tion should for a few moments speak words of appreciation at such a time as this. It has been my privilege to have a personal acquaintance with Dr. Andrews for thirty-five years. He was one of the few who constituted that inner circle of friends in whom we trust confidently and without question. My last real personal interview with Dr. Andrews was two years ago this summer. We made the trip of the Rocky mountains together. During those days I learned to appreciate him even more than I had before. I regard him as oue of the ablest men that has honored the schools of Ohio. In his breadth and earnestness, he was the peer of any man that has stood prominently in the school work of this State. His heart was in the school system that he had helped to found, though he was so deeply interested in college work.

During the fifteen years that I edited the official journal of this organization, I relied on him for advice when questions of school policy were under discussion, and when statements regarding the course to be pursued should be made with care. It seems to me that this Association owes a very great debt to a man, who, in the midst of cares and studies that were so wearing, was ever ready to be with us, and ever ready to aid us in our work.

If there is any one subject on which American people need wise teachers it is that of our political economy. As I see it, Dr. Andrews has done a service for our institutions and for the development of our American life, in the preparation of that unequaled Manual of the Constitution of the United States. I think it one of the wisest and one of the best manuals I have seen. It must take its place in the future as an authority in our politics. That service will be an honor to Ohio educational history in the future. All of us who know the accuracy of his investigations can put implicit confidence in what he has there so concisely stated. What he has written need not be revised. He looked widely before he spoke. He was not caught by any popular movement. As the years go by, this man will stand higher and higher in our profession.

COL. D. F. DEWOLF:-IfI can add one word which will draw the atttention of the young men in this audience to the character of Dr. Andrews, I shall be satisfied. The idea that I wish to impress on the minds of these teachers is that of his earnest interest in younger men. It has seemed to me whenever I have met him that there has been the interest of an elder brother in whatever subject I have introduced. While I occupied the position of State School Commissioner of Ohio, there were two men to whom I could always present my views for advice, for confirmation, and for strength. One of these men was Dr. Andrews. I never touched upon any point on which he was not well informed. The other was Ruthford B. Hayes. These are two great minds. If any of you younger people ever think that your place is unworthy of you, let me say to you that I do not think either of these great minds regarded any profession as more important than yours.

Dr. Andrews was always endeavoring to instruct those who were about him. I commend to your earnest and thoughtful study anything that he has written. I feel grateful to him for what he has done for me.

DR. R. W. STEVENSON:-I loved Dr. Andrews. I loved him for his character, and especially for his devotion to the school work in which I was engaged with him. There is no young man who enters the profession with the purpose of doing his best, who could not get great help from Dr. Andrews. His sym

pathies ever went out towards the person who wished a friend or desired to succeed in the great work of teaching. No matter what your troubles were, you could pour them out and they would have a sympathetic response in the great heart of Dr. Andrews. He was great intellectually, but he was equally as great in heart. Who was ever with him who could not say as I do now, I sincerely love Dr. Andrews?

DR E. T. TAPPAN :-It is proper, to a certain extent I thing it is a duty that I owe, to say something in this Association about this good man. I feel it to be my duty because, at the time when he delivered the annual address before us, some years ago, some who were present may remember that at the close I intimated that President Andrews had not been fair in a remark he made having reference to another institution in the State of Ohio. No reply was made at the time, but afterwards, as we had a day or so to spend there on the island, we were in conversation upon the subject. I cannot repeat the words that were spoken. They were kindly, as our feelings towards each other were, I am happy to say. What I wish to speak of now was the impression left upon me of his profound truthfulness. It was his anxiety to be accurate that he showed to me. If he had not been quite fair he meant to be, and the result of the conversation left upon me a greater reverence and a greater regard for the man than I think I could have had, but for that conversation.

If there are any young people here who have ever been touched with that philosophy that speaks of morality or truthfulness as if it were based upon some consideration of expediency, I hope they may learn from the character of this man to follow his thought. He regarded truth as holy, as divine, and his regard for it seemed to be a religious duty. If I can further impress upon the minds of those here that grand, noble, Christian character, I have accomplished my hope.

