his unsupported testimony. Differing totally from our own belief, it creates a desire for the testimony on this matter of successful teachers who have given the institute a fair trial. In this paper not an assertion shall be made, nor an argument advanced, which our own observation has not taught us, our own experience confirmed.

We claim that there is never a time in the professional life of a teacher when it is not his interest as well as his duty to attend the county institute. The possible exception to this might be in the larger cities where the city institute takes its place. In the smaller cities it will not do unless conducted chiefly by foreign talent, for the teacher grows somewhat narrow who teaches long in one place, under one superintendency, with little or no knowledge of any schools beyond those from which she has probably graduated, and in which she has constantly taught. Young teachers should attend institutes to learn methods of teaching, and receive suggestions as to government, from those who really have attained some eminence in the profession upon which they are just entering. If they are attentive and thoughtful, they will learn in one week, what, unaided, they might have taken months to learn. And it may be that years would be required before that power of generalization would be developed which would lead to the valuable theory, drawn from practical work,-which the institute lecturer carefully explains.

The teacher of larger experience should attend the institute, because there is danger of a cooling of his earlier enthusiasm. He needs to rekindle it, and he can do this if he is so fortunate as to meet instructors of the power which it has been my privilege to hear. He is more in danger from ruts than the younger teacher, for the longer one stays in a rut the deeper it becomes. But grant that he is that valuable factor in a school-room, an enthusiastic, experienced, cultivated teacher, he still owes a duty to his county institute. He must go there to aid, to inspire others. We seriously doubt whether one can be possessed of a generous, professional spirit, and not long to do something for other teachers. He is increasing the dignity of his own profession whenever he elevates the individual workers in it. By the free interchange of opinions, by the hearty expression of good will, which a properly managed institute fosters, there must be an action of mind upon mind, of heart upon heart, which has its reflex action in the separate school-rooms of the county.

In my opinion that institute which will attract to it these diverse classes, the unexperienced and the experienced teacher, the teacher of the ungraded and the teacher of the graded school, the primary and the high-school teacher, is the best. Here we may be met

with the objection that in such an institute the instruction cannot be systematic. We believe that the great principles which underlie all education are the same, and that they cannot be too frequently considered. More especial direction as to their application can be made for those whose need of this assistance is greatest. The highschool teacher knowing something of that very interesting department, primary instruction, does his own work better. The primary teacher who gets something of the broadening effect of true high school instruction, has an enlarged vision of education. The teacher of the ungraded school has, often, primary, secondary and high-school work to do, and should, therefore, have a deep interest in all.

I have read with interest and carefully considered the articles suggesting changes in the county institute. Some valuable suggestions have been made; but I am still of the opinion that great good has been accomplished by the institutes conducted according to the old plan of securing foreign talent in the shape of one or two noted educators, and then devoting part of the time to an interchange of opinions and experience among the teachers of the county. It will do more towards bringing together the different classes of teachers than any plan which overlooks the attraction of a leader,—an acknowledged leader,-in educational thought. Superior men and women have done noble work as instructors in our county institutes in Ohio. Perhaps some have received little or no benefit from their instruction.

There have been seeds which have not sprouted, although they have received the blessed sunlight and refreshing showers. But those who have been cheered, warmed, strengthened, aided in mental and spiritual growth, must bear testimony to the value of one source of fruitful influence.

MORAL TRAINING IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

BY E. E. WHITE.

All persons who are well informed respecting the attention given to moral training in our public schools, must be surprised at the assertions often made by those who are interested in church schools. In his address before the National Educational Association at Madison, Monsigneur Capel, the distinguished Catholic prelate, assumed, with charming simplicity, that the training of American public schools is confined to the intellect and the body, and that it ignores the education of the will and the heart. He seemed to be under the impression that it was conceded by American educators that moral training was not a function of the public school, and that the school system of the United States is actually conducted on this fatal error.

It

Nor is Mgr. Capel alone in this view of public school training. is met with in Protestant religious papers, and is even heard in Protestant pulpits. The assumption that intellectual training is the sole function of the public schools is made the basis of many of the appeals for the founding and support of denominational schools.

This erroneous impression doubtless arises from a failure to discriminate between technical, formal religious instruction and moral instruction. When the Rev. Mr. Fraser (now Bishop Fraser), of the British "Schools Inquiry Commission," visited this country and learned that no time was set apart in American schools for teaching the catechism and other technical religious instruction,-so common in the parochial schools of England, he quite naturally inferred that moral training was also neglected, but a wider and closer observation inside of the public schools of the country disclosed the presence of not only moral training, conscientiously given, but moral training vitalized by religious influences and sanctions. This is the conclusion of every wide and fair observer who has seen the inside of the American school.

