Michigan’s position as a state university has been strongly reflected in its ideals and policies. It could not be otherwise. But this relationship, the source of its strength in many aspects, has also carried with it certain dangers. The University has a two-fold function: it must teach the youth of the State and the Nation; but to do this effectively, it must also aim to do its share in enlarging the field of knowledge by encouraging scholarship and research on the part of members of the Faculties as well as by a certain proportion of the more advanced students. It is this latter function that is too easily overlooked in the demand for the ordinary and more “practical” courses which necessarily form so large a part of the modern curriculum. Yet even the most elementary college work cannot be given properly unless the instructor is in touch with the latest developments and discoveries in his own field, and this familiarity only comes through research, on his own part or by his colleagues.

But more than this the University, if it be worthy of the name, owes it to the State to be a leader and a guide in the development of the highest cultural standards; it should be a reservoir upon which the people of the State can draw for truth and guidance in the difficult problems of modern life. This cannot come without a strong emphasis on original and productive scholarship.

It has always been one of the sources of the University’s strength that this fact was understood, almost from the first, and that the claims of true scholarship and research have been increasingly recognized. It has been shown that in its first years Michigan was to all intents a replica in the West of the older and conservative colleges of the East; though there was a certain idealism and progressive spirit that tempered even then this recognition of long-established precedent. The West was liberal and disposed to create its own institutions upon a new basis, so that when the new ideals in education began to make themselves felt, about the middle of the nineteenth century, Michigan was ready for them.

With the coming of Dr. Tappan the movement, already foreshadowed by the Legislature in the very terms under which the University was organized, gained a new impetus and effective guidance, and it was not long before a remarkable series of constructive measures in the interest of higher education began. Most of them have been mentioned elsewhere, but it may not be amiss to suggest some of them once more; such as the emphasis on modern science, with the parallel classical and scientific courses within the academic department; the wide range of elections eventually introduced; the early inauguration of professional and graduate schools; the introduction of seminary and laboratory methods; the admission of women; the diploma system of admission from the high schools; and the recognition of the claims of special students.

Until within recent years also, the University had no marking system. The students were merely “passed,” “not passed,” or “conditioned.” This undoubtedly stimulated interest in study and scholarship for its own sake in the case of many students, though, in the absence of any of the usual college honors it encouraged a certain level of mediocrity in others. The change in the system and the introduction of the Phi Beta Kappa Society and similar organizations after 1907 resulted in a marked alteration in the attitude toward study and has undoubtedly raised appreciably the general level of scholarship.

Thus, though the University throughout its whole history necessarily has had to recognize the first claims of the students for instruction, often of a somewhat elementary character, there have always been influences which have kept the ideals of higher scholarship constantly in view. In the older days the idea of research in its modern sense was hardly understood; but as the atmosphere of European learning began to pervade American academic life the double function of a true university came to be more clearly recognized. Not only were facilities for research developed, but the scientific spirit, which refused to accept the limitations long established, and sought new truths, or new interpretations of old principles, became the order of the day.

This was the ideal of Michigan’s first President. But in his time the need for less advanced work was too pressing, the foundations had to be laid; though his efforts bore fruit long after he left, the victim in part of his high ideals of scholarship. Even in his time, however, certain steps were taken, aside from his effort to inaugurate true graduate study, which had a vital bearing on the development of research work in the future. These came through the establishment of the Astronomical Observatory and the Chemical Laboratory. Dr. Bruennow, the first Professor of Astronomy, came to Michigan inspired by a prospect of scholarly leadership and the results of his investigations and those of his pupil and successor, Professor Watson, gave to the University a world-wide reputation among scholars. The same was true, though perhaps to a lesser degree, of the Department of Chemistry, whose little Laboratory, the first separate building for that purpose in America, attracted advanced students from all quarters the enrolment of special students sometimes reaching seventy, of whom at least some were doing work corresponding to the graduate courses of the present time. The students of this department as a whole have had a profound influence upon the development of the industrial and commercial resources of the State.

