BREACHES OF DISCIPLINE UNDER DR. BATTLE.

        As has been said, there was a complete change in the exercise of discipline of the University. No restrictions on the movements of students within Chapel Hill were enforced. The old plan of all reciting at the same hour was necessarily abolished, and recitations were going on at all hours from breakfast

to dinner, and laboratory work in the afternoon. As the students were not all in their rooms at the same time the old nuisance of shouting at objects and persons passing by was nonexistent.

        On one occasion President Battle heard of a number of students behaving in a boisterous manner in Durham, as they were coming to Chapel Hill. Of course the malevolent said that they were intoxicated, so he summoned them before him. They stood up solemnly in a line. "Gentlemen," said the President, "I am grieved to hear that you have been on a bender in Durham." One of them, very much frightened, leaped forward in his earnestness and blurted out, "It's a mighty little bender I have been on." It was very comical. The President soon found that there had been nothing but boyish exuberance and closed the incident with a caution. One of them, now a great educational dignitary, Alderman, composed a song with the refrain, "It's a mighty little bender I've been on," which was sung by the students for many months. I regret its loss.

        Another case illustrates my manner with the students. The fact of a student going to Pittsboro without my permission came to my ears. He was of exemplary conduct and I knew that his father allowed him to ride twenty or thirty miles or any other distance whenever he chose. With him a trip of seventeen miles to Pittsboro without permission was a malum prohibitum and not a malum in se. So my summons to him to appear before me was a mere matter of form. I began the interview, "Mr. Braswell, I understand that you have been to Pittsboro." He replied, "Well, Mr. President, I will tell you how it was. I learned that there was to be a hanging in Pittsboro. I thought that I would never have another chance to witness one. I knew that my father would not care. If I asked your permission you would refuse because I did not have permission from home and there was not time to obtain it. So I concluded to risk it." "Well, sir," said I, "consider yourself well scolded and tell me all about the hanging."

        I add that this kindly manner of treatment of students by no

means led to greater misconduct but seemed to have a healthy effect.

        Among the most annoying incidents of University life have been the pledges taken by the students, sometimes in matters in which they were exclusively concerned, sometimes in matters of University discipline. As a rule the public opinion of the students holds them as irrevocable, so that, for example, if A pledges himself to vote for B, he continues to be bound to give the vote although for some reason he concludes that he ought to support some other person. The following episode illustrates the difficulty and folly of these engagements.

        As an examination of a class in Mathematics in the latter part of May was nearly due, members of the class approached their Professor, who was an assistant only, with the object of "pumping" him in regard to their prospects of success. They first asked for their term standing, which was given. They then learned his system of marking the examination papers, and, as they understood him, it was impossible to pass without obtaining an abnormally high mark. There was consternation in the class so great that some of the less diligent scholars drew up stipulations that they would not be examined by this Professor. There were statements in the paper founded on mistake, but still every member of the class signed it and agreed not to withdraw unless by unanimous consent. Their object was to be examined by the Senior Professor.

        On inquiring into the facts the Faculty found that the Professor had been misunderstood and the paper had been signed under a misapprehension. The class was summoned before them and, after hearing their explanation, were told that they had committed a breach of the laws by entering into a conspiracy not to perform a University duty but that the Faculty were disposed to be lenient if they would retrace their steps. The Professor involved made such an explanation as was satisfactory to the students. The leaders of the class admitted that they had signed inadvertently and would be glad to be released and would withdraw their names if it were not for the unanimous consent clause. This consent could not well be obtained because one of the signers had left the Hill to

visit Bingham School. It was suggested that the signatures were obtained on a misstatement of facts, and moreover the signers agreed to do an unlawful act, that is, to abstain from performing a duty assigned by lawful authority, and hence were not bound. But law was not considered by students as binding as a pledge. The knot was cut by obtaining the consent of the absent one by telegraph and "all was serene." On an inspection of the signed paper it appeared that there were the names of some who were not at all interested because the examination in question was not in their course, yet their consent was needed to cancel or modify the pledge. In other words, orderly, hightoned students, successful in their studies, put themselves into the power not only of the careless, unambitious pupils, but even of men not in the class at all.

        This is, I think, the only conspiracy against a law of the University that I have known since the reopening. It ended so ridiculously that it will hardly be repeated.

        The practical jokes mentioned in my first volume were continued, though seldom. One was managed so adroitly as to deceive President Battle. A mock furious quarrel was carried on in presence of a student, who fully believed that a fight in the woods with pistols was imminent. He was so frightened that he invoked the President's aid to prevent slaughter. The President repaired to the spot, ascertained that the affair was a hoax, but thought it best to put a stop to this playing with firearms. One of the combatants lay on the ground feigning death, but the sudden resurrection and rapid running away of the corpse when the President approached was amusing. He caught the other combatant and sequestered his pistol for the term.

