Chapter 29 — James Andrew McCauley — 1872-1888.
A Man of Peace in a Storm
[ Previous Chapter ] [ Table of Contents ] [ Next Chapter ]

WHEN the Board met in June, 1872, it was known that Dashiell was to leave the College at the close of the year, as the General Conference of the Methodist Church, at its May meeting, had elected him Missionary Secretary. By a strange coincidence he was to succeed Durbin, who now, after five successive elections and a service of twenty-two years, was to lay down the official burdens and retire, four years before his death. Several names were mentioned for the presidency, but after an informal ballot the Secretary was unanimously ordered to cast the ballot for James A. McCauley, D.D., "who was then declared duly elected." McCauley was born in Cecil County, Maryland, in 1822, was graduated from the College in 1847, and was thus the second alumnus of the College called to its head. He taught for three years in Baltimore, was principal of a girls' school in Staunton , Virginia, for two years, served pastorates in the Baltimore Conference, 1854-1870, and had been Presiding Elder of the Washington District for two years, when elected President of Dickinson College.

Those who new McCauley best regarded him as a lover of peace, yet he became involved in trouble early in his administration which followed him to its close. However, his administration was a memorable one, for there was marked growth in the College during his time. Its invested funds doubled, the three old college buildings were thoroughly renewed as never before, and new buildings were erected and equipment installed, probably equal in value to the existing plant when he came. Yet he was forced to retire in the midst of the largest forward movement in the history of the College. It was a tragic end of an outstanding administration; a relentless Nemesis seemed to follow him after

events of the close of his second year, for which it seems hard to decide whether he should be blamed or pitied.

McCauley, elected in June, 1872, entered upon his duties on the opening of the next college year. Inaugurations were simple matters in those days. "The Dickinsonian," a college paper established at the time of his coming, says that on August 30 "a large audience of ladies, trustees, alumni and students convened in the college chapel [it would seat at most two hundred people], and gave the Doctor a warm and enthusiastic greeting as he entered, followed by the Faculty, the trustees resident in the town, and the clergy, who represented nearly all the churches of the borough." Professor Hillman presided and called on one of the local pastors to lead in prayer; on Dr. Wing to speak for the clergy; and on Col. R. M. Henderson to speak for the alumni. Some letters, written almost seventy years before on a similar occasion at the College, were read, probably by Dr. Robert Davidson, whose father had presided over the College 1804-1809, and who had been born in Carlisle a few years before his father's death in 1812. By some happy coincidence this son of the early Professor and Acting Principal was present, to connect the old and the new. Dr. Harman spoke for the Faculty, promising mental, moral, and, in case of need, physical support to the new President, a promise to be kept for a dozen years, after which the two good men, old and dear friends, became estranged. A student pledged student support, and for some reason spoke of the desire "for a President who would attend to the immediate interest of the College," and as he closed with a "Welcome," three times repeated, the student body broke out in cheers, though "cheer-leaders" were then unknown. The new President acknowledged the graciousness of his reception, pledged his best efforts to the College, and called on them all for support and coöperation He thus entered upon his sixteen years' service at the College.

His first year was uneventful — some repairs of the college wall, that seemed to be ever tumbling down, and the estab-

lishment of a rather good reading-room were the outer signs of progress. Two new Conferences, the Central Pennsylvania and New Jersey, set off from the original two, asked that arrangements be made for closer organic relations between the College and themselves; and Dr. McCauley presented the request to the Board in 1873, with the suggestion of charter changes whereby each of the five Conferences might name one clerical and one lay representative on the Board. This would have marred the previously absolute freedom of the College from legal denominational control, and the Board found another way to satisfy the Conferences. This they did by inviting the two or more conference visitors, sent annually by each Conference for purpose of inspection and report, to equal share in the deliberations of the Board, but without vote.

The next year, 1873-1874, was pregnant with trouble. On November 10 the faculty minutes record that a communication was received from a committee of three, one from each of the three lower classes, "that they would not hereafter recite in Prof. Trickett's recitation room." The same minutes record that the "President stated that he made some remarks to the classes in the Chapel at Professor Trickett's request. It was thought best, in view of the possible good effect of the President's speech to the students, that no action in the case should be taken at present." Their delay seems to have been wise, as no further mention of the matter appears in the faculty records, and the examination scheme, posted shortly after, has Professor Trickett listed to examine each of the objecting classes.

