“The
Literary Societies,” History of the University of North Carolina
Volume
I. p.72-85 & 565-569
Kemp Plummer Battle
The Dialectic and Philanthropic Societies have been such a large part of our university life that I must give their origin.
It was doubtless through the
influence of Tutor Harris, who had seen the benefits of the renowned Whig
Society of Princeton, of which he was a member, that the first literary society
of the University was formed, as his name is the first on the list of signers
to the preliminary articles. It was organized on the 3d day of June, 1795,
under the name of “The Debating Society.” The first President was James Mebane,
of Orange, afterwards of Caswell; the first Clerk or Secretary was John Taylor,
of Orange; the first Treasurer was Lawrence Toole, who changed his name to
Henry Irwin Toole, of Edgecombe, grandfather of Bishop Joseph B. Cheshire; the
first Censor Morum, Richard Sims, of Warren, afterwards Principal of The
Grammar School.
The objects of the society
were expressed to be the cultivation of a lasting friendship and the promotion
of useful knowledge. The members pledged themselves under hands and seals to
obedience to the laws of the society and due performance of the regular
exercises. I give the names of those fathers of the Dialectic and philanthropic
Societies.
Charles
Wilson Harris Cabarrus
Adam
Haywood Edgecombe
Robert
Smith Cabarrus
Alexander
Osborne Iredell
Edwin
Jay Osborne Rowan
William
Houston Iredell
William
Dickson Burke
James
Mebane Orange
John
Pettigrew Tyrrell
Richard
Eagles New Hanover
Hinton
James New
Hanover
Haywood
Ruffin Greene
Richard
Sims Warren
Lawrence
Toole Edgecombe
Henry
Kinchen Franklin
William
Morgan Sneed Granville
Ebenezer
Pettigrew Tyrrell
William
C. Alston Halifax
Hutchins
G. Burton, Sr. Granville
Evan
Jones New
Hanover
John
Taylor Orange
Maurice
Moore Brunswick
Alfred
Moore Brunswick
Thomas
Davis Bennehan Orange
Francis
Nash Williams Burton Granville
Allen
Green South
Carolina
Allen
Jones Davie Halifax
Hyder
Ali Davie Halifax
Nicholas
Long Franklin
George
Washington Long Halifax
There was no constitution eo nomine, but there were “Laws and
Regulations,” some of which are worthy of mention. The officers were a President,
Censor Morum, two Correctors, a Clerk, and Treasurer. The President and
Treasurer held office for three weeks, the other officers for six weeks.
The Censor Morum was clothed
with powers and duties which would not be tolerated in this generation, “to inspect
the conduct and morals of the members and report to the society those who
preserve inattention to the studies of the University, in neglect of their
duties as members, or in acting in such a manner as to reflect disgrace on
their fellow-members.” This making the society responsible for attention to
University exercises has been long ago abandoned, after the effort came near
breaking it into fragments. This powerful officer, evidently modeled after the
august Censors of Rome, presided in the absence of the President.
The Society met on Thursday
evenings only. The members were divided into three classes. These read, spoke
and composed alternatively. There was a
debate at each session, two opposing members previously appointed opening, and
then the other members had a right to discuss the question, but were not
compelled to do so.
It was the duty of each
member of the class whose turn it was to “read” to hand in a query,” then
called “subject of debate,” and out of these one was chosen for the next meeting
by the Society.
It must be noticed that the
“reading” mentioned above meant the reading aloud of an extract of some author.
Of the other two classes one declaimed memorized extracts, and the other read
aloud short essays of their own composition.
Two votes were sufficient to
negative an application for membership. The term “black-ball” was not then in
vogue. The new members when admitted were required to “promise not to divulge
any of the secrets of the Society.” The stringency of this provision has been
since materially modified.