        Afterwards a similar trick was attempted. The only person deceived was the Episcopal minister, who made a fruitless journey at 10 o'clock at night to the "Trysting Poplar" in Battle Park.

        A college president has all sorts of trials and often has to make up his mind as to what course to pursue unaided by any precedent. One morning while recitations were going on I was shocked by the loud ringing of the bell. Inquiring into it

I found that a very athletic and bright-minded student had become really insane. He was just then calling a meeting of the Dialectic Society in order to send delegates to an imaginary convention to be held in Raleigh to raise money for the University. I instructed four of his friends to provide cords, to be used in confining his limbs if absolutely necessary only, and ordered a carriage to be at the door. I then provided myself with a blank telegraphic paper and repaired to the Dialectic Hall. He was in the presidential chair. Instead of his ordinary dignified conduct he was indulging in profane language, totally contrary to his normal habit. I arose with the fictitious telegram in my hand and gravely said, "Mr. President, I am told that a meeting is to be held in Raleigh this afternoon in the interests of the University. I move that you, Mr. President, and Messrs. Dockery and three others be a committee to represent this society, and as you are interested, I put the motion myself." The motion was carried of course and before his mind had time to go off on another tack we had him in a carriage surrounded by his four friends. I telegraphed the Superintendent of the Hospital for the Insane, to meet him at the Raleigh station and he was lodged in the Asylum without trouble. But for the ruse I employed it would probably have been necessary to bind him hand and foot, and the injury to his brain from the fury into which this would have thrown him might have been a permanent injury. He recovered from this attack.

        One Saturday night a half dozen students concluded to bring back old customs. A venerable gentleman by invitation had made an address before the University. Even while he was speaking a mock alarm of fire was made which created some disturbance. After the exercises were over there was continuous bell ringing, explosions of gunpowder and shouting for hours. I sent word to the perpetrators and politely suggested that it was not right to disturb the rest of an aged guest. For the only time in my presidency the request was unheeded. I retired to my bed as usual but could not sleep. At three o'clock my patience was exhausted. I went to the buildings and recognized three of the rioters. I found that they had led

and pushed a cow up to the third story of the South Building, on which was the belfry, and tied her horns to the bell rope.*

        * As there may be curiosity as to the behavior of a cow in such circumstances, I write that this particular cow was peacefully chewing her cud and not pulling the bell rope at all.

        The next day I had the ringleader before the Faculty. As in addition to the present offense, he had been neglecting his studies, an order was made that his father should withdraw him. A letter containing this sentence was actually mailed. I announced that the two other known offenders would be called up next day. Seeing that we were in earnest there was great consternation among the rioters, who did not know how many I had caught. One of the best students, now a United States Marshal, called on me to know what could be done to stop the prosecution. I said, "Mr. Dockery, if the gentlemen engaged in this business will authorize you to say that they will quit this rowdy behavior I think that the Faculty will grant a general amnesty." He went off to consult the offenders and I withdrew the letter of recall from the postoffice. In about an hour he and Z. B. Walser, also an exemplary student, returned and reported that the compromise was accepted. This ended the matter. There was some reluctance in giving the promise, which, by the way, was faithfully kept, not because there was any wish to continue this disorderly conduct, but simply from the uncomfortable feeling of being under a pledge. This feeling should be fostered, rather than by too frequent pledges impair their efficacy. Indeed the Faculty never proposed them, but sometimes accepted them when voluntarily offered.

        The practice of hazing gave much difficulty. It was at first sparingly done, but was revived by the Sophomores gradually learning the old customs. Even grave alumni at Commencement took a pride in narrating what was done in their day. The practice was popularized by the influx of boys from schools where hazing prevailed. There were two kinds, one for cause, where the manners of a Freshman were peculiarly obnoxious, and the other of all the Freshmen, well-behaved or not. The first was most severe and usually attended with some violence, the blacking being of the entire person. The other ranged from blacking the face down to compulsory singing and declamations.

Occasionally the Freshmen were enticed into the forest at night on an alleged "snipe hunting" expedition and then abandoned in the darkness. Another form of hazing was "trotting," that is, compulsory running between two Sophs, each holding the arm of the Freshman. When the escorts became tired others would take their places. A student from the Indian Territory, one-fourth Indian, introduced a cowboy form of hazing which the good sense of the students caused them to abandon after one trial, as too dangerous. This was fastening by night a bull yearling by the horns to a tree with a rope thirty feet long, the Freshman being mounted upon him. Then the bullock was lashed into a run, tumbling over with his rider when he got to the end of his tether. A Freshman, now a learned Doctor of Divinity, received this treatment. His mentioning it in a letter to his father provoked a furious letter to me. "Better for the University to be buried in the earth than to be continued with such outrages." I sought an interview with the boy. He admitted the truth of the story, said that he was thrown high into the air and came down with such force as to "knock the breath out of his body." A tall Soph came up, put his hand into his bosom and said, "Freshman, are you dead?" The reply was, "Yes, I am killed." The Soph replied, "Freshman, you are lying; you will be all right in a minute." He was a plucky fellow. He said to me, "Father is making too much of this. Please let it drop."

