Class. Boi*- l-(Q.n4 A OFFICIAL UONA.TION. 57th Congress, ) SENATE. j Report Id Session. ) ^^ (No. 945 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. Ul^IYEESITY OF THE UI^ITED STATES. Apeil 1, 1902.— Submitted by Mr. Deboe, from the Committee to Establish the University of the United States, and ordered to be printed. [To accompany S. 3943.] WASHINGTON: GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1902. JAN 29 IHU3 D.ofD, CONTENTS. Report of the Senate Committee to Establish the University of the United States 5 Including — Reasons for a University of the United States 6 Unanimous action of the National Educational Association in 1869, 1870, 1871, and 1874 10 Emphatic action of said National Educational Association in 1901 11 Unanimous action of the Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations, in 1901 12 Action of the United States Senate and its Committee since 1890 15 Conditions have changed, but for the better 16 Why the long delay?.. 16 The Carnegie statement as to his original and present intent 31 Present status of the National University enterprise 32 Hearings in support of the national university measure (supplemental to the hearings by the members of the executive council of the national university committee, published in the Kyle report, No. 429, Fifty-fourth Congress, first session, part 1 ) by — Dr. Chas. D. Walcott, Director United States Geological Survey 35 Mr. W J McGee, ethnologist in charge, Bureau of American Ethnology.. 36 Ex-Gov. John "W. Hoyt, chairman national university committee 45 A University at Washington, by Hon. Andrew D. White, United States ambas- sador to Germany 49 The Urgent Need of a National University, by President David Starr Jordan, of Leland Stanford Junior University 56 Discussion of the report of the "committee of fifteen" before the national council of the National Educational Association at Detroit, in July, 1901, by President James H. Baker, University of Colorado, and Ex-Governor John W. Hoyt, chairman national university committee 61-64 Address on a National University, by President .Joseph Swain, of the Indiana State University, before the Indiana State Teachers' Association, 1901 68 A National University: a Study, by William A. Mowry, of Massachusetts 76 The Constitutionality of a National University, by Edmund J. James, presi- dent American Academy of Political and Social Science 82 Letters on a National University by — Rev. Frank Sewall, Washington, D. C, in review of Messrs. Carnegie and Alex. Graham Bell 91-95 Ex-Gov. John W. Hoyt, chairman national university committee 95 The Proposed National University, by Ex-Gov. John W. Hoyt, chairman national university committee, review of Chas. D. AValcott 98 List of members of the National University Committee 108 Three hundred letters from prominent citizens indorsing the national uni- versity measure (being supplemental to 400 such letters published in the Kyle report. No. 429, Fifty-fourth Congress, first session, parts 1 and 3) 118 3 REPORT OF COMMITTEE. The Committee to Establish the University of the United States, to whom was referred the bill (S. 3943) to establish the university of the United States, having considered the same, report as follows: It is already well understood that the importance of a national uni- versity, at the capital of the country, has been urged almost without interruption, and by great numbers of the most eminent of Americans, from even before the inauguration of the Government, and in all periods of American history. It is also undeniable that the interest in the proposition to establish such an institution so increased, notwithstanding the delays of Con- gress, that, having in the past enlisted national organizations, scientilic, educational, and patriotic, it culminated at length in a popular move- ment, led by a national committee, including in its membership not only such educators as the presidents of leading colleges and universi- ties to the number of over two hundred, and the State superintendents of all the States, but also other hundreds of the foremost of statesmen, jurists, ecclesiastics, scientists, the heads of national organizations, and men of affairs. And it is further true that bills to establish a national university prepared by those giving direction to the general movement have been several times unanimously reported by committees of the Con- gress to which they were referred; once by the House Committee on Education, and twice by the Senate committee especially created on motion of that distinguished jurist and statesman. Senator George F. Edmunds, in the year 1890, for the purpose of considering the whole subject and of giving proper form to a measure which it would seem to have been the purpose of the Senate to approve, when duly perfected, almost without dissent. Nevertheless, during the long inaction of the University Committee (1897-1901) queries have arisen in the minds of some touching the original proposition — the changed conditions, the actual present need, possible interference, and embarrassments, if the university were once established, etc. And why ? In the opinion of the National University Committee of four hundred, as stated by its chairman, not alone because 5 6 CJlSriVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. of the misapprehensions which have naturally come of the inaction of the committee, but also because they less than f ullj^ realize our country's present deficiencies, the distinguishing features of a true university, the duty of the Government in this high regard, and the reasons why a great and true university, free from all local or religious prejudice, should be founded by the Government, at Washington — because they fail to realize: I. That, in the words of the eminent Thomas Hill, former president of Harvard, "A great and true university is [still] a leading want of American education." n. That the offices of a true universit}^ are these : 1. To supplement existing institutions by supplying full courses of graduate instruction in every department of learning. 3. By its central faculties and cluster of professional schools of .high- est grade to represent at all times the sum of human knowledge. 3. To lead in the upbuilding of new professions by its applications of science. 4. To lead the world in the work of research and investigation. HI. That the Government should establish such a university because: 1. Neither existing institutions nor the great denominational univer- sities in prospect can meet the demand. The nation only is equal to the founding of such a university as the nation needs. 2. The nation needs its influence upon the Government service. 3. The American system of education can only be made complete by the crowning university it lacks, as a means of coordination and inspiration. 4. A national university would powerfully strengthen the patriotic sentiment of the countr3\ 5. A national university would more strongly than any other attract men of genius from every quarter of the world to its professorships and fellowships, thus increasing the cultured intellectual forces of both institution and country. 6. A national university would especially attract students of high character from many lands, whose return after years of contact with free institutions would promote the cause of liberal government every- where. 7. The founding of a national university would be, therefore, a most fitting thing for a great nation ambitious to lead the world in civiliza- tion. IV. That the reasons for founding such university at Washington are: 1. Washington was designated by the Father of His Country in his bequest of property in aid of its endowment and by his selection of land for a site. 2. Washington is the only sufiicient and convenient spot where the Government has both exclusive and perpetual jurisdiction. UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 7 3. There are in the Government departments and connected therewith vast amounts of material that could be made auxiliary, and which, being now but partiall}^ utilized, are in some part an enormous capital running" to waste. 4. There are hundreds of experts in the departments whose services could be more or loss utilized with mutual advantage. 5. Such a university in Washington would exert a great influence upon the National Government itself in every branch and department. Your committee would especially emphasize the facts that the national university would fulfill offices vital to the nation, which can not be fulfilled by any other institution; that a supplemental univer- sity of this high character would surely help and not hinder any other institution; that it would lift the United States from their secondary rank in education to the foremost place among the nations; and that the pending bill asks for no appropriation in any form — simply the right to be and become. These declarations appear so clear and convincing that the case might be rested upon them alone; and yet its importance is such that 3^our committee have been led to make new researches and a fresh dis- cussion of the whole subject, especially (1) into the soundness of the reasons which led to the earnest, persistent, and self-sacrificing efi'orts for a central and national universit}^ made by the founders of the Republic and by so many others alike eminent in public affairs, gener- ation after generation; (2) into the reasons for the delay of more than a century; (3) into the university proposition as it now stands, and the reasons given by the national university committee, and other friends of the enterprise, for continuing to urge the measure upon the attention of the Senate. It should also be stated that in making this new investigation your committee have drawn very fully upon the national university committee for the historic facts presented, and for their present views, as also upon adverse discussions whenever found. MOTIVES OF THE FOUNDERS OF THE GOVERNMENT, AND OTHER EARLY PATRIOTS. It is agreed that among all the patriots who wrested the American colonies from the hand of British tyrann}'' none had broader or more far-reaching views of the provision to be made by the founders of the new nation than he who had led their heroic armies to final victor3\ And with him the thought most deeply impressed was that the intelli- gence of the people must be made the corner-stone of the Republic. Wealth of resources, unparalleled energy, and ambitious aims, however worthy, must surely come to naught, in time, without knowledge on the part of its self-governing members. Nor could a wise framing of its policies and the surest shaping of its destinies, much less a place of high dignity and honor among the nations of the earth, be hoped for 8 CNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. without the means at home of such deep and thorough culture as stands for a knowledge of all human experience; of those principles of government which give the best assurance of securit}^, prosperity, and peace, as well as of all that science, literature, and the arts have achieved — such training of the powers, moreover, as would best insure the progress of civilization by means of invention and discovery. Washington carefully surveyed the whole field, and when he came, first, to the presidency of the Constitutional Convention, and finally to the Presidency of the United States, was, by virtue of those very elements of character which made him immortal, resolved that the means of education, in its broadest and highest sense, should be recog- nized as a leading consideration at the very beginning of the Republic. Although not himself a scholar, in the academic sense, he had made himself familiar with the educational status of foreign lands, and, as he surveyed the field of the colonies, found gratification in the work •^ already done at old Harvard, William and Mar}^, Yale, Columbia, Princeton, Washington and Lee, Dartmouth, Hampden-Sidney, Rut- gers, Brown, and Pennsylvania. Still, it was plain enough that not even the foremost of them had passed, or were soon likely to cross, the boundary line of the college; and no less plain that, if they had, they could never hope to meet all the important demands of the coun- try in the field of the higher learning — could never fulfill such special and all-important offices as he had in view, and as are still in view, for the proposed national university at Washington. Washington was not pleased to have the more gifted, advanced, and ambitious of our young men to leave their own country and seek in foreign lands, at great expense, and at the serious risk of acquiring false ideas of society and government, the higher education denied them at home; nor did he believe that in the time to come the Ameri- can people would be content to remain borrowers from the other nations of the things which are highest — of the things, moreover, especially necessary to our security, success, and true greatness as a republic. Accordingly we find that Washington's conception of a national uni- versity at the very first, was that of an exclusively graduate institution . / at the National Capital. It was to be so high in rank as to afi'ord to college graduates— and to such only — those facilities for the very highest studies which otherwise must be sought in foreign lands. Moreover, it was to be so related to the other educational institutions in the several States as to be to them a source of practical aid and of new inspiration, while at the same time equipping men for the best of public service, both at home and abroad, for the solution of difficult problems important to the Government, and for work of the highe"st order in the several great fields of research and investigation, with a view to the general progress of mankind. In other words, it was to UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 9 give greater security to our liberties, contribute to our intellectual independence as a self-governing- people, and insure to us an earlier and more enduring frontage among the advanced nations of the earth. Of course a scheme so grand and beneficent readily found supporters among the intelligent, heroic, and ambitious patriots, who, having led the Revolution to a triumphant issue, were already joining hands for the beginning of a great nation. Their illustrious commander's views and aspirations were shared and warmly indorsed b}^ his comrades in arms as well as by the public journals of the time, and b}^ all the more thoughtful of those who were to have part in the constructive work to be undertaken. The considerations which moved Washington in this great matter were those which later moved the Constitutional Convention over which he presided in 1787, and which so strongly moved man}^ of the dele- gates, notably James Madison, Charles Pickering, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin, to urge the incorporation of a suitable provision for such a provision in the Constitution itself as a means of making its realization more sure. Such also were the considerations which moved Dr. Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence, in framing his address to the people of the United States, and Samuel Blodgett in the pages of his work on economics ("Economica"). Such were the considerations that kept the university enterprise so constantly in the mind of Washington during and after his eight years of service as President of the United States; that inspired his several messages on the subject to the Congress, and his many earnest letters, formal and special, to Thomas Jefferson and Vice-President Adams, to Alexander Hamilton and Edmund Randolph, his Secretaries of State, to the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, Governor Brooke, of Virginia, and others. Such, too, were the considerations that moved him to make selection of a site for the universitj^ in the cit}^ of Wash- ington; and that finally led to the provision in his last will and testa- ment for a bequest of $25,000, in the then valuable stocks of the Potomac Company, as the beginning of what he hoped would become a sufficient endowment — and evidentl}^ with no question that Congress would very soon establish the institution and make any provision that might be necessary to the further security of the stocks with which he had begun the endowment. Such were the motives that influenced Thomas Jefferson to his cooperation with W^ashington, and afterwards, as President, to give the utmost prominence to the university proposition in his discussions with members of his Cabinet and in his message of December 2, 1806, to recommend early action, for the further reason that it was then possible to endow the institution with lands that would be "among- the earliest to produce the necessary income." 10 UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. Such were the high considerations that made James Madison, while President of the United States no less than when delegate in the Con- stitutional Convention, so tenacious of his ground that he strongl}^ recommended the establishment of the university in his first, seventh, and last messages. Such, in short, were the considerations that have insured to Wash- ington's proposition the sympathy of no less than nine Presidents of the United States, of whom many were not only earnest in their action, but also readjT^ with material aid. It was because of the high character of the institution proposed and its recognized value that Samuel Blodgett was enabled to notify the House of Representatives in 1795 that subscriptions toward a national university had already been made to the number of 18,000 and that a sum amounting to $30,000 had been actually received. Such were the considerations that prompted Gustavus Scott, William Thornton, and Alexander White, commissioners appointed under the " Act to establish the temporary and permanent seat of the Govern- ment of the United States," to memorialize Congress in 1796 for the enactment of a law "authorizing proper persons to receive pecuniary donations, and to hold estates, real and personal, which may be granted, for the use of the university about to be established " — a peti- tion so ably championed by James Madison, chairman, and b}^ others of the committee to whom it was referred, that it finall}^ failed, through postponement, by only one vote. It was for such a university that a special committee of the House of Representatives in 1816 urged favorable action upon President Madison's recommendation touching the selection and appropriation of lots in the District of Columbia, and presented a bill for its immediate establishment. It was for just such an institution that a little later on the most eminent men of science throughout the countr}^, such as Louis Agassiz, O. M. Mitchell, Richard A. Dana, Benjamin Peirce, and Alexander Dallas Bache, spoke and wrote during a period of several years, and rallied the American Association for the Advancement of Science in its behalf. It was for such a university that the National Educational Associa- tion — upon the showing made by one of its members. United States Commissioner John W. Hoyt, after an exhaustive educational tour of Europe and America, in 1867-1869, and full report thereon by request of the Government — took the matter up, in 1869, and created a general committee, with authority to submit reports and prepare a bill. Said committee. Dr. John W. Hoyt, chairman, submitted three suc- cessive reports, each of them unanimously agreed to in committee and unanimously adopted by the great association, the second of which UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 11 submitted the following outline of the national university, as then con- ceived after a most careful study: It was not deemed important in submitting our first report, nor is it necessary in this, to mark the details of what the institution should be. * * * It may be proper, however, to state in general terms: (1) That it should be broad enough to embrace every department of science, liter- ature, and the arts, and every real profession. (2) That it should be high enough to supplement the highest existing institutions of the country, and to embrace within its field of instruction the utmost limits of human knowledge. (3) That, in the interest of truth and justice, it should guarantee equal privileges to all duly qualified applicants for admission to the courses of instruction, and equal rights, as well as the largest freedom, to all earnest investigators in that vast domain which lies outside the limits of acknowledged science. (4) That it should be so constituted and established as to command the hearty support of the American people, regardless of section, party, or creed. (5) That its material resources should be vast enough to enable it not only to fur- nish, and that either freely or at nominal cost, the best instruction the world can afford, but also to provide the best-known facilities for the work of scientific investi- gation, together with endowed fellowships and honorary fellowships, open respec- tively to the most meritorious graduates and to such investigators, whether native or foreign, as, being candidates therefor, shall have distinguished themselves most in the advancement of knowledge. (6) That it should be so coordinated in plan with the other institutions of the country as not only in no way to conflict with them, but, on the contrary, to become at once a potent agency for their improvement and the means of creating a complete, harmonious, and efficient system of American education. * * * The idea of a national university is as old as the nation, has had the fullest sanc- tion of the wisest and best men of succeeding generations, and is in perfect harmony with the policy and practice of the Government. The permanent committee of the National Educational Association, consisting- of Dr. John W. Hoyt, of Wisconsin, chairman; ex Presi- dent Thomas Hill, Massachusetts; Mr. E. L. Godkin, New York; Hon. W. P. Wickersham, State superintendent of public instruction, Pennsylvania; Dr. Barnas Sears, Virginia; Col. D. F. Boyd, president University of Louisiana; Dr. Daniel Read, president University of Missouri; Dr. W. F. Phelps, president State normal school, Winona, Minn.; ex-Governor A. C. Gibbs, Oregon; Hon. Newton Bateman, State superintendent of public instruction, Illinois; with the following ex officio members: The president of the National Educational Asso- ciation, the National Commissioner of Education, the president of the National Academ}^ of Sciences, the president of the National Association for the Advancement of Science, and the president of the American Social Science Association; with the help of Senators Charles Sumner, Timothy O. Howe, J. W. Patterson, Matthew H. Carpenter, John J. Ingalls, W. B. Allison, L. Q. C. Lamar, and James A. Garfield; Profs. Joseph Henry, Spencer F. Baird, and Louis Agassiz, and others, ofl'ered a bill, upon which the House committee submitted a strong 12 UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. and unanimous report on March 3, 1873, from which the following- passages are taken: It is unnecessary to frame an argument to show the special importance of university- culture in a country like ours, where the administration of public affairs, the molding of our political institutions, and hence the destinies of the Republic, are intrusted to representatives chosen by the people; where, moreover, as nowhere else, there must constantly arise new problems demanding the sure light of science — material, social, and political — for their solution. It is not enough that the American Republic be distinguished by the universality of common education; it should be no less distin- guished by the prevalence of thorough culture. * * * Passing now from the question of need to the question of how that want is to be met, the committee are satisfied that it can not be by any institution at present exist- ing, for these reasons: (1) That none has or is likely to have the pecuniary resources essential to the highest and most complete university work. (2) That none can be made so entirely free from objection on both denomiaiational and local grounds as to insure the patronage of the people, regardless of section or partisan relationship. (4) That no institution not established upon neutral ground, or other than national in the important sense of being established by the people and for the people of the whole nation, and in part for a national end, could possibly meet all the essential demands to be made upon it. * * * The committee acknowledge the force of these views of the founders of the Gov- ernment, and hence are prepared to indorse the sentiments expressed in the pream- ble to the bill under consideration, namely, that "it is the duty of every government to furnish to its people facilities for the highest culture," and that "such facilities can not be otherwise so well provided for the people of this nation as by founding a university so comprehensive in plan as to include every department of learning, so high as to embrace the limits of knowledge, so national in aim as to promote concord among all sections, and so related to other institutions as to promote the efficiency and with them form a complete system of American education." Thenceforward there was continuous advocacy of the university- enterprise by other eminent men, such as United States Senator G. W. Wright, of Iowa; President James McCosh, of Princeton; President George P. Ha3'S, of Washington and Jejfferson College, Pennsylvania; President Daniel Read, of the University of Missouri; President Ulys- ses S. Grant, in his message of December 1, 1873; United States Sen- ator Timothy O. Howe, of Wisconsin; President and Ambassador Andrew D. White (on many occasions); the editor of the American Journal of Education; G. Brown Goode, of the Smithsonian Institu- tion; President Rutherford B. Haj^es, in his messages of 1877 and 1878; Hon. L. Q. C. Lamar, Secretary of the Interior; President Charles Kendall Adams, of Cornell and Wisconsin Universities: Albert Haupert, of the University of Berlin, Germany; Prof. Herbert B. Adams, of Johns Hopkins University; Prof. James C. Welling, of Columbian University; Dr. Otis T. Mason, a curator of the National Museum; Supt. William A. Mowry, editor of Education, Salem, Mass. ; ex-United States Senators James R. Doolittle, of Wisconsin; Patrick Walsh, of Georgia; James F. Wilson, of Iowa; Carl Schurz, of Mis- UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 13 souri; William F. Vilas, Wisconsin; J. B. Henderson, of Missouri; Ambassador Wayne MacVeagh, and a great rmmber of others. It was this abiding interest in the Washington idea of a national university that finally led Senator George F. Edmunds to the begin- ning of systematic efforts in Congress for its establishment: (1) By presenting to the Senate, on May 14, 1890, "A bill to estab- ^ lish the University of the United States." (2) By securing the formation of a Senate Select Committee to Establish the University of the United States—a committee of which Redfield Proctor was the first chairman, with Senator Sherman and seven others as colleagues. (3) By securing the permanency of said committee, with authority to act during the recess of Congress. (4) By after-cooperation with said committee as a member of the national university committee, and of its executive council. It was a deep appreciation of the ends to be attained by the proposed national university that led the Human Freedom League to favorable action in its behalf at its Philadelphia meeting in 1891, and that moved the Pan-Republic Congress of 1891 to adopt strong appreciative reso- lutions in support of the movement and to appoint a national commit- tee for its promotion. It was a conviction of the importance of a national university that led ex-Governor John W. Hoyt, former chairman of the national university committee of the National Educational Association, also chairman of the national university committee of the Pan-Republic Congress, to present to the Senate his "memorial in regard to a national university" in 1892. It was a like realization of the need of a national university that l^rompted the Senate committee to approve the unanimous report upon the Edmunds bill, submitted by its chairman. Senator Proctor, in 1893; to the like unanimous report of said committee (though somewhat differently constituted) submitted by Senator Hunton in 1894, and that later gained a hearing upon the bill by the Senate; Senators Hun- ton, Vilas, and Kyle being its advocates. It was also this same deepening desire and purpose of the patriotic educators, men of science, and statesmen of the country that brought about the enlargement of the aforesaid committee of the Pan-Republic Congress, under the new title of National Committee to promote the establishment of the University of the United States, and to the forma- tion by it of an executive council, which council, since the decease of ex-Senator and ex-Attorney-General Garland, Dr. G. Brown Goode, of the Smithsonian Institution; Dr. Gardiner G. Hubbard, presi- dent of the National Geographic Society, and Dr. William Pepper, €x -provost of the University of Pennsylvania (all of whom had part 14 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. in the framing of bill S. 1202, Fifty-fourth Congress, first session), is composed of the following members: The Hon. Melville W. Fuller, Chief Justice of the United States. Ex- United States Senator George F. Edmunds, of Vermont. Hon. Andrew D. White, United States ambassador to Germany. Ex-Governor John Lee Carroll, general president Society of Sons of American Revolution. Gen. Horace Porter, late president-general Society of Sons of American Revolution, ambassador to France. Ex-United States Senator Eppa Hunton, of Virginia. Ex-United States Senator J. B. Henderson, Missouri and District of Columbia. Col. Wilbur R. Smith, of Kentucky University. Gen. John Eaton, ex-United States Commissioner of Education, etc., District of Columbia. Lieut. Gen. Nelson A. Miles, commanding the Army. Hon. Hilary A. Herbert, ex-Secretary of the Navy. Prof. S. P. Langley, Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. Prof. Simon Newcomb, late Director of the Nautical Almanac. Hon. John A. Kasson, ex-member of Congress, ex-United States minister to Austria. Hon. Oscar S. Straus, ex-United States minister to Turkey. Ex-Governor John W. Hoyt, chairman of the national university committee. It was, moreover_, a spirit of determination that induced said execu- tive council of the national committee, at the end of 1895, to hold a meeting of several lengthy sessions, the Hon. Melville W. Fuller, Chief Justice of the United States, presiding, and every member but one being present, to ofier the new bill (S. 1202, Fifty-fourth Congress, first session) presented to the Senate immediately afterwards, and to support the same by the arguments of most of its members personally made before the Senate committee in January, 1896. And it was an appreciation of the measure so presented that led to favorable action by the Senate committee, and to the very full report, accompanied by said hearings and by some 300 or 400 letters from dis- tinguished citizens in earnest support of the measure, which Senator Kyle, then chairman of the committee, submitted to the Senate on March 10, 1896; which report, owing to the subsequent absence of the chairman and repeated assurances of early return, was never called up in the Senate. -Finally, in so far as the Senate is concerned, it was to this same end that the Senate committee as constituted during the years 1897 to 1901 amended, then agreed, without dissent, upon the new bill (S. 3330, Fifty-sixth Congress) introduced by Senator Depew on February 26, UNIVERSITY UF THK UNITED STATES. ' 15 1900, and prepared a report thereon; which said amended bill, report and accompanying papers were never submitted to the Senate. It can not be denied that this array of facts, covering- more than a century of time and presenting so remarkable a succession of earnest and distinguished advocates, has a meaning, and should carry weight in determining the fate of the measure before us. But, on the other hand, the question has arisen: HAVE NOT CONDITIONS CHANGED IN ALL THESE YEARS? To this the national committee's answer is emphatic and seems suffi- cient, namel}^: "Yes; conditions have changed very materially, and this accounts, in chief part, for the growth of interest in the university cause. "It is true that when General Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and others who were emi- nent among the founders of the Republic began their efforts the country was of limited area and had but small resources for the edu- cation of its 3,000,000 people. It had a dozen or so of colleges, but these were in large part preparatory schools for elementary work, with but small college classes, few professors, and scanty facilities gen- erally. But the demand for a national university at Washington was not made for these reasons. It was not the intent of true patriots to relieve the people of the States by building a great college and main- taining it at the expense of the Government, thus creating both a relief institution and a favored competitor with the local schools, and doing the whole country more harm than good. It was rather, as has been shown, first, to supplement other institutions by doing for the graduates the}^ might send out the further service they could not ren- der, and secondly, to meet those high and special demands of people and government which none but a crowning university, with special and national aims, could hope to do. "With increase of territory and of population, with consequent development, there was also a corresponding increase of schools and colleges; but still the special and national needs remained unsatisfied. Not onl}^ so, but the more common demand for better facilities and opportunities for higher studies was also without satisfaction right along through the years. Colleges calling themselves universities multiplied on ever}^ hand, but the demand for post-graduate facilities was not met to a noticeable extent until long after the middle of the century — was not even verj^ earnestly attempted to any considerable extent until there came a revival of the old appeal for a true univer- sity at the capital of the nation. "It was then, near the end of the third quarter of the century, that Mr. Johns Hopkins began a i institution in which the higher and 16 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. special training should be a prominent feature. The more important of the older institutions were thus aroused to new effort for enlarge- ment, and undertook as never before some of the functions of a uni- versity. Later still, and but recentl}", \ et other institutions, more after the plan o r Johns Hopkins, were founded, and have received, and are receiving, very considerable endowments from princely givers like Messrs. Vanderbilt, Leland Stanford, John D. Rockefeller, and Mrs. Phebe A. Hearst. "Nevertheless, after more than a hundred years of development it remains true that, in the highest sense — nay, jn the Washingtonian sense — there is not a single university in the Western World, Aye, this great Republic, with its boundless material resources, its population of seventy-five millions, characterized by an energy and genius un- matched, its newly acquired possessions, and its new ambition to be first in power, is, like the lesser republics of Central and South America, still content to be a borrower of the things most precious from our less numerous, less wealthy, and less powerful neighbors in the Old World. In plainer speech, while counting ourselves already'' richer than the richest, if not indeed mightier than the mightiest of the nations, we seem to be more eagerly than ever striving for j^et other sources of wealth and power, as if these alone constituted the greatness of a nation, and so leave thousands of our aspiring college graduates to find as they can the intellectual advantages we fail to supply them at home, and to glory in foreign bequests ! ' ' It would seem that, with this new growth of power and importance in the world, thought most serious should now be given to the means absolutely necessary to a corresponding intellectual independence — nay, to an acknowledged supremacy in all the higher arts of civilization." This reasoning is surely sound, and we must admit that the change of conditions since the time of Washington has indeed been such as to increase rather than diminish the demand for every possible means requisite to the highest culture, both for its own sake, as a condition of civilized life, and because it would so help the United States to a place of highest honor among the nations. True, a national university alone could not do all things, but it would furnish the keystone to the arch in American education and meet other high demands which can not be fully met in any other way. WHY, THEN, THIS DELAY OF A CENTURY? The question of delay imposes a task not diflicult, though tedious, for the reasons are many. Much as we honor the patriots of the Revolution and the men who did their best in founding the Government and building the nation — all of them — ^it is be3^ond question that a majority of the Delegates and UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. l7 Members of the National Legislature were both detifient in learning and without knowledge of w-hat post-graduate learning meant, and hence could not appreciate the anxious interest of the better-informed leaders. Possibly in the poverty of the time they also counted the cost, little as the several presidents had proposed to do for the institu- tion financially. Nor is it impossible that some of them, unable to realize the boon it would be to all the people, to all other educational agencies, and to the Government, thought the founding of it would be more or less a favoring of the more fortunate, or a sort of class legislation in the interest of the few and best conditioned. Nay, it is not altogether certain that these same suggestions could not with equal justice be applied to the later times. Still another reason for the delay most certainly lies in the fact that such a measure, having in it neither a personal advantage, pecuniary or political, nor a possible local enhancement of values for any of its constituents, would be likely to suffer from neglect on the part of many a legislator already occupied with matters of more personal inter- est and pressing concern. And there is yet another, in the fact that every measure of less than stirring interest, and yet requiring appropriations in some form, as the first university bills did, needs appreciative advocates in number on the ground to push it, men who will stay with it and spend their time^ energy, and money for it without stint, especially when the demands upon the Treasury are great. And hence it is that the several univer- sity bills have been luore difficult to interest legislators in than many others, even in the held of education. For example, the agricultural- college bill had the several advantages of an able and determined leader in the Senate, a great number of colleges and universities to be strength- ened bj^the increased endowments it would give, a host of agricultural societies readily enlisted, and a still greater army of intelligent farmers, miners, and mechanics, as well as many lovers of science for its own sake and for its numberless possibilities, all ready and eager to work day and night for the passage of the Morrill bill, which became a law in 1862. Quite different has it been with the measure under present considera- tion, in all the past. But happily there has been a steadj^ increase in the proportion of cultured men in Congress, and it can not be doubted that to-day there is sufficient understanding of American deficiencies in the very highest field of education (wholly beyond the test of the col- leges), and in the most thorough qualification of men for the public service, as well as sufficient pride of country, to insure immediate favorable action, if they should but for once take the time to look the ground carefully over. Nor is this the whole of the case, under the head of dekys. S. Rep. 945 2 18 UNIVEESTTY OF THE UNITED STATES. Adverse forcejf have been at work, espeeiallv in recent years. They are for the most part personal, local, and denominational ambitions — ambitions without a scintilla of patriotic fire in them, set over against a measure which looks soleh" to the completement of the American system of public education, with absolute freedom from partisan bias of ever}^ name and nature, to more effective means of insuring the best possible administration of the Government in all its departments, and to an acknowledged leadership for our country in the advancement of knowledge and in all things requisite to the highest civilization. Since their overthrow in discussion before the Senate committee, in the said committee's reports, in magazine papers, and the newspaper press generally — say within the last hve years — there has been greater activity among the enemies of the university measure than ever before in forcing upon the uninquiring public the stale objections of other days, as stated and answered by the chairman of the national uni- versity committee; these, for example: 1. First of all, it is said, there is really no need of better facilities for university education than the country now has — no need of the proposed post-graduate uni- versity. And this not-\A'ithstanding tlie emphatic utterances by a long line of our foremost educators, beginning with President Hill, of Harvard, who again and again, and more earnestly than ever of late, have declared "a true university" to be the "lead- ing want of American education;" this notwithstanding the annual exodus of between 3,000 and 5,000 of our college graduates for stud}' and research in the greater and better-equipped universities of the Old World; this notwithstanding our recent special appeal to the University of Paris; this notwithstanding the present desperate struggle of every one of even our foremost institutions to meet the demand for better opportunities for post-graduate work at home; this notwithstanding the earnest desire of those heads of considerably more than 100 colleges and universities (includ- ing such as are foremost in the entire country) which lead in this work, that the Gov- ernment of the United States should come to the rescue by the establishment of a university which in the early future shall be more amply endowed and better cir- cumstanced than any we now have can reasonably hope to become. How narrow must be the range of such an objector. Because his own or a neigh- boring institution seems to him large and prosperous, though meeting simply the collegiate demands of those who are its students, and looking hopefully to the time when it may become in the true sense a university, he excludes that whole series of important functions and relationships that would attach to and characterize the pro- posed national university at the seat of Government as they could not possibly attach to any other in the United States. I mean not alone those supplementary, coordi- nating, and stimulating influezices upon all the other educational agencies, to which reference has already been made, but rather those offices which it alone could fulfill in its relation to the people and to the Government itself. Established by the people and for the people, managed by men of first eminence and chosen from all divisions of the country without distinction of party or creed, conducted interiorly by men illustrious for their attainments and achievements in their several departments of learning, and attended by college graduates of superior gifts and aspirations from every portion of the country, the National University would command the attention of the whole people as no other institution could, giv- ing to them new conceptions of the extent of human knowledge, actual and possible, ONIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 19 with a consequent increase in their appreciation of the whole series of schools, which, as so many steps, lead up to the highest, and thus arousing in them a new and increasing interest in the great cause of American education, and in the honor of the nation. 2. It is also said that the trend of educational thought is against such a proposition as ours; that the French, German, and Austrian governments are multiplying their universities instead of spending their strength upon one. "Such objectors see not with the illustrious astronomer, Gould, that educational centralization is eminently distinguished from political centralization, and by this peculiarity, among others, that far from being a combination for the sake of aug- menting and exercising a greater collective power, it acts, on the contrary, to aug- ment individual influence. While forming a nucleus for scientific, literary, artistic energy, it is not a gravitation center toward which everything must converge and accumulate, but is an organic center whose highest function is to arouse and animate the circulation of thought and mental effort and profound knowledge. It is a nucleus of vitality rather than a nucleus of aggregation. * * * An intellectual center for a land is a heart, but subject to no induration; it is a brain, but liable to no paraly- sis; an electric battery which can not be consumed; it is a sun without eclipse, a fountain that will know no drought. To such a university our colleges would look for succor in their need, for counsel in their doubt, for sympathy in their weal or woe. There is no one of them but would develop to new strength and beauty under its genial emanations; none so highly favored or so great that its resources and pow- ers would not expand; none too lowly to imbibe the vitalizing, animating influences which it would diffuse like perfume." 3. One of the objectors has even ventured to assei-t that, while it may have been well for the Government to do something for elementary education, higher education on the other hand is rather a luxury and may be left to take care of itself— the very thing it can not do, because of the large smns requisite for the costly manning and equipping of great institutions, and which, if wholly left to private benefactions, are ever liable to be ruinously mortgaged to some crudity of the endower or to some tenet of religious faith. For answer to this point, without stopping to show^ how, in education, the lower depends on the higher, I have been content to quote the words of two of America's foremost educators, namely, those of Hon. Andrew D. White, former president and uphuilder of Cornell University, and of that most illustrious apostle of popular edu- cation, Horace Mann. It was President White who, in discussing this very national university proposi- tion, said: "And, finally, I insist that it is a duty of society itself— a duty which it can not throw off— to see that the stock of talent and genius in each generation has a chance for development, that it may be added to the world's stock and aid in the world's work. Now, it is just this talent and genius which, as all history shows, private capacity and the law of supply and demand will not develop." And it was Horace Mann who boldly declared, "No man in our country and in our times is worthy the name of statesman who does not include the highest practicable education of the people in all his plans of administration." 4. Again, it is urged that if it must be conceded that better and the very best graduate facilities are still needed, nevertheless that one should not be established by the National Government for a number of reasons, to wit: In the first place, says the objector, "it could hardly be kept out of politics;" quite forgetting how entirely our great military and naval academies have escaped this danger; how perfectly free from political interference has been our own noble Smithsonian Institution "from first to last; how the great State universities have developed and flourished under the fostering care of legislative bodies far more liable than the Congress of the United States to be influenced in such matters by party 20 UNIVEESITT OF THE UNITED STATES. considerations; forgetting, too, that educational and scientific work is less interfered with by both legislative bodies and the pubhc in proportion as it passes into the - higher fields, and that the pending bill duly limited the Government. 5. Still more serious than any of these is said to be the embarrassment tb.at might come to the existing colleges and universities to be overshadowed, minified, stripped of their professors and students and reduced to nothingness by the competing central institution. How strangely such objectors ignore about all the elements involved in the rela- tionship to be established. They seem not to understand that, first gf all, the Uni- versity of the United States is to be exclusively graduate; which fact of itself relieves the more than 400 of our collegiate institutions of every possible ground of anxiety, and should open to their view (as it does with the majority) the incalculable bene- fits that would come to them in the consequent correlation of all the higher institu- tions, in the unification of their work, in the elevation of standards, in the better supply of better-fitted men for their many faculties, in the stimulation the national university would give to their thousands of ambitious students by the opportunities, honors, and distinctions held aloft to them in the face of the whole world. As for the newer institutions established within the recent years, but few of them have so much as a well-founded hope of doing a very large amount of the work of a university in the bigher sense, which consists in original investigations by great leaders in many fields of inquiry, and in the induction of gifted minds into the methods of those researches by means of which the boundaries of knowledge are enlarged and mankind is advanced in material and spiritual power. They are mixed institutions, all of them; seeking to do, first of all, the proper work of the college; second, to supplement this as far as limited means and forces will allow hy advance work in the lecture room for such as have already received the bachelor's degree, and third, to attempt such work in the laboratory as may seem in a manner to justify the university title. [An objection, moreover, made futile by that provision of this bill which demands higher attainments than those represented by the degree of A. B.,a condition of admission to the greater field of general studies beyond.] It is needless to add that, while many such institutions have done and are doing the work of the college very well— unless it be that they attach too much importance to the learning of many things and too little to that discipline which gives added power — the "university work" attempted is for the most part done very scatteringiy, at great disadvantage, and, of course, with verj^ partial results. The talk of ruinous "competition" is groundless, therefore. Most of the existing institutions would be without the shadow of a claim to sympathy on this ground. Such few as have begun graduate work are divided on the question; the older and less progressive taking needless alarm, while the newer ones, though doing a much larger proportion of advanced work, with high courage and a better understanding of what the national university would be, are cordial supporters of the new move- ment, as will appear from the "Godspeed" they have so often wished the national committee of promotion. They know, first of all, that even if some of their graduate work should also be undertaken by the central institution, there are many things worse than an honorable competition — that, as ' ' competition in business is the life of trade," so in the higher fields of original scientific work it often leads to individual triumphs and to scientific progress for the world. These last also know that a central and national institution, interested above all in the welfare of important university agencies, would gladly find ways for a practical reali- zation of all that is so wisely provided for in the pending bill, which reads as follows: "The university shall have authority to establish with other institutions of edu- cation and learning in the United States such cooperative relations as shall be deemed advanta,geous to the i^ublic interest." UNIVEKSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 21 A real university, manned and equipped for this higher work only, would not merely supply this growing demand of our country and age by relieving a multitude of our collegiate institutions of the seeming necessity to keep pace with ambitious and better endowed competitors by attempting impossible things; it would enable them to concentrate their means and forces upon their proper work, and thus con- tribute to that thorough scholarship of which, with all our schools, colleges, and so-called universities, there is too little in this country anywhere. If any one of these were vastly better endowed, officered, and furnished it would still be unable to exert that coordinating, correlating, stimulating, and uplifting force so greatly needed and so sure to be exercised by a post-graduate university of the highest type, established at Washington and bearing the stamp of the nation. Denominational ambitions, local jealousies, and State rivalries would prove insur- mountable to even the best of them and there woidd still be a demand for the Uni- versity of the United States. The fear of embarrassment to existing institutions is therefore wholly groundless. The planting of the proposed institution would doubtless have the effect to satisfy some of the so-called universities that they are still far from the mark of their high calling. And that would be 'an excellent service. The majority, seeing the present impossibility of becoming more than merely nominal universities, would wisely limit themselves to the solid and more useful work of the college, as before intimated, thus perfecting the scholarship of those whom they are to qualify for the business of life or for entrance upon the work of the university itself. And such of the institutions as are really able to do something valuable in the way of research and of leading graduates of genius into the highest fields of effort would naturally limit themselves to fewer subjects, thus increasing the probability of an abler handling of them, and drawing into their work such students as for various reasons would find it for their interest to utilize the facilities near home, instead of coming to Washington. Moreover, while this work of readjustment is going on the central institution will be gathering in those ambitious graduates of many colleges and universities who would otherwise have entered directly into their chosen life pursuits; giving to them opportunities for advanced learning in the various departments, training them for those investigations by means of which the knowledge of mankind is increased, and thus fitting for the highest service in the colleges and universities in the several States a score of men of supreme qualifications for every professor drawn to the national center. 