canoes. Yet these gentlemen, bred up on Plutarch, Tacitus, and Livy, had the distinguished merit to found a modern American university in the year 1817. Having once established the university, it became a matter of honor to maintain it, but otherwise to leave it to its own resources.1 "The history of State higher education in Michigan," says Professor Blackmar, "centers around one institution, but that institution is the foremost university of the great West, and, indeed, the first model of a complete State university in America." In 1817 the Catholepistemiad, or University Michigania, was a mere paper concern. In 1825 an idea was conceived of having a university of Michigan composed of a hundred colleges, something on the order of the University of New York, but one to be for the higher education of women, another a normal, still another an agricultural department, all focusing in or at the "university," whose "regents" were to help support them while the counties did the rest. "The extensive plan early entertained for the branch schools of the University of Michigan," says Mr. Blackmar, who prefers to ascribe this idea to the influence of the German gymnasia, as he does the Catholepistemiad, or University Michigania, to the University of Berlin of 1810, for instance, "resulted in nothing further than the establishment of an excellent system of high schools connected directly with the university curriculum, but entirely independent of the institution in their support and government." In Michigan the secondary and higher education are knit together by mutual understanding; in New York they are connected by a "university;" in Virginia the university is still a concentrated establishment, whose sphere of direct influence is confined to its own precincts; but none of these things can be affirmed of the Massachusetts university at Cambridge. Great as are the difficulties of making a thoroughly accurate statement concerning the endowment in the shape of lands given by the Federal Government to the several States, they are greatly inferior to those encountered in attempting to relate what the State has given. The legislatures of newly admitted States are not always the best informed persons as to the proper disposition of lands and money for higher education, and some unfortunate legislation undoubtedly has resulted; but it is to be remarked that, bearing in mind the vast quantities of cheap public lands still retained by the United States up to 1880, all statements of gross mismanagement as "proved" by meager returns are to be carefully weighed before adoption. The first great difficulty with the university fund while it was still land was to sell it profitably at an early day; the second, when the land had been converted into money, was to invest the money at remunerative rates. Upon these rocks of educational land financiering perhaps several legislatures wrecked the hopes of an endowment for a State university; and then, in a mood of contrition for the evil which had followed from their acts, assumed the loss as a debt, the interest on which was thereafter to be paid by public taxation. It is judicious, therefore, to leave the subject of the management of these funds to the historian 1 Extract from the report of the committee of schools and colleges of the legislature of Virginia, against the expediency of withdrawing the $15,000 annually from the University of Virginia, 1815, Document No. 41: * It would, on some accounts, certainly be desirable were our university, like Harvard and several others, sustained entirely or in great part by funds derived from the munificence of individuals. But it should not be forgotten that, while by this means the public would be relieved from the annual contribution now required, the general interests of the community as affected by the operations of the institution would be either wholly neglected or but partially secured. The entire government and organization devolving upon self-elective boards of trustees irresponsible to the State would of necessity be exposed to the narrowing influences springing from the predilections and prejudices of religious sects and classes of society, and the university, by an easy transition, losing the liberal features of a school suited equally to all, would become the property and the spoiled favorite of a particular denomination or rank." (Report drawn for committee by W. B. Rogers, chairman of the faculty of the university, and apparently presented as the report of the committee.) Life and Letters of William B. Rogers, first president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Appendix A to Vol. I. of each State, who can award the praise or blame that a thorough investigation of the circumstances warrants. The thirteen original States were saved the vexations attending the management of public land grants for higher education. At the present day the connection of the State and higher education seems to be becoming in certain parts of the United States an explicit arrangement between higher education and the people. The money received into the State treasury as "taxes" is too nearly the sum actually required for the specific purpose for which each tax was levied to allow of legislative munificence in appropriating "any money in the State treasury not otherwise appropriated," even though the appropriation would have so laudable an object as higher education. This difficulty is felt more keenly in the younger and less wealthy States, as it was in the colonial days of the States of the Atlantic Coast. In those early days a ferry toll, a tax of a peck of corn, a tax on exported tobacco and on imported liquors, negroes, and Irish servants were crude forms of an expedient that the inland States are now finding it convenient to adopt. Formerly the mania for lotteries was used to provide funds for establishing institutions of higher education, but at the present day public morality can not be so hoodwinked by the show of higher education for a dummy as to be seduced into an effort to legalize this once popular device. 