^0 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 ^oV^ 
 
 .^" . 
 
 .f 
 
 
 
 
 
^' % / ^'j^id^ % ^"^ ^^^ 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 
 
PHILANTHROPY IN THE HISTORY 
 OF AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION 
 
 By 
 JESSE BRUNDAGE SEARS 
 
 n 
 
 SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT 
 OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE 
 DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 
 IN THE FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY, 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 
 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
 
 1922 
 
 / 
 / 
 / 
 / 
 / 
 

 Gift 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 > 
 
 Page. 
 
 5 Introduction v 
 
 Cj Chapter I. — Development of a theory of philanthropy 1 
 
 The early conception of philanthropy 1 
 
 Place of educational foundation in Turgot's social theory 1 
 
 Place of educational foundations in Adam Smith's free-trade economy- 3 
 
 William von Humbolt's theory 4 
 
 Chalraer's modification of the earlier theories 5 
 
 Mill's opposition to the theories of Turgot and Smith 5 
 
 Mr. Lowe's return to free-trade principles 7 
 
 Hobhouse on " the dead hand " in education 7 
 
 Other English theories 8 
 
 Summary and conclusion 8 
 
 Chapter II. — The colonial period 10 
 
 Influences affecting the beginning of American higher education 10 
 
 Finances of the early colleges 16 
 
 Analysis of the gifts to four of the colonial colleges 19 
 
 The function of philanthropy in the colleges 22 
 
 Function of the State in higher education 25 
 
 Conditional and unconditional gifts 27 
 
 Summary and conclusions 31 
 
 Chapter III. — The early national period, 1776-1865 33 
 
 The period characterized 33 
 
 The number of colleges and how started 33 
 
 The beginnings 35 
 
 How the work was accomplished 86 
 
 Philanthropy in the older colleges 37 
 
 Philanthropy in the colleges founded later 40 
 
 Theological education in this period 43 
 
 Other lines of professional training 44 
 
 Education of women 44 
 
 Philanthropy and the manual-labor colleges 45 
 
 Philanthropy through education societies 47 
 
 Summary and conclusions 51 
 
 Chapter IV.— The late national period, 1865 to 1918 53 
 
 The period characterized 53 
 
 Growth in number of colleges ^ 53 
 
 General survey of educational philanthropy in this period 55 
 
 Status of education among all the objects of philanthropy ^ 59 
 
 Philanthropy in the colleges of this period 67 
 
 Philanthropy through religious education societies 73 
 
 Summary and conclusions 78 
 
 Chapter V. — Great educational foundations 81 
 
 A new philanthropic enterprise 81 
 
 The stated purposes of these foundations 82 
 
 The operations of these foundations 89 
 
 Summary 10] 
 
 III 
 
ly ' CONTENTS. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Chapter VI. — Summary and conclusions 103 
 
 Purpose and plan of the study 103 
 
 The the ry of endowments — 103 
 
 Early experiences in America 104 
 
 The early national period 106 
 
 The late national period lO^ 
 
 Developments bearing upon a theory of endowments 109 
 
 Index ^^'^ 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 This study represents an attempt to trace the influence of philanthropy in 
 the development of higher education in America. Incident to this has been 
 the further question of what has been evolved by vi^ay of a theory of educa- 
 tional endowments, or, broader still, of educational philanthropy. The im- 
 portance of such a study is obvious when we consider the part philanthropy 
 has played in the development of the American college and university. Its 
 importance is equally clear, too, when we view the recent enormous increase 
 in educational philanthropy, and the wide variety of educational enterprises 
 to which philanthropy is giving rise. If we are to avoid the waste that must in- 
 evitably come from bad management of gifts, from wrong dispositions of 
 money over which the future can exercise no control, we must study our 
 already extensive experience and develop a set of guiding principles or a 
 fundamental theory of educational philanthropy. 
 
 It was evident from the outset that any reasonably brief treatment of a 
 subject occupying so large a place in the history of American higher education 
 would present certain difficulties, not only in the selection of facts, but also 
 in the interpretation of the comparatively small amount of first-hand data 
 that could be satisfactorily treated in brief space. 
 
 It has been the writer's purpose carefully to scrutinize the materials pre- 
 sented to see that they were fully representative of one or another important 
 type of philanthropy affecting our higher education ; to see that no type of 
 effort was without representation; to draw only such conclusions as the 
 facts clearly warranted ; and, finally, to present the data in such form as to 
 make them fully available for future use in more intensive studies, if occasion 
 for such should arise. If in these respects the effort has been successful, then it 
 is believed to offer, in broad outline, the history of philanthropy in the de- 
 velopment of American higher institutions of learning. As such it is presented, 
 with the hope that it may add somewhat to the general perspective we now 
 possess for the various features of our institutions for higher training, and 
 to the development of a sound theory of educational philanthropy, as well as 
 witli a full consciousness that there is very much yet to be done before we 
 shall have adequate details concerning any one of the many phases of this 
 problem. 
 
 At the beginning of our experience in this field Europe had formulated no 
 theory of educational endowment or of educational philanthropy, but sub- 
 sequently the subject received treatment in the writings of their social and 
 pelitical philosophers, and also to no less extent by practical statesmen en- 
 gaged in correcting the evils of past mistakes in practice. These ideas have 
 been traced briefly in an Introductory chapter. Following this, it has been 
 my purpose to describe our own practice from the begtnning to the present 
 time, and to make such generalizations as the facts seemed to warrant. Two 
 types of data have been studied: First, the foundation documents, such as 
 
VI INTRODUCTION. 
 
 charters, articles of incorporation, constitutions, by-laws, deeds of trust, wills, 
 and conditions controlling gifts on tlie one hand; and, second, the statistics 
 of gifts on the other. To add to the value of bare description, the comparative 
 method has been utilized wherever it was possible. 
 
 The writer is indebted to numerous librarians and education boards for 
 special courtesies, and especially to Dr. Paul Monroe, not only for having sug- 
 gested this problem, but also for Imiwrtant suggestions concerning the method 
 of its treatment. 
 
 The original study of which this bulletin is a condensation is on file at 
 Teachers College, Columbia University, where it was presented in April, 1919, 
 in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of doctor of philosophy. 
 
 J. B. Seaks. 
 
 Stanford University, Calif., 
 April 20, 1919. 
 
PHILANTHROPY IN THE HISTORY OF AMERICAN 
 HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 Chapter I. 
 
 DEVELOPMENT OF A THEORY OF 
 PHILANTHROPY. 
 
 THE EARLY CONCEPTION OF PHILANTHROPY. 
 
 So long as charity remained intimately associated with the church it is not 
 strange that the work it was doing should never have been called in question. 
 The term " charity " meant Christian virtue, and its economic significance 
 was wholly overlooked. In praising a man's good intentions it was not thought 
 important that society should hold him responsible for having wisdom in ex- 
 pressing them. 
 
 PLACE OF EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATIONS IN TURGOT's SOCIAL THEORY. 
 
 It is left, therefore, to the economist to look critically into the problem so 
 long ignored by superstition, religion, and sentimentalism. It is interesting 
 to note that it was in an age when all social life was being carefully scruti- 
 nized that Turgot published his unsigned article " Foundations," in the 
 Encyclopedia, in 1757. It is at this point that a real halt is called, and phi- 
 lanthropy becomes a problem for the intellect. 
 
 All peoples and ages have regarded active benevolence as an important 
 virtue, and to such acts the severest economist offers no protest. But the bald 
 unwisdom evident in the presumption that man is competent to judge what is 
 good for all the future is what drew from Turgot this classic criticism, which 
 John Morley says is " the most masterly discussion we possess of the advan- 
 tages and disadvantages of endowments." ^ 
 
 The native instinct which underlies man's desire to relieve his brother in 
 distress makes no distinction between present and future good; nor does it 
 discover that good is a relative term. Consequently, it is not strange that 
 much evil is done where only good is intended. But add to this native impulse 
 the best wisdom of our day and yet we can not say what will be the need of 
 another generation; and if we could, and were large-hearted enough to endow 
 that need, we would not be able to guarantee that our successors, in whose 
 
 1 John Morley : Dideiot and the Encyclopaedists, p. 191, 
 
2 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 hands we place the right, would execute with the same enthusiasm with which 
 we have founded. Business, but not enthusiasm, may be handed down. 
 
 It is because the history of European endowments was written so plainly 
 in these terms across the faces of the church, the hospital, and the school, 
 that Turgot was lead to inquire into the general utility of foundations, with a 
 view to demonstrating their impropriety. He does not approach the subject 
 in a purely abstract way, though he had a well-defined social theory which 
 later received a clear statement in his " Reflexions sur la Formation et la 
 Distribution des Richesses," since for every principle set forth he appeals to 
 history for its .iustification. 
 
 Turgot sees so little good accomplished by endowments that he is led to 
 say : " Un fondateur est un homme qui veut eterniser I'eifet de ses volonte." " 
 His motive may be good, but results prove his lack of wisdom. After citing 
 cases which are convincing, he concludes : " Je ne craindrai point de dire que, 
 si Ton comparait les advantages et les inconvenients de toutes les fondations 
 qui existent aujourd'hui en Europe, il n'y en aurait peut-etre pas une qui 
 soutint I'examen d' une politique §clair§." ' Granting that at its ponception the 
 object is a real utility, there is yet the impossibility of its future execution 
 to be reckoned with, because the enthusiasm of the founder caijnot be trans- 
 mitted. If even this, however, were overcome, it would still ^ot be long till 
 time would sweep away the utility, for society has not always the same needs. 
 
 Thus Turgot pointed out the difficulties and the consequent evils inherently 
 connected with the establishment of perpetuities. If we suggest the idea of a 
 periodical revision, which is done by later thinkers, Turgot quickly points to 
 history and shows how long periods usually elapse after a foundation has 
 become useless before its uselessness is detected ; that those closely acquainted 
 with such a charity are so accustomed to its workuig as not to be struck by 
 its defects and that those not acquainted have little chance of obseiwing its 
 weakness. Then there is the difficulty of determining the proper character 
 and extent of the modifications, to say nothing of enforcing its adoption against 
 the opposition of the vested interests. 
 
 The author distinguishes two kinds of social needs which are intended to be 
 fulfilled by foundations : One, " appartiennent 3, la societe entiere, et ne seront 
 que le resultant des interets de chacune de ses parties: tels sont les besoins 
 generaux de 1' humanite, la nourriture pour tons les hommes, les bonnes moeurs 
 et r §ducation des enfants, pour toutes les families ; et cet intergt est plus 
 ou moins pressant pour les differents besoins ; car un homme sent plus vivement 
 le besoin de la nourriture que 1' interet qu'il a de donner k ses enfants une 
 bonne education." * This need, he says, can not be fulfilled by a foundation or 
 any sort of gratuitous means, for the general good must result from the efforts 
 of each individual in behalf of his own interests. It is the business of the 
 state to destroy obstacles which impede man in his industry or in the enjoy- 
 ment of its fruits. Similarly, he insists that every family owes to its chil- 
 dreh an education, and that only through these individual efforts can the 
 general perfection of education arise. If interest in education is lacking, he 
 would arouse it by means of a system of prizes given on merit. 
 
 The second class of public needs he would propose to meet by foundations 
 he has classed as accidental, limited in place and time, having less to do with 
 a general system of administration, and that may demand particular relief, such, 
 for instance, as the support of some old men, the hardship of a scarcity, or an 
 
 2 Turgot-Oeuvres, Vol. I, p. 300. 
 "Ibid., p. 301. 
 Mtid., p. 305. 
 
DEVELOPMENT OF A THEORY OF PHILANTHEOPY. 3 
 
 epidemic, etc. For the amelioration of such needs he would employ the public 
 revenues of the community, some contribution of all its members, and volun- 
 tary subscriptions from generous citizens. This scheme he declares to be not 
 only efficient but impossible of abuse, for the moment funds are diverted from 
 their proper use their source will at once dry up. This puts no money into 
 luxury or useless buildings, it would withdraw no funds from general circu- 
 lation, and place no land in idle hands. He points to the success of such asso- 
 ciations in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and thus supports his theory with 
 reference to present practice. 
 
 By these lines of thought he justifies the proposition that government has 
 a right to dispose of old foundations. " L'utilit6 publique est la loi suprgm," * 
 he says, and adds that a superstitious regard for the intention of the founder 
 ought not to nullify it. 
 
 These are the principles, not deduced from an imaginary law of nature alone, 
 but carefully supported and justified at each point by the clear facts of history. 
 All foundations are condemned by Turgot as worse than useless and his laissez 
 faire doctrine would forbid the establishment of others. This was a bold 
 doctrine to preach in the middle of the eighteenth century, but its impress was 
 felt throughout Europe, and it is only a few decades till another member of the 
 same school of economists lends support to these views. 
 
 PLACE OF EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATIONS IN ADAM SMITH'S FEEE-TKADE ECONOMY. 
 
 Adam Smith's " Wealth of Nations," first published in 177G, tends to substan- 
 tiate all Turgot had taught and to show that it applies particularly to educa- 
 tional endowments. In discussing the natural inequalities of labor and stock, 
 he insists that where there is " perfect liberty " all advantages and disad- 
 vantages tend to equality." And in the following chapter on political inequali- 
 ties of wages and profit he points out three ways in which political interference 
 with " perfect liberty " has produced great and important inequalities. " First, 
 by restraining the competition in some employments to a smaller number than 
 would otherwise be disposed to enter into them ; secondly, by increasing it in 
 others beyond what it naturally would be ; and thirdly, by obstructing the free 
 circulation of labor and stock, both from employment to employment and from 
 ph^ce to place." ' 
 
 In support of the second he shows how public money, " and sometimes the 
 piety of private founders," * have drawn many people into the profession of the 
 clergy, thereby increasing competition to the point of making the salaries very 
 low. Exactly the same thing, he says, has happened to men of letters and to 
 teachers, and when contrasted with the time of Isocrates, " before any charities 
 of this kind had been established for the education of indigent people to the 
 learned professions," " the ill effect upon the teacher's income is evident enough. 
 
 There is yet another phase of the subject which is touched upon in Smith's 
 discussion of the expense of the institutions for the education of the youth. 
 Referring to the many endowed schools throughout Europe, he asks : 
 
 Have those public endowments contributed in general to promote the end of 
 their institution? Have they contributed to encourage the diligence and to 
 improve the abilities of the teachers? Have they directed the course of educa- 
 tion toward objects more useful, both to the individual and to the public, than 
 those to which it would naturally have gone of its own accord? '" 
 
 E Turgot-Oeuvres, Vol. I, p. .308. 
 
 « Smith, Adam : Wealth of Nations, Bk. I, Ch. X, p. 101, 
 
 'Ibid., p. 121. 
 
 « Ibid., p. 131. 
 
 •Ibid., p. 134. 
 
 i» Ibid., p. 249. 
 
4 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 He then states as a universal principle that the exertion of most people in a 
 profession is proportional to the necessity they are under of making that ex- 
 ertion. He believes that the endowments of schools have diminished the neces- 
 sity of application in the teachers, and shows how the older and richer colleges 
 have clung longest to a useless and worn-out curriculum, while the poorer 
 universities, dependent upon their popularity for much of their income, intro- 
 duced the modern subjects much earlier." He says : 
 
 Were there no public institutions for education, no systems, no sciences 
 would be taught for which there was not some demand, or which the circum- 
 stances of the times did not render it either necessary or convenient, or at least 
 fashionable, to learn." 
 
 This extreme application of the principle of free trade is modified only 
 cslightly by Smith to meet the inequality of opportunity brought about in a 
 complex society where division of labor has been carried to great length. While 
 he states that in most cases the state of society places the greater number of 
 individuals in such situations as form in them almost all the abilities and 
 virtues which that state requires, yet there are cases in which this is not 
 true. 
 
 The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of 
 which the effects, too, are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, 
 has no occasion to exert his understanding or to exercise his invention in finding 
 out expedients for removing diflSculties which never occur. He naturally loses, 
 therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and igno- 
 rant as it is possible for a human creature to become." 
 
 Thus Smith would have the state intervene in behalf of the great labor popu- 
 lation, whose intellectual tendency must inevitably be in this direction. 
 
 This brief presentation of Smith's attitude toward perpetuities shows how 
 his principles of social organization exclude them ; and, like Turgot's, his 
 theory is constructed in the presence of existing facts. The sum of the con- 
 tribution is little more than a specific application of Turgot's arguments to 
 educational foundations. 
 
 If the social theory undei'lying the objections to endowments made by these 
 two men is sound, surely the facts they have cited would warrant their con- 
 clusion that endowments are evil because they interfere with the real laws 
 of human progress. Certainly the evidence they cite makes clear the difficul- 
 ties attending their establishment. 
 
 Is a laissez faire policy a sound basis for social organization, and can these 
 evil practices be overcome? These are problems for their successors. 
 
 wiizLiAM VON Humboldt's theory. 
 
 William von Humboldt wrote, in 1791 : " Ueberhaupt soil die Erziehung nur, 
 ohne Riiksicht auf bestimmte, den Menschen zu ertheilende biirgerliche Formen, 
 Menschen bilden ; so bedarf es des Staats nicht." " Thus he not only accepts 
 the system of free exchange laid down by Turgot and Smith, but excludes the 
 possible modification which Turgot implies under the head of " accidental " 
 social needs, and which Smith makes to correct the slight disadvantage to 
 which some are placed by the effects of the extreme division of labor. " Unter 
 freren Menschen gewunen alle Gewerbe bessren Fortgang; bliihen alle Kiinste 
 schoner auf; erweitem sich alle Wissenschaften," says William von Humboldt, 
 
 "This argument is quite obviously beside the mark in America. 
 >2 Smith, Adam : Wealth of Nations, Bk. V, Ch. I, p. 266. 
 "Ibid., p. 267. 
 " Wllhelm von Humboldt, Werke, Vol. VII, p. 57. 
 
DEVELOPMENT OF A THEORY OF PHILANTHROPY. 5 
 
 and again, " Bei freuen Menschen entsteht Naclieiferung, und es bilden sich 
 bessere Erzieher wo ihr Schiksal von dem Erfolg ihrer Arbeiten, als wo es 
 von der Beforderung abhangt, die sie vom Staate zu erwarten haben." 
 
 Here we find a leading German statesman insisting upon these social and 
 economic principles in matters of education. Surely he did not foresee the 
 future development of schools in Germany, where the State has been responsible 
 for practically all educational work. 
 
 While our purpose here is not to write, or even to sketch, the history of 
 economic theory, yet it is interesting to note that the objections soon to be 
 raised against a wholesale condemnation of educational endowments are focused 
 upon the economic doctrine of the physiocrats, and fit in as early steps in the 
 historical decline of the laissez faire economy. 
 
 Chalmers's modification of the earlier theories. 
 
 Dr. Thomas Chalmers, an early nineteenth century economist, interested in 
 the practical problem of handling the poor, accepts the idea of free exchange 
 to the extent of condemning the state endowment of pauperism but urges that 
 an endowment for the relief of indigence is not to be compared with one whose 
 object is the support of literary or Christian instruction. For education, 
 though it is a real want, is not a felt want. He says : 
 
 The two cases, so far from being at all alike in principles, stand in direct and 
 diametric opposition to each other. We desiderate the latter endowment 
 because of the languor of the intellectual or spiritual appetency ; in so much 
 that men, left to themselves, seldom or never originate a movement toward 
 learning. We deprecate the former endowment because, in the strength of 
 the physical appetency, we have the surest guarantee that men will do their 
 uttermost for good ; and a public charity having this for its object by lessening 
 the industry and forethought that would have been otherwise put forth in the 
 cause, both adds to the wants and detracts from the real work and virtue of 
 the species. And, besides, there is no such strength of compassion for the 
 sufferings of the moral or spiritual that there is for the physical destitution. 
 An endowment for education may be necessary to supplement the one, while 
 an endowment for charity may do the greatest moral and economic mischief 
 by superseding the other. Relatives and neighbors could bear to see a man 
 ignorant or even vicious. They could not bear to see him starve.'" 
 
 Thus an important modification of the above social theory is proposed. 
 Whether the practical philanthropist has since shown such discrimination or 
 not, the principle involved in the criticism was important. Shall the provision 
 for education be dependent upon the mere demand of the market, or shall this 
 important but " unfelt " need be stimulated by some kind of endowment? 
 
 mill's OPPOSITION TO THE THEORIES OF TURCOT AND SMITH. 
 
 In February, 1833, John Stuart Mill published an article in the Jurist" in 
 which he declared ignorance and want of culture to be the sources of all social 
 evil, and adds that they can not be met by political checks." He says : 
 
 There is also an unfortunate peculiarity attending these evils. Of all 
 calamities, they are those of which the persons suffering from them are apt 
 to be least aware. Of their bodily wants and ailments, mankind are generally 
 conscious ; but the wants of the mind, the want of being wiser and better, is, 
 in the far greater number of cases, unfelt ; some of its disastrous consequences 
 are felt, but are ascribed to any imaginable cause except the true one." 
 
 15 Quoted by Thos. Mackay in " The State and Charity," p. 36. 
 
 »* Later published in " Dissertations and Discussions," Vol. I, pp. 28-68. 
 
 1' Mill, J. S. : " Dissertations and Discussions," Vol. I, p. 54. 
 
 IS Ibid., pp. 54, 55. 
 
6 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 In answer to the question as to what m'en have depended upon and must 
 depend upon for the removal of their ignorance and defects of culture, he says, 
 " mainly on the unremitting exertions of the more instructed and cultivated," 
 which, he adds, is a wide field of usefulness open for foundations. He com- 
 bats Smith's argument that such foundations are but premiums on idleness 
 and insufficiency merely by saying that such is the case only when it is nobody's 
 business to see that the trust is duly executed. 
 
 To show further how the idea of endowments fits into Mill's general social 
 philosophy, note what he says in his essay " On Liberty," written in 1858 : 
 
 With regard to the merely contingent, or, as it may be called, constructive 
 injury which a person causes to society, by conduct which neither violates any 
 specific duty to the public, nor occasions perceptible hurt to any assignable 
 individual except himself, the inconvenience is one which society can afford 
 to bear, for the sake of the greater good of human freedom." 
 
 Individual freedom is as carefully guarded as by Turgot or Smith, but the 
 implication that it is best preserved by a complete system of free exchange is 
 carefully avoided. 
 
 Mill does not believe that in a government where majority rule predominates 
 the ideas of the minority should be lost. In his essay on " Endowments," pub- 
 lished in the Fortnightly Review, April 1, 1869, he says : 
 
 There is good reason against allowing them to do this (make bequests) in 
 favor of an unborn individual whom they can not know, or a public purpose 
 beyond the probable limits of human foresight. But within those limits, the 
 more scope that is given to varieties of human individuality the better. 
 
 And, 
 
 Since trial alone can decide whether any particular experiment is successful, 
 latitude should be given for carrying on the experiment until the trial is com- 
 plete.'" 
 
 His contention is, then, not only that foundations should be permitted, but 
 that over a reasonable period of time the exact wishes of the founder should 
 be strictly adhered to. His defense, later in the essay, of a foundation just 
 then being severely criticized by the press shows the great social import which 
 he attaches to the preservation of an unusual idea of an unusual person. After 
 a complete trial of the experiment has been effected, the obligation of society 
 to the founder has been discharged, and the value of the gift to society can be 
 indicated. 
 
 The explanation of this relationship is the first object of the essay of 1833, 
 the second being a discussion of the spirit in which and the reservations with 
 which the legislature should proceed to accept and modify the original plan 
 and object of the foundation. In brief, he regards the endowment as public 
 property after about fifty years from the date of its establishment, and in every 
 sense subject to the will of society, even to changing the purpose of the gift, 
 if necessary, to meet the changes of succeeding ages. 
 
 Mill's economic justification of man's right to establish endowments is quite 
 as interesting as his social justification. He says that it is due not to the 
 children but to the parents that they should have the power of bestowing their 
 wealth according to their own preference and judgment, for — 
 
 Bequest is one of the attributes of property ; the ownership of a thing can 
 not be looked upon as complete without the power of bestowing it, at death or 
 
 ^» Mill, J. S. : " On Liberty," published in the Harvard Classics, p. 289. 
 
 2» Mill, J. S. : " Endowments," Fort. Rev., vol. 5, p. 380. See also essay on " The 
 Right and Wrong of State Interference with Corporate and Church Property," in " Disser- 
 tations and Discussions," p. 32, 
 
DEVELOPMENT OF A THEOKY OF PHILAlSTTHROPt'. 7 
 
 during life, at the owner's pleasure ; and all the reasons which recommend that 
 private property should exist recommend pro tanto extension of it." 
 
 This is no small modification of the theories of Turgot and Smith, and is a 
 definite stand taken by Mill in respect not only to a philosophical but to an 
 important practical issue then before the English public. And only a few 
 years before his death he wrote in his autobiography " that the position he 
 had taken in 1833 was as clear as he could now make it. Indeed, this very 
 principle of Mill's was in 1853 embodied in the legislative enactment carried 
 through by Lord Brougham and others. 
 
 MR. Lowe's return to free trade principles. 
 
 Mill's position, however, was too conservative, and too considerate of the 
 numerous abuses of endowments then so well known to everyone, and drew 
 forth sharp criticisms.^ In condemning the report of the commissioners ap- 
 pointed to inquire into middle-class education, whose procedure had been 
 generally in line with the ideas of Mill and Chalmers, Mr. Lowe'* (later Lord 
 Sherbrooke) calls for a return to the ordinary rules of political economy. He 
 would class teaching as a trade, and keep it in the quickening atmosphere of 
 free exchange. This return to the notion that failure of endowments is due 
 not to founder worship, as Mill would say, but to the principle of endowment, 
 shows the influence of the free-trade economy. 
 
 In practice at this time the cry is not that all foundations be used to pay 
 the national debt, and so place education where Mr. Lowe would ask, but 
 rather how can the terrible waste of funds be checked, or, what system of con- 
 trol can the State legitimately exercise? We have Mill's suggestion that 
 society will progress most rapidly vi^hen it gives wide range to social and educa- 
 tional experimentation, and that this is done best, not by the State through 
 a commission, which would tend to force all endowments into a uniform mold, 
 but by legal enforcement of the exact conditions of the foundation till the 
 merits of the experiment become evident. 
 
 HOBHOUSE ON " THE DEAD HAND " IN EDUCATION. 
 
 During the period 1868 to 1879 Sir Arthur Hobhouse delivered a series of 
 addresses, afterwards published as " The Dead Hand," ^^ in which he accepts, 
 with Mill, both the principle of endowed education and the idea that every 
 such bequest should be made to serve the present. The question of method, 
 however, is a point on which he takes issue with Mill. He can not see that the 
 term " property " implies power of posthumous disposition. Tried by history, 
 he says, " the further back we trace any system of laws, the smaller we find 
 the power of posthumous disposition to be." "^ Furthermore, he insists that 
 250 years of English experience does not reveal one useful educational experi- 
 ment resulting from such foundations as Mr. Mill regards important in the 
 development of new ideas and lines of social and educational practice." 
 
 21 Mill, J. S. : " Political Economy," Vol. I, p. 287. 
 
 22 Autobiography, p. 182. 
 
 2» See Report of Schools Inquiry Commission of 1868. 
 
 2* See his Middle Class Education, Endowment or " Free Trade." 
 
 25 London, 1880. 
 
 2« Hobhouse, Sir A. : " The Dead Hand," p. 14. 
 
 2^ Ibid., p. 94. 
 
8 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 This attitude is further emphasized by Sir Joshua Fitcli, whose practical 
 contact with English educational endowments gives weight to his words when 
 he says : 
 
 One uniform purpose is manifest in the testaments, the deeds of gift and the 
 early statutes by which the character of these schools was intended to be 
 shaped. It is to encourage the pursuit of a liberal education founded on the 
 ancient languages.'" 
 
 Further, in his analysis of the motives which have prompted bequests to public 
 uses, Hobhouse does not find justification for Mill's position. In the list of 
 motives which he finds underlying the foundations in England are: Love 
 of power and certain cognate passions, ostentatiousness, vanity, superstition, 
 patriotism to a slight extent, and spite.'^ While this list might not fit individual 
 cases, he insists that it is true for the mass. 
 
 Mill thinks that the public does not know its own needs fully, because it is 
 only the ma.iority speaking. Hobhouse regards the public as an individual 
 competent to judge its needs and naturally endowed with the right to express 
 them ; hence he would lay down two principles upon which all foundations must 
 be established : First, " If the public is chosen as legatee, the legacy shall be, 
 as it ought to be, an unconditional one" ; '" and, second, " there shall always be a 
 living and reasonable owner of property, to manage it according to the wants 
 of mankind." ^^ The excuse for such a title to his book here becomes evident. 
 He can not see that the living have need for the continual advice and control of 
 the dead. 
 
 OTHER ENGLISH THEORIES. 
 
 As interest in education grew in England, respect for perpetual trusts de- 
 creased. The act of 1853 above referred to, giving a commission power only to 
 inquire into and report the condition of charitable foundations, was later revised 
 giving the commission greater power. And finally, in 1869, one year after the 
 report of the School Inquiry Commission, we have the " Endowed schools act," "" 
 giving the commissioners power to " render any educational endowment most 
 conducive to the advancement of the education of boys and girls," '^ etc. This 
 act was somewhat strengthened by revision in 1873 and again in 1874.'* 
 
 During the last half of the nineteenth century there was wide discussion of 
 the practical problem in England, but little of theoretical value was added. Sir 
 Joshua Fiteh, in an address at Pennsylvania University,'^' lays down two prin- 
 ciples : First, an endowment's only right to exist is its benefit to the community ; 
 and, second, the State is the supreme trustee of all endowments. Thomas Hare, 
 in 1869,'^ regards all property as either public or private. An endowment, being 
 public property, is subject to the public will. Before the Social Science Asso- 
 ciation,^ he accepts Mill's notion of endowments as valuable social and educa- 
 tional experiments, and insists only upon the State's right of supervision. 
 
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION. 
 
 Many other writers have added bits of practical wisdom, but the results of 
 more than a hundred years of theorizing may be briefiy summed up as follows : 
 
 28 Fitch, Joshua : " Educational Aims and Methods," p. 191. 
 
 29 Hobhouse, Sir A. : " The Dead Hand," p. 15 ff. 
 
 '" Fitch, Joshua : " Educational Alms and Methods," p. 120. 
 
 "Ibid., p. 121. 
 
 «2 See 32 and 33 Vict., C. 56. 
 
 33 Title: "The Endowed Schools Act, 1869" (32 and 33 Vict., C. 56). 
 
 ^ 36 and 87 Vict., C. 87, and 37 and 38 Vict., C. 87. 
 
 88 Published in " Educational Aims and Methods." 
 
 so Fortnightly Rev., 5, 284-297. 
 
 « Trans. Soc. Sc. Assoc, 1869, p. 132. 
 
DEVELOPMENT OF A THEORY OF PHILANTHROPY. 9 
 
 There is perhaps no universally acceptable theory of educational eiidowmejnfcs 
 yet worked out ; the early free-trade economy has been tempered by substantially 
 removing education from its scope ; the experimental value of the endowed school 
 is accepted on the ground that social progress is dependent quite as much upon 
 the ideas and interests of the minority as upon those of the majority, and that 
 with wide variation in educational endeavor, opportunity for wise selection is 
 increased ; that endowments are public property, since they are given to public 
 service, and should therefore be subject to such public supervision as will pre- 
 vent their being wasted or becoming socially obnoxious. 
 
 Recalling Turgot's position, we can see that his statement of the meaning and 
 function of foundations is yet a fairly acceptable presentation of the philo- 
 sophical problem. 
 
Chapter II. 
 THE COLONIAL PERIOD. 
 
 INFLUENCES AFFECTING THE BEGINNING OF AMERICAN HIGHER 
 
 EDUCATION. 
 
 1. THE PROBLEM. 
 
 In early colonial America there was little theorizing as to who should 
 build colleges or as to how such schools should be financed. From the 
 beginning higher education was a serious interest of the people, and one 
 which early found practical expression. What the scholars and statesmen 
 thought of endowments, therefore, we can infer only from what they actually 
 did. They faced college building as a practical problem, and whatever we 
 have since developed by way of a theory of endowed education in America 
 we have developed very largely out of our long and varied experience. 
 
 In this and succeeding chapters, therefore, it is the purpose to assemble 
 facts which will adequately describe that experience, to the end that the 
 character and extent of the influence which philanthropy has had in the 
 development of higher education in America may be seen. Finally, from an 
 interpretation of these facts it should then be possible to state whatever 
 theory of endowments there has been evolved in this country. 
 
 When in the early history of Harvard College we find among its donors 
 the general court, numerous towns and churches, as well as individuals, we 
 realize that it is necessary to define the term "philanthropy." In this study 
 the term is used to include all gifts except those from State. Again, if, as 
 we are told, philanthropy means an expression of love for mankind, the 
 names of Eleazer Wheelock, Theodorus J. Frelinghuysen, Morgan Edward, 
 James Blair, and other notable ministers of the gospel would loom large in 
 the description. However important the work of such men may have been, 
 it would be impossible satisfactorily to show its results in a study which 
 is designed to be quite largely quantitative. Accordingly, this study will be 
 concerned with only those facts and forces which play some measurable part 
 in shaping our institutions of higher learning. 
 
 2. COLLEGE CHABTEES ANALYZED. 
 
 The forces which entered into the founding of our first colleges were many 
 and complex. Certain of these stood out clearly and for many years played 
 a large part in directing the growth of higher learning. Everywhere and 
 particularly in the foundation documents of the colonial colleges we are 
 able to see these forces at work, giving form to these infant institutions. In 
 Table 1 are shown such data, taken from the charters of the nine colonial 
 colleges. 
 
 10 
 
THE COLOIflAL, PERIOD. 11 
 
 ENGJ.ISH INFIXTENCES. 
 
 English influences are suggested by tlie tliree names, William and Mary, 
 King's, and Queen's. To these Dartmouth must be added, having taken its 
 name in honor of its chief benefactor. Lord Dartmouth, of England, and, for 
 a similar reason, Yale. Further, important subscriptions were collected in 
 England: £10,000 for Dartmouth; $4,500 for Brown; £2,500 for William and 
 Mary in addition to the gift of the English Government of £2,000 and 20,000 
 acres of land ; King's and Pennsylvania together, some £10,000 ; ^ and over 
 £2,000 for Princeton.* In all cases these subscriptions furnished relatively 
 large sums for the colleges, and were among the early, and in case of William 
 and Mary, Dartmouth and Brown, the founding gifts. 
 
 AIM OF THE COLLEGES GIFTS EXPECTED. 
 
 Harvard University. — " Through the good hand of God " men " are moved and 
 stirred up to give * * * for the advancement of all good literature, arts, 
 and sciences." ' 
 
 " Many well-devoted persons have been and daily are moved and stirred up 
 to give and bestow sundry gifts, legacies, lands, and revenues for the advance- 
 ment of all good literature, arts, and sciences in Harvard College." 
 
 College of William and Mary. — " That the Church of Virginia may be fur- 
 nished with a seminary of ministers of the Gospel, and that the youth may be 
 piously educated in good letters and manners and that the Christian faith 
 may be propagated amongst the western Indians, to the glory of Almighty God ; 
 to make a place of universal study, or perpetual college of divinity, philosophy, 
 languages, and other good arts and sciences. 
 
 Tale University. — To found a school " Wherein Youth may be instructed in 
 the Arts and Sciences, who through the blessings of Almighty God may be fitted 
 for Public employment both in Church and Civil State." 
 
 " Several * * * ^len have expressed by Petition their earnest desires 
 that full Liberty and Privilege be granted unto certain Undertakers for the 
 founding, suitably endowing and ordering a Collegiate School," etc., also note 
 further the power given to the trustees of the college. 
 
 Princeton University. — " For the instruction of youth in the learned languages 
 and in the liberal arts and sciences." All religious sects to have equal educa- 
 tional opportunity.'' 
 
 Columbia University. — " For Instruction and Education of Youth in the 
 Learned Languages and in the Liberal Arts and Sciences." * * * "to lead 
 them from the Study of Nature, to the Knowledge of themselves, and of the 
 God of Nature, and their Duty to Him." 
 
 University of Pennsylvania. — The academy out of which the College grew 
 was " for instructing youth for reward, as poor children on charity " " we, 
 being desirous to encourage such pious, useful, and charitable designs." Col- 
 lege is for instruction "in any kind of literature, arts, and sciences." 
 
 1 Pennsylvania University Bulletin, Vol. Ill, p. 4, January, 1899, contains a copy of the 
 " Fiat " for the Royal Brief, issued by King George III, granting the right to the two 
 ■' Seminaries " to take the subscription. 
 
 2 See Maclean : History of the College of New Jersey, Vol. I, 147 ff., for a discussion of 
 this undertaking ; also copies of some documents connected with it. The full amount of 
 the subscription is not known. 
 
 * Charter was not granted till 1 650. " New England's First Fruits " shows clearly the 
 religious aim. Also the legislative act of 1642 uses the words piety, morality, and 
 learning as expressing the aim of the college. 
 
 * See Princeton Univ. Catalogue, 1912-13, p. 46. The quotation is not from the charter, 
 the first charter not being extant, but is from an advertisement in the Pennsylyania 
 Gazette of Aug. 1.3, 1746-47. Nearly the same words are used in the charter of 1850 to 
 express the aim of the college. 
 
 111512°— 22 2 
 
12 
 
 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 rjt^ O t., -2 '^ M 
 
 05 • 
 CS'O CO 
 
 ^ ffi.S 
 
 
 
 > 2 « 
 
 
 ^^ H 
 
 
 ,_( o luS:;^ y • 
 ""■So --3-S t- o^ 
 
 C ^2 2 . C c 
 
 SS 
 
 ^ 09 tuox: 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 
 .2 M 
 
 Ph 
 
 "^^ 
 
 
 
 ,SS.2 
 
 *r* (^ ^ »U m -tj> '^ 
 
 9^bcB 
 
 K l=|!^ 
 
 
 o » I- 
 
 P3 
 
 ~_S ® a ° 
 g^^e-o o o g S 
 
 PI P3 
 
 El 
 
 o3 
 
 '.-■tfO 
 
 M OCT 03 
 
 
 CO ] 
 O 
 
 PP HO 
 
 ■2-S 
 
 ;h O., 
 
 
 M g oj a C g^m 
 
 Oft ^WftS^ 
 O 
 
 g 5i 3 
 
 fc ° '' 
 
 O o 
 
 S2£?-2 
 
 CO . R 
 Pi®-© 
 
 
 w t- S 
 oj © 5J 
 
 ■ho a 
 
 Ph 
 
 "H 05.2'q) 
 
 t^ •?; 03 
 
 St-SPh 2 
 S' C .2 ^ jq 
 O 03-1^ o a 
 
 .3° 
 '0 ^ 
 
 n 
 
 m3U 
 
 
 sw 
 
 
 
 
 
 f^ 
 
 m 
 
 '4; tH oT 
 
 g 03 M 
 
 ■"■a 
 a 
 
 -ss 
 
 fews 
 
 
 ■fflo 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "o 
 
 Ma 
 
 
 Ascho 
 lege"; 
 vard 
 1638. 
 
 — r* 03 
 
 ^8 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 EH 
 
 dp a « g 03 jj 
 
 25 "ooo-gg 
 
 *«_J U< ^ TO S CLi 
 
 i^rt 2 8'=' " « 
 
 M . . 73 S <^ c! g S? 
 ^''oo3caSJi7^rt"o 
 5c5><§8Mo«rta 
 
 &^a| 
 cH.a.2« 
 
 P 03 fc* 
 
 5 o a> 
 
 ffl 2 c ^ 
 o 
 
 _20 
 
 ^ao.| 
 
 
 O Ph 
 
THE COLONIAL PERIOD. 
 
 13 
 
 
 ■~ 
 
 
 o> 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "^ 
 
 O o ° 
 
 
 
 
 ^feo^K 
 
 
 
 o a? 03 
 
 Governc 
 New J 
 in nam 
 George I 
 
 
 
 Governor 
 Provinc 
 New H 
 ' shire. 
 
 > C 5 " ® 
 
 
 o 2^ 
 
 tn a*^*^ 
 
 Fl 
 
 
 Progres 
 clergy 
 congrega 
 of Du 
 
 o 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 g 3 60 
 
 ■2 J, 5 w is 3 
 
 ■S S • • z ° ^ . 
 
 ^ Cs£ S <>> "^ "^ 
 
 •9 .2 -3 S.sfc: 
 
14 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 " Several benevolent and charitable persons have generously paid, and by 
 subscriptions promised hereafter to pay, * * * for the use of said acad- 
 emy, divers sums of money," spent " in maintaining an academy there as well 
 for the instruction of poor children on charity," etc." " 
 
 Brown University. — "And whereas a Pubhc School or Seminary, * * * 
 to which the Youth may freely resort for Education in the vernacular and 
 learned Languages, and in the liberal Arts and Sciences would be for the gen- 
 eral Advantage and Honor of the Government." 
 
 " And whereas Daniel Jenckes, Esq. ; * * * ^jth many others appear as 
 undertakers in the valuable Design * * * praying that full Liberty and 
 Power may be granted unto such of them, * * * to found, endow, 
 
 * * * a College," etc. And, further, "Being willing to encourage 
 
 * * * such an honorable and useful Institution, We, the said Governor," 
 etc. • 
 
 Rutgers College. — The college is for " the Education of youth in the learned 
 languages, liberal and useful arts and sciences, and especially in divinity." 
 Did it try to preserve the Dutch language?' 
 
 Dartmouth College. — " Dartmouth College, for the education and instruction 
 of Youth - the Indian Tribes in * * * Learning * * * necessary 
 
 * * * for civilizing and christianizing * * * Pagans * * * in Arts 
 and Sciences; * * * also of English Youth." 
 
 " It hath been represented * * * that the Reverend Eleazer Wheelock 
 
 * * * did * * *, at his own expense, * * * set on foot an Indian 
 Charity school and for several years through the assistance of well-disposed 
 Persons * * *," etc' 
 
 3. BELIGIOUS AND DENOMINATIONAL INFLrUENCES. 
 
 The religious influence is, of course, prominent. The statements showing 
 how the movements for establishing the schools were started, those showing 
 the source of control, the petitioners for the charters, and the religious affilia- 
 tions of the first presidents, as well as the last one, showing the aim of the 
 college, all point to religion as the large motivating force in the case of every 
 one. 
 
 The beginning of William and Mary, Yale, Princeton, King's, Brown, Queen's, 
 and Dartmouth (Harvard should probably be included) lies with groups of 
 ministers or religious bodies. In the case of Yale, Princeton, Brown, Queen's, 
 and Dartmouth the formal request for a charter was presented by represent- 
 atives of religious bodies; while the source of control in the case of Yale, 
 King's, and Brown was placed in the hands of religious bodies. In effect the 
 same was true of Princeton, Harvard, and Queen's. All the first presidents 
 were ministers. 
 
 It is in the charter, however, that the religious motive stands out with 
 greatest prominence. The quotations presented are those which seem best to 
 reveal the chief aim of the institution. Somewhere in every charter, Penn- 
 sylvania a possible exception, there is evidence that the teaching of religion 
 was to be a prominent feature of the work of the college. 
 
 'Academy charter, in catalogue, 1912-13, p. 15. This is of course the basis of the 
 charter for a college granted two years later. 
 
 • Charter, in catalogue for 1912-13, pp. 29-30. 
 
 ' Murray : " Hist, of Educ. in N. J.," p. 288, refers to the charter of 1770 as amend- 
 ing a statement which was said to have been included in the first charter, viz, that the 
 Dutch language was to be used exclusively in the college. 
 
 * Charter, in Chase's Hist, of Dartmouth College and Hanover, N. H., p. 642. 
 
THE COLONIAL PERIOD. 15 
 
 To what extent denominationalism was a factor does not appear fully from 
 this table. From other sources we know that the chancellorship of William 
 and Mary was by charter granted to the Bishop of London ; that Yale, which 
 was built by Congregationalists in a Congregational colony, said in her charter 
 that at least the major part of their 10 self-perpetuating trustees must always 
 " be ministers of the Gospel inhabiting within this colony." * Princeton's char- 
 ter does not call for denominational control, yet, according to the charter of 
 1648, there were 12 Presbyterian ministers on the board." It is also true that 
 Governor Morris, of New Jersey, refused Princeton's first request for a char- 
 ter made, iu his opinion, by a body of dissenters." 
 
 These, as well as the connection which the schism in the Presbyterian 
 Church in 1741-1745 had with the beginning of Princeton," are evidence enough 
 that denominationalism, if not even sectarianism, was a factor in its early 
 life. In King's College about two-thirds of the 41 trustees were members 
 of the Church of England, though they were not chosen officially upon religious 
 grounds. The Pennsylvania College is an exception, for its charter shows its 
 aim to have been broadly human, though not specifically religious, and cer- 
 tainly not denominational. By Brown's charter, however, 22 of her 36 trus- 
 tees must be Baptists. There are no statements in the charters of Queen's and 
 Dartmouth that they are to be controlled by certain religious sects, yet there is 
 no deubt that the Dutch Reformed Church controlled Queen's and that Dart- 
 mouth was nonsectarian, but with half the board of trustees constituted of 
 ministers,^* the whole enterprise being threatened when the Reverend Wheelock 
 refused to accept Governor Wentworth's proposal to make the Bishop of London 
 an ex officio member of the board of trustees." It is noticeable, too, that the 
 formal request for the charter of Yale was made by a group of Congregational 
 clergy, that of Princeton by Presbyterian clergy, that of Brown by the Phila- 
 delphia Baptist Association, and that of Queen's by the clergy and congrega- 
 tions of the Dutch Reformed Church. 
 
 The first president of Harvard was of Puritan training, and later was 
 forced to resign because he agreed with the Anabaptists on the subject of 
 infant baptism." The first president of King's was a minister of the Church 
 of England, and the inclusion of this requirement in the charter caused 
 bitter opposition to the granting of the charter, a bitterness healed only by the 
 addition of a professor of divinity "To be chosen by the Consistory of the 
 (Dutch) Church for the time being."" The first rector (president) of 
 Yale was a Congregational minister. Brown's first president was a Baptist 
 minister, and Queen's a minister of the Dutch Church. 
 
 POLITICAL INFLUENCE. 
 
 The political influence is evident enough. Harvard was established by the 
 colonial government. William and Mary was founded by the English and 
 Virginia Governments, and Kings by the New York Legislature. Yale's charter 
 
 •Charter of the Collegiate School (Yale College) Catalogue, 1912-13, p. 64. 
 
 "• Maclean : " History of the College of New Jersey," Vol. I, 92. 
 
 " Ibid., p. 34. 
 
 "!Ibid., p. 24. 
 
 " Charter, in Chase, F., " History of Dartmouth College and Hanover, N. H., Vol. I, 642. 
 
 "Letter of Wheelock to Gov. Wentworth, of New Hampshire. See History of Dart- 
 mouth College and Hanover, N. H., by F. Chase, p. 115 flf. 
 
 1* Pierce, Benjamin: "Hist of Harvard Univ. from its Foundation, in the year 1636, to 
 the Period of the Amer. Rev.," p. 10. 
 
 '• Fulton, John. " Memoirs of Frederick A. P. Barnard," p. 302 fif. See also Ecclesi- 
 astical records of the State of New York. 
 
16 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 says the yi>uth are to be instructed to the end that " they may be fitted for 
 public employiuent both in the church and civil state," and her first money 
 gift was £120 country pay from the colony. 
 