        I thought at one time that I had "bagged game." While I was admiring the perfect quiet of the dormitories a student, usually orderly, afterwards a Representative in the Federal Congress, stepped out of his room and shouted, "Strick! have you got that bull ready?" I astonished him by stepping up at once, but found that he was joking. "Strick" was not even a student, only a visitor on his way to Philadelphia to attend Medical Lectures.

        One night soon after the beginning of the session I heard sounds which clearly showed that hazing was going on. I at once went to the scene of the operations and caught three of the guilty ones. They were duly dismissed from the University. Soon I was visited by them and their friends seeking

grounds for their reinstatement. The practice of hazing, being mostly in secret, is most difficult to suppress. When I was a Tutor in the University, 1850-'54, the two literary societies very effectually controlled their members. In view of these facts I told the young men that, if the two societies would enter into an agreement to punish hazing by adequate fines or by expulsion, I would advocate the rescinding of the decree of dismissal. This was done with excellent effect. There was no hazing for four or five years, but in the course of time, when an entirely new body of members came in, the bargain was forgotten and the law became practically obsolete.

        I appealed to the power of the societies in another instance and with still greater success. Two students ordered by express a large quantity of lager beer for the purpose of giving an election treat. They forgot that the express book is sent to all receivers of packages and is practically a public document. The practice of treating to alcoholic beverages in order to get votes and afterwards to celebrate the triumph of those elected, was extremely pernicious in the old University. It led to loss of study, disorder, and drunkenness. When the dismissed students applied for restoration, with the consent of the Faculty I granted it on the condition that the societies would abolish treating. This was done and the law has been observed well. One of the young men involved is distinguished in political life and a warm friend of his Alma Mater.

        A peculiar hazing case occurred during this term. A Junior agreed in writing to vote for certain candidates. In other words he became a member of their "faction." He changed his mind, ceased to be a member of that party and joined another. This was regarded as "rank treason" and to be avenged. Some eight or ten went to his room when he and his roommate were asleep and gave him what was called "a good blacking." His roommate was of great spirit and physical strength and would have given the hazers trouble if he had not been overpowered before awaking.

        The Faculty learned their names, and as it was not an ordinary case of hazing, being a punishment of a Junior for fancied injury, and as nearly all were very good students, they gave

them the option of pledging themselves not to engage in such work again or leaving the institution. They all signed the pledge, though some reluctantly. The roommate provided himself with a pistol, avowing his intention of shooting any one who would renew the assault. I sent for him and told him plainly the consequence of such action, i. e., he would put to death a fellow being for so trivial an offense as rubbing a little lampblack on another; second, he would inflict an awful pain on the father, mother, and other relatives of himself and his victim; third, that he would go through life a marked man, perhaps always afflicted with remorse for the act; fourth, that he would have to stand trial in court and must heavily fee a lawyer, even if not convicted; and fifth, that his education would be interrupted, that the sums thus far spent on it by parents, who, I knew, could hardly spare them, would be mostly wasted. Lastly, as he was a member of the church, I brought him face to face with the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." He was much affected, even to tears, and readily placed his pistol in my custody until the end of the session. It was ludicrously small. It was not impossible for a bullet from it to kill, but it was improbable. Certainly it could not, as a rule, have prevented one from committing much violence after receiving its bullet.

        There have been two cases of shooting in consequence of hazing. In one a Freshman of rather singular temperament and manners was walking in the Campus after night. It was quite dark and a Sophomore conceived the idea that it would be fun to jump from behind a tree and frighten him. Startled by the sudden movement the Freshman fired. It was generally thought that he did not know that he was shooting a student. The joker was severely wounded, but recovered. The Freshman voluntarily left the University.

        In another case the Freshman gave notice that he would not submit to hazing--that he would shoot if necessary to prevent it. Hearing of the coming of a blacking party he not only locked but barricaded his door and prepared his pistol. When the crowd came he fired through a lower panel of the door, as he was unwilling to kill. The ball entered the leg of one, who declared that he was a mere bystander, who "had come to see

the fun." The crowd then left, I think not because they were more cowardly than others, but, because if a fight should ensue they would be detected and mercilessly dismissed from the University. In this case the man who fired was applauded; the man wounded was ordered home. The Faculty did not believe his story, but even if true he was an accessory--an aider and abettor.

