Skip to main content

Full text of "Delta Upsilon One Hundred Years 1834-1934"

See other formats









01 00 





Copyright, 1934, by the Delta Upsilon Fraternity, Inc. 
Printed in the United States of America 
by the Haddon Craftsmen, Inc. 
Camden, 2V. /. ' 







VI. CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1850 TO 1881 100 













INDEX 373 


TEN years ago, when the Board of Directors began to look forwarc 
to the approaching One Hundredth Anniversary of Delta Upsilon 
it seemed to them eminently fitting that there should be made avail 
able an authentic account of Delta Upsilon's interesting history. Sud 
a history, it was plain, would involve a great deal of research anc 
should be written by a man who has the bias for facts and the facult) 
of setting facts down clearly and interestingly. We were fortunate in 
enlisting the services of Dr. William Freeman Galpin, Northwestern 
'13, now of the School of Citizenship at Syracuse University. 

It is with pleasure that we present to the Fraternity this able and 
painstaking work and recognize our very great indebtedness to Brother 


/W /f,OA 



IN 1884 Delta Upsilon celebrated its fiftieth anniversary and in com- 
memoration of the event the Fraternity published the first Quin- 
quennial. This volume, which was most ably edited by William S. 
Chase, Brown '81, presented the record and accomplishments of Delta 
Upsilon in a manner that has been of lasting value to all members 
of the Fraternity. Since then no serious attempt has been made to 
depict the subsequent history of Delta Upsilon. At various times the 
Executive Council and later the Board of Directors discussed the 
feasibility of a new volume and in one instance endeavored to issue 
a history under the direction of Wilson L. Fairbanks. Various diffi- 
culties, however, arose which blocked each effort. Finally as the Fra- 
ternity entered into its ninetieth year it was realized by those in 
control of Delta Upsilon that it would not be long before the Frater- 
nity would be celebrating its centennial. For so significant an event 
some special features, so it was thought, ought to be arranged which 
would mark forever the Williams Convention of 1934. It was with 
this idea in mind that Thomas C. Miller approached the author while 
enroute to the Seattle Convention of 1925. Various conversations en- 
sued with the result that by the fall of the following year the Board 
of Directors authorized the research and work incident to this study. 
From then on considerable attention was given to the task* of writing 
this history of Delta Upsilon. At the very first, John Patterson, Thomas 
C. Miller and others realized the necessity of preparing a volume which 
would present as precise a historical narrative as possible. In other words 
the Board of Directors pledged themselves to support no eulogistic 
effort. Not that Delta Upsilon had no reason to declare its accomplish- 
ments and contributions but rather that such a volume would be a 
living denial of the very ideas and ideals which prompted the incep- 
tion of the Fraternity. True to these standards the Directors launched 
this endeavor with the determination to have a history and not a 
song of praise. Fortified by this decision and encouraged by a generous 
subsidy, an attempt has been made to examine manuscript and printed 
material preserved at the Fraternity Headquarters. Visits, moreover, 
have been made to Williams, Union, Hamilton, Amherst, Middlebury, 
Vermont, Rochester, Cornell, Syracuse, Lehigh and Rutgers where 
pertinent sources are to be found. Correspondence, moreover, with 



certain chapters like Michigan, Colby and Western Reserve was pro- 
ductive of worthwhile information. Finally, a questionnaire was mailed 
to all of the chapters during 1932 asking for present-day practices. 
On the basis of these various sources and records the following narra- 
tive has largely been built. 

No attempt has been made to describe in detail all the events in- 
cident to the Fraternity's history. In part this may be explained on 
the ground that neither the undergraduate nor the alumnus has the 
same interest for the unique fact as does the student of history. Again, 
it was decided to pay no great attention to the narrative story of each 
chapter. An attempt, however, has been made to trace in a careful 
manner the forces which led to the establishment of these chapters. 
And had some of these been more punctual and thoughtful in answer- 
ing requests for information greater space would have been allotted 
to them. Finally, it may be noticed that little attention has been paid 
to those members whose public careers have gained national recogni- 
tion. Here again, Delta Upsilon has many sons whom she may be 
justly proud to call her own. In this volume individuals have been 
referred to who have given of their time, effort and treasure for the 
advancement of the Fraternity. Few Americans indeed know of Wilson 
L. Fairbanks, Frederick M. Crossett, Henry R. Waite, John Patterson, 
Clifford M. Swan and Thomas C. Miller, but to these men and count- 
less others every Delta U worthy of the name owes everlasting gratitude. 
Who's Who in Delta Upsilon and not what Delta U's are in Who's 
Who has been one of the objectives of this volume. 

In gathering the material incident to this study the author is obli- 
gated to many individuals. To those chapters who most kindly put 
at my disposal their records and services I wish to express my thanks. 
Particularly am I under lasting obligation to Miss Luella Bovard, 
Office Manager, for her constant and generous services while working 
at the Fraternity Headquarters. Miss Bovard first entered into the 
Fraternity offices in November, 1911 and since that time has been a 
tower of strength in the development of Delta Upsilon. Those who 
have the pleasure of meeting and working with her know only too 
well how valuable her services have been and how untiring she has 
been in her loyalty to the Fraternity. Special mention should also be 
made of the aid furnished by Lynne J. Bevan, Samuel S. Hall, John 
Patterson, John D. Scott, Warren C. DuBois, Bruce S. Gramley and 
Marsh M. Corbitt. Finally, I should like to express my deep apprecia- 
tion of the invaluable assistance and guidance given by Thomas C. 
Miller. Mr. Miller has most kindly supported me in every detail of 


research and work. He has read the entire manuscript and has offered 
many a timely and helpful suggestion. Indeed, if this volume were 
to be dedicated to anyone it should be to Mr. Miller as a perpetual 
monument of one who has labored in and out of season for the growth 
and advancement of Delta Upsilon. 

W. F. GALPIN, Northwestern '13 
Syracuse, New York, 
January, 1934. 



Chapter I 





IN REVIEWING the history of our Fraternity one is impressed at the very 
outset by the fact that Delta Upsilon did not come into being as 
the result of an accident, nor was it animated by a group of over 
idealistic college students. Unmistakable evidence points to deeper, 
richer and more lasting foundations. 

Among the forces which should be considered in tracing the ante- 
cedents of Delta Upsilon none is more significant than that which 
relates to the spirit and thought of the age. Early nineteenth century 
New England, and America for that matter, witnessed the dawning of 
a new era and the twilight of a rapidly disappearing old order. The 
past was ably represented by those staunch followers of Jonathan 
Edwards who still dinned into the ears of man the religious ideas and 
political tenets of Calvinism. According to this school of thought man 
was not fit to be born and all that might be expected in life was an 
opportunity to mortify the flesh and humiliate the spirit so that at 
last one might, through the Master's atonement, gain everlasting life. 
In contradiction to this rather dismal philosophy there was a newer 
concept, rational in form and scientific in method. Man, the followers 
of the new order proclaimed, should seek a full and wholesome life, 
make the most of his opportunities, and endeavor to enlarge the bounds 
of human knowledge and achievement. To the Calvinists this was all 
so much heresy and its advocates sought with all their might to stem 
the ever mounting tide of humanism. Vested interests in state and 
church joined hands with these conservative forces in this titanic 
battle of ideas. Press and pulpit, school room and law court, political 
parties and religious groups echoed with the din of the contest. On 
the one hand Jehovah's annointed denounced the blasphemous errors 
of the reformers and poured into the receptive ears of the faithful the 


time-worn stereotypes of an ancient creed. Man's most humble duty, 
according to these, was to protect and defend the established and 
honored customs on the ground that it constituted God's divine order 
and plan of life. In opposition to these concepts came the counter 
blasts of the opponents. English rationalists and French Revolutionary 
philosophers, though dubbed Unitarians and Jacobins, set forth the 
doctrine of man's natural rights and of the duties of government to 
society at large rather than to a favored few. Political and social 
equalitarianism was stressed, while prayers were raised to Christ, the 
Prince of Peace, and not to Jehovah, the God of Battle. 

Manifestations of the new order were to be seen everywhere by the 
fourth decade of the nineteenth century. Nationally, it was shown by 
the westward migration of countless persons; by the "American Sys- 
tem" of Henry Clay; in short by a virile nationalism that in time was 
to dominate the Americas. In the economic world, labor was demand- 
ing through newly formed associations that the industrialization of the 
country should not bind and fetter man as had been the case in Old 
England. Religious life was pulsating and quickening under the im- 
petus of Tract, Bible, Temperance and other similar agencies. Political 
and party lines were being warped and broken by the insistent attack 
of the reforming advocates. An Ellery Channing, Samuel J. May and 
Noah Worcester were pleading most effectively from their pulpits the 
interests of the new humanism. The Liberator, Friend of Man, Non- 
Resistant, and numerous other radical newspapers, under the able 
leadership of men like William Lloyd Garrison, brought home these 
teachings in yet another manner. And there were the Brook Farm and 
Oneida experiments with their programs and standards of social re- 
form. Reverberations, moreover, echoed through the class rooms of a 
number of colleges and universities; institutions that ultimately threw 
open wide their doors to the new learning. Practically every New 
England college had at least one of the many organizations or societies 
that stood for a freer and more liberal attitude towards the meaning 
and end of life. Peace societies, Temperance and Sunday School organ- 
izations were to be found on many a campus, attracting the attention 
of both the faculty and student body. And amid this liberal renais- 
sance of thought and letters came the birth of Delta Upsilon, which in 
its aims and ideals typified so well the spirit of the new humanism. 

Societal organizations, however, had existed for a number of years 
in the American college world, and out of these gatherings of students 
came the framework of the future Greek letter fraternities. Literary 
and debating clubs were common features of student life. At Williams, 


for example, there had existed since 1794 the Adelbert Union, followed 
in time by the Philologian and Philotechnian societies. Rochester, 
Middlebury, Brown and other colleges had similar groups. The pur- 
pose behind these organizations was in part literary as the founding 
of libraries, the delivering of orations, holding debates on national and 
local matters all show. In addition they reflected the searching spirit 
o the new age. The simple fact that these aspects of student efforts 
continued for a long time as one of the most outstanding characteristics 
of early chapter life in the Fraternity, is proof of the significance of 
this factor as a source for fraternity development. These literary groups 
had also another objective which was moral or religious in nature. 
This is revealed by the contemporary opinion of that day which 
applauded the Christian utterances and actions of these students, many 
of whom rushed most enthusiastically into the ministry of God. An 
examination of the minutes of the meetings of our oldest chapters 
illustrates most effectively the influence of this moral side of the 
literary societies. 

Other organizations also existed which stressed fraternal rather than 
literary life. The Flat Hat Club, the P. D. A. Society, both of William 
and Mary, had been formed as early as the middle of the eighteenth 
century. These groups were secret societies possessing a badge, and 
while boasting of their literary and social value they paid liberal lip 
service to the inevitable punch bowl of that century. Somewhat later, 
1776, there appeared at the same college the well known Phi Beta 
Kappa, the first organization probably to adopt a Greek name. Further- 
more, up to as late as 1835, this fraternity maintained a secret organiza- 
tion, had a grip, badge and mysterious ritual, though in other respects 
it was comparable to the literary clubs of that day. Chapters of Phi 
Beta Kappa were placed at a number of New England colleges and 
were well known to those who later conceived and built Delta Upsilon. 
Other Greek letter societies followed, each one of which paid more and 
more attention to social and fraternal life. 

By 1820 and 1830 a number of avowed social fraternities were to be 
found throughout New England and New York. Greek names, secret 
rituals, grips and badges were the outstanding features of these student 
organizations. Kappa Alpha, Sigma Phi and Psi Upsilon may be men- 
tioned as representatives of these societies. Each of these, moreover, 
existed at one or more of the colleges where the earliest chapters of 
Delta Upsilon were to be planted. The appearance of these strictly 
secret clubs caused some worry and anxiety to college authorities and 
students. The former looked with grave concern upon these fraternities 


which had created unheard of distinctions, jealousies and hard feelings 
among the student body. Further, the rivalry that existed between 
these Greeks, and the heated scramble that followed for the possession 
of class honors and offices, which were often attended by political deals 
and arrangements, were viewed as being contrary to the aims and 
objectives of educational institutions. Often the candidate for office 
had little personal merit or ability. Fraternity reputation and prestige 
was frequently placed above the needs of the office or the standing of 
the school. Finally, the faculty questioned the expediency of these 
societies whose ambitions and policies took the student's attention 
away from the class room and centered it upon extra curricular activi- 
ties. Non-fraternity students were also aroused over this innovation in 
campus life. To these students, the wearing of a badge, the mysterious 
gatherings behind closed doors and the steam rolling practices in 
class elections, seemed un-American and out of place in the free 
atmosphere of colleges and universities. Most certainly there were 
some scholars who would gladly have cast their lot in with these secret 
clubs had they been given the chance. This point is significant and 
should not be overlooked by those who would ascribe only the loftiest 
ideals and motives to the founders of Delta Upsilon. Constituted as he 
is, man seeks to enjoy public approval, and membership in a secret 
fraternity seemed to many the logical fruition of this desire. Unfortu- 
nately, these societies were highly selective and a large number of 
students found it impossible to become Greek letter men. Not being 
able to enter through the ritualistic portals of these societies, many a 
student turned his mind towards the task of creating other groups, 
which in most cases became only other secret fraternities. In one 
notable exception, however, those dissatisfied with the Greek letter 
ideals and aims chose to follow the path of non-secrecy. Most of the 
members of this new society evidently disliked and detested everything 
that smacked of secrecy. Snobbery, aristocracy and underhandedness in 
college life, cut deep into the quick of those who saw caprice and 
privilege robbing them of distinction among their fellow students. 
And yet it is to be observed, some of those who joined these anti-secret 
organizations did so because they had not been able to join one of the 
existing societies. The chapter rolls of Williams, Union, Middlebury 
and Amherst show a number of names who for one reason or another 
broke their vows of anti-secrecy and became members of one of the 
secret fraternities. Finally, it should be noted that even the foes of 
the secret societies had their badges and Greek letter names, revealing 
to that extent their desire to look like the accepted fraternity type. 


The ideals o the anti-secret groups, however, were vastly different, 
which in turn illustrates the driving force in the genesis of Delta 

One other source remains to be considered and that was the influence 
of the anti-masonic feeling which swept over the East during the 
i83o's. Masonry had existed in America since colonial days and many 
a college student joined this order before or after the close of his 
university life. Side by side with the growth of Free Masonry there 
had developed a distinct attitude of mind that was hostile to this 
ancient order. Masonry was viewed as being contrary to the ideals of 
the Republic and smacked too much of the European scheme of things 
to have any place in free America. No aggressive stand, however, was 
taken against Masonry until the abduction and later disappearance of 
William Morgan of Batavia, New York. Morgan, a Mason himself, 
had grown somewhat disgruntled with his fraternal connections and 
seems to have been on the point of publishing an expos of his lodge 
when he was suddenly abducted. This in itself was bad enough, but 
when he failed to appear and when a body resembling Morgan was 
found in a creek near Lake Ontario, the opposition to Masonry knew 
no bounds. Opinion was hurried along to accept the yarns that were 
spun about Morgan's disappearance and a public funeral of some size 
was accorded the body that had been found. Even after it was clearly 
established that this was not Morgan's body, the strength of the anti- 
masonic feeling did not abate. By the close of 1827 ^is sentiment 
showed itself in political circles by the formation in New York of the 
Anti-Masonic party. Within the next few years the movement had 
become national, but by the election of 1832 it was evidently a dying 
factor. It continued to function for a number of years, chiefly in New 
York, but ultimately this group went the way of most third parties 
and totally disappeared. 

The question naturally arises at this point, as it has arisen in the 
minds of many, as to the connection which may have existed between 
this movement and that which laid the foundations for Delta Upsilon. 
Some indeed have been bold enough to imply that it was as a result of 
this anti-masonic movement that Delta Upsilon came into existence. 
Now no one would seek to deny the fact that knowledge of the Morgan 
affair and its aftermath existed among university students and faculty; 
and those colleges which first had chapters of the Anti-Secret Con- 
federation were no exceptions to this. Further, it is reasonable to 
assume that some of those who founded our earliest chapters not only 
knew of the Anti-Masonic party but were also actually influenced to 


some extent in forming ideas as to anti-secrecy in college life. Not one 
bit of evidence, however, may be found in the annals of these chapters 
to warrant the conclusion that anti-masonry had anything to do with 
the founding of our Fraternity. Contemporary accounts of college 
life for this period are also silent as to Morgan and Masonry. Professor 
Albert Hopkins of Williams College in an article published in the 
Journal of the American Education Society for 1834 discusses the 
antecedents of anti-secrecy at Williams. Nowhere in this article does 
the author directly or indirectly refer to the anti-masonic movement, 
which, if it had been a factor of any size or importance could hardly 
have been ignored by the professor. The connection, therefore, between 
the anti-masonic movement and Delta Upsilon is one that docs not 
exist. Had Delta Upsilon been built upon the shifting sands of anti- 
masonry, it would have long since disappeared. The fact that it not 
only survived but has grown into the position it now holds is ample 
proof that it owes its origins to other factors of greater and more 
lasting importance. These factors, as has been shown, were those deal- 
ing with the development of a nineteenth century renaissance in 
thought and letters, in the growth of the literary societies, in the 
appearance of fraternal organizations and finally in the inception of 
hostility to the practices and motives of the secret societies. 

Chapter II 


ORGANIZED anti-secret efforts first appeared at Williams College. 
Pronounced opposition to the monopolistic practices of the exist- 
ing fraternities seems to have been the chief antecedent for the rise 
of the Social Fraternity. Other considerations, such as the desire on 
the part of some individuals to belong to a student organization, also 
existed, though it is likely that a determined revolt against secret 
societies was the most decisive factor. Contemporary evidence endorses 
this assumption and records that a group of students, described as 
the "moral . . . and religious members of College," took steps to- 
wards the foundation of a society pledged to combat the evils of 
secrecy. Continued conversation on the part of these men led to a 
gathering in the Freshmen Recitation room of Old West College on 
the evening of November 4, 1834- 1 Exactly what took place at this 
meeting is not known as the minutes of this gathering as well as 
those for the ensuing seven years appear to have been destroyed by 
fire. From other extant sources it is known that the thirty students 
present at this assembly organized themselves into a body bearing the 
name, Social Fraternity. On the basis of these known facts it is reason- 
able to assume that some form of a constitution was drafted, that 
certain officers were elected and that steps were taken for the advance- 
ment of the ideals and purposes that its members had so enthusi- 
astically embraced. In all probability Dr. Anson L. Hobart, of the 
class of 1836, was chosen President of the local fraternity. 

The following morning, November 5, the campus was agog with 

x An earlier meeting seems to have taken place in the room of F. W. Tappan, 
at which the idea of an organization was first presented, see Quinquennial (1884), 
p. 144. 



intense excitement. News of what had happened the night before 
seems to have become common knowledge. As a result the Greeks 
were on hand to give their rivals a warm welcome. Considerable 
ridicule was poured upon those who had joined the Social Fraternity. 
"Badges of every description of caricature were worn by them and 
classic epithets were given us." All of this, however, in the words of 
William Bross, "we bore patiently and fearlessly/' The tactics adopted 
by the secret societies showed only too well the tenor of their own 
practices and at the same time displayed just those characteristics 
which were bound to further the interests of those they sought to 
destroy. Had the Greek letter men ignored these newcomers, they 
would have made the lot of the Social Fraternity more difficult. As it 
was, persecution only added to the growing strength of the new so- 
ciety, whose members consistently refused to resist evil by force. 
Rather were they content to proceed in a quiet and dignified manner. 
"In the recitation-rooms, and in the [literary] societies they did their 
whole duty as best they could in the full belief that hard work and 
sterling integrity in the end would win." 2 Doubtless, the defenders 
of anti-secrecy magnified the cold and hostile attitude of the Greeks 
and probably have left us accounts that are overcolored. It may be 
that an examination of the minutes of the secret societies would 
throw light on this matter. In any event, the fact remains that the 
Greek world was visibly agitated over the advent of the Social Fra- 

The Williams Society successfully weathered the stress and storm 
of the winter of 1834 and 1835. Twenty-eight new members accepted 
the pledges of anti-secrecy in 1835, an achievement that clearly 
pointed to the permanency of the Social Fraternity. Further additions 
were made during the next three years with the result that by 1838 
the Mother Chapter of Delta Upsilon had on its rolls the names of 
seventy-two students, which was about two-thirds of all the members 
of the college. 3 By this time a badge, with the motto Qvdev Ady'Kov 
had been adopted, both being the work of Charles G. Hazeltinc, 
while Edward P. Hawkes submitted the draft of a new constitution 
which after some changes was accepted by the society. This organic 
law served for a number of years the needs of the Williams group 
and, as will be seen, became the model upon which kindred societies 
in other colleges fashioned their own conduct. In this latter capacity 

3 Quinquennial, op. tit., p. 4. An interesting note may be found in the Quarterly, 
XXII: 195. 
8 Quinquennial, op. cit., pp. 5, 133. 


the Williams constitution acted as a most effective factor in nationaliz- 
ing these allied organizations and furnished much that actually went 
into the making of the Articles of the Anti-Secret Confederation. 
A copy of this chapter's constitution was inserted in a catalogue pub- 
lished by the Williams group in 1836. The Preamble of this document 
deserves quotation not merely because it is the earliest known copy 
of a constitution the Fraternity had, but also because it reveals mod- 
esty as to purpose and simplicity as to organization. It is also of 
interest to note that the term "anti-secrecy" does not appear. The 
Preamble reads as follows: 

We, members of Williams College, feeling a deep interest in the 
peace and prosperity of the Institution to which we belong, and be- 
lieving that all combinations and societies not founded upon liberal 
principles are calculated to destroy the harmony of College; do 
hereby form ourselves into a society for the purpose of counteracting 
the evil tendency of associations of which we disapprove and for the 
purpose of literary, mutual and social improvement. 

Two years later the constitution was revised while the Preamble 
was enlarged and ideas inserted that are more familiar to those who 
know the historical development of the Fraternity's Constitution. For 
this reason it seems expedient to quote the Preamble of 1838. 

Believing that secret societies are calculated to destroy the harmony 
of College, to create distinctions not founded upon merit, to produce 
strile and animosity; we feel called upon to exert ourselves to counter- 
act the evil tendency of such associations. 

We believe that the evils resulting from them are such as can best be 
suppressed only by action combined with principle. 

We would invest no class of our fellow students with factious advan- 
tage, but would place all upon an equal footing in running the race of 
honorable distinction. 

The only superiority which we acknowledge is the superiority of 

We, therefore, members of Williams College, believing that volun- 
tary associations, if properly conducted exert a mighty influence in the 
correction of evil, do agree to form themselves into a Society for the 
purpose of counteracting the evil tendency of secret associations, for 
maintaining and diffusing liberal principles, and for promoting the 
great objects of social and literary improvement. 

In doing this we are confident that we have at heart the best interests 
of the institution to which we belong and that we are directed by the 
light of experience, the suggestion of reason, and the dictates of 

No material change took place in the Preamble as it appeared in 
1839. Late in the same year, however, the society became considerably 


agitated over the defection of a number of its members. The glamour 
of the Greek letter organizations proved to be too alluring to some of 
the Social Fraternity. Consequently pledges were broken, a circum- 
stance that caused the Williams Chapter to take the matter under most 
serious consideration. After some thought, it would appear that the 
Chapter "assaulted" Kappa Alpha, which evidently had been the worse 
offender. Little good came out of this type of action and in due time 
it was discontinued. Sober thought must have counseled other ways as 
we hear no more of this species of hostility. 4 Again, Williams had other 
matters of far graver importance to tax their strength, namely the 
question of consolidating with the Equitable Union of Union College. 
Unfortunately these efforts failed, though in 1847 Williams was able to 
lead the societies at Union, Amherst and Hamilton into the Anti- 
Secret Confederation. 5 

Prior to this epoch-making event the Williams group seems to have 
been most enthusiastic about maintaining its literary and social aspects. 
Orations and debates, judging by the repeated entries of these topics 
in the records, must have played a predominant r61e in the chapter 
meetings and doubtless did much to further the life of the society. 
Certainly the Social Fraternity could not have traveled as far as it did 
had it not been highly selective in recruiting prospective membcis. 
No one, it appears, could join the society who had given pledges to or 
believed in secret societies. High moral and intellectual abilities were 
also insisted upon and if a candidate measured up to these require- 
ments he might be admitted into the fraternity at any regular meeting, 
providing two-thirds of those present had given their assent. For 
example, on September 22, 1840, "an invitation was given to all present 
who wished to join the society." From this entry one may deduce, first, 
that the meetings were open to the general student body, and, second, 
that no discussion then took place as to the merits of any likely candi- 
date. In adopting the former procedure the chapter was strictly adher- 
ing to its ideals and motives. On the other hand no chapter today 
would think of allowing strangers to attend a meeting which had as 
its prime purpose the election of new members; especially if some of 
these chanced to be in the fraternity house. In theory, of course, the 
chapter doors are never closed, though practice has dictated a contrary 
policy. A century ago, however, things were quite different. Collegiate 
administrative boards imposed no restrictions in such matters and there 
existed no inter-fraternity council to issue rules in respect to "rushing." 

4 See Spring, L. W., A History of Williams College, (Boston, 1917), p. 287. 

5 See below pp. 32-33 for a more detailed account of this movement. 


Further, there was no overhead expense in maintaining a chapter 
house and consequently no need for pledging members early in the 
freshmaa year. Again, in view of the small number of students at 
Williams,, favorable opportunities existed for ascertaining in general 
the attitudes of most undergraduates towards secrecy. The same factor, 
moreover, allowed every student to form an opinion as to the ideals 
and practices of the various clubs on the campus. Accordingly, one 
may saiely conclude that the greater part, if not all, of those admitted 
to the meetings were well informed of the aims of the Social Fraternity, 
which in turn had a good understanding of all prospective members. 
This assumption is strengthened upon recalling that before an invita- 
tion was extended, the secretary read the constitution in full for the 
benefit of all present. In 1842, however, the practice of admitting 
candidates not previously proposed was dropped and for the future no 
one was accepted who had not been "first proposed by name." 

In seeking to explain this change one is led to believe that it may 
be found in the following consideration. Public meetings, while in 
keeping with the ideals of the society, permitted those of the Greek 
world to be present. Although the Williams group frowned upon this 
practice and viewed it as "ungentlemanly" and intended "as an insult," 
no official action seems to have been taken to oust these trouble 
makers. Consequently, it was easy for the other societies to make 
contacts with those who already were members of the Social Fraternity 
or who contemplated joining. In this way pressure was placed upon 
the loyalties of the Williams men. Well directed gossip by the Greeks 
as to the merits of mysterious passwords, grips and badges, did much 
to deter some from joining the Williams Chapter. Further, these prac- 
tices weaned away from the Social Fraternity some who otherwise 
might have been active and loyal members. Those who broke their 
pledges were of course expelled. It may be argued that the expulsion 
of these men had no connection with the adoption of the above 
mentioned amendment of 1842. On the other hand, it seems reasonable 
to assume that the pledging of men who later joined secret fraternities 
or who evidently were "misfits" cautioned the Social Fraternity to be 
more careful in the selection of its members. In any event, this change 
in policy must have strengthened the Williams group, although back- 
sliders continued to exist and expulsions had to be made. In spite of 
this the society prospered. Its reputation spread to other colleges where 

Thc Williams records show that from March, 1842 to September, 1848, at least 
twenty-five men were expelled for having joined other groups and twenty-four 
others were dismissed for reasons that are not stated in the minutes of the chapter. 


in time similar anti-secret groups were formed, in part as a result of 
the efforts made at Williams. Moreover, Williams played an impoitant 
role at the Troy Convention of 1847 which witnessed the birth of the 
national Anti-Secret Confederation. 

Continued efforts along national lines attracted the interest of the 
Williams men for the next fifteen years. From an internal point of 
view considerable progress was also made. Literary activities stimulated 
the interest of all and many a college honor was won by the chapter. 
The reports given by the Williams delegates at general conventions are 
replete with evidence on this matter. The attitude of the chapter is 
also revealed in the publication of a tract entitled Opinions of Dis- 
tinguished Men on Secret Societies. At the same time the recognized 
value of social contacts was not lost sight of or ignored. In selecting 
candidates the chapter rigidly adhered to its constitution and refused 
to admit persons who belonged to secret societies whose life at Williams 
had ended. Even those who were affiliated with non-campus secret 
organizations were not elected to the Social Fraternity. On the other 
hand there is reason for believing that some were admitted too early 
in their college life to have had time to weigh properly the merits of 
secrecy and non-secrecy. As a result the chapter had on its rolls persons 
who were lukewarm in their devotion, a factor that added little to the 
strength of the society. This defect became so apparent that those 
interested in the welfare of the fraternity were called upon, to advocate 
a change in policy. Accordingly, after much debate the chapter at a 
meeting held July 16, 1850 unanimously adopted the following 

Whereas there has not been the interest in the Social Fraternity 
during the gast year which there should have been, owing to some of 
its members not believing & acting in accordance with its principles 
& believing that the strength 8c influence of the Society depended not 
so much upon the number as upon the principles of its members 

Resolved, That persons proposed for membership in this Society 
shall be admitted singly by ballot & no person shall be received into 
the Society until he has been a member of the College four weeks of 
term time 

Resolved, That the interest of this Society would be promoted by 
having debates confined to the Senior and Junior Class 

Resolved, That a Committee of two from each of the three upper 
classes be chosen whose duty it shall be to propose persons as members 
of the Society and no other members of the Society shall propose 
persons as members. 


Doubtless the adoption of this report, particularly those parts that 
concerned the election of new members, gave greater solidarity to the 
society. This added strength was both well advised and well timed, 
as the secret organizations appear to have launched a determined 
attack against the chapter shortly thereafter. It was the belief of these 
fraternities that the Williams Chapter served no useful purpose and 
that in any event it was an inefficient society. Gossip of this type was 
circulated on the campus for some time. Finally in 1855, two of the 
Greek letter societies joined in a challenge to the Social Fraternity 
for a public disputation over the merits and dements of secrecy. No 
time was lost by the Williams men in accepting this invitation. Joint 
committees of both groups worked out the details of the proposed 
debate and all seemed ready for the event when the Greek letter 
societies suddenly withdrew from the affair. Rather weakly they gave 
as their excuse that they had not had "time to give justice to the sub- 
ject," that they were afraid of "incurring personal odium," that an 
uncalled for "excitement in college" would be promoted and that in 
any case a debate would be "doing no good." The Social Fraternity 
through James A. Garfield promptly expressed a willingness to go 
ahead as planned with these groups but they declined the opportunity. 
Although greatly disappointed over the outcome, particularly as the 
genesis of the affair lay with those Greeks who by their challenge had 
cast certain reflections on the Social Fraternity, the Williams Chapter 
attempted to revive the proposed debate. As late as January, 1858, 
overtures were made to the Greeks who, however, refused to have 
anything to do with it, "thus acknowledging," so the Williams' record 
runs, "the weakness of their position." At this time out of a total 
student body of two hundred and five, the secret societies had ninety- 
eight members while the Social Fraternity had thirty-six. 7 

A few years later, namely 1861, another attack was directed against 
the Williams Chapter; this time, however, it was by the neutral ele- 
ment in the college. For some time past the neutrals had been growing 
in numbers and strength. It was their hope to supplant the Social 
Fraternity, though it is difficult to see what they had to gain by this 
movement. Possibly, their leaders expected to enhance their own posi- 
tion and reputation, but of this there is no evidence at hand; nor are 

7 John N. Leonard very kindly investigated the minutes of Chi Psi Fraternity 
at Williams but found no reference to the proposed debate. A more detailed state- 
ment of the affair appears in the Quarterly, 11:156-159, in which Kappa Alpha 
and Alpha Delta Phi are listed as being the fraternities which had issued the 


we informed as to the nature of the contest. In any event, the Williams 
Chapter was more than able to hold its own and within a short time 
organized neutral opposition gradually disappeared. 8 

In spite of the success won by the Social Fraternity in this conflict 
as well as in that with the secret societies, the fact icmains that both 
encounters had taxed the organization to the utmost. In addition, the 
chapter was agitated by a decided internal drilt towauls a more liberal 
method in the selection of its members. Again there were some indi- 
viduals who sought to gain class honors and offices in a spirit which 
ran counter to the ideals of the society. Some of the chapter, moreover, 
were firmly convinced that there was a lack of "active moial power" 
and that the fraternity had allowed its principles to speak for them- 
selves without any endeavor being made to live up to the pledges of 
the society. In other words, there seems to have been a number ol dis- 
integrating forces at work, the effect of which was to be seen in a 
decline in membership. By the spring of 1862 the chapter had but 
twenty-four members, while the secret societies and the neutrals num- 
bered ninety-four and eighty-nine respectively. Of these twenty-four, 
half were seniors with the remainder being divided equally between 
the junior and freshman classes. 9 The record of the votes taken at 
chapter meetings reflects a decrease in numbers while the lack of 
interest is revealed in the quality of the meetings themselves. Whereas 
earlier minutes contain references to lively debates and stimulating 
discussions, now little attention seems to have been paid to these 
matters. Unfortunate as the situation was, the society might have 
weathered the storm but for a shift in the policies of the Fraternity. 
Among some of the chapters there was a sentiment against ihc exist- 
ing qualifications for membership. Only a constitutional change would 
meet the demands of these groups and to this Williams was very 
definitely opposed. For a time, Williams sought to stem the rising tide, 
but on finding the opposition in control, asked for and obtained in 
May, 1862 an honorable dismissal from the Confederation. 30 

The opinion of the Williams men was that the cause of anti-secrecy 
could best be served on its own campus without membership in the 
national society. In less than a year and a half, however, organized 
anti-secrecy disappeared at Williams. During this interval of inde- 

8 Williams to Rutgers, Nov. 26, 1861. 

The Catalogue of the Anti-Secret Confederation for 1864 lists the "Williams 
Chapter as having but eleven members in 1862. I have used the figures as given in 
the chapter records. 

10 See below pp. 47-51 for a detailed statement of this matter. 


pendent isolation, meetings appear to have been held under the title 
of the Anti-Secret Association of Williams College. Disintegrating 
forces, however, continued to operate and on October 6, 1863 the 
society formally voted to dissolve. In reviewing the factors that led 
to this unhappy event, one should note the hostility of both the 
Greeks and the neutrals, the steady decline in numbers and the change 
that took place in the program of the national fraternity. It may also 
be true, though of this there is no tangible evidence, that a few of 
the chapter entered the ranks of the Union armies. On the other 
hand, it should be remembered that Williams contemplated with- 
drawal from the Confederation in the spring of 1861 before the out- 
break of the Civil War. In any event it would appear that the deciding 
factor in the withdrawal of the chapter and its ultimate dissolution 
was national and not local. Had the Fraternity continued to adhere 
to its older ways the Williams men in all probability would not have 
asked for a dismissal, and, what is more important, would not have 
voted for dissolution. As it was the severing of national connections 
must have weakened the interest of some of its members and have 
deterred others from joining. Why the alumni of the chapter did not 
attempt to smooth matters over is not known. None of them, as far 
as our records show, expressed any opinion over the differences that 
existed between the Williams group and the other chapters. It may 
well be that the alumni agreed with the active chapter in thinking 
the Fraternity was departing from time-honored and established prin- 
ciples. And yet when the chapter ultimately dissolved some of the 
graduate members expressed deep sorrow and offered to give financial 
assistance whenever the "Equitable Fraternity of Williams College" 
saw fit to resume its accustomed place on the campus. Among those 
who signed this offer was James A. Garfield who had been a most 
loyal member of the society. The fact that certain alumni were 
aroused to action over the disappearance of the Social Fraternity 
lends strength to the assumption that their silence over the question 
of withdrawal in 1863 indicated an agreement with the chapter in 
this matter. Of this, however, there is no definite evidence at hand. 
Unfortunate as was the withdrawal of the Mother Chapter, the day 
was to come in October, 1883, when Williams once again became an 
active member of Delta Upsilon. 

The dissolution of the Williams group left the Union Chapter as 
the oldest member of the Confederation. Concerning the genesis and 
early history of this chapter much less is known than could be desired. 
No minute books exist and the local newspapers have no reference 


to the activities of this organization. On the basis, however, of other 
material it may safely be assumed that anti-secrecy first appeared on 
that campus during the school year 1837 and 1838. The motives as- 
signed for the founding of the Alpha Omicron Society seem to have 
been the same as existed at Williams, though there is no proof avail- 
able that the Union society received any stimulus from, or even 
knew of, the Social Fraternity at the time it was founded. Doubtless 
the Union men adopted some form of a constitution and elected 
officers though of this there is no evidence at hand. It is, however, 
established that the society accepted a monogram badge made of the 
letters Alpha and Omicron and that it was also known as the Equit- 
able Union. Approximately one hundred students joined the organi- 
zation during its first year, an achievement that brilliantly demon- 
strated the need of a counter society to those then existing. 11 Meetings 
appear to have been held in the chapel of West College as well as the 
home of President Nott. Evidently the aims of the new fraternity met 
with the approval of the administration, a fact that must have gone 
far in aiding the growth of Alpha Omicron. At these gatherings, which 
were open to the public, the merits of secrecy were freely debated. On 
the other hand the secret fraternities girded themselves for a contest 
that lasted for all of three years. 12 During these trying days the Union 
group more than held its own. Its members increased in numbers and 
in July, 1840 it published under the editorship of Fabricus Vidcns a 
thirty-one page tract known as the Spy-Glass. 

The author of this tract warmly recommends the same to all who 
might care to know the true nature of "those non-descripts yclept 
Secrets," and proceeds to delineate their short-comings with consid- 
erable skill and feeling. He predicts that in no short time the existing 
fraternities will have ceased to exist and that their remains will only 
be found in the crumbling ruins of some forgotten cemetery. Certain 
campus lights, whose names have been easily determined, are bitterly 
attacked for having broken their pledges to the anti-secret society, 
while their devotion to hard liquor and immoral practices are de- 
nounced in no uncertain terms. To cap the entire expos, the title 
page carries a small cut which shows a group of drunken fraternity 
men staggering through the streets, while from an upper story window 
there gazes through a spy-glass a member of Alpha Omicron. While it 

The Quarterly, 11:54-59 states that 103 students joined the society during its 
first year; the Quinquennial, op. cit. t pp. 184-187, lists 101. In either case this 
number amounted to about one-third of the entire student body. 

13 These societies were Kappa Alpha, Sigma Phi, Delta Phi and Psi Upsilon. 


must be admitted that the general tone of the tract is one that is not 
entirely complimentary to its author, the fact remains that the Spy- 
Glass illustrates rather well what the aims and objectives of the Union 
Chapter were at that time in respect to secrecy. 13 Among the students 
at Union, the tract seems to have considerable influence as by 1841 
the Greek world gave up the contest and admitted the right of others 
to share in class elections and honors. As a result of this victory the 
effectiveness of Alpha Omicron became less apparent. Only eleven 
members of the class of 1843 joined the society, ten of the class of 
1844 and but one of 1845. All of which is in marked contrast to the 
one hundred fifty students who had been members during the first 
four years of the society's existence. To all intents and purposes, 
Alpha Omicron by 1845 hzd ceased to exist. 

Hardly had the society ceased to function than the Greek letter 
fraternities drifted back to their old practices. Fortune smiled only 
upon those who were members of these secret organizations. Merit 
was forgotten and class distinctions went only to a favored few. Con- 
ditions, in other words, were as bad as they had been eight years be- 
fore. Naturally, therefore, certain students who resented the tactics 
of the Greeks began, in 1845, to revive the idea of an opposition 
society. As a result Alpha Omicron was reestablished in the fall of 
that year, though it is not definitely known who were the leaders of 
this movement. An examination of the class rolls of 1846 and 1847 
reveals the names of several students who doubtless were near rela- 
tives of some who had belonged to the earlier society and from whom 
guidance and instruction may have been secured. In any event, the 
cause of anti-secrecy had been reborn at Union. 

The older societies demonstrated their attitude towards their rival 
by omitting any reference to Alpha Omicron in a college catalogue 
they published, although all other organizations on the campus were 
listed. To this the Union Chapter replied with a catalogue of its own 
in which the suggestion appears that students would do well to join 
a literary rather than a secret society. This was followed in 1850 by 
a tract entitled Secret Societies in College which was at once matched 
by a Review issued under the auspices of the Greek fraternities. Alpha 
Omicron answered this by a Review of the Review in which the claims 
of the secret fraternities were refuted. These various efforts illustrate 
quite well the growing power of anti-secrecy as well as the nature of 
the contest between the two types of fraternities. Further, it is inter- 
esting to note that within a few years Alpha Omicron was recognized 
18 1 am indebted to the Librarian of Union College Library for the use of this tract. 


as holding a position equal to that of the other Greek societies on 
the Union Campus. 

The establishment of Alpha Omicron, as well as its revival, was 
accomplished without any assistance from the Social Fraternity of 
Williams College. Indeed there is no evidence at hand to warrant the 
statement that the Union men were aware of the existence of the 
anti-secret group at Williams. As it is, therefore, the inception of the 
Union Chapter must be traced directly to local sources, all of which 
illustrates that the idea of anti-secrecy was present at more than one 

In the meantime, however, contact had been established with the 
society at Williams. Early in November, 1845, the Williams group had 
received a letter from Union in which the desire was expressed that 
the latter might be "united as a Branch of the Social Fraternity." 
This was not the first time that Alpha Omicron had proposed the 
idea of consolidation. As early as 1840 a similar overture had been 
made but due to certain difficulties, discussed in the following chap- 
ter, had not been successful. The movement started in 1845, however, 
bore fruit in a convention held at Schenectady, July to, 1847. An- 
other meeting was also held at Troy in November of the same year. 
And while Union does not seem to have taken the leadership at this 
second meeting, as did Williams, the fact remains that Union deserves 
the credit for having issued the call for and having directed the steps 
which led towards the formation of the Anti-Secret Confederation. 
From then on until 1864 th e Union Chapter maintained a lively in- 
terest in the life of the Confederation, acted as host to the Conven- 
tions of 1851 and 1865 and showed in more than one way a loyal de- 
votion to the national organization and its ideals. 

Of its internal life less is known. Attention has already been given 
to the various publications issued by the chapter in the interests of 
anti-secrecy. At the same time it appears that the society was rather 
sadly torn by internal dissensions. Some of the members deplored the 
absence of a chapter hall, a fact that doubtless did much to lessen 
the fraternal spirit of the group. Exactly why the society did not have 
a hall has not been established. It may be there were no funds for 
such a purpose, or again, it may be that some of the men were opposed 
to the idea altogether. By 1854 a definite cleavage had developed in 
the chapter over the question of a hall. Unable to gain their ends, 
the dissatisfied element openly talked about withdrawing. Added 
strength was given to this bloc by a misunderstanding which had 
grown up between the society and the college faculty. Although the 


exact nature of this dispute has not been determined, it is possible 
that some of the faculty had doubts as to the wisdom of an anti-secret 
group existing at Union. Similar difficulties were encountered at other 
institutions and its seems that such might have been the case at Union. 
This misunderstanding, plus the ill-will that had been aroused over 
the question of a hall, resulted in the withdrawal in 1854 of all but 
seven members of the chapter. 

In spite of this defection the society continued to grow. Its mem- 
bership averaged thirteen a year, a figure that would have been almost 
twice as large were it not for the low enrollments of 1860, 1861 and 
1862. At least four members of the classes of 1861, 1862 and 1863 saw 
service in the Civil War, a fact that might lead one to believe that 
military service did much to weaken the chapter and account for its 
disappearance in 1863. And while these enlistments added nothing 
to the strength of the chapter, they can not in themselves be advanced 
as explanations for the death at Union. Once again the cause is to 
be found within the internal structure of the chapter. During 1861 
the society seems to have existed in name only. No representative was 
sent to the Colby Convention of that year and it looked for a time as 
though the society was about to die. Thanks, however, to the efforts 
of Anthony W. Atwood and James Yates renewed vigor was shown. 
A number of new members were gained, though it was most unfor- 
tunate that most of these were recruited from the upper classes. Those 
in the first two years soon found themselves ignored, possibly, so one 
of our sources hints, because of their low scholastic standing. In any 
event a cleavage grew up between the two groups which resulted in 
the chapter having but few meetings. On top of this came the Sche- 
nectady Convention of 1862 at which the Union Chapter had the op- 
portunity of hearing Williams set forth its view on Fraternity policy. 
The effect of this Convention seems to have been unfortunate for 
Union. Instead of stimulating Fraternity spirit it actually created the 
exact opposite. The younger members became warmly attached to the 
idea of a separate organization, while the seniors, whose interest was 
none too strong, stood out for a continuation of the existing society. To 
Atwood this meant nothing more or less than a disruption of the chap- 
ter, and in order to save it, he proposed the creation of a radical anti- 
secret society. This of course meant a withdrawal from the Confedera- 
tion and the founding of a new group upon the same principles that 
had prompted Williams to secede. Atwood's suggestion gained for a 
time the support of most of the chapter. So confident was he of the 
future success of his plan that he actually informed Rutgers that all 


but three of the chapter had joined with him in severing all connec- 
tions with the Confederation. 14 

Rutgers immediately wrote to Union asking for definite information. 
To this request, Warren Schoonover replied that Atwood's statement 
was quite misleading. That Atwood had tried to bring about the crea- 
tion of a new society, Schoonover admitted, though, as he hastened to 
add, the movement itself never reached maturity. On the other hand, 
Schoonover frankly stated he was quite tired ol having to assume the 
entire charge ol fraternity work and in view of the apathy of the otheis 
he was convinced that the chapter might as well cease. The society, 
however, did not expire. In fact it managed to keep itself alive until 
the early summer of 1863. Schoonover's enthusiasm which had largely 
been responsible for the continuation of the chapter, seems oil her to 
have subsided or else to have lost its effects. 15 The result was that by 
the fall of 1863 the Union Chapter of the Anti-Secret Con federal ion 
was dead. Internal difficulties plus the effect of Williams' withdrawal 
had been too much for the chapter to stand. 

In the meantime the Middlebury Chapter was having troubles of its 
own. The inception of this organization has been clouded with much 
uncertainty. The Manual of Delta Upsilon for 1933 gives 1856 as the 
year when a chapter was planted at Middlebury which is also the dale 
as given in the Quinquennial. A recent article in the Quarterly, how- 
ever points to an earlier date. 16 Turning to primary souices, one notes 
that the earliest extant record of a chapter meeting at Middlebury is 
for October, 1856. On the other hand the minutes of the Williams 
Chapter show that a letter had been received from a Social Fraternity 
which had been formed at Middlebury, March 22, i845. 17 Evidently 
Williams answered this communication as in July of the same year the 
Middlebury group is recorded in the Williams minute book as a branch 
society. Further, this same entry states that Middlebury had adopted a 
constitution, elected officers and had accepted a badge in the form of a 
harp. Williams also seems to have notified Middiebury of the Scheneo 
tady Convention of July 10, 1847, an d while there is no evidence avail- 

M A. W. Atwood to Rutgers, Dec. 10, 1862. 

15 Minutes of the Rutgers Chapter, Jan. 21, 1863, Schoonover to Rutgers, Jan. 19, 
Feb. 15, June 19, 1863 Union ceased to exist as a chapter in 1863, though a few 
of its members were in college until 1865. No meetings, however, seem to have 
been held and no delegates were sent to the Convention of 1863. At ** meeting 
Rutgers was asked to look into conditions at Union. Rutgers seems to have done 
something as in 1864 Hamilton was instructed to refound Union; nothing, however, 
was done; see Records of the Conventions of Delta Upsilon, 1863, 1864. 

* Quarterly, XXXVIII 1375 -377. 

17 Minutes of the Social Fraternity of Williams, April 8, 1845, 


able which records what groups were present it is possible that 
Middlebury was in attendance. On the basis, therefore, of the Williams 
record there is proof that a Social Fraternity, anti-secret in nature, ex- 
isted at Middlebury from March, 1845, through the year 1847. In addi- 
tion to this evidence there are the facts furnished by Guy Coolidge in 
the Quartet ly, which already has been cited above. Coolidge demon- 
strates rather convincingly that the inception of the Amherst Chapter 
may be attributed in part to the efforts of Robert D. Miller who, though 
of Amherst, had at one time been a student at Middlebury. Miller's 
interest, according to Coolidge, in anti-secrecy at Amherst may well 
have been the result of his experiences at Middlebury where in all 
probability he had been a member of the Social Fraternity. More con- 
vincing than this evidence is a record that exists in the personnel files 
of the Middlebury Chapter. Here may be noted a statement written 
and signed by Warren W. Winchester which reads as follows: "Joined 
what was styled 'Ouden Adelon/ Anti-Secret Society in Middlebury 
College about 1845 or 1846 8c I believe was admitted a member of D. 
Ups. a few years ago." Here the name of one who was a member 
ol the Middlebury group which was alive from 1845 to 1847 and who 
at a later date was made an honorary member of the Middlebury 

In the light of the above evidence it would seem that Middlebury 
should be listed as the third oldest chapter of Delta Upsilon. The fact 
that it died and later was reestablished can not argue against its rank- 
ing third, ior if this contention is valid then Williams, Union and 
several others have no right to the rank they hold in the roll of the 
chapters. Exactly what caused the disappearance of the Middlebury 
group is not known; nor can any suppositions be advanced by way of 
possible explanation. The death of the local society left the field there 
entirely open to the secret fraternities which by the fall of 1856 domi- 
nated student affairs and took unto themselves existing honors. Oppo- 
sition to these practices centered in the elections of the Philomathean 
Society, a literary organization that played an important role in college 
life. Leaders of this protesting element seem to have been strongly anti- 
secret in nature, though some of their followers may have joined the 
movement because of their not having been pledged to one of the 
Greek fraternities. One of the more prominent members of this group 
was Loyal D. Eldredge who, in the fall of 1856, met at Bellows Falls a 
member of the Amherst Chapter. As a result of this meeting, Eldredge 
was encouraged to go ahead and propose to a select number the need 


of an anti-secret group at Middlebury. Those inteicstcd in these pro- 
posals met October 3, 1856, and agreed to organize a counter society. 
In the quaint but expressive words of an unknown secretary the event 
was described as follows: "A few members of Middlebury College who 
had long been ground under the oppression of the Secret Societies met 
to form an Anti-Secret Confederation/' Rather dramatic speeches were 
delivered, temporary officers chosen, committees appointed to draft a 
constitution, procure badges and make plans for future meetings. Four 
days later a document, presented by a committee on a constitution, 
was adopted and signed by eight students. It was also voted that the 
society be known as "Zeta Phi Fraternity of Middlebury College, an 
Anti-Secret Confederation/' Election of officers took place October 13, 
at which time a committee was appointed to visit the President of the 
College and show "him our constitution and the names of our mem- 
bers." Probably such a visit was made, though the minutes of the chap- 
ter fail to record any further reference to the affair. 

In the meantime contact had been established with Amherst and 
Williams, both of whom expressed a willingness to accept Middlebury 
as a member of the Confederation. Amherst, in accordance with the 
existing provisions of the national constitution, acted as a committee 
of investigation, although it is likely that the inquiries were made solely 
by letter. On the basis of these findings, the Amherst Chapter sent a 
letter to Williams endorsing the society at Middlebury, Similar com- 
munications may have been forwarded to the other societies. In any 
event there seems to have been no recorded opposition to Zeta Phi as 
Daniel H. Rogan of Amherst visited Middlebury, November 13, 1856, 
and installed the new chapter. The procedure was extremely simple 
and devoid of any ritual. Rogan merely gave an account of the nature 
of the anti-secret society at his own college, after which several speeches 
seem to have been made. Following this, Zeta Phi voted that having 
"applied to the Anti-Secret Confederation to become a member of the 
same do cordially adopt the Preamble & Constitution of said corpora- 
tion and will abide by the regulations as we understand them/' Rogan 
then "cordially welcomed us a chapter of the A. S. C." At the general 
Convention of 1857 Middlebury was presented by Eldredge who was 
accepted by that body as an accredited member of the Confederation. 
No convention vote was taken on the admission of Middlebury as the 
constitution at that time did not demand such an action. Middlebury 
was represented at the next four national gatherings but not at the 
Convention of 1863. It was Middlebury, moreover, that pointed the 


way in 1863 towards a more liberal attitude on the part of the Con- 
federation in respect to its relation to the college fraternity world. 18 

From a local angle, Middlebury laid great stress upon literary activi- 
ties. The By-Laws of the society are crowded with reference to this 
aspect of chapter life. These regulations also show that prior to her 
affiliation with the Confederation non-members were not allowed to 
attend meetings that concerned internal affairs. A door-keeper denied 
admission to all who were unable to give a selected password. It is also 
of interest to note that considerable care was taken in the election of 
new members. And yet, in spite of this caution, internal disorder seems 
to have developed. Although we are not informed as to the exact nature 
of this disorder, the difficulty seems to have been bridged so much 
that by the spring of 1863 Middlebury was able to inform Rutgers 
that conditions were better than they had been for some time past. 
Shortly thereafter the chapter dropped its old name, Zeta Phi, and 
accepted Delta Upsilon as its title. 19 

The Hamilton Chapter, fourth from point of view of origin, was 
established July 21, 1847. Conditions were ripe at this college for the 
founding of an anti-secret society, in so much as the existing fraternities 
conducted student affairs m a manner that was not entirely open and 
fair. Interestingly enough the first time the idea of an anti-secret society 
at Hamilton appears is not at that college, but rather at Williams, 
where the Social Fraternity voted to write "to some one in Hamilton 
College favoring the forming of such a society." It is possible of course 
that anti-secret ideas existed at Hamilton before Williams took this 
action. Indeed Hamilton's delegate to the Convention of 1854 asserted 
that opposition to the Greek letter fraternities had manifested itself 
at Clinton before 1847. On the other hand contemporary evidence fails 
to support this later statement so that we are compelled to conclude 
that Williams deserves the credit for having first aroused student senti- 
ment at Hamilton. To whom Williams addressed its communication is 
not known, though it may have been to C. L. Adams, who is named by 
David E. Elaine, in March, 1849, as having been the one who outlined 
the ideals of anti-secrecy to a select group of Hamilton students. Elaine 
also informs us that the earliest gathering of these men took place "in 
the midnight darkness of that room (Charles Adams') " and that a 
"few hesitating but earnest spirits gathered around an esteemed fc 
serious counsellor. He had conceived an idea of vast import ... we 

18 See below pp. 37-38. Middlebury was represented by Rochester at the 1863 
Convention. Middlebury's motto for a time was Zetounen Phaos. 
"Middlebury to Rutgers, April 17, 1863. 


plighted our faith 8c sacred honor to enlist & stand together under the 
banner of equity, fraternity & liberty; there we vowed the vows of anti- 
secrecy." 20 Opposition to the practices of the existing fratci nines plus 
the influence of the Williams Chapter resulted in the planting oi 
Delta Upsilon at Hamilton. 

It seems likely, therefore, that the first known meeting of the ftiencls 
of anti-secrecy took place July si, 1847, though it was not until five 
days later that a formal gathering was held. C. L. Adams, of the class 
of 1847, presided over this assembly which was attended by three 
juniors and six sophomores. 21 After considerable debate, in which 
George Rumney insisted that conditions at Hamilton did not wairant 
the founding of an anti-secret organization, it was voted by the othcis 
to establish the Social Fraternity. "Pure moral character and cntiie and 
conscientious opposition to Secret Societies," was necessary for mem- 
bership in the society. Among those who took this stand was Milton 
Waldo. Writing in 1909, Waldo stated that the Hamilton men had ic- 
solved "fully not to organize . . . unless Williams and Union would 
join us in an organic union of the three fraternities. We sent a com- 
missioner who obtained from each of them unanimous official action, 
pledging them to formal confederation with us. ... It was also agreed 
that a Convention should be held as early as convenient after the open- 
ing of the next college year, in the autumn of 1847, for completing the 
Confederation." 22 This statement by Waldo is of decided interest us it 
would tend to create the belief that Hamilton refused to found a local 
society until Williams and Union agreed to an "organic union" oi the 
three groups. Now it will be recalled that Hamilton did organize on 
July 26, which was exactly sixteen days after the Schencctady Conven- 
tion. Whether Hamilton knew of this meeting at the time of her 
organization is not definitely established by the available sources. Wil- 
liams, moreover, as is indicated elsewhere in this volume, was not pres- 
ent at this meeting; a fact that does not coincide with the pledge given 
to Hamilton's "commissioner." It is evident, therefore, that Waldo docs 
not refer to this Convention. The tone of his statement, however, im- 
plies that Hamilton's action forced Williams and Union to confederate 

80 Minutes of the Social Fraternity of Williams, June 11, 1847, Records of the 
Conventions of Delta Upsilon, 1854, Address given by D. E. Blame, Mar. 29, 18.19, 
Quinquennial f op. cit., p. 223. 

31 For some unknown reason, Adams decided not to cooperate in the founding of 
L he chapter. George Rumney refused to join because he believed that anti-secrecy 
had no place at Hamilton, see Minutes of the Social Fraternity of Hamilton, 
fuly 26, 1847. 

22 Quarterly, 


as was done at Troy in November of the same year. And yet Waldo 
most certainly must have heard of the Schenectady gathering before the 
Troy meeting as our evidence clearly establishes the fact that both 
Williams and Union knew of the earlier meeting. Of this, however, 
Waldo was quite in the dark when he wrote his communication to the 
Quarterly in 1909. Anything like confederation was not gained at the 
Schenectady meeting; rather it was established at Troy. On account of 
this fact Waldo may well be pardoned for having foi gotten what he 
probably knew of in the fall of i847* 23 

No further gathering of the Hamilton group took place until Sep- 
tember of the same year. At that meeting Waldo was chosen President, 
Richard G. Keyes, Vice-President, Alfred Stowe, Secretary, Yates 
Hickey, Corresponding Secretary, Augustus G. Gould and Stewart 
Sheldon, Critics, and Hiram E. Johnson, Reader. Contact was also 
established with Union and Amherst, both of whom sent congratula- 
tory messages to the "sister society." Considerable interest was also 
shown in the affairs of the Confederation by supporting the Troy meet- 
ing and by advancing the idea of a common constitution and badge. 
It was ably represented at this Convention as indeed it was at every 
national gathering held from the date to the present, a record that 
has not been equalled by any other chapter of the Fraternity. Hamilton 
demonstrated considerable interest in expansion, in the development 
of Fraternity policy, and in addition favored a more liberal attitude 
towards the secret societies and was host to the national gathering of 
1858. Although organized as the Social Fraternity it changed its title 
in 1849 to the Equitable Fraternity which it retained until 1864 when 
Delta Upsilon was accepted by all of the chapters. 

During these years Hamilton grew in size and importance at home. 
The chapter meetings, which were generally public in nature, were 
held at a number of different places. The rooms of the various mem- 
bers were frequently used, as was the home of a Mrs. Powell, who took 
a kindly interest in the welfare of the group. The Assembly, Bell and 
Senior Reception rooms were also used. In June, 1849 steps weie taken 
towards the acquisition of a special room. Ultimately, space was as- 
signed the chapter on the fourth floor of South Hall. The "Fraternity 
Hall," as this room was called, became the home of the society from 
November, 1849 to 1874. In its relation to the other societies, Hamilton 
at first encountered some opposition. In 1848 the Greeks refused to 
recognize their rival and would not insert their name and members in 
a college catalogue which they published. Whereupon, the Hamilton 

83 The Williams records make no mention of any Hamilton Commissioner. 


group voted to issue a catalogue of its own, though it is not known 
whether such was ever printed. The following year, the College Cata- 
logue Committee agreed to allow the Hamilton Chapter space under 
the caption "Secret Societies" with the sub-heading "A. S. G." Hamilton 
refused to accept this offer, believing that the distinctive title "Equitable 
Fraternity" should appear. Exactly what ultimately happened is not 
known, though in time these differences, which seem of little impoi- 
tance to us of today, were ironed out and relatively good relations were 
established. It is also of interest to note that the Hamilton society de- 
bated, though no decision was reached, as to whether it was contrary 
to the basic law of the Fraternity, for the chapter to enter into com- 
binations with the secret fraternities for the election of officers in the 
various literary groups. The Hamilton Chapter did, however, resolve 
that though it had the constitutional right to admit as members pci- 
sons belonging to non-college secret societies, it was not "expedient to 
exercise this power." 24 

The last of the original five chapters of Delta Upsilon was Delta 
Sigma of Amherst College. The first reference in respect to the incep- 
tion of this society appears in the minutes of the Williams group which 
evidently had received a letter from Amherst stating that an "anti- 
secret society was to be formed and they wanted to be a branch of the 
Social Fraternity." 25 Williams extended a most cordial welcome to this 
overture and forwarded a copy of its constitution. After what seems to 
have been a careful examination of this document, the Amherst men 
on July 29, 1847, adopted, with some modifications the Preamble and 
Constitution of the Williams Chapter. Robert D. Miller was chosen 
President, George F. Walker, Recording Secretary, John Q. Pcabody, 
Corresponding Secretary, Martin N. Root, Treasurer, Martin L. Gay- 
lord and Charles Hartwell, Critics, and Elijah W. Sloddard as Reader. 
A committee was appointed to go to Boston and inquire into the mat- 
ter of a badge, while another body was instructed to gain from the 
faculty permission to exist as a fraternity. 20 An examination of the 
Amherst Faculty Minutes fails to reveal any indication that this com- 

24 Minutes of the Social Fraternity of Hamilton, June 15, 1848, July 2, 1849. 

^Minutes of the Social Fraternity of Williams, July 20, 1847. 

28 This last mentioned committee was also to ask for the use of rooms in South 
College. The Amherst minutes record the election of a Mr. Severance as Vice- 
President and the presence of H. A. Pratt, W. R. Palmer and a Mr. Kendall. On 
Oct. 14, 1847 dismissals were granted to Severance and Pratt, a fact that doubtless 
explains why their names do not appear as charter members in the Quinquennial 
In the Quarterly, XV: 192 it is stated that the society's first name was Dikaia 


mittee approached that body. There is, however, a reference dated 
June 30, 1847, which is approximately a month before the Amherst 
society is supposed to have been organized. This entry records the re- 
quest of Robert Miller and others for permission to form a society for 
"literary improvement and the counter action in some measure of the 
deleterious influence o secret societies 57 ; a request that the faculty 
granted. It may well be that the secretary of the faculty made an error 
and wrote June 30 instead of July 30, in which case the reference would 
stand as a direct result of the action taken by the society on July 29. 
On the other hand it is likely that Miller and his friends were actually 
in process of organization at that time and pending news from Wil- 
liams went ahead and gained faculty approval in advance. If this as- 
sumption is true, one still has to explain why another committee was 
appointed to interview the faculty in July. The explanation which 
might be offered is that when the Amherst group actually did organize 
on the basis of the Williams constitution, it was thought best to inform 
the faculty of the fact and gain from them permission to exist on this 
formal basis. In which case, as there was no important difference be- 
tween the aims and ideals as expressed in June, the faculty took no 
action, deeming their vote of approval in June sufficient. One other 
line of thought should be considered. It will be recalled that reference 
has been made to the fact that Miller had been a student at Middlebury 
and quite likely had been a member of the Social Fraternity of that 
college. Arriving at Amherst, Miller quite naturally sought to arouse 
interest in the cause of anti-secrecy and recalling that the Middlebury 
group had organized itself before contact had been made with Wil- 
liams, saw no reason why a similar procedure should not be followed 
at Amherst. This being true, faculty approval might well have been 
sought in June and then when the society did become a branch of the 
Williams Fraternity another petition was addressed to the faculty, who 
for reasons already suggested took no action. Were the Amherst rec- 
ords more definite or were the minutes of the Middlebury group avail- 
able, this problem might be solved. In any event it seems quite certain 
that Middlebury as well as Williams had a hand in the formation of 
the Amherst Chapter. 

Early in August, 1847, Amherst voted to style itself Delta Sigma and 
at the same time adopted a number of by-laws. A badge, patterned 
somewhat after the harp of Middlebury was also accepted, and cordial 
relations were established with Williams. Whether Delta Sigma at- 
tended the Schenectady Convention is not clearly established, though 


there is no reason for thinking that it did not in view of the fact that 
the society may have been formed sometime in June of the same year. 
However, if July 29, 1847, is accepted as the date ol the inception of 
the Amherst group, then clearly it could not have attended this gather- 
ing. That such a meeting took place seems to be well established, unless 
one is to assume that only Union was present in which case our sotu ccs 
would hardly speak of a convention having been held at all. Since a 
meeting was held and as Williams and Hamilton aic known not to 
have been present, it would follow that Amherst was represented at 
Schenectady. Amherst had delegates at the Troy Convention as well as 
every other gathering until 1861. She did not attend that meeting for 
the very simple reason that the chapter no longer existed. George E, 
Hooker, in a sketch of the Amherst group in the Quinquennial, states 
that the burning of North College and the destruction ol the effects of 
the Amherst men did much to hasten the decline of that society. The 
fire referred to occurred early in 1857, shortly before the convention of 
that year which met at Amherst on May 13 and 14. At that gathenng 
the Amherst delegates reported the accident but proudly stated that 
their fifty members were determined to fit up a new hall as soon as 
practicable. This is hardly the report of a chapter that had already gone 
into decline; rather is it indicative of a group which was enthusiastic 
about its past and determined to go forward with new life. Further, the 
very fact that the convention was held at Amherst and that after the 
fire, is added proof that the chapter had not lost strength. Indeed at the 
Convention of 1858, the Amherst delegate reported the exact contrary 
and spoke most encouragingly about the future. As complimentary a 
statement was made at the gathering of 1859, at which time there were 
thirty-six members in the chapter. The loss of the fraternity hall, while 
most unfortunate, does not seem to have been a factor in the decline 
and disappearance of Amherst. 

In justice to Hooker, it should be stated that he lays greater stress 
on other disintegrating forces. One of these concerns the Fraternity at 
large which Hooker feels was "weak in those early days/' It is true 
that there existed no governing boards at the time and that contacts 
between the chapters were none too strong. Consequently when Am- 
herst began to slump there was no assistance forthcoming from the 
outside. Had there been help of this type, Amherst might not have 
died. Hooker also assigns as the "deepest reason" the previous pros- 
perity enjoyed by the chapter, that is, "new members had been readily 
secured, and success in general had been easy. This worked, first an 


indisposition, and second an incapacity to grapple with the difficulties 
o such an emergency/' 27 As the chapter had never been compelled to 
resort to the laborious and systematic work of the secret societies in 
securing new members, there arose about this time quite a general 
inclination to abandon altogether the campaign system and depend 
principally upon the uninfluenced choice of new men. Thus disposed, 
and unused to anything like a struggle, they were poorly "trained to 
meet a disaster." It is likely that Hooker had an opportunity of talk- 
ing with some of the members of 1859 and 1860 and consequently had 
correct information. On the other hand, the reaction shown by the Am- 
herst group to the fire indicated an attitude of mind not entirely in 
accord with the tenor of Hooker's statements. A study of the sources at 
hand reveals no lack of enthusiasm during the years 1857 to 1860. Ref- 
erence is made, however, to an encounter which the chapter had with 
the faculty, an encounter that had taken place in 1854 and 1855 anc * 
which seems to have been successfully met. This event, therefore, could 
hardly have done much to cause the chapter to expire some six years 
later. While the Civil War may have cut down the enrollment at Am- 
herst, none o those listed in the Quinquennial as belonging to the 
classes of 1861 and 1862 left college for military service. It is true that 
the size of the classes was much smaller than those of a few years before. 
To accept, however, the Civil War as an explanation for the chapter's 
decline seems altogether too simple to be true. Present investigation, 
therefore, leaves the query as to why Amherst died in 1861 largely an 
unsolved problem. 

During its life Amherst appears to have been prominent in general 
college affairs. Its literary and scholastic attainments won recognition 
from both students and faculty. The latter generously allowed the 
society to meet in South College and in the fall of 1850 gave it the 
north-west corner room of North College. Further consideration was 
shown in the summer of 1852 when the faculty voted that it was no 
longer necessary for one of the chapter to occupy this space as a per- 
manent room. 28 Two years later, however, a misunderstanding arose 
between the faculty and the society. Up to this time the relations be- 
tween the two seem to have been ideal, though in 1849 some discussion 
had taken place in faculty meetings as to the secret societies. The ex- 
press reference at that time to secret organizations shows that Delta 

37 By emergency Hooker evidently had in mind the decline of the chapter; see 
Quinquennial, op. cit. t pp. 254-256, 

28 Minutes of Delta Sigma, Mar. 7, Aug. i, 1848, Oct. 8, 1849, May 27, 1850, 
Minutes of the Amherst Faculty, May 29, 1850, July 7, 1852. 


Sigma was not frowned upon by the teaching staff, though the chapter or 
a while thought that it was included in the faculty's condemnation. 20 
The aims and ideals of Delta Sigma, however, do seem to have been 
questioned during the winter of 1853-1854, so much so that the society 
after much debate voted to ask the faculty for an expression of con- 
fidence, failing which the society would disband. Resolutions contain- 
ing these sentiments were unanimously carried in chapter meeting. A 
copy, moreover, was given to the faculty, but this body alter some dis- 
cussion refused to express any opinion. The President of the College, 
however, was instructed by the faculty to issue any statement to Delta 
Sigma that he saw fit. This he proceeded to do in the form of a letter 
which greatly dampened the spirits of the society. Although no copy 
of this communication has been found it is clear from other evidence 
that Delta Sigma saw in it no prospects for the future. Accordingly, 
there being "but one course for the society to take/' a committee was 
appointed to devise means whereby the fraternity might dissolve itself. 
News of this action soon reached the ears of the faculty, seven of whom 
signed a communication to the society expressing the hope that all 
thought of dissolution would be abandoned as they had complete con- 
fidence in the principles and members of Delta Sigma. As a result of 
this timely action, the chapter unanimously voted to continue and to 
express appreciation to the faculty for their support. Exactly what 
there was about the standards of the society that had caused the faculty 
to look with concern upon Delta Sigma, or what the attitude of the 
President of Amherst was, is not known. In any case, the issue was 
peacefully solved and does not appear to have caused the death of the 
chapter in i86i. 30 

The loss of the Amherst Chapter was a serious blow to the Fraternity. 
With Williams openly talking about secession, Western Reserve and 
Wesleyan inactive, and Middlebury barely able to hold its own, the 
future seemed none too bright. Colby, Rochester, Bowdoin and Rutgers 
had entered the Fraternity, but none of these as yet were able to as- 

39 Minutes of the Amherst Faculty, Sept. 13, 27, Oct. 3, 10, 1849. 

80 Minutes of Delta Sigma, Feb. 28, Mar. 7, 14, 20, 1854, Minutes of the Amhcist 
Faculty, Mar. 2, 9, May 10, 1854, Records of the Conventions of Delta Upsilon, 
1854, Quinquennial, op. cit., p. 47. The Quarterly, I 10 gives an account of this 
event that does not agree entirely with the facts gleaned from other sources. The 
article does imply that the reason for the President's action existed in his acceptance 
of membership in one of the secret fraternities. In a letter to Rutgers, Nov. 26, 
1861, Williams stated "The Amherst Chapter ... is ... as dead as a dormouse. 
The faculty of that college killed it I understand by their sympathy with secret 


sume leadership. 31 In spite of these misfortunes and notwithstanding 
the fact that the nation was plunging into the Civil War, the Fraternity 
was able to hold together and lay the foundation for further growth 
and strength. 

31 See below pp. 100-113 for the record of all other chapters covered in this section 
of this volume. 

Chapter III 


^-CONSOLIDATIONS of aims and interests among the anti-secret societies 
^x began as early as 1840. Early in June of that year, the Equitable 
Fraternity of Union College approached the Social Fraternity of Wil- 
liams relative to a union of the two groups. Steps were immediately 
undertaken with the result that a joint committee of both societies 
submitted to each fraternity the draft of a common constitution. Cer- 
tain obstacles, however, appear to have arisen which for the time being 
checked any further progress. Williams, for some unknown reason, 
became shy of a "union by constitution." In its place she proposed a 
substitute plan which aimed at some degree of cooperation but which 
fell short of actual union. It is to be regretted that our sources do not 
throw more definite light upon these discussions which proved to have 
had no tangible result. Shortly thereafter, for reasons stated elsewhere, 
the Equitable Fraternity underwent a decline which led ultimately to 
complete inactivity in 1841. Had there been greater vitality at Union, 
the proposals of 1840 might have been pushed further. And had Wil- 
liams extended a more willing hand the Union society might well 
have weathered the crisis of 1840 and 1841. In any event the first move 
towards consolidation was a failure. 

By April of 1845, however, the idea of confederation received addi- 
tional stimulus by the request of the Social Fraternity of Middlebury to 
become a branch of the Williams society. The latter organization lost 
no time in answering these overtures and by July of that year, the 
Middlebury unit was an established branch of the Mother Chapter. 
Four months later, a reorganized Union group expressed the desire to 
become an auxiliary of Williams. Unfortunately, our records do not 
reveal the outcome of this proposal, though it is known that Williams 



did appoint a committee to confer with the Equitable Fraternity of 
Union. The establishment of the Middlebury branch and the discus- 
sion over an auxiliary at Union, however, showed a decided drift 
towards greater consolidation. Two years later, 1847, further stimulus 
was given by the creation of a branch society at Amherst and the 
foundation of a group at Hamilton, both of which had come into being 
in part as a result of assistance furnished by Williams. 

In the meantime, Union had broached the idea of consolidation 
once again. In this instance, which took place in June, 1847, Union 
suggested that all of the anti-secret societies should meet at Schenectady 
for the purpose of adopting a uniform badge, motto and constitution. 
To this overture Williams after some discussion agreed and instructed 
its secretary to inform Union of its decision. Communications were 
also to be addressed to Hamilton and Middlebury telling them of the 
forthcoming meeting. For some unknown reason the secretary seems 
to have written only to Middlebury from whom, moreover, no reply 
seems to have been received. As a result of this inefficiency Williams 
took no part in the general meeting which was held at Schenectady in 
June, i847, 32 Williams, however, was present at a Convention held at 
Troy, New York, November 10, 1847. And here again, it was the 
Equitable Fraternity of Union that took the steps which led to the 
calling of this meeting. At this gathering the delegates accepted a 
common constitution and styled themselves members of the Anti- 
Secret Confederation. 

This constitution, the first in the history of Delta Upsilon, violated 
in no sense the ideals of the organizing groups. 33 Certain details, it is 
true, caused some debate, but nothing was allowed to stand in the path 
of consolidation. Hamilton, for example, argued for the insertion of a 
clause denouncing secrecy as being "anti-christian," but waived this in 
the face of opposition from the other societies. Again, decided differ- 
ences of opinion were expressed as to common name and badge. How- 
ever, when it was found that these matters might wreck the fundamental 
purpose of the meeting, they were placed to one side for settlement at 
some later meeting. The Articles of Confederation, as this constitution 
was named, directed the joint efforts of the "Anti-Secret Societies of 
Williams, Union, Amherst, and Hamilton Colleges" and were devised 
"in order to secure greater unity, permanency and efficiency of effort." 

33 See below pp 39-40 for a discussion of the meetings at Troy and Schenectady. 

83 At the Schenectady Convention some type of a constitution seems to have been 
adopted. No copy of this document has been found, for which reason that accepted 
at Troy is listed as the first organic law of the fraternity. 


The framers of this constitution held that secret societies were calcu- 
lated to destroy college harmony and to create distinctions not based 
on merit. "We believe/' so the Articles ran, "that the evils resulting 
from secrecy" can best be suppressed by action combined with princi- 
ple. "We would have no class of our fellow students invested with 
factitious advantages, but would place all upon an equal footing in 
running the race of honorable distinction. The only superiority which 
we acknowledge is the superiority of merit. ... In doing this we arc 
confident that we have at heart the best interests of the institutions to 
which we belong, and that we are directed by the light of experience, 
the suggestion of reason and the dictates of conscience/' 

The actual clauses of the- constitution, which were generously lifted 
from that of the Williams group, amounted to little more than a state- 
ment of the structure and powers of the separate chapters of the Con- 
federation. Provision was made for the election of local officers, the 
admission of persons who "habitually practice strict morality" and who 
did not believe in or were members of a college secret society, and for 
the expulsion of those who might violate the principles of anti-secrecy. 
Attendance at all meetings and the fulfillment of all fraternity duties 
were required of all, who were also to take the following pledge: "You 
affirm upon your honor that the principles of this society, as expressed 
in its Preamble and Constitution accord entirely with your views; and 
you pledge yourself faithfully to adhere to them/' 

It is to be noted that these Articles in no way provided for more 
than a mere Confederation. No general governing body or officers were 
created to direct the life of the association. Local college groups, hav- 
ing denounced secrecy, retained complete independence and sover- 
eignty. The only exception to this was a provision in favor of a "con- 
vention of delegates from the several chapters," and to this convention 
no power was given other than that of amendment. Beyond this rather 
harmless gathering, no superstructure was founded. The various socie- 
ties pledged themselves to no central or federal form of government. 
Theirs was a union of equal sovereign chapters united by one common 
principle and purpose, and grouped under the loosest type of a con- 
stitution, the Articles of Confederation. 

These Articles, however, were entirely abolished by the Albany 
Convention of 1848. In their place a new constitution was adopted 
which amounted, in the main, to a reenactment of the previous organic 
law plus some notable additions. In the first place, instead of a consti- 
tution largely designed for the direction of chapter government, an 
attempt was made towards greater centralization without destroying 










UNION '72 


the idea of confederation. Where the Articles of 1847 read: "This 
Society shall be called the of college," those for 1848 read: 

"This Association shall be called the Anti-Secret Confederation and 
shall consist of the Theta Phi Societies of Williams, Union, Amherst 
and Hamilton." In other words, where the law of 1847 had placed em- 
phasis upon the chapters, here at least was a gesture in the direction 
of a general fraternity. Again, it is of interest to note the name Theta 
Phi. Should this be viewed as a common Greek title for all of the 
chapters? If so, then it reveals a name much earlier than Delta Upsilon. 
In support of this contention, however, no other evidence has been 
brought to light. Consequently, the fact of there having been an earlier 
name common to all the chapters should not be over-emphasized. In 
the second place the Articles of 1848 provided for growth and expan- 
sion by the insertion of a clause that read: "any number of individuals, 
members of colleges, forming themselves into a society and adopting 
our name and constitution may upon application to any member of 
the Confederation, the others assenting, be received into the Confedera- 
tion." Although this clause lacks an enabling device, the meaning is 
clear, namely that a petitioning group might be admitted by vote of 
all the chapters; no action of the convention being required. Admit- 
tance, therefore, might take place at any time. Finally, it should be 
noted that provision was made for the election of convention officers. 
Beyond these changes no material alterations were made. The Consti- 
tution of 1848, therefore, was largely a reissue of the previous docu- 
ment. In view, however, of the shift in emphasis from a local to a na- 
tional point of view, the Articles of 1848 should be considered as our 
second organic law. 

No material changes, if any, took place until 1852. At that time it 
was decided to have conventions every other year. Further, more ade- 
quate machinery was adopted relative to the admission of petitioning 
groups. The procedure which was then accepted called for an investi- 
gation of the petitioning group by a committee appointed by the Con- 
vention President from the nearby chapters. This committee was to 
make a report to each chapter which in turn was to vote for or against 
admission and forward its action to the Fraternity President who was 
to notify the petitioning society of the result. No society was to be 
admitted except by the unanimous consent of all the chapters; no ac- 
tion by the convention being needed. 34 Two years later, however, the 
convention altered this feature so as to allow admission upon a three- 
fourths vote of the chapters. And once again, no action of the conven- 

84 The President referred to was chosen by the Convention for one year. 


tion was required. At the same time provision was made for the elec- 
tion of honorary members by each chapter, provided the principles of 
these men accorded with those of the association. In 1857, this clause 
was removed from the Articles by the delegates assembled at Amherst. 
Other changes also took place at that time, the most important being 
one that called for annual instead of biennial conventions, which had 
been the rule since 1852. In 1858, the convention altered the Articles 
so as to allow the Convention Secretary to receive all requests from 
organizations seeking admission into the Confederation. 35 At this 
gathering it was also agreed that all convention officers excepting the 
secretary were to be chosen from the alumni of the Fraternity. This 
last provision is of interest in that it pointed the way towards a more 
mature concept as to what the Fraternity really was, namely a body of 
alumni and undergraduate members. 

This emphasis upon graduate members was not retained by the 
Convention of 1859. Further, this assembly provided after much debate 
that conventions should be held once in two years, thus going back to 
the practice adopted in 1854. In view of this new procedure it was 
necessary to make provision for the admission of chapters during a 
non-convention year. The former document actually permitted en- 
trance at any time, but the delegates were of the opinion that a more 
definite provision ought to exist. After prolonged debate it was deter- 
mined to allow the three oldest chapters, Williams, Union and Am- 
herst, to admit new chapters; subject, however, to the approval of the 
next convention. This was the first time that the power to accept new 
societies was lodged in the hands of the general assembly and marks a 
definite drift towards greater centralization. It should also be noted 
that since a majority of the chapters constituted a quorum in conven- 
tion, a unanimous vote of all the chapters was not required. At the 
1859 meeting, moreover, considerable discussion took place as to the 
qualifications for membership in each chapter. The constitutions of 
1847 and 1848 had stipulated that no persons could be admitted who 
did not "habitually" practice "strict morality" and who would not 
avow "conscientious and entire opposition to the principle of Secret 
Associations in colleges." Any candidate who measured up to these 
requirements might be voted into a chapter by three-fourths of its 
members, provided the candidate took the required pledge. 30 Now 
Amherst, it appears, desired the elimination of the clause quoted above 

35 This interpretation rests upon the omission of section 2, Article II of the 
former document. 
88 See above p. 34 for this pledge. 


on the ground that it was altogether too strict and because it hindered 
them from obtaining worthy members. Rochester supported this posi- 
tion but Williams took decided exception, declaring great surprise at 
the proposal and stating that it had always had trouble in keeping the 
society "pure even when endeavoring to live up" to the clause in ques- 
tion. Other chapters affirmed that the change would destroy the very 
principles of the Fraternity and would throw the door wide open to 
the secret societies. In the face of this opposition Amherst's proposal 
was voted down. 37 It should be observed, however, that Amherst had 
acted in a sincere manner; had proposed no alteration as to the pledge 
or as to the required three-fourths vote, and upon being defeated 
graciously accepted the decision of the majority. 

No echo of this much debated matter took place at the Colby meet- 
ing in 1861. This gathering, however, did spend much time talking 
over general fraternity problems and ruled that the Articles conferred 
no power upon either the Confederation or the chapters to grant a dis- 
missal to a graduate member. Other affairs, such as annual conven- 
tions, were postponed to the next general meeting on account of the 
small number of chapters present at Colby. 

The Union Convention of 1862 proved to be a most memorable one 
in that it witnessed the withdrawal of the Williams Chapter from the 
Confederation. Williams was allowed to withdraw because she desired 
to, on the ground that the cause of anti-secrecy had been weakened by 
the action of certain chapters in admitting members who did not meet 
the standards required by the association; at least this was what Wil- 
liams charged. 38 In other words, certain chapters possibly Amherst and 
Rochester still adhered to the position they had taken in 1859 in re- 
spect to qualifications for membership in the Fraternity. The position 
taken by these societies was simply that the existing qualifications were 
altogether too strict and prevented the pledging of men who might be 
of great value to the Fraternity. This sentiment was voiced quite loudly 
at Rochester in 1863, notably by the Middlebury delegation. 

The Middlebury Chapter, it seems, introduced through its repre- 
sentatives at this Convention the following resolution which in the 
words of Frank S. Child "reveal the drift of the Confederation and 
therefore are of great historic value": 

87 The Convention voted to allow an honorable dismissal by a chapter to any 
active member in good standing upon a two- thirds vote. The documents for 1847 
and 1848 by implication had required a unanimous vote, as they also had for 

88 See below pp. 47-51 for a more detailed statement. At the 1862 meeting the 
constitution was changed so as to provide for annual conventions. 


Whereas, we the Anti-Secret Society of Middlebury College, have 
found in our experience, that persons in all respects worthy and desir- 
able candidates for admission to our Fraternity are unable to subscribe 
to the last clause of Section i of Article II of our Constitution (which 
reads: 'or who does not avow conscientious and entire opposition to 
the principles of secret societies in college') such persons being, at the 
beginning of their college course, unable to form such an opinion con- 
cerning college secret societies as or there implied: and 

Whereas, we have been subject to injury and failure of valuable 
additions by said clause: and 

Whereas, we honestly believe that the noble purpose of our Con- 
federation will be sufficiently served by the first part of the above- 
mentioned section; "No person shall be admitted a member of this 
Society who does not habitually practice strict morality, who belongs 
to or countenances any College Secret Society," therefore, 

Resolved, That we earnestly request our respected Confederation to 
consider whether the striking out the said clause may not be of vital 
importance to the good cause in which we labor. 

These resolves clearly indicate a more liberal note. And with Williams 
no longer a member to contend against this growing sentiment, the 
Convention of 1863 after some debate adopted the resolutions and 
struck from the Articles that part of the organic law that had served 
so well during the early years of the Confederation. 

The Rochester Convention also provided for the submission to the 
chapters an amendment which read as follows: "This Constitution may 
be amended by a unanimous vote of the delegates present at any con- 
vention, or a sufficient number to constitute a two-thirds majority of 
all the chapters." 39 This proposal ran counter to the existing clause 
which called for a "two-thirds vote of a convention of delegates from 
the several chapters, each chapter having one vote." No action, how- 
ever, was ever taken upon this amendment largely because at the Con- 
vention of 1864 a thorough revision of the Articles took place; so 
thorough indeed that it should be viewed as a new constitution. 

Down to 1864, therefore, the Articles of 1847 and 1848 constituted 
the basic law of the Fraternity. Certain amendments of importance, as 
have been noted, were enacted during these years; all of which char- 
acterized three main tendencies. First, that a steady growth in favor of 
anti-secrecy had taken place in a number of colleges and universities. 
Second, that a decided drift towards greater centralization had shown 
itself in the election of general fraternity officers and above all in the 
clothing of the Convention with certain general and specific governing 

88 Several minor changes were ordered concerning the general officers of the 
Fraternity, all of whom were to be chosen by the convention. 


powers. Finally, that a definite liberal note had been struck by the 
attitude of the Fraternity in the admission of members. 

These various characteristics are clearly shown by a study of the 
conventions that were held from 1847 to l86 3 inclusive. Now the list 
of these meetings as given in the Quinquennial records that the first 
general Fraternity convention was held in November, 1847. And Y et 
this same source contains a copy of a letter from Williams to Hamilton 
which reads in part as follows: 40 

With respect to the convention at Union it was judged very desirable 
both for the advantage which might be expected to accrue from the 
better acquaintance of the members, and for the moral power which 
we should gain from some kind of a union. But owing to some mis- 
understanding between ourselves and the society at Middlebury Col- 
lege, our delegation was not present at the convention which was held 
on the loth of July. We have not heard officially the doings of that 
convention, but from a private letter we understand that they adopted 
the constitution of the society here in the main; if so, then we have a 
common constitution. With respect to a common name we are not 
informed of the convention's action. 

On the basis of this evidence it would appear that the earliest con- 
vention was one held at Schenectady, July 10, 1847. Substantiating 
this proof is an item in the minutes of the Williams Chapter which 
refers to a letter received from "Madison University." In this letter 
there is a statement relative to the Schenectady meeting, though, no 
information is given as to the nature of this gathering. 41 In the light 
of these findings it seems safe to assume that a convention was held at 
Schenectady, July 10, 1847. Williams, as is pointed out above, was not 
present at this gathering, while Hamilton, as yet not founded, was of 
course not represented. The only groups, therefore, that could have 
attended were Union, Amherst and Middlebury. None of our sources 
state definitely who were present at this gathering. In view, however, 
of the fact that a convention was held, and since one can hardly argue 
that the Union Chapter was in itself the entire convention, it seems 
reasonable to state that Union and Amherst, and probably Middle- 
bury, constituted the societies present at this gathering. At this meeting 
some type of a constitution was drafted. Discussion also took place 
relative to a common badge. Beyond this nothing more is known as 
to the activities of this convention. 

40 Quinquennial, op. cit. f p. 100. 

41 What may be meant by "Madison University" is unknown,* maybe it should 
have read "Hamilton," the secretary confusing Madison (Colgate) with Hamilton. 
See Minutes of the Social Fraternity of Williams. 


Knowledge that a meeting had been held and that certain matters 
had been left undecided argued most strongly for another gathering. 
Early in October, therefore, Union wrote to the various societies pro- 
posing a meeting to arrange for a general catalogue of the anti-secret 
groups and to modify the local constitutions in the interest of greater 
uniformity and structure. Hamilton, as has been shown, had declared 
itself in favor of organic consolidation and had intimated that no 
society would be founded on that campus unless such a national organ- 
ization was established. At least this is what Milton Waldo stated in 
1909, although the minutes of the Hamilton Chapter clearly show 
that a Social Fraternity, anti-secret in nature, had been started by July, 
1847. Waldo also stated in 1909 that the convention was held at 
Albany, while the contemporary sources all agree that it was at Troy. 
At this meeting, which assembled November 10, 1847, ^ ae Articles ol 
Confederation, already discussed in this chapter, were adopted. The 
officers of this meeting seem to have been limited to a president and a 
secretary; and of these two only the name of the first is known, that 
being Waldo of the Hamilton Chapter. Although this office can not 
accurately be said to have been the ancestor of the Fraternity's chief 
executive of today, it may be stated that in the list of the Fraternity's 
presidents that of Waldo's should be placed first. 42 

In accordance with the Articles of 1847 steps were taken in the 
spring of the following year for another general meeting. Corre- 
spondence ensued between the chapters as to the date and as to 
whether it would be possible to adopt a common name and badge. 
In consequence of these efforts delegates from Williams, Union, 
Amherst and Hamilton, assembled at the Delevan House in Albany, 
on either May 3 or 4, 1848. It was evident to all that the Troy consti- 
tution needed considerable alteration and to this task the members, as 
has been shown, devoted much time and labor. Discussion also took 
place as to a name and badge, but so sharp were the differences over 
these matters that it was decided to leave them for consideration to a 
later meeting. 

Meetings, therefore, had taken place in both 1847 and 1848, a 
precedent which developed into the practice of holding annual con- 
ventions. Yearly gatherings, however, were not always held. At times, 
as has been shown, meetings were held every other year, though annual 
sessions seem to have been far more general. Further, as may be seen 
from the lists of the conventions, the gathering arranged for 1856 

42 Quarterly, XXVIII^. It may be that Waldo was thinking of the meeting of 
1848 which was held at Albany. 


actually took place in 1857, while the meeting in 1862 was understood 
to be "an extra" convention. With the exception of the 1849 gathering, 
more or less complete records are available and from these one may 
note the following material. 

Williams, it appears, was in attendance at every convention except 
that of July, 1847, down to her withdrawal in 1862. Union had dele- 
gates at all of the meetings except for 1857, 1858, and 1861. Hamilton, 
on the other hand, was present at every gathering except that for July, 
1847; while Amherst had representatives at every session up to 1861. 
Western Reserve was not present at any of the conventions with the 
possible exception of that of 1851. Rochester was represented from 
1854 to 1863 except for the year 1861; Colby, from 1857 to 1863; 
Middlebury for July, 1847 and for every other from 1857; Rutgers, for 
the sessions from 1859; while Bowdoin, and Washington and Jefferson 
were present only at the 1859 and 1862 meetings respectively. It is 
evident that several of the last named chapters could not have attended 
the earlier conventions for the simple reason that they were not then 
members of the Confederation. 

Turning from the list of the chapters present to the number of 
delegates in attendance, it is to be noted that the number varied from 
as low as five in 1861 to as high as fourteen in 1862, with two delegates 
from each chapter being the most common unit of representation. 
From a study of the names of these delegates, it is apparent that the 
four senior chapters played the more important role and thanks to 
their efforts expansion took place into the above-mentioned colleges. 
Middlebury, on the other hand, expire^ sometime late in 1847, while 
a similar fate attended the society at Wesleyan which operated from 
the fall of 1850 to the early summer of 1852. In the meantime, chapters 
were planted at Vermont and Western Reserve, the former withdraw- 
ing from the Confederation in 1854, the latter becoming inactive three 
years later. Colby and Rochester were admitted in 1852 and 1853, with 
Middlebury coming back to life in May, 1857. Bowdoin and Rutgers 
were voted charters in July, 1859, as was Washington and Jefferson 
in 1862. Of these additions only Rochester, Colby and Rutgers could 
be classed as alert and aggressive groups in 1863, though the chapter 
roll in that year showed societies with Union and Hamilton ranking as 
senior chapters. 

For a time there was a prospect that a group would be established 
at Hobart College. Early in 1856 anti-secret sentiment appeared on 
that campus news of which seems to have reached Williams. Williams 
showed decided interest in Hobart as may be seen from an examination 


of her records. In one instance there is a statement to "the chapter 
recently formed at Hobart," while in another there is a reference to 
certain letters from the "brethren at Rochester . . . Amherst and 
Hobart." These entries, however, should not be interpreted to mean 
that Hobart had become a member of the Confederation, as the Articles 
definitely provided a method of admission which at no time seems to 
have been followed in respect to Hobart. Williams' interest, however, 
was responsible for an investigation of the society, an investigation, 
moreover, which may have gained from that chapter her consent to the 
founding of a chapter at Hobart. It is known that correspondence 
between the two groups took place, though no definite knowledge as 
to the nature of these communications exists. So convinced was 
Williams that Hobart would be acceptable to the other chapters that 
in editing the general catalogue of the Confederation for 1856, she 
included within the chapter roll, the Equitable Fraternity of Hobart 
College, with classes as late as 1860. When Herbert W. Congdon 
encountered this interesting data in January, 1921, he wrote directly 
to the Librarian of Hobart College for information. In reply he heard 
that the first issue of the Hobart's student annual, Echo of the Seneca, 
which was published in June, 1858, contained among the list o 
fraternities, the Anti-Secret Society, an Equitable Fraternity. This 
annual stated that the society had been founded at Hobart in 1856 
and that its members included Jefferson M. Fox and F. J. O'Brien of 
the class of 1859, and John Alabaster, Octavious Applegate, Charles 
L. Bering, John Easton and George A. Hayunga of the class of 1860. 
Similar information appeared in the 1859 edition of the Echo of the 
Seneca. These names are all listed in the catalogue of the Anti-Secret 
Confederation for 1856 together with the names of Frank Angcvine, 
T. M. Ballintine, J. C. O'Brien, Burnet Estes, all of the class of 1856; 
John M. Fulton, Hazard Potter, William Reiterman, Fayette Royce, 
Nathan Teall, of the class of i857. 43 

It is evident, therefore, that opinion at Hobart and at Williams 
recognized the existence of the Equitable Fraternity. On the other 
hand some of the chapters were not so enthusiastic about the affair as 
was Williams. Investigation on their part revealed that the Hobart 
men on their "own admission" were "immoral"; for this reason the 
Convention of 1859 denied a charter to the Hobart group. The value 
of this digression consists not so much in showing that there was a peti- 
tioning society at Hobart but rather in the method adopted by the 

43 H. W. Congdon to M. H. Turk, Jan. 26, 28, 1921, M. H. Turk to Congdon, 
Jan. 25, 1921. 


members of the Confederation in dealing with the matter. An inquiry, 
in short, showed that this group did not measure up to the standards of 
the Fraternity; consequently, they were not accepted as a chapter of the 
Confederation even though Hobart for a time believed that it was 
within the Fraternity on account of the favorable attitude taken by 

In addition to these successful and unsuccessful ventures in expan- 
sion, the Conventions undertook, as has been seen, a development of 
the Articles in the interest of greater centralization. A series of cata- 
logues, moreover, containing a list of the chapters and their members 
were issued at various times and in 1863 the Convention voted to 
publish a song-book under the direction of the Rochester Chapter. 
Some discussion also took place at these meetings relative to a "peri- 
odical," although for the time being nothing was accomplished. At 
some of the conventions, orations and addresses were given setting 
forth the aims, purposes and history of the Fraternity. Rules were also 
laid down as to the order of business at these gatherings, and a minute 
book was purchased to record the transactions of the delegates. Pro- 
vision was made for greater internal development by the creation of 
a so-called "prudential committee" whose duty was to watch over the 
life and conduct of each chapter. Increased cooperation between the 
various societies was furthered by the issuing of membership certificates, 
by providing for active inter-chapter correspondence, by inquiries into 
the cause of non-attendance at conventions and by yearly reports from 
each chapter. These reports were to be delivered on the convention 
floor and are of especial interest in that they reflect the general tenor 
of chapter life. A large number of resolutions were also passed empha- 
sizing the principles of anti-secrecy and affirming devotion to the 
Confederation. In respect to secret societies, other than those with a 
permanent organization, each chapter was allowed to use its own dis- 
cretion as to conduct and relation. Whether this referred to local secret 
groups or to professional fraternities like Phi Beta Kappa or the 
Masonic order, is not clear from the evidence available; though it 
seems reasonable to assume that the delegates had the latter rather 
than the former in mind. The conventions also placed considerable 
stress on the idea that the Fraternity was a brotherhood of both under- 
graduates and graduates and urged the latter to attend both the 
national and local meetings. Finally, it should be noted that at these 
conventions, the time and place of each subsequent meeting was 
generally fixed, with university or college towns being favored in most 
cases. The meeting for 1859, for example, was held at Springfield, 


Massachusetts. In speaking o this gathering a local paper reported, 
"It is a noticeable fact that the constitution of this association allows 
none to be received as members who are not in the practice o strict 
morality, which is more than can be said of the best college societies." 44 

Looking at the activities of these meetings from the present point 
of view, one is impressed by the earnestness and sincerity demonstrated 
by the delegates. An honest attempt was being made to cement the 
association into a permanent and worthwhile organization. Unfortu- 
nately, for the historian, these facts seemed so evident to the actors of 
that date, that no complete record has been left for us of today. To 
them, other matters assumed greater importance, and of these our 
sources have more to tell, among which should be noted the question 
of a common name, motto and badge. 