 That these colleges were intended from the beginning to rest upon gifts of 
 the people is suggested in the quotations from the charters given above. 
 If not so stated, then the fact that the charter is granted to a body of 
 men seeking to establish a college, together with the absence of any evidence 
 that the state was accepting the responsibility, makes the inference clear. 
 It is to be noted, too, that Harvard, Yale, BroAvn, Rutgers, and Dartmouth 
 received their names from their first great benefactors, and that in only 
 three cases were the first funds of the college granted by the legislatures. 
 
 To seek further evidence that the colonial colleges were or were not State 
 institutions is not our present purpose. There is evidence here to show that 
 the principle of State aid to higher education is as old as Harvard College. 
 Yet the movement for each of the colleges, possibly excepting Harvard, was 
 initiated either by a single man with great missionary zeal, or by a group 
 of men, and not by the State. 
 
 From this preliminary examination of these foundation documents, then, 
 one gathers some notion of the setting which our problem is to have. Judged 
 by the facts presented, as well as in terms of the hard work associated with the 
 starting of these institutions, philanthropy is clearly the mother of the colonial 
 colleges. 
 
 FINANCES OF THE EARLY COLLEGES. 
 1. SCAKCITY OF MONET. 
 
 Down to 1693 we had but one college, that founded at Cambridge in 1635. 
 There is probably nowhere available to-day a complete record of all the early 
 gifts to Harvard, but what have been brought together here will doubtless give 
 a fairly satisfactory exhibit of the nature and extent of the earliest philan- 
 thropy devoted to higher education in this country. 
 
 There is one thing so characteristic of the early gifts to all the colonial col- 
 leges that it must receive brief notice at the outset. That is, the size and kind 
 of gifts. Harvard r-eeords the receipt " of a number of sheep bequeathed by 
 one man, of a quantity of cotton cloth, worth 9 shillings, presented by another, 
 of a pewter flagon, worth 10 shillings, by a third, of a fruit dish, a sugar spoon, 
 a silver-tipt jug, one great salt, and one small trecher salt, by others." " From 
 Yale's early history the sentiment attaching to the words : " I give these books 
 for founding a college in Connecticut," pronounced by each of the trustees as 
 he placed his little contribution upon the table, could not be spared, and before 
 a charter had been granted a formal gift of the " glass and nails which should 
 be necessary to erect a college and hall " had been made," Eleazar Wheelock, 
 the founder and first president of Dartmouth, in a letter replying to criticisms 
 of the " plainness of the surroundings " at the college, says : " As to the college, 
 it owns but one (tablecloth), that was lately given by a generous lady in Con- 
 necticut, and of her own manufacture," " and again in a letter to the Honorable 
 Commissioners for Indian Affairs, etc., he says, after indicating the impossible 
 financial condition in which the college finds itself : " I have, w^ith the assistance 
 of a number of those who have contributed their old put-off clothing, supported 
 them (the scholars) along hitherto."^" Doubtless similar examples could be 
 
 1'' Peirce : Hist, of Harvard Univ., p. 17. 
 
 18 History of Yale College — Barnard's Jour, of Educ, V, 542, 1858. 
 
 i» Quoted in Chase's Hist, of DartmoutJi College and Hanover, N. H., p. 232. 
 
 » Ibid., p. 546. 
 
THE COLONIAL PERIOD. 17 
 
 taken from the subscription lists that yielded relatively large amounts to 
 Princeton, Queen's, Brown, and William and Mary if these were extant. 
 
 In these gifts there is reflected much of the simplicity of the social and eco- 
 nomic life of that time. Actual money was scarce, as shown by the repeated 
 issues of currency by the various Colonies, hence such gifts as Dartmouth's 
 sawmills and blacksmith shop and Harvard's printing press entered most nat- 
 urally and effectively into the making of colleges in those days. 
 
 2. USE OF THE StTBSCBIPTION METHOD. 
 
 These colleges were all active in gathering funds by the subscription plan 
 both in England and in America. Princeton received a subscription of £1,000 
 proclamation, given in produce and money, in the southern Colonies in 1769, 
 another of £1,000 from Boston in the same year, and £2,000 in England. Brown 
 received $4,500 by subscription in England and Ireland in 1764." Blair 
 brought home from England £2,500 which he had gathered by subscription for 
 William and Mary in 1693. Dartmouth collected £10,000 in England in 1769, 
 while King's and Pennsylvania shared equally a subscription fund of £10,000 
 gathered in England. These are only the most striking instances of the use 
 of this method of collecting the gifts of the people. Through the churches this 
 method was repeatedly used and frequently the colonial court or the town 
 officials would name a day on which a subscription for the college would be 
 asked from every citizen. 
 
 3. FEW LARGE GIFTS. 
 
 In that day of small gifts a few names of great benefactors stand out. 
 W^hatever the " moiety " of Harvard's estate was, it was a princely sum in 
 the year 1638 for a college with one or two teachers and a half dozen students.'^ 
 This was the first great gift to education in America, and it is worthy of note 
 that it was not tied up with conditions which might make it useless to the 
 Harvard College of the future. It was given by request to the college out- 
 right, and constituted half of the fortune and the entire library of one of the 
 wealthiest and most noted men in New England, 
 
 The immediate influence of this was great, and is well recorded by the histo- 
 rians of the college, Quincy and Peirce. During the next few decades several 
 gifts of £100 were received, and in 1650 Richard Saltonstall, of England, gave 
 " to the college " goods and money worth 320 pounds sterling. In 1681 Sir 
 Matthew Holworthy bequeathed " to be disposed of by the directors as they 
 shall judge best for the promotion of learning and promulgation of the Gospel " 
 £1,000. The Hon. William Stoughton erected a building in 1699 which cost 
 £1,000 Massachusetts currency. These are the large gifts of the seventeenth 
 century, with the exception of the gift of William and Mary, of England, to the 
 college of Virginia. 
 
 During the next century Thomas Hollis established a professorship of divinity 
 at Harvard (1721). In his " orders " ^ he asks " that the interest of the funds 
 be used, £10 annually for help to a needy student for the ministry — as many 
 of these as the funds will bear." He reserves the right to sanction all appoint- 
 ments during his lifetime, then leaves it to the " President and Fellows of 
 Harvard College," and asks " that none be refused on account of his belief and 
 
 *» Names of the first subscribers are given in the Collections of the Rhode Island His- 
 torical Society, Vol. VII, 273. 
 
 22 A careful discussion of the amount of this legacy Is given in Quincy's History of 
 Harvard, Vol. I, appendix I, 460. 
 
 *» See Quincy's Harvard, Vol. I, Appendix-XLII, for copy of the instrument of gift 
 
18 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 practice of adult baptism."*^ The conditions which he places upon this, the 
 first professorship established in America by private donation, are of interest. 
 These are his words : 
 
 I order and appoint a Professor of Divinity, to read lectures in the Hall of 
 the College unto the students; the said Professor to be nominated and ap- 
 pointed from time to time by the President and Fellows of Harvard College, 
 and that the Treasurer pay to him forty pounds per annum for his service, and 
 that when choice is made of a fitting person, to be recommended to me for my 
 approbation, if I be yet living.^ 
 
 In that day of fierce theological controversies these seem to be very liberal 
 conditions. 
 
 A few years later Hollis established a professorship of mathematics and 
 natural philosophy. In all, his donations total over £5,000, a sum which far 
 exceeded any single gift to education in America up to that time. Aside from 
 books and goods the purposes of all his gifts were stipulated, but in such gen- 
 eral terms and, as his letters show,^° so fully in terms of the wishes of the presi- 
 dent and overseers, that it constitutes an example of educational philanthropy 
 that is worthy of note. 
 
 Madam Mary Saltonstall, who bequeathed £1,000 in 1730 for educating young 
 men " of bright parts and good diligence for service of the Christian Church " ; ^° 
 Thomas Hancock, who founded the professorship of Hebrew and other oriental 
 languages in 1764 with a gift of £1,000; John Alford, whose executors, acting 
 in accordance with his wish that his money should be used to aid " pious and 
 charitable purposes," gave £1,300 to establish a professorship " of some particular 
 science of public utility " ; " Nicholas Boylston, who bequeathed £1,500 for the 
 support of a professor of rhetoric in 1772 ; and Dr. Ezekiel Hersey, whose gift 
 established a professorship of anatomy and physic in 1772, are other pre-revo- 
 lutionary names which figure on the list of Harvard's greatest benefactors. 
 
 At the Collegiate School of Connecticut the names of Blihu Yale and Rev. 
 Dr. George Berkeley, with gifts of £500 and £400, respectively; at the College of 
 New Jersey the names of Tennent and Davy, of England, with a gift of over 
 £2.000; at King's the name of Joseph Murray with a bequest of his library 
 and his estate worth £9,000 in 1762; and at William and Mary the names of 
 James Blair and Robert Boyle give us other instances of educational philan- 
 thropy on a liberal scale in the colonial days. 
 
 4. GIFTS FEOM TOWNS, CHUBCHES, AND SOCIETIES. 
 
 In addition to these gifts from private individuals there is frequent evidence 
 of support coming from towns, churches, and societies. In 1764 the town of 
 Boston collected £476 by subscription, which it gave to Harvard to repair the 
 loss occasioned by the destruction of Harvard Hall by fire. Nine other towns 
 made smaller contributions to the same end, while two years previously 44 
 towns had made contributions to the college. Wheelock received funds from 
 public collections taken in several eastern towns between 1762 and 1765 which 
 were of great value to his struggling school, soon to be known as Dartmouth 
 
 ^ See Quincy's Harvard, Vol. I, Appendix XLII, for copy of tlie instrument of gift. 
 '"Quincy's Harvard, Vol. I, Appendix XLII. 
 
 ^ Numerous letters from Mr. Hollis to his agent and others in the Colonies appear as 
 appendixes in Vol. I, of Quincy's History of Harvard. 
 2»Quincy, Vol. I, p. 421. 
 ^ Quincy, Vol. II, p. 142. 
 
THE COLONIAL PERIOD. 19 
 
 College." In the cases of Princeton, Queen's, King's, and Brown the donations 
 from churches were large and frequent. 
 
 The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts found the 
 colleges appropriate agencies through which to operate in the Colonies. As 
 early as 1714 reference is made to a gift of books to the Yale library ; in 1747 
 the society made a large donation of books to Harvard, and f 100 in money in 
 1764.'°' From the same society King's received £500 sterling and in 1762 a 
 library of 1,500 books. The society also assisted in getting a collection made 
 in England which raised nearly £6,000 sterling for the college in 1762."" The 
 Society for Propagating the Gospel in New England and parts adjacent gave 
 to Harvard 1,101 volumes and £300 sterling to repair the loss of its library 
 in 1764. The Edinburgh Society for Promoting Religious Knowledge presented 
 Harvard with some books in 1766, and the Society for Propagating Christian 
 Knowledge, in Scotland, gave £30 for the purchase of books in 1769. 
 
 5. GIFTS OF BOOKS, BUILDINGS, AND LAND. 
 
 It is noticeable in the early years that many gifts of books were made to the 
 colleges. However strongly the titles of the books may suggest the religious 
 and theological nature of higher education. In those days such gifts were of 
 the greatest importance when both the bounds and the methods of knowledge 
 lay almost wholly within books alone. 
 
 There is an occasional gift of a building, and frequent reference is made to 
 gifts of land. During the colonial period Harvard received from towns and 
 individuals over 2,000 acres ; '* Yale received over 1,000 acres, including 300 
 acres from the general assembly ; ^ King's received 5 acres in the heart of 
 New York City, and 34,000 acres more from the State which were lost to the 
 college and the State as well at the close of the Revolution ; °^ Dartmouth 
 received 400 acres from proprietors of the town of Hanover ; ** the College of 
 New Jersey received 210 acres from the town and people of Princeton; and 
 a large portion of Queen's campus was the gift of a private citizen. Gifts of 
 real estate were for many years of little productive value however ; so the chief 
 support had to be money or something that could be exchanged at any time. 
 
 ANALYSIS OF THE GIFTS TO FOUR OF THE COLONIAL COLLEGES. 
 
 To get at the full meaning of the philanthropy of this period, however, com- 
 plete lists of all the gifts to Harvard, Yale, King's, and the College of New 
 Jersey, four of the nine colonial colleges, have been made and appear in 
 Tables 3, 4, 5, and 6. 
 
 Remembering that it is not the absolute amount of a gift, but rather what 
 the gift will purchase, that measures its value, we may ask, first: What was 
 
 ** Chase : History of Dartmouth, p. 31. 
 
 29 The motive back of this may he seen in tlie following quotation, which throws some 
 light on the denominational motives which impelled many gifts. Referring to the gift of 
 hooks : "A good investment for the conformity of four graduates of the Presbyterian 
 College at Yale, Connecticut, had been mainly effected (in 1722-23) by theological works 
 sent to the college in 1714." " Two Hundred Years of the S. P. G., 1701-1900," p. 799. 
 
 so Ibid., pp. 775, 798. 
 
 8' Barnard's Journal, Vol. IX, 159, gives a full list of gifts of real estate. 
 
 «2 Ibid., Vol. X, 693, mentions the important gifts. 
 
 33 A History of Columbia Univ., 1754-1904, p. 35 flE. 
 
 ** Chase : History of Dartmouth, p. 174. 
 
20 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 the size of the problem which philanthropy had undertaken and what did 
 education cost? 
 
 1. SIZE OF THE COLONIAL COLLEGES. 
 
 The numbers of students attending these colleges can be judged by the 
 number of their graduates. Harvard rarely if ever had over 100 students be- 
 fore the year 1700, and at no time in the colonial period did she have over 
 350 or 400 students, while Yale and King's had fewer still. Pennsylvania 
 graduated in all only 135 students before 1776, Brown 60, and Dartmouth 31. 
 
 The teaching stalf was also small. The president's administrative duties 
 were insignificant, his chief function being that of instructor. Before 1720 
 Harvard's faculty consisted of a president and from 1 to 4 tutors. At Yale 
 the president was assisted by from 1 to 4 tutors, rarely more than 3, before 
 the year 1755. After 1720 Harvard's faculty gradually increased to 9; Yale's 
 to 8 ; and King's to 11. In the case of King's a much larger percentage were 
 from the start of professorial rank. 
 
 Thus, judged by the size of student body and faculty, the actual work done 
 in the colonial colleges was small, and great sums of money were not needed. 
 
 2. THE COST OF A COLLEGE EDUCATION. 
 
 The cost of a college education at Harvard in its early days is shown in an 
 old account book for the period 1649-50 to 1659, from which it appears that for 
 those graduating from 1653 to 1659 the total expense ranged from £30 25s. IJ d. 
 to £61 lis. 8|d., or from about $100 to about $200 for four years' residence in 
 college. 
 
 An itemized account of a student, Thomas Graves, of the class of 1656, by 
 quarters, shows that he paid about 32s. for tuition. His first quarter's expenses 
 appear as follows : '° 
 
 Pounds. S. D. Qr. 
 
 8, 10, 54 Commones and siznges 2 8 9 2 
 
 Tuition, 8 s ; study, rente, and bed, 4 s ; fyer 
 
 and candelle 2 s 14 
 
 Power loode of wood 17 4 
 
 The other three quarters' expenses were similar to this. In 1797 this cost, 
 according to an account of Judge Daniel Appleton White, given in volume 6 
 of the Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings, page 272, would have 
 been about $480 for the four years. 
 
 Students' bills were often paid in butter, rye, malt, hog, lamb, egg?, etc. At 
 Princeton, Maclean tells us that a student's entire expenses in 1761 were £25 6s. 
 proclamation money. 
 
 A fairly complete account of the tuition cost at Yale, as set forth in Table 2, 
 data for which were gathered from Dexter's Annals, shows the tuition not to 
 have been much different at the beginning from the above account of tuition 
 cost at Harvard a half century earlier. 
 
 =EProm Mass. Hist. Proc, 1860-1862, Vol. V, p. 60. 
 
THE COLONIAL PERIOD. 
 Table 2. — Cost of education at Yale College. 
 
 21 
 
 Date. 
 
 Tuition. 
 
 Room. 
 
 Board. 
 
 Presi- 
 dent's 
 salary. 
 
 Salary 
 of tutor. 
 
 1701.. 
 1704.. 
 1712.. 
 1718.. 
 1719.. 
 
 Shillings. 
 30 
 30 
 30 
 30 
 
 
 
 C.P.i 
 
 120 
 
 50 
 50 
 
 
 
 
 
 100 
 140 
 
 
 
 
 20s. 
 
 4s. 4d. 
 
 
 1725. . 
 1726.. 
 1727.. 
 1728. . 
 1729.. 
 1734. . 
 1737. . 
 1738.. 
 1740.. 
 1742.. 
 1745. . 
 1748. . 
 1749.. 
 1754.. 
 
 1755. . 
 1759.. 
 1764.. 
 1767.. 
 
 30 
 40 
 50 
 50 
 50 
 50 
 60 
 60 
 60 
 24 
 17 
 17 
 20 
 24 
 
 24 
 26 
 30 
 
 
 
 
 4s. 8d. 
 
 140 
 212 
 250 
 300 
 300 
 
 
 
 65 
 60 
 65 
 65 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 300 
 320 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 ! 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (22 to 26 S.I 
 
 
 
 3s. or 4s. 
 8d. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 200 
 200 
 
 
 1768. . 
 
 
 
 
 (2) 
 
 1769. . 
 1777.. 
 
 48 
 
 6s. 
 
 
 
 160 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 In country pay 120 equaled about £60 sterling or one-third. 
 2£57 6s.8d. 
 
 At Dartmouth in 1773 tuition and board together were £20 a year. At Wil- 
 liam and Mary the tuition in 1724 was " 20s. entrance and 20s. a year for pupil- 
 age for each scholar." A woman offered to " undertake the keeping of the 
 college table at the rate of £11 per annum for each scholar, with the other ad- 
 vantages allowed to Mr. Jackson.'' " At Princeton tuition was £3 in 1754, £4 
 in 1761, £5 in 1773, and board in 1761 was £15 a year, according to Maclean. 
 
 Reference to the prices of a few well-known commodities will help one to 
 appreciate the apparently small gifts which we are to examine. In 1641 com- 
 mon l#.bor was worth Is. 6d. per day, the next year corn was worth 2s. 6d. and 
 wheat and barley 4s. per bushel. In 1670 wheat was worth 5s., corn 3s. ; the 
 year following labor was worth from Is. 3d. to Is. 8d. In 1704 corn was worth 
 2s. and wheat 3s. 8d. In 1727 wheat was worth 6s. 6d. to 8s. In 1752 corn was 
 worth 4s. and wheat 6s. In 1776 corn was 3s. and wheat 6s. 8d.°'' 
 
 3. SALARIES OF COLLEGE PROFESSORS. 
 
 One further item of interest in this connection is the salary of the teaching 
 staff. This was the chief item of expenditure in every college and is a fair 
 index to the value of any gift or to the value of the funds available for the 
 use of the college at any time. As shown in Table 2, Yale's president received 
 from £60 to £300, while the salary of a tutor was very much less. Maclean 
 thinks that Princeton's president did not receive over £.50 annually before 1754. 
 In that year his salary was fixed at £150 proclamation, rising to £200 proclama- 
 
 ^ " Proc. of Visitors of William and Mai-y College, 1716," in The Virginia Magazine of 
 Histoi-y and Biography, Vol. IV, p. 174. 
 
 ^^ From Weeden's Economic and Social Histoi-y of New England, 1620-1 7S9, Vol. If. 
 
22 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 tion in 1757 and to £400 in 1766, only to be reduced again to f 2S0 with the usual 
 perquisites, and finally to £200 in 1767. In 1768 it rose again to £350 proclama- 
 tion, or about £206 sterling. In 1752 Maclean states the salary of a tutor to 
 have been £20 sterling and £66 in 1767. The three professors at Princeton in 
 1767 received: Divinity, £175; mathematics, £150; language and logic, £125. 
 In 1654 the overseers of Harvard College offered Rev. Mr. Charles Chanuing 
 the presidency of the college at a salary of £100 per annum.'* From Judge 
 Sewell's diary the salary in 1698 appears to have been £200.'* 
 
 At the close of the colonial period Harvard's president was receiving £300,''° a 
 professor about £200, and the librarian £60. In October, 1766, a committee of 
 the colonial assembly of Connecticut reported that Yale ought to have : 
 
 1. A president, at £150 per annum. 
 
 2. A professor ©f divinity, at £113 6s. 8d. per annum. 
 
 3. A senior tutor, at £65 Is. 4d. per annum. 
 
 4. Three junior tutors, at £51 Is. 4d. per annum each. 
 
 Salaries at William and Mary were little different. President Blair, the 
 first president, received £150 at first, and later only £100, increasing in 1755 to 
 £200. During the same period a professor received £80 and fees of 20s. per 
 student. In 1729 each professor received £150, but no fees.*^ In 1770 the 
 president received £200, each of two divini-ty professors £200, two other pro- 
 fessors each £100, master of grammar school £150, first usher £75, second 
 usher £40.*^ 
 
 When one considers that the entire expenditures of Harvard for the year 
 1777 were but £1,086 18s. 2d. and that the college had but £386 18s. 2d. to pay 
 it with, the residue being paid " by assessments on the scholars for study-rent, 
 tuition, and other necessary charges, amounting communibus annis to about 
 £700 ; *' or that the average annual income of William and Mary College during 
 the decade 1754 to 1764 was £1,936 14s. 6fd.,** these salaries appear relatively 
 high. 
 
 THE FUNCTION OF PHILANTHROPY IN THE COLLEGES. 
 
 What now is the character of the educational philanthropy which was 
 practiced in the midst of these conditions? Was it constructive, or did it follow 
 tradition? It might be hard to answer these questions to our entire satisfac- 
 tion, but an examination of the parts of Tables 3, 4, 5, and 6, which refer to 
 this period, will throw light on the subject. 
 
 s8 Quincy : Vol. I, Appendix IV. 
 39 Ibid., Vol. I, Appendix XI, p. 490. 
 *o Ibid., Vol. II, p. 241. 
 *i Tyler, pp. 137, 144. 
 
 *2 Tyler quoted these amounts from the college bursar's books, Williamsburg, the Old 
 Colonial Capitol, p. 158. 
 « Quincy : Vol. II, p. 241. 
 ** Tyler, Lyon G., " Williamsburg, the Old Colonial Capital," p. 156. 
 
THE COLONIAL PEEIOD. 
 
 23 
 
 Table 1i.— Donations and grants to Harvard University, 1636-1910- 
 tion of the donations by individuals.^ 
 
 -Distribu- 
 
 
 Total dona- 
 tions by 
 individuals. 
 
 Per 
 
 cent 
 of all 
 gifts 
 from 
 Eng- 
 land. 
 
 Total 
 grant by 
 colony. 
 
 Per cent of total donations by individuals given to— 
 
 Dates. 
 
 ■6 
 © 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 '3 
 
 a. 
 
 & 
 
 PL, 
 
 1 
 
 ca ^ 
 © 
 
 p^ 
 
 el a 
 
 ft 
 3 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 "0 
 
 t-t 
 
 It 
 
 ? 
 
 03 
 
 3 
 
 Per cent in 
 form of— 
 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 a* 
 
 n 
 
 1636-1640 
 
 $1,936 
 
 4,826 
 
 333 
 
 1,475 
 
 6,785 
 
 266 
 4, 754 
 7,745 
 
 900 
 7, 041 
 
 2,558 
 462 
 3,724 
 1,498 
 1,232 
 
 2,979 
 9,171 
 8,259 
 5,153 
 2,496 
 
 2,643 
 2,973 
 1,277 
 1,112 
 
 2,584 
 
 17,397 
 6,336 
 
 12,989 
 1,814 
 1,800 
 
 7,905 
 9,163 
 4,000 
 33, '333 
 5,444 
 
 47,333 
 76,700 
 60,003 
 145,652 
 44,951 
 
 31, 180 
 303, 702 
 205,383 
 131,898 
 254,713 
 
 3 680,917 
 
 3 254, 741 
 
 773, 427 
 
 784, 541 
 
 1, 487, 508 
 
 2,594,554 
 1, 586, 855 
 4,306,609 
 7,648,309 
 7,309,950 
 
 '"12 
 
 63 
 
 9 
 
 6 
 
 42 
 
 34 
 
 $2, 002 
 
 99 
 60 
 100 
 27 
 79 
 
 37 
 36 
 . 5 
 
 82 
 75 
 
 100 
 100 
 
 10 
 
 89 
 
 13 
 
 11 
 30 
 
 75 
 26 
 60 
 
 9 
 
 3 
 16 
 
 9 
 38 
 
 42 
 13 
 14 
 44 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 40 
 
 100 
 
 91 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 100 
 
 1641-1645 
 
 9 
 100 
 22 
 
 15 
 
 "64"" 
 .5 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 31 
 
 100 
 
 
 1646-1650 
 
 445 
 
 666 
 
 1,665 
 
 
 
 100 
 
 1651-1655 
 
 73 
 21 
 
 63 
 
 64 
 
 99.5 
 
 18 
 
 25 
 
 "90" 
 11 
 
 87 
 
 89 
 60 
 25 
 74 
 40 
 
 91 
 97 
 84 
 91 
 62 
 
 58 
 87 
 86 
 56 
 97 
 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 
 100 
 
 95 
 
 97 
 
 34 
 100 
 
 100 
 
 96 
 
 98 
 100 
 
 88 
 
 88 
 78 
 93 
 95 
 83 
 
 79 
 78 
 74 
 86 
 87 
 
 88 
 85 
 
 100 
 
 36 
 
 99.5 
 100 
 100 
 
 87 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 
 88 
 25 
 39 
 40 
 46 
 
 48 
 97 
 83 
 81 
 79 
 
 46 
 100 
 
 10 
 100 
 
 14 
 
 58 
 
 "87." 5 
 6 
 8 
 
 1 
 15 
 17 
 
 1 
 14 
 
 10 
 25 
 43 
 
 58 
 38 
 
 7 
 
 9 
 64 
 16 
 22 
 
 23 
 29 
 52 
 36 
 20 
 
 
 
 
 18 
 
 1 
 
 100 
 
 61 
 
 90 
 100 
 99.5 
 33 
 30 
 
 
 1656-1660 
 
 15 
 63 
 
 
 
 39 
 
 1661-1665 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 1666-1670 
 
 66 
 1,831 
 1,665 
 1,998 
 
 1,665 
 1,332 
 1,831 
 
 
 63 
 
 
 
 1671-1675 
 
 .5 
 
 
 
 1676-1680 
 
 
 
 IS 
 25 
 
 67 '^ 
 
 1681-1685. . 
 
 
 
 
 
 70 
 
 1686-1690. . 
 
 13 
 
 13 
 
 
 
 100 
 
 1691-1695. . 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 100 
 
 n 
 
 54 
 
 77 
 90 
 90 
 75 
 97 
 
 77 
 
 100 
 
 3 
 
 97 
 
 1696-1700. . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1701-1705. . 
 
 
 
 
 (') 
 
 
 89 
 
 1706-1710. . 
 
 32 
 
 70 
 11 
 15 
 53 
 
 80 
 
 37 
 
 78 
 78 
 90 
 77 
 
 13 
 17 
 
 27 
 
 2,337 
 
 2,758 
 11, 107 
 907 
 4,485 
 2,354 
 
 654 
 
 378 
 
 942 
 
 9,459 
 
 2,946 
 
 35,507 
 14, 162 
 6,594 
 3,'203 
 
 4,878 
 
 3,220 
 
 22 
 75 
 61 
 60 
 54 
 
 52 
 3 
 17 
 19 
 21 
 
 54 
 
 50 
 
 
 46 
 
 1711-1715. . 
 
 
 
 
 23 
 
 1716-1720. . 
 1721-1725. . 
 1726-1730. . 
 1731-1735. . 
 
 37 
 12 
 25 
 17 
 
 11 
 
 "2.5"" 
 
 33 
 35 
 
 44 
 3 
 12 
 
 7 
 4 
 25 
 
 "9"" 
 2 
 
 10 
 10 
 25 
 3 
 
 1736-1740. . 
 1741-1745. . 
 
 12 
 
 
 23 
 
 1746-1750. . 
 
 
 
 97 
 
 1751-1755. . 
 
 
 
 100 
 
 1756-1760. . 
 
 2 
 
 20 
 23 
 
 
 
 47 
 
 3 
 97 
 35 
 66 
 40 
 
 58 
 
 53 
 
 1761-1765. . 
 1766-1770. . 
 
 
 1 
 49 
 19 
 
 97 
 3 
 
 1771-1775. . 
 1776-1780. . 
 
 90 
 
 
 64 
 
 .7 
 
 65 
 44 
 
 1781-1785. . 
 1786-1790. . 
 
 86 
 
 42 
 100 
 12.5 
 94 
 92 
 
 99 
 
 85 
 83 
 99 
 86 
 
 90 
 75 
 57 
 42 
 62 
 
 93 
 91 
 36 
 
 84 
 78 
 
 77 
 71 
 48 
 64 
 80 
 
 80 
 
 42 
 79 
 12 
 94 
 
 4 
 
 
 60 
 42 
 
 1791-1795. . 
 
 
 
 100 
 
 1796-1800. . 
 
 
 
 
 
 87 
 
 12 
 100 
 
 53 
 52 
 26 
 29 
 14 
 
 93 
 37 
 52 
 39 
 62 
 
 29 
 96 
 75 
 51 
 66 
 
 24 
 45 
 43 
 79 
 64 
 
 88 
 
 1801-1805. . 
 
 
 
 
 
 1806-1810. . 
 
 
 
 
 100 
 
 1811-1815. . 
 
 
 20,000 
 50,000 
 30,000 
 
 '"5" 
 3 
 66 
 
 .7 
 '"2" 
 
 "23" 
 
 6 
 .1 
 
 99 
 36 
 76 
 21 
 44 
 
 16 
 
 
 47 
 
 1816-1820. . 
 1821-1825. . 
 1826-1830. . 
 
 
 12 
 16 
 
 .6 
 14 
 
 48 
 74 
 71 
 
 1831-1835. . 
 
 
 
 86 
 
 1836-1840. . 
 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 1841-1845. . 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 15 
 I 
 12 
 .2 
 
 2 
 14 
 8 
 8 
 3.5 
 
 5 
 
 10.8 
 5 
 
 3.5 
 9 
 
 9 
 
 .2 
 4 
 11 
 
 3 
 23 
 
 12 
 
 16 
 4 
 
 1.5 
 1.4 
 3.4 
 
 63 
 
 1846-1850. . 
 
 
 
 48 
 
 1§51-1855. . 
 
 
 
 .7 
 .3 
 
 ""■3" 
 .3 
 
 "h" 
 
 1.8 
 .2 
 
 29 
 
 8 
 
 .2 
 
 "h" 
 
 12 
 
 8 
 
 .03 
 3 
 11 
 8 
 9 
 
 61 
 
 1856-1860. . 
 
 
 
 12 
 
 2 
 22 
 7 
 5 
 17 
 
 21 
 22 
 26 
 14 
 13 
 
 38 
 
 1861-1865. . 
 
 
 
 71 
 
 1866-1870. . 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 1871-1875. . 
 
 
 
 25 
 
 1876-1880. . 
 
 
 
 iqV 
 
 1881-1885.. 
 
 
 
 33 
 
 1886-1890. . 
 
 
 
 76 
 
 1891-1895. . 
 
 
 
 55 
 
 1896-1900. . 
 
 
 
 57 
 
 1901-1905. . 
 
 
 
 21 
 
 1906-1910. . 
 
 
 
 36 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 These data were compiled from three sources mainly. Those before 1851 were taken from Quincy's 
 History of Harvard University, 2 vols., published in 1840, and from the lists of " Grants and Donations to 
 Harvard College" published in Barnard's American Journal of Education, Vol. IX, pp. 139-160, Sept., 1860. 
 Those for the years 18.52-1910 were taken from the annual reports of the president and treasurer of Harvard 
 College. 
 
 2 Gift of 27 acres of land, income to be used for scholarships for students from town of Dorchester. 
 » Data for the years 1862-63 and 1867-68 are not included. 
 
24 
 
 PHTLANTPTROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 Table 4. — Donations and grants to Yale University, 1701-1900 — Distribution oj 
 donations by individuals.^ 
 
 
 Total 
 grants 
 
 by 
 colony. 
 
 Total 
 donations 
 by indi- 
 viduals. 
 
 Per cent of total donations by individuals given to 
 
 - 
 
 Per cent in 
 form of — 
 
 Dates. 
 
 '6 
 "3 
 
 P< 
 
 ft 
 
 m 
 
 Ph 
 
 "Sfl 
 9 
 
 CL, 
 
 ft 
 
 31 
 
 Mft 
 
 ft 
 
 ^i 
 
 ■a 
 2 
 
 "a 
 m 
 
 ft 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 II 
 
 ''is, 
 
 B ^ 
 
 Ph m 
 
 3 
 
 '0 
 
 
 
 3 
 O" 
 
 
 P3 
 
 1701-1705. 
 1706 1710 
 
 SI, 335 
 1,335 
 3,627 
 1,758 
 
 4, 005 
 2, 203 
 2,448 
 2,997 
 
 2,679 
 5,233 
 4,520 
 
 $134 
 
 
 100 
 
 100 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 100 
 
 100 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1711-1715. 
 1716-1720. 
 
 1721-1725. 
 1726-1730. 
 1731-1735. 
 1736-1740. 
 
 1741-1745. 
 1746-1750. 
 1751-1755. 
 1756-1760 
 
 1,424 
 5,416 
 
 808 
 
 1,971 
 
 ■1?,608 
 
 67 
 
 352 
 
 53 
 
 159 
 
 968 
 
 1,041 
 
 109 
 
 62 
 
 1,290 
 
 3,233 
 
 1, 458 
 
 f 1,122 
 
 ""87' 
 51 
 
 19 
 
 80 
 
 "'89' 
 
 "73' 
 
 50 
 
 100 
 13 
 
 49 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 
 81 
 20 
 100 
 100 
 
 100 
 11 
 
 100 
 27 
 
 50 
 100 
 100 
 
 100 
 100 
 
 100 
 100 
 
 1 
 
 100 
 
 29 
 
 100 
 
 11 
 
 82 
 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 
 50 
 100 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 100 
 100 
 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 
 50 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 
 90 
 100 
 100 
 
 80 
 
 50 
 100 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 100 
 
 
 99 
 
 
 14.5 
 52 
 
 
 99 
 
 
 
 
 50 
 
 
 71 
 
 ""S9' 
 18 
 
 
 80 
 
 
 
 50 
 
 37 
 
 89 
 97 
 
 82 
 
 
 
 
 16 
 10 
 
 
 '13"'" 
 0.5 
 
 89 
 18 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1761 1765 
 
 1,460 
 3, 595 
 1,282 
 
 
 
 5 
 10 
 
 10 
 
 1766-1770 
 
 
 
 
 
 1771 1775 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1776 1780 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 20 
 
 1781 1785 
 
 
 50 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 50 
 
 1786 1790 
 
 
 
 22 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 1791 1795 
 
 |40,629 
 
 100 
 
 
 
 8 
 100 
 
 100 
 
 1796 1800 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1801-1805 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1806-1810 
 
 
 2,000 
 
 
 100 
 
 
 100 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 100 
 
 100 
 
 
 1811-1815 
 
 8,785 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1816 1820 
 
 6,000 
 
 78, 848 
 
 14, 664 
 
 126,138 
 
 12, 000 
 
 38, 100 
 
 15, 850 
 
 177,490 
 
 329,500 
 
 434,648 
 
 743, 481 
 
 1,135,007 
 
 417,000 
 
 623,200 
 3, 349, 471 
 1,-553,382 
 1,729,094 
 
 100 
 
 2 
 3 
 
 30 
 
 "25' 
 21 
 
 2 
 6 
 15 
 33 
 
 53 
 
 1 
 
 21 
 
 35 
 
 98 
 97 
 70 
 100 
 
 100 
 75 
 79 
 
 100 
 
 98 
 94 
 
 85 
 66 
 
 47 
 99 
 79 
 65 
 
 100 
 
 30 
 75 
 32 
 17 
 
 31 
 27 
 95 
 
 58 
 
 53 
 62 
 89 
 45 
 
 98 
 92 
 
 74 
 81 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 50 
 
 98 
 100 
 97.3 
 18 
 
 100 
 44 
 95 
 92 
 
 97 
 92 
 93 
 46 
 
 85 
 18 
 
 50 
 
 1821-1825 
 
 
 70 
 25 
 68 
 83 
 
 69 
 71 
 5 
 
 42 
 
 47 
 38 
 11 
 55 
 
 20 
 8 
 26 
 19 
 
 58 
 6 
 
 20 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 50 
 
 15 
 
 1 
 
 "3"'" 
 
 16 
 
 3 
 34 
 
 '83"" 
 
 2 
 
 1826-18;J0. 
 1831 18:35 
 
 7,000 
 
 21 1 2 
 
 i.7 
 
 1836 1840 
 
 
 
 
 82 
 
 1841 1845 
 
 
 
 
 66 
 
 
 
 1846 1850 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 ""5""" 
 
 34 
 
 56 
 
 1851-1855 
 
 
 30 
 40 
 
 21 
 
 11 
 
 42 
 
 5 
 
 21 
 6 
 
 10 
 3 
 
 9 
 60 
 
 6 
 17 
 24 
 
 2 
 
 28 
 
 13 
 
 26 
 
 8 
 
 
 5 
 
 1856 1860 
 
 
 24 
 
 44 
 9 
 11 
 
 28 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 15 
 
 6 
 
 4 
 
 ■"5"" 
 3 
 
 1.5 
 
 'io " 
 
 3 
 
 8 
 
 1861 1865 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 1866-1870 
 
 
 0.5 
 .3 
 4 
 
 "3"' 
 1 
 .5 
 
 2 
 2 
 4 
 
 1.5 
 5 
 3 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 1871-1875. 
 
 
 7 
 
 1876-1880 
 
 
 54 
 
 1881-1885. 
 
 
 15 
 
 1886-1890 
 
 
 82 
 
 1891 1895 
 
 
 
 1893-1900 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' Sources for this table: Conn. Colonial Records; Dexter— Yale Biographies and Annals, 1701; Steiner— 
 Hist, of Educ. in Conn.; Bagg— Four Years at Yale; Stile's Diary, Vol. Ill; Trumbull— Hist, of Conn. 
 Vol. II; Papers of New Haven Hist. Soc; Kingsley— Yale Book; Baldwin— Hist, of Yale College; and 
 reports of the president and treasurer of Yale College. 
 
 - £3,000 of this was the value of a farm which the college leased for 999 years, and though now worth 
 1140,000, brings the university only $145 per year. New Haven Hist. Soc. Papers, Vol. I, p. 156. 
 
THE COLON'IAL PEEIOD. 
 
 25 
 
 Table 5. — Donations and grants to Princeton University, 1745-1856 and 1906- 
 1910 — Distribution of the donations hy individuals.^ 
 
 
 Total 
 donations 
 hj indi- 
 viduals. 
 
 Total 
 grants 
 
 by 
 
 Colony. 
 
 Per cent of total donations by individuals given to— 
 
 Given in 
 form of— 
 
 Dates. 
 
 4 
 
 a 
 
 s 
 
 aj 
 o 
 Qt 
 t-, 
 3 
 Pi 
 
 CO 
 
 6 
 
 3 
 a 
 
 <a 
 
 * d 
 
 (1( 
 
 ft 
 2 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 "3 
 ft2 
 
 •is 
 
 3 
 
 « 3 
 
 '^ M 
 .2 M 
 
 1 
 
 s 
 i 
 
 •a 
 
 g 
 
 & 
 
 3 
 
 Ph 
 
 td 
 a 
 '3 
 
 -4.3 
 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 a< 
 
 « 
 
 1745-1750 
 1751 1755 
 
 $3,953 
 
 16,261 
 
 973 
 
 
 100 
 
 1 
 
 "99' 
 
 100 
 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 99 
 100 
 100 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 25 
 100 
 
 67 
 
 25 
 100 
 
 5 
 
 
 1756-1760 
 
 
 
 
 
 {') 
 
 
 1761 1765 
 
 {') 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1766 1770 
 
 7,058 
 
 146 
 
 3,300 
 
 1, 550 
 
 3,657 
 
 10,677 
 
 80 
 
 53, 278 
 
 13,500 
 3,480 
 3,080 
 9,080 
 
 17, 030 
 4,785 
 3,185 
 6,080 
 
 3, 540 
 
 105, 080 
 
 4,759,115 
 
 92 
 
 8 
 100 
 
 "94' 
 
 90 
 100 
 100 
 
 99 
 
 97 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 
 97 
 100 
 100 
 
 63 
 
 100 
 
 100 
 
 77 
 
 79 
 100 
 100 
 
 69 
 
 18 
 100 
 
 "99' 
 
 3 
 
 88 
 98 
 33 
 
 27 
 99 
 98 
 99 
 
 98 
 8 
 15 
 
 21 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 8 
 
 "ioo"" 
 
 99 
 100 
 
 1 
 
 1771 1775 
 
 
 
 
 
 1776 1780 
 
 
 100 
 6 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 100 
 
 1781 1785 
 
 
 31 
 
 82 
 
 
 
 
 63 
 90 
 
 
 93 
 
 81 
 100 
 
 
 31 
 9 
 
 69 
 
 1786 1790 
 
 
 
 
 
 91 
 
 1791 1795 
 
 
 
 
 
 100 
 
 1796-1800 
 
 $8, 010 
 
 "'i' 
 
 3 
 
 100 
 1 
 
 97 
 
 12 
 
 2 
 
 67 
 
 73 
 1 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 90 
 
 85 
 
 100 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 100 
 98 
 
 93 
 
 88 
 100 
 100 
 
 100 
 75 
 98 
 63 
 
 100 
 100 
 
 87 
 
 
 1801 1805 
 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 16 
 17 
 9S 
 33 
 
 15 
 
 44 
 60 
 37 
 
 54 
 3 
 
 82 
 "27" 
 
 1 
 
 93 
 97 
 97 
 33 
 
 11 
 62 
 97 
 49 
 
 98 
 
 5 
 
 .5 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 1806-1810 
 
 
 55 
 12 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 70 
 1 
 2 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 1811 1815 
 
 
 
 
 12 
 
 1816-1820 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1821-1825 
 
 
 
 66 
 
 
 
 1826-1830 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 1831 1835 
 
 
 
 
 25 
 
 1836-1840 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 1841 1845 
 
 
 37 
 
 
 
 37 
 
 1846-1850 
 
 
 
 
 
 1851-1855 
 
 
 
 95 
 4 
 
 '""i' 
 
 3 1 
 
 .01 5 
 
 
 1908 1910 
 
 
 :;3 
 
 13 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 Data for this table were taken from Maclean's Hist, of the College of New Jersey; Murray's Hist, of 
 Educ. in New Jersey; and from reports of the president and treasurer of the college. 
 
 2 In 1860 the Ubrary contained about 12,000 volumes, practically all of which had been donated. See 
 Maclean, Hist, of the College of New Jersey, Vol. I, p. 203. 
 
 3 Right to conduct lottery. 
 
 There were three sources of income for the colleges : The general court, philan- 
 thropy, and student fees. In the accompanying tables we are concerned with 
 that of philanthropy mainly, though for comparative purposes, column 1 gives 
 the amounts received from the State. 
 
 The gifts are grouped into five-year periods. Column 2 gives us a picture of 
 the stream of donations that has been flowing for so many years into the 
 treasuries of four of our oldest colleges. 
 
 The first large grouping of the gifts is that which shows them to have been 
 given to the college unconditionally on the one hand, or with certain conditions 
 which wholly or in part determine how the money shall be spent on the 
 other. The next grouping is that which states whether the gift is for present 
 use or for permament endowment. Further than this it is a question of just 
 what is the specific condition. Is it for the library, for scholarships, for appa- 
 ratus, etc.? 
 
 FUNCTION or THE STATE IN HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 During the eighteenth century Harvard received relatively much more from 
 the State than in the seventeenth century. Yet during the entire colonial period 
 the loss of that support would have been almost fatal to the college. The same 
 
26 
 
 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 Table 6. — Donations cmd grants to Columhia University, 1754-1910 — Distribu- 
 tions of the donations by individuals.^ 
 
 
 Total dona- 
 tions by- 
 individ- 
 uals. 
 
 Total 
 grants 
 
 by 
 colony. 
 
 Per cent of total donations by individuals given to — 
 
 In form of— 
 
 Dates. 
 
 o 
 O 
 
 3 
 
 K 
 
 CO 
 
 
 II 
 
 '=« a M 
 
 3 §*§ 
 
 .2 '3 13 
 
 ft 
 2 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 o 
 
 <v <a v3 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 W 
 
 1750-1755 
 
 
 S21,593 
 27,580 
 4,860 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1756-1760 
 
 $115, 828 
 38, 466 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 29 
 99 
 
 71 
 
 1761-1765 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1766-1770 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1771-1775 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1776-1780 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1781-1785 
 
 4, 860 
 
 12, 462 
 
 4,860 
 
 48,600 
 
 11,935 
 
 8,958 
 2,700 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 100 
 
 1786-1790 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1791-1795 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 1 
 
 1796-1800 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1801-1805 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1806-1810 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1811-1815 
 
 
 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1816-1820 
 
 
 10,000 
 
 
 
 i 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1821-1825 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1826-1830 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1831-1835 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1836-1840 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ... 1 - -- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1841-1845 
 
 20,000 
 
 
 
 100 
 
 
 
 100 
 
 
 100 
 
 
 
 
 100 
 
 1846-1850 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1851-1855 
 
 1,000 
 1,150 
 2,800 
 200 
 4,300 
 
 10,000 
 
 18,945 
 
 247,911 
 
 4,974,385 
 
 3,530,160 
 
 3,910,570 
 4,382,015 
 
 
 
 100 
 13 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 
 100 
 95 
 60 
 92 
 99.7 
 
 97 
 74 
 
 'ioo"" 
 
 28 
 100 
 100 
 
 40 
 37 
 9 
 
 82 
 44 
 
 51 
 52 
 
 100 
 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 28 
 100 
 100 
 100 
 
 40 
 95 
 31 
 93 
 68 
 
 92 
 75 
 
 87 
 
 185*^-1860 
 
 
 87 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 72 
 
 1861-1865 
 
 72 
 
 72 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1866-1870 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1871-1875 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1876-1880 
 
 
 
 60 
 63 
 91 
 18 
 56 
 
 49 
 
 48 
 
 
 
 50 
 63 
 14 
 
 3 
 
 2.5 
 
 0.6 
 2.4 
 
 "34'" 
 
 22 
 
 35 
 
 2 
 1.5 
 
 60 
 
 1881-1885 
 
 
 5 
 
 40 
 8 
 0.3 
 
 3.0 
 26 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 1886-1890 
 
 
 
 69 
 
 1891-1895 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 1896-1900 
 
 1901-1905 
 1906-1910 
 
 ■"'o.T 
 
 6 
 
 12 
 15 
 
 32 
 
 8 
 25 
 
 I The data for this table were taken from an oflicial publication of the university entitled "Columbia 
 University — Gifts and Endowments — 1754-1904," and from the reports of the treasurer of the university 
 covering the years subsequent to 1904. This covers the Columbia Corporation alone and does not include 
 Barnard and Teachers' Colleges. 
 
 is true of Yale and Columbia. For Princeton, however, there is a different 
 story. Only once during the colonial period was any aid given by the State to 
 Princeton. In 1762 the assembly granted the right to hold a lottery for an 
 amount not to exceed £5,000.^* This was very real help, and since it involved a 
 special act of the legislature it is fair to assume that it shows friendliness on 
 the part of the State. A few years after this period closes, the State granted 
 to the college £600 annually for three years, to be paid in quarterly payments.*" 
 In the report of the committee which represented the college before the legis- 
 lature it appears that legislators ra'sed the objection that the institution was 
 under the " sole and exclusive control of one denomination of Christians." 
 The difficulties with which this act was passed and the result of the act show 
 the extent to which the College of New Jersey was not a State institution. 
 