The writer is somewhat familiar with the schools in several States. He has met many thousands of American teachers in their associations and institutes, and has not only addressed them on the duty of vital moral training, but has listened to much instruction on this topic, and, as a result, he is able to say that, if there be one topic on which American teachers are agreed, it is the duty of the public school to provide effective moral training. He has never heard the proposition disputed that character is more important as a school result than mere intellectual training, and he believes that American teachers, as a class, feel a deep concern respecting the moral results of their labors.

While this is true, it must be conceded that many teachers give too little attention to character-building, and that the practical results of the moral training of the schools generally are not altogether satisfactory. It is unquestionably both desirable and possible to improve our school methods of moral training-a fact most keenly realized by the thousands of conscientious teachers who are faithfully striving to do their full duty.

The unsatisfactory character of the moral training in many schools is due, in part at least, to the fact that not a few teachers have been confused by the wide conflict of opinion on the question of religious instruction in school, and, as a consequence, they are not training their pupils in character in accordance with their better judgment or with their best power. Most of the speakers and writers on this question have failed to make a clear distinction between the effective use of religious influence and sanctions in the training of the conscience and the giving of

technical religious instruction. The absence of the catechism and other formal religious instruction has been assumed to be the absence of religion, and the denial of the right of the public school to give sectarian religious instruction is supposed to necessitate a denial of the right of the teacher to use any religious influence, sanction, or authority in moral training. The confusion of these two very dissimilar views is the source of much of the weakness of school training in morality, but, happily, thousands of Christian teachers have no such confusion in their practice. The great majority of American schools are religious without being sectarian, and it is high time that this distinction were recognized by all advocates of public education.

The truth lies between the two extreme views on this subject-the one asserting that moral training in the public school must be completely divorced from religion, and the other claiming that technical and formal religious instruction must be made the basis of all moral training, and that the absence of such instruction in a school renders its moral training futile and ineffective. There is a practical mean between these two extreme positions, and its universal recognition is very desirable.

What is needed to give efficiency to moral training in school is not formal religious instruction, but religious influence-the enforcing of the authority of the conscience by religious motives and sanctions. When a witness appears in court to give testimony, he is not formally instructed in religious doctrines, but his conscience is quickened and its authority reinforced by an oath that appeals to the Supreme Source of right and the Omniscient Searcher of hearts. A similar use of the sanctions and authority of religion is necessary to quicken the conscience of the young and make it regal in the life. Whatever may be true respecting the necessity of the religious oath in administering justice in a Christian country, it will never be practicable to dispense with religious sanctions and influence in the moral training of youth.

We have little confidence in the efficacy of any system of moral training that may properly be characterized as godless. Every moral code that commands and secures obedience derives its highest and most restraining authority from religion, and this is as true in pagan as in Christian countries. Back of the "Thou must not" of the conscience must be heard the "Thou shalt not" of the Lord. Let right and wrong be made to rest solely on human authority, and the restraining power of the conscience is sadly weakened. Virtue is soon regarded as mere self-restraint, temperance as moral cowardice, and theft as the secret redistribution of wrong accumulations !

What is needed for the effective moral training of the young is not only conscientious and positive instruction in morals, but the making of the conscience regal in conduct by the proper use of the sanctions and authority of religion. To this end a Christian teacher is better than the catechism, and a reverent recognition of Divine authority is better than Scripture exegesis. The wise Christian teacher has no difficulty in finding the practical mean between godless moral training and a sectarian religious instruction.-Indiana School Journal.

MORAL INSTRUCTION.

BY W. R. C.

So much has recently appeared in the newspapers, school journals, and teachers' associations on this subject, that some are led to ask in wonder, Why this flood of papers and speeches on moral instruction in public schools? Why this tendency to magnify the necessity for such instruction, as though there were none at present? Are the children of to-day growing depraved? Are they learning to lie, to swear, to use profane or obscene language? [Far too many of them are.—ED.] Are the schools securing training of the intellect at the expense of the heart? Or can it be that the Catholics have frightened public speakers and writers with the sectarian cry of "godless schools ?" Or is it, after all, only an epidemic of talk that must have its day?

Whatever it may be, whatever its purpose, it has gained so much attention-has so nearly gained for itself the name of a reform in public school work, that public school pupils may soon expect to be flooded with specific directions concerning their outward behavior and inward state, to be daily tortured with school-room platitudes and formal injunctions ready made and served to meet any possible case of juvenile wickedness.

That such results are not desired by the advocates of more moral instruction does not preclude the possibility of them in a great many schools.

Do existing conditions justify the attention given the subject? Have those who urge an increase of such instruction discovered a lack of it on the part of teachers, or a need of it on the part of pupils? This has not been, and I think will hardly be, affirmed even by the most ardent advocates of moral instruction.

Considering that many of the school children come from homes where intemperance, profanity, and other vices are common, it is a