MINUTES OF THE ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETING OF ACTIVE MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION HELD

IN HUNTINGTON HALL, JULY 9, 1903

The meeting was called to order by President Charles W. Eliot at 12:30 P. M. About two hundred members were present.

The reading of the minutes of the last meeting at Minneapolis, July 8, 1902, was, on motion, omitted, and they were approved as printed in the volume of Proceedings of the Minneapolis convention.

The Treasurer, W. M. Davidson, of Topeka, Kan., presented his annual report, printed copies of which, bearing the certificate of approval of the Board of Trustees, were distributed to the members.

On motion of Charles H. Keyes, of Connecticut, the reading of the report in detail was dispensed with, and the report was approved and ordered printed in the annual volume.

The chairman of the Board of Trustees, A. G. Lane, of Chicago, Ill., presented the seventeenth annual report of that body and distributed printed copies of the same. A brief explanation was made by Chairman Lane regarding the Kansas bonds which were purchased about fifteen years ago. A large proportion of them were reported as paid, and confidence was expressed that most, if not all, of the others will be paid. Attention was called to that part of the report showing that in certain cases payment of either principal or interest was in default. Chairman Lane also reported that the Board of Trustees had authorized him to take legal steps to collect the overdue amounts in all cases where it may be found possible to do so.

On motion of J. M. Greenwood, of Missouri, the report was received and approved, and ordered printed in the annual volume of Proceedings.

The report of the Committee on Nominations was presented by the chairman, L. D. Harvey, of Wisconsin, as follows:

To the Active Members of the National Educational Association:

Your Committee on Nominations met pursuant to call in the official announcement, and beg leave to submit the report of nominations of officers for the year 1903-4, as follows: For

On motion of I. C. McNeill, of Wisconsin, the Secretary was instructed to cast the ballot of the Association for the nominees as reported. The ballot was cast as ordered, and the nominees were declared elected for the ensuing year.

Nicholas Murray Butler, of New York, called attention to by-law No. 4, and moved the adoption of the following resolution :

Resolved, That, subject to the approval of the Executive Committee, as provided by the existing by-law No. 4, the memorial address upon the late President William M. Beardshear, prepared for the meeting of the National Council of Education by President William F. King of Mount Vernon College, Ia., be incorporated in the published Proceedings, despite the fact that the paper itself was not read, President King having been detained by serious illness in his family.

The motion was unanimously carried.

MR. BUTLER then asked permission to offer an amendment to by-law No. 1, and explained the necessity for the proposed amendment as follows:

The by law relating to the appointment of the nominating committee as it now stands is unworkable. [Reads the by-law.] It has been tried for six years. The records show that it has never been complied with, except possibly in one or two cases. The records of the meetings of active members held this year show that the merest handful attended the state meetings; in some cases fewer than 5 per cent. of those present here in Boston. That the by-law has broken down and is incapable of operation is, I think, the judgment of a large majority of the members of the Association from every state who have expressed an opinion upon this subject. The fact that the by-law is unworkable became apparent almost as soon as it was adopted. Each year it has been urged that the time had come to change it, but each year any proposal for a change has been withheld in order to obtain a wider experience. I know that I am stating a fact when I say that at this great meeting only an insignificant minority participated in any way in the action contemplated by the existing by-law. The President of the Association has found that nearly if not quite every certificate sent to him bore upon its face evidences of irregularity. I propose, therefore, that we meet the situation by striking out an impracticable and unworkable by-law, and go back to the condition of things which existed here in this Association for thirtysix years, by which the power to appoint this committee was placed in the hands of the President for the year. He can be held responsible for his action; he is known to all of us; and he is chosen because we know him and deem him worthy of the responsibility. This is the democratic and the effective method of procedure. I ask, therefore, that a two-thirds vote be given, as required by the constitution, for the following amendment to the by-laws, and I offer, Mr. President, a resolution to effect the amendment, as follows: Resolved, That the by-laws of the National Educational Association be amended as follows: Existing by-laws numbered 2, 3, 4, and 5 to be numbered 3, 4, 5, and 6, respectively. For existing by-law numbered 1, the following by-laws numbered 1 and 2 to be substituted:

1. At the first session of each annual meeting of the Association there shall be appointed by the President a committee on resolutions.

2. Not later than the third session of each annual meeting of the Association there shall be appointed by the President a committee on nominations, consisting of one active member from each state and territory represented at the meeting.

I move, sir, the adoption of this resolution, noting at the same time that it requires for its passage a two-thirds vote of those present and voting.