6. Another and very strange objection concerns the relation of education totheRepub- lic. It has an antiquated look and provokes a query concerning the means of its foster- ing and survival to this day. It is said, and said as if settling the whole business, that it is no proper function of the Government to care for the interests of education; that education is not essential to the security of the Republic; that if it can not be had without the help of the Government it is better that it should not be had at all; that this helping of the people to the means of education is even dangerous to our institutions; nay, that it "saps the foundations of public liberty;" — as if the Govern- ment of the United States were an independent personality having powers absolutely and wholly its own, capable of giving to the people a force and substance they do not in and of themselves possess, and thus invading their independence and weaken- ing their self-reliance; as if the Government were not in fact a body of servants appointed to do the people's work within prescribed limits, the people themselves being the masters, decreeing and doing through and by their servants whatever is done, and hence being in no sense separable, either in fact or in thought, from the Government itself. Touching this whole subject of a just relationship between Govern- ment and the higher education, we can not do better than to quote from an address b}^ Dr. William T. Harris, present United States 22 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. Commissioner of Education, before the National Educational Associa- tion, at Detroit, in 1874: But the most obvious and often repeated objection to the proposed national uni- versity is drawn from the nature of our national politics. It is contended that we have a certain low standard of politics, and that whatever is directed, managed, and supported bj^ the State suffers inevitably from political influence. A university founded under the management of our National Government would be the prey of demagogues, it is thought. This view is developed and supported chiefly by those who hold the theory that our Government should exclude from its functions an interference with education or with other functions within the range of civil society. Civil society and the state are only different phases of the same organic human com- bination; in the former, in civil society, the individual uses the organization for his own sustenance and support, and the furtherance of his private ends through the agency of wealth; in the latter, the state, the organization, exists in its unity, and subordinates all individuals to its end. The state must exist as the logical condition of the existence of civil society and the welfare or rational existence of the individual. Unless the individual devotes his life and property to the state and acknowledges the supreme right to use him and his he does not properly recognize his position. But it exists whether con- sciously recognized or not by the citizen or statesman. Now, from the reciprocal relations of the functions of the state and civil society as related to the individual, it follows that the state as a directive power of the organism as a whole must legis- late regarding all such phases as relate to its own self-preservation and perpetuation. No other people ever before started such a theory as the one which asserts or pre- supposes in some form the denial of an organic relation of state and society. So long as we undertake to realize this theory we shall act a farce between ourselves and the intelligence of mankind. We shall do practically in spite of ourselves what we condemn in theory. By a common movement the foremost nations of Europe have advanced to the position that public education is a concern that ^ itally interests the state. No state can allow its productive industry to fall behind that of other nations. Independence can not be long preserved on such terms. Directly, as necessary to the war material, and indirectly as essential to productive industry, the education of the w^hole people is indispensable, and the Government can not afford to leave it to arbitrary private benevolence or to the zeal of the church. The great desideratum in this country is to kindle still more the zeal of our legis- lators on behalf of public education. To attempt to cool their zeal is to w'ork a mis- chief. It behooves our Government to see to it that education is national and not sectional or sectarian, or a matter of caste. On no other nation is this injunction laid so heavily. The foundations of our Government rest on popular education. Other nations have always seen to it that their directive intelligence was educated at the expense of the state. They even go further in our time, and educate their sinews of war and the quality of their productive industry. We, in America, are connnitted to universal public education implicitly by the Constitution of our Gov- ernment, which is a Government of the people by the people. Not only must the citizen here be able to read and interpret the laws of the land for himself, but he is expected to possess and exercise the requisite intelligence to make the laws which he is to obey. All the evils which we suffer politically may be traced to the exist- ence in our midst of an immense mass of ignorant, illiterate, or semi-educated people who assist in governing the country, while they possess no insight into the true nature of the issues which they attempt to decide. If in Europe, and even in China, the directive classes are educated at public expense, how essential is it that the republican state shall, before all, insure universal education within its domain. UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STA.TES. 23 Such also are the views of the chairman of the national university committee, who says: The accepted doctrine of to-day is certainly this: That the Government is of the nature of an agency estabhshed by the people for their convenience, and for their permanent as well as present advantage— that the Constitution is a binding agree- ment of the people as to the purpose and organization of this agency and the char- acter of the agents to be employed, the manner of their choosing, and the scope of the duties they are to perform. And who will say that the people, acting through this agency, are not both competent and in duty bound, in constitutional ways, to avail themselves of their own means to their own highest good? Such was the theory of the founders of the Government and framers of the Con- stitution; such the view of Washington, who repeatedly, and especially in his last annual message to Congress, pointed out several ways in which a national university, established by the Government, would prove a bulwark of free institutions; such the theory on which the Federal Government not only established those noble training schools for the Army and Navy at West Point and Annapolis, but has also made such provision for elementary and secondary education as has resulted in the public school system pecuUar to this country; such the theory on which Government provision was early made for the partial endowment of universities in a number of the great States of more recent organization; such the theory on which, by the act of 1862, provision was made for the esta1:)lishment of- those schools of agriculture and the mechanic arts which have furnished to thousands of needy students scientific oppor- tunities otherwise impossible, and which have so materially advanced the practical arts, while adding to the resources, attractive powers, and general usefulness of the institutions in connection with which the most of them were established; such the theory on which Congress provided for the so-called experimental stations, with a view to the advancement of the art of husbandry— things done, every one of them, by the people through their agents, and in the joint interest of community. State, and Nation. Is not this also the theory on whit'li the Government has taken part in our inter- national expositions, and has inaugurated surveys and explorations for discovery in the interest of science and for increasing the honor of the American name? Is not this the theory on which, at a cost of so many millions, have been established and are liberally maintained at this national center that grand cluster of half a hundred educational, scientific, and industrial bureaus, museums, observatories, laboratories, libraries, and the like, which are contributing so greatly to the dignity, honor, and general welfare of the nation? Is not this the theory, after all, on which was but recently created and equipped a new great department of the Government, the Department of Agriculture? In view of all these facts and of that vast array of facts and considerations so easily marshalled, how misconceived and groundless seem all the objections that were ever urged against the one final step, greatest of all, which looks to the more effective service of those important agencies, as well as to their larger utilization in the interest of education— in short, to the earlier opening up, better husl^anding, wiser direc- tion, and perpetual development of the resources, both material and intellectual, of a great nation, so magnificently planted and so wonderfully endowed ! That such final step will be taken, and with a liberality commensurate with the great end to be accomplished, there is no longer room for question. The Government can not now repudiate or reverse its beneficent and far-reaching policy in the interest of science and learning. The American people, having early realized the vital necessity for a general enlight- enment of the masses, were not slow in coming to understand how the vastness and variety of our resources and the rapid progress of other nations were making both 24 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. great and growing demands upon the industries of the country, which they were powerless to meet without the help of science; nor can it be doubted that they have now also come to a realization of how truly the conspicuous place we hold among the nations and the nature of our Government, as well as the genius and aspirations of our people, imperatively demand the best possible facilities for that high culture and that work of research which are essential to intellectiial supremacy, and hence are reasons deep and urgent for the earliest possible establishment of the crowning university of the United States. ECCLESIASTICAL OPPOSITION. It appears from the Kyle report of 1896 that at the hearings of that year before the Senate Committee earnest opposition was made hj the Chancellor, of the so-called "American Universit}^''' and some of his coadjutors, which opposition the chairman of the national university committee dealt with as follows: The chief opposer's first argument was to this effect, namely: There can be no uni- versity without a school of theology. A national university, which must be impar- tial, could not teach theology without teaching all the religious faiths, which would be impossible. Therefore, it could never become a university — an institution embrac- ing the whole circle of the sciences, arts, and letters. It seems not to have occurred to this reverend advocate that so much of theology as is dearest to him is a matter of belief only, and hence not of science at all; or that if some religious belief must be taught in order to constitute a university, the institution which he i^roposes as a substitute for the national university would find itself about as badly off, since in the estimation of all the other 142 religious denom- inations in the United States the educational organization which he represents would be but the one hundred and forty-third part of a university, according to his own theory. On the other hand our ecclesiastical opposer does not seem to have had in mind that the greater part of what is taught in a theological course may be as properly te-ught in the national university as in his own; nor that we are now neither in for- eign lands nor in the dark ages, Avhere and when theology led the way, but in the midst of very different conditions, and living under a Government which left the church responsible for its own affairs. Possibly it has not occurred to him that, with the University of the United States at the national capital, there will still be room for as many purely theological schools as the 143 denominations are likely to find the means to set up; each of them sustaining friendly relations with the great central university and drawing freely from its fountains of pure learning. Nor, last of all, does it seem to have entered the bishop's mind that, with the rapid enlargement of the vast field of human knowledge which the whole world accepts, there has gradually come a new conception of things, and such revision of terms that the mere beliefs of the multitudinous sects are no longer of necessity constituent parts of a true university. 2. This same objector inquires, "How could you teach political economy in a national university? ' ' What a question! In the first place, what better means of teaching political economy would his own denominational university possess? Would it teach one or both sides of the party questions? If but one side, then he is his own accuser; and if both or all sides, why could not the national university do the same? Does he" seriously doubt that the national university would have all the conflicting econo- mies taught, and by representative men of such acknowledged competency as would UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 25 satisfy all demands? Political economy is taught in the undergi-aduate courses of all our higher institutions, so that graduates would come to the national university already familiar with the general principles, though ofttimes with a bias, one way or the other, because of the narrowness and unfairness of a professor who could not honorably state the whole argument, pro and con. At the national university they would hear both or all sides and thus be competent to reach a just conclusion. This objection, like the other, does little credit to the information of the opposer, who ought to know what is already done in this regard at leading institutions, American and foreign. Touching this whole matter the pending bill distinctlj^ provides that "in all the operations of the universitj^ neither sectarian nor partisan preferences shall be allowed." Does our objector's charter guarantee as much? Does he not practically admit that his own proposed institution is to be one-sided? The other objections, concerning modern history, etc., are not deserving of confu- tation. 3. Next it was urged that the nondenominational universities are not extraordinary successes, and in terms which made it very apparent that the reverend objector is not in sympathy with the public-school system of the country, of which so many of said universities constitute a part, and that he would have the American people go back to the good old times when the ambitious lover of learning must choose his creed and pay, or starve. He also forgets all the great schools of the East. The assertions as to this matter are not sustained bj^ the facts. Many of the State institutions are so new that it is unfair to compare them with those whose l^eginnings go back one or two hundred years. But, regardless of this point, it is beyond question that several of these State and other nondenominational universities are at this very hour leading the ancients in most important matters, while yet others are rapidly moving to the front. The statement that the present tendency is rather toward denominational control is not true. Nor is the specific statement concerning Cornell University, to the effect that it had been necessary to change its charter, giving to the evangelical, churches a majority control, correct. It is flatly denied in every particular by ex-president Andrew D. White, who drafted the charter and has been familiar with the institution from its very foundation. As a matter of fact, everything like intensity of denominationalism is on the wane among the greater institutions. Men everywhere are broadened and lil^eralized by the higher studies. To effect this very thing is one great office of the higher education. The friends of the coming national university have nothing to say against the denominational institutions. Not a few of them bravely, and with sacrifices to be ever gratefully remembered, met as they could the intellectual cravings of our youth in the times ere there came any just recognition of the obligations resting upon the State and National Governments to create and perfect a series of public schools from lowest to the highest possible — a series that should be worthy the high title of American system of public education- — and to throw around that system every pos- sible safeguard, as though it were the very cradle of liberty. Let the denominational schools flourish. They meet a demand that will continue. We lay not one straw in their way. Nay, as said before, by the founding of the national university there will be secured to them, as to all our educational institutions, a needed service such as no other instrumentality could offer. As touching the claims of this denominational opposer, we simply urge that, since only a portion of the 70,000,000 of Americans are of his particular faith, it is illiberal, unpatriotic, and absurd for him, as the self-appointed champion of an incipient sec- tarian institution, intended, as shown by its charter, for but a new universitj' of the ordinary type, to claim the whole remaining ground, to the total exclusion of sutji an one as George Washington and other founders of the Government originated and outlined; as eight other pr^idents of the United States have favored; as so many of 26 LTNIVEESTTY OF THE UTSriTED STATES. our most eminent citizens have at various periods most earnesth" advocated; as chiefs of the great body of the higher institutions have strongly recommended and are now recommending; as is warmly urged by State superintendents of public instruction in every State of the Union; as is heartily approved by leading scholars, scientists, and statesmen of the whole country. AVe further say to this ecclesiastical objector that the national university is not intended for undergraduate youth at all, but for graduate students who shall have already passed through the courses of moral training supplied by the religious agen- cies of the country, and are prepared in their manlier years to enter upon those studies which lead into special fields of intellectual activity. 4. Last of all, this distinguished champion of a denominational institution, under an "American" name, made an end to his series of misconceptions and misrepresenta- tions with an attempt to weaken the patriotic sentiment which rightfullj^ attaches to the national university proposition, by saying of WashingtoUj "He spoke only of an institution for instruction in political science. He did not mean such a univer- sity as is set forth in this bill; not at all." To show how strangely this bold declaration l)efore the Senate committee misrep- resents the facts in the case, I have but to quote from Washington's letters, as follows: (1) From his letter of December 15, 1794, to Edmond Randolph, Secretary of State: ' ' For the reasons mentioned to you the other day, namely, the Virginia assembly being in session, and a plan being on foot for establishing a seminary of learning upon an extensive scale in the Federal city, it would oblige me if you and Mr. Madi- son would endeavor to mature the measures Avhich will be proper for me to pui'sue in order to bring my designs into view as soon as you can make it convenient to your- selves." (2) From his letter of March 15, 1795, to Thomas Jefferson: "And, lastly, as the seminary is contemplated for the completion of education and study of the sciences, not for boys in their rudiments, it will afford the students an opportunity of attending the debates in Congress, and thereby becoming more lib- erally and better acquainted with the principles of law and government." (3) From his letter of March 16, 1795, to Governor Brooke, of Virginia: "Presuming it to be more agreeable to the general assembly of Virginia that the shares in the James River Company should be assessed for a similar object in some part of that State, I intend to allot them for a seminary to be erected at such place as they shall deem most proper. I am disposed to believe that a seminary of learning upon an enlarged plan, Ijut yet not coming up to the full idea of a university, is an institution to be preferred for the position which is to be chosen. The students who wish to pursue the whole range of science may pass with advantage from the seminary to the university, and the former, by a due relation, may be rendered cooperative with the latter." (4) From his letter of September 1, 1796, to Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury : "1 mean education generally, as one of the surest means of enlightening; and giving just views of thinking to our citizens, but particularly the establishment of a uni- versity, where the youth of all parts of the United States might receive the i:)olish of erudition in the arts, sciences, and belles-lettres, and where those who v/ere disposed to run a political course might not only be instructed in the theory and principles, but (this seminary being at the seat of the General Government where the Legisla- ture would be in session half the year, and the interests and politics of the nation would be discussed) would lay the surest foundation for the practical part also." (5) From his annual message of December 7, 1796: ■ "The assembly to which I address myself is too enlightened not to be fully sensi- ble how much a flourishing state of the arts and sciences contributes to material prosperity and reputation. True it is that our country, ,much to its honor, contains UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 27 many seminaries of learning highly respectable and useful; but the funds upon which they rest are too narrow to command the ablest professors, in the different departments of liberal knowledge, for the institution contemplated, though they would be excellent auxiliaries." It is everywhere manifest in Washington's correspondence and conversations on this subject that his far-reaching mind and patriotic heart were full of a demand for exactly the kind of an institution which, in honor of his name, for the. cause of learn- ing, and for the sacred cause of country, not only we at this distance in time have planned, but which such patriots as Dr. Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence, and a leading scientist of his time, had in mind when, in his appeals to the country in support of the national-university proposition, in 1788, he said: "To effect this great and necessary work let one of the first acts of the new Con- gress be to establish within the district to be allotted for them a Federal university, into which the youth of the United States shall be received after they have finished their studies and taken degrees in the colleges of their respective States." 5. The vice-chancellor of the new denominational university was hardly more fortunate than his predecessor in the discussion. Passing without comment 'his reference to the "question of constitutional right," brief notice may be taken of his question of " the moral right to take the money of the many and spend it for the superior educational advantage of the few." Strange questions these from such a representative ! Yes, it is the moral right — and the moral as well as the patriotic duty — of the Government of this Republic to do whatsoever is necessary to the highest possible culture, on American soil and in friendly intercourse from every section, of those to whom in large part are to be committed the destinies of our country; the security of our free institutions; the national development in every field of worthy enterprise; our dignity as a nation, honorably and liberally providing for its own; our proper place in the very front rank of an advancing civilization. Some 3,000 to 5,000 American graduates are to-day seeking abroad the post- graduate facilities which they can not find at home; and, secretly, some of those who oppose this university movement are pleading for yet other favors of that sort in the universities of France. Presidents Washington, John Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, John Qcincy Adams, Jackson, Grant, and Hayes were moved by an honorable craving to be free from dependence on foreign powers in all these high regards, and hence officially favored the founding of a national university. The claim by them made is still urged, and with increasing earnestness by a multitude of the foremost of American citizens. But for reasons not far to seek this talk of the constitutional and moral right to do a similar thing to that which has been done for the whole series of public schools, from the primary school to the State university, would be incomprehensible. It is only matched by that in which, with the Senate university bill in his hand, this sec- ond reverend objector declared that "the institution proposed by this bill will not really supplement the other schools of the country, and does not propose to do any- thing beyond college work." 6. And then this same vice-chancellor, in the next moment, expresses anxiety about the secular trend of the State and independent institutions, and so is hoping to supply the demand for truth and righteousness by building up an intensely sec- tarian institution, to the preclusion and everlasting exclusion of a truly national one. Does he assume that a State or national university must of necessity be Godless unless it be under denominational control? Is not this a Christian nation in a broader sense than is represented by any denominationalism? And does not a spirit of reverence, that fundan:iental element of religion, almost of necessity prevail wher- ever there is an earnest seeking after truth? 28 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 7. Finally, the vice-chancellor, in his sympathy for other institutions, including especially those which his chief had disparaged, was moved to urge that a strong national university would embarrass the universities in the States. Why, then, do the managers of such institutions want it? Because they clearly see that by establishing such a post-graduate institution at the capital the Govern- ment will give a new dignity and value to the higher learning everywhere, and thus insure to the other institutions of the country a larger patronage and a more enthusi- astic support— that it will help, and not hinder, as said before; and not alone by the increased interest in higher learning which it will surely awaken everywhere, but also by its new and unfailing supply of men of highest attainments, for instruc- tion in their several departments. 8. The rather presumptuous and elaborate attempt of the zealous trustee, put for- ward by the opposing denominational party to weaken the confidence of the Senate committee in the constitutional powers of the Government as to this matter, might well remain unnoticed (since the arguments offered have been passed upon so many times by the ablest of jurists) but for his statement of certain facts in the records of the Federal Convention in a form and manner quite evidently intended to make it appear that the omission to adopt the proposition of Messrs. Charles Pinckney and James Madison to include in the Constitution the power to establish and provide for a national university was on account of opposition to the thing itself sought to be made secure. On the contrary, it is clearly manifest, from the only accounts we have, that said omission was solely because of the prevailing opinion (1) that nothing not absolutely necessary should be put into the Constitution and (2) that an express provision therein for the projjosed university was unnecessary, since "the exclusive power at the seat of government would reach that object." The record goes further and shows that, notwithstanding this prevailing opinion, five of the twelve delegates who had part in deciding the question voted to include the provision as a means of making the university more sure. It noM'here appears that a solitary word was uttered against the desirability of the proposed university. 9. The novel features of the trustee's discussion were the anti-Catholic argument and his plea for sympathy in behalf of the yet infant denominational institution in the other quarter of the District. To the first it is sufficient to say that it is not the business of the Government of the United States to have anything to do with the antagonisms or ambitions of religious organizations. It was divorced from the church when it was founded, and must leave this whole matter to those directly concerned. In answer to the second I merely call attention to the facts that the efforts for a national university began more than one hundred years before his OAvn institution was thought of; also, that the recent renewal of such efforts by the introduction of Senator Edmund's bill and the formation of the Senate's Select Committee to Estab- lish the University of the United States, on May 14, 1890, considerably antedated the charter from the District Commissioners of his institution on May 28, 1891. If these objectors really wanted an American university, why did they not join hands with Senator Edmunds and other able friends of such an institution? There was not difference enough between "American," "National," and "United States" to con- stitute a bar to any high purpose in so important a matter. Perhaps I should not disturb the happy dreams wherein a great sectarian school was so easily forming itself with the help of a taking misnomer or einbarrass well- devised schemes for a raising of funds on the strength of rosy views of an "Ameri- can " institution that would more than realize the aspirations of Washington while under a two-thirds majority control of a single religious sect, nor is it pleasant to interfere with any man's schemes for large fortunes out of lands on the other side of the Potomac, but I will confess to no little surprise at such a showing as these UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 29 men have made, as if it were argument and a tit illustration of superior ethics in education ! Since the great Catholic Church wants a high university of its own, is frank enough to christen it "The Catholic University of America," and is strong enough in both means and purpose to build it, let it do so. Its right can not be challenged. And, in hke manner, if any denomination with a contrary faith is ambitious to match this undertaking by l^uilding up a great institution of its own, it is equally its right, and they who plan and name it will do well to be as frank and courageous as the vigorous supporters of a more ancient faith; but for the nation there is demanded a national university, wholly free from either sectarian or partisan bias, and for faithful service in the interest of science and learning, of the nation itself, of freedom, and of the highest good of mankind. There has also been active opposition from a vei\y few of the great and nonsectarian universities — all of them at the northeast and priding themselves quite as much on age as on real v^^orth. The most of their students hav^e alwa3\'^ been mere college lio^'s, and many of their graditates hasten to finish their studies abroad. The noble Universit}^ of Virginia and all the moi'e important institutions of the South and West have always been staunch supporters of the National University measure. The opposition of the four older institutions is well understood. For more than a century they have all struggled to gain and to hold a foremost place in the university ranks, and have accomplished so much that neither they nor their friends find it easy to yield any point that ma}" look to the establishment of an institution which, because of its centrality, its supreme standards, its national functions and its inter- national relations, would, in the nature of the case, secure to it a fore- most place among the universities of the world. They simply mis- understand the situation, and it has not been possible for the present leaders in these universities to see how truly the University of the United States, when duly established, would become a mighty force for their advancement, confining its general work to fields beyond those of the other universities, and for the most part limiting itself to special fields and those of research and investigation. As for the "American University,'"' its own friends in large num- bers, including some bishops and a dozen or so of the better of the Methodist colleges and universities, of w^hich it was expected to be chief, have been so far displeased with the adoption of a misleading- title, with a plan less than equal to that of a university, and with the extraordinary character of its opposition to the national university measure, that they have turned their backs upon that enterprise and allied themselves with the greater cause. The movement of what for a brief space was called the "Washing- ton Memorial Institution " is said to remain even yet a mystery with many who were supposed to understand it. But a careful inquiry shows that the purpose behind it all was to head ofi' and finally defeat 30 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. r the national universit}- enterprise, as planned by its friends, and to make the institution, when established, very different— anything but a supreme and complete University of the United States, True, there were in this sinister movement a few persons who were members of the national university committee, and who had given to the chairman of that committee cordial letters indorsing its enterprise, but, with few exceptions, they were unaware of the design and nature of the Washington Memorial Institution, and, taken together, were strangely led and dominated by the old-time enemies of the national imiversity measure. It appears to the carefully observing friends of the univer- sit}' measure that this association was adopted, if not devised, by the ''committee of fifteen" of the national council of the National Edu- cational Association, and was thought by its planners very sure of the whole countrj^'s approval. Nevertheless, its fate was sealed four times within the same six months. First, by the. overwhelming negative vote by which the report of the committee of fifteen was rejected, receiving as it did only three votes out of twenty-seven. It has been said that even the chairman of the committee did not vote for it. How could he, after writing to the chairman of the national universit}^ committee the following letters and others like them : The University of Chicago, Chicago, Septemher 6, 1892. My Deae Sir: In reply to your favor of the 2cl instant I assure you that you may count me as one of the friends of the movement in behalf of the national university. I have always believed in such an institution, and will continue to believe in it. There is everything to be gained and nothing to be lost. I have read with much interest the summary and contents of your proposed report. I shall read the same with great interest. I remain yours, very truly, Wm. R. Harper, President. The University of Chicago, Chicago, January 4, 1895. My Dear Sir: Please accept my thanks for your favor of December 20. I rejoice with you in the onward movement of the proposition to establish the University of the United States. I sincerely hope that an early action of Congress on this bill may be secured. Whatever I can do to forward the movement will most gladly be done. I remain yours, very truly, Wm. R. Harper, President. Second, by the overwhelming vote in the general assembly of the National Educational Association, which, it is said, carried the follow- ing resolution, offered by President Jesse, of the University of Missouri, with a shout: Resolved, That this association does hereby reaffirm its former declaration in favor of the establishment by the General Government of a national university devoted, not to collegiate, but to true university work. UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 31 Third, by the unanimous passage of the following resolution by the Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations: Resolved, That the Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations record its appreciation of the action of the Government, through the Depart- ment of Agriculture, which opened the facilities for research for advanced work at Washington in response to the request of this association; and further express its desire that these facilities be still further extended; and that it would welcome with satisfaction the development and organization of a national university devoted exclu- sively to advanced and graduate research. Fourth, by the rejection of the nondescript Washington Memorial Institution by Mr. Andrew Carnegie and the substitution of a scheme of his own now in process of evolution. True, in this last matter of the Carnegie institution and its liberal endowment of f.10,000,000 the friends of the national university movement were badly disappointed, for encouraging words had been given by Mr. Carnegie to the chairman of the national university committee. On the other hand, the national university committee were gratified to note that upon the announcement of Mr. Carnegie's gift for educa- tion in Washington the ne\Yspapers of the countr}^ almost without exception, understood and spoke of it as so much of an endowment for the proposed national university, thus showing what the public judgment has been and is. A yet more encouraging fact is found in the address of Mr. (yarnegie before his board of trustees on the 29th of January, 1902, wherein he uses these words: My first thought was to fulfill the expressed wish of Washington by establishing a university here, but a study of the question forced me to the conclusion that under pi'esent conditions, were Washington still with us, his finely balanced judgment would decide that in our generation, at least, such use of wealth would not be the best. One of the most serious objections, and one which I could not overcome, was that another university might tend to weaken existing universities. Mj- desire was to cooperate with all educational institutions, and establish what would be a source of strength and not of weakness to them, and the idea of a Washington university, or of anything of a memorial character, was therefore abandoned. It cost some effort to push aside the tempting idea of a Washington university, founded by Andrew^ Carnegie, which the president of the Woman's George Washing- ton Memorial Association was kind enough to suggest. That may be reserved for another in the future, for the realization of Washington's desire would perhaps jus- tify the linking of another name with his, but certainly nothing else would. This gift, or the donor, has no pretensions to such honor, and in no wise inter- feres with the proposed university or with any memorial. It has its own more modest field, and is intended to cooperate with all kindred institutions, including the Washington university, if ever built, and it may be built if we continue to increase in population as heretofore for a generation. In this hope I think the name should be sacredly held in reserve. It is not a matter of one million or ten millions, or even of twenty millions, but of more to fulfill worthily the wish of Washington, and I 32 UJSTTVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. think no one will presume to use that almost sacred name except for a university of the very first rank, established by national authority, as he desired. Be it our part in our day and generation to do what we can to extend the boundaries of human knowledge by utilizing existing institutions. Encouragement is also found in a paper by Dr. Daniel C. Gilman. president of the Carneg-ie Institution, in Scienct for February 7, 1903, wherein he says: Nothing has been done in founding the new institution, the Carnegie -Institution, to further or to hinder the estal^lishment of a national university which has been so many times proposed to Congress. The Carnegie Institution is simply a new force for the promotion of science, ready to cooj^erate with other institutions which are now or may be established in Wash- ington or elsewhere. WHAT, THEN, IS THE PRESENT STATUS OF THE NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ENTERPRISE? The leaders of the movement speak with a zeal and confidence greater than ever. They say: "While much has been lost to the university cause for the reason that the Senate committee's chairman did not submit the report agreed upon during the Fifty-sixth Congress, and by the decease or absence of thos'e earnest champions, Senators George F. Edmunds, Eppa Hunton, James H. Kyle, John C. Mitchell, and William F. Vilas, ex-Senator and ex-Attorney-General A. H. Garland, Gardiner G. Hubbard, president of the National Geographic Society; William Pepper, ex-provost of the University of Pennsylvania; Ambassador Andrew D. White, now in Germany, and Ambassador Horace Porter, now in France, much, on the other hand, has been gained. "The national university advocates have drawn the enemj^'s fire, and now know who, what, and where he is; also, that his silence in 1893 and 1894, when the Senate committee's unanimous reports were submitted b}" Senators Proctor, of Vermont, and Hunton, of Virginia, respectively, although too late for final action b}' the Senate, was due to his surprise and unreadiness ; that his first show of fight in 1896 was under constraint of the few old universities of theNortheast and to overzealons representatives of the Methodist Church; that the meager minority report of 1896, though f ashiohed and fortified by four of the ablest of opposing Senators, the presidents of Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Penn- S3dvania,and five small colleges, was weak because in the nature of the case it was impossible to make it strong. '"The friends of the national university enterprise have seen the unfriendl}^ scheme of the Washington Memorial Institution, though reenforced b}' some members of the national university" committee in whom they had trusted, and favored by the George Washington Memorial Association to the extent of yielding to the Memorial Insti- tution its fund of some thousands, collected in aid of the national UNIVEESITY OF THE U:N'ITED STATES. 33 university enterprise — they have seen this scheme of this association of ostensible friends and open enemies, thoug-h accepted by the com- mittee of fifteen of the national council of the National Educational Association, and offered as a practical substitute for the national uni- versit}^ die a death as sudden as it was deserved, at the hand of a single man otherwise disposed. "They have seen the National Educational Association, whose action mam' years ago, as alreadj^ stated, was four times unanimous, thor- oughlj^ aroused and in earnest again. ' ' The}' have seen the Association of State University Presidents and the Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations both actively interested in the national universit}' enterprise and ready to move in solid phalanx. "They have seen how near the national university movement came to a certain victory and an auspicious beginning through the agency of that great giver, Mr. Andrew Carnegie. "They have new evidence that the press of the countr}-, except in a few centers influenced by local ambitions, is in sympathy with the national university proposition. "They have every reason to expect that the advancement of the Republic in area, wealth, power, and prosperity, through which we have come to a greater prominence among the nations, will be recog- nized by all intelligent patriots as constituting a new demand upon us for such steps as will tend to give the United States preeminence also in those higher things which are essential to true greatness." Your committee are in accord with these views of the national uni- versity committee, whose JrOO members are among the most distin- guished and most competent men of the country. The pending bill avoids every objection ever raised, wisely regards the welfare of all other educational institutions, looks to the best inter- ests of the Government, and to such work in the field of research as will early make of Washington both the educational and the scientific center of the world. To remove all fear of competition, the pending bill raises the standard of admission, as already stated, so that such as intend a supreme course in general studies must have made such gradu- ate attainments already as in the opinion of the President would entitle them to enter upon it. The requisite higher attainments could be gained either at home, in Washington, or elsewhere. This standard of admission would surpass that of any other institution. There is now no provision, as there was in previous bills, for material aid, either in mone}' or in lands (other than the little spot of ground solemnly dedi- cated to national universit}' uses b}' President Washington himself). It asks simply a suitable charter. The Congress has already granted charters to a number of institutions in the District of Columbia. More- S. Rep. 945 3 34 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. over, while granting to them the privilege of being and the worldly advantage of bearing patriotic titles, it has at the sams time, in express terms, with one exception, made provision for the control of each in the interest of a particular religious faith. It can not hesitate, therefore, and will not when satisfied that the pending bill looks purely to the interests of the whole country and gives such control as will best pro- tect the proposed universitj^ from all meddling influences, whether individual, local, denominational, or political. Even the four or five Eastern institutions of learning which have thus far withheld their support of the national university proposition concede that Washington affords surpassing advantages for such a university because of its incomparable array of material facilities, supplemented by the constant presence in surpassing number (and their availability to some extent) of scholars, men of science, experts in every branch of the Government service, together with the foremost of legislators, jurists, and members of the national courts, besides opportunities for contact with the world's masters in the realms of diplomacy and states- manship. The facilities and opportunities are here. They have cost the whole country millions on millions. Shall they be monopolized hj institutions founded in private, local, and denominational interests, or shall they be made available in the interest of the whole American people, regardless of conflicting faiths, whether religious or political, of this alread}^ central figure among the nations — the American Republic? Having duly weighed the important historic facts above presented, reviewed the arguments for a national university contained in the sev- eral afiirmative reports upon the subject heretofore submitted to the Senate, and carefully considered the reasons urged by members of the executive council of the said national university committee as above set forth, your committee return the bill without amendment and recommend its passage by the Senate. HEARINGS BEFORE SENATE COMMITTEE, CHAIRMAN WELLING- TON PRESIDING, JANUARY 10, 1899. REMARKS BY CHARLES D. WALCOTT, DIRECTOR OF THE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY. Depaktment op the Intekior, United States Geological Survey, Wasfrington, D. C, January 30, 1899. Dear Governor: I inclose herewith the substance of my remarks before the com- •mittee on the national university. Will you not transmit them to the chairman with other remarks made before the committee and oblige, yours, truly, Chas. D. Walcott, Director. Hon. John W. Hoyt, Wa.?hington, D. C. Mr. Chairman: I think it very desirable that American students should have the opportunity of taking postgraduate courses in Washington, and thus avail themselves of the unequaled advantages this city, the seat of government, offers. I speak par- ticularly of those students who are pursuing scientific courses, as I am more familiar with what is being done by the Government in scientific investigation than with that in other lines. It is well known that the largest body of working geologists and topographic sur- veyors in the world is connected with the United States Geological Survey, and that great collections of minerals, rocks, and fossils are contained in the National Museum. It is equally well known that students in geology and allied sciences, after being graduated at the various colleges and universities in the United States, deem it desira- ble to go abroad for a postgraduate course in some one of the foreign universities, where they may come in contact with the leading men who are carrying on original investigations and take advantage of the opportunities offered for special study in all lines of geologic research. Fully 80 per cent of the present force have studied abroad, and many others would have done so if they had had the means to defray expenses. If sufficient room were available, comparatively slight additions to the present facilities in the laboratories of the National Museum and the Geological Survey would afford American students in geology the advantages at home for which they must at present go abroad. The postgraduates of Harvard, Chicago, and Stanford universi- ties who are training for geologic work have unusual facilities offered them at these universities, but even such are glad to serve as temporary field assistants on the Geo- logical Survey at nominal salaries, in order to get the training and to come in contact with working geologists. What is true of the Geological Survey is true also of many of the other scientific bureaus of the G.overnment. The National Museum is an institution where the postgraduate student may secure access to material for study and research in connecticn with men who are carrying forward scientific work of the highest type. If the museum Avere properly housed it 35 36 UI^IVEKSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. might be a center or base from which the postgraduate student in Washington could avail himself of the facilities offered for study and investigation by the various scientific bureaus of the Government, such as the Fish Commission, the Zoological Park, the Geological Survey, the Coast and Geodetic Survey, and the Weather, Botanical, Bio- logical, and Entomological bureaus of the Department of Agriculture. Systematic courses of lectures could be arranged for at small cost that would place before him the most advanced ideas and conclusions of the largest body of scientific investigators in the world. In the National Museum are found the beginnings of the scientific, department of a national university. A single well-trained man with a few assistants could render invaluable aid to hundreds of postgi-aduate and special students, whose principal need is direction as to the place and the best means of pursuing studies and investi- gations. Such an organization could be located in the administrative building that it has been proposed to erect as a nucleus of the national university. The National Museum could not at present give facilities to more than a score of students, but with the erection of a modern museum building, well equipped with laboratory space and a suitable staff to conduct the necessary work of installation and investigation, the scientific side of the national university might soon be estab- lished. It should be remembered that many of tlie officers of the scientific bureaus of the Government are directly connected with the museum staff as honorar)^ curators and custodians and that a number of them have laboratories within the museum building. As the university developed additional facilities could be offered to students of science by enlarging the scientific corps of the university and by furnishing special laboratories and facilities not now available in the crowded Government bureaus. I think that the national university should exert an educational infiuence of the highest type that would be felt in the remotest portions of the country. It should set the standard toward which all persons seeking higher education could look as to an ideal, a standard which would meet the approval of all our colleges and universi- ties, and which would not interfere with the work they are doing. LETTER TO JOHN W. HOYT AND REMARKS BEFORE SENATE COMMITTEE, BYMRWJM'GEE. Smithsonian Institution, BuKEAU OF American Ethnology, WasJdngton, January 31, 1899. My Dear Sir: Replying to your request for a statement of my views on the sub- ject of a national university before the Senate Committee to Estal)lish the University of the United States, I can hardly do better than to lay before its members the paper which Harper's New Monthly Magazine did me the honor to publish not long ago; in this communication to yourself giving expression to some thoughts not therein contained, namely: 1. Concurrently with the development of our republican institutions a magnificent educational system has grown up in the United States. Beginning under the influ- ence of inherited and imported experience the earlier schools, colleges, and univer- sities were, in large part, private enterprises, or based on private foundations. Gradually the public-school system was developed and substituted for the private system ; and at length public high schools, State and othei' public normal schools. State agricultural colleges, and State universities Avere established, and by means of these institutions the public-school system has been so supplemented and extended as to include a considerable part of what is commonly called "higher education." 2. Almost from the beginning of our public-school system the fact has been recog- UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 37 nized that it is the function of public instruction to make good citizens. Accordinglj', the public instruction, at least in the common schools, the normal schools, and the so-called agricultural colleges (which are really institutes of technologj^) , has been based on the conditions and needs of our own country rather than on foreign or obsolete standards, and thereby the instruction has been made practical ; and, with the passage of time, the institutions have determined for themselves and for the coun- try what knowledge is best. To some extent the State universities have been affected by the contemporary institutions of high grade supported as private enterprises or by private endowment, and these, in turn, have in some measure borrowed standards and methods from other countries and earlier periods, and, in so far as they have done so, fall below the highest American standard; though it is gratifying to note that the tendency to follow lower standards is counteracted by the general introduction of sci- ence and technology into the curricula. On the whole it seems fair to say that a dis- tinctively American standard of education has been developed in this country; it is the function of this education to make better men and women, to strengthen the real foundation of citizenship, and to fit Americans for more and more successful conquest of natural forces and natural resources as the generations pass. 3. The National Government, like most of the State governments, has found it expedient to investigate various natural conditions and resources for the public bene- fit; and thereby experts in different lines of knowledge have been employed and trained. In the national capital this has resulted in the development of various bureaus and one department (two, if the Smithsonian Institution be included) engaged in researches and surveys relating to the country and its resources. Thus a corps of scientific and technical experts has grown up, of such magnitude as to render Washington the leading scientific center, not only of the country but of the world . 4. The work of the scientific and technical departments and bureaus of the Gov- ernment is directed by distinguished investigators and specialists; it is performed by juniors selected from among the citizens of the country, who profit by the associa- tion with and training of their official superiors, and in time diffuse the high stand- ards of knowledge throughout the country. Accordingly there is already an ill- organized system of creating and diffusing knowledge in the national capital, which is in close harmony with the fundamental }>rinciples of American education as developed in connection with the public schools. 