University of Virginia Library

CHAPTER XII

Literary Societies; Debates and Celebrations

Some months before entering the University, in looking
over the catalogue I noticed the name of the only student that
lived within reasonable distance of my home, Mr. B. C. Wickes,
whom I surmised a son of Judge Joseph A. Wickes, a member
of the Maryland Bench, a gentleman of good legal attainments
and sound judical ability—highly respected, honored and beloved
in his Court circuit. With him my father was well
acquainted, but whether the supposed son intended returning
to the University was unknown to me for at least a week
after my arrival there, when he made a social call at my room.
He spoke of having seen a recent newspaper notice of my
proposed entrance; that he had inquired of several concerning
my arrival and location, and hoped we would be friendly and
companionable during our sojourn together. It happened that
he also roomed on Dawson's Row, not far from me, and
took meals at the same boarding house (Ross'), so that
throughout the session, his last, we saw not a little of each
other. As developments proved there was a stronger ulterior
motive connected with Mr. Wickes' initial visit than the establishment
of simple friendship, since he had an ambition to
become Final President of the Jeff., and was leaving nothing
unturned in securing new members. He was what I call an
impulsive politician, but possessed many forceful qualities—
visited freshmen as early as possible, gave fraternal advice,
impressed the necessity of joining a literary society, and the

University—McCormick Observatory

(Erected 1882-83)

University—Madison Hall—Y. M. C. A.

(Erected 1905)

FACING 230

great advantages of the Jeff. over the Wash., not as he conceived
them, but, as he said, they really were. From the first
he insisted upon proposing my name for membership, offering
gratuitous initiation fee, which I declined but otherwise willingly
followed his pleasure. Having joined I naturally thought
it a duty to attend the regular Saturday night meetings,
which I found entertaining in the knowledge gained from intelligent
and spirited debate. The hall, located about midway
West Range, was furnished suitably with carpet (red), draperies,
desks and chairs, well heated and cared for, and as it
was colder in the rear near the door, I usually occupied a seat
towards the front where by paying moderate attention most of
the arguments could easily be followed. The next day (Sunday)
I would spend an hour in writing down the salient
points of the discussion, and referring now to that note book,
I find only one record of Mr. Wickes having taken active
part, February 22, 1873, which I distinctly remember was
styled then by some, a final trial-contest to prove his meriting
the honors sought—that disputed by some, but happily established
on this occasion to the full satisfaction of his many
friends. A portion of these notes, in spite of youthful crudities,
may be reproduced here in order to show what impression
those debates made upon me and what subject-matter I then
considered worthy of transcribing:

Jeff. Society, Saturday night, February 22, 1873. Question:
Which is the more pernicious vice—flattery or slander?

Mr. Saunders (Aff.).—Opened debate by declaring, that
some considered prefatory remarks inelegant, but on this occasion
he regarded them eminently proper—far better than
pleading not having given the subject any thought, or claiming
to be absolutely unprepared. He rejoiced in being assigned
to his side of the question, convinced that much could be
made out of it by the right parties, whereas the negative had
little, if anything, to commend it; claimed that all important
nations had attained their greatness chiefly through flattery
and praise, and that the perpetuity and success of the human
race had been due to its power and influence. After reciting
many quotations from the Bible and without special credit for
the effort, he yielded the floor to his associate.

Mr. Smith (Aff.).—Charmed us with eloquence, spreading

himself like the limbs of a big bay tree as he gave his
several illustrations. Mentioned a certain scholarly gentleman,
who, having been elevated to the Senate and acquired
a fortune, was brought by merciless slander to an untimely
death; a lady, who, with beauty and purity unsurpassed, was
pining away the few remaining days of life amid solitude
and melancholy due to that defaming monster—slander;
claimed it impossible to arouse feminine emotions through
flattery, and that every living soul preferred it in a generous
degree to the mildest slander. Often teachers in the hope of
encouraging pupils, even those not yet beyond the obstacles
of the speller, make the boldest assertions—work a little
harder, put in a trifle more time, and you will accomplish the
difficult task, perchance become President of our great country—mindful
all the time of a lurking falsehood in their
statements, but condoned as a piece of flattery that may lead
to good results. Often mothers sacrifice comfort for our
pleasure, and how few of us show the least signs of gratitude,
far less give a complimentary or flattering word! But what
a difference when outsiders do us the slightest favor, as then
we overwhelm them with flattery and praise—that which
usually is not to their dissatisfaction. After a young man with
several rivals succeeds at their expense in winning the object
of his affections, how often those outwitted extend profuse
congratulations and best wishes—far beyond the heart's impulse—which
is infinitely more generous than words of disapproval
and resentment. Mr. Smith in his second speech
replied to several caustic references made by Mr. Wickes, and
reaffirmed his conviction that no virtuous woman had ever
gone morally wrong through the single agency of flattery, but
invariably by having the emotions aroused by other kinetic
influences; that although she be flattered to the extreme, yet
finally it would reflect negatively upon the one conferring it.
He cited a case of two gentlemen visiting a certain lady,
wherein the discarded lover, imitating the handwriting of
the one accepted, wrote forged letters of a contradictory sentiment
that seriously suggested to the lady a vacillating disposition
on the part of the true lover, resulting in distrust,
denouncement and alienation on her side and suicide on his—
all the result of slander.

