Just at present Michigan probably has the largest body of alumni of any university in the country. The total number of graduates in January, 1920, was 34,817, of whom 28,901 were living, while the total of graduates and former students was 60,463. Of this number 11,420 were known to be deceased. The number of addresses on the University lists at that time was 43,783. There are several reasons for this large alumni body. In the first place few universities have many living graduates of the classes which graduated before 1850; Michigan’s oldest graduates at present are George W. Carter, ’53m, of Boulder, Colorado, and John E. Clark, ’56, Professor Emeritus of Mathematics at Yale. After her first few years Michigan had as many students enrolled as most of the other institutions of that time, while the extraordinary growth of the Medical and Law Schools in the period just after the Civil War probably gave her the largest number of students in any university.

This, with the great increase which has come to all universities and particularly the state institutions within the last twenty years or so, has given Michigan an unusually large body of alumni. There are, however, a number of universities, notably Columbia, California, and Chicago, which have had a very large enrolment of late years, and it is not unlikely that within a few years their alumni catalogues will contain more names than Michigan’s. It may be remarked in connection with the relatively large proportion of those who have not received degrees, about 42 percent of the total, that this number has been increased by war-time conditions, and that judging from former records it is about ten percent higher than in more normal times.

Michigan has always taken an especial pride in the fact that, although a state university, her student body has been recruited almost as much from the rest of the country as from Michigan; while there has always been a not inconsiderable proportion of students from foreign countries. This national enrolment has had a broadening and stimulating effect upon the student body and has given the University a powerful influence throughout the country. Her graduates are to be found in every state in the Union, though they are probably proportionately stronger in the states west of the Mississippi, whose development came just in time to attract the enterprising and vigorous youth who had his future to make and gladly seized the opportunity to grow up with the new country. Michigan, with her low tuition charges, even for non-residents, and her equally moderate cost of living, has been also pre-eminently a college for students of limited means. Thus, while there are many men of wealth among her alumni, they are almost all men who have made their own way, and have a position in their communities corresponding to their energy and proved ability.

For some years the attendance from Michigan, though it is somewhat greater now, has averaged 55 percent. This is unusually significant when the great extent of the State is considered, particularly since most of the students from the Northern Peninsula usually pass through three other states to reach Ann Arbor. Not less worthy of note is the fact that only about 39 percent of the graduates of the University live within the State, proof positive that Michigan, in sending her students abroad, is performing a great service for the country. The percentages of alumni in other states is also not without interest, for while the neighboring states of Illinois and Ohio claim about 8 percent and Indiana 3.7 percent, New York has 6 percent of Michigan’s graduates, while Pennsylvania has 3.5 percent, and California 3.2 percent. About 2.5 percent of Michigan’s former students, or 1,093, live in foreign countries. Of these 318 are in Canada, 126 in China, 62 in Great Britain, 61 in South America, 51 in Africa, and 46 in Japan. Of the United States dependencies, 66 are in Porto Rico, 54 in the Philippines, and 17 in Alaska. These figures might easily be increased were the addresses of all alumni found, as there are, no doubt, a large number of “unknowns” in foreign countries. Of the total number of graduates and foreign students for whom the University has addresses, 36,492 are men and 7,291 are women.

This great body of alumni is in itself a powerful asset for the University; but the active interest and spirit of co-operation of the individual alumnus ordinarily needs a certain stimulus. This is supplied through the organization of the graduates into a general Alumni Association, as well as into local associations in most of the larger cities, and also through the organization of the various classes. This general scheme is followed in almost every American university, and forms one of the most significant of present-day developments. For the most part it is a comparatively recent evolution. Though the graduates of the earlier American colleges had a certain influence on the policies and growth of their institutions, it is only within the last twenty-five years that these associations have become a factor of recognized importance in every university. In fact this development is so recent that its significance is not sufficiently realized, least of all perhaps by the alumni themselves; though the college president is apt to be very alive to the importance of the alumni in university affairs.

The desire to perpetuate college friendships and to revive memories of college days was undoubtedly the underlying motive which first brought the former students together in these organizations; and not a few associations have progressed no farther in their activities. This is as true among Michigan alumni clubs as elsewhere. But as university officers came to recognize other possibilities in these associations, efforts were made to secure their co-operation in many matters and especially financial assistance, in the establishment of funds for various purposes, the erection of new buildings and providing for certain types of equipment which might not properly come from the ordinary channels of college and university income. The Michigan Union, Hill Auditorium, the women’s dormitories, and the Clements Library of Americana perhaps best illustrate this type of alumni support.