5. While we thus have in the United States a superb system of public education, beginning in the common schools and rising well toward the higher grades through State institutions, and while the system is effectively coordinated by the Federal Bureau of Education, we have not yet sufficient provision, or, indeed , any suitable provision, for the highest grades of education in accordance with American principles and standards. Accordingly there is a need for a Federal educational agency of such sort as to crown and perfect our public school system, to give American citizens the benefit of the highest education, and to fit our men and women to extend and widen the noble career of the nation of which they are constituent parts. I have the honor to be, yours, with respect, AV J McGee, Ethnologist in Charge, Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. REMARKS OF W J M'GEE BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE. Mr. Chairman: Believing that by so doing I can best serve the national university cause at this hearing, I take the liberty of laying before you a paper but lately pub- lished in Harpers' New Monthly Magazine, entitled "Our national seminary of learning," which reads as follows: "I have greatly wished to see a plan adopted by which the arts, sciences, and 38 UNIVERSITY OF THE IIlSriTED STATES. belles-lettres could be taught in their fullest extent, thereby embracing all the advan- tages of European tuition with the means of acquiring the liberal knowledge which is necessary to qualify our citizens for the exigencies of public as well as private life (and which with me is a consideration of great magnitude), by assembling the youth from the different parts of this rising Kepublic, contributing from their intercourse an interchange of information to the removal of prejudices which might sometimes arise from local circumstances. ' So wrote George Washington in 1795; and he justified faith by works in bequeath- ing stocks to the value of $25,000 as a personal contribution toward his ideal 'semi- nary of learning,' and later in officially reserving a tract of 19 acres (long kiiown as University Square) as a site for the institution. Succeeding Presidents, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe, as well as others in later years, shared Washington's convictions, and urged upon Congress the desirability and expe- diency of founding a national university, and it would appear that nothing but inertia stood in the way of the realization of the dream of the Presidents. Then came the era of territorial expansion, when the energies of the nation were spent in extending settle- ment, in acquiring new lands, and in spanning the continent with the brilliant mosaic of Commonwealths stretching from Atlantic to Pacific; and with this vigorous activity in State making the idea of State rights grew and spread, even to the extent of obstruct- ing national progress in certain directions, and one of these was that looking toward a Federal institution of learning. Of late territorial conquest is checked, because the kernel of the continent has been taken; with the decline of activity in externals, internal and intellectual affairs are coming to the fore, and now ex-Governor Hoyt, Dr. Andrew D. White, President Jordan, President Dabney, and others of the salt of thi© earth are again urging execution of the long-delayed plan of the nation's founders for a national university. Such, in brief , is a century's exoteric history of the movement toward a national institution of learning — a history running the gamut from enthusiastic support almost to the point of consummation, through inertia, indifference, doubt, antagonism, apathy, revived appreciation, and renewed support. Meantime there was an under- current of progress in the direction indicated by Washington — a current so profound as scarce to ripple the surface, yet so powerful as to produce most of the results antici- pated. The full significance, even the bare fact, of this unheralded and unwritten progress is hardly recognized, yet it is a prominent feature in the esoteric history of the nation. We have a great national 'seminary of learning.' Albeit without name or proper domicile, without charter or definite organization, there is to-day in the national capital a Federal institution of knowledge more efficient and more useful, occu- pying a higher and 1)roader plane, than any other educational institution in exist- ence. It is maintained at a cost equivalent to an endowment exceeding §100,000,000; its faculty and fellows, many of them men of international repute, reach into thousands, and its influence is felt in every organized university, college, academy, and normal school of the land. The unforeseen, spontaneous, and only half-recognized growth of this great national seminary of useful knowledge is worthy of careful attention, partly because of the extent and importance of the institution, chiefly because its development expresses a tendency of civilization transcending the designs of even the wisest statesmen. President Jefferson perceived the need of surveys along the coast to guide the location of roadsteads and harbors, and thus to aid budding commerce; and he adopted Hassler, a Swiss engineer, and intrusted him with the execution of the sur- veys. For a time there was a disposition to draw on the technical schools of Europe for expert surveyors, draftsmen, and engravers, but it was soon found easier to train young Americans than to retrain middle-aged Europeans in the special directions demanded by the exigencies of the work; and thenceforward the Coast Survey UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 39 became a technical training school, first for hydrographic surveying, then for topo- graphic surveying, and later for geodetic surveying. At the outset the 'complete art and mystery ' was inculcated in the growing bureau, but as time passed it was found advantageous to choose new men from among the graduates of colleges and universi- ties. Two consequences followed: The cost of educating the surveyors was divided between the teaching institution and the working institution; at the same time the demand for definite and practical collegiate training was recognized by students and faculties, and the teaching was modified to meet it. Thereby an indefinite relation grew up between the Survey and the organized institutions of learning, to the benefit of both. Again, men of high position in educational institutions were sometimes called to occupy places in the Survey, while trained surveyors and geodesists were occasionally called to professorial chairs, and in this way the indefinite relation was made more intimate. The survey grew with the decades, gradually rising above reproach of European rivals; its operations extended from the mid-coast bays along the entire Atlantic border, and thence to the Gulf and to the Pacific, and relations were established with new colleges and universities, until many of the scientific corps divided their allegiance between Survey work and professorial duty. To-day the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey is, as always, a Federal bureau, maintained solely for practical survey work designed to meet the industrial and commercial demands of a great nation; yet it is incidentally one of the finest training scliools in the world for advanced students in geodesy and certain ])ranches of surveying, within which ambitious graduates seek post-graduate courses, while wise regencies gladly draw on its corps of experts for the strengthening of their faculties. An episode in 1812 led to popular demand for an enlarged Xavy, and the studj' of navigation received new impetus. One of the results was the acquisition of astro- nomical instruments and materials, which were finally gathered into a national observ- atory, naval in name and plan, though ]>artly civilian in personnel. Here the history of the Coast Survey was repeated, and the excellent work (such as the discovery of the Martin satellites by Asaph Hall) received recognition throughout the world, and aided in placing this country in the front rank among the nations engaged in astronomical researches. A collateral result of the impetus in navigation was the inauguration of an Ameri- can ephemeris, or nautical almanac. At first the requisite computations were based on certain values for the ' elements of the solar system ' derived from early observa- tions and reductions which were known to be imperfect, and were accepted by civi- lized nations only because the labor of reinvestigating and finally establishing the orbits, volumes, and weights of the planets and principal satellites was so great that all Europe shrank from it; but about 1860 the American astronomer Simon Xew- comb addressed himself to the task, almost single handed, in the Nautical Almanac Office of the United States. The work extended over decades, during which coop- erative relations between the Federal bureau and the leading universities of the land arose and became intimate. The results are voluminous and technical, and may not easily be summarized. It suffices to say that the sun and the eight principal planets, together with the moon and some of the asteroids, have been literally weighed and measured, and their paths surveyed. With the accomplishment of this herculean task the 'elements' were corrected so that ephemerides can be prepared for decades or centuries, instead of months or years only as in the mid-century; and to-day the shipping of the world is guided by the determinations of the Washington office, while the astronomers of domestic and foreign universities frequent the office to gain inspiration and knowledge for the benefit of their home institutions. One of President Jefferson's plans for the development and enrichment of the country was reconnoissance of the mysterious 'Great West,' and a part of the energy of the military was expended in exisloring expeditions. This precedent was followed by other Presidents; and when steam was harnessed a series of explorations and 40 UlSriVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. surveys, ostensibly and partly for railways to the Pacific, was inaugurated. In time the explorations were refined into surveys, at first geographic, and later geologic; and in the centennial year there were four important surveys (two military and two under the Interior Department) at work in the Cordilleran region. Three years later these Avere consolidated and transferred wholly to the civilian department, and the field was extended to cover the entire country. This geological survey has progressed apace; its products are topographic maps, geologic atlases, and descriptive or philosophic treatises on the geology and mineral resources of the country. The heads of the four original surveys — Wheeler, King, Hayden, and Powell — sought as collaborators trained graduates from leading American and foreign institutions of learning, and also trained to the work experts of their own selection; and this policy was maintained by Powell during the fifteen years of his directorship in the Geological Survey. In this way the Bureau became a training school for topographic surveyors and geologic experts. To-day a hundred topographers and half as many geologists, mostly picked men from the graduating classes of leading American universities and colleges, are on the Survey rolls, and students of survey- ing and geology look forward eagerly to temporary or permanent connection with the Survey, even as volunteers. The recent impetus in geologic and engineering study, and indeed in university activity, must be ascribed partly to the professional demand created by this Bureau, while a dozen universities include in their faculties experts trained in the Survey. Yet the Bureau is not maintained as a school by the Federal Government, primarily or purposely; it is so endowed and conducted as best to promote public interests through development of natural resources, and the educational function is purely incidental. The results of the work, both material and intellectual, are important. It is recognized throughout the world that the United States Geological Survey is the most extensive and productive in existence, and different foreign countries are mod- eling their surveys after the American plan; and the enrichment of the country through the researches of the Bureau is beyond estimate. The scientific investiga- tions have revolutionized geology; the recognition of the 'base-level of erosion' by Powell led to the development of an essentiallj- new science — geomorphy, or the new geology — whereby earth history may be read from land forms as well as from rock formations; the origin of rocks and minerals has been traced more fully than else- where; the marvelous record of the ice ages has been interpreted to the edification of domestic and foreign students, and in many ways the Survey and its indefinitely yet really affiliated universities have so enlarged knowledge that to-day America leads the world in the science of geology. One of the most remarkable testaments ever recorded was that of James Smith- son, an eccentric Briton of noble blood, who bequeathed a fortune for establishing in the United States an institution designed for 'the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men.' In 1846 this bequest was rendered available and the Smithsonian Institution was created. Under the far-seeing policy proposed by the first Secretary, Joseph Henry, and adopted by the ablest regency of the times, the institution assumed the dutj'^ of promoting research and publishing the results. One of the earliest lines of research related to those branches of physics connected with electric- ity and magnetism, and telegraphy was developed and perfected largely in the insti- tution; then, under Henry's liberal policy, the results were turned over to the public to become a new art and industry. Another line of research related to meteorology and the climate of the country; this was pursued actively imtil its national impor- tance was recognized, when the work was surrendered to the Federal Government and grew into the United States Weather Bureau, the largest institution of its kind. A third line of investigation related to fishes and fisheries, and this was carried forward with great energy and acumen by Assistant Secretary (afterward Secretary) Spencer F. Baird. At first the work was purely scientific, but when it was perceived UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 41 by students and statesmen alike that the investigations afforded a means of conquest over the waters for human weal through establishing new food sources this line of work also was turned over to the General Government, and it has expanded into the present United States Fish Commission, the most extensive in the world. When geologic explorations and surveys were checked in the troublous years 1861-1865, the institution unostentatiously encouraged geologic researches and saw to the preser- vation of geologic material; and when peace dawned the carefully protected germ blossomed into the four Federal surveys of the seventies, to bear fruit in the present Geological Survey. Soon after its creation the institution began amassing a scientific library for the use of collaborators and the public; the collection of books soon became general, and proved especially useful to national legislators gathering annually in the capital, whereupon this line of work was in turn transferred to the Government, and from this germ has grown the invaluable Librarj^ of Congress and the great National Library whose gilded dome adorns the finest library building the world has thus far seen. With the collection of books Henry began the collection of objects illustrating natural history and human progress; this work was actively continued by Baird, and afterwards by G. Brown Goode, who gave his life to its successful prosecution; it has matured in the inadequately housed though admirably equipped National Museum, which was long since surrendered to the State and has become an important Federal bureau. A dozen j^ears ago the naturalists of the museum found it necessary some- times to obtain and preserve living animals; the small collection soon attracted public interest and gradually developed into a national zoological park, already turned over to the public as the joint property of the Federal Government and the Federal • district. Under an inspiration originating with Albert Gallatin and continued by Lewis H. Morgan, the institution began ethnologic researches among the American Indians soon after its creation. When one of the four Federal surveys of the seventies (the Powell survey) took up the study of the native races, the accumulated material was donated to the Fetieral organization, and when the surveys were consolidated the ethnologic work was transferred to a bureau of American ethnology created for the purpose; and this bureau, which has since been maintained under Federal auspicts, has classified the Indians of the continent and organized a new science — demology, or the science of humanity. During recent years the third secretary, Samuel P. Langley, has built up an astrophysical laboratory, which has already assumed such proportions as to be of public importance and is now devoted to public use and supported largely by public funds. Thus the unique institution endowed by Smithson is a nidus of knowledge, a nurserj' of s(^ientific bureaus; and half of these bureaus now maintained by the Federal Government have originated within it, while all have benefited by its aid and encouragement. At the same time the institution has served as a scientific clearing house, in which the drafts of discovery are scanned and the coin of conclusion tested, that the valid may be stamped and the spurious branded; and in the last half century no advance in science of the first importance has been made in America without the indorsement and aid of the Smithsonian at some stage. Throughout its career the Smithsonian Institution, like the Federal bureaus, has sustained an indefinite yet most fruitful relation with the educational institutions of this and other countries, and the ambitious graduate esteems the honor of connection with it above the parchment from his alma mater, while progressive presidents and regents miss no chance of securing Smithsonian experts for their faculties. The example of the Smithsonian has not been lost on sagacious statesmen, and the youngest department of the Federal Government has been made a nursery of applied science, as in the Smithsonian of pure science; nominally a department of agriculture, it is really a department of national knowledge concerning natural resources. One of its branches is the now invaluable Weather Bureau; another is 42 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. the Bureau of Animal Industry, which has stood well to the fore in teaching the nations of the earth the lesson of the germ as a cause and cure of disease; a third is the Biological Survey, which has already become a model for other countries; there is a division of entomology, which has taught protection against the ravages of insects, and thereby reduced the cost of food; and there are divisions of botany, forestry, agrostology, vegetal physiology, pomology, and chemistry, offices of fiber investiga- tion and road inquiry, and a museum. In addition there are fifty or more agricul- tural experiment stations distributed over the country in such wise as to maintain contact with all parts of the body politic. The lines of work in the Department are too numerous for summary statement, the methods too many sided for following by fewer than a score of specialists; yet there is one feature in which the method is sim- ple and accordant with that of the other bureaus — the various divisions, offices, and bureaus cooperate, directly or indirectly, with the universities and technical schools in all parts of the country. This sketch of the organized institutions, though incomplete, indicates the unpre- meditated liberality of the nation as a patron of practical learning, and suggests the notable results achieved. It is particularly incomplete as regards the many military institutions; but these are essentially distinct from the civilian organizations — the military idea is exclusive and intensive; the civilian idea is inclusive and evolutionary. The workings of the unorganized Federal institution constituting the national seminary are especially significant, partly because unforeseen by the founders of the nation, ill recognized even by the statesmen of the present, yet a sign of the times during each year or decade. The internal workings are simple. Each bureau chief is charged with certain official duties and credited with certain funds to be applied in their performance, and within certain limitations (partly fixed by the civil-service law) he strives to secure the performance of the duties in the best practicable manner and at the low- est pi-acticable cost. To this end he either employs or trains experts, whose knowl- edge and skill increase by exercise; so each office becomes a hive of busy workers, each the best available specialist in his line, and all controlled by a single plan and united by common interest. The incentive to individual effort is strong; research is always new and attractive; the applications of knowledge are constantly extending, so that the shackles of routine are ever rent; with each new discovery new conditions arise and the most capable men move forward; with each expansion of the service new blood is introduced, so that capacity and opportunity combine in a cumulative progress in which every effort bears fruit. Withal there is in each office such diver- sity of function as practically to prevent 'envy, hatred, and malice,' while the can- ker of inactivity is not. The several hives are combined in a great colony, in which the motives are alike, while the methods are sufficiently diversified to conduce toward harmony. This harmony is expressed, and at the same time constantly promoted, by various unofficial associations and other instrumentalities maintained by the workers themselves : There are in Washington seven scientific societies, loosely united under a joint commission, besides several other learned bodies, whose principal founders and chief supporters represent the score or more of bureaus of learning constituting the national seminary; two of the societies publish periodicals (the American Anthropolo- gist and the National Geographic Magazine), which are the leading exponents of their sciences in America, and several others issue journals of international circulation. In addition there is a unique club— the Cosmos Club — composed chiefly of scientific, literary, and artistic representatives of the Federal institutions of practical learning, where the savants of the world are welcomed; here Herbert Spencer, Helmholtz, and other makers of the intellectual world have broken bread and joined in the daily feasts of reason to which the Cosmos Club man is wont. By means of the bond of official interest, and the still stronger bond of scientific interest, the collaborators of the Federal bureaus of research are united in a scientific UNIVERSITY OF THE IHSTITED STATES, 43 circle which is commonly regarded as the broadest and strongest in the country, if not in the world. Through official necessity and unofficial association a strong didac- tic element is introduced in the scientific bureaus. Commonly the chiefs are among the foremost living specialists in their respective lines, and one of their main func- tions is the instruction of collaborators by precept and example, while the principal collaborators in turn are necessarily employed partly in the inculcation of principles and the exposition of methods among their assistants. It is this didactic element which renders the Federal position so attractive to progressive students, and leads them to compete for volunteer connections, or places yielding no more salary than a scholarship or fellowship in a university; and it is largely through this competition that the ranks of workers in the scientific hives are kept filled. This training-school system is seldom reckoned by statesmen, rarely foreseen in its fullness even by the bureau chiefs. It is simply the product of experience and effort to accomplish the best expert work at the least cost; yet it is a power in shaping Federal progress. The laboratory work of the officers is combined with the class work of the unofficial socie- ties, in which the more active chiefs, collaborators, and assistants announce their results, describe their methods, and, in brief, formulate and expound the knowledge gained in the national seminary of learning. During each season, from November to May, several hundred technical lectures, equal in learning and superior in fresh- ness to those of the best universities, and as many popular addresses prepared by men of ability, are delivered; and by so many of these as he is able to attend each Federal expert profits. Of formal tuition there is none; even the lectures and addresses are free to members of the societies, and commonly to all; and the liberal leaven springing from this emancipation of intelligence has spread until the learned circle of the national capital has risen above that secretiveness, exclusiveness, phar- isaism, and other manifestations of intellectual penury by which budding science was degraded. Here the fountains of knowledge gush and brim over, and whoso will may drink freely. A score of masters, a hundred hiarh-grade instructors, and a thousand fellows in science are constantly at work in the ' national seminary of learning.' Every branch of useful knowledge is cultivated; the arts are indirectly promoted, to the extent that the capital has become an artistic center; literature is fostered, always as a means, sometimes as an end, and here several of our notable writers— like John Burroughs, Lester F. Ward, 'Mark Twain,' John Hay, Clifford Howard, John G. Nicolay, Frances Hodgson Burnett, and others — have gained inspiration and training. Yet the strength of the school lies especially in science. In this intellectual vineyard, more than in any other, tiie modern cult of knowl- edge — the cheering faith in conquest of lower nature for the good of mankind — has rooted and borne fruit. The more complex external relations are suggested by the internal relations. The primary relations are with the universities and technical schools, and are of three types. In the first type, ambitious pupils in the educational institutions aspire to post-graduate positions in the great Federal institution, and shape their studies to this end. 'Their name is legion,' and they come to fill, at nominal salaries, the nameless fellowships in the national seminary. In the second type, experts for the Federal service are chosen among university professors, who, in the interests of expe- diency, thenceforward divide their time between official labor and professorial duty. This arrangement is prevalent. Within the last five years the Geological Survey alone has maintained relations of this type with Harvard, Yale, Cornell, Columbia, Johns Hopkins, and Chicago universities, as well as with the State universities of West Virginia, North Carolina, Alabama, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin; the sim- ilar relations of the Coast and Geodetic Survey are almost equally extensive, and those of the various bureaus in the Agricultural Department are still more extensive, so that there is hardly a high-gj-ade educational institution in the United States whose faculty does not include one or more Federal officials. This arrangement has been 44 UNIVERSITY OF THE UKITED STATES. criticised in the halls of Congress and in the public press, yet it persists and con- stantly increases, simplj' because it meets a need of the times and inures to the benefit both of the bureaus and the universities. In the third type of relation the post- graduate masters in the national seminary are called to fill educational positions for which they have been qualified by their Federal service. This also is prevalent, as shown by recent examples. Thomas C. Chamberlin went from the Geological Survey to the presidency of the University of Wisconsin, Mark W. Harrington from the Weather Bureau to the head of the State University of Washington, and T. C. Men- denhall from the Coast and Geodetic Survey to the presidency of the Worcester Poly- technic Institute; Joseph P. Iddings and R. D. Salisbury passed from the Geological Survey and William H. Holmes from the Bureau of American Ethnology to accept professorships in Chicago University; Israel 0. Russell left the Geological Survey to succeed Alexander Winchell as professor of geology in the University of Michigan; Robert S. Woodward, Tarleton H. Bean, and J. L. Wortman have been called from Federal positions at Washington to professorial positions in Columbia Uni,versity; and these examples might be doubled or even quadrupled. The influence of the seminary is not confined to the civilian bureaus, but extends to the Army and Navy, and even to the halls of Congress, the Cabinet, and the Supreme Bench; quite recently two high Federal officers affiliated with the scientific circle have been called to head universities — Hon. William L. Wilson, ex-Postmastei -General, becomes president of Washington and Lee, and Hon, Charles W. Dabney, Assistant Secretary of Agricul- ture, has been chosen president of Vanderbilt. Thus in certain features — and these are signs of the times-^the nameless national institution dominates the local institu- tions of learning; it is the keystone of the structure in which they are pillars. There are secondary relations between the national center of knowledge and many industrial and other institutions. The Federal service is essentially practical and open to all, so that the work reflects national character and training. The Fed- eral experts are of the people, with whom they associate constantly, and, under the liberal policy pursued in the capital, freely convey information through conversation and correspondence, and sometimes through the ephemeral press and formal dis- course; again, advanced workers in the Federal colony are frequently tempted by the richer emolument of unofficial position, and leave the capital to shape activity in mining, manufacturing, engineering, and other enterprises. In these waj'S the center is kept in touch with all parts of the body politic, and the influence of constantlj^ growing knowledge is diffused widely. The appropriations for the maintenance of the scientific bureaus ftr the current year aggregate in round numbers 18,000,000, and the employees (of whom a consid- erable majority are scientific experts) exceed 5,000; this is exclusive of the Smith- sonian Institution proper, the Patent Office — originally created as a scientific bureau — and the Corps of Engineers. While most of the offices and officers are in the capital, local branches and stations are distributed throughout the country. Most of the bureaus are inadequately housed, largely in rented quarters, for as their growth has exceeded anticipation, so it has outrun provision for public buildings; j^et from time to time suitable domiciles are erected. The various bureaus have never been united administratively, and most of them are now organized separatel}^ under four Depart- ments (Navy, Treasury, Interior, and Agricultural) and the Smithsonian Institution — the Fish Commission and the Bureau of Labor remaining independent of the Executive Departments. Plans have been suggested for segregating them in a single department, or perhaps under a regency something like that of the Smithsonian, but these plans are far from mature. The present dean of the scientific corps, as president of the joint commission and as patron and promoter of knowledge, is Hon. Gardiner G. Hubbard, a regent of the Smithsonian Institution; the nestor is Maj. J. W. Powell, the ex- plorer of Colorado Canyon and maker of the Geological Survey and the Bureau of UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 45 American Ethnology, a bureau chief since 1868; yet these and other leaders shape progress only through force of character and example, for of general organization there is none. So it is not too much to say that President Washington's bright dream of national education is largely realized — that there is a national seminary of learning in the national capital in which the arts, belles-lettres, and especially the sciences, are ' taught in their fullest extent, thereby embracing all the advantages of European tuition, with the means of acquiring the liberal knowledge which is necessary to qual- ify our citizens for the exigencies of public as well as private life.' It is a nameless and structureless university, standing on a higher plane than any local school, how- soever exalted in aim and work. Its patrons are the founders and builders of the nation; its chancellors, past and present, are such masters as Henry, Baird, Powell, Newcomb, and Langiey, whose fame is broad as civilization; its regency is the Fed- eral executive, legislative, and judicative combined; its faculty includes nearly ail American creators of knowledge; its fellows are a thousand picked post-graduates, and its preparatory school comprises the organized universities and colleges of half a hundred commonwealths. It coordinates our educational institutions, from univer- sity to public school; and, more than all else, it establishes the true rai^on d'etre of education by determining, through direct application to human welfare, what knowl- edge is best. The final step of organizing this great university is a duty of the early future. REMARKS OF EX-GOVERNOR JOHN W. HOYT, CHAIRMAN, ETC., BEFORE the; SENATE COMMITTEE JANUARY iO, 1899. Mr. Chairman: I do not rise this morning for the ]nirpose of making an argument for the establishment of the University of the United States, having already done this in many forms and from about every point of view% Moreover, the ground has been often and so well covered by the ablest men of the nation that the only reason for asking a hearing at this time lies in the possibility of getting that attention to a fresh discussion which may not be gained for one of the past, however important and complete. The proposition has been assailed both by men incompetent to pronounce judg- ment upon such a matter and by selfish supporters of schemes of their own under pretense of apprehended competition; but the cause of the university rests upon a solid foundation and can not fail. Ambitious sectarists and speculators in lands adjacent to institutions incorpo- rated under false titles for the evident purpose of misleading Congress and the people have delayed action by the National Legislature, but they can not do so much longer. The reasons for urging the establishment of a central and true university as the climax to our present incomplete system of American public education and as one means of helping to complete that system in all its departments are invincible and will prevail. The object of my remarks is rather to reaffirm the confidence of a multitude of distinguished friends of the enterprise that when once approved by Congress the crowning university will find citizens of fortune in all parts of the country to richly endow it, and to saj- to members of the Senate committee, in behalf of the national committee, now grown to be more than 400 and more than half of them presidents of colleges and universities, that in view of the objections to Government appropria- tions entertained by some of the Senators we cheerfully assent to the striking from the pending bill sections 12, 13, and 15, which relate to the small an:ounts therein 46 UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. provided for merely as a means of enabling the regents to meet, organize, and make provision for the early beginning of work, as well as to inaugurate the movement necessary to an ample endowment — one that should enable the institution at an early day to become just what it is intended to be, the crowning university of the world. Furthermore, while not doubting the readiness of all to approve section 11, which grants to the corporation of the university the few acres of ground cornering on E and Twenty-third streets NW., I have thought best to lay before yourself and other mem- bers of the Senate committee certified copies of the original papers, which show beyond the possibility of a doubt that the consecration of said grounds to the uses of a national university was actually made by Washington as President, and by authority of both Congress and the proprietors of the lands which by gift and purchase became the property of the United States for Government uses, as designated by Washington, and for the city of Washington. To this end I here offer evidence that can not be questioned, namely: ( 1 ) The act of Congress authorizing the appointment of three commissioners to survey the District of Columbia and to plat the city of Washington, for which see United States Statutes at Large, Chapter XXVIII — An act for establishing the tem- porary and permanent seat of the Governn:ient of the United States, approved July 16, 1790. (2) The agreement by the owners of lands constituting the District of Columbia on the occasion of the conveyance thereof to the United States for the seat of the General Government. This agreement entered into by the proprietors is as follows: " We, the undersigned, in consideration of the great benefits we expect to derive from having the Federal City laid off on our lands, do hereby agree and bind our- selves, our heirs, executors, and administrators, to convey in trust to the President of the United States, or commissioners or such persons as he shall appoint, by good and sufficient deeds in fee simple, the whole of our respective lands v, hich he may think proper to include within the lines of the Federal City for the purpose and on the conditions following: "'The President shall have the sole power and directing of the Federal City to be laid off in what manner he pleases. He may retain any number of squares he may think proper for public hnprovement or other piiblic iise.' * * * ' ' In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands and seals this 30th day of March, 1791." (From proceedings of the commissioners of buildings and grounds of the city of Washington and District of Columbia, Vol. I, p. 7.) I certify that the above is an extract from the Commissioners' proceedings, Vol. I, p. 7. John Stewart, Custodian of Becords. (3) From copy of Morris & Greenleaf's contract with the District Commissioners dated December 24, 1793, the following: "And that the said Robert Morris and James Greenleaf shall have a right to choose the remaining 1,500 lots lying to the northeast of the said Massachusetts avenue, or any part thereof they may think proper, excepting one-half of the squares which shall adjoin the spot that maj' be appointed for a national university, which is expected to be fixed on the northeast side of said avenue." (From American State Papers — Miscellaneous, Vol. I, p. 223.) I certify that the above is an extract from the Commissioners' proceedings. Vol. I, p. 218. John Stewart, C. E., Custodian of said Eecords. UNIVEESITY OF THE UlSTITED STATES. 47 Office of Public Buildings and Grounds, Washington, January 13, 1S99. Dear Sir : I found a few references to the national university in one of the origi- nal Commissioners' letter books, of which the following extract is a copy of one (Letters, vol. 3, p. 200): "Washington, 1st October, 1796. "Sir: Conformably to your wish, expressed to us when we had last the honor of your company, we have taken into consideration such matters relative to the busi- ness (if the city as appeared to require your attention, and beg leave respectfullj' to submit our opinions thereon. With respect to a national university, we are of opinion that the space heretofore proposed to be appropriated for a fort and barracks on Peter's Hill is the most proper site for that object. * * * " (t. Scott, " A. White, " Commissioners. 'President of the United States." John W. Hoyt, Esq. John Ste\vakt, C. E., Custodian of Public Records. (4) The letter from President Washington to the Commissioners of the Federal District: "Mt. Vernon, Va., Oct. il, '96. "Gentlemen: According to my promise, I have given the several matters contained in your letter of the 1st instant the best consideration I am able. The following is the result, subject, however, to alterations if upon further investigation and the dis- cussion I mean to have with you on these topics I should find cause therefor. " Had those obstacles opposed themselves to it which are enumerated by one of the Commissioners, I should, for reasons which are now unnecessary to assign, have given a decided preference to the site which was first had in* contemplation for a university in the Federal City. But as those obsta(;les appear to be insurmountable, the next best site for this purpose, in my opinion, is the square surrounded by num- bers 21, 22, 34, 35, 60 to 63, and I decide in favor of it accordingly. * * * " "George Washington." (From Sparks' s Life of Washington, Vol. XII, pp. 321, 322; original source, pro- ceedings of the commissioners of buildings and grounds of the city of Washington and District of Columbia, Vol. II.) (5) From register of squares. Vol. I, page 1: George Washington, President of the United States of America, to Thomas Beall, of Georgetown, and John M. Gannt: You are hereby requested to convey all the streets in the city of Washington, as they are laid out and delineated on the plan of the said city hereto annexed, and also the several squares, parcels, and lots of ground following, to wit: First. * * * Second. * * * Third. * * * Fourth. The public appropriation bounded on the north by the south side of north E St., on the east by the west side of Twenty-third St. west, on the west by the east side of Twenty-fifth st. west, and on the south side by the Potomac River. Correct copy. John Stewart, C. E., Custodian of Commissioners' Records of the City of Washington, D. C. 48 UinVEKSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. (6) From Register of Squares, Vol. I, p. 3: A statement of the public grounds appropriated to the use of the United States in the city of Washington. Appropriations. Designation, etc. Acres. Rs. Ps. No. 1 The President's square. No. 2 The Capitol square and Mall east of 15th St. No. 3 The park south of Tiber Creek and west of 15th St. west. No. 4 The University square, south of squares Nos. 33 and 44 and to Potomac River 19 1 21 No. 5. No. 6. No. 7. No. 8. No. 9. No. 10. No. 11. No. 12. No. 13. No. 14. No. 15. No. 16. No. 17. True copy from a paper in the handwriting and certified by Nicholas King. P. J. Elgar, S. W., City. Correct copy. John Stewart, Custodian of Records. (7) Acts of Congress recognizing Washington's dedication of site as late as the Thirty-eighth Congress. (U. S. Stat. L., Vol. V.) By authority of the Twenty-seventh Congress, page 526: "Chap. CCLXXVII. An act to authorize the construction of a depot for charts and instruments of the Navy of the United States * * * "Approved Aug. 31, 1842." From an act of the Thirty-eighth Congress (Sess. 1, Chap. 107, p. 701), to wit, the general appropriation bill passed by said Congress: "For grading and enclosing University square, in the city of Washington, upon which the depot of charts and instruments has been erected, twelve thousand, five hundred dollars." Further citations are unnecessary. The said grounds, always known as "Univer- sity square" until used as the site of a "depot for instruments," and then for a "naval observatory," and now. for what is known as the "Hygienic Museum," were dedi- cated by the Father of his Country in his capacity as President of the United States, and will properly belong to the university of the United States, or national univer- sity, when established. The Government paid nothing for them and has had the free use of them for nearly half a century. It should be pleased, therefore, to see them at last serving the high purpose for which they were selected, surveyed, and set apart by the supreme founder and first head of the Republic. I now gladly give way to the few other friends who have been invited to address you briefly, and may afterwards offer two or three letters from still others who could not be present with us on so short a notice. UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 49 A UNIVERSITY AT WASHINGTON. By Hon. Andrew D. White, United States Ambassailor to Germany. [From the Forum of Febniarj', 1889.] PREFATORY NOTICE. The following article was written some years since, but as I am informed that it may still be of use, I have consented to its republication. Of course, the statistics given in it regarding the libraries and various scientific associations and institutions in Washington Avhich would contribute to the value and strength of the university have changed somewhat since the article was written, but this very change makes its arguments even stronger than before. I may also state, as an additional reason for the esta]:)lishment of a thoroughly equipped university at Washington, the fact that by drawing advanced students largely from the Southern States, as well as the Northern, it would mingle the two, arouse sympathies, and create friendships between them, and thus tend to bring North and South more and more into thorough union of feeling. Great as the advan- tages of the proposed university would be to the country as a whole, they would be greatest of all to the Southern States, which have not yet developed so fully the higher scientific and technical education as the Northern States have done. Such an institution would certainly act with vast power in developing the resources and industries of the South. One or two points ought perhaps to be developed more fully. It has been urged that the attempt of the promoters of a national university at Washington is to estab- lish an institution which shall lord it over the existing universities and colleges and draw from their strength. I can see no possibility of any such result. The institu- tion proposed would be simply one of the great universities of the country, on an equality with the best, and in close relations with all. No such thing as domineer- ing over them would be possible. It would strengthen rather than weaken all the existing universities and colleges, by providing a larger choice of first-rate men for their faculties and by giving additional incentives to the honorable ambition of their most capable graduates. It has also been said that an institution governed by persons receiving their appointments from the President or from Congress, or from both, would be unduly influenced by political considerations. This seems to me to be an argument from theory utterly unwarranted by fact. Political questions have never in the slightest degree influenced the management of the Smithsonian Institution or the choice of any person connected with it, although the members of its governing body are appointed by the President or elected by Congress. • What I should most like to see would be some one of our great millionaires rising to the height of the great argument and endowing a national university at Washing- ton with, say, $10,000,000 or $12,000,000, making a provision for the election of a governing body partly through selection by the President of the United States, partly through election by Congress, partly through election by the trustees them- selves, and partly through election by the graduates, very much as some of our great Northern universities are governed, as, for example, Cornell University, which has now^ been managed during more than thirty years by a board composed partly of State officers, partly by persons chosen by the ballots of the trustees, and partly by those chosen by the alumni, and during all this period there has never been in the board the slightest intrusion of political or sectarian considerations. Its charter contains the provision that persons of all political parties and religious sects shall be equally eligible to all offices and appointments, and also the provision S. Rep. 945 4 50 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. that in the selection of persons for any office in the university no person shall be chosen or rejected on account of any religious or political views which he may or may not entertain. There is also an additional provision in the Cornell charter under which, with the exception of ex officio trustees, the term of office of each member of the governing body is five years, and this might well be adopted in the charter of the proposed university at Washington. Regarding the position of Washington as a center in which are brought together great educational resources, and from which are radiated vast influences upon Amer- ican life, the first main point is that it is the permanent or temporary residence of very many leading men upon whom a university might draw for its lecture rooms or council chambers. In Congress, from which most people expect little of the sort, are many who can speak wdth acknowledged authority on subjects which every uni- versity worthy of the name has to consider. We sometimes hear sneers at Western Congressmen, and yet, out of the small number I have the honor to know, I can at this moment recall two who, apart from large diplomatic experience, stand in the highest rank of American scholars. Next, as to men specially known in literary pursuits, the veteran historian and statesman who years ago chose Washington as his residence has proved to be a far- sighted pioneer. Others have followed him, and the number consequently increases. Everything combines to attract them— the salubrity of the place, save in midsummer; the concourse of men best worth knovring from all parts of the world, and the attract- iveness of a city in which intellectual eminence has thus far asserted itself above wealth. So well known is this that the various societies of a literary tendency are more and more making Washington their annual place of meeting. The American Historical Society was one of the first to do this, and others are following its example. But it is more especially as a source of scientific activity that Washington has taken the foremost place in the nation. It is rapidly becoming one of the great scientific centers of the world. The Smithsonian Institution, the National Museum, the great Government surveys, sundry Government commissions and bureaus whose work is largely scientific, and many retired officers of the Army and Navy who have interested themselves in scientific pursuits, all combine to lay strong foundations for scientific activity. About the year 1870 was established the Philosophical Society of Washington, under the presidency of Joseph Henry. In the number of its meet- ings, as w^ell as in the variety, range, and importance of the papers presented, this society soon took a leading place. Neither in Boston, Philadelphia, New York, nor elsewhere in our country are meetings of similar societies held wdth the frequency and regularity which characterize these, nor are the papers presented elsewhere, on the. whole, of as much consequence in promoting research as those thus brought out at Washington. Owing to the development of scientific w' ork which has followed its establishment, the Philosophical Society has been found unable to meet the demands upon it, and five more special scientific organizations have been successfully established as off- shoots. The latest of these, the National Geographic Society, has already a member- ship of five or six hundred. The natural effect of bringing together the large body of scientific w^orkers employed in the various bureaus of the Government is not only to give vigor to these societies, but to create a liking for the pursuits of science which extends far beyond the society limits. And another effect of the spirit thus engen- dered is to attract various other national scientific organizations to Washington as the best place for their annual meetings. This aggregation of so many investigators in so many fields has naturally led to UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 51 the gathering of apparatus and means for carrying on scientific inquiry, and these may be considered under the headings of libraries, laboratories, and collections. As to the first, I give from the report of the Commissioner of Education a few statistics of the principal libraries in the city. Some of these libraries, such as those of the Patent Office, the Bureau of Education, the Geological Survey, the Naval Observatory, the Museum of Hygiene, the Surgeon-General's Office, and the depart- ments of State and Agriculture, as well as the Toner and other special collections in the Library of Congress, are particularly valuable by reason of their strength in certain definite lines of research. Libraries in Washington. Volumes. American Medical Association 7, 000 Bar Association (subscription) 4, 500 Bureau of Education 17, 500 Columbian University 7, 000 Department of Agriculture ... 18, 000 Department of Justice 20, 000 Department qt State 22, 625 Department of the Interior. . . 8, 000 Gonzaga College 10, 000 House of Representatives 125, 000 Howard University 1 1 , 509 Light-House Board 2,711 Museum of Hygiene 13, 000 Navy Department 17, 000 Patent Office 50, 000 Signal Office 10,540 Surgeon-General' s Office 76, 733 Treasury Department United States Geological Sur- vey Coast Survey Congress Hydrographic Office Naval Observatory Senate War Department Georgetown College Volumes. 