"The Williams Social Fraternity of 1834 felt no need for a common 
badge. . . . Principles, without any outward symbols, bound the hearts 
of our Fraternity's earliest members in the strongest friendship." 45 
The wearing of a badge, moreover, smacked strongly of secrecy and 
was viewed by college authorities of that day as dangerous to the aims 
and ideals of their institutions. Within a few years, however, certain 
members of the Williams group argued that the wearing of a badge 
representing opposition to secrecy could not be considered in hostile 
light by either the Fraternity or college. Further, such an emblem 
would bring about a greater feeling of loyalty among the members of 
the Social Fraternity. These views seem to have been expressed as early 
as 1837 with the result that the society adopted a square golden key as 
the badge of the Fraternity. On one side of this key were the words 
"Social Fraternity," and on the other the motto Qvdev A^Xo^. 
Within a few years, however, voices were raised in opposition to this 
key, chiefly by the undergraduates; the alumni largely supporting the 
badge they had worn while in college. Some sentiment existed in favor 
of a badge made in the form of a harp, and in this one may note the 
influence of the Middlebury group, whose badge was a harp. These 
various views finally resulted, in 1847, * n the adoption of a new badge 
in the form of a pin. This pin bore the letters S. F., which stood for 
the Social Fraternity. 

In the meantime, Middlebury had adopted a harp as its badge. 
Amherst patterned its emblem along similar lines bearing the letters 

"Springfield Republican, July 9, 1859; see also H. C. Haskell to Rutgers, Tune 10 
1859* J 

the article by J. A. Adair in the quinquennial, op. cit. f pp. 96-106 from 
which much had been borrowed. 


Delta Sigma, the date 1847 and the name of the owner. A decade 
earlier, Union had accepted a badge bearing the letters O. A., but in 
1847 adopted a key-badge somewhat different in style than that recently 
voted by Williams. Union had favored the Williams pin and would 
have endorsed it but for the fact that a local secret society at Union 
had a pin very much like that worn at Williams. Hamilton about the 
same time adopted the old Williams key. On the eve of the Troy 
Convention, therefore, two of the five anti-secret groups had harps, 
two had pins, while another had a key. Each one of these societies 
appear to have been rather enthusiastic about its own badge, a fact 
which Williams believed would make it very difficult to preserve "the 
same external representation of our principles." In this opinion, 
Williams was quite correct as the Troy gathering adjourned without 
reaching any conclusion as to a common badge. 

Considerable discussion relative to a badge took place among the 
several groups in anticipation of the next convention. Hamilton, after 
some debate, instructed its delegate to favor the harp as a common 
badge; Amherst and Williams did not see fit to bind their representa- 
tives; Union went on record as favoring a harp; while Middlebury took 
no action, this group having ceased to exist by this time. Both types, 
harp and key, were discussed at great length at the 1848 Convention 
but no decision could be reached. Reports of this meeting, however, 
were carried back to the local societies who immediately made it the 
topic of primary debate and discussion. Considerable correspondence 
also seems to have taken place between the four chapters in which the 
arguments for and against the various badges were presented in much 
detail. Williams tried to find a way out of the tangle by submitting a 
new model of a key; but the other groups would have none of it. 
Whereupon, Williams voted, June 27, 1848, sixty-six to six in favor of 
a pin known as the Theta Phi pin. Information concerning this deci- 
sion was then sent on to Hamilton, but this organization rejected this 
pin as well as certain models that Amherst and Union had submitted, 
and stood out for the adoption of a key. Early in October, 1848, 
Hamilton sought to bring about a compromise by proposing "an 
English letter badge." In other words this chapter opposed any badge 
bearing Greek letters on the ground that such a badge was too much 
like the emblems of the secret societies. Amherst, at the same time, 
expressed a strong preference for the Theta Phi pin, though it an- 
nounced a willingness to abide by the action of the convention. Union, 
on the other hand, leaned towards a key. 

In view of these differing views, it was agreed by all that each society 


should express its preferences and make known the result to each 
other. In this way, it was hoped, that some common ground might be 
reached. Hamilton, it seems, remained true to her position which 
favored an English letter badge, but declared that the Theta Phi pin 
was the least objectionable of all the others proposed. Union stood 
out for Delta Sigma with Delta Psi as a second choice. Amherst 
reported that she was willing to accept the findings of the convention, 
while Williams declared in favor of Delta Psi, with Theta Phi and 
Delta Sigma as second and third choices. In the face of these conflict- 
ing reports it was evident that no common ground had been reached. 

In order to cut this knot, Isaac G. Ogden of Williams proposed to 
the other groups that so far as his chapter was concerned, Delta Psi 
and Delta Sigma were out of the question as both of these badges had 
been found worn by certain secret fraternity men. Now Ogden was 
chairman of the badge committee and this statement, together with 
the expressed direction that each group should make a decision between 
Theta Phi and the Union key, was bound to hurry action. The 
response was a promise from each society to abide by the action of the 
majority which was expressed at Albany in May, 1849 in favor of the 
Union key. This badge was somewhat similar to the old golden key of 
Williams and bore the letters A. S. C. In adopting this key, therefore, 
the chapters at the same time accepted as their common name the 
title Anti-Secret Confederation, a name that was used until i864. 4C 
Before this date, however, the Delta Psi Fraternity of Vermont had 
entered the Confederation and at the 1852 Convention had stood out 
for a retention of its own local badge. The other chapters while 
regretting this position were willing for the sake of unity to amend the 
Articles so as to allow Vermont to keep its badge until such time as it 
might vote to adopt the key of the Confederation. 

During the next four years following the Convention of 1852 no 
change took place in the form of the badge, although voices were 
raised now and then in favor of a pin. At the 1857 gathering, Alvin 
Baker of Hamilton brought the matter before the delegates by moving 
the adoption of a pin. Much debate followed, during the course of 
which it was voted that each chapter would abide by the ultimate 
decision of the convention. Baker's motion was then put with the 
result that Amherst, Hamilton, Rochester and Middlebury voted for 
the pin, while Williams and Colby voted against it. The convention 
having agreed to a pin, it now remained to decide upon the exact form 

49 The revisions of the Articles in 1851 and 1853 recognized the existence o a 
common name and badge. 


and so a committee was appointed to bring before the assembly several 
different models. This committee reported in favor of the Middlebury 
badge but a motion to adopt it was laid on the table. Later in the 
same session the matter was taken up again at which time Colby 
declared that it could not accept the Middlebury pin as it was too 
much like the badge of an "odious" society on their campus. Other 
views were expressed with the result that the entire affair was referred 
to another committee which was to report at the next convention. 
In the meantime the key was to remain as the official badge of the 

The following year, 1858, Edward P. Gardner of Amherst, as chair- 
man of the badge committee, introduced the question at the conven- 
tion. At first he tried to obtain a unanimous vote to the effect that 
each chapter would accept the decision of the majority. Williams, 
however, objected to this; whereupon, Gardner presented a majority 
report in favor of a pin formed of the Greek letters Delta and Upsilon. 
Painter of Williams, also of the committee, then followed with a 
minority report which favored a key. Both of these reports were 
accepted, but the discussion which followed showed dearly that senti- 
ment favored the adoption of the Delta Upsilon pin. Finally on the 
evening of May 13, 1858, the Delta Upsilon pin, together with the 
motto, "Justice our Foundation," was adopted by the convention. 
Williams voted for this pin but reserved the right to use the key as long 
as her members desired. To have objected to Williams' reservation 
would have been unwise after that chapter had given its consent to 
the new pin. Further, there was precedent for this exception in the 
courtesy that had been accorded Vermont in 1852. The action, more- 
over, of the Williams delegates was warmly endorsed by that chapter 
in July, 1848. Whether Williams changed its position before its with- 
drawal from the Confederation is not known. Later, however, when 
Delta Upsilon was reestablished at Williams, the chapter accepted the 
existing pin and motto of the Fraternity. 

The prolonged dispute that had arisen over the nature of the badge 
and name can hardly be advanced as a reason for Williams' withdrawal 
from the Confederation. There is not the slightest bit of evidence in 
any of the sources that the Mother Chapter ever harbored any ill-will 
over the adoption of the general pin in 1858. On the other hand there 
is convincing proof that the group was more than displeased with the 
way fraternity policy and sentiment was moving. In brief, Williams 
had become alarmed over the attitude and practice of some of the 
chapters in respect to secrecy. Not that any of these groups argued 


for a change in the fundamental tenet of the Confederation, namely 
anti-secrecy, but rather that they desired a more liberal interpretation 
of the organic law. Amherst's proposal in 1859 that the existing quali- 
fications for membership be altered may be cited as an example of 
what Williams disliked. Coming as it did immediately after the Con- 
vention of 1858, at which time considerable discussion had taken place 
as to the tactics of some of the chapters in respect to campus activities, 
Williams became convinced that a decided drift away from the earlier 
practices of the Confederation was in process. Specifically, Williams 
contended that in some cases chapter meetings had become private 
affairs; a procedure which was altogether too much like the policy of 
the secret societies to be tolerated. Again, it charged that some of the 
chapters were electioneering for members in a manner that was con- 
trary to the ideals of the Fraternity and that it was quite wrong for 
any chapter to form counter coalitions to defeat the efforts of the secret 
fraternities. Although explanations were offered and in some cases 
frank denials of these charges were made, Williams refused to be 
convinced that everything was as it should be. When practices of these 
types appeared at Williams, the chapter rectified the matter at once. 
Consequently, that society could see no reason why her sister organiza- 
tions could not be as circumspect in observing both the spirit and the 
letter of the constitution. 

Inter-chapter correspondence only served to bolster up Williams in 
the righteousness of her position. Vocal protests were raised at her 
chapter meetings against the action of other societies with the result 
that in due time the suggestion was openly made that Williams should 
sever her connections with the Confederation. Ultimately on June 11, 
1861 a motion was passed to the effect that the chapter should ask for 
a dismissal from the Confederation. Shortly thereafter a circular letter 
was addressed to all of the chapters in which Williams outlined her 
position. In view of the importance that was attached to the event 
then and now, it may not be amiss to quote the letter in its entirety. 
It reads as follows: 47 

The Williams Chapter of the Anti-Secret Confederation has always 
held some principles which it considers important and essential, but 
which are disregarded by several of the chapters. 

It believes that no organization is needed for the cultivation of Social 
qualities, and that the highest social state of any community is secured 
by the free and friendly intercourse of man with man. 

It believes that it is wrong to election for members. 

a T. E. Brastow, Geo. G. Smith, Jno. H. Goodhue to Rutgers, July 16, 1861. 


It believes that those who do not sincerely sympathize with these 
objects of this Society, and those whose principles are not strong enough 
to lead them to vigorously oppose Secret Societies, are not fit candi- 
dates for our society. 

It believes that it is wrong under any circumstances to form counter 
coalitions to oppose the machinations of Secret Societies. 

It believes in sustaining only the simplest 8c most unostentatious 
organization which will subserve the great object at which we aim, 
the exhibition of the Evils of Secret Fraternities. 

Holding these principles to be essential, we have become convinced 
that this society, (or Chapter) while it derives no benefit from its con- 
nection with the Confederation, is placed before the Secret Societies of 
this College in a wrong light by the violations of our principles in other 
Chapters of the Confederation. 

It can bear this reproach no longer. Having exerted our utmost 
influence to reform the Confederation, to no purpose, we are deter- 
mined to dissolve our connection with it. We are, therefore, authorized 
to address this circular letter to each chapter requesting a dismission. 

One can easily imagine the consternation that this communication 
caused throughout the Fraternity. Replies were immediately forwarded, 
and while we are not informed as to their content, it is known that 
Williams refused to alter her stand. This is evidenced in a letter from 
Williams to Rutgers in which it is stated that the circular letter had 
"met with expostulations from all, and led to some statements of what 
practices some chapters indulged. Of course we have no desire to be 
out of the Confederation which is true to the principles on which it 
was organized. We do not think all the chapters have departed from 
the faith. Nor have we hardly faith to believe the chapters which 
indulge in secret society practices will give them up because we have 
urged this upon them without avail. So that, as we are not going to 
act rashly, we have no course left us but to wait until the meeting of 
the Confederation in May." 48 

The Fraternity assembled in convention at Schenectady, May 14, 
1862. Immediately after the roll call the attention of the delegates was 
directed to the request of the Williams chapter for a dismissal from 
the Fraternity, Upon being asked why his chapter desired to withdraw, 
William A. James replied that Williams' position had been very clearly 
stated in her recent letter to the chapters. Some of the delegates wished 
to have the affair delayed, but Williams insisted upon an answer. 
Accordingly, the convention went into a committee of the whole and 
debated the matter for over three hours. As to the exact nature of this 
debate we are not informed as the only source available is the report 

48 W. A. James to Rutgers, Nov. 26, 1861. 


rendered by James to his chapter. In this report James stated that he 
declared that "the general reason why this society wished to be 
released . . . was that we could, disconnected from the Confederation, 
best promote the Anti-Secret cause, since we found that it had already 
crippled our influence as we had been obliged to take the blame for 
things done by other chapters of the Confederation in full fellowship 
with us. The delegates were unwilling on this view of the matter to 
accede to our desire, and so it was necessary to state to them directly 
that from our correspondence we were assured that some chapters had 
violated the Constitution by the manner they had conducted some of 
their elections, forming coalitions and holding the balance of power, 
and according to their own statements, electing men to office of inferior 
merit. When this was stated some in injured innocence declared their 
chapters had not transgressed and all desired the proofs. Thereupon 
the correspondence was produced and read, when some explanations 
were made which tended to exculpate in some measure the chapters 
implicated, but in the opinion of the delegate from this society, two 
or three of the societies did not make their innocence appear." 40 

After further debate the Convention voted seven for and three 
against granting Williams a dismissal with the understanding, how- 
ever, that the release was granted because Williams wanted it and not 
because there was any merit in the charges which Williams had made. 50 
Which chapters voted against this motion is not known. It is possible 
that Rochester was one as this society is known to have stated in a 
letter to Rutgers that she could not give her consent to Williams' 
request. Rochester took the ground that the attitude taken by the 
Mother society in respect to secrecy was the same that she had adhered 
to and practiced. 51 Indeed it is likely that most of the chapters believed 
that they were loyal to the ideals and objectives of the Fraternity 
and could not understand why Williams found fault with them. While 
it must be admitted that some of the groups were more liberal in their 
interpretation of the organic law and were conducting themselves in 
some cases more as a social than an anti-secret fraternity, the fact 
remains that the differences between Williams and the others were 
fundamentally detailed in nature and indicative of no sharp divergency 
of opinion or policy. 

On the other hand, the Williams men seem honestly to have been 

40 Minutes of the Social Fraternity of Williams, May 27, 1862, Records of the 
Conventions of Delta Upsilon, 1862. 

50 Records of the Conventions of Delta Upsilon, 1862, 

51 Rochester to Rutgers, Oct. 7, 1861. 






Drai>nh)R A Culler, Man/or^, "09 
Prom tlit (on*entton Daily Tnangli 




of the opinion that the Confederation was not living up to its standards 
and principles. Campus gossip, evidently, had it that the Anti-Secret 
Fraternity had seen its best day. Neutral as well as secret society men 
proclaimed the fact and pointed to the practices of the various chapters 
as proof of their statement. Touched to the quick by these assertions, 
which upon investigation they believed to be true, the members of the 
Mother Chapter came to the conclusion that if anti-secrecy was to 
survive, all connection with the Confederation must end. Williams 
very frankly admitted that Rutgers and several other of the chapters 
were not guilty of any serious departure from the Articles. This state- 
ment is borne out by the report given by James to his chapter on 
his return from the Convention. In this report James declared that 
"the cause of anti-secrecy in the different chapters was for the most 
part in the hands of noble and worthy men." 52 In spite of this, Williams 
elected to part company with an association which she had helped to 
start some twenty-eight years before. Viewing the entire problem from 
the point of view of today, one is forced to admit that local gossip, 
opinion and reputation blinded the Williams Chapter to the realities 
of the situation; namely, that anti-secrecy could best be promoted by a 
national rather than by a local organization. A national organization, 
moreover, that had kept abreast of the times and which did not care 
to bind and fetter itself against further expansion by a too rigid 
interpretation of the ideals of 1834. In other words William viewed 
the situation in 1862 from a local rather than from a national angle 
and desired a continuation of a policy that was too much like the past 
for the other societies within the Confederation to accept. 
82 Minutes of the Social Fraternity of Williams, May 27, 1862. 

Chapter IV 


HE Convention of 1864, which met at Middlebury March 9 and 10, 
was one of the most important meetings in the entire history of the 
Fraternity. 53 On the eve of this epoch-making convention Delta Upsilon 
numbered but six chapters. Williams, Union, Amherst had ceased to 
exist as had also the chapters at Western Reserve, Wesleyan and 
Bowdoin. The future seemed none too promising. Contemporary evi- 
dence records that a feeling of great uncertainty existed among the 
remaining chapters. The situation was thoroughly appreciated by the 
President of the Confederation, Darius C. Sackett of the Hamilton 
Chapter. In a letter to Rutgers, Sackett stated "I have not heard from 
but two or three chapters and they seem a little uncertain whether they 
can be represented or not at that time. Now if we do not have a 
quorum this time, I think our existence as a Confederation may better 
cease; for it will be better for each chapter to exist independently than 
to be a dead weight upon each other. Standing among the first chapters 
in the Confederation, we certainly need your influence 8c advice in 
our next convention." A letter somewhat similar in tone was received 
by Rutgers from Charles E. Prentiss, Secretary of the Confederation 
and member of the Middlebury Chapter. Prentiss also added "You 
are probably aware that the chief business to be considered by the 
convention will be the amendment and revision of the Constitution 
and that an effort will be made to strengthen the bonds of brotherhood 
in the whole fraternity. I am authorized by the Pres. of the Confedera- 
tion to suggest to each chapter in view of the important business to be 

53 The manuscript report of this convention as given in the Records of the 
Conventions of Delta Upsilon gives these dates. The Quinquennial, op. cit. f p. 16, 
lists May 9 and 10, which clearly is an error by the editor. 


brought before the fraternity the necessity of being represented by a 
delegate with full power/' 54 

Whether Rutgers replied is not established as there is no reference 
to either the receipt of these letters or of an answer to them in the 
minutes of that chapter. In any event it must have been with grave 
concern that the delegates from Middlebury, Hamilton and Rochester 
gathered at Middlebury on the morning of March 9. A quorum not 
being present the convention voted to adjourn until the afternoon 
when it was hoped some other chapter would make its appearance. 
There were but three possibilities, Colby, Rutgers and Washington 
and Jefferson. Of these Colby could hardly have been expected by 
reason of the recent decline that had set in in that chapter, while 
distance probably would keep Washington and Jefferson away. Every- 
thing rested on Rutgers which had elected a delegate early in Febru- 
ary. 65 By the early afternoon of March 9, Thomas W. Jones of that 
chapter made his appearance and the convention proceeded to its 
business. Had Rutgers been absent it is likely that the assembly would 
have broken up in which case the Confederation might have been 
destroyed. Too much emphasis, therefore, can not be placed upon the 
significance of this convention. 

This importance is greatly enhanced upon a review of the accom- 
plishments of this gathering. The delegates who came to this meeting 
appeared as representatives of an Anti-Secret Confederation; they left 
it as members of the Delta Upsilon Fraternity. The achievement was 
most remarkable as only four of the chapters were in attendance and 
as the fortunes of the Confederation had fallen to a new low level. 
What these delegates lacked in number they more than made up for 
in spirit and enthusiasm. Moreover, the time was ripe for a change. 
Older ideas and attitudes were giving way to a newer and broader 
point of view. A demand for greater centralization had demonstrated 
itself and a movement was on foot which called for a more liberal 
pronouncement. This feeling was admirably disclosed at the Middle- 
bury Convention where a committee representative of all the chapters 
present was appointed to consider and report on the question of 
general constitutional revision. The report which Lucius B. Parmele, 
chairman of the committee, rendered is so interesting that it deserves 
quotation in full: 56 

M D. C. Sackett to Rutgers, Feb. 29, 1864, and C. E. Prentiss to Rutgers, Feb. 20, 

K Minutes of the Rutgers Chapter, Feb. 4, 1864. 
M Records of the Conventions of Delta Upsilon Fraternity, 1864. 


The Committee on the Revision of the Constitution beg leave to 
report that they have attended to the duty assigned them and recom- 
mend the adoption of a 'Constitution of the Delta Upsilon Fraternity' 
to take the place of the present 'Articles of Confederation and Pre- 
amble and Constitution/ Mr. Prentiss of Middlebury Chapter had 
prepared a Constitution which with some few amendments in the 
Committee is presented herewith for the action of the Convention. 

After some discussion which led to the passing of several amendments, 
the constitution was adopted. Following this the convention unani- 
mously voted to repeal the Articles of Confederation as well as all 
"laws, ordinances and acts" adopted by any convention or chapter 
under the Confederation that conflicted with the new constitution. 
Copies of this document were to be sent to the various chapters as soon 
as possible. 

The Preamble of this constitution followed in part the organic law 
adopted in 1859, which in turn had reflected previous constitutions. 
Secret societies were condemned on the ground that they destroyed the 
harmony of college life, created false distinctions and led to strife and 
discord. These evils could best be resisted, so it was stated, and the 
great objects of equality, fraternity and morality, best secured, by 
organized effort. For these purposes as well as for the diffusion of 
liberal principles and for the promotion of mental, social and moral 
gain, the various anti-secret groups of Hamilton, Colby, Rochester, 
Middlebury, Rutgers and Jefferson Colleges formed the association of 
Delta Upsilon. In so doing these societies believed that they were act- 
ing for the welfare of their institutions and that they were being 
guided by truth, reason and experience. It should be noted that in this 
Preamble there is sounded a definite anti-secret note as well as a 
determination to carry on the work which had been started at an 
earlier date. 

Turning to the constitution itself, one notes that it consisted of 
eight articles, the first of which merely recited the name of the Frater- 
nity. Provision also existed for naming the component groups as 
chapters with the title of the college serving for purposes of distinction. 
Article II concerned the qualifications for membership. Any person 
who practiced strict morality and who did not belong to or favor a 
college secret society might become a member, provided that three- 
fourths of the active members of a chapter had passed upon the candi- 
date at a regular meeting. A pledge was required of each novice at the 
time of initiation. This pledge bound every member to a strict 
adherence to the constitution and the rules of the Fraternity, and 


to pursue a brotherly attitude towards all fellow members. Upon 
leaving college each person became a graduate member of the Frater- 
nity, while each chapter was granted the right of electing persons to 
honorary membership. 57 Finally, provision existed in this article for 
the expulsion, suspension or honorable dismissal of any member of 
Delta Upsilon. Article III enumerated the names and duties of the 
chapter officers, while the following article referred to the national 
officers. There was to be a national president, vice-president, and 
secretary, each being elected by a majority vote of a regular convention 
for the period of one year. The president was to issue the call for all 
conventions at least three weeks previous to a meeting, preside at all 
national gatherings, report any constitutional change or fraternity 
ruling to the chapters and act as a general executive at all times. The 
secretary was to keep the record of all conventions and forward a copy 
to each chapter. In addition he was to act as the national treasurer. 58 
Article V covered the question of national conventions. These 
assemblies were to be held annually at such a time and place as the 
preceding convention had voted. Special meetings might be called by 
the president either on his own initiative or upon the request of a 
chapter, A convention was defined as a meeting of chapter delegates 
each of whom was to be properly certified by the local officers. Each 
representative had one vote except when the roll call of the chapters 
was asked for, in which event a chapter had but one vote. Delegates 
from a majority of the chapters constituted a quorum and these 
members might make any rules for the conduct of the meeting pro- 
vided these regulations did not conflict with the organic law of the 
Fraternity. 69 The admission of new chapters was lodged in the con- 
vention. All groups desiring admission were to direct their requests 
to the president who was to submit them to the delegates of the next 
convention. During the interim between two conventions, the president 
might refer any petition to the three oldest chapters who might pass 
favorably upon such provided their action was endorsed by the suc- 
ceeding convention. A unanimous vote of the convention was required 
and since a majority of the chapters constituted a quorum, complete 

" The provision for honorary members was a change over the past order. 

88 The chapter officers, elected for such time as each group might wish and by 
majority vote at any chapter meeting, were president, vice-president, corresponding 
secretary and treasurer. The recording secretary had to be elected for at least a 
year; other officers might be chosen if desired. 

59 It is believed that this was the first time a provision of this type was adopted. 
All acts of the convention were to have equal standing with the constitution, pro- 
vided there was no conflict between the two. 


approval by all of the chapters was not necessary. In adopting these 
rules, the Middlebury gathering did not depart from past procedure 
to any great extent. Admission of new chapters still lay with the con- 
vention which was empowered to receive petitioning societies upon a 
unanimous vote. Further, there was nothing in the new constitution 
relative to an investigation of a petitioning body, which in theory had 
been the case, though probably not the practice, since 1852. There 
was, however, provision for the installation of new chapters which 
heretofore had not been the rule. 60 In the future a committee 
appointed by the president, was to visit the society in question, 
administer the pledge and report the fact in writing to all of the 

Considerable effort was made by the framers of the organic law of 
1864 to keep each chapter conscious of the fact that it belonged to a 
national organization. To achieve this end, provision was made for 
the publication of a triennial catalogue by the senior chapter. This 
catalogue included a copy of the constitution and a directory of all 
members of the Fraternity. Again, a common badge and insignia made 
it possible for all members to know one another. The constitution 
also required each chapter to notify the others of the death, suspension, 
expulsion or honorary dismissal of any member. Inter-chapter relations 
were to be stimulated by letters which were to be written at least once 
a year. Further, the constitution of 1864 laid the foundation for chapter 
constitutions, provided these did not conflict with the fundamental 
law of the Fraternity. Finally, each chapter was allowed to offer amend- 
ments to the constitution either at a convention or by correspondence 
in the interim between two meetings. A two-thirds vote of all of the 
chapters was needed for the adoption of all amendments. 

Our chief source of information for the development of the consti- 
tution has been the manuscript record of the minutes of the convention 
starting in 1855. Unfortunately this record stops with the proceedings 
of 1864 and what is more disappointing is the fact that there are no 
complete sources for national meetings for the next six years. Hence 
our knowledge of any constitutional change for this period is based 
upon rather scanty material. The general Fraternity published cata- 
logues in 1867 and 1870, both of which contain copies of the constitu- 
tion, and on the basis of these and one or two other scattered records 

00 Middlebury, Hamilton, Amherst, Williams and Union had organized them- 
selves and as such founded the Confederation. When Middlebury was revived m 
1856, Amherst conducted the installation. 


certain conclusions may be drawn. 61 Relatively few changes seem to 
have been made. A chaplain and treasurer seem to have been added 
to the list of national officers, though their duties were not defined. 
Each chapter that was unable to attend a convention was required to 
direct a letter to the Fraternity Secretary to be read by him at the 
opening session. Again, it should be noted that in 1868 the constitution 
was altered so as to provide for the publication of a semi-annual to be 
known as Our Record* 2 Finally, in 1870 the convention unanimously 
adopted the following resolution: 

Resolved, That the chief object of the Delta Upsilon Fraternity is, 
the intellectual and social culture, the moral advancement of its mem- 
bers, and the encouragement and preservation of brotherly feeling and 
assistance between College students, whose principles and sympathies 
are the same, and 

That its distinctive features are opposition, not to the individual 
members of secret fraternities but to the evil influences of these organ- 
izations so far as manifested in the various relations of College life. 

Although this resolution should not be viewed as altering the letter of 
the constitution, the fact remains that it represents an attitude of 
mind towards the secret fraternities which is significant in the develop- 
ment of the constitution. 63 

In other words a more liberal opinion was expressing itself in refer- 
ence to secret societies. Not that the fraternity looked with favor upon 
these organizations, but that vocal opposition was becoming increas- 
ingly less frequent. Formal expression of this attitude appeared at the 
Amherst Convention of 1873. At this gathering the Preamble of the 
constitution underwent considerable change. As far back as 1847 the 
Fraternity in its organic law had condemned secret societies in no 
uncertain terms. Each revision, even including that of 1864, had con- 
tinued this anti-secret note. As an illustration of this attitude it may 
not be amiss to quote the Preamble to the constitution as it stood prior 
to the national meeting of 1873. In this document one reads: 

Believing that Secret Societies are calculated to destroy the harmony 
of College, to create distinctions not founded on merit, to produce 
strife and animosity, we feel called upon to exert ourselves to counter- 
act the evil tendency of such associations. 

81 Catalogue of the Delta Upsilon Fraternity, 1867, 1870; a manuscript copy of a 
constitution known as the Rochester copy, and Quinquennial, op. cit., pp. 22-23. 

62 See below pp. 309-310 for further comment on this publication. 

08 Annual, 1870. At the 1870 convention some discussion took place as to the 
method of admitting petitioning societies; no change, however, was made. 


We believe that the evils resulting from them are such as can be 
suppressed only by action combined with principles. 

We are confident that the great objects of equality, fraternity and 
morality may be attained without resorting to the veil of secrecy. 

We, therefore, the several Anti-Secret Societies of Hamilton and 
Waterville Colleges, the University of Rochester, and Middlebury, 
Rutgers and Jefferson Colleges, in order to secure greater unity, perma- 
nency and efficiency of effort, do agree to form ourselves into a Frater- 
nity, for the purpose of counteracting the evil tendency of secret 
associations in College, for maintaining and diffusing liberal principles 
and for promoting intellectual social and moral improvement. 

In doing this we trust that we have at heart the best interests of the 
Institutions to which we belong, and that we are directed by the light 
of experience, the suggestions of reason and the dictates of reason. 

Now the Amherst Convention pledged the fraternity to a more liberal 
program. The delegates at this gathering voted to strike out the first 
three paragraphs of the above quoted Preamble and substituted in 
their place the following statement: "Believing that secrecy in college 
societies tends rather to evil than good; and believing also that the 
great objects of a college fraternity equality, fraternity, morality and 
general culture may be attained without resorting to the veil of 
secrecy." In addition, the clause "of counteracting the evil tendency of 
secret associations in College" in the fourth paragraph was also elim- 
inated. In adopting these changes, the delegates were not abandoning 
the time-honored anti-secret attitude of Delta Upsilon. On the other 
hand the opposition to these organizations is by no means as extensive 
or expressive as it had been in the past. 64 

In 1874 the convention at Marietta modified to some extent the 
provision relative to the publication of the fraternity catalogue. 66 The 
following year a committee on general constitutional revision suggested 
a number of changes incident to qualifications for membership, the 
nature and duties of the national officers and the method of acquiring 
new chapters. These various suggestions aroused considerable discus- 
sion and do not seem to have met with the approval of two-thirds of 
the chapters. Consequently the convention of 1876 voted the appoint- 
ment of a new committee to study the existing constitution and render 
a report at the next meeting. At this gathering, which took place in 
October of the same year, the report of this committee received very 

64 These changes though adopted by the convention were referred to the chapters 
for ratification; see Minutes of the Amherst Chapter, May 27, 1873 fc> r a ^ example 
of chapter ratification. 

85 Instead of leaving the publication to the senior society, the duty was delegated 
to a chapter, by vote, three years in advance. 


careful consideration. Several important amendments were offered and 
the constitution as revised was referred to the chapters for ratification. 66 
Once again, however, the chapters rejected the work of the convention. 
Exactly why this negative stand was taken is not known, as our sources 
fail to throw any light upon the incident. Doubtless there were certain 
minor matters which caused delay, but these in themselves could hardly 
have held up ratification for so long a time. By comparing the texts of 
the constitutions of 1873 and 1881 a possible explanation comes to the 
front. What the revisionists appear to have had in mind was the elim- 
ination from the constitution of the idea of anti-secrecy. Small wonder 
was it, therefore, that some of the chapters seemed reluctant to give up 
what had been the historic policy of the Fraternity. To meet this 
difficulty a new committee on revision was appointed in 1877 which 
carefully went over the situation and reported its findings to the Con- 
vention of 1878. At this gathering considerable debate took place and 
several outstanding amendments were adopted. Ultimately the con- 
stitution was ratified by the required number of chapters and came 
into actual use in 1879. Even then, the term anti-secret was not entirely 
removed as each chapter was accorded the right to consider itself as an 
anti-secret or non-secret society. 67 

Although the organic law of 1879 contained a reference to anti- 
secrecy the fact that individual chapters might class themselves as 
being non-secret, indicates that the revisionists had been forced to 
compromise. As it was, these exponents of a more liberal attitude had 
full reason to believe that opinion was drifting their way and for the 
time being could afford to let matters take their own course. 68 At the 
Convention of 1880 no reference appears in respect to the proposition, 
but at the Brown meeting of 1881 the term anti-secrecy was entirely 
removed from the constitution. From that date on, Delta Upsilon has 
adhered to a non-secret position. 69 

An examination of the constitution as adopted at Brown reveals 
quite clearly how far the Fraternity had progressed since the memorable 
meeting of 1864. Unlike the law as it then existed or as it had been 

* Annual, 1875, 1876. In a letter from E. C. Moore, Marietta, to Amherst, Dec. 9, 
1876, it would appear that a circular letter containing the revised document was 
sent to the chapters for ratification. 

67 Annual, 1877-1879. See also Quarterly, 11:31-32. No copies of the constitution of 
1879 have been found, although copies seem to have been distributed, see Annual, 

68 Between 1879 and 1881 a few changes were made in the organic law, but since 
these were included in the revised document of 1881 it was thought wise not to 
mention them here; see Quinquennial, op. cit., pp. 25-26, Annual, 1880. 

M Annual, 1881. 


modified in 1873 and 1879, the Preamble of the 1881 document 
contained no reference directly or indirectly to the idea of anti- 
secrecy. The ultimate goal of a college society, so the new constitution 
ran, was the achievement of "Fraternity, Morality and General Cul- 
ture." To gain these ends, as well as to diffuse liberal principles and 
to promote intellectual, moral and social improvement, the various 
societies concerned formed themselves into an association to be known 
as Delta Upsilon. Each society was to be known as a chapter and was 
to take its name from the institution at which it existed. Any person, 
practicing strict morality and who did not belong to a college secret 
society might be admitted as an active member by the three-fourths 
vote of a chapter assembled in a regular meeting. At the time of his 
initiation, a pledge was required of the candidate, which bound him 
to a strict observance of all the rules and constitution of the Fraternity 
as well as to a policy of brotherly love towards all fellow members. 
Violation of this pledge or the performance of any act deemed by the 
chapter as being contrary to the well-being of the Fraternity, consti- 
tuted grounds for expulsion. Formal charges were to be made by each 
chapter secretary to the person in question who was accorded the right 
to appear in his own defense. No expulsion was to be considered valid 
unless it had been concurred in by three-fourths of the chapter present 
at the next regular meeting following the introduction of the charges. 
Even then an appeal to the Fraternity Convention was possible, but 
the action of that body was to be considered as final. In addition to 
active members, all alumni were viewed as graduate members who 
possessed, however, no power in either chapter or national affairs. 
Finally, provision existed for the election of honorary members. Candi- 
dates for this distinction were to be sponsored before the convention 
and by that body only elected to that honor. 70 

Article III of the constitution provided for the election and duties 
of the national officers. These were to consist of a president, three 
vice-presidents, a secretary, a treasurer, a chaplain and an executive 
council. 71 Article IV concerned the Fraternity Convention. This 

70 Prior to this constitution, each chapter had selected honorary members. About 
1870 the practice developed of allowing the conventions to name these members, 
a device that seems to argue for some constitutional change, though no record of 
such has been found. From 1870 to 1880 inclusive, the conventions elected twenty- 
four persons to this rank. At the same time, some of the chapters also chose 
honorary members, for example, Marietta on Feb. 3, 1873 elected the Grand Duke 
Alexis of Russia to this distinction; see Minutes of the Marietta Chapter. The 
Quinquennial, op. tit., p. 720, lists a total of fifty persons elected to this rank from 
1864 through 1880, 

71 See below, p. 78, for a discussion of these officers. 


gathering was defined as an annual meeting of the "delegates of the 
several chapters ... at such time and place as shall be determined 
at the preceding regular convention." It is to be noted that the older 
practice of leaving both the place and time of meeting in the hands 
of an officer was brought to an end. Further, it should be observed, 
that the alumni were not considered as a part of the national gathering. 
The president, moreover, at the request of one-third of the chapters 
might call a special meeting at such time and place as he might name. 
Each delegate, possessed of a certification of his election, was entitled 
to one vote, except upon roll call of the chapters in which event each 
chapter had but one vote regardless of the number of its representatives. 
A majority of the chapters was necessary for the transaction of all 
business. A chapter failing to send a delegate was required to address 
a letter to the secretary who was to read the same at the opening ses- 
sion. While the convention might make any rule that it wished neces- 
sary for the government of the meeting, its chief duties consisted of 
electing the national officers and executive council, of hearing appeals 
relative to expulsion, of approving of all acts and reports of national 
officers and council, of amending the constitution, and of admitting 
new chapters. All applications of petitioning societies were to be 
addressed to the Vice-President of the convention who was to submit 
them to the assembled delegates. The unanimous vote of these repre- 
sentatives, voting by chapters, might admit a body into the Fraternity. 
And since a majority of the chapters constituted a quorum, it was 
possible for a society to enter the fraternity without the approval of 
all of the chapters. Again, a petitioning group might be admitted, 
during the interim between two conventions, by the concurrence of all 
of the chapters. The constitution does not definitely state whether, in 
such an event, a formal request had been presented at the last con- 
vention, although the author is of the opinion that such a request was 
required. Finally it should be noted that the constitution following 
the provisions of 1864, called for a formal installation of any group 
which had been accepted by the chapters. It was the duty of the Vice- 
President to appoint a committee to visit the society, administer the 
pledge of the fraternity, establish it in conformity with the constitu- 
tion and then report the fact in writing to each chapter. It will be 
seen that the organic law did not provide for any formal investigation 
of the petitioning society, though the practice of conducting such had 
been the usual custom since 1864. This procedure was perfectly legal 
in view of a clause within the constitution which placed all acts of the 


convention on the same plane as the constitution provided these acts 
did not conflict with that document. 

In the hope of still further cementing the various chapters, annual 
letters were to be exchanged by the chapters and a fraternity catalogue 
was to be published every five years. This catalogue was to contain a 
list of the chapters, a short history of each body, and the name of each 
member together with his address, occupation and selected biograph- 
ical data. The seniority of each chapter was to be determined by the 
date of its organization. Since a society could not be classed as a chapter 
until after installation, the date of installation becomes, therefore, 
the date which fixed each chapter's seniority. In the event, however, 
of a chapter being reorganized, the order of rank was to date from the 
time of its reorganization, although it was allowed to retain its original 
position in the catalogue. A charter certifying the fact and time of 
admission was to be issued by the fraternity to each chapter at its 
expense. This charter was to be signed by the Vice-President and 
Secretary of the Fraternity. 

The remainder of the constitution of 1881 concerned chapter organ- 
ization, fraternity colors and motto, and the process of amendment. 
Those clauses that related to chapter organization were but a re- 
statement of the law of 1864 and need not, therefore, be recited here. 
Uniform colors of blue and gold, and a common badge formed of the 
Greek letters, Delta and Upsilon, bearing the motto, Dikaia Upotheke 
were prescribed. 72 Nothing was said of a fraternity seal. Amendments 
to the constitution might be made by a two-thirds vote of the chapters 
in convention, provided that notice of such amendments had been 
sent to each chapter at least three weeks previous to the convention. 
This, as will be seen by an examination of the provisions of 1864, 
constituted a change which worked for greater efficiency and order. 

The development of the constitution stands as the most signal 
achievement of the conventions from 1864 to 1881. And yet other gains 

"A uniform badge and insignia had been provided by the constitution of 1864. 
Since May 13, 1858 the badge had been formed of the letters Delta and Upsilon, 
with the motto Dikaia Upotheke. Fraternity colors were first accepted m 1866 when 
the convention adopted chrome and blue. This was altered in 1879 to blue and 
gold, though the next year it was changed to old gold and sapphire blue. In 1881 
the convention voted for blue and gold. A fraternity design, based upon a model 
furnished by Hamilton, was accepted in 1881, at which time a committee was 
appointed to procure a suitable seal and repoit at the next general meeting of the 
fraternity. Although Dikaia Upotheke had been voted in 1858, there is evidence 
that would warrant us in believing that the older motto Ouden Adelon was still 
being used by some of the chapters. After 1881, Dikaia Upotheke became the 
official motto and was used throughout the fraternity; see Annual, 1875, 1879-1881, 
Records of the Conventions of Delta Upsilon, 1858. 


of considerable importance were made by these assemblies, of which 
an expansion in the chapter roll was probably the most outstanding. 
Sound fraternity growth demanded an increase in the number of 
chapters. In 1864 there were but six chapters. Of this number but 
four were represented at the Middlebury Convention of that year. 
Conscious that the future of the Fraternity depended in part upon the 
spread of Delta Upsilon into other colleges and institutions, a com- 
mittee was appointed at that gathering to "make efforts looking to the 
establishment of chapters in the University of Vermont and in Yale 
College." Hamilton was also empowered to correspond with Williams, 
Union and Amherst relative to a revival of these inactive societies. 
This was not the first time that attention had been given to Yale. 
As early as February, 1856, the Social Fraternity of Williams received 
information of an anti-secret society existing at New Haven. Investiga- 
tion, however, revealed that this group was "simply a neutral society." 
Evidently the Williams men believed that being "neutral" was not 
enough, for there the matter rested. 73 Nor was anything done by a 
committee appointed in 1864. Seven years later increased interest was 
shown in respect to Yale, and, at the urgent request of Trinity, over- 
tures were addressed to a local group at New Haven. Little was 
accomplished, though in 1872 the convention empowered Brown to 
visit Yale and "at their discretion" to plant a chapter. Once again, 
however, matters seem to have lagged. The Conventions of 1873 and 
1874 talked about the proposition and in 1874 an enlarged committee 
of Brown, Madison and Middlebury was asked to investigate conditions 
at Yale. The findings of this body, as presented in 1876, were disap- 
pointing to most of the members and a new committee was appointed. 
An adverse report, however, was rendered. In 1881 the convention 
made another attempt by appointing a committee of Amherst, Harvard 
and Brown "to establish a chapter at Yale." This committee reported 
unfavorably and added that for the time being it was impracticable 
to think of Delta Upsilon entering Yale. 74 

In the meantime considerable attention had been given to the idea 
of reviving the Williams group. Committees had been appointed as 
far back as 1864 but it was not until 1877 that conditions appeared 
favorable for the return of Delta Upsilon. In the fall of that year there 

78 Minutes of the Social Fraternity of Williams College, Feb. 5, Mar. 4, 1856, 
Records of the Conventions of Delta Upsilon, 1864. Simeon Batchelor, Williams '52 
and a member of the Yale group appeared before the Williams men, Mar. 4, 1856. 

74 Annual, 1872-1876, 1881, 1882, Minutes of the Amherst chapter, Nov. 8, 1870, 
Rochester to W. H. Hartzell, Nov. 4, 1870, J. A. Freiday to George Fowler, Dec. 6, 


matriculated at Williams, Edward T. Tomlinson of the Union Chap- 
ter as well as Morrison I. Swift of Western Reserve. Knowledge of this 
fact seems to have been possessed by Lewis Cass of Union who pre- 
sented his information to the 1877 Convention. This assembly dem- 
onstrated its interest by the appointment of a committee to undertake 
the raising of funds for the establishment of a chapter at Williams. 
Another committee, headed by Amherst, was also instructed to under- 
take a survey of conditions at Williams. Henry Gay and Stephen A. 
Norton were placed on this last-named committee and they seem to 
have addressed letters to Swift immediately. Swift's reply is of decided 
interest. In the first place it proves beyond all doubt that he had been 
a member of the Western Reserve Chapter, a fact which is not estab- 
lished by the sources incident to the history of that chapter. In the 
second place, considerable light is thrown upon the prospects at Wil- 
liams. In this letter, Swift stated: 

To-day I interviewed President Chadbourne upon the subject of 
our discussion, and he preached its funeral sermon. He says that he 
would be glad to have an 'anti-society society' started here but he 
will have no anti-secret society. In his opinion it would be a source 
of great discord, whereas now perfect harmony exists. For my part I 
never saw anywhere such good feeling as pervades the . . . college. 
Both neutrals and society men are on the best of terms. Dr. C. says 
that he remembers perfectly the time when our society flourished here 
and he would not have the condition of things as they were for any 
consideration that might be offered. So the matter is ended, and per- 
haps for the best; for it would be a terrible strain to cope with the 
well established secret socs. that have fine houses and immense wealth. 

In consequence matters were allowed to drag. The finance committee 
reported that it had not been able to raise any sum of money. The 
Fraternity in convention, however, kept agitating the matter and at 
Brown in 1881 an enlarged committee took up the proposition again. 
During the period covered by this chapter, therefore, several serious 
attempts were made to reestablish the Williams society. Each time, 
however, some obstacle arose to block these endeavors. 75 

Although not successful in reviving Delta Upsilon at Williams, the 
Fraternity was able to restore Western Reserve in the fall of 1866, 
Union on June 6, 1869 and Amherst on June 2, 1870. No information 

75 Annual, 1870, 1873, 1875-1878, 1881. Middlebury to Amherst, Oct. 2, 1869, 
Minutes of the Union Chapter, May 23, 1873, M. J. Swift to H. Gay, Jan. 28, 1878, 
Lewis Cass to Amherst, Sept. 27, 1877. See also A Biographical Record of Kappa 
Alpha Society, (New York, 1881), p. 276, in which there is a sketch of Swift's life. 
Swift joined that society in 1878. Pres. Chadbourne was also a member of that 


is at hand relative to the reestablishment of Union except the formal 
action of the Convention at Madison in 1869. At that gathering Mid- 
dlebury was requested to look into conditions at Amherst. Middle- 
bury's task was comparatively an easy one as a group of students under 
the leadership of William H. Hartzell, a Delta Upsilon from Wash- 
ington and Jefferson, were already working in that direction. During 
the summer of 1868, Henry R. Waite of Hamilton visited Amherst 
and encouraged the local group there in their activities. With this 
backing, Hartzell was able to plant a society sometime in September 
of 1869. Formal ratification of this step was accorded by the Brown 
Convention, June 2, 1870. At the same time a committee on new 
chapters spoke favorably of reestablishing Bowdoin, though no actual 
steps were taken towards this end during the period covered by this 
chapter. Eight years later, after several conventions had given the 
matter some attention, Colby was restored to the Fraternity. 77 

In addition to these gains, the Fraternity was able to place chap- 
ters at Madison and New York in 1866. Two years later, Miami was 
admitted while Brown and Cornell appeared in 1869. Trinity and 
Marietta were founded in 1870, Syracuse and Manhattan in 1874, 
Michigan in 1876, Northwestern in 1880 and Harvard in 1881. By 
this date, 1881, Washington and Jefferson, Miami, Trinity and Man- 
hattan were lost to the Fraternity as was also the Princeton Chapter. 
The story of the Princeton Chapter is one of the most interesting ac- 
counts that has been met in tracing the history of Delta Upsilon. As 
early as April 1853, the Hamilton Chapter became informed of a 
so-called Equitable Fraternity at Princeton and after some delay ac- 
cepted it as a chapter on May 5, 1853. No information is available as 
to what action the other chapters took, in view of which it may safely 
be assumed that the society at Princeton never became a member of 
the Confederation. 78 

Nothing more is heard of Princeton until 1869. Late in that year 
certain members of the Fraternity belonging to what was known as 
the New York Graduate Club encouraged the idea of a chapter at 
Princeton. Those who seem to have been most interested in the affair 
were Henry R. Waite, John W. Root, Isaac F. Ludlam and Louis 

78 Middlebury to Amherst, Oct. 2, 1869, Cornell to Amherst, Mar. 29, 1870, 
Western Reserve to Amherst, Mar. 12, 1870, Rochester to Amherst, May 14, 1870, 
H. R. Waite to W. H. Hartzell, Oct. 5, 1869. See also Annual, 1870 and Quin- 
quennial, op. cit. t p. 256. 

77 Annual, 1870, 1876-1878. 

78 Minutes of the Social Fraternity of Hamilton College, April 28, May 5, 12, 1853. 


Ludlam. Some of these men as well as others of the Club seem to 
have known certain students at Princeton and between the two groups 
some correspondence must have passed. Shortly thereafter, Henry R. 
Waite, Louis Ludlam and two others, whose names are not known, 
visited Princeton late in 1869 and effected an organization of what 
they considered a chapter of the Fraternity. Knowledge of this fact 
as well as of several meetings by the local group was not made public, 
largely because o! the anti-fraternity sentiment that had been ex- 
pressed by the administration of that institution. In spite of this policy 
several Greek letter societies existed at Princeton in a sub rosa manner, 
the mere presence of which must have convinced those interested in 
Delta Upsilon at Princeton that another organization might also 
flourish. Cautioned, however, by the knowledge of the University's 
attitude the Princeton men took pains to warn the Rutgers chapter 
that it had better not plan "to visit us for the present; we will let you 
know when we are well started." 79 

This letter was written on March i, 1870 and within less than a 
week Rutgers received from C. K. Miller of Princeton the following 
communication : 80 

Enclosed you will find a list of our members. We have come out, 
in other words we have burst upon the astonished gaze of all the 
Secret Societies in College with a perfect galaxy of glory. ... I need 
scarcely say that I will be happy to have you pay us a visit. 

'70 '71 '72 '73 

H D. Kesle G. A. Foster J. D. Davis J. P. K. Bryan 

W. H. Miller C. M. Field N. U. Wells D. Y. Comstock 

T. B. Pryor H. H. Hamill H. J. Van Dyke 

Wm. Spencer C. K. Miller W. W. Van Valsah 

S. A. Williams 

Rutgers showed its pleasure by sending several of its members to 
Princeton who brought back with them glowing accounts which were 
passed on to Amherst. Trinity also heard of the event as did Marietta 
and Middlebury while Cornell received a letter from the "Princeton 
Chapter." Middlebury registered its sentiments in stating that Prince- 
ton "bids fair to become one of the largest and most influential chap- 

79 Charles Miller, "President D. U. Princeton" to Rutgers, Feb. 22, 1870. See also 
To the Delta Upsilon Fraternity, New York, June 13, 1870, which is a printed 
letter issued by the officers of the New York Graduate Club in which it is stated 
"We have organized a Chapter at Princeton College"; see also letters from H. R. 
Waite, W. L. Ludlam, Henry Van Dyke, Wm. Spencer, S. A. Williams, and 
J. T. Shelby to be found in the letter files of Delta Upsilon for 1907. 

80 C. K. Miller to Rutgers, Mar. i, 6, 1870. 


ters of the whole fraternity." 81 Direct contact was also established be- 
tween Princeton and Amherst of which the following may serve as 
an example: 82 

Dear Brother In accordance with your request I have deferred 
writing till the end of the month. In reply to yours of the 4th I would 
enclose the list of our members, and also state that Mr. Benedict was 
right as regards our acquaintance. You ask what are our reasons for 
establishing an Anti-Secret Society in a college where there are no 
secret societies. I can only state that although prohibited they flourish 
and that too with the same vigor as in Colleges where they are allowed. 
I believe I told you in my last that our chapter was in a very flour- 
ishing condition. We number 16 members and hope to add to our 
list this term. 

At the Brown Convention of 1870 a letter was read by the secre- 
tary from the Princeton chapter. And in the reports given by the va- 
rious chapters at this meeting as published in the Annual space is 
allotted to the "Princeton Chapter." Most convincing of all the evi- 
dence as to whether there was or was not a chapter at that institution 
is the entry in the records of that convention which reads: "On motion, 
the organization at Princeton, N. ]., was admitted, as a chapter of the 
Fraternity. 9 ' This action was taken on June 2, 1870 in accordance with 
the procedure laid down in the constitution relative to the admission 
of new chapters 83 

In the light of this evidence there can be no doubt as to the exist- 
ence of Delta Upsilon at Princeton. The vote of the Convention of 
1870 places the fact beyond all doubt or question. Princeton was not 
represented at this gathering, but her absence was not due to any 
fault on her part. Two delegates, J. T. Shelby and William Spencer 
left for Brown but got only as far as Hartford, Connecticut. This 
most illuminating fact is established in a letter written by S. A. Wil- 
liams to the Rutgers chapter, in which there is stated: 84 

I have been intending writing to you ever since the s8th . . . when 
one of your chapter was in Princeton & postponed it merely to wait 
the return of the delegates fr. the convention at Providence R. I. 

81 Rutgers to Amherst, April 23, 1870, Middlebury to Amherst, Mar. 25, 1870, 
N. W. Wells, Sect., Princeton Chapter, to Amherst, Mar. 21, 1870, Minutes of the 
Marietta Chapter, May 14, 1870, Minutes of the Amherst Chapter, May 10, 1870, 
and Minutes of the Cornell Chapter, May 6, 1870. 

83 N. W. Wells to Amherst, April 28, 1870. The list of names which accompanied 
this letter was the same as that sent to Rutgers except for the addition of 
H. N. Davis. 

83 Annual, 1870. 

84 S. A. Williams to Rutgers, June 6, 1870. 


Now it turned out our delegates did not reach Providence. They were 
to have left Princeton on Wednesday ist at 12:30 p.m. but on account 
of a change of hours by the R. R. they missed that train wh. wd. have 
enabled them to reach N. Y. in time for the Sound Boat. Being de- 
sirous to reach Providence on time if possible they went to N. Y. that 
evening at 5:30 & thence to New Haven where they were advised by 
the agent to go via Hartford wh. wd. bring them to P. several hours 
earlier. Ace. they reached Hartford about 8 o'clock Thursday & found 
they were twenty minutes too late to make the direct connection & 
that the next train wd. not bring them to Providence until very late 
in the evening. Being obliged to be in Princeton the next morning 
they returned home very sorry to have failed in ace. their objects. They 
communicated by telegram with the convention, stating their arrival 
at Hartford & inability to reach Providence. 

The failure of these delegates to attend the Brown meeting proved 
most disastrous to the Princeton Chapter as it deprived that group of 
the spirit and enthusiasm which otherwise these representatives would 
have brought back with them. On top of this came direct opposition 
at home. Both the faculty and neutral element frowned upon an or- 
ganization which existed in violation of an established university 
policy. Doubtless a similar attitude must have existed in respect to 
those societies that flourished sub rosa, but in the case of a new group 
this opposition proved almost an insurmountable obstacle. Again, 
some of the members graduated in 1870, and those who returned in 
the fall found their prospects most dismal indeed. Had there been any 
national organization, needed stimulus would have been forthcoming. 
As it was Rutgers undertook to investigate conditions in October only 
to find that the chapter was all but dead. Deprived of any help from 
the national fraternity and facing severe censure on their own campus, 
the Princeton men lost heart and spirit. Meetings were no longer held 
and before the year was over the Princeton Chapter ceased to exist. 85 

88 Minutes of the Rutgers Chapter, Oct. 27, 1870. In November, 1907, the Execu- 
tive Council obtained an old treasury book dating back to 1869 and on the second 
page there appeared the entry "To Henry Waite for founding Trinity and Princ. 
chapters." An examination of the Annual during the i88o's revealed that several 
committees were appointed to investigate Princeton as a place for expansion. The 
Council likewise gave attention to the matter, see C. X. Hutchinson to F. M. Cros- 
sett, April 10, 1886, G. S. Duncan to F. M. Crossett, Oct. 26, 1886. In the fall of 
1905, C. Hartzell discovered a number of letters (all of which have been used in 
this study) which convinced him that a chapter had been planted at Princeton. 
In due time this news was brought to the Executive Council and Board of Directors 
who appointed a committee to investigate the matter. Matters moved slowly but 
in 1913 the Directors went so far as to ask the committee in charge to communicate 
with the authorities at Princeton as to the "reviving" of the chapter. Nothing seems 
to have resulted, though on Nov. 28, 1913 the Directors voted not to attempt to 
revive any chapter that may have been founded at Princeton. On Nov. 8, 1915 this 


The death of the Princeton Chapter seems to have caused no com- 
ment in the fraternity at large. Not a single bit of evidence has been 
discovered that would prove that either the national organization or 
the chapters took cognizance of the fact. And yet those who had played 
a role in the founding of the society most certainly remembered the 
event. Doubtless they accepted the loss with good grace and saw little 
reason for recording a fact that was generally known throughout the 
fraternity. Further, the next decade witnessed a rapid growth in Delta 
Upsilon. New chapters were added, the constitution was radically re- 
vised and steps were taken towards the development of a central office 
that in time was to knit the chapters and the alumni into a truly 
national fraternity. As it was when the Fraternity met at Brown in 
1881 seventeen chapters answered the roll call; in other words every 
active chapter was represented. Even though there were eight inactive 
groups, not counting Vermont, the net gain over 1864 amounted to 
nine chapters. And what is more significant from the point of view of 
wholesome expansion, chapters had been planted west of the Alle- 
ghenies, a move that was bound to add greatly to the national strength 
and prestige of Delta Upsilon. 

Various other colleges and universities were considered by the con- 
ventions from 1864 to 1881. Some of these like Boston, Bates, Stevens 
Institute, Allegheny and Cumberland received little or no attention. 
Dennison, Wooster and Cincinnati seem to have been investigated more 
carefully as a number of the chapters looked with considerable favor 
upon these applicants. 86 Of all the petitioning societies that which 
came nearest to acceptance was one at Monmouth College, Monmouth, 
Illinois. Sometime late in 1869 the Cornell Chapter became interested 
in a group of students at Monmouth who appear to have expressed 
a desire to join Delta Upsilon. Convinced of the sincerity of these 
students and believing that conditions warranted expansion in that 
direction, the Cornell Chapter encouraged one of its members, Edwin 
F. Robb, who seems to have been at Monmouth at the time, to go 
ahead and found a chapter. This Robb appears to have done so, an 
act which was endorsed by the Cornell Chapter, May 6, 1870. At the 
same time, Alexander G. Robb, a brother of the other man, was in- 
same body voted that the evidence at hand did not warrant the belief that a 
chapter had ever existed there. Finally, on Feb. 5, 1917, the Directors discharged the 
committee and since then nothing of consequence has happened. It is the opinion 
of the author that a chapter did exist and for that reason it has been stated so in 
this history. 

88 Annual, 1870-1881. 


structed to visit Monmouth and initiate the group into the Fraternity. 
Letters were also directed to the other chapters informing them of 
these developments and asking for their endorsement. Rochester and 
Brown seem to have given their consent, though no records exist as to 
the attitude of the other groups in the Fraternity. Rochester's feeling 
was also shown in a letter to Amherst in which there is the following 
comment: "A new chapter has recently been established at Monmouth, 
111. The college is quite large and there was plenty of good material 
from which" students might be selected. Encouraged by these reac- 
tions, the Monmouth group publicly announced in the local college 
paper that a chapter of Delta Upsilon had been established. 

In the meantime, one J. R. Berry, who may have been a member 
of Delta Upsilon and who at the time was living at Monmouth, wrote 
back East to some of his friends. It was his opinion that the local 
group beggared all description and took in anyone seeking admission. 
In closing he stated "I think it is a strange proceeding, but I'm afraid 
it is too late to remedy the matter." The Convention of 1870, however, 
after having listened to both sides of the question, disavowed any ac- 
tion towards the existence of any chapter at Monmouth. Cornell's 
position at this convention was one hundred percent in favor of 
Monmouth. Indeed at a recent chapter meeting she had instructed 
her delegate not only to gain the consent of all of the chapters but to 
propose an amendment to the constitution whereby any chapter might 
establish a society after getting the approval of two-thirds of the 
chapters. No amendment of this type seems to have been made at the 
convention, but it illustrates quite well how determined Cornell was 
to have the Fraternity accept the Monmouth group. Although disap- 
pointed, Cornell continued to encourage the local society to petition 
again. Letters passed back and forth between the two with the result 
that at the next convention, Cornell's delegate, Charles Baker, spoke 
most enthusiastically about the petitioning society at Monmouth. 
After considerable debate the convention voted that a delegate be ap- 
pointed to confer "with the chapter seeking admission from Monmouth 
College, and, at their invitation and expense to visit them." This, 
however, appears to have been the last the convention or Fraternity 
ever heard of the affair. As far as the records are concerned no delegate 
was ever appointed; even the Cornell minutes throw no additional 
light on the proposition. Evidently, the local society did not push the 
matter any further and in view of the luke-warm attitude of the Fra- 
ternity at large, the affair was allowed to drop. Nothing more is heard 


of the Monmouth society. The episode illustrates, however, the loose- 
ness of the Fraternity's national organization at the time. 87 

The record of the conventions from 1864 to 1881 bears ample testi- 
mony of an expanding fraternity life. During this period annual 
gatherings were held except for the years 1867 and 1871. The national 
meeting for 1867 was to have been held with the Washington and 
Jefferson Chapter at Cannonsburg, Pennsylvania; a vote to this eftect 
having been taken at the Rochester meeting the year before. The 
actual time for this convention was left up to the President of the 
Fraternity, Isaac O. Best, Hamilton '67. Best appears to have dele- 
gated full power to Henry R. Waite who during the spring of 1867 
communicated with a number of the chapters and members as to the 
program and actual time of meeting. From these letters it is evident 
that Waite tentatively had set the convention for late October or 
early November. However by the middle of September, Washington 
and Jefferson informed Rutgers that due to the decreased size of her 
chapter as well as because of difficulties within the administration of 
the college, it would be impossible for the chapter to entertain the 
convention. Rutgers relayed this information on to Waite with the 
suggestion that she would be willing to act as host. Waite accepted 
the offer and according to the minutes of the Rutgers Chapter the 
convention was set for November 4 and 5. Later, Rutgers notified 
Waite that it would be necessary to postpone the meeting until early 
December. So much delay and uncertainty argued that the convention 
be deferred until the following year. Accordingly, Hamilton notified 
the chapters that the next meeting would be held in March with the 
Middlebury group. Notice of these two postponements did not reach 
all of the chapters in time as several of them, including Western Re- 
serve, actually sent delegates to New Brunswick. No convention, there- 
fore, was held in 1867 and when the fraternity gathered again it was 
not at Middlebury but at Rutgers in May of i868. 88 In the case of the 
meeting for 1871, the session had been set for May 19 and 20 with 
the Western Reserve Chapter. Steps were actually taken by both the 
national and local officers to hold this meeting. Considerable diffi- 
culty, however, was met in the matter of securing an orator and poet 

87 Annual, 1870, 1872. See also Cornell to Amherst, Oct. 15, 1870, Rochester to 
Amherst, May 14, Oct. 18, 1870 and a letter from J. R. Berry (to whom is not 
indicated), May 26, 1870. See also Minutes of the Cornell Chapter, April 29, May 6, 
Oct. 8, Nov. 4, 1870 and May 20, 1871. 

88 Minutes of the Rutgers Chapter, Oct. 15, 29, 1867. See also in the letter files 
of the Rutgers chapter for a number of entries from Waite, and Washington and 
Jefferson; see also Quinquennial, op. cit , p. 81 for an account of this convention. 


with the result that Jacob A. Freiday, Vice-President of the Fraternity, 
informed the various chapters that the Western Reserve group desired 
a postponement until late September. Before this date, however, fur- 
ther obstacles arose necessitating additional delay. The net result of 
these postponements was that no national gathering was held for 

Conventions, however, were held for every other year during the 
period covered by this chapter. Indeed in one case, namely that of 
1876, two meetings were held: one with the Cornell group in May, 
and another in October at Rochester. Brown, Middlebury, Rutgers 
and Rochester were hosts twice during these years, while Hamilton 
entertained the Fraternity three times. The other sessions were held 
at Western Reserve, Marietta, Cornell and Union. The number of 
delegates that attended these meetings rose from seven in 1864 to 
thirty-five in 1881; while in 1879 a total of forty-one representatives 
answered the roll call. In addition there were always a number of 
national officers, speakers and guests. Hamilton maintained the best 
record of all the chapters, being present at every gathering with dele- 
gates running from one to seven. Rutgers was present at every session 
except that for 1873, and even then she reported by letter. It is also of 
interest to note in passing that beginning with 1866 the chief speak- 
ers at the conventions were recruited from the alumni and not from 
the delegates as had been true in the past. And that from 1869, the 
President of the Convention was selected from those alumni who had 
national reputations, such as James A. Garfield, George W. Northrup, 
Ransom B. Welch and Elisha B. Andrews. At times honorary mem- 
bers were given, this post of distinction, but in both cases seldom did 
either attend. In practice, therefore, the Vice-President, who was al- 
ways an undergraduate, took active charge of the meeting. An under- 
graduate filled the office of secretary, and with two exceptions the 
treasurer also was an undergraduate. Finally, in respect to conven- 
tion activities, it may be observed that it became more or less the 
established rule to allocate these last two named offices to those chap- 
ters which were nearest the seat of the meeting. 

89 Quinquennial, op. cit., p. 89, J. A. Freiday to Amherst, May 3, 1871, D. R. 
Thompson to J. H. Bennett, Nov. 30, 1871, Minutes of the Marietta Chapter, 
May 6, 1871, Minutes of the Western Reserve Chapter, Mar. 29, 1871. 

Chapter V 



constitution of 1879 as amended by the Conventions of 1880 
JL and 1881 served, but for a few changes, as the organic law of the 
Fraternity until 1891. During these years Article III, which concerned 
the national officers, was enlarged from eight to eleven sections so as 
to provide for a description of the duties of several new officers. Of 
these the most important was the Honorary President who served in 
a purely nominal way during the life of a convention. All of the 
other positions, including the Poet, Orator, Librarian, and Historian, 
were to be elected annually by the convention. The Executive Council, 
chosen in like manner, was increased from five to seven members, 
four of whom were to be graduates. Of these alumni, two were to 
retire each year. On the other hand, the three undergraduates were 
to hold office for one year only. 90 Article IV, which provided for con- 
ventions, was amended in 1882 by a new section which read as fol- 
lows: "Each chapter shall be entitled to at least two delegates in the 
Fraternity convention. An additional delegate shall be allowed to 
every chapter for each ten active members in excess of twenty-five." 
Each representative was entitled to one vote except when someone 
called for a vote by the chapters. Another section, also added in 1882, 
read: "Fraternity taxes shall be levied by the Fraternity Treasurer, 
after advising with a committee of two from the Chapter that is to 

w The offices of historian and honorary president were created by convention in 
1885, though no description of the duties of the former seem to have been listed. 
The orator, poet and librarian were added in 1887 as were the additional members 
of the Council. The description of duties incident to orator, poet and librarian 
were alloted a different order in the article than before. The change in the term 
of office of the Council took place in 1887. No provision existed for electing the 
honorary president; this office in practice had been filled by each convention; see 
Annual, 1885, 1887. 



entertain the convention for the year in which the tax is to be levied. 
The tax shall be a per capita tax on each active member in the three 
upper classes." 91 Other amendments made between 1881 and 1891 
included the omission of paragraph two of the Preamble of the con- 
stitution, an alteration as to the procedure of admitting new chapters, 
a change in the method of issuing charters, and the addition of a 
provision in Article V which called for the creation of alumni chap- 
ters. Doubtless all of these amendments were adopted in accordance 
with the constitution though there is at least one instance where this 
may not have been true. 92 

Although the actual number of amendments made during this 
period were few, considerable uncertainty seems to have arisen among 
the national officers as to the exact law of the Fraternity. To this un- 
certainty was added the knowledge that the constitution contained 
definite inconsistencies. The practice of the Fraternity, for example, 
opposed the election of honorary members, even though the selection 
of such was distinctly provided for by the constitution. 93 Chapter 
membership might be extended to persons who had never entered 
college and although admittance was denied to anyone who did not 
pursue "strict morality" or who belonged to a college secret society, 
still there was nothing to prevent a violation of these rules once a 
candidate had been initiated, except as might be found in the 
"Pledge." Again, no regulation existed as to depriving a chapter of 
its charter, nor was there anything like a body of by-laws. Finally, due 
to the appearance of the Executive Council, alumni clubs and the 
Quarterly, a host of problems had arisen that had not been properly 
articulated with the existing constitution. Indeed, ever since the 
Brown Convention of 1881 the Fraternity had taken on a new and 
more vigorous aspect. The ideals as laid down in the Preamble, while 
of merit for the age that had produced them, were largely out of tune 
with the spirit that permeated the Fraternity in i8go. 94 

In addition to these and other defects in the law of Delta Upsilon 
there was a decided need for a number of new provisions particularly 
as convention resolutions in large numbers had changed the practice 

91 See below pp. 177-178 

93 See below pp. 75-76, 79-80 for a discussion of alumni clubs and for the second 
paragraph of the preamble. In the future, charters were to be signed by the 
Council and president of each active chapter; heretofore, chaiters had been signed 
by the national Vice-President and Secretary. See Quarterly, VII: 129 for evidence 
that the consent of the chapters to amendments was not secured. 

93 See Annual, 1888, p. 38 for a case of the election of an honorary member. 

* Annual, 1889; see also Quarterly t VIILgio. 


though not the letter of the constitution. These facts were patent to 
the Council but due to the stress of other business which that body 
deemed more important, nothing was done in the way of revision. By 
1889, however, the situation had become so acute that further delay 
was out of the question. Accordingly in that year the Executive Coun- 
cil, having informed the Convention that no complete or corrected 
copy of the constitution existed, received instructions to present an 
up-to-date copy at the next meeting of the Fraternity. In seeking to 
carry out this order the Executive Council quickly found that what the 
Fraternity needed was an entirely new and fresh statement of the 
organic law. In drafting this document the Executive Council re- 
ceived valuable assistance from Wilson L. Fairbanks and the Harvard 
Chapter. Upon the completion of the task, E. J. Thomas, Secretary 
of the Council, offered to the delegates of the 1890 Convention a new 
constitution, including a set of by-laws. So thorough-going had been 
the work of the Executive Council and so extensive were the changes 
which had been made, that the convention accepted the advice of the 
Executive Council and postponed further action for a year. In this 
way, opportunity was given to both the Executive Council and the 
chapters to survey carefully the entire situation. An examination of 
the Quarterly as well as of the records of some of the chapters reveals 
that considerable thought was given to the proposed constitution be- 
tween the Conventions of 1890 and i8gi. 95 Actual discussion was re- 
sumed at the Harvard gathering of 1891 with the result that a new 
and more businesslike constitution came into being. 

A study of this document is of decided interest. What first attracts 
attention is the absence of a Preamble, a feature that had character- 
ized every other constitution the Fraternity had had since its incep- 
tion. Within the Preamble, the Fraternity had expressed its ideals and 
objectives morality, justice, fraternity and culture and had defined 
its attitude towards secrecy. Now the fundamental aims of Delta Up- 
silon had not been altered, though its stand as to secret societies had 
been changed by the Union and Brown Conventions of 1879 and 1881. 
The existence of these modifications, however, does not account for 
the omission of the Preamble in 1890. Rather is the reason to be found 
in the fact that the Preamble itself had undergone so much pruning 
that no sound reason existed for its continuation, especially as the 
ideals and objectives of the Fraternity might as well be placed within 
the body of the constitution. Accordingly, these aims appear in Arti- 
cle I of the new document. The promotion of friendship, the growth 

95 Quarterly, 1X25-26, 125-130, 301-506. 


of character, the spread of liberal culture and the furtherance of 
justice in college affairs were declared the aims of Delta Upsilon, a 
non-secret fraternity. 

The constitution of 1891 does not appear to have been as well or- 
ganized as it might have been. For this reason, it seems best to confine 
our discussion of this law under several different heads rather than to 
deal with each article separately. From a structural point of view the 
Fraternity consisted of chapters, alumni clubs, an Executive Council 
and a number of central bureaus or departments. Every chapter had 
to be within the geographic limits of the United States and was to be 
known by the name of the institution at which it existed, unless or- 
dered otherwise by the Fraternity. Each chapter determined the elec- 
tion of its members provided each candidate was of moral character 
and did not belong to a college society whose principles were contrary 
to Delta Upsilon or to an organization, other than professional or 
honorary, that had branches in more than one institution. A favorable 
vote of three-fourths of the active members of a chapter, and not 
merely those who chanced to be present, at a regularly appointed 
meeting was required for admission. Actual induction into the Frater- 
nity took place by initiation in conformity with a rite adopted by 
convention. 96 Provision also existed for the suspension, expulsion or 
honorary dismissal by the chapter of its active or graduate members. 
Any person not satisfied with the action of the chapter might appeal 
to the next convention, whose decision was to be considered as final. 07 
Membership in one chapter did not obligate another to accept anyone 
who might transfer from one institution to another. Upon the pres- 
entation of a certificate signed by the officers of the original society, 
a chapter might receive the member into active membership. In the 
event that a chapter refused to do this, the individual in question 
automatically became a graduate member of Delta Upsilon. Active 
membership was considered as being terminated by the withdrawal of 
the student from the chapter or upon his graduation. Even after 
graduation a person might if he continued his studies in the same 
institution at which he had been an undergraduate, elect to remain 
an active member. 

Each chapter was officered by a president, vice-president, recording 
secretary, corresponding secretary, treasurer, alumni correspondent, 

96 The constitution did not contain a "Pledge" or an Initiation rite. A clause in 
the law urged upon the chapters the wisdom of requiring a unanimous vote for 

m See Constitution for detailed information. 


associate editor of the Fraternity magazine and such other officers as 
might be thought necessary. In accordance with the chapter's own 
constitution and by-laws, these various officers were elected by a ma- 
jority vote of the active members for such a period of time as the 
chapter might decide. 98 The duties assigned to these men need no 
comment except for one or two cases. The corresponding secretary in 
addition to the customary work was to make a yearly report to the 
alumni correspondent of the condition and needs of the chapter. The 
alumni correspondent, who had to be a graduate member, was to 
include in his annual report to the alumni the findings of the corre- 
sponding secretary; he was also supposed to keep a record of the ad- 
dresses and occupations of the alumni. Each active member was to 
receive from the Executive Council a certificate of his membership, 
signed by the secretary of that body and by the president and record- 
ing secretary of his chapter. Each chapter, moreover, was to receive 
a charter from the Executive Council signifying its existence In Delta 

Alumni clubs, consisting solely of graduate members of the Fra- 
ternity, were to be located in certain cities upon vote of the conven- 
tion, to which each club might send delegates. The purpose behind 
the formation of these clubs was to impress upon the alumni that they 
were still members of the Fraternity and as such had a role to play 
even though they had left college. From the alumni were chosen the 
personnel who handled in most cases the national life of Delta Up- 
silon. The principal editors of the Fraternity magazine as well as the 
senior members of the Executive Council were chosen from the 

The Executive Council consisted of nine members chosen by the 
convention for one year. Of these six were to be alumni, no two of 
whom could be from the same chapter. A similar restriction existed 
for the three undergraduate members. The officers of this body were 
to be a president, vice-president, and secretary and treasurer; the latter 
office being held by one person who was to receive an annual stipend 
of two hundred dollars. In the hands of this board lay the preparation 
of die agenda for the convention, the conduct of that gathering, the 
investigation of petitioning societies, the installation of new chapters, 

98 Each chapter might draft its own rules as long as these did not conflict with 
the national constitution or resolutions of conventions. The term of office for the 
corresponding secretary, alumni correspondent and associate editor was to be not 
less than one year. 

89 There was also a Quinquennial Bureau; see below pp. 298-299, 309-321 for a 
discussion of both this bureau and of the Fraternity magazine. 


the issuing of charters and membership certificates, the publication of 
the convention annual, the appointment of Advisory Boards to chap- 
ters, the handling of Fraternity finance, the rendering of a report to 
the convention and of generally conducting affairs subject to the in- 
structions and approval of the convention. Needless to say in the 
Executive Council rested much of the actual machinery of the Fra- 
ternity. 100 

In addition to the Quinquennial Bureau, the Fraternity Magazine 
and the Council, the national officers of Delta Upsilon consisted of a 
president, three vice-presidents, one of whom had to be an under- 
graduate, a convention secretary, a convention treasurer, orator, poet, 
historian, chaplain, librarian and auditor. All of these were elected 
by a majority vote of the chapters in convention for a period of one 
year. And, with the exception of the last two, these officers limited 
their activities to convention proceedings. The librarian, on the other 
hand, was to have general charge of the fraternity records, books, 
periodicals and the like, which were to be preserved at the headquar- 
ters of the Council. The auditor was required to examine the finan- 
cial accounts of the Fraternity prior to a meeting of the convention. 

National conventions are treated generally in Articles I and IV of 
the constitution plus certain provisions that may be found in the by- 
laws. These gatherings were to be held annually at a place fixed by the 
preceding convention; the exact time being determined by the Execu- 
tive Council upon the advice of the entertaining chapter. One-thiid 
of the chapters might request the Executive Council to call a special 
meeting, the time and place being set by that body. Each chapter 
was to be notified by the Executive Council of all meetings three weeks 
in advance. The personnel of the convention consisted of chapter and 
alumni club delegates, and representatives of the Executive Council. 
Each chapter was entitled to two delegates and one additional for 
every ten active members in excess of twenty-five. Chapters were not 
permitted to allocate their representation to the alumni. The Execu- 
tive Council was allowed two delegates, as was each alumni club, pro- 
vided that a club had held a meeting within the past two years at 
which at least fifteen members were present. Every delegate, possess- 
ing a certificate of his election signed by the proper officers of his 
society, was entitled to one vote, except upon certain important mat- 
ters, such as the admission of new chapters, in which case only the 
chapter delegates were allowed a vote. It was also provided that when 
a roll call of the chapters was asked for, each organization was allowed 
100 See below Chapter VIII for detailed treatment of the Executive Council. 


but one vote regardless of the number of its delegates. A majority of 
the three groups entitled to representation, and not just the chapters, 
constituted a quorum. 

At these general gatherings, plans for which had to be submitted to 
the Executive Council by the entertaining group three weeks in ad- 
vance of the meeting, chapter reports were to be presented. These re- 
ports were to be referred to a committee without reading. Three papers 
on matters of general fraternity interest were to be given by delegates 
of certain chapters named in advance by the Executive Council. All 
expenses of the convention were to be paid by the treasurer of the 
Executive Council, though in no case was the cost to exceed one thou- 
sand dollars. The actual handling of convention finance was left to a 
convention treasuier, who was required to render a report to the 
Executive Council. 101 All activities of the convention, together with 
the reports of the various officers, were to be recorded by a stenog- 
rapher and published by the Council in an Annual. Copies of this 
Annual were to be sent to each chapter and alumni club. 

The most important duties of the convention consisted of adopt- 
ing resolutions, electing national officers, determining the place of 
next meeting, amending the constitution, hearing appeals in respect 
to suspension or expulsion and of admitting new chapters and alumni 
clubs. Every resolution adopted by majority vote of convention was 
binding upon all fraternity members. Sufficient comment has already 
been made as to the election of officers, determining the place of next 
meeting and of hearing appeals in respect to suspension or expulsion. 
As to alumni clubs a word or two seems advisable. Alumni clubs, 
though recognized by the Fraternity, were given no rights at conven- 
tion until 1884. Prior to this date, delegates from these bodies appear 
to have attended these meetings and seem to have been allowed to 
participate in debate. Practice, rather than any constitutional right, 
seems to have accorded them this function. In order, therefore, to 
give them definite status special consideration was accorded them by 
the framers of the new organic law of 1891. In the future, such societies 
were to be located in cities centrally situated, by a majority vote of a 
national meeting. These societies were to be entitled to convention 
representation provided they had held a meeting in the past two years 
at which fifteen members had been present. Their delegates were 
allowed to vote on any matter brought before the convention except 
the election of national officers, the withdrawal of a charter and the 
admission of new chapters. The granting of these powers to the alumni 

101 See below pp. 175-185 for a discussion of Fraternity finance. 


clubs constituted a recognition by the Fraternity of the work that 
graduate members had done in the past and also of the fact that these 
persons were as much a part of Delta Upsilon as the national officers 
or chapters. 102 

Doubtless the chapter delegates considered that the most significant 
work of the convention consisted in admitting new chapters. It is of 
interest to note, in this respect, that the new constitution contained no 
provision relative to an investigation of a petitioning society. That 
some sort of a survey, however, was to take place is evident from past 
practices and from a provision in Article I to the effect that no or- 
ganization was to be admitted until it had existed as a local society 
for at least a year. Actual investigation, moreover, seems to have been 
handled by the Executive Council. Beyond this restriction, the conven- 
tion might consider any group so long as it was within the United 
States. A unanimous vote of the chapters assembled in convention 
was needed to admit a petitioning society. It is to be observed that 
the constitution called only for a unanimous vote of the chapters 
present; hence the alumni clubs and Executive Council had no vote 
in this matter. Again, it is to be noted that the consent of all of the 
chapters was not necessary; in other words chapters not represented 
had nothing to say provided a unanimous vote of those present was 
in favor of the petitioning society. Once a convention had endorsed a 
society, a committee appointed by the Executive Council visited and 
established it as a chapter of the Fraternity. The alumni of such a 
society might upon initiation become regular members of Delta Up- 
silon. On the other hand, the Executive Council had no option in 
the matter and was supposed to install the new society within a rea- 
sonable time. In providing for these features, the authors of the con- 
stitution of 1891 were merely confirming the practice that had been 
laid down since i864. 103 

Important as was the question of new chapters, from a legal point 
of view the most significant work that fell to the convention was that 
of amending the constitution. Amendments might be made upon a 
two-thirds vote of any convention provided that a three weeks' notice 
had been given to each unit represented at a national gathering. In 
other words, the Executive Council and the alumni clubs, as well as 
the chapters, were allowed to vote upon any proposed change. To this 

102 See below pp. 340-344 for a discussion of alumni clubs. 

"No petition was to be received by the convention after the second day. 
Authority granted by the convention to plant a chapter if not acted upon within 
a year became invalid unless renewed by a later convention. 


extent only did the document of 1891 differ from that of 1881 in the 
matter of amendment. 

There remains in this analysis of the constitution, only one or two 
other points that need to be stressed. In the first place, it was stipu- 
lated that the Fraternity colors should be old gold and peacock blue 
and that the crest should be uniform throughout the chapters. Again, 
there was a provision concerning honorary members. Any person 
elected to this distinction prior to the adoption of the present consti- 
tution was to be considered as an honorary member. Nothing, how- 
ever, was said as to the future, though it is clear from the wording of 
the constitution that no more honorary members were to be chosen. 

From the above description of the constitution and by-laws adopted 
in 1891 it is evident that a much more thorough and efficient docu- 
ment had come into being. Probably the most striking contrast that 
existed between this and past constitutions was in the matter of cen- 
tral control. The powers and duties assigned to the general officers, 
chiefly the Executive Council, clearly implied a government of dele- 
gated powers. Heretofore the Fraternity had been a confederation, as 
had been the case before 1864, and after that date it had become a 
federation of sovereign chapters with only a convention acting in a 
central or national sense. Now the organic law of 1891 did not destroy 
the sovereignty of the chapters or rob the convention of its essential 
duties. It did, however, create a central government and clothe it with 
power sufficient to make it a truly nationalizing force. In other words 
the day of uncertain or faltering policy was to be a thing of the past. 
Nor should it be forgotten that the recognition of graduate members 
organized into alumni clubs foreshadowed a broader and more realistic 
appreciation of what Delta Upsilon really stood for as a fraternity. 

Copies of the constitution of 1891 were ordered printed by the con- 
vention of 1892, each chapter to receive as many as its needs might 
require. The activities of this gathering showed that, no matter how 
complete the organic law might be framed, certain changes would 
have to be made in due course of time. The Executive Council recog- 
nized this fact when it proposed certain amendments relative to the 
admission of new chapters and as to the printing of the Quinquennial. 
It was the opinion of the Executive Council that under the existing 
law grave injustice might be done to a petitioning body as well as to 
the Fraternity if the clause in question was not altered. It will be re- 
called that no society could be accepted until it had existed as a local 
for at least one year. Now the Executive Council pointed out that the 
duration of a year might fall in such a manner as actually to compel 


the society to wait a longer time. For example, if a society were or- 
ganized shortly after a convention, that society could not have its 
petition considered until the second succeeding convention. During 
that interval some other national fraternity might grant a charter to 
the society and the opportunity for Delta Upsilon to enter a deserving 
institution would be lost, at least for the present. The argument and 
illustrations offered by the Executive Council seem to have been seri- 
ously considered by the convention but in view of the fact that notice 
of this amendment had not been given to the chapters and alumni 
clubs three weeks in advance, nothing could be done by the conven- 
tion. To circumscribe this difficulty the delegates voted that it was 
their opinion that a charter should be granted as soon as "the consti- 
tutional requirements are complied with." On the basis of this action 
the Executive Council might install a chapter, approved of by a con- 
vention, as soon as the society had existed a year. In this manner, 
without direct amendment, the meaning of the constitution was al- 
tered. The Convention of 1892, however, did amend paragraph 3 of 
Section 5 of the by-laws by adding the sentence: "These reports shall 
have been submitted to the Executive Council at least fifteen days 
previous to Convention." 104 

The following year the convention amended section i of Article III 
by substituting the words "Decennial Bureau" for the words "Quin- 
quennial Bureau." The Executive Council had called the attention of 
the 1892 gathering to the fact that the labor and expense of general 
catalogues every five years was apt to be too heavy a burden for the 
Fraternity to assume. No action, however, was taken by the delegates 
in view of the fact that proper notification of the change had not been 
made. An amendment along these lines, however, was placed before 
the various groups in plenty of time before the meeting of 1893 so as 
to allow that convention to approve of the desired change. Notices, 
moreover, of two other alterations had been referred to these groups 
which were also endorsed by the assembly of 1893. O ne f t * Lese simply 
redefined the duties of the Decennial Bureau, while the other changed 
the wording but not the meaning of section i of Article I. Finally, in 
1899, the constitution was altered so as to allow the admission of the 
Toronto Chapter. For the balance of the century no further changes 
appear to have been made in either the national constitution or by- 
laws. At the Convention of 1898, however, it was observed that the 
delegates from Stanford, California, Adelbert and De Pauw were 
alumni and not active members of these chapters. This, of course, was 
1M Annual, 1892. 












BROWN '81 






a clear violation of the constitution and while the delegates were 
accorded their seats a motion was carried prohibiting such practice in 
the future. 105 

During the period under discussion by this chapter a large share of 
Fraternity work centered in the hands of the Executive Council. This 
body, acting in accordance with the constitution, devoted much time 
and effort to a number of important affairs. It investigated petition- 
ing societies, revised the constitution, handled alumni activities, regu- 
lated Fraternity finance, supervised the publications of a number of 
tracts and encouraged sound internal growth. The record established 
by the Executive Council was indeed a notable one. And while this 
record speaks volumes for the energy and loyalty of the Executive 
Council, it also stands as convincing evidence that centralization of 
power in the hands of an executive committee had worked wonders 
for the development of Delta Upsilon. 

A large share of the special and routine work of the conventions 
had been conceived by the Executive Council. Further, the success of 
these gatherings was due in no small measure to the directing skill and 
ability of the Executive Council. On the other hand, the conventions 
themselves were not mere rubber stamping devices. Considerable per- 
sonality and energy were displayed by the delegates who seem to have 
been quite anxious to promote sound Fraternity growth. Their inter- 
est in supporting the activities of the Executive Council, of revising 
the constitution and of establishing new chapters attests the sincerity 
of these representatives. 

Conventions were held annually from 1882 to the close of the cen- 
tury. In 1882 seventeen chapters were entitled to seats in convention 
while in 1899 the number had risen to thirty-three. During the same 
period the number of delegates rose from twenty-five to fifty-one. The 
smallest number ever present at any one time was in 1883 when 
twenty-four representatives answered the roll call, while the largest 
attendance was in 1896 and 1898 when fifty-four delegates were on 
hand. The variation in these figures is explained not only by the 
increase in the number of the chapters but also by the fact that only 
in 1884, 1886, 1888 and 1891 was every chapter present. Further, it 
should be noted that not in a single case was every chapter represented 
by both senior and junior delegates. At times only a senior appeared, 
although in a few cases some of the chapters had three delegates. 
Harvard did not attend the Conventions of 1882, 1883 and 1895; 
Syracuse was absent in 1882; Union in 1895, Minnesota in 1897, North- 

105 Annual, 1892-1900. 


western in 1898, Technology in 1899, De Pauw in 1887, Tufts in 
1890, Lafayette in 1893 and Pennsylvania in 1890, 1892, 1893 and 
1894. Middlebury and Rutgers reported by letter in 1883 as did 
Lafayette in 1892, Marietta in 1896, California in 1899, Wisconsin in 
1885 and Minnesota in 1892. On the other hand, every other chapter 
entitled to representation was present at every convention; Hamilton 
maintaining the record that it had started since its inception of being 
present at every national gathering. In addition to the chapters, alumni 
clubs appear to have been present from 1884, except for 1894 when 
none of these various groups were on hand. Usually each club sent one 
delegate though at times several were represented by the same person. 
The largest number of alumni groups present was in 1885 and 1889 
when seven associations were in attendance. The Executive Council 
is credited with having delegations from 1883 on; three being the 
largest number ever present at any one meeting. Finally, it should be 
noted that there were others present in the form o convention officers 
and visiting members from various clubs and chapters. 

Directing our attention to the actual personnel that attended these 
meetings one finds that from 1882 to 1899 inclusive the Executive 
Council was represented a number of times by the same individuals. 
Crossett appeared at every meeting from 1884 to 1888, while Otto 
Eidlitz attended three different gatherings. Ellis J. Thomas was pres- 
ent in 1890, 1891, 1893 and 1894; George F. Andrews from 1896 to 
1898, and Thornton B. Penfield in 1895, l8 97 and l8 9 8 - Through the 
device, therefore, of continuing to return the same delegates, the 
Executive Council was able to present a program and policy which 
was more or less consistent over a period of years. In respect to the 
chapter delegates, there seems to have been no great desire to send as 
the senior representative the junior delegate of the previous year. 
Syracuse appears to have done this for eight out of the seventeen 
conventions covered by this chapter, while Williams and Cornell fol- 
lowed the same plan for four and five times respectively. Tufts sent 
delegations of this type to five meetings, three of which were attended 
by the same representative. A number of chapters returned the same 
delegate twice, but in general the practice was by no means a com- 
mon one. As a result none of the conventions had any large number 
of chapter delegates who had seen service before, though beginning 
with 1895 ti 16 exceptions become more numerous. In 1898 there were 
eight delegates present who had attended the meeting of the previous 
year. Why the chapters did not elect to follow this practice more 
closely can not be established. In some cases it is evident that going 


to a convention was more o a pleasure than a duty, particularly after 
entertainment of various types was provided by the chapter that acted 
as host. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the absence of any 
continuing body of delegates from one assembly to another did little 
to add to the value of these conventions. 

From the point of view of the delegates the most significant accom- 
plishments of these meetings was the establishment of new chapters. 
Ever since the Fraternity meeting of 1882 considerable thought had 
been given to this topic. At that convention reports were heard and 
debate took place as to the possibilities and wisdom of trying to plant 
chapters at Yale, Columbia, Pennsylvania, Dennison, Iowa and Min- 
nesota. Small wonder was it therefore that the first issue of the Quar- 
terly, which appeared in that year, gave considerable space to the 
question of expansion. In this article the editor stressed the value of 
gaining new chapters but argued for much thought and care in the 
selection of new groups. "In doing this," so the article ran, "we should 
have the strength and prosperity of the Fraternity in view, rather 
than the desire of increasing the number of chapters." A similar note 
was sounded by a contributor from Western Reserve, while somewhat 
the opposite view was advanced by F. S. Fuller of Madison. Fuller 
argued that expansion was vital in that the alumni would profit ex- 
ceedingly by reason of an ever-increasing number of Delta U's through- 
out the country. A larger chapter roll would also aid in the pledging 
of new members by those chapters that at present were seriously 
handicapped by the rivals, Beta Theta Phi and Delta Kappa Epsilon. 106 

In the meantime both sides rejoiced over the reestablishment of 
the Williams Chapter, October 12, 1883. Twelve days later the Fra- 
ternity assembled at Marietta where the entire proposition of expan- 
sion was discussed at great length. A number of different institutions 
were named as suitable places for Delta Upsilon, but not in a single 
case did the convention vote to plant a chapter. Dennison University 
probably received the most serious attention but after a long debate 
was voted down. Committees, however, were appointed to look into 
Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Lafayette and Asbury University. In com- 
menting on this action the editor of the Quarterly stated "Our con- 
servatism is to be preserved. ... As usual a number of committees 
on new chapters were appointed, and we sincerely trust that the mem- 
bers of these will distinguish themselves from most of their predeces- 
sors by accomplishing the objects for which they are delegated." 107 

108 Quarterly, 1:52-53* 58- 

10T Quarterly, II. 13; Annual, 1883. 


Delta Upsilon celebrated her fiftieth anniversary at New York City. 
Quite naturally, considerable attention was given to the matter of 
expansion. Not only did the delegates accept the reports of the com- 
mittees that had been appointed the year before, but new bodies were 
selected to investigate conditions elsewhere. Of these, two were to look 
into the situation at Tufts and Wisconsin, another was given power 
to plant a chapter at Lehigh, another to use discretionary power in 
respect to Princeton, while still a fifth committee was appointed to 
revive any inactive chapter, provided all of the active groups had 
been consulted in advance. Finally, another body was instructed to 
canvass the chapters concerning expansion and present at the next 
convention a list of colleges that seemed suitable for the needs of 
Delta Upsilon. At the same time, Vermont was officially voted to be 
classed as a dead chapter. 108 

During the first six months of 1885, Crossett, in behalf of the Execu- 
tive Council, seems to have spent much time and effort in promoting 
the cause of the expansionists. Letters appear to have been directed 
to several of the chapters asking for their views on the entrance of 
Delta Upsilon into a number of different institutions. Probably all of 
the active chapters were polled in this fashion, though the available 
evidence records that only Cornell, Marietta, Adelbert, Williams, 
Colby, Rochester, Madison, Brown, and Michigan were approached. 
Of these only Colby expressed itself as being "solid on" further ex- 
pansion. The others were mildly enthusiastic and proceeded to 
enumerate the schools that they favored or disfavored. Marietta 
slightly resented the method the Executive Council was following and 
while she voted to place a chapter where there was an obvious need, 
still it "seems to us that the whole matter could better have been 
decided while the chapters were all represented." 109 

In the meantime chapters were founded at Wisconsin, Lafayette 
and Columbia. Now it is of interest to note that of these the last con- 
vention had acted in a favorable manner only as to Wisconsin. Our 
authority for this statement may be found in the Annual for 1884, 
the official source for the proceedings of the convention of that year. 
In this it is recorded that the delegates voted for an investigation as 
to the "feasibility of establishing a chapter" at Wisconsin and that 
the committee in charge was to make a report "at the next conven- 
tion." If this statement is correct then the founding of Wisconsin was 

108 Annual, 1884. 

Quarterly, 111:86, 90, C. S. Mitchell to Crossett, April 30, May 14, June 13, 
1885, C. H. Perry to Crossett, May 18, 1885, N. M. Isham to Crossett, April 21, 1885. 


illegal and Crossett, who had edited that Annual, was of the opinion 
that the entry was accurate Now the procedure then in vogue as to 
the recording of convention activities was none too efficient. A con- 
vention secretary seems to have been responsible for the gathering of 
all motions, reports, votes and the like. Further, it would appear that 
a reading of these took place before the convention adjourned. On 
the basis of this several copies evidently were made, these copies being 
submitted to the chapter that had entertained the convention, and to 
one or two others who had been assigned this duty, for the purpose of 
review and correction. Finally a corrected copy was then given to the 
editor of the Annual who proceeded to arrange the same for publica- 
tion. Nowhere in our sources do we find this procedure referred to in 
so many words but on the basis of many letters that passed between 
Crossett and several of the chapters it would seem that something like 
this was done. These same letters also tend to create the impression 
that the work of the secretary and of the chapters in question was not 
always well done and that frequently the Annual contained misleading 
statements and omissions of importance. It may be, furthermore, in 
view of the rather careless method followed that the editor often 
printed what he thought had taken place, in which case we have an 
explanation for many a peculiar wording or phrase in this source. 
The Annual, therefore, for this period has to be used with consider- 
able care, and yet it stands as the only official record available of 
what went on at convention. 

