ganization of the University under the old system, particularly the absence of a permanent executive officer or President, to watch over and control its internal affairs, more than any other cause, led to the misunderstanding between the former Regents and Professors. Under the existing system we trust a similar misunderstanding will never occur.” ́

So far had public confidence and respect been withdrawn that, notwithstanding the constant increase in the population of the State, and notwithstanding the general appreciation of the advantages of a gratuitous liberal education, the number of students in the department of letters had diminished to the small total of about forty, and the hold upon these was very precarious.

We can not find more reliable evidence of the change which was wrought within the term of office of that Board, than by again extracting from their report:

"As soon as the financial condition of the University, and the information in possession of the Board justified the measure, Henry P. Tappan, LL. D., of New York city, was elected President of the University, and by virtue of his office became its principal executive officer, which duty he has steadily performed with honor to himself and profit to the institution over which he presides. Believing that his views of a proper University education are liberal, progressive, and adapted to the present age, we have sustained him to the extent of our ability, in all measures for the advancement of the University, and it gives us pleasure to add, that we have rarely disagreed with him as to its true interests, during the period we have been associated in charge of the institution. The prosperity of the University and its adaptation to the highest educational wants of the people, can no longer be questioned. The evidence of this is found in its present freedom from financial embarrassment, and in the deservedly high reputation it maintains at home and abroad."

The report shows that at its date (December 31st, 1857) the number of students had increased in the department of letters to two hundred and seventysix, (during a period of great financial embarrassment,) and in the other departments, to such an extent, that there were four hundred and fifty students then in attendance.

And the Board of Visitors of that year (Hon. J. D. Pierce, the first Superintendent of Public Instruction, and Hon. H. C. Knight) in their report set forth "what the University had become:"

"It has been founded about twenty years. Within that period much useful experience has been acquired, and some erroneous ideas have been corrected. The experiment of a government without a head has been tried and abandoned. Whilst much good has been done and foundations have been laid during all these twenty years, the decided prosperity of the University is quite recent. Within three years, it has, by a sudden leap, reached a rank in reputation and actual efficiency, not perhaps equal with the very first of American institutions, but certainly inferior to very few."

Let it be marked by all that, at this most difficult period in the administration of affairs, there was no conflict of authority between the President and tho Regents, no allegation that there had been any arrogation by the former of the powers and prerogatives of the latter. On the contrary, by mutual confidence, respect and cordiality, by earnest co-operation and conciliatory bearing, without jealousies or unjust suspicions, or unworthy depreciation of motives, the

work of building up the institution had gone forward with entire harmony and most gratifying success.

It is quite evident from these facts and this experience, that there was no necessary conflict in the legitimate duties of the President and the Board-no inevitable occasion for any misunderstanding between them, in the honest effort to fulfill their responsibilities, without sinister objects or ulterior ends. And it seems also fairly inferable that there was nothing in the character, conduct or views of the President at all incompatible with a due regard for the proper authority of the Regents, or calculated to embarrass them in any legitimate action.

It was not until the present Board acceded to power that any difficulties arose. A recurrence to the history of those difficulties will enable the public to judge whether any imperative necessity, or even any considerate regard for the interests of the University, demanded or justified the recent action of the Board in the removal of the President.

Before doing this, however, it should be stated that every published report of the Board of Regents, and the respective Boards of Visitors, down to the present time, has represented the University to be in a most prosperous condition, and constantly improving in reputation and efficiency. And it has never been intimated to the people that there was any occasion for any important change in the management of the institution.

A reference to the published "School Reports" of the past ten years will verify our statement, and will also aid us in the consideration of the causes which instigated the removal of the President.

No formal statement of reasons for this action has been given to the public, or placed upon the records of the Board.

Why not? Was it because the charges were of such a monstrous character that, from a considerate regard to Dr. Tappan, the Board humanely avoided publication to the world?

His open challenge to the Board at the time of their action, and the reiterated demands of his friends since that day, stamp with falsity the base innuendo. Was it because the Regents so highly recognize the dignity of their office that they do not consider it compatible with their elevated duty to make known their grounds of action?