18, 000 17, 255 4,500 565, 134 2,306 12, 000 30, 000 17, 500 35, 000 Total 1,122,813 Pamphlets. Bureau of Education 45, 000 Library of Congress 191, 000 Total 236,000 Here we have, then, a library of over 1,000,000 volumes selected by the foremost specialists in every field, easily accessible, maintained, enlarged, and administered without any cost to the proposed university, and ready for its work at the moment of its organization. All that would be needed by such an institution would be a small library for reference, similar to that so admirably planned for Johns Hopkins University by President Gilman. Next, as to laboratories. For chemical work the Government has at least eight: The laboratories of the United States Geological Survey, of the Agricultural Department, of the Surgeon-General's Ofiice, of the Navy Department, of the Museum of Hygiene, of the Internal -Revenue Bureau, of the Mint Bureau, and of the District chemist. There is alsoasmall chemical laboratory in the Smithsonian Institution which wasorigi- nally organized for work connected with the Fish Commission. Most of these are organized for special work in testing materials or supplies, but the laboratories of the Geological Survey and of the Agricultural Department are necessarily so carried on that a large amount of work is also done in the line of purely scientific investigation. In the laboratory of the Geological Survey the work mainly relates to the chemistry of the mineral kingdom, while in the laboratory of the Agricultural Department investigations are undertaken relative to agricultural problems and to various adul- terations of articles of food. In both much research is conducted which results in the improvement of analytical methods. In the physical laboratory of the Geolog- ical Survey, which is immediately connected with the chemical laboratory forming part of the same division, physical investigations relating to geological problems are actively carried forward; for example, the physical constants of rocks are determined, and investigations have been made upon sedimentation. Here, too, researches have 52 UNIVEESITY OF THE UISTITED STATES. been made on the phj^sical properties of iron and steel, on the formation of alloys, and on methods of measuring high temperatures. These different chemical labora- tories of the Government, including the force of chemists in the Patent Office, rep- resent at least forty skilled men actively engaged in chemical work. Besides this, within an hour's distance northward are the chemical, physical, and biological laboratories of Johns Hopkins University, in which advanced students could make frequent observations, or even take steady work. A little more distant southward is the University of Virginia, which could easily be brought into relations with the proposed institution in a manner profitable to both; and at various points more or less remote are institutions which would doubtless afford some supplemen- tary facilities, and among them is the Naval Academy at Annapolis. Here, then, are laboratories affording the most admirable opportunities for just those kinds of advanced investigations, methods, and processes with v/hich a uni- versity, as distinguished from an intermediate college, has to do. The proposed university should indeed have large general laboratories and probably some special laboratories of its own, over which it could have complete control; but these outly- ing special laboratories, in which the most advanced work is constantly conducted by leading specialists, would give a university character to the work such as could hardly be attained at any other point in the'countrj^ I come next to illustrative collections. The chief of these are to be found in the National Museum; and these, already great, and in some respects unequaled in the world, are steadily increasing. They embrace the results of man's activity in almost every form in which such results admit of representative exhibition. To enumerate them would be impossible in any space which I could claim, and useless in view of their rapid increase. Under the existing laws the collections made by the Geological and other surveys are deposited in the National Museum after they have been used by the organizations collecting them. This has been the practice for years, so that there are already gathered a number of very valuable special collections, such as those of the Fortieth Parallel Expedition, the "Washoe Expedition, and others, besides an immense amount of ethnological, archaeological , pala?ontological, and mineralogical material. The palseontological collections of invertebrate fossils are extensive, and embrace all the material collected by the various Government expeditions in the far West, and also large collections made by the Geological Survey in the East to illustrate the study of stratigraphic geology in connection with the faunas. The collection of vertebrate fossils is at present in charge of Professor Marsh, of Yale University, but will ulti- mately be deposited in the National Museum. It is of such interest that some of the foremost naturalists of Europe have made a study of it their main object in visiting our country. The collection illustrating palfeobotany is the largest and most complete in the United States; this may also be said of the collections from the Cambrian system and the Mesozoic and Cenozoic rocks. The mineral collection of the National Museum may be divided into three parts: First, a large exhibition series; secondly, a reserve or study series; and, thirdly, a. duplicate series which is used for purposes of exchange. Incidental to the mineral collection there are two special collections — one a collection of gems and ornamental stones, mostly cut and polished; the other a collection of meteorites, which is already one of the larger collections of the world. The policy of the mineral department i& to encourage research, and to well-accredited students are always given opportunities^ for work and assistance as far as possible. Immediately related to the mineral col- lection is the collection of rocks and building stones, the geological collection proper, and the metallurgical collection, consisting mainly of ores, fuels, furnace models, and metallurgical products generally. Taken altogether, the facilities for mineralogical investigation in Washington M'ill compare favorably with the opportunites offered anywhere in the world. All these collections are increasing with very great rapidity.. UlSriVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 53 But these are by no means all the stores of material for illustration and research available for university purposes at Washington. There must also be named the museum of the Agricultural Department, which affords fine opportunities for study, some of the collections being unusually complete and well arranged. So, too, the large botanical conservatory, generally supposed to have as its sole object the supply of bouquets to enterprising Congressmen, already carries on the more serious busi- ness of botanical research, and would do so to still higher and broader purpose were a university to organize study in connection with it. Next may be named the United States Fish Commission, which maintains its principal station at Washington, where subjects through great ranges in zoology may be well studied. As for the supplementary facilities offered for summer work in the Government establishment at Woods Hole, they are simply the most complete in the world. Few Americans know how creditable this work has been, and how useful to their country. It was once made the duty of the writer of this article to conduct the late Emperor Frederick of Germany through some of the collections made by this Commission. He was a competent judge. His exclamations of admiration were unaffected and hearty, and it was no surprise that at the close of the Berlin Fish- eries Exposition the first great j^rize should have been awarded to Prof. Spencer Baird, who had organized this service. The collection of models in the Patent Office also presents great opportunities for those who would study the development of the vast industries represented in it. The collections at the IMuseum of Hygiene and the Surgeon-General's Office are noted throughout the world as in all respects precious, and in some respects unique. And, finally, the Corcoran Gallery, though only in its beginning, can easily be made to stimulate study in art, and to afford facilities for carrying on such study. I have by no means exhausted the list of collections, but what is already given will serve to show that few universities in Europe, and none in America, have such a mass of the best material for the training of students and for the advancement of knowledge as one which might be created at our national capital, and brought into proper relations with what already exists there. I come next to the observatories. Under this head are several centers of scientific activity, but I will name only one, the Naval Observatory. It is one of the foremost in the world, and connected with it is a chart and chronometer depot, an extensive collection of instruments used in taking astronomical photographs, and a magnetic observatory, besides the celebrated telescope and transit instruments used in carry- ing on its ordinary work. The jaroposed university would, indeed, need an observ- atory of moderate size for training purposes, but in the work of research by young astronomers likely to be of use and honor to the nation all this ample provision would be immediately available. So much for the literary, scientific, and technical side of the university; and a brief exhibit may now be made of the opportunities W^ashington offers to the students of what were formerly known as the "learned professions" — to the students of law, medicine, and I might add with Faust, "und leider auch Theologie," had other religious bodies in the country shown anything of the foresight and zeal exhibited in the preparations for the theological school of the new Roman Catholic University. Among the facilities for the study of medicine the city offers at least six hospitals, at each of which clinical instruction is given; and one of these, Providence Hospital, has over 300 beds. The Army Medical Museum is declared by a competent and unprejudiced authority to comprise the most complete collection of recent patholog- ical specimens in the world, and is open to the public every week day. In the National Museum there is the most complete collection in the country illustrating the materia medica of the United States pharmacopceia and that of foreign countries, and the whole is arranged and classified so as to be immediately available for studies. The immense library of the Surgeon-General's office is also available for the use of medical students and practitioners. 54 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. For a university law department Washington presents almost unparalleled advan- tages. The Law Library of Congress contains over 50,000 carefullj^ selected volumes, exclusively legal in character, and provision is already made for the accommodation of students in using it. The State Department has, by a wise policy steadily pursued during many years past, accumulated the most valuable collection of works relating to international law in the Western Hemisphere — a collection undoubtedly superior even to that of All Soul's College, Oxford, which is becoming one of the boasts of that university. . In the Supreme Court of the LTnited States and in the Court of Claims the foremost American lawyers may be heard making arguments on the most important questions. The supreme court of the District has the common-law, equity, and probate jurisdic- tion of a State court, besides that of the circuit and district courts of the United States. The absence of any code, even of one governing procedure, encourages the study of the common law in exceptional simplicitj'', and already sundry institutions, notably the Columbian University, have endeavored to bring these advantages to bear upon the country; but these institutions, though embracing men of high schol- arship and ability, are greatly hampered by the want of the means necessary to provide full university instruction. So much for the assemblage at Washington of men, books, apparatus, and material necessary for the highest university instruction. I come now to the two questions: What shall the proposed university be? How shall it be organized? I will suppose that some great millionaii-e or combination of millionaires has given the five or six millions required. Certainly such a supposition is by no means beyond the possi- bilities, in view of the sums, even larger than these, either given or to be given by some of our wealthy fellow-citizens for similar purposes. The first duty will naturally be to choose with care a board of trustees, and these should be men who will give the institution a national but not a partisan or sectarian character. There should be, as a fundamental feature of its organic law, a provision that persons of every party, and of every religious sect or of no religious sect, and of every nationality, shall be equallj'^ eligible to all offices and positions of every sort in the institution, and that neither for service in the board of trustees, nor for service in the faculty, nor for any other service in the university, shall any candidate be accepted or rejected on account of any political or religious views which he may or may not entertain. The board of trustees will have to erect necessary buildings, which should be in some central position, giving ample space. Having visited almost every university of any note either in our own country or in Europe, I may be allowed to say that the new uni- versity buildings at Strasburg and Zurich will probably afford more valuable hints and suggestions than any others. But buildings should not be undertaken until a con- siderable faculty has been called together who can suggest, advise, plan, and super- intend the accommodations necessary for their respective departments. Here comes in the most important duty imposed upon the trustees — the calling together of the faculty. This body should be made up of men who lead the country ip power to investigate and teach. There should be resident professors, nonresident professors, associate and assistant professors, instructors, and lecturers, with such other grades as experience may show to be required. With suitable means within the control of the trustees, all the foremost universities of the world might be laid under contribution for courses of lectures by men standing at the heads of their respective departments of knowledge. With all the vast material for investigation and illustration at its disposal, the pro- posed university will be no better than its faculty, and its income should be so used as to secure the men who either have taken or may fairly be expected to take a fore- most place in their respective fields. Of these the resident professors will, in the lecture rooms, laboratories, libraries, and collections, direct, lead, and organize UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 55 instruction and research in the highest sense; the nonresident professors and lec- turers will give stimulus, suggestion, and force to the work. As a rule, I would have a reasonable fee charged, but I would have the experi- ment tried of competitions in various parts of the United States, the persons passing the best examinations being entitled to scholarships giving them free instruction. In spite of the present outcry in England against competitive examinations at the universities, they have in this country succeeded well. They need not be carried to the pedantic extreme which has disgusted so many people with them in the Old World. Practical common sense will easily obviate the difficulties complained of. I would also have elections to fellowships made upon the basis of merit, as is at present done in various American universities; indeed, I would gladly see grafted upon this teaching university the system of fellowships and scholarships sketched out in the first of this series of articles. One point as regards elections to trusteeships, professorships, and fellowships should be carefully guarded. All such elections and appointments should be made by ballot. A provision for this should form part of the organic law of the university. In this way alone, as experience has shown in some of our existing institutions of learning, can a firm and lasting barrier be erected against overweening personal influence. I fully believe that within a few years such a university would be one of the most useful and flourishing in the world, and that it might fairly expect finally to equal in the numbers and character of its students, as well as in the attainments and rep- utations of its faculty, the University of Berlin — the highest point which any uni- versity organization has yet reached. It is true that objections will be raised; and, first, that such an institution will draw somewhat from those now existing. I grant that at first this may be the case in some slight degree, but would stake everything on the belief that within a few years every other college or university in the nation which has any real vitality will be strengthened by it. It will be one of the three or four universities in the coun- try to set high standards of qualification and attainment; it will send back strong men into the faculties of the existing universities; it will be a perpetual incentive to the best men in the existing institutions throughout the country to do their best in view of possible promotion to lectureships and professorships at Washington. It will also doubtless be said that Washington, as a great capital, is not the best place for young men; that there are too many distractions and temptations. This is true as regards what may be properly called collegiate or intermediate students, but not true regarding men ready to undertake university work. This is proved by the fact that while the ordinary undergraduate work thrives best at institutions in small towns, the advanced and post-graduate woi'k, such as is undertaken in schools of technology, of mining, of mechanical, civil, and electrical engineering, of architec- ture, and of law, medicine, and theology, is equally well carried on in our great cities, as is already shown at Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, St. Louis, and New Orleans. Again, it may be said that Washington has disadvantages of climate. To this I answer that they are no greater than those at very many other seats of learning. By pursuing the plan of Johns Hopkins University, the extreme hot weather can easily be avoided. There is, indeed, an impression that Washington is hopelessly malari- ous, but it is certainly more favorably situated in this respect than English Cam- bridge, in its region of fens, or than at least two of the most important colleges at Oxford, situated close to the unctuous, slimj-, reeking banks of the Isis; or than the University of Berlin, in an ancient marsh, and in the immediate neighborhood of the dark and sluggish Spree. I have observed that the talk about the malarial char- acter of Washington is periodical, and comes usually when newspaper correspondents and subordinates in the public service think it about time to enjoy leave of absence. As a matter of fact, the statistics of the health department, which are very carefully 56 UNIVERSITY OF THE IHSTITED STATES. kept, and which present comparisons of the mortality rates in Washington and other cities, clearly show our National Capital to be an unusually healthy city. About one-third of the population are negroes, and among these is generally about 50 per cent of the mortality. The mortality rate among the white population is low. There is no need to place the university buildings in any particularly insalubrious spot, or under any especially unsanitary conditions, like those in which we compel the Presi: dent of the United States to live. And even here matters are becoming better; the Potomac improvement, with the filling in of the miasmatic region adjacent to the White House grounds, will give even the President healthy surroundings. There is no need to dwell upon all the advantages accruing to the country from such an organization; most of them can be easily seen; but I will touch on one which might, at first sight, not be thought of. The city of Washington is rapidly becoming a great metropolis; it is developing the atmosphere Avhich is to give character to the executive, the judicial, and especially the legislative business of the nation. What shall that atmosphere be? Shall it be made by luxurious millionaires, anxious only for new fields in which to display their wealth? Shall it be an atmosphere of riotous living, without one thought of better things? Shall it be redolent merely of political scheming and stock-jobbing by day, and of canvas-backs and terrapin by night? In such a future, legislative cynicism and corruption, and eventually, perhaps, execu- tive and judicial cynicism and corruption, wall be of course; for they will present the only means by which men can adjust their lungs to the moral atmosphere. Shall it not rather be a capital where, with the higher satisfaction and graces of civilized liv- ing, there shall be an atmosphere of thought upon the highest subjects, of work in the most worthy fields, of devotion to the noblest aims ? Such an atmosjihere a great university with the men and work involved in it would tend to develop, and in it demagogism would wither and corruption lose the main element of its suj^port. We may well suppose that some considerations of this kind passed through the mind of him whose great name our capital bears, and that these were among the thoughts which prompted him to urge again and again the founding there of a university worthy of the nation. Andrew D. White. [Extract of letter from the Hon. Andrew D. White, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y., Angust 28, 1900.] My general impression is that the best hope — and indeed almost the only hope — for such a university is in some one of our great public-spirited millionaires who may prove far-sighted enough to see that here is the best chance for rendering a great service to his countr)' and immortalizing himself likely to be presented to any man during the next hundred years. THE URGENT NEED OF A NATIONAL UNIVERSITY. By President David Starr Jordan, of Leland Stanford Junior University. [From the Fornin for January, 1897.1 The most important event in the history of modern Germany has been the founda- tion of the University of Berlin. The unification of the German Empire was a mat- ter of tremendous significance; the success of the German armies has widened the sphere of Teutonic influence; the recently adopted uniform code of laws marks the progress of national development; but more important as an epoch-making event has been the building of a great center of human wisdom in Germany's chief capital. The influence of the University of Berlin not only shows itself in Germany's preem- inence in scientific investigation and the Avide diffusion of liberal culture, but is felt UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 57 in every branch of industrial effort. There is no trade or handiwork in Germany that has not been made more effective by the practical application of investigations made in the great miiversity. There is no line of effort in which men have not become wiser through the influence of the noble minds brought together to form this institution. Nor is the influence of this university and its noble sister institutions confined solely or even mainl}^ within the boundaries of Germany. The great revival of learning in the United States, which has shown itself in the growth of universities, in the rise of the spirit of investigation, and in the realization of the value of truth, can be traced in large degree to Germanic influences. These influences have not come to us through German immigration, or the presence of German scholars among us, but through the experience of American scholars in Germany. If it be true, as Mr. Jame:^ Br3fce says, that "of all institutions in America," the universities "have the best promise for the future," we have Germany to thank for this. It is, however, no abstract Germany that we may thank, but a concrete fact. It is the existence in Germany of universities, strong, effective, and free; and most notable among these is the youngest of their number, the University of Berlin. This century has seen some epoch-making events in the history of our Republic. The war of Union, the abolition of slavery — one and the same in essence — mark the same movement of the Republic from medisevalism to civilization. But the great deed of the century still remains undone. Ever since the time of Washington our lawgivers have contemplated building a university at the nation's capital. They have planned a university that shall be national and American, as the universities of Berlin and Leipzig are national and German ; a university that shall be the cul- mination of our public-school system, and that by its vivifying influence shall quicken the pulse of every part of that system. For more than a century wise men have kept this project in mind. For more than a century wise men have seen the j^ressing need of its accomplishment. For more than a contury, however, the exigencies of politics or the indifference of political managers have caused postponement of its final consideration. Meanwhile, about the national capital, by the very necessities of the case, the basal material of a great university has been already gathered. The National Museum and the Army Medical Museum far exceed all other similar collections in America in the amount and value of the material gathered for investigation. The Library of Congress is our greatest public library, and, in the nature of things, it will always remain so. The Geological Survey, the Coast and Geodetic Survey, and the biological divisions of the Department of Agriculture are constantly engaged in investigations of the highest order, conducted by men of university training, and possible to no other men. The United States Fish Commission is the source of a vast part of our knowledge of the sea and of sea life. Besides these there are many other bureaus and divisions in which scientific inquiry constitutes the daily routine. The work of these departments should be made useful, not only in its conclusions, but in its methods. A university consists of investigators teaching. All that the national capital needs to make a great university of it is that a body of real scholars should be maintained to train other men in the work now so worthily carried on. To do this M'ould be to bring to America, in large degree, all that American scholars now seek in the University of Berlin. Students will come wherever opportunities for investigation are given. No standards of work can be made too high, for the severest standards attract rather than repel men who are worth educating. It should not be necessary to bring arguments to show the need of a national university in the United States. A university, we may remember, is not a school for boys and girls, where the elements of a liberal education are taught to those who have yet to enter upon the serious work of life. A university is not a school main- tained for the glory or the extension of any denominational body. In its very 58 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. definition a university must be above and beyond all sectarianism. Truth is as broad as the universe, and no one can search for it between any artificial boundaries. As well ask for Presbyterian sunshine or ^ Baptist June as to speak of a denomina- tional university. It is said that in America we have already some four hundred colleges and univer- sities, and that, therefore, we do not need any more. Quite true; we need no more like these. The splendid achievement and noble promise of our universities, to which Mr. Bryce calls attention, is not due to their number. Many of them do not show this promise. If such were to close their doors to-morrow, education would be the gainer by it. Many of the four hundred, as we well know, are not universities in fact or in spirit. Most of the work done in the best of them is that of the German gym- nasium or preparatory school. The worst of them, would in Germany be closed by the police. But in a certain number of the strongest and freest the genuine univer- sity spirit is found in the highest degree. For more of these good ones there is a crying demand. Their very promise is a reason why we should do everything possible to make them better. A school can rise to be a university only when its teachers are university men; when they are men trained to face directly and effectively the prob- lems of nature and of life. To give such training is the work of the university. In an educational system each grade looks to the one next higher for help and inspiration. The place at the head of our system is now held by the universities of a foreign land. It is not the needs of the District of Columbia which are to be met by a university of the United States. The local needs are well supplied already. It is the need of the nation. And not of the nation alone, but of the world. A great university in America would be a school for the study of civic freedom. A great university at the capital of the Republic would attract the free-minded of all the earth. It would draw men of all lands to the study of democracy. It would tend to make the work- ings of democracy worthy of respectful study. The New World has its lessons as well as the Old; and its material for teaching these lessons should be made equally ade- quate. Mold and ruin are not necessary to a university; nor are traditions and precedents essential to its effectiveness. The greatest of Europe's universities is one of her very youngest. Much of the greatness of the University of Berlin is due to her escape from the dead hands of the past. It is in this release that the great promise of the American university lies. Oxford and Cambridge are still choked by the dust of their own traditions. Because this is so men have doubted whether England has to-day any universities at all. The national university should not be an institution of general education, with its rules and regulations, college classes, good-fellowship, and football team. It should be the place for the training of investigators and of men of action. It should admit no student who is under age or who has not a definite purpose to accomplish. It has no time or strength to spend in laying the foundations for education. Its func- tion lies not in the conduct of examinations, or the granting of academic degrees. It is not essential that it should give professional training of any kind, though that would be desirable. It should have the same relation to Harvard and Columbia and Johns Hopkins that Berlin University now holds. It should fill, with noble adequacy, the place which the graduate departments of our real universities partially occupy. In doing so it would furnish a stimulus which would strengthen all similar work throughout the land. Graduate work has yet to be taken seriously by American universities. Their teachers have carried on original research, if at all, in hours stolen from their daily tasks of plodding and prodding. The graduate student has been allowed to shift for himself; and he has been encouraged to select a university not for the training it offers, but because of some bonus in the form of scholarships. The "free-lunch" inducement to investigation will never build up a university. Fellowships can never take the place of men or books or apparatus in developing the university spirit. UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 59 Great libraries and adequate facilities for work are costly; and no American institu- tion has yet gathered together such essentials for university work as already exist at Washington. If a national university is a national need, it is the duty of the people to meet and satisfy it. No other power can do it. As well ask wealthy manufacturers or wealthy churches to endow and support our supreme court of law as to endow and support our supreme university. They can not do it; they will not do it; and, as free men, we would not have them do it if they would. As to this, Mr. John W. Hoyt — a man who for years has nobly led in the effort to establish a national university — uses these strong vi^ords: "What should the nation undertake to accomplish? What the citizen has not done and can not do, is our answer. The citizen may create a very worthy and quite important private institution, some of which may be named to-day, but no citi- zen, however great his fortune, and no single Commonwealth, much less any sectarian organization or any combination of these, can create an institution that shall be so wholly free from bias of any and every sort; that shall complete our public educa- tional system; that shall exert so nationalizing and harmonizing an influence upon all portions of our great country ; that shall be always ready to meet the demands of the Government for service in whatsoever field, and that shall at the same time secure to the United States an acknowledged ascendency in the ever-widening field of intellectual activity." A university bears the stamp of its origin. Whatever its origin, the university ennobles it. But a national university must spring from the people. It must be paid for by them; and it must have its final justification in the upbuilding of the nation. Whatever institutions the people need the people nmst create and control. That this can be done wisely is no matter of theory. With all their mistakes and crudities the State universities of this country constitute the most hopeful feature in our whole educational system. Doubtless the weakness and folly of the people have affected them injuriously from time to time. This is not the point. We must think of the effect they have had in curing the people of weakness and folly. "The his- tory of Iowa," says Dr. Angell, "is the history of her State university." The same thing is grandly and emphatically true of Dr. Angell's own State of Michigan. In its degree the history of every State is molded by its highest institution of learning. As I have had occasion to say once before — "Many trials are made in popular government; many blunders are committed before any given piece of work falls into the hands of competent men. But mistakes are a source of education. Sooner or later the right man will be found and the right management of a public institution will justify itself. What is well done can never be wholly undone. In the long run, few institutions are less subject to partisan influence than a State university. When the foul grip of the spoilsman is once unloosed it can never be restored. In the evil days which befell the politics of Vir- ginia, when the fair name of the State was traded upon by spoilsmen of every party, of every degree, the one thing in the State never touched by them was the honor of the University of Virginia. And amid all the scandal and disorder which followed our civil war, what finger of evil has been laid on the Smithsonian Institution or the Military Academy at West Point? On that which is intended for no venal end the people will tolerate no venal domination. In due time the management of every public institution will be abreast of the highest popular opinion. Sooner or later the wise man leads; for his ability to lead is at once the test and proof of his wisdom." Some of the half-hearted friends of the national universit}^ have been fearful lest partisan influence should control it. They fear lest it should become a prey to the evils which have disgraced our civil service; lest the shadow of the boss should darken the doors of the university with the paralyzing influence which it has exerted on the employees of the custom-house. I believe this to be a groundless fear. All 60 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. plans for a national university provide for a nonpartisan board of control. Its ex officio members are to be chosen from the ablest jurists and wisest men of science the country can claim. Such a board now controls the National Museum and the Smithsonian Institution; and ho accusation of partisanship or favoritism has ever been brought against it. A university could not be otherwise than free. Its faculty could respond only to the noblest influences. No man can receive an appointment of national prominence in the face of glaring unfitness, and each man chosen to a position in a national faculty would feel the honor of his profession at stake in repelling all degrading influences. Even if occasionally an unwise appointment should be made, the action would correct itself. To a university men and women go for individual help and training. A pretender in a university could not give such help. His presence is soon detected by his fellows and by his students. The latter he could not harm, for he could not retain them. By the side of his fellows he could not maintain himself. No body of men is so insusceptible to coercion or contamination as a university faculty. A scholar is a free man. He has always been so. He will always remain so. The danger that a body of men such as constitute the university faculty of Harvard or Yale or Columbia or Princeton or Chicago or Cornell would be contaminated by Washington politics is sheer nonsense. Such an idea has no basis in experience. It is urged only for lack of better arguments. Such opposition to the national university as has yet appeared seems to rest on distrust of democracy itself or on concealed hatred of secular education. To one or the other of these influences can be traced nearly ever}" assault yet made on any part of the system of popular education. The fear that the university would be contaminated by political associations is therefore groundless. But what about the hope from such associations? An edu- cated politician may become a statesman, and we may look for tremendous results for good from the presence of trained economists and historians and jurists at the national capital. It Vv'ould in itself be an influence for good legislation and good administration greater than any that we know. As President Cleveland said at Princeton University on the occasion of its sesquicentennial celebration — ' ' The worth of educated men in purifying and steadying popular sentiment would be more useful if it were less spasmodic and occasional. * * * Our people readily listen to those who exhibit a real fellowship and friendly and habitual interest in all that concerns the common welfare. Such a condition of intimacy would not only improve the general political atmosphere, but would vastly increase the influence of our universities in their efforts to prevent popular delusions or correct them before they reach an acute or dangerous stage." The scholars and investigators now maintained at Washington exert an influence far beyond that of their official position. If the Harvard faculty and its graduate students met on the Capitol Hill, if their influence were in the departmental work, and their presence in social life, Washington would become a changed city. To the force of high training and academic self-devotion is to be traced the immense influence exerted in Washington by Joseph Henry, Spencer F. Baird, and G. Brown Goode. Of such men as these are universities made. AVhen such men are systematically selected from our body of university professors and brought to Washington and allowed to surround themselves with like men of the next generation, we shall indeed have a national capital. By this means we shall create the best guaranty of the perpetuity of our Republic; that it shall not, like the republics of old, "go down in unreason, anarchy, and blood." In the long run, the voters of a nation must be led by its wisest men. Their wisdom must become the wisdom of the many, else the nation will perish. A university is simply a contrivance for making wisdom effective by surrounding wise men with the conditions most favorable for rendering wisdom contagious. There is no instrument of political, social, or administrative reform to be compared with the influence of a national university. David Starr Jordan. UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 61 DISCUSSION OF THE REPORT OF THE "COMMITTEE OF FIFTEEN" BEFORE THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION AT DETROIT, MICH., IN JULY, 1901.'^ [Reprinted from proceedings of National Educational Association.] President James H. Baker, of the University of Colorado, said in substance: There appears to be a remarkable relation between the stages of progress and findings of this committee and the activities of the promoters of the so-called Washington Memorial Institution. I fear that the committee, or members thereof, in their zeal to carry out the view embodied in this report have gone far in attempting to predetermine results before making the report to the body that appointed them. Under the head "Decla- ration of the committee," it is seen that at their first meeting they, by resolution, gave their judgment upon the real question referred to them. This resolution was given to the country virtually in the name of the National Educational Association at a time when a bill for a national university was likelj^ to receive favorable con- sideration in Congress. Instead of making their adverse report at the next meeting of the council, held some months later in Charleston, they, through their chairman and secretary, made an informal report at that time to the effect that they had reached no final conclusions and were still investigating with open minds. The question as to why, then, they had at their first meeting decided the question at issue and immediately made it public was not answered. Just before this 1901 meet- ing of the National Educational Association the press of the country not only made known that the report is adverse to the scheme of a national university, but also at the same time announced that the Washington Memorial Institution was founded. Before the report is made we find the names of the chairman and secretary of this committee on the board of trustees of said institution. It seems as though it were intended to leave the council nothing to do but to accept the report of the committee, together with the Washington Memorial Institution. I say again it appears that the committee in its zeal has gone far to realize the plan recommended before making the report. Under the head "Preliminary inquiries" are many interesting subjects of investi- gation. We could wish that the results of investigation had been given us as a part of the report. The "argument for a national university," I think, is not fully and adequately stated. Professor Giddings, in his work on sociology, enumerates twelve modes of equality necessary to a successful democracy, and he says that only b)^ a thoroughly organized and successful public-school system can a sense of the equalities be instilled. He might have included State universities and a national university. There are problems of democracy, serious ones, and our colleges have not yet done their full work in helping solve them. While our State universities have not yet done all that should be expected of them, I believe they are doing more than other institutions in making citizens who have an interest in the welfare of the State and a ready sym- pathy Avith the problems of all classes of society. A national university, in touch with the people, supported by public funds, would give the professors and students therein a truer sense of true Americanism than could be developed in any other relation. It would serve to make the brightest and most progressive minds of the world leaders in bringing the people to a consciousness of their ideals. It would pay to maintain a national university if for no other purpose than to give our repre- sentatives in Congress other interests than commercialism and politics. In founding * It is a matter of regret that the report of this discussion does not include all of the speakers. — Editor. ] 62 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. and upbuilding a national university they would devote themselves to an ideal inter- est ideally. Its idealizing influence would be at the center of the governmental life of democracy. Its effect upon the nation in the course of a century, I believe, would be marvelous. Scholars assembled in a national institution of learning from all parts of the country and from all countries in the world would carry to the cor- ners of the earth American ideas, ideas purified by their very means. Our statue of Liberty Enlightening the World will then have a true significance. The above are two additional arguments for a national university. Moreover, I am confident the great mass of public educators and of all thoughtful Americans believe in a national university. For more than a hundred years the project has been before the people and has been strongly advocated by eminent men. The National Educational Association in the seventies unanimously and repeatedly affirmed its belief in a national university. There has existed for years a national committee of four hundred to promote its establishment. This committee has an executive council of 15 members, all eminent men in the history and affairs of the nation, who, with remarkable zeal, have devoted time and study and active effort to the problem. Ex-Gov. John W. Hoyt, chairman of the national committee, with no other motive than a desire to see an institution that would help the nation, with- out hope or desire of reward, has spent years of his time and energy in promoting the cause. The pity is that the National Educational Association, in addition to expressing its belief in a national university, did not appoint an active committee to aid the cause, and provide the committee with necessary funds. I wrote recently to all the State universities asking for latest views regarding a national university. Up to date I have received 18 replies, and all but 1 are favora- ble to the idea of a genuine university, conducted and supported by the Govern- ment. One of them says: "I do not urge the establishment of such an institution in the interest of the further development of our resources, of more commercialism, or for any other material reason, but purely in the interests of common democracy." Another says: "If we agree that a higher public-school system is necessary, with its early response to public sentiment, we must for that very reason concede that the old endowed institutions, which do not rapidly respond to public sentiment, are also a necessity to offset too rapid a change of public thought. In other words, both are necessary, but the enormous wealth and endowment of the conservative class should be met by advancement along the lines of improvement in the responsive class. This can be met only through the creation of a national university." I also wrote to the members of the executive council. These men are widely scattered, and I have heard, directly and indirectly, from only six. Gen. Nelson A. Miles writes a very strong argument for the university idea. He also says: "There has been no valid room for other than affirmative views, and there can be none." Ambassador Andrew D. White affirms his views so often strongly expressed. Ex-Minister John A. Kasson offers a convincing affirmative argument. Prof. S. P. Langley, heard from only indirectly, raises a practical point, to which I shall refer later. Prof. Simon Newconib says: " So far as what I should desire to see, my views remain unchanged." He, however, expresses fear of the strength of the opposition. Ex-Senator George F. Edmunds writes a full expression of his views. Among other things he says: "Such an institution, being purely nonsectarian, and differing in this respect from other powerful institutions in Washington and elsewhere, can have a vast influence in preserving the fundamental principles of liberty of thought and action under equal law. I am confident that when the subject is considered broadly, success will easily be obtained, notwithstanding the opposition which, in the main, I can not but think, arises from selfish interests." More than one of these men express in substance this thought, quoted from one of the letters: "These considera- tions make all opposition based on local and denominational selfishness so unworthy that they should not for a moment weigh with a patriotic people or their honored representatives in the American Congress." Hon. Andrew D. White, in an article UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 63 first published in 1889, but revised and republished in 1900, offers strong arguments. He believes a national university would have an influence in uniting all sections of the country; that it would become the equal of Berlin; that it would in every way supplement and aid existing universities; that the influence of such an institution upon the atmosphere of Washington would be most salutary. President Jordan, of Stanford, has an article in the Forum, 1897. He refers to the influence of the University of Berlin upon Germany, and urges the need of a national university for the United States. Further on he says: " Itis not the needs of the District of Columbia which are to be met by a university of the United States. The local needs are well supplied already. It is the need of the nation, and not of the nation alone, but of the world. A great university in America would be a school for the study of civic freedom. A great uni- versity at the capital of the Republic would attract the free-minded of all the earth. It would draw men of all lands to the study of democracy. It would tend to make the workings of democracy worthy of respectful study." He further says: "If a national university is a national need, it is the duty of the people to meet and satisfy it. No other power can do it. As well ask wealthy manufacturers or wealthy churches to endow and support our supreme court of law as to endow and support our supreme university. They can not doit; they will not do it; and, as freemen, we would not have them do it if they would. A university bears the stamp of its origin. Whatever its origin, the university ennobles it. But a national university must spring from the people. It must be paid for by them; and it must have its final justification in the upbuilding of the nation. Whatever institutions the people need, the people must create and control. That this can be done wisely is no matter of theory. With all their mistakes and crudities, the State universities of this country constitute the most hopeful feature in our whole educational system. Doubtless the weakness and folly of the people have affected them injuriously from time to time. This is not the point. We must think of the effect they have had in curing the people of weakness and folly. ' ' He closes thus : ' ' There is no instrument of political, social, or administrative reform to be compared with the iufiuence of a national university." As to the "Criticism of this argument," it appears to me not strong. (1) We do not emphasize the argument from analogy. The case rests on its independent merits. (2) Our proposition is that a national university shall be more adequate than any other can possibly be made. (3) Anyone acquainted with Washington's wi'i tings upon the subject knows that the reason emphasized in paragraph 3 is not the only one he urged. Moreover, since his day the reasons for a national university have expanded and are more clearly seen. (4) We also desire to take full advantage of the opportunities at Washington, but we shall try to show that the scheme advo- cated by the committee is not to be considered as a substitute for a national uni- versity. In passing I wish to note that without question infiuences representing some religious denominations are actively hostile to a national university. While I stand finnly for all that the churches truly represent, I feel keenly that this mistaken zeal is not to be tolerated. Noting the history of the George Washington Memorial Association, it appears that it has been captured by those opposed to the university idea, together with its funds raised "to advance and secure the establishment in Washington, D. C, of a university," etc. Under "Characteristics of the institution proposed" we see that the memorial institution is to be ' ' independent of Government support or control. ' ' In other words, another private institution has been founded in Washington with which we, of course, have nothing to do. Should the Government allow its facilities to be used under the advice of a private body not responsible to the Government? Now we come to the scheme of the Washington Memorial Institution. By the 64 UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. report of the committee there are 272 units of possibility for special investigation in the Government institutions and Departments in Washington, provided each student takes but one subject. If each takes two or three subjects, the number of students is reduced to about 100. A member of the committee has said there are not opportunities for 50 students. The scheme of the Washington Memorial Institu- tion is not adequate. I believe it is not intended seriously, except by the enemies of a national university, to prevent its establishment. Professor Langley, of the Smithsonian, points out that the laboratories in the Government institutions and Departments are not adequate for a large number of student investigators, neither could time be given to needful instruction. We can draw the inference that there must be a genuine university, with professors and full equipment, before students can make use of the splendid opportunities in Washington owned by the Govern- ernment. This memorial institution plan is hardly the shadow of a shadow of a university. The problem remains where it was before, to be solved by the friends, in this association and elsewhere, of a national university. I mean by a national uni- versity a great post-graduate institution — a greater than Berlin — wonderfully equipped, with professors representing the culture and progress of the world, with thousands of graduate students from all parts of the country and from all countries of the world, standing as an ideal interest of Congress and of the American people, in touch with the people, and helping the people come to a consciousness of the true ideals of democracy, and spreading those ideals over the civilized world. And they offer us this pitiful substitute! With the opposition naturally stand a few great universities and a few religious denominations. President Gilman, in his article on a national university, is very frank, and asks what Columbia and Harvard and Yale and Johns Hopkins will say to the idea of a university that might attract some of their best professors and stu- dents? We are told that the scheme is visionary. The American Republic needs a true and far-reaching vision of greater things than average politics gives us. We are told that there are difficulties in the way. Shades of William Lloyd Garrison and Wendell Phillips! When shall the Anglo-Saxon American people be told that they are not to undertake a right thing because there are difficulties in the way? I hope this council of education will affirm its belief in a national university. I hope further that in the business meeting of the active members of the general asso- ciation a resolution will be passed reaffirming belief in a national university, and that a committee will be appointed, with funds for necessary publications, to aid the committee of four hundred in securing its foundation. This is not a question of the interest of a few great universities or of a few great religious denominations, but it is a question of fostering our public-school system, our public universities, all colleges and universities of the better class, democracy, progress, American scholarship, national ideals, and America's influence upon the world. Ex-Gov. John Wesley Hoyt, chairman of the national university committee. Mr. President, Members of the Council: Before entering upon the subject under discussion I should, in justice to the cause itself and to the great committee of its promoters whom I have the honor to represent, mention the facts personal to myself, that being barely convalescent after a long illness and in no condition even to make the journey, it was the earnest requests of friends — and these alone — to which I yielded so far as finally to accept the invitation; and secondly, that within three days of the date of necessary departure I had an alarming prostration by heat. That I am, therefore, in a totally unfit condition to appear before you will very certainly make itself manifest from beginning to end. UNIVP^KSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 65 Nevertheless, I was sorry to hear from the presiding officer that I can have but a very short time, for there is much that I should like to say. It had been my purjjose, first of all, to offer a brief summary of what, in the judg- ment of the National Educational Association, some years ago, a national university should be; second, to remind the members of this great association what it actually did a quarter of a century ago toward securing the establishment of such a university; third, to present a resume of the efforts of the national university committee and of the action of Congress, more especially of the Senate, in this same behalf during the last decade; and finally, to offer what, to my mind, are reasons more than sufficient why the remarkable report of your committee of fifteen should be emphatically dis- approved by this council and by the National Educational Association at large. In view of the unexpected limitation, I shall find it difficult to rightly apportion the time. Let me say at the outset that my own deep interest in the subject of a national university came of an inspection of the educational institutions of the Old and the New World, made in my capacity as United States commissioner to the Paris Exposi- tion of 1867, and by special authority of Mr. Seward, then Secretary of State. It was my surprise and mortification upon the conclusion of two years of travel and study (in the course of which I visited every university in Europe and America), that aroused me to efforts in behalf of university education, in which our deficiencies were most marked. As many of you will recall, the National Educational Association, at Trenton, N. J., in 1869, adopted unanimouslj^ the following resolution: ^^ Resolved, That, in the opinion of this association, a great American university is a leading want of American education, and that, in order to contribute to the early establishment of such an institution, the president of this association, acting in con- cert with the president of the National Superintendents' Association, is hereby requested to appoint a committee, consisting of one member from each of the States, and of which Dr. J. W. Hoyt, of Wisconsin, shall be chairman, to take the whole matter under consideration, and to make such report thereon, at the next annual convention of said associations, as shall seem to be demanded by the interests of the country." I can now barely mention the facts that the committee's preliminary report, sub- mitted at Cleveland in 1870, was in itself unanimous, and was unanimously adopted by the association. The report submitted at St. Louis in 1871, likewise unanimously adopted by the association, among other things, contained an outline of what a national university should be. At the same time the national committee was made to consist of fewer members, and was constituted "a permanent committee," with powers to frame a bill, to send the same to members and to leading citizens throughout the country, and, when ready, to offer it to Congress and press