        It is commonly said that, just as a man can keep an intruder out of his dwelling house by force, even to the extent of taking his life, so a Freshman would be excusable for killing the Soph who breaks into his room in order to haze him. I doubt if this is good law. The Freshman knows that the intruder intends only boyish sport and it is awful doctrine, though we hear it often, even from the lips of thoughtful and high principled men, that the aggressor may be slain to prevent a mere prank which causes only temporary inconvenience. Death is too terrible a penalty for such an offense. It inflicts deepest suffering to the family of the slain. It is altogether probable that the whole course of life of the destroyer would be haunted by remorse for his fatal act, whereas in a very short while the memory of his hazing would pass away or even be a source of merriment. Some of the most dignified upper classmen have suffered the temporary annoyance and are none the worse for it. Possibly a jury might not convict the offender, but that does not prove that the law would excuse the slaying.

        Professor Gore and I were unmistakably circumvented on one occasion. He was Dean and was aiding in the discipline. The bell was rung furiously in the daytime while recitations were going on. We both repaired to the belfry, then in the attic of the South Building. The ringing ceased but the ringers could nowhere be seen. It was afterwards found that an opening had been made through the ceiling of the students' room beneath and the escape was by that route. There was no further annoyance. Probably the fright caused by being so near detection destroyed the fun of ringing. After the fastening of the cow to the bellrope, heretofore narrated, there has been very little, if any, ringing of the bell and none for the purpose of annoying the Faculty.

        The Faculty do not turn out to pursue the offenders, and for this reason the fun of making the noise is destroyed. The chief enjoyment in old times came from the knowledge that the Faculty were teased. The sport of the consequent race in the dark and danger of being caught was great fun. Stories were told with glee among the students and the ladies they visited listened with interest and applause. One, being pursued to the top of the South Building, lay undetected in foolhardy peril on the very edge of the eaves. Another climbed like a squirrel down the lightning rod. Another beat a Professor in a fair foot race, leaped over the stone wall and escaped. Another Professor, running in the dark, fell headlong, unmindful of a projecting root, while the lucky fugitive laughed at his mishap. A student closely pursued rushed into his bed, full dressed, and successfully imitated the deep breathing of an innocent sleeper.

        Fights were not common, yet I was greatly startled at one conflict in my day. I had dismissed my class when I heard a shot underneath my window. I hurried down and saw a student on the ground and two others forcibly holding him. I found that they were taking away his weapon. The other antagonist was being held by the arms. It seems that he contended that he had been cheated by his antagonist in an election question and was determined to inflict punishment for the offense. In order to end the matter and also to prevent the parties being hauled to Orange Superior Court, I had them go before the Mayor of Chapel Hill and submit that they were guilty. The Mayor bound them over to keep the peace and inflicted a small fine on each and the case ended.

        The rule of law is that when deadly weapons are used the case comes under the jurisdiction of the Superior Court. But the officers of the town of Chapel Hill generally carry out the wishes of the President of the University in regard to offenses of the students, and in this case the witnesses believed that the weapon was not loaded with lead. Having only a powder load it could not be called a "deadly weapon."

        In this year a student came to the University under the influence of an intoxicant. He was refused permission to register. Twelve of his friends of their own motion proposed to the

Faculty that they would sign a pledge not to drink any intoxicating liquor while at the University if their friend should be allowed to register. The offer was promptly declined, whereupon twenty-four repeated the offer. Their spokesman said, "Gentlemen, we offer the pledge, not of temperance men but of drinking men, that is of men who have no objection to taking a drink occasionally. In truth if you accept this offer we believe that there will be no drinking as long as the signers shall be in the institution. Of course, the applicant for registration will sign the pledge with the others."

        There was much division in the Faculty on this question. Seven of us, a majority, took the ground that the offer should be accepted. Three voted against it and three were silent. One of the opponents felt so strongly on the subject that he asked and obtained leave to enter a protest against the action of the majority. His points were, First, That the system of pledging had been carried to such excess as to injure the influence of the Faculty. This was denied by the majority. There had been little pledging, and the influence of the Faculty was not at all impaired. The offer came from the students, the Faculty not having suggested it.

        The pledges were faithfully kept. The guilty man, the only child of a widow, was kept from ardent spirits for several years, whereas if he had been turned away he might have been ruined, and two dozen others were by their own actions and from loyal friendship compelled to absolute sobriety. The students generally, who did not sign the pledge, were during the period of abstinence exceptionally free from dissipation.

        The second objection of the protest was, "That it is against the true interest of the University to have law keepers bound by the law breakers." This is begging the question and is denied by the majority. The law keepers were nearly all temperance men. The pledged men were almost the only non-temperance men. It was the true interest of the University to banish drinking from the Campus. It was the true interest to have the students happy, that they should realize that they had the sympathy of the Faculty. The rejection of one man would have been a small deterrent for his friends, irritated by the refusal

of their offer. The result showed the wisdom of the majority as the order afterwards was exceptionally good. The predicted evil of loss of respect for Faculty discipline proved to be a false prophecy. On the contrary the students were grateful for the concession and more friendly in consequence. The Faculty were regarded not as hard-hearted executioners, but as merciful judges, desirous of reformation of offenders.