In the absence of official records, students who shared in the event say that their objections to Trickett were his excessive demands for work and his austere manner of treating them. They refused to attend Trickett's classes for about two weeks, being then granted a day for consideration of the matter following some concessions by Trickett. By a bare majority they voted to return to their work with Trickett.

In June following this trouble the President reported the matter to the Board as follows:

It is due to the truth as well as to that candor which you have a right to expect of me that I report the second year of my administration now closing as having been far less free from irregularities and friction than the first. We had been in session less than two months when a serious disturbance arose. The junior, sophomore and freshman classes notified me through a joint committee of the classes that they would "no longer attend recitations" in one department in the College. This combination embraced more than three-fourths of the students in College and among them many of the more mature in years and excellent in general character connected with the Institution. It was extremely difficult to manage. After earnest and prayerful effort continued through several days, the classes were induced to recede from their position and return to recitation. I will not burden my report with details of its management. Should the Board desire it, I will present either to them or to such committee as they may designate, a full statement of the history of the difficulty and of its adjustment. I have not, however, felt at liberty to omit allusion to it, because of its effect on the deportment of the year. Although the difficulty was managed in a way that appeared to me to avoid disaster to the College or injustice to students who had always been industrious and orderly, I yet did not hide from myself the fact that the mode of settlement adopted, that of conciliation and compromise, had in it the peril of impairing authority and fostering insubordination. Concession to those openly arrayed against authority must always be attended with this risk. As the least of the evils confronting me, however, I could but take this risk. Injurious effect apprehended as possible, has in measure, been experienced. Beside the fretting and exasperation incident to the trouble and which affected all connected with the College, the tendency has been in many ways to mar the pleasure of the year and to render its operations less harmonious and successful than they would otherwise have been.

Bishop Levi Scott moved that a committee of five members inquire into the disciplinary difficulties alluded to in the President's report. They were appointed, and Bishop Scott added as a sixth. At the next morning session of the Board, the following day, they reported:

Whereas harmonious coöperation in the Faculty is essential to the success of the College, and whereas we regret to find that such coöperation does not exist in the Faculty at present, and

Whereas the Board confide fully in the scholarship, discretion and purpose of Dr. McCauley, our worthy President and Principal of the College, therefore,
Resolved, That we the Board of Trustees do now and hereby declare the places of the several Professors vacant, and appoint a committee of three, of which committee Dr. McCauley shall be chairman, to nominate persons to fill the chairs.

Dr. McCauley requested that he be included in the resolution of removal, and that he be excused from presiding over the Board during the discussion of the subject, but a motion to grant this request was laid on the table. The first part of the resolution offered by the committee was then adopted, declaring "the places of the several Professors vacant"; and the committee which had made the original report on the subject, with the President of the College added, was directed to consider the filling of the Faculty. This committee withdrew and "returned with the following recommendations for the Faculty; Professor of Law, Judge Graham; Professor of Natural Science, Dr. C. F. Himes; Professor of Ancient Languages, Dr. H. M. Harman; Professor of English Literature, Rev. Aaron Rittenhouse; Professor of Mathematics, W. R. Fisher; Professor of Modern Languages, not prepared to report." The first four nominated were elected, but "the name of Mr. Fisher being before the Board for the chair of mathematics, General Rusling moved to amend by substituting the name of Rev. Joshua Lippincott therefor; Brother Mitchell nominated Rev. C. J. Little; Brother Shakespeare nominated W. A. Reynolds." This introduced confusion, and the matter was referred back to the committee which later nominated W. R. Fisher for Professor of Modern Languages and Joshua A. Lippincott for Professor of Mathematics.

A motion to substitute the name of Trickett, the incumbent and apparent cause of the trouble, for that of W. R. Fisher was lost, and W. R. Fisher was elected Professor of Modern Languages. While this was being discussed, a petition of college students for the retention of Trickett was

presented. A similar effort to elect Prof. S. B. Hillman, the old incumbent, to succeed himself as Professor of Mathematics instead of Joshua A. Lippincott came near to success. While this was being discussed, a newly elected trustee, John Wilson, of Wilmington, appeared and took his seat, and apparently his vote was needed. He was favorable to change in the Faculty, and the vote to substitute the name of Hillman for that of Lippincott was lost by a tie vote, 13 to 13; and the motion to adopt the report of the committee and elect J. A. Lippincott Professor of Mathematics was adopted. It was later claimed by Hillman's friends that Wilson had no right to vote, that he was a clergyman, and that his presence made more clergymen in the Board than the charter of the College allowed. Their contention later appeared in the courts of the county.