Mr. Wickes (Neg.).—Began with many eloquent and fanciful
appeals, and, somewhat embarrassed at the start, made
several minor errors in statement—one against Mr. Saunders
having to be retracted in his final summary. He thought
Mr. Smith had gotten far from truth in the assertion—one
deprived of his reputation is robbed necessarily of his character;
that he had given this phase of the subject considerable
thought, even had consulted Professors Holmes and McGuffey,
who were of the contra opinion—believing that one who
possessed a bad reputation in a certain locality might seek
another and by a new order of conduct create a different
impression, secure a creditable standing, and thereby prove
the ever-presence of character. He believed flattery had
brought the sunny South to her present condition by praising
and overvaluing her strength, and had beguiled many fair
maidens into leading immoral lives. Claimed that Aristides
and other noted Grecians and Romans, humbled by adversity,
had been led by flattery to be so self-assertive and intolerable
as to be banished or put to death; that all great empires and
nations had fallen through the agency of conceit and flattery.
In his second speech he replied most forcibly to the arguments
of his opponents and concluded with the inquiry: Which was
it, flattery or slander that caused Adam and Eve to be driven
from the Garden of Eden? Upon submitting the question to
the society for decision, the vote stood eighteen to eighteen,
but when that of the president's was recorded in the negative,
Mr. Wickes and his friends knew apparently no bound of joy.
This debate occasioned no little talk on the outside, as some
claimed that Mr. Wickes had taken much of his argument
from a certain "Debating Manual," of which many students
had copies, but his manly reply completely disarmed the evil
tongues of his traducers, since he freely admitted using the
work referred to and named several others in his possession
that had given him valuable information, without whose aid
no sensible young man should attempt publicly any intelligent
discussion.

Jeff. Society, Saturday night, March 1, 1873. Question:
Should judges be appointed or elected?

Mr. Herron (Aff.).—Claimed that no government had
stood for any length of time that elected its judiciary—the

republican perishing sooner than the monarchical; that in all
Europe the higher positions are filled by the King or Queen
—the judges being appointed for life unless conduct decreed
otherwise; that mighty Rome, the city of heroes and learned
men, where the great Cicero had his rearing, fostered the
election of judges by the populace, while noble Athens, though
largely through Roman jealousy, declined and fell adhering
to similar principles; that all republics, English speaking or
otherwise, having judges selected by the people, are doomed
to dissolution and extinction. It is perfectly evident that the
rank and file have not sufficient good judgment to exercise
properly the elective franchise; that where a ruler, uninfluenced
by party feeling, appoints judges the result is better for the
welfare of his nation and people. Washington when elected
President appointed his cabinet and able assistants in pursuance
of a most liberal policy—not alone those of his own
faith but the best throughout the land, irrespective of tenet
or creed. His example, although most worthy and commendable,
has not been emulated by any successor, showing
the proneness of even the great to fall in narrow lines and
pervert that which is best. We see in our day the climax to
which party strife may reach; how those in power tolerate and
perpetuate evil doings in office to the extent of diabolical corruption
and rottenness—all the outgrowth of political hatred
and prejudice through public ignorance. Those who run for
office are often not the ones who should have the honors, but
if the promotion was alone through a Supreme Chief—whose
judgment is wise in foretelling qualifications, possessed and
required for filling various positions—then results would be
far more healthy and satisfactory. Indeed, men of true character,
in these times of feverish activity, are not office seekers,
as there is no incentive for those desiring to preserve the inalienable
principles of the government to enter politics. At
present there is no honor in being elected judge, as one-third
of our voters are illiterate, consequently know not the qualifications
for a judgeship, the nice distinctions between men,
and how to act at the polls with intelligent judgment. Our
government is departing fast from its former high ideals, and
in time we will find ourselves under a dominating power vastly
different from that of our early fathers. Certainly as a nation
we are losing our purity of act and thought, while the impulse
to do good for the nation alone is sadly lessening. George
III., although rather a bad ruler himself, did not fail to give
good advice and laws by which the people might be governed,
not they govern themselves, and one was the desirability to
appoint and not to elect incumbents to higher offices. Little
did Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Madison think when
forming this government and its constitution that the present
conditions would ever exist—that their hopes and realizations
would be so disappointing. They believed that whenever
judges and important leaders are to be elected by general vote,
then the masses should be well-informed and educated—removed
from a contentious, short-sighted animus, above self-interest
and the doing of public wrongs, actuated by honorable
principles in guarding the enforcement of the people's will—
then and only then is a republic superior to a monarchy. As
a matter of fact, however, there has never been a nation
whose people measured and lived up to these higher ideals for
a long time, so we must conclude, that the government using
mostly cautious appointing power is the one that endures
longest by virtue of having its affairs managed best.