With the succession of Dr. Haven to the Presidency, the emphasis was thrown almost entirely on the immediate and practical problems of general instruction. He was not a scholar in the modern sense, as was Dr. Tappan, and the University’s first requirement was fairly obvious. But the higher function of the University was not forgotten by the leading men of the Faculty. President Hutchins tells how he was drawn to Michigan in 1867 from his hillside farm home in Vermont by the reputation of Michigan’s Faculty. He had become greatly dissatisfied with the educational facilities offered in the East, though he did not know exactly what he wanted to do. Just at this time his father returned from a business trip in the West and reported that he had found the right place for him in the University of Michigan. The young man replied, “Oh, I know about Ann Arbor.” The father was somewhat surprised and asked how that happened. “Well,” said Michigan’s future President, “I have noticed that the editor of the Virgil I study is Professor Frieze, at Ann Arbor, and in Greek there is a Professor Boise; my French textbooks are by Professor Fasquelle; while in mathematics my books are by Professor Olney. It seems to me that must be a pretty good university.” So despite dire warning, from his grandmother as to the dangers from the desperadoes of the West, to say nothing of the Indians, he came to Michigan; drawn by the scholarly work of the men of that early Faculty, as were hundreds of other students.

It will of course be suggested that this work on the part of the Faculty was not “research” in the modern sense, though it was just as truly “productive scholarship.” And it was what was so regarded in those days. Besides it was evident that the University was amply fulfilling one of its great functions in laying the foundations for the present system of higher education. The teachers of the secondary schools as well as the colleges looked to these strong men for guidance and they found the support they needed. Their books were the necessary basis for the training of future scholars.

The gradual broadening of the University curriculum and its effect upon graduate study has already been mentioned. There was one development, however, which deserves special mention here. This was the inauguration of the so-called “University System.” President Tappan had laid down the principle that a student should be able to study “what he pleases, and to any extent he pleases,” and gradually the University had made such a course possible through the introduction of electives and the admission of special students, a privilege that was greatly appreciated by many students of mature years, who, after entering as special students, often remained to take a degree. In 1882 there came a third step in the removal of any fixed requirement as to the last two years of work. Such students as elected to follow the new plan known as the “University System,” were permitted to select, subject to approval, the general lines of study to be pursued during this period with a prescribed examination at the end. This work was to be in charge of a committee composed of the Professors in the subjects chosen, and was designed to give the students the advantages of such specialization as was suitable, as soon as practicable. The plan, however, did not prove popular, most of the students preferring the credit system; but the scheme “constituted for a time the constitutional basis of the Graduate School, in so far as that School had any real existence.” Probably the same general purpose, as far as preparation for the professions was concerned, was served at a later period by the combining of the literary and medical, and later, the law courses, enabling the student to begin his professional studies after his second year. Elsewhere such specialization as seemed desirable was attained after 1901, through the regular elections, when practically the whole curriculum was thrown open to general election, subject of course to a certain sequence of courses.

The professional departments have had a marked influence upon the University’s standing as a center of learning. This is particularly true of the Medical School, which naturally emphasized the value of scholarly training and investigation from the first. It is probably not an exaggeration to say that it was the impetus given by the Medical Faculty which was responsible for the high reputation the University enjoyed from the first, particularly in the sciences. To this fortunate development the two recruits from the Literary Faculty, Dr. Sager, who had been Professor of Botany and Zooelogy, and Dr. Douglas, who served as Professor of Chemistry in both departments, contributed especially, though the influence of the other members of the Medical Faculty, more interested perhaps in the strictly professional aspects of their work, cannot be overlooked. These men were alive to the value of original investigation, their field offered too many opportunities to be neglected by scholars of their caliber, and it was therefore in the Medical School that the first research laboratories were developed. As the numbers in the Medical Department and its prestige increased, this influence grew, so that it may be said that for many years the strongest impulse toward research and the highest scholarship, particularly in the new fields of science, came from the men of the Medical Faculty. Nor has this influence ever weakened, though the eventual establishment of advanced courses and the recognition of research in all departments has tended to make it less conspicuous than in the early days.

