the bureau of surveys and plans; advertising all road and bridge work; checking construction estimates and approving change orders in construction; making field inspections to correlate the work of the ten division engineers, receiving and filing reports of tests of materials; inspection and construction work; purchasing and distributing survey equipment; employing field and office engineers and assistants for the various bureaus; keeping a record of the location and cost of operation of the departments various motors cars used on construction work; placing of various road signs.75 The bureau of construction has had difficulty in getting and holding together an efficient working force. “The employment records show that about four thousand men have made application for positions with the department in the past two years. About 10 per cent of these have been offered positions but only 2 or 3 per cent would accept such offers, owing to the fact that the rate of salary paid by Missouri is less than that of other states. During the past two years it is safe to say that there have been resignations and transfers amounting to about 75 per cent of the entire personnel of the depart 73Ibid., p. 124. 74Ibid., p. 125; Ibid., p. 126, for chart showing number of employees and cost of operation of the bureau of surveys and plans. 75Ibid., pp. 145, 146; for further details on the work of the bureau of construction, Ibid., pp. 146-150. —263— (Page 264) ment. The principal cause of such turnover seems to be the low scale of wages previously mentioned.”76 The bureau of maintenance is now working out plans for taking over the maintenance of such state roads as have already been constructed and of others as rapidly as they are built. In the meantime, before these roads are built the maintenance bureau proposes to improve the worst sections of the present main traveled roads between points on the state highway system and erect markers and other necessary signs.77 Such routes may or may not coincide in all details with the designated highways, but the selection will be made with a view of giving immediate service to the traffic by selecting the most direct and easiest traveled route between centers of population. The routes thus selected will be maintained by the department, in so far as funds permit, until such time as the legally designated roads can be constructed and taken over for maintenance.78 The state highway commission has a bureau of audits which makes a general review of the disbursements of the commission’s several funds.79 Payment to contractors for construction work is made through vouchers issued by this bureau. These are based upon monthly estimates prepared by the project engineer, checked by the division engineer and rechecked by the engineer of construction. The vouchers are then passed to the chief engineer for endorsemnt, after which they are submitted to the commission for final approval. All expense accounts and invoices are carefully looked over by the head of the bureau in which they originate' before being turned over to the auditing bureau. Of course all accounts must pass through the state auditor’s hands before final payment is made. The bureau of audits makes up the pay roll and issues the warrants for salaries of the many employees of the highway commission. It is also its duty to carry on the detail work of apportioning and distributing the road drag fund to the various counties. Up to the present time, the bureau has handled the purchasing and distribution of office supplies for the entire highway department.80 The highway commission has a bureau of bridges. In general its business is to prepare bridge specifications, standard and special plans and designs; estimate cost of structures; check shop drawings; check change orders; and at times inspect bridge sites and bridge construction work.81 “During the past two years this bureau has been largely engaged in preparing special designs for the bridges needed on the various road projects initiated during this time. These 76Ibid., p. 148. 77Ibid., p. 164. 78Ibid. 79Ibid., p. 217, for different highway funds. 80Ibid., p. 216. 