After these elections it was "Resolved, That the Board of Trustees cannot part with Professors Hillman, Stayman, and Trickett, without an expression of their high appreciation of the ability, culture and Christian character of these gentlemen, and of their best wishes for their future success."

Two of the three men thus dismissed were the men of longest service in the Faculty, Hillman since 1860, Stayman since 1861. Hillman had served the College well, apparently, in many capacities — Professor, Treasurer, Secretary of the Board of Trustees, and on Johnson's death, President pro tem. He seems to have been a many-sided man of affairs, as well as the regulation college teacher. It is barely possible that his many services to the College had led him to assume leadership not acceptable to the new President. Stayman was apparently a man of the study, given to scholarly things, a lover of literature and possibly of his ease — probably not very closely attentive to his college work, but much admired for his knowledge of English literature by the more appreciative students. That he may have been a little lacking in his attention to his college work is inferred only from the fact that when charges had to be brought against him later, it was alleged that he absented himself often and for con-

siderable periods from his work. Trickett was the youngest of the three, and the second man to come to the Faculty after graduate study abroad. Those who knew him well in later years, though they admired and even loved him, would probably agree that he was likely to be decided in his views. His comparative youth and recent coming into the Faculty would not lead him to concede anything to the older men with whom he was associated, or to his official chief, who possibly seemed to him without needed educational experience. The faculty minutes of the period show that he was often absent from faculty meetings, and once at least was alone in opposition to faculty action.

These men were all in the prime of life — Hillman 49 years of age; Stayman, 52; Trickett, 34; and it seems never to have been clearly known why they were removed. Their friends alleged that the President engineered their removal by secret arrangements beforehand, but that does not explain why he should wish to be rid of them, unless, possibly, they failed to cooperate with him in his work, as was freely charged by the President's friends. The President claimed that the trustees, starting from the unfortunate Trickett rebellion, proceeded to lengths he had never even considered. Students at the time of the removals never clearly understood their cause, and many of these same students remained good friends of both the President of the College and the men he is charged with having wronged. The time is too distant and the facts too vague to attempt any demonstrable conclusion as to whether the blame lay with the President, the Professors, or the trustees.

The three men were to be succeeded by Rittenhouse, Fisher, and Lippincott, but Rittenhouse declined, and Charles J. Little later accepted the position. These men all entered upon their duties in September following. In the meantime, however, Trickett had employed legal counsel and had become a student of the law himself. He served due notice on the President of the College that he had not been legally removed, and that he was ready to perform the

duties of his office. He called on his successor, Fisher, by quo warranto, "to show cause, &c.," and thus the second act was on the stage.

When the case was heard, Judge Junkin sustained Trickett's claim that as Professor he had been elected without term, and could be removed only on charges, and with opportunity to answer them. The Court granted Trickett a judgment of restoration, but with an oral statement that execution of a writ of ouster against Fisher would be delayed, so that they might possibly otherwise adjust their differences.

The Executive Committee of the trustees then called a special meeting of the Board for December 9, 1874. This meeting had two sessions, one on the evening of the 9th, the other on the morning of the 10th. At the first meeting the legal status of the case was presented, and at the second it was announced by those who had in the meantime conferred with the deposed Professors that no peaceful settlement was possible. The Board then adjourned to meet January 4, 1875, to try two of the Professors, Trickett and Stayman, as necessitated by decrees of the Court. Hillman and Stayman, encouraged by Trickett's success, had appealed to the Court, and Stayman had been granted the same favorable decision as that secured by Trickett. Hillman's case differed somewhat, as will later appear.

Charges against Trickett and Stayman were prepared and copies sent them later in December, and the Board met on January 4, 1875, to try the two men on the charges furnished. The trustees doubtless expected to make short work of the cases in a brief session, but in this they were disappointed, for they had seven meetings, continuing over three days. On assembling they were served with a preliminary injunction from the local Court against proceeding with their trial, the claim being that the Board was not legally constituted. This injunction was granted by Judge Martin C. Herman, of the Class of 1862, recently elected judge, and then presiding for his first sessions. The trustees met and adjourned several times, awaiting the Court's final

action on the injunction. At their fifth meeting, at 9 P.M. on the second day of their sessions, they were informed that the preliminary injunction had been dissolved and a permanent one refused, at the cost of the plaintiff. They were then able to proceed with the formal trial of the Professors.