 *5 Murray : Hist, of Educ. in New Jersey, p. 27. 
 
 ^o Maclean, Vol. I, p. 13, gives a copy of the report of a committee appointed to apply to 
 the State for aid. 
 
THE COLONIAL PERIOD. 27 
 
 It is said on good authority, declares Maclean, that not one of the legislators 
 who voted for the act was returned to his office at the ensuing election, so 
 bitter was the feeling against the act.^' 
 
 It is to be remembered that New Jersey, unlike Connecticut and Massachu- 
 setts, was settled by people of several different religious sects, and that while 
 religious education of the Congregational type practically meant State educa- 
 tion for Yale and Harvard, it meant only church education for the New Jersey 
 college." 
 
 A more careful study of the problem of higher education and the State is 
 inviting, but a few illustrations to show that State education of collegiate grade, 
 while understood and practiced in part, was not a fully established educational 
 social philosophy in the colonial days, sei'ves our purpose. Wheelock's Indian 
 school received aid, £50 per annum for five years, once from the Colon.v of New 
 Hampshire, and after the school became Dartmouth College it received aid of 
 £60 in 1771 and £500 in 1773, after which no formal request was ever made, 
 though one was prepared in 1775.** New Hampshire apparently had no thought 
 of Dartmouth as a State institution. 
 
 The College of Rhode Island was essentially a denominational school estab- 
 lished in a State where the Baptist faith predominated but by the church of 
 that denomination in several Colonies. There should theoretically have been 
 no hindrance to making their college quite as much an object of State concern 
 as was the case with Tale, Harvard, and Kings ; but the facts show that little 
 help was ever received by the college from the Colony, due, no doubt, to Rhode 
 Island's insistence upon a real separation of church and state. 
 
 At William and Mary the relation of college and state varied with the 
 governors of the province, several of whom were exceedingly unfriendly to 
 higher education in general, and to President Blair and his college in particu- 
 lar. But in spite of these the college received much genuine assistance from 
 the Colony. At the outset it was granted a duty on liquors imported, and on 
 skins and furs exported, which by October, 1695, amounted to £441 sterling,'" 
 and " upwards of 3,000 pounds communibus annis.'' " In 1718 a grant of £1,000 
 was made by the Colony to establish three scholarships (part of this fund was 
 invested in negro slaves). In 1726 a grant of £200 annually for 21 years was 
 made from the duty on liquors. In 1734 this increased to include the entire 
 income of the 1 penny per gallon duty on liquors, providing that part of the 
 money should be used for the purchase of books, each of which was to bear 
 a label, reading " The gift of the General Assembly of Virginia in the Year 
 1734." ^ In 1759 the college received another grant in the form of a tax on 
 peddlers. Without making the list exhaustive, it is evident that the State 
 took an interest in the college and bore a fairly substantial part of its financial 
 burdens, even if it did not assume the real responsibility. 
 
 CONDITIONAL AND UNCONDITIONAL GIFTS. 
 In the case of Harvard there seems to have been a gradual and fairly per- 
 sistent tendency for people to specify how the college should use their gifts. 
 At Yale there was somewhat of a general tendency toward unconditional gifts, 
 
 "Maclean, Vol. I, p. 18. 
 
 *« During and following the Revolution Yale could not get help from the State for much 
 the same reason. The legislature demanded that " civilians " be placed on the board of 
 trustees before the State rendered aid. This was finally done. 
 
 « Chase, pp. 272, 277. ' 
 
 "> Bruce, Philip Alexander : Institutional History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Cen- 
 tury, Vol. I, p. 395. 
 
 •1 Howe's History of the Colony of Virginia, p. 325. 
 
 •» This is another evidence that the State did not consider the college a State institation. 
 111512'— 22 3 
 
28 PHILANTHROPY IN AMEEICAjST HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 but most of the early gifts were conditional. At Princeton also there was a 
 tendency to place some condition upon the gifts, and with the emphasis in the 
 early years somewhat between that for Yale, which emphasizes conditional 
 and that for Harvard which emphasizes unconditional gifts. 
 
 In the early days a college was just one thing. It was a teaching institution 
 only and there was little occasion for giving other than " to the college." Yet 
 many gifts were carefully safeguarded with conditions. 
 
 A glance at the succeeding columns of the tables, however, and an explana- 
 tion of some of the large figures in the " purpose specified " column will suffice 
 to show that the main current, even of the conditional gifts, was generally in 
 line with the fundamental aim and practical needs of the college. Taking the 
 73 per cent in the " purpose specified " column of the Harvard table, the ex- 
 planation is simply £60 worth of books and £251 15s. 6d. toward " the repairs 
 of the college." The 99.5 per cent in 1671-1675 is largely accounted for by the 
 contributions from 44 towns " for the erection of a new building for the 
 college," amounting to over £2,000. The 90 per cent in 1696-1700 is mostly 
 accounted for by the cost of Stoughton Hall, built and presented to the college 
 by the Hon. William Stoughton in 1699. The first 100 per cent in the " purpose 
 specified " column of the Princeton table was gifts to the aid of pious and 
 indigent students, a very common mode of assistance in those days, as it is 
 now in many colleges. In the Yale table the first 100 per cent refers to books 
 for the library, and the second to nearly 1,000 volumes, mostly from England. 
 
 GIFTS FOR PRESENT USE AND FOR ENDOWMENT. 
 
 The next general grouping of the funds is into those for present use and 
 those for permanent endowment. It is very noticeable that all through this 
 jieriod the gifts were in the main to be used at once by the college. The " dead 
 hand," good or bad, plays little part in this period of our educational history. 
 The 100 per cent in the Harvard, table, " permanent endowment " column, 
 1646-1650, was just one bequest, and that to the college in general. The 64 
 per cent in 1666-1670 was for the establishment of " two fellows and two 
 scholars." The 75 per cent in 1716-1730 was for the maintenance of preachers 
 and for the education of pious young men for the ministry, both entirely 
 appropriate to the needs of Harvard at that time. This same tendency appears 
 to have been true for the other colleges. 
 
 HOW GIFTS WERE CONDITIONED. 
 
 What and how many kinds of restrictions were placed upon these gifts? 
 From the very start there are restricted gifts, at first few in number, and 
 falling within the main object of the college, but gradually increasing in 
 number and variety until in the present day they are extremely numerous. 
 During the period under discussion, however, they were few in number. They 
 are for buildings, for the library, for aid of pious and indigent students, for 
 scholarships and fellowships, for equipment, and for professorships. 
 
 INFLUENCE OF CONDITIONAL GIFTS UPON THE GROWTH OF THE COLLEGE. 
 
 To what extent do these restricted gifts tend to broaden the purpose and • 
 function of the college? There can be cited numerous instances of where an 
 entirely new field of work has been undertaken by a college as the result of 
 such a gift. Observatories, scientific schools, hospitals, and botanical' gardens 
 are common illustrations of this. In the colonial days, however, when the 
 
THE COLONIAL PEEIOD. 29 
 
 economic and social life was restricted ; when for the most part professional 
 life meant the niinistrj-, and a ministry whose profession rested upon accepted 
 truths and philosophies long ago written down in books, and not upon ability 
 and training in the discovery of new truth and the making of new creeds ; when 
 all learning was book learning; we expect the conditions placed upon bene- 
 factions to reflect these ideas and conditions. 
 
 To say that " endowment " has not produced an educational experiment until 
 it has completely departed from the common aims and ideas of people in gen- 
 eral, however, is to restrict the meaning of educational experiment. The found- 
 ing of a professorship of divinity in 1721 was an experiment in a way, even 
 though theology was then the center of the college curriculum. If this pro- 
 fessorship did nothing startling by way of educational experimentation, it at 
 least shifted the emphasis in the Harvard curriculum, which means that it 
 made Harvard a slightly different Harvard from what it had been. 
 
 So, while an examination of the tables shows that nothing very unusual was 
 started by gifts during this period, it also shows that without the gifts the 
 colleges would have been different from what they were. 
 
 A study of the gifts " to pious and indigent students " is especially interest- 
 ing. Tale seems to have received nothing for this purpose before 1S25. The 
 same is not true, however, for either Harvard or Princeton. The fact that the 
 tendency to add to these funds to-day, and that they are of such large conse- 
 quence in our theological colleges particularly, gives us a special interest in 
 the early ancestry of this particular kind of beneficence. We can not help 
 noting the absence of such funds in our modern scientific schools. To say that 
 our present research fellowship is the same thing is not true. Competitive 
 scholarships and fellowships are very old methods of helping students and not 
 in any way connected with the funds here considered. In colonial times 
 the condition almost always read " for the benefit of pious and indigent students 
 of the gospel ministry," or words to that effect. Since a large percentage of 
 colonial college students were training for the ministry,^'' it is perhaps unfair 
 to assume that indigence was regarded as a virtue or proper qualification for 
 entering that profession. The income of a minister was about equal to that of 
 a professor, so the economic outlook for the theological student could scarcely 
 be responsible for the ministry calling its members largely from the indigent 
 class. Whatever the explanation, it seems a fact that colonial Harvard and 
 Princeton did subsidize a class of students who classified as " indigent, pious, 
 and desirous of entering the ministry." 
 
 The plan of establishing scholarships and fellowships, granted on basis of 
 scholarships and general ability, appear?, first at Harvard in 1643, with a gift of 
 £100 from Lady Moulson, of England. There were very few such funds es- 
 tablished in the colonial period, but there were enough to show that the idea, 
 old in Europe of course, had been brought into the colonial college. 
 
 The gifts for the establishment of professorships, usually regarded as on the 
 whole the most useful of all conditional benefactions to higher education," have 
 played some part in the development of our colleges since the first gift for that 
 purpose in 1721, when the Hollis professorship of divinity was established at 
 Harvard. From then on these gifts take a prominent place among Harvard's 
 benefactions, and there are a few such gifts to Yale and Princeton. Table 7 
 will show, in order of their establishment, the kinds of professorships which 
 were established in this period, the field of work each covered, and how each 
 was endowed. 
 
 °3 See " Professional Distribution of College and University Graduates," by Bailey B. 
 Burritt, U. S. Bu. of Bduc. Bui., 1912, No. 19. 
 
 " See President Eliot's An. Rep. of Harvard Univ., 1901-2, p. 61. 
 
30 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 Tablk 7. — Distribution mid character of pre-Recolutiunanj professorships. 
 
 Dates. 
 
 Field of work to be covered. 
 
 How endowed. 
 
 Place. 
 
 Founding gift. 
 
 1721 
 
 
 Gift by Thos. HolUs 
 
 Harvard 
 
 Harvard 
 
 Yale 
 
 Income £40 an- 
 
 1727 
 1754 
 
 Mathematics and natural 
 philosophy. 
 
 Gift by Thos. Holhs 
 
 nually. 
 £390 sterling. 
 
 Gift by Phihp Livingston 
 
 Bequest by Thos. Hancock. . 
 
 Gift by Jno. Williams 
 
 Bequest by Nicholas Boylston 
 
 £28i sterling. 
 
 1764 
 1766 
 
 Hebrew and other oriental 
 languages. 
 
 Harvard 
 
 Princeton 
 
 Harvard 
 
 £1,000 sterling. 
 £100 sterling. 
 
 1771 
 
 Rhetoric and oratory 
 
 £1,500 sterling. 
 
 Here are six professorships — three of which are divinity and two others 
 more or less allied to divinity, four founded by bequest and two by gift, all 
 but one on a fair foundation and that one soon enlarged by subscription — 
 founded in the half century preceding the Revolution, which, when considered 
 in the light of the small faculties of that time, represent a very substantial 
 accomplishment for philanthropy. The fields covered by these professorships 
 were all entirely legitimate, in fact essential to the meaning of a college at 
 that time. We must not overlook the fact, however, that such a gift was not 
 made at Harvard during almost its first century of work, at Yale during its 
 first half century, and at Princeton for 20 years. The precedent for founding 
 professorships is, of course, very old in Europe, and it is a bit surprising that 
 such endowments were begun so late in the Colonies. 
 
 The endowment of the library is scarcely second in importance to that of 
 professorship.s. The column representing gifts to the library is only partially 
 complete, since so many of the gifts were in books and manuscripts, the value 
 of which was only occasionally to be found. The money gifts to libraries 
 during this period, including gifts of books when value was stated, were more 
 prominent in Yale than in Harvard or Princeton. 
 
 THE FORM OF GIFTS. 
 
 The form of the gift varies somewhat with the college, but in all the larger 
 percentage of benefactions for this period are by direct gift instead of by be- 
 quest. This is slightly so for Harvard, more so for Princeton, and pronouncedly 
 so for Yale. The bequests are more often presented for permanent rather 
 than for immediate use, though they have not been segregated here to show 
 this. 
 
 IMPORTANCE OF GIFTS FROM ENGLAND. 
 
 Before passing from this period some note should be taken of the important 
 part which the mother country played in providing money for the infant col- 
 leges in this country. Evidence for this is shown for Harvard only. From 
 these figures, however, it is evident that the colonial colleges had many friends 
 in the mother country. In fact, without these gifts it is hard to say what 
 might have been the fate of colonial Harvard. 
 
 English donations did not come through the avenues of the church and 
 religious societies alone, though religious motives are often evident in the 
 conditions adhering to the gifts, which were for the aid of library, professor- 
 ships, indigent students, etc. 
 
 When war broke down the friendly feeling between the two countries this 
 remarkable source of support, valuable in more ways than one, rapidly dried 
 up. It is frequently pointed out that the beginning of our national period is 
 the ending of English and the beginning of French influence in our higher 
 
THE COLOlSriAL PEEIOD. 31 
 
 education. So it is, and the ending of the column of figures here referred to 
 is a concrete statement of one of the things that is meant hy the ending of the 
 English influence. 
 
 When we consider these figures Ln the light of the developments which the 
 gifts opened up and the suggestions they brought to our colleges, we have 
 more than a word picture of this transition stage in one of our higher institu- 
 tions of learning. 
 
 There is one table (Table 6) not yet referred to, dealing with King's Col- 
 lege, later Columbia University. The fact that this college received so little 
 by way of donations through this period, and a fairly regular amount from the 
 Colony, makes it a marked exception. This study is dealing with philanthropy, 
 and not with the lack of it. and can only pass this with the suggestion that 
 the political life of New York, the religious restrictions attaching to the founda- 
 tion of the college, and the general and growing attitude of unfriendliness 
 which the people felt toward the English church, and also the English Govern- 
 ment, made it more difficult for the people to sympathize with the college and 
 treat it as an institution of the people. Without attempting to analyze the 
 cause further, it must be referred to here as a marked exception to the rule of 
 college building in colonial America ; and in view of the fact that gifts for 
 other colleges not infrequently came from people in New York, we can only 
 infer that the people themselves were not neglectful of higher education, but 
 only of this college. 
 
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. 
 
 This concludes a description of the educational philanthropy of the colonial 
 period. If we were to try to characterize it briefly, we should say that, in the 
 light of the economic conditions under which a group of young colonies were 
 forming, it was extensive and that it was consciously focused upon a vital 
 social problem. We should say that organized religion dominated practically 
 all the colleges and a large proportion of the gifts, and often denominationalism 
 tried to bend the college in this or that direction, most often with little ill 
 effect. We should say that there is good evidence that a very large per- 
 centage of the gifts wei'e solicited, usually for a specific purpose, and that 
 therefore the conditions of many gifts were actually determined by the col- 
 lege authorities themselves, which argues that, after all, the colleges did not 
 take form to a very marked extent in terms of the ideas, or v' 'ms either, 
 of philanthropists. We should say that the restricted gifts which ..ent to the 
 colleges were focused in reasonable proportion upon the fundamental needs of 
 the schools, such, for instance, as buildings and grounds (not shown separately 
 in the tables), professorships, library, and scholarships. We should say that 
 the unrestricted gifts, though in relative amount they varied for the three 
 colleges, show a substantial and fairly dependable source of support for each, 
 and that the tendency to give for immediate needs was as commendable as it 
 was pronounced, when we realize the limited resources of the colleges. 
 
 We should say also that there is evidence in the foundation documents and 
 facts pertaining to the actual establishing of the colleges that they were all — 
 William and Mary a partial exception — intended from the start to rest upon 
 philanthropy, and that the important service of philanthropy was not in its 
 money and property gifts alone, but in responsibility borne and service rendered, 
 service which meant not only self-sacrifice to a cause but constructJve thinking 
 and planning. 
 
 While the colonial governm'ents rendered most impoi'tant service to William 
 and Mary, Yale, Harvard, and King's, tho'ugh not to Princeton, Brown, Dart- 
 mouth, and Rutgers, it does not appear that in any case the Colony frankly 
 
32 PHILANTHROPY IN AMEEICAlSr HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 and fully accepted the responsibility for developing a college. State aid to 
 higher education was an acceptetl fact when we think of Massachusetts, Con- 
 necticut, Virginia, and New York, but not elsewhere. And in these cases there 
 are explanations to be made which do not fully justify our calling any of 
 them State institutions in the present accepted sense. 
 
 If there is in this a lesson for modern philanthropy, it is in the persistence 
 with which the gifts flowed into the colleges under all circumstances, and the 
 sir- ';^ and sane directions under which these gifts did their work. 
 
Chapter III. 
 THE EARLY NATIONAL PERIOD, 1776-1865. 
 
 THE PERIOD CHARACTERIZED. 
 
 . The treatment of the years 1776 to 1865 as oue period in the history of 
 educational philantliropy is a more or less arbitrary division of time in the 
 nature, extent, or methods of giving during tliese yeai's. Yet there are some 
 reasons, aside from convenience, for studying these first 90 years of our na- 
 tional existence as a single period. 
 
 As was pointed out above, the gifts from England practically ceased at the 
 time of the Revolution. The Colonies now became independent States, nnd 
 began to face grave social and political responsibilities. Not only were the 
 ties with the mother country broken, but new, and for futui'e educational 
 development, significant friendships were foi'med in Europe with peoples 
 whose educational ideas and institutions were quite unlike those of England. 
 In losing this important source of support and influence, in forming new po- 
 litical and, as it proved, educational ties in Europe, and in facing her new po- 
 litical future, all American institutions enter upon a new period and must 
 learn to function in new terms. 
 
 Once a Nation was established, its next great political crisis was in 1861. 
 During these years there had been remarkable political and industrial achieve- 
 ments, important religious movements, an unheard-of expansion of population 
 to the west, and numerous and varied social philosophies had been tried out 
 and proved failures in practice. 
 
 All these movements and ideas were more or less reflected in the develop- 
 ment of higher education. There had been a decline in interest in education, 
 succeeded by an educational revival ; there had been a rapid growth in the 
 number of colleges; the Nation and the States had shown an interest in edu- 
 cation by the ordinances of 1785 and 1787 and by the actual founding of sev- 
 eral State colleges. It is mainly to philanthropy, however, that we must 
 look as the chief agency in the development of the American college during 
 these first 90 years of our national life. To trace the development of colleges 
 through these years, and to describe the part which philanthropy played, is 
 the problem of this chapter. 
 
 THE NUMBER OF COLUEGES AND HOW STARTED. 
 
 So far as mere numbers of institutions are concerned, private giving bore the 
 larger part of the responsibility for higher learning during the early years. 
 The States took no very definite step before 1794, and then in most cases fol- 
 lowed rather tardily the lead of private and church-endowed colleges. What 
 
 33 
 
34 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 the States did, however, was not insignificant. From the foundation of Har- 
 vard down they had contrihuted liberally to higher education.^ 
 
 While making an occasional grant upon request from a college is different 
 from taking full responsibility, yet we must remember two things: First, 
 States were themselves in process of making and had no traditions or prece- 
 dents to follow in such matters ; second, private and church-endowed educa- 
 tion had centuries of precedent and traditions to point the wny. In other 
 words, society had been accustomed to using the church and private agencies 
 for handling its college problems, and it is not surprising that it was slow in 
 placing that function upon the State. 
 
 During this period, then, one may say that the ideas of State support and 
 control of higher education worked themselves out, but that the chief burden 
 rested upon private and church donations. 
 
 This is brought out still more clearly in Table 8, which shows the names of 
 all the States added to the original 13 during this period, the dates of their 
 admission, the name, date, and source of control of the first college established 
 in each, the date when the State college or university was founded, and the 
 number of colleges which had been founded in each State before the State uni- 
 versity was established. 
 
 There are 23 States in this group, and in only 2, Nevada and Florida, was 
 the State university the first institution of higher education founded. In three 
 others, however, the State and a privately endowed school were started in the 
 same year. A comparison of the date columns in the table will show that in 
 most cases the State was more than 10 years old before it established a State 
 college or university. This was doubtless due in most cases to the fact that 
 the State was already well supplied with colleges, as appears from the next to 
 the last column in the table. One other set of facts in this table is of interest, 
 viz, the control of these colleges. In nearly every case it was the church which 
 did the pioneering. Those marked nonsectarian were usually none the less 
 religious projects, and some of them so marked were originally denominational. 
 
 Philanthropy, for the most part through the church, is therefore not only re- 
 sponsible from the standpoint of mere numbers of colleges throughout this 
 period, but also for the actual college pioneering of the evev-broadening frontier 
 of the new country. 
 
 1 Williams College (1793) received State grants as follows: 1789, lottery for £1,200, 
 building for free school : 1793, £1,200 ; in 1816, three-sixteenths of the Massachusetts 
 hank tax for 10 years, equaling $30,000 ; in 1859 a moiety of money from sale of Back 
 Bay lands, .$25,000, last grant in 1868, $75,000. Colhy College (1813) (Maine was 
 then part of Massachusetts) received State grants as follows from Massachusetts : In 
 1813 a township of land, and again in 1815 a township of land ; from Maine, in 1821, 
 $1,000 a year for 7 years (to reduce tuition fees) ; 1825, $1,000 annually for three years ; 
 1829, $1,000; 1832, $1,000 (one-half to help indigent students); 1861, two half town- 
 ships of land on condition that college raise $21,000 by Apr. 1, 1863 ; in 1903, $15,000 
 to rebuild (after Are). Amherst College (1821), in 1827, in 1831, in 1832, 1838, and in 
 1839, requests refused; in 1847, $25,000 granted. Bowdoin College (1802), in 1794, five 
 townships of land ; in 1820, $1,500 plus $1,000 annually " until the legislature shall 
 otherwise direct " ; in 1820 also $3,000 annually for seven years, beginning 1824. 
 
THE EARLY NATIONAL PEBTOD, 1776-1865. 
 
 35 
 
 Table 8. — Date of estahlishment and sources of support mid control of the first 
 college or university in each of the States admitted before 1865. 
 
 
 Date 
 ad- 
 mitted. 
 
 First college. 
 
 Control. 
 
 State 
 univer- 
 sity 
 found- 
 ed. 
 
 Colleges 
 found- 
 
 States. 
 
 Name. 
 
 Date 
 estab- 
 Ushed. 
 
 ed 
 before 
 
 State 
 univer- 
 sity. 
 
 Kentucky 
 
 1792 
 1791 
 1796 
 1802 
 1812 
 1816 
 1817 
 1818 
 1819 
 1820 
 1821 
 1836 
 1837 
 1845 
 1846 
 1845 
 1848 
 
 1850 
 
 1858 
 1859 
 1861 
 1863 
 1864 
 
 Transylvania University 
 
 Middlebury College 
 
 1798 
 1800 
 1794 
 1800 
 1832 
 1803 
 1826 
 1827 
 1830 
 1802 
 1818 
 1872 
 1833 
 
 Nonsectarian 
 
 do 
 
 1865 
 1800 
 1794 
 1808 
 1860 
 1824 
 1848 
 1868 
 1831 
 1868 
 1847 
 1872 
 1841 
 1887 
 1869 
 1876 
 1848 
 
 1 1869 
 
 1869 
 1870 
 1863 
 1868 
 1886 
 
 11 
 
 
 
 
 
 Tusculmn College 
 
 do 
 
 
 
 Ohio 
 
 Marietta College 
 
 do 
 
 1 
 
 
 Jefferson College 
 
 Roman Catholic. . . 
 
 Nonsectarian 
 
 Baptist 
 
 4 
 
 Indiana 
 
 Vincennes University 
 
 1 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 Shurtleff College 
 
 do 
 
 21 
 
 
 Spring Hill College 
 
 Roman Catholic... 
 
 Nonsectarian 
 
 Roman Catholic... 
 
 Presbyterian 
 
 Baptist 
 
 1 
 
 Maine. . ... 
 
 Bowdoin College 
 
 2 
 
 
 St. Louis University 
 
 4 
 
 
 Arkansas College 
 
 
 
 Michigan. . . 
 
 Kalamazoo College 
 
 1 
 
 Florida 
 
 
 
 
 
 Iowa 
 
 Iowa Wesleyan College 
 
 Baylor University 
 
 1842 
 1845 
 1846 
 1851 
 1851 
 1854 
 1854 
 1848 
 1841 
 
 Methodist 
 
 13 
 
 Texas 
 
 Baptist 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 Presbyterian 
 
 2 
 
 
 /College of the Pacific 
 
 
 California 
 
 \University of Santa Clara 
 
 Roman Catholic... 
 Methodist 
 
 5 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 Pacific University 
 
 Congregational 
 
 Roman Catholic... 
 Disciples 
 
 5 
 
 
 St. Mary's College 
 
 4 
 
 West Virginia. . 
 
 Bethany College 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 THE BEGINNINGS. 
 
 During the Revolution higher education received a brief setback, but soon 
 showed a tendency to keep pace with the growth of the population. The story 
 of the beginnings of practically all the colleges founded during this period is 
 one of penury. They were not launched with large foundation gifts or grants, 
 such as were common at the close of the century, but most often by small gifts 
 collected by subscription, as the following illustrations plainly show : 
 
 Williams College, founded in 1793, grew out of a free school established in 
 1755 by a bequest from Col. Ephraim Williams.^ 
 
 Bowdoin College, founded in 1794, received its first important gift of $1,000 
 and 1,000 acres of land, worth 2 shillings an acre, from Mr. Bowdoin. 
 
 Middlebury College, founded in 1800, started with $4,000, made up of small 
 donations from the citizens of the town of Middlebury. 
 
 Amherst College, founded in 1821, began as an academy started by a sub- 
 scription in 1812 and as a college with a subscription of $52,244, known as the 
 charity fund. 
 
 Oberlin College, founded in 1833 as one of the manual-labor projects, started 
 with a gift of 500 acres of land, worth about $1.50 per acre, supplemented by 
 the usual subscription plan. 
 
 Mount Holyoke Seminary and College, founded in 1836, started on small 
 subscriptions, 1,800 of which amounted to $27,000. 
 
 Marietta College, founded in 1835, received her first funds of $8,000 by sub- 
 scriptions and erected her second building on funds raised by subscriptions at 
 $2 per subscriber. 
 
 2 This bequest could not have been large, for in 1789, upon i-equest, the State granted 
 its trustees a right to raise £1,200 by lottery, the proceeds to be used to erect a building 
 for the free school. 
 
36 
 
 PHILANTHROPY llST AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 A very large number of these colleges began as academies. The idea of a 
 college as au academy grown large seems to have been an accepted principle 
 in philanthropic and State education alike.* 
 
 Of the 14 colleges founded between the close of the Revolution and the open- 
 ing of the nineteenth century, Williams, Hampden-Sidney, Union, Hamilton, 
 Washington and Jefferson, and Washington and Lee, all began as academies or 
 schools of that rank, with practically no funds. The story of this period is 
 therefore a story of simple pioneering, and that on a small scale. 
 
 HOW THE WORK WAS ACCOMPLISHED. 
 
 From the above it is clear that higher education was to be largely supported 
 and directed by the church. The college was a definite part of the plan to 
 propagate the Christian religion, and early in the new century the cry for an 
 educated ministry was voiced by almost every religious publication. Response 
 to this need in the form of church boards of education will be discussed later. 
 It must be pointed out here, however, that between the years 1830 and 1850 
 the number of theological seminaries increased from 21 to 38. 
 
 This religious work in founding colleges is often denominational, as may be 
 seen from the fifth column in Table 8. The older colleges in the East sent 
 missionaries into the new country across the mountains to meet the " spiritual 
 necessities of the western country," * as an officer of one of the earliest colleges 
 declares. Table 9 shows that all but 33 of the colleges of this period were 
 established by philanthropy, 167 of the 271 being distinctly denominational 
 projects and 71 others being religious but nonsectarian. 
 
 Table 9.- — Number of colleges, universities, and technical schools established 
 during the three periods and nurnber under the various types of control. 
 
 
 Sectarian. 
 
 Non- 
 secta- 
 rian, 
 but 
 reli- 
 gious. 
 
 Total 
 reli- 
 gious. 
 
 
 Periods. 
 
 Method- 
 ist. 
 
 Roman 
 
 Catho- 
 
 hc. 
 
 Bap- 
 tist. 
 
 Pres- 
 hyte- 
 rian. 
 
 Others. 
 
 Total. 
 
 State. 
 
 Colonial period 1635-1776 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 27 
 21 
 
 
 
 
 7 
 71 
 68 
 
 8 
 238 
 246 
 
 1 
 
 Eariy national period, 1776^ 
 1865 
 
 45 
 42 
 
 31 
 27 
 
 27 
 35 
 
 37 
 53 
 
 167 
 
 178 
 
 33 
 
 Later national period, 1865- 
 1915 
 
 62 
 
 
 
 Thus the work of philanthropy through this period is to remain where it was 
 in colonial times — in the hands of the church. There is, then, nothing specially 
 new by way of general motive or machinery for putting that motive to work. 
 Religion tries to meet its problems by training for religious and political leader- 
 ship. It does this in the hand-to-mouth fashion to which it has long been 
 accustomed. Williams, Amherst, Middlebury, Hamilton, and Oberlin were 
 
 * The laws of Maryland, Ch. VIII, 1782, concerning "An act for founding a college at 
 Chestertown," says : " Whereas former legislatures of this State have, according to their 
 best abilities, laid a considerable foundation in this good work, in sundry laws for the 
 establishment and encouragement of county schools, for the study of Latin, Greek, writ- 
 ing, and the like, intending, as their future circumstances might permit, to engraft or 
 raise on the foundation of such schools more extensive seminaries of learning by erect- 
 ing one or more colleges, or places of universal study, not only in the learned languages, 
 but in philosophy, divinity, law, physic, and other useful and ornamental arts and 
 sciences," etc. 
 
 * Quarterly Registei', Vol. V, p. 331. 
 
THE EARLY NATIONAL PEEIOD, 1776-1865. 37 
 
 founded very much as were Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. The problems they 
 hoped to sohe were much the same, and the methods of carrying on their work 
 were practically the same, with the exception that early in the new century 
 the churches began to develop boards of education through which a new type 
 of philanthropy, aimed directly at the preparation of a trained ministry, was 
 administered. 
 
 Further detailed study of the development of philanthropy in the older founda- 
 tions, in typical foundations of this period, and of church boards of education 
 should bring to light any new ideas or methods of work which the philanthropy 
 -^f this period has to offer. 
 
 PHILANTHROPY IN THE OLDER COLLEGES. 
 1. A PERIOD OF SMALL GIFTS, SMALL INCOME, AND SMALL ENDOWMENT. 
 
 To follow out the developments which took place in the older foundations 
 we have to refer again to Tables 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, where the data discussed in 
 chapter 3 are carried forward. 
 
 These colleges passed through the stormy period of the Revolution, in which 
 they all suffered more or less. Yet they survived, and an examination of the 
 total columns in these tables seems to indicate that the spirit of philanthropy 
 was kept alive through it all. The total gifts to Harvard during the years 
 1771-1775 were relatively large, though they dropped during the decade follow- 
 ing. Yale and Princeton, on the other hand, received but little by way of 
 gifts during this period, but came well up to their average during the decade 
 following, while King's College appears not to have been affected seriously. 
 
 Aside from a few large gifts just before the Civil War, this was a period 
 of small gifts for these old colleges. Harvard depended upon small subscrip- 
 tions to erect Divinity Hall in 1826, to establish a professorship of natural 
 history in 1805, and a professorship of geology in 1820. More than three- 
 fourths of Yale's endowment fund of $100,000 was raised in 1831 and 1832 by 
 Wyllis Warner in a similar way.° 
 
 It was also a time when permanent endowments were small, and when the 
 colleges were often struggling with heavy deficits. Yale's income from in- 
 vested funds in 1831 amounted to but $2,300, while the income from tuition 
 was too small to cover the necessary expenditures of $15,474.' In appealing 
 to the legislature for aid in 1822, Yale declared her debt to be $11,000, with 
 permanent productive funds of but $20,000. In 1825 Harvard's expenditures 
 exceeded her income by more than $4,000, while as late as 1840 her productive 
 funds amounted to only about $156,126.' Rhode Island College changed her 
 name to Brown University in 1804 for a gift of $5,000. 
 
 An examination of the total columns in these four tables shows that it was 
 not only a period of small gifts but also one of small total income. With the 
 funds that were at the disposal of Yale in 1800, it is not surprising that the 
 ambition of the college to become a university could be satisfied with the 
 establishment of schools of law, medicine, and theology in terms of a single 
 professorship for each of those fields. 
 
 5 Baldwin, reissue of "Annals of Yale," appendix, presents list of subscribers. 
 
 Steiner, B. C. Hist, of Educ. in Conn., p. 152, Washington, D. C, 1893. 
 
 ' Quincy, " History of Harvard College," II, 360, makes the former of these statements 
 on authority of the treasurer's report of that year. The second is from the treasurer's 
 report of 1840, ibid., appendix No. LX. 
 
38 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 2. EXPANSION OF THE COLLEGE AND INCREASE OF CONDITIONAL GIFTS. 
 
 Our concern here is not with the mere size of the gift, however, but par- 
 ticularly with the conditions upon which the gift is received. As a college 
 expands from one to many Ijuildings, from a classical to a scientific program, 
 fx'oni one to many instructors — in other words, from a traditional college to a 
 university — its needs tend to become more and more diverse, and so, specific, 
 as opposed to general. The donor who in the old day saw only the college 
 now sees laboi'atories, various kinds of professorships, buildings, libraries, 
 departments of this and that, etc., and if not consulted about his gift, is less 
 likely to give to the " college," since the college has now become a vague and 
 indefinite thing. 
 
 Amid such developments we should expect gifts to be made less frequently 
 to the general funds of the institution, and more often to a single specified part 
 of it. An examination of columns four and five of our tables shows that this 
 was roughly the tendency in all cases. The per cent given to " general fund," 
 with some exceptions, gradually grows smaller and the per cent to " specified 
 purposes " larger. 
 
 The question arises as to whether the new departures were more often initi- 
 ated by the president or board of trustees or by some donor who conceived the 
 idea and proposed its adoption by offering to endow it. This can not be 
 answered fully for the reason that all the facts concerning the naming of con- 
 ditions upon which a gift is offered can not now be obtained. It appears that 
 most of the gifts of this period were conditional. While it is true that the new 
 professorships, by way of which new departments and schools were usually 
 opened up, are named in memory of some special donor,^ yet we can not be sure 
 that growth in these terms was not largely directed by the college. 
 
 3. HOW THE GIFTS WERE CONDITIONED. 
 
 A second question of interest about a gift is whether it is to be available 
 for immediate use or to become a part of the productive funds of the college. 
 During colonial times, as was pointed out above, gifts were most generally for 
 immediate use. That is slightly less true for this period, as may be seen from 
 a study of columns six and seven of the table. It is decidedly less true for 
 Harvard, whose " permanent endowment " funds show a steady growth all 
 through the period. 
 
 A further study of these tables will show the conditions under which the 
 early narrow streams of beneficence flowing into these colleges gradually 
 widened during these 90 years. The library column would be enlarged if all 
 of the gifts of books could have been included. It appears that the library 
 i-eceived proportionately less at Yale through this period than it had been re- 
 ceiving, that no money gifts went to the libraries at Columbia and at Princeton, 
 while at Harvard such gifts increased slightly and became more constant. 
 
 The first professorship ever founded in this country was that of divinity at 
 Harvard, endowed by Thomas HoUis in 1721. There were five others founded 
 in Harvard, Yale, and Princeton during the colonial period, after which almost 
 a constant stream of gifts at Harvard and Princeton are for tjiis purpose. At 
 Yale no gifts for this purpose are recorded from 1760 to 1820. After this date, 
 however, there is a fairly regular and substantial tendency to endow instruc- 
 tion. Columbia has had much less of this kind of assistance, there having been 
 but one such large gift ($20,000 in 1843) previous to the year 1896. The de- 
 
 8 Of the 3.5 professorships and lectureships established at Harvard by 1865, 26 were 
 named for some benefactor of the college. 
 
THE EARLY NATIONAL PERIOD, 1776-1865. 
 
 39 
 
 velopinents in this partioular line of giving coincide roughly with the period 
 of expansion of the little traditional college into a university. 
 
 Keference to the " pious and indigent students " column in these tables shows 
 that at Harvard the gifts to this cause are irregular and relatively less than 
 in the earlier years; at Princeton they become more regular and relatively 
 larger. At Yale, where no such gifts appear before 1821, the response is irregu- 
 lar and slight. At Columbia practically no gifts are for the " poor and pious." 
 
 Assistance to students direct comes through another channel (see scholar- 
 ship and fellowship columns of the tables), in which poverty and piety play no 
 part. It has long been the custom to give money to pay the tuition of the 
 brightest student, as judged by competitive examination, and from our tables 
 this continues to be supported. Before 1835 Harvard and Princeton show much 
 more interest in the poor and pious than in this group. Yale tends to favor 
 the competitive scholarship idea, and at Columbia, where the poor and pious 
 receive little or no attention, a large and constant proportion of gifts go to 
 scholarships and fellowships. 
 
 One other way of helping the student directly is by use of prizes. Account 
 was kept of such gifts, but they proved to be irregular in all cases and of no 
 great consequence, so they do not appear in the tables. By adding together 
 the two items " scholarships " and " pious and indigent students " in the tables 
 we see that there is much educational philanthrophy which chooses to go di- 
 rectly to the student rather than indirectly through provision of instructors, 
 library, laboratory, buildings, etc. It is not the large educational enterprise in 
 which such donors are interested; it is an individual, and philanthropy is with 
 them a personal matter, that is, true charity. 
 
 4. L-A.EGE GIFTS OF THE PERIOD. 
 
 There were a few large gifts received during this period. Leaving out the 
 funds raised by subscription, the important gifts to three of the old colonial 
 colleges during this period are recorded in Table 10, which shows their form, 
 date, amount, and purpose. 
 
 Table 10. 
 
 -Amounts and conditions of the large gifts to Harvard, Yale, and 
 ColumMa from 1776 to 1865. 
 
 College. 
 
 Date. 
 
 Form of 
 dona- 
 tion. 
 
 Amount. 
 
 Conditions controlling gift. 
 
 Harvard 
 
 Harvard 
 
 Harvard 
 
 Harvard 
 
 Harvard 
 
 Yale 
 
 1814 
 1816 
 
 1845 
 
 1848 
 1854 
 1825 
 1860 
 1863 
 1863 
 1864 
 186-4-1867 
 1865 
 1843 
 
 Gift 
 
 Bequest... 
 
 ...do 
 
 ...do 
 
 ...do 
 
 Gift 
 
 ...do 
 
 ...do 
 
 ...do 
 
 ...do 
 
 ...do 
 
 ...do 
 
 Bequest... 
 
 $20, 000 
 20,000 
 
 100,000 
 
 50,000 
 50,000 
 25,000 
 50, 000 
 40,000 
 50, 000 
 175, 000 
 60,000 
 30,000 
 20,000 
 
 To found professorship of Greek. 
 
 To found professorship of French, Spanish 
 
 tore. 
 Unrestricted (to advance virtue, science, 
 
 ture.) 
 Education of yotmg men of rare powers. 
 To erect a chapel. 
 "On specified conditions." 
 To endow Sheffield Scientific School. 
 To endow professorship of divinity. 
 To endow professorship of Sanscrit. 
 Building for art school. 
 Building for a dormitory. 
 For a college chapel. 
 To endow a professorship. 
 
 and litera- 
 and Utera- 
 
 Yale . . 
 
 
 Yale 
 
 
 Yale 
 
 
 Yale 
 
 
 Yale 
 
 
 Yale 
 
 
 Columbia 
 
 
 It would certainly be difficult to question the conditions placed upon these 
 gifts. There are 13 in all, 5 for the founding of professorships, 4 for buildings, 
 1 for endowment of a scientific school. 1 for scholarships, 1 " on specified con- 
 ditions " which are not known, and 1 unrestricted. 
 
40 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER E-DUCATION. 
 
 These gifts represent departures but not wide departures from the ordinary 
 college. The French influence is seen in the establishment of a French and 
 Spanish professorship, the first of its kind in this country.® The influence of 
 the scientific movement also is shown by the professorships of natural history 
 and mineralogy and geology which were established in 1805 and 1820. 
 
 It is noteworthy that but one of these gifts is to go to the student direct. 
 The conditions of the gift provide that young men of rare powers in any depart- 
 ment of knowledge may be helped, not only after they enter Harvard but even 
 before, wherever they may be found. 
 
 Thus it appears that the large gifts of this period provided only for normal 
 expansion of the colleges, and probably did not anticipate, except in point of 
 time, the growth that would have come had these colleges been provided with 
 unconditional instead of conditional gifts. 
 
 Reference to the dates will show how few were the gifts of this size previous 
 to the middle of the nineteenth century. As to form, those to Harvard and 
 Columbia are mostly by bequest, while those to Yale are by gift direct. 
 
 5. FORM OF THE GIFTS. 
 
 Turning again to the last two columns of Tables 3 to 6 for a study of the 
 form of the benefactions, we find that at Harvard there is a slight increase 
 in the " bequests " column during this period, but that at Yale, Princeton, and 
 Columbia the burden of the income is by direct gift. 
 
 In these tables, then, which are doubtless typical for all the older colleges, 
 the developments show that the total gifts to the colleges do not increase much 
 before the second quarter of the new century. By that time income from the 
 State had grown very irregular or stopped entirely. There was a tendency 
 to change from giving " to the college " to giving to some special feature of 
 the college. Permanent endowment received more attention than before and 
 there was a falling off of interest in the " pious and indigent," except at 
 Princeton. There was an increased " interest in scholarships and fellowships 
 and a rapidly growing interest in professorships ; and gifts rather than be- 
 quests. Harvard excepted, remained the favorite form of benefactions. 
 
 PHILANTHROPY IN THE COLLEGES FOUNDED LATER. 
 
 As shown already, the increase in the number of colleges kept pace with the 
 development of the country, the church continuing as chief sponsor for the pro- 
 motion of higher education. A large percentage of the colleges were definitely 
 denominational projects, aimed at the development of a trained ministry and 
 the spread of religious and classical knowledge among laymen. They were 
 often the outgrowth of academies, many of which were started on very small 
 funds obtained by subscription (as Middlebury College from an academy with 
 funds amounting to $4,000). 
 
 Being in many cases the offspring of the older colleges, developed largely 
 by and for the people of the East who had moved westward, promoted by the 
 same ministry as that which had founded and nourished the colonial colleges," 
 
 » Bush, ibid., p. 85, quotes this statement from President Eliot. 
 
 "According to tenth annual report of directors of the American College and Educa- 
 tion Society a substantial stream of gifts was constantly flowing from eastern donors to 
 the struggling young colleges of the West. The following figures show the amounts of 
 
THE EARLY NATIONAL PERIOD, 1716-1865. 
 
 41 
 
 under very similar frontier and financial conditions we expect the colleges, 
 as well as the nature and methods of their support and control, to resemble 
 those of the older colleges in the Bast. In general, in fact one could almost 
 say in detail, this resembhince did exist. 
 
 Amherst College is typical for the period. In Table 11 is shown a distribu- 
 tion of its gifts from its origin in 1821 to 1S90. The college originated as 
 Amherst Academy, a subscription fund for which was started in 1812. The 
 school opened in 1814 and by 1818 was beginning the collection of funds for the 
 future college. Amherst is one of the nine New England colleges founded 
 during this period and began its career both as an academy and as a college 
 on money collected by subscription. Its first funds, $51,404, were collected to 
 found a " Charity Institution," and the great care with which the conditions 
 controlling the administration of this fund are set forth" impresses one with 
 the missionary zeal of the founders. Article three of this document provides 
 that five-sixths of the interest of the fund shall be forever appropriated to the 
 classical education in the institution of indigent pious young men for the 
 ministry, and the other sixth shall be added to the principal for its perpetual 
 increase, while the principal shall be secured intact and perpetually aug- 
 menting.^ Here, in the conditions controlling this foundation gift, is evidence 
 of the religious aim of the college and of its acceptance of the policy of subsi- 
 dizing young men who qualify as " indigent, pious, and desirous of entering 
 the ministry." While not the same in detail, this sounds much like the begin- 
 ning of a colonial college. 
 
 For a number of years Amherst's history has much to say about poverty, but 
 a comparison of the total benefactions to Amherst in her early years with those 
 for Harvard, Princeton, and Yale in Tables 3, 4, and 5 shows that Amherst 
 fared somewhat better in her infancy than did these older colleges, even 
 allowing for differences in money values. In the face of her fairly real com- 
 petition for funds with Harvard, Yale, and Williams, on the average her 
 income compares favorably with that of Princeton during the years 1821-1830, 
 and then rapidly surpasses Princeton, Harvard, and Yale for a number of years. 
 
 these gifts by years from 1844 to 1884. This is mostly the work of the CoBgregational 
 Church. If the many other church societies did as well, then this represents an im- 
 portant source of support for western colleges. 
 
 1844 $15, 588 
 
 1845 9, 500 
 
 1846 14, 000 
 
 1847 12. 555 
 
 1848 10, 000 
 
 1849 34, 300 
 
 1850 41, 500 
 
 1851 20, 500 
 
 1852 19, 000 
 
 1853 13, 496 
 
 1854 ?11, 250 
 
 1855 15, 077 
 
 1856 18, 887 
 
 1857 12, 131 
 
 1858 8, 428 
 
 1859 10, 159 
 
 1860 18, 291 
 
 1861-62__. 10, 298 
 
 1863 14, 689 
 
 1864 56, 320 
 
 1865 
 
 $14, 710 
 
 1875 
 
 $62. 375 
 
 1866 
 
 23, 588 
 
 1876 
 
 38, 691 
 
 1867 
 
 35, 246 
 
 1877 
 
 .34, 516 
 
 1868 
 
 51, 319 
 
 1878 
 
 42, 221 
 
 1869 
 
 19, 064 
 
 1879 
 
 37, 994 
 
 1870 
 
 65, 695 
 
 1880 
 
 38, 983 
 
 1871 
 
 72, 425 
 
 1881 
 
 229, 851 
 
 1872 
 
 51, 022 
 
 1882 
 
 64, 228 
 
 1873 
 
 73, 881 
 
 1883 
 
 135, 344 
 
 1874 
 
 52, 979 
 
 1884 
 
 88, 137 
 
 These amounts were contributed to the following institutions : 
 
 Western Reserve College, Ohio. 
 Marietta College, Ohio. 
 Lane Theological Seminary, Ohio. 
 Wittenberg College, Ohio. 
 Heidelberg College, Ohio. 
 Oberlin College, Ohio. 
 Wilberforce University, Ohio. 
 Illinois College, Illinois. 
 Rnox College, Illinois. 
 Wabash College, Indiana. 
 BeJolt College, Wisconsin. 
 Ripon College, Wisconsin. 
 Washburn College, Kansas. 
 
