Crisis in Utah Higher Education: The Consolidation Controversy of 1905-7

Buildings at the Agricultural College of Utah in Logan, left to right: 1891 dormitory later used by the School ofDomestic Arts to 1935, Smart Gym built in 1910, and the president's home. The plowing of Old Main Hillfor a victory garden in 1918 seems to symbolize the victory that proponents of agricultural education achieved a decade earlier. USHS collections, courtesy ofA. J. Simmonds.

Crisis in Utah Higher Education: The Consolidaiton Controversy of 1905-7

BY ALAN K PARRISH

DURING 1905-7 A BATTLE WAS WAGED OVER the maintenance of Utah's institutions of higher learning. At the center of this controversy was the question of whether to consolidate the Agricultural College of Utah (ACU, now Utah State University) with the University of Utah (U of U). In addition to fomenting serious divisions among Utah's principal educators, the issue divided both houses of the legislature and was the chief political agenda item of the governor. The course followed shaped Utah's higher education profile for decades The controversy had its most immediate impact on the lives and careers of three distinguished educational leaders: John A. Widtsoe, William Jasper Kerr, and William S. McCornick.

At age eleven, John Andraes Widtsoe immigrated to Logan, Utah, from Norway After completing his courses at Brigham Young College, he graduated from Harvard ,joined the ACU faculty, and obtained his doctorate at the prestigious Georg Augustus University in Goettingen, Germany. As his career progressed he served as director of the Experiment Station at the ACU, principal of the School of Agriculture at Brigham Young University, president of ACU, and president of the U of U. For three decades he was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

William Jasper Kerr was born and raised in Richmond, Utah. He attended the University of Deseret and Cornell. He, too, climbed the academic ladder, first as a faculty member at the U of U and later as president of Brigham Young College, president of ACU, president of Oregon State Agricultural College (now Oregon State University), and commissioner of higher education for Oregon.

William S McCornick was the first president of the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce, twice a member of the Salt Lake City Council, the first president of the Alta Club, and president, vicepresident, and director of several banks, mining companies, railroads, and land and cattle companies. He was treasurer of Rocky Mountain Bell Telephone Company and an original member and president of the Board of Trustees of ACU, serving from 1890 to 1907.1 McCornick's influence is of particular note because he was not a member of the dominant religion in the state.

Within a two-year period all three men left the ACU. At the regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the ACU on July 8, 1905, Widtsoe was dismissed. On March 21, 1907, McCornick tendered his resignation as president of the Board of Trustees, and, a week later, on March 28, 1907, Kerr resigned after serving seven years as ACU president The consolidation controversy brought these giants to the lowest ebbs of their professional lives.

The Land Grant Act of 1862 (the Morrill Act) made 30,000 acres of federal land available for every senator and representative from each state Proceeds from the sale of such lands were to be used to establish and fund college programs for the industrial classes of the nation Their emphasis was on agriculture and the mechanical arts. The Hatch Act of 1887made an additional $15,000 available for experiment stations associated with the land-grant colleges. With these federal acts in mind, Anthon H. Lund presented a bill in the Utah House of Representatives on February 28, 1888, that created the Agricultural College of Utah It passed unanimously in both houses and was signed into law by Territorial Gov. Caleb W. West on March 8, 1888. The Lund Act provided $25,000 to purchase land and erect buildings. The cornerstone of the main building at the ACU was laid on July 27, 1889, and its doors were officially opened the first week of September 1890 As the new college in Logan progressed, certain lawmakers began to worry that courses at the ACU duplicated those at the U of U, creating a substantial waste of money Although the land-grant ACU was a product of federal legislation, the legislature could decide whether to use the federal funds for the university or for a separate institution. This controversial question was carefully considered by the legislature in 1894and apparently resolved at the constitutional convention in 1895 when the delegates affirmed the existence of the two separate schools.2