J. J. BURNS:-I cordially sympathize with what has been said by Mr. Stevenson in regard to his great love for Dr. Andrews. In the year 1867, I had the presumption to present myself before the State Board of Examiners for a certificate. In the course of the afternoon, I was admitted to the room where the Doctor was sitting to examine me in Latin. He picked up Cicero's Orations and opened the book at a place where I had not read. I suppose my face must have revealed the fact to him, for he excused himself on some pretense or other and was occupied in another part of the room for some moments. Meanwhile, I was very busily engaged in studying Cicero, and, upon his return, was able to give a fair translation of the passage.

E. A. JONES:-I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without giving expression to my personal indebtedness to Dr. Andrews. When I first became acquainted with the OHIO EDUCATIONAL MONTHLY, nearly half the contributions to that journal, in regard to the common schools, were contributed by his pen. He was deeply interested in the common schools. I have found him to be a man of clear good judgment and strong common sense with reference to matters pertaining to the public schools, and a man who was always willing to help those who came to him for advice in matters pertaining to their school work. His life and character have been to me an inspiration. I trust that his character will be to us all an inspiration to attain the highest possible character qurselves, and to give a helping hand to others.

E. H. WEBB: I have never known Dr. Andrews, but I feel very grateful for the introduction that we have had to him this morning. I have felt, for one, from the beginning of this discussion, that I was becoming drawn to this man, and I am very glad to be permitted to hear these words of praise and appreciation spoken by his personal friends. I have received my best inspiration from these great men.

Dr. S. F. SCOVEL-I very deeply esteemed the subject of these memorial exercises. I began to know Dr. Andrews in connection with his political philosophy. I met him first in connection with the National Reform Association, which has sought earnestly to teach and to uphold a sound political philosophy. Dr. Andrews was the pronounced disciple of that philosophy which bases everything upon the law of God.

REV. E. D. BIERCE-It is very helpful to us to come into communion with one of these grand spirits. I wish to contribute my word to the memory of this good man. He was not a one-sided man. He was a sweet spirited man at home. He was a very lovable man, a man that deeply loved his family. He was a grand, good, Christian man, who loved the Bible and accepted its teachings fully.

The committee, appointed two years ago to report what steps, if any, are necessary to harmonize high school and college courses of study, has no formal report to present; yet what I shall say without the aid of notes, will, I think, fairly represent the views of those for whom I am spokesman.

We have no system of public education in Ohio which, under legal provision, embraces a gradually developed and closely united course of study reaching from the primary school to the highest class of the college or university. True, we have the public school system with its possibility of secondary instruction, and we have three State Universities, so-called; but there has never been any continuity in the instruction for which the State has provided in the creation of these educational agencies.

The wants of the people, in the matter of higher education, have been met chiefly in the denominational schools or colleges, now more than a score in number. These institutions were established with little or no concern about the course of instruction pursued in the public schools. Even the so-called State universities have no close connection, legal or otherwise, with the public school system. In fact, two of them were founded long before there was, in truth, a State system of common schools. The third, now called the Ohio State University, was opened at Columbus about sixteen years ago under the name of "The Ohio Agricultural and Mechanical College." The principal endowment of this institution comes from the Congressional land grant of 1862.

These three institutions have no connection whatever with the public school system and were not designed to have. They, as well as all the denominational colleges of Ohio of which I have knowledge, support preparatory schools to

which admission is very easy. The fact is not well concealed by the college authorities that students from these preparatory schools are admitted to the regular college classes with fewer conditions and more pronounced faculty approval than are the graduates from some of our best public high schools.

The preparatory school may be accepted as a fixed fact in connection with our Ohio colleges. A not inconsiderable part of the financial support of the denominational college is derived from the tuition paid by preparatory school students. Then it sounds well to report a large college attendance even if much of it is fairly to be credited to the preparatory classes.

It can not be truthfully gainsaid that the college faculties are much more interested in the preparatory schools connected with their institutions than they are, or ever will be, in the work of the public high school; yet the appointment of our committee was upon motion of a college professor, seconded by a college president, representing institutions with low-grade preparatory-school

annexes.

