Farmers, Alumni, and Administration at the Ohio State University

Rivals for Governance of the Land-Grant University: Farmers, Alumni, and

Administration at the Ohio State University, 1870-1910

Dissertation

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy

in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

Joshua Michael Harraman

Graduate Program in Education: Educational Policy and Leadership

The Ohio State University

2019

Dissertation Committee

Bruce Kimball, Advisor

David Staley

Tatiana Suspitsyna

Bryan Warnick

Copyrighted by

Joshua Michael Harraman

2019

Abstract

Many believe that farmers were originally supportive of the land-grant colleges because of the focus on agricultural science as part of the land-grant curriculum.

Although land-grant colleges and farmers are generally aligned in their interests and efforts today, the farmers of the 1850s-early 1900s actually challenged the land-grant colleges for control of governance and funding. Often these challenges occurred between farmers and colleges in Congress and state legislatures.

Meanwhile, the alumni were a disorganized group prior to the 1910s that often challenged the university administration’s authority and control of the college. Yet, in order to compete with the farmers, the land-grant colleges needed to identify a group of advocates who would lobby legislatures on the land-grant colleges behalf. My research focuses on how one institution, the Ohio State University, used its alumni to parry the attacks of farmers in the early 1910s. Research has been limited on the relationship between the land-grant universities’ administration, farmers, and the alumni. Even more limited is the literature that exists about alumni relations during the formative years of the profession (1890-1920). My research identifies how the Ohio State University established authority over the disparate alumni groups in order to use the alumni as advocates in

Congress and the state legislature to combat the farmers.

iii

Dedication

I would not have been able to write this dissertation without the constant support of my husband Cody. You have been a constant support for me and were always driving me to commit the time that this work deserved. Thank you to you and the pups for always being so understanding and supportive. I cannot express my gratitude enough and am so grateful to have you in my life.

Acknowledgments

For my family, thank you for always encouraging me to be involved and to focus on my education. You have set an incredible example and I will always strive to make you proud.

And to the friends who got me through this, thank you. You were there to provide much needed encouragement at each step of this process. I knew I could always rely on you to help me refocus my energy and prioritize what needed to get done. I am so grateful that

4-H brought us together and introduced me to new friends as part of our journey together.

Thank you especially to Sarah and Jess who were my beacons along the way. You guided me in ways I did not even know that I needed and I really could not have done this without you.

I would also like to thank my supervisors and teams at the Ohio State University and

Rutgers University, especially Kathy Bickel, Chad Warren, and Donna Thornton, for their support to conduct research and write during some very busy times of the year. You have all taught me so much about being a professional in our field and have been exceptional supervisors.

Finally, thank you to my advisor Bruce Kimball for pushing me to be a better scholar and writer. You have always been incredibly supportive and I am so thankful that I had you to guide me through this process. v

Vita

2000 Howland High School

2004 B.A. History, The Ohio State University

2006 M.A. College Student Personnel, Bowling Green State University

2006-2007 Program Coordinator, Student Involvement and Activities, University of

Nevada, Las Vegas

2007-2011 Director, Student Programs, The Ohio State University Alumni

Association, Inc.

2011-2014 Director, Student and Young Alumni Programs, The Ohio State University

Alumni Association, Inc.

2014-2015 Director, Alumni and Constituent Engagement, The Ohio State University

Alumni Association, Inc.

2015-2017 Senior Director, Alumni and Constituent Engagement, The Ohio State

University Alumni Association, Inc.

2017-present Associate Vice President, Alumni Relations, Rutgers University

Publications

Harraman, Josh, and Carol Beirne. “Competing to Win: Partnering with Athletics to Engage Your Students.” In Lasting Impressions: Laying the Foundation for Engaged and Philanthropic Future Alumni, 125–29. Washington, D.C.: Council for the Advancement and Support of Education, 2016.

Fields of Study

Major Field: Education: Educational Policy and Leadership

vii

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... iii Dedication ...... iv Acknowledgments...... v Vita ...... vi List of Tables ...... ix List of Figures ...... x Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 Chapter 2: Populism and Agrarianism During the Gilded Age: the Nation and Ohio, 1870-1910 ...... 10 Chapter 3: The Land-grant Movement and the Emergence of the Ohio State University, 1870-1900 ...... 60 Chapter 4: Rivalry between Farmers and the OSU Administration, 1870-1910 ...... 116 Chapter 5: Rivalry between Alumni and OSU Administration, 1870-1902 ...... 161 Chapter 6: Resolution of the Competition among Farmers, Alumni, and OSU Administration, 1905-1910 ...... 226 Chapter 7: Conclusion...... 303 Bibliography ...... 314 Appendix A. Annie Sabine Siebert’s Address to the Alumni at the Alumni Dinner...... 329 1900-1901 ...... 329

viii

List of Tables

Table 1: Timeline of federal legislation that supported the land-grant colleges ...... 67 Table 2: Student Enrollment and State Funding at the Ohio Agricultural and Mechanical College, 1871-1891 ...... 109 Table 3: Annual Number of Students and Graduates, Ohio State University from 1873 to 1891...... 189 Table 4: Income of the Ohio State University from 1900-1902 ...... 250 Table 5: Information about the Ohio State University v. other school support and enrollment ...... 254

List of Figures

Figure 1: United States Population from 1790 to 1920 ...... 17 Figure 2: Farmers’ Exchange ad from The Princeton Union ...... 47 Figure 3: Ralph D. Mershon’s Scheme for University Organization ...... 297 Figure 4: United States Population compared to the Farm Population (1900-1950) ...... 312

Rivals for Governance of the Land-Grant University: Farmers, Alumni, and

Administration at Ohio State University, 1870-1910

Chapter 1

Introduction

Farmers, alumni, and the university administration would presumably be allies in forming land-grant universities. However, the experience at the Ohio State University

(OSU), as at other land-grant universities, reveals early uncertainty and conflicts about who should govern the university. Farmers, alumni, and the administration competed for control during the formative era of OSU. Between about 1870 and 1900, Ohio farmers and alumni challenged the authority of the administration. Then, between 1900-1912, the administration established its control over university governance by organizing and assimilating the alumni association and utilizing alumni to parry the farmers. It is necessary to explore the farmer experience during this time, to review the institution’s history and the land grant movement, and to evaluate the relationship of Ohio State alumni with their alma mater in order to understand the tension between these competing parties and how the university administration eventually resolved the tension.

In order to understand why farmers were opposed to the land-grant college in

Ohio, it is important to understand the social, political, and economic changes they faced.

During the period between 1870-1910, changes in the social, economic, and political domains due to industrialization especially influenced agricultural communities. The health of a local community during this period

depended upon two closely related conditions: its ability to manage the

lives of its members, and the belief among its members that the

community had such powers. Already by the 1870’s the autonomy of the

community was badly eroded. The illusion of authority, however, endured.

Innumerable townsmen continued to assume that they could harness the

forces of the world to the destiny of their community. That confidence, the

system’s final foundation, largely disappeared during the eighties and

nineties in the course of a dramatic struggle to defend the independence of

the community.1

Farming communities began to organize in response to these changes to protect their unique interests and way of life and status.

The Grange was formed to preserve social ties for farmers and help them economically. It evolved into the Farmers’ Alliance. This new organization advanced agriculture’s economic needs through business protection. Eventually, the Farmers’

Alliance became the People’s Party, a group created to advance the political agenda of farmers. Hence, the farmers were a powerful political influence during this period due to their ability to organize around common interests.

As farmers faced social, political, and economic upheaval during the Gilded Age, the land-grant movement was just beginning. In Ohio, OSU was founded in 1870 when

“53 per cent of the nation’s gainfully employed population earned its living from

1 Robert H Wiebe, The Search for Order, 1877-1920 (New York: Hill and Wang, 1967). xiii.

3 agriculture.”2 Founded as a land-grant institution to serve the needs of agriculture, OSU had humble beginnings with one building on its campus housing the classrooms, residence hall, and administrative offices. As the University began to grow and the needs of the public evolved, additional resources were needed to build a sustainable infrastructure, recruit talented faculty, and secure supplies for laboratories. In order for

Ohio State to secure the necessary resources, the administration turned to the state legislature for additional funds. Although the University was successful in securing modest increases in its budget from the state, it faced fierce competition from advocacy groups of farmers within the state.

Ohio was not unique in the tensions felt between farmers and the land-grant institution. These tensions have been described on a national level by historians like

Roger Geiger, Nathan Sorber, and Scott Gelber. 3 Farmers challenged the land-grant

2 Richard Hofstadter, The Age of Reform; from Bryan to F.D.R, Vintage Book 95 (New

York: Random House Books, 1955), 116.

3 Historians that have researched agrarian interests and the land-grant colleges include

Geiger, Sorber, and Gelber. Some of their work that was researched includes: Roger L.

Geiger, To Advance Knowledge: The Growth of American Research Universities, 1900-

1940, First Edition, First Printing edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986).

Roger L. Geiger and Nathan M. Sorber, eds., The Land-Grant Colleges and the

Reshaping of American Higher Education: 30, 1 edition (Transaction Publishers, 2013).

Nathan M. Sorber, Land-Grant Colleges and Popular Revolt: The Origins of the Morrill

4 institutions in four ways. First, they believed that the land-grant college should focus its teaching on practical techniques of farming, not agricultural science. Second, farmers found that the land-grant college depleted their labor source by drawing their children away from the farm to gain advanced education. Third, when the farmers’ children finished college, many did not return to the farm. Instead, they sought careers in agricultural science, engineering, or industry. The fourth point of contention was that the farmers, though threatened by their labor source (their children) leaving the farms to study, wanted easier admission standards for their children to attend the university.

Increasing the conflict and competition within Ohio, compared to other states, was that the farmers initially secured control of the state extension program. In other states, the land-grant college administered the program.

Due to the competition from farmers and the need to secure additional funds from the state legislature, the University administration realized that it needed a group to combat the farmers and advocate for the university. As a result, the administration turned to its alumni for assistance. However, the relationship between Ohio State alumni and the university had also been conflicted during the early years of the institution. Within the first ten years of the institution’s existence, Ohio State alumni challenged the Board of

Act and the Reform of Higher Education (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2018).

Scott M. Gelber, The University and the People: Envisioning American Higher

Education in an Era of Populist Protest, First edition (Madison, Wisconsin: University of

Wisconsin Press, 2011).

Trustees after the dismissal of President Walter Quincy Scott. As a result, during this time and until the early 1900s, the university did not attempt to organize the alumni officially. Instead, the alumni independently formed local clubs, and the Alumni

Association was run entirely by volunteers without oversight by the administration. This lack of university oversight was common for many universities including Harvard, whose alumni organization predates Ohio State’s by a decade.

In order to secure greater cooperation and support from its alumni in its conflict with farming interests, the university administration established control over alumni.

When William Oxley Thompson began as President, he saw the need to use the alumni to educate Ohioans and the legislature and advocate for the land-grant college. The only way to do this was through proper organization of the alumni. The administration seized control of the local alumni clubs in the early 20th century, and in 1910, subsumed the

Alumni Association. The administration did so by hiring the institution’s first alumni secretary, Herbert S. Warwick, as a university employee. The administration also established authority over the alumni by thwarting the establishment of the alumni Board of Visitors, a group originally proposed to have governance responsibilities of the land- grant college. As a result, the University was able to leverage the alumni as the first lobbyists for the University in the state legislature and effectively neutralize the farmers.

In this way, the administration established its control over the governance of the

University.

Paucity of Historical Scholarship

Relatively little historical scholarship addresses the relationships between the land-grant colleges, agrarian interests, and alumni. There are many misconceptions about the relationships between these groups during this period of time. For example, the “land- grant saga was not so deterministic or romantic as it has been portrayed. It involved the rough-and-tumble of politics, including pressure tactics, aggressive lobbying, persuasion, agitation, and of course compromise. It resounded with the clash of competing ideas and interests—inside the movement as well as outside. And it is a story rife with paradox, inconsistency, and ambiguity.”4 Ohio was no different in these misconceptions. Ohio farmers often competed with the University administration. It is also a misconception that alumni of the land-grant college were supportive of the University administration. When these groups rivaled each other, it impeded the progress of the land-grant college. Once

OSU administration established authority over the farmers of the state and the alumni, the institution emerged victoriously and on firmer ground with the state legislature. The new relationship between the institution and the state legislature helped to secure future funding requests for the land-grant college.

4 Roger L. Williams, The Origins of Federal Support for Higher Education: George W.

Atherton and the Land-Grant College Movement, First edition (University Park, PA:

Penn State Press, 1991), 9.

Throughout my research, I have found numerous sources that address best practices and trends in alumni relations and alumni giving. However, little scholarly work has been published on the history of alumni associations, alumni relations, or alumni and governance. Additionally, I identified historiographies of agrarian interests during industrialization which included a focus on the Grange, the Farmers’ Alliance, and the

Populist Movement. I also focused my research on identifying the historiography of higher education for materials on land-grant institutions. I specifically focused my efforts on land-grant institutions in the Midwest due to their proximity to Ohio State. Finally, I researched the historiography of Ohio State which included contemporary sources of the alumni and various OSU Presidents.

As an initial step in my research, I reviewed the 2013 publication 100 Years of

Alumni Engagement published by the Council for the Advancement and Support of

Education in celebration of the 100th anniversary of the organization and the profession. I then reviewed nearly 40 historical works that address higher education and land-grant institutions between 1860-1920. I also reviewed 34 sources of literature related to the agrarian movement and industrialization during this period. I have included a complete list of reviewed literature in my bibliography.

Additionally, I searched the major educational and historical databases including

ERIC, JSTOR, ProQuest Historical Newspapers, and Dissertation Abstracts International.

My research began by searching for the terms “alumni” and “alumni association.” I searched in both contemporary literature and historical documents for these terms and added additional search terms to narrow my search results. Additional search terms

8 included “land grant or landgrant,” “industrialization or industry,” “governance,” and

“farmers or farmers’ opinions.” These searches yielded over 5,000 contemporary printed sources and secondary journal articles. A complete list of relevant sources is listed in my bibliography.

I also searched for articles related to alumni at Ohio State and Harvard from 1860-

1920. Ohio State is the focus of my research and Harvard and Yale were leaders in the professionalization of alumni relations. I should also note that, when reviewing sources, I have analyzed their references for potential new sources.

In addition, I have examined the archived files relating to various alumni organizations at Harvard University from 1870-1920 through Harvard University

Archives. Similarly, I have examined the papers of the first five Presidents of the Ohio

State University at the Ohio State University Archives. Included in the papers were a variety of documents ranging from student records, written exchanges with faculty and legislatures, and personal papers. The focus of my research was on the relationship that each president had with the alumni. Finally, I reviewed the papers of Ralph D. Mershon, the volunteer President of the Ohio State University Alumni Association in 1910 and

1911 at the Ohio State University Archives. Mershon’s papers included the corpus of his professional work and some of his personal papers. My research focused on Mershon’s work with OSU as it related to the alumni.

Rivals for Governance of the Land-Grant University: Farmers, Alumni, and

Administration at Ohio State University, 1870-1910

Chapter 2

Populism and Agrarianism During the Gilded Age:

the Nation and Ohio, 1870-1910

The Civil War caused great disruption in the United States. The North and the

South were alienated, communities were upended, and society searched for a new sense of normalcy. Agriculture and industry were completely changed. During the period between 1870-1910, changes in the social, economic, and political domains influenced agricultural communities, and, in response, began to organize to protect their unique interests and way of life and status.

The agricultural sector of the United States and Ohio had great influence during the 1800s. When the state legislature of Ohio established The Ohio State University

(OSU) in 1870, “53 per cent of the nation’s gainfully employed population earned its living from agriculture.”5 Because the national economy was driven primarily by the single industry of agriculture, there was limited friction between classes, commerce was mostly barter and exchange, and there was little competition among farms. For these reasons, farmers were largely independent financially, but the period of the Gilded Age

(1870-1900) radically changed the American economy and culture. Individually, farmers found it difficult to adapt, and they had to unite and work together to manage these changes.6

5 Richard Hofstadter, The Age of Reform; from Bryan to F.D.R, (New York: Random

House Books, 1955), 116.

6 Joseph W. ; Taber Fichter L. J. ; et al, Ohio State Grange Diamond Jubilee History

1872-1947 (NP, 1947).

Most significantly, farmers formed three successive organizations. Farmers established the Grange to preserve social ties for farmers and help them economically. In about 1880, the Grange evolved to the Farmers’ Alliance. This new organization would strive to advance agriculture’s economic needs through business protection. Then, in about 1880, the Farmers’ Alliance became the People’s Party, a group created to advance the political agenda of farmers. In this chapter, I will discuss the social, economic, and political changes of the time and how farmers responded by organizing the Grange, the

Farmer’s Alliance, and the People’s Party successively. Throughout this period, the farmers exercised a potentially powerful influence due to their ability to organize around common interests, but their influence was stymied, and they never realized their potential. This outcome made the legacy of the land-grant university all the more significant.

Farmers in the Social Domain

Society romanticized the farmer experience during the 1800s. Many believed that farming was the backbone of the country. For many generations, most farming families had a secure income, career opportunities, and family stability. Richard Hofstadter identified the romanticizing of the farmer experience as “the agrarian myth,” which advanced the idealistic vision that farmers led the country in politics and the economy.

The myth’s “hero was the yeoman farmer, its central conception the notion that he is the ideal man and the ideal citizen.” In this context, society celebrated the yeoman farmer as

“the incarnation of the simple, honest, independent, healthy, happy human being.”7

Hofstadter found that only members of the educated classes in the eighteenth century held this agrarian myth. However, by the mid-nineteenth century, it became a widespread belief, and as more people, farmers and non-farmers alike, came to know of the agrarian myth, it provided a stronger sense of perceived stability for the farmer.

An example of the agrarian myth occurred in the January 6, 1877 issue of The

Ohio Farmer. In the article titled “Success,” the newspaper published farmer sentiments about the tidings of the new year and the importance of family and community to farmers. Published in Cleveland, The Ohio Farmer reported the following:

Success in life is within the reach of most men; it is what all are

striving for, and yet what so few attain. Failure, in most cases, is the result

of misapprehension as to what true success consists in. When men pursue

a shadow all their lives, they will never possess the substance. When men

pursue an avocation with no higher aim than the accumulation of money

or property, though they be eminently successful in this object, they make

a failure of life; they have, in short, been pursuing the shadow instead of

the substance, and in the end, disappointment awaits them.

The successful farmer is not the man who has the most land, the

largest herds of cattle, sheep or swine, or has the most money in bank or

7 Hofstadter, The Age of Reform; from Bryan to F.D.R, 24.

13 bonds; for a man may possess all these, and still be poor in everything that constitutes true wealth. Such a man may regard his property as of more importance than himself; may think more of his horses than he does of his wife, or more of his herd of thoroughbred cattle than of his children.

The farmer should regard himself and his family, first, and make his farm and stock and labor subordinate to his and their best interests.

Then will he attain the highest success possible in life, for upon the success of his labor and capital depends, to a great extent, the success of himself and his family. Personal observation of every reader will confirm this idea: In every instance, where property or money is placed first in the scale, the farmer and his family are neglected, for the success of the former does not depend upon that of the latter. On the contrary, when the farmer and his family are placed first, the conditions for the highest success of both are compatible; the attainment of one object furnishes the very best stimulus for the attainment of the other.

The beginning of a new year is a popular time for forming new purposes and ‘turning over new leaves.’ The farmer may include all minor reforms in the one grand purpose of hereafter making his farm and stock and labor contribute solely to the culture, improvement, refinement, comfort and convenience of himself and his family. Whenever this comes to be the purpose of the great mass of farmers, then will agriculture assume its true position among the avocations, and be in truth, what one

revered by all his countrymen declared— ‘the most healthful, the most

useful, the most noble employment of man.’8

The romantic view of the farmer was far from reality before the Civil War.

Nevertheless, rural men and women understood farming to be more than a way of making money through hard work, and it was a way of life based on their community.9 Farmers

“were accustomed to a life based on primary human contacts—the family, the church, the neighborhood.”10 They participated in community gatherings, literary and debating societies, political rallies, barbecues, and agricultural societies.11 After the Civil War, as industrialization proceeded and the number of farms decreased, farmers’ sense of community eroded. A more impersonal environment with superficial relationships was thrust upon farmers.12

Farmers faced great change caused by industrialization and the urbanization of

America from 1870-1910. Urban areas had more employment opportunities due to increased industrialization. Farming communities diminished, and there was an increase

8 “Success,” The Ohio Farmer (January 6, 1877) 1st edition, 8.

9 Robert C. McMath, Jr, American Populism: A Social History 1877-1898 (New York:

Hill and Wang, 1993).

10 Hofstadter, The Age of Reform; from Bryan to F.D.R, 189.

11 McMath, Jr, American Populism.

12 Hofstadter, The Age of Reform; from Bryan to F.D.R.

15 in farmer migration to the cities. American cities were booming. “Whereas in 1860 only one American in six lived in a community of at least 8,000 people, by 1900, one in three did so. Between 1860 and 1900 the urban population rose four times, whereas the rural population only doubled. For every town dweller who went to live on the farm, there were twenty countryfolk who moved to the city.”13

As displayed in Figure 1, the population in the United States shifted drastically in the nineteenth century. In 1790, rural communities accounted for nearly 95 percent of the

United States population. Over the next 100 years the proportion of rural population gradually decreased, and by 1900, only 60 percent of the American population lived in rural communities. By 1920, the country was split nearly equal with 48.8 percent of

Americans living in rural communities and 51.2 percent of Americans living in urban communities.

13 Sean Dennis Cashman, America in the Gilded Age, 3rd ed. (New York: New York

University Press, 1993), 135.

United States Urban and Rural Population: 1790-1920 100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0% 1790 1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920

Urban Population Rural Population

Figure 1: United States Population from 1790 to 192014

As his community changed, so did the farmer’s belief that he was a member of the most influential group in America. The farmer’s direct competition was the business man or the industrialist. During this period, farmers saw the need to increase the output of their farms in order to increase their profit to remain financially solvent. Tensions continued to rise between farm life and city life when the agrarian myth competed with a new ideal presented by industrialization: the notion of exploiting the opportunity,

14 United States Census Bureau, “Table 4. Population: 1790 to 1990” (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1990 1790), 5, https://www.census.gov/population/censusdata/table-4.pdf.

17 advancing one’s career, and the self-made man.15 Many farmers moved to the cities in pursuit of these new goals.

In addition to the migration of farmers from country to city, increased immigration also expanded urban populations. Immigrants found American industrialization and urbanization to be appealing and moved to the United States to flee from political, economic, and religious challenges in their native countries. Upon arriving in the United States, immigrants gravitated towards communities that were familiar to them. By 1890 there were 9 million first-generation immigrants in the United States.

Eighty percent settled in the northeastern quarter of the current continental United States, and two-thirds lived in New England and in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.

Nearly a third of the 9 million were Germans, and about half of these settled in five midwestern states: Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Iowa, and Wisconsin.”16

With increased immigration came increased tension between domestic citizenship and immigrants. Many farmers believed that immigrants were responsible for the challenges they were facing in life. White American citizens competed for jobs with the new immigrant population. Farmers who ventured to cities competed with immigrants to secure industrial jobs, and farmers in rural areas competed with immigrants who were attempting to establish family farms. During the Gilded Age, 56 percent of the labor force

15 Hofstadter, The Age of Reform; from Bryan to F.D.R.

16 Sean Dennis Cashman, America in the Gilded Age, 3rd ed. (New York: New York

University Press, 1993), 84.

18 had foreign birth or foreign parentage.17 In response, non-immigrants adopted a

“nativism,” as described by John Higham, that was “‘a defensive type of nationalism.’”18

This nativism was held by Americans who believed that immigrants were not as valuable to America as those who had already established themselves in the country.

“Nativist agitation was the work of three groups: unions that regarded unskilled immigrants as a threat to organized labor, social reformers who believed the influx of immigrants exacerbated the problems of the cities, and Protestant conservatives who dreaded the supposed threat to Nordic supremacy.”19 Hostility to immigrants was most common near extreme ends of the political spectrum; with ultraconservatives on one end and Progressives, often farmers, on the other.20 Farmers viewed increased immigration as a threat to their native values and held American industry responsible for increased immigration.

The Grange Movement, 1867-1880

The clearest example of farmers organizing in response to the social changes they faced during the 1870s can be found in the Grange, also known as the Patrons of

17 Cashman, America in the Gilded Age, 85.

18 Cashman, America in the Gilded Age, 97.

19 Cashman, America in the Gilded Age, 97.

20 Hofstadter, The Age of Reform; from Bryan to F.D.R.

Husbandry.21 It was the most active grassroots organization of its time, which was formed primarily to address the social changes affecting farmers. As the organization evolved, it eventually addressed economic and political factors, but its primary purpose was to preserve the farmers’ way of life. While forty states had Grange chapters, Ohio had more chapters than any other state, two of the National Masters and one National

Secretary were Ohioans.22 Consequently, the Grange deeply influenced Ohio.

The Grange movement was founded in 1867 by Oliver H. Kelley, an employee of the United States Department of Agriculture. During 1867, reports of the commissioner of agriculture indicate that farmers often organized for their interests with over nine hundred groups active that year.23 Kelley believed that the Grange could strengthen the

21 The meaning of the word “grange” also means a farmhouse. From www.etymonline.com, “c. 1300 as ‘group of farms, small village,’ also ‘a granary barn’

(early 14c.), ‘outlying buildings of a monastic or other estate’ (late 14c.), ‘small farm’

(mid-15c.), and compare granger; from Anglo-French graunge, Old French grange ‘barn, granary; farmstead, farmhouse’ (12c.), from Medieval Latin or Vulgar Latin granica

‘barn or shed for keeping grain,’ from Latin granum ‘grain.’”

22 John F. Dowler, Centennial History, Ohio State Grange, 1873-1973 (Ohio State

Grange, 1973).

23 Dennis S. Nordin, Rich Harvest: A History of the Grange, 1867-1900 (Jackson:

University Press of Mississippi, 1974).

20 farmers’ community. It was the initial group that united farmers across the country, particularly in the Midwest and East Coast regions.

When Kelley and his associates “were formulating plans for a national farmers’ organization, they did not sense the hostility and wrath arising in rural America. Their insulation from mainstreams of current agrarian thought resulted from their residence in the ivory-tower atmosphere of Washington, D.C. As a result, the original structure and objectives of the Grange lacked promise of deliverance from oppression and offered no concrete proposals for attacking agrarian economic problems.”24 Kelley and his associates initially believed that the Grange, or the “Patrons of Husbandry,” should focus on preserving the rural community in response to the growing industrial threat. “They believed the mounting problems had resulted from inadequate educational opportunities and lack of social intercourse among rural classes. This belief led them to create an organization that was basically fraternal and educational.”25 As the organization evolved, it concerned itself with economic and political concerns, but the efforts would be too little, too late.

The structure of the Grange movement was hierarchical which allowed the national organization to draw ideas from local members. The National Grange constituted state granges that had county branches comprising local chapters.26 Each level had

24 Nordin, Rich Harvest, 131.

25 Nordin, Rich Harvest, 17.

26 McMath, Jr, American Populism.

21 thirteen officers distributed into four tiers: “master, overseer, lecturer, steward, assistant steward, lady assistant steward, chaplain, treasurer, secretary, gatekeeper, ceres, pomona, and flora.”27 Local or subordinate Granges selected their leaders annually. The local

Granges determined any official policy or governance positions of the Grange.

Grange constitutions also defined roles of the officers, including the critical role of lecturer-organizer, who was responsible for the peer-to-peer education of fellow farmers on a grassroots level. Their educational work allowed the Grange to have a great impact on local communities and to gain early successes. On a national scale, farmers understood that they could not achieve success by taking on complex issues like the railroad phenomenon and other issues presented by industrialization. Instead of trying to address these complex issues from a national level, the Grange focused their efforts on advocating for increased regulation at the state level. Lecturer-organizers were also very successful in recruiting members which led to greater agricultural influence.

The aims of the Grange impressed Kelley “with the idea that the association of farmers that he had in mind should be more than a mere farm organization—it should be a farm organization and at the same time a great farmers’ fraternity which would bind rural people together with a fraternal tie.”28 The fraternal secrecy of the new organization became a powerful tool for the Grange. The secrecy was kept only amongst the members of the Grange which created a special bond between the men and women of the

27 Nordin, Rich Harvest, 8.

28 Fichter, Ohio State Grange Diamond Jubilee History 1872-1947, 8.

22 organization. The fraternity of the Grange helped farmers respond to the pressures they were feeling from all sides of society: farming as an industry was in dire distress, transportation conditions and oppressive transportation methods were claiming much of their attention, and the Grange was in the public mind. These conditions allowed the

Grange to gain great momentum to combat the social, economic, and political pressures that farmers were facing.

The Grange combatted the social pressures facing farmers by preserving the community values of farmers. As the number of farms decreased and space between farms increased due to industrialization, the Grange led community building efforts such as Harvest Days, Children’s Days, the birth of the order, and the signing of the

Declaration of Independence.

Harvest Days were an annual social at the first Grange meeting of each year.

Members were encouraged to bring their friends and neighbors to the installation program of new officers. After the solemn meeting, the event would change to a celebration of another year’s crop season.29 Common at all harvest days were abundant baskets of food, people gathering to socialize, and symbols of the year’s harvest.

Children’s Days focused on helping children. In particular, Grangers undertook

“a new attitude since the average farmer tended to think ‘that education and farming, like oil and water, would not mix; that it was impossible for him [or his children] to use the

29 Nordin, Rich Harvest.

23 educational advantages within reach of others.’”30 Before the Grange, most farmers were only concerned with the country school offering lessons in the three R’s, while the rest of the farmers were not interested in even those lessons. The Grange instilled that an elementary education tailored to agriculture’s needs could be valuable to rural youth.31

By further educating their children, rural farmers were able to gain greater assistance on daily farm tasks from their sons and daughters.

The celebration of the birth of the order and the anniversary of the signing of the

Declaration of Independence were also important events. To mark the founding of the organization, Grange patrons celebrated with robust banquets. For the Fourth of July,

Grangers came together for a large meal and danced

to music provided by local bands and beneath flying banners and flags,

grangers with their families marched or rode in unison to a favorite grove.

There, under the shade of trees, grange Fourth-of-July celebrations as a

rule featured a multitude of activities, including music, games, contests,

dances, fireworks, basket lunches, and speeches by politicians and

prominent order officials.32

30 Nordin, Rich Harvest, 46.

31 Nordin, Rich Harvest.

32 Nordin, Rich Harvest, 124.

As Grange events grew in popularity, they attracted more members, salesmen of various wares, and political officials.

Grangers’ social influence extended beyond creating a sense of community among farmers. The organization led rural education reform, which was important to the organization since its founding. When Kelley first traveled the South, he observed the inadequate educational opportunities for children and the lack of parents’ interest in schooling. He found this to be very concerning and resolved that, regarding education, the Grange would “channel farmers’ negativism into positivism and to find formulas for enhancing their lot.”33 For Kelley, education was key to help advance the farmers’ cause.

In time, the Grange expanded its attention to include education at land-grant institutions, as discussed in chapter four.

The social organization of the Grange also served to protect farmers’ economic interests. Through the Grange, farmers were able to pool their money and find the newest and most efficient equipment. Grange agents were authorized to barter directly with manufacturers for a reduced price at a local level. “For example, they acquired reapers for

$175 instead of $275 and wagons for $90 instated of $150.”34 At the state level, state agents for the Grange secured discounts for farmers. Firms handling goods needed by

Grangers were notified of possible heavy volume and informed that they would see a

33 Nordin, Rich Harvest, 46.

34 Cashman, America in the Gilded Age, 317.

25 great return by dealing with the Grange. As firms profited, other suppliers were eager to work with the local Grange.35 Business boomed for the Grangers. In many states, including Ohio, the Grangers outgrew their warehouses and had to expand to other cities.

Nationally, the Grange’s greatest year of growth was in 1872. At the time, “1,105 lodges were founded; in the panic of 1873, 8,400 more; and in January and February

1874, another 4,700. The Grange comprised 1.5 million members, a potent political force.

In 1873 and 1874 it succeeded in electing state representatives throughout the South and

West and held the balance of power in Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.”36 Thus, the agricultural depression of the 1870s led to sudden expansion when discontented farmers recognized the Grange as a forum for political debate. “Membership records show that the real source of Grange numerical power rested in the Ohio River Valley and in Missouri, not in the upper Mississippi River Valley. Roughly one-third of the order’s members resided in Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, and Missouri.”37

Though not the primary focus of the Grange, the organization also gave farmers a political voice and influenced government activity. The Grange successfully advocated for the head of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to be upgraded to a member of the

President’s cabinet.38 This position allowed the farmers to have the President’s ear and

35 Nordin, Rich Harvest.

36 Cashman, America in the Gilded Age, 316.

37 Nordin, Rich Harvest, 31.

38 Fichter, Ohio State Grange Diamond Jubilee History 1872-1947, 14.

26 influence policy to benefit agricultural causes such as the creation of experiment stations and additional funding for agriculture. Nevertheless, the Grange prohibited its local chapters from endorsing political parties or candidates because The Grange’s aims were primarily social and cultural, and the organization initially grew slowly.

Although the Grange sought some political influence, it was strict in its policy that local chapters were not to endorse any one political party or candidate. Grange bylaws explicitly denied “chapters the right to endorse candidates and forbade members to run for public office under the banner of the order.”39 For example, one can see the

Grangers' reticence about political activity expressed in a meeting in Illinois:

The Whiteside county (Ill.) Granges held their harvest-home picnic on the

28th, at Morrison. There were some 5,000 persons present. Whiteside is the

banner grange county in the State, having 26 granges, with an average

membership of 75 each. Professor Pinkney made the principal speech,

reviewing the prominent question of the day. Five-minute speeches by the

farmers followed. It was stated that grangers could not be brought out by

Republicans or Democrats; but if members of those parties, politicians

included, would come into the granges and take back seats, they would be

received. Railroad charges could be regulated, since the rates were fixed

on plank roads, ferries, etc. It was necessary for farmers to go into politics,

39 Nordin, Rich Harvest.

since through that agency alone could they obtain the desired reforms. It

was looked on as desirable that they should be a Producers’ party to

nominate candidates for Federal and State officers, but not wise to have a

Grange party, since that was a secret organization. They must, however,

vote only for men, from President down to county officers, pledged to

execute the laws made by the people, and to interpret them as the people

meant they should be.40

Instead of focusing on any one party or candidate, Grangers focused only on advancing the interest of farmers. Between 1870 and 1900, the Grange issued a series of demands to politicians. Included in their demands were “requests for structural changes in government, temperance laws, democratic reforms, immigration restrictions, conservation measures, revisions in the bases of money, alterations in taxes and tariffs, protection for consumers, educational improvements, and tighter control of transportation.”41 As a spokesperson for farmers everywhere, the Grange would partner with many special interest groups including the National American Woman Suffrage

Association (NAWSA), and the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union.

Despite its success during the 1870s, the Grange began to decline by 1880.

Grange leadership did not react to changing economic pressures as quickly as some of its

40 “Grange and Gossip.,” The Atlanta Constitution, September 14, 1873, 7.

41 Nordin, Rich Harvest, 183.

28 membership would hope. Its complacency and delayed reaction “gave way to alarm, then to anger, and finally to helpless, private denunciation. Nothing availed. Within thirty-six months the Grange was all but obliterated.”42 The Grange had spread across the Midwest in the 1870s, and by 1880s, some impatient members resigned and joined the more militant Farmers’ Alliance.43 For Grangers-turned-Alliancemen, “the Alliance promised to tackle problems more directly.”44 Some local Granges cooperated with the Farmers’

Alliance; “at other times, open bitterness raged among the two rural societies.”45

Understanding this relationship requires an examination of the economic changes that affected farmers during the period.

Farmers and the Economy

In addition to social changes that impacted farmers, economic changes occrurred at a rapid pace during the Gilded Age. This history is well-documented, but it is necessary to review in order to understand the agrarian movements of the time. I will first discuss some of the economic factors that emerged in the 1870s. In particular, because of

42 Lawrence Goodwyn, The Populist Moment: A Short History of the Agrarian Revolt in

America, Abridged edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978), 32.

43 Nordin, Rich Harvest.

44 Nordin, Rich Harvest, 36.

45 Nordin, Rich Harvest, 117.

29 its influence during the era and agrarian dependence on it, I will discuss the general landscape of the railroad industry and the benefits it provided to society. Then, I will discuss the negative impact that railroads had on farmers due to three economic problems: agrarian debt, the inconsistent supply of money, and the crop-lien system which created a debt cycle that was nearly impossible to break.

During the 1870s, farmers faced significant economic changes. The greatest cause of these changes was industrialization. For farmers, the industry had a negative connotation. It exacerbated farmers’ feelings of a diminishing role, and there was a

“gradual and seemingly relentless decline of agriculture’s place in American life.”46

Farmers experienced two significant changes because of industrialization. First, they had to keep up with demand which meant mechanizing their operations. In order to remain competitive, farmers needed to rely on new technology and machinery to tend to their farms. Increased production led to increased profit, but mechanization led to increased isolation, increased debt, and a decrease in the number of farmers.47 As a result of changing labor needs in agricultural communities, less prosperous farmers were unable to meet the need for mechanization. Their inability to keep up with emerging labor trends

46 G. Porter, “Industrialization and the Rise of Big Business,” in The Gilded Age: Essays on the Origins of Modern America, ed. Charles W Calhoun (Wilmington, DE: Scholarly

Resources, 1996), 4.

47 Olivier Zunz, Making America Corporate, 1870-1920 (Chicago: University of Chicago

Press, 1990).

30 and mechanization forced farmers to turn in their plows and move to new urban areas, as discussed above. Industrialization reordered American society. Before the Industrial Age, workers often knew their employer and farmers traded directly with customers. After industrialization, the way people did business was forever changed. Businesses grew in size, and many Americans began working for companies whose owners they never met.

In the last third of the nineteenth century, railways provided great benefits to farmers and the general population while setting the pattern and leading the way of industrialization. “Not only were they the most potent symbol of the new industrial age and its technical achievements, but they also pioneered in the organizational innovations of big business.”48 Connecting industrial centers to other towns, railways were instrumental in the growth of the country during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Railways transported settlers to the West who built new towns and urban centers that produced revenue for the railway companies. According to historian Sean

Cashman, farmers depended on the railroad industry because they provided essential service. They were able to move raw materials, tools, and produce quickly from town to city. For a farmer to be successful, he had to rely on railroads to connect the wider world of commerce for “lines of transportation, communication, trade, and credit: railroads, telegraphs, formalized markets, and mortgage companies.”49 Railroads were essential for farmers.

48 Porter, “Industrialization and the Rise of Big Business,” 10.

49 McMath, Jr, American Populism, 43.

The amount of freight carried by railroads multiplied rapidly during this period,

“American railroads carried 10 billion tons of freight per mile of track in 1865 and 79 billion tons per mile in 1890.”50 Railroads were so intertwined in American life that their

“expansion and contraction were largely responsible for the financial health of the economy. For example, the root cause of the depression of 1873 was railroad collapse” due to their quick expansion and overextension, according to Cashman. “For instance, in

1872 no more than a third of the 350 railroad companies could pay their stockholders any dividends.”51 The increased expansion of railroads and their effect on the economy wreaked havoc on the farmers’ way of life. When railroads needed additional revenue to offset costs, they turned their attention to increasing shipping rates on agricultural produce.

Although society benefited from railroads through quick and efficient transportation opportunities, railroads themselves often presented many economic difficulties, or problems, for farmers. The first problem was increased agrarian debt, often due to unfair exploitation. Railroads were “determined to get every dollar of revenue they could from their customers,” and “made use of the device of charging ‘transit,’ or through rates, on all the wheat they carried. They demanded that the wheat shipper pay in advance the full rate to Chicago or Milwaukee, or whatever city happened to be the easternmost

50 Cashman, America in the Gilded Age, 23.

51 Cashman, America in the Gilded Age, 29.

32 terminal.”52 Western farmers blamed their economic woes and inability to succeed upon the railroads. Hicks writes that “it was commonly asserted that the transportation companies discriminated definitely against the small shipper and in favor of his larger competitors…. The large elevator companies.”53 Farmers believed that the railroads and elevator companies provided inside rates, or deep rebates, to big business. However, farmers were dependent on the grain elevator companies and did not receive this type of discount. Additionally, railroads forbade farmers from loading the grains themselves, so farmers were at the mercy of the operators.

An example of the railroads and elevator companies discriminating against farmers occurred in 1881 in Springfield, Illinois. In February of that year, Mr. Smythe, a local farmer, accused Mr. Reynolds, the Chief Grain Inspector, and Mr. Bogue of the

Railroad and Warehouse Commission, of collusion against farmers. In an article in the newspaper, The Daily Inter Ocean, Mr. Smythe said:

that he thought such complaint on the part of any grain commission firm

would be a business ostracism. The witnesses testified that it was solely

through fear of the railroad companies that they had not entered complaint

against the railroads. They said the Northwestern Railroad and some other

52 John D. Hicks, The Populist Revolt: A History of the Farmers’ Alliance and the

People’s Party, Reprint, 1964 edition (Bison Publishing, 1961), 63.

53 Hicks, The Populist Revolt, 67.

roads did not make the offensive terminal charges except in the case of the

detention of cars. The charges were always more on car-loads that were

sold on the track than on those which had been taken at the elevators. One

gentleman testified that it was the current opinion among commission

merchants that the railroads and the elevator companies were in collusion

in order to force shippers to unload their grain into elevators. This would

give extra ‘switching’ and ‘track service.’ The aggregate amount paid out

for terminal charges above the freight rates was variously estimated at

from $100,000 to $200,000 per annum. The average amount paid by the

witnesses was $5,000 each per annum.54

In addition to increased agrarian debt caused by unfair business practices by railroads and elevator companies, farmers faced additional economic difficulties. The remaining economic difficulties that farmers faced were intertwined. The second economic difficulty faced by farmers was the deflation created by the limited money supply, especially, paper dollars or Greenbacks. The issues surrounding America’s monetary policy during this period had been present for many years. America anchored its currency to a gold standard of other countries like France, Germany, and Britain. Prior to the Civil War, the United States operated under a bimetallic system. Paper currency could be exchanged for a fixed amount of gold or silver. Under the bimetallic system,

54 “Next to Nothing,” The Daily Inter Ocean (February 16, 1881), 4.

34 gold and silver were treated as money. However, the ratio for mint convertibility to market convertibility was unequal between the two types of metal. Therefore, gold would no longer circulate as money and the dollar would have lost its value by up to fifty percent relative to gold, causing significant issues for the economy.55 For example, between 1865 and 1878 the Treasury reduced the number of paper dollars in circulation from $1.08 billion to $773.37 million56

Consequently, the per capita circulation decreased from $31.18 in 1865 to $16.25 in 1878. This reduction caused slow but grinding discomfort for masses of people, especially in a period when expanding commerce and industry increased the need for currency.57 After the Civil War, “the United States pursued a restrictive monetary policy that forced prices down. Between 1873 and 1896, prices fell by roughly one-third.”58 The decline in prices meant that those in debt, such as farmers, had to repay their debts in the currency of higher value.

55 Colin Russell Weiss, “Free Silver and Financial Frictions” (University of California,

Los Angeles, 2017), 6, https://escholarship-org.proxy.lib.ohio- state.edu/uc/item/2f7041mb.

56 Wyatt Wells, “Rhetoric of the Standards: The Debate over Gold and Silver in the

1890s,” The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era 14, no. 01 (January 2015):

49–68, https://doi.org/10.1017/S153778141400053X.

57 Cashman, America in the Gilded Age.

58 Wells, “Rhetoric of the Standards,” 50.

Three kinds of dollars in circulation-- gold, silver, and paper-- compounded the challenges. Paper dollars, or greenbacks, were the primary currency. However, inflation and the availability of currency were problematic. “What cost $1.00 in 1860 cost $2.24 in

1865 (when the money supply was at its greatest) and fell successively as the money supply was reduced to $1.56 in 1870 and then to 99 cents in 1878.”59

During this period, the most important crops like cotton and wheat dropped in value by 50 percent.60 Inflationists initially called for increasing the amount of

“greenbacks, the paper currency issued during the Civil War to inflate prices and alleviate debt. The discovery of huge deposits of silver in the American West made it an increasingly attractive vehicle for inflation. By the 1880s, those squeezed by falling prices were demanding the ‘free coinage’ of silver at $1.29 an ounce.”61 During the late

1870s and early 1880s, the United States government struck a balance between gold and silver. “In 1879, the United States adopted the gold standard, replacing the paper currency forced upon it by the Civil War; but at the same time, it began to coin a limited but significant amount of silver. This policy expanded the money supply, even as buoyant growth and substantial federal budget surplus allowed the government to keep silver money at par with gold.” 62

59 Cashman, America in the Gilded Age, 250.

60 Wells, “Rhetoric of the Standards.”

61 Wells, “Rhetoric of the Standards,” 50.

62 Wells, “Rhetoric of the Standards,” 50.

In the 1880s, the balance between silver and gold began to unravel. “After several years of relative stability, farm prices began failing again, generating new calls for inflation. Deflation encouraged the rise of the Farmers’ Alliance and the People’s Party

(the Populists)-- both of which challenged the existing political structure.”63 People in rural areas generally favored inflation and pro-silver policies, while those in urban areas generally favored the converse, as shown by a bias in the reporting in local newspapers, according to historian Colin Weiss. “Newspapers that targeted a rural, agrarian audience responded to higher uncertainty by increasing their usage of pro-silver phrases relative to newspapers that focused on an urban audience based in financial centers. Instead, these urban newspapers published more articles with pro-gold phrases.”64

Due to the shrinking money supply, farmers needed access to credit, which created the third economic difficulty: farmers could not secure credit except through crop-liens. Many farmers could not receive additional lending from banks, so the local store owners stepped in to lend farmers the money they needed. Credit lines quickly were offered through crop liens. Merchants were able to offer crop liens as credit “by advancing the goods that the farmer needed, in return for a lien for his growing crop.”65

Estimates from the time differ, but it is likely that “from three-fourths to nine-tenths of the farmers of the cotton South were ensnared to a greater or less degree by the crop-lien

63 Wells, “Rhetoric of the Standards,” 50.

64 Weiss, “Free Silver and Financial Frictions,” 3.

65 Hicks, The Populist Revolt, 40.

37 system.”66 Moreover, farmers paid exorbitant interest, which “amounted to about a twenty or twenty-five per cent rate of interest on a non-appreciating dollar.”67 Such high interest rates prohibited many farmers from turning their farm into a successful business venture.

The crop-lien system put farmers in a debt cycle that they could not escape.

Farmers who gave a lien on their crop were at the mercy of the merchant. Farmers were only permitted to trade with the merchant in which they were in contract, and the merchant scrutinized farmers' purchases. Farmers were required to pay the prices that the merchant established, and they could only sell their crop through their contracted merchant when the merchant determined it was time to sell. If a farmer’s crop failed to overcome his debt, he was forced to remain in debt for another year, transfer ownership of his farm to his lender, or relocate to a new area, rent a farmhouse, and become a fugitive from the law. One-crop farming compounded the crop-lien debt cycle. “When prices went down, the farmer, with a mounting balance against him at the store, saw no way out except to rent more land and raise more cotton.”68 As a result of the crop-lien system, farmers became stuck in a debt cycle that they could not escape.

Farmers were not alone in the economic hardships they faced. However, farmers were often most affected by their hardships because of their dependency on the need to

66 Hicks, The Populist Revolt, 44.

68 Hicks, The Populist Revolt, 48.

38 secure credit and the railroads. Consequently, for all citizens, the railroads, whose overextensions and failures triggered depressions in 1873, 1884, and 1893 created many frustrations. 69 “By the end of 1873, there were 5,000 commercial failures. The total investment lost was $775 million.”70 In 1873, the root cause of the depression was the collapse of railroads. The railroads, their supply industries, and industrial centers faced many challenges for years. In 1889 and 1890, droughts and declining prices ended the

Western migration and destroyed the hope for the prosperity of farmers in the West. In

1893, more than 15,000 businesses failed, and rural banks collapsed.71 The economic collapse was the worst experienced in American history at the time, and many farmers felt the backlash of the depression. Thus, the “Granger and the Populist movements, occurred in periods of depression in farm prices, the first in the early 1870s, the second in the early 1890s.”72 Because of the challenges farmers faced, they began to organize to protect their economic interests.

69 Samuel P. Hays, The Response to Industrialism, 1885-1914, Second Edition (Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 1995).

70 Cashman, America in the Gilded Age, 29.

71 Cashman, America in the Gilded Age.

72 Hays, The Response to Industrialism, 1885-1914, 29.

The Farmers’ Alliance, 1880-1888

The initial primary response to farmers' economic woes was the formation of the

Farmers’ Alliance. The organization was founded in the South, where farmers had “spent much of their lives in humiliating circumstances; repeated dealings with Southern merchants had inculcated insecurity in generations of farming people. They were ridiculed for their poverty, and they knew it.”73 The humiliation farmers faced was compounded by their fight for survival as farmers devolved from farm owner to farm tenant. The Farmers’ Alliance helped to restore the farmers’ economic influence by addressing three primary challenges of farmers at the time: sharecropping, inability to secure credit, and greed of grain elevator operators.