While in most cases the impetus toward this active co-operation and support on the part of the alumni came from the institution, in recent years the alumni have tended more and more to organize, not as an adjunct of the university administration, but as a body designed to formulate independent alumni opinion, and to make intelligent graduate sentiment really effective for the good of the institution. With this new phase of alumni activity came new elements particularly the alumni secretary, maintained by the graduate body, the alumni journal, and the alumni council.

This organization of college graduates is distinctly an American institution. There is little to correspond in Continental universities, where they do not even have a real equivalent to our word “alumni.” In Great Britain, the graduates of the larger institutions have some voice in the policies of their universities and, in the case of the Scottish universities, they elect representatives on the governing body, as well as the chancellor and a representative in Parliament. But the lists of alumni are kept up only for what are practically political purposes, and such developments as local alumni clubs, or class reunions, are unknown; while there is ordinarily small effort made to secure financial support.

Alumni co-operation has progressed so rapidly within the last quarter-century, the period covering the life of the Association at Michigan under its present form, that we are apt to forget how recent is this movement in American universities. To glance through the average college or university history one would imagine these associations sprang full-armed, with no preliminary throes of organization. Suddenly we find the alumni asserting their desires in some important matter and thenceforth their voice has a recognized place in university councils. It is quite obvious that the significance of this movement among college graduates was not recognized for a long time. Everywhere the graduates were slow in finding themselves; and it is safe to say that an efficient alumni sentiment was almost unknown until within the last fifty years. But the seeds had been sown. Though Yale began her remarkable organization by classes as far back as 1792, and others may have followed her example, records of any further efforts in this direction are difficult to find until many years later.

The first attempt at a general alumni organization seems to have been a meeting of the alumni at Williams College at Commencement time, in 1821, to organize a Society of Alumni. The purpose of the proposed association was set forth in the following words:

The meeting is notified at the request of a number of gentlemen, educated at this institution, who are desirous that the true state of the college be known to the alumni, and that the influence and patronage of those it has educated may be united for its support, protection, and improvement.

This does not seem an unsatisfactory definition of the fundamental object of an alumni body of the present day. Seventeen years later a Society of Alumni was organized at the University of Virginia, where, with perhaps a characteristic Southern emphasis on the social side of human relationships, the committee was instructed,

to invite the alumni to form a permanent society, to offer to graduates an inducement to revisit the seat of their youthful studies and to give new life to disinterested friendships found in student days.

Other universities soon followed with similar organizations. Harvard’s Alumni Association was established in 1840; Bowdoin and Amhert came at about the same time, while the first alumni association at Columbia was founded in 1854. In the West an alumni association was started at Miami as early as 1832. The first years of these organizations were apparently a period of struggle, but the spirit that they represented grew, and eventually they made alumni influence everywhere effective to a greater or less degree, with the end not yet.

At Michigan, alumni organization has had a history similar to that in many other institutions. The University published a list of the first four classes as far back as 1848, but the alumni did not become a united body until 1860, fifteen years after the first class was graduated. This first association was characterized as “somewhat informal in its nature,” but the usual statement of the object was forthcoming. According to the preamble of the constitution these were,

the improvement of its members, the perpetuation of pleasant associations, the promotion of the interests of the University, and through that of the interests of higher education in general.

This Association was superseded in June, 1875, by an incorporated organization, the “Society of the Alumni of the University of Michigan,” in which, notwithstanding its general name, membership was restricted to graduates of the collegiate department. A similar association of the Law School was formed in 1871 and before many years all the departments had similar bodies. But the interest taken was more or less perfunctory, and in 1897 a consolidation of all the departmental organizations was effected, resulting in the present Alumni Association of the University of Michigan, with ex-Regent Levi L. Barbour, ’63, ’65l, as its first President.

He was succeeded in June, 1899, by William E. Quinby, ’58, of Detroit, who was followed in turn the next year by Regent W.J. Cocker, ’69. Judge Victor H. Lane, ’74e, ’78l, Fletcher Professor of Law, was elected President in 1901, and so effectively has he served the interests of the alumni that he has been continued in that office for the past twenty years.