Jeff. Society, Saturday night, March 15, 1873. Question:
Is our country (nation) on the decline?

This debate was opened affirmatively by a gentleman having
at least twenty-five pages of manuscript with an unnecessary
introduction: Little did he think, when a few weeks ago he
permitted himself to become a member of this society, that in
so short a time he would be assigned such onerous duties as
lay before him to-night. He considered the question of great
scope, requiring several subdivisions and much preparation
for its proper discussion. Claimed that while our home commerce
was increasing, our foreign had greatly diminished
since the Civil War, although prior thereto it had shown a
gradual and satisfactory growth; that through the Suez Canal
many ships pass daily bearing produce of other countries,
but scarcely any of our own; that Great Britain, Germany and
France surpass us in the general interchange of world commodities;
that we are increasing rapidly in population, not
only with our Anglo-Saxons, but with many mingled races—
Irish, Germans, Italians, Chinese, Bohemians, Poles, Norwegians,

Russians, Swedes, Celts, etc., yet as a fact this cannot be
considered an advantage, as all ancient and modern history
shows that no nation has survived long with a composite population.
As we are now on equality with all, it cannot be
doubted but that in time we will be the conquered race—possibly
the negro the ruling one. In 1800 our population was
three and a half millions, to-day it is forty millions, and if
our increase for the next century be in the same proportion
we will have one hundred and fifty millions. The great and
important point to be considered here is the direction in which
this increase is to take place—our own race blood predominating,
so that we may derive good and not evil. I agree with
Henry Clay and many other great men—that the increase of
dominion will not aid our prosperity, but may involve us in
untold expense and complication. Mr. Clay advocated our
boundaries to remain as they were—the Pacific on the west,
the Atlantic on the east, the Gulf of Mexico on the south,
and the great lakes on the north—believing the less we possess
the greater the ambition to improve it. I also agree with many,
that our country is degenerating morally and politically—a
fact that needs only proof in the persistent endeavor of the
North to oppress the South, and in the determination of our
President to retain in office those having dishonest, insincere
and sinister motives, rather than those willing to stamp out
corrupt and fraudulent practices.

Mr. Brent (Aff.).—Affirmed his intention to discuss only
the political disposition of our government, as upon party
purity the success or failure of our nation necessarily depends.
He compared us to ancient Rome, believing against hope that
our fate was to be similar; he recognized the fundamental principle
of our government, the foundation of the constitution,
as framed by Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Madison,
to be centered in the one idea, states-rights—a fact our present
rulers seem determined to deny and disregard. Certainly it
is a paramount question, otherwise it would not have been
such a bone of contention these many years, for even in the
days of the great trio, Clay, Webster, Calhoun, the Senate
was in continuous agitation over measures impinging more or
less upon it. It has furnished the great dividing line between
the North and South, and although Mr. Webster became a