This Board, unlike any other, have courted notoriety; from the day of their accession to office, they have proclaimed that their meetings were open to all; they have urged newspapers to send reporters, and, in the absence of such, one of their own number has himself "kept the public fully informed" of such measures as would help on his purposes. If it was thought proper to put before the public the most unimportant as well as the least creditable details of their proceedings, it is scarcely probable that this matter was suppressed from a delicate sense of propriety.

Was it because they feared the effect of "agitation" upon the interests of the University?

We protest that if sound reasons existed, a calm, fair and impartial exposition would in nowise have induced such excited discussion or such violent feeling as the method adopted was calculated to provoke. The permanent welfare of such an institution will hardly be promoted by the silent, unexplained expulsion of a chief officer whose services have been publicly acknowledged and appreciated during a long series of years.

No! such motives did not actuate the men in power; we believe that events will show (no matter how it may be hereafter attempted to frame a subtle defense of the action)—that the Regents did not dare to place then upon the record and before the people their real reasons.

The determination of those favoring the removal was secret. It was not even mentioned to a part of the Board until the day before the action. No discussion was had in the Board or by any formal meeting.

The proceeding was purposely abrupt and disrespectful. All ordinary courtesy was ignored. The resolutions were curt and betokened malice—they did not recognize any merit, nor acknowledge the slightest service, nor admit the discharge of any duty by the officer who had labored in the institution for many years. And, to make their action more personally offensive, they pursue a similar course with a member of his family who had quietly, unobtrusively and acceptably discharged the humble duties of Librarian.

We believe that events will show that the removal of Dr. Tappan is to be attributed to the personal hostility and selfish ambition of one member and to the cold, money-grasping purposes of another member of the Board.

They came into power on the 1st of January, 1858. Immediately the columns of one of the Detroit papers were occupied with lengthy letters from anonymous correspondents, purporting to be located in different portions of the State, while in fact they all clearly marked the same author. These letters, with occasional articles, were continued through a series of years; they contained low-bred attacks upon the President, insulting innuendoes impeaching his integrity, ridiculing his character and depreciating his efforts; they fomented difficulties among the professors and paraded before the public their petty bickerings; they disparaged the astronomical observatory, and sought to wound the sensibilities of the director; they caviled at the slightest expenditure for the purpose of aiding this officer in his efforts, and they made light of his studies and the results of his observation. The unfortunate incident of his connection with the President condemned him as an additional object of assault from ignorant malice.

The venom of these articles proved its own antidote. The spirit which dictated them was so manifestly malignant that they ceased to have any influence upon the public mind except disgust toward the author.

Unsuccessful in this effort, and learning wisdom from experience, a more covert and insidious plan was adopted. The public avowal had been made that the President should be removed before the Board went out of office; and the person making it was too persistent to be baffled or discouraged by a single failure.

Under the pretext that the rules for the government of the University required compilation and revision, he obtained such action that a "Code of Bylaws," &c., was presented to the Board within a few months after their accession to office, and when they were comparatively unacquainted with the administration of the institution. The spirit and purpose of the Code was to take from the President very many of the powers which had been conceded to him by the previous Board, some of which were essential to his efficiency as the "chief executive officer of the University." By specious argument the Regents were induced to adopt this code, were led to believe that upon them alone rested the entire responsibility of the administration of the institution, without ref

erence or deference to the President. Ten standing committees were appointed, among whom the power was nominally divided; but, in fact, one Regent was chairman of seven of the most important committees. And, in process of time, almost the entire duties of the Board were devolved upon the two Regents whose proximity to the University enabled them to assume the power most readily. One of these men being Chairman of the Finance Committee, and also custodian of the funds, and having obtained the appointment of a near relative as Steward, made it his special task to demonstrate by his practices the complete subordination of the President to his arbitrary authority. Without prolonging this review, we believe that we are justified in charging that the removal of the President is to be attributed to the constant scheming and unwearied efforts of a small minority in the Board. In saying this we do not ignore the fact that written evidence exists showing a secret intrigue on the part of two persons-one formerly connected with, and another now a member of the Faculties-having in view the supplanting of Dr. Tappan, and the elevation of his elected successor. It may hereafter transpire that this influence working upon the Board during the past five years, has assisted in the accomplishment of the result. But it is to the systematic operations of this minority in the Board that the State is chiefly indebted for the present condition of things. By personal detraction through the press, by insults in the meetings of the Board, by studied disrespect in the presence of undergraduates, the head of the University has been beset for the past six years. Instead of advice and support and cordial co-operation, he has met with contempt; instead of a hearty sympathy in his efforts to build up a complete and finished University, his plans have been ridiculed, his projects hampered and embarrassed, and his action repudiated.