It was made dangerous to
“take umbrage at being fined,” and to denote it by word or action,” because, if
the fine should be found to be legal, the accused must pay a quarter of a
dollar for his squirming. There was mercifully no penalty for showing umbrage
by a gloomy countenance unless the gloom was evidenced by frowning or other
facial action.
There seems to have been no
fine for laughing or talking, unless a speaker was interrupted.
The practice of wearing hats
in the society, as is permitted in the English Parliament, was forbidden The
President, however, of at least one Society, the Dialectic, was after some
years required to preside with hat on, often a high-crowned beaver borrowed for
the purpose.
The admission fee was one
quarter of a dollar. If a member absented himself for three months, without
obtaining a diploma of dismission, he musts seek a new admission.
A member could leave the
society without asking its consent, nor was any student compelled to join it. But
having once left there could be no e-admission.
It shows the high purpose of
the founders of the society that the first motion made after the admission of
members, at the first meeting on June 3d, 1795, was for the purchase of books.
It passed unanimously. The mover was Tutor Harris.
The first speech made in this
parent of the Dialectic and Philanthropic Societies was by James Mebane who
sustained the affirmative of the first query ever debated, "“s the Study
of Ancient Authors Useful?” He was
answered by Robert Smith. I am proud to say that the classics won the day..
At the second meeting, on
June 11, 1795, it was agreed to admit no more new members. A great moral
question was then discussed, the names of the speakers being omitted. This was
“Is the truth always to be adhered to? The decision being “that breaches of
faith are sometimes proper.” It is gratifying to observe that the decisions of
the queries debated were as a rule conservative and sensible.
On 25th of June,
1795, Maurice Moore moved that the society be divided. The motion was laid over
for one week and on July 2das taken up and carried. The new organization was
called “The Concord Society.” We can only conjecture the cause of the new
movement, as no reason appears on the journal. It is possible that there was in
it an element of party feeling. Jeffersonian Democracy claimed to be the
peculiar advocate of the “Rights of Man.” The name Concord, and the substituted
Philanthropic, and the addition of the word Liberty to the motto of the other
society, look in this direction.
Another reason for the
division was probably to have the number so small as to allow and require every
member to perform some duty at each weekly meeting. The prohibition of further
addition to the membership of the first society seems to show this.
A third reason for the change
was, I think, hostility to the extensive powers and duties of the Censor Morum,
heretofore described. I make this conjecture because the officer was omitted in
the new body, and when it was restored after many months his duties were
carefully confined to behavior of members in society. Even this however proved
unsatisfactory and the name was changed to Vice-President. It will now be admitted that the seceding students wee
right in their attitude. The Dialectic Society eventually came to the same
conclusion.
For some weeks it was
allowable to belong to both societies, which was practicable as they met on
different nights in order to have the use of the same room. The first student,
Hinton James, and Maurice and Alfred Moore were for a while active members of
both. When the duplicate membership was forbidden, they elected the new.
I cannot find an official
list of the “Fathers” of the Concord or Philanthropic Society, but after
carefully examining the journal I think the following can be relied on:
Hinton James New Hanover
Richard Eagles New
Hanover
George Washingon Long Halifax
John Taylor Chapel Hill
William McKenzie Clark Martin
David Gillespie Duplin
Edwin Jay Osborne Wilmington
Evan Jones Wilmington
Nicholas Jones Franklin
James Paine Unknown
Alexander McCulloch Halifax
David Evans Edgecombe
Henry Kearney Warren
Thomas Hunt Granville
Lewis Dickson Duplin
John Bryan Sampson
Lawrence Ashe Dorsey Wilmington
Joseph Gillespie Duplin
In all, 18.
The residence of James Paine
does not appear further than that he was from North Carolina.
The records of the Dialectic
Society state that the following remained in the Debating Society at the time
of the division, their full names and residences having already been given,
viz.: Messrs. Harris, Houston Toole, H. and F. Burton, R. Smith, Bennehan,
Kinchen, Sims, Haywood, Ruffin, James, Green, A. Osborne, W. Dickson, Sneed, J.
and E. Pettigrew, Davie, Mebane, M. and A. Moore. Of these, as was said, James
and the two Moores soon became members of the other, and John Pettigrew
followed a year afterwards.