Two important steps were taken by the new Association immediately upon its consolidation in 1897. The first was the appointment of a General Secretary to devote his whole time to furthering the interests of the alumni organization. Ralph H. McAllister, a former member of the law class of ’89, was first elected to this position, but was succeeded in January, 1898, by James H. Prentiss, ’96, who was followed three years later by Shirley W. Smith, ’97, at present Secretary of the University. The present Alumni Secretary, Wilfred B. Shaw, ’04, was appointed in October, 1904. The purchase of the graduate journal, The Michigan Alumnus, established in 1894 by Alvick A. Pearson, ’94, was another significant step. The Alumnus is one of the oldest graduate publications in the country, with the Yale Alumni Weekly, established in 1891, and the Harvard Graduates’ Magazine, a quarterly, which appeared a year later, its only predecessors. Both of these journals are published by private corporations, as was the Alumnus at first. In thus creating an officer whose sole responsibility was to the alumni body and in maintaining an official alumni publication, Michigan became a pioneer among Western universities, and was only preceded in the East by Pennsylvania, whose alumni organization had established her Alumni Register and appointed an alumni secretary in 1895.

The plan of organization of the Alumni Association at Michigan is very simple. The entire responsibility for the affairs of the Association rests with a board of seven directors (originally but five), who elect the officers of the Association from among their own number. Two directors are ordinarily elected every year at the annual alumni meeting, held during the Commencement season, at which any alumnus is entitled to a vote. The income of the Association, except for a grant of $600 a year from the University for advertising, arises entirely from the Alumnus, which at present has a list of over 7,000 subscribers, who are considered as constituting the official membership of the Association. This membership is in two forms, annual members and some 1,500 life members, whose thirty-five dollar fees have resulted in an endowment fund at present amounting to over $38,000, the income from which is used for current expenses.

Since its establishment the Alumnus has grown steadily in influence, and may now be regarded, in some measure at least, as the official University publication. Limited as it is by the necessity of pleasing a constituency widely varied in age and interests, it nevertheless makes it possible for a large proportion of Michigan’s graduates to maintain an effective and intelligent interest in the University.

But the work of the Association and its officers has not stopped with the Alumnus. The local alumni bodies and the class organizations form important links between the graduate and his alma mater, and the sentimental ties, as well as the altruistic spirit engendered by these associations have a vital significance for the individual graduate and for the University. Practically every class that leaves the University is organized for the purpose of perpetuating its college associations and many of the classes, particularly the earlier ones, have published extensive class-books and directories. Every effort is made to return to the University for reunions at stated periods, especially on the twenty-five and fifty year anniversaries. For some years also many classes have followed a plan which brings four classes that were in college together back for a reunion at the same time. The value of these annual home-comings has always been emphasized by the Alumni Association, and so successful has it been in making the reunion season interesting and stimulating that the graduates return in great numbers, sometimes in a carnival spirit, and sometimes, as during the recent war years, with a sense of consecration and devotion. Thus it was easy to pass from the gay fun of a burlesque commencement in Hill Auditorium, which was the feature of one reunion season, to the commemoration of Dr. Angell’s life and services in 1916, and the great patriotic meetings of 1918 and 1919, which struck the deepest chords of alumni sentiment.

No less effective in their own field are the many local alumni clubs in all the large cities throughout the country. This movement toward forming local bodies began in Detroit in 1869, and quickly spread, so that by 1876 the Michigan graduates as far west as San Francisco were organized. While the primary reason for the existence of these clubs is the maintenance of the social and sentimental ties inspired by the common love of their members for the University, stimulated usually by an annual dinner and, in many cities, by weekly or monthly luncheons, they have begun to discover means more positive and useful to justify their existence. From a vague, if none the less real, feeling of loyalty to the University it is an easy step to more aggressive measures. Thus we find the local bodies interesting themselves actively in the University’s affairs, organizing subscription campaigns for the Union, raising funds for fellowships, and sending picked students to the University, interesting themselves in the ever-present athletic problems, and welcoming the President and other representatives from the Faculties who come to tell them what their alma mater is accomplishing. More than this, some associations are perceiving broader implications in their organization as representative college men and women, for the alumnae, too, have very active clubs, and are seeking opportunities for civic and social service in their communities. At present Michigan has nearly one hundred of these local organizations of alumni which may be considered active, while there are many more who only need to have some task set before them to bring them into an active and aggressive existence.

