schools, but merely to insure a continuance and an extension of the privileges of citizens of this state, and that the legislature has a right to impose any reasonable regulations upon this privilege which operate equally upon all persons in the same class and under the same conditions."

In People ex rel. New York Inst. for Blind v. Fitch (1897) 154 N. Y. 14, 34, 38 L. R. A. 591, 47 N. E. 983, Judge Martin says this section "manifestly... has no application whatever to the appropriations made by the state for the support and education of the indigent blind who have been inmates of the institution. . That provision relates only to the public or common schools of the state, and has no application to an institution wholly or partly under private control. Again, the provision of the Constitution as to the education of all the children of the state in its common schools is a general one, while the provisions for the education and support of the blind, the deaf and dumb, and juvenile delinquents are special, relating only to the classes enumerated. Therefore, it is obvious that, as to persons belonging to those classes, the special provisions must govern to the exclusion of the general one, and the former must be regarded as exceptions to the latter."

This section requires the legislature to maintain a system of free common schools: "Not that all must be educated in any one school, but that it shall provide or furnish a school or schools where each and all may have the advantages guaranteed by that instrument.” Sustaining an order by the school board of the borough of Queens, providing for separate schools for white and for colored children, the court say they find "nothing in the Constitution which deprived the school board of the proper management of the schools in its charge, or from determining where different classes of pupils should be educated, always providing, however, that the accommodations and facilities were equal for all. Nor is there anything in this provision of the Constitution which prevented the legislature from exercising its discretion as to the best method of educating the different classes of children in the state, whether it relates to separate classes, as determined by nationality, color, or ability, so long as it provides for all alike in the character and extent of the education which it furnishes and the facilities for its acquirement." People ex rel. Cisco v. School Board (1900) 161 N. Y. 598, 48 L. R. A. 113, 56 N. E. 81.

The schools maintained by the Roman Catholic Orphan Asylum

Society of Brooklyn, are not common schools within the meaning of this section, and are not entitled to share in the revenue of the common school fund. "Our common schools are not confined to any class, but are open to all; the trustees have no power to admit or reject pupils arbitrarily; they have no authority to make rules and regulations fixing a standard of admission for members. They are bound to instruct all the children who present themselves, without regard to their social relations, their station in life, or their religious faith. . . . The word 'common,' as applied to our schools, bears the broadest and most comprehensive signification. It is equivalent to public, universal, open to all; for such is their character, subject only to such general statutory regulations as are prescribed by the legislature." People ex rel. Roman Catholic Orphan Asylum Soc. v. Board of Education (1851) 13 Barb. 400.

In People ex rel. Hill v. Crissey (1887) 45 Hun, 19, construing the provision in the Cornell University act (1865, chap. 585, as amended) authorizing the designation of scholars from the public schools to receive free instruction in the university, the court expressed the opinion that, by the term "public schools" "the legislature intended 'common' schools only, and that 'normal' schools were not included."

§ 2. [University.]-The corporation created in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty-four, under the name of The Regents of the University of the State of New York, is hereby continued under the name of The University of the State of New York. It shall be governed, and its corporate powers, which may be increased, modified, or diminished by the legislature, shall be exercised, by not less than nine Regents.

[New.]

After the third volume of this work had been written, and while the notes to the Constitution, intended for the fourth volume, were being prepared, the legislature passed a statute which radically changed the educational This was the act of 1904, chap. 40, policy of the state. providing for a unification of all our educational interests.

In the article on education, in the third volume, I have recounted, more or less fully, the various steps that have been taken in the development of our educational system, and have there described two lines of educational supervision, beginning with the University established in 1784, and followed by the common school system inaugurated in 1795, and which was subsequently discontinued, and finally re-established in 1812. In that article I have considered the subject of dual supervision, and have suggested some reasons why the establishment of a single educational system was not originally practicable. I have quoted from the report of the assembly committee on education in 1835 its plan for a department of public instruction under the immediate charge of a secretary of public instruction, who, besides being superintendent of the common schools, was also to be ex officio chancellor of the University, and hold other ex officio positions. He was to have the right of visitation of all colleges under the supervision of the Regents, and colleges and academies were required to report to him. The general idea embodied in this plan appears in tangible form in the act of 1904. I have also quoted Governor Seward's recommendation in 1839 that a department of education be established, to consist of a superintendent, appointed by the legislature, and a board, to be composed of delegates from subordinate boards of education, to be established in the several counties. I have also noted the act of 1854, creating the office of superintendent of public instruction, and which conferred on that officer the right of visitation of literary institutions under the immediate supervision of the Regents. This statute and subsequent legislation on the same subject seemed to establish the common school department on a permanent basis, and for half a century it has performed the task committed to it with a high degree of efficiency. But during all this time there

has been a growing belief that the best interests of the state would be conserved by uniting the two great educational departments. This opinion was founded chiefly on the situation produced by the statute authorizing, in union schools, the establishment of academic departments with some supervision by the Regents. The large increase in the number of such departments naturally increased the number of instances in which double supervision prevailed, including not only inspections and examinations, but also the double distribution of moneys appropriated for educational purposes.

It is impracticable in this note to review the entire subject of unification which has been such a conspicuous feature of our educational matters for many years; but, as a prelude to the examination of the new unification law, a brief reference to some of the most prominent aspects of recent discussion will probably be found useful in elucidating the policy represented in this law.

In the first place it should be observed that while the University has had a continuous existence since its creation in 1784, its position has not always been clearly defined, and its right to exist has not always been admitted. In the chapter on the Convention of 1867 I have referred to the fact that it was there proposed to abolish the University, and that the proposition provoked serious discussion. The friends of the University prevented the adoption of the abolition proposition, and the Regents continued to do the work assigned to them by the legislature. But while the University escaped destruction by the Convention, its position was still insecure. Thus, in 1886, Governor Hill, in his annual message, recommended the abolition of the University, and the transfer of its educational powers to the department of public instruction. He thought there was no necessity for the official existence of the board of Regents, and expressed

the opinion that all the duties then imposed upon it by law could be performed by other officers and departments. He said the Regents were "generally regarded as a purely ornamental body, and membership a sort of a pleasant retreat for respectable gentlemen of literary tendencies.” The Governor's recommendation was renewed in 1887 and again in his message of 1888, in which he said the object sought was "the unification of the supervision of the educational interests of the state, and the abolition of unnecessary and ornamental offices." In 1889 Governor Hill renewed the recommendation for the abolition of the Regents, but, instead of abolishing this department, the legislature passed an act (chap. 529) to revise and consolidate the laws relating to the University, continuing the Regents substantially with the powers vested in them by the early statutes, with some modification and enlargement; and this law was approved by the Governor. This law and the University law of 1892 would seem to have settled and established the University as a permanent department of our government; but the Regents evidently regarded their situation as still precarious, as appears by the fact that they requested the Convention of 1894 to incorporate in the Constitution a provision perpetuating the Regents. This subject has already been considered in the article on education, and is only referred to here as an incident of the situation which every year made unification more desirable, and which reached its consummation in the act of 1904.

In 1898 the Statutory Revision Commission presented to the legislature a bill to revise all the general educational laws of the state and bring all the departments and educational interests under one statute, to be known as the education law. The bill did not propose direct unification, but it was believed that the law, if enacted, would be a step toward unification by combining all the