In advocating those two new schools, President Powell harked back to the Act of Incorporation, January 29, 1862, and stressed its word "shall" when providing the

departments of education which then included law and medicine. In the elaborate attempt

in 1885 to comply thus with the law of 1862, President Povell and the Regents appealed

to the Legislature but the appropriation bill was voted down, "leaving the colleges of

law and medicine only on paper as they had always been."^[1]

One other provision of that old law was more successfully revived by establishing a military department. In his report to the Regents on March 20, 1885, President Powell spoke of this revival of the Cadets as follows: "Recently the young gentlemen of the University have organized a military company and have an hour’s drill at the close of the school every day." He praised the apparent good results.

The collegiate departments were strengthened, the Normal Course was expanded to three years and all the students were more carefully segregated into academic classes. The heartening improvements were emphasized by increasing efforts to utilize the environments of the institution in the fields of botany, zoology and geology. On December 3, 1885, Regents H. G. Struve and G. A. Weed were appointed a committee to draw up a lease enabling the Young Naturalists to erect a building on the campus. (Many years later the Cobb Building was reared on the same site.) The Young Naturalists at first consisted of a group of boys interested in the collection and preservation of specimens of natural history. They were aided by Arthur A. Denny who allowed them the full use of a small library building on his home estate (now Arcade Square). When Professor 0. B. Johnson came to the University, he immediately joined with those boys and greatly stimulated their activities. When the lease was drawn, it stipulated that the collections of natural history specimens should be available for the study and use of University students. A three-story building was erected and was in effective use until the University moved to its new campus in 1895. Soon thereafter the Young Naturalists, whose members had developed into business and professional men, held a meeting and voted to present their library and their natural history collections to the University. The Notary Public who validated the signing of that old lease was W. H. Gorham, whose children were subsequently students in the University.

Territorial University of Washington, Seattle, 1888, from Sanborn Map & Publishing Commpany, (New York: Sanborn & Perris Company, 1888), Map 20

While the legislature was not favorable to the proposed schools of law and medicine, it was  generous to the University. The act approved on January 16, 1886, appropriated $10,000 for two years to pay the salaries of teachers and professors in the “literary department," $300 for books and $300 for "philosophical and chemical apparatus." The same law provided for the appointment of free scholars by

members of the Legislature, and also the deduction of actual traveling expenses from tuition by all students attending from localities outside of King County.^[2]

Watson G. Squire, who succeeded to the Governorship in 1884 reappointed all the Old Regents except B.L. Sharpstein of Walla Walla who as replaced by N. T. Caton. Governor Squire experienced but one

session of the Territorial Legislature but he submitted one of the finest reports to the Secretary

of the Interior and worked so effectively toward securing Statehood that he was elected one of the first two Senators of the State of Washington.

After Commencement Day of 1886, President Powell became ill. Regents appointed Secretaries pro tem. They showed sympathy by continuing the ill man in his office and by voting on October 1, 1886, to admit the children of President Powell to the University "free of costs." Professor 0. B. Johnson was authorized, "owing to the illness of President Povell," to arrange for the Commencement exercises of 1887. Sadness over that absence was emphasized by the fact that two of his children, Kellie G. Powell and Edward T. Powell, received their degrees on that day. President Powell died on August 17, 1887, and the next day the body was borne to Lakeview Cemetery by a group of his former students, "accompanied by a large concourse of students and citizens of the city."^[3]

Between that last Commencement Day and the death of President Powell, the Regents met on June 26, 1887, when they elected a new President of the University in the person of Thomas Milton Gatch, A.M., Ph.D. Twenty-five years before this, in 1862, Professor Gatch was elected to this presidency but declined it because the Regents would not agree to pay his salary in coin instead of Civil War greenbacks. No such question arose in 1887 and President Gatch entered upon his duties which he was to perform successfully for eight years. He had had a greater educational experience than any of his predecessors in the office:        He was        born in Clermont County, Ohio, January 29, 1833; graduated from Ohio Wesleyan University, 1855; aimed at the ministry in Lane Theological Seminary but left for the California goldfields; changed to teaching profession in 1857 as Professor of Mathematics in