It was then announced that the Professors were "willing to meet the Board in a conciliatory spirit," and a committee of the Board was appointed to confer with them on the subject. The report of this committee made to the sixth session of the Board the next morning was not acceptable. It was decided not to accept the proposals of the Professors, to adjourn for a half hour, and notify the Professors to answer the charges against them at the end of the recess. At the end of the recess, however., the Professors were willing to yield something of their earlier demands, and Bishop Simpson offered the following, which became the basis of the final legal settlement:

(1) Resolved, That we hereby rescind so much of the action of the Board of June 24, 1874, as declares the chairs of Professors Trickett and Stayman to be vacant.
(2) Resolved, That the charges preferred against these Professors for misconduct and breaches of the laws of the College, for the trial of which we are now assembled, have been withdrawn.
(3) Resolved, That the action of the Board of Trustees of June 24, 1874, was, in reference to Professors Trickett and Stayman, designed to promote what we believed to be the best interests of the College, and was not intended to reflect on their character as citizens or professors, and the Board regrets, if they feel injured thereby; that we hereby express our high appreciation of them personally and officially and that we commend them as educators of zeal and ability.
(4) Resolved, That we hereby authorize and direct the Treasurer of the College to pay the salaries of Professors Trickett and Stayman in full to January 1, 1875.
(5) Resolved, That we hereby accept the resignations of Professors Trickett and Stayman respectively to take effect January 1, 1875, and tender them our best wishes for future happiness and usefulness.
(6) Resolved, That we request Professors Fisher and Little to enter a nolle prosequi in the writs of error in the cases of quo warranto of Trickett vs. Fisher, and Stayman vs. Little, now pending in the Supreme Court, on condition that the said plaintiffs mark their actions of quo warranto settled.

Following this settlement, as the Court had ruled that there were no vacancies in June and as the elections of Professors Fisher and Little might be invalid, the Board reëlected the two men to the places made vacant by the resignations of Trickett and Stayman.

The Board held another meeting on the afternoon of the same day, to consider the case of Professor Hillman. His case had been somewhat different from that of the others. In the original action retiring him the Board seemed disposed to recognize his long, large, and valuable service to the College. They had voted him a bonus of one-fourth year's salary, $400. This he had accepted at once, and, when his case was brought before the Court, this fact militated against his making the same claim as that made by Trickett and Stayman. His act was construed as accepting his removal. However, the Board took no advantage of the technicality, which perhaps might have left him with only the one-fourth year's salary, and when it was announced that Hillman would accept the same terms as those granted the other two, the Board put him on the same basis with them. They paid him a half year's salary, including, however, the one-fourth year's salary previously voted him; and, as he occupied the West College residence, they charged him. for house-rent until the following April.

So the matter seemed closed. But it left divisions. There were sores, some open, but more covered and festering, to break out from time to time through many years. In the Board itself there was division. Attempt had been made to substitute Trickett for Fisher when Trickett was originally removed, and there had been a tie vote for the substitution of Hillman for Lippincott. The alumni also were divided. During the commencement of 1874, when the original removal was voted, they gathered to protest against it, and many of them went home alienated, and held aloof for years. Many of the students, possibly most of them, agreed with these alumni, and, as has been stated, they petitioned the Board to retain Trickett. They would probably have done

the same for "Sammy Hillman" and "Johnny Stayman," of whom they were fond, had they suspected that they were in danger of removal. There was no harmony anywhere. Everything was chaotic.

Two of the removed Professors withdrew from Carlisle, but Trickett remained as a lawyer, a very learned one. He thus became an ever-present witness of what had been done in 1874, nor was he a silent witness. He was a man of great parts, and quiet and retiring though he was, he made many friends, some in high places in the town. One of these was Wilbur F. Sadler, who became trustee of the College in 1878 and judge in 1884. The stage was gradually set for what seemed to Trickett and his friends his vindication.

