| Introduction | 1932-1947 |
| 1872-1902 | 1947-1978 |
| 1902-1919 | 1978-1983 |
| 1919-1932 |
Introduction
These notes are based largely upon the president's office records and board of trustees' minutes of Auburn University, housed in the Department of Special Collections & Archives of the Ralph Brown Draughon Library. They document the school's relationship with state government, rivalry with the University of Alabama, and internal politics related to academic purpose and command. The period from 1919-1932 also contains references from the Governor's Office Records at the Alabama Department of Archives & History and from the Montgomery Advertiser. A complete study of the subject would require thorough examination of the Governor's Office Records, newspaper sources, institutional records of the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, and the Presidential Controversy Papers, Record Group 662, housed in the Special Collections & Archives Department at Auburn. These notes were compiled by Dwayne Cox, Head, Special Collections & Archives Department, Auburn University, and completed in this format on January 5, 2001.
Selection of Auburn as Land-Grant College Site
Alabama accepted the provisions of the Morrill Act, but the location of the new land-grant college remained unsettled. Tuscaloosa, Florence, and Auburn became the principal rivals for the honor. As the home for the University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa had the best argument: the university could provide the faculty and facilities for the courses of instruction required under the act. Both Florence and Auburn served as homes for Methodist colleges founded prior to the Civil War, both schools had emerged from the conflict in precarious condition, and thus both cities could also offer collegiate facilities as an inducement. Advocates of Florence also argued that too little state patronage found its way into north Alabama and urged the legislature to consider their city for that reason. Auburn won the battle after the trustees of the East Alabama Male College transferred the school's property to the state. Shortly thereafter, the legislature soothed the disappointment of north Alabamians by establishing a normal school at Florence. William Warren Rogers, "The Founding of Alabama's Land Grant College at Auburn," Alabama Review 40 (January 1987): 14-37.
President and Board
The president's duties included implementing plans adopted by the faculty and supervision of other college officers. Each professor could select his own textbooks and instructional methods, subject to faculty approval. Acceptance of a chair implied a pledge to devote "undivided time and attention" to faculty duties. Board Minutes, June 22, 1872.
The board adopted rules governing executive power: the president chaired the faculty, voted on all questions, and cast the deciding vote in case of ties. Furthermore, he had general supervision over the college and made recommendations to the board, including faculty appointments. The commandant of cadets had charge of the military department and exercised executive authority in the president's absence. Board Minutes, July 29, 1873.
The board appointed the college treasurer directly. Board Minutes, July 30, 1873.
The board accepted, with regret, the "voluntary resignation" of Tichenor, who had accepted another position. In his place, the trustees elected William LeRoy Broun president of the college. Board Minutes, June 28, 1882.
The board identified the president as chief executive officer, who served as liaison between the trustees and the faculty, made recommendations for faculty appointments, and recommended plans for the college. The faculty could elect an acting president from their own ranks when a vacancy occurred in the office. Board Minutes, June 28, 1882.
The board passed a resolution of appreciation for Broun, who had resigned to accept a position in another state. The outgoing president recommended that the college concentrate on the curriculum required under the Morrill Act. By doing so, the trustees could build up something the state desperately needed, "an Institute distinct for teaching science and its application." Board Minutes, June 28, 1883.
Broun's emphasis on more expensive scientific education alienated the board, so he resigned. Norwood Allen Kerr, A History of the Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, 1883-1983 (Auburn, 1985), p. 8.
On October 15, 1883, President David French Boyd made a series of recommendations to the executive committee of the board. First, he advised them not to deny the faculty the instructional tools they needed out of false economy. If they did so, the result would be a college in name only. Good faculty members would not remain content under such an arrangement. He also reminded the trustees that faculty members were on campus full time, whereas the board assembled for only a few days out of the year. Consequently, the faculty had insights into college needs that the board should consider carefully. Boyd also complained of a lack of clarity in the relationship between the president and the treasurer. Apparently, the treasurer customarily made purchases without presidential approval, whereas Boyd believed the one official should provide a check on the other. Furthermore, the college had too many military requirements, the existence of which were inherently contradictory to faculty government. The entire structure of the school needed overhauling "from top to bottom," which could not be done "too soon." Board Minutes, December 19, 1883.
Boyd resigned because he could not work under the system of organization and management he found at the college. He saw a bright future for the college presidency "for someone with the proper character…and with proper authority." Board Minutes, June 23, 1884.
Boyd achieved a more science-oriented curriculum, but also alienated the board. Kerr, Agricultural Experiment Station, p. 8.
The board unanimously re-elected Broun. Board Minutes, June 25, 1884.
When Broun returned, the board centralized the college administration in his hands. Kerr, Agricultural Experiment Station, p. 8.
The board expanded the powers of the president at the expense of some authority previously exercised by the faculty. Board Minutes, June 26, 1884.
Faculty and Administration
The faculty petitioned the board to reconsider the resolution passed at the annual meeting held June 11-14, 1893, which called upon the board to elect a new faculty every three years, beginning in June of 1894. The faculty urged the board to proceed with electing the faculty at its September 7, 1893, meeting because the delay would create unrest and result in negative publicity. Broun to Trustees, June 24, 1893, Broun papers, Special Collections & Archives, Auburn University.
At the annual meeting held in Auburn from June 11-14, 1893, the board declared all faculty positions vacant at the close of the 1893-1894 session and proposed to elect a new faculty "every three years thereafter." Broun had not had the opportunity to discuss this with the board prior to the decision and he now urged them to reconsider. Apparently, some new trustees had been appointed, as was likely to happen biennially in state institutions. In such situations, a faculty could lose confidence in the board, which would undermine the institution. Some of the better institutions of higher learning had begun to award "tenure of office" to those who by years of service had demonstrated their worth. The board followed Broun's recommendation and reconsidered its previous action. Furthermore, they decided that professors who had served satisfactorily for three years would have "indefinite" appointments, pending good behavior and proper performance of duty. Board Minutes, September 7, 1893.
Curriculum
A committee report submitted and adopted called for creating the following posts: president and professor of agriculture; professor of mathematics; professor of chemistry and physics; professor of engineering, drawing, and commandant of cadets; and professor of ancient and modern languages. Board Minutes, November 22, 1872.
Tichenor recommended that the board engage a full-time professor of agriculture or release him from all instructional duties other than agriculture. The president informed the trustees that "men of letters" often had "little taste for agricultural pursuits," which created a danger that agricultural departments in land-grant colleges might be "strangled or starved." Furthermore, many agricultural workers were suspicious of "book farming." Few Alabama farmers could afford to send their sons to college, so Tichenor proposed that the college give an agricultural scholarship to one student from every county. He viewed this as a tool for recruitment, economic development, and public relations. This might result in short-term losses of tuition, but it represented a long-term investment in the future of the college. Board Minutes, July 30, 1873.
The school had implemented "a revised course of study" described in the catalog. Board Minutes, July 14, 1875.
Two faculty members had died and the board considered hiring replacements. Tichenor recommended that he take the chair of moral philosophy, which had been intended for the president, and that the board hire a new professor of agriculture. There were differences of opinion regarding how to fill the second chair. Some wanted a chair of English literature. Others wanted a chair of mechanical philosophy and practical mechanics. The latter had been introduced with success at "the school of technology in Boston" and appeared to be the board's preference. Tichenor foresaw a connection "destined to be made between learning and labor--between the intelligence that plans and the hand that executes." This would raise labor above "the degrading and exhaustive vassalage of slavish toil" and constitute "the grandest revolution in the world." Board Minutes, June 24, 1878.
The board committee assigned to study the issue recommended election of a professor of agriculture, making the president professor of moral philosophy, dividing the duties of English literature between the president and the professor of agriculture, and electing a professor of mechanics. The latter recommendation passed 5 to 4. Board Minutes, June 25, 1878.
Broun's emphasis on a more expensive scientific education alienated the board, so he resigned. Kerr, Agricultural Experiment Station, p. 8.
When Broun resigned, he urged the board to concentrate on offering courses required under the Morrill Act. Board Minutes, June 28, 1883.
On the same day that the board considered Boyd's recommendations regarding the organization and administration of the college, the trustees resolved that their mission was to operate an agricultural and mechanical college "to fit young men for the practical duties of life in these two departments of industry." The board directed the faculty to arrange for the teaching of Latin, French, and German for those students who wished to study these subjects, which were "not to conflict with the regular courses or to be so subordinated as to be excluded." Board Minutes, December 19, 1883.
Boyd achieved a more science-oriented curriculum. Kerr, Agricultural Experiment Station, p. 8.
On June 16, 1884 [only days after Boyd resigned and Broun was reinstated], J.T. Dunklin, who taught Latin and Greek, complained that his students had to take these courses "unrewarded by any merit achieved as far as class promotion" and in addition to the prescribed course. He bemoaned the fact that the college considered this study "so unnecessary." Board Minutes, June 26, 1884.
On June 16, 1884, J.S. Newell, who taught agriculture, reported that he had delivered a series of lectures on the subject to the entire college to disabuse cadets of their prejudice against this course of study and impress on them its dignity and importance. Board Minutes, June 26, 1884.
Boyd's annual report of June 23, 1884, the same day he submitted his resignation, noted that some "derangement of classes" had taken place in January to fulfill an order of the board, but the change was ill-considered and had damaged "the scientific and industrial character" of the college. Boyd had pushed the college further in the direction of a scientific institution and he urged the board to drop other courses not related to "industrial education." Boyd reminded the board that he loved the classics and had spent much of his life teaching Latin and Greek. Furthermore, he feared that the new emphasis on science might cause the college to lose "the very best man" on the faculty. Board Minutes, June 26, 1884.
Broun recommended the employment of a professor of practical mechanics, which would bring the school "in more perfect accord with the educational demands of the age." In response, the board appropriated $5000 for the establishment of a mechanical department. Board Minutes, January 22, 1885.
Broun reported that the curriculum outlined in the catalog now included three degree courses, "two technical and one general." Whenever possible, the general should precede the technical. Many students entered the college "defective in training and discipline," which necessitated a general course of education. Furthermore, a study of general culture should be prerequisite for a technical course. Board Minutes, June 22, 1885.