Nationally, nineteen states and one territory chose consolidation to achieve land-grant legislation that provided college programs for the industrial classes at existing institutions, while seventeen states and two territories established separate institutions. In the fall of 1906 this national division set the stage for the debate over whether to consolidate the ACU and the U of U. This issue became a major political controversy in state elections and in the sessions of the state legislature. Across the state public education was still undeveloped, and secondary education was not available in many places. Many felt that funding high schools for all areas of the state was a higher priority than maintaining two institutions of higher education. Most citizens thought that the small number of students attending the two colleges did not justify the operating costs

The strongest advocate of consolidation was Gov John C Cutler,3 who appealed to the Senate and House on February 2, 1905, to appoint a joint committee to make a thorough study of the situation and then "formulate recommendations as to legislation."4

After three weeks of investigation the ten-member joint committee presented two reports to the legislature. Five members favored an amendment to the state constitution, arguing that "the State cannot possibly maintain two separate institutions aspiring to become universities, and make each one an institution creditable to the State of Utah."5 They recommended that the ACU be made a department of the U of U permanently located in Salt Lake City. Their proposed constitutional amendment required a two-thirds majority vote of the Senate. Only ten of the twelve needed votes were obtained and the bill failed The otherfivejoint committee members felt that "the duplication of courses at the institutions mentioned is a matter of serious and mature thought."6 Their view became Senate Bill 150, passed by a unanimous vote,7 which recommended the formation of a special commission. Such a commission was created and charged with the difficult task of finding away to control the two schools and to avoid the "duplication of studies consistent with the finances and the educational advantages of the State ."8

Although further action on consolidation awaited the College Commission report, the legislature had passed a bill, signed by Governor Cutler on March 20, 1905, that limited expansion of the college's curriculum by defining the courses of study the ACU could offer. They included:

agriculture, horticulture, forestry, animal industry, veterinary science, domestic science and arts, elementary commerce, elementary surveying, instruction in irrigation . . . , military science and tactics, history, language, and the various branches of mathematics, physical and natural science and mechanic arts. . . .But the Agricultural College shall not offer courses in engineering, liberal arts, pedagogy, or the profession of law or medicine.9

On June 30, 1906, the College Commission submitted three reports. The members had evidently found consensus on the thorny issue of consolidation as difficult to achieve as it had been for the legislature's joint committee. The majority report filed by five members found expensive duplication at the two institutions and recommended a constitutional amendment to combine the two schools "on one site."10 The report bore the signatures of two members from Salt Lake County and members from three counties south of Salt Lake County. The first minority report, signed by two members from Cache County where the ACU was located, argued that the constitutional provision for the perpetuation of both the U of U and the ACU had passed by an overwhelming vote of 98 to 3 An extreme emergency did not exist and, therefore, a constitutional amendment was not needed. They recommended continuation of both institutions with each school limiting its work to specific departments to minimize duplication. The second minority report, signed by the member from Weber County, which lies between Cache County and Salt Lake County, recommended that the two institutions be united under one president and one board to eliminate their "unseemly rivalry." These recommendations were widely discussed during the election campaign of 1906, the southern counties of the state favoring consolidation while the northern counties remained torn on this politically significant issue.

Governor Cutler, who had been an ex officio member of the commission, offered his suggestions to a joint session of the legislature on January 15, 1907.The budget requests of the two institutions concerned him greatly: "They are now asking for over $579,000, or over one-third of the expected revenue for the next two years." To satisfy "even a reasonable part of these demands," he asserted, would "deprive the primary and secondary schools of the State and other institutions and departments, of funds absolutely necessary for their support." The legislature should at the very least, the governor believed, place the ACU and the U of U "under one board, with the proviso that one sum be asked for both schools." Cutler went on to decry the intense rivalry for state funds that had developed between the schools and the persistent lobbying by school officials who "should work together for the educational betterment of the youth."11

The alumni associations of both institutions actively campaigned across the state. After fifty-three years the U of U had an extensive list of alumni and a record of successfully providing for the educational needs of the state Aside from competition for funds, the U of U was under no threat in the controversy and stood to make significant gains by absorbing programs developed by its perceived rival in Logan.

