wedge is a very simple procedure, but it sometimes requires discretion. Jefferson had it. The entire income of the literary fund was about $60,000 a year. Of this amount $45,000 annually was appropriated for the education of poor children. This sum was not entirely exhausted by the demands of local commissioners, and Jefferson asked for the surplus. Through Cabell he tried again to establish common schools upon a self-supporting basis, and to liberate the entire fund. Failing in this excellent project, he did the next best thing. He borrowed the fund; that is, as much as he could obtain on legislative authority at one time, and pledged the annual appropriation of $15,000 for payment. The first loan amounted to $60,000. When this was exhausted, Jefferson asked the Legislature for another loan. This process was repeated until he had borrowed from the literary fund $180,000. There was, of course, but one end to all this, and that was legislative relief for the university debt. Cabell supported Jefferson's financial policy in the strongest way. As early as December 23, 1822, he wrote to Jefferson: "Let us have nothing to do with the old bal. ances, or dead horses, or escheated lands, but ask boldly to be exonerated from our debts by the powerful sinking fund of the State. This is manly and dignified legislation; and if we fail, the blame will not be ours."

Jefferson's financial policy is illustrated in the following naïve statement to the managers of the literary fund, in his fifth annual report, 1823 : "The several sums advanced from the literary fund as loans, when the balance of the last shall have been received, will amount to $180,000, bearing a present interest of $10,800. This, with the cost and necessary care and preservation of the establishment, will leave, of the an nual endowment of the University, a surplus of between two and three thousand dollars only. As before mentioned, this loan of $180,000 will be extinguished by an annual payment of a constant sum of $2,500, at the end of twenty-five years-a term too distant for the education of any person already born, or to be born for some time to come, and within that period a great expense will be incurred in the mere preservation of the buildings and appurtenances. These are views which it is the duty of the visitors to present, and to leave to the wisdom and paternal,consideration of the Legislature, to whose care are confided the instruction and other interests of the present, as well as of future generations proceeding from us."

THE UNIVERSITY FREED FROM DEBT.

On the 27th of January, 1824, the Legislature voted to liberate the annual appropriation to the University from the incumbrances with which it was charged. This generous action, which the State could well afford from the surplus accruing to the literary fund from the United States Government and other sources, left immediately available, after all university debts had been paid, $21,000 toward the com

pletion of the library or central academic building, upon which nearly $20,000 had already been expended. It left the annuity of $15,000 for the year 1824 altogether clear for current expenses and the salaries of professors, for whose engagement Jefferson had that year sent to Europe Mr. Francis W. Gilmer, "a learned and trustworthy citizen."

Jefferson's financial policy was grossly misrepresented the last year of his life by a contributor to the Richmond Enquirer, February 4, 1826, who called himself an "American Citizen." He professed to have paid a visit to Jefferson at Monticello, and to have had a familiar talk with him about his method of obtaining money from the Legislature. Being asked why he had not asked for a lump sum, Jefferson is reported to have said jocosely, that no one liked to have more than one hot potato at a time crammed down his throat. This story naturally offended the politicians and seriously injured the pecuniary prospects of the University. Jefferson was highly indignant at the gossip, and repudiated the insinuations made by the tattling correspondent. Jefferson wrote to Cabell, February 7, 1826: "He makes me declare that I have intentionally proceeded in a course of dupery of our Legislature, teasing them, as he makes me say, for six or seven sessions for successive aids to the University, and asking a part only at a time, and intentionally concealing the ultimate cost, and gives an inexact statement of a story of Obrian. Now, our annual reports will shew that we constantly gave full and candid accounts of the money expended, and statements of what might still be wanting, founded on the proctor's estimates. No man ever heard me speak of the grants of the Legislature but with acknowledgments of their liberality, which I have always declared had gone far beyond what I could have expected in the beginning. Yet the letter-writer has given to my expressions an aspect disrespectful of the Legislature, and calculated to give them offence, which I do absolutely disavow."

But it was impossible to counteract the impression made by that ancient political anecdote, in which there was just enough truth to put Jefferson in an unfavorable light before the public. And yet his defence was perfectly sound. No man ever approached a Legislature in a more frank and manly way, stating fairly and fully what he had done and what he wanted to do. He even acknowledged the mistakes he had made in importing Italian sculptors and in engaging Dr. Cooper before the University was able to pay his salary. In reading his annual reports to the president and directors of the literary fund, one can not fail to be astonished at the minuteness of detail and the completeness of statement with reference to the use made of every appropriation for the University. His method of modest and repeated applications to 1 Contemporary public opinion concerning Jefferson's undertaking is well illustrated in the following extract from the Richmond Whig, quoted in Niles's Register, March 4, 1826: "Much of the popularity which the institution might and ought to have enjoyed has been frittered away by incessant demands for pecuniary aid, anti-republican and meretricious ornament, and injudicious selections of professors."

the Legislature was the only practicable way of building up a great State university from small beginnings at that period, when public opinion was unfavorable to higher educational enterprise. Sooner or later all the friends of public education will learn that a frank and honest appeal to the public through the Legislature, or to representatives of the people, is quite as honorable business as begging money from private individuals for institutions of learning. Both methods will endure, and both are equally legitimate; but the era of democratic support of university education has dawned in many States, and it will not decline before individual or sectarian endowments, however generous. Institutions like the University of Virginia and the University of Michigan are destined to live and to grow from more to more.