MISS MARGARET A. HALEY, of Illinois: Mr. President, I rise to speak against that resolution and the proposed amendment to the by-laws. I am opposed to the centralizing of power any more than we have already done in the National Educational Association. I believe the proposed amendment would be a backward movement. It is against democracy; it is centralization. It would take away from the active members in each state the small measure of power which they now have and place it in the hands of one who is selected entirely apart from the action or choice of the state members. I am opposed to the proposed amendment on general principles, and I am opposed to it for special reasons. Illinois had III active members present on Tuesday morning at 9 o'clock at the state headquarters at the meeting of active members, and there were some ten or twelve more who came in a few minutes too late to vote. I do not know whether it is because the women of Illinois have awakened to the situation and to their power as shown by the vote cast at that meeting, 74 to 37, that this attempt is made to shut us out, but it looks like it. If you men pass this amendment, you certainly leave yourselves open to that charge, whether right or wrong. Under the present constitution and by-laws you have left an opening for the women. Why do you want to close it? The women pay about nine-tenths of the money in this Association, and they make up a corresponding proportion of the attendance at the convention. If such an important matter as this was intended to be brought before this body, at least one year's notice should have been given. It certainly should not be passed today. It should be postponed for one year, and if next year we cannot secure enough activity on the part of the members to make the present by-law operative, then bring up this amendment. But for myself, I think it is wrong in principle. I believe the proper people to make the selection of members of the nominating committee are the people from each state. If there were only three present at any meeting, you have no right to take away the rights of those three members. Do you think the people would tolerate for a moment the proposal to take away their right to vote at the primary elections because 95 per cent. of the qualified voters stayed at home? Not at all. You men would not do it. I move that the resolution be deferred for one year.

THE PRESIDENT: Miss Haley has made the motion that consideration of the resolutions presented by President Butler be postponed until next year.

CARROLL G. PEARSE, of Nebraska: I regret to see any attempt made in this Association to line up the men and the women on opposite sides of this question. I think this matter should be considered as one of principle, to be decided on its own merit, and not upon a division of the sexes. The by-law which it is now proposed to change was passed in response to what was regarded as essential in the conduct of the affairs of the Association. That by-law has in many instances been inoperative for lack of a quorum; still I believe that it is a useful rule. I should think it extremely unfortunate if this Association should take away from its members the right which they now enjoy of participating in this matter. I move, therefore, as an amendment to Dr. Butler's motion, that by-law No. I be so amended as to provide that a majority of the active members present at the meeting called for the purpose of selecting the member of the nominating committee, if more than three, shall have the right to select the member of the nominating committee. THE PRESIDENT: Does President Butler accept the amendment?

MR. BUTLER: I should prefer the amendment to the existing by-law, but I should prefer my motion to either of them.

THE PRESIDENT: Does that mean that President Butler declines to accept the amendment?

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

S. Y. GILLAN, of Wisconsin: I rise to support Miss Haley's motion. I wish she had made the motion for indefinite postponement, instead of to postpone for one year. To me this seems to be a reappearance of the old spirit of centralization, which was scotched, but not killed, in 1897, when the meeting was held in Milwaukee.

THE PRESIDENT: It is entirely impossible to obtain evidence that the by-law has been conformed to during its existence; it was not conformed to in a single case in the meetings of this week for the election of members of the nominating committee.

MR. GILLAN, of Wisconsin: Why do you give that interpretation? May not that word "attendance" mean attendance at that particular meeting of the active members from that state? It is entirely a matter of interpretation.

THE PRESIDENT: The reading of the by-law is this: "The same to be appointed by the President on the nomination of a majority of the active members in attendance from such state or territory," etc. It is perfectly clear that the by-law expects an action in nomination by the majority of the active members present at the Association meeting, and I found that the expectation had not been realized in a single case this year. Moreover, it is next to impossible, even in a small convention, and it was absolutely impossible in this Boston convention, to ascertain in season what number of active members was in attendance from any particular state or territory. The Secretary could not furnish that information. THOMAS W. BICKNELL, of Rhode Island: The principle of the present by-law is a correct one. Representatives of the various states should have the power to elect the officers called for by this by-law. Of that there can be no question. It seems to me we have reached the point in state and national life where that is recognized. It seems to me that this matter should go over for another year. It has now been brought to our notice. President Butler has very clearly set forth the condition of things, and I have no doubt that that condition will be removed, and, instead of three members being present, I believe the majority of active members from every state will be present hereafter. I hope, therefore, that the motion of Miss Haley will prevail, that action on this matter may be postponed, and that we may be allowed a year for the consideration of the question. JAMES H. CANFIELD, of New York: I simply desire to say that what I have heard here today with regard to centralization and autocracy is just as absurd and as foreign to the spirit of this Association as the talk of deciding this question by a division of the sexes. I very earnestly desire that this matter shall be considered on its merits, and that a motion made here to amend the by-laws shall not immediately bring up someone who will speak about movements that have been "scotched, but not killed," and use language which certainly does not properly apply to the motives, the purpose, or the thought of any member of this Association as I have known it for over twenty years.