It is only natural that, with this increasing participation of the alumni in university affairs, there should be an effort to provide some means for the effectual expression of their collective opinion. Perhaps the earliest and most striking example of this movement was the provision in 1865 for the election of Harvard’s Board of Overseers “by such persons as have received the degree of B.A. or M.A., or any honorary degree,” from Harvard College. This effort, which came only after a long struggle, was duplicated in Princeton, Dartmouth, later Cornell, and many other institutions. Even some of the state universities, whose regents are either elected by the people, as at Michigan, or appointed by the governor, as in other states, have made provision for direct alumni representation on their governing boards. Though this is not true at Michigan it is significant that of the eight members of the Board of Regents, six, Walter H. Sawyer, ’84h, Hillsdale; Victor M. Gore, ’82l, Benton Harbor; Junius E. Beal, ’82, Ann Arbor; Frank B. Leland, ’82, ’84l, Detroit; William L. Clements, ’82, Bay City, and James O. Murfin, ’95, 96l, Detroit, hold degrees from the University and this proportion has held true for many years. The other two members of the present Board are Benjamin S. Hanchett, Grand Rapids, and L.L. Hubbard, Harvard, ’72, Houghton. Shirley W. Smith, ’97, also is Secretary of the University.

Lacking the stimulus of direct representation in the governing body, the alumni of the state universities have directed their efforts toward strengthening the general alumni organization as the best available means of expressing the sentiment of an increasingly important portion of the university body. To further this desire alumni councils and other bodies with advisory powers have been established, though usually their status has been uncertain and their powers negligible, except as they voice a body of opinion which the university cannot afford to overlook. Thus the Michigan Alumni Advisory Council, established some years ago, composed of representatives from the local alumni bodies, has been for various reasons far from an effective body, though it contains the germ of a force which may become active whenever a proper occasion may arise. More competent, because less unwieldy, is the Executive Committee composed of five members of the Council and two chosen at large. This body, though it has only met semi-occasionally, has initiated several movements which have had a real influence on the relations between the University and the graduates. This has been particularly true in matters relating to alumni support for the Union, and the problems arising in connection with its administration.

In its earlier years the Alumni Association also undertook to keep up the alumni catalogue and maintained for some time a card index of the alumni. This task, however, eventually outgrew the resources of the Association, and in 1910 the alumni catalogue was transferred to addressograph plates by a special appropriation, and its maintenance was made a part of the regular administrative work of the University, with a separate officer, closely associated with the Alumni Association, appointed to maintain the lists and edit the catalogues. The labor involved in keeping this list of over 40,000 names even approximately up to date may be judged from the fact that the catalogue office now includes four assistants as well as the Director, Mr. H.L. Sensemann, ’11, of the Department of Rhetoric.

For some years the practice was continued of including in the annual calendar an “Alumnorum catalogus,” which began in 1848 with the names of the fifty-six graduates of the first four classes. The list eventually became too long, however, and in 1864 the first General Catalogue was issued as a forty-page pamphlet which included 999 names. Four subsequent editions have appeared, in 1871, 1891, 1901 and 1911, in addition to a privately published volume issued in 1880. The slender pamphlet of 1864 became, in 1911, a volume of 1,096 pages which recorded 43,666 names, while the catalogue of 1921 will be even more impressive.

Though the interest and enthusiasm of the graduates is expressed in many less spectacular ways, the amount of alumni gifts is the most available standard by which the effectiveness of this support can be shown. Judged by this rough and ready approximation for a force which is in reality intangible and based on something finer and more spiritual than material gifts, particularly since it represents obviously only the sentiment of the few rather than that of the thousands who would do likewise if they were able, it shows nevertheless how responsively the University’s alumni regard her call for their support. They have given their alma mater funds and property whose estimated value may be conservatively placed at from $4,000,000 to $5,000,000. This includes many gifts of small sums for loan funds, fellowships, and investigations in special fields, as well as the income from these funds up to the present time. Some of these gifts, too, are of such a character that no definite value can be placed upon them.

The total amount of such special funds in the hands of the University Treasurer, largely arising from alumni gifts, is $843,815.40. It should also be borne in mind that this does not include the many gifts which do not come from graduates of the University, such as the Newberry Hall of Residence, the late Charles L. Freer’s numerous gifts, including a fund of $50,000 for the study of Oriental art, the Lewis Art collection, the Stearns Musical Collections, Waterman Gymnasium and Ferry Field, or such buildings as Newberry Hall, now used by the Y.W.C.A., and Lane Hall, for the University Y.M.C.A.

Two of the larger gifts to the University have come through collective effort on the part of the alumni. The Michigan Union, made possible through the $1,200,000 raised by students and alumni, has been mentioned in another chapter. Alumni Memorial Hall, which stands just across the street, is also largely the result of comparatively small gifts from hundreds of graduates. It is an imposing building of classical outlines, designed as a memorial of the men who served in the Civil and Spanish-American Wars. It is intended to be at once an art gallery and the headquarters of the Alumni Association, which has a spacious reception room on the first floor and commodious offices in the basement, where the University Club also has a large and well-furnished room. The building was completed in 1910 at a cost of $195,000, of which $145,000 was contributed by the alumni, and was formally opened with an exhibition of Oriental art and the work of modern American painters under the charge of the late Charles M. Freer of Detroit, who loaned many of the pictures shown.

