were much used in teaching all of the sciences only a few years ago, but the establishment of chemical and physical laboratories, of botanical and zoological gardens and laboratories, and museums of various kinds indicates a great change in the method of teaching science. Now in every branch of science the student may study nature under competent direction until he is able to direct his own work, and the different branches of science have been striding on much more rapidly than ever before. But geography is still taught largely from books, and by men who know but little of the subject beyond books, and in most cases by those who do not know all or even the best that there is in books. Geography stands at the foot of the list of sciences, not because it belongs there, but because those who have attempted to teach it have in most cases been ignorant of science and of scientific methods. English and American scientific writers complain of the low grade of work done in geography in their respective countries as compared with the work done in other departments, and with the work done in Germany. One writer says, "geography is the most poorly taught subject in the schools." One of the Superintendents of Public Instruction in New York said of his teachers, "To find one who knows anything of the geography of his own, much less of foreign lands, is a rare good fortune indeed." Whence this ignorance, this relatively low grade of geographical work, if not on account of faulty methods? The authorities on geography studied from nature, students in other departments of science study from nature, students in geography can study from nature as students in geology do.

The tendency of an education from books is towards reverence for authority. Science studies have been introduced into the school to counteract this tendency, and to promote the culture of the powers of observation, to stimulate independence of thought. Geography is the only science subject in the common schools except physiology, and they both may and should be taught very lrgely from nature. Louis Agassiz once said, "We study nature from books, and when we meet her face to face she passes by unrecognized." Let me illustrate: One of the most important geographical phenomena in Northern Europe and

America was the glacier. One man examines the remains, evidences and work of the glacier and sees that the drainage, soil, vegetation, and the whole aspect of the country has been determined by the glacier. He sees in imagination nature's great ice plow cutting down the hills, digging river channels and lake. beds, and pulverizing rocks, and spreading out a mantle of soil over the northern parts of Europe and America. Another man who had read and studied about the glacier, had taught about the glacier for years, had been traveling over glacial material all his life, had looked at the same things the other man saw, yet was very much surprised to learn that there was glacial material, and evidence of glacier work in Indiana. He saw but did not recognize. A visitor who had been observing some of this book man's work in geography, asked if it would not help him in his geography work if physics came before geography in the course of study. He answered, No, it would make no difference.

The visitor said afterwards that the man did not know that geography was a branch of physical science, did not know that the principles discussed in physics controlled all the phenomena of the inorganic world and were active in all those of the organic, and that one who had a good working knowledge of physics had solved a majority of the more important principles of geography. Again he saw and did not see, although he quotes Arnold Guyot's books as authority, and has taught geography for years.

A boy does not need to suck all the juice from a lemon to know it is sour, or to eat the whole of a bananna to know it is sweet, or of a watermelon to know it is juicy; neither is it necessary for him to see all sides of either one to get a reasonably correct idea of its form, color and size. So it is not necessary for the student of geography to visit and study every part of the earth. If he study one part, as his own township or county well, he may learn to recognize nature in her varied forms and changing moods, may learn something of the forces that control the multiform phenomena of the geographical world, will be able to construct a truthful general idea of the whole earth, into which can be fitted the details of other parts from written or verbal descriptions.

The learner must understand something of the language of the subject, of the teacher or of the book, if he would be benefited by either. This actual study of nature is necessary to an understanding of the language of nature, of the language of those who write or talk about nature. The writer says "that of the geographical knowledge possessed by the average man is gained by description, not by observation." It is said that a child learns more during its first year, than it learns afterward. This may be an over-statement, but doubtless a child does learn more during the first five or six years of its life, before it can learn from books, than it does afterward—at least it does learn a great multitude of things.

