VOLUME VII NUMBER 2University RecordJUNE, 1902THE SERVICE OF SCIENCE TO THE UNIVERSITY, ANDTHE RESPONSE OF THE UNIVERSITY TO THATSERVICE.*By PRESIDENT HENRY PRITCHETT, Ph.D., L.L.D.,Massachusetts Institute of Technology.The present age has been called, and rightlyso, the Scientific Age. At no other period ofthe world's history has science played so great arole in human life. She has come into moderncivilization not only as the cheerful maid-of-all-work, to light and cleanse and beautify the pathof humanity, but she has found her way into thevery sanctuary of the individual human soul, toaffect profoundly man's views of history and ofphilosophy and of the significance of life itself.To say that the university has shared in thisgeneral service of science to all institutions andto all civilized men is to state only a part of thetruth. The university of today — such an institution as that in which ^we now foregather — isfundamentally different in spirit and in methodfrom the medieval institution which bore thatname, or even from the university of a centuryago. That difference is due absolutely to thegrowth of what is called the scientific spirit, andto the adoption of what is called the ScientificMethod. A statement of the service of scienceto the university is, therefore, largely containedin the definition of what science itself is.What is the scientific method ? And who arescientific men ? How does the scientific methoddiffer from other methods, and what criterion maybe applied by which it may be decided whether aman be truly a scientific man or not ?1 Delivered on the occasion oft he Forty-second Quarterly Convocationof the University, held in the University Quadrangles, June 17,' 1902, at10 : 30 a. m. The answer to these questions is not easy. Itis less difficult to say what the scientific methodis not, than to indicate, in a few words, what it is.But some appreciation of its meaning lies at thebeginning of any attempt to understand the workof men of science, or of any attempt to estimatethe significance of the scientific research of thepast forty years.A very bright woman once said of Boston thatit is not a place, but a state of mind ; and something similar to this may be said of the scientificmethod — it is not a method of observation ; itis not a special sharpness of vision ; it is not theability to study with tireless patience the phenomena of nature ; it is not the habit of bringingtogether all the facts before making a deduction ;it is not even the devoted pursuit of truth,although it includes all these. The essentialquality of the scientific method lies rather in theattitude of mind of the student who uses it, thanin any form of observation, or grouping of facts,or even in devotion to its truth as he sees it.That attitude can scarcely be described by asingle word or a single phrase. It is perhapsbest indicated by the words "open-mindedness "and " intellectual sincerity." In other words, hewho seeks truth in the scientific spirit binds himself to no a priori theories, accepts as his guideno formulated creed, allows no halfway truth todivert his reasoning. But he goes much farther;he follows the facts as fast as they are provento be facts, whithersoever these facts may lead;he accepts them no matter though they godirectly against theory and directly against tradition. The scholarship of the university has3132 UNIVERSITY RECORDalways had, in greater or in less degree, the qualities of devotion and of energy. But the greatservice which science has rendered to it has beennot simply in directing the scholarship of theuniversity into new channels, and in the additionof scientific subjects to the university curriculum.The real service of science consists in the fact thatit has given a new scope and a new spirit to allscholarship, no matter what direction scholarshipmay turn. It has brought to the university theconviction that the" scientific method — that open-mindedness and intellectual sincerity — lies atthe basis of all true scholarship, and today theseare admitted as necessary conditions, whether thestudent work in physics or chemistry ; in historyor in economics ; in literature or in theology.This is the distinctive characteristic of the scientific method, and in this lies the real service ofscience to the university.I think it is very easy for us to undervalue thegreat meaning of these few words. It does notseem much when one says that the adoption ofthe scientific method means open- mindedness andintellectual sincerity. For after all this scientificmethod is no new thing. This method of studywhich includes the humbler virtues of patience andenergy, and which finds its perfect developmentin sure thinking, in open-mindedness, in intellectual sincerity, is that which has been used inthe past by all great men who have led mankindto clearer and higher views of truth, and of justice. Socrates and Marcus Aurelius and Jesus theChrist have followed this way. And the glory ofour day is not in the discovery of the way but theopening of it to all the world. It is to this endthat humanity has labored through centuries withgroanings that cannot be uttered. For a thousandyears the path of intellectual sincerity, which leadsto spiritual freedom, was barred to all but the few,and these walked therein with fear and trembling.The very influences which might most naturallyhave helped to clear this path proved the severestobstacles, and the spiritual freedom which seemedso near after the first great triumph of Christianity came only after centuries of disappointment andpatient toil. But it came, and the nineteenthcentury of our era passed into history illuminatedby an immortal glory — the glory of individualfreedom of the mind, for all men.It is into this larger freedom that science hasled the university, and the debt which the university owes to science and the scientific method isno mere debt for material gains, no obligationwhich can be paid by dollars and cents, by hallsand by laboratories. The gift of science to themodern university is the priceless gift of a newscholarship, a scholarship which can be satisfiedby nothing less than spiritual freedom, and whichcan grow in no other atmosphere.To this service there is one response, and oneonly that the university can make which is adequate, and that is made when the university maintains about it an atmosphere in which the truestscholarship will flourish; when the universitylends itself to the life of intellectual sincerity ;when the university is the home of spiritual freedom, and therefore the home of the true scientificspirit. And the question which science andwhich scientific men of America today ask of theAmerican university is this : Will the universityrepay to science the debt it owes ? Will it be thehome and nursery of the science of the future ?Will there come from its doors men inspired bythe scientific spirit who may by their service makestill plainer the way of truth in which all men maywalk ?"The chief duty of a nation," writes Lowell," is to produce great men ; for without them itshistory is but the annals of ants and bees." Thereis a great truth contained in this observation, forif a nation give not great men to great causes thatnation either lacks the fiber out of which greatmen are made, or else the cause itself has not appealed to those capable of responding to it.Whether a nation fail to produce great men byinherent weakness or whether it fail to producethem because the atmosphere to grow great menis wanting, the result is apt in the long run to beUNIVERSITY RECORD 33the same. Such a nation becomes satisfied withmediocre things, it loses the inspiration of highendeavor, it is content with those things which aretransient and material, rather than with thosethings which are true and are eternal. For it isever true, as Martineau has written : " The best ofall a man's work is to show us what he is. Thenoblest workers of our world bequeath us nothingso great as the image of themselves." It is computed that the discoveries of Pasteur in a singledecade were worth in money more to France thanthe value of the indemnity paid to Germany.But the greatest service which Pasteur renderedhis country was the gift of himself. Nor is thegrowing of great men by any means the resultalone of individual influence and example, however potent these may be. The institutions of acountry determine in large measure the directionsof national greatness, and the maxima to whichnational greatness may attain. There is a sort ofreciprocal relation between the great men and thegreat institutions of a country. Montesquieu hasexpressed the truth, at least in part, when he says,"in the infancy of societies chiefs of the stateform the institutions ; afterwards the institutionsform the chiefs of the state." Who are the chiefsof the state ? Are great scholars of science andliterature — and, as Huxley was wont to say, theseare not separate things, but two parts of the samethings — are the great scholars to be counted aschiefs of the state along with statesmen and warriors and financiers ? If they are have we an institutional life favorable to their growth ?The American who reads the story of scientificprogress for the century just closed, if he be interested in science as a part of a great patrioticmovement, will note some facts not altogetherpleasing to national complacency.He will, first of all, observe that the Americanswhose names are remembered in a world's recordof scientific achievement are few. The Americanwhose name one finds on this roll of honor isusually one who — like Bell or Edison or Thomson — has made splendid applications of science rather than the discoverer of great principles.He has come, as a rule, not from the Americancollege or university. His scientific career canseldom be traced to some great teacher, nor hashe, with rare exception, transmitted his own enthusiasm to a group of students,Who to the sage devoted from their youth,Imbibed from him the sacred love of truth,The keen research, the exercise of mind,And that best art, the art to know mankind.And nowhere in the record stands the name ofa great master — one who might rank with Helm-holtz, or Darwin, or Pasteur.May we hope for such in the twentieth century,and will they come from the American university?I apprehend that to this question only the future can vouchsafe reply. No man will undertaketo predict what the growth of the future may bringforth. I ask your attention, therefore, to whatseems to me a more practical exercise, namely, abrief statement of the constitution of the American university as it has come to exist within the lastdecade, the organization which it has assumed,and finally to point out certain conditions whichseem to me necessary, if it is to be the home ofthe highest scholarship, if it is to send out greatnames in science, if it is to repay to science thedebt it owes.Professor Ladd wrote fifteen years ago in hislittle book on higher education, "although theremay be universities in America, no one can tellwhat an American university is." The words inmore than one sense are true today. The titleuniversity is borne by some hundreds of institutions in America today. With the exception ofperhaps a score it is no more an index of thework which the institution is conducting than thetitle of colonel is in Kentucky an index of the occupation of the gentleman who bears it. In mostcases it has been assumed in the spirit of Paul'sdefinition of faith as "the substance of thingshoped for," and too often "as the evidence ofthings not seen."34 UNIVERSITY RECORDOne cannot but regret, from the standpoint ofhistoric scholarship, the misuse in our country ofthe name university, and the haste with whichour colleges have assumed it. However characteristic of American custom it may be to covetthe larger title, it is surely no gain for true scholarship — and true scholarship is the scholarship oftruth — it is no gain for true scholarship when anold and great college elects to become a weakuniversity.Notwithstanding all this, however, and admitting frankly that we have today in the UnitedStates no university in the exact sense in whichthat term is used on the continent of Europe, aninstitution has arisen within the last two decadesdistinctly American, growing out of the American college, which has a real university purposeand aim, and which in its outward organizationseems likely to furnish the type of institution tobe known as the American university.The beginning of this new American university dates from the founding of the Johns Hopkins University a quarter of a century ago. Thefounder of this institution had no particular sympathy with the university idea, and no plan withrespect to the founding of one. The administration of his gift fell fortunately into the hands of aman in touch with the scholarship of the world.The time was ripe for a school devoted to literaryand scientific research. American students hadbeen attending in increasing numbers the greatuniversities of Europe. Many of them had comehome inspired with the intellectual atmosphere ofthe German seminar. The note of scholarshipwas beginning to make itself heard. The establishment in Baltimore of a university whose chiefaim was research met instant and hearty recognition. Its success quickly bore fruit in theestablishment of graduate schools in other universities and colleges, and in the quickening ofgraduate schools already in existence. The establishment in 1892, on broad and generous lines,of the University of Chicago, gave fresh impetusto the current setting toward university effort. Meantime another educational movement hadcome in to modify its organization and to influence its spirit. Cornell and the great state universities of the West began their work withouttraditions in favor of one or another branch oflearning. The study of the classics and the studyof applied sciences were admitted as equallyworthy of university cultivation. The scientificschool assumed in these institutions, in responseto the popular demand, the form of a technicalschool similar to the polytechnicum of Germanyand to the technical schools founded after itspattern in this country.The scientific schools of the older Eastern colleges, which had at their inception looked rathertoward the cultivation of pure science, soon feltthe influence, perhaps the competition, of thismovement and their schools of science — such asthose of Harvard, Yale, and Columbia — havetaken on more of the character of technicalschools than schools of science.The practical resultant of these two movementsis the American university as we know it today —a graduate school,, but resting upon the collegeand the scientific school. It admits to its lecturesand to its laboratories the graduates of each, andoffers the doctor's degree upon terms quite similarto those upon which the degree is sought in continental universities. How rapidly the graduateschool has developed is in part indicated by themere statement of its numerical growth. WhenJohns Hopkins university opened its doors in 1876there were about four hundred graduate studentsin all the colleges and universities of the UnitedStates. Today students in the graduate schoolsnumber six thousand.The American university as thus constituted —a conglomerate institution including college andtechnical school — and crowned by the graduateschool — differs from the college in the placewhich it gives to independent individual scholarship, to the scholarship of research. Whateverthe college or the scientific school may stand for,the graduate school stands for scholarship, its aimUNIVERSITY RECORD 35is the promotion of the spirit of research. It isin response to the demand for such opportunityfor research that the graduate school has arisenout of the college and the scientific school.Of all national efforts to promote the spirit ofresearch the German universities are perhaps themost successful. Our graduate school bears acloser relation to these than to any other universityeffort. The American college is the historic background of the graduate school. The Germanuniversity has back of it a history which is a partof the nation's " history. What are the underlying national movements which have developed these two characteristic efforts at highereducation? — for institutions of learning like allother public institutions grow out of the life ofthe nation in which they rise.All systems of education, whether in Germany,America, England, or China, undertake to trainmen for citizenship. In the introduction to thatimpressive collection of volumes given forth atthe recent celebration of the founding of Yalecollege, President Hadley gives forcible expression to the idea in these words : " The real testof an educational system lies in its training of thecitizen to meet political exigencies. If it accomplishes this result it is fundamentally good, whatever else it may leave undone ; if it fails at thiscardinal point, no amount of excellence in otherdirections can save it." The educational systemof Germany and that of the United States alikeundertake to train men for citizenship. In Germany the ideal toward which the citizen is led isintellectual freedom, and the university is the concrete expression of that ideal. The ideal of individual freedom toward which America looks ispolitical independence. The American collegeis the national response to this ideal.The history of the influences under whose action the German people came to accept as theirideal intellectual rather than political freedom, isthe story of the German people itself. A powerful influence in this direction came in with thereformation and the moral and spiritual quick ening which followed it. The German states,with Prussia in the lead, have been constantlyhemmed in by powerful neighbors. A strongcentralized government has been almost a necessary condition for existence. The efforts to establish a democratic form of government havebeen fitful and unsuccessful. But with unfailingdevotion the Germans have struggled for intellectual and moral freedom. It is not easy for us,as Americans, to understand that a people canstruggle more earnestly for spiritual freedom thanfor political liberty. But this is the historic contribution of the German people to the progress ofthe race. The American declaration of independence declares all men (politically) equal. Theconstitution of the new German Empire proclaims the freedom of the scholar in the splendidwords "Die Wissenschaft und ihre Lehre sindfrei," and by that freedom the German peoplestand watch and guard. Nor king nor emperoris strong enough to lay hands upon it.During the last two hundred years the peopleof the United States have developed under verydifferent conditions. The war with England intensified the passion for political independence,already strong in American hearts. Since thattime the conquering of a new continent, the experience of civil war, the relations with othercountries have deepened the sentiment andstrengthened the national ideal. The Americancollege, developed under these influences, represents, no less truly than the German university, aa dominant national sentiment. It has trainedmen in ever widening directions for Americancitizenship. It no longer stands as the entranceto the learned professions only. Its dominantnote is not one of scholarship. From its doorway a multitude of paths diverge into all the activities of a varied citizenship. It is today theAmerican conception of a preparation for citizenship in a free state, whose ideal is political fee-dom. It has served its purpose well. To regretthat it is not the German university is to regretthat Germany is not America.36 UNIVERSITY RECORDNevertheless it is well to recognize frankly thatthe German university stands for an ideal whichAmerica and American institutions cannot disregard. Political freedom is a splendid thing, butit is not so splendid as spiritual freedom. If theAmerican college stands for the training for acitizenship whose ideal is political liberty, theAmerican university must stand for a citizenshipwhose ideal is spiritual freedom. It is for thispurpose that the graduate school has grown outof the college. If this growth is the expressionof a true national movement, there stands back ofit a higher interpretation of the meaning of American citizenship ; if it be a response to a nationalsentiment it marks a later stage in the development of national character.Notwithstanding the establishment of the graduate school, the dividing line between those institutions which are fairly considered universitiesand those which are colleges is still very uncertain, and some difficult questions of a practicalsort need to be solved. We surely do not need asmany universities as we have institutions, whichnow bear that title. Shall some of them drop thename and assume one that more distinctly indicates their work ? This were a consummation devoutly to be wished but as yet realized in only oneinstance, magnificent in its isolation.Shall the ' colleges which remain colleges attempt work of research, or shall that be considered distinctly a function of the university ?May the Schools of Technology, which at leasthave the merit of really carrying on the workwhich their name implies, have a relation to theuniversity ? If there were a chemical affinitybetween institutions of learning, the technicalschools and the colleges might unite to form universities, just as oxygen and hydrogen unite toform water. This, also, must wait a larger development of altruism. One other union only ismore difficult to effect than that of two educational enterprises — that is the union of twochurch organizations of the same faith.Shall the schools of technology, on the other hand, establish departments of research and develop into universities of applied science, and,following the lead of the German technicalschools, offer the degree of doctor of engineering ?The university itself presents in its undergraduate branches differences of educational practiceas great as those which exist between the institutions themselves. In the college the student istrained for citizenship under a regime whichallows an election either absolute or partial ofthe studies he pursues. In the engineeringschool of the university the student, also beingtrained for citizenship, is required to take anabsolutely rigid programme of studies. The situation reminds one of the political status of theAustralian colonies before the federation. Sideby side grew up states — such as New SouthWales and Victoria — both under the English flag,the one committed to the doctrine of thoroughgoing free trade, the other to a system of rigidprotection. It is comforting to reflect that bothprospered. After all, the training of the schoolis only part of the man's education, as the tariffis only one of the political conditions which affect the growth of a state.The question whether the college and the technical school and the university can best serve theends sought by each when separate, rather thanwhen merged into one complex organization,such as our modern American university, is onewhose discussion is perhaps now academic. Theexperiment is already being tried. One can hopeonly for the best results, while at the same timestriving to overcome the difficulties. Whateverthe advantages, one cannot doubt the reality ofsuch difficulties.One of the arguments most frequently putforward in defense of the present organization ofthe American university is the plea that thegraduate school will furnish inspiration andguidance to the undergraduate departments.No doubt this is in part true, but it is quite asimportant to remember that our universities are,UNIVERSITY RECORD 37for the most part, still great colleges with a relatively small graduate school at the top. And itis altogether likely that for a long time to come,as in the past, the great undergraduate stream oflife and undergraduate interests will form thedominant influence in the university. And theAmerican college, product as it is of Americannational life, reflects today no less the weaknessthan the strength of our national character. Inno institution has the commercial tendencies ofour national life been more strongly reflectedthan in our college-universities. The Americanuniversity as it has grown out of the undergraduate branches has approximated more and moreclosely business organization ; it advertises itsfacilities for study in the same way in which thebetter commercial houses advertise their wares(a collection of college advertising literature is amost amazing and entertaining exhibit); it operates through a publicity bureau to reach the dailypress ; it maintains a correspondence bureau withpreparatory schools and an employment bureaufor placing its graduates. One finds in the student life a reflection of the same commercial tendency. 