The year 1830 was devoted by the friends of the university to the securing of $100,000 of subscriptions and to the further development of the programme of the university. On the 29th of July, 1830, a meeting of the standing committee was convened, to which Mr. Delafield, the secretary, presented the following report:

It is with pleasure the executive committee now reports the successful issue of their labors. More than $100,000 have been subscribed or secured to the object of the institution.

The record of subscriptions indicates that the largest part of the $100,000 was obtained in subscriptions of $1,500 each, of which there were 42 in all. There were only 4 subscriptions of larger sums, which brought on an average about $3,000 each. There were a score or two

of subscribers of sums less than $100, showing the popular character of the effort.

On the 31st of July the subscribers met and appointed a committee of 11 members to nominate candidates for the council or board of direction. Over 60 names were proposed to this committee, from whom were selected 32. Inasmuch as the scheme of the university forbade any religious denomination to have a majority, the church affiliations of the candidates were carefully ascertained and recorded. The following subscribers were duly chosen as incorporators on the 16th day of October, 1830:

Episcopalians 11, as follows: Jonathan M. Wainwright, James Milnor, Morgan Lewis, Albert Gallatin, John Haggerty, Samuel He says: It was in contemplation to apply to Trinity Church to release this condition (that is, the denominational condition inserted in the deed of the lands) in order to the introduction into the presidency of that eminent scholar and Presbyterian divine Dr. Mason;' but he goes on to say that the trustees decided instead of this to make John Mitchell Mason their provost (1811-1815). This proved but a temporary expedient.

"When the Revolution and the war of 1812 were past, and the completion of the canal system brought to New York new prosperity, then the movement on behalf of those not satisfied with Columbia as their educational representative took new growth, and that from so many quarters that no one can name its exact author, Nine gentlemen in 1829 called a public meeting, and this meeting, in January, 1830, issued a formal invitation to the community to unite in the founding of a new university. To compare small things with great, I would say of that date in higher education in New York what Macaulay says of the time when the Long Parliament met in 1641: From that day dates the corporate existence of two great parties. The distinction that was then made obvious had always existed and always must exist, for it has its origin in diversities of temper, of understanding, and of interest which are found in all societies, and which will be found till the human mind ceases to be drawn in opposite directions by the charm of habit and by the charm of novelty.' The first plank of the new university platform was that 'persons of every religious denomination shall be equally eligible to all offices and appointments in the new foundation.' This was inserted in the charter, where it still remains. The incorporators were to be elected by the subscribers of the endowment. These two planks of their platform illustrated the popular spirit and tendency of the movement. Certain consequences speedily followed. They satisfied nobody entirely. They were accused of being irreligious, because they made

Ward, jr., Fanning C. Tucker, Oliver M. Lownds, Edward Delafield, Charles G. Troup, and John Delafield; Presbyterians 9, as follows: Samuel H. Cox, Cyrus Mason, Samuel R. Betts, James Tallmadge, George Griswold, Stephen Whitney, James Lenox, John S. Crary, and Charles Starr; Reformed 7, as follows: James M. Mathews, Jacob Brodhead, Henry I. Wyckoff, Myndert Van Schaick, Martin E. Thompson, Benjamin L. Swan, and William W. Woolsey; Methodist 1, as follows: Gabriel P. Dissosway; Friend 1, as follows: Valentine Mott; Baptists 2, as follows: Spencer II. Cone and Archibald Maclay; one not specified.

Associated with them were the mayor of the city and 4 members of the common council, these 4 being elected by the subscribers in the same way with the other 32 members.

One hundred and sixty-nine subscribers were qualified to cast votes, each vote representing $100. Altogether 543 votes were cast. Not less than 500 of these were given each of above-named members, so that the choice was almost unanimous.