        The third objection was that the Faculty having decided once, the second action had the appearance of a dicker, a trade, haggling, etc. All this was denied by the majority. Without any suggestion by the Faculty the offer was made and the proposal accepted. If the Faculty had said "twelve are not enough, get more," there might be ground for the charge. But the Faculty kept a dignified silence until the second offer was made.

        One of the student advocates of the measure said, "Mr. President, we have not picked out total abstainers. We offer on the pledge the names of drinking men." After the acceptance one of the number came in great perturbation, saying, "I understand that the Faculty have been told that the signers are 'drinking men.' That is not true in my case. I am, and always have been, entirely temperate. I do not desire to be considered as admitting to the contrary. What can I do about it?" I pacified him by writing his disclaimer at the foot of the paper.

        The plan of taking voluntary pledges was repeatedly followed afterwards. In one case fifty students came to the rescue of their fallen comrade. Sometimes their disapprobation was so great that there was no effort made to retain the offender, but wherever the Faculty approved the voluntary action of a respectable following of the guilty, the effect on the discipline of the institution was wholesome. The procedure reminds us of the mutual responsibility of towns, boroughs, and guilds in Anglo-Saxon times.

        On the night of an election in Chapel Hill in 1884 there was danger of a collision between the races. While the vote was being counted, the process going into the night, a young negro from the country attempted to trip a student, now

a judge. Doubtless it was intended for a joke, but a white boy could not but consider it an affront to be instantly resented. The aggressor promptly ran, other negroes took his part, students began to collect filled with ire. There seemed danger of a conflict. But, though there was blustering, little harm was done.

        Consequent on this row there was an amusing incident. There was a very black man named Eli, who waited on the occupants of the West Building. On the occasion above mentioned, being full of whiskey, he lost his senses and cheered on the colored combatants, instead of standing by the students on whom he waited. They afterwards, as a good lesson, gave him a whipping. Knowing nothing of this I called him up with the intention of discharging him. I said, "Eli, I am told that instead of pacifying things at the row on election day, you tried to make them worse by stirring up the negroes." With a perfectly cheerful voice and face, without the slightest intimation of shame or resentment, he replied as if it was a sufficient answer to my complaint, "Oh, sir, the students done settled with me for that." I felt compelled to allow this new sort of "receipt in full," and continued him in his position. But his addiction to strong drink continued to increase and it soon became necessary to discharge him. He afterwards committed forgery, served a term on the roads, returned and soon drank himself into the grave.

        Later a student considered himself wronged by a colored man and, finding him about the University building one night, gave him a flogging. A new student, quite raw, stood by and perhaps assisted. Whereupon some of his fellows frightened him with the story that the constable was after him with a warrant. He fled down the avenue and several pistol shots were fired near him. When the joke was carried far enough a squad of boys was sent to bring him in. They searched in vain. In three days he appeared at his father's home in Richmond County and never returned to the University. Having no money he was forced to beg his way home, traveling on foot.

        These incidents ended in a much deplored tragedy.

        Of course I endeavored to infuse a better spirit into the students

and I warned them of the danger of such collisions. I told them that practically all young negroes carried pistols; they think it a proof of their freedom. I warned them that some night a negro feeling himself protected from detection by the darkness would fire and run away. Besides, a brawl with them was an unseemly thing, unworthy of men seeking higher education at a great University, in which they could gain no glory but might be disgraced.

        My prediction proved unfortunately too true. A student, the same who flogged the colored man as above narrated, considering himself insulted by a negro named Pat, procured two other students of great physical strength to join him in castigating the alleged offender. News of this was brought to me and I sought them out and ordered them to their rooms, which order was obeyed. Afterwards, about ten o'clock in the evening, a well known white man asked two students to aid him to his home as he was too drunk to walk. While on their way they passed a house where a number of negroes, Pat among them, had gathered to indulge in a carousal with blockade whiskey just brought from Chatham County. By that time the drunken man was sober enough to walk and requested his helpers to wait until he could get another drink. The negroes thought that he was an emissary of the students and threw stones at him. He retreated to his escort, and stones were thrown at the students, who thought this a disgrace which must be avenged. They repaired to the dormitories, roused those who had a feud with Pat and besieged the house where the frolic was going on. The negroes fired from the windows and killed one student, Freeze, by a bullet through the breast. Another received a bullet through the clothes. As soon as they saw the dead body on the ground the negroes fled, scattering as they went. Three were captured and sentenced to the penitentiary, the leader, Pat, for seven years, and the others for five years. Pat soon escaped and has not been heard from. The tragedy was all the more sad because Freeze was an only child.