The founder of the Farmers’ Alliance was Charles Macune, a Northern, self- directed businessman, who was unlike most Alliancemen. Macune decided that farm life was not his calling, like many young men of his generation. Through his urban background and professional training in medicine, Macune saw that farmers lived in isolation and operated under rudimentary business standards that hindered their professional status and influence in the commercial sector.74 Macune was the perfect

73 Goodwyn, The Populist Moment, 33.

74 Charles Postel, The Populist Vision (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press,

2007).

40 leader for the Farmers’ Alliance, because of his “erudition, professionalism, and business savvy made him just the person to build the Alliance into a commercial power.”75

The initial members of the Farmers’ Alliance were, by and large, from the middle stratum of the rural South. Most of the initial farmers were landowners of modest means.

Later, the Farmers’ Alliance would recruit tenants and planters as well. Members of the

Farmers’ Alliance were often married with families. The Alliance sought to “restrict its membership to people of good character who were part of the ‘producing class.’”76

Farmers learned of the Farmers’ Alliance from friends, and often, Alliance lecturers, a role descended from that of the Grange. Lecturers recruited members and established farm cooperatives; they were trained by Alliance leadership to spread the word of the Alliance and the prosperity it promised. The lecturer would enter a community, identify local farming leaders, and organize them into a “suballiance.” They worked with new members to establish the local cooperatives and collected initiation fees. All members of the Alliance had voting rights in the organization’s business and policies. The organization promised to raise the living standard of Southerner farmers-- a change the Grange never attempted.77 The Alliance strove to raise farmers out of poverty and the oppression they faced from local businessmen and industry leaders. This grand vision and the practice of allowing all members to participate in the governance of the

75 Postel, The Populist Vision, 35.

76 McMath, Jr, American Populism, 70.

77 Goodwyn, The Populist Moment.

41 organization boosted recruitment efforts. As a result, The Alliance boasted lecturers nationwide, and, “by 1889 the Alliance had established branches as far apart [sic] as

Florida, Missouri, Oklahoma Territory, Colorado, and Maryland and claimed a total of 3 million members.”78 It was in this region that the Alliance had its largest membership.

Farmers’ Alliance members had three primary economic concerns that predominated in the post-war South. The first problem was sharecropping, a practice employed primarily in the region that usually led to a never-ending cycle of indebtedness for the farmer. Under this practice, a landowner allowed a farmer to farm land in exchange for a share of the crops produced on the land. Most farmers were unable to produce enough goods to pay back the landowner and make a profit by selling their produce to customers. It created a relationship between land, labor, and credit that was distinctly exploitative. “By 1890, 25 percent of farmers in Kansas were tenants or sharecroppers; in Nebraska, 17 percent; in South Dakota 11 percent. Farm tenantry in the country as a whole increased as the century drew to a close from 25 percent in 1880 to 28 percent in 1890 and 36 percent in 1900.”79 Sharecropping is better known for its oppression of freed black slaves, but many low-income white farmers were also victims of the system.

78 Cashman, America in the Gilded Age, 319.

79 Cashman, America in the Gilded Age, 314.

The Chicago Daily Tribune explained the predicament of sharecroppers in 1881.

In the example provided by the newspaper, the author describes the relationship between a landowner (Mr. A) and sharecropper (Mr. B). The article read:

It will be observed that B’s tenure of the usually poor tenement

which A places at his disposal is only for one year. Under the laws of most

of the States, -- in the Southwest at any rate,-- A may eject B by summary

process after the 31st day of December of the tenural year. It is true that

instances of ejectments are very rare; but it is equally true that this whole

country around about Covington, and throughout Tipton, Lauderdale,

Haywood, Fayette, and Shelly Counties in Tennessee, has been literally

‘torn up’ by the tenants or croppers changing farms. Very few persons will

be found to-day on the same farms which they cultivated last year. This

perpetual changing about cannot but have an evil effect upon those who

are forced to do so. Such a thing as social or educational progress among

people placed in such circumstances is simply impossible.

This decree of fate falls to the lot of the landless whites as well as

to that of the luckless blacks. No one to-day feels and he has an assurance

of dwelling in the house he now occupies, and into which he only

yesterday came, longer than till the next New Year’s day. Thus it comes

about that there is no permanency in social institutions, no guarantee of

stability in church-organizations or educational foundations. Increase of

wealth, the cultivation of a better social growth, the movement toward

refinement in the house and social circle must be arrested—asphyxiated.

As the system makes them, so we find the people who are subject to it.

They only move backward.80

The second problem that farmers faced in the South was the inability to secure credit, which prevented farmers from owning and working a farm. Farmers’ lack of credit permeated the South but was similar to the farmer experience in the North and Midwest.

Credit allowed farmers to establish themselves as landowners who could reap the benefits of successful agricultural pursuits. However, similar to the Grange era and the

Midwestern farmer experience, the farmer seemed to be the victim of a system that worked against him. To be competitive in a changing economy, the farmer had to have expensive tools and livestock. The high cost of credit weighed heavily on a class composed largely of debtors, and during the depressions of this era, they were forced to borrow more money to remain viable businesses. To help farmers break free from the credit/debtor relationships that became so familiar, Macune “proposed to mobilize the monetary authority of the nation and put it to work on behalf of a sector of its poorest citizens through the creation of a system of currency designed to benefit everyone in the

80 “Share-Croppers,” Chicago Daily Tribune, January 8, 1881, 16.

‘producing classes,’ including urban workers.”81 This mobilization of monetary authority later materialized as the Farmers’ Exchange.

A third problem faced by farmers in Southern states was the corruption of grain elevator operators. Grain elevators were storage bins located along railroads and were used to distribute grain to the freight cars. Frustratingly, “Western railroads forbade farmers from loading their grain on cars directly themselves and laid sidings for only one- grain elevator in each station. Consequently, farmers either had to sell their grain to local elevator operators or use their services for a fee.”82 This gave operators a monopoly on grain elevators. As the nation expanded South and West, farmers faced even more insidious operators. Operators were to use standard rates across the country, but in these remote areas, they took advantage of their remoteness and often misgraded or mixed grains in order to pay farmers less.83 Railroads claimed that the change in price and lack of a standardized rate was due to the increased cost to operate railroads in this region.

However, farmers knew that big business and capitalists were swindling them, and this fact strengthened their allegiance to The Alliance.

To combat the three problems-- sharecropping, the inability to secure credit, and the corruption of grain elevators-- faced by Southern and Western farmers, Charles

Macune created the Farmers’ Exchange in Texas in 1887. The Farmers’ Alliance oversaw

81 Goodwyn, The Populist Moment, 91.

82 Cashman, America in the Gilded Age, 316.

83 Cashman, America in the Gilded Age.

45 the exchanges and used them as a way to provide centralized purchasing that spanned regional, state, and national needs. This was a departure from the Grange’s cooperative stores which only focused on local community-based cooperative stores. In utilizing a centralized purchasing system, farmers could eliminate the need for middlemen (local business leaders) and purchase farming equipment directly from the seller. Macune envisioned farmers using the exchanges to meet all of their material needs: “everything from coffee and cook stoves to plows and harness.”84 In order for the monopoly to be effective, however, “farmers needed to engage ‘the combination system of doing business.’”85 As displayed in Figure 2, the Farmers’ Exchange provided a multitude of goods north of the Twin Cities:

84 Postel, The Populist Vision, 1213.

85 Postel, The Populist Vision, 122.

Figure 2: Farmers’ Exchange ad from The Princeton Union86

86 “Farmers’ Exchange Advertisement,” The Princeton Union, December 18, 1902.

The combination of business purposes included farmers cooperating in all aspects of business. They would establish “local trade arrangements, marketing plans, and cooperative stores”87 that were established by Alliance lecturers. The goal of each lecturer was to establish a network of exchanges. For example, in Minnesota, the

Farmers’ Exchange claimed that the Duluth board of trade was discriminating against exchange members. The Madison Daily Leader published an article about the issue in

1906, after the Farmers’ Exchange’s peak of activity. The author wrote:

The Minnesota Farmers’ Exchange claimed that the Duluth board of trade

fixed the price of its membership arbitrarily at $1,000 and refused to sell a

membership to any of the members of the Farmers’ Exchange; that it

sought to control the grain trade at the Head of the Lakes and keep the

Farmers’ Exchange out. It was claimed also that the commission rule of

the Duluth Exchange was in violation of the anti-trust law.”88

However, when the Farmers’ Exchanges failed due to lack of available credit in

May 1888, farmers began to question the efficacy of the Alliance and the best approach to true reform.

87 McMath, Jr, American Populism, 94.

88 “Board of Trade Upheld,” The Madison Daily Leader, September 24, 1906, 1.

After the exchanges proved ineffective, farmers searched for a new purpose of the

Farmers’ Alliance. They turned their attention away from the economic protection the

Alliance had promised and reoriented themselves toward rural political reform by forming a third party. Farmers pursued this course because they believed that political parties were working to support business interests.

In 1888, the Farmers’ Alliance began to hold regular national conventions to determine the direction of their organization. The second meeting of the organization determined a broader agenda. It was more than an attempt to unite farmers in the

Northern and Southern alliances; it was also to form a “confederation of all farmer orders and an agreement with the forces of labor.”89 In 1888, the St. Louis convention was the first time that the Alliance (and farmers, in general) had a willingness to work with labor.90 As The Alliance changed its focus from economic protection to political organizing, “the Alliance itself splintered and declined.”91 However, the Alliance had provided a resource for a new political party by creating a network of volunteers through the lecturer system and attracting support from farmers throughout the South and West with inroads into the Midwest and East.

89 Hicks, The Populist Revolt, 114.

90 Michael Pierce, Striking with the Ballot: Ohio Labor and the Populist Party, First edition (DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 2010).

91 Postel, The Populist Vision, 157.

Political Activity of Farmers

Social dissatisfaction and economic difficulties finally led farmers to undertake political action. The tensions between farmers and politicians escalated during the Gilded

Age from 1870 to 1900. On the one hand, farmers rightfully believed that politicians passed legislation that benefited railroads and industry while disadvantaging farmers. For example, “between September 1850, when Congress made its first land grants to the

Illinois Central and Mobile and Ohio railroads and March 1871, when it made its last grant to the Texas and Pacific, the federal government had made more than 170 million acres available to more than 80 different railroad companies.”92 On the other hand, politicians believed that farmers were responsible for their own misfortune due to overproduction. However, farmers disagreed, they believed that the general economic improvement of the masses would lead to increased demand for agricultural products.

Hence, farmers faced challenges in winning over politicians, and the tension between farmers and politicians would escalate. As the century came to a close, farmers began to lose their political influence with Democrats and Republicans.

During the Gilded Age (1870-1900), political action took place primarily at the state and local levels. Party organizations mobilized voters around “liquor and lotteries, public schools and public services.”93 Even so, nineteenth-century politics focused on

92 Cashman, America in the Gilded Age, 23.

93 Postel, The Populist Vision, 138.

50 party organizations. Farmers were initially split between the Republican and Democratic parties, but rural voters had “considerable influence because they held political power increasingly out of proportion to their numbers.”94 A delay in redistricting in many states created the agrarian influence which meant that “representation did not change to conform to the rapid growth of cities.”95 Because of their influence at the time, the agrarian myth was reinforced, and farmers believed that if they were to organize as an economic class, they would be able to maintain their authority. The Farmers’ Alliance was the first attempt that farmers made in organizing around political interests to protect their economic interests. In South Carolina, for example:

the Farmers’ Alliance… founded in another State and extending with more

or less strength through the Southern States, found a fruitful soil upon

which to grow in our own. The prime object of this association appeared

to be co-operation amongst the agricultural class, an object entirely

praiseworthy when kept within proper bounds. Its enemies, of course,

charged it with being a political machine, and asserted that its leaders were

bent upon using the vote of the farmer for their own political advantage—

certain it is that it soon became a great political force.96

94 Hays, The Response to Industrialism, 1885-1914, 111.

95 Hays, The Response to Industrialism, 111.

96 “The Farmers’ Movement,” Charleston News and Courier, August 23, 1894, 2.

As the political climate shifted over time, farmers became more politically active and responded to political pressures by forming their own political party, The People’s

Party.

The People’s Party, 1888-1896

The People’s Party, also known as the Populist Party, was born of the Farmers’

Alliance. Members of the People’s Party shared the same beliefs as identified by the

Farmers’ Alliance in the Omaha Platform. “As J.W.H. Davis, a farmer in Grimes County,

Texas, stated, “‘But if the Alliance is dead... she died giving birth to the people’s party… and brought a nation from the midnight of ignorance to the morning light of reason.’”97

To its benefit, the People’s Party leveraged the Alliance’s statewide networks and used them to expand their reach throughout the country. The Alliance-People’s Party fusion would become “a vehicle for social solidarity, a focal point for economic cooperation.”98

“For two decades, critics of the Democrats and Republicans had been contesting national, state, and local elections under a diversity of banners. Prohibition, Greenback, Anti-

Monopoly, Labor Reform, Union Labor, United Labor, Workingmen, and hundreds of

97 Postel, The Populist Vision, 157.

98 McMath, Jr, American Populism, 136.

52 local and state Independent parties whose very name denoted repudiation of the rules of the electoral game.”99

The People’s Party, founded on Populist ideals, united these various groups. It developed among the farmers and laborers deeply rooted in the social and economic interests of their local communities.100 “The name was conceived, by one account, on the train ride home from the Farmers’ Alliance meeting in Cincinnati, when leaders of the

Kansas delegates discussed the need for a more succinct label for members of the

People’s Party. From the Latin populous, for ‘people,’ they invented the term

‘Populist.’”101

The founders of the People’s Party envisioned it “as a ‘Confederation of Industrial

Organizations.’”102 Members of the organization would include “the Farmers’ Alliance and Industrial Union, the National Farmers’ Alliance, the Colored Farmers’ Alliance, the

Farmers’ Mutual Benefit Association, the Knights of Labor, the Women’s Alliance, the

Citizens’ Alliance and other reform groups.”103 “To break out of the electoral confinement, the Populists took a fatal leap into compromise… A majority of delegates

99 Michael Kazin, The Populist Persuasion: An American History, First edition (Ithaca,

NY: Cornell University Press, 1998), 27.

100 McMath, Jr, American Populism.

101 McMath, Jr, American Populism, 146.

102 Postel, The Populist Vision, 12.

103 Postel, 12.

53 chose the hope of partnership in a governing coalition of producers.”104 The party focused on national political change. In the two-party system, members believed that both the

Democrat and Republican parties favored big business and the wealthy. The People’s

Party offered voters a third party alternative. The party focused on labor and agricultural interests that benefited the working class. Although the party had a national presence, it

“flourished primarily in the farm belt of the South and the western Middle West.”105

These areas had the most agricultural discontent from the one-crop farming system, dependence on the export market, and complex transportation problems with high rates of debt.

The People’s Party took different forms in different parts of the country.

Regardless of location, Populists politically organized because they wanted a “restoration of agrarian profits and popular government.”106 The Populists’ platform contained six fundamental principles:

(1) free silver; (2) abolition of national banks and substitution therefor of

direct issues of legal tender notes; (3) government ownership of all

railroads and telegraphs; (4) prohibition of alien landownership and of

gambling in stocks, options, and futures; (5) a constitutional amendment

104 Kazin, The Populist Persuasion, 43.

105 Hays, The Response to Industrialism, 1885-1914, 31.

106 Hofstadter, The Age of Reform; from Bryan to F.D.R, 93.

requiring the election of president, vice president, and senators by direct

vote of the people; and (6) the Australian ballot system.107

However, by 1894, Populists focused on the one issue that united agriculture and labor: free silver. Those who supported free silver were known as Silverbacks.

Silverbacks were not alone in their efforts in rural communities. They found support in some urban citizens, specifically the producing class, especially in Ohio. Labor

Populists were influential throughout Populist activity in the Midwest. “In Illinois, Ohio,

Wisconsin, Colorado, and other states, miners and other labor Populists provided the core support of the People’s party.”108 They shared much in common with their rural counterparts. “They tended to be drawn from the same demographic pool of the

American-born or English-speaking immigrants… Much like the farmers, they sought to build centralized interstate organizations to regulate regional and national markets and to match corporate organizational power.”109 The party would see its greatest gains in the

Midwest where the rural and labor movements worked together.110

The People’s Party faced many challenges during its time. The greatest threat to them, however, was the other dominant political parties. Party loyalty was a significant

107 Hicks, The Populist Revolt, 210.

108 Postel, The Populist Vision, 209.

109 Postel, The Populist Vision, 209.

110 Pierce, Striking with the Ballot.

55 political characteristic during this period. “For a farmer in Iowa or Illinois to leave the

Republican Party in order to become a Populist he had to overcome not only his memories associated with the ‘Party-that-saved-the-Union,’ but the enduring and the very visible civic presence of that same party in his own time and locale.”111 Even if farmers and laborers were aware of the oppressions they faced from big business and the two- party system, they could not bring themselves to vote for Populist candidates, and instead, they expressed their new-found sensibility by voting for old party candidates.

They were, in short, “not yet ‘politically conscious.’”112

Populists’ inability to align their support with People’s Party candidates created a nefarious “Judas-like ‘shadow movement’ (‘fusionists’).”113 Fusionists betrayed the middle-of-the-road Populists, wavered in loyalty, and often aligned themselves with the platforms of either mainstream party. Fusionists often shared one distinct characteristic:

“almost all of them held office, had once held office, or sought to hold office.”114

Fusionists would be the demise of the party, as evidenced during the 1896 Populist

National Convention.

In 1896, at the Populist National Convention in St. Louis, Populists were building their party ticket. Many in attendance thought the People’s Party should support Tom

111 Goodwyn, The Populist Moment, 99.

112 Goodwyn, The Populist Moment, 148.

113 Postel, The Populist Vision, 270.

114 Goodwyn, The Populist Moment, 230.

Watson, editor of the People’s Party Paper. The alternative candidate was William

Jennings Bryan, who was recently nominated as the Democratic Party Candidate. Some

Populists believed they could only win by “submerging their identity” and align with the

Democrats.115 Others believed that to nominate Bryan would mean that the Democratic

Party would swallow the People's Party. After a heated debate, the Populists nominated the Democratic candidate. As it turned out, the nomination of Bryan defeated the Populist movement and the farmers’ cause. As Governor Jeff Davis of Arkansas said in 1905, “In

1895, when we nominated the grandest and truest man the world ever knew—William

Jennings Bryan—for President, we stole all the Populists had; we stole their platform, we stole their candidate, we stole them out lock, stock, and barrel...”116 Bryan’s nomination was the end of the People’s Party because it signified that Populism could not survive independently of the two dominant political parties.

Conclusion

The Gilded Age was a time of great turmoil for agricultural communities. Farmers faced upheaval in their social, economic, and political environments. As a response to these changes, farmers formed the Grange, the Farmers’ Alliance, and the People’s Party

115 Quotation is from Cashman, America in the Gilded Age, 334.

116 M. Elizabeth Sanders, Roots of Reform: Farmers, Workers, and the American State,

1877-1917 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), 51.

57 successively to protect their social, economic, and political interests. Though the various agrarian movements lost their momentum when Bryan lost the election in 1896, farmers’ demands of the period would shape many of the ideals of the Progressive Era (1890-

1920) and beyond.

In particular, the legacy included Progressive legislation, such as the agricultural credit sections of the Federal Reserve Act, the Warehouse Act of 1916, and the

Intermediate Credit Act of 1923.117 Also, the legacy included “railroad regulation, the income tax, an expanded currency and credit structure, direct election of Senators, the initiative and referendum, postal savings banks, even the highly controversial subtreasury plan. ”118 The subtreasury plan was controversial because it urged “’the free and unlimited coinage of silver or the issue of silver certificates against an unlimited deposit of bullion.’”119As part of the plan, farmers were only asking for themselves what bankers were already receiving- the ability to deposit not bonds but agricultural produce.120

Consequently, the later Progressive advances demonstrate that agrarian interests were successful, but only indirectly and incompletely. This outcome, therefore, makes the

117 James C. Malin, “The Farmers’ Alliance Subtreasury Plan and European Precedents,”

The Mississippi Valley Historical Review 31, no. 2 (1944): 255–60, https://doi.org/10.2307/1893427.

118 Hofstadter, The Age of Reform; from Bryan to F.D.R, 108.

119 Hicks, The Populist Revolt, 186.

120 Hicks, The Populist Revolt.

58 legacy of the land-grant university all the more significant. However, the farmers’ influence in that development was also sharply curtailed, as I will demonstrate in the coming chapters.

Rivals for Governance of the Land-Grant University: Farmers, Alumni, and

Administration at Ohio State University, 1870-1910

Chapter 3

The Land-grant Movement and

the Emergence of the Ohio State University, 1870-1900

While farmers and agrarian communities were undergoing the social, economic, and political turmoil described in Chapter 2, American colleges and universities were being transformed, beginning with the passage of the Morrill Act in 1862. Prior to its passage, most students of American higher education came from relatively privileged backgrounds and enrolled in studies of liberal arts, law, religion, or medicine. In the second quarter of the nineteenth century, American higher education faced significant dissatisfaction from the public even though many parents sent their children to college to acquire social and cultural capital. As President Wayland of Brown University stated in

1850, “the United States had 120 colleges, 47 law schools, 42 theological seminaries, and yet not a single institution ‘designed to furnish the agriculturist, the manufacturer, the mechanic or the merchant with the education that will prepare him for the profession to which his life is to be devoted.’ As late as 1862, there were only six ‘higher’ schools in the whole country purporting to deal with these utilitarian fields.”121 The Morrill Act then provided resources and encouragement for states to build institutions that would provide unprecedented access for children from the industrial classes and agrarian communities.

121 Wayland is quoted in Willis Rudy and John S. Brubacher, Higher Education in

Transition: A History of American Colleges and Universities, 4th edition (New

Brunswick, N.J., U.S.A: Transaction Publishers, 1997), 62.

In hindsight, it is easy to see the beneficial effects that the Morrill Act had on

American higher education. However, initial support for the Morrill Act was minimal throughout the United States. Those in the federal government, state and local governments, and the industrial classes, and agrarian communities--the very group that land-grant universities were meant to serve--were skeptical of the land-grant college idea.

Existing historiography on the land-grant movement is limited. Even so, the histories

“agree that the first quarter-century after the 1862 Morrill Act was a dismal period for the land-grant movement. The colleges did not fail in the sense of having to close their doors—indeed, by 1870 all thirty-seven states had founded or had laid the groundwork for establishing a land-grant college. However, the colleges did not flourish.

Enrollments—a high percentage of them in college preparatory courses—grew slowly, and student attrition remained high. Professors were asked to endure low salaries, heavy workloads, and primitive facilities.”122 It was not until the beginning of the twentieth century that land-grant colleges achieved stability and sustained growth.

In this chapter, I will first survey the land-grant movement during the final third of the nineteenth century. Then, I will review the major federal legislation that allowed

Vermont Representative Justin Morrill’s vision for American higher education to become a reality through the land-grant movement. Finally, I will discuss the impact that state

122 Roger L. Williams, The Origins of Federal Support for Higher Education: George W.

Atherton and the Land-Grant College Movement, First edition (University Park, Pa: Penn

State Press, 1991), 3.

62 legislation had on the governance structure and funding sources of the Ohio State

University (OSU) between1870-1900.

The Land-Grant College Movement of 1862

Before addressing the legislation that created and then supported the land-grant colleges, I will provide the background of the land-grant college movement. It is well- documented that the land-grant movement “sought to introduce the teaching of applied subjects and broaden social access.”123 However, this was just one of the many ideas embodied in the movement. Land-grant education transformed higher education in two primary ways. First, it provided increased access to education. The primary philosophy of the land-grant movement was to provide higher education to the industrial classes.124

Second, it broadened the curriculum. Instead of focusing only on classical instruction, the

123 Roger L. Geiger, The History of American Higher Education: Learning and Culture from the Founding to World War II, Reprint edition (Place of publication not identified:

Princeton University Press, 2016), x.

124 Alvin Ignace Thomas, “Industrial Education in the Land-Grant Colleges and

Universities: A Study to Establish a Basis for Projecting Industrial Education in the Years

Ahead” (Ph.D., The Ohio State University, 1957), http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.ohio- state.edu/docview/301959010/citation/8A64728C09564141PQ/3.

63 land-grant movement provided courses in two new branches of knowledge: agricultural and mechanical arts. The agricultural branch of the colleges emphasized studies on agricultural sciences, not the day-to-day operations of the farm. This was a frequent complaint of land-grant colleges by farmers, as I will discuss in Chapter 4. Mechanical arts was a broad term for the engineering curriculum. It included three phases of education: “engineering education as its higher or professional phase, industrial- vocational and short course instruction as its collateral and extension phase, and experimental and other technical investigation as its research phase.”125

Although the land-grant colleges would be instrumental in providing access to education for the industrial classes and exposing them to a liberal arts curriculum, the formation of the land-grant movement was not an easy task. Land-grant colleges initially faced many challenges. First, many rural public secondary schools did not provide adequate preparation to students for admission to the land-grant colleges. Second, there was a shortage of qualified faculty in agricultural and mechanical arts. Many faculty had graduated from traditional liberal arts colleges or studied in Europe. As the faculty formed their new agricultural disciplines, little literature on their subjects was available.

For example, it was common to find a botanist, by training, teaching agrarian science.126

Opposition from the industrial classes presented another challenge. Amongst this group, college attendance was not a priority; therefore, “‘dirt farmers’ were largely uninvolved

125 Thomas, “Industrial Education in the Land-Grant Colleges and Universities,” 75.

126 Thomas, “Industrial Education in the Land-Grant Colleges and Universities.”

64 in instigating the land-grant movement.”127 Finally, opposition also came from classical colleges, which I will address when considering federal legislation for the land-grant movement.128

Federal Legislation and the Land-Grant Movement

The land-grant movement was slow to start. As Johnson indicated, “agricultural colleges had birth pangs that have left us lurid descriptions: ‘a bundle of whimsies,’ an undernourished abortion,’ ‘mere symbolic patches of hay or grass,’ and ‘an Agricultural

College without Agriculture in it.’”129 It took nearly 60 years for land-grant colleges to gain traction as educational institutions. In order to be successful, proponents of the land- grant colleges needed to rely on federal and state legislation to support their vision. In this section, I will address the different federal legislation that supported public higher education with a focus on legislation that supported land-grant colleges. Included in the legislation is the Land Ordinance of 1785, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the Morrill

Bill of 1858, the Morrill Act of 1862, the Congressional Investigation of 1874, the Hatch

127 Roger L. Geiger and Nathan M. Sorber, eds., The Land-Grant Colleges and the

Reshaping of American Higher Education: 30, 1 edition (Transaction Publishers, 2013), xi.

128 Thomas, “Industrial Education in the Land-Grant Colleges and Universities.”

129 Eldon L. Johnson, “Misconceptions About the Early Land-Grant Colleges,” The

Journal of Higher Education 52, no. 4 (1981): 339, https://doi.org/10.2307/1981282.

Act of 1887, and the Morrill Act of 1890. I have provided a summary and timeline of the

Congressional activity in Table 1. For each, I will address who was involved, the result of their passage, and some of the challenges that emerged as a byproduct of the legislation, as appropriate. After addressing the federal legislation, I will then focus on what transpired at the state level and its impact on OSU.

Year Federal Outcome of Legislation Legislation 1785 Land Ordinance Established public higher education by generating funds to support schools through land sales in each township. 1787 Northwest Similar to the Land Ordinance of 1785, but did not Ordinance specify the amount of land necessary to be set aside for sale. Therefore, it expanded the amount of land available. 1859 Morrill Bill Did not become a law and was vetoed by President Buchanan. 1862 Morrill Act Established the land-grant colleges and defined the type of land available for sale, the land scrip required if lands were not available in any given state, the roles and responsibilities of the State, and the timeline to be followed once funds were received. 1874 Congressional The investigation was at the request of the Grange and Investigation Presidents McCosh and Eliot of Princeton and Harvard, respectively. They claimed that the land-grant colleges were misusing federal funds. Congress ruled that the colleges were performing satisfactorily and following the parameters as outlined by the Morrill Act of 1862, reinforcing the land-grant colleges’ validity.

Table 1: Timeline of federal legislation that supported the land-grant colleges

1887 Hatch Act Established experiment stations alongside the land- grant colleges across the country. Ultimately, this legislation provided additional oversight of the experiment stations to most land-grant colleges and additional funding for the land-grant colleges to access. 1890 Second Morrill Act Provided much-needed additional funds from Congress to support the land-grant colleges. It also required that states demonstrate that race was not an admissions requirement for the land-grant college and, if it was, they needed to establish a separate land-grant college for African Americans.

The Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787

Federal support for higher education in America was not a new idea when Justin

Morrill proposed his land-grant movement. Even before Morrill, America had demonstrated its investment in public higher education in two ways. First, in 1785, the

Continental Congress encouraged the establishment of public education through the Land

Ordinance of 1785. As part of the Ordinance, the Continental Congress reserved a section of land in each township for the use of public schools. Two years later, “the same

Congress granted land to the Ohio Company for the endowment of a ‘literary

68 institution.’”130 The idea of public education became an important aspect of American expansion west. Ohio was the first state to receive funding through the Land Ordinance of 1785, which supported the founding of the first public institution west of the

Alleghenies: Ohio University in Athens, Ohio.

The second Congressional act that supported public education was through the

Northwest Ordinance of 1787. Article three of the Northwest Ordinance read, “‘religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.’”131 The difference between the Northwest Ordinance and the Land Ordinance of 1785 was that the Northwest Ordinance did not specify any amount of land to be set aside for the establishment of schools. The momentum for agricultural education and public land sales to support higher education continued into the mid-nineteenth century. For example, as early as 1800, Thomas Jefferson had attempted a similar feat and included agriculture in the list of sciences to be taught at the University of Virginia.132 Throughout the 1840s and

130 Vernon Carstensen, “A Century of the Land-Grant Colleges,” The Journal of Higher

Education 33, no. 1 (1962): 30, https://doi.org/10.2307/1980197.

131 Segrid Dee Davidson, “A Historical Study of Legislative Developments of Land-

Grant Colleges in the United States” (Ph.D., University of Southern California, 1965), 12, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.ohio- state.edu/docview/1664309967/abstract/44A0CBE85B7A435DPQ/1.

132 Thomas, “Industrial Education in the Land-Grant Colleges and Universities,” 35.

1850s, taxpayers petitioned state universities, many of which received money from the

Land Ordinance of 1785, to establish courses in agriculture or agricultural chemistry.

Also, taxpayers “asked Congress for land grants to establish such colleges, and they asked state legislatures to provide state funds for such institutions.”133 Furthermore,

Maryland, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Iowa all took steps to create colleges of agriculture. The concept of educating citizens in agricultural science was an initial goal of

Justin Morrill’s land-grant college idea, but it was not a new idea.

The Morrill Act of 1862

Justin Morrill’s election as one of Vermont’s Representatives to Congress helped to take higher education to new heights. Morrill was born on April 14, 1810, in New

Hampshire. His family then relocated to Strafford, Vermont where he attended common school. Morrill lived a traditional Vermont life as the son of a blacksmith. For the man who is known as the “the father of land-grant colleges,” it is interesting to note that he never attended college because his family could not afford it. He was, however, well- educated because of his reading and study habits.134 Morrill grew up to be successful in retail after starting as a store clerk. His success allowed him to retire at the age of 38.

After retirement, Morrill went on to a political career that lasted forty-three years. Morrill

133 Carstensen, “A Century of the Land-Grant Colleges,” 32.

134 Coy F. Cross II and Coy F. Cross, Justin Smith Morrill: Father of the Land-Grant

Colleges (MSU Press, 1999).

70 served as both a representative and senator for Vermont. It was during his early years in the House of Representatives that Morrill authored the Morrill Act of 1862, but his commitment to public higher education was a constant theme throughout this political career.

The Morrill Act of 1862 accelerated the longstanding policy of providing land grants for education as originally planned for in the Land Ordinance of 1785. Some historians consider that the catalyst for the land-grant movement was not as beneficent as history shows. Roger Williams hypothesized that the act “might also be looked at as a response to an era of increased ‘privatization’ in higher education stemming from the

Dartmouth College case of 1819. Before that time, colleges tended to be viewed more ambiguously, as public agencies of the community or state rather than an unfettered private corporation.”135

Segrid Dee Davidson penned another hypothesis about Morrill's reasoning to establish land-grant colleges. Davidson identified four reasons for Morrill’s support of land-grant education. First, she observed that Morrill took action because Morrill observed that the value of the land was declining due primarily to an increase in available land in the 1850s. The declining value was a result of increased Congressional grants of federal land. Congress allocated these grants for veterans of the U.S. military, the

Homestead Act which focused on Westward expansion, and railroad grants. Second,

Morrill believed that previous policies induced farmers to overuse their plot of land

135 Williams, The Origins of Federal Support for Higher Education, 36.

71 which led to diminished soil fertility. Third, in the 70-plus years since the creation of the

Land Ordinance of 1785, the economy of the United States had changed. To capitalize on the increased grants and to provide education for farmers that allowed for maximized farming practices in order to keep up with industrialization, Morrill believed that land- grant education needed to evolve to include industrial workers. He thought that “new machines had recently been invented which would need men to operate and repair them.”136

Fourth, Morrill observed that many farmers had no formal education at all. The lack of education and training in agricultural science and improved agricultural methods limited the economic potential of farmers. Finally, as the country expanded and new states formed, Morrill observed that “many states lacked funds for education and thereby were deficient in educational facilities, unless they were federally aided.”137 Morrill saw land-grant education as a solution to the looming problem that would face American industrialists. During his speech to Congress in which he lobbied for the passage of the

Morrill Act, he stated that “his bill described the declining productivity of American

136 Davidson, “A Historical Study of Legislative Developments of Land-Grant Colleges in the United States,” 23.

137 Davidson, “A Historical Study of Legislative Developments of Land-Grant Colleges in the United States,” 23.

72 agriculture, which was in contrast with European countries in which agriculture was studied in a scientific manner.”138

Another historian, Roger Geiger identified four goals that Morrill had for the land-grant movement. Davidson’s goals are the causes that pushed Morrill to start the land-grant movement. Geiger’s goals, however, are viewed as the goals for the land-grant movement. According to Geiger, Morrill first “intended to open educational opportunity for the ‘industrial classes.’”139 The second intention of Morrill was to provide education in practical studies in agriculture and the mechanical arts. The third goal was to integrate

“practical arts alongside ‘other scientific and classical studies.’”140 According to Geiger, the final goal of Morrill was to encourage economic development through research.

Morrill’s observations of colleges shaped his first goal of providing access to education for the industrial classes at the time. Access was important because the nation’s population was “overwhelmingly rural and agrarian. In 1820, only 5 percent of the population lived in cities over 8,000 [people]; by 1830, that figure had risen only slightly, to 6.75 percent.”141 According to Geiger, “since colleges largely prepared students for the professions and were patronized by that same class, Morrill envisioned a college in

138 Geiger and Sorber, The Land-Grant Colleges and the Reshaping of American Higher

Education, x.

139 Geiger, The History of American Higher Education, 282.

140 Geiger, The History of American Higher Education, 282.

141 Williams, The Origins of Federal Support for Higher Education, 19.

73 each state, ‘accessible to all, but especially to the sons of toil’—the thousand willing and expecting to work their way through the world by the sweat of their brow.’”142

Educational and political reformers like Morrill “continued to seek ways to make higher education more available and accommodating to the men of the field and of the machine— whether they desired it or not (and the evidence suggests that in the main they did not, at least not until very late in the nineteenth century).”143 Morrill’s land-grant movement introduced a new curriculum that he believed would impact the industrial classes.

Morrill’s second and third goals of land-grant education were intertwined. His second goal for land-grant education was to provide instruction on the “’practical avocations of life.’”144 In doing so, he intended to improve the economic status of the industrial classes. He envisioned that the practical curriculum would be taught alongside traditional liberal arts curriculum. This format of instruction would be the third goal of

Morrill’s land-grant movement.

By authoring the Morrill Act of 1862, Morrill’s third goal was “‘to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes,’ the irony is that its author

(Morrill) seemed to have intended that liberal education predominate.”145 In 1890,

142 Geiger, The History of American Higher Education, 282.

143 Williams, The Origins of Federal Support for Higher Education, 19.

144 Geiger, The History of American Higher Education, 282.

145 Williams, The Origins of Federal Support for Higher Education, 20.

Morrill emphasized this point to the House Education Committee. He stated that the initial intent of the first Morrill Act “was to give a chance to the industrial classes of the country to obtain a liberal education, something more than what was bestowed by our universities and colleges in general, which seemed to be more based on the English plan of giving education only to what might be called the professional classes, in law, medicine, and theology.”146 Industrialists, however, did not desire a liberal education.

Instead, they sought a practical education that would help them in their fields and factories.

Morrill’s fourth and final goal-- neither as altruistic as access to education nor as academic as curricular reform-- was economic development. With the Morrill Act of

1862 and subsequent federal land-grant legislation, Morrill addressed a growing societal need to increase agricultural productivity for America. Between 1800 and 1860, the

American population increased from 5.3 million people to 31.4 million people.147 The increase in the American population during this period was primarily urban and linked to an increase in immigration to the United States. The necessity to feed this growing population and to maintain a vibrant workforce was of concern to political leaders during this time.

146 Williams, The Origins of Federal Support for Higher Education, 20.

147 “Chart of US Population, 1790-2000,” accessed February 3, 2018, http://www.census- charts.com/Population/pop-us-1790-2000.html.

Three years into his Congressional career, Morrill authored his first attempt at land-grant legislation. When Morrill drafted his 1859 bill, “the federal government had already donated 4,000,000 acres of public land to fifteen states for the endowment of universities.”148 Although the initial 1859 bill eventually passed Congress, it was vetoed by then-President Buchanan, who apparently, wanted to assuage Southern lawmakers who resisted the extension of federal programs and imposition of state rights.149

However, in 1861, after President Lincoln’s election to office and the Southern states’ secession from the Union, the opportunity came to pass the Morrill Act and, on July 2,

1862, President Lincoln signed the Morrill Act into law.

The new legislation distributed a total of 17,430,000 acres of land to the various states, with each state’s total based on the formula of 30,000 acres for each Senator and member in the House of Representatives. The states could then sell the land and use the proceeds to endow a college or university that focused on agricultural science or engineering education.150 Also, by accepting the grant of federal land, the law provided an endowment to the state to:

148 Rudy and Brubacher, Higher Education in Transition, 154.

149 John R. Thelin, A History of American Higher Education, 2nd Edition, 2nd edition

(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2011).

150 Williams, The Origins of Federal Support for Higher Education.

maintain at least one college where the leading object shall be, without

excluding other scientific and classical studies, and including military

tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and

the mechanic arts… in order to promote the liberal and professional

education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions

of life.151

The legislation also leveraged federal funding by requiring states to supply their own monies in order to qualify for Morrill support. In particular, the Morrill funds could not be used for the construction of buildings or infrastructure, so the states had to assume responsibility for that as well as maintenance and staffing.152 By the end of 1863, fourteen states had accepted the land scrip provided by the act. Then “three more states had joined them by the end of 1864, one in 1865, six in 1866, four in 1867, three in 1868, one in 1869, and two in 1870.”153

For all of the benefits that came with the passage of the Morrill Act of 1862, disagreements existed, and there was confusion about some of the requirements of the act. First, the act provided the grant of public lands and the creation of an endowed fund

151 “Act of July 2, 1862, Ch. 130, 133,” July 2, 1862, 504.

152 Rudy and Brubacher, Higher Education in Transition, 229.

153 Davidson, “A Historical Study of Legislative Developments of Land-Grant Colleges in the United States,” 63.

77 for each state to support public higher education within the state. There was initial skepticism from citizens that higher education could not use the funds. Instead, some citizens believed that the funds should be used to support the common schools. For example, in Indiana, “friends of the university only repulsed by the narrowest of margins a powerful campaign to divide up the land-grant endowment among the lower schools.”154

The second contentious provision under the Morrill Act of 1862 loosely described the type of college needed. Some believed that the land-grant college should serve only farmers while others believed that the colleges should serve all students, regardless of background. Finally, the third disputed provision required the states to maintain funding for their land-grant college. If funds diminished or additional funds were needed beyond the initial endowment, the states would have to provide them. Therefore, this placed the responsibility of future growth for the land-grant college on the states. However, most states did not invest additional funds into their land-grant colleges until nearly a decade after their founding. Earle D. Ross stated that it was evident that, by the late 1870s, the initial vision of a land-grant system was financially impossible.155 Land-grant colleges would have to depend on additional revenue from local taxpayers in order to be sustainable or rely on additional federal support. Eventually, these much-needed funds

154 Rudy and Brubacher, Higher Education in Transition, 155.

155 Earle D. Ross, Democracy’s College, The Land-Grant Movement in the Formative

Stage (Iowa State College Press, 1942).

78 came from the Hatch Act and the Second Morrill Act, but the land-grant colleges faced additional pressure in the interim.

The Congressional Investigation of 1874

The 1870s became a decade of investigations by Congress into the land-grant colleges. Most notable was the Congressional Investigation of 1874 and the resulting

Congressional action that ultimately supported the land-grant movement. In Indianapolis, the local newspaper, The Indianapolis Sentinel, reported that:

A resolution was introduced a day or two ago in Congress providing for

an official enquiry into the condition of those colleges and universities

which have received aid from Congress under the Morrill Education Act;

better known as the Agricultural College Act of 1862. The resolution is

simply the embodiment in practical form of a sentiment in Congress which

has been gradually coming to the surface, strongly tinged with distrust

against the agricultural colleges… There is certainly a very general

prejudice still remaining against the very attempt to establish these

industrial and technological schools, which is largely intensified by the

manifest failure of some of the first efforts to realize the conception of the

act which [gave] them an existence.156

Presidents of traditional liberal arts colleges viewed the land-grant institutions as potential threats to their institutions’ growth and success. When the Morrill Act of 1862 became law, private university presidents questioned the constitutionality of the land- grant movement and felt threatened by the perceived consistent investment into land- grant institutions by taxpayers. While the amount of investment and perceived consistency was a fallacy, university presidents of traditional liberal arts colleges spoke out against the land-grant movement. In particular, President James McCosh of Princeton and President Charles Eliot of Harvard led the attack on land-grant colleges.157

Shortly after the initial objection made to Congress by President McCosh, the

Grange followed suit because they believed that land-grant colleges did not provide their children with valuable education that helped them on the farm. The Grange thus condemned “the colleges for their inability to attract agricultural students and vowing to oppose the schools in every way.”158 Congress began its investigation in February 1874.

156 “Morrill,” The Indianapolis Sentinel, February 6, 1874, 160 edition, sec. Morrill, 4,

America’s Historical Newspapers.

157 Williams, The Origins of Federal Support for Higher Education.

158 Williams, The Origins of Federal Support for Higher Education, 3.

During the investigation, President Eliot recounted to Congress how grateful he was to have learned that President McCosh had similar concerns about the land-grant movement. He stated, “’I was thankful to President McCosh when he ventured to go before Congress and protest against this demoralizing use of public money.’”159 He

“voiced particular opposition to the ‘principle of partiality’ introduced by the federal government in supporting the land-grant colleges. If such grants were to be made, he argued, they should go to the strongest institutions, not the weakest.”160 With the history and proven record of Princeton and Harvard, it is not surprising that McCosh and Eliot advocated for their institutions to receive further support from Congress.

To McCosh’s and Eliot’s disappointment, the Congressional investigation found the land-grant colleges’ “responses to be ‘very satisfactory,’ and added: ‘There is no reason to believe… that there has been any serious mismanagement of the fund received from the United States.’”161 The House declared that the colleges were in proper operating order and “absolved them, as a class, of any glaring deficiencies.”162 With the absolution by Congress, the resolution of the investigation became a turning point for the land-grant movement.

159 Williams, The Origins of Federal Support for Higher Education, 67.

160 Williams, The Origins of Federal Support for Higher Education, 67.

161 Williams, The Origins of Federal Support for Higher Education, 78.

162 Williams, The Origins of Federal Support for Higher Education, 78.

When Congress found the land-grant colleges’ performance to be satisfactory,

Professor George Atherton of Rutgers College (and eventual president of Pennsylvania

State University) saw an opportunity to validate the land-grant movement. George W.

Atherton stood out as a leader in the land-grant movement. He attempted to maneuver the land-grant college presidents against the Grange and agricultural interests. Atherton was born in Boxford, Massachusetts and had a transformational educational experience by attending many elite institutions during his formative years. In 1858, he graduated from

Phillips Exeter Academy in Exeter, New Jersey. 163 He then attended the Albany Boys’

Academy and transferred from there to Yale University during his sophomore year.

Atherton remained at Yale until his junior year when he left Yale to join the Union Army.

In 1863, Atherton resigned from the army due to health reasons and returned to Yale to graduate with his class.

Following graduation, Atherton stayed in education and returned to Albany

Academy where he taught for two years before leaving for a professorship at St. John’s

College in Annapolis, Maryland. Illinois Industrial University (eventually named the

University of Illinois) recruited Atherton for a professorship. This role was Atherton’s first foray into land-grant education. Atherton’s connections to the Albany Academy, however, drew him back to the East Coast when David Murray, a former principal of

Albany Academy and current professor at Rutgers College, recruited Atherton to Rutgers.

Rutgers College offered “the thirty-two-year-old Atherton the Voorhees Professorship of

163 Williams, The Origins of Federal Support for Higher Education.

82 history, political economy, and constitutional law.” 164 It was during his tenure at Rutgers

College that Atherton gained greater exposure to land-grant ideology and became an early advocate in the land-grant movement.

In 1873, Atherton called on the federal government to take four steps in improving public education.165 First, he asked that the sales of unappropriated public lands be permanently invested into an endowment supporting public education. Second, in order to ensure this happened, he demanded that all grants to corporations by the federal government must cease. He added that since 1859, “when the policy of giving land to railroads was begun, Congress had donated to these corporations more than 186 million acres (compared with 17.4 million acres dispensed by the 1862 Morrill Act).”166

His third request was that a portion of the educational fund was to be dedicated to further endowment of land-grant colleges. His fourth request was that the federal government hold the states accountable in order to ensure proper usage of the federal investment and future investment by the states in land-grant education. Atherton’s advocacy for land- grant education anticipated the additional investment in land-grant colleges that Congress made through the Hatch Act of 1887 and the Morrill Act of 1890.

The Hatch Act of 1887

164 Williams, The Origins of Federal Support for Higher Education, 60.

165 Williams, The Origins of Federal Support for Higher Education.

166 Williams, The Origins of Federal Support for Higher Education, 70.

The third action that Congress took to support land-grant colleges was by passing the Hatch Act of 1887. In the same year, the Association of American Agricultural

Colleges and Experiment Stations, parent of the Association of Land-Grant Colleges and

Universities, was founded. The Association of American Agricultural Colleges and

Experiment Stations was an instrumental advocate for the land-grant movement, but there was tension in the ranks of university presidents and extension directors. Though influential, the “ambivalent alliance of college presidents and experiment stations directors… often worked toward mutually opposed goals regarding station structure and function.”167 The directors felt that university presidents did not prioritize the needs of the experiment stations as they did the land-grant colleges.

As part of the debate for the Hatch Act, university presidents and extension directors often found themselves on opposing sides. The Grange was again in opposition to the land-grant colleges because its membership viewed the land-grant colleges as competition for farming resources and as a failure in agricultural education. The Grange membership witnessed their children going away to college and not returning to the farm, ultimately detracting from available farm labor. The Grange membership also believed that the land-grant colleges did not effectively use the funds from the first Morrill Act nor did they provide adequate agricultural education. In 1887, the meeting minutes from the twenty-first session of the National Grange of the Patrons of Husbandry indicated the

Grangers’ feelings about the new legislation. The minutes read:

167 Williams, The Origins of Federal Support for Higher Education, 88.

Members of this body know well that many of the colleges that

availed of the land grants made by the act of 1862 have failed utterly to

meet its provisions, that they realized large sums of money from the sale

of lands given with the purpose of encouraging agricultural and

mechanical education and made little attempt to meet obligations imposed

by the laws.

In plain terms, they were not true to the objects sought by a

munificent gift, intended to confer advantages upon students in agriculture

and the mechanic arts, and are therefore not worthy of confidence as

almoners of further bounties having similar purpose. We cannot ask that

further appropriation be made to such colleges as have lost sight of

purposes clearly set forth in the so-called land grant act of 1862 under

which they were established. On the contrary, we are firm in the opinion

that every breach of good faith in departing from the purposes of the act

should be an effectual bar to further largesses.168

168 Journal of Proceedings. Twenty-First Session of the National Grange of the Patrons of Husbandry. (Thorp & Godfrey, 1887), 177, https://babel-hathitrust-org.proxy.lib.ohio- state.edu/cgi/imgsrv/download/pdf?id=mdp.39015065158993;orient=0;size=100;seq=181

;num=177;attachment=0.