At the ACU the consolidation controversy ran deep and deserves careful analysis The very composition of the college seemed to justify the opposing views held by some of its principal leaders. The college had two major divisions and subsequent differences in emphasis. President Kerr oversaw the faculty, academic programs, welfare of students, and fiscal maintenance of the college. Widtsoe, director of the experiment station, supervised research, the operation of laboratories and experimental farms, and the dissemination of information through published bulletins, a farm newspaper, and farmers' institutes These differing responsibilities undoubtedly influenced their opposing views on consolidation. Kerr held the traditional view that college work should extend to all areas of learning His interests paralleled those of great educators in established American universities. He endeavored to build a faculty and student body that would advance classical academic subjects and prepare students for life. Widtsoe, in establishing the experiment station, had produced rich benefits for the agricultural industry of the state. His statewide "student body" followed the plow, planting and reaping as aided by the learning of those at the college, on its experimental farms, and in its laboratories He believed that this hands-on work experience was the essence of the ACU Although Widtsoe did not oppose academic learning, the broad educational agenda of Kerr surely threatened Widtsoe's vision of agriculture and education.

Addressing the annual convention of the Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations in 1905,Kerr defended his belief that land-grant colleges should offer the broad curriculum espoused by conventional colleges in addition to the distinctive "technical courses required in the development of the varied industries and resources of the country." 12 Guided by that philosophy, the seven years of the Kerr administration (1900-1907) represent a period of remarkable expansion; "the whole Institution started moving and spreading, especially in the Engineering department."13 Faculty rank advancement policies adopted the criteria embraced at traditional colleges, and college governance and the rights of students similarly evolved In 1901 the semester system replaced the quarter system In Kerr's first biennial report, he noted that the departments of the college had been expanded into six schools with each school growing to meet the needs of the expanding curriculum. The school of general science, for example, now included "the broad field of general science, mathematics, language, history and literature."14 In 1902 the Board of Trustees added courses in mining and electrical engineering. In 1903 a school of music was established, and summer school was added to the college calendar. Kerr did not wish to preside over a school that "merely catered to the immediate needs of the time, he sought to establish a real college expanding into the various fields of knowledge."15

Kerr was the principal proponent of expansion at the ACU and thus the principal rival of consolidation. Ironically, the debate that ensued in the Senate, the House, and the press on the topic often focused on his earlier views as a delegate to the 1895 constitutional convention where he had been the most ardent supporter of consolidation—stating that "under no circumstances" would he favor separate institutions. His lengthy testimony then, published in the proceedings of the convention, became convenient fodder for those who favored consolidation ten years later.

Widtsoe reported that he laid low in this controversy, limiting his opinions to official faculty meetings That was an understatement Available materials do not reveal his personal assessment of the matter until much later Three years after the controversy was resolved, Widtsoe responded in a lengthy letter to an official in Alberta, Canada, where a proposed agricultural college was the subject of debate. The official specifically wanted to know if Widtsoe thought agricultural colleges were "most successful when combined with a university or when each is conducted separately."16 Widtsoe answered that this had been a crisis in Utah for eleven years and the most prominent subject in at least two sessions of the legislature. He felt duplication was an unnecessary concern if attendance at one institution required additional staff Another argument for consolidation was more compelling. When agriculture is taught as part of many other professional subjects, "the prospective farmer has a chance to measure himself with men in other pursuits and in that way acquires a certain dignity and faith in himself that only comes by such contact."17 Then he emphasized the need to have at the head of the college someone devoted to its agricultural mission:

There are some three or four agricultural colleges as departments of universities in the United States that maintain a very high rank There is a very much larger number of separate institutions that stand high among the schools of the country It would generally be found that the attendance of agricultural students is, in proportion to the population, very much greater in a separate agricultural college than in one combined with a university. All in all, while the question is difficult of full solution, it seems clear that the agricultural college of the future which is to serve the people in the best way will be a separately maintained institution.18

To understand Widtsoe's views during the crisis, it may be useful to look at those expressed by his assistant, Lewis A. Merrill.19 Widtsoe was president of the organization that produced the weekly newspaper, the Deseret Farmer, and Merrill was the editor during the controversy. This newspaper provides insight into the polarization that grew between Merrill and the policies advanced by Kerr Merrill charged that the expansion of the ACU under the Kerr administration was detrimental to the school's programs and emphasis on agriculture. This overarching concern clouded the consolidation issue Had agriculture been given the attention Widtsoe and Merrill perceived it should have, perhaps any expressed views on the issue of consolidation would have been significantly different.