3 The method now coming into vogue is to levy directly a specifically named tax upon the taxable property in the State for the support of a State university or, in the case of Colorado, for the university, the agricultural college, and the school of mines-for each institution one-sixth of a mill. But this is not the only form in which this expedient is resorted to. The State of South Carolina has assumed the examination of fertilizers and the guaranty of their contents. This work of guaranteeing the value for agricultural purposes of artificial manures is the work in part of the State experiment station, and the $60,000 that is thus obtained is given for the support of the State agricultural college. It is thought that no other experiment station produces results more obviously valuable than those of the South Carolina station. The endowment is commensurate with the Federal subsidy and the munificence of Mr. Clemson. A list of the States taxing the people directly for higher education is given below: States in which the people tax themselves specifically for higher education. (Does not include technical colleges unless same are colleges of the university.) California (University of California).-Tax of 1 per cent on $100; in 1898, 2 per cent. Colorado (University of Colorado).-Tax of one-fifth of a mill. (Also taxes itself to the same amount for its agricultural college and its school of mines.) Georgia (University of Georgia).-Annual appropriation for cleven years of $6,000, or $66,000. Idaho (University of Idaho).-Annual appropriation for 1892, 1893, 1894, and 1895 of three-fourths of a mill on assessed value of property in State. In 1893 this yielded $22.307. Indiana (University of Indiana).-Tax for twelve years, 1883-1895, of 5 mills on $100; estimated to yield $700,000. Kentucky (Agricultural and Mechanical College of Kentucky).—Tax of 5 mills on $100. Maine (University of Maine).-In 1897 an annual appropriation for ten years of $20,000, or $200.000. Maryland.-The appropriation to St. John's College. Michigan (University of Michigan).-Tax of one-twentieth of a mill on $1, 1873-1894 (capitalized at 4 per cent $375,000); of one-sixth of a mill in 1894. Grant of $6,000 annually for support of medical school. Minnesota (University of Minnesota).-In 1897 the legislature increased the tax of 15 of a mill to 2, a net increase of $40,000. 23 Missouri (University of Missouri).-Refund of direct tax by Federal Government, given by State, $656,000; also, three-tenths of 1 per cent of State revenue. Nebraska (University of Nebraska).—Tax on property of 1 mill, 1869-1873; tax 1 Massachusetts. 2 Virginia. 3 Maryland. on property of three-eighths of a mill, 1873-1897. This yielded but $32,000 in 1873; in 1887, $170,000; in 1897, $70,000. Ohio (State University).-Tax by State of one-twentieth of a mill (capitalized at 4 per cent $2,250,000), 1891-1895; in 1896, one-tenth of a mill. Oregon (University of Oregon).-Tax by State of one-tenth of a mill, 1882-1887; tax by State of one-seventh of a mill, 1887-1892; granted by State since 1893, $30,000 annually. Virginia (University of Virginia).-Annual appropriation, 1818-1876, $15,000; annual appropriation, 1877-1884, $30,000; annual appropriation, 1885-1894, $40,000; annual appropriation, 1895-1897, $50,000. Wisconsin (University of Wisconsin).-Tax in 1883, one-eighth of a mill; in 1891, one-tenth of a mill. Also (laws 1893), for two years an additional State tax of one-fifth of a mill for each dollar of assessed value of taxable property for increased administrative expenditures. In 1896 these taxes yielded $75,434, $60,347, and $120,695. The other great purpose for which taxes have been laid by the States to establish higher education is a very costly one-the construction of adequate buildings. The most conclusive way of arriving at the amount of this species of State taxation would be to sum up the value of the grounds and buildings were it not very frequently the case that private benefactors have built and presented one or more of the buildings or the grounds upon which the university is placed. Despite this defect, however, such a method is here adopted; for we are dealing on this occasion with the aid furnished by the Federal and State governments to establish universities; and had there been no such action on the part of the Government there would have been no occasion to present lands to them for sites or to provide and furnish science halls and dormitories to facilitate their instruction or accommodate