University of Virginia Library

XXXIII. Punishments

Unless an offense took place directly under the eye
of a professor, or one of the officers, it was very difficult
to detect the culprit to an extent that would justify an
open charge of misconduct against him. The authorities
of the University, under the influence of Jefferson's
principles of freedom, had voluntarily deprived themselves
of all power of finding out the facts in each case
by forcing the young men to depose as in a court of law.
When the rules were adopted in 1824, it was announced
that, should a student be unwilling to testify, when
summoned as a witness, the moral obligation which rested
upon him to speak out should alone be held up before him,
in the hope that he would perceive it to be his duty to
relate whatever he knew respecting the offense under
investigation. The regulation that went into operation
in March 1825, and continued apparently throughout
the period now under review, was that a student, when
asked to make a statement in such a case, was
to be informed that he was altogether at liberty to
refuse if compliance was repugnant to his sense of

right. Under no circumstances was he to be required
to take an oath. The upshot of this system of voluntary
testimony might have been predicted. When
Dr. Patterson's stable was broken into at night, in 1831,
and his horse's tail mutilated, the chairman, after inquiring
into the incident, remarked with asperity: "All
the students whom I have seen, or whose sentiments
I have heard, speak with indignation of the outrage, yet
I doubt whether there is one who would not screen the
offender from punishment were he known to him."
"The discovery of offenses," he added regretfully, "is
the greatest difficulty in governing the institution, and
with the existing feeling of honor among the students, insuperable."

In the annual report for 1832, the Board of Visitors
dolefully acknowledged that the false sentiment which
deterred one collegian from testifying against another
was the real cause of their lack of ability to combat disorder
successfully when it had got well underway, or to
put it down so soon as it started. That body was finally
compelled, with palpable reluctance, to adopt an ordinance
which provided that, when an offense falling within
the supervision of the civil courts, had been committed,
every student who was likely to have had any personal
knowledge of it was to be summoned before the grand
jury to give testimony under oath. It was natural that
the professors should shrink from such a confession of
failure in enforcing discipline as this enactment would
seem to indicate, and, in consequence, they urged that
the process should be sought with extraordinary caution,
and only in a case in which there had been a most flagrant
violation of law. Even under these extreme circumstances,
the Faculty thought that they should have the

right to decide whether the process should or should not
be asked for.

We have seen that, in his petition for the incorporation
of Central College, Jefferson endeavored to clothe
the proctor with all the powers of a justice of the peace;
and this was probably a wiser measure than the very
elaborate judicial one proposed by the Board of Visitors
at a subsequent date. Under the provisions of the latter
scheme, a court was to be erected at the University, in
which the professor of law,—who was to receive an
addition to his salary for his supplementary services,—
was to sit as the sole judge. The jurisdiction of this
court was to run on all fours with that of the Albemarle
county court, with the single exception that it was
not to reach out to felonies committed within the precincts;
it was, however, to extend to all the smaller offenses
of which the students should be guilty within the
county at large. The judge was to be a conservator of
the peace in the county as well as in the University, with
the right to arrest any one charged with a breach of the
law, to issue warrants, to take recognizances, and to exercise
all the other powers of the office.

The terms of the court were to be held quarterly in
November, March, May, and July, and monthly in October,
December, January, February and June. A grand
jury was to be summoned from Albemarle county to
sit at every quarterly court. Students above nineteen
years of age were to be qualified to become members of
this jury, and a certain number of them were to be impaneled
at each session. Petit juries, with the same proportion
of students, were also to be called together.
The proctor was to act as the sergeant of the court,
with all the customary functions of that office; and was,

as conservator of the peace also, to possess the right to
call a posse comitatus to enable him to enforce his
legitimate authority. The University court was to be
empowered to issue process beyond its jurisdiction, and
like the county court, could compel obedience to its summons.
The University jail was to be identical with the
county jail. The attorneys who practised in the county
court were to be admitted to the University court, and
they were to have the same right of appeal in the one
tribunal as in the other.