University of the Pacific at Santa Clara; Superintendent of Schools, 1858; Principal

of Puget Sound Wesleyan Institute, Olympia, 1859; Professor of Ancient Languages at Willamette University, 1860; President, 1861; in California, 1861-1865; Principal of Portland Academy, 1866; President of Willamette University, 1870; Professor of History and English, University of Oregon, 1880; Principal of Wasco Academy, 1886; in Europe, 1886.^[4]

Governor Eugene Semple appointed a new Board of Regents consisting of J. C. Wethered, T. T. Minor, S. C. Heren, Charles F. Whittlesey, J. B. Reavis. Mr. A. A. Denny declined reappointment.^[5] Evidently, Doctor Minor and Mr. Wethered did not qualify as the University Catalogue for 1888 gives the new Board of Regents as follows: John Leary, Seattle, President; Charles F. Whittlesey, Seattle, Secretary; James S. Winterrmite, Tacoma; J. B. Reavis, North Yakima; S. C. Herren, Winlock.

Even before the new Board of Regents was appointed, President Gatch published the small Catalogue for 1887. The summary of students showed a total of 168, with an additional page of 22 who had been appointed by the Legislators as free scholarship pupils. The Alumni list had a total of 49 who had received diplomas and degrees up to and including the Class of 1887. The spirit of the new administration was revealed in a message from the President including the following:

"Young man! Young woman! What can you do this coming winter that will be of such incalculable benefit to you in the life struggle before you, as to devote your time and energies to the acquisition of that knowledge and mental discipline which will be to you a source of power and a well-spring of joy in all the years of your after life?”

The Territorial Legislature, in its last session before Statehood, was again in a generous mood toward the University. The act approved on January 27, 1888, was almost an exact duplicate of the one in the previous session. The appropriations were $10,000 for two years’ salaries and $300 each for the purchase of hooks and apparatus. The provision for free scholarships was also the same as in the previous law. There was a flurry of opposition while the bill was being enacted which probably accounts for a joint resolution, adopted on February 2, 1888, instructing the Board of Regents to make before the next session of the Legislature a full exhibit of the assets of the University, including lands, money, interest on credits and the character of the deed to the ten-acre campus in Seattle.^[6]

While the Legislature was still in session and before the new Board of Regents had qualified, the northwestern corner of the campus was leased to Colonel J. C. Haines on behalf of the First Regiment of the National Guard of Washington, and as Trustee for Companies B. D. and E. The motion was adopted at a meeting of the Board of Regents on January 27, 1888, and on the next day the lease was executed in ample form. The term of the lease was ten years. The spirit of complete cooperation was manifest in the rental of one dollar per year, in the restrictions against noises, liquor and other nuisances, in permission for use of the drill hall by students in the day time and the agreement that the lease might be abrogated by the Legislature of the Territory "or of the future State." There were other evidences of confidence in the approach of Statehood.

The old Board of Regents held its last meeting on April 2, 1888, the session being devoted to the payment of current bills. The new Regents met on April 16. They organized by the election of John Leary as President and Charles F. Whittlesey as Secretary. J. B. Metcalfe, Attorney General of Washington Territory, met with the Board on May 5. He was to render assistance as to the condition of land contracts and other legal needs. At the same meeting it was ordered that an investigation be made as to the need of dormitories (and) as to the propriety of adding agriculture and mechanic arts as departments of instruction. From a telegram sent by the Board of Regents to Governor Eugene Semple it is apparent that both hoped to secure for the University the benefits of the Hatch Bill passed by Congress, to advance education in the line of agriculture.

This new Board of Regents was unusually industrious. Feeling that Statehood was near at hand, they sought to have all University laws compiled, to secure all possible data about the granted and acquired lands, to provide a voucher system for all bills and to spread upon the minutes regular statements of account by the Secretary-Treasurer. One of their long meetings was held on January 31, 1389, adjourned over to the next morning, when a strong resolution was adopted expressing surprise that the Young Naturalists and the First Regiment of the National Guard of Washington were occupying buildings on the University campus and declaring those maintaining such buildings to be "mere naked trespassers on said University grounds." That flurry was futile. Those buildings continued to be used under the terms of the leases granted by the former Board of Regents.

No minutes are recorded between May, 1889, and June, 1890. Between those dates, the Territory became a State. No reference whatever is made of that change by the Regents except the dating of one meeting was at "Seattle, W. T." and of the other "Seattle, Wash."

