nected with administration, and perhaps more especially in those relating to salaries, tenure of office, pensions and the like. At the recent meeting President Carroll D. Wright, of Clark College, presented the report of the committee appointed to consider these questions, giving valuable statistics shortly to be published. There are in the United States nearly 600,000 teachers, and it appears not unlikely that the National Educational Association will develop into a trades union representing their interests. The average salary, including the highest paid for supervision and the like, is said to be $300 a year. President Roosevelt, in his address which is printed above, told his audience of 10,000 teachers that they were performing an incalculable service by the very fact that they believed ideals to be worth sacrifice and that they were eager to do non-remunerative work. The speaker prefaced these remarks with the statement that he believed in the movement to secure better remuneration for teachers. The rhetorical effect would have been better if the order of the sentiments had been reversed, for the audience cheered continuously for several minutes the first statement, while they listened to the latter in silence; and we are inclined to think that the teachers are right. The illustrations of men such as John Hay and Mr. Elihu Root, who were stated by the president to have sacrificed their material interests for the nation, can only carry a limited weight, when the teachers reflect on the great wealth acquired by these men, in part, at least, as the result of political affiliations.
The Rev. Dr. Nathan C. Schaeffer, state superintendent of public instruction in Pennsylvania, was elected president of the association, and it is expected that the place of meeting next year will be San Francisco. It is understood that in this case the group that manages the association was defeated; there is naturally a certain amount of politics in such an institution. Some complaints are heard that the association is not sufficiently democratic, and that the present methods of administration will be made permanent by the charter that it was voted to secure from congress. It is inevitable that an association of this character should be managed by a small group who maintain a permanent interest in the work, and it is also probable that one man will be dominant. So far as we are aware, the group in control has acted wisely, and the democratic character of the association is maintained so long as this group can be defeated or a new group placed in power, should this meet the wishes of the majority. The constitution, which it will be extremely difficult to alter if once adopted as a bill passed by congress, lodges the control in a board of directors, which consists of the officers, the past presidents, certain life-directors, who we believe purchased the position for $100, and one member elected from each state. These officers are nominated by a committee containing one representative from each state or territory, elected by the active members of each state. There is, however, at least one state with only two active members, and it does not seem entirely democratic to place such a state against the hundreds of members representing New York or Illinois. Further, if a member is not elected by the state, the appointment is made by the president, and hitherto the constitution of the nominating committee and of the board of directors has been dictated by a small group of men. A more democratic form of government would probably be secured if the active members elected their representatives by ballot, which could be sent through the mail, and if the number of representatives were proportionate to the number of active members in each state.