Other gifts arising from general alumni effort are the Williams Professorship fund and the Alumnae Hall of Residence for women, given to the University by the alumnae; while Faculty, alumni, and student efforts have been responsible for several paintings, notably the Chase portrait of Dr. Angell, the portrait of Dr. V.C. Vaughan by Gari Melchers, and Ralph Clarkson’s recent picture of President Hutchins, which is to hang with Dr. Angell’s portrait in the Union.

The greater portion of alumni gifts, however, have come from individual graduates. These include such monumental benefactions as the Hill Auditorium, for which a bequest of $200,000 was left by the late Regent Arthur Hill, ’65e, of Saginaw; the Martha Cook Building which was completed at a cost of about $500,000 by the Cook family of Hillsdale, the Betsy Barbour Dormitory, costing some $100,000 given by ex-Regent Levi L. Barbour, ’63, ’65l, of Detroit, and the great library of American history, with its special building, given by Regent William L. Clements, ’82e, of Bay City. This library, which is reported to have cost $400,000, and has been judged by experts to be worth much more than that now, and the $200,000 building to come, represent a princely gift. Ex-Regent Barbour also gave, in 1917, a fund of $100,000 to be used for providing scholarships for Oriental women in the University. To this he added two years later property in Detroit from which the income alone, during the term of the ninety-nine years’ lease now in effect upon it, will amount to nearly $2,500,000. The sum of $100,000 was also left by the late Professor Richard Hudson, ’71, to establish a professorship in history, at present held by Professor Arthur Lyon Cross, Harvard, ’95. Professor Hudson also left his library to the University, which has benefited by many similar gifts from alumni, notably the historical books given by Clarence M. Burton, ’73, the library of Thomas S. Jerome, ’84, of Capri, Italy, and the musical library presented by Frederick and Frederick K. Stearns, ’73-’76, as well as the libraries of several members of the Faculties given the University upon their death. These include the library in Romance Literature of Professor Edward L. Walter, ’68, the philosophical library of Professor George S. Morris, ’81 (hon.), the Germanic Library of Professor George A. Hench, the geological library of Professor Israel C. Russell, and the classical library of Professor Elisha Jones, ’59.

Too numerous to mention in detail are the many special gifts for research, such as the continual funds for the work of the University Museum supplied by Bryant Walker, ’76, of Detroit, or the large telescope and other gifts to the Department of Astronomy by Robert P. Lamont, ’91e, of Chicago, or for fellowships, the purchase of books, educational material, and scientific apparatus, as well as the numerous funds left for various designated purposes and administered by the University.

The various memorials left by the graduating classes should not be forgotten in this connection, though some of them, owing to poor judgment, have been ill-adapted to the purposes they were intended to serve and have more or less mysteriously disappeared. Perhaps the best known example was the ill-fated statue of Ben Franklin, long a Campus landmark, left by the class of ’70. Early in his academic course he became the victim of the paint-buckets of successive classes, and eventually his outlines became so blurred that he was perforce retired. Aside from the tree-planting efforts of ’58, the first class memorial was the reproduction of the Laocooen group, now in Alumni Memorial Hall, presented by ’59. Reproductions of painting and sculpture were for many years the favored forms of class memorials, of which the most unique and valuable was the complete set of casts from the arch of Trajan at Beneventum, presented by ’96. In recent years many classes have left portraits of members of the various Faculties, while others have left loan funds which have been of inestimable service to many worthy but impecunious students.

The University chimes, a peal of five bells, presented by James J. Hagerman, ’61, Edward C. Hegeler, and Andrew D. White, must not be forgotten. They are now in the tower of the Engineering Shops, whence they were removed when the old Library was torn down.

Perhaps the most far-reaching in its effects was the fund left by 1916. This was accompanied by a recommendation to the General Alumni Association that an alumni fund be created of which their contribution was to be the nucleus. The Association took measures to act upon this suggestion, but owing to the war and the preoccupation of the alumni in the Union, its establishment was delayed for several years. The plan for this fund, as finally approved in 1920, provides for an incorporated board of nine directors, the first members of which were appointed by the Board of Directors of the Alumni Association. This project, while still in its formative stage, has great possibilities for the future of the University, judged by the success of similar funds in other institutions. This is particularly true at Yale, where the alumni fund amounts to nearly $2,000,000 in addition to some $1,500,000 given for various purposes.