bold and fearless advocate of his people's sentiments, yet he
was simply their mouth-piece and servant, as at heart he sympathized
with the South, believing in her claim and that she
was contending only for that vouchsafed by the constitution.
There lived in Pennsylvania one time a man noted throughout
the country as extremely large and handsome, who, accused
of treason and brought to trial, made such a hasty and
reckless entrance into the court-room overcrowded with ladies
and gentlemen, as to crush to the dirty floor a man of much
smaller size, who upon gaining his feet demanded of the giant
Adonis the right and reason for such a brutal act, only to
bring forth the defiant reply: "I am the handsome man who
is to be tried here to-day for treason, get out of the way or
take the consequences." This desire of the strong crushing
the weak has been manifest in our recent war, as the North
has let the edict prevail—we will make the South feel what we
are—and those living in this pillaged land sadly realize the
force of that sentiment. The party now in power pretend to
have been trying to restore the Union for the past seven
years, but how fruitless has been the effort! Mr. Grant upon
becoming President recommended that the South elect her
governors and legislatures, but afterwards, under pressure of
his party-mongers, ordered all those elected to abdicate office
in order that he might fill those positions with northern carpet-baggers,
who have not only misruled, but have suffered
our country to be robbed and plundered in a most ruthless
manner. The President is now on his fifth year and we are
informed that he made his maiden speech a few days ago,
reading it from manuscript—a sad commentary upon the kind
of intellect gracing the position—and though the simile is
ungenerous I am reminded of what we are told in the New
Testament: That Balaam's ass opened its mouth and spoke,
whereupon it was recorded marvelous and wonderful. So
may this utterance of the President's be preserved in history
as most strange and remarkable. He also may go down to
posterity as a lover of bull-pups, although the papers say the
last one sent was refused acceptance owing to expressage not
being prepaid but upon learning it had a long and valuable
pedigree hastened to reclaim it from a friend to whom he had
given it in lieu of conveyance charges.

Jeff. Society, Saturday night, November 15, 1873. Question:
Should capital punishment be abolished?

Mr. Green (Neg.).—Impressed the fact that as time glides
along we are too apt to forget the laws and commandments of
our forefathers, for certainly this question needs no settlement
from our hands to-night, as our progenitors in the distant
past, after great thought and concern, have determined
for always, that wherever civilized communities exist none
can make progress without some dreaded restraining power
over those inclined to violate law and order. Surely anything
short of capital punishment would be inimical to a nation's
safety and advancement—for the atoning of one's crime with
life, that to which every sane person clings most tenaciously,
is a powerful curbing agency to the lawless inclined. In spite
of its known efficacy some states, notably Ohio, have abolished
it, accepting instead life imprisonment, while only a few years
ago a bill was before Congress to have it apply to the whole
country. This fortunately was defeated, although by a small
majority, but this national expression does not determine the
approximate or real value of the two methods for all times
and nations, as under certain quiescent periods in every country
the lighter punishment might suffice, while under extremely
turbulent conditions the more severe would only meet
the demands of justice. In our country I believe capital
punishment to be absolutely imperative in order that the chastity
of the home be maintained and the purity of society
guarded. He alluded to the circus man and to Myers, who was
imprisoned five years on the testimony of one claiming to
have heard his voice in the crowd where the murder was committed.
Two other men also were arrested, but released shortly
afterwards, when public feeling had largely subsided. Here
hanging would have been a great injustice, as the evidence
was vague and hypothetical. I admit, like all questions, this
presents two sides, and that the negative will plead the humanitarian
and utilitarian interests—the removal of a husband
or father to a destitute and otherwise dependent family
being an unnecessary sorrow and loss when a penitentiary
service for life might be turned to state profit and revenue.
But this phase fades into insignificance when compared with
the moral degeneracy all communities would experience from

University—Chapel

(Erected 1883-85)

what many culprits consider not an objectionable method of
paying penalty.

Messrs. Smith and Clark (Neg.)—Both spoke along parallel
lines, believing that capital punishment was instituted not
only to atone a specific crime, thereby preventing the same individual
committing others, but by example to deter those of
similar evil impulses from taking fatal steps. They referred
to Salorn's case, who murdered his brother and mother, and
after two trials released, possibly to kill some one else or commit
other dastardly deeds; also mentioned the Stokes' and
Walworth crimes—how defiant and indifferent the latter
seemed when facing death, kissing his mother as under no
unusual stress of mind. Mr. Smith claimed that hanging is
recognized more generally by the press than the mere sending
of a convict to penitentiary for life, thus making the incident
wider known and its influence stronger felt. He did not believe
criminals generally had large families, or contributed
much to their support, hence hanging provides a good riddance.

While these debates were primarily for scholarly improvement,
they had injected into them often much laughter
and amusement, as many members indulged in sarcasm, invective
and ridicule—the more poignant affording the greatest
enjoyment to the listeners. Among the debaters themselves
this was accepted as no intended insult or reflection—simply
an opportunity to sharpen wits at brilliant repartee, that in
which some were well-gifted.