The University during this period of transition continued under the administration of President Thomas M. Gatch. another writer has said: "No profound academic changes took place during the Gatch regime…. His administration, therefore, belongs to that of his predecessors Powell and Anderson and is a part of the middle period of the institution."^[7] While this may be true in one sense, it should not be allowed to stand as a denial of a fine progress achieved. The faculty was improved, courses of instruction were strengthened and academic foundations were made more secure for the rapid expansions that were to occur on removal to the new campus. President Gatch and his faculty also make only slight allusion to the change to Statehood. The Catalogues for 1891 and 1892 carried on the title-page "State University of Washington." Before and after those two issues the word "State" does not appear.

President Gatch continued to serve also as Professor of Ancient Languages until 1891 when he transferred to Mental and Moral Science. The Ancient Languages classes were conducted by Charles G. Reynolds in 1891 and in 1892 Mark Bailey, Jr., began a long term of teaching in that field. Another prominent member of the faculty was Joseph Marion Taylor, Professor of Mathematics, who supervised the construction of an astronomical observatory. Others were Miss Ellen Jeannette Chamberlin, who taught

German, English Literature and History and who served also as preceptress, continuing later as Professor of English Literature and Language. Her sister, Miss Julia L. Chamberlin, taught Piano and Harmony and was Director of the Conservatory of Music. There were 112 students listed as taking work in that early Conservatory or Department of Music. Before leaving the old campus five students, Blanche L. Robinson, May Clohecy, Abbie A. Drew, Carrie Noble and Edith V. Simon (Cochran), were regularly published as "Musical Alumni."^[8] For some unknown reason they were not continued in subsequent lists of alumni. Similarly, Miss Claire Gatch presided over the Department of Art with a total of 30 students taking the work. The last Catalogue for the old campus shows a total in all departments of 468 students.

Student activities were developing. The Department of Military Science, presided over by John L. Hayden, Second Lieutenant, First Artillery, United States Army, had replaced the voluntary Cadet Corps, comprised a regular organization of two companies. The Athletic Association, forerunner of the Associated Students, University of Washington, (A.S.U.W.), was developing sports, especially football and baseball. In 1892 a general assembly was held to adopt college colors. There was a spirited debate as many students favored the adoption of the national colors of red, white and blue. The final adoption of purple and gold was caused by the suggestion of Miss Louise Frayzer, Instructor in English, Rhetoric and Elocution, who quoted to the assembly from Byron’s "Destruction of Sennacherib" the following lines:

"The Assyrian came down like the wolf on the fold,

And his cohorts were gleaming in purple and gold;

And the sheen of their spears was like stars on the sea,

When the blue wave rolls nightly on deep Galilee."

Another event, durable among the students, was the selection of their college yell. An Athletic Association committee, led by Asa Lee Willard, who later achieved reputation in dramatics, met in Professor J. M. Taylor’s room and phrased the yell from words of the Chinook Indian Jargon:

"U. of w. Hi ah, Hiah,

U. of W. Siah, Si ah,

Skookum, Skookum,

Washington.”

The University, its President, Faculty and Board of Regents, paid almost no attention to the transition from Territorial to State government in 1889. Far different was the case with the people as a whole and especially those who were politically minded. On Washington’s birthday, 1889, President Cleveland approved the act of Congress known as the Enabling net to provide for the admission of four new States of North and South Dakota, Montana and Washington. Each of the four was to assemble delegates on July 4th and proceed with the framing of a Constitution. In Washington Territory the seventy-five delegates assembled at Olympia on the day specified. They completed their task on August 22. The Constitution was ratified by the people at the same time as the new State officers were elected on October 1. The newspapers were filled with news of the Enabling Act, of the election of Constitutional Delegates, the day by day record of the Constitutional Convention, the nomination and election of the first State officers and the inauguration of the first State Governor. It was certainly a great political year!

The University was not mentioned directly in the new Constitution. Article IX is devoted to Education but its five sections provide only for the common schools. Indirectly the University is provided for in Article XIII where it is declared that educational, reformatory and penal institutions "shall be fostered and supported by the state, subject to such regulations as may be provided by law,” and that regents and similar officers "shall be appointed by the Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.” That last provision later annulled the attempts by the Legislature to name certain State officers to serve as ex officio members of the University Board of Regents.