The three faculty vacancies were filled by William Righter Fisher, Joshua A. Lippincott, and Charles J. Little. Fisher, of the Class of 1870, had had some experience in teaching and had studied some years in Germany. He stayed at the College only two years, so that it is not clear what he might have been. Lippincott, of the Class of 1858, had held important educational positions and served some pastorates. He was a genial, affable gentleman, not a great scholar, but he grew in capacity with the years. After nine years at Dickinson, he became Chancellor of the University of Kansas. He was a good man and had a splendid influence on the youths under him. Little, the brilliant man of the trio, was an alumnus of the University of Pennsylvania, with graduate study in Germany. His special field was philosophy, and in it he rendered distinguished service both at Dickinson and elsewhere. The students of his time remember him with pleasure always, and some of them say that he was the most stimulating man of their College life. During his stay at the College he served a term as Pennsylvania's State Librarian, and after eleven years went to Syracuse, later to Garrett, Biblical Institute at Evanston, Illinois, and after the death of President Henry B. Ridgaway, a Dickinsonian of the Class of 1849, was President of the Institute until his death. He was an outstanding man, not

only in intellect but also in the personal charm which gathered students about him to discuss the problems of their lives.

These three men, with McCauley, Himes, and Harman, made a Faculty of very high average. The new men, however, were not known, and the unfortunate divisions in college circles everywhere militated against student attendance at the College. The class which entered the College in 1874, the time of the upheaval, was the smallest and one of the poorest of its late history. Only nine men graduated four years later. By 1876 the enrolment had fallen to forty-nine, only half the previous number, and someone said the institution was merely "playing at college."

The student problem became serious. The Grammar School, which had been closed in 1869, after ninety-six years of service, was reopened in 1877. Other plans to add students were the admission of students on certificate, adopted in 1876, and the establishment, in 1877, of a Latin Scientific course of only three years of college work, with no Greek required. A Modern Language course of four years, requiring neither Greek nor Latin, was also established. Enrolment soon began to grow, and the new three-year course was promptly changed to one of four years in 1884.

Confidence in the College was gradually restored, and by 1882 there were ninety-seven students, about the normal number. McCauley then gave himself to much-belated repairs and renewals in the college plant. West College, erected in 1804, and East College in 1837, had been patched up a little from time to time, but had never had real overhauling. In 1877, the college chapel in West College, now Memorial Hall, was thoroughly renovated, and when completed was a new and attractive colonial room. In 1882, East and West College were likewise thoroughly renewed from top to bottom, at a cost of $9,325, most of which McCauley raised by personal solicitation. In 1886-1887, South College, which had always been an eyesore, was encased with brick and adapted to preparatory school uses.

The three old buildings were thus put in better shape than they had been for a generation.

These repairs had been made despite hard financial conditions. The removal of the Professors in 1874 had not only entailed immediate outlay of money for double salaries, but had lessened the student body. In 1877, to get something from tuition, despite the scholarships sold twenty-five years before, college tuition was put at $6.25 per year. Annual deficits continued, however, until 1879, when the budget balanced again. Though there were accumulated deficits of the previous years, this balanced budget encouraged the Board to add another much-needed man to the Faculty. In 1880 there was again a small deficit of $400, and the year following, Professor Himes, the Treasurer, emphasized the deficits and the difficulty of carrying them. The trustees thereupon took alarm and voted to reduce salaries of Professors from $1,600 to $1,500, but the following day, on the urgent request of the President, rescinded this action and restored the salaries. This restoration was justified; the next year there was a considerable surplus, and they felt able to pay the old salaries. They were beginning to feel financially secure, though in 1879 they learned of the definite loss of $11,200 of the funds invested in the West twenty years before.

Another forward step of the time secured a more vigorous Board of Trustees. Previously, trustees had been elected practically without term, but in 1879 the charter of the College was so changed as to divide the trustees into four classes, one-fourth to be elected annually for four years, with the privilege of reëlection. This arrangement, still in effect, making it easy to drop inactive or undesirable members of the Board, has greatly increased its efficiency.

In 1881, two years before the centennial year of the College, the trustees began to plan for a centennial drive for the sum of $150,000. At the centennial commencement in 1883, the President reported one gift of $30,000, another of $10,000, and that approximately $20,000 of the old

western loans, long unproductive, had been recovered. Thus over $60,000 had been added to the productive funds. The trustees, stimulated by this report, subscribed another $20,000 in their meeting. Later, at an alumni dinner, the first one probably in the history of the College, much more was subscribed. One of these dinner subscriptions, $10,000 by James W. Bosler, of the Class of 1854, a citizen of Carlisle, later became the nucleus of the James W. Bosler Memorial Library. The centennial movement thus added greatly to the college resources.