        Since this sad occurrence there has been no further trouble with the negroes. A more quiet set of students can not be found and the colored population is well-behaved. It may be

that just such a lesson was inevitable to teach the races to have mutual forbearance.

        President Battle, seeing the evident approval by the people of the State of the annuity of $5,000 granted in 1881, determined to ask for a still further increase. After consultation with Faculty and Trustees, $15,000 additional was fixed on as the sum which would enable us to add important professorships and supply much needed apparatus. After deliberation and consultation a bill to add $15,000 to the annual income of the University was introduced in the General Assembly of 1885 by Hon. Lee S. Overman, a graduate of Trinity College, now United States Senator. Besides the $15,000 per annum, it was thought best to ask for the payment of a debt of $12,000 recently incurred. I was in the lobby when the bill was read and saw in the faces of the Members a decided disapprobation. As there was adjournment until next day there was opportunity for consultation with the known friends of the measure. At my request Col. Paul B. Means called an informal meeting of them at his chambers in the Yarborough House. Gov. A. M. Scales, an alumnus of the Class of 1847, a warm friend of his Alma Mater, presided. After taking his seat he inquired of each present as to what was best to be done to make the bill acceptable. Lieutenant-Governor Robinson, of Macon County, Col. Samuel McD. Tate, Representative from Burke, and others, frankly informed him that the payment of the $12,000 debt must be eliminated, as the general opinion was that it would be a bad precedent for the State to pay the recent debts of the University, or any other public institution. It would tend to make State officers careless. The Members present unanimously concurred with this view. Another objection to this paragraph swayed the minds of some. Nearly all of the $12,000 was designed to repay Mr. P. C. Cameron for his advances for finishing Memorial Hall and there was a general belief that he intended the amount as a gift. This was erroneous, but was strengthened by the rumor that he had sold the University lands bought at its bankrupt sale in order to save a debt at a large profit, much in excess of the debt. These facts and surmises,

although totally irrelevant, were strong enough to carry votes, especially of Members who were doubtful whether their constituents favored State aid to the University.

        As Mr. Overman was compelled to be absent for a few days, Mr. Augustus Leazar, of Iredell County, an experienced and enlightened legislator, a graduate of Davidson College, by special request took charge of the bill. He performed the duty with exceptional ability. He was seconded by Col. Thomas M. Holt, afterwards Lieutenant-Governor and Governor, an alumnus of the University. He prefaced his remarks by the statement that he advocated the measure as a Trustee of Davidson College, as he felt sure that the impetus to higher education by the rise of the University would increase the numbers in the colleges. But the constitutional demands should be obeyed at all hazards.

        Mr. John D. Stanford, of Duplin, a Davidson College man and soon to be a Presbyterian minister, followed with similar arguments. Mr. James H. Pou, of Johnston, spoke in opposition, believing that he voiced the wishes of the people of his county. Mr. E. B. Jones, of Alexander, agreed with Mr. Pou, as did Mr. N. Y. Gulley, of Franklin. Mr. Richmond Pearson, of Buncombe, made a most eloquent speech for the bill, as did Mr. Thomas Dixon, of Cleveland, now a popular author. Col. John M. Galloway, of Rockingham, an alumnus of 1854, who had acquired the nickname of "Watch dog of the Treasury," ably supported the appropriation as just and proper for the good of the State by promoting education among all classes. Mr. J. A. Barringer, of Guilford, took the same ground, in behalf of his father's University. Mr. R. T. Waring, of Mecklenburg, likewise spoke strongly in favor of the measure, as did Messrs. C. B. Green, of Durham; T. B. Womack, of Chatham; E. F. Lovell, of Watauga, and J. Y. Phillips, of Stokes, while Mr. Felton, of Tyrrell, opposed it. One of the most convincing arguments in the affirmative was by Rev. N. H. Harrison, of Washington County, a Primitive Baptist preacher, who closed with an eloquent assertion of his love for his native State: "I want to see North Carolina on a high plane, and I want to do whatever I can to aid and benefit her whole people.

Her welfare is my welfare and her people are my people, their interests are my interests. Where they live I want to live; where they die I want to die; where they are buried I want to be buried; and where they are resurrected I want to be resurrected. I vote aye."

        The amendment of Mr. Jones, reducing the appropriation to $12,500, was lost by a vote of 44 to 53. The bill then was passed by an unexpected majority, 58 to 32.