Broun complained of the widespread fallacy that the college failed it if did not "turn out farmers." Many graduates had neither the land nor the capital necessary to start farming. The college did publish bulletins addressed to those with the land and capital necessary for successful farming. Board Minutes, June 22, 1885.
The board appointed one member to request that the editor of the Montgomery Advertiser correct mistakes regarding the object of the college that appeared in the issue of this date. Board Minutes, June 25, 1885.
A February 28 act of the legislature appropriated $12,500 to the college. Broun recommended and the board approved the use of $5000 for mechanic arts, $4000 to construct a chemistry laboratory, $1000 for physics equipment, and $1000 for chemistry equipment. Board Minutes, June 7 and 8, 1887.
Broun applauded the board's efforts to conform to the legislation that had created the institution as "a school of science and its application adopted to the wants and necessities of the growth of the state." Board Minutes, June 9, 1890.
The president reminded the board of the state and federal legislation that governed the college curriculum. The original Morrill Act required instruction in agriculture, mechanic arts, and military tactics. It did not exclude any branch of learning, including the classics. The endowment created by the Hatch Act was devoted exclusively to the experiment station. Finally, the endowment created on August 30, 1890, called for instruction in agriculture, mechanic arts, English language, and branches of mathematical, physical, natural, and economic science. The funds from the 1890 act could not be used for instruction in ancient and modern languages. Board Minutes, June 8, 1891.
Financial Resources
Under the Morrill Act, Alabama was entitled to land script amounting to 240,000 acres.
This created an endowment of approximately $250,000 that should have yielded an eight percent annual income. Initially, the state paid the interest in certificates depreciated at five percent or more. After December 1873, the state paid the interest in certificates depreciated at fifteen to twenty percent. Under the circumstances, the trustees accepted the depreciated certificates and trusted the state to make good on the remainder, as it was required to do under federal law. Board Minutes, August 27, 1885.
Tichenor recalled that when the board first met, in November 1872, they learned that only a portion of the school's endowment had been invested. Consequently, the interest payment was less than anticipated and the school went into debt. The president claimed that this money had been "misused" by the state. Furthermore, due to the condition of the state treasury, it was in danger of being lost to the college. Board Minutes, July 14, 1875.
The college was operating "under circumstances of peculiar discouragement." The state was in debt, the faculty unpaid, and financial resources uncertain. "Embarrassments unparalled [sic] in the history of our people oppressed the land and everything wore an aspect of cheerless and dreary." Board Minutes, July 30, 1873.
Tichenor complained that the college had been denied the state support necessary to train the youth who could exploit Alabama's resources. Auburn was the only institution in the state with a mission to train students in the agricultural and mechanical skills necessary to do this. If the state failed to take the lead in this area, the resources would remain underdeveloped or would be exploited by outsiders. Board Minutes, October 10, 1876.
University of Alabama
Tichenor stated that land-grant colleges were designed to prepare people for the agricultural and mechanical arts, occupations that employed the greatest proportion of the population. Nevertheless, other state colleges and denominational institutions seemed to receive greater financial support. Why should an institution, designed to provide vocational training for the masses, receive less support than one designed to train a relative few for the learned professions? Why should this "new education," so obviously relevant, be relegated to an inferior status? Because most of the educational leaders had been trained under the old system. The old system was "born of the necessities of an established church and a hereditary nobility" and did not suit "the interests of republican institutions." The new education would be "sublime in its mission of love" to remove a "crushing weight" from "the heads and hearts" of the "children of sorrow" and "cheer them in their humble habitations." The new education would be "neglected by those for whom it labors" and "antagonized by those whose craft may be endangered," but "its ends are pure, its methods wise & its ultimate triumph assured." The University of Alabama had been "among the noblest, although not the most famous," of institutions of the old type. Ironically, it sat in the shadow of Red Mountain, but had not produced one graduate equipped to exploit the coal and iron of the region. As a result of such tendencies, the South lacked the industrial might to win the Civil War. It needed this might to win the peace. Before the war, the region abounded with politicians who "swarmed the land" and talked "flippantly" of constitutional law. Now the region needed politicians who could lead the industrial recovery. The old system produced two types of graduates: one received "a polish which fitted them for society" and the other "consumed with the spirits of the mighty dead of ancient times." Some evidently threw off the harm done by this old educational system and became "strong and noble men." The others never recovered and remained "deeply versed in ancient lore but without a practical idea of life." Supposedly, the old education disciplined the mind, but the study of natural sciences could do this as well as the study of "dead languages." Board Minutes, June 25, 1877.
Tichenor reported to the board his own idea of unifying educational interests in the state, which at that point were divided and competitive. He proposed one college for each congressional district, each of which would feed into one grand university, the departments of which might be located in different parts of the state. Instruction in the congressional district schools would carry students through the sophomore year and be broad in scope. Then students would move into the university, which would have departments of medicine, law, agriculture, chemistry, geology, natural history, engineering, and literature. Where did this leave "the University at Tuscaloosa"? Tichenor did not wish to "ignore or antagonize" that institution, which would be free to participate in the new system. Thus the work of higher education in the state would be divided between Auburn and Alabama. Board Minutes, June 27, 1881.
Fertilizer Bill
In 1889-1881 Tichenor mounted a campaign for passage of a fertilizer inspection law. The bill would have required each manufacturer of fertilizer sold in the state to deliver a sample to Auburn for analysis. A tax of $0.50 per ton sold would be levied, with Auburn to receive one-half of the revenue. Kerr, Agricultural Experiment Station, p. 7.
Tichenor complained that the governor had vetoed a measure that would have helped the farmers of the state, as well as the college. "Every other political community in the limits of the civilized world where commercial fertilizers are sold to an equal extent has passed a similar law, and Alabama cannot always remain the solitary exception." Board Minutes, June 27, 1881.
Friends of the college continued to lobby for a fertilizer bill. The bill that passed appointed a commissioner of agriculture--the first being Edward Chambers Betts--who had an office on the Auburn campus. Under the commissioner, the state chemist--also a chemistry professor at Auburn--analyzed fertilizer. William C. Stubbs held this position until 1885. The college received approximately $8000 a year for the first four years from the $0.50 per ton tax, but much of this went into the analysis itself. Kerr, Agricultural Experiment Station, pp. 8-9.
On February 23, 1883, the legislature passed an act to establish a state Department of Agriculture. The act provided that one-third of the net proceeds from the sale of commercial fertilizer tags be transferred to Auburn for the purpose of developing its agricultural and mechanical departments. The legislature directed that all chemical analysis for fertilizer called for under the act be done at the college at no charge. It further directed that a portion of the funds so appropriated be used for creation of an experiment station that would furnish information to the commissioner for publication in monthly bulletins and annual reports. Board Minutes, June 26, 1883.
The board appointed a committee to lobby the legislature for at least one-half of the fertilizer fee. Board Minutes, June 30, 1886.
Apparently, a bill had been introduced which called for the reduction of the fertilizer tax from fifty to fifteen cents per ton. If passed, this would seriously reduce the college income. Board Minutes, June 8, 1891.
The commissioner of agriculture informed the president that the state received approximately $20,000 from the sale of fertilizer tags during January 1890, and January 1891, but only approximately $9000 in January 1892. [This was the total received by the state, not Auburn's portion.] But sales for February 1892, promised to be higher than they had been in February 1891, and February 1892. Hector D. Lane to Broun, February 9, 1892.
Broun hoped that the state would not reduce its support for the college, which had been decreased by cutting the fertilizer tax in half. Board Minutes, June 14, 1893.
Broun warned the board that the state might reduce the amount of money the college received from the fertilizer tax. He urged the board to plan for the expenditure of these funds contingent upon receipt. Board Minutes, June 11, 1894.
Hatch Act
Congress had passed an act appropriating $15,000 per year to each state for the establishment of an experiment station in connection with the land-grant college. This went beyond the Morrill Act in that it obligated the college to conduct experimentation and research, in addition to teaching. Board Minutes, June 7, 1887.
Broun gave credit for passage of the Hatch Act to the lobbying efforts of land-grant colleges in various states. The station would distribute bulletins and hold farmers' institutes in various parts of the state. Board Minutes, February 24, 1888.
[By February 24, 1888,] the trustees had reorganized the college farm to conform to the provisions of the Hatch Act. Kerr, Agricultural Experiment Station, p. 16.
Reuben F. Kolb became Commissioner of Agriculture in 1887 and immediately involved the Experiment Station in state politics. In 1888-1889 the legislature funded farmers' institutes jointly sponsored by the station and the commission, but these quickly turned into Kolb rallies. Kerr, Agricultural Experiment Station, p. 17.
A substation had been organized at Uniontown prior to the Hatch Act. Like Auburn, it was reorganized with Hatch funds subsequent to passage of the act. In 1889 the state established district agricultural schools at Abbeville and Athens. These functioned primarily to provide education to rural youth, but the state also designated them as branch experiment stations, apparently in an attempt to give them Hatch funds. The Auburn trustees read this as a threat and moved to separate themselves from Abbeville, Athens, and even Uniontown. In June 1889, Auburn declared itself independent, but Kolb, a board member, still sought Hatch funds for the Abbeville school. The trustees declined his request. Kolb did manage to keep Hatch funds for Uniontown in 1889, but failed to do so in 1890. In the 1890-1891 legislature, Kolb sought funds for all three, but Governor Thomas Goode Jones and President Broun successfully opposed it. In 1892 Broun turned down an invitation to attend a board meeting at the Uniontown station. Kerr, Agricultural Experiment Station, pp. 20-22.
The board received, but did not adopt, a report from the finance committee that recommended discontinuation of work on experiment stations in Abbeville and Uniontown. The committee based its recommendation upon lack of funds and a belief that funds derived under the Hatch Act and from the fertilizer tax could not be used for that purpose. Kolb offered two resolutions in support of the sub-stations, both of which lost. Board Minutes, June 10, 1889.
The board continued to debate Kolb's motions of June 10. They subsequently adopted a budget that included $2000 for Uniontown, but refused to support Abbeville and Athens. Board Minutes, June 12, 1889.