There must have been some impatience over the delay In President Harrison’s Admission proclamation. The Legislature chosen at the election of October 1, when the Constitution was ratified by the people, met at Olympia at noon on November 6, under the last Territorial Governor, Miles C. Moore. Both House and Senate began organization. On the afternoon of November 11, Governor Moore sent to the Senate and House a telegram that he had received that day from the Secretary of State James G. Blaine as follows:

"The President signed the proclamation declaring Washington to be a State in

the Union at 5 o’clock and SO minutes this afternoon."

On the next day a resolution was adopted naming Monday November 18 as the day for the inauguration of the Governor and other State officers. In his inaugural address, Elisha P. Ferry, First Governor of the State, declared: "The eleventh day of November, 1889, will ever be a memorable epoch in our history. It will be known and designated as ’Admission day.’ Its anniversary will be celebrated, and it may very properly be placed among our legal holidays. On that day the Territory of Washington, after an existence of more than thirty-six years, ceased to be, and in its place the State of Washington, the forty-second star in the national constellation, was called into being."^[9]

The Legislature, sensing the completed change to Statehood and conscious of needed foundations for legal procedures, plunged into work with commendable industry. University affairs received attention in two laws and one concurrent resolution, the last named being a provision of power for an investigating committee to send for persons and papers to secure definite information about the title of the ten-acre tract in Seattle. One of the laws was labelled: "School Lands; For the Relief of Purchasers Of," and made provision for the bringing of action in court by any such purchaser of school or university lands whose deeds needed validation. The other law was devoted wholly to the institution and bore the title: "An Act in relation to the establishment and government of the University of the State of Washington.^[10]

That law was largely the work of Representative S. C. Herren, from Winlock, Lewis County. He was a Regent of the University and the only one of that Board who had been elected to the House or Senate at that time. He was one of the most active men in the House of Representatives, serving as Chairman of the important Judiciary Committee and as a member of the Committees on Education and State University and Normal School. Under such conditions, he would be accorded leadership in all matters pertaining to University legislation. On December 9, 1889, he introduced House Bill No. 72^[11] and followed it to enactment. That he was influenced by his birth and education in North Carolina is evidenced by certain provisions of the law, such as those for a Chancellor, who should also be President of the Board of Regents, and granting ex officio membership on the Board of Regents to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction. For a few years those provisions were effective in the University Catalogues. Regents J. W. Sprague, J. J. Browne and James R. Hayden were, in turn, listed as Chancellor and R. B. Bryan and C. W. Bean were published as ex officio Regents. The last was made ineffective by citing Article XIII of the Constitution.

Other provisions of the law were that Regents should receive four dollars a day when actually at work for the University; the President and professors should have control of the colleges but instructors were not to be considered members of the faculty; honorary degrees were authorized, excepting "no degree shall be conferred in the consideration of the payment of money or other valuable thing;" students coming from outside of King County would have their traveling expenses deducted from their tuition. Ten thousand dollars were appropriated "to carry into effect the provisions of this act." This ambitious law was speedily modified by enactments in subsequent sessions.

In compliance with that new law, the Board of Regents was raised to a membership of seven. Governor Elisha P. Ferry, on March 27, 1890, submitted to the Senate a message including: "Regents of the State University: John Leary and Thomas Burke, of King county; J. W. Sprague and John P. Judson, of Pierce county; J. J. Browne, Spokane county; Thomas H. Brents, Walla Walla county, and John F. Gowey, Thurston county." Later, on the same afternoon the Senate confirmed all those appointments. That the new Board was rather slow in organizing is shown by the last record of the Board on June 7, 1890, when a quorum, Regents Leary, Herren and Whittlesey received the last financial report of Regent-Secretary Charles F. Whittlesey, showing a balance on hand of §4162.76.