their students. It is thought that such benefactions would not probably have gone to other institutions, in the first place, because they are largely given by an alumnus in grateful memory of his alma mater, and, in the second, are due to a patriotic feeling for the renown of the State. The value of the property in the form of grounds, buildings, and apparatus of the institutions named under each State, as hereafter given, is $41,000,000. On a subsequent occasion it is hoped that it will be possible to present a statement of the total amount given by the several States to maintain higher education. In this chapter it is impossible to do more than to give the total amount of productive funds reported by the institutions which are named in the summary with which the chapter now closes. The amount of these productive funds, including the quasi State universities of Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and Cornell, is $51,673,233, of which about $30,000,000 belongs to the four universities named. It thus appears that institutions that have been materially aided by Federal and State governments possess about $92,000,000 worth of property either as real estate and apparatus or as "productive funds.” Summary of Federal and State aid given to establish higher education in— 240,000 253,000 Act of 1890 (Federal) capitalizing subsidy (1897) at 4 per cent (acts of legislative bodies) 575,000 Fertilizer tax for 1896, capitalized at 4 per cent (acts of legislative bodios). 218.718 13144,239 estimated as lost (Histy. Ed. in Ala., Clark, p. 45) and fund fixed at $250,000 by State in 1848. 2 Estimated. Summary of Federal and State aid given to establish higher education in—Cont'd. Lands granted by Federal Government for higher education are said to have been divided among counties for common-school purposes in Lands (Federal) granted on admission to Union Lands (Federal) granted on admission for building. Lands (Federal) granted by act 1862 for Agricultural and Mechanical Lands (Federal) granted as swamp lands to State, and by it to university Act (Federal) of 1830, capitalized as for Alabama. 575,000 State appropriation in 1873 for building. State appropriation in 1872 for building. State tax of 1 per cent (in 1898 2 per cent) on $100 property, capitalized at 4 per cent in 1888 when passed. State appropriation 1896-97 ($50,000 for building) Fixed property not subject to annual grant: Value of property, productive. Total fixed property. 300,000 81,800 1,914,590 179,000 1,190,000 2,745,000 3,935,000 State tax of one-fifth of a mill ou all property which capitalized at the date of passage (1881) at 4 per cent 46,080 Act of 1890 (Federal) capitalized at 4 per cent, as for Alabama.. 90,000 State tax of one-fifth of a mill, capitalized in 1881 at 4 per cent, as above. $ 500,000 30,000 37,000 4 270,000 575,000 $500,000 37,000 $ 500,000 37,000 600,000 230,000 830,000 CONNECTICUT. Yale University: Colonial subsidy, 1701-1741, £120 or £100 a year, capitalized at 4 per cent (actual value of £1).. 10,000 Colonial lands (a township brought from $3,300 to $18,000 in those days) 1,500 State gifts up to 1823 and grant of 1831 (legislative committee report 1823) At present (1897) this would be about $936,400 at 4 per cent capitalization. The Agricultural College at first received one-tenth of a mill (1877-1881). This was used for buildings. Estimated; much unsold. Summary of Federal and State aid given to establish higher education in-Cont'd. Delaware College: Act of 1862 (Federal). DELAWARE. Act of 1890 (Federal), capitalized at 4 per cent ($17,600 in 1896 for whites) Fixed property not subject to annual grant: Value of property Value of productive funds Total fixed property... East and West Florida seminaries: FLORIDA. Lands (Federal) granted before and on admission 92,160 2130,000 Act of 1862 (Federal). Act of 1890 (Federal), capitalized at 4 per cent, one-half income for whites..... 575,000 State Agricultural College: State aid has been given from time to time for building, etc., a few thousand at a time. Fixed property not subject to annual grant: Value of property Value of productive funds Total fixed property. University of Georgia: GEORGIA. Lands, State warrant for $100,000, on which State pays 8 per cent.... Annual appropriation by State for eleven years, $6,000.... Act of 1862 (Federal). Act of 1890 (Federal), capitalized at 4 per cent, one-half income for whites. Cash in 1833, by State. Act of 1871, donating old United States mint, Dahlonega, and its 10 acres (1875) Medical college, since 1873 a part of the university: Premium on stock in Bank of Augusta by State. Georgia School of Technology: Last appropriation by State.. Fixed property not subject to annual grant: 575,000 80,000 10,000 25,000 20,000 822,000 342,000 (The income of this fund is divided between the two State normal universities.) 1This does not include an appropriation in 1895 (to take an example) of $25,000 for current expenses voted by the State before the litigation respecting the Federal subsidy of 1890 was settled. 2 Estimated by State superintendent in 1874 in this way, to wit: 47,000 acres actual sales, $97,204; 38,000 unsold, estimated, $76,000. The East Florida Seminary does not report endowment funds, but the West Florida reports $65,000. ED 97-73 |