tutions are endeavoring to introduce the most improved methods. I believe that most of the duties essential to the office of college president belong also to that of a president of a theological seminary."

(5) "I am very glad to know that you are taking up these questions. In general let me say that I think every theological seminary should have a president, and that he should be the wisest and best of men."

In regard to Questions Two and Three, while the replies are not in all instances categorical, they show little diversity of opinion. What the trend of this opinion is will appear in the following representative answers. Two are

given in full. The first is from one of the ablest and bestknown Presbyterian college presidents:—

And it is proper.

"(a) I am a member of the board of trustees. Corporation and governing body with us are the same thing. I am ex officio president of the faculty.

"(b) My powers and duties are not well defined, and I would rather not have them. I can go a good ways if sensible, not far if a blunderer. "(c) Finances, that is investments, are better in entirely other hands. As to curriculum, practically I am finally responsible, but must be able to carry faculty as to any changes of policy or substantial departure. This must be rational influence, not authoritative.

"(d) At last discipline comes to the president's door. He must be responsible. In a college his success or failure is staked upon genuine control.

"(e) Board of trustees appoints professors; but they would practically adopt my recommendations and not move without them. It should be so.

Frankly, I think a college president should have a long tether, and then be hung with it if he does not do well. His tenure should always be conditioned by his efficiency."

The next reply comes from an equally able and distinguished head of a college in New England:

"I am chairman of the board of trustees, which is the board where everything originates; and I am also a member of the board of overseers, which has chiefly a veto power.

"I have nothing to do with the investment of funds, presumably because I happen to be incompetent; but I practically determine by my recommendations, which are usually in the main adopted, how the income shall be spent. I make the nomination of candidates for the professorships; and those whom I nominate are usually, though not necessarily, elected. I think no one could be elected to whom I was decidedly opposed.

VOL. LVIII. No. 230. 8

"Discipline is usually by faculty vote, though large discretion is left with me; and in clear cases requiring prompt action, I do not hesitate to act without waiting for the ratification which is sure to come as a matter of course. In a word, my idea of good government for an educational institution is autocracy tempered by assassination.

"A president should have full power to impress his policy on all the details of the institution; he should be given reasonable time to show whether his policy is a success or failure; and at the first signs of failure or inefficiency he should be summarily turned out and a better man put in his place."

Perhaps these two replies sufficiently cover all the points at issue. Some of the others, are, however, of sufficient interest to be quoted in part:—

(1) [From the president of a leading university.] "I fully believe that, inasmuch as the president of an institution is charged with great responsibility in regard to all matters referred to by you, a great deal of weight ought to be given to his judgment in respect to these matters; always presuming, of course, that he is a sagacious man. It is, however, more particularly in the sphere of the curriculum, the appointment and removal of professors, and the general policy of the institution, that I think the weight of the president's judgment should be most felt. While he ought to be intimately acquainted with the condition of the finances, that he may make intelligent representations respecting the uses of income, he will ordinarily do well not to take active part in any matters that concern the investment of funds."

(2) "The questions you ask are of serious importance, and I beg to take them up in the order of their giving. I do take the initiative in almost everything, both concerning changes in the curriculum and in the personnel of the faculty. I am a member of the board of trustees and am its president, and also I am a member of each faculty and its president. I have no immediate responsibility for the investment of funds; this is cared for altogether by a special committee of the trustees. I do hold myself to a large degree responsible for the devising and carrying out of the general policy of the institution. If this work were to fail, I should feel myself a good deal responsible for the failure; though, of course, the conditions might be such that the work might have failed, and I still feel free from responsibility."

(3) [The president of a Western college writes,] "My trustees are almost without exception business men of large affairs and with many demands upon them. Hence it has come about that a great deal of responsibility has fallen upon me for the general policy of the institution. I am always sure of the coöperation of my trustees, however, and do not fail to lay before them every matter that seems to me worthy of their consideration. They, too, prefer to leave details to me, or to committees of

their own appointment in regard to minor matters. I do not see why such a relation is not to be expected in every case where the trustees are broad-minded, intelligent men; and the president seems to them to be working for the best interests of the institution."

(4) "I believe the president of a theological seminary should have supervision over matters of discipline and general order, and should be held responsible for the same by the trustees. He should have responsi ble charge of the curriculum; presumably he would freely confer with the faculty on these subjects, and report all conclusions to the trustees for approval or modification. Largest liberty should also be given the president as to the selection and dismissal of members of the faculty. It may not be too much to say, that the methods of a great commercial corporation in allowing its president or manager to select his associates and subordinates, should be followed by an educational corporation."

III. Our third and supplementary contribution of intelligence concerning the matter of a seminary presidency comes from President Thwing, of Western Reserve University. In his new and extremely valuable work on College Administration,-a book which is to become a standard on the matters of which it treats,-Dr. Thwing, in dealing with the office of the American college president, traces its development through "three successive types: the earliest was the clerical; the second the scholastic; and the third was, and is, the executive type." This latest and prevalent type, Dr. Thwing sets forth as having grown out of the more and more exacting demands upon the president's position, qualified by the accompanying fact that these demands have come to be chiefly executive in character.

"Of course [he says] this type [the administrative] may be embodied in one who is either clergyman, or scholar, or both; but when the office is so filled the clerical or scholastic relation is not a cause, or even a condition, but only an accompanying circumstance or element. The president is not chosen to a position demanding executive ability because he is a clergyman or because he is a scholar,-he may even be chosen in spite of the fact of his being a clergyman or scholar,--but he is chosen simply because of his personal ability to do a specific work. [And he adds] When one comes to count up the number of college presidents who can justly lay claims to scholarship, he finds them a feeble host and small. The cause is evident enough; the administrator has no time for the quiet pursuit of learning. The college president is not a teacher; he is an executive. His work is to do things, not to tell about them."

These positions of the eminent educator are fully sustained by facts. Our great colleges and universities, from the oldest, Harvard in the East, to the youngest, Stanford in the West, have administrative heads,-men by no means destitute of scholarly attainment, but in whom the executive faculty predominates. "Not primarily scholars and secondarily administrators, but the reverse." Be the insti

tution large or little,-"a new and poor and small denominational college in a new State, or an old and rich and free and large college" in an old State; be its situation central or remote, "a new college on the banks of the Oregon,' or old Harvard, old Yale, old Princeton, old Columbia; in either case the present-day president is, more than anything else, an executive. The emphasis upon the different sides of the position will vary according to circumstances, but in all cases the dominant function of the successful college president will be the executive function.

The combined experience and example of the college as bearing upon the problem of the seminary is therefore twofold: first, that the latter institution should have a permanent presiding head; second, that this officer should be chosen with special reference to the discharge of administrative duties, and with a view to his capability as an administrator.

We are now prepared to set down in order the considerations which favor such a change in the administration of theological seminaries as shall place them under a direction similar to that exercised by the college president; most of these having been gathered along lines of suggestion from the college and its administration.

I. The concordant opinion of college presidents as presented. This opinion is entitled to great weight. It comes from men of recognized ability and standing as educators.