81Ibid., p. 127. —264— (Page 265) designs embrace structures ranging in length from 12 feet to 600 feet and costing from $2,000 to $70,000.”82 Until recently83 the work of testing the various materials used in the construction of state highways has been handled in connection with the engineering department of the University of Missouri. This work has grown to such an extent that in the interest of economy and closer contact with the construction bureau “it has been deemed advisable to have the testing laboratory directly in connection with the general office.”84 IV. Conclusion. The brief examination made of highway administration in Missouri leads directly to the conclusion that centralization of control in the state highway commission has been rather rapid during the last few years. This control and influence will no doubt extend, as time goes on, more and more beyond the 7,700 miles of state primary, federal primary and state secondary roads. Local communities will look more and' more to the state for standards to go by and hence the influence of centralization will reach far beyond its legal bounds. Perhaps all of the progressive forces in the state are behind Missouri’s state road program. 82Ibid., p. 128; Ibid., pp. Ill, 112, for Missouri river bridge project. 83Ibid., p. 119. 84Ibid. —265— (Page 266) INDEX (References are to pages) Academy, 85. Accountancy, state board of, 19. Adjutant-general, 23. Agriculture, general organization of state board, 16. Agricultural Administration, Chapter V. Board of agriculture, 213, 215, 217, 218,-222, 227. Bureau of dairying, 220. Bureau of marketing, 218, 219. Centralization tendencies, 226, 227. College of Agriculture, 213, 215, 221- 224. County agricultural societies, 217. Entomologist, state, 213. Experiment station, 214, 222, 227. Extension work, 217,219,222. Farm advisor, 217. Farm bureau, 223. Farmer’s week, 222. General phases of, 226. Historical survey—primitive period, 211; period of transition, 212; period of rapid growth, 213; period of depression, 214; period of prosperity and rising prices, 216. Institutes, 219,221. Introductory statements, 211. Periods in history of, 211. Smith-Lever Act, 218. Soil survey, 217. Veterinary, state, 214, 219, 221. Voluntary farm organizations, 225. Apiaries, 221. Appropriations, methods of, 82. ttorney-general, general powers of, 15. Auditor, general powers of, 14. Baker, Sam A., 140, 141. Barbers, state board of examiners, 19. Beverage, state inspection department, 20. Blind, state commission of, 21; school of, 25. Boggs, Governor, 45. Brown, Governor, 51. Budget, 83. Capitol, state commission, 23. Carnegie Bulletin, 179ff. Carrington, W. T., 134, 135, 136. Charities, state board of, 21. Civil War, 113. Coleman, W. E., 129,130,163. County superintendent of public schools, organization and powers, 145-149. County unit bill, 140. Davip, E. C., 110. Deaf, school for, 25. Dentists, examining board for, 19, 231,232. Departments of government, 13. Divoll, Superintendent, 123. Dunklin, Governor, 43,44. Education, state board of, 22, 166; advisory board of, 22; general powers, 144,183; see Public Education. Edwards, Governor, 46. Eleemosynary institutions, 25. Elections of state officials, 14. Elliff, J. D., 85. Embalming, state board of, 19. Equalization, state board—organization of, 18; creation of, 50; duties, 67, 68. Evans, Superintendent, 138, 139,185. Fair, state board, 18,215,217,220. Finance, state department of, 19. Financial administration, units of, 31; beginnings of state, 32; under the first constitution, 1820-1865, 33; provisions of the constitution of 1820, 33, 34; general conditions of state in 1820, 37; developments from 1820-1865, 38; machinery —266- (Page 267) of, 42, 43, 60, 61, 62, 63, 77, 78, 79, 80; problems of, 43-48, 53, 71-73; under the second constitu- tion, 1865-1875, 48; provisions in the constitution of 1865, 48, 49; changes in constitution, 1865-1875, 51-52; under the constitution, 1875-1923, 55; provisions of the constitution of 1875, 55-58; financial crisis, 63; present system, 73. Folk, Governor, 63. Food and drug, state commissioner of, 20,234. Fruit experiment station, 17, 224, 227. Fund commissioners, state, 