committee was read twice, and then, upon Mr. Marsh's motion, referred to
the next Legislature.

In 1834, the bill from the files of the last General Court to establish
the Massachusetts School Fund, and so much of the petition of the
inhabitants of Seekonk as related to the same subject, were referred to
the Committee on Education.

In the month of February, Hon. A. D. Foster, of Worcester, chairman of
the committee, made a report, and submitted a bill which was the basis
of the law of March 31, 1834. The committee were sensible of the
importance of establishing a fund for the encouragement of the common
schools. These institutions were languishing for support, and in a great
degree destitute of the public sympathy. There were no means of
communication between the government and the schools, and in some
sections towns and districts had set themselves resolutely against all
interference by the state. In 1832, an effort was made to ascertain the
amount raised for the support of schools. Returns were received from
only ninety-nine towns, showing an annual average expenditure of one
dollar and ninety-eight cents for each pupil.

The interest in this subject does not seem to have been confined to the
Legislature, nor even to have originated there. The report of the
committee contains an extract from a communication made by Rev. William
C. Woodbridge, then editor of the _American Annals of Education and
Instruction_. His views were adopted by the committee, and they
corresponded with those which have been already quoted. The dangers of a
large fund were presented, and the example of Connecticut, and some
states of the West, where school funds had diminished rather than
increased the public interest in education, was tendered as a warning
against a too liberal appropriation of public money. On the other hand,
Mr. Woodbridge claimed that the establishment of a fund which should
encourage efforts rather than supply all wants, and, without sustaining
the schools, give aid to the people in proportion to their own
contributions, was a measure indispensable to the cause of education. He
also referred to the experience of New Jersey, which had made a general
appropriation to be paid to those towns that should contribute for the
support of their own schools; but, such was the public indifference,
that after many years the money was still in the treasury. Hence it was
inferred that all these measures were ineffectual, and that mere