1 do not refer to the increasing luxuryand the increasing cost of college life, a consequence seen to follow the increasing luxury ofAmerican home life. It is rather upon the intellectual and scholarly forces in the college lifethat these tendencies show greatest effect.The scholarly influences in the colleges are, onthe whole, relatively less, it seems to me, than inthe college of fifty years ago." The love of learning, the sequestered nooks,And all the sweet serenity of books "are still to be found, but are relatively less in evidence.That which we call college spirit, that intangible something which gives color and direction tothe influences of the college life, has no touch ofscholarship in it. It is intensely local, and differs in no essential respect from the feeling whichthe boy entertains toward his preparatory school.It has no contact with the universal company of scholars. It is almost wholly a product of thestudent effort without association or co-operationfrom their instructors.Perhaps partly for this reason it has taken theform of an intense athleticism which has grownout of all perspective, and which has been permitted to obscure scholarship.I believe in a brave and wholesome collegespirit, one that shall include a real affection forthe intellectual home of the college youth. Butthat spirit should at least have some touch with thescholar's life. It should help in some measure tobring the student into the goodly fellowship ofbooks and of scholars. It should reflect the lifeand the influence of the teacher as well as of thestudent.I believe also in a wholesome athletic life, andin a manly form of athletic contest. But the athletic spirit should be a part of the college spirit,not dominate it. Furthermore, it should beseparated absolutely from the professional andthe commercial side. Professional coaches andgate receipts ought to have no part in the sportsof students, and the elimination of these wouldvery quickly help to restore to a modest andproper scale college sports, and to leave themgames rather than occupations. And in the intercollegiate athletic contests graduate studentsshould not enter.All the influences, both those to which I havealluded and others, which tend away from scholarship are also those which tend to develop the college side of the composite American universityrather than the research side.For a long time to come even our strongestuniversities are likely to 'remain in effect greatcolleges with a relatively small graduate school atthe top. And if they are to become universitiesin the real sense it would seem to be necessary tostrengthen scholarly influences in the collegeupon which the graduate school is grafted. Toattempt to cultivate the highest scholarship in thegraduate school without quickening that spirit inthe college is like trying to increase the fruitful-38 UNIVERSITY RECORDness of a tree by treating its branches instead offurnishing nourishment to its roots.Amid the commercial tendencies of our nationallife it is worth while to remind ourselves continuously that the American university is not a business institution ; and that however important toits well-being certain business considerations are,no account of business ability, no excellence ofadministration, no endowment however generous,can take the place of a noble scholarship nourishedin an atmosphere of intellectual freedom.And finally, if our American university is to bethe nursery of great men of science, it must arousea national appreciation of scholarship as a partof citizenship. Patriotism, as it is conceived inour country, takes the form of military or political service. The idea of serving one's countryby devotion to science or letters; of adding toher fame and her^glory by service in chemistry orbiology, or in literature, is practically an unknownmotive among American youth. Yet it is one ofthe forms of patriotism most common in Germanyand in France.Last year an American firm sought -to bringto its factories an expert from a well knownGerman university. The representative of thefirm who visited the professor in his vacationfound him absorbed in the effort to elucidate aprinciple of vital importance in his research. Herefused all overtures to leave his work. As a lastargument the American urged that self-preservation demanded a change. He pointed out thatten years more of such intense study meant death.But the German brushed the suggestion asidewith the words, "Oh, what matters it if by running the machine at double speed I accomplishin ten years what I might otherwise do in twenty,the Fatherland is by ten years the better off. Forme it matters not if I serve her successfully."Pasteur's scientific career was one inspired by apassionate patriotism — a spirit which he receivedfrom his masters and which he handed down tohis own famous band of students. "Science,"says he, "is of no country, but the scientist must bear deep in mind all that may work toward theglory of his country. In every great scientistwill be found a great patriot. The thought ofadding to the greatness of his country sustainshim in his long efforts, and throws him into thedifficult and glorious scientific enterprises whichbring about real and durable conquests."The American is no whit behind the German orthe Frenchman in devotion to that which appealsto him, but scholarship has as yet filled no part inhis conception of patriotism. It remains for thegraduate school, as the crowning member of oureducational system, to connect patriotism andscholarship, and to open the door to a larger conception of citizenship.On the two panels of the gate which faced thewater at your great exposition of 1893 were twoinscriptions — on one side — "Civil Liberty theMeans of Building up Personal and NationalCharacter," on the other — " Toleration in Religionthe Best Fruit of the Last Four Centuries."Since that day has grown up in your midst themost enduring of all human institutions, a greatuniversity, and with it has grown a new conception of American citizenship. In the hope ofthe immortal life and the spiritual power of youruniversity, whose growth is your growth and whoselife is your life, let us add yet a third inscriptionon the archway by which your city is entered :"The University the Home of the True Scholarship, the Door to the Highest Citizenship."And now let me in closing say one word concerning another feature of the university organization. I have assumed in all that I have saidconcerning the university that, for the purposes ofscholarship, the university is contained in thatpart of the organization under the Faculty ofArts and Sciences — in German universities thePhilosophical Faculty. The schools of medicineand law, which in this country form parts of ouruniversities, are not, with few exceptions, graduateschools. Even in these cases, their purpose is totrain men for the practice of particular professions, not for science or for letters. The philoso-UNIVERSITY RECORD 39phical faculty alone makes the work of scholarship its supreme object. Whether or not the connection of the law school and the medical schoolwith the university be desirable it still remainsthat for the purposes of science the university ispractically contained in the Philosophical Faculty.With theology the case is quite otherwise.Theology is the name which men have given tothe science of religion. If it be a real science ithas the same relation to religion which astronomyhas to the stars, or which botany has to the flowers. Its place in the university is the same as thatwhich other sciences occupy and not in a separateschool. Approximately some such position iftaken by the science of theology in the protestantuniversities of Germany. The results of the labors of their scholars have borne precious fruitin the researches of the last fifty years.Theology, which has most need for the company of the other sciences, has always been shyest of any intimacy with them. In this countryit has only the slenderest contact with the university. The theological seminaries which exist asseparate schools are not schools of theology inany scientific sense. They are training schoolsfor fitting men for the ministry of a particularsect, practically denominational technical schools.However useful and however desirable they maybe as fitting schools, it is most unfortuate thatthey should be the sole representatives of theology, and that theology should itself be divorcedfrom other sciences. No better proof of this canbe had than the meager work of scholarshipwhich theology shows in this country. A stillmore serious criticism is found in the fact, againand again referred to by current writers, that thetheology taught in our seminaries is the theologyof a hundred years ago. The protestant churchin this country, which showed such marvelousadaptability to the conditions of life during thefirst half of the last century, has not kept equaltouch with the conditions of later growth. It haslost contact on the one hand with a large part ofour laboring population in cities, and has lost touch on the other hand with scientific men.This has not come about by any lack of interestin religion, it has not come entirely through lackof interest of scientific men. The result, so faras we see it today, is due in considerable measureto the attitude toward scholarship of those whocontrol the various branches of the protestantchurch. One of the causes of such estrangementis the isolation of theology. The university represents today the highest effort of the race, notalone toward intellectual achievement, but towardintellectual sincerity. Theology cannot grow, inany deep sense, apart from this common effort toward truth. On the other hand, if religion be thedivine life in the individual human soul, theknowledge of that life has a significance beyondall other knowledge ; and the science which dealswith that life, with its history, its phenomena, andits laws, should surely find a home with othersciences in the true university. For a trainingschool for preachers the university has no place,but for theology as a true science the ideal university has a need as real as that which the truetheology has for the university.During the past fifty years the faith of Christendom has seen old ramparts broken down andold creeds swept away ; but through these scenesof doubt there has shone the glimmer of alarger faith, which grows brighter as religionjoins hands with scholarship. For such a unionthere is no other place than a university whichshelters the sincerest scholarship and which- breathes the air of spiritual freedom. In such anatmosphere only will there be nurtured those whowill lead humanity, it may be slowly and laboriously, it may be step by step, but who will lead,none the less surely, into that larger hope whichTennyson saw in faith when he sang :I falter where I firmly trodAnd falling with my weight of caresUpon the great world's altar stairsThat slope through darkness up to God,I stretch faint hands of faith and grope,And gather dust and chaff, and callTo what I feel is Lord of all,And faintly trust the larger hope.40 UNIVERSITY RECORDTHE PRESIDENT'S QUARTERLY STATEMENT.the spring quarter.Members of the University and Friends :our special guest.The visit of our special guest, President Pritch-ett, is especially opportune at this time in view ofthe fact that the University has already taken upthe consideration of the question of establishingits Technological School. For the large andpractical point of view which he has given us inthe treatment of his theme, and for the clear anddefinite suggestions which he has presented, wedesire to extend to him our thanks. The name ofthe Massachusetts Institute of Technology isknown from one end of the world to the other asthat of an institution representing the highestideals in the work for which it stands. Its distinguished president has placed us today underweighty obligations.THE DEATH ROLL.The death roll for the quarter has been unusually large. Five members of the University havebeen taken away. Mr. Max Jonas, a Junior College student, who had been present during theautumn and winter quarters, and had returnedfor work in the spring quarter, left the UniversityApril 3 and died April 28. Mr. Jonas had suffered for many months from the disease which resulted in his death. This illness interfered in amarked degree with his work, but in spite of disease he continued his effort almost to the end ofhis life.Esther Dowie, a Junior College student, diedMay 14. She entered the University as a studentlast October, and was esteemed most highly byher friends and instructors.On May 13 Mr. F. W. Wood, a student in theGraduate School, was taken away. Mr. Wood hadcompleted his work for the Master's degree andthe degree would have been conferred upon himtoday. By special action of the Senate the diploma has been prepared and sent to his wife. He was a graduate of Oberlin College and hadengaged in graduate work at Yale University aswell as at the University of Chicago. He was afaithful student and an inspiring teacher.Our University community was surprised tolearn that one of the visiting alumni, a memberof the University Congregation, the HonorableGenio M. Lambertson, of Lincoln, Neb., whilein attendance upon the Convocation exercises,was taken suddenly away on last Sunday morning. The University flag still flies at half-mastin his honor. Mr. Lambertson had attended themeetings of the Alumni Association Saturdayafternoon, and was one of the principal speakersat the alumni banquet Saturday night. Mr. Lambertson was a member of the class of 1872, in theold University of Chicago. After graduation heentered upon the profession of law in Lincoln,Neb., where he soon won for himself an honorableposition. He carried several important casesbefore the Supreme Court of the United States.He was for a time United States district attorney.He was also a candidate before the Republicancaucus of Nebraska for United States senator.Throughout his professional life he always cherished great love and enthusiasm for his Alma Mater. Time and again he left behind pressing engagements and came long distances to attend thecollege reunions. In 1897, the twenty-fifth anniversary of his graduation, he returned to this cityto meet his classmates and with them to have hisdegree re-enacted by the University.Mr. Lambertson was indeed a most noble andlovable man, who commanded the respect and enthusiasm of his friends, who served well his country and his age, and ended an honorable careerin the prime of his strength and usefulness.During the Spring Quarter death has also entered our professorial circle and removed a brilliant and beloved member of our faculties. JohnHenry Barrows, Professorial Lecturer on Comparative Religion, died in Oberlin, O., June 3,1902. He was a most loyal servant and devotedfriend of the University. It was through hisUNIVERSITY RECORD 41encouragement that Mrs. Caroline E. Haskell began to make her series of generous gifts of whichthe Haskell Oriental Museum is the conspicuousexample. Of the Haskell and Barrows lectureships founded by her, Professor Barrows was thefirst incumbent. As Haskell lecturer he delivered seven courses of lectures at the Universityfrom 1895 to 1 90 1. On the Barrows foundationhe lectured in the chief cities of India and Japan,speaking with glowing eloquence and great effectiveness on the subject, " Christianity the WorldReligion." Touching life genially at so manypoints as minister, preacher, missionary, traveler,teacher, and college president, he has left hismark of helpfulness on many human interests andattached to himself an unusually wide circle offriends. With them today the University is unitedin a common bond of sorrow at his passing away.Let us, in accordance with our usual custom,rise and stand in memory of these departedmembers of the University.THE LAW SCHOOL.The organization of the Law School, which wasbegun in the winter, has been practically completed during the present quarter, by the selection of a faculty, the acquisition of a library, andthe laying out of next year's work. The facultywill consist of the following members : ProfessorJoseph Henry Beale, Jr., Professor Ernst Freund,Professor Clarke Butler Whittier, Professor JamesParker Hall, Professor Blewett Lee, and ProfessorJulian W. Mack. It is now generally recognized thata law school cannot properly fulfil its appointedtask, nor take its. place as an integral part of auniversity, if instruction is carried on altogetheror in large part by men whose attention is chieflydevoted to the duties and cares of active practice.At the same time, the presence in the faculty ofthose who are in active practice is important inkeeping the theoretical work in touch with theinterests and responsibilities of the profession.Provision has been made for treating a largenumber of subjects which are not of sufficient magnitude or importance to constitute fullcourses, and which do not form part of the regular curriculum, in the form of lectures which areto be given by eminent specialists.The following have been appointed lecturers :Henry V. Freeman, Charles E. Kremer, FrancisWarner Parker, George R. Peck, and Frank F.Reed. Additional appointments will be madeand announced in the near future.An adequate and valuable law library is beingpurchased. A complete collection of all the legalseries of the English-speaking countries has beensecured, including the reports of all the courts ofthe United States and of the several States andTerritories, of England, Scotland, Ireland, Canada, Australia, and India, the statutes now in forcein these jurisdictions, and an exceptionally fullset of sessions laws, many of them rare, and valuable for historical as well as legal purposes.Arrangements are being made for adding to thesesources of the common law, an adequate libraryof foreign reports, statutes, magazines, andtreatises. At the opening of its work the LawSchool will own 18,000 volumes, acquired at anexpense of nearly $50,000, an equipment unrivaled by any law school in the West, and byvery few law libraries in the country. The facultyand students will have at hand all the materialrequired for the most extended legal study.During the year i902-,03 the Law School willoffer the full three years' curriculum so that advanced students may enter and complete theirstudies. The Law School, being a graduateschool, will confer upon those who successfullycomplete its curriculum the degree of J. D.{Juris Doctor). This form of degree has beenchosen after consultation with the two other graduate law schools of the country, and in the expectation of its adoption by these schools in thenear future.The school will be housed during the comingyear in the new Press Building. The erection ofa separate law building on the Quadrangle willbe begun immediately, and it will be ready for42 UNIVERSITY RECORDoccupancy in the summer of 1903. The proposedlaw building will also furnish temporary quartersfor the Historical group.THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION.The vacancy in the directorship of the Schoolof Education occasioned by the death of ProfessorFrancis W. Parker,* has been filled by the Trusteesof the University, upon the recommendation ofthe Trustees of the Chicago Institute, by theappointment of Professor John Dewey. Certainsteps have been taken in the reorganization of thework of the School of Education with a view todeveloping more fully the work of training teachers for secondary schools. In this connectionthe Department of Education, hitherto connectedwith the Department of Philosophy in the Facultyof Arts, Literature, and Science, has been transferred to the School of Education, and to thefaculty of this school there have been added thefaculties of the Laboratory Elementary School,the South Side Academy, the Chicago ManualTraining School, and the Department of Education.It is a most favorable omen for the successfulrealization of our hopes that the enlarged workis undertaken with the heartiest sympathy andgood wishes of the trustees of the Chicago Institute and of its founder, Mrs. Emmons Blaine.Needless to say, perplexing problems will arise inthe adjustment and welding together of variousforces into a co-ordinate whole. Mutual conference has made it clear that these will be metand solved in a spirit of reciprocal confidence,and of earnest endeavor for the fulfillment notonly of the letter of the contract by which ChicagoInstitute became the School of Education of theUniversity of Chicago, but also of the spirit of thehopes and aspirations of that great departedleader of educational progress Colonel FrancisWayland Parker.The work of the School of Education has beenarranged for the full period of the summer quarter. In connection with its work the following speciallecturers and instructors have been appointed:President G. Stanley Hall, of Clark University,and Mr. James L. Hughes, of Toronto, in addition to our own Professor Dewey and ProfessorCoulter.THE ALUMNI.Nothing has given the University greater satisfaction than the larger interest shown in the workof the University during the past year by itsalumni. Attention has already been called to theconsiderable number of the alumni who occupypositions in the faculties of the University. Theorganization of new clubs and associations in different parts of the country, and the active interesttaken in the meetings of these associations by thealumni and former students of the University,furnish sufficient evidence that there has beenlarge growth in the manifestation of loyalty to theUniversity, and of interest in its progress. TheAlumni Association has appointed a committeeof fifteen to consider and report to the individualalumni the facts with reference to the publicationof a daily newspaper which shall represent the students and the alumni. The establishment of sucha daily will unquestionably prove to be a mostimportant addition to the existing factors of ouruniversity life. It is greatly to be hoped thatthe report of this committee of fifteen may be ofsuch a character as shall justify the heartyco-operation of every friend of the University.Through its Board of Recommendations theUniversity has been able during the last two orthree years to render valuable assistance to