        In the Senate the friends of the appropriation were relatively more numerous than in the House. Mr. H. A. Gudger, of Buncombe, stated that the States of Virginia, Tennessee, and South Carolina gave larger sums than were asked here. Enlarging the University will help the colleges. It must be the head of the public school system. Mr. H. G. Connor, of Wilson, contended that there was a constitutional duty to pass the bill. Facilities should be given to every boy in North Carolina to make a man of himself. Mr. Sydenham B. Alexander, of Mecklenburg, said that it was impossible for the Professors with their present income to do all they should in order to make the University a first class institution. On business principles the Faculty should be increased. Mr. W. M. Bond, of Edenton, argued that we should carry out the progressive ideas of our forefathers as written in the first Constitution. The University should tower above the other institutions. Mr. R. S. Taylor, of Tarboro, a colored Senator, avowed his intention to vote for the good of the State without regard to color or party. He was mindful too of the favorable action of the Senate in granting a charter to Zion-Wesley College. Dr. Cyrus Thompson, of Onslow, offered an amendment, which failed to pass, to strike out the provision of one free student for each county--was willing to increase the appropriation if this should be done. Mr. Paul B. Means, of Cabarrus, stated that the commissioners in his county had acted fairly. If there was any fault in other counties it lay with their officers. The institution was built on the Constitution of 1776. Mr. J. C. Buxton, of Forsyth, said that he had been forced to go for an education to New England when the University was closed. The counties ought to have the right to send one student in compensation

for the tax. Build up the University. Mr. A. W. Graham, of Hillsboro, asserted that every word spoken in behalf of the University was true. The charges against the county commissioners for wrongly appointing rich boys as indigent students are untrue. They amount to charges of perjury against the appointees. Mr. Willis R. Williams, of Pitt, was opposed to the county student system, and would vote for the Thompson amendment, but favored the bill even if it was not adopted. He thought the partial free system was a hindrance. Mr. H. A. Gudger remarked that, as chairman of the Committee on Education, he had investigated the charges of perjury as to appointments of county beneficiaries and that the editor of the Biblical Recorder was absolutely and totally wrong in making such charges. Mr. R. F. Hackett, of Wilkes, expressed his disapproval of the efforts to take away free tuition from poor boys. Mr. W. C. Troy, of Cumberland, thought that, so far from abolishing the free student feature, the number should be doubled or trebled.

        The act is entitled "An Act for the Maintenance of the University of North Carolina," recites the constitutional power to maintain the institution, and the duty to establish as soon as practicable a Department of Agriculture, of Mechanics, of Mining and of Normal instruction, and states that the income is insufficient to carry out these purposes and supply the educational needs of the State. It was impossible to have an efficient system of public schools without competent teachers, and it is of supreme importance to the well being of the State that young men of all pursuits shall be able to receive the advantages of higher education within its own limits at moderate expense.

        Fifteen thousand dollars, payable quarterly, was appropriated and the two thousand dollars for the University Normal School was placed at the disposal of the Board of Education for aid to other Normal Schools. So that the increase to the University was only $13,000.

        The obligation on county students to teach was repealed. If there should be more than one applicant for the county appointment the County Superintendent of Schools must hold an examination and the Board of Commissioners shall appoint

him who has stood the best examination, if otherwise qualified. The appropriation in 1881, $5,000, added to that under this act, made $20,000, while the interest on the Land Grant, $7,500, made $27,500. It will be seen that the latter item was taken away two years afterwards.

        The proposal to add $15,000 per annum to the support of the University met with violent opposition on the part of certain friends of the denominational colleges outside the Legislature. As there was no proposal to enlarge the number of county students, the opposition was in reality to any State aid being given to the University. It may be useful to give some of the grounds of the attack.

        It was said that all the money that could be obtained should go to the support of the primary schools,--that the State should teach her children the "three R's," i. e., reading, writing, and arithmetic, and if they wished to go higher, they must do so at their own expense. Answer: In all civilized countries the people have decided against this low view of education. Trained men and women are needed as teachers for the schools, as leaders in the legislative halls, and in all professions and pursuits. And the children of the State should not be driven from our borders, to the certain weakening of State pride, nor forced into colleges where the influence may be against their religious opinions and prejudices.

        It must not be understood that all the denominational colleges took ground against public aid to the University. Guilford College, Catawba College, Elon College, Mount Pleasant College, and others, were conspicuous exceptions. The great schools like Bingham's, Horner's, Oak Ridge, stood by the University, and very many friends of the colleges, whose leaders were adversary, refused to join in the opposition.

        Another argument against the appropriation was that the University was an "Episcopalian concern" on account of the President, with two of the Professors, being members of the Protestant Episcopal Church and many of the Trustees having like affiliations. When it was shown that the Trustees were elected by the General Assembly, one-fourth every two years, and that some of the best men of the leading denominations

were active members and participated in the choice of professors, this charge made no serious impression. The members of the church criticized were only a small minority in the Faculty and never attempted to influence the students except generally in favor of Christianity.