Changes were rather swift. John Leary, the only member of the old Board that was reappointed, did not accept and J. R. Hayden was selected in his place. In less than a year the second session of the State Legislature was convened. Governor Ferry was ill. Charles E. Laughton, Lieutenant Governor and Acting Governor, submitted a message to the Senate on February 18, 1891, with this statement: "Regents of the State University at Seattle: P. B. Johnson, Walla Walla, in place of Thomas H. Brents, declined; Richard Osborn, Seattle, in place of Thomas Burke, declined; A. A. Phillips, Olympia, in place of John F. Gowey, declined."^[12] revised appeared regularly in the University Catalogue.

That Board of Regents was on the verge of the greatest change in the institution since its foundation. It was to be reorganized and moved to a new campus. The Regents did not relish the responsibility and labor associated with the University lands and buildings and the proposed relocation of the institution. Their request for relief caused to be enacted the law approved on March 7, 1891.^[13] That law created the Board of University Land and Building Commissioners, to comprise the Governor, one Regent to be elected by the Board of Regents and three citizens to be appointed by the Governor, "not more than two of whom shall be from the same political party." Their duties and powers were extensive.

Many participated in the work leading up to framing and enactment of that law. A special joint committee from the Senate and House made an elaborate investigation at Seattle. The present writer finds his own name signed as chairman to the report on that investigation, which report outlines the desired legislation.^[14] The conference was held on February 6, 1891, with representatives of the city government, the Seattle Chamber of Commerce, the Board of Regents, and Faculty of the University and a number of prominent citizens including those who could speak for the donors of the original campus. Committees were appointed to investigate proposed new sites. Code Commissioner W. Lair Hill served as chairman of a committee who ascertained the legality of using lands of the common schools as a site for the University. This resulted in selecting the fractional section 16, township 25 north, range 4 east of the Willamette meridian comprising about 350 acres. The City of Seattle adopted an ordinance quit-claiming to any possible interest in the old campus of ten acres. The original donors and their successors promised to do the same which resulted in the suggestion to sell that tract for $250,000 or $300,000.

All the items in that report were embodied in the law creating the Board of University Land and Building Commissioners. They began work at once . The law had been amended before enactment limiting the new site to 160 acres. Clearing the land was interrupted by the discovery that the State Auditor was prohibited by the newly approved Constitution from issuing warrants in the absence of a direct appropriation. That meant delay on the new site.

Fortunately, it also meant delay on the proposed sale of the old carpus in the center of Seattle. The original donors, Mr. and Mrs. a. A. Denny, were still living and gladly signed the quit-claim deeds to permit the University’s use of the land for other purposes than the actual carpus. The original tract had included fractions given by Charles C. Terry and Edward Lander. The heirs of Mr. Terry joined in the quit-claiming as did Judge Lander who was still living in Washington City. Clearing that title wa3 undoubtedly the best work accomplished by the short-lived Board of University Land and Building Commissioners. The ten-acre tract has grown immensely in value. It is the best portion of the University’s endowment.

The continued retention of the ten-acre tract is really remarkable in the light of legislation and plans to sell it. In the Regents’ Annual Report to the Governor for 1890 is found this recommendation: "That a law be enacted by the Legislature empowering the Board of University Regents, with the concurrence of the Governor and Secretary of State, to dispose of the present site of the University, if deemed advisable, provided that arrangements to that end can be effected with all parties now in interest. In the opinion of the Regents ampler grounds are essential to the prosperity and well-being of the University, and grounds more remote from the center of a rapidly growing and expanding [city.] The experience of         educational institutions unites upon the idea that such institutions flourish best removed to a distance from the excitements and temptations incident to city life and its environments.”

Probably that is the first published expression of the idea of a new campus and coupled with it is the plan to sell the ten-acre tract. It will be found that the plan grew in imminence as the shears and expenditures followed. The quit-claiming clearance of the title was so important that the personnel of the Board of University land and Building Commissioners, which achieved it, should be here recorded. The Governor was an ex-officio member, the Regents elected James R. Hayden from their Board and the Governor appointed John Arthur, of Seattle; John McReavy, of Union City, and Charles F. Leavenworth, of Olympia. They selected William E. Boone, of Seattle, as architect, Fred G. Plummer, of Tacoma, as engineer, and Martin D. Smith of Spokane as secretary. As already stated their work was suddenly interrupted by the discovery that a direct appropriation was essential.