formerstudents and alumni by placing them in connection with vacant positions, especially in the fieldof teaching. Steps are now to be taken lookingtoward the enlargement of the scope of thisboard in order that it may furnish assistance toall alumni and former students in every field ofprofessional activity. An effort will be madeduring the coming year to publish a decennialcatalogue of students and alumni. It is uncertainUNIVERSITY RECORD 43yet whether funds for this publication can besecured. The time has come when such a catalogue should be prepared. The number of namesto be included is, however, so large that theexpense involved may be greater than can be provided for. It is understood that henceforth thealumni of the University will be expected to joinin the convocation procession, and that seats willin every case be provided for those who indicatebeforehand their purpose to be present.THE SUMMER QUARTER.The preparations for the Summer Quarter havebeen completed, and its work will begin tomorrowmorning. The number of courses offered andthe number of officers appointed to serve aregreater than in any previous summer. In addition to the staff of the University the followingmembers of other institutions will render serviceto the University.From the (Bohemian) University of Prague,Professor Thomas Garrigue Masaryk ; from theUniversity of Michigan, Professor Henry C.Adams ; from the University of Tennessee, Professor James Douglas Bruce; from Harvard University, Professor Albert Bushnell Hart ; fromBrown University, Professor William MacDonald;from the University of Colorado, Professor FredB. R. Hellems; and Mr. James Van Sickle, thesuperintendent of the schools of Baltimore, Md.NEW BUILDINGS.It is unnecessary to make report concerningthe new buildings. One has only to glance aroundin order to see that the Press Building is practically finished, that Hitchcock Hall will be readyfor use within thirty or sixty days, that the Gymnasium, the Commons, the Tower, the ClubHouse, and the Assembly Hall are all well underway, and that the foundations for the buildingsof the School of Education are nearly finished.The coming year promises to be an active one from every point of view for the Committee onBuildings and Grounds. Steps have already beentaken in the preparation of plans for the build^ings which are to be occupied by the Law Schooland the Divinity School. Additional tunnels arebeing built crossing Lexington, Woodlawn, andKimbark avenues, through the property recentlysecured by the University and extending into thegrounds set apart for the School of Education.The capacity of the Power Plant is being doubled.Every effort is being put forth to meet the newdemands which are constantly being made uponthe University for additional space.THE ATTENDANCE.The attendance in the various divisions of theUniversity during the Spring Quarter, 1902, ha'sbeen as follows :Men Women TotalThe Divinity School:The Graduate DivinityThe Unclassified Divinity -Dano-Norwegian TheologicalSeminarySwedish Theological Seminary - 94152336 2 94172336Totals The Graduate Schools:Arts and Literature ...Ogden School of Science 168113122 27130 170184152Totals - - . -The Colleges:The Senior Colleges -The Junior CollegesUniversity College. - 23516725416 IOI15926627 33632652043Totals Unclassified Students -The Medical School:The School of Education: 437441773 45283377 88912718080Grand Totals -Deducting repetitions - - - 1064 7i8 178243173944 UNIVERSITY RECORDCOMPARATIVE ATTENDANCE. PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES.The attendance during former Spring Quartershas been as follows :Men Women TotalSpring Quarter 1893 428 131 5591894 - 515 240 755" 1895 - - - 701 328 10291896 - 662 360 1022" 1897 - - - 765 367 1 1321898 - 699 395 10941899 - 700 500 1200" " 1900 787 488 1275" " 1901 «39 581 1420These figures show a gain of 22 per cent, overthe attendance for the Spring Quarter of 1901. Physical:XVII. MathematicsXVIII. Astronomy- -XIX. Physics -XX. ChemistryXXI. Geology - 75545 1479138 22012132326118Totals - 26 5i 808Biological:XXII. Zoology -XXIII. Anatomy and Histology -XXIV. PhysiologyXXV. NeurologyXXVII. Botany -XXVIII. Pathology and Bacteriology 538154 6373125 2462330931172165Totals -Totals for Group - 2652 3687 9461754REGISTRATION AND INSTRUCTION.PHILOSOPHICAL-SOCIOLOGICAL GROUP. REQUIRED GROUP.Instructors Courses RegistrationsIA. Philosophy -IB. EducationIi. Political EconomyIII. Political ScienceIV. History ....V. ArchaeologyVI. SociologyVII. Comparative Religion 54527151 87104101132 1568lI5698312151957Totals - 30 55 1020LANGUAGE and literature group.Ancient Languages:X. Sanskrit -XI. Greek -XII. Latin .... 356 6815 25100247Totals - 14 29 372Modern Languages:XIII. Romance -XIV. GermanicXV. English -XVI. Literature (in English) 5592 1110153 205262394141Totals -Totals for Group 2135 3968 10021374 Instructors Courses RegistrationsXXXI. Public SpeakingXXXII. Physical Cult, and Athletics 38 714 I78592Totals - 11 21 770THE DIVINITY GROUP.VIII. Semitic Languages -IX. Biblical GreekXLIV. Systematic TheologyXLV. Church HistoryXLVI. HomileticsVI. SociologyXXXI. Public SpeakingTotals - 5 113 62 52 32 31 31 116 32THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION.Education fi 76Natural Science - 2 67Home Economics - - - - 1 7Mathematics 1 18Geography -Speech and Reading -Art ._.--- 222 602557Manual Training -Physical Training -Music 111 23153iTotals - 11 14 379UNIVERSITY JRECOBD 45UNIVERSITY COLLEGE.XII. Latin ....XIV. GermanicXX. Chemistry -XXII. Zoology - IIII IIII 91768Totals - 4 4 40Grand Totals - 166* 281 6692NEW APPOINTMENTS.The following appointments have been madeduring the Spring Quarter :John Henry Beale, jr., to a professorship in the LawSchool, and the Deanship of the Law School.James Parker Hall, to a professorship in the Law School.Julian W. Mack, to a professorship in the Law School.Blewett Lee, to a professorship in the Law School.Clark B. Whittier, to a professorship in the Law School.Ernst Freund, to a professorship in the Law School andtransferred to the Faculty of Law.Francis W. Parker, to a lectureship in the Law School, onPatent Law.Judge Henry V. Freeman, to a lectureship in the LawSchool, on Legal Ethics.George E. Kremer, to a lectureship in the Law School, onAdmiralty Law.George R. Peck, to a lectureship in the Law School, onRailroad Law.Frank F. Reed, to a lectureship in the Law School, onCopyright and Trade Marks.Samuel Wendell Williston, to a professorship in palaeontology.John Cummings, to an assistant professorship in politicaleconomy.W. H. Hudson, to a professorial lectureship in EnglishLiterature in the University Extension Division.W. C. Wilcox, of the University of Iowa, to a professoriallectureship in political science in the University ExtensionDivision.Dr. J. C. Webster, to a professorial lectureship in obstetrics.Dr. James Nevins Hyde, to a professorial lectureship indermatology.Carl Kinsley, to an instructorship in physics.Edgar J. Goodspeed, to the assistant directorship of theHaskell Oriental Museum.G. W. S. Adams, to a lectureship in political economy.Arthur Constant Lunn, to an associateship in appliedmathematics.Henrietta Becker, to an assistantship in German.Wallace Craig, to an assistantship in zoology.* Deducting three repetitions under " Instructors.'* Dana Lewis Gates, to an assistantship in zoology.Edwin G. Kirk, to an assistantship in zoology.G. Yoshioka, to a docentship in Japanese.Emma L. Dickinson, to the librarianship of the biologicallibrary.J. M. Poor, to a voluntary research assistantship at theYerkes Observatory.UNIVERSITY PREACHERS.The following gentlemen have been appointedUniversity preachers for the year 1902-3: Professor George B. Stevens, of Yale University |the Right Rev. Bishop J. L. Spalding, of Illinois ; Bishop Charles B. Galloway, of Mississippi; Professor Henry C. King, of OberlinjBishop John H. Vincent; Chancellor E. Benjamin Andrews, of Lincoln, Neb.; Professor W.W. Fenn, of Harvard Divinity School ; Rev,E. Winchester Donald, of Boston ; PresidentW. D. Hyde, of Bowdoin College ; Rev. W. E.Griffis, of New York ; Rev. Edward E. Hale, ofBoston ; Rev. N. D. Hillis, of Brooklyn ; Rev.Lyman Abbott, of New York; Rev. Henry M.Sanders, of New York; Professor Henry vanDyke, of Princeton ; Rev. John Humpstone, ofBrooklyn ; Rev. S. J. McPherson, of Lawrence-ville, N. J.; and Rev. W. S. Rainsford, of New York.PROMOTIONS.The following promotions have been madeduring the Spring Quarter :Professor John Dewey, to the Directorship of the Schoolof Education.Mr. James H. Breasted, from an Assistant Professorshipto an Associate Professorship of Egyptology and the Semitic Languages.Mr. Bradley M. Davis, from an Instructorship to anAssistant Professorship of Botany.Mr. Ira W. Howerth, from an Instructorship to anAssistant Professorship of Sociology in the University Extension Division.Mr. H. F. Mallory, from an Associateship to an Instructorship in the University Extension Division.Mr. E. A. Bechtel, from an Associateship to an Instructorship in Latin.Mr. C. E. Merriam, from a Docentship to an Associate-ship in Political Science.Mr. George L. Marsh, from an Assistantship to an Associateship in English Literature in the University ExtensionDivision.46 UNIVERSITY RECORDINSTRUCTORS ON LEAVE OF ABSENCE.The following instructors have been on leaveof absence during the Spring Quarter :Professors: W. C.Wilkinson, H. E. von Hoist,Harry Pratt Judson, Charles Chandler, C. R.Barnes, Rollin D. Salisbury, Frank Frost Abbott,John M. Manly, Robert Francis Harper.; Associate Professors : Oliver J. Thatcher, KarlPietsch, W. I. Thomas, Alexander Smith, CharlesZueblin, Robert Herrick, Jerome H. Raymond,J. W. Moncrief.Assistant Professors : H. M. Schmidt-Warten-berg, George H. Mead, George C. Howland,Herbert L. Willett, Clyde Weber Votaw, Ferdinand Schwill, William Hill, Robert Morss Lovett,William Vaughn Moody.Instructors: Luanna Robertson, Ira W. Howerth, Elizabeth Wallace, A. W. Moore, R. A.Millikan, G. J. Laing, A. C. Eycleshymer.Associates : Amy E. Tanner, H. Parker Williamson, Preston Kyes, Susan Ballou.* Assistants : Frances Ada Knox, D. D. Lewis,J. R. Slonaker, James W. Linn, William B.Wherry.THE FACULTIES.The staff on October i, 1892, numbered 114. At the end of the academic year 1892-3 it numbered 135; namely, 33 professors, 16 associateprofessors, 27 assistant professors, 16 instructors,12 associates, 8 assistants, 10 readers, 11 docents.At the end of the academic year 1896-97, itnumbered 175 ; namely, 43 professors, 5 professorial lecturers, 25 associate professors, 34 assistantprofessors, 39 instructors, 10 associates, 12 assistants, 3 readers, and 4 docents.At the end of the academic year 190 1-2 thestaff numbers 276. This does not include thefaculty at Morgan Park Academy, South SideAcademy, or Chicago Manual Training School,nor such officers as are concerned with administrative functions exclusively,GIFTS.New gifts pledged during the year by Mr. JohnD. Rockefeller for current expenses, $250,000 ; forgeneral endowment, $1,000,000.New gifts for other purposes from all sources,$762,710.78. Making a total of $2,012,710.78.Gifts actually received during fiscal year 190 1-2on pledges of current year and of former years, incash and securities, $2,666,354.95.UNIVERSITY RECORD 47ANNUAL STATISTICS, 1901-2.NUMBER OF STUDENTS, 1901-2, ACCORDING TO QUARTERS IN RESIDENCE*SchoolsThe Divinity School The Graduate Divinity SchoolThe Unclassified Divinity StudentsThe English Theological SeminaryThe Dano -Norwegian -The Swedish Seminary -The Graduate. Schools of Arts, Literature,and Science ------The Senior Colleges University College -The Junior Colleges -The Unclassified Students -The Medical Students The School of Education -TotalThree Quarter BasisThe corresponding figures for the year 1898-9 were as follows:One Quarter Two Quarters ThreeQuarters Four Quarters TotalTotal attendance Three Quarter Basis - ... 1,475491% 642428 756756 200266% 1,042%TOTALS FOR DIFFERENT STUDENTS, 1901-2.TOTALS WITHOUT REPETITIONS Repetitions Totals, RepetitionsDeductedMen Women Total Men Women Total Men Women TotalThe Divinity SchoolThe Graduate Schools -The Senior CollegesUniversity College -The Junior CollegesThe Unclassified StudentsThe Medical Students -The School of Education 35966727011737323531066 2336524239839940515635 3821032512515772640325701 543364010889 183072522338 612631365329147 35466323711133322522257 2235721239137438312597 3761020449502707608234654Grand Total of Different Students, 1901-2 -------- 2202 2348 4,55<>* The academic year of the University of Chicago extends over four quarters. During each or all of these a student may be inresidence. To enable an exact comparison of student attendance with that of other institutions having the customary threequarter (= nine months) system, the attendance [oi students in 1901-2 has been reduced in this table to the three quarter system.A student in residence one quarter represents one-third of a unit ; in residence two quarters, two-thirds of a unit ; in residencethree quarters, one unit; and in residence four quarters, four-thirds of a unit on this three quarter basis.One Two Three Four Three QuarQuarter Quarters Quarters Quarters ter Basis186 44 117 35 225136 33 52 309 7 9 541 — — — 2 22 —— ' 2 34 __647 91 195 72 567%188 107 173 44 365%70 439 — — 316184 129 410 49 622%508 56 70 6 284%40 13 188 5 217616 14 57 14 290%2,439 . 893 1,210 225813 595% 1,210 300 2,Ol8%48 UNIVERSITY RECORDThe total number of different students enrolled for trie Academic year :1898-9 was - 2,959 1900-1 was ... - 3,5201899-1900 was ... - 3,183 1901-2 was - 4,550GRADUATES OF THE UNIVERSITY BY YEARS.METHOD OF CLASSIFICATION BY YEARS: ALL GRADUATES FROM JULY I OF ONE YEAR TO JULY I OF THE NEXTYEAR ARE ENROLLED AS GRADUATES OF THE LATTER YEAR.Class Bachelors ofArts,Philosophy,and Science Bachelors ofDivinity Masters of Arts,Philosophy,and Science Doctors ofPhilosophy Be-enacted Total1893 -1894 -1895 - - - -1896 - - -1897 -1898 -1899 -1900 - - - -1901 -1092 (Including JuneClass) 122858105129145169162214291 11633292515171817 3111015201515332226 381623273423483626 372223241 295387183227221225262294361Totals - 1,313 144 170 244 n 1,942THE GRADUATE SCHOOLS.CLASSIFICATION OF STUDENTS WITH REFERENCE TO HIGHER DEGREES.Men Women TotalI. Doctors of Philosophy pursuing special courses ------II. Students admitted to candidacy for higher degrees III. Students not as yet admitted to candidacy - 3256579 817340 4073919Total for year 1901-2 663* 355f 1,020* Deducting 4 repetitions.t Deducting 8 repetitions.UNIVERSITY RECORD 49IsPSAm i-Hcdo CO OiHi 00CD CO Oa©i a* cd JOCOCOs rfl COtO rHCO CO COCOpHs<«p5eCO 75oEH t* cjoo iorH rH1o rH Ot- CO §d©2 CO <MtH rHpmHs "3o rH Ogo mrH rH f0too t- CI COc=>d©3 o <MrH rH JOgHgPpEHp -3oH O ^<M *H P08o 00 t~GO <Md©3 CD HHrH rHrH tH C^>g3P«hSpm 73© 00 rHCM COTH CM Ov00d©o IO CDGO t*rHd©8 CO iO¦rH rH 00¦<< nD0UJnA<DH © ©a fl-m ©2 s© OQrtf O« 8£ o5 mu . — .<j ©¦8- gU ovi bJDO O CDa<x>©aVia73¦sHZH-11_ H&mg i-HO rH O rH r*< CDIQ CO rW <M CO oof0sI Oi GO CO 1 1 2Pd© C* (M lO t*4 CD^ <M CO (M CO(M ObISCOH1 MI3OQ "3¦?3o ^ t^ 1 CO COOS rH 1 GNJ CO OInMSI 1 « 1 1 1 Ois ^ lO 1 CO CDC5 rH 1 <M CO 90COPH o GO O 1 tH CDO C<l 1 (M CO 0000m8o 1*111 COd© GO ^ 1 tH CDO tH 1 (M COHP 73 <M O ! CO HHtH d 1 (M CO 00d©o <N ia 1 | 1 l>d©2 O l& 1 CO ^MrH rH 1 <M CO S5H«p0Q 7j4a CO t*< rH 1 1CO rH ^ 1 1rH 00MPId©1 t- CO CO | | CO82 CD rH iO I 1lO rH CO 1 1r-i(<iC1f11 DDuJ>>3 • s | d ag 5 "a m I1 " 1 1K 1 1 S 1V H o 'So 2"S 'S rd 5? *9^ o bo fl ©2 fl fl * ^O t3 H Q OQ© © ® © o,d rfl A -fl -flH H H H EH CD4^fl©fl4-a-?^*fl'>s734^»O7rH8rHPh<w>HwfflHPhOfe> QC^ £< <enS§ H<^PQWU^<Q^WHH<dfoO50 UNIVERSITY RECORDwu<QWHH<O<SsCO Hfc8tf DCSBhJCQaoEh 73435 CD OO O CO CM I© CMt- O CM C- CMrH CM 2d©a1 rH 3!d©3 (MO 00 rH CI 1© CMO t- rH I© CM CN*P1 §MHOQ 3oEH C- "tf t- CM CM CO IrH CM H ^H (M 1rH rH v©g1 I© t- CM 1© 1 1 1I© GO rH 1 1 1THd©3 CM CO I© t- CM CO 1CO CO rH CM CM 1 COTH3HP<y 7a4aoEh CO HI CM H* CO CM 1rH CM rH CO 1rH rH On§ CM t* CM <M I 1 II© t- r-H 1 1 1d© CO O O CM CO CM |CO iC rH CM 1 COpP<y*5P i— 11 a © i© co i i irH CM Hi | | |rH rH ood©ao O rH rH CM 1 1 !l© t- rH I I 1 3d©3 CO HH CO 1 1 1 8TH.p«Ia 73435 rH g O CO | | C* IN0d©l 3! 58 1*111 Oid©3 5 a ® & i i « ooTHCOOw>-)ijouoscoWWH SeniorCollegeofArts(A.B.)-SeniorCollegeofLiterature(Ph.B.)-SeniorCollegeofCommerceandAdministration(Ph.B.)-SeniorCollegeofScience(S.B.)Pre-medical,SB.,StudentsPre-medical,A.B.,StudentsNotcandidatesforadegree CD©be©'oOHO'fl©m.37so stfeeh3CCOEH 7e49oH C5 CO CO t-® CM rH OrH CO 1C'Md©ao Oi CO 05 "?HCO rH 00 I©CM OSCOd©3 O t- l> COCO CM l© 1>THTHMW«Ps 7s435 1 1 1 1 !gao 1 1 1 I 1d©3 1 1 1 1 1PHHP«HH 7343OEH o rH th aCO CM rH COrH CM 00d©ao i© I© tH OCO rH CO HiCMd©3 L© CO t- GiCM CM Hi TH3«HP 7s43oEH CO, CM CO HHI© CM rH COr-i CMd©ao rH CO t- COCO rH CO COCOd©3 »© CO CO COCM CM HH THtHO«I«apCO 7aoH 1 1 1 1 1gao III! 1S 1 1 1 1 1s 4j>-1DJHfl>1—12;PTheGraduateSchoolsTheSeniorColleges-TheJuniorCqlleges-UnclassifiedStudents ©be©"oOr*»4-3"S©>'fl.S7e+3oUNIVERSITY RECORD 51wu.<WHHO<SC/} ^EH ca 05 CO CO Oi «fc o CO CO t~ CO tNH H rH CO rH tsd^fc ©EjS a1 HH CO CM t- OStip CO CM i© OSCOi^CCHO I© 8 COCM <MCO 8COo i—iea O »o O I© ©o OJ CO CO CO «P&55 H CM rH ¦Gd©ao CO CM CO I© COHH COrH CO CM£ d b- CO HH. o ^H& 3 HH. i© Oi CO £>C^<M _O ca CO CO *t- rH INo C5 HH co C- ^fH CM rH ICH« d<j ©p ao 05 r-H oo HH 2*HIr-i CO 2PCMEHa d h- CM oa t» xaa . -* i© 05 CO 5PCM,-Ho CD CO CO HH v©8 o tH OO CO GOH rH CM rH vOg d<j ©po t- CO CO CO 2>l© o CO COfe d CZ >© »© CO I>5 S »© c- Oi t^ C2>COi— «o ea CO co OO CM v©P4 oEH CO CO HH rH 00EHd< ©p ao HH -H CO CM CO<y rH CO rH OSpCO £d HH. HI CM O <oS CM CM CO rH Oi, , T3 ' ,"^ flW cdcVcpHHcc o:>:>j GO ,flPh©fl4-3c3© ffl©ofl© ©o©a~am°Ph CD©too'oQo54 <O© r3o© oin© "W flo g flfl.2w> hn bo © 4-» , r—t© <T> © 1=3 ^ c31 4 4JI oO oO oO 0 fl oM u u u^o O o &<fl fl fl flfl fl fl flH» H-3 r-5 1-3 EHHfit3EHOEHO4 5 «a ^d *<*EH wa wo COH!?wQHCOPUWH a «oo COI 5§ COIC S5« OQhhCCEH .8 ca if)S cut,7a vOa 5!7e ica ga «® i©S CMS OnO tNa cmO rH£ d t-»S cmooa w© >o3 «wQDHCO<1V5w 5 5EH9 5 •*« OQHH da soEH § <©rSEH § COEH 3 ^CMO 3 Oo 00dp a £-<y 1 ^C5 ^^. 9 © COeg 3oa Hp ca M"o 0\W iriEHd^ ©P a c<>o» o COtf r6EHJ5 © COt£ , s1— 1p S Os« o Onw EhHd<J ©P a »oO C5<y^p dEH © HHii Ss 7a «43 Q8 «d<ij 2 oop a <&& O ^ 'fcg COpCfi a COZoH<ODftHfeOHHo :offiaCOWWH52 UNIVERSITY RECORDSHALL CROMWELL HAVE A STATUE?Oration by Charles Francis Adams, Before the Beta of IllinoisChapter of the Phi Beta Kappa Society at the University ofChicago, Tuesday, dune 17, 1902." Whom doth the king delight to honour ? that is thequestion of questions concerning the king's own honour.Show me the man you honour ; I know by that symptom,better than by any other, what kind of man you yourself are.For you show me there what your ideal of manhood is ;what kind of man you long inexpressibly to be, and wouldthank the gods, with your whole soul, for being if youcould." Who is to have a statue? means, Whom shall we consecrate and set apart as one of our sacred men? Sacred ;that all men may see him, be reminded of him, and, by newexample added to old perpetual precept, be taught what isreal worth in man. Whom do you wish us to resemble?Him you set on a high column, that all men, looking on it,may be continually apprised of the duty you expect fromthem." — Thomas Carlyle, " Latter-Day Pamphlets." i8jo.At about 3 o'clock of the afternoon of September 3, 1658, the day of Worcester and of Dunbar,and as a great tempest was wearing itself to rest,Oliver Cromwell died. He died in London, inthe palace of Whitehall ; the palace of the greatbanqueting hail through whose central windowCharles I. a little less than ten years before, hadwalked forth to the scaffold. A few weeks later," with a more than regal solemnity," the body ofthe great Lord Protector was carried to Westminster Abbey, and there buried " amongstkings." Two years then elapsed ; and, on thetwelfth anniversary of King Charles's execution,the remains of the usurper, having been previously disinterred by order of the newly restoredking, were, by a unanimous vote of the Convention Parliament, hung at Tyburn. The trunkwas then buried under the gallows, while Cromwell's head was set on a pole over the roof ofWestminster Hall. Nearly two centuries of execration ensued, until, in the sixth generation, theearlier verdict was challenged, and the questionat last asked : " Shall Cromwell have a statue? "Cromwell, the traitor, the usurper, the execrablemurderer of the martyred Charles ! At first, andfor long, the suggestion was looked upon almost as an impiety, and, as such, scornfully repelled.Not only did the old loyal king-worship of England recoil from the thought, but, indignantlyappealing to the church, it declared that no suchdistinction could be granted so long as there remained in the prayer-book a form of supplicationfor " King Charles, the Martyr," and of " praiseand thanksgiving for the wonderful deliveranceof these kingdoms from the great rebellion, andall the other miseries and oppressions consequentthereon, under which they had so long groaned."None the less, the demand was insistent ; and atlast, but only after two full centuries had elapsedand a third was well advanced, was the verdict of166 1 reversed. Today the bronze effigy of OliverCromwell — massive in size, rugged in feature,characteristic in attitude — stands defiantly in theyard of that Westminster Hall, from a pole on topof which, twelve score years ago, the fleshcrumbled from his skull.In this dramatic reversal of an accepted verdict — this complete revision of opinions oncedeemed settled and immutable — there is, I submit, a lesson — an academic lesson. The presentoccasion is essentially educational. The Phi BetaKappa oration, as it is called, is the last, thecrowning utterance of the college year, and veryproperly is expected to deal with some fittingtheme in a kindred spirit. I propose to do sotoday; but in a fashion somewhat exceptional.The phases of moral and intellectual growththrough which the English race has passed onthe subject of Cromwell's statue afford, I submit,to the reflecting man an educational study ofexceptional interest. In the first place, it was agrowth of two centuries ; in the second place, itmarks the passage of a nation from an existenceunder the traditions of feudalism to one underthe principles of self-government ; finally, itillustrates the gradual development of that broadspirit of tolerance which, coming with time andstudy, measures the men and events of the pastindependently of the prejudices and passionswhich obscure and distort the immediate vision.UNIVERSITY RECORD 53We, too, as well as the English, have had our"Great Rebellion." It came to a dramatic closethirty-seven years since ; as theirs came to a closenot less dramatic some seven times thirty-sevenyears since. We, also, as they in their time,formed our contemporaneous judgments and recorded our verdicts, assumed to be irreversible,of the men, the issues, and the events of the greatconflict ; and those verdicts and judgments, in ourcase as in theirs, will unquestionably be revised,modified, and in not a few cases wholly reversed.Better knowledge, calmer reflection, and a morejudicial frame of mind come with the passage ofthe years ; passions in time subside, prejudicesdisappear, truth asserts itself. In England thisprocess has been going on for close upon twocenturies and a half ; with what result, Cromwell'sstatue stand as proof. We live in another age anda different environment; and, as