Dr. McCauley left three new buildings on the campus, in addition to his improvements to old buildings. A building for the Scientific Department had been suggested by Dr. Himes in 1878. The following year he reported that Spencer F. Baird, of the Smithsonian Institution, had collaborated with him on plans for such a building. To forward the movement for a Science Building, Himes, the following year, published, at his own expense, his "Sketch of Dickinson College," the only attempt at a history of the College to that date. In 1883 a Science Building, of which Himes had dreamed and for which he had worked, was authorized by the Board, to cost not more than $25,000. Jacob Tome, a trustee, later assumed the cost of the building, which bears his name. It was ready for use in 1884. At the time of its opening, President McCauley announced that the widow of James W. Bosler, the latter having died within the year, proposed, if his subscription of $10,000 were canceled, to erect a memorial building, and this resulted in the James W. Bosler Memorial Library. He announced also that an anonymous donor had promised funds for a gymnasium. Both these were promptly built, and were ready for use the following college year, 1885-1886.

An important and far-reaching action of this period was the admission of women to the College on the same terms as men. This was done in 1884. It has been generally thought that women were admitted hastily and without due consideration. The records in the case show, on the contrary,

that it probably had longer time for consideration than almost any other action of the governing authorities of the College, trustees and Faculty alike, and a summary of the records on the subject for eight years may be of interest.

In 1876, on motion of Gen. J. F. Rusling, the trustees ordered that "a committee of three be appointed, of which Col. Wright shall be chairman, to consider the advisability of admitting ladies to the studies of the College, or of making some provision for conferring degrees upon ladies, to report at the next meeting of the Board. Carried." The committee had no meeting, and on request of Col. Wright were discharged in 1877. Col. Wright, however, then offered for himself the following resolution:

The trustees of Dickinson College fully recognizing the increasing appreciation of the value of a college education to the young women of the country, and since from the experience of the institutions of learning where the coëducation of the sexes has been tried for some years, it may be accepted that such coëducation is of advantage intellectually and morally to both sexes, therefore, Resolved, That the President and professors be instructed to receive and admit females on the same terms and conditions as to age and attainment to the several classes in the College and that they be instructed to make such other regulations as may be required in the premises, and further, That the President be instructed to publish and advertise the same that the action of the trustees may become public.

This resolution was referred to the Faculty "to report upon the general subject at the next annual meeting." They discussed the question of "the admission of ladies" at two meetings, and authorized the President to report to the Board in 1878:

(1) That abstractly the Faculty are favorable to the extension of all purely educational facilities equally with males. (Dr. Harman, no.)
(2) That in the present condition and arrangement of the buildings for the purpose of recitation the question is not an open one, and unless sufficient patronage of that character can be assured, it would be inadvisable to make the necessary changes at present. (Professor Lippincott, no.)

The "arrangement of the buildings" to which reference was made required students to go through the boys' dormi-

tory halls to reach recitation rooms. In President McCauley's report to the Board, he said that women "should be protected in their education from all that might be indelicate," and that under present conditions, "there would be exposures for ladies attending work in the College, such as they ought not to be subjected to." The Board accepted their judgment.

In the summer of 1882, however, both the campus buildings were thoroughly renovated and recitation rooms so changed as to remove the previous objections to the admission of women. Then, in May, 1883, before the annual meeting of the Board, it was "Resolved, That the Faculty recommend to the Board of Trustees that women be admitted to the classes of the College on the same condition as men," Dr. Harman again in the negative. In presenting this action of the Faculty to the Board, the President said, "As this recommendation is in accord with the preponderant sentiment of the time in our own and other countries, and as, if adopted, the Faculty would anticipate advantage to the College from its operation, it is commended to your careful consideration." The faculty recommendation was thus brought before the Board, but in the press of matters of great interest during the celebration of the centennial of the College, it seems to have been overlooked. The following year, however, 1884, on motion ofJudge W. F. Sadler, it was "Resolved, That the whole matter as to the admission of females to the college course be left with the Faculty to determine upon cases as they may arise." The Faculty accepted this as authority to accept individual "cases as they may arise." At their next meeting on September 10, 1884, they admitted the first woman to the College, and she graduated in 1887, three years later, the first woman to receive the bachelor degree from the College. Three women graduated the following year, and three again in 1889. None graduated the following year, 1890, but three again in 1891. Seven of these first ten women to graduate married, showing that they had no fixed purpose to depart from the

usual activities of the sex and seek "careers." Twenty-five years later the five classes, 1913 to 1917, registered 102 women, of whom half were soon married.