Because of these sentiments, the Grange lobbied to confer authority for determining the purpose of the Hatch Act funds to farmers in the states. The Grange believed that the better option for their membership was to award funds to the extension directors because farmers saw direct results from extension education and not from land- grant education. At this time, extension education occurred outside of land-grant colleges, which did not hire extension staff. Between the presidents and extension directors, there was one major form of disagreement. The land-grant universities wanted “to create a system with land-grant agricultural college campuses controlling the funds… while the

USDA wanted to retain the structure of their popular Farmer’s Cooperative

Demonstration Program, with an agricultural agent based at the county level.”169

Land-grant presidents were interested in controlling the Hatch Act funds, which

“would not only help to render the colleges more responsive to an antagonistic agricultural constituency, but also bolster the colleges by underwriting agricultural research and instruction (or so they desired) so that the institutions could apply the funds they were devoting to agriculture to other areas.”170 A leader at the 1885 Convention for the Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations, Dr. George

169 Rachel A. Surls, “Land -Grant Universities and the County -Extension Relationship:

Challenges, Successes and Emerging Trends” (Ph.D. dissertation, The Claremont

Graduate University, 2008), 17, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.ohio- state.edu/docview/304674871/abstract/667A32786A0B4247PQ/1.

170 Williams, The Origins of Federal Support for Higher Education, 111.

Atherton, now president of Pennsylvania State University, attempted to manage the pending legislation of the Hatch Act with fellow university presidents.

For example, by the time Congress would vote on the bill that became the Hatch

Act, it was up to Atherton to work with Congress and other land-grant college presidents.

In order for the bill to pass, Atherton and his committee of land-grant college presidents needed to go on the defensive. The college presidents had to lobby for control of the experiment stations and not release control to the state, the agricultural interests

(specifically the Grange), or the Department of Agriculture.171 The debate went beyond the Hatch Act funds and became an issue of governance of the state research stations. As part of the debate, “sharp arguments about whether the colleges were providing adequate agricultural instruction took place, with Morrill reminding the Senate that the colleges were never intended to ‘force every student enrolled to study agriculture—merely to provide them with the opportunity to do so.’”172 The farm interest, extension directors, and land-grant university presidents reached a compromise that established extension stations as part of the land-grant college for all existing colleges, but if the extension station existed before the founding of the state land-grant college, that extension station had the option to be managed separately.

The Hatch Act formalized the relationship between the land-grant college and its experiment station in each state. It “was a masterpiece of political compromise. Although

171 Williams, The Origins of Federal Support for Higher Education, 112.

172 Williams, The Origins of Federal Support for Higher Education, 114.

87 the rising class of agricultural scientists eventually emerged as the chief beneficiary, the land-grant college presidents, the agricultural interests (represented most forcefully by the Grange), the senators (acting both on their beliefs and on their presumptions of state sentiment) got provisions they wanted and provisions they did not want.”173 The Hatch

Act also appropriated annual funds of $15,000 a year for the support of experiment stations, a model that already existed in Great Britain and Germany. The funding

“allowed colleges of agriculture at land-grant institutions to begin developing a body of knowledge actually helpful to farmers.”174 The funding for the experiment stations was critical in bringing a national system of agricultural experiment stations to life by educating the public with research findings and practical application of agricultural science through bulletins, correspondence courses, and traveling short courses for farmers in local communities.

In addition to the increased financial support for experiment stations and land- grant colleges, the Hatch Act regulated the operations of the various experiment stations.

Williams identified four parameters that the experiment stations and land-grant colleges were required to follow. First, the Hatch Act funds must be used exclusively for agricultural research and experimentation. The outcome appeased the agriculturalists because they believed that other land-grant funds were being used to support non- agricultural studies. Second, the station’s financial records remained separate from the

173 Williams, The Origins of Federal Support for Higher Education, 88.

174 Surls, “Land -Grant Universities and the County -Extension Relationship,” 13.

88 college’s to provide greater accountability on spending. Third, the station “would be directed by a ‘recognized official head… on an equal footing with the other heads of departments… whose time shall be chiefly devoted to this department.’”175 Finally, the

Hatch Act required that the publications for the experiment station be kept separate from the college. The result allowed for station directors to use their resources for educational outreach and training in agricultural sciences and best practices.

Ultimately, the Hatch Act bolstered the funding of both land-grant colleges and experiment stations. Farmers saw land-grant colleges as more credible because of their outreach to farmers. Hatch Act funds helped to support the growth of agricultural education, but land-grant colleges still needed additional resources to enhance their infrastructure and compensate faculty. The solution came three years later in the form of the Morrill Act of 1890.

The Morrill Act of 1890

The final Congressional action that greatly benefited the land-grant colleges in their first nearly thirty years of existence was the Morrill Act of 1890. Under the bill,

Morrill was able to secure the necessary funds required to sustain the land-grant colleges.

Justin Morrill’s legacy of land-grant education was a result of his dedication to his vision throughout his entire career. By 1872, he “could see that the act of 1862 was going to

175 Williams, The Origins of Federal Support for Higher Education, 118.

89 need help to carry on the work which it had begun… Morrill first offered a measure in

1872 and each succeeding year until in 1890”176 to bolster federal support of the land- grant college. By 1880, the land-grant colleges were unable to garner further support from federal and state legislatures in securing additional funds for educational operations.

In 1890, Morrill used a different approach: “On March 25, 1890, he introduced

Senate Bill 3526, which in the fashion of its predecessors provided that the proceeds of public land sales and a portion of revenue from land-grant railroad companies177 be used for land-grant colleges and public education. It differed, however, in that it gave the colleges rather than the secondary schools preferential treatment. Each college was to receive $25,000 a year from the federal sources.”178 As a result of Morrill’s tenacity, he was able to get the Morrill Act of 1890 passed through Congress with the assistance of land-grant college presidents from the Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations. The cadre of land-grant college presidents included presidents

176 Davidson, “A Historical Study of Legislative Developments of Land-Grant Colleges in the United States,” 48.

177 Building railroads were expensive ventures and private banks were often concerned that railroads would need a long time to repay their loans. As a result, Congress provided land-grants so that railroad companies could sell the land to generate much-needed revenue. One stipulation required that a portion of the revenue was allocated to land-grant colleges and public education.

178 Williams, The Origins of Federal Support for Higher Education, 139.

90 from Maryland Agricultural College, Rutgers College, Massachusetts Agricultural

College, Purdue University, the State College of Kentucky, and OSU.179

Land-grant college presidents believed that additional funds were necessary for land-grant institutions for two reasons. First, technological advances required more advanced equipment and scientific research required more sophisticated laboratories and instruments in order to maintain progress in these fields. Second, there was an increase in the number of students enrolled at land-grant institutions. The land-grant colleges were unable to grow their infrastructure and pay faculty salaries to accommodate the influx of students.180 The sub-committee that initially reviewed the Morrill bill observed: “that the

Hatch Act, ‘while increasing the responsibility and usefulness of the colleges,’ did not provide the institutions with ‘any added resources for their own proper work.”181 Since the Hatch Act placed restrictions on how the funds were to be used (only experiment stations could access the funds available), other departments could not benefit from the increased funding.

In order for the Morrill Act of 1890 to meet the needs of the land-grant colleges, the land-grant college presidents had to marshal further support in Congress. This task was not easily accomplished since the Grange, and other agricultural groups were still attempting to influence the bill. In August of 1890, the Grange circulated a pamphlet that

179 Williams, The Origins of Federal Support for Higher Education.

180 Williams, The Origins of Federal Support for Higher Education.

181 Williams, The Origins of Federal Support for Higher Education, 143.

91 urged members to “communicate with their congressmen and ‘ask that the bill be passed as it came from the Senate, and has been reported by the House Committee, with the

‘Granger Amendment’ added.”182 The “Granger Amendment” required colleges to use the new funds for instruction in agriculture and mechanical arts. It was Alexis Cope, secretary of OSU, and Grange Secretary Trimble who saw the need to shape the legislation differently. They encouraged Atherton to meet with Grange officials and other land-grant college presidents to reach a compromise. This group of men was able to reach a compromise that requested funds “not only for instruction in agriculture and the mechanic arts, and for facilities for their instruction, but also in the broader areas the college presidents had wanted: ‘the English language and the various branches of mathematical, physical, natural, and economic science.’”183 The compromise between farmers and land-grant college presidents prevented the bill from being mired in

Congressional debate. Instead, the bill was passed and ultimately because of the support of both the farmers and the land-grant college presidents.

The Morrill Act of 1890 accomplished many great feats and, in many ways, institutionalized Justin Morrill’s vision of public education. By embedding liberal arts in the land-grant curriculum, it insured that the land-grant institution would develop “not as

182 Williams, The Origins of Federal Support for Higher Education, 146.

183 Williams, The Origins of Federal Support for Higher Education, 147.

92 a college limited to the agricultural and mechanical arts,”184 but as a university. The second Morrill Act also guaranteed annual appropriations that ultimately reached $25,000 for a range of educational programs at the land-grant institutions.

Congress signed the bill into law on August 30, 1890, and the act transformed

American higher education in four significant ways. First, although some of the original land-grant colleges admitted African Americans when they were founded, the second

Morrill Act explicitly provided funding for black land-grant colleges, primarily in former

Confederate states.185 The 1890 Act thus prompted the establishment of seventeen separate land-grant colleges for African Americans.186

The second Morrill Act accomplished this by prohibiting payment of any amount to colleges that made a distinction of race or color in their admissions processes. The law did, however, allow for the establishment of separate colleges for White and African

American students so long as the two colleges split the land-grant funds. The language of the Act read:

184 Davidson, “A Historical Study of Legislative Developments of Land-Grant Colleges in the United States,” 51.

185 Williams, The Origins of Federal Support for Higher Education.

186 John W. Davis, “The Negro Land-Grant College,” Journal of Negro Education 2, no.

3 (July 1933): 312–28.

That no money shall be paid out under this act to any state or territory for the support and maintenance of a college where a distinction of race or color is made in the admission of students, but the establishment and maintenance of such colleges separately for white and colored students shall be held to be a compliance with the provisions of this act if the funds received in such state or territory be equitably divided as hereinafter set forth: Provided, That in any state in which there has been one college established in pursuance of the act of July second, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, and also in which an educational institution of like character has been established, or may hereafter be established, and is now aided by such state from its own revenue, for the education of colored students in agriculture and the mechanic arts, however named or styled, or whether or not it has received money heretofore under the act to which this act is an amendment, the legislature of such state may propose and report to the

Secretary of the Interior a just and equitable division of the fund to be received under this act between one college for white students and one institution for colored students established as aforesaid, which shall be divided into two parts and paid accordingly, and thereupon such institution for colored students shall be entitled to the benefits of this act and subject to its provisions, as much as it would have been if it had been included under the act of eighteen hundred and- sixty-two, and the fulfillment of the

foregoing provision in reference to separate colleges for white and colored

students.187

The Morrill Act of 1890 provided greater access to African Americans, and one might assume that the 1890 colleges would parallel the development of the institutions established under the 1862 Morrill Act, but this was not the case. The primary purpose of the 1890 colleges was similar in that their “primary purpose was to furnish theoretical and practical higher education, including agriculture, mechanic arts, home economics,

English, mathematics, physical, natural and economic sciences… in order to train them

(African Americans) to engage in the pursuits and vocations of life.”188 The complex history of slavery and the continuing racial discrimination, however, stifled enrollment and educational opportunities for African Americans.

The second way that the Morrill Act of 1890 shaped the future of higher education was by defining the relationship between land-grant colleges and federal agencies. Before 1890, land-grant colleges related mostly to the Department of

Agriculture. In the new legislation, land-grant colleges also had a responsibility to the

Bureau of Education. As part of this new relationship, there were spending guidelines for the usage of the funds and penalties prescribed for their misuse. The new relationship dictated that "the funds could be applied only ‘to instruction in agriculture, the mechanic

187 Quoted in Davis, “The Negro Land-Grant College,” 314.

188 Davis, “The Negro Land-Grant College,” 317.

95 arts, the English language and the various branches of mathematical, physical, natural, and economic science, with special reference to their applications to the industries of life, and to facilities for such instruction.”189 The new regulations clarified spending of federal dollars for both land-grant college presidents and farmers.

The third way that the Morrill Act of 1890 transformed higher education was by providing consistent federal financial support to land-grant colleges. Prior to 1890, the federal dollars appropriated to land-grant colleges were minimal. As enrollment increased, the federal support from the 1862 act could not fully support the colleges. The

1890 Morrill Act contributed to the rapid development of the land-grant colleges. One way that it contributed was “the sudden infusion of cash—nearly $50,000—like manna from heaven. Despite bureaucratic delays and mix-ups, the majority of land-grant colleges received a total of $48,000 within twelve to eighteen months of the bill’s enactment.”190 Before the passage of the second Morrill Act, faculty salaries often suffered the most. The injection of funds from the Morrill Act of 1890 allowed institutions to stabilize faculty salaries and hire new faculty in the prescribed areas of study.

The fourth way that the 1890 Morrill Act shaped American higher education was by formalizing state support for land-grant colleges. As the colleges aged, their infrastructures crumbled. New buildings were needed, and investment in facilities and

189 Williams, The Origins of Federal Support for Higher Education, 148.

190 Williams, The Origins of Federal Support for Higher Education, 153.

96 utilities were necessary. Prior to 1890, “state support—when it materialized at all— usually came earmarked for the construction and maintenance of buildings, the area from which Congress had precluded 1862 Morrill Act expenditures. Such support was critical to the development of the colleges.”191 Between 1889 and 1890, states began to follow the example set forth by the federal government. The buy-in by state legislators ensured support for the land-grant colleges at the local level. Between 1889 and 1890 and again between 1899 and 1900, state support increased by 500 percent. By decade’s end, state support out distanced federal support by nearly half a million dollars.192 The increase in investment from the states allowed the land-grant colleges to hire additional faculty, invest in their infrastructure, and serve an ever-increasing number of students.

Providing for public education has been an American idea for nearly 250 years as established in the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. The

Morrill Act of 1862 affirmed that idea. Though buy-in was not immediate, land-grant advocates persevered. Through the Morrill Act of 1862, the Hatch Act of 1887, and the

Morrill Act of 1890, Congress made continuous federal appropriations to land-grant colleges. Even though farmers and liberal arts college presidents opposed the land-grant movement on a national stage through the Congressional Investigation of 1874, the land- grant colleges found their stability in the first forty years of their existence. Ultimately,

191 Williams, The Origins of Federal Support for Higher Education, 154.

192 Williams, The Origins of Federal Support for Higher Education, 154.

Congressional action encouraged state governments to renew their support of their land- grant college.

Founding and Early Development of the Ohio State University (1862-1879)

Between 1862 and 1900, increased federal legislation benefited the land-grant colleges. Although Congress offered federal support to the land-grant colleges, state support was slow to emerge. In many cases, the land-grant colleges faced impediments from the state legislature related to governance and funding. The land-grant presidents who were able to overcome these obstacles were most successful in transforming their institutions. At Illinois, Minnesota, and especially Wisconsin, the respective presidents were successful in negating these obstacles, but “Ohio State’s inability to transcend the old obstacles retarded its development”193 until after 1900. When considering the first 40 years of the Ohio Agricultural and Mechanical College, now known as the Ohio State

University, there are three distinct eras that demonstrate how legislative changes in the state impacted the land-grant college: founding and early development of OSU (1862-

1879), increased funding for OSU (1880-1889), and stabilization of OSU (1890-1900).

When Congress first passed the Morrill Act of 1862, there was not much support for the land-grant college in Ohio. The state legislature had many concerns about how to best establish a land-grant college within the state. One significant concern was how to pay for the state’s portion of funding for the new institution. Initially, the legislature

193 Geiger, The History of American Higher Education, 293.

98 agreed to accept the Morrill funds based upon the plan that they could fund the institution utilizing three possible sources of revenue: the Morrill Land Grant fund, the Ohio

University and Miami University foundations, and legislative appropriations. This plan would not come to fruition. Some additional concerns included deciding if the land-grant funding should go to an already existing institution or if the creation of a new institution was necessary, the governance of the institution, determining a location for the institution, and the required curriculum at the institution.

In order to address some of the concerns, Governor Rutherford B. Hayes worked with the Ohio General Assembly to pass a series of four bills. First, the General

Assembly passed “an act which allowed municipalities to organize, support and control their own institutions of higher education. In other words, these municipalities could develop their own colleges and universities, even if they did not receive money from the

Morrill Act.” 194 The second act addressed the fears that the state would mismanage the

Morrill funds and defined the investment of funds from the sale of the land scrip with interest secured at 6 percent. The third act assuaged fears from local counties that they would not be competitive enough to compete as a site for the new land-grant college. It permitted counties to sell bonds, which they could then use to purchase land and erect buildings in order to be competitive as a site for the new land-grant college. The final act that was passed was the Cannon Act, proposed by Reuben P. Cannon, the Ohio

194 Raimund E. Goerler, The Ohio State University: An Illustrated History (Columbus:

Ohio State University Press, 2011), 8.

Representative from Portage County. The Cannon Act of 1870 established the institution, its funding, and the governance structure.

The first section of the act established the institution and determined its purpose.

It read that “‘A College to be styled the Ohio Agricultural and Mechanical College is hereby established in this state, in accordance with the provisions of an Act of Congress of the United States, passed July 2, 1862.’ ‘The leading object shall be, without excluding other scientific and classical studies, and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and mechanic arts.’”195 The second section established the Board of Trustees of the institution that would consist of one member from each Congressional District, “to be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. The President of the State Board of Agriculture was to be ex officio a member.”196

The second important outcome of the Cannon Act was resolving the funding issue for the new institution. Before the passage of the Cannon Act, it was unclear as to how the state would fund a land-grant institution beyond the funding from the Morrill Act.

Initially, Ohioans were hesitant to accept the federal funds for a land-grant college. When the state legislature finally agreed to accept the Morrill Act on February 9, 1864, they did little to commit to planning for the land-grant college. When the funds were accepted, the

195 Quotation from Alexis Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1: 1870-1910

(Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1920), 21.

196 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 21.

100

Ohio legislature had four options in awarding the endowment funds. The first option was to award the Morrill funds to a pre-existing public institution (Ohio University, Miami

University, or the Farmers College). Gerard Anthony Zam identified plainly why the distribution of land-grant funds to a pre-existing institution was not well-liked by agricultural interests. He wrote:

Given the plethora of existing institutions, both literary and practical, as

well as a number of proposals which sought to incorporate them in their

schemes, a further question arises as to why their appropriation was

rejected by a majority of the organized agricultural community. Most, if

not all, of the schemes theoretically positioned these institutions as worthy

beneficiaries of the grant, so why the exclusion? Simply put, it did not

support them because it did (would) not control them. Control of the

college was, indeed, a key issue both before, during and after the years of

the fray.197

197 Gerard Anthony Zam, “The Competition Over the Morrill Land Grant Funds in Ohio,

1862-1870 (the Ohio State University, Higher, Agricultural Education)” (Ph.D., The

Ohio State University, 1985), 384, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.ohio- state.edu/docview/303412473/abstract/A938EF09281A4DE3PQ/1.

101

The second option for the legislature was to award the funds to a private institution which required the institution to move to a public model. A third option was to charter a new public, land-grant college. Finally, the legislature had the choice to separate the funding and award some combination of the institutions mentioned above. Between

1869-1870, Ohio University, Miami University, Oberlin College, Kenyon College, and

Western Reserve College made many attempts to secure a portion of the Morrill funds.

The State Board of Agriculture, however, advocated for the foundation of a new state university198 and secured the passage of the Cannon Act. The Cannon Act resolved that the new institution would receive funding from the Morrill Act.

The third important outcome of the Cannon Act was the establishment of the governance structure of the new land-grant institution. When the Cannon Act became law, it created “a nineteen-member board of trustees—one from each Congressional

District in Ohio—whom the governor proposed and the Senate confirmed. In addition, the president of the State Board of Agriculture served as an ex officio member.”199

Responsibility for resolving some of the remaining concerns from the passage of the

Morrill Act fell to the Board of Trustees. The legislature tasked the trustees with all decisions necessary to begin the Ohio Agricultural and Mechanical College: its location, its curriculum, its faculty, and its administration. Although the establishment of the Board

198 Alexis Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1: 1870-1910 (Columbus:

Ohio State University Press, 1920), viii.

199 Goerler, The Ohio State University, 11.

102 of Trustees was a monumental accomplishment, many challenges existed for the new institution and its governing body.

In the first decade of the institution, the Ohio Agricultural and Mechanical

College was at the mercy of the state legislature which had “little regard for academic considerations. Three times in the 1870s, changes in legislative majorities were followed by reconstitution of the board.”200 For example, in 1874, there was a reorganization of the board through new legislation. Under this new law, dated April 16, 1874, the Board was reduced to five members. It also provided that “no trustee, or relation of any trustee, by blood or marriage, shall be elected or appointed to a professorship or any other office or position in the college, the compensation for which is to be paid out of the state treasury or the agricultural and mechanical college fund, except upon approval of the governor.”201 In 1877, the Board was reorganized again by statute. “This time the Board was enlarged so that each congressional district was represented.”202 “This arrangement lasted less than a year for in May, 1878, the General Assembly finally acceded to the urging to change the name of the College and pared the Board to seven members.”203At this point, the Board finally stabilized in numbers and responsibility, and the Ohio

200 Geiger, The History of American Higher Education, 296.

201 James E Pollard, History of the Ohio State University; the Story of Its First Seventy-

Five Years, 1873-1948. (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1952), 14.

202 Pollard, History of the Ohio State University, 14.

203 Pollard, History of the Ohio State University, 14.

103

Agricultural and Mechanical College became OSU. There were additional challenges with the board of trustees, specifically related to the experiment station. I will address this in the next chapter. Even though governance was stable, funding remained a concern for the land-grant college during the 1880s.

When the legislature passed the Cannon Act on March 22, 1870, Ohioans were not immediately supportive of the idea of the new land-grant college. The Cleveland

Herald ran a story that read: “‘The Agricultural College Bill has passed the Senate as it came from the House, namely, an independent College. The fund, so far as answering the object intended by Congress, might as well have been cast into Lake Erie or the Ohio

River. We make the prophesy that time will prove the College to be a failure and the fund to have been wasted.”204 Whether Ohioans were supportive of the Cannon Act or not, the law was instrumental in shaping the future of the Ohio Agricultural and Mechanical

College.

Increased Funding for the Ohio State University (1880-1889)

Changes in governance were not the only challenges facing the Ohio Agricultural and Mechanical College during its infancy. Funding remained a challenge for the land- grant college for decades. “In 1876, for example, the secretary of the university’s board of trustees complained that Ohio supported its prisons and insane asylums but did nothing

204 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, xii.

104 for its university.”205 When the college was founded, “the auditor of state feared that the act was a bad deal for Ohio for two reasons. First, it burdened the state by having to manage the sale of federal lands at state expense. Second, it held the state liable for protecting the endowment for an undertaking that, in his opinion, seemed destined to fail.”206 Although the state, in accepting Congressional funds, pledged its support for necessary expenses for repair of buildings and to cover costs incurred by the Trustees, this was not the case immediately. From 1870 to 1880, the state of Ohio “had absolutely refused to appropriate moneys to pay the reasonable and necessary expenses of the

Trustees, although in their annual reports such Trustees had repeatedly urged such appropriations.”207

In 1877, the state legislature first provided financial support beyond the funds received from Congress. At this point, the legislature passed an act that created a school of mines at the college. As part of the creation of this school, the legislature appropriated

$4,500 for its equipment. “It was the first money paid by the state to support the institution, the first recognition it had received by way of financial aid. This appropriation was used solely for the equipment of the school, and was really an additional burden, for

205 Goerler, The Ohio State University, 4.

206 Goerler, The Ohio State University, 7.

207 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 105.

105 the moneys needed for instruction had to come out of its already meager resources” from

Congressional funding.208

Outside of the Ohio legislature, other state politicians saw a need for greater financial support of the Ohio Agricultural and Mechanical College. In 1879, Governor

Richard M. Bishop set a precedent for future Ohio governors to call for greater support of the land-grant college. In his message on January 6, 1879, he “called the attention of the

General Assembly to the fact that the State had made no appropriation for paying the expenses of the Trustees, or for repairs of building or improvements; that by the terms of the congressional grant, no portion of the funds derived therefrom could lawfully be used for such purposes.”209

In February 1879, the Board of Trustees made some progress when it invited some members of the Finance Committee of the House of Representatives to accompany them on a visit to the University of Illinois at Champaign. President Orton and T. Ewing

Miller, a member of the Board of Trustees, were accompanied by members of the finance committee of the two houses for the trip with the hope that the college representatives could demonstrate their vision of the land-grant college to the legislature. The visit reaped great benefits for the Ohio Agricultural and Mechanical College. One outcome of the visit was that Ross J. Alexander, chairman of the Finance Committee and one of the legislators on the trip, became the champion of the college. Through his efforts and

208 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 106.

209 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 107.

106 leadership, “appropriations were made for a mechanical laboratory, for the improvement of the farm and for the purchase of additional equipment. The total sum appropriated was

$15,800… the first recognition of the State’s obligation to supplement the land grant by providing the means for the growth and development of the College endowed by it.”210

State funding for Ohio Agricultural and Mechanical College remained flat, but consistent, throughout most of the 1880s.

Although funding became more frequent following the 1879 trip to the University of Illinois, state funding levels did not keep pace with the needs of the institution. During the 1880s and 1890s, student enrollment continued to grow, and the institution faced greater needs in funding for infrastructure maintenance and investment in laboratories.

Additionally, faculty salaries still suffered since the institution’s founding. As Kinnison observed:

“It became increasingly apparent, however, that financial support was the

key to any kind of reform of Ohio’s agricultural college. The legislature

had never been generous, and farmers endorsed that neglect. As costs

increased and the public attitude towards higher education in general

changed, the pressures for additional support became greater. The

implementation of the land-grant college in Ohio had been originally

predicated upon the availability of three sources of revenue: the Morrill

210 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 53.

107

Land Grant fund, the Ohio University and Miami University foundations,

and legislative appropriations. For a decade and a half, however, the land

grant fund and student fees had had to carry the burden.”211

Table 2 presents student enrollment and state funding by fiscal year. As indicated in the table, enrollment at the land-grant college remained steady during the first twenty years of the institution. State funding, however, was inconsistent. In the first decade of the institution, funding was flat or declined except the year 1879 when funding increased.

However, the state funding varied greatly over the next decade with minimal investment from the state. Then, in other years, there were significant increases in funding.

Inconsistent funding levels were problematic for the administration for planning purposes for the institution including infrastructure needs and paying faculty salaries.

211 William A. Kinnison, Building Sullivant’s Pyramid: An Administrative History of the

Ohio State University, 1870-1907 (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1970), 137.

108

Year Enrollment State Funding 1871 - $4,500 1872 - - 1873 - $2,000 1874 90 - 1875 118 - 1876 143 - 1877 254 $4,500 1878 309 - 1879 295 $15,800 1880 313 $8,501 1881 365 $1,350 1882 356 $31,850 1883 355 $21,850 1884 298 $10,450 1885 323 $25,500 1886 331 $19,600 1887 344 $19,400 1888 401 $21,835 1889 428 $75,100 1890 493 $56,600 1891 656 $30,275 Total: 5,872 $349,111

Table 2: Student Enrollment and State Funding at the Ohio Agricultural and Mechanical College, 1871-1891212

212 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 55 & 90.

109

Because of the limited budget, the board was limited as to its options to compensate faculty beyond the budgeted dollars and in its options for investment in infrastructure. Under the Cannon Act, the trustees could “not create a deficiency, and unless more income was provided, salaries, already very small, would have to be reduced, or some of the courses of study abandoned, and some of the teachers dismissed.”213 Finally, in 1886, the appropriation for salaries was increased to $10,000. It was the introduction of the Hatch Act of 1887 and the Morrill Act of 1890 that would create further investment in the land-grant college on a state level.

Stabilization of the Ohio State University, 1890-1910

The passage of the Hatch Act of 1887 and the Morrill Act of 1890 marked a new era for land-grant education in America. These two acts reassured state legislatures by providing continual investment in the land-grant colleges. As the turn of the century approached, there was momentum from the State for greater financial state support for

OSU. In each of his annual reports between 1887 and 1890, President William Henry

Scott appealed to the legislature that they pass a state levy of one-twentieth of a mill that would benefit the institution. In 1890, the “long continued appeals for a permanent income for the University, sufficient to provide for its expanding necessities, were

213 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, 115.

110 producing a sentiment among the people favorable to action and it was decided to make an effort at the next session of the General Assembly to have such a measure passed.”214

In his message to the General Assembly on January 6, 1891, Governor Campbell prepared the way for the levy. He said:

The Ohio State University is worthy of your fostering care.

Through the liberality of the Federal Government it has received fifteen

thousand dollars during the past year and will receive an annually

increased amount until the sum reaches twenty-five thousand dollars a

year…

It is mortifying to admit, that in the encouragement of higher

education, Ohio stands twenty-sixth upon the list of states… Many of the

states have provided this through a fund derived from the addition of a

fractional part of a mill on the tax duplicate…You might, therefore, very

properly inquire whether the national gift ought not to be supplemented by

a permanent fund of such a character.215

Although the Governor and state legislature seemed to be supportive of the new levy, the land-grant college had one more hurdle to overcome. When a bill was proposed

214 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 138.

215 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 139.

111 in the legislature to provide greater funds to the land-grant college, “Ohio and Miami universities insisted that they should also be included in any annual appropriation. It was their intent to block any action that would aid the Ohio State University without aiding the two older institutions.”216 Representatives of OSU did not oppose aid to the other institutions. However, they would not agree to divide the funds from the proposed bill.

On March 20, 1891, the state legislature passed the Hysell Act. Shortly after the passage of the Hysell Act, similar measures were taken to benefit Ohio and Miami Universities.217

Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives, Niall R. Hysell introduced the

Hysell Act in order to create the first annual tax levy in support of the land-grant college.

The Hysell Act provided practical and symbolic support of the institution. First, the act created a special tax levy for the institution to have consistent financial support by

“increasing the University levy to one-tenth of a mill.218 The second practical solution of the Hysell Act was that it “enabled the university to issue bonds against anticipated tax revenues.”219 Finally, the passage of the Hysell Act symbolically meant that the State of

Ohio accepted financial responsibility for the land-grant institution. In passing the bill, in a fiscal sense, the state began to support a state university. The annual tax levy continued

216 Kinnison, Building Sullivant’s Pyramid, 166.

217 Kinnison, Building Sullivant’s Pyramid, 167.

218 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 238.

219 Goerler, The Ohio State University, 83.

112 as the university’s main area for state support until the university’s funding became part of the state budget process in 1915.

The passage of the Hysell Act was a turning point for OSU. For over two decades, the support provided from the state was not what the Trustees and its faculty had desired.

The Trustees and faculty felt a sense of relief when the Act was passed, and they, “who had struggled so long to build up an institution fitted to meet the educational needs of the common people, and that should be commensurate with such needs and with the dignity of the State, took new heart and new hope.”220 When the Act passed, the students and faculty hosted a party in University Hall. According to Professor Edward Orton,

“Professor Henry Detmers, the German-born professor of veterinary medicine had declared ‘Und der name of Speaker Hysell shall be inscribed on the halls of the

University in indelible ink.’” 221 Beyond the campus, others began to see the value in education based on the discounted cost to attend the institution. At the 1896 Ohio State

Board of Agriculture and Country Agricultural Societies meeting, the annual report read that:

the state is expending on the education of its sons and daughters at the

Ohio State University nearly two hundred dollars per capita, but the

student is getting far more than two hundred dollars, worth of instruction.

220 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 145.

221 Goerler, The Ohio State University, 83.

113

There are twelve hundred hours of instruction given at the University each

year, each student pursues on the average about fifty hours, he thus takes

one twenty-fourth of all the instruction given which costs the state over

seven thousand dollars. While the average fee to the student is about

twenty dollars per year, the Board of Trustees offers two free scholarships

from each county in the state. These scholarships are good for the two

years' course in agriculture and cover all fixed dues.222

In addition to securing consistent funding from the state during this period, the

Ohio Agricultural and Mechanical College also found greater stability in its governance structure with the appointment of William Oxley Thompson in 1899. Thompson was the longest-serving president of the institution and redefined the president’s role, his relationship with other faculty members, and his responsibilities to the Board of Trustees greatly helped to stabilize the institution. Under President Thompson’s leadership, OSU would enter the twentieth century.

222 “Fifty-First Annual Report of the Ohio State Board of Agriculture with an Abstract of the Proceedings of the County Agricultural Societies for the Year 1896, to the General

Assembly of the State of Ohio” (The Laning Printing Company, 1897), 541, https://babel-hathitrust-org.proxy.lib.ohio- state.edu/cgi/imgsrv/download/pdf?id=mdp.39015067016579;orient=0;size=100;seq=571

;num=541;attachment=0.

114

At the end of the nineteenth century, the University began to stabilize. In addition to stable leadership and increased funding levels, the University saw consistent student enrollment numbers. However, farmers continued to challenge the administration.

Farmers had high hopes for the land-grant college that I will address in Chapter 4. They looked to the land-grant college to help address their social, political, and economic problems as addressed in Chapter 2.

115

Rivals for Governance of the Land-Grant University: Farmers, Alumni, and

Administration at Ohio State University, 1870-1910

Chapter 4

Rivalry between Farmers and the OSU Administration, 1870-1910

116

Prior to industrialization and the the land-grant college movement, farmers played an active role in public education at the local level, particularly through the Grange and

Farmers Alliance, as discussed in Chapter 2. However, rural education generally stopped at the primary level. It is important to note that, “dirt farmers” did not initiate the land- grant movement, as Frederick Rudolph noted in The American College and University.223

Yet, the advent of the land-grant college movement brought higher education to farm youth for the first time in American history. As mentioned in Chapter 3, many farmers were not advocates for the land-grant movement, even though they were the intended beneficiaries. Farmers were opposed to the land-grant colleges for five reasons. Farmers opposed land-grant education because they believed (1) that the curriculum did not teach their children how to be better farmers, (2) that colleges were not actually managed by farmers and only managed by academics, (3) that land-grant colleges did not actually prepare graduates for a career in farming, (4) that admissions requirements were too high for farmers’ children to be admitted, and (5) that the land-grant colleges did not benefit the general public through outreach and education. Farmers’ groups like the Grange,

Farmers’ Alliance, and Populist Party also opposed land-grant education on behalf of the farmers. Considering other land-grant colleges’ response to farmers' opposition is

223 Roger L. Geiger and Nathan M. Sorber, eds., The Land-Grant Colleges and the

Reshaping of American Higher Education: 30, 1 edition (Transaction Publishers, 2013), xi.

117 necessary to understand the unique challenges faced by the administrators at the Ohio

State University (OSU).

In this chapter, I will first describe how, in general, farmers supported public

K-12 education within their communities. Then, I will address farmers’ criticisms of the land-grant movement across the country and explain how some institutions responded to the criticism. Finally, I will address the specific criticisms and challenges presented in the state of Ohio and, particularly, at OSU, which struggled with farmers for control of the

Agricultural Experiment Station and the federal funding provided by the Hatch Act of

1887.

Farmers’ Support for Education

Most farmers’ children did not attend higher education before the Civil War, even though hundreds of small colleges had been founded in rural areas. The reason is that even these rural colleges focused their curricula on liberal arts, religion, and school teaching. It was uncommon for a student to leave the farm for higher education, primarily because farming families needed their children to remain on the farm as a labor source and to inherit the farm eventually. Also, most rural children had limited schooling and matriculating to higher education was difficult for them. Many colleges and universities had preparatory departments to help students prepare for college-level courses, but this was too expensive for many farming families. In fact, before the formation of the Grange,

“most farmers concluded that the only worthwhile lessons that the country school offered

118 its students were the ‘three R’s,’ while the remainder were not interested in even that limited goal.”224

An example of this attitude was exhibited in the Farmer’s College in Cincinnati,

Ohio, established in 1846. Founded by Freeman Cary, a graduate of Miami University in

Ohio, the new college was to “provide practical education ‘for the industrial pursuits of life.’”225 The college originally offered a 3-year Bachelor of Science course in addition to a 3-year preparatory department. Despite its success in the 1850s when more than 300 students enrolled, Cary’s strategy of “offering practical education to the sons of farmers and mechanics was ultimately its Achilles heel.” 226 Most students only attended for one or two years, and only about 10 percent graduated.227 The college failed financially during the Civil War and did not recover after the war.

Although not supportive of higher education, farmers did offer their support to K-

12 public education following the formation of the Grange by Oliver H. Kelley in 1867.

Kelley and his colleagues “believed that the mounting problems in rural America

“resulted from inadequate educational opportunities and lack of social intercourse among

224 Nordin, Rich Harvest, 46.

225 Geiger, The History of American Higher Education, 249.

226 Geiger, The History of American Higher Education, 249.

227 Geiger, The History of American Higher Education.

119 rural classes.”228 As a result, they created an organization that was both social and educational.

Kelley’s beliefs were validated when he investigated conditions of southern agriculture in 1866. According to Geiger, Kelley observed “the inadequate educational opportunities offered rural children, and their parents’ lack of interest in this vital matter concerned him. He resolved to channel farmers’ negativism into positivism and to find formulas for enhancing their lot.”229 To Kelley, education was the path for farmers and their children to succeed in a changing America. As part of the Grange’s initial purpose, members tried to advance public schools in their local communities. They believed "in better education... as well as the arts of good husbandry.”230 In its early days, the Grange membership began discussing the importance of being more than social and focused on education when “members soon realized that the Grange meant something more than a good time, and we find early records of educational activities in the various subordinate bodies.”231 Kelley commented that education could be transformative for the agricultural communities across the United States. He envisioned a centralized model for agricultural education in public schools. In Kelley’s account of the early history of the Grange--

228 Nordin, Rich Harvest, 17.

229 Nordin, Rich Harvest, 46.

230 Dowler, Centennial History, Ohio State Grange, 1873-1973, 10.

231 Ohio State Grange, Ohio State Grange, and Patrons of Husbandry, Golden Jubilee

History, Ohio State Grange, 1872-1922. (Salem, OH: Lyle Print Company, 1922), 48.

120

Origin and Progress of the Order of the Patrons of Husbandry in the United States: A

History from 1866 to 1873--he articulated this vision:

With regard to the modes of education, mention may be made of mutual

instruction through the reading of essays and discussions, lectures,

formation of select libraries, circulation of magazines and other

publications treating directly upon the main subject desired namely, those

inculcating the principles governing our operation in the field, orchard and

garden. It may be remarked, that all of these measures are now in

existence, so that their introduction is neither new nor novel. To this we

answer that their indirect application under a comprehensive and

controlling principle is both new and novel, and one that has not been

employed previously for the same objects.232

The Grange initially sought educational reform through private schools because some Grange leaders “believed it would be easier to shape private academies to the needs of localites. This feeling was especially prevalent in the South where most public education systems originated during the hated Reconstruction Era.”233 The private school

232 Oliver Hudson Kelley, Origin and Progress of the Order of the Patrons of Husbandry in the United States: A History from 1866 to 1873 (J. A. Wagenseller, 1875), 70.

233 Nordin, Rich Harvest, 47.

121 approach was pushed most aggressively in Alabama where, in 1875, the state Grange committee on education encouraged subordinate chapters to “charter and operate their own independent schools.”234 Similar models developed in North and South Carolina where Grangers created schools within the local groups, “thus familiarizing the children of the school-district with the idea that the Grange fosters education and that the school- house is the basis of the Grange hall.”235 The private school model, however, was short- lived.

By 1877, the Grange turned to reforming public education by launching a massive campaign to adapt public school lessons to farm life. Under Kelley’s leadership, the drive to teach agricultural subjects in elementary and secondary schools began at the 1877

Session of the National Grange. Kelley’s address placed him and the Grange at the forefront of public educational reform when he prodded Grangers to “’relieve distress and avoid future troubles by encouraging the establishment of industrial schools and making agriculture one of the principal studies.’” 236 This was the first time the agriculturalists affirmed the need for vocational training in public schools.

234 Nordin, Rich Harvest, 47.

235 William M. Ireland, Journal of Proceedings of the Eleventh Session of the National

Grange of the Patrons of Husbandry. (Louisville, KY: John P. Morton & Company,

1878), 129, https://babel-hathitrust-org.proxy.lib.ohio- state.edu/cgi/pt?id=msu.31293007794385;view=1up;seq=7.

236 Kelley quoted in Nordin, Rich Harvest, 48.

122

As part of his philosophy, Kelley recommended revisions to the curriculum that would benefit both male and female rural youngsters. His revisions included the addition of home economics, agricultural training, and lessons in nature. On January 23, 1883, at a convention convened by the U.S. Commissioner of Agriculture, a meeting was held to discuss agricultural education. During his presentation there, D. Wyatt Aiken of South

Carolina explained the Grange’s approach to agrarian education. He reported that:

it is of the farmers' school I desire to speak—of the Grange — the school-room of

the Patrons of Husbandry, where the farmers with their wives and children meet

together upon a common footing, ‘with every barrier to social intercourse thrown

aside,’ and there endeavor to balance exhaustive labor by instructive social

amusements, or attempt to communicate knowledge upon every conceivable

subject that pertains to the farm.237

As a result of Kelley’s advocacy for agrarian education, the agenda for every

National Grange assembly from 1877 to 1900 included proposals to incorporate agricultural subjects in elementary and secondary schools.238

237 David Wyatt Aiken, The Grange: Its Origin, Its Progress, and Educational Purposes

(Philadelphia :, 1884), 4, http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015029265918.

238 Nordin, Rich Harvest.

123

In this way, the Grange advanced educational opportunities that had previously not existed in rural America, and the Farmers’ Alliance followed in its footsteps.

However, the Alliance focused on educating adults in a peer-to-peer setting in contrast to the Grange’s focus on educating children in the schools.

Led by Charles Macune, the Farmers’ Alliance viewed itself as “potentially ‘the most powerful and complete educator of modern times.’”239 The Farmers’ Alliance saw educational progress as the great equalizer in efforts to advance agriculture, commerce, technology, and social standing for farmers.240 It sought to accomplish its goals by building up agricultural communities and providing networks for farmers to learn from one another. For example, in 1881 at a rally in Texas, S. O. Daws, the state lecturer of the

Alliance, asserted that the Farmers’ Alliance was going to provide an intellectual improvement of the farmers by “bringing neighbors together and establishing lending libraries… [to] help overcome the farmers’ ‘limited opportunity for mental culture.’”241

The Alliance leadership believed that the future of rural education lay with colleges and common schools, but they also believed that agrarian education could not be left to the future. The Alliance members maintained that “the farmers needed to organize for self- education to better engage the complex problems of modern society.”242

239 Postel, The Populist Vision, 15.

240 Postel, The Populist Vision.

241 Postel, The Populist Vision, 49.

242 Postel, The Populist Vision, 62.

124

In keeping with the call for self-education, Macune argued that farmer education began with literacy. He reasoned, “‘to induce the people to read is the first step… When people will read, they will think, and whenever they begin to think, the battle is more than half won.’”243 Macune saw the Reform Press as the means to educate the farmers and to increase their literacy. He used his role as the editor of the National Economist and president of the National Reform Press Association as his tool to educate farmers.

Macune believed that the farmers’ educational system would only be successful if there was a centralized plan and used the National Economist to frame the curriculum.

Simultaneously, Macune worked through the Washington office and state offices of the

National Alliance to “ensure ‘a properly regulated lecture system,’ by screening lecturers and editors for their adherence to ‘Alliance principles.’”244

Under Macune’s leadership, the Alliance’s umbrella worked well in organizing a wide array of educational activities. For example, Alliance lectures and symposia were held regularly in rural areas. Additionally, “the Alliance sponsored social science clubs, literary societies, and lending libraries.” To supplement deficient public schooling, “the

Alliance gave farm children classroom instruction in reading and arithmetic. At times, their semiliterate parents and grandparents joined the young people, making for [a] remarkable experiment in adult literacy.”245

243 Postel, The Populist Vision, 62.

244 Postel, The Populist Vision, 64.

245 Postel, The Populist Vision, 65.

125

An article in the Hawkeye Husbandmen, a newspaper in Iowa, in 1881 highlighted this effort. The author J.W.R. explains how the Alliance shaped local education and its commitment to education.

The first great duty then of the alliance is the work of education among

ourselves. To this end the neighborhood or district alliance is a great help.

Thought is started in these meetings. Thought begets thought. A desire and

hunger for mental food is created, books are sought after, papers are taken

and children begin to read; a thirst for knowledge is awakened, and soon

farmers’ sons and daughters are graduating from our high schools,

seminaries, colleges, and universities. Thus step by step we, as farmers,

must work our way to an equal standing intellectually with other classes of

society. When once the farmers of America, as a class, can carry to the

polls an intelligent vote, they will have but very little reason to complain

of poor or class legislation, of monopolies, oppressive freight tariffs, or of

burdensome taxation, for, being in the majority in this Republic, they can

and will have the power to regulate all these things. Besides, there is, and

will really be, no conflict of interest between the farmer and other classes

of labor. A large and broad view will reveal that in the true and permanent

126

prosperity of the agriculturalist is also secured the prosperity of all other

lawful pursuits.246

Although not the sole factor in elevating literacy in the United States, the

Alliance’s efforts significantly contributed to this development from 1880 to 1910. As a result of the Alliance’s efforts, the percentage of White people 14 years old and over who were illiterate decreased from 9.4 percent to 5 percent in a thirty-year time frame.247 The

Grange and the Farmers’ Alliance thus laid the groundwork for future educational reform.

Although the Grange and Farmers’ Alliance memberships both believed in the value of public schools, neither group saw the benefit of higher education for farmers.

The two organizations were instrumental in advancing rural schooling across the country but often criticized the land-grant colleges. Populists then embraced their criticisms.

246 J.W.R., “Hawkeye Husbandmen,” The Daily Inter Ocean, August 20, 1881, 9,

Nineteenth Century U.S. Newspapers.

247 “National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL),” November 1979, accessed

December 16, 2018, https://nces.ed.gov/naal/lit_history.asp.

127

Farmer Organizations Criticize the Land-Grant Colleges

The question of who should control public education is not easy to answer. In the case of the land-grant movement, the state legislatures, the farmers, and the university administrators competed for control. Previous research indicates that land-grant college administrators were attempting to expand higher education and struggled “to overcome the inertia of ‘reluctant farmers.’”248

There were two distinct periods in establishing the land-grant colleges on a political level, as Nathan Sorber indicates. The first period came “before mass farmer organization, with legislative debates dominated by considerations of location, land scrip sales, trustee membership, and state funding. Little time was spent discussing educational criteria or mission.”249 The second period occurred following the financial crisis of 1873.

After the crisis, farmers became more vocal about their vision for the land-grant movement. Before the crisis, only in Pennsylvania and Maine, did farmers articulate their view of the purposes of agricultural education. After this point in time, land-grant

248 Postel, The Populist Vision, 47.

249 Nathan M. Sorber, “Farmers, Scientists, and Officers of Industry: The Formation and

Reformation of Land-Grant Colleges in the Northeastern United States, 1862–1906”

(Ph.D., The Pennsylvania State University, 2011), 102, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.ohio- state.edu/docview/926948318/abstract/19EC9858204B43E9PQ/1.

128 colleges became “sites for debating the meaning and purpose of the Morrill Act.”250

Farmers became more vocal and believed that land-grant education was meant to serve them and should, therefore, be responsive to their needs and demands. However, legislatures and farmers disagreed over the role that the farmers should have in designing the land-grant colleges.

After 1873, as farmers engaged in the land-grant movement, they initially employed the Grange, the nation’s most powerful farming organization as described in

Chapter 2. The Grange had great influence across the country, and members “believed that agricultural college graduates could advocate more effectively for farmers’ political interests.”251 The Grange eventually went so far as to lobby that land-grant colleges should operate under the control of the farmers.252

In 1891, for example, the Minnesota state Grange association made a strong effort to separate the State Agriculture College from the agricultural department at the college.

According to a summary of the condition of land-grant colleges across the United States and their relationship to the the farming organization in their locale, presented at the

250 Sorber, "Farmers, Scientists, and Officers of Industry," 102.

251 Scott M. Gelber, “Academic Populism: The People’s Revolt and Public Higher

Education, 1880–1905” (Ph.D., Harvard University, 2008), 26, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.ohio- state.edu/docview/304602347/abstract/D343265F3E32406FPQ/1.

252 Gelber, " Academic Populism," 26.

129

Twenty-Fifth Session of the National Grange meeting in 1891, the Minnesota Grange believed that, although the University prospered, the agricultural department was suffering. Ultimately, the farmers’ efforts to wrest control of the agricultural department were unsuccessful. But they were able to secure “a recognition of some of their rights at the hands of the university, and as a result there is now a first class equipment for the agricultural and mechanical department with a farm of 220 acres.”253

Similarly, in Rhode Island, there was friction between the state Grange association and Brown University, which had initially received funds from the original

Morrill Act of 1862. The legislature redirected the land-grant funds away from Brown to establish a new farmer-friendly institution. As a result, the University of Rhode Island was established to the farmers’ satisfaction. Brown fought the move, according to the minutes from the Twenty-Fifth meeting of the National Grange:

There has always been much dissatisfaction in the State in regard to the

management of the agricultural department of the University, which did

not in any way meet the requirements of the people. In order to meet the

wants of the farmers in the line of industrial education, the State

legislature in 1888 established an agricultural school at Kingston in

connection with the State experiment station at that place. This school

253 National Grange, Journal of Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Session of the National

Grange of the Patrons of Husbandry (John P. Morton & Company, 1891), 94.