To return, however, to the question of Wisconsin, Crossett, as has 
been shown, was of the opinion that the Annual was correct. Accord- 
ingly he seems to have expressed great surprise on hearing that the 
Wisconsin committee had proceeded to investigate and establish a 
chapter at that institution. On the other hand, Charles W. Carman, 
chairman of that committee and a member of the Michigan Chapter, 
was of the opposite opinion and took pains to explain why the com- 
mittee's action had been of such a nature. According to Carman, the 
secretary of the convention had become confused at the time and had 
not recorded events as they had taken place. The record, moreover, 
such as it was, had not been read to the delegates before the conven- 
tion had adjourned and for this reason an erroneous statement ap- 
peared in the Annual. Carman claimed that when the motion had 
been first put before the delegates it had been voted down, but that 
later in the session had been presented again and this time it was 
carried. In opposition to this Crossett might well have argued that the 
Annual contained no reference to the original motion and that there- 


fore Carman's contention was open to question. Crossett, however, 
does not appear to have raised this point. Furthermore, Carman stated 
that his interpretation was endorsed by Winthrop B. Chamberlain o 
Michigan, Edward R. Utley of Amherst and also by Otto Eidlitz of 
the Executive Council who had recently written him approving of 
the idea of establishing Wisconsin at once. It may be that Crossett on 
hearing of this came to the conclusion that Carman was right and he 
was wrong. Indeed James Russell of the Cornell Chapter informed 
Crossett that Syracuse was of the same opinion as was Carman. That 
Carman, an undergraduate, would have assumed power not dele- 
gated to him is possible but not very probable. Further, as Carman 
himself stated to Crossett he ought to know what motion had been 
made as he, Carman, was the author. In the light of the above evidence 
it seems reasonable to assume that Carman's position was sound and 
the Wisconsin Chapter constitutionally established. 110 

In respect to Columbia, the Annual for 1884 has no reference at all, 
and yet a chapter was established at that institution in June, 1885. 
It is evident, therefore, that at no time did the convention authorize 
the founding of this society, though it should be remembered that a 
committee had been created in 1884 to survey the field for expansion 
and report at the next convention. It is impossible, moreover, to argue 
that this committee was clothed with any power to plant chapters, as 
there is not the slightest intimation in the Annual that this was the 
intent of the delegates. On the other hand there existed a provision 
in the constitution that permitted the founding of new chapters be- 
tween conventions provided the written consent of the chapters had 
been obtained. Now Crossett in canvassing the various societies in- 
quired as to their attitude on a chapter at Columbia, to which he had 
been attracted in the spring of 1885. In reply Crossett gained the 
approval of nine of the eighteen existing chapters of Delta Upsilon. 
Doubtless the other nine also gave their consent though our sources 
record only nine replies; the others in all probability have been lost. 
Unless one accepts this statement, we would be compelled to argue 
that Crossett planted Columbia without regard to constitutional re- 
quirements, which clearly he would not have done. Although Crossett 
acted within the limits of the organic law, it is evident that his zeal 
and enthusiasm led him beyond the intent of the Convention of 1884. 

210 Crossett seems to have accepted Carman's statement as no further point was 
raised by him. See Annual, 1884, C. W. Carman to Crossett, May 14, 1885, J. E. 
Russell to Crossett, July 7, 1885, Quarterly, 111.170. 


And it was doubtless against these tactics that Marietta protested as 
has been shown above. 111 

As far as Lafayette is concerned the 1884 Annual records that the 
convention listened to an unfavorable report on this institution by a 
committee which seems to have been appointed to investigate the same. 
Further, this same convention proceeded to discharge this committee 
and did not appoint a new body to inquire into Lafayette. Evidently 
the opinion of the delegates in 1884 was opposed to the Fraternity 
entering that college for the time being. And yet Lafayette was one 
of the institutions that Crossett by letter asked the chapters to vote 
upon. The same chapters that supported Columbia likewise gave their 
consent to Lafayette. On the basis of this as well as the likely approval 
of the other societies Crossett founded the Lafayette Chapter in May, 
1885. Early in October of the same year the Executive Council like- 
wise established a chapter at Lehigh, an act which was in keeping 
with the vote of the previous convention authorizing the planting of 
a chapter at that institution. 112 

Lehigh was present at the 1885 Convention at which the question 
of further expansion received consideration. The committees which 
had been appointed on Tufts and Princeton reported that for the 
present conditions were unfavorable to Delta Upsilon. So keen, how- 
ever, was the sentiment of the delegates for these two institutions that 
the committees were asked to continue their activities. Similar action 
was also taken on the committee that had been created to present a 
list of colleges suitable for expansion. Another body on De Pauw 
which seems to have been appointed, though there is no reference to 
it in the Annual for 1884, was likewise retained. So enthusiastic were 
the delegates that they voted to place the "investigation into and the 
advisability of establishing new chapters and the pledging of future 
members" in the hands of the Executive Council. This grant of power, 
of course, did not mean that the Executive Council could establish 
chapters as it saw fit, for the very simple reason that the constitution 
contained exact regulations for the method to be used in such cases. 
On the other hand this resolve did empower the Council to investi- 
gate societies at institutions where Delta Upsilon was not represented 
even though these organizations had not been brought before the 
convention. 113 

** Quarterly, 111-174, Annual, 1884, Letters from Rochester, Madison, Middlebury, 
Colby, Brown, Michigan, Marietta, Williams, April 30 to May 19, 1885 and Minutes 
of the Syracuse Chapter, May, 1885. 

^ Idem. 

Annual, 1885. 


Encouraged by the attitude of the convention the Executive Council 
communicated with the chapters as to Tufts, Princeton, De Pauw and 
a number of other colleges. Opposition, however, arose in some quar- 
ters to Crossett's suggestions. Syracuse, for example, informed him that 
while "we are heartily in favor of reestablishing any or all of our dead 
chapters ... we are not in favor at present of trying to force our 
entrance into Princeton, University of Pennsylvania or any other of 
the schools suggested by the Council." 114 As a result of these objec- 
tions the Council was unable to make any additions to the chapter roll 
for the time being. At the 1886 meeting, however, the delegates voted 
to admit the petitioning group from Tufts. This convention also dis- 
cussed De Pauw, Wesleyan and Pennsylvania with the result that the 
Executive Council was authorized to take into "immediate considera- 
tion" the planting of a chapter at Wesleyan, to determine the "advis- 
ability" of establishing a branch at De Pauw and to appoint a com- 
mittee of three "to establish a chapter" at Pennsylvania. 115 

In accordance with these instructions the Executive Council under- 
took to investigate the situation at De Pauw. Communications passed 
back and forth between the Executive Council and the local group at 
that college. Finally a petition from that body was read before the 
Executive Council some time in the early fall of 1886. Being favorably 
disposed towards the petitioning society, the Executive Council sent 
out in the middle of October a form letter to all the chapters stating 
that a petition had been received and that the Council was disposed 
to grant a charter. Evidently, the Executive Council believed that the 
action of the past convention did not carry with it power to establish 
without the consent of the chapters. How many of the societies replied 
is not known as our sources show answers from only Cornell, Lehigh, 
Marietta, Colgate and Colby. Cornell expressed herself as being op- 
posed as did one or two others. 116 In spite of this attitude the Execu- 
tive Council went ahead and in March, 1887, installed a chapter at 
Greencastle. Syracuse on hearing of this action instructed its secretary 
to write to Crossett "requesting whereby he got the authority for the 
establishing of a chapter at De Pauw." This was followed by the adop- 
tion of a resolution empowering the delegate to the next convention 

u * Syracuse to Crossett, April 10, 1886, Williams to Crossett, April 19, 1886, Lehigh 
to Crossett (in Minutes of Lehigh Chapter), April 9, 16, 1886, Cornell to Crossett, 
April 10, 1886. 

ns Annual, 1886. The wording in respect to Tufts is not clear. 

u Cornell to Crossett, Oct. 18, 1886, Marietta to Crossett, Oct. 18, 1886, Colgate 
to Crossett, Oct. 16, 1886, Colby to Crossett, Oct. 21, 1886, Minutes of the Cornell 
Chapter, April 9, 1887. 


to set forth Syracuse's understanding of the matter. He was also in- 
structed to ask for "an exact copy of minutes referring to the establish- 
ing of a chapter" at De Pauw. Cornell and Middlebury also wrote 
Crossett asking him to state the authority for the founding of De 
Pauw. 117 

In the meantime Lehigh heard of the affair and at once wrote Cor- 
nell, Syracuse, Hamilton, Madison, Brown, Amherst and Rutgers ask- 
ing for their understanding of the last convention's motion relative 
to De Pauw. Lehigh herself was of the opinion that no power had 
been granted to the Executive Council. 118 Amherst thought likewise 
and immediately asked Middlebury for its views on the matter. By this 
time, late April, 1887, Crossett was busy informing a number of chap- 
ters that the "De Pauw Chapter was established by a committee ap- 
pointed by the Executive Council who in turn were authorized by a 
motion made and carried at the last Convention." 119 Amherst, how- 
ever, was not satisfied by this answer and at a regular meeting of the 
chapter held May 10 adopted a series of declarations and resolves. 
Amherst held that De Pauw had been founded "without our knowl- 
edge or consent in direct violation" of the constitution and that it 
was the understanding of Brown, Colby, Rochester, Harvard, Lehigh, 
Middlebury, Adelbert, Syracuse, Madison, Marietta, Williams and 
Amherst that the 1886 assembly had voted to leave De Pauw to a 
committee "to investigate and report at the next convention." On the 
basis of this fact, Amherst argued that either the method of determin- 
ing business at the convention was "slip-shod" or the recording secre- 
tary of the meeting had made a serious error, or else the Executive 
Council "had assumed an unauthorized and dangerous power." Am- 
herst also claimed that no roll call of the chapters had taken place at 
the previous convention and that therefore the motion which had 
been passed could not be advanced as proof that the convention had 
given its consent to a chapter at De Pauw. In view of these declara- 
tions Amherst called upon her sister chapters to take steps at the next 
convention to locate the source of the error. Further, Amherst re- 
quested that the Executive Council should "counteract their action 
until the De Pauw matter can be settled in accordance with the con- 
stitution and to the satisfaction of the chapters." Finally, it was re- 

*** Minutes of the Syracuse Chapter, April 15, 22, 29, 1887, Crossett to Middlebury, 
April 30, 1887, Minutes of the Cornell Chapter, April 9, 1887. 

^Minutes of the Lehigh Chapter, Oct. 15, 1886, April 15, 1887. 

319 Crossett to Rutgers, April 4, 1887; similar letters were sent to the other 


solved that copies of these declarations and resolves be sent to all of 
the chapters as well as to the Council. 120 

On the basis of the above evidence it would seem that a number of 
the chapters were of the opinion that the statement as given in the 
Annual for 1886 was not correct. Further, in view of similar errors 
which existed in other Annuals it seems reasonable to assume that 
the official source was incorrect. The fact, moreover, that the Executive 
Council sought the consent of the chapters by letter would tend to 
indicate that in its opinion no authority had been granted them by 
the 1886 Convention. Finally, it should be observed that Amherst's 
contention that no roll call of the chapters had taken place in 1886, and 
such a call was required by the constitution, agrees with the statement 
as given in the Annual. 121 Once again it would appear that had the 
method of reporting been more precise the entire difficulty might 
have been avoided. The conclusion, therefore, that must be drawn 
from the above evidence is one which entirely endorses the stand 
taken by Amherst and Syracuse. 

Not content with the validity of this position, these chapters brought 
the matter before the Rutgers Convention of 1887. At this meeting, 
Herman V. Ames of Amherst secured the adoption of a resolution 
calling for the appointment of a committee to investigate the "inter- 
pretation of the constitution relating to the establishment of new 
chapters." While this committee was deliberating, a motion was of- 
fered ratifying the action of the Executive Council in respect to De 
Pauw. All of the chapters except Hamilton voted for this motion. 
Upon question as to whether Hamilton's vote did not remove De Pauw 
from the Fraternity the chair ruled that it did not. Whereupon an 
appeal was made by Syracuse, which appeal after considerable debate 
was laid on the table by a vote of fourteen to nine. Why those chapters 
who had insisted that the Executive Council had no authority to 
found De Pauw should have voted for this motion is not clear. 
Whether they had agreed among themselves to allow one of their 
number to cast a negative vote and thus through parliamentary 
procedure settle the question, or whether they felt that the Executive 
Council and not De Pauw should be censured, can not be established 
on the face of the evidence at hand. 

These events had taken place on the morning of October 27 and 

330 Declarations of the Amherst Chapter, May 10, 1887. 

121 Too much emphasis should not be placed upon this point as the reliability of 
the Annual seems to be none too good. On the other hand it should be noted that 
this same source shows no roll call on the admission of Tufts. 


not until the following morning was the matter taken up again. Dur- 
ing this interim certain social activities had taken place which must 
have done much to alleviate the feelings of the delegates. When the 
convention reassembled, Ames introduced a series of resolutions which 
were adopted without much debate. These resolves stated that the 
provision in the constitution relative to the admission of new chapters 
could be interpreted in one of three ways. First, petitioning groups 
might be admitted by the unanimous consent of all chapters present 
in convention; second, by resolutions of all the chapters between con- 
ventions; and third, by a resolution or motion giving the Council 
discretionary power, which motion or resolve must have been passed 
by a unanimous roll call of the chapters in convention. These inter- 
pretations, therefore, constituted an official and definitive statement 
as to the meaning and intent of the constitution and in accordance 
with a provision of that document were to be viewed as much a part 
of the organic law as the constitution itself. 

Having asserted their rights the various chapters seemed to be of 
the opinion that the misunderstanding between the Executive Council 
and the chapters should not go any further. Further, they believed 
that in any event no injustice should be shown towards the De Pauw 
group which had acted in good faith at all times. Accordingly, Hamil- 
ton withdrew her negative vote and De Pauw was thus granted a 
charter by the unanimous vote of the chapters at the 1887 Conven- 
tion. In commenting upon the proceedings of this meeting the Lehigh 
delegate stated to his chapter: "In the De Pauw matter there was a 
lengthy and warm discussion. Many thought that De Pauw was not 
now legally a chapter but would have to be legally put in by a 
unanimous chapter vote as called for in the constitution." This dele- 
gate also reported that the Executive Council had stated that "no 
exception was taken as to the character of men at De Pauw that would 
warrant their not being taken in. A committee went out to see them 
and finding all favorable initiated them." 122 

Reviewing the facts incident to the De Pauw affair, one is impressed 
by the moderation of the convention. That the Council had exceeded 
its powers is beyond all question. It is also clear that a number of the 
chapters were considerably disturbed by the Executive Council's ac- 
tion. An opportunity, therefore, was afforded for the passage of some 

^Minutes of; the Lehigh Chapter, no date being given. See in the same for 
resolves passed Oct. 21, 1887 against any further extension. See also Annual, 1887. 
The feeling of the Council in respect to the Convention's stand is brought on in a 
letter from Hughes to Crossett, dated Mar. 26, 1888, in which Hughes wondered 
what Madison meant by stating that "we over reached our authority." 


drastic resolution censuring the Council. The delegates, however, did 

not adopt such a procedure. Rather were they content to point out 
where and how the Executive Council had erred and having done this 
wisely voted to admit the De Pauw society. The entire affair seems to 
have been most unfortunate and the Fraternity had ample reason to 
feel pleased that a more serious misunderstanding had not taken place. 
For the time being, the De Pauw incident acted as a check upon 
further expansion, the convention voting to lay on the table the peti- 
tions of Ohio Wesleyan and Albion. Further, by a vote of twelve to 
eleven it was resolved that the opinion of the convention was opposed 
to any further extension. 123 

It will be recalled that the 1886 Convention had authorized the 
Executive Council to appoint a committee of three to establish a 
chapter at Pennsylvania. Overtures appear to have been made to a 
group of students at that university before the close of the year and 
at an Executive Council meeting, January 18, 1887, Crossett reported 
that the local group had been investigated and found ready for ad- 
mission into Delta Upsilon. A committee composed of Hughes, Eidlitz 
and Crossett was then appointed to "take charge of the matter and 
make the necessary arrangements." Matters dragged, however, and at 
the 1887 meeting the Executive Council reported that prospects did 
not favor the Fraternity's entrance for the time being. 124 Shortly there- 
after matters took a turn for the better and in March, 1888, several of 
the chapters received word from Crossett that the Pennsylvania Chap- 
ter would be installed before the close of the month. Upon receipt of 
this letter Lehigh held a special meeting at which it was voted to 
inform Crossett that the chapter was opposed to Pennsylvania. Hamil- 
ton also became aroused and sent into the national office a protest. 125 
Whether Crossett received these communications before his visit to 
Philadelphia is not known. In any event on March 23, 1888, the 
Pennsylvania group was installed by Crossett in the presence of several 
members of the Executive Council and representatives from Amherst, 
Rutgers, Brown, New York, Cornell, Marietta, Harvard, Columbia 
and Lafayette. 125a 

When the Fraternity gathered at Adelbert in 1888 the committee on 
credentials did not report the names of the delegates from Pennsyl- 
vania. Evidently there was some doubt in the minds of this committee 

V* Annual, 1887. 

^Minutes of the Executive Council, 1887. 

^Minutes of the Lehigh Chapter, Mar 11, 16, 23, 1888. 

15511 These representatives were chiefly alumni and their presence did not imply 
chapter consent to the installation. 


as to the legality of the founding of this chapter. This assumption is 
borne out by the passage of a resolution calling for the appointment 
of a special committee to investigate the matter. Now the Executive 
Council's position, as outlined in a special report which had been 
submitted to the delegates, was that their action was valid. In support 
of this thesis Crossett cited the resolutions passed in 1886 as well as 
the silence of the delegates at the 1887 meeting and also as to the 
reading of the minutes of the previous convention. In other words the 
Executive Council argued that their act was based in the first place 
upon the authority granted them to found the chapter by the 1886 
Convention. Again, the motion directing this step was read to and 
approved by the 1887 assembly. Finally, the silence of this convention 
to the report of the Executive Council carried, according to that body, 
a continuation of power. 

Although this position was strictly in accordance with the facts, the 
1888 Convention laid the Executive Council's report on the table by 
a vote of thirteen to eleven. 126 At the same time the delegates con- 
sidered the findings of the special committee mentioned in the preced- 
ing paragraph. According to this report Pennsylvania had not been 
legally founded, "First Contrary to the Constitution, Article 5 Sec- 
tion 3. SecondMotion as stated on page 36 of the Minutes of the 
Convention at Madison was not legally passed." 

Now section 3, Article V provided that the Vice-President of the 
Fraternity was to appoint a committee to install a chapter and report 
the event in writing to each chapter. At that time, Norton T. Horr of 
Cornell was Vice-President. Investigation reveals that the Pennsylvania 
installation committee was not named by him but by the Executive 
Council. Technically, therefore the procedure followed by the Execu- 
tive Council was in violation of the constitution. On the other hand 
it is of interest to note the procedure followed at the founding of 
Wisconsin. The Vice-President in March, 1885, at which time Wis- 
consin had been established, was E. B. Andrews, while the committee 
which installed the chapter was one that had been appointed by the 
1884 Convention. Evidently that body was ignorant of the constitution 
and raised no question as to the validity of the installation. Columbia, 
Lafayette and Lehigh were also installed in the same manner. A prec- 
edent, therefore, had been followed in several cases, in view of which 
it may be argued that the Executive Council had no reason to think 
their method illegal, when in accordance with a convention's ruling 

126 Annual, 1888; see page 45 of the same for the list of the chapters voting on 
this motion. 


it had appointed a committee to establish the Pennsylvania Chapter. 
There is no evidence, however, that the Executive Council was aware 
of the past procedure as having set a precedent; that is, at no time did 
the Council advance this fact. 

Technically, the convention's position was sound and yet it may 
well be that it would not have been advanced had not the delegates 
believed that the "Motion as stated on page 36 of the Minutes of the 
Convention at Madison was not legally passed." Turning to this 
source one reads: "On motion, the Executive Council was authorized 
to appoint a Committee of three, to establish a Chapter of Delta Up- 
silon in the University of Pennsylvania." Nothing else appears to 
indicate whether this motion was passed by chapter roll call or by 
oral vote of the delegates. Those who had questioned the method fol- 
lowed by the Executive Council believed that no roll call had been 
tat en. Hence, the reported action of the 1886 Convention was not 
lawful in view of the constitutional provision for a roll call. If this 
is true then the passage of the motions which led to the founding of 
Tufts and Wisconsin was also illegal. Once again, it would seem 
that past conventions had adopted a practice that was not in keeping 
with the organic law and which in following the Executive Council 
should shoulder no more blame than the convention. Of course there 
is the likely possibility that the secretary in recording the passage of 
the motion did not take down the statement that a roll call did occur. 
Indeed the very wording quoted above seems to indicate an item 
which was entered at a later date rather than at the time of actual 
passage. In other words it may be stated that the compilation of the 
convention's activities was made up, on carelessly taken notes, by 
someone after the convention had adjourned. It should also be recalled 
that the Executive Council insisted that in its 1887 report mention 
was made of the resolution of 1886 and that no comment was then 
raised by the delegates in respect to anything. Two years, therefore, 
after the passage of the original motion the question as to its legality 
was raised; in view of which one might well question the accuracy of 
those who remembered the event itself. 

Be that as it may, the right of the convention to call the attention 
of the Fraternity to an infraction of the constitution is not to be ques- 
tioned. The only point of significance is why the delegates raised the 
question at all. Probably, neither the convention nor the Executive 
Council were aware of the historical growth of a practice that was in 
violation of the constitution, although there is no evidence at hand 


one way or the other. Doubtless some other reason existed for the very 
determined stand taken in 1888. In seeking to locate this factor one 
should not forget that the De Pauw incident was still fresh in the 
minds of the chapters. In other words, some of the chapters were on 
tip-toe in respect to the Executive Council's action and were more 
than ready to pounce upon any further short-coming of that body. 
Hamilton, Amherst, Williams and Lehigh had taken an active r61e 
in the De Pauw matter and when the Pennsylvania affair came to 
light, were not slow in voicing their views on, and off the floor of the 
convention. 127 Further a majority of the committee on credentials 
that denied a seat to Pennsylvania were in opposition to the Executive 
Council on the De Pauw incident. It hardly seems to have been a 
matter of mere chance that the chapters which led the attack in 1887 
were also in the very front in 1888. Finally, it should be observed that 
the appearance of the Executive Council in the affairs of the Fraternity 
was of recent date, prior to which the chapters had played a more 
important r61e in Fraternity problems. Naturally, therefore, the con- 
duct of the Executive Council would be more closely watched than it 
is today. Something of this feeling seems to appear in a letter written 
by Adelbert to the Executive Council late in 1888 which in part reads 
as follows: 128 

There has been a tendency in general fraternity matters to utterly 
ignore such chapters as do not happen to be within easy distance of 
our "Mecca," otherwise the Fraternity Headquarters in New York 
and we propose that this state of affairs shall be changed or we will 
know the reason why. Understand we do not wish to censure you, for 
we know what "a hard row to hoe" you have just now, but in com- 
mon with many other Chapters we have come to the conclusion that 
we should understand matters and not be left in dense ignorance 
thereof. For it was by mere chance that we knew anything was wrong 
in the reception of the U. of P. last year, before the convention I 
mean; then it was definite. 

Although the convention repudiated the action of the national offi- 
cers, it took pains not to offend the Pennsylvania group. For hardly 
had the motion declaring the Executive Council's acts illegal been 
passed, than a unanimous vote of the delegates acclaimed "the gentle- 

127 Minutes of the Lehigh Chapter, Report of delegates to the 1888 Convention. 

^Marietta to W. E. Merritt, Dec. 20, 1888. Crossett expressed his feelings in a 
letter to one Lathrop, Jan. 30, 1889 in which he stated "In the convention's blind 
fury to discredit the Council they did the Pennsylvania men great wrong and 
one that the Fraternity will hear more of"; see also L. Derr to E. J. Thomas, 
May 9, 1891. 


men banded together at the University of Pennsylvania as a chapter 
of Delta Upsilon." Following this, the delegates from this chapter 
were given the privileges of the floor as members of the Fraternity. 129 

The admission of this group in October, 1888, marked a lull in 
further expansion. Editorial comments in favor of extension, written 
presumably by Crossett, appeared in the Quarterly. Dartmouth, Yale, 
Ohio Wesleyan, Princeton, Trinity and Minnesota were referred to 
as excellent places for Delta Upsilon. The Council, moreover, re- 
ceived petitions from a number of groups; but in no case did that 
body see fit to bring any of them before the convention. During 1889 
and 1890 the conventions gave some attention to Bowdoin, Yale and 
actually admitted Minnesota. At the same time committees were ap- 
pointed to look into Chicago and Johns Hopkins, while in the case 
of Bowdoin the secretary of the Executive Council was authorized to 
visit that college and report to each chapter before the next annual 
meeting. Before this convention took place the Executive Council 
undertook considerable correspondence in respect to the above three 
institutions as well as to Yale, Miami, Massachusetts Institute of Tech- 
nology and Swarthmore. Publicity in respect to some of these also 
appeared in the Quarterly. As a result the Convention of 1891 had a 
number of applications to consider. After some debate the delegates 
granted the request of the petitioners from Massachusetts Institute, 
tabled motions relative to Chicago, and voted that the Executive Coun- 
cil undertake the founding of a group at Johns Hopkins, which was 
to apply for a charter as soon as possible. 130 

During the ensuing months the Executive Council took under advise- 
ment the possibilities at Miami, Wesleyan and Bowdoin as well as 
Johns Hopkins and Chicago. In its annual report to the 1892 meeting, 
the Council spoke encouragingly of the revival of the Wesleyan, and 
Bowdoin Chapters and requested a renewal of authority relative to 
Johns Hopkins, Beyond these recommendations the Executive Council 
did not go, although it did point out that in time Chicago would 
be a place worthy of careful consideration. In debating this report the 
convention seems to have passed over Wesleyan without comment, 
continued the grant as to Johns Hopkins and voted to admit Bowdoin. 
Further, it refused to grant a charter to Swarthmore but unanimously 
agreed that Chicago should be admitted as soon as all existing con- 
stitutional requirements had been fulfilled. The Executive Council 

** Annual, 1886-1891, Minutes of the Executive Council, 1886-1891, Quarterly, 
130 Annual, 1890-1891. 





was also instructed to stimulate the founding of a society at Leland 
Stanford. 131 

From that time to the close of the century the Executive Council 
and convention undertook to advance the cause of Delta Upsilon at a 
number of colleges. Ultimately chapters were placed at Swarthmore, 
Stanford, California, McGill, Nebraska and Toronto. Information con- 
cerning these appeared at various times in the Quarterly so that the 
Fraternity at large seems to have been well informed as to what was 
going on. Seventeen chapters were at hand at the 1882 Convention 
while thirty-three were present at the 1899 meeting. Further Delta 
Upsilon had ceased to be a national fraternity by the admission of two 
Canadian chapters; rather had it become a general fraternity. This 
growth in the roll of chapters was well matched by the energy and 
skill of the Executive Council which devoted much time and labor to 
internal affairs. A sounder fiscal policy was adopted, greater solidarity 
given to Fraternity publications, encouragement offered to alumni 
clubs and at times to chapters, who for various reasons were guided by 
the Executive Council until they were able to function independently. 

181 Annual, 1893. 


Chapter VI 


N AN earlier chapter considerable attention was paid to the genesis 
and development of those societies that had founded the Anti- 
Secret Confederation. Other organizations, as was noticed, joined this 
Fraternity and played an important part in its history. Of these one 
of the most interesting, at least from an historical point of view, was 
the society at the University of Vermont. Literary groups seem to have 
existed at this institution for a number of years prior to the appearance 
of Sigma Phi in 1845. It is likely that opposition to this secret society as 
well as a knowledge of the Social Fraternity at Williams prompted 
the desire for an anti-secret group at Vermont. Be that as it may, by the 
spring of 1850 Henry Wallace and G. Leavenworth were thinking 
in terms of an anti-secret society. 182 Under their guidance a group of 
students met on May 25, 1850 in North College and took steps towards 
the formation of a fraternity. A motto, "Nothing Concealed" was 
adopted at this meeting and a committee was appointed to correspond 
with the Williams society. Further indication of the spirit and deter- 
mination of these students was shown on Commencement day, 1850, 
by the wearing of a badge. 133 It was not, however, until September of 
the same year, that the Williams society received any notice of the 
Vermont organization. In the letter then received there was an expres- 
sion of anti-secrecy and a desire that Vermont be admitted into the 
Confederation. News of this event was sent by Williams to Union, 

182 Soule, A. B., "Founding of Delta Psi." This account is in typewritten form and 
is in the possession of the Delta Psi Fraternity of the University of Vermont. The 
document bears the date, 1925. Soule believes that direct opposition to secret so- 
cieties was not aimed at by the founders of this group; rather was there a desire 
to promote friendship without clannish ideas. The evidence as given above would 
seem to refute this view to some extent. 

183 Idem. 


CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1850-1881 101 

Hamilton and Amherst, all of whom shortly thereafter voted to admit 
Vermont into the Fraternity. Information of this action as well as a 
suggestion that a new badge be adopted by this society was forwarded 
to Burlington. 134 As a result of these various factors Vermont was 
accorded a place in the Confederation and attended the Union Con- 
vention of 1851. At this meeting as well as that of 1853, which was 
held at Burlington, the Vermont group, while loyal to the principles 
of anti-secrecy, expressed the desire to retain its own name and badge. 
In the interests of good will this request was granted. And what is more 
significant, the Articles of Confederation were amended so as to include 
an express statement to that effect. 

No further mention of Delta Psi appears in any of the sources until 
we reach those dealing with the Convention of 1854. Vermont was not 
represented at this meeting, though no definite reason was assigned 
for her absence. It is evident, however, from the sources available that 
some form of disaffection had arisen on the part of the Burlington 
group towards the Confederation. As a result, Delta Psi severed its 
connection with the Confederation, an act which evoked the passage 
of a resolution deploring this action "from causes unknown to us" and 
hoping that the "difficulties may be removed so that we may continue 
to act harmoniously in so noble a cause." 135 Now the historian of Delta 
Psi states that the society withdrew from the Confederation "because 
it involved expense and did not confer special benefit." 136 An exami- 
nation of the sources reveals that the element of expense had some- 
thing to do with the stand taken by the Vermont society. Even before 
1854, Delta Psi had called the attention of the other chapters to this 
expense item when it deplored the cost of sending a delegate to points 
as far south as Hamilton, Union or Williams. 137 On the other hand 
there may be some doubt as to the charge that the expense "did not 
confer special benefit." Possibly the author has in mind the benefits of 
anti-secrecy and the tradition that Delta Psi was founded largely as a 
social fraternity without any great desire to combat the existing secret 
groups at Burlington. 

The inception of Delta Psi, as has been noted, clearly points to the 
presence of an anti-secret sentiment; while its entrance into the Con- 
federation came as the result of overtures from Delta Psi and not from 

334 Minutes of the Social Fraternity of Williams College, Sept. 24, 1850, Minutes 
of the Social Fraternity of Hamilton, Sept. 26, 1850, Minutes of Delta Sigma, 
Nov. 11, 1850, May 16, 1851. 

135 Records of the Conventions of Delta Upsilon, 1852. 

138 Delta Psi Fraternity f University of Vermont, (Rutland, 1915), p. 13. 

^Minutes of the Social Fraternity of Hamilton, Feb. 19, 1852. 


the various chapters. Furthermore, the records of these societies as well 
as those dealing with convention proceedings show that Vermont was 
quite optimistic as to the cause of anti-secrecy on its campus. Clearly, 
there seems to be no doubt but that the founders of Delta Psi were in 
sympathy with the aims and ideals of the Confederation. On the other 
hand there is evidence to show that the extension of these ideas was 
not without difficulty. From the very day of its inception, Delta Psi 
encountered considerable trouble. Campus opinion in respect to the 
new society was by no means favorable. The College Maul, a student 
publication, was extremely bitter in its news and editorial columns of 
which the following may serve as an example: "The Delta Psi or Anti- 
Secret Society is as decent an affair as anything born of the Freshman 
class could be. The extreme verdancy of the members is manifest in 
that they believe their society has made them seniors at once. . . . 
They have got out a badge a seven gabled sort of a pin and they march 
down town arm in arm." This item appeared in an issue of May 22, 
1851 and each succeeding number for some time had some taunt or 
jeer. "Detestable Psharks," the editor called this society in May, 1854 
and even after Delta Psi's withdrawal from the Fraternity similar 
remarks appeared in the paper. It is only fair to add that the general 
tone of this paper was one of fault-finding and that the secret as well 
as the anti-secret societies were the object of constant attack. Even 
then, it stands as an expression hostile to Delta Psi and thus made the 
early days of this society very uncomfortable. Then again, in addition 
to the unfriendly attitude of the College Maul it should be added that 
for a time an "intestine Society war" existed on the campus. 138 It is 
clear, in the light of this evidence, that Delta Psi was having more 
than its share of trouble. To maintain an anti-secret front in the face 
of this opposition required considerable courage and effort. Possibly 
Delta Psi thought that the contest was not worth the effort and for 
that reason, plus the item of expense, decided to withdraw from the 
Confederation. It is to be regretted that the records of Delta Psi for 
these years have been lost as well as an important letter by that group 
to Williams setting forth the reasons for their action. Were these 
sources available, doubtless a more accurate picture could be presented. 
As it is, one must conclude that expense plus local conditions at 

138 College Maul, 1851-1855. This paper appeared at various and uncertain times. 
Its editors were unknown at the time and I have, been told that they are still 
unknown to this day. I examined the collection at the University of Vermont. The 
Daily Free Press of Burlington was also examined but save for the single reference 
to the "intestine Society war" in the issue for Sept. 30, 1852, nothing was found. 

CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1850-1881 103 

Burlington created a situation that led to a separation between the 
Confederation and Delta Psi. 

In 1864 the convention voted to open negotiations with Vermont in 
the hope of reestablishing that chapter. Whether any actual overtures 
were made is not known. In any event nothing more is heard of Delta 
Psi in the councils of Delta Upsilon for many years to come. In the 
meantime Western Reserve was restored to membership in the Frater- 
nity. Concerning the early history of that chapter very little is known. 
It appears that Giles B. Cleveland, Hamilton '50, was a resident of 
Hudson, Ohio in 1851 and came into contact with several students of 
that institution which was then located at Hudson. Evidently he was 
able to stimulate enough interest among these men to bring about the 
formation of an anti-secret organization. Sometime in January of that 
year, he called the attention of Hamilton to the affair and asked for 
the admission of Western Reserve into the Confederation. Hamilton 
notified Cleveland that similar letters should be addressed to the other 
societies, which in due time seems to have been done. Hamilton, 
Williams, Amherst and probably Union voted not later than the spring 
of 1851 to admit Western Reserve. 139 According to the Quinquennial 
this new society numbered less than fifteen, none of whom belonged 
to the class of 1851. This same source lists three other members of the 
classes of 1848 to 1850, which may explain why the Quinquennial and 
the Manual place the date of the founding of this chapter in i847. 140 
In view of the information already given of the activities of Giles 
Cleveland it would appear that 1851 would be a more accurate date. 
Further, it is not unlikely the three members in question were elected 
as honorary members at a later date. Additional confusion to our 
knowledge of this chapter is added by a statement in the Quarterly 
which asserts that a society known as Delta Psi was organized at 
Western Reserve in the fall of 1852 by Henry B. Hosford, Williams 
'43. 141 This comment, however, does not agree with the entries in 
the records of the Williams, Amherst and Hamilton Chapters rela- 
tive to the founding of Western Reserve and for that reason may be 

Western Reserve became a member of the Confederation in the 

^ Minutes of the Social Fraternity of Hamilton, Jan. 30, Feb. 20, Oct. 30, 1851, 
Minutes of the Social Fraternity of Williams, Feb. 25, 1851, Minutes of Delta Sigma, 
Feb. 24, 1851. 

" Quinquennial, op. cit. f pp. 303-305, Manual of Delta Upsilon, (1929), p. 4* 
141 Quarterly, 1:38-40. In the Manual, (1929), p. 4, Delta Psi is stated as having 
been founded in 1840. 


spring of 1851 and may have attended the convention held that year 
at Union. At least Jacob Fry, Union '51, who was at that meeting, 
records Western Reserve as having been present. 142 If this account is 
trustworthy, it represents the high water mark of success achieved by 
that chapter for many years to come. Further growth was checked by a 
series of unfortunate events within the college itself. Financial embar- 
rassment and strife between the faculty and the administration mate- 
rially reduced the attendance at that institution. A number of students, 
including some from the local chapter, matriculated at Williams, Yale 
and Amherst. And although the Quinquennial lists additions to the 
society in 1852 and 1853, nothing more is heard of it until 1865. No 
delegate appeared at any of the conventions, the records of which 
contain no mention of Western Reserve. 143 Evidently, it must have 
become common knowledge throughout the Confederation that the 
college itself was on the verge of dissolution and that any hope for a 
continuation of the chapter was entirely out of the question. 

In the spring of 1864, John N. Wilson, formerly of the Washington 
and Jefferson Chapter, entered Western Reserve and soon took steps 
towards the formation of a new society. In this he was ably assisted 
by William A. Comstock, Fred B. Buss, George Lee and others. Some 
hesitation was expressed on the part of these men as to the advisability 
of forming a chapter of Delta Upsilon on account of the small enroll- 
ment at Western Reserve as well as the strength of Alpha Delta Phi 
and Beta Theta Pi on that campus. Encouraged, however, by the 
attitude of the national officers of Delta Upsilon, Wilson and his 
co-workers determined to go ahead and in the fall of 1865 pledged 
seven out of the freshman class that numbered but eleven students. 
Following this a general meeting was held at which the ideals and 
objectives of Delta Upsilon were sworn to by all those present. Doubt- 
less the establishment of this society was undertaken with the knowl- 
edge and consent of the three senior chapters of the Fraternity who 
were constitutionally empowered to plant chapters in the interim 
between the meetings of the convention. In any event, Western Reserve 
was formally admitted as a chapter of Delta Upsilon by the Rochester 
Convention in the fall of i866. 144 Western Reserve does not seem to 
have been present at this gathering though she did send delegates 

**Ibid. 9 111-38-39. 

^Quinquennial, op. dt. } pp. 302-304, Minutes of the Social Fraternity of Wil- 
liams, Oct. 26, 1852, Records of the Conventions of Delta Upsilon, 1852, in which 
there is a reference to a letter from Western Reserve. 

144 Quinquennial, op. cit., p. 78, Our Record, (Oct. & April, 1867, 1868), pp. 24-26. 

CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1850-1881 105 

to the meetings from 1868 to 1873 and again in i88o. 14 5 in 1871 and 
1872 she acted as host to the Fraternity. Moreover, she played an 
important role in the establishment of the Marietta chapter. 

Less than a year before the founding of Western Reserve an anti- 
secret society had been started at Wesleyan University, Middletown, 
Connecticut. The earliest information relative to this movement is to 
be found in the records of the Williams group. It appears that late in 
June, 1846 a letter was received by the Social Fraternity stating that 
"an association was about to be formed ... to counteract the evil 
tendencies of secret societies and asking for some information respect- 
ing the regulations of this society." No action on this request is recorded 
in the Williams minutes though it seems unlikely that the society 
would have allowed an overture of this type to go by unnoticed. This 
assumption gains strength in view of a later item in the minutes which 
refers to the anti-secret society at Middletown which was now asking 
for admittance into the Confederation. This time Williams replied 
setting forth the "terms of admission." 146 This letter was doubtless 
addressed to James M. Carroll who for some time had been active in 
promoting anti-secrecy at Wesleyan. Carroll, according to the Quin- 
quennial, had been a member of the Amherst chapter and had matric- 
ulated at Wesleyan in the fall of 1850. Here he encountered several 
young men from Wilbraham Academy who were decidedly opposed 
to the practices of the secret societies. Thanks to the efforts of these 
men and the support of Stephen Olin, President of Wesleyan, Carroll 
was able to effect an organization in October, 1850. 

According to the existing constitution of the Confederation a peti- 
tioning society might be admitted to the fraternity upon the approval 
of the several chapters. Probably their consent was obtained although 
there is no reference of the society having been represented at the 
Union Convention in July, iSsi. 147 Wesleyan 's absence may be ex- 
plained by the fact that, although the chapter had started out most 
propitiously, internal discord had appeared from the very first. Lack 
of proper harmony within the chapter was caused by the careless 
method used in the selection of members. Any student, in short, who 
avowed opposition to secrecy was "allowed to join." As a result the 
chapter soon had among its members, persons of diverging and con- 
flicting characteristics. By the summer of 1851 the personnel of the 

145 The Quinquennial states that Rochester proxied for Western Reserve at this 
meeting; see ibid., p. 78. 

140 Records of the Social Fraternity of Williams, June 30, 1846, Oct. 22, 1850. 
wr Quarterly, 111:38-39. 


chapter appears to have been sadly out of sympathy with the funda- 
mental interests of the Confederation. Further, Dr. Olin died about 
this time and the chapter was deprived of his valuable aid and counsel. 
In addition, there seems to have been a direct attack upon the chapter 
by the secret societies. 148 The accumulative effects of these various 
forces doubtless disheartened the Wesleyan group to a marked degree. 
For a time efforts were made to keep the chapter alive, but by July, 
1852, the Equitable Fraternity, as the Wesleyan group had styled itself, 
seems to have been dissolved. 149 Information of this event was for- 
warded to the officers of the Confederation which at the 1852 Conven- 
tion resolved "That we learn with sorrow the unpromising condition 
of the Chapter at Wesleyan University; that we tender to those who 
remain faithful to our principles our sincere sympathy, and earnestly 
recommend to them to take courage and go forward." 150 These expres- 
sions of sympathy failed to revive the interests of the few members 
left at Wesleyan, some of whom joined other societies on the campus. 
By the close of 1852, Wesleyan ceased to exist, though its charter was 
not formally withdrawn until 1909. Early in December, 1919, the 
Fraternity reestablished a chapter at this institution. 

The Equitable Fraternity was also the name assumed by the Colby 
Chapter until it elected in August, 1858 to use Delta Upsilon as its 
official name. The genesis of this society dates from the late spring of 
1852 when Daniel W. Wilcox, at one time a student at Amherst, suc- 
ceeded in interesting a group of Colby students in the ideals of the 
Confederation. These men had lately experienced harsh treatment at 
the hands of the secret societies who had assumed an hostile attitude 
towards all non-fraternity men. It seems likely that Wilcox had been 
a member of the Amherst Chapter, though his name is not so listed in 
the Quinquennial. 151 Thanks to his efforts a meeting was called July 
15, 1852 for the purpose of organizing an anti-secret society. At this 
gathering a constitution was read and adopted. Officers were also 
chosen, which on comparison with the names listed in the Quin- 
quennial would lead to the conclusion that the society numbered three 
men of the class of 1852, four of 1853, and one of i854. 152 In the light 

148 Quinquennial, op. cit., p. 315. 

148 Minutes of Delta Sigma, Amherst, July 19, 1852. 

150 Quinquennial, op. cit., p. 315, Records of the Conventions of Delta Upsilon, 

m Quinquennial, op. tit., pp. 254-266, 324, 329, 716; see also Quarterly, XX.20O- 
202, XLVII:4oo. Colby was then known as Waterville College. 

^Minutes of the Equitable Fraternity of Colby, July 15, 1852. 

CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1850-1881 107 

of the above evidence it seems reasonable to assume that Wilcox and 
his friends had it in mind to seek admission into the Confederation. 
Indeed formal action along this line was taken at a meeting held 
July 23, 1852. Information concerning this reached Amherst some time 
in early August, though it was not until late October of the same year 
that Williams heard of the Colby group. Both of these chapters voted 
to admit the Colby society into the Confederation. 153 Copies of Colby's 
petition were also in all probability sent to Union and Hamilton. 
Vermont and Wesleyan may also have been informed and possibly 
Western Reserve which had been founded the year before. 

According to the constitution of the Confederation a petitioning 
body was to be admitted only after the President of the Fraternity had 
received favorable votes from all the chapters. The question, there- 
fore, arises as to when this consent was obtained and upon the answer 
depends the exact date of the establishment of the Colby Chapter. 
Now the term Equitable Fraternity first appears in the Colby records 
on September 20, 1852. By this time Amherst had voted to admit Colby, 
though Williams took no action until November of the same year. 
No evidence is at hand to tell when Union and Hamilton acted. 
Further, Colby was not present at the 1852 Convention, and the records 
of this gathering have no reference to Colby in any respect. Reference 
is made to Wesleyan and Western Reserve, which would tend to create 
the impression that the delegates did not at that time rank the Water- 
ville group as members of the Fraternity. Colby, moreover, was not 
present at any convention until 1857. Her absence, however, in 1854 
need not argue against her existence at that time in the Confederation. 
Other chapters were not present at this or later meetings and yet are 
rightly viewed as belonging to the Fraternity. Colby, therefore, was 
doubtless admitted by all of the chapters sometime after November 2, 
1852 which is the date when Williams cast her vote to accept Colby 
into the Confederation. 

From then until the spring of 1865 Colby remained within the 
Fraternity. During these years the society more than held its own 
against the attacks of the secret fraternities. Its meetings for a time 
were held in one of the college rooms, though later they were moved 
to a hall on Main Street. Here various public literary exercises were 
held to which both students and town people were invited. Eighty-one 
students joined the society from 1855 to 1862, a fact that gave the 

., July 23, 1852, Minutes of the Social Fraternity of Williams, Nov. 2, 
1852, Minutes of Delta Sigma, Aug. 9, 1852. 


chapter a commanding place on the campus from both the faculty and 
student body. Aided by this local growth, Colby was ably represented 
at the conventions from 1857 to l862 > anc * * n l86]L was ^ ost to the 
general Fraternity. Prospects for further progress were greatly enhanced 
by the initiation of nineteen men of the class of 1862. Seventeen more 
were gained from the classes of 1863 and 1864. By this time, however, 
the situation between the North and the South had become so acute 
that war seemed almost inevitable. And when hostilities did break 
forth in the spring of 1861 a large number of the chapter enlisted in 
the Federal armies. These withdrawals together with a general falling 
off in college matriculations weakened the local group to a marked 
degree. Only eight members were added during the course of the next 
three years. By 1864 the chapter numbered but fifteen and of these 
seven soon left to enter military service. By the spring of the following 
year there were but four members left. To these the outlook seemed 
so hopeless that after some debate the society voted to disband. 154 With 
this action, Delta Upsilon disappeared from Colby. Thirteen years 
later, however, the chapter was reestablished. At that time a group of 
students became desirous of forming a fraternity for literary and social 
reasons. "Through the efforts of James Jenkins, '79, an honorably 
discharged member of D. K. E., correspondence was opened; and 
through the kindness of the Amherst Chapter, in the autumn of '78, 
Colby again took her place in the ranks of the brotherhood." 155 

About the same time that Colby was originally admitted to the 
Confederation, efforts appear to have been made towards the establish- 
ment of an anti-secret society at Rochester University. No precise date 
can be given as to when this movement took place, though it must 
have been after 1851. Prior to that year student activity at Rochester 
was limited to membership in one of the two existing literary societies. 
The advent of secret fraternities in 1851 greatly hampered the life of 
the literary groups and elicited from some of the members a desire to 
combat the evils of secrecy. This desire bore fruit in the organization 
of an anti-secret society whose existence, however, was speedily brought 
to an end by the combined efforts of their enemies. Defeated in their 
endeavor, some of the members of the anti-secret society formed a new 

Quinquennial, op. cit , p. 325. In a letter to Rutgers, April 20, 1863, Colby 
reported that she still held meetings and maintained a hall, but was weakened 
by enlistments "in the great contest." 

^Idem. The convention ratified Amherst 's action, Oct. 17, 1878, which from the 
point of view of the constitution becomes the date of the reestablishment of the 
Colby Chapter. 

CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1850-1881 109 

literary club and in this manner managed to keep alive the idea of 
opposition to secrecy. 156 

In the meantime information as to what was going on at Rochester 
reached Hamilton. Sentiment favorable to the extension of the Frater- 
nity appealed strongly to the men of that chapter. Accordingly Hamil- 
ton voted to take immediate steps towards the planting of an anti-secret 
organization at Rochester. Now it so happened that one of the alumni 
of the Hamilton group, Milton T. Hills, was living at that time near 
Mt. Morris, New York, which is located somewhat to the south of 
Rochester. Hills was asked by his chapter to visit Rochester for the 
purpose of founding a branch of the Confederation. This he agreed 
to do and early in March, 1853, Hills was officially credited by the 
Hamilton group as "our delegate" to Rochester. 157 Hills visited 
Rochester and immediately got in touch with certain students of the 
former anti-secret society. Among these was Fordyce Williams whose 
interest and devotion to the Fraternity won for him the title of the 
"founder of the Rochester Chapter." Hills together with Williams was 
able to gain the support of six others in the establishment of an anti- 
secret society. Cautioned, however, by past experience, these men deter- 
mined to say nothing at all of their plans until such time as they were 
strong enough to meet any attack that might be directed against them 
by the secret fraternities. During this period a room was obtained on 
Exchange Street and a petition seeking membership in the Confedera- 
tion was addressed to all of the chapters. 158 Amherst gave its unanimous 
consent on March 28, 1853. Williams, more meticulous in respect to 
the national constitution, referred the petition to Peter Smeallie of 
Union who at that time was President of the Confederation. Evidently, 
Smeallie endorsed what Hamilton had done as Williams accepted the 
Rochester group early in June of the same year. Smeallie's action also 
carried with it the approval of the Union group. No evidence is at 
hand to record the position taken by Western Reserve and Colby. 
It is likely, in view of the chaotic conditions at Hudson, Ohio, that no 
attempt was made to gain the consent of that society. In the case of 
Colby it seems reasonable to assume that its consent was secured. It 
should be noted that the constitution at that time did not require as a 
condition for membership in the Confederation a vote of the con- 
vention. This being the case it seems safe to fix the date of the founding 

108 Quinquennial, op. cit., pp 345-346; see also Manual of Delta Upsilon (1929), 

P- 5- 

107 Minutes of the Social Fraternity of Hamilton, Jan. 28, Mar. 3, 1853. 

158 See above, note No. 156. Both of these sources refer to the adoption of a 
badge, while the Manual, also states the society was known as Ov6b> A5W. 


of the Rochester Chapter as being not later than the middle of 
June, iSss. 159 

Rochester was represented at the Williams Convention of 1854 by 
John N. Whidden, one of the seven charter members of the new 
chapter. Furthermore, Rochester had a delegate at every convention 
from 1854 to 1880 inclusive with the single exception of that for 1861. 
During these years Rochester also acted as host to the general Frater- 
nity three times. It was Rochester, moreover, that courageously 
cooperated with Hamilton and Middlebury in advancing the ideals 
and extension of the fraternity after Williams, Union and Amherst 
had been lost. The Rochester men of these years have left behind them 
an enviable record. 

During these years chapters had been established at Bowdoin and 
Rutgers. To a certain extent interest in anti-secrecy at these two insti- 
tutions may have resulted from the action of the Convention of 1857 
which had gone on record as favoring the planting of chapters where 
the Confederation did not exist. No particular university or college 
was mentioned but it may well be that Bowdoin and Rutgers were in 
the minds of those who had attended that national gathering. Both 
of these institutions were likely places for fraternity expansion; Rutgers 
having been founded shortly before the American Revolution, while 
Bowdoin received its start in 1802. Again secret societies existed at both 
of these schools, which in itself was an invitation for the Confederation 
to extend its influence in their direction. 

Direct opposition, moreover, to the practice of the Bowdoin secret 
fraternities demonstrated itself in the fall of 1857 by the actual forma- 
tion of an anti-secret society. This fact is established from an entry in 
the second issue of the Bowdoin Bugle for 1858 in which it appears 
that Levi R. Leavitt was listed as president, Winthrop Norton, vice- 
president, James L. Phillips, corresponding secretary, Marcus Wight, 
recording secretary, Nelson P. Cram, treasurer. Edwin A. Harlow, John 
E. Butler, Albert De F. Palmer, Gustavus S. Palmer, Reuben A. 
Rideout, Henry S. B. Smith and Samuel W. Pearson are listed as 
members. 160 Upon their labors and efforts rested the future chapter of 
the Confederation. Information of these activities may have been 

^Minutes of the Social Fraternity of Hamilton, June 2, 1853, Minutes of the 
Social Fraternity of Williams, June 7, July i, 1853, and Minutes of Delta Sigma, 
Amherst, Mar. 28, 1853. See the Manual, op. cit., p. 5, for an earlier date which 
probably is incorrect in view of the above evidence. 

160 1 am indebted to Donald K. Usher, Bowdoin '35, for this information. In the 
Polar Bear, publication of the Bowdoin Chapter, for May 25, 1933, it is staled that 
the society organized Oct. 28, 1857. 

CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1850-1881 111 

known to the chapters assembled at the 1857 Convention though it 
was not until the following year that the convention instructed its 
secretary to write to the "new chapter" at Bowdoin tendering aid in 
their struggle to form an anti-secret society. The use of the words "new 
chapter" does not indicate the presence of a group that had been 
lawfully admitted into the Confederation. Rather should it be inter- 
preted as the expression of a wish that the local group might in time 
be a member of the Fraternity. Later in the same year, 1858, Williams 
gave its consent to the petitioning group at Bowdoin and on July 6, 
1859 the Convention meeting at Springfield formally admitted Bowdoin 
as a chapter of the Fraternity. 161 

Bowdoin was represented at this gathering but did not attend the 
next meeting in 1861. During these years the chapter grew from the 
original twelve to twenty-four. The reason why Bowdoin was not 
present at the 1861 meeting is simply this, the chapter was no longer 
in existence. Two factors have been advanced to explain the decline of 
this society. In the first place the success that had attended the efforts 
of the group against the secret fraternities seems to have reduced the 
spirit and morale of the members, the leaders of whom were largely 
lost by graduation in 1860. Again, the advent of the Civil War lessened 
the size of the chapter and at the same time dampened an enthusiasm 
for Delta Upsilon that was hard to maintain in the face of renewed 
opposition by the secret societies. The loss of the Bowdoin Chapter 
was not forgotten by Delta Upsilon. In 1879 the convention spoke 
most favorably upon the reestablishment of the society but it was not 
until 1890 that actual steps were taken towards this end. At the con- 
vention of that year the Council was instructed to consider the advis- 
ability of reestablishing the society. This was done and a favorable 
report was presented by the Council to the next convention. Finally 
at the Colby Convention in 1892 a petition was considered, which 
petition was supported by Harry E. Bryant and Edward P. Loring, 
members of the local group at Bowdoin. The delegates voted to admit 
the petitioners and on the evening of October 14, 1892 fifteen men 
were formally initiated as a chapter of Delta Upsilon at the Falmouth 
House in Portland, Maine. 162 

In the meantime Rutgers had been admitted to the Fraternity by 
convention action, July 6, 1859. Anti-secret sentiment first showed 

161 Records of the Conventions of Delta Upsilon, 1857-1859, Minutes of the Social 
Fraternity of Williams, Oct. 12, 1858. 

182 Records of the Conventions of Delta Upsilon, 1861, 1879, 1890-1892, Quin- 
quennial, op. tit., pp. 391-392, Polar Bear, May 25, 1933. 


itself at Rutgers sometime during the fall of 1850. Who the leaders of 
this movement were is not known, though it is established that com- 
munications were addressed to both Hamilton and Amherst asking 
for guidance in counteracting the evils of secret associations. 163 
Whether any reply was ever given to these overtures is not known. 
Eight years later, however, another attempt was made and this time 
with success. Those interested in the affair were not at first thinking 
in terms of an anti-secret society. Their chief concern seems to have 
centered about the idea of forming a rival organization to the existing 
fraternities whose practices in the literary societies had aroused con- 
siderable comment. There were some indeed who were anxious to have 
a group formed with the view of petitioning one of the secret frater- 
nities not represented at Rutgers. Strong opposition to this idea was 
immediately raised when it was found that at least a year would have 
to take place before any definite organization could be effected. As a 
result opinion which had favored the founding of an anti-secret society 
gained control. 164 

After this preliminary survey of opinions and ideas, the leaders 
called a meeting in Alonzo P. Peeke's room on the evening ol May 24, 
1859. Among those present in addition to Peeke were Suydam, Beards- 
lee, De Witt, Hageman, Skillman, Bodine, Wyckoff and Rogers. 165 
What took place at this gathering is not known except for the all- 
important fact, namely that an anti-secret organization was established. 
It is evident, moreover, from other sources that Peeke was instructed 
to communicate with Amherst as to admission into the Confederation. 
Amherst was addressed because of the presence at the Rutgers Theo- 
logical Seminary of Denis Wortman, a member of the Amherst Chapter. 
Wortman, moreover, seems to have assisted the group in their early 
efforts. Peeke carried out his orders and set forth in his letter the ideals 
of the local group. Amherst replied that she would gladly support 
Rutgers at the next convention in whose hands the admission of new 
chapters rested by virtue of the constitution. Amherst encouraged 
Peeke to go ahead and adopt a body of anti-secret principles and 
pledge those men who could be relied upon to carry out the ideals of 
the Confederation. 166 Evidently, the Rutgers men seemed pleased with 

163 Minutes of Delta Sigma, Sept. 9, 1850, Minutes of the Social Fraternity of 
Hamilton, Sept. 26, 1850. 

184 These facts were gleaned from a number of letters in the possession of the 
Rutgers Chapter, notably one from W. J. Skillman who insisted that the genesis 
of the chapter did not rest on the principle of anti -secrecy. 

165 Journal of Samuel J. Rogers, May 24, 1858, referred to in the Rutgers records. 

166 Amherst to Rutgers, June 3, 12, 1858. 

CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1850-1881 113 

the prospects as on Commencement Day, June, 1858, they appeared 
on the campus wearing silken badges on which was stamped the motto 
of the Confederation. 167 

At the opening of college in the fall of the same year, the Rutgers 
anti-secret society under the direction of its president opened up nego- 
tiations with the Williams Chapter. Williams replied by stating that a 
unanimous vote in favor of Rutgers had been taken at a chapter 
meeting and that it was sending a copy of her constitution together 
with several anti-secret tracts. By May, 1859 all of the chapters had 
given their consent to the Rutgers society becoming a member of the 
Confederation. To all intents and purposes Rutgers was now on equal 
terms with the other chapters. All that remained to be done was to 
introduce a formal petition at the next convention, which was under- 
taken by Benjamin W. Rogers and John W. Beardslee at Springfield, 
July 6, 1859. The convention's vote taken that day, formally declared 
the existence of the Rutgers Chapter. 168 

Rutgers started out with a chapter of twenty-one members. A room 
was secured on Church Street, a few doors from George, for which one 
dollar was paid for each meeting. Later a room was rented at the same 
rate over an engine house on George Street near the corner of Schure- 
man. Some time thereafter a second story room on Hiram Street was 
secured for ninety dollars a year. Considerable attention was paid by 
the society to literary activities, sessions of which were frequently 
public. Rutgers, moreover, was present at every national gathering, as 
covered by this chapter, with the single exception of that for 1873 
when she reported by letter. She was also of invaluable aid in 1864 
when her presence at the Middlebury Convention doubtless prevented 
a dissolution of the Confederation. At the same time, Rutgers entered 
into a period of internal decline due probably to the ravages of the 
Civil War. By the spring of 1866, there were but three men in the 
chapter and for a time it appeared as though the society might die. 
The crisis, however, was bridged and from that day to this Rutgers 
has held a high place among the chapters of Delta Upsilon. 

Next in the roll of the chapters was the society founded at Wash- 
ington and Jefferson. Prior to 1865 this college consisted of two separate 
institutions, one at Washington, known as Washington College; the 

167 S. J. Rogers in 1908 sent to his chapter the badge that he wore in 1858; this 
badge is still in the possession of the Rutgers Chapter. 

188 Minutes o the Rutgers Chapter, Oct. 15, 1858, Williams to Rutgers, Oct. 27, 
1858, Rochester to Rutgers, Dec. 8, 1858. A. H. Shearer has an interesting account 
of the early history of this chapter in the Quarterly, XXIX.37g-s85. See also, Amherst 
to Rutgers, Feb. 15, 1859, H. C. Haskell to Rutgers, May 13, 1859. 


other at Cannonsburg, known as Jefferson College. Both of these 
schools originally had been academies but by act of the state legislature 
were named colleges in 1806 and 1802 respectively. 169 At both of these 
colleges there existed before 1862 five secret societies whose members 
sought in more ways than one to dominate and control student life 
to the evident disadvantage of the neutrals. Among the latter there 
were some who were opposed to secrecy as well as the practices of the 
existing fraternities. One of these was Stephen A. Califf of Jefferson, 
who sought for and obtained information relative to the Social Frater- 
nity at Williams and proceeded to inform his friends of the merits of 
the Fraternity. Much enthusiasm was shown by these men with the 
result that in "March, 1860, the gold and gems of Delta Upsilon flashed 
in the village streets and shone in the college hallways." 170 Hamilton, 
according to the Quinquennial, seems to have aided the local group 
in their preliminary organization. An examination of the available 
sources, however, fails to show that any of the chapters took any action 
at that time in respect to admitting the group into the Fraternity. 
Had the Civil War not occurred it is likely that something might have 
been done in 1861. As it was, the affair was first brought before the 
Fraternity at the 1865 Convention by George Templeton of Jefferson 
College, Templeton's report of conditions at Jefferson convinced the 
delegates of the wisdom of admitting the local society to membership. 
This action was taken on May 14, 1862, which according to the con- 
stitution then in force, is the correct date for fixing the establishment 
of the Jefferson Chapter. 

During the next three years this chapter seems to have maintained 
a healthy existence and that in spite of the War which took some of 
the members from college. At the same time the secret fraternities 
sought to embarrass the work of Delta Upsilon. The combined effect 
of these influences tended to reduce but not destroy the chapter. In the 
fall of 1863 there were twenty-one members in the chapter; a year 
later it was considerably lower. Conscious of this decline the members 
sought to stimulate interest by increased communications with the 
other chapters. It reminded each in turn that the constitution called 
for active correspondence and that had this been followed the Frater- 
nity would not have lost Union and Bowdoin or seen others "secede 
like Williams and Amherst." For a time there was also some prospect 
of a convention being held at Cannonsburg, but conditions ultimately 
forced that chapter to give up the distinction. And yet, the members 

** Quinquennial, op. cit. t pp. 418-419. 
170 Ibid., pp. 419-420. 

CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1850-1881 115 

refused to consider their chapter a failure; instead they continued to 
write to the other societies and were the first to propose the establish- 
ment of a uniform ritual for the Fraternity. 171 

In 1866, John D, Shafer represented that chapter at the Rochester 
Convention and presented a petition that reflected a change in the 
educational policy of the state of Pennsylvania. Pressed for funds, the 
legislature had combined the colleges at Washington and Cannonsburg 
in 1865 under the joint name of Washington and Jefferson. Prepara- 
tory and Freshman instruction was to be continued at Washington, 
while the Sophomore, Junior and Senior work was to be given at 
Cannonsburg. As a result membership in the chapter became divided 
between the two colleges. To meet this situation, Shafer proposed that 
a separate chapter be established at Washington. According to the 
meagre information given in the Quinquennial of the 1866 Conven- 
tion, Shafer's proposal was laid on the table and there the matter 
rested. 172 The Jefferson Chapter, now known as the Washington and 
Jefferson Chapter, continued, therefore, to exist with members at both 
colleges. This division did little to help the growth of Delta Upsilon, 
though the chapter was able to keep alive with a fair number of 
students in each class. For a brief period the chapter gained local 
recognition by reason of the action of the President of the College 
requiring all prospective students to sign a statement which bound 
them from joining any secret society. This naturally led to an exten- 
sion of the chapter, an extension, however, that also resulted later 
in a corresponding decline. Being anti-secret and yet having no secret 
societies to contend against, the position of Delta Upsilon became 
somewhat of an anomaly. At the close of the school year 1867, there 
were but nine members at Washington and sixteen at Cannonsburg. 
By the fall o the same year the total number had fallen to eleven, 
most of whom were at Cannonsburg. In spite of this decline, the chapter 
was represented at the Conventions of 1868 and 1869, the latter being 
the last gathering attended by Washington and Jefferson. 178 

During 1869 the state legislature passed a measure that resulted in 
the grouping of all departments of the college at Washington. Certain 
members of the Board of Trustees who had opposed this action brought 

171 Washington and Jefferson to Rochester, Oct. 14, 1862, Washington and Jeffer- 
so to Rutgers, Oct. 20, 1863, April 12, Oct. 15, 1864. 

172 Quinquennial, op. cit., p. 79. The date 1860, as given in the Quinquennial. 
is wrong. 

178 Washington and Jefferson to Rutgers, July 5, Sept. 24, 1867, and Hamilton to 
Rutgers, Sept. 23, 1867. The President of the College was a member of Delta 


suit in both the state and federal courts asking among other things 
that an injunction be issued preventing instruction at Washington, 
Although this plea was ultimately denied the result was, pending final 
settlement, that classes at Washington were practically closed; all of 
which did little to help the local chapter. Many of the members left 
for other colleges, one of whom, William Hartzell, went to Amherst 
where he played, as has been shown, an active role in Fraternity life. 
Of the class of 1870, as listed in the Quinquennial, three graduated 
from other colleges. And when the college opened in the fall there was 
but one Delta Upsilon left in the chapter. In all probability he was 
S. R. Frazier. Writing to Amherst in January, 1871, Frazier stated 
that one other name had been added to the chapter roll. Although 
greatly disturbed over the condition of things, Frazier believed that 
matters would improve. In this, however, he was to be disappointed 
as the chapter seems to have gone out of existence shortly thereafter. 174 
At the 1874 Convention some talk took place as to reviving the chapter, 
without, however, any tangible result. Two years later a committee 
was appointed to investigate conditions with a view of reestablishing 
the Washington and Jefferson Chapter. This committee reported that 
conditions there were not favorable, and with that the committee was 
discharged. Nine years later, Crossett broached the matter to the 
Council as well as to a number of the chapters. Even then, though 
some interest was shown, nothing was actually accomplished. Since 
then, while there has been some talk of reviving the chapter and in 
one case a petition from a local group was considered, nothing positive 
has been done. The loss of the Washington and Jefferson Chapter, 
therefore, seems to have been due largely to the change in policy 
towards this institution by the state legislature. Other factors, such as 
the effects of the Civil War, the absence of secret societies after 1867 
and the difficulties relative to maintaining a chapter with its members 
divided between two campuses were also significant in bringing to an 
end the Washington and Jefferson Chapter of Delta Upsilon. 175 

The loss of this chapter, in one sense, was compensated for by the 
addition of a number of societies elsewhere. First in order of priority 
was the group planted at Madison University, as Colgate was then 
known. During the early history of this institution there seem to have 
been two literary organizations known as Aeonia and Adelphia. 

Quinquennial, op. cit., pp. 431-434, S. R. Frazier to Amherst, Jan. 25, 1871, 
Hamilton to Amherst, Oct. 17, 1871. 

175 Annual, 1874-1877, Crossett to Rutgers, May 11, 1886, Minutes of the Rutgers 
Chapter, May 14, 1886. The charter was withdrawn in 1909. 

CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1850-1881 117 

Membership in these groups was open to all and from all accounts 
perfect harmony existed between them. The advent of a secret society 
in 1865 brought about a change that caused much discord and ill feel- 
ing. Opposition to the practices of this Greek letter fraternity laid the 
foundations for the inception of a chapter of Delta Upsilon. During 
the fall of the same year one Clark B. Oakley, Rochester '64, matric- 
ulated at Madison. Oakley soon had an opportunity of explaining to a 
small number of men the merits of anti-secrecy. As a result five students 
gathered one November evening at the rooms of George O. Whitney 
and having examined the constitution of the Fraternity formed them- 
selves into a society pledged to carry out the ideals and principles of 
Delta Upsilon. In all probability contact had already been established 
by that time with the Vice-President of Delta Upsilon who recognized 
the installation of these men by Oakley as having been official. Definite 
endorsement of his act occurred at the 1866 Convention, from which 
it may be said, dates the establishment of the Madison Chapter. 176 
This assembly also approved of the founding of a society at New 
York University. Here too opposition on the part of a neutral element 
to the monopolistic tendencies of the three secret societies paved the 
way for Delta Upsilon. It would appear that these secret groups so 
completely dominated student life and activity that the members of 
one of the literary societies, Eucleian, formed the so-called "Neutral 
League." This society immediately undertook to establish an open 
door policy in all literary and class elections. Foremost among its 
leaders were Isaac F. Ludlam and John Ogle who held the League 
together during the trying months of 1864 and 1865. Victory crowned 
their efforts and the "Neutral League" resolved itself into an "Anti- 
Secret Society." At this juncture Delta Upsilon stepped in and directed 
the future of the organization. Finally, on December 19, 1865, fourteen 
students of the University formally received the Fraternity pledge by 
George W. Martin, Samuel D. Wilcox, and Otis J. Eddy, all of the 
Hamilton Chapter. Information concerning this action was brought 
before the Convention of 1866 which voted to sustain this installation. 
And with this vote a chapter of Delta Upsilon was officially planted 
at New York University. 177 

178 Quinquennial, op. cit , pp. 78, 458-459, Quarterly, 11:6-7, XIV: 19-22, Minutes 
of the Social Fraternity of Williams, July 20, 1847. Madison acquired rooms in 
one of the business blocks of the village and in 1873 moved into rooms in the 
"new Smith block," where they remained for nine years. In 1881 a movement was 
begun which resulted in the acquisition of a Fraternity House, which was first 
occupied in December, 1882. Colgate claims to be the first chapter to own its 
own home. 

177 Quinquennial, op. cit., pp. 78, 477-478. 


For the next few years the New York Chapter enjoyed success and 
prestige, and that in spite of the opposition of the secret societies who 
tried to break the morale of the group. As an illustration, an episode 
as given in the Quinquennial is of interest. It appears that in accord- 
ance with the chapter's constitution, each member was required to 
support the society's candidate in any election in Eucleian. One mem- 
ber, however, unknown to the chapter, betrayed his brothers by throw- 
ing his vote to a Greek letter man with the result that Delta Upsilon 
lost the election. Not until the Junior Exhibition in March, 1866 was 
it known who had violated his oath and pledge to the chapter. At this 
Exhibition the "betrayer 'swung out* a Zeta Psi pin and was duly 
expelled." To safeguard against similar occurrences in the future, the 
chapter revised its ritual so as to provide for the giving of the pledge 
with particular solemnity, hoping, thereby, to impress upon each 
novice the seriousness as well as the sanctity of the oath that had been 
taken. Later this procedure was modified and in time was displaced 
by the pledge as given in the constitution of the Fraternity. 178 

In the meantime, campus opinion had endorsed the new society. 
The Chancellor of the University as well as three members of the 
faculty accepted honorary membership in the Fraternity. The faculty, 
moreover, in the fall of 1869 began informing the parents of prospec- 
tive students of the evils of secret societies. This act greatly encouraged 
the New York Chapter who seem to have petitioned the faculty to 
make public their warning to parents. At the same time the chapter 
abolished all initiation fees and dues, and placed the finances upon a 
voluntary basis. 179 In addition to these interesting facts, it should be 
noticed that the society held its meetings in the lodge of the Graduate 
Club of New York, an organization of Delta Upsilon that did much 
to further the growth of the Fraternity during its span of existence. 
At these meetings the New York Chapter resolved to aid in the found- 
ing of a chapter at the College of the City of New York, and after that 
had been won, threw open its club rooms to the members of the new 

Shortly thereafter the New York Chapter underwent a rapid decline. 
In part this was due to the graduation in 1878 of some who had played 
an active r61e in the life of the society. Again, the secret groups know- 
ing of this weakened condition sought to seduce some of the remaining 
members away from Delta Upsilon. Amid these conditions the chapter 
became sadly deranged and for a time appeared to be on the verge of 

d v 478-479- 
17 *Idem. See also, New York to Rutgers, Oct. 2, 18 

CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1850-1881 119 

dissolution. Thanks, however, to the efforts of two former members, 
the society was kept intact, even though the chapter numbered but 
two, neither of whom were at the 1878 Convention. New York's 
absence was noticed, particularly as her delegates had been rather 
active in past meetings. As a result the convention instructed the 
Rutgers Chapter to look into conditions at New York. To what extent 
this order was followed is not known; but if it were, the Rutgers men 
soon found out that the alumni were hard at work trying to keep the 
society going. Additions were made from the entering freshman class 
and delegates appeared at the 1879 and 1880 Conventions. Conditions, 
however, were still none too promising. The report of the delegate in 
1880 was most disappointing. He frankly stated that this might be the 
last heard of the New York Chapter as the society numbered but five 
members, all of whom were seniors. The society, however, did not 
expire and was able through its representatives at the Brown Con- 
vention of 1881 to report that the chapter had seven members who 
were determined to continue the growth and development of Delta 
Upsilon on their campus. 180 

The founding of the New York Chapter was followed two years 
later by the appearance of a society at Miami University, Oxford, 
Ohio. Very little is known of the inception of this chapter. It appears 
that prior to the arrival of Delta Upsilon, four secret fraternities 
existed at Miami and in their hands much of student life centered. 
Opposition to the habits of these societies existed among some of the 
more alert independents who seem to have been desirous of forming 
an organization which would cultivate a more wholesome feeling 
among all students. Doubtless some of these were actuated by sincere 
convictions and were strongly of the opinion that the secret groups 
were not all they should be. At this point there arrived at Miami, 
John M. Robinson, a member of the Marietta Chapter. Robinson at 
once urged upon the dissatisfied students the idea of Delta Upsilon, 
and in March, 1868, he initiated six men into the Fraternity. Later 
in the same year he pled the cause of Miami at the Rutgers Conven- 
tion with the result that the society was admitted by unanimous vote, 
May 13, 1858. Fo^ a few years the chapter seems to have enjoyed some 
success. Its numbers slowly increased, while its delegates appeared at 
every convention. Unfortunately, the University experienced financial 
difficulties, and although some of the alumni attempted to bolster up 
the fortunes of the institution, it soon appeared that Miami would 
have to close its doors. The effect of this disturbing factor was reflected 

180 Quinquennial, op. cit., pp. 479-480, Annual, 1870, 1880, 1881. 


in the life of the chapter. No delegate attended the 1873 Convention 
and although that body voted to have its next meeting at Miami, the 
local men, much to their regret, had to decline the honor. In a letter 
to Amherst, Miami expressed its sorrow in not being able to have the 
convention and clearly intimated that though they hoped to be present 
at the next national meeting, present appearances argued against such 
good fortune. After graduation in 1873, the University closed its doors. 
As a consequence, Delta Upsilon ceased to exist until it was reestab- 
lished in igo8. 181 

Interest in literary work rather than opposition to secrecy consti- 
tuted the ground-work upon which the Brown Chapter of Delta 
Upsilon was built. Prior to 1860 there existed at that institution five 
national Greek letter fraternities whose ideals and aims found little 
expression in debate or literary exercises. Doubtless some of the frater- 
nity men paid attention to these activities, but, in the main, such 
efforts were left entirely in the hands of several literary societies whose 
existence was little more than nominal. Actual opportunity for the 
development of skill in public disputation was none too common at 
Brown. Believing in the merits of these exercises and aware that stu- 
dent life offered no avenue for the expressions of their desires, several 
of the freshman class of 1860 determined to take steps towards the 
foundation of an active and virile literary group. A meeting of these 
men seems to have taken place on November of that year, at which a 
committee was appointed to consult with the University President as 
to the wisdom of forming such an organization. The reaction of 
President Sears was most encouraging. Immediately thereafter there 
appeared on the campus the Gamma Nu Society whose constitution 
and name had been supplied by a Yale group which was chiefly devoted 
to literary pursuits. As indicative of their objective, the Brown men 
adopted as their badge a pin formed like a book. At first the mem- 
bership was restricted to students of the two lower classes but by 
1867 Juniors and Seniors were allowed to join. Literary work always 
formed the chief aim of its members, and judging from the records of 
that group many an interesting and lively session took place. By this 
time the secret fraternities became aware that Gamma Nu was detract- 
ing from their influence and power. Accordingly a contest ensued in 
which the Greek letter men were able to- gain some advantage. Several 
of the members of Gamma Nu broke their vows and joined the secret 
organizations. Although these desertions were keenly felt, Gamma Nu 

^Quinquennial, op cit. } pp 82, 492-498, Miami to Amherst, June 14, 1873, 
Annual 1870-1873. 

CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1850-1881 121 

continued its work and in 1867 sought to knit its members more closely 
together by the adoption of a new pin formed by a gold star and 
wreath. Further, in the spring of 1868 the society held its first public 
exercise; an event that demonstrated beyond all doubt that Gamma Nu 
had won a firm place in the student life at Brown. 

In the meantime, Henry R. Waite, whose interest in the Fraternity 
has already been noted, approached Gamma Nu with a view of its 
becoming a chapter of Delta Upsilon. Brown University, one of the 
oldest in the country, was a most attractive field for fraternity expan- 
sion, since the ideals and practices of the local group there were in 
many respects identical with those of the Fraternity. Considerable 
correspondence followed with the result that on May 22, 1868, Gamma 
Nu voted to accept the offer that had been made by Waite. This 
devoted worker immediately made plans to visit Providence and on 
June i of the same year he gave the Fraternity pledge to seventeen 
members of what actually amounted to a chapter of Delta Upsilon. 
Although this installation had in no wise been ordered by the various 
chapters, not a single voice was raised in protest, so willing were all 
for the Fraternity to enter Brown University. Accordingly on June 9, 
1869 the Convention formally voted to admit Gamma Nu into Delta 
Upsilon. Within a year a hall was furnished, largely as a gift of some 
of the citizens of Providence, which did much to stimulate interest in 
Delta Upsilon. Public entertainments at which orations and speeches 
were delivered reflected the growing strength of the chapter. This 
literary effort, which was continued for a long time, was matched by 
the publication of a college annual, known as the Caduceus. Finally, 
it should be noted that the Conventions of 1870 and 1881 were held 
at Providence. 182 

The addition of Brown to Delta Upsilon coincided with the estab- 
lishment of a society at Cornell. Although much younger than Brown, 
Cornell University, thanks to the generosity of its founder, Ezra 
Cornell, and the splendid leadership of its first president, Andrew 
D. White, was a most inviting field for fraternity life and service. 
Hardly had it opened its doors when three secret societies were founded. 
The unhappy practices, however, of these groups led to some dissatis- 
faction and discord with the result that a rival society known as the 
"Independent Organization" came into being. Immediately the secret 
fraternities swung into action and through the medium of the Cornell 
Era, a student paper edited and controlled by these groups, a sharp 

182 Most of the material for this sketch of Brown has been taken from the ac- 
count in the Quinquennial, op. cit., pp. 83, 435-438. 


attack was made upon the Independents. Ridicule and abuse that was 
by no means a compliment to its authors were hurled upon the Inde- 
pendents. By way of reply, George F. Behringer, one of the leaders 
of the Independents and formerly a member of the New York Chapter, 
published a communication in the Cornell Era in which he sought 
to refute the charges that had been made. Several meetings were held 
by the Independents at which Behringer sought to stimulate the 
members to continue their contest for equality in student life. By 
May, 1869, however, the influence of the secret societies had triumphed 
and the Independents had gone down in defeat. 183 

The Independent Organization failed largely because it lacked a 
harmonious spirit, a definite program and a sense of cohesion among 
its members. This is well illustrated by the fact that several of its 
members joined the ranks of their former enemies. This was not true, 
however, of Behringer who was encouraged to continue the contest 
by a few friends at Ithaca as well as by the Hamilton and Rochester 
Chapters who saw in the situation a unique opportunity for Delta 
Upsilon. Delegates from these chapters visited Behringer on May 14, 
1869 and with his help a number of students were picked for member- 
ship in a new society. Finally on May 17 the pledge was given to 
seven men around whom the future of the society centered. Formal 
recognition of this action was accorded by the Madison Convention, 
June 9, i86g. 184 

Hardly had the chapter been planted when a series of events arose 
that seemed for a time destined to undo the work of Behringer and 
his friends. The secret societies, and even some of the neutrals, poured 
forth considerable ridicule and abuse and sought through various 
channels to undermine the strength of the new fraternity. The follow- 
ing taken from the Cornell Era will illustrate the attitude of the secret 
societies towards Delta Upsilon: 185 

Glad are we to chronicle the occurrence of an event in the dull 
round of our college life most glad and yet it is with a thought of 
sorrow, a feeling of commiseration for the depravity of man that we 
record the advent of the Delta Upsilon Society to Cornell University. 
Sorrow that upon the bright record of our great university has been 
written the name of this, of all detestable brands and clans the most 

m Cornell Era, Dec. 19, 1868, Jan. 9, Mar. 6, 20, May 8, 1869. The Independents 
were organized Dec. 11, 1868, Behringer being listed as an officer. 

** Quinquennial, op. cit., pp 83, 500-505, Minutes of the Cornell Chapter, Vol. I, 
gives an interesting account of the rise of the fraternity. 

385 Cornell Era, May 22, 1869. 

CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1850-1881 123 

detestable, an association with nothing save its badge to recommend 
it, a clique utterly anomalous, and without character. 

Abuses of this type, however, only served to convince the chapter 
that it had a definite role to play. At the close of the first year it had 
fourteen members and shortly thereafter forced the secret societies to 
give it a place on the editorial staff of the Cornell Era. College opinion 
tended more and more to respect the dignity and ability of Behringer 
and his associates who through college and town papers cleared away 
many of the misunderstandings as to the purposes of Delta Upsilon. 
Behringer's room, that of other members and occasionally the Ithaca 
Hotel served as meeting places for the chapter. Later the society had 
rooms at 11 Green Street, the Wilgus Block and in 1874 occupied 
quarters in the Fish Block. At these gatherings literary activities played 
an important part, though considerable thought and attention was 
given to general fraternity problems. Cornell was at first most anxious 
to extend the Fraternity into other fields, but its failure to convince the 
convention that Monmouth was a suitable place somewhat dampened 
its ardor in this respect. Cornell, also took an active part in the consti- 
tutional revision of 1881, when it stood for the elimination of the 
anti-secret and the adoption of a non-secret clause. To Cornell, there- 
fore, credit is due for pushing through this very important change in 
the policy of Delta Upsilon. 186 

Within a year after the founding of the Cornell Chapter, Delta 
Upsilon took its place at Trinity, Marietta and Princeton. 187 Trinity 
College, an Episcopal institution at Hartford, Connecticut, was founded 
as Washington College in 1823. Twelve years later its name was 
changed to Trinity. Prior to the advent of Delta Upsilon there existed 
at this college two secret societies who had things pretty much as they 
wished. Opposition to this situation naturally developed among those 
who felt that class honors and offices should be open to all and not 
merely to the members of the secret organizations. This sentiment 
gradually extended itself and under the leadership of Robert C. 
Hindley steps were taken towards the forming of a rival society. 
Although Hindley tried to keep his actions as quiet as possible rumor 
soon had it that a new society was about to appear on the campus. 
Consequently when a number of students appeared at Chapel, Febru- 
ary 22, 1870 wearing badges of an unknown description, student 
opinion was not altogether unprepared for the event. Actually, the 
society had been functioning for several months. The latest Manual 

188 Minutes of the Cornell Chapter, 1869-1881, Annual, 1870-1881. 
187 See above pp. 65-69 for an account of the Princeton Chapter. 


of the Fraternity lists the date of organization as having been some 
time in December, iSGg. 188 Information concerning the inception of 
this group seems to have reached Amherst a few weeks later. Hamilton 
and Union also appear to have been aware of what was happening. 
Indeed there is evidence at hand that would make one believe that 
these three chapters had aided Hindley in his efforts and had given 
him assurance that the Fraternity would welcome the presence of a 
chapter at Trinity. All of which was in perfect accord with the pro- 
visions of the constitution which permitted the three senior chapters 
to install chapters subject, however, to the consent of the convention. 
At the Brown Convention, June 2, 1870, Trinity was added to the 
list of Delta Upsilon Chapters. 189 

Delta Upsilon started at Trinity under favorable circumstances. 
A suite of rooms was rented and the chapter furnished splendid 
opportunities for literary exercises. Further, it was able to gain from 
the other fraternities its share of college honors and offices. The very 
act, however, of negotiating this arrangement with the secret societies 
was in itself somewhat of a denial of the ideals of the Fraternity which 
stood for equality of opportunity for all students. It would appear, 
moreover, that the Trinity Chapter sought to advance itself rather 
than Delta Upsilon. Meetings, chapter activities and the roll of its 
members were not made public. To a considerable degree, the Trinity 
Chapter was acting like the secret fraternities and thus failed to live 
up to the standards of Delta Upsilon. These factors, plus a lack of 
experience in "rushing," soon undermined the strength of the organiza- 
tion. Opinion which at first had endorsed the chapter soon changed 
and with the graduation of the charter members a rapid decline set 
in. Only once did a delegate appear at a national convention, though 
the chapter reported by letter each time a meeting was held. At the 
1874 Convention the delegates, in view of the continued absence of 
Trinity, appointed Brown and Amherst as a committee to look into 
matters. Our sources do not record what this committee discovered, 
though one may surmise that its report in 1875 was none too promis- 
ing. By this time Trinity had ceased to function. No additions seem 
to have been made beyond the class of 1876 and with the departure 
of these men from college, Delta Upsilon disappeared at Trinity. 190 

A few years later, as will be shown in a subsequent chapter, the 

^Manual (1929), p. 6 On Dec. 18, 1869, Hindley notified Rutgers that Waite 
had initiated eight men on December 17; see Rutgers records. 

189 Annual, 1870. 

** Annual, 1870, Minutes of the Amherst Chapter, Jan. 18, 1870, Quinquennial, 
op. tit., pp. 521-522. 

CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1850-1881 125 

Fraternity established a national executive council, one of whose mem- 
bers, Frederick M. Crossett displayed considerable zeal and interest 
in the promotion of Delta Upsilon. Among other things, Crossett de- 
sired to revive the Trinity Chapter and for some time he favored the 
absorption of a local society, Iota Kappa Alpha, which had existed 
at Trinity since 1829. Investigation, however, revealed that conditions 
on that campus were none too favorable with the result that the mat- 
ter was allowed to drop. Later in 1888 one F. M. Barber, a student at 
Trinity, became interested in Delta Upsilon and directed inquiries to 
Brown as well as to Walter E. Merritt, Amherst '87, then an active 
worker in the Fraternity. Barber told Merritt of his desires, but later 
added, after talking to Professor Sweeten Luther, one of the charter 
members of the old chapter, who had advised against the return of 
Delta Upsilon, that he had given up the idea entirely. 191 The Council 
reported the substance of these circumstances to the Convention of 
1889, and added the statement that in its opinion nothing more could 
be done for the time being. Several years later some attention was 
paid to the idea of reviving the chapter though nothing definite seems 
to have been accomplished. Finally, in 1909, the Convention formally 
voted to withdraw the charter. Since then, Trinity has been listed as 
an inactive chapter. 192 

More lasting results followed the installation of a society at Marietta. 
The genesis of this group dates from 1866 at which time there were 
three Greek letter societies on that campus. The policies of these fra- 
ternities, so it is reported, often ran counter to the welfare of the 
students. Among those who disliked the attitudes and habits of these 
societies were G. H. Pond, A. W. Williams, S. J. Hathaway, John 
Sylvanus, Frank Kelsey and William Payne. These men determined 
that an anti-secret organization ought to be founded and accordingly 
were led to correspond with Gamma Nu of Yale which was thought 
to be anti-secret in nature. Gamma Nu informed the Marietta men 
that their society was devoted chiefly to literary pursuits and that its 
constitution forbade extension into other colleges. These limitations 
caused Pond and his friends to give up the idea of founding a society 
opposed to secrecy. Four years later, however, Augustus W. Williams 
matriculated at Lane Seminary, where he made the acquaintance of 
Josiah H. Strong, a member of the Western Reserve Chapter. Strong 

** R. H. Bowles to Crossett, Jan. 28, 1885, E. P. Miller to Crossett, June 23, 1884, 
F. M. Barber to W. E. Merritt, Oct. 13, so, 1889, S. Luther to Merritt, Sept. 4, 1889. 

ua Annual, 1886, 1889, 1910; see also Minutes of the Board of Directors, Feb. 14, 
1918, for an account of a visit by Crossett to Trinity. 


told Williams of Delta Upsilon and loaned him a copy of the Fra- 
ternity catalogue, which in due time Williams circulated among cer- 
tain undergraduates at Marietta, including Seymour J. Hathaway. 193 
After some further thought those interested, ten in all, met on the 
evening of March 18, 1870 at South Hall "for the purpose of estab- 
lishing an Anti-Secret Society, to become a chapter of the Delta Upsilon 
Fraternity at their consent." For the present they were content to style 
themselves as members of an anti-secret organization and to govern 
themselves as a chapter of Delta Upsilon. All of the men, moreover, 
were pledged to keep the existence of their society a secret for the 
time being. 194 

The following evening another meeting was held at which William 
Rowlands was admitted to membership. Rowlands, evidently, was a 
young man of drive and personality as the entire responsibilty for 
soliciting new members was placed solely in his hands; the others 
were to say nothing at all about the existence of their fraternity. Con- 
tact was also established with the Western Reserve Chapter who dele- 
gated Marcus Cozad to visit Marietta and install a chapter. Accordingly 
on April 23, 1870, Cozad formally gave the Fraternity pledge to thir- 
teen students. 195 Within two weeks the society met in what it pleased 
to call the "Delta Upsilon Rooms," at which time the secretary an- 
nounced that the faculty of the college had given its consent to the 
establishment of the chapter. Shortly thereafter letters were addressed 
to the various chapters of the Fraternity and favorable replies from 
Brown, New York, Western Reserve and Princeton were read at a 
meeting held May i4. 196 Western Reserve, moreover, took upon itself 
the duty of sponsoring the interests of Marietta at the Brown Con- 
vention on June i, 1870. The very next day the delegates voted to 
admit the Marietta society as a chapter of Delta Upsilon. 197 

The advent of Delta Upsilon at Marietta had taken the secret fra- 
ternities somewhat by surprise. To them the arrival of an anti-secret 
society was the signal for an outburst of ill-will. The campus was at once 
alive with excitement. And when Dr. Nelson of Lane Seminary was 
known to have accepted the invitation of the chapter to deliver an 

** Quinquennial, op. cit., p. 527, Quarterly, 1:41-42, XX'64-66. 

194 Minutes of the Marietta Chapter, Mar. 18, 1870. 

**Ibid. f Mar. 19, April 23, 1870. 

**Ibid. t May 7, 14, 1870. 

187 Annual, 1870; see also Minutes of the Marietta Chapter, Oct. 14, 1870 for the 
adoption of a resolution declaring that the society should be incorporated in 
Ohio as the Marietta Chapter of Delta Upsilon. It is not known whether this was 
carried out or not. 

CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1850-1881 127 

address at the local Congregational Church the feelings of the Greek 
letter men rose to great heights. The chapter, in the meantime, pro- 
ceeded to place posters at various places on the campus advertising 
this event, which was to take place in June, 1870. These, it seems, 
were torn down by the secret fraternities at the first opportunity. 
Fresh posters were immediately displayed and this time the Marietta 
Chapter stood guard with the result that no damage was done. Dr. 
Nelson's address as well as the incident itself did much to quicken 
the spirit of the chapter and raise its standing in the community. 198 
Further trouble, however, followed. In September, 1874 the chapter 
rooms were raided by members of the Alpha Sigma Phi Fraternity. 
Having discovered the minute book, the invaders held a mock meeting 
and entered a record of their procedure in this book. Among other 
things it seems that these men found the petition of Delta Upsilon 
to the Marietta College Faculty asking for assistance against tie re- 
peated attacks of the secret fraternities. Immediately resolutions were 
adopted by Alpha Sigma Phi in which expressions of sympathy ap- 
peared for the down-trodden members of the Delta Upsilon. A toast, 
moreover, was offered declaring Alpha Sigma Phi to be the best so- 
ciety in the country. Another raid, similar in nature, seems to have 
taken place in May of the next year and during the fall of 1876 a 
number of scandalous sheets were circulated about the campus. The 
upshot of these events, however, did little to dampen the ardor of 
the chapter. Indeed the reputation of Delta Upsilon grew, while the 
depredations themselves appear to have injured the secret groups in 
ways that had not been calculated. Student, faculty and town opinion 
quite generally frowned upon these acts and gave strong support to 
Delta Upsilon. 199 Continued assaults against the chapter, however, 
were made, her rooms invaded and infamous handbills scattered about 
the town. Even as late as 1883 the opposition against Delta Upsilon 
continued to rage. 

In the meantime the chapter devoted considerable attention to the 
development of its literary life. The hall was fitted up most attractively 
and at one end there was erected a stage for dramatic presentations. 
Representatives of the chapter were present at every national gather- 
ing and in 1874 the chapter was host to the general Fraternity. 200 The 
addition of Marietta to Delta Upsilon more than justified the action 
of the convention in admitting that society to the Fraternity. 

188 Quinquennial, op. cit., pp. 528-529. 

Ibid., p. 530, Minutes of the Marietta Chapter, Sept. 10, 1874, May si, 1875 
and Marietta to Amherst, Mar. 30, 1877. 
^Marietta to Amherst, April 23, 1872, Annual, 1872-1881. 


Marietta joined Delta Upsilon in 1870. During the next four years 
no further expansion of the Fraternity took place. Then it was that 
the convention granted charters to societies at Syracuse and Man- 
hattan. The origins of the Manhattan Chapter at the College of the 
City of New York goes back to the summer of 1873, when two students 
of that college agreed to organize an open league opposed to secrecy 
upon their return to the campus in the fall. At this juncture they be- 
came aware of Delta Upsilon and learned much of its ideals and 
aims from a friend who was of the New York Chapter. Further stim- 
ulus seems to have come from the Union and Amherst Chapters who 
urged the New York group to found a chapter at Manhattan as soon 
as possible. 201 As a result of these various forces a group of students 
at that college formed themselves into an open league during the 
spring of 1874 and followed this up by submitting a petition to the 
Marietta Convention of that year. This assembly appointed a com- 
mittee to visit the society and, if found worthy, to give its members 
the Fraternity pledge. New York, Rutgers and Hamilton undertook 
this task and shortly thereafter a chapter was established at Man- 
hattan. 202 

New York immediately took the young society under its care. Both 
societies occupied the same quarters, held joint meetings and acted 
as one organization with branches of two different institutions. Prob- 
ably this act of kindness, while of decided help, created a dependency 
on the part of Manhattan that was bound in time to weaken the new 
chapter. Tied somewhat too closely to a sister chapter, Manhattan 
does not seem to have exercised enough independence. Had the mem- 
bers been of sterner stuff or had they had a competent leader the 
chapter might have gained from the help offered by New York. As 
it was, Manhattan acted in a most feeble manner. It was almost 
apathetic in the rushing of new members, and although additions 
were made, no great strength was added. Of the nine members of the 
classes from 1877 to 1879 inclusive, five graduated from other col- 
leges, while the remainder had left college by 1878. These gradua- 
tions left the chapter without a single member, a fact that naturally 
resulted in the extinction of Manhattan. 203 

Eight years later the Council under the stimulus of Crossett turned 

201 Minutes of the Union Chapter, Feb. 27, 1874, Oct. 17, 1873, Minutes of the 
Amherst Chapter, Nov. 4, 1873. 

^Annual, 1874, Quarterly, 1-26-27, Quinquennial, op. cit. f pp. 557-558 In the 
absence of other information the vote of the Convention, May 14, 1874 may serve 
to fix the date of the establishment of this chapter. 

