Historical Development—As has been in dicated, although all the colleges established in early or colonial days were private corpora tions they were in nearly every instance the willing recipients of public bequests. This in vestment of public funds naturally carried with it the thought of State control, but the early colleges were all, more or less, under denomi national supervision and did not satisfy the de mands of the people as a whole. The growing spirit of democracy is resnonsible for the birth of the State university. Strangely enough as it may now seem because of the marvelous prog ress of public education, elementary, secondary and higher, in the North and West in recent decades, the South took the lead in this early movement for publicly supported institutions for higher learning. The constitution of North Carolina framed in 1776 provided that °all use ful learning shall be promoted and encouraged in one or more universities.' An institution was founded upon the provision of this clause in 1789 and came into the full control of the State in 1821. But the fullest development of the State university was to be reached in the newer States in the Middle West. The con stitution of Indiana, which is typical, provided in 1819 that It shall be the duty of the General Assembly as soon as circumstances will permit to provide by law for a general system of edu cation ascending in regular gradation from township schools to State university, wherein tuition shall be gratis and equally open to all.) Impetus was given to the establishment of State universities in 1862 by the passage of the Morrill Act by Congress. This act granted to each State 30,000 acres of public land for each senator and representative in Congress to which the State was entitled under the census of 1860. All money derived from the sale of these lands was to be invested by the State in securities bearing interest at not less than 5 per cent, ex cept that the legislature of the State might authorize the use of not more than 10 per cent of the capital for the purchase of sites for a college or experimental farms. The in terest was to be used for the endowment, sup port and maintenance of at least one college where the leading object should be to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions of life. Of the colleges bene fiting under the act Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina and Virginia divide the income be tween an institution for whites and one for col ored students. With the exception of Massa chusetts which divides the fund between two colleges, each of the other States maintains one college or university to receive the benefit of the fund. Nineteen States have created and maintain independent colleges of agriculture and the mechanic arts while also maintaining State universities. In each of 21 States the college of agriculture is a part of the State university. Twenty-eight States were allotted 8,160,000 acres of land in scrip; 20 States received 2,890, 000 acres in place. The scrip and lands have been sold for $12,643,309.43. Each State now applies all the income for the support of the agricultural and mechanical college. The total income for 1913-14 was $856,318.95. Among the State universities owing their origin to the Morrill Act are those of California, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, West Virginia and Wyoming.
The State universities now existing in 39 different States were founded as shown in following table : Resources and While the Mor rill Act had much to do with the inception of State universities, as has been indicated, the income from the fund and from supplementary acts is a very small part of the amount now ex pended annually by the several States for the furtherance of higher education. The principal
sources of income in addition to Federal land grants are student fees, gifts and State ap propriations. As has been noted, fees are merely nominal in all under-graduate courses and are not calculated upon a commercial basis in the professional schools. While the State universi ties have never strongly relied upon gifts many have profited by donations at various times. This is notably true of Georgia, Indiana, Kan sas, Michigan, Minnesota and North Caro lina. The University of Virginia received a gift of $2,000,000 in 1909 from Andrew Carne gie and others. The University of Wisconsin and the University of California have each been greatly enriched by private gifts. The chief source of income, however, is from direct appropriations by the legislature. Several States now have a mill-tax for the university which makes assured provision for maintenance. Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming have a mill-tax rate. For the year ending 30 1917 the University of Illinois received from her mill-tax, the University of Michigan $1,175,385 and the University of Wis consin $1,2,85,048.
Organization and The supervision and control of the typical State university is vested in a board of regents or trustees usually appointed by the governor with the consent of the senate. In a few instances the regents or trustees are chosen by the people at a general State election. This is true in Illi nois and Nebraska. There have been a few conspicuous departures from the general rule, but in the main these boards have been singu larly free from political interference and have as a natural consequence drawn to their mem bership representative citizens generally inter ested in the promotion of sound education and been able to act disinterestedly upon all im portant questions coming before them. In Indi ana University the alumni have a voice in the selection of the trustees, and the influence of the alumni is coming to be felt indirectly in the selection of governing boards throughout the country. It is not unusual to find one or more graduates on the board of an institution and the tendency in that direction is growing.
In practice the theory that boards legislate and individuals act or execute is the guiding principle in determining the relations of the governing board and the president. This prin ciple of procedure has not been established with out a struggle and regents or trustees without conception of their duties and with an inordi nate desire to their institutions have more than once caused serious trouble. The typical management of a State university to day is not unlike that of the average bank where the board of directors act in an advisory ca pacity only and leave the management of the daily business of the bank entirely in the hands of the executive officers. Accordingly the po sition of president of a great State university is a dignified one and calls for well-trained executive powers as well as for seasoned scholarship. Almoit universally the president is in fact as well as in name the real executive head of his institution, turning to his board for advice or for endorsement of general plans. In the matter of appointments and resignations upon the faculty the president initiates action and goes to his legislative board only for the confirmation or veto of his recommendations. Men like Angell at Michigan, Northrop at Minnesota and Draper at Illinois, through the free exercise of their great executive powers and by the force of their characters had much to do in determining methods of university pro cedure which have now widely become un written laws and which have in many instances, indeed, been written into university statutes.