its passage. You are aware that such a bill was finally, in 1872, introduced, and that it was unanimously reported by the House Committee on Education, which included many eminent members of that body, among them Mr. George F. Hoar, of Massachusetts. Of the long lapse of time, during which, owing to the protracted absence of members of the committee from the country, and the difficulty of enlisting active successors, little was done, I will only say that this has been to me a source of unending regret. In so far as the National Educational Association is concerned, consolation is found in these two facts: First, that upon conclusion of a reply by the chairman of its com- mittee in this citj' of Detroit in 1874, to an attack upon the national university move- ment by the president of Harvard the year before (during the chairman's al^sence from the country), the following resolution was unanimously adopted by the associa- tion, and with special emphasis: S. Rep. 945 5 66 UNIVEKSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. ^'Resolved, That this association does hereb3'reaffim its former declarations in favor of the establishment of a natijnal miiversity, devoted, not to collegiate but to uni- versity work, providing higher instruction in all departments of learning, and so organized as to secure necessary independence and permanency in its management." Secondly, that when the old-time chairman of the aforesaid committee had deter- mined to resume his efforts for the university, and repaired to Washington for that purpose, ever}^ member of the National Educational Association whom he was able to consult as to laying the matter again before that body at its next annual meeting, said in substance: "No; the association is sure, absolutely sure already, and will be prepared, when the time shall have come for its cooperation — when, as a great and influential body, its help is needed. It is better that a new committee be formed, including, besides some of the leading members of the association, the strongest public men of the countrj' in other fields of activity." It was for this reason that the " National Committee to Promote the Establishment of the University of the United States" was formed in 1891, and embraces, besides the presidents of over two hundred leading colleges and universities and the State superintendents of public instruction, statesmen, jurists, scholars, scientists, and heads of national organizations enough to swell the number beyond 400. You are doubtless familiar with the earnest enlistment of the able ana honored Senator George F. Edmunds, of Vermont, in a revival of the national-university question, in 1890, by securing the appointment of a special Senate "Committee to Establish the University of the United States," with the introduction of a bill, and with its reference to said committee. You may also know that, after his retirement from the Senate because of serious ill health, the said committee was made a "standing committee;" that aunanimous report v/as submitted by Senator Edmunds's successor in the chairmanship of said committee. Chairman Proctor, of Vermont, in 1893, though too late to secure action; and another report, also unanimous, by his successor. Chairman Plunton, of Vir- ginia, in 1894, who succeeded in getting the bill ably discussed on the affirmative side, thougii not in getting it to a vote, because of interference by the appropriation bills and the arrival of the time when, under the rules, a single vote was sufficient to prevent further action during that Congress. You may further know of the affirmative report afterwards submitted by Chairman Kyle, of South Dakota, in 1896, with the inclusion of over 300 letters in support of the measure from some of the ablest and most distinguished men of the United States; and that the bill so reported was prepared during three protracted sessions of the executive coimcil of the national- university committee, the chief justice of the United States presiding and every member but one being present. That this bill, of which President David Starr Jordan, of Leland Stanford Univer- sity, wrote, "Put it through without the change of a punctuation point," failed was due to the absence of the chairman of the Senate committee during almost the entire last session of the Fifty-fourth Congress (during the session of the South Dakota leg- islature), and to the natural reluctance of Senators John Sherman, Frye, and other members of the committee to take his place while daily expecting his return, espe- cially since, meanwhile, a minority report (though brief, weak, and ill supported) had been offei'ed. ******* The record of national-university efforts in the Senate puts it beyond question that, while the Senate itself has dealt most liberally and handsomely with the university question, there have been delays on the part of chairmen of the Senate committee, especially the last one — delays, too, in one case, which many friends of our measure insist have a mysterious connection with those of the committee of fifteen, but which I shall myself not here attempt to explain otherwise than to note that the actual UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 67 work of said committee of fifteen may have devolved upon a very small number of its members. As for the report of the committtee on a national university now under discussion, I regret to speak of it, for there are attached to it the signatures of distinguished men whom I have long highlj^ respected, some of them members of the national-university committee. But, on the other hand, it is my necessity to speak of the results of their years of labor in terms of the severest condemnation, both on account of the unreason- able delays involved and because of the astonishing recommendation with which the report concludes — a recommendation which, carefully and dispassionately viewed, seems to be nothing less than an attempt to foist upon the National Educational Asso- ciation and the country a weak and unworthy substitute for the noble national uni- versity to which the association stood so entirely committed in other years, and by which I firmly believe it will ever stand. Did time permit, I would point out right here how this "memorial" concern is practically made up of faults and deficiencies — that it is substantially confined to some sort of popular utilization of the scientific resources of the Government at Washington, and that even in attempting this they have offered a scheme that must prove a failure. I would show likewise how, as a private institution, it must necessarilj^ fail of all those great educational, national, and even international ends which Washington, Jefferson, and the most illustrious of other of our presidents, as well as a multitude of statesmen, scholars, scientists, and practical educators have had in view for a hun- dred years. And, finally, I would remind you of the affront this "memorial" scheme offers to the father of his country. *It was not a narrow, one-sided institute, originated by one or more of the worst enemies of the great idea he so cherished, and for whose final realization he made the best contribution he could in his last will and testa- ment; it was not any such "institution" as we have outlined before us, worked up and now in control of national-university deserters, faint-hearted friends, and declared opponents of any university likely to become gi'eater than their own, no mat- ter what its claims on national and universal grounds; it was nothing of this sort that the immortal Washington was so profoundly interested in, as they who devised and organized it very well know. And in his great name we who have believed with him and have zealously worked for the needed realization of his noble aims utterly repudiate, whatever claims its founders may uiake to consideration on national and patriotic grounds, this "memorial institution." Using the "two minutes more" the chair has kindly granted me, let me declare my conviction that the "memorial institution" will prove a faux pas, and that the national-university movement will go forward. To friends of the national university who from the first -have done little to help, trusting that other of its friends would carry it through, with the help of Providence, and who have mistakenly assumed that the years of delay in the Senate were a symptom of a decline in interest — to such it may seem strange; but as for myself these methods of the enemy, whom it seems we were destined to meet, have but increased my determination. With many years and many thousands of dollars of my own so freely given to the university cause already, I am newly nerved and consecrated. I need hardly say to those who have known my past life — and yet, because of base intimations in one or two quarters, it may be my duty to say — that a victory fully won could by no possibility have anything of personal advantage for me other than a con- sciousness of duty done — an elevating sense of labors performed and sacrifices made not in vain. For, if already established by act of Congress and to be organized to-morrow, the national university would include no official station that I could be induced to accept, if offered me, either then or at any time thereafter. As a deter- mined promoter of the movement begun by Washington, I have been no less purely 68 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. patriotic than he. For its realization I shall continue to labor, and am ready to lay down my life. With the distinguished President Gilman, of 1895, "I firmly believe that a national university will be established in Washington; " and with the eminent William R. Harper, president of the University of Chicago, "I have always believed in such an institution, and will continue to believe in it. There is everything to be gained and nothing to be lost." ADDRESS ON A NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, BY PRESIDENT JOSEPH SWAIN, OF THE INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY, BEFORE THE INDIANA STATE TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION, 1901. The establishment of a national university under Government supj^ort at Washing- ton has been one of the cherished ideas of many leading American statesmen, scholars, and educators for more than a century. The idea is one that appeals to the democratic spirit of our nation. Many difficulties have stood in the way of its accomplishment. Chief among these have beeh : ( 1 ) The view of some that Con- gress did not have sufficient power; (2) the opposition of a few existing institutions which were fearful lest a great uuivei'sity in Washington would overshadow and de- crease their own relative importance in public esteem; (3) the fear of some that the political atmosphere of the capital would be deleterious to the highest interest of a national university; (4) that the opposition of others to any scheme which contem- plated the use of public money, and (5) the clamor of th^ supporters of many unwise schemes, combined with the great pressure from the routine of Congress, made it difficult for any cause for education, however meritorious, to be undertaken without the unanimous and persistent efforts of the educational people of the country. My object at this time is not so much to urge that the teachers of Indiana throw their weight and influence on the side of the immediate establishment of a national university as it is to ask that they consider carefully this question and whether it would not be a positive injury to the cause of education in America to allow the friends of these plans to prevail who desire to block the way to the establishment of a national university under Government control and forever close the way to the realization of those democratic ideas of Washington in the estal>lishment of a national university. The immense development in the last decade of our country in all phases of our national life has brought to the front the demand for men and women with better training than ever before, and this in turn has quickened the universities of our land and the whole nation has awakened as never before to the great importance of higher education and the institutions of higher learning, due doubtless, in part at least, to this situation. The council of the National Educational Association in July, 1898, authorized the appointment of the "committee of fifteen, the majority of whom should be members of the council, who shall investigate the entire subject of the establishment of a national university and report to the council." This committee was composed of some of the leading educational men of the country. The members could not, for different reasons, all attend the meetings for a consideration of the question. Neither could the committee all agree on a report that they were all will- ing to sign. The question of the establishment of a national university was discussed in the department of higher education at Los Angeles in July, 1899. The chairman of the committee made an individual report to the council at Charleston July, 1900. The views expressed in the report were so out of harmony with those held by the majority of the council that they felt that some expression should be given which would make it clear to those interested that in accepting the report it should not be understood, inferentially or otherwise, that the council accepted the views expressed. The following resolution was unanimously adopted by the council : UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 69 "Resolved, That the personal report of the chairman of the committee on the national university be received and the committee continued, and that the council defer for the present any expression of opinion concerning the establishment of a national university at Washington." At the Detroit meeting last July the final report of the committee was presented, four men out of the fifteen composing the committee not signing the report. The report was adverse to the establishment of a national university. Notably among those who did not sign the report were President Angell, of the University of Michi- gan, and Professor James, of the University of Chicago. The following resolution represented the attitude of the majority of the committee: ''Resolved, That we approve the plan for a nongovernmental institution, known as the 'Washington Memorial Institute,' to be established and maintained at Washing- ton, D. C. , for the purpose of promoting the study of science and liberal arts at the national capital, and of exercising systematic oversight of the advanced study and investigation to be carried on by duly qualified students in the Government labora- tories and collections in accordance with the terms of the joint resolution of Congress approved July 12, 1892, and that of the act of March 3, 1901." At the close of the report those signing it recommended the following: "Resolved, That the report of the committee authorized by resolution of July 11, 1898, to investigate the entire subject of a national university, be received and the committee discharged." While technically, in accordance with parUamentary usage, the adoption of the above resolution did not commit the council to any expression of sentiment in the report, certain members had given out to the Associated Press views adverse to the establishment of a national university, and the council therefore felt very strongly that, while in deference to the committee they did not care to declare positively for a national university, they did not wish any opportunity for a misunderstanding of the matter to occur. After an interested discussion they passed, with but three dis- senting votes, the following resolution: "Resolved, That w^hile we wish to express our approval of the labors of the com- mittee, we are not prepared to abandon the oft-repeated declaration of the National Educational Association in favor of the establishment of a national university." Those who were active in the council in the advocacy of this resolution were satis- fied when the council declared their unwillingness to abandon the idea of the estab- lishment of a national university, but the active members of the general association took the matter up and passed a positive declaration in favor of a university for graduate work with Government support and under Government control. Thus the National Teachers' Association stands committed by oft-repeated declarations in favor of a governmental university under governmental control, notwithstanding the adverse report of the majority of the committee referred to above. The high stand- ing of the members of this committee in the educational world entitles them to very careful consideration, and there are reasons for the belief among those signing the report that there are those who are favorable to a national university, but regard the plan proposed as a means to this end. In order to fully understand the force of the recommendation of this committee it becomes necessary to examine the resolution quoted above, pointing out the plan proposed. But what was the resolution of Congress of 1892 and 1901, referred to in the report? The joint resolution of 1892 is as follows: "JOINT RESOLUTION to encourage the establishment and endowment of institutions of learning at the national capital by defining the policy of the Government with reference to the use of its literary and scientific collections by students. "Whereas large collections illustrative of the various arts and sciences, and facili- tating literary and scientific research, have been accumulated by the action of Con- gress through a series of years at the national capital; and 70 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. "Whereas it was the original purpose of the Government thereby to promote research and the diffusion of knowledge, and is now the settled policy and present practice of those charged with the care of these collections specially to encourage students who devote their time to the investigation and study of any branch of knowl- edge by allowing to them all proper use thereof; and " Whereas it is represented that the enumeration of these facilities and the formal statement of this policy will encourage the establishment and endowment of institu- tions of learning at the seat of government and promote the work of education by attracting students to avail themselves of the advantage aforesaid under the direction of competent instructors: Therefore '^ Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the facilities for research and illustration in the following and any other governmental collections now existing or hereafter to be established in the city of Washington for the promotion of knowledge shall be accessible, ulider such rules and restrictions as the officers in charge of each collection may prescribe, subject to such authority as is now or may hereafter be permitted by law, to the sci- entific investigators and to students of any institution of higher education now incor- porated or hereafter to be incorporated under the laws of Congress or of the District of Columbia, to wit: ( 1 ) Of the Library of Congress; (2) of the National Museum; (3) Of the Patent Office; (4) of the Bureau of Education; (5) of the Bureau of Eth- nology; (6) of the Army Medical Museum; (7) of the Department of Agriculture; (8) of the Fish Commission; (9) of the Botanic Gardens; (10) of the Coast and Geo- detic Survey; (11) of the Geological Survey; (12) of the Naval Observatory. "Approved April 12, 1892." The resolution of 1901 was a part of the general deficiency appropriation bill passed by the second session of the Fifty-sixth Congress and approved March 3: "That facili- ties for study and research in the Government departments, the Library of Congress, the National Museum, the Zoological Park, the Bureau of Ethnology, the Fish Com- mission, the Botanical Gardens, and similar institutions hereafter established, shall be afforded to scientific investigators and to duly qualified individuals, students, and graduates of institutions of learning in the several States and Territories, as well as in the District of Columbia, under such rules and restrictions as the heads of the departments and bureaus mentioned may prescribe." These resolutions opened the way for a Washington memorial institute which requires some explanation. In 1898 a body of women founded the George Wash- ington Memorial Association, to advance and secure the establishment in the city of Washington, i). C, a university for the purposes and with the objects substantially as contemplated and set forth in and by the last will of George Washington, the first President of the United States of America, and to increase the opportunity for the higher education of the youth of the said United States, and to this end to collect, take, and hold moneys, gifts, and endowments, to take and to hold by purchase, donations, or demise real estate, to erect and furnish buildings to be used by said university when legally established, etc. In 1901 the Washington Memorial Association amended their certificate of incor- poration in such a way as to leave out the idea of a university. On May 17, 1901, the Washington Memorial Institution was incorporated. The particular business and objects of the institution are: To create a memorial to George Washington; to promote science and literature; to provide opportunities and facilities for higher learning; and to facilitate the utilization of the scientific and other resources of the Government for the purposes of research and higher education. In common with the great majority of the National Teachers' Association I can not agree with some of the conclusions of the report of the committee to the national council, nor in the wisdom of ultimately intrusting public property and public facili- ties to a private institution without any accountability whatever to public authority. UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. Tl I wish to remark that several of the men on the committee and on the board of trus- tees are my personal friends, and all are gentlemen whom I greatly respect and who are representative men of deservedly high standing and who would be eminently satisfactory to me as trustees of a nation's university. Thus what I have said and what I may hereafter say I wish to be distinctly understood as a discussion of means and measures and not of men. The plan for the Washington Memorial Institution was i^resented to the A. A. A. C. E. S. at their recent meeting in Washington, and the sentiment was found to be decidedly in favor of a national university. No action was taken. The committee say that this Washington Memorial Institution will be "independ- ent of Government support or control," and that its object will be "to facilitate the use of the scientific and other resources of the Government for research." One of the trustees has published an article in which he says ' ' no degree will be offered or con- ferred by the institution. It will be an aid and adjunct to the university, but not a new university or a torso of one." The situation, then, is this: We have a private institution in no way responsible to public authority, jointly with the heads of the departments of the Government proposing to administer, not a university, but such Government laboratories and other facilities as the departments may o]ien to stuiients. It would seem that great tact, good administrative skill, and great devotion to the public good would be requisite in order to avoid friction and secure to the students of the country the advantages in AVashington by such an arrangement. President Thompson, of Ohio State University, said recently in a speech in Wash- ington before the A. A. A. C. E. S. that "in the organization of this Memorial Insti- tution two things are admissible: One that it is a substitute for and a block to any national university movement; the other is that it is a stepping-stone that shall pre- pare the way for and demonstrate the advisability of such a movement." And again, "by the proposed management we assume (1) that the facilities can not be used by a national organization, or (2) that they would be better used and directed by a pri- vate than by a national organization, or (3) that such a use of the Government facili- ties would be unwise as a matter of public policy." So far as the movement l^eing a block to a national university, I heard one of the trustees say that a national university could not be established as long as he could help it, and I know that at least one other member shared the same view, but the members of the council committee who did not sign the report and several others who did sign the report are on record as favoring a national university and either are opposed to it or regard the memorial institution as a stepping-stone to a national university. That the facilities in AVashington can not be used l?y the national organization can not now be successfully maintained. Professor James has made an exhaustive study of the question of the constitutionality of a national university, and he finds a differ- ence of opinion among authorities, but the overwhelming consensus of testimony is on the side of ample power for such use. The council committee concede that there is no constitutional barrier. As a ste}^ping-stone to a national university the national memorial institution may be desirable. Certainly some agency sliould be provided for the best educational use of the great laboratories and storehouses of knowledge in Washington. That private management of a public institution is better for the country I question. It may be that the trust for a time would be as well, and possibly better, administered than it would be under public control. But what belongs to the people should be administered for them and by them. They may make mistakes. They may be deceived. Men of low motives may for a time control, but in time those institutions which exist for the education of the people in a democracy under the direct or indi- rect control of a people themselves wall ultimately fall into right hands. None of our public institutions are more free from political interference than our States' 72 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. higher educational institutions. More and more our States' higher institutions of learning are being administered under business and educational principles and repre- sent what is best in the life of a people. More and more they adapt themselves to the people's ideas and the people's needs. To confess that the great public store- houses of material for study, libraries, and laboratories can be best administered in the long run for the use of such students as can be admitted to them by private rather than by national authority is a confession of incompetency on the part of our democratic Government that I for one am not willing to admit. That a national movement' would be unwise as a matter of public policy has only one argument in its favor so far as I know, and that seems to me invalid. The argu- ment is this, that it would antagonize existing institutions and depreciate their work in the public mind. This I believe an erroneous assumption. While they are of tremendous influence for good, the great universities of the country on private founda- tion could never become national in the sense of a public institution under public control. The existence of a great national educational movement under Government control would at once be the greatest stimulus to and guaranty for the continued development and improvement of the great private universities. The main question still remains. Should there be a national university under Government control in Washington, open to both individual and Government gifts and support? The reasons for such an institution are numerous and, as I believe, convincing: First. There are, as we have seen, vast resources in Washington which all educa- tional people agree should in some way, so far as possible, be placed at the disposal of advanced students. The resolutions of Congress passed in 1892 and 1901 also author- ize this. It is estimated that 13,000,000 is already expended annually in these departments, which in a large sense may now be considered a higher institution of learning. The various bureaus, while primarily established for very definite practi- cal purposes of the Government, have become also training schools for research work, and much work is already done which is truly university work of the highest order. President Jefferson felt the need of surveys to locate roads, harbors, and extend commerce. He brought to this country the Swiss engineer, Hassler, to begin the work. In time 'it was found cheaper and better to train our own men. Thus the Geodetic Survey on one side became a training school for hydrographic, topo- graphic, and geodetic surveying. ' Young and promising graduates from the colleges all over the land have thus secured graduate work. To-day the rjnited States Coast and Geodetic Survey is, as always, a Federal bureau, maintained solely for practical survey work designed to meet the industrial and commercial demands of a great nation; yet it is incidentally one of the first training schools in the world for advanced students in geodesy and certain branches of surveying. This is but one illustration of the opportunities in Washington. Much of the material of a great university has already been gathered there. The National Museum and the Army Medical Museum exceed any other collection in America in certain lines for investigation. The Library of Congress, the greatest public library in America, is a mine for the student of re- search. The Geological Survey, and the Biological Division of the Department of Agri- culture are carrying on investigations of the highest order. The United States Fish Commission, with which men from this State have had so much to do, is the source of the greater part of our knowledge of the life of our streams and the sea. It would take several pages merely to enumerate the educational opportunities of Washington, public and private. The work of these departments should be made useful, not only in its conclusions, but in its methods. A university consists of investigators teaching. All that the national capital needs to make a great university of it is that a real body of scholars should be maintained to train other men in the work now so worthily carried on and the establishment also of other lines. Even this training is given now to a few. To do this would be to bring to America in large degree all that American scholars now seek in the University of Berlin. Students will come when the highest UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 73 opportunities for investigation are given. No standards of work can be made too high, for the severest standards attract rather than repel men who are worth educating. Second. A presumption in favor of a national university is to be found in the long line of illustrious men who have advocated its establishment. Franklin and others favored in the constitutional convention a clause in favor of a national university, but Gouverneur Morris opposed it on the ground that "the exclusive power at the seat of government would reach the object." There was no opposition to the project itself, and Presidents Washington, John Adams, Jefferson, Monroe, J. Q. Adams, Jackson, Grant, and Hayes all referred in their messages to the establishment of a national university. Eminent statesmen, such as Senator Sumner and Senator Edmunds and many others, have advocated such an institution. Scholars, scientists, and educators from the foundation of the Government have favored it. College pres- idents very generally, with a few notable exceptions, have believed in it. The National Teachers' Association has repeatedly indorsed the movement. George AVashington evidently regarded the establishment of a national university as the leading want of American education. There are numerous letters and extracts from speeches and messages concerning his wishes which have been preserved. His gift of $25,000 to be used in part to accomplish his purpose is well known. His words in his last will and testament have often been quoted, but are so full of wisdom that I quote them here: "It has always been a source of serious regret with me to see the youth of these United States sent to foreign countries for the purpose of education, often before their minds are formed or they had imbibed any adequate ideas of the happiness of their own; contracting too frequently principles unfriendly to republican government and to the true and genuine liberties of mankind, which, thereafter, are rarely over- come. For these reasons it has been my ardent wish to see a plan devised on a liberal scale which would have a tendency to spread systematic ideas through all the parts of this rising empire, thereby to do away with local attachments and State prejudices, so far as the nature of things would, or, indeed, ought to admit, from our national councils. Looking anxiously forAvard to the accomplishment of so desirable an object as this is (in my estimation), my mind has not been able to contemplate any plan more likely to effect the measure than the establishment of a university in a central part of the United States to which the youths of fortune and talents from all parts thereof might be sent for the completion of their education in all the branches of polite literature, in arts and sciences, in acquiring knowledge in the principles of politics and good government, and (as a matter of infinite importance, in my judg- ment) by associating with each other and forming friendships in juvenile years be enabled to free themselves in a proper degree from those local prejudices and habit- ual jealousies which have thus been mentioned, and which, when carried to excess, are never-failing sources of disquietude to the public mind and pregnant of mis- chievous consequences to this country." Charles Kendall Adams, in commenting on the statements of Washington, says: "Thus fully did Washington set forth his views. With what wisdom and prescience did he behold what was before the country. He foresaw the sectional jealousies that were likely to arise, and he sought to avert them. He deplored the alienation from republican institutions that would spring up in immature minds educated under for- eign skies. He saw and again and again proclaimed the necessity of thorough and elaborate instruction in the science of government, and he ardently desired that the necessity of going to foreign lands for such instruction should be obviated. He knew that private benevolence, even if supplemented with the resources of the States, would be inadequate to the establishment of the needed institution. He saw that of all forms of government those which are most dependent upon ■ the intelligence and morality of the people must make the most careful provision for education in morality 74 UNIVERSITY OF THE ITNITED STATES. and intelligence. He was fully aware that the ends which he sought could not be attained without the help of secondary as well as university education, and therefore he divided his gift between a preparatory school in Virginia and a university at the national capital. Thus we see that he labored under no such pestilent delusion as to suppose that an education in the mere rudiments of knowledge is a guaranty against the political dangers that were to be averted. It was a university — a university in the broadest and highest sense of the term — that was the peculiar object of his edu- cational solicitude. ' ' While it is true, doubtless, that a century has brought such development of uni- versities on both private and government foundations as Washington never dreamed of, it is also true that with this growth there has also come national needs and dangers which emphasize rather than detract from his conclusion. Third. A national university is needed to supplement existing universities and set standards for our jjublic schools. No existing institution is rich enough to cover the whole field, and no institution on other than this governmental foundation can have broad enough sympathies to look over the whole field and do just those things which the nation most needs. A national university would exist for the welfare of the nation. Such a university would help and not hinder other institutions which are doing good work. Nothing has helped the University of (California more than the establishment of Stanford University. The period since the establishment of the University of Chicago has been the period of greatest growth of all the larger insti- tutions of the surrounding States. The institution which has received the greatest benefit, I have no doubt, is the one which some thought woul'd be crippled by it. As to standards for our State schools, let me quote the honored Commissioner of Edu- cation, W. T. Harris: " A thorough consideration of the subject would exhibit more fully how it is that our colleges, as at present constituted, do not fully answer the needs of this country at this time. The problems of sociology and statesmanship, the philosophy of science, of literature, of history, of jurisprudence, these demand the concentrated labor of a large corps of salaried professors provided for at well-endowed colleges and universi- ties. It is in this respect that the national university, founded by the American State and endowed munificently, would prove of the greatest value to the community. It would emancipate our public schools from the twofold danger: (a) The danger from the influence of the colleges against the continuation of a liberal education when begun in the public high school; (b) the danger of a course of study in the common schools that dissipates the energies of the pupil by neglecting the disciplinary studies and substituting therefor a mere smattering of natural science. The national univer- sity, with its endowed professorships and fellowships, would furnish the desired center for free, untrammeled study into philosophy of those branches which are taught only in their elements even in the best colleges. It is the general views that we need in our higher education. A training in the philosophy of literature, history, and sciences can be obtained now only in German universities, but this would be a special function of our national university. Methodology is the final topic in the course of study. To understand the general relations of a branch and its method of evolution is the best thing to be learned; to give such insight is the province of the university. Whatever want of adaptation between our common schools and higher schools might arise would speedily become manifest through the highest link of our system, and its causes would be remedied." A national university would be the national climax of our public-school system. Each State has a system of elementary, secondary, and higher education. The national university should give us the highest education in graduate work and in research. While it is true that we have not a system in the sense that Germany has, and could not have, the same is true in the States. Our higher educational institutions now have no direct and legal control over .the grades below. They have just such influ- UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 75 ence as their standards aiui reputation give them. In this way they do have a great influence on the grades below. It would be just so with the influence of a national university on the colleges and universities in the States. The opportunity for the highest graduate work and research in the United States n every department of learning can not be overestimated. It has been pointed out that the discoveries which have made the civilization of the nineteenth century so vastly superior to the sixteenth century are due to the work of a few men. If one per- son in every 10,000 of the men who have lived should be taken out, those being selected who have made these discoveries and those who might have made them, there would have been no progress in the last three hundred years. Looked at from this point of view, it is immensely important to the nation that men who are both intellectually able and willing to devote their lives to advanced research should have the oppor- tunity to do so. While the discoveries in pure science may not have any immediate practical application, in the long run the applications are sufficiently imi)ortant to repay many times over, even from a money point of view, for the money and time expended. The brilliant discoveries of Edison and Koch only become possibilities after many scientists, working in a quiet "way through different generations, had made discoveries which at the time were not seen to have any practical value. Fourth. Recently I asked a gentleman who has given much intelligent study to the problem of the establishment of a national university. What is the greatest reason for it? He answered at once, and decidedly: "The encouragement and development of an enlightened democracy." I did not ask for his reason, but I believe his answer is a true one. The people need a national university and a national university needs the people. It is the business of a university to discover and promulgate the truth and to teach men how to do these things. It is the business of a national university of the United States, first of all, to discover and promulgate among our citizens those principles which will make American democracy purer and better and stronger with the years. If our form of government is to be perpetuated by the education of the people, and in order that that education may be sound so far as it goes, we need the highest education which the world affords; and in order that the national ideas may be improved and preserved, we need to have our men who receive the highest educa- tion obtain it under the impulses and ideals of our national spirit and national life. It is not the needs of the District of Columbia which are to be met by a university of the United States. It is the need of the nation. Not of the nation alone, but of the world. A great university in America would be a school for the study of civic freedom. A great university at the capital of the Republic would attract the free- minded of all the earth. It would draw men of all lands to the study of democracy. It would tend to make the study of democracy more worthy of respectful study. The New AVorld has its lessons as well as the Old, and its material for teaching these lessons should be made equally adequate. Only the nation is equal to the task of founding an institution which can perform these services. If the church and indi- viduals wish to assist in it, well and good. There is need for both private and public effort, but there is no more reason for leaving a national university for private effort alone than there is for leaving any other urgent need of the nation. Private effort has not yet supplied the need. In the nature of the case it can not and will not do it, and as an independent nation we should not permit it. On the side of the usefulness of the university itself, it needs the people. Institu- tions, like men, to use Lincoln's phrase, "need a bath of the people." An institution must listen to its constituents and supporters. It is all right to have your heads in the clouds, but your feet must be upon the earth. So a national university would necessarily keep close to and prcvserve what is best in the instincts, ideals, and wishes of the common man. That is what I understand to be the development and encour- agement of an enlightened democracy. In all this I have not advocated any special scheme or any of the numerous bills 76 LTNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. which have been prepared and introduced into Congress; This matter must be left to those in power to do what they can. I have faith that the national university will some day come as the logical outgrowth of what has already been done. It may take many years, even many generations, to realize the ideals of those who believe a national university to be the greatest need of American education to-day. In conclusion, I would present a summary of the reasons given for such an institu- tion by the untiring ex-Governor Hoyt, who has devoted many years and many thousands of dollars to the advancement of a national university. [See pages — of Report.] 1. Neither existing institutions nor the great denominational universities in prospect can meet the demand. The nation only is equal to the founding of such a university as the nation needs. 2. The nation needs its influence upon the Government service. 3. The American system of education can only be made complete by the crowning university it lacks, as a means of coordination and inspiration. 4. A national university would powerfully strengthen the patriotic sentiment of the country. 5. A national university would more strongly than any other attract men of genius from every quarter of the world to its professorships and fellowships, thus increasing the cultured intellectual forces of both institution and country. 6. A national university would especially attract students of high character from many lands, whose return after years of contact with free institutions would promote the cause of liberal government everywhere. 7. The founding of a national university would be, therefore, a most fitting thing for a great nation ambitious to lead the ^vorld in civilization. A NATIONAL UNIVERSITY: A STUDY. By William A. Mowry, of Massachusetts. [Read before the National Educational Association at Nashville, July 17, 1889.] Education in the United States has experienced within the last century a rapid growth and a remarkable development. Many circumstances have been favorable and many unfavorable. The early settlers of this country from Europe were gener- ally of hardy and vigorous races, intelligent, ambitious, many of them possessing high attainments and strong character. Several of the English colonies early mani- fested, a broad interest in learning, with rare good judgment appreciating the fact that a new country especially must depend greatly for its success upon the intelligence of the masses and the higher education of the learned professions. ******* Within the last twenty-five years it has become more and more apparent that the great need of this country educationally is in the way of advanced learning. Rela- tively, we have primary schools enough, and grammar schools enough, and possibly enough of the secondary schools, if they were only better, and surely we have col- leges and universities enough and to spare. But what means Cornell University, and Johns Hopkins University, and now what means Clark University? The establish- ment and remarkable success of Johns Hopkins University at Baltimore are strongly indicative of the absolute necessity of pushing our American education forward into new fields and upward to more elevated plateaus. It is a common remark and notoriously true that in America the elements of education are more widespread than in Europe, yet the higher education of the Old World is far in advance of anything to be found with us. Moreover, our situation and our circumstances are such — our necessities, our needs, our opportunities — that precisely the reverse of this ought to UlSriVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 77 be true. I^o not lose sight of the fact that this is a very large country. It is enei'- getic, enterprising, wealthy, and fast becoming populous. There is a greater demand, a stronger necessity, to-day with us for higher knowledge, deeper insight, a more,, thorough study and apprehension of all branches of knowledge and learning than exists in any other nation under heaven. We could to-day utilize to a greater degree than any other people profound researches in nature, in art, in the humanities. There is no department of the higher education which is not needed to-day by our people to be pushed to its utmost limit. In how many cases do the aimless search- ings after truth among us remind one of a stanch vessel, strong and well equijaped, drifting in mid ocean, without a pilot, without a chart, without a compass, even without a rudder. In natural science, including all its departments, in history, in classical learning, in philology, in the useful arts and the fine arts, in law and medi- cine and divinity, in telegraphy, in telephony, in telephoty, in social science, especially economics and civics, in all the range of the metaphysics, and in fine in every department of human learning, thought, and investigation there is a marked necessity for higher study and higher instruction than this country has yet produced. Pause a moment with me to observe a few of these crying necessities. With all the advance which we have made in the study of natural phenomena there is yet no man living who understands the theory of storms; no man living can satisfactorily explain the ocean currents; nobody has yet discovered a satisfactory explanation of the tides; no complete, rational theory of medicine exists, but we are still tied down largely to empiricism. Psychology is based on physiology, but no one yet comprehends the relations and the action of the two lobes of the brain and the two sets of nerves. No satisfactory theory is yet agreed upon with respect to bacteria and the germs of dis- ease in general — epidemics, epizootics, and the like. No man has yet arisen who can successfully untie and untangle the knots and snarls which Adam Smith, more than a century ago, pushed out before the learned men of the world, and over whic;h they have ever since been quarreling. Our politicians and our statesmen are still discussing with great vigor and force the questions of protection and free trade, of mono and bi metalism, of State rights and national unity, of home consumption and foreign commerce, of national subsidies and natural currents of trade, and possibly they are now as far from an agreement as ever. It is not to be expected that any one jjanacea can be discovered or any one patent medicine can be compounded that will free the body politic from all these ills and all this ignorance that the nation is heir to; but the question is a fair one, and certainly one of great importance, whether it is not possible by proper means and reasonable efforts to diminish to a considerable extent the difficulties and dangers here pointed out. The success of Johns Hopkins University has been phenomenal. It has given opportunities for a higher standard of scholarship than we before possessed. It has helped to elevate the work of all the colleges, but it has also served to show clearly the necessity of still further advances. What is needed now is an institution far beyond Johns Hopkins. The liberality of wealthy Americans has been so great as almost to make it seem that it had no limit, but it certainly is not without limit. It can hardly be expected that private munificence will be able to establish a uni- versity in this country with sufficient means to perform adequately the service required in the higher realms of learning. We are therefore shut up to the necessity of having this needed institution established by the whole people as represented bj)- our National Government. That, and that alone, will be able to accomj^lish this great work. Such an institution as is needed ought to be endowed with productive funds to the extent of at least $200,000,000. This at 3 per cent interest would bring an annual income of $6,000,000. If the Government of the United States should set apart this amount of its bonds for this specific purjiose, to be kept at interest, so that there 78 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. might be a reliable permanent annual income of at least $6,000,000, the problem of the much needed higher development of profound learning would at once be on the way toward a solution. The first question in the discussion of a proposition of such proportions deals with the ability and the advisability of the National Government to make and endow such an establishment. There is an opinion, more or less prevalent in every community, that our National Government had better not meddle with educational matters. It is true that the National Government, as such, is not committed to any general sys- tem of education, because it was the policy of the framers of our Constitution to leave in the hands of the States and the people of the States all rights and duties which did not seem necessary to be conferred upon the National Government. The General Government has, however, in various ways committed itself to the cause of education. In addition to setting apart the sixteenth and thirty-sixth sec- tions of each township for educational purposes, appropriations of land in the newer States have been made for State universities. Fifty years ago a surplus fund of about $30,000,000 had accumulated in the National Treasury. This surplus revenue was dis- tributed, by an act of Congress, among the States then existing. Many of the States set apart their share of this fund for school purposes. The Government has maintained at its own expense a Military Academy at West Point, for the education of army officers; a Naval Academy at AnnapolLs, to educate officers for the Navy; a college for deaf- mutes at Washington; a school for instruction in the signal service at Fort Whipple, Va., near Washington; and Congress has from time to time during later years done much for the education of the Indians. It has, especially qf late, made liberal appro- priations for the excellent schools for the Indian youth now maintained at Hampton, Va., Carlisle, Pa., Salem, Oreg., Santa Fe, N. Mex., and other places. It has main- tained common schools at various military posts, and the President has lately estab- lished a system of education for the Territory of Alaska. It has established, and has for many years maintained with great profit to the nation, a Bureau of Education, which, by the collection of statistics and the publication of useful circulars of infor- mation, has done much to elevate the general status of education. THE SCOPE OF THE UNIVERSITY. I do not think there would be sufficient reasons for establishing by the Govern- ment a national college of the ordinary type. The State universities and the large number of colleges established in the several States by private munificence are suffi- cient for the needs of the people. If the proposed national university were to be modeled after the plan of Harvard or Yale, Cornell or Ann Arbor, or even Johns Hopkins, it had better not be founded. The purpose and scope of such an institution should be for higher and broader work than can now be done in any existing institu- tion. Its object should be largely for original investigation. It should, in many departments at least, aim primarily to reach out to the unknown. Its standard should be higher than that of any institution in the world. It should have no under- graduate courses, but all of its work should be above and beyond the ordinary col- lege curriculum. The institution should be closely connected with the Smithsonian Institution, the National Museum, the bureau of light-houses, the Geological Sur- vey, the Coast Survey, the Department of Agriculture; all scientific investigations of the Depai'tment of the Navy, such as deep-sea soundings, ocean currents, tides, and the like; the Weather Bureau, the Congressional Library, and all other departments of the Government where the connection would be mutually advantageous. It should include the Bureau of Education, the work of which should be broadened and strengthened. UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 79 ITS COURSES OF STUDY. The plan for such a university as here contemplated proceeds on the supposition that the funds at its disposal from year to year are amply sufficient to allow its mem- bers and fellows to pursue lines of study for any number of years, even through a lifetime. (a) In nataml science. — The lines of study to be pursued in this miiversity in the department of natural science should include the higher realms of investigation in geography, physics, chemistry, meteorology, zoology and natural history, physiology, biology, botany, astronomy — including especially the investigation of the laws and phenomena of the solar system and various lines of study in relation to the fixed stars, nebuhe, and theories of the universe; and special studies in whatever direction might seem, from time to time, wise to undertake. In mentioning the foregoing list, classification of the sciences is not intended, but only to call special attention to cer- tain lines and topics which seem especially to need investigation. (5) The mathematics. — Here the effort should be to push this branch of study, like all other branches, to the furthest limit. The higher mathematics, algebra, geometry, trigonometry, analytical geometry, the calculus, the mathematics of the earth, e. g., its quantity of matter, weight, size, diameter, circumference, absolute length of a degree of longitude at different latitudes, absolute length of a degree of latitude from the equator to the poles, systems of measurements, etc., astronomical mathematics with all its varied applications in different directions, and, in short, the study and investigation of any and every department of mathematical inquiry which might seem wise, necessary, or useful. (e) Language study. — Under this head should be included the greatest facilities for the study of every language, ancient or modern, that might seem desirable, and to such an extent as might seem desirable; the literature of all nations and of all times; all questions of profound inquiry into the Latin and the Cireek languages and litera- tures, the investigation of intricate and disputed questions concerning modern or ancient languages, and all branches of the study of philology. (d) History. — Here is a branch of learning which is even now but beginning to be developed and pursued scientifically. Instruction should be given in the philosophy of history, the laws of history, the history of nations and peoples, with special refer- ence to the causes and accessories of their development, growth, strength, and decay; the characteristics of races; the influences of climate; the effects of institutions, and, in fine, the general laws and philosophy of the development of mankind. Special attention should be paid to the study of our own history and to the types of mind necessary for successful historians and the underlying laws and principles that should govern the writing of any history, bearing in mind the practical advantages which would accrue from the introduction of better and more scientific methods of studying and writing history. (e) The metaphysics.