203 Quinquennial, op. tit,, pp. 560-561. 

CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1850-1881 129 

its attention to Manhattan, hoping to bring about a revival of Delta 
Upsilon on that campus. Crossett broached the matter to several of 
the alumni of the old chapter and from these he received considerable 
encouragement. 204 Turning to Manhattan itself, Crossett met a group 
of students who at once showed decided interest in the affair. Whether 
these men had already been approached by the alumni or not is not 
known. In any event Crossett received during the fall and winter of 
1886 several letters from these students relative to the founding of a 
chapter at Manhattan. Crossett made a careful survey and even went 
to the extent of visiting the local group. His reactions were distinctly 
favorable and under his guidance a petition was addressed to Otto 
Eidlitz who in turn presented it to the Executive Council, Decem- 
ber 11, i886. 205 A month later that body voted to recommend the 
granting of a charter and referred the whole matter to the Committee 
on Dead Chapters. This committee, which consisted of Union, Brown 
and Williams, did not express any great enthusiasm. And while the 
Executive Council was engaged with other matters, a letter was re- 
ceived from the Manhattan group withdrawing its petition. Although 
Crossett and others deplored the way things had gone and kept hoping 
that in time a new opening might appear, nothing seems to have 
been done by the Fraternity at large. Finally in November, 1909, the 
convention formally voted to withdraw the charter and with that ac- 
tion Manhattan became one of Delta Upsilon's dead chapters. 206 

The Syracuse Chapter was founded about the same time as was the 
Manhattan group and has had a continued life from that date to this. 
The inception of this chapter is in one sense crowded with uncertainty, 
and, were certain sources available, it might be possible to place the 
founding of this society in 1866. Among the records preserved at the 
Fraternity Headquarters is a fragment of the 1866 Convention's pro- 
cedure and action. At that time it was customary for the secretary of 
that meeting to forward a manuscript copy of the convention's activ- 
ities to each of the chapters. The particular fragment referred to seems 
at one time to have been in thd possession of the Middlebury Chapter. 

204 E. F. Gutsgell to the Council, June 18, 1886; see also letter to the same from 
J. H. Goldbacher. Gutsgell stated that in his opinion the former chapter had 
failed "because it started in the higher classes among members who graduated 
before they could place the fraternity upon a solid basis in the Freshman and 
Sophomore classes." 

^Society at College of City of New York to Council, Dec. 7, 1886, Minutes of 
the Executive Council, Dec. 11, 1886, Jan. 12, 18, 26, Feb. 5, 12, 1887. An attempt to 
found a chapter had taken place in 1880 by the New York Chapter, see Minutes 
of the Cornell Chapter, Jan. 16, 1880, New York to Rugers, Jan. 8, Feb. 21, 1880. 

200 Annual, 1910. 


Comparing this source with the account as given in the Quinquennial 
for this convention there is sufficient similarity to warrant our accepting 
this as a reliable source. Indeed it is more complete than the narrative 
as given in the Quinquennial. Now according to this fragment the 
delegates in 1866 seem to have listened to a representative of a society 
at Lima which was seeking membership in Delta Upsilon. The "Lima" 
in question was doubtless Lima, New York, which was the home of 
Genesee College, located a short distance to the south of Rochester 
where the convention was then in session. The delegates at this meet- 
ing seem to have been rather pleased with the petitioning body and 
after some discussion voted to grant it a charter. 

According to the constitution then in force and in keeping with the 
interpretation that has been followed throughout this narrative, a 
chapter may not be said to have been established until installation has 
taken place. In some cases it seems that installation came first, in which 
event the consent of the convention was necessary to make it a chapter 
in good standing. In this incident, the convention had given its consent 
and all that was needed to add Genesee College to the roll of chapters 
was for a committee to visit and install the chapter. In the light of 
available evidence it does not appear that installation ever took place. 
Had this occurred it is likely that some reference would have appeared 
in the minutes of some of the chapters or of the conventions that fol- 
lowed. No national gathering took place in 1867 and the records for 
the assembly of 1868 are altogether silent as to Genesee College. By 
way of general conclusion it may therefore be stated that no chapter 
was ever planted at Lima, New York. 207 

It is of interest to note that among the literary societies existing at 
Genesee College, which in 1870 was moved to Syracuse and from then 
on has been known as Syracuse University, was one which was called 
the Atticaeum. And it was from a society bearing the same name that 
the Syracuse Chapter was conceived. It is altogether possible that the 
Atticaeum of Genesee College was transferred to Syracuse University 
and if so the recollection of the 1866 event might still have been fresh 
in the minds of its members. Be that as it may, during the fall of 1873 
Frank Smalley and Edwin Nottingham undertook the establishment 
of a literary society at Syracuse University. These men were convinced 
that the secret fraternities, by reason of their closed organization, were 
not advancing the cultural side of college life. Gaining the support of 

407 An examination of the records of Genesee College preserved at Syracuse Uni- 
versity threw no light on this topic. 














I tnlt i ti'nml \ I mil i i 1 <>i 






J><t< In tit h 


CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1850-1881 131 

several other students, Smalley and Nottingham posted a notice, early 
in October, 1872, on the doors of College Hall to the effect that an 
open society was in the process of being founded. The editors of the 
college paper, the University Herald, realized at once that Smalley's 
efforts constituted in part an attack upon the secret societies of which 
they were members. Accordingly, the editorial section of that paper 
carried an article in which the idea of an open society was discussed 
at some length. Although the tone of this article was moderate, it is 
evident that the object in the mind of its author was to prove the utter 
futility of founding a new society at Syracuse. In spite of this mild 
opposition an open society was founded. Indeed the same issue of the 
University Herald which voiced sentiments against the plan carried a 
notice that the Atticaeum had been established. 208 

Although the Atticaeum was devoted primarily to literary pursuits, 
some of its members desired to give attention to fraternal objects as 
well. These men were not entirely of the same opinion as to the method 
of realizing these objects. A few were for the establishment of a secret 
society, while others led by Smalley believed that the forming of such 
an organization would be contrary to the ideals that had given rise to 
the Atticaeum. In order to prevent a dissolution, Smalley turned the 
attention of the group towards Delta Upsilon. That Syracuse was a 
splendid field for fraternity expansion was recognized as early as 1871 
when Amherst took the matter under consideration. The actual initia- 
tive, however, seems to have come from Syracuse. Someone it seems 
at Syracuse had written Amherst asking for information relative to 
the aims and ideals of Delta Upsilon. 209 On the basis of this communica- 
tion the matter was brought before the 1873 Convention. The dele- 
gates seemed pleased with the outlook and may even have appointed 
a committee to proceed to that campus and establish a chapter. There 
is nothing, however, in the record of that convention to warrant this 
latter statement. On the other hand, Abraham Miller of the Madison 
Chapter visited Syracuse on November 14, 1873, and at a meeting held 
in the Hall of Languages, received the pledges of seventeen students. 210 
Miller's action, moreover, was accepted by the Convention of 1874. 
Other chapters, as has been noted, had been installed before the con- 
stitutionally appointed body, namely the convention, had taken action. 
In such cases the date of the convention's action has been taken as 

208 University Herald, Oct. 30, 1872. 
^Minutes of the Amherst Chapter, Oct. 31, 1871. 

310 Minutes of the Syracuse Chapter, Nov. 14, 1873. Rochester in a letter to Rut- 
gers, Nov. 28, 1873, stated that she had done much towards founding Syracuse. 


fixing the date o the establishment of the chapter. Accordingly, Syra- 
cuse was founded by convention action, May 13, 1874. 

Subsequent meetings of the society were held at the Hall of Lan- 
guages and at the rooms of the members. In the spring of 1874 quarters 
were rented in the Pike Block. For over two years this was the home 
"of Delta Upsilon. During this period the chapter records show that 
the members took considerable interest in debate and literary exer- 
cises. Greater growth would doubtless have taken place but for a cer- 
tain amount of internal discord. Evidently some of the chapter still 
cherished a kindly attitude towards the secret societies. A few actually 
broke their pledges which resulted in their immediate expulsion from 
the fraternity; while others asked for and obtained dismissals. On top 
of this came the destruction of the chapter's rooms by a group of secret 
fraternity men during the Christmas recess of 1876 and i877. 211 In 
spite of these difficulties and setbacks, the society maintained its or- 
ganization, secured new members and in February, 1877, obtained a 
lease on some rooms in the Rice Block. About the same time a dispute 
arose between the chapter and the secret societies over the manage- 
ment of the University Herald. It appears that the editorial and busi- 
ness boards of this paper were elected by the students in a way that 
gave to the Greek letter societies complete control. Delta Upsilon was 
accorded representation by this arrangement. Late in 1876, however, 
Delta Kappa Epsilon sought to exclude certain groups from this scheme 
of things. This move was promptly checked by Delta Upsilon when it 
voted to have nothing to do with the publication of the paper unless 
all societies were equally represented. Two years later these secret 
societies effected a plan whereby Delta Upsilon was to be excluded from 
any share in the management of this publication. This plan called for 
the discontinuance of the University Herald and the establishment of 
a new paper on which Delta Upsilon was to have no representative. 
News of this caused the chapter to< assume full and complete direction 
of the University Herald. A board of editors was elected and publica- 
tion resumed where the secret fraternities had left off. From then on 
for a number of years the Syracuse published this paper which added 
much to the prestige of the chapter at home and abroad. From a na- 
tional point of view Syracuse more than held its own. Delegates were 
present at all conventions. Fraternity problems were seriously discussed 
in chapter meetings and in 1878 the society voted in favor of a change 
in national policy, namely the establishment of a non-, rather than an 
m Minutes of the Syracuse Chapter, 1873-1877, especially for Jan. 12, 13, 19, 1877. 

CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1850-1881 133 

anti-secret position. 212 At times, some of its members were elected to 
Fraternity offices. Furthermore, it seems to have favored a moderate 
program of extension and for this reason warmly endorsed the petition- 
ing society at the University of Michigan. 

As early as 1850 the Fraternity had its attention turned towards 
Michigan. In that year the Williams Chapter received a communication 
from a group of students at Ann Arbor concerning the badges and 
ideals of the Social Fraternity. Although it is not known whether or 
not Williams answered this letter the fact remains that the cause of 
anti-secrecy was being agitated at Michigan at this early date. Twelve 
years later another communication was received by Williams from 
certain students who not only were opposed to secret societies but who 
wanted advice as to the forming of an anti-secret group. A copy of the 
Williams constitution was forwarded to these men. Nothing, however, 
seems to have materialized, though the 1864 Convention authorized 
the Rochester Chapter to investigate the anti-secret group at Michigan 
with a view of adding it to the Fraternity. Rochester seems to have 
communicated with the Michigan men and to have gained from Colby 
and Hamilton a promise to vote for Michigan at the next convention. 
It is altogether likely, therefore, that the 1865 and 1866 Conventions 
discussed the situation, though it is evident that nothing positive was 
accomplished. 213 At the 1870 Convention, however, the committee on 
new chapters spoke encouragingly about prospects at Michigan. As 
a result a special committee was appointed to investigate the situation 
at once. This body seems to have made some type of a survey as in 
1875 the convention instructed Marietta and Rochester to establish a 
chapter at Ann Arbor if at all possible. Early in 1876, George W. Coon 
and Edward C. Dodge, both of Rochester, visited Ann Arbor and un- 
dertook to carry out the wish of the last convention. Coon and Dodge 
found a group of men who were favorable to the idea and after several 
preliminary meetings, initiated and installed the Michigan Chapter 
on the evening of April 10, iSyG. 214 Official notice of this act was pre- 
sented to the 1876 Convention which body immediately sent a tele- 
gram of congratulations to the new chapter. Although not present at 
this meeting, Michigan had delegates at every subsequent meeting 
covered by this chapter, and in 1882 was host to the general Fraternity. 

Internally, the chapter devoted considerable attention to literary 

z&Ibid., Nov. 24, 1876, Oct. 4, 11, 1878. 

213 Hamilton to Rutgers, Nov. 3, 1864, Rochester to Rutgers, Dec. 10, 1864, Mar. 6, 
1866. Minutes of the Social Fraternity of Williams, Jan. 29, 1850, Feb. 11, 1862, 
Records of the Conventions of Delta Upsilon, 1864. 

** Annual, 1870, 1873-1876, Quarterly, 11:8-9, Quinquennial, op. cit., pp. 563-564. 


work as well as to athletics and other student enterprises. At first it was 
called upon to meet a rather bitter attack leveled against it by the 
secret groups. The Chronicle, a student publication, carried a "fierce 
onslaught" for a time, but ultimately gave up the contest. One of the 
factors which had led to this conflict was the anti-secret attitude of 
Delta Upsilon. For over forty years this had been the time-honored 
policy of the Fraternity, adherence to which had done much to advance 
the growth and expansion of the society throughout the country. By 
1870, however, the need for so drastic a policy had largely passed. 
Throughout the Fraternity there was a growing sentiment favorable to 
a change. And yet Michigan had been planted as an anti-secret society, 
though the local group itself adopted a non-secret position. If the 
Fraternity at large had any doubts as to the wisdom of continuing an 
anti-secret program it is not to be wondered that the Michigan Chapter 
stood out for a more liberal pronouncement. Indeed there were some 
within that group who so strongly disliked the national anti-secret 
attitude that they were ready to lead the chapter over into the fold of 
a secret society. The net result was that the chapter spent many an 
anxious day, saw some of its members resign, while others became com- 
pletely apathetic as to the future of Delta Upsilon at Michigan. At this 
juncture the Fraternity stepped in and salvaged the situation by chang- 
ing its older position from anti- to non-secrecy. In achieving this end, 
Michigan took a leading rdle and for its efforts much credit is due. 215 
Michigan also took a prominent part in founding the Northwestern 
Chapter. As early as 1870 the Fraternity had its attention turned to- 
wards Evanston as a field for extension. Nothing, however, was done 
until 1874 when the Convention instructed Madison and Cornell to 
investigate conditions there. For some unknown reason, this committee 
did not render a report, a fact which probably indicates that these chap- 
ters did not undertake the task assigned to them. In 1879 the matter 
came up once again, and this time the convention appointed a new 
committee to take steps leading towards the founding of a chapter and 
report at the next assembly. In the meantime conditions at Evanston 
were becoming ripe for the appearance of Delta Upsilon. The tactics 
of the secret societies had so embittered a group of young men of the 
class of 1881 that a bold stand had been taken by these students as 
early as their freshman year. The subtle insinuations and mysterious 
meetings of the Greeks proved, however, too inviting as a number of 
these men forsook their older friendships and joined one or another of 

^Quinquennial, op. cit., pp. 564-565. The Quarterly, XV: 122-128 contains an 
interesting article on conditions at Michigan. 

CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1850-1881 135 

the secret fraternities. Those that remained loyal to the ideals enunci- 
ated in the freshman year were on the point of giving up the contest 
when their attention was directed to the account of Delta Upsilon in 
Baird's Manual. 

Impressed by the aims of this society the group on January 27, 1880, 
instructed Polemus H. Swift to write to Michigan for further informa- 
tion. Michigan replied at once and informed the Northwestern group of 
the action recently taken by the national convention in respect to secrecy. 
Shortly thereafter, Ossian C. Simonds, Michigan '78, then a resident of 
Chicago, visited Evanston and outlined the ideals of the Fraternity and 
expressed the hope that a chapter might be founded at Northwestern. 
Swift and his friends were delighted and asked Simonds to obtain 
authority to plant a chapter as soon as possible. The result was that on 
February 18, 1880, Simonds and Asa Whipple, also of Michigan, ad- 
ministered the pledge to fourteen men. Asa Whipple reported this 
fact to the convention of that year. Whipple, it seems, had been ap- 
pointed by the 1879 Convention to investigate conditions at North- 
western. His statement, therefore, in 1880, constituted a report which 
the delegates proceeded to accept. Although the chapter was installed 
in February, 1880, there is nothing in the records of the 1879 Conven- 
tion to warrant the belief that the delegates had actually voted to 
establish a chapter. All that had been done was to appoint a committee 
which was to take steps towards the founding and report at the next 
meeting. That the Fraternity looked with favor upon Northwestern is 
beyond all question, but no "power to act" was voted by the 1879 
Convention. Consequently, in order to make the installation of Febru- 
ary, 1880 complete, it was necessary for the 1880 gathering to admit 
Northwestern formally as a chapter. No formal action of this type took 
place, though it did accept the action of the committee appointed a 
year earlier. From a strict constitutional point of view, therefore, the 
Northwestern Chapter was not finally admitted until October 27, 
1880, which was the date Whipple made his report. 216 

Northwestern was not represented at that convention though she 
did have a delegate at the meeting of 1881, at which time the Fraternity 
officially admitted the Harvard Chapter. Five years before, a committee 
of Amherst and Brown, as well as another of Cornell and Amherst, 
had been appointed to investigate conditions at Cambridge. 217 The 
findings of this later body were not favorable, though the following 

216 Quarterly, I 57-58, Quinquennial, op. dt. f p. 575, Annual, 1870, 1874, 1879, A. 
D, Whipple to Rutgers, Mar. 25, 1880. 
Annual, 1876. 


year, 1880, the exact opposite was reported by Amherst. 218 The ex- 
planation for this change in attitude is doubtless to be found in the 
fact that in the interim there had appeared at Cambridge a sentiment 
in favor of Delta Upsilon. The leaders in this local movement seem to 
have been Oscar E. Perry, Alfred M. Allen, Charles W. Birtwell and 
Frank G. Cook. These men met, December i, 1880, in Birtwell and 
Allen's room and talked over the idea of forming a society which in 
time might become a chapter of Delta Upsilon. Evidently these men 
knew of the Fraternity and were attracted by its ideals and program. 
Cook frankly states in his diary that he was anxious to join a society 
but was unable to consider Phi Eta or Signet because of the expense 
attached to each. Shortly after this meeting, contact was established 
with the Brown Chapter, the result of which was to encourage the 
Harvard men to forge ahead with their plans of organization. By 
December 13, eight students had formed what they considered a chapter 
of the Fraternity, although they must have known that official status 
could only be given by convention action. Two months later, matters 
had gone far enough to warrant a visitation by delegates from Brown 
and Amherst who on February 19, 1881, initiated Cook, Allen and 
some twelve others into Delta Upsilon. This action was in keeping with 
the resolution adopted by the 1880 Convention. Consequently the 
correct date of the founding of the Harvard Chapter is that of February 
19, 1881. Official notice of the installation was given at the convention 
in October, 1881, at which Harvard was represented by Cook and 
Perry. 219 

The admittance of Harvard gave Delta Upsilon a roll of twenty- 
five chapters, thirteen of which had been founded since the memorable 
convention at Middlebury in 1864. Although four of these thirteen, 
Trinity, Miami, Manhattan and Princeton, had ceased to function, the 
presence of the others demonstrates that considerable progress had 
been made. Expansion, moreover, had been matched by a sound growth 
in constitutional matters. The Fraternity had altered its policy from 
ami- to non-secrecy and forward-looking steps had been taken for the 
establishment of a national executive council. 

.j, 1877, 1880, Diary of Frank G. Cook, Mss., Quinquennial, op. at., p. 584. 

Chapter VII 



CURING the year 1885 four new chapters were added to the Frater- 
nity. Of these the oldest was that which was planted at the Uni- 

versity of Wisconsin. Interest in this institution was doubtlessly stimu- 
lated by Frederick M. Crossett who, as the most energetic member of 
the recently established Executive Council, had embarked the Fra- 
ternity upon a policy of rapid expansion. Although our sources are 
completely silent, it seems reasonable to assume that it was Crossett 
who suggested Wisconsin to the 1883 Convention as a fitting place for 
another chapter. Supported by evidence as given in the Quinquennial 
of the presence of some sixty members of Delta Upsilon within that 
state, of whom one-third lived at Madison and Milwaukee, Crossett's 
enthusiasm encouraged the convention to appoint a committee con- 
sisting of Northwestern to look "into the advisability of founding a 
Chapter at the University of Wisconsin." To what extent Northwest- 
ern sought to carry out this duty is not known, though at the 1884 
Convention that chapter together with Michigan and Cornell were 
asked to investigate conditions at Madison and report at the next 
gathering. Northwestern delegated its authority to one of its members, 
Wilbur F. Atchison, while Michigan did the same in respect to Charles 
W. Carman. Cornell as a chapter took no action although its interests 
seem to have been cared for by an alumnus, P. H. Perkins, then living 
at Madison. Perkins* support was evidenced by a letter to Robert Eidlitz 
in which he strongly favored our entrance into Wisconsin. Carman's 
enthusiasm had already been shown on the floor of the Convention of 
1884 when he had been the first to propose the appointment of an 
investigating committee. 220 

330 Annual, 1883-1884, Quinquennial, op. cit., pp. 662-663, P. H. Perkins to R. 
Eidlitz, Jan. sti, 1885. 



Backed up by the action of the delegates, Carman and Atchison 
visited Madison early in May, 1885. Here they met Perkins and Pro- 
fessor William Trelease, Cornell '80, who conducted them about the 
campus and introduced them to a small but select gioup of students. 
Carman and Atchison were decidedly pleased with conditions and after 
a careful examination of the students they had met, proceeded to estab- 
lish a chapter May 6, 1885. Only two men were initiated: Ambrose P. 
Winston and Frederick Whitton of the classes of 1887 and 1889 respec- 
tively. Carman stated that he might have initiated five or six more but 
was led to limit his choice to those whom he felt sure would work to 
advance the cause of Delta Upsilon. Carman, probably, was aware of 
the inherent danger of starting a society composed of but two members. 
And had it not been for the energy and devotion of these two men, 
one of whom, Winston, was a brother of Edward M. Winston, Harvard 
'85, the entire venture might have been wrecked. As it was, Winston ' 
and Whitton, together with what help Perkins, Trelease and others 
furnished, shouldered their responsibilities with a spirit that was bound 
to bring ultimate success. 221 

Wisconsin was not present at the 1885 Convention, though she did 
report by letter. Distance plus lack of funds were assigned in this 
communication as the reasons for her absence. According to this report, 
however, the chapter numbered five members, two being Juniors, the 
remainder being divided equally between the three other classes. Con- 
ditions, moreover, for the future were stated as being quite pleasing; 
particularly as none of the secret societies showed any spirit of opposi- 
tion. As a result Wisconsin closed her first year within the Fraternity 
with a record that was both encouraging to itself and to Delta Upsilon. 
Continued growth took place during the year that followed and that 
in spite of some slight opposition on the part of the secret groups. 
College and class honors were won in a number of cases, while the 
chapter itself gave considerable thought to literary and cultural de- 
velopment. Attention was also given to athletics. At first the chapter 
met at the rooms of its members. Later quarters were rented for meet- 
ing purposes and in 1890 a suite of rooms was acquired near Capitol 
Park. Nationally, Wisconsin lived up to expectations. She was repre- 
sented by at least one delegate at all of the conventions of the nine- 
teenth century except in 1887 when she reported by letter. Wisconsin, 
moreover, acted as general host to the Fraternity in iSgg. 222 

^Annual, 1885, Quarterly, XXX: 11-12, 01:170-171, C. W. Carman to Crossett, 
May 14, 1885. 
^Annual, 1885-1900, Quinquennial (1891), pp. xiv-xv, Quarterly, 111.170-171, 


CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1881-1899 139 

Late in the same month that witnessed the planting of the Wisconsin 
unit a chapter was established at Lafayette. As early as 1873 the Fra- 
ternity had its attention turned towards that institution as a result of 
the efforts of the Rutgers Chapter. Convinced of the soundness of 
Lafayette as a place for extension, Rutgers addressed a letter to the 
President of that college in which, it is believed, the matter of Delta 
Upsilon entering Lafayette was raised. No reply seems to have been 
received, though Rutgers did establish contact with one D. Fleisher 
who, judging from the tone of a letter, was probably a member of 
Delta Upsilon, although his name does not appear in the Quinquen- 
nial.' 223 Benjamin Wyckoff, Rutgers '75, moreover, upon vote of his 
chapter, visited Lafayette and together with Fleisher looked over the 
situation. Wyckoff was instructed to go again, but due to Fleisher's 
advice no other visit was made. According to Fleisher, Wyckoff s pres- 
ence at Easton had aroused some talk and suspicion, which Fleisher 
believed might lead to trouble if Wyckoff were to come again. Rutgers, 
therefore, allowed the matter to drop. At the 1874 Convention, how- 
ever, the question of a chapter at Lafayette was introduced and a com- 
mittee formed of Rutgers and New York was asked to investigate and 
report. Some form of a statement was made by this committee in 1875. 
Exactly what was said is not known, though it is evident that the dele- 
gates did not think the situation hopeless as the committee was not 
discharged. Something, however, did happen to prevent any further 
investigation, though what this was is not stated in any of our 
sources. 224 

In 1883 Lafayette was brought once again before the convention, 
probably by Rutgers as that chapter together with New York were 
appointed to investigate conditions at Lafayette. The findings of this 
body, however, were none too favorable as a result of which the assem- 
bly of 1884 discharged the committee. Crossett, however, seems to have 
been of the opinion that Lafayette was a splendid field for expansion. 
Accordingly, on his own responsibility, he visited Easton in January, 
1885, and came away thoroughly convinced that Delta Upsilon should 
enter that institution. A group of students, moreover, had been inter- 
viewed, to whom Crossett freely gave information concerning the 
Fraternity and its policy. Doubtless, Crossett reported these facts to 

223 Minutes of the Rutgers Chapter, Jan. 13, 1874, D. Fleisher to Wyckoff, Feb. 19, 
1874; see also G. H. McEllen to Rutgers, Feb. 11, 1874. The absence of other names 
from the Quinquennial of men who are known to have been Delta U's would help 
to endorse the assumption of Fleisher's membership. 

^Minutes of the Rutgers Chapter, Jan. 13, 29, Feb. 3, Mar. 7, 1874, Annual, 


certain members of the Executive Council, although there is no record 
of this in the minutes of that body. The Executive Council, in all 
probability, encouraged Crossett to go forward with his plans and in 
May of the same year he visited Lafayette again. He was greeted most 
cordially by the above-mentioned students who during his absence 
had formed themselves into the Social Union. Crossett was more than 
pleased and departed feeling certain that a formal petition would be 
presented in the near future. In due time this took place and under 
the guidance of Crossett was accepted by the Executive Council. In 
the meantime, Crossett appears to have written the chapters asking 
for their consent to the establishment of a society at Lafayette. Favor- 
able replies were received and on May 30, 1885, at the Arlington Hotel 
in Easton nineteen men were inducted into membership in the 
Lafayette Chapter of Delta Upsilon. The installation committee con- 
sisted of Joseph H. Bryan, Frederick M. Crossett, Robert J. Eidlitz, 
Marcus C. Allen, Otto M. Eidlitz, Edward M. Bassett and Charles E. 
Hughes. 225 

The founding of the Lafayette Chapter received the endorsement 
of campus opinion. The administration welcomed the new society 
while the fraternities adopted a friendly attitude. Rivalry to be sure 
existed but that was not born out of any dislike for Delta Upsilon; 
rather was it due to a feeling of vested interests which for a time it was 
thought Delta Upsilon threatened. As illustrating this attitude there 
may be cited the case of the secret societies keeping Delta Upsilon off 
of the editorial board of the college annual. Opposition of this type, 
only encouraged the members of the chapter to press forward to a 
stronger and most lasting organization. Meetings were held from time 
to time in the rooms of the members. In the fall of 1885 a lodge was 
located in the third story of 423 Northampton Street, while in March, 
1888, the chapter moved into a more commodious room at 437 North- 
ampton Street. Here valuable social and literary exercises were held. 
Attention was also paid to college activities, such as class and athletic 
honors. From a national point of view Lafayette was represented at 
every convention from 1885 to 1900 except in 1892 and i8g3. 226 

Within a week after the establishment of the Lafayette Chapter a 
branch of the Fraternity was planted at Columbia University. Late in 
1874, Eugene D. Bagen, then a Sophomore of the New York Chapter, 

^Annual, 1883-1885, Quarterly, 111:172-173, Crossett to Chamberlain, May 13, 
1885, Crossett to Rutgers, May 27, June 4, 1885, Michigan to Crossett, May 19, 1885, 
Colby to Crossett, May 13, 1885, Quinquennial, (1891), p. xvi. 

** Quinquennial, (1891), p. xvi, Quarterly, 111:254-255, ^162-163. 

CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1881-1899 141 

became interested in Columbia as a suitable place for fraternity growth. 
Bagen passed his impressions on to the Rutgers men who at that time 
were taking an active r61e in Fraternity affairs. The matter, moreover, 
was presented to the delegates at the 1875 Convention. This body 
registered its feelings by appointing a committee, composed of New 
York, Amherst and Manhattan, to investigate conditions. Bagen seems 
to have acted as chairman of this group. Little, however, could be 
done for the time being as the summer vacation followed shortly after 
the close of the 1875 meeting. At the opening of college in the fall, 
Bagen introduced himself to a Professor Waldo who had formerly 
been at Marietta and was known to be friendly to Delta Upsilon. To 
what extent Waldo actually assisted Bagen is not known, but by early 
November Bagen was writing to Rutgers that he had pledged three or 
four men and was hoping that the Fraternity would immediately es- 
tablish a chapter. As General Secretary of the Fraternity, Bagen's ef- 
forts were of added strength. In spite of these favorable beginnings, 
however, nothing seems to have been done. Possibly some of the chap- 
ters were reluctant to proceed without further information, or maybe 
Bagen himself found conditions less inviting than he had at first ex- 
pected. The Convention, however, in 1876, evinced a determination to 
continue its policy and appointed a new committee formed of Roches- 
ter, Rutgers and New York to investigate and report at the next meet- 
ing. The following year the convention having accepted the commit- 
tee's report, which was favorable to Columbia, voted that Rochester, 
Middlebury and Cornell should proceed to establish a chapter. No 
action, however, was taken by this committee and what is more no 
reference to Columbia was made at the next two conventions. 227 

What caused this rather sudden change in sentiment is not known 
as our sources are entirely silent on the matter. It is evident, however, 
from the wording of a statement that appears in the Annual for 1880 
that a committee on Columbia had been operating during the past 
year. It was the belief of this body, which was headed by the New 
York Chapter, that conditions were favorable to Delta Upsilon's en- 
trance into Columbia University. New York, moreover, was requested 
by the delegates to continue its efforts. Associated with New York were 
Rutgers and Brown. Investigations by this body seem to have been 
undertaken with the result that at the national meeting of 1881 a new 
committee, formed of New York and Cornell, was created to look into 
matters and report at the next convention. Both of these committees 

^Annual, 1875-1879, E. D. Bagen to Rutgers, Nov. 23, 1874, June 21, Nov. 6, 
1875, New York to Amherst, Nov. 6, 1875. 


discovered a number of men at Columbia who were opposed to the 
secret societies but who were unwilling to form a new group on the 
ground that Columbia already had its share of societies. As a result of 
this finding an adverse report was presented to the 1882 Convention, 
which body discharged the committee and allowed Columbia to be 
dropped from further consideration. 228 

Sometime in the spring of 1885, Hamilton L. Marshall of Columbia 
obtained a copy of the Quarterly and became so interested in Delta 
Upsilon that he wrote to Joseph H. Bryan, New York '86 as to what 
might be done relative to the founding of a chapter at Columbia. 
Bryan, it seems, turned the letter over to Crossett who together with 
Albert W. Ferris, New York '78, took steps towards the planting of a 
chapter at that institution. The sentiments of the chapters were sought 
who, on hearing that conditions were more than favorable at Colum- 
bia, gave their consent to the immediate founding of a society. Sup- 
ported by this interest the Executive Council proceeded to organize a 
petitioning group and after a short delay issued a charter, June i, 
1885. Five days later at the Hotel Brunswick in New York City the 
Columbia Chapter was founded with ten members. 229 

Of these ten, one was from the graduating class of 1885, three were 
of the class of 1886, while the remainder were sophomores. With this 
as a nucleus, Delta Upsilon undertook its life at Columbia. The col- 
lege in general seems to have been mildly suspicious of a non-secret 
fraternity but at no time took any hostile measures against the new 
society. Additions were made to the chapter, while the members them- 
selves added to the reputation of Delta Upsilon by gaining a number 
of class, university and athletic honors. At first the chapter meetings 
were held in the rooms of the members. Later a room was acquired at 
19 East 74th Street and still later on East 57th Street. The absence, 
however, of a central lodge was constantly in the minds of the members 
who believed that the growth of the chapter was being retarded by 
this factor. Finally, in October, 1887, the chapter moved into quarters 
at 8 East 47th Street. Here "together with the New York Alumni Club 
... it enjoyed as pleasant and luxurious a home as any fraternity at 
Columbia College." In May, 1891, it moved to the Fraternity Head- 
quarters at 142 West 48th Street. In national life, Columbia played an 
important role. The close contact that it maintained with the New 

258 Annual, 1880-1882, New York to Rutgers, Feb. 21, 1880. 

^Annual, 1885, Quarterly, 111:174-175, 213, Michigan to Crossett, May 19, Brown 
to Crossett, May 15, Rochester to Crossett, May 13, Middlebury to Crossett, May 
14, Colby to Crossett, May 13, 1885 and Crossett to Rutgers, May 27, June 4, 1885. 

CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1881-1899 143 

York Alumni Club and the Executive Council gave a splendid oppor- 
tunity for its men to take a leading part in fraternity work. A survey 
of the sources will reveal a number of names in this club who had 
been students at Columbia. From 1885 to 1890 inclusive the Executive 
Council had on its rolls eight men from Columbia of whom William J. 
Warburton and Thornton B. Penfield might be mentioned. Columbia, 
moreover, was represented at every national convention from 1885 
to igoo. 230 

The last of the four chapters to be founded in 1885 was that at 
Lehigh. Late in 1884 Delta Upsilon had its attention turned towards 
that university probably by Crossett who was ever on the alert for 
prospective chapters. It may be that Crossett knew of the struggle the 
neutral element was having at that institution in the matter of class 
awards and honors. In any event the rapid growth of Lehigh since 
1879 marked it as a place suitable of expansion. Considerations of this 
type explain why the 1884 Convention asked Cornell, Rutgers and 
Hamilton to plant a chapter at that institution. Nothing, however, 
seems to have been done for almost a year, although during that 
period several attempts were made by Lehigh students to organize a 
new society. Whether the Executive Council knew of these doings or 
whether these students later became members of the Fraternity is not 
known. It is established, however, that Crossett, Packard and Tansey, 
the latter two being of the Cornell Chapter, visited South Bethlehem, 
September 19, 1885. Tansey knew a student at Lehigh, Charles P. 
Pollak, and through this friendship a number of men were interviewed 
and the ideals of the Fraternity explained. As a result of these efforts 
four men were found who bound themselves to further the establish- 
ment of a chapter. Anxious to have this accomplished as soon as possi- 
ble, six more men were secured; all of which doubtless was made 
known to Crossett. Communications between the Executive Council 
and the petitioning group followed with the result that on October 7, 
1885 a preliminary meeting at Lehigh adopted plans for holding an 
installation at the American Hotel, Allentown, Pennsylvania. Three 
days later the Lehigh men were formally installed into Delta Upsiloii 
and the Lehigh Chapter became a reality. 231 

Representatives from seven chapters were present at this installation 
which was conducted by Bassett and Crossett. The Lehigh Chapter 
started out with ten men, four each from the junior and sophomore 

230 Quinquennial, (1891), pp. xvii-xviii, Quarterly, 111:286, XXVIII^Gg^yo. 

231 Quinquennial, (1891), pp. xviii-xxi, Quarterly, 111:225, Annual, 1884, Minutes 
of the Lehigh Chapter, Oct. 7, 1885. 


classes, and two from the senior class. The officers of the new society 
consisted of William A. Lydon, Robert L. Whitehead, John M. 
Howard, Luther R. Zollinger, and Harry S. Morrow. A constitution 
and by-laws, modelled on that of the Cornell Chapter was also adopted. 
On these foundations the Lehigh group undertook its life at Bethlehem. 
At first the secret societies sought to cripple the activities of the chapter 
by refusing her a place on the board of the college annual. Within a 
year, however, this was overcome and from that time on relations have 
been more or less friendly. In the meantime recognition was won on 
the campus through scholastic, athletic and social attainments. For a 
time Pollak's room served as the chief place for meeting, but in 
January, 1886 the chapter moved into a suite of rooms in the Kanuass 
Block on East Third Street. Two years later, ten rooms were rented 
in an apartment house on Wyandotte and Fourth Streets. Later quar- 
ters were obtained on Cherokee Street. From a national point of view, 
Lehigh was ably represented at all of the remaining conventions of 
the century. 232 

A little over a year after the founding of Lehigh a chapter was 
planted at Tufts College. Interest in Tufts seems to have first shown 
itself during 1883. So strong was the feeling in favor of Tufts that an 
attempt was made to grant it a charter at the convention of that year. 
Although there is no mention of a petitioning group at Tufts in the 
1883 Annual, it is evident that there must have been a body of students 
there seeking admission into the Fraternity. This assumption is borne 
out by the account as given in the Quinquennial by one of the charter 
members of the local society. According to this author the genesis of 
the Tufts Chapter is to be found in the dissatisfaction that existed 
among the more prominent non-secret men with the political and 
social conditions on that campus as well as in the grounded belief that 
some second-rate fraternity might enter the field and thus make the 
situation more undesirable. Although the efforts of these men were 
not successful in 1883, the convention did ask Cornell, Brown and 
Amherst to look into the feasibility of planting a chapter at Tufts. 
It is doubtful if this committee did more than report favorably upon 
the proposition in 1884, at which time a new committee was instructed 
to continue the investigation. In 1885 an adverse report was presented 
but upon vote of the delegates the committee was retained. 

Among the students at Tufts who had become interested in Delta 
Upsilon was Wilson L. Fairbanks. Fairbanks was more than conscious 

^Ibid., Minutes of the Lehigh Chapter, Oct. 10, 14, 1885, Tan. 17, 1886, Sept. 
14, 1888. 

CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1881-1899 145 

that the non-secret element at Tufts was breaking up, due in part to 
a sense of distrust that had arisen in their ranks as to the sincerity of 
some of their leaders as well as the likelihood of the entrance of a new 
secret society. Fairbanks, who in all probability already had a copy of 
Delta Upsilon's constitution, sensed the situation and together with 
several other kindred souls held a private meeting May 29, 1886 at 
which it was decided that those present would have nothing to do 
with the proposed new secret society. Mention, moreover, was made 
of Delta Upsilon; whereupon, it was agreed that an investigation of 
the Fraternity should be made at once. Catalogues, magazines and 
other publications of the Fraternity were looked into with the result 
that on June 15, a formal petition signed by thirteen men was mailed 
by Fairbanks to Crossett. With Commencement only three days off, 
nothing could be done towards meeting the desires of these men. 
Anything like a thorough investigation would have taken more time 
to say nothing of the delay that would have arisen in obtaining by 
letter the consent of the chapters. 233 

The opening of college in the fall of the same year witnessed a 
prompt revival of interest on the part of the petitioners. Believing that 
their prospects would be increased by some type of an organization, 
these men founded the Mathetican Society. Bolstered by this act over- 
tures were made once more to Crossett who replied by sending Robert 
S. Bickford of the Harvard Chapter to Tufts. Bickford was more than 
pleased with the caliber of the Tufts men and was instrumental in 
bringing about a joint meeting of the Mathetican Society and of the 
Harvard Chapter. The Harvard group registered its sentiments by 
voting in October, 1886 to endorse the petitioners at the next con- 
vention. At the same time, the Tufts men were able to gain the good 
will of the Secretary of the Tufts Faculty who graciously addressed 
a letter to the Executive Council commending the local group in no 
uncertain terms. Coincident with the receipt of this letter came a 
formal petition signed by seventeen men of lie Mathetican Society. 234 

At the Hamilton Convention, October 29, 1886, Frank O. Melcher 
and Wilson L. Fairbanks were accorded the privilege of presenting 
the merits of the Tufts society. After some debate the delegates voted 
to admit this group. Nothing more was needed beyond providing for 
formal installation, a detail that was arranged by the Executive Council 

233 Annual, 1883-1886, Quinquennial, (1891), pp. xxii-xxiii, Minutes of the Cor- 
nell Chapter, Nov. 23, 1883, W. L. Fairbanks to Crossett, Oct. 11, 1885, June 15, 

284 Quinquennial, op. tit., pp. xxiii-xxiv, H. A. Dearborn to Crossett, Oct. s>6, 1886, 
Mathetican Society to the Council, Oct. 26, 1886. 


in conjunction with the Tufts group. Accordingly on December 4, 
1886, at the Quincy House, Boston, Crossett and Otto M. Eidlitz 
formally established the Tufts Chapter of Delta Upsilon. 235 

Under the guidance of the eighteen men who became charter mem- 
bers, the Tufts Chapter finished its first year with an increase in 
numbers and local reputation. According to the available sources there 
seem to have been no outward signs of antagonism on the part of the 
secret groups beyond that of friendly rivalry. Additions to the chapter 
roll were made in the years that followed, while on the campus indi- 
vidual members gained recognition by winning class and athletic 
honors. Chapter meetings were held in convenient quarters in West 
Sommerville and West Medford. Later, a house was obtained at which 
in 1896 the Fraternity was entertained. Tufts was represented at every 
general meeting covered by this chapter except for 1890. The alumni, 
moreover, took an active part in both local and national fraternity 
life. Among these graduate members whose loyalty to the Fraternity 
was evidenced a number of times, none played a more important r61e 
than Fairbanks. From the very first, Fairbanks threw himself into 
Fraternity life with a vim that was bound to attract attention. Later, 
his services as a member of the Executive Council and as editor of the 
Quarterly were of peculiar and lasting benefit to Delta Upsilon. 

Less than a year after the foundation of Tufts a chapter was placed 
at De Pauw. Although relatively young, De Pauw even then had a 
number of secret societies. By 1882 these groups had split into two 
general factions over the control of the local literary societies. So bitter 
had this quarrel become that literary activity was brought practically 
to an end; an outcome that was greatly deplored by the neutral 
element. Among the neutrals there were some who believed that these 
cultural pursuits were of greater benefit to the college and to them- 
selves than the existing inter-fraternity war. Accordingly steps were 
taken for the creation of a society of their own. At first informal 
meetings were held. By 1883, however, a society was formed known 
as the Organized Barbs. For a time the fortunes of this group pros- 
pered, but by 1884 a crisis was reached. In part this was due to a 
desertion by some to the ranks of the secret societies. Again, internal 
trouble was engendered by an attempt to make out of the Organized 
Barbs a local fraternity. The constant inroads, however, made upon 
their society by the secret fraternities compelled those that remained 
to take steps towards a more permanent organization. 

In the fall of 1885, therefore, inquiries were addressed to one of the 

** Annual, 1886, Crossett to Rutgers, Dec. 6, 1886. 

> 'w*V''. 







I (i, 

.,/ \ I ,l< 










Keystone Tiav Co 


UNION '87 








CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1881-1899 14? 

better-known Greek letter groups not represented at De Pauw. Investi- 
gation revealed that this fraternity was chiefly Southern in its scope 
and influence and for that reason was not suited to conditions at 
De Pauw. Although a few of the Barbs were of the opinion that 
nothing more should be done until the next school year, others wanted 
overtures to be made as soon as possible to some other fraternity. 
In casting about for such a possibility, an examination was made of 
certain material that recently had been published in the De Pauw 
Monthly. Here a list of fraternities was given together with a statement 
of their relative standing and prominence. Among these was Delta 
Upsilon which strongly appealed to the Barbs by reason of its pros- 
perous condition and the ideals upon which it had been founded. 236 

In the meantime the attention of Delta Upsilon had been turned 
towards De Pauw. At the 1883 Convention the delegates after some 
discussion voted for the appointment of a committee, composed of 
Northwestern and Michigan, to look into the situation at De Pauw. 
The report of this committee was adverse in nature. In spite of this 
and a similar statement in 1885 the committee was retained. Late in 
May, 1886 Michigan received a communication from the Barbs. 
Michigan's reply greatly encouraged these men who lost no time in 
communicating directly with the Council. Crossett, who at that time 
was the directing genius of this body, showered upon the local group 
a number of Fraternity publications and encouraged them to go ahead 
with their plans. Further correspondence on the part of the Barbs 
with several of the chapters resulted in the drafting of a formal petition 
to the Fraternity. Although dated June 7, 1886, the document was not 
mailed until a week later; the delay being caused, doubtless, by a 
desire on the part of its framers to obtain as large a number of signers 
as possible. Accompanying this letter was a communication from 
President Martin of De Pauw University which strongly endorsed the 
petitioning group. 237 

Within a month thereafter the Michigan Chapter reported to 
Crossett that it was favorably disposed towards De Pauw. Acting on 
the advice of this chapter the Barbs kept up a correspondence during 
the summer, and in September, 1886 asked Crossett to canvass the 

288 Quarterly, V: 165-167, Quinquennial, (1891), pp. xxiv-xxv. J. F. Meredith was 
the author of the account in the Quarterly, op. cit. He also sketched an account in 
the same, XL VII .-661-662, which conflicts with the older account as to details. I 
have followed the earlier record as that was closer to the event itself and therefore 
is more likely to be accurate. 

287 Annual, 1883-1885, Quarterly, V: 167-168, J. F. Meredith to Crossett, May 22. 
June 14, 1886. 


chapters as soon as possible. Crossett was more than willing to do this 
and after having seen to it that De Pauw had sent catalogues to all 
of the chapters, issued a circular letter stating that the Executive 
Council favored Delta Upsilon's entrance into De Pauw. In view of 
the fact that the convention of that year was to meet at Madison on 
October 28, only a few of the chapters seem to have replied. Of these 
Lehigh, Madison, Marietta and Colby were favorably disposed, while 
Cornell took a contrary position. Realizing that nothing now could 
be done, Crossett invited De Pauw to send one of their men to the 
convention. This delegate appeared and presented the case of the Barbs 
with the result that the convention voted to allow the Council to 
"determine the advisability of establishing a chapter at De Pauw." 
Interpreting this motion as a commission to establish a chapter, 
Crossett immediately informed John F. Meredith, the delegate from 
De Pauw, that a committee would visit Greencastle in the near future. 
A little later he wrote stating that his visit had to be delayed but that 
he would appear before the dose of the year. For some unknown 
reason, this was not done. Meredith became alarmed over this delay, 
especially as some of the Barbs were on the point of accepting bids 
from the secret societies. Even this failed to arouse Crossett who does 
not appear to have reached Greencastle until March 31, 1887. After 
some consultation with the Barbs, members of the Faculty, and Presi- 
dent Martin, Crossett with the help of George I. Larash of North- 
western and Fred C. Clark of Michigan formally installed the De Pauw 
Chapter, Saturday, April 2, iSSy. 238 

Crossett's action in planting the De Pauw Chapter raised consider- 
able discussion at the 1887 Convention. It was the opinion of a number 
of delegates that the 1886 Convention had never given its consent to 
the establishment of a chapter and for that reason Crossett's action 
was null and void. The details of this dispute are discussed elsewhere 
in this volume; hence it only remains to be stated here that the action 
of the convention, October 28, 1887, is the correct date for fixing the 
founding of the De Pauw Chapter. 239 

The advent of Delta Upsilon at De Pauw caused some comment 
among the secret societies. Some opposition followed but as Delta 
Upsilon grew in size and influence its position on the campus became 
generally accepted by all. Class and college honors as well as athletic 

^Michigan to Crossett, July 10, 1886, J. F. Meredith to Crossett, Sept. 19, Oct. 
12, 17, 23, Nov. 7, Dec. 7, 1886, Jan. 31, Feb. 14, 1887, Annual, 1886, Quarterly, 
V:i6 7 -i69. 

230 See above, pp 90-94. 

CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1881-1899 149 

distinction aided the chapter in its steady growth during the remainder 
of the century. From the very first the society rented a suite of rooms 
for meeting and social purposes. From a national point of view, De 
Pauw was represented at every convention covered by this chapter 
except that for 1887. Further, in 1895, De Pauw was host to the 

Following the founding of De Pauw, a chapter was established at 
Pennsylvania. That this institution merited a chapter of Delta Upsilon 
no one denied. Indeed looking at the situation from the present day 
one wonders why the Fraternity was so slow in entering one of our 
oldest and best universities. As it was, the attention of the Fraternity 
was first directed towards Pennsylvania at the 1881 Convention, when 
Rutgers, Hamilton and Madison were asked to "establish a chapter" 
at that institution. For the next two years this committee seems to 
have done little more than mark time, though in 1884 it reported 
that conditions there did not warrant establishing a chapter. The con- 
vention accepted this report and discharged the committee and with 
this action no further attention was paid to Pennsylvania until i886. 240 

In the meantime the Executive Council had been established and 
under the direction of that body expansion became the order of the 
day. Possibly it was Crossett that brought Pennsylvania before the 1886 
Convention as his interest in Fraternity growth had been shown on 
more than one occasion. Be that as it may, the delegates after some 
debate directed the Council to appoint a committee to found a Penn- 
sylvania Chapter. The earlier attempts in 1881 had doubtless come 
to naught because of the absence of any group interested in the 
Fraternity at Pennsylvania. In 1886 the exact opposite existed. Some 
time in August of that year Crossett communicated with Thomas C. 
Ely, Madison '85, who at that time was a medical student at Penn- 
sylvania. Crossett seems to have suggested to Ely the possibility of a 
chapter at that university. Ely's reply was not received until the middle 
of September. His answer endorsed the idea of a chapter and stated 
that he would look into the matter in the near future. It may be that 
Crossett mentioned these facts to the delegates in 1886, though the 
Executive Council's report at that time said nothing at all about 
Pennsylvania. 241 

Backed up, however, by the action of the Convention, Crossett 

240 Annual, 1881-1885. 

^Ibid., 1886, T. C. Ely to Crossett, Sept. 11, 1886. In this letter there is reference 
to a letter from Crossett dated the "i6th," which of course could not be of 


immediately turned his attention to the matter. Having secured the 
name of Alexander W. Russell, possibly from Ely, as an outstanding 
non-fraternity man at Pennsylvania, Crossett wrote to him inquiring 
as to his attitude and as to the fraternity situation at his institution. 
Russell's reply contained enough information to warrant a continu- 
ation of correspondence. Acting on Crossett's advice, Russell canvassed 
a number of neutrals and after a close study of the ideals of Delta 
Upsilon, sent Crossett a list of persons who might be interested in the 
advent of a new fraternity. Crossett at once asked Russell to sound 
out these men and on January 18, 1887 presented the entire matter 
to the Executive Council. Crossett spoke in favor of Pennsylvania at 
this meeting and the Executive Council appointed Hughes, Eidlitz 
and Crossett a committee to take charge of the matter and make the 
necessary arrangements relative to installation. On the same day of 
this meeting Russell wrote Crossett that those interested in Delta 
Upsilon would be glad to see Crossett within a week as they were 
anxious to find out more about Delta Upsilon and what it might cost 
to form a chapter. Crossett answered these letters and visited Phila- 
delphia some time before January 26, 1887. Crossett's visit resulted 
in the local group forming themselves into an association so as to 
further their entrance into the Fraternity. For the next few months, 
however, matters lagged due in part to the lack of confidence that 
some of the men had in Russell and also because others were some- 
what content with existing conditions. As one of them observed in a 
letter to Crossett, local interest in clubs, studies and literary activities 
was so great that there hardly seemed to be any reason for joining 
a fraternity. Here matters rested for some time. 242 

Upon the opening of school in the fall of 1887, Russell informed 
Crossett that although he had left college he was willing to cooperate 
in any effort towards establishing a chapter at Pennsylvania. Russell's 
letter came too late in September for Crossett to do anything before 
the next convention. At this gathering Crossett told of the several 
overtures that had been made to a group at Philadelphia but that 
for the present nothing could be done towards founding a chapter. 
The delegates accepted this report without any comment; an action 
which Crossett interpreted as meaning an extension of the authority 
to the Executive Council which had been given in 1886. Crossett, 
therefore, went ahead and replied to Russell's repeated letters by 

342 A. W. Russell to Crossett, Dec. 21, 1886, Jan. 7, 18, Feb. i, Mar. 7, 1887, E. 
W. Mumford to Crossett, May 12, 1887, Minutes of the Executive Council, Tan. 
18, 26, 1887. 

CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1881-1899 151 

forwarding fraternity material and by urging him to continue in his 
efforts. Russell, it appears, worked most diligently and by January 20, 
1888 forwarded to Crossett a petition signed by seven men, all of whom 
seem to have been most enthusiastic about joining Delta Upsilon. 
The Executive Council, however, felt that seven was not enough to 
warrant granting a charter. 

At this juncture, Crossett went to Philadelphia believing, doubtless, 
that his own efforts would stimulate interest and recruit a larger 
number of petitioners. In this he was successful as some twelve stu- 
dents were secured in the course of the next month. These, Russell, 
was able to form into a society with officers and a constitution. A report 
of all this was given to the Executive Council by Crossett; whereupon 
that body voted a charter to the petitioning group. Crossett forwarded 
this information to Philadelphia together with a statement that instal- 
lation would take place on March 17. Due, however, to a severe storm, 
the event was postponed until the twenty-third, at which time Crossett, 
Hughes and three others of the Executive Council installed the Penn- 
sylvania group in the presence of delegates from nine chapters. Eleven 
men were initiated into the chapter. 243 

The action of the Executive Council, as is shown elsewhere in this 
volume, was questioned on the ground that no authority had been 
given for the founding of Pennsylvania. The delegates, however, at the 
1888 Convention, not wishing to penalize the petitioners, voted to 
admit them into Delta Upsilon. This vote was taken on October 26, 
1888 and in accordance with the constitution of the Fraternity at that 
time, should be viewed as the correct date for fixing the establishment 
of the Pennsylvania Chapter. 244 

In the meantime, the Pennsylvania group had gone ahead and rented 
in April, 1888 two steam-heated rooms on the third floor of a flat on 
the corner of Seventeenth and Chestnut Streets. For the next two years 
the chapter increased in size and influence, but beginning with 1890 a 
decided slump took place. Only two new members were added from the 
classes of 1893 and 1894, while but five were gained from the class of 
1895 and only three from that of 1896. The absence of any chapter 
letter in the Quarterly for a number of issues is further evidence of 
the decline in fraternity interest at Pennsylvania. No representative, 
moreover, was present at the 1890 and 1892 Conventions. Aware of 

343 A. W. Russell to Crossett, Sept. 28, Nov. i, 8, 27, Dec. 20, 1887, Jan. 20, 30, 
Feb. 8, 16, 21, 26, Mar. 6, 7, 18, 20, 1881, Annual, 1887-1888, Quarterly, VI:i6g, 
Minutes of the Executive Council, Jan. 26. Mar. 3, 19. 1888, 

244 See above, pp 94-98. 


these facts, Fairbanks and Thomas of the Executive Council, upon 
direction of the convention, determined to salvage the chapter if it was 
not altogether too late. Correspondence and conversations took place 
between these men and Thomas L. Coley and Ryland W. Greene, both 
of the class of 1892, as to conditions at Pennsylvania. 

According to Coley, whose views seem to have been endorsed by 
Fairbanks, Pennsylvania's decline might be attributed to the lack of 
fraternity spirit in the chapter, the dormitory system of the University 
and the absence of any support from either alumni or chapters. More 
important than these considerations, Coley believed was the fact that 
the chapter had been founded without sufficient care and organization. 
In other words, Coley declared that it was a "gross error" to have 
granted a charter to the group led by Russell. Somewhat dismayed by 
these facts, Thomas and Fairbanks visited Pennsylvania, where they 
found conditions much as had been reported. Conversations, however, 
with the chapter resulted in the appearance of a new attitude, while 
a steering committee, of which Joseph R. Smith, '95 was chairman, 
was formed. This body, together with what help the Executive Council 
and alumni furnished, was able to bring about a reorganization of 
the chapter. Seven and nine men were secured respectively from the 
classes of 1897 and 1898. Further additions were made in the years 
that followed with the result that Pennsylvania was able to weather 
the storm of internal disintegration and take her place once more in the 
conventions of Delta Upsilon. From 1895 she was represented at every 
national gathering, while at home her influence and size continued 
to reflect the good work of the reorganization days of 1892 and iSgj. 245 

The next chapter in order of founding was that established at Minne- 
sota. Interest in that institution seems to have shown itself at the 1882 
Convention when a committee composed of Northwestern and Western 
Reserve were appointed to examine the "advisability of establishing a 
chapter" there. No report was made by this committee in either 1883 
or 1884. During the spring of 1885, however, Crossett opened up 
negotiations with Carman N. Smith, Michigan '83, who at that time 
was living at Minneapolis. Smith's reply expressed the hope that he 
and the other fifteen Delta U's in the city might help in the founding 
of a chapter. Possibly Crossett answered this letter though there is no 
evidence to that effect. In any event it must have been Crossett who 
was responsible for the insertion within the 1885 Annual that the 

246 Quinquennial, (1903), pp. 870-875, T. L. Coley to Thomas, April 20, May 7, 
1893, R. W. Greene to Thomas, Nov. 2, 1893, Fairbanks to Thomas, Sept. 3, 1890, 
Annual, 1890-1893, A. W. Russell to Crossett, April 18, 1888. 

CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1881-1899 153 

Minnesota Committee still existed even though it had made no report 
that year. Crossett, evidently, wished to keep this institution before 
the attention of the Fraternity so that when the occasion presented 
itself a foundation of opinion favorable to Minnesota would be already 
existing. No statement was made, however, by this committee in 1886, 
but once again the Annual recorded the existence of this body. During 
1887, Crossett received a letter from Prof. Christopher W. Hall, 
Middlebury '71, of the University of Minnesota in which the wish was 
expressed that the Executive Council would "use a little money and 
discretion during the coming year" in the way of fostering a chapter 
at that institution. Hall was of the opinion that there never could be a 
good alumni group in Minneapolis without a chapter at the state 
institution. Stress of business, relative to De Pauw and Pennsylvania, 
prevented Crossett from giving any serious attention to Minnesota. 
At the Convention, however, of that year the Michigan delegate in a 
very able paper on extension pointed out the advantages of Minnesota. 
The following year, the committee, which still seems to have existed, 
advised favorable action but the delegates saw fit to lay the recom- 
mendation on the table. 246 

At the 1889 Convention the Council reported that inquiries relative 
to Minnesota had been made but that for the time being conditions 
did not warrant Delta Upsilon's entrance. The delegates, however, 
thought differently as the Council was instructed to look into the 
matter still further and report at the next convention. In the mean- 
time conditions at Minnesota were moving towards the establishment 
of some type of an organization that might combat the monopolistic 
tendencies of certain individuals who had come to dominate class 
elections. It is of interest to note that this opposition was not built 
upon any dislike of the secret societies; rather was it aimed at an inner 
group of students who sought to keep class elections where they 
wished. In the fall of 1889 those neutrals who were anxious to modify 
existing conditions carried on a counter campaign with the result 
that they were able to break up the clique that heretofore had been 
in control. For their success they earned from their opponents the 
name of Hautbeaux or, in more vulgar language, Hobos. The success 
of 1889 was duplicated in 1890 and again in 1891. By this time the 
soil at Minnesota was ripe for the founding of a new society. Indeed 
some of the neutrals openly talked about petitioning one of the secret 
groups not represented at Minnesota, while others, having heard of 

** Annual, 1882-1887, C. N. Smith to Crossett, Mar. 25, 1885, C. W. Hall to 
Crossett, Oct. 20, 1887. 


Delta Upsilon, talked among themselves of taking steps in that direc- 
tion. Shortly thereafter copies of Our Record were received by the 
Hautbeaux Club which stimulated most of its members to seek admis- 
sion into Delta Upsilon. Profs. C. W. Hall and A. R. Moore, both 
members of the Fraternity and of the Faculty, were approached and 
their help solicited. Hall and Moore encouraged the Hautbeaux Club 
with the result that a formal petition was addressed to the Minneapolis 
Alumni Association of Delta Upsilon requesting them to consider their 
desire for a charter. This petition was signed by eight seniors and four 
juniors. The alumni immediately forwarded the petition to the national 
headquarters. 247 

This petition must have been received by the Executive Council 
sometime late in January, 1890. This body replied shortly thereafter 
and while no copy of this letter is at hand, it is evident in the light of 
later developments that the Executive Council must have expressed 
itself as favorable to the proposition. In answer to this communication, 
Moore urged the immediate establishment of a chapter. Some of the 
petitioners, Moore believed, were not desirable members and for that 
reason he suggested that a committee be appointed to look over the 
ground and select a nucleus "which shall begin operations at once." 
Information of what had taken place was then laid before the Execu- 
tive Council at a meeting held February 19, 1890. After some discussion 
it was voted that "permission be asked of the chapters to initiate 
certain members of the University of Minnesota by the Chapter at 
the University of Wisconsin, with the understanding that if they prove 
themselves worthy they may be granted a charter by the Convention 
in 1890." What seemed to concern the Executive Council was the fact 
that the petitioners were limited to the upper classes, a number of 
whom would leave college in June. For this reason the Council decided 
that immediate installation was out of the question. There was no 
reason, however, why certain students at Minnesota might not be 
initiated, subject to chapter consent, even though this was a departure 
from the accepted procedure and without precedent of any kind. 248 

Thomas, who seems to have conducted most of the correspondence 
with the Hautbeaux Club, intimated to them in a letter that it would 
be expedient for them to undertake a more formal organization and 
increase their size by admissions from the lower classes. These sug- 

*" Quinquennial (1891), pp. xxviii-xxix, Minneapolis Alumni Association to Ex- 
ecutive Council, Jan. 21, 1890; this letter contained the petition from, the local 
group to the Alumni Association. 

346 A. R. Moore to Thomas, Feb. 6, 1890, C. W. Hall to Crossett, Feb. 28, 1890, 
Minutes of the Executive Council, Feb. 19, 1890. 

CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1881-1899 155 

gestions seem to have been carried out, information concerning which 
reached Thomas early in March of the same year. In the meantime 
Thomas had written the chapters asking for their approval of the 
Executive Council's action of February 19. Answers to this request were 
received from the chapters by May 9, all but Syracuse and Amherst 
giving their consent. These chapters, as well as others, thought the 
procedure unusual and not calculated to bring about the establishment 
of a strong chapter. Hamilton, for example, stated that "if a chapter 
is to be admitted, it should be received squarely 8: openly with no half 
way work. She does not favor withholding a charter until the men 
have proved themselves by their work to be of proper material. The 
qualifications for admission should be so high & rigid that there can 
be no possible doubt what the result will be. The men should be such 
that a charter can be granted unconditionally & the new initiates 
immediately enter upon their duties." Sentiment of this type seemed 
to be so strong that Thomas doubted that any action could be taken. 
After some further thought, Thomas suggested, in a letter to Minne- 
sota, that a way around the difficulty might be found by establishing 
a Minnesota Chapter "as of the Wisconsin Chapter." Minnesota, how- 
ever, expressed herself as opposed to this procedure and urged that 
pressure be brought to bear upon those societies that seemed reluctant 
to accept the decision of the Council. Pressure by alumni was exerted 
with the result that one by one the opposing chapters gave their con- 
sent, though it is evident that these would not have yielded were it 
not for the pressure and "the peculiar exigencies of the case." By 
May 10, 1890, every chapter had mailed in its acceptance. 249 

Whereupon, the Executive Council, in view of a resolution that had 
been passed by that body, proceeded to make plans for the initiation 
of the Minnesota men. The local group on receiving this news imme- 
diately pledged three more underclassmen and made arrangements for 
the initiation ceremonies. On May 23, 1890 a committee composed of 
Albert R. Moore, Edward B. Barnes, Carman N. Smith and Frederick 
Whitton, inducted fifteen men into Delta Upsilon. It is to be noted 
that this action did not create a Minnesota Chapter as no vote on such 
a question had ever been brought before the chapters. The vote that 
had been taken was one that merely authorized the initiation of the 
men at Minnesota. And until granted a charter this group was known 

* A. W. Shaw to Thomas, Mar. 3, 22, 31, April 9, 23, May 4, 1890, E. B. Barnes 
to Thomas, April 23, 1890, Circular Letter to the Minneapolis Alumni Association 
to the Executive Council and Chapters, April 21, 1890, Hamilton to Thomas, May 
3, 1890. There are a number of letters from the chapters on this matter at the 
general headquarters of the Fraternity. 


as the Minnesota Division of the Wisconsin Chapter. At the 1890 
Convention the delegates from Minnesota, Albert W. Shaw and Walter 
A. Chowen were accorded seats. A little later the Executive Council 
made its report: whereupon the Convention on October 22, 1890 unan- 
imously voted to grant a charter to the "students at the University of 
Minnesota who had been initiated on May 23, 1890 as members of 
the Delta Upsilon Fraternity." This action, therefore, and not the 
initiation ceremonies constitutionally established the date of the found- 
ing of the Minnesota Chapter. 250 

In this respect it is to be noted that no installation ever took place; 
the Fraternity evidently considered the initiation ceremonies of May 
as equivalent to installation. And yet technically these ceremonies 
cannot be so interpreted. All that the Fraternity had done in May 
was to initiate certain students into Delta Upsilon; moreover, these 
men were known as belonging to the Wisconsin Chapter, a procedure 
which from a constitutional point of view was extremely odd to say 
the least. One cannot but conclude that the judgment expressed by the 
Hamilton Chapter was in keeping with Fraternity policies and that it 
should have been followed in this particular case. 
"" From the very first the Minnesota men more than held their own 
among the other fraternities. Honors were gained in athletics, while 
many a class office was won. In part this was due to the eagerness of 
the men to win distinction for themselves and the Fraternity. On the 
other hand, the soundness of chapter life and policy, particularly that 
which stressed literary activity, had much to do with this success. The 
chapter, moreover, maintained quarters at 617 Fifteenth Avenue. Later 
rooms were occupied at 211 Beacon Street and 522 Twelfth Avenue. 
In 1898 the chapter moved into a house of its own. Minnesota was 
represented at all of the remaining conventions of the century except 
for 1892 and iSgy. 251 

The last decade of the nineteenth century witnessed the establish- 
ment of seven chapters, of which that founded at the Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology was the first. The attention of the Council 
seems to have been directed towards this college in the spring of 1887 
when Fairbanks, then a senior at Tufts, inquired whether any thought 
had ever been given to a chapter at Technology. 252 Nothing, however, 

550 Minutes of the Executive Council, May 9, 1890, A. R. Moore to Thomas, May 
14, 1890, A. W. Shaw to Thomas, May 21, 1890, Thomas to Rutgers, 1890 (no 
other date given), Quarterly, 111:208-209, 223, 281-284, Annual, 1890. 

851 In 1892 Minnesota reported by telegram. 

** Fairbanks to Crossett, Mar. 6, 1887. 

CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1881-1899 157 

materialized for the time being and it was not until January, 1891, 
that anything more is heard of the matter. During that month, Frank 
C. Shepherd, then a junior at Technology, proposed to several of his 
friends that a society be formed with a view of joining Delta Upsilon. 
Upon being asked why he had singled out Delta Upsilon, Shepherd 
replied that he had heard of the society through one of his home 
friends who recently had joined the Amherst Chapter and that he was 
thoroughly convinced that this was the Fraternity he wished to pro- 
mote at Technology. This statement seems to have won over those 
whom Shepherd had approached and steps were immediately taken 
towards gaining the desired objective. An examination of the college 
annual revealed the names of Louis Derr, Amherst '89 and Lincoln 
C. Heywood, Brown '90 among the students at Technology. Contact 
was made with these men with the result that on March 19, 1891 a 
local society, known as Nu Chi, was established. According to the 
aims of the eleven men who signed the local constitution, which had 
been drafted by Derr along lines similar to Delta Upsilon, a charter 
was to be sought for from that Fraternity as soon as possible. 253 

Steps in this direction had been taken by Shepherd early in February 
when letters were addressed to the Executive Council. Encouraged by 
this body, Shepherd, together with Derr and Heywood, as well as Frank 
Vogel, Harvard '87, then an instructor at Technology, additions were 
made to Nu Chi. Thomas, in behalf of the Executive Council, urged 
this group to increase its size, which immediately was done. By the 
middle of March, eighteen men had joined Nu Chi and a formal peti- 
tion had been forwarded to the national headquarters. The Executive 
Council, however, seems to have taken no action beyond informing 
Shepherd that they would consider and investigate. Nu Chi was not 
certain whether the Executive Council wished them to push their 
claims or wait until the fall. Delay, according to their idea, was 
injuring the growth of the group which wanted immediate action. 
Shepherd's enthusiasm went so far as to lead him to propose to Thomas 
that the chapters consent to the issuing of a provisional charter. Backed 
up by this, Nu Chi would be able to increase its size and influence so 
that by convention time it would be securely founded and worthy of 
a permanent charter. The Executive Council, however, on examining 
the situation informed Nu Chi that they must have more underclass- 
men before any action could be taken. This Nu Chi proceeded to do 
with the result that on May 8, 1891 the Executive Council issued a 

** Quarterly, X:g6. 


letter to the chapters asking their consent to the immediate establish- 
ment of a chapter at Technology. 254 

In adopting this procedure the Executive Council was within the 
letter of the Constitution which permitted the granting of charters 
between conventions upon vote of the chapters. Further, precedent 
for this method existed in the cases of Lafayette, Columbia and Minne- 
sota. Ever since the De Pauw and Pennsylvania incidents, the chapters 
had become somewhat jealous of their powers over the granting of 
charters. Moreover the Minnesota case had done little to mollify this 
attitude. Accordingly when some of the chapters received the Executive 
Council's letter, protest was registered. Cornell, for example, while 
giving its consent stated "she is not in favor of this way of establishing 
chapters. The proper way is by convention." Rutgers was of the same 
opinion, while a few of the chapters seem to have been opposed on 
other grounds. Even at Technology itself sentiment was expressed by 
Derr and Heywood that it would be better to wait until the fall 
convention. As a result of these various reactions, the Executive Council 
deferred the affair until the 1891 Convention. At this gathering the 
merits of Technology were presented by the Executive Council with 
the result that all opposition vanished and a charter was granted. 
This action took place on November 11, 1891. Early in the evening of 
the same day the Executive Council formally installed the Technology 
Chapter of Delta Upsilon. 255 

Twenty-seven men were initiated as charter members of the new 
society. Fraternity meetings were held at 377 -Columbia Avenue during 
the year 1891-1892- In the fall of 1892 the chapter moved to the 
Ludlow Apartment on St. James Avenue. Two years later headquarters 
were established at 52 Chester Street, while in 1895 the chapter rented 
a home at 549 Massachusetts Avenue. Here the chapter remained until 
the fall of 1899 when new quarters were obtained at 246 Newbury 
Street. During these years the chapter devoted attention to literary 
activities, though it by no means lost sight of the advantages offered 
by athletic and extra-curricular pursuits. Delegates were present at 
every convention except in 1899. Among the graduates of Technology 
at this time was Clifford M. Swan whose devotion to the Fraternity 

254 F. C. Shepherd to Thomas, Feb. i, 17, Mar. 4, 20, 28, April 5, 13, 1891, L. C. 
Heywood to Thomas, April 23, 1891, Minutes of the Executive Council, Mar. 27, 
May 3, 1891, Circular letter from the Executive Council to the Chapters, May 8, 

885 L. Derr to Thomas, May 9, 16, 1891, Cornell to Thomas, June 6, 1891, Rutgers 
to Thomas, May 30, 1891, Annual, 1891, Quarterly, X:24, 96-97. The records pre- 
sened in New York contain a number of letters from the chapters favoring en- 
trance. Technology was installed at the home of the Harvard Chapter. 

CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1881-1899 159 

was to be shown by his loyal work as a Director and President. Thomas 
R. Weymouth also should be remembered for his services on the 
Executive Council. 

Not until 1893 was another college added to the roll of Delta Upsilon. 
Three years before the Executive Council had received a petition from 
Kappa Beta Sigma of Swarthmore. This petition was signed by four- 
teen men and stated that the local group had been founded in 1888. 
Kappa Beta Sigma seems to have been the logical outcome of a move- 
ment at Swarthmore in favor of greater social and fraternity life. The 
advent of Kappa Sigma and Phi Psi to Swarthmore in 1889 stimulated 
the interest of those who were already members of Kappa Beta Sigma 
which had grown to such a point by 1891 where union with some 
national fraternity was desirable. Delta Upsilon was singled out by 
these men as the fraternity they wished to join. Having come to this 
decision the above-mentioned petition was forwarded to the Executive 
Council and by them to the Convention of 1891. In view of the fact 
that the delegates knew little or nothing of the petitioning group and 
because the Executive Council had introduced the petition with little 
or no comment, a motion to grant a charter was lost twenty to four. 
The effect of this vote was to stimulate Kappa Beta Sigma to greater 
efforts. Late in the same year, therefore, the members of this local, 
acting upon the advice of several Delta ITs, determined to reorganize 
their society so as to put it more in tune with the aims of Delta 
Upsilon. Heretofore the existence of Kappa Beta Sigma had been kept 
a secret at Swarthmore. Continuance of this policy was now viewed 
by its members as being contrary to the best interests of the group if 
membership in Delta Upsilon was to be won. Accordingly, on April 9, 
1893 at the Hotel Luray, Atlantic City, there was organized the Pi 
Kappa Omicron Society. According to its constitution, which was pat- 
terned after that of Delta Upsilon, the fraternity was to be non-secret 
in nature. The badge was a silver triangle with a garnet center bearing 
the letters Pi Kappa Omicron. 256 

During the months that immediately followed Pi Kappa Omicron 
sought to introduce itself to several of the chapters of Delta Upsilon. 
The reception that it received seems to have been cordial. Small 
wonder was it therefore that John R. Hayes and John L. Carver went 
to the Colby Convention believing that their mission would be success- 

258 Petition of Kappa Beta Sigma, Oct. 25, 1891. Quarterly, XII: 14-15, Annnal, 
1891. Among the letters at the Headquarters is one dated Oct. 12, 1891 from G. W. 
Sanborn of the Michigan Chapter to the Council in which there is reference to a 
receipt of a communication from the "Temporary Chapter" of D. U. at Swarth- 
more College asking us to support them at the coming convention. 


ful. On reaching this meeting they discovered that the Executive 
Council while ready to endorse other groups had nothing to say as to 
Swarthmore. Maybe Hayes and Carver expected this as there is no 
evidence that a formal petition had been submitted to the Council. 
Through the kindness, however, of William H. Perry, Syracuse '93, 
a motion was introduced allowing the Swarthmore men to plead their 
case. Having listened to this, the convention then discussed the merits 
of the petitioners. It was the belief of some that Swarthmore was too 
small a college for Delta Upsilon to enter, while others seem to have 
wanted more time for consideration. As a result, a motion to grant 
a charter was defeated by a vote of seventeen to four. 257 

Although Swarthmore had been denied, the impression that its 
delegates received of Delta Upsilon was enough to convince Pi Kappa 
Omicron that it should continue its efforts for a charter. At the same 
time the attention of the Executive Council had been turned towards 
this local group. In June, 1893, moreover, Fairbanks, then on the 
Executive Council, chanced to visit Swarthmore. Fairbanks found the 
group quite satisfactory and reported to Thomas that the society, if 
granted a charter, would be an asset to Delta Upsilon. Correspondence 
then followed between the local group and the Executive Council 
with the result that a formal petition was presented. The Council 
referred this to the delegates of the 1893 Convention with the request 
that the delegates give it their careful consideration. The delegates 
also listened to the pleas of Henry McAllister and Allen K. White, 
representatives from Swarthmore. Enthusiasm ran high and for a time 
it looked as though a charter would be voted. A motion to that effect, 
however, was lost by two votes. On the following day, October 5, 
E. R. Stevens of the Wisconsin Chapter was able to reopen the matter. 
Whereupon a motion was put and carried that the granting of a 
charter be left with the Council "with full power to act." Of the 
chapters not present, New York voted aye by letter, while Pennsylvania 
and Technology wired their approval. 258 

During the winter that followed Fairbanks and Thomas visited 
Swarthmore and found the petitioning group entirely satisfactory. On 
January 39, 1892 the Executive Council voted to grant a charter. 
Arrangements for installation followed and on the evening of March 
3, 1894, forty-one graduate and undergraduate members of the local 
society were initiated into Delta Upsilon. The pledges were taken by 
Fairbanks and John Patterson. During the remaining years of the 

257 Quinquennial, (1903), p. 18, Quarterly, XII: 14-15, Annual, 1892. 
** Annual, 1893, Quinquennial, op. tit., 18-19, Quarterly, XII:i5-i7. 

CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1881-1899 161 

century the Swarthmore Chapter continued to grow and prosper. 
Social, class and athletic honors were won, while literary activities 
became a feature of their regular meetings. Rooms were secured in 
what was known as the "Borough Hall." It should also be noted that 
the chapter tried to keep a close contact with its alumni by continuing 
the publication of a paper known as the Triangle. Swarthmore was 
present at every national gathering throughout the remainder of the 
century, while one of its members, Charles T. Brown, '98, became a 
member of the Executive Council during the same period. 259 

Heretofore, Delta Upsilon had ranked as an Eastern Fraternity. Out 
of the total number of its chapters but eight were west of the Alleghenys 
and of these but one, Minnesota, was west of the Mississippi River. 
In 1896, however, Delta Upsilon moved out to the Pacific and founded 
two chapters at Stanford and California. Neither of these institutions 
was unknown to the members of Delta Upsilon. Occasional comments 
in the Quarterly had introduced these universities as suitable places 
for fraternity growth. Delta Upsilon's traditional policy of conservatism 
plus the great distance that would separate any Pacific coast chapter 
from the rest of the Fraternity were factors that argued against any 
expansion in that direction. And yet it was from Minnesota that the 
first suggestion came that the Council should consider penetrating this 
field. Late in October, 1891, Thomas received a letter from Albeit W. 
Shaw of the Minnesota Chapter stating that George Clark, Minnesota 
'91, then living at Stanford, had written him to the effect that he 
intended interviewing President Jordan as to Delta Upsilon's entrance 
into that institution. Shaw inquired of Thomas as to what might be 
the attitude of the Executive Council. It is not known that Thomas 
ever replied to this letter or that Clark ever spoke to Jordan. In any 
event the matter had been introduced and the first step taken towards 
the founding of a Stanford Chapter. A year later, at the Colby Con- 
vention, Melville T. Cook of the De Pauw Chapter introduced, at the 
request of his chapter, the question of forming a branch at Stanford. 
After some discussion the Executive Council was instructed to take 
steps towards the establishment of a local society which was to apply 
for a charter at the earliest opportunity. 260 

Exactly why Cook sponsored this move or why his chapter had taken 
such an interest in Stanford is not known. It may be that Cook was 
even then thinking of transferring to that university as he finally did 
in the fall of 1893. Or it is possible that De Pauw had been encouraged 

^Minutes of the Executive Council, Jan. 29, 1894, Quarterly, 
280 A. W. Shaw to Thomas, Oct. 28, 1891, Annual, 1892. 


to take this stand as a result of some unknown contact. Be that as it 
may, the Executive Council had been directed to make an investiga- 
tion. Little, however, was done by this body for the simple reason that 
it was overburdened at the time with matters incident to a revision of 
the constitution. In the meantime Melville T. Cook and Albert Crane, 
both of the De Pauw Chapter matriculated at Stanford and had written 
Thomas that they were endeavoring to form a local group. The Execu- 
tive Council reported this fact at the 1893 Convention together with 
the suggestion that the delegates give a vote of encouragement to Cook 
and Crane. Whereupon the Convention passed a resolution informing 
these men that when the local group at Stanford was ready to apply 
for the charter the Fraternity would give them very careful con- 
sideration. On receipt of this news, Cook and Crane approached 
certain Delta U members of the faculty and one Albert E. Cooley, then 
a student at Stanford, but who formerly had been pledged by the 
De Pauw Chapter. Backed up by the support of these men, Cook and 
Crane began the selection of men and on January 12, 1894 were able 
to organize a local society known as Alpha Upsilon. In addition to 
these two men, the society included Cooley, Edward C. Harwood, 
Benjamin F. Bledsoe, John M. Gates, Charles W. Miller, Samuel Platt 
and J. H. Timmons. Public notice of this event appeared in the Daily 
Palo Alto on February 9, iSg-j. 261 

Alpha Upsilon lost no time in informing the Executive Council of 
these facts and of its determination to petition for a charter. A copy 
of a petition was forwarded to the Executive Council which after some 
consideration was referred by that body to the convention with a 
recommendation for an affirmative action. In the meantime circulars 
had been sent to all the chapters and a petition itself to the Union 
Convention of 1894. At this gathering the Executive Council declared 
itself in favor of Stanford. This declaration was embodied in a motion 
which proposed that the petition be granted on the condition that 
Alpha Upsilon, after three years' existence, could be able to show that 
it had maintained the prestige of the Fraternity in the West and that 
it could "assimilate the society to the character of the now existing 
chapters." The Convention unanimously accepted this motion which 
to all intents and purposes placed the Stanford group on probation 
for three years. 

Although disappointed over the outcome, Alpha Upsilon girded 
itself for another attempt for immediate installation. Circulars were 

881 A. Crane to Thomas, Sept. 4, 1893, Annual, 1893, Quinquennial (1903), pp. 
20-21, Quarterly, XV: 196-198. 

CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1881-1899 163 

again sent out while a formal petition was forwarded to the national 
headquarters. The Executive Council reacted favorably to these over- 
tures and referred them in a generous manner to the De Pauw Con- 
vention of 1895. The delegates showed their interest by allowing 
Charles J. Staples, of Amherst, to read the petition and by listening to 
the representative of the local society, Edward C. Harwood. After 
some discussion the convention voted to remove the period of proba- 
tion; whereupon a motion to admit Alpha Upsilon was put and 
carried. The Executive Council was also instructed to proceed with 
the installation. This body carried out this order and on March 13, 
1896 at the California Hotel in San Francisco, the Alpha Upsilon 
Society became the Stanford Chapter of Delta Upsilon. Thornton B. 
Penfield, Columbia '90, represented the Executive Council and for- 
mally conducted the rites. 262 

At the time of its establishment, Stanford was occupying quarters 
in a rented house; formerly having had rooms in Mariposa Hall. 
During the summer of 1896 ground was broken for a permanent home 
which was occupied for the first time in the fall of the same year. 
Supported by this effort the chapter forged ahead gaining recognition 
for itself in all fields of student activity. Stanford was represented at 
all of the conventions from 1897 to the end o the century. 263 

Stanford's admittance to Delta Upsilon was made possible not only 
because of the merits of the institution and the efforts of its founders 
but also because of the rise of a local group at the University of 
California, which likewise sought membership in Delta Upsilon. Had 
Stanford acted alone it may have been that the convention would not 
have founded a chapter so far removed from any other unit of the 
Fraternity. Cook and Crane were well aware of this and while spon- 
soring Alpha Upsilon had also furthered a similar movement at 
Berkeley. 264 Cook and Crane appear to have visited California and 
after conversations with several Delta U's on the faculty took steps 
towards the founding of a local society. This was ultimately effected 
on April 28, 1894, though it was not until May 12 of the same year 
that public announcement was made. The society took as its name 

283 M. T. Cook to Thomas, Feb. 11, April 30, 1894, Minutes of the Executive 
Council, June 11, Oct. 22, 1894, Jan. 7, 1895, Quinquennial (1903), pp. 21-22, Annual, 
1894-1896, E. L. Harwood to Thomas, May 24, 1895, C. W. Miller to Thomas, Oct. 
14> 1895. 

208 Quinquennial, (1903), p. 22. 

284 An informal application seems to have been received by the Fraternity in 
1878. Although referred to a committee nothing seems to have been done. 


Omega Alpha, adopted a monogram pin and took steps towards join- 
ing Delta Upsilon. A formal petition was mailed to the Executive 
Council signed by W. E. Lloyd, A. W. North, F. H. Dam, J. G. Howell, 
J. A. Elston, E. C. Gage and A. C. Wyckoff. This petition was favor- 
ably received by the Executive Council and referred to the 1894 
Convention for action. After some deliberation a resolution was passed 
encouraging Omega Alpha and instructing the Executive Council to 
inform the society that its petition would receive careful consideration. 
Why the convention took this action cannot be explained except on 
the ground that in the minds of the delegates it was thought best 
to postpone action for a while. This of course necessitated another 
petition which in time appeared and was presented by C. J. Staples 
of Amherst at the 1895 Convention. A. C. Wyckoff was allowed to 
present the claims of the local group. Following this the delegates 
voted to grant a charter and instructed the Council to arrange for 
installation. 265 

Installation took place March 13, 1896 in conjunction with that 
of the Stanford group; Penfield conducting the ceremonies. At this 
time the California Chapter was located in rooms on Kittredge Street. 
The following year the men moved to the corner of Bancroft Way 
and Dana Street. In student activity the chapter seems to have won 
local reputation. It was represented at the Conventions of 1897, ^98 
and 1900; while in 1898 it reported by letter. 266 

The establishment of the two Pacific Coast Chapters seems to have 
satisfied the Fraternity as far as expansion was concerned until 1898. 
In that year the Convention did as bold a thing as when it had 
crossed the Mississippi River and the Rocky Mountains, in granting 
a charter to the Omicron Nu Society of McGill University, Montreal, 
Canada. The genesis of this society may be traced back to the fall of 
1894. Among the freshmen who entered McGill that year were several 
who seemed to have been attracted to one another by mutual interests 
and desires. Although opportunities presented themselves to these 
students to join one of the existing fraternities none of the invitations 
were accepted. By the fall of 1897, however, these men came to the 
conclusion that their friendships might well be cemented by the forma- 
tion of a local society. M. Casewell Heine, Archibald H. Madaren 
and Robert E. McConnell assumed the leadership and together with 


** Quinquennial, op. tit., pp. 23-27, Minutes of the Executive Council, Tune 11, 
Oct. 23, 1894, June 7, 1895, A. Elston to S. S. Hall, Oct. 10, 1895, Annual, 1894-1806. 
* Quinquennial, op. cit., p. 25, Quarterly, XV:2i 2 -2i6. 

CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1881-1899 165 

four others met at McConnell's room on September 28 and October 5 
and formed a provisional society known as Unitas. Committees were 
appointed to draft a constitution, secure rooms and gain entrance into 
some general fraternity. By the middle of October of the same year 
rooms were rented at 2443 Catherine Street and three new members 
secured. At a meeting held October 9, Unitas reorganized itself under 
the name of Omicron Nu. Its constitution, moreover, was formed with 
the express purpose of petitioning for membership in Delta Upsilon. 
This Fraternity had been selected because one of the local men, Angus 
T. Davis, had a brother in Technology and from him gained informa- 
tion relative to Delta Upsilon. 267 

Late in October, 1897, Davis heard from his brother that the Frater- 
nity Convention was to be held at Amherst that year. Davis imme- 
diately got in touch with the other members of Omicron Nu. Then 
and there a committee of three was appointed to go to Amherst and 
present a petition; accordingly on the afternoon of October 21, Heine 
and William C. Bishop addressed the delegates in favor of their society. 
Some discussion followed as to the merits of the group and as to the 
expediency of entering a Canadian College. Finally the delegates 
resolved that extension should rest upon merit and not upon locality. 
Beyond this expression of opinion the Convention would not go, at 
least the Annual tells of no further action. At a later time the Quarterly 
stated that the convention placed the society on "probation"; but of 
this there is no mention in any of the other sources. It is true that 
an earlier motion called for an investigation of Omicron Nu by the 
Executive Council but this was withdrawn, according to the Annual, 
after the passage of the above-mentioned resolution. The Executive 
Council, however, was well within its powers when it undertook as it 
did a survey of the situation at McGill in the months that followed. 
Communications passed back and forth between the Executive Council 
and the local group, in which the early history of the society was 
outlined. Impressed by the standing of the college and by the evident 
merit of the petitioners the Executive Council ordered a direct investi- 
gation. This led to a visit by George F. Andrews, President of the 
Fraternity. Andrews reported to the Executive Council that he had 
found the society well suited to Delta Upsilon. Whereupon the Execu- 
tive Council placed a recommendation in its report to the convention 
that a charter be granted. At the 1898 Convention eleven members of 
Omicron Nu were present in the interests of their society. The reaction 

287 Quinquennial, op. tit, pp. 27-28. 


of the delegates was most enthusiastic and on October 20, 1898, a 
charter was unanimously voted to Omicron Nu. 268 

On November 1 1 of the same year President Andrews and Royal S. 
Haynes, Cornell '99, installed the McGill Chapter in the parlors of the 
local society. At that time the society lived at 1 1 1 Metcalf Street. Here 
meetings were held and plans laid for the advancement of Delta 
Upsilon. McGill was represented at the two remaining conventions of 
the century. 269 

In the founding of the McGill Chapter the Fraternity had become 
international in nature and for this reason it is no longer correct to 
speak of the "national" Fraternity. For purposes of clarity, therefore, 
when there is a reference to the Fraternity in this narrative from now 
on it will be to the "general" Fraternity. Delta Upsilon, however, has 
never ignored worth while institutions within the United States. 
Indeed the very year that witnessed the planting of McGill also saw 
the establishment of the Nebraska Chapter. Nebraska was not unknown 
to the members of Delta Upsilon but no serious attention was paid to 
it as a field for expansion until 1897. Prior to that date it was the 
opinion of the Fraternity that Nebraska did "not come very near the 
standard of our brotherhood." In the meantime, however, the Univer- 
sity was expanding and fraternities, sensing its possibilities, had entered 
student life. Among those who were not members of these societies 
were a few who believed in the ideals of fraternity life but who felt 
that the existing groups were neglecting certain fundamental values. 
Convinced that the only way whereby these values might be obtained 
was through the establishment of a society of their own, there was 
formed in 1896 the Tau Delta Omicron Fraternity. "It was an organ- 
ized effort against the false fabric built up by the secret fraternities; 
but the main object was the betterment of self and the broadening of 
the social life of the university." 270 

At first the existing fraternities assumed a hostile attitude but as 
Tau Delta Omicron was determined in its right to exist, the opposi- 
tion soon passed away. For a while the new society was quite happy 
within its own four walls, but soon the realization was reached that 
membership in a national organization was essential. Accordingly a 
study was made of the existing fraternities not represented at Nebraska 
and upon the urgent advice of Rev. Hugh O. Rowlands, Colgate '72, 

** Annual, 1897, 1898, Quarterly, XVII:22, Quinquennial, (1903), pp. 27-29, W. 
G. Bishop to Hall, Nov. 15 1897, Petition of Omicron Nu to Delta Upsilon, Oct. 8, 
1898, Minutes of the Executive Council, Nov. 8, Dec. 13, 1897, Mar. 26, Oct. 10, 1898. 

968 Quarterly f XVII.-22. 

** Quarterly, XIII:222, Quinquennial, (1903), pp. 29-30. 

CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1881-1899 167 

pastor of the Lincoln First Baptist Church, Delta Upsilon was accepted 
as the objective of Tau Delta Omicron. Conscious of the fact that 
Nebraska was not well known to the Fraternity, the local society sent 
Dr. Rowlands as its delegate to the 1897 Convention. With him 
Rowlands brought a petition and this he handed over to Penfield, 
Secretary of Delta Upsilon. Rowlands was then allowed to present the 
claims of the petitioners. The delegates reacted most generously to 
these overtures and while there seems to have been no desire to grant 
a charter then and there, the Executive Council was instructed to 
investigate and report at the next general meeting. This the Executive 
Council proceeded to do and in the spring of 1898, Arthur H. Jameson, 
Technology '93, visited Lincoln and spent two days in looking over 
the situation. The report of his visit, which is preserved in the Fra- 
ternity archives, proves beyond all doubt that Jameson was more than 
convinced that here was an opportunity that Delta Upsilon could not 
afford to miss. Small wonder was it therefore that the Executive Coun- 
cil recommended to the delegates at the 1898 Convention that a charter 
should be granted. A formal petition was also presented by P. H. 
Thompson, a delegate of the Nebraska group. After some discussion 
the Convention voted to grant a charter. On December 9, 1898, at 
the Brace Building in Lincoln, George F. Andrews and Arthur H. 
Jameson formally installed the Nebraska Chapter. 271 

A little over a year after the founding of Nebraska the Fraternity 
granted a charter to the Phi Alpha group of the University of Toronto. 
Phi Alpha made its appearance in the early part of 1896 when a 
group of men undertook to gain fraternal contacts, the lack of which 
was being seriously felt at Toronto. Among these men, should be 
mentioned Alexander Mackenzie and Fred Young. For over two years 
the organization functioned as a local society during which time the 
idea of membership in some national fraternity was often discussed 
at meetings. Out of these discussions was born the idea of petitioning 
Delta Upsilon. In this they were assisted by R. M. Breckenridge and 
S. G. Beckett, both of Cornell and the McGill Chapters. A petition 
was drafted and sent to the various chapters and to the Executive 
Council, which as early as March of the same year had turned its at- 
tention towards Toronto as a fit place for extension. The petition 
was read at the 1899 Convention, at which meeting, Andrews in be- 
half of the Executive Council spoke most favorably of the society 
which he seems to have visited a short time before. Representatives 

271 Quarterly, XVII.go-g^, Quinquennial, (1903), pp. 31-32, Annual, 1897, 1898, 
Minutes of the Executive Council, 1897, 1898, passim. 


of Phi Alpha were also presented to the delegates and were allowed 
to speak in the interests of their society. After some debate the chap- 
ters voted to grant a charter to the petitioning group. The installation 
took place on December 15, 1899 at the Chapter House, 14 Grenville 
Street. Brothers Beckett, Cutler and Penfield were in charge of these 
rites. 272 

The establishment of the Toronto Chapter marked the founding of 
the fortieth chapter of Delta Upsilon. At the close of 1881 the Fra- 
ternity had planted twenty-five chapters, of which Wesleyan, Wash- 
ington and Jefferson, Miami, Trinity, Manhattan and Princeton were 
inactive. Actually, therefore, there were but nineteen societies within 
the Fraternity by 1881. The remaining years of the century witnessed 
a rapid expansion. Chapters were founded not merely in well estab- 
lished Eastern Colleges and Universities, but in other deserving in- 
stitutions in the Middle West, in the Pacific Coast area and in the 
Canadian Provinces to the North. Of these fifteen new chapters, not 
a single one has ever been inactive all of which speaks volumes for 
the wisdom and foresight of men like Crossett, Fairbanks, Penfield, 
Thomas, Andrews and Hall, who together with many other loyal 
Delta U's added much to the growth of the Fraternity. 

** Quinquennial, (1903), pp. 31-32, Quarterly, XVIII:i7-i8, 53-56, 
Annual, 1898, 1899, Minutes of the Executive Council, Mar. 26, 1898, Oct. 14, Dec. 
8, 1899, S. G. Beckwith to the Executive Council, Jan. 24, 1899. p hi Alpha had 
also rented rooms at Breadalbane Street and at 59 Czar Street. 

Chapter VIII 



E Middlebury Convention of 1864 had given to the Fraternity a 
JL constitutional basis far superior to anything that had existed be- 
fore. A federation of various anti-secret societies had come into being 
with some type of a national organization at its head. And yet on ex- 
amination, as has been shown, the actual determination of policy 
was left largely in the hands of the chapters assembled in convention. 
To expect that this body with an increasing chapter roll, not to men- 
tion other matters of fundamental significance, could adequately 
handle fraternity affairs was clearly out of the question. An assembly 
meeting but once a year, whose personnel moreover was largely 
changed from one gathering to another, was evidently unfitted to 
guide the future growth and development of Delta Upsilon. At the 
same time little could be expected from the national officers, most of 
whom from 1864 to 1879 inclusive were recruited from the under- 
graduates. The inadequacy of the existing machinery of government 
must have been apparent to many, particularly among the alumni 
whose active interest in the Fraternity increased year after year. 
Small wonder was it, therefore, that the need of a more central and 
permanent organization was brought before the Fraternity at the 
Union Convention of 1879. At this gathering a previously appointed 
committee on charters introduced a motion relative to the creation 
of an Executive Council. Possibly this committee in seeking to handle 
the matter that had been assigned then came face to face with the 
problem as to whom the issuing of charters should be assigned. 
In any event this committee evidenced an opinion that what the 
Fraternity really needed was some definite governing body that could 
be trusted to cope with the ever mounting amount of fraternity busi- 



ness. With this in mind the committee reported in favor of the in- 
corporation of an Executive Council. This council was to consist of 
three graduate and two undergraduate members, all of whom were 
to be residents of New York State and who were to have their head- 
quarters in New York City. This body was to direct the financial life 
of the Fraternity, grant charters and supervise all fraternity activities 
subject to the will of the chapters and alumni clubs in convention. 
The delegates at the Union meeting accepted this report and sub- 
mitted the same to the chapters for consideration. 273 Perhaps it was 
thought wise to refer the matter to the chapters because of the funda- 
mental change that was involved. Then again it may have been sub- 
mitted in the form of an amendment to the constitution, in which 
case it was necessary to gain chapter consent. Be that as it may, the 
chapters seem to have discussed the matter in their meetings and 
doubtless gave some kind of instructions to the delegates that attended 
the next national meeting. 274 

In the meantime some person or persons, possibly those who lived in 
New York City, tried to form a council. It seems that the personnel of 
this council was not entirely of New York State and as the resolve of 
1879 had called for this grouping nothing could be accomplished 
until this defect was overcome. Further it seems to have been recog- 
nized that to carry out the general idea nothing short of a constitu- 
tional amendment was necessary. Accordingly an amendment was 
proposed in 1880 which after having been referred to the chapters was 
adopted at the 1881 Convention. 276 In anticipation of this adoption, 
the 1880 Convention considered several general resolutions which laid 
down the general structure and duties of the council. 276 By this time the 
members of the council had been selected, though it is evident they had 
not functioned. It will be recalled that the original motion contained 
the idea of incorporation. Now it so happened that while it was possi- 
ble to incorporate under the general state law it was impracticable to do 
so "owing to minor provisions in regard to the debts and possessions of 
incorporated bodies." 277 This difficulty was referred to the Michigan 
Convention of 1882. After some debate this body proposed that in 

** Annual, 1879. 

M Minutes of the Cornell Chapter, Nov. 7, 1879, shows the adoption of the 
resolutions of the 1879 Convention. 

m Annual, 1880-1881. 