fifty years ofEurope outmeasure in their growth a cycle ofCathay, so I hold one year of twentieth centuryAmerica works far more progress in thought thanseven years of Britain during the interval betweenits great rebellion and ours. We who took act-ive part in the Civil War have not yet whollyvanished from the stage ; the rear guard of theGrand Army, we linger. Today is separated fromthe death of Lincoln by the same number ofyears only which separated " The Glorious Revolution of 1688" from the execution of CharlesStuart ; yet to us is already given to look backon the events of which we were a part with thesame perspective effects with which the VictorianEnglishman looks back on the men and eventsof the commonwealth.I propose on this occasion to do so ; and reverting to my text — " Shall Cromwell, have a Statue"— and reading that text in the gloss of Carlyle'sLatter-Day Pamphlet utterance, I quote you Horace's familiar precept,Mutato nomine, de teFabula narratur,and ask abruptly, "Shall Robert E. Lee havea statue ? " I propose also to offer to your consideration some reasons why he should, and,assuredly, will have one, if not now, then presently.Shortly after Lee's death, in October, 1870,leave was asked in the United States Senate, byMr. McCreery, of Kentucky, to introduce a jointresolution providing for the return of the estateand mansion of Arlington to the family of thedeceased Confederate Commander-in-chief. Inview of the use which had then already beenmade of Arlington as a military cemetery, thisproposal, involving, as it necessarily did, a removal of the dead, naturally led to warm debate.The proposition was one not to be considered. Ifa defect in the title of the government existed, itmust in some way be cured, as subsequently it wascured. But I call attention to the debate becauseCharles Sumner, then a senator from Massachusetts, participated in it, using the following language : " Eloquent senators have already characterized the proposition and the traitor it seeksto commemorate. I am not disposed to speak ofGeneral Lee. It is enough to say he standshigh in the catalogue of those who have imbrued their hands in their country's blood. Ihand him over to the avenging pen of History."This was when Lee had been just two monthsdead; but, three-quarters of a century after theprotector's skull had been removed from over theroof of Westminster Hall, Pope wrote, in similarspirit —" See Cromwell, damn'd to everlasting fame ; nand, sixteen years later, — four- fifths of a centuryafter Cromwell's disentombment at Westminsterand reburial at Tyburn? — a period from the deathof Lee equal to that which will have elapsed in1950, Gray sang of the Stoke Pogis churchyard" Some mute, inglorious Milton here may rest,Some Cromwell guiltless ©f his country's blood."And now, a century and a half later, Cromwell'sstatue looms defiantly up in front of the Parliament House. When, therefore, an appeal is insuch cases made to the "avenging pen of History," it is well to bear this instance in mind,54 UNIVERSITY RECORDwhile recalling, perchance, that other line of agreater than Pope, or Gray, or Sumner —" Thus the whirligig of time brings in his revenges."Was then Robert E. Lee a "traitor" — was -healso guilty of his "country's blood?" Thesequestions I propose now to discuss. I am oneof those who, in other days, was arrayed in theranks which confronted Lee ; one of those whomLee baffled and beat, but who, finally, baffled andbeat Lee. As one thus formerly lined up againsthim, these questions I propose to discuss in thecalmer and cooler, and altogether more reasonable light which comes to most men, when awhole generation of the human race lies buriedbetween them and the issues and actors uponwhich they undertake to pass.Was Robert E. Lee a traitor? Technically, Ithink he was indisputably a traitor to the UnitedStates ; for a traitor, as I understand it technically, is one guilty of the crime of treason ; or, asthe Century Dictionary puts it, violating hisallegiance to the chief authority of the state ;while treason^against the United States is specifically defined in the Constitution as "levying war "against it, or " adhering to their enemies, givingthem aid and comfort." That Robert E. Leedid levy war against the United States can, Isuppose, no more be denied than that he gave"aid and comfort" to its enemies; and to thetruth of this last proposition, I hold myself,among others, to be a very competent witness.This technically ; but in history, there is treasonand treason, as there are traitors and traitors.And, furthermore, if Robert E. Lee was a traitor,so. also, and indisputably were George Washington, Oliver Cromwell, John Hampden, and William of Orange. The list might be extended indefinitely ; but these will suffice. There can be noquestion that every one of those named violatedhis allegiance, and gave aid and comfort to theenemies of his sovereign. Washington furnishesa precedent at every point. A Virginian likeLee, he was also a British subject ; he had foughtunder thejBritish flag,, as Lee had fought under that of the United States; when, in 1776, Virginia seceded from the British Empire, he " wentwith his state," just as Lee went with it eighty-five years later; subsequently Washington commanded armies in the field designated by thoseopposed to them as "rebels, " and whose descendants now glorify them as "the rebels of '76,"much as Lee later commanded, and at last surrendered, much larger armies, also designated"rebels" by those they confronted. Except intheir outcome, the cases were, therefore, preciselyalike; and logic is logic. It consequentlyappears to follow, that, if Lee was a traitor,Washington was also. It is unnecessary to institute similar comparisons with Cromwell, Hampden and William of Orange. No defense can intheir cases be made. Technically, one and all,they undeniably were traitors.But there are, as I have said, traitors and traitors — Catalines, Arnolds and Gorgeis, as well asCromwells, Hampdens and Washingtons. Toreach any satisfactory conclusion concerning acandidate for "everlasting fame," — whether todeify or damn — enroll him as savior, as martyr,or as criminal — it is, therefore, necessary stillfurther to discriminate. The cause, the motive,the conduct must be passed in review. Did turpitude anywhere attach to the original taking ofsides, or to subsequent act? Was the man a self-seeker? Did low or sordid motives impel him?Did he seek to aggrandize himself at his country'scost? Did he strike with a parricidal hand?These are grave questions ; and, in the case ofLee, their consideration brings us at the thresh-hold face to face with issues which have perplexed and divided the country since the day theUnited States became a country. They perplexand divide historians now. Legally, technically,— the moral and humanitarian aspects of theissue wholly apart — which side had the best ofthe argument as to the rights and the wrongs ofthe case in the great debate which led up to theCivil War? Before entering, however, on thiswell-worn — I might say, this threadbare — theme,UNIVERSITY RECORD 55as I find myself compelled in briefest way to do,there is one preliminary very essestial to begone through with: — a species of moral purgation.Bearing in mind Dr. Johnson's advice to Boswell,on a certain memorable occasion, we should atleast try to clear our minds of cant. Many yearsago, but only shortly before his death, RichardCobden said in one of his truth-telling deliverances to his* Rochdale constituents — "I reallybelieve I might be Prime Minister. If I wouldget up and say you are the greatest, the wisest,the best, the happiest people in the world, andkeep on repeating that, I don't doubt but whatI might be Prime Minister. I have seen PrimeMinisters made in my experience precisely bythat process." The same great apostle of homelysense, on another occasion bluntly remarked in asimilar spirit to the House of Commons — "Wegenerally sympathise with everybody's rebels butour own." In both these respects I submit weAmericans are true descendants fram the Anglo-Saxon stock ; and nowhere is this more unpleasantly apparent than in any discussion which mayarise of the motives which actuated those of ourcountrymen who did not at the time see the issuesinvolved in our Civil War as we saw them. Likethose whom Cobden addressed, we like to glorifyour ancestors and ourselves, and we do not particularly care to give ear to what we are pleasedto term unpatriotic, and, at times, even treasonable, talk. In other words, and in plain, unpalatable English, our minds are saturated with cant.Only in the case of others do we see things asthey really are. Ceasing to be individually interested, we then at once become nothing unlesscritical. So, when it comes to rebellions, we,like Cobden's Englishmen, are wont almostinvariably to sympathize with everybody's rebelsbut our own.Our souls spontaneously go forth to Celt, Pole,Hungarian, Boer, and Hindoo ; but, when we areconcerned, language quite fails us in which adequately to depict the moral turpitude which mustactuate Confederate or Filipino who rises in re sistance against what we are pleased really toconsider, as well as call, the best and most beneficent government the world has yet been per-mitted;to see — our government ! This, I submit,is cant — pure cant ; and at the threshold of discussion we had best free our minds of it, wholly,if we can ; if not wholly, then in so far as wecan. Philip the Second of Spain, when he directed his crusade in the name of God, Church,and Government, against William of Orange,indulged in it in quite as good faith as we ; andas for Charles "the Martyr" and the "sainted"Laud, for two centuries after Cromwell's headwas stuck on a pole, all England annually lamented in sackcloth and ashes the wrongs inflicted by sacrilegious hands on those mostassuredly well-meaning rulers and men. All depends on the point of view ; and, during ourown Civil War, while we unceasingly denouncedthe wilful wickedness of those who bore parricidal arms against the one immaculate authorityyet given the eye of man to look upon, the leading newspaper of the world was referring to us inperfect good faith "as an insensate and degenerate people." An English member of Parliament,speaking at the same time in equally good faith,declared that, throughout the length and breadthof Great Britain, public sentiment was almostunanimously on the side of "the southerners "—as ours was on the side of the Boers — becauseour " rebels " were " fighting against one of themost grinding, one of the most galling, one ofthe most irritating attempts to establish tyrrani-cal government that ever disgraced the history ofthe world."Upon the correctness or otherwise of thesejudgments I do not care to pass. They certainlycannot be reconciled. The single point I makeis that they were, when made, the expression ofviews honestly and sincerely entertained. Wesympathize with Great Britain's rebels ; GreatBritain sympathized with our rebels. Our rebelsin 1862, as theirs in 1900, thoroughly believedthey were resisting an iniquitous attempt to56 UNIVERSITY RECORDdeprive them of their rights, and to establish overthem a "grinding," a "galling," and an "irritating" "tyrannical government." We in 1861, asGreat Britain in 1898, and Charles "the Martyr"and Philip of Spain some centuries earlier, werefully convinced that we were engaged in God'swork while we trod under foot the "rebel" andthe "traitor." Presently, as distance lends amore correct perspective, and things are viewedin their true proportions, we will get perhaps torealize that our case furnishes no exception tothe general rule ; and that we, too, like the English "generally sympathize with everybody's rebels but our own." Justice may then be done.Having entered this necessary, if somewhathopeless caveat, let us address ourselves to thequestion at issue. I will state it again. Legally and technically — not morally, again let mesay, and wholly irrespective of humanitarian considerations — to which side did the weight of argument incline during the great debate whichculminated in our Civil War ? The answer necessarily turns on the abstract right of what weterm a sovereign state to secede from the Unionat such time and for such cause as may seem tothat state proper and sufficient. The issue issettled now ; irrevocably and for all time decided ;it was not settled forty years ago, and the settlement since reached has been the result, not ofreason, based on historical evidence, but of eventsand of force. To pass a fair judgment on theline of conduct pursued by Lee in 1 861, it isnecessary to go back in thought and imagination,and see things, not as they now are, but as theythen were. If we do so, and accept the judgment of some of the more modern students andinvestigators of history — either wholly unprejudiced or with a distinct Union bias — it wouldseem as if the weight of argument falls into whatI will term the Confederate scale. For instance,Professor Goldwin Smith, an Englishman, a lifelong student of history, a friend and advocate ofthe Union during the Civil War, the author of oneof the most compact and readable narratives of our national life — Goldwin Smith has recentlysaid : " Few who have looked into the historycan doubt that the Union originally was, and wasgenerally taken by the parties to it to be, a compact, dissoluble, perhaps most of them would havesaid, at pleasure, dissoluble certainly on breachof the articles of Union."1 To a like effect, but interms even 'stronger, Mr. Henry Cabot Lodge,now a senator from Massachusetts, has declared,not in a political utterance, but in a work of historical character, — "When the constitution wasadopted by the votes of States at Philadelphia, andaccepted by the votes of States in popular conventions, it is safe to say that there was not a manin the country from Washington and Hamilton,on the one side, to George Clinton and GeorgeMason, on the other, who regarded the new system as anything but an experiment entered uponby the States, and from which each and everystate had the right peaceably to withdraw, a rightwhich was very likely to be exercised."2Here are two explicit statements of the legaland technical side of the argument made byauthority to which no exception can be taken, atleast by those of the Union side. On them, andon them alone, the case for the abstract right ofsecession might be rested, and we could go on tothe next stage of the discussion.I am unwilling, however, so to do. The issueinvolved is still one of interest, and I am not disposed to leave it on the mere dictum of two authorities, however eminent. In the first place I doaltogether concur in their statements ; in the nextplace, this discussion is a mere threshing of strawunless we get at the true inwardness of the situation. When it comes to subjects — political ormoral — in which human beings are involved,metaphysics are scarcely less to be avoided thancant ; alleged historical facts are apt to prove deceptive ; and I confess to grave suspicions oflogic. Old time theology, for instance, with itspitiless reasoning, led the world into very strange1 Atlantic Monthly Magazine (March, 1902), Vol. 89, p. 305.^Webster, "American Statesmen" series, p. 172.UNIVERSITY RECORD 57places and much bad company. In reaching aconclusion, therefore, in which a verdict is enteredon the motives and actions of men, acting eitherindividually or in masses, the moral, the sentimental and the practical, must be quite as muchtaken into account as the legal, the logical andthe material. This, in the present case, I proposepresently to do ; but, as I have said, on the factseven I am unable wholly to concur with Professor Smith and Mr. Lodge.Mr. Lodge, for instance, cites Washington.But it so chances Washington put himself onrecord upon the point at issue, and his testimonyis directly at variance with the views attributed tohim by Mr. Webster's biographer. What areknown in history as the Kentucky resolutions,drawn up by Thomas Jefferson, then vice-president, were passed by the legislature of the statewhose name they bear in November, 1798. Inthose resolutions the view of the framers of theConstitution as to the original scope of thatinstrument accepted by Professor Smith and Mr.Lodge was first set forth. The principles actedupon by South Carolina on the 20th of December, i860, were enunciated by Kentucky November 16, 1798. The dragon's teeth were then sown.Washington was at that time living in retirementat Mt. Vernon. When, a few weeks later, thecharacter of those resolutions became known tohim, he was deeply concerned, and wrote to Lafayette, — " The Constitution, according to theirinterpretation of it, would be a mere cipher;"and again, a few days later, he expressed himselfstill more strongly in a letter to Patrick Henry, —"Measures are systematically and pertinaciouslypursued which must eventually dissolve the Union,or produce coercion."1 Coercion Washingtonthus looked to as the remedy to which recoursecould properly be had in case of any overt attemptat secession. But, so far as the framers of theConstitution were concerned, it seems to me clearthat, acting as wise men of conflicting viewsnaturally would act in a formative period during1 Washington, Works Vol. XI, pp. 378, 389. which many conflicting views prevailed, they didnot care to incur the danger of a shipwreck oftheir entire scheme by undertaking to settle,distinctly and in advance, abstract questions, thediscussion of which was fraught with danger. Inso far as they could, they, with great practicalshrewdness, left those questions to be settled,should they ever present themselves in concreteform, under the conditions which might then exist.The truth thus seems to be that the mass of thosecomposing the Convention of 1787, working under the guidance of a few very able and exceedingly practical men, of constructive mind,buildeda great deal better than they knew. The delegates met to harmonize trade differences ; theyended by perfecting a scheme of political unionthat had broad consequences of which they littledreamed. If they had dreamed of them, thechances are the fabric would never have beencompleted. That Madison, Hamilton and Jaywere equally blind to consequences does not follow. They probably designed a nation. If theydid, however, they were too wise to take the public fully into their confidence; and, today, "noimpartial student of our constitutional historycan doubt for a moment that each state ratified "the form of government submitted in " the firmbelief that at any time it could withdraw therefrom." - Probably, however, the more far-seeing,— and, in the long run, they alone count, —shared with Washington in the belief that thiswithdrawal would not be unaccompanied by practical difficulty. And, after all is said and done>the legality of secession is somewhat of a metaphysical abstraction so long as the right of revolution is inalienable. As matter of fact it wasto might and revolution the South appealed in1 861; and it was to coercion the government ofUnion had recourse. So with his supremegood sense and that political insight at once instinctive and unerring, in respect to which hestands almost alone, Washington foresaw thisalternative in 1798. He looked upon the doctrine2 Donn Piatt, George H. Thomas ; p. 88.58 UNIVERSITY RECORDof secession as a heresy; but, none the less, itwas a heresy indisputably then preached, and towhich many, not in Virginia only but in New England also, pinned their political faith. Even theDevil is proverbially entitled to his due.So far, however, as the abstract question is ofconsequence, as the utterances of Professor Smithand Mr. Lodge conclusively show, the secessionists of 1 86 1 stand in history's court by no meanswithout a case. In that case, moreover, they implicitly believed. From generation to generationthey had grown up indoctrinated with the gospel,or heresy, of state sovereignty, and it was asmuch part of their moral and intellectual beingas was clanship of the Scotch highlanders. In sofar they were right, as Governor John A. Andrewsaid of John Brown. Meanwhile, practically, as acommon-sensed man, leading an everyday existence in a world of actualities, John Brown wasnot right; he was, on the contrary, altogetherwrong, and richly merited the fate meted out tohim. It was the same with the secessionists.That, in e86i, they could really have had faith inthe practicability — the real working efficiency — ofthat peaceable secession which they professed toask for, and of which they never wearied of talking, I cannot believe. I find in the record noreal evidence thereof.Of the high-type Southron, as we sometimesdesignate him, I would speak in terms of sincererespect. I know him chiefly by hearsay, havingcome in personal contact only with individualrepresentatives of the class; but such means ofobservation as I have had confirm what I recentlyheard said by a friend of mine, once governor ofSouth Carolina, and, so far as I know, the onlyman who ever gave the impossible and indefensible plan of reconstruction attempted after ourCivil War a firm, fair and intelligent trial. Heat least put forth an able and honest effort tomake effective a policy which never should havebeen devised. Speaking from "much and variedexperience," I recently heard Daniel H. Chamberlain say of the "typical southern gentleman " that he considered him "a distinct and reallynoble growth of our American soil. For, if fortitude under good and under evil fortune, if endurance without complaint of what comes in the tideof human affairs, if a grim clinging to ideals oncecharming, if vigor and resiliency of character andspirit under defeat and poverty and distress, if asteady love of learning and letters when librarieswere lost in flames and the wreckage of war, ifself-restraint when the long-delayed relief at lastcame — if, I say, all these qualities are parts ofreal heroism, if these qualities can vivify and ennoble a man or a people, then our own South maylay claim to an honored place among the differingtypes of our great common race." Such is thematured judgment of the Massachusetts governorof South Carolina during the congressional reconstruction period ; and, listening to it, I askedmyself if it was descriptive of a southern fellow-countryman, or a Jacobite Scotch chieftain anterior to " the '45."The southern statesmen of the old slavery days— the antediluvian period which preceded ourmid-century cataclysm — were the outcome andrepresentatives of what has thus been described.As such they presented a curious admixture ofqualities. Masterful in temper, clear of purpose,with a firm grasp on principle, a high sense ofhonor and a moral perception developed on itspeculiar lines, as in the case of Calhoun, to aquality of distinct hardness, they were yet essentially abstractionists. Political metaphysicians,they were not practical men. They did not seethings as they really were. They thus, while discussing their "forty-bale theories" and the "patriarchal institution" in connection with state'srights and nullification, failed to realize that onthe two essential features of their policy — slaveryand secession, — they were contending with thestars in their courses. The whole world was moving irresistibly in the direction of nationality andan ever-increased recognition of the rights ofman ; while they, on both of these vital issues,were proclaiming a crusade of reaction.UNIVERSITY RECORD 59Moreover, what availed the views or intentionsof the framers of the