— In this department should be elaborated the best methods of study and of teaching the most profound philosophy of all metaphysical inquiry. An historical investigation should be early made into the various leading schools of phi- losophy in the past, their strength, their weaknesses, and their influence ujjon human thought. Further analysis here is unnecessary. (/) Socicd science. — Under this head might perhaps be included the study of eco- nomics, civics, labor and cajDital, penal and reformatory institutions, the State and education, and many other subjects which need not be specifically mentioned. {g) The school of laiv.— There should be connected Avith this institution a depart- ment for the study of law, which should include a more scientific and complete inves- tigation of the underlying principles of this important line of human inquiry than has ever before been attempted. The department of international law should be 80 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. made prominent. The principles of arbitration and peaceful settlement of interna- tional difficulties should be elaborated. The principles of common law and of the various branches of law practice as applicable to business and to the development of the State should receive special consideration. The history of the leading systems of law, ancient and modern, should be carefully studied. Improvements in our codes should be suggested. There should be a school of diplomacy for instruction in the principles and duties of statesmen, foreign ministers, consuls, etc. {h) The school of medicine. — It should not be the i^rovince of the school of law in this institution to make lawyers, but to study the intricate questions of the higher range of topics relating to the fundamental principles and practices, especially in reference to their bearing upon national and governmental matters. Nor should it be the province of the school of medicine to fit young men for the ordinary practice of the healing art, but to develop a higher range of thought and knov,^ledge and work along the line of specialties in which so great advance and improvement have been made of late, particularly in the schools of the Old World. In connection with the medical departments of the Army and Navy there should be furnished in this insti- tution the best facilities for this study which the world can afford. Suppose that one man, or ten men, should devote their entire lifetime to the study of bacteria, what important results might be among the possibilities? What might not such an insti- tution have done for Jacksonville? (i) Engineering. — In connection with the Corps of Engineers in the Army there should be furnished in this institution the best facilities for the study of the highest range of thought and practice in railroad engineering, mining engineering, topo- graphical engineering, bridge building, and every part of this practical and useful science and art. The matter of river and harbor improvements by the General Gov- ernment might be placed under the care of this institution. (j) The science of warfare. — It is possible that the military school at West Point and the naval school at Annapolis might be made departments of this institution, receiving thereby great advantages and without transferring the immediate control from the departments of the Army and the Navy. Or, the West Point cadets — such as might be the best qualified — might, after graduating, go to Washington to study for professorships. In addition to these schools there might be established courses of lectures and study for superior army officers, and perhaps others, for the investigation of advanced modes of carrying on war whenever the necessity may arise. (k) The Weather Bureau. — This bureau of the Government should become a part of the national university and form a regular department in its study and work. The most learned professors which the world affords should here give instruction and pursue investigations in this intricate science. [l) The Census Bureau should be a permanent department under this university, and there should be in connection therewith a well-organized bureau of statistics. The foregoing list of l^ranches for stud}' and for investigation are in no sense designed to be scientifically arranged or to be exhaustive and complete, but they have been introduced only for the purpose of giving a general idea of the plan and scope which might characterize such an institution. All that is intended to be conveyed in this direction is simply the fact that if our Government should establish a national uni- versity, it should be the principal design and aim of such an institution to investigate in the broadest and deepest manner possible all branches of higher learning, and to carry this investigation to the farthest possible limit. I have not mentioned the study of the fine arts, music, painting and sculpture, although they might perhajDS as well be included as any of the courses named. The Civil Service Bureau, and from time to time other new bureaus, should be added to this university. Indeed, there seems to be no good reason why the courses of study should not be coextensive with the limits of human thought and investigation. UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 81 ITS PLAN OF ORGANIZATION. I am not unaware of the fact, that concerning every one of the topics here discussed there will naturally be found very different opinions and views from those here given.' I am only aiming to express, as clearly as I may, the plan which lies in my mind. I do not anticipate that this scheme will be at once adopted by our Government, nor do I even ask the approval of this association. My sole object is a desire to present for further thought and general consideration a broad plan such as, if carried out, might be found of great advantage to the country. It has seemed to me that the following might be not an unwise plan for its organization, and everyone will see at a glance that this would give us the greatest and l^roadest educational institution in the world. It should be estaljlished by the United States Government. It should be at once placed upon an independent financial basis. Its funds should be 1200,000,000. The entire amount should be invested as permanent funds, with an unehagneable provision that only the income of the whole amount should be used. Of course, it would require several years to get such an institution into full working order, and during these years the income of six or seven millions each year would be sufficient to erect and equip the proper buildings and furnish the necessary api^aratus. These buildings should be located in Washington. It were better to have them on Govern- ment lands, although this is not essential. It might be thought advisable to have lii'anches in the various sections of the country for experiments and the study of agriculture, floriculture, arboriculture, and for the study of the flora and fauna in the different latitudes. It has already been said that the university should be beyond the reach of politics and political influence. FELLOWSHIPS. Under this department the most important work of the university is to be done. There should be a class termed "fellows of the university," who have taken the regular courses of study in this institution in some one direction — or by exception, without having thus taken them — for example, the line of sciences, or of classical study, or the metaphysics, or economics, etc. Every fellow of the university is to be selected and approved by the faculty and appointed by special vote of the trustees to carry on some line of l)road study. These fellows shall pursue studies in classes or groups, or singly as the case may require, under the direction of that branch of the faculty having charge of the particular line of study pursued. The object of this work shall be to add something original to the sum total of human learning and knowledge. Their studies may be continued so long as the faculty in charge shall deem it advisable, whether for one year or a lifetime. Let me outline some of the possibilities of the work Avhich might be done by the faculty and fellows of this university. The Department of Geological Survey should be established on such a basis that this whole country should be mapped out and its geological features and mineralogical riches should be carefully studied and published for the benefit of the country. The Weather Bureau should be organized in such a way as in a series of years to collect facts sufficient to form the data for a complete and scientific theory of tempests, tornadoes, and storms of all kinds. The entire theory of evaporation and the rainfall, of the winds, as to their direction and force, and all matters relating to the meteorology of the country should be elaborated and inade plain. The Coast Survey should be reorganized and its work continued. Expeditions should be planned and executed for the study of ocean currents and tidal waves, and, in fact, of the entire theory and practical operation and effects of the tides. The most elaborate preparations should be made for the observation of eclipses and other astro- nomical phenomena. In cases of disaster — for example, the breaking down of a rail- road bridge, the destruction in the Conemaugh Valley, a great fire, an epidemic, a S. Rep. 945 6 82 UlSriVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. blizzard, or a tornado — an expedition should be immediately sent to the spot for care- ful investigation into the causes, circumstances, and results, and all this should be tabulated for future use. In short, the object constantly in mind for the work of the fellows of the university would be to take advantage of all remarkable phenomena and so apply the full power of the microscope of all science as to educe in every instance such knowledge as shall be for the benefit of mankind. Among these fellows we should expect to find our poet laureate, our best writers of fiction, philosophers, inventors, discoverers, benefactors. Fellows of the university should receive a fixed salary according to their grade and experience — a salary sufficient to induce them to remain permanently at their work. In this way we should hav'e clustering around the national university the ablest men, the highest scholarship, the soundest philos- ophy, the deepest science of the world; and who can measure or weigh or estimate the advantages which would accrue to society and to the world at large from such concentration of scholarship and learning? The United States should be not only the greatest and strongest of the nations, but she should be the wisest and most beneficent. She has laid a broad foundation for a pyramid (which should be larger and more enduring than those of Egypt) in the general diffusion of the elements of learning for all her youth in our beneficent system of public schools. Let her now, by the establishment of this national uni- versity, build securely and strongly upon this basis and extend upward this great pyramid till its apex shall be high up in the heavens, above all mists of ignorance, superstition, vice, and crime. THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A NATIONAL UNIVERSITY."^ By Edmuxd J. James, of the University of Chicago. The chairman of the committee to investigate the project for a national university has requested me to prepare a memorandum upon the constitutional aspects of the plan for a national university, to be founded and supported by the Federal Govern- ment in the city of Washington. It is fitting that the question of the constitutionality of such an enterprise should be taken up and discussed first of all; for if upon examination it is the opinion of this committee that such a scheme would be unconstitutional our work would be very simple and limited to the formulation of one of two propositions. We should either recommend to the national council that, inasmuch as the Federal Government has received no authority to establish and maintain a national university, the national council should not lend its support to an attempt to carry out the undertaking; or, in case we become further convinced that such an institution would be desirable, our recommendation would be to the effect that the national council should assist in securing such an amendment to the Constitution as would enable the Federal Gov- ernment to carry through the enterprise. . Probably the best way to present the subject to this committee is to give a brief account of the history of this project so far as it has involved the discussion of con- stitutional questions. All parties in the United States agree that the Federal Gov- ernment is one of limited and delegated powers; that it is in no sense a depository of residual authority, and that it can have no power to establish and maintain a national university unless this power is given to it in the Constitution of the United States. All parties agree that the burden of proof that the proposed measure is con- stitutional rests upon the party urging the Federal Government to adopt it. '■'-A report submitted at Washington, November 2, 1899, to the committee to inves- tigate the project for a national university, appointed by the council of education, National Educational Association. UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 83 We can not accept the view, therefore, that such action would be constitutional unless we become convinced that the authority to take it is vested in the Federal Government by the Constitution of the United States. It is plain that no such authority is vested in express terms, as there is no mention made in the body of the Constitution of the subject of a national university nor, indeed, of education at all, either elementary, secondary, or higher. If this power has been vested in the Federal Government by the Constitution, it must therefore be by virture of some implication contained in the powers which are expressly granted, or because it constitutes an essential or necessary part of some authority which is specifically enumerated, or because it is necessarily bound up in the very idea of a government such as that organized under the Constitution. It must be, to use technical language, either an implied, a resulting, or an implicit power. Under which of these heads such an authority may be placed, if we shall find it to be actually conferred, vrill appear perhaps most plainly, as suggested above^ from an examination of the history of the constitutional discussions relating to this subject. There seems to have been a general notion abroad in the country during the period preceding the drafting and adoption of tlie Federal Constitution that the new Federal authority would establish and maintain a national university at its seat of sovern- ment. The current literature of the time contains many hints and suggestions to this effect, and there seems to have been a generally felt need at that time of some such central and adequately endowed institution in order to supplement the existing edu- cational facilities of the country. In the constitutional convention itself the project appeared on .several different occasions. In Charles Pinckney's draft of the Federal Constitution, sulmiitted to the convention May 29, 1787, a clause was contained in the enumeration of the powers of the new government giving to the Congress the authority "to establish a national university." -'■ In James Madison's proposition to confer additional powers upon the Congress, made August 18, 1787, a similar clause was contained." When the report of the committee on revision came up for discussion on Septem- ber 14, Madison and Pinckney united in the motion to insert in the amended and revised draft, from which had been dropped their former -recommendations, a clause conferring upon the Congress authority to establish a national university." Wilson supported the motion, Gouverneur Morris opposed it on the ground that such a clause was unnecessary, since the power proposed was already included in the grant of exclusive jurisdiction over the seat of government. Four States then voted to insert the clause, six voted against such insertion, and one State was divided. The proposition to add this authority to the list of enumerated powers in the Con- stitution was thus rejected, but there was nothing in the minutes of the conven- tion going to show the grounds upon which this rejection was made. Wliether it was because the members of the convention were opposed to conferring such an authority upon the Congress, or because they thought that it had been conferred by some other clause, and, therefore, did not need specific enumeration, does not appear. It is interesting to note, however, that so far as the records of the convention show there was no objection to the principle of the proposition. No one hinted that it was not desirable to vest such a power in the Federal Government, or that such an institution was not necessary or expedient. The current discussion of the time contains many traces that the view of Gouver- neur Morris expressed in the constitutional convention was correct, namely, that the Federal Government had received authority by other clauses than the one proposed ^Journal of the Federal Convention, kept by James Madison, edited by E. H. Scott, Chicago, p. 66. "Journal of the Federal Convention, etc., p. 550.. 84 UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. to exercise such a function. There seems to have been a sort of general agreement that the new government had the power to establish such an institution if it desired, and there were many who urged the desirabilit_v of such an institution upon the attention of Congress and the country. Washington himself, to whom this project was especially dear and to whom it grew ever more precious as he appro iched his end, evidently took it for granted that the authority to establish such an institution had been conferred upon the Federal Government by the Constitution. In his second annual message, dated January 8, 1790, Washington declared that there was nothing which better deserved tlie patron- age of Congress than the promotion of science and literature. He adds, " Whether this desirable object vvdll best be promoted by affording aids to seminaries of learn- ing or by any other expedients will be well worthy of a place in the deliberations of the legislature." '^ The Senate, in answer to this address, seemed to accept the view that the Federal Government had the function of promoting literature and science,'' as did the House in its response to the same address. By virtue" of the authority conferred upon Washington to set aside certain sites for the needed jDublic buildings in the new District of Columbia, he assigned a site of neai'ly twenty acres for a national university; and in his message to Congress, dated December 7, 1796, he urged in strong terms the establishment of a national universitJ^ The Senate, in its response, seems to agree that such a step would be wise. At the same Congress the Federal commissioners appointed to lay out the city of Washington made a report to Congress, in which they urged very strongly the estab- lishment of a national university in the city of W^ashington, in the District of Colum- bia, in accordance M'ith Washington's proposal. That portion of Washington's annual message referring to this subject and the report of the Federal commissioners upon the same topic was referred to a select committee, of which James Madison was the chairm.an. This committee made a report on December 21, 1796, to the following effect: "Eesolved, That it is expedient at present, that authoritj' should be given as prayed for by said memorial to proper persons to receive and hold in trust pecuniary dona- tions in aid of the appropriations already made toward the establishment of a university within the District of Columbia."'^' It will be seen from this that the Federal commissioners, wdiile in favor of estab- lishing a national university endowed and supported by the JSTational Government, did not feel that it was entirely wise to make such a recommendation, and i^roposed, therefore, simply that a charter of incorporation be granted to certain trustees to accept gifts or donations from private parties in furtherance of this purpose. It will be noted also that this resolution speaks of appropriations already made toward such a universitj^, referring doubtless to the lands set aside by the direction of the President for this purpose. This recommendation of Madison's committee was debated at some length in the House. The friends of the motion urged that they were not asking the approval of the House for a motion looking toward the establishment and maintenance of a national university at Federal expense, but that they were simply asking for the incorporation of a board of trustees who might accept any money which should be given for this purpose. The opponents of the motion emphasized the fact that this ^ Annals of Congress, First Congress, Vol. I, p. 933. "Annals, etc., p. 936. ° Annals, etc., p. 1052. •^American State Papers, Miscellaneous, Vol. I, No. 91, p. 153. UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 85 would be a mere entering wedge for the establishment of an institution to be sup- ported from the Federal treasury. Madison himself declared that he would not vote for the report except with the understanding that the institution was not to become a burden on the nation. It will be seen that this special proposition, therefore, was not for a national uni- yersity in the sense in which we are using that term in our discussion, but merely for the establishment of an institution under the auspices of the Government, to be supported by private contributions. Even so, the opposition to the proposition was so great that, after a debate of some two days, action was finally postponed by a majority of one, ostensibly to find out whether the State of Maryland might not grant this charter of incorporation instead of the Federal Government, and the motion was not again brought up. There is no indication in the record of this debate that such a proposition was con- sidered unconstitutional, at least by any great number of the members. The whole course of the debate went to show that such an institution, owing to the conditions of the time, difficulty of transportation, etc., would be largely a local and not a truly national enterprise; or went to show that education was something which the States ought to look after themselves, and in the support of which they should not be encouraged to expect aid from the National Government. This action did not deter AVashington from still insisting, wherever it was possible, upon the desirability of such an institution, nor from his giving a considerable sum for its endowment. In the following years, the intense excitement over international relations, the struggle over the alien and sedition laws, etc., gave rise to keen discussions of con- stitutional authority, ending with the debates over the Virginia and Kentucky reso- lutions, in which the whole question of the powers of the National Government over against those of the States was canvassed as never before, and, indeed, but as few times since in the history of the country. When Jefferson became President of the United States he urged, in his message of December 2, 1806, that the income from taxes should be rather applied to the great purpose of public education, roads, rivers, canals, etc. , than to the reduction of duties on imports and other similar burdens. He adds: "I suppose an amendment to the Constitution necessary, because the objects now mentioned are not among those enu- merated in the Constitution." From which it would -appear that, in his opinion, the Federal Government did not have authority to establish a national university. In his message of November 8, 1808, he says, speaking of the surplus funds in the United States Treasury: "Shall the revenue be reduced, or shall it not rather be appropriated to the improvements of roads and canals, rivers, education, and other foundations of prosperity of the Union under the powers which Congress may already possess, or such amendment to the Constitution as may be approved by the States." It will be remembered, however, that while Jefferson thought that Louisiana could not be purchased, and that money could not be appropriated for internal improve- ments under the Constitution, yet he not only negotiated the Louisiana purchase, and signed the bill to appropriate money in accordance therewith, but that he also, an March 29, 1806, approved the first Cumberland road bill, which involved the expenditure of money from the United States Treasury for the purpose of carrying out internal improvements within the States. Madison, in his message of December 5, 1810, recommends "the establishment of a seminary of learning instituted by the National Legislature within the limits of their exclusive jurisdiction, the expense of which might be defrayed out of the vacant grounds which have accrued to the nation within its limits." In other words, he recommends a national university to be supported, not by appropriations from the Federal treasury, nor by appropriations from the sale of public lands in 86 Uls^IYERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. general belonging to the Government, but by the sale of lands belonging to the Gov- ernment situated within the District of Columbia. The committee to whom this jjart of the President's message was intrusted in the House of Eepresentatives declared in their report that, while Congress might incor- porate a private seminary of learning for the benefit of the people of the District of Columbia, it had no authority to appropriate money from the Federal treasury for its support. "The erection," they declared, "of a university upon the enlarged and magniticent plan which would become the nation is not within the powers confided to Congress." As to Madison's suggestion about the proceeds of vacant lauds, they did not believe that such proceeds would amount to enough to make it worth while to start anything ujjon that basis, even if there were no constitutional impediments. They recommended that no action be taken in regard to the President's ^proposition relating to a national university. " Madison, however, repeated his recommendation of 1810 in his message of Decem- ber 5, 1815. A committee was appointed by the House to consider this recommen- dation, and reported a bill February 20, 1816, for establishing a national university based upon Federal appropriations. The attempt was made to call it up on April 12, but the House then refused to consider it, and on April 27 the bill was indefinitely postponed . Madison, not deterred by the fate of his previous recommendations, urged this subject in his message of December 3, 1816, upon the attention of Congress in still stronger terms than in his previous message. "The importance Avhich I have attached to the estal;)lishment of a national uni- versity within the District of Columbia on the scale and for objects worthy of the American nation induces me to renew my recommendations of it to the favorable consideration of Congress. ' ' The special committee to which this recommendation was referred made a lengthy report to the House December 11, 1816. It took the ground that "the means were ample, the end desirable, and the object fairly within the legislative powers of Con- gress," and, consequently, that a national university should be established, and in accordance with that recommendation it reported a bill to establish a university upon the basis of Federal api^ropriations.'' Mr. Atherton proposed on the next day, December 12, 1816, an amendment to the Constitution conferring on Congress the authority to establish a national university; but the House refused to consider it by a vote of 54 to 56. Mr. Wilde attempted to have the report of this committee considered by the House, but, failing repeatedly, asked finally for the discharge of the coinmittee on March 3, 1817. President Monroe, in his first message, December 2, 1817, recommended that Con- gress propose an amendment to the Constitution w'herebj' it should be authorized to institute seminaries of learning. Fi^om which it would appear that, in his opinion, the Constitution conferred no such authority upon the Federal GoA'ernment. It was in the same message, ho"\vever, that he expressed the same opinion in regard to the power of the Federal Government to appropriate money for the carrying out of internal improvements, holding that no such authority existed, and that, before such a policy could be adopted, it would be necessary to obtain an amendment to the Constitution authorizing such action. But President Monroe experienced a change of view on this question, and his mes- sage to Congress on internal improvements, submitted May 4, 1822, in connection with his veto of the Cumberland road bill, marked an epoch in the constitutional "Annals of Congress, Eleventh Congress, third session, p. 79, February 18, 1818. •' Annals of Congress, Sixteenth Congi-ess, second session, p. 258. UNIVERSITY OF THE UlSTITED STATES. 87 history of the United States, as it gave us what has turned out to be an authoritative exposition of the meaning of one of the important clauses in the Constitution, and that in a sense different to that adhered to previously by Monroe himself, and by Madison and by Jefferson, and different to that underlying the general theory of the policy of the Government from its foundation; in harmony, on the other hand, with the views of Hamilton and Washington, and with the action of Jefferson himself, of Madison, and of the other Presidents — an exposition which was accepted by John Quincy Adams, by Andrew Jackson, and, generally speaking, accepted and acted upon by every succeeding President. This theory of constitutional interpretation is of especial importance to the object in hand, since, if it be correct, there can be no doubt whatever of the constitutionality of Federal appropriations to a national university. In his message-' Monroe declares that his own opinion as to the power of the Fed- eral Government over appropriations had undergone a profound change, and whereas he had formerly held that the Federal Government might not appropriate money for any other purposes than those specifically enumerated in the Constitution, he had now come to believe that the Federal Constitution in the first clause of section 8 of the first article conferred upon the Federal Government "an unlimited power to raise money, and that in its appropriation Congress has a discretionary power restricted only by the duty to appropriate it for the purposes of common defense, and of general, not local, national, nor State benefit." In other words, that when the Constitution of the United States vests in Congress the power to lay and collect taxes to provide for the common defense and general welfare, it gives to that Ijody power to raise any sum of money which it chooses, and to devote it to any purpose which in its judgment will promote the general welfare, subject to the limitation that it should not be the general, not the individual, for the national, not local benefit. In his message Monroe accepted the doctrine laid down by Alexander Hamilton in his celebrated report on manufactures made to Washington in 1791, "That there seems no room for doubt that whatever concerns the general interests of learning and agriculture, manufactures, and of commerce, are within the sphere of the national council so far as regards the application of money." This is the only theory upon which all of the items in any of the general appro- priation bills passed by the Federal Government from the time of AVashington to that of McKinley can be justified. It is the only theory on which the actions of Jefferson, as distinct from his pro- nunciamentos, can find a constitutional basis. As said above, this doctrine was subsequently accepted, though under protest, by Andrew Jackson, having been fully adopted and acted upon by his predecessor, John Quincy Adams. This theory of the power of Congress over appropriations has been accepted by the great commentators on the Constitution almost without exception. Story raises the issue distinctly by asking the question: " May Congress appro- l^riate money for any other purposes than those pointed out in the enumeration of powers?" His answer was yes, and based upon the following three considerations: First. On the language contained in the first clause of the eighth section of the first article, which can not receive any reasonable interpretation except in accordance with this view. Second. — On the nature of the power conferred, rendering it highly expedient that such a power should be given to the Federal Government, and, indeed, making it almost impossible for anyone to organize and administer an efficient central govern- ment without such authority. "Compare Annals of Congress, Seventeenth Congress, first session. Vol. II, p. 1810." 88 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. Third. — On account of the early, constant, and decided maintenance of it by the Government and its functionaries, as well as by many of our ablest statesmen from the very commencement of the Constitution.^ He then declares (par. 1274) that Congress may appropriate to any purpose which is for the common defense and general welfare. This Adew was followed by Kent in his great Commentaries.'' One of the most recent and one of the greatest commentators on the Constitution, Judge Hare, takes the same view." He calls attention to a very interesting feature of this whole discussion, namely, that, owing to the principles of our constitutional law, it is almost impossible for the courts of the United States to decide this question, since it is primarily a question for the legislature and not for the courts. He speaks of Monroe's recantation, contained in the message above referred to (p. 245), and says that it was like that of Madison's of the earlier date, "a \-irtual adoption of the Hamiltonian theory that the power of the Congress over the Treasury is in effect absolute as to the appropriation of money for any object which in their judgment will conduce to the' defense of the country or promote its welfare. Such, in fact, has been the practice since the Government went into operation, and the right can scarcely be questioned in the face of a usage which will soon extend through an en- tire century." It would thus seem to be as well established as any constitutional doctrine can be that the Federal Government of the United States may appropriate money to any amount for any object which in its judgment will conduce to the common defense and will promote the general welfare. Surely under this head may be brought appropriations for a national university at the seat of government. The argument has sometimes also been advanced that the Federal Government might establish a national university under the authority given n the preamble, which declares that one of the purposes of ordaining the Constitu- tion of the United States was the promotion of the general welfare. This argu- ment deserves little a,ttention, and would not be mentioned by your reporter if it were not that one finds it oftentimes urged in support of this and other measures in the current literature of the time. Such an argument certainly deserves little con- sideration. In the first place the preamble is a mere introduction to the Constitution and does not confer any authority whatever. It simply enumerates certain purposes for which the powers subsequently conferred by the Constitution were vested in the Federal Government. In the second place, such an argument leads to a reductio ad absuz'dum, since, if the Federal Government receives from the preamble authority to promote the general welfare in any way which may seem to it good, the whole idea of a limited or delegated government becomes baseless. The other provisions of the Constitution which vest authority, which enumerate powers, are idle and meaning- less. Two other arguments in favor of the constitutionality of a national university de- serve, however, a brief mention. It is claimed, namely, that the Federal Government has received power by the Constitution to establish and maintain a civil service, exactly as it has authority to establish and maintain a military and naval service, and that it has the implied authority to establish a civil-service academy, exactly as it has established a military and a naval academy; and if it has authority to do all this, it alone, under the gen- ^ Story: Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 2d edition, Boston, 1851, paragraph 977. ''Commentaries on American Law; by James Kent, Boston, 1884, 18th edition, Vol. I, p. 268. "American Constitutional Law; J. Clark Hare, 1899, 2 vols. UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 89 erally accepted principles of constitutional interpretation, is to be the judge of what is an adequate civil-service academy and what is necessary to the establishment and equipment of such an institution. Now, a proper training of men for the civil service, at least for all the higher branches of the civil service, is a training in the sciences underlying the functions of such positions, and the best training in such sciences can be afforded in the modern world through the medium of a projierly equipped and properly managed university. This is recognized, for example, in Germany, where the imiversities are declaimed by law to be primarily academies for the preparation of men for the civil service of the country, and, to a smaller degree, in England, where attendance at the university is a prescribed condition for admission to certain examinations in the civil-service department. There is certainly much cogency in this argument, and it is difficult to refute it by any other argument than would overthrow the legitimacy of the academies which the Government has already established. The view above referred to, which was expressed in the constitutional convention by Gouverneur Morris, that the power to establish a national university at the seat of government is included in the grant of exclusive jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, would seem to be also a valid one. If Congress by the grant of power over the Territories may establish in those dis- tricts systems of education from the primary school up to and through the university, in districts which are being prepared for later admission as States, surely it may exercise the same authority in the District of Columbia, over which its jurisdiction in every respect whatever has been made absolute, subject t(j the restrictions of the Constitution, especially since thia District can not he regarded as in any sense on the road to admission as a State, and, if it is to have proper facilities for higher education at all, must obtain them from Congress. And if the Federal Government may establish a university as the head of the school system in the District of Columbia, there is no constitutional limit upon the manner in which that institution shall be organized, upon the amount of money which it may spend in its administration, or upon the purpose which such an insti- tution may be made to serve. Although the preceding considerations seem to have covered the ground in a gen- eral way, there is perhaps one other asjiect of the case, which, owing to its immediate bearing upon the special problem before us, should not be overlooked. That is the argument that the actual policy of the Federal Government in regard to education can not be justified constitutionally upon any other ground than would also justify the establishment of a national university. The Federal Government has considered education, almost from the first hour of its organization, as a subject with which it had to do, and whose promotion should be near its heart. The ordinance of 1787 bound the Congress to promote the inter- ests of education in the territory northwest of the Ohio River. And when this ordi- nance was reenacted, after the establishment of the Constitution, the same duty was taken upon itself by the Congress. In pursuance of this policy it ajapropriated from the public lands within the possession of the Government large tracts for the endow- ment of elementary and higher education. It is true that this referred at first only to the territory northwest of the Ohio River, but it was evident at a very early day that the people of the United Stfaes would not be content with the encouragement of education merely in the newer portions of the United States. The older States claimed, and with much justice, that all the States, under the Constitution, were entitled to the same treatment, and that if the newer States received assistance in the development of their education from national resources the older States were entitled to the same advantage. This argument seemed to be especially good, since the })ublic 90 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. domain out of which this endowment was made had been acquired by the common sacrifice of the older as well as the newer States. Consequently, we find a steady tendency on the part of the National Government to make grants of land for tlie pro- motion of education within the States. This has become such a well-organized policy on the part of the Government that every decade, and, one may say, almost every year since the opening of the century, has seen considerable additions to the educational funds of the States from this source. The principle received, however, a very clear recognition in the celebrated land- grant act of 1862, by which to each State in the Union was granted 30,000 acres of land for each Senator and Representative in the Congress for the endowment of col- leges for instruction in agriculture and the mechanic arts. But President Monroe, in the celebrated message previously referred to, expressed a truth, which is coming to be recognized and acted upon more fully with every pass- ing decade, that no distinction can be taken between the appropriation of money raised by the sale of public lands and of that which arises from taxes, duties, imposts, and excises. And so the Federal Government, not content with granting lands by the act of March 2, 1887, granted the sum of $15,000 per year from the pro- ceeds of the sale of public lands to each State and Territory for the establishment of agricultural experiment stations. This policy was further followed in the act of August 30, 1890, for the. further endowment of the land-grant colleges by which the sum of $15,000 per year, to be increased by an addition of $1,000 more per year until the sum amounted to $25,000 per year for each State and Territory, was voted by the Congress of the United States out of the proceeds of the sale of piiblic lands. If the Congress of the United States may appropriate $2,000,000 a year in cash from the Federal Treasury for the support of higher institutions in 45 States in the Union, surely it may appropriate a similar or greater amount for the support of a single institution in the District of Columbia. In view of the facts set forth in the above memorandum, it is the opinion of your reporter that there is a distinct grant in the Constitution of the United States to the Federal Governnrent of the authority to establish and maintain a national university. This opinion is based: (1) Upon the grant of exclusive jurisdiction for all purposes whatsoever over the District of Columbia, contained in the seventeenth clause of the eighth section of the first article. (2) On the right of the Federal Government to establish a civil academy for the education of its civil servants on such a scale and of such a character as in the judg- ment of the Congress may adequately serve the purpose. (3) On the further ground that the constitutional history of the United States and the history of the Federal grants to education all go to show that our leading states- men, including many of those who sat in the constitutional convention, have from the beginning to the present time maintained the view that such power was con- ferred upon the Federal Government. (4) Upon the ground that the actual course of legislation by the Federal Govern- ment in the endowment of education can be justified only on the same principles as will justify, constitutionally speaking, the establishment and maintenance of a national university. (5) On the further ground that the first clause of the eighth section of the first article confers upon the Federal Government th^ distinct authority to appropriate money for any purpose which in their judgment provides for the common defense and promotes the general welfare; and that if in the judgment of the Federal Con- gress the establishment and maintenance of a national university would be in fur- therance of the general welfare, then the authority to take such action is clearly and distinctly conferred by this clause. UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. • 91 A NATIONAL UNIVERSITY. To the New York Times Saturday Review: Having followed for years with deep interest the movement in behalf of a Univer- sity of the United States at Washington, and bearing in mind the high and worthy purpose which inspired not only its great projector, the Father of His Country him- self, but its many able advocates in Congress and in the highest ranks of professional a-nd private life for a quarter of a century past, I am inclined to question the right to characterize, as an editorial in The New York Times Saturday Review has recently done, the opinions sustained by, the National Educational Association on the subject as either crude or unworthy of consideration, and I would beg the privilege of saying a word in support of the vote by which the association rejected the proposals of its special committee of fifteen. I may say in the first place that I do not think that the action of the association itself, or of its committee of fifteen, ought to be taken too seriously. If it is ques- tionable whether the National Educational Association, composed of teachers of all grades, and others engaged in education as a livelihood, is a body competent to speak for the educated public of this country, the same doubt applies quite as truly to the select committee of " prominent presidents of universities," etc. If, in the first case, there is supposably a lack of the broadest culture and most comprehensive view of a national interest like this, on the other hand there is certainly supposable a possible, even though unconscious, motive of jealousy and rivalry which resents the prospect of a possibly successful competitor for the highest educational dignity and prestige of this country. Even the members of the committee of fifteen are human, and the public are sufficiently aware of the high ambitioiis cherished by the institutions they represent. When these are met T^y the proposition to establish in America a national univer- sity, with all that that name implies, of unlimited resources, supported by the worthiest pride and ambition of the whole land, and of a consequent dignity and influence superior to that of any of the private or sectional institutions, however ably endowed and equipped, it is not strange, that they do not enthusiastically welcome such a rival. For these reasons I do not feel that the action of either party in this instance is to b3 regarded as in any sense an adequate or final expression of American sentiment in the matter. I wish, in justification of the association, to offer some reflections on the substance of the rejected resolutions themselves. I take it for granted that the general reading public are aware that George Wash- ington himself left as a parting legacy to the country a small fund endowing a national university to be located at the capital, and that in the plan of the District of Colum- bia, drawn by Washington's engineer, 1' Enfant, there is a site set apart and distinctly designated as that of the university. This site has been used by the Government until quite recently for the Naval Observatorj', and now lies practically deserted in the midst of unoccupied lands at the western extremity of the great park reservations of the city. With this is to be remembered the fact that for years there has existed in Congress a Senate committee to establish the University of the United States (or U. S. ) . The passage by Congress of the bill long in the hands of its committee, for the establishment of the University of the United States, carrying with it the resto- ration of the original site chosen for the purpose by Washington, would constitute the initial act in establishing truly the national university itself, leaving to the country and its many millionaires the granii work of furnishing a sufficient endowment. In view of the sentiment of gratitude and of respect for Washington's desire, which although fruitless as yet of actual results has for a century been kept alive 92 ■ UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES, both in Congress and in the pubUc heart, it seems to come with ill grace from the committee of "prominent presidents," etc., to report that "the Government is not called upon to maintain at the capital a university in the ordinary sense of the term." If not called upon bj^ the fact of Congress accepting a legacy for the purpose and maintaining a standing committee for this as a national civil need, it would seem modest at least in the committee to admit the existence of a certain "obligation of nobility," which, if not capable of legal enforcement, is worthy of support. It is quite true, I suppose, that the governments of the several States are not "called upon" to endow the several State universities, which nevertheless, as the head or culmination of their respective State educational systems, have become a matter of very worthy State pride and emulation, and whose usefulness no one calls in ques- tion. I do not know that the governor of Massachusetts is "called upon" any longer by formal statute to attend, escorted by a body of troops, the annual com- mencement of Harvard College, but I have not noticed any protest by President Eliot against this assumption on the part of the State, or against its political inter- ference in so far with the affairs of Harvard University. It will certainly remain a difficult point to settle Avhy, if a State's educational system should culminate in its university, with its powers of granting degrees, etc., the entire educational system of the United States should not as a logical result culminate in a single university, in which the nation's resources for the highest research and intelligent production should be centered and systematized, and to which should accrue the highest intel- lectual dignity and honor. If it is legitimate for the Government to maintain national schools for ^ar at West Point and Annapolis, it is legitimate to maintain its highest school for the arts of peace and civilization at the capital, provided this can be done on a truly national scale and by methods in keeping with the unique scope and dignity of the institution. We do not hear of political scandals marring the dignity and purity of the scholarly records of the Smithsonian Institution or of the Library of Congress. If there were constitutional objections to the establish- ment of a university of the United States at the capital, would George Washington himself have made the solemn legacy to the nation for the purpose, and would Con- gress all these years have tolerated the existence of a standing committee on the subject of a national university? But the further and the vital defect in the resolutions of the committee consists in its only too manifest purpose, " to throw a sop to Cerberus" and to quiet this agita- tion for a formidable rival to existing universities by making it appear that the sub- stitute they offer is something quite as good. The committee is quite willing to please the patriotic sentiment by recognizing " an institution in Washington as a memorial to George Washington, which shall be maintained to promote the advanced study of the sciences and liberal arts." Thej' are quite willing the Women's George Washington Memorial Association shall erect a building and that the Washington Academy of Science, a self-constituted association of scientific men employed in the departments in Washington, shall cooperate in securing facilities for advanced study in tlie department's collections, etc. But the members of the committee of fifteen must be well aware that the scope of studies offered in any or all of these facilities of the departments of Washington is anything but one worthj' of a true university, or that would receive respectful recognition in any of the government universities abroad. The list of opportunities sounds large, and the name attached pleases the public emotion, but it would be little less than fraudulent to attempt to pawn off on the people such a plan for research in the scientific departments in Washington as con- stituting a true university, or such a crowning institution of the country's learning as Washington had in mind. At most the so-called facilities or aids to promote advanced studies consist of those almost exclusively in the departments of natural science. UISrrVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 93 In such departments of university study as history, the ancient and modern Ian-, guages, literature, philosophy, ethics, and the fine arts, not to speak of the three professions, law, medicine, and theology, I do not know of any provisions especially available in the Government departments at Washington which are not equallj^ so in any large city of the Union, so that the so-called Washington Memorial Institution resolves itself into merely an opportunity for studying some branches of jihysics, biology, geology, and ethnology, with the use of the Government's collection (for the Government's "support or control" in the matter, which of course includes the assistance of the savants in the employment of the Government, is according to reso- lutions expressly excluded) . To call such an institution a ' ' university in the ordinary sense of the term " was indeed beyond the conscientious ability of the committee of fifteen, but to propose such a scheme to