Changes in the ACU Board of Trustees aggravated tensions at the school. Governor Cutler, who opposed Kerr's policies, attacked them through appointments he made to the board, replacing three of its seven members with loyal supporters—Thomas Smart, Lorenzo Stohl, and Susa Young Gates—early in 1905

The scrutiny of Governor Cutler, the examination of the joint committee and special commission, the composition of the Board of Trustees, and the growing sentiment for consolidation in the legislature brought burdensome pressures to the ACU Board and President Kerr During the summer of 1905 the board's president, William S. McCornick was traveling abroad and did not attend board meetings. Reports of a board meeting scheduled for May 12 hint at problems to come. The three new appointees opposed continuance of the meeting and forced an adjournment against the opposition of the three members of the old board News coverage reported that the action amounted to the opening gun of a conflict being fired. The primary purpose of the meeting was to confirm appointments for the next year and take action against persons the president opposed. The Salt Lake Herald reported, "President Kerr has discovered that two of the professors on his staff are not in harmony with him, if they are not altogether disloyal."20

Then, on June 2, 1905, pursuant to the call of the newly appointed trustees, a meeting of the board was held Motions for the election of college officials in a block vote failed in a standoff between old and new board members. Trustee Smart had moved that Kerr "be elected President of the College Faculty for the ensuing year" and that Widtsoe remain as director of the experiment station and professor of chemistry and Merrill as agronomist with the station and professor of agronomy. 21 It was evident from the vote that Widtsoe or Merrill or both would not be rehired. With the growing tension both Widtsoe and Merrill may have considered leaving the ACU.22 On Saturday, June 3, 1905, the Deseret Evening News, Salt Lake Tribune, and Provo Daily Enquirer all reported that the two men had submitted their resignations from the ACU following the June 2 meeting The Tribune got to the crux of the matter:

Of course the refusal of the old members of the board to support the motion simply means that they do not intend to consider the two professors at all, and that they will make no concessions whatever. It was so taken by the two men in question, who, upon hearing of the action of the old members, immediately resigned and accepted other positions

When seen by the Tribune last night, Dr Widtsoe said: "This is all I have to say—I have resigned because of the conditions which exist at the Agricultural college at the present time, and because of unjust and false rumors circulated upon the streets of Logan and throughout the State, which the directors of the institution have not seen fit to correct, though they knew these rumors were false."

Professor Merrill was equally brief and to the point—"I must frankly state that I am not in harmony with President Kerr's policy in administration of the Agricultural college It is not favorable to agricultural work He is attempting to make a university out of it instead of an agricultural college 3

OnJune 5when the Board of Trustees met in regular session no allusion was made to the reported resignations. Kerr read his report with recommendations regarding changes in the faculty for the ensuing year. 24 In the afternoon session a motion to sustain Kerr, Widtsoe, and Merrill by a block vote was made repeatedly by Trustee Stohl, a new appointee Each time it failed or was ruled out of order Adopting Kerr's report would amount to the dismissal of both Widtsoe and Merrill. The minutes of the next board meeting, three days later on July 8, reveal that Kerr intended to stick by his report.25 By then, McCornick had returned from his travels and stood solidly behind the embattled college president Kerr's report lists the names and salaries of the college faculty for the following year, with the names of Widtsoe and Merrill conspicuously missing. According to Kerr,

. . . These Professors had given ample evidence that they were not in harmony with the faculty or in sympathy with the policy of the Board of Trustees or the President One of the fundamental requisites to success in all educational institutions is . . . unquestioned loyalty to the institution and its authorities. He further stated that he was prepared to prefer specific charges against each of these professors, and to call witnesses before the Board and submit other evidence. ... in as great detail ... as might be desired by the Board.26