The council thus chosen held its first meeting October 18, 1830, and elected Mr. Albert Gallatin president and Mr. John Delafield secretary. Mr. Gallatin's name does not appear in connection with the university until this date. He resigned, after a year's service, on the 22d of October, 1831, giving the state of his health as the cause of the resignation. This was one year before the doors of the university no provision in the charter for religious teaching. One writer of 1830 says: For all that I can see, an infidel or an atheist may have access to every professorship in the institution.' But as soon as the subscribers had elected thirty-two incorporators, it was found that eight of them were parsons, namely, two Baptists, two Dutch, two Episcopalians, and two Presbyterians. Immediately the university was declared to be too religious. In the Evening Post of 1830 a writer exclaims: 'It was solely because Columbia was supposed to be subservient to a particular church that it was not supposed capable of satisfying the community. The new university has chosen its counsel-eight names with the prefix of reverend. I regret it as a most inauspicious circumstance. It is no answer to say that these gentlemen are of different persuasions. It is quite enough that these men are united together by the bond of particular religious sympathies. Far removed as we are from these conflicts, we can plainly see that the spirit of the university movement was decidedly puritan, though not in any narrow sense denominational. It stood, as Columbia manfully and conscientiously stood, for a system of thought in regard to church and state and education. Each side held its view firmly and felt bound to advance it by every lawful means. The new movement was also on the side of innovation against conservatism. The first programme of the university announced elective courses open to those who did not care for classical training: also, popular instruction for nonmatriculants and graduate courses for men who had gone through college. Had the founders not suffered in the financial disaster of that decade, but obtained the endowment of half a million dollars which they asked for, no doubt they would have developed these popular lines of study. They sincerely attempted them, but with only the fee of each student as compensation for the instruction, the outcome was very feeble.

"But why could not the two elements of the community have joined in 1830 in a

were open for instruction. Mr. Gallatin hardly deserves the credit for early or active service in the cause of the university given him by his biographer in the series of American Statesmen, which makes him a pioneer in the work, and says, "In response to his request abundant subscriptions in money and material were at once forthcoming." The facts upon record show that Mr. Gallatin had no part in the first efforts of the New York University, and that the first $100,000 were pledged before he entered the council. He said publicly, in October, 1830, "Lately honored with a seat in the council of the university, I have not yet had an opportunity of ascertaining the particular views of the friends of the institution."

This biography is also very defective in its account of Mr. Gallatin's resignation. It quotes a private letter in which Mr. Gallatin says, "Finding that a certain portion of the clergy had obtained the control, and that their object, though laudable, was special and quite distinct from mine, I resigned at the end of one year." But it omits to mention the issue between himself and the clergymen on the committee of organization, viz, Drs. Samuel H. Cox, Jonathan Wainright, and Chancellor Mathews. It was the then new question whether men might not have a college degree without any language save their mother tongue. Mr. Gallatin said:

No possible injury can arise from embracing the opportunity offered by the new university to make a fair experiment of what may properly be called an Eng

single university? The matter was talked of. In the very month when the first subscription was obtained for the new enterprise, a leading subscriber said: 'It is the object of the projectors to aggregate such institutions as exist in the city in a respectable university, of which Columbia College may become the brightest star in the constellation.' A single meeting of committees of Columbia College and of the university was held at the beginning of 1830, but without result. The following month the boards of Columbia College and the university were invited to meet the city council in regard to a fine property which some thought should be the site of a great university. It was in the rear of the present city hall. The university committee were present and stated their readiness to unite upon terms that should be equitable and practicable. The Columbia committee were not present, and the hearing was deferred until they should be heard from. On the part of interested citizens it was proposed that the common council should give the property in the rear of the city hall to the two bodies if they would unite; that the integrity of Columbia College should not be disturbed; that the university council should also remain, and that the city council, corresponding to our present aldermen, should be the controlling power over both institutions. No traces appear of any further joint meeting of the conference committees of the two colleges. The simple fact was that Columbia could not lawfully retain its valuable property and resign the supreme control, while those represented in the university would not take less than an equal part in any metropolitan university movement which they might undertake. Nor was this for selfish or personal reasons on either side. It was, as I have said, because each championed a most valuable tendency in human thought. Possibly as to the particular plan of union proposed in 1830 they were a little timid. They were afraid of federation under the direction of the board of aldermen.

"There was no lack of extended discussion of the university question in New

lish college. Before the Reformation the way to the word of God was obstructed by the improper use of the Latin language. We now find the same impediment arresting a more general diffusion of human knowledge.

The university consented that students might enter for special courses without any language save the English, but refused to give such students a degree. Nearly a year after Mr. Gallatin's resignation a less radical proposition was made by the vice-president of the council, Judge Betts, who offered the following proposition:

The full course of study shall comprise the Greek, Latin, French, Spanish, and German languages. Students, with the assent and advice of the chancellor and professors, may be allowed an option in the study of the languages, either as to the extent to which those branches shall be pursued or the particular languages to be studied.