130

naturally asked for the income of the land grant fund, and Brown

University very generously voted to turn it over to the school, but soon

after the passage of the act of Congress in 1890 making additional

appropriations for agricultural colleges, this vote, for obvious reasons, was

rescinded, and the university not only refused to give up the funds

previously voted to the school, but it also laid claim to all the funds under

the act of 1890. Under these circumstances the agitation of the matter

became general, and through the influence of the Grange, the State

Legislature, May 19th, 1890, passed an act separating the agricultural

college from the university, and established it at Kingston in place of the

agricultural school, voting all funds from the government to the new

college.254

In addition to the Grange, the farmers expressed their discontent through the

Farmers’ Alliance, whose members “demanded increased funding for colleges, agricultural stations, institutes, and other federal and state programs to disseminate business, technical, and scientific information.”255

The concerns of farmers carried into the 1890s and early 1900s through the

Populist movement, which placed a high priority on the need for universities to provide

254 National Grange, 97.

255 Postel, The Populist Vision, 15.

131 more outreach programs in the community. Grassroots Populists demanded greater outreach in western and southern states, and land-grant institutions there felt pressure from their local communities. Populists in the West and South argued that institutions should be accessible to poor students from rural areas, emphasize vocational curricula and rural service, and train students to become civic leaders through proper training and education. The successive demands of the Grange, the Farmers’ Alliance, and the

Populists were consistent and constant during the first 50 years of the land-grant movement.

Farmers’ Criticisms and Responses by Land-Grant College

Farmers and land-grant college administrators agreed, as Alan Marcus has pointed out, that “‘making modern farmers or farmers modern stood as the raison d’etre for agricultural education.’”256 Moreover, the two groups agreed that the land-grant colleges would help in this effort. Nevertheless, farmers stridently criticized land-grant colleges.

Drawing on the work of historians Scott Gelber, Charles Postel, Roger Geiger, and

Nathan Sorber, I have identified five main targets of farmer criticism: curriculum, administration, career preparation, access, and public outreach.

Regarding curriculum, scholar William Kinnison has identified two positions in the debate: broad and narrow gaugers. Broad gaugers believed that land-grant curriculum

256 Postel, The Populist Vision, 48.

132 should be inclusive of various forms of study including the liberal arts and other sciences in addition to agrarian science.257 Often, broad gaugers were university administrators.

Narrow gaugers believed that land-grant curriculum should only focus on agrarian science and practical application. This group was usually farmers.

For example, in Ohio, the farmers felt that liberal education dominated over agricultural instruction at the land-grant college. At the Nineteenth Annual Ohio State

Board of Agriculture meeting, a portion of the meeting was dedicated to explaining the purpose of the Morrill Act and its funds. The State School Commissioner, Dr. E.E.

White, wrote:

But the object of this grant is not simply to found colleges devoted

exclusively to the special or ‘practical’ education of the industrial classes.

The act of Congress also makes provision for their ‘liberal’ education,

including a knowledge of ‘other scientific and classical studies.’ The

entire object is to promote the liberal and practical education of the

industrial classes. Whatever ambiguity may attach to the word ‘practical’

here used, the meaning of the word ‘liberal’ is definite and clear. The

257 William Andrew Kinnison, “The Impact of the Morrill Act on Higher Education in

Ohio” (Ph.D., The Ohio State University, 1967), http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.ohio- state.edu/docview/302267265/citation/834E9C2423024E51PQ/1.

133

word ‘liberal,’ when used in connection with education, always has a

definite, technical signification. A liberal education is an education in

literature and the sciences generally, and is usually applied to a collegiate

education. The fact that ‘other scientific and classical studies’ are not to be

excluded, shows that this is the meaning of the term as used in the act of

Congress. The industrial college must furnish the industrial classes with

facilities for acquiring a liberal as well as a practical education. Nothing

less wide and thorough will meet the specific terms of the grant.258

He continued to describe what this act meant for farmers:

But what is the plain and manifest meaning of the act of Congress?

Evidently, as already shown, that the scheme of instruction shall be

sufficiently wide and extensive to fill the full measure of a ‘liberal’ as well

as a professional education, but that the former shall be subordinated to

the latter. The manner in which the subordination shall be effected is left

to the Legislatures of the several States to determine, under the guidance

258 “Nineteenth Annual Report of the Ohio State Board of Agriculture, with an Abstract of the Proceedings of the County Agricultural Societies: To the General Assembly of

Ohio, for the Year 1864.” (Richard Nevins, State Printer, 1865), 58, https://babel- hathitrust-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hxhqth;view=1up;seq=7;size=175.

134

of sound educational principles and the unequivocal teachings of

experience.259

Nevertheless, farmers feared that the legislature might subordinate the agricultural studies to the liberal arts at OSU. This fear continued to appear in subsequent debates between farmers and those shaping the curriculum for many years, often in a public forum. For example, the debate over curriculum played out in the farmer magazine, Farm and Fireside, which had a broad distribution with an issue mailed twice monthly to

210,000 different addresses.260

In an effort to answer the farmers’ attacks on the university, Alexis Cope,

Secretary of the OSU Board of Trustees, sent the 1886-1887 academic catalog to the editors, who observed:

‘We learn that some very important changes have been made…’ First,

they noted that the School of Agriculture was listed first and not fourth as

previously. Second, they reported the rearranged agricultural course and

heralded it as a major change. The new course began with a single

259 “Nineteenth Annual Report of the Ohio State Board of Agriculture, with an Abstract of the Proceedings of the County Agricultural Societies: To the General Assembly of

Ohio, for the Year 1864.,” 59.

260 Kinnison, “The Impact of the Morrill Act on Higher Education in Ohio.”

135

preparatory year instead of the two-year preparatory program previously

required of common school graduates. The courses required in that year,

they observed, were such as no farmer could afford to neglect: agricultural

chemistry, physical geography, physics, practical mechanics, field

measurements, and botany. It was an eminently practical course outline.261

Beyond challenges to the curriculum, the farmers' second criticism of the land- grant colleges targeted the background and expertise of the land-grant faculty. For example, when discussing the topic of academic freedom and faculty hires, “Nebraska

Populists brazenly urged the fusionist majority on the NU [Nebraska University] board of regents to hire professors whose views were in ‘sympathy with the toiling masses.’”262

The fusionist majority consisted of republicans and populists who believed it most effective to advance their shared interests. Similarly, in Ohio, at the Fourth Annual

Meeting of the State Grange, Grange members believed that the college and its faculty were not meeting the needs of farmers. At their meeting, they argued that it was:

practically of no use or benefit to the great agricultural interests of the

great State of Ohio; that its professors and teachers are men who have no

practical knowledge of, or love for, the noble profession of agriculture or

farming, to which the College is theoretically devoted, and is therefore, in

261 Kinnison, “The Impact of the Morrill Act on Higher Education in Ohio,” 234.

262 Gelber, “Academic Populism,” 135.

136

fact, lost at present, to us and to our children to whose interests it should

be devoted. We would therefore suggest that the Grange originate or co-

operate in such measures as shall render this endowment of practical value

to the education farming interest of our great State.263

Similar sentiments were expressed following the hiring of President Andrew S.

Draper at the University of Illinois, where the lack of a strong farming program created public disapproval for the land-grant institution. President Draper acknowledged that he

“and the governing body should have realized that the success of the University depended on the treatment of agriculture.”264 Draper, an easterner, “had no knowledge of western agriculture, and at the time of his appointment he reportedly had informed the trustees that he would not be responsible for growth in that area.”265 In fact, Draper believed that agricultural education belonged in high school or a special agricultural school. Also, he

263 Journal of Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Session of the Ohio State Grange of

Patrons of Husbandry, Held at Cincinnati, February 20th, 21st, 22d, and 23d, 1877.

(Sandusky, OH: Register Steam Printing Establishment), 44, accessed December 19,

2018, https://hdl-handle-net.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/2027/osu.32435068444397.

264 Winton U. Solberg, The University of Illinois, 1894-1904: The Shaping of the

University, First Edition first Printing edition (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2000),

121.

265 Solberg, 121.

137

“had a flair for politics, and for years he took an active part in Republican Party affairs.”266 Draper’s attitude and background created many problems for the land-grant university with the farmers.

Draper’s ignorance of the farmers’ plight and his lack of interest in advancing agricultural studies at the University meant that someone else would have to become the champion for the farmer at the University. The advocate for agriculture at the institution appeared in 1895 when Eugene Davenport became the Dean of the College of

Agriculture. Davenport was an agriculturalist and had previously studied at the Michigan

Agricultural College.

It was not until Davenport’s appointment as the Dean of the College of

Agriculture that farmers found an advocate for their cause. When he started in his new role, Davenport found the college significantly under-resourced and understaffed. He argued that the college needed its own lands, tools, equipment, crops, and livestock as well as a significantly improved facility. Not getting any support from Draper, “Dean

Davenport found it necessary to circumvent President Draper and take his case to the

Illinois Farmers’ Institution (IFI) to realize his goal.”267

While his initial effort was unsuccessful in securing funds through the IFI, they worked together to enlist public support for agricultural education.268 In their work

266 Solberg, 7.

267 Solberg, 36.

268 Solberg, 126.

138 together, Davenport and IFI attempted to secure $150,000 from the public and state legislature in order to fund a new agricultural building. Draper did not believe that the new building was a priority for the university, but Davenport and the IFI pleaded their case to the trustees in 1898, to the displeasure of Draper, and the trustees supported the need for a new agricultural building. In 1899, at a special meeting with Governor Tanner, a group of trustees successfully persuaded him to fund the agricultural college.269

Davenport thus became the champion for agriculture at the University of Illinois and a leader in its administration. In Davenport’s 1909 book entitled Education for

Efficiency, he expressed the need for higher education to evolve in order to serve the people of the State. He wrote:

We have entered upon an era of universal education, which means the

education of all sorts of people for all sorts of purposes. From now on

therefore education must serve not only the exceptional five per cent [sic.]

but the ninetyfive [sic.] per cent [sic.]of common men as well; it must not

only fit for the so-called learned professions but it must also train for

common things, else it is not universal, —a new fact that involves, I

imagine, a somewhat radical revision of our philosophy of education, with

269 Solberg, 129.

139

a corresponding broadening of ideals as to the purposes, the materials, and

the methods of instruction.270

Remarkably, when Draper returned to campus for the inauguration of his successor, he commented to Davenport and the assembled agriculture faculty that “‘the most significant thing that happened here during my administration was the development of the College of Agriculture, and I did all I could to prevent it.’”271

Farmers' third criticism of the land-grant colleges was that the institutions did not prepare their sons and daughters for careers in farming and guide them toward returning to their family farm. Farmers expected that their children would attend a land-grant college, study practical agriculture, graduate, and return to the family farm. Instead, the students studied liberal arts or another form of science, graduated, and pursued other careers not related to agriculture.

For example, at the Michigan Agricultural College (MAC), which was the first land-grant college and established in 1855 before the Morrill Act, farmers held an

“underlying belief that MAC’s sole purpose was to educate students to return them to the farm.”272 MAC administrators believed that returning students to their family farms was

270 Eugene Davenport, Education for Efficiency (D. C. Heath & Co., 1909), 1.

271 Solberg, The University of Illinois, 1894-1904, 146.

272 Keith R. Widder, Michigan Agricultural College: The Evolution of a Land-Grant

Philosophy, 1855-1925 (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 2004), 51.

140 only one among many responsibilities the college had to its students. This view prompted longstanding resentment against MAC by farmers in the state. As late as February 1896, the Special Committee on the Agricultural College reported that tension existed between the farmers and the land-grant college:

There is and has been for a number of years a lack of students from farm

homes who intend to become farmers after graduation. While this is no

doubt due partly to the depressed condition of agriculture it is also largely

due to a lack among farmers of confidence in the college itself. We regret

to say in many sections the farmers seem to feel that the influence of the

college tends to draw students away from the farm instead of attracting

them toward it. That this sentiment exists is proved abundantly by

evidence placed before your committee. While it is only justice to say that

this feeling is owing partly to misrepresentation and unfair criticism on the

enemies of the institution, still it is due largely to the fact that only a small

proportion of its graduates become practical farmers.273

The farmers’ perceptions, as demonstrated by the Grange, shaped public opinion of the new school. The Grange was very-well organized and used their publicity and advocacy to undermine the land-grant college of Michigan. Because of their ability to

273 The Grange Visitor, February 20, 1896, 4 edition, 1.

141 effectively organize and draw attention to the negative perceptions held by farmers of

MAC, the institution was viewed negatively across the state.

The complaint that the institutions did not prepare their sons and daughters for careers in farming and guide them toward returning to their family farm was also heard in

Ohio. In 1878, some Ohioans, including Judge T.C. Jones, a former University trustee, declared that “’the college had got as far as possible away from God and agriculture.’

Controversial, too, was that the state legislature had removed both agriculture and engineering from the name of the state’s land-grant institution. More evidence was that only eighteen students were enrolled in agricultural classes.”274

Additionally, the college farm on the campus appeared to be in poor condition, with inadequate machinery and livestock of poor quality.”275 Further evidence was presented in 1887 when Charles Thorne, one of the most vocal opponents and editor of

Farm and Fireside, charged that Ohio State University neglected its agricultural mission.

He said, “’no college or university of general education in the United States will show a smaller proportion of its graduates engaged in agricultural pursuits than this agricultural college of Ohio.’”276 He also observed that only two of the university’s ninety-three graduates had received the bachelor of agriculture degree.277

274 Goerler, The Ohio State University, 74.

275 Quoted in Goerler, 74.

276 Goerler, The Ohio State University, 75.

277 Goerler, The Ohio State University.

142

The fourth criticism by farmers was that many farmers’ children could not meet the admissions requirements of land-grant colleges, due to inadequate academic preparation. This concern of farmers in Ohio for many years prompted the Secretary of the OSU Board of Trustees, Alexis Cope, to defend the institution in a letter to the farmers of Farm and Fireside articulating the land-grant college's commitment to farmers. In response, the editors commented that, after nearly a decade of denial and neglect, the university “had admitted that its work was not completed until it had provided a channel from the common school to the college for rural youth.”278 The admissions requirements proved to be barriers to farmers’ children gaining access to land-grant colleges, and farmers’ criticisms proved problematic for land-grant college presidents.

Similar to the situation in Ohio, University of Nebraska Chancellor James

Canfield appeased farmers by relaxing admissions standards at Nebraska University during his tenure from 1891-1895. As a result, Populists there “were pleased with the lax approach to admissions promoted during the administration of Chancellor Canfield.”279

Ohio was similar to Nebraska in that the farmers’ “perennial complaint was that farm boys could not gain admission; that if they did, they were not received hospitably; that if they remained, they generally could not meet the requirements for the degrees because of preparatory deficiencies, or else they took a degree in engineering or some other non-

278 Kinnison, “The Impact of the Morrill Act on Higher Education in Ohio,” 235.

279 Gelber, “Academic Populism,” 171.

143 agricultural field.”280 However, Ohio State University President Edward Orton responded differently than Chancellor Canfield. Orton “complained that remedial courses designed

‘to bring up the work of backwoods districts’ created mongrel institutions that clashed with the ‘sacred’ purpose of higher education.”281 Hence, administrators’ opinions on admission standards varied greatly while farmers’ opinions often favored more lax admissions policies.

Farmers’ fifth and final criticism was that land-grant colleges failed to emphasize outreach and extension work, which would be helpful to farmers in the field. As one

Midwestern farmer demanded, the new colleges must “‘bring science down out of the sky and hitch it to the plow.’”282 The land-grant colleges could do this through an agricultural-focused curriculum, outreach to farmers, and extension work throughout the state. The Grange, Farmers’ Alliance, and Populists supported university extension services, agricultural stations, and state-initiated support that disseminated technical knowledge. However, farmers often found that the dissemination of knowledge from the land-grant colleges was lacking.

Land-grant colleges did make some efforts in this regard. One of the most successful was at the Michigan Agricultural College. MAC’s short courses in the mid-

1890s provided opportunities for non-traditional students (mostly current farmers) to

280 Kinnison, “The Impact of the Morrill Act on Higher Education in Ohio,” 221.

281 Gelber, “Academic Populism,” 171.

282 Postel, The Populist Vision, 55.

144 study agriculture at MAC. By establishing connections with the agricultural community in this way, MAC provided a positive interaction that increased farmers’ understanding of how MAC could benefit them. These connections benefited MAC by providing positive publicity and also by engaging prospective students in agricultural science. The program was so successful that “by 1905, 84 men, over 19 percent of the total number of students, enrolled in the winter classes.”283 Alumni of the short courses ultimately were able to serve as ambassadors for MAC when they returned to their home communities.

Upon seeing the success of the short courses, MAC began to offer farmers’ institutes. According to historian Keith Widder, “the origins of the farmers’ institutes in

Michigan brought to light the State Board of Agriculture’s recognition that the agricultural college had formed ties with very few Michigan farmers...”284 MAC faculty took the farmers’ institutes to six communities in the lower peninsula of Michigan.

Farmers played a vital role in the institutes because they identified the topics to be discussed, and were asked to share their experiences and opinions about the challenges facing their community. MAC capitalized on the success of peer-to-peer publicity in the communities. Brochures from the institutes were shared widely through the State Board of Agriculture which also improved MAC’s reputation with farmers.285

283 Widder, Michigan Agricultural College, 85.

284 Widder, Michigan Agricultural College, 186.

285 Widder, Michigan Agricultural College, 191.

145

In contrast to MAC, outreach became a great challenge, if not a crisis, for Ohio

State University, specifically in its relationship with the Agricultural Experiment Station.

The strained relationship between the two organizations would negatively impact farmers and the land-grant institution for decades.

Contention over the Agricultural Experiment Station in Ohio, 1882

Ohio farmers’ criticisms of OSU were no different from the farmers' criticisms of other land-grant colleges throughout the country. Ohio farmers expected that the land- grant college was meant to serve their needs, as seen in an 1867 issue of The Ohio

Farmer:

As to what shall be taught at such an institution, we will only say in

general terms-- let it be direct, positive and practical. We have colleges for

teaching languages, and the intangible philosophies of the learned

professions, where such learning can be better acquired than in any college

we can build on this agricultural foundation. Let the boys learn the

composition and handling of soils; the elements, nature and uses of plants;

the physiology of vegetable life; the office of manures and other

amendments of the soil; the economy of general field husbandry; fruits,

flowers; the rearing, diseases, qualities and uses of domestic animals; the

uses and economy of farm implements; the science of applied chemistry

146

relating to agriculture; political economy; commercial science; and a

general common sense knowledge of rural affairs.286

Similar to farmers in other states, Ohio farmers criticized OSU for curriculum, administration, career preparation, access, and public outreach. Following the financial crisis of the 1870s, the farmers of Ohio were much more militant in their demands. Ohio politicians, eager to win farmer support, were much more responsive to farmer demands to appease them. Ohio farmers were more influential than the land-grant college due to focused legislative power. For the first time in the state’s history, the “farmer no longer ignored the state’s agricultural college, as he had been inclined to do earlier, but proceeded to press his demands for its reorganization. He insisted upon withholding or diverting funds from its general program and directing them specifically toward agriculture.”287

The fraught relationship between Ohio farmers and the Ohio State University intensified regarding the Agricultural Experiment Station. Before the passage of the

Hatch Act, experiment stations were created and funded separately of the land-grant college. Following the passage of the Hatch Act, land-grant colleges were given oversight and funding to support the local experiment stations. The exception was made for experiment stations that were founded before the passage of the Hatch Act, as was the

286 “The Agricultural College,” The Ohio Farmer, February 2, 1867, 4.

287 Kinnison, “The Impact of the Morrill Act on Higher Education in Ohio,” 127.

147 case in Ohio. In Ohio, a bill was passed that provided for the establishment of a state agricultural experiment station and placed its location, control, and management under a separate Board of Control of five members. The Governor was to be the ex-officio fifth member of the Board. At this time, OSU engaged in carrying on the minimum amount of agricultural work as was provided for in the bill, and under the law of its existence was required to do so. It was also required to report the result of its investigations and experiments annually.

As a result of the new legislation, two distinct problems arose in Ohio. First, Ohio differed from other states in the governance of and the relationship between the experiment station and the land-grant college. Secondly, Ohio differed in how it distributed the funds from the Hatch Act of 1887 which established agricultural experiment stations in connection with the land-grant college.

These two factors created tension as the University and the Agricultural

Experiment Station fought for control of the Agricultural Experiment Station and the annual appropriation as part of the Hatch Act. The tension between the two institutions continued for nearly two decades. Before describing the tension and eventual resolution reached between the two organizations, it is necessary to explain the establishment of the agricultural experiment station in Ohio. Then I will explain how the tension escalated following the passage of the Hatch Act and how the two groups resolved their issues.

Ohio’s agricultural experiment station was established in 1882, five years prior to the Hatch Act of 1887. As a result, the University and the Station competed for control and funds within the state legislature and public opinion. Similar to other states, Ohio

148 farmers complained that the land-grant college did not do enough to educate farmers about the land-grant college and its practical application for farmers. Also, farmers often accused the land-grant college of misdirecting funds away from agricultural studies.

At OSU, this criticism became a catalyst for Professor William R. Lazenby, professor of botany and horticulture, to take matters into his own hands in 1882.

Unknown to the University’s Board of Trustees, Lazenby lobbied two influential agriculture entities--the State Board of Agriculture and the State Grange-- to persuade the state legislature to create the Agricultural Experiment Station.288

At the forty-first annual meeting of the State Grange, Colonel Brigham, a supporter of Professor Lazenby’s efforts, detailed why the State Grange should support the passing of the legislation. It is important to note that Brigham supported Lazenby’s efforts, but was not supportive of the land-grant college as a whole. Brigham had been a long-time opponent of the land-grant college as the head of the State Grange in Ohio.

Brigham stated:

I want to say that the time has come when the people are not going to keep

their hands off; they are going to have their say. If their arguments are not

sound, if they are not right, then vote against them; but if they are on the

right side, then don't criticise their disposition to meddle with these affairs

that are of such vital interest to them. The gentleman (Townshend) knows

288 Goerler, The Ohio State University.

149

that the institution didn't do for years what the farmers expected; perhaps

it could not. Perhaps they were not supported by the farmers as they ought

to be, but we ought to work in harmony together notwithstanding. I

entertain the kindest of feelings toward our friend and brother in the grand

work he has done for the farmers in the past, and I hope he may live long

years yet to do good work. But I believe that men who are specially

selected for this work can do it better than men who have these other

things in charge. Now, I hope that nobody will feel that the farmer is

putting his finger into anything that don't concern him when he discusses

these points.289

Brigham believed it necessary for all farmers to support the bill and for the State

Grange to advocate on the bill’s behalf. The appeal of Lazenby’s effort centered on what the passing of the bill meant for farmers in the state.

Governor Foster, however, was opposed to the bill and believed that oversight of the experiment station should fall to the University’s Board of Trustees. He “was very emphatic in his protests against placing its control under a separate board, and said ‘a

289 “Forty-First Annual Report of the Ohio State Board of Agriculture, with an Abstract of the Proceedings of the County Agricultural Societies: To the General Assembly of

Ohio, for the Year 1886.” (Myers Brothers, State Printers, 1887), 87, https://hdl-handle- net.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/2027/hvd.hxhqu7.

150 separate board would be as useless as a fifth wheel to a wagon.’”290 Despite the protests of the Governor and the complaints of the University’s Board of Trustees, the state legislature passed the bill on April 17, 1882. After successfully passing the bill, the legislature made an appropriation of $3,000 for the experiment station’s expenses.

Contention Increases in Ohio over the Hatch Act, 1887

From its founding, the Agricultural Experiment Station and its Board of Control was a sore point for the University’s Board of Trustees. The tension reached new heights in 1887 with the passage of the Hatch Act. For years, farmers alleged that OSU mishandled state funds. The popular Farm and Fireside, published in Springfield, suggested that the University had misused and misdirected the Morrill funds in Ohio to other priorities of the land-grant college. Editors of the magazine brought pressure on the state legislature to divert the Hatch Act funds away from the land-grant college and, instead, to the Agricultural Experiment Station. As a result of the increased pressure from farmers, OSU needed to gain the farmers’ support.

The Hatch Act was intended to establish agricultural experiment stations “in conjunction with the colleges [and would be] be subordinate to the larger institutions”291 and provide “an annuity of $15,000 for the support of experiment stations established in

290 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 120.

291 Williams, The Origins of Federal Support for Higher Education, 115.

151 connection with the colleges established under the provisions of said Act.”292 Ahead of the vote on the Hatch Act, OSU played an active role in supporting the bill in Congress.

The Board of Trustees sent a delegation of trustees and faculty members including L.B.

Wing and Dr. N.S. Townshend, professor of agriculture, to Washington, D.C. to advocate for the passage of the bill. The two representatives returned to Columbus and reported that they believed the measure would be successful.

At the time, members of the Board of Trustees were unaware that the Ohio

Grange had also organized a group of delegates to meet with members of Congress. One of the Grange representatives was Joseph H. Brigham, who was “president of the State

Board of Agriculture, and was one of the most severest critics and opponents of OSU.”293

Wing and Townshend believed they had successfully argued their point and convinced

Congress to vote in support of the land-grant colleges managing the experiement stations and their funds. Contrary to the university representatives’ perceived success in securing the Hatch funds for the land-grant college, Brigham arranged “an amendment to it in the

[U.S.] Senate providing, that in the states having colleges established under the provisions of the congressional grant of 1862, and having also agricultural experiment stations established by law separate from such colleges, such states should be authorized to apply such annuity to the experiment stations established by such states.”294 Brigham’s

292 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 122.

293 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 122.

294 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 122.

152 legislative maneuver would allowed the Ohio legislature to divert the Hatch Act funding to the independent agricultural experiment station and not the university. The bill passed with this amendment and became a law.

OSU Board of Trustees was surprised by the amendment and discovered it only when “a powerful agricultural lobby appeared before the [state] legislature urging the adoption of a joint resolution placing the annuity under the control of the Board of

Control of the Experiment Station.”295 The Farm and Fireside editors were instrumental in garnering the support needed. The magazine launched a campaign concerning the

Hatch Bill in its Christmas issue. It described the bill in detail for its readers and advocated for the amended version of the bill that supported the experiment stations.296

The Board of Trustees implored in vain that “the Ohio Experiment Station was not in fact ‘separate from OSU,’ that it had in fact been located there, and had its offices, and was conducting its work on the University farm.”297 Despite their efforts, the state legislature awarded the Hatch Act funds to the Agricultural Experiment Station on March

16, 1887. The vote passed in the House 70 to 7 and unanimously in the Senate.298 The

Hatch funds resulted in an annual appropriation of $15,000 to the Ohio Agricultural

Experiment Station.

295 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 122.

296 Kinnison, “The Impact of the Morrill Act on Higher Education in Ohio,” 229.

297 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 122.

298 Kinnison, “The Impact of the Morrill Act on Higher Education in Ohio.”

153

Following the approval of the Hatch Act and subsequent disbursement of funds to the Agricultural Extension Station in Ohio, the friction between the Experiment Station’s

Board of Control and the University’s Board of Trustees became more divisive.299 The

University’s Board of Trustees was “required by law to carry on and report such experiments as the funds of the University would permit, and there was the spectacle of two separate series of experiments, often of the same character, going on side by side, each under separate officers, with a duplication of labor and outlay.”300

It was also during this time that J. H. Brigham was appointed to the Experiment

Station’s Board of Control in 1887. The appointment of Brigham agitated the

University’s Board. He had led the effort to get Senator Sherman to work for the Hatch

Act amendment that ultimately awarded funds to the Experiment Station. Brigham was

“bold, aggressive, and personally offensive to some of the Trustees. But backed as he was by the powerful farmers’ organizations, he was regarded as a formidable antagonist. The situation seemed to indicate a violent rupture between the two organizations, with possible injury to board and to the public at large.”301

Fortunately, in the fall of 1887, President William Henry Scott acknowledged the risks that faced the land-grant college and hoped to resolve the issues facing the land- grant college and the Agricultural Experiment Station. Scott, therefore, turned to an old

299 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1.

300 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 495.

301 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 123.

154 friend of the University, Rutherford B. Hayes, who had completed his term as President of the United States in 1881. Previously, Hayes had served as governor of the state of

Ohio for three terms and was in office when the Morrill Act became law. He had also appointed the first Board of Trustees for the University and had been a long-time advocate of land-grant education. He believed that “education for the industrial classes was the dominant reason for [the] passage of the Morrill Act and that its educational reform attacked one of the crucial issues emerging in industrial America. ‘Capital and

Labor is the burning question,’ he said, and he saw educational reform as a means of ameliorating class struggle.”302 Hayes brought immense experience to the role through his past political career and his trusteeships at Western Reserve and Ohio Wesleyan

Universities. It was up to Hayes to find common ground between the Agricultural

Experiment Station and OSU.

Hayes suggested that both boards meet together to reach an understanding. When the group met, “Hayes, in his quiet but forceful manner, took charge of the session and presented his view of matters. He gave none of the other trustees an opportunity to add to or amend his remarks but concluded by asking the Experiment Station Board of Control what the university might do to help them.”303 Rather than lose control of the conversation by allowing a critic like Brigham to respond, he called on an ally in Seth H.

302 William A. Kinnison, Building Sullivant’s Pyramid: An Administrative History of the

Ohio State University, 1870-1907 (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1970), x.

303 Kinnison, “The Impact of the Morrill Act on Higher Education in Ohio,” 242.

155

Ellis. Ellis was a member of the Board of Control and former member of the Board of

Trustees “from 1878 to 1887, and whose place on the Board Rutherford B. Hayes had been named to fill.”304

The two men spoke on behalf of their respective boards. As a result of the conversation, both parties agreed to a memorandum of understanding on December 8,

1887.305 The agreement stated that the OSU trustees shared the property with the experiement station, acknowledged the station’s independent status and increased the

University’s financial support for agricultural experimentation. In turn, the station agreed to use “University faculty members in its research and to employ undergraduate and graduate students in its work when possible.”306

Hayes’s mediation was adroit and successful. In the course of the conversation,

Hayes won over the three most influential members of the Board of Control: Ellis,

Brigham, and Thorne. By 1888, the Board of Trustees’ annual report noted “the cordial relations between the two institutions and a manifestation of mutual helpfulness… It was shortly after this that the plan was conceived of marrying the two boards, by having a member of the Station board appointed on the University board and a member of the

University board appointed on the Station board.”307

304 Kinnison, “The Impact of the Morrill Act on Higher Education in Ohio,” 243.

305 Goerler, The Ohio State University.

306 Goerler, The Ohio State University, 78.

307 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 511.

156

Hayes was so successful in his role as mediator that when there was a vacancy on the University’s Board of Trustees. It was decided that a member of the Agricultural

Experiment Station’s Board of Control should be tapped to serve the University to align the groups even further. University Secretary, Alexis Cope, had identified candidates for the role including Seth Ellis and J.H. Brigham. It was Hayes who “indicated that nothing less than Brigham’s appointment would convince the agricultural interests of the university’s earnest desire to make peace with them, and that they would regard Ellis as not fully the representative of the farmer.”308 Hence, Brigham was invited to join the

University’s Board of Trustees.

The agreements reached between the University and the Experiment Station began to improve the relations between the two organizations and signaled “a better feeling toward the University on the part of the farmers of the State, and there was less bitterness in the agricultural press and in the speeches of leaders at farmers’ institutes and agricultural conventions.”309

It is noteworthy that, in November 1892, the Board of Trustees voted that Hayes should serve as the Chairman of the Board of Trustees. Unfortunately, Hayes only presided as chairman for one meeting because he passed away unexpectedly on January

17, 1893. In the Board of Trustees’ meeting that followed his death, Alexis Cope and

John B. Schueller, Secretary to the Board of Trustees and Vice-President of the Board of

308 Kinnison, “The Impact of the Morrill Act on Higher Education in Ohio,” 245.

309 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 511.

157

Trustees, respectively, shared their condolences with the other Board Members. Members of the Board of Trustees stated about Hayes at the November 18, 1890 Board of Trustees

Meeting:

We may congratulate ourselves that of the many important public trusts he

held at the time of his death, the university was foremost in his heart. He

was the most ·active and perhaps the controlling agent in its organization

and location. He shaped the necessary legislation, procured its passage and

appointed the board of trustees which located the university, prescribed its

general courses of study and elected its faculty. His interest in it was

constant and he was always ready to make any sacrifice of time and

personal effort to serve it. In the years to come his name and fame will be

dear to all who come within its influence.

Conclusion

The relationships between farmers and land-grant colleges slowly and grudgingly improved across the country between 1870 and 1890. Although farmers were initially supportive of public schools in their local communities, they were not always supportive of the land-grant colleges and the goals that Justin Morrill had set out to achieve. Farmers saw the benefit in establishing a strong public education system, and the Grange

158 positioned its local entities to lead those efforts in its early founding. However, farmers were critical of the land-grant colleges.

They were displeased with how (1) land-grant colleges developed the curriculum,

(2) administered the instititions, (3) prepared graduates for work as farmers, (4) provided access to the land-grant colleges for farmers’ children, and (5) provided public outreach on topics of agriculture. Farmers’ criticism spanned the country, and each land-grant college reacted differently. From the Michigan Agricultural College, the oldest land-grant college, to Nebraska University, and OSU, the land-grant colleges faced immense pressure and public criticism during their initial founding. This criticism came from farmers, politicians, and their allies alike. Each institution responded differently to public criticism. Some responded by trying to appease the masses through the enhancement of the college of agriculture, while others lowered admissions standards to provide greater access to farmers.

In Ohio, the criticisms by and conflicts with farmers was heightened specifically related to the fifth point of outreach and extension work. Distrustful and skeptical of the

University, Ohio farmers actively sought to control the Agricultural Experiment Station in Ohio. Through the efforts of Rutherford B. Hayes, President William Henry Scott, and

Alexis Cope, the farmers and the University eventually reached an agreement to align the competing University’s Board of Trustees and the Experiment Station’s Board of

Control.

As the editors of the agricultural periodical Farm and Fireside stated after receiving Alexis Cope’s copy of the 1886-1887 academic catalog, “Peace is always

159 pleasanter than war… and if the time has come that we can accomplish our purpose by peaceful methods, let us not neglect our opportunity.”310 The farmers in Ohio and beyond used their network and farmer publications to criticize and compete with the land-grant colleges. Moreover, although the farmers in Ohio were less combative following Hayes’ efforts, they still were not allies or advocates of the university. So, if not the farmers, who could be an ally for the land-grant college in Ohio and counter the farmers’ arguments?

310 Kinnison, “The Impact of the Morrill Act on Higher Education in Ohio,” 235.

160

Rivals for Governance of the Land-Grant University: Farmers, Alumni, and

Administration at Ohio State University, 1870-1910

Chapter 5

Rivalry between Alumni and OSU Administration, 1870-1902

161

Ohio farmers challenged the authority of the administration of the land-grant college over several fundamental issues: curricula, admissions policies, outcomes of land- grant education, and public outreach and extension efforts. Farmers were not the only group to challenge the university’s administration, however. Students and alumni also sought a voice in governing the Ohio State University (OSU) and challenged the administration during the early years of the institution. One might think that farmers, students, alumni, and administration would be allies in establishing and advancing the land-grant university. However, this was not the case. I have addressed the reasons that farmers opposed the administration. In this chapter, I will explore the rivalry for governance between the administration and the university’s alumni.

The Ohio State University was founded amid great tumult by the Cannon Act in

1870. On a national level, universities were just emerging in the United States for the first time, and there was particular uncertainty about the land-grant idea and the viability of such institutions.311 At the state level, there was no consensus as to the land-grant college’s purpose nor its funding source. As part of the Cannon Act, it was also customary for the board to rehire all of the faculty, including the President. This tradition proved problematic in 1883 with President Walter Quincy Scott (1881-1883), an issue that I will address in the third section of this chapter. Finally, the state legislature and

311 Laurence R. Veysey, The Emergence of the American University (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970).

162 governor often tried to prod the administration in different directions by replacing or removing members of the Board of Trustees.

At the institutional level, challenges were also prevalent. Some of these challenges included small enrollment, leadership instability, and the alumni. A very small enrollment initially pinched the university. On the first day of classes on September 18,

1873, “the registration book for opening day bears the names of twenty-four students who presented themselves as candidates for admission. All were from Ohio and nine were from Columbus, including the three children of Professor Norton Townshend.”312

By 1878, the year of the first commencement, “enrollment had reached one hundred and ninety-eight from fifty-two counties of Ohio.”313 In June of that year,

President Orton presided over commencement exercises with the first graduating class counting a total of 6 students. In 1879, graduates of the class of 1878, the first graduating class, reassembled at the Ohio State University for Commencement and formed an alumni association.314

The University also faced turmoil and uncertainty in its leadership at this time.

During the first twenty-five years, the position of president was often unstable. The doubt in who would serve as president and his commitment to the role provided an opportunity that students and alumni capitalized upon to criticize the Ohio State University, the

312 Goerler, The Ohio State University, 26.

313 Goerler, The Ohio State University, 30.

314 Goerler, The Ohio State University, 135.

163 decisions of its leadership, and the direction of the institution’s future. Meanwhile, alumni often challenged the administration and criticized its decisions, while complaining to the state legislature, governor, and newspapers at the same time.

In this chapter, I will explain how leadership instability during the university’s first twenty-five years fueled a rivalry between university administration and alumni and how Ohio State students contributed to this contentious relationship. Then, I will discuss how alumni, spurred by student unrest, organized themselves into various associations that posed a threat to the authority of the university administration and worsened the negative relationship. Finally, I will suggest that Harvard University contemporaneously addressed a similar alumni threat to its governance and ultimately usurped control over a multitude of alumni groups, providing a lesson for the land-grant college of Ohio.

Leadership Instability at the Ohio State University

Throughout history, the role of president in higher education has evolved at many

American institutions. Until the end of the Revolutionary War, college presidents were almost all “gentlemen of the cloth. Governing boards, too, were almost without exception gentlemen of the cloth.”315 In fact, this was a trend that remained consistent until the

Civil War. In 1860, 90 percent of the college presidents in one sample “were trained for

315 Rudy and Brubacher, Higher Education in Transition, 27.

164 the ministry, only 12 per cent had such training in 1933.”316 Regardless of a president’s background and training, factors like uncertain funding, external constituents, and supervision of faculty required the American college president to “be an entrepreneur in the broadest and best sense of the word.”317 For most colleges, tight budgets required the institution to have lean administrative structures. The first three presidents of OSU had similar backgrounds and played many different roles at the institution. Eventually, the evolution of the role of president granted university presidents more administrative authority over all things at the institution.318

At many institutions, the role of the president began to evolve rapidly between

1885 and 1900 just as the land-grant college movement was flowering in the final third of the nineteenth century. In the initial days of land-grant education, the role of a president still meant that the man, as it inevitably was, in this role led the faculty, taught classes, and regulated student life. The Secretary, meanwhile, managed the day-to-day affairs of the institution, monitored its finances, and allocated budgetary resources. The early presidents of OSU had a similar role to their contemporaries.319

As time progressed, some colleges added a ‘catchall’ administrator who might serve as bursar, registrar, and librarian. College faculty continued to have some

316 Rudy and Brubacher, 365.

317 Thelin, A History of American Higher Education, 2nd Edition, 34.

318Goerler, The Ohio State University, 34.

319Goerler, The Ohio State University, 34.

165 responsibility for monitoring student conduct, although there were signs of specialization, with a dean sometimes taking over student discipline.”320 Regardless of the strengths that any president brought to the institution, he was most successful when he had a clear understanding of how to lead an organization. In the words of Abbott Lawrence Lowell, long-time president of Harvard University, “the president, though not in a position of command, must be the leader if he has a pattern to carry out. Suggestions he should of course receive with the greatest joy and attention, deciding, however, for himself which of them he should favor, and, if it is possible, when they should be brought forward.”321

The period between 1870 and 1899 saw great instability in the role of OSU's president. Instability in leadership at the University began before the first classes were ever taught. At the outset, the land-grant college struggled to identify its first president from 1870-1873. Then, once the Board of Trustees had identified President Edward

Orton, who served as president from 1873-1881, he attempted to resign every year between 1878 and 1881. Following Orton’s departure, the Board of Trustees appointed

Walter Quincy Scott as President. He served in the role for only two years before being fired. Next, the Board of Trustees appointed William Henry Scott to the role. Similar to

Orton, W.H. Scott attempted to resign annually beginning in 1891, to no avail. Between

1891 and 1893, the Board of Trustees actively canvassed the educational field to identify

320 Thelin, A History of American Higher Education, 2nd Edition, 99.

321 A. Lawrence Lowell, What a University President Has Learned (Freeport, N.Y: Ayer

Co Pub, 1938), 12.

166 the next appropriate leader. In 1893, the Board accepted his resignation upon the condition that they could identify an appropriate successor. Scott served for two additional years when finally, in 1895, the Board identified James Canfield as the first

Populist President of the land-grant college.

During the 1870-1899 period, the question of what makes a suitable leader of the land-grant college was constant. Orton, both Scotts, and Canfield were traditional in their background and the definition of their work. During their time as President, each was expected to teach, prescribe classical studies, care for all students, and administer all aspects of the institution. Following Canfield’s departure in 1899 and the subsequent appointment of William Oxley Thompson as President, a change occurred in the role of

President. Thompson was the first “executive” president of the institution.

The first three Presidents of OSU, Presidents Edward Orton (1873-1881), W. Q.

Scott (1881-1883), and W. H. Scott (1883-1895) faced considerable challenges. The instability in the institution’s leadership provided many challenges for the institution. In this section, I will address the instability that permeated the first 25 years of the Ohio

Agricultural and Mechanical College with each presidential transition and how each

President’s authority and control was tenuous. I will also address how the Board selected each man and the background that he brought to the role. Ultimately, this instability provided an opportunity for alumni to publically disagree with the administration and vie for a role in the governance of the institution. It was not until the administration of the fifth president, William Oxley Thompson (1899-1925), that the presidency assumed its modern role of the executive head of the institution responsible for leading the

167 organization. For these reasons, I will discuss the unstable tenure of the first three presidents of the institution: Orton, W. Q. Scott, and W. H. Scott between 1870 and 1895.

Failed Search for a President, 1870-1873

The Board of Trustees first focused its efforts on identifying possible faculty and a leader of the institution following the passage of the Cannon Act. In 1871, the Board approached General Jacob D. Cox of Cincinnati and extended a “virtual offer of the presidency of the University.”322 However, Cox declined the offer, and the Board reconvened to determine next steps in selecting a president.

After Cox declined, the Board appointed a committee “to select and recommend to the Board a suitable person to act as President and also to see for and recommend for election the names of four suitable persons to fill the more important professorships.”323

The committee identified two candidates for the presidency of the college on October 10,

1872. The two candidates were Norton S. Townshend and James W. Patterson.324

Townshend was a former Ohio State Senator and Representative and went on to serve in

Congress as a U.S. Representative. He also was appointed to the University’s Board of

Trustees in 1870. Patterson previously had served as a professor of Dartmouth College in

322 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 40.

323 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 40.

324 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 40.

168

New Hampshire and was serving as the United States Senator. The Board proceeded to vote “with the following result: James W. Patterson, 10 votes; Norton S. Townshend, 4 votes. On motion, to make the election of Mr. Patterson unanimous, there was one dissenting vote, that of Mr. Sawyer.”325

The Board of Trustees extended an offer to Patterson, and the candidate made arrangements to visit Columbus in January of 1873. “On the 6th of January he came to

Columbus and was the guest of the Governor during his short stay. In the afternoon in company with several members of the Board of Trustees, he visited the College building, then nearing completion, expressing himself as pleased with its plan and arrangements…”326 It seemed that a president of the Ohio Agricultural and Mechanical

College was identified.

However, on the very next day, the “Senatorial Explosion” occurred in

Washington with the announcement of the names of the Congressmen who held “stock in the ‘Credit Mobilier,’ the greatly discredited construction syndicate of the Union Pacific

Railroad, which was benefitting from government bonds and stockholders' investments.

Among them was that of Senator Patterson who held thirty shares.”327 The Credit

Mobilier scandal shocked the American public as never before. The scandal exemplified

“the improprieties that inevitably occurred when powerful wealthy lobbies went calling

325 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 40.

326 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 40.

327 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 42.

169 on government officials.”328 “In a word, the Credit Mobilier and the Union Pacific

Railroad Company were one and the same. The men who governed the one, governed the other.”329 The interests of the groups became identical and “it was impossible to separate them and to study them, except in connection one with the other.”330

The scandal arose from activities surrounding the construction of the Union

Pacific Railroad. Previously, there would have been little interest in investment in a railroad on the West coast except that gold was recently discovered in California. The railroad company acquired Credit Mobilier of America in 1864 as the financer of its efforts. It was established as a “dummy” corporation “in order to strip sources of income, such as federal land grant bonds and stocks, from the railroad itself. Credit Mobilier stockholders received the sizable proceeds in the form of dividends, and garnered additional gain when the company’s stock rose in value.”331

Congress launched a further investigation into the matter. In December of 1872,

House Speaker James Blaine of Maine appointed Representative Luke Poland of

328 Andrew P. Thomas, “Easing the Pressure on Pressure Groups: Toward a

Constitutional Right to Lobby,” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 16 (1993): 151.

329 J. B. Crawford, The Credit Mobilier of America: Its Origin and History, Its Work of

Constructing the Union Pacific Railroad and the Relation of Members of Congress

Therewith (Boston, MA: C.W. Calkins and Company, 1880), 11.

330 Crawford, 88.

331 Thomas, “Easing the Pressure on Pressure Groups,” 151.

170

Vermont to launch an investigation. During Patterson’s meeting with the Committee, he gave the following statement:

Washington, D. C, January 16, 1873. J. W. Patterson, a Senator of the

United States, from the State of New Hampshire, having been duly sworn,

made the following statement : Gentlemen of the Committee : I have had

no transactions with the Union Pacific Railroad, or with Mr. Ames, which,

in my judgment, call for investigation, or which any respectable business

man would think of criticizing [sic.] ; still, I am glad to respond to your

invitation to be present this morning, and with your permission will give

you a brief, but complete, statement of all there is to this matter, so far as I

am concerned… I have never purchased or received any property of any

kind which had any connection, direct or indirect, with my vote or

political influence.332

Nevertheless, the Committee found James W. Patterson connected to Credit

Mobilier. The committee passed the following resolution: “Resolved, That James W.

332 Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the Alleged Credit Mobilier Bribery,

Made to the House of Representatives, February 18, 1873. (Washington: Government

Printing Office, 1873), 184, http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924062620236.

171

Patterson be, and he is hereby expelled from his seat as a member of the Senate.”333

However, no action was taken on the resolution because Patterson’s term expired five days later. The news of the scandal was embarrassing for both the Senator and for the

Board of Trustees of the Ohio Agricultural and Mechanical College. Shortly after the news broke, the Board members “received a very courteous note from the Senator declining the honor which they had tendered him.”334 By declining the offer to serve as the president, Senator Patterson was the second candidate to decline the opportunity to lead the land-grant college, and the land-grant college remained without a President.

Edward Orton (1873-1878, 1878-1881)

Edward Orton had an interesting background as a president for this period. Orton was a clergyman like many other university presidents during this period. However,

Orton had a complicated history with religion. Both his father and uncle were

Presbyterian ministers and Orton thought he would follow a similar path. He graduated from Hamilton College in New York in 1848 and later attended Lane Theological

Seminary in Cincinnati.335 Orton changed his course after he read Charles Darwin’s

Origins of Species. Intrigued by the science of Darwin’s research, he withdrew from Lane

Theological Seminary to study chemistry and botany at Harvard’s Lawrence Scientific

333 Crawford, The Credit Mobilier of America, 148.

334 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 42.

335 Goerler, The Ohio State University, 35.

172

School. He eventually “returned to religious studies at the Andover Theological

Seminary. He was ordained as a Presbyterian minister in 1858.”336

A year after finishing school, Orton followed his interest in science and became a professor of geology, botany, and zoology. Orton was a familiar name throughout the state since Governor Rutherford B. Hayes appointed him as an assistant in the second geological survey of Ohio in 1869.337 Initially, the university’s trustees invited him to the faculty while he was serving as professor of natural history at Antioch College. He initially declined the offer to join the faculty and remained at Antioch College as a faculty member until 1871.338 He eventually advanced to become president of Antioch

College in 1872. He was in this role for a short time before he accepted the offer to join the faculty of the Ohio Agricultural and Mechanical College and serve as its president in

1873.

Orton was involved with the University for the remainder of his life. He served as president from 1873-1881 but began trying to resign in 1878. The trying issue for the

Presbyterian minister-turned-geologist-turned-president was that the Board of Trustees

“wanted the president and faculty to require students to attend chapel services on campus.