18. Game and fish commissioner, 22. Gass, Howard A., 137, 138, 139. Geology and Mfties, bureau of, 22. Government, cost of, 81; chief ways of supplying needs, 30; development during the territorial period, 29; needs of during territorial period, 29,30. Gardner, Governor, 64ff. Governor, general powers of, 14. Grain and warehouse commissioner, 16. Hawes road law, 253. Health Administration, Chapter VI. Auxiliary- aids to, 244. Board of health, state, 19, 229-231, 235-245; general powers of, 235; organization of, 235. Bureau of licensure, 243. Centralizing tendencies, 245. Child hygiene, 239. Commissioner of health, 243. Drugs, 229,232. Historical survey, 228; period of local control, 228; creation of state board of health, 1883, 229- 231; health laws, from 1883 to 1921, 234-235. Hospitals, 233, 234, 244. Introductory statements, 228. Laboratory, 237. Local health authorities, 243. Medical societies, 228. Preventable diseases, 237-239. Public health nursing, 242. Rural sanitation, 241. Sanitary engineering, 241. Venereal diseases, 240. Vital Statistics, 230, 234, 236. Henry, J. W., 110. Hicks, Frederick C., footnotes, 29-33. Highway Administration, Chapter VII. “Centennial” road law, 1921, 254. Centralization of power, 262. Congressional laws on, 253, 256, 257. County highway board, 253. County highway engineer, 252. Historical survey—the territorial period, 247; period from 1820 to Civil War, 249; period of local administration, 251; period of centralization of administrative power, 252. Introductory statements, 247. Revenue for buiHding roads, 256. Road fund, 252. State highway commission, organization, 254; policy of 259; power, 255; work of as seen through its bureaus, 259-262; State highway engineer, 252. Historical Society, 22. Horticulture, state board of, 17, 224. Hotel inspection, 17,20. Hyde, Governor, 64, 73ff, 81. Industries, state inspector of, 21. Insurance, department of, 23. Jackson, Governor, 46, 47. Judson, F. N., footnotes to chapter on Financial Administration. Kirk, John R., 133,134. Labor, bureau of, 23. Lamkin, Uel W., 139,140,167. Lamm, Judge, 209. Land reclamation, 17. Law, state examining board, 19. Lee, Charles A., 144. Library, public, 160, 184; state commission, 23; state librarian, 23. -267- (Page 268) Lieutenant-governor, general powers of, 15. Lincoln University, regents, 24. Loan office experiment, 37. Local government, municipal, 26; rural, 25. Marketing bureau, 16. Marmaduke, Governor, 46. McCullough-Morgan road law, 253. McNair, Governor, 37. Miller, Governor, 44. Mines, bureau of, 22; state inspector of, 21. Monteith, Superintendent, 124-126. Negroes, state industrial commission for, 21. Nominations of state officials, 13. Nurses, state board of examiners, 20. Oil, state inspector of, 21. Optometry, state board of, 20. Parker, T. A., 119,120. Paroles and pardons, 23. Penal institutions, 25. Pharmacy, state board of, 20,229,232. Phillips, Dean, 162ff. Poultry association, 215, 224. Poultry experiment station, 17, 224, 227. Price, Governor, 44. Printing, state commission for, 24. Public Education, Chapter III. Actual beginnings of a public school system, 95. Administration of, 90, 92, 98, 110, 118, 126, 184. Board of Education, state, 144. Centralizing tendencies, 182-188. Certification of teachers, 155-158. Congressional laws on, 90. Compulsory attendance law, 171,184 Constitutional provisions on 116. Defectives, schools for, 169-171. Development of, 99-106; 110-114; 119-122; 124, 126-141. Financial administration, 89, 90, 93, 96,97,109,118,125,172. First attempts to found a common school system, 1825-1839, 88. High schools, 161-168. Higher Education, 175-178; 178- 182,185. Institutes, teachers, 160. Legislative Acts on, 1825, 88; 1835, 91; 1839, 95; 1853,107; 1866,116; 1868, 119; 1870, 122; 1874, 124. Periods of development, 85. Physical education, 167. Plans for re-organization, 186-188. Private schools, 85. Reorganization and re-establishment of the public schools, 1865-1874, 115. Revenue for, 87, 89, 92, 94, 96, 109, 118,125,172,173,182. School board, 88,92,96,97,117,125. School districts, classification of, 150-155. School lands, 87. School statistics, 