 Iowa College, Iowa. 
 
 YellOAV Springs College, Iowa. 
 
 German Evangelical College, Missouri. 
 
 Webster College, Missouri. 
 
 Thayer College, Missouri. 
 
 Drury College, Missouri. 
 
 Pacific University, Oregon. 
 
 College of St. Paul, Minnesota. 
 
 Carleton College, Minnesota. 
 
 College of California, California. 
 
 Pacific Theological Seminary, California. 
 
 Olivet College, Michigan. 
 
 Berea College, Kentucky. 
 
 " See W. S. Tyler, "A History of Amherst College," p. 7 ff., for a fall statement of the 
 14 articles controlling the fund. 
 
 "The report of the treasurer of Amherst College for 1912 shows this fund to be 
 $95,098.50. 
 
42 
 
 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 Table 11. — Donations and grants to Amherst College, 1821-1890 — Distribution 
 
 of gifts hy individuals.^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Per cent 
 
 g 
 
 
 
 
 
 Per cent of total gifts by individuals for— 
 
 
 in form 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 of— 
 
 ft 
 
 
 
 .2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •c 
 
 
 i 
 
 3 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 i 
 
 -% 
 
 
 ^ m 
 
 
 
 ■a 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 Dates. 
 
 C8 
 .Q 
 
 d 
 
 03 
 
 ■■B 
 
 X! 
 
 03 
 O 
 
 a 
 
 ft 
 
 oj 
 
 3 
 2 
 
 
 03 M 
 W ft 
 
 Si 
 
 M 
 
 o 
 
 .s 
 2 
 
 '1 
 
 03 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 3 
 
 OJ 
 
 X! 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 cc 
 
 PL| 
 
 a, 
 
 £ 
 
 Ph 
 
 Pm 
 
 3 
 
 Ph 
 
 P5 
 
 O 
 
 pq 
 
 o 
 
 1819 2 
 
 
 2 $51,404 
 34,000 
 54,000 
 100, 000 
 108,000 
 
 "99." 6 
 
 100 
 100 
 
 1 
 
 36 
 100 
 
 "ioo 
 
 100 
 64 
 31 
 
 100 
 
 
 
 100 
 
 
 
 
 100 
 88 
 
 100 
 89 
 
 100 
 
 12" 
 
 ..... 
 
 100 
 
 1821-1830 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 100 
 
 88 
 
 1831-1839 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 6.5 
 
 1.5 
 
 99 
 
 1840-1845 
 
 
 36 
 69 
 
 
 15 
 .57 
 
 
 100 
 
 1845-1854 
 
 $25,000 
 
 
 14 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 1855-1860 
 
 
 67,692 
 260,000 
 
 "i.h 
 
 64 
 98.5 
 
 96 
 
 77 
 
 4 
 23 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 3 
 3 
 
 
 
 70 
 98.5 
 
 30 
 1.5 
 
 16 
 
 1861-1865 
 
 27,500 
 
 23 
 
 
 1 
 
 74 
 
 
 1866-1870 
 
 
 156,976 
 257,000 
 881,895 
 
 '""i.'7 
 
 100 
 100 
 83 
 
 100 
 33 
 41 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 100 
 
 78 
 
 96 
 
 
 1871-1875 
 
 
 67 
 59 
 
 52 
 
 7 
 
 9 
 22 
 
 
 5 
 0.5 
 
 "ii 
 
 
 1876-1890 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 22 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 1 Sources from which these data were taken: W. S. Tyler, "A History of Amherst College;" Geo. Gary 
 Bush, Hist, of Higher Educa. in Mass. 
 
 2 Known as the charity fund. One-sixth of income to be added to principal annually. In his 1912 re- 
 port the coUege treasurer shows this fund to be $95,098.50. 
 
 To show how completely acceptable this new college was to the people, 
 however narrow and local its constituency, we need only to look at the attend- 
 ance and size of the teaching staff from the beginning to 1894. While there 
 was a serious drop in attendance about 1840 to 1850, there was a steady rise. 
 The tuition charges for these years were as follows : 
 
 1821_1833___ $30_$33 
 
 1883-1834 27 
 
 1836-1847 33 
 
 1834-1836 30 
 
 1847-1855 ?30 
 
 1855-1864 36 
 
 1864-1868 45 
 
 1868-1871 75 
 
 1871-1876 $90 
 
 187.5-1886 100 
 
 1886 100 
 
 It is evident that the income from tuition was not great, and since in the 
 earlier years of the college nothing was received from the State, practically 
 the whole burden was carried by philanthropy. How this was done is of some 
 interest. 
 
 Table 11 gives a fair description, one striking feature of which is the final 
 column, which shows what per cent of all gifts were obtained by the sub- 
 scription method. Aside from this the table offers little that is different from 
 what we have seen in the older colleges for this period. Most of the gifts 
 have been conditional, but when we look at the following columns in the table 
 and see that professorships, library, and buildings have fared so well, it 
 appears that the conditions placed upon the gifts were expressions of real 
 needs. In the early years, as in the older colleges, most of the gifts were 
 available for immediate use, with a slight tendency toward permanent endow- 
 ments later. 
 
 Aside from the charity subscription at the beginning, which is a scholar- 
 ship fund for ministerial students, no scholarships were founded till 1857, 
 when about 50 were established. But little money for prizes was received dur- 
 ing this period ; so that the amount of gifts direct to students, aside from the 
 foundation subscription fund, is small in comparison with that given to the 
 library or for professorships or for buildings. 
 
 Professorships fared about as well as they did in the older colleges, during 
 these same years, while indigence is not subsidized after the iliitial gift. As 
 
THE EARLY NATIONAL PEEIOD, 1776-1865. 
 
 43 
 
 at Yale, Princeton, and Columbia, most of the benefactions are by gift rather 
 than by bequest. 
 
 THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION OF THIS PERIOD. 
 
 In 1912-13 there were 179 theological schools reporting to the United States 
 Commissioner of Education, 70 of which were founded during this period. 
 These schools show permanent endowment funds of nearly $40,000,000, and 
 since they are all the work of philanthropy and have from the start constituted 
 a prominent feature of higher education in this country some consideration of 
 the methods of philanthropy in their development is pertinent to this study. 
 
 The first separately organized school of this type founded in the United 
 States was the Andover Theological Seminary, established in ISO'S. The 
 lengthy creed of this school was carefully prepared by the two wings of 
 Calvinists and has been publicly read and subscribed to by each professor on 
 his inauguration and before the trustees every fifth year since the founda- 
 tion." This is how strictly denominational the school has been. 
 
 In 1913 the school reported a plant worth $300,000 and nearly three-quarters 
 of a million dollars in permanent endowment funds." It received initial gifts 
 of buildings and .$60,000, and before the close of this period possessed five 
 endowed professorships. 
 
 Table 12. — Gifts to permanent funds of Andover Theological Seminary, 1S07 
 
 to 1890} 
 
 Dates. 
 
 Total 
 amount. 
 
 General 
 fund. 
 
 Profes- 
 sorships . 
 
 Library. 
 
 Scholar- 
 ships. 
 
 1807-1810 
 1811-1815 
 1816-1820 
 1831-1835 
 1841-1845 
 1856-1860 
 1866-1870 
 1871-1875 
 1876-1880 
 1881-1885 
 1886-1890 
 
 S75,000 
 79,000 
 25,000 
 15,000 
 80,000 
 53,000 
 
 119,000 
 95,000 
 
 240,000 
 14,000 
 
 315,000 
 
 S30,000 
 
 $45,000 
 79,000 
 25,000 
 15,000 
 
 25,000 
 
 164,000 
 
 43,000 
 
 50,000 
 
 S25,000 
 
 20,000 
 '28,066' 
 
 $97,000 
 
 1 Data for this table obtained from Geo. Gary Bush's Hist, of Higher Ed. in Mass., 1891. 
 
 2 Of this amount, $10,000 was for the establishment of a lectureship. 
 
 Table 12 shows the distribution of the permanent funds of the institution. 
 From this table it will be seen that no great part of its gifts for permanent 
 endowment have gone to the general fund, that nothing has gone to scholar- 
 ships or to indigent and pious students or to prizes, but that many gifts have 
 gone to endow professorships. Only $2S,000 of these amounts seems to have 
 been received by way of small subscriptions. 
 
 The Bangor Theological Seminary was established in 1814 by the Society 
 for Promoting Theological Education. This was one of the earliest education 
 societies in America. Its purpose was — 
 
 raising a fund to assist those well-disposed young men that are desirous of en- 
 tering in the work of the gospel ministry, but by deficiency of pecuniary re- 
 sources are unal)]e to prosecute a course of regular studies necessary to qualify 
 them for a station so important and useful.^" " The Maine Charity School," 
 as it was then called, was established for the purpose of promoting religion, 
 morality, etc. Only native-born citizens could ever become trustees. 
 
 " Bush, p. 240. 
 
 " Rep. U. S. Com. of Edu., 1913, p. 325. 
 
 ^ Hall : Higher Educ. in Maine, p. 35. 
 
 111512°— 22 4 
 
44 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 In the early days the school had no endowment and marks its first important 
 gift as $300. In 1835 a $100,000 endowment fund was started, but because 
 of the financial crisis of -that time only about one-third of this amount was 
 raised. Another effort was made in 1849, when $34,000 was raised for the 
 endowment of two professorships. Since that date the school has prospered. 
 In 1913 a permanent endowment of $310,000 was reported. 
 
 These are but samples to show how philanthropy, entirely unaided by the 
 State, took care of education for this particular profession. 
 
 OTHER LINES OF PROFESSIONAL TRAINING. 
 
 What philanthrophy has not done is of some interest here, since we are 
 concerned with its relation to the development of all higher education. 
 
 Theology has been kept strictly apart from politics in this country, and 
 aside from a few early gifts from the State, this profession has been built 
 up entirely by philanthrophy. Its institutional growth was in the beginning 
 in connection witli colleges of liberal training, but toward the close of the 
 eighteenth century began to develop as separate schools. This was partly in 
 fear of the rather unorthodox trend in the colleges and partly in order to 
 better the instruction, since the demand for a better-trained ministry appears 
 to have been strong. Denominationalism was also a factor in the case of 
 churches which had not established colleges of their own. 
 
 While higher education for the ministry has been handled entirely by 
 philanthropy, this has not been true of either law or medicine. A few pro- 
 fessorships of law^" and physic were established in the universities before the 
 end of the colonial period, but appear to have been too academic and indirect 
 to satisfy the rather utilitarian motives of these two professions. In the 
 beginning, in fact all through this period, and even later, a few busy doctors 
 taught medicine, and law was learned almost wholly by apprenticeship 
 despite the rapidly increasing importance of the legal profession after the 
 Revolution." 
 
 EDUCATION OF WOMEN. 
 
 Another important educational movement in the history of higher education 
 which originates during this period, and furnishes new motives to philan- 
 thropy, is that of colleges for women. The movement takes its rise along 
 Avith .Taclcsonian democracy, antislavery agitation, the great westward move- 
 ment, and early womeo's rights agitation, and very quickly takes permanent 
 form in the hands of philanthropy, first through the pioneer work of Mrs. 
 Emma Willard in the founding of the Troy Female Seminary in 1820 and 
 the later work of Miss Mary Lyon in connection v/ith the founding of Mount 
 Holyoke Seminary and College in 1836. 
 
 After an interesting educational career, Mrs. Willard opened the Troy 
 Female Seminary in 1821. An initial fund of $4,000 was raised by the city 
 of Troy by taxation and promptly supplemented by gifts. According to the 
 curriculum offered," it is fair to look upon this as a genuine and successful 
 attempt at higher education for women, even though the school later passed 
 out of existence. 
 
 In every sense this was a philanthropic enterprise. It succeeded as such 
 for some 70 years, during which time it wielded a very wide influence and 
 
 i« Professorships of law were established at William and Mai-y in 1799; at the Uni- 
 versity of Pennsylvania in 1790 ; at Columbia in 1793 ; at Yale in 1801 ; at Dartmouth In 
 1808 ; and at Harvard in 1815. 
 
 ^■^ See Professional Distribution of College and University Graduates, by Bailey B. Bur- 
 ritt, U. S. Bu. of Ed. Bui., 1912, No. 19. 
 
 w See U. S. Com. of Ed. Rep., 1895-96, Vol. I, pp. 240-257. 
 
THE EARLY NATIONAL PERIOD, 1776-1865. 45 
 
 stood as one of the important foundation stones which Mrs. Willard laid for 
 the higher education of women in this country. 
 
 Miss Lyon, like Mrs. Willard, proceeded on the assumption that it was 
 Quite as important to enlist the interest and sympathy of the great mass of 
 people as it was to secure funds. She planned, therefore, to raise $30,000 by 
 small subscriptions to start Mount Holyoke Seminary and College. When one 
 reads that one of the record books of subscriptions contained the names of 
 more than 1,800 subscribers from 90 places, promising a total of $27,000, in 
 sums varying from 6 cents to $1,000," and then reads that it was Miss Lyon's 
 wish to " put within the reach of students of moderate means such opportunities 
 that none can find better * * * a permanent institution consecrated to 
 the work of training young women to the greatest usefulness," and one " de- 
 signed to be furnished with every advantage that the state of education in 
 this country will allow,^" he realizes that, while philanthropy is not finding 
 new methods, it is finding a new motive in an institution exclusively for the 
 higher education of women. 
 
 As is well known, the new idea met with opposition but, as usual, it w-is 
 finally proved that philanthropy can be depended upon to meet any important 
 social need as soon as that need differentiates itself from mere vague unrest. 
 
 This movement for the education of women was less than 30 years old when 
 the founder of Vassar College laid down funds amounting to nearly $800,000 
 for a similar institution, so much in demand as to attract nearly 350 students 
 in its first year. Thus in a short time philanthropy's experiment had succeeded 
 far beyond expectations. 
 
 PHILANTHROPY AND THE MANUAL-LABOR COLLEGES. 
 
 The manual-labor movement in American secondary and higher education 
 came to this country from Europe, where for nearly the first half of the nine- 
 teenth century Fellenberg and his successors experimented with the idea of 
 combining remunerative work with school training. Students from many 
 countries visited the Fellenberg institution, and the movement spread rapidly, 
 the labor features finding a fertile field in both colleges and secondary schools 
 in this country. In Connecticut as early as 1819 such a school was established, 
 and in 1831 the manual labor society for promoting manual labor in literary 
 institutions was organized. The secretary of this society made an extended 
 tour of the West and Southwest, visiting the manual labor schools, but seems 
 to have left no statistical evidence of his study. 
 
 Where the idea was introduced here the labor feature was used as an appeal 
 to the philanthropist for support and to the parent to send his son to college, 
 where, as a Wesleyan University resolution of August 27, 1833, says, " the 
 physical as well as the intellectual and moral education will be attended to." 
 
 It is only necessary to state that this idea took form in Maine Wesleyan 
 Seminary in 1825, in Andover Theological Seminary in 1826, in Colby College 
 in 1827, in Western Reserve University in 1830, in Wesleyan University in 
 1833, in Hartford Theological Seminary in 1834, and in Oberlin from its origin 
 in 1833, to show something of the type of colleges which introduced it and the 
 extent of its adoption. It was an expression of a new social as well as educa- 
 
 19 Mount Holyoke Seminary and College, by Mrs. Sarah D. (Locke) Stowe, U. S. Bu. of 
 Ed. Circ. No. 6, 1891, Ch. XXII. 
 
 »" " Mount Holyoke College — the Seventy-fifth Anniversary," p. 13. 
 
46 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 tional philosophy, and seems to have made its appeal for benefactions from 
 the social, moral, religious, educational, and economic points of view. 
 
 A more intimate study of the benefactions to Oberlin, a college founded after 
 the movement had become popular and one vphich fairly hewed its way into 
 the world on the manual-labor basis, should give us a fair picture of this type 
 of educational philanthropy. 
 
 Mr. Leonard," quoting from Oberlin's first annual report, 1834, says: "The 
 manual labor department is indispensable to complete education " and, " in a 
 word, it meets the wants of a man as a compound being and prevents common 
 and amazing waste of money, time, health, and life." He then goes on to ex- 
 plain the nature and extent of the department and how well it is working. In 
 1837 " nearly all the young ladies and a majority of the young gentlemen have 
 paid their board by manual labor." This report adds that while the school's 
 funds were as they found them at that time, no pledge could be made that 
 labor would be furnished. From then on the failure of the scheme was only 
 a matter of time, and in 1849 the trustees realized that it was not paying and 
 that some legal means of ending the experiment must be found. 
 
 It was at this point that the " dead hand " appeared. The 500 acres of land 
 had been donated to a manual labor school. In 1852 legal authority was found 
 for leasing the ground, the lessee covenanting " yearly, during said term, to 
 employ students of said college in some department of manual labor (when 
 applied for) and pay them for their labor the current market price, to an 
 amount each year of at least $2 for each acre of land hereby demised." 22 
 Further on in the lease it is agreed that in case any part of the lease is ad- 
 judged to be beyond the powers of the Oberlin trustees, the lease becomes void. 
 The expression " manual labor " disappeared from the catalogue after 1867-68, 
 and m place of it reference is made to " facilities for self-Support." 
 
 Thus within 2 years from the beginning the college had failed to meet the full 
 demand for labor, and within 20 years the labor scheme had disappeared in 
 failure. During these 20 years, however, Oberlin had become a fairly well- 
 established college, though these had been years of extreme poverty with much 
 debt. 
 
 The school's first real funds, some $15,000, were received during the first 
 year, largely upon solicitation in payment for scholarships.'^ The business 
 side of the undertaking soon used this money, and the college went begging 
 to New Tork, where it received a guarantee for full endowment of eight pro- 
 fessorships. An unalterable condition of this gift, which was never paid, was 
 that Negroes should be given equal privilege with white students in the school. 
 
 In this gift we have an illustration of how the policy of a college respect- 
 ing a very important social and political issue was to be absolutely settled by 
 philanthropy, and settled contrary to the wishes of nearly half the trustees 
 of the college. A second effect of this intended gift was the abolition of all 
 tuition charges, a move which cost the college dearly. 
 
 Within a few years the college was some $40,000 in debt. In 1837 an effort 
 to raise a $100,000 endowment realized only about $6,000.^ Finally, in 1839, 
 
 31 The Story of Oberlin, by Delavan L. Leonard, p. 224 ff. 
 
 22 Leonard, ibid., p. 228. 
 
 2» These perpetual scholarships cost $150 each and paid no tuition, merely giving the 
 holder the privilege of entering the school and using the labor appliances to earn his way. 
 They were thus a further pledge that the labor feature would be perpetuated. 
 
 2* Commons : Hist, of Higher Educ. in Ohio. 
 
THE EARLY NATIONAL PERIOD, 1*776-1865. 47 
 
 agents were sent to England to make an appeal for help with which to pay the 
 debts of the college."' This brought $30,000 and valuable collections of books, 
 and deserves notice here because the agents carried with them to England 
 letters from antislavery leaders in America through which they presented 
 their case to antislavery sympathizers in England. This and the idea of educa- 
 tion for women are said to have made special appeal to the Society of Friends 
 in England.^ 
 
 Little aside from a gift of 20,000 acres of land was received during the 
 next decade, but in 1850 an attempt at endowment was made, and by 1852 
 almost $95,000 was raised and invested. This, however, was another sale 
 of scholarships, which this time secured free tuition for one student perpetually 
 for $100, 18 years for $50, and 6 years for $25. This was merely paying tui- 
 tion in advance, but a little fig-uring will show that it must be counted 
 an absurdly low tuition. The interest on $100 could not possibly pay the cost 
 of educating a student. Thus the college increased its business," but on an 
 unsound economic basis, which broke down with the high cost of living in the 
 sixties. 
 
 This is a fair picture of the relation of philanthropy to the manual labor 
 college movement. There is little to distinguish it from the philanthropy 
 in the old colleges where the manual labor idea was never adopted. It is just 
 more evidence that philanthropy in education has been governed by the con- 
 ditions of the times rather than by any wise educational philosophy. The 
 manual labor college was but an incident in our great westward expansion. 
 
 Such cure-all schemes in education were essential to the times. Hartford 
 Theological Seminary carefully avoided the " incubus " of any permanent fund 
 for the first few years, but when her subscribers fell off and lost their zeal 
 for giving, an $11,000 bequest was gladly accepted as permanent endowment. 
 
 Kenyon College sent out an appeal, " The Star in the West, or Kenyon 
 College in the Year of Our Lord 1828," calling upon the reader to send $1 
 to the struggling school. " Kenyon College Circles " were formed in numerous 
 towns where women met and sewed for the college, and more than $25,000 was 
 sent in as the result of this appeal. 
 
 On the whole it is wiser to say that the manual labor movement was useful 
 because it expressed an essential element in the civilization of that time than to 
 say that it was useless because it was educationally and economically im- 
 possible. 
 
 PHILANTHROPHT THROUGH EDUCATION SOCIETIES. 
 
 Another channel through which philanthropy has played a part in American 
 higher education is that of religious education societies. These societies began 
 to organize early in the nineteenth century in response to the demand for 
 trained missionaries and ministers. Statistics published in early numbers of 
 the American Quarterly Register show that churches were fully conscious of this 
 need. 
 
 Aside from several small local societies, the American Education Society ^' was 
 the initial undertaking in this field, its original constitution being dated August 
 
 2B Fairchild : Oberlin, the Colony and the College, p. 208. 
 
 28 Ibid., p. 209. 
 
 " This immediately increased the number of students from 570 to 1,020. 
 
 2* In 1874 the American Education Society and the Society for the Promotion of Col- 
 legiate and Theological Education in the West were united under the name American Col- 
 lege and Education Society. See their annual reports for 1874. 
 
48 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 29, 1815.^" The aim of this society is made clear by the following statement 
 from its original constitution : 
 
 Taking into serious consideration the deplorable condition of the inhabitants 
 of these United States, the greater part of whom are either destitute of com- 
 petent religious instruction or exposed to the errors and enthusiasm of un- 
 learned men, we * * * do hereby, * * * form ourselves into a society 
 for the benevolent purpose of aiding, and of exciting others to aid, indigent 
 young men of talents and hopeful piety in acquiring a learned and competent 
 education for the Gospel Ministry. 
 
 This Outlines a definite piece of work to be done, proposes philanthropy as a 
 means, and indigent young men of talents and hopeful of piety as the agency 
 for doing it. 
 
 Further on in the constitution it is proposed to raise funds by subscription, 
 and it is stated that " a permanent fund, of which five-sixths part of the interest 
 only may be expended, shall be formed of bequests, legacies, donations, grants, 
 and subscriptions," and further, that agents shall be appointed to solicit — 
 
 by exciting churches and congregations to make annual collections for this pur- 
 pose; and by establishing auxiliary societies in towns, counties, and distant 
 regions, together with Cent Societies, * * * by personal and persevering 
 addresses to rich individuals of both sexes, * * * and by respectful appli- 
 cations to legislative bodies and other classes of men ; by establishing active and 
 extensive correspondences, etc. 
 
 All appropriations of funds are to be made by the trustees, who will also 
 examine and select the candidates for the charity. All recipients of the charity 
 who do not enter the ministry must refund the money received. The final 
 article declares that " This Constitution, but not its object, may be altered 
 and amended." 
 
 The plans by which aid was granted have been changed from time to time,'" 
 but since 1842 the money has been given as a gratuity. 
 
 The bases for eligibility of applicants for assistance are stated in general 
 terms only. Up to 1841 the applicant must have had 6 months of classical 
 studies. During 1841 this was increased to 12 months, and in 1842 to college 
 entrance requirements, with the exception of third-year academy students In 
 some cases. This exception was later abolished. 
 
 Such has been the general aim and plans of work of one^of the oldest of these 
 societies in America. To describe the workings of the other societies of this 
 type would be practically to repeat the above. The Presbyterian Education 
 Society was founded in 1819, became a branch of the American Education So- 
 ciety in 1827 ^ and operated as such until the break in the Presbyterian Church, 
 which took place toward the close of the period under discussion. The society 
 for educating pious young men for the ministry of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church was organized in 1818 and within a decade had 28 auxiliary societies 
 
 ** A copy of this constitution is printed in full in Appendix A of the annual report of 
 the society for 1839. 
 
 Whether this idea of organizing education societies for the training of ministers was 
 borrowed from E>ngland is not known, but such a society existed in England as early as 
 1648. The American Quarterly Register, vol. 3, pp. 145-152, published a tract showing 
 " a model for the maintaining of students of choice abilities at the university, and prin- 
 cipally in order to the ministry," followed by the names of trustees, among which were 
 Matthew Poole, Richard Baxter, Wm. Bates, and others. In Chapter IV of the model we 
 read : " That the scholars to be chosen be of godly life, or at the least, hopeful for godli- 
 ness, of eminent parts, of an ingenious disposition, and such as are poor, or have not a 
 suflScient maintenance any other way." This society had 44 students at Oxford and Cam- 
 bridge at this time. 
 
 "o See An. Rep. for 1889, p. 71 fif ; also Barnard's Amer. J. of Educ. vol. 14, p. 873 ff. 
 
 "'An. Rep. Amer. Ed. Soc., 1839. 
 
THE EARLY l^ATIONAL PERIOD, 1716-1865. 
 
 49 
 
 operating under its supervision.''' The Massachusetts Baptist Education Society, 
 later the board of education of the Northern Baptist Church, starting in 1814 ; 
 the board of education of the Reformed Dutch Church, starting in 1828 ; the 
 board of education of the Methodist Episcopal Church, starting in 1864 ; and the 
 Society for the Promotion of Collegiate and Theological Education in the West 
 are the principal organizations of this type. Each of these had numerous 
 branch societies, and all supported students in part or in full by loans. 
 
 The development of branch or auxiliary societies in connection vpith the Amer- 
 ican Education Society is a fair sample of their methods. Betvv^een 1815 and 
 1838 there vrere organized 63 branch societies east of the Mississippi River and 
 north of the southern boundary of Tennessee ; 41 of these were founded betv^een 
 1829 and 1834.=^ 
 
 Although the chief method of work was by direct gift or loan to the student, 
 in some cases professorships were established, salaries were paid, and buildings 
 erected. The gifts or loans to students were often no more than $40 per year. 
 
 In 1829 to 1831 there were 18 to 22 theological seminaries in operation in the 
 United States. Table 13 shows the number of students attending these schools 
 and the number receiving aid from some education society." 
 
 From this it appears that from one-fourth to one-sixth of the theological 
 students in the United States at this time were beneficiaries of these organiza- 
 tions. 
 
 Table 15 sets forth for each fifth year, which may be taken as representative 
 of the other years, the financial history of three of these societies, along with 
 the numbers of beneficiaries they have had under their care during this period. 
 
 Table 14 shows what a large part of the student body at Amherst College was 
 receiving assistance from the American Education Society. 
 
 Table 13. — Number of students in theological seminaries and number receiving 
 aid from religious education societies. 
 
 Dates. 
 
 Students in 
 seminaries. 
 
 Receiving 
 aid. 
 
 1829 
 
 599 
 639 
 709 
 
 151 
 
 1830. 
 
 143 
 
 1831 
 
 115 
 
 
 
 Table 14. — Number of students attending Amherst College, 184-5-1854, and 
 number and per cent of these receiving aid from the American Educational 
 Society.'^ 
 
 Dates. 
 
 Total 
 students 
 attending. 
 
 Receiving aid from 
 
 American Education 
 
 Society. 
 
 
 Number. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 1845 
 
 118 
 120 
 150 
 166 
 176 
 182 
 190 
 195 
 211 
 237 
 
 27 
 28 
 26 
 45 
 42 
 57 
 56 
 46 
 40 
 58 
 
 22.8 
 
 1846 
 
 23.3 
 
 1847 
 
 17.3 
 
 1848 
 
 27.1 
 
 1849 
 
 23.8 
 
 1850 
 
 31.3 
 
 1851 . . 
 
 29.0 
 
 1852 
 
 23 5 
 
 1853 
 
 19.0 
 
 1854 
 
 24.5 
 
 
 
 o Data for this table taken from Edward H. Hitchcock's Reminiscences of Amherst College. 
 
 «2Amer. Quar. Register, Jan., 1829, p. 190. 
 
 »8From An. Rep. Am. Educ. Soc. for 1839, pp. 88-90. 
 
 «* Data taken from Am. Quar. Register, ^-^l. 1, p. 220 ; vol. 2, p. 247 ; vol. 3, p. 303. 
 
50 
 
 PHILANTHROPY IN AMEEICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 Table 15. — Showing for each fifth year the annual receipts and the number of 
 students aided hy three church or religious educational societies.^ 
 
 Date. 
 
 American Educ. 
 Society. 
 
 Northern Baptist 
 Educ. Society. 
 
 Presbyterian 
 Educ. Society. 
 
 Amount 
 received. 
 
 Number 
 aided. 
 
 Amount 
 received. 
 
 Number 
 aided. 
 
 Amount 
 received. 
 
 Number 
 aided. 
 
 1817 
 
 $5,714 
 13, 108 
 33,092 
 41,927 
 65,574 
 32,352 
 32, 831 
 15,565 
 28, 732 
 16,559 
 23,386 
 
 138 
 195 
 300 
 807 
 1,125 
 615 
 389 
 413 
 332 
 324 
 200 
 
 $604 
 2,049 
 2,245 
 5,340 
 
 11 
 
 9 
 
 19 
 
 33 
 
 
 
 1822 
 
 $4,457 
 11,860 
 13,761 
 37,038 
 26,628 
 39,545 
 45,396 
 48,632 
 43,244 
 51,308 
 
 90 
 
 1827 
 
 230 
 
 1832 
 
 270 
 
 1837 
 
 562 
 
 1842 
 
 
 
 300 
 
 1847 
 
 
 
 403 
 
 1852 
 
 
 
 372 
 
 1857 
 
 
 
 383 
 
 1862 
 
 
 
 375 
 
 1865 . 
 
 
 
 254 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 Compiled from the volumes of the American Quarterly Register and from the annual reports of the 
 societies. 
 
 One of these societies, the Society for the Promotion of Collegiate and 
 Theological Education in the West, had a slightly different purpose. It was 
 organized in 1844, and operated as a separate society down to 1874, at which 
 time it joined with the American Education Society. Its purpose as set forth 
 in its charter ^ was to assist struggling young colleges in the West with funds 
 collected in eastern churches.^* It was concerned with general as well as with 
 theological training, and limited its aid not only to western colleges but only 
 to such of these as showed promise. There is evidence that this society had 
 influence in the development of higher standards in western colleges.^' 
 
 Tabmj 16.- 
 
 -Financial account of the Society for the Promotion of Collegiate and 
 Theological Education in the West. 
 
 Years. 
 
 1844 
 1845 
 1846 
 1847, 
 1848 
 1849 
 1850 
 1851 
 1852 
 1853 
 1854 
 1855 
 1856 
 1857 
 1858 
 
 Receipts. 
 
 $17,004 
 11,661 
 15, 730 
 14, 113 
 12,339 
 16, 737 
 17,623 
 16,962 
 20,617 
 20,931 
 17,803 
 19,021 
 24,687 
 18,007 
 14, 103 
 
 Grants. 
 
 8,704 
 13,194 
 14,324 
 
 12,296 
 9,669 
 6,978 
 18,889 
 11,692 
 8,418 
 
 Colleges 
 aided. 
 
 Years. 
 
 1859 
 1860 
 1863 
 1864 
 1865 
 1866 
 1867 
 1868 
 1869 
 1870 
 1871 
 1872 
 1873 
 1874 
 
 Receipts. 
 
 $15,185 
 22, 528 
 18,643 
 60,270 
 20,430 
 26,913 
 38,538 
 58,426 
 27, 803 
 72, 289 
 74, 742 
 62,475 
 76,505 
 57,760 
 
 Grants. 
 
 $10,156 
 17, 793 
 14,689 
 56,320 
 14, 710 
 23,588 
 33,246 
 51,319 
 19,964 
 65,695 
 72,425 
 51,022 
 73,881 
 52,979 
 
 Colleges 
 aided. 
 
 Table 16, showing the work done by the society, will bear close study. The 
 society gave aid " to the college," not to individual students, and did this in a 
 way to keep down useless undertakings and to stimulate useful ones. 
 
 If we compare the income of these societies with that of colleges reported in 
 Tables 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, and 12, we will see that in these early years the work 
 of these societies is by no means a mere incident in the educational machinery. 
 
 * See the society's first annual report, 1844. 
 
 «8 " It is an eastern society. Not a western vote affects the decisions of the board.' 
 Fifth an. rep., 1848, p. 7. 
 
 »^ See annual report for 1845, p. 12. 
 
THE EARLY NATIONAL PERIOD, 1776-1865. 51 
 
 From 1821 to 1825 Yale received by gift approximately $16,000 annually ; 
 Princeton less than $2,000 ; Harvard about $12,000 ; and Amherst less than 
 $4,000; while the American Education Society received close to $14,000, the 
 Presbyterian Society over $5,000, and the Baptist Society some $1,500. 
 
 We have pointed out that the ministry is the only calling for which training 
 has thus far been subsidized in this way. The law, medicine, business, and 
 technical pursuits have made their way by force of their economic importance 
 to society. Has it been true that religion represents a " real " but not a " felt " 
 need or has it been true, as Adam Smith would argue, that such procedure will 
 overstock the occupation in question? 
 
 The actual demand for ministers is shown in a convincing manner by sta- 
 tistics published in the American Quarterly Register and in the annual reports 
 of the societies.^^ That the demand was large is obvious from the fact that of 
 all the graduates of 37 of the most prominent American colleges, from 20.8 per 
 cent to 30.8 per cent entered the ministry in every five-year period between 
 1776 and 1865.="* 
 
 Important as this profession was, the demand did not bring forth the sup- 
 ply, even with this special care. In this connection we must not overlook the 
 fact that entrance to the ministry was by much longer educational route than 
 was entrance to either the law or medicine, and without citing facts we know 
 that it was not more remunerative than these other fields. 
 
 It follows then that something had to be done to meet the situation, and 
 these education societies were the response which the churches made. With all 
 the obvious waste the method involved, it not only did much toward the sup- 
 port of an important profession but it also supervised and helped to popiilarize 
 the demand for higher education. 
 
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. 
 
 In summarizing the development of this period we may note that the English 
 influence practically disappeared with the Revolution and that State and Na- 
 tional support continued. 
 
 Before the end of the period the idea of a State college had taken definite 
 form, though the real burden still rested upon philanthropy. In nearly every 
 State the church and private enterprise did the coUege pioneering. 
 
 Small gifts and the subscription method were as common as was the poverty 
 which characterized the financial history of practically all the colleges of the 
 period. Few, even of th« older colleges, found themselves well endowed by 1861. 
 
 It was a period in which the old traditional coUege curriculum and organi- 
 zation yielded to the influence of the developments in science and to the broad- 
 ening business and professional demands. Consequently, it was a time in 
 which the conditions attaching to gifts were more numerous and perhaps more 
 varied than in the past. In spite of this, there was a growing tendency to de- 
 velop permanent funds. 
 
 These tendencies are as characteristic of the new as of the old foundations, 
 and in both the conditional gifts tend to go mainly to professorships, library, 
 and buildings; that is, to the institution rather than to the student direct. 
 While there is some increase in interest in direct assistance for students, it is 
 given, Princeton excepted, on the basis of scholarly promise rather than on that 
 of indigence and piety. 
 
 »8 See an address of the board of education of the Presbyterian Church (their first 
 annual report, 1819) , p. 14 ; also theii" annual report for 1843, p. 5 ; and the same for 
 1867, p. 5. 
 
 •Burritt, p. .144. 
 
52 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 The early financial history of the newer colleges of the period is identically 
 like the beginning years of the old colonial group of colleges, but they grew 
 much more rapidly. 
 
 During this period also we have the beginnings of several new ideas in higher 
 education, which open up several new lines of philanthropic activity^the de- 
 velopment of professional schools, women's colleges, church education societies, 
 and the manual labor college. 
 
 In the development of schools of medicine, law, and theology we are struck 
 by the fact that, from the standpoint of their scientific development, medicine 
 and law achieved but little during this period and that very largely on the basis 
 of private venture institutions, while theology was taken over by philanthropy 
 and became well established, first as a department of the older colleges and 
 later as separate schools. In the development of the theological schools de- 
 nominationalism naturally played an important part, and the gathering of 
 funds by the separate denominations from their own churches was the common 
 practice. 
 
 Colleges for women offered a new motive for giving to education but nothing 
 at all new by way of a method of directing the use to which gifts should be put. 
 
 When the law of supply and demand failed to provide enough ministers, 
 philanthropy came at once to its rescue with education societies which played 
 a large part in higher education during the period. 
 
 The manual labor college was the most unique though not the most valuable 
 venture in higher education undertaken during the period. It failed, but it 
 was an experiment that was fully warranted if we consider the times in which 
 it was tried, and surely it is balanced by the success of women's colleges. 
 
 Whatever the value of the various experiments, it was philanthropy that 
 initiated and carried them through, as it was mainly philanthropy that pioneered 
 the new country and philanthropy that kept the old colleges alive through these 
 years. 
 
Chapter IV. 
 THE LATE NATIONAL PERIOD, 1865 TO 1918. 
 
 THE PERIOD CHARACTERIZED. 
 
 The period fi*om 1865 to 1918 is quite unlike the colonial and early national 
 periods in several v/ays. The rapid increase in population which began before 
 the Civil War has continued, but has brought a foreign class far more ditficult 
 of assimilation than was that of pre-war days. With the rapid development of 
 machinery have come remarkable industrial and commercial expansion and 
 remarkable means of communication and travel. The free public land has fast 
 disappeared, bringing with it a demand for new and technical methods in agri- 
 culture. The corporate method has been widely adopted, and large private 
 fortunes have been amassed. 
 
 Along with these changes have come many new things in education. The idea 
 of State support of higher education has been fully established ; more than a 
 dozen large private fortunes have given rise to as many institutions of higher 
 learning'; and some 8 or 10 large nonteaching foundations have -been established. 
 During this period a new interpretation of education has been developed in 
 accordance with the findings of the newer sciences of sociology, psychology, and 
 biology, and given concrete expression in the organization and methods of our 
 institutions of higher education in the botanical garden, the laboratory method 
 in all the sciences, in the free use of the elective system of studies, and in the 
 broadened college entrance requirements. 
 
 GROWTH IN NUMBER OF COIXEGES. 
 
 Just how philanthropy has adjusted itself to these new conditions will now 
 be shown. First of all, the relative number of colleges founded by philanthropy 
 is a rough index of the extent, if not of the character, of its work. 
 
 At the beginning of this period the tendency to found private or church 
 'institutions was at its height, since which time the number has gradually 
 decreased, till now very few are being established by either State or phi- 
 lanthropy, not so much because there are universities enough as because the 
 changed meaning of education and the new conception of a university have 
 ruled out the type of enterprise that tended to subsist on enthusiasm rather 
 than on funds. 
 
 The new demands of this period have no more balked philanthropy than they 
 have the State. If, however, consideration were given to the number of insti- 
 tutions that ceased to exist, it would be seen that philanthropy had very often 
 overstepped its mark. 
 
 Soon after the Civil War, due very largely to the national land grant act of 
 1862, the movement for State schools began to assert itself.^ Now all States 
 have their higher institutions of learning, largely endowed by the National 
 Government, but resting firmly upon a State tax. 
 
 1 See Kandel, I. L. Federal Aid for Vocational Education. The Carnegie Foundation 
 for the Advancement of Teaching, Bui. 10, 1917. 
 
 63 
 
54 
 
 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 Table 17. — Date of establishnvent and source of support and control of the first 
 college or university in each of the States admitted subsequently to 1865. 
 
 States. 
 
 Nebraska 
 
 Colorado 
 
 North Dakota 
 South Dakota. 
 
 Montana 
 
 Washington... 
 
 Idaho 
 
 Wyoming 
 
 Utah 
 
 Oklahoma. . .. 
 New Mexico. . 
 Arizona 
 
 Ad- 
 mitted, 
 
 1867 
 
 1876 
 
 1889 
 1889 
 1889 
 1889 
 1890 
 1890 
 1896 
 1907 
 1912 
 1912 
 
 First institution. 
 
 Name. 
 
 State University 
 
 University of Denver , 
 
 Jamestown College 
 
 Yankton College , 
 
 Montana College of Agriculture 
 
 State University 
 
 College of Idaho 
 
 State University 
 
 University of Utah 
 
 State Agricultural College 
 
 State University 
 
 University of Arizona 
 
 Date 
 estab- 
 hshed. 
 
 1781 
 
 1864 
 
 1883 
 1881 
 1893 
 1861 
 1891 
 1867 
 1850 
 1891 
 1891 
 1891 
 
 Control. 
 
 State. 
 M.E. 
 
 Presb 
 
 Cong. 
 State. 
 State. 
 Presb 
 State. 
 State. 
 State. 
 State. 
 State. 
 
 State 
 university 
 or school 
 estab- 
 lished. 
 
 1871 
 1874 
 1877 
 1884 
 1882 
 1893 
 1861 
 1892 
 1867 
 1850 
 1891 
 1891 
 1891 
 
 Niamber 
 of colleges 
 estab- 
 lished 
 before 
 State 
 univer- 
 sity. 
 
 Since 1865, 12 new States have been admitted to tlie Union. From Table 17 
 we are able to see that for the most part it was the State rather than philan- 
 thropy that did the pioneering in higher education in these States. In 9 of 
 the 12 States higher education was well under way before the State was ad- 
 mitted to the Union. In 8 of the 12 States the first such school was established 
 by the State, while in the remaining 4 the chui'ch lead the way, and in these 
 4 little had been done before the State institution was founded. 
 
 This contrasts rather sharply with the facts brought out in Table 9, which 
 shows these same facts for the early national period. Here we are dealing 
 with Western States, for the most part very sparsely settled, whereas Table 9 
 refers to Eastern and Central States, somewhat more densely populated. The 
 chief explanation, however, would seem to be not that the missionary zeal 
 of the churches, philanthropists, and educators was lagging, but rather that 
 the idea of State higher education was getting under headway and that the 
 national grant of 1862 came at an early date in the development of the West. 
 The number of church and private foundations since established shows that the 
 efforts of philanthropy have not flagged. 
 
 Should the State, or private and philanthropic enterprise, determine the 
 character and amount of higher education? And related to this, what powers 
 should be granted to private or church-endowed institutions? The struggle 
 between these social theories, a notable early date in which is that of the 
 Dartmouth College decision in 1819, does not begin in 1865. It began in one 
 sense with the opposition in New Jersey Colony and elsewhere to sectarian con- 
 trol of the college which the colonial government was asked to help support. 
 It began in a real sense in Revolutionary days and in the days when Ameri- 
 can democracy was taking form as a nation. At that time it was urged that, 
 since higher education will do much toward determining national ideals, the 
 State should direct and control it; and the opposite, that the State ought not 
 to be taxed to send anyone's son to college. It is interesting that Presidents 
 White, of Cornell, and Eliot, of Harvard, were on opposing sides of this issue 
 at the beginning of this period. 
 
 Probably it is correct to say that this clash has provided the greatest stimu- 
 lus to growth and expansion that has been felt by higher education through 
 these years. This study can do little more than call attention here to these 
 Interesting theoretical developments. 
 
THE LATE NATIONAL PERIOD, 1865-1918. 
 
 55 
 
 GENERAL SURVEY OF EDUCATIONAL PHILANTHROPY IN THIS PERIOD. 
 
 Practically from its beginning in 1868 the United States Bureau of Education 
 has included in its annual report statistics bearing upon the work of philan- 
 thropy in education. The following tables offer a fairly competent general 
 picture of the extent and character of philanthropy in higher education since 
 1871. From Table 18 it is possible to see, at intervals of five years : First, the 
 annual contribution to higher education from city, State, and Nation; second, 
 the amounts contributed by students through tuition and other fees; third, 
 the^amounts contributed by productive funds held by the colleges; fourth, the 
 contributions from philanthropy ; fifth, the contributions from all other sources ; 
 and, finally, the total annual income of all institutions of higher education. 
 Besides these is stated the wealth of the United States in billions of dollars, 
 and the population by millions for each decade. 
 
 The steady increase in income from each of these sources as the years pass 
 shows not only the rapid growth of higher education but the dependability of 
 each of these sources of support. When the total column, or any single col- 
 umn, is compared with the growth in national wealth, it is plain that higher 
 education is more liberally supported each succeeding decade. It will be noted 
 that the "benefactions" column does not show the degree of increase that is 
 shown by the first column or by the " total " column. This, however, is to be 
 expected with the rise of the State colleges in this period. But it will be seen 
 that benefactions are not quite keeping pace with the rate of growth in wealth. 
 On the other hand, the rate of increase in wealth is surpassed by the growth 
 in income from productive funds, most of which funds have been established 
 by philanthropy. 
 
 In comparison with the growth in population, it is obvious that each decade 
 is providing more educational facilities of a high order per unit of population 
 than was provided by the next preceding decade. We have here to remind 
 ourselves though that the per capita wealth has shown a far greater rate of 
 increase than is shown by any of the other figures, which suggests that educa- 
 tional and philanthropic enthusiasms are not outrunning their purses. 
 
 Table 18. — Sou/rces and amounts of income for higher education in the United 
 States, each fifth year from 1871 to 1915} 
 
 jCompiled from tlie annual reports of the U. S. Commissioner of Education.] 
 
 Dates. 
 
 From city. 
 
 State, 
 or U. S. 
 
 Tuition 
 
 and other 
 
 fees. 
 
 Productive 
 funds. 
 
 Benefac- 
 tions. 
 
 All other 
 sources. 
 
 Total 
 income. 
 
 Wealth 
 
 of U.S. 
 
 in biUions 
 
 of dollars. 
 
 Pop. of 
 
 U.S. in 
 millions. 
 