The present writer was re-elected to the House of Representatives, Legislature of 1893. He and his wife were graduates of the University of Washington, Class of 1885. There were, therefore, abundant reasons, personal and family, for enthusiasm in the work of re-establishing the institution. He was appointed chairman of the House Committee on State University and Normal School. Later, in April, 1894, he was appointed Secretary of the Board of Regents. The amount of that work is rather appalling in retrospect. Two authors, Clarence B. Bagley and Victor J. Farrar, have written about it with fulsome praise, too much praise for one individual.^[15] Many others participated in the work. So far as possible, the achievements will be recorded here impersonally.

Regents, Faculty and students of the University were excited during the two years following the announcements of a new campus and new buildings in the planning. The City Government, the Chamber of Commerce and citizens generally were also deeply interested. The hope of securing for a city park the fractional section of school land lying between Lakes Union and Washington was abandoned as energies were turned toward securing it for the new University Campus. This enthusiasm was easily transmitted to the Third State Legislature which assembled at Olympia on Monday, January 9, 1893.

A large portion of the members of both Senate and House accepted an invitation for a week-end excursion to the proposed new site. Actual stump speeches were made on the grounds, This certainly paved-the way for the favorable legislation that was to follow.

That enjoyable excursion was by no means the only contact between the Legislature and the University, as in the case of 1891, so in 1893 a special joint committee was to carry on investigations. Acting Governor Charles E. Laughton had urged in his message of January 8, 1891, that such a special committee should, with a committee from the Board of Regents, conduct such an investigation "into all matters connected with and pertaining to the university since it3 establishment."^[16] The result of that investigation has been discussed. That command seems to have held over as none like it was given to the Legislature of 1893. Elisha P. Ferry, the outgoing Governor, in his farewell message covered State needs in a thorough manner but only incidentally referred to University lands and Governor John H. McGraw followed with a brief inaugural address.^[17]         A joint committee was organized and soon realized its duties as investigators. This committee consisted of Senators C. E. Claypool and Trusten P. Dyer, Representatives Edmond S. Meany, F. B. Turpin and J. H. Smithson. Their investigations would embrace at least four main items: status of the titles and remnants of the lands granted by Congress prior to 1860, possibility of the sale of the ten-acre campus for immediate funds, work accomplished and planned by the University Land and Building Commissioners, and plans of the Board of Regents for university maintenance during the period of change.

The Joint Committee met at the Seattle Chamber of Commerce on the morning of Saturday February 18, 1893, and were there joined by James R. Hayden, William D. Wood and David Kellogg, comprising the executive committee of the Board of Regents; John Arthur, President pro tem, and Fred G. Plummer, Engineer, of the Board of University Land and Building Commissioners; President T. M. Gatch and Professor J. M. Taylor of the University Faculty. Later, they contacted W. E. Boone, architect for the University Building Commissioners and Rev. Daniel Bagley, President of the original Board of University Commissioners, who had handled the lands of the first Congressional grant. The investigations were intricate and extensive, resulting in an elaborate report which was presented to the House of Representatives on March 6 and ordered ”spread on the journal.”^[18]

The whole party visited the old campus to inspect the land and buildings. That the State was advancing and values rising rapidly is shown by the doubling of figures since the price was suggested two years before. The report said: "We estimate that this land will easily bring between §400,000 and §500,000, if properly sold, as soon as the present prevailing money stringency is relieved." The leaseholds of the National Guard and the Young Naturalists did not need disturbance.

The records of the University Land and Building Commissioners were found to be "in most excellent form” but the extensive work of W. E. Boone, their architect, had been stopped. His plans had contemplated fourteen buildings for the proposed new campus. Bids had been called for the main structure. They ranged from §450,000 to §750,000 and had all been rejected. The Board had decided to proceed by "day work." This was soon stopped "by the State auditor refusing to issue any further warrants." There had been no appropriation. This was one of the first, though belated, applications of section 4 of Article VIII of the State Constitution prohibiting the expenditure of public money without a direct appropriation by law.

In the consultation with the Executive Committee of the Board of Regents plans were evolved to sustain the University during the time of reorganization. It was also manifested that the Regents would prefer to resume their full responsibilities. This would mean dispensing with the Board of University Land and Building Commissioners.