The almost unanimous sentiment for coeducation on the part of those intimately connected with the College seems surprising. It might be different today, but fifty years ago the movement for the larger freedom of woman was regarded with grave suspicion in many quarters. In this case, however, the only one in apparent opposition at any time was Professor Harman, of the Faculty. All others seemed heartily in its favor.

The faculty changes in McCauley's administration following the removals of 1874 were rather numerous, mostly additions. Fisher resigned in 1876 after two years' service, and there were only five in the Faculty for three years. In 1879, however, Henry Clay Whiting, Ph.D., a graduate of Union College, 1867, was elected Professor of Latin. He resigned in 1899 and died in Carlisle two years later. In 1883 Aaron Rittenhouse, who had declined the election of 1874, accepted the chair of English Literature and History. He was a graduate of Wesleyan University and an eloquent preacher. Lippincott withdrew in 1883 to go to Kansas University as its Chancellor. Fletcher Durell succeeded him, an alumnus and graduate student of Princeton, receiving from the latter the philosophy degree. Durell was a rare man, not only a mathematician, but the kind of man to appeal to college students. During his twelve years at the College, no one, perhaps, had greater influence with the student body than had he. He resigned in 1895 to become Master in Mathematics at Lawrenceville, and issued a widely used series of mathematical textbooks.

Ovando Byron Super of the Class of 1873 became Professor of Modern Languages in 1884. He had studied abroad, received his doctorate at Boston University, and taught at Delaware College and Denver University. He continued with the College twenty-nine years. At the same time with Super, James Henry Morgan became Adjunct Professor of

Greek, to supplement the work of Dr. Harman and to take charge of the College Library so soon to go to the new Bosler Library. He was of the Class of 1878, and was to be with the College in various capacities for forty-four years. The manner of Morgan's election showed one possible cause for trouble to Dr. McCauley in his administration. The election occurred without previous conference with Harman, the head of the department, who learned it, as he later asserted, only from newspapers or from the mouths of others. Courtesy, as well as prudence, would have suggested a conference with Harman before the election, to gain his consent, if possible, or at least to avoid the sense of wrong which he felt at this infringement on his department without his knowledge. There may have been other causes, but this was one to which Harman always pointed as a reason for his estrangement from his official chief and his old-time friend, President McCauley.

William Birckhead Lindsay became Professor of Chemistry in 1885. This happened when the Department of Natural Sciences was divided, and Professor Himes chose the physics. Lindsay was a graduate and Ph.D. of Boston University. In 1911, after twenty-six years of fine service to the College, Lindsay resigned because of ill health. This same year, 1885, Little resigned to accept a chair at Syracuse, his going being a great loss to the College. In 1887 Lyman J. Muchmore became Instructor in Physiology and director of the new gymnasium.

During his term McCauley doubled the number of the Faculty, the value of the college plant, and the productive funds of the College, but his work was all done under the shadow of bitter criticism and relentless opposition. The dragon's teeth sowed in 1874 were always fruitful of troubles. He was always conscious of hostility in some parts of the college circle. For some years, however, it was not strong enough to disturb him greatly, though it doubtless sapped his vigor and prevented his doing the College even greater service than he did. Some incidents suggesting its manner and spirit may be illuminating. In 1881, while planning for

the centennial celebration and financial campaign, one of the trustees proposed as one of the centennial aims the securing of a centennial President. In 1885, when McCauley nominated Durell for the chair of Mathematics, Hillman was nominated by one of the trustees. He was one of those removed nine years before, and would have been altogether unacceptable to McCauley. In 1885 a small sum had been taken from one of the funds to make necessary repairs and pay a small balance on the two new buildings, above the amounts given by their donors. An unfriendly chairman of the Finance Committee of the Board in his report said, "It will be for your Board to say whether they will sanction this application of a part of this fund." It was a mere pinprick, and could have had no other purpose than to embarrass McCauley, for the report was adopted without reference to "sanction." In 1886 a paper was presented to the Board signed by ten people, seven of them citizens of Carlisle and three of them commencement visitors, some alumni and some not, praying that the Board investigate "the persistently asserted statement as to the serious mismanagement and internal dissension in the management of the College." The Board considered this paper as a Committee of the Whole. Nothing vital was revealed, but the gist of their conclusions was, "We regret that there has been any want of harmony in the Faculty, but deem further action inexpedient at the present time." Not a very decisive action, surely!