EUGENE BOUTON, of Massachusetts: I move an amendment to the motion offered by Dr. Butler so that the by-law shall provide that any number in attendance at this meeting of active members shall constitute a quorum.

MISS HALEY: Mr. President, I wish to accept that amendment in place of my motion. THE PRESIDENT: Miss Haley withdraws her motion to postpone until next year. Does President Butler accept the amendment to his motion made by Mr. Bouton ?

MR. BUTLER: No, sir, I do not. I prefer to have a vote upon my motion. MISS GERTRUDE EDMUND, of Massachusetts: I wish to say that, altho I am a warm admirer of Miss Haley and the work she has done, I do not agree that we have not been fairly treated by the gentlemen of this convention. I want to thank the gentlemen who are present for all that they have done for the women who have shown an interest in the work of the Association.

MR. BUTLER: I trust that the members of the Association will consent to vote upon the pending motion solely from the standpoint of principle and of practical effectiveness,

and not be misled by wholly irrelevant matters. I should not have made any motion whatever had I not been very jealous of the Association's standards of effectiveness and methods of procedure. Nothing would please me more than to see 75 per cent. or 100 per cent. of the active membership of each state present at every meeting and co-operating to elect the member of the nominating committee from that state. But it is absolutely and utterly impracticable. Experience has shown this conclusively. Anyone who will examine the records of this year's state meetings and those of previous years will find that, under the guise of transferring a privilege to active members, this privilege has been transferred to one or two active members in many of the states. This is the very reverse of democratic. It is a concentration of power in a wholly irresponsible group of persons. I saw a certificate last year which was signed by a member of the Association saying that at the meeting the number of active members present was "one," that the meeting nominated for member of the nominating committee "himself," and he signed the certificate as chairman of the meeting. There are several certificates in my hand which show just about the same facts. That is not a proper condition of affairs. My proposition for a change is a purely practical proposition. This is a very large and businesslike association, and why shouldn't it do its business in a businesslike and responsible way? Why let ourselves be confused by an abstract and untrue proposition about "democracy" when we are faced by six years' experience of the most undemocratic action imaginable? During all of this time the President has appointed the nominating committee because of the illegality of the elections themselves or the illegality of almost every record that came to his hands. Therefore I do not see how the situation would be improved by decreasing the number of active members who are obliged to attend in order that this election may be legal, as would be the effect of the proposed amendment to my resolution; nor do I see the use of postponing action upon this question, now that it has been raised. I should prefer to see a direct vote taken in order that this matter may be settled.

THOMAS A. MOTT, of Indiana: To me it seems like a backward step to take away from the members of the several states the power to make the selections for the nominating committee. In my opinion, it is better that three who are interested shall make the nomination than that a by-law should be so carefully constructed that the members in attendance from the several states shall have no voice in this matter. State representation was the thing we fought for in Milwaukee, and I am in favor of voting for it here.

THE PRESIDENT: Before the question is put I will take the liberty of stating to the members just how the by-law has worked this year. I was simply an observer. I wished to conform to this by-law, of course. I immediately found that to be impossible. I found that I was obliged personally to appoint all the members of this nominating committee. If the amendment which is made by Mr. Bouton prevails, the appointing, however, will lie in the hands of whatever small number of persons attend the meetings by states, and the President of the Association will then accept and confirm those nominations. A very small number of persons will, presumably, attend those meetings. I think the active members here present would deceive themselves if they felt that under such a provision the state would really be getting any representation at all. That is the difficulty with the present situation. All of us, I suppose, would desire a real representation of the members by states in the selection of this nominating committee. The present arrangement gives no such real representation by states, and I conceive that Mr. Bouton's amendment will not give that desirable thing. The advantage of the amendment proposed by President Butler is that the nominations will be made by a responsible person, responsible to the Association. He is a person who is in office but a year, and he cannot have any motive for preferring one man to another in the representation on this nominating committee. He is a temporary official himself, immediately replaced after this act. The existing method and the method proposed in the amendment will inevitably result in the delegation of this appointing power to small irresponsible bodies, which I think our political experience has taught us is not a desirable method of nomination. What more