 1915 
 
 $36, 347, 638 
 
 24, 528, 197 
 
 8, 522, 600 
 
 4, 386, 040 
 
 2, 954, 483 
 
 1, 406, 117 
 
 932, 635 
 
 .418, 159 
 
 667, 521 
 
 582, 265 
 
 $34, 067, 238 
 19, 220, 297 
 10, 919, 378 
 8, 375, 793 
 6,336,655 
 3, 764, 984 
 2, 270, 518 
 1, 881, 350 
 2, 136, 062 
 4, 248, 143 
 
 $18,246,427 
 11, 592, 113 
 8, 618, 649 
 6,110,653 
 5, 329, 001 
 3, 966, 083 
 3, 915, 545 
 3, 014, 048 
 2,453,336 
 2,275,967 
 
 $20, 310, 124 
 18, 737, 145 
 14, 965, 404 
 10, 840, 084 
 5,350,963 
 6, 006, 474 
 5, 134, 460 
 2, 666, 571 
 2, 703, 650 
 6, 282, 461 
 
 $9, 591, 784 
 6, 561, 235 
 1, 589, 896 
 1, 964, 002 
 2, 163, 499 
 1, 664, 734 
 1, 000, 000 
 10 
 
 $118, 299, 296 
 80,438,987 
 45, 715, 927 
 31, 676, 572 
 22, 134, 601 
 16, 808, 734 
 12, 253, 158 
 7, 980, 138 
 7, 960, 569 
 13,388,836 
 
 
 
 1910 
 
 1905 
 
 187. 73 
 2 107. 10 
 
 88.51 
 3 77.09 
 
 65.03 
 
 91.9 
 
 1900 
 
 1895 
 
 75.9 
 
 1890 
 
 1885 
 
 62.9 
 
 1880 
 
 1875 
 
 42.64 
 
 50.1 
 
 1872 
 
 
 <30.06 
 
 4 3g 5 
 
 
 
 
 > From 1871 this table includes universities and colleges for men and for both sexes; after 1905 techno- 
 logical schools are added; and after 1910 women's colleges are added. Before 1888 column 1 includes income 
 from State only; in 1890 it includes income from State and city; and after 1891 it includes income from States, 
 cities, and United States. Column 2 includes only tuition down to 1898, after which it includes "other 
 fees" (board and room rent). The figures in any given hne, that is, for any given year, are fully comparable . 
 In comparing the figures for one year or period with those of a later year or period, the above facts must be 
 kept in mindT. 
 
 2 For year 1904. 
 
 » Estimated. 
 
 * For year 1870. 
 
56 
 
 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 Table 19, covering the period from 1871 to -1S85, including gifts to secondary 
 as well as higher schools, shows that on an average more than half of all 
 gifts have gone to "permanent endowment and general purposes." What part 
 of this was available for immediate use it is not possible to determine ; nor is 
 it possible to say what were the special conditions placed upon the gifts. 
 
 Table 19. 
 
 'Total benefactions to all forms of education and the per rent of that 
 total given under the restrictions indicated. 
 
 
 Total bene- 
 factions. 
 
 Per cent given to— 
 
 Dates. 
 
 Endow- 
 ments 
 and 
 general 
 purposes. 
 
 Profes- 
 sorships. 
 
 FeUow- 
 ships, 
 
 scholar- 
 ships, 
 and 
 prizes. 
 
 Grounds, 
 build- 
 ings, and 
 appara- 
 tus. 
 
 Indigent 
 students. 
 
 Libraries 
 
 and 
 museums. 
 
 Uncon- 
 ditional 
 purposes. 
 
 1885 
 
 $9,314,081 
 11,270,286 
 7,141,363 
 7,440,224 
 5,518,501 
 5,249,810 
 3,103,289 
 3,015,256 
 4,691,845 
 4,126,562 
 6,053,804 
 11,225,977 
 10,072,540 
 8,593,740 
 
 68 
 40 
 45 
 53 
 54 
 50 
 57 
 57 
 38 
 54 
 68 
 70 
 23 
 44 
 
 7 
 
 7 
 
 7 
 14 
 15 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 7 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 2 
 
 9 
 
 6 
 
 2. 
 
 2 
 3 
 3 
 3 
 7 
 1 
 4 
 3 
 3 
 1 
 1 
 2 
 1 
 
 20 
 20 
 15 
 18 
 12 
 24 
 16 
 18 
 32 
 24 
 21 
 17 
 34 
 24 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 15 
 2 
 2 
 3 
 
 14 
 6 
 12 
 15 
 6 
 2 
 2 
 
 10 
 
 1884 
 
 14 
 
 1882-83 
 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 1 
 3 
 3 
 
 26 
 
 1881 
 
 g 
 
 1880 
 
 7 
 
 1879 
 
 7 
 
 1878 
 
 10 
 
 1877 
 
 
 1876 
 
 7 
 
 1875 
 
 2 
 2 
 
 g 
 
 1874 
 
 4 
 
 1873 
 
 
 1872 
 
 1 
 
 
 1871 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 From a study of the " professorships " and the " fellowships, scholarships, 
 and prizes " columns, which are not included in the " endowments and general 
 purposes " column, it would be natural to infer that much of column two went 
 to general unrestricted endowments. From the staudpoi-nt of growth in per- 
 manent endowment funds, however, the whole table, as a single sample of 
 evidence, is quite reassuring. Furthermore, there is little to criticize in the 
 evidence available on the nature of the conditions placed upon the gifts. 
 
 A fairly considerable amount has always been given unconditionally in the 
 past, if we judge by individual cases which have been cited in the last two 
 chapters, and here is evidence that this was true in general over the country 
 through these 15 years. The " to indigent students " column seems to indicate 
 that what was true in the early cases studied was also true in general. 
 
 In Table 20 is shown, from the same source, the distribution of gifts under 
 three heads for the years 1907 to 1915, inclusive. Here there is no mistaking 
 the evidence that generally over the country there is an increasing interest in 
 giving to the permanent endowment of higher education. In this table the 
 "endowments" column includes all gifts from which only the incomes can be 
 used. By combining the three columns of Table 19 which represent gifts to 
 permanent endowments, and assuming that " general purposes " in column one 
 is also endowment, which is likely ti'ue, we can still see a clear indication that 
 a larger percentage of gifts is going into permanent funds now than was true 
 at the beginning of this period. 
 
 It appears also that the gifts to " plant and equipment " make a better show- 
 ing in Table 20 than in Table 19. In both there is much fluctuation. The 
 " current expenses " column, comparable with the hist column of Table 19, shows 
 improvement in quantity as well as a greater dependability. 
 
THE LATE NATIONAL PERIOD, 1865-1918. 
 
 57 
 
 A third collection of facts compiled from the United States Commissioner's 
 reports and presented in the following tables furnishes evidence upon which 
 we may generalize regarding the character and extent of benefactions to higher 
 education through this period. 
 
 Table 20. — Benefactions to higher education in, the United States and the per 
 cent of that total given for endowments, for plant and equipment, and for 
 current expenses. 
 
 Dates. 
 
 Total gifts. 
 
 Per cent for — 
 
 Endow- 
 ments. 
 
 Plant 
 and 
 equip- 
 ment. 
 
 Current 
 expenses. 
 
 1915 
 1914 
 1913 
 1912 
 1911, 
 1910, 
 1909. 
 1908, 
 1907. 
 
 ,310,124 
 670,017 
 651,958 
 783,090 
 963, 145 
 755, 663 
 807, 122 
 820, 955 
 953,339 
 
 Table 21 shows the number of schools of theology, law, medicine, dentistry, 
 pharmacy, agriculture, and mechanic arts, and of women's colleges that were 
 opened during each five-year period since the first one was founded in 1761- 
 1765. No account is taken here of colleges that have failed. 
 
 Three forces have assisted in the development of these schools — the State, 
 philanthropy, and private enterprise. Philanthropy is almost, if not solely, 
 responsible for the schools of theology. The State and private enterprise, 
 with some help from philanthropy, have developed the law schools. All three 
 are responsible for the medical schoyls, though private enterprise is playing 
 a' smaller and smaller part. Philanthropy has shown very little interest thus 
 far in schools of dentistry and pharmacy, but has contributed liberally to 
 colleges of agriculture and mechanical arts, which latter have been fostered 
 mainly by the State. In most cases the State provides coeducational uni- 
 versities but not special schools for . women.^ The women's colleges included 
 in this table are therefore the work of philanthropy and private enterprise. 
 
 Table 22 shows the part that philanthropy has taken in the development 
 of these colleges. 
 
 The table is not complete, but one can not run up those columns' without 
 being impressed with the strength of the appeal which these fields of higher 
 education have so continuously made to the people. Gifts for the higher 
 education of women have increased with fair regularity and to a creditable 
 extent. 
 
 2 Florida State University has a separate college for women. 
 
58 
 
 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 Table 21. — Distributiofi of the present list (1915-16) of professional and tech- 
 nical and women's colleges with respect to the dates of their opening. 
 
 Dates. 
 
 Theol- 
 ogy. 
 
 Law. 
 
 Medi- 
 cine. 
 
 Dentis- 
 try. 
 
 Phar- 
 macy. 
 
 Agric. 
 
 and 
 mech. 
 
 arts. 
 
 Women's 
 colleges. 
 
 1761 1765 
 
 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 1766-1779 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1781 1785 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1786-1790 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 1791-1795 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 1796-1800 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 1801-1805 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 1805-1810 
 
 2 
 2 
 5 
 5 
 6 
 4 
 4 
 4 
 6 
 7 
 
 13 
 7 
 
 18 
 9 
 3 
 
 14 
 8 
 
 14 
 5 
 9 
 3 
 3 
 
 
 1 
 1 
 2 
 5 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 6 
 6 
 1 
 5 
 2 
 4 
 4 
 4 
 3 
 5 
 9 
 5 
 10 
 6 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 1811-1815 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 1816-1820 
 
 
 
 
 
 1821-1825 
 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 
 
 1826-1830 
 
 1 
 3 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1831-1835 
 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 1836-1840 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 1841-1845 
 
 1 
 4 
 2 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 1 
 4 
 4 
 8 
 9 
 4 
 3 
 5 
 8 
 
 5 
 
 1846-1850 
 
 7 
 
 1851-1855 
 
 
 16 
 
 1856-1860 
 
 
 1 
 
 15 
 
 1861-1865 
 
 1 
 4 
 1 
 
 5 
 5 
 9 
 8 
 7 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 1866-1870 r 
 
 9 
 7 
 5 
 4 
 6 
 16 
 15 
 10 
 14 
 15 
 
 3 
 2 
 2 
 7 
 S 
 15 
 13 
 11 
 5 
 6 
 
 11 
 
 1871-1875 
 
 8 
 
 1875-1880 
 
 4 
 
 1881-1885 
 
 5 
 
 1886-1890 
 
 9 
 
 1891-1895 
 
 8 
 
 1895-1900 
 
 6 
 
 1901-1905 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 8 
 
 1906-1910 
 
 2 
 
 1911-1915 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 155 
 
 119 
 
 92 
 
 49 
 
 75 
 
 52 
 
 114 
 
 
 
 Table 22. — Benefactions to different lines of higher education w the United 
 States each fifth year, 1871-1915. 
 
 Dates. 
 
 Higher ' 
 education 
 of women. 
 
 Theological 
 schools. 
 
 Medical 
 schools. 
 
 National 
 land-grant 
 schools and 
 
 schools of 
 science. 
 
 Schools * 
 of law. 
 
 1915 
 
 
 $1,467,055 
 
 . 1,431,028 
 
 < 1,890, 606 
 
 1, 123, 812 
 
 1,385,552 
 
 6 923, 831 
 
 681,855 
 
 827,856 
 
 404,356 
 
 652,265 
 
 1 $2, 661, 076 
 
 509, 227 
 
 354,210 
 
 183,500 
 
 95,260 
 
 '249,287 
 
 94,250 
 
 11,400 
 
 72,395 
 
 2,000 
 
 
 2 $90, 576 
 '86 334 
 
 1910 
 
 $1,303,431 
 
 1, 107, 523 
 
 588, 566 
 
 625,734 
 
 303, 257 
 
 322,813 
 
 92,372 
 
 217, 887 
 
 1,600,000 
 
 
 1905 
 
 
 
 1900 
 
 
 105,500 
 
 1895 
 
 
 1890 
 
 6 $205, 295 
 562,371 
 
 1,371,445 
 147, 112 
 285,000 
 
 6 14,663 
 *40 150 
 
 1885 
 
 1880 
 
 ' lOO' 000 
 
 1875 
 
 
 1871 
 
 
 
 
 1 In 1914 medical schools received $7,113,920. 
 
 2 In 1914 law schools received gifts amounting to $203,067; in 1913, $189,453; in 1912, $425,867. 
 « In 1909 law schools received $356,800, and in 1908, $382,000. 
 
 * In 1906 theological schools received $3,271,480. 
 'In 1891. 
 •In 1886. 
 'In 1878. 
 
 Considering the steady decline in strictly sectarian theology through these 
 years, and the general decline in religious zeal, gifts to theological schools 
 have been large, as have all the others. 
 
 The column of gifts to medical schools shows the growth that has taken 
 place in medical science as well as in medical education through this, period. 
 The same is, of course, not true of the theology column. In the absolute both 
 theological and medical education have prospered. Both rise very slowly from 
 
THE LATE NATIONAL PEKIOD, 1865-1918. 59 
 
 the start, with slight advantage in favor of theological education down to 
 1890, and with this advantage slowly increasing from 1890 to 1909, after which 
 medical education leaps far ahead. 
 
 Philanthropy, speaking now in relative terms, very definitely began to turn 
 away from theology about 1890, and soon after to look with slightly more 
 favor upon medical education. In the last decade these tendencies have become 
 marked. 
 
 Turning again to Table 22 one is struck first by the immediate and liberal 
 notice which philanthropists gave to the land-grant colleges and schools of sci- 
 ence. The last column of the table is interesting in itself, and more so in 
 comparison with the column showing gifts to medical schools. It is apparent 
 here that society began to call a halt on apprenticeship methods of learning 
 medicine before it did the same for law. Law lias tended to remain much 
 more a business than a profession, while the opposite is true of medicine and 
 theology. 
 
 Taking these data from the Reports of the United States Commissioner of 
 Education as a rough general picture of the educational philanthropy of this 
 period, for it is dependable as such, one is impressed with the large contribu- 
 tion which has been made ; with the apparent regularity or dependability of 
 such sources of income ; with the size, in the absolute, of the permanent sources 
 which are thus being built up, but with the relative decline in such resources 
 when all higher institutions of education are considered ; with the relative 
 increase in the amount of gifts to establish professorships ; with the recent 
 tendency toward increase in gifts to cover current expenses ; with the regu- 
 larity with which one-third to one-fifth of all gifts have gone to plant and 
 equipment ; with the rise, both relative and absolute, in the gifts to medical 
 schools ; with the corresponding decline in gifts to schools of theology ; and 
 with the relatively slow increase in gifts to schools of law. 
 
 STATUS OF EDUCATION AMONG ALL THE OBJECTS OF PHILANTHROPY. 
 
 Another source of data covering almost the last quarter century, and so 
 almost half the period under discussion, is that contained in the Appleton 
 and International Yearbooks and the World's Almanac. In these annuals 
 there have been published the most complete available lists of all gifts of 
 $5,000 and over, together with the object for which each was given. For some 
 of the years these gifts have been classified under the following five heads : 
 Educational institutions ; charities ; religious organizations ; museums, galleries, 
 public improvements ; and libraries. Where they were not so classified the 
 writer has been able to make such a classification with reasonable accuracy. 
 In addition the gifts were also recorded as having been made by gift or by 
 bequest, so that this classification was also possible. In these data, then, 
 there is a valuable addition to the general description of philanthropy just 
 presented. 
 
 111512°— 22 5 
 
60 
 
 PHILANTHROPY IIT AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 Table 23. — Distribution of the gifts and bequests recorded in the Appleton and 
 New International Yearbook and the World's Almanac, 1893-1916. 
 
 
 Amount of 
 gifts and 
 bequests. 
 
 Per cent of total given to— 
 
 Per cent in form of— 
 
 Years. 
 
 Educa- 
 tion. 
 
 Charity. 
 
 Religious 
 purposes. 
 
 Museums 
 
 and 
 
 public 
 
 improve- 
 ments. 
 
 Libraries. 
 
 Dona- 
 tions. 
 
 Bequests. 
 
 1893 
 
 $14,283,254 
 15, 976, 466 
 13,930,505 
 13,831,211 
 12,436,391 
 20,405,034 
 43,314,282 
 23,H90,473 
 72,334,450 
 55,174,640 
 50,026.058 
 24,91S;399 
 70,000,000 
 29,775,000 
 89,817,208 
 46,552,039 
 36,122,241 
 61,283,182 
 61,879,296 
 35,207,907 
 57,601,997 
 90,741,210 
 35,354,338 
 72,612,619 
 
 47 
 43 
 50 
 50 
 31 
 57 
 66 
 54 
 66 
 60 
 75 
 45 
 57 
 79 
 58 
 40 
 31 
 43 
 49 
 16 
 23 
 45 
 25 
 9 
 
 21 
 20 
 19 
 16 
 17 
 25 
 18 
 27 
 13 
 21 
 7 
 29 
 18 
 15 
 16 
 44 
 46 
 38 
 26 
 76 
 50 
 48 
 54 
 88 
 
 14 
 11 
 12 
 19 
 13 
 7 
 
 10 
 7 
 5 
 6 
 3 
 9 
 17 
 4 
 4 
 4 
 
 15 
 8 
 16 
 4 
 
 13 
 2 
 12 
 2 
 
 6 
 17 
 12 
 9 
 
 35 
 7 
 3 
 5 
 7 
 8 
 9 
 14 
 8 
 2 
 20 
 10 
 5 
 6 
 8 
 3 
 13 
 4 
 8 
 1 
 
 12 
 9 
 7 
 6 
 4 
 3 
 3 
 7 
 9 
 5 
 6 
 3 
 
 
 2 
 2 
 3 
 5 
 
 i + 
 
 28 
 17 
 66 
 48 
 32 
 54 
 69 
 55 
 73 
 49 
 60 
 30 
 (1) 
 83 
 67 
 48 
 47 
 70 
 70 
 74 
 46 
 67 
 42 
 82 
 
 72 
 
 i894 
 
 83 
 
 1895 
 
 34 
 
 1896 
 
 52 
 
 1897 
 
 68 
 
 1898 
 
 46 
 
 1899 
 
 31 
 
 1900 
 
 45 
 
 1901 
 
 27 
 
 1902 
 
 51 
 
 1903 
 
 40 
 
 1904 .... 
 
 70 
 
 1905 
 
 (') 
 
 1906 
 
 17 
 
 1907 
 
 33 
 
 1908 
 
 52 
 
 1909 
 
 53 
 
 1910 
 
 30 
 
 1911 
 
 30 
 
 1912 
 
 26 
 
 1913 
 
 54 
 
 1914 
 
 33 
 
 1915 
 
 58 
 
 1916 
 
 18 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 
 34 
 43 
 
 49 
 37 
 
 7 
 9- 
 
 8 
 9+ 
 
 2 
 2 
 
 64 
 59 
 
 36 
 
 Total with 1916 
 excluded 
 
 
 41 
 
 
 
 
 1 Data inadequate. 
 
 This total column gives rather forceful evidence of the large part of the 
 world's work that is being done by philanthropy. Through these 24 years the 
 range is from 27 to 764 millions of dollars, with an average of nearly 125 
 millions. In 1915-16 the entire cost of public education in New York City was 
 $45,010,424, and that for Chicago was $28,604,534. In this same year the total 
 outlay for public education in the State of New York, which had the largest of 
 all our State budgets for schools, was $68,761,125, while that for the United 
 States was but $640,717,053. Again, the total income of all universities, col- 
 leges, and technological schools reporting to the United States Commissioner 
 of Education in this year was $113,850,848. 
 
 If the huge gifts summarized in the table are flowing annually into the five 
 channels indicated, we may see from these comparisons the large forces that 
 are operating constantly to determine the character of the institutions of edu- 
 cation, charity, and so on. 
 
 In considering the sum total of all benefactions, three questions deserve con- 
 sideration. First, what is the relative position of education among the objects 
 of these gifts ; second, with what degree of regularity do these gifts come — that 
 is, how dependable a resource does this make for education ; and, third, how 
 large a contribution is this to education? Incidentally, there is interest, too, 
 in the same questions regarding gifts to other objects, especially to libraries 
 and museums, since these play a direct part in the education of the people. 
 
 The first question is readily answered by Table 23, from which it will be 
 seen that up to 1916 education was receiving annually from 16 to 79 per cent 
 of these gifts, with a median of 49 per cent. When the- figures for 1916 are 
 included, and the totals taken for the 24-year period, it can be stated that 
 
THE LATE NATIONAL PERIOD, 1865-1918. 
 
 61 
 
 education has received approximately 34 per cent of all gifts for the past 24 
 years. Or, leaving out 1916, as obviously influenced by war charity, education 
 received 43 per cent of all gifts of $5,000 or over in the United States. 
 
 The second question, how dependable is this source of income for education, 
 may also be answered by this table, from which it is obvious that from year to 
 year there have been wide variations. Consequently, an average or a median 
 is not a full statement of the history of these benefactions, but the relative 
 status of each of these recipients by years must be considered, and a number 
 of points stand out. First, the facts about variability. What is true of educa- 
 tion is true of the other objects. Second, giving to education gradually in- 
 creased from 1893 to 1906, after which it declined to 1915 and 1916 to a point 
 distinctly lower than the 1893 mark. At the same time the gifts to charity, 
 which roughly maintain their 1893 status down to 1907, make a rise that is 
 even sharper than is the decline in gifts to education. Gifts to religion have 
 been quite variable, but show a general decline from the beginning to the end 
 of the period. Practically the same statement can be made with respect to 
 gifts to museums, galleries, and public improvements, with the exception that 
 the variability is greater. The gifts to libraries show a very definite and 
 regular decline from 1893 to 1916. It follows, then, that charity is education's 
 great competitor, and we may be fairly sure that wars, famines, earthquakes, 
 and other great disasters which appeal to human sympathy for help will be 
 costly to education. The more recent rise in gifts to charity is partly accounted 
 for by the Balkan and the World War and to several great earthquakes and 
 fire disasters. 
 
 The third question, how large a help is this to education, is answered in 
 Table 24, where the gifts to education and to libraries are set down beside the 
 figures showing the total annual income to higher education in the United 
 States. The annual income of higher education is used here merely as a con- 
 venient basis for measuring the amounts of the benefactions. From this we 
 are able to see what the extent of philanthropy in education really is. To 
 these educational benefactions might with some propriety be added those to 
 libraries. 
 
 There is one other item of interest here, brought out in the last two columns 
 of Table 23, viz, the extent to which these benefactions have preceded or fol- 
 lowed the death of the donor. In 13 of the 23 years covered by the data a 
 greater per cent has come by direct gift. Summing up the 23 years, the figures 
 are 64 per cent by gift and 36 per cent by bequest. If 1916 is omitted, the 
 figures are: Gifts, 59 per cent and bequests 41 per cent. The lowest per cent 
 of gifts for any year was 17 in 1894 and the highest was 83 in 1906. 
 
 Table 24. — Total benefactions to all forms of education in the United States, 
 the total income for higher ediocation in the United States as reported by the 
 United States Gommdssioner of Education, and gifts to libraries. 
 
 Years. 
 
 Benefactions 
 
 to all forms of 
 
 education .1 
 
 Total income 
 
 of higher 
 education.^ 
 
 Benefactions 
 to libraries.! 
 
 1916 
 
 $72,612,619 
 35,354,338 
 90, 741, 210 
 57,601,997 
 35,207,907 
 61,879,296 
 61,283,182 
 46,122,241 
 36,552,039 
 
 $133,627,211 
 118, 299, 296 
 120,579,257 
 109,590,855 
 104,514,095 
 94,672,441 
 80,438,987 
 76,650,969 
 66,790,924 
 
 S2, 717, 450 
 916, 000 
 
 1915 
 
 1914 
 
 1, 881, 000 
 
 1913 
 
 2,162,000 
 2,112,000 
 1,942,500 
 
 1912 
 
 1911 
 
 1910 
 
 1,911,000 
 
 1909 
 
 3,012,293 
 834,500 
 
 1908 
 
 ' From yearbooks above cited. 
 
 2 From Reports of the United States Commissioner of Education. 
 
62 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAlSr HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 Table 24. — Total benefactions to all forms of education, etc. — CJontinued. 
 
 Years. 
 
 Benefactions 
 
 to all forms of 
 
 education. 
 
 Total income 
 of higher 
 education. 
 
 Benefactions 
 to libraries. 
 
 1907 
 
 $89,817,208 
 29,775,000 
 70,000,000 
 24,918,399 
 50,026,058 
 55,174,640 
 72,334,450 
 23,690,473 
 43,314,282 
 20,405,034 
 12,436,391 
 13,831,211 
 13,930,505 
 15,976,466 
 14,283,254 
 
 $68,079,616 
 57,502,280 
 45,715,927 
 41,618,228 
 40,526,616 
 39,952,798 
 39,812,256 
 31,676,572 
 41,152,710 
 26,745,610 
 25,608,446 
 26,260,902 
 22,134,601 
 24,390,852 
 20,133,191 
 
 $1,674,250 
 
 1906 
 
 
 1905 
 
 
 1904 
 
 961,100 
 
 1903 
 
 3,838,500 
 
 1902 . 
 
 4,045,500 
 
 1901 
 
 9,048,228 
 
 1900 
 
 3,270,000 
 
 1899 
 
 1,624,500 
 
 1898.. 
 
 942,500 
 
 1897 
 
 1,778,000 
 
 1896 
 
 1,535,000 
 
 1 895 
 
 1,736,000 
 
 1894 
 
 3,912,713 
 
 1893 
 
 3,087,000 
 
 
 
 To the general picture then we may add, from the facts brought out here, 
 that the general impressions gained from the data of the United States Com- 
 missioner's reports are reinforced at several points. Compared with the cost 
 of education in the country, these gifts are of great consideration. Second, 
 they have been, and there is reason to believe that they wiU continue to be, a 
 dependable resource. Third, there is a definite decline in the amount of these 
 gifts, which, however, seems to be explained by a corresponding rise in gifts 
 to charity — charity so obviously demanded by the great catastrophes of the 
 years of this decline. In addition, there is a decline in gifts to religion, to 
 public improvements, and to libraries. With the exception of gifts to libraries, 
 which have slightly declined in absolute amount, these declines are only rela- 
 tive, as may be seen from column three in Table 24. What should have caused 
 this lessening of gifts to libraries is not evident from these figures. Carne- 
 gie's gifts extend from about 1881, and reports show no special decline in his 
 gifts until very recently. 
 
 PHILANTHROPT AND THE OLDER COLLEGES. 
 
 Turning again to Tables 3, 4, and 6 for a more intensive study of philan- 
 throphy as it affected three of our old colonial colleges, we are able to follow 
 the tendencies through the present period. 
 
 Briefly stated, it may be noted that during this period no State support was 
 received ; that, looked at from any angle, the amounts of gifts have more than 
 kept pace with their former record ; that at Harvard and Columbia the earlier 
 tendency to place a condition upon the gifts has continued, while at Yale the 
 opposite has been true ; and that gifts for permanent endowment show a rela- 
 tive decline at Harvard and Yale through this period, while at Columbia such 
 gifts seem less popular than at Harvard, but more popular than at Yale. 
 
 Of the conditional gifts, it may be said that the " pious and indigent youth " 
 has continued to fare less well throughout this period ; that gifts for scholar- 
 ships £md fellowships have become more popular; that relatively (not in 
 absolute amount) there has been a decline in gifts for professorships, except 
 at Columbia; and that a still sharper relative decline in gifts to libraries has 
 appeared. As to the form of gift, there is no special tendency anywhere 
 toward gifts or bequests, except possibly at Yale, where bequests have increased. 
 
 Everywhere in these older institutions there is evidence of remarkable 
 growth. Harvard is now well into the last quarter of its third century, and 
 Columbia beyond the middle of its second century. There have been no more 
 
THE LATE ISTATIONAL PERIOD, 1865-1918. 
 
 63 
 
 rapidly changing centuries in history than these. Surely these facts show that 
 educational institutions founded and maintained by philanthropy can keep 
 step with the passing years. If the " dead hand " had lain heavily upon these 
 institutions, they would scarcely have maintained this rate of growth, either 
 in toto or in the special lines here represented. 
 
 PHILANTHKOPT IN COULJSGES OF THE EARLY NATIONAL PERIOD. 
 1. NEW LINES OF DEVELOPMENT. 
 
 In Chapter IV was described the work of philanthropy in a numiber of col- 
 leges which were founded during the early national period. Several new lines 
 of development were begun in those years, notable among which were the be- 
 ginnings of separate colleges for women, manual labor colleges, and separate 
 schools of theology. It will be the purpose here to carry forward the study 
 of several of those institutions. 
 
 It was said there that the philanthropy of that period was in the maia di- 
 rected by the various churches, and that in point of method the new colleges 
 of those days originated and grew very much as did the colleges of the early 
 colonial times. 
 
 2. AMHEEST AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE COLLEGES OF LAST PERIOD. 
 
 Fairly complete data for Amherst College are presented in Tables 11 and 25. 
 In Table 11 the Amherst data already discussed * have been carried forward to 
 1890. From this nmy be noted a continuance of most of the tendencies that had 
 prevailed before the Civil War. The State did nothing more for the college, 
 but the average annual income from gifts gradually increased. Most of the 
 gifts were for a specified purpose, and among these, scholarships, professor- 
 ships, and the library fared well. For some years after the Civil War the 
 gifts were made immediately available, but endowments were favored from 
 1876 to 1890. The subscription method of obtaining gifts falls into disuse or 
 nearly so, and as was true from' the beginning, most of this income was by 
 direct gift rather than by bequest. 
 
 In Table 25 is presented Amherst's income from " tuition and student fees," 
 from " productive funds," and from " benefactions." This table covers the 
 period 1895 to 1916, inclusive, at 4-year intervals, and brings out several inter- 
 esting points. First, the amount from gifts fluctuates from year to year, 
 roughly increasing up to the beginning of the World War and then declining. 
 Income from tuition has also varied, but shows a substantial increase to the 
 present, and income from pernnanent endowment funds has grov/n regularly, 
 having more than doubled during the 22 years covered by the table. 
 
 Table 25. 
 
 -Income of Amherst College each fourth year, as reported hy the 
 United States Commissioner of Education. 
 
 Dates. 
 
 Tuition 
 and fees. 
 
 Productive 
 funds. 
 
 Benefac- 
 tions. 
 
 Total 
 receipts. 
 
 1895 
 
 $42,000 
 50,000 
 40,000 
 37,500 
 64,012 
 59,957 
 61,521 
 
 $62,000 
 50,000 
 60,000 
 90,000 
 105,371 
 139,982 
 136,648 
 
 $30,000 
 65, 000 
 
 100,000 
 78,000 
 
 509, 748 
 30,552 
 31,223 
 
 $140 000 
 
 1899 
 
 165 000 
 
 1903 
 
 200,000 
 210,500 
 704 895 
 
 1907 
 
 1911 
 
 1915 
 
 237,' 834 
 241,550 
 
 1916 
 
 
 a See p. 42 ft. 
 
64 
 
 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 From these facts it is clear that if the college does not expand too rapidly, 
 it will very soon be on a remarkably sound basis. 
 
 3. THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTIONS. 
 
 •The growth of Amherst is somewhat paralleled by that of Andover Theologi- 
 cal Seminary, the early history of which has already been discussed.'' Refer- 
 ring again to Table 12, it will be seen that after the Civil War, and down to 
 1890, Andover continued to receive contributions to her permanent funds, and 
 that in increasing amounts. The details of these endowments are not all given 
 in the table, but enough is shown to indicate that professorships, scholarships, 
 and the library fared well. 
 
 According to reports of the United States Commissioner of Education, the 
 total amount of Andover's permanent funds in 1872 was $550,000. With some 
 fluctuations these funds have gradually increased to more than $810,000 in 
 1915. As early as 1852 these funds were furnishing an annual income of 
 $35,000. By 1889 this had grown to $55,000, and it is recorded ' that this was 
 the entire income of the school for the year. 
 
 Here, then, is a theological school, founded in 1807, which has slowly built 
 up an endowment fund that makes it virtually independent. 
 
 4. women's colleges. 
 
 As we have already seen,' Mount Holyoke College was one of the pioneer 
 institutions devoted to the higher education of women. The school was founded 
 and became well established in the second quarter of last century. The fol- 
 lowing tables will show something of its financial career since the close of the 
 early national period. 
 
 Up to 1875 practically no permanent endowment funds had been accumulated. 
 The school had in a very real sense been on trial' as a new philanthropic 
 social project. That it fully proved its worth and received a large social sanc- 
 tion is shown by the figures of Table 26. 
 
 Column 1 of this table shows the total amount of permanent funds possessed 
 by the college at intervals of five years from 1875 to 1915. In 1875 the college 
 possessed a permanent fund of $50,000. In 1915 this had grown to near a 
 million and a half dollars. 
 
 Table 26. — Total endotvment, total income, and sources of income for Mount 
 Holyoke College at intervals of five years, 1875-1915.°' 
 
 • 
 
 Total en- 
 dowment. 
 
 Total in- 
 come for 
 the year. 
 
 Benefac- 
 tions. 
 
 Income from— 
 
 Dates. 
 
 Productive 
 funds. 
 
 Tuition and 
 other fees. 
 
 1875 
 
 $50,000 
 63,486 
 103, 600 
 150,000 
 99,000 
 475, 000 
 801, 000 
 838,750 
 1, 426, 173 
 
 $48, 000 
 42,294 
 55, 500 
 
 
 $3,000 
 4,350 
 7,500 
 
 $45,000 
 i>37 944 
 
 1880 
 
 
 1885 
 
 
 b 48, 000 
 
 1890 
 
 $19, 000 
 6,200 
 31,000 
 
 276,000 
 31, 292 
 12,830 
 
 
 1895 
 
 74,000 
 139,663 
 187, 000 
 279, 721 
 349, 828 
 
 5,000 
 24,061 
 19,000 
 34,666 
 50, 820 
 
 69,000 
 
 1900 
 
 115 602 
 
 1905 
 
 168, 000 
 
 1910 
 
 100 197 
 
 1915 
 
 114, 643 
 
 
 
 a Compiled from reports of United States Commissioner of Education. 
 b Includes board and tuition 
 
 * See p. 44. 
 
 B Rep. U. S. Commis. Educ, 1889. 
 
 • See p. 45 fE. 
 
 ^A Boston paper refused to publish Miss Lyon's statements in behalf of the college 
 unless paid for as advertising. Stowe, Hist, of Mount Holyoke Sem., sec. ed., 1887, p. 41. 
 
THE LATE NATIONAL PEKIOD, 1865-1918. 
 
 65 
 
 It will be seen that permanent funds are rapidly assuming a larger and 
 larger share in the annual income of the college, the main sources of which are 
 also shown in this table. In 1875 the school received $3,000 from the income 
 on permanent funds and $45,000 from student fees. In 1915 permanent funds 
 produced $50,820 and tuition amounted to $114,643. This shows even more 
 clearly what was mentioned above, and just what we have seen to be true of 
 Andover and of Amherst, viz, that the rate of growth in income from perma- 
 nent funds is greater than is the rate of growth in income from other sources. 
 If this rate continues, it will not be many decades before philanthropy will 
 have produced a college for women that will not be dependent upon student 
 fees and that in spite of an extremely modest financial beginning. 
 
 No small part of Mount Holyoke's permanent funds are devoted to the gen- 
 eral endowment of the college. The growth of this general fund, together with 
 the permanent fund for scholarships, is shown in Table 27. 
 
 Table 27. — Growth of ttoo of Mount Holyoke's permanent funds, that for gen- 
 eral purposes and that for scholarships^ 
 
 Date. 
 
 Gifts to permanent 
 fund for— 
 
 Date. 
 
 Gifts to permanent 
 fund for- 
 
 General 
 purposes. 
 
 Scholar- 
 ships. 
 
 General 
 purposes. 
 
 Scholar- 
 ships. 
 
 Before 1875 
 
 $4,640 
 
 $26,666 
 7,000 
 22, 500 
 10,000 
 19,000 
 43,500 
 
 1901-1905.. . 
 
 $223,363 
 
 5,500 
 
 432,750 
 
 $14, 000 
 19 500 
 
 1876-1880 
 
 1906-1910 
 
 1881-1885 
 
 25,000 
 
 50,792 
 
 164, 134 
 
 185,000 
 
 1911-1915 
 
 56*314 
 
 1886-1890 
 
 » Total 
 
 
 1891-1895 
 
 1,091,179 
 
 218 480 
 
 1896-1900 
 
 
 
 
 
 » Compiled from catalogues and the president's report. 
 
 From this table it appears that these two funds have increased rapidly and 
 that each has reached a position of importance in the support of the college. 
 
 5. OBEKLIN AN EXAMPLE OF THE MANUAL LABOR COLLEGE. 
 
 Oberlin College was another institution of the early national period whose 
 early history has been traced.* It was pointed out that Oberlin's attempts at 
 gathering funds for permanent endowment were pretty much a failure before 
 the Civil War. Table 28 furnishes us with a very remarkable sequel, however, 
 to that earlier story of hard times, for since the Civil War Oberlin has made 
 progress quite similar to that noted above for Amherst, Andover, and Mount 
 Holyoke. 
 
 It is not only in Oberlin's total, however, but in the purposes for which 
 these totals were given that we see the large value of her endowment. This the 
 table makes clear through a period of almost a half century. 
 
 • See p. 46 ff. 
 
66 
 
 PHIIAlSrTHROPT IK AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION". 
 
 Table 28. — Distribution of Oberlin's permanent funds, received by gift and 
 
 bequest, 18S3-1915} 
 
 
 Total. 
 
 To general funds of— 
 
 Special funds. 
 
 Dates. 
 
 Univer- 
 sity. 
 
 CoUege. 
 
 Seminary. 
 
 Library. 
 
 Professor- 
 ships.2 
 
 Scholar- 
 ships .3 
 
 1860-1865 
 
 $6,000 
 
 25, 000 
 
 28,494 
 
 96,291 
 
 464,093 
 
 125,219 
 
 97,692 
 
 116,877 
 
 537,103 
 
 538,796 
 
 348,243 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 $6,000 
 
 1866-1870 
 
 
 
 
 
 $25,000 
 
 8,935 
 
 91,005 
 
 148,906 
 92,268 
 68,000 
 12,624 
 
 108,919 
 40,000 
 
 1871-1875 
 
 $17,514 
 
 1,286 
 
 186,026 
 
 
 
 
 2,045 
 
 1876-1880 
 
 
 
 
 4,000 
 
 1881-1885 
 
 $68,059 
 
 $42,135 
 133 
 427 
 
 $887 
 14, 276 
 
 18,100 
 
 1886-1890 
 
 18,542 
 
 1891-1895 
 
 24,815 
 
 72,944 
 
 372,319 
 
 343,496 
 
 188,585 
 
 
 4,450 
 
 1896-1900 
 
 
 5,824 
 4,752 
 73,549 
 
 25,585 
 
 1901-1905 
 
 10,000 
 68, 034 
 4,142 
 
 28, 113 
 37, 767 
 96,016 
 
 13,000 
 
 1906-1910 
 
 1911-1915 
 
 15,750 
 59,500 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 Data for this table were compiled from the Oberlin General Catalogue, 1833-1908, and the Quinquennial 
 Catalogue for 1916. 
 
 2 Of the total amount of benefactions for this purpose to 1908, 51 per cent was received as direct gifts, 
 24 per cent by bequest, and 25 per cent by endowment canvasses. Nearly 26 per cent of it was for the 
 endowment of religious and theological instruction and 18 per cent for instruction in natural and physical 
 sciences. 
 
 3 Of the total amount given for the endowment of scholarships during these years , 22 per cent was received 
 by bequests, nearly 5 per cent came from churches, and 3 per cent from different classes of alumni. About 
 14 per cent of it was for those entering missionary work or those who were children of missionaries, more 
 than 25 per cent was for indigent self-supporting students, 8 per cent for colored students, and 15 per cent 
 for girls. 
 
 Some details concerning the growth of the professorship funds are added in 
 Table 29. From these facts it appears that slightly more than half of the 
 total of these funds was built up by subscription methods, approximately one- 
 fourth by gift and the same by bequest. 
 
 • 
 
 Table 29. — Date, amount, and source of each endowed professorship at Oberlin 
 
 College. 
 
 Dates. 
 
 Amount. 
 
 How obtained. 
 
 Branch of instruction endowed. 
 
 1867 
 
 $25,000 
 8,935 
 21,371 
 19,634 
 50,000 
 25,000 
 25,158 
 23, 748 
 30,000 
 25,000 
 20,000 
 55,881 
 36,387 
 38,000 
 
 30,000 
 12,524 
 30,419 
 40,000 
 38,500 
 40,000 
 
 Bequest 
 
 Greek literature and archaeology. 
 
 1875 
 
 Subscription 
 
 New Testament language andliterature. 
 
 1877 
 
 do 
 
 Old Testament language and Uterature. 
 
 1879 
 
 do 
 
 Botany. 
 
 1880 
 
 Gift 
 
 Philosophy and psychology. 
 
 1881 
 
 do 
 
 Homiletics. 
 
 1882 
 
 Subscription 
 
 Church history. 
 
 1882 
 
 do 
 
 Economic and social science. 
 
 1882 
 
 Gift 
 
 Latin language and literature. 
 
 1884 
 
 Bequest 
 
 Mathematics. 
 
 1885 
 
 Gift 
 
 Physiology and physical training. 
 
 1889 
 
 Bequest 
 
 German and French. 
 
 1888 
 
 Subscription 
 
 Theology. 
 
 1893 
 
 Gift 
 
 Dean of women and director of women's gsrmDa- 
 
 1895 
 
 do 
 
 sium. 
 History. 
 
 1898 
 
 Subscription 
 
 Mediaeval history. 
 
 1901 
 
 In part by subscription 
 
 Director of conservatory of music. 
 
 1902 
 
 Gift 
 
 Mineralogy and chemistry. 
 
 1904 
 
 Bequest 
 
 President's chair. 
 
 1907 
 
 Gift 
 
 Practical theology. 
 
 
 
 
 Considering these four colleges as fairly representative of the philanthropic 
 foundations of the early national period, we may say of their development 
 since the Civil War that in all cases this has been a period of rapid growth. 
 The period of experimentation seems to have passed about war times, and 
 these colleges to have been accepted as worthy of the full confidence. of phi- 
 lanthropy. Permanent funds began to accumulate, slowly at first and then at 
 an increasing rate, till now aU have a substantial income from such funds. 
 
THE LATE I^ATIONAL PERIOD, 1865-1918. 6*7 
 
 At the present rate of growth, and with no more than normal expansion, these 
 colleges will in time become practically independent of income from other 
 sources. The endowment funds of these colleges are in large part available 
 for general purposes, though considerable sums have been given for pro- 
 fessorships, scholarships, and library. 
 
 PHILANTHROPY IN THE COLLEGES OF THIS PERIOD. 
 
 Down to 1865 practically every college had begun its existence with very 
 smaU funds, usually with little or no real endowment, and had had to pass 
 through a long financial struggle before it had won a clientage sufficient to 
 guarantee its future. During the period here under discussion colleges con- 
 tinued to be founded on that same basis. Drury College began in poverty in 
 1873 and remained poor until 1892, when a gift of $50>000 laid the foundation 
 of her present endowment of over a quarter of a million. Carleton College, 
 chartered in 1867, began with $20,000 received from the citizens of Northfield 
 and $10,000 received from the Congregational Churches of the State. In 1915 
 this college possessed endowment funds of almost a million dollars. Wash- 
 burn College, chartered in 1865, was started by small gifts from the Congre- 
 gational Churches, but by 1915 had developed an endowment of over $360,000. 
 These are but three from the many well-known illustrations of this type. 
 
 1. THE PRIVATELY ENDOWED UNIVEESITY A NEW TYPE. 
 
 In addition to this type, however, we see the beginning of a new era in 
 educational philanthropy — an era in which a great and independently endowed 
 university could spring into existence almost at once from the gifts of a single 
 benefactor. 
 
 Such schools did not have to go to the public and beg for funds, nor await 
 any sort of social sanction. They secured their charters as corporations, 
 erected their buildings, called together their faculties, organized their curricula, 
 and opened their doors to students. They start, therefore, as educational and 
 philanthropic, and we might also say, social experiments. Can such financially 
 powerful corporations be trusted to keep faith with America's educational, 
 economic, religious, and social ideals was the question in many minds at that 
 time. 
 
 An examination of the charters, articles of incorporation, and other founda- 
 tion documents of these institutions should reveal something of their own 
 conception of what their function was to be. Accordingly the following ex- 
 cerpts from these sources are presented : 
 
 1. EaJUCATIONAX AIMS. 
 
 The charter of Vassar College was issued in 1861. Section 2 of this charter 
 declares it to be the object and purpose of the corporation " To promote the 
 education of young women in literature, science, and the arts." 
 
 A fuller statement is to be found in Matthew Vassar's address to the trustees 
 of the college, delivered on February 26, 1861, in which he says : 
 
 I wish that the course of study should embrace at least the following partic- 
 ulars : The English language and its literature ; other modern languages ; the 
 ancient classics, as far as may be demanded by the spirit of the times; the 
 mathematics, to such an extent as may be deemed advisable ; all the branches of 
 natural science, with full apparatus, cabinets, collections, and conservatories 
 for visible illustrations ; anatomy, physiology, and hygiene, with practical refer- 
 ence to the laws of health of the sex ; intellectual philosophy ; the elements of 
 political economy; some knowledge of the Federal and State Constitutions 
 
68 PHILANTHROPY IN" AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 and laws; moral science, particularly as bearing on the filial, conjugal, and 
 parental relations; aesthetics, as treating of the beautiful in nature and art, 
 and to be illustrated by an extensive gallery of art ; domestic economy, prac- 
 tically taught, so far as possible, in order to prepare graduates readily to 
 become skillful housekeepers ; last, and most important of all, the daily, system- 
 atic reading and study of the Holy Scriptures as the only and all-sufficient 
 rule of Christian faith and practice.* 
 
 Cornell's charter, granted in 1865, says, in section 3 : 
 
 The leading object of the corporation hereby created shall be to teach such 
 branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanical arts, 
 incuding military tactics; in order to promote the liberal and practical educa- 
 tion of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life. 
 But such other branches of science and knowledge may be embraced in the 
 plan of instruction and investigation pertaining to the university as the 
 trustees may deem useful and proper.^" 
 
 In addition to this statement from the charter, we have the following words 
 from Ezra Cornell, the founder :" 
 
 I hope we have laid the foundation of an institution which shall combine prac- 
 tical with liberal education, * * * j desire that this shall prove to be the 
 beginning of an institution which shall furnish better means for the culture of 
 all men, of every calling, of every aim; * * * training them to be more 
 useful in their relations to the State, and to better comprehend their higher 
 and holier relations to their families and their God. 
 
 Finally, I trust we have laid the foundation of a university — " an institu- 
 tion where any person can find instruction in any study." 
 
 Johns Hopkins says in his will : 
 
 I do hereby give, devise, and bequeath all the rest * * * of my real and 
 personal estate to be held, used, and applied by such corporation in, for, and to 
 its corporate purposes in accordance with the provision of its existing charter 
 of incorporation, etc." 
 
 In this brief and formal certificate of incorporation of August 24, 1867, we 
 find the general declaration of purpose to be that of " Organizing a university 
 for the promotion of education in the State of Maryland," etc." 
 
 These general ideas of the purpose of Johns Hopkins University are made a 
 bit more specific in the inaugural address of the first president in which he lays 
 down 12 principles fairly well expressed in the following brief excerpts :" 
 
 1. All sciences are worthy of promotion, etc. 
 
 2. Religion has nothing to fear from science, and vice versa. 
 
 3. Remote utility is quite as worthy to be thought of as immediate ad- 
 
 vantage. 
 
 4. As it is impossible for any university to encourage with equal freedom 
 
 all branches of learning, a selection must be made by enlightened 
 governors, and that selection must depend on the requirements and 
 deficiencies of a given people in a given period. 
 
 5. Teachers and pupils must be allowed great freedom in their method of 
 
 work. 
 