Such were some of the attacks, but a rare occasion offered in the fall of 1886. Disorders about the College occurred through which several students were dismissed. One of them on his dismissal went to the Treasurer of the College and received part of his term fees already paid, and was going home. Later, however, on advice from a lawyer, he demanded immediate reinstatement without trial, claiming that he had not been guilty as alleged, and that he had been illegally dismissed. He was strongly advised by a mature relative not to proceed with the case, for nothing would come of it to him. He said that he knew better, and the case finally came

to court. The Faculty, through counsel, asked the judge to invite another to hear the case. He refused, and the trial was before Judge Sadler, with Trickett as the student's counsel.

Quite a number of students had been suspended with the plaintiff student, and college excitement ran high during the trial, which was protracted. The judge finally gave an opinion that the student had not had fair trial, because he had not been confronted with the witnesses against him; and that, therefore, he might possibly be restored to the College by court order. However, as he had accepted the return of part of his college fee, thus presumptively accepting his dismissal, the Court would hold under advisement the question of his reinstatement. So the case continued to stand, and stands to this day, as no further decision was rendered. This, of course, made appeal to higher courts impossible, as there was no final decision. The case was widely heralded as a defeat for the College, in the metropolitan and denominational papers alike, and was used to discredit President McCauley. At the commencement in 1887, the President's report to the Board deplored the fact that the College had been the victim of its recent experience, and had "suffered through sensational reports and assertions through the press of reigning disorder and suspended recitations with nothing 'to give them color, nothing to justify them being made.' " The Board heartily commended the conduct of the College for the year, and lauded the character and services of the President.

This seems a strange prelude to what happened the year following. There was no untoward incident in college life during the year, no trouble anywhere, except a steady bombardment in newspapers wherever their columns were open. However, at the following commencement, in 1888, the Board met as a Committee of the Whole in executive session, of whose proceedings there is no record, and the following day McCauley resigned. It was the general impression at the time that he need not have done so, that a majority of the Board would have supported him. However, he had

wearied of the long fight, and ended the matter by his resignation.

This resignation seemed to show the much greater influence of a comparatively small number of militant enemies than that of a larger number of moderate friends. Some of McCauley's friends, on his resignation., were in the ugly mood which had characterized his opponents through the years, and attempted to remove from the Board some of those opponents. Judge R. M. Henderson was nominated for the place of Judge W. F. Sadler on the Board, when the latter was proposed for reëlection, but the nomination was laid on the table. The same was attempted with Charles H. Mullin, when his name was presented for reëlection, but the proposal was withdrawn. Only a few were so resentful as to propose reprisals against their opponents in the matter. Most or them seemed to think in the times called for a new spirit of conciliation and peace.

Resolutions on the withdrawal of people from institutions may mean much or little — generally, perhaps, little — but, on the withdrawal of McCauley, one resolution seems to mean something. It at least made record of a very complimentary truth:

Whereas Rev. J. A. McCauley, D.D., LL.D., has tendered to this Board his resignation as President of Dickinson College, we think it due to him and ourselves in hereby accepting the same to express our judgment in the following resolutions.
(1) We thank God for the success which has marked the labors of Dr. McCauley here during the sixteen years of his incumbency. The value of the college buildings has been more than doubled, and the endowment has risen to more than $300,000. The moral tone of the Institution has been elevated and the scope of its labor greatly enlarged; and a large number of trained graduates has gone out, who will bear through all their time the impress of his faithful labors.

The administration thus closed was the longest since that of Nisbet, and had more than doubled the material resources of the College, while maintaining and improving academic standards; but it closed with personal defeat for the leader whose cause had greatly prospered.


[ Previous Chapter ] [ Table of Contents ] [ Next Chapter ]