The first meting of the
Concord Society was August 10, 1795. David Gillespie was the first President,
Evan Jones the first Treasurer, Henry Kearney the first Clerk. The first
debaters were George W. Long and Henry Kearney, on the question “Which is
best—an Education or a Fortune?” It is consistent with the honorable career of
the society that the decision was in favor of education.
The first President, son of
James Gillespie, of Duplin, member of Congress for eight years, was evidently a
most promising student. By the courtesy of David S. Nicholson, I give a copy of
the certificate granted him on his leaving the University, the first document
in the nature of a diploma ever granted.
We, the undersigned Professors of the University of North Carolina, have had under our particular care Mr. David Gillespie of this state. He has studied Greek and Latin and the elementary Mathematics in their application to Surveying, Navigation, etc. He has also read under our care Natural Philosophy and Astronomy. His behavior, while at this place, has met with our warmest approbation. Mr. Gillespie, being about to leave the University to attend Mr. Ellicott in determining the Southern boundary of the United States, we have thought proper to give hi this certificate.
Chas.
W. Harris
Professor of ath. And N. Phil.
W. L. Richards
Teacher of French and English
University, N.C. September 22, 1796
To this was attached the
certificate of Sam. Ashe, Governor, attested by Roger Moore, Private Secretary,
with the great seal of the State, that the above-named were professors of the
University as alleged.
After working for about a
year it occurred to the members of both societies that English names were not
of sufficient dignity. Accordingly on the 25th of August, 1796, in
pursuance of a motion made by James Webb, of Hillsboro, a week preceding, the
name Debating was changed into its Greek equivalent, Dialectic. And four days
afterward, on the 29th of August, 1796, the Greek Philanthropic took
the place of Concord, on motion of David Gillespie. I have no information as to
whether, when this name was adopted the pronunciation was wrongly Phi-lanthropic
instead of Phil-anthropic. Johnston’s Dictionary, then the standard, gives no
countenance to it, and I am inclined to think that the mispronunciation,
prevalent here for many decades, arose from the custom of universal among
students of abbreviating names in common use, and from the euphonic wish to
have the nickname sound like Di. Those familiar with university life know well
that undergraduates would smash every dictionary in the land before they would
be called Phils., or as it soon would have become, Phillies.
The Fundamental Laws,
afterwards called Constitution, and the course of proceedings of the two
societies were much alike.
In the Concord for a short
while new members could be admitted by a majority vote. The first restriction
was the requirement of two-thirds in case the applicant was under fifteen years
of age. I notice no other material differences, and I make no further
distinction between the two in endeavoring to reproduce their action.
In the declamations, then
called “speaking,” we miss Patrick Henry’s “give me liberty or give me death,”
because that speech was written by Wirt long afterwards, nor of course do we
find Emmett’s, “Let no man write my epitaph.” In their places were Cicero’s
denunciations of Verres, and Demosthenes’ thunderings against Philip, Micipsa’s
plea against Jugurtha, Brutus over the body of Lucretia, Catalines’ speech to
his soldiers, and the like.
It is surprising that the
stock utterances of our Revolutionary sires, such as Otis, Adams, Henry,
Rutledge, R.H. Lee, were not reproduced in our halls. It is in accord with the
hatred of Great Britain which has not all waned that there were no selections
from the great English orators.
The readings were extracts
from history, poetry, the Spectator, and the like literature. They were
generally serious: occasionally comic, for example, “The stuttering Soldier,”
“The Bald-headed Cove,” “Anecdote of Miss Bush.” It shows the difference in the
habit of matutinal sleeping that one of the essays was in ridicule of “The Boy
Who Lay in Bed After Sunrise.” The extract chosen by David Gillespie from the
preface to Murray’s Grammar, just out of press, was of sufficient gravity.