The trustees had instructed Orton to hold a daily assembly of students in the university chapel. The trustees told the president that “the nature and the time of the exercises

336 Goerler, The Ohio State University, 35.

337 Goerler, The Ohio State University, 36.

338 Goerler, The Ohio State University.

173 should be under the control of the faculty. A week later, the action was temporarily suspended after President Orton, as he had done earlier, apprised the board of the difficulty of executing the order.”339

Orton and many of the faculty knew that such exercises were common at many institutions, but thought them inappropriate for the new and nondenominational land- grant college.”340 One Board member asserted that Orton’s hesitation in establishing compulsory chapel services demonstrated that “‘the college had got away as far as possible from God and Agriculture.’”341 At the June 1878 Commencement Exercises,

Orton shared his views on the chapel issue. Alluding to the land-grant colleges in other states, he said:

They have not much to say about the Council of Trent or the

Synod of Dort, it is true, and they do not nail to their doors the Augsburg

Confession, the Westminster Catechism, or the Thirty-nine Articles, and

above all they do not establish compulsory religious worship—a

requirement which many devout men feel to be more honored in the

breach than in the observance. They do not attempt these things, for one

reason because they have no right to attempt them, for these colleges

339 Kinnison, Building Sullivant’s Pyramid, 93.

340 Goerler, The Ohio State University, 37.

341 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 77.

174

belong to a divided people—a people with ways of expressing their

religious faith as many and as various as were the tongues at the

Pentecostal feast; but they are furnishing after all the highest proof of a

Christian mission—they are bringing ‘glad tiding to the poor’—more life

and larger—to the unprivileged classes of American society. It is easy to

ring the changes on the godless colleges, which are godless to the same

extent and for the same reason that common schools and high schools are

godless. It is possible to invoke fire from Heaven on their rising walls and

to prophesy their swift destruction, but the fire does not always descend,

and the Master sometimes rebukes his presumptuous followers.342

Following the 1878 Commencement, Orton submitted his resignation, but the

Board tabled it. On April 15, 1879, the Trustees voted unanimously that he continue as

President.343 It is unclear as to why the Board of Trustees responded in such a way to

Orton’s resignation at this time.344 Only in 1881 did the Board accept Orton’s resignation

342 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 76.

343 Pollard, History of the Ohio State University; the Story of Its First Seventy-Five Years,

1873-1948., 46.

344 “Record of Proceedings of the Board of Trustees of the Ohio Agricultural and

Mechanical College and the Ohio State University from May 11, 1870 to June 25, 1890,”

April 15, 1879, The Ohio State University Archives.

175 but retained him as professor of geology and as state geologist. The land-grant college was once again without a President.

Walter Quincy Scott (1881-1883)

Following Orton’s extended departure, the Board of Trustees faced pressures from citizens and other colleges to identify a new President with a scientific experience similar to Orton's. However, the trustees wanted a new president with a strong religious background, who would ensure that the compulsory chapel services would become a reality. But the trustees did not realize the challenges they would face in the coming years on this issue due to the increasing secularization of higher education.

In any case, the trustees identified Walter Quincy Scott as the ideal candidate.

Scott’s election as Orton’s successor was because he was an ordained minister. At thirty- six years of age, Walter Quincy Scott was the youngest of all of the Ohio State

University’s presidents in its entire history. Also distinctive was that, at seventeen years old, Walter Quincy Scott “enlisted in the Fourth Iowa Cavalry, took part in General

Sherman’s campaign through Georgia, and served until the end of the war in 1865.”345

Following his military service, W. Q. Scott attended Lafayette College and graduated at the head of his class, then remained at Lafayette to serve as a tutor and then as a professor. He continued on to study theology at the Union Theological Seminary in

New York City and became pastor of the Arch Street Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia

345 Goerler, The Ohio State University, 39.

176 in 1874. Scott made his way to Ohio in 1878 when he joined the faculty at Wooster

College to serve as professor of mental and moral philosophy and political economy. The

Board appointed Walter Quincy Scott as president of the Ohio Agricultural and

Mechanical College in June of 1881.

W. Q. Scott was popular amongst University neighbors as well as the students and alumni. He had served as a preacher in “pulpits of many of the churches in the community and was widely known and appreciated as a lecturer. He was ‘a ripe scholar and fearless investigator of truth,’ observed the Ohio State Journal, and was so received among the people of Ohio.”346 He was an “’honored and delightful guest among the best homes of this city,’ observed one journalist,’” because of his preeminent social qualities.

Similar to Scott’s appeal to University neighbors, students found that he “was a man of great personal charm; an eloquent speaker and possessed of such accomplishments, scholarly and otherwise.”347

Walter Quincy Scott inherited the issue of compulsory chapel services and, as a result, his tenure as President was short-lived. Between the election of Scott as president and his inaugural address, the Board of Trustees reaffirmed this direction and indicated to the new president that it was their full expectation that he carry it into effect. At this time,

“they added a stipulation that Scripture reading and prayers were to be included in the

346 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 84.

347 Goerler, The Ohio State University, 39.

177 exercises.”348 The topic of daily chapel services was a focus of Scott’s first faculty meeting.

It was decided that the faculty would create a committee to consider the feasibility of having Sabbath morning services rather than daily exercises.349 “The intense feeling of the faculty on the subject is illustrated by the faculty’s reluctance even to ask the president to hold memorial services for the assassinated James A. Garfield; instead they asked for a committee to make whatever arrangements the occasion required.”350 Scott and the faculty were hesitant to involve the non-sectarian university in such activities.

In fact, the new President had pleaded with the Board of Trustees to avoid implementing daily compulsory chapel. Scott claimed that the “arrangement of seats in the Auditorium was not satisfactory and that there was no carpet for the stage or platform; another delay of a couple of weeks until one could be selected bought, and put in place.” 351 Following the resolution of this issue, Scott raised a question about music and claimed that, without it, “the assembly would never be a success.” 352 To appease

Scott, the Board purchased a piano and permitted the formation of a choir. Finally, when all the obstacles had been removed, an even greater issue was presented by Scott—there

348 Kinnison, Building Sullivant’s Pyramid, 93.

349 Kinnison, Building Sullivant’s Pyramid.

350 Kinnison, Building Sullivant’s Pyramid, 93.

351 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 84.

352 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 84.

178 was no Bible present. The Board authorized Scott to purchase a Bible, but Scott reported that there were “none suitable in the bookstores of Columbus, a special order for one was sent to Philadelphia, causing more weeks of postponement.” 353 When the Board of

Trustees realized that chapel services had not yet commenced, they engaged the state attorney general to determine the legality of their request for daily chapel services.

Finding that such a request was within their role as trustees, the Board asked Scott again to implement services. “In November of 1882, the trustees expressed surprise that no chapel had been established. It was the unanimous wish of the board, they informed the faculty, that its request be carried into effect at once. The faculty complied, setting a time and place for the required services but placed responsibility for the act upon the

Board of Trustees. They also again suggested the Sunday afternoon voluntary and education alternative.”354

For two years, Scott avoided holding daily chapel services, which proved his undoing. When the Board of Trustees met on June 19, 1883, they refused to reelect Scott as president or to retain him as a member of the faculty. “Under the provisions of the

Cannon Act it was customary procedure for the board to rehire all of the faculty annually, being free to refuse reelection as well. On this particular occasion, all of the faculty

353 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 84.

354 Kinnison, Building Sullivant’s Pyramid, 94.

179 except Scott were reelected, and the decision not to continue him in office passed by a six to one vote.”355

The historical accounts differ on the following events. According to Kinnison, after the Board’s vote, they realized their error in that there was an impending commencement and no president to preside over it. The board rescinded its decision with the requirement that Scott would resign immediately following the commencement ceremony. According to Cope, however, a couple of faculty members who were close with the president found out about the refusal to reappoint him. One of the faculty members pointed out the oversight regarding commencement exercises and pleaded with the Board to reinstate President Scott in order to save him from the embarrassment of not being reappointed. The unidentified faculty member, who was acting as arbitrator, went to the President’s home and told him that “if his resignation was placed in their hands by ten o’clock the next morning it would be received and accepted in the ordinary course.”356

President Scott’s reaction to this news was a strikingly characteristic act of indifference. Scott quietly remarked that his resignation would be ready for delivery to the Board of Trustees at the time indicated.357 The next morning, Scott’s resignation was

355 Kinnison, Building Sullivant’s Pyramid, 97.

356 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 82.

357 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 82.

180 submitted to the Board of Trustees358 and accepted immediately. The board voted to waive the rent of fifty dollars due from Scott. President Walter Quincy Scott was popular amongst students, faculty, and alumni, and his removal created public controversy. The public controversy was driven primarily by students and alumni and caused a significant backlash for the Board of Trustees that is addressed below.

William Henry Scott (1883-1891, 1891-1895)

Whoever would be selected to replace W. Q. Scott would inevitably face challenges to gain the support and confidence of the students, faculty, and alumni. The transition was not a smooth one. Immediately following W. Q. Scott’s dismissal, the

Board of Trustees identified their choice for the next president: Dr. William Henry Scott of Athens, Ohio. The Board of Trustees wanted him to serve as President pro tem and professor of Philosophy and Political Economy. No relation to his predecessor, William

Henry Scott was then serving as the president of Ohio University, and the offer to serve as president of the land-grant college became a virtual comedy of errors.

358 As quoted in Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, p. 82: “June 20, 1883.

To the Honorable Board of Trustees of the Ohio State University: Gentlemen—I have the honor to place in your hands this resignation of my position as President and Professor of

Philosophy and Political Economy, to take effect at the close of the Commencement

Exercises today. Walter Quincy Scott.”

181

In May of 1883, William Henry Scott received a telegram from a member of the

OSU Board of Trustees. In the telegram, the trustee asked Dr. W. H. Scott to meet “him at the railway station in Athens on the arrival of a certain train.”359 W. H. Scott complied with the request and found two Board members at the train station. In their meeting, the

Board members “offered him the presidency of the State University which he promptly declined. He remarked, however, that if they offered him the chair of Philosophy, he would be glad to accept it.” 360 It is unclear as to why he preferred an offer for a professorship over the role of president, based on the historical account that exists.

Nothing came of the conversation for nearly a month. Then, to W. H. Scott’s complete surprise, he received another telegram from Columbus stating that the Board elected him to the presidency of Ohio State University. 361 The Board of Trustees wished to honor Dr. W. H. Scott’s request to join the faculty. According to Cope, they acceded

“to Doctor Scott’s wishes in the matter of the professorship, but to ask him to assume the duties of president for the time being and until a selection of another person for that office would enable him to devote himself solely to his professional duties.” 362 Dr. W. H.

359 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 83.

360 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 83.

361 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 83.

362 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 83.

182

Scott said, “‘perhaps they thought that for the sake of the professorship, which I wanted, I might endure for a season, the presidency, which I did not want.’” 363

The public, ignorant of the May interview, interpreted the pro tem condition erroneously and “to many it explained that the Trustees were advertising the fact that they wanted Dr. W. H. Scott only as a temporary ‘stop-gap’” president and not as a permanent leader of the land-grant college.364 In order to reassure the new president of their intent and support of him, the Board of Trustees, by resolution, struck pro tem from his appointment and the land-grant college had its third president.

William Henry Scott shared some traits with his predecessors. After graduating from Ohio University in 1862, W. H. Scott eventually became a clergyman, like Orton and W. Q. Scott, and served as a Methodist minister in Chillicothe and then Columbus.

“In 1869 Scott returned to Ohio University as professor of Greek. Three years later, in

1872, he became its president. He served there for eleven years before accepting the invitation to serve as president of OSU first and then as its professor of philosophy.”

Compared to his predecessor, W. H. Scott proved quiet, even timid, and conservative. He enforced the will of the trustees for compulsory daily service at the chapel. Typically,

“the service included singing, some instrumental accompaniment, the reading of

Scriptures, and a prayer.”365 William Henry Scott became a target of students’ and alumni

363 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 83.

364 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 82.

365 Quotations are from Goerler, The Ohio State University, 42.

183 humor and criticism but was well-regarded by the Board of Trustees, and it was during this presidency that the leadership of the land-grant college began to stabilize, aided by

Rutherford B. Hayes joining the Board in 1887.

Nevertheless, in 1891, eight years into his role, W. H. Scott attempted to resign.

At the June 2 Board of Trustees meeting, the Board agreed to separate the Department of

Zoology and Anatomy and to create the chair of Anatomy and Physiology. This action was a result of a recommendation by President Scott, who had a candidate in mind for the newly created chair role. According to Cope, the candidate was “an eminent teacher and professor in a neighboring institution and one of the most popular instructors in the State.

He was regarded as the strongest man in the faculty of the institution he was then serving, and his relations to such institution were such that he exacted a promise from President

Scott that his name was not to be considered at all unless the Board of Trustees were practically unanimous in his favor.” 366

At a prior meeting, President Scott had presented the issues to the Board, and they indicated that they would provide their support; however, no record exists of this agreement. At the June meeting, President Scott made the nomination that was previously agreed upon, but the Board then proposed the name of another candidate. W. H. Scott was shocked by this action and believed that this placed his candidate and himself in a humiliating position. Scott’s plea was in vain, and the other candidate was selected.

366 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 151.

184

When the results of the vote were announced, President Scott “quietly said, ‘Gentlemen, after this action I feel that I cannot longer serve as President of the University.’”367

President Scott was re-elected as President during this meeting and subsequently in 1892 and 1893. During this time, however, “the Board of Trustees quietly canvassed the whole educational field of the country in search of a proper person to succeed

President Scott.” 368 The Board of Trustees identified multiple prospective candidates from across the country. Among the list of candidates were Dr. E. D. Warfield, then

President of Lafayette College in Pennsylvania; Dr. Woodrow Wilson, then a Professor at

Princeton College; Dr. Washington Gladden of Columbus, Ohio; Professor Albert H.

Tuttle of the University of Virginia.369 Finally, President Scott, after being re-elected as

President at the June 1893 Board of Trustee’s meeting, resigned again. This time, his resignation “was accepted to take effect when his successor was elected and qualified.”370

The Board then voted to form a committee to identify President Scott’s successor, consisting of W. I. Chamberlain, T. J. Godfrey, and L. B. Wing.371 The group identified a candidate in Professor T. C. Mendenhall of Ohio State University who eventually declined the offer to serve as president. Finally, in 1895, James H. Canfield, Chancellor

367 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 151.

368 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 151.

369 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1.

370 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 157.

371 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 160.

185 at the University of Nebraska was elected as the fourth President of the Ohio State

University and W. H. Scott stepped out of the role. Farmers did not feel represented at the land-grant college until 1895 when James Canfield (1895-1899) was named the fourth president of the University. For the first time, farmers identified with President Canfield

(1895-1899) because he was a Populist President. His beliefs and management aligned more with the farmers than any President before him.

In sum, during the first twenty-five years of the land-grant college, there was significant uncertainty in its leadership. First, the Board of Trustees took nearly three years to hire the first president. The first person offered the position turned it down, and the second candidate also declined the position amidst political scandal. The Board finally identified Orton to serve as president in 1873, and, after five years, he started trying to resign and continued doing so for three years until allowed to step down in

1881. The next president, Walter Quincy Scott, was removed from the role by the Board of Trustees after merely two years. His replacement, William Henry Scott, served from

1883 until 1891, when he tried to step down and then spent the next four years trying to resign. Overall, for ten of the first twenty-five years of its existence, the institution did not have a president or had a president trying to resign. The turnover of University presidents made the trustees seem incompetent. Additionally, the presidential transitions and instability caused confusion and unrest in the student body, which then spurred the alumni to become more involved in the governance of the University.

186

Student Criticism Spurs Alumni Rivalry for Governance

At OSU from 1873-1891, student enrollment slowly grew, increasing the total number of graduates. Presidents Orton, W. Q. Scott, and W. H. Scott gradually found that they had to be more attentive to the demands of their students and alumni. More generally in higher education, historian John Thelin observed that “university presidents had to make substantial concessions to alumni groups, professors felt even more distance from campus priorities and decision making… What presidents discovered was that the same organizational skills and tenacity that undergraduates had brought to ‘college life’ ten or twenty years earlier now resurfaced” in alumni.372 At OSU, the Board of Trustees saw a similar trend emerging as organized students spurred alumni activity which came to a head as a rivalry for governance.

In Table 3, one can see the growth in student enrollment and graduation numbers at OSU between1873-1891. Initially, students enrolled in the Preparatory Department of the school and matriculated to collegiate study. In 1882, the University began enrolling students directly into the collegiate study. As more students enrolled, the University saw increased growth in the number of students graduating each year. It should be noted that the graduating classes were small, which allowed for the greater opportunity for the alumni to stay connected to one another and the current students. This allowed for greater connection to current events happening on campus. As the alumni body grew and the

372 Thelin, A History of American Higher Education, 2nd Edition, 199.

187 student body increased, there was increased criticism. In the 1880s, there was evidence of this growing unrest and lack of trust in the University’s governance in two different instances.

188

Enrollment Year Collegiate Preparatory Total373 Graduates 1873-4 90 1875 118 1876 143 1877 254 1878 309 6 1879 295 7 1880 313 9 1881 365 8 1882 114 242 356 9 1883 142 213 355 11 1884 152 146 298 13 1885 190 133 323 16 1886 196 141 331 18 1887 196 148 344 25 1888 235 165 401 28 1889 263 165 428 29 1890 312 181 493 31 1891 468 188 656 35

Table 3: Annual Number of Students and Graduates, Ohio State University from 1873 to 1891374

373 The original data source does not distinguish enrollment numbers for collegiate and preparatory study between 1873-1881.

374 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 90.

189

The first example of growing tension between the Board of Trustees, students, and alumni occurred with the dismissal of President Walter Quincy Scott. As mentioned earlier, the Board of Trustees faced significant backlash from students and alumni when they voted not to renew Walter Quincy Scott’s appointment as President. Students and alumni were impressed with W.Q. Scott’s charm, speaking ability, and all-around accomplishments-- scholarly or otherwise. This instance served as a moment in the institution’s history that would lead to many years of embarrassment for the Board of

Trustees.375 The dismissal of Scott kept coming up within the student and alumni body, and it created a pattern of discontent amongst the students and alumni. It also fostered criticism amongst the students and alumni that lasted for most of William Henry Scott’s presidency.

At the Board of Trustees meeting on June 18, 1883, the Board moved to elect members of the Faculty as per its custom. “On motion of Mr. Ellis, that the Board proceed to the election of members of the Faculty, the following members were elected to the chairs as named in present catalogue and former salaries: Alice Williams, George

Ruhlen, W. A. Mason, Jr., Wm. R. Lazenby, Samuel C. Derby, T. C. Mendenhall, S. W.

Robinson, A. H. Tuttle, R. W. McFarlane, Norton S. Townshend, S. A. Norton, and

Edward Orton.”376 Conspicuously missing from this list was President W. Q. Scott. Mr.

375 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 83.

376 “Record of Proceedings of the Board of Trustees of the Ohio Agricultural and

Mechanical College and the Ohio State University,” May 11, 1870, 254, The Ohio State

190

Ellis motioned that “W. Q. Scott be elected. President and Professor of Philosophy and

Political Economy for the coming year, the ayes and nays were called for on the motion by Mr. Anderson. Mr. Anderson voted aye. Messrs. Cowgill, Godfrey, Ellis, Miller and

Jamison voted nay.”377

The Board of Trustees decision not to reappoint Walter Quincy Scott as president was unpopular throughout the Ohio State community. There was an immediate outcry amongst students and alumni. Word traveled fast among faculty and staff on the small campus. Despite the Board of Trustees’ attempt to keep the information quiet until after

Commencement exercises, “news of the action of the Trustees was circulating around the campus before the opening of the Commencement exercises a few hours later.”378 The students sent a clear message to the audience in attendance at Commencement and the

Board of Trustees with the ovation given the President. It was “an unmistakable warning to the Board of Trustees of what was to come. Following the Commencement exercises,

University Archives, https://trustees.osu.edu/sites/default/files/documents/2018/11/archived_minutes_1870-

1890.pdf.

377 “Record of Proceedings of the Board of Trustees of the Ohio Agricultural and

Mechanical College and the Ohio State University,” 254.

378 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 83.

191

“the students marched in a body to Scott’s residence and expressed their esteem for him and their sorrow at his leaving.”379

W. Q. Scott thanked them for their support and kind wishes but “he urged them to stand by the Ohio State University and not to let their personal feelings affect their loyalty to their alma mater.”380 The editor of the Ohio State Journal disapproved of the students’ actions, but characterized Scott’s address as “marked by good taste.”381 Within a few days, the principal newspapers of the State were printing editorials regarding the

‘dismissal’ of the President of the State University, many of them in severe condemnation, a few in somewhat feeble defense of the Trustees.”382 The students, however, were not the only constituents to react negatively to Scott’s dismissal.

Walter Quincy Scott’s dismissal marks the first example of students and alumni coordinating their efforts to express their opinions. It was also the beginning of their efforts to have greater control over the institution. When W. Q. Scott’s resignation became public, the Ohio State Journal reported that alumni met with students in a larger meeting. The editor wrote that there was a “protest meeting attended by ‘some 50

379 Kinnison, Building Sullivant’s Pyramid, 105.

380 Kinnison, Building Sullivant’s Pyramid, 105.

381 Kinnison, Building Sullivant’s Pyramid, 105.

382 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 83.

192 students, involving several ladies and two of the alumni.’”383 This moment was also the first indication of the alumni organizing in response to a University event outside of

Commencement exercises.

The second such organization was shortly after this instance when a meeting of local alumni gathered in the office of Paul Jones, a Columbus lawyer who would eventually serve on the law faculty and later as a member of the Board of Trustees.384 At the meeting, the alumni drafted a resolution that “demanded ‘that Dr. Scott be reinstated, in order that charges may be preferred officially by the Board, and that he be allowed publicly to be heard in his own behalf,’ and that unless reasons ‘better sustained for his dismissal than those so far publicly given be produced, Dr. Scott should be retained in his former position in the University.”385 The alumni also called upon Governor Foster “to dismiss all of the trustees, to appoint new ones, and then to reinstate Scott for his hearing.”386

Local community members also expressed shock and surprise at the news of

Scott’s ouster with the outcry of support placed the Board of Trustees in a precarious situation on all fronts, and they were quick to defend their decision. “In an interview the

383 Pollard, History of the Ohio State University; the Story of Its First Seventy-Five Years,

1873-1948., 79.

384 Pollard, History of the Ohio State University, 83.

385 Pollard, History of the Ohio State University, 83.

386 Kinnison, Building Sullivant’s Pyramid, 103.

193

President of the Board gave a graphic account of numerous personal appeals to Doctor

Scott in the matter of chapel exercises and of the series of excuses offered by him.”387

From the perspective of the Board of Trustees, they were justified in their action based upon the interpretation by the Attorney General of the State and W. Q. Scott’s refusal to meet their requests for compulsory chapel service.

As the fallout continued in Columbus, “the institution’s supporters thinking of the university’s prosperity, were beginning to fear the repercussions of the affair. The alumni had “‘respectfully demanded’ that Walter Quincy Scott be reinstated, and that the trustees be removed from office ‘unless a better way be provided.’”388Alumni and community members reached out to Governor Charles Foster to ask him to intervene on

President W. Q. Scott’s behalf. On June 25, 1883, Governor Foster sent the following letter to the Ohio State University Board of Trustees:

Such representations have been made to me in personal interviews by

prominent citizens and through the public press, in relation to the action of

your Board in the matter and manner of selecting a successor to the late

President of the Ohio State University, the Rev. Walter Q. Scott, as to

convince me that the best interests of the University will be subserved by a

387 Cope, History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1, 84.

388 Kinnison, Building Sullivant’s Pyramid, 107.

194

full statement from your Board, of the causes that have induced the action

that you have taken, and, of the reasons why you deemed such action

advisable. I will therefore be obliged for such statement at the earliest date

possible.389

The Board of Trustees understood the need to respond to the governor and to defend their actions. At the June 25, 1883 Board of Trustees meeting, the Board drafted the letter below in an effort to explain their rationale. In it, the Trustees shared their rationale and the legal obligation they claimed from the revised state statutes. The

Trustees also outlined the concerns they had with President W. Q. Scott’s performance during his two-year tenure:

It is difficult to place before you and the public all the causes which

resulted in such action. We deem it sufficient to say that each member of

the Board who voted "no" on the proposition to re-elect Dr. Scott, acting

upon his solemn oath, and looking solely to the best interests of the

University, for the following, among other reasons, decided that such

interests would not be subserved by his further retention:

First. He neglected, for more than one year, to carry into effect a

389 “Record of Proceedings of the Board of Trustees of the Ohio Agricultural and

Mechanical College and the Ohio State University,” 258.

195

positive resolution of the Board the performance of the duties required by

said resolution being one of the reasons for his election as President.

Second. That in public lectures at the University and elsewhere, he

promulgated unsound and dangerous doctrines of Political Economy.

Third. Neglect of duty in withholding communications sent to the

Board through him.

Fourth. General lack of executive ability.390

In response to the Board of Trustees’ letters, no further action was taken by

Governor Foster, even though many people across Ohio were hopeful that he would do so. In the July 3, 1883 issue of the Cleveland Leader, an article stated that “if the

Governor should retain the present board of trustees after the racket that has been going on for the past two weeks, there will be considerable dissatisfaction among the people as well as the students and all others that have any connection with the institution outside of the board and their friends.”391 The students and alumni had succeeded in raising public concerns about the governance of the University.

Indeed, dissatisfaction over Scott’s dismissal made it to the state legislature on

390 “Record of Proceedings of the Board of Trustees of the Ohio Agricultural and

Mechanical College and the Ohio State University,” 259.

391 “Columbus.,” The Cleveland Leader, July 3, 1883, Tuesday Morning edition, 3,

America’s Historical Newspapers.

196

February 15, 1884, when Mr. L.A. Brunner, Speaker pro tem of the Ohio House of

Representatives, called for an investigation into Scott’s dismissal on the floor of the

House. According to an article in the Cleveland Leader on February 16, 1884, Brunner’s appeal was overturned in a vote to indefinitely postpone the investigation with 34- yeas and 19- nays.392 Those who postponed the investigation feared that an investigation would impair the University’s business. 393

Although the Governor and State Legislature did not take any action in defense of

President W. Q. Scott, the organized efforts of students and alumni drew great attention to the governance concerns held by these two groups of constituents. The “students refused to forget Walter Quincy Scott for a great number of years, and by the time they had, their anti-administration stance was second nature.”394 The pattern of discontent was now part of the culture of the student and alumni communities. This pattern of discontent and subsequent criticism of the Board would continue for much of William Henry Scott’s tenure as the third President of the Ohio State University.

Students used the student newspaper, the Lantern, and the student yearbook, the

Makio, to criticize W. H. Scott and undermine the administration of the Ohio State

University. A year after W. Q. Scott’s dismissal (1881-1883), the students continued to

392 “The Removal of Dr. Walter Q. Scott,” The Cleveland Leader, February 16, 1884,

Saturday Morning edition, sec. Columbus.

393 “The Removal of Dr. Walter Q. Scott,” 3.

394 Kinnison, Building Sullivant’s Pyramid, 124.

197 mourn his departure. Students found an easy target in the third President of the

University, William Henry Scott (1883-1891, 1891-1895).

For example, in The Makio, the editors voiced student objections that disparaged the Board of Trustees and the new President. The editors wrote that the removal of

Walter Quincy Scott from the faculty and the role of president “was a serious injury to the institution. He was an intelligent teacher, a student of advanced ideas, and a man eminently fitted for developing firm ideas of true manhood, and the students recognized him as their worthy mentor. The student editorial did not so much dispute the right of the trustees to change the institution’s presiding officer, as it questioned the wisdom of their denying so effective a teacher his place on the faculty. In a subtle jab at the new Dr.

Scott, the editors observed that W. Q. Scott’s position would be filled only with ‘great and almost insurmountable difficulty.’”395

In the yearbook, the Makio, in 1884, the editor shared his thoughts on W.Q.

Scott’s departure and mourned for him and the institution:

As a result of her peculiar form of management, she [the University] has

been subjected to that frequently fatal course—a change of

superintendency. The reasons, the justice or injustice, and the results of its

action, belong to the private opinion of every man, and hence are not a fit

subject for public discussion. However, in view of our knowledge of

395 Kinnison, Building Sullivant’s Pyramid, 112.

198

affairs then and since, we are compelled to voice the unanimous sentiment

of the students, that the removal of Walter Quincy Scott from the chair of

Logic and Political Economy, was a serious injury to the Institution, and

that his place as an intelligent teacher, as a student of advanced ideas, and

as a man eminently fitted for developing firm ideas of true manhood, will

be filled with great and almost insurmountable difficulty.396

The students targeted the new president, William Henry Scott as well. He faced continued challenges with students and alumni because of the dismissal of the first Scott.

In his first year as president, student behavior was so negative and rude towards him that the faculty submitted a letter to the board defending William Henry Scott.397 In their June

16, 1884 meeting, the Board of Trustees read the letter from the faculty:

Gentlemen: The closing term of the current year comes to its end with a

state of feeling existing in the minds of some of the students of the

University that is greatly to be regretted. As far as that feeling is due to the

action of the Faculty as a body, they have only to say that they have

simply endeavored to do their duty, painful as it has been at times, with an

396 The Makio, vol. 4 (Columbus, OH: The Fraternities of the Ohio State University,

1884), 9.

397 Goerler, The Ohio State University, 42.

199

eye single to the true interests of the students, and of the University.

Much, however, of the present illfeeling is due to what is, we are

compelled with regret to believe, a more or less organized effort to

embarrass and annoy the President of the University and to disparage his

efficiency and his fitness for the high position which he holds. The Faculty

of the University have no doubt that the Trustees will appreciate such an

attack at its true worth. They feel, however, that it will be an act of justice

to President Scott, as well as a pleasure to themselves, to express

personally to you their high appreciation of his character, and of his fitness

for the position. They desire to express their sense of the fairness and

kindness that has at all times characterized his dealings alike with students

and with teachers of the University; of the sincerity and earnestness, and

the consequent success of his efforts to understand and to adapt himself to

the organization and usages of this institution; and of the sincere, unselfish

and conscientious manner in which he has discharged every duty, pleasant

or painful, that has devolved upon him.398

Student Criticism and Alumni Representation on the Board of Trustees

Another contentious issue that emerged for students and alumni was the issue of

398 “Record of Proceedings of the Board of Trustees of the Ohio Agricultural and

Mechanical College and the Ohio State University,” 281.

200 alumni representation in the governance of the institution. Using student media platforms, they spurred the alumni to action in a second governance-related issue: alumni representation on the Board of Trustees. The students used the Lantern to express their concerns about governance issues at the institution. In the February 1884 issue of the

Lantern,399the students called upon the alumni to have greater influence over the institution by having an alumnus serve on the Board of Trustees.400

That month, the Alcyone Literary Society adopted various resolutions in support of the students’ cause. First, the students identified the absence of an alumnus on the

Board of Trustees. They believed that alumni were most qualified to represent the needs of students and alumni. The students called upon the new governor of Ohio, George

Hoadly to appoint an alumnus to the Board to fill the seat that was vacated that year by

Mr. T. Ewing Miller. However, the students and alumni were unsuccessful in their efforts to have an alumnus named to the Board of Trustees in 1884. They were successful, however, in 1890 when Governor James E. Campbell appointed the first alumnus to serve

399 During this period in the history of higher education, literary societies were one of the most common forms of student organizations. At the Ohio State University, members of three literary societies served as the Board of Editors for the Lantern. Representatives of the Alcyone Society, the Horton Society, and the Ladies’ Society determined the content in each publication.

400 The Lantern, February 1884, Vol. IV, No. II edition, The Ohio State University

Archives.

201 on the Board of Trustees, C. C. Miller. The news “was received with much satisfaction among the former students and all who were especially interested in the welfare of the university.”401

However, the success of the students and alumni to have a representative named to the Board of Trustees was short-lived. When Miller’s term expired, Governor

McKinley departed from his predecessor’s example. It is understandable that McKinley, a Republican, did not reappoint Miller, a Democrat. There was initial hope that McKinley would return to the practice when former President Hayes passed away while serving as a member of the Board of Trustees. McKinley “promised to consult the university officials and to give due consideration to the suggestions of the alumni.” 402 McKinley did not consult any external constituents of the University and instead appointed another

Republican politician who was not an alumnus/na. The Cleveland Leader condemned his course of action for going against a trend to appoint alumni to boards of higher education.403 As the Cleveland Leader pointed out in its June 20, 1893 article “Alumni on College Boards, “the practice of drawing from the alumni for trustees is coming into

401 “Alumni on College Boards.,” The Cleveland Leader, June 20, 1894, 4, America’s

Historical Newspapers, https://library.osu.edu/documents/university- archives/lanternhome.html.

402 “Alumni on College Boards.,” 4.

403 “Alumni on College Boards.”

202 vogue gradually in our older western institutions.”404

Consequently, students became more vocal about the administration of OSU during the 1880s. As a result of student outcry, the alumni began to seek a role in the governance of the university. When the Board of Trustees removed President Walter

Quincy Scott from the role of president, the alumni protested alongside students and complained to Governor Foster at the time, and, along with the students, advocated for an alumni representative on the Board of Trustees in 1884. It was not until 1890 that the governor of Ohio appointed an alumni representative to the Board of Trustees. The alumni were disappointed that the innovation did not continue under Governor McKinley, but soon alumni became more vocal about having an alumni representative on the Board of Trustees, and occasionally embarrassed the administration in its efforts to win support from the legislature and the public at large.405

Alumni Organization in the 1890s (1890-1900)

Ohio State alumni were not unique in their rivalry with the administration for governance. During this period, higher education was undergoing immense changes. The founding of the land-grant colleges and expansion of graduate education in the United

States were just two of the changes during this time. As a result of the changing landscape of education, university presidents faced new challenges. At Harvard,

404 “Alumni on College Boards.,” 4.

405 Kinnison, Building Sullivant’s Pyramid, 123.

203

President Charles Eliot summarized these lessons in University Administration (1908).

He wrote, “Universities had changed not only in growing an internal bureaucracy, but also in becoming more dependent on external relations.”406 External relations became more crucial during this period, and Eliot’s “advice for state university leaders... [was to] demonstrate the value of the university to the people of the state as well as the legislators in order to acquire the resources needed for growth and improvement,” as Geiger pointed out.407

For the alumni of the Ohio State University, the desire to organize was initiated independently of the University administration. Their desire made it difficult for any president to harness the alumni and employ them as advocates for the institution.

Furthermore, if the alumni organized and challenged the administration’s control of the

University, there could be a further negative impact on the institution and how the legislature and governor perceived the land-grant college.

As Thelin pointed out, it was during this time that alumni associations and clubs first appeared across the country. As alumni activity increased “in the 1890s, college presidents had no precedent for synchronizing their own agendas with these groups’ activities.”408 But college and university administrations also began to realize that they needed to corral alumni and harness their organizations and activities. Yet, Thelin

406 Geiger, The History of American Higher Education.

407 Quotation from Geiger, The History of American Higher Education, 363.

408 Thelin, A History of American Higher Education, 2nd Edition, 198.

204 observed that “presidents had missed their timing: the crucial moment at which they could have exerted authority over external affairs had passed, and now they could no longer afford to alienate alumni as donors. The administrative compromise was to encourage alumni activities…”409 Between the increased rivalry of the 1880s and the proliferation of alumni activity in the 1890s that I am about to describe, the University faced the threat that organized and vocal alumni posed to University governance.

Vocal alumni were a threat to the University. An even greater threat would be if the alumni began to organize and actively worked against the university. It was during the period of the 1890s-1900s that Ohio State University alumni began to organize on their own. Though there is no record that the motive for this type of grassroots organizing was ill-disposed, the administration was vulnerable to displeased alumni. If the displeased alumni leveraged local alumni organization to lobby against the administration, the administration might have been viewed negatively by Ohioans and legislatures. OSU was not alone in this type of risk. Similar activity occurred across the country. In this section, I will address how Ohio State alumni organized and then provide an example of the larger phenomenon by looking at how alumni of Harvard organized to exercise some control over the governance of their alma mater.

Alumni Organizations at the Ohio State University

409 Thelin, A History of American Higher Education, 198.

205

Alumni organizations were not new to OSU. Alumni from the first graduating class formed the Ohio State Alumni Association in 1879 when they returned for

Commencement exercises on the first anniversary of their graduation. Between 1879-

1890, the alumni returned annually for Commencement exercises in order to celebrate

Class Day, which occurred in conjunction with Commencement Exercises. To celebrate

Class Day, alumni attended Commencement exercises and then held an alumni luncheon.

Beyond these activities and the previously mentioned criticisms of the institution during the 1880s, all of the alumni activity was focused on Class Day which was organized by the alumni association.

Then, in the 1890s, Ohio State alumni began to form geographically-based alumni groups called alumni clubs well beyond campus borders. In the 1890s, about fifteen alumni clubs were established by alumni both in-state and out-of-state. The in-state clubs included (by county): Cuyahoga, Hamilton, Franklin, Lucas, Summit, Ross, Medina, and

Montgomery. The out-of-state clubs included (by city): New York, Washington, D.C.,

Chicago, Boston, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, and Los Angeles. The New York City club was in existence by 1900 when they hosted a dinner for alumni in the area. During this period, the groups were primarily socially-focused and provided an opportunity for alumni to gather for meals or networking opportunities, while the administration did not have any oversight of the alumni organizations. It was not until 1902 that the Ohio State Alumni

Association recognized the groups. During this year, the Ohio State Alumni

Association’s Constitution was revised and with it came the official recognition of alumni clubs.

206

Predating the alumni organizations at OSU were the alumni organizations at

Harvard University. At Harvard, it is possible to see the general challenges in higher education created for the institution by vocal groups of alumni. At Harvard, there were competing, disparate alumni organizations from 1840-1920. The history of these disparate groups indicates that each organization attempted to have a voice in the alumni organization and, ultimately, the university. Eventually, the University subsumed each group, but not without challenges along the way.

Alumni Organizations at Harvard University

At Harvard, the three most cohesive and influential of the alumni organizations that became involved in governance were: The Harvard Alumni Association, the

Associated Harvard Clubs, and the Harvard Endowment Fund. Each group was created to serve different segments of the alumni population and, similar to Ohio State University, were formed by interested alumni, not by the University administration. Due to this original autonomy, the alumni organizations often competed with one another for membership as well as for the attention of University officials. Each of these alumni organizations demonstrated a common trait as they evolved and increased their membership: the alumni members sought to have a greater influence on the University.

The Harvard alumni groups sought to exercise influence in two ways. First, they attempted to influence the University through the selection of alumni representatives to the Harvard University Board of Overseers, an advisory body to the administration and

207 trustees. This influence was similar to the interest of Ohio State alumni in having an alumni member appointed to the Board of Trustees. The second way that Harvard alumni attempted to exert control over the institution was through the Harvard Endowment Fund, which sought to exert control over how funds were raised and spent at the institution.

The first alumni organization formed at Harvard was the Harvard Alumni

Association (HAA) in 1840. The group was also the first alumni organization concerned with the alumni role in the institution. It was previously known as The Association of the

Alumni of Harvard College. Its Committee on the Permanent Organization of the

Harvard College Alumni reported a draft of a constitution for the proposed Alumni

Association on August 26, 1840.410 As part of its membership requirements, the HAA defined its constituents only as the graduates of Harvard College who received an artium baccalaureus (A.B. degree), the Latin term for Bachelor of Arts, from the college.

The HAA had three aims at its outset. First, to promote “good fellowship and personal regard among the sons of our venerated Alma Mater, and the beneficial effects that may be anticipated from a periodical return to her sacred groves, renewing that interest in her welfare and glory which separation and absence have caused too long and lamentably to slumber.’”411 Second to enrich Harvard graduates’ lives through “’public

410 A.M. Howe, “Electoral Methods of the Alumni Association,” The Harvard

Graduates’ Magazine, July 1893.

411 William Roscoe Thayer, “The Alumni Association’s Opportunity,” The Harvard

Graduates’ Magazine, June 1905.

208 addresses to be pronounced by the distinguished statesmen and scholars whose names crowd her catalogue…’”412 Third, the alumni also aimed in having a larger alumni base that was more invested in the welfare of the institution.413 This third principle became the issue that challenged the administration and also created a divide between the alumni who were part of the HAA and those who were not.

At first, the Harvard Alumni Association, like the Ohio State Alumni Association, had one responsibility: to plan the annual gathering of Harvard graduates of Harvard on

Alumni Day. For over 25 years, the HAA was the preeminent alumni organization; solely responsible for planning for Alumni Day and providing speakers for the Annual Dinner.

It was not until 1864 that the HAA’s responsibilities expanded to include raising funds for Memorial Hall.414 As the Harvard Alumni Association became more involved with institutional priorities, the HAA gained more responsibility in shaping one of the governing bodies of Harvard, the Board of Overseers.

“Beginning in 1866, graduates of Harvard College elected the Overseers, and the

Alumni Association constituted itself, through a committee, the medium for distributing ballots for candidates suggested for nomination, and for conducting the election.”415 The

Overseers represented “the best intelligence of the great body of interested non-academic

412 Roscoe Thayer, “The Alumni Association’s Opportunity.”

413 Roscoe Thayer, “The Alumni Association’s Opportunity.”

414 Roscoe Thayer, “The Alumni Association’s Opportunity.”

415 Roscoe Thayer, “The Alumni Association’s Opportunity.”

209 alumni, without which representation a university may easily become lopsided, and nearsighted, and dried-up. They represent the active-minded professional and business world plus the patriotism of the loyal graduate’ they stand always as a regulator out- spoken or silent, keeping the university in its administration and in its teaching, close to the normal life of an education nation.”416

The Nominating Committee for the Overseers was a part of the Alumni

Association. It was appointed at each annual meeting of the Association. The Committee nominated a list of candidates for Overseers, and the alumni body would vote at the following Commencement.417 The Massachusetts statute of 1865 provided the Committee with the authority to serve as the nominating body for the Board of Overseers. This statute gave “the alumni of at least five years’ standing the right to nominate and to elect

Overseers of Harvard College.”418 By giving the Committee this responsibility, the state gave members of the Association an important role in defining the governing body of the

University. For alumni who were not members of the HAA, however, there was a chafing that occurred because only graduates of the last five years with a bachelor of arts were eligible to participate in the vote. This rule excluded any masters’ graduates, graduates who obtained a bachelor of science, or professional school graduates from the nominating process.

416 “News and Views,” Harvard Alumni Bulletin, January 1917.

417 Howe, “Electoral Methods of the Alumni Association.”

418 Howe, “Electoral Methods of the Alumni Association.”

210

As a result of the exclusivity of the nominating process for Overseers, frustrated alumni who did not have B.A.s began to form additional alumni associations. At this point, four additional alumni associations were formed to secure the right to vote for the

Overseers: The Medical Alumni Association, Divinity Alumni Association, Law Alumni

Association, and The Lawrence Scientific School Association.419 The idea for suffrage for all graduates was not a new idea, nor was it one that would be resolved easily. In

1881, President Eliot suggested, “that the privilege of voting for Overseers might suitably and advantageously be extended to all Harvard graduates.”420 He acknowledged that at the time of the 1865 decision, the University had different expectations for admitted students. At that time, only the undergraduate college refused to “admit uneducated persons, enforced upon its students a long residence in common, and offered some reasonable guarantee that most of its graduates were educated men…”421 However, in the

15 years between the passage of Massachusetts’ statute and the printing of the article, the professional schools raised their standards for admission which increased the caliber of student, and therefore, the eventual alumni.422

419 “Meetings- Lawrence Scientific School Association,” The Harvard Graduates’

Magazine, September 1905.

420 George B. Shattuck, “A Sketch of the Franchise Movement,” The Harvard Graduates’

Magazine, June 1898.

421 Shattuck, “A Sketch of the Franchise Movement.”

422 Shattuck, “A Sketch of the Franchise Movement.”

211

Despite Eliot’s endorsement, suffrage was not granted immediately, and the

Harvard Alumni Association was still the favored group of the University. During the late

1880s and early 1890s, the other alumni associations began to campaign for greater representation in the selection of candidates for the Board of Overseers. By the mid-

1890s, the other alumni associations began passing resolutions to petition the Harvard

Alumni Association for suffrage.423 Also during this period, alumni clubs began to form, and in addition to the call for suffrage from the disparate associations, alumni clubs began to express support to grant the vote to other graduates of the University.424

It was not until the Harvard Alumni Association meeting in 1897 that a resolution was brought forth by Dr. J.R. Chadwick stating that the Alumni Association should petition “the Governing Boards to take steps to extend the franchise to graduates of the

Professional Schools of five years’ standing…”425 The vote passed after much debate, and the Alumni Association sent a postcard to all graduates asking for their vote. The overall HAA membership passed the measure with 1359 alumni voting against and 1749

423 James S. Stone, “Meetings: Medical Alumni,” The Harvard Graduates’ Magazine,

September 1897.

424 Arthur N. McGeoch, “Harvard Clubs: Milwaukee,” The Harvard Graduates’

Magazine, March 1895.

425 “Meetings: Alumni Association,” The Harvard Graduates’ Magazine, September

1897.

212 voting for extending the suffrage to non-A.B. graduates.426 This decision allowed the

HAA to be more representative of the alumni body and expanded its membership to include all graduates of the Lawrence Scientific School and all holders of degrees from the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. The Alumni Association increased its membership from 10,000 to 11,500 members with this change.427

Harvard Clubs and The Associated Harvard Clubs

The issue of who had a voice in governance issues and the selection of alumni

Overseers was focused primarily in New England. However, during this period, tensions began to rise elsewhere amongst alumni. Graduates of Harvard were spread across the entire United States by the 1880s and 1890s. As a result, the alumni had different expectations as to how the Harvard Alumni Association connected them with one another and the University. Alumni in the Western and Central states felt disconnected from the

Harvard Alumni Association and that the organization did not represent them. As a result of these complaints, the alumni established the second set of alumni organizations: The

Harvard Clubs and the Associated Harvard Clubs--as solutions to their problems.

426 Alexander Agassie, Joseph C. Croate, and Edward W. Hooper, “The Extension of the

Franchise,” The Harvard Graduates’ Magazine, December 1898.

427 R.B. Merriman, “The University: The Summer Quarter,” The Harvard Graduates’

Magazine, September 1906.

213

During this period, members of the Harvard Alumni Association gathered once a year in Cambridge for the annual alumni dinner and commencement activities. Before the early 20th century, the Alumni Association only coordinated alumni activities held in conjunction with commencement activities in the Cambridge area. For alumni who were not near the University, it was difficult to return to campus. As a result, Harvard Clubs were geographically distributed in various cities and regions, just like the OSU clubs would be.

The first Harvard Club dates back to 1857 in Chicago.428 Their primary activity was to host one annual event for alumni in their area. The annual alumni dinner for the

Harvard Club members gave the membership a chance to connect with other graduates and learn about the accomplishments of their peers. It was not until the 1870s and 1880s that the proliferation of Harvard Clubs began. With nearly 30 clubs formed by 1890, there was increased activity as groups worked to “unite the growing masses, keep alive in them a spirit of fellowship, and stimulate and direct their loyalty to Harvard”429 through various events and activities. As the number of Harvard Clubs continued to increase, they gained greater influence on the University. President Eliot and Harvard faculty began to travel to the various clubs’ annual dinners in the 1870s and 1880s.

428 H.A. De Windt, “Harvard Clubs: Chicago,” The Harvard Graduates’ Magazine,

October- December.

429 Roscoe Thayer, “The Alumni Association’s Opportunity.”

214

Harvard Clubs were just the beginning of alumni organizations beyond

Cambridge. Alumni felt more connected to one another because of the efforts of the

Harvard Clubs, but graduates still felt that the Harvard Alumni Association did not represent them. Distant alumni believed their voices were not heard in the selection process for the Board of Overseers. This was a commonly shared belief for two reasons.

First, only graduates within close proximity to Cambridge served on the Board of

Overseers at this time. It was not until the 1890s that the first graduate living outside of

Cambridge was elected to the Board of Overseers.430 Secondly, if graduates did not attend the annual alumni activities at Commencement in Cambridge, they did not feel involved in the selection process for Overseers. The disconnect between graduates and the Alumni Association only increased over time.

In response to the growing disconnect, a group of Harvard Club members gathered at the Denison Hotel in Indianapolis in 1897. At the meeting, members determined that:

there was need of some movement by which two objects might be

accomplished: (1) The further extension of the influence to be exerted

from its University centre out among the increasing numbers of Harvard

men located in the more distant parts of the country and the bringing of the

430 George E. Hume, “Harvard Clubs: Convention of Western Clubs,” The Harvard

Graduates’ Magazine, March 1898.

215

people of those localities who were not of Harvard to an appreciation of

the real primacy of Harvard as a means of collegiate and professional

education ; and (2) a reform, within proper limits, of the fact theretofore

existing that the Harvard men, who had taken up their residence at some

distance from the centre [sic.] of administration of University affairs, had

no means, so far as practical results were concerned, of expressing to the

Governing Boards of the University their opinions upon various questions

which closely touched the welfare of Harvard.431

From this meeting, the Associated Harvard Clubs (AHC) formed, and it became a new model for alumni organizations. The group formed in 1905432 and consisted of graduates west of the Hudson River.433 The primary purpose of the organization was “’to secure on the Board of Overseers six members from the section represented by the clubs, to be recommended by the clubs, one member to be appointed each year. At present there

431 Rome G. Brown, “The Associated Harvard Clubs,” The Harvard Graduates’

Magazine, March 1907.

432 Valentine H. May, “Harvard Clubs: Associated Clubs,” The Harvard Graduates’

Magazine, September 1905.

433 Geo. B. Leighton, “Harvard in the Middle West,” The Harvard Graduates’ Magazine,

June 1898.