With the Law Department it was somewhat different. The old-fashioned conception of the law as a formal body of doctrine, fixed and unchangeable, tended in itself to limit original effort, though Judge Cooley’s great work, with its high scholarship and profound learning, added greatly to the reputation of the University. Of recent years, however, there has been a change in the attitude towards the teaching of law. It has come to be recognized that our law is a changing and developing force, and that the adaptation of fundamental legal principles to the advancing demands of modern society, both through legislation and through judicial decision, furnishes a field for research and investigation which demands the highest type of scholarship and training. The modern law student seeks the principles of his science through a careful study of the cases themselves, and no longer accepts a dogmatic statement of the law as laid down in textbook and lecture. This change in the legal curriculum, which is little less than revolutionary, is really based upon scholarship and research on the part of every student, and is reflected in the preoccupation of every law student in his work. Gone are the days when the Law Department was the resort of those who could not succeed in the other departments.

In more practical and especially industrial fields the College of Engineering has also contributed its share, though it was considered a part of the Literary Department throughout all its early years. While its aim is to train men in technical branches, the field of investigation has been by no means neglected, even if the questions studied have largely borne specifically upon such problems as railway and steel construction, the functioning of various types of engines, marine design, the various forms of the utilization of electrical energy, and the many applications of science to industry undertaken by the Department of Chemical Engineering. That this work has been appreciated is evidenced by the increasing number of fellowships for original research maintained by many private corporations, and by the suggestion and tentative establishment in 1920 of a general Department of Industrial Research maintained through co-operation by the manufacturers of the State with the Faculty of the Engineering College. It is specially stipulated that the results of whatever investigations are made under these auspices are to be made public for the benefit of the people of the State, irrespective of the source of income.

This developing spirit led to the formation of a Research Club which has had a profound though quiet influence in the growth of scholarship in the University. The Club meets at stated periods in the Histological Laboratory in the Medical Building, a fact in itself significant of the strong support the organization has always had from the Medical Faculty, and ordinarily listens to two papers, contributed by members. The aim is to present the problem under consideration clearly and with as little emphasis as possible on its technical aspects, a purpose often more successfully realized, according to some of the members, by the men who have been especially successful in their particular fields. The distinguishing mark of this organization is its general and inclusive character; similar clubs elsewhere are more apt to emphasize certain particular and related subjects, and to that extent fail to represent effectively the united scholarly effort of the institution. Many of the papers first read in the Research Club have formed the basis of reports published subsequently in the proceedings of scientific bodies which have attracted wide attention. Particularly noteworthy have been the celebrations of the anniversaries of distinguished scholars and authors, the significance of whose life and works has been emphasized in the papers presented before the members. Similar in aim is the Junior Research Club, whose membership is composed of the younger men of the Faculties of the University.

With the reorganization of the Graduate School in 1912, there came a new emphasis on the publication of works of scholarship by the University. Within a short time several series of “University of Michigan Studies” were established; and to these new volumes are continually being added, which have contributed greatly to the University’s place in the world of learning. Though certain other universities, notably Harvard, Cornell, and Chicago, had previously established similar series, Michigan has been well to the fore among American universities in thus systematically giving to the world in adequate form the results of certain aspects of the work carried on within her walls. Particularly in certain cases she has been peculiarly fortunate in the extraordinary value and significance of the original material thus published.

The first series established was known as the “Humanistic Series,” issued under the general editorial supervision of Professor Francis W. Kelsey of the Department of Latin, who has been indefatigable in securing material and funds for this work. The publications in the present list of sixteen volumes include three on Roman history and philology made up for the most part of monographs by various members of the Faculty, or graduates of the University, two edited by Professor Henry A. Sanders, and one by Professor C.L. Meader. Another volume deals with “Word Formation in Provencal” and is by Professor Edward L. Adams. Somewhat different in scope are two volumes on Greek vases, or “Lekythoi,” by Arthur Fairbanks, at one time Professor of Greek in the University, and now Director of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts.