Kolb introduced a resolution calling for the creation of experiment stations in Uniontown, Abbeville, and Athens. The board defeated his resolution. Board Minutes, June 11, 1890.
The president urged J.G. Gilchrist to oppose a bill currently before the Senate that would take $8000 from the Hatch appropriation to establish experiment stations in Uniontown, Abbeville, and Athens. The Judiciary Committee already had declared that the bill violated congressional intent with regard to Hatch, but Broun still feared its passage. The Hatch Act had declared that experiment stations should be in connection with the land-grant college with the funds appropriated to the treasurer of the college. No other state distributed Hatch funds as proposed in the pending bill. Scientific research required concentration, not distribution, of resources. Broun to Gilchrist, [January or February 1891], Broun papers.
The experiment stations at Uniontown, Athens, and Abbeville had been established by the state, but were not connected with Auburn and not supported with Hatch funds. Broun to A.W. Harris, September 7, 1891.
The president of Cornell asked Broun whether or not Hatch funds were divided between two or more institutions in Alabama. He also asked for an opinion regarding whether or not this would be wise. J.G. Shurman to Broun, February 13, 1894, Broun papers.
All of the state's Hatch funds went to Auburn. Four years earlier, the legislature passed a bill which appropriated half the fund to three substations, but the governor vetoed this measure because it violated the Hatch Act and diminished its purpose. Field experiments could be made in different parts of the state under the direction of a single station more efficiently than they could be multiplying stations. Broun to Shurman, February 16, 1894, Broun papers.
Broun asked the chair of the committee of visitors of the experiment station to reconsider "the radical changes ordered by your recent meeting in Auburn." These were contrary to the interests of the station and the state. Furthermore, they violated the Hatch Act. Broun to _____ Culver, June 23, 1893, Broun papers.
At its last meeting, the board had dismissed the staff of the experiment station, which consisted of three individuals, and replaced them with one. Broun pleaded that the station could not fulfill its responsibilities under this arrangement. The president stressed that his case was not in behalf of any individual, but in behalf of the proper organization of the station. Board Minutes, September 7, 1893.
Broun reported that the board's earlier resolution regarding organization of the experiment station had been implemented, but he remained adamant in his position that this arrangement was not "adopted for conducting accurately scientific experimentation in agriculture." Hence, it did not "comply with the provisions of the law establishing the station." The present organization possibly lent itself to good farming, but the station had not been established for that purpose. Consequently, the president recommended that the station's organization come closer in line with the practice in other states. He further recommended that the station's "board of visitors" become the "committee on experimentation." Apparently, under the existing arrangement the visitors conferred only with the board, not the president. Broun wanted this practice changed, as well. Board Minutes, June 11, 1894.
The board resolved that the president meet and cooperate with their committee on the experiment station. Board Minutes, June 12, 1894.
Broun reported that the experiment station was now "well organized with an efficient corps of officers." Board Minutes, June 13, 1897.
API
The board committee appointed to make recommendations regarding the president's report supported Broun's position regarding the name change and the full board adopted this position. Board Minutes, June 14, 1897.
The board appointed a committee to petition the legislature to change the name of the college. Board Minutes, June 13, 1898.
The legislature had changed the name of the college. This more accurately described the course offerings. The old name had subjected the school to unjust criticism, apparently because some believed it put too little emphasis on agriculture. Board Minutes, June 12, 1899.
Broun's Death
| Broun's Successor | Illuminating Oil Tax |
| Curriculum | Financial Resources |
| Fertilizer Tax | University of Alabama |
Broun's Successor
The board elected Charles C. Thach president. Board Minutes, June 9, 1902.
Curriculum
During the past year, API established mining engineering as part of the regular course for undergraduate study. Thach reported that "profitable openings" were available for young men trained in this field and that API received frequent requests for people training in mining engineering from "the mineral regions of Alabama." Board Minutes, June 6, 1904.
Thach called the board's attention to the relative expense of scientific as opposed to classical education. He argued that the state had a choice of either allowing its natural resources to be developed by men trained in Alabama or by outsiders. Endowing institutions that could provide this training was more than "a mere gratuity." Students trained at Auburn turned the state's unexploited resources into "taxable wealth." Board Minutes, June 4, 1906.
Thach reported that the college always had been "largely devoted to the study of natural sciences and their application to practical education." This was based upon "thorough education in history, language, and mathematics." "The proper proportion of the two elements" had been "the constant study of the institution theoretically and practically since its foundation." Board Minutes, June 3, 1907.
Thach affirmed that "the fundamental training for all of the scientific and technical departments" came from "the old time studies of language, history, and mathematics." These classes, "though large in the aggregate," were divided into small sections that provided individual attention." Board Minutes, June 1, 1908.
Thach recommended a three-part organization of the faculty into engineering, agriculture, and academic divisions with a dean over each area. Board Minutes, June 1, 1908.
The board approved the plan Thach proposed on June 1. Board Minutes, June 2, 1908.
Fertilizer Tax
API's only income from the state came from about one-sixth of the fertilizer tax, which had averaged $10,000 to $11,000 per year for the past four or five years. Thach to H.J. Wheeler, January 7, 1903, Thach papers.
Thach requested information regarding the federal court ruling on the fertilizer tax. Thach to W.B. Kilgoe, January 8, 1903, Thach papers.
None of the fertilizer cases either in federal court or Louisiana state courts had been argued "on the merits," but they had been settled when the companies agreed to conform to the law provided that the legislature modified some provisions of the statute. F.C. Zachario to Thach, January 20, 1903, Thach papers.
Thach asked Oliver to support the bill regarding reduction of the fertilizer tag tax, which had been agreed upon by the Senate Committee on Agriculture. The college did not oppose reduction of the tax to whatever point the legislature deemed best, but the amount suggested in the bill gave "a very substantial reduction" and at the same time protected "all the school interests hitherto supported from this fund." Approximately $8000 of the $13,000 API received from this fund was expended in fertilizer analysis as required by law. The remainder, which varied from year to year according to sales, went into agriculture, farmers' institutes, and the like. Any diminution of API's share would harm the agricultural program. Thach to W.R. Oliver, January 22, 1903, Thach papers.
API stood willing to reduce the fertilizer tax to ten cents, as the House bill provided. He could also accept one-third of twenty-five cents, although this would allow "no development or improvement…for the benefit of agriculture in the state." Thach to George P. Harrison, January 22, 1903, Thach papers.
Thach noted that his own responsibility stopped with API, but as an educator he thought any reduction in the fertilizer tax that harmed the district agricultural schools would curtail "a most excellent educational work." Thach to John A. Rogers, January 24, 1903, Thach papers.
The Commissioner of Agriculture called the president's attention to the work of Senator W.D. Dunn of Clarke County in defense of the district agricultural schools. He was the first senator who came to their rescue "in the beginning of the tag tax reduction." With his assistance, the commissioner prepared a bill which "took care of Auburn, the Agricultural Schools, and this department." The commissioner concluded that if Dunn had not introduced the bill fixing the rate at thirty cents, the district schools would have perished and Auburn and the Department of Agriculture "would have suffered very materially." R.R. Poole to Thach, February 12, 1903, Thach papers.
The legislature had reduced the fertilizer tax from $0.50 per ton to $0.30 per ton, but had increased API's appropriation from one-sixth to one-third. Actually, this would increase the school's revenue, provided fertilizer sales did not fall off. Board Minutes, June 8, 1903.
Thach reported that the college income had increased significantly from the change in the fertilizer tax. Board Minutes, June 6, 1904.
There would be no fertilizer tax revenue for the quarters ending June 30 and September 30 because most of the tag sales took place in December, January, February, and March. During other quarters, the tax did not generate enough revenue "to pay the expenses of the office having had to call on the Treasury for our own allowance." R.R. Poole to Thach, October 11, 1904, Thach papers.
Thach wrote to the Commissioner of Agriculture that he was in sympathy "with your movement," but preferred that it be accomplished through "the reduction of acreage rather than by the reduction of fertilizer." Thach to R.R. Poole, March 25, 1905, Thach papers.
The president wrote to the governor regarding "the amount of the fertilizer tax allocated [to API] by the attorney-general." Thach was disappointed in the amount and requested an audience with the governor to discuss the matter. Sales for the past year had been 1000 tons more than the previous, but the school's share was $1500 less. Thach believed that the question turned on the interpretation of one phrase in the statute. Previously, it had been interpreted in Auburn's favor. Thach to William D. Jelks, April 12, 1905, Thach papers.
The president wrote to the attorney-general requesting a chance to plead API's case regarding the fertilizer tax. Thach to Massey Wilson, April 13, 1905.
At one time, Auburn got all the fertilizer tax, then half, the one-third. Thach to Sam Will John, January 1, 1906, Thach papers.
The only revenue that API currently derived directly from the state was one-third of the fertilizer tax. Thach to "Dear Sir," December 18, 1906, Thach papers.
Thach was pleased to learn that the legislature would make no effort to "distrub" the share of the fertilizer tax fund that came to Auburn. He complained that Auburn performed "the only work done which the courts recognize the tax to be based on," but failed "to get two-thirds of the proceeds." Thach to Charles L. Gay, January 1, 1907, Thach papers.
Thach asked Denson to go with Ligon and Feagin to see the governor regarding an increase in API's appropriation from $32,000 to $40,000. This would be in lieu of Auburn's share of the tag tax. Thach noted that Auburn could operate without this increase if the school only received its share of the tag tax. Thach to N.D. Denson, February 11, 1907, Thach papers.
Under the new arrangement, Auburn would be taken off the tag fund and given a fixed appropriation of $32,000 per year. This would not be sufficient to meet the institution's needs. The president suggested that this be raised to $40,000 and urged the trustees to use whatever influence they had to that end. Thach to Board of Trustees, February 14, 1907, Thach papers.
In lieu of a share of the fertilizer tax, Auburn now received an annual appropriation of $40,000. Above the amount paid to Auburn, the state secured approximately $50,000 in revenue from the fertilizer fund. Thach to Brown Ayers, December 11, 1908, Thach papers.