Not many of the subjects of
composition are given. Among them I notice “Oratory,” “Eloquence,” “Unpoliteness,”
Industry.”
But the subjects chosen for
debates, and the votes taken thereon, throw much greater light on the
intellectual attitude of the students. I therefore cull from the records of oth
societies such of those subjects as will show the tastes and opinions of the
members during the first two years of the university life.
I have already shown that the
decision was that education is better than riches. It was likewise decided that
public education is of more advantage than private, and horrible dictu, that the schoolmaster is of more advantage to
society than the preacher. The members were of the opinion that wisdom tends to
happiness; that modern history is of more value to students than ancient; that
a liberal education is more conducive to happiness than a savage life. The
theory of Rousseau, that savage is on the whole happier than civilized life,
was at one time affirmed; at another, negatived. It was voted that the French
language is of more value than the Latin.
In an unguarded moment one of
the Societies agreed to discuss whether travelling improves the mind, whereupon
there is the following curious entry, “As the question intended for debate is
not “thinkable,” the opponents coincied in opinion. The debate was therefore not a good one, but, after, the regular
business was over, we debated on this question, “Does a man with competency, or
he who is in a very affluent station, enjoy most happiness” The admirers of
Solomon will be gratified to know that competency was successful.
This incident reminds me that
Mrs. Delphinia E. Mendenhall, of Guilford, a Quakeress, presented to the
Dialectic Society Dymonds Essays, advocating universal peace. When a student I induced the Query Committee
to report the question, taken from the essays, “Is War Ever Justifiable?” The
great debaters in the society declared that it was altogether one-sided,
refused to discuss it, and censured the committee for adopting a query on one
side of which nothing could be said. As it was not my turn to speak, I had not
crammed on the subject from Dymond and was unable o bring forward a single
Quaker argument in order to avert the displeasure of the house.
The last educational topic
will astonish readers of this generation. It was however discussed seriously in
a literary society of an American university, “Shall Corporal Punishment be
Introduced Into the University.” The memory of smarting backs and knuckles
produced an emphatic No! I must explain that small boys in the institution had not then been separated from the rest
and placed in a preparatory deparment.
The members were fairly
orthodox, although infidelity and lawless theories were so prevalent throughout
the world. It was decided that Religion makes mankind happy, that Self-Conceit
does not produce happiness, that the Bible is to be believed, that the
Profligate is more unhappy than the Moralist, that Polygamy is not consistent
with the will of God, that temporary marriages would not conduce to the good of
society, that Suicide can never be justifiable. Even on the concrete question,
whether Lucretia was justifiable in killing herself, it was voted that the poor
lady was blameable, although by her martyrdom she inaugurated popular
government in Rome.
On what is called the
Jesuitical doctrine of Pious Frauds, it was oted that they are wrong, although
on the similar question whether it is ever allowable to tell lies the members
agreed with military men, statesmen and others that occasion may arise to
justify them. As to which is most despicable the Thief or the Liar, the
decision was that the Thief was the worst. Indeed on another occasion it was
solemnly voted that he ought to be hung instead of receiving the milder
punishment of forty stripes save one. On the question, “Is Debauchery or
Drunkeness most prejudicial,” drunkeness was pronounced the lesser evil. The
miser was considered an unworthy character evidently, because it was discussed
whether we have the right to kill him and distribute his property. He was
spared. A blow was struck at the Sermon on the Mount when it was decided that
it is not consistent with reason to love one’s enemies. It is gratifying that
they thought that actions cannot be politically right and morally wrong.