        Then, again, it was charged that with so large an increase of annuity the Faculty would turn the University into a "great free school," and draw away patronage from other institutions. The answer to this was that the additional funds were to be used for the establishment of new professorships and additional apparatus for instruction. The tuition money would be quite as much needed as theretofore. The question of a free University was not before the General Assembly, nor before the Trustees.

        Again, the University was sneered at because her standards of admission and grades of scholarship were said to be lower than those of Johns Hopkins University and the University of Virginia. Raise your standard, they said, to the level of these institutions and you will not compete for students with the colleges.

        To show how unintelligent was this criticism of our University it must be observed, first, that Johns Hopkins is a heavily endowed institution, whose main object is instruction of graduates from other institutions, yet even with this advantage it was found necessary to adopt an undergraduate curriculum. A sufficient number of postgraduates could not otherwise be obtained.

        In the second place, although the University of Virginia was held up as a model for imitation by North Carolina, and fears of impending ruin to the colleges were expressed, because our University might become a "big free school," at that very time students were admitted into the Virginia institution on more easy terms than into ours, and there was with them free tuition, but not with us. In other words, what was fought against vehemently had already been adopted in our sister State, and in other Southern States. What was pronounced to be a deadly poison in North Carolina, was claimed to be "good medicine" in Virginia.

        The most elaborate attempt to prevent the General Assembly from voting an appropriation to the University was by a pamphlet by President Taylor, which endeavored to prove that the State should not give money to promote higher education. The people of the State had, however, concluded that it was certainly interested in equipping teachers with their mental furniture, that it is the duty of the State to provide for her young children--especially her poorer children--the means of making the most of their talents in pursuit of the various avocations of life, and that all should not be driven for their higher training to the denominational colleges. Moreover, it was noted that for years when the University was closed these colleges were only able to attract a few of those able to attend. It was seen to be certain that when, largely by the influence of the State University, the spirit of education should be aroused, all educational institutions would flourish. This has been the case in a marked degree and is the cause of the cessation of the feeling of jealousy and suspicion which once existed.

        I was harshly criticised for being what was called a "lobby member" when bills affecting the University were being considered. I admit the charge. I thought and feel perfectly certain that if I had not been the bills would not have passed. My electioneering was nearly altogether with the friends of the measures. They needed to be informed. The members have so many things to engage their attention that they can not keep posted on all questions. An incident will illustrate this: The University bill was called; an able Senator, an alumnus, stepped out to me in the lobby and said hastily, "What is this about?" I replied, "I furnished all the members with a printed statement, telling all about it. You will find it in your desk." "Oh! I have not had time to read it. Tell me about it." I did so and he made a good speech.

        At another time leading Trustees requested me to absent myself from the meeting of the Legislature because people said lobbying was undignified. When the University bill was read a Senator rose and said, "A professor told me that half that amount will suffice. I move to strike off one-half."

The friends of the University knew nothing about the matter. The motion prevailed. The University lost $10,000. The motion to amend would have been easily defeated if the lobby member had been present to explain it.

        Other instances showing the importance of having the course of legislation under the watchful care of a representative of the University have been already mentioned, one when the bill to pay interest on the Land Scrip Fund was saved, the other when the defeat of the $15,000 measure was averted by a conference called by Senator Means.

        On one occasion the Superintendent of a State Asylum came to Raleigh, expressed his views to a friend of the appropriation he desired, and returned dignifiedly to his home. In a day or two he received a telegram with the doleful news that his bill had been ruinously amended and he was forced to return to Raleigh and enter on his usual lobby duties.

        These cases are given because there is much criticism of lobbying. The truth is, that if "lobby members" endeavor to carry their points by threats or bribery or treating or forming combinations, called logrolling, they are reprehensible. But if they lay information before Members, and aid the friends of measures, and win opponents, by fair arguments or removing misunderstandings, they really facilitate legislation.

        I recall an instance of lobbying which will illustrate my meaning. Miss Dorothy Dix, after traveling through the country and witnessing the horrible ways in which insane people were neglected and sometimes intentionally treated, was in 1848 interviewing members in favor of a bill to issue State bonds for building our first insane asylum, now called Hospital for the Insane. She was told that James C. Dobbin had more power in the Legislature than any other Member, but that he was secluding himself on account of the death of his wife, to whom he was extremely attached. Repairing to his hotel she eloquently and feelingly urged him to subordinate his private griefs to the relief of the unfortunate whom God had deprived of reason. He could not resist her appeal, championed her cause in a speech of rare strength, and the bill was passed. Ought such lobbyists to be greeted with censure or ridicule?

        The opponents of the University were, as a rule, courteous to its President. There was one exception. An editor printed an article against him, accusing him of the offense of "using all the arts of a lobbyist." This last was an arrant falsehood. He never spent one cent's worth or treated to the value of a glass of lemonade or a cigar, as has been said.