Five volumes in this series have dealt with various manuscripts and objects of ancient art in the collections of the late Charles L. Freer of Detroit. The two by Professor Sanders, dealing with four very early biblical manuscripts, which include Deuteronomy and Joshua, the Psalms, the four Gospels, and fragments of the Epistle of Paul, aroused worldwide interest among scholars when they appeared, particularly as they were accompanied by sumptuous volumes of photogravure fac-similes prepared by Mr. Freer and distributed by the University to the leading libraries throughout the world. As these manuscripts, which were discovered in Egypt and are among the very earliest known, were thus made available for study in a way heretofore almost unknown, the University gained incalculably.

Other volumes in the series include descriptions of certain Coptic manuscripts, documents from the Cairo Genizah, some Eastern Christian paintings in the Freer collection, and a gold treasure found in Egypt.

Translations of ancient scientific and mathematical treatises by Professors John G. Winter and L.C. Karpinski are also to be found in two other volumes of this series, while certain studies in Roman Law and administration by Professors A.E. Boak and J.H. Drake and a discussion of “Greek Themes in Modern Musical Settings,” by Professor A.A. Stanley, bring the volumes issued down to the present time. Accompanying this series are a number of Humanistic Papers, including a discussion and symposium on the value of classical training in American education, and a biography of Professor George S. Morris by Professor R.M. Wenley. Two volumes in a scientific series have also appeared: “The Circulation and Sleep,” by Professor J.A. Shepard of the Department of Psychology, and “Studies in Divergent Series and Summability,” by Professor W.B. Ford of the Department of Mathematics. Two volumes of the Publications of the Astronomical Observatory, dealing with the spectroscopic investigations for which the Observatory is now particularly well equipped, have also appeared. Also to be noted are four numbers of a series of Publications by the Physical Laboratory and seventy-two “Occasional Papers from the Museum of Zooelogy,” as well as four volumes in a “University of Michigan Historical Series,” including “A History of the Presidents’ Cabinets,” “The English Rule in Gascony, 1199-1259,” “The Color Line in Ohio,” and “The Senate and Treaties (1789-1817),” (the last by Professor J.R. Hayden), and two volumes in a series of Economic Studies. A “History of the Chemical Laboratory,” by Professor E.D. Campbell, should also be mentioned.

From time to time there have been issued compilations of the publications of members of the University Faculties. These have shown an ever-increasing body of books, articles, and reviews which may be taken as another concrete evidence of the activity of the members of the Faculty in their various fields. The first two of these lists were issued through the medium of a little informative sheet issued for the University for some years by the Alumni Association, known as the News-Letter. The data were far from complete but the published total was not unimpressive. Later the University Library took up the work, while the last two lists of this character were made by Dean A.H. Lloyd, of the Graduate School, as regular University Bulletins. These cover the period from July 1, 1909 to June 30, 1919 and include over one hundred volumes exclusive of ordinary handbooks and textbooks. These two lists give some 1,700 titles.

While it is impossible to mention even a small portion of the publications of more than usual interest during the last fifteen years, there are a few that may be mentioned as evidence of the influence of the University in the world of letters and scholarships. These, omitting numerous textbooks and aside from the volumes issued in the University Humanistic Series and others, include, “The Acropolis at Athens,” (1908), by Professor M.L. D’Ooge; “The Will to Doubt, an Essay in Philosophy for the General Thinker,” (1907), by Professor A.H. Lloyd; a series of works on psychology by Professor W.B. Pillsbury, including “Attention,” (1908); “The Psychology of Reasoning,” (1910); “The Fundamentals of Psychology,” (1916), and “The Psychology of Nationality and Internationalism,” (1919). Professor R.M. Wenley, head of the Department of Philosophy has also written a number of books which include, “Modern Thought and the Crisis in Belief,” (1909); “Kant,” (1910); “The Anarchist Ideal,” (1913); and the “Life of George S. Morris,” (1917). Professor R.W. Sellars of the same Department has written, “Critical Realism,” (1916); “The Essentials of Logic,” (1917); “The Essentials of Philosophy,” (1917); and “The Next Step in Religion,” (1918), while Professor D.H. Parker is the author of two volumes entitled “The Self and Nature,” (1917), and “The Principles of AEsthetics,” (1920).