 In his next several principles he lays emphasis upon the importance of a 
 broad liberal culture for all students ; upon research for professors, upon the 
 influence of research upon instruction, and vice versa ; points out that honors 
 must be bestowed sparingly and benefits freely ; and says that a university is 
 a thing of slow growth and very liable to fall into ruts. 
 
 » In Vassar, by Taylor, James Monroe, and Haight, Elizabeth Hazelton, Appendix II. 
 
 «> Cornell University Register, 1868. 
 
 " Founder's Address at the inaugural of President White in 1868, in Biography of 
 Ezra Cornell, A. S. Barnes & Co., 1884, p. 199 ff. 
 
 ^ Johns Hopkins University — Charter, Extracts of Will, Officers, and By-Laws.. Balti- 
 more, 1874. 
 • " Published with subsequent amendments in the University Raster for 1918-19. 
 
 "Addresses at the Inauguration of Daniel C. Gilman, as President of Johns Hopkiiis 
 University, Baltimore, 1876. 
 
THE LATE NATIONAL PERIOD, 1865-1918. 69 
 
 The founding grant of Leland Stanford Junior University declares that it is 
 " Its object to qualify its students for personal success and direct usefulness 
 in life." 
 
 And further : 
 
 Its purposes, to promote the public welfare by exercising an influence in be- 
 half of humanity and civilization, teaching the blessings of liberty regulated 
 by law, and inculcating love and reverence for the great principles of govern- 
 ment as derived from the inalienable rights of man to life, liberty, and the pur- 
 suit of happiness. 
 
 In addition to work of instruction, the university was designed " to advance 
 learning, the arts, and sciences." 
 
 In the University of Chicago certificate of incorporation we find the aim of 
 the foundation expressed in section 2 as follows : 
 
 To provide, impart, and furnish opportunities for all departments of higher 
 education to persons of both sexes on equal terms ; * * * to establish and 
 maintain a university in which may be taught all branches of higher learning. 
 
 Such are the educational aims of these institutions as they were conceived 
 by the founders. 
 
 2. EELIGIOUS AIMS. 
 
 The religious emphasis is shown to some extent in these same documents. 
 
 Vassar's charter makes no reference to religion, but Mr. Vassar, in the ad- 
 dress above quoted, does. In addition to the reference to religion in the above 
 quotation, he says : 
 
 All sectarian infiuences should be carefully excluded ; but the training of our 
 students should never be intrusted to the skeptical, the irreligious, or the im- 
 moral. 
 
 Cornell's charter makes specific reference to religion, as follows : 
 
 Sec. 2. But at no time shall a majority of the board be of any one religious 
 sect or of no religious sect. 
 
 Sec. 3. And persons of every religious denomination shall be equally eligible 
 to all offices and appointments. 
 
 In Johns Hopkins' brief charter no reference is made to religion, but in 
 President Oilman's address, as above quoted, we can see that questions of 
 religion were to fix no limitations in the life of the university nt any point. 
 
 Leland Stanford's foundation grant as amended in October, 1902, says : 
 
 The university must be forever maintained upon a strictly nonpartisan and 
 nonsectarian basis. 
 
 The charter of the University of Chicago says : 
 
 Sec. 3. At all times two-thirds of the trustees and also the president of the 
 university and of said college shall be members of regular Baptist Churches 
 * * * in this particular this charter shall be forever unalterable. 
 
 No other religious test or particular religious profession shall ever be held as 
 a requisite for election to said board or for admission to said university * * * 
 or for election to any professorship or any place of honor or emolument in said 
 corporation, etc. 
 
 Such aims as these could not have been expressed in earlier college charters. 
 The idea of educating young women in the sciences ; the idea of connecting 
 science as taught in the college with the work of the farmer and mechanic ; 
 the laboratory method of teaching ; the idea of investigation and research as a 
 university function ; the slight general references to and the broad liberality 
 in matters of religion ; these things could not have been written into the founda- 
 tion documents of our colonial colleges. There is a marked contrast between 
 the general tone and the actual ideas and ideals expressed here and those 
 shown from colonial charters in Table 1 above. 
 
To PHILANTHROPE IF AMERICA:^ HIGHER EDUCATIOif. 
 
 The new education is strongly suggested in almost every line of these docu- 
 ments, and a careful analysis of the conditions placed upon the foundation 
 gifts would show that very little is to be subtracted from the showing which 
 the above quotations make. 
 
 Mr. Rockefeller demanded that the Baptist Education Board should raise 
 $400,000 to put with his gift of $600,000, his gift to become a permanent endow- 
 ment for current expenses. The conditions of his next several large gifts were 
 quite as simple. 
 
 Matthew Vassar placed in the hands of his trustees securities worth $400,000 
 with which to build a seminary and college for women. He explained what 
 his notion of such a college was and then very modestly advised the board as to 
 future use of the funds. 
 
 Mr. Cornell had to meet the demands — not altogether reasonable — of the 
 State of New York, and those of the national land-grant act of 1862 before he 
 could give $500,000 to build a university. 
 
 These are typical. These great fortunes were to build and endow a " college " 
 or a " university," as the case might be, and no narrow limitations were placed 
 upon the use of the gifts to those ends. With such large initial funds available, 
 it is obvious that these institutions are in a position to reject any subsequent 
 gift that does not meet the essential purposes for which the schools were 
 founded. The aims laid down in their charters can be carried out without help 
 if necessary," and it is especially noteworthy, therefore, that in no case has 
 society failed to accept the foundation in the right spirit. Almost from the 
 start the people made these projects their own, as was evidenced by the con- 
 tributions which very soon began to flow into their treasuries from outside 
 sources. 
 
 3. TYPES OF EABLY CONDITIONAL GIFTS. 
 
 Vassar College. — Vassar College was founded in 1861 and was opened to 
 students in 1865. Mr. Vassar's first gift was $408,000. In 1864 he added a gift 
 of $20,000, for an art collection, and in 1868, by his will, he canceled a $75,000 
 debt for the college, and added $275,000 to establish a lectureship fund, a 
 students' aid fund, a library and art cabinet fund, and a repair fund. The 
 first important gift to come to Vassar from the outside was in 1871, when 
 A. J. Fox gave $6,000 to establish the Fox scholarship. This was soon followed 
 by two other gifts for scholarships and in 1879 by a gift of $6,000, and in 1882 
 by another of $3,000, both for scholarships." 
 
 In 1879 two of the founder's nephews agreed to build a laboratory of chem- 
 istry and physics; in addition to which Matthew Vassar, jr., gave $50,000 for 
 scholarships and $40,000 for two professorships. In 1890 an endowment fund 
 of $100,000 was raised by subscriptions." 
 
 IS Andrew D. White, in his Autobiography, Vol. I, p. 413, quotes the following statement 
 from a trustee of Johns Hopkins University : " We at least have this in our favor ; we can 
 follow out our own conceptions and convictions of what is best ; we have no need of obey- 
 ing the injunctions of any legislature, the beliefs of any religious body, or the clamors 
 of any press ; we are free to do what we really believe best, as slowly and in such manner 
 as we see fit" 
 
 '* In accepting some of these scholarships the college bound itself for all time to edu- 
 cate a girl on each of the foundations. That was possible when money was worth 7 per 
 cent, and the cost of such education $400 ; but as money fell to 4 1 to 5 per cent, and the 
 cost of such education rose to $500, such gifts became liabilities in place of assets. This, 
 however, was no fault of philanthropy, but due rather to shortsighted management on 
 the part of the college. Such management was not, however, without precedent. See 
 discussion of Oberlin scholarships, p. 46. 
 
 1'' These facts were taken from Tailor and Haight's Vassar, and from President's Re- 
 ports and Catalogues. 
 
THE LATE NATIONAL PEKIOD, 1865-1918. 71 
 
 This covers practically all the gifts to Vassar during its first 25 years of 
 work. Certainly the conditions named have been in line with the main purposes 
 of the founder. 
 
 Cornell University. ^At Cornell University, founded in 1865, we have a some- 
 what different situation. The half million dollar gift of the founder was very 
 thoroughly bound to fulfill certain conditions laid down by the State legisla- 
 ture." The university started and grew against serious opposition of almost 
 every sort, and almost immediately gifts began to be received. 
 
 In 1871 Henry W. Sage gave $250,000 to establish and endow a women's col- 
 lege; John McGraw erected the McGraw Building, at a cost of about $100,000; 
 Hiram Sibley presented a building and equipment for the college of mechanic 
 arts at a cost of over $50,000 ; President White built the President's House, 
 at a cost of some $60,000 ; and Dean Sage endowed the chapel which had been 
 built by a gift of Henry W. Sage. These are typical of many other early 
 gifts which produced a phenomenally rapid growth of the university." 
 
 John Hopkins University. — Johns Hopkins opended its doors in 1876, hav- 
 ing been chartered in 1867. Almost immediately its large foundation began 
 to be supplemented by gifts and bequests. In his will, dated February 26, 1876, 
 Dr. Henry W. Baxley left $23,836 to found a medical professorship. In the 
 same year a small gift was received for a scholarship, and this was followed 
 by several others during the next few years. Large and important book col- 
 lections, including a large German law library for Heidelberg, were contributed 
 to the library very soon after it was opened, and two $10,000 fellowships were 
 contributed in 1887. Numerous small gifts are also recorded, but these are 
 fully typical of the conditional gifts to Johns Hopkins during her first two 
 decades.^" 
 
 Chicago University. — ^Among the early gifts to the University of Chicago 
 after it was chartered in 1890 was a site for the college by Marshall Field 
 and a million- dollar gift from Mr. Rockefeller, $800,000 of the latter to be used 
 as a permanent fund for the support of nonprofessional graduate instruction 
 and fellowships, $100,000 to be used as a permanent fund for the endowment 
 of theological instruction in the divinity school of the university, and $100,000 
 to be used in the construction of buildings for the divinity school. In 1891 
 the trustees of the William B. Ogden estate began proceedings which ended 
 in a gift of nearly $600,000 for the Ogden Graduate School of Science. In 
 1898 Silas B. Cobb gave a $150,000 recitation building, and in this same year 
 three other large gifts for buildings were received. Numerous other gifts, such 
 as an astronomical observatory, a physical laboratory, a chemistry building, 
 an oriental museum, followed within a few years, as also did large sums for 
 endowment. 
 
 Leland Stanford Junior University. — At Leland Stanford Junior University, 
 opened in 1891 on the largest initial foundation gift yet made to an American 
 institution of higher learning, numerous valuable gifts were made to the 
 library and museum from the start. The half-million dollar jewel fund for 
 the endowment of the library was the gift of Mrs. Stanford in 1905. Other 
 large gifts from Thomas Welton Stanford restored the museum, which had 
 been destroyed by the earthquake in 1906, and added an art museum and a 
 
 " By the charter the university was made subject to visitation of the regents of 
 the University of New York, and the trustees were made personally liable for any debt 
 above $50,000. It also made the founding gift of Mr. Cornell absolutely unconditional. 
 
 " For these facts, see President White's Autobiography, and W. T. Hewett's Cornell 
 University, a History, Vol. Ill, Appendix. 
 
 =» See A List of Gifts and Bequests Received by the John Hopkins University, 1876- 
 1891, Baltimore, 1892. 
 
72 
 
 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 valuable art collection. Several prize scholarship, fellowship, and lecture- 
 ship funds were also among the early gifts. 
 
 We may say, then, that these institutions did receive gifts from the out- 
 side, and that very soon after they v^-ere founded. We may say that the 
 conditions of these gifts were unquestionably in accord with the essential 
 aims set forth in the charters of the schools. In other words, these projects 
 met the real test and passed it, and having received society's sanction they 
 have joined the ranks of Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Oberlin^ Amherst, and the 
 long list of institutions which these names suggest. 
 
 4. ANALYSIS OF GIFTS TO TWO UNIVEKSITIES OF THIS GKOOP. 
 
 It is possible to add to this description something of the financial history 
 of two of these universities. Tables 30 and 31 give us a fairly complete 
 account of the income to the University of Chicago and to Cornell University 
 at intervals of five years down to 1915. Any one of the columns of these 
 tables is instructive. All point to the phenomenal growth of these univer- 
 sities. The income from tuition shows the rapid growth of the student 
 bodies, and when compared with the column showing the total income it is 
 seen that throughout Cornell's history tuition has furnished from one-fourth 
 to one-seventh of the total annual income, while at the University of Chicago 
 this percentage is from one-third to one-fifth. The income from productive 
 funds in both tables shows a steady and rapid increase almost from the start, 
 and at Cornell has furnished from two to six and even nine times the income 
 produced by tuition. 
 
 The gifts column in Table 31 shows that gifts have become, subsequently 
 to 1890, an extremely important and dependable source of income. It should 
 be added that an examination of the treasurer's reports shows that a large 
 percentage of these gifts to Cornell have been going into the permanent 
 funds of the university. 
 
 In Table 30 we have a further analysis of the benefactions to the Uni- 
 versity of Chicago after 1906, from which we are able to see the extent to 
 which gifts are being received for enlargement of plant, for endowment, and 
 for current expenses, respectively, from which it is evident that a very large 
 percentage of all gifts go into the permanent funds. 
 
 Table 30. — Income of University of Chicago at 5-year intervals from 1890 
 
 to 1915.^ 
 
 Dates. 
 
 From student fees. 
 
 Tiiition. 
 
 Other 
 
 student 
 
 fees. 
 
 From 
 
 productive 
 
 funds. 
 
 From private benefactions for- 
 
 Plant. 
 
 Endow- 
 ment. 
 
 Current 
 expenses. 
 
 From 
 
 other 
 
 sources. 
 
 Total 
 income. 
 
 1890. 
 1895. 
 1900. 
 1905. 
 1910. 
 1915. 
 
 $130, 000 
 
 294,402 
 
 504, 554 
 588,721 I 193,989 
 708,175 217,838 
 
 $140, 000 
 
 207, 620 
 
 336, 144 
 
 774, 246 
 
 1, 094, 254 
 
 $2, 127, 083 
 
 2 $1,634, 910 
 273,642 
 352, 193 
 
 1,563,695 
 579, 873 
 867, 048 
 784, 303 
 
 2 $388,270 
 53,635 
 
 7,885 
 
 $205, 000 
 30,280 
 47,607 
 46,687 
 103, 880 
 
 $1,365,000 
 2,095,997 
 1, 468, 178 
 2, 793, 968 
 3, 268, 508 
 
 1 Data eompUed from United States Commissioner's Reports and from the reports of the university 
 president. 
 
 2 In 1907. 
 
THE LATE IsTATIONAL PERIOD, ISGS-l&lS, 
 
 73 
 
 Table 31. — Financial exhibit of income of Cornell University at five-year inter- 
 vals from 1865 to 1915^ 
 
 Years. 
 
 Tuition fees. 
 
 Other 
 receipts 
 
 from 
 students. 
 
 Income of 
 
 investments. 
 
 Productive 
 funds. 
 
 All other 
 sources. 
 
 Total. 
 
 1865-66 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 $9,000 
 
 1868-69 
 
 $33,348 
 
 15, 105 
 
 18,545 
 
 17, 050 
 
 46,000 
 
 114, 277 
 
 155,003 
 
 251, 031 
 
 476, 400 
 
 535,346 
 
 622, 575 
 
 
 
 $130, 000 
 
 
 76,744 
 
 1874 
 
 $1,993 
 1,637 
 2,719 
 18,502 
 26,736 
 38, 413 
 57,311 
 
 $86,666 
 73,662 
 186, 907 
 275,028 
 314, 993 
 376,033 
 413,629 
 428, 562 
 644,637 
 709,777 
 
 $9, 203 
 13,314 
 10,700 
 22,775 
 55, 931 
 40,849 
 122,915 
 119,624 
 346,595 
 409,826 
 
 106 301 
 
 1879. 
 
 
 107 158 
 
 1884 
 
 
 217, 377 
 
 1889 
 
 
 362, 304 
 
 1894 
 
 112,595 
 64,855 
 485,449 
 183,252 
 4,376,103 
 201,484 
 
 624, 531 
 
 1899 
 
 675, 153 
 
 1904. 
 
 1,330,336 
 1, 460, 610 
 
 1909 
 
 1914 
 
 45,334 
 183,975 
 
 6,790,260 
 3, 161, 381 
 
 1915 
 
 
 
 1 Data to 1904 from Hewett's Cornell University, and subsequent to 1904 from Reports of the United 
 States Commissioner of Education. 
 
 From these figures it is evident that the scale upon which these institutions 
 were founded has been fairly maintained as their scale of growth. Chicago's 
 income from permanent funds is furnishing an increasing proportion of her 
 annual income, while the opposite appears to be true of Cornell. The latter is 
 explained by the fact that Cornell has in recent years been receiving relatively 
 large annual appropriations from the State, the city, and the United States. 
 What we have noted above regarding the endowment funds of the colonial and 
 early national colleges, then, is equally true of these younger institutions. 
 They are rapidly building up a source of support that will, under normal ex- 
 pansion, make them independent. 
 
 If we ask regarding the further conditions placed upon these vast gifts to 
 higher education, we have but to read over the lists published in the year- 
 books, in magazines, and in official university publications to see that they 
 are rarely out of line with the main lines of growth in the institution receiving 
 them. More than half of Cornell's permanent funds belong to the general 
 funds of the university or to some one of the schools or departments." 
 
 Of the great foundations of this period then we may say : Financially they 
 are practically independent from the start; each is, in the main, the gift of 
 one man ; their charters grant them' almost unlimited freedom to become any- 
 thing they may choose to call college or university ; they are very definitely 
 nonsectarian and nonpolitical, but one, Chicago, is definitely fostered by a 
 church ; they cultivate liberality in matters of religion ; they stress original 
 research as a professorial function ; and, in the face of real opposition in some 
 cases, as well as the natural tendency to distrust such large corporations, the 
 gifts they have received from the start show that they have been accepted by 
 the public as fully as have the most ancient or most religious foundations of 
 the past. All are rapidly building up permanent endowment funds which 
 promise a large degree of financial independence in the future, and, judged by 
 our best standards, all are not only fully law-abiding, but each in its own way 
 is exercising wide leadership in the field of higher education. 
 
 PHUiANTHROPY THROUGH RELIGIOUS EDUCATION SOCIETIES. 
 
 As explained in Chapter III, religious education societies arose very early 
 In the last century in response to a growing demand for trained ministers, 
 
 =^A full list of these funds with date and amount of each, and with fairly complete 
 statement of conditions controlling the use of their income, is published in the annual 
 report of the treasurer for 1915-16. 
 
74 
 
 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 which demand the colleges were failing to meet. They organized and were 
 chartered as corporations to aid in the education of young men for this calling. 
 They operated mainly by direct aid to the student, though in some cases grants 
 were made to colleges. Most of the societies did some work of this kind, even 
 going so far as to found colleges in some instances.^ 
 
 Most of these societies survived the period of the Rebellion and have con- 
 tinued, separately or in combination, to carry on this work to the present time. 
 Many other societies have also been organized, several new ones having ap- 
 peared very recently. The old methods of assistance have continued in force, 
 and permanent endowment funds have in several cases grovra to importance, 
 and it is plain that the influence of these organizations is becoming greater. At 
 present they are organized on denominational lines, though originally many of 
 them were not so. 
 
 1. THE AMEBICAN EDUCATION SOCIETT. 
 
 Something of the extent of their service to higher education may be seen 
 from the following tables, which are typical of the best work that is being done 
 by these societies. Table 32 shows the annual income of the American Educa- 
 tion Society, the number of students assisted, the amount of permanent funds 
 possessed, the total annual grant to colleges, and, for a few years, the number of 
 colleges receiving these grants. The first two columns are a continuation of 
 columns one and two in Table 14. 
 
 Table 32. 
 
 -Financial statistics of the American Education Society at intervals 
 of five years from 1866 to 1915. 
 
 Dates. 
 
 Amount 
 received. 
 
 Students 
 aided. 
 
 Amoimt 
 of per- 
 manent 
 fund. 
 
 Grants 
 
 to 
 colleges .1 
 
 Colleges 
 aided. 
 
 1865 
 
 ?21,613 
 27, 120 
 93, 713 
 64,097 
 60, 124 
 101,425 
 141, 189 
 120, 047 
 144,036 
 129,555 
 89,639 
 
 253 
 354 
 413 
 367 
 309 
 359 
 335 
 138 
 192 
 231 
 
 $81,000 
 81,500 
 81,500 
 83,499 
 103, 418 
 112, 622 
 225,342 
 
 
 
 1870 
 
 
 
 1875 
 
 2 162, 375 
 38,983 
 8 88, 137 
 58,336 
 26,534 
 28,861 
 7,849 
 22, 731 
 10, 521 
 
 8 
 
 1880 
 
 11 
 
 1885 
 
 »8 
 
 1890 
 
 
 1895 
 
 
 1900 
 
 
 1905 
 
 281, 114 
 282, 124 
 
 
 1910 
 
 
 1915 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 Usually much larger sums were given to academies than to colleges. 
 
 2 In this year (1875) the society joined with the Society for the Promotion of Collegiate and Theological 
 Education, was chartered, and became the American College and Education Society. 
 
 ' In 1884. 
 
 If we turn to Table 14 we will see that this society grew rapidly from its 
 beginning in 1815 to vs^ell into the thirties, after which it slowly declined until 
 after the Civil War, when it again entered upon a period of prosperity which 
 has continued practically to the present time. 
 
 In 1874 the American Education Society, which had worked mainly by 
 grants to students, was combined with the Society for the Promotion of Col- 
 legiate and Theological Education in the West, which had operated by making 
 grants to colleges.^ This shift in emphasis appears in column 4 under " grants 
 to colleges." 
 
 The rise in income along with the decline in number of students and colleges 
 aided is explained by the fact that increasing attention has been given to the 
 
 ^ As when the Western Collie Society founded Illinois College In 1843. 
 » See p. 50 ff. 
 
THE LATE NATIONAL PERIOD, 1865-191S. 
 
 75 
 
 work of academies, pastorates, and missionary schools.^' The society has not 
 only prospered, but its total service to education has increased. 
 
 2. THE PRESBYTERIAN EDUCATION BOARD. 
 
 Table 33 continues for the board of education of the Presbyterian Church the 
 facts shown for that society in Table 14. In addition, this table shows the 
 number of churches from which contributions were received, and the maximum 
 amount and the total amount of aid granted to students. 
 
 Table 33. — Financial statistics of the Presbyterian Board of Education at inter- 
 vals of five years.^ 
 
 Years. 
 
 Number 
 of con- 
 tributing 
 churches. 
 
 Receipts 
 from all 
 sources. 
 
 Number 
 of candi- 
 dates 
 aided. 
 
 Maxi- 
 mum, 
 amount 
 of aid. 
 
 Total 
 amount 
 paid to 
 candi- 
 dates. 
 
 1866 
 
 
 $46,751 
 52,276 
 68,179 
 
 296 
 391 
 496 
 424 
 619 
 839 
 1,031 
 716 
 658 
 843 
 776 
 895 
 
 
 $41,027 
 40,897 
 
 1870 
 
 
 $150 
 150 
 100 
 110 
 100 
 80 
 80 
 100 
 100 
 75-150 
 75-150 
 
 1875 
 
 
 63,450 
 
 1^880 
 
 2,208 
 
 40,861 
 63, 314 
 
 1885 
 
 2, 632 72! 7.^3 
 
 1890 
 
 3,008 
 3,165 
 3,523 
 3,788 
 4,958 
 5,431 
 5,504 
 
 84,936 
 97,278 
 77,763 
 119, 104 
 148, 503 
 164,459 
 203, 592 
 
 67, 651 
 
 1895 
 
 79,071 
 51,499 
 
 1900 
 
 1905 
 
 64,535 
 
 1910 
 
 81, 414 
 
 1915 
 
 79,815 
 86,902 
 
 1917 
 
 
 Total 
 
 
 4,864,402 
 
 
 
 3, 147, 537 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 statistics from the 98th An. Rep. of the board, in 1917; the Cumberland Presbyterian Education Society 
 united with this board in 1906; their first joint report is in 1907. 
 
 First of all, it will be seen that since 1878 the jumber of churches con- 
 tributing to the funds of this society has practically trebled. This in- 
 crease in the society's clientage has been very gradual, and an examination 
 of the receipts shows that the average contribution per church has remained 
 fairly constant or perhaps increased slightly. If we examine the three last 
 columns of this table we see that its service has also increased. The number 
 of students aided has increased from 296 in 1866 to 1,037 in 1896 ; then, after 
 a decline for a few years, has risen again to 895 in 1917. During these years 
 the amount of aid per student has fluctuated somewhat but on the whole has 
 declined, while the total of grants has varied somewhat with the number 
 of students aided. 
 
 3. KETHODIST EPISCOPAL CHtlBCH BOARD. 
 
 The board of education of the Methodist Episcopal Church took definite 
 form in 1864. Its charter empowered it to aid young men desiring to enter 
 missionary work or the ministry, and to aid biblical or theological schools, as 
 well as universities, colleges, and academies then (1869) under the patronage 
 of the church. No gifts were to be made for buildings and no aid was to 
 be given to any school not then in existence, except " the board shall first have 
 been consulted and shall have approved of the establishment and organization 
 of such institution."" Down to 1908 it has rendered aid to higher education 
 
 «* See An. Rep. of the Treasurer, 1916. 
 
 26 See the original charter of 1869, published in the 1904 report, 
 
 111512°— 22 6 
 
76 
 
 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 entirely by making loans direct to students, for the reason that it had practically 
 no funds for work of a broader scope. '^ Since that time it has, in addition 
 to this, made grants to colleges. Table 34 shows the annual receipts from 
 gifts, the annual outlay in the form of loans to students, the annual grants 
 to institutions, and, for some years, the number of students receiving these 
 loans. From these figures it is evident that this society has made a remarkably 
 rapid growth. From its beginning in 1873 to 1915 the board claims to have 
 assisted a total of 22,392 different students." That includes those in the 
 academies and theological schools as well as those in college. 
 
 Table 34.- 
 
 -Financial statistics of the board of education of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church, 1868-1915, at intervals of five years} 
 
 Years. 
 
 Amount 
 received 
 less in- 
 terest on 
 permanent 
 funds. 
 
 Amount of 
 loans to 
 students. 
 
 Number 
 
 of students 
 
 aided. 
 
 'Amount of 
 aid to in- 
 stitutions. 
 
 1868 
 
 $84,000 
 
 2,141 
 
 5,079 
 
 38,852 
 
 64 914 
 
 76, .529 
 
 11-1,651 
 
 130,640 
 
 164,608 
 
 200, 158 
 
 
 
 
 1875 
 
 $10,095 
 8,000 
 31,684 
 42,173 
 70,596 
 81,749 
 108,658 
 115,400 
 123,696 
 
 
 
 1880 
 
 
 
 1885 
 
 
 
 1890 
 
 
 
 1895 
 
 1,540 
 
 
 1900 
 
 
 1905 
 
 
 
 1910 
 
 2.072 
 2,189 
 
 $20,496 
 43,528 
 
 1915 
 
 
 Total 
 
 3,338,725 
 
 2,634,034 
 
 
 260,072 
 
 
 
 * Compiled from annual and quadrennial reports of the board. 
 
 Table 35. 
 
 -Biennial receipts of the hoard of education of the Evangelical 
 Lutheran Church in the United States of America. 
 
 Periods. 
 
 Amount 
 received. 
 
 Periods. 
 
 Amount 
 received. 
 
 Periods. 
 
 Amount 
 received. 
 
 1887-1889 
 
 $6,409 
 10, 140 
 14,181 
 15.288 
 19,878 
 
 1897-1899 
 
 $21,012 
 27, 070 
 41,105 
 40,635 
 54,234 
 
 1907-1909 
 
 $104,866 
 88 859 
 
 1889-1891 
 
 1899-1901 
 
 1900-1911 
 
 1891-1893 
 
 1901-1903 
 
 1911-1913 
 
 75, 656 
 89,746 
 95,738 
 
 1893-1895 
 
 1903-1905 
 
 1913-1915 
 
 1895-1897 
 
 1905-1907 
 
 1915-1917 
 
 
 
 
 4. EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH BOARD. 
 
 In 1885 the board of education of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the 
 United States of America was organized and has operated continuously since. 
 Table 35 shows the resources of the board biennially since its foundation. Its 
 method of work has been that of making contributions to various educational 
 institutions. According to treasurers' reports, gifts to colleges were sometimes 
 for the " budget " of the school and sometimes for a specific item, as interest 
 on a debt, special endowment, scholarship, etc. For the past decade reports 
 show that at least seven institutions were regular recipients of aid from this 
 board, and it appears from reports to have been responsible for founding, and 
 also for refusing to found, new institutions, which together indicates that it is 
 In some sense a supervising agency. 
 
 =* See discussion of this in the annual report of the board for 1904. 
 « An. Rep., 1910. 
 
THE LATE NATIONAL PERIOD, 1865-1918. 77 
 
 5. WORK OF THESE SOCIETIES EVALUATED. 
 
 While it is not possible to state just what proportion of the funds of these 
 societies has gone into higher education, it is clear that all effort has been 
 aimed directly or indirectly at training for the ministry. One has but to 
 glance at the columns, and especially at their totals, to realize that these 
 organizations have meant much to the growth of higher education in this 
 country. The income of the Presbyterian board for 1917 is approximately that 
 of such colleges as Wells and Beloit. 
 
 The showing for these four societies or boards is probably typical of the 
 best that is being done by these organizations. Undoubtedly thousands of 
 young men and women have received secondary or collegiate training who 
 would otherwise have received little or no schooling. The ministry has 
 brought many into its service by this means. These societies have saved 
 colleges which were virtually bankrupt. By small gifts they have stimulated 
 much larger ones. They have exercised supervision over colleges under their 
 patronage by refusing aid to those which show no promise. They have by 
 these and other means attempted standardization, and it should be added that 
 the Methodist board began to exercise this influence very early .'^ They have 
 through church pulpits and Sunday schools brought the problems of college 
 education to the attention of a large percentage of our population. More 
 recently coordination of the efforts of these many boards, through the work 
 of the council of church boards of education, is resulting in a more intelli- 
 gent placement of new foundations. Doubtless we should add that these boards 
 have helped to save denominationalism among churches, whatever that may 
 be worth. 
 
 Most of them seem to be worthy aims, if the cost has not been too great. 
 In opposition to this kind of philanthrophy it is sometimes argued that a 
 young man who is put through college by the aid of these boards naturally 
 feels obligated to enter the ministry regardless of the fact that he discovers 
 in the course of his training that he is better fitted for some other calling; 
 that, as a rule, academy students are not in a position to decide upon a voca- 
 tion ; that the scholarship method, unless appointments are based upon ability, 
 is not the best way to stimulate scholarly efforts ; and that the cost of admin- 
 istering the funds is too large.^° 
 
 It is clear at any rate that these boards are occupying a much stronger 
 position among the churches than formerly. Their supervision is real super- 
 vision, when it is possible for them to close up such of their own weaker insti- 
 
 *8 In 1892 general conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Cliurch authorized a " uni- 
 versity senate " to formulate a standard of requirements for graduation to baccalaureate 
 degree in their church schools, and the board was authorized to classify as collies only 
 such schools as met those requirements. See Appendix to Annual Report for 1892, and 
 for the general conference for 1896, p. 736. The colleges are classified on this basis in 
 the annual reports of the board for 1895. 
 
 ^ In 1875 approximately 11 per cent of the expenditures of the American College and 
 Education Society was for the cost of administration. The cost of administration for the 
 Methodist board amounted to more than 16 per cent of the total expenditures in 1889, 
 and about 27 per cent in 1915, and the same figure for the Presbyterian board in 1888 
 was about 10 per cent. Of course these are only rough figures. The administrative offi- 
 cers are often engaged in ways that are directly useful in the development of higher educa- 
 tion. The application of college standards by the administrative officers of the Methodist 
 board is a fair illustration. The making of educational surveys, the gathering and pub- 
 lication of educational information, the vast amounts of correspondence in connection with 
 gifts and loans, and the advice to colleges concerning their educational and financial de- 
 velopment, are all illustrations. In a sense these boards are all engaged in propaganda 
 work, the results of which it is difficult to evaluate. 
 
78 PHILANTHROPY IN AMEBICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 rations as they may decide are no longer useful.** These boards are not only 
 taking a scientific attitude toward this problem, but they are studying their col- 
 leges to see what are needed and what are not needed, and are advocating, and ' 
 in many cases effecting, the close of the superfluous institutions." 
 
 6. COUNCIL OF CHUECH BOABDS OF EDUCATION. 
 
 There is one feature of this whole movement which seems to promise very 
 great possibilities for good. That is the recently organized council of church 
 boards of education. This council was organized in 1911, and has for its pur- 
 pose a more intelligent cooperation among churches in the building and main- 
 tenance of church colleges.'' Possibly it was the influence of the more powerful 
 philanthropic agencies, together with the growing prestige of the great pri- 
 vately endowed and State universities, that brought the small church college 
 to realize that its influence was beginning to wane. 
 
 This movement toward cooperation is one important outcome of the vigorous 
 discussions of the place of the small college in American higher education. 
 These boards knew many of the weak points in the church college situation 
 and knew that duplication of effort was probably their greatest weakness. 
 
 At an informal conference of the secretaries of seven church boards of edu- 
 cation, held in New York City, February 18, 1911, it was decided that a second 
 conference should be held at which carefully prepared papers should be pre- 
 sented. 
 
 Such a conference was held and resulted in the following declaration of 
 principles: (1) A large degree of cooperation between educational boards is 
 practicable and desirable. " Through them we might secure a better geographi- 
 cal distribution of denominational colleges * * * ^ proper standardization 
 of institutions," etc. (2) The denominations should offer loyal support to the pub- 
 lic-school system. (3) The legitimacy and the absolute necessity of a certain 
 number of denominational academies, occupying strategic positions in territory 
 not fully occupied by the public high schools. (4) There should be a direct ap- 
 proach by the denominations to the problem of religious instruction at State 
 university centers.'^ 
 
 The council took permanent form at the conclusion of this meeting and has 
 since published annual reports of its work. Several practical steps toward 
 cooperation between the boards have already been taken, and, though its place 
 as a standardizing agency may remain advisory only, it is in that capacity that 
 its influence as a philanthropic agency offers substantial promise. 
 
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. 
 
 We may characterize this period in the growth of higher education in 
 America as follows : 
 
 The question of State versus private endowment of higher education has been 
 fought through and settled favorably to both methods; the church has con- 
 tinued its work of founding small colleges; several very large institutions (in 
 a sense a new type) have been founded by the fortunes of single individuals 
 and have not looked to the church for support ; a number of large foundations, 
 
 so See Rep. Bd. of Educ. Meth. Epis. Ch., 1915, p. 23, for illustration. 
 
 " Black Hills College, 1903 ; Charles City College, University of the Pacific, and Port 
 Worth University, 1911 ; Mount Pleasant German College, 1908, are a few of the Method- 
 ist institutions that have been closed in this way. 
 
 ^ The constitution of the council is printed in the Second Annual Report of the Coun- 
 cil of Church Boards of Education. 
 
 »» See First An. Rep. of Council of Church Boards of Ed. in U. S. America. 
 
THE LATE NATIONAL, PERIOD, 1865-1918. 79 
 
 the aim of which is research and general educational stimulus and supervision, 
 have been created; and a new philosophy of education, which has found ex- 
 pression in the organization, administration, and management of our institu- 
 tions of higher learning, has been worked out. 
 
 In opening up new territory to higher education during this period, the State 
 has for the most part done the pioneering, thus reversing the custom of pre- 
 Civil War days, when the church school led the way. 
 
 From a general view of the work of philanthropy in higher education, as 
 gathered from the Reports of the United States Commissioner of Education, we 
 have seen that philanthropy has gradually built up a vast fund for the per- 
 manent endowment of higher learning ; that from this source, together with 
 annual gifts, philanthropy is still bearing decidedly the larger part of the burden 
 of higher education, though the State is assuming a relatively larger portion of 
 this burden each year ; and that tuition has covered practically the same per- 
 centage of the total annual cost from 1872 to the present. We have seen that, 
 on an average, more than half of all gifts have gone to " permanent endowment 
 and general purposes " ; that there is a tendency in recent years for a larger 
 proportion to go into the permanent funds ; and that from one-eighth to one-half 
 of the annual gifts have been for the development of the school plant. We have 
 seen that in the seventies and eighties professorships and libraries fared well ; 
 that scholarships became increasingly important, and that the indigent never 
 were quite forgotten ; and, finally, that the percentage of all gifts that have been 
 made without condition through the years has ranged from 4 to 26 per cent. 
 
 From other data we have seen that philanthropy has been almost solely re- 
 sponsible for the development of separate colleges for women, and for theo- 
 logical schools ; that it has played a large part in the development of medical 
 schools, and a small part in technical and law schools ; and that private enter- 
 prise and the State have been almost entirely responsible for the development 
 of schools of dentistry and pharmacy, while the State has been largely respon- 
 sible for technical schools. 
 
 From data in the various annual publications from 1893 to 1915, inclusive, 
 we have seen that education has received 43 per cent of all gifts of $5,000 or 
 over in the United States ; that charity is education's largest competitor, with 
 37 per cent ; while " religious purposes " balances with museums and public im- 
 provements at approximately 9 per cent each, and libraries at 2 per cent. 
 Roughly, and relatively speaking, we may say that during the first half of this 
 period the amount of gifts for education made a slight gain, since which it has 
 suffered a steady decline. Similarly religious purposes and museums have suf- 
 fered a substantial though irregular decline from the start, while libraries have 
 made a continuous decline from the first. These changes are in practically all 
 cases only relative. 
 
 Among the old colonial colleges we have seen that the entire burdesn has 
 fallen upon philanthropy and student fees, the States having offered no assist- 
 ance whatever through this period. In spite of this, gifts have increased greatly. 
 Conditional gifts have become somewhat more popular, but slightly the opposite 
 is true with respect to gifts for permanent funds. Gifts to libraries and to 
 indigent students have declined, while professorships have remained approx- 
 imately as before. 
 
 In the colleges of the early national period we see the same rapid growth of 
 funds from philanthropy as noted for the older institutions. In the colleges of 
 this period the rapid growth of permanent funds is especially noticeable, and, 
 further, the larger portion of these gifts are for the general fund. With this 
 growth of general endowment have also prospered professorships, scholarships, 
 and libraries. 
 
80 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 As to the colleges of this period, no study was made of what we think of as 
 the small church college. The work of this character is undoubtedly important, 
 but there is little if anything new coming from it. The real contribution of the 
 period is the group of large foundations. With one or two exceptions these are 
 not church-fostered and not State-fostered institutions as all their ancestors 
 have been. They encourage liberality in religion, they offer the most liberal 
 scientific education for women, they encourage the use of museum and laboratory 
 methods of teaching, and they foster research as a university function. 
 
 An examination of the financial history of this type of institution shows that 
 in all cases they have been promptly taken over by the people and are now 
 among the most important recipients of gifts in this country. Their rate of 
 growth has been very great almost from the start, and all our evidence goes to 
 show that these powerful financial corporations, planted in the midst of small 
 colleges and accepted in some quarters with misgiving, have not only kept 
 faith with earlier social, religious, and educational aims, but, in the readjust- 
 ment of those aims to our rapidly expanding age, they have shown capacity 
 proportionate to their great financial power, and what was to some a doubtful 
 experiment is a success. 
 
 Through this period we have seen the continuation of the work of church 
 boards of education, or religious education societies. These are rapidly increas- 
 ing in numbers, there being a tendency for each church to have its own board. 
 Their work has been conducted along two main lines. They have contributed 
 scholarships either by gift or by loan, and they have made grants to colleges 
 to meet either a general or some special need. Their chief aim has continued 
 to be the development of a trained ministry, though the development of col- 
 leges in which all students will be kept in a proper religious atmosphere is 
 scarcely secondary. The evidence presented shows that these societies have 
 prospered. They are contributing direct assistance to many hundreds of stu- 
 dents every year ; they are making grants direct to colleges, grants which, 
 though small, have often been directly responsible for larger gifts ; they have 
 in some measure exercised supervision over the founding of new schools, over 
 curricula, and finance ; and by their cooperation through the council of church 
 boards of education they promise much more for the future. 
 
Chapter V. 
 GREAT EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATIONS. 
 
 A NEW PHILANTHROPIC ENTERPRISE. 
 
 A type of philanthropic educational enterprise peculiar to the period just 
 discussed is that of the large foundation whose purpose is not alone, nor even 
 primarily, that of teaching but rather that of supplementing and assisting 
 established institutions of education. 
 
 One can scarcely read the founding documents of these institutions without 
 being struck first of all with the very wide scope of service which they have 
 undertaken. The Peabody Fund promoted popular education in the South by 
 cooperation with State and local officials. The Jeanes, the Slater, and the 
 Phelps-Stokes Fund have been devoted to the problems of education for negroes. 
 The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching has concerned 
 itself with salaries, pensions, and insurance for college professors. The Gen- 
 eral Education Board has helped along several of these lines and paid much 
 attention to educational investigations, and especially to a more substantial 
 endowment of existing institutions. The Sage Foundation has contributed lib- 
 erally by investigation, research, and publication. 
 
 These foundations, therefore, appear as a really new type of philanthropic 
 enterprise in education, with church education boards as their only possible 
 precedent, and though, as compared with the educational assets of some of our 
 great cities, or with sums which numerous States are utilizing annually, or 
 even with a few of our universities, they are not remarkably large, yet they 
 are large enough to represent very great possibilities, and society can not afford 
 to take them lightly. Can our country assimilate this new enterprise, is a ques- 
 tion that might have been asked when Mr. Peabody and his successors began 
 pouring out their millions in the development of this new business, the business 
 of educational philanthropy. 
 
 The church college was antagonistic toward the State institutions of higher 
 education when the latter began to grow rapidly into great universities, and 
 they were also quite skeptical of the great privately endowed universities, lest 
 they might be Godless schools. The State, the church, and the individual philan- 
 thropist were in a fairly real sense competitors in the field, and it was but 
 natural that the old pioneer, the church college, should at first be jealous of 
 what seemed to be its special prerogative. This rivalry has continued, but it 
 has become increasingly friendly with passing years. 
 
 These new foundations, however, do not enter the field as rivals, but, instead, 
 aim definitely to supplement and to cooperate with forces already at work. 
 What work will they supplement and with whom will they cooperate are 
 extremely practical questions which they must face, and also which the col- 
 
 81 
 
82 PHILAI7THR0PY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 leges and schools must face. Giving help to my competitor is in a sense the 
 equivalent of doing harm to me. This was precisely the point of danger. 
 
 THE STATED PURPOSES OF THESE FOUNDATIONS. 
 
 First, then, what are the aims of these foundations, and what limitations are 
 placed upon the funds which they are to manage? For these we must turn to 
 their founding documents. 
 
 1. THE PEABODY EDUCATION FUND. 
 
 The Peabody Education Fund, the gift of George Peabody, of Massachusetts, 
 was established in 1867, and amounted finally to $3,000,000. In a letter to 15 
 men whom he had chosen to act as his trustees, Mr. Peabody sets forth his 
 plans and purposes, which were later embodied in the act of incorporation. 
 He says : * 
 
 I give to you * * * the sum of one million dollars, to be by you and 
 your successors held in trust, and the income thereof used and applied, in your 
 discretion, for the promotion and encouragement of intellectual, moral, or 
 industrial education among the young of the more destitute portions of the 
 Southern and Southwestern States of our Union, my purpose being that the 
 benefits intended shall be distributed among the entire population, without 
 other distinction than their needs and the opportunities of usefulness to them. 
 
 In the following paragraph he empowers them to use 40 per cent of the 
 principal sum within the next two years, then adds another million to the 
 gift, grants the trustees power to incorporate, and further says : 
 
 In case two-thirds of the trustees shall at any time, after the lapse of 30 
 years, deem it expedient to close this trust, and of the funds which at that 
 time shall be in the hands of yourselves and your successors to distribute not 
 less than two-thirds among such educational and literary institutions, or for 
 such educational purposes as they may determine, in the States for whose 
 benefit the income is now appointed to be used. The remainder to be dis- 
 tributed by the trustees for educational or literary purposes wherever they 
 may deem it expedient. 
 
 This letter, together with a later one in which he says, " I leave all the de- 
 tails of management to their (the trustees') own discretion," were embodied 
 in the preamble to the charter later issued by the State of New York. 
 
 In June, 1869, Mr. Peabody addressed to the board a letter of appreciation 
 for their service in carrying out his trust, in which he conveyed a gift of 
 securities worth nearly a million and a half dollars.* 
 
 These letters certainly stand out as among the most remarkable documents 
 in the history of educational philanthropy to this time. There were only the 
 most general restrictions on the funds, and these were to end after 30 years, 
 leaving the trustees almost entirely free to dispose of the entire fund. The 
 best proof of their great distinction, as we shall see, lies in the fact that they 
 have been the precedent for all similar subsequent foundations. 
 
 2. THE JOHN F. SIATEE FUND. 
 
 The second of these foundations was the John F. Slater Fund for the Educa- 
 tion of Freedmen, established on March 4, 1882, by a gift of $1,000,000. In a 
 letter of date March 4, 1882, Mr. Slater invites 10 men to form a corporation 
 for the administration of the fund, and in this letter he sets forth the pur- 
 poses he vrtshes to achieve, together with the restrictions he places upon the 
 gift He names as the general object — 
 
 » See Proc. of Trustees of Peabody EJduc. EMnd, Vol. I, p. 1 fiC 
 » Peabody Educ. Fund, Proc, Vol. II, p. 142 ffi. 
 
GEEAT EDUCATIOlSrAL FOUNDATIONS. 83 
 
 the uplifting of the lately emancipated population of the Southern States, and 
 their posterity, by conferring on them the blessings of Christian education. 
 
 He seeks not only— 
 
 for their own sake, but also for the safety of our common country [to provide 
 them] with the means of such education as shall tend to make them good men 
 and good citizens — education in which the instruction of the mind in the common 
 branches of secular learning shall be associated with training in just notions of 
 duty toward God and caan, in the light of the Holy Scriptures. 
 
 The means to be used, he says, " I leave to the discretion of the corporation." 
 He then suggests " the training of teachers from among the people " and " the 
 
 encouragement of such institutions as are most efEectually useful in promoting 
 
 this training of teachers." 
 Further on he adds : 
 
 I purposely leave to the corporation the largest liberty of making such 
 changes in the methods of applying the income of the fund as shall seem from 
 time to time best adapted to accomplish the general object herein named. 
 
 He then, obviously drawing upon English experience, warns them against 
 the possible evils of such endowments, and states that after 33 years they are 
 to be free to dispose of the capital of the fund — 
 
 to the establishment of foundations subsidiary to these already existing institu- 
 tions of higher education, in such wise as to make the educational advantages 
 of such institutions more freely accessible to poor students of the colored race. 
 
 Finally, he urges the avoidance of any partisan, sectional, or sectarian bias 
 in the use of the gift, and closes with reference to the success of the Peabody 
 Education Fund as having encouraged him to establish this foundation.* 
 
 This letter was embodied in the charter issued by New York State in April, 
 1882. In all the fundamentals these documents are a fair copy of the charter 
 and instruments of gift in the case of the Peabody Education Fund. 
 