174. State aid, 164, 167. Subscription schools, 85. Supervision, County, 107, 108, 145; state, 107,108,145. Teachers Association, state, 175. Teachers Colleges, 178-182. Teachers’ training, 165. Textbooks, 158-160; 183. Unit of school administration, 88, 91,92,96,107,117,124. University of Missouri, 175-178. Viewpoints from which discussed, 85. Vocational education, 166-167. Public Service Commission— Appropriations for, 210. Centralization of power in, 209. Complaints, formal and informal, 193,208. Departments of, 192. Engineering department, 201,202. Fees of, 210. Gas, electric, heating and water department, 204-206. General office, 193. -268- (Page 269) History of, 189,190. Jurisdiction of, 191,192. Legal department, 194-199. Origin and purposes, 190,191. Railroad and warehouse commission, 194,195. Rate department, 199-201. Rulings, 194. Statistics and accounts, department, 202-203. Stock and bond issues, 203, 204. Telephone and telegraph department, 206-208. Value of the Commission, 208-209. Qualifications of state officers, 14. Rates, 195. Rehabilitation work, 167. Revenue, first act, 34-36; first revenue act under the constitution of 1865, 50; purposes used for, 40, 41, 59, - 81, 182; sources of, 30, 32, 38, 39, 59, 63, 64, 73, 131; survey of legislation on, 1875 to 1917, 58. Reynolds, Governor, 44,46. Roach, Cornelius, 65 ff. Secretary of state, general powers of, 14. Shannon, R. D., 127,128. Shoemaker, F. C., 85; footnotes on chapter on Agricultural Administration. Soldiers, bonus commission for, 24; homes for, 25. Stallion registry board, 17,225. Starke, W. B., 112, 113. State superintendent of Schools, general powers of, 14; powers in de¬tail, 141 ff, 183. Stewart, Governor, 47. Tax, property, 74, 75; income, 75; corporation franchise, 76; inheritance, 76. Tax commission, general organization, 18; origin, 65; duties, 65-67. Taxation, assessment and equalization, 67, 69; local, 42, 52; rates, 42, 52, 59,70,71. Teachers Colleges, general information on, 178-182; regents, 24. Treasurer, state, 14. University of Missouri, curators, 24; general information on, 175-178. Veterinarian, examining board for, 16; state, 233. Violette, E. M., 179 ff. Wolfe, Superintendent, 132,133. —269— (Page 270) VITA Eugene Fair: Born near Gilman City, Mo., Oct. 19,1877. Attended a one room rural school; Avalon College, Trenton, Mo., 1895- 96; B. S. D., State Normal School, Kirksville, Mo., 1901; A. B., University of Missouri, 1904. Taught in rural schools; in approved summer schools, summers of 1902 and 1903; History in Township High-School, Murphysboro, Ul., 1904-05. Student, Columbia University, summer of 1905, studying Greek and Roman History under Professor Botsford. Assistant Professor of History, State Normal School, Kirksville, Mo., 1905-08; Instructor in History, University of Missouri, 1908-09; A. M., University of Missouri, 1909. Professor of American History and Government, State Normal School, Kirksville, Mo., 1909-15. Graduate student, Columbia University, 1915-16, working under the direction of Professors Beard, Dunning, Johnson, McBain, Moore, Powell, Sait and Seligman. Taught History in George Peabody College for Teachers, Nashville, Tenn., summer of 1916; made Professor of Political Science, State Teachers College, Kirksville, Mo., 1916, has continued in that position until present time, except while on leave of absence for one semester as Acting Professor of Political Science in the University of Missouri 1918, and as a member of the Lower House of the Missouri General Assembly 1921. Has served in the following capacities: Secretary, Division of History and Government, Missouri State Teachers Association 1912-15; Manager War Savings Certificate Drive for Adair County, Mo., 1918; Chairman, Committee on Education, Lower House, Missouri General Assembly 1921- 22; President, North-east Missouri Teachers Association 1922; Chairman Legislative Committee, Missouri State Teachers Association 1922; Vice President Missouri State Teachers Association 1923. Author of “An Outline of Oriental History,” 1908, “Government and Politics in Missouri,” 1922, and a number of brief articles in bulletins and magazines. —270—