Whether duelling is ever justifiable was discussed several times. Twice it was
sustained and once the decision was adverse, though it is significant that
Tutor Harris then opened the debate. Salaried ministers of the gospel should
breathe more freely on learning that the students of 1796 deemed it conformable
to the Christian religion for preachers to get wages. Fun-lovers should be
comforted in knowing their opinion, that “moderate fortune and good humor are
preferable to a large estate and bad disposition."
Other decisions were that:
Health is better than Riches; that love of mankind is more prevalent than love
of money; that Flattery is sometimes useful; that the pursuit of an object
gives greater happiness than the enjoyment; that Pride is essential to
happiness; that a man is happier in seeking his own approbation than in seeking
that of other; that a state of nature is a state of war; that the Immortality
of the soul is not deducible from reason; that beasts have no souls. It is
surprisingly that young men in the last decade of the 18th century,
with the war spirit hot throughout the world debated with warmth, but could not
be brought to a decision, the question, “It is justifiable to kill one who is
threatening one’s life?”
Among the moral and religious
questions it should perhaps be mentioned that the opponents of such amusements
as dancing, fox hunting, horse racing, and the like, had the strength to bring
forward the query, “Is it politic for the Trustees to permit a Dancing School
at the University?” They were outvoted.
During the first yeas of the
University the students were totally debarred from society of ladies of their
own age, as the village was merely on paper. It is to be noted, however, that
none the less was their interest in all questions of a social nature. “Does a
matrimonial or single life confer most happiness” was gravely decided in favor
of marriage. “Are Talents or Riches
greater recommendations to the ladies?” was asked, and the society honored the
fair sex by answering “Talents.” “Are ladies or wine most deleterious to students?”
Was another question, the palm for deleteriousness being awarded, I grieve to
say, to the ladies. Greater gratitude was shown, however, in the decision of
the next, “Is female modesty natural of affected?” nature getting the credit.
The members wrestled with this rather nebulous speculation, “Is love without
hope, or malice without revenge, most injurious,” but never came to a
conclusion.’ I presume this was on of the non-thinkable” subjects. The members
knew their own minds however on this question, “Should a man marry for gold or
for beauty?”, the preference being given to the red metal.
Of course, questions of
public policy were frequently debated. Indeed one enthusiastic member proposed
that the Constitution of the United States should be discusse clause by clause,
but this was to great a task. The extent of the powers granted by the
Constitution, the unconstitutionality of acts of Congress, seem not to have
attracted attention. I find only questions of expediency or the reverse. For
example, “Is an excise tax consistent with principles of Liberty?” answered in
the affirmative. “Are standing armies useful?” answered No. “Are salaries of
the United States officers too great?” answered Yes. “Is the neutrality of the
United States in the French-British War consistent with gratitude ?” answer,
Yes. “Should the United States pay the British debts?’ answer, No. “Which is
the best a pure Democracy or a mixed government?” answer, Mixed. “Should
foreigners be allowed to hold offices in the United States?” answer at one
time, Yes; and another, No. “Should army officers be appointed by the executive
or the Legislature?” answer, by the executive. “Should our diplomatic
intercourse be diminished?” answer, No. “Is there just cause of war by the
United States against France?” (February, 1797), decision, No. In April the
same discussion arose and the war spirit gained the vote. “Should our Navy be
increased?” decision, Yes. “Should the United States further negotiate with
Algiers?” Decision, No. “Is it equitable and politic to confiscate private
property in war?” decision, Yes. “Is Spain blameable for obstructing the
navigation of the Mississippi?” Decision, Yes. “Are treaties contrary to the
Law of Nations binding?” decision, Yes. “Should the United States adopt
Sumptuary Laws?” decision, Yes.
It is remarkable that the
question should have been debated, “Is the Constitution of England or the
United States preferable?” The decision, as might be expected, was in favor of
the United Sates. The members pronounced themselves in favor of a protective
tariff. They anticipated the action of this State sixty-one years in declaring
for free suffrage for both branches of the General Assembly. This shows the
preponderance of Western members. They likewise voted against the use of paper
money. When this question was called, Robert Burton, afterwards a North
Carolina judge, and Nathaniel Williams, afterwards a Tennessee judge, who had
been appointed to open the debate, declined to speak for the reason that they
knew nothing of the subject. This excuse was unanimously disallowed and they
were promptly fined.