There are obvious advantages in thus organizing the stream of alumni gifts now beginning to flow so strongly toward the University. It not only provides a trustworthy and conservative body to which any gift may be entrusted, whether in the form of a class fund, individual contribution, or bequest, but it also ensures that all such gifts which are unrestricted, shall be utilized wherever, in the judgment of the Directors, the University’s need is greatest. The existence of such a fluid source of income properly administered can be made of incalculable benefit, particularly in the numerous critical occasions, when the regular income is entirely unequal to the emergency, though it is not proposed to relieve the State from providing for the normal needs of the University, but to meet the special demands which are continually arising in such an institution. Finally, the existence and administration of such a fund will tend to tie the alumni to the University as could no other agency, particularly if, as elsewhere, a good part of the income arises from small annual subscriptions, collected by a class officer, who remits the total as a class contribution.

Thus, though the alumni of the University have no direct voice in the administration, as have the graduates in many other institutions, they have established several agencies through which their natural desire to have a recognized share in University affairs may be expressed. These include first of all the General Alumni Association, with its many subsidiary class and local organizations, which maintains the Alumnus as its official organ, and with at least the outlines of an advisory body in the Alumni Council with its Executive Committee. The alumni also have further means of associating themselves with the affairs of the University through the power of appointment of a majority of the members of the Board of Governors of the Michigan Union and the Directors of the Alumni Fund, which rests with the Directors of the Alumni Association; while the four alumni members of the Board of Directors of the Union are likewise elected by the alumni at large at the annual meeting in June.

With so large and widely distributed a body of graduates it is to be expected that many have become prominent in the life of the country, and in their professions. An analysis of the names of Michigan men and women in “Who’s Who” for 1912-13 showed that, exclusive of the holders of honorary degrees and Summer School students, the names of 604 former students appeared, of whom 498 were graduates and 106 were non-graduates. This is approximately 3.2 percent of the total names given in that edition, and was 6 percent of the college graduates listed. There is no reason to suppose that the same percentages at least would not apply in a similar survey of the latest edition.

While it is, for obvious reasons, impossible to give the names of all graduates who have achieved a certain measure of distinction, a few who have attained special prominence in their special fields may be mentioned.

It is most natural that Michigan alumni should figure prominently in the educational world. Thus, among college presidents, in addition to President Hutchins, ’71, Michigan can claim Charles Kendall Adams, ’61, President of Cornell University from 1885 to 1892, and later, 1892 to 1901, of Wisconsin; Mark Harrington, ’68, University of Washington; Austin Scott, A.M., ’70, Rutgers; Alice Freeman Palmer, ’76, Wellesley, 1881-87; Henry Wade Rogers, ’74, formerly President of Northwestern, and later Dean of the Yale Law School; Elmer Ellsworth Brown, ’89, New York University; and Stratton D. Brooks, ’96, Oklahoma.

Aside from the many distinguished graduates on her own Faculty rolls, Michigan has also for many years been well represented in the faculties of all the leading American universities. At Harvard these include Edwin L. Mark, ’71, Professor of Anatomy; Paul Hanus, ’78, Head of the Department of Education; and Edwin F. Gay, ’90, until recently Dean of the School of Business Administration; at Yale, John E. Clark, ’56, for many years Professor of Mathematics, and the late Professor Willard T. Barbour, ’05, of the Law School; at Columbia, the late Calvin Thomas, ’74, Professor of Germanic Languages and Literatures; Henry R. Seager, ’90, Professor of Economics; at Dartmouth, Gabriel Campbell, ’65, long Professor of Philosophy; and Frank H. Dixon, ’92, Professor of Economics, later occupying the same chair at Princeton; where are also Duane Reed Stuart, ’96, Professor of Greek, Christian Gauss, ’98, Professor of Romance Languages, and Edward S. Corwin, ’00, who now holds the chair of Political Science, formerly occupied by President Wilson. At Tufts, Amos Dolbear, ’67e, was for many years Professor of Physics. The Johns Hopkins faculty roll shows the names of Henry M. Hurd, ’63, ’66m, Professor of Psychiatry; John H. Abel, ’83m, Professor of Pharmacology; Franklin P. Mall, ’83m, Professor of Anatomy, and Herbert S. Jennings, ’93, Professor of Biology. At Cornell, Jeremiah W. Jenks, ’78, was for many years Professor of Social Science and Economics and now holds a research professorship in New York University. L.M. Dennis, ’85, is also Professor of Inorganic Chemistry at Cornell.