Members of the Faculties have been chosen, and others removed, without consultation with him. And when in the organization of a most important department, he suggested the expediency of selecting some person widely known and of extended influence throughout the country, the intimation was not only disregarded but was made use of to prejudice the opinions of those who were elected.

Hostility to the President with members of the Faculties has been purposely engendered and kept alive; jealousy of his authority and his reputation has been incited, and complaints to the Regents have been encouraged. To such an extent have members of the Faculties been made to feel their independence of the President and their complete subjection to the Regents, that when the latter required of them some open "acquiescence" in the recent action, they put before the public a garbled statement of the proceedings of the meeting of ten (out of twenty-two) members of the University Senate a statement which did not truly set forth the action then taken.

Flagrant falsehoods in respect to the moral influence of the President over the students, and as to the character of University discipline, have been slanderously put forth to destroy his hold upon right-minded people.

Through these various instrumentalities, the removal has been effected; and with it, as an inevitable and anticipated result, the Regents have also gained the resignation of Dr. Brunnow, the Director of the Astronomical Observatory -a modest, unobtrusive gentleman, whose genius and scholarly attainments are recognized by the highest scientific men in his department, both in Europe

and America. We do not cast the responsibility upon all the members of the Board. We believe that the majority of those favoring the action were the unwitting instruments of others, and that they were misled. Unworthy purposes in reference to the election of a successor-improper considerations which every friend of the University should frown upon, doubtless rendered some members more open to conviction and more ready to believe.

Certainly, if they had met the question in the proper manner, if they had required an open and impartial hearing of charges, they would have shown themselves more worthy of their high position, and would, perhaps, have arrived at a different conclusion.

They are responsible for the discourteous, unjust and arbitrary manner in which the proceedings were conducted.

The simple fact of their adopting such an important measure at the close of their term of office, without the slightest consultation with their successors, justifies the suspicion that their purpose was to forestall the action of the new Board, and to embarrass them in the consideration of the subject.

If they had only created the vacancy, and committed the choice of a successor to those who were soon to fill their places, and upon whom the responsibility of the choice would, of necessity, largely devolve, there would have been less reason for the belief that it was the purpose to surround the measure with such influences that it would require much firmness, independence and determination to investigate the grounds of their action.

The University belongs to the people of Michigan. Its endowments were made for your benefit. Its growth and prosperity are matters of personal interest to you.

We shall not undertake to show that the presence of Dr. Tappan and his character and influence are essential to its continued efficiency. The object of this paper is to place before you the grounds upon which the Alumni believe that great wrong to the person, and great injury to the institution, have been accomplished by the recent action of the Board.

Many of us were students under the old regime when there was no head to the University. Many have been students under the present administration; all concur with him who has been so unexpectedly (to us) called to take charge of the institution, that "the strength and reputation which the noble University of Michigan has attained, is to be attributed to the supervision of the " late "President." With that gentleman, too, we have had occasion to admire "the enter prise and faithfulness with which the late "President has educated the public opinion of Michigan." With him, the Alumni do "gratefully remember his former kindness, and our very pleasant and, to us, profitable associations in the past." But (not with him) do we indicate our gratitude by allowing the President to be rudely ejected from his office, and notified to quit his house, without uttering our solemn protest to the people of the State, whose servants have abused their trust.

In conclusion, the Alumni do not think themselves bold to say that, from their knowledge of the career of Dr. Tappan as President, from their acquaintance with his system of discipline, his demeanor with the students, his efforts with the people to make known the University and its real character, and to increase the public interest in its welfare; from his enlarged views of, and elaborate dissertations upon, the educational interests of the State, and from his