Kerr's report carried, with McCornick and the three old members of the board prevailing against Cutler's three new appointees. As a last ditch measure, perhaps, an amendment to a motion to reelect Kerr as president of the ACU was advanced; it called for the election of Widtsoe as president of the college instead of Kerr.27 The amendment failed by the same 4 to 3margin The board's action dismissed Widtsoe and Merrill from the ACU. The specific charges against them referred to by Kerr were not read into the minutes, and files containing other information pertinent to the meeting have been lost.

Even if Widtsoe and Merrill disagreed with the expansionist ideas that competed heavily with their views of the agricultural interests of the institution, it is hard to justify the severe action taken against them at this critical point in the ACU's development. Perhaps it may be explained simply by noting that the college was a political football. The pressure from the governor and his appointees and from the legislature and its commission may have created an institutional paranoia that could result in the dismissal of such valued employees.

The offices of the Deseret Farmer were moved from Logan to Salt Lake City following the dismissal of Widtsoe and Merrill. The newspaper had been noticeably silent on the consolidation controversy up to this point, but the continuing investigation of the commission appointed by the legislature made it a statewide issue of interest to readers. Several letters published in the Deseret Farmer suggested that the programs of agriculture would be improved if consolidation occurred. Other letters focused on balance in the overall educational interests of the state and asked for a better distribution of educational monies, "pleading for consolidation on the grounds of the greatest good to the greatest number, and for an extension of the privilege of acquiring at least a high school education by the young men and women of this state."28

Another view published in the Deseret Farmer alleged that Kerr had utilized money appropriated for agriculture for other needs of the college, including tile floors in the president's residence and oak tables in the library. This commentator suggested: "Let the dean of the Agricultural College be responsible for the expenditures and leave the amount to be appropriated with the Legislature as is now done with the Mining School and Utah will have the greatest Agricultural College in the West in a very short time."29

Joseph F. Merrill, director of the School of Mines at the U of U, also wrote a letter favoring consolidation. He pointed out that many strong agricultural colleges operated as departments of universities, as did other special programs, including his own:

We already have two state schools existing as departments of the University—the School of Mines and the Normal School—and so satisfactory is the union that no officer of either school would consent to its separation from the University.30

Both of these schools had achieved distinction quickly on small appropriations compared to independent operations. Merrill asserted that the ACU would enjoy the same benefits through consolidation. Each school controlled its curriculum, faculty selection, course development, and admission and graduation requirements, and each enjoyed all the freedoms of a separate college. Rather than absorbing and destroying the ACU, consolidation would liberate and strengthen it, he claimed.

For it will put the college at once into the hands of a director and his faculty—all of them specialists in the technical departments. . . . The college will therefore be run and managed by those who are especially trained and interested in the work . . . qualified to determine how the college can best serve the people. Hence the college should, by consolidation with the University, thrive more than it has ever done for the conditions would be more favorable for growth.31

If there was fiscal discrimination against agriculture at the ACU, the independence described by Joseph Merrill would have been most attractive to men like Widtsoe and Lewis Merrill.

The consolidation controversy continued to polarize those who believed they had a major stake in the outcome Lewis Merrill's editorial response in the Deseret Farmer to a letter printed in the Logan Journal illustrates this. The letter writer had charged that "every great and good cause has its traitor. The Agricultural College cause has its,L.A.Merrill."32 Merrill's editorial argued for loyalty to the institution's best good:

It is a little strange that every one who does not support the President of the Agricultural College isclassed as traitor to the College There isa difference between loyalty to the institution and loyalty to the man who for the time being stands at the head of that institution.