Most of the speaking was extempore, often with attempt
at highly gestured oratory, but some was more quiet and dignified
from notes or full manuscript, with the exception of
anecdotes and jokes. It was so soon after the Civil War,
in the days of reconstruction, that many subjects discussed
were of a partisan nature calculated for the introduction of
wild, ill-timed and rancorous criticism—that which became
greatly modified towards the close of my period, and at best
amounted to nothing more than a wrangling of words, as all
thought alike upon such topics. There was no one to convince.
While assembling an abundance of good cheer, smoking and
friendly conversation prevailed, but the moment the gavel
sounded all was attention and order, which usually continued

throughout the exercises. Seldom was there needless talking
or whispering, as every one seemed intent upon developed arguments
and expected witticisms, ever ready to punctuate by
foot and hand demonstrations—such as most speakers expect
and feel disappointed when suppressed. The kindest feeling
prevailed between the two societies, and as no rivalry existed
there was much reciprocal visiting, according to the preference
of program and fancy for those taking part. Conferences
between representative members were held often, looking to
the betterment of the organizations, and the adoption by one
of any good measure was certain of being followed by the
other. Although the law students were in most evidence as
speakers, yet other departments furnished quite a number,
who did not suffer by comparison. All things considered, the
general work in these societies was of high order, serving
well to develop minds in the polemic direction. I am confident
we all look back upon this affiliation with no little pleasure—
considering it a feature in University life and training highly
necessary if not absolutely essential.

This was my longest time and distance from home, and a
visit thereto with the approach of Christmas seemed a foregone
conclusion, in spite of having only the one day holiday
and otherwise lectures pushing along at their usual rapid
pace. As there was no way of getting full value of these
save by attendance, the missing of a week or more meant almost
an irreparable loss—a fact sadly recognized and preventing
extreme enthusiasm over such an alloyed vacation.
The only palliation possible lay in borrowing upon our return
the note books of others containing leading essentials but not
the endless detail so important for perfect understanding—
such as most individuals trust the mind to carry. Indeed,
the Faculty disapproved home-going at this season, or any
other, owing to the likely discouragement from once getting
behind and the usual demoralization an interregnum tends to
create, but upon application the Chairman of the Faculty
would issue to any one for a reasonable time a "leave of
absence" of the following form: University of Va., Dec.
19, 1872. We concur in the application of Mr. David M. R.
Culbreth for a leave of absence of two weeks. Report your
return promptly to the Chairman, Chas. S. Venable, Chair.

When you secured to this the signature of the various professors
by whom instructed, you were beyond the University restrictions
for the specified time. Beginning with this permit
I take from my diary a few abstracts:

December 19, 1872. Left University for home to-night,
6.30 o'ck.; reached Central Hotel at 7.10, where I sat in
the office by a hot coal stove until 8.45, when a servant showed
me to room No. 48, which I found without fire and very cold.
Lost some time in getting to sleep, possibly from anxiety of
trip, missing train, etc. Was called at 1.20 A. M., but train
being late did not leave until 2.10. Rained and snowed nearly
all the way, while between Fairfax and Manassas our train
killed several cattle causing us to stop, as one of the animals
became mangled in the engine. Had quite a talk with the
conductor, etc.

December 20th. Reached Alexandria at 7.25 A. M., but left
ten minutes later for Washington where we arrived at 8.
Had a buss transfer ticket from the Baltimore and Potomac
depot to the Baltimore and Ohio, where I took an express
that reached Baltimore at 9.30. Found the streets very sloppy
and muddy, but walked up to Uncle's alone, etc.

December 21st. Left Baltimore, President Street station,
for home at 7.25 A. M. After watching the boats moving in
and out of the harbor and river I looked over The (Baltimore)
Sun, and within the hour observed Judge Wickes sitting alone
a few seats to the rear, whom I joined and engaged in conversation.
He was anxious about his son's progress, so I
emphasized his popularity and the belief of him doing good
work; that I knew he was gaining knowledge of his studies
and an experience with the world. Well, he said: " `Chamb'
is spending too much money." Many students on the train
going home for the holidays. Father met me at the station,
3.35 P. M., etc.

December 25th. The past few days have been spent quietly
at home conversing with parents and friends who called. Today
we had a family reunion at grandmother's, where all of
her six children and most of her grandchildren were gathered.
All had a royal time.

December 29th. To-day the family reunion was at our
house, where all members assembled except grandmother,

who, owing to cough, never goes from home during winter
months (October-April). The day was pleasant and all appeared
to enjoy themselves. We spend to-morrow at Uncle
Edward's.

January 1, 1873. To-day is Wednesday and how beautiful
for winter! Took train at 10.15 A. M. for Baltimore, on my
return to the University. Left the car several times to recognize
familiar faces at stations. Had a long wait at Clayton,
11.30-1.55, so did not reach Baltimore until 8.30. Went at
once to Uncle's.

January 3rd. Left Baltimore at 2 P. M., reached Washington
at 4, took supper at the St. James Hotel in time to catch
the 6.55 train from Baltimore and Potomac depot for Charlottesville,
where I arrived at 12.40, and at my room three-quarters
of an hour later, where I retired a few minutes thereafter
much fatigued and sleepy.