The Department of History includes on its Faculty a number of men whose books have attracted more than a passing attention. Professor C.H. Van Tyne has written among other books, including several textbooks, “The Loyalists in the American Revolution,” (1902), and “The American Revolution,” (1905); while others to be mentioned are Professor A.L. Cross, whose “History of England and Greater Britain” appeared in 1914; Professor U.B. Phillips, “The Life of Robert Toombs,” (1913), and “American Negro Slavery,” (1918); and Professor E.R. Turner, “The Negro in Pennsylvania,” (1911), and “Ireland and England, in the Past and at Present,” (1919).

Professor Henry C. Adams has written a number of books on economics and accounting, particularly “American Railway Accounting,” (1918). It is worthy of note that he spent two years in China installing a system of railway accounting for the Chinese government. Other volumes which should be noted are: “Social Problems,” (1918), by Professor Charles H. Cooley; “Characteristics of Existing Glaciers,” (1911), and “Earth Features and their Meaning,” (1912), by Professor William H. Hobbs; “The Hindu-Arabic Numerals,” (1911), by Professor L.C. Karpinski, and the “Catalogue of the Stearns Collection of Musical Instruments,” (1919), prepared by Professor A.A. Stanley.

By far the greater portion of the publications of the Medical Faculty take the form of monographs, articles, and reports in the various monographic series and medical publications Dr. Vaughan lists 73 such items in the years between 1909 and 1918. In the Law School several books on different subjects have been issued by members of the present Faculty including Professors R.W. Aigler, Evans Holbrook, E.N. Durfee, E.C. Goddard, and E.R. Sunderland. Particularly to be noted is “The History of Contract in Early English Equity,” (1914), by the late Professor Willard T. Barbour.

Most of the books issued by the members of the Engineering Faculty have been primarily textbooks, though many of them have been based upon extended investigations in the subjects presented. Two volumes by Professor Fiske Kimball, formerly of the Department of Architecture, “Thomas Jefferson, Architect,” (1916), and a “History of Architecture,” (1917), are especially noteworthy, however.

Some of the results of the scientific investigations made by members of the Faculties are published in the form of reports issued by the Government or State, or by various scientific bodies. Thus we have several volumes of reports issued by Professor E.C. Case on the results of his work in the fossil beds of the Southwest, under the auspices of the Carnegie Institution; several statistical reports, the work of Professor James W. Glover, including “Highway Bonds,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1915, and “U.S. Life Tables,” (1910) (1916), issued by the Department of Agriculture; a “Biological Survey of the Sand Dune Region of Saginaw Bay,” by Professor Alexander Ruthven, (1910), issued by the Michigan Geological and Biological Survey, and a number of extended reports on the valuation of public service corporations, by Dean M.E. Cooley and Professor H.E. Riggs, in the Transactions of the American Societies of Civil Engineers, and various other bodies.

As has been suggested a great portion of the scientific investigations of the members of the Faculty of the University is reported in the form of monographs and briefer articles in various journals and special publications, and for this reason the names of many men of national and even international repute do not appear in the lists of those who have published books. Many of their publications also have taken the form of textbooks, some of them exceedingly important, but the list is so long that it would be impossible to do justice to all in a short survey.

Of the men in the Literary College whose reports and articles are given in the recent Bibliography a few may properly be mentioned. Thus the work of Professor Moses Gomberg, whose researches in the chemistry of triphenylmethyl won for him in 1914 the prize from the New York branch of the American Chemical Society for the most distinguished work of the year, has been given to the world since 1909 in the form of relatively short papers, some eighteen in all. Professor E.D. Campbell, in addition to the “History of the Chemical Laboratory of the University,” has reported his investigations, largely in the chemical composition of steels, in eighteen papers. Professor William J. Hussey and Professor Ralph H. Curtiss have published respectively fourteen and seventeen papers, though many of them have been included in the ‘publications’ of the Observatory. Professor Hussey has also made a number of reports in Spanish of his work in the observatory at the South American University of La Plata. Other members of the Literary Faculty whose total publications might be mentioned are Professor E.C. Case, of the Departments of Geology and Paleontology, seventeen; Professor A.F. Shull, Zooelogy, twenty-two; Professor William H. Hobbs, Geology, twenty-six; Professor A.H. Lloyd, Philosophy, twenty-one; Professor Fred Newton Scott, Rhetoric, fifteen; and Professor H.H. Bartlett, Botany, thirty-one.