It was reported to us that the College Association had a committee that would actively co-operate with our committee in any "harmonizing" process that would bring the high school and college courses into closer affinity with each other. If any action was taken by the college committee, our committee is not aware of it. Report has it that the college committe has been discharged.

The appointment of these committees evidences the fact that there is a want of harmony in the high school and college courses of study which it is desirable to remedy. Let us briefly examine facts that we may see what the difficulty is and how intelligently to obviate it. Most of the public school men who have to do with the preparation of the high school course, in connection with their schools, are college graduates and are also warm advocates of higher education. Gladly would they promote the interest of the higher education by all means not inconsistent with their duty to the local educational interests which they direct. These interests, and the expressed will of those in authority over them, place a limit to concessions which they can make in the interests of the colleges. They direct educational movements the chief object of which is not to prepare young men and women for college. The popular demand for an education, the best for the greatest number they can not ignore-they ought not to ignore.

The high school course of study has not been prepared with much reference to any college course of study; yet the former is now fairly introductory to all the latter should be. It is the outgrowth of experience as to what is best and of a popular demand which is very potential in such matters. Its blemish, if there be one more marked than another, is that it has attempted to provide far too much instruction rather than too little, has pushed its way into realms of study which it should not seek to enter. Experience is now at work correcting the unwise expansion of the high school course.

Were it wise to do so, it is impossible so to adjust the high school course as to make it meet the requirements for admission to the regular college classes as the college courses are now planned. The colleges of Ohio have not uniform courses of study, neither have the high schools; but the differences in either case, so far as representative schools and colleges are concerned, are not vital and need not be further adverted to in this connection.

The average high school graduate has a culture and training beyond those which the average college student carries with him into the freshman class. He

has studied Latin three or four years and has a knowledge of the language that would shame many a sophomore in an Ohio college. In mathematics, he has had a pretty thorough drill in algebra, plane and solid geometry, and plane trigonometry. His training in English grammar and composition is creditable —as much so, in some instances, as that of many college graduates. In English literature, United States history, and general history he is much more than a smatterer. In science, he has an elementary knowledge of at least two of the following named subjects: Physiology, physics, botany, zoology, chemistry and astronomy. Not infrequently he has studied the German language with success under an experienced teacher. His school course has taught him to think and to give fitting expression to his thoughts. He has acquired studious habits, has learned to govern himself and make the most of his time, and has made profitable use of many good books found in the school and city libraries. If, when his high school course is ended, he seeks admission to college he is received with hesitation, is condoled with, possibly, on his misfortune in having gone to high school instead of the college preparatory school, and, after many vexatious and humiliating delays, is sent conditionally to some hybrid class. Here is where harmony is most needed.

Why is the high school graduate "conditioned" when he enters college? Because he has not had the preparation in Greek that the college authorities, clinging tenaciously to the traditions of the past, demand as a sine qua non for regular admission to the freshman class. This is the only point at issue between the high school and the college. Break down this one barrier, held in place by the college faculties for no purpose that can be justly or intelligently defended, and the road from the high school to the college is short and unobstructed.

The high schools thoroughly prepare students for college-and more than do so-in all else save Greek. It is in the power of the college faculty so to adjust the college course as to take Greek from the preparatory school and make it a college study. This plan is highly practicable, and eminently politic in view of all that concerns the college welfare. Classical learning would in no wise suffer by the change; quite the contrary indeed. Surely enough Greek, to satisfy the most hungry student, can be provided in the regular, four-year college course.

It does not meet the case to "condition" high school graduates and send them into the preparatory classes, as is now done in some colleges. The student begins his college career under a cloud in all such cases. The wise and equitable settlement of all difference between the present high school and college in Ohio will be reached when our college friends, whom we are always glad to welcome to our meetings as educational co-workers worthy of honor, re-adjust their curricula so that the study of Greek shall begin with the first collegiate year or freshman class.

DISCUSSION.

H. M. PARKER :-In behalf of some of the colleges, I wish to say that I know one college in northern Ohio that has in the past year made special arrangements for meeting this question: and if any one who is interested in pursuing this question will write to Prof. King, of Oberlin College, he will obtain information on