When it was argued “Is peace
or war most useful?” it is honestly recorded that the vote was in favor of war
“from the arguments.” That commerce is useful to nations only passed by a
majority vote. As to the relative advantageousness of Commerce and Agriculture,
the preference was given to commerce. Was not this the old contest between
Poseidon against Athena, Neptune against Minerva?
On the slavery question the
members on the whole took the Southern view, yet there was evident a want of
enthusiasm , if not positive doubt. It is likely that the decision on the
query, “Whether Africans have not as much right to enslave Americans as
Americans to enslave Africans?” viz: that “Africans have as good right, if not
better,” was in a jocular spirit. But there was no joking in the declaration
that Death is preferable to Slavery, but it is probable that they meant slavery
to white people. The fact, however, that the members discussed the question,
“Whether Slaves are advantageous to the United States,” and “Whether the
importation of African slaves is of advantage to the United States?” shows that
there was difference of opinion, although the majority was in the affirmative
in both cases. A spirit of doubt as to the beneficence of he institution seems
to be implied in the question “Should slavery be abolished at this time?”,
notwithstanding that the members answered no.
I give a few miscellaneous
questions perhaps worthy to be recorded. The right of the Legislature of the
United States to instruct members of Congress was debated but not decided. It
is noticeable that a serious was had as to whether public offices should be
venal, i.e. at liberty to be bought an sold. The decision was adverse. It is in
affirmance of what political economists say of the abominable evils of the poor
laws of England at this time that a debate was had as to the propriety of
making any provision for paupers, although the conclusion was favorable. The
members voted that the fathers should retain the power of disinheriting
altogether their children, although admirers of French ways contended
otherwise. The latter, however, succeeded in obtaining a majority vote that
Louis XVI, as justly beheaded. The members showed their jealousy of the Federal
Government by voting on one occasion that official salaries were too high, and
on another that members of Congress should be paid less wages than soldiers.
They voted at one tie that bodily strength is better than valor in war, and at
another that ingenuity is superior to bodily strength. It seems that the
vegetarian theory, one of the first modern absurd “isms,” had pentrated to our
wilds, because the prohibition of animal food was discussed, but it was too
much to expect our keen-stomached students with visions of ham and roast beef,
or the savory fried chicken at to-morrow’s dinner, to vote against their
consumption.
In the spring of 1796, both
societies voted to substitute a play for all other exercises, and the members
made preparations with enthusiasm. This action was probably stimulated by the
advent of a tutor, Mr. Richards, who had been an actor. The scenery was
purchased at Williamsboro, but it does not appear why such apparatus was in
that village. Such was the zeal of the amateur Thespians that one of the members
who agreed to take two parts and failed without excuse was incontinently
expelled from one of the societies. I regret that I can find no description of
this great dramatic performance.
As showing the contrast
between the reading room of 1796 and that of one hundred years later I state
that a motion was mad in one of the societies that the Halifax Journal be subscribed for in behalf of the members;
whereupon Alexander McCulloch, brother-in-la of William Boylan, one of the
editors, generously offered the use of is copy, and the motion was withdrawn. A
subsequent motion to buy the Fayetteville
Minerva was defeated, as one paper was deemed sufficient. The following is
the first list of books ever purchased
by either society. It shows taste for solid reading—not a novel among them.
Locke
on Human Understanding
Woolstonecraft’s
Rights of Women
Gillie’s
Greece
Sully’s
Memoirs
Beccaria
on Crimes and Punishments
Brown
on Equality
Mosheim’s
Ecclesiastical History
Goldsmith’s
History of England, 4 volumes
Gibbon’s
Decline and Fall
Helvetius
on the Human Mind
Porcupine’s
Bloody Buoy
Porcupine’s
Political Censor
Love
and Patriotism
The
Federalist
Smith’s
Constitutions
The most active of the
earliest members of the Debating Society were, in order of their names, Wm.
