rsity. The story of the
trouble, which is generally known as the Douglas-Rose controversy, is
too long to be told here. In its beginning it was a bit of carelessness
on the part of Dr. Douglas, the director of the Chemical Laboratory, in
checking over the accounts of his assistant Dr. Rose. The latter was
charged with petty defalcations over a long period of years, involving
eventually a total of $5,000. Dr. Douglas was an Episcopalian, Dr. Rose
a Methodist, and the friends and fellow churchmen of the two men rallied
to their support. The Board of Regents became sharply divided. Political
influence was used and the State Legislature became involved through an
investigating committee which, after a long session, reported in favor
of Dr. Rose, who had in the meantime been dismissed from the University.
Dr. Douglas was then likewise dismissed.

The University finally brought suit against the two men for the recovery
of the laboratory deficit, which resulted in fixing Dr. Rose's liability
at $4,624.40, eventually covered by a one-half interest in the
Beal-Steere Ethnological Collection, offered by Mr. Rice A. Beal and Mr.
Joseph B. Steere, '68, afterward Professor of Zooelogy. Dr. Douglas was
charged with the balance of about $1,000, which, however, was
practically covered by sums which had been advanced by him for
University and laboratory expenses. Eventually Dr. Rose was reinstated
as a result of continued agitation, though his connection with the
University was not for long; while Dr. Douglas, by a decision of the
Supreme Court, to which the case was carried, was completely exonerated;
a number of the initials on the disputed vouchers were pronounced
forgeries, and some $2,000 and heavy costs were returned to him by the
University. This was officially the end of perhaps the greatest period
of disturbance in the University's history, a struggle which was in
every way a loss, in prestige and internal unity even more than
financially. That the growth and development of the institution
continued almost unabated through these years proves the fundamental
strength and momentum attained by the University in less than forty
years.

But neither the successful handling of such administrative problems as
are suggested in the preceding paragraphs, or even the improvement in
the equipment and personnel of the University, represent rightly the
real work of President Angell. His greatest influence lay in his
dealings with the studen