**lbid*> 1880. 

*"lbid. f 1882, Quinquennial (1884), p. 25. For a list of persons who are credited 
as being members of the Council from 1879 to 1883 see the Quinquennial op. tit., 
p. 9 6 - 


lieu of incorporation a central office be established in New York City 
which was to be the headquarters of the Executive Council. The de- 
tails incident to this proposition were left in the hands of the New 
York Chapter which proceeded, for some reason or other, to let the 
matter drag until the early fall of 1883. Even then it is not known 
whether this group was responsible for the steps then taken. Be that 
as it may an Executive Council seems to have been created, consisting 
of John F. Montignani, Albert Cronise, Samuel B. Duryea, Charles 
S. Jones, Frank R. Walker, Josiah A. Hyland, THomas Walters and 
Frederick M. Crossett. Probably these men never held what might 
be termed a formal meeting. In part this may be explained on the 
ground that some of them lived outside of the metropolitan area, a 
fact that must have made it rather difficult for all of the Executive 
Council to meet at one time. Even if they had gathered, little could 
have been accomplished as the convention had never clothed it with 
any far reaching power, especially in respect to fiscal matters. Con- 
scious of these limitations the editor of the Quarterly called the atten- 
tion of the chapters to the existing situation and suggested remedial 
legislation be passed by the next convention. 278 

As a result of this publicity the delegates to the 1883 Convention 
were prepared to offer certain changes. At this gathering a number 
of resolutions were adopted, on the basis of suggestions, previously 
made at Amherst in 1880. In addition to certain provisions relative 
to finance, which will be discussed later, these resolves stipulated that 
the Executive Council should appoint one of its members as secretary 
to whom all communications might be addressed. 279 This convention 
also elected as members of that body, Samuel B. Duryea, Josiah A. 
Hyland, Thomas Walters and Frederick M. Crossett. These gentle- 
men appear to have met sometime after the adjournment of the 
convention and to have elected Crossett as their secretary. It was not, 
however, until early 1884 that the Executive Council actually began 
to function; at least none of our sources reveal any activity before 
that date. Then it was that Crossett undertook to write to the chap- 
ters relative to expansion, while in the Quarterly, of which he was an 
assistant editor, information was given as to the location of Fra- 
ternity headquarters, the personnel of the Executive Council and 
of its duties. 280 Beyond this, however, our sources lead us to believe 

278 Quarterly, 1:5, 36, Quinquennial, op. cit., p. 96, Annual, 1882. 

279 Quarterly, 11:32-23, 61-62, Annual, 1883. According to the Quinquennial, op. cit., 
pp. 92-95, there existed an advisory council; but what its duties might have been 
or what it did is not known. 

880 Quarterly, II, passim, Crossett to Rutgers, early 1884, Minutes of the Cornell 
Chapter, April 12, May 3, 1884. The headquarters were located at 842 Broadway. 



that nothing was done for the balance of the year. Crossett, it is 
known, was busy as an editor; a task, which together with his own 
personal duties, must have made it impossible for him to have given 
any further consideration to Fraternity matters. Further, both he and 
the other members may have assisted in preparing for the convention 
which was scheduled to meet in December in New York City. An- 
other reason for the inactivity of the Executive Council may be found 
in the fact that the chapters do not seem to have called upon the 
Executive Council for any help or guidance. It was Crossett's opin- 
ion, however, that the financial needs of the forthcoming convention 
would evoke a call upon the Executive Council. "As yet," Crossett 
remarked in April, 1884, the "new regulations have not been called 
into operation." One thing, however, the Executive Council did do 
and that was to order a new Fraternity cut which was to replace the 
old "armour cut." This new cut was to be kept by the Executive 
Council for chapter use. To meet the cost of this cut every active 
member of the Fraternity was assessed twenty-five cents. 281 

Although the Executive Council had been established late in 1883 
no recorded meeting took place until October 20, 1885. During the 
early part of that year Crossett in behalf of the Executive Council 
continued to circularize the chapters relative to expansion. It seems 
likely in view of the content of these communications that Crossett 
may have met with the other members of the Council to discuss these 
matters. And yet there is no evidence at hand of any meeting and it 
may be that to all intents and purposes Crossett was the Executive 
Council himself. It should be recalled, furthermore, that all the labor 
incident to this work was done without any compensation; an aspect 
that compelled Crossett to inform the chapters in June, 1885, that he 
would be forced to give up his office in the near future. At the Roches- 
ter Convention, which was held in October, 1885, while nothing was 
said as to a salary, a stipend was voted Crossett for his work on the 
Quarterly. The granting of this compensation may have caused Crossett 
to reconsider his earlier decision to retire from the Executive Council. 
In any event at this convention, Crossett accepted re-election to the 
Executive Council, 282 

From October 20, 1885 to March 3, 1888 nineteen meetings of the 
Executive Council were held, Crossett being present at every one. 
Judging from the records of these gatherings the greatest interest seems 
to have been shown during 1886 when seven meetings were held. Dur- 

381 Quarterly, 11:62, Rochester to Rutgers, Oct. 6, 1884. 
** Annual, 1885, Crossett to Rutgers, June 15, 1885. 


ing this year over nine hundred letters appear to have been sent out by 
Crossett in which matters incident to expansion, the Quarterly and 
other fraternity affairs were mentioned. Crossett also directed the 
attention of the chapters to the vast amount of work undertaken by 
the Executive Council and suggested that some compensation be given 
to the secretary of that body. In addition to these affairs, the Executive 
Council published the constitution, prepared forms for the charter, 
initiation and certificate of membership and visited several of the 
chapter and alumni clubs. These facts were all referred to the 1886 
Convention in a report rendered by Crossett; this being the first time 
that the Executive Council presented anything in the nature of a for- 
mal statement of its activities. Further, it was suggested in this report 
that the delegates consider providing means for annual visitations by 
someone of the Executive Council to the chapters. 283 

At this convention the delegates after some debate granted Crossett 
a salary of five hundred dollars. Further, it assigned a number of duties 
to the Council such as preparing a new form for initiation. Between 
this session and the next general gathering the work of the Council 
almost doubled. Considerable attention was paid to petitioning so- 
cieties. At the same time twelve chapters were visited by someone of 
the Council, while the body as a whole completed and distributed a 
new initiation form and charter. Assistance was also given to the Co- 
lumbia Chapter and to the New York Delta Upsilon Club. In recogni- 
tion of the services rendered by Crossett the convention increased his 
salary to eight hundred dollars. This body likewise elected new mem- 
bers to Executive Council as called for by the passage of the amend- 
ment increasing the size of the body from five to seven. 284 

The following year the personnel of the Executive Council under- 
went a radical change. In part this was due to the provisions of the 
above mentioned amendment. It was also explained by a serious mis- 
understanding that had arisen between the Executive Council and the 
Convention. The action of Crossett and his colleagues in respect to the 
establishment of the De Pauw and Pennsylvania Chapters had, as has 
already been shown, aroused considerable ill will. Further, there were 
some who believed that the Executive Council was relatively a new 
office within the Fraternity and in its endeavors to create a well cen- 
tralized government ran up against some who were of the opinion that 
the Executive Council was taking too much power from the chapters. 

283 Annual, 1886, Crossett to Rutgers, April 8, Oct. 23, 1886. The first known use 
of a letter head by the Executive Council was in November, 1885. 
** Annual, 1887. 


The significance of this last idea is realized when one recalls that prior 
to the inception of the Executive Council the chapters had been ex- 
ceedingly active in handling national affairs. In other words it was 
altogether too dose to the old order for the Executive Council to 
exercise its powers in the way it did. As a result of these factors none 
of the Executive Council chosen at Rutgers in 1887 were retained 
by the Adelbert Convention of 1888, although the terms of Crossett 
and Murphy did not expire until 1889, 

Even after the Adelbert meeting there existed considerable ill will 
towards the old Executive Council. Much of this may be explained on 
the ground that Crossett and his colleagues had not rendered as clear 
a statement of their activities as they might have upon retiring from 
office. An attempt seems to have been made by the Executive Council 
of 1888 to come to an understanding with the former members. Several 
informal discussions took place between the two groups but nothing 
definite seems to have been accomplished. In order to clarify matters, 
as well as in the interest of self-protection, the Executive Council issued 
a circular letter to all of the chapters. In this communication, which 
was dated January 7, 1889, reference was made to the former Execu- 
tive Council in a manner that was deeply resented by that body, par- 
ticularly as there was an implication of dishonesty in respect to finan- 
cial affairs and of undue carelessness in the direction of general affairs. 
Touched to the quick by this letter, Crossett hastened to communicate 
with the chapters asking them to suspend judgment until both sides 
of the matter had been presented. Shortly thereafter, Hughes, Crossett, 
Eidlitz, Schell and Warburton, all of the old Executive Council, issued 
a lengthy reply in which the various charges that had been made were 
flatly denied. Further, these men asked the new Executive Council to 
correct the impression that had been made by presenting a true state- 
ment of the case. 285 

Both sides of the affair were presented to the delegates at the Syra- 
cuse Convention of 1889. After much debate a select committee was 
appointed to investigate the situation. This committee reported that 
it found no ground upon which any charge of dishonesty might rest. 
It expressed the opinion, however, that had a more thorough conduct 
been pursued by the old Executive Council the entire misunderstand- 
ing might have been avoided. Viewing the evidence from the point of 
view of today one is led to conclude that a critical situation had been 
handled in a most careful and successful manner. It is also clear that 

888 Minutes of the Executive Council, 1888-1889, Annual, 1888, Crossett to Rutgers, 
early 1889, no other date given. 


the great majority of the delegates were more than anxious to prevent 
what might have become a serious internal squabble. 286 Outside of this 
event the Executive Council experienced no further trouble of any 
significance and gradually came to dominate the general conduct of 
Fraternity matters. The personnel of the Executive Council from 1888 
to the close of the century included John Q. Mitchell, William R. 
Broughton, Walter E. Merritt, William E. Young, Jr., Walter C. Reddy, 
Ezra S. Tipple, John Dickennan, Ellis J. Thomas, L. Whitney Searle, 
R. F. Adams, Richard R. Martin, B. C. Hinman, Thornton B. Pen- 
field, Robert J. Eidlitz, R. Collins, J. E. G. Yalden, Wilson L. Fairbanks, 
Eugene D. Bagen, Ellis R. Woodruff, Leslie E. Lamed, John A. Wil- 
son, George F. Andrews, Samuel S. Hall, Edgar S. Bloom, Thomas R. 
Weymouth, Royal S. Haynes, W. J. Holmes, George Parker, Ebenezer 
W. Cutler, Robert J. Reiley, Clarence E. Case, R. J. Le Boeuf, William 
W. Stewart, J. P. Mallett, J. L. Burley, Louis Oppenheim, Robert S. 
Smith, F. L. Bill, E. H. Custard, John C. Hinckley, W. A. Hudson, 
Henry T. McEwen, L. J. CaldweU, N. Osborne, H. C. Wyckoff, R. G. 
Perry, C. T. Brown, Burnett Smith, A. H. Shearer, James Turner, 
J. U. White, T. P. Elmore and E. K. Rand. Of these Tipple, Thomas, 
Penfield, Eidlitz, Bagen, Hall, Bloom and Wilson seem to have been 
the most active. 

Among the many problems which these men were called upon to 
solve, one of the most important was that relative to fraternity finance. 
During the life of the Anti-Secret Confederation this aspect of the Fra- 
ternity had been relatively simple. The constitution of that body pro- 
vided that the Secretary of the Confederation was to handle the finances 
of the fraternity. Nothing was said, however, as to items of income or 
expense. The records of the chapters and of the conventions add very 
little additional information. On the basis of the existing sources it is 
reasonable to assume that the Secretary collected all necessary funds 
either at the conventions or from the chapters themselves. For ex- 
ample, at the 1857 meeting a tax of six dollars was levied upon the 
delegates for the purchase of a book to keep the record of convention 
proceedings. 287 On the other hand, the publication of the various song- 
books, annuals, constitutions and catalogues, though directed by vote 
of the convention, seems to have been handled by the chapters and 
not by the Secretary. In the case of the Catalogue of 1859, by way of 
illustration, Amherst undertook to publish the same and bill the chap- 
ters for the number that each society had ordered. These debts were 

** Annual, 1889. 

387 Record of the Conventions of Delta Upsilon, May 14, 1857. 


paid either by the delegate at the convention or by mail to the chapter 
that had assumed the task of publication. 288 Actual convention ex- 
penses never appear to have been large. And while there are no figures 
upon which an estimate may be made, the absence of any elaborate 
affair, either from a social or business point of view, would tend to 
establish the fact that convention expenses amounted to very little. 
The cost of sending delegates to these meetings was borne by the 
chapters and not by the Fraternity at large, as may be seen by an ex- 
amination of the minutes of the chapters themselves. Further evidence 
in support of this thesis is to be found in the attitude taken by the 
Vermont Chapter. 289 

The four years following the Middlebury Convention of 1864 wit- 
nessed no change in the financial procedure of the Fraternity. Dele- 
gates continued to be paid by their chapters for expenses to conven- 
tion, while the cost of publications seem to have been met by levies 
placed upon the chapters by the society who had undertaken the print- 
ing and distribution of any particular work, such as the Triennial. In 
the case of Our Record^ the ancestor of the present Quarterly, the 
financaial responsibility largely rested upon the publishers although 
the chapters had agreed to subscribe for as many copies as they had 
members. And as far as convention expenses were concerned it is evi- 
dent that the chapter that entertained assumed the entire cost. Rutgers, 
for example, acted as host in 1868 and from the report of the chapter 
treasurer it appears that the convention cost that chapter $86.75. 290 
In 1869, however, a national treasurer made his appearance, at least 
Isaac F. Ludlam is credited in the Quinquennial as holding the post in 
that year. 291 Exactly what his duties were is not known as the con- 
stitution at that time contained no reference to such an officer and the 
records of the convention are completely silent on this point. In the 
light of subsequent activities, it would appear that this office was more 
in the nature of a convention treasurer than a national treasurer. How 
the expenses of the Convention of 1869 were met is not known, though 
it may be that the policy adopted a year later was then in force; of this, 
however, there is no evidence. 

At the 1870 Convention a committee on charters rendered an esti- 
mate of fraternity expenses for the ensuing year. According to their 

^Amherst to Rutgers, June 14, August 2, 1859. 

389 See above p. 101. 

280 Records of the Conventions of Delta Upsilon, 1861, Quinquennial, (1884), 
Hamilton to Rutgers, May 26, June 9, 1864, Sept. 23, 1867, Report of the Rutgers 
Treasurer, June 3, 1868. 

381 Quinquennial, op. dt., p. 88. 


figures, the expense of the convention o that year would amount to 
three hundred dollars. Fifty more was needed to meet the cost of 
founding new chapters, while twice this sum would have to be ex- 
pended for the engraving of new charters. To meet these items the 
Convention voted a per capita tax of i.25. 292 This is the first known 
instance of a general levy upon all of the chapters of the per capita type. 
Per capita or chapter taxes seemed to have been assessed by the con- 
vention to meet current costs for the next ten years. The items met by 
these levies seem to have included the expenses of the Treasurer and 
Secretary, the founding of new chapters, the expenses of the Con- 
vention Orator, Poet and Vice-President, and the cost of the convention 
itself. We have no accurate figures for these various items for the 
period from 1870 to 1880 inclusive. There is available, however, the 
record submitted at the New York Convention of 1874. According to 
this source the Secretary's office incurred costs of thirty-three dollars, 
the Orator, Poet and Vice-President received sixty-four, sixty-two and 
sixty-three dollars respectively; the establishment of Syracuse cost 
eighteen dollars; fourteen dollars and twenty cents was paid out for 
Annuals, nine dollars for telegraph, while the expense of the conven- 
tion itself amounted to one hundred and six dollars. 293 This last item 
included several features of which the banquet was doubtless the most 
expensive. It is evident, therefore, that the cost of transportation in so far 
as the delegates were concerned was met by the individual chapters. 
Definite proof of this fact is established by the records of the Rutgers 
Chapter which discloses that in 1872 the cost of sending a delegate 
amounted to $54.50; in 1870, 41.80, and in 1873, $45.oo. 294 Each 
chapter moreover paid to the Fraternity Treasurer its per capita or 
chapter tax. 

Prior to 1881 this Treasurer was probably more of a convention 
officer, as he seems to appear only at these meetings and is not listed 
in the constitution. At Brown, however, in 1881 the organic law was 
amended so as to provide for this office. The Treasurer was to handle 
fraternity finance and render each year a report to the convention. In 
1882, the constitution was altered so as to provide for the levying by 
this officer of a per capita tax upon each active member in the three 
upper classes. The amount of this tax was to be fixed by the Treasurer 

^Annual, 1870. 

^Ibid., 1871-1880, W. Upton to Rutgers, Mar. 6, 1875, E. D. Bagen to Rutgers, 
Jan. 17, 1879, G. W. Clark, April 19, 1879. An attempt was made in 1877 to reduce 
the convention costs by having cheaper invitations, and asking all non-delegates 
to pay a banquet charge. A motion to this effect was laid on the table. 

m Minutes of the Rutgers Chapter. 


after advising with a committee from the chapter that was to entertain 
the convention for the year in which the tax was to be levied. The 
next year, 1883, the Convention adopted a number of resolutions 
which profoundly affected the financial structure of the Fraternity. 
This change, as has been noted, was brought about as a result of the 
appearance of the Executive Council. According to these resolves all 
applications for money for fraternity purposes were to be addressed to 
the Secretary of the Council at least two weeks before the time the 
money was needed. All applications so submitted had to be approved 
of by the Executive Council, though that body could not pass upon 
a request which had not first been voted upon by the convention. 
If disapproved by the Executive Council, the application was returned 
with reasons for disapproval being given; if approved, however, the 
Executive Council was to inform the Fraternity Treasurer, who was to 
assess each chapter a per capita tax to cover the amount. Each chapter 
was to return this sum within the time limit set by the Treasurer. In 
the event that a majority of the chapters objected to the levy or thought 
the amount excessive, the Treasurer was to inform the Executive Coun- 
cil which in turn was to hand back the request to the applicant for 
this money. No objection was to be received unless it was in the hands 
of the Treasurer at least one week before the appointed date. If a 
majority of the chapters did not make any objection, then the Treas- 
urer was to collect from all the chapters even though some had entered 
a protest. All assessments levied since the preceding convention were 
to be reported to the national assembly. Here it was to be audited and 
if found satisfactory was to be published in the Annual It should be 
noted in passing that the above regulations held for applications that 
had been voted by a convention without a definite statement as to the 
amount. A procedure of this type was often necessary as the entire cost 
of an undertaking, such as the installation of a chapter, could not be 
known at the time the convention had acted favorably upon a peti- 
tioning society. In those cases, however, where the convention knew 
of the amount needed and had voted the same, the Treasurer was to 
levy a per capita tax against which no objection could be voiced by 
any chapter. Any increase in the amount, however, had to be referred 
to the Executive Council as provided above. 205 

An interpretation of these resolutions leads to the conclusion that 

the actual assessment and collection of all taxes, to meet expenses 

recognized by the Convention, was a duty of the Treasurer. The only 

share that the Executive Council played was to approve of expense 

** Quarterly: 11:22-23. 











rmlt'n tmd &. T ixh'i i't>fi(( 







Viulfn'tKtd ^ Ftt<h u'tmd 



Tie it Co 



items submitted by agents empowered by the Convention to under- 
take a specified task. The evident purpose behind this provision was 
to prevent an order being drawn in excess of the purpose intended. 
This duty might have been assigned to the Treasurer but in view 
of the fact that this officer was an undergraduate and was not in a 
position, as the Executive Council was, to know definitely the likely 
cost of an undertaking, the control over such items was lodged in the 
Executive Council. Where the Convention, however, had voted a defi- 
nite sum for a definite purpose, the Treasurer might act regardless of 
the Executive Council, unless for some unforeseen reason it had been 
found necessary to raise a larger sum than that voted by the delegates. 

From 1883 to 1890 inclusive the office of Treasurer was held by an 
undergraduate elected annually by the Convention. During the year 
1887-1888 the duties of this office were taken over by the Executive 
Council as the result of a vacancy caused by the resignation of Fred V. 
Fisher. Rutgers, it appears, questioned the propriety of the Executive 
Council's act, but was told by Crossett that the constitution gave to 
that body power to handle financial affairs. He did not, however, men- 
tion that the constitution stated that the chapter to which the office 
belonged had the power to fill vacancies. In spite of this encroachment 
on the part of the Executive Council, the error may be pardoned. A 
deficit, it appears, had arisen at the 1887 Convention and to meet the 
situation the Executive Council believed that steps should be taken 
at once. For this very practical reason the Executive Council dele- 
gated the treasurer's office to its secretary, Crossett. Crossett, however, 
seems to have sensed the inherent difficulty of his position when he 
suggested to Rutgers that the Fraternity Treasurer should be a member 
of the Council. 296 It is not to be expected, moreover, that an under- 
graduate would have as broad a grasp of fraternity matters as a mem- 
ber of the Council. Maybe this assumption explains why the Executive 
Council steadily during the years under discussion took over many 
of the duties of the Treasurer. The presence of a financial statement 
from the Executive Council to the Convention illustrates quite well 
the growing power of the former body. Further evidence may be cited 
in the decreasing number of letters from the Treasurer to the chapters 
relative to taxes and levies. Finally, an examination of the treasurer's 
report itself shows, that that officer in time had little to do beyond the 
handling of the convention expenses. 

The various taxes that were levied upon the chapters, either by the 

298 Annual, 1887, Executive Council to Rutgers, Feb. 7, 1888, Crossett to Rutgers, 
Feb. $2> Mar. 7, 1888. 


Treasurer or Executive Council down to the Convention of 1891 ac- 
counted for an ever increasing revenue. Foremost among these taxes 
was the per capita levy to meet the expenses of convention. Included 
within these costs were the expenses of the Orator, Poet and Vice- 
President, the banquet, the printing of invitations and menus, the 
hotel accommodations for the delegates, the renting of some hall for 
public exercises and at times music and other sundry items. This tax 
ran from two to three dollars and was levied upon the undergraduates 
and evidently was not used to pay the transportation of the delegates, 
this expense being borne by the chapters themselves. Then there seems 
to have been a Quinquennial tax which was levied upon the chapters in 
proportion to their members to meet part of the expense of this 
publication. This levy seems to have been set at 13.25. A form of ini- 
tiation levy was assessed amounting to $1.70 per member, to meet the 
cost of supplying these blanks to every initiate. Beginning with 1887 
an initiation fee of three dollars was laid on everyone inducted into 
active membership. Each society, moreover, upon installation paid a 
sum for a charter which probably amounted to fifteen dollars. There 
was also an assessment, at least since 1886, to cover the cost of the 
Annual, which tax amounted to about thirty-five cents per member, 
depending upon the size of that publication. The actual cost of install- 
ing a new chapter was also pro rated among the undergraduates. How 
much this levy equalled can not be stated on the basis of the available 
evidence. Finally there were a number of smaller items which seem to 
have been assessed at various times. Exclusive of the initiation fee, 
each member of a chapter probably paid into the Fraternity treasury 
somewhere around seven to eight dollars a year. Additional income 
was received from the sale of Annuals, certificates of membership, and 
tickets to the convention banquet. 

One other tax was levied upon the undergraduates and that was 
designed to meet the salary of the Secretary of the Council. At the 1886 
Convention this salary was fixed at five hundred dollars which entailed 
a per capita tax of $1.35. The following year the stipend was increased 
to eight hundred dollars. How much more was added to the per 
capita tax is not known, though whatever it was seems to have been 
included in the general assessment of that year which was levied to 
meet convention expenses. In 1889 the salary was reduced to two hun- 
dred dollars, the amount being raised through the general assessment 
of that year. 297 This general assessment seems usually to have been 
paid by one of the delegates at the general convention; all other levies 

07 Annual, 1883-1891. 


being collected during the course of the fraternity fiscal year which 
ran from one convention to another. 

The absence of any record books of either the Executive Council or 
the Treasurer from 1883 to 1890 has caused the above narrative to be 
somewhat general in nature. Our task was not made easier by the 
appearance of two reports to the convention by the Treasurer and the 
Executive Council. On the basis of these reports the following charts 
indicate the amounts received and expended: 298 


Bills Sills Profit 

Income Expenses Payable Receivable -Loss 

1887 1,116.50 1,113.72 27692 274.14 

1888 All items covered in report of the Council 

1889 991.00 991.00 

1890 1,094.67 1,094.67 15,70 123.00 107.30 

1891 887.50 887.50 9.75 9.75 


Bills Bills Profit 

Income Expenses Payable Receivable -Loss 

1887 914-15 914-15 241-65 245-65 4-00 

1888 1,532.51 1,532-51 28243 567.23 284.80 

1889 1,214.53 887.51 243.23 570.15 

1890 1475-53 M75-53 49-o 728-85 238.85 

1891 2,158.59 2,119.78 615.00 989.21 374-21 

On the basis of these figures it can readily be seen that the financial 
structure of the Fraternity was steadily growing. A growth, moreover, 
which argued most effectively for a thorough revision of the constitu- 
tion which, as has been shown, was carried through by the Conventions 
of 1890 and 1891. 

The constitution of 1891 provided for a financial arrangement which 
did credit to its makers. According to this document the office of Fra- 
ternity Treasurer was eliminated. In lieu thereof a Convention Treas- 
urer, elected annually by the assembled delegates, was created to take 
charge of convention finances. A subsidy not greater than one thousand 
dollars was to be allotted for the expenses of this meeting. This sum 
was to be paid by the Executive Council to the Convention Treasurer 
who in turn was to render a report to the Executive Council of all re- 
ceipts and expenditures. This report, moreover, had to be inspected 
by the Auditor who was to receive the statement from the Convention 
Treasurer not later than two weeks before the convention. The Con- 
vention Treasurer had no power to levy and collect any tax as had 

398 Ibid.; a detailed examination of these reports will reveal some minor differences 
which do not appear in the above figures. 


been the case, although there was nothing in the constitution to pre- 
vent his receiving gifts. Further, as will be pointed out later, the actual 
income of this officer was increased by the sale of banquet tickets. 
Within this income the Convention Treasurer was to meet the ex- 
penses of the meeting which included among other things the necessary 
costs of the officers of the Fraternity and of the delegates, railroad fares 
excepted, during the sessions of the convention. 

The larger share, however, of fraternity finance was lodged in the 
hands of the Executive Council. The actual handling of all receipts 
and expenditures was delegated by this body to its Secretary who was 
also the Executive Council's treasurer. In return for his work he was 
to receive an annual salary of two hundred dollars. All fraternity ex- 
penses were to be met by an annual per capita tax levied upon the 
undergraduates. For purposes of assessment active membership was to 
terminate upon the withdrawal of the student from the chapter or 
from his graduation from the department of which he was a member 
when initiated. In the event that an individual continued his work in 
another college he might if he so desired elect to be classed as an active 
member. All taxes paid within sixty days from the time of assessment 
were subject to a rebate of ten percent. A new chapter was excused 
from its first general tax provided that an amount equal to such tax 
be expended in internal improvements in ways approved by the Ad- 
visory Board of the Chapter. It should also be observed that the editor 
of the fraternity magazine was to receive a salary of three hundred dol- 
lars and profits up to four hundred and fifty dollars. Anything in excess 
of this amount was to be divided between the editor and the fraternity. 
Finally, it should be noted that the Executive Council's power over 
financial affairs was always subject to the terms of the constitution and 
all resolutions passed by general convention. 299 

According to the terms of these provisions the Fraternity paid out 
each year in salaries five hundred dollars. The financial stringency of 
1891 and 1893 forced the Executive Council to cut the editor's stipend 
fifty percent. In 1897, however, the Convention voted to increase the 
amount for salaries to six hundred dollars, of which the editor received 
the larger share. Four years earlier the By-Laws of the Fraternity had 
been amended so as to provide for the payment of all subscriptions of 
the Quarterly direct to the Executive Council and out of the general 
treasury funds were allotted to meet the expenses of this magazine. 

In order to meet these expenses as well as those arising from the 
publication of the Annual^ the cost of holding conventions, maintaining 

** Annual, 1890, 1891. 


an office, installing new chapters and a number of smaller items, the 
Executive Council levied an annual per capita tax. In 1891 this tax 
was placed at four dollars. Later it was increased, though at no time 
did it get above five dollars and a half. This advance was not brought 
about by any considerable increase in operating costs. Salaries, to be 
sure, had risen; but as long as the Fraternity wished to maintain a 
national basis in more than name, sums of this type would have to be 
paid to men who were willing to give of their time and attention to 
Delta Upsilon. The amount of labor expended by the Secretary of the 
Council and by the editor of the fraternity magazine far exceeded any 
financial return that they received. In 1896, for example, Fairbanks 
was paid a hundred and fifty dollars for his services as editor, services 
of a man who did much for the welfare of the Fraternity. His retire- 
ment from the Quarterly in late 1896 evoked the following statement 
from the Executive Council: ". . . it loses the services of a man a 
thorough D. U, in spirit who was willing to undertake the work from 
a pure love for the Fraternity. The task required a great sacrifice on 
his part. The magazine came into his hands crippled by business 
complications. The panic of '93 made it impossible for us to pay him any 
of his salary/' At the same time let it be added that few realized the 
conditions under which he labored for the Fraternity. Except for one 
day a week, his assignments on the New York Times allowed him no 
opportunity to do anything for the Fraternity until two-thirty in the 
morning. 300 Nor can anyone examining the records of the Fraternity 
question the propriety of the pittance allotted Hall as Secretary of the 
Council. In addition both of these men, as well as Thomas, Penfield 
and others, gave many waking hours for the advancement of Delta 
Upsilon without receiving a single penny in return. 

The increase in per capita taxes was not, therefore, due to any ex- 
travagance on the part of the Executive Council. Indeed that body 
openly declared that the expenses of Delta Upsilon were less in pro- 
portion than any of the fraternities of corresponding rank. What 
caused the entire trouble was simply the failure of the chapters to meet 
their obligations when they fell due. In 1892, $478.10 was due the Fra- 
ternity from several of the chapters. The following year this had risen 
to $1,176.53, while in 1894 outstanding debts equalled $1,456.53. The 
next three years witnessed a steady increase and in 1898 the amount 
stood at $2,174.15. Here, then, is the explanation for the rise in fra- 
ternity assessments. Repeated failure on the part of some of the chapters 
to meet these taxes was creating a serious financial condition. Even as 

800 Annual, 1896. 


late as 1899, there were five chapters that owed sums that went back 
prior to 1892. Conscious of the need for imperative action, the Executive 
Council brought the matter before the Convention in no uncertain 
terms, "Is it just," so the Executive Council reported, "that nine-tenths 
of the Chapters should pay an increased tax year after year to make up 
the deficit caused by a few Chapters not meeting their obligations to 
the Fraternity? Is it right that a Chapter that has paid of its last year's 
tax only the amount due from three of its members, and of which the 
Chapter Treasurer, after hard and faithful work, says to the Council 
they can pay but they won't, is it right, we submit, for that Chapter to 
continue indefinitely in the enjoyment of those privileges which belong 
to a Chapter in good standing? We may also add that the delegate from 
that Chapter comes before the Convention with the statement that the 
Chapter is in good financial condition and that they are planning to go 
into a new Chapter House soon." 301 

This case is cited not because it was the only one but because it illus- 
trates the problem that confronted the Fraternity. By way of remedy, 
the Executive Council suggested that those chapters far in arrears 
might well be denied representation at Convention, and if not present 
at the national assembly might well be relieved of its charter. "It is not 
the dead Chapter, but the weak," that the Executive Council feared. 302 
No reprisals, however, were enacted, as the chapters concerned took 
the matter to heart and very materially reduced their indebtedness. 
As it was the Executive Council reported in October, 1900, that 
$1,48248 was still outstanding. 303 The following table shows the finan- 
cial record of the Fraternity for the years listed. 304 


Bills Bills on 

Income Expenses Receivable Payable Hand 

1892 2,594-86 2,582.05 480.66 702.00 12.81 

1893 2,162.09 i,99 8 -99 M76.53 217.80 163.10 

1894 2,24048 2,05529 145653 201.00 185.29 

1895 3460-02 3423.79 1,578-65 ...... 268.23 

1896 2,61944 2,953.62 1,822.18 ...... 665.82 

1897 3.118-38 2,812.52 2,81252 ..... 305.86 

1898 3.145-77 3*128.12 2,174.15 ..... 17.65 

18 99 47n-i5 4449.68 1,719.08 ...... 26147 

^Annual, 1899. 


**lbid., 1900. 

304 Annual, 1892-1899, Minutes of the Executive Council, 1892-1899. In 1892 the 
bills payable would have been larger but for the fact that the costs of the Annual 
for 1892 and 1893 as well as for the Convention of 1894 were not then available. 
In 1895, no estimate was at hand as to the cost of the Convention for that year. 


The increase in both income and expenses beginning with 1895 is ex- 
plained by the fact that the handling of the Quarterly was transferred 
at that time from the editor to the Executive Council. Most of the 
yearly income was gained by levies upon the chapters, while most of 
the expenses arose from salaries and convention costs. 

Contrasting the above figures with those given on a previous page 
one is able to draw several interesting conclusions. In the first place it 
is evident that the chapters did not take their responsibilities as seri- 
ously as they might have and that the Executive Council religiously 
tried to live within the income actually received. The fact that a favor- 
able balance was always recorded, and that in spite of the failure of 
some of the chapters to do their part, speaks volumes for the wisdom 
and loyalty of the men who guided the financial life of Delta Upsilon. 
More significant than this is the increase in revenue itself. Translated, 
this increase demonstrated quite clearly that Delta Upsilon had grown 
in size and stature during the years since 1887; years, moreover, that 
witnessed the development of the Executive Council. Finally, it may 
be observed that without the loyalty and service of those men who so 
faithfully performed their duties as members of the Executive Council, 
Delta Upsilon would have continued as a loosely organized fraternity. 
Significant as was the work of the undergraduates the fact remains that 
without the Executive Council the Fraternity would not have become 
the institution as it stands today. 

Chapter IX 



THE Fraternity Constitution and By-Laws of 1891 served as the 
organic law of Delta Upsilon until 1905. During these years a num- 
ber of amendments were adopted of which those passed in the nine- 
teenth century have already been discussed. 305 In 1901 the third section 
of Article I was modified so as to provide for an Acting President, in- 
stead of a President of the Fraternity, and an Honorary President. 
Nothing was said as to the tenure of this latter office, the implication 
being that it might be held by the same person for an indefinite period. 
This fact was observed in 1902 and an attempt was made at the Con- 
vention of that year to limit tenure to two years. At first a motion to 
that effect was carried but upon reconsideration was defeated by a vote 
of thirty-five to seven. Our sources fail to explain this shift in sentiment, 
though it may be conjectured that as the office was merely one of dis- 
tinction no great harm could come to the Fraternity by this arrange- 
ment. 306 

None of the amendments that had been passed since 1891 profoundly 
affected the basic law of the Fraternity and can not, therefore, be ad- 
vanced as factors explaining the important constitutional revision of 
1905. This revision, however, may be explained by an examination of 
the findings of a Committee on Internal Improvement that had been 
appointed in 1903. The actual work of this body and the resulting 
action of the delegates is reviewed in a later chapter. Suffice it here to 
say that this Committee, together with another that had been formed 

805 See above pp. 81-82. 
308 Annual, 1901-1902. 



to consider Western Representation on the Executive Council, pro- 
posed certain far reaching changes in the organic law. Most of these 
changes were adopted by the delegates at the 1905 Convention, the net 
result of which was the appearance of what might be termed a new 
constitution for Delta Upsilon. 

A comparison of the 1891 and 1905 Constitutions reveals relatively 
few changes of any significance. In the main most of the various sec- 
tions of the former document were repeated word for word. Here and 
there some minor detail was altered, as for example the change in the 
fiscal year from October 10 to October i and the fact that the Executive 
Council was required to notify all organizations of a convention two 
weeks in advance instead of three as had been the case before. Again, 
there were several instances where clauses present in the earlier law 
were omitted. The Constitution of 1891, for example, had required the 
reading of at least three papers on matters of general Fraternity inter- 
est. This feature was left out of the law of 1905. The Librarian there- 
tofore was supposed to maintain a library at the Executive Council 
offices, a provision that does not appear in the document of 1905. 
Stenographic reports of convention activities were required by the 
former law but not by the latter. Finally, it may be noticed that An- 
nuals, which theretofore had been sent by the Executive Council to all 
organizations, were no longer to be supplied, though the practice of 
furnishing the chapters with this publication was continued. 

Other minor changes and omissions might be mentioned but as these 
are so insignificant in nature no mention will be made in this volume. 
On the other hand there were several modifications that do call for 
special attention. In the first place the composition of the Executive 
Council was altered in response to the demand that the Western mem- 
bers of the Fraternity should have a place on that board. Under the 
former constitution the Executive Council consisted of nine members, 
two of whom were to be undergraduates, chosen from the Fraternity at 
large. In the future, however, membership was to be limited to six 
alumni, no two of whom were to be from the same chapter and at least 
two of whom were to reside west of Buffalo. The headquarters 
and powers of the Executive Council remained untouched except 
as to one or two matters. The Executive Council was empowered to 
establish alumni associations as well as clubs and to direct the publica- 
tion of the Quarterly whose editors were to act as a sub-committee of 
the Executive Council. 307 Further, the Council's delegates to conven- 
tion were accorded the same rights and privileges as the representatives 
807 See below pp. 309-321 for a discussion of the Quarterly. 


>f the chapters and like them entitled to compensation for railroad 
i xpenses. Finally, provision was made for the President of the Execu- 
ive Council to call meetings of that body, the allocation of three hun- 
ired dollars per year to meet the expenses of its members to and from 
neetings, and for the obtaining by mail of the opinion of absent mem- 
>ers to any matter before the Executive Council. In the second place 
he 1905 Constitution provided for the creation of alumni associations 
n addition to clubs which had been recognized by the earlier law. 
Both units were to be entitled to two convention delegates provided 
hat a meeting had been held within one year thereto and "providing 
t shall have contributed to the Treasury of the Fraternity in that year 
lot less than $5." Although alumni delegates were granted the right to 
ipeak at convention and vote on all matters except where a call of the 
iapters was demanded, they were no longer counted towards the de- 
ermination of what constituted a quorum. A quorum, according to 
Jie new law, consisted of a majority of the delegates from the chapters. 
[n the third place, several new features were added to the powers of 
lie convention. The convention still elected Fraternity officers, which 
-emained the same as before except that in lieu of an Acting President 
here was to be a President. The necessary expenses of all officers as 
.veil as of delegates to convention were to be borne by the Fraternity, 
i feature that had not existed in the former constitution. At these 
neetings full reports were to be presented by the Executive Council, 
Treasurer, Decennial Secretary, Librarian, Auditor and Quarterly 
Editor, and these reports were to be published in the Annual As to the 
admission of new chapters a unanimous vote of the "chapters assem- 
bled in Convention" was required. This in itself constituted no change. 
The provision that a local society should exist for two years prior to 
admission was retained, while the convention's ruling in 1893 that 
upon a similar unanimous vote the Executive Council might install 
diapters at the end of a two years' existence was made an integral part 
3f the new constitution. Under the previous document no petition for 
admission was to be received after the second day of the convention, a 
Feature which does not appear in the 1905 law. Further, in view of the 
admission of Canadian chapters the Constitution of 1905 provided that 
chapters might be located in educational institutions anywhere, at the 
discretion of the Fraternity. Chapters, moreover, were not to delegate 
their representation at Convention to alumni, a provision that was 
aew in so far as the law was concerned but not as to past practice. 308 
[t also should be noted that the Convention Treasurer was to make a 
** See above p. 82 for an instance of alumni acting as chapter delegates. 


report to the Council, a feature that brought the constitution into line 
with what had been the rule. The Fraternity Treasurer was to pay all 
accounts by check direct to the creditor, receiving vouchers specifying 
the purpose for which the expense had been incurred. A uniform sys- 
tem of accounting was to be followed by this officer. Finally, the 1905 
law provided that each chapter should hold appropriate exercises on 
or about November 4 of each year, which day was to be known as 
Alumni Day. 

From the above resume, it may be seen that while the central or- 
ganization was strengthened, the chapters lost none of their important 
powers or duties. The Fraternity still remained a society composed of 
chapters, alumni and an Executive Council. Its objects were, as before, 
the promotion of friendship, the development of character, the diffu- 
sion of liberal culture and the advancement of equity in college affairs. 
And, as since the Brown Convention of 1881, Delta Upsilon has been 
a non-secret Fraternity. 309 

Although the Constitution and By-Laws of 1905 determined the 
brganic law of Delta Upsilon, certain changes had taken place within 
the central organization. These changes should not be viewed as 
amounting to any violation of the constitution; rather should they be 
interpreted as an implementation of that document with the object of 
creating a stronger and more effective central government. Moreover, 
the movement in this direction was thoroughly in keeping with the 
historical development of the Fraternity. Small wonder was it, there- 
fore, that Wilson L. Fairbanks, whose interest in greater centralization 
has already been shown, undertook to present certain views along this 
line at the 1903 Convention. The delegates reacted favorably to his 
suggestions with the result that the Executive Council was authorized 
to appoint a committee to devise means for further internal develop- 
ment. Late in January, 1904, the Council appointed this body of 
which Fairbanks was made chairman. The detailed activities of the 
committee will be discussed later; suffice it here to note that as a result 
of their findings and recommendations, the Convention of 1904 author- 
ized the incorporation of the Executive Council of Delta Upsilon. On 
the basis of incorporation, which was effected May 26, 1905, the 
Executive Council drafted a set of rules and regulations of which only 
that which pertains to the creation of a Board of Directors need now 
be mentioned. The inception of the Board reflected the growing im- 
portance of the central government of the Fraternity. Further, as the 
burden of work at the headquarters had materially increased of late, it 

** A copy of the 1905 Constitution may be found in the Annual for that year. 


had become necessary to establish a new agency. Even with the help 
furnished by the Directors, the Executive Council found, by the sum- 
mer of 1906, that it needed additional assistance. This fact together 
with the growing demand for a more definite allocation of the duties 
of the Executive Council led that body to propose in 1906 a constitu- 
tional amendment providing that its size be increased from six to eight 
members. Advance information of the amendment had already been 
sent to the chapters several weeks before the convention. As a result, 
the delegates accepted the proposal and at the same time re-defined the 
list and duties of the Executive Council officers. The convention like- 
wise amended the By-Laws so as to allow $1200 for convention expenses 
in contrast to the former grant of $iooo. 310 

During 1907 and 1908 no changes were made in either the Constitu- 
tion or By-Laws, though during the latter year several amendments 
were presented for the consideration of the 1909 Convention. By this 
time, however, the Executive Council had decided to recommend a 
far-reaching revision of both the organic law and structure of the Fra- 
ternity. Ever since 1904, when the Internal Development Committee 
presented its report, the general headquarters of the Fraternity had 
assumed an extensive amount of work. Chapter and alumni problems, 
National and District Conventions, the Quarterly, Annual and other 
publications, and a number of other activities too numerous to men- 
tion, had been undertaken by the Executive Council to the great satis- 
faction of the Fraternity at large. Speaking of these matters, Fairbanks 
said at the Swarthmore Convention of 1909, "One cannot compare the 
present status of Delta Upsilon with that of four years ago without 
realizing that in the ability to hold and to do, the fraternity has made 
a large advance. Of the increased enthusiasm among the alumni, the 
greater alertness and virility among the chapters, we have plenty of 
evidence. But these gains, after all, only serve to bring us nearer to 
some larger problems." 311 Of these problems none seemed more sig- 
nificant to Fairbanks than the status of the alumni. Further Fraternity 
expansion and growth in the real sense of the word could only come 
as a result of increased alumni support. Concretely, what the Executive 
Council desired, was a larger income, and this could be obtained only 
by a direct appeal to the graduate members of Delta Upsilon. Accord- 
ingly, Fairbanks suggested the organization of a corporation, to be 
known as the Trustees of Delta Upsilon. So effective was Fairbanks' 
report that the convention unanimously voted to have the Chair ap- 

*** Annual, 1906, Minutes of the Executive Council, Sept. 21, 1906. 


point a Committee of Forty-Eight to conisder the matter and report at 
the next convention. 312 

On the basis of this action, Allen K. White, President of the 1908 
Convention, proceeded in due time to appoint a committee, of which 
William H. Van Steenbergh and Verne M. Bovie were later chosen 
Chairman and Secretary respectively. 313 Early in January, 1909, Bovie 
mailed a circular letter to each member of the committee reminding 
him of the action taken at Swarthmore and inviting him to attend a 
meeting at New York some time in February. A little later, Fairbanks 
issued a call for the committee to meet at the Graduates Club, New 
York, February 5. Anticipating, on the basis of correspondence, that 
some of the committee would be unable to attend, substitutes had 
been appointed so that the entire body as authorized was repre- 
sented. 314 To these men, Fairbanks outlined the purpose of the gather- 
ing with the result that the delegates enthusiastically voted to allow the 
chair to appoint a sub-committee to draft and submit at an early date 
a preliminary plan of organization. Eugene Frayer, John Patterson, 
Samuel S. Hall, Waldo G. Morse and Albert Bickmore were placed on 
the sub-committee with Van Steenbergh as member ex officio. The first 
meeting of the sub-committee took place at Morse's office March 22 at 
which Patterson submitted the outline of a plan for a Board of 
Trustees. Three other gatherings were held during June, out of which 
there developed two distinct plans, one advocated by Frayer, the other 
by Morse. 

The plans differed in that one provided for a self-perpetuating body 
to constitute the corporation proposed, such being the traditional form 
of college fraternity organization. The other, availing itself of a then 
recently adopted statute of the State of New York, struck out in a novel 
way to accomplish a form of government with which we have become 
familiar through the enfranchisement of the chapters to elect trustees. 
In view of these conflicting ideas it was decided to submit both plans 
to the full committee when it met on July i. But fourteen members 
were present at this meeting and though some discussion took place 
as to the merits of the different schemes the entire proposition was 
postponed to a later meeting. Nothing more was done until September 
24, when the committee met again at the Graduates Club. Here the 
two reports were presented, the minority being sponsored by Frayer, 

*** Annual, 1908. 

** Annual, 1909. 

314 As each delegate had to meet his own expenses, it is likely that those from 
distant chapters, and all of these delegates had been nominated by the chapters, 
were unable to attend. Miami, which had just been admitted, was given a seat. 


the majority by Morse. After some discussion the committee accepted 
the Morse plan with the added precaution that the opinion o Brother 
Francis M. Burdick, Professor of the School of Law of Columbia Uni- 
versity, be secured as to the form and legality of the proposed cer- 
tificate of incorporation, as well as to the procedure set forth for its 
adoption. 315 

The convention met early in November of the same year. After hav- 
ing listened to a spirited discussion in the Committee of the Whole, 
the delegates proceeded to vote upon a motion introduced by Patterson 
to the effect that the report of the committee be accepted, that the 
Fraternity incorporate itself under the laws of New York, that the in- 
corporation be carried through with the Charter and Constitution pro- 
posed by the Committee of Forty-Eight and that a committee of not 
less than fifteen be appointed to execute a Charter. Considerable dis- 
cussion seems to have followed over this motion, which in the mean- 
time had been seconded; and while our sources fail to reveal what the 
nature of this debate was, it is evident on internal examination that 
some of the delegates were of the opinion that the new constitution 
should be submitted to closer examination and voted upon section by 
section. Accordingly after some debate the delegates voted to adopt the 
first two provisions of Patterson's motion, following which special con- 
sideration was given to the proposed constitution. Each section was 
taken up separately and in the main the document as submitted by 
the Committee of Forty-Eight was adopted. Following this action the 
convention resolved that the form of certificate of incorporation as 
submitted by the committee be adopted and that the President appoint 
a committee to make and file the same. This special committee imme- 
diately undertook its work with the result that by December 10, 1909, 
Delta Upsilon was legally incorporated under the laws of the State of 
New York. 31 * 

According to the certificate of incorporation the Delta Upsilon Fra- 
ternity was declared to be a society having no capital stock, that it was 
not organized for pecuniary profit and that it was composed of more 
than five thousand members. The Constitution, under which this in- 
corporation was effected, was that which had been adopted at Boston, 
November 4, 1909. Over half of this document was but a reissue of the 
old constitution. In view of the fact that the organic law of 1909 served 

05 Actually no decision was reached on September 24. At a later meeting, October 
15, the committee finally arrived at a decision. See Minutes of the Board of Trustees, 
1:1-40, Annual, 1909. 

** Annual, 1909, Minutes of the Board of Trustees, I:i-v. 


as a model for all later constitutions it seems best at this point to pre- 
sent a resume of the new law. 

Delta Upsilon, according to this constitution, was a fraternity com- 
posed of societies to be known as chapters which might be located in 
institutions of learning within the United States and the Dominion of 
Canada. The objects of the Fraternity included the promotion of 
friendship, the development of character, the diffusion of liberal cul- 
ture and the advancement of justice in college affairs. The Fraternity 
was also declared to be non-secret in nature. The governing boards of 
the society were to consist of a number of general officers, a Board of 
Trustees, a Board of Directors, an Executive Council and a general 
Fraternity Convention. The officers included a President, two Vice- 
Presidents, a Secretary and a Treasurer. Heretofore these offices had 
been filled by vote of the convention; they now were to be chosen by 
the Trustees for one year or until their successors should have taken 
office. 317 Additional officers might be named by the Directors. The 
President was to be the chief executive of the Fraternity, preside at all 
meetings of the Directors and of the Fraternity and to sign all checks 
drawn upon the treasury, in excess of one hundred dollars. The Secre- 
tary was to attend all meetings of the Trustees, and Directors, keep 
their records, conduct their correspondence and attest all contracts 
executed by the President. The Treasurer was to collect and care for all 
moneys and securities, to disburse such funds as might be ordered by 
the Directors and to furnish that board an approved bond. 318 

The Board of Trustees functioned in lieu of an annual meeting of 
the members of the incorporated Fraternity. The details relative to 
the structure of this body are presented in a later chapter. It may be 
observed here, however, that the creation of the Trustees was an im- 
portant step in the growth of the Fraternity. In one sense powers that 
before had belonged to the chapters in convention were now allotted 
in part to the Trustees, who were viewed as representatives of both the 
active and alumni members of Delta Upsilon. In other words the r&le 
that the chapters had played in times past was in the future to be 
shared by a central board. Centralization of power in the hands of the 
alumni had been a characteristic feature of the Fraternity's growth 
ever since the inception of the Executive Council and this last step 
was quite in tune with what had taken place in the past. And yet it 

317 The constitution did not state definitely that the Trustees were to enjoy this 
power; an examination of the minutes of this Board as well as of the Annual shows 
that by practice they elected these officers. 

** The Vice-Presidents assumed the duties of the President in the event of the 
latter's inability to perform the same. 


should be noted that the Trustees were to be elected by the alumni 
and active members of the chapters and in that sense the Trustees 
only acted as another arm or agency of the chapters. If the chapters at 
any time disapprove of the Trustees' actions they can by their own 
power fill that body with men who will carry out their own desires. 
Sovereignty still rests with the chapters. One might raise the question 
at this point as to the need of the Board of Trustees in view of the 
fact that all of its powers had been held by either the Executive Council 
or the convention in the past. The answer is to be found first in the 
fact that those in control at that time were convinced that the Fra- 
ternity, if it were ever to continue as an active and vital force, must 
do more than merely recognize the alumni as members; rather must 
it assign to them a role that would make them real partners in the 
future of Delta Upsilon. In the second place while the convention was 
to continue to exist and function as before, the Trustees would take 
up "new and broader lines of work" that required "men of experience 
in business affairs." 319 

From a practical point of view, frequent meetings of the Trustees 
were not practical. By way of implementation, therefore, the constitu- 
tion provided that the Trustees were to elect from their number a 
body of fifteen men to be known as the Board of Directors. 320 This 
body might delegate duties to the Executive Council which was to be 
chosen annually by vote of the convention. The Executive Council 
was to consist of nine members of whom six were to be alumni, no 
two of whom were to be from the same chapter and at least two of 
whom were to live west of Buffalo; the remaining members were to be 
undergraduates. The Executive Council was to operate in New York 
City, subject to the provisions of the constitution, acts of the conven- 
tion and direction of the Board of Directors. It was allowed to adopt 
its own rules for the conduct of business, to approve of the dismissal 
of any alumnus of any chapter, to fix the time for the holding of con- 
ventions, to fill any vacancies that might arise among its own officers, 
to govern through a sub-committee the Quarterly, publish the Annual 
and to handle to some extent the financial work of the Fraternity. The 
officers of this council were to consist of a President, a Vice-President, 
a general Secretary, a general Treasurer and such other officers as the 
Executive Council might desire. The Executive Council was to meet 
at the call of its President and in order to secure the largest possible 
representation a sum of four hundred dollars was allotted for hotel 

** Quarterly, XXVm: 3 6-s8. 

880 See below pp. 248-250 for a discussion of the structure of the Directors. 


COLBY '64 


COLBY '61 

7 ndet wad d ? niit't i ( *ttnl 

COLBY '84 










I nth'! . tn,tl <f I'ndct 


Kctfbtonr I i* 1 /" r</ 


and traveling expenses. 321 The Council, moreover, was allowed two 
delegates to the convention. All convention officers and the editor of 
the Quarterly were to render reports to the Executive Council at least 
fifteen days before the convention. The Executive Council might also 
recommend to any chapter the removal of an unsatisfactory Secretary 
or Associate Editor of the Quarterly and the election of another person 
in his place. 322 In the matter of new chapters, the Executive Council 
was to appoint a committee to establish them in accordance with the 
constitution and to create an Advisory Board of three alumni to watch 
over the affairs of the new chapter. Upon the request of any other 
chapter the Executive Council might create a similar body. Members 
of these Advisory Boards were to hold office for three years and were 
to be subject to the direction of the Executive Council. 323 Finally, it 
should be observed that the Executive Council was to render a report 
of its activities annually to the delegates at convention. 

Last, but by no means least in importance, among the governing 
boards was the convention. A convention was defined as the annual 
meeting of the delegates of the chapters, alumni clubs and associations, 
the Trustees and the Executive Council. The place of meeting was to 
be determined by these representatives, though the exact time of meet- 
ing was fixed by the Executive Council in conjunction with the enter- 
taining chapter; which society was to file with the Executive Council 
a plan for the convention at least three weeks prior to the meeting. 
All chapter and alumni groups were to receive notice of any convention 
three weeks in advance. Special conventions might be called by the 
Executive Council upon the written request of nine chapters. 324 Each 
chapter was entitled to two delegates and one additional for every 
ten members in excess of twenty-five. 326 A chapter in debt for taxes or 
by reason of any other obligation, assumed six months prior to con- 
vention was to be denied all rights at the annual meeting. 326 Chapters 
were not allowed to delegate their representation to alumni. Each 
authorized alumni club or association which might have had a meet- 
ing and had contributed five dollars to the Treasurer of the Fraternity 

821 This allowance was eliminated by amendment in 1913. 

822 This section was repealed in 1911. 

338 This Board was re-named the Alumni Board in 1917 and the term, of office 
placed at one year. 

324 In 1913 special comentions could be called upon the written request of one- 
third of the chapters and these meetings were to conduct only that business men- 
tioned in the call for the convention. 

323 In 1917 an amendment provided that each chapter was to have but one 

828 In 1923 this was altered to read "five" months. 


within the past year, was to be entitled to two delegates. Every delegate 
to the convention was to present a certificate of his election and was 
entitled to one vote, but when "a roll call of chapters is demanded, 
each body entitled to representation shall cast but one vote." 327 In 
other words, upon any question affecting the admission of new chapters 
or the rate of taxation on active members, the alumni units, the 
Trustees and the Executive Council were not given a vote. Once a 
petitioning society had gained unanimous consent of all chapters 
present, a three-fourths vote of the Trustees was needed to permit the 
installation of the new chapter and the issuing of a charter signed by 
the President of the Fraternity. A majority of the delegates from the 
chapters constituted a quorum of the convention; thus it was possible 
for a petitioning society to gain the approval of the convention with- 
out the consent of all of the chapters. This was not a new feature; 
rather did it merely continue a practice which had been used for some 
time past. 328 No society was to be considered as being a member of the 
Fraternity until it had been duly installed. The charter of any chapter 
might be withdrawn, however, by vote in convention of three-fourths 
of the whole number of chapters present, provided that such action 
met with the approval of a three-fourths vote of the Trustees present 
at any meeting of the Board. 329 

In addition to these various duties the convention might expel any 
alumnus of any inactive chapter and listen to the appeal of any active 
or alumni member that might have been expelled or suspended by his 
chapter. No chapter was to use any pledge button or emblem not 
authorized by the convention. The convention, moreover, annually 
elected its own officers which were listed as an Honorary President, 
a Convention President, three Vice-Presidents, one of whom was to be 
an undergraduate, a Secretary, a Treasurer, an Orator, Poet, Historian, 
Librarian, Auditor, Decennial Bureau, an Executive Council and the 
Quarterly Editors. A majority vote of the chapters was sufficient to 
elect any person to these offices. 330 The convention received reports 
from its officers as well as from those of the incorporated Fraternity. 
Each chapter, moreover, was to forward to the convention a statement 

33(7 In 1912 this was changed to read "but when a call of the roll is demanded, 
each body entitled to representation shall cast but one vote." 

828 See below pp. 209-213. 

^In 1921 this section was altered so as to provide that charters might be with- 
drawn upon a three-fourths vote of the chapters in convention and a similar vote 
of the Trustees at any regular meeting. 

380 Alumni groups, the Council and Trustees could not vote on these matters. In 
1911 the Decennial Bureau and Fraternity Magazine were abolished as conven- 
tion officers. 


of its activities for the past year, which report was referred without 
reading to a committee. Most of these reports were to be published 
in whole or in pan in the AnnuaL Again the convention might alter 
the constitution by a two-thirds vote of all the organizations repre- 
sented, provided three weeks' notice of proposed amendments had 
been given to each society, club or association entitled to representa- 
tion. Such amendments also required a two-thirds vote of the Trustees. 
The By-Laws might be amended by the concurrent vote of the chapters 
in convention and the Trustees present at any regular meeting of that 
board. It is to be noted, therefore, that while a two-thirds vote was 
required to change the constitution, a mere majority was enough to 
alter the by-laws. Further, changes in the constitution necessitated 
action by all the organization while in the case of the by-laws only the 
chapters and Trustees might vote. 

The expenses of the convention were to be met from chapter taxes, 
provided the amount did not exceed lisoo. 331 Out of this sum came 
the necessary expenses of the Convention officers, namely the Presi- 
dents, Vice-Presidents, Secretary, Orator, Poet, Historian and Chaplain, 
and of the delegates, railroad fare excepted. 332 The Convention Treas- 
urer, who does not seem to have been entitled to any commutation, 
handled the finances of the meeting and made a report to the Executive 
Council of all receipts and expenditures. 333 Provision also existed in 
the constitution for the publication of a Decennial Catalogue and a 
Fraternity Magazine, concerning which some comment will appear in 
a later chapter. The colors of the Fraternity were old gold and pea- 
cock blue; the crest, to be uniform throughout the chapters, while the 
badge was a monogram composed of the letters Delta Upsilon bearing 
the motto Dikiai Upoteke. 

Membership in Delta Upsilon consisted of the active and alumni 
members of the chapters and of such honorary members that had been 
elected prior to 1891. Active membership was limited to male students 
belonging to a chapter of the Fraternity. 334 Election to membership 

881 In 1916 this sum was raised to 1500 in view of the greater number of dele- 
gates attending the convention. 

833 In 1910 the Trustees were denied this compensation. In 1921 the convention 
officers were listed as a President (the Honorary President having been eliminated), 
three Vice-Presidents (none of whom had to be under-graduates), a Secretary, a 
Treasurer, an Orator, Poet, Historian, Chaplain and Auditor (the Librarian being 
eliminated). All of these officers, except the Treasurer, as well as the Trustees and 
chapter delegates received compensation for expenses to and from convention. 

883 In 1921 the Treasurer was required to submit his report to the Auditor. 

884 In 1912 it was added that the student had to be an "enrolled** member of 
his college. 


rested entirely in the hands of the undergraduates, provided the candi- 
date was not of immoral character and did not belong to a college 
society, membership in which was inconsistent with the principles of 
Delta Upsilon. The unanimous consent of all members was needed for 
election. Membership in other organizations, professional and honorary 
excepted, existing in more than one institution, was closed to those 
of the Fraternity. Each person elected to membership in Delta Upsilon 
was to be admitted in accordance with a rite of initiation and was to 
receive a certificate of membership signed by the Secretary of the 
Executive Council and by the President and Corresponding Secretary 
of the chapter. In the event that a member entered another institution 
where a chapter existed, that chapter might admit the member to its 
society, provided he presented proper credentials from his original 
chapter; otherwise his active membership in the Fraternity was lost. 335 
Any member in good standing might receive an honorable dismissal 
by a three-fourths vote of the active members of his chapter. Ordinarily, 
an individual lost his active membership upon withdrawal from his 
chapter or upon graduation. For violation, however, of his pledges, an 
individual might be suspended or expelled by a three-fourths vote of 
the active members present at any regular meeting of a chapter. Resolu- 
tions providing for either penalty were to be offered at the regular 
meeting preceding. The accused, moreover, was given an opportunity 
to defend himself and if not satisfied with the action of his chapter 
might appeal his case to the convention. 

Any active member in good standing became an alumnus upon his 
withdrawal from the chapter or upon graduation. An alumnus, more- 
over, might be expelled for any cause upon vote of the chapter and 
with the approval of the Executive Council. Except for newly founded 
chapters or for those requesting the assistance of the alumni, the 
graduate members had very little power in the affairs of the chapter. 
The alumni, however, might upon vote of the Trustees organize them- 
selves into clubs or associations and enjoy certain rights, already 
defined, at the convention. Further, they were accorded a voice in the 
government of the corporation by being the group from which the 
Trustees were chosen. And this Board, as has been shown, was a body 
of no little importance. 

The officers of the chapter were to consist of a President, Vice- 
President, Recording Secretary, Corresponding Secretary, Treasurer, 
Alumni Correspondent, Associate Editor of the Fraternity Magazine, 

336 In 1921 the language was made dearer so as to make it definite that the second 
chapter had the power to admit or not to admit as it wished. 


and such other officers as the chapter might desire. These officers were 
chosen by a majority vote of the active members at such time and for 
such tenure as the local society might provide, except that the terms of 
office of the Corresponding Secretary, the Alumni Correspondent and 
the Associate Editor were to be at least for one year. The duties of 
these officers are too patent to need any comment with the single 
exception of the Alumni Correspondent. This officer was to be an 
alumnus and was to make an annual communication of the condition 
and needs of the chapter to the alumni and to keep a record of the 
addresses and occupations of each, while his necessary expenses were 
to be met by the chapter. Each chapter was to have exclusive control 
over its separate property and funds and might adopt for its govern- 
ment such laws as did not conflict with the Fraternity's constitution 
or acts o the convention. 336 

On the basis of the above rsum of the 1909 Constitution it may 
easily be seen that a forward step had been made in the central organ- 
ization of Delta Upsilon. The incorporation of the Fraternity, more- 
over, had created the new governing boards Directors and Trustees 
and to these had been assigned, together with the Executive Council, 
far reaching powers. Opportunity for the growth and development of 
the Fraternity along sound lines was largely placed in the hands of 
experienced alumni. And while the chapters were left much to them- 
selves, their share in the determination of general policy had been 
somewhat curtailed. The incorporated Fraternity, moreover, was given 
full power and authority to collect, hold and disburse funds for the 
general purposes of the Fraternity, to receive property by gift, devise, 
bequest or otherwise, and to establish sustaining memberships among 
the alumni. These grants of power were calculated to allow the 
Trustees, Executive Council and Directors to undertake steps for 
greater internal development and for the promotion of objects which 
justly should not fall upon the undergraduate. The future was to 
show how well this plan worked. The Fraternity, however, could at 
no time impose any tax, assessment or levy of any kind upon any 
chapter or member of the Fraternity. In other words, the Trustees, 
acting for the corporation, could at no time and in no way impose 
financial burdens upon the chapters. The levying of per capita taxes 
for the general support of the convention and Fraternity still rested 
in the chapters assembled in convention. 337 

838 In 1921 it was stated that the chapter records were the property of the 
837 The matter of fraternity taxation is discussed below pp. 257-269. 


In spite of the great care and thought that the Committee of Forty- 
Eight had taken in drafting the Constitution and By-Laws of 1909, 
a number of changes took place in the organic law during the course of 
the next few years. In most cases these alterations appear to have been 
conceived by the Trustees and introduced by them as members of the 
Convention, the required notice to all delegations having been given 
in advance. All amendments that passed the convention, ultimately 
were passed by the Trustees. Some of these changes concerned the 
structure and detail functioning of the Boards and Executive Council, 
the Quarterly and other publications, or pertained to financial matters, 
all of which will be discussed later on in this volume. Further, many 
of the amendments were of so detailed a nature that outside of the 
comments that have already been made no mention will be made. 338 
There were, however, certain alterations that are of sufficient signifi- 
cance as to warrant some elaboration. One of these concerned the whole 
question of the cost of transporting chapter delegates to and from 
the convention, a topic which will be treated later by itself. 

More important for our present purpose were the amendments con- 
cerning the procedure in cases involving suspension and expulsion. In 
the first place, the Executive Council was given power to draft general 
rules and regulations governing the same. Again, in 1915, the Consti- 
tution was amended so as to allow the convention, as well as the 
chapter, to invoke these penalties upon a three-fourths vote of the 
delegates present, provided resolutions concerning the same had been 
presented to these representatives one week in advance and provided 
that the accused had been given an opportunity for defense. Further, 
it was stated at the same time that no action of the chapter was to be 
valid until approved of by the Council and that in all cases an appeal 
either to the Council or the convention was possible. Two years later 
the alumni were accorded the right to vote at chapter meetings on any 
case of expulsion or suspension regardless as to whether that case 
involved an active or an inactive member. In 1919 the sections involv- 
ing this subject were altered so as to provide for these penalties by the 
three-fourths vote of the members present at a chapter meeting or by a 
similar vote in either the Council or Board of Directors, upon charges 
that had to be presented ten days in advance with the accused being 
given an opportunity for defense. An appeal to the Trustees was 
possible but the decision of that body was to be final. Two years later 
the By-Laws of the Fraternity were changed so as to provide an 

888 In 1912 many of these changes were effected, and a new edition of the Con- 
stitution and By-Laws, embodying these alterations appeared in 1913. 


elaborate set of rules for the expulsion or suspension of any member. 
In the main these rules declared that a three-fourths vote of either the 
chapter or Directors at any meeting might invoke these penalties, 
provided that the accused had been given a fair hearing and trial. 
Within six months thereafter an appeal might be made to the Trustees 
whose decision was to be final. Two important exceptions to these rules 
existed; first, in any case where the penalty might be suspension for 
less than three months or where the fine to be imposed was less than 
ten dollars, the chapter might try the accused at any regular meeting 
without written charges; second, when any member of the Fraternity 
had failed in the performance of any duty to the Fraternity, another 
chapter or any member or person, the charges were to be preferred by 
the Council, while in a case involving a member of an alumni club, 
the charges were to be made by the Graduate Board. Finally, the 
Board of Directors was given the power to make any other needed 
rules with respect to discipline and procedure which would serve in 
the interests of justice, provided these rules did not violate the organic 
law of the Fraternity. 

Many of the above mentioned changes had been rendered necessary 
as a result of important alterations that had taken place since 1912 
relative to the status of the alumni. In the first instance, it was ruled 
that the Alumni Correspondent might either be an active or alumnus 
member of the chapter. More important, was the change in 1917 
which resulted in a re-definition of what constituted a chapter. Here- 
tofore, a chapter included both active and alumni members, the latter, 
however, being excluded from voting in most cases upon practically 
every important matter that was brought before the chapter. In a few 
instances some of the chapters did accord greater rights to their grad- 
uates but in the main they had no voice in the determination of the 
chapter's fiscal policy, the admission of new members or in the general 
conduct of local affairs. On the other hand their assistance in rushing 
and above all in meeting chapter deficits was zealously sought by the 
active members. In justice, therefore, to the alumni it was argued that 
if they were going to be called upon to meet debts arising from bad 
management and to iron out difficulties that had been brought about 
by the refusal of the chapter to pledge persons that the alumni had 
strongly urged, they should be given the right to vote on such matters. 
The author himself recalls a case in his chapter where the graduate 
members strongly resented the pledging of a certain person and vigor- 
ously protested against the chapter's refusal to pledge the son of a 
charter member. On the other hand, while the active members valued 


most highly the counsel and aid furnished by their graduates they were 
afraid that the proposed scheme would destroy their rights in the 
selection of persons who were to make up the active chapter, and it 
was the active chapter that had to live with these persons and not the 
alumni. Spirited discussion took place on this general matter at the 
1917 Convention with the result that a compromise was effected. 
According to this agreement, the alumni and active members were 
declared to be the chapter and were to enjoy equal rights and privi- 
leges, provided, the alumni were to have no right to vote for active 
members without the consent of the active chapter, unless such chapter 
had fewer than five members. In such an event the alumni might 
step in and vote new members into the chapters. By another amend- 
ment the alumni were denied the right to elect the chapter's delegate 
to the convention, though as has been seen they were at the same time 
accorded the power to vote on the expulsion or suspension of any 
member of the chapter. Finally, in 1921 all restrictions upon the powers 
of the alumni to vote on the admission of new members were removed, 
and since that date the alumni may, if they desire, vote upon any 
candidate for admission into the chapter. 339 

Another important modification that took place between 1909 and 
1921 in the organic law was that which concerned the honorable dis- 
missal of members. Although the intent of the clause in the 1909 
document had been to provide for dismissal, the use of the word 
"Fraternity" raised a technical point as to whether a person once 
inducted into Delta Upsilon could ever sever his connections with the 
same. Prior to 1909 it would appear that the Executive Council at 
times had accepted the resignations of certain persons, the implication 
being that membership might be terminated upon action of that body. 
After 1909, however, it seems clear that while one might receive an 
honorable discharge from his chapter, no dismissal from the Fraternity 
could take place except for violation of the pledges. Definite pro- 
nouncement of this policy was stated in 1912 and again in 1921. Hence 
from 1909 on, a person might honorably be relieved of his chapter 
obligations but not from the Fraternity except for violation of his 

Again the question arose, in 1912, as to the status of alumni belong- 
ing to a petitioning society that had been granted a charter. Hereto- 
fore these persons had become members by initiation only. In the 
future certified alumni of a petitioning group might become members 
of Delta Upsilon either by initiation or by subscribing, at a later date, 

**See Quarterly, XXXVI:2-4. 


to the pledge required by the rite of initiation. During 1917, another 
question arose relative to the standing of persons who had entered 
military service, particularly among the Canadian chapters. It appears 
that certain individuals had been pledged to the Fraternity but before 
initiation had entered military service. In justice to these men it was 
ruled that the rite of initiation might be administered either by any 
chapter or group of members upon the written authority of the Coun- 
cil, provided that the candidate's own chapter had given its consent. 
Finally, it should be observed that in 1913 the constitution was altered 
so as to prevent the initiation of any person after September, 1917, 
who was a member of a high school secret society, preparatory school 
or institution that trained students for college. This change had been 
brought about as the result of a general move that had arisen in certain 
states against college fraternities. Evidently, Delta Upsilon desired to 
strengthen its position by making it clear that its fraternal life and 
organization was not to be confused with the practices of secondary 
school societies, whose actions had aroused so much just comment and 
criticism. 340 

Between 1921 and 1925, when a new constitution was adopted, a 
number of changes took place. Most of these concerned detail matters 
which need no comment, or related to the governing boards of the 
Fraternity, concerning which some discussion will appear in a later 
chapter. It should be noted in passing, however, that there was added 
during these years to the list of Fraternity officers, an Assistant Treas- 
urer, a Chairman of the Board of Directors and a new body known 
as the Board on Petitioning Societies. It should also be observed that 
in 1924 the constitution was altered so as to provide that petitioning 
societies might be granted a charter upon a seven-eighths vote of the 
chapters present in convention and upon a three-fourths vote of the 
Trustees present at their annual assembly. 341 

Since 1925 the number of changes that have occurred are few in 
number, for which no detailed treatment seems necessary, especially 
as most of these modifications concerned the central government of 
Delta Upsilon and which are treated elsewhere in this volume. For 
our purpose all that remains is to present a brief rsum of the Consti- 
tution and By-Laws as they exist at the present time. The Constitution 
of 1933 consists of eleven articles, the first of which defines the Frater- 
nity. This article provides that Delta Upsilon is a non-secret society 

840 In 1916 this was altered so as to read September, 1918, and in 1919 was repealed 
entirely. In 1921 it was provided that chapter delegates were not to be bound by 
the instructions of their societies. 

341 See below pp. 209-213 for discussion of this change. 


consisting of members duly initiated in accordance with the law of the 
Fraternity and of such honorary members that had been elected prior 
to 1891. The objects of the Fraternity remain as they had been since 
1909, with the incorporated Fraternity possessing the power to acquire 
and hold funds and disburse the same for general purposes. Article 
two concerns the Board of Trustees and bore no material change over 
the 1925 document other than the addition of a new section in 1930 
which allows the Trustees of a chapter to collect and receive on behalf 
of a chapter any money or property bequeathed to it. Article three 
concerns the Directors, while the next article enumerates the duties of 
the Fraternity officers. No change appears in the structure of the 
Directors, though in 1931 a new officer was added in the form of a 
Fraternity Advisor. This officer was to be appointed by the President, 
subject to the approval of the Directors, for three years; his duties 
being assigned by that body. The motive back of this feature was the 
belief that certain prominent and peculiarly fitted members might 
visit either the chapters or alumni groups in an informal way and 
address them on matters incident to the Fraternity or on any topic of 
general interest. No Advisors have as yet been appointed. Article five 
relates to the governing boards, concerning which comment will appear 
later. Article six covers the question of membership in Delta Upsilon 
and was the same as it had been in 1925. The next article deals with 
the chapters and except for a change in 1932 was the same as it had 
been in ig25. 842 The eighth article dealing with the alumni clubs was 
the same as in 1925, while article ten was altered in 1932 only to the 
extent that a chapter was to be denied rights at convention if it were 
four months in default to the Fraternity for taxes or other obligations; 
heretofore the section had read five months previous to convention* 
It should also be noted in passing that chapter delegates to the con- 
vention were to be chosen by the undergraduates only unless none 
were present or voting. The remaining two articles concern the Frater- 
nity Seal and the procedure of constitutional amendment, relative to 
which no alterations have taken place since 1925. 

In respect to the By-Laws of the Fraternity certain alterations have 
been made. Article one concerns the convention whose officers include 
a President, three Vice-Presidents, one of whom is to be an under- 
graduate, a Secretary, a Treasurer, a Chaplain and an Auditor. In 
1925 the list also included a Poet, Historian, and an Orator, all of 

change called for an elimination of the clause "who at that time of his 
admission therein was a duly enrolled student of the institution in which such a 
society is located"; a change of no great significance. 


whom were eliminated in 1936. In the same year the section that 
required the submission to the Convention of annual reports from 
the chapters was abolished. In so doing the convention brought to an 
end a practice that had existed since the establishment of the Con- 
federation. During the early years of the Fraternity these reports were 
evidently of great value as they gave each society an opportunity to 
become aware of what the others were doing and aided in knitting 
the organizations into a closer brotherhood. With the advent of the 
Quarterly, however, the need for these convention reports was con- 
siderably removed and though for a time they were continued in a 
much briefer form their actual value was practically gone. The surpris- 
ing thing is that they were not abolished earlier than they were. Article 
two relates to the District or Provincial Conferences which had been 
formally established in 1912 and concerning which discussion will 
follow in a later chapter. Suffice it here to say that while the organic 
law of 1925 enumerates these Provinces that for 1926 eliminated the 
list of the chapters belonging to each district. Article four concerns 
the structure of the chapters and with the exception of a clause added 
in 1930 to the effect that the local treasurer might be either a graduate 
or active member no other change has taken place since 1925. This 
slight alteration is significant, however, in that it points the way to a 
more thorough fiscal policy on the part of the chapters. In respect to 
the insignia of the Fraternity which is to be found in Article six the 
only change noted since 1925 was the addition of a dause in 1930 
which provides that the mother, wife or fiancee might wear the badge 
of a member of Delta Upsilon. All other articles of the By-Laws remain 
as they had been in 1925 except for certain changes in the nature of 
the tax system and the structure of alumni clubs, items which will be 
treated separately. 

And so our narrative of the growth and development of the Consti- 
tution and By-Laws of Delta Upsilon has come to an end. Throughout 
this sketch we have witnessed the steady progression towards greater 
centralization. During the formative period the emphasis had been on 
the chapters and in their hands most of the powers had rested. Begin- 
ning, however, with the memorable Convention at Middlebury in 1864 
a decided step was taken towards the creation of a central governing 
body. With the inception of the Executive Council in 1883, or 1885 if 
we take the date when that body formally began to function, Delta 
Upsilon was launched upon a scheme that logically led to the incor- 
poration of that Council in 1905 and of the Fraternity itself in 1909. 
Since that latter date great strides were made by the creation of a 


number of governing boards and bodies, notably the Trustees and 
Directors, all of which resulted in the appearance of a Fraternity which 
was marked by centralization of power in the hands of the alumni 
rather than of the active members. Speaking in terms of political 
science Delta Upsilon is still a federation of sovereign chapters, who 
either through their delegates to the Convention or to the Board of 
Trustees have the final voice in the determination of Fraternity policy. 
So extensive, however, is the authority that the chapters have delegated 
to the governing boards that it seems safe to conclude that the practical 
control of Delta Upsilon is definitely lodged where it should bein 
the hands of those best calculated to lead to further growth and devel- 
opment. The constitutional arrangements prior to 1864 and indeed 
before 1909 were logically devised to promote the life of the Fraternity 
as it then existed. With the extension in the roll of chapters that took 
place after these dates, with the appearance of the Quarterly and the 
Executive Council, it became apparent that a more delicate and com- 
plicated system had developed. Proper handling of this situation 
demanded that the undergraduate surrender some of his powers to 
those alumni whose experience and ability argued for control in Frater- 
nity matters. It is a compliment to the active members that they not 
only saw this need but courageously undertook to solve the problem 
by creating a central government of far reaching power and authority. 
Under the guidance of this government, Delta Upsilon has forged 
forward, and actuated by motives and purposes as dear to the alumni 
as to the undergraduate, a Fraternity in the true sense of the word has 
come into being. Were those youths who conceived the idea of "Justice 
is our Foundation" to appear today they would wonder at the structure 
as it now exists. Their unanimous opinion, however, would be that 
Delta Upsilon was still a Fraternity wherein brothers sought to pro- 
mote equity in college affairs, to aid in the diffusion of liberal culture 
and above all to seek those spiritual values of brotherhood and true 

Chapter X 




ANNUAL conventions of Delta Upsilon were held from 1900 to date 
with the single exception of 1918. In that year, as a result of the 
disturbed conditions that existed following America's entrance into 
the World War, it was deemed wise not to hold the usual gathering. 
In most cases chapters acted as hosts though on several occasions an 
alumni club or clubs sponsored the meeting. For example, the West 
Baden Convention of 1929 was held under the auspices of the Indi- 
anapolis Delta Upsilon Club with the assistance of the De Pauw, 
Purdue and Indiana Chapters. The utilization of the kind services of 
these clubs reflects in part the growing importance of the alumni to the 
Fraternity. At the same time it reveals a reluctance on the part of 
the chapters to shoulder the responsibilities of these gatherings even 
though the General Fraternity has been exceedingly generous in its 
aid and assistance. Among those chapters who have entertained the 
Fraternity more than once are Syracuse, Brown, Chicago, New York 
and Minnesota, though in each case the local alumni played an impor- 
tant role in making these meetings a success. Among those who have 
frequented Fraternity Conventions, most would agree that the gather- 
ings at San Francisco, Seattle, New York City and Washington, D. C., 
were outstanding meetings. And while these conventions were marked 
by important gains in Fraternity work, such as the admission of new 
chapters or the amendment of the constitution, the most conspicuous 
characteristic was the social and fraternal aspect. Anyone who will 
take the trouble to examine the records of the conventions of even 
fifty years ago will be struck by the absence of entertainment. Ever 
since the close of the previous century more and more time has been 
devoted to various forms of entertainment which in some cases have 
been rather elaborate. 



The growth of the Fraternity has made possible this shift in empha- 
sis. In 1900 thirty-four chapters were represented, while in 1932 fifty- 
five societies were present. From 1900 to 1916 inclusive the number 
of delegates ran from sixty to ninety-one, with the largest representa- 
tion taking place in 1915. During these years each chapter was entitled 
to two delegates plus one additional for every ten members in excess of 
twenty-five, a factor that helps to explain the variation in the number 
of delegates. 343 Another cause was that during 1915 and 1916 Toronto 
sent only one representative, while in 1916 McGill had no delegate; 
both cases being explained on account of the disturbed conditions at 
these institutions due to the World War. Finally, it should be added 
that in certain years some of the chapters sent no delegations at all, 
while in other instances chapters were represented by but one dele- 
gate. 344 From 1917 to 1932 inclusive, during which period the consti- 
tution allotted but one delegate to each chapter, the number of 
accredited representatives ranged from forty-two to fifty-five. There 
should have been one additional delegate in 1917 and two in 1932, 
but, due to the failure of these chapters to meet their obligations to the 
Fraternity, they were denied seats by virtue of a constitutional provi- 
sion. 345 Harvard, for reasons that will be explained later, was not 
present from 1919 to 1923 inclusive, while New York was absent in 
1922 and Toronto in 1923 and 1924. No cause is listed in the Annual 
for the absence of these last two societies. 

In addition to the representatives from the chapters, delegates from 
a number of alumni clubs and associations were granted seats with 
limited powers. The number present varied from six in 1900 to twenty- 
seven in 1909, the average for the entire period from 1900 to 1932 
being five. The greatest interest shown by these groups took place in 
1908, 1909, 1910 and 1925. In general this may be explained by reason 
of the location of the convention and the entertainment provided; and 
yet at New York City in 1932 there were but three groups present. 
Of the various clubs and associations attending these meetings the 
Delta Upsilon Club of New York has had by far the best record, with 
the Chicago, Minnesota, Kansas City and Western Pennsylvania groups 
trailing. All of these far outdistanced the other units whose presence 

** Harvard had three delegates in 1901, 1904, 1907, 1909, Bowdoin, three, in 
1915 and 1916. 

""Stanford and California had no delegates in 1901, while in 1907 these groups 
had but one delegate. Northwestern had but one in 1905 and 1909. Marietta but 
one in 1910, while Toronto and New York were not represented in 1923 and 1922 

* These were Rutgers, De Pauw and New York. 


was often accounted for by reason of some petitioning society in their 
area. Prominent among those who were delegates from these alumni 
units should be mentioned F. M. Crossett who probably holds the 
record of having been present at more conventions than any other 
single Delta Upsilon, living or dead. 345 * 

From 1900 to 1921 inclusive the Executive Council was represented 
by two delegates at each meeting; after that date this body was no 
longer entitled to representation, though a number of them were 
present at these later sessions. The Trustees, who were given seats 
beginning in 1910, had two delegates except for 1910 when but one 
seems to have attended. Among the representatives of these two groups 
should be mentioned Wilson L. Fairbanks, John Patterson, Clifford 
M. Swan, Samuel S. Hall and Thomas C. Miller. In addition to these 
various delegates there were present at odd times the officers of the 
Fraternity and Convention as well as a large number of visitors from 
the chapters and alumni clubs. 

The activities of the convention covered a number of topics among 
which none was more important than that of amending and revising 
the Constitution. Much of this has already been discussed, though 
there is one change that requires comment in view of the attitude of 
the chapters towards this matter, namely the procedure relative to the 
admission of new chapters. At the beginning of the century no charter 
could be granted except by the unanimous consent of the chapters 
present at convention. Now it was the opinion of some, notably among 
those alumni who were active in Fraternity work, that this arrange- 
ment was altogether too narrow, particularly as a single chapter might 
block the desires and best interests of Delta Upsilon. Actuated by 
this motive, Ferris, New York '78, proposed at the 1903 meeting that 
the constitution be altered so as to provide for the consent of but four- 
fifths of the chapters in convention. Ferris intended bringing this up 
for action at the next general meeting but before that time certain 
members of the Council seem to have persuaded him to drop the 
matter as it "undoubtedly would cause a warm fight, and even if 
passed would be the cause of a lot of friction." 346 Nothing materialized, 
therefore, for the time being. And even when the organic law was 
altered in 1905 and 1909 no suggestion was made by either the Execu- 
tive Council or the delegates to change the existing provision. 

8 * 5 * Crossett died March 18, 1934. 

848 See Goldsmith to Hall, Oct. 18, 1904 and Minutes of the Executive Council, 
Nov. 14, 1903. The Constitution of 1854, which operated until 1859, provided that 
a three-fourths vote of the chapters was required; the vote being either in con- 
vention or by correspondence. 


In the December issue o the Quarterly for 1909, however, the whole 
matter was brought squarely before the Fraternity by an article setting 
forth the views of the Harvard Chapter. It was the opinion of this 
group that the constitution was thwarting the will of the great ma- 
jority of the chapters. To remedy this situation Harvard proposed that 
the organic law be amended so that while a unanimous vote was to be 
required on the first two applications for a charter, then any sub- 
sequent request needed only a seven-eighths vote of the chapters in 
convention. This article aroused considerable interest among the 
chapters, several of whom wrote in to the Quarterly approving of the 
Harvard proposal. 347 Clearly the sentiment in favor of a change had 
grown considerably since 1904. Moreover the matter was brought be- 
fore the Trustees at a meeting, February 8, 1910. At this assembly 
Waldo G. Morse of the Rochester Chapter proposed that the con- 
vention be asked to amend the constitution along the lines suggested 
by Harvard, plus a provision that called for the consent of two-thirds 
of the Trustees. Although an attempt was made to postpone considera- 
tion of this motion until a later meeting, the Trustees by a vote of 
twenty in favor and none against endorsed Morse's action. As a result, 
the chapters were notified that this amendment would be brought up 
before the 1910 Convention, as it was by Verne M. Bovie, Secretary 
of the Trustees. The account of the action of the delegates as given in 
the Quarterly is significant enough to be quoted: 348 

After several other matters of minor importance had been disposed 
of, a scrawny little foundling called the 'Seven Eighths Vote' was left 
on the doorstep of the Convention. John Patterson half apologized as 
he unwrapped the poorly nourished creature and held it up for the 
delegates* examination. He protested loudly that it was no offspring 
of his, nor did he know who its father was. The Trustees had accepted 
a sort of guardianship until the Convention should decide whether 
or not to adopt it. ... Some of the delegates thought the youngster a 
useful citizen and urged its adoption; others felt kindly toward it at 
first and offered to give it a chance. The dubious ones thought leaving 
it lie on the table for a year might do it good but Clifford G. Roe 
protested against such action, as inhuman and unprecedented. He 
moved instead that the little waif be painlessly exterminated by unani- 
mous vote of the Convention assembled, and as a result of this its re- 
mains were respectfully interred in a bottomless pit. Sic transit gloria 

In spite of this facetious report as given in the Quarterly the fact re- 
mains that there were some delegates who were strongly of the opinion 

Quarterly, XXVlII:$g-4i, 185. 
** Quarterly, 


that the amendment was worth passing. Patterson himself had voted 
for the proposition at the Trustees' meeting and surely was well in- 
formed as were others as to its origins and supporters. Doubtless those 
who were in favor of the idea sensed the futility of the movement, 
which explains why they endorsed Roe's suggestion. The proposal 
itself was not as dangerous as it appeared in view of the fact that the 
seven-eighths vote could not be invoked until the petitioner had come 
up for the third time. On the other hand it is reasonable to assume 
that a society that was determined to gain admission into Delta 
Upsilon and which could bank upon seven-eighths of the chapters 
might willingly wait three years. In which event one might as well 
grant a charter the first time and be done with it. As it was, however, 
the convention would not consider the proposition. 349 

The matter was not "interred in a bottomless pit," though for many 
a year the Fraternity made no attempt to alter the existing regulation. 
An examination, however, of the Quarterly and the Annual will reveal 
that while no one seemed so bold as to whisper in favor of a change 
there were many who believed that the time would come when the 
unanimous vote would be removed. Year after year the Executive 
Council and later the Board on Petitioning Societies presented their 
recommendations to the convention as to granting new charters. Their 
findings had been the result of much thought, effort and expense. 
Nothing in other words was left undone by these servants of the Fra- 
ternity to discover the fitness of the petitioning bodies. Personal visits 
to the institutions concerned, correspondence with university authori- 
ties, examination of the local's standing in respect to scholarship, stu- 
dent activities, financial rating and the like, all speak volumes for the 
zeal of these men to present only groups that measured up to the 
highest standards. And yet in spite of this objective investigation, 
chapter delegates continued to vote down societies that in some cases 
were far stronger and better established than some of the chapters 
themselves. The motives behind this position will be treated later. 
Suffice it here to state that the delegates, possessed of scanty informa- 
tion, determined for various reasons to insist upon voting against 
societies which had the whole hearted support of the committees that 
had investigated them. A crisis was reached at the Amherst Convention 
of 1923. At this meeting the chapters turned a deaf ear to all the 
petitioners, of whom the Board of Petitioning Societies had strongly 

848 In justice to the Trustees it ought to be stated that while Patterson and others 
were opposed to the proposition on the ground that it would stir up internal strife, 
they were nevertheless willing to bring the matter up and then dispose of it as 
outlined above; see Smalley to Swan, Aug. 31, Sept. 31, 1910. 


recommended charters to Missouri and Dartmouth; the former, for 
example, being denied by a vote of but three chapters. Hardly had 
the Convention taken action than the meeting was thrown into a 
spirited discussion -as to the right of a chapter "to mold the policy of 
the entire Fraternity against the wishes of the rest." John P. Broomell, 
Thomas C. Miller and others spoke most strongly in favor of a change 
which was followed by Broomell proposing an amendment providing 
for a four-fifths vote of the chapters present at a convention. Our 
written sources fail to show the intense feeling that was engendered 
by this proposal, though a conversation with any of the men who at- 
tended this meeting would convince the most "doubting Thomas" 
that the whole affair was one that might well have produced internal 
strife of a most serious nature. The psychological setting, however, 
was all in favor of a change and to the surprise of both factions, 
Broomell's resolution was carried by a vote of twenty-eight to 
eighteen. 350 

The above resolution was referred to the standing committee on the 
constitution by the Directors at their meeting, September 19, 1923. This 
committee in time presented a report that modified the original amend- 
ment by calling for a seven-eighths vote instead of a four-fifths vote. 
This change was made on the ground that it was less drastic than the 
proposal of the Amherst Convention and would, therefore, have a 
better chance of being adopted. Among the Trustees there were some 
who were not entirely in accord with the proposition. Not that they 
did not find fault with the attitude of the chapters but that they feared 
the entire proposition might lead to a split in Fraternity sentiment. 
Accordingly these men sought to compromise but on finding that the 
bulk of the Trustees were in sympathy with the amendment were 
content to register their votes against the change and allow the ma- 
jority to have their way. Final action was taken by the Trustees at a 
special meeting, January 24, 1924. At this gathering several changes 
were suggested by certain members but each in turn was voted down. 
Ultimately the original resolution providing for a seven-eighths vote 
was carried in the Assembly by twenty-five votes for and five against. 
The amendment was then forwarded to the chapters who in time as- 
sembled at Syracuse for convention in the fall of ig24. 851 

On September 15 of that year the proposition was debated by the 
delegates. In the meantime, as is evidenced by a study of the Quar- 

** Annual, 1923, Quarterly, 11:323-334. 

^Minutes of the Board of Directors, Sept. 19, Nov. 21, Bee. 20, 1923, Minutes 
of the Board of Trustees, Nov. 3, 1923, Jan. 24, 1924. 


terly and a few of the minutes of chapter meetings, the Fraternity at 
large had examined the matter in a most careful manner. Small won- 
der was it therefore that a spirited discussion took place at Syracuse, 
particularly on the part of the delegates from Amherst, Williams, 
Cornell, Brown, Rutgers, Oregon State, the Trustees and representa- 
tives of the New York and Oklahoma Alumni Clubs. The roll-call re- 
vealed thirty-five votes in the affirmative and eight in the negative, 
which was enough to pass the amendment. And so after many years of 
agitation the Fraternity established as its present rule that upon a 
seven-eighths vote of the chapters present at convention and upon 
a three-fourths vote of the Trustees at their annual Assembly, a charter 
might be granted to a petitioning society. Since that date murmurs 
have been heard in favor of still further change and at the New York 
Convention of 1932 a motion was actually presented providing for a 
three-fourths vote of the Convention. This motion, although debated 
at some length, was defeated on roll-call. 352 

In addition to amending the Constitution, the conventions under- 
took to instruct the Executive Council, the Council, Trustees and other 
governing boards or committees as to a number of various matters. 
To illustrate, the questions of Fraternity examinations, of the proper or 
improper use of the Insignia, of the publication of Our Record or 
Manual, these and many others were referred to some agency of the 
general Fraternity either with power to act or with the instruction to 
report at the next convention. In some cases each one of these topics 
was conceived by one of the governing boards, though the actual 
presentation of the matter to the convention was usually handled by a 
chapter delegate. The convention likewise passed a number of resolu- 
tions endorsing the work of members either in Fraternity or non- 
fraternity work, thanking the entertaining chapter or alumni club for 
their kindness and hospitality, and interpreting at times the correct 
meaning of some phrase of the constitution, such for example as the 
provision relating to the affiliation of members from other chapters. 

Although these topics consumed much of the time of the convention, 
that which was closest to the hearts and interest of the chapter dele- 
gates was the question of the admission of new members. Fraternity 
expansion, or extension as it is also called, had been one of the high 
lights of past conventions. The twentieth century has been no excep- 
tion to this, though older and maturer minds have often wondered 

852 Annual, 1924-1932. No record of this call appears in the manuscript records 
and it may be that the reference in the Annual should have read "motion was 


why the delegates took this matter so seriously, particularly as Delia 
Upsilon has fairly well covered most of the leading educational insti- 
tutions. The answer exists in the view that the right to found new 
chapters is one of the few powers of any significance that is still 
possessed by the chapters. The exercise of this function, moreover 
has given to the delegates an opportunity to engage in Fraternity 
politics in a manner that evidently is much relished. Further, at the 
opening of the century the field for extension was still relatively large 
and as there existed a tradition of conservatism and progression in 
some of the chapters the battle was continued and has been continued 
down to date with zeal and determination. 

Unlike the former periods, the problem was marked by the omission 
of any disputes between the delegates and the governing boards as to 
the legality of the founding of new societies. This matter which had 
torn the Fraternity wide open in the i88o's was largely put to rest by 
the action of the delegates at that time and by the Executive Council 
and Trustees' practice of meticulously observing constitutional require- 
ments. Further the method of investigating petitioning groups was 
conducted on a more scientific basis, either by the Executive Council, 
Trustees or by the Board on Petitioning Societies. As a result chapter 
delegates no longer doubted the merit of an institution recommended 
to them, though they did, as will be shown, question the character or 
standing of the petitioning groups themselves. On the other hand it 
should be noted that in some localities there was a positive opinion 
based upon logical thought and reasoning that Delta Upsilon should 
proceed most cautiously in admitting new chapters. 

The arguments for and against extension, as advanced during the 
present century, constituted nothing new. Indeed it would not be 
difficult to show that the sentiments expressed by delegates and alumni 
in the last thirty years are the same in principle as those voiced during 
the last half of the previous century. For purposes of convenience and 
in the interest of clarification, an attempt will be made to present a 
resume of these conflicting views as they appear in our sources. One 
of the more significant statements made was that the Fraternity had 
grown too rapidly in admitting new chapters and that instead of 
further expansion, the Fraternity should direct its efforts towards 
internal development. By internal growth was meant the strengthen-' 
ing of the existing chapters through the creation of agencies that 
would not only watch over the ordinary phases of chapter life but 
would also knit the same into a stronger and more vital brotherhood 
by the adoption of uniform practices, by more frequent visitations by 


Fraternity officers and by instilling into the minds of all the cardinal 
principles and ideals of Delta Upsilon. The argument in itself was 
possessed of distinct merit and validity. Certain chapters had, for vari- 
ous reasons, fallen into evil wa\s and practices, had been slip-shod 
in their business procedure, had been remiss in performing duties to 
the Fraternity and at times had been unwilling to meet their financial 
obligations either to local concerns or to the General Fraternity. 
Finally, it should be noted that in a few instances, that will be treated 
later, a spirit of ultra independence had appeared; a spirit, moreover, 
which tended to the inception of a belief that the chapter itself might 
well conduct its own life without much regard to the Fraternity itself. 
And in one case, this sentiment went so far as to lead to nullification 
and secession. Those who advocated a stronger internal policy were 
standing on sure and certain ground. 