the association or to the American people as somehow sufficient to meet the desire of carrying out Washington's noble purpose was hardly consistent with an intelligent and sincere treatment of the subject under consideration. To establish any educational institution at the capital iia the name and in the memory of Washington which would be so restricted in the scoj^e of studies as to lay no claim to being a true university, which could receive no support from the Government, and in fact offer little if anything more than is procurable at the jjresent moment by any intelligent investigator frequenting the collections or libraries in ^Vashington, seems unworthy of being associated with the sincere and dignified purpose cherished so long of establishing truly a university of the United States in fulfillment of Washington's own great ideal. To set up any mock institu- tion or otherwise to trifle with the sacred impulse of the American people is unwor- thy of the true friends of American education. To condemn outright the plan of a national university, and give reasons for doing so, in the face of our ideal of free education for. a free people, which implies education "for the people by the people " — this would be a fair way of meeting the question at hand, leaving the people to decide. To temporize by offering to the people something which seems to be that which it truly is not, is not conducive to any good end, and the action of the National Educa- tional Association in discovering this and voting accordingly is not to be summarily set aside as either crude, unscholarly, or intemperate. Frank Sewall. Coventry Hall, Yorl\ Me., August 14, 1901. THE CARNEGIE INSTITUTION. To the Editor of the Evening Star: Now that the injunction of secrecy regarding Mr. Carnegie's munificent endowment is removed by the publication of the names of the proposed incorporators and trus- tees, and of the plan of organization, it will, I trust, not be deemed impertinent for the friends of the higher education in this country to express their minds freely in regard to the proposed methods of employing so generous a provision. First, I think the readers of the preliminary annomicement regarding the proposed institution must have been struck with the apologetic tone in which the project was mentioned, as if there existed somewhere a monopoly of education or of its honors and emoluments in this country which even an institution at Washington, "in the spirit of Washington," must take care not to infringe upon. One might suppose that even a remnant of the spirit of jealousy between the "leading universities " and the projected University of the United States, which so unhappily appeared during the last summer, had in some way affected Mr. Carnegie or his advisers, in view of the repeated assurances that "it is not intended that the enterprise shall interfere with or hinder existing institutions!" It is difficult to see why there should be this 94 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. .peculiar deference, since such assurances have not been necessary heretofore when large endowments have been furnished for educational purposes. Secondly, the friends of the long-cherished project of a University of the United States to be established by the Government in fulfillment of Washington's purpose and legacy, for which a bill is now before Congress, will have been struck by the careful insistence that the proposed institution is "not to be in any sense a uni- versity!" One would naturally inquire "Why not?" And glancing over the pro- posed plan now published, no sufficient reason appears for so scrupulously avoiding this honorable title. A university is supposed to mean an institution designed to embrace all kinds of learning and to promote universal culture. It is usual to dis- tinguish such an institution from one restricted to one or more special lines of work. To say that the proposed institution is not "in any sense " a university seems, there- fore, to imply a limitation of Mr. Carnegie's liberality, which is uncalled for. If the purpose were to avoid any such connection with the Government or with political control as Avould be implied by the title "University of the United States," the question arises, Was this "in the spirit of Washington," oris it in a spirit of true patriotism or honor to the Republic? We are informed that Mr. Carnegie's first intention was to make this distinctly a Government institution, and we admire his patriotism in so intending, and question the validity of those grounds on which he was induced to change his mind. It was a magnificent declaration of good faith in the Republic and of honor to the memory of its illustrious founder. It would have provided the way not only to the systematizing and bringing into unity all the pres- ent resources of the Government for educational purposes, but for crowning them Avith the great agencies for universal culture which they necessarily lack. Probably the most efficient and the most renowned scientific institution of to-day is the Reichsanstalt, or the Imperial Institute of Physics and Technics, at Charlot- tenburg, Prussia, of which Von Helmholz was the late president. Its plant consists of an adequate group of buildings and equipments costing $100,000, and its regular maintenance in its two departments of physical research and of industrial applica- tion in technics is furnished by the Imperial Government at an annual expense of about ?400,000. Can America not trust its Congress as safely as Germany its parlia- ment? On the other hand, if government control is detrimental to good work and the advancement of knowledge, how comes it that one of the specific objects of the institute shall be to "enable students to avail themselves of the various museums, libraries, laboratories, and other kindred institutions of the several departments of the Government," and why should these governmental resources have been so elo- quently dwelt upon as offering extraordinary opportunities for the pursuit of learn- ing "in Washington?" Happily, however, these unworthy and rather humiliating limitations of the pro- jected institution belong rather to the remarks about the project by those supposed to be in the confidence of its founder than to the plan and scope of the institute as officially set forth. For while the several "aims," as enumerated in Dr. Walcott's recent statement, would seem to imply rather a special college of physical science, and a fund for subsidizing needy professorships in colleges throughout the country, and even for supporting students abroad, which two purposes were certainly not conceived "in the spirit of Washington's" bequest, happily the opening statement is left broad enough to include the departments of a truly universal culture, of which the scientific research and invention so emphasized in the "aims" is but a single and by no means the most important feature. "To encourage investigation, research, and discovery, and the application of knowledge to the improvement of mankind in the broadest and most liberal manner" means the employment of resources far exceeding those embraced in the scientific departments of the Government in Washington. It means the encouragement of learning in philosophy, history, ethics, philology, literature, and the fine arts, for which the Government departments, except in an accidental UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 95 way, make no provision. And it is not in these, more tlian in the advancement of physical science, that it would seem Mr. Carnegie's munificence might profitably be employed, because here is the greatest need. For invaluable as are the scientific researches of the (irovernment and their applied results, we are not aware of there being any want of means for carrying out any scheme of real importance which the Government can not lawfully supply. Proposals for an elaborate bureau of standaixis of weights and measures, the object for Avhich the famous Reichsanstalt was primarily established in Germany, are already before Congress. It does not seem necessary to duplicate any of the work of the Smithsonian Institution nor to add to the magnificent library provisions of the capital, for an important feature of which we are already indebted to Mr. Carnegie. If there be such a rival intention, then it would seem to be here that apologies are necessary or assurances of "noninterfering" purposes rather than to the universities. And, therefore, the question urges itself. Why should not the funds be employed for the supplying of these real defects rather than in dupli- cating the present facilities for universal learning in Washington? Why should not the university idea be put forward, rather than in the background, or the ideal and moral side of human culture be given its place, at least, beside the physical? That the statement of purpose is broad enough to admit yet of the fullest development of this side of our national culture under Mr. Carnegie's munificence is matter for con- gratulation among the friends of liberal culture, and the hope may be indulged that through the wise direction of its chosen trustees the Carnegie Institute may develop, under whatsoever name, into the noble symmetry and complete use of a true university. Frank Sewall. . LETTER OF HON. JOHN W. HOYT TO THE WASHINGTON POST, REVIEWING A COMMUNICATION OF JULY 11, 1901, ON "PLANS FOR A UNIVERSITY," BY HON. ALEXANDER GRAHAM BELL. Editor Post: In your issue of July 11 appeared a lengthy article, under the heading "Plans for University," so remarkable for erroneous and misleading statements, to say nothing of bad logic, as to demand a brief review in the interest of a great cause. The article opens with a reference to the "rejection" of the report of the "com- mittee of fifteen" on a national university by the national council of the National Educational Association, on the 9th instant, at Detroit. The fact is, that the report was received, as it could not help being, and that the council, in receiving it, resolved that "while we express our appreciation of their (the committee's) labors, we are not prepared to abandon the position taken by the National Educational Association in favor of a national university. ' ' The resolution might have described this position as having been taken by the association three times unanimously, for such is the fact. In the second place, the article states that the committee of fifteen had endeavored "to determine the best means for the establishment of a governmental university." The fact is that the committee, so far from doing this, early decided against any such institution. In the third place, it is said that the committee of fifteen "heartily indorsed the plan proposed by the members of the George Washington Memorial Association and the Washington Academy of Sciences to establish a national university." The fact is, the committee indorsed no such plan, for neither the association nor the academy just named have any plan for a national university. The report of the com- mittee of fifteen says: " In the year 1901 the certificates of incorporation of the George Washington Memorial Association was amended in due legal form, and all mention of a national university was ommitted from the statement of its purposes." In the July number of the Eeview of Reviews, Prof. Nicholas Murray Butler, of 96 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. Columbia University, a member of the committee of fifteen and trustee of the Washington Memorial Institution, ■writing of this institution, a corporation repre- senting the association and academy just mentioned, and indorsed by the committee of fifteen as a permanent substitute for the national university, says: " It will be an aid and adjunct to universities, but not a university, or a torso of one," and again: " The Washington Memorial Institution is in no sense a university." Even more remarkable are statements ascribed to Alexander Graham Bell. He says: " The association (Nat;onal Educational) is a great organization, and contains representatives from everj^ portion of the country. It is hardly possible that all these people know what Congress would do or has done in the matter of the estab- lishment of a university supported by the Government." To say nothing of this gratuitous reflection upon the intelligence of the leading educators of the country, the argument is that, because they do not reside in Washington they are unacquainted with Congressional legislation on education. From what follows, it would appear that Professor Bell himself is not fully acquainted therewith. Further on, he says: "The university (the Washington Memorial Institution, which, according to Professor Butler, is in no sense a university), which will !;« established here in the fall, will be the most stupendous undertaking and the most far-reaching institution that has ever been conceived by man;" and again, "its scope will be absolutely unlimited;" and again, "it goes far beyond the dreams of the people who have worked from time to time for the establishment of such an institution " (a true national university ) . The truth is, every object of the VV^ashiugton Memorial Institution is provided for by the bills introduced into Congress through the national university committee, and, indeed, the plans of the institution fall far short of these of the national univer- sity committee. When it is considered that the institution will practically be con- fined to a verj^ limited utilization of the Government's scientific collections at Washington, one is indeed lost in wonder at its contemplation. Tlie statement of Professor Bell, in this regard, is too absurd for further consideration. Again he says: "The action of Congress has settled once and for all time the proj- ect to establish a Government university. It can notbe cione." And why? Because, forsooth, when Congress had under consideration the disposition of James Smith- son's bequest for "the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men," it was held by some members of the National Legislature that this language did not warrant the utilization of Smithson's money through a national university. Therefore, says Professor Bell, Congress is estopped from ever appropriating any money for a national university. If this be logic, the definition of the term will have to be changed. Further he says: "Learned statesmen came to the conclusion that the use of the money (Smithson's) and the appropriation of other money for educational purposes was unconstitutional and could not be considered." What memories these "learned statesmen" must have had to forget the existence, almost under the shadow of the Capitol, of the United States Military and Naval academies, and how they must have turned in their graves when the Morrill bill was passed by Congress appropriating millions of dollars for the establishment and maintenance in all the States and Terri- tories of colleges of agriculture and the mechanic arts. Yet, according to Professor Bell, Congress never has done and never can do anything for education. It is inconceivable that Professor Bell could have expressed the opinions attributed to him in the article, although they are all quoted. In this connection it should be stated that the proposition to incorporate a manda- tory provision for a true national university in the Federal Constitution was defeated by only one vote, and this because it was agreed that the plenary power of Congress over the District of Columbia gave it full power to establish such an institution, and it was desired not to burden the Constitution with unnecessary provisions. Professor UJ^IVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 97 Bell must also know that the committee of fifteen itself in its report expressly admitted the constitutionality of a national university. In the course of the article Professor Bell says also: "The Constitution provides that Congress can appropriate money from the public funds to promote the progress of science and the useful arts." The Constitution does say (Article I, section 8) that Congress shall have power "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts," but how? "By securing, for limited times, to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. ' ' It thus appears that the authority for the enactment of patent and copyright legislation, with which the Smithsonian Institution has nothing to do, is declared by a regent of the institution to have been the warrant for its establishment. There is one featui'e of the article, however, which deserves commendation, and that is the naivete with which Professor Bell admits the real reason for the adverse report of the committee of fifteen and of the opposition in general to a national uni- versity. He says: "This (a national university) would completely offset the old universities already established in this country. The degrees from a national uni- versity would be much sought after, and consequently all the other universities are opposed to the establishment of such an institution." The friends of the national university are indebted to Professor Bell for this admission, and it is to be regretted that the committee of fifteen were not equally honest in the statement of their reasons for opposition to any national university. As for "all the other universities" oppos- ing a national university, it is sufiicient to state as a matter of fact that the only uni- versities opposing a national university are Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Chicago having until lately stood for it strongly, and now very certainly not being fully satisfied with the report of the committee of fifteen. The fact is that the other leading colleges and universities of the country to the number of some 250, including all the State universities but one, have distinctly declared in favor of the proposed university of the United States, of whose establishment the little coterie of universities above named are jealous without cause. Is it any wonder that the National Educational Association, at its annual lousiness meeting in Detroit on the 11th instant, in the face of the disingenuous report of the committee of fifteen, resolved by an overwhelming vote, "That this association hereby reaffirms its former declaration in favor of the establishment by the National Government of a national university, devoted not to collegiate but to true university work." In conclusion, I feel bound to say: (1) That the only ideas in the Washington memorial institution worth anything were borrowed from and are more completely represented by the national university committee, which now includes over 400 of the most eminent men of the nation. (2) That in view of all that has been done and' is doing to realize the great ideas of Washington, his comf)atriots and successors, as well as by the aljlest of scholars and statesmen in recent years, it is surpiising that even a few scientific men of AVash- ington, heretofore warm indorsers of the national university enterprise, have so easily given up a movement but temporarily blocked by a few favorably circumstanced corrupt oflicials and private schemers. (3) That it is yet more astonishing that the George Washington Memorial Asso- ciation, abandoning the great ideal of AVashington, have so readily surrendered, turning over the money collected "for the erection of the administration building of the University of the United States" to an institution wholly inadequate to the demands of the nation, and now practically in control of men who are firmly opposed to anything in the form of a national university, and S(*me of whom, having plotted against it from the beginning of the present university movement, have devised this present specious scheme as a means of defeating it altogether. S. Rep. 9i5 7 98 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. THE PROPOSED NATIONAL UNIVERSITY.^ By Hon. John W. Hoyt, Chairman National University Committee. [From Science cf October 4, 1901.1 Ttie paper by Hon. Charles D. Walcott, Director of the United States Geological Survey, published in Science for June 28, 1901, then issued in a separate pamphlet, and now kindly brought to my notice by the author, disposes of the national univer- sity movement in the following summary manner: "But Congress has always looked on the scheme with suspicion, and not one of the various bills offered was ever acted upon by the Senate and House of Representa- tives. The trend of opinion has been and is that the Government should not found a national university in the sense suggested by Washington and his followers. ' ' At first I thought to let these statements pass without notice, believing that in course of time they would correct themselves. But on reflection I conclude to make a com- prehensive review of them, as also some comments on the "memorial" scheme so fully set forth in connection therewith, and finally to point out some of the special functions of the proposed national university wdiich so deeply concerned Washington, but which seem never to have been duly considered by those now engaged in pro- moting an enterprise which its projectors intend shall defeat the establishment of such university altogether. ATTITUDE OF CONGRESS. Of the nonpassage of bills I will'speak further on. Let us, first of all, see how far this declaration concerning the attitude of Congress accords with the real facts in the case. To begin with the House, the only action ever taken by that body on the subject of a national university was affirmative and unanimous. The National Educational Association, having first by a unanimous vote, at Trenton, N. J., in 1869, declared a great American university to be "a leading want of American education," and appointed a ' ' committee consisting of one member from each of the States * * * to take the whole matter under consideration, ' ' and to report thereon, and having twice unanimously adopted the affirmative reports of said committee (at Cleveland, in 1870, and at St. Louis, in 1871), then by unanimous vote created a permanent committee to prepare and offer to Congress a bill to establish a national university. The committee embraced, besides the chairman, ex-President Thomas Hill, of Harvard, Editor Godkin, of The Nation; State Superintendent Wickersham, of Penn- sylvania; Dr. Barnas Sears, of Virginia; Col. D. F. Boyd, president of the University of Louisiana; President Daniel Read, of the University of Missouri; Dr. W. F. Phelps, president State Normal School, Winona, Minn.: ex-Governor A. C. Gibbs, of Oregon; Hon. Newton Batemay, superintendent of public nstruction, of Illinois; Superin- tendent Emerson E. White, president-elect of the National Educational Association; Gen. John Eaton, United States Commissioner of Education; Dr. Joseph Henry, Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution and president of the National Academy of Sciences; Dr. J. Lawrence Smith, of Kentucky, president of the American Associa- tion for the Advancement of Science; and Dr. Samuel Elliot, of Connecticut, presi- dent of the American Social Science Association. The bill prepared by these men was introduced in the House during the last session of the Forty-second Congress and referred to the Committee on Education, of which ''A review of Hon. Chas. Dt Walcott's paper on "Relations of the General Gov- ernment to higher education and research." UlSriVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 99 Chairman Perce, of Mississippi, and Mr. Hoar, of Massachusetts, were prominent members, and near the end of the said session was unanimously returned to the House with a strong report, of which the following is the closing passage: "If, then, it be true, as the committee has briefly endeavored to show, that our country is at present wanting in the facilities essential to the highest culture in many departments of learning; and if it be true that a central university, besides meeting this demand, would quicken, strengthen, and systematize the schools of the country from the lowest to the highest; that it would increase the amount and the love of pure learning, now so little appreciated by our people, and so improve the intellectual and social status of the nation; that it would tend to homogeneity of sentiment, and thus strengthen the unity and patriotism of the people; that by gathering at its seat distinguished savants, not only of our own but of other lands, it would eventually make our national capital the intellectual center of the world, and so help the United States to rank fii'st and highest among the enlightened nations of the earth — then is it manifestly the States. I certainly should have responded to such a request, as I am heartily in favor of it, and shall be glad to do anything in my power to pro- mote the work. Very cordially, yours, J. F. Forbes, \_President.'\ Ex-Governor John W. Hoyt, Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. EoLLiNs College, Winter Park, Fla. , January 15, 1897. Dear Sir: Your letter of November 28 aiTived during my absence on a business trip, hence the long delay in answering. From what I can gain from perusal of the document sent me, I am most heartily in favor of the establishment of the proposed University of the United States. I believe it would be an institution such as can be satisfactorily had in no other location and under no other auspices. Use my name, as you suggest, as a member of the national committee, and believe me, Respectfully, yours, Geo. M. Ward, [President. ] John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. Florida Agricultural CoLLECiE and Experiment Station, Lake City, Fla., May 2, 1899. Dear Sir: I acknowledge receipt of various valuable documents relating to the projected national university. I shall be pleased to cooperate with you in this cause to the extent of my ability and opportunities. Respectfully, W. F. YocuM, President. J. W. Hoyt, Chairman National University Comuiittee, Washington, D. C. Florida Agricultural College and Experiment Station, Lake City, Fla., January 19, 1900. Dear Sir: I heartily agree with the proposition to make the educational appliances now assembled at the capital of our nation available through a national university. Any service which I can render to the object to this end will be cheerfully given. Yours, truly, W. F. YocuM, [President.'] Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. State Normal and Industrial College, Tallahassee, Fla., April 29, 1899. Dear Sir: Yours of the 27th instant in re University of the United States was received bj^ due course of mail. If my humble name and still humbler efforts can in the least help to facilitate the patriotic measure in which you are engaged, I shall deem myself honored thereby; my name is therefore at your command. Very respectfully, . T. D. Tucker, President. Hon. J. Wesley Hoyt, Washington, D. C. UNIVEKSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 139 State Normal and Industrial College, Tallahassee, Fla., January 30, 1900. My Dear Sir: Your favor 26th instant is at hand. I again regret to state that I have not yet received copy of the bill in the matter referred to in your letter. Wishing you success in your efforts to inaugurate a great national university, I am, respectfully, I. D. Tucker, President. Hon. John W. Hoyt, Chairman National University Committee, WasJrington, D. C. University of Idaho, Moscorv, Idaho, November 29, 1897. Dear Sir: Certainly if there is anything that I can do to promote so worthy a project as the university of the United States, I shall onlj^ be too glad to tender my services. Wishing you unbounded success, I am, yours, truly, F. B. Gault, President. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. The University of Chicago, Chicago, October 29, 1896. My Dear Sir: I have received your letter of October 24 and will give the bill which you have sent me careful consideration. I trust that it may now go through. Yours, truly, Hon. Johx W. Hoyt, Washington, I). C. William R. Harper, President. The University of Chicago, Chicago, August 19, 1898. My Dear Mr. Hoyt: Your letter of August 16 has been received. I appreciate most thoroughly the spirit of the letter, and assure you that you will find me ready to cooperate in every possible way. * * * i hope that we may have an interview at an early date. Yours, truly, Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. William R. Harper, Presided. The University of Chicag(>, ( 'hicago, February 17, 1900. My Dear Mr. Hoyt: I am perfectly candid in saying tha.t the new bill which you have recently sent me comes very much nearer my ideal of the whole situation than anything that has yet been presented in definite form. I will take pleasure in pre- senting this to the committee at its next meeting in Chicago. Very truly, yours, William R. Harper, President. Mr. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. Northwestern University, Evanston, III., June 39, 1900. Dear Sir: I have delayed longer than I intended to in answering your last letter. A few days ago I received the circulars which you forwarded. I feel entirely free now to go upon your committee, if you desire, or to render any other service that I can in support of a bill to establish a university of the United States. Yours very, truly, Henry Wade RoctErs, Ex-President. Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 140 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. Lincoln University, Lincoln, 111., May 25, 1899. Dear Sir: Your circular letter of April 27 was duly received and contents have been noted. I certainly appreciate the sacrifice you are making for the cause you represent, and sympathize with you in the difiiculties you have encountered in prosecuting your plans. I regret that I am not in position to render any substantial assistance, but wish to say this much in view of the last sentence in the circular. Trusting that the conditions may become somewhat easier and that the project may reach abundant success, I am. Very cordially, yours, A. E. Turner, President. Hon. John W. 'Koyt, Washington, D. C. Lincoln University, Lincoln, Lll., February 6, 1900. My Dear Sir: Your circular letter of January 13 came to me promptly. I wish I were in a position to aid you more effectively than I seem to be able to do in the premises. Whatever moral support I am able to give you are at liberty to command. I am glad to know that the cause seems to be gaining strength. The impression had grown upon me that this was not the case. Wishing you the fullest measure of success, I remain, most faithfully, yours, A. E. Turner, President. Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. Knox College, Galeshiirg, III, October 26, 1897. My Dear Mr. Hoyt: I have your letter of October 19. I shall have pleasure in complying with its suggestions. I wish you success in your efforts. I shall be glad to give you such aid as I can. 1 am, yours, very truly, John H. Finley, President. Dr. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. Knox College, Galesburg, III, July 8, 1896. My Dear Sir: I acknowledge, with sincerest thanks, the receipt of your timely and helpful letter of May 30, 1896, and of a copy of your exhaustive and unanswerable "reply" to "views of the minority," which I have read with profound and grateful interest. It anchors anew to the rock of certainty my faith in the sure coming of that one missing force, that grand consummating factor in our educational system, an ample, adequate, and rightly conceived " university of the United States." It is needed; there can be no Substitute for it; the authority of the Government to establish and maintain it is clear and unquestionable. As in years past, so now, and till the final triumph of the measure is achieved, should my life be spared, I shall count it an honor, a privilege, and a duty to do what I can to aid the movement for a national university. Most gratefully and cordially, yours, Newton Bateman, President. Hon. JoHN.W. U.o-iT:, Washington, D. C. Wabash College, CrawfordMnlle, Ind., April 23, 1897. My Dear Governor Hoyt: I wish you great success in your efforts and regret that I can not serve you more fully. Sincerely, yours, G. S. Burroughs, President. Hon. John W. Hoyt, Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 141 Wabash College, Crav:fordsriUe, Inch, October 27, 1S97. My Dear Sir: Your esteemed circular letter of the 19th instant is at hand and contents noted. I am pleased to be fully advised regarding the situation in reference to the national university. ****** * Assuring you of my cordial good wishes and so much of cooperation as I am able to afford you, I am, my dear sir, with much respect, Sincerely, yours, Ct. S. BureouctHs, \_Pres'idei}t.'\ Hon. John W. Hoyt, Wmlnngton, D. C. De Pauw University, Greencasile, IncL, Noremher 24, 1897. Dear Sir: Yours respecting the national university just received. I thank you for the printed matter, as well as your personal letter. I authorize you to sign my name to the committee- Very cordially, Hillary A. Gobin, \_Pre>iident.'\ Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. Iowa State College of AciRiCTLTURE and the Mechanic Arts, Ames, loica, May 2, 1899. Dear Sir: I am in receipt of your letter of recent date regarding the university of the United States. I keep talking the matter in lectures now and then and hope to see it succeed. I can not give anj^ money to the enterprise at present, but I am deeply solicitous for the success of the enterprise. It is one of the needs of the United States. I hope it can be brought to recognition on the inart of Congress soon. Sincerely, Wm. Beardshear, \_President.'\ Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, December 5, 1896. Yours of November 28 at hand. I am unalterably opposed to a sectarian school assuming for itself national titles and prerogatives, and I shall be proud of the honor of becoming one of the national committee to promote the establishment of the uni- versity of the United States. Most fraternally. Barton 0. Aylesworth, President. Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. Western ColleCtE, . Toledo, lovxi, December 23, 1896. Dear Sir: The various papers sent out by the committee, discussing the proposed university of the United States pro and con, I have read with much interest and endeavored to consider without bias. I must say that my conviction is settled that the movement is a wise one. The proposition that the proposed university is to be exclusively for post-graduate Avork inclines me the more strongly to the support of the project. You may place my name among the members of the national committee if you so desire. Yours, very truly, L. Book Walter, \_President.'] Mr. John W. Hoyt, Chairman Nationcd University Committee, Washington, D. C. 142 UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. Amity Colle(4e, College Springs, Iowa, Decemher 16, 1896. Dear Sir: * * * You have my fullest sympathy in your great undertaking, and have full permission to use my name as a member of the national committee, if that is of any practical use. Wishing the movement final success, I have the honor to be, Yours, respectfully, J. M. LiTTLEJOHN, President. Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. Amity College, College Springs, Imva, November 10, 1897. My Dear Sm: Your letters and inclosed papers have been received. I have read with much interest your statements and am rejoiced to hear of the increasing inter- est manifested in the scheme to establish a national university.' I think there can only be one candid position on this matter, namely, that of favor toward the plan. I am satisfied no denominational institution, such as Bishop Hurst's university, can ever occupy the field, and no State institution is competent to supjaly the lacunae. Only a national university can fill the place at the very top of our national educa- tional system. I have nothing to add to or take away from the expression I sent you almost two years ago, the lapse of time having served to increase my sympathetic interest in this movement. In answer to your queries I will say (1) I do believe that the most effective work should be and ought to be done in the States. I think that State committees ought to be organized and to act in this matter. I think President Schaeffer of State IJni versify, or President Gates of Iowa College, Grinnell, would be good for the posi- tion. (2) I think that such a national rally in Washington would be a good thing. About the holidays would be convenient because advantage could be taken of col- lege recess to attend in larger numbers. (3) I do think that friends of the cause should begin to think of plans for endowments. I think that fellowships open to professors in the colleges of the United States, tenable, say for one or two years, and periodical lectureships, tenable for a number of years, would be a fine form of endow- ment. It would be a means of commanding a wide field of scholarship for spe- cialism and would arouse an interest among those who would prospectively be interested. I shall be pleased to aid you in any way I can at any time. You may count upon my increased interest and sympathy. Yours, for the success of this movement in behalf of the higher national education, J. Martin Littlejohn, \_President.'] Hon. John W. Hoyt, LL. D., Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. Upper Iowa University, Fayette, Iowa, November 25, 1897. Dear Sir: I am perfectly willing to join with others in asking Congress to estab- lish the post-graduate university of the United States. If you will inform me when the bill is likely to come up I will write our delegation in regard to the matter. Yours, very truly, J. M. BiSSELL, [President.'\ Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D, C. Central College, Pella, Imva, November 26, 1897. Dear Sir: Your letter of November 22, calling my attention to the efforts of your committee to establish the university of the United States, is at hand. In reply, let me say that I shall take pleasure in cooperating with others to this end. Very truly, yours, A. B. Chaffee, ^President.} Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. UlSriVEKSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 143 'Cornell College, Mount Vernon, Iowa, November 9, 1897. My Dear Sir: Your kind favor of the 19th and also one of the 30th are received and carefully noted. I appreciate your interest in this cause, and the merits and urgency of the cause, but I am constrained to say that partly l)y poor health and partly by having upon me more work than I can do, I am compelled to forego taking any active interest in the matter of the establishment of the university of the United States. Indeed, I am seeking to get less work upon me rather than more, and am compelled to decline many invitations on account of the obligations already upon me, so I hope you will pardon me in my inability to respond to your request for answers to the ciuestions which you raise. I am hardly able to advise as to which is the better time to hold your meet- ing, before or after the holidays, but would incline to the opinion that it would be better after, though you would be a lietter judge of that than I would. Again thanking you for your courtesy, and with best wishes, I remain, j'ours, as ever, very fraternally, AVm. F. Kings, {^President.'] Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. Pexx College, Oskaloosa, Iowa, December 3, 1896. Dear Sir: From the first time that my mind was called to the subject of a national university to the present moment I have entertained favorable impressions relative thereto. Additional investigation only increases my interest in the matter. It has my hearty approval. We should have buildings chaste in style and models in archi- tecture that would rival the Cajntol building in jioint of excellence. This great nation can not afford to neglect this matter. You are at liberty to use my name as a memlier of the national committee. Very sincerely, Absalom Rosenberger, President. Ex-Gov. John W. Hoyt, Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. Pexx College, Oshdoosa, lovxi, November 6, 1897. My Dear Sir: It will afford me pleasure to assist in stirring up the public mind in behalf of the national university. It will be my endeavor to call upon Mr. Lacey, our member of Congress, this afternoon in reference to the matter. In a day or two I hope to see Dr. Beardshaw, of the Iowa Agricultural College, and urge liim to take the initiative in the waj- of an Iowa campaign. I would think well of a demonstration after the holidays to urge Congress to faithful duty in this respect and would try to be present. Very sincerely, A. Rosexberger, [President. ] Hon. JoHX W. Hoyt, WasJiington, I). C. Pexx College, Oskaloosa, loiva, April 7, 1900. Dear Sir: I have read with deep interest the bill for the establishing of a national university. It seems to be simple, safe, and wise in its provisions. Every educator should hail with joy every effort put forth in this direction. Very truly, A. RoSEXBERC4ER, \_President.'] Hon. John AV. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. Kansas State Agricultural College, Manhattan, Kans., April 29, 1899. My Dear Sir: Your favor of the 27th instant received. Replying, I will say that the proposal that a national university shall be established at the city of Washing- ton, D. C, meets with my most cordial and enthusiastic support. I have long felt 144 UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. that such an institution w6uld be of priceless value as the center of a truly American educational system; and, believing thus, I not only gladly assent to the use of my name in the revised list of members of the national committee, but trust that you will call upon me if at any time I can be of service in promoting an enterprise so excellent as the establishment of the institution proposed. Very truh', yours, Tho.s. E. Wiel, Presided. Mr. John Wesley Hoyt, Washington, D. C. Southwest Kansas Collecie, Winfield, Kam., December 3, 1897. My Dear Sir: I take pleasure in acknowledging the receipt of your favor of recent date concerning the establishment of the university of the United States. Permit me to say that I am in hearty accord with your plan and efforts in this direction. Such an institution is just what we need to crown the educational system of our country. I sincerely hope that this plan will be consummated at an early date, and that America will establish and maintain the greatest educational institution in the world. I assure you of my warm support in this enterprise. Sincerely, yours, Q. A. Place, President. Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. Washburn College, Topeka, Kans., November 27, 1897. My Dear Sir: I am dulj- in receipt of your circular, with inclosures, regarding the work of establishing a post graduate university of the United States. 1 think the former letter, to which you allude, resulting in the formation of the committee of one hundred, did not reach this office since I took the chair of presi- dent. I am, however, in sympath}^ with the project, and shall be glad to do all I can to further its ends. I shall, therefore, be pleased to accept your invitation to ' ' j oin y our forces. ' ' We shall be glad to receive for our college library such publications from time to time as may bear upon the subject. Very sincerely, yours, Geo. W. Herrick, President. Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. Boston, Mass., November 30, 1897. Dear Sir: I am in receipt of your letter of the 22d instant, for which and the inclosures please accept my thanks. Absence from home much of the time must be my excuse for unintentional lack of attention to your former communication. I am strongly in favor of every legitimate effort to promote American education. I have always "thought Washington's plan for a national university a wise one, and regretted that an early attempt had not been made to carry it out. Wishing to you, as to all other good men similarly employed, the blessing of God on your efforts to "advance learning among men," I subscribe myself, very respect- fully, yours, N. J. Morrison, [President of Fairmount College, Wichita, Kans.} Hon. John W. Hoyt, Chairman of National University Committee, WasJrington, D. C. Central University, Richmond, Ky., October S. 5, 1897. My Dear Sir: Your favor of 19th instant is to hand. In reply I will say that there is not much interest in this State to the question of a national university. It would be difficult to raise money to advance the scheme in this State. My mind has undergone a decided change on the subject. From a feeling of indiffer- ence and opposition I have come to look with favor on the scheme. I now think it UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 145 would i)rove to be a great Ijlessing to our whole country, and an appropriate capstone to our great educational system, provided, of coiir.se, it can be worked out practically. Very truly, etc., L. H. Blanton, [ Chancellor. ] Hon. J. W. HoYT; WaKli/ngton, D. C. Central University, Rtclimond, Ky., February 10, 1898. My Dear Sir: I have written my views as strongly as I could put them to both of our Kentucky Senators, and I hope the effect will be good. The Rev. W. H. Miley, of Marion, Ky., is Senator Deboe's pastor, and if you could get Mr. Miley to write him and urge him to use his influence in behalf of the measure it would help very much. * * * Hastily, yours, etc., L. H. Blanton, Chancellor. Governor John W. Hoyt, Wa.<^]iiagton, D. C. South Kentucky College, Ho-pldnsrille , Ky., December 4, 1897. My Dear Sir: I most heartily indorse the movement, so ably promoted by our honorable chairman, to establish a national university at Washington, D. C. I shall do everything in my power to influence our Senators and Representatives in Congress to aid in its establishment. Yours, truly, S. S. Woolwine, President. Hon. John W. Hoyt, Wa^^hlngton, T). C. South Kentucky College, IIo23l'insville, Ky. , February S6, 1898. My Dear Sir: My delay in answering your letter must not be taken as an evidence of a lack of interest in the success of "The University of the United States." I wish you and your noble associates success in this most worthy effort to establish a national university. Yours, truly, ' S. S. Woolwine, \_President.'\ Hon. J. W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. Ogden CollectE, Bowling Green, Ky., November 4, 1897. My Dear Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letters of October 19 and 30, and also of documents concerning the University of the United States, and beg leave to say that I will give the matter my earnest attention and do what I can for the cause. Your letter of October 19 I will answer fully in a few days, when not so pressed for time. Truly, yours, Wm. a. Obenchain, President. Governor John W. Hoyt, Wasliington, I). C. Ogden College, Bowling Green, Ky., July 3, 1898. My Dear Sir: In answer to yours of the 23d of June, the effort to secure gifts for the endowment of chairs in the proposed national university is, I believe, a step in the right direction. Wealthy men and women could not give money for a better and nobler cause. If I had a wealthy friend or acquaintance contemplating such a deed I would lose no time in using any influence I might have to induce him to give to the national universitj*. But I have none such. * * * * -X- -x- * "S'ery truly, yours, Wm. a. ObenchaiNj President. Hon. John W. Hoyt, Chairman National University Committee, Wasliington., D. C. S. Rep. 945 10 146 UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. Ogden College, Bowling Green, Ky., May 8, 1899. Dear Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your circular letter of the 27th of April. I was aware of the fact that the heads of some leading universi- ties in the East are opposed to a national university. It occurs to me, however, that these men might take a different view of the matter, or at least their opposi- tion be silenced if the pretensions of the ambitious prelate at the head of the so- called " American University " were made known to them. A national university controlled by any religious denomination is not to be thought of. It should be non- sectarian and nonpartisan, or not at all. A certain well-endowed Methodist univer- sity out here in the West started out on a broad and liberal basis. Its first fac- ulty was selected without reference to religious creed. In it were able men from nearly all the principal Protestant denominations. But it had hardly become well established when all the professors of other denominations were one by one turned out and their places filled with Methodists. This, of course, the trustees had a right to do, and I dare say it was very natural, but the very naturalness of the thing should make every friend of the higher education work for our proposed national univer- sity — a university that in this free land shall be free from sectarian control. * * * * -x- * * I have the honor to be, very truly, yours, Wm. a. Obenchain, President. Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. Ogden College, Bo^vling Green, Ky., June SO, 1900. Dear Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of yours of the 28th instant, inclosing copy of the Depew bill (S. 3330). The delays in this matter are provoking, but this, in a cause so worthy, should make us all the more determined, notwithstanding the turmoil of State and country and the world. Very truly, yours, Wm. a. Obenchain, President. Hon. John W. Hoyt, Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. Centre College, Danville, Ky., June 27, 1900. Honored and Dear Sir: It will afford me great pleasure to act on the "commit- tee of promotion" as one of its members. I heartily believe in the project. In fact, I wrote, when president of Lake Forest University, on the subject, holding that the future educational system of America will be a large number of genuine American colleges accessible to the young men of every State in the Union to teach the elemen- tary principles and discipline the mind, and one or more great university for post- graduate studies. The movement is in the right direction. Neither the English nor the German university should be transplanted to our shores, but a tertiura quid that is in perfect harmony with our institutions — social, political, and educational. I shall be glad to influence to the extent of my abihty our Senators and Kepresentatives. Yours sincerely, Wm. C. Eoberts, President, Hon. J. W, Hoyt, Washington, D. C. Southern University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, New Orleans, La., May 1, 1899. Dear Sir: Your letter of April 27 is received, containing request for presidents of agricultural and mechanical colleges to join forces with the "one hundred," even as the heads of the State universities have done. As the Southern University and Agricultural and Mechanical College is one of the two State universities of Louisiana, and is also a member of the American Association of Agricultural Colleges, the school has a double interest in your very laudable: undertaking. UNIVEESITY, OF THE UNITED STATES. 147 You are at liberty to use my name, and I would be pleased to be a member of the ' ' national committee to promote the establishment of the University of the United States." With best wishes for the success of the University of the United States, I am, most respectfully, Henry A. Hill, President. Dr. John W. Hoyt, Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. Bates College, Lewiston, Me., December S, 1897. Dear Sir: This is to assure you that I am in hearty sympathy with you and your associates in your efforts for the establishment of the University of the United States, and that you are at liberty to make such use of my name and position as shall seem to you to promise any aid to vour worthy enterprise. **■'***** Yours, truly, Geo. C. Chase, President. Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. Bates College, Lewiston, Me., July 2, 1900. Dear Sir: You have met with great discouragements, but your perseverance and courage seem to be worthy of your cause. * * * i have no suggestions to make, but shall be glad to cooperate with you in any way permitted me. Yours, sincerely, George C. Chase, President. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. Colby University, Waterville, Me., October 26, 1897. My Dear Sir: I am nmch interested in your circular letter of October 19. 1 am sure that your suggestion that a rally be called of members of the national oommittee in a great public meeting in Washington early, in the coming session of Congress, would it carried out prove very valuable in promoting the interests of the national university enterprise. My own time and effort have necessarily been so much absorbed in the problems which beset us in the management of this college that I have not been able to give such attention to the details of the great enterprise which you have so much at heart as to feel competent to suggest anything by way of advice regarding the topics you have touched upon. I beg to assure you of my profound interest in the purpose you have in mind, and of my great admiration for the devotion with which you are promoting it. Sincerely, yours, Nathaniel Butler, President. Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. The University of Maine, Orono, Me., October 14, 1901. Dear Dr. Hoyt: Your letter of October 12 is received. I am a firm believer in the university of the United States, and shall be pleased to hear you at the conven- tion of Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations. The program is, however, in the control of the executive committee. I will write the chairman to-day sug- gesting that the privileges of the floor be extended to you, with such opportunity as you (Jesire. Yours, very truly, A. W. Harris, President. Hon. J. W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 148 UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. Educational Department, Augusta, Me., July 1, 1896. Dear Sir: In reply to your letter of recent date, I have to say that I do not know anyone by the name of Pi'esident Boggs. If you can inform me where he lives, or who he is, or what institution he is connected with, I think I can easily get the information you desire. I am very glad to learn that you are making progress [in the national university movement] , but sorry to hear that it is not rapid enough to be satisfactory. Wish- ing you success in your labors, I am, Very truly, W. W. Stetson \_8upenniendent]. Hon. J. W. HoYT, Washhigtov, D. C. United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, Md. , January 27, 1899. Sir: In reply to your letter of January 26, asking permission to add my name to the list of members of the national committee to promote the establishment of the university of the United States, I have the honor to reply that you may do so. I heartily approve of the undertaking to establish "the universitv of the United States." Very respectfully, F. V. McNair, Rear-Admiral, U. S. Navy, Superintendent. Mr. John W. Hoyt, Cliairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, Md., October ^3, 1900. Dear Sir: I shall feel highly honored to be placed on the list of the national com- mittee as you suggest, providing its work is compatible with my loyalty to the Columbian University, Washington. I feel strongly the advantages of a university of the United States, but I have hoped that the Columbian University might be raised from its denominational to a national standard. Very truly, yours, Richard Wainwright , {^Suiierintendenf]. Governor John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. St. John's College, Annapolis, Md., January 19, 1900. Dear Sir: I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 17th and to say that I cordially approve of the measures included in your bill, and shall be glad to do anything in my power toAvard promoting its interest. If I should be in Wash- ington before very long and should be able to do so, I will give myself the pleasure of calling on you in order to learn more details of the matter. Very sincerely, yours, Thomas Fell, President. Hon. John W, Hoyt, Washing'on, D. C. Maryland Agricultural College, College Park, Md., April 28, 1899. My Dear Sir: Yours received. You can enroll me as one anxious and willing to do whatever I can toward the establishment of the great institution. It has always occurred to me that our country has been remiss in not long since giving some organized condition to the many scientific lines of work that compose at present our working in Washington. Many of the departments of this great university may be considered as already established there, and when once put upon a proper basis would further the work going on to an extent hardh' dreamed of by those who have given the matter much consideration. The pamphlets, etc., have arrived and I thank you for the same. Very truly, yours, R. W. Sii>vester, President. John W. Hoyt, Chairman, Washington, D. C. UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 149 Maryland Agricultural College, Collegepark, Md., January 18, 1900. Dear Sir: I have your communication of January 15. I am fully in accord with the thoughts of your committee as to the establisliment of a national university. I can not think that an educational system will ever be complete, no matter how near it will approach to the same, until we have a great university in Washington, sup- ported by the various scientific bureaus, and doing just the work which your bill seems to outline for it. I wall be most happy to be one of the national committee and do whatever I can toward its advancement. Very truly, yours, R. W. Silvester, Premlent. Mr. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worxester, Mass. , March 28, 1896. Dear Governor Hoyt: I have for a long time intended to write you a few lines in reference to your work in the exploitation of the national university cause, espe- cially in reply to your kind letter received a few months ago. My delay in doing this is due to various causes, largely my expectation of having the pleasure of meet- ing you when I w5,s in Washington in January. In this, howevei', I was disap- pointed, and since my return I have been so busy with other matters as not to find time to carry out my intention. I have not, however, been unmindful of the work in which you have been engaged, and it has received constantly my sympathy and such assistance as I was able to give. I wish you to understand that I am thoroughly interested in the success of this movement, and am desirous of being called upon to assist in every way in my power. * * * However, it has occurred to me, as it doubtless has" to you, that, if the bill should pass Congress and the actual organization of the ground plan of the institution should be undertaken, a committee very mucli smaller than one hundred, composed of men representing various phases of educa- tional work, would be a more workable body and one in which each individual would be expected to be active and contributory. I expect to be in Washington in a few weeks, in attendance at the meeting of the National Academy, and I hope I may have the pleasure of meeting you at that time. I am yours, faithfully, T. C. Mendenhall \_Pres'uJn\t]. Governor John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. Benzonia College, Benzonia, Mich., December 6, 1897. Dear Sir: I leave you to imagine from the inclosed how heartily in sympathy with your movement I am. Sincerely, yours, • J. G. Rodger {^Presidmi^. Hon. J. W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. Adrian College, Adrian, Mich., November 29, 1897. My' Dear Sir: Your letter concerning a national university is at hand, and in reply will say that I am in entire sympathy with the movement and will do all I can to see our men in Congress and Senate. * * * Very trulv, D. C. Thomas, President. Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. Adrian College, Adrian, Mich., July 17, 1900. Dear Sir': I gladly accept a place on the national committee to promote the estab- lishment of the University of the United States. I cordially wish the movement abundant success, and anything I can do to promote its success will be cheerfully done. Sincerely, D. Jones, President. Hon. John W. Hoy't, Chairman of National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 150 UNIVEKSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. The University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, March 23, 1898. Dear Sir: What I meant in my former letter was this: That I could not, and did not, keep watch of the changes in the bill, and could not, therefore, say whether it was in every particular what it ought to be, but that the principle of the bill I was heartily in favor of. I am so pressed with duties that I can not now undertake to answer your question as to whether you have met the objections of Bishop Hurst and other universities. From a hasty reading of the bill I should think that you had. Very truly, yours, Cyrus Northrop, \_President.'\ Dr. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. The University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, December 21, 1898. My Dear Dr. Hoyt: I have read carefully the proposed bill for a national univer- sity, and find no occasion to make the slightest criticism. Very truly, yours, Cyrus Northrop, [President.l Ex-Governor John W. Hoyt, Washington, B. C. The University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, January 19, 1900. Dear Sir: Your letter of January 15 has been received, together with a copy of the revised bill to establish the University of the United States. I have read the bill through again, and see no reason Avhy it should not pass. I have also written this morning to both Senator Davis anct Senator Nelson, urging them to support the measure. Very truly, yours, Cyrus Northrop, IPresident.l Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, I). C. The University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Jidy 30, 1901. Dear Sir: Your letter of July 6 has been received. I beg your pardon, but I must correct one phrase of your letter, namely, ' ' as shown by your (my) approval of the report submitted by President Harper." I did not approve of that report. No man who is in favor of a national university could approve of that report, and in my remarks I distinctly stated that I was in favor, and I am still in favor, of the university under the conditions named in my address. * * * * * * * Very truly, yours, Cyrus Northrop, \President.'\ Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. State Normal School, Duluth, Minn., July 3, 1901. My Dear Governor Hoyt: With more pleasure than I can express I received your unexpected letter of June 29. You were delighted to learn that I am still on terra firma instead of on the "other side." I am equally delighted to learn that you still live and are able to fight for the good of the cause of a national university. I wish to be understood as standing by your side where we were in the early seventies. My only regret is that I shall be unable to be in Detroit at the coming meeting of the national association, where I could meet you face to face. * * * * * * * I sincerely hope and believe that you will be able to counteract the designs of the enemies of the university which Washington favored when we were but an infant nation. Our country is far greater now than in his time. We have become a world UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 151 power, and that through our broad and hberal poUcy of educating the whole people. There can be no such thing as a monoply of higher education ])y a few universities, however eminent they mav have become. The conception of the University of the United States is as liro'ad as our nationality, and in my judgment it is mdispensable that it be worked out upon a scale worthy of the grandeur of the nation itself. Please count me as still a member of the old guard, willing and anxious to contend for the eternal right. Please keep me advised of your location, and if you can see anv work that isVithin my grasp, fail not to command my services. With sincere wishes for your restoration to health and a long life of u.sefulness, I remain, verv trulv, vour friend, Wm. F. Phelps, [licsident Director.] Hon. John W. Hoyt, WasJiington, D. C. State Normal School, Duluth, Minn., July 12, 1901. Dear Dr. Hoyt: I have ol)served by the proceedings, first, of the nationa council of education, and, second, of the general association, that the friends of the national university have won a complete victory over tlie committee that undertook to destroy it. I have seen only the meager account of the proceedings relating thereto in the daily papers. From them I judge that the debate in the council was very strong, and, judgino; by the result, it must have been very conclusive. The reso- lution pass'erl by the council was admirably drawn, and laid the opponents of the university rather genteelly, though effectively, to rest. The action of the general association yesterday, reaffirming its loyalty to the university, I think removes the subject from future contro^•ersial debate. Very truly, yours, Wm. F. Phelps, IResidcni Director.} Hon. Joiix W. Hoyt, Washingto)i, D. C. Carleton College, North field, Minn., April 29, 1899. My Dear Sir: Accept my thanks for your circular letter of the 27th instant, which gives so fully the facts concerning the failure of the last Congress to pass the ))ill for the proposed national university." That you are not completely discouraged shows a persistency of purpcjse very much to your honor. You have my sincere sympathy, and were "it not for the financial straits in which I find myself after twenty-nine years of labor in building up this northwestern college, I would send a contril)ution toward the expenses necessarily incurred in carrying forward the, work. As it is, only expressions of my interest and good will can go with my regrets that they can be to you of no cash value. With sincere personal regard, I remain, as ever, very cordially, yours, Jas. W. Strong, [^Fresidenl.'] Prof. John W. Hoyt, 'Washington, D. C. Alcorn Agricultural and Mechanical College, Mmj 3, 1899. My Dear Sir: Yours of April 27 has been received. In reply I beg leave to say that you may use my name in the revised list of members of the national com- mittee soon to be printed. Respectfully, E. H. Triplett, President. John W. Hoy't, Washington, D. C. University of Mississippi, October 6, 1901. Dear Sir: In reply to your recent letter I desire, in the first place, to correct your impression that I am the president of the association of agricultural colleges. The president of that association is, as I am informed, Dr. Goodale, of Amherst, Mass. 152 UNIVEESITY OF THE UNTTED STATES. I have the honor to be the president of the National Association of State Universities. I fully appreciate what you have to say regarding the national university movement. At the same time, while you write forcibly regarding the relationship of the agri- cultural colleges to the National Government, I think you should lay stress also on the fact that the State universities likewise owe their foundation to the acts of Con- gress granting lands to the several States when these were organized. This state- ment is true of the State universities in all save four or live States. I inclose here- with a memorial to Congress, presented some years ago, which sets forth this rela- tionship. It is the purpose of the State universities to hold a meeting in Washington, begin- ning November 12 next, on which date the members of the association of agricul- tural colleges begin their annual meeting. There is a possibility that the two asso- ciations may, in some respects, at least, come together. I trust that they will be united in their efforts to promote advanced education. It would please me to see both associations take vigorous action in favor of a national university for graduate work and under governmental control. You will remember that representatives of the State universities were among the most aggressive supporters of the national university in Detroit last July. I trust that representatives of the agricultural colleges will take a similar stand. I have an impression that the representatives of the agricultural colleges possibly through the views of Dr. Charles W. Dabney, who was then Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, favors some scheme at Washington through which special educational privileges would be given to the graduates of agricultural colleges. This plan seems to have been based upon the idea that the agricultural colleges were the only institu- tions in the States which had been founded by the Federal Government. Those of us who represent State universities thus founded can not admit such a proposition, and are bound to insist that the institutions Avhich we represent are most important factors in the educational work of the country. The institutions which we represent would stand next in order to a national university if this should be founded. If this national university is properly ordered as to its courses it will be a most valuable help to the State universities, as well as to all educational efforts throughout the countr}^ I have read with interest your article recently published in Science. It is a strong presentation of the case of the national university. I hope that recent agitation of this matter will impress Congress with the importance of the interests of higher education, and will lead to favorable legislation not only with reference to the insti- tutions in the State alreadj^ founded upon Federal donations, but with reference to a national university. 1 shall be in Washington November 12, and trust that I shall see you then. Yours, verj^ truly, > Eobert B. Fulton, [ Chancellor. ] Hon. John AV. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. MiLLSAPs College, Jachaon, Miss., February 27, 1897. Dear Sir: I desire to thank you heartily for the documents, etc., concerning the establishment of the national university, which you were kind enough to send at my request. They have been read with absorbing interest. In the face of such facts and arguments I don't see how any American can stand up against the establishment of an institution that would so advance the progress of America and increase the luster of her past attainments by an assurance of still greater achievements in the future. Wishing you success in the noble work in which you are engaged, I am very truly yours, R. Lee Cannon, [^President. ] Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. extract from a letter addressed DECEMBER 18, 1901, BY PRESIDENT R. H. JESSE, OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI, TO THE OTHER STATE UNIVERSITY PRESIDENTS. We who represent the State national system of education, with its roots in Federal land grants and with biennial appropriations from our respective Commonwealths, are interested, it seems to me, in the establishment of a great national university at Washington as a capsheaf of the system to which we already belong. Such a uni- UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 153 versity should be strictly graduate in character. No one -would have it founded on any other condition. While it should be under the control of the Government at Washington, its charter should contain a clause freeing it from partisan politics. This point could be easily guarded. Let me leave the matter to your judgment. Central College, Fayette, Mo., December 1, 1897. My Deak Sir: I believe we ought to have in this country one great university, equal to any in the world. It is a reproach to our Republic that such an university has not already been founded. For years I have done what I could to bring about this realization. If I can serve you in this matter, kindly call on me. I heai'tilj' favor your plan of a University of the United States. Yours, truly, E. B. Ckaighe.\d, President. Dr. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. Central College, Fayette, Mo., Februarys, 1900. My Dear Sir: I am in favor of the national university. At the meeting of our State teachers' association I used the strongest possible language in support of ^ the enterprise. I will endeavor to write what I said on the subject and send it to you. If I can serve you in any way, kindly let me know.. Yours, truly, E. V>. Craighead, ^President. ] Governor John W. Hoyt, Washington, I). C. Montana College op Agriculture and Mechanic Arts, Bozeman, Mont. , May 2, 1899. Dear Sir: Believing, as I do, that the promotion of the establishment of the university of the United States is a very commendable object, I shall be pleased to have my name in the revised list of members of the national committee. I am, very truly, yours, James Reid, President. John Wesley Hoyt, Esq., Washington, D. C. The University of Montana, Missoida, Mont., December -2, 1897. Dear Sir: Your communication of November 22, 1897, is the first that I have received concerning the University of the United States. The University of Mon- tana was not opened until September, 1895, which was after the greater part of your committee had been named. I have watched the movement with a great deal of interest that has for its purpose the founding of the University of the United States. Our American system of edu- cation will not be complete until it is in effective operation. It will do more for the unification and development of the United States than any other force that can be organized. Anything that I can do to advance this cause will be done with pleasure and alacrity. Very truly, yours, Oscar J. Craig, President. Ex-Governor John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. * University op Montana, Missoida, Mont., April 24, 1900. Dear Sir: Your letter of April 18 received. The bill inclosed is the one that I have been indorsing. I sincerely hope that it may become a law. Y^ours, very truly, Oscar J. Craig, Mr. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. IPresident.'] 154 UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. University of Montana, Missoula, Mont, June 8, 1901. Dear Sir: My faith in the final success of the national university has not wavered. Let us go on against all opposition. You may depend that 1 shall lose no opportunity to write and speak in the defense of our cause. Yours, very truly, Oscar J. Craig, Mr. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. President. The University op Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebr., January 19, 1900. Dear Sir: I have your communication of January 15, in reference to the bill for a "university of the United States." I have looked over the bill and do not find any- thing to criticise in it. I have, however, not given it the full attention that I shall hope to in the near future, but at present I give it my tentative approval. With this tentative approval I am certainly willing for the present to cooperate Avith the national committee in trying to forward the movement. I have been for many years an advocate of a national university, and as I say above, as far as I now under- stand the bill, it appears to be well di-awn. Wishing you success in the movement, I am, Yours, very truly, Charles E. Bessby, Acting Chancellor. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. The University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nehr., .June 30, 1900. My Dear Sir: I have your very pleasant invitation to become a member of the national committee to promote the establishment of the university of the United States, and should be very glad indeed to accept the proffered honor. However, I am to remain in the office of chancellor but one month longer, when, on the first day of August, Dr. E. Benjamin Andrews will assume the office. In deference to him, I think it advisable that I should urge you to place his name on the list. Dr. Andrews is at present in Europe. He will return within a fortnight or so. I think he can be reached here certainly by the 20th of July. I do not know what his sentiments are in regard to the national university, but am inclined to think that he favors it. I trust that you can wait long enough to secure his name. If it is absolutely necessary that the list which is now being revised should be pub- lished before you can hear from Dr. Andrews, I am quite willing that my name should appear, so that this university may be represented. However, I trust that the other arrangement, which certainly is the better, can be made. Assuring you of my sympathy with the movement, I am, Very truly, yours, ^ Charles hi. Bessey, Acting Cliancellor. Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. Nebraska Wesleyan University, Lincoln, Nebr., June ^9, 1900. Honorable and Dear Sir: Referring to yours inviting me to become a member of " the committee of promotion" for the university of the United States, would say, that while I sjanpathize with the long-delayed enterprise, my relations to some other institutions will, I think, render it improper for me to accept the honor at the present time. With sincere desire that the miiversity may realize the desires of its founders, I remain, Very respectfully, yours, D. W. C. Huntington, [^President. ] Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. UNIVEESITY OF THE UlSTITED STATES. 155 St. Louis, Mo., November^, 1897. Dear Sir: Your circular, dated October 19, came a few days ago. The four years of drought in Nebraska made it necessary for me to resign my place in Cotner Uni- versity and accept a situation here. I am still interested in your work and hope that our United States will yet have a great university, worthy of our country and people. I should be jile^sed to meet the workers in this cause in council at Washington. I know by experience that all great movements have to be carried by the units, not bj^ the tens or the hundreds. This is especially true in the beginning. My interest in educational work has cost me $12,000, and yet as soon as I recruit a little I shall be willing to help again. I have the honor to subscribe myself a lover of my race. Very sincerely, D. R. Dungan. Ex-Governor John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. \_Ex-President of Cotner University, Bethany, Nehr.'\ Nevada State University, Reno, Nei\, May 1, 1899. My Dear Sir: I am in receipt of your letter of the 27th ult., and I shall be glad to support you in every way that I can toward the promotion of the establishment of the university of the United States. I am. Very respectfully, yours, J. E. Stubbs, \_President. ] Hon. John W. Hoyt, M'ashington, D. C. New Hampshire College of Agriculture and the Mechanic Arts, Durham, N. H., April 28, 1899. Dear Sir: It will give me great pleasure to have my name upon the list of the members of the national committee and to do what I can to further the interests of the project. I think the design is eminently wise. Yours, very truly, Chas. S. INIuRKLAND, President. Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. New Mexico College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts AND Agricultural Experiment Stations, MesiUa Mark, N. Mex., January 26, 1900. Dear Sir: The national university authorized in the bill of which a copy was sent me seems to me well adapted to meet the desirable purpose in view, except * * * section 9 * * * . I shall be pleased to cooperate with the national committee in the manner and for the purpose stated in your letter. I am, respectfully, yours, Frederic W. Sanders, President. Hon. John W. Hoyt, Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. Headquarters United States Military' Academy, West Point, N. Y., March. 13, 1899. Dear Sir: In reply to your letter of January 26, the national university proposi- tion has my hearty indorsement and I gladly consent to have my name added to the national committee. Very respectfully, yours, . A. L. Mills, Colonel, U. S. Army, Snperintendent. Mr. John W. Hoyt, Chairman, Washington, D. C. 156 UNIVERSITT OF THE UNITED STATES. University op the State of New York, Glens Falls, N. Y., January 11, 1898. My Dear Sir: Your letter of the 9th mstant, with its accompanying documents, etc., adddressed to me at Albany, has been forwarded to me here. * * * i am quite willing that my name should be added to the authorized list of members of the committee of 100 who are warmly in favor of the establishment of the I^niver- sity of the United States at Washington. You have my earnest sympathy in your efforts to promote this most useful object. The university convocation, held annually in the capitol at Albany, over which I have had the honor to preside for the past six years, has again and again given its emphatic sanction to this important project. I hope that your labors for this pur- pose may be crowned with abundant success. Most truly, yours, Anson Judd Upson, • YChanc Yours, very truly, William F. Peirce, \_President.'] Hon. John W. Hoyt, ChaiDiian National University Committee, Washington, D. C. Oxford College, Oxford, Ohio, January 7, 1899. My Dear Sir: Your valued favor of January 5 is before me. In reply I would state that I have just written to Senator Foraker, urging his cooperation and leader- ship in the movement to establish the university of the United States. I believe you will find him in sympathy with this work. I will be glad to do everything in my power to coojaerate in this most important movement. I am, yours, very truly, Faye Walker, \_President']. Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. Oxford College, Oxford, Ohio, June 1, 1899. My Dear Mr. Hoyt: Your circular letter of April 27 is deeply interesting and full of valuable information. As a member of the national committee, I am taking a great deal of interest in this enterprise. Nothing is too good or too great for the United States of America. Nothing conceivable would more truly register the development of education in this country than the establishment at the national capital of a great national university. My idea is that all other colleges and universities should be so articulated as to lead up to and graduate from this supreme national school. In that single thought there is embodied the largest intellectual stimulus that can be furnished to the youth of our land. It is evident that we have outgrown the limitations that were set by our fathers. There shall be a larger America. Let there also be a larger horizon in the domain of education. Let us have for our country the same superb collegiate forces that France rejoices in at the University of Paris, Germany at Berlin, Bohemia at Prague, Switzerland at Geneva, and England at Oxford. Yale, Princeton, Leland Stanford, and Harvard are good. We covet something better. These are efficient, but not sufficient. The opening of the new century should witness the founding of the most magnificent university of the ages at the capital of the Union. I am at your command whenever you can use me. Yours, very sincerely, Faye Walker, \_President]. Hon. John Wesley Hoyt, Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, November 9, 1897. My Dear Sir: It is sad indeed that it requires so much labor to get Congress to act favorably on a measure of such great public utility [as the proposed national university] . Very truly, yours, C. W. Super, President. Hon. John W. Hoyt, Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 160 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, January 19, 1900. My Dear Sir: I am afraid that I have no power to further promote the cause of the national university at Washington. I have already written once or twice to one of our Senators, and he promised to give the subject careful attention, which is, of course, a perfectly safe i^romise to make. I will, however, w^rite to Senator McComas, who was a college classmate of mine,. and I may be able to do something toward securing his interest in the measure. I suspect that the strongest opposition [to the national university] comes from the proposed Methodist university in Washington. This I regard as one of the wildest schemes ever undertaken by anybody. A large proportion of the membership of the church are opposed to it, because it is probable that the money that goes into it is taken from local institutions. There is no more chance of a Methodist university in Washington, or whatever its name may be, amounting to anything worthy of the name of a university, for the next hundred years, than there is of the capital of the United States being removed to Topeka, Kans. But, then, there are no schemes so wild that they do not have some advocates, it seems. Very truly, yours, C. W. Super, [President] . Dr. J. W. HoYT, Wasihington, D. ('. Otterbein University, Westemlle, Ohio, December 30, 1897. Honored Sir: Yes, I wish to be considered as heartily in favor of the university of United States. I so said more than a year ago, but I supj)Ose that in some way the letter Avas lost. Very truly, yours, T. J. Sanders, \_President\. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. Marietta College, Marietta, Ohio, March 1, 1897. Dear Sir: Your favor of the 23d ultimo, inquiring as to whether or not I am heartily in sympathy with the efforts now being made^to secure the establishment of a national university at Washington, and whether in the event of my election to the membership of the national committee of one hundred I could give some time and effort to the movement, has been received. In reply, I beg leave to assure you that I am enthusiastically in favor of the establishment of such an institution, and, in fact, have been for a long time. Even before I knew of the organized effort that is being made in that direction I urged in favor of it, and was gratified when I learned of the existence of the National University Committee. As for time and energy, I have not overmuch of either to spare, but of such as I have I shall be glad to devote a generous portion to so important and far-reaching a'movement as this; in fact, I should hardly care to become identified with it unless I could be of some service to you. I inclose you herewith a list of the members of the committee to which you refer. It was largely through my efforts in 1893 that this committee was organized. It is now engagecl in the most comprehensive scien- tific investigation of the liquor problem ever undertaken. The first volume issued by this committee reached my desk this morning. My degrees are from Harvard University, and am professor of biology in Marietta College. I wish to be understood as being heartily in sympathy with your undertaking, and willing and ready to be of any possible service to you, and shall deem it a privilege and pleasure to serve you in any way possible. I shall be glad to hear further from you on this subject, and to receive full instruction from you in regard to how I can serve you. Believe lue, sir, yours, very respectfully, J. F. Jones, [^Fresiclenf] . Ex-Governor John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. Marietta College, Marietta, Ohio, March 16, 1897. Dear Sir: Your letter of the 3d instant was duly received, but on account of urgent engagements I have been unable to answer until now. My relations to the UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 161 college at present are rather peculiar. Since the resignation of Dr. John W. Simpson last commencement I have had the entire charge of all executive work pertaining to the college. My colleague, Professor Chamberlain, has charge of the internal affairs of the institution, as for example, the curriculum and the administration of the policy of the institution as far as it applies to instruction, etc. The truth is neither one of us can properly be called "acting president." In view of this fact I hardly know what to say further in reply to your inquiry. With these facts laid before you I think that I will let the matter rest with you. I rather regret that I can not assume the title of ' ' acting president ' ' if that be necessary for my appointment, as I feel a very deep interest in your project and very much desii'e to see your ideas consummated, and should take very great pleasure in aiding you in every waj' possible. Yours, very truly, J. F. Jones, ^Acting President]. Ex -Governor John W. Hoyt, LL. D., Washington, D. C. WiLBERKOECE UNIVERSITY, WUbet'force, Ohio, November 25, 1897. Dear Sir: Yours of the 22d instant at hand. It seems to me that the projection of a national university at Washington should command instant and unanimous iudorsement, provided always that the youth of brains could get into it, without regard to social rank or race or faith. Very truly, yours, S. T. Mitchell, {^President'] . Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. WiLBERPORCE UNIVERSITY, Wilberforce, Ohio, December 18, 1897. Dear Sir: I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your circular by recent mail and to express my ardent hope that the noble enterprise you have in contemplation may have the generous support which its far-reaching utility warrants. Very truly, S. T. Mitchell, \_President'\. Hon. J. W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. Western Reserve University", Adelbert College, Cleveland, Ohio, February 16, 1897. My Dear Mr. Hoyt: I judge that in the mind of the legislators and of the people the essential elements of the question are becoming separated from the accidental and the incidental. This is a very great gain. The proposition to establish an agency for graduate work of the highest sort is a very simple one. It is open, of course, to objections, but the objections, to my mind, are slight in comparison with the argu- ments that may be urged in favor of it. I also believe that the establishment of such a university would promote the inter- est of individual institutions which are now doing graduate work of a high order. Scholarship is promoted by scholarship. When it was proposed to establish foreign missionary societies in the" United States it was declared that we had need of all our religion at home. But the fact is that the more agencies of Christianity we send abrokd the larger Christianity we have at home. Therefore, I do believe that the establishment of a university of the United States for the doing of graduate work of the highest sort will promote the interests of universities already established which are now engaged in this service. I have a feeling that in the course of the next century American scholarship should lead the world. The \iniversity of the United States I think would be of great value in securing this great end. Believe me, with much regard, very truly, yours, Charles F. Thwing, \_President'\. Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. G. S. Rep. 945 11 162 UNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. Western Eesekve University, Adelbert College, Cleveland, Ohio, October 29, 1897. My Dear Mr. Hoyt: I think that your plan is an excellent one. The methods that you suggest seem to me eminently wise and also feasible. In addition to these, I beg leave to suggest that each one write to such members of Congress as he may be able to influence, asking for their cooperation. I am, very truly, yours, Charles F. Thwing, [Presidenf]. Hon. J. W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. Oklahoma AoRinuLTURAL and Mechanical College, Stillwater, Okla., January 23, 1900. Dear Sir: I am in receipt of your letters and in closures of the 13th and 15th instant. I beg to assure you that I fully indorse the great project itself as well as the proposed bill to carry it into execution. I am sorry, indeed, that so beneficent a purpose should have encountered so many and such unexpected difficulties. I trust, however, that you and your faith- ful fellow-laborers will be able to brush these aside and to secure the ultimate triumph of the enterprise to which you have so generously devoted your time and energy. Very respectfully, yours,' A. C. Scott, President. Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. Pacific University, Forest Grove, Oreg. , April 12, 1900. Dear Sir: I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your printed letter relating to the national university bill now pending. I have read with interest the copy of the bill, and shall be glad to do anything to further the scheme that 1 can do consistently. Sincerely, yours, Thos. McClelland, \_President'\ . Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. Willamette University, Salem, Oreg., Jidy 10, 1900. Dear Sir: Your kind invitation to me to accept membership in the committee of promotion for a national university I appreciate and accept. Trusting the movement may have the success it merits, and asking to be further informed as to my duties, etc., I am, Truly, yours, W. C. Hawley, President of the University. Hon. John W. Hoyt, Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. National Educational Association, First Pennsylvania State Normal School, MillersviUe, Pa., April 25, 1899. My Dear Governor Hoyt: Permit me to acknowledge the receipt of your favor of the 21st instant and to say that I cheerfully give you permission to include my name in the list of members in the national committee on the establishment of the Universit]'' of the United States. Wishing you success, I am, sincerely, yours, E. 0. Lyte, \_President^ . Dr. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 163 SWARTHMORE CoLLEGE, SwartJiviore, Pa., November 3, 1897. My Dear Sir: Your letters have been received and carefully considered, as have also the documents marked 7, 8, 9, and 10. 1. Your first query, as to State committees, involves an excellent suggestion, but I do not know of anyone to take a lead in this important work. I should be glad to aid by occasional contributions to the press, through our Philadelphia Ledger, did my time permit, which, I fear, it does not. 2. A rally of the members of the national committee at Washington is also an excellent idea, and if not during the holidays, then I would say just after. ******* The fact that our universities will not, and can not, with their facilities, cut loose from undergraduate work is reason enough in itself why this great nation should put the capsheaf to its educational system by doing what the nation can surely do, although beyond the reach of the institutions already established. And the religious aspect of the whole question is even of greater importance. We need a great national university where sectarianism and theological controversy and teaching shall be rigidly ruled out, but where religion, pure and simple, which our nation and our politicians have so long ignored because it has been buried under an avalanche of acrimonious theological discussion, shall be practicalh' taught. And what a commentary on a professedly Christian nation, followers of the Prince of Peace, that the only national institutions of learning are those directly connected with and leading to the un-Christian practice of war — the Natal Academy at Annapolis and the Military Academy at West Point. If the nation may rightfully maintain these, why should it not have a gi-eat institution covering art, science, literature, belles-lettres, etc., of the highest grade, where original research and investigation should be untrammeled by the training of undergraduate classes, or, as is sometimes the case in so-called universities, by secondary instruction and even kindergarten work? Let us have a university that will rival the greatest and best in the Old World, and not any patched-up substitute with changed name as a kind of supplement to the so-called universities already estaljlished, that we may arouse no jealousy on the part of these. Such a university as we all have in mind would attract students from abroad, and thus spread our republican i^rineiples, instead of sending abroad 3,000 young people every year to seek beyond the sea what we could furnish them better and more safely at home. But I am called to other duties. Would that I could command millions to aid you in your great and unselfish work. You have my hearty sympathy, and I will do all that is in my power. Cordially, yours, Edwd. H. Magill, \_Presideni] . Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. Waynesburg College, Waynesburg, Pa., October SO, 1901. My Dear Sir: I beg to acknowledge receipt of a reprint of your article on "The proposed national university, " in a recent issue of Science. I had read the article in that journal with a great deal of interest, and am glad to know that you have not abandoned your laudable purpose. I wish that I were in a position to give you more substantial assistance in an enterprise for which I have the greatest sympathy. Most cordially, yours, A. E. Turner, \_President'] . Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. Muhlenberg College, Allentovm, Pa., November 16, 1901. Dear Sir: Please accept my thanks for your kindness in sending me your article, reprinted from Science, October 4, 1901, on "The proposed national university," together with other documents on the subject. I have read them with deep interest, and regard your arguments as unanswerable. With highest esteem, yours, very truly, Theodore L. Seip, President. Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 164 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. The Pennsylvania State College, State College, Center County, Fa., May 19, 1899. My Dear Sir: I have your circular letter of April 27, which I have read with great interest. My own time and energy have been so constantly absorbed with the demands of work here that I have really been unable to give anyactive and effective thought to the great enterprise which you are so courageously promoting. I have unquestioning faith in the wisdom of the movement and can not doubt that it will eventually succeed. It has been my purpose to call upon you at some time, more for the purpose of expressing my interest in the matter than with a view to making any suggestions, but my visits to Washington are not very frequent and are always hurried. I hope, however, to be able to carry out this purpose at no very distant day; in the meantime, be assured that you have my heartiest good wishes, both for yourself, personally, and for the enterprise. Faithfully, yours, Geo. W. Atherton, \_President^ . Hon. John Wesley Hoyt, Washington, D. C. Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations, State College, Pa., April '26, 1899. Dear Sir: Beplying to your favor of the 22d instant, allow me to express my high appreciation of the action of your committee in making the president of this associa- tion an ex officio member of the board of regents of the proposed national university. Our association has on more than one occasion indicated its hearty sj^mpathy with the aims of your organization, and it appreciates very highly the recognition implied in this action of the important relation which such a university must hold to the institutions represented in this association. Personally, I find myself in full accord with the objects aimed at by your organiza- tion, and should feel it an honor to be enrolled with it, as you are so kind as to sug- gest. You understand, I presume, that the presidency of this association is, in practice, held only one year by an individual, so that my name should be entered in my indi- vidual capacity rather than as president of the association. Very respectfully, yours, H. P. Armsby, President. Hon. John W. Hoy^t, Washington, D. C. Geneva College, Beaver Falls, Pa., December 14, 1896. Dear Sir: You are authorized to use my name as a member of the national com- mittee in connection with national university. You may use my name as one of those quite favorable to the establishment of such university' It would have facilities not possessed by institutions in other localities, and these facilities will necessarily be on the increase year by year. I hope you success. Yours, W. P. Johnston, \_President'] . Hon. J. W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. Geneva College, Bearer Fall, Pa., November S3, 1897. Dear Mr. Hoyt: I will do what I can for the great project you have in hand. I have seemingly been negligent, but my son is home from theological school with typhoid fever. This, with my other cares, has put many interests out of my mind. I will work through our Congressmen as you desire. Yours, sincerely, AA\ P. Johnston. Ex-Governor John W. Hoyt, Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. UNIVEESITY OF THE UKITED STATES. 165 Uesinus College, CoUegeville, Pa., December 16, 1898. My Dear Sir: The movement for a university of the United States at the nation's capital should certainly receive the cordial indorsement of all college and university men. The extent to which it Avould interfere with other universities is not worth considering, when contrasted with the general elevating and strengthening influence of such an institution upon education in America. The men whose earnest efforts in behalf of the movement are now most freely criticised will be looked upon as benefactors by the coming generations. Very truly, yours, Henry T. Spaxgler, President. Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. The Pennsylvania State College, State College, Center County, Pa., March 5, 1898. My Dear Sir: I certainly did not intend to inquire about a Methodist university bill before Congress, and very positively hope such a thing will never be there — i. e., before Congress. It w'as the bill for a national university (University of the United States) on which I washed information, and I am under many obligations for your communication and inclosures on this, which I have just received. A^'ery truly, yours, I. Thornton Osmond, \_Dean of the Faculty^. Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. Brown University, Providence, R. I., August 2.5, 1897. My Dear Sir: I thank you for your kind words of the 20th. While I can not now give detail, the work on which I am about to enter seems to me to have in it the possibility of a good deal of influence in favor of your grand scheme. Cordially, E. Benj. Andrews, \_President'] . Hon. J. W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. South Carolina College, Columbia, S. C, July 7, 1896. My Dear Sir: I have received your communication of May 30 (June 26) , relating to the national university movement, in which you are so deeply interested and for which you have so diligently labored. I sympathize very heartily with all you say as to sectarian opposition. What you describe is a repetition (with variations) of tactics Avith which all friends of State colleges and universities are familiar. While, of course, deeply interested in all that can promote the higher and the highest education, my mind can not free itself from difficulties presenting themselves sufficiently to justify my becoming a very active advocate of the founding of the national uuiversit^^ To speak of nothing more important, I fear the fitful, waver- ing, changing policy of successive Congresses [a danger wholly removed by the pend- ing bill], supposing the university once established. But I do not intend to urge, or even suggest, objections, but merely to intimate that, though on the whole I wish you success, I am hardly ready to enlist in active war. Still, I do wish you success, and especially that you may crush the opposition attacking you under the guise of religion. I am, yours, very truly, James Woodrow, President. Hon. John W. Hoyt, Chairman of National University Committee, Washington, D. C. 166 UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. College of Charleston, Charleston, S. C, November £5, 1897. Dear Sir: I beg to acknowledge the receipt of j^our letter of the 22d instant, and of the Senate reports on the subject of the university of the United States. I have read with close attention and deep interest the arguments pro and con, as set forth in the reports. Always a strong believer in the need of a national university, the reports only strengthen my opinion that the establishment of a true university at the nation's capital is an imperative duty. The principal arguments against the national university are palpably prejudiced and from sources where opposition might be expected. The fact that we have to look to Germany for the institution that has the relation to Harvard, Columbia, and Johns Hopkins that Berlin University now holds is indeed a commentary upon our short-sighted legislation and statesmanship; and I believe that a real university, national in character, and situated at the seat of government, would be the mightiest power that could be devised for stimulating science, education, and independent investigation throughout the country, for removing sectionalism, and for rendering our people more homogeneous. I shall consider it an honor to have my name placed on your committee and shall take pleasure in doing what I can along the lines you suggest. Very truly, yours, Harrison Randolph, President. Ex-Governor John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. Colored Normal, Industrial, Agricultural and Mechanical College op South Carolina, Orangeburg, S. C. , January 17, 1900. Dear Sir: Your letters of January 13 and 15, and bill to establish the university of the United States, to hand. I do not know that my assistance will add any strength to the measure, for your associates are great leaders of American thought. I feel that if such men as Justice Fuller, Senator Edmunds, Professor Langley, and others associated with you can not persuade Congress and force the establishment of the needed university, it will be useless for me to say a word. Nevertheless, I see the need of the university, and for the reasons stated by you gentlemen the Government should establish it without delay. I write by this mail letters to Senators Tillman and McLaurin, a copy of which I inclose. Hoping that you will be successful in this great undertaking, I am, very respectfully, Thos. E. Miller, IPresident. ] Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington D. C. South Dakota Agricultural College, Brookings, S. Dak., May 8, 1899. Dear Sir: I have no objection to use of my name in connection with the national university movement, and shall be glad indeed if I might in any way promote its interests. Respectfully, John W. Heston, President. Mr. John AV. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. University op South Dakota, Vermilion, S. Dak., October £4, 1901. Dear Governor Hoyt: I wish to thank you for the article you sent me regarding the proposed national university. It seems to me that your whole statement is a most lucid and admirable one, and your argument quite unanswerable. Unfortu- nately, your opponents will not trust to the strength of your argument, but rather to UNIVERSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 167 the strength of their own prejudices, and you will have a bitter fight before you. May I ask whether you expect to gain anything from the proposed meeting of State university presidents at Washington about November 12? With best thanks, I remain, very truly, yours, Garrett Droppers, ^President] . Hon. J. W. HoYT, Washington, D. C. University op South Dakota, Vermilion, S. Dak., November 19, 1901. My Dear Governor Hoyt: Your letter dated November 9 never reached me until I returned from Washington yesterday. I think I can assure you that both of our Senators will stand with you in your proposition if you can ever get the bill before the Senate. I feel certain that all the presidents of all the State universities at Wash- ington were with you in your proposition. I only regret that your health is not what it ought to be, enabling you to devote your attention to this subject with less risk to yourself. You may use my name in the place of President Mauck's, to whom I succeeded about two and a half years ago at Vermilion. With best wishes, I remain, yours, very truly, Garrett Droppers, [_President]. Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., December 16, 1896. My Dear Sir: There is a great opportunity for the establishment of a national university at Washington. The arguments in favor of such an institution outweigh all that has been said against it. I am, with great respect, very truly, yours, J. H. KiRKLAND, Chancellor. Hon. John W. Hoyt, Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. Bethel College, McKenzie, Tenn., November ^4, 1897. Dear Sir: Your favor is at hand. I am willing to do what I can for the estab- lishment of the university of the United States. I feel very much interested in the matter. It is certainly a move in the right direction. Yes, I am willing that my name should be used as a committeeman. I should be glad to see a copy of your Senate memorial. Yours, very truly, J- L. Dickens, {^Presidenf] . John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. Cumberland University, Lebanon, Tenn., November 7, 1897. Dear Sir: Several papers sent to Chancellor Green have been placed in my hands for consideration. I desire to express my hearty sympathy for the movement toward the establishment of the national university, and I shall be glad to use my influence in securing the passage of the measure. Yours, very truly, J- I- D- Hinds, Dean of the College Faculty Cumberland University. Gov. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. 168 UNIVEKSITY OF THE UNITED STATES. Central Tennessee College, Nashville, Term., February 13, 1897. Dear Sir: Your circular and statement of the condition of the national university- movement received. * * * i favor the movement as a completion of our system of public-school system. Wishing you success, I am, yours, truly, J. Braden, Mr. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. \_President\ . Henry College, Camjjhell, Tex., July S8, 1900. Dear Sir:" Replying to your communication of the 23d instant, allow me to express my hearty approval of the movement referred to, and to assure you of my earnest support and hearty cooperation. I accept with pleasure a place on the committee and place myself entirely at your disposal. I am, yours, fraternally, T. H. Bridges, Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. {President^ . Howard Payne College, . Broumicood, Tex., June £9, 1900. Dear Sir: Yours received. I have examined carefully the leaflets sent me relative to the national post-graduate university movement, and am glad to be counted with those who heartily favor the enterprise. It gives me j)leasure, therefore, to give my consent to be placed on the committee of promotion. . I shall be glad to receive all the documents you are sending out relative to this great movement. Very truly,Nyours, J. H. Grove, [President]. Mr. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. Add-Ran Christian University, Waco, Tex., November 26, 1S97. Dear Sir: The [national university] movement has my hearty approval and shall receive my continued indorsement so long as it maintains the standard and princi- ples of a great national university. Yours, truly, " Addison Clark, [Pre.sident']. Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, D. C. Add-Ran Christian University, Waco, Tex., June 30, 1900. Dear Sir: Your invitation to me to become a member of the national committee to promote the establishment of the uniA'ersity of the United States is accepted. I am in thorough sympathy. Cordially and fraternally, yours, Albert Buxton, Chancellor. Ex-Governor John W. Hoyt, Chairman National University, WasJdngton, D. C. University of Texas, Austin, Tex., March 39, 1897. My Dear Sir: I beg to thank you very heartily for the publications sent me, and I take the liberty of expressing the wish that my name may be registered for any ITNIVEESITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 169 further publications, especially from your own pen, that may be available for distribution. I shall respect your wishes with reference to the final disposition of such documents. Very truly, yours, Thomas Fitz-Hugh, [President}. Hon. John W. Hoyt, Washington, I). C. The Agricultural College of Utah, Logan, Utah, May 1, 1899. Dear Sir: Replying to yours of April 27 1 beg to say that you are at liberty to use my name, and I shall be pleased to do all I can to promote the establishment of a national university. Very truly, yours, J. M. Tanner, President. Mr. John Wesley Hoyt, Chairman National University Committee, Washington, D. C. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Ya., November 30, 1S97. Dear Sir: Your letter of November 22 came duly to hand, but owing to Thanks- giving holiday and other disturbing factors in our university work, I could not answer before. Allow me to say that I most heartily indorse your efforts toward the establishment of a national university and will do all in my power to influence our Congressmen and other representatives to give their support to the pending bill. Any use that you may be able to make of my name in the furtherance of this most necessary enterprise \o\\ are at liberty to make. I am more and more convinced each day that the multiplicity of colleges and uni- versities in America, doing the same Mork, requires some complemental institution in which their best men may be sifted and selected and still further trained for investigation an