By far the most extensive investigation was that pertaining to the status of the old land grant. Rev. Daniel Bagley submitted to a cross examination. Questions and answers were fully recorded. It is the most complete discussion of that involved question in existence. Mr. Bagley traced the transactions from the original grant of two townships, or 46,080 acres. All had been sold but 2550.55 acres and 1200 acres still remained to be selected. The complications revealed seemed unbelievable. The Secretary of the Interior that 160 acres was the smallest unit to be handled in granted lands. If a smaller tract, deemed valuable by its location, were chosen the University would be charged 160 acres for it. Mr. Bagley would then buy it on cash entry and sell it to his original customer. Such complications required several trips to Washington City. The records in the Land Office at Olympia were destroyed by fire. Mr. Bagley’s own records were then needed and were accepted in the courts for cases seeking to perfect titles. The success of this investigation is revealed by the last entry as follows: "Mr. Dyer suggested that Mr. Bagley turn over all books to Major Hayden, and that Major Hayden have a certified copy prepared to give Mr. Bagley, and let the Board of Regents have the original. Mr. Bagley agreed to comply with the suggestion.” The difficulties and complications of the old land grant were thus drawn toward solution.

Between the time of that thorough investigation and the submission of the report to the House of Representatives, or on February 27, 1893, House Bill No. 470 was introduced and its rapid progress toward enactment was begun. The drawing of that bill required much care and labor. The errors and undesirable features in the legislation of 1890 and 1891 must be corrected. The results of the investigations, by the Joint Committee must be embodied in the proposed law. Hon. Alfred H. Anderson of Shelton, who, as a Representative from Mason County in 1891, took a prominent part in the legislation of that session and acquired a love of the University that endured through his life. He gave good advice in drawing the new bill. State Treasurer Addison A. Lindsley had been a Delegate to the State Constitutional Convention in 1889. He gladly aided in the efforts to avoid possible constitutional pitfalls. Justices of the State Supreme Court, in personal conferences, kindly discussed the manuscript sections that seemed in any way to be at all questionable. Veteran members of the Legislature, especially members of the Joint Committee on the State University and Normal School, Governor John H. McGraw, Regents and other officers of the University were freely and fully consulted.

t

When the sections were all drawn and before the copy was prepared for the printer the sheets were pasted end to end, the whole bill measuring over six feet in length.

After its introduction, House Bill No. 470: was quickly considered by House and Senate. One significant amendment was adopted by striking out the appropriation section as it was decided to include that feature in the general appropriation bill. It was then ready for the commendation in the Joint Committee’s report of March 6 as follows: "As a result of our visit of inspection and investigation, we have come to the conclusion that a vigorous policy must be adopted to place the University of Washington up to the standard it should reach, and we believe that all the requirements of the present looking to the attainment of this desired end will be met by the amended and reprinted House Bill No. 470, and we heartily recommend the passage of said House Bill No. 470."

Every member of the Legislature was canvassed as to his willingness to vote for the bill. Representative E. B. Turpin of Thurston, a member of the Joint Committee, canvassed his fellow members of the minority party. Very few of either party would cast a negative vote. The congestion of work in those final days of the session caused the leaders of the University legislation to hold back for one important bill after another until the evening session of the last day when House Bill No. 470 was hastened forward to enactment. Acknowledgment should be made of courteous helpfulness at that crisis. As soon as the final vote was recorded, Thomas G. Nicklin, Chief Clerk of the House, grabbed the bill and personally carried

it upstairs to the Senate where Secretary Allen Weir gave it the final reading before its passage. Enrollment and signatures were completed before adjournment.

That law^[19] reorganized the University of Washington. It is the most important law in the history of the institution since the foundation law in early Territorial days. Its provisions should be briefly sketched here:

Section 1 authorized and directed the Governor to purchase the new site. The purchase price could be paid at any time but, until it was paid, the Regents should pay into the school fund annually interest on the purchase price at legal rates. The fee of the land "shall vest in the State of Washington for the use of the University of Washington."

Section 2 directs the Board of Regents to proceed with the necessary construction work on the new campus, careful provisions being made for the selection of an architect by competition.

Section 3 requires bids for construction and materials and bonds for proper fulfilment. All bidders must be citizens of this State.

Section 4 specifies the duties, powers and restrictions of the architect and his subordinates.

Section 5 makes similar regulations for the superintendent of construction and also specifies the substantial structure needed for the main building.