216 is but one member who serves six years.’”434 Compared to the initial principles used to establish the HAA and the social aspect of the Harvard Clubs, this was the first time that an alumni organization stated its purpose so directly in determining the role that alumni had in governing the institution.

The disparate alumni organizations, specifically the Harvard Alumni Association and the Association of Harvard Clubs, confused alumni. As the AHC gained momentum in the Central and Western states, it became the voice of alumni to Harvard and usurped the authority of the Harvard Alumni Association in the region. In an attempt to clarify roles of the organizations, the AHC report in the Harvard Graduates’ Monthly stated that

“it should be understood, therefore, that the Association is not an organization attempting in any way to usurp the field of work of the long established Alumni Association, but is a body working on lines in accord with and not opposed to that association. Each association desires to see the other strengthen its influence and increase its utility, and is glad to help as it may any work being done to attain such ends. The strength of the

University lies largely in its graduate body, and with closer union and organization of the graduates a greater vitality is given the University, and its field of work broadened and enlarged.”435 In order for the groups to be successful, they had to work more closely together. The Harvard Alumni Association attempted to work more closely with the AHC when it hired E.H. Wells as secretary. It was the role of the Alumni Secretary to

434 Hume, “Harvard Clubs: Convention of Western Clubs.”

435 May, “Harvard Clubs: Associated Clubs.”

217 communicate “with all the Harvard Clubs and with the home organizations, so as to enable him to furnish information on all Harvard matters, and to make his office a rallying place.”436 Although the secretary communicated with the groups, the groups still competed with one another.

The Harvard Endowment Fund

The final alumni organization involved heavily in governance was the Harvard

Endowment Fund (HEF). In 1916, a group of graduates believed that Harvard needed additional revenue that was “well within the power of the graduates and friends of

Harvard to bestow.”437 Many of the fundraising efforts were connected to increasing faculty salaries due to the inflation of the early twentieth century, a necessity for the institution to remain as prestigious as it had been. At the urging of the alumni to justify their campaign, President Lowell cooperatively stated that “salaries should be increased immediately, if possible, on an average of fifty per cent. This would require $600,000, the income at five per cent on $12,000,000.”438 The Directors of the Harvard Alumni

Association appointed a committee of 15 Harvard alumni to the Harvard Endowment

436 Roscoe Thayer, “The Alumni Association’s Opportunity.”

437 Thomas W. Lamont, “Ten Million Dollars for Harvard,” Harvard Alumni Bulletin,

January 11, 1917.

438 “Harvard and the Future” (The Harvard Endowment Fund, 1919).

218

Fund Committee. The HAA tasked the committee with organizing “the alumni for the solicitation of contributions to said fund and to solicit funds therefore.’”439 Unlike the

HAA and AHC’s challenge to University governance, the HEF posed a new problem to the University administration. The alumni involved with the HEF wanted authority over how the University raised and spent its funds.

The Harvard Endowment Fund was revolutionary in many ways. First, institutions traditionally relied on larger gifts from private donors, not a broad alumni appeal.

Secondly, the HEF appealed to alumni of all class years, not just a focused reunion year.

The committee believed that by appealing to all graduates, HEF would “bring the great body of graduates into closer and more frequent touch with the College.”440 Thirdly, the campaign was alumni-driven. For many years, scholars believed that consultants ran the campaign at President Lowell’s initiation, but, “the archives reveal that alumni planned and directed the HEF campaign.”441 In fact, “Lowell did not cooperate with the

439 Lamont, “Ten Million Dollars for Harvard.”

440 Lamont, “Ten Million Dollars for Harvard.”

441 Bruce A. Kimball, “‘Democratizing’ Fundraising at Elite Universities: The Discursive

Legitimation of Mass Giving at Yale and Harvard, 1890-1920,” History of Education

Quarterly 55, no. 2 (May 2015): 164–89.

219 campaign, let alone lead it.”442 Lowell operated as a traditional university president who quietly approached wealthy individuals for financial assistance. Lowell feared that a widespread appeal to all alumni for small gifts “might interfere with more substantial donations.’”443 Finally, HEF followed the Yale Alumni Fund model in that alumni wanted greater influence and control over the spending of the funds.444 “In 1918, the president of the Associated Harvard Clubs argued that alumni should have some say in spending the HEF income because ‘that is a frank and democratic recognition of the fact that the graduates primarily are the ones who furnish the money and are, therefore, the ones to be given some responsibility in its disposition.’”445 HEF changed fundraising in higher education by providing alumni with greater influence over the process.

Although alumni were involved in the process of raising and allocating funds through HEF, the efforts amongst alumni groups were disjointed at the time. In order for

442 Bruce A. Kimball, “The First Campaign and the Paradoxical Transformation of

Fundraising in American Higher Education, 1915-1925,” Teachers College Record 116, no. 070304 (July 2014): 1–44.

443 Kimball, “The First Campaign and the Paradoxical Transformation of Fundraising in

American Higher Education.”

444 George Henry Nettleton, The Book of the Yale Pageant (New Haven, Connecticut:

Yale University Press, 1916).

445 Kimball, “‘Democratizing’ Fundraising at Elite Universities: The Discursive

Legitimation of Mass Giving at Yale and Harvard, 1890-1920.”

220 the campaign to succeed, the HEF members had to leverage alumni support regardless of their membership in the various alumni groups. Each of the organizations interacted with alumni, but there was no coordinated effort for alumni communication, engagement, and fundraising.

At this point, additional groups surfaced that interacted with alumni in some way.

The university published two publications to communicate with alumni during this time-

The Harvard Graduates’ Monthly and Harvard Alumni Bulletin. The Harvard

Graduates’ Monthly was a separate entity that received its funding through alumni subscriptions. Meanwhile, the Harvard Alumni Bulletin was a communication published by the HAA.446

Still, another group formed as the Association of Class Secretaries (ACS). ACS led its own membership appeals outside of the HAA and AHC. It split its membership proceeds, however, with the Harvard Alumni Association, but it did not share its membership list with any other groups.447 Because the ACS was raising funds from its membership and kept its membership list confidential, it was the only organization at this time that had a list of donors who had given to past campaigns that supported

446 R.B. Merriman, “The University: The Winter Quarter,” The Harvard Graduates’

Magazine, March 1907.

447 A.J. Garceau, “Harvard Clubs: Class Secretaries,” The Harvard Graduates’ Magazine,

March 1905.

221 scholarships, buildings, reunion funds, and so forth.448 Few secretaries wanted to turn over the lists of donors for fear that HEF would distract donors from the fundraising priorities of the Class Secretaries.

In order to not duplicate communication efforts, the HEF approached the leaders of the The Harvard Graduates’ Monthly, Harvard Alumni Bulletin, the HAA, and the

AHC about working together. Each group responded negatively. The Harvard Alumni

Association was the first of the organizations that reluctantly supported the HEF.

However, with no oversight by the University administration, the HEF volunteers had to persuade each group separately.449 This was a difficult task; the HAA and AHC were direct competitors of one another. The University officially recognized the HAA but the

AHC was more influential and effective with the alumni. The competition intensified during the summer of 1916 when the AHC demanded the allocation designated for HAA from the future income of the HEF endowment. “This demand not only undermined collaboration but jeopardized approval of the deed of trust by the Corporation, which was unhappy with the allocation arrangement.”450

448 Kimball, “The First Campaign and the Paradoxical Transformation of Fundraising in

American Higher Education, 1915-1925.”

449 Kimball, “The First Campaign and the Paradoxical Transformation of Fundraising in

American Higher Education.”

450 Kimball, “The First Campaign and the Paradoxical Transformation of Fundraising in

American Higher Education," 9.

222

During the fall of 1916, the HAA and AHC competed for who should receive part of the funds raised. The AHC proposed starting its own campaign which would be a direct competition to HEF’s efforts. To appease the AHC, the HAA agreed to split proceeds. However, when it came time to split the proceeds, “the HAA reneged and wanted to keep the entire allocation, complaining that it had to cover its deficit.”451 By

1918, however, the two groups began to see that they were competing for resources and began to discuss an “amalgamation.”452 Eventually, the groups began to work together to advance the efforts of the HEF. The HEF Committee turned to over 35,000 alumni and friends of the University for financial support of the University.453

The need for all of the alumni to work together in order for the Harvard

Endowment Fund to succeed provided an opportunity for Lowell. Throughout the alumni organization until 1916, alumni were given greater influence over the University. First, the undergraduate alumni voted to grant suffrage to graduate and other non-A.B. graduates. Then, the Alumni Association opened nominations for Overseers to those graduates outside of Cambridge and received recommendations from the Associated

Harvard Clubs. Moreover, with the Harvard Endowment Fund, graduates were able to

451 Kimball, “The First Campaign and the Paradoxical Transformation of Fundraising in

American Higher Education," 9.

452 Kimball, “The First Campaign and the Paradoxical Transformation of Fundraising in

American Higher Education," 9.

453 “News and Views.”

223 influence how money was raised and allocated at the University. However, as the need arose to reign in the disparate alumni organizations of Harvard, it was necessary for the university to realign the HAA, AHC, Class Secretaries, and HEF. As a result, a new governance model was created by the end of the campaign.454 Consequently, the Harvard

University administration eventually usurped control over the disparate groups in an effort to align the various groups with the fundraising priorities of the institution.

Harvard University often serves as a paragon for other higher education institutions and their administrative efforts. When considering Harvard’s progress, it is interesting to note that a similar process occurred at the much younger land-grant college in Ohio. At the Ohio State University, alumni organizations began in the 1890s and early

1900s. It was not until 1902 that the Ohio State Alumni Association recognized these groups, but the Alumni Association was entirely alumni volunteer-led during this time.

As demonstrated in the case of Harvard, the disconnected alumni organizations posed a threat to the University administration. At the Ohio State University, the alumni were already vying for a role in University administration beginning in the 1880s. To have alumni groups organize to challenge the administration’s authority over the University was dangerous for the Board of Trustees and academic leadership of the institution. As observed in 1883, the alumni were quick to vocalize their displeasure with the administration and petitioned the state legislature and governor to intervene in University

454 Kimball, “The First Campaign and the Paradoxical Transformation of Fundraising in

American Higher Education, 1915-1925.”

224 affairs. This displeasure occurred at a time that alumni were disorganized. If the alumni had leveraged a network of peers in their local region, the issues presented could have been much worse for the institution. As more alumni activity happened across the state, the administration had to determine how best to leverage the alumni network to benefit the land-grant college.

225

Rivals for Governance of the Land-Grant University: Farmers, Alumni, and

Administration at Ohio State University, 1870-1910

Chapter 6

Resolution of the Competition

among Farmers, Alumni, and OSU Administration, 1905-1910

226

The relationship between the Ohio State University (OSU) administration, farmers, and alumni was complex during the early years of the institution’s history.

Farmers were not supportive of the land-grant college and often competed with the administration. The alumni of the institution organized early in the institution’s history when the first graduating class formed the Ohio State University Alumni Association. In

1876, the focus of the Alumni Association was to provide an opportunity for alumni to reconnect with one another. Alumni activity was often disorganized through multiple local groups that operated outside of the Alumni Association’s purview. One way that the alumni remained active with their alma mater was by attempting to influence the administration on key decisions like personnel, as demonstrated when the Board of

Trustees removed President Walter Quincy Scott from the Presidency. Alumni also tried to influence the land-grant college by gaining greater representation on the University’s

Board of Trustees as mentioned in Chapter 5. Moreover, when the alumni challenged the authority of the President and Board of Trustees, they undermined the University’s efforts with the legislature.

In order for OSU to flourish, it was necessary for the leadership of the institution to establish authority over both the farmers and the alumni. It was not until the early

1900s that University authority over these two groups became a possibility. During this period, there were key changes that occurred at OSU that allowed for this to become a reality. First, key personnel changes occurred which meant that a new leader could establish his authority over the alumni. Second, it became even more evident in the first decade of the twentieth century that the institution needed greater financial support from

227 the state legislature due to increased student enrollment. Third, President William Oxley

Thompson saw the need for the alumni to collaborate with their alma mater which led to the hiring of a full-time Alumni Secretary and the emergence of the Board of Visitors as part of the Alumni Association. In doing so, the University established its dominance over the alumni and leveraged the alumni body to advocate on behalf of the land-grant institution.

Administration Sets Direction for the Relationship Between Alumni and the University

(1899-1908)

In Chapter 5, I described the strained relationship between the alumni and their alma mater. I also described the disorganization that existed because of the multiple local alumni clubs. The relationship that alumni had with their alma mater varied over the first three decades of the institution. At times, the alumni were indifferent to the institution. At other times, the relationship between OSU and its alumni was contentious like when alumni protested the removal of President Walter Quincy Scott. The relationship that the alumni had with the institution was not a priority for the alumni nor the institution. On the side of the alumni, there was more interest in socializing with fellow alumni. From the administration’s perspective, they made little effort to reign in the alumni, so instead, the alumni created their own organization in the form of the Ohio State Alumni

Association.

228

It was not until 1904 that there was a change in the institution’s approach to the alumni. With the arrival of Dr. William Oxley Thompson as President, there was a shift in the philosophy about how the institution should relate to the alumni. Though

Thompson was the first President to formalize the relationship the alumni had with the institution, it did not mean that alumni shared the same beliefs as the new President. In this section, I will first provide the alumni perspective on their relationship with the

University. I will then provide background on the new President, William Oxley

Thompson, and his thoughts on the relationship that alumni should have with their alma mater. This will allow for an opportunity to compare the two viewpoints. Finally, I will explain what caused Thompson to articulate his thoughts about the alumni since, for nearly thirty years, no other President had addressed the issue.

The Alumni Dinner of 1901

The first time that an alumni volunteer articulated her/his thoughts about the relationship between the alumni and the land-grant college in a public setting occurred at the Alumni Dinner of 1901. At the event, the alumni gathered to enjoy each other’s company, listen to music performances, and hear from Annie W. Sabine Siebert, Alumni

President of the OSU Alumni Association. It is important to note that Sabine Siebert was a graduate of the institution from the Class of 1884 and that the role of Alumni President was an unpaid volunteer position and not a position of which the University leadership had oversight.

229

During her remarkably insightful speech entitled “The Relation of Alumni to

Their Universities,” Sabine Siebert shared her thoughts on the unique relationship between alumni and their alma mater as well as the relationship that alumni should have with the institution. She began her remarks by comparing American values about higher education with that of European values. Sabine Siebert remarked that, in Europe, “the career of the scholar is an honored one, and only the man who has added something to the sum of the world’s knowledge can hope to hold up his head with those who belong by birth to the aristocracy.”455 Comparatively, she acknowledged that the American government was finally “coming to recognize the value of scholarly attainment.”456 She argued that as the American government began to value the role of universities, it also saw the benefit in establishing public institutions like OSU.

The Alumni President posited that the establishment of public institutions afforded alumni like her to have the “’supreme privilege of youth’—four years in college.”457 As a result, alumni had a unique two-way relationship with their alma mater.

455 Annie W. Sabine Siebert, “Proceedings of the Alumni Association of the Ohio State

University for 1900-1901” (The Ohio State University Alumni Association, 1900), 6,

Annual reports: President’s, 1906-1910, Mixed Materials UA.RG 3.E.0003, Folder 7,

The Ohio State University Archives. A transcription of this apparently unpublished address is appended to this dissertation.

456 Sabine Siebert, “Dinner,” 6.

457 Sabine Siebert, “Dinner.”

230

She used this concept of a two-way relationship to frame her speech. She stated, “the university we have left has still much that she would like to give us, and now we have something that we can give her. It is this mutual obligation, this two-old relationship of graduates to their universities… I have thought that it might not be uninteresting nor unprofitable for us, as alumni, to consider to-day a few of the relations obtaining between graduates and their colleges with a view to realizing more clearly our own opportunities and obligations.”458 In researching her topic, Sabine Siebert contacted many other universities, both public and private. Included in the list of institutions she contacted were

Harvard University, Smith College, Stanford University, Massachusetts Institute of

Technology, Indiana University, University of Wisconsin, and the University of Iowa.

In her research, Sabine Siebert asked three questions. First, she asked what the institution did for its graduates. This question demonstrated the belief that the institution should do something of value for the alumni. Second, she asked, “what representation have the alumni on the governing board of the university?”459 Representation in governance was not a new issue for the land-grant college since alumni started raising this issue in 1893 and challenged the governance structure of the institution. The last question that the Alumni President posed was related to alumni giving to the institution.

The second and third questions, in Sabine Siebert’s opinion, were relevant to how the alumni chose to support the institution as part of their relationship with their alma mater.

458 Sabine Siebert, “Dinner,” 7.

459 Sabine Siebert, “Dinner,” 7.

231

It is interesting that Sabine Siebert began her questions with “what is your institution doing for its graduates?” because this demonstrated a belief that the institution existed to serve its alumni and not the other way around. As part of her research, Sabine

Siebert turned to Harvard University to learn of the institution’s continued relationship with its alumni. Sabine Siebert believed that many institutions, unlike Ohio State, “seek to maintain in the larger world of affairs, the friendly relations begun in the smaller college world, and count their work not done until through their appointment committees and employment bureaus the light they have kindled finds a larger sphere for illumination.”460 In order to best assist alumni with becoming the “larger sphere for illumination,” Harvard created an appointment committee. The committee kept a card catalogue of the names of graduates who registered with the secretary. When the committee received the notice of a vacant position, the secretary would work in tandem with faculty to develop a list of candidates, both students, and alumni. Sabine Siebert saw this as a service to alumni that allowed the institution to “put men into all sorts of places.”461

The second topic of Sabine Siebert’s speech addressed the role that alumni should play in the governance of the institution. According to Sabine Siebert, “colleges and universities are coming generally to recognize their graduates in a formal and official capacity. Members of the alumni are being accorded representation on boards of trust and

460 Sabine Siebert, “Dinner,” 8.

461 Sabine Siebert, “Dinner,” 9.

232 administration, and are proving by their fidelity and devotion to the best interests of the college they serve...”462 Ohio State did not have any formal way to insure alumni involvement in the governance of the institution. As I addressed in Chapter 5, this was a point of contention for the alumni.

In Sabine Siebert’s opinion, “the experience of all institutions having alumni representation seems to show that such representation is a good thing. It brings the graduates into closer touch with university affairs, makes them cautious in their criticisms, and opens a proper channel for their constructive energies, under the guidance of the president and governing board, who know most about the needs of the university and the methods to be pursued in meeting these needs.”463 However, at Ohio State, alumni representation on the Board of Trustees was not something that would methodically change for the land-grant college. This is an interesting nuance in Sabine

Siebert’s thoughts on alumni relations. It is easy to assume that alumni wanted to have representation on the governing board of the institution because it meant that they could appropriately influence the administration of the institution. Alumni influence was part of the alumni argument for representation in past circumstances and their frustration when there was not an alumnus/na serving on the Board. However, Sabine Siebert’s point was that alumni involvement in governance issues allowed for a constructive relationship that brought graduates into a closer relationship with their alma mater. Her new viewpoint

462 Sabine Siebert, “Dinner,” 9.

463 Sabine Siebert, “Dinner,” 12.

233 was a departure from the previous alumni argument that there should be alumni representation on the Board of Trustees to have oversight of the Administration. By engaging alumni in the governance of the institution, Sabine Siebert wrote that this would create a:

Fondness [that] takes the form of sympathetic interest in all that concerns

the well-being of his institution, of pleasure in the extension of her

influence and the increase of her power. It tempers the graduate’s

judgment of his alma mater’s policies, and rebukes the harsher criticism

that comes from outsiders. This fondness is a cultivatable thing, and grows

with the knowledge an alumni can obtain of his university.464

The third point of Sabine Siebert’s speech was the gift that alumni could give back to the institution. In this, she meant the financial resources that alumni could provide to the institution through their philanthropy. Sabine Siebert believed that this was the role of the alumni in the two-way relationship she described between alumni and their alma mater. Again, Sabine Siebert looked to Harvard for an example of alumni giving.

She quoted Byron Satterlee Hurlbut, Secretary of Harvard’s Appointment Committee, regarding the efforts of giving there. In his response to her inquiry, he explained that:

464 Sabine Siebert, “Dinner,” 13.

234

Men have given of their store, small or great, for more than two centuries

and a half. In the days of poverty and struggle, when money was scarce in

the colony, they gave of the produce of their land in proportion to that

which God had given them. With the increase of prosperity they have

given not more liberally, but more largely, until to-day (this was written in

1896) the value of the possessions of the university in land, buildings and

money amounts to fully $14,000,000.465

Sabine Siebert went on to articulate how Harvard established class giving campaigns, direct mail solicitation and received estate gifts from alumni and friends of the institution. In comparison to Harvard, Sabine Siebert acknowledged the infancy of

OSU. She compared the giving of Harvard alumni to the giving of Ohio State alumni and other public university alumni through their distinct way. Sabine Siebert said:

The authorities of some universities say that their graduates are too young

to be able to make large or liberal gifts, but have assisted heartily in all

movements to further the interests of the institutions. This is especially

true of state universities, and no doubt many of them content themselves

with the belief expressed by the President of Iowa State University, when

465 Sabine Siebert, “Dinner,” 15.

235

he says: ‘The alumni have made the richest possible gift to the university

in that they send their children to us.’466

Sabine Siebert’s points about the relationship that alumni have with the land-grant college are important. She gave her address to an audience of alumni at the annual

Alumni Day activities. Alumni Days were the one time during the year where a large group of alumni convened at the University. Sabine Siebert articulated her beliefs that alumni could benefit their alma mater through service on the governing board and financial gifts. She also articulated that the University should support its alumni by helping them to secure employment. Sabine Siebert’s remarks provided insight into the beliefs that were held by the alumni at the beginning of President William Oxley

Thompson’s presidency. However, in just a few short years, Thompson shared his own beliefs about the role alumni should have with the institution. Thompson’s beliefs differed from the beliefs of the Alumni President. Before sharing his thoughts on the matter, I will provide some background information on President William Oxley

Thompson, the fifth president of OSU.

466 Sabine Siebert, “Dinner,” 16.

236

The Alumni and President William Oxley Thompson

Following the presidency of Populist James Canfield, OSU identified a new leader, William Oxley Thompson. In 1899, Thompson became the fifth president of the land-grant college. It was during Thompson’s tenure as President that the most significant changes occurred at the institution. William Oxley Thompson was born in 1855 in

Cambridge, Ohio. He went on to attend Muskingum College, where he graduated in

1878. The following year, Thompson followed the path of many of the previous presidents of OSU and entered the seminary. He enrolled in the “Western Theological

Seminary in Allegheny, Pennsylvania, where he was ordained as a Presbyterian minister in 1881. His first ministerial appointment took him to Iowa as a home missionary.”467 In

1885, Thompson sought a new role so that his ailing wife had a more favorable climate and he accepted an appointment as president of the Synodical College of the Synod of

Colorado.468 A few years later, Thompson returned to Ohio to serve as the president of

Miami University between 1891-1899. He then went to OSU to serve as President from

1899-1925.

One of Thompson’s greatest accomplishments was asserting himself as the first executive of the institution. One of his early accomplishments as president was that he

“persuaded the trustees that the president, with a trustee, the secretary, two members of

467 Goerler, The Ohio State University, 47.

468 Goerler, The Ohio State University.

237 the faculty, and two from the College of Law were ‘to have charge of all matters presented to the incoming legislature in which the university may be interested.’”469

Thompson’s victory was significant because it allowed him to assert his authority in the relationship between the University and the legislature. It also positioned Thompson to have authority over the disorganized alumni when they worked with the legislature, an issue that I will address in the next section of this chapter.

In addition to his accomplishments of working with the legislature, wrangling the alumni, and emerging as the executive leader of the institution, OSU “added a College of

Medicine, a College of Education, the Ohio Cooperative Extension Program, and a graduate school as well as one of the largest stadiums in the United States”470 during his presidency. Despite all of his successes, “he did not bring the kind of prosperity to the university for which he had hoped.”471

Although President Thompson assumed the role of President in 1899, it was not until a few years into the role that he publically shared his thoughts on the relationship between the alumni and their alma mater. In the June 1904 issue of the Ohio State

University Alumnus, Thompson shared his insight on the relationship between alumni and the land-grant college. In the article “What Can the Alumni Do for the University?”

469 Goerler, The Ohio State University, 34.

470 Goerler, The Ohio State University, 48.

471 Kinnison, Building Sullivant’s Pyramid, 189.

238

Thompson justified his beliefs about the role that alumni should have in a public university setting.

In his introductory comments to the article, Thompson addressed many key points that lingered at the land-grant college. First, Thompson distinguished between the different roles that alumni of private institutions have compared to the roles of alumni in a public institution. He distinguished the two by stating:

The college on a private foundation feel that the alumni are the people to

whom the management should be committed in order that the spirit and

traditions may be preserved. These institutions have certain definite aims

before them, and the alumni best of all would seek to keep the college in

line with the principles and policies for which the institution was founded.

In the case of a state university the situation is somewhat different. Such a

university more than any other is intended to serve all the people and all

classes of people. It must stand on a broader and more liberal platform just

as the public schools do. The state universities do not exist for the sake of

perpetuating any principles and policies to which the alumni more than

others are devoted.472

472 William Oxley Thompson, “What Can the Alumni Do for the University?,” The Ohio

State University Alumnus, June 1904, 5, Alumni Association, 1899, Mixed Materials

UA.RG 3.E.0002, The Ohio State University Archives.

239

Thompson’s distinction between public and private institutions is interesting. He not only demonstrated his beliefs about the aims of public and private higher education, he also acknowledged the different relationship that alumni of private and public schools have with their alma mater. Using this approach, Thompson immediately addressed the debate of alumni involvement in governance. I will soon elaborate on Thompson’s beliefs about alumni involvement in governance at OSU, but I would like first to address how

Thompson distinguished between alumni involvement in governance for a private school compared to their involvement in governance for a public institution. Thompson wrote:

The plea that alumni as such need representation in the management or

teaching force of a state university is not well founded. It would be

unfortunate indeed if alumni of a state university could not be found who

are capable of serving in the Faculty or Board of Trustees, and equally

unfortunate if they were there simply because they are alumni. A state

university ought not to be operated in the interest of the alumni merely,

but in the interest of the state and of all the people.473

In a single paragraph, Thompson deconstructed the urge to compare the efforts at

OSU to private institutions. In the same paragraph, he positioned his argument about alumni involvement in the governance of the land-grant college. In both of these

473 Thompson, “What Can the Alumni Do for the University?,” 5.

240 instances, he, in a tactful way, positioned his philosophy against that of Sabine Siebert’s.

As it related to governance, Sabine Siebert argued that private institutions involved their alumni in governance opportunities through Board service. Thompson, however, opposed this belief by saying that alumni could serve on the Board, but the Board was to be representative of all Ohioans, not just alumni. Also, Sabine Siebert believed that alumni should serve on the faculty. Thompson indicated that alumni should serve on the faculty but so should other accomplished individuals, not just alumni.

In two other ways, he positioned his views counter to Sabine Siebert’s thoughts on the relationship between alumni and the institution. First, he said that alumni of OSU have a role in governance, just as any citizen of the state should. Whereas Sabine Siebert believed that alumni should have much more involvement in governance and teaching at the institution, Thompson limited their role. Second, he undermined Sabine Siebert’s points as a whole because she based much of her argument on the research she did of private institutions, specifically, the Colonial Colleges. Thompson believed that public and private institutions have different roles for their alumni. Alumni of private institutions preserve the traditions of the institution through their involvement with the institution. And alumni of public institutions become “the representative citizen, and in that capacity may serve the university just as any other citizen may.”474

Beyond the introduction of Thompson’s article, it is evident that he believed alumni must organize. He wrote, “it ought to be possible to organize these forces so as to

474 Thompson, “What Can the Alumni Do for the University?,” 5.

241 make them efficient in promoting the life and progress of our colleges.475 Thompson identified six ways that the alumni could help their alma mater.

The first three ways that alumni could help OSU were not new suggestions for the alumni. The first way that alumni could help the land-grant college was by serving on the

Board of Trustees. Sabine Siebert had previously identified as a method for alumni to help the institution. Thompson wrote, “I believe they might efficiently serve in the Board of Trustees.”476 However, compared to previous cries from alumni and students,

Thompson put limitations on alumni representation on the Board of Trustees. He said, “in my judgment not less than two and usually three alumni should be in the Board who would represent the different types of education provided… This is not a prize to be sought after but an honorable service to be highly appreciated.”477

Thompson identified two additional opportunities which alumni could serve their alma mater beyond service on the Board of Trustees. The second way that alumni could help the land-grant college, according to Thompson, was by serving in the faculty.

Similar to his thoughts about alumni involvement on the Board of Trustees, Thompson acknowledged alumni interest and opinion but redirected some beliefs by indicating that some alumni should teach on other faculties. He wrote:

475 Thompson, “What Can the Alumni Do for the University?,” 4.

476 Thompson, “What Can the Alumni Do for the University?,” 5.

477 Thompson, “What Can the Alumni Do for the University?,” 5.

242

I believe alumni should serve in the Faculty. This again not merely

because they are alumni. But because they are men of such scholarship,

character and efficiency as to honor the university in their appointment…

It is to the interest of the university that some of these men should find

places in other Faculties and that some should remain. Alumni serving in

other Faculties often do more for their alma mater and for themselves that

would have been possible in the institution where they were educated. The

tendency toward preference for alumni in certain colleges is a dangerous

one, and should always be avoided in a state university.478

Thompson recognized the beliefs of the alumni and the pride they had previously demonstrated in the institution and complimented them by the recognition they might bring to the institution by teaching elsewhere, all the while acknowledging that some may teach at their alma mater. Thompson’s approach was an effective way to placate the alumni.

In a similar vein to the role Thompson saw alumni playing in the faculty, he believed that alumni could benefit their alma mater by shaping student organizations.

Serving in this type of role was the third way that alumni could help OSU. He wrote that it was their role to promote “the right ideas among the student organizations.”479 He again

478 Thompson, “What Can the Alumni Do for the University?,” 5.

479 Thompson, “What Can the Alumni Do for the University?,” 6.

243 appeased the alumni by writing “the ideas and ideals that control are of the most vital importance. The sympathetic alumnus has no opportunity here such as no other person can have.”480

The final three ways that Thompson believed alumni could help their alma mater were new concepts for OSU and differed greatly from what the alumni believed. These next three ways became the principles for alumni engagement during Thompson’s tenure.

Thompson’s fourth way for alumni to help their alma mater was based on organization and how alumni needed to coordinate their efforts. Organization and coordination became key principles for Thompson’s view of alumni activity at OSU. Keep in mind that, before

1910, OSU had about fifteen alumni clubs throughout the country plus the Ohio State

Alumni Association based in Columbus, as discussed in Chapter 5. Thompson saw the strength in the disparate groups, and he believed that:

alumni can be of service in their communities through organization. This

brings them to public notice and develops among them a university spirit

that gives dignity and tone to the alumni, and through them to the

university. The tendency among young alumni is to become engrossed in

business and forget for a time the associations of college days. It would be

well for alumni organizations to look after new recruits. The

480 Thompson, “What Can the Alumni Do for the University?,” 6.

244

acquaintances thus formed, and the sympathies aroused, will often open

the way to efficient service for the university and for the alumni.481

Thompson believed that the alumni clubs could benefit both alumni and the institution, but that required a strong sense of organization, which I will expand upon shortly.

The fifth way that Thompson believed alumni could help their alma mater was through advocating for public higher education, specifically the land-grant college.

Similar to organization and coordination, this emerged as a principle for Thompson’s work with alumni. Based upon his observations about the perceptions held by farmers and other Ohioans of the land-grant college, Thompson believed that alumni could help to foster a “proper sentiment upon education” as a whole. He believed that “the Ohio

State University in particular has suffered misrepresentation.”482 He wrote that alumni in their local communities could do “much to correct both of these. But even broader work is possible. The whole question of higher education is not well understood. Alumni who have been educated at the Ohio State University, where several types of education are offered, ought to be broad-minded people with an intelligence to make them leaders and makers of public sentiment.”483 Thompson believed that alumni could be educators for their local communities about the value of the land-grant college and its needs. By

481 Thompson, “What Can the Alumni Do for the University?,” 6.

482 Thompson, “What Can the Alumni Do for the University?,” 6.

483 Thompson, “What Can the Alumni Do for the University?,” 6.

245 educators, he meant that they could be spokespeople in their local communities who could educate their peers on the land-grant college and its goals and value to the state.

The final way that Thompson believed alumni could help their alma mater was through advocacy on behalf of the university. First, alumni should have a strong sense of organization. Then, alumni should educate others within their community about the value of higher education. Finally, alumni should advocate by “cultivating a proper attitude toward the University, toward the Faculty and toward the Board of Trustees.”484

Thompson acknowledged the differences of opinion on “matters of university and educational policy”485 that might exist in a large alumni body, but he knew that “it takes infinite patience to administer a large university. Things do not always move as promptly as the enthusiastic would like. The movement, however, is rarely backward, but is often very slow.”486

Again, acknowledging the feelings and opinions of the alumni, Thompson used this as a method to direct the alumni activity. He effectively told them how they could help and told them how they should not help. He wrote:

Sometimes alumni are eager to have changes in the Board of Trustees or

in the Faculty. Once in a generation they desire a new president. A gentle

484 Thompson, “What Can the Alumni Do for the University?,” 6.

485 Thompson, “What Can the Alumni Do for the University?,” 6.

486 Thompson, “What Can the Alumni Do for the University?,” 6.

246

stirring of the waters is helpful and sometimes has a healing effect. There

is danger, however, that in some of these movements more harm than

good will follow. Accurate information should always be welcomed by the

University authorities, and alumni should be careful that mere college

rumors or traditions do not have undue influence. There is need of great

act and care in dealing with the problems of internal management.

Sometimes alumni movements leave the impression of prejudice or

partisanship and defeat the desires of both alumni and trustees. Trustees

are not apt to disregard the wishes of alumni, but they are easily irritated

by what they regard unwarranted interference.487

Thompson, in his parting thoughts, essentially told the alumni, as a whole, to stay out of the governance of the institution. He also indicated that it was not constructive to interfere with Board of Trustees’ matters.

In a few short years, the role of the alumni became something that needed to be defined by the administration. In 1901, Sabine Siebert shared her thoughts on how alumni could help their alma mater, speaking as the volunteer president of the alumni body. In

1904, President William Oxley Thompson shared his beliefs as to how the alumni could help their alma mater. Though not radically different in opinions, Thompson was clear that he believed alumni could benefit the institution through organization, education, and

487 Thompson, “What Can the Alumni Do for the University?,” 7.

247 advocacy. He also used this as an opportunity to set boundaries with and provide direction to alumni involvement with the land-grant college. So, what transpired between

1901 and 1904 that caused Thompson to focus on the issue of alumni relationships with the institution? President William Oxley Thompson identified three ways that the alumni should relate to their alma mater. He believed they needed to educate their local community members, advocate on the land-grant’s behalf, and organize to be effective. I believe Thompson identified these three ways because of the ongoing challenges the

University faced with the state legislature, specifically in 1902 and 1904. I will now describe some of the pressing issues that forced Thompson to act and assert authority over the alumni.

Ohio Legislative Activity and Ohio State University (1902-1906)

President Thompson saw the need to leverage the alumni for education and advocacy following the legislative activity between 1902 and 1906. As a result of the legislative cycles of 1902 and 1904, specifically, Thompson and the Board of Trustees established the Committee on Ways and Means in partnership with the OSU Alumni

Association. The Board tasked the Committee with educating the alumni about the need for state support. To accomplish this, the Committee created educational brochures and sent them to the alumni. In this section, I will first discuss the legislation that was passed and how the Committee attempted to educate the alumni. Then, I will address how OSU recognized its supporters in an attempt to garner future support for legislative advocacy.

248

In 1902, the Ohio legislature passed a levy that was more restrictive for the land- grant college than past levies had been. At this time, the income for OSU was predominantly from the tax levy within the state as pictured in Table 4 below. The legislature “through the influence of a small coterie of the University’s opponents, passed on the last day of the session, a clause limiting the operation of this levy to two years, and reducing it thereafter to 0.10 of a mill. At present valuation of property this will produce substantially $200,000 per annum.”488 The Committee estimated that the reduction per annum would cause the University to receive one-third less of its overall income beginning in 1904. The projected reductions were very concerning to Thompson and the

OSU Board of Trustees because the institution was too dependent on state funds.

488 Committee on Ways and Means, “A Word to The Alumni and Ex-Students Ohio State

University,” October 20, 1903, 2, Report on OSU Alumni Association- Early Activities, undated UA.RG.34.A.0001, The Ohio State University Archives.

249

Source of Income Amount Tax Levy at 0.15 mill $290,000 U.S. Government, Morrill Act $25,000 Income from Endowment $33,000 Fees from Students $35,000 Total per annum $383,000

Table 4: Income of the Ohio State University from 1900-1902489

In order to address the threat that the reduced levy posed to the University, the

Board of Trustees in conjunction with the Alumni Association formed the Ways and

Means Committee to develop a plan moving forward. As part of their work, the

Committee issued a call to action to all alumni and ex-students of the land-grant college on October 20, 1903 in the form of a brochure. In their call to action, the committee expressed the need for increased funding from the State. Because of the increased enrollment at the land-grant college, the Committee believed that an increase in funds was necessary to bolster the teaching force, enhance the equipment of the institution, and provide new buildings for the institution.490

489 Committee on Ways and Means, “A Word to The Alumni and Ex-Students Ohio State

University,” 2.

490 Committee on Ways and Means, “A Word to The Alumni and Ex-Students Ohio State

University,” 2.

250

If the University were unable to secure the additional funds from the State, the

Committee acknowledged that a reduction in expenses would need to occur. Reducing expenses would be challenging because the Committee anticipated that enrollment would continue to grow. The question was posed, “where would the savings come from?” and the Committee determined that “this reduction would have to come largely or wholly from reduction of the teaching force. Heat, power, light, water and janitor service cannot be cut or abolished, even if the teaching force is cut down.”491 As part of their call to action, the Committee recommended the University ask for a new levy of .20 of a mill.

An increase in the new levy would assist with current expenses and help to offset growing costs that were necessary to support a growing student body. The Committee acknowledged that “some objection has been raised to asking for a levy higher than that now given, on the ground that the policy of the last legislature was to cut the state tax to the lowest possible limit.”492 Ultimately, the Committee believed it necessary to request the appropriate funds needed to run the land-grant college and to let the legislature decide the best way to raise the needed funds.

One part of the educational brochure aimed to provide the alumni with facts about the institution in comparison to other schools. Relative to other Midwestern schools, OSU

491 Committee on Ways and Means, “A Word to The Alumni and Ex-Students Ohio State

University,” 4.

492 Committee on Ways and Means, “A Word to The Alumni and Ex-Students Ohio State

University,” 5.

251 was the most cost-effective in how it spent its meager budget. The land-grant college in

Ohio spent 9.2 cents per state resident which was three cents below Illinois, the next closest institution. This calculation was based on the cost to the state to run the institution based on the 1900 census data for the state. Nebraska spent the most per individual at

39.8 cents per individual. Further information on the other land-grant colleges is available in Table 5.

This example from 1903 was the first example of Thompson attempting to leverage alumni to educate community members and advocate on behalf of the land-grant college to elected officials. In their closing comments, the Committee identified the purpose of this brochure and the call to action for alumni and ex-students. They wrote:

We have prepared this document to acquaint you thus early with the

situation. Your aid is earnestly solicited. The campaign is one of

education. The legislature has now been nominated, and will soon be

elected. We want them to know these facts. You can serve the University

greatly if you will personally call upon them and see that they learn now,

the conditions which they will be asked to remedy. We do not ask for

pledges or anything of the sort. We only want the situation considered on

its merits, by people who approach the case without prejudice.493

493 Committee on Ways and Means, “A Word to The Alumni and Ex-Students Ohio State

University,” 6.

252

The need for alumni education and advocacy persisted for many years to come, but especially on the levy issue between 1904 to 1906.

253

States Represented494 Enrollment 1902-03 Relative Income of Cents per resident of State Universities the State495

Nebraska 2,289 $412,500 39.8

Michigan 3,972 $837,851 34.6

Wisconsin 2,870 $652,000 31.4

Table 5: Information about the Ohio State University v. other school support and enrollment496

494 The list appears as it originally appeared in the original document, “Maintenance of

OSU.” It is important to note that when using the criteria as determined by the Committee on Ways and Means to calculate the cost of running the universities, Indiana’s numbers were combined. In doing so, OSU became the most cost-effective. However, if Indiana

University and Purdue University were counted separately, they would have surpassed

OSU as most cost-effective, placing the Ohio school in third place. This would have been counter to the point being made by the Committee.

495 cost of running the universities by the population of the state in 1900

496 Committee on Ways and Means, “Maintenance of OSU,” December 19, 1903, Alumni

Matters, 1899-1902, Mixed Materials, Box UA.RG 3.E.0002, Folder 11, The Ohio State

University Archives.

254

Iowa497 3,062 $658,000 29.4

Minnesota 3,788 $501,336 28.6

Indiana498 2,805 $393,570 15.6

Missouri 1,591 $425,000 13.6

Illinois 3,288 $625,000 12.9

Ohio 1,735 $383,000 9.2

In March of 1904, the Committee issued a similar call to action. In this call to action, the Committee on Ways and Means acknowledged the success of their previous efforts to advocate for an increased levy for the land-grant college. In 1904, the

Committee developed a different approach for education and advocacy. In the March 16,

1904 call to action, the Committee stated that “we are not dealing with an unfriendly

Legislature. We have won on every issue which has yet been raised. Our levy is now

497 Two schools in Iowa did the same work as OSU, viz., Iowa State College, at Ames, attendance 1620; Iowa State University, at Iowa City, attendance 1442. Their respective state funding was $253,000 and $405,000 respectively.

498 Two schools in Indiana do the work as OSU, viz., Purdue University, Lafayette, attendance 1336; Indiana University, at Bloomington, attendance 1469. Their respective state funding was $213,809 and $179,761 respectively.

255 satisfactorily fixed.”499 The issue in 1904 was that any additional funds requested for

OSU would not come from a new levy. Instead, any new funds “must come from the

General Revenue Fund in competition with every other claim which is made against the

State’s exchequer.”500 Because this was a new way to secure funds that the institution had not had to do for many years, the Committee turned to the alumni and ex-students for assistance. They indicated, “we want your help. We cannot tell you how to make your influence felt. You know best whom you can reach, and what influences you can bring to bear upon them. What we ask is—DO IT. DO IT NOW.”501

The 1904 call to action is another example of how the University started to leverage the alumni to influence local community members and elected officials.

Although the Committee, and ultimately, the University were successful in accomplishing their goals in 1904, it is important to note that there was little to no organized effort in directing the alumni and the institution’s success was happenstance.

Organization was continually missing from the alumni work but was a key principle in

Thompson’s thoughts on the relationship the alumni should have with the University. As mentioned in the 1904 call to action, the legislature was friendly to the institution and

499 Committee on Ways and Means, “The University and the Legislature,” March 16,

1904, 7, Report on OSU Alumni Association- Early Activities, undated

UA.RG.34.A.0001, The Ohio State University Archives.

500 Committee on Ways and Means, “The University and the Legislature,” 7.

501 Committee on Ways and Means, “The University and the Legislature,” 7.

256 viewed the land-grant college positively. If the University did not have allies in the legislature and the governor, it would not be successful by simply telling the alumni to

“DO IT. DO IT NOW.”502 The University would need to have an organized effort in education and advocacy in order to be successful over greater resistance.

In 1906, the University administration acknowledged the need for greater organization when it encountered greater resistance to its progress. In the brochure “The

Campaign of 1906,” the Committee on Ways and Means provided an update on the most recent legislative cycle and thanked supporters. The Committee identified two sets of opponents: the friends of Ohio and Miami Universities. They acknowledged that OSU’s

“prosperity shall be conditioned by theirs, and it has been impossible for us to get increased revenue, by either levy or appropriation, without their insisting on a proportionate increase for themselves.”503

In order to rebuke the attacks on the land-grant college, friends of OSU attempted to convince the legislature to commit “the State definitely to the principle of one adequately supported State University, which of course involved some sort of limitation of the ambitions of the other two institutions.”504 Four bills were developed to define the

502 Committee on Ways and Means, “The University and the Legislature,” 7.

503 Committee on Ways and Means, “The Campaign of 1906,” April 12, 1906, 3, Report on OSU Alumni Association- Early Activities, undated UA.RG.34.A.0001, The Ohio

State University Archives.

504 Committee on Ways and Means, “The Campaign of 1906,” 3.

257

State’s role in public higher education and gain further support for the land-grant college.

The four bills were the Lybarger Bill, the Sites Bill, the Eagleson Bill, and the Amended

Eagleson Bill. The passage of the Eagleson Bill cemented OSU’s place as the favored public university in the State but not without resistance.

The Lybarger Bill was the first of the four bills introduced to the legislature by

Captain E.L. Lybarger. The goal of the bill was to put an end to the competition between the three public institutions: Ohio State University, Ohio University, and Miami

University. Lybarger attempted to limit the competition for state funds and “at the same time encourage and develop the Normal work, to which the common schools are hopefully looking for better things.”505 The bill provided that State aid would cease for the university work of Ohio University and Miami University. It also provided “a handsome increase in the appropriations for the State Normal Schools attached to those

Universities, on the ground that more and better Normal school work is a much needed feature in our state schedule of education, and one which is not provided elsewhere.”506

Naturally, the proposed bill was met with resistance by the friends of Ohio and Miami

Universities. As a result, the two groups rallied in great force, delaying the vote on the proposed legislation by asking for conferences and organizing a powerful lobby.507

505 Committee on Ways and Means, “The Campaign of 1906,” 3.

506 Committee on Ways and Means, “The Campaign of 1906,” 4.

507 Committee on Ways and Means, “The Campaign of 1906.”

258

Ultimately, the bill never received a debate in the House of Representatives and was indefinitely postponed.

The second bill addressing State funding for public higher education was the Sites

Bill. The Sites Bill was introduced as “the direct antithesis of the Lybarger Bill”508 and was prepared by President Alston Ellis of Ohio University. The Sites Bill proposed a combination of three solutions for higher education funding in Ohio. First, it provided increased funding for Ohio and Miami Universities while holding funding for OSU flat.

This solution meant that the two institutions would receive more State funding than the land-grant college which would diminish Ohio State’s lead over them. Second, it provided that either Ohio University or Miami University “could decrease its Normal work and magnify its College work, practically without restraint.”509 This solution allowed for either school to shift from its focus on Normal work to a more college- focused curriculum which would be in direct competition with OSU. Finally, the bill assembled all three schools in one bill which provided for their levies to be raised by one act. The bill “sought to commit the State to the recognition of the principle that the three schools bore the same relation to the State; i.e. to the principle of three State

Universities.”510 The state legislature was divided on the Bill with the Senate supporting

508 Committee on Ways and Means, “The Campaign of 1906,” 4.

509 Committee on Ways and Means, “The Campaign of 1906,” 4.

510 Committee on Ways and Means, “The Campaign of 1906,” 4.

259 the smaller schools and the House supporting OSU. When the bill was sent to the House, it too was indefinitely postponed.

After the failure of the first two bills, the Eagleson Bill was developed. The

Eagleson Bill provided for the usual levy of .15 of a mill for the land-grant college. The bill passed the House by a unanimous vote but was sent to the Committee on Taxation once it reached the Senate. Once it cleared the Committee on Taxation, the friends of

Ohio University and Miami University referred it to the Finance Committee. With no end in sight and the close of the session looming, a conference committee was established to address the issues at hand. Following their work, the Senate also passed the original version of the Eagleson Bill as passed in the House. The passage of the Eagleson Bill constituted “the most notable victory the [Ohio] State University has won since its organization, unless possibly the passage of the Hysell Bill in 1891, by which the institution was first placed on the tax duplicate as a part of the State’s machinery for education.”511 The Conference Committee’s work was incredibly important for public higher education in Ohio beyond the passage of the Eagleson Bill.

A product of the Conference Committee was the Amended Eagleson Bill, a separate act of the state legislature. This bill created three provisions for public higher education and was essentially a “Declaration of Independence” for the land-grant college.512 The three provisions directly supported the land-grant college. The first

511 Committee on Ways and Means, “The Campaign of 1906,” 6.

512 Committee on Ways and Means, “The Campaign of 1906,” 6.

260 provision established OSU as the “one University worthy of the State.”513 It also determined the scope of the University to:

provide ‘free to the youth of the state, liberal, professional, agricultural,

graduate and industrial education, including manual training, and a

teachers’ college of professional grade’; and for its support provides this

year 0.16 mill on the grand tax duplicate of the state (which is about

$21,000.00 in excess of our request) and lastly, specifically declares that

‘nothing in this act shall be so construed to prevent the Ohio State

University from securing such other appropriations from time to time as

may be needed.514

This important provision of the Amended Eagleson Bill positioned the land-grant college to be the premier state institution educating the youth of Ohio. It also positioned the institution to request future support from the legislature, which, as demonstrated between

1902 to 1906, would require advocates of the land-grant college to organize in support of the institution. Advocacy would become a focus of the Alumni Association as I will address in the next section of this chapter.