Constitution ? What mattered it in i860 whether they, in 1787, contemplated a nation or only a more compact federationof sovereign states? In spite of logic and historical precedent, and in sublime unconsciousnessof metaphysics and abstractions, realities haveunpleasant way of asserting their existence. However it may have been in 1788, in i860 a nationhad grown into existence. Its peaceful dismemberment was impossible. The complex system oftissues and ligaments, the growth of seventy years,could not be gently taken apart, without woundor hurt ; the separation, if separation there was tobe, involved a tearing asunder, supplementing aliberal use of the knife. ; Their professions to thecontrary notwithstanding, this the southern leaders failed not to realize. In point of fact, therefore, believing fully in the abstract legality ofsecession, and the justice and sufficiency of thegrounds on which they acted, their appeal was tothe inalienable right of revolution ; and to thatmight by which alone the right could be upheld.Let us put casuistry, metaphysics, and sentimentaside, and come to actualities. The secessionistrecourse in 1861 was to the sword; and to thesword it was meant to have recourse.I have thus far spoken only of the South as awhole. Much has been said and written on thesubject of an alleged conspiracy in those days ofsouthern men and leaders against the Union ; ofthe designs and ultimate objects of the allegedconspirators ; of acts of treachery on their part,and the part of their accomplices, toward thegovernment, of which they were the sworn officials.Into this phase of the subject I do not propose toenter. That the leaders in Secession were menwith large views, and that they had matured acomprehensive policy as the ultimate outcome oftheir movement, I entertain no doubt. Theylooked unquestionably to an easy military success,and the complete establishment of their Confederacy; more remotely, there can be no questionthey contemplated a policy of extension, and the establishment along the shores of the Gulf ofMexico and in the Antilles of a great semi-tropical, slave-labor republic ; finally, all my investigations have tended to satisfy me that theyconfidently anticipated an early disintegration ofthe Union, and the accession of the bulk of theNorthern States to the Confederacy, New Englandonly being sternly excluded therefrom — "sloughedoff," as they expressed it. The capital of the newConfederacy was to be Washington ; Africanservitude, under reasonable limitations, was to berecognized throughout its limits ; agriculture wasto be its ruling interest, with a tariff and foreignpolicy in strict accord therewith. " Secession isnot intended to break up the present government,but to perpetuate it. We go out of the Union,not to destroy it, but for the purpose of gettingfurther guarantees and security" — this was saidin January, 1861 ; and this in 1900 — "And so webelieve that, with the success of the South, the'Union of the Fathers,' which the South was theprincipal factor in forming, and to which she wasfar more attached than the North, would havebeen restored and re-established ; that in thisUnion, the South would have been again the dominant people, the controlling power." Concedingthe necessary premises of fact and law — a somewhat considerable concession, but, perhaps, conceivable — conceding these, I see in this position,then or now, nothing illogical, nothing provocative of severe criticism, certainly nothing treasonable. Acting on sufficient grounds, of whichthose thus acting were the sole judge, proceedingin a way indisputably legal and regular, it wasproposed to reconstruct the Union in the light ofexperience, and on a new, and, as they considered, an improved basis, without New England.This cannot properly be termed a conspiracy; itwas a legitimate policy based on certain assumeddata legal, moral and economical. But it was inreality never for a moment believed that this programme could be peaceably and quietly carriedinto effect ; and the assent of New England to thearrangement was neither asked for, assumed, nor60 UNIVERSITY RECORDexpected. New England was distinctly relegatedto an outer void — at once cold, dark, inhospitable.As to participation of those who sympathized inthese views and this policy in the councils of thegovernment, so furthering schemes for its overthrow while sworn to its support, I hold it unnecessary to speak. Such were traitors. As such,had they met their deserts, they should, at theproper time, and on due process of law, have beenarrested, tried, convicted, sentenced, and hanged.That in certain well -remembered instances thiscourse was not pursued, is, to my mind, even yetmuch to be deplored. In such cases clemency isonly another form of cant.Having now discussed what have seemed to methe necessary preliminaries, I come to the particular cases of Virginia and Robert E. Lee. Thetwo are closely interwoven — for Virginia wasalways Virginia, and the Lees were, first, over andabove all, Virginians. It was the Duke of Wellington who, on a certain memorable occasion,indignantly remarked, in his delightful French-English— "Mais avant tout je suis gentilhommeAnglais." So might have said the Lees of Virginia of themselves.As respects Virginia, moreover, I am fain to saythere was in the attitude of the state toward theConfederacy, and, indeed, in its bearing throughout the Civil War, something which appealedstrongly — something unselfish and chivalric —worthy of Virginia's highest record. History will,I think, do justice to it. Virginia, if must be remembered, while a slave state, was not a cottonstate. This was a distinction implying a difference. In Virginia the institution of slavery existed, and because of it she was in close sympathywith her sister slave states ; but, while in the cotton states slavery had gradually assumed a purelymaterial form, in Virginia it still retained muchof its patriarchal character. The "Border"states, as they were called, and among them Virginia especially, had, it is true, gained an evilname as " slave-breeding ground ; " but this wasmerely an incident to a system in which, taken by and large — viewed in the rule, and not in theexception — the being with African blood in hisveins was not looked upon as a mere transferablechattel, but practically, and to a large extent, wasattached to the house and the soil. This fact had adirect bearing on the moral issue; for slavery, onething in Virginia, was quite another in Louisiana.The Virginian pride was, moreover, proverbial.Indeed, I doubt if local feeling and patriotism anddevotion to the state ever anywhere attained afuller development than in the community whichdwelt in the region watered by the Potomac andthe James, of which Richmond was the politicalcenter. We of the North, especially we of NewEngland, were Yankees ; but a Virginian wasthat, and nothing else. I have heard of a NewEnglander, of a Green Mountain boy, of a RhodeIslander, of a "Nutmeg," of a "Blue-nose " even,but never of a Massachusettensian. The wordsomehow does not lend itself to the mouth, anymore than the thought to the mind.But Virginia was strongly attached by sentiment as well as interest to the Union. Thebirthplace of Washington, the mother of states,as well as of presidents, "The Old Dominion,"as she was called, and fondly loved to call herself, had never been affected by the nullificationheresies of South Carolina; and the long line ofher eminent public men, though, in i860, showing marked signs of a deteriorating standard,still retained a prominence in the national councils. If John B. Floyd was secretary of war,Winfield Scott was at the head of the army.Torn by conflicting feelings, Virginia, still clinging to the nation, was unwilling to sever herconnection with it because of the lawful electionof an anti-slavery president, even by a distinctlysectional vote. For a time she even stayed thefast flooding tide of secession, bringing about abrief but important reaction. Those of us oldenough to remember the drear and anxious winter which followed the election and preceded theinauguration of Lincoln, recall vividly the ray ofbright hope which, in the midst of its deepestUNIVERSITY RECORD 61gloom, then came from Virginia. It was in earlyFebruary. Up to that time the record was unbroken. Beginning with South Carolina onDecember 20, state after state, meeting in convention, had with significant unanimity passedordinances of secession. Each successive ordinance was felt to be equivalent to a reneweddeclaration of war. The outlook was dark indeed, and, amid the fast gathering gloom, alleyes, all thoughts, turned to Virginia. She represented the Border states ; her action, it was felt,would largely influence, and might control theirs.John Letcher was then governor — a States RightsDemocrat, of course ; but a Union man. By himthe legislature of the state was called together in•special session, and that legislature, in January,passed what was known as a convention bill. Practically Virginia was to vote on the question atissue. Events moved rapidly. South Carolinahad seceded on December 20 ; Mississippi onJanuary 8; Florida on the 10th; Alabama on thenth; Georgia followed on the 19th; Louisianaon the 26th, with Texas on February 1. The procession seemed unending; the record unbroken.Not without cause might the now thoroughlyfrightened friends of the Union have exclaimed,with Macbeth —" What ! will the line stretch out to the crack of doom ?Another yet ? A seventh ? "If at that juncture the Old Dominion by adecisive vote had followed in the steps of thecotton states, it implied consequences which noman could fathom. It involved the possession ofthe national capital, and the continuance of thegovernment. Maryland would inevitably followthe Virginian lead ; the recently elected president had not yet been inaugurated ; taken whollyby surprise, the North was divided in sentiment;the loyal spirit of the country was not aroused.It was thus an even question whether, on March4, the whole machinery of the de facto government would not be in the hands of the revolutionists. All depended on Virginia. This is nowforgotten ; none the less, it is history. The Virginia election was held on the 4th ofFebruary, the news of the secession of Texas —seventh in the line — having been received on the2d. Evidently, the action of Texas was carefully timed for effect. Though over forty yearsago, I well remember that day — gray, overcast,wintry — which succeeded the Virginia election.Then living in Boston, a young man of twenty-five, I shared — as who did not? — in the common deep depression and intense anxiety. Itwas as if a verdict was to be that day announcedin a case involving fortune, honor, life even. Tooharassed for work, I remember abandoning mydesk in the afternoon to seek relief in physicalactivity, for the ponds in the vicinity of Bostonwere ice-covered, and daily thronged with skaters.I was soon among the number, gloomily seekingunfrequented spots. Suddenly I became awareof an unusual movement in the throng nearestthe shore, where those fresh from the city arrived.The skaters seemed crowding to. a common point ;and a moment later they scattered again, withcheers and gestures of relief. An arrival freshfrom Boston had brought the first bulletin of yesterday's election. Virginia, speaking against secession, had emitted no uncertain sound. It wasas if a weight had been taken off the mind ofeveryone. The tide seemed turned at last. Formyself, I remember my feelings were too deep tofind expression in words or sound. Somethingstuck in my throat. I wanted to be by myself.Nor did we overestimate the importance of theevent. If it did not in the end mean reaction, itdid mean time gained ; and time then, as the result showed, was vital. As William H. Seward,representing the president-elect in Washington,wrote during those days : " The people of theDistrict are looking anxiously for the result of theVirginia election. They fear that if Virginia resolves on secession, Maryland will follow; andthen Washington will be seized. . . . The election tomorrow probably determines whether allthe slave states will take the attitude of disunion.Everybody around me thinks that that will make62 UNIVERSITY RECORDthe separation irretrievable, and involve us in flagrant civil war. Practically everybody will despair." A day or two later the news came " likea gleam of sunshine in a storm." The disunionmovement was checked, perhaps would be checkmated. Well might Seward, with a sigh of profound relief, write to his wife: "At least, thedanger of conflict, here or elsewhere, before the4th of March, has been averted. Time has beengained."1 Time was gained; and the few weeksof precious time thus gained through the expiring effort of Union sentiment in Virginia involvedthe vital fact of the peaceful delivery four weekslater of the helm of state into the hands ofLincoln.Thus, be it always remembered, Virginia didnot take its place in the secession movement because of the election of an anti-slavery president.It did not raise its hand against the nationalgovernment from mere love of any peculiar institution, or a wish to protect and to perpetuate it.It refused to be precipitated into a civil convulsion; and its refusal was of vital moment. Theground of Virginia's final action was of whollyanother nature, and of a nature far more creditable. Virginia, as I have said, made state sovereignty an article — a cardinal article — of itspolitical creed. So, logically and consistently, ittook the position that, though it might be unwisefor a state to secede, a state which did secedecould not, and should not be coerced.To us now this position seems worse than illogical ; it is impossible. So events proved it then.Yet, after all, it is based on the great fundamentalprinciple of the consent of the governed ; and, inthe days immediately preceding the war, something very like it was accepted as an article ofcorrect political faith by men afterward as strenuous in support of a Union re-established by force,as Charles Sumner, Abraham Lincoln, WilliamH. Seward, Salmon P. Chase, and Horace Greeley.The difference was that, confronted by the overwhelming tide of events, Virginia adhered to it ;i Seward at Washington, Vol. I, p. 502. they, in presence of that tide, tacitly abandonedit. In my judgment, they were right. But Virginia, though mistaken more consistent, judgedotherwise. As I have said, in shaping a practicaloutcome of human affairs logic is often as irreconcilable with the dictates of worldly wisdom as aremetaphysics with common sense. So now theissue shifted. It became a question, not of slaveryor of the wisdom, or even the expediency, of secession, but of the right of the national government to coerce a sovereign state. This at thetime was well understood. The extremists of theSouth, counting upon it, counted with absoluteconfidence ; and openly proclaimed their reliancein debate. Florida, as the representatives of thatstate confessed on the floor of Congress, mightin itself be of small account ; but Florida, panoplied with sovereignty, was hemmed in and buttressed against assault by protecting sister states.So, in his history, James F. Rhodes asserts that— "The four men who in the last resort made thedecision that began the war were ex-SenatorChestnut, Lieutenant-Colonel Chisolm, CaptainLee, all three South Carolinians, and Roger A.Pryor, a Virginia secessionist, who two days before in a speech at the Charleston Hotel hadsaid, ' I will tell your governor what will put Virginia in the Southern Confederacy in less thanan hour by Shrewsbury clock. Strike a blow ! ' "2The blow was to be in reply to what was acceptedas the first overt effort at the national coercion ofa sovereign state — the attempted relief of Sumter. That attempt — -unavoidable even if longdeferred, the necessary and logical outcome of asituation which had become impossible of continuance — that attempt, construed into an effortat coercion, swept Virginia from her Unionmoorings.Thus, when the long-deferred hour of fatefuldecision came, the position of Virginia, be it inhistorical justice said, however impetuous, mistaken or ill-advised, was taken on no low or sordidor selfish grounds. On the contrary, the logical2 Rhodes, United States^ Vol. Ill, p. 349.UNIVERSITY RECORD 63assertion of a cardinal article of accepted political faith, it was made generously, chivalrously, ina spirit almost altruistic ; for, from the outset, itwas manifest Virginia had nothing to gain in thatconflict of which she must perforce be the battleground. True ! her leading men doubtless believed that the struggle would soon be broughtto a triumphant close, — that southern chivalryand fighting qualities would win a quick and easy-victory over a more materially minded, even ifnot craven, northern mob of fanatics and cobblersand peddlers, officered by preachers ; but, however thus deceived and misled at the outset, Virginia entered on the struggle others had initiated,for their protection and in their behalf. Shethrust herself between them and the tempest theyhad invoked. Technically it may have beentreasonable ; but her attitude was consistent, wasbold, was chivalrous :" An honorable murderer if you will ;For naught did he in hate but all in honor."So much for Virginia ; and now as to RobertE. Lee. More than once already, on occasionsnot unlike this, have I quoted Oliver WendellHolmes's remark in answer to the query of ananxious mother as to when a child's educationought to begin — "About 250 years before it isborn ; " and it is a fact — somewhat necessitarian,doubtless, but still a fact — that every man's life islargely molded for him far back in the ages. Wephilosophize freely over fate and free-will, andone of the excellent commonplaces of our educational system is to instil into the minds of thechildren in our common-schools the idea thatevery man is the architect of his own life. Anadmirable theory to teach ; but, happily for therace, true only to a very limited extent. Heredity is a tremendous limiting fact. Native forceof character — individuality — doubtless has something to do with results ; but circumstances, ancestry, environment have much more. One manpossibly in a hundred has in him the inherentforce to make his conditions largely for himself ;but even he moves influenced at every step from cradle to grave by ante-natal and birth conditions.Take any man you please — yourself, for instance ;now and again the changes of life give opportunity, and the individual is equal to the occasion— the roads forking, consciously or instinctivelyhe makes his choice. Under such circumstances,he usually supposes that he does so as a freeagent. The world so assumes, holding him responsible. He is nothing of the sort ; or at bestsuch only in a very limited degree. The otherday one of our humorists took occasion to philosophize on this topic, delivering what might notinaptly be termed an occasional discourse appropriate to the 2 2d of February. It was not onlyworth reading, but in humor and sentiment itwas somewhat suggestive of the melancholyJacques. " We are made, brick by brick, of influences, patiently built up around the frameworkof our born dispositions. It is the sole processof construction ; there is no other. Every man,woman and child is an influence. Washington'sdisposition was born in him, he did not create it.It was the architect of his character ; his character was the architect of his achievements. It hada native affinity for all influences, fine and great,and gave them hospitable welcome and permanentshelter. It had a native aversion for all influences mean and gross, and passed them on. Itchose its ideals for him ; and out of its patientlygathered materials, it built and shaped his goldencharacter."And give him the credit."Three names of Virginians are impressed onthe military records of our Civil War — indeliblyimpressed — Winfield Scott, George HenryThomas, and Robert Edward Lee ; the last, mostdeeply. Of the three, the first two stood by theflag ; the third went with his state. Each, whenthe time came, acted conscientiously, impelled bythe purest sense of loyalty, honor and obligation,taking that course which, under the circumstancesand according to his lights, seemed to him right ;and each doubtless thought he acted as a freeagent. To a degree each was a free agent ; to a64 UNIVERSITY RECORDmuch greater degree each was the child of anteriorconditions, hereditary sequence, existing circumstances — in a word of human environment, moral,material, intellectual. Scott or Thomas or Lee,being as he was, and things being as things were,could not decide otherwise than as he did decide.Consider them in order ; Scott first :A Virginian by birth, early association andmarriage, Scott, at the breaking-out of the CivilWar, had not lived in his native state for fortyyears. Not a planter, he held no broad acres andowned no slaves. Essentially a soldier, he was acitizen of the United States ; and, for twenty years,had been the general in command of itsarmy. When, in April, 1861, Virginia passed itsordinance of secession, he was well advanced inhis seventy-fifth year — an old man, he was nolonger equal to active sevice. The course hewould pursue was thus largely marked out forhim in advance ; a violent effort on his part couldalone have forced him out of his trodden path.When subjected to the test, what he did wasinfinitely creditable to him, and the obligationthe cause of the Union lay under to him duringthe critical period between December, i860, andJune, 1 86 1, can scarcely be overstated ; but, nonethe less, in doing as he did, it cannot be deniedhe followed what was for him the line of leastresistance.Of George Henry Thomas, no American, Northor South — above all, no American who served inthe Civil War — whether wearer of the blue or thegray — can speak, save with infinite respect —always with admiration, often with love. Thanhis, no record is clearer from stain. Thomas alsowas a Virginian. At the time of the breaking-out of the Civil War, he held the rank of majorin that regiment of cavalry of which Lee, nineyears his senior in age, was colonel. He neverhesitated in his course. True to the flag fromstart to finish, William T. Sherman, then generalof the army, in the order announcing the death ofhis friend and classmate at the Academy, mostproperly said of him : " The very impersonation of honesty, integrity, and honor, he will stand toposterity as the beau ideal of the soldier and gentleman." More tersely, Thomas stands for character personified ; Washington himself not moreso. And now having said this, let us come againto the choice of Hercules — the parting of thoseterrible ways of 1861.Like Scott and Lee, Thomas was a Virginian ;but, again, there are Virginians and Virginians.Thomas was not a Lee. When, in 1855, thesecond United States cavalry was organized,Jefferson Davis being Secretary of War, CaptainThomas, as he then was and in his thirty-ninthyear, was appointed its junior major. Betweenthat time and April, 1861, fifty-one officers aresaid to have borne commissions in that regiment,thirty-one of whom were from the South ; and ofthose thirty-one, no less than twenty-four enteredthe Confederate service, twelve of whom, amongthem Robert E. Lee, Albert Sidney Johnston andJohn B. Hood, became general officers. Thename of the Virginian, George H. Thomas, standsfirst of the faithful seven ; but, Union or Confederate, it is a record of great names, and fortunate is the people, great of necessity