It has gained ideas of geometrical forms, mathematical processes, ideas of direction, of time, of night and day, of the properties of matter, of the forces of attraction and heat, of solids, liquids and gases, of winds and clouds and rain and snow, of the seasons, of soils, and plants and animals and of their relation to each other-every sense has been actively gathering ideas, and there has been much of comparison, analyzing, judging, classifying and generalizing going on along with this inflow of ideas. At the age of five years the child has the data for all the fundamental ideas of geography; the mind is stored with those ideas which enable it to understand the language of the book or of the teacher. When we realize how much the child learns before it can learn from books, and how much it learns without books after it is old enough to learn from books, the writer's assertion seems a little too strong, to say the least.

The writer says "that the activity of the mind in sense perception is the lowest of all its activities.' True, if he means that the products of this activity are the foundation of the whole superstructure of education and culture, but not true if he means that this activity is lowest in any other sense.

Noah Porter says "that sense perception is the essential condition and attendant of man's higher knowledge and beliefs, it excites passions which take the strongest hold on man's nature, and sense perceptions are present in his loftiest speculations and most refined reasonings."

"The highest type of thinking deals with types or generals.' True, but "types or generals" have grown up from the observation and correlation of particulars. The ordinary student of geography must spend most of his time gathering particulars, from which to form his types or generals. He may, parrot like, learn the statement of a type or general, but he must verify it by facts or he will not recognize it when he meets it face to face.

"Objects of sense as materials of thought are heavy to handle, and the mental processes performed on such materials are necessarily hindered, nor do they result in that degree of discipline which the study of the same objects by means of books would bring." What a wonderful discovery? Agassiz and Tyndall studied the glacier, its work and its remains, gathered up all the ideas they could through their senses, compared, classified and arranged these ideas, formed their conclusions, and wrote out the facts and their generalizations in books. These objects of sense were heavy for these men to handle, their mental processes were hindered, were slow and feeble, and the discipline gained was of a low order. But put their books into the hands of a teacher who knows nothing about the subject from actual observation, and into the hands of a class equally ignorant, and they create for themselves objects of thought, which are light to handle, and dealing with these objects their mental processes are stimulated, not hindered, are active and vigorous, and the discipline gained is higher and much superior to that gained by the authors of the books. Poor Agassiz-poor Tyndall-how sad that there were no books for them to study, Perhaps the reputations they achieved, were gained from studying their own books. The writer's assertion seems absurd when we look at a practical illustration.

When an object is carefully examined under competent direction more ideas are gained of it than can be obtained in any other way, and ideas so gained are more accurate and vivid. One would think that the person who had the greatest number of accurate ideas about objects could best compare and classify them, and could make the most valuable generalizations from them. But the writer says no, the best generalizations, etc., are

made from objects of thought created in the mind from the study of books, not from nature.

As a thinker and generalizer, Charles Darwin made a more profound impression on the whole intellectual world than any other man ever made, and no man ever dealt more directly with nature, with objects of sense. In fact the men who have moved the world have not done second-hand work. They went to the fountain head.

The writer dwells on the value of geography as a disciplinary study. The idea may be good in theory, but as geography is taught, it has not impressed the educational world as especially valuable as a means of discipline.

Geography is a scientific subject. It has a department in the English and American Associations for the Advancement of Science. It can be taught as other branches of science are taught. The low grade of work done in geography, the ignorance of geography manifest everywhere, are largely accounted for by the fact that geography is still taught from books, while other branches of science are taught largely from nature. If taught as other sciences are taught, geography might be a valuable introduction to the other sciences, but as taught from books it is comparatively useless in this direction. It does seem a misfortune that mankind learns so little of geography, and that so much of that little is learned from books.

The writer seems to be trying to apologize for those persons who, ignorant of science and scientific methods, attempt to teach a scientific subject in an unscientific way.

TERRE HAUTE, Ind.

THE INDIANA LIBRARY SYSTEM.

HAMILTON S. MCRAE.

THERE was a time after the abolition of the township library tax when there was no law for the levy of a tax, to establish or maintain a public library. Now a school town or a school city may assess one-third of a mill on a dollar for library purposes. This will yield an average, probably, of $500 for each 5000 inhabitants. If the board of school trustees will, as it may, pro