As a matter of fact, we do not consider Mr. Kerr disloyal to the State University because he isnow against consolidation, though he isa graduate from a two years course of the University. Neither is any alumnus of the Agricultural College a traitor to that institution if he happens to favor consolidation He may honestly believe that a greater and better Agricultural College may result from such union,—and such being his views, he iscertainlyjustified in working towards his ideals.33

The controversy spread beyond academia and the legislature. Removing the ACU from Logan would affect many people in the community. Local citizens and businessmen joined in the struggle through the Logan Chamber of Commerce. Cache County organizations and related groups from surrounding counties (Weber, Rich, and Box Elder) also joined forces.

On March 4, 1907, a bill proposing consolidation of the ACU with the U of U was advanced in the Senate.34 On March 7 it passed by a margin of 12 ayes, 6 nays, 0 absent and not voting—the necessary two-thirds majority for a constitutional amendment. When the bill reached the House of Representatives, however, member^ opposed to consolidation accomplished a near political miracle Although defeated in the Senate vote, Sen Herschel Bullen of Logan continued to lead the legislative fight against consolidation, working hard to form political alliances. When the vote was taken at 11 p.m. on the 57th day of the session, the bill failed to receive the necessary two-thirds majority on a roll call vote: 24 ayes, 20 nays, 0 absent and not voting.35 A group of six senators and twenty representatives had unitedly opposed consolidation during the sixty-day session. Senator Bullen wrote of their determination:

On the morning of each day out of the sixty, when the legislature was in session, and after our group was organized, they met at my room at the Wilson Hotel for roll call and report, or were represented by proxy, or excused If ever a group of men entered into a compact, dedicating every ounce of energy and every spark of ability they possessed, it was this loyal group of defenders.36

Although the fight against consolidation had been won, the legislature and Governor Cutler had in 1905 thwarted Kerr's expansionist policies by limiting the courses that could be taught at the ACU and refocussing the school's efforts on agriculture and industry. Widtsoe and Lewis Merrill had been dismissed for opposing the policies of President Kerr. The legislative sanctions against those policies marked the defeat of the Kerr/McCornick regime and brought about their resignations.

After mature reflection and careful investigation, President W S McCornick of the Board of Trustees . . . reached the conclusion that the seeming intention of John C Cutler and the party behind him, to destroy the Agricultural College, was real, and declining to be a party to such an outrage upon the people of the state, he has tendered his resignation

Mr McCornick was asked not to resign, and what were the terms which he laid down as the price of remaining upon the board, do you think? Simply this—that the administration of William J Kerr should remain undisturbed "If Kerr and his policy are to go, then I'll go too,"was his ultimatum, and having satisfied himself that the board was packed to carry out a scheme of revenge, he lived up to it.37

One week later Kerr submitted his resignation to the Board of Trustees "to take effect at the end of the school year following the usual plan in such cases."38 He pledged to finish the year's work and prepare the annual report for the board and to cooperate in any desired way. After accepting Kerr's resignation, "on motion of Trustee Smart, Dr. John A. Widtsoe, head of the School of Agriculture of the B Y University at Provo, was elected President of the College to begin at the pleasure of the Board, and end June 30, '08."39 The motion passed, and a new chapter in the history of the ACU thus began. The crisis over consolidation had festered for more than a decade, and its effect would linger for several more years. Years later Widtsoe expressed some personal feelings about the controversy and his regard for the college.

The dismissal shocked me. It was not so much because of losing a job; I felt I could get another. But it was unfair, the kind of thing big men don't allow I was subjected to much unfavorable newspaper notoriety inspired by the President or his friends as means of self-defense Most of all, I wanted to bring toward conclusion the experimental work initiated by me I had so completely identified myself with the work of the Station that I felt as if I were leaving a child It was some comfort to know that the Station and its work had been brought to national recognition and that I was leaving behind a group of men trained in the progressive policy of the Station.40

Widtsoe also revealed his view of the controversy in a letter to the superintendent of the Ogden city schools:

There are two sides to the question without a doubt I propose, as far as lies within my power, to conduct the Agricultural College in such a way as will prevent any ill feeling arising between the University and the Agricultural College, and to prevent any discussion that may tend to injure for a second time, the cause of education in our beloved state.41