January 4th. Arose at 7 o'ck., breakfasted at 7.30, reported
to Latin and Natural Philosophy; was even called upon in the
latter and only avoided a "cork" by the prompting of Peteet,
who caused me to acquit myself with considerable credit.
Green and LeBourgeois dropped in a short while after supper.
I wrote Latin exercise and retired at 10.30.

January 6th. This is Sunday so did not arise until 7.40;
breakfasted at 8, which was enjoyed to an unusual degree
owing to its very satisfactory quality. Rained nearly all day
and have spent most of it on Math.

January 9th. Reported at Latin, 8.50, was called upon with
good results.

January 12th. Breakfasted at 7.25; spent morning in reading
Latin parallel.

January 15th. This is Monday, cold and bleak; spent most
of the day on Math. In going to lecture met Professor Venable,
so we chatted pleasantly on our way to the Rotunda;
found lecture-room very hot which made my feet almost burn
up in rubber boots—no good in winter.

January 17th. Friday—arose at 6.35, breakfasted at 7,
studied Math. and mineralogy all morning; had "boss" for
dinner; reported to Math. at 3.30.

January 21st. Tuesday—reported to Latin at 12.30; had
"boss" for dinner; Dr. Witherspoon called on us during

the afternoon; read Latin parallel and worked out exercises in
Math. until 2.

January 24th. Monday—breakfasted at 7; went to Math.drill
at 8, came to room and studied Math. until dinner.

January 26th. Sunday—breakfasted at 7.10; had buckwheat,
sausage, hash, etc. Spent a part of the morning with
many companions sliding down the hill just beyond the parsonage—used
our split-bottom chairs for sleds, to which it
was death, but all had much enjoyment. Wrote to mother;
studied some.

January 28th. Tuesday—reported to Latin at 12.30, but
a note pinned on the door called lecture off, owing to sickness
of Professor Peters.

January 29th. Wednesday—arose at 7, breakfasted at 7.10;
reported to Math.-drill at 8; read Latin parallel from 1 to 2;
while writing this the first bell has rung, it will soon be time
for the second.

February 2nd. Sunday—breakfasted at 7; spent the day in
reading Latin parallel, writing mother, and attending chapel
at night; returned thereafter to room, 9 o'ck., and worked on
Math. until 11.30.

February 9th. Sunday—breakfasted at 7.10; read Latin
parallel; left for my second trip to Monticello at 12; took
dinner at Ambroselli's, reached the summit at 3; cut ourselves
some hickory sticks.

February 10th. Monday—arose at 6.45, breakfasted at 7;
reported to Math. at 3.30; studied Latin after supper, and
wrote up geology notes.

February 18th. Tuesday—arose at 6.40, breakfasted at 7.10;
reported to Latin in the morning, and played baseball in the
afternoon.

February 21st. Friday—breakfasted at 7.10; reported to
Math.-drill at 8, and geology at 12.30; was called on in Math.
and got through all right.

February 22nd. Saturday—arose at 7, breakfasted at 7.30;
reported to Latin at 9 and to Natural Philosophy at 11; attended
Jeff. Society at night, but got back to my room at
10.30.

February 23rd. Sunday—arose at 6.30, breakfasted at 7;
attended church in Charlottesville, 10 to 1.

March 1st. Saturday—breakfasted at 7; reported to Latin
at 9 and to Natural Philosophy at 11, but there was no lecture
in the latter owing to sickness of Professor Smith; attended
Jeff. Society at night; retired at 11.30.

But enough of these youthful excerpts that have little spice
and variety, since days, weeks, nay years, were almost duplicates
of one another, so that the chronicling was largely reiteration.

Near the first of April the University and Charlottesville
communities were saddened by the sickness of Professor McGuffey
which, after various stages of hope and despair, ended
in death on May 4th. He was our oldest professor, whom all
students loved, and followed to the grave with a sorrow kindred
to paternalism.