The council declined to organize a full college course omitting the classical languages. They thus threw away an opportunity of anticipating by more than a generation the system now practiced successfully. The position of the university in regard to college courses was not taken hastily. On the 31st of July, 1830, Dr. Mathews reported to the standing committee, as shown by their minutes, his plan of a convention of distinguished scholars and teachers who might offer advice respecting the proposed plan of the new university. He stated that he had, "during an excursion made in the last four weeks, met with officers and gentlemen connected with various learned instituYork at that period. The thoughtfulness of Mr. Charles Butler has placed at my command the data from which I derive these statements. I find publications on the side of the university by Academist, by Zeno, Candor, Impartiality, and by Plebs, and on the side of Columbia by Jurisconsultus, Freeholder, and Civis, and a 'Mechanic who pays taxes,' besides any number from 'Old Friends,' 'Old Subscribers, and Careful Observers.' I find, as was natural, that there was quite a little stirring of feeling, not to say temper, in reference to the question whether there should be two universities or only one. Nicknames even were used. Those who wanted education centered in Columbia were called 'sectarians,' 'patricians,' 'monkish spirits with protruding horn and cloven foot,' while on the other hand the university men were named 'radicals' and 'disorganizers,' 'enemies of a high and generous system of education,' 'a designing set of Presbyterians and their dupes of other denominations.' All this irritation of feeling seems to us like the pamphlets of the time of the Long Parliament. I name them only as showing the depth of conviction which then existed. The convictions, I repeat, were allied with tendencies deep down in every large community of the Anglo-Saxon race. The existence of these tendencies is the salvation of Anglo-Saxon nations. We can not obliterate the tendencies. We ought not to obliterate them if we could. The two existing universities in New York are monuments of the two tendencies.

"I am not aware that within sixty years the fundamental conditions have particularly changed; neither conservatism nor liberalism has vanished. Trinity Church has not abrogated the conditions placed upon Columbia College. The university has not changed its charter provision forbidding any exclusion from office on account of religion,

"Absolute consolidation to-day of the two is no more possible than in 1830. In fact, it is more difficult, because every dollar which the university possesses has been given by private citizens and under the conditions that I have named."

tions and with men of high literary reputation from Europe; that he had received from them expressions of friendly feelings in relation to the proposed university." He suggested "the expediency of inviting a convention of learned and literary men from the several States of our Union at which the whole subject of education might be discussed," and Dr. Mathews, Dr. Wainright, and Mr. John Delafield were appointed a committee to call such a convention. Before the date of the meeting they added to their number Mr. Gallatin.

At this convention Mr. Gallatin advocated at length his plan of an English college alongside of the classical college. He was supported by Dr. Gallaudet, of Hartford. They were opposed by Dr. Lieber, of Boston; President Marsh, of the University of Vermont; President Patton, of Princeton, and President Mason, of Hobart College. The university seems to have followed the advice of the majority.

Other conspicuous participants in this convention were Jared Sparks, Professor Silliman, George Bancroft, Theodore D. Woolsey, with several scholars educated at continental universities. Mr. Bancroft's address argued affirmatively the question, "Whether the country in its present condition demands a university, and whether any responsibility rests upon New York with relation to it."

This convention, which continued in session from Wednesday to Saturday, the 23d of October, 1830, quickened the energies of the university council. Twenty-six members attended the council the following Saturday and appointed as the committee on the plan of university organization Drs. Wainwright and Mathews, Albert Gallatin, William Seaman, James Lenox, James Tallmadge, and Samuel H. Cox. This committee were thoroughly agreed upon the establishment of a graduate or university school which should enroll not only matriculants as candidates for honors, but also "attending members," and, second, that the undergraduate college students should be given wide election among the courses offered, but the bachelor's diploma was reserved for those who completed "a full classical, philosophical, and mathematical course." Among the proposed professorships in the graduate school one was to comprise "the philosophy of education and the instruction of teachers." The proposed professorships anticipated largely what is now required for the six New York university schools, namely, the college, the graduate school, the schools of pedagogy, engineering, law, and medicine. In the spring of 1832 an optimistic view of the resources of the university stated, "The university has now on hand a capital of about $40,000, with a subscription of about $50,000 more, that may be considered as good." Dr. Cox proposed that $25,000 be counted as endowment to yield $1,500; that $2,000 be raised by annual subscription; that $5,000 be expected from classical students, and $2,500 from nonclassical, and that on this prospect of $11,000 or a little more the work of instruction should be begun. This estimate allowed an