not only publicly preached, but otherwise openly advocated the
doctrine called "the higher law," a doctrine which is unauthorized
by the Bible, at war with the principles, precepts and examples of
Christ and his Apostles, subversive alike of civil government,
civil society, and the legal rights of individual citizens, and in
effect constitutes, in the opinion of this Board, a species of
moral treason against the Government.

This resolution seems to have expressed the real sentiment of the
Regents; but the actual measure passed was a resolution declaring, that
in view of the fact that a new Board of Regents was to take charge and
appoint a President, it was expedient that the terms of Professors
Williams, Whedon, and Agnew terminate at the close of the year. This was
an out and out partisan matter, as there was no reason for such action
inherent in the change of the governing body, particularly as it did not
affect two members of the Faculty who had avoided participation in this
family jar. The new Board chose, however, to act upon it and the three
resignations were accepted. Professor Williams was later reappointed, as
he had apparently taken a minor part in the opposition to Professor Ten
Brook. This whole episode was most unfortunate and was brought about by
the lack of a strong guiding administrative policy. Professor Ten Brook
in his later review generously says of these men: "A stronger body of
men of the same number was probably never associated in such an opening
enterprise," and again, "We should find that their merits would be
magnified and their mistakes diminished by a consideration of the
complicated, and till then unknown difficulties with which they had to
contend."

With a Chancellor to guide and direct the Faculty and to exert, on
occasion, a restraining hand, a large part of these troubles might have
been avoided. The Regents had early discovered their dependence upon the
whims of the Legislature, particularly in financial matters, while the
Superintendent of Public Instruction was given too much authority. In
fact, a Committee of the Legislature appointed as early as 1840 stated
in its report: "A Board of experienced Regents could manage the funds
and machinery of the University better than any Legislature; and the
Faculty could manage the business of education--the interior of a
College--better than any Regents."

This was becoming recognized; the University's difficu