About the close of my first week at the University a young
medical student, Pierce, who occupied alone the upper northwest
room, House B, suggested that I move in with him as he
believed a companionship would be beneficial to us both, while
the elevation of his room had an advantage over mine. We
mutually agreed the change advisable, so passed the session
together satisfactorily, in spite of our departments possessing
little in common and his necessitating often a dwelling with
unclean bones and desiccated muscles of the recent dead. He
like myself had been reared in the country by good, industrious
parents, and fortunately shared equally with me quiet, studious
habits. We confided not a few of our family matters, yet for
want of time seldom discussed them. Our tastes were plain,
simple, clean and moral, so there was little to produce friction
and discord. Beyond the care of our room by the attendant
a few minor duties fell to our lot, performed in turn alternately
according to understanding, among them—going to the postoffice
daily at 3 o'ck, for the mail. On one of my mail days I
brought him a letter from home, which conveyed the pleasant
information that on a certain day and train in the near future
a couple of friends would pass through Charlottesville by the
Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad, en route for some point west,
and that they would be pleased to have him meet them at the
depot for a few minutes' conversation. He seemed gratified
at the opportunity and gladly made good the appointment,
but in order that the agreeable talk and companionship might

be prolonged determined to remain on the train while it pulled
through the town and by the junction jumping off when he
reached the University crossing, then at the same grade as the
public road. By most of us this was considered a dangerous
experiment, although the train's speed seldom exceeded at
that point twenty miles per hour—usually less—yet the curving
grade, road bed and shallow cuts filled with various-sized
loose and fixed rocks, made leaping with the train's motion
in expectation of landing on one's feet, thence for a rapid
run, likely to be disappointing. At home where the road-sides
were soft and rockless I had performed the act many times
successfully, where even a fall meant little or nothing, but
under such changed conditions would never have had the courage
to attempt it. As a vivid warning against liberty with
moving trains all of us students had fresh in mind the sad fate
of Arthur L. Coleman, a gifted and accomplished student of
the two preceding sessions, who just a year before, April 13,
1872, was mangled to death near the same spot. Up to that
occurrence the Chesapeake and Ohio passenger trains made a
short stop at this crossing, a convenience appreciated by the
University community, but abused by some who continually
rode to and from town, passing through the coaches in hope of
seeing some friend or acquaintance and often delaying exit
until the train was well under way. Following this custom
young Coleman in hastening to get off missed his grip on the
railing and fell between the cars to his destruction. He was
buried in Hollywood Cemetery, Richmond, and to his memory
admiring fellow students of the University erected during my
first month, October, 1872, an appropriate monument. All of
these facts came before our eyes from time to time, especially
through various issues of the Magazine, subscribed to and
read carefully by most of us. Regardless of these lessons my
roommate considered himself on this occasion equal to the
acrobatic feat without serious harm, but upon trial found sadly
his mistake, as at once he was taken off his feet and thrown
violently to the earth against a boldly protruding rock, inflicting
an ugly hip laceration and several minor wounds,
which rendered him helpless and semi-unconscious for a time.
Within an hour he was conveyed on a stretcher to the Infirmary,
where Doctors Cabell and Davis made careful examination,
hesitating to give much encouragement owing to the
supposed serious possibilities at the hip. Fortunately no complications
arose, so that in four weeks he could hobble around
on crutches, but concluded to do no more studying that session
and left for home two weeks before its close. During his
stay at the Infirmary I paid him almost daily visits, ministered
to his wants as best I could, and for the first ten days, so long
as he was restricted to the recumbent position, attended to his
correspondence with his parents and friends.

Towards the middle of June, owing to the severe heat and
a disinclination to study, many were found turning faces homeward,
thinking the attendance upon Commencement played no
part in the duties and pleasures of the year—that from which
I dissented, believing that the final week's exercises, coming at
the conclusion of the year's hard work, could not be otherwise
than beneficial, restful and enjoyable. In addition to the
goodly number of distinguished visitors, alumni, friends, parents
and relatives of the graduates, from near and far, with
some of whom contact was unavoidable, there was delivered
two addresses by men of national reputation and about six by
as many of our best trained students. To listen to these relieved
and refreshed by strains of sweet music, the companionship,
conversation and laughter of fairer saints, always so
much in evidence, could not fail to make the few included
days far from stupid—in fact highly inspiring—therefore,
during my entire University residence I never missed one of
these functions, even remaining to see the "Final Ball" well
under way and sometimes ended. Apart from this personal
inclination there were two specific reasons that well-nigh impelled
my stay at this, my first, Commencement—that of my
distinguished fellow-stateman, Hon. Thomas F. Bayard,
being the joint orator before the two Literary Societies, and
that of me being on the Final Committee of the Jeff.—a position
it is true more honorary than active since the Chairman,
as in all cases, personally looked after most of the detail arrangement,
but after all carried some duties if one cared to live
up to and discharge them. Owing to Mr. Bayard's high character,
eminent position and service already rendered the South,
as well as that about to be performed for us, I, the only
student from Delaware, had been the recipient during the

session of no little favorable notice from companions, who, I
felt confident would have, at least, been surprised had I not
remained to be one of those to receive him.