Almost every member of the Medical Faculty has made many contributions to various medical journals. The University Bibliography includes twelve papers by Professor A.M. Barrett, eighteen by Professor C.D. Camp, eighteen by Professor D.M. Cowie, fifteen by Professor G. Carl Huber, eighteen by Professor F.G. Novy, twenty-two by Professor Reuben Peterson, twenty-six by Professor U.J. Wile, and thirty-nine by Professor A.S. Warthin.

In the Law School Dean Henry M. Bates is represented by eleven papers and Professor Ralph W. Aigler by twenty-six.

The Dental College is represented by nineteen papers by Professor Russell W. Bunting and eleven by Professor C.J. Lyons, while the Homeopathic Medical School shows three books and eighteen articles by Professor W.A. Dewey.

During the late war the abilities of such members of the Faculty as were not in active service and the facilities of the University laboratories for research were employed widely by the Government. The Faculty of the Department of Chemical Engineering entered government service almost to a man and an entirely new teaching force had to be secured. Many technical questions, including those connected with poison gas warfare and the development of the government nitrate plants, whose erection was under the charge of Professor A.H. White, as Lieutenant-Colonel in the Army, were investigated in the Chemical Laboratories. The Department of Physics carried on extended researches in co-operation with the Bureau of Standards in Washington. Many special problems were investigated in the Medical Laboratories, as in the Department of Anatomy, where a study of the repair of peripheral nerves after severance was instituted by Dr. G. Carl Huber, first under the National Research Council, later under the office of the Surgeon General, which sent several medical officers to the University for purposes of instruction and to assist him. Dr. Stacey R. Guild, instructor in Anatomy, also made some valuable experiments in war deafness. Special investigations were carried on in the Bacteriological Laboratories under Dr. Novy, in the Pathological Laboratory under Dr. Warthin, and in the Psychopathic Hospital, where Dr. Barrett, while training successive increments of medical officers every six weeks, carried on special investigations in mental disorders arising from the war.

As was to be expected the technical training of the professional staff of the Engineering College and the resources of the laboratories were employed extensively by the Government. This was particularly true of the Department of Marine Engineering, where Professor H.C. Sadler studied the important problem of standardized types of ships, until he became Head of the Bureau of Design with the Shipping Board, when his work in the Naval Tank was carried on by Professor E.M. Bragg.

It cannot be claimed of course that this record in scientific inquiry and advanced scholarship will equal what has been done in certain other universities, whose riper traditions and great endowments have enabled them to carry on special investigations, establish research professorships and support publications, which have thus far proved impossible for a state institution, whose first obligation rests in its relations with the people of the commonwealth. Nevertheless Michigan has been happy in this, as in so many other respects. The liberality and sympathetic understanding of the public opinion upon which the success of the University rests fundamentally, have enabled it to develop scholarly ideals and a recognition of true scholarship which have given Michigan a high rank among American universities.

This fortunate and early recognition of the highest mission of the University was made possible only through co-operation on the part of the Regents, who, as the governing body, have been able on the one side to encourage scholarly ideals in spite of the occasional lack of appreciation of the University’s aims on the part of some individual members of the Board, and, on the other, to secure and preserve the University’s freedom, threatened by the efforts of the State Legislature to interfere with its affairs. This relationship of the Regents to the maintenance of the University, and to the State, has had a very important effect upon the development of higher learning and research and may therefore properly be outlined at some length in this place.