Houston, Lawrene Toole, Robert Smith, Francis Burton, James Webb, Richard
Simms, Alexander Osborne, Wm. M. Sneed, Hutchins G. Burton, Wm. Dickson and
Samuel Hinton. In the Concord Society the leaders were David Gillespie, E. J.
Osborne, George W. Long, Hinton James, Evan Jones, Henry Kearney, Nicholas
Long, Wm. Alston, David Cook, Lawrence A. Dorsey, Joseph Gillespie. Of these
David Gillespie, E.J. Osborne and George W. Long were most prominent.
The professors of the
University were admitted to be active members of one or the other society, but
do not often appear in the debates.
***
Until 1848 the two Societies
held their meetings in their library rooms, which were in the third story of
the South building, the Dialectic occupying the central hall on the South, the
Philanthropic being opposite. These halls were considered attractive. The
students were proud to show them. The books, the portraits of eminent members,
and the chairs for members in session were all in the same room. Conversations
with ladies, after introductions, were not on the hackneyed theme of the past
or prospective state of the weather.
The first question was, “Is
this your first visit to the Hill?” The second was, “Have you visited the
halls?” The third, “Are you a Di or a Phi?” It was then fair sailing. If the
lady claimed to be of a different society from the questioner, a mock quarrel
followed; if of the same a sweet bond of sympathy was established. From these
beginnings there ensued hundreds of pleasant acquaintances and many ardent
loves.
Commencements were famous for
making matches. This was aied by the non-accessibility of Chapel Hill by
railroad or water. Scores of gentlemen and ladies came in carriages and buggies
drawn by noble trotters. These were extensively used n the intervals of the
exercises for flirtation purposes. They led often to life-long unions.
The order and decorum of the
meetings of the two Societies were worthy of all praise. Not only was
parliamentary law learned, but the power of extempore speaking and writing
compositions, as well as gracefulness in delivery were acquired. The members
were proud of their society and afraid of its censure. The habit of
self-government, of using their own liberty so as not to interfere with the
liberties of others, was inculcated. Many young men who neglected text-books
obtained here a valuable education, while those who were candidates for offices
learned here what they could not learn in the class room –how to manage men.
Indeed, men who attained distinction in after life as Senators, Governors,
Judges, and the like, have been known to date their beginning of success from
their forensic exercises in the Society Halls. The chief debaters studied their
subjects well and argued them with intelligent zeal and often eloquence. Of
course these questions were generally those discussed in Congress, in the
journals and on the hustings, but sometimes the time-honored historical
disputes about the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots; whether the civilization
of Greece or Rome was most beneficial
to the world, whether the United States was bound by treaty to aid France in
her Revolutionary wars, and the like, were fought over again.
Of course, among a number of
members of verdant hue, there were ludicrous sayings. For example, a Freshman,
who had undoubted talent, though untrained, denounced the argument of his
opponent as a “tissue of unintel-ligible jar-goon.” When he saw that he had
caused merriment, he explained, “I know that there is some tautology in the
expression, but it is true.” He rose to be a very successful trial lawyer.
Another, now a most reputable physician, whose duty it was to prosecute Warren
Hastings for his conduct in India, contended that it was “atrocious robbery in
him to despoil the Princess of the Oude of their bee-hives (begums). But such
mistakes were rare.
It was praiseworthy that the
President and other officers were voted for, not on account of personal
popularity, but for the substantial reason of attention to Society duties and
attaining high marks in the class room. The members, too, listened with
interest to the written theses, or compositions which were read on each
alternate Saturday, and one deemed of sufficient excellence was on motion, by a
vote of Dr. Theodore Kingsbury were repeatedly so honored. The Presidents were
required to deliver inaugural addresses, which were bound in books and
preserved in the archives, as a matter of course.