Illuminating Oil Tax
Thach wrote to Clay that API would "be most willing to undertake the analysis of oil." He warned that any amount in excess of "a reasonable cost" would be declared unconstitutional by the federal courts if Standard Oil brought suit, which they would. Thach to W.B. Clay, January 24, 1903, Thach papers.
Clay thanked Thach for his support and noted that he had spoken with the governor, who favored the bill. W.B. Clay to Thach, January 25, 1903, Thach papers.
Thach asked McDonald to support the illuminating oil bill, which simply added this article to the list of items analyzed by the state chemist. Half the revenue would go to the common schools. Georgia and Tennessee already had such a bill, which made Alabama "the dumping ground of every inferior oil that cannot stand their test." Thach to A.A. McDonald, February 14, 1903, Thach papers.
Thach asked Ligon to contact A.A. McDonald of Barbour, W.F. Shafer of Dallas, and R.C. Simpson of Lauderdale to urge their support of the illuminating oil bill. McDonald wrote the original bill and these three reviewed it as a sub-committee. Thach had spoken with Shafer earlier that day, who supported it. McDonald also accepted it as a substitute for the bill he originally wrote. The fee would be one quarter cent per gallon. Thach to R.F. Ligon, February 14, 1903, Thach papers.
Samford had seen Rich, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, regarding the oil bill. Rich promised to favor it in committee. Walker, Waddell, Shaefer, London, Simpson, and Davis also promised to support it in committee. London wanted a legal brief regarding its constitutionality. The problem now was time. Samford believed the bill could pass, but it had to be pushed. He urged Thach "to go down immediately and help to push it." T.D. Samford to Thach, February 19, 1903, Thach papers.
Thach wondered when the oil bill would go into operation. Thach to W.B. Clay, March 6, 1903, Thach papers.
Thach informed the governor that the Standard Oil Company claimed that the oil tag tax was not in effect, but the Southeastern Oil Company in Birmingham stood ready to comply. Thach to William D. Jelks, March 14, 1903, Thach papers.
Thach notified the attorney general that the auditor had informed him that Standard Oil contended that the oil tax was a penal statute and could not be enforced until third days after the adjournment of the legislature. Thach to Massey Wilson, March 14, 1903, Thach papers.
The attorney general had advised the president that the oil tag tax was now operational. Thach to Cassety Oil Company, March 26, 1903, Thach papers.
The oil bill was designed to put all oil sold in the state under a fire test guarantee of 120 degrees F. Thach to Cassety Oil Company, April 1, 1903, Thach papers.
Due to a telegraph operator's error, Thach had been informed that the oil tax was "in effect now," when the message should have read "ineffective now." _____ to _____, April 10, 1903, Thach papers.
The illuminating oil tax was similar to the fertilizer tax. One-half cent per gallon would be levied. In return for the inspection, API would receive one-fourth of the levy. Unfortunately, the court had declared the tax unconstitutional. Thach believed API could have received a direct legislative appropriation if the failure of the oil tax had been anticipated. Board Minutes, June 8, 1903.
Standard Oil contended that the oil tax was invalid and refused to buy tags. G.T. Wofford to Thach, November 20, 1903, Thach papers.
Thach wrote to the attorney-general that he regretted "this turn of affairs" with the oil tax. Thach to Massey Wilson, November 23, 1903, Thach papers.
Thach wrote to the attorney-general regarding the constitutionality and necessity of the oil tax: it followed the model of the fertilizer tax and it prevented the dumping of uninspected oil in Alabama. Thach to Massey Wilson, November 30, 1903, Thach papers.
The Southeastern Oil Company was willing to pay the tax, but Standard Oil refused to pay and the matter was before the Supreme Court. Southeastern did not want to pay a tax which was not imposed upon its competitor, but neither did they want to incur a fine if the court decision went in favor of the state. They proposed putting an amount equivalent to the tax on deposit for API until the matter had been settled. G.T. Wofford to Thach, December 2, 1902, Thach papers.
Thach complained that the oil companies and dealers were ignoring the law. "High officials" had urged Thach to sue both large dealers and small. The governor supported such action. Thach to C.A.L. Samford, December 5, 1903, Thach papers.
Thach promised to hold oil tax funds from Southeastern in reserve and recommend their return if the law was declared unconstitutional. Thach to Southeastern Oil Company, December 15, 1903, Thach papers.
Clay had spoken with Judge Thomas, who "set the oil case for trial Monday Jan 11th at 4 P.M." (The morning paper had reported that it would be heard Monday morning.) The governor had requested that Thomas give the case his immediate attention so that it could go on to the Supreme Court. W.B. Clay to Thach, January 10, 1904, Thach papers.
Samford reported that Thomas had upheld the oil tax law's constitutionality. T.D. Samford to Thach, January 13, 1904, Thach papers.
The oil question would be delayed until January 28. W.B. Clay to Thach, January 20, 1904, Thach papers.
Clay was in Montgomery preparing for "the next legislative battle" on the oil tax. He had reviewed the old bill, the Supreme Court decision respecting it, and believed that it could be passed. The last bill was "beaten by manipulation of Mr. Weakley." This time, Clay wanted "to get the bill through and have a test made" before "asking for the postion" that he held before. W.B. Clay to Thach, March 13, 1906, Thach papers.
Thach wrote to the governor regarding a section of the code that concerned the inspection of illuminating oil. According to the law, API's professor of chemistry had responsibility for conducting the inspections. The president proposed a conference to set in motion the machinery for enforcing the law. Thach to B.B. Comer, April 6, 1908, Thach papers.
The legislature had passed the oil tax that they had considered in the past. It was similar to the fertilizer tax in that the state levied a one-half cent tax per gallon sold, with one-fourth of the funds going to API. In exchange, the college performed all chemical analysis upon illuminating oil sold in the state. Board Minutes, June 1, 1908.
Thach requested a meeting with the governor regarding the oil tax. As he understood it, the measure had generated $12,000 in revenue to date. Thach to Comer, November 2, 1908, Thach papers.
Thach asked the governor to request that the solicitors of each judicial district be informed of the oil tax law and employed in its enforcement. He also requested an inspection of tax records because there had been "dereliction in certain quarters in payment of this tax." Thach to Comer, November 19, 1908, Thach papers.
Thach wrote to the governor and referred to "Mr. White's letter concerning tag tax on illuminating oils." White had written to the state tax commissioner concerning the matter. The president noted that the same oil companies paid comparable taxes in Georgia, Tennessee, and Mississippi. With the governor's help, he believed the law could be enforced in Alabama. Thach to Comer, November 28, 1908, Thach papers.
Thach notified the governor of continued violations of the illuminating oil law. He specifically cited the Wofford Oil Company and the Alabama Oil Company of Birmingham and the Marine Oil Company of Mobile. The president recommended that the governor notify the solicitors in Jefferson and Mobile of these violations. He also urged him to make similar notifications to the sheriffs in several counties, including Montgomery. Thach to Comer, June 24, 1909, Thach papers.
Comer asked the president to inform him "in what manner" the illuminating oil law was being violated before he notified the sheriffs of the counties mentioned in Thach's letter of June 24. Comer to Thach, June 30, 1909, Thach papers.
Thach responded to Comer's letter of the 30th: the companies specified in his of the 24th were not "placing tags on the tank cars" as required. Thach to Comer, July 1, 1909, Thach papers.
The Mobile County solicitor had been advised by the governor of Thach's complaint regarding the Marine Oil Company. The solicitor had conducted "such investigation as was practicable" and had detected no violation of the law. N.E. Stallworth to [Thach], July 10, 1909, Thach papers.
Thach said he received constant reports that the Marine Oil Company failed to tag its shipments into Alabama. The president had no specific instances of violation, but urged the routine inspection of cars that came into Mobile. Thach to N.E. Stallworth, July 12, 1909, Thach papers.
Thach wrote to an official of Standard Oil regarding the tax. Apparently, Standard complied, but Thach suspected that others violated the law "in a wholesale manner." Returns in Alabama were nowhere near those in Tennessee, Georgia, and Louisiana. Thach to E.L. Pauley, July 2, 1909, Thach papers.
Oil tags sold at one-half cent per gallon. Thach to H.B. Woodward, June 2, 1910, Thach papers.
The amount of oil tax revenue collected during July: Standard $2456, Indian Refining Company $133, Texas Oil Company $191, and Gulf Refining Company $66, for a total of approximately $2847. B.L. Shi to Thach, July 25, 1910, Thach papers.
Thach wrote to a special agent of the Standard Oil Company informing him that the Collinsville Oil Company was now complying with the law. He was less sure of the Birmingham company. Thach to E.L. Pauley, December 12, 1912, Thach papers.
The college forwarded the state treasurer a check for $4037.90, the amount due for March on the oil tax. Thach to C. Brooks Smith, April 2, 1913, Thach papers.
Thach noted that API received one-fourth of the funds raised for inspection of oil. He requested that, from time-to-time, the school receive more than that to fulfill some of its needs for buildings and equipment. Board Minutes, June 2, 1913.
Financial Resources
Thach asked Barnes to use his influence to further the Auburn bill pending before both houses. Governor Comer had already endorsed Auburn's request for $226,000. Thach to R.B. Barnes, January 26, 1907, Thach papers.
Thach had requested the $226,000 appropriation "for increased facilities" to be paid in four annual installments. Thach to J.S. Frazier, January 26, 1907, Thach papers.
The president of Clemson congratulated Thach "on receiving from the legislature of the state a magnificent appropriation for the building and other improvements of the institution." P.H. Mell to Thach, February 27, 1907, Thach papers.
The legislature appropriated four annual installments of $57,000 each for building purposes and another $40,000 per year for "maintenance." Thach to K.G. Matheson, March 6, 1907, Thach papers.
The school stood on the verge of an extended building program made possible by the legislature. Board Minutes, June 3, 1907.
Thach reported that the past year had seen the largest building program in the institution's history. Board Minutes, June 1, 1908.
The 1911 legislature appropriated $200,000 in four annual installments for building and maintenance. The bill had passed as written, which Thach took as an indication of confidence in the college administration. Board Minutes, June 5, 1911.
