people for this latter purpose and the lamentably inadequate results I have pointed out above.

Reform is necessary before extension.

My fears that the State will eventually find the control and supervision of university extension an enormously expensive undertaking, wrong in principle because it taxes the majority for the benefit of the few, and indefensible as State policy except under the broadest view of public welfare, are based chiefly upon the testimony of those who have been most closely identified with the new movement and upon the tendency of the movement where it has been longest tried. Thus far our State has committed itself merely to the obligation of meeting the expense incurred by the Regents under their granted authority "to co-operate with localities, organizations and associations in this State, where such education shall be desired, and to aid therein by recommending methods therefor, designating suitable persons as instructors, conducting examinations, granting certificates thereupon, and otherwise rendering assistance in such educational work." The statute moreover expressly provides that no part of the appropriation shall be used in paying for the services or expenses of persons designated or appointed as lecturers or instructors, it being the intent of the act that such expenses shall be borne by the localities benefited.

Yet if the State were to stop there the annual expense must be largely in excess of the present appropriation if the movement is to be successful - the tendency of every State commission or bureau being toward an increased expenditure. But will the State stop there? Experience and testimony in England do not give much encouragement of an affirmative answer to this question. Prof. R. G. Moulton, who is a Cambridge University Extension lecturer, and who has been. explaining the movement to audiences in this country, says in

a published address: "We in England have tried, have ransacked every form of contrivance, in order to make the movement pay itself— I mean pay itself out of the fees and tickets of the students who attend the lectures; and we have failed." So general has been this failure in England that dependence has been largely had upon private benevolence and endowment, and now the promoters of the movement are turning to the government for financial assistance. In 1889 a national committee was appointed "for obtaining a grant in aid of university extension." In 1890, the Local Taxation act gave permission to English county councils to apply a certain part of the proceeds of a tax on spirits to technical education under university extension courses, and one county alone has this year appropriated £1,500 for this purpose. Even this indirect government assistance has not satisfied the friends of the movement, however, and in June last, at a meeting attended by many prominent educators and others, it was resolved to petition for a government grant to properly organized local bodies for the conduct of university extension teaching. This direct grant is desired not merely to pay supervisory expenses, but to meet part of the cost of teaching. There seems every possibility that the government in England will soon be bearing the greater part of the expense of this movement.

especially when

The

Is the prospect any better for abstention from seeking a larger share of government aid in this Statethe entering wedge has already been inserted? Clearly it is not the intention of the promoters of university extension in this country to make it "pay itself." American Society for the Extension of University Teaching says: "No great work in education along higher lines has ever been self-sustaining, in the ordinary sense of that term, and the society will be obliged to rely on the public spirit of

all citizens, rich and poor, for funds to carry on the work." A writer in the Popular Science Monthly for November last, after discussing the cost of the movement, says: "The possibility of enlisting Government aid opens a larger question. University extension is a national movement which is intended to reach all classes and to promote the most vital interests of the nation. It has then as large a claim upon the national pocket-book as any interest which the Government can recognize." Even the Regents of the University, in their extension bulletin, invite contributions to the movement, saying: "While the feeling seems to have generally prevailed that the funds of the State, raised by taxation, should not be used for the expenses of local work, however beneficent and in that spirit the legislative appropriation in behalf of university extension was limited to general supervisory uses; still, the cause of public education could be greatly advanced if it were possible to supplement and aid the work with judicious appropriations of money in the poorer and sparsely populated localities."

With such conditions prevailing, further recourse to State assistance would not be unnatural, and I submit the question to your practical judgment whether it is wise for the State to continue to bear this questionable, and in the future, perhaps, awkward responsibility.

EXECUTIONS BY ELECTRICITY.

During the past year and a half there have been several executions of convicts sentenced to death in the State prisons, under the provisions of what is popularly known as the "Electrical Execution" act, passed in 1888. The results of those executions have been regarded by expert witnesses as a satisfactory vindication of the new method of inflicting the death penalty, furnishing, it is said, a speedy and painless death, and

being less revolting in its operation than was the old method of hanging.

There is one feature of the law, however, which is of doubtful constitutionality and of questionable propriety. I refer to that provision which prohibits the newspaper publication of an account of the details of the execution. The exact reading of the law upon this point is as follows:

"No account of the details of any such execution, beyond the statement of the fact that such convict was on the day in question duly executed according to law, at the prison, shall be published in any newspaper. Any person who shall violate or omit to comply with any provision of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."

This provision of law has been generally disregarded by the newspaper press. In my opinion, it was unwisely made a part of the statute. The adoption of so novel a method for inflicting the death penalty as electricity naturally excited worldwide attention and aroused both popular and scientific interest. There was in the beginning some question of its success. The public curiosity to know the actual results of the experiment was intense. It did not spring from morbidity, but from wholesome interest. The feeling was general that so radical and important a departure from existing methods should be carefully studied and the facts relating thereto truthfully stated. There is a popular aversion to secret methods of per: forming public duties.

In response to this.sentiment the newspapers, at the time of the various executions, contained long and graphic accounts of what purported to be accurate descriptions of the details of the executions. If the descriptions were accurate the law was deliberately violated. If they were inaccurate the public was grossly imposed upon. In any case this provision of the law is not sustained by public sentiment and is practically a dead letter.

I therefore recommend its repeal. I have no sympathy with that morbid taste which yearns for revolting details of human suffering and misfortune, and would make heroes out of criminals, but I recognize a legitimate public interest in the adoption and trial of this new method of execution, and I would not shut out from the people the opportunity, under proper restrictions, of securing the most unbiased information regarding its operation.

Other legislation has also been suggested to facilitate the operation of the statute providing for electrical executions. The infliction of death by electricity requires expert supervision and perfect appliances. These, it has been thought, are not always easily attained in the State prisons. Besides, the cost of establishing and maintaining the necessary apparatus in each prison is considerable and should be avoided if practicable. I would respectfully invite your attention, therefore, to the recommendation of the Superintendent of Prisons, that the statute be amended so as to provide for but one plant, in a building especially constructed for the purpose, and containing the necessary rooms and apparatus, under the charge of a competent and trustworthy electrician. My own opinion is that, should it be deemed advisable to adopt this suggestion, the plant should be connected with one of the largest and most accessible prisons, rather than established separately. This would be more practicable and more economical.

THE WORLD'S FAIR.

The Legislature has yet made no provision for the proper representation of the State at the World's Fair in Chicago next year. This should be one of the first acts of your honorable body. The time is growing short for the erection of a suitable building for the exhibition of the State's interests, and if New York is to be represented commensurately with its