Miss Henrietta B. Haines, 10 Gramercy Park, N.Y.

DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER INSTRUCTION.

TUESDAY, AUGUST 5th, 1873.

The Department met at the City Hall, at 2:30 P.M.

The President and Vice-President being absent, on motion of W. D. HENKLE, of Ohio, Dr. DANIEL REED, of Missouri, was appointed President pro tem. CHAS. W. ELIOT, President of Harvard University, read the following report:

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY.

This report has three parts,-first, an account of what this Asscociation has done about a national university since 1869; secondly, an examination of two bills on the subject which were brought before Congress in 1872; and lastly, a discussion of the true policy of our government upon this matter. At the conclusion of an address on "The Progress of University Education," delivered by Dr. JOHN W. HOYT, of Wisconsin, before the National Teachers' Association at Trenton, New Jersey, on the 20th of August, 1869, the following resolution was unanimously adopted:

Resolved, That, in the opinion of this association, a great American university is a leading want of American education, and that, in order to contribute to the early establishment of such an institution, the president of this association, acting in concert with the president of the National Superintendents' Association, is hereby requested to appoint a committee consisting of one member from each of the states, and of which Dr. J. W. HOYT, of Wisconsin, shall be chairman, to take the whole matter into consideration, and to make such report thereon, at the next annual convention of said association, as shall seem to be demanded by the interests of the country.

This committee was duly appointed, but did nothing whatever during the year 1869-'70. Nevertheless, the chairman, acting in the name of the committee, presented at the Cleveland meeting, in August, 1870, what was called "a preliminary report," and asked that the committee might have more time. This preliminary report describes in elevated language the "leading offices of a true university," compares our existing institutions with European universities, paints a glowing picture of the future of the United States, sets forth with enthusiasm what a great university would do for the country, avoids all embarrassing details, leaves the precise character of the institution, its location, its constitution and mode of government quite undefined, and assumes only thisthat there should be one great central institution, and that for the founding

and endowing thereof the private citizen, the state and the general government must unite. It passed by all matters likely to suggest objections, and called for no specific action whatever on the part of the association; the chairman alone was responsible for it, and it bore only his signature. Of course, the report was accepted and the request for more time was granted.

At the St. Louis meeting of the National Educational Association, in August, 1871, Dr. Hoyr and a minority of the committee appointed in 1869 presented a second report. This report again avoids all details of what the proposed institution should be and where it should be, but says in general terms that it should be comprehensive, high, free, untrammeled by considerations of section, party or creed, rich, and so coördinated with the other institutions of the country as in no way to conflict with them. Further, this second report defines in some measure what the preliminary report vaguely spoke of as the necessary coöperation of the citizen, the state, and the general government. It appears in the second report that "the original endowment . . . . will need to be furnished by the government, and Congress must therefore determine the general terms and conditions upon which the institution shall be administered"; that "proper authorities in the several states may have a voice in its management"; and "that individual citizens and associations of citizens should be cordially invited to endow such departments . . as shall most enlist their sympathies." The report then presents some arguments in favor of the right of Congress to endow a university, and says that the idea of a national university "is in perfect harmony with the policy and practice of the government," and that "it remains but to determine the best means calculated to secure the adoption of the most judicious plan for the institution, and to insure the Congressional and other aid necessary to the full success of the enterprise." Thereupon the committee recommend that "there be raised a new and permanent committee of less numbers than the present-say fifteen to be known as the national university committee"; that a quite limited number of members thereof should be a quorum for the transaction of business at any regularly called meeting, and that a majority shall have power to supply. vacancies . . . ." The concluding sentence of the report is as follows: "A committee of this character would be able, in the first place, to concentrate the best thought of the country upon the various important questions involved in the perfection of a plan for the institution; and, secondly, to marshal the strength of the country in systematic and effective support of the measure, when at last formally brought to the attention of Congress." This report was signed by a little less than half of the members of the original committee. The report was accepted, and the proposed permanent committee of fifteen was appointed. I do not find that the number of members of this committee which should constitute a quorum was fixed by this association. By taking this action at the St. Louis meeting, the association showed that it entertained the idea of a single dominant university for the country, and contemplated, without disapprobation, the establishment thereof by the general government, and through its committee the association undertook— first, to prepare a plan for such an institution, and, secondly, to urge the plan, when prepared, upon Congress.