The funds appropriated by the legislature on April 13, 1911, had not been released. Bragg made this appeal to the governor on behalf of eleven thousand former Auburn students. Thomas Bragg to Emmet O'Neal, January 15, 1915, Thach papers.
The general manager of the Sheffield Company of Sheffield, Alabama, appealed to the speaker of the Alabama House to appropriate $100,000 for Auburn, one-half of the amount that had been promised, but not delivered, in 1911. H.B. Johnson to A.H. Carmichael, February 5, 1915, Thach papers.
An alumni committee petitioned the speaker of the Alabama House to support the amendment to HB 533, which would exempt Auburn and Montevallo from the provisions of the bill repealing appropriations of the 1911 legislature. The funds for Auburn's "sister institutions" had been released in full, while only half of the Auburn and Montevallo appropriation had been released. Both schools promised not to "present any claims for payment until the existing financial embarrassment of the state has been relieved." Finally, the authors of the petition reminded the speaker that through the analysis of fertilizers, cottonseed meal, feeding stuffs, food and drugs, illuminating oil, soil samples, minerals, and plants Auburn generated $232,000 annually for the state treasury. The committee sent the same message to other members of the legislature. Vassar Allen, et al., to A.H. Carmichael, February 6, 1915, Thach papers.
The 1911 legislature appropriated $200,000 for API, but half of that remained unpaid. Board Minutes, June 7, 1915.
The committee appointed to investigate continuation of the 1911 appropriation was unsuccessful. According to the president, the college was "suffering most keenly" from lack of these funds. Board Minutes, June 5, 1916.
The state still had not paid the remainder of the 1911 appropriation. Board Minutes, June 11, 1917.
The state still had not paid the remainder of the 1911 appropriation. Furthermore, tuition income had dropped due to the war. Board Minutes, June 3, 1918.
University of Alabama
Haygood Patterson of Montgomery wrote to Thomas Bragg, enclosing a draft article sent by President George Denny of the University of Alabama to the Montgomery Advertiser. He noted that Miss Matthews at the newspaper considered some of Denny's statements thinly-veiled attacks upon Auburn and underlined such on the copy he sent to Bragg: the "choice young men and women" of the state wanted to attend the University of Alabama because it was known throughout the country, not within the "narrow confines" of a single state; some "so-called 'colleges'" had been accepting students without adequate high school preparation; and "some institutions calling themselves 'colleges'…." In his cover letter, Patterson charged that Denny harped "on the Carnegie fourteen-units in a childlike and mirth provoking manner." Haygood Patterson to Thomas Bragg, March 14, 1914, Thach papers.
Beginning in 1914-1915, the college would require fourteen units of high school work for unconditional admission to the freshman class. With the development of high schools throughout the state, Thach believed that API could make this change without serious impairment of its duty to rural Alabama youth. Board Minutes, June 8, 1914.
| Thach's Successor | Dowell's Successor |
| Move to Montgomery | Financial Crisis |
| Football | Knapp's Resignation |
Thach's Successor
Bragg informed the governor of his thoughts regarding Feagin. Bragg to Kilby, GOR 22134.
B.B. Ross was appointed acting president when President Charles C. Thach was hospitalized. The governor feared that a permanent replacement would be needed. Kilby to C.M. Sherrod, December 27, 1919, GOR 22134.
A group of Alabama Polytechnic Institute alumni protested the replacement of Thach and urged the board not to fill the post with any of their own relatives. API Alumni to Board of Trustees, n.d., GOR 22134.
The Jefferson County alumni complained that "a quiet but a most active political effort" was being made to replace Thach and urged that it be stopped. Jefferson County Alumni to Kilby, January 10, 1920, GOR 22134.
Montgomery alumni criticized those campaigning to replace the ailing Thach. Dowell was not among those mentioned, but Feagin was. Montgomery Advertiser, January 13, 1920.
Kilby denied rumors of plans to replace Thach. Feagin was mentioned as a possible candidate. Montgomery Advertiser, January 15, 1920.
It had been rumored among alumni in the Washington, DC, area that Thach had resigned and that the trustees were looking for a replacement. Boyd urged Kilby not to select Feagin, who wanted the job but was unqualified. Feagin would introduce politics into the administration of the school. LeRoy S. Boyd to Kilby, January 16, 1920, GOR 22134.
Thach had not resigned, although the board had given him a three-month leave. At that time, the papers began to refer to a move to replace him, but that matter had not been discussed at any board meeting. Governor's Secretary to LeRoy S. Boyd, January 19, 1920, GOR 22134.
Trustee Thomas D. Samford said the board would not act hastily to replace Thach. He deplored the campaign to smear those who aspired to the position. Montgomery Advertiser, January 22, 1920.
The president of the state normal school at Florence urged the governor not to appoint Feagin to the API presidency. Henry J. Willingham to Kilby, February 16, 1920, GOR 22134.
Thach's leave was extended on a resolution introduced by Feagin. The president was hospitalized at Johns Hopkins. Montgomery Advertiser, February 22, 1920.
Thach had been disabled since December 1919, "from a general breakdown of his health." The board would consider replacing him. Montgomery Advertiser, June 1, 1920.
Thach's wife and son urged the board to select a permanent replacement. Board of Trustees, Minutes, June 7, 1920, Special Collections & Archives, Auburn University.
Spright Dowell was named president of API. He was considered the best-qualified educator in Alabama available for the post. He had been serving as state superintendent of education. Montgomery Advertiser, June 8, 1920.
The writer was pleased with Dowell's selection. Lloyd M. Hooper to Kilby, June 8, 1920, GOR 22134.
Dowell's selection was "the wisest thing the trustees could have done." Kilby to Lloyd M. Hooper, June 15, 1920, GOR 22134.
In his first annual report to the board, Dowell noted that the long and distinguished career of his predecessor had made the job of the successor "delicate and difficult." He repeated a statement made in his inaugural address: the college faced the "slow disintegration" that inevitably followed "a long period of undernourishment" at the hands of the legislature. Dowell, Report to the Board of Trustees, May 1921, President's Office Records (POR), Special Collections & Archives, Auburn University.
Roy Bishop believed that the board of the Farm Bureau would back the move to Montgomery. Montgomery Advertiser, December 3, 1922.
The executive committee of the board met in Governor Kilby's office to open construction bids. Dowell was absent. The governor reported that a group called the Montgomery Committee, Jack Thorington, chair, wanted to meet with the board before they undertook any more construction in Auburn. Thorington and his group urged the executive committee to consider moving API from Auburn to Montgomery. They requested permission to present their case before the full board before the bids were opened. Samford opposed the move, but Kilby supported it. Board Minutes, December 6, 1922.
Jack Thorington said the state's best interests would be served by moving API to Montgomery. Montgomery Advertiser, December 7, 1922.
W.A. Bellingrath was general chairman of the group that proposed moving API to Montgomery. Montgomery Advertiser, December 10, 1922.
An API alum claimed that the buildings and equipment in Auburn were inadequate and would be no loss. Sentiment should not cloud the decision. Montgomery Advertiser, December 11, 1922.
Letters from various parts of the state called for moving API to a more central location. Montgomery Advertiser, December 12, 1922.
An editorial cartoon depicted the debate regarding moving API to Montgomery. Montgomery Advertiser, December 15, 1922.
Fred J. Cramton offered to build frat houses at cost if API moved to Montgomery. Montgomery Advertiser, December 21, 1922.
Thorington produced a bill he intended to introduce at the upcoming session of the legislature. It called for moving API to Montgomery, but added that the city would provide land and buildings before this happened. Again, Thornington urged the board not to proceed with any construction in Auburn. The trustees unanimously rejected this proposal and urged that all further agitation on the issue stop. Board Minutes, December 21, 1922.
Football
Broun reported that intercollegiate athletic contests were in some ways objectionable. Participation was limited "to a few experts" who sometimes lost interest in their academic work. Board Minutes, June 13, 1897.
Broun still contended that intercollegiate athletics were beneficial, but noted that such programs should be "controlled by the authorities" and kept "subordinate to study." Board Minutes, June 13, 1898.
Mike Donahue--who had been football coach at API for nineteen years--submitted his resignation effective the following July. He gave no reason and would not reconsider, but rumors had his decision as the end result of a chain of events, with the recent suspension of five players for academic problems as the precipitating cause. Montgomery Advertiser, November 28, 1922.
Donahue had withdrawn his earlier resignation, but now resubmitted. The coach said he was suffering from stress and needed a new environment. Montgomery Advertiser, December 25, 1922.
Donahue accepted the head coach position at LSU. Montgomery Advertiser, December 21, 1922.
Dowell said that Donahue's resignation had been "viewed with alarm by practically the entire student body and a large majority of the alumni." Dowell, Report to the Board of Trustees, February 1923, POR.
Some favored a post-season football game with Alabama, designed to raise funds to build a stadium at each school in honor of World War I dead. Dowell disliked this type of memorial and the method for raising funds to construct it. Montgomery Advertiser, August 15, 1923.
Dowell criticized the frenzy over football among students, alumni, and the general public. Athletics could contribute to a student's education, but it caused too many to forget the true aims of higher education. Dowell, Report to the Board of Trustees, February 1924, POR.
Dowell had been accepted as president with "a sense of uncertainty." He had no "innate love for boys." Birmingham Alumni Resolution, December 4, 1924, GOR 21314.
Last night API alumni in Birmingham endorsed a resolution calling for Dowell's removal. Victor Hanson sent the governor a Birmingham News editorial of December 5, which charged that the mass meeting had been motivated by an unsuccessful football season. Victor Hanson to William E. Brandon, December 5, 1924, GOR 21314.
The president of the state normal college at Jacksonville said that the opposition to Dowell centered on his efforts to promote "clean" athletics. He insisted that football players make their grades and would not allow the school to use semi-professional ringers on the team. C.W. Daugette to Brandon, December 6, 1924, GOR 21314.
An API alumni group in Birmingham called for Dowell's resignation at a meeting held two days earlier. Montgomery Advertiser, December 6, 1924.
Governor Brandon would not act on the above unless four trustees called for a board meeting. Montgomery Advertiser, December 7, 1924.
API faculty and students expressed confidence in Dowell. Montgomery Advertiser, December 8, 1924.