The University has been truly fortunate for the most part in the men who have composed the governing body. There have been times, it is true, when relations between the Regents and the Faculties have been far from ideal, but it is no less true that the history of the past eighty years will show a remarkable spirit of co-operation and harmony between the two bodies. Otherwise the University could not have become what it is. While the Regents for the most part have not been men primarily interested, or trained, in educational matters, they have taken their duties seriously and have been unselfish in their service for the institution, with no reward for their labors save the honor inherent in their office. They have sought earnestly to understand the problems before them, and, in whatever measures they took, to keep always before them the welfare of the University as a whole. With the ever increasing numbers enrolling as students and the consequent well-nigh irresistible pressure for elementary and the so-called “practical” courses, they have been strong enough and wise enough, and sufficiently sympathetic with the scholarly preoccupations of the leaders of the constantly growing Faculties, to maintain and encourage the higher aims of the University as a center of learning. It is true that the Board is sometimes criticized for taking upon itself functions which might with propriety rest with the Faculties and their administrative officers, but there is at least a legal justification for this in the legislative provisions upon which the powers of the Board of Regents rest. Thus in the Act of March 18, 1837, the Regents are empowered to “enact laws for the government of the University,” and to appoint the professors and tutors and fix their salaries. The number of professorships was specified and fixed at thirteen; though it was provided in the first organization that;

the Regents shall so arrange the professorships as to appoint such a number only as the wants of the institution shall require; and to increase them from time to time, as the income from the fund shall warrant, and the public interests demand; Provided, always, That no new professorship shall be established without the consent of the Legislature.

The immediate government of the several departments was to rest with their respective Faculties, but;

the Regents shall have power to regulate the course of instruction, and prescribe, under the advice of the professorship, the books and authorities to be used and also to confer such degrees and grant such diplomas as are usually conferred and granted in other universities.

The Regents were also to have the power of removing “any professor or tutor, or other officer connected with the institution, when in their judgment the interests of the University shall require it.” This specification of the powers and duties of the Regents was repeated with some modifications in the Act of April 8, 1851, which followed the revision of the Constitution of 1850. The Constitution itself merely stated that the Regents “shall have the general supervision of the University and the direction and control of all expenditures from the University interest fund.”

These are the general provisions upon which the relations between the Regents and the university body are based. In practice the Faculty has come to have a greater degree of autonomy in certain directions than might be suggested by a strict interpretation of these measures, while in most cases the “advice of the professorship” is sought and followed readily and sympathetically in so far as is warranted by the financial situation, as it appears to the Board.

The University Faculties are organized first by Departments, with one member as head; the Schools and Colleges are also organized under the separate Deans to carry on their own work, while the general organization of the whole Faculty rests in the University Senate, composed of all members of professorial rank, including Assistant Professors. In addition there is a smaller body, known as the Senate Council, composed of the Deans and one other representative of the different Schools and Colleges as well as the President, a secretary, and the chairman of the Committee on Student affairs. To this body are referred many questions of importance for immediate action or reference to the Regents.

The independent position of the Board of Regents as the governing body of the University has not gone unquestioned by the other divisions of the state government, and a series of decisions and judicial interpretations of the constitutional and legislative acts regarding the University have been necessary to establish the powers of the Regents as a separate branch of the state administration. Fortunately for the University these are now well recognized.

The first decision arose through the efforts of the Legislature to compel the Regents to establish a Professorship of Homeopathy in the University, and a mandamus action was brought in 1865 to compel the University to carry out the provisions of a clause to that effect, inserted in the Organic Act of the University in the years before. This was unsuccessful, though not on the ground that the act was unconstitutional but because one Elijah Drake, who brought the action, was not connected with the University and was not, therefore, privileged to sue for the writ. The question was brought up again in 1867, this time by the Regents, who sought to secure the payment of the $15,000 granted to the University upon condition that they establish a Professorship of Homeopathy, by authorizing a School of Homeopathy in Detroit. Again the Court failed to grant the request. Two years later the question came up once more in its first form, in an effort to compel the Regents to establish the proposed Department. The Regents argued;

If the Legislature could require the appointment of one professor, it could require the appointment of another, or any number of others. If it could say what professorships should exist, it could say what professorships should not exist, and who should fill professors chairs; moreover, if it could regulate the internal affairs of the University in this regard, it could do so in others, and thus the supervision, direction and control which the Constitution vested in the Regents would be at an end.... Either the Legislature had no power of the kind, or it had unlimited power; either the Regents were the representatives of the people who elected them, or they were servants of the Legislature.