The issue of consolidation was past His duty was to set a new course for the ACU in developing industrial education in Utah. The legislature had issued guidelines to minimize the duplication of instruction at the two institutions, setting the bounds each was to work within. Widtsoe announced his intention to comply with the new laws governing course offerings. The minutes of the ACU Board of Trustees contain a lengthy report on the courses of study and the direction of the college. According to the law passed in 1905,42 the ACU was not allowed to offer courses in engineering, the liberal arts, pedagogy, law, or medicine; however, only engineering was taught at the college at that time.43 Accordingly, engineering courses were phased out, although students who were pursuing engineering prior to passage of the law were allowed to complete their degrees Some doors had closed, but other doors opened. A glimpse of Widtsoe's vision for the school is conveyed in his report to the board. He acknowledged the limits that had been set by the legislature, but he emphasized that there was, nevertheless "a splendid chance for expansion and construction."44

That expansion included the establishment of a traveling school of agriculture and domestic science. To head it and related programs Lewis A Merrill was employed as superintendent of agricultural extension work with headquarters in Salt Lake City. This illustrates the statewide view the ACU has followed since.45 The faculty instituted night schools in domestic science and mechanical arts. Attendance was phenomenal and the students included representative citizens of Logan.46 Widtsoe also advanced programs that imbued harmony between the two schools U of U officials proposed a joint irrigation engineering course, with the university providing all the technical work in engineering and the ACU all the work relating to the duty, use, and measurement of water. Similar ventures were pursued with the State Normal School, exposing its students to agriculture and agriculture students to pedagogy.47

In its first three decades the ACU achieved an international reputation in agriculture Much of this acclaim was directly tied to Widtsoe's influence. Extensive pioneering in arid farming and irrigation, combining classroom instruction, laboratory analysis, and experimental farms paid huge institutional dividends. That greatness may never have been achieved had Kerr remained president. On the other hand, the greatness that Utah State University has achieved in fields outside of agriculture may have come earlier had the Kerr administration been allowed to follow its charted course.

The institutional development that the leadership of the state rejected seemed to be the very guidance Oregon sought. That is evident in the duration and success of Kerr's service as president of Oregon State University and commissioner of higher education for the state of Oregon. At the same time, the educational vision and practices of Widtsoe became increasingly attractive to the governing boards of Utah's three institutions of higher education. On at least two occasions he was considered for the presidency of Brigham Young University, and for many years he oversaw developments there as commissioner of education or as a member of its Board of Trustees Moreover, after nine distinguished years as president of the ACU, Widtsoe was asked to take the helm at the U of U He continued in that position until he was called into full-time service as an apostle of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Consolidation was a legitimate public controversy in Utah and across the United States. Ultimately, it may be said that its resolution in Utah was the consummate compromise. The advocates of consolidation of the ACU with the U of U were defeated in 1905 and 1907, and the continuation of the college as a separate entity was assured. The policies of expansionism that had created unnecessary duplication in the eyes of those who favored consolidation were limited by law and by changes in the leadership of the Board of Trustees and the college presidency. Consolidation advocates could thus claim victory for their ultimate goal.

NOTES

Dr Parrish is associate professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University.

1 Orson F Whitney, History of Utah, 4 vols (Salt Lake City: G Q Cannon 8c Co., 1904), 4:624-26; J Cecil Alter, Utah, the Storied Domain, 3 vols (Chicago & New York: The American Historical Society Inc., 1932), 2:285-86; Kate B. Carter, Our Pioneer Heritage, 20 vols. (Salt Lake City: Daughters of Utah Pioneers, 1958-77), 10:337-39.

2 Constitution of the State of Utah (Salt Lake City, 1895), Article X, Section 4.

3 Heber M Wells, the state's first governor and Cutler's immediate predecessor, was also concerned about duplication He sought to resolve the problem by bringing the two governing boards together in a special meeting. See Board of Regents Minutes, University of Utah, January 24, 1903.

4 Herschel Bullenjr., "The University of Utah-Utah Agricultural College Consolidation Controversy 1904 to 1907 and 1927," p. 2, manuscript in author's possession.

