The History of the University of Pennsylvania/Chapter VII

by George B. Wood

 

Chapter VII.

 

Establishment of the University.

 

The enmity which had thus triumphed over the authorities of the college, was not extended to the objects for which it had been established. On the contrary, having transferred the rights and property vested in the former trustees into more friendly hands, the legislature took the institution into favour, endowed it with lands out of the confiscated estates to the annual value of fifteen hundred pounds, and by the right of adoption, conferred upon it the new and more lofty title of University of Pennsylvania. The board appointed by the act of assembly consisted of three distinct sets of individuals. The first was composed of certain members of the government who possessed a seat at the board in virtue of their several offices; the second, of the "senior ministers in standing" of the six principal sects in Philadelphia; and the third, of individuals selected for their attachment to the revolution, which, in most of them, was evinced by the possession of high public stations in the commonwealth.^[1] By these appointments, it will be perceived that the legislature fully provided for the political fidelity of the University, and its perfect impartiality towards all religious denominations; and these ends were still more firmly secured by the reservation of the right, within six months after the choice of any new trustee, to disapprove and annul the election. Whether the real interest of the institution was consulted by placing it in the hands of men, whose public engagements might be supposed sufficient to occupy their whole attention, was a question which could not be readily answered, and was perhaps considered of secondary importance.

The new trustees met for the first time in December 1779 and having taken the oath or affirmation at that time prescribed by law, organized themselves into a board, and appointed his excellency, Joseph Reed, their president. However dissatisfied with the late decision, the former authorities of the college did not venture to resist the will of the government, and quietly resigned their property to their appointed successors. Steps were immediately taken to arrange the affairs of the school, and to select suitable individuals to fill the vacant offices. The Rev. Dr. John Ewing, a trustee by right of his station in the Presbyterian church, was chosen provost. David Rittenhouse, the distinguished astronomer, also a trustee, was made a professor, with the title of vice-provost The professorship of the languages was conferred upon the Rev. Robert Davidson, and that of mathematics upon James Cannon, who had been previously employed in the college. James Davidson, who had succeeded Mr. Beveridge as teacher of the Latin and Greek languages, and had been connected with the late institution for more than ten years, was appointed rector of the academy, with an authority independent of the collegiate faculty. A German school was added to the other branches of the seminary; and the Rev. Mr. Kunze gave up his office as one of the trustees, in order to accept the direction of this department. In the course, however, of a very few years, many changes were made. Mr. Rittenhouse, resigning the vice-provostship, was succeeded by the Rev. Samuel Magaw;^[2] James Davidson was made professor of the languages in the place of the Rev. Robert Davidson, who left the institution; and Robert Patterson, who had before been employed in a subordinate station, was appointed, as the successor of Mr. Cannon, to the chair of mathematics.

Much difficulty was experienced in organizing a medical faculty. For more than three years there was a constant succession of appointments and resignations; and it was not till the autumn of 1783 that the affair was ultimately settled by the reinstatement of the former professors in the respective stations which they had held in the college.

Among the incidents in the history of the university, it would be improper to pass over, without notice, an evidence of the kindness with which this country and its institutions were regarded by the government of France. In July, 1784, a letter was received by the board of trustees from the Marquis de Chattaleau, requesting their acceptance of a collection of valuable books as a present from his most Christian Majesty, made at the instance of the Count de Vergennes and himself. It is unnecessary to say that this mark of royal favour was received with due respect, and answered with a profession of their grateful sense of the honour conferred upon them. Even republicans are wont to attach a fictitious value to the favours of monarchs; and, in the present case, the munificence of the gift is still further enhanced by the associations which our memory forms of its royal author with the independence of our country and his own unmerited misfortunes.

The success of the university was by no means adequate to the expectations, which the patronage of the legislature and its own advantages of situation were calculated to excite. It is true that the inferior schools were generally well attended; but the college classes were small, and the graduates few; and at no period could it boast of a prosperity equal to that which the college had at one time enjoyed. This deficiency of support was undoubtedly in part attributable to the political condition of the country, and to the competition of new seminaries; but other causes quite as influential were to be found in circumstances especially belonging to the university itself. The trustees, chosen principally in consequence of their public stations, not from any peculiar fitness for the office, or attachment to its duties, could not be expected to manifest that minute attention and vigilant care which had characterized their predecessors, whose long connexion with the college had almost identified its interests with their own. The consequences of this want of vigilance in the board were evident, as well in the uncertain and fluctuating measures which were adopted, as in the condition of the financial concerns, which even the liberal grant of the legislature did not preserve from embarrassment. With the teachers, the unsettled state of their accounts was a frequent source of complaint; and the numerous changes which took place among them, owing probably to this as much as to any other cause, were calculated very materially to injure the reputation of the school. Besides the want of proper energy in the management of the university, another impediment to its prosperity existed in the unfriendly feelings with which it was regarded by many respectable citizens. Attached to the old school and its officers, and considering the new as having been founded in usurpation, they were disposed both from inclination and principle to prefer some distant seminary for the education of their children; thus not only withdrawing their immediate support from the university, but arraying against it the influence of their example with their fellow-citizens, and the force of new attachments among those who were hereafter to become active members of society. To this period we may perhaps trace the origin of those partialities which have directed away from our highest literary institution so much of the public patronage, and at this moment are operating to the disadvantage and dishonour of the city.

1. The following is a list of the members of the board:—

   Of the first division—those, namely, who held their places by virtue of their offices under the commonwealth, were

   1. The president of the supreme executive council—Joseph Reed;
   2. The vice-president of the council—William Moore;
   3. The speaker of the general assembly—John Bayard;
   4. The chief justice of the supreme court—Thomas McKean;
   5. The judge of the admiralty—Francis Hopkinson;
      6. The attorney general—Jonathan Dickinson Sergeant.
   The second division consisted of
   1. The senior minister of the Episcopal churches—Rev. Wm. White;
   2. The senior minister of the Presbyterian churches—Rev. John Ewing;
   3. The senior minister of the Lutheran churches—Rev. John Christopher Kunze;
   4. The senior minister of the German Calvinist churches—Rev. Casparus Weiberg;
   5. The senior minister of the Baptist churches —;
   6. The senior minister of the Roman churches—Rev. Ferdinand Farmer.
   The gentlemen composing the third division were Dr. Franklin, then minister at Paris; William Shippen, Frederick Muhlenberg, and James Searle, delegates from Pennsylvania in the congress of the United States; William Augustus Atlee, and John Evans, judges of the supreme court; Timothy Matlack, secretary of the supreme executive council; David Rittenhouse, treasurer of the state; Jonathan Bayard Smith; Samuel Morris; George Bryan; Dr. Thomas Bond; and Dr. James Hutchinson.
2. The same Samuel Magaw, I suspect, who was mentioned in the list of the first graduates of the college.