Again, however, there was no decision; the constitutional status of the University was undecided. But in 1892 a decision did establish that the people of the State, in incorporating the University, had, by their Constitution, conferred the entire control and management of its property upon the Regents, and had thereby excluded all departments of the state government from any interference with it. The property of the University was state property it is true, but it could only be administered by the Board of Regents as a separate division of the State administration.

Finally in 1895 it was definitely decided that the Legislature had no constitutional right to interfere in or dictate as to the management of the University. The question was once more the Homeopathic issue, which took the form of a legislative action to compel the Regents to remove the School to Detroit. This time the Regents reversed their earlier policy and the measure was stoutly resisted by the Board. Judge Claudius B. Grant, ’59, in delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court, laid down the principles now accepted as governing the relations of the University and the Legislature. The Board of Regents, he maintained, was the only corporation whose powers were defined in the State Constitution, whereas in the case of every other corporation established by the Constitution it was provided that its powers should be defined by law. “No other conclusion was, in his judgment, possible than that the intention was to place the institution in the direct and exclusive control of the people themselves, through a constitutional body elected by them.” Otherwise the Regents would become merely “ministerial officers” with no other duties than to register the will of the Legislature.

The independent status of the University has also been more firmly established in late years by other legislative enactments and decisions. As early as 1863 it was recognized that the Regents had power to hold and convey real estate, though they had no authority over the land granted by Congress for the support of the University, nor over the principal of the fund established through the sale of that land. In 1890 such property was declared exempt from taxation, and in 1893 the Board of Regents was declared to be alone responsible under contracts made by it for the benefit of the University. In the new Constitution of 1908 the Regents were given the right of eminent domain, and on a number of occasions since that time have been able to acquire “private property for the use of the University in the manner prescribed by law.” It is difficult to see how the growth of the University during the past twelve years with its constantly expanding building program could have taken place without this salutary check upon the exorbitant demands of property owners in the neighborhood of the Campus.

This financial autonomy of the Regents, once an appropriation is made by the Legislature, has not gone unquestioned, however, particularly by the Auditor-General. The University fund from early years has been borrowed by the State which until 1896 paid the original interest rate of seven percent. The Auditor-General then decided that the legal rate of six percent should be enforced. The matter was laid before the Supreme Court, however, and the old rate was restored. In 1900 it was definitely ruled by the Attorney-General that “the Auditor-General has no authority to refuse to audit and pay vouchers for real estate purchased by the Board of Regents,” and subsequently in 1911, the Supreme Court maintained that the “judgment of the Regents as to the legality and expediency of expenditures for the use and maintenance of the institution” could not be considered “subordinate to that of the Auditor-General.”

The powers of the Regents have also been strengthened by other rulings of the Attorney-Generals of the State. Thus in 1900 the power of the Regents to determine student fees was declared not subject to legislative control, while in 1911 the same freedom in the matter of the determination of entrance requirements was conceded. The Board was also declared in 1908 free from the application of an act of the previous year providing for the approval and regulation of salaries in the various state institutions.

The University has thus been as fortunate in the development of its relations with the State as it has been in its internal growth. Though there have been many critical times, the movement has always been forward. The Regents have been careful and conservative in their relations with the Legislature, but they have insisted upon the independence of the University and have been sustained in this position with increasing firmness by the Supreme Court. The Legislature has shown an ever-increasing friendliness toward the University and has never refused to come to the aid of the institution, whatever its views as to the constitutional questions involved in the establishment of the University. This was shown as never before by the 1919 Legislature, which not only granted to the University appropriations amounting to $2,200,000, but gave it by the unanimous vote of both houses, a thing which had never happened before. The Legislature even included one item for which the officers of the University had hardly dared hope to have favorable action at that session.

With its constitutional status so well established; with the Legislature so ready to co-operate in furthering the best interests of the University, with its curriculum continually expanding, though wisely and not too rapidly, and with an ever-increasing emphasis on the highest ideals of scholarship and service, there is every promise for a future of greater usefulness and effective service for the University. We, who love the University of Michigan for what it has accomplished, for what it is, and for what it may become, may well look for a development through the coming years that shall be a fitting continuation of the remarkable success of the great experiment involved in its establishment.