" When the duties which are imposed upon municipalities are of the latter class, they are generally to be performed by officers who, though deriving their appointment from the corporation itself, through the nomination of some of its executive agents, by a power devolved thereon as a con venient mode of exercising a function of government, are yet the officers, and hence the servants, of the public at large. They have powers and perform duties for the benefit of all the citizens, and are not under the control of the munic ipality which has no benefit in its corporate capacity from the performance thereof. They are not theta the agents or servants of the municipal corporation. but are public officers, agents or servants of the at large,. and the corporation is not responsible for their acts or omissions, nor for the acts or omissions of the subordinates by them appointed. And where a municipal corporation elects or appoints an officer, in obedience to an act of the Legislature, perform a public service, in which the corporation has no private interest and from which it derives no special benefit or advantage in its corporate capacity, such officer can not be regarded as a servant or agent of the municipality, for whose negligence or want of skill it can be held liable. It has appointed or elected him, in pursuance of a duty laid upon It by law, for the nneral welfare of the inhabitants or of the community. He is' the person selected by it as the authority empowered by law to make selections; but when selected and its power exhausted he is not its agent, he is the agent of the public for whom and for whose purposes he was selected." (Max millian v. Mayor, 62 N.Y 164).
Essentially and intrinsically the schools in which are educated and trained the children who are to become the rulers of this commonwealth are matters of State. and not of iction. In such matters, the State is a unit, and the latu the source of power. The authority over schools and school affairs is not necessarily a distriMitive one to be exercised by local instrumentalities; but, on the contrary, it is a central _power residing in the Legislature of the State." (Clark v. faworth. 122 Ind. 465).
" The only function of these trustees is the management of the school and they are officers of the school rather than of the county." (State v. Freeman, 61 Kan. 90).
" The word system as used in the constitution means an organized plan, an institution, something established for the use and benefit of the people so long as the want of public education will continue." (Peay v. Talbot & Bros.. 39 Tex. 346).
The following cases are also cited as having a very direct and vital bearing upon the propo sition: In 1876 James N. Gerard, inspector of schools in the city of New York, was elected to the State senate. His seat in that body was con tested by his opponent, William Laimbeer, upon the ground that the constitution provided that a municipal officer shall not he eligible to elec tion to the legislature. The committee on judi ciary reported adversely to the claim of the peti tioner and on its recommendation the senate adopted the following preamble and resolution: " Whereas, In the judgment of the Senate. an inspector
of common schools in the city of New York is not an officer under the city government within the meaning of the eighth section of the third article of the constitution of this State; therefore, Resolved, That the prayer of the petitioner be denied." (N. Y. Senate Journal, 1876, page 209).
In the late State commissioner of education, Dr. Andrew S. Draper, was a member of the board of education of the city of Albany. He was elected to the assembly. His seat was also contested upon the same ground that the seat of Senator Gerard was contested. The report of the committee on contested seats, which was an exhaustive treatment of the ques tion and to the effect that a member of a board of education was not a municipal officer, was unanimously adopted. (Assembly Journal, 1881, Volume I, pages 716-727).
It is not contended, not even suggested, that the State control and direction of education which is urged in this article means a State monopolyof educational affairs. Such a scheme of education would he repugnant to the whole American idea of education. State direction and control of public education means simply that the State shall clearly assert its duty and obligation to the people and shall guarantee to them full protection in their rights and needs in a matter so vital to their happiness and prosperity. It has been a wise procedure on the part of the States to establish in their State school organizations a local school autonomy. Such action gives to a community the right to provide school facilities which shall not only satisfy the standard prescribed by the State, but to provide even higher standards if the wealth, the commercial needs and prosperity, the social and intellectual attainments, and the sentiment of their people will support them.
The administration of public education on the basis of the State instead of the nation has resulted in great inequality of educational facili ties in the various States of the Union. Some States, because of their wealth and population, are able to provide for the children of such States school facilities which cannot be provided by the sparsely settled and less wealthy States. It is unnecessary to enumerate all of these in equalities, but some are indicated. The school term ranges in the several States from 108 days per year to 194 days per year. In 11 States the period of the school term is less than 140 days. The average number of days which each child attends school ranges from 55 in one State to 134 in another. In 20 of the States the average number of days in the school term is 90 or less, and in 30 of the States it does not exceed 100 days. The expense per capita of the average day's attendance in North Caro lina is $12.31, while it is $86.36 in Montana. The minimum period of compulsory attendance ranges from four months in one State to the full school year in 30 States. It may be said, however, that in several States having a com pulsory attendance law, such law is not en forced. It should be further noted that it has taken one-half a century of hard work to write into the statutes the compulsory attendance laws of the several States.