their destiny,which in the hour of exigency, on the one side orthe other, naturally develops from the roster of asingle regiment men of the ability, the disinterestedness, the capacity and the character of Lee,Thomas, Johnston, and Hood. It is a recordwhich inspires confidence as well as pride.And now of the two men — Thomas and Lee.Though born in Virginia, General Thomas wasnot of a peculiarly Virginian descent. By ancestry, he was, on the father's side, Welsh ; French,on that of the mother. He was not of the oldVirginia stock. Born in the southeastern portionof the state, near the North Carolina line, we aretold that his family, dwelling on a "goodly homeproperty," was "well to do" and eminently"respectable;" but, it is added, there "were nocavaliers in the Thomas family, and not theremotest trace of the Pocahontas blood." Whenthe war broke out, in 1861, Thomas had beenUNIVERSITY RECORD 65twenty-one years a commissioned officer; andduring those years he seems to have lived almosteverywhere, except in Virginia. It had been alife passed at military stations ; his wife was fromNew York ; his home was on the Hudson ratherthan on the Nottoway. In his native state heowned no property, land or chattels. Essentiallya soldier, when the hour for choice came, thesoldier dominated the Virginian. He stood \>ythe flag.Not so Lee; for to Lee I now come. Of himit might, and in justice must, be said, that he wasmore than of the essence, he was of the very quintessence of Virginia. In his case, the roots andfibers struck down and spread wide in the soil,making him of it a part. A son of the revolutionary " Light-Horse Harry," he had married aCustis. His children represented all there was ofdescent, blood, and tradition of the Old Dominion, made up as the Old Dominion was of tradition, blood, and descent. The holder of broadpatrimonial acres, by birth and marriage he was aslave- owner, and a slave- owner of the patriarchaltype, holding " slavery as an institution a moraland political evil." Every sentiment, every memory, every tie conceivable bound him to Virginia ;and, when the choice was forced upon him — hadto be made — - sacrificing rank, career, the flag, hethrew in his lot with Virginia. He did so withopen eyes, and weighing the consequences. Heat least indulged in no self-deception — wanderedaway from the path in no cloud of political metaphysics — nourished no delusion as to an earlyand easy triumph. " Secession," as he wrote tohis son, " is nothing but revolution. The framersof our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation,and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by everymember of the Confederacy at will. It is idle totalk of secession." But he also believed that hispermanent allegiance was due to Virginia ; thather secession, though revolutionary, bound allVirginians and ended their connection with and duties to the national government. Thereafter,to remain in the United States army would betreason to Virginia. So, three days after Virginiapassed its ordinance, he, being then at Arlington,resigned his commission, at the same time writingto his sister, the wife of a Union officer, "We arenow in a state of war which will yield to nothing.The whole South is in a state of revolution, intowhich Virginia, after a long struggle, has beendrawn ; and, though I recognize no necessity forthis state of things, and would have forborne andpleaded to the end for redress of grievances, realor supposed, yet in my own person I had to meetthe question whether I should take part againstmy native state. With all my devotion to theUnion, and the feeling of loyalty and duty of anAmerican citizen, I have not been able to makeup my mind to raise my hand against my relatives,my children, my home. I have therefore resignedmy commission in the army; and, save in defenseof my native state, I hope I may never be calledupon to draw my sword." Two days before hehad been unreservedly tendered, on behalf ofPresident Lincoln, the command of the Unionarmy then immediately to be put in the field infront of Washington — the command shortlyafterward held by General McDowell.So thought and spoke and wrote and actedRobert E. Lee, in April, 1861. He has, for thedecision thus reached, been termed by some atraitor, a deserter, almost an apostate, and consigned to the "avenging pen of History." I cannot so see it; I am confident posterity will not sosee it. The name and conditions being changed,those who uttered the words of censure, invoking"the avenging pen," did not so see it — have notseen it so. Let us appeal to the record. Whatotherwise did George Washington do under circumstances not dissimilar? What would he havedone under circumstances wholly similar? LikeLee, Washington was a soldier ; like Lee, he wasa Virginian before he was a soldier. He hadserved under King George's flag ; he had swornallegiance to King George; his ambition had66 UNIVERSITY RECORDbeen to hold the royal commission. PresentlyVirginia seceded from the British empire — renounced its allegiance. What did Washingtondo? He threw in his lot with his native province.Do you hold him then to have been a traitor —to have been false to his colors? Such is notyour verdict ; such has not been the verdict ofhistory. He acted conscientiously, loyally, as ason of Virginia and according to his lights.Will you say that Lee did otherwise ?But men love to differentiate ; and of drawingof distinctions there is no end. The cases weredissimilar, it will be argued ; at the time Virginiarenounced its allegiance Washington did not holdthe king's commission, indeed he never held it.As a soldier he was a provincial always — he borea Virginian commission. True ! Let the distinction be conceded ; then assume that the darling wish of his younger heart had been grantedto him, and that he had received the king's commission, and held it in 1775 — what coursewould he then have pursued ? What coursewould you wish him to have pursued ? Do younot wish — do you not know — that, circumstanced as then he would have been, he wouldhave done exactly as Robert E. Lee did eighty-six years later. He would first have resigned hiscommission ; and then arrayed himself on theside of Virginia. Would you have had him dootherwise ? And so it goes in this world. Insuch cases the usual form of speech is: "Oh!that is different ! Another case altogether ! "Yes, it is different ; it is another case. For itmakes a world of difference with a man whoargues thus, whether it is his ox that is gored orthe ox of the other man !And here, in preparing this address, I mustfairly acknowledge having encountered an obstacle in my path also. When considering thecourse of another, it is always well to ask one'sself the question : What would you yourself havedone if similarly placed ? Warmed by my argument, and the great precedents of Lee and ofWashington, I did so here. I and mine were and are at least as much identified with Massachusetts as was Lee and his with Virginia — traditionally, historically, by blood and memoryand name, we with the Puritan Commonwealth asthey with the Old Dominion. What, I asked myself, would I have done had Massachusetts at anyti me arrayed itself against the common country,though without my sympathy and assent, even asVirginia arrayed itself against the Union withoutthe sympathy and assent of Lee in 1861 ? Thequestion gave me pause. And then I must confess to a sense of the humor of the situation coming over me, as I found it answered to my hand.The case had already arisen ; the answer had beengiven ; nor had it been given in any uncertaintone. The dark and disloyal days of the earlieryears of the century just ended rose in memory —the days of the embargo, the "Leopard" and the" Chesapeake," and of the Hartford Convention.The course then taken by those in political control in Massachusetts is recorded in history. Itverged dangerously close on that pursued byVirginia and the South fifty years later: and thequarrel then was foreign; it was no domesticbroil. One of my name, from whom I claim descent, was in those years prominent in public life.He accordingly was called upon to make thechoice of Hercules, as later was Lee. He madehis choice, and it was for the common country asagainst his section. The result is matter of history. Because he was a Union man, and heldcountry higher than state or party, John QuincyAdams was in 1808 driven from office, a successor to him in the United States Senate was electedlong before the expiration of his term, and hehimself was forced into what at the time was regarded as an honorable exile. Nor was the lineof conduct then by him pursued — that of unswerving loyalty to the Union — ever forgotten orwholly forgiven. He had put country aboveparty; and party leaders have long memories.Even so broad-minded and clear- thinking a manas Theodore Parker, when delivering a eulogyupon J. Q. Adams, forty years later, thus ex-UNIVERSITY RECORD 67pressed himself of this act of supreme self-sacrifice and loyalty to Nation rather than to State :"To my mind, that is the worst act of his publiclife ; I cannot justify it. I wish I could findsome reasonable excuse for it However,it must be confessed that this, though not theonly instance of injustice, is the only case ofservile compliance with the executive to be foundin the whole life of the man. It was a grievousfault, but grievously did he answer it ; and if along life of unfaltering resistance to every attemptat the assumption of power is fit atonement, thenthe expiation was abundantly made."1What more, or worse, on the other side, couldbe said of Lee ?Perhaps I should enter some plea in excuse ofthis diversion; but, for me, it may explain itself, orgo unexplained. Confronted with the questionwhat would I have done in 1861 had positionsbeen reversed, and Massachusetts taken thecourse then taken by Virginia, I found the answeralready recorded. I would have gone with theUnion, and against Massachusetts. None theless, I hold Massachusetts estopped in the case ofLee. " Let the galled jade wince, our withersare un wrung ; " but, I submit, however it mightbe with me or mine, it does not lie in the mouthsof the descendants of the New England Federalists of the first two decennials of the nineteenthcentury to invoke " the avenging pen of History "to record an adverse verdict in the case of anyson of Virginia who threw in his lot with his statein 1 86 1.Thus much for the choice of Hercules. Passon to what followed. Of Robert E. Lee as thecommander of the army of Northern Virginia —at once the buckler and the sword of the Confederacy — I shall say a few words. I was in theranks of those opposed to him. For years I wasface to face with some fragment of the army ofNorthern Virginia, and intent to do it harm ;and during those years there was not a day whenI would not have drawn a deep breath of reliefx Works (London, 1863) Vol. IV, pp. 154, 156. and satisfaction at hearing of the death of Lee,even as I did draw it at hearing of the death ofJackson. But now, looking back through a perspective of nearly forty years, I glory in it, andin them, as foes — they were worthy of the bestof steel. I am proud now to say that I was theircountryman. Whatever differences of opinionmay exist as to the course of Lee when he madehis choice, of Lee as a foe and the commanderof an army, but one opinion can be entertained.Every inch a soldier, he was as an opponent notless generous and humane than formidable, atype of highest martial character ; cautious, magnanimous, and bold, a very thunderbolt in war,he was self-contained in victory, but greatest indefeat. To that escutcheon attaches no stain.I now come to what I have always regarded —shall ever regard : — as the most creditable episodein all American history — an episode without ablemish — imposing, dignified, simple, heroic. Irefer to Appomattox. Two men met that day,representative of American civilization, the wholeworld looking on. The two were Grant andLee — types each. Both rose, and rose unconsciously, to the full height of the occasion — andthan that occasion there has been none greater.About it, and them, there was no theatrical display, no self-consciousness, no effort at effect.A great crisis was to be met ; and they met thatcrisis as great countrymen should. Considerthe possibilities ; think for a moment of whatthat day might have been — you will then seecause to thank God-for much.That month of April saw the close of exactlyfour years of persistent strife — a strife which thewhole civilized world had been watching intently.Democracy — the capacity of man in his presentstage of development for self-government — wasbelieved to be on trial. The wish the father tothe thought, the prophets of evil had been liberal in prediction. It so chances that my attention has been specially drawn to the Europeanutterances of that time ; and, read in the clearlight of subsequent history, I use words of mod-68 UNIVERSITY RECORDeration when I say that they are now both inconceivable and ludicrous. Staid journals, gravepublic men, seemed to take what was little lessthan pleasure in pronouncing that impossible ofoccurrence which was destined soon to occur,and in committing themselves to readings of thebook of fate in exact opposition to what themuse of history was wetting the pen to record.Volumes of unmerited abuse and false vaticination — and volumes hardly less amusing now thaninstructive — could be garnered from the columns of the London Times — volumes in whichthe spirit of contemptuous and patronizing dislike sought expression in the profoundest ignorance of facts, set down in bitterest words. Notonly were republican institutions and man'scapacity for self-government on trial, but theseverest of sentences was imposed in advance ofthe adverse verdict, assumed to be inevitable.Then, suddenly, came the dramatic climaxat Appomattox — dramatic, I say, not theatrical— severe in its simple, sober, matter-of-factmajesty. The world, I again assert, has seennothing like it ; and the world, instinctively, wasconscious of the fact. I like to dwell on thefamiliar circumstances of the day ; on its momentous outcome ; on its far-reaching results. Itaffords one of the greatest educational object-lessons to be found in history ; and the actors wereworthy of the theater, the auditor and the play.A mighty tragedy was drawing to a close.The breathless world was the audience. It was abright balmy April Sunday in a quiet Virginialandscape, with two veteran armies confrontingeach other ; one, game to the death, completelyin the grasp of the other. The future was atstake. What might ensue ? What might notensue ? Would the strife end then and there ?Would it die in a death grapple, only to reappearin that chronic form of a vanquished but indomitable people writhing and struggling in thegrasp of an insatiate, but only nominal victor ?Such a struggle as all European authorities unitedin confidently predicting ? The answer depended on two men — the captains of the contending forces. Grant that dayhad Lee at his mercy. He had but to close hishand, and his opponent was crushed. Thinkwhat then might have resulted had those two menbeen other than they were — had the one beenstern and aggressive, the other sullen and unyielding. Most fortunately for us, they were what andwho they were — Grant and Lee. More, I neednot, could not say; this only let me add — apeople has good right to be proud of the past andself-confident of its future when on so great anoccasion it naturally develops at the front menwho meet each other as those two met each otherthen. Of the two, I know not to which to awardthe palm. Instinctively, unconsciously, they viednot unsuccessfully each with the other, in dignity, magnanimity, simplicity." Si fractus illabatur orbisImpavidum ferient ruinse."With a home no longer his, Lee then sheathedhis sword. With the silent dignity of his subsequent life, after he thus accepted defeat, all arefamiliar. He left behind him no querulous memoirs, no exculpatory vindication, no controversial utterances. For him, history might explainitself — posterity formulate its own verdict. Surviving Appomattox but a little more than fiveyears, those years were not unmarked by incidentsvery gratifying to American recollection ; for weAmericans do, I think, above all things love mag-nimity, and appreciate action at once fearless andgenerous. We all remember how by the grimmockery of fate — as if to test to the uttermostAmerican capacity for self-government — Abraham Lincoln was snatched away at the momentof crisis from the helm of state, and AndrewJohnson substituted for him. I think it no doubtful anticipation of historical judgment to say thata more unfortunate selection could not well havechanced. In no single respect, it is safe to say,.was Andrew Johnson adapted for the peculiar duties which Booth's pistol imposed upon him.One of Johnson's most unhappy, most ill-consid-UNIVERSITY RECORD 69ered convictions was that our Civil War was aconventional old-time rebellion — that rebellionwas treason — that treason was a crime; and thata crime was something for which punishmentshould in due course of law be meted out. He,therefore, wanted, or thought he wanted, to havethe scenes of England's Convention Parliamentand the Restoration of 1660 re-enacted here, asa fitting sequel of our great conflict. Most fortunately, the American people then gave evidenceto Europe of a capacity for self-restraint and self-government not traceable to English parentage,or precedents. No Cromwell's head grinnedfrom our Westminster Hall ; no convicted traitorswung in chains ; no shambles dripped in blood.None the less Andrew Johnson called for "indictments," and one day demanded that of Lee.Then outspoke Grant — general of the army.Lee, he declared, was his prisoner. He had surrendered to him, and in reliance on his word.He had received assurance that so long as hequietly remained at his home, and did not offendagainst the law, he should not be molested. Hehad done so ; and, so long as Grant held hiscommission, molested he should not be. Needless, as pleasant, to say what Grant then grimlyintimated did not take place. Lee was not molested ; nor did the general of the army indignantly fling his commission at an accidentalpresident's feet. That, if necessary, he wouldhave done so, I take to be quite indubitable.Of Lee's subsequent life, as head of Washington College, I have but one anecdote to offer. Ibelieve it to be typical. A few months ago I received a letter from a retired army officer of highcharacter from which I extract the following :" Lee was essentially a Virginian. His swordwas Virginia's, and I fancy the state had higherclaims upon him than had the Confederacy, justas he supposed it had than the United States.But, after the surrender, he stood firmly and unreservedly in favor of loyalty to the nation. Agentleman told me this anecdote. As a boy heran away from his Kentucky home, and served the last two years in the rebel ranks. After the warhe resumed his studies under Lee's presidency ;and one occasion, delivered as a college exercisean oration with eulogistic reference to the ' LostCause,' and what it meant. Later, General, thenPresident Lee sent for the student, and, afterpraising his composition and delivery, seriouslywarned him against holding or advancing suchviews, impressing strongly upon him the unity ofthe nation, and urging him to devote himself loyally to maintain the integrity and the honor ofthe United States. The kindly paternal advicethus given was, I imagine, typical of his wholepost bellum life." Let this one anecdote suffice.Here was magnanimity, philosophy, true patriotism : the pure American spirit. Accepting thesituation loyally and in a manly, silent way —without self-consciousness or mental reservation— he sought by precept, and yet more by a greatexample, to build up the shattered community ofwhich he was the most observed representative inaccordance with the new conditions imposed byfate, and through constitutional action. Talk of.traitors and of treason! The man who pursuedthat course and instilled that spirit had not, couldnot have had, in his whole being one drop oftraitor's blood or conceived a treacherous thought.His lights may have been wrong — according toour ideas then and now they were wrong — butthey were his lights, and in acting in full accordance with them he was right.But, to those thus speaking, it is since sometimes replied — "Even tolerance may be carriedtoo far, and is apt then to verge dangerously onwhat may be better described as moral indifference. It then, humanly speaking, assumes thatthere is no real right or real wrong in collectivehuman action. But put yourself in his place, and,to those of this way of thinking, Philip II. andWilliam of Orange — -Charles Land Cromwell —are much the same ; — the one is as good as theother, provided only he acted according to hislights. This will not do. Some moral test mustbe applied — some standard of right and wrong.70 UNIVERSITY RECORD"It is by the recognition and acceptance ofthese that men prominent in history must be measured, and approved or condemned. To call itour Civil War is but a mere euphemistic way ofreferring to what was in fact a slave-holders' rebellion, conceived and put in action for no endbut to perpetuate and extend a system of humanservitude, a system the relic of barbarism, aninsult to advancing humanity. To the furtherance of this rebellion, Lee lent himself. Rightis right, and treason is treason — and, as thatwhich is morally wrong cannot be right, so treason cannot be other than a crime. Why thenbecause of sentiment or sympathy or moral indifference seek to confound the two? Charles Stuartand Cromwell could not both have been right. IfThomas was right, Lee was wrong."To this I would reply, that we, who take anotherview, neither confound, nor seek to confound,right with wrong, or treason with loyalty. Weaccept the verdict of time ; but, in so doing, weinsist that the verdict shall be in accordance withthe facts, and that each individual shall be judgedon his own merits, and not stand acquitted or condemned in block. In this respect time workswonders, leaving few conclusions wholly unchallenged. Take, for instance, one of the final contentions of Charles Sumner, that, following oldworld precedents, founded, as he claimed, in reason and patriotism, the names of battles of thewar of the rebellion should be removed from theregimental colors of the national army, and fromthe army register. He put it on the ground that,from the republics of antiquity down to our days,no civilized nation ever thought it wise or patriotic to preserve in conspicuous and durable formthe mementoes of victories won over fellow-citizens in civil war. As the sympathizing oratorsaid at the time of Sumner's death — " Should theson of South Carolina, when at some future daydefending the Republic against some foreign foe,be reminded by an inscription on the colorsfloating over him, that under this flag the gunwas fired that killed his father at Gettysburg? " This assuredly has a plausible sound. "Hisfather;" yes, perhaps. Though even in the immediately succeeding generation something mightwell be said on the other side. Presumably, insuch case, the father was a brave, an honest anda loyal man — contending for what he believed tobe right — for it, laying down his life. Gettysburg is a name and a memory of which none thereneed ever feel ashamed. As in most battles, therewas a victor and a vanquished ; but on that daythe