As is natural, many Michigan teachers are to be found in practically all the Western universities, although only a few can be mentioned. Thus at Chicago are Andrew C. McLaughlin, ’82, Professor of American History, James R. Angell, ’90, who was Professor of Psychology and Dean of the Graduate School until he became President of the Carnegie Foundation in 1920; and at Wisconsin, J.B. Johnson, ’78, who was, until his death in 1902, Dean of the Engineering College, and George C. Comstock, ’77, Professor of Astronomy and Director of the Observatory; while at Minnesota Edward VanDyke Robinson, ’90, is Professor of Economics, and John B. Johnston, ’93, Professor of Comparative Neurology and Dean of the College, and for a short period the late John R. Allen, ’92e, formerly at Michigan, was Dean of the Engineering Department. At Ohio State University may be mentioned Stillman W. Robinson, ’63, Professor of Mechanical Engineering until 1910, George W. Knight, ’78, Professor of American History, and Joseph V. Denney, ’85, Professor of English, and Dean of the College of Arts; and, at Nebraska, Herbert H. Vaughan, ’03, Professor of Modern Languages. One of the oldest of Michigan’s educators is Professor William J. Beal, ’59, Professor of Botany at Michigan Agricultural College from 1871 to 1910.

On the Western coast, Alexander F. Lange, ’85, Professor of German at the University of California, and Dean of the Faculties, has also served as Acting-President; while other representatives of Michigan are Charles M. Gayley, ’78, Professor of English, Bernard Moses, ’70, Professor of History and Political Science, and Armin O. Leuschner, ’88, Professor of Astronomy. At Stanford are George Hempl, ’79, Professor of Germanic Philology, Ephraim D. Adams, ’87, Professor of History, and Douglas Campbell, ’82, Professor of Botany.

Among Michigan graduates in foreign universities may be mentioned the names of Stephen Langdon, ’98, Professor of Assyriology at Oxford, the late Alfred Senier, ’74m, Professor of Chemistry at the National University of Ireland at Galway, and Masakozu Toyama, ’73-’76, Dean of the College of Literature at Tokio until his death in 1900, and founder of the study of sociology in Japan.

Though most of the men of attainment in science have continued in University positions, Robert S. Woodward, 72e, President of the Carnegie Institution, Charles F. Brush, ’69e, the inventor of the arc light, Otto Klotz, ’72e, Director of the Dominion of Canada Observatory at Ottawa, William W. Campbell, ’86e, Director of the Lick Observatory, and Heber D. Curtiss, ’92, at the same observatory, may be mentioned as exceptions. All but the last were graduates of the Engineering Department, among whose graduates are also to be numbered A.A. Robinson, ’69e, the late President of the Santa Fe and Mexican Central railroads, Alfred Noble, ’70e, until his death the leading American engineer, Henry G. Prout, ’71e, one time governor of the Equatorial Provinces of Africa and later editor of the Railroad Gazette, Cornelius Donovan, ’72e, the builder of the great jetties at the mouth of the Mississippi, Joseph Ripley, ’76, the designer of the Panama Canal locks, and Howard Coffin, ’03, automobile engineer, and chairman of the war-time aviation board.

Aside from the graduates of the Medical School who have made distinguished records on other medical faculties, the names of many prominent practitioners and medical writers might be mentioned, including Edmund Andrews, ’49, ’52m, an organizer of the Medical School of Northwestern University, and founder of the Chicago Academy of Sciences, Lewis S.F. Pilcher, ’66m, the founder of The Annals of Surgery, William J. Mayo, ’83m, the distinguished surgeon of Rochester, Minnesota, and Woods Hutchinson, ’84m, of New York, a popular writer on medical subjects. Among the Michigan graduates who have made a record in the legal profession are to be found an unusual number of distinguished occupants of the bench, including William L. Day, ’70, of the United States Supreme Court, who was Secretary of State under McKinley and Chairman of the Board of Peace Commissioners after the war with Spain, William B. Gilbert, ’72l, Judge of the Ninth U.S. Circuit at Portland, Oregon, Loyal E. Knappen, ’73, and Arthur Dennison, ’83l, of the Sixth Circuit, and Francis E. Baker, ’82l, of the Seventh Circuit. There are twelve other Michigan graduates in the Federal District judiciary in addition to John E. Carland, l’74-’75, Circuit Judge assigned to the Court of Commerce at Washington, and Fenton W. Booth, ’92l, of the U.S. Court of Claims. Among legal authors are Melvin M. Bigelow, ’66, ’68l, Dean of the Boston University Law School, and recognized authority on jurisprudence and legal history, William W. Cook, ’80, ’82l, who not only has been a great benefactor to the University, but is perhaps the best-known author on private corporations, as well as counsel for several of the leading telegraph and cable companies.