Section 6 gives the aim and purpose of the University such as providing "for students of both sexes, on equal terms, a liberal instruction in the different branches of literature, science, art, law, medicine, mechanics, industrial training, military science, and such other departments of instruction as may be established therein from time to time by the Board of Regents." Tuition was to be free for residents of Washington. The Regents were to have power to establish tuition for the arts and special courses of study and also for non-resident students. Provision is also included for entrance examinations and for the accrediting of high schools and other educational institutions in the State whose work would make entrance examinations unnecessary.

Section 7 accepts the quitclaim deeds secured from the donors of the original campus and then proceeds with an elaborate plan for the sale of that valuable ten-acre tract in the center of Seattle. Power is given to six-eighths of the Board of Regents as it was then believed that the Superintendent of Public Instruction was a legal ex-officio member of the Board of Regents.

Section 8 places in the hands of the Board of Regents the ten-acre tract while being sold and then significantly adds these words to a proviso: "or may lease all unsold portions under such restrictions as said Board of Regents may provide." On that proviso the subsequent saving and use of the ten-acre tract hinged.

Section 9 is brief but very important as follows: "That 100,000         acres of the lands granted by section 17 of the enabling act, approved February 22, 1889, for state charitable, educational, penal and reformatory institutions are hereby assigned for the support of the University of Washington." This was half the grant for that purpose among the generous grants at Statehood. The enabling act had mentioned the

University only in the regranting of the original two townships which had been almost entirely exhausted in Territorial days. The Board of Regents still have a voice in the disposal of those 100,000 acres thus assigned, which is not true of the other grants.^[20]

Section 10 conveys authority to the Board of Regents over the granted lands and requires them to make biennial reports to the Governor.

Section 11 requires the State Treasurer to keep a separate and permanent fund to be known as the University Fund.

Section 12 allows the State Auditor, Governor and State Treasurer, on recommendation of the Board of Regents, to invest the University Fund in national, state, county or municipal bonds.

Section 13 authorizes and directs the Board of Regents to demand and receive all books, records and properties from the Board of University Land and Building Commissioners, which Board was thereupon abolished.

Section 14 provides for the necessary bonds or papers for the safe keeping of arms and equipments loaned to the University by the United States War Department.

Section 15 repealed all acts or parts of acts in conflict with this act.

Section 16 declares an emergency and thereby puts this act into effect upon its approval by the Governor.

The Governor’s approval was attached to the law on March 14, 1893. Three days later, March 17, he approved the General Appropriation Bill in which there was this item: "For paying the expense of selling the present site of the state university, for preparing the grounds at the new site, and for the erection of the new buildings of the state university, $150,000

"Provided, That the money hereby appropriated for this purpose shall be returned

into the state treasury by the board of university regents from the proceeds of the

first sales of the old site of the university, consisting of ten acres in the city of Seattle."^[21]

In that same bill there was another University item, $39,000 for the expenses of the Board of Regents and maintenance of the institution. This was vetoed as were many other items. Following the approval bill is a letter from Governor McGraw to Secretary of State J. H. Price explaining the many vetoes he has found it necessary to apply. Ambitions in the newly achieved Statehood had been given too free a rein. He concluded: "I am, therefore, constrained to withhold my approval of the items specified, although all of them may be worthy and proper subjects for legislative appropriation whenever the income of the state and the provisions of the constitution may warrant their approval."

In a letter to the author of the University Bill, Governor McGraw asked about that "six-eighths vote." He decided to withhold his veto and to call attention of those concerned to the provision of the Constitution against ex-officio Regents. In that way the error was corrected.

The membership of the Board of Regents, into whose hands were entrusted these large tasks of reorganization, was as follows: J. J. Browne, of Spokane; J. R. Hayden, of Seattle; William D. Wood, of Seattle; Frank Allyn, of Tacoma; David Kellogg, of Seattle; John F. Gowey, of Olympia, and A. P. Mitten of Seattle. Before the new buildings were ready for occupancy a few changes were made in the membership: B. F. Heuston succeeded Frank Allyn, of Tacoma; R. E. M. Strickland succeeded J. J. Browne, of Spokane; and George H. Preston succeeded A. P. Mitten of Seattle.