 3. THE CAKNEGIE INSTITUTION. 
 
 The third of these foundations to take form was the Carnegie Institution 
 of Washington. The trust deed by which it was established is of date January 
 28, 1902, and transfers to the trustees securities worth $10,000,000. (This sum 
 has since been more than doubled.) In this instrument of gift* Mr. Carnegie 
 declares it to be his purpose to found in Washington an institution which, with 
 the corporation of other institutions — 
 
 shall in the broadest and most liberal manner encourage investigation, research, 
 and discovery— show the application of knowledge to the improvement of man- 
 kind, provide such buildings, laboratories, books, and apparatus as may be 
 needed; and afford instruction of an advanced character to students properly 
 qualified to profit thereby. 
 
 It aims, he says : 
 
 1. To promote original research. 
 
 2. To discover the exceptional man in every department of study * * * 
 
 and enable him to make the work for which he seems specially designed 
 his life work. 
 
 3. To increase facilities for higher education. 
 
 4. To increase the efficiency of the universities and other institutions of 
 
 learning [both by adding to their facilities and by aiding teachers in 
 experimental studies]. 
 
 5. To enable such students as may find Washington the best point for their 
 
 special studies to enjoy the advantages of the museums [and other 
 numerous institutions]. 
 
 ' For a copy of this letter and tlve charter see Proceedings of the John P. Slater Fund 
 for the Education of Freedmen, 1883, p. 21 flf. 
 
 * See Carnegie Institution of "Washington, Year Book No. 1, 1902. 
 
84 PHILAl^TTHROPY IN AMEEICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 6. To insure the prompt publication and distribution of the results of 
 scientific investigation. 
 
 Finally : 
 
 The trustees shall have power, by a majority of two-thirds of their number, 
 to modify the conditions and regulations under which the funds may be dis- 
 pensed, so as to secure that these shall always be applied in the manner best 
 adapted to the advanced conditions of the times ; provided always that any 
 modifications shall be in accordance with the purposes of the donor, as 
 expressed in the trust. 
 
 4. THE GENERAL EDUCATION BOARD. 
 
 Following this in 1903 the General Education Board was established by John 
 D. Rockefeller. His preliminary gift in 1902 of $1,000,000 was followed in 
 1905 by a gift of $10,000,000, and this by a third gift of $32,000,000 in 1907, and a 
 fourth, of $10,000,000, in 1909. 
 
 In the act of incorporation Mr. Rockefeller states the purposes of the founda- 
 tion as follows: 
 
 Sec. 2. That the object of the said corporation shall be the promotion of 
 education within the United-States of America, without distinction of race, sex, 
 or creed. 
 
 Sec. 3. That for the promotion of such object the said corporation shall have 
 power to build, improve, enlarge, or equip, or to aid others to build, improve, 
 enlarge, or equip, buildings for elementary or primary schools, industrial 
 schools, technical schools, normal schools, training schools for teachers, or 
 schools of any grade, or for higher institutions of learning, or, in connection 
 therewith, libraries, workshops, gardens, kitchens, or other educational ac- 
 cessories ; to establish, maintain, or endow, or aid others to establish, main- 
 tain, or endow, elementary or primary schools, industrial schools, technical 
 schools, normal schools, training schools for teachers, or schools of any grade, 
 or higher institutions^ of learning; to employ or aid others to employ teachers 
 and lecturers ; to aid, cooperate with, or endow associations or other corpora- 
 tions engaged in educational work within the United States of America, or to 
 donate to any such association or corporation any property or moneys which 
 shall at any time be held by the said corporation hereby constituted ; to collect 
 educational statistics and information, and to publish and distribute documents 
 and reports containing the same, and in general to do and perform all things 
 necessary or convenient for the promotion of the object of the corporation. 
 
 In a letter from John D. Rockefeller, jr., of date March 2, 1902, the con- 
 ditions which are to control the uses to which the money may be put are set 
 forth. These limitations were subsequently changed. Originally, however, re- 
 ferring to the above statement of purpose, the letter says: " 
 
 Upon this understanding my father hereby pledges to the board the sum of 
 one million dollars ($1,000,000) to be expended at its discretion during a period 
 of 10 years, and will make payments under such pledges from time to time as 
 requested by the board or its executive committee through its duly authorized 
 officers. 
 
 The second gift is announced in a letter from Mr. F. T. Gates, which states 
 the following conditions : 
 
 The principal to be held in perpetuity as a foundation for education, the in- 
 come above expenses of administration to be distributed to, or used for the 
 benefit of, such institutions of learning, at such times, in such amounts, for 
 such purposes- and under such cond tions, or employed in such other ways, as 
 the board may deem best adapted to promote a comprehensive system of higher 
 education in the United States. 
 
 The third gift was presented through a letter from Mr. Rockefeller, jr., and 
 the conditions controlling the uses of the money are : 
 
 s See The General Education Board, An Account of Its Activities, 1902-1914, p. 212 ff. 
 6 IWd., p. 213. 
 
GREAT EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATIO]S'S. 85 
 
 One-tliird to be added to the permanent endowment of the board, two-thirds 
 to be applied to such specific objects within the corporate purposes of the board 
 as either he or I may from time to time direct, any remainder, not so designated 
 at the death of the survivor, to be added to the permanent endowment of the 
 board. 
 
 Concerning the fourth gift Mr. Rockefeller says, through a letter from his 
 son addressed to the board, that the gift is to be added to the permanent endow- 
 ment of the board. Then follow these qualifications : 
 
 He, however, authorizes and empowers you and your successors, whenever 
 in your discretion it shall seem wise, to distribute the principal or any part 
 thereof, provided the same shall be authorized by a resolution passed by the 
 affirmative vote of two-thirds of all those who shall at the time be members 
 of your board at a special meeting held on not less than 30 days' notice given 
 in writing, which shall state that the meeting is called for the purpose of con- 
 sidering a resolution to authorize the distribution of the whole or some part 
 of the principal of said fund. Upon the adoption of such resolution in the 
 manner above described, you and your successors shall be and are hereby re- 
 leased from the obligation thereafter to hold in perpetuity or as endowment 
 such portion of the principal of such fund as may have been authorized to be 
 distributed by such resolution. 
 
 This would seem to give the board very wide powers and to leave to the 
 donor very little control aside from a part of the third gift specially reserved. 
 Yet Mr. Rockefeller seems not to have been fully satisfied, for on June 29, 
 1909, he addressed a letter to the board saying: 
 
 Gentlemen : I have heretofore from time to time given to your board cer- 
 tain property, the principal of which was to be held in perpetuity, or as en- 
 dowment. I now authorize and empower you and, your successors, whenever 
 in your discretion it shall seem wise, to distribute the principal or any part 
 thereof, provided the same shall be authorized by a resolution passed by the 
 affirmative vote of two-thirds of all those who shall at the time be members 
 of your board, at a special meeting held on not less than 30 days' notice given 
 in writing, which shall state that the meeting is called for the purpose of con- 
 sidering a resolution to authorize the distribution of the whole, or some part of 
 the principal of said funds. Upon the adoption of such resolution in the man- 
 ner above prescribed, you and your successors shall be, and are hereby, re- 
 leased from the obligation thereafter to hold in perpetuity or as endowment 
 such portion of the principal of such funds as may have been authorized to 
 be distributed by such resolution. 
 
 It would be hard to think of a point at which this board could be given 
 wider freedom in the exercise of its jurisdiction over these funds than is here 
 granted by the founder. 
 
 5. THE CAENEGIE FOUNDATION. 
 
 The fifth of these foundations, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advance- 
 ment of Teaching, had its origin in a letter, of date April 16, 1905, in which Mr. 
 Carnegie set forth to a group of 25 men whom he had chosen to act as his 
 trustees the plan of his foundation.' In all he has placed $16,250,000 in the 
 hands of this board. The plan is clearly stated in the charter which was 
 obtained in March, 1906. Here the object is declared to be: 
 
 To provide retiring pensions, without regard to race, sex, creed, or color, for 
 the teachers of universities, colleges, and technical schools in the United States, 
 the Dominion of Canada, and Newfoundland, who, by reason of long and meri- 
 torious service, or by reason of old age, disability, or other sufficient reason, 
 shall be deemed entitled to the assistance and aid of this corporation, on such 
 terms and conditions, however, as such coi'poration may from time to time 
 approve and adopt. 
 
 ' Quoted in full in the first annual report of the president and treasure!" of the Carnegie 
 Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 
 
86 PHILANTHROPY IN AMEEICAN HIGHER EDUCATIOIT. 
 
 Then follows the limitation that those connected with any institution which 
 is controlled by a sect or which imposes any theological test as a condition of 
 entrance into or connection therewith are excluded. 
 
 In general, to do and perform all things necessary to encourage, uphold, and 
 dignify the profession of the teacher and the cause of higher education * * *, 
 and to promote the object of the foundation, with full power, however, to the 
 trustee hereinafter appointed and their successors, from time to time to modify 
 the conditions and regulations under which the work shall be carried on, so 
 as to secure the application of the funds in the manner best adapted to the 
 conditions of the times; [and provided that by two-thirds vote the trustees 
 may] enlarge or vary the purposes herein set forth, provided that the objects 
 of the corporation shall at all times be among the foregoing and kindred 
 thereto.' 
 
 6. THE KUSSELL SAGE FOUNDATION. 
 
 In April, 1907, the sixth of these, the Russel Sage Foundation, was chartered ' 
 by the State of New York. The charter states the purpose of the corporation to 
 be that of — 
 
 Receiving and maintaining a fund or funds and applying the income thereof 
 to the improvement of social and living conditions in the United States of 
 America. It shall be within the purposes of said corporation to use any means 
 to that end which from time to time shall seem expedient to its members or 
 trustees, including research, publication, education, the establishment and 
 maintenance of charitable or benevolent activities and institutions, and the aid 
 of any such activities, agencies, or institutions already established. 
 
 In her letter of gift, of date April 19, 1907, Mrs. Sage says : " I do not wish 
 to enlarge or limit the powers given to the foundation by its act of incorpo- 
 ration," * but adds that it seems wise to express certain desires to which she 
 would wish the trustees to conform. Then follows several suggestions relative 
 to local and national use of the funds, types of investments, etc., which in the 
 writer's judgment tend to enlarge the freedom which most men serving as trus- 
 tees would otherwise have been inclined to exercise over the funds under the 
 charter. 
 
 7. THE PHELPS-STOKES FUND. 
 
 The seventh of these foundations was the Phelps-Stokes Fund of nearly 
 $1,000,000, which was established by the bequest of Caroline Phelps Stokes, 
 who made her will in 1893 and died in 1909. The foundation was chartered 
 in 1911. In her will Miss Stokes says : " I direct that all my residuary estate 
 * * * shall be given by my executors to the following persons " (here she 
 names the trustees she has chosen, and adds) : 
 
 To invest and keep invested by them and their successors, the interest and 
 net income of such fund to be used by them and their successors for the erec- 
 tion or improvement of tenement-house dwellings in New York City for the 
 poor families of New York City and for educational purposes in the education 
 of the negroes both in Africa and the United States, North American Indians, 
 and needy and deserving white students, through industrial schools of kinds 
 similar to that at Northfield, Mass., in which Mr. Dwight L. Moody is inter- 
 ested, or to the Peet Industrial School at Asheville, N. C, the foundation of 
 scholarships and the erection or endowment of school buildings * * *. I 
 hereby give said trustees and their successors full power of sale, public or 
 private, in their discretion, upon such terms as they think best respecting any 
 part of said trust fund in the course of the due execution of such trust." 
 
 8 "Act of Incorporation, By-Laws, Rules for Granting of Retiring Allowances," N. Y„ 
 1906. 
 
 » For copies of this letter and of the charter the writer is indebted to Dr. John M. 
 Glenn, director of the foundation. 
 
 >" From Phelps-Stokes Fund — Act of Incorporation, By-Laws, and Other Documents. 
 
GREAT EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATIONS. 87 
 
 The charter, in defining the purpose of the foundation, uses much of this 
 same language and in addition the following : 
 
 It shall be within the purpose of said corporation to use any means to such 
 ends * * *, including research, publication, the establishment and mainte- 
 nance of charitable or benevolent activities, agencies, and institutions, and the 
 aid of any such activities, agencies, or institutions already established." 
 
 This fund stands as a permanent endowment, but with such very general 
 conditions placed upon its use that it is virtually as free as it could be made. 
 
 8. THE ROCKEFELLEE FOUNDATION. 
 
 The latest foundation of just this type to be established is that of the Rocke- 
 feller Foundation, incorporated in April, 1913. The purpose of the corporation 
 is that — 
 
 of receiving and maintaining a fund or funds, and applying the income and 
 principal thereof, to promote the well-being of mankind throughout the world. 
 
 Its means are to be — 
 
 research, publication, the establishment and maintenance of charitable, benevo- 
 lent, religious, missionary, and public educational activities, agencies, and insti- 
 tutions, and the aid of any such activities, agencies, and institutions already 
 established, and any other means and agencies which from time to time shall 
 seem expedient to its members or trustees." 
 
 9. THE CLEVELAND FOUNDATION. 
 
 There is one other type of foundation that is of very recent origin, but which 
 is rapidly becoming popular, and shows promise of becoming very extensive 
 and powerful in the near future. The chief work of this corporation is not 
 education, but since educational service is within Its powers it deserves men- 
 tion here. The Cleveland Foundation, organized in January, 1914, was the first 
 of this type, since followed by the Chicago Community Trust, the Houston 
 Foundation, the Los Angeles Community Foundation, the St. Louis Commu- 
 nity Trust, the Spokane Foundation, and other foundations of similar char- 
 acter at Milwaukee, Boston, Indianapolis, Ind., Attleboro, Mass., Minneapolis, 
 Detroit, and Seattle. The Cleveland Foundation was formed by resolution 
 of the board of directors of the Cleveland Trust Co., in which the company 
 agreed to act as trustee of property given and devised for charitable purposes, 
 all property to be administered as a single trust. The income of this founda- 
 tion is administered by a committee appointed partly by the trustee company 
 and partly by the mayor, the judge of the probate court, and the Federal district 
 judge. The principal is managed by the trustee company. 
 
 The resolution creating the trust sets forth the object of the foundation as 
 
 follows : " 
 
 Prom the time the donor or testator provides that income shall be available 
 for use of such foundation, such income less proper charges and expenses 
 shall be annually devoted perpetually to charitable purposes, unless principal 
 is distributed as hereinafter provided. Without limiting in any way the 
 charitable purposes for which such income may be used, it shall be available 
 for assisting charitable and educational institutions, whether supported by 
 private donations or public taxation, for promoting education, scientific re- 
 search, for care of the sick, aged, or helpless, to improve living conditions, 
 or to provide recreation for all classes, and for such other charitable purposes 
 as will best make for the mental, moral, and physical improvement of the 
 
 " iMd., p. 5 ff. 
 
 12 An Act to Incorporate The Rockefeller Foundation, in Ann. Rep. 
 
 13 From " The Cleveland Foundation a Community Trust," The Cleveland Trust Co., 
 1914. 
 
88 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 inhabitants of the city of Cleveland, as now or hereafter constituted, regard- 
 less of race, color, or creed, according to the discretion of a majority in 
 number of a committee to be constituted as hereinafter provided. 
 
 It is further provided that if contributors to the foundation, in their instru- 
 ments of gift, place limitations as to the final disposition of the principal, or 
 as to the uses to which its income may be put, or as to what members of the 
 trust company shall exercise control over the disposition of principal or 
 interest, then — 
 
 The trustee shall respect and be governed by the wishes as so expressed, but 
 only in so far as the purposes indicated shall seem to the trustee, under con- 
 ditions as they may hereafter exist, wise and most widely beneficial, absolute 
 discretion being vested in a majority of the then members of the board of 
 directors of the Cleveland Trust Co. to determine with respect thereto. 
 
 When by the exercise of this power funds are diverted from the purposes 
 indicated by their respective donors, such funds " shall be used and dis- 
 tributed for the general purposes of the foundation." 
 
 The foundation is to provide a committee for distributing its funds, the com- 
 mittee to be made up of — 
 
 Residents of Cleveland, men or women interested in welfare work, possess- 
 ing a knowledge of the civic, educational, physical, and moral needs of the 
 community, preferably but one, and in no event to exceed two members of 
 said committee to belong to the same religious sect or denomination, those 
 holding or seeking political office to be disqualified from serving. 
 
 Two members of the committee are to be appointed by the Cleveland Trust 
 Co., one by the mayor, one by the senior or presiding judge of the court which 
 settles estates in Cuyahoga County, and one by the senior or presiding judge 
 of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. This 
 committee is to be provided with a paid secretary, but otherwise to receive 
 expenses only. 
 
 There are other interesting features of this resolution. For instance, when 
 the income of any trust is available for use by the foundation — 
 
 All or any portion of the property belonging to such trust may be listed for 
 taxation, regardless of any statute exempting all or any part thereof by reason 
 of its application to charitable purposes, if a majority of the board of directors 
 of the Cleveland Trust Co. shall so direct. 
 
 And more important still is the provision that — 
 
 With the approval of two-thirds of the entire board of directors of the 
 Cleveland Trust Co., given at a meeting called specifically for that purpose, all 
 or any part of the principal constituting the trust estate may be used for any 
 purpose within the scope of the foundation, which may have the approval 
 of four members of said committee, providing that not to exceed 20 per cent 
 of the entire amount held as principal shall be disbursed during a period of 
 five consecutive years. 
 
 Careful provision is made for an annual audit of all accounts, and full 
 control of funds and properties is vested in the trustees of the foundation. 
 
 This is clearly a new method of handling philanthropy. In a sense it is an 
 ordinary commission business with unusually good security for its patrons. 
 From the standpoint of the bank it promises fair though not lucrative profit. 
 It is so designed as to keep its business exclusively for the city of Cleveland, 
 so that fortunes accumulated there by the few eventually may be turned back 
 to the community in the form of some kind of public service. Looked at from 
 another angle, it is a real community enterprise which ought to develop civic 
 pride as well as contribute to the solution of local social and educational 
 problems. It makes philanthropy possible for small as well as large fortunes, 
 
GKEAT EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATIONS. 89 
 
 and so tends to popularize giving. The large fund that promises to accumulate 
 is always adaptable to whatever changes the future may bring. It is un- 
 doubtedly an interesting and important business and social experiment by 
 which education may hope to profit. 
 
 This places before us in fairly complete form the aims and purposes of this 
 rather new type of educational enterprise. The Anna T. Jeanes Foundation 
 is very similar in character but deals with elementary education exclusively. 
 Similarly there are numerous other foundations engaged in charitable, library, 
 or research work whose founding instruments embody the same fundamental 
 principles common to those here quoted and, viewed from the standpoint of 
 the evolution of a theory of endowments, belong in the same class. 
 
 To state these principles in brief we may say, first of all, that the " purpose " 
 is in every case set forth in the most general terms and in brief and simple 
 language ; second, that the means for carrying out this purpose is left almost 
 entirely to the trustees of the foundation ; third, that the means, and to an 
 extent in some cases even the purpose, is modifiable at the will of the trustees ; 
 and fourth, that there is no sectional, racial, denominational, political, or 
 ecclesiastical control. In most cases the capital fund is to remain permanently 
 intact, but in some cases the entire income and capital may be used and the 
 trust terminated. The Peabody Education Fund illustrates how this latter 
 plan has already operated in full. The possible scope of activities is practically 
 national for all, and international for some, the boards of trustees are self- 
 perpetuating, and they receive no pay for their services. 
 
 This means that there is every possibility for keeping these large sums of 
 money, now amounting to more than $300,000,000, constantly in touch with 
 the real educational needs of the country, and in these charters there seems 
 no possibility that it will ever be necessary for any one of these foundations 
 to continue to do any particular thing in any particular way — as, for instance, 
 to maintain " enough faggots to burn a heretic " — in order to control the avail- 
 able funds to some entirely desirable and profitable end. 
 
 THE OPERATIONS OF THESE FOUNDATIONS. 
 
 The real test of these liberal provisions could come only when educational 
 philanthropy as a business began actually to cope with the educational, social, 
 and economic forces in the midst of which it sought a place of responsibility. 
 
 A half century of activity has passed since the first of these foundations be- 
 gan its work. During the first 15 years of this period the Peabody Fund stood 
 alone. Then came the Slater Fund, after which 20 years passed before the 
 next, the Carnegie Institution at Washington, was established. This founda- 
 tion by Mr. Carnegie seemed to initiate a new era in respect both to the number 
 and size of these endowments. 
 
 1. THE PEABODY EDUCATION FUND. 
 
 When the Peabody Education Fund began its work there wer^ few public- 
 school systems of consequence in the South, either city or State. With this 
 fund Dr. Barnas Sears attacked this problem directly, and by 1875 had so popu- 
 larized the idea that cities and States were taking over the schools which 
 the fund had established. The next move was for the training of teachers 
 for these schools. Arrangements were made to turn the University of Nash- 
 ville to this purpose, its new name to be Peabody Normal College. This was 
 done in 1875, and a large number of scholarships were established. Later, 
 attention^i^s turned to summer normals, to teachers ' institutes, and gradually 
 to the development of normal schools in each of the States. 
 
90 PHILANTHROPY IN AMBBICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 Doctor Curry, who succeeded Doctor Sears, carried forward the development 
 of normal schools, but in his work began to condition his gifts upon the State's 
 making appropriations to go with them. Doctor Curry was repeatedly before 
 State legislatures, defending the claims of public education ; and when, in 1898, 
 it was proposed to make final division of the fund by endowing one or more 
 institutions, practically every Southern State protested against it. This dis- 
 position of the fund was finally made in 1913-14, with the endowment of the 
 George Peabody College for Teachers. 
 
 During the years 1868 to 1914 the foundation gave away $3,650,- 
 556 to the following : " 
 
 1. City public schools $1, 148, 183 
 
 2. Normal schools 759, 122 
 
 3. Teachers' institutes 382, 755 
 
 4. George Peabody College 550,381 
 
 5. Scholarships 580, 665 
 
 6. Educational journals 8, 300 
 
 7. Summer schools 82, 500 
 
 8. Rural public schools 37, 800 
 
 9. State supervision of rural schools 77, 950 
 
 10. Educational campaigns 13, 500 
 
 11. County supervision of teaching 15, 000 
 
 12. Miscellaneous 44,400 
 
 The final distribution of the fund, with its accrued income, was as 
 
 follows : 
 
 George Peabody College for Teachers 1, 500, 000 
 
 University of Virginia 40, 000 
 
 University of North Carolina 40, 000 
 
 University of Georgia 40, 000 
 
 University of Alabama 40, 000 
 
 University of Florida 40,000 
 
 University of Missisippi 40,000 
 
 Louisiana State University 40, 000 
 
 University of Arkansas 40, 000 
 
 University of Kentucky 40,000 
 
 Johns Hopkins University 6, 000 
 
 University of South Carolina 6, 000 
 
 University of Missouri 6,000 
 
 University of Texas 6, 000 
 
 Winthrop Normal College 90, 000 
 
 John F. Slater Fund (education of negroes), estimated at 350,000 
 
 Table 36 will give some slight notion of the service rendered by the fund, if 
 we keep in mind, first, that no one of the 11 States receiving aid from the 
 fund in 1871 was itself contributing as much as $800,000 for common schools, 
 and that at least 2 of these States spent less than $200,000 each ;" and second, 
 that these sums were so placed by the foundation as to stimulate interest in 
 the idea of public schools. 
 
 The difficulty of the task which this foundation has performed must not be 
 overlooked. It is specially noteworthy that from the beginning its agents 
 worked in the open, frankly as a big propaganda entei-prise. Both by addresses 
 and by publications the people were kept informed as to just what the founda- 
 tion sought to do. 
 
 • Proc. Peabody Educ. Fund, Vol. VI, p. 634 f£. 
 " See Rep. of U. S, Commis. of Educ, 1871. 
 
GREAT EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATIONS. 
 
 91 
 
 Table 36. — Distribution of the gifts of the Peabody Education Fund, 1868-1910, 
 in 9 to 12 Southern States.^ 
 
 Dates. 
 
 To 
 States. 
 
 To 
 Normal 
 College, 
 Nash- 
 ville. 
 
 Scholar- 
 ships in 
 Normal 
 College, 
 Nash- 
 ville. 
 
 Total 
 grants. 
 
 Dates. 
 
 To 
 States. 
 
 To 
 Normal 
 College, 
 Nash- 
 ville. 
 
 Scholar- 
 ships in 
 Normal 
 College, 
 Nash- 
 ville. 
 
 Total 
 grants. 
 
 1868 
 
 $35,400 
 90,000 
 90,500 
 100,000 
 130,000 
 136, 850 
 134,600 
 98,000 
 73,300 
 78,850 
 57,600 
 64,500 
 42,900 
 34,125 
 49, 350 
 46,925 
 31,600 
 31,995 
 46,000 
 31,600 
 23,600 
 39,750 
 
 
 
 $35,400 
 
 90,000 
 
 90,500 
 
 100,000 
 
 130,000 
 
 136, 850 
 
 134,600 
 
 101,000 
 
 76,300 
 
 95,750 
 
 64,500 
 
 87,800 
 
 66,350 
 
 64,100 
 
 73,509 
 
 77,125 
 
 62,700 
 
 63,065 
 
 74,500 
 
 66,400 
 
 49,200 
 
 77, 150 
 
 1890 
 
 1891 
 
 1892 
 
 1893 
 
 1894 
 
 1895 
 
 18% 
 
 1897 
 
 1898 
 
 1899 
 
 1900 
 
 1901 
 
 1902 
 
 1903 
 
 1904 
 
 1905 
 
 1906 
 
 1907 
 
 1908... . 
 
 $43,376 
 49, 524 
 54,800 
 47,500 
 39,688 
 34,551 
 49,019 
 45,100 
 45,700 
 45,114 
 43,604 
 41,300 
 41,100 
 36,673 
 38,400 
 52,500 
 54,500 
 35,000 
 
 $28,250 
 14,3.50 
 14,000 
 13,200 
 11,600 
 20, .300 
 6,212 
 9,900 
 14,600 
 14,750 
 15, 100 
 14,600 
 14,600 
 14,600 
 16,600 
 2.5,500 
 37,500 
 45,000 
 
 $21,474 
 23,726 
 23,600 
 26,450 
 25,188 
 35, 131 
 19,008 
 23,567 
 24,498 
 24,709 
 25,351 
 24,329 
 24,180 
 24,127 
 25,000 
 
 $93, 100 
 
 1869 
 
 
 
 87,600 
 
 1870 
 
 
 
 92,400 
 
 1871 
 
 
 
 87, 150 
 
 1872 
 
 
 
 76,388 
 
 1873 
 
 
 
 89, 981 
 
 1874 
 
 
 
 74,239 
 
 1875 
 
 $3,000 
 3,000 
 15,000 
 5,000 
 11,000 
 13,000 
 4,000 
 8,000 
 9,500 
 9,900 
 10,100 
 10,000 
 10,500 
 7,800 
 10,950 
 
 
 60,567 
 
 1876. . . 
 
 
 84, 798 
 
 1877 
 
 1878 
 
 1879 
 
 1880 
 
 1881 
 
 1882 
 
 1883 
 
 $1,900 
 1,900 
 12,300 
 10,400 
 25,975 
 16,150 
 20,700 
 21,200 
 20,970 
 18,500 
 24,300 
 17,800 
 26,450 
 
 84, 573 
 84,055 
 80,229 
 79, 880 
 75,400 
 80,000 
 78,000 
 
 1884 
 
 
 92,000 
 
 1885 
 
 
 80,000 
 
 1886 
 
 
 80,000 
 
 1887 
 
 1909 
 
 
 
 
 69,000 
 
 1888 
 
 1910 
 
 
 
 
 36,500 
 
 1889 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 Compiled from Kept, of U. S. Commis. Educ. for 1903 and from An. Proc. of Peabody Educ. Fund. 
 
 It is easy to imagine that society might have been much more skeptical of 
 such an agency than it seems to have been. The growth of public-school sys- 
 tems and of normal and industrial schools in the South is evidence enough that 
 the fund has been greatly useful, and its success stands as a monument to the 
 capacity of the southern people to furnish the type of public opinion necessary 
 to direct such a philanthropic force into useful channels. In this, however, 
 public opinion would have failed had not its founder left it free to meet the 
 changing conditions which came with the passing years. This, as our first 
 experment, must be pronounced a decided success and it must stand as an 
 excellent precedent both for the future public and for the future philanthropist. 
 
 2. THE JOHN F. SLATER FUND. 
 
 The John F. Slater Fund was handled on so nearly the same lines, to so 
 nearly the same ends, in the same territory, and for many years by the same 
 agent as was the Peabody Education Fund that detailed examination of its 
 work would add little if anything new to this discussion. 
 
 3. THE CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON, D. C. 
 
 The work of the Carnegie Institution of Washington is difficult to describe 
 in terms that will show what its contribution has really been." In explaining 
 the policy for the future, it is made clear that " grounds already occupied will 
 be avoided,"" and that the institution considers that systematic education in 
 universities, colleges, professional schools, and schools of technology, and the 
 assistance of meritorious students in the early stages of their studies are already 
 provided for anr^ are therefore outside the scope of the foundation. 
 
 »5 For brief description and historical development of the institution, see The Carnegie 
 Institution of Washington — Scope and Organization, Fourth issue, Feb. 4, 1015, by the 
 institution ; also Seven Great Foundations, by Leonard P. .\yros ; also retrospective re- 
 View of, in the Eleventh Year Book of the institution. 
 
 1" Carnegie Institution of Washington, Year Book, No. 1, 1902, p. xli. 
 
 11512°— 22- 7 
 
92 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 From the outset the institution has directed its work along four lines as 
 follows : Large research projects covering a series of years and managed by 
 a corps of investigators ; small research projects, usually directed by single 
 individuals and for a brief period ; tentative investigations by young men or 
 women of aptitude for research ; and publication of the results of its own 
 studies and of meritorious work which would not otherwise be readily ptib- 
 lished. The order of development of its larger departments of research is 
 worthy of notice here. They were as follows : 
 
 Department of Experimental Evolution December, 1903 
 
 Department of Marine Biology December, 1903 
 
 Department of Historical Research December, 1903 
 
 Department of Economics and Sociology ^'^ January, 1904 
 
 Department of Terrestrial Magnetism April, 1904 
 
 Solar Observatory DecGmber. 1904 
 
 Geographical Laboratory December, 1005 
 
 Department of Botanical Research December, 1905 
 
 Nutrition Laboratory December, 1906 
 
 Department of Meridian Astronomy March, 1907 
 
 Department of Embryology December, 1914 
 
 To these larger fields of operation must be added special researches in almost 
 every possible field, and even a casual reading of the annual reports of the 
 institution shows that the division of administration has itself served as a 
 research laboratory of no mean proportions.^' 
 
 From the nature of its work it is evident that the relations of the institu- 
 tion to universities and to learned societies would have to be guarded. This 
 the institution has tried to do by keeping out of occupied fields and by deal- 
 ing witli individuals concerned with specific pieces of research. The outside 
 world has apparently raised little question as to the privileges and responsi- 
 bilities of this- institution, but with the society of scholars^ it has numerous 
 conflicts, if the brief hints in the reports of the president are indicative of 
 the content of his letter files.^" It is in the face of this type of public opinion 
 that this institution will continue to adjust itself to its proper place in so- 
 ciety, and also to work out a fundamental theorjr of administration for this 
 new type of educational enterprise, which, together with its help in popular- 
 izing scientific method and the use of the results of research, will constitute 
 no small part of its total contribution. 
 
 Any study of the finances, or of the amount of work done, or of the number 
 of studies published, or of the number of houses, laboratories, observatories, 
 and ships owned and utilized by the institution can add but little to any 
 attempt to evaluate this type of philanthropic enterprise. The following table 
 showing the annual appropriations and the volume and page extent of its 
 published researches is of some value, however, when we consider that these 
 sums have been spent in fields that could not have been so fully explored if 
 the several hundred investigators employed had been compelled to meet the 
 usual demands made upon the time of a university professor : 
 
 " Discontinued as a department of the institution in 1916. 
 
 18 See especially the president's study of definitions of "humanities" in the 16th Year 
 Book, 1917, p. 16 ff. 
 
 ^^ See especially the 14th Year Book of the institution. 
 
GKEAT EDUCATIONAL. FOUNDATIONS. 
 
 93 
 
 Table 37, — Distribution of appropriations made by the Carnegie Institution 
 of Washington, 1902-1911} 
 
 Fiscal 
 years. 
 
 Invest- 
 ments in 
 bonds. 
 
 Large 
 projects. 
 
 Minor 
 projects and 
 special asso- 
 ciates and 
 assistants. 
 
 Publica- 
 tions. 
 
 Adminis- 
 tration. 
 
 Total. 
 
 Volumes published. 
 
 Number. 
 
 Pages. 
 
 1902 
 
 
 
 $4,500 
 137,564 
 217,383 
 149, 843 
 93, 176 
 90,176 
 61,282 
 70,813 
 73,464 
 63,048 
 103,241 
 110, 083 
 107,456 
 109, 569 
 99,401 
 97,526 
 
 
 $27,513 
 43,627 
 36,967 
 37, 208 
 42, 621 
 46, 005 
 48,274 
 45,292 
 44,011 
 45, 455 
 43,791 
 43,552 
 44, 159 
 48,224 
 49,454 
 48,776 
 
 $32,013 
 
 282,605 
 
 511,949 
 
 530, 753 
 
 623,216 
 
 702,534 
 
 676, 163 
 
 769,460 
 
 662, 373 
 
 661,616 
 
 1, 147, 047 
 
 1,571,572 
 
 1,876,096 
 
 1, 181, 183 
 
 1,334,572 
 
 1,410,464 
 
 3 
 3 
 11 
 
 21 
 19 
 
 38 
 28 
 19 
 29 
 30 
 23 
 29 
 23 
 23 
 35 
 21 
 
 46 
 
 1903 1 SI 00. 475 
 
 
 $938 
 11,590 
 21, 822 
 42,431 
 63, 804 
 49,991 
 41,577 
 49,067 
 37, 580 
 44,054 
 53, 171 
 44,670 
 46,698 
 73,733 
 62,884 
 
 1,667 
 
 1904 
 
 1905. 
 
 196, 159 
 51, 937 
 
 $49, 848 
 269,940 
 381,972 
 500, 548 
 448, 404 
 495,021 
 437,941 
 468,609 
 519,673 
 698,337 
 817,894 
 770, 488 
 638,281 
 695, 813 
 
 2,877 
 5,228 
 
 1906 
 
 1907 
 
 63, 015 
 2,000 
 
 68,209 
 116,756 
 
 57,889 
 
 51,921 
 436, 276 
 666,428 
 861, 915 
 206,203 
 473, 702 
 505,473 
 
 4,454 
 9,712 
 
 1908 
 
 7,328 
 
 1909 
 
 4,907 
 
 1910 
 
 1911 
 
 8, 105 
 6,732 
 
 1912. . 
 
 6,025 
 
 1913 
 
 9,357 
 
 1914 
 
 1915 
 
 6,912 
 6, 152 
 
 1916 
 
 1917 
 
 11,908 
 7, 1.55 
 
 
 
 Total.. 
 
 3,858,363 
 
 7,187,775 
 
 1,588,531 
 
 644,017 
 
 694,936 
 
 13,973,614 
 
 335 
 
 88,5S5 
 
 1 From 16th Yearbook, p. 29. Cents omitted. 
 
 Several points about these figures are of interest. During tlie 16 5'ears 
 recorded in the table the unused funds have accumulated, furnishing a sub- 
 stantial reserve fund for special needs. Aside from the first three years from 
 45 to 60 per cent of the appropriations have been for large department projects ; 
 from 5 to 12 per cent have been for the smaller investigations, the tendency 
 being to give rather less to this item ; from 2 to 10 per cent have been for pub- 
 lications, also with a tendency to decrease. During the first year only a small 
 appropriation was made, approximately 86 per cent of all going for adminis- 
 tration. During the second year only about 15 per cent went for administra- 
 tion, and for the remaining years the amount has been 7 per cent or less, 
 declining to only 3 or 4 per cent in the six years ending in 1917. 
 
 Thei'e are no figures with which these properly can be compared, but they 
 stand as the experience of 16 years spent in developing an entirely new type 
 of institution. To the universities of the country it has not only furnished a 
 great stimulus to research, but it has also given much direct assistance by 
 financing important pieces of investigation and by publishing finished pieces of 
 research. 
 
 4. THE GENERAL EDUCATION BOABD. 
 
 Mr. Rockefeller referred to the General Education Board as " an organiza- 
 tion formed for the purpose of working out, in an orderly and rather scientific 
 way, the problem of helping to stimulate and improve education in all parts 
 of the country." '" 
 
 The experience of the Peabody Fund in cooperating vnth State, county, and 
 city officials was at hand and had been thoroughly studied." Just how to co- 
 operate with other forces, public and private, was the first specific problem of 
 the General Education Board. 
 
 =0 Rockefeller, John D. The Benevolent Trust, the Cooperative Principle in Giving. 
 The Worlds Work, vol. 17, Jan., 1909. 
 
 ^ See The General Education Board, 1902-1914, p. 13 flE. 
 
94 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 Leaving aside the question of how this was aceomplished in the matter of 
 farm demonstration worls and in elementary and secondary education in the 
 South, we are concerned here with the board's work in the field of higher 
 education. 
 
 One of the terms of Mr. Rockefeller's second gift to the board was that 
 assistance should be given to — 
 
 such institutions of learning as the board may deem best adapted to promote 
 a comprehensive system of higher education in the United States. 
 
 The fact was we had no system of higher education, and this corporation 
 proposed to do what it could toward that most laudable end. Schools had been 
 developed by the church, the State, and private enterprise, each working with 
 but little reference to the other, denominational competition and politics often 
 resulting in quite the opposite of system. 
 
 If this new board was to work toward a " system of higher education," then 
 it must inevitably clash with these already conflicting enterprises, or somehow 
 effect a coordination of their various forces. Some definite policy, therefore, 
 had to be decided upon. Two principles of procedure were laid down, as fol- 
 lows: The board neither possessed nor desired any authority, and would 
 not seek directly or indirectly to bias the action of any college or university ; 
 in making an appropriation the board would in no way interfere with the in- 
 ternal management of an institution nor incur any responsibility for its 
 conduct. 
 
 When and where and how to apply these principles was the practical task. 
 In 1916-17 the board reported that in all it had assisted 112 colleges and 
 universities in, 32 States. During the year 1916-17 the board contributed a 
 total of $1,185,000 toward a total of $5,300,000 in gifts to 9 colleges. When 
 we consider that for this same year Harvard received from gifts as much 
 as $1,934,947, Columbia $1,390,594, and Chicago $3,181,543 we can see that the 
 board had to find some basis for making choice among its many possible 
 beneficiaries. 
 
 Making this choice was precisely what Mr. Rockefeller wanted to have done 
 scientifically. To do it was to demonstrate that philanthropy could be made 
 a successful business enterprise. Accordingly, extensive studies of the ques- 
 tion were undertaken, and to date almost the entire college field has been 
 surveyed with respect to certain main issu-es, and those colleges to which con- 
 tributions have been made have been studied minutely. The result is a mine 
 of important and systematically organized information about our higher in- 
 stitutions of learning that had not hitherto been available. These studies can 
 not be adequately described, nor their value satisfactorily explained in few 
 words." As a method of giving they stand as a permanent contribution of 
 value. They have meant that fact rather than sentiment has guided the board 
 from the start. 
 
 The board has made a somewhat modest statement " of certain clearly evident 
 improvements that have resulted from their strict adherence to this method 
 of giving, as follows : 
 
 First, is that of more careful accounting systems. 
 
 Second, it has necessitated a clarification of certain terms, such as " capital," 
 " endowment," " scientific equipment," etc., the very loose usage of which had 
 
 ^ There is plenty of evidence on file in the board rooms to show that many benefactors 
 are utilizing these studies in placing their gifts. 
 
 2SThe General Education Board, 1902-1914, p. 149 ff. 
 
GREAT EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATIONS. 95 
 
 previously made it impossible to compare financial statistics of different in- 
 stitutions. 
 
 Third, it has put an end to the practice, rather common among colleges, of 
 using the principal of eadowment funds on the assumption that the sum so 
 taken was a loan and would later be replaced. 
 
 Fourth, it has brought about a distinction in practice between the educa- 
 tional budget of a college and its various business activities, such as the run- 
 ning of a boarding hall. 
 
 Fifth, it has resulted in a sort of departmental accounting, which has helped 
 not only to distinguish costs in college from costs in preparatory departments 
 but has tended to help even in defining what worli is of college and what is of 
 academy grade. 
 
 This board has operated on one other principle that deserves mention, viz, 
 that any college that can not raise some money from its own natural clientele 
 is scarcely to be thought of as very necessary to the community. Accordingly, 
 it has been the practice of the board to contribute a sum toward a mucli larger 
 total which the college must raise. Mr. Rockefeller said that — 
 to give to institutions that ought to be supported by others is not the best 
 philanthropy. Such giving only serves to dry up the natural springs of 
 charity.^* 
 
 The application of this principle has not only brought large gifts to educa- 
 tion that probably would never have been given otherwise, but it has helped 
 toward placing the responsibility for the growth of these colleges where it 
 belongs — upon large numbers of interested friends. 
 
 Another condition from which the board varies but rarely is that the entire 
 gift, of which their own forms a part, shall be preserved inviolate for the 
 permanent endowment of the institution. This recognizes the need for general, 
 as opposed to special, endowment funds. Another provision is that no part 
 of the board's gift can ever be used for theological instruction. 
 
 During the last few years the board has entered upon two other lines of 
 work — that of financing and directing educational investigations and that of 
 putting clinical instruction in the medical schools of John Hopkins, Yale, and 
 Washington Universities upon a full-time basis. This latter was not an untried 
 experiment, but it was certainly in an early experimental stage in this country. 
 
 The field of educational investigation was not new, but the demand for such 
 work was by no means fully met by other agencies. The survey of the 
 Maryland State school system ; the more recent report of a survey of the 
 schools of Gary, Ind. ; and the experimental work on reading and writing 
 scales at Chicago University and with gifted pupils at Illinois University; 
 as well as the experimental school at Teachers College, Columbia University, 
 are some of the results so far obtained in this field, all of which give large 
 prouiise. 
 
 The following table will give at most an inadequate notion of the work that 
 has thus far been accomplished by the foundation : 
 
 ** In World's Work, above cited. 
 
96 
 
 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 Table 38. — Total appropriations of the General Education Board from its 
 foundation in 1902 to June 30, 1918.^ 
 
 (The Rockefeller Fund.) 
 
 Amount 
 appropriated. 
 
 Amount 
 paid. 
 
 Amount 
 unpaid. 
 
 For whites: 
 
 Universities and colleges for endowment . 
 Colleges and schools for current expenses. 
 
 Medical schools for endowment 
 
 Professors of secondary education 
 
 Rural school agents 
 
 Lincoln school 
 
 ConsoUdated rural schools 
 
 Southern education hoard 
 
 $13,873,704 
 174,991 
 5,603,774 
 379, 339 
 230,476 
 219,250 
 21,500 
 97, 126 
 
 $10,278,617 
 174, 991 
 2,770,874 
 343, 089 
 172,206 
 104, 250 
 11,500 
 97,126 
 
 20,600,162 
 
 13,952,654 
 
 For negroes: 
 
 Colleges and schools for current expenses and buildings .. 
 
 Medical schools for current expenses 
 
 Rural school agents 
 
 Summer schools 
 
 County training schools 
 
 Home-makers' Clubs 
 
 Expenses of special students at Hampton and Tuskegee. 
 
 Scholarships 
 
 Negro Rural School Fund 
 
 John F. Slater Fund 
 
 1,249,775 
 15,000 
 208, 120 
 19, 891 
 49, 797 
 90,989 
 17, 865 
 5,000 
 59,400 
 3,000 
 
 1,141,282 
 
 15,000 
 
 153,066 
 
 11, 839 
 
 28,604 
 
 58, 768 
 
 3,615 
 
 300 
 
 41,400 
 
 1,718,839 
 
 1, 458, 876 
 
 Agricultural work (white and negro): 
 
 Southern agricultural demonstration work 
 
 Girls' canning and poultry work in the South , 
 
 Maine agriciiltiural demonstration work 
 
 New Hampshire agricultural demonstration work. 
 Rural organization service 
 
 716, 077 
 113, 751 
 120, 876 
 64,093 
 36,646 
 
 1, 051, 446 
 
 Miscellaneous (white and negro): 
 
 Educational investigation and research 
 
 General survey of educational conditions and needs in 
 
 North Carolina 
 
 Cost-accounting system for Gary 
 
 Expenses rural scnool agents at Harvard summer school. . 
 
 Model county organization 
 
 Conferences 
 
 Supplemental fund 
 
 158, 354 
 
 5,000 
 1,025 
 
 7,000 
 28, 150 
 19, 438 
 
 7,772 
 
 226, 741 
 
 716, 077 
 113, 751 
 95, 876 
 48,093 
 36,646 
 
 122, 988 
 
 20, 500 
 19, 438 
 7,772 
 
 Income on hand June 30, 1918 
 
 Unpaid appropriations as above . 
 
 Unappropriated income June 30, 1918. 
 
 $3,595,087 
 
 2,832,900 
 36,250 
 58,270 
 115, 000 
 10,000 
 
 6,647,507 
 
 108,492 
 
 50,054 
 8,052 
 21, 193 
 32, 220 
 14, 250 
 4,700 
 18,000 
 3,000 
 
 259, 962 
 
 25,000 
 16,000 
 
 41,000 
 
 35,366 
 5.000 
 
 7,000 
 7,650 
 
 55,016 
 
 8,035,988 
 7,003,486 
 
 1,032,501 
 
 1 See An. Rept., Gen. Edue. Bd., 1917-18, pp. 84-85. Cents omitted. 
 
 Ill addition to the foregoing the sum of $110,572.33 has been appropriated 
 and paid to negro rural schools from the income of Anna T. Jeanes Fund, and 
 $85,000 has been appropriated and paid to Spelman Seminary from the principal 
 of the Laura S. Rockefeller Fund. 
 
 5. THE CARNEGIE FOUNDATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF TEACHING. 
 
 Fundamental to Mr. Carnegie's doctrine of giving had been the idea that the 
 purpose for which one gives must not have a degrading, pauperizing tendency 
 upon the recipient.^" To be able to give a pension and avoid such difficulties 
 as these was the task Mr. Carnegie set for himself. 
 
 Believing that many evils were resulting from low salaries for professors 
 and being familiar with the idea of teachers' pensions so widely practiced in 
 
 ^ The Gospel of Wealth, p. 21, ff. 
 
GREAT EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATIONS. 97 
 
 Europe, Mr. Carnegie hoped to make the pension for the professor and his 
 wid^ow a regular part of the American educational system. He believed that 
 if the teacher could receive his retiring allowance not as a charity but as a 
 matter of right then pensions would raise the plane of academic life.'"' 
 
 Obviously, the income from the original gift of $10,000,000 would not meet 
 the needs of the 700 or more institutions calling themselves colleges. First of 
 all, therefore, the foundation was face to face with the question of what is a 
 college. Secondly, having barred from participation in the fund all institu- 
 tions under denominational control, the question of what constitutes denomi- 
 national control must also be settled. The legal definition of a college which has 
 been in operation in the State of New York furnished a basis for an answer 
 to the first question," and a definition of denominational college was arbitrarily 
 decided upon and the foundation began operations, trusting to investigation and 
 experience to clarify these definitions. 
 