Commencement or Final Day then was the Thursday before
July 4th, which fell that year, 1873, on the 3rd, but the week's
exercises began the preceding Sunday night, June 29th, with
a sermon in the Public Hall before the Young Men's Christian
Association by Rev. J. William Jones. It was the first
time I had heard that gentleman, so that his well-worded sentences,
profound earnestness, and rather high, penetrating
voice made upon me a strong and lasting impression on, "The
Blessedness of Religion."

Monday night—Wash Celebration. Unfortunately in the
late afternoon a thunderstorm made the outlook unfavorable
for a large attendance, but in spite of no signs of clearing until
after 7 o'ck, the Public Hall by that hour was filled comfortably
with the younger life that seemed fearless before the elements
and determined to make the evening a success. The
officers this year were: President, Mr. Richard H. Maury,
Miss.; Orator, Mr. John W. Stephenson, Va. (subject—National
Literature); Medalist, Mr. Fergus R. Graham, La. After
these gentlemen had discoursed to their full credit and Weber's
Germania Band had rendered appropriate selections, the assemblage
according to honored custom repaired to the Lawn
beautifully illuminated with hundreds of gas-jets and Chinese
lanterns, under whose mellow light were to be enjoyed for a
couple of hours a continuous promenading of the arcades and
triangle, stirring strains of music, pleasant conversation and
short calls at the homes of the several professors who were
entertaining.

Tuesday night—Jeff. Celebration. This was clear and beautiful,
and during the heated day many visitors arrived including
Senator Bayard, Ex-Governor Swann, Governor Walker
and Lieutenant-Governor Marye, whose son, Willie, was one
of our popular students. While the evening before I had been
simply an interested spectator, on this it was very different, as
my committee membership placed me here in the role of a marshal,
with the implied expectation of solving properly the annoyances
and perplexities of the many late comers insisting
upon, sometimes demanding, seats well towards the front.
Another member and I took charge of the left-hand (west)

aisle, and were happy in offending none knowingly and in
the manifest appreciation by the fair ones of our proffered
gallantry. The Public Hall was soon overcrowded with an
anxious and restless audience awaiting the coming of the
stage-lore, which in procession, two by two, at 8.30 o'ck, began
to enter with rhythmic step to the martial music, in the order
of the Board of Visitors, Faculty, distinguished visitors, officers
of the two societies, orators and medalists escorted by
the marshals and passing up the center-aisle under the arched
batons of the chief marshals to occupy the stage.

The officers this year were: President, Mr. B. Chambers
Wickes, Md.; Orator, Mr. William R. Alexander, Va. (subject
—What has been belongs not alone to the past); Medalist, Mr.
John Sharp Williams, Tenn.

The President's style was a trifle hurried and bold, his
enunciation clear and matter well in mind. The Medalist, at
all times a quick somewhat nervous speaker and conversationalist,
endeavored in no appreciable degree to have freedom
therefrom on that occasion, but this was no weakness as it
stamped individuality and the fire of true oratory, so that
with his closing declaration—he would prize the medal not for
what it is but for what it teaches—rounds of applause testified
to universal approbation. The writer has not seen Mr. Williams
since those commencement days, although in full knowledge
of his attained honors and positions, and while testifying
with much delight to his earlier recognized powers, it has been
a far greater pleasure to see his words a "living truth"—the
medal standing for what it teaches. For he has gone forth
from that youthful stage to the highest forum of our land
to defend humane rights as he conceives them, to take the
side of the plain people, as did the illustrious Jefferson in whose
school he was taught, and, like him, to implant his name upon
the "Temple of Fame." During the day I saw not a little of
the orator, who, while walking together, lamented his legal
studies having prevented a mastery of his oration, that which
evinced itself at several points in the delivery, but not sufficient
to provoke merited criticism. The following newspaper clipping
at the time will not offend or reflect owing to its ludicrous
witticism: "His address was well written, his manner good,
and was listened to by those who could hear him. The fair

University—Fayerweather Gymnasium

(Erected 1892-93)

ladies listened with rapt attention, and drank in every word
spoken by—their gallant escorts. Instead of a thousand fair
and lovely maidens `hanging entrance on the lips of one orator,'
they hung entrance on the lips of a thousand orators—
every orator had an auditor and every auditor an orator. The
speaker was interrupted frequently, not only by the applause
from the galleries, but also by the entrance of tardy belles and
beaux, the rustling of dresses, the tramp of polite marshals
eager to show seats to the blushing late-comers, and lastly by
the merry hum of the audience. Under these circumstances,
what youthful orator `with soul so dead' who would not feel
inspired to soar to the loftiest heights of impassioned eloquence?"