Among the graduates of the University in high government positions have been Don M. Dickinson, ’67, Postmaster-General under Cleveland, and J. Sterling Morton, ’54, Secretary of Agriculture during Cleveland’s second term, when Edwin F. Uhl, ’62, was also acting Secretary of State and later Ambassador to Germany. Other diplomatic posts have been filled by Thomas W. Palmer, ’49, Minister to Spain under Harrison, William E. Quinby, ’58, Minister to Holland under Cleveland, Thomas J. O’Brien, ’65l, Minister to Denmark and later Ambassador to Japan and Italy under Roosevelt and Taft, and William Graves Sharp, ’81l, Ambassador to France under Wilson. Michigan has for many years had a large representation in both Houses of Congress; for example in 1913 there were eight former students of the University in the Senate, of whom five held degrees, and twenty-two in the House. Senator Cushman K. Davis, ’57, who died in 1900, was among the conspicuous leaders of his time, while of the present generation are Porter J. McCumber, ’80l, of North Dakota, Gilbert Hitchcock, 81l, of Nebraska, and Charles S. Thomas, ’71l, and John F. Shafroth, ’75, of Colorado.

In various forms of public service as well as in the business world Michigan’s graduates occupy prominent places: William C. Braisted, ’83, is Surgeon-General of the Navy, Laurence Maxwell, ’74, succeeded Charles H. Aldrich, ’75, as Solicitor-General of the State Department in 1893, Major-General John Biddle, who left the University for West Point in 1877, served as chief of staff, and later head of the American forces in England during the world war, Charles S. Burch, ’75, is now Bishop of the New York Diocese, Dean C. Worcester, ’89, was Secretary of the Interior on the Philippine Commission, Charles B. Warren, ’91, has been counsel for this country before the Hague Tribunal, Royal S. Copeland, ’84h, is Health Commissioner for New York City, and Earl D. Babst, ’93, is President of the American Sugar Refining Company. Among architects Michigan numbers Irving K. Pond, ’79, the designer of the Union, and President of the American Institute of Architects, 1910-11, and among landscape architects, O.C. Simonds, ’78e, of Chicago.

Many alumni have turned to literature, and the names of not a few, particularly among the more recent graduates, are continuously appearing in different magazines and reviews. Particularly well known are Stewart Edward White, ’95, Katharine Holland Brown, ’98, Franklin P. Adams, ’03, and Harry A. Franck, ’03, no less well known as an unconventional traveler. Michigan has also left her mark in journalism, from Liberty E. Holden, ’58, editor and publisher of the Cleveland Plain Dealer and William E. Quinby, of the same class, of the old Detroit Free Press, to Edward S. Beck, ’93, managing editor of the Chicago Tribune, S. Beach Conger, ’00, who was in charge of the European service of the Associated Press during the Great War, Paul Scott Mowrer, a one-time member of the class of ’09, who was the Paris representative of the Chicago Daily News, and Karl Harriman, ’98, editor of the Ladies Home Journal and author of “Ann Arbor Tales,” (1902).

As with the men so with the women graduates of the University. Their ranks include, in addition to the President of Wellesley, many important positions in the university world, including Angie Chapin, ’75, Professor of Greek, and the late Katharine Coman, ’80, Professor of History and Economics, at Wellesley, and Gertrude Buck, ’94, Professor of English at Vassar. Among alumnae particularly prominent in science are Mrs. Mary Hegeler Carus, ’90e, the first woman to graduate from the Engineering College, who is president of a large manufacturing company and secretary of the Open Court Publishing Company, and the late Marion S. Parker, ’95e, who as a structural engineer has had a large share in the designing of some of the monumental buildings of New York. Annie S. Peck, ’78, is also well known as a traveler and mountain climber.

In the medical profession there have been many alumnae of prominence, notably Dr. Alice Hamilton, ’93m, who has recently become Assistant Professor of Industrial Medicine in the Harvard Medical School, and Dr. Harriet Alexander, who has become an authority on diseases of the nervous system. Two Chinese graduates of the medical school, Dr. Ida Kahn, ’96m, and Dr. Mary Stone, ’96m, have done a great work for their fellow countrymen in their large hospital at Kiu Kiang.