Another contention, and one not without merit, was that any 
further extension would lead to greater difficulties of efficient admin- 
istration. Those who held to this view argued that visitations by a 
field secretary would become increasingly more laborious and expen- 
sive. Proper inspection demanded visits by this officer or some other 
person that were not only frequent but were more extended as to 
time. How any person could satisfactorily visit all of the chapters in a 
given year, especially as these groups extended from coast to coast 
and almost from North to South and interview in a penetrating and 
objective manner the chapters, the alumni and the university author- 
ities, was a question that the anti-expansionists believed could not be 
answered. Homogeneity of character among the chapters and similar- 
ity of ideals would become increasingly more difficult to obtain as the 
chapter roll was enlarged. And with the failure of these worthy objec- 
tives a spirit of sectionalism had and would still further develop. 
Sectionalism, all agreed, was an attitude of mind that should be erased 
as speedily as possible. 

Again, it was held that the burden of proof for admitting new 
societies lay with the friends of that organization; in other words, it 
was up to these alumni to make a good case for expansion, which 
the foes of expansion believed had not always been accomplished. 
The atmosphere of the convention, they also contended, was such that 
often clouded real issues. Amid the heat and spirit of debate, support- 
ing speeches were made that substituted sentiment and prejudice for 
reason and logic. In this respect, it was argued by some, that even 
though a chapter might be unable to present any sound reason for 
objecting to a petitioning group, still if it honestly harbored a doubt 


as to the group or if it took the stand that the Fraternity should go 
slow and emphasize conservatism and internal growth, then it was the 
constitutional duty of that chapter to register a negative vote. In other 
words, borrowing an analogy from the British Parliamentary system, 
an "Opposition" was exactly as constitutional as His Majesty's Min- 
isters. The essence of this argument amounted simply to this, that 
further extension should be opposed on the ground that opposition 
in itself was justifiable and constitutional. 

Anti-expansionists also held that in some cases the admission of 
certain groups illustrated quite clearly the defects in the existing pro- 
cedure and therefore constituted a valid reason against further action. 
With considerable logic these men showed that many a petitioning 
society had been admitted too hastily and that the standards of the 
local group which had been kept up to a point so as to insure admis- 
sion, had slumped badly after a charter had been granted. Social 
prestige, scholarly attainments, athletic and extra-curricular activities 
all seemed most convincing during the period of petitioning, but after 
admission these were allowed to drop. All of which showed the real 
merits of the petitioning society or the qualities of the students at a 
particular institution. Glorified speeches, alluring pictorial presenta- 
tions of college buildings, inviting statistical data and the like did not 
in themselves warrant the granting of a charter. "Beware of Greeks 
bringing Gifts/' might well have been voiced by these men. In this 
respect, it was often contended that proper analysis of factual material 
had not taken place. Instead sentiment and prejudice clouded vision 
and reason. Alumni, whose fraternal feelings had been lukewarm, were 
often appealed to by petitioners in a way that made them feel that 
now at last they might do something really important for Delta 
Upsilon. Human nature being as it is, so the argument ran, was 
stimulated by the vision of playing a r61e in the Fraternity; in other 
words, of satisfying their own ego. This being the case these alumni 
rushed into the theater of Fraternity problems and warmly advanced 
a petitioning group regardless of the merits of the same. To prove this 
contention there might well have been presented not merely the sub- 
sequent slump in the character of the new chapter but also the more 
patent observation that these alumni after having gained their ends 
ceased to care very much about either the local group or the Fraternity 

Again it was argued, more frequently in debate than in written form, 
that the character of the men desiring admission did not measure up 
to either the fraternity type or to the Delta Upsilon type. This view 


rested upon personal visits at different times of nearby chapters either 
to the college itself or to the petitioning society. Sometimes these visits 
came as the result of inter-collegiate activities, social or otherwise; 
again, they happened as a result of a desire to investigate the society 
in question. In either instance the visit, which was usually a short one, 
resulted in the acquisition of information concerning the quality of 
college men at the institution where the petitioner existed. This in- 
formation showed that the local atmosphere revealed characteristics 
that were alien to Delta Upsilon. Peculiar student organizations, bear- 
ing at times names that sounded uncouth and indicative of frontier 
ideals, such as "Ruff-Necks," over-emphasis on athletic, social or 
scholarly pursuits, such as being too attentive to books and literary 
activities, a lack of courtesy, brotherly feeling or fraternity finesse, 
these and other factors served to convince the visitors of the undesir- 
ability of either the college or the society. This information was then 
passed on to the other chapters by correspondence or by word of mouth 
at convention and served as a nucleus for decided opposition. Societies 
of this type that had been admitted, so the argument ran, did not enter 
into the spirit of Delta Upsilon and did not, therefore, bring any 
credit to the Fraternity. 

Closely allied with this view was the sentiment that the financial 
backing of the group was such as to make it unwise to grant it a charter. 
Here again the evidence was usually gained after a society had been 
admitted, which evidence showed that the new chapter was unable to 
meet its local obligations, unable to maintain ornate if not elaborate 
fraternity homes; all of which tended to weaken public opinion as to 
the standards of Delta Upsilon. Again, it was argued that the admission 
of a society at "X" college would, because of inter-collegiate rivalry or 
standing, injure an existing chapter on its own campus and make it 
increasingly difficult to pledge new members or even uphold Delta 
Upsilon ideals. All of which meant that at a particular institution, 
possessing a number of fraternities including Delta Upsilon, there 
existed a hostile feeling against a neighboring institution. The author 
knows, for example, of a prominent national fraternity whose alumni 
have been urging the granting of a charter to a reputable New York 
institution, but whose desires have been repeatedly checked by a nearby 
chapter whose action has been based solely on athletic and college 
rivalry. Were a chapter founded at that institution, then campus senti- 
ment at the other college would immediately cast reflection upon the 
already existing chapter, and in this way make it more difficult for 
the older group to maintain its local and fraternity standing. In other 


words by admitting the petitioning society the fraternity would be 
defeating its own ends. 

Many other arguments were raised, many of which were trivial in 
nature or local in application, and need not detain us. It is believed, 
however, that the most cogent arguments of the anti-expansionists have 
been presented as they exist in written or unwritten records. A criticism 
of these contentions is not within the scope of the historian as the 
sincerity or honesty of the arguments can not be questioned. No one 
who has read the lengthy circular letters sent out by the Michigan 
Chapter in 1910 can doubt but its members were loyally seeking to 
advance the cause of Delta Upsilon, even though they sought to check 
the admission of new societies. Michigan, Amherst, Cornell, Wisconsin, 
Stanford, California, Williams and others in seeking to retard hasty 
growth and action were in the main actuated by honorable motives. 
And yet it is evident that some of the arguments were in themselves 
but rationalizations and did not reveal the actual reason for opposing 
expansion. Ultra conservatism, it seems, was often the basic reason for 
objection. Delta Upsilon, a time-honored Fraternity and possessed of a 
rich and enviable heritage, should not seek to emulate other societies 
whose purpose seemed to be to have the largest roll of chapters of any 
fraternity. Were Delta Upsilon to follow in the wake of these more 
ambitious groups the Fraternity would become common and cheap. 
Further by so generous a policy, Delta Upsilon would soon have on 
its hands a list of inactive chapters that would rival some of the other 
Greek letter societies. It should also be noted in passing, that the 
validity of these contentions was dimmed by the extensive internal 
development that had taken place within the Fraternity, especially 
since 1909. 

Turning to the arguments of those who favored expansion one notes 
at first the view that extension and internal growth were distinct 
problems and that any attempt to confuse the two would lead to 
illogical reasoning. The Council, Trustees, Directors, Graduate Board, 
Finance Committee and the editor of the Quarterly had it as part of 
their duty to foster and promote the internal life of the Fraternity. 
The activities and accomplishments of these agencies, so it was debated, 
spoke for themselves and thus removed any and all necessity for insist- 
ing that there should be no more additions until the Fraternity had 
set its own house in order. Internally, it was held, the Fraternity had 
made great strides forward; its house was in order and the question of 
extension was one that ought to be argued on the basis of its own 


Again the expansionists declared that while it was true that care had 
not always been taken in the past as to the investigation of petitioning 
groups that this contention now was of no value. Further, it was 
insisted, that an impartial group of alumni, whose loyalty to the Fra- 
ternity could be attested by long and faithful service, was in a far better 
position to seek out the objective facts relative to a petitioning society 
and its college than a group of undergraduates. These undergraduates, 
so it was held, were easily swayed by local sentiment or feeling that 
had often been more traditional than valuable. The procedure adopted 
by these alumni had always been built upon the foundation that 
nothing would be done and no group recommended which in any way 
might injure the standing of Delta Upsilon. Nothing was left undone 
by these investigators to find out the facts in each case, and while local 
alumni might have been swept off their feet as a result of personal 
pressure, such could not be and had not been the case with the Board 
on Petitioning Societies. In this respect the Board and the General 
Fraternity Officers pointedly raised the question why did the delegates 
continue to vote appropriations for these activities if their findings 
were of no value. It should also be noted that the governing boards 
argued most convincingly that only a small number of petitioning 
groups had ever been referred to the convention and that in conse- 
quence of this selectivity the delegates had been saved a great amount 
of labor. 

Probably the strongest case made out by those favoring a liberal 
program was that the Fraternity itself from the very first had not been 
a conservative organization, that its ideals and objectives were pro- 
gressive in nature and that a modest policy of expansion was both 
logical and necessary. Logical in that it was in tune with the historical 
trend of the Fraternity; necessary, if the future was to witness Delta 
Upsilon taking its place far to the front of the other existing societies. 
Adopt a conservative plan, so these men argued, and admit no or 
only a few more chapters and the time would come when the alumni 
of Delta Upsilon would be lost in the greater number belonging to 
other groups. Such a program would lead inevitably to a lessening of 
the importance of the Fraternity in academic circles, would make it 
more difficult to obtain desirable members and in any event bring 
about an exclusive characteristic that was the very denial of the aims 
and ideals of the Founders. Further, Delta Upsilon's reputation rested 
not merely upon the number of four letter men that it had at this or 
that college or of holding this college honor or office; rather did it also 
depend upon the inherent and vital characteristics of its members. 


Had Delta Upsilon not gone into Brown the Fraternity could not boast 
o its Charles E. Hughes. And without chapters at Rutgers, Michigan, 
Pennsylvania and elsewhere the Fraternity would have been denied as 
members men who have taken prominent parts in our nation's history. 
Who can tell, so the theme continued, what splendid material the 
Fraternity has lost by not having entered Dartmouth earlier or in not 
having a Yale Chapter. If this be true of these institutions it will also 
be true of other universities where at present there is no chapter. 
The future of Delta Upsilon rests not so much upon its past as upon 
the present. With the Fraternity well intrenched by incorporation and 
by the development of a worthwhile central government, expansion 
becomes not only a reasonable but a necessary pan of Delta Upsilon. 

The undergraduate need have no fear that the Fraternity will rush 
into colleges that fall below the accepted standards of academic rank. 
Indeed the number of institutions still open for legitimate considera- 
tion are relatively few in number. Into these Delta Upsilon ought 
logically to go, and with the founding of chapters at these universities 
the entire question of expansion will become relatively unimportant. 
In other words nature and society has set definite limits for the time 
being upon expansion. This being the case, the expansionists argued, 
let Delta Upsilon forge ahead and bring to an end this constant con- 
tention between certain chapters and the Fraternity over the question 
of admitting new societies. 

Finally it should be noted that just as there are some chapters that 
traditionally have taken a conservative stand so there are others who 
have been habitually liberal in their attitude. Eager to see the Frater- 
nity grow in numbers these extensionists have been as aggressive as 
their opponents. Both factions have constantly sought to create pres- 
sure upon the neutral group so as to gain their desired ends. In the 
course of this contest those favoring expansion have often found their 
path blocked, but with the change in the constitutional requirements 
as to the admission of new chapters, these obstacles have one after 
another been removed. Each and every society that has been granted 
a charter in the present century is located at a college or institution 
that commands the respect of the educational world. Moreover, in 
many a case considerable opposition has existed but in time the expan- 
sionists have usually had their way. And of the thirty or more societies 
upon which no favorable action has been taken, over a half are located 
at schools into which Delta Upsilon will probably never enter. On the 
other hand considerable sentiment at various times has been raised in 


favor of the University of Maine, the University of Utah, Washington 
and Jefferson, University of North Carolina, Duke and Cincinnati. 
The accomplishments of the convention during the present century 
have indeed been important. The Constitution and By-Laws have at 
various times been amended and revised. Resolutions in large number 
have been passed clothing the governing boards with additional power 
and instructing them in respect to matters of Fraternity policy. Further, 
charters have been granted to an imposing list of petitioning societies. 
It is true, as noticed elsewhere, that the activities of the convention are 
not as elaborate as they have been in the past, largely because powers 
that heretofore were chiefly lodged in the hands of this gathering have 
since 1909 been shared by the governing boards of Delta Upsilon. 
Actually, therefore, one must study the functions of these boards if 
one wishes to gain a true picture of the growth and progress of the 
Fraternity. This statement should not be interpreted as meaning that 
the convention is of no significance, for the exact opposite is true. 
Constitutionally this body possesses far-reaching power. Its greatest 
value, however, in recent years has not been in the exercise of these 
rights; rather has it been found in the promotion of friendship and 
Fraternity spirit. Gathered under the auspices of ideals and objectives 
that have stood the tests and storms of a hundred years, chapter and 
alumni delegates have consciously and unconsciously walked shoulder 
to shoulder in an unending march for a greater and more lasting Delta 

Chapter XI 



risTORicALLY, the oldest governing board of Delta Upsilon, other 
than the convention which has been treated elsewhere, is the 
Executive Council or as it is now called, the Council. The story of this 
body during the present century may be divided into three general 
periods: first, that which relates to its life prior to 1905; second, from 
then to 1909; and thirdly, from 1909 to date. During the first of these 
periods one notes that the Executive Council's structure and powers 
rest upon certain constitutional provisions to be found in the organic 
law of 1891, plus several amendments made in 1904. Prior to this last 
mentioned date the Executive Council consisted of nine members 
chosen annually by the convention. Of these, six were to be alumni, 
no two of whom might be selected from the same chapter. A similar 
restriction existed in respect to the three undergraduate members. 
The officers of the Executive Council included a President, a Vice- 
President, and a Secretary and Treasurer; the latter office being held 
by one person, who received a stipend of two hundred dollars a year. 
At least six meetings were to be held annually. This body prepared at 
these sessions the agenda of the convention and conduct of that meet- 
ing, made plans for the investigation of petitioning societies, the 
installation of new chapters, the issuing of charters and membership 
certificates, the publication of the Annual, the appointment of Advi- 
sory Boards and the handling of Fraternity finance. In addition, it 
rendered a report to the convention and conducted general Fraternity 
affairs subject to the constitution and instructions of the convention. 
Actually in only one year did the Executive Council meet the 
required number of times, but with that exception it may be said that 
that body performed to the best of its abilities the various duties that 
were required. Its personnel consisted of E. J. Thomas, S. S. Hall, 



T. B. Penfield, G. F. Andrews, E. S. Bloom, E. S. Harris, T. R. Wey- 
mouth, R. K. S. Catherwood, J. B. Crandall, F. M. Lowe, G. S. Dresser, 
H. S. Smalley, W. L. Fairbanks, and Arthur E. Bestor for the alumni; 
while E. W. Cutler, R. J. Reiley, C. E. Case, G. C. Stewart, E. A. Cary, 
G. W. Fuller, E. S. Harris, H. D. Randall, F. M. Lowe, P. M. Binzel, 
J. D. Williams, C. I. Lattig, H. P. Peckham, A. R. Gibbons, G. L. 
Lindsley, W. J. Hammond, H. W. Herrick and E. N. Abbey for the 
undergraduates. Of the alumni, Hall and Penfield held office during 
the six years covered by this section of the narrative, with Bloom a 
member for four years, Harris for three, Weymouth and Catherwood 
for two and the others for but one year. All of the Executive Council 
officers were chosen from the alumni. 

The activities of this board concerned the investigation of petition- 
ing societies, the installation of new chapters, the matter of Fraternity 
ritual, district meetings, the equalization of railroad rates to conven- 
tions, and the establishment of a Field Secretary. This latter office 
seems to have been held by Penfield, who in 1902-1903 visited eleven 
chapters, the next year twenty-four and in 1904-1905 practically all of 
the chapters. Probably the most significant event during the years 
1900-1905 was the creation by the 1903 Convention of a Committee on 
Internal Improvement. This body was appointed by the Executive 
Council late in January, 1904. By this time Fairbanks, who had been 
author of the entire idea, was busy formulating a draft of the various 
topics that should be discussed by the committee. At this juncture, 
Catherwood, who had recently retired from the Executive Council, 
somewhat disturbed the peaceful trend of events by proposing that 
the Executive Council should be reorganized so as to provide for 
representation of the Western Chapters. The Committee on Internal 
Improvement, of which Fairbanks was chairman, seemed disinclined 
to favor this idea as they could see no good reason for raising the 
question. Nevertheless in a spirit of good will they issued a circular 
to a large number of the alumni asking their opinion on three distinct 
propositions. The first of these inquired whether the concentration 
of power in the hands of those living in or near New York had ever 
been detrimental to the Fraternity in either a general or local way. 
Again, it was asked whether there was any demand among the Western 
alumni for a greater voice in Fraternity work and finally, if such 
participation seemed advisable what methods might be suggested to 
bring about any desired change. 

Unfortunately our sources are too scanty to reveal to whom these 
questions were put or what percent answered. The replies that exist 


rould tend to indicate that the circular was only addressed to Western 
lumni. Some of these men stated in their answers that they were quite 
atisfied with existing arrangements and that they knew of no senti- 
nent in favor of Western representation on the Executive Council. 
Others replied that it might be expedient to place men from the West 
>n that body so as to promote better feeling and because the geographic 
renter of Delta Upsilon would in time be in the Middle West. For 
his latter reason, it was suggested that there might be headquarters 
it both Chicago and New York, while some favored the moving of the 
Executive Council to Chicago itself. Among those who argued for 
A r estern representation there were some who frankly stated that the 
nanagement of the Fraternity had not been all that it might have been 
md that the concentration of power in the East had injured the life 
}f Delta Upsilon. 

On the basis of this limited evidence it seems clear that Catherwood's 
suggestion had the backing of a number large enough to warrant atten- 
.ion. Both the Executive Council and the Committee on Internal 
Improvement recognized this fact. To illustrate, Smalley, a member 
^f the Committee, believed that the argument for broader representa- 
don appealed to him on the ground that it would quiet a spirit of 
fealousy and ambition that existed among certain members of the 
Fraternity. Smalley, however, was not ready to advocate an immediate 
tange but urged the Executive Council to keep the entire question 
n mind for future action. On the other hand, Ferris, also of the 
Committee, was strongly opposed to the entire affair as it was stamped, 
according to him, with jealousy on the part of some who "never work 

. . rarely think, and yet is pleasing to them to bask in the sunlight 
:>f print and to play at greatness." 353 

At the 1904 Convention, which was held at Chicago, no mention of 
Western representation was made in the reports of the Executive 
Council and the Committee on Internal Improvement. On the motion, 
lowever, to accept the report of the Executive Council a discussion 
,vas precipitated by Frederic Whitton and participated in by Thornton 
B. Penfield, Jennings C. Litzenberg, Robert K. S. Catherwood, Frank 
VI. Lowe, Goldwin Goldsmith, William H. French and Earl P. Mallory, 
ill of whom were alumni. Out of this debate came the appointment 
:>f a committee of five, headed by Whitton, to investigate the matter, 
Darticularly from a financial point of view, and report at a later 

388 See the letters to and from the Council and the Committee for 1904; especially 
hose from S. Singleton, July 14, H. S. Smalley, May 7, and from Ferris, no date 
ippearing on this last letter. 


session. Two meetings were held by this body with the result that a 
number of amendments were proposed effecting changes in the consti- 
tution. These changes, after some slight alteration, became part of the 
organic law in 1905. According to these changes the Executive Council 
was to include six alumni, no two of whom were to be from the same 
chapter, and at least two of whom were to reside west of Buffalo. 
The Executive Council, moreover, was allowed three hundred dollars 
to meet the expenses of its members to and from all meetings, which 
were to be held at the headquarters in New York. It is evident, there- 
fore, that Catherwood's proposals, though somewhat modified, were 
nevertheless accepted by the convention. 

The resolutions offered by the Committee on Internal Improvement 
were accepted at the 1904 Convention. These resolutions authorized 
a system of district conventions and the issuing of a new Song-Book. 
Chapter reports to the alumni were to be handled by the Executive 
Council if the societies desired, while the ritual of the Fraternity was 
to be revised at once. The Executive Council was also instructed by 
these resolves to test in a limited area methods of obtaining advance 
information relative to prospective freshmen and to try for one year 
the establishment of an employment bureau. Alumni associations were 
to be formed for every chapter. Alumni clubs, on the other hand, were 
to pay a small tax to the Fraternity and render a yearly report to the 
Council. An Association, by these resolves, was defined as an organized 
group of chapter alumni, while a club was to consist of alumni mem- 
bers of several chapters. The Executive Council was also asked to 
publish a "Book of Delta Upsilon," while each chapter was instructed 
to elect if possible an alumnus as treasurer and create a Chapter 
Council. Finally, these resolutions provided that in the future chapter 
house projects should be submitted to the Council for advice and sug- 
gestion. With the adoption of these resolves the Committee on Internal 
Improvement dissolved itself and with this act we close the first section 
of this chapter. 

In addition to the above resolves the convention adopted another, 
which had been submitted by the Committee on Internal Develop- 
ment, and this one provided that the alumni members of the Council 
should be incorporated. In making this suggestion the Committee was 
not blind to the fact that incorporation at the outset would lead to 
results that might be intangible and sentimental. On the other hand, 
it was believed that much practical good would result, namely that 
property could be held with more ease, bequests could be legally 
received and that alumni contributions would be more fruitful. 


Approximately a month after the convention's action, the Executive 
Council listened to a report from Fairbanks as to the nature of incor- 
poration. After some discussion Drew W. Hageman, Rutgers '97, was 
instructed to take the necessary steps. On May 17, 1905, the certificate 
of incorporation was filed at the Secretary of State's Office in Albany 
and on May 26 of the same year the Executive Council of Delta Upsilon 
was duly incorporated. The purposes for which incorporation had 
taken place were stated to be the development of character, friendship, 
liberal culture and equity in college affairs, the maintenance of a 
permanent organization of Delta Upsilon, and for the purchase and 
management of real property by the Executive Council. This body 
was to operate in the United States and Canada with its office in New 
York City and to have annual meetings on the third Saturday of 
November. 354 

On the basis of this authority, as well as by the act of the last con- 
vention, the Executive Council proceeded to adopt June 27, 1905 the 
By-Laws of the Executive Council. Article One of these laws provided 
that the name, style and title of the organization was to be the "Execu- 
tive Council of Delta Upsilon." Article Two defined membership as 
being any graduate member of the Fraternity whose name had been 
submitted to this organization at its annual meeting by the Secretary 
of the Convention as having been nominated to the Council by the 
Convention. No person was to be elected a member of the Executive 
Council for a longer time than that elapsing between his election and 
the close of the succeeding annual meeting. Article Three determined 
the status of those members who were to be known as the Board of 
Directors. Six members of the Executive Council, elected yearly by 
that body at its annual meeting were to be known as Directors and 
were to hold office as long as they were members. In case of the failure 
to hold an election, the Directors were to hold office until an annual 
election was held. A majority of the Directors constituted a quorum 
while annual meetings were to be held at the close of the annual session 
of the Executive Council. Article Four provided that special meetings 
of either the Executive Council or Directors might be held upon call of 
the President or by the Secretary upon his having received a written 
request for such by any three members. All motions for special or 
annual meetings were to be served upon the members by mail at least 
ten days prior to the date set for these gatherings. Article Five con- 
cerned the officers of the Executive Council all of whom were to be 

** Annual, 1904, Minutes of the Executive Council, Jan. 27, Nov. 26, 1904, June 
*7> 1905- 








lituleiwuid ti Uiu 






TUFTS '87 




chosen at the annual session of the Directors. Among these officers 
there was to be a President, who was to preside at all meetings of 
either the Executive Council or Directors and perform any duties 
assigned to him by either body. He was also to be a member ex-officio 
of the Directors and a member of all committees, and was to convene 
the Directors at such place and time as he saw fit, other than the annual 
meeting. The Vice-President was to preside in the absence of the chief 
executive and assume all the duties of the latter. The Secretary and 
Treasurer of the Executive Council was to be one and the same person. 
As Secretary, he was to conduct all general correspondence and attend 
meetings of both Council and Directors. In his hands rested the 
preservation of the certificate of incorporation, By-Laws, historical 
records, seals and minutes of both bodies. As Treasurer, he was to 
have the custody of the funds of the Council and pay all bills thereof. 
Further, he was to open an account in a bank approved of by the 
Directors and to furnish a bond of four thousand dollars for the faith- 
ful performance of his duties. In return for his labor, the Secretary 
and Treasurer was to receive a sum not greater than three hundred 
dollars; no other officer of either board to receive any stipend what- 
soever. Article Six provided that vacancies among the officers were to 
be filled by a majority vote of the Directors at any regular meeting. 
Article Eleven provided that four persons should constitute a quorum 
of either the Executive Council or Directors, while Article Twelve 
stated that the By-Laws might be amended at any regular or special 
meeting of the Directors, provided such amendment had been pre- 
sented in writing at a previous meeting. 355 

During the Fraternity year 1905-1906 the amount of work under- 
taken by the Executive Council and Directors materially increased. 
This fact together with a growing demand for more definite allocation 
of duties among the members of the Council led that body to propose 
to the 1906 Convention that its numbers be increased from six to 
eight. The delegates accepted these changes in the Constitution and at 
the same time re-defined the list of officers. In the future there was to 
be a President, a General Secretary, a General Treasurer, a District 
Supervisor, a Secretary to the Alumni, a Chapter House Officer and an 
Editor, who had been little more than a "hired man" of the Executive 
Council and yet at the same time was one of the strongest factors in 
Fraternity progress. These changes were, at a meeting of the Council 
in November of the same year, written into the By-Laws of that body 
together with a provision that allowed the expenditure of six hundred 

355 The missing articles concerned minor matters, see Annual, 1905. 


dollars a year for salaries. 356 No further material changes in the By- 
Laws of the Executive Council took place until April 17, 1909. At this 
session the Executive Council provided that any member, not merely 
a graduate, might become a member and that the term of office con- 
tinued until the adjournment of the succeeding meeting. Further the 
list of officers was limited to a President, a Vice-President, a Secretary 
and a Treasurer, plus such other officers as the Directors might see fit 
to elect. Finally, it should be noted that $850.00 might be used for 
the payment of salaries. 357 

The personnel of the Executive Council from 1905 to 1909, during 
which time a number of meetings were held, included Edson S. Harris, 
Thornton B. Penfield, Samuel S. Hall, Wilson L. Fairbanks, Harrison 
S. Smalley, Arthur E. Bestor, Goldwin Goldsmith, Clifford M. Swan, 
Frank W. Leavitt, William O. Miller, Samuel B. Botsford and Dean 
C. Mathews. Of these Fairbanks and Smalley served the entire period, 
Goldsmith, Hall, Swan and Leavitt for three terms, Harris, Bestor 
and Miller for two, while the remainder served for but one term. An 
examination of the records of these men either in Executive Council 
or Directors' meetings shows that in addition to the usual duties 
assigned them by the Constitution of the Fraternity or by their own 
By-Laws they handled a number of important matters. Petitions were 
received, societies investigated, new chapters installed, and routine 
matters such as preparing for convention programs, arranging details 
as to insignia and issuing various publications need not detain us at 
this point. Other matters such as District Conventions, the Quarterly, 
Fraternity Examinations, the revision of the ritual and the tax system 
are discussed elsewhere in this volume. In 1905 a test was made by the 
Executive Council of the Freshman Information Bureau among the 
New England chapters and at Columbia, New York and Hamilton. 
The Executive Council believed the solicitation of the names of pros- 
pective freshmen from both undergraduates and graduates had been 
helpful and that with greater help from the active members a list of 
prospective students might be placed in the hands of all of the chapters. 
A method of this type would give the chapter a splendid advantage 
over its rivals and at the same time do away with much "haphazard 
rushing." During the following year the technical aspect of the system 

358 At a meeting, Nov. 17, 1906, it was voted that both Secretary and Treasurer 
were to receive $100.00 per annum, the balance going to the Editor of the Quar- 
terly. The date of the election of the Directors was altered slightly during the years 

857 It was also provided that meetings of the Executive Council or Directors might 
be held on consecutive da)s, each gathering being considered a separate meeting. 


functioned in a very unsatisfactory manner. The fault for this, accord- 
ing to the Executive Council was not in the machinery but rather in 
the alumni who did not cooperate as well as they might have. In spite 
of this the Executive Council believed that these defects could be 
eliminated and the objects of this Freshmen Information Bureau would 
be of help to all concerned. During 1907 the work of the Bureau was 
continued by Henry E. Chapin with much better results. 358 

In the meantime an effort was made to organize an Employment 
Bureau. A test was made during the spring of 1905 which resulted in 
the dissemination of information relative to certain positions which 
interested alumni had called to attention of the Executive Council. 
The Council reported this fact to the convention of that year, stating 
that it did not know whether any senior had gained employment but 
that in any event the present expense of conducting the Bureau had 
been too great and that if the delegates desired to have it continued 
a less expensive method would have to be adopted. The convention 
evidently thought the proposition too good to be dropped and so the 
Executive Council was authorized to continue the Bureau. During the 
following year the work of this agency was a decided success; over a 
quarter of the men who sought positions gained them through this 
Bureau. The Executive Council, therefore, did not hesitate to com- 
mend the affair to the delegates at the next convention. The next two 
years proved most disappointing. In part this was due to the "bad 
state of business" throughout the country. As a result of this condition 
the continuation of the Bureau was left "contingent upon the outlook 
for work."339 

The Executive Council also undertook to further the publication of 
chapter letters to the alumni. During 1904-1905 fifteen chapters availed 
themselves of this offer at a very low cost to themselves and to the 
Executive Council. The other groups either managed the work them- 
selves or else took no steps to inform their alumni of the life of the 
chapter. The Executive Council believed that the experiment had been 
a great success. The following year even better results were secured 
with the result that the Executive Council recommended to the con- 
vention that a new officer be created whose business it would be to 
edit these letters and supervise the work of the various alumni groups. 
The convention accepted this recommendation by electing a new 
member of the Executive Council to be known as the Secretary to 

858 Ultimately this Bureau ceased to function and gradually disappeared. 
359 On May 29, 1910 the Executive Council feeling that the Bureau could be of 
little value, voted to discontinue the same. 


the Alumni. Under his direction the work was continued and while a 
number of the chapters cooperated with the Executive Council in this 
matter the expense and labor was greatly increased by a failure on 
the part of the local correspondents to furnish copy in time. The work 
was continued during the year 1907-1908, fewer chapters, however, 
cooperating with the Executive Council than ever before. The Execu- 
tive Council was of the opinion that the chapter that did not "after 
our sufficient experience, send a careful, well-printed report . . , is 
trifling with its future. What seems only a liability today will be an 
asset tomorrow/' The following year a better record was established. 860 

In addition to these various efforts the Executive Council between 
1905 and 1909 issued leaflets on various matters, and during the first 
of these years sought to further the publication of a book entitled "The 
Delta Upsilon Book/' The reaction of the chapters to this proposition, 
when the costs of the same were made known, were such as to convince 
the Executive Council that it would be foolhardy to consider the 
matter any further; and with that the matter rested. Some thought 
was also given at times to the writing of a history of the Fraternity to 
be ready for its 75th anniversary in 1909. And although some valuable 
work was done at this time and later, nothing definite was undertaken 
until this present volume was conceived. In conclusion it may be said 
that the Council, since the report of the Internal Development Com- 
mittee in 1904, had organized the Fraternity into districts with officials 
and conventions, incorporated the Executive Council, devised a new 
accounting system for the treasurer, established a system of chapter 
reports to alumni, organized a Freshmen Information and Employ- 
ment Bureau, revised the ritual, published a number of tracts and 
books, reorganized the insignia, established a more definite system of 
obtaining information relative to petitioning societies and enlarged 
and improved the Quarterly. In accomplishing this the Fraternity 
owed much to the members of the Executive Council, particularly 
Hall, Fairbanks, Smalley, Goldsmith, Swan and Leavitt. Generally 
speaking these gains were recognized at the time and much credit was 
given to the Executive Council by the members of the Fraternity 
at large. 

The work of the Executive Council, however, did not escape some 
criticism. The genesis of this criticism goes back to the Chicago Con- 
vention of 1904 at which time the delegates voted to grant Western 

880 The Council's help in handling these publications gradually came to an end. 
At present these activities are handled by the chapters, concerning which see 
below pp. 336-338. 


representation on the Council. It appears that this was only the begin- 
ning of another attack upon the Council. Now during the next two 
years, as has been shown, the worEfof the Executive Council multiplied 
enormously, largely as a result of the various tasks undertaken by that 
body since the report of the Committee on Internal Improvement. 
All of which did not escape the attention of certain Western alumni 
who seemed to view with much concern the steady drift towards 
greater and greater centralization. One of these finally was encouraged 
by his friends to submit for publication in the Quarterly a frank criti- 
cism of the Executive Council and of its policy. Not caring to make 
this controversy a public affair, the Executive Council supported the 
Editor in his refusal to publish the same, even though three of the 
mid-western chapters and some of the alumni of that area strongly 
voiced their sentiments in favor of publication. The Executive Council, 
however, issued the complaint in the form of a circular letter to all 
of the chapters, alumni clubs and associations and at the same time 
set forth an answer to the various charges that had been made. In 
the main the complaint, and it was not void of certain historical and 
factual errors, stated that of late there had been too much over- 
centralization of power in the hands of the Executive Council and 
that the chapters were ceasing to play the role they had in former days. 
Further, it was charged that many of the duties undertaken by the 
Executive Council were either in themselves unnecessary or else had 
failed to accomplish anything worth while. All of which was respon- 
sible for an increase in fraternity expenses which the Executive Council 
passed on in the form of a chapter tax, a tax moreover that was heavy 
and was tending to retard the growth of the chapters. Each and every 
one of these accusations appear to have been ably met by the Executive 
Council. It was shown that the members of the Executive Council had 
increased the work of that body, but only as a result of the vote of the 
chapters themselves at convention and that the recent departures in 
the form of an Employment Bureau and the like had been justified 
by results and by the convention's motion to continue the same. In 
respect to financial matters, the Executive Council admitted that its 
method of bookkeeping had not been as good as it might be, but that 
a more businesslike procedure had been adopted and that existing 
defects had been corrected. The Executive Council also pointed out 
that the chapter tax was not excessive and that in return the active 
members of each chapter received not only the services of the Executive 
Council but also the Quarterly and other publications. Finally, it was 
stated that part of the small increase in the cost of maintaining the 


Fraternity had arisen as a result of granting Western representation 
on the Executive Council, and that this increased cost had been urged 
by the same individuals who were now finding fault with the Executive 
Council. The outcome of this controversy between the Executive Coun- 
cil and some of the mid-western chapters and their alumni is quite 
interesting. The affair itself, for a time, threatened to come up before 
the Minnesota Convention of 1907. On second thought those behind 
the criticism quietly folded their arms and after making a bid for 
membership on the Executive Council and having failed, said nothing 
more. And with that the entire episode was dropped. 361 

To the historian the event is of interest, not so much because of the 
charges and counter charges, but rather because it represents a distinct 
challenge on the part of some towards greater centralization. A drift 
in the direction of greater control had been evidenced ever since 1864 
and while some opposition had appeared here and there the move- 
ment itself had steadily gone forward. The complaints of 1905 to 1907 
stand therefore as the first and only serious rift in the historical move- 
ment towards a centralized governing board. Had the chapters sup- 
ported this attack it might have been that the Fraternity system would 
have gone back to the days when the Executive Council was but a 
weak arm of a convention in which undergraduates had extensive 
powers and rights. It is more likely, however, that what would have 
happened would have been merely a change in personnel at head- 
quarters, the new members representing the group which had chal- 
lenged the Executive Council. And once installed this new body would 
have found that Delta Upsilon had not been and could not in the 
future remain a static, conservative society, and if it wished to live up 
to its glorious past and ideals, the conduct of Fraternity affairs would 
have to be placed in the hands of mature and experienced alumni. 
In other words the historical trend towards the creation of centralizing 
devices could not be checked by the criticism of those who poorly 
understood the past, present and future in respect to Delta Upsilon. 

On his return from the Minnesota Convention Fairbanks remarked 
in a letter to Hall that it might be wise to try and organize a society of 
the Executive Council for the purpose of having an annual dinner and 
meeting. At this gathering, Fairbanks proposed, that a careful survey 
might be made of Fraternity topics. Out of this simple suggestion 
arose a movement that ultimately led the Fraternity to incorporation, 
December 10, 1909, which in itself is the best historical argument 
which may be presented to prove that the members of Delta Upsilon 
861 See the files of the Council for 1905-1907 in respect to this matter. 


were behind the ever-present drift towards greater centralization. With 
the incorporation of Delta Upsilon, the Executive Council entered into 
the third and last period of its work. 302 

The structure and detail powers of the Council, as outlined in the 
Constitution and By-Laws of 1909 in accordance with the act of in- 
corporation, have been presented in an earlier chapter. It only remains 
to record such changes as took place since that date. The Executive 
Council, acting as it did under powers definitely conferred upon it 
either by the organic law, or resolutions of the convention, never set 
down any formal rules for its own conduct; the only changes there- 
fore that took place in respect to structure were those effected by 
amendment or resolution. In 1912 the constitution was altered so as 
to provide for nine members, six of whom were to be alumni, no two 
of whom were to be from the same chapter and at least two of whom 
were to reside west of Buffalo; the other three were to be under- 
graduates. The alumni members were to hold office for a term of 
three years, the present body to determine their service by lot. Out- 
side of this change no alteration took place until the Convention of 
1951 except in respect to the work of the Executive Council. These 
alterations chiefly concerned the question of suspension or expulsion 
of members, the power of calling special conventions, the control over 
equalization of railroad rates and other matters already touched upon 
in other chapters. Further, in 1910 the Executive Council was au- 
thorized to spend not more than a thousand dollars a year on the 
salaries of its officers. Two years later it was given power to prepare 
an annual budget of Fraternity expenses and income and have far- 
reaching control over District Conventions. The last meeting of the 
Executive Council took place September 10, 1921 and in its place there 
was substituted the present body known as the Council of Delta 

During the period from December 10, 1909 to September 10, 1921 
the Executive Council busied itself with many matters incident to 
fraternity work and policy. Its personnel consisted chiefly of Clifford 
M. Swan, Clifford G. Roe, Harry A. Hey, Herbert I. Markham, Dean 
C. Mathews, John P. Broomell, and Herbert Wheaton Congdon. Swan 
held office from 1909 to 1916; Roe from 1911 to 1916; Hey from 1912 
to 1914, and 1916 to 1919, Markham from 1912 to 1920, Mathews from 
1909 to 1919, Broomell from 1913 to 1921, and Congdon from 1914 
to 1921. Fairbanks, Smalley, Goldsmith, Botsford, Bovie, Laidlaw, 
Banigan, Schreiner, Leach and Howes also served for at least one term 

383 See above pp. 190-192 for details relative to this incorporation. 


as alumni members. During these twelve years thirty-six different un- 
dergraduates served on the Executive Council of whom only Thomas 
F. Black served more than one term. One of these undergraduates, 
Warren C. Du Bois, later took an active part in Fraternity work, serv- 
ing as Chairman for five years. During 1909 the Executive Council 
paid its Secretary $250 and its Treasurer $100, and was also responsible 
for the payment of $500 to the Editor of the Quarterly and Decennial. 
The following year the salary of the Treasurer was raised to $250, 
while in 1911 the two offices were combined with a salary of $300. 
At the same time the amount paid to the Editor of the Quarterly and 
Decennial was raised to 1700. No change took place in this arrange- 
ment until October, 1913, when the Executive Council voted to pay 
500 to its Secretary and Treasurer, and an equal amount to the Trus- 
tees for a General Secretary, the responsibility for the above two pub- 
lications having been removed from the jurisdiction of the Executive 
Council in the meantime. Beginning a year later the Executive Coun- 
cil agreed to pay the same amounts for its own two officers and a 
dollar and a half to the Trustees for each undergraduate subscription 
to the Quarterly. This arrangement was not altered during the remain- 
ing period of the life of the Executive Council except that in 1920 
the salaries of the Secretary and Treasurer were raised to $350 each. 
A share of these payments went to meet the expenses of the Execu- 
tive Council in the promotion of its work which included a large 
number of activities such as the investigation of the Princeton Chapter 
as well as of the conditions at Harvard and Columbia, the expulsion 
and suspension of members, the editing of various publications, the 
work incident to the revision of the insignia, ritual and constitution, 
the work of chapter visitations and welfare, and Fraternity examina- 
tions; all of these matters being discussed elsewhere in this volume. 
Two other activities of the Executive Council should be referred to 
at this point one of which was the passage of a resolution providing 
that no member of Delta Upsilon could become a member of Theta 
Nu Epsilon, Theta Xi, Delta Chi or Acacia. The other concerns 
BroomelFs resolution of December 14, 1919 relative to the creation 
of an Internal Development Board. The Executive Council approved 
of this idea and a committee was appointed to undertake this work. 
A preliminary report was rendered a year later. On April 9, 1921 the 
Committee made a more extensive report in which it pointed out that 
it had issued a questionnaire to some four hundred and ten persons 
and that certain significant facts had been drawn. Most of this ma- 


terial relates to the internal life and work within the various chapters 
and is discussed at some length in a later part of this volume. 

The abolition of the Executive Council in late 1921 and the crea- 
tion of a new body known as the Council came as the result of certain 
constitutional changes effective that year. The primary reason for this 
modification is to be found in the desire of that body and of the other 
governing boards to revise the entire structure of the central govern- 
ment with a view of greater efficiency in Fraternity work and policy. 
The Council hereafter was to consist of nine members appointed by 
the President and were to hold office for one year or until the next 
annual meeting of the Trustees. The powers of this body remained 
much the same as they had been in the immediate past plus whatever 
duties the Trustees, Directors or President might delegate to it. Annual 
reports were to be submitted, as before, by the Council to the Trus- 
tees, Directors and Convention. No material changes, if any, have 
taken place in the structure and powers of this body since igsi. 363 

On the basis of its annual reports to the above-mentioned bodies, 
and on a study of its minutes and correspondence, it will be seen that 
the Council was a most active body. It is true that it no longer con- 
cerned itself with an investigation of petitioning societies, this duty 
being assigned to a special committee of the Fraternity; nor did it 
handle to the extent that it had before the question of finance. And 
yet the actual work undertaken by this body was enormous. Most of 
this related to the internal life of the chapters such as campus ac- 
tivities, Fraternity examinations, chapter scholarship, chapter publica- 
tions, provincial conferences and the like, all of which are given spe- 
cial treatment elsewhere in this volume. There were two activities, 
however, that deserve special consideration and of these none prob- 
ably was more significant and dramatic than that which concerned 
the status of the Harvard Chapter. 

Shortly before 1915 the officers of the Fraternity had their attention 
called to the Harvard Chapter where there seems to have grown an 
attitude of mind that was not entirely in keeping with the spirit 
and ideals of Delta Upsilon. An analysis of the evidence leads to two 
general conclusions as to antecedents of this affairs; first that the 
Harvard Chapter had come to look upon itself as something quite 
apart from Delta Upsilon, and second, that the members of this chap- 
ter could see little reason for paying taxes to the Fraternity for services 
that were neither wanted or needed. In other words the Harvard men 

363 The presiding officer of this body was a President. In addition there was a 
Secretary, who drew no salary for his work. 


placed small value upon the Fraternity and were quite reluctant to 
support an organization which seemed to them to be so out of tune 
with the atmosphere and spirit of Cambridge. 364 How long these ideas 
had been developing is difficult to state. It is, however, well established 
that by the fall of 1914 a well cemented group within the chapter 
was openly talking about the formation of the "Duck Club" and of 
presenting to the convention the resignation of the Harvard Chapter 
from the Fraternity. 365 It is probably true that the chapter itself had 
had but few opportunities to hear, feel and appreciate the spirit and 
ideals of Delta Upsilon. Left much to themselves, except for visita- 
tions from national officers and alumni, many of whom seem to have 
been saturated with the same idea of self-sufficiency, the chapter had 
grown exceedingly skeptical of membership in Delta Upsilon. And 
yet, none of the chapters enjoyed any better conditions. Chapter 
solidarity and chapter loyalty to the Fraternity rests upon the con- 
duct of the active members, the support of the alumni and the effi- 
ciency of the national organization. Within the limits of its budget 
the Fraternity Officers did all they could to further the growth of the 
society and its ideals and upon no one chapter did it ever shower any 
favoritism. Harvard, therefore, shared alike with the other chapters 
in whatever benefits accrued from the Fraternity headquarters. Again, 
if the alumni of other chapters took a greater interest in the well-being 
of their own society than did those of Harvard, the latter only had 
itself to blame. Now as a matter of fact the older alumni of this chapter 
had given splendid proof of their loyalty both to the Fraternity and 
to the chapter in more ways than one. But recently they had con- 
tributed to the construction of a new chapter house. The general 
Fraternity and the older alumni, therefore, may be excused from any 
responsibility for the condition that the Harvard Chapter found itself 
in in 1914. On the other hand the younger alumni and the active 
members must shoulder practically all the blame. By creating an atti- 
tude of self-sufficiency they had withdrawn themselves from the Fra- 
ternity ideal. 

Small wonder was it, therefore, that these men found the ties of 
Delta Upsilon out of tune with their own desires and objectives. Ac- 
cordingly, the Quarterly Correspondent of Harvard requested the 

'"Speaking of the recent convention held at Harvard in 1891 a correspondent 
stated that the chapter questioned the effects of that meeting on its position at 
Cambridge. The impression while favorable still led the writer to state that "it 
may be impossible for the Fraternity ideal to gain such power in Harvard as it 
has elsewhere'*; see Quarterly, X:22. 

883 S. Howe to C. Swan, Nov. 3, 1914. 


Editor-in-Chief to discontinue sending all but two copies of the Quar- 
terly. The reasons assigned for this strange action were that the extra 
copies "litter up the House" and because "It is against Harvard cus- 
toms to carry them to the fellows' private dormitories." Harvard was 
at once reminded of its obligations to the constitution which required 
each chapter to subscribe for as many copies as it had undergraduates. 
Further the chapter was informed that it was quite odd to hear that 
any Delta U. was ashamed to have the Quarterly in his own room. 366 
Copies of the magazine were sent as before, though what the local 
group did with them is not known. In any event the general Fraternity 
had taken a position that must have convinced the Harvard men that 
they could not cut themselves off from Delta Upsilon without some 
kind of a contest. 

Sometime in April, 1915, the Harvard Chapter showed its hands 
by voting to sound out its alumni on the proposition of secession. 
About the same time, maybe a day or two before, the Council dis- 
cussed the situation and appointed a committee of three to serve as 
Alumni Advisors for the next three years. In other words the Council 
seems to have taken the ground that it would be better to allow the 
problem to be settled at Cambridge rather than at New York. To 
what extent this committee functioned can not be stated as no fur- 
ther reference to that body appears in any of our sources. Agitation, 
however, continued at Harvard. In June, 1915, that chapter raised 
the question of Fraternity badges. It was claimed by these men that 
they were known on their campus by their own medal and not by that 
of Delta Upsilon. Accordingly the wearing of the official Fraternity 
badge had practically been done away with, while the use of a medal 
was in keeping with Harvard practices. Tradition, in other words, 
approved of the display of the emblems of the various existing clubs 
rather than of the fraternities. In view of this, plus the fact the chapter 
was loaded with expenses incident to the new house, a sentiment had 
grown against the use of the Delta Upsilon badge. Conscious, however, 
of their pledges and constitutional obligations, the chapter decided 
not to force an issue. Rather did it seek to instill into the minds of 
the Fraternity Officers that it would be "unwise to attempt to compel 
them to buy a four dollar pin which they will not use and do not 
want." Harvard, in so many words, asked the Fraternity to leave them 
alone and allow them to quietly withdraw from an association which 
to them was void of meaning and value. 

888 S. Howe to G. Swan, Jan. 9, 1915, C. H. Smith to Quarterly, Dec. 28, 1914, C. 
Swan to C. H. Smith, Feb. 20, 1915, 


Swan, who at that time was President of the Fraternity, very ably 
met this cleverly conceived attack. In a very courteous letter he replied 
that while he understood the attitude of the Harvard men, he could 
not see how anyone who had taken the Fraternity pledge could possibly 
entertain ideas which were saturated with disloyalty to Delta Upsilon. 
The chapter's answer, while admitting Swan's position to be both 
liberal and logical, still stressed the lack of any great attachment to the 
badge, especially in view of the expenses incident to the new house. 
It was the opinion of the correspondent, however, that once this financial 
stress was over the question of buying badges would be settled to the 
satisfaction of the Fraternity. By implication this overture stated that 
if the Fraternity would only shut its eyes to the Harvard practice of not 
buying badges in due time the Chapter would purchase the same even 
though its members would continue to elevate their medal above the 
badge. After some consideration Swan, acting in conjunction with 
Broomell, decided to let the matter rest until the fall convention at 
which time a settlement might be secured. 307 

The Harvard delegate to the Cornell Convention of 1915 was "a 
most reasonable man and seemed to gain an inspiration for the Fra- 
ternity that promised well upon his return to Harvard," at least this is 
what one of the Fraternity Officers believed. The convention had paid 
no official attention to the problem, though it is well established that 
the Council endeavored in many ways to impress the Harvard repre- 
sentative of the importance of membership in the Fraternity. Quiet 
conversations and mild suggestions seem to have been the tactics pur- 
sued by those in control of Delta Upsilon. Increased contact, moreover, 
was stimulated by the officers between the Harvard group and other 
Delta U's at New York, Providence and elsewhere. Publicity as to the 
meritorious dramatic efforts of the Harvard men appeared in the Quar- 
terly. All of this was deliberately conceived in the hope of being able 
to inspire the Harvard men with a feeling of greater loyalty to Delta 
Upsilon. The net result of these activities led the Fraternity Officers to 
believe that the matter had been smoothed over and that Harvard 
quite willingly assumed its proper place in Fraternity work and life. 

In 1917, however, a storm broke that plunged the Fraternity deeper 
into the problem than ever before. The actual details of this contest, 
that harassed the Fraternity for more than a decade, need not detain 
us. Suffice it to say that the Harvard Chapter or at least a great majority 
of its active and more recent alumni, became convinced that the society 

367 H. P. Weston to Swan, June 26, Aug. 14, 1915, Swan to Weston, July 27, 1915, 
Broomell to Swan, June 29, 1915, Howe to Patterson, April 13, 1915, 


should sever its relation with Delta Upsilon. For a time the Council 
and Trustees tried to forestall this crisis by effecting a compromise with 
the local group. This compromise permitted the existence of two theo- 
retically undergraduate organizations: the "D. U. Club" which con- 
sisted of practically all the undergraduates, and the Chapter which 
included only a small percentage of the undergraduates. This arrange- 
ment, after a few years' trial, became distasteful to the Harvard men 
who seemed to have concluded that it was impossible to foster the 
fraternity idea in "an atmosphere where the idea became more and 
more foreign and exotic to the local club scheme." Accordingly, these 
men circularized the alumni, April 24, 1922, for an expression of opin- 
ion on the question "Shall Harvard D. U. leave the National Fraternity 
and become a local Club." Accompanying this circular was a list of 
reasons given for this action and the names of one hundred and seventy- 
four members who were in favor of withdrawal. If the referendum 
favored withdrawal, then the chapter proposed to gain the consent of 
three-fourths of the chapters in convention and of three-fourths of the 
Trustees at a meeting of the corporation. Conscious of the fact that 
they had no assurance that the convention and the Trustees would per- 
mit withdrawal, they still believed that once it was known that the 
great majority of Harvard alumni favored an independent existence, 
then all opposition would vanish. The promoters of this scheme were 
also aware that the ownership of the house and house fund might 
legally still belong to the Fraternity. They believed, however, that the 
Trustees of the house and fund would, if separation were once effected, 
"feel morally obliged to designate to the College that the Club-House 
and Fund shall be used for the purpose of the seceded Chapter." 368 

A copy of the above circular was addressed by the Board of Directors, 
to the Trustees and to the convention on August 25, 1922. Along with 
this copy went a letter signed by Thomas C. Miller, in which he very 
briefly reviewed the Harvard situation. He also pointed out that Delta 
Upsilon was but one of the ten Greek letter fraternities at Cambridge, 
of which but one was not a member of the Inter-Fraternity Conference. 
In addition there were nine professional fraternities, five honorary ones, 
five graduate clubs and at least two locals, all of which Miller con- 
tended completely exploded the idea that the fraternity spirit did not 
exist at Harvard. To Miller it appeared that for some time past the 
personnel of the chapter had been recruited from those who were in 
opposition to fraternities and were thus pledged to a policy of separa- 

888 Quoted in a letter from T. C. Miller to the Trustees and Convention, Aug. 
15* 1922- 


tion. In view of these factors, Miller in behalf of the Directors proposed 
that the convention should allow all those who wished so to sever their 
relations with the Fraternity. Because the constitution forbade this 
except through expulsion the delegates were asked to come prepared 
to vote favorably upon an amendment that would allow resignation, 
when in the opinion of the Directors such resignations would be for 
the good of all concerned. 369 

At the 1922 Convention considerable debate took place relative to 
the Harvard matter with the result that the amendment was voted 
down, sixteen ayes to twenty-nine nays. In lieu thereof the convention 
unanimously adopted resolutions, which had been introduced by 
Stanley Howe, Harvard '08, to the effect that the Harvard Chapter be 
continued and the Fraternity aid those loyal members of the same who 
were seeking to maintain the society in the face of present difficulties. 
It is evident, therefore, that the delegates viewed the Directors' pro- 
posal with doubt, questioning, thereby, the advisability of permitting 
resignation from the Fraternity. At the same time the representatives 
accepted the implication outlined in Miller's letter that the Harvard 
Chapter be continued. 

After an interval of several months in which it was hoped that as the 
result of visits to Cambridge by loyal alumni and Fraternity Officers 
the matter might be cleared up, the Directors unanimously resolved to 
take the necessary steps to restore the chapter to its former rights and 
privileges, as well as to the ownership of all property which rightfully 
belonged to it. It was also voted that the Council might, if it so desired, 
proceed to compel the performance of all duties required of the Har- 
vard Chapter to the Fraternity. This last point is of significance in 
that it provided that the future handling of the Harvard Chapter might 
be taken out of the hands of the local group and placed in that of the 

For the next two years the Fraternity and the Trustees of the Harvard 
House attempted to settle the affair by taking steps towards the occupa- 
tion of the House. This procedure together with a plan for rehabilitat- 
ing the chapter by pledging men loyal to Delta Upsilon was met by 
the Harvard group filing a petition in the Superior Court of Boston 
restraining the Fraternity from possessing the House. As a result a suit 
was begun that was finally brought to an end in the late summer of 
1938. At that time the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts handed 
down a decision confirming the Harvard Chapter, and not the Har- 
vard D. U. Club, in the possession of the House. In the meantime the 



Council and the Directors had preferred formal charges against the 
rebellious members of the chapter, which charges the local group re- 
fused to answer on the ground that they never had been members of 
the Delta Upsilon Fraternity Incorporated and that this incorporation 
had no control whatsoever over their society which was merely the 
Harvard Chapter of Delta Upsilon. In other words, the present cor- 
poration had been illegally created and was not a successor or a con- 
tinuance of Delta Upsilon Fraternity, an "unincorporated voluntary 
association." The position taken by these men represented a legal point 
which was dismissed by the Superior Court at Boston on historical 
evidence that was as sound as it was legal. Having refused to meet 
these charges, the Council and Directors proceeded to suspend the Har- 
vard Chapter, after which the Council formally took over the conduct 
of that society. New members were elected and initiated by the Council. 
These members, subject to the advice and counsel of a Harvard Ad- 
visory Committee, were in time restored to their proper standing in the 
Fraternity. Further at the beginning of the academic year 1929 the 
chapter moved into the Harvard House., From that time on the Harvard 
Chapter has functioned as a lawful member of Delta Upsilon, though 
it is still subject to the Advisory Committee. 370 

To the historian the significance of this dispute is not merely to be 
found in the above details but rather in the fact that the Fraternity had 
met a serious crisis. This crisis centered about the dispute as to whether 
a chapter could nullify and then secede from the Fraternity, and 
whether members of the Fraternity could sever their pledges and obli- 
gations by resignation. Both of these points were decisively settled in a 
negative manner. Once a member of the Fraternity always a member, 
so the principle was stated, unless that person had been expelled for 
violation of pledges and obligations. Furthermore it is clear that the 
Incorporated Fraternity represents an organization which through the 
constitution exercises a far-reaching control over the chapters even to 
the point of suspending a chapter for the time being. 

In the meantime the Council had devoted considerable attention to 
the matter of the Alumni Boards. These Boards date back to the sum- 
mer of 1917 and thus had their start under the direction of the old 
Executive Council. At that time it will be recalled America had entered 
the World War* Aware of the fact that during the Civil War or imme- 
diately thereafter several of the chapters became inactive, and fearful 

370 The rebellious members were not expelled and are, therefore, from the point 
of view of the Fraternity, members. On the other hand, these men have largely 
refused to admit this fact and continue to exist at Harvard as the D. U. Club. 


there might now be a repetition, the Council very wisely proceeded to 
create Alumni Boards on the basis of nominations submitted by the 
chapters. To these Boards a circular letter was sent in July in which 
the purpose and duties of these Boards was outlined. According to this 
letter the Boards were to cooperate with the chapters in the conduct 
of local affairs as long as the war continued and in the event a chapter 
might find itself unable to function properly, then the Board was to 
step in and perform all the duties that normally fell to the chapter. 
It was to safeguard the chapter records and property and watch over 
the moral welfare of the society during the stress of war. As General 
Supervisor of these units Joseph Banigan was appointed for the ensuing 
year. Congdon and Leach held this office during 1918 and 1919. The 
work done by these men and the local boards was of invaluable service 
to the Fraternity. For the time they became the only connection be- 
tween the general Fraternity and the chapters, some of whom became 
almost inactive and in other cases entirely so. No convention, more- 
over, was held in 1918 which made the Alumni Boards of greater value 
than they otherwise would have been. 

Upon the cessation of hostilities in 1919 the Council fully convinced 
of the essential value of these Boards determined to continue them. It 
was the intention of the Council that these alumni would maintain 
dose and happy contacts between the Fraternity and the faculty, de- 
velop a close bond of interest and sympathy between the chapter and 
the alumni, assist individual members of the chapter "along broad 
lines" and cultivate sound business methods in all chapter activities. 
As a connecting link the Supervisor of these Alumni Boards was to 
receive reports from the same and on the basis of this submit an annual 
statement to the Executive Council. At the Chicago Convention, 1920, 
Dorsey A. Lyon, Stanford, was appointed to this office, a position that 
he filled in a most able manner from then until his retirement in 
1926. During these years Lyon organized the Boards, which after 1922 
were known as Chapter Councillors, so that they were to give special 
attention to scholarship, finances and chapter records. To these Coun- 
cillors Lyon mailed blank forms which were to be returned to him in 
ample time for his report to the Council. Further, Lyon, in view of his 
own connection with the United States Department of Commerce, 
was able to visit personally a number of the chapters and in this way 
stimulate the boards to greater activity and at the same time gather 
information relative to chapter and alumni life. On the basis of this 
evidence considerable valuable material was gathered for the conduct 
of general Fraternity policy, material, moreover, which furnishes the 












historian splendid data for a treatment of chapter life. In the spring 
of 1936, Lyon gave up his work and from that time on the duties of 
Supervisor have been held by the Executive Secretary of the Fraternity. 
In the main, it may be concluded, that the Chapter Boards and Coun- 
cillors have effected worthwhile results for both the alumni and the 
chapters in their respective relations to themselves, the Fraternity and 
the faculties. 

Finally, it remains to note that the Council, continuing the work of 
the Executive Council, sought to promote greater unity between the 
chapters, alumni and the general Fraternity by creating the office of a 
field or travelling secretary. Prior to the inception of the Executive 
Council the Fraternity seems to have made no attempt to knit the 
chapters together by means of a field officer. In 1886, however, the 
Executive Council reported to the convention the need of chapter 
visitations by some member of the Council or by a special committee 
appointed for that purpose. The Convention, however, seems to have 
paid little attention to this suggestion and for the next fifteen years no 
official action in this respect was taken. On the other hand the Execu- 
tive Council at various times attemptecL to visit some of the chapters. 
At best, however, this work was either limited to those societies near 
to New York or was conducted in a most spasmodic manner. It is evi- 
dent from an examination of the Annual and the Quarterly as well as 
the records of the Executive Council that very little thought was given 
to the matter. Beginning with 1901 the Executive Council endeavored 
to improve the situation by either having its own members or inter- 
ested alumni visit as many chapters as possible. The results were so 
encouraging that in 1901 there appears in the list of the Executive 
Council's officers a Field Secretary. This officer, assisted by members of 
the Executive Council, especially the District Supervisor, managed to 
visit a large number of the chapters during the next few years. Even 
though this procedure was a great improvement over the older order 
it was evident to those who were interested in the idea that something 
more ought to be done. In the report of the Executive Council for the 
year 1907-1908 the suggestion was made that a Travelling Secretary be 
secured, the cost of which would probably run around two thousand 
dollars. While the delegates and officers of the Fraternity seem to have 
given this thought during the next few years, visitation seems largely 
to have been done by the old officer, the Field Secretary, who during 
most, if not all, of the time was Thornton B. Penfield of the Council. 
By November, 1911, however, the Trustees who had given the matter 
considerable thought, created a new officer in the person of a Perma- 


nent Secretary. The first man to hold this position was Sheldon J. 
Howe, Brown '08, who took over the work on November 28. Howe's 
duties consisted of attending to the great amount of office work which 
heretofore had been largely handled by the Secretary of the Council, 
of gathering material and keeping on file proper information relative 
to the Fraternity's catalogue work, of handling to a great extent the 
work of the Quarterly and finally of being the "Walking Delegate of 
the Fraternity, as I have been called." Howe remained in this office 
unfil late October, 1913, at which time he was compelled as a result 
of personal considerations to resign. Both the Trustees and Executive 
Council, as well as the chapters, had come to appreciate the high qual- 
ity of work that Howe had performed and the great value to the Fra- 
ternity in the office itself. 

Howe's office does not appear to have been filled and for the next 
few years chapter visitation was undertaken by the officers of the Fra- 
ternity. In the meantime the Council and the Trustees had discussed 
the need of a permanent Travelling Secretary. By the close of 1916 
joint committees of these bodies had worked out a scheme which was 
referred to the chapters for their consideration. The chapters were 
asked to express their preference as to how the expense of this office 
might be met. On the basis of their returns Broomell reported to the 
Council, April 14, 1917, that nine chapters favored a per capita tax 
of $2.50, two wished that Biennial Conventions be held by means of 
which sums would be saved for the maintenance of this office, while 
twenty-five of the chapters voted to meet the expense by reducing the 
chapter delegation to conventions to but one person. Accordingly, the 
Council directed this matter to the convention which in 1917 amended 
the Constitution so as to provide for one delegate conventions. At 
about the same time both the Council and the Directors agreed to 
place in their budget an item to help take care of the expenses of a 
Travelling Secretary. On February i, 1918, the Trustees closed an 
agreement with Herbert Wheaton Congdon to act as a Travelling Secre- 
tary on a full time basis at a salary of $2500 plus expenses. 371 For a 
time the control over this office was vested in both the Council and 
the Trustees but after December 13, 1919, the entire proposition was 
placed in the hands of a joint committee consisting of the President of 
the Fraternity, President of the Council, Chairman of the Directors 
and Secretary of the Council. Congdon remained in office until May i, 
1924, and although part of his work incident to the corporation was 
filled by Ammerman, the work of field secretary was allowed to lapse. 
371 This office seems to have been more technically known as the General Secretary. 


Late in October of the same year Dorsey A. Lyon assumed some of the 
duties relative to a Travelling Secretary, an arrangement, however, 
which was terminated by the appointment of Russell H, Anderson, 
Wesleyan '20, to the office of Executive Secretary in April, 1925. As 
Executive Secretary, Anderson visited the various chapters and alumni 
groups until late August, 1929. The type of work rendered by Ander- 
son and Congdon was of immense value to the Fraternity. Any one 
who came in contact with these men on their "swing around the cir- 
cuit" could not help but appreciate how loyal these officers had been 
to the Fraternity whose interests and welfare they ever have held 
uppermost in their minds. 

Elmer A. Glenn, Rutgers '24, became Executive Secretary upon 
Anderson's retirement. Glenn continued in this office until late August, 
1931, when the duties of the Travelling Secretary were transferred to 
John D. Scott, Chicago '11, who as Supervisor of Chapter Councillors 
had already demonstrated considerable ability in contacts with the 
chapters. Scott, officially, did not become Executive Secretary, this office 
not being filled for the time being. As the matter now stands the tasks 
formerly consigned to that office are now being attended to by Scott, 
a Vice-President of the Fraternity. 

Our account of the activities of the Council has now been brought 
up to date. It will be seen that the Council, historically, is the suc- 
cessor of the Executive Council. Prior to 1909 the Executive Council 
represents the chief and most vital centralizing force in the Fraternity. 
After that date, and more particularly since late 1921, the role played 
by this body has gradually decreased. 372 Although from a Constitu- 
tional point of view it still is clothed with power of significance, many 
of its former tasks have been handed over to the Trustees and above 
all to the Directors. At present an examination of the sources relative 
to Council work reveals that its major activity concerns the life and 
well-being of the chapters. Discussion of these vital matters is taken 
up in a later section of this volume. 

373 For example, in October, 1913, the Council transferred to the Trustees the 
entire work incident to alumni activities. 

Chapter XII 


Incorporation o Delta Upsilon in 1909 resulted among other 
JL things in the creation of two new governing bodies, the Board of 
Trustees and the Board of Directors. According to the constitution 
adopted that year there was to be an annual meeting of representatives 
of chapter districts; a district being defined as an active chapter. Those 
qualified to vote in these elections, which were to be held when the 
chapters desired, included all active and alumni members of the chap- 
ter. Only alumni of over two years' standing were eligible for election, 
the procedure of which called for nominations signed by three members 
and these nominations were sent ten days in advance to the authorized 
electors. The vote itself was to be returned to the chapter secretary 
who in turn was to notify by proper certification the Trustees as to 
the representative chosen. Delegates of chapter districts were to assem- 
ble annually in November, or such time as the Trustees might set, for 
the purpose of conducting Fraternity business. In addition to making 
rules for its own government, this body was empowered to act upon 
all amendments to either the constitution or by-laws passed by the 
convention, to adjourn their meeting from such time or place as might 
be agreed upon, to pass upon credentials of all members, to be the 
judge of all district elections and to elect representatives for any dis- 
trict that might have failed to do so. The Trustees were also to elect 
from their number the members of the Board of Directors, assign 
work to the Directors, choose additional national officers, and by 
three-fourths vote admit petitioning societies to membership in the 
Fraternity. According to the wording of the constitution this last- 
named power was to be exercised in conjunction with the convention, 
either body being privileged to act first, though approval by both was 
necessary. Chapters might have their charters withdrawn by action of 



the convention concurred in by three-fourths of the Trustees, who were 
entitled to two seats at every national gathering. The Trustees were 
also authorized to form alumni associations. 

On the basis of these various provisions the Board of Trustees met 
for the first time, February 8, 1910, at the Republican Club, 58 West 
4oth Street, New York City. From then on for a period of nearly three 
years very few changes of importance were made affecting the consti- 
tutional structure and powers of the Trustees. Among these alterations 
should be mentioned one which provided that a delegate was to hold 
office for three years. This change was made in 1910. The following 
year the control over the Quarterly was transferred from the conven- 
tion to the Trustees, while in 1912 it was provided that chapter district 
elections were to be held some rime between May i and June 30. At 
the same time the annual meeting of the Trustees was fixed at some 
date in November as decided upon at a previous assembly. No further 
alterations took place until 1919 when it was stated that appeals in all 
cases of suspension or expulsion were to go to the Trustees, whose deci- 
sion was to be considered final and conclusive. Two years later the 
Fraternity revised its constitution and by-laws. Among the changes 
affecting the Trustees should be noted that which defined alumni 
electors. Heretofore the organic law did not state precisely whether an 
alumnus was a member of the district in which he lived or that of his 
chapter. It was now decided that unless an alumnus had affiliated with 
a chapter he was to be considered as qualified to vote only in his own 
chapter district. Elections, which had been set for any time between 
May i and June 30, were now to take place between March i and 
July i. All Fraternity officers, by the organic law of 1921, were to be 
chosen annually by the Trustees, and of these officers the President 
was to preside at all Trustee meetings, while the Secretary was to keep 
a record of all gatherings of the Trustees. The Trustees were also to 
receive reports from the Council, the Graduate Board and the Finance 
Committee, to all of whom the Trustees might assign work as desired. 
At the same time it was decided that the delegates of this body, which 
were to be chosen by the Directors, could not vote at convention on 
all matters affecting the granting or withdrawal of charters and the 
amending of the constitution or by-laws; their right, however, to vote 
on these affairs in Trustees' meetings was not touched. 

The necessary expenses of the Trustees' delegates to convention were 
allowed for the first time by the constitution of 1921. Finally, it should 
be noted that the power to form alumni associations and clubs was 


transferred from the Trustees to the Directors. Between 1921 and 1933 
the following constitutional changes have affected the Trustees. In 
1933, the date of their annual meeting was moved from November to 
October, while the following year the newly created Board on Petition- 
ing Societies was required to submit a yearly report to the Trustees. 
In 1930 the Trustee of each chapter was given power to collect and 
receive any money or property bequeathed or devised to the chapter. 
No further alterations have taken place since that date. No better 
statement of the existing arrangement of this body may be found than 
in the Manual According to this source: 373 

As the Trustees are alumni and lepresentative of the mature business 
men of Delta Upsilon, and as only one-third are elected annually, they 
offer an assurance to all members of the Fraternity of the stability, 
judgment and responsibility that invite the confidence of all who desire 
to contribute to the support of our brotherhood. The purpose of es- 
tablishing this responsible body was to enable the Fraternity to under- 
take the work that the Convention . . . was not qualified to assume. 
So it was the object of reorganization to preserve to the Convention of 
undergraduate delegates all the rights and privileges which it has 
enjoyed in the past. The Convention is continued, and so far as those 
things wherein it has legislated in the past are concerned, the Trustees 
may not legislate. New 'Districts' (new chapters) may not be created 
without the consent of the Chapters attending Convention; nor may a 
change be made in the Constitution or By-Laws without a concurrent 
vote of the Convention. Thus the Convention reserves to itself all of 
its former powers, subject only to the concurring vote of the Trustees 
in the Annual Assembly, who as the legal representative of the Fra- 
ternity must make the final and legal decision. The Assembly is thus 
in effect the 'upper house* of our Legislature. 

The executive arm of the Fraternity is the Board of Directors, a body 
which was created by the 1909 constitution. According to that law the 
Trustees were to elect from their number fifteen men who were to 
constitute a permanent committee of the Trustees, this committee be- 
ing known as the Directors. The term of office was limited to three 
years, one-third retiring each year. This body was to have charge of 
all affairs of the Fraternity and such matters as might be assigned it by 
the Trustees. All meetings of the Directors were to be presided over 
by the President of the Fraternity, while all records of these gatherings 
were to be kept by the Fraternity Secretary. Under the authority of 
the Directors, the Treasurer of the Fraternity was to handle all of the 
financial life of the Fraternity. No additional powers were allotted to 
Manual (1929), pp. 35-36. 


the Directors until 1919 at which time they were allowed to expell or 
suspend any member from the Fraternity upon a three-fourths vote. 374 
Two years later a number of minor changes were made, such as re- 
quiring the Directors to make an annual report to the Trustees and 
giving to them the power to fill any vacancy that might arise in their 
body. The President of the Fraternity, who heretofore was to preside 
at all Directors' meetings, now was declared to be only an ex-officio 
member of the Directors, at the head of which was a chairman. To 
the Directors annual reports were to be made by the Council, Commit- 
tee on Finance and Graduate Board. At the same time the control 
over the founding and management of all alumni clubs and associations 
was vested in the Directors. Finally, it should be noticed that in 1931 
the control of the Quarterly was lodged in the hands of the Directors. 
Since 1921 a few changes have been made. In 1924, for example, the 
chairman of the Directors was empowered to appoint the newly cre- 
ated Board on Petitioning Societies which body was to make a yearly 
report to the Directors. At the same time, upon recommendation of 
the Council, the Directors might withdraw a chapter's charter and 
dissolve the district; or it might delegate to the Council full power 
to handle all of the affairs of a chapter in case that society had been 
suspended for any reason. Again in 1931 the Chairman of the Board 
of Directors was declared to be a Fraternity Officer. Since this time no 
changes have been made in the constitutional provisions relative to 
the Board of Directors. 

An analysis of the constitutional changes cited above will show that 
since 1909 the Board of Directors has steadily out-distanced the Trustees 
in power and significance. This has also been true in respect to the 
Directors and the Council; indeed the guiding force of the Fraternity 
at present is the Board of Directors, although from a constitutional 
point of view it is responsible to the Trustees. This assumption is well 
illustrated by an examination of the minutes of these three governing 
boards. The Trustees, as has been noted, met for the first time in 
February, 1910, at which time provision was made for permanent or- 
ganization and for the establishment of the Board of Directors. During 
the years that followed the Trustees at their meetings handled matters 
incident to the granting of charters, amending the constitution and 
by-laws, hearing reports from various boards and officers of the Fra- 
ternity, and attending to details too numerous to mention. Usually 
the gatherings of the Trustees, which were fairly well attended, were 

874 The Directors were not the only body that might exercise this power; the 
chapter or the Council were also allotted this right. 


peaceful and orderly meetings. Occasionally, however, the Trustees 
voiced their views in no uncertain terms. For example, on October 3, 
1931, the Trustees broke sharply with past precedent by voting to 
grant a charter to the petitioning group at Washington State College. 
Heretofore the initiative in all such matters had been taken by the 
convention, the Trustees being content to concur in such actions. 
During 1931 an unusual situation arose. The Board on Petitioning 
Societies in this year recommended to the delegates as it had for the 
past four years that a charter should be granted to Psi Nu Sigma of 
Washington State College. This society had been before the Fraternity 
since 1951 and was considered by the Board as being the most worthy 
of all applicants for admission in 1931. The delegates, however, pro- 
ceeded to deny these petitioners though they did grant a charter to 
Sigm2 Kappa Sigma of the University of Western Ontario, a society 
which had been before the Fraternity but for two years. The Board on 
Petitioning Societies had never recommended this society to the Fra- 
ternity though it had pointed out that eventually Delta Upsilon ought 
to enter this Canadian institution. Touched to the quick by the action 
of the delegates in so utterly disregarding the findings and recom- 
mendations of the Petitioning Board, the Trustees proceeded to use 
their constitutional powers and forthwith voted a charter to Psi Nu 
Sigma. Notification of this act appeared in the Quarterly and in the 
1932 report of the Board on Petitioning Societies. As a result at the 
convention of that year the delegates after much discussion voted to 
concur in the action of the Trustees. 376 

Turning to the activities of the Directors during the present century 
it will be noticed that it attended to a large number of details that 
concerned the life and progress of Delta Upsilon. Thoughtful action 
was given to such matters as the internal life of the chapters and 
alumni associations, the Quarterly, the establishment of a strong fiscal 
policy and trust fund, an investigation of inactive chapters and neces- 
sary changes in the existing constitution and by-laws. Since 1921, its 
powers have roamed over an ever growing field, there being little in 
the ordinary run of Fraternity matters that has not been brought up 
by this body for consideration and action. Anyone who will take the 
pains to glance through the four stout volumes of the minutes of this 
board will be convinced that the Fraternity owes much to the Board 
of Directors. The handling of such delicate matters as the Harvard 
and Columbia cases illustrates how well these men have attended to 
their duties. Foremost among those who have figured in the activities 
875 Minutes o the Board of Trustees, 1926, 1931, Quarterly, 


of the Directors, and necessarily therefore in the Trustees, have been 
Thomas C. Miller, John Patterson, Clifford M. Swan, Wilson L. Fair- 
banks, Allen Broomhall, Samuel S. Hall, Waldo G. Morse, John P. 
Broomell, Lynne J. Bevan, Herbert Wheaton Congdon, Frank W. 
Noxon, Marsh M. Corbitt, Warren C. Du Bois, Bruce S. Gramley, and 
Floyd Y. Parsons. 

The amount of work undertaken by these men was enormous. So 
extensive did this become that at the time when the constitution was 
revised in 1921 there were created three standing governing boards or 
committees, namely the Graduate Board, the Council and the Com- 
mittee on Finance, while in 1924 there was added the Board on Peti- 
tioning Societies. Of these special attention has already been given to 
the Council. The purpose behind the creation of the Graduate Board 
was to give more attention to the alumni members of the Fraternity. 
Heretofore, as has been noted, consideration had been shown to these 
graduates in a score of ways. Frequently, these men had served as con- 
vention officers, had addressed these gatherings, had contributed by 
labor and gifts to the advancement of Delta Upsilon, had formed 
themselves into clubs and associations and since 1909 had taken a 
greater share in Fraternity work through the organization of the Board 
of Trustees. The members of the Council and Directors, however, 
believed that the great mass of alumni were still too much detached 
and that something ought to be done to bring home to them, as well 
as to the chapters, the fact that Delta Upsilon was a Fraternity that 
included its alumni as well as active members. During 1920 and 1921, 
under the direction of Swan, the thought of these governing boards 
was guided towards this problem with the result that there was created 
the Graduate Board whose special duties concerned the alumni of the 

According to the organic law of 1921 this board was to consist of 
nine members appointed by the President of the Fraternity; their term 
of office being limited to one year. Although subject to the Directors, 
the Graduate Board, which was placed on an equal standing with the 
Council, was to handle all matters pertaining to the life of the alumni 
in Delta Upsilon. A yearly report of all activities was to be presented 
to the Directors and Trustees. In the years that followed certain addi- 
tional powers were given to this Board, none of which, however, was 
important enough to warrant any treatment in this volume. The 
Graduate Board held its first meeting December i, 1921, the original 
members being John Patterson, chairman, Thomas C. Miller, Earl J. 
McLaughlin, Edwin A. Tomlinson, Herbert L Markham, Frederick W. 


Rowe, F. Stanley Howe, Albert H. Bickmore, Dewey R. Mason and 
Clifford M. Swan, ex-officio. Other gatherings have been held from 
time to time, the years of greatest activity, judging from the number of 
meetings, being from 1922 to 1924. During these years, as well as those 
that followed, the Board stimulated the foundation of alumni clubs 
and associations, arranged for a number of informal gatherings, en- 
couraged these graduates to increase their number and influence and 
sought through the Quarterly to give greater publicity to those matters 
that naturally were of interest to these men. At times, circular letters 
and news-sheets were mailed to these associations in which facts per- 
tinent to the growth of Delta Upsilon were presented in the hope of 
arousing interest on the part of these men in the Fraternity. Then 
again, efforts were made to have the alumni furnish information con- 
cerning prospective students and to aid in this, printed forms were 
distributed to all the alumni groups. The field secretary also had as one 
of his duties the task of meeting the alumni associations and of encour- 
aging them to watch more carefully over chapter matters, to hold 
more frequent alumni meetings and to attend both provincial and 
general conventions. An examination of the various records of the 
Graduate Board would seem to indicate that the alumni were forever 
"blowing hot and cold." Clubs that were sponsoring some petitioning 
society seem to have been more active before the granting of a charter 
than after. At times, when conventions were to be held, local organi- 
zations showed considerable spirit and virility, as they often did at 
initiation meetings or conferences with the field secretary. And yet, 
one cannot avoid the conclusion that if the Graduate Board has not 
been able to realize its objectives the blame for this rests fundamentally 
upon the alumni rather than upon the Board. No one would seek to 
deny that the ideals of alumni cooperation are and have been upper- 
most in the minds of all devoted Delta U's. And yet to obtain cordial 
and willing cooperation has been a problem that the Fraternity and 
the Graduate Board have almost found insolvable. 

The very nature of alumni contacts was in itself an abstract and 
difficult matter to approach and handle. On the other hand the work 
of the Board on Petitioning Societies has been one which has aroused 
considerable interest among both alumni and undergraduates. Prior 
to the inception of this body the investigation of petitioning societies 
was in the hands of the Executive Council and before that in the chap- 
ters themselves or in committees appointed by the convention for that 
purpose. In the main the work of these earlier agencies was limited to 
correspondence with the prospective society and its friends, though 


actual visits were not infrequent. At times, however, no investigation 
seems to have taken place as for example in 1866 when the convention 
granted a charter to a group at Genesee College merely upon the ap- 
peal made by a representative of that society. Anything like a more 
elaborate survey was out of the question; in part, because the Frater- 
nity had no funds for such a purpose and also because the central 
organization was too weak to undertake this work. With the advent of 
the Executive Council, however, strides were made towards a more 
adequate investigation. The work of Crossett in this respect during 
the i88o's has been shown in an earlier chapter, though it should be 
noted in passing that the convention still appointed committees of 
the chapters to investigate prospective groups and colleges. An examina- 
tion of the method used at that time reveals that surveys were made of 
institutions even though no petitioning group was in existence. 

During the balance of the century and the first decade of the twen- 
tieth greater gains were made. Finally in the spring of 1916 the Direc- 
tors and the Council appointed joint committees to confer on then 
existing petitions. This body met for the first time May 26, 1916, at 
which meeting a committee was appointed to draft rules to govern the 
presentation of petitions, while the Council was asked to present to 
the convention an amendment to the by-laws requiring all original 
petitions to be referred by the convention to the Council for investiga- 
tion and report. It was also voted that it was the sense of the joint com- 
mittees that all original petitioners should be discouraged from sending 
representatives to national gatherings. Late in June of the same year 
the joint committees met again at which time rules were adopted for 
the preparation of petitions. These rules, which were adopted, laid 
down certain specifications as to the make-up and printing of these 
petitions as well as to content information. Each request was to con- 
sist of not more than twenty pages and should be addressed to the 
Delta Upsilon Fraternity. A description of the institution, a survey of 
the fraternity situation and pertinent facts relative ta the society should 
be included. A list of active and alumni members, together with class 
and college honors was also to appear, though no letters of recommen- 
dation were to be placed in the formal petition itself. In addition to 
these rules the joint committees adopted a set of regulations to be 
followed by the Board in seeking information from the heads of all 
institutions at which petitioning bodies existed. These regulations con- 
sisted of a group of questions relative to the size of the college, its 
endowments, number of teachers, entrance requirements and the like. 
In the framing of these questions the Board leaned heavily upon sug- 


gestions furnished by the officials of the Carnegie and Rockefeller 
Foundations. 376 

At the 1916 Convention the Council reported to the delegates what 
these committees had accomplished and asked for legislation to carry 
on the work. The delegates responded by resolving that these joint 
committees should continue to function and render reports of their 
findings to the convention. It was also voted that all petitions should 
be laid on the table for one year pending investigation and report by 
the Board. Nothing, however, was done relative to the non-attendance 
of representatives of petitioners, though in the future the Board made 
it known to all such societies that none of their members were ex- 
pected to appear at conventions. Policy in time allowed these groups 
to send as their representatives alumni of the Fraternity. On the basis 
of these actions the Board continued to function. At its meeting March 
19, 1917, it was decided to continue its past procedure and to enlarge 
the list of institutions to which questionnaires might be sent relative 
to academic conditions. At a later meeting this last feature was dropped 
in view of the outbreak of the World War. This factor also explains 
why the Board ceased to function from October, 1917, to May 7, 1919. 
From then on until 1924 the Board appears to have conducted its 
work much along the lines that had already been followed. Among 
other things it was decided, May 7, 1919, that petitioning societies 
should send no delegates to the convention. Again, on July 14, 1920, 
it was voted that a sub-committee be created whose purpose was to 
make a survey of institutions from which petitions were then pending, 
also of those that might be suitable for expansion. On the basis of this 
action a number of colleges appear to have been assigned to this com- 
mittee from time to time and on which reports were presented at later 
meetings. On June 23, 1922, it was also decided that it was the opinion 
of the Board that the Fraternity should aid local societies to organize. 
Finally on July 27, 1923, it was voted that no recommendation for a 
charter would be made until the petitioner had sent a representative to 
the Board, nor until the Board had visited the society in question. 377 

From the establishment of this Board in May, 1916, a large number 
of petitioning societies had been investigated. Among these might be 
mentioned the University of South Dakota, Washington and Jefferson 
College, University of Texas, Albion College, Virginia, West Virginia, 
Yale, Kentucky and Arizona. In addition surveys were made of those 
institutions which were ultimately added to the chapter rolls of Delta 

878 Minutes of the Board on Petitioning Societies. 
877 Idem. 


Upsilon, all of which illustrates the intense interest shown by these 
men in furthering the growth of the Fraternity. It should also be noted 
in passing that of the total number surveyed only a small number ever 
reached the floor of the convention and then only after a careful in- 
vestigation had taken place; an investigation, moreover, that involved 
an elaborate analysis of the institution and petitioning group by cor- 
respondence and visitation. Among the men who served on this Board 
should be mentioned, Herbert Wheaton Congdon, Lynne J. Bevan, 
John P. Broomell, John Patterson, Clifford M. Swan, Frank W. Noxon, 
Harry A. Hey, Thomas C. Miller, Bruce S. Gramley and Alexander 
M. McMorran. 378 

At the 1924 Convention the constitution of Delta Upsilon was altered 
so as to provide for the creation of the Board on Petitioning Societies. 
From that time on this body has ceased to be a group of representatives 
of the Council and Directors, though it continues to function under 
the direction of the Directors to whom, as well as to the convention, it 
is required to submit an annual report. This Board was to be appointed 
by the Chairman of the Directors and was to consist of fourteen mem- 
bers, three of whom were to be selected each from the Council, the 
Graduate Board and Trustees. The Board was to examine all petitions, 
investigate the quality of the petitioners and the standing of the college 
in question. On the basis of evidence available it would appear that 
this Board functioned in general along the lines laid down by the 
previous body, though it is to be noted that no attempt was made to 
survey in any extensive manner those institutions at which no prospec- 
tive society existed. It should also be observed that while at least two 
meetings of this Board took place annually, that very few recorded 
minutes are preserved. For a study of the activities of the Board, there- 
fore, one is forced to limit investigation to the annual reports and to 
the correspondence between the Board and petitioning groups. The 
first chairman of this Board was W. Randolph Burgess, who was fol- 
lowed by John P. Broomell in 1927, Karl J. Ammerman in 1928, Joseph 
P. Simmons in 1929 and Russell H. Anderson in 1930. 

In general these men and their co-workers have sought to stimulate 
expansion into those colleges and universities where conditions seemed 
to warrant entrance. As stated in 1925 the Board believed that the 
Fraternity should "go forward . . . wherever a petitioning body ap- 
pears worthy, without being held back by fear of over-expansion." 
Again, the Board deliberately discouraged societies who either were 
apparently below standard or were located at institutions that held 

878 Minutes of the Board on Petitioning Societies. 


little promise in the way of future academic growth. As a result the 
Board actually adhered to a conservative, though sane, program of 
expansion, a fact that the delegates quite frequently forgot in their 
determination to guide the destinies of Delta Upsilon. In every case 
the Board examined each petitioning society, as well as the institution 
where that group was located in a most meticulous manner. As an 
illustration a resume will be presented of the activities of the Board in 
respect to Pi Epsilon of the University of Alberta. Early in 1932 the 
Fraternity received a request from a student at that University re- 
questing information relative to the required procedure for a petition- 
ing society. The desired material was forwarded and in a short time a 
formal petition was received and referred to the Board for study and 
report. The Board immediately arranged to have John Scott, Vice- 
President of the Fraternity, visit Edmonton. At the same time com- 
munications were opened by the Board with several Delta U's living 
at that city. From these men statements were secured which proved 
of value. Scott's visit resulted in gathering considerable information 
relative to the University of Alberta, the fraternity situation and the 
condition of the petitioning group. The survey showed when the insti- 
tution was founded, a list of its presidents, a statement of the quality 
and number of buildings and size of campus, the different colleges and 
faculties of the University, its matriculation requirements, the number 
of students together with their religious affiliation, the sources of in- 
come and the number of students from Alberta who enlisted for service 
in the World War. Scott also reported the existence of three general 
and two local fraternities and of the relation that was maintained be- 
tween these societies and the University authorities. Finally, Scott 
commented upon the origins of the petitioning group, the reasons why 
it sought entrance into Delta Upsilon, the size of the society, its scho- 
lastic and athletic rating and its housing conditions. A digest of these 
various facts were referred to the 1932 Convention with a recommenda- 
tion that the petition be laid on the table pending further investiga- 
tion. This the delegates proceeded to do, though the Board in 1933 
continued its analysis of the petitioning society. Scott visited the group 
in March of that year and rendered an intensive report similar in 
nature to his earlier statement. On the basis of his findings the Board 
has recommended to the 1933 Convention that the petition be tabled 
but that the Fraternity continue its survey in the future. 379 

The extreme care exercised by this Board has been equalled by the 
Finance Committee which was definitely established by constitutional 

879 Reports of the Board on Petitioning Societies, 1932, 1933, Annual, 1931-1933- 


amendment in 1921. At the opening of the Twentieth Century the 
finances of the Fraternity were lodged in the hands of the Council 
subject to the constitution and acts of the convention. Most of the 
income was received in the form of a chapter tax which in 1900 
amounted to $440 per member, in return for which each person re- 
ceived a year's subscription to the Quarterly, while the chapter itself 
received at least one copy of the Annual Out of this chapter tax the 
Council attempted to meet the expenses of all regular Fraternity pub- 
lications, the salaries and office expenses, the costs of convention and 
a number of sundry matters such as the installation of new chapters 
and the issuing of membership certificates. The largest single expense 
item was that incident to the convention which amounted approxi- 
mately to one thousand dollars. From 1900 to 1904 the chapter tax 
amounted to $4.40, though for the next four years, due to increased 
expenses this was raised to $4.8o. 3SO In the meantime a new tax, known 
as the Equalization Tax was levied. The inception of this item goes 
back into the previous century when discussion took place at conven- 
tion and in the Council as to the provision of some means whereby the 
railroad fare of the delegates to convention could be pro rated so that 
the expense to each chapter would be the same. In 1901 the conven- 
tion provided that a division of the carfare of the delegates should be 
"in proportion to the number of undergraduate members in each 
chapter to the total undergraduate membership of the Fraternity." 381 
In making this calculation the membership of the entertaining chapter 
was omitted. On the basis of this resolution it appears that the railroad 
expenses to the 1902 Convention amounted to 1,964.58 while the 
total undergraduate membership equalled six hundred and fifty-seven, 
making an average expense per man of slightly less than three dollars. 
Those chapters, therefore, having carfare in excess of this received a 
return while those whose rate was lower were charged with an amount 
to produce that which had been paid to the others. 

This procedure was followed for several years with the Treasurer's 
report showing small items paid out and received through the Equaliza- 
tion scheme. Although at first there was some misunderstanding as 
well as delay in the payment of these amounts the Council in 1906 
recommended to the convention that in the future this item should 
appear in its annual budget and that the annual (chapter tax) be in- 
creased to cover this amount. Such an arrangement would make it 

^Minutes of the Executive Council, 1900-1909. Actually the tax was $5.00 and 
$6 oo for these periods, but as a twenty percent discount was allowed for prompt 
payment, the net tax was as listed above. 

i* 81 Annual, 1903. 


unnecessary for the Council to send out special bills as had been the 
case in the past. No action, however, was taken by the delegates and 
so the old method was continued. In 1908, however, as a result of the 
convention voting to have the equalization rate fixed for three years 
at once the Treasurer added a new account to his book known as the 
Equalization Account. This would seem to indicate that special taxes 
were levied on the chapters to meet this, taxes that were, therefore, 
not included within the chapter tax. This Equalization Tax in 1908 
was placed at $4.00 gross or $3.20 net if paid within sixty days. Against 
this fund amounts were drawn to meet the excess expenses of delegates 
coming from greater distances than the average. A statement of these 
expenses was made at convention time and the amount thereof was 
refunded to those chapters entitled to the same in the spring when 
the Chapter and Equalization taxes were levied. In other words if the 
Northwestern Chapter was to pay an Equalization Tax of one hundred 
dollars and its expenses to the convention amounted to fifty dollars it 
received a rebate of fifty dollars so that the actual amount due from 
that chapter amounted to but fifty dollars. On the other hand if the 
Williams Chapter were to pay an Equalization Tax of one hundred 
dollars but its expenses to convention amounted to one hundred and 
fifty dollars, it actually paid into the Fraternity no Equalization Tax, 
but did receive in return the fifty dollars that had been paid into the 
Equalization Fund by the Northwestern Chapter. 

At the same time the Equalization Tax appeared on the Treasurer's 
books there also appeared another new assessment known as the Initiate 
Tax. This tax was ordered by the 1908 Convention. The amount of 
this tax was set at $2.00 per member, for which he was to receive the 
Quarterly for two years after retirement from college. The tax itself 
was supposed to provide the Fraternity with a convention fund and 
leave a balance sufficient to carry the Quarterly for the above men- 
tioned period. At the time of the incorporation of the Fraternity, there- 
fore, in 1909, there existed three distinct taxes; first the Chapter Tax 
set at 14.80 net, for which each undergraduate received the Quarterly 
and the Chapter, the Annual, and from which tax the Fraternity ob- 
tained a fund to meet other expenses; second, the Equalization Tax 
set at $3.20 net; and third, the Initiate Tax set at $2.00 net. Actually 
therefore each undergraduate paid into the Fraternity a total tax of 
$6.80 (Chapter Tax plus Initiate Tax) and an Equalization Tax which 
varied in respect to the location of the chapter to the seat of the con- 

During the period from 1900 to 1909 inclusive the Treasurers of the 


Fraternity were Samuel S. Hall (1900-1904) , Edson S. Harris (1904- 
1907), Arthur E. Bestor (1907-1908) and Clifford M. Swan (1908- 
1909) . The following table shows the financial situation of the Fra- 
ternity from 1900 to igo8: 382 

Bilk Bills Balance 

Years Receipts Receivable Expenses Payable on Hand 

1900 $4.103.94 $1482.48 $3,632.75 $404.00 $471-19 

1901 5.766.64 i,337-58 5*69642 999-39 17-65 
i92 4732-i7 1,190.23 4,635.16 450.00 70.22 

1903 6,841.19 1,080.58 6408.16 97.01 

1904 6,627.67 1,224.08 6,524.52 300.00 433-13 

1905 4,893-55 1,150-38 4,801.87 91.23 

1906 4.444-02 581.06 3,909-11 534-9 1 

1907 4.997-03 564.97 4.755-68 241.35 

1908 4,605.51 852.07 4,3^1.82 283.69 

An explanation of these figures is necessary. In the first place the "re- 
ceipts*' do not include the amount taken in through the Quarterly, a 
separate statement appearing in the reports of the editor. 383 Most of 
the income reported by the Treasurer came from the Chapter Tax, 
though receipts from the sale of the Decennial in 1903 and 1904 and 
loans either by the Council or members of that body should be noted. 
Without these loans, which of course constituted a mortgage on the 
assets of the Fraternity, it is certain that the growth of the Fraternity 
would have been seriously curtailed. To those men, therefore, who had 
faith in Delta Upsilon, much credit is due. These loans were necessary 
chiefly because the chapters had failed to meet their obligations to the 
Fraternity. An examination of the "bills receivable" shows that the 
entire amount listed for 1900 to 1903 constituted back debts due from 
the chapters, of which all but $92, in 1903, ran back to 1892 and 
beyond. In 1903, for example, Rochester, New York and Western Re- 
serve owed the Fraternity $137.70 which had been on the books since 
1890. Rochester alone in 1903 was indebted to Delta Upsilon for 
$411.75, New York for $282.20 and Union for $142.50. Marietta, North- 
western and Pennsylvania also owed sums that were badly needed by 
the central office. These obligations were cut down materially by 1908, 
although even then $423.97 was outstanding. In that year the amount 
of bills receivable increased by reason of certain chapters failing to 
meet obligations to the amount of $198.00. During 1904 and 1905 the 
Fraternity had on its books chapter debts for the Decennial that totaled 
$350 and $300 respectively. In 1905 there was $163.24 due from 
Equalization assessments, while in 1907 and 1908 there were due $68.50 

882 These are Fraternity years which ran from one convention to another. 

883 See below pp. 313-318. 


and $134.60 from the same source. During the same years the Fraternity, 
hoping to stimulate internal development, had printed a number of 
chapter letters, for which certain chapters owed $46.50 and $72.50 
respectively. Had these delinquent chapters met their obligations when 
due the Fraternity could have forged forward more rapidly and would 
not have been required, as it was from 1900 to 1902 inclusive and in 
1904, to show the bills payable as noted above. Actually therefore the 
cash on hand in 1901, 1902, and 1904 was more than wiped out by 
bills payable. 384 

From 1909 to 1919 inclusive the finances of the Fraternity materially 
improved. During these years the Fraternity continued to gain most 
of its income from the Chapter Tax, the Equalization Tax and the 
Initiate Tax. The amount of the Chapter Tax remained at $4.80 net 
until 1918 when it was raised to $6.40, though the following year it 
dropped to $4.00 net. The Equalization assessment was lowered in 1918 
and 1919 to $1.60 net. On the other hand the Initiate Tax was raised 
from $2.00 to $5.00 net in late 1915. In return for this latter tax each 
active member received a copy of the Song-Book, since 1914, a Manual, 
since 1915, and a subscription to the Quarterly for two years after 
graduation. 385 The increase in the Quarterly subscription rates as 
well as the required gifts of the Song-Book and Manual explain the 
rise in the Initiate Tax. In return for the Chapter Tax each member 
received the Quarterly while in college, his chapter an Annual and his 
delegate to the convention an elaborate entertainment. What was left 
was used by the Council and Directors to maintain a headquarters and 
undertake the work incident to the Fraternity. The Equalization Tax 
made it possible for all chapters to have delegates at convention re- 
gardless of the distance and for that reason was quite justifiable. The 
assessment and collection of these taxes seems to have continued as 
before. Then, in 1917 the convention authorized the levying of an 
Alumni Tax. This coincided with the enfranchisement of the alumni 
and for that reason may be considered equitable. The Fraternity, how- 
ever, could only collect this tax from those who were willing to pay it 
and when they did, they received the Quarterly and the right to par- 
ticipate in most chapter activities even to the extent of voting on chap- 
ter members. Those alumni who wished to make a single payment of 
$50.00 became entitled to all these rights for life. 