Hanson enclosed a Birmingham News editorial of December 8 that noted that the faculty had voted their confidence in Dowell; a committee of the senior class had denied the charges of the alumni who opposed the president; and the full student body had voted their confidence in him. Hanson to Brandon, December 8, 1924, GOR 21314.
Dowell recommended to Brandon that the board meet as soon as possible regarding the call for his resignation. Montgomery Advertiser, December 9, 1924.
Brandon called for a board meeting on January 12. Montgomery Advertiser, December 10, 1924.
API alumni in Montgomery called for Dowell's removal. Montgomery Advertiser, December 11, 1924.
The associate counsel for a group of Jefferson County alumni claimed the Dowell would be "tried before the board of trustees" on January 25. Joel Webb to Brandon, December 13, 1924, GOR 22314.
Webb enclosed an editorial in the Birmingham Post of December 19 which claimed that Victor Hanson should not participate in the board meeting which judged Dowell because the former's newspaper had supported the president. Joel Webb to Brandon, December 19, 1924, GOR 22314.
The superintendent of the Montgomery County Board of Education contended that a small group of alumni with "sinister" motives wanted to remove Dowell. A.F. Harman to Brandon, December 26, 1924, GOR 22314.
Joel Webb had summoned all faculty and students, except freshmen, to appear as witnesses against Dowell before the board. Only the board had the power to do this. Samford to Brandon, December 26, 1924, GOR 21314.
Joel Webb would not be allowed to summon all faculty and students. They should continue their routines unless requested to appear by the board. Brandon to Dowell, December 28, 1924, GOR 21314.
The efforts to remove Dowell had to do with a lack of football success and his efforts to have "clean athletics." W.G. Harrison to Brandon, January 5, 1925, GOR 21314.
The president of the Alabama Farm Bureau supported Dowell. E.A. O'Neal to Brandon, January 6, 1925, GOR 21314.
The business and professional men of Auburn supported Dowell. Business and Professional Men…to Brandon, January 6, 1925, GOR 21314.
It was possible that a stronger president could be found for Auburn, but it was also a dangerous precedent to make that change "on account of petty grievances." L.J. Howell to Brandon, January 10, 1925, GOR 21314.
The board met in special session in Governor Brandon's office. The governor read a letter dated January 10 from Victor Hanson to himself. Hanson called the governor's attention to a statement made by Joel Webb in reaction to an editorial that appeared in the Birmingham News. Hanson admitted that the paper, which he published, had covered the criticism of Dowell and expressed an editorial opinion on the subject, but that was the purpose of a newspaper. He further argued that it was his duty as a board member to stay informed regarding the college and to formulate opinions as to policies. He denied that this made him unfit to judge the president's case, but offered to submit the question to the full board. The other trustees affirmed their confidence in Hanson and called upon Webb to appear before them to specify his complaints in writing. Webb presented his case: Dowell lacked experience in higher education; the students hissed when he spoke, erected signs saying "To Hell with Spright," and hanged him in effigy; he had been unable to inspire the faculty, one member having resigned complaining that office clerks imposed "petty, irritating tyrannies" upon him; he had lost the respect of the alumni; enrollment at API lagged behind other schools in the state in percent of increase; the buildings and grounds had not been maintained; and the president had not kept pace with the academic expansion of land-grant schools in neighboring states. Haygood Patterson--representing a group of Montgomery alumni--also brought charges against the president. Dowell had high moral character, but lacked all the other qualities needed by a university president: intellectual attainments, undaunted courage, love for youth, freedom from political entanglements, diplomacy, and the ability to impose discipline but still maintain respect. Specifically, the Montgomery group charged that Dowell was not "big enough" for the Auburn presidency; he had been unable to resolve departmental rivalries; he had charged that the college suffered from "dry rot," but done nothing about it; he had appointed men incapable of fulfilling their responsibilities; and he had allowed the enrollment growth to drop in comparison with other institutions. Board Minutes, January 12, 1925.
On January 12 the board voted to delay a decision on the Dowell case. Montgomery Advertiser, January 13, 1925.
Opponents of Dowell included long-term faculty with entrenched interest and bootleggers who resented his efforts to keep whiskey out of student hands. Thomas E. Bonner to Brandon, January 13, 1925, GOR 21314.
Not all API alumni favored Dowell's removal. W.H. Bruce to Brandon, January 26, 1925, GOR 21314.
Dowell referred to an unsuccessful football season as a negative factor in the life of the college. Dowell, Report to the Board of Trustees, February 1925.
The board met and heard the report of the committee charged with investigating the allegations against Dowell. The committee found no grounds for pursuing the investigation and the full board concurred. Board Minutes, February 11, 1925.
The board met on February 11 and voted its unanimous support of the president. Montgomery Advertiser, February 12, 1925.
The Birmingham alumni planned to continue their effort to oust Dowell. Montgomery Advertiser, February 13, 1925.
On New Years Day, Alabama defeated Washington in the Rose Bowl 20-19. Montgomery Advertiser, January 2, 1926.
The football team had compiled a "creditable" record, but no more. Dowell, Report to the Board of Trustees, February, 1926.
On New Years Day, the University of Alabama tied Stanford University in the Rose Bowl 7-7. Montgomery Advertiser, January 2, 1927.
The Sunday paper reported that the API senior class had asked Governor Bibb Graves to investigate Dowell. The juniors and sophomores agreed. Graves asked W.H. Samford, president of the alumni association, to follow up. Morey had resigned as coach. Reports were that students had been very rowdy Friday night after learning of Morey's decision. On Saturday, Florida defeated API 33-6. Montgomery Advertiser, October 9, 1927.
Governor Graves called the board together for a special meeting at the request of the students and President Dowell. L.S. Whitten--senior, editor of the yearbook, and president of the Interfraternity Council--made a statement. The board appointed a committee of five to investigate the situation: Tidwell, Hanson, Henderson, Samford, and McDowell. Board Minutes, October 14, 1927.
According to Whitten, the problem arose the Sunday after the Clemson game. There was the equivalent of "a bolsheviki uprising" on campus that threatened to damage the reputation of the college. Consequently, a group of "ten outstanding men on campus" met on Sunday night to discuss how to handle the situation. On Monday night, they called a meeting of twenty-four male students who represented the junior and senior classes. "The Double Dozen" determined to send representatives to Montgomery, Birmingham, and Columbus to interview alumni, which they did. Subsequently, Trustee Samford suggested that the group pick a representative to meet with the executive committee of the board. Whitten was selected. Whitten and Samford then went to see the governor. At the board meeting, Whitten claimed that football was not "the cause of the unrest and disorder," although he later mentioned "the Tuxworth affair" as a mark against the president. Under questioning from the board, Whitten stated that Dowell was probably a good business manager, but he neglected the human side of relations with students. Board of Trustees, Transcript of Minutes, October 14, 1927, POR.
Morey resigned because he could not get along with Dowell. Boston Traveler, October 22, 1927, GOR 22170.
The boys who "went off on a wild rampage the other night…should be punished and made to know their place." C. Kirkpatrick to Graves, October 18, 1927, GOR 21170.
Some said Dowell was too public school minded and did not have a "college" attitude. O.J. Semmes to Graves. O.J. Semmes to Graves, October 25, 1927, GOR 21170.
Dowell may have been the victim of unrelated events, but he needed to be replaced. John A. Rogers to Joel Webb, October 25, 1927, GOR 21170.
API needed someone who could cope as President George Denny had done at Alabama. Dowell was not the man. Charles McDowell to Joel Webb, October 25, 1927, GOR 21170.
The special committee assigned to investigate Dowell met and heard statements from various students and institutional officials. Board Minutes, November 1, 1927.
The API faculty had confidence in Dowell and said that the opposition had been fomented by outside forces and did not originate with the students. Montgomery Advertiser, November 2, 1927.
Some students backed Dowell and said his critics among students were self-appointed. Montgomery Advertiser, November 4, 1927.
Dowell had been "fighting whiskey and immorality" since he came to API. That was why he had been unpopular. Leland Cooper to Graves, November 4, 1927, GOR 21170.
The full board met to review the Dowell situation. Dowell appeared and submitted his resignation. Board Minutes, November 5, 1927.
At the board meeting, Dowell admitted that he possibly should have spent "more time on the ball field, in the streets, or in social situations," but his primary energies had been devoted to resolving the school's financial crisis. Local merchants had criticized new business practices which stressed wholesale purchases and letting of bids because these undermined their vested interests. He definitely saw athletics as the major factor behind the criticism: dismissal of Tuxworth, his preference for holding pep rallies outside or in the gym as opposed to Langdon Hall, and the dramatic resignation of Coach Morey. Board of Trustees, November [5], 1927.
Dowell cited four immediate causes for the present crisis, three of which concerned athletics: the dismissal of Tuxworth, his opposition to holding pep rallies in Langdon Hall, and the resignation of Coach Morey. With regard to Tuxworth, Dowell defended the dismissal as consistent with past actions and institutional policy. With regard to pep rallies, he considered the gymnasium and the football stadium more appropriate locations than Langdon Hall, a facility better suited for dignified occasions. And with regard to Morey's resignation, he noted that it had been presented to the student body at a pep rally for dramatic effort. Dowell learned of the coach's decision later that evening. Beyond the immediate causes, Dowell cited long-term issues and defended his position in each case. First, he claimed that C.S. Yarbrough, mayor of Auburn, opposed his administration and encouraged others to do the same for a variety of reasons, including Dowell's refusal to support a $100,000 institutional bond issue for paving city streets that passed through campus. He also dismissed charges of faculty disloyalty, saying that the vast majority of professors had been supportive of his policies; he produced a thorough statistical argument that Auburn's enrollment had not declined relative to other schools; and he denied charges that Luther Duncan ran the school behind the scenes. In conclusion, Dowell noted that the real issue was whether or not the president and trustees should run the college, as opposed to disgruntled alumni, football fans, and misinformed students. Dowell, "A Report by the President to the Board of Trustees," Bulletin (November 1927): 18-29.