vanquished, as well as the victor, fought astout fight. If, in all recorded warfare there is adeed of arms the name and memory of which thedescendants of those who participated thereinshould not wish to see obliterated from any record,be it historian's page or battle-flag, it was theadvance of Pickett's Virginian division acrossthat wide valley of death in front of CemeteryRidge. I know in all recorded warfare of nofiner, no more sustained and deadly feat of arms.I have stood on either battle-field, and, in scopeand detail, carefully compared the two ; and,challenging denial, I affirm that the much vauntedcharge of Napoleon's guard at Waterloo, in fortitude, discipline and deadly energy will not bearcomparison with that other. It was boy's workbeside it. There, brave men did all that thebravest men could do. Why then should the sonof one of those who fell coming up the longascent, or over our works and in among our guns,feel a sense of wrong because "Gettysburg" isinscribed on the flag of the battery a gun ofwhich he now may serve? On the contrary, Ishould suppose he would there see that name only.But, supposing it otherwise in the case of theson — the wound being in such case yet fresh andgreen — how would it be when a sufficient timehas elapsed to afford the needed perspective ?Let us suppose a grandson six generations removed. What Englishman, be he Cavalier orRoundhead by descent — did his ancestor chargewith Rupert or Cromwell — did he fall while riding with leveled point in the grim wall ofadvancing Ironsides, or go hopelessly down inUNIVERSITY RECORD 71death beneath their thundering hoofs — what descendant of any Englishman who there met hisend, but with pride would read the name ofNaseby on his regimental flag ? What Frenchman would consent to the erasure of Ivry orMoncontour ? Thus, in all these matters, Timeis the great magician. It both mellows and transforms. The Englishman of today does not applyto Cromwell the standard of loyalty or treason,of right and wrong, applied after the Restoration ;nor, again, does the twentieth century confirm thenineteeth's verdicts. Even slavery we may cometo regard as a phase, pardonable as passing, inthe evolution of a race.I hold it will certainly be so with our Civil War.The year 1965 will look upon its causes, its incidents, and its men with different eyes from thosewith which we see them now — eyes wholly different from those with which we saw forty years ago.They — for we by that time will have rejoined thegeneration to which we belonged — will recognizethe somewhat essential fact, indubitably true, thatall the honest conviction, all the loyalty, all thepatriotic devotion and self-sacrifice were not then,any more than all the courage, on the victor'sside. True! the moral right, the spirit of nationality, the sacred cause of humanity even, were onour side ; but among those opposed, and who inthe end went down, were men not less sincere, notless devoted, not less truly patriotic according totheir lights, than he who among us was first in allthose qualities. Men of whom it was and is acause of pride and confidence to say: " They, too,were countrymen! "Typical of those men — most typical — wasLee. He represented, individualized, all that washighest and best in the southern mind and theConfederate cause — the loyalty to state, the keensense of honor and personal obligation, theslightly archaic, the almost patriarchal, love ofdependent, family, and home. As I have morethan once said, he was a Virginian of the Virginians. He represents a type which is gone —hardly less extinct than that of the great English nobleman of the feudal times, or the ideal head ofthe Scotch clan of a later period; but, just so longas men admire courage, devotion, patriotism, thehigh sense of duty and personal honor — all, ina word, which go to make up what we know as character — just so long will that type of man be heldin affectionate, reverential memory. They have inthem all the elements of the heroic. As Carlylewrote more than half a century ago, so now :" Whom do you wish to resemble ? Him you seton a high column. Who is to have a statue ?means, Whom shall we consecrate and set apartas one of our sacred men ? Sacred ; that all menmay see him, be reminded of him, and, by newexample added to old perpetual precept, be taughtwhat is real worth in man. Show me the manyou honor ; I know by that symptom, better thanby any other, what kind of man you yourself are.Tor you show me there what your ideal of manhood is ; what kind of man you long inexpressibly to be, and would thank the gods, with yourwhole soul, for being if you could."It is all a question of time ; and the time is,probably, not quite yet. The wounds of the greatwar are not altogether healed, its personal memories are still fresh, its passions not whollyallayed. It would, indeed, be cause for specialwonder if they were. But, I am as convinced asan unillumihed man can be of anything future,that, when such time does come, a justice, notdone now, will be done to those descendants ofWashington, of Jefferson, of Rutledge, and ofLee, who stood opposed to us in a succeedinggeneration. That the national spirit is nowsupreme and the nation cemented, I hold to beunqestionable. That property in man has vanished from the civilized world is due to our CivilWar. The two are worth the great price then paidfor them. But, wrong as he may have been, andas he was proved by events, in these respects theConfederate had many great and generous qualities ; he also was brave, chivalrous, self-sacrificing, sincere, and patriotic. So I look forwardwith confidence to the time when they too will72 UNIVERSITY RECORDbe represented in our national Pantheon. Thenthe query will be answered here, as the query inregard to Cromwell's statue put sixty years agohas recently been answered in England. Thebronze effigy of Robert E. Lee, mounted on hischarger, and with the insignia of his Confederaterank, will from its pedestal in the nation's capitalgaze across the Potomac at his old home atArlington, even as that of Cromwell dominatesthe yard of Westminster upon which his skullonce looked down. When that time comes, Lee'smonument will be educational — it will typify thehistorical appreciation of all that goes to make upthe loftiest type of character, military and civic,exemplified in an opponent, once dreaded, butever respected ; and, above all, it will symbolizeand commemorate that loyal acceptance of theconsequences of defeat, and the patient upbuilding of a people under new conditions by constitutional means, which I hold to be the greatesteducational lesson America has yet taught to aonce skeptical, but now silenced world.LIBRARY REPORT.During the Spring Quarter, 1902, there hasbeen added to the library of the University atotal number of 3,558 volumes, from the following sources:Books added by purchase, 2,161 volumes, distributed as follows:General Library, 67 vols.; Philosophy, 73 vols.;Pedagogy, 35 vols.; Political Economy, 72 vols.;Political Science, 48 vols.; History, 809 vols.;Classical Archaeology, 14 vols.; Sociology, 52vols.; Sociology (Divinity), 17 vols.; Sociology(Folk- Psychology), 13 vols.; Anthropology, 35vols.; Comparative Religion, 16 vols.; Semitic, 30vols.; New Testament, 10 vols.; Sanskrit and Comparative Philology, 42 vols.; Greek, 39 vols.;Latin, 13 vols.; Latin and Greek, 3 vols.; Romance, 135 vols.; German, 17 vols.; English, 125vols.; Mathematics, 25, vols.; Astronomy (Ryer-son),i6 vols.; Astronomy (Yerkes), 31 vols.; Chemistry, 9 vols.; Physics, 30 vols.; Geology, 13 vols.; Zoology, 13 vols.; Anatomy, 27 vols.; Neurology,24 vols.; Physiology, 21 vols.; PhysiologicalChemistry, 47 vols.; Botany, 1 vol.; Public Speaking, 30 vols.; Church History, 11 vols.; Systematic Theology, 91 vols.; Homiletics, 9 vols.;Morgan Park Academy, 31 vols.; Commerce andAdministration, 7 vols.; Bacteriology, 21 vols.;Pathology, 25 vols.; Embryology, 2 vols.; Swedish Theological Seminary, 2 vols.; Latin, ClassicalArchaeology, and Sanskrit, 1 vol.; Literature inEnglish Department XVI, 8 vols.; Latin, Greek,and Comparative Philology, 1 vol.Books added by gift, 821 volumes, distributedas follows:General Library, 416 vols.; Pedagogy, 79 vols.;Political Economy, 8 vols.: Political Science, 5vols.; History, 18 vols.; Sociology, 2 vols.; Anthropology, 1 vol.; Semitic, 6 vols.; New Testament,1 vol.; Sanskrit and Comparative Philology, 1 vol.;Greek, 2 vols.; Latin, 40 vols.; Romance, 2 vols.;German, 1 vol.; English, 17 vols.; Mathematics, 3vols.; Astronomy (Ryerson), 51 vols.; Astronomy(Yerkes), 5 vols.; Chemistry, 3 vols.; Physics, 2vols.; Geology, 50 vols.; Zoology, 7 vols.; Anatomy, 1 vol.; Biology, 3 vols.; Botany, 3 vols.;Church History, 1 vol.; Systematic Theology, 1vol.; Commerce and Administration, 3 vols.;Bacteriology, 2 1 vols.; Pathology, 2 vols.; Divinity,6 vols.; Elementary School, 3 1 vols.; Music, 29 vols.Books added by exchange for University publications, 576 vols., distributed as follows:General Library, 326 vols.; Philosophy, 7 vols.;Pedagogy, 12 vols.; Political Economy, 21 vols.;Political Science, 8 vols.; History, 1 vol.; Sociology, 58 vols.; Sociology (Divinity), 1 vol.;Anthropology, 4 vols.; Comparative Religion, 7vols.; Semitic, 13 vols.; New Testament, r4 vols.;English, 1 vol.; Astronomy (Ryerson), 2 vols.;Astronomy (Yerkes), 20 vols.; Geology, 17 vols.;Neurology, 1 vol.; Botany, 13 vols.; Church History, 28 vols.; Systematic Theology, 12 vols.;Homiletics, 3 vols.; Divinity, 1 vol.; Semitic andNew Testament, 1 vol.; Zoology and Botany, 5vols.UNIVERSITY RECORD 73SPECIAL GIFTS.United States Government, 124 vols., documents; Mr. F. I. Carpenter, 28 vols., Englishliterature; University of the State of New York,19 vols., miscellaneous. Reports: City of Rotterdam, 3 vols.; Geneva, 4 vols.; Bologna, 6 vols.;Basel, 6 vols.; Genoa, 4 vols.; Riga, 4 vols.; An-cona, 7 vols.; Kioto, Japan, 5 vols.; Brussels, 3vols.; Rio de Janeiro, 22 vols.; Turin, 12 vols.;Christiania, 11 vols.; New York, 15 vols, health;Agra Municipality British India, 3 vols.; CountyBorough of Bolton, 8 vols.; Cook County Commissioners,^ vols.; President Harper, 12 vols.,miscellaneous; Mr. R. D. Salisbury, 16 vols., geological reports; Novello, Ewer & Co., n vols.,text-books; Peace Association of Friends, 5 vols.,reports ; Superintendent of Public Instruction,Neb., 5 vols., pedagogical books ; A. S. Barnes &Co., 5 vols., music books. Text-books: Thos. Whit-taker, pub., 4 vols.; Presbyterian Board of Publication, 3 vols.; S. W. Baird, pub., 7 vols.; Rand,McNally & Co., 5 vols.; Ginn & Co., 8 vols.; TheMacmillan Co., 5 vols.; Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 5vols.; American Book Co., 14 vols.; Longmans,Green & Co., 6 vols.; Mrs. Geo. C. Walker, 15vols., Proceedings and Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Reports: Canada Geological Survey, 4 vols.; Association ofCollegiate Alumnae, 6 vols.; Pennsylvania Boardof Public Charities, 5 vols.; National Academy ofSciences, 4 vols.; Maine Board of Agriculture, 13vols.; New Jersey Geological Survey, 12 vols.;Mr. C. P. Everett, 35 vols., Arabic books; Michigan State Library, 14 vols., miscellaneous; Pennsylvania State Library, 31 vols., miscellaneous.CHAPEL ADDRESSES.BY THE REVEREND EDWARD EVERETT HALE.*Boston, Mass.I.2Someone has said, and said very truly, that theLord's prayer contains the whole Christian reli-* University preacher for the month of May, 1902.2 Address before the Graduate Schools, May 8, 1902. gion. This being the case, I would suggest thatsome of those persons who are never able to define Christianity would save themselves trouble bycommitting the words of the prayer to memoryor by writing it out and carrying it around intheir pocket-books. If we really know what weare talking about when we say, " Our Father, whoart in heaven,", then we know that we are God'schildren. As I said on Sunday morning, we arenot merely creatures of God ; a grain of sand, anacorn, is a creation of God; but we are God'schildren, and, when we choose to go to work withhim, we have his omnipotence. I do not say thatman cannot go to work without him. He can.A man can paddle up stream if he wants to doso ; but the current may be stronger than the man,and he is likely to be carried down stream. But,if a man chooses to work with God, as I have justsaid, he may share in God's omnipotence. We.may be omnipotent as long as we borrow our omnipotence. Now this relationship of God withman suggests that there is but one law for theuniverse. There is no single law for this place,and another law for that place ; one law of electricity, and another of light. All laws are onelaw ; and we know that this law is the presentwish of God.What I have been trying to say to you youngpeople this week is an expression of the great gainwe have in this business of handling omnipotenceif we go to work in the open air. I have a feelingthat " open air " is the one great gospel of ourtime ; and I have also a feeling that the tendencyof college life, books, libraries, class-rooms, laboratories, etc., is all on the other side. Theyproduce the idea that we would rather live inthese prisons which we call homes, or in these cellswhich we call class-rooms, than to be out in God'sopen air, under God's blue sky, made for all ofGod's great universe.I told the boys at Amherst a few years ago thatI would give them three practical rules of life, ofwhich the first one is, to live in the open air allyou can., And I did not mean merely that life in74 UNIVERSITY RECORDthe open air would strengthen the muscles, or keepthem free from disease, or make spring medicineswholly unnecessary at any time. I leave all thatto the doctors. I meant that they would be moremen than they could be by yielding to the temptation to shut themselves indoors. And what doI mean when I say "more men," or "more women "? Why, I mean that you will be nearer toGod if you use infinite forces more and finiteforces less. This it is to be a child of God. Thisit is, when you pray in the morning, to say " OurFather " with meaning, not simply to repeat twowords which have come down to you by tradition.It is the desire for larger life that draws us to theuniversity : the wish that life shall be larger onthe ninth day of May than on the eighth day ofMay, larger this month than last month, largernext year than this year. When we came here weknew that the life of a son or daughter of God isa life drawing constantly nearer, and nearer, andnearer to the Father, gaining more of the Father'slight and life and strength. We know that a personwho does not gain strength with every passingday, who is the same tomorrow that he is today,is less a child of God tomorrow than he is today.This is what we are for : Larger things tomorrow than today, larger life next year than thisyear.I am eager to impress upon you this principleof life in the open air because such life may bedevoted to the practice of the presence of Godas life indoors cannot be. I do not say that thereader, the student of David's Psalms and Browning's poems, cannot bring himself thereby nearerto God ; but I do say that the man who reads allday, at the end of the day will probably find himself in a less close communion with God than theman or woman who has spent the better part ofthe day in the open air.I quoted to the ladies yesterday that fine sentence of Kant's, in which he says that there aretwo things, and only two things, worthy of theundivided attention of man as a child of God :one, the struggle of a good man with adversity ; and the other, the question of what lies beyondthe farthest star. The best conception of infinitywhich you and I can have comes to us first, I suppose, in the effort to answer that question ; at allevents, in the upspringing and framing of that question, What is there beyond the farthest star ? Noperson need take such a walk as I took last nightwithout feeling that intercourse with God whichenters the soul as one goes into the infinite, asone remembers that he and that farthest star areone with each other, that the inhabitants of thatstar and he himself are living by one law, the lawof honor, of truth, and of faith. The same thingmay happen in the plucking of a dandelion fromthe roadside. You may pluck the dandelion toput it in your buttonhole and to throw it awaywhen faded ; or you may, in picking the dandelion, enter into the presence of and communionwith the God who* gives you the dandelion, whois glad to give it to you, who enjoys the pleasureit gives you to pluck it, who gave the flower itslife. You may make every act and feeling bringyou closer to the God who is and whose child youare. I cannot bring to mind any man or womanwhose life is enlarging who is not putting himselfor herself into this communication with life, intothis condition of touch with nature. J£ friend ofmine used to say that we must learn to spell nature with a large N, and life with a large L. Wemust not speak of them as outside things, but asliving presences in the midst of which we live, andmove, and have our being. And it is for this reason, almost for this reason only, that the study ofnatural science plays so important a part in thedevelopment of life. You will not find that thegreat leaders, the persons whom we are glad to follow because they know how to lead, are people whohave shut themselves up in prisons called houses.The Isaac Newtons and the Darwins have donethis. But Jesus, who told us to consider the liliesof the field, is the leader of modern civilization.PR A YER.Even so, great God, take us as thine own children, and lead us. Show us thine own handiwork,UNIVERSITY RECORD 75and talk to us about it. Show us, Father, what wecan do in this great universe outside, wherein it isour place and our joy to lift up that which is castdown, to aid those who are blind, to carry thisblessed gospel of thine to those who are of mankind. We ask it as thy blessed children. Amen.II.3The text of this week, as I believe you know, isTogether. I put it to the undergraduates in themilitary phrase, that they must touch elbows withthe rank and file ; and I ventured to tell even theyoung ladies last Monday what is meant by theadvance of the regiment front, when everybodytouches elbows with the sergeant on the extremeleft. And so in speaking to a body of men whoare going to be ministers, one cannot help remembering that the center of Christian ethicsand of modern life is in the text where the Saviorsays : " Whosoever will be great among you, lethim be your minister," certainly not meaningthat he was to be ordained in this way or in that,but meaning that he was to be their servant. Themeaning of that word is changed in the English,so that now we only speak of a minister as theman who serves in the highest relations, betweenman and God. But that is merely a change inthe language, and the Revised Version has doneits best to restore the word into the departmentof universal service — "Whosoever will be greatamong you shall be your bondservant," as if"bondservant " were a stronger phrase for servicethan "minister." We ministers are so fortunate thatwe can touch elbows with the rank and file andshake the hand of every sort and condition ofman more easily than anyone else. When a manof great wealth undertakes to be on friendly termswith one of the rank and file, he is looked at witha certain suspicion, as if he had some axe to grind.But a minister must be in easy touch with everybody. He must understand the language of thepeople, and the people must understand his language, and he must not let anything in the fact3 Address before the Divinity School, May 9, 1902, that he is ordained separate him from the simplest.To use the common phrase, he must not be "stuckup." I should go so far as to say that our preaching oftentimes is "stuck up." When we speakof the "doctrine of evolution" and "the survival of the fittest," or any of those fine phrasesof our last century, as if everybody understoodwhat they were, I think it is rather hard on MaryFlaherty, the washwoman, who has dressed herself up to the tone required by our grand churcharrangements, that she might come in and hear adiscourse on that subject. I remember, when Iwas in England, after struggling to find our Unitarian chapel, we found the place at last, andfound a fine young fellow of twenty-five years ofage in the pulpit. We heard a fine ritual, andsinging by a choir in surplices ; but, when thisyoung man got up to preach, he told us that weprobably did not know that, in the essay of Spencerupon thus and so, Spencer had made a very grossmistake with regard to this and that, and that theLord God had sent this young gentleman intothe world for the purpose of discovering thiserror, and he would spend this half-hour in discussing this mistake of Spencer. This chapelwas the fine old chapel in which Dr. Watts hadofficiated, and in which his hymns were writtenand first sung ; and one could not help wondering if Isaac Watts would have got up and saidthat John Locke had made a mistake in the second chapter of his Essay on the Human Understandings and he would devote the time to thediscussion of this error.I wish to discuss the subject of sermons, andhow Sunday should be spent. I would like tosay this to any one of you, that you won't be in theministry six months before you will be willing towrite me a letter saying that you have learnedfrom some fisherman, or some sunburned old tar,who has just come back from the sea, things youhave never learned in your four years of collegelife, or even in this seminary. The healthy touchof the people — that is the thing needed beforeone can understand what the Savior means when76 UNIVERSITY RECORDhe tells us to go out and preach this gospel to allthe world. He did not say, Preach it to thepeople who will pay $15 a year for a seat in yourchurch. He did not say, Preach it to the womenwho know the difference between an ostrichfeather and a turkey feather. He meant it thatwe should be in touch with everybody that thegood God has sent into the world. I told theother day a story which is sufficiently ridiculousto fix it upon everyone's memory. I have forgotten the name of the book — you will find it inthe libraries — written by a man very high in thefeudal system of England, in which he explainsabout the Savior's choice of his apostles. Peterwas a fisherman, it is true, and Andrew was afisherman ; but Tiberias was a large Romangarrison, and it may very well be that Peter andAndrew were both contractors for the daily supplyof fish at the garrison ; and, therefore, it need notbe supposed that Peter was an ordinary poor fisherman — it may very well be that he was a government contractor. Don't ever preach any suchstuff. Don't ever suppose that the man in thefront pew who has a contract to be delivered tothe government is of any more importance thanpoor Mary Flaherty, the washwoman.If I had a class, I should say, Never be philological in a sermon — never say, the Hebrew, orthe Greek, requires this or that, to show how muchyou know. Say that in a quarterly journal, perhaps, but never in a sermon. And let your language be simple. Take the word sociology,or aphorism, or solidarity — all of them technicalwords which have recently come into use, notwords belonging to the language of the people.Even the word patriot is put into Johnson's dictionary with a bad meaning. He defined it " aman who pretends he is devoted to his country."The change in the style of sermons is a sign ofthe great advance the church has made in the lastcentury. Take down the sermons