513 Committee on Ways and Means, “The Campaign of 1906,” 6.

514 Committee on Ways and Means, “The Campaign of 1906,” 6.

261

The second provision of the Amended Eagleson Bill limited the funding of Ohio

University and Miami University by providing a levy of 025 mill which could not be increased. It also established that the levy could not “be used for ‘maintaining or giving instruction in any other courses of study than in Liberal Arts.”515 The legislature moved the operations of the two schools under the State Bureau of Public Accounting to insure the proper usage of the funds. This provision limited the amount of future fund requests from Ohio and Miami Universities which would limit future competition for the land- grant college. It also limited the scope of the curriculum for the two institutions so that they could not offer courses that were duplicates of the land-grant college.

The final provision of the Amended Eagleson Bill declared the legislature’s intention to support the State Normal schools already affiliated with Ohio University and

Miami University. This provision redirected the efforts of Miami University and Ohio

University to limit competition with OSU by focusing the other schools on working with the Normal schools.

The legislative cycle of 1906 was of great significance for the land-grant college.

Four different acts were proposed that directly impacted the land-grant college. The two that passed were most beneficial to OSU. Providing an update to the alumni about the legislative cycle was necessary and an important educational tool for the grass root network of alumni. It was also an effective stewardship tool. The Alumni Association published the Campaign of 1906 brochure to educate the alumni and to thank advocates

515 Committee on Ways and Means, “The Campaign of 1906,” 6.

262 of the institution. It also was a means to acknowledge what the University needed to do in order to be successful with the legislature in the future.

In a portion of the brochure, the Committee on Ways and Means thanked seven different individuals and groups who advocated on the University’s behalf. This group of advocates was critical in future advocacy efforts. Unsurprisingly, President Thompson was at the top of the list of advocates for the land-grant college. Second to him, were the members of the Board of Trustees, specifically Guy W. Mallon and Frank E. Pomerene, who proved “themselves earnest fighters for the University interests.”516 The third group of advocates was the alumni. The Committee recognized that there was a “considerable and increasing number of men among the Alumni who are willing to respond immediately to any call on their time and influence. These men have wielded service of the very highest value in this contest. Especially is this true in Cleveland, Toledo,

Chillicothe and Columbus, where Alumni associations are maintained.”517 The

Committee emphasized that there were greater efforts for advocacy coming from the membership of organized alumni clubs in Cleveland, Toledo, Chillicothe, and Columbus.

This was an important distinction because the advocacy efforts were only active in four of the eight-eight counties that elected State Senators and Representatives. There was great opportunity to expand the advocacy efforts amongst the alumni to truly be statewide in the future which would provide for greater influence over the legislature.

516 Committee on Ways and Means, “The Campaign of 1906,” 11.

517 Committee on Ways and Means, “The Campaign of 1906,” 11.

263

The other four groups that the Committee acknowledged as advocates for the land-grant college were the Board of Trade and Citizens of Columbus, the Auditor of the

State, industrial groups, and alumni and friends in the legislature. For this last group, the committee emphasized that “while there have been General Assemblies in which a larger number of our graduates have had seats, there has never been a session in which our graduates have been of more conspicuous service to the University, or in which they have been more warmly assisted by friends on whom the University has no claim.”518

In an effort to leverage the work done by the seven different advocates just mentioned, the Committee looked to improve the University’s relationship with the

Legislature. In the section of the brochure “Lessons for the Future,” the Committee acknowledged that the land-grant college was lucky in its 1906 victories and would need to do more in the future to be effective. They wrote, “While the Legislature has adopted the principle which the University started out to establish, and while our erstwhile antagonists seem to have accepted the final result with good grace and even some rejoicing, the fact remains that the University cannot afford to be lulled into any false security by these events.”519 They acknowledged that “the friends of the State University went into this last contest over confident, ill-organized, and unprepared.”520 The

518 Committee on Ways and Means, “The Campaign of 1906,” 12.

519 Committee on Ways and Means, “The Campaign of 1906,” 13.

520 Committee on Ways and Means, “The Campaign of 1906,” 14.

264 committee saw the opportunity to better organize for future success but needed to determine how to accomplish those goals.

In order to change the minds of the people of Ohio and future state legislatures, the Committee on Ways and Means echoed some of Thompson’s views from his 1904 article about how alumni can help their alma mater. They indicated that it was time to educate and organize. They wrote that future success was dependent upon “University

Faculty, Board of Trustees, Alumni, and Friends… to enter upon a campaign of education. The people of the state do not as a body know what the State University has done or is doing or is able to do for the upbuilding of Ohio.”521 The committee of alumni saw the campaign to educate local communities as the first step to securing support for the land-grant college. The second step was organization, a principle originally suggested by Thompson in 1904. The committee wrote, “organization is the key to all social progress.”522

Following their thoughts on the need to organize the alumni, the Committee on

Ways and Means issued a call to action for the alumni. They directed the alumni to descend upon campus during the coming commencement for a “veritable jubilee” in celebration of the step forward for the alumni and their alma mater. 523 Following the

521 Committee on Ways and Means, “The Campaign of 1906,” 14.

522 Committee on Ways and Means, “The Campaign of 1906,” 14.

523 Committee on Ways and Means, “The Campaign of 1906,” 15.

265 alumni meeting, they hoped there would “arise a wiser, broader, more self-sacrificing usefulness than the Alumni Association of the Ohio State University has yet known.”524

Between 1901 and 1906, a fundamental shift occurred about the relationship between the alumni and the University. In previous years, the alumni attempted to control the land-grant college through more involvement in governance and directing staffing decisions. According to the new view, the alumni could and should help their alma mater.

Shortly after he became President of the land-grant college, Thompson suggested the alumni could benefit the University through education and advocacy efforts and could be more effective by organizing. Following repeated struggles with the state legislature, the alumni leadership saw similar opportunities to align with Thompson’s beliefs as originally stated in 1904. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that the Committee on

Ways and Means was successful in redefining the relationship between the alumni and their alma mater in 1906 beyond the “Campaign of 1906” brochure. However, change was on the horizon for the alumni and the land-grant college.

Administration Establishes Control Over Alumni (1910-1912)

Eleven years into his presidency, William Oxley Thompson had the opportunity he needed to organize the alumni. Following the happenstance that the University experienced with the legislature between 1902 and 1906, alumni began to heed

524 Committee on Ways and Means, “The Campaign of 1906,” 15.

266

Thompson’s advice to focus their efforts on education, advocacy, and organization.

However, the daunting task of reorganizing the Alumni Association did not have traction.

Thompson needed committed volunteers and a dedicated staff member to accomplish this goal. He found a key partner in Ralph D. Mershon, the alumni volunteer who was president of the Ohio State Alumni Association.525

Through their work together, Thompson not only established control over the alumni, he also modernized the University’s internal organization, establishing control over all University affairs. In this section, I will first provide some background on Ralph

Mershon, then describe what Thompson was able to accomplish by working with

Mershon to corral the alumni. I will then describe their success in leveraging the alumni

525 It is important to note that Edith Cockins also played an essential role in establishing the new Alumni Association. Mershon developed the plan that was adopted and implemented by Thompson. Cockins was essential in executing the plan. As an undergraduate, Cockins was involved with the student newspaper, the Lantern, and the student yearbook, the Makio. She graduated in 1894 with a bachelor of arts degree. She was the University’s first Registrar and served in the role from 1897-1944 when she retired from the role. One of her greatest commitments to the institution was during her tenure as the volunteer Secretary of the Ohio State Alumni Association to which she was elected in 1910. She worked in tandem with Ralph D. Mershon to modernize the organization and eventually wrote a book about Mershon.

267 as lobbyists for the land-grant college. Finally, I will describe how Thompson became the primary leader of the University.

Ralph D. Mershon was vital to Thompson’s success with the alumni. He graduated from the University with a degree in Mechanical Engineering in 1890, the same year as the passage of the second Morrill Act. Born in Zanesville, Ohio in July of

1868, Mershon attended the McIntire Academy and Zanesville High School.526 Mershon followed a non-traditional path to matriculate to the land-grant college. In 1884, he dropped out of high school to pursue a job with the Zanesville and Ohio River Railway.

When the business closed, he told his father that he “wanted to go to OSU and study mechanical engineering.”527 Unfortunately, because Mershon did not have a high school diploma, he was not admitted to the institution. His father petitioned the superintendent of his school district, who arranged for Mershon to have special instruction in order to complete his studies. Mershon was admitted to OSU in the fall of 1886. Because of the relatively small student body, he received great attention from the faculty. So much so that “only four students enrolled in that curriculum [mechanical engineering]” which allowed one-on-one attention from the faculty.528

526 Cockins, Edith D., Ralph Davenport Mershon, vol. 1, 2 vols. (Portland, ME: The

Anthonensen Press, 1956), https://babel-hathitrust-org.proxy.lib.ohio- state.edu/cgi/pt?id=wu.89042724302;view=1up;seq=21.

527 Cockins, Edith D., Ralph Davenport Mershon, vol. 1, 7.

528 Cockins, Edith D., Ralph Davenport Mershon, vol. 1, 11.

268

Mershon was not a social student. His free time was spent studying and saving money. He excelled as a student and did so well in his classes that he was retained by the faculty following his graduation to be an Assistant in the Physics department.529

Mershon’s work experience and personal attention from the faculty positioned him to be successful in the engineering industry. Following his one-year appointment in the Physics department, Mershon was hired by the Westinghouse Company in Pittsburgh. Mershon did so well in this role that he was asked to help design a transformer that was used to light the World’s Fair held Chicago in 1893. The transformer’s success gave

Westinghouse and Mershon world-recognition, and the company awarded him a medal for his work. 530

Also, Mershon’s education and eventual service in the United States military during World War I shaped his views about education. According to his biography:

he was deeply interested, too, in the education and training of the youth of

the country in the fundamental principles underlying a sound, forward-

looking democracy…He felt that the most important thing in the life of a

democracy is the education of its people, so it is not surprising that the

bulk of his estate was given to his Alma Mater, the Ohio State University.

He was always grateful for the opportunities which the University gave to

529 Cockins, Edith D., Ralph Davenport Mershon, vol. 1, 14.

530 Cockins, Edith D., Ralph Davenport Mershon, vol. 1, 20.

269

him and said many times, ‘if it had not been for the Ohio State University,

I should never have had the opportunity to go to college.’531

In 1910, twenty years after graduating from the University, Mershon was elected by the alumni to serve a one-year role as President of the Ohio State Alumni Association.

He would be reelected for a second term in 1911. At the time that Mershon was elected

President of the Ohio State Alumni Association, the organization was nearly forty years old. When Mershon first assumed the presidency of the organization, it seemed impossible “to arouse any interest in the organization” after what seemed to be years of lethargy amongst the members. At this time, the association sponsored limited activity for its alumni. Included in these activities was the annual meeting where alumni heard officer reports and elected new officers. There was also an annual luncheon each year, but there was nothing more.532

However, Mershon approached each project with energy and enthusiasm.

According to Cockins, “true to his engineering genius, he realized what a tremendous power the organized alumni of the University could be if directed into proper channels.”533 At his first event, Mershon made an “inaugural statement that the association needed to be reorganized and that a permanent secretary, a man devoting all

531 Cockins, Edith D., Ralph Davenport Mershon, vol. 1, xiv.

532 Cockins, Edith D., Ralph Davenport Mershon, vol. 1, 21.

533 Cockins, Edith D., Ralph Davenport Mershon, vol. 1, 21.

270 of his time to alumni interests, was necessary for a growing university.”534 During the first year of his presidency, Mershon focused on reorganizing the alumni with

Thompson’s guidance and direction. Included in Mershon’s plans was the idea to adopt a new constitution for the organization.

Organizing the Alumni 1910-1912

When Ralph Mershon assumed the role of President of the Ohio State Alumni

Association, the alumni were disorganized by having multiple alumni groups and provided little value back to the University in terms of education and advocacy as evidenced by the legislative events between 1902 and 1906. In an undated brochure, likely printed between 1910 and 1912 and sent to alumni members, the officers of the

Alumni Association explained why the Alumni Association and institution’s relationship had evolved in such a manner up to this point. The brochure read:

The University has been so busy with the exacting problems of her

amazing growth; her former students have been so occupied with their

own individual tasks, that neither has kept in close or helpful touch with

the other…She is a ward of the State and she cannot prosper without the

State’s generous gifts. Her sons and daughters are rapidly becoming the

534 Cockins, Edith D., Ralph Davenport Mershon, vol. 1, 21.

271

leaders of the State; at least they go far to make up that intelligent and

patriotic citizenship which must support and uphold her… This is the

problem: to bring these men and women together into a strong and helpful

organization and then to relate that organization in a vital and sympathetic

way with the University.535

In order to direct the alumni efforts, Thompson, with the assistance of Mershon as

Alumni President, set out to redefine the Alumni Association. Throughout his two-year presidency, Mershon exchanged regular communication in the form of personal letters with President William Oxley Thompson. The exchange between the two demonstrated the way that Thompson was able to accomplish his goals for the alumni organization by bringing a sense of organization and stability to the alumni, ultimately establishing authority over the alumni as a whole.

Thompson established authority over the alumni in two ways. First, he did so by hiring a permanent Alumni Secretary to manage the alumni and the multiple alumni groups. Secondly, he thwarted the alumni’s attempts to establish a new governing board

535 Committee on Revision of Constitution, “Alumni of the Ohio State University Unite

Under the Leadership of a Permanent Secretary” (The Ohio State University Alumni

Association, Unknown), 4, Report on OSU Alumni Association- Early Activities, undated UA.RG.34.A.0001, The Ohio State University Archives.

272 of alumni, known as the Board of Visitors.536 I will now provide some background as to what Thompson and Mershon accomplished for the alumni organization. Then, I will further explain the Alumni Secretary’s role and how that helped to organize the alumni and define their relationship with their alma mater. Finally, I will describe how

Thompson thwarted the alumni’s efforts to have further control over the land-grant college.

The Office of the Alumni Secretary

The concept of hiring an Alumni Secretary to manage the alumni was not a new idea in higher education, but it was a new idea for the land-grant college in Ohio. In an exchange dated July 5, 1910, between Ralph Mershon and Harvard Alumni Secretary,

E.H. Wells, the Alumni Secretary described his role and its relationship to the institution.

He wrote:

Part of my salary is paid by the University, but since I have also held

purely University offices, such as the Secretary-ship for Appointments, it

is difficult to say just for what precise services the University is paying

536 Throughout Mershon’s letters to Thompson and the literature created by the Alumni

Association, the terms Board of Visitors and Board of Visitors were used inconsistently.

For the sake of organization, I will use the term Board of Visitors.

273

me. It should be pointed out, however, that the University appreciates the

services of the Alumni Office; and, indeed, the various activities of the

office are so closely associated with those of the University that it is hard

to say where one begins and another leaves off.537

When Mershon shared the letter from Harvard’s Alumni Secretary with

Thompson, he acknowledged the precedent that existed. Mershon wrote, “There would be precedent for such an arrangement, which I believe obtains in the case of a number of the

Universities, and notably Harvard.”538 Thompson had different thoughts than Mershon about how comparable the ivy league schools like Harvard were to the land-grant college of Ohio. He pointed out:

The Harvard situation, with which I have been somewhat familiar, and the

situation at Princeton, are somewhat different from the situation in Ohio

and a little easier for the reason that they have a certain momentum to their

alumni movements which we have not yet attained, and for the further

537 E.H. Wells, “E.H. Wells Letter to Ralph D. Mershon,” July 5, 1910, UA.RG3.E.0002,

RG 3.E William Oxley Thompson Papers, The Ohio State University Archives.

538 Ralph D. Mershon, “Ralph D. Mershon Letter to William Oxley Thompson,” July 20,

1910, 4, UA.RG3.E.0002, RG 3.E William Oxley Thompson Papers, The Ohio State

University Archives.

274

reason that there is sufficient money around those institutions among the

students to furnish considerable amount of student service. However, I

think there is a large field for wide usefulness for this movement and we

should need to come to some agreement as to the selection of the officer,

the adjustment of salary, and the tenure of office.539

As evidenced in this exchange, the idea for hiring a staff member to organize the alumni was not new. Both men agreed that it was a necessary function, but why did it take OSU nearly forty years to come to this conclusion? In the brochure titled Alumni of the Ohio State University Unite Under the Leadership of a Permanent Secretary, the

Committee on Revision of Constitution explained their recalcitrance to act. They wrote:

We have never really tried hard to solve it; that’s the plain truth about

the matter. We have had an Alumni Association of course, but it has been

only a part of that current which has drifted it to no good end. But really it

could do nothing, then, or now, without two things, essential in every

human enterprise: First, leadership; second, money.

539 Ralph D. Mershon, “Ralph D. Mershon Letter to William Oxley Thompson,” April 13,

1911, 10, UA.RG3.E.0002, RG 3.E William Oxley Thompson Papers, The Ohio State

University Archives.

275

The one factor is seldom great without the other. Certainly we have had no

right to expect any one [sic.] to devote his time and energy in leading the

organization without compensation. Clearly what we need at this time and

what we have always needed is organized leadership plus money. If we

can secure the money to support the proper leader, the proper leader will

be found.540

Regardless of how long it took for the land-grant college to arrive at this conclusion, it was time to organize the alumni.

In order to act, the University and the alumni needed to assess the need for the

Alumni Secretary role and determine how to pay for it. Thompson and Mershon agreed on these two issues regarding the Alumni Secretary. The first thing they agreed on was the necessity of the role. Mershon wrote to Thompson in a letter dated July 20, 1910:

In order that an effective organization shall be built up and properly

maintained, I think it absolutely necessary that the Alumni Association

should have a Permanent Secretary, as is the case with the Alumni

Associations of most of the other large universities. This Secretary should

not only perform the office duties of such an office, but in addition should

540 Committee on Revision of Constitution, “Alumni of the Ohio State University Unite

Under the Leadership of a Permanent Secretary,” 5.

276

have the ability and leisure to make, from time to time, the necessary visits

to the local organizations, in order to keep in close touch with them, to

maintain a strong connection between them, the general organization and

the University, and stimulate their enthusiasm in alumni activities, will

mean a considerable annual expense, and I have been puzzling a good deal

as to how to provide for the necessary annual income.541

Thompson supported Mershon’s ideas about the need for the Alumni Secretary, but was awaiting to see if a possible future resignation would allow him to reorganize his staff, as evidenced in his response dated July 29, 1910. Thompson wrote, “There seems now to be every reason to believe that our Editor will accept a position at the University of Washington. This will make a vacancy and may open up the way for a reorganization in certain lines and therefore I do not write you definitely at present.”542 Thompson saw the need for an Alumni Secretary but had to resolve how to pay for the cost. Fortunately, funding the role was the second point upon which both men could agree.

Mershon’s initial letter inquired about Thompson’s willingness to help fund the position. Mershon wrote to Thompson on July 20, 1910, that:

541 Mershon, “July 20,” 20.

542 Mershon, “July 20,” 29.

277

I believe I could arrange for special annual contributions for a period of

years, and of sufficient amount to cover a considerable annual sum, but I

am not so sanguine as to my success in providing for an income as great as

it seems to me would be necessary.

I think that the Secretary of the Association should be a man who would

receive, and be worth, $2,400. a year, and perhaps $3,000. In addition to

this, there would be his office and traveling expenses, so that the annual

income necessary should be, I should think, not less than $4,000.,

preferably, perhaps, $5,000. The expenditures during the first two years,

on account of traveling expenses and other activities in connection with

the organization of the local alumni associations, would probably be

greater than afterward… I have wondered whether it would be possible to

make any arrangement under which the University would bear part of the

expense of the Secretary of the Alumni Association and his office. 543

Thompson was willing to meet Mershon’s demands about funding the role. In his letter dated April 10, 1911, he wrote, “In my judgement the Board would be willing to bear a portion of the expense of an Alumni Secretary. Just what portion I do not know,

543 Mershon, “July 20,” 4.

278 but it should be determined largely by the service rendered by the officer.”544

Where the two men disagreed was significant though. Mershon raised the question as to how independent the Alumni Secretary role should be and, therefore, the

Alumni Association, should be from the University. He pointed out to Thompson that “I am one of the ones who most strongly, from the first, held the view that the Alumni

Secretary should be independent of the University in every way.”545 Thompson challenged this assumption based on his previous experience in working with faculty and the legislature. He stated:

Concerning the use of such person’s time, I see no reason why the

University should not join the Alumni Association in the movement. On

the other hand, certain of our local alumni here have said that they had no

interest in an Alumni Secretary unless he would be separate and distinct

from the University. Personally I do not sympathize with that view. It

seems to me that the co-operation, and that of the heartiest kind, is

fundamental and essential. The present situation in the legislature

illustrates it again and again. Wherever members of the faculty act

544 William Oxley Thompson, “William Oxley Thompson Letter to Ralph D. Mershon,”

April 10, 1911, 10, UA.RG3.E.0002, RG 3.E William Oxley Thompson Papers, The

Ohio State University Archives.

545 Mershon, “April 13.”

279

separately it brings trouble. The present legislature in the House at any

rate will treat us very generously. On the other hand, the Senate is irritated

over the action of certain members of our teaching force whose action was

without our knowledge or approval. In some such way it appears to me

that if the Alumni Secretary should get out of tune with the administration

at any time, or if through inadvertence mistakes were made, the University

would always ‘hold the bag’ and be the loser.”546

Thompson then relied on his pastoral roots to prove his point. He wrote that “I am only using these matters to illustrate to you the good old scriptural doctrine that ‘no man liveth unto himself’ and for that reason I believe Fundamentally that the closest cooperation between the Alumni Association and administration here is fundamental to the success of both movements.”547

The exchange between Mershon and Thompson on the relationship between the

Alumni Secretary, the alumni, and the University administration is indicative of

Thompson’s efforts to have oversight of the alumni. It especially emphasized his beliefs that the alumni needed to be monitored and directed in their work with the legislature.

Finally, in 1911, a new Alumni Secretary was hired. Herbert S. Warwick, Class of 1906, was hired to fill the role. Before his role as Alumni Secretary, Warwick worked at the

546 Thompson, “April 10.”

547 Thompson, “April 10.”

280 student center, the Ohio Union.

Warwick was an ideal candidate for the new role. Following his interview with

President Thompson, Thompson sent a letter to Mershon to share his observations on the candidate. He wrote of Warwick, “I have had an interview with Mr. Warwick. The proposition to be Secretary of the Alumni appeals to him, provided he be given an opportunity ‘to grow up to the job’ as he expressed it. I told him what I said to you about his lack of literary interest and he agrees to that. He would be an active, hustling fellow, dependable, loyal and discreet. The art of speech making so far as it might be necessary would be to learn. He is enthusiastic, devoted to the University, and has a lot of splendid qualities.”548

In his role as Alumni Secretary, Warwick was responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Ohio State Alumni Association. At the Board of Trustees meeting on

September 17, 1911, Ralph Mershon asked the Board of Trustees to cooperate with the

Alumni Association and updated them on the role of the Alumni Secretary. He stated:

the office of the Permanent Secretary of the Ohio State University

Association will carry on the following work: (a) It will proceed with the

work of compiling and issuing a register of the Alumni and Ex-Students of

548 William Oxley Thompson, “William Oxley Thompson Letter to Ralph D. Mershon,”

June 17, 1913, UA.RG3.E.0002, RG 3.E William Oxley Thompson Papers, The Ohio

State University Archives.

281

the University, as complete as may be. (b) It will compile and issue a

Who's Who, and Mercantile and Professional Directory applying only to

the members of the Ohio State University Association. In this connection

it is intended that the Secretary's office shall conduct an Employment

Bureau for members of the Association; and also later, if it appears

desirable, for Undergraduates of the University. (c) It will edit and issue

the Alumni Quarterly. (d) It will actively proceed with the canvass for new

members of the Ohio State University Association, and will carry on such

additional activities as from time to time may appear advisable in

organizing the Alumni of the State and elsewhere, and generally for the

interests of the University, as may be influenced through the Alumni and

Ex-Students.549

By hiring the Alumni Secretary, Thompson reinforced the three ways that he believed alumni should relate to their alma mater: education, advocacy, and organization.

First, the new Alumni Secretary was responsible for educating the alumni about the

University. He was positioned to accomplish this through more frequent communication with the alumni through the Ohio State Monthly, which, beginning in July of 1911 moved

549 “Record of Proceedings of the Board of Trustees of the Ohio State University June 30,

1910 to July 1, 1911” (Press Ohio State Reformatory, March 16, 1911), 17, The Ohio

State University Archives, http://hdl.handle.net/1811/61278.

282 from a quarterly publication known as the Ohio State University Quarterly to the aforementioned monthly publication.550

Second, the new Alumni Secretary should advocate on behalf of the University, in line with administration policy. In the undated brochure Ohio State University Alumni

Unite Under the Leadership of a Permanent Secretary, the University announced the newly redefined organization and the Alumni Secretary role. Through his work, he would be responsible for organizing the alumni to help with advocacy efforts. The new secretary would help with proper organization which:

would mean that such public opinion would be created as would lead the

Legislatures to support the University more liberally. If some one [sic.]

were leading us all intelligently, candidates for the Legislature,

irrespective of party affiliations, could be pledged to the proper support of

the University. We have sufficient alumni and x-students in every county

of the State, if they were organized, to create the public sentiment so

necessary to a kindly attitude on the part of Legislators.551

550 Herbert S. Warwick, “Facts About the Ohio State University Association” (The Ohio

State University Alumni Association, November 23, 1912), UA.RG3.E.0002, RG 3.E

William Oxley Thompson Papers, The Ohio State University Archives.

551 Committee on Revision of Constitution, “Alumni of the Ohio State University Unite

Under the Leadership of a Permanent Secretary.”

283

Finally, the new Alumni Secretary would organize, or harness, the multiple, disparate alumni groups. There was no organization to the groups and no oversight of them. With the newly redefined Alumni Association constitution, these groups came into the larger Alumni Association’s oversight. In the document, “Facts about the OSU

Association from Mr. Warwick,” the need to align the groups with the central Alumni

Association was presented. It read:

At present there are several local Alumni Associations, none of them

having an affiliated interest in the General Alumni Association. There are

many loyal Alumni and ex-students who now center their interests in a

local organization and who are not members of the General Association.

Under these conditions unity of effort or purpose is impossible, and in this

divided interest largely lies the weakness which the University Alumni

Association has felt during the past years. To remedy this situation it is

proposed that these local associations be brought into touch with the

General Association and each other by the activity of a permanent

Secretary.552

552 Warwick, “Facts About the Ohio State University Association.”

284

The second way that Thompson established authority over the alumni was by blocking Mershon’s attempts to create a Commission on College Affairs,553 known as the Board of Visitors, through which alumni would exercise some oversight of the

University. Mershon originally suggested the creation of the Board of Visitors in his initial reorganization of the University, a topic which I will address in the last section of this chapter. Accompanying his proposal to Thompson was a letter dated August 2, 1910.

In this letter, Mershon wrote that this new scheme was, “a scheme that shall so introduce the influence of the Alumni that it may represent an enlightened public opinion and make

553 The Commission on College Affairs was established by the Ohio State Alumni

Association in 1884. Its original purpose was to “keep informed concerning the condition and efficiency of the University, its needs and requirements; and at the annual meeting in each year to make a report to the Association of their observations and the present condition of the University, and embodying such recommendations as they may deem advisable to be acted upon by the alumni.” Quotation is from the “Constitution and By-

Laws of the Associate Alumni of the Ohio State University,” 1884, Report on OSU

Alumni Association- Early Activities, undated UA.RG.34.A.0001, The Ohio State

University Archives.

285 such opinion felt in an authoritative way; that it may aid in upbuilding the University, and that it may serve as a wholesome check on extremes (active or passive) of any kind.”554

The Board of Visitors was to be a representative body chosen from graduates of the various colleges. In his initial plan, Mershon wrote:

The function of the Board of Visitors shall be to advise and, by its

influence, aid the President, the Board of Trustees, the University Council

and the University Faculty, in any and all matters pertaining to the welfare

of the University.

No appointment to any position in connection with the University

shall be made without the approval of the Board of Visitors.

The Board of Visitors shall from time to time, through Visiting

Committees appointed by it, investigate the various departments of the

University for the purpose of determining their efficiency, and for aiding

554 Ralph D. Mershon, “Ralph D. Mershon Letter to William Oxley Thompson,” August

2, 1910, 1, UA.RG3.E.0002, RG 3.E William Oxley Thompson Papers, The Ohio State

University Archives.

286

them, either by suggestion or advise, or by using its influence in the matter

of financial or other aid.555

Mershon believed that by creating the Board of Visitors, “beneficial relations between the alumni and the University would be established.”556 Thompson, however, disagreed.

In a move to prevent the administration’s decisions from being challenged by the alumni, Thompson wrote to Mershon that the Board of Visitors could not have that kind of authority over the institution. He wrote that he had consulted with Judge Adams, the

Dean of the Law School, who maintained that “the relation would have to be advisory rather than with legal authority under the existing condition.”557 Instead of establishing the Board of Visitors per Mershon’s original plan as a governing board of the University,

Thompson suggested that it be established as part of the Alumni Association. He believed that the group could be advisory but not have any fiduciary or governance oversight.

555 Ralph D. Mershon, “Tentative Scheme of Organization and Administration, for a State

University” (28th Annual Convention of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers,

Chicago, IL: American Institute of Electrical Engineers, 1911), 4.

556 Committee on Revision of Constitution, “Alumni of the Ohio State University Unite

Under the Leadership of a Permanent Secretary,” 4.

557 William Oxley Thompson, “William Oxley Thompson to Ralph D. Mershon,”

November 29, 1910, UA.RG3.E.0002, RG 3.E William Oxley Thompson Papers, The

Ohio State University Archives.

287

Mershon acquiesced to Thompson’s suggestion and the Board of Visitors was established as part of the Alumni Association’s new organization. Thompson’s positioning of the new Board effectively blocked alumni authority over any administrative decisions.

In 1910 and 1911, President Thompson established the framework necessary for an alumni organization that he initially envisioned for OSU in 1904. In working with

Mershon, he had an alumni volunteer who could help to inform his peers and shape their vision for the alumni organization. Following the approval of the Alumni Association’s new constitution on June 10, 1911, and the hiring of the new Alumni Secretary, Herbert

S. Warwick, the Ohio State Alumni Association was poised to accomplish Thompson’s vision for alumni through education, advocacy, and organization. In 1912, Mershon and

Thompson first tested the infant organization.

University Neutralized Farmers (1912)

Within a year of the newly redefined alumni association taking shape and a full- time staff member being hired to coordinate the alumni, there was an opportunity to leverage the alumni as educators on behalf of the university. By educators, Thompson believed that they could be spokespeople in their local communities who could educate their peers on the land-grant college and its goals and value to the state. As evidenced in a letter to President Thompson on February 15, 1912, Mershon identified an opportunity that aligned with Thompson’s goals for the alumni. He “suggested that now is the time to

288 begin a campaign with reference to candidates in the coming Legislative elections.”558

Mershon wanted to give the alumni an opportunity to try. He wrote that he had

“hoped that the Association would be a little more completely organized than it is now, and running along in a more machine like way, before we undertook anything of this sort, but I am inclined to think we ought not to delay the matter of such activity, in view of the approaching elections.”559 Mershon continued about the alumni:

That any educational work you may do amongst the people, with the idea

of improving the grade of legislator, especially as regards his attitude

towards education, must be very general, whereas, the Association can

without criticism ‘get down to brass tacks’ because of the fact that it is

largely made up of people not connected with the University… I shall be

glad of any suggestions you may be able to give me as to the best and

most effective way to undertake a campaign looking toward such

education of the constituencies in various parts of the State as will result in

there being nominated for the Legislature only such men, whether they be

558 Ralph D. Mershon, “Ralph D. Mershon Letter to William Oxley Thompson,” February

15, 1912, The Ohio State University Archives.

559 Mershon, “February 15.”

289

Democrats or Republicans, as are favorably inclined toward the cause of

education in general, and the University in particular.560

The education by the alumni was meant to counter the farmers’ feelings during industrialization as described in previous chapters. Following his initial letter that identified this opportunity to activate the alumni in their local committees, Mershon sent another note to Thompson with suggestions from the alumni that addressed how to accomplish the goals of the educational movement. He wrote to Thompson on February

20, 1912:

It has been suggested that we form some kind of a Central Committee to

start this movement. Presumably this Committee would apportion to each

of its members a section of the State for which he would be held

responsible as to the institution of the desired movement. It would seem

that such a Central Committee should be made up equally of Democrats

and Republicans, as this movement should be a strictly non-partisan

affair… the following names were tentatively suggested for the Central

Committee:

560 Mershon, "February 15.”

290

Republicans: Karl T. Webber, Columbus, Ohio; Walter J. Sears,

Columbus, Ohio; William W. Keifer, Springfield, Ohio; D.F. Mooney, St.

Mary’s, Ohio

Democrats: James B. Marker, Columbus, Ohio; Frank E. Pomerene,

Coshocton, Ohio; Lowry F. Sater, Columbus, Ohio; George Dunn, Toledo,

Ohio; Gen. C.C. Weybrecht, Columbus, Ohio; George D. Smart,

Cleveland, Ohio

You will note that in the above list there are six Democrats and four

Republicans. This is because we could not think of two additional strong

Republicans to balance out the Committee.

If you care to do so I should be glad to have you express your opinion in

regard to the suitability of the above named mend for this activity…561

Mershon and the alumni set forth to have a non-partisan approach to influencing their peers in the alumni body and their local communities. Two weeks later, President

Thompson replied to Mershon’s letter expressing his support for the effort. He identified two additional committee members who were both republican and influential in their local communities. Thompson indicated to Mershon that:

561 Ralph D. Mershon, “Ralph D. Mershon Letter to William Oxley Thompson,” February

20, 1912, 2, UA.RG3.E.0002, RG 3.E William Oxley Thompson Papers, The Ohio State

University Archives.

291

I have no objection to anybody named and would suggest Lloyd T.

Williams, A.B. 1896, L.L.B. 1900, Toledo, Ohio. Williams is a republican

and one of the reliable and rising young lawyers of Toledo. He has never

been in politics but knows everybody who has been and is known by all

the alumni in and around Toledo. You have no one on the list from that

region.

Robert J. King, Arts 1899; Law 1902, Zanesville, Ohio, is perhaps the

most promising young lawyer in Zanesville. He is a railroad attorney at

present associated with Frank Durbin, who, along with Judge Adams are

the leaders in the Muskingum County Bar. He is well known as ‘Bob’

King and would, in my judgement, be an effective member of the

committee. Upon further consideration I may suggest a name or two from

the Cincinnati region or the Chillicothe region although Mr. Sears knows

that territory pretty well. There are some very active alumni about

Steubenville and East Liverpool. It might be well to have some one from

that region.562

562 William Oxley Thompson, “William Oxley Thompson Letter to Ralph D. Mershon,”

February 23, 1912, UA.RG3.E.0002, RG 3.E William Oxley Thompson Papers, The

Ohio State University Archives.

292

Thompson closed his letter in support of the alumni initiative. He wrote, “This has my cordial approval.”563 By organizing the alumni to be local educators and advocates of the land-grant college, Thompson had a group of alumni to help thwart future attempts to strip funding from OSU. The final issue that President Thompson needed to address was establishing the president’s authority over the other faculty and staff all the while providing role clarity for the Board of Trustees. I will now describe how the new plan positioned the University president as the head of the institution and as the leader of the school.

Administration consolidates control of Governance of the University

At the same time that Ralph Mershon had tasked alumni volunteers to draft a new constitution for the Alumni Association, he penned a new organizational structure for the entire University. In his initial correspondence with President Thompson on June 25,

1910, Mershon first broached the subject of a reorganization of the land-grant college in order to modernize. He wrote that he would “start on the work of getting together the information desirable as a basis for the suggestions I promised to make you relative to the modernization of the University organization.”564

563 Thompson, "February 23.”

564 Mershon, “Tentative Scheme of Organization and Administration, for a State

University,” 1.

293

On August 2, 1910, Mershon sent a letter to Thompson to outline his plan for the reorganization of the administration of the University. He wrote that he had three considerations when developing the plan. Mershon believed the considerations were

“especially desirable in any university organization.” Mershon wrote that his plan provided:

1) A scheme adaptable to any growth to which the University might attain.

2) A scheme such that by making the several colleges to a considerable

extent autonomous and as nearly as possible self-operative, shall relieve

the President of detail, leaving him free for the matters and policies of

larger importance, and yet shall leave him that degree of power and grasp

of affairs necessary in order that he shall be, in fact, responsible for the

conduct and results of the University as a whole.

3) A scheme that shall so introduce the influence of the Alumni that it may

represent an enlightened public opinion and make such opinion felt in an

authoritative way; that it may aid in upbuilding the University, and that it

may serve as a wholesome check on extremes (active or passive) of any

kind.565

565 Mershon, “August 2.”

294

The plan also identified the various administrative roles within the University.

The roles that Mershon identified were not unique to OSU but were common at higher education institutions in the early twentieth century. Many of the roles that Mershon identified are still in existence in higher education today. As Mershon began to research organizational structures of universities, he found that “printed matter bearing upon the subject seemed to indicate a scarcity of available information of a specific nature and most of such matter as was available bore upon certain phases, only, of the subject. It also seemed to indicate that there is considerable room for improvement in the present organization and administration of most, if not all, of the state universities.”566

Mershon was the initial architect of this type of organizational structure at OSU and one that would be adapted at many other institutions as well. Many do not realize that

“it was his vision, and understanding, and dynamic personality that gave the necessary impetus for the University to be among the first institutions of higher learning to be organized on an accepted business basis as was generally in practice in the realm of large business enterprise.”567

Included in his plan, Ralph Mershon provided recommendations for the various boards and staff roles at the University. He identified the roles of the board of trustees, president, secretary, treasurer, university council, a Board of Visitors, various deans,

566 Mershon, “Tentative Scheme of Organization and Administration, for a State

University,” 2337.

567 Cockins, Edith D., Ralph Davenport Mershon, 1:27.

295 superintendent of property, purchasing agent, registrar, and the student advisory board.

He also made recommendations for the budget process and amendments to the organization. Figure 3 depicts Mershon’s recommendation for the number of positions and the reporting structure of the organization.

296

Figure 3: Ralph D. Mershon’s Scheme for University Organization568

As part of Mershon’s plan, he recommended that the University Faculty be “the legislative body of the university in all matters relating to the conduct and control of the student body.”569 He also suggested that the University Council serve as the executive

568 Mershon, “Tentative Scheme of Organization and Administration, for a State

University,” 2339.

569 Mershon, “Tentative Scheme of Organization and Administration, for a State

University,” 2339.

297 body of the university, in consultation with the president. The roles of the treasurer and the superintendents of property, buildings, and power plants would manage the financial aspects of the various facilities of the institution. Mershon recommended that the secretary should have duties that traditionally pertained to such an office like “bursar of the university and shall through the purchasing agent make all purchases for the university.”570 Most significantly, Mershon positioned the President “to be the executive head of the university, and is to have the necessary authority to that end. He is to be the representative and general executive of the board of trustees, in all university affairs, except as otherwise directed by the board, and it shall be his duty to enforce all the rules and regulations of the board and of the faculty.”571

Mershon’s plan placed the Board of Trustees as the ultimate authority at the

University in terms of governance. However, he also placed the alumni Board of Visitors in a powerful position. In his initial plan, Mershon granted the Board of Visitors the power to:

Advise and, by its influence, aid the president, the board of

trustees, the university council and the university faculty, in any and all

matters pertaining to the welfare of the university.

570 Mershon, “Tentative Scheme of Organization and Administration, for a State

University,” 2339.

571 Mershon, "Tentative Scheme of Organization and Administration, for a State

University,” 2338.

298

No appointment, to any position in connection with the university

shall be made without the approval of the Board of Visitors.

The Board of Visitors shall from time to time, through visiting

committees appointed by it, investigate the various departments of the

university for the purpose of determining their efficiency, and for aiding

them, either by suggestion or advice, or by using its influence in the matter

of financial or other aid.572

As I mentioned in the previous section, this role was deemed to be illegal since the Board of Trustees had oversight of the items mentioned above. However, through

Thompson’s buffering of Mershon’s suggestion for a Board of Visitors, Thompson was able to establish the Board of Trustees as the ultimate governing board of the institution.

The remaining boards included the University Council and the Student Advisory Board.

All were limited in influence as advisory boards to the President. The new structure also limited the influence of the deans and developed them as “an advisory cabinet with the

572 Mershon, “Tentative Scheme of Organization and Administration, for a State

University,” 2340.

299

President in order to provide for a more deliberate discussion of problems of internal administration.”573

After giving further consideration to Mershon’s suggestions during the fall of

1910, President William Oxley Thompson presented the plan to the Board of Trustees on

December 7, 1910. The Board referred the plan to a committee consisting of the President and the Deans.574 The committee made its formal report on March 16, 1911. The minutes of the Board of Trustees read as follows:

The committee consisting of the President and the Deans to which

was referred for an opinion a communication from Mr. Ralph Mershon

regarding a revision of the plan of organization of the University

submitted the following report and recommended its adoption:

‘We have had before us on a revised plan of organization coming

from Mr. Mershon after a personal conference with this committee. This

revised plan also shows a graphic map of university organization of which

573 William Oxley Thompson, “Annual Report of the President to the Board of Trustees,”

October 31, 1910, 5, Annual reports: President’s, 1906-1910, Mixed Materials UA.RG

3.E.0003, Folder 7, The Ohio State University Archives.

574 Cockins, Edith D., Ralph Davenport Mershon.

300

we desire to express our approval.575

The Board of Trustees adopted the above report, and with that, the University moved to an organizational model familiar to Mershon. Based on his research and professional career, he modeled the land-grant college after “large public utility and industrial enterprises.”576 Although there were similarities to an industrial organization,

OSU moved forward with President William Oxley Thompson as the executive leader of the institution who had complete authority over the day-to-day operations of the institution, its alumni and students.

Conclusion

In my research at the Ohio State University Archives, I found that a counter- argument to Thompson’s point of view was made just ten years before the hiring of an

Alumni Secretary. At the Alumni Dinner of 1901, Alumni Association President Annie

Sabine Siebert articulated her vision of the relationship alumni should have with their alma mater. She first articulated that the University should do more to benefit its alumni

575 “Record of Proceedings of the Board of Trustees of the Ohio State University June 30,

1910 to July 1, 1911,” 40.

576 Mershon, “Tentative Scheme of Organization and Administration, for a State

University,” 2238.

301 through job placement services. Second, Sabine Siebert that alumni should have a place on the Board of Trustees as some private institutions had. This was an on-going point of contention for the alumni and the land-grant college as articulated in Chapter 5. Finally,

Sabine Siebert believed that alumni could benefit the institution through their philanthropy. Thompson, however, had different opinions.

President William Oxley Thompson came to OSU in 1899 when the alumni were disorganized and eager for involvement in the governance of the land-grant college.

When Thompson first arrived, the Alumni Association had minimal opportunity for alumni to connect with one another and their alma mater. For Thompson, alumni were not benefiting the institution. Instead, he believed that the alumni could be most helpful in their local communities and with the legislature through educational and advocacy work. In order to do this, he needed to organize the alumni. During this time, the

University had multiple local alumni clubs and the Columbus-based Alumni Association, but the groups were disorganized and did not have a partner at the University who could provide direction. In this void, Thompson saw an opportunity to hire someone to corral the alumni. In a partnership with volunteer alumni president Ralph Mershon, the two men crafted the first-ever Alumni Secretary role at OSU. This person was to be responsible for coordinating alumni activity and provided the alumni with tools for grassroots education and advocacy. In this way, he organized the various local alumni groups and brought them under the oversight of the general Alumni Association. The University subsumed and harnessed the alumni to help the University with its advocacy efforts.

302

Rivals for Governance of the Land-Grant University: Farmers, Alumni, and

Administration at Ohio State University, 1870-1910

Chapter 7

Conclusion

303

As industrialization flourished in America during the last third of the nineteenth and into the early twentieth century, farmers needed to adjust to a new way of life in response to industrialization. The Grange, the Farmers’ Alliance, and the Populist

Movement emerged as agricultural organizations that were very effective in organizing and lobbying state and federal governments on behalf of the farmers. These groups were

“convinced that the new organization of economic life was simply a selfish capitalist trick which could be undone, sought to destroy the network of impersonal economic relations in which they had become enmeshed. The last third of the nineteenth century was an era of popular schemes for remaking society, of simple solutions to complex problems, of endeavors to escape from industrial innovation rather than to come to grips with it.”577 This escape from industrial innovation occurred at the same time as the emergence of the land-grant colleges in the United States.

Before the passage of the Morrill Act in 1862, industrial classes (farmers and laborers) were not exposed to higher education. American higher education was designed to serve the sons of families with some means. Students were mostly white men who enrolled predominantly in the studies of liberal arts, law, religion, medicine, or teacher preparation. When Justin Morrill sponsored the Morrill Act of 1862, he had four goals for land-grant education. First, he wanted to provide access to higher education for the industrial classes. Second, he wanted to provide practical education in agriculture and the mechanical arts. Third, he wanted to expose the industrial classes to liberal education.

577 Hays, The Response to Industrialism, 1885-1914, 24.

304

Finally, he wanted to enable economic development in agriculture in order to keep up with the growing population of the United States caused by industrialization and immigration.

The historical account of the emergence of the land-grant movement is often misrepresented. “The American land-grant saga was not so deterministic or romantic as it has been portrayed. It involved the rough-and-tumble of politics, including pressure tactics, aggressive lobbying, persuasion, agitation, and of course compromise. It resounded with the clash of competing ideas and interests—inside the movement as well as outside. And it is a story rife with paradox, inconsistency, and ambiguity.”578

Farmers wanted “practical studies and manual labor as the best preparation to work and live on a farm, whereupon graduation, young men could return home to preserve rural communities, defend white, working-class masculinity, and resist the growing cultural, economic, and social hegemony of white, middle-class men.”579 The

Grange, the Farmers’ Alliance, and the Populists emerged in the 1870s through the early

1900s and often challenged the land-grant colleges. Because of the farmers’ ability to effectively organize and advocate to state and federal legislatures, there was a strained relationship between the land-grant colleges and the farmers in their states. Farmers

578 Williams, The Origins of Federal Support for Higher Education, 9.

579 Nathan M. Sorber, Land-Grant Colleges and Popular Revolt: The Origins of the

Morrill Act and the Reform of Higher Education (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press,

2018), 4.

305 attempted to establish greater control and influence over the land-grant colleges by having representation on the respective Boards of Trustees or by usurping control entirely. Farmers also challenged the federal and state funding allocated for the land- grant colleges. With each additional funding opportunity for the land-grant colleges, farmers advocated against increased funding. Examples of this struggle occurred when

Congress passed the Hatch Act of 1887 and the Second Morrill Act of 1890.

In Ohio, farmers and the land-grant college also had a strained relationship.

Problems especially arose over the passage of the Hatch Act of 1887 in two respects.

First, Ohio experiment stations were established before the Hatch Act and therefore operated independently of the new land-grant college. As a result of Ohio farmers lobbying in Congress, an exception was made that the Ohio experiment stations could have a separate Board of Control from the land-grant college. Secondly, Ohio differed in how it distributed the funds from the Hatch Act of 1887. In Ohio, the Board of Control received the funds and not the land-grant college. The funding model was problematic because the experiment station and land-grant college often duplicated efforts. It was also problematic because the land-grant college needed access to the funds to support its agricultural education efforts. The instability in presidential leadership exacerbated these problems for the first thirty years of the institution.

The problems over funding and competition with the farmers in Ohio continued for twenty-five years past the passage of the Hatch Act in 1887. On a state level, the land- grant college faced many threats to its funding especially in the legislative cycles of

1902, 1904, and 1906. Although the University emerged successful, it was evident to the

306

Administration that they needed someone to educate Ohioans and advocate to the legislature on the land-grant college’s behalf. In order to have a group of dedicated advocates, the institution needed to have oversight of the group to make sure they were working with the institution’s administration and not against them. But, who would the

University be able to call upon to advocate on its behalf?

In order to compete with the farmers’ lobbying efforts, the OSU administration needed to identify allies, who would presumably include their alumni. However, OSU did not have a strong relationship with its alumni and made little effort to cultivate alumni support. Because of leadership instability and lack of interest on the University’s part, there was no coordination of alumni efforts at the land-grant college between 1879 when the Ohio State Alumni Association was founded and 1910. As a result of the leadership instability from 1870-1899, the alumni often attempted to control the institution, as was exhibited following the dismissal of popular president Walter Quincy Scott (1881-1883).

The alumni were also disorganized with multiple alumni groups. Because of the disorganization, the alumni were ineffective in their ability to aid their alma mater.

The pro-alumni viewpoint continued into the 20th century as demonstrated by the viewpoints of Alumni Association President Annie Sabine Siebert. In her speech at the

Alumni Dinner of 1901, Sabine Siebert shared her views about the relationship the alumni should have with their alma mater. First, she indicated that the University should do more to aid its alumni. Second, she reiterated the on-going issue that alumni should have a place in the governance of the institution through Board service. Finally, Sabine

Siebert believed the way that alumni could help the institution was through their

307 philanthropy. Her viewpoints demonstrated an on-going concern for the administration in that there was no coordinated way for the alumni to assist their alma mater.