 The first work of the foundation was to send out a circular asking all in- 
 stitutions of higher learning for information bearing upon: (a) The educa- 
 tional standards in use ; (b) the relations of the school to the State, both 
 in matters of control and support; (c) the relation of the school to religious 
 denominations. In addition to this, information regarding salaries and size of 
 faculties was asked for.°® This brought together an unusually rich mass of 
 educational data, which when digested by the foundation furnished the basis for 
 its future action. 
 
 Out of this and succeeding studies came the quantitative definition of the 
 college entrance " unit " ; a clearer distinction between the work of a pre- 
 paratory department and that of the college proper; as well as clearer con- 
 ceptions of " college," of " State college," and of " denominational college." 
 These accomplishments are pointed to here not only as an important con- 
 tribution in .standardization but also because of the wide discussion of these 
 subjects which the action of the foundation provoked. Such work shows, too, 
 how the foundation realized that in order to act wisely in the awarding of re- 
 tiring allowances it must itself first of all become an " educational agency." ^° 
 
 This type of study is not the extent of the foundation's educational investiga- 
 tions. Its charter demanded that the trustees " do and perform all things 
 necessary to encourage, uphold, and dignify the profession of the teacher and 
 the cause of higher education."'" In pursuance of this end the foundation has 
 from the start undertaken to contribute liberally to the scientific study of 
 higher education. In 1913 Mr. Carnegie added $1,250,000 to the endowment to 
 meet the needs of a research department, and already the results of 11 extensive 
 studies have been published and several others are under way. It is not possible 
 to state accurately the value of this type of contribution. One might point to 
 specific cases of more accurate university bookkeeping having resulted from the 
 issuance of Bulletin No. 3, 1910, which presented 25 typical blank forms for 
 the public reporting of the financial receipts and expenditures of universities 
 and colleges ; or to the revision of standards and the stir that was caused in 
 the medical world by the issuance of Bulletin No. 4, 1910, describing the status 
 of medical education in the United States and Canada ; or to the legislative 
 enactments following the recommendations made in Bulletin No. 7, 1907, giv- 
 
 2« See The Policy of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Educ. 
 Rev., June, 1906. 
 
 " See First Annual Report of the President and of the Treasurer, p. 38. 
 
 ^ Ibid., p. 10, t£. 
 
 =" See The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Second Annual 
 Report of the President and Treasurer, p. 65. 
 
 *" See quotation on p. 85. 
 
98 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN" HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 ing the results of the survey of education in the State of Vermont ; or to 
 similar reactions to the reports dealing with engineering education and legal 
 education, and in each instance show that the study brought direct results. 
 The larger value of such work, however, can not be measured in that way. 
 The sentiment for better medical schools which was created by the foundation's 
 study has been a powerful factor in bringing about higher standards of training 
 in that profession, and similar valuable results have come from other studies. 
 
 In administering the pension system the foundation has met with many 
 difficulties, some of which have not been easy to overcome. From the outset 
 the foundation has wisely dealt with institutions and not with individuals. 
 It must not be said, however, that the foundation set itself up as a standard- 
 izing agency. It did set itself up as an educational agency, and very properly 
 chose to administer its funds in terms of educational standards of its own 
 choosing. In doing this no embarrassment was felt. The foundation named 
 a list of " accepted institutions,"" explained why these were included, and 
 no serious criticism of this list was offered by the public. 
 
 By the end of the first year the trustees stated that the questions of edu- 
 cational standards and of denominational or State control had been provision- 
 ally dealt with.^" These questions continued to bring difficulties to the foun- 
 dation, and for several years their reports show that they were exhaustively 
 studied. The question of pensions for professors of State universities was 
 solved in 1908 when Mr. Carnegie addressed a letter to the board in which 
 he offered to add $5,000,000 to the endowment in order to meet that need.^ 
 Denominational colleges memorialized the trustees to modify their ruling af- 
 fecting such institutions,** but with little success. Several sharp criticisms of 
 the position of the foundation in this matter appeared in magazines,^ but the 
 trustees preferred to maintain their original standard.^' 
 
 During the first few years the number of institutions eligible for the " ac- 
 cepted list " increased at an unexpected rate ^ and the foundation was com- 
 pelled to revise its rules for granting pensions or otherwise plan to carry a 
 heavier load. Within a very few years a number of colleges under denomina- 
 tional control, by proper legal process, had so modified their charters or articles 
 of incorporation as to make them eligible to the accepted list,^ the original 
 actuarial figures had taken no account of the growth of the institutions,^* and 
 the number retiring under the " years of service " basis had been far greater 
 than anticipated,*" and other facts indicated that some modification of original 
 
 "^The original list is printed in the foundation's first annual report above cited. 
 
 »2 See the foundation's first annual report above cited, p. 36 ff. 
 
 S3 See the foundation's third annual report, p. 62, for copy of his letter. 
 
 " See the foundation's fourth annual report, p. 4 ff. 
 
 "s See letter by J. P. Gushing published in Nation, vol. 90, p. 233, and other articles in 
 the same volume; also vol. 31 of Science. 
 
 3" Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Report, 1909, p. 6. 
 
 3' Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Report, 1909, p. 63. 
 
 «8 Bowdoin, Drury, Central University of Kentucky, and Drake University are illus- 
 trations. * 
 
 '» See the foundation's fourth annual report, p. 62. 
 
 ^0 In his Review of Six Years of Administrative Experience the president of the founda- 
 tion explains that the 25 years of service rule had been " adopted by the trustees under 
 the assumption that but few applications would be made under it, and that these would 
 be in the main applications from men who were disabled for further service. The inten- 
 tion was in fact to use the rule as a disability provision." "After a few years of adminis- 
 tration it was perfectly clear that the rule was doing harm rather than good. It was 
 therefore repealed by the trustees in accordance with the authority they had reserved in 
 their hands," and was made a definite disability rule. See seventh annual report of the 
 president and treasurer. 1912, p. 82. 
 
GREAT EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATIONS. 99 
 
 plans would have to be made. At the outset the right to make such modification 
 had been specially reserved," partly upon the advice of actuarial experts. Ac- 
 cordingly, in 1909 the rules for granting retiring allowances were -changed in 
 two respects. 
 
 The original rules based the grant of a pension upon age or length of service 
 in accordance with 10 specific rules. Rule 1 was revised to include instructors 
 as well as the various grades of professors, deans, and presidents, and so really 
 broadened the scope of the foundation's work to that extent. The original rules 
 granting a pension after 25 years of service were changed so as to restrict 
 such allowance to only such teachers as were proved by medical examination 
 to be unfit for service. This latter change brought forth extensive criticism, 
 raising the question of the ethical right of the foundation to do the thing it 
 had specifically reserved the right to do, viz, to modify its rules " in such man- 
 ner as experience may indicate as desirable." 
 
 The reasons for making these changes are more fully set forth in their 1904 
 report than it is possible to show in brief space. It serves our purpose here to 
 note, first, that such change was made, and that the foundation was legally 
 within its rights in so doing ; and, second, that the change met with strong oppo- 
 sition in many quarters. 
 
 There were slight modifications of these rules, but no important changes 
 were proposed until the issuance to the trustees and to all teachers in associated 
 institutions of the foundation's confidential communication in 1915, setting 
 forth a Comprehensive Plan of Insurance and Annuities.*^ This communica- 
 tion called attention to the weak points in the existing system of pensions and 
 proposed to I'eplace the old system with a plan of insurance and annuities. 
 More than 50 institutions complied with the request for criticism, and their 
 statements are published in an appendix to the eleventh annual report of the 
 foundation. Many faculties approved the plan in part, a few approved the plan 
 in full as suggested, but altogether these statements, together with what ap- 
 peared in the press, contain many important criticisms. It was argued, first, 
 that the Carnegie Foundation had created certain expectations on the part of 
 college teachers which it was morally obligated to fulfill ; second, that it is 
 unjust to establish a system of insurance involving compulsory cooperation on 
 the part of every teacher; and, third, that commercial companies could offer 
 a plan which would be financially more attractive.*' 
 
 In 1916-17 the trustees passed a resolution referring the proposed new plan 
 of insurance and annuities to a commission consisting of six trustees of the 
 foundation, two representatives of the American Association of University 
 Professors, and one representative each from the Association of American 
 Universities, the National Association of State Universities, and the Associa- 
 tion of American Colleges." This commission agreed upon a plan of insurance 
 
 " See original Rules for Granting of Retiring Allowances in first annual report. 
 
 *^ This was later published as Bulletin No. 9 of the foundation. 
 
 *' In the eleventh annual report of the president and treasurer Preside-nt Pritchett 
 virtually accepts the first of these objections as valid (see p. 24), and the trustees passed 
 a resolution approving the idea of a contributory pension system which will operate 
 " without unfairness to the just expectations of institutions or of individuals under the 
 present rules." (See p. 4.) In the twelfth annual report a review of the year's work 
 points out that the experience of 12 years' work has found the foundation " faced with 
 two duties : First, to carry out fairly and to the best of their ability the obligations as- 
 sumed in the associated institutions " ; and, secondly, to establish a system of insurance. 
 Further the report says : " In the nature of the case the determination of what is a 
 reasonable exercise of the power of revision retained by the trustees touches many per- 
 sonal interests." See pp. 19 and 30. 
 
 " Twelfth An. Rep. of the Foundation, 1916-17, p. 5, for the membership of this com- 
 mission. 
 
100 
 
 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN' HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 and annuities and recommended it to the trustees of the foundation." In May, 
 1917, it was voted to approve the fundamental principles of the teachers' pen- 
 sion systenf and also the combination of insurance and annuity benefits, as de- 
 fined in the report of the above commission." 
 
 This very soon led to the organization of the Teachers' Insurance and An- 
 nuity Association of America, chartered by the State of New York on March 
 4, 1918. This insurance company, together with a definite and fair plan for 
 fulfilling the expectations of teachers who had belonged to the associated insti- 
 tutions under the original pension system, brought to a close what is likely 
 to be regarded as the first period of the history of the Carnegie Foundation 
 for the Advancement of Teaching. It was in many ways a stormy period in 
 which sharp and often personal criticism was hurled at the foundation by 
 individuals, through the press and even in the form of an investigation by the 
 Federal Commission on Industrial Relations. Few direct replies to these 
 criticisms have been made by the officers of the foundation except through the 
 pages of their regular annual reports," where every intelligent criticism has 
 been dealt with. 
 
 It is obvious, even from this brief sketch of the history of this foundation, 
 that what may be termed the elastic clause in its rules for granting pensions 
 has been a most important one. The field was new and experience alone could 
 point the way. Without the right to change its plans the foundation might 
 have become a nuisance instead of a blessing. If that clause has given the 
 foundation an easy way out of difficulties — too easy as some have thought — 
 it has proved to be an excellent point of leverage for public opinion, and it 
 must be evident to all that public opinion has not been ignored. 
 
 It must be said that the foundation has done some difficult pioneering in the 
 field of teachers' pensions and has contributed liberally to the development and 
 application of proper standards in the field of higher education. The following 
 tables will give a partial financial view of the operations of the foundation up 
 to June 30, 1917 : 
 
 Tablk 39. — Receipts and expenditures of Carnegie Foundation for Advancement 
 
 of Teaching, 1906-1911.°- 
 
 Dates. 
 
 1906'' 
 1907.. 
 1908.. 
 1909. . 
 1910.. 
 1911.. 
 1912.. 
 1913.. 
 1914.. 
 1915.. 
 1916.. 
 1917 c 
 
 Total 
 receipts. 
 
 S292, 673 
 644, 031 
 530, 303 
 544, 355 
 543, 881 
 590, 449 
 676, 486 
 694, 195 
 696, 038 
 712, 852 
 800, 332 
 625, 862 
 
 Expenditures. 
 
 Retiring 
 allow- 
 ance. 
 
 S158, 
 246, 
 343, 
 469, 
 526, 
 570, 
 600, 
 634, 
 674, 
 687, 
 547, 
 
 Adminis- 
 tration. 
 
 $19, 932 
 39, 906 
 39, 898 
 36, 106 
 35, 749 
 36, 743 
 
 35, 949 
 36,632 
 32, 910 
 
 36, 550 
 36, 684 
 33, 772 
 
 Publica- 
 tion. 
 
 $7, 983 
 8, 635 
 9,414 
 
 23, 777 
 3,579 
 1,758 
 1,576 
 5,620 
 6,390 
 
 Studies, 
 etc. 
 
 S531 
 
 9,494 
 
 23, 929 
 
 7, 40(; 
 
 3,347 
 
 2,401 
 
 Total. 
 
 $19, 932 
 198, 797 
 287, 072 
 397, 455 
 538, 148 
 580, 443 
 634, 490 
 640, 601 
 669, 532 
 712, 852 
 731, 413 
 625, 862 
 
 a Compiled from the annual report of the treasurer of the foundation. Cents are omitted. 
 b July 1 to Sept. 30. 
 
 c Oct. 1 to June 30. 
 
 « Ibid., appendix to Part II, for a full report of this commission. 
 
 « Ibid., p. 28 ff. 
 
 " President Henry S. Pritchett wrote a careful and dignified reply to such criticisms 
 for the N. Amer. Rev. of April, 1915, " Should the Carnegie Foundation be Suppressed ; " 
 and Secretary Clyde Furst gave an address before the Dept. of Sup., Nat. Ed. Assoc, in 
 1918, on " The Place of the Educational Foundation in American Education." This ad- 
 dress was published in School and Society for March 30, 1918. 
 
GREAT EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATIONS. 101 
 
 Table 40.— Foundation's expenditures for allowances, each third year} 
 
 Years. 
 
 1906»... 
 1908-9. . 
 1911-12 . 
 1914-15 . 
 1916-173 
 
 Institutions. 
 
 /Associated 
 
 iNonassociated 
 
 /Associated 
 
 \Nonassociated 
 
 f Associated 
 
 \Nonassoeiated, 
 
 /Associated 
 
 \Nonassociated 
 
 /Associated 
 
 \Nonassociated 
 
 Num- 
 ber. 
 
 Retired 
 teachers 
 on roll. 
 
 44 
 12 
 
 162 
 54 
 
 220 
 
 274 
 62 
 
 Retiring 
 allow- 
 ances 
 paid. 
 
 $15, 479 
 
 6,475 
 
 206, 473 
 
 104,537 
 
 388, 338 
 
 108, 330 
 
 473, 969 
 
 99, 851 
 
 345, 214 
 
 62, 054 
 
 Widows' 
 pensions. 
 
 Num- 
 ber. 
 
 33 
 12 
 62 
 23 
 90 
 28 
 112 
 32 
 
 Amount 
 paid. 
 
 $1, 125 
 
 125 
 24, 545 
 8,317 
 53, 646 
 20,046 
 80, 152 
 20, 752 
 116, 891 
 23, 199 
 
 Total 
 
 amount 
 
 paid. 
 
 $16, 604 
 6,600 
 231, 018 
 112, 853 
 441, 985 
 128, 438 
 554, 122 
 120, 603 
 462, 105 
 85,253 
 
 I The amounts for the iatervening years are not given, but approximate those here reported; see 12th 
 An. Rep. of the foundation. Cents are omitted. 
 ' From July 1 to Sept. 30. 
 • Oct. 1 to June 30. 
 
 6. THE BtrSSELL SAGE FOUNDATION. 
 
 The Russell Sage Foundation has purposely avoided the field of higher edu- 
 cation from the start,*' but deserves mention here because of the contributions 
 it has made to educational research. 
 
 Among its contributions are to be listed studies of retardation and elimina- 
 tion in city school systems, the medical inspection of schools, the care and 
 training of crippled children, child-welfare work, health work in public schools, 
 education through recreation, school buildings and equipment, and many other 
 studies of direct or indirect value in reducing education to a science. Im- 
 portant, too, is the extensive work which the foundation has done in the field 
 of educational surveys. The reports of the Springfield and the Cleveland 
 surveys have aided materially in the establishment of standards for this kind 
 of work. From the start the foundation's policy has been to. spend its income 
 on research and the dissemination of knowledge with a preventive intent. That 
 it has carried out such a policy is evident to those who are familiar with its 
 publications. 
 
 SUMMARY. 
 
 In this chapter it has been the purpose to describe the working principles 
 and as far as possible to show the significance of our recently established phil- 
 anthropic educational foundations. In form these foundations represent a 
 new type of agency in educational philanthropy. In scope the possibility of 
 service which they are empowered to render to higher education is almost with- 
 out limit, and in the main each of the foundations occupies a field peculiarly 
 its own. 
 
 These foundations are well characterized as attempts at reducing educa- 
 tional philanthropy to a business. The corporate principle is fully applied and 
 the plan of administration is similar to that by which the affairs of a factory 
 or a railroad are directed. In their most recent form the essential principles 
 of a commission business are em'ployed. 
 
 They are further characterized by the very general limitations placed upon 
 the gifts by the founders ; by the possibilities left open for reasonable changes 
 in the original purpose, or even, in some eases, for a termination of the entire 
 
 *^ Schneider, Franz, jr. The Russell Sage Foundation, in Jour. Nat. Institute of So. 
 Sciences, Dee. 20, 1915, p. 5. 
 
102 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAlSr HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 trust ; by the very careful plans devised for the administration of the funds ; 
 and by the entire absence of political, sectarian, or sectional control. 
 
 The work accomplished by these foundations can not be fully evaluated. In 
 variety and extent it includes gifts and propaganda for the development of 
 public schools, the endowment of colleges, fellowships, and pensions, as well as 
 research in almost every field known to science. In all these fields their 
 efforts have been fruitful. 
 
 The movement (for in the history of educational philanthropy it must be 
 called a distinct movement) appears not yet to have reached its zenith. In 
 character it is becoming more and more inclusive, and perhaps by that tendency 
 may contribute to the establishment of the idea that education is but one of 
 the many aspects of our social problem. The power which such institutions 
 can turn toward the reconstruction of society has already been clearly indi- 
 cated by the results described above, but quite as clearly has public opinion 
 shown not only its ability to discern the possible misuses of that power but also 
 its readiness to bring pressure to bear once a sign of such danger has been 
 sensed. However much these foundations may supervise, therefore, and the 
 promise in this respect is great, it is evident that they will themselves not go 
 unsupervised. 
 
Chapter VI. 
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. 
 
 PURPOSE AND PLAN OF THE STUDY. 
 
 It has been the purpose of this study to inquire into the extent to which 
 philanthropy has been responsible for the development of our institutions of 
 higher learning, to discover what motives have prompted this philanthropy 
 and how these motives have influenced college building, and, in addition, to 
 try to bring to light whatever has been developed in the way of a theory of 
 educational philanthropy and of educational endowments. 
 
 The study is covered in four chapters dealing, respectively, with: (1) The 
 development of a theory of endowments and of philanthropy; (2) philanthropy 
 of the colonial period; (3) philanthropy of the early national period, 1776- 
 1865; (4) philanthropy of the late national period, 1865-1918; and (5) great 
 educational foundations. 
 
 Various sources have been drawn upon, chief of which have been indicated 
 by footnote references. These sources may be classified as having to do with 
 what may be termed the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the problem, 
 respectively. The former including charters, constitutions, by-laws, deeds of 
 trust, wills, and other instruments of gift ; the latter only with the bare figures 
 and their analysis, or the statistics, of such gifts. 
 
 THE THEORY OF ENDOWMENTS. 
 
 At the beginning of college building in America there was no special theory 
 of educational endowments or of educational philanthropy to work from. No 
 careful thought had been given to the subject in England aside from discus- 
 sions of practical situations, numbers of which were demanding attention long 
 before America began to build colleges. 
 
 About the time Harvard College had reached its first centennial a really 
 substantial discussion of the subject was entered upon in Europe and has con- 
 tinued practically ever since. The discussion was in connection with the gen- 
 eral inquiry into the social institutions of the times, and represents one line 
 of inquiry pursued by the new school of political economy just then taking 
 form. Turgot, of France ; Adam Smith, of England ; and William von Hum- 
 boldt, of Germany, were the chief early contributors in their respective coun- 
 tries and agree fairly well that education should not be endowed by the State, 
 but rather that it should take its place in competition with all other interests. 
 Turgot and Smith would modify the application of this laissez faire principle 
 to meet certain conditions, while Humboldt would have it carried to its full 
 
 103 
 
104 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 length. Doctor Chalmers, early in the nineteenth century, and John Stuart 
 Mill, in 1833, however, proposed an important distinction between need for 
 food and need for education, and urged that because of this difference the prin- 
 ciple of free trade could not properly apply to education. 
 
 Owing to the bad state of educational endowments in England at that time, 
 the discussion shifted somewhat to a consideration of the rights of the State 
 in the control of endowments. The critics declared that the failure of these 
 endowments was due to the very principles involved in endowments for educa- 
 tion, while the Mill economists argued that it was due merely to failure of the 
 State to exercise a proper control over them. 
 
 Other discussions in England of the possible value of endowments followed, 
 involving the question of the right of posthumous disposition of property and 
 emphasizing the rights of society (the State) as the real recipient of such gifts. 
 
 EARLY EXPERIENCES IN AMERICA, 
 
 In the early years America contributed little to this theoretical discussion, 
 but as time went on and the idea of free public education began to take root, 
 we gradually came face to face with it in connection with the question of 
 school support. The State had taken a hand in initiating and in the support 
 of our first attempt at higher education. The church had taken even a larger 
 part than that shared by the State. In colonial Massachusetts, however, the 
 State and the church were practically one, and therefore no opposition be- 
 tween the two was likely to appear. The church and the State in America 
 were soon to rest upon the theory of complete separation, however, and then 
 the question of responsibility for the support of schools had to be worked out. 
 The building of colleges went on, the church, the State, and private philan- 
 thropy sharing the burden of cost, but with the responsibility for management 
 resting mainly with the church until near the close of the colonial period. 
 
 At the beginning of the national period the State began to contribute less and 
 less to the old foundations and to debate the question of State colleges or uni- 
 versities. By the middle of the new century the movement for State support 
 and control of higher education took definite form. This did not rule out the 
 church or private philanthropy, nor did it consciously interfere with them. 
 It, nevertheless, set up competition between these two ideas of educational 
 control. The result has been the development of a rather large literature on 
 the subject, a decided stimulus to higher quality of work, and a clarification of 
 the respective functions of the church and the State in higher education. 
 
 In the earlier decades private philanthropy was so completely dominated by 
 the church on the one hand, and was so small and scattered on the other, that its 
 place in the field of higher education had raised no serious questions. The 
 development of State universities, however, brought criticism, and in more 
 recent years such college buildings as that initiated by Ezra Cornell, Johns 
 Hopkins, John D. Rockefeller, Leland Stanford, and Andrew Carnegie, and such 
 nonteaching foundations as those discussed in Chapter V have raised the question 
 of the possible good or ill that may come from State endowment and from 
 private philanthropy on such a large scale. 
 
 It is in connection with these two points in our educational experience — the 
 clash between State and church control ; and the upsetting of the old and small 
 practices by wealthy philanthropists through the launching of great competing 
 universities, or by the establishment of vast funds for endowment, pensions, and 
 investigation — that America's contribution to a theory of endowments or of 
 educational philanthropy has been made. Writers on social and political 
 theory have given the subject but little thought, though many legislative bodies 
 
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION'S. 105 
 
 have dwelt at length upon specific issues which have been raised by the clash 
 of these forces.^ 
 
 In colonial America the aim of higher education was from the start dominated 
 by the general religious aim of the people, and whether the State and the church 
 were one or not, it was almost without exception the church leaders who initiated 
 the move for building a college, and the colleges of this period were primarily 
 designed for the training of ministers. 
 
 The colonial governments of Massachusetts, Virginia, Connecticut, and New 
 York contributed liberally to the maintenance of Harvard, William and Mary, 
 Yale, and King's Colleges, respectively, but not so with Rhode Island, New 
 Jersey, and New Hampshire in the case of Princeton, Brown, Dartmouth, and 
 Rutgers. We are able to say, therefore, that philanthropy, motivated in the 
 main by religion, was primarily responsible for initiating college building in 
 all cases; that it was largely responsible for the maintenance of five of the 
 nine colonial colleges, and almost solely so for the other four. We may say, 
 too, that while the idea of State support for colleges was practiced, it was not 
 common in all the Colonies, and in no case (William and Mary a possible ex- 
 ception) did a Colony assume full responsibility in the founding and develop- 
 ment of a college. Hence denominational rather than State lines stand out in . 
 the history of higher learning in colonial times, and unless we think of the 
 impetus given to " this worldly " education by Franklin in the beginnings of 
 the University of Pennsylvania there was no experiment that could be called 
 a real departure from the traditional idea of a college. 
 
 The sources from which philanthropy came during these years were nu- 
 merous and varied, and each has in a way left its mark upon the college it 
 benefited. No small amount of assistance came from England, largely through 
 the influence of religious organizations. The influence of these gifts is sug- 
 gested by the names of several of our colleges. Again, funds were sought in 
 this country in Colonies quite remote from the college, and in many cases 
 substantial aid was thus received. In the main, however, a college was either 
 a local community or a denominational enterprise. If the former, as in case 
 of Harvard, the burden rested mainly upon people close by. If the latter, as 
 in the case of Brown, then churches of the denomination in question, wherever 
 located, gave freely to its support. Many gifts from towns and from church 
 congregations are also recorded. 
 
 One is impressed at every point with the very large number of small gifts 
 and with the way in which they were obtained. This applies to the entire 
 history of American college building. The thousands of small gifts to our 
 colleges seem to record the fact that from the outset these were to be schools 
 of the people. 
 
 During this period philanthropy initiated no unique educational experiments, 
 yet it is quite as true to say that neither do we find evidence that gifts any- 
 where influenced education in a wrong way. Gifts which were made to some 
 specific feature of a college went in the main to the library, to professorships, 
 to scholarships, and to buildings, all of which are essential to any college. 
 Throughout this period, however, it has been shown that a relatively large 
 percentage of gifts were made to the college unconditionally. 
 
 We may say, then, that our beginnings were small ; that they were warmly 
 supported by the mother country ; that the idea of State support was common, 
 though by no means universal ; that there is evidence that no State, with the 
 possible partial exception noted, intended to assume full responsibility for the 
 
 1 Note, for instance, the legislative debates in New York over the founding of Cornell 
 University. 
 
106 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 college ; that philanthropy clearly did assume that responsibility ; and that 
 philanthropy did direct the policy of every college. We may say that philan- 
 thropy was motivated by religion, and that the church in most cases dominated 
 the movement ; that penury was common in all cases ; that the thousands of 
 small gifts constituted an important asset in that they popularized the idea of 
 the college and so helped to democratize society ; and that the gifts were in the 
 main " to the college " without condition, or, if conditioned, they were almost 
 invariably in accord with the essential lines of the school's growth. 
 
 THE EAltLY NATIONAL PERIOD. 
 
 During the early national period there was no special break in the main 
 forces that had been building colleges in the Colonies. Conditions under which 
 these forces had to work, however, were vastly different, whether we think 
 of the problems of State making, of religion, of industries, of exploration and 
 settlement, of growth of population, or of social philosophy. It was an age of 
 expansion in all these matters and that in a broad and deep sense. 
 
 In the matter of higher education it was also an age of expansion ; expan- 
 sion in numbers of colleges, and, to some extent at least, in educational aim 
 and types of studies offered. 
 
 The Revolution had brought to an end the work of English philanthropy, 
 and in increasing measure State support for established colleges was declining, 
 leaving the task mainly to the churches of the country. The question of the 
 State's function in higher education was soon raised, however, and before the 
 close of the period a solution of the theoretical aspect of the problem had been 
 reached and several State universities well established. 
 
 Whatever of promise there was in this new movement, however, the great 
 college pioneering of this period was done almost entirely by church-directed 
 philanthropy. 
 
 In this period, as in colonial days, the beginnings were small. Academies 
 were often established with the hope that in time they would become colleges, 
 the financial penury so common to the early colleges was characteristic through- 
 out this period, and the subscription list was common everywhere. 
 
 The motive behind the work of the church was not only to spread the Gospel 
 but to provide schools for the training of ministers to fill the increasing num- 
 ber of vacant pulpits reported throughout the period. Denominational lines 
 were strong and undoubtedly led to an awkward distribution of colleges. 
 The motives back of philanthropy in this period differ little therefore from 
 those common to early Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Among the older col- 
 leges, where the curriculum had begun to broaden and professional schools 
 to take form, it was somewhat more common to find gifts made to some par- 
 ticular end. Among the newer foundations we see a fair duplication of the 
 early history of the older colleges, except that the new colleges grew some- 
 what more rapidly. There is in most cases a more marked tendency to give 
 toward permanent endowment, while among the conditional gifts those for 
 professorships stand out strongly everywhere, and gifts to indigent students 
 suffer a decline. 
 
 The development of professional schools, of the manual labor college, and 
 of institutions for the higher education of women mark a change in our 
 educational philosophy and give expression to the changing social life of the 
 times. Most of these experiments were initiated and fostered by philanthropy. 
 
 Medical and law schools originated mainly as private schools conducted for 
 profit, while schools of theology have been philanthropic enterprises from the 
 start. The idea of women's colleges may have originated in the private pay 
 
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. 107 
 
 schools for girls, or ladies' seminaries, common in the South, but the first well- 
 financed college for women was the work of philanthropy, as most all subse- 
 quent attempts have been, and description of the work of philanthropy in these 
 schools would fit fairly well any college of the period. 
 
 The fact that we find philanthropy rising to meet these many and varied 
 educational and social ideas and ideals is not only an important fact in the 
 social life of this country but is also an important characteristic of our educa- 
 tional philanthropy. 
 
 It is early in this period that the church education society comes into exist- 
 ence to answer the call of the church for more and better trained ministers. 
 The work of these societies was extensive, and no doubt resulted in filling 
 many vacant pulpits and church missions. 
 
 During this period, then, we may say that philanthropy did not slacken its 
 interest in higher education, either because of the loss of English support or 
 because of the rise of the State university. Philanthropy was, as before, directed 
 in the main by the churches, and so through the whole period is prompted in 
 the main by religious motives. The chur<* college followed the westward-mov- 
 ing frontier, leaving many evidences of denominational competition for the new 
 field. The failure of these church schools to meet the demands of the ministry 
 is marked by the rise of church education societies whose aim was to provide 
 scholarships and loans for students who would enter the ministry. Philan- 
 thropy was active in the movement toward separate professional schools, in the 
 development of manual labor colleges, and in the origin and development of 
 women's colleges during this period. These new enterprises may with some 
 propriety be called educational experiments, credit for which must go to 
 churches and to philanthropy. 
 
 As to method, there is practically nothing new to record. Permanent endow- 
 ment grows somewhat more popular, and gifts for specified purposes tend to 
 replace gifts to the general funds of the college. Nowhere, however, are the 
 main aspects of the college neglected in favor of the new or unusual features. 
 
 THE LATE NATIONAL PERIOD. 
 
 After 1865 we enter a period of vast expansion in college building as in 
 every other line. Tlie idea of State higher education was worked out, and 
 the question of State versus private and church schools was, for most people, 
 satisfactorily solved. In the new States of the period it was more often 
 the State than the church that established the pioneer institution for higher 
 learning. With the exception of the manual labor college, practically all 
 old ideas and practices in higher education were continued in force. Separate 
 professional schools, women's colleges, church boards of education, and the 
 typical small church college, all went forward, and each seems to have found 
 a place for itself and still shows signs of healthful growth. 
 
 The period is equally well characterized by the development of new en- 
 terprises, back of which were at least a few really new things in educational 
 philanthropy. One is the privately endowed university founded by a single 
 large fortune. Another is the similarly endowed nonteaching educational 
 foundation. 
 
 The more detailed description of the philanthropy of this period brought 
 out the fact that among the old colonial foundations, as well as among col- 
 leges founded in the early national period. State aid was entirely lacking, 
 while gifts were greatly increased both in numbers and size. It was noted 
 that among the old colonial colleges the percentage of conditional gifts in- 
 creased, while gifts to permanent funds showed a slight relative decline. 
 111512°— 22 8 
 
108 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 In the colleges of the early national period almost the opposite tendency was 
 shown — rapid growth of permanent funds and rapid increase in gifts to 
 the general fund. In all the colleges professorships, scholarships, and library 
 were well remembered, though gifts to libraries among the older colleges 
 did not groM'^ so rapidly as was true in the younger schools. Everywhere it 
 has been the fashion to give " to the college " outright or toward some main 
 feature like buildings, equipment, library, professorships, or scholarships. 
 
 As compared with other kinds of philanthropy the data show that higher 
 education is one of the greatest recipients of charity we Irave to-day, that a 
 Vast permanent endowment for higher education is being built up, and that 
 philanthropy still bears the larger portion of the entire burden of cost. They 
 bring out clearly the recent large movement of philanthropy toward the de- 
 velopment of professional and technical schools and women's colleges, and 
 also toward the larger support of church boards of education, the functions of 
 which have been much enlarged in recent years. 
 
 GREAT EDUCATIONAIi FOUNDATIONS. 
 
 During the last portion of the present period the great private foundation 
 appeared as a form of educational philanthropy which was practically new. 
 Each of these foundations represented the ideas and aspirations of the one 
 man whose fortune gave it existence. Dominated by no church or religious 
 creed, and not even by the man who established it, but only by public opinion 
 and the corporation laws of State and Nation, these foundations have en- 
 tered the educational field and left an impress on practically every type of 
 educational enterprise in the country, whether private. State, or church. 
 
 The whole business and financial aspect of higher education has been studied 
 and in a sense made over as a result of the operations of these gifts. The 
 college curriculum has been more clearly differentiated from that of the 
 secondary school, and standards of achievement in studies more clearly de- 
 fined. Attention has been forcefully called to the problem of the distribution 
 of colleges and to the principles which should guide us in locating new col- 
 leges. Millions have been added to the general endowment of higher educa- 
 tion. Medical, legal, and engineering education have been enormously profited 
 by the clear and impartial studies that have been made of these schools and 
 by financial assistance. The scientific study of education has not only been 
 greatly stimulated, but contributions have been made through experiments 
 and investigation. The bounds of knowledge have been pushed out in many 
 directions by extensive and costly research. The principles involved in pen- 
 sions for teachers have been thoroughly studied from every angle and broadly 
 and with some measure of satisfaction established. 
 
 Some doubts and fears and many sharp criticisms have been voiced lest 
 these powerful corporations might seek to bias education and public opinion 
 in favor of wrong social, political, or business ideals. This should be looked 
 upon as a sign of health. Democratic society must not be expected to talte 
 such gifts on faith. Even if there is a grain of danger from such corpora- 
 tions, such danger should be mercilessly weeded out. In seeking for such 
 dangers, however, we must not close our eyes to the obvious benefits which 
 have and must continue to accrue to higher education from these sources. 
 While society must insist upon its right to control such corporations, it must 
 not be blind to the difficulties these foundations have had to face in blazing 
 the new trails which they respectively hive chosen to mark out in the field 
 
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. 109 
 
 of higher education. If the church, the State, the university, the professor, 
 and the general public will continue to distinguish between intelligent criticism, 
 on the one hand, and mere suspicion and gossip on the other, and remember 
 that a wise administration of these gifts is largely dependent upon a cooperat- 
 ing and appreciative beneficiary, then this, the greatest experiment in educa- 
 tional philanthropy that has ever been tried, will continue to prove its wortli 
 to society. 
 
 DEVELOPMENTS BEARING UPON A THEORY OF ENDOWMENTS. 
 
 From all this giving, what have we learned about the meaning of philan- 
 thropy itself? What attitude shall the State, the church, and society in general 
 take toward the great stream of gifts that is continuously pouring into the lap 
 of higher education in the country? 
 
 It is obvious that gifts to colleges are accepted by all as gi-eat blessings, 
 and practically nowhere is there evidence that people fear the power which 
 may some day be exercised through these gifts ; that is how firmly the college 
 has established itself in the confidence of the people. So many thousands of 
 people have contributed small or large gifts to build these schools, so closely 
 have the schools been associated with the church, and so intimately have they 
 woven themselves into the life of the people that they are everywhere fully 
 trusted, and thus far no very bad effects of philanthropy have been felt.* Even 
 the great privately endowed institutions like Cornell (accepted with much 
 misgiving at the outset in many quarters) have now fully won the confidence 
 of the people in general, of the church, and of the State. Thi.s is not surpris- 
 ing in the light of the study of the conditions placed upon the thousands of 
 gifts classified in the course of this study. 
 
 If there is any misgiving in the minds of the people about any educational 
 philanthropy to-day, it is perhaps in reference to one or another of the 
 recently established nonteaching foundations. Here some uncertainty exists, 
 as has been pointed out, though even here there is comparatively little that 
 has not been accepted in most quarters with full confidence. 
 
 If philanthropy has so nearly won the entire confidence of the people, it 
 is because of the record philanthropy has made for itself. In defining the 
 meaning of education, or in setting the limits to its participation in college 
 building, donors have not departed too far from the accepted ideas, ideals, and 
 practices of the time and of the people they sought to serve. IVIillions have 
 been given for permanent endowment but the practice has been to endow 
 " the college," a " professorship,"' a " scholarship," a given line of " research," 
 a "library," and rarely or never to define with any severe detail just what 
 is to be included under the term " college," " professorship," " scholarship," 
 etc. The result is that the writer has found little evidence of harmful or 
 even useless foundations, large or suiall. 
 
 In the light of these facts it seems fair to assume that the great dominating 
 motive in educational philanthropy has been desire to serve society; or, if we 
 prefer, desire for a very high type of notoriety. So far as social progress is 
 concerned, these are but two views of the same thing. 
 
 * The ■writer did not find it feasible in this study to inquire into the number of gifts 
 that have really laid a burden upon the college. In his autobiography. President White, 
 of Cornell, expresses the opinion that our colleges have too frequently been the re- 
 cipients of such gifts as an observatory, leaving the college the responsibility of pur- 
 chasing instruments and caring for upkeep. 
 
110 PHILANTHROPY IN AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION. 
 
 It has been pointed out that most that has been done toward developing a 
 theory of educational philanthropy in this country has grown directly out of 
 the practice rather than out of the studies of social and political theory. The 
 country has faced and solved certain fundamental questions as they have arisen, 
 as : The function of the State in higher education ; the function of the church in 
 higher education ; the function of private philanthropy in teaching and non- 
 teaching activities touching higher education. In settling these questions there 
 has been endless debate and some bitterness of feeling, yet we have fully ac- 
 cepted the idea of State-endowed higher education, and, according to our prac- 
 tice, defined that education in the broadest possible way. This acceptance of 
 State-endowed education did not rule out the church, whose activities in college 
 building are as much appreciated and as well supported as ever. That there 
 should have been a clash between the old idea of church-directed education and 
 the new idea of State education was to be expected. The outcome of such a 
 clash in this country, however, could not have been different from what it was. 
 Similarly, there was a clash between the church and the privately endowed 
 types of colleges, but each has a well-established place in present practice. 
 
 In this country we have not confined ourselves to any single notion about 
 who shall bear the burden of higher education. The State establishes a uni- 
 versity but it also encourages the work of the church and of private philan- 
 thropy.' The practice is therefore based upon a theory that is not fully in 
 line with those of the early English, French, and German philosophers. It is 
 far more liberal, being based rather upon the underlying conceptions of our 
 social and political organization. 
 
 Ownership of property in this country carries with it the right of bequest, 
 and the " dead hand " rests, in some degree, upon most of the institutions of 
 higher education. We fully respect the rights and 'the expressed wishes of the 
 educational benefactors,* but this study shows that the benefactors have 
 also respected the rights of society, not the society of to-day only but that of 
 future generations as well. There has been a growing tendency for colleges 
 and universities to study the terms of proffered benefactions with utmost 
 care and to refuse to accept gifts to which undesirable conditions are attached. 
 Similarly there has been a growing tendency on the part of benefactors either 
 to accept terms suggested by the institution or to make the gift practically 
 without conditions or with specific provision for future revision of the condi- 
 tions named. This, it seems to the writer, marks an achievement which 
 guarantees society against most if not all the evils associated with endowed 
 education. 
 
 After an examination of the hundreds of documents which have furnished 
 the basis of this study, the writer is inclined to look upon educational philan- 
 thropy as an essential and highly important characteristic of democracy. 
 
 If a statement were made of the theory which has been evolved or the 
 principles which have been arrived at in the almost three centuries of prac- 
 tice, they would seem to be about as follows : 
 
 (1) Permanent endowment of higher education by the State, by the church, 
 or other association, or by individuals, is desirable. 
 
 (2) All gifts to education, whether for present use or for permanent en- 
 dowment, whether large or small, should be encouraged, because they open 
 
 ' Usually the property of such schools is made entirely, or at least in part, free from 
 taxation by State laws. 
 
 * As note the Girard College case. 
 
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. Ill 
 
 up large possibilities in the way of educational investigation and experiment 
 and because the donor is brought into an intimate relationship with an enter- 
 prise that is fundamental to the national life. 
 
 (3) The wishes of a donor as expressed in the conditions of his gift shall 
 be respected and fully protected by the State. 
 
 (4) It is desirable that the conditions controlling a gift shall be stated in 
 general terms only, and that the methods of carrying out the purposes of the 
 donor be left largely to the recipient of the gift. 
 
 (5) Finally, it is desirable that even the purpose of a gift should be made 
 alterable after a reasonable period of time has elapsed, and, if it be desirable, 
 that the gift be terminated. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 American Education Society, financial sta- 
 tistics, 74-75. 
 Amherst College, donations and grants, 42 ; 
 Income, 63 ; students receiving aid from 
 American Educational Society, 49. 
 Andover Theological Seminary, gifts to per- 
 manent funds, 43 ; growth, 64. 
 Brown University, charter analyzed, 12-13. 
 Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement 
 
 of Teaching, 85-86, 96-101. 
 Carnegie Institution, 83-84, 91-93. 
 Cleveland Foundation, 87-89. 
 College education, colonial period, cost, 
 
 20-21. 
 College of William and Mary, charter ana- 
 lyzed, 11-12. 
 College professors, colonial period, salaries, 
 
 21-22. 
 Colleges, finances of, colonial, 16-19. 
 Colleges and universities, charters analyzed, 
 10-14 ; donations and grants, early na- 
 tional period, 37-43, 45-47 ; donations 
 and grants, late national period, 53-54 ; 
 early national period, establishment and 
 sources of support, 35-37 ; growth in 
 late national period, 53-54. 
 Colonial period, 10-32. 
 Columbia University, charter analyzed, 11- 
 
 12 ; donations and grants, 26, 42. 
 Cornell University, donations and grants, 
 
 71 ; income, 73. 
 Council of Church Boards of Education, 
 
 work, 78. 
 Dartmouth College, charter analyzed, 
 
 13-14. 
 Early conception of philanthropy, 1. 
 Early national period, 33-52, 106-107. 
 Education societies, philanthropy, 47-51. 
 Educational donations and grants, 17-20, 
 
 23-32, 56-62. 
 Educational foundations, 81-102, 108-109; 
 place in Adam Smith's free-trade econ- 
 omy, 3-4 ; place in Turgat's social 
 theory, 1-3. 
 Endowments, 103-104, 109-111. 
 Evangelical Lutheran Church in the United 
 
 States of America, 76. 
 General Education Board, 84-85, 93-96. 
 Harvard University, donations and grants, 
 . 23, 39 ; charter analyzed, 11-12. 
 Hobhouse, Sir Arthur, on " dead haud " in 
 education, 7-8. 
 
 112 
 
 John F. Slater Fund, 82-83, 91. 
 Johns Hopkins University, donations and 
 grants, 71 ; ideas and purposes of 
 founder, 68. 
 Late national period, 53-80, 107-108. 
 Leland Stanford Junior University, dona- 
 tions and grants, 71-72 ; object of 
 founder, 69. 
 Lowe, return to free-trade principles, 7. 
 Manual-labor colleges, 45-47, 65-67. 
 Methodist Episcopal Church Board, finan- 
 cial statistics, 76. 
 Mill, John Stuart, opposition to theories of 
 
 Turgot and Smith, 5-7. 
 Mount Holyoke College, endowment and in- 
 come, 64-65. 
 Oberlin College, funds, 66-67. 
 Feabody Educatior Fund, 82, 89-91. 
 Phelps-Stokes Fund, 86-87. 
 Political influence. Colonial period, 15—16. 
 Presbyterian Education Board, financial 
 
 statistics, 75. 
 Princeton University, charter analyzed, 11— 
 
 12 ; donations and grants, 25. 
 Religious and denominational influences. 
 
 Colonial period, 14-14. 
 Religious education societies, philanthropy, 
 
 73-78. 
 Rockefeller Foundation, 87. 
 Russell Sage Foundation, 86, 101. 
 Rutgers College, charter analyzed, 13-14. 
 Smith, Adam, place of educational foun- 
 dations in free-trade economy of, 3-4. 
 Theological education, early national 
 
 period, 43-44. 
 Turgot's social theory, place of educational 
 
 foundations, 1—3. 
 University of Chicago, Income, 72 ; pro- 
 vision of charter, 69—70. 
 University of Pennsylvania, charter ana- 
 lyzed, 11-12. 
 Vassar College, donations and grants, 70- 
 
 71 ; educational aims, 67-68, 69. 
 Von Humboldt's theory, 4—5. 
 Women, education, early national period, 
 
 44-45. 
 Women's colleges, late national period, 64— 
 
 65. 
 Yale University, charter analyzed, 11-12 ; 
 donations and grants, 24 ; gifts, 39. 
 
 o 
 
\ 
 
 VITA 
 
 Jesse Brundage Sears: Born, Hamilton, Mb., September 
 25, 1876. 
 
 Academic Training : Elementary education at the Wooder- 
 son school, Davies Co., Mo. ; Graduated from Kidder Institute 
 (academy), Kidder, Mo., June 1902; Bachelor of Arts degree 
 at Leland Stanford Junior University, June 1909 ; Part-time 
 student at University of Wisconsin, 1909-1910 ; Student, Chicago 
 University, summer quarter, 1910 ; Student, Teachers College, 
 Columbia University, 1910-1911 and summer term, 1911 ; Student 
 assistant, Stanford University, 1907-1909 ; Assistant in Educa- 
 tion, Columbia University, 1911 ; Research scholar. Teachers 
 College, 1910-1911. 
 
 Professional Experience : Rural school, Davies Co., Mo., 
 1897-1900; Grade teacher, Kidder public schools, 1902-1903; 
 Supervising principal, Kingston, Mo., public schools, 1903-1905 ; 
 Principal, Hamilton, Mo., high school, 1905-1906 ; Instructor, 
 University of Wisconsin, 1909-1910 ; Instructor, Stanford Uni- 
 versity, 1911-1912 ; Assistant Professor, Stanford University, 
 1912-1917 ; Associate Professor, Stanford University, 1917 — 
 
 Author : ' ' Classroom Organization and Control, ' ' Boston, 
 Houghton Mifflin Co., 1918; Joint author, "The Boise Survey," 
 Yonkers, N. Y., The World Book Co, 1920; Joint author, 
 "School Organization and Administration," Yonkers, N. Y., 
 The World Book Co., 1916. 
 
/ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ,^ 
 
 5 89 - 
 
 \ 
 
'A\v ,.*^'*^fe\ -^^^^ **'*^^'^'°- \/ .•;^'- %,^ 
 
 l\ 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 v--^'y %*^-^/ \'^!^\#^ \. 
 
 
 .^^■^^f- 
 V ^ 
 
 "^< 
 <^^. 
 
 
 
 ^