The board not only published and distributed Dowell's statement, but issued one of their own in support of the outgoing president. The trustees accepted the president's resignation with regret, praised his accomplishments, and scolded his critics. With respect to football, they considered the game a worthwhile extra-curricular activity, but noted that too many overemphasized the sport and made it "the chief object of collegiate work." The board also condemned student leaders who fostered "dissatisfaction and disloyalty," as well as alumni who encouraged such behavior. In the trustees' opinion, such agitation had rendered Dowell's task difficult if not impossible. In conclusion, the board exonerated Dowell of all responsibility for the problems that had developed during his administration. Board of Trustees, "The Action of the Board of Trustees," Bulletin (November 1927): 29-32.
Dowell resigned effective July 1, 1928. Montgomery Advertiser, November 6, 1927.
Dowell had been elected president of Mercer University. Montgomery Advertiser, December 21, 1927.
Dowell's Successor
It was rumored that Bradford Knapp would be the next president of Auburn. Montgomery Advertiser, March 13, 1928.
The board heard the report of the presidential search committee. Victor Hanson, vice chairman, presented the committee's recommendation. Hanson and his colleagues had assumed that the school needed a president with a national reputation as an academic administrator. They found such a person in Bradford Knapp, president of Oklahoma A&M in Stillwater, and son of Seaman A. Knapp, a distinguished agricultural reformer. The board approved the committee's recommendation. Board Minutes, March 16, 1928.
Governor Graves offered Knapp the presidency. Graves to Knapp, March 16, 1928, GOR 21171.
Knapp accepted the presidency. Knapp to Graves, March 17, 1928, GOR 21171.
Knapp would be inaugurated on the following day. Montgomery Advertiser, May 19, 1928.
Financial Crisis
The president complained to the governor that API, Alabama, and Montevallo were all hurting financially, but some had received more of the funds due them than had API. Knapp to Benjamin M. Miller, January 22, 1931, GOR 19948.
Auburn received no state funds from July 1930, through February 1931. If the financial crisis continued into the next year, Knapp feared either reductions in standards or further neglect of the physical plant. Knapp, Report to the Board of Trustees, May 18, 1931.
The state's inability to pay warrants issued on building funds by the 1927 legislature had placed Auburn in financial distress. Board Minutes, May 18, 1931.
Auburn sought a $275,000 loan to bridge its financial crisis. Montgomery Advertiser, June 13, 1931.
The most pressing matter before the board was negotiation of $300,000 "or a lesser amount" do deal with the financial crisis caused by the state's inability to pay building warrants. Board Minutes, June 13, 1931.
API received 42 percent of its quarterly appropriation, while Alabama received 65 and Montevallo 55. In making this decision, the state failed to factor in API's fixed obligation for extension and the experiment station. Knapp to Miller, October 22, 1931, GOR 19948.
Samford urged the governor to call a board meeting. "Something must be done and done quickly if the institution is to be saved from a disastrous experience." Samford to Miller, December 5, 1931, GOR 19948.
The president had failed in his attempts to borrow money on the state warrants held by API. Board Minutes, February 26, 1932.
Auburn's financial crisis began "last summer" and many thought the institution could not survive. The president stressed that the financial crisis had nothing to do with mismanagement and everything to do with the state's failure to pay appropriations. For the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1931, the college had received its state funds in full only for the first quarter. These circumstances rendered budget planning for the coming year extremely difficult. Knapp, Report to the Board of Trustees, February 26, 1932.
B.L. Shi--executive secretary and secretary to the board--had suffered "somewhat of a nervous collapse." He was a valuable man, overworked, and "let our present situation worry him entirely too much." Knapp to Miller, March 9, 1932, GOR 19948.
API had not received a full share of its state appropriations since the quarter beginning July 1, 1931. In the absence of state support or some other source of funding, the situation for 1932-1933 appeared grim: Auburn would be "forced to close." Knapp, Report to the Board of Trustees, May 12, 1932.
The board needed to meet before July 1 to adopt, at least, a tentative budget. "We are almost at sea." Knapp might have some plans, "but I am frank to say that I don't see how he is going to meet the situation." Samford to Miller, June 18, 1932, GOR 19948.
Knapp requested authority for the college to issue certificates of indebtedness against existing state warrants. Knapp, Report to the Board of Trustees, June 22, 1932.
The board authorized the president to issue certificates of indebtedness against the state warrants in the hands of the institution. Board Minutes, June 24, 1932.
Knapp told the board that API's financial problems would be solved if the state met its obligations. Knapp, Report to the Board of Trustees, July 2, 1932.
Knapp's Resignation
Knapp was reluctant to leave Auburn, but had met with Texas Tech officials. Montgomery Advertiser, July 7, 1932.
Knapp resigned to accept the presidency of Texas Tech. Montgomery Advertiser, July 19, 1932.
Knapp reported that he had been operating under severe stress and the board granted him a leave of absence for the month of August. One member offered to make a special appeal to the governor for payment of the president's salary, but Knapp refused to accept special treatment. Board Minutes, July 28, 1932.
| Background | Athletics |
| Administrative Committee | The Extension System |
| University of Alabama | Duncan's Death |
| Duncan vs. Ayers |
Background
Administrative Committee
The administrative committee found that the college owed $160,000 for goods and supplies that it had ordered. Approximately $300,000 belonging to the fund from which these bills should have been paid had been put into construction in anticipation of the unpaid state building warrants. They also found $10,000 in unpaid interest on loans. The treasury was empty and the committee was forced to borrow money to purchase stamps. Morale was low, as the faculty and staff had been told that no one could be assured of a job after July 1, 1933. Furthermore, they had been paid in certificates of indebtedness for the past ten months. No concerted effort had been made to register students for the fall. Rumors circulated that API might not open. As of October 1, 1932, the state owed API a little less than $1.5 million. Board of Trustees, Minutes, January 12, 1933.
According to Duncan, the period of the administrative committee and the first two years of his administration represented "the most difficult period" in the history of the college.
The faculty had lost approximately $300,000 in salaries, the administration had "practically no funds available for the purchase of vitally necessary teaching equipment," and the enrollment had increased by 35 percent. Duncan traced the problem to shortfalls in the state appropriation. In 1930-1931 the school received $208 per student, while in 1935-1936 the figure was $56. Duncan raised the complaint that the legislature lumped funds for the Extension System and the Experiment Station together with funds for teaching, which presented a distorted picture of Auburn's resources, but he was pleased to report that the 1935 legislature separated these accounts, an act of "far-reaching importance." Duncan, Report to the Board of Trustees, June 25, 1937, President's Office Records (POR), Special Collections & Archives, Auburn University.
In 1932 under Governor Benjamin M. Miller the legislature proposed a constitutional amendment which would have allowed the retirement of state debts by the issuance of bonds financed through income tax. The proposal was defeated. Fortunately, the voters ratified a similar amendment on July 19, 1933. Nevertheless, state appropriations were classified into primary and secondary obligations, with those for education being secondary. Consequently, API appropriations were not paid in full for several years. After overcoming many obstacles, Auburn was permitted to issue bonds that allowed its participation in the federal emergency public works building program. Duncan, Report to the Board of Trustees, June 7, 1942.
University of Alabama
Auburn, Alabama, and Montevallo agreed that Montevallo would remain a junior college, offering a four-year degree only in home economics; Montevallo would continue to be the recipient of the Smith-Hughes funds for teacher-training in home economics; effective July 1, 1920, Auburn would discontinue its degree course in mining engineering and offer a one-year service course instead; Alabama agreed effective July 1, 1920, to drop highway engineering and continue sanitary engineering, provided Auburn not offer a course in sanitary engineering; and Auburn and Alabama would offer degrees in chemistry and metallurgy. George H. Denny, Charles C. Thach, and T.W. Palmer to Alabama Education Commission, June 7, 1919, POR.
Thach reported that he had not yet examined in detail the report of the "federal experts" from the Bureau of Education. The report was in the hands of the Alabama Education Commission. Apparently, the AEC had urged the presidents of API, Alabama, and Montevallo to formulate an agreement regarding modifications in the courses of study at their schools. The API board approved the recommendations of the three presidents, provided the boards at Alabama and Montevallo did the same. The report approved the proposed Council on Education and accepted the recommendations of the federal survey commission, which a few modifications. Apparently, Auburn and Alabama received approximately equal appropriations under this arrangement, at least of the current legislative session. Board Minutes, July 3, 1919.
Samford presented a resolution regarding the Teacher Training Fund. The Board of Education had appropriated $20,000 to API and $65,000 for the University of Alabama from this resource. The board protested that this would, over time, give control of the state's educational system to the University of Alabama. Board Minutes, March 16, 1928.
Auburn threatened court action regarding the division of teacher training funds. Montgomery Advertiser, March 17, 1928.
The governor believed that API was "qualified and fitted" to give teacher training in agriculture, but that the University of Alabama was "better qualified to do graduate teacher training work." Bibb Graves to Bradford Knapp, April 19, 1928, Governor's Office Records (GOR), Box 21171, Alabama Department of Archives & History.
Samford presented the report of the special committee appointed to investigate the situation discussed on March 16. The committee recommended that API engage an attorney to protect its interests. R.E. Tidwell--state superintendent of education--made a statement claiming that if Auburn proceeded with its current plans, the net result would be expensive duplication of programs in higher education. Tidwell stressed the need for cooperation and coordination. The tone of the committee report was that Tidwell wanted to give the University of Alabama an unfair advantage in teacher training. The committee noted that this coincided with a transitional period in Auburn's history, the implication being that Tidwell believed API would be too weak to challenge the decision. Board Minutes, May 21, 1928.
The legislature recently passed the Unified Education Act (House Bill 318). It included $200,000 for teacher training. Alabama received $65,000 and Auburn $20,000 for the coming year. In making this decision, the state board decided that Alabama had a smaller per student income than API, that the state needed one standard school of education, and that it was necessary to eliminate duplication. API, The Teacher-Training Equalization Fund (June 1928), GOR 21171.
Knapp reported that the 1927 legislature had approved appropriations for Auburn, Alabama, and Montevallo on a 39-39-22 formula, which appeared to give Auburn and Alabama equivalent amounts. Under this legislation, 25 percent of Auburn's appropriation was earmarked for extension and the agricultural experimentation. The legislature likewise earmarked 25 percent of Alabama's for medicine, extension, and research, but gave Tuscaloosa greater flexibility in using these funds. Knapp, Report to the Board of Trustees, May 19, 1930, POR.