384 An examination of the Annual and other sources will show those who are 
interested the amount of anxiety caused by the failure of the chapters to meet 
their just debts. 

885 But see below pp. 263, 320. 


During the years 1909 to 1919 inclusive the Treasurers of the Fra- 
ternity were Clifford M. Swan (1909-1912), Harry A. Hey (1912-1914), 
John P. Broomell (1914-1918) and William S. Barker (1918-1919). 
The following table shows the financial life of the Fraternity during 
these years: 386 





















'COME Bills Balance 
Chapter Tax Expenses Receivable on Hand 
$4483.20 $5,190.67 $460.77 $190.00 
4473.60 5*182.94 448.00 543.11 

4,93440 5,082.31 



on Hand 



ast convention 

on Hand 
$ 300.00 



4,828.80 5,378.08 
4,968.00 6,06548 

4,996.80 7*599-78 
5,424.00 10,688.32 .. . 
5,529.60 6,161.23 .. .. 
4,857.60 6499.10 
4,224.00 6,628.80 

Payable Fares 
$88.70 $1,753.08 
.. . . 4,844.23 

2 672.Q8 

2,682 64 

... 2 088. 2 

o 68l.27 


No convention in 1 9 1 8. Union owed $2 1 .80 p 

Expenses Loans 

228 oo $725.00 
742.00 500.00 
886.00 2690 

386 These are for Fraternity years and the figures are taken from the reports 
presented to the convention. 


It is to be noted that under the table "Chapter Tax" there is in- 
cluded the item of total income, which includes the balance on hand 
at the close of the previous year. On the other hand it does not include 
the income from the Quarterly through the year 1913, but does from 
then on. Further, it includes the alumni tax from 1918 on as well as 
other items of income gained throughout the eleven years noted. Fur- 
ther, in 1916 the balance was really a deficit. In the table "Equaliza- 
tion Tax" it should be noted that in 1910 a sum of $725.00 was bor- 
rowed from the Initiate Tax to meet extraordinary expenses incident 
to the convention of that year; this sum was repaid upon the receipts 
of the "Equalization" Tax for that gathering. 387 Under Initiate Tax 
there has been included as expenses the cost of supplying those entitled 
to the Quarterly, Song-Book, and Manual. The loan in 1910 was to the 
Equalization Fund; that in 1912 to the Trustees, and that in 1913 to 
the Quarterly. Finally it should be noted that the back debts of the 
chapters were all paid by 1910. 

The Treasurer did not render a complete report to the convention 
in 1920 largely because the fiscal year of the Fraternity was altered in 
a manner that made it impracticable. The accounts as rendered to the 
Directors were not drafted along the lines heretofore followed. These 
difficulties make it impossible to record any definitive statement for 
that year so far as the purposes of this narrative are concerned. Begin- 
ning with 1921, however, the Treasurer's report is quite clear and from 
it we can obtain a clear picture of the financial structure of Delta 
Upsilon through the year closing 1932. During the years the Fraternity 
gained most of its income from the Undergraduate Tax, the Equaliza- 
tion Tax and Undergraduate Commutation Tax. The details incident 
to these sources of revenue were handled chiefly by the Committee on 
Finance that had been established by the Constitution of ig2i. 388 This 
committee was to consist of nine members, three of whom were to be 
the Treasurer of the Fraternity, the Chairman of the Council and the 
Chairman of the Graduate Board; the remainder were to be appointed 
by the President. These men were to hold office for one year and were 
to perform all duties assigned them either by the By-Laws of 1921 or 
by the Trustees, Directors and President. Annual reports were to be 
made to the Trustees and Directors. No changes in this committee 

387 The Convention of 1924 voted to allow the Equalization Tax to apply to Pull- 
man as well as to carfare as had been the case before. 

888 The duties of this committee were outlined in the section of the By-Laws that 
described the tax system. 


were made by constitutional amendment though some of their duties 
were altered by reason of changes in the tax system. 

According to the By-Laws adopted in 1921 there was to be an under- 
graduate assessment of six dollars on every active member of each chap- 
ter, in return for which the member received the Quarterly for each 
year for which the tax had been paid. If remitted within thirty days 
from assessment a discount of twenty percent was allowed mating the 
net tax $4.80 per member each year. Since 1921 there has been no 
increase in the size of this tax. There was also to be an Initiate Tax 
of $10.00 levied on each person at initiation, in return for which the 
initiate received a badge, a copy of the Manual and Song-Book. In 
1958 the Convention voted to increase this assessment to $25.00, of 
which $15.00 was to be allocated to the Permanent Trust Fund, which 
is discussed later on, while the balance went into the regular funds of 
the Fraternity. The Equalization Tax was continued, the amount be- 
ing fixed by the Council at a rate such that the fund arising therefrom 
shall maintain a reserve sufficient to obviate large fluctuations in the 
rate and to enable the convention to meet without the use of other 
funds. Any balance arising from this tax was to be kept solely for fu- 
ture equalization, though a part might be loaned temporarily in antici- 
pation of tax payments. The amount of this tax from 1921 on has 
been fixed at $4.00 gross or $3.20 net. 389 Finally it should be noted that 
the 1928 Convention voted to levy an Undergraduate Commutation 
Tax. This assessment amounted to $5.00 annually, and was to be paid 
for four years; whereupon the member became a graduate member of 
the Fraternity in good standing and was to be exempt from the alumni 
tax. In the event that a student became a graduate member before he 
had paid all of the commutation assessment he might secure the bene- 
fits of graduate membership by paying the balance within five years 
from the date of initiation; and even then, if not paid, the time by 
action of the Directors might be extended. All income derived from 
this tax went into the Permanent Trust Fund. An undergraduate, 
therefore pays annually to the Fraternity the sum of $13.00 or a total 
of $52.00 for four years. In addition he pays an initiate assessment of 
$25.00 making a grand total, minus any special taxes that might be 
levied, of $77.00 for his entire college life. 

Alumni, on the other hand, by the By-Laws of 1921 were to pay an 
annual tax of $3.00 which entitled the payer to the Quarterly for each 
year the tax was remitted. Any graduate member who desired might, 
however, pay $50.00 or more, in which event he was to be exempt from 

889 In 1932 the By-Laws were amended so as to set this tax at $4.00 per year. 


the future payment of this graduate tax and receive all the benefits 
of the same for life. Finally, any graduate who in addition to the 
$50.00 might pay not less than a thousand dollars might provide that 
a graduating student of a chapter in each of the next succeeding twenty 
years shall as an award of merit be commuted of his graduate tax. 
Later ia 1928 a student receiving this award was to have the $15.00 of 
the Initiate Tax commuted. All sums paid by commutation were to 
go into the Permanent Trust Fund. 390 

From 1921 to date the Treasurers of the Fraternity have been William 
S. Barker (1921-1926) and Lynne J. Bevan (1926-1933) . The following 
table shows the financial strength of the Fraternity during this period: 


Undergraduate Initiate Jewelry Installa- Miscel- 

Years Tax Tax Profit tions laneous 

1921 $7,171.20 $3,689.00 $445 8 30 $ $2,11507 

1922 6,862.80 5,51000 1445-13 200.00 977-io 

1923 6,69240 5,120.00 1,85152 349.36 

1924 6,755.60 477-o 1*522.19 28109 

1925 7,002.00 6,310.00 2,189.09 100.00 147-73 

1926 749942 6,695.00 2,059.20 100.00 113-37 
!9 2 7 7,972-18 7,780.00 i,953- 6 7 200.00 255.17 

1928 7 6 9545 6,25600 1,957-25 18878 

1929 8,383.12 8,692.00 1,968.62 200.00 66.81 
!93 9i39-90 7,715-00 1,828.28 100.00 56550 

1931 9,206.80 7,440.00 1,632.70 118.00 74.91 

1932 8,654.20 6,564.15 1,020.72 97.62 192.12 

It will be noticed that in 1922 the amount of the Initiate Tax in- 
creased; this was due to the fact that in that year the amount of the 
tax was raised. The income from the sales of jewelry resulted from the 
practice of the Fraternity in having all sales made through the General 
Headquarters. It will also be observed that the business depression of 

1930 to 1932 has decidedly lowered the amount of the Undergraduate 
and Initiate Taxes. 891 The following table shows the income received 
from the alumni: 


Dues from Voluntary 

Years Alumni Tax Alumni Clubs Subscriptions 

1921 $9,001.00 $95-oo $292-00 

1922 8,784.00 95.00 277.50 

1923 9537-o 65.00 364.35 

1924 10,038.00 65.00 325.00 

1925 10,338,00 145.00 320.50 

880 In 1928 the Convention resolved that the changes then made were to apply 
only to those initiated one year after the passage of these amendments. 

881 Income from the Quarterly and other publications is credited to Initiate, 
Undergraduate and Alumni Taxes. 



1926 $10,077.00 $5000 378.00 

1927 10,80600 70.00 308.00 

1928 10,704.00 80.00 249.00 

1929 11,259.50 60.00 264.50 

1930 IM9788 55.00 173.00 

1931 10,36625 75.00 117.00 

1932 93584<> 40-00 7500 

The effect of the business depression on the receipts from these sources 
is clearly revealed. The following table shows income from other 

Trust Interest on Quarterly 

Years Fund Investments Sales 

1921 $1,718.76 $ $392.20 

1922 1,77240 28744 497.30 

1923 2,013.13 617.16 355.70 

1924 1,612.54 610.70 591.90 

1925 2,102-93 741.86 353.00 

1926 2,16147 837.84 393.00 

1927 2,282.50 1,32742 323.35 

1928 2,837.13 1,206.16 88.05 

1929 3>i7-20 1,291.37 393.61 
193 33!3-3 1482.21 314.00 

1931 4320.53 1,540.89 235.30 

1932 6*28442 1,986.84 105.30 

The following table shows the total income during the years noted: 

Undergraduate Alumni Total 

Years Income Income Income 

1921 $17433.57 $11498.96 $28,932.53 

1922 14,995.03 11,713.64 26,708.67 

1923 14,013.28 12,952.34 26,955.62 

1924 13,308.88 13,243.14 26,552.02 

1925 15,748.82 14,001.29 29,750.11 

1926 16464.99 13.897.51 30,362.50 

1927 18,161.02 15,117.27 33,278.29 

1928 16,09148 15*224.34 31,315-82 

1929 i9>i74-93 16,376.18 35>55i-i i 

1930 19,349.28 16,835.39 36,184.67 

1931 1847241 16,654.97 35*127-38 

1932 16,528.81 16,849.96 33'37 8 -77 

On the basis of this income the Fraternity has been able to maintain 
a steadily increasing program of growth and development. Office ex- 
penses, salaries, various publications, a traveling secretary, historical 
research incident to this volume and a score of other matters that have 
been of immense value to both graduate and undergraduate members 
of Delta Upsilon were undertaken. The following table will illustrate 
the amounts spent for the more important bits of Fraternity work: 


Secretary's Salary Office Convention 

Years and Expenses Salaries Quarterly Expenses 

1921 $4,223.83 ?3,998.66 $6,474.69 $940-70 

1922 4,276.65 3*897.0 537 6 7 1,50000 

1923 4,92249 440000 4,798.81 888.13 

1924 2,748.79 4449-!5 5,090.16 1,583-63 

1925 2437.82 5,305.02 5407.24 1,500.00 

1926 4470.04 5,910.00 5.714-23 1461-73 

1927 4405.11 6,868.53 5,565.18 1,603.66 

1928 4,699.08 6,559.77 6,321.06 1,945.97 

1929 5,11948 6,302.92 6,174.97 i,994.i8 

1930 3,50946 6,640.00 6,045.97 2,246.06 

1931 4,926.84 6,255.80 6,258.93 1,772-27 

1932 6,561.99 6,104.00 5,023.39 1,618.81 

The grand total of expenses, divided according to what the under- 
graduate and alumni members of the Fraternity received is as follows: 

Years Undergraduate Graduate Grand Total 

1921 $20,98044 $7,121.84 $28,10228 

1922 19,52049 6,720.20 26,240.69 

1923 17,822.97 6,194.32 24,017.29 

1924 19,816.86 6,035.77 25,852.63 

1925 18,92442 6,613.30 25,537.72 

1926 22,033.15 6,575.87 28,609.02 

1927 23,580.96 7,802.70 31,38366 

1928 22,284.69 7,52322 29,80791 

1929 27,785.69 11,32583 39,111.52 

1930 22,901.98 7,796.34 30,698.32 

1931 21,626.82 7.864.73 2949155 

1932 24,247.54 6,789.32 31,036.86 

On comparing the total income with the total expenses it may be 
seen that there was a comfortable surplus for every year except 1929. 
In that year the Fraternity was compelled to borrow from the surplus 
in order to meet the extraordinary expenses incident to the publica- 
tion of the Catalogue. It will also be observed that most of the income 
was spent in ways that favored the undergraduate. In addition to these 
various taxes and expenditures the Fraternity maintained two other 
funds, namely the Equalization and Permanent Trust Funds. The 
purpose of the first has already been explained, while the following 
table will show the revenue and the use to which it was put. 891 * 

Years Income Carfare on Hand 

1921 $2,994.54 

1922 $4,392.8o $2,813.96 4,573.38 

1923 4,36240 2,996.84 5,938.94 

1924 4,381.60 2,933.97 7.386.57 

1925 4485-60 11,794-21 7796 

3W * After 1927, the sources do not show the actual income or amount paid for 


Chid nit ff 



fTajnx & Eieing 



19331 934 











I 933 I 934 




















Years Income Carfare on Hand 

1926 $435503 ........ $4432-99 

1927 6,508.62 


193 1 15*502.97 

1932 16,611.69 

The inception of the Permanent Trust Fund goes back to 1899. O n 
November i of that year George F. Andrews, then President of the 
Fraternity, in a letter to the Council proposed the establishment of an 
Endowment Fund. Andrews was of the opinion that the time had 
come for the Fraternity to raise a sum sufficient to permit extension of 
Fraternity work. Accordingly, he offered to give $200 towards this end 
provided that $1,000 was subscribed by other alumni and in the 
event that these alumni gifts should equal $2,000 then he would raise 
his contribution to $500. Funds so collected were to be placed in the 
custody of a Board of Trustees, one of whom was to be the Treasurer 
of the Fraternity, another to be of the Council while a third was to be 
elected by the convention. All of these men were to serve for three 
years. Andrews stipulated that the interest arising from this fund was 
to be used as a majority of the Board of Trustees might wish but that 
no investment or loan of the principal could be made without the 
consent of all three members. The Council at its meeting, November 
5, 1901, accepted Andrews' offer and elected a temporary board to 
handle the raising of the funds. 392 

This board seems to have undertaken a canvass of the alumni and 
before the year was out had obtained a nucleus which served as a basis 
for further activity. Nothing was said of this effort at the 1900 Conven- 
tion but at the next annual meeting the entire proposition was an- 
nounced; the fund at that time amounting to $1,200. The reaction of 
the delegates was highly pleasing to both the Council and Andrews, 
while Hall, one of the Board of Trustees, stated in the subsequent issue 
of the Quarterly that it was hoped that further subscriptions would be 
forthcoming. Hall reported that one enthusiastic alumnus was anxious 
that the sum be raised to $50,000. "A fund of this size would be most 
useful in enabling the Council to help build chapter houses and for a 
working capital to enlarge and improve the Quarterly. 91 This optimism, 
however, was short-lived as the total amount by 1906 was but $1,230.62, 
while in 1909 it was only $1,296.65. During the eight years that the 

892 Minutes of the Executive Council, Nov. 5, 1901. Andrews' offer depended upon 
the necessary alumni subscriptions being raised by Oct., 1902. 


fund had existed the Board of Trustees had advanced to the Council 
a number of loans which were used for general Fraternity purposes; 
all of these loans plus interest were returned to this Board. 393 

The Board of Trustees of the Endowment Fund continued to exist 
until late May, 1922, when its work was absorbed by the Directors of 
Delta Upsilon. The amount of money turned over at this time either 
in cash or bonds amounted to $i,7o8.44. 394 It will be observed that this 
sum was not much larger than that which the Board of Trustees had 
in 1909, which illustrates the degree of success that had attended the 
efforts conceived by Andrews in 1899. In the meantime, however, steps 
had been taken towards the creation of what was known as the Per- 
manent Trust Fund. The inception of this later idea may be traced 
back to 1912 when the Board of Trustees of Delta Upsilon, Incor- 
porated, voted to create a committee to raise a fund of $100,000, pledges 
to which were not to be binding until at least half of the sum had been 
subscribed to. This committee, which acted under the Board of Direc- 
tors, proceeded to make plans which resulted in a careful canvass of 
the alumni throughout the country. Sums and pledges were secured 
during the course of the following years. So pleased was the committee 
with the success that had attended their efforts that in 1922 it reported 
that its purpose then was to raise $200,000. Nothing further, however, 
was undertaken by this Board as the revision of the constitution and 
by-laws in 1921 had provided for the commutation of alumni taxes, 
all income from which was to be allocated to the Permanent Trust 
Fund. 895 Again, in 1928 the Initiate Tax was altered so as to provide 
for additional sums which were to be placed in the Permanent Trust 
Fund, while at the same time there was created the Undergraduate 
Commutation Tax which likewise added to the amounts in this special 
fund. The following table shows the status of the Permanent Trust 
Fund: 396 

Total amount as made by 
Years Payments in cash or bonds at par 

1921 $4i58o95 

1922 45235- 1 4 

1923 46,272.08 

1924 47,110.83 

**Anmial f 1901-1909. 

394 Minutes of the Board of Directors, 1922. 

895 Alumni might commutate their taxes under a constitutional provision in 1917. 

^Nothing definite is available for the collections to this fund prior to 1921. 
Monthly reports appear to have been made but no Annual appeared until 1921. 
The Directors at various times staged drives to increase commutation. All years 
noted above are fiscal years. 


Total amount as made by 
If ears Payments in cash or bonds at par 

1925 $48,107.08 

1926 50,250.00 

1927 52,597-39 

1928 61,00000 

1929 63,000 oo 

1930 67,000.00 

1931 85,00000 

1932 105,000.00 

In commenting on the state of the Permanent Trust Fund in 1932 
Bevan the Treasurer stated: "Until about a year ago the market value 
of the Permanent Trust Fund was greater than the par value and 
greater than our cost, but in June, 1932, the market value fell to ap- 
proximately $63,000 or 60% of the par or nominal value. Since June 
the market value has recovered substantially, but is still considerably 
below our cost. We have, however, had no defaults in interest payments 
and no reduction of dividends on our preferred stocks." Further, 
Sevan's statement as to the financial life of the Fraternity may well be 
quoted in full as a fitting conclusion to this chapter of Delta Upsilon's 
history: 897 

The Fraternity has now reached a notable stage in its financial growth 
in which the alumni contribute as much to income as do the under- 
graduates. Alumni contribute through alumni taxes, voluntary sub- 
scriptions, Trust Fund Income, alumni club dues, interest on the sev- 
eral funds, profits on short term securities, and Quarterly advertising. 
The undergraduates, however, receive the direct benefit of about three- 
quarters of our disbursements, while the alumni directly receive benefit 
of only one-quarter principally through the Quarterly. This is evi- 
dence of conscientious and skillful labor on the part of many loyal 
alumni. It suggests that Delta Upsilon is no longer merely an under- 
graduate fraternity but that it is a fraternal bond for men of all ages. 
It further suggests that added responsibilities may be conferred upon 
those alumni who inspire to still greater development of the Fraternity 
as a life-long institution. 

807 Annual, 1932. 

Chapter XIII 


EARLY in 1901 Delta Upsilon established a chapter at the University 
of Chicago. Interest in that institution seems to have first appeared 
at the 1870 Convention when the Committee on New Chapters re- 
ported that Chicago might well be considered as a suitable place for 
extension. It is not known that an investigating body was appointed, 
though in the fall of the same year it was reported that two men from 
the Madison Chapter were pushing things there with some degree of 
success. Nothing more, however, seems to have taken place until May, 
1874, when the convention appointed Cornell and Madison to look into 
conditions at that University. This committee presented a favorable 
report in 1875, which seems to have encouraged the delegates present 
to the extent of creating a new committee of Cornell and Western 
Reserve to continue investigations. This new body found conditions 
none too pleasing with the result that nothing more was done in re- 
spect to Chicago for the time being. 398 In 1891, however, the Executive 
Council called the attention of the delegates to the fact that Chicago 
would, in the near future, be an institution that should be seriously 
considered as a field for expansion. The delegates reacted most en- 
thusiastically by instructing the Executive Council to aid in the forma- 
tion of a local society which was to seek admission as soon as possible. 
This vote, however, was later revoked, though no reasons for this action 
appear in the Annual. This show of interest, however, seems to have 
encouraged a group of students at that University (and it may be that 
the local alumni of Delta Upsilon had a hand in the affair) to organize 
and submit a petition for admission into the Fraternity. The Council 
said nothing about this in its report to the 1893 Convention, though it 
did point out the evident advantages that this University offered. The 
** Annual, 1870-1875, Rochester to Amherst, Oct. 18, 1870. 


CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1900-1933 271 

delegates, however, had the Chicago petition read which was immedi- 
ately followed by a motion granting admission. It was pointed out by 
a Brown delegate that such procedure would violate the constitution 
which required a petitioning society to have existed as a local for one 
year. Whereupon the convention voted to grant a charter as soon as 
the constitutional requirements were complied with by the local soci- 
ety. The action of the convention seems to have discouraged the peti- 
tioning group as nothing more appears in any of our sources relative 
to Chicago until 1896 when a special committee was appointed to 
investigate that institution. This committee reported in 1897 that 
Chicago was a promising place and that a group of local alumni, not 
satisfied with any of the existing societies there, were tutoring a small 
number of men to the end that they might form themselves into an 
organization and submit a petition to Delta Upsilon. 399 
The effort of these alumni amounted to nothing as not until late 

1899 did the Fraternity have its attention turned towards Chicago 
again. Early in December of that year John Mills and Arthur E. Bestor, 
students at that University, set under way a movement towards the 
formation of a local society. Both of these men knew of Delta Upsilon, 
as near relatives were members of that Fraternity. This fact plus their 
determination to form a group that might join a society whose ideals 
corresponded with their own led them to organize their local group 
along lines similar to Delta Upsilon. This group was known as the 
"Iron Key," a society that soon won for itself the assistance of local 
Delta U's, notably James W. Thompson, Rutgers '92. By the spring of 

1900 the eight members of the "Iron Key" felt themselves sufficiently 
strong to appeal to the Chicago Alumni Club and the neighboring 
chapters for help and counsel. Accordingly on May 25 of that year 
delegates from Michigan, Wisconsin, De Pauw, Nebraska, Minnesota 
and Wisconsin gathered at Prof. Thompson's home and were intro- 
duced to the members of the "Iron Key." Although nothing definite 
was done, the way was paved for further success and progress. 400 

In the fall of 1900 a formal petition was sent to the Convention, 
contact having already been established with the Executive Council. 
This body had no opportunity to investigate the petitioning group 
but called the attention of the delegates in 1900 to the petition which 
came highly recommended by the Chicago alumni, two of whom 
(James W. Thompson and Camillo Von Klenze) attended this con- 

889 Annual, 1891-1897, Quarterly, XI:s7, A. E. Breckenridge to Thomas, Mar. 7, 
1894 enclosing a letter from J. W. Thompson, Rutgers '92. 
400 Quarterly, XIX-67-68, Quinquennial, (1903), p. 33. 


vention. These men pointed out the merits of the group and asked 
the delegates to grant the request of the petitioners. After some dis- 
cussion a charter was granted on the understanding that the installa- 
tion should not take place until a year had passed since the founding 
of the "Iron Key." Upon this vote the Executive Council laid plans 
for installation which ultimately took place at the Grand Pacific Hotel 
in Chicago on January 5, 1901. George F. Andrews, President of the 
Fraternity, conducted the ceremonies at which thirteen men were 
initiated into the Chicago Chapter of Delta Upsilon. 401 

Among these men there should be mentioned Arthur E. Bestor, later 
an active member of the Executive Council, and Lynne J. Bevan whose 
service as Fraternity Treasurer has already been noted. At this time 
the Chicago Chapter was housed at 5735 Madison Avenue. In May, 
1902 it moved to 6018 Kimbark Avenue where it remained until the 
fall of 1905 when it moved into a house of its own at 5747 Blackstone 
Avenue. In July, 1926 the chapter moved to 5714 Woodlawn Avenue, 
where it resides at present. The chapter has been prominent in college 
activities, gaining its share of class and college honors. In general fra- 
ternity affairs, Chicago has been represented at every convention since 
1901, and in 1904 and 1933 acted as host to the general Fraternity. 
Among its graduates who have figured prominently in Fraternity work 
should be mentioned John D. Scott, formerly President and now 
Second Vice-President of Delta Upsilon. 

Nearly four years after the founding of Chicago a chapter was 
planted at Ohio State University. As early as 1887 interest in this 
institution was shown by the Executive Council which referred a peti- 
tion that it had received to the convention of that year. The delegates 
showed no enthusiasm and contented themselves with laying the peti- 
tion on the table. Nothing more happened until 1901 when a petition 
was presented to the delegates at the Brown Convention. This request 
came from a society known as Lambda Nu. This society had been 
founded during the school year 1898-1899 by a group of students who 
were interested in greater social advantages than they were then receiv- 
ing. They seemed to have formed themselves into what they chose to 
call the Carnation Club and to have hired rooms at one of the city 
hotels for purposes of weekly meetings. The Carnation Club soon 
entered into campus activity and gained for itself local recognition. 
It was felt, however, by its founders that further growth demanded 
affiliation with some national fraternity. At this juncture, Irwin G. 

401 Annual, 1898-1901, Quarterly, XIX:67-74, John Mills to S. Hall, Sept. 14, 1900, 
Minutes of the Executive Council, Oct. 9, 1900. 

CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1900-1933 273 

Jennings, Marietta '98, told Ralph C. Miller and Albert A. Miller, who 
were his close friends, of the merits of Delta Upsilon. These two 
students then undertook to pattern the life of the Carnation Club in a 
manner that might make it acceptable as a chapter of Delta Upsilon. 
By 1900 thanks to the help of the local alumni, notably Allen T. 
Williamson, Marietta '98, the Carnation Club reorganized itself as 
Lambda Nu, taking as its motto the phrase "We Count on Victory." 
Backed up by the alumni, Lambda Nu sent a delegation of nine men, 
including Professor Wallace S. Elden, Colby '89 to present a petition 
to the delegates assembled at Brown in 1901. This delegation was 
allowed to present its case, after which the convention voted to appoint 
a committee to investigate and report at the next meeting. 402 

This committee appears to have carried out these instructions and 
at the 1902 meeting it reported that for the present at least conditions 
did not warrant entrance into Ohio State University. At this conven- 
tion almost the entire membership of Lambda Nu was present to plead 
its case. Having listened to these men the convention resolved that 
while Delta Upsilon was not ready to grant a charter still "we commend 
their high ideas . . . and we express to them our hope that they will 
continue their efforts in the line of advance." Although Lambda Nu 
was disappointed renewed efforts were undertaken. The society itself 
was reorganized and new members were secured. A petition was also 
drafted and forwarded to the 1903 Convention. At this meeting a 
favorable report was submitted by the Committee of the Whole. The 
delegates, however, rejected the report and asked that further investi- 
gation take place. Lambda Nu only interpreted this action as meaning 
that she must exert herself to even greater efforts. Accordingly a 
chapter house was leased and with the warm support of both alumni 
and undergraduate a new petition was laid before the Chicago Con- 
vention of 1904. Stanley F. Rankin and Benjamin P, Brooks of 
Lambda Nu were allowed to present the claims of their society. Where- 
upon the delegates after some discussion voted to grant the long 
sought charter. On December 9, 1904 Penfield and Smalley in behalf 
of the Fraternity formally installed the Ohio State Chapter of Delta 
Upsilon. 403 

Forty-seven men were initiated at this installation which took place 
at the Hartman Hotel, Columbus, Ohio. At this time the chapter was 
housed at 211 West Eleventh Avenue. In 1905 quarters were obtained 
at 138 West Ninth Avenue and in 1907 the chapter moved into its 

** Annual, 1887, 1901, Quarterly, XXIII:88-8g Irwin G. Jennings, though of the 
class of 1898, left college before that year and was not graduated until 1910. 
- ** Annual, 1902-1904, Quarterly, XXIII:8i-gi. 


present quarters at 32 East Sixteenth Avenue. Ohio State has been 
represented at all of the national conventions, though she has never 
acted as host to the Fraternity. 

A year after the establishment of Ohio, Delta Upsilon installed a 
chapter at the University of Illinois. The genesis of this body goes 
back to the fall of 1901 when a group of seven students formed them- 
selves into a loose organization for better social contacts. So successful 
was the effort that on September 19, 1902 these men founded the 
"K. K. Club/' which during the course of the year gained recognition 
for itself from the existing fraternities. At this time, certain members 
of the Northwestern Chapter who were known to Emery R. Hayhurst 
and L. F. Steube of the "K. K. Club" expressed a wish that a chapter 
of Delta Upsilon might be planted at Illinois. On the basis of these 
contacts the Illinois men determined to approach Delta Upsilon for a 
charter. Accordingly, on October 15, 1903 a formal petition was for- 
warded to the Fraternity, while Hayhurst and Thomas B. Wade, 
Pennsylvania '98, went to the Chicago Convention of 1904 to present 
the claims of the petitioners. The delegates having just granted a 
charter to Ohio State did not feel inclined to admit a society that had 
only been before them a year. The "K. K. Club/' while disappointed, 
girded themselves for another year. New members were secured and 
a house was arranged for and built. Edward Corrigan, John Frost and 
Gerald Finlay, moreover, represented the society at the 1905 Conven- 
tion where the delegates voted to accept the petitioning group. Thorn- 
ton B. Penfield in behalf of the Fraternity installed the Illinois Chapter 
on December 21, 1905 at the Elk's Auditorium in Champaign, while 
thirty-five men were initiated. At this event a movement was started 
towards the building of a more permanent home. At that time the 
chapter was housed at 412 East Green Street. In the fall of 1921 a new 
home was purchased at 202 East Green Street, and in the fall of 1926 
the chapter moved into its present home on Armory Avenue. Illinois 
has been represented at every annual meeting of Delta Upsilon since 
its foundation, though she has never acted as host to the general 
Fraternity. 404 

Approximately five years after Illinois had been planted a chapter 
was located at the University of Washington. Delta Upsilon's interest 
in Washington was first aroused by a letter received by the Executive 
Council in September, 1907. This communication was from Donald 
S. Birkett who after having told about the condition of his University 

* Annual, 1903-1904, Quarterly, XXIV.Sy-gs, Petition of K. K. Club, Oct. 15, 
1903, N. A. Wells to W. O. Raymond, Oct. 10, 1905. 

CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1900-1933 275 

and the fraternities that existed there asked for information relative 
to the policy of Delta Upsilon in respect to expansion. From the nature 
of the letter one may conclude that Birkett was speaking in behalf of 
several students who were anxious to establish relations with some 
general fraternity. Shortly thereafter Birkett and his friends organized 
themselves into the Iota Delta fraternity (November 21, 1907) , rented 
a house and laid plans for petitioning Delta Upsilon. In the meantime 
a group of Delta U's at Seattle had taken steps towards the formation 
of what became the Puget Sound Delta Upsilon Club. Among other 
things this association showed a decided interest in the founding of a 
chapter at the state university, a proposition which was fostered by 
Almon H. Fuller, Lafayette '97. Fuller seems to have known of Iota 
Delta but it was not until the spring of 1908 that the Club showed 
any great interest in the local society. 405 

Contact with these men inspired the members of Iota Delta to sub- 
mit a formal petition to the delegates of the 1908 Convention. The 
delegates, however, voted to lay the petition over for a year during 
which time the Executive Council was to make an investigation. This 
the Council undertook by asking Charles T. Hutson, Wisconsin '99, 
who was then living at Connell, Washington, to investigate the local 
society. Hutson seems to have visited Iota Delta and reported that the 
society was in a sound condition and had the good will of the President 
of the University. Walter A. Chowen, Minnesota '91 also reported that 
the Puget Sound Club had been entertained by Iota Delta and that 
the opinion of the alumni was favorable towards the society. The 
Executive Council, however, believed that the acceptance of Iota Delta 
should be deferred until another year. As a result the delegates to the 
1909 Convention voted to lay the petition on the table for a year. 
Birkett, who was present at this meeting and had voiced his sentiments 
in favor of the petitioners, informed the local group of the result 
which only urged the men to greater efforts. Accordingly another peti- 
tion was presented at the 1910 Convention, which was held at San 
Francisco, and this time the delegates voted to admit the petitioners. 
On December 9, 1910 at the Arctic Club in Seattle, Paul C. Harper, 
Stanford '03, installed the Washington Chapter and initiated twenty- 
four active and graduate members. Since that date the chapter has 
been present at every convention and in 1925 acted as host to the 
general Fraternity. Among the members of this chapter who have 
figured in Fraternity work mention should be made of Marsh M. 
Corbitt. In 1910 the chapter was located at 4554 Sixteenth Avenue. 

* Quarterly , XXIX: 143-149, D. S. Birkett to Executive Council, Sept. 19, 1907. 


In November of the next year the chapter's home was 4504 Sixteenth 
Avenue where it remained until March, 1919 when new quarters were 
found at 4616 Twenty-First Avenue. Later the chapter house was at 
5308 Eighteenth Avenue and 5015 Seventeenth Avenue. At present 
the Washington Chapter is located at 1818 East Forty-Fifth Street. 40 ** 

Washington was followed by Pennsylvania State in December, 1911. 
As far back as 1894 the Fraternity had its attention turned towards 
this college. At that time Maurice J. Thompson of the Rutgers Chapter 
was a member of the faculty of Penn State. To him came a group of 
young men in the fall of 1894 asking for information relative to Delta 
Upsilon. Thompson relayed this to Fairbanks with the comment that 
he felt favorably disposed. Fairbanks thanked Thompson for his in- 
terest and suggested that the students organize and present a formal 
petition. Nothing further is known of these efforts and it seems safe to 
assume that the matter was dropped for some reason or other. Eleven 
years later a group of sincere and earnest students met in one of the 
college dormitories and seriously considered whether there was a field 
at that time for another fraternity at Penn State. An affirmative deci- 
sion was reached, whereupon these men organized themselves into a 
temporary society. This action was taken on October i, 1905. During 
the next year a house was rented and new members added, but what 
is more significant contact was made with Professors George G. Pond, 
Joseph H. Tudor and Frederick W. Beal, all members of Delta Upsilon. 
Phi Tau, for such was the name of the local group, was at once stirred 
to action. It was intended to send a delegation to the Middlebury Con- 
vention of 1 906 but through some misunderstanding this was not done. 
A hastily prepared application was wired, however; though the Annual 
contains no reference to the same. 407 

During the following year the interests of Phi Tau were aided by 
Professors Alva Agee and James P. Calderwood, both Delta U's. In the 
spring of 1907 Phi Tau submitted to the Executive Council its first 
formal petition. No investigation seems to have taken place though 
the Executive Council in its report to the delegates referred to the fact 
that a petition had been received. Charles R. Stahl of Phi Tau spoke 
in behalf of his society. The delegates, however, laid the petition on 
the table with a request that the Executive Council investigate condi- 
tions at Penn State. Not daunted by this delay Phi Tau informed the 

406 Quarterly, op. cit., Annual, 1908-1910, Minutes of the Executive Council, Dec. 
12, 1908, April 17, 1909, Fairbanks to Smalley, Dec. 22, 1908, W. A. Chowen to Fair- 
banks, May 19, 1909, C. T. Hutson to Executive Council, Mar. 26, 1909, Minutes 
of the Board of Trustees, Dec. 2, 1910. 

. J. Thompson to Fairbanks, Sept. 23, Oct. 21, 1894, Quarterly, XXX:n. 

CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1900-1933 277 

Executive Council that it intended to increase its efforts and present 
another petition. Supported by the Delta Upsilon members on the 
faculty another attempt was made. Before the convention, however, 
Botsford and Smalley of the Executive Council seem to have visited 
Penn State. Their findings were reported to the delegates who also 
listened to the pleas of the Phi Tau delegation. The Committee of 
the Whole voted to grant a charter, but upon roll call of the chapters 
a motion to admit Phi Tau was lost. A similar result took place at the 
1909 and 1910 Conventions. During 1910 Swan visited Penn State. 
His report together with the arguments presented by Alexander P. 
Gray, the delegate of the petitioning society, convinced the delegates 
of the wisdom of granting a charter, at the 1911 Convention. The 
installation took place at the College Auditorium, December 8, 1911 
in the presence of a number of the Council, Trustees and visiting 
Delta U's. Fifty-one active and graduate members of Phi Tau were at 
the same time initiated into Delta Upsilon. 408 

At that time Penn State Chapter was occupying a rented house. 
In September, 1916 a home was acquired which served the chapter 
until the fall of 1923 when the present house was purchased. Delegates 
from Penn State have been present at every annual convention, though 
the chapter has never been host to the Fraternity. Among the graduates 
of this chapter who have given of their time and effort for the advance- 
ment of Delta Upsilon should be mentioned Bruce S. Gramley, at 
present Treasurer of the Fraternity. 

The next chapter in order of establishment was that at Iowa State 
College. At the 1882 Convention the delegates appointed a committee 
composed of Michigan and Marietta to investigate Iowa State with 
a view to establishing a chapter. This committee rendered an adverse 
report in 1883, and, although Iowa was never completely forgotten, 
it was not until the spring of 1907 that the Fraternity again had its 
attention directed that way. Then it was that a local group known as 
Noit Aurats communicated with the Executive Council as to its policy 
towards expansion. At the same time the merits of Iowa State as well 
as the local society were set forth. Nothing seems to have resulted from 
this overture. 409 In the meantime, however, there had been born at 
Iowa State in the fall of 1904 a society which was known as the Colon- 
nades. According to Thomas R. Truax, Iowa State '12, "Unsatisfactory 

408 Quarterly, XXX.2-i6, Annual, 1907-1911, Minutes of the Executive Council, 
April 12, 1907, C. R. Stall to Smalley, Sept. 19, 1907, Delta Upsilon Faculty at Penn 
State to Smalley, Mar. 26, 1907, Botsford to Smalley, Oct. 10, 1908, G. F. Speer to 
Smalley, May 2, 1908. 

409 Annual, 1882, 1883, Noit Aurats to Delta Upsilon, April 8, 1907. 


social conditions and housing accommodations, brought about chiefly 
by the rapid growth of the college, were the primary motives for the 
formation of the new society. Lack of understanding among the stu- 
dents and the tolerance of low standards within the fraternities had 
resulted in an unfortunate condition of hostility between the frater- 
nity and non-fraternity men. As a result the society specified in its 
constitution that the organization should be anti-secret. This was 
changed later but the democratic ideals of the society have always been 
recognized by both the faculty and student body." 410 

Between 1904 and 1909 the Colonnades had done much to improve 
the fraternity situation at Ames. For itself energetic measures were 
undertaken to maintain a strong internal organization and in 1908 the 
Colonnades were incorporated under the state laws of Iowa. The fol- 
lowing year witnessed the acquisition of a house that had been built 
expressly for the society. These forward looking steps led many within 
the society to cast about for affiliation with one of the national fra- 
ternities, with the result that Delta Upsilon was selected. Shortly 
thereafter a petition was drafted and forwarded to the Secretary of 
the Fraternity who presented the same to the 1909 Convention. The 
delegates reacted by placing the petition on the table for a year. A 
result somewhat similar took place in 1910, though this time the Con- 
vention voted to have the society investigated. Accordingly the Execu- 
tive Council appointed a committee to visit Ames and report their 
findings. Information respective to the Colonnades was placed before 
the 1911 Convention both by the investigating committee and by 
Harry Tyson, delegate of the local society. After some discussion the 
convention voted to refer the petition to the next convention. Although 
disappointed, the Colonnades with the assistance of nine men left to 
present their claims at the Madison Convention of 1912. In the mean- 
time Swan and Rowe seem to have visited Ames and to have rendered 
a report of their findings. The attitude of the Executive Council was 
revealed in its report to the convention. In this the Council asked the 
Fraternity to consider seriously the wisdom of entering a college that 
had no department of liberal arts. A chapter, to be sure, had been 
established at the Institute of Technology, but whether Delta Upsilon 
wanted to depart from past practices was a matter that the Council 
would not advise. Possibly it was this factor that led some of the 
chapters to oppose a motion granting a charter to the Colonnades. 
The effect of this negative vote all but convinced the local society to 
look elsewhere. Under the stimulus of the alumni, however, the Colon- 

CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1900-1933 279 

nades determined to try again. Accordingly a fifth petition was drafted 
and presented to the 1913 Convention and this time the delegates 
unanimously voted a charter. Installation took place December 6, 1913 
at Alumni Hall. Swan was in charge of the ceremonies, while he and 
Markham and Roe administered the pledges to fifty-six members. At 
this time the Iowa State Chapter was housed in its own home at 209 
Hyland Avenue. Later in 1930 it moved to 320 Ellis Avenue and at 
present it is located at 117 Ash Street. Iowa State has been present at 
every convention, though she has never been host to the Fraternity. 411 

Exactly one year after the founding of Iowa State, Delta Upsilon 
entered Purdue University. The petitioning society that received a 
charter was known as the Cleofan Club. This organization first made 
its appearance on the Purdue campus during 1902 although it was not 
until 1904 that anything like a permanent society was created. Those 
who were interested in this movement were influenced largely by social 
and fraternal motives. So successful were the founders of this group in 
the selection of men and in the pursuit of their objectives that in 1910 
a fifteen room house was rented. Here the men of this society were 
given greater opportunity to foster their friendships. The acquisition 
of this home indicated a permanency that argued, in the minds of the 
members, for affiliation with some national organization. Accordingly 
in 1910 after some deliberation and advice on the part of a few local 
Delta U's, Delta Upsilon was picked as the Fraternity that most closely 
suited their needs. A formal petition was forwarded to the convention 
of that year but appears to have arrived too late for any consideration. 
The following year another petition was sent and although referred 
to in the report of the Council no action of any kind was taken by the 
delegates. 412 

The Cleofan Club seems to have understood that it could only gain 
admission after Delta Upsilon had thoroughly investigated both the 
society and Purdue. For that year the hopes of these men was only 
stirred to greater efforts. Five delegates were sent to the Madison Con- 
vention at which time an opportunity was afforded these men to 
present their petition. The convention, however, denied their request, 
though the Executive Council was asked to undertake an investigation 
of conditions at Purdue. On November 24, 1912, therefore, the Execu- 
tive Council voted to send Roe and Wineland to examine the peti- 
tioners as well as Donald H. Hollingsworth of the Chicago Delta 
Upsilon Club. Neighboring chapters were also asked to look into the 

^Annual, 1909-1913, Quarterly, 

** Quarterly, XXXIII.S-g, Annual, 1911. 


situation. The findings of these various investigators were presented 
to the delegates at the 1913 Convention. This body, however, after 
some discussion finally denied the request of the Cleofan Club. In 1914 
another petition was received and this time the Convention voted a 
charter. The installation took place at the Y. M. C. A. Hall; Swan, 
Broomell, Laidlaw, Roe and Markham being in charge. Forty-nine 
men were also initiated into the Purdue Chapter of Delta Upsilon, 
December 6, 1914. At that time the chapter was housed at 128 Wiggins 
Street. In 1919 a home was acquired at 103 Andrews Place. Here the 
chapter remained until 1925 when a fire destroyed the chapter house. 
For the next two years temporary quarters were secured and in the 
fall of 1927 the chapter moved into their present home at 341 North- 
western Avenue. Purdue was represented at every annual convention 
and in 1929 cooperated in entertaining the Fraternity at West Baden, 
Indiana. 413 

The Indiana Chapter also aided in arranging for the comfort of the 
1929 Convention. The inception of this chapter goes back to 1910, 
though interest in the University of Indiana was evidenced as early as 
1886. In June of that year William P. Shannon, Miami '73, informed 
Crossett of the flourishing condition of the University and of the 
presence of several brothers on the Faculty. Shannon urged Crossett 
to investigate the matter. Crossett appears to have looked into the 
matter and to have considered the possibility of urging the "Inde- 
pendent Society" to petition for a charter. Nothing, however, ever 
materialized either then or in 1895 when the Executive Council laid 
on the table a petition that had been received from a local organization 
at Indiana. 414 Later, in 1902, there was organized at Indiana a so-called 
Wranglers Club. The founders were primarily interested in debate 
and literary exercises, which were held in the rooms of the members. 
According to the constitution of this society membership, for some 
unknown reason, was limited to thirteen men whose interest in their 
organization waxed to so great an extent that in 1904 quarters were 
rented in an uptown hall. In the same year the restriction on the 
number of men was removed and the society grew rapidly in strength 
and influence. Although literary effort still occupied most of the life 
of the group, attention was paid to college activities as well as to social 
affairs. In 1906 new quarters were secured, but the following year 

418 Annual, 1912-1914, Quarterly, XXXIII: 1-10, Minutes of the Executive Council, 
Nov. 24, 1912. 

^W. P. Shannon to Crossett, June 2, 1886, J. C. Branner to Crossett, April 2, 
Dec. 17, 1887, Oct. 8, 1888, Minutes of the Executive Council, Nov. 29, 1895, 
Quarterly, XXXIV: 15-16. 

CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1900-1933 281 

the society moved closer to the campus and here they remained for the 
next eight years. 

In the course of one of their literary meetings in 1908 a debate arose 
as to the merits of the general fraternities, and out of this grew a 
feeling that the Wranglers might well consider affiliation with one of 
these societies. Investigation led in time to Delta Upsilon which ap- 
peared to the Wranglers as being most like their own society. Finally 
in 1910 the society determined to petition Delta Upsilon and the 
attention of the Fraternity at the convention that year was directed 
towards Indiana and the local group. This petition was laid on the 
table by the delegates, though the Executive Council was asked to 
investigate the society. No investigation took place. The Wranglers, 
however, went ahead with their plans and submitted another petition. 
Harlan S. Yenne presented the claims of the local group at the 1911 
Convention. The delegates after some debate voted to lay the request 
on the table for another year. Once again, therefore, in 1912 and 1913 
the convention considered the Wranglers with the result that the dele- 
gates voted both times to deny the request of this society. Shortly 
thereafter the Executive Council informed the Wranglers that while 
they might continue to petition if they wished, still there was con- 
siderable doubt in the minds of many as to the strength of their club. 
The Wranglers, however, refused to accept defeat and brought another 
petition before the 1914 Convention, where once again a denial was 
voted by the delegates. In 1915, however, the matter appeared again. 
By this time the Fraternity at large had come to realize that there was 
distinct merit in the petitioning group which was being rather warmly 
supported by the De Pauw Chapter and alumni in that vicinity. 
Accordingly after some discussion the convention unanimously voted 
a charter to the Wranglers. Installation took place December 11, 1915 
at the Student Building, the ceremonies being conducted by Arthur 
E. Bestor. In 1920 the chapter moved into its new home at 1200 East 
Third Street where they are at present. Indiana has been present at 
every general Fraternity convention. 415 

The Fiftieth Chapter of Delta Upsilon, if one counts Vermont, was 
placed at Carnegie Institute of Technology, December 15, 1917. This 
institution was founded in 1905 and during the course of the following 
year a group of students formed themselves for fraternal purposes in 
what was known as the Pioneer Tech Club, which was the first fra- 
ternity established at Carnegie. Rooms were rented in a private home 

** Annual, 1910-1915, Quarterly, XXXIV: 15-17, Delta Upsilon Fraternity to 
Wranglers, Nov. 12, 1912, Minutes of the Executive Council, Oct. 19, 1913. 


not far from the campus and in 1907 arrangements were made with a 
cooperative club to use their house as a meeting place for the Pioneer 
Tech Society. Shortly thereafter the cooperative club was absorbed by 
the Pioneer men and at the beginning of the school year of 1908 the 
society reorganized itself as the Sigma Tau Fraternity. From then on 
to 1913 Sigma Tau played an active r61e in campus life and soon 
attracted the attention of several Delta U's on the Faculty and in the 
Western Pennsylvania Delta Upsilon Club. One of these, Luther K. 
Yoder, became so interested that in October, 1913 he wrote a letter 
of introduction to the delegates of Sigma Tau who intended to present 
a petition at the Rochester Convention of 1913. The delegates at that 
meeting voted to refer the petition to the Executive Council for investi- 
gation along with the report of the Western Pennsylvania Club, which 
on its own initiative had examined the society and found it to be 
worthy of admission into Delta Upsilon. 416 

At a meeting of the Council, March 21, 1914, Roe reported his visit 
to Pittsburgh. Although there is no record of his findings available, it is 
evident that he was favorably impressed as the Council called the 
delegates' attention to the society in its report at the 1914 Convention. 
This body, however, refused to grant a charter. A similar action was 
taken by the delegates in 1915. Sigma Tau, however, refused to con- 
sider this as final. Communications were addressed to interested 
persons, while the Western Pennsylvania Club gave the society its 
warmest endorsement. As a result the Board on Petitioning Societies, 
which had been created but recently, undertook a fresh survey of the 
entire situation. Lynne J. Bevan visited Pittsburgh in June, 1916, a 
report of which was made in August of the same year. In addition the 
Board sought information from a number of persons as well as from 
the administrative heads of Carnegie Institute. On the basis of this 
evidence the Board determined that it would recommend to the con- 
vention that the petition itself be laid on the table and be referred 
to the Board for further investigation. At the 1916 Convention, how- 
ever, an attempt was made by certain chapters to push through a 
favorable vote. This was defeated and Sigma Tau was referred to the 
Council. During 1917 while no further investigation was made, the 
Council continued to discuss Sigma Tau with the result that in June 
of that year it decided to recommend to the convention that a charter 
be granted. Such a recommendation was made and to the satisfaction 
of all a charter was granted by the delegates of the 1917 Convention. 

*" Petition of Sigma Tau Fraternity, October, 1913, Report of the Western Penn- 
sylvania Delta Upsilon Club. 

CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1900-1933 283 

In achieving this end, Sigma Tau was deeply indebted to the Western 
Pennsylvania Club. Installation took place December 15, 1917 at the 
Pittsburgh Medical Club, Edward Schreiner, Michigan '99, being in 
charge of the ceremonies. At that time the chapter was housed at 
153 North Craig Street Later they moved to Liberty Street and Baum 
Avenue and at present are in their own home at 5035 Forbes Avenue. 
Carnegie has been represented at every convention since her founding 
and in 1921 cooperated with the local alumni in entertaining the 

Kansas was the next addition to the chapter roll of Delta Upsilon. 
Early in 1909 the Executive Council received a letter from a local 
group known as Gamma Chi which wished to petition Delta Upsilon. 
Nothing, however, materialized from this overture and it was not until 
April 11, 1915 that the attention of the Fraternity was again directed 
towards Kansas. On that date the Executive Council read a communi- 
cation from the Kanza Club advising the Fraternity of their decision 
to petition Delta Upsilon for a charter. The Kanza Club was organized 
November 20, 1912 and appears to have held meetings in the rooms 
of its members until April, 1915 when it moved into a lented house. 
In the same year the society was incorporated under the state laws of 
Kansas and had as its objectives the welfare and betterment of student 
life. In the meantime contact had been established with several mem- 
bers of Delta Upsilon who were on the faculty and with the Kansas 
City Delta Upsilon Club. The latter organization visited Lawrence 
early in May, 1915 and was very favorably impressed with the petition- 
ing group and the fraternity situation at Kansas. Accordingly in 
September of the same year the Kansas City Club recommended that 
a charter be granted to the local group as had already the Pan-Hellenic 
Council of the University of Kansas. Later in the same month letters 
of endorsement were received from the Chancellor of that institution as 
well as from Clarence A. Dykstra, Karl J. Holzinger and Goldwin 
Goldsmith, Delta U's on the faculty. A formal petition, moreover, 
signed by seventeen active members of the Kanza Club was presented 
to the 1915 Convention. In view of the fact that the Executive Council 
had had no time to consider this petition the delegates voted to lay 
the request on the table. 

During the following year the Kanza Club continued its work for a 
charter and was able to secure an investigation by the Board on Peti- 
tioning Societies. Personal visits by Clifford Swan and Clifford Roe as 
well as a number of communications on the part of interested alumni 
convinced the Board that a charter should be granted. Accordingly 


at the 1916 Convention the delegates were informed that it was the 
opinion of the Board that the Fraternity should enter the University 
of Kansas. After some discussion, however, the delegates voted down 
the petition. During 1917 further investigation took place, and once 
again the delegates were asked to vpte a charter. The convention, 
however, denied this request and no tiling more transpired until 1919, 
due to America's participation in the World War. In that year the 
General Secretary of the Fraternity visited Kansas and his report was 
so favorable that the Board on Petitioning Societies was led to recom- 
mend at the 1919 Convention that a charter be granted. And this time 
the delegates acted favorably upon the request. The installation was 
arranged for by the Council and took place January 10, 1920 at the 
local Congregational Church. At this time Kansas was housed at 1215 
Oread Avenue where they remained until the fall of 1929 at which 
time the chapter moved into its present home at 1025 W. Hills Park- 
way. Kansas has been represented at every convention and in 1931 
cooperated with the Kansas City Club in entertaining the General 
Fraternity. 417 

Two years after the installation of Kansas, Oregon State was received 
into the Fraternity. The Oregon State Chapter was originally formed 
November 7, 1913 as the Osolito Club. Organized for social purposes 
this group grew in size and local importance and in 1915 directed its 
attention towards membership in Delta Upsilon. Gaining the help of 
certain Delta U's on the faculty of Oregon State Agricultural College, 
notably Ralph D. Hetzel, Wisconsin '06, a formal petition was ad- 
dressed to the Executive Council. The petition was received after the 
1915 Convention had met and it was not until September, 1916 that 
the Fraternity took the petitioners under consideration. By this time 
the Osolito Club had reorganized itself into the Gamma Tau Beta 
Fraternity and had become incorporated under the Oregon State Laws. 
In accordance, however, with a recent ruling of the convention the 
petition was automatically laid on the table for a year pending investi- 
gation by the Board on Petitioning Societies. No serious inquiry seems 
to have been undertaken and there is no evidence at hand to show 
that Gamma Tau Beta presented another petition in 1917. In March, 
1919, after the Fraternity had resumed its ordinary activity which had 
been retarded by reason of the war, the Board turned its attention to 
Oregon State. Herbert Wheaton Congdon visited Corvallis, at the 

417 The facts relative to the Kanza Club may be found in their petitions of 1915, 
1916, 1917 and 1919, Minutes of the Board on Petitioning Societies, Minutes of the 
Executive Council and Council, and the Quarterly, XXXVIII: 136-140. 

CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1900-1933 285 

request of interested alumni, and while he found conditions rather 
favorable, recommended that further investigation should take place. 
Congdon believed that both the society and the college were still too 
new to warrant any commitment at the time. Information along this 
line was laid before the 1919 Convention which voted to lay the peti- 
tion of Gamma Tau Beta on the table. During the following year 
further inquiry was conducted, and, although the Board felt kindly 
disposed towards the petitioners, it was reluctant to recommend it to 
the convention. In brief the position taken by the Board was that the 
society itself needed a larger alumni body so as to make permanent 
the splendid growth and standards that had been maintained since its 
founding. Further, it was argued that the Fraternity at large should 
weigh carefully the question of entering an institution which was 
chiefly devoted to agricultural activities. The Board, however, did not 
pass any judgment on this question but believed that more time was 
needed for investigation. As a result of this recommendation the 1920 
Convention laid the petition on the table. 

During the year that followed, the Board studied the situation and 
came to the conclusion that both the society and the college measured 
up to the standards requisite for admission into the Fraternity. A rec- 
ommendation to this effect was presented to the delegates at the 1921 
Convention with the result that a charter was granted. Installation 
took place January 14, 1922 at the chapter house, 28 North State Street. 
Two years later the chapter moved into its own home at Twenty-Fifth 
and Van Buren Streets. Oregon State has been represented at every 
convention since its foundation and assisted in making the 1925 Con- 
vention at Seattle a great success. 418 

Three months after the installation of Oregon State a charter was 
conferred upon the Delta Alpha Fraternity of the University of Vir- 
ginia. Late in 1906 Delta Upsilon had its attention turned towards 
Virginia as the result of certain overtures made by a local society 
known as Delta Omega. The Executive Council looked with some 
favor upon this society and asked the Convention to give the peti- 
tioners consideration. The delegates, however, at the 1906 gathering 
voted to have a thorough examination made, but when this informa- 
tion was passed on to Delta Omega, that society replied that it could 
not afford to wait another year and accordingly withdrew its petition. 
It may be that Delta Omega changed its mind as Thornton B. Penfield 

418 Data relative to Oregon State may be found in their petitions, 1916-21, Minutes 
of the Board on Petitioning Societies, Quarterly, XL: 137-139, and R. M. Jackman 
to C. Swan, Sept. 29, 1915. 


visited Virginia in April, 1908 and reported to the Executive Council 
on the fraternity situation there. Whether a petitioning group existed 
or not is not clearly established though there is reason to believe that 
there was, 419 Nothing more is heard of Virginia until the spring of 
1915 when John Broomell reported to Swan that he had received a 
letter from a local society relative to membership in the Fraternity. 
Broomell favored Virginia as a field for expansion and saw no vital 
objection against entering southern institutions. No further evidence 
is at hand in respect to this event and it was not until the spring of 
1920 that Delta Upsilon again turned its attention towards Virginia. 420 

In the meantime there had been formed, February 7, 1920 a local 
society known as Delta Alpha, the founders of which from the very 
first desired membership in Delta Upsilon. The inception of this local 
should be credited to Joseph F. Hunter, New York '21, who matric- 
ulated at Virginia in September, 1919. Hunter finding conditions there 
favorable for fraternity expansion expressed his willingness in a letter 
to Herbert Congdon to undertake the foundation of a society that 
would look for ultimate membership in Delta Upsilon. Congdon 
encouraged Hunter with the result that Delta Alpha was founded as 
mentioned above. A little later Hunter forwarded to Congdon a formal 
petition which was referred to the 1920 Convention. This body ac- 
cepted the recommendation of the Board on Petitioning Societies and 
voted to lay the matter on the table for a year. At a meeting of the 
Board in June, 1921, Swan, who had visited Virginia a year before, 
spoke most enthusiastically about the university and urged Delta 
Upsilon's entrance. After some discussion the Board voted to recom- 
mend to the convention that a charter be granted to Delta Alpha, to 
become effective within the discretion of the Directors and in accord- 
ance with the constitution. The 1921 Convention considered this report 
and answered by voting a charter. As a result Swan, Patterson, Congdon 
and several others visited Charlottesville and installed the Virginia 
Chapter of Delta Upsilon. The ceremonies were held at the Dolly 
Madison Inn on April 8, 1922. The Virginia Chapter does not own 
a chapter house though steps are being taken to acquire one. Virginia 
has been represented at every convention since its foundation. 421 

From Virginia the Fraternity moved out into the Middle West by 
founding a chapter at Missouri. Outside of a communication addressed 

419 W. J. Davis to A. E. Bestor, Oct. 22, 1906, Jan. n, 1907, Minutes of the Execu- 
tive Council, April 12, 1907, Report of T. B. Penfield, April 27, 1908. 

420 J. Broomell to C. Swan, May 14, 1915. 

421 See Minutes of the Board on Petitioning Societies, Quarterly, XL: 245 -247, and 
Delta Alpha Folder, which contains copies of petitions, letters, etc. 

CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1900-1933 287 

to the Executive Council in 1893 relative to the procedure followed by 
the Fraternity in respect to petitioning societies, no other reference to 
Missouri has been found until 1909. In that year one R. E. Holloway 
wrote to Smalley asking for information as to Delta Upsilon. Holloway, 
it appears, had it in mind to submit a petition, though none seems to 
have been forwarded, and with that the entire episode was forgotten. 422 
In the same year, however, there was organized by eight students in 
the School of Journalism a professional and social organization known 
as the Dana Press Club. Five years later, after the society had grown in 
size and influence, the club was incorporated under the Missouri State 
Laws. By 1920 the members had become convinced that further growth 
necessitated membership in some national fraternity and Delta Upsilon 
was selected as the objective of these desires. Accordingly in January, 
1921 Harry B. Shepard addressed a communication to the Fraternity 
asking for information relative to Delta Upsilon and its extension 
policy. Congdon replied giving the required information and sug- 
gested that Shepard get in touch with the alumni in Kansas City and 
St. Louis as well as nearby chapters. Encouraged by this answer, 
Shepard forwarded in the fall of the same year a petition, which, 
however, seems to have arrived too late for consideration by the con- 
vention. The Board on Petitioning Societies reviewed the petition in 
February, 1925 and referred the same to a special committee for in- 
vestigation. This committee, after some study, reported that the Dana 
Press Club should be encouraged but that for the present no charter 
should be granted. It was also suggested that the Club bolster its 
scholastic standing and secure the support of a larger number of its 
alumni. Information of this nature was referred to the 1922 Convention 
which, after some debate, laid the petition on the table. 

During January, 1923 a personal investigation was made by Herbert 
Congdon. Congdon was very well pleased with the situation and 
thought that both the University and the Club merited careful con- 
sideration. He was, however, of the opinion that no charter should be 
granted until 1924, provided that by that time the Club had continued 
its growth and standing. Doubtless the Dana Press Club knew in a 
general way what Congdon's reactions were and anxious to hurry 
matters along sent one of their alumni, Dr. Ellsworth Moody to New 
York to plead their case. Moody was the guest of the Board on Peti- 
tioning Societies on May 25, 1923 and so well did he argue for his 
society and college that the Board voted to recommend to the conven- 

423 Samuel Sparwood to E. J Thomas, Mar. 30, 1893, R. E. Holloway to Smalley, 
Aug. 16, 1909. 


tion that a charter be granted as soon as possible. The delegates, 
however, refused to accept this recommendation and voted to lay the 
petition on the table. Believing that the Dana Press Club was entitled 
to a favorable vote, the Board on Petitioning Societies arranged to 
have Clyde J. Heath and William J. Norton visit Missouri. Both of 
these men carried out their instructions and reported most enthusi- 
astically in favor of the Club. Similar reactions were obtained from 
alumni at St. Louis. Bolstered by this evidence the Board strongly 
recommended that a charter be granted at the 1924 Convention. This 
body accepted the recommendation which was later concurred in by 
the Assembly. Installation followed December 6, 1924 at the Daniel 
Boone Tavern, Clifford Swan being master of ceremonies. At this time 
Missouri occupied a rented house at 902 University Avenue. Later in 
1930 the Chapter moved into its present home at 601 Kentucky Avenue. 
Missouri has been represented at every convention and in 1931 assisted 
in entertaining the Fraternity at Kansas City. 423 

A year after the foundation of Missouri, a chapter was established 
at the University of Iowa. During the winter of 1919-1930 a group of 
Iowa men conceived the idea of forming a social fraternity. It was 
their belief that Iowa needed a new national fraternity. After some 
thought as to the local fraternity situation, this group came to the 
conclusion that Delta Upsilon should be the goal of their endeavors. 
Doubtless they knew that Professor Franklin H. Potter, Colgate '92, 
was a member of the Fraternity as they seem to have approached him, 
possibly as early as the spring of 1920. Potter outlined to these men 
the purposes and ideals of Delta Upsilon and encouraged them to go 
ahead with their plans. Early in November, moreover, Potter informed 
Congdon of what had transpired and asked for advice and counsel. 
Congdon's reply resulted in the receipt of a letter from Verne Bonnett 
who informed Congdon that the society was known as Kappa Beta Psi 
and that it was incorporated under the laws of the State of Iowa. 
During 1951 further correspondence took place though there is no 
evidence to prove that the Board on Petitioning Societies ever dis- 
cussed the matter or that a petition was presented at the convention 
of that year. In the meantime, however, Kappa Beta Psi was strengthen- 
ing itself at home. A house was rented at 15 East Harrison Street and 
contacts were established with a number of Delta U's from nearby 
cities. A letter outlining the aims and activities of the society were 
sent to all of the chapters. 

*** See Dana Press Club Folder, Annual, 1922-1924, Minutes of the Board on 
Petitioning Societies and Quarterly, 

CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1900-1933 289 

Hearing of these activities Congdon visited the society in February, 
1922. Congdon's reactions were that Kappa Beta Psi had a distinct 
future and that while it needed further guidance and growth that the 
Fraternity should encourage the men, particularly as the University 
itself was a favorable field for expansion. These facts were presented 
to the Board which after some discussion made them the basis for a 
recommendation to the 1925 Convention. This recommendation was 
that the petition be laid on the table for further investigation. The 
delegates accepted this and the Board renewed its work in 1923. Julian 
F. Rowe visited the society in January, 1923 and while he found con- 
ditions not unfavorable still believed that further growth was needed 
and that the local Delta U alumni at Davenport would have to show 
more real interest than they had in the petitioning group. Rowe was 
of the opinion that the Fraternity had better lay the petition on the 
table for another year or two. Accordingly the 1923 Convention denied 
the request of the petitioners. During the following year, Kappa Beta 
Psi continued its work and was able to gain the active support of the 
Tri-Cities Delta Upsilon Club. This Club showed its interest by ad- 
dressing a letter to the various alumni clubs and to the Board on 
Petitioning Societies strongly urging the granting of a charter. The 
Board, however, was of the opinion that Iowa would have to wait, 
particularly as it was more vitally concerned with the petitioners from 
Missouri and Dartmouth. The delegates, therefore, at the 1924 Con- 
vention voted to lay the Iowa petition on the table for another year. 
During the year that followed enthusiasm for Iowa greatly increased 
and at the Seattle Convention in 1925 the delegates voted a charter 
to Kappa Beta Psi. Installation took place December 5, 1925 in the 
House of Representatives Chamber in the State Capitol, William S. 
Barker, President of the Fraternity being the master of ceremonies. 
At that time Iowa occupied a rented house at 725 East College Street 
and in September, 1929 moved into their own home at 320 Ellis Avenue. 
Iowa has been present at every convention since her foundation. 

At the 1926 Convention the delegates after considerable debate 
granted petitions to both Dartmouth and Oklahoma. Both of these 
chapters had been before the Fraternity for some time past. Dartmouth, 
indeed, had been considered as early as 1869 during which year Middle- 
bury asked Amherst to "help us start a chapter at Dartmouth if there 
is anything to work upon." Evidently little was accomplished though 
the Committee on New Chapters reported at the 1870 Convention 
that Dartmouth was a favorable place for extension. Three years later 
Middlebury was instructed to investigate conditions at Hanover while 


in 1876 Cornell and Syracuse were asked to make a definite report at 
the next convention. Nothing positive resulted, indeed it is extremely 
doubtful if any investigation ever took place. Dartmouth, however, 
was not forgotten and during the spring of 1884 there was some agita- 
tion in favor of a local group known as Pi Kappa. Syracuse went so 
far as to vote in one of its chapter meetings that a charter be granted, 
while Middlebury urged Crossett to appoint a committee composed of 
Colby and Amherst to look into the situation. This enthusiasm, how- 
ever, resulted in no action being taken. Doubtless Crossett, who was 
ever on the alert in such matters, gave it some thought as there are 
scattering references in the Quarterly to Dartmouth as a field for fra- 
ternity growth. On the other hand neither the Quarterly, Annual or 
manuscript records of the Fraternity show that any informal investiga- 
tion ever took place or that the matter was ever brought before the 
convention. 424 

During 1890 and 1891 Eidlitz and Thomas endeavored to find an 
opening at Dartmouth, but were told by J. Q. Eaton, Marietta '93 who 
was then attending Dartmouth that the situation was hopeless. 425 In 
the fall, however, an opening did occur which was eagerly seized upon 
by the Executive Council. Alpha Alpha Omega which had been 
founded in November, 1897 then existed at Hanover as a local society. 
Information about this group was brought to the attention of the 
Executive Council by the Rutgers Chapter. Letters, moreover, from 
several Delta U's were read before the Council at its meeting October 
14, 1899. At the same time a delegate from this society addressed the 
Council in behalf of his brothers who were anxious to become members 
of Delta Upsilon. So impressed was the Executive Council by the 
merits of the petitioners that a statement relative to Dartmouth was 
presented at the 1899 Convention. A representative of Alpha Alpha 
was allowed to address the convention, after which a prolonged debate 
took place. Finally the convention passed a resolution expressing 
interest in Alpha Alpha and instructed the Executive Council to 
examine carefully into the situation and "act in accordance with its 
judgment after said investigation, giving the Council power to grant 
a charter." The petitioners immediately expressed their pleasure by 
communicating with the Council and urged that body to take action 
at once. Penfield, and a little later Thomas, visited Hanover and 
reported in a most enthusiastic manner as to the group. In view, how- 

434 Middlebury to Amherst, Oct. 2, 1869, Annual, 1870, 1873, 1876, Minutes of the 
Syracuse Chapter, April 25, 1884, N. H. Snyder to Executive Council, May 13, 1884, 
E. P. Miller to Crossett, June 23, 1884. 

^Eidlitz to Thomas, Sept. 12, Oct. 17, 1891, C. W. Lisk to Thomas, April 12, 1890. 






X Y Twits tfludw 



Wide Woild 














CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1900-1933 291 

ever, of certain opposition that had arisen among some of the chapters 
against immediate installation the Council decided to refer the whole 
matter to the convention. Penfield seems to have sensed the strength 
of this opposition when he remarked in a letter to Hall that it would 
be "a crying shame" to lose this splendid group. 

At the 1900 Convention Mr. H. M. Hess appeared in behalf of 
Alpha Alpha and so impressed the delegates that a committee com- 
posed of the New England Chapters plus Cornell was asked to investi- 
gate and report at the next annual meeting. When this committee 
reported in 1901 it was found that there were two distinct groups 
represented: one, composed of Colby, Middlebury, Bowdoin, Brown, 
Harvard and Tufts, which argued in favor of prompt action; while 
another, formed of Amherst, Cornell, Williams and Technology, was 
entirely opposed. The majority believed that both the society and the 
college were highly desirable and that many of the alumni of Delta 
Upsilon had expressed themselves in favor of the petitioners. The 
minority, on the other hand, frankly declared that local conditions at 
Hanover did not favor our entrance, that the petitioning group was 
below the standards of Delta Upsilon and that the Fraternity in any 
event should be over-cautious about further expansion. At the same 
time a petition signed by three hundred of the New England Alumni 
was presented in favor of Alpha Alpha. Following this the convention 
listened to the arguments advanced by six members of the local society. 
Considerable debate then took place in the Committee of the Whole 
by both the delegates and the alumni. This committee by a vote of 
twenty to thirteen reported to the Convention in favor of granting a 
charter. Upon roll call, however, twelve chapters voted against the 
motion, thus nullifying the desires of the other twenty-one. By this 
action Alpha Alpha Omega was denied a charter. 426 

Five years later the Executive Council attempted to enlist the in- 
terest of another Dartmouth local known as Chi Tau Kappa. This 
society actually drafted a petition but at a later date withdrew the 
same. From then on for a number of years the Council continued to 
interest itself in Dartmouth but was unable to accomplish anything 
that was definite. 427 In 1920, however, there was formed at Dartmouth 
the Epsilon Kappa Phi society which ultimately became a chapter of 
the Fraternity. The purpose behind this society was membership in 
Delta Upsilon and in November, 1920 it announced this fact in a letter 

^Annual, 1889-1901, Minutes of the Executive Council, Penfield to Hall, April 2, 
1900, Bunker to Hall, Nov. 20, 1899. 

^Annual, 1901-1915, F. S. Wilson to Patterson, Mar. 19, 1914, Chi Tau Kappa to 
Executive Council, Nov. 15, 1906, Minutes of Board of Directors, Feb. 14, 1918. 


to the General Fraternity. Early in the next year a formal petition 
was forwarded to the Executive Council, which at that time had before 
it a request from the Cosmos Club of Dartmouth. Determined to lose 
no time the Board on Petitioning Societies sent Congdon to Hanover 
to investigate. Congdon reported that the situation at Dartmouth was 
favorable for our entrance but that for the time being no decision 
could be reached as to which of the two petitioners Delta Upsilon 
should support. In the light of this evidence the Board was extremely 
cautious and asked the Convention of 1921 to lay both petitions, as it 
did, upon the table pending further investigation. During 1922 the 
Board endeavored to arrive at a decision. After considerable thought 
and correspondence, the Board recommended that the petition of 
Epsilon Kappa be laid on the table again. This the convention 
voted to do. 

The following year the Board continued its investigations, inter- 
viewed a number of interested individuals and sent several of its 
members to Hanover. In the meantime the petitioners entertained the 
six nearby chapters in an effort to win their good will and support. 
On the basis of these facts the Board strongly recommended to the 
delegates assembled at the 1923 meeting the granting of a charter. 
In the opinion of the Board both the college and the society were 
highly desirable. The convention after a prolonged and somewhat 
animated discussion voted to lay the petition on the table. Although 
somewhat discouraged Epsilon Kappa renewed its efforts which in turn 
prompted the Board to continue its investigations. John N. Leonard, 
Williams '15, visited Hanover as did a number of men from Williams, 
Brown, Tufts, Amherst and Middlebury. Thomas C. Miller also went 
to Hanover and his findings together with those of the others induced 
the Board to ask the 1925 Convention to grant a charter. Once again 
a very spirited discussion took place and while the Committee of the 
Whole voted to grant a charter, the chapters on roll call denied the 
motion by a vote of thirty-nine to ten. Later an attempt to reconsider 
was voted down, after which the petition was laid on the table. 

During the year that followed the matter was not allowed to die 
and at the Montreal meeting in 1926 the Board once again strongly 
uiged the granting of a charter. The delegates, however, refused this 
request by a vote of thirty-six to thirteen. Considerable feeling had 
manifested itself on both sides, but after an adjournment and an 
evening's entertainment the matter was reconsidered. Finally, after 
much debate a motion was put to grant a charter which was carried 

CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1900-19)3 293 

thirty-eight to six. 428 Installation took place December 4, 1926. At 
present Dartmouth occupies a home of its own and has attended every 
convention since its foundation. 

In the same year that witnessed the establishment of Dartmouth the 
Fraternity founded a chapter at the University of Oklahoma. Orig- 
inally, the Oklahoma Chapter was known as the Delta Pi Fraternity 
and had been formed May 3, 1931 under the direction of Joseph B. 
Umpleby, Washington '08, for the express purpose of petitioning 
Delta Upsilon. After several months during which the local society 
made every effort to establish a local reputation, inquiries were sent to 
Delta Upsilon as to the required method of petitioning. Possessed of 
this information Delta Pi submitted a petition and sent a delegate 
to the 1922 Convention to plead its case. In accordance with past 
practices this body referred the petition without discussion to the 
Board in charge of such matters. Upon investigation the Board found 
that Delta Pi owned a $12,000 house at 764 De Barr Avenue, that it 
had the good will of the faculty, other fraternities, and above all the 
loyal support of several Delta U's including Roller of Ohio, Wright 
of Iowa State and Armstrong of Syracuse. In March, 1923, moreover, 
Congdon visited Norman and returned strong in the conviction that 
both the university and the society deserved careful study and cultiva- 
tion. On the basis of these facts the Board asked the 1923 Convention 
to lay the petition on the table, as it did, until a more thorough survey 
could be made. 

During 1924 further investigation continued while the Delta Pi 
group showered the Board with letters of endorsements from Delta 
U's, faculty members and other interested parties. And although the 
convention of that year took no positive action it was evident to all 
that here was a petitioning society that would have to be considered in 
the very near future. During the following year Delta Pi forged steadily 
ahead; its credentials were most convincing, and a visit by Brother 
Moody of the Missouri Chapter created a strong case for the peti- 
tioners at the 1925 Convention. At this gathering, Brother Galpin, 
Northwestern '13 spoke in behalf of the society and while the delegates 
were unwilling to vote on the question of granting a charter, a motion 
was passed asking the Fraternity to make a more serious investigation 
during the coming year. Accordingly Thomas C. Miller visited Norman 
and returned thoroughly convinced that the charter should be granted. 
The Oklahoma City Delta Upsilon Club and various alumni from 
nearby cities flooded the tables of the Board with endorsements of 

488 See the Epsilon Kappa Pi Folder for detailed information. 


various kinds. Delta Pi in the meantime communicated with the va- 
rious chapters. W. Freeman Galpin moreover appeared at the Mon- 
treal Convention, 1926, and spoke in favor of the group which the 
Board now recommended for admission into Delta Upsilon. Consid- 
erable debate took place at this meeting relative to the petitioners, 
and also in respect to the general problem of extension; the net result 
of which was that the delegates denied a charter. Shortly thereafter 
a motion to reconsider was passed and this time the convention unani- 
mously voted to grant a charter. This action being concurred in by 
the Assembly at a later day, steps were taken for installation. The 
ceremonies were conducted January 15, 1927 at the local Masonic Hall, 
Swan acting as master of ceremonies. Two years later Oklahoma moved 
into its present home, 603 West Brooks Avenue. Oklahoma has been 
represented at every convention since its founding. 

A year after the establishment of Oklahoma a charter was granted 
to the Pi Kappa Chi Fraternity of John Hopkins University. Interest 
in this institution dates back to the spring of 1887 when Crossett ad- 
dressed certain inquiries relative to the Fraternity's entrance into that 
college. Some sentiment was expressed in favor of Johns Hopkins but 
after two years of investigation the Executive Council came to the 
conclusion that nothing could be accomplished for the time being. 429 
In 1905, however, there was founded the Pi Kappa Chi Fraternity 
and with this event the history of the John Hopkins Chapter actu- 
ally began. For a number of years this society was content to exist 
as a local organization but by 1923 its members came to the conclusion 
that further growth and service demanded affiliation with some na- 
tional fraternity. Delta Upsilon was investigated by these men and 
became the goal towards which they now bent their energies. During 
1924 communications were addressed to the Board on Petitioning So- 
cieties and a petition presented to the convention of that year. The 
delegates at this meeting voted to lay the petition on the table for a 
year pending further investigation. From that time to the annual 
gathering of 1928 Pi Kappa Chi kept itself before the General Fra- 
ternity by petitions and by the active support of interested members 
of Delta Upsilon, particularly those of Baltimore. Several investiga- 
tions in the form of visits also took place. The net result of these va- 
rious efforts was that a charter was granted at the 1928 Convention. 
Installation took place December 8 of the same year at the Friends 
Meeting House on Charles Street, John D. Scott acting as the master 
of ceremonies. At present the chapter is comfortably located at 3100 
^Minutes of the Executive Council, 1889, Annual, 1887-1889, Quarterly, 

CHAPTER HISTORIES, 1900-1933 295 

North Calvert Street and has been represented at every annual con- 
vention of Delta Upsilon. 

Since that event six new chapters have been added to Delta Upsilon 
whose history as yet has been very brief. At some future date the his- 
torian of Delta Upsilon will devote considerable attention to these 
worthy additions. For the present, however, only a brief resume will 
be presented. In 1922 there was organized at the University of Cali- 
fornia at Los Angeles a society known as Delta Mu Phi which after 
several years of petitioning was installed as a chapter of Delta Upsilon, 
January 12, 1929. Later on November 23 of the same year a chapter 
was established at the University of Manitoba on the basis of Phi 
Epsilon, a local society that had existed since February, 1926. On De- 
cember 6, 1930 there was also established a chapter at Washington and 
Lee. The original petitioning society had been founded December, 
1920 as the Arcades Club. Exactly a year after the establishment of 
this group, Delta Upsilon added to the list of its Canadian Chapters 
by installing a society at the University of Western Ontario; the peti- 
tioning group being known as Sigma Kappa Sigma, whose foundation 
goes back to 1926. On March 4, 1933 Delta Upsilon entered Wash- 
ington State College and on January 6, 1934 a chapter will be in- 
stalled at the University of Oregon. 

The Oregon Chapter is the sixty-third chapter of Delta Upsilon. 
Of these four, Washington and Jefferson, Trinity, Manhattan and 
Princeton, no longer exist. Consequently, Delta Upsilon at present 
has fifty-nine active chapters, and even were the Fraternity to count 
the Vermont society, the record of the Fraternity is indeed a most 
enviable one. Counting Delta Psi of Vermont, Delta Upsilon has had 
a mortality of only 7.8 percent, while not counting Vermont the per- 
centage is but 6.3. Truly the growth of Delta Upsilon has been ex- 
ceedingly cautious and conservative. 4296 
42911 See above p. 102. 

Chapter XIV 



genesis and growth, of Delta Upsilon is well illustrated by an 
examination of its various publications. For purposes of organi- 
zation these writings may be divided into several groups: those that 
appeared before the birth of the Confederation; those that were pub- 
lished during the life of that Fraternity; and finally, those that have 
been issued since the Middlebury Convention of 1864. These divisions 
are more or less arbitrary, though they provide convenient mile posts 
as has been shown by the narrative arrangement of this volume. The 
earliest period covers the years 1834 to 1847. During these years a 
relatively small number of tracts and catalogues appeared, published 
in each case by the societies as a purely chapter affair. The oldest 
known publication seems to have been a Catalogue of the Social Fra- 
ternity, Williams College, which was printed in 1836. A copy of this 
document, as well as another issued in 1838, may be found in the 
Williams College Library. Another issue is supposed to have been 
made in 1837, but of which no copy has been found. This is also the 
case of a similar publication that appeared in 1839. On the basis of 
those catalogues available, it seems reasonable to assume that these 
publications contained a list of the members as well as the Preamble 
and Constitution of the society. Similar tracts appeared in 1844 and 
1845, and it may be that one was issued in 1846. In the meantime the 
Equitable Union of Union College published in 1840 a catalogue in 
which there appears a list of all members since October, 1838, together 
with the Preamble and abstract of the constitution. About the same 
time there appeared a tract known as the Spy Glass, concerning which 
comment has already been made. 430 It is of interest to note, however, 
in passing, that this tract represents a direct effort on the part of its 
430 See above pp. 16-17. 



author to stimulate campus opinion in favor of non-secrecy and in 
opposition to the secret fraternities. In other words, it is nothing more 
or less than a piece of propaganda in the interests of the Equitable 

Shortly after the foundation of the Anti-Secret Confederation, the 
Union Chapter issued another catalogue. In addition to the usual 
information relative to the members and aims of the society there ap- 
peared the idea that students entering Union would do well to join 
a literary rather than a secret organization. And, as their group was 
both anti-secret and literary, the implication was that the Union Chap- 
ter might well merit the careful consideration of all students. A more 
determined attack upon the secret fraternities followed in 1850 with 
the publication of Secret Societies in College which aroused the Greek 
world to print a tract entitled a Review. Alpha Omicron, for so the 
Equitable Union styled itself, replied by a Review of the Review in 
which the claims of the secret organizations were refuted. No copies 
of these last three named tracts have been found. On the basis, how- 
ever, of available evidence, it is clear that the Union Chapter was 
continuing its militant attitude towards the secret societies. Efforts 
somewhat similar in nature were undertaken by the Hamilton Chap- 
ter. Late in December, 1849, this society voted to give to every citizen 
of the village a copy of the constitution. Williams also published some- 
time in the 1850*5 a tract entitled Religious Arguments, of which, 
however, no copy has been found. 431 

In the meantime the Confederation itself had printed Opinions of 
Distinguished Men upon the Influence of Secret Societies. Copies of 
this work seem to have been scattered about in rather large numbers; 
the Williams Chapter alone disposed of fifteen hundred numbers. 
The Confederation also published at various intervals general cata- 
logues in which the names and members of the chapters are listed as 
well as the constitution of the fraternity. 432 Beyond these publications 
nothing more seems to have been issued by either the chapters or 
the national organization with the possible exception of a series of 
communications which passed between the faculty and the Amherst 
Chapter. 433 

Beginning with the Middlebury Convention of 1864 Fraternity pub- 

m Quinquennial, (1884), p. 122, Minutes of the Social Fraternity of Hamilton, 
Dec. 6, 1849, Williams to Rutgers, Oct. 27, 1858, Minutes of the Social Fraternity of 
Williams, June 6, Nov. 7, 1854. 

438 These catalogues may be found at the Fraternity Headquarters. 

^Records of the Conventions of Delta Upsilon, 1854. No copy of these letters 
has been found. 


lications became more numerous and varied. General catalogues, 
known as Triennials, were issued at different times. At first these vol- 
umes contained a copy of the constitution together with a list of the 
chapters and their members. Later on, these catalogues seem to have 
become little more than general fraternity directories. In either case 
the publication, though authorized by the Fraternity, was edited and 
handled by one of the chapters. For example the catalogue of 1859 was 
published by the Amherst Chapter, the cost of each subscription being 
twenty-one cents. This sum was paid directly to the editor. The last 
of the Triennials appeared in 1880, in lieu of which there was issued 
in 1884 the Delta Upsilon Quinquennial Catalogue. The inception of 
this monumental volume goes back to the Brown Convention of 1881. 
At this gathering an amendment to the constitution provided for the 
publication of a general catalogue every five years, the first number 
to appear in 1884, the year of the Fraternity's semi-centennial. A 
committee was also appointed to undertake plans for this publication. 
This body reported in 1882 that William S. Chase, Brown '81, had 
been engaged to act as editor. An advisory committee composed of 
Edward M. Bassett, Joseph A. Adair, and Alfred W. Anthony was 
also appointed to have charge of the finances and general oversight 
of the work. An associate chapter editor, selected by the society, was 
to prepare data from their own records. All expenses incident to this 
effort were to be levied upon the chapters, to be paid by them at 
convention time. 

At the New York Convention of 1884 Bassett, chairman of the ad- 
visory committee, reported that thanks to the "patience, perseverance 
and enthusiasm of Mr. Chase," as well as all others who had been of 
assistance, the Quinquennial had been printed and was ready for dis- 
tribution. One thousand copies had been struck off, and it was the hope 
of Mr. Bassett that all subscriptions would be paid for by the end of 
the year. The convention received this report with considerable satis- 
faction and proceeded to adopt several resolutions relative to the ulti- 
mate disposal of all copies of the Quinquennial. According to these 
resolves the Quinquennial Committee was to handle the affairs of 
distribution and collection for the ensuing six months. At the end of 
this period, the Council was to pay to the Committee a sum of money 
equal to the difference that might exist between the expenses of pub- 
lishing and distribution and the income from all sales. In return for 
this payment the Committee was to hand over to the Executive Coun- 
cil all remaining copies. These copies would then be distributed to 
the chapters who had contracted for the same, provided that all as- 


sessments for the Quinquennial had been paid. If the total sales cov- 
ered all expenses then the remaining copies were to be allotted by 
the Executive Council to each chapter in proportion to its size and 
the number of subscriptions for the Quinquennial. Any surplus in 
income was to be placed in the Fraternity treasury. A vote of thanks 
was also tendered to the Committee and Brother Chase for their labor 
in editing and handling the publication of this catalogue. 434 

According to the above arrangement it would be necessary for the 
Fraternity to levy a special tax upon the chapters in order to secure 
funds to relieve the Committee of the remaining copies at the end 
of six months. Before this time was reached, however, the Committee, 
acting probably in conjunction with the Executive Council, deter- 
mined not to levy this assessment but to continue handling all future 
sales. Expenses, moreover, increased, chiefly due to costs of distribu- 
tion. In spite of this all bills had been paid except for certain sums 
due the editor. To clear up this item, Basset! proposed at the 1885 
Convention that the remaining one hundred and fifty copies be pur- 
chased by the members of the incoming freshman class. Cloth copies 
would be provided all purchasers for $3.25, while gilt-edge editions 
would cost twenty-five cents more. The Convention accepted Bassett's 
report and voted to dispose of as many copies as possible among the 
chapters. In the event that the income from these sales was not enough 
to clear all indebtedness then a per capita tax would be levied upon 
all of the chapters. This, however, was not done until after the 1886 
Convention which voted to allow the Executive Council to levy a tax 
so as to dispose of the ninety-four copies that still remained unsold. 
Accordingly, an assessment was made but even this failed to settle the 
debt due Brother Chase. Finally in 1887 another levy was imposed 
with the result that the Executive Council was able to report to the 
Convention of 1888 that all sums owed Brother Chase had at length 
been paid. It is of interest to note in passing that these extra taxes 
were necessary because of the failure of some of the chapters to meet 
their obligations. 435 

No other general catalogue was published until 1891. The editor of 
this very splendid volume was Wilson L. Fairbanks who had been 
appointed to this office by the Convention of 1889. At this assembly 
resolutions were adopted providing that a salary of three hundred 
fifty dollars be paid the editor plus such sums as might be needed for 
stationery and correspondence. Directions were also given as to what 

434 Annual, 1881-1885, Quarterly, 1.6. 

435 Annual, 1885-1888, Minutes of the Executive Council, 1885-1888. 


should and should not be included within the new Quinquennial, 
and while Fairbanks was to have general charge of both the editorial 
and business work, the Fraternity itself was to pay all costs incident 
to printing. Fairbanks shouldered the responsibility with the same 
enthusiasm which he had evidenced and was still to show in general 
fraternity work. No one can read his lengthy report to the delegates 
of the 1890 Convention and avoid the conclusion that the task had 
been a hard one and that while several persons, notably Brother 
Eidlitz, had been of great help, the greater share of the work had fallen 
upon Fairbanks. These conclusions are amply endorsed upon an ex- 
amination of the catalogue itself. In this volume may be found a 
history of the new chapters since 1884, a bibliography of Fraternity 
publications since the same date and a very valuable directory of mem- 
bers according to chapter and residence. Further, in every case where 
it was at all possible a short biographical sketch appeared for every 
person mentioned. The expenses of this volume were met by an in- 
crease in the yearly assessment upon the various chapters. And while 
some of these societies were backward in paying their accounts, the 
actual sums due Fairbanks and the printers were all paid by i8g3. 436 
The next general catalogue appeared in 1897 and was known as 
the Delta Upsilon, Supplement to Decennial Catalogue. The editor of 
this volume was Will Walter Jackson, Columbia '92, and to him con- 
siderable credit is due. In one sense his labors were made somewhat 
easier than they otherwise would have been and for this he was in- 
debted to the foundation work that Fairbanks had done during the 
years 1889 to 1892. Jackson's work, however, was enormous in itself 
as anyone may see by glancing through the pages of the catalogue which 
contained chapter histories and directories of all members by chapter 
and residence. In 1903 there appeared under the editorship of Melvin 
G. Dodge, Hamilton '90, the Delta Upsilon, Decennial Catalogue. This 
volume followed in the main the plan adopted by previous issues, 
though the biographical data appears to be more extensive and ex- 
haustive. Another Decennial appeared in 1917 under the able editor- 
ship of Lynne J. Bevan, Chicago '03 and W. H. Dannat Pell, Colum- 
bia '09. This volume omitted much of the material that had appeared 
in previous catalogues and consisted chiefly of a directory of members 
according to chapter and residence. Biographical data was given only 
in respect to residence and profession. Another directory of members 
appeared in January, 1929 as part of the current issue of the Quarterly. 
Since that date no other directory has appeared. The expense for these 

^Annual, 1889-1891, Minutes of the Executive Council, 1888-1891. 


various volumes seems to have been met by levies upon the chapters, 
excepting that for 1929, while in each case the editors received a sti- 
pend far below the value of their time and labor. 437 

The Quinquennial of 1884 contained a fairly complete record of 
the activities of the earlier conventions of the Fraternity. This feature 
did not appear in subsequent volumes for the simple reason that be- 
ginning with 1870, this material was printed in the Delta Upsilon> An 
Annual. The convention of that year had authorized the publication 
of this tract and had placed the task in the hands of the Brown Chap- 
ter. Brown had been selected because it had been host to the Fraternity 
that year and for that reason could be expected to handle the work 
more efficiently than any other chapter. Another reason may be found 
in the fact that heretofore the record of convention proceedings had 
been conducted by the entertaining chapter. Similar publications have 
been issued ever since 1870 for every meeting of the Fraternity, and 
prior to 1884 was edited by the chapter holding the convention. Be- 
ginning, however, with that date the publishers of the Quarterly were 
instructed to undertake the management of the Annual, but even then 
copy was furnished by the entertaining chapter. Upon recommenda- 
tion of the Quarterly editors, publication in 1888 and 1889 was en- 
trusted to a specially appointed committee. This procedure was altered 
in 1890 and the entire work was assigned to the Executive Council 
which in turn directed one of its members to act as editor. No further 
change took place until 1921 at which time the issuing of the Annual 
was handed over to the Directors in whose hands it has rested ever since. 

The information contained within the Annuals has varied. The first 
issue, that for 1870, had a record of the proceedings of the convention 
together with the orations and poems delivered before that assembly. 
Equally significant were the reports given by the chapters -and 
alumni clubs. These reports seem to have been given as late as 1890. 
After that date the nature of these communications was changed. 
Formerly, the delegates had presented a narrative account of chapter 
activities but beginning with 1891 these reports amounted to but a 
list of class and college honors together with the number of men 
in each chapter. Even this abbreviated information was left out after 
the issue for 1914. Valuable as this latter material was, it is to be re- 
gretted from a historical point of view that the former procedure 
was not continued. Finally, it may be noted that in time the Annual 
came to include not merely a record of the convention but also a 

437 The 1914 Convention ordered that the Decennial Catalogue be discontinued, 
and that the Council should arrange for the issuing of a directory of members. 


resume of public exercises and entertainments incident to these 
gatherings and what is more important the reports of the Council and 
other administrative bodies of the Fraternity. 438 

The actual editing of the Annual, as has been noted, has not always 
been as complete as might be desired. Prior to 1891 copy was fur- 
nished by the entertaining chapter which was required to gather its 
data as best it could. Frequently, it was compelled to withhold pub- 
lication until officers or committees had forwarded their reports and 
in one case at least a highly important report was entirely omitted. 
What is more, no careful notes seem to have been taken during the 
life of the convention; a defect in method that led in several cases 
to severe misunderstandings among the members themselves. After 
1891 stenographic aid was ordered, but even this provision has not 
always been lived up to. In general, however, the Annuals published 
since 1891 have been of greater interest and value, especially to those 
who desire to trace the historical growth of the Fraternity. The 
financing of the Annual for a number of years was handled by the 
chapter that published the same. Each society was supposed to take 
a certain number of copies, probably as many as it had members, and 
make remittance directly and promptly to the chapter in charge of 
publication. From 1884 to 1887 inclusive the editors of the Quarterly 
handled this work, as did probably the committees of 1888 and 1889. 
When the Executive Council took over the publication in 1890 the 
charge was collected through the yearly assessment, in return for 
which each chapter received at least one copy of the Annual. This 
procedure is still in practice. 439 The approximate cost of publishing 
this tract at present amounts to eighty-six cents. In 1872 the Annual 
cost each subscriber twenty-two cents; in 1885, fifty cents plus post- 
age; and in 1906, ten cents. 