It was not until President William Oxley Thompson became president of the land-grant college that a president publically stated his views about the relationship that alumni should have with the institution. Breaking from Sabine Siebert’s point of view,

Thompson articulated his beliefs in June 1904 in The Ohio State University Alumnus.

Thompson believed that alumni could help their alma mater through advocacy for public higher education within their local communities. He also believed that alumni should serve as advocates within the state legislature and Congress. Finally, Thompson believed all of this was possible through proper organization and oversight, but he did not provide insight as to how this could be achieved.

Finally, in 1910, when Ralph D. Mershon was elected as President of the Ohio

State University Alumni Association, President William Oxley Thompson had a partner to help wrangle the alumni. With Thompson’s guidance, Mershon drafted a new organizational structure for the administration of the institution and identified the need to hire a permanent Alumni Secretary. In 1912, Herbert S. Warwick was hired to be the first staff member to work with the alumni as the Alumni Secretary. Also, in their exchange about the reorganization of the alumni, Thompson was able to avoid establishing an additional alumni board that would have oversight of University affairs as part of

Mershon’s original plan. Mershon believed that by establishing this Board of Visitors, the alumni would have a stronger relationship with their alma mater. Thompson saw this group as one more entity that would try to assert authority over the administration and the

308

Board of Trustees. Instead, Thompson directed Mershon that the alumni group would only be advisory.

Thompson and Mershon were successful in their efforts to organize the alumni and leverage them to educate and advocate on the institution’s behalf. In an undated document titled The Ohio State University Today, from approximately 1920, the

University expressed the role of the alumni and how it differed between the private and public schools. It read:

The older and smaller endowed colleges are principally organized for

alumni work, by classes. The principal function of such organization is to

raise money by gift.

The size of the University and the size and diversity of interest among

present-day Ohio State University graduating classes precludes this type

of alumni organization. And the purpose of our organization, properly, is

not the continuous raising of money.

But effective alumni work by state university people must depend upon

strong and active group organizations in localities. Alumni representation

by counties is a vital necessity in Ohio, -- because of its value in

309

advertising the University within the local community, in creating

favorable interest that can be translated into legislative support.580

Because of the leadership of Thompson and Mershon, the alumni began working with the University administration to educate and advocate effectively on the institution’s behalf. The new relationship allowed the institution to secure greater funding and support from the state legislature and to challenge farmers’ lobbying efforts. Additionally, the formalization of the University’s relationship with its alumni through a permanent

Alumni Secretary began to emerge as a best practice. Following his appointment to the role of Alumni Secretary, Herbert S. Warwick was instrumental in founding the

Association of Alumni Secretaries. On February 21, 1913, representatives from twenty- three institutions gathered in Columbus, Ohio at Warwick’s prompting.581 Today, the organization has evolved to form the Council for Advancement and Support of

Education, a global organization that includes the professions of alumni relations, fundraising, and marketing and communications.

580 The Ohio State University, “The Ohio State University Today,” Unknown, 1, Report on OSU Alumni Association- Early Activities, undated UA.RG.34.A.0001, The Ohio

State University Archives.

581 John Pulley, 100 Years of Alumni Engagement (Council for the Advancement and

Support of Education, 2014).

310

Ultimately, Thompson and the University administration emerged victorious in the rivalry for governance. Thompson asserted his authority over the alumni. He did this in two ways. First, he hired an Alumni Secretary to organize the alumni. Second, he asserted that the Board of Visitors was only an advisory group with no governance responsibility to the institution. By asserting his authority over the alumni and organizing them, Thompson wielded this group of alumni advocates to rebuke the farmers.

Thompson’s emergence as the victor was a benefit to the institution during his tenure. As president, Thompson saw increased state funding for the land-grant college. It was also during Thompson’s presidency that the University benefited from the first fundraising efforts by alumni for the Ohio Stadium.

The triumph of the administration over farmers and the alumni proved to be positive for the land-grant college. The results of Thompson as the executive head of the institution, the alumni as advocates, and the farmers as beneficiaries of land-grant education led to great prosperity for the land-grant college and Ohioans. Unfortunately, it is difficult to determine the long-term effects on farmers as they had less influence in the legislature and less influence in society as industrialization continued. However, because of the impact of industrialization on farming communities, it is likely that farmers benefited from a stronger relationship with the land-grant college.

311

Figure 4: United States Population compared to the Farm Population (1900-1950)582

In hindsight, industrialization negatively impacted farming communities. As a result, farming communities diminished in size. Additionally, as the land-grant college grew, more sons and daughters of farmers attended college, and fewer returned home after college. This also decreased the size of farming communities. Farmers would inevitably have had less influence with the legislature based on these trends alone. Figure

4 depicts the increase of the U.S. population as a whole compared to the decline of the farm population. Between 1900-1950, the U.S. population doubled and the farm

582 U.S. Bureau of the Census. U.S. Census of Agriculture: 1950., vol. V, Special Reports

6 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1952), 81.

312 population declined by approximately a third. The trend demonstrates the decline of influence that farmers had in relation to other Americans. Once the administration asserted authority over the alumni and used them as advocates within local communities and the legislature, farmers’ influence likely diminished more quickly. Therefore, although it is difficult to determine how things may have been different for each group, it is likely that Ohio farmers ultimately benefited by OSU gaining additional influence in the legislature and through its service to local communities.

313

Bibliography

“Act of July 2, 1862, Ch. 130, 133,” July 2, 1862.

Agassie, Alexander, Joseph C. Croate, and Edward W. Hooper. “The Extension of the

Franchise.” The Harvard Graduates’ Magazine, December 1898.

Aiken, David Wyatt. The Grange: Its Origin, Its Progress, and Educational Purposes.

Philadelphia :, 1884. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015029265918.

“Alumni on College Boards.” The Cleveland Leader. June 20, 1894. America’s Historical

Newspapers. https://library.osu.edu/documents/university-

archives/lanternhome.html.

“Board of Trade Upheld.” The Madison Daily Leader. September 24, 1906.

Brown, Rome G. “The Associated Harvard Clubs.” The Harvard Graduates’ Magazine,

March 1907.

Carstensen, Vernon. “A Century of the Land-Grant Colleges.” The Journal of Higher

Education 33, no. 1 (1962): 30–37. https://doi.org/10.2307/1980197.

Cashman, Sean Dennis. America in the Gilded Age. 3rd ed. New York: New York

University Press, 1993.

“Chart of US Population, 1790-2000.” Accessed February 3, 2018. http://www.census-

charts.com/Population/pop-us-1790-2000.html.

Cockins, Edith D. Ralph Davenport Mershon. Vol. 1. 2 vols. Portland, ME: The

Anthonensen Press, 1956. https://babel-hathitrust-org.proxy.lib.ohio-

state.edu/cgi/pt?id=wu.89042724302;view=1up;seq=21.

314

“Columbus.” The Cleveland Leader. July 3, 1883, Tuesday Morning edition. America’s

Historical Newspapers.

Committee on Revision of Constitution. “Alumni of the Ohio State University Unite Under

the Leadership of a Permanent Secretary.” The Ohio State University Alumni

Association, Unknown. Report on OSU Alumni Association- Early Activities,

undated UA.RG.34.A.0001. The Ohio State University Archives.

Committee on Ways and Means. “A Word to The Alumni and Ex-Students Ohio State

University,” October 20, 1903. Report on OSU Alumni Association- Early

Activities, undated UA.RG.34.A.0001. The Ohio State University Archives.

———. “Maintenance of OSU,” December 19, 1903. Alumni Matters, 1899-1902, Mixed

Materials, Box UA.RG 3.E.0002, Folder 11. The Ohio State University Archives.

———. “The Campaign of 1906,” April 12, 1906. Report on OSU Alumni Association-

Early Activities, undated UA.RG.34.A.0001. The Ohio State University Archives.

———. “The University and the Legislature,” March 16, 1904. Report on OSU Alumni

Association- Early Activities, undated UA.RG.34.A.0001. The Ohio State

University Archives.

“Constitution and By-Laws of the Associate Alumni of the Ohio State University,” 1884.

Report on OSU Alumni Association- Early Activities, undated UA.RG.34.A.0001.

The Ohio State University Archives.

Cope, Alexis. History of the Ohio State University, Vol. 1: 1870-1910. Columbus, OH:

Ohio State University Press, 1920.

315

Crawford, J. B. The Credit Mobilier of America: Its Origin and History, Its Work of

Constructing the Union Pacific Railroad and the Relation of Members of Congress

Therewith. Boston, MA: C.W. Calkins and Company, 1880.

Davenport, Eugene. Education for Efficiency. D. C. Heath & Co., 1909.

Davidson, Segrid Dee. “A Historical Study of Legislative Developments of Land-Grant

Colleges in the United States.” Ph.D., University of Southern California, 1965.

http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.ohio-

state.edu/docview/1664309967/abstract/44A0CBE85B7A435DPQ/1.

Davis, John W. “The Negro Land-Grant College.” Journal of Negro Education 2, no. 3

(July 1933): 312–28.

De Windt, H.A. “Harvard Clubs: Chicago.” The Harvard Graduates’ Magazine, October-

December.

Dowler, John F. Centennial History, Ohio State Grange, 1873-1973. Ohio State Grange,

1973.

“Farmers’ Exchange Advertisement.” The Princeton Union. December 18, 1902.

Fichter, Joseph W. Ohio State Grange Diamond Jubilee History 1872-1947. NP, 1947.

“Fifty-First Annual Report of the Ohio State Board of Agriculture with an Abstract of the

Proceedings of the County Agricultural Societies for the Year 1896, to the General

Assembly of the State of Ohio.” The Laning Printing Company, 1897. https://babel-

hathitrust-org.proxy.lib.ohio-

state.edu/cgi/imgsrv/download/pdf?id=mdp.39015067016579;orient=0;size=100;s

eq=571;num=541;attachment=0.

316

“Forty-First Annual Report of the Ohio State Board of Agriculture, with an Abstract of the

Proceedings of the County Agricultural Societies: To the General Assembly of

Ohio, for the Year 1886.” Myers Brothers, State Printers, 1887. https://hdl-handle-

net.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/2027/hvd.hxhqu7.

Garceau, A.J. “Harvard Clubs: Class Secretaries.” The Harvard Graduates’ Magazine,

March 1905.

Geiger, Roger L. The History of American Higher Education: Learning and Culture from

the Founding to World War II. Reprint edition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press, 2016.

———. To Advance Knowledge: The Growth of American Research Universities, 1900-

1940. First Edition, First Printing edition. New York: Oxford University Press,

1986.

Geiger, Roger L., and Nathan M. Sorber, eds. The Land-Grant Colleges and the Reshaping

of American Higher Education: 30. 1 edition. Transaction Publishers, 2013.

Gelber, Scott M. “Academic Populism: The People’s Revolt and Public Higher Education,

1880–1905.” Ph.D., Harvard University, 2008.

http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.ohio-

state.edu/docview/304602347/abstract/D343265F3E32406FPQ/1.

———. The University and the People: Envisioning American Higher Education in an

Era of Populist Protest. First edition. Madison, Wisconsin: University of

Wisconsin Press, 2011.

317

Goerler, Raimund E. The Ohio State University: An Illustrated History. Columbus: Ohio

State University Press, 2011.

Goodwyn, Lawrence. The Populist Moment: A Short History of the Agrarian Revolt in

America. Abridged edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978.

“Grange and Gossip.” The Atlanta Constitution (1869-1875); Atlanta, Ga. September 14,

1873.

Grange, National. Journal of Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Session of the National

Grange of the Patrons of Husbandry. John P. Morton & Company, 1891.

“Harvard and the Future.” The Harvard Endowment Fund, 1919.

Hays, Samuel P. The Response to Industrialism, 1885-1914. Second Edition. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 1995.

Hicks, John D. The Populist Revolt: A History of the Farmers’ Alliance and the People’s

Party. Reprint, 1964 edition. Bison Publishing, 1961.

Hofstadter, Richard. The Age of Reform; from Bryan to F.D.R. Vintage Book 95. New

York: Random House Books, 1955.

Howe, A.M. “Electoral Methods of the Alumni Association.” The Harvard Graduates’

Magazine, July 1893.

Hume, George E. “Harvard Clubs: Convention of Western Clubs.” The Harvard

Graduates’ Magazine, March 1898.

II, Coy F. Cross, and Coy F. Cross. Justin Smith Morrill: Father of the Land-Grant

Colleges. MSU Press, 1999.

318

Ireland, William M. Journal of Proceedings of the Eleventh Session of the National Grange

of the Patrons of Husbandry. Louisville, KY: John P. Morton & Company, 1878.

https://babel-hathitrust-org.proxy.lib.ohio-

state.edu/cgi/pt?id=msu.31293007794385;view=1up;seq=7.

Johnson, Eldon L. “Misconceptions About the Early Land-Grant Colleges.” The Journal

of Higher Education 52, no. 4 (1981): 333–51. https://doi.org/10.2307/1981282.

Journal of Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Session of the Ohio State Grange of Patrons

of Husbandry, Held at Cincinnati, February 20th, 21st, 22d, and 23d, 1877.

Sandusky, OH: Register Steam Printing Establishment. Accessed December 19,

2018. https://hdl-handle-net.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/2027/osu.32435068444397.

Journal of Proceedings. Twenty-First Session of the National Grange of the Patrons of

Husbandry. Thorp & Godfrey, 1887. https://babel-hathitrust-org.proxy.lib.ohio-

state.edu/cgi/imgsrv/download/pdf?id=mdp.39015065158993;orient=0;size=100;s

eq=181;num=177;attachment=0.

J.W.R. “Hawkeye Husbandmen.” The Daily Inter Ocean. August 20, 1881. Nineteenth

Century U.S. Newspapers.

Kazin, Michael. The Populist Persuasion: An American History. First edition. Ithaca, NY:

Cornell University Press, 1998.

Kelley, Oliver Hudson. Origin and Progress of the Order of the Patrons of Husbandry in

the United States: A History from 1866 to 1873. J. A. Wagenseller, 1875.

319

Kimball, Bruce A. “‘Democratizing’ Fundraising at Elite Universities: The Discursive

Legitimation of Mass Giving at Yale and Harvard, 1890-1920.” History of

Education Quarterly 55, no. 2 (May 2015): 164–89.

———. “The First Campaign and the Paradoxical Transformation of Fundraising in

American Higher Education, 1915-1925.” Teachers College Record 116, no.

070304 (July 2014): 1–44.

Kinnison, William A. Building Sullivant’s Pyramid: An Administrative History of the Ohio

State University, 1870-1907. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1970.

Kinnison, William Andrew. “The Impact of the Morrill Act on Higher Education in Ohio.”

Ph.D., The Ohio State University, 1967. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.ohio-

state.edu/docview/302267265/citation/834E9C2423024E51PQ/1.

Lamont, Thomas W. “Ten Million Dollars for Harvard.” Harvard Alumni Bulletin, January

11, 1917.

Leighton, Geo. B. “Harvard in the Middle West.” The Harvard Graduates’ Magazine, June

1898.

Lowell, A. Lawrence. What a University President Has Learned. Freeport, N.Y: Ayer Co

Pub, 1938.

Malin, James C. “The Farmers’ Alliance Subtreasury Plan and European Precedents.” The

Mississippi Valley Historical Review 31, no. 2 (1944): 255–60.

https://doi.org/10.2307/1893427.

May, Valentine H. “Harvard Clubs: Associated Clubs.” The Harvard Graduates’

Magazine, September 1905.

320

McGeoch, Arthur N. “Harvard Clubs: Milwaukee.” The Harvard Graduates’ Magazine,

March 1895.

McMath, Jr, Robert C. American Populism: A Social History 1877-1898. New York: Hill

and Wang, 1993.

“Meetings: Alumni Association.” The Harvard Graduates’ Magazine, September 1897.

“Meetings- Lawrence Scientific School Association.” The Harvard Graduates’ Magazine,

September 1905.

Merriman, R.B. “The University: The Summer Quarter.” The Harvard Graduates’

Magazine, September 1906.

———. “The University: The Winter Quarter.” The Harvard Graduates’ Magazine,

March 1907.

Mershon, Ralph D. “Ralph D. Mershon Letter to William Oxley Thompson,” July 20, 1910.

UA.RG3.E.0002, RG 3.E William Oxley Thompson Papers. The Ohio State

University Archives.

———. “Ralph D. Mershon Letter to William Oxley Thompson,” August 2, 1910.

UA.RG3.E.0002, RG 3.E William Oxley Thompson Papers. The Ohio State

University Archives.

———. “Ralph D. Mershon Letter to William Oxley Thompson,” April 13, 1911.

UA.RG3.E.0002, RG 3.E William Oxley Thompson Papers. The Ohio State

University Archives.

———. “Ralph D. Mershon Letter to William Oxley Thompson,” February 15, 1912. The

Ohio State University Archives.

321

———. “Ralph D. Mershon Letter to William Oxley Thompson,” February 20, 1912.

UA.RG3.E.0002, RG 3.E William Oxley Thompson Papers. The Ohio State

University Archives.

———. “Tentative Scheme of Organization and Administration, for a State University.”

Chicago, IL: American Institute of Electrical Engineers, 1911.

“Morrill.” The Indianapolis Sentinel. February 6, 1874, 160 edition, sec. Morrill.

America’s Historical Newspapers.

“National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL).” Accessed December 16, 2018.

https://nces.ed.gov/naal/lit_history.asp.

Nettleton, George Henry. The Book of the Yale Pageant. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale

University Press, 1916.

“News and Views.” Harvard Alumni Bulletin, January 1917.

“Next to Nothing.” The Daily Inter Ocean. February 16, 1881. 19th Century U.S.

Newspapers.

“Nineteenth Annual Report of the Ohio State Board of Agriculture, with an Abstract of the

Proceedings of the County Agricultural Societies: To the General Assembly of

Ohio, for the Year 1864.” Richard Nevins, State Printer, 1865. https://babel-

hathitrust-org.proxy.lib.ohio-

state.edu/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hxhqth;view=1up;seq=7;size=175.

Nordin, Dennis S. Rich Harvest: A History of the Grange, 1867-1900. Jackson: University

Press of Mississippi, 1974.

322

Ohio State Grange, Ohio State Grange, and Patrons of Husbandry. Golden Jubilee History,

Ohio State Grange, 1872-1922. Salem, OH: Lyle Print Company, 1922.

Pierce, Michael. Striking with the Ballot: Ohio Labor and the Populist Party. First edition.

DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 2010.

Pollard, James E. History of the Ohio State University; the Story of Its First Seventy-Five

Years, 1873-1948. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1952.

Porter, G. “Industrialization and the Rise of Big Business.” In The Gilded Age: Essays on

the Origins of Modern America, edited by Charles W Calhoun. Wilmington, DE:

Scholarly Resources, 1996.

Postel, Charles. The Populist Vision. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Pulley, John. 100 Years of Alumni Engagement. Council for the Advancement and Support

of Education, 2014.

“Record of Proceedings of the Board of Trustees of the Ohio Agricultural and Mechanical

College and the Ohio State University,” May 11, 1870. The Ohio State University

Archives.

https://trustees.osu.edu/sites/default/files/documents/2018/11/archived_minutes_1

870-1890.pdf.

“Record of Proceedings of the Board of Trustees of the Ohio Agricultural and Mechanical

College and the Ohio State University from May 11, 1870 to June 25, 1890,” April

15, 1879. The Ohio State University Archives.

323

“Record of Proceedings of the Board of Trustees of the Ohio State University June 30,

1910 to July 1, 1911.” Press Ohio State Reformatory, March 16, 1911. The Ohio

State University Archives. http://hdl.handle.net/1811/61278.

Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the Alleged Credit Mobilier Bribery, Made

to the House of Representatives, February 18, 1873. Washington: Government

Printing Office, 1873. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924062620236.

Roscoe Thayer, William. “The Alumni Association’s Opportunity.” The Harvard

Graduates’ Magazine, June 1905.

Ross, Earle D. Democracy’s College, The Land-Grant Movement in the Formative Stage.

Iowa State College Press, 1942.

Rudy, Willis, and John S. Brubacher. Higher Education in Transition: A History of

American Colleges and Universities. 4 edition. New Brunswick, N.J., U.S.A:

Transaction Publishers, 1997.

Sabine Siebert, Annie W. “Proceedings of the Alumni Association of the Ohio State

University for 1900-1901.” The Ohio State University Alumni Association, 1900.

Annual reports: President’s, 1906-1910, Mixed Materials UA.RG 3.E.0003, Folder

7. The Ohio State University Archives.

Sanders, M. Elizabeth. Roots of Reform: Farmers, Workers, and the American State, 1877-

1917. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999.

“Share-Croppers.” Chicago Daily Tribune. January 8, 1881.

Shattuck, George B. “A Sketch of the Franchise Movement.” The Harvard Graduates’

Magazine, June 1898.

324

Solberg, Winton U. The University of Illinois, 1894-1904: The Shaping of the University.

First Edition first Printing edition. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2000.

Sorber, Nathan M. “Farmers, Scientists, and Officers of Industry: The Formation and

Reformation of Land-Grant Colleges in the Northeastern United States, 1862–

1906.” Ph.D., The Pennsylvania State University, 2011.

http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.ohio-

state.edu/docview/926948318/abstract/19EC9858204B43E9PQ/1.

———. Land-Grant Colleges and Popular Revolt: The Origins of the Morrill Act and the

Reform of Higher Education. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2018.

Stone, James S. “Meetings: Medical Alumni.” The Harvard Graduates’ Magazine,

September 1897.

“Success.” The Ohio Farmer. January 6, 1877, 1st edition. The Hathi Trust.

Surls, Rachel A. “Land -Grant Universities and the County -Extension Relationship:

Challenges, Successes and Emerging Trends.” Ph.D. Dissertation, The Claremont

Graduate University, 2008. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.ohio-

state.edu/docview/304674871/abstract/667A32786A0B4247PQ/1.

“The Agricultural College.” The Ohio Farmer. February 2, 1867.

“The Farmers’ Movement.” Charleston News and Courier. August 23, 1894.

The Makio. Vol. 4. 132 vols. Columbus, OH: The Fraternities of the Ohio State University,

1884.

325

The Ohio State University. “The Ohio State University Today,” Unknown. Report on OSU

Alumni Association- Early Activities, undated UA.RG.34.A.0001. The Ohio State

University Archives.

“The Removal of Dr. Walter Q. Scott.” The Cleveland Leader. February 16, 1884, Saturday

Morning edition, sec. Columbus.

Thelin, John R. A History of American Higher Education, 2nd Edition. 2nd edition.

Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2011.

Thomas, Alvin Ignace. “Industrial Education in the Land-Grant Colleges and Universities:

A Study to Establish a Basis for Projecting Industrial Education in the Years

Ahead.” Ph.D., The Ohio State University, 1957.

http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.ohio-

state.edu/docview/301959010/citation/8A64728C09564141PQ/3.

Thomas, Andrew P. “Easing the Pressure on Pressure Groups: Toward a Constitutional

Right to Lobby.” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 16 (1993): 149–94.

Thompson, William Oxley. “Annual Report of the President to the Board of Trustees,”

October 31, 1910. Annual reports: President’s, 1906-1910, Mixed Materials

UA.RG 3.E.0003, Folder 7. The Ohio State University Archives.

———. “What Can the Alumni Do for the University?” The Ohio State University

Alumnus, June 1904. Alumni Association, 1899, Mixed Materials UA.RG

3.E.0002. The Ohio State University Archives.

326

———. “William Oxley Thompson Letter to Ralph D. Mershon,” April 10, 1911.

UA.RG3.E.0002, RG 3.E William Oxley Thompson Papers. The Ohio State

University Archives.

———. “William Oxley Thompson Letter to Ralph D. Mershon,” February 23, 1912.

UA.RG3.E.0002, RG 3.E William Oxley Thompson Papers. The Ohio State

University Archives.

———. “William Oxley Thompson Letter to Ralph D. Mershon,” June 17, 1913.

UA.RG3.E.0002, RG 3.E William Oxley Thompson Papers. The Ohio State

University Archives.

———. “William Oxley Thompson to Ralph D. Mershon,” November 29, 1910.

UA.RG3.E.0002, RG 3.E William Oxley Thompson Papers. The Ohio State

University Archives.

United States Census Bureau. “Table 4. Population: 1790 to 1990.” U.S. Department of

Commerce, 1990 1790. https://www.census.gov/population/censusdata/table-

4.pdf.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. U.S. Census of Agriculture: 1950. Vol. V. Special Reports 6.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1952.

Veysey, Laurence R. The Emergence of the American University. Chicago u.a.: University

of Chicago Press, 1970.

Warwick, Herbert S. “Facts About the Ohio State University Association.” The Ohio State

University Alumni Association, November 23, 1912. UA.RG3.E.0002, RG 3.E

William Oxley Thompson Papers. The Ohio State University Archives.

327

Weiss, Colin Russell. “Free Silver and Financial Frictions.” University of California, Los

Angeles, 2017. https://escholarship-org.proxy.lib.ohio-

state.edu/uc/item/2f7041mb.

Wells, E.H. “E.H. Wells Letter to Ralph D. Mershon,” July 5, 1910. UA.RG3.E.0002, RG

3.E William Oxley Thompson Papers. The Ohio State University Archives.

Wells, Wyatt. “Rhetoric of the Standards: The Debate over Gold and Silver in the 1890s.”

The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era 14, no. 01 (January 2015): 49–

68. https://doi.org/10.1017/S153778141400053X.

Widder, Keith R. Michigan Agricultural College: The Evolution of a Land-Grant

Philosophy, 1855-1925. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 2004.

Wiebe, Robert H. The Search for Order, 1877-1920. New York: Hill and Wang, 1967.

Williams, Roger L. The Origins of Federal Support for Higher Education: George W.

Atherton and the Land-Grant College Movement. First edition. University Park,

PA: Penn State Press, 1991.

Zam, Gerard Anthony. “The Competition Over the Morrill Land Grant Funds in Ohio,

1862-1870 (the Ohio State University, Higher, Agricultural Education).” Ph.D.,

The Ohio State University, 1985. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.ohio-

state.edu/docview/303412473/abstract/A938EF09281A4DE3PQ/1.

Zunz, Olivier. Making America Corporate, 1870-1920. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press, 1990.

The Lantern. February 1884, Vol. IV, No. II edition. The Ohio State University Archives.

The Grange Visitor. February 20, 1896, 4 edition.

328

Appendix A. Annie Sabine Siebert’s Address to the Alumni at the Alumni Dinner

1900-1901

Address

The Relation of Alumni to their Universities

Annie W. Sabine Siebert, President

It is said by students of German universities that “of those who enter the university doors, one-third breaks down, one-third goes to the devil, but the remaining third governs Europe.” This remaining third is no doubt helped to positions of public esteem and responsibility through the ideals that animate European and especially

German life. On the continent the career of the scholar is an honored one, and only the man who has added something to the sum of the world’s knowledge can hope to hold up his head with those who belong by birth to the aristocracy. And the result has been the development and perfection of the professions of the scholar.

In this age of American prosperity we glow with pride over industrial and commercial success, much of which is due to our recognition of business intellect and to the prospect held out of winning social recognition through the influence of accumulated wealth. We do not believe with Tolstoi that “Fortunes are accumulated, either by violence—the most common way, or by avarice, or by some huge villainy, or by chronic swindling, as in the case of trade.” We honor the man with a fortune and almost go so far, as was recently done in Chicago, as to rank his genius with Shakespeare’s. 329

We need not carry further this contrast betwen [sic.] the ideals of our country and those of our more scholarly neighbors. It is welcome news from those who are making observations from the heights that these two contrasting ideals have reached their greatest amplitude and are now approaching each other. Moreover, our government is coming to recognize the value of scholarly attainment. According to Dr. Pritchett, president of

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the majority of the men who fill the legislative, executive and judicial places of the general government is drawn from the exceedingly small proportion of college-trained men in our population—less than one per cent. of our

76,000,000 people. And President Thwing of Western Reserve University, after careful study, declares that the college man in America today has 250 times the advantage over the non-college man in taking up the world’s work and winning the world’s fame. In support of these generalizations many facts and figure might be given which throw a floor of light upon the efficiency of college or university training in America. If these generalizations are true, there I no room for doubt as to the wisdom displayed by the

United States and State governments in establishing and endowing higher institutions of learning. Surely the investments thus made are bringing in a high rate of interest in the form of the greatly increased potentiality of the beneficiaries.

We, who have enjoyed this “supreme privilege of youth” – four years in college— and have taken our places in the affairs of the world, become sometimes so absorbed in our present occupations that we forget the earlier home ties that bind us to our Alma

Mater. The wok we do in attaining a respectable place in the world, the position we take in politics, the investigations we make in the name of science, and the devotion we pay to

330 the ideals of business, art and literature are all evidences, in a way, of our appreciation of our earlier opportunities; but they do not wholly take the place of a more abundant and grateful expression which filial kindliness and courtesy would prompt.

The university we have left has still much that she would like to give us, and now we have something that we can give her. It is this mutual obligation, this two-old relationship of graduates to their universities, that I have chosen for my text this afternoon.

I have thought that it might not be uninteresting nor unprofitable for us, as alumni, to consider today a few of the relations obtaining between graduates and their colleges with a view to realizing more clearly our own opportunities and obligations. We are still few in number and young in years and perhaps belong to the adolescent age, which, while it is so sluggish in attainment and halting in expression, is at the same time wonderfully open and receptive to new ideas. I have, therefore, taken the pains to make some inquiries of our older sister institutions on the subject The questions I have asked are (1) what is your institution doing for its graduates; (2) what representation have the alumni on the governing board of the university, and (3) how have the graduates responded in making gifts to the university out of the fullness of their prosperity? These questions represent the debit and credit side of the mutual relationship.

When Professor Taussig of Harvard visited the middle West as the guest of the graduate clubs of the university he represented, he was impressed by the importance of having loyal alumni scattered throughout the country, and said: “While the number of students who come to a university is an indication of its present prestige and

331 attractiveness, its true influence and permanent repute rest on what those students do in after life. And the tale of this influence is told most significantly, not by the lives of those who achieve fame, but by the persistence of a high average of character and capacity in the careers of the many. Brilliant performance in any walk of life is probably due most of all to inborn gifts—gifts which may be nurtured and directed by education, but of which the source is hidden in the mystery of biological variation. For this reason, the fashion of pointing with pride to the most famous among the sons of a university rests on a promise essentially insecure. It is the great mass of the students who are most moulded by the influences of education; and it is the lives of the great mass of the alumni that show what has been done for them and for the community by their Alma Mater.” President Seeley of

Smith College said practically, the same thing in a more concise way when he said that the alumni are the best advertisement a college can have. When Mr. and Mrs. Stanford, wishing to erect a memorial to their son, were visiting the large universities of the East, they asked the president of one of them what the institution had cost, referring, of course, to the collection of great lecture halls, libraries, laboratories and the endowments of the various departments. The president answered: “About twenty millions.” Mrs. Stanford, turning to her husband, said in her earnest, ingenuous way: “Well, Leland, we can afford that, can’t we?” But money cannot purchase traditions, or memories of a long line of successful teachers, and the rank and file of graduates who are a glory and a strength.

Many institutions, realizing this, seek to maintain in the larger world of affairs, the friendly relations begun in the smaller college world, and count their work not done until

332 through their appointment committees and employment bureaus the light they have kindled finds a larger sphere for illumination.

What, then, are our sister institutions doing for their alumni? Many of them sustain employment agencies, or, as they are more frequently called, appointment committees, the object and work of which can be best described by giving an illustration.

About six or seven years ago Harvard established an appointment committee composed of representatives from every department under the faculty of arts and science. This committee keeps a card catalogue of the names of graduates who have registered with its secretary, as candidates for positions of various kinds, but especially as teachers.

Whenever an application is received from a school or college for a teacher of any particular subject, the secretary of the committee at once corresponds with the representative of the corresponding department, who, together with the secretary, decides upon a list of candidates. The purpose of the committee is to put men into all sorts of places, but it is more difficult to fill vacancies in the business world, and this part of the work is not yet fully developed. The greatest part of the committee’s work is, naturally, that of recommending men for positions as teachers, for the instructors in a university are better able to speak of a student’s scholarship and teaching qualities that they are to estimate his business ability. Furthermore, university men are far more apt to know of vacant places for teachers than they are of other vacancies. Since the Harvard committee was organized more than twenty other colleges and universities have asked for a description of its work; and it is fair to presume that even a larger number have established some such bureau for the benefit of their graduates. So far as known these

333 bureaus render their services—which are not light by any means—without money and without price. They charge no registration fee, and they do not ask for the commission of five per cent. to be deducted from the first year’s salary, as is the practice of ordinary teachers’ agencies.

We turn next to alumni representation on the governing board of educational institutions.

Colleges and universities are coming generally to recognize their graduates in a formal and official capacity. Members of the alumni are being accorded representation on boards of trust and administration, and are proving by their fidelity and devotion to the best interests of the college they serve their fitness to enjoy this privilege and honor. The conditions of representation vary greatly, no two colleges receiving their alumni on their boards of trust on quite the same terms. In certain points, however, there is a general agreement. Thus, only those graduates who have been out of college for at least five years are considered eligible for such positions, and no alumnus who is connected with the teaching force of the institution is allowed to vote for members of the board of trustees or other administrative body.

Of non-State institutions some have two governing boards, like Bowdoin, Brown, and Harvard. At Harvard both the Corporation of seven members and the Board of

Overseers of thirty members are composed of alumni. The Corporation whose functions are similar to those of the legal trustees of an estate, if not even more absolute, is self- perpetuating—electing a man to fill a vacancy as it may occur. The Board of Overseers, whose duty it is to keep in touch by committees with the work and needs of the various

334 departments and whose direct action is a whole of an advising and confirming nature, is elected, five each year, by the alumni. The election takes place on commencement day, and ballots can be cast only by graduates in attendance. The successful candidates are elected from a list of nominees chosen by a letter ballot from a much larger list submitted earlier in the year to all who have held for five or more years the degree of A.B. or A.M.

Membership on the board is not restricted to resident graduates, and in the present body there are four from New York, two from Philadelphia, one from Chicago, one from St.

Paul, and there are members from other distant cities, all of whom are faithful attendants at the regular meetings of the board.

It is worth noting that the Harvard system of elections and representation does two things: (1) It avoids the predominating influence of the graduating class and of the classes recently graduated and remaining in the neighborhood of Cambridge; (2) without neglect of the more distant alumni, it nevertheless gives the greater weight to those whose interest in the university brings them each year to Cambridge.

Commencement at Harvard is surely a day of delight to the alumnus. Every attention is shown to the returned graduate, and everything is done for his comfort and pleasure. When the time comes for the commencement dinner, an imposing procession of the alumni, in the order of their classes, marches into the banqueting hall, the oldest surviving alumnus present occupying a post of honor in the van of the long line, and thus, as Lowell wittily says, “He has the best chance at the dinner who has the fewest teeth to eat it.” The members of the graduating class are cheered by their older comrades, but in the august company of the older men these neophytes cannot escape the feeling that they

335 are taking only their first degree, and are but making their “entrance into the fellowship of scholars.” This feeling is intensified by the conferring of honorary degrees on those alumni who have specially distinguished themselves in their chosen fields; and all will finally share the privilege of voting for the board of overseers of their college, a body that has the confirming power in the appointment of all officers of instruction.

“During the last few years,” Professor Hart says, “these overseers have taken more nearly the position of importance which their historical origin and their representative character would suggest. For, beside their negative powers of passing on appointments and on measures of university policy sent down to them by the corporation, they have shown a strong disposition to take positive action, and have got into the laudable habit of requesting information from the faculties as a basis for their own votes.

The overseers are now making a greater effort than at any time during the last thirty years to apply the love and interest of the alumni as one of the forces in the forward projection of the university.”

Dartmouth, Amherst, and Yale are good types of institutions having only a single governing board; and in this group, Yale, like Harvard in the preceding group stands for a free and generous recognition of the privileges of her graduates. At Dartmouth and

Amherst alumni can only make nominations; at Yale they elect six of their own members to a board of nineteen.

The State Universities have a franchise essentially different. So far as I have been able to learn, all of them are under the control of a single board of trustee, appointed either by the legislature of the State, or by the governor, or elected by the people. In each

336 case the alumni enjoy the “pleasing fiction” of nominating their representatives. That they have been fortunate in having their choice honored by appointment in so many cases proves not only their good judgement but the wisdom of the policy.

The graduates of Indiana and Cornell Universities, however, have the still greater privilege of electing their representatives. This was made possible by the surrender on the part of the State of a portion of its right of appointment, thus introducing into the government of these universities a new and deeply interested element.

The experience of all institutions having alumni representation seems to show that such representation is a good thing. It brings the graduates into closer touch with university affairs, makes them cautious in their criticisms, and opens a proper channel for their constructive energies, under the guidance of the president and governing board, who know most about the needs of the university and the methods to be pursued in meeting these needs. It is well for Harvard that she can draw her sons to her year after year with unfailing and helpful interest; it is well for Cornell that in the letter ballots sent out every year to her alumni she spreads her name and fame to every part of the globe, and renews each year in the minds of her graduates the thought of benefits received and things to be done for the honor and advantage of alma mater. And it is certainly good for the alumnus, separated as he is from the scenes of his college life and aspirations, to be kept in touch with a greater center of education and inspiration. We, the alumni of a State University, are more truly than graduates of non-State colleges, beneficiaries of the State; and the fulfillment of the duties of citizenship include, therefore, the maintenance of cordial relations with the institution to which we owe so much. Being worthy citizens of the

337

State, we must also be worthy sons and daughters of our alma mater. The relationship is a perfectly natural one; and the propriety of its recognition receives striking illustration in the case of the University of Michigan, where fifty per cent. of the administrative board of the university are chosen from among the alumni. All the votes or Michigan have a voice in the selection of the university board of control, and the graduates of their great college are found to be their best representatives. In Wisconsin, also, the alumni are accorded a generous recognition. The regents of the University of Wisconsin are appointed by the governor, two from the State at large, and one from each congressional district; but even under this arrangement the alumni comprise, at present, one-fourth of the board. In Illinois the members of the board of university trustees are elected on a

State ticket, and the alumni have had a representation for the past ten or fifteen years. Of the six members of the board of Kansas University, appointed by the governor, four are alumni. Of the nine on the board of visitors of Virginia University, appointed in the same way, six are alumni. And of the regents of Iowa University, chosen by the legislature of the State, eight out of eleven are graduates of the university. Indeed, the principle of alumni representation is recognized in practice, if not in theory, by all the State

Universities, though not in an equal measure by all. And the history and present condition of the institutions cited as examples appear to indicate that the policy is wise and beneficial.

President Thwing says: “The American college cannot do too much to foster the intimacy of relationship between itself and its graduates.” The college loves her graduates as her sons, “she glories in them as those to whom she has given her life. No association

338 between an institution and those who have received its benefits is to intimate or should be so intimate, is so loving and loyal, as that which is found between a college and its graduates. The fondness of a college for its graduates, based upon a relation covering only four years, is absolutely unique among the more public humane relationships.” We have been considering only one aspect of this relationship; let us for a time consider the other, that of the fondness of a college man for his college. This fondness takes the form of sympathetic interest in all that concerns the well-being of his institution, of pleasure in the extension of her influence and the increase of her power. It tempers the graduate’s judgement of this alma mater’s policies, and rebukes the harsher criticism that comes from outsiders. This fondness is a cultivatable thing, and grows with the knowledge an alumnus can obtain of his university.

To this end alumni associations seek, through publications, bulletins, magazines, and reports, issued early, quarterly or weekly, to reach all members whom they cannot attract to their yearly meetings. Perhaps the oldest of such publications is the Harvard graduates’ magazine, now completing its ninth volume. It is full of the news of the day in the university world, and contains reports from the departments, schools and scientific establishments of the university. It has many interesting literary notes and book reviews; often has refreshing articles from old professors, and many interesting “observations from the graduates’ window,” and news from the classes. It is a magazine issued quarterly, which contains much of interest to any university graduate, whether an alumnus of

Harvard or not.

339

The university at Ann Arbor publishes a monthly magazine called “The Michigan

Alumnus.” The university news is collected and edited by a graduate, who is also a professor in the university, and relates to the equipment, progress, and publications of the different departments and schools. The magazine has been so successful that by action of the Board of Regents it has been made the official record of the university. In the news from the classes are found items of interest concerning all former students of the institution, non-graduates as well as graduates.

“The Cornell Alumni News” is a weekly paper, published by three resident alumni, and sixteen alumni advisors, scattered through the country, with the assistance of seven undergraduates. As it contains the calendar for the week, and notes and articles of general interest, it appeals to the undergraduates as well as the graduates.

“The Technology Review” of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is a very interesting publication. Its aim, as stated on its title page, is “To develop closer relations among institute men, and to stimulate their interest in the work of the college. It is no sense an engineering magazine, but deals broadly with the problems of technological education and the responsibilities of the professional man.” It is published by the association of class secretaries. These secretaries serve as the representatives of their classes, so that all the classes, from the first in ’68, have equal share in the publication. It is the duty of each secretary to record the news items concerning the different members of his class; and fuller and more interesting accounts are thus secured than would be likely if left to individual responses.

340

The secretary of the alumni of Brown University, co-operating with an appointed member of the faculty, draws up a brief paper each year stating the chief events of the college year and the main wants of the college. The University of Virginia also issues an

“Alumni Bulletin.”

These publications of the alumni, and for the alumni, form a vital connection between a university and its graduates. If a university is unknown to its children, how can it hope to attract the attention of strangers; and the fondness of a college man for his college can be refreshed from time to time by this friendly exchange of information in periodically published reports.

All men are born to equal rights, but they attain to unequal obligations. The superior advantages that an educated man receives are only a preparation fitting him for the higher duties that he is later to assume. Some of these obligations he owes to his alma mater. Let us consider a few of the returns that alumni have already made in meeting these obligations.

By far the greater number of the private benefactors of Harvard have arisen from among her alumni. “To provide for the maintenance of the university,” Secretary Hurlbut says, “men have given of their store, small or great, for more than two centuries and a half. In the days of poverty and struggle when money was scarce in the colony, they gave of the produce of their land in proportion to that which God had given them. With the increase of prosperity they have given not more liberally, but more largely, until today

(this was written in 1896), the value of the possessions of the university in land, buildings and money amounts to fully $14,000,00.” “The gifts to the university continue in an ever-

341 flowing stream, and amount to about $500,000 annually.” It is said: “Harvard’s sons, dying or preparing to die, are apt to remember their alma mater.” This spirit, which is so productive of happy and generous returns to the university, is encouraged early in a student’s career. For many years it has been the custom of each graduating class of

Harvard to raise a sum of money by subscription among its own members, to which is added the residue from the sale of tickets to class day festivities; and the sum total of all these gifts, amounting to a good many thousand dollars, is put on interest by the treasurer of the class. After the lapse of about twenty-five years the principal with the accumulated interests is used for the erection of a suitable memorial. Here courtesy and custom comes to the rescue of what, intended as a benefit, might be a misfortune to the university; in deciding on the nature of their memorial the president’s advice is invariably sought, and the memorial nature of the gift is largely concealed by its usefulness. The older classes for a number of years placed stained glass windows in Memorial Hall—a building erected in honor of the student soldiers that fell in our civil war. The classes whose turns are now coming are rejoicing in the opportunity of building sections of the splendid wrought-iron fence and gateways with which the older part of the yard is being enclosed.

One class, only twelve years out of college, in its eagerness to make an offering of a gateway, sent out to each member a secret request for a subscription to the required

$5000 in order that their application to make the gift might be in the hands of the corporation before a certain date. Their circular contains a clause cautioning members of the class to keep the project quiet among themselves to prevent the possibility of arousing some other class who might antedate them in filling an application. Unhappily it is not

342 every college that would be called upon to deal with such a flagrant case of supererogation.

At a recent banquet in Chicago of the Northwestern Association of the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the new president, Dr. Pritchett, met eighty-three of the alumni and expressed himself as well pleased with the genuine enthusiasm they displayed when a plan was announced for completing a fund with which to erect a building for physical culture as a memorial in honor of the late president, Dr. Francis A.

Walker. A subscription of $3500 was raised in fifteen minutes. The alumni expect to raise

$100,000 among themselves by July 1st. They have already established a scholarship fund of $10,000 a memorial to their first president, William B. Rogers.

These are only a few of the gifts made to our privately-endowed colleges and university by their alumni. President Hadley says that he would be “disposed to guess that about one-half of the total gifts to Yale University had been contributed by her graduates.” Columbia “has received gifts from her alumni exceeding $2,000,000.” The

Dean of Brown University writes that during the whole life of the university her alumni have been making many contributions, and have lately undertaken to raise a sum of

$2,000,000 as an endowment fund. Within the last few months, action has been taken to place five alumni on the board of trustees of Princeton in recognition of the liberal support she has always received from them.

Examples might be multiplied of such conspicuous generosity. The authorities of some universities say that their graduates are too young to be able to make large or liberal gifts, but have assisted heartily in all movements to further the interests of the

343 institutions. This is especially true of state universities, and no doubt many of them content themselves with the belief expressed by the President of Iowa State University, when he says: “The alumni have made the richest possible gift to the university in that they send their children to us.” This certainly is not only a species of loyalty to be encouraged, but a good investment as well. The University of Pennsylvania is proud to say that besides the gift of over a million from one class along (’62), “The great expansion now going on in all departments is to a great extent due to the gifts of the alumni.” But few universities have kept their alumni contributions separate from others.

President Angell finds it impossible to give an exact figure, but believes it safe to say that

$75,000 have been given by the alumni to the University of Michigan. Cornell University boasts that her gifts have come, “to a considerable extent, from alumni of other American universities”; which goes to prove a statement made in the Forum not many numbers ago, that “There is no investment so safe, so certain of rendering the service which it is ordained to render, as money entrusted to a well-established college.”

Donations from alumni are of necessity often made up of many small gifts. Their especial value is indeed due to this very fact. It enables many more to indulge in the pleasurable exercise of giving, and it fosters their interest as well as expresses it. Small contributions, while they cannot build great structures and increase the girth of a great university, plant, are yet very helpful in strengthening departments, increasing laboratory facilities, adding books to libraries, and swelling an allowance fund for worthy teachers and meritorious students. Members of the alumni of the University of Wisconsin have recently established several fellowships having an annual value of from $250 to $400.00.

344

A few years ago President Eliot reported a gift of peculiar acceptability, offered by an alumnus, of $200,000 toward the retiring allowance fund for Harvard professors that have spent their lives in the service of the university. At the same time a university that is the recipient of many small contributions from a large number of those interested in her welfare can never suffer the imputation that her policy is under the secret control of any single benefactor.

It goes without saying that gifts of money are a very acceptable expression of interest in university work, but an alumnus, whose utterance in this way is not particularly golden, has many other opportunities for responding to his obligation to his university. Professor Denney believes that a university does not expect too much when it looks to its graduates to hold positive and well-grounded opinions on educational subjects, and “to use their influence to better local educational conditions wherever they may be,” “to shrink from no effort necessary to keep good men in power on the school boards,” and “to be earnest in giving strong and firm support to aspiring teachers in their communities.” A steady manifestation of this kind of interest, which is possible to every one of us, tends to better the public schools, which in every one of us, tends to better the public schools, which in turn determine the standard of pupils sent to the universities. Is it too much to ask all college graduates to extend their interest along educational lines until perchance the teacher in the university realizes a little of the respect and encouragement due his scholarly efforts and attainments. The alumni of our American institutions are under a serious charge today, brought by Professor Münsterberg, formerly connected with a German university, and now a professor of psychology in this country, who, I

345 think, fully appreciates the struggle the American college is making to live up to its name of university. He says: “How surprised one is when he sees the alumni of an American university meet, and listens to their speeches in praise of alma mater! He hears beautiful words about patriotism and liberal education, about athletics and gifts of money, about the glorious history and the gifted sons who have become men of public affairs; but that the university is a place for productive scholarship is recognized. We are ever laboring under a confusion of terms – college and university, -but as America is believed to be the

“upper-most to date” country we have the faith that she will evolve an institution which, while it aims to furnish a liberal culture, will also be dominated by a spirit for scholarly methods. In the meantime, why cannot the alumni have a part in the encouragement of this university spirit, and be interested to know of the work our professors are doing in special and original lines, work which, while it gives them reputation in the world of scholars abroad, takes them out of the field of view of their unenquiring friends at home, by reason of its absorbing and exacting nature. May we not encourage that spirit in the teacher which, while it involves him in special programs, enables him to increase the sum of human knowledge, keeps him fresh for class-room work, and renders him an inspiration to his students. As educated men and women we are interested, or should be, in all scholarly achievemens [sic.], and should be hearty in giving such achievements our recognition and applause.

The graduates’ relation to his university is then a reciprocal one. He receives from her a mental and moral training in return for which he may, and in many cases does, endow her with his worldly goods; she follows him with a parental and kindly interest,

346 and in the natural order of things honors him with positions of trust and esteem on her boards of administration and faculties; and it should not be too great a return to expect from him that he labor for her upbuilding, boast of her scholarship, and render all his criticisms tempered with filial respect. President Angell says: “The ardent affection of the graduates of a university is a richer treasure than the uncounted gold of a stranger.” And our own President well says: “An institution, like an individual, needs friends always,” and in the relationship of an alumnus to his alma mater “There is so much in friendliness and loyalty that they seem to cover the entire field”.

347