5 SenateJournal. Utah, 1905, p 408.

6 Ibid., p 402.

7 Ibid., p 403.

8 Ibid See also HouseJournal. Utah, 1905, Joint Senate and House Bill No 1, March 1905, p 647.

9 Laws of the State of Utah 1905, pp 125-26.

10 Summary of the Majority Report of the College Commission, 1906, p 10, copy in Papers of John A Widtsoe, Special Collections, Utah State University, Logan.

11 Bullen, 'The Consolidation Controversy," pp 11-12.

12 W.J Kerr, "The Relation of the Land-Grant Colleges to the State Universities," reprinted from the Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Convention of the Association ofAmerican Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations, U S Department of Agriculture, Office of Experiment Stations, Bulletin No 164, pp 119-24.

13 William Peterson, as quoted in Joel Edward Ricks, The Utah State Agricultural College: A History of Fifty Years (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1938), p. 59.

14 Ibid., p 62.

15 Ibid., p 63.

16 J W Woolf to J A Widtsoe, January 8, 1910, box 102, Papers ofJohn A Widtsoe, Special Collections, Utah State University, Logan.

17 Widtsoe to Woolf, January 1910, ibid.

18 Ibid.

19 In June 1905 Merrill so opposed Kerr's policies that he sent a letter of resignation to the Board of Trustees Days later he sent a letter to Kerr seeking to withdraw his resignation In his appeal he wrote, "Why am I singled out? Surely you don't mean to infer that I alone am the offender, because John A Widtsoe isjust as deep in this as I am." LoganJournal, June 17, 1905, p 1.

20 "A Sensible View of the College Situation," LoganJournal, May 16, 1905, p 1.

21 Minutes of the Board of Trustees, ACU, June 2, 1905, p 143.

22 In a letter to G H Brimhall, president of Brigham Young University, May 3, 1905, Widtsoe wrote what appears to be the acceptance of a job offer made earlier: "I am now ready to accept the proposition that you made some days ago. .. . My term of office in the A. C U. closes Sept. 1st, 1905."

23 "Row in State Institution," Salt Lake Tribune, June 3, 1905, p 2.

24 Minutes of the Board of Trustees, ACU, June 5, 1905, p 147.

25 Ibid., July 8, 1905, p 153.

26 Ibid., p. 157.

27 Ibid., p. 158.

28 Melvin C Merrill, "Another Agricultural College Graduate Favors Consolidation," Deseret Farmer, September 29, 1906, p 12 See also Deseret Farmer, September 22, 1906, pp 13-14.

29 "A Difference," Deseret Farmer, August 25, 1906, p 5.

30 Joseph F Merrill, "Urges Consolidation," Deseret Farmer, September 1, 1906, p 3.

31 Ibid., p 3.

32 LoganJournal, as quoted in Deseret Farmer, September 8, 1906, p 4.

33 Deseret Farmer, September 8, 1906, p 4.

34 SenateJournal. Utah, 1907 (Salt Lake City, 1907), p 353.

35 Bullen, "The Consolidation Controversy," p 17.

36 Ibid., p. 22.

37 LoganJournal, March 21, 1907, p 1.

38 Minutes of the Board of Trustees, ACU, March 28, 1907, p 226.

39 Ibid., p 226.

40 John A Widtsoe, In a Sunlit Land (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1952), pp 86-87.

41 Widtsoe to Superintendent John M Mills, August 7, 1912, Papers ofJohn A Widtsoe.

42 Ricks, The Utah State Agricultural College, pp 65-66 The law referred to is entitled an "Act prescribing and limiting courses of instruction in the Agricultural College."

43 Minutes of the Board of Trustees, ACU, April 23, 1907, p 239 This report spans several pages with the lengthiest description under the title of agriculture.

44 Ibid., pp 243-44.

45 Ibid., June 2, 1908, p 258.

46 Ibid., November 30, 1908, p 265.

47 Ibid., April 23, 1907, pp 242-43.