The real object of this elaborate scheme was to employ
the enginery of the grand jury in ferreting out students
who had committed separate offenses, or participated in
general disturbances, within the precincts. There is no
reason to doubt that, had the Legislature approved of it,
it would have made impossible most of the discreditable
events that darkened the history of the institution
throughout this formative period. The young men
seemed always to contemn the Faculty's authority, but
they never failed to exhibit a very lively apprehension
when dragged across the threshold of a civil court. The
General Assembly, in refusing to grant the right to establish
the University judgeship, was probably afraid that
it would conflict in jurisdiction with the county court of
Albemarle; and they would, doubtless, have declined a
second time on that ground, had the same plan,—which
was again broached in 1832,—come up for decision once
more.

It is possible, as Professor John B. Minor has suggested,
that the erection of this court would have been
looked upon by the students as a threat, and on that
account, would have caused still greater friction in their
relations with the Faculty. But this friction could hardly
have been more exasperating than it was, and if it had

been mingled with a little of that fear which Jefferson
deprecated so earnestly,—and as the upshot proved, so
unwisely,—perhaps the harassed professors would have
loomed up more formidably to them, and thus appeared
more entitled to their respect. There was no sound reason
why the proctor should not have been invested with
the powers of a justice of the peace as Jefferson himself
had proposed. This would have given the Faculty
almost as direct and immediate means of suppressing disorder
as if the University court had been in existence,
for this officer would, in that character, have been able,
not only to arrest offending students, but also to summon
outsiders to his assistance to put down disorder in
its very incipiency. And this power would not have been
in conflict with the jurisdiction of the local courts.

We have seen that there were four different forms of
punishment,—reprimand, suspension, dismissal, and expulsion.
A student who was suspended might be ordered
to return to his home for a definite period; or he
might be rusticated in one of the numerous taverns standing
within the boundaries of Albemarle county, or even
in private houses in that county which were willing to
receive such a guest. The inns usually selected for this
purpose were Cocke's, Bowcock's, and Clarke's. The
Cocke hostelry was situated near Greenwood, on the well-trodden
stage highway running from Charlottesville
across the mountains to Staunton. It was under the skilful
management, first of Colonel Charles Yancey, and
then of Colonel Cocke, and the reputation of its excellent
fare was carried far by the numerous patrons who halted
here for a meal while journeying to and from the summer
mountain resorts in Western Virginia. Colonel Cocke
was a useful and respected citizen; occupied for a time
a seat on the bench of magistrates; and survived to a

period as late as 1879. Clarke's tavern was situated on
the stage-road leading from Charlottesville to Gordonville.
There was a large stable maintained here for the
exchange of coach horses, and there were so many other
houses also that the place resembled a village. Bowcock's
tavern was a less animated centre, but its landlord
was a man of high repute for integrity and public
spirit.[35] This inn was rather remote in its situation. A
student, who was rusticating there in 1837, left before
his term of suspension had expired, and when charged
with the delinquency, defended himself by saying that
the house was so solitary and dull that it was impossible
for any one to remain there.

Occasionally, however, the number of young men
under ban stopping in these taverns was so large that they
must have formed a congenial group of their own, to
whom, not only was a public bar accessible, but also, in
season, the pleasures of the hunting field and the fishing
stream. The period of rustication was sometimes protracted
for three months, and it rarely terminated under

one week. Among the private houses that received suspended
students were Mr. Howell Lewis's and Mr.
James Duke's; and they were certainly brought under far
more refining and restraining influences in these very respectable
homes than in the county ordinaries, which were
either crowded with travellers, often vulgar and dissipated,
or almost empty of guests, with no amusements,
during most of the year, beyond tippling in the public
room. It is true that there was a law that inflicted a
heavy penalty on tavern-keepers who permitted students
to become intoxicated on their premises; but incidents of
this kind occurring in country inns were not likely to be
reported to the authorities for punishment.