The relations between the
Societies were, as a rule, harmonious. Once there was danger when two leaders
had a fight in front of the Chapel and the “Dis” supposed that two or three
“Phis” were parting the combatants and hostile feelings vanished. Once when the
sarcoptes Scabei had affected certain
individuals of both Societies, so that the authorities quarantined them at
Craig’s. a farm house a mile from town, in sulphurous loneliness, the other
students were merry over the incident. “Phis” posted handbills warning all to
avoid the dormitories inhabited by Dis. I heard an eloquent speech from a “Di” on
the enormity of thus displaying “black-guards,” as he called placards. The
“Dis” retaliated by inventing a story that the “Phis” had a scratching post in
their Society Hall; that a member was overheard to say, “Mr. President! May I
scratch?” “No sir!” was the reply, “not at present, Mr. Koontz has the post.”
There was much emulation at
Commencement. The “Di” color, blue, was worn by the Marshals, Ball Managers and
Speakers of that Society, while the Representatives of the other Society wore
white. Emulation was shown in inducing distinguished visitors to become
honorary members. Committees were appointed to wait on them. The Eastern and
Western dividing line was not recognized until after about 1850, so that there
was a great zeal, sometimes leading to bad feelings, in procuring recruits from
the new members. Old students sometimes rode miles in the country to meet the
incoming Freshman. The electioneering, although bad, was not an unmixed evil.
It often led to protection from hazing.
As such books as they desired
were not purchased for the University Library, the two Societies levied a tax
for supplying their own needs. Dr. William Hooper, in his “Fifty Years Since,”
States of course with some exaggeration, that in his day, whenever one Society
bought a new book, the other duplicated it. This was by no means the case in
“the forties” but there was duplication of most reference books. The two
libraries together had probably the best collection in the state. They were not
accessible to the public, except for a few hours per week, so that continuous
research was impossible. Certain costly works were marked “prohibited,”
especially those with engravings placed on tables for the inspection of all
comers. All the others cold be borrowed for two weeks, Covers of cloth of
various sizes were provided, to be fitted on by the borrower, but eventually
the practice was discontinued because of injury to the backs of volumes.
Fielding, Scott, James, Bulwer, Cooper, Irving and Dickens were the favorite
authors. Shakespeare was much read. The “Dis” had quite a collection of
antiques and curios, the larger part given by Lieutenant Boudinot, of the Navy,
retired, but it has come to nothing.
If the law against
Fraternities was violated, the secret was well kept. Occasionally a few
students would associate together in such manner as to incur suspicion.
Sometimes the Society seemed
to have power than the Faculty. A youth of well-known and honorable family
stole ten dollars from his room mate, a poor boy—all he had. He was not prosecuted
in the courts, but of course was dismissed from the University. He met this
brazen effrontery, but when his Literary Society, after a fair trial, convicted
and expelled him, his spirit was broken. The piteous appeal of his mother, his
only parent, for his restoration, moved every heart, but it was impossible to
grant it.
I witnessed prior to 1849 a
trial on impeachment for slander in one of the Societies. The proceedings were
as orderly, and as carefully secured to the accused the provisions guaranteed
by our Declaration of Rights for a fair trial, as may be seen in our Superior
Courts. The members of the Society voted viva voce and there was a large
majority for acquittal. Very rarely a course analagous to the Lynch law was
adopted outside the Societies. When a student perpetrated an act that made him
unworthy to associate longer with gentlemen, a number of his fellows would give
him notice to leave the institution at once, which order was obeyed. For
example one ------------- slandered a virtuous young lady and was glad to be
allowed to depart by the next train. This was deemed better than a formal
trial. If he had denied his guilt a trial in his Society would have been
promptly held.