The authors of the Brookings report said that Auburn spent approximately twice as much per student as the University of Alabama. They speculated that perhaps Alabama received too little money or that Auburn received too much. In any event, they recommended a unified administration for the state's institutions of higher education. Brookings Institution, Report on a Survey of the Organization and Administration of the State and County Governments of Alabama (Washington, 1932), vol. 1, pp. 315-16.
The University of Alabama requested an appropriation of not less than $49,000 from the high school portion of the teacher education equalization fund. This was the amount that Alabama had received since 1932, when the fund was reduced by the legislature from $100,000 to $70,000. This minimum request represented the same percentage of the total (70 percent) which had been apportioned to Alabama since the creation of the fund in 1927. According to this document, the total legislative appropriations to Auburn and Alabama in 1935 were $393,899 and $714, 699.05, respectively. Furthermore, both schools had approximately the same amounts--Auburn slightly more--available for campus teaching, while Auburn had much more for extension and research. Furthermore, Auburn had brought the 39:39:22 formula into the discussion, which had been created in 1927 to funding teaching, extension, and research combined, not teaching alone. Actually, the University of Alabama received a lower state appropriation for campus teaching of Alabama residents than did API. API had criticized the 1935 legislature for appropriating $37,000 new dollars for campus teaching at Alabama, but failed to recognize that they had received an increase of $62,000 for the same purpose. Alabama also objected to Auburn's argument that the allocation should be based upon an equal amount per capital for in-state students enrolled in education curricula: Tuscaloosa had responsibility in teacher education that Auburn did not and had done more to follow the state guidelines than had Auburn. The argument that Alabama had endowment funds not calculated into the formula was irrelevant because these monies were largely restricted to specific purposes. "The High School Teacher Training Equalization Fund in Relation to the College of Education at the University of Alabama: A Statement to the State Board of Education," c. 1935, Department of Education, POR.
The dean of Auburn's School of Education wrote to the state superintendent of education noting that in 1927-1928 API received $20,000 from the Teacher Training Fund, as opposed to Alabama's $65,000. At the same time, Auburn had 375 Alabama students enrolled in education, while Alabama had only 61. Alabama now claimed that non-resident students enrolled in education generated money for the university. If so, then Auburn should have been receiving more per pupil because Alabama had a higher out-of-state enrollment. Despite Alabama's historic funding advantage, Auburn still had approximately the same number of Alabama students enrolled in education curricula. Auburn just wanted an even split of the money. Zebulon Judd to J.A. Keller, Aprill 11, 1935, Department of Education, POR.
Representatives of Auburn, Alabama, and Montevallo met with the State Board of Education to discuss the teacher training fund. Each school was allotted fifteen minutes. Auburn and Montevallo took 15 minutes and Alabama one hour. Tidwell--who spoke for Alabama--made the following points: Alabama had more Alabama students enrolled than Auburn and Montevallo combined; the State Board of Education had designated Alabama as the state's "official" school of education; the 1919 survey and the Brookings report both recommended that Alabama become the state's "principal" institution of higher education; Auburn's state appropriations compared favorably with Alabama's, although Governor Graves interrupted to say that extension and the experiment station should not be included in this comparison; the 39:39:20 ratio had never been intended for application to the teacher training fund; almost all students enrolled in Alabama's school of education were in-state; and the previous allocation of the teaching fund should stand--70:25:5. Starnes led the fight for Alabama, with support from Carmichael and Woodall. Ellis led the fight for Auburn, with assistance from Barton, Comer, Denson, and Governor Graves. Starnes contended that the funds should go principally to one institution. Comer responded that 78 percent of the white teachers in Alabama taught in rural communities and that they should be trained in an institution concerned with the quality of rural life. The author of this summary recommended that, if the matter came up again, Auburn should make every effort to demonstrate that enrollment of Alabama students in the schools of education at Auburn and Alabama were approximately equal. The State Board of Education would meet again in September, when the issue might resurface. "Notes on Meeting of State Board of Education in Appropriating High School Teacher-Training Fund," July 20, 1936, Department of Education, POR.
The Unified Educational Bill of 1927 had appropriated funds for high school teacher training, 70 percent of which were earmarked for the University of Alabama. This remained the case until 1936, when the ratio was changed to the 39-39-22 formula for Alabama, Auburn, and Montevallo. Duncan, Report to the Board of Trustees, June 25, 1937.
Duncan wrote to the newly named president of the University of Alabama, saying that the relationship between their two schools was "of such magnitude and gravity" that he had given the issue more thought than any other he faced as president of API. Real friends of both institutions wanted to see them cooperate, as did the taxpayers of Alabama. But every consolidation plan presented had failed to gain momentum. Duncan hoped that he and Paty could work together to facilitate cooperation. Duncan to Raymond Paty, August 17, 1942, University of Alabama, POR.
Duncan wrote to Paty regarding the relative appropriations for Auburn and Alabama. A surface reading of the figures might indicate that Auburn received more than Alabama from the state, but many of these monies were earmarked by law for agricultural extension and research. Actually, Alabama received more for resident teaching than did Auburn. Duncan to Paty, December 9, 1942, University of Alabama, POR.
Duncan proposed that, for the upcoming legislature, Auburn and Alabama agree in advance upon their funding request for resident teaching and campus research, that these funds be distributed to provide the same amount per student at each institution, and that these figures be determined based upon in-state enrollment. Duncan to Paty, December 21, 1942, University of Alabama, POR.
Duncan urged Paty that Auburn, Montevallo, and Alabama agree to equalize funding for campus instruction and research so that students received approximately the same per capita in state dollars regardless of which institution they attended, that the institutions work out a joint recruitment program, and that resources for Auburn and Alabama be deployed for the maximum benefit of the people of Alabama. Duncan to Paty, March 10, 1943, University of Alabama, POR.
Paty replied that he agreed upon the need for cooperation, but urged that they approach the matter carefully. The proposal Duncan outlined had not been studied carefully enough to justify acceptance at this time. Paty to Duncan, March 13, 1943, University of Alabama, POR.
Duncan contended that the state should "by painstaking study make every effort to adjust the work of these institutions so as to remove all possible friction and duplication," but the basic pattern should be accepted. He reiterated the three proposals he had submitted to the interim legislative committees on education, finance, and taxation: (1) apply the principles so that "each student will receive approximately the same support regardless of the institution attended," (2) that the institutions work out a plan of cooperative student recruitment, and (3) assign Auburn and Alabama roles that allowed "each institution to render its maximum service to the people of the state in the fields in which it is best equipped to serve." Duncan made this report to the interim legislative committees on education, finance, taxation. Duncan to Interim Legislative Committee, [March 15, 1943], Department of Education, POR.
Duncan would be glad to consider any suggestions from Paty, provided they did "equal and impartial justice" to all concerned and assured that each student received the same level of state support regardless of which institution he or she attended. Duncan to Paty, March 17, 1943, University of Alabama, POR.
The last session of the legislature passed a law that called for a complete survey of the state's educational system, including higher education. The act provided for a commission of seven members appointed by the governor and the selection of a director. This commission would prepare recommendations for the 1945 legislature. Duncan to Charles E. Friley, July 17, 1943, Educational Survey Commission, POR.
Ralph Draughon wrote to Hubert Searcy, president of Huntingdon College, regarding the latter's appointment to the Alabama Educational Survey Commission. Draughon hoped that the committee would "propose a sound distribution of function of higher education," which was "badly needed." Perhaps this would end "the annual fighting and political bickering." Draughon to Searcy, August 6, 1943, Educational Survey Commission, POR.
Duncan appointed Executive Secretary Draughon as chair of an Auburn committee to assist the Study Commission. Draughon to Searcy, September 1, 1943, Educational Survey Commission, POR.
Duncan submitted the report made to the interim legislative committees on March 15, 1943, to the Alabama Educational Survey Commission. Duncan to Educational Survey Commission, September 28, 1943, Educational Survey Commission, POR.
In its report to the Educational Survey Commission, the University of Alabama argued that it had well-established and broad educational responsibilities in the state. Four times in history, higher education services had been delegated to other institutions. In three of the four cases, this had occurred under a state government established under Congressional Reconstruction--the normal schools, higher education for blacks, and API. The fourth case was Montevallo. The report considered these developments "the result of the illogic inherent in the evolution of a democratic government." University of Alabama, "Report to the Alabama Educational Survey Commission," 1944, Educational Survey Commission, POR.
Duncan wrote the president of the state teachers' college in Florence, saying that many had long known what the University of Alabama meant when applying the term "capstone" to itself, but now it was "part of the recorded educational literature in Alabama." Duncan said he had never seen "a bolder, more deliberate, more vicious, or more deceptive document." He predicted that if the friends of the teachers' colleges, Montevallo, and API did not rise up and combat "this evil monster," it would consume them "just like the doctrine of Hitler." The document was entitled "Report to the Alabama Education Survey Commission" and was "deliberately planned and timed to do the most harm." Duncan to J.A. Keller, February 24, 1945, Educational Survey Commission, POR.
Draughon was pleased with the commission's recommendations, but he predicted that the University of Alabama would oppose them in the state legislature and doubted that the proposed constitutional amendments would pass. In Draughon's opinion, this was the first study of its kind in Alabama that was not dominated by the University of Alabama. Draughon to John Dale Russell, March 7, 1945, Educational Survey Commission, POR.
Draughon heard that the president of the University of Alabama "got a little nasty with Hubert over the telephone." He doubted that Alabama would ever amend the constitution to create a central board. Draughon to Maurice F. Seay, March 7, 1945, Educational Survey Commission, POR.
Duncan wrote to the president of the University of Alabama and proposed that they meet in Birmingham or Montgomery to discuss further cooperation between their institutions. He feared that a solution would be imposed from outside if they failed to resolve the problem themselves. Duncan to Raymond R. Paty, March 12, 1945, Educational Survey Commission, POR.
Duncan noted the