of the beginning of the last century, and you will find thatthey are addressed to individuals. The greateffort of our day is all in the plural number ; as Jesus said " Our Father," not " My Father," andmade us pray to the Father of the universe. Thechurch in all its branches is insisting upon this,that God has made of one blood all the nations.That is the keynote of the preaching with whichyou are to try to uplift the people.. THE ALUMNI.ALUMNI DAY.June 14, 1902.At the close of Alumni Day exercises last yearthe general opinion was that we could not hopeto have another such alumni day for at least fiveyears. But Saturday, June 14, proved to be afar greater success than last year, both in attendance and enthusiasm.The plans for the day were entrusted to theclass of '97, which appointed a committee onarrangements, consisting of William O. Wilson,Donald S. Trumbull, and Scott Brown. The success of the day is a strong argument in favor ofputting the exercises into the hands of the classwhich is celebrating its fifth anniversary.Despite the rain of the early morning, theQuadrangle Club was comfortably filled withalumni who had accepted President and Mrs.Harper's invitation to breakfast with them at8 : 30 a. m. Two hours were enjoyed renewingold acquaintances and listening to impromptutoasts by various alumni and members of the faculty.The business meetings of the sections at 11 : 00a. M. were called, but little was done in the wayof organizing the separate groups.The Chicago Alumnae luncheon given at theQuadrangle Club to the women of the class of '02residing in Chicago, was attended by seventy-fivealumnae. Charlotte Foye, '95, was toastmistress,and the speakers were Misses Talbot, Claire Fox,Alma Thayer, '02, Laura Wright, '97, presidentof the club, and Margaret Coulter, '02. Beforethe luncheon the president, Miss Wright, askedfor a few minutes in which to refer to a matterUNIVERSITY RECORD 77of importance to all those present, " as alumnaeand as individuals." She then introduced Ange-line Loesch, '98, who presented a resolution protesting against the contemplated segregation ofthe men and women in the Junior Colleges. Aftera short discussion the resolution was adopted, anda copy of it was sent to the meeting of the JuniorCollege faculty then in session. Miss Talbot, thefirst speaker, who had just come from the facultymeeting, assured the alumnae that whatever wasdone in regard to segregation would be done withthe best interests of the women at heart.The other toasts followed. Miss Fox referredto the two usual careers of women graduates asshown by the statistical announcement that fifty-seven of the women in the present class contemplated teaching and twelve were "uncertain."Miss Thayer replied with "The girl that doesneither." Miss Wright welcomed the membersof the graduating class, and Miss Coulter responded in behalf of the class of '02.The Divinity Alumni were served luncheon atthe Quadrangle Club. Only a few were presenton Saturday, owing to their pastoral duties. Afull account of the Divinity Alumni meeting onMonday is found in a report by the secretary ofthat division on another page.The business meeting at 2 : 00 p. m. was attendedby the largest number of alumni in the history ofthe association. The meeting was called to orderby President Frederick A. Smith, J66. The reports of the secretary and of the auditing committee were read and approved. After the reportof the memorial committee was given and accepted, the committee was discharged ; later amotion was passed providing for the appointmentof a new memorial committee by the president ofthe association.According to the notice of a year ago, anamendment to the constitution, changing thedate for the sending of the annual announcementsto the members was passed. The committee offive appointed to carry out the plans of furnishing a room in the tower as permanent head quarters for the association was continued withfull power to act. The committee, consisting ofAllan T. Burns, '97 ; Charlotte Foye, '95; William O.Wilson, '97; Elizabeth Buchanan, '00;and Dr. J. E. Raycroft, '96, will soon begin activework to raise the money for this purpose. Theroom will not be ready for furnishing beforeDecember.In response to a statement from Mr. Gurney,JS^, assistant to the Recorder, the executive committee was requested to investigate the questionof eligibility to membership in the association.At present only those receiving degrees from theUniversity are eligible to membership.The important question before the associationat this meeting was the request of the student body,expressed in a set of resolutions recently adoptedby them in a mass meeting. The resolutionsrequest the association " to purchase the University of Chicago Weekly and hereafter provide forthe business management of a daily newspaperand a monthly literary magazine, which shalltake the place of the present weekly; the firstissue to be published October 1, 1902."A full report of the action of the student bodyand the consideration of the whole question bythe executive committee, was read by the secretary. After extended debate on the question andafter various motions and amendments had beenoffered, the association voted that a committeeof fifteen be appointed by the president to collectinformation, send this information to the members of the association, and obtain their votes forthe adoption or rejection of the request of thestudent body and the proposition of the managerof the Weekly. This committee is to report tothe executive committee by August 1.The class of '02 then marched into the meetingin cap and gown to be received into the association. President Smith welcomed the new graduates with an appropriate address, to which Douglas Sutherland responded. This ceremony, established only two years ago, has been the meansof bringing the new graduates into close and78 UNIVERSITY RECORDactive touch with the association, and will nodoubt remain one of the honored customs ofAlumni Day.The report of the election committee was thenread by Harold H. Nelson, '01. The mailed ballot resulted in the election of the following officersfor the year :Edwin G. Cooley, '95 (Superintendent Chicago Schools),President.Elizabeth Faulkner, '85, First Vice-President.William S. Bond, '97, Second Vice-President.Ralph C. Hamill, '99, Third Vice-President.Mayo Fesler, '97, General Secretary.Executive Committee, 1902-05 — Howard P. Kirtley,'00 ; Edith M. Kohlsaat, '00 ; Charles S. Pike, '96.The new president was then escorted to thechair by Scott Brown, president of the class of'97, and Herbert E. Fleming, president of theclass of '02.Before the meeting adjourned a resolution wasadopted "that it is the sense of this associationthat Marshall Field should not be diminished insize by the erection of buildings on any partof it."Very little time was left for class reunions, butthey met as scheduled. The class of '97 at theirmeeting voted to 'furnish a table for the alumniroom in the new club house.The alumni of the old University met as oneclass and expressed a desire that in the future ageneral reunion of all alumni of the old University be provided for in the programme.The next distinctively alumni exercise was thefirst alumni sing on Haskell steps at 6 : 00 p. m.,immediately following the baseball game on Marshall Field. The success of this first sing warrants the prediction that this custom will also become one of the permanent features of AlumniDay.At 6 : 45 P. m. the sing closed with the "AlmaMater " and a rousing Chicago yell, and the members retired to the tent which had been decoratedespecially for the annual alumni dinner. Thelargest number in the history of the associationsat down at the three long tables. At thespeaker's table sat the president of the associa tion, the toastmaster, the president of the Chicago Alumni Club, the president of the ChicagoAlumnae Club, the speakers, and guests of theevening. The class of '02 was represented byfifty of its members.George E. Vincent, Ph.D., '96, toastmaster,was compelled to leave early, after a brief introductory toast. President Smith kindly consented to supply his place, which he did mostsuccessfully. In the absence of Henry F. Frink,'68, who was to have spoken for the old University, Hon. Genio M. Lambertson, '72, of Lincoln, Neb., was called to respond to this toast.His toast was an eloquent tribute from a graduate of the old University to the new and growingsuccessor of his alma mater.Charles A. Huston, '02, spoke for the class of'02 on the toast : " Class Spirit in its Relation toUniversity Spirit." Grace E. Bird, '97, gave atoast for the class of '97 in the form of a poemcommemorating the interesting events and placesabout the University in '97. The poem was received with enthusiasm. President Harper spokeof the rapid growth of the University, of the serious problems confronting the Board of Trustees,and of the relation of the alumni to the University. Impromptu toasts were called for fromDean Tufts, Dean Judson, and Mr. Stagg. During the evening greetings from the New EnglandAlumni Club were read by the toastmaster. Thesinging of Lester Bartlett Jones was thoroughlyappreciated by those present. June 14, 1902, being the 125th anniversary of the adoption of thestars and stripes, Mr. Jones sang the "StarSpangled Banner," and the audience joined in thechorus. The exercises of the day closed with thesinging of the "Alma Mater."The common feeling was that this day far surpassed any other alumni day in the history of theassociation; a larger number were present through-'out the day, there was more sociability and enthusiasm, and the alumni went home feeling astronger bond of union between them and theiralma mater.UNIVERSITY RECORD 79There was one misfortune to mar the pleasantmemories of the day. Hon. G. M. Lambertson,'72, who had come all the way from Nebraska toattend the exercises, had responded to the toastat the annual dinner, and had gone to his hotel,seemingly in the best of health, died Sundaymorning from heart failure. He was a man ofwhom his associates were proud. His death is aserious loss to the association.The rapid growth of interest on the part of themembers of the association, as indicated by therapidly increasing attendance on Alumni Day, is asource of pleasure to all who are interested in thework of the alumni.CLASS DAY -1902.For the first time the University set aside anentire day, Monday, June 16, as Class Day. Allthings, including ideal weather, worked togetherfor the success of the new arrangement, so thatthe institution of a whole day for class exercisesmay be regarded as established.At 10:30 a. M. members of the class of '02gathered in the chapel. At 11 : 00 a. m. the procession moved to the flag pole. Here, in the formof a " C," the class, the Dean, and President Harper stood for a moment while a photographertook a picture of the group. After the exposurehad been made Herbert Easton Fleming openedthe day with appropriate remarks, dwelling particularly on the fact that the Seniors have theright to fly their flag uninterfered with by underclassmen. It may here be said that the underclasses respected this right, and that the flagfloated until lowered at sunset by the custodianof the banner for the coming year. When theclass had sung the song which Dean Tufts hadcomposed, the latter made an address full of thespirit with which he has at all times encouragedthe class. Then Jessie Evelyn Sherman raisedthe flag while the Seniors sang "Vive la Naughty— Two."From the flag pole the procession went to thegymnasium chanting a dirge, " Magnum locum plevimus," so slowly that the tune of "YankeeDoodle" was almost unrecognizable. The chantcontinued until the class had taken places on themain floor, and until the " deans of athletics " andthe president had reached their stations on the platform. The " '02 Bene Vale to the Old Gym " began with the introduction of the valedictorian forthe men, Leon P. Lewis. Martha S. Allerdice saidfarewell on behalf of the women. These speecheswere followed by the award of honors and degrees.Egbert T. Robertson, as " dean of Baseball,"wearing a mask for his hood, presented membersof the class who had won honors in baseball.President Fleming awarded the candidates fittingsouvenirs. Frederick D. Bramhall introduced thetrack men; Albert E. Merrill presented the football heroes ; and William H. Elfreth urged thepresident to award ping pong rackets to the tennis players. Grace Johnson, as " Dean of Women,"presented " C's " to the women who deservedthem. Director Stagg then ascended the platform to receive the special honorary degree ofB. A. (Boss of Athletics). Then followed thepresentation of a " pathetic tragedy in one act"entitled, " The Case Is Altered," by William A.Averill.By the time the class had completed its last laparound the gymnasium track to the music of the"Bene Vale dirge," the hour for luncheon hadarrived. The procession moved to the tent forthe class luncheon.At 2 : 00 p. m. the band conducted the class onits farewell tour of the quadrangles. Under theoaks of the Woman's Quadrangle " The FosterGirls' Song" was sung; Margaret Donnan saidfarewell to the halls; the class sang its farewellchorus. To the ivy in Hull Court the processionmoved, where Leona Canterbury made the farewell speech and the class joined in the final song.Outside of Hull Court the class sang the " HullGate Song." At Kent George A. Young gavethe valedictory, and at Cobb Hall Robert L.Henry spoke for the class.From Cobb Hall the class went to its reserved80 UNIVERSITY RECORDplace at the Senior Bench. Here President Fleming made an introductory address. Mabel K.Whiteside, in a cleverly sustained imitation ofCaesar's Commentaries, told the history of theclass. Bertram G. Nelson, on behalf of the class,presented to the University a stained glass window for Mandel Assembly Hall. President Harper accepted the gift on behalf of the University.Clara J. Kretzinger read the class poem. Whenthe Seniors had sung the class song written byMiss Morrison, David A. Robertson delivered theSenior Bench to the class of 1903, for whomThomas J. Hair replied. The maroon cap andgown were presented to Narcissa Cox, the representative of the class of 1903, by Josephine Lack-ner. When Miss Cox had replied to MissLackner and had donned the Senior gown, theclass and audience arose and sang "Alma Mater."The singing of "Alma Mater" concluding thedistinctive class exercises, the big maroon flag,with its blue numerals " 1902," was lowered. At8 : 00 p. m. the President's reception was held inthe convocation tent — a reception surpassed inbrilliance only by the decennial reception — whichbrought Class Day to a splendid close.David A. Robertson, '02.THE DIVINITY ALUMNI.The attractions of examination and convocationweeks brought together quite a body of alumni.Unfortunately the business meeting of this association had been announced for and was held onSaturday, June 14, when it was practically impossible to get together any considerable number ofmen whose chief duties of the week fall on Sunday. However, a number of those who live inthe vicinity of the University were at the alumnibreakfast, so generously provided by the President and Mrs. Harper, and the business meetingwas by no means a failure. The regular business,including the election of officers for the ensuingyear, was transacted. The subject of co-operation with the General Alumni Association wasdiscussed, and a committee appointed to confer with the executive officers of that associationabout possible arrangements for such a step.Saturday noon the Divinity Faculty gave aluncheon to the alumni at the Quadrangle Club.,At the postprandial section of this occasion,Dean Hulbert, President Harper, Rev. E. M.Stephenson, and Professor Charles R. Brown, ofNewton Centre, Mass., spoke. All present saw, inthe remarks of the speakers, except ProfessorBrown, of course, a determination to bring theDivinity School into closer relations with thechurches and the Christian public ; to make it aninspiration to practical workers in the field. Asan evidence of the expansion of the DivinitySchool, it was pointed out that a new building, tobe placed on the southwest corner of the Quadrangle (Fifty-ninth and Ellis avenue) is beingplanned, and will be named the Northrup Memorialbuilding. It is to be erected largely by popularsubscription, thus enlisting the interest of a largenumber of the constituency of the .DivinitySchool.Monday morning, June 16, the Divinity Schooland the alumni welcomed, the ministers' conferences of Chicago to a discussion in CongregationHall on "The Need of a New Apologetic." Fourexcellent addresses furnished food for the mostpractical and the most abstruse thinkers. Professor Mackenzie, of Chicago Theological Seminary, spoke on " Apologetics from the Point ofView of Philosophy;" Professor Coulter, on"Apologetics from the Point of View of Science;" Professor M. S. Terry, of Evanston, on"Apologetics from the Point of View of BiblicalCriticism ;" and Rev. W. P. Merrill, Sixth Presbyterian Church, Chicago, on the same subject," From the Point of View of Practical Theology."Luncheon was served the ministers from the visiting conferences by the Divinity Faculty at theQuadrangle Club.The Alumni Conference proper occurred Monday, at 2 : 00 p. m., with Rev. H. B. Waterman inthe chair. "Hopeful Tendencies in CurrentTheology " was the theme for discussion, withUNIVERSITY RECORD 81two papers, the first by Rev. C. D. Gray, of PortHuron, Mich., on " Its Social Sympathy," andthe second by Rev. J. H. Randall, of Grand Rapids, Mich., on "Its Insistence on Faith." Theinterest stirred up by these papers had no roomto express itself otherwise than by applause. Thegraduating class, attenuated to five members, wasaddressed by Rev. R. M. Vaughan, D.B., '98.Dean Hulbert likewise gave some wholesomeparting advice, after a member of the class hadsaid his "thank you."A called meeting of the Divinity Alumni welcomed into its body the new graduates of theDivinity School, according to them all its rightsand prerogatives.Ira M. Price,Secretary Divinity Alumni.NOTES AND COMMUNICATIONS.Reuben G. Stowell, '97, is assistant engineerof the C, M. & St. Paul Railroad.William S. Harman, '00, is a member of theHarman & Black Coal Company of Chicago.Otis W. Caldwell, Ph.D., '98, recently edited atext-book entitled Laboratory Manual of Botany.John F. Boeye, '02, is pastor of the St. Paul'sM. E. Church in Fort Worth, Tex., one of thelargest Methodist churches in the South.Charles Klauber, '99, is engaged on the newatlas which Rand, McNally & Co. expect to issuein the near future.John W. Perrin, Ph.D., '95, is secretary of theDepartment of Higher Education in the NationalEducational Association.Mary P. Squier, '01, is advertising manager ofthe Federation Bulletin, the official organ of theChicago Teachers' Federation.Charles V. Drew, '99, has entered the School ofMines at Houghton, Mich., where he expects tofinish his course in mining' engineering.Percy B. Eckhart, '99, has completed his lawcourse at the Harvard Law School and has entered upon the practice of law in Chicago. M. Gordon Clarke, '99, is practicing law in Okmulgee, I. T.Spencer C. Dickerson, '97, is resident physicianat the Freedmen's Hospital, Washington, D. C.Roswell H. Johnson, '00, is assistant in vertebrate anatomy in the University of Wisconsin.Grace Reed, '84, principal of the Drake School,Chicago, has been elected a school pension trustee.Hiram Gillespie, '98, has been appointed instructor in Greek and Latin in Doane College,Crete, Neb.Dr. Lucy Waite, '80, is head surgeon to theMary Thompson Hospital for Women and Children in Chicago.George L. Marsh, '99, has been promoted toan Associateship in English,ln the Extension Division of the University.William S. Broughton, '00, clerk in the TreasuryDepartment, Washington, D. C, is taking a lawcourse in Columbian University;James W. Garner, '00, has been appointed instructor in the department of political science atColumbia University, New York.A. L. Underhill, '00, has resigned his positionin the Cedar Rapids, la., high school, in order tocontinue his course at the University.Clarence B. Herschberger, '98, has been appointed athletic director and instructor in physicsand mathematics at Lake Forest University.Edgar E. De Cou, '97, was acting presidentof Bethel College, Ky., during the spring term.He has returned to the University for the summer.Harry F. Atwood, '98, assistant state's attorney, was a candidate for Congress before theThird Congressional District Republican convention.Maudie L. Stone, '97, who has been a studentin Johns Hopkins University for the past year,has entered the University of Chicago for thesummer.82 UNIVERSITY RECORDRev. Bowen R. Patrick, '97, was commissioneda chaplain in the United States navy, by President Roosevelt in March. He serves on the shipLancaster.Isabelle Bronk, Ph.D., '00, has been promotedfrom an assistant professorship to a full professorship in the French department of SwarthmoreCollege, Swarthmore, Pa.Marshall E. Sampsell, '93, formerly privatesecretary to Judge Grosscup, was recently appointed to succeed Shelburne W. Burnham asclerk of the United States circuit court.Marilla W. Freeman, '97, has resigned the position of librarian at Michigan City, to becomelibrarian of the Davenport, la., public library,which is being built with a gift of $75,000 fromMr. Carnegie.James F. Hosic, '01, fellow in the Departmentof English, was recently appointed instructor ofEnglish in the Cook County Normal School.Mr. Hosic and Arthur E. Bestor, '01, will spendthe summer in England.Henry P. Willis, '94, formerly editorial writeron the New York Evening Post, has resigned, andhas accepted the position of Washington correspondent for the New York Journal of Commerceand the Springfield Republican. The election of alumni representatives to theUniversity congregation resulted as follows :Bachelors of Arts, Literature, and Science :Ferd W. Peck, '68 ; Frederick A. Smith, '66 ; Harry J.Furber, '86 ; Eli B. Felsenthal, '78 ; Frank H. Clark, '82 ;Albert W. Fuller, '81 ; Lincoln McCoy, '86 ; James Lang-land, '77 ; George E. Newcomb, '86 ; Elbridge R. Anderson, '85.Bachelors of Divinity :Richard M. Vaughn, '98 ; John R. Slater, '98 ; James L.Cheney, '8i ; Charles H. Hobart, '8o ; Edwin B. Kinney, '97.Masters of Arts, Literature, and Science :Harry L. Stern, '96 ; Maud L. Radford, '96 ; William F.Harding, '95 ; Florence M. Walker, '95 ; Cecil V. Bached, '98.The Secretary has received the announcementsof the following marriages of alumni and alumnaeduring the last six months :Mary Chase Swett, '98, to Dr. J. D. Sperling, Chicago.C. Walter Britton, 'oi, to Helena E. Hunt, Elgin, 111.Pearl L. Hunter, '99, to Rev, William J. Weber, Medicine Lodge, Kan.Rev. E. A. E. Palmquist, '99, to Estelle Coon, Chicago.William R. Schoemaker, '99, to Helen M. Taylor, 'oi, Chicago.Greta I. Blanchard, '00. to Professor H. F. Millikan, The University.Laura S. Dickey, '99, to Eugene B. Howell, New York.John M.Gillette, Ph.D., '01, to Margaret C. Morgan, Chadron, Neb.Neletta E. Pettet, '98, to H. D. Howard, Lusk, Wyo.Jane F. Noble, '95, to Henry C. Garrott, Chicago.James B. Overton, Ph.D., 'oi, to Mary E. Cochran, Jacksonville, I1LS. Rowland Robinson, '98, to Evangeline T. Marshall, Grinnell, la.G. E. T. Stevenson, '99, to Grace Garvin, Schenectady, N. Y.Harry A. Stoughton, 'oi, to Caroline Van Dyke, Geneseo, 111.Robert N. Tooker, '97, to Gertrude Fulton, Chicago.James W. Fertig, '98, to Annie M. Mead, '02, Chicago.