CHAPTER VIII.

THE FIRST PROFESSORS.

DR. KNOX, OF BALTIMORE.

The first professor for the Johns Hopkins University, in Baltimore, was obtained from the University of Virginia, and the first professor for Jefferson's original institution was sought in Baltimore. On the 28th of July, 1817, the visitors of Central College agreed "that application be made to Dr. Knox,1 of Baltimore, to accept the professorship of languages, belles-lettres, rhetoric, history, and geography; and that an independent salary of $500, with a perquisite of $25 from each pupil, together with chambers for his accommodation, be allowed him as a compensation for his services, he finding the necessary assistant ushers." Here was theoretical provision for an entire faculty, if Dr. Knox had been willing to exercise the appointing power, pay his own faculty, and teach all the humanities for $500 a year. We are not much surprised to learn from a letter of Jefferson's to Cabell, September 10, 1817, that "Dr. Knox has retired from business, and I have written to Cooper."

DR. THOMAS COOPER.

On the 7th of October the visitors rescinded their original appointment and resolved to offer the first professorship to Dr. Thomas Cooper, of Pennsylvania, from whom Jefferson had received an encouraging letter. Cooper was elected to the chair of chemistry, to which was added provisionally the chair of law, with a fixed salary of $1,000 a year and tuition fees of $20 from each of his students. If Dr. Cooper accepted, it was resolved to appoint a professor of mathematics. Writing to Cabell, December 18, 1817, Jefferson speaks of "a letter I have just received from Dr. Cooper, engaging himself for our physiological and law schools."

At the first meeting of the visitors of the University, March 29, 1819, Dr. Cooper," heretofore appointed professor of chemistry and of law for the Central College," was confirmed university professor of chemistry, mineralogy, natural philosophy, and also of law, until the development of the institution and the increase of students should justify a separate appointment to the latter chair. As we have already seen in Jefferson's correspondence with Cooper, the latter was an accomplished lawyer, as well as one of the ablest men of his time in physical science. In Niles's Register, September 28, 1822, may be found a letter on "Improvement in Public Education," by Samuel Knox, 31 East Street, Baltimore.

In view of the extraordinary amount of work which the first professor was to undertake, it was voted that, in addition to his regular salary of $1,500, he should receive such an extra allowance as would make his income, including tuition fees, not less than $3,500 a year. The University agreed to take his apparatus at cost, and 2,500 specimens from his mineralogical collection. Dr. Cooper was in position to dictate his own terms, for at this juncture his services were demanded in New York by Governor Clinton, also in Philadelphia, and at the same time in New Orleans. Jefferson said enthusiastically of his first professor: "Cooper is acknowledged by every enlightened man who knows him to be the greatest man in America in the powers of his mind and in acquired information, and that without a single exception."1

OPPOSITION TO DR. COOPER.

This first appointment to the faculty created a decided opposition on the part of many real friends of the University. Cooper's religious views proved for him a stumbling-block. He was known to have been obnoxious to the prevailing religious sentiment of England, and partly for that reason to have sought refuge in America. Prejudice and suspicion were naturally aroused against him in orthodox and conservative Virginia. Cooper had supplied an arsenal of attack upon his philosophical and religious opinions by editing and annotating the writings of his fatherin-law, Dr. Priestley. Dr. John Rice, the editor of a religious magazine which was published in Richmond, and one of the original promoters of the University, led the crusade against Cooper in a critical article based upou extracts from Cooper's own writings, which, in the judgment of many, were sufficient to condemn him. The clergy of Virginia could not be oblivious to the danger of introducing among Virginia youth a propagandist of new and strange doctrines, as Cooper's views appeared to the men of his generation. So much pressure was exerted upon public opinion, and through it upon Cooper himself, that he felt constrained to offer his resignation, which, after honorable treatment by the board of visitors, was finally accepted in 1820. From an economic point of view this arrangement was altogether wise, for the University needed every dollar for building purposes, and was not ready for students until five years after this unfortunate affair.

JEFFERSON ON THE LOSS OF DR. COOPER.

The loss of Dr. Cooper, the first appointed professor of the University of Virginia, was a heavy blow to its founder, and moved him to re1 Correspondence of Jefferson and Cabell, 169. Interesting references to Cooper occur also on pp. 164, 165, 167, 169, 172, 178, 234, 235, 397–399, 454, 458, and 469.

2A strong defence of Dr. Rice and of the Presbyterian party which, under his leader. ship, opposed the appointment of Dr. Cooper, may be found in the Correspondence of Jefferson and Cabell, pp. 234, 235, notes. The spirit of the age is perhaps explanation enough. The Presbyterians were among the dissenters who made a State university possible in distinction from William and Mary College, which was Episcopalian, but they were not prepared for such extremes of dissent as were represented by Dr. Cooper.