Another publication that has been of considerable interest and 
value is that which relates to the songs of Delta Upsilon. The earliest 
known reference to such appears in a letter addressed by Rochester 
to Rutgers in February, 1860. In this communication, Rochester in- 
quired as to what Rutgers' attitude was towards fraternity songs. At 
Rochester opinion seems to have been divided; some being more 
than enthusiastic, while others believed that it was but a poor imita- 

Annals may be found at the Fraternity Headquarters. 
439 Since 1910 it has been assumed that a share of the expense has been met by 
alumni gifts and taxes; the greater share of the cost, however, is still borne by the 
chapters. Each chapter receives one copy, as do the Trustees and Directors. Since 
1921 each chapter receives an additional copy which has been added to the bound 
volume of the Quarterly, to which each chapter is entitled. 


tion of the practices of the secret societies. Similar letters probably 
were sent to the other chapters. Rutgers also seems to have corre- 
sponded with some of the societies and judging by a reply received 
from Hamilton it is likely that an agreement favorable to the pub- 
lication of a song-book was reached. At least the idea was expressed 
by Hamilton that a volume of songs would soon be out. Nothing, 
however, materialized and it is not until 1863 that any further ref- 
erence to the same appears in our sources. At the convention of that 
year the question was discussed at some length with the result that 
the entire affair was referred to the chapters for further consideration. 
At the Middlebury Convention of 1864, Rochester was directed to 
undertake the publication of a song-book. This chapter in turn dele- 
gated the duty to one of its members, J. S. Van Alstin who seems to 
have written to the chapters asking them to send in their contribu- 
tions. This was in October, 1865 and sometime during the course of 
the next year there appeared a cloth bound volume entitled Songs 
of the Delta Upsilon Fraternity. The book itself consisted of twenty- 
eight pages containing twenty-three songs without and one with 
music. 440 

For several years this volume seemed to satisfy the needs of the 
Fraternity but beginning in 1869 ta ^ arose relative to a possible re- 
vision. A committee on music was appointed by the convention of 
that year; which body, however, reported no progress at the 1870 
gathering. A song-book committee was then appointed. Due to certain 
unknown factors, possibly because there was no convention in 1871, 
the matter was allowed to drop. At the 1872 meeting, the delegates 
voted in favor of a new collection and a committee headed by Brown 
was asked to handle the matter. Brown seems to have written the 
chapters asking for suggestions and in 1873 was authorized to publish 
the results. Difficulties, however, arose so that Brown was unable to 
report anything beyond progress in 1874. A similar statement was 
also made in 1875. Exactly why Brown was unable to carry out its 
commission is not known. It may be that some of the chapters were 
not as cooperative as they might have been. In any event, Brown 
was relieved of its duty and Marietta was asked to take over the 
work. Marietta also tried to gain assistance from the chapters but like 
her predecessor was only able to report progress at the May Con- 
vention of 1876. At the October meeting of the same year, Marietta 

440 Quinquennial, (1884), ,p. 72, Records of the Conventions of Delta Upsilon, 
Rochester to Rutgers, Feb. 28, 1860, Hamilton to Rutgers, Nov. 17, 1860, Madison to 
Rutgers, Jan. 14, 1864, Rochester to Rutgers, Oct. 18, 1865. 


resigned in favor of Cornell. The delegates also instructed Cornell 
to make a selection of the various fraternity songs and together with 
other scores to publish a volume. Some time in 1877 there appeared 
another edition of the Songs of the Delta Upsilon Fraternity. The 
editors of this book were William R. Dudley, Phillip H. Perkins, 
both of Cornell and Charles H. Foote of Western Reserve. David 
Hays of the Rochester Chapter also rendered valuable assistance. 
This volume was about twice the size of the former book and con- 
tained a much larger number of songs with music. 441 

No further edition appeared until 1884, though in the meantime 
both Marietta and Hamilton published small volumes containing a 
moderate number of songs; all, however, without music. 442 In 1879 
talk arose as to a revision of the Cornell book of 1877. The matter 
was referred to a committee of which Martin R. Sackett of Syracuse 
seems to have been the most active member. After sometime, how- 
ever, the matter was allowed to drag, but in 1882 new life was infused 
into the committee as a result of discussions which took place that 
year. The net result was the appearance in 1884 of a volume con- 
taining one hundred forty-four pages and consisting of a large number 
of fraternity and college tunes. The committee in charge was formed 
of John C. Carman, Rochester, Charles F. Sitterly and Ezra S. Tipple, 
both of Syracuse and Charles A. Fulton and Albert J. Truesdale, 
both of Madison. Eight years later, the convention took under ad- 
visement a new edition of this book; the matter by vote being re- 
ferred to the Executive Council. During the next few years reports 
of progress were presented to the convention. The committee in 
charge seems to have been hampered by the lack of cooperation on 
the part of the chapters. Songs and scores were forwarded to the com- 
mittee and while many were of decided value, the bulk were worth- 
less. "The great lack," so the committee stated, "is of original music. 
We have anywhere from six to a dozen songs . . . written to the 
tune of Annie Laurie, and several of the old stand-by tunes have 
been equally favored, and now we want something new." Relatively 
little "new" material was forthcoming, whereupon the committee 
seems to have marked time. Finally, after a lapse of over a year an 
arrangement was made with the editors of the Quarterly for the 
appearance within that magazine of selected songs. In the opinion 
of the Executive Council this was thought expedient, particularly 

m Annual, 1870-1877, Brown to Rutgers, Oct. 24, 1873, Marietta to Rutgers, 
Dec. 9, 1875. 

"* Quinquennial, op. cit. f p. m; see also in the same, p. 122 for reference to a waltz 
by Hays of Rochester. 


since anything like a pretentious volume seemed entirely out of the 
question. A number of songs, accordingly, appeared in the Quarterly 
during 1898 and iSgg. 443 

Nothing further was done until 1904 when the Executive Council 
addressed letters to the chapters asking for material for a new song- 
book. A few new tunes were secured but not enough to warrant 
publication of a new volume. The need, however, continued, and 
on March 17, 1906 the Executive Council arranged with William O. 
Miller of the Pennsylvania Chapter to undertake the task of pub- 
lishing a new book. Miller took his task to heart with the result that 
by the fall of that year Delta Upsilon had the much-desired volume 
of songs. This book was considerably larger than those that had ap- 
peared and contained a large number of songs both with and without 
music. The reception that greeted this book was one that must have 
pleased both the Executive Council and Miller. 444 Ten years later 
another issue appeared under the editorship of John S. Briggs, 
Rochester '90, John R. Slater, Harvard '94, and Monroe Curtis, 
Western Reserve '11. Several other members of the Fraternity, notably 
Arthur M. See of Rochester, assisted in this work. The new book 
contained about fifty percent more material than any previous edition 
and included a large number of old songs whose popularity warranted 
their retention. All in all the volume amounted to one hundred 
eight pages. 445 The demand for this book was soon exhausted and in 
1918 a new edition was printed. It is of interest to note in passing 
that in the second printing of this edition the Fraternity Ode and 
the prayer, "Ave, Mater, Delta U," which had been set to the music 
of Die Wacht Am Rhein and Deutschland, Uber Alles, respectively, 
were arranged to the tunes of Canada and Vesper. These changes 
were made as a result of America's entrance into the World War. 
On the other hand "believing that folk-songs are universal in their 
property rights/' the committee retained two of German origin, 
though even these were now translated into English where before 
German had been used. 446 

In 1920 and 1924 new editions of the issue of 1918 were printed. 
Finally in 1929 under the able editorship of Edward L. Seip the 
present song-book was printed. In the main this was but another 
issue of the 1918 volume. Even then the changes that had been made in 

** Annual, 1881-1899, Quinquennial (1891), pp. 121-122, Quarterly, 1:4, 22, 55, 
II: 11, 19, 144-146, IX: 145. 

*" Annual, 1904, 1906, Minutes of the Executive Council, 1906. 
"* Song-Book of the Delta Upsilon Fraternity, 1916. 
*Ibid., 1918. 


the interests of patriotism were not altered. The volume itself con- 
sisted o one hundred ninety-one pages, most of which was devoted 
to scores, although in one or two cases merely the words appear. 447 

The undergraduate has found the song-book of great value. Fra- 
ternity meetings, banquets, initiations and general conventions have 
been featured by the mass singing of the delegates. The alumni have 
also found these songs of immense interest in that they have aided 
these men in renewing their undergraduate experiences as well as in 
knitting more closely the fraternal ties formed at initiation. 

The cost of printing these various books has been met in a number 
of ways. Probably the expense of the 1865 volume was met by the 
chapters remitting directly to Rochester the amount owed. Whether 
each chapter subscribed for as many copies as it had members, which 
was often the case of the Annual, or merely ordered a limited num- 
ber is not known. The records of the conventions from 1864 to 1870 
as given in the Quinquennial are none too complete, while nothing 
in this respect has been found among the other sources for these years. 
As only a few copies of this edition are known to be extant, it is 
likely that only a limited number were printed and it is hoped that 
its editor received remuneration sufficient to meet all expenses. The 
edition of 1877 was probably arranged for in a similar manner, 
though there is not a single entry in any of the sources relative to 
this matter. Of the 1884 volume little more is known. Doubtless a 
thousand copies of this book were printed of which six hundred 
were sold to the chapters to cover expenses; the balance being dis- 
tributed in due time among the societies. Each copy sold for $1.50, 
which seems to have been remitted directly to J. C. Carman of Roch- 
ester. Evidently, the management of this book, though ordered by 
the Fraternity, was left in the hands of the committee. After the 
Executive Council took over affairs in 1885 a11 orders were filled by 
that body, each book costing $1.65; the increase doubtlessly taking 
place to take care of transportation charges. 448 

The 1906 edition of the song-book while handled by Miller was 
underwritten by the Fraternity. A thousand copies appear to have 
been printed, each selling at 11.50 post paid. Orders for this book 
were to be sent to Arthur E. Bestor, 5711 Kimbark Avenue, Chicago, 
Illinois. After all expenses had been paid, Miller was to receive 

^Ibid,, 1929 A new edition appeared in 1933. At various times small leaflets 
containing the words of many of the songs have been printed for use at banquets 
and the like 

^Syracuse to Rochester, Oct. 17, 1883, Rochester to Rutgers, Mar. 8, 1884, 
Quarterly, V:24p. 

Underwood <t TJnderwood 









\fnffltt It It, ^C II 











twenty percent of the net sales, though his total royalty was not to 
exceed two hundred fifty dollars. For a number of years thereafter 
copies might be purchased through the Secretary of the Executive 
Council, while in 1915 that body offered for sale the remaining 
copies, somewhat damaged, for one dollar each. Of the 1916 edition 
copies might be obtained directly from the Fraternity Headquarters, 
50 Broad Street, New York City. The price of this book, as well as 
that of 1918, was placed at one dollar a copy; while the editions of 
1920 and 1924 sold at a dollar and a dollar and a half respectively. 
The latter price also held for the edition of 1929. Since October, 
1914 all initiates had been required to purchase a copy of this song- 
book, which charge was absorbed a year later by the initiate tax. 
As matters stand today, each undergraduate receives through his 
initiate tax a song-book; while all others desiring a copy purchase 
the same through the Fraternity Headquarters for one dollar and a half. 

Another publication received at present by a member at the time 
of his initiation is the Manual of Delta Upsilon. The genesis of this 
publication may be traced back to the thirty-seven page tract com- 
piled by Crossett and Robert J. Eidlitz, entitled Our Record. This 
modest publication appeared in 1886 and contained statistics and 
information relative to Delta Upsilon. No other issue appeared for 
some time, though beginning in the fall of 1891 the Executive Coun- 
cil issued a four-page circular, entitled Delta Upsilon, which pre- 
sented a brief history of the Fraternity, the roll of chapters, a list 
of prominent alumni and a statement of the organizations and pub- 
lications of Delta Upsilon. These circulars, somewhat increased in 
size, continued to appear until 1906. In the meantime the Executive 
Council, after considerable discussion revived Our Record, the first 
copy appearing late in 1896. What this tract contained is not known 
as no copy exists among the Fraternity archives. The Quarterly con- 
tinued to run a statement of this publication for a number of years, 
during which time Hall seems to have edited Our Record, at least 
beginning in 1902. It is apparent from certain items in the treasurer's 
report in 1903 and 1906 that new editions were published, but 
whether this expense was due to a revision or merely a re-printing 
of the older copy cannot be determined from the evidence at hand. 449 

The value of Our Record by this time was well appreciated and 
it may be this fact that prompted the Chicago Convention of 1904 
to instruct the Executive Council to investigate the possibility of 

***Our Record, 1886, Delta Upsilon, 1891-1905, Quarterly, 1896-1906, Annual, 
1903, 1906. See also Quarterly, VIII 1209. 


publishing a "Book of Delta Upsilon," According to the records of 
the Executive Council an extensive survey was undertaken and cir- 
cular letters written to the chapters asking them if they would support 
an edition of the proposed work which would cost approximately 
two thousand dollars. The replies, which were received from about 
three-fourths of the chapters, showed a decided reluctance to assume 
this expense, as a result of which the Executive Council decided to 
allow the matter to drop. The convention, however, endorsed the 
opinion to continue Our Record and in 1906 ordered the Executive 
Council to issue a revised edition "in time for the rushing season." 
This the Council did and in the summer of 1907 a new issue was 
distributed among the chapters. Another edition appeared, at the 
request of the chapters who believed this tract to be of considerable 
value in rushing, in 1908. At the convention of that year the Execu- 
tive Council suggested that the delegates consider the advisability of 
printing every three or four years a large and more credible edition 
of Our Record as well as an annual four-page statement of the special 
honors of each year. This suggestion was enthusiastically endorsed 
by the delegates and the Executive Council proceeded at once to 
carry out the idea. The Executive Council found, however, on in- 
vestigation that the expense was altogether too heavy for the Fra- 
ternity to bear. Accordingly, Our Record continued to appear as one 
of the Fraternity publications. In the main this tract contained the 
same general information as had been given by Crossett in his publica- 
tion of 1886. 

At the December, 1914 meeting of the Council it was decided to 
ask the convention's approval of the publication of a volume to be 
known as the Manual of Delta Upsilon. This volume was to include 
material as given in Our Record, a brief history of the Fraternity, 
the Constitution and By-Laws, insignia rules, provision regarding 
the expulsion of members, proper filing and accounting systems, a 
list of Fraternity publications and other pertinent information. Al- 
though the delegates expressed some concern over the cost that 
would be involved the Council was instructed to go ahead, as a 
result of which there appeared in the spring of 1916 the first edition 
of the Manual. The editor of this work was Herbert Wheaton Cong- 
don and to him much credit is due for a very instructive and interest- 
ing volume. In 1920 Congdon and Swan revised the Manual, making 
several changes of importance. The editions of 1923 and 1926 fol- 
lowed in the main the work outlined by these men. Lynne J. Bevan 
was in charge of the issue of 1929, while Joseph P. Simmons and 


Carroll B. Larrabee handled it in 1933. Each undergraduate upon 
being initiated into the Fraternity has received a copy of the Manual, 
while others may purchase the same through the Fraternity Head- 
quarters for one dollar. 

Only chapters may purchase the Ritual, detailed information 
concerning which is taken up elsewhere in this volume. 450 At various 
times the Fraternity has also published for the use of its members 
reports of the Board of Trustees, Board of Directors, the Executive 
Council, the Council and the Board on Petitioning Societies. All of 
these also appeared in the Annual. Among minor publications might 
be mentioned leaflets that appeared at different times like the Budget 
and Initiate Blanks. All of these tracts and volumes have been of 
immense value to the Fraternity, though probably no publication 
equals in significance and importance the Fraternity magazine, the 
Delta Upsilon Quarterly. 

As early as 1852 the idea of a Fraternity periodical was discussed 
by the delegates at convention. A committee, moreover, was then 
appointed to investigate the affair. This body found that the expense 
was altogether too great for the chapters to handle and so the matter 
with much regret was allowed to drop. 461 In 1866 the idea was ad- 
vanced again at the Rochester Convention. After some discussion 
the delegates instructed Hamilton and New York to "publish a 
semi-annual periodical in the interests of the Fraternity." These 
societies selected Henry R. Waite and Nelson B. Sizer as editors, 
both of whom proceeded to give considerable attention to the matter. 
Circular letters were sent out to the chapters outlining the plan and 
scope of the contemplated work with a request for local cooperation. 
In general, the response was such as to encourage these men to go 
on with their plans. The chapters, however, were slow in sending 
in copy so that it was not until April, 1868 that the first issue of Our 
Record made its appearance. Even then it appeared as Volume I, 
Nos. i and 2, for October and April, 1867 to 1868. Of the twenty-nine 
pages of content information approximately one-half was devoted to 
an essay by William J. Erdman, Hamilton '56, entitled "Truth and 
Freedom." The remainder included a sketch of the Middlebury 
Chapter, a poem, "The Isle of the River of Time," an article, "Anti- 
Secrecy In and Out of College," Minutes of the Thirty-Second Con- 
vention, some editorials and fraternity news, and a plea for greater 
assistance on the part of the chapters in respect to future issues. Al- 

480 See below pp. 345-354. 

461 Records of the Conventions of Delta Upsilon, 1852. 


though the chapters seemed pleased with this periodical they were 
quite reluctant to meet their financial obligations. What sums the 
editors had collected were used to pay off the printer, while other 
expenses remained unpaid. Small wonder was it therefore that Waite 
and Sizer decided to sink no more of their own money into an effort 
that the chapters were not willing to pay for. Both of these men 
doubtless aired their feelings on the floor of the 1868 Convention as 
that body took immediate steps to re-vitalize the periodical. The 
constitution itself was altered so as to provide for further publication 
on a semi-annual basis under a graduate editor and assistant editor 
of each chapter. "Each chapter," so the constitution stated, "shall 
subscribe for one copy for each member and one extra copy for every 
four members; one-third of the extra copies to be at the disposal of 
the editors." Provision was also made for editing and the chapters 
faithfully promised to pay off their debts. 452 

Believing that the chapters had acted in good faith, Waite to- 
gether with a number of assistant editors, issued Volume II, Nos. i 
and 2, October and April, 1868 to 1869. In the main this copy con- 
tained the same general kind of material that its predecessor had 
presented; but once again, the chapters were quite remiss in meeting 
their obligations. Accordingly, Waite allowed the magazine to dis- 
appear. The Madison Convention of 1869, however, sought to revive 
the project. After some discussion it was agreed that a quarterly 
magazine should appear, to be known as the University Review. 
Although this periodical was to serve as a medium for disseminating 
news relative to the Fraternity it was also to be a means "for the 
interchange of views among all college men in sympathy with its 
principles." Waite, who was present at this meeting, at first declined 
to consider the editorship that was offered him. However, after the 
chapters had pledged themselves to become financially responsible 
for the venture he accepted the proposition. The University Quar- 
terly Review made its appearance in January, 1870. It was ornately 
printed with a cover of blue and gold and contained some fifty pages 
of material. On the basis of available evidence it would seem that 
both the alumni and undergraduates were highly pleased with the 
effort. Letters to that effect were sent to the editor and it was with 
this endorsement that Waite issued another number in May, even 
though some of the chapters had forgotten their promises to pay 
for the January issue. Even after the appearance of the second num- 

453 Quarterly, 11:1-3, Quinquennial (1884), pp. 22, 82, Waite to Rutgers, Nov. 11, 


her, which was probably better than the first, some of the chapters 
ignored their obligations and left Waite with many an unpaid bill. 
Waite reported these matters to the delegates at the Brown Con- 
vention of June, 1870 and read an exhibit of the financial condition 
of the review and of the plans for its future. The Annual reports 
that a spirited discussion followed, though it fails to record what 
sentiments were expressed. Evidently the majority were opposed to 
the venture, as the magazine was suspended. A committee, however, 
was appointed to investigate the conditions of the review. What this 
committee was to do is not stated though it is reasonable to assume 
that it intended to make some settlement with Waite. Nothing, how- 
ever, was done, and it was not until "some years later" that the 
Fraternity recognized its obligations to Waite. The University Quar- 
terly Review was issued from the Delta Upsilon Club at 817 Broad- 
way, New York. 453 

Although these literary activities had failed, the need for a Fra- 
ternity publication still continued. Indeed, as the years went on it 
became more and more apparent that some type of a magazine was 
essential. Sentiment in this direction was very effectively presented 
at the 1881 Convention. At this meeting the delegates voted to 
establish a magazine, the editorship of which was to rotate among 
the chapters in order of seniority. According to this provision Union 
should have issued a periodical during the ensuing year but due to 
certain difficulties, chiefly financial, nothing was accomplished. The 
Convention of 1882, however, accepted the offer made by the Amherst 
delegate, Alexander D. Noyes, in behalf of his chapter, to undertake 
the task of issuing a quarterly. Each chapter, according to a resolution 
that was passed, was to have an assistant editor whose duty consisted 
in furnishing pertinent material relative to the life of his chapter. 
Noyes himself was aided by George B. Foster, Frank C. Peabody, 
Cassius M. Clark and Alonzo M. Murphey, all of Amherst. Number 
one of the Delta Upsilon Quarterly made its appearance on De- 
cember 22, 1882 and from that day to this the Quarterly has been a 
vital and regular feature of Fraternity activity. In this number Noyes 
stated that the magazine was to be an organ of the Fraternity, dis- 
seminating news items of interest relative to both graduate and 
undergraduate happenings and affording an opportunity for a free 
exchange of views on general Fraternity problems. Literary contribu- 
tions of merit would also find a place within the periodical. In size 
468 Quarterly, II: 1-4, Annual, 1870, Quinquennial, op. cit , pp. 112-113. 


the first issue contained fifteen pages, each page being approximately 
seven and one-half inches by nine and one-half. The general editorial 
board remained the same for the first three issues but with the fourth 
and last number of volume one, Cassius M. Clark was managing 
editor, assisted by Edward M. Bassett, Edward Simonds and Alonzo 
M. Murphey, all of Amherst. The subscription price was fifty cents 
a year or fifteen cents a copy. 454 

According to the action of the Brown Convention the publication 
was to rotate among the chapters. The evident disadvantages of such a 
plan were pointed out by Noyes in the March, 1883, issue. Noyes be- 
lieved that while the editors might change from year to year it was 
necessary that the business office should be more permanent. Otherwise, 
he contended, there might be variation as to size, quality and cost. A 
little later, Noyes argued that both the editorial and business offices 
should be lodged in the hands of the alumni, though each chapter was 
to retain an associate editorship. Sentiments of this type were presented 
at the 1883 Convention where it was voted to place the editing and 
publishing of the magazine in the hands of a board formed of alumni 
and undergraduates. The Quarterly was to appear some time between 
the first and twentieth of January, April, June and October; was to be 
published at New York and was to sell to all subscribers for one dollar 
a year. The editorial board was to be elected annually by the con- 
vention. 455 

Volume II made its appearance in February, 1884, and consisted of 
forty-eight pages, six by nine and three-quarters inches, exclusive of 
the cover, which had a table of contents in the front and advertising 
material on the back. The chief editor was Rossiter Johnson, Rochester 
'63, assisted by Henry Waite, Alexander Noyes, Frederick Crossett and 
John D. Blake. Crossett was business manager and to him at 842 Broad- 
way all communications were to be sent. Each chapter also had its 
associate editor. The personnel of these associate editors varied during 
the next two years, while the general editors remained the same except 
that Noyes in February, 1885, was followed by George A. Minasian. 
During these years the general form of the Quarterly did not vary to 
any extent. 

Beginning with February, 1886, Crossett became chief editor, an 
office that he held through 1892. At the time he took over office he was 
assisted by Noyes, Bassett, Robert Eidlitz and Hamilton L. Marshall, 

** Quarterly, Iipassim, 1/329-331, Annual, 1881, 1882. 
455 Quarterly, Iipassim, Annual, 1883. 



all o whom had been chosen by the convention. 456 The following year 
the appointment of all assistant editors was placed in the hands of the 
chief editor, though one of these, by a constitutional amendment in 
1891, had to be the Secretary of the Executive Council. Prior to 1888, 
Crossett received no remuneration for his services, though as Secretary 
of the Executive Council he did draw a small income. In recognition of 
his work on the Quarterly the delegates in 1888 voted him a salary of 
three hundred and fifty dollars. Three years later this was lowered fifty 
dollars and in 1892 cut down to one hundred and fifty dollars. The 
size of the Quarterly from 1886 to 1892 remained about the same as in 
1885 and cost each subscriber a dollar a year. The handling of these 
subscriptions, at first, had been left to the editorial board, but by the 
close of 1891 it was altered so that each chapter had to subscribe for 
as many copies of the Quarterly as it had members in the three upper 
classes, an arrangement that was not to be altered for some time. Prior 
to this date the entire financial management had been in the hands of 
the chief editor; after 1891, however, all accounts were to be submitted 
to the Auditor of the Fraternity for approval. 

Under Crossett's control the number of subscribers steadily increased. 
During the Fraternity year 1884-1885 there appears to have been over 
six hundred subscribers from whom an income was gained which was 
sufficient to meet all expenses. The following table will show the finan- 
cial growth of the Quarterly while Crossett was editor-in-chief. 

Bills Bills 

Expenses Balance Receivable Payable 

$896.61 $23.04 $297-50 

956.90 127 15 221.50 $137.15 

1,01848 170.36 201.50 170.36 
ed in the Annual for this year. 

14873 5 60 214.37 125.04 

M43-59 280.99 436.00 20248 

1,085.15 410.01 755-75 322.00 

On the basis of the above information it can readily be seen that while 
expenses increased, the income more than offset these added costs. It 
should also be noted that the item of bills receivable represents chiefly 
unpaid subscriptions, most of which were due from undergraduates, 
and that in 1887 and 1888 the amount included as "balance" actually 

486 Other assistant editors from 1886 to 1892 were Henry W. Brush, S. J. Murphy, 
C. S. Eytinge, A. W. Ferris, Asa Wynkoop, H. C. Wood, S. A. Brickner, W. L. Fair- 
banks, S. S. Hall, J. E. Massee, E. J. Thomas and W. J. Warburton. 









tion of 






$172 oo 











No Statement Pnn 













was a deficit. Other matters, quite obvious to the reader, need no fur- 
ther comment. And while Crossett's management of the Quarterly was 
not all that the members of the Fraternity desired, the fact remains 
that he handled and edited the magazine under very trying conditions. 
At no time was he able to devote all of his energy to this one task. As 
Secretary of the Executive Council and editor of the Annual, Crossett 
had much to do. To the historian Crossett's work is of decided interest. 
The Quarterly fairly bristles with generous chapter reports, news 
items, clear-cut editorials, a stimulating exchange column and valuable 
information as to convention activities and fraternity life in general. 
The Quarterly stands as an everlasting monument to the loyalty of 
the man. Delta Upsilon is most heavily indebted to Frederick M. 

In 1893 Crossett resigned from the editorial board of the Quarterly, 
his place being taken by one of his former assistants, Wilson L. Fair- 
banks. The first issue that appeared under the new editor was some- 
what larger in size and was characterized by an increase in illustrations. 
Fairbanks himself thought that a fraternity magazine should appear 
more often than four times a year. "More frequent issues, say monthly, 
mean more live matter, greater influence as a fraternity organ, and 
probably greater circulation as a corollary. From a business standpoint 
it would mean more advertising, probably sufficient to meet any in- 
creased expense of publication." Indeed for a time, Fairbanks had 
seen the amount of advertising fall considerably, a decline that was 
due primarily to the failure of the chapters to meet their obligations. 
No concern could be expected to advertise in a periodical whose cir- 
culation was constantly fluctuating and which was delayed in publica- 
tion as the result of a lack of funds. All of these various considerations 
were discussed in the Council and by them referred to the delegates 
who assembled in convention in 1893. As a result the constitution of 
the Fraternity was amended in the interests of a larger and better Quar- 
terly. Every active member of each chapter was required to subscribe 
for this periodical and make payment for the same to the Executive 
Council as part of his per capita tax. All sums so received by the Execu- 
tive Council were to be turned over to the editor of the Quarterly 
which in the future was to be known as the Delta Upsilon Magazine, 
to be issued at least quarterly and to be under an Editor-in-chief, 
whose assistants were to include the Secretary of the Executive 
Council. 457 

The Delta Upsilon Magazine made its appearance in March, 1894 
"* Quarterly, XI:27, Annual, 1893. 


and was issued as a monthly fourteen times down to and including 
April, 1896. Although it is evident that Fairbanks had issued at least 
four numbers per year, and that was all that the delegates had stipu- 
lated in 1893, the Magazine had not appeared as a monthly, which had 
been the editor's aim. In the main, this defect was due to the failure 
of the chapters to meet their obligations. Fairbanks and his assistants, 
who included Robert J. Eidlitz, George P. Morris, Robert M. Lovett, 
Ellis J. Thomas, Thornton B. Penfield, and Will Walter Jackson, had 
labored to make the periodical a success and it was due to no fault of 
theirs that earlier expectations were not realized. No definite state- 
ment can be given of the financial side of the Magazine during the 
years that Fairbanks was in charge as no fiscal report appears in the 
Annual. It is evident, however, on the basis of other evidence that the 
Magazine by the fall of 1895 was operating on a profit. To have accom- 
plished this in the face of so many difficulties was a noticeable achieve- 
ment. And yet Fairbanks believed that more might have been done 
and would have been done but for the fact that his own work on the 
New York Times consumed most of his energy and time. It was for 
this reason that Fairbanks ofiered his resignation to the Convention 
of 1896. The delegates recognized the justice of his pica and after 
some discussion voted to place the editing and publishing of the Maga- 
zine in the hands of the Executive Council. 458 

The Executive Council, acting on the advice of Fairbanks, appointed 
Thornton B. Penfield to be Editor-in-chief. Penfield entered upon his 
work with consideiable enthusiasm. The first issue that appeared un- 
der his direction was for December, 1896. From then on until Decem- 
ber, 1901, Penfield managed the magazine, which had been re-named 
the Delta Upsilon Quarterly, assisted by H. C. Wyckoff and Goldwin 
Goldsmith. In return for his labor Penfield received for most of the 
time the modest salary of three hundred dollars a year. 450 The Quar- 
terly grew in size and influence, under Penfield's management. Each 
issue came out on time and that in the face of many difficulties, chief 
of which was the failure of some of the chapters to meet their obliga- 
tions, financial or otherwise. In view of the fact that Penfield acted as 
the agent of the Executive Council no report was presented by him to 
the Convention. From the annual statement of the Council, however, 
it may be seen that the Fraternity at large was more than pleased with 
what Penfield had done. During his first year a total income of 

488 Annual, 1894-1896. 

^During 1900, a salary of $350.00 was paid. See Minutes of the Executive Council, 
Dec. 8, 1899. 


$1201.24 was reported by S. S. Hall, the Treasurer of the Fraternity. 
Of this but eighty dollars came from advertisements, the balance aris- 
ing from subscriptions. On the other hand the expenses amounted to 
$1186.73, leaving a favorable balance of $14.51, to which might be 
added $272.00 still due from unpaid subscriptions. This was the last 
year that an itemized statement of the finances of the Quarterly ap- 
peared in the Annual. In the Quarterly, however, for December, 1890, 
Penfield presented the fact that during the year 1896 to 1897 there had 
been a favorable balance of $14.51. During the next two years there 
was a deficit of $257.00 and $206.90 respectively, though during 1899 
to 1900 there was a net gain of Ji^-.Sj. 460 

During 1900 to 1901, although Penfield was listed as general editor, 
Goldwin Goldsmith actually assumed responsibility for the conduct 
of the periodical. 461 Late in 1901 Penfield resigned from the board to 
accept the position of International Secretary of the Young Men's 
Christian Association and from that time until 1907 Goldsmith was 
Editor-in-chief. At the request of the Executive Council, Goldsmith 
introduced additional features and also undertook a drive for increas- 
ing the number of alumni subscribers. Further, he was able to bring 
about an amendment to the By-Laws providing that each member upon 
retiring from his chapter should subscribe for the Quarterly for the 
ensuing three years. The actual number of alumni subscribers gained 
by this amendment did not equal by any means the total that it should 
have, largely because there was no effective method available of mak- 
ing these graduate subscribers live up to their promises. In spite of 
this, however, alumni patrons of the Quarterly increased from three 
hundred thirty-six to one thousand twelve during the seven years that 
Goldsmith was in charge. In addition, the size of the Quarterly in- 
creased from two hundred pages in volume XVIII to four hundred 
eighty in volume XXV. The fact that it had taken all of seven years to 
bring about this gain is striking proof of the enormous amount of 
labor and time given by Goldsmith, for which he received the modest 
stipend of three hundred dollars a year. Goldsmith himself felt that 
a far better record should have been established and would have been 
had the chapters and the alumni lived up to their obligations. Even 
the content information in the Quarterly might have been improved 
had the chapter editors been more prompt in sending in their com- 

460 Annual, 1897-1900, Quarterly, XlX.iS-iy. The amount paid out in salaries was 
not charged to the Quarterly. 

461 Goldsmith was placed as Business Manager in Nov., 1900. His salary was raised 
in Nov., 1906 to four hundred dollars, one-half of which was to go for office help. 
See Minutes of the Executive Council, 1900, 1906. 


munications and alumni news. At times, indeed, no reports were re- 
ceived from some of the chapters, a fact that led Goldsmith to propose 
in 1907 the editor be empowered to compel the offending chapter to 
appoint a new local editor. 

The financial history of the Quarterly during the years that Gold- 
smith was in charge is revealed by the following material: 402 

Years Income Expenses Deficit Balance 

1900-1901 $1,163.63 $1,315.20 $15127 

1901-1902 1,22250 1,422,50 200 oo 

1902-1903 1,236.06 1,367.06 131.00 

1903-1904 1,31950 1,304.04 .. $ 1546 

1904-1905 1,40989 1,589-18 17929 

1905-1906 1,98850 1,684.23 .. . 30437 

1906-1907 2,061.53 2,056.82 471 

At the beginning of the year 1906-1907, Goldsmith was elected to the 
Executive Council and although he retained his post on the Quarterly, 
William O. Miller became to all intents and purposes the Editor-in- 

Miller held this chair for four years during which time the number 
of alumni subscribers all but reached four thousand. Miller also made 
certain changes in the covers of the Quarterly and published the fiist 
illustration in colors in any fraternity maga/ine. During Miller's ad- 
ministration the Fraternity constitution was altered in a number of 
ways that affected the management of the Quarterly. According to 
these changes Miller and his assistants for a time were listed as Fra- 
ternity officers under direct control of the convention and Executive 
Council, of which latter body they were more 01 less a standing sub- 
committee. Each chapter was to subscribe for as many copies as it had 
undergraduate members and for one extra copy which was to be fur- 
nished the chapter in the form of a bound volume at the close of the 
year. In addition each active member paid an initiate tax the income 
of which was used to provide a subscription for two years after leaving 
college. 403 The income gained from the Quarterly was to be included 
in the estimate of Fraternity expenses and was to be remitted to the 
editor by the Executive Council. In the event that an associate editor 
failed to perform his duties another member might be appointed upon 
recommendation of the Executive Council. 

m Annual, 1901-1907. Actually during 1906-1907 there was a deficit of $31.71 due 
to certain outstanding bills payable. 

M Annual, 1907-1911. In 1911 the Quarterly editors were removed from the Fra- 
ternity officers and placed directly under the Council. In 1911 the initiate tax was 
altered so as to entitle each member to the Quarterly for only one year after leaving 


During the years that Miller was in charge of the Quarterly the 
following financial record was reported: 464 

Years Income Expenses Bills Pay- Bills Re- Deficit Surplus 

able ceivable 

1907-1908 $2,85352 $2,80752 $560.50 $78500 $15850 

1908-1909 3,60326 3*588.89 68147 87800 18325 .... 

1909-1910 3,78628 3,784.72 1*533-75 1,298.19 $237.12 

1910-1911 3,918.25 3,900.50 1,39600 887.17 5883 

While it is to be noted that a favorable balance appeared for the last 
two years, it will readily be seen that the outstanding debts due the 
Quarterly had risen to greater heights than ever before. Actually, the 
cash balance for the year 1910-1911 was but $17.75 which in itself was 
more than wiped out by bills payable. The failure on the part ol 
the subscribers, chiefly alumni, to meet their obligations explains why 
a larger cash balance was not on hand. And yet, Miller's record had 
been a splendid one, particularly when it is contrasted with the reports 
of the previous years. Small wonder was it, therefore, that the Execu- 
tive Council and the Fraternity regretted Miller's retirement in the 
fall of 1911. 

Sheldon J. Howe, Brown '08, succeeded Miller and held the position 
of chief editor for two years. During Howe's management the Fra- 
ternity By-Laws were altered so as to provide each chapter member 
with the Quarterly for one year after his retirement from college. The 
following year, however, these laws were changed back to the former 
condition whereby a graduating member was to receive the maga/inc 
for two years after he had left college. The financial status of the 
Quarterly while Howe was editor, is as follows: 405 

Years Income Expenses Bills Pay- Bill Re- Deficit Balance 

able ceivable 

1911-1912 $5*397-83 ?5*i7769 $1,99250 $2,11189 $119.39 

1912-1913 5* l8 7-64 5*35-3 1*94610 2,721.97 775.78 

Once again the thing that attracts attention is not the increase in 
revenue and expenses but rather the steady rise in bills payable and 
receivable. In respect to the assets, approximately ninety-five percent 
consisted of unpaid alumni subscriptions, of which an appreciable 
amount was two years overdue. Needless to say, most of this, if not all, 
would never be collected; a fact that Howe stressed in his annual 
report in October, 1913. Were it not for the fact that advance sub- 
scriptions to the amount of $1,393.35 had been received during the 

* Annual, 1908-1911. Miller's salary in 1907 was $300 plus clerical help; the bal- 
ance of the time it was $500 with no allowance for help. 
* Annual, 1912-1913, Minutes of the Executive Council, Nov. 28, 1913. 


year 1912-1913 a "disastrous crisis would have arisen. As it was the 
Quarterly actually carried an indebtedness at the end of that year of 
about $1,300. To meet this situation, Howe proposed that back debts 
be paid and that either the price of the magazine be raised or else 
that a drive be made foi greater advertisements." 466 

So serious was the situation that the Board of Trustees, to whom the 
Executive Council in the early fall of 1913 had assigned the control 
of the Quarterly, made it the topic of a meeting held late in November 
of the same year. At this gathering it was brought out that the expense 
of publishing four numbers a year amounted to $1.20, while the income 
for the same equalled but ninety-nine cents. The net loss of twenty-one 
cents was explained on the ground that six hundred free copies were 
issued annually. The Trustees believed that this deficit should not be 
erased by increasing the subscription price of the undergraduates which 
already was $1.50 per year. On the other hand the alumni were paying 
but one dollar and this the board felt might safely be doubled. At the 
same time printing costs might be cut down so that the annual expense 
of four numbers would be around $1.04. Offsetting this, an income 
of $1.42 might be realized. The Trustees were also of the opinion that 
the accounts of the Quarterly should be combined with that of the 
Treasurer. 407 No change was considered in the provision which allotted 
the Quarterly for two years after leaving college to each undergraduate; 
the cost of this being borne by a special assessment known as the "ini- 
tiate tax." The Trustees also believed that it would be unwise to in- 
crease the alumni rates as that might lead to a decrease in subscriptions. 
As general editor the Board appointed Walter Wilgus of the Michigan 
Chapter and later, in April, 1915, Walter P. McGuire, Minnesota '04. 
McGuire remained in office until June, 1916. Both of these men drew 
a salary of $500 a year, though this amount since October, 1914, was 
no longer paid by the Council but by the Trustees who received 
annually from the Council a sum equal to one dollar and a half for 
each undergraduate subscription and from this amount the Trustees 
paid the editor's salary. 468 

In the hope of still furthering the activities of the Quarterly the 
Trustees created what was known as the Quarterly Committee of which 
the editor was by far the most important member. Again, the Board 
was able in June, 1916, to obtain the services of Herbert Wheaton 
Congdon, Columbia '97, as editor, a post that he held until June, 

*lbid., 1913- 

407 Minutes of the Board of Trustees, Nov. 38, 1913. 

m Annual, 1914-1915. 


1923. During these years several important changes were made in the 
management of the Quarterly. Late in 1917 the By-Laws were amended 
so as to provide each alumnus with the Quarterly as long as he paid an 
annual tax of three dollars. Further, in the interest of relieving the 
chapters oE financial troubles, which crowded these groups on the 
advent of America's entrance into the World War, the Council voted 
to hold each chapter responsible for but three subscriptions. This 
provision expired upon the close of the War. Again in 1920 a change 
was made in the use of the Initiate tax in so far as it concerned the 
Quarterly. For some time past a share of this item had been set aside 
to provide each member upon leaving college with the Quarterly for 
two years. The rapid increase in alumni subscriptions made this feature 
no longer necessary. In lieu, therefore, the By-Laws were altered so 
that the Initiate tax might be used in part to pay the alumni tax of 
each graduate for one year. And the payment of this sum entitled each 
member to a year's subscription to the Quarterly upon becoming a 
graduate member of the Fraternity. This was altered in 1921 so as to 
provide a copy of the Quarterly to each undergraduate upon the pay- 
ment of his chapter tax, no provision existing for his receiving copies 
after graduation as had been the case before. Finally, it should be 
noted that under Congdon's direction the Quarterly had improved to 
a marked extent. The content material was of a higher type and the 
skill that he showed in handling the finances was reflected by a rising 
income and a decreasing expense. Even during the War, the Quarterly 
earned both profits and reputation. 469 

In the spring of 1923, Congdon retired from the post that he had 
filled so well and from then until January, 1925, the Quarterly Com- 
mittee of the Directors, headed by Frank W. Noxon, which had taken 
over this periodical from the Trustees, handled the Quarterly. Part of 
the editorial labor was carried by Harvey R. Cook of Rutgers for which 
he received one hundred dollars for each number he issued. Noxon, 
on the other hand, received no compensation at any time. By the close 
of 1924 Thomas C. Miller reported to the Directors that Noxon 
wished to be relieved and that it would now be necessary for the Board 
to canvass the field for a new editor. A special committee was ap- 
pointed and its report was accepted by the Directors in December, 

1924. According to this report, Carroll B. Larrabee was appointed 
Editor-in-chief at a salary of six hundred dollars a year. Larrabee, 
therefore, became by this action a member of the Quarterly Commit- 

409 Annual, 1916-1923, Minutes of the Executive Council, Oct. 27, 1918, Minutes o 
Board of Trustees, 1916-1923 


tee. It should be noted in passing that the Directors passed a splendid 
lesolution thanking Noxon for his services. Under Larrabee's adminis- 
tration the high quality of the magazine has been well maintained, 
while in January, 1932, the page size of the Quarterly was increased 
about an inch. At the same time the form and color of the cover was 
altered. Other improvements, detailed in nature, have been made from 
time to time so that Delta Upsilon now has ample reason to be proud 
of the splendid periodical that it maintains under the able editorship 
of Larrabec. 4 ' 1 

In conclusion it may be stated that the Quarterly represents the 
most valuable publication undertaken by the Fraternity. Active and 
alumni members have ever found in this periodical information that 
has served to knit more closely the ties of friendship and brotherhood 
between the members of the various chapters. Without the Quarterly, 
Manual, Annual and Song-Book Delta Upsilon could hardly have 
advanced to its present position. As centralizing forces these varied 
publications have well re-paid the Fraternity in culture, brotherhood 
and friendship. 

4fl0tt Minutes of the Board of Directors, 1922-1933, Quarterly, 1922-1933. Since 1923 
the editor has rendered no reports ol the finances to the convention as the entire 
financial side of his undertaking is handled through the Fraternity Treasurer. This 
officer's reports do not show what the total income from the Quarterly has been, 
and there seems no adequate way of determining exactly what part ol the alumni 
and chapter tax has year after year gone towards the support of this periodical. 
The treasurer's repoit does show the expense incident to this publication, concerning 
which see the Delta Upsilon Annual, 1923-1933. 

Chapter XV 


HE historical development of Delta Upsilon connotes not merely 
JL the genesis of anti-secret societies, the rise of the Anti-Secret Con- 
federation, and the appearance of the Delta Upsilon Fraternity and 
the Incorporated Fraternity in 1909. These factors, while significant 
and of interest in themselves do not record how the members of the 
Fraternity conducted themselves in chapter and alumni life. To the 
student of the Social Sciences, chapter activities are possibly of greater 
importance than the institutional growth of the Fraternity. What has 
been the nature of a member's life within the Fraternity, what has 
been the relation of these men to the other societies on the various 
campuses, what college honors have been sought, what have the chap- 
ters and alumni done along educational lines, what has been the rela- 
tion between the societies and the administrative heads of the colleges 
and universities, what have been the housing facilities and boarding 
accommodations of the chapters; these and many other questions 
naturally arise to which some attention must be given. For purposes 
of organization this material may be treated chronologically and that 
which first demands our consideration is the period which precedes 
the appearance of the Quarterly. Prior to that date, 1881, our sources 
of information are relatively limited and for that reason serve as a 
convenient unit for treatment and discussion. 

These sources include the manuscript records of the various chapters 
and conventions, the letters that passed between these societies as well 
as between the officers of the Fraternity, minutes of college faculties, 
and the Annual. On the basis of these sources it may be concluded first 
of all that the members of the Fraternity devoted considerable time 
and effort towards the realization of their objectives and pledges. To 



these men "secrecy" was an attitude that had no legitimate place in 
the free and open air of American colleges and universities. Few if any 
of the earlier members of the Fraternity were ignorant of the funda- 
mental aims of the secret societies. The very essence of a fraternity was 
the promotion of brotherhood and around this ideal a number of 
different objectives were grouped more or less in agreement with the 
basic thought. Relative to these purposes the founders of the Williams, 
Union, Middlebury, Hamilton and Amherst had no quarrel. What 
they did object to, however, was first that these secret groups clothed 
their aims with the dark mantle of secrecy. And to Americans of the 
1830*3 and 1840*8 "secrecy" was an alien institution. Further, it smacked 
too much of European practices to warrant any place in Republican 
America. The presence of the Anti-Masonic Party illustrates quite well 
the widespread feeling within the United States that a secret society 
was fundamentally anti-American. Closely akin to this attitude was 
the knowledge that these college secret fraternities pursued a policy 
that was detrimental to the best interests of the college and the student. 
Monopolistic practices in class and college life paved the way for the 
elimination of many a deserving student. Membership in a society 
rather than individual merit elevated a few students to offices of trust 
and distinction that should have been open to all attending college. 
Finally, it should be noted that the standards of character as evidenced 
by the conduct of the secret fraternity men seemed sadly out of keeping 
with each other. Doubtless the earlier members of the Fraternity were 
over severe in their condemnation of what they viewed as evil. In 
accordance, however, with the existing ideals drinking was the hand- 
maid of the devil and whoever indulged in the same was counted a 
social outcast. The Union Chapter's denouncement of this practice in 
the Spy-Glass speaks volumes as to what these men thought of the so- 
called immoral ways of the secret societies. Fraternities, therefore, were 
condemned because they were anti-American, given to unfair dealings 
in college life and prone to excess in social conduct. 

From 1834 down to 1879 Delta Upsilon proclaimed to all that it 
was in opposition to secret societies. The publications of the earlier 
chapters in part were shaped so as to show the shortcomings of these 
organizations. Further, in chapter meetings and public assemblies the 
anti-secret note was sounded by addresses and debates. The challenge 
hurled at the Williams group to engage in a public disputation as to 
the merits of secrecy was eagerly accepted as an opportunity to show 
the evil ways of the secret fraternities. Other illustrations might be 
cited but enough has been shown in this respect to demonstrate the 


f eelings of the founders of Delta Upsilon. The absence of any ritual, at 
least in a formal way as it exists today, the reluctance on the part of 
some of the chapters to adopt a song-book because the secret groups 
had 'such publications, and the bitter strife that existed for many a 
year over the question of a common badge and name, all indicate how 
deeply imbedded was the anti-secret note. Finally, one recalls the 
spirited attempt made by the Williams Chapter against what it con- 
sidered the questionable practices of her sister societies; an attempt, 
moreover, that not only failed but led to the secession of the chapter 
so that it might advance the cause of anti-secrecy at Williams without 
being hampered by membership in a Confederation that had drifted 
away from the "faith of the fathers." 

The steady growth of anti-secrecy during the 1830*5 and i84o's is 
convincing evidence that its propaganda had fallen on fruitful soil. 
The friendly attitude assumed by college heads, notably President 
Nott of Union, the votes of confidence given by faculties, as in the 
case of the Amherst Chapter, the attendance of the public at Fraternity 
meetings all attest to the success of these early efforts. Then again, it 
should be recalled, that participation in class and college honors was 
through the efforts of the earlier chapters thrown open to all. Nor 
should one forget that the membership rolls of some of these units 
included the greater share of the entire student body and, as in the 
case of Union, so successful had the movement become that the evils 
against which that chapter had fought largely disappeared on that 

These achievements, which cannot be disputed in the light of the 
available evidence, brought about a change, however, in the attitude o 
the chapters towards the secret societies. In part this was due to a 
realization by some of the members that persons of sterling character 
might belong to secret organizations and yet lose none of their standing 
or caste. Then again, it must be recalled that many a man who pledged 
himself to Delta Upsilon did so not because he was fundamentally in 
opposition to secrecy but because he had not received an invitation to 
join one of these fraternities. A leaven of this type could not help to 
produce in time a more temperate attitude towards the secret groups. 
Finally, it should be noted that as success was won the existence of anii- 
secrecy became less assured. Reform thrives where evil lives, but with 
the elimination of the latter the raison d'etre disappears. On the other 
hand tradition had fostered fraternal loyalties and these loyalties soon 
found ground for further growth in a re-shaping of the aims and 
ideals of the Fraternity. As has been noticed in an earlier part of this 


volume this tendency towards a more liberal note manifested itself by 
the 1850'$. Certain chapters slowly adopted some of the mannerisms 
and ways of the secret societies and although Williams most ener- 
getically sought to quell this movement it was all in vain. Williams 
withdrew and the movement gained further impetus as a result. The 
change in the name of the Fraternity from the Anti-Secret Confedera- 
tion to Delta Upsilon in 1864 illustrates the trend of events. Further, 
the agitation for a more formal ritual and the use of a song-book during 
the same decade shows how rapidly the chapters were moving away 
from the older anti-secret days. By the 1870*8 the Fraternity was to all 
intents and purposes no longer an anti-secret society, even though 
each chapter pledged its men to the pursuit of that ideal. Lip-service 
to anti-secrecy continued, while practice pointed in another direction. 
Cornell and Michigan, among other chapters, led the movement to- 
wards a more accurate pronouncement of the aims and ideals of the 
Fraternity. By 1879 the battle was almost won when the convention 
voted to allow those chapters that so wished to call themselves "non- 
secret" societies, a statement that was ultimately placed in the constitu- 
tion at the Brown Convention of 1881. 

Chapter discussions relative to secrecy often served as a subject for 
literary exercises. These exercises played a vital role in the life of each 
society. Local constitutions, moreover, provided that these activities 
should take place at regular intervals subject to the control of the 
chapter President and Critic. It was the duty of the former, in most 
societies, to assign topics to individual members whose argument and 
style was then reviewed and discussed by the Critic. Failure to meet an 
assignment frequently carried with it a fine or penalty. In general these 
meetings were open to everyone, while on stated occasions the chapters 
often presented a public entertainment in one of the college or town 
buildings. Judging from the records of these meetings, it would appear 
that the members took keen delight in this effort and strove to main- 
tain a high standard of thought and composition. Each retiring Presi- 
dent, moreover, delivered a farewell address which seems to have been 
viewed by the members as an event of unusual importance, particularly 
as this officer was apt to deliver an oration that contained a charge to 
the chapter as to its subsequent activity. Others frequently gave ora- 
tions and in most of the societies there existed an officer known as the 
Orator whose special task was to speak on pertinent matters. Some of 
the topics of debate and oratory might well be mentioned as indicating 
the interests of these students. The Oregon Question, the Right of 
Nullification and Secession, the Corn Laws of England, the Annexation 


of Texas, the Mexican War, the Attitude of Massachusetts in respect 
to Roger Williams, these and many others show how politically minded 
were these young men. Then again, topics social in nature were pre- 
sented such as the Rights of Women, the Evils of War and the Merits 
of Peace, the Wisdom of Capital Punishment and a number of ethical 
questions like, Is Deceit ever Justifiable. Orations not only dealt with 
political and social problems but frequently touched on literary and 
dramatic events such as the work of a Dante or Shakespeare. In clos- 
ing this subject the following quotation from the address of Samuel 
J. Rogers, Rutgers '59, delivered at the first anniversary of that chapter 
reveals an attitude which is both interesting and instructive: 470 

Accounting the Fraternity strictly moral as indeed it must be by our 
constitution or cease to exist I would place as the first characteristic 
Harmony or unity of feeling. Thus far harmony has prevailed but 
differences may arise. One querulous member may do much mischief. 
Beware then whom you receive among your own members. Let a man 
prove himself worthy of the advantages which our society offers and 
then if he is willing receive him. Do not however press him for if he is 
a man of good sense he will spurn the cajoling trickery of electioneer- 
ing. Perhaps this caution is unnecessary inasmuch as those who have 
tried their hand at this business are about leaving, but from my heart 
I loathe this chicanery, this sticking plaster process by which a man 
of little vanity ... is led as it were by the hook of praise to the lofty 
pedestal of our society. 

But I was speaking of numbers and here I would add that it is not 
always the most brilliant Freshman or Sophomore that makes the best 
Junior or Senior or attains to the highest position in after life. Look 
not then to those who are ready in recitation for the first few weeks 
but rather mark the diligent student the earnest hard working man. 
We object not to the brilliant ones nor do we under estimate natural 
powers but observations hath taught us that the polished surface soon 
dims if the metal be not pure beneath. Genius will not supply the 
place of labor. Nor will the self conscious student who relies on genius 
ever be in harmony with the objects of our society. Men we must have 
but let them be men who can and will grow under the training which 
we here receive. Men who are willing to spend their leisure in pre- 
paring for our meetings. Then may we trust that they will unite with 
us in promoting the harmony and unity of feeling which now exists. 

Next to the careful choice of members would I place the shunning 
of all the political strife. We have thus far very fortunately kept aloe? 
from the dirty shirt of college politics or rather it has kept aloof from 
us for during no time of my four years course in old Rutgers has there 
been so little manifestation of party spirit as during the past year. 

Training in chapter literary activities schooled many a student to 
* Preserved at the Fraternity Headquarters. 


play a more prominent r61e in the literary societies and work o the 
college. An examination of the Annuals and other sources shows quite 
well the number of academic honors won by the members. Some of 
these distinctions consisted of managing student publications, others 
of delivering addresses and orations at graduation and other college 
functions. It is evident that the chance to be Class Valedictorian was 
one that was highly valued and for which students worked most 
diligently. Further, many of these honors carried with them medals 
or prizes in gold. And it was with great pride that each chapter re- 
ported to the others either by letter or at convention that it had won 
this or that coveted distinction. Chapters, evidently, reported that 
which they considered they had excelled in during the past year. 
Finally, it should be observed that this literary training in and out 
of the chapter aptly prepared many a man for his future life. 

A large number of the men who joined Delta Upsilon during these 
years entered upon the ministry as their life's calling. Naturally, there- 
fore, it might be expected that considerable attention was paid to 
religious and moral matters. This has already been commented on in 
respect to literary work. It should also be noticed that the chapters 
seemed extremely careful not to select men who might disgrace the 
society by drinking or other immoral practices. Those who did fre- 
quently found themselves isolated and in many cases suspended and 
expelled from the group. Drinking rather generally was viewed as a 
sin and it was one of the faults that the chapters usually found with 
the secret fraternities. Within the chapter itself religious exercises 
were held, while prayer and benediction were showered upon the 
members at their gatherings by a special officer known as the Chaplain. 
And when perchance one of the members died, the chapter not only 
went in mourning by wearing crepe on the badges for a limited time 
and by attending the funeral services, if held at the college, but also 
informed the other chapters of their loss. These notices were quite 
fonnal in nature and appropriately printed in black and white on 
Fraternity stationery. The societies who received these notices fre- 
quently passed resolutions of sympathy which in time were forwarded 
to the chapter who had suffered this loss. All of this formality was 
not viewed by these men as a mere gesture; rather was it interpreted 
by them as a solemn duty that was endorsed by chapter practice and 
public opinion. 

Chapter activity in athletics is not a prominent affair in the period 
preceding 1880. This of course is explained on the ground that fonnal 
or organized efforts along these lines were not common at that time. 


Baseball and football while indulged in do not seem to have attracted 
either the effort or attention of the students as did literary and class- 
work. Play existed but it was largely play for play's sake. Walking 
seems to have been extensively indulged in. All athletic exercise seems 
to have been viewed not merely as a means of building a sound body 
but also as an avenue for greater fraternal feeling. In this latter re- 
spect it is to be noted that social activities were frequent enough 
to be considered common. These activities consisted of refreshments 
after meetings, an occasional dinner or banquet, or an "Ice Cream 
and Strawberry Supper for certain of our friends." 471 These friends 
included not only the faculty and townspeople but also the ladies, 
especially at colleges like Syracuse which were co-educational. An 
examination of the Minute Book of this chapter shows that its mem- 
bers were vitally interested in the companionship of the co-eds, whose 
names and escorts are given together with the nature of the entertain- 
ment provided. 

The lengthy list of names indicates a chapter of some size. The size 
of the various chapters differed both in respect to the student enroll- 
ment and as to time. During the very early years it would seem that 
some of the societies included a large number. Union, for example 
in 1838, is reported to have had one hundred and three members. 
Evidently, this is an extreme case as may be seen by examining the 
chapter rolls as given in the Quinquennial. In this publication one 
will find that the average chapter prior to 1881 numbered not more 
than sixteen, though there were times when the size fell to as low as 
one, as in the case of Washington and Jefferson, and as high as fifty- 
six as at Union. Amherst in 1872 is stated as having forty-five men. 
Cornell, on hearing this, wrote a friendly letter in which she pointed 
out the dangers of so large a body and remarked that if Amherst 
would be "much more particular about your men and less particular 
about the number, you will confer a great favor, not only on the 
Cornell Chapter, but on the whole Fraternity." 472 In general, it would 
seem that none of the societies were over-large from our standards of 
today, though it should be remembered that few institutions at that 
time had an enrollment that permitted a larger membership. Further- 
more, none of the societies were compelled to increase their size by 
reason of economic considerations. Local and national taxes, as has 
been pointed out, were relatively low and at no time does one 
encounter any protest to these levies. Initiation fees, in so far as our 

471 Minutes of the Marietta Chapter, May 25, 1872. 
47a Cornell to Amherst, Nov. 30, 1872. 


sources show, were not common during the early days and even when 
they appear they can hardly be viewed excessive even for that day. 
Middlebury, for example, in 1863 imposed an initiation fee of one 
dollar. Amherst in 1869 had a similar levy of three dollars, Cornell 
in 1872 taxed its initiates ten dollars. Syracuse in 1874 charged five 
dollars, while Marietta in 1870 voted to raise its fee from five to 
eight dollars. 

On the basis of this evidence as well as from other sources it would 
seem that none of the chapters levied a large initiation fee, the income 
from which went solely for local expenses. On the other hand it 
appears that the amount of this tax had a tendency to increase in size 
as the years went on, but in no case has an incident been found prior to 
1880 where this fee exceeded ten dollars. It may be that were our sources 
for this period more extensive a higher rate might be discovered. This 
same defect makes any conclusion relative to other taxes somewhat 
uncertain. In the main, however, it appears that sums were collected 
to defray the costs of literary, debate and entertainment activities, the 
cost in each case per member being probably less than a dollar or two 
per year. In some instances it would appear that small charges were 
levied to meet the expense of publishing local material, such as the 
Spy-Glass and Catalogues. The purchase of badges seems, so far as our 
sources disclose, an individual affair. The only other item that seems 
to have fallen upon the members was that of rent, concerning which no 
definite information is at hand. To meet this last mentioned expense 
it seems that the chapters levied semester dues, a practice which in a 
few cases antedates the actual renting of rooms or a hall. On the other 
hand, the national Fraternity assessed the chapters very small amounts, 
the income from which went to defray publication of the Annual, 
which first appeared in 1870, the clerical expenses of Headquarters and 
one or two other items of no great importance. 473 

All of these financial matters seem to have been discussed in chapter 
meetings. Attendance at these gatherings was considered both a privilege 
and a duty, while absences unexcused were usually penalized by a small 
tax. In the main it would appear that the members were more than 
willing to be present. "At the ringing o the bell," so runs the Williams 
record in March, 1850, "many a Socia warm hearted and true hastened 
to the usual place of meeting." From this same source one reads: "The 
number present was large. The room was literally full, both of the 
regular members of the Society, and of those who now for the first time 
attended its meeting." And while none of the other records report 

* 78 See above p. 177. 


attendance in so glowing terms, it is evident that most of the members 
were present at each meeting. Absences, of course, existed as may be 
seen from an examination of any of the records of the chapters. In the 
Williams' Minutes for example for May, 1856 the following statement 
appears after the roll had been called: "but the answers were like angel's 
visits few and far between." Again in another entry in the Williams 
record it is stated "A few seniors were present, some juniors favored us 
by their presence, but the wise sophs, buried in the study of profound 
subjects, treated the matter as beneath their notice and so stayed away. 
The Freshmen, credulous pates, thinking there is really something in 
the principle here advocated, are for the most part regular in their 
attention." Finally, it may be noted that non-attendance by the upper 
classmen at Union was one of the factors that ultimately led to the 
death of that chapter. 

In the case of Union one of the factors that caused a rift in the life 
of that chapter had to do with the question of a Fraternity Home. As 
has been pointed out during the 1 830*5 and i84o's, most of the society 
meetings were held in either the rooms of the individual members or in 
some room assigned to them by the faculty. Hamilton, for example, 
often held its meetings in the Assembly, Bell or Senior Reception 
Rooms, while Amherst had quarters assigned to it in North College. 
Exactly when the chapters moved from rooms of this type to what 
might be considered more or less private quarters cannot be stated with 
precision. Probably this took place in the late 1850*5, though it is not 
until 1861 that we meet a chapter leasing rooms off the campus. In 
that year, Rochester acquired a set of rooms, probably on Exchange 
Street for a period of ten years. Others followed later on. Rutgers, for 
example, had a rented room on Liberty Street in 1867 and on Hiram 
Street the following year, while Cornell held its meetings in 1869 at 
11 Green Street and later in the Wilgus and Fish Blocks. Syracuse, 
likewise, in 1874 was in Pike Block, while in 1877 it was located at the 
Rice Block. During the 1870*8, moreover, discussion took place in some 
of the chapters relative to the acquisition of a permanent home, one, 
moreover, that was owned by the chapter. Marietta, for example, on 
December 19, 1874, debated the question of starting a building asso- 
ciation for a permanent home, while Colgate reported to the 1877 
Convention that she had over $4,500 raised "with which at some future 
day" the chapter was to "erect a Chapter Hall." No Chapter House as 
such, however, seems to have been owned by any of the societies during 
the period now under discussion. Each chapter, therefore, seems to have 
occupied quarters in one of the College buildings or to have leased rooms 


somewhere else. In every case an attempt was made to make these rooms 
as attractive as possible. Western Reserve in 1877 reported that they 
were the proud owners of a $650 piano, while Hamilton the following 
year boasted of a grand piano in a room that was "kept warm during 
the winter," which made it "a very pleasant resort for the members who 
may be downtown." Middlebury in 1880 reported "Our hall contains 
over one thousand dollars worth of furniture, including a five hundred 
dollar grand square piano and a choice library of about three hundred 
volumes. We have one of the best boats on the river and have just 
erected a new boat house." At Marietta in 1872 the chapter erected at 
one end of its hall a stage for dramatic presentations. All of the rooms 
seem to have had rugs, tables, chairs, lamps and the like, but none of 
them were equipped for the serving of meals or for the sleeping of its 
members. In other words fraternity homes in those days were conceived 
solely as meeting places for the transaction of business and literary 
affairs and as a convenient center for very informal social gatherings. 474 

Business meetings of the chapters not only concerned matters of 
finance but included a number of activities incident to the structure of 
the Fraternity. Each unit prior to 1881 legislated on matters that today 
would be handled by one of the governing boards. To illustrate, while 
all of the chapters had accepted a uniform badge, the ordering and 
style of the same seems to have been a local, if not an individual affair. 
Further, the use of a crest seems to have been largely a chapter affair, 
as was also the form of initiation. Although the Fraternity's Consti- 
tution imposed certain restrictions on the pledging of men, each unit 
seems to have exercised a wide theater for local action. Cornell, for 
example, in 1872 reported to Amherst that two votes excluded a candi- 
date from the chapter, while in 1840 names were proposed that had 
not been investigated before. Ten years later this chapter directed that 
a committee of two from each of the three upper classes was to have the 
sole right of proposing the names of students who had been in college 
for at least four weeks. Finally, it should be noted that suspension and 
expulsion was practically a local affair. Cornell, for example, in 1877 
notified the other chapters that a Junior had been expelled because 
he had been attempting to convert the society into a branch of the 
Sigma Phi Secret Fraternity, while another for the same reason had 
been placed on probation. 475 

As has already been mentioned the relation between the chapters 
and the various secret societies was not always as friendly as might be 

* 7i See Annual, 1870-1880. 

* w Cornell to the other Chapters, April s8, 1877, Cornell to Amherst, Nov. 30, 1872. 


desired. All of the available records support this thesis and show, more- 
over, that a number of persons were dismissed for having joined these 
organizations. Inter-society disputes were frequent. The annals of the 
Marietta, Michigan, Syracuse, Colby and Williams Chapters show a 
number of incidents where feeling ran high and where at times the 
halls of the chapters were raided by their enemies and considerable 
property destroyed. Instances of this type are more numerous prior to 
the Civil War than after, though echoes of the same continue down 
even beyond 1881. Middlebury writing to Amherst, October 20, 1870, 
stated "The lines of division between our men and the Secrets have 
become this fall more distinct than ever. Tarty feelings' rage quite 
extensively. ... In all but one class there has been considerable strife. 
We have had our own proper share in the spoils. The truth is we are 
becoming more of a power in the land; hence there is all the more 
opposition." In the main, however, much of the hostile feeling towards 
the fraternities tended to disappear in due time. In respect to college 
or university authorities, each chapter seems to have won in general 
the good will and support of these men. President Nott of Union was 
always friendly to the local society, while at Washington and Jefferson 
the presence of a Delta U at the head of that institution did much to 
further the growth of that unit. Amherst, alone of the chapters, seems 
to have met opposition, an opposition that centered in the President 
of that college and among certain of the faculty and which may have 
had something to do with the disappearance of that chapter. At least 
Williams in a letter to Rutgers reported that faculty opposition had 
killed the Amherst Chapter. 476 

Beginning with 1881 the internal life of the various chapters seems 
to have entered upon a new direction. In part this was due to the 
appearance of the Executive Council, which together with other central 
agencies, controlled many of the things which heretofore had been 
handled by the chapters in respect to general Fraternity matters. These 
agencies moreover imposed upon the chapters duties and responsibilities 
that were partly new. At the same time, moreover, uniform practices 
and procedures were put into operation in respect to certain chapter 
activities. Then again, this modification in the internal life of the 
societies was due to a change that was taking place in student and 
college attitudes. University authorities were emphasizing new ideas, 
co-education was becoming more common, while the students them- 
selves were devoting more and more time to extra-curricular activities. 
* TO See above p. 39. 


The alumni, moreover, were influencing both college and fraternity life 
in a way that had not been known before. 

The change in chapter attitude is well shown by a slackening of 
interest in literary activity. For some time after 1881 the various so- 
cieties continued to pay attention to this matter as may be seen by an 
examination of the Annual and Quarterly. These sources, however, 
as well as the reports of the various general Fraternity officers who 
visited the chapters, furnish very little data after the beginning of the 
present century. A few of the societies like Brown, Rutgers and Syracuse 
still devoted some attention to this work, but in the main it would 
appear that most of the chapters gave scanty consideration to what 
used to be one of the most important activities of the Fraternity. Con- 
scious of this fact the Directors in 1926 asked Brother Larrabcc to 
investigate the situation. His report which was rendered in November 
of the same year, and which was based upon a questionnaire sent out to 
all chapters (only twenty-eight were interested enough to reply) dis- 
closes some interesting material. Larrabee found that only six chapters 
had literary programs of some kind and of these only De Pauw and 
Swarthmore seemed convinced of the merit of the same. Those that did 
not have these activities assigned a number of icasons for not having 
such. In the main, it was argued that chapter meetings were already 
too lengthy and were burdened with many matters of greater significance 
to warrant giving any attention to literary pursuits. It was also claimed 
that extra-curricular activity as well as studies crowded the students' 
time so that he could not afford to devote any consideration to these 
other matters. Larrabee believed that something, however, might be 
done, though he strongly advised against introducing a program that 
might have "pleased Garficlcl." On the other hand a program guided 
along lines relative to fraternity work and policy might meet with 
chapter support and success. Something along these lines was suggested 
to the chapters by Brothers Glenn and Scott on their visits to the 
societies and in some cases attempts were made to revive literary activity. 

In 1932 a questionnaire was sent out to the chapters on the basis of 
which eight reported that they were having literal y exercises of some 
type. None of these eight, however, actually attempted to pattern their 
efforts in accordance with the practice of the past century. Formal 
debate, declamation, orations or recitation of prose and poetry that 
formerly characterized chapter meetings seem to have been largely dis- 
carded. In lieu thereof, it appears that about one-fifth of the chapters 
have gatherings at which faculty members participate. These meetings 
are not necessarily devoted to fraternity problems. In addition, it should 


be noted that practically every society has among its members those 
who engage in campus publication, debate or literary work. Doubtless 
decided benefits are gained by these men, though the chapter misses the 
stimulus that the older procedure provided. Recently at Syracuse there 
has been some talk of reviving "publics" to the extent of opening the 
chapter house to an address and discussion by some prominent person. 

Closely connected with this activity is that which relates to the 
scholastic standing of each chapter. Particular attention has been given 
to this matter for some time. Anyone who will take the pains to read 
the early numbers of the Quarterly will at once be impressed with the 
prominence of this topic in chapter life. In part this was due to local 
pride, though the influence of the Fraternity should not be overlooked. 
Albert W. Ferris, New York '78, in the October, 1886 issue of the 
Quarterly reported that for the past twenty-one years his chapter had 
taken 27.3 percent of the scholastic honors conferred upon New York 
undergraduates, which was 10 percent greater than its closest rival. 
Expressed in terms of fellowship grants Delta Upsilon at New York 
won $2400 out of a total of $7,400. Equally significant excerpts might 
be taken from other sources. As one reads, however, the chapter letters 
of the present century, it is readily noted that the correspondents place 
less and less emphasis upon scholastic accomplishments, while greater 
attention is paid to athletic and social activities. Larrabee in his report 
on chapter meetings in 1926 pointed out that those chapters whose 
grades were low paid little attention to literary work, while those that 
did gained higher ratings. 

This shift in emphasis coincides with the increased stress that is 
placed upon such matters by students generally throughout the country. 
In spite of study hours and the repeated lip-service that is paid to the 
importance of scholarship, the average fraternity man devotes consider- 
able time today to movies, dates, dances and bridge parties. The fact 
that University authorities permit student participation in inter- 
sectional athletic contests explains in part why alumni and under- 
graduate members applaud the four-letter man in preference to the 
wearer of the key of Phi Beta Kappa. On the other hand an honest 
attempt is being made by college presidents and faculties to improve 
scholastic ratings. Initiation into a fraternity is dependent upon a certain 
standard, a fact that has compelled the chapters to be rather insistent 
that freshmen keep up in their studies. The Fraternity, moreover, has 
consistently stressed the value of scholastic attainments during the past 
three decades. Charts and diagrams, bolstered up by imposing data, 
depicting each chapter's standing have frequently appeared in the 


Quarterly. Special commendation has also been given to the winners 
of a Rhodes Scholarship or election to membership in an honorary 
fraternity. The various field secretaries, the local alumni trustees and 
the chapter counsellors have repeatedly urged the societies to gain a 
higher rating. At present a distinct effort is being made along these lines 
as John Scott visits the various chapters. At Rutgers, a graduate member 
lives at the fraternity house and acts as a general tutor and advisor, 
particularly to the first two classes, while Cornell and Oklahoma have a 
scheme somewhat the same. A similar arrangement, moreover, existed 
in 1933 at Syracuse. A majority of the chapters in 1932 reported, more- 
over, that they had definite study hours, though in a few cases this was 
restricted to freshmen and others low in their classes. Most of these 
societies reported that the system worked fairly well, though two or 
three frankly stated that the procedure was a total failure. Sixteen 
chapters, however, reported that they had no study hours at all for 
either lower or upper division students. Some of these societies, more- 
over placed no restrictions of any kind upon freshmen engaging in 
extra-curricular activities, while one quite honestly admitted that it 
was their policy to have freshmen in as many activities as possible. 
Twenty-seven chapters in all placed no limitations upon their first-year 
men, while the others reported that these restrictions were only imposed 
for low scholastic rating. The handling of these matters was lodged 
usually in the chapter, though in a few cases the alumni seem to have 
had some control. 

Emphasis has also been placed, chiefly at the instigation of the General 
Fraternity, upon a knowledge of the history and general policies of 
Delta Upsilon. Exactly when this matter was first taken up is not known, 
though it is clearly established that it began as a chapter affair. Doubt- 
less the idea of requiring initiates to know something about the Fra- 
ternity's past developed at a number of different chapters and was 
subject to local direction. On the other hand ever since the days of the 
early conventions addresses seem to have been given which must have 
been motivated in part by a desire to educate the younger generation 
in the annals of Delta Upsilon. As a result, therefore, of these two forces 
each chapter seems to have demanded, during the latter half of the 
nineteenth century, that its pledges acquire something of a historical 
background. Once this practice was established it was not long before 
the central officers began to think about a uniform program. In the 
October, 1901 number of the Quarterly there appeared a rather lengthy 
editorial about fraternity examinations with particular reference to 
that in use by the Michigan Chapter. The editor of this article urged 


all of the chapters to consider the Michigan form. Two years later the 
matter was brought before the attention of the convention which after 
some debate passed a resolution favoring a general fraternity exami- 
nation. The procedure adopted permitted a chapter either to use the 
form prepared by the Executive Council or one of its own, though in 
either case correction and rating seems to have been handled by the 

No serious modification took place until 1916 when the chapters were 
advised that in the future the examinations were to be based upon the 
Manual as a text book. Further it would appear that from this time on 
the examination taken was one made out by a member of the Executive 
Council to whom all answers were to be sent for correction. A detailed 
statement of the results then appeared in the Quarterly. In 1920 a 
discussion of the examination system took place at the convention at 
which time it was voted that no membership certificates were to be 
issued until a satisfactory examination had been passed. As a result 
of this the Fraternity Examiner, acting under the Executive Council 
and later the Council, proceeded to test every pledge prior to his initia- 
tion; the results being tabulated in the Quarterly. Late in 1921 through 
the kindness of Brother Joseph Banigan a trophy was offered to the 
chapter winning the highest rating each year, Kansas being the first 
society to gain this award which was in the form of a shield. The follow- 
ing year the convention acting upon the suggestion of the Council 
voted that the examination should be successfully passed as a pre- 
requisite to initiation. In spite of this ruling some of the chapters were 
slow in meeting these requirements and were only led to do so after 
pressure had been brought to bear upon them. Finally, in 1929 the 
Council voted that the trophy award should be given permanently to 
the chapter that won first-place a total of three times. Anyone who has 
taken the pains to read the annual reports of the Examiner as they 
appear in the Council's report to the Convention can not but fail to 
see that the general objective aimed at has been fairly well attained. 

The General Fraternity has also attempted, with considerable suc- 
cess, to stimulate chapter interest in local publications. From the earliest 
period of the Fraternity some of the societies tried to keep in touch 
with their alumni by encouraging them to participate in chapter affairs, 
by inviting them back to initiation and anniversary gatherings and 
occasionally by direct news letters. Upon the founding of Our Record 
and Quarterly space was allotted to the chapters and a record of each 
society's activity in this was brought to the attention of some of the 
alumni. Exactly when chapter magazines were first issued is not known. 


Rochester in 1871 published a University Annual which continued to 
last until 1877, while Brown, during 1865-1866 issued the Caduceus; 
this latter publication re-appeared from 1868-1872. Swarthmore, at the 
time of its foundation, issued what it pleased to call the Triangle. 
McGill is listed with a periodical, the Oracle, in 1900 while Nebraska 
blossomed forth in 1906 with a Goldenrod. In the same year New York 
published a tract known as Our Record. Wisconsin, Technology and 
Tufts also had periodicals. A Torpedo appeared at Pennsylvania in 
1908 as did a Circle from Middlebury. Other publications were issued 
by other chapters in the years that followed. 

In the meantime the Executive Council had become interested in 
this type of work and in 1904, as the result of a convention vote, under- 
took to aid the chapters in issuing alumni letters. In the year that 
followed fifteen chapters availed themselves ol the central office in 
putting out these letters, while eleven others did so independently. 
Only ten societies failed to communicate with their alumni. During 
1905-1906, due to the success which had attended the efforts of the 
Executive Council, only three chapters failed in this important work. 
This type of activity was continued for a number of years, during which 
time the Executive Council through its Secretary to the Alumni fur- 
nished the various chapters with a form that might be followed. The 
advent of the World War disiuptcd this system to a marked extent with 
the result that the Council ceased most of its former activity. Some of the 
chapters continued to issue letters to their alumni, but it was not until 
1922 that the Council re-assumed its older position. By this time, how- 
ever, so many of the chapters were issuing tracts or periodicals that 
the Council's activities were directed to a general control of such publi- 
cations and not as to alumni letters. Robert R. Harkness, Colgate '14, 
was placed in charge of this matter. By the close of 1922 he had dis- 
covered that at least eighteen of the chapters had published various 
magazines and that alumni reaction to the same was most favorable. 
The following year Harkness reported to the Council that thirty-two of 
the chapters were issuing publications of some sort in addition to an 
annual and that the average cost was about thirty-four dollars for an 
issue of three hundred copies of four to six pages. For the next few years 
Harkness and other Supervisors of Chapter Publications continued to 
encourage the societies in this work and at times offered suggestions 
as to how these publications might be improved. 

So valuable had these magazines become that Horace G. Nichol, 
Supervisor of Chapter Publications, suggested in the spring of 1929 that 
the Fraternity issue a "Manual" to guide these efforts and that a trophy 


be annually awarded to the chapter that might win the best rating 
three times. Both the Council and the Directors approved of the same 
and voted a sum of money to take care of the necessary expenses. To 
this there was added late in 1932 a grant to subsidize these publications 
in accordance with a procedure offered by the Council. The reaction of 
the chapters to this has been highly pleasing as may be seen by an 
examination of the many publications that are issued each year. Rutgers 
in 1930 was awarded the honor of having published the best periodical 
for the past year (the Raritian) , though Union gained the coveted 
trophy by securing the highest rating three times in succession. The 
Union publication is known as the Open Visor. 

Through these various periodicals the alumni have been brought 
into greater contact with their chapters. These men have come to realize 
that though no longer undergraduates they are still an essential part 
of the chapter. It is, therefore, no surprise to note that the alumni have 
been active partners with the undergraduates in the conduct of local 
affairs. Their assistance in matters of chapter finance, morals, social 
activities, rushing, scholarship, initiation and the like is evidenced today 
in a thousand different ways. And though at times the active member 
may wonder at the influence exercised by the alumni, this bewilderment 
speedily vanishes when he stops to think of material advantages the 
alumni have brought to the chapter. Around him and on every hand 
magnificent fraternity houses have arisen equipped with furnishings 
that lead both to comfort and the fullness of fraternal spirit. Prior to 
1881 not a single chapter owned its own home, though in 1882 a start 
was made in this direction by the Colgate Chapter. According to the 
Quarterly, December, 1882, "The Madison Chapter is occupying its 
new hall, the first chapter house built in the Fraternity. The building 
is the admiration of the town and the pride of the Chapter. It is a 
three-story brick building in Queen Anne style. The location is a corner 
lot near the centre of the town, and on the principal street. The first 
floor is occupied by parlors, library, etc.; the second floor is taken up 
with the assembly room and students' apartments; the third is entirely 
occupied by the members." 477 Colgate's efforts were followed by Ambers t 
in 1884, Syracuse and Michigan in the spring of 1887, Cornell in the 
fall of the same year, while Hamilton moved into its own home during 
the winter of 1887. In the meantime New York and Columbia shared the 
quarters of the New York Delta Upsilon Club, while Williams pur- 
chased a house into which she moved in the spring of 1888. Rochester 
477 For more complete data see Quarterly, 11:7-8. 




a J 






When They Came in 1907 


Trie above cartoon was inspired by the arrival of the convention train twenty 
years ago. Older Minnesota alumni doubtless remember that memorable occasion, 
as did Brother Chamberlain who preserved the drawing. 



followed with a fine home in i8go. 478 By 1898 ten of the chapters owned 
their homes, ten rented, while the remainder, fifteen, had rooms of 
various types. A decade later the number of owned homes had risen to 
seventeen. Further acquisitions were made in the years that followed. 
At the same time many of the chapters who had lived in their own 
homes constructed new residences. According to a questionnaire sent 
out to the chapters in 1932 it would appear that with but few exceptions 
all of the houses are owned either by the chapters themselves or by an 
alumni organization of the chapters. 

A large majority of the chapters maintain a table, though it would 
appear that Manitoba, Dartmouth, and Virginia do not. In general 
most of the societies require their members, except those living at home, 
working for their board or excused by reason of athletic participation, 
to eat at the house. Many of the chapters are also able to hold the larger 
share of their dances and social activities within their homes. The 
equipment of most of the homes is in general much the same. Some 
provide the members with private sleeping and study quarters, while 
others utilize the dormitory system. Many also have guest rooms. In 
some cases the chapters have special rooms set aside for their meetings 
that at Lehigh, for example, being particularly well adapted for that 
purpose. Everything, in short, seems to have been done by the chapter 
and the alumni to create a surrounding that is conducive to the best 
interests of all. Within these homes, which probably are more pre- 
tentious than those from which most of the members come, the life of 
the chapter centers. Subject to the rules of the general Fraternity, the 
local chapters, and of the college or university, the members are sup- 
posed to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the standards 
of Delta Upsilon. Drinking, immoral practices and gambling are strictly 
forbidden, though instances have arisen where violations have taken 
place. In the minutes of the Lehigh Chapter, to illustrate, there is an 
entry that while forbidding gambling permitted the same on Saturday 
night, provided it was confined to the top floor. 

The actual conduct of fraternity meetings, which generally are held 
on Monday night, is handled in the main by the local officers in much 
the same manner. 479 In a large number of cases the financial side of the 
chapter is conducted wholly or in part by the alumni though the details, 
such as the collection of dues or assessments is usually left in the hands 
of the undergraduates. These alumni councillors seem also to have a 

478 See Quarterly and Annual, 1882-1890, passim. 

479 A few of the chapters do not hold weekly meetings. Absences, unless excused, 
are subject to fine or punishment; "two paddles" in one case. 


directing voice in other matters. Chapter meetings are usually attended 
by only the undergraduates though alumni of any chapter are always 
permitted to attend and occasionally do. Some of the chapters have at 
times allowed outsiders to be present while a large number encourage 
the fathers, brothers and near male relatives to attend initiation. A few 
of the societies have had the mothers present at these rites while others 
like Middlebury, Miami and Missouri have allowed university officers 
to attend. In one case, Manitoba, the initiation ceremonies are "abso- 
lutely" not open to non-Delta Upsilons. In most instances these rites are 
held early in the second semester. Numerous exceptions, however, exist: 
Amherst, Manitoba, McGill, Toronto and Brown, for example, conduct 
initiations in the fall; while Kansas, Oregon State and Chicago report 
that this takes place as soon as the pledges have secured satisfactory 
grades. Western Ontario and Miami hold initiation in the sophomore 
year. Pledging takes place in the early fall in most institutions though 
some of the chapters by reason of university ruling delay this for a time. 
Dartmouth pledges only in the second year, Harvard reports that she 
pledges only upper classmen, while California at Los Angeles states that 
she pledges as soon as one has received a High School diploma. 

Doubtless the reader by this time has noticed the amount of influence 
and actual control exercised by the general Fraternity and the local 
alumni in chapter matters. And while the inception of this movement 
may be traced even before the foundation of the Executive Council in 
1881, most of it is a product of the past four decades. During these years 
alumni organizations came into existence. The earliest known reference 
to such an activity is to be found in a letter from Henry R. Waite to 
Rutgers, December 4, 1869. In this communication Waite mentions the 
foundation of a New York Delta Upsilon Club at a recent meeting of 
alumni at Delmonico's. For some little time a feeling had manifested 
itself in that city in favor of such a movement, while the undergraduates 
in convention for the past three years had been urging action along this 
line. Henry R. Waite, James S. Greves, John W. Root and Isaac F. 
Ludlam were the chief enthusiasts who used to gather at the club rooms, 
817 Broadway, between the hours of one and three. Here, it might be 
said, was the first office of the Fraternity and under its roof Waite con- 
ducted the management of Our Record, the oldest fraternity pub- 
lication in America. The life of this periodical, unfortunately, was 
extremely uncertain and it expired, as has been noted elsewhere, under 
the heavy weight of debts which the undergraduates imposed upon its 
editors. In behalf of the editors, the New York Delta Upsilon Club 
appeared at the 1870 Convention but were unable to accomplish any- 


thing of importance. The following taken from the manuscript records 
illustrates the attitude of these men: 


The Convention of 1870 has been held, and the Fraternity has acted 
in a most dishonorable manner, both in regard to the "Quarterly 
Review" and the New York Graduate Club. Of the former we shall 
say little: the facts are before you; and we heartily endorse the action 
of the editor in withdrawing at once from a body of men who persisted 
in disregarding the pledges of former years. 

In the latter case your action was of nearly the same character. For 
the past three years you have asked us to establish a graduate club in 
this city. 

We have done so. 

We have hired and furnished a room and kept it open all winter to 
the Fraternity. 

We have already expended over three hundred dollars. 

We have organized a Chapter at Princeton College. 

And when we asked you at your convention, not so much for your 
pecuniary assistance, as for some appreciation of what has been done 
at your request, we were treated with the utmost indifference. 

We do therefore most earnestly protest against your action at 
Providence, and hope that something may yet be done to remove this 
blot from the otherwise fair fame of our common Fraternity. 

James S. Greves, Vice-Pres. N. Y. Club. 
John W. Root, Secretary " " . 
Isaac F. Ludlam, Treas, " " , 

New York, June 13, 1870. 

Nothing, however, was done by the undergraduates for a number of 
years and in the meantime the Graduate Club closed its doors. Probably 
the Club ceased to exist by the late fall of 1870. Three years later, how- 
ever, a movement to revive this organization got under way and at the 
1874 Convention it was voted to establish a Central Delta U. Lodge in 
New York City. Whether anything actually materialized is not known, 
though Crossett in the Quarterly in 1890 states that the society was 
founded but died shortly thereafter. 480 In 1880, however, the convention 
voted that a graduate chapter should be founded at New York as well as 
Boston, Cincinnati, and Albany. Our records show that little was done 
until 1882 when once again the convention voted to establish a graduate 
club at New York, a movement which coincided with the formation of 
the Executive Council of the Fraternity. Consequently one may view 
this effort to form a club as being part of the general idea of founding 
a central office for Delta Upsilon. Steps were immediately taken and on 

480 Quarterly, VIII: 179. 


December 19, 1882 a new club was started. On February 10, 1883 those 
interested gathered at Frobisher's Hall on East Fourteenth and adopted 
a constitution. Benjamin A. Willis, Union '61 was elected president of 
what was called the New York Delta Upsilon Club. Rooms were rented 
in conjunction with the New York Chapter at 842 Broadway and meet- 
ings were held for social and business affairs for several years. At least 
the organization was alive when the first Quinquennial was published 
as it is referred to being in existence at that time. From its rooms, 
Crossett in behalf of the Fraternity, frequently conducted the business 
of Delta Upsilon and edited the Quarterly. During 1886 the club seems 
to have died. This statement rests upon an entry by Crossett in the 
Quarterly and upon the absence of any report by that organization at 
convention. And yet the statement presented by Charles H. Roberts 
at the 1887 Convention would seem to indicate that the club had 
merely been reorganized. According to Roberts, "The Club has recently 
taken a step which promises to be of great value to itself and the 
Fraternity at large. Articles of incorporation have been drawn up and 
signed by a number of well-known members of the Fraternity in New 
York, and the act of incorporation will be completed as soon as pos- 
sible." Roberts also stated that a handsome "four story, high stoop, 
brown stone house, No. 8 East Forty-Seventh Street has been leased," 
and that shortly it will be thrown open to all members of the Fra- 
ternity. 481 Incorporation under New York law was effected December 
13, 1887, the objects being social, mutual benefit, artistic and educa- 
tional. The trustees were to be twelve in number, of whom Otto M. 
Eidlitz, Frederick M. Crossett, Charles E. Hughes, John Q. Mitchell 
and Eugene D. Bagen appear as officers. 482 

The New York Delta Upsilon Club is still in existence, Thomas C. 
Miller being its present executive. The activities of this club have 
been altogether too numerous to mention, although it has sponsored 
several conventions of the Fraternity and a countless number of formal 
and informal gatherings. Its own meetings and luncheons have proved 
of infinite value to Delta Upsilon. From its members have been re- 
cruited individuals who have given of their time and labor for the 
advancement of the Fraternity and many a member of the Executive 
Council, Council and Board of Directors has been drawn from this 
organization. Based upon the record of its achievements it may safely 
be said that the New York Delta Upsilon Club has been one of the 

l, 1885. 

483 A copy of this charter hangs at present on the walls of the Fraternity Head- 
quarters, 285 Madison Ave., New York. 


most active agencies for good within the Fraternity and the leading 
organization of its kind. 

The members of the New York Club were extremely interested in 
the Delta Upsilon Camp which was founded in the summer of 1880 
on Lake George. This camp was established with the idea of bringing 
together members of the various chapters for the advancement of the 
Fraternity and for social purposes. The first gathering took place in 
the summer of 1879 on the part of certain members of the Brown and 
Colgate Chapters. So pleased were these men that they decided to 
effect a permanent organization and invite others within the Fra- 
ternity to join with them the following year. Marcus C. Allen of Col- 
gate and Charles E. Hughes of Brown were chosen officers and the 
various chapters were circularized with the result that seven men from 
Brown, Colgate, New York and Cornell appeared in 1880. Publicity 
was given at the 1880 Convention and from then on for a number of 
years a number of Delta U's made it a point to attend these outings. 
Some time in the next decade enthusiasm for this camp seems to have 
died out, though a revival took place in 1903 at Star Lake, New York. 
Utimately the entire practice disappeared due probably to the fact 
that individual interests were too varied to bring any number together 
for social contacts and because the General Fraternity through its own 
offices was advancing the cause of the Fraternity in much larger and 
more effective ways. Even today, however, one hears of the happy 
nature of these gatherings at Lake George, while a perusal of the 
Quarterly will furnish many an interesting story and picture of the 
Delta Upsilon Camp. 

It will be recalled that the 1880 Convention authorized the estab- 
lishment of graduate clubs at Boston, Cincinnati and Albany, None 
of these materialized just then, though in June, 1883 there was founded 
a Chicago Delta Upsilon Club. 483 This organization has been to the 
middle west what the New York Club has been to New York. Recently 
the Chicago Club sponsored one of the Fraternity's most successful 
conventions, while from its members has come a steady stream of in- 
dividuals who have aided in the general work of Delta Upsilon. Shortly 
before the foundation of this club there was organized at Providence 
the Rhode Island Alumni Association on March 9, 1883. The following 
year a Cleveland Graduate Club (February 4) , a New England Alumni 
Association (February 22) , a Rochester Alumni Chapter Association 
(June 16) and a Delta Upsilon Chapter Alumni Association of West- 
ern Reserve were established. This sudden increase in alumni organi- 

488 A Cornell Graduate Club is reported in the spring of 1882. 


zations was due in part to a change in the constitution which permitted 
the formation of the same in centrally located cities. Each alumni 
chapter was entitled to representation in convention, though it was 
given practically no voice in the conduct of undergraduate activities. 
The founding of these groups, moreover, was depended upon the 
action of the convention. Only tradition seems to have justified this 
method of establishing alumni organizations as reason and logic 
clearly argued in favor of allowing the Executive Council to have 
control over such matters. Later in the twentieth century, as has been 
seen, this restriction was removed and the founding of alumni clubs 
or associations, a distinction between the two having been defined in 
1905, was placed in the hands of the central government. 484 It should 
also be recalled that in 1917 and again in 1921 the alumni were given 
additional rights through amendments that accorded them the fran- 
chise in most all chapter affairs. Finally, it should be observed that 
the governing boards of the Fraternity and the local chapter coun- 
sellors have exercised far-reaching control over the chapters and in 
this manner have greatly enhanced the value and influence of the 
alumni and alumni groups. 

Anyone who has attended a convention during the past fifteen years 
will readily appreciate the directing influence of the alumni. Further, 
from a study of fraternity finance it is shown that alumni contributions 
have been increasingly greater than ever before. Without this help it 
is certain that Delta Upsilon would not have advanced as far as it has. 
And yet alumni club representation at the conventions has never been 
very prominent. 485 At the same time the number of these groups has 
steadily increased. In 1890 there were but ten alumni clubs, while at 
the opening of the next century there were eighteen. Ten years later 
there were forty clubs and twenty-one alumni chapter associations. 
At present there are over fifty alumni clubs scattered in all parts of 
the country. These clubs manifest their interest to Delta Upsilon in a 
score of ways as has been evidenced elsewhere in this volume. Loyalty 
to the Fraternity has ever been their objective and such cooperation 
speaks well for the future of Delta Upsilon. 

According to the present constitution the organization, government 
and continuation of Alumni Clubs is in the hands of the Board of 
Directors. Each club is required to pay annually to the Treasurer the 
sum of five dollars in default of which the club loses representation 
at convention unless the latter by unanimous vote shall extend that 
right to the club. 

484 At present these are only dubs. <* See above pp. 208-209. 

Chapter XVI 


THE Social Fraternities of Williams, Hamilton and Middlebury, 
the Equitable Union of Union and the Delta Sigma Society of 
Amherst were all conceived as anti-secret organizations. Naturally, 
those who joined these groups were asked to take a pledge affirming 
their belief in anti-secrecy. And it was the taking of this pledge that 
constituted the first step towards the growth and development of the 
present ritual of Delta Upsilon. Unfortunately the early records of the 
Union and Middlebury societies have been lost. Any conclusions, 
therefore, that may be advanced as to the genesis of the initiation rite 
must rest largely upon the minutes of Williams and Amherst, and 
even these are missing for the very early years. On the basis of this 
scanty evidence it appears that Williams in 1840 had a very simple 
service. The secretary, having read the constitution to those present, 
and it should be remembered that this included non-members, ex- 
tended an invitation to "all present to join the society." Those who 
accepted this offer were then asked to take the following pledge: "You 
affirm upon your honor that the principles of this Society as expressed 
in its Preamble and Constitution accord entirely with your views; and 
you pledge yourself faithfully to adhere to them." And while the tak- 
ing of this pledge must have been accompanied by some degree of 
solemnity, there is nothing to indicate that any further formality ex- 
isted. Although the initiation form was slightly altered in 1842 the 
above method seems to have been used throughout the 1840*5. Amherst 
seems to have employed much the same procedure as its constitution 
was closely patterned after that of Williams. Hamilton probably did 
the same as its organic law was formulated along similar lines. 

Nothing is known as to the procedure used at Union though it is 
established that she followed much the same practice after the foun- 
dation of the Anti-Secret Confederation in 1847. The constitution then 



adopted and as revised in 1848 contained the above-mentioned pledge. 
No change appears to have been made until 1864 at which time the 
pledge was re-worded so as to read: 

You affirm that the principles of this Fraternity, as expressed in its 
Preamble and Constitution, accord entirely with your views; that, as a 
member of this Fraternity, you will faithfully adhere to those prin- 
ciples and abide by all its rules and regulations; that you will ever 
extend to each brother the right hand of sympathy; that you will 
uphold and encourage your fellow members in all that is honorable 
and right; and that, at all times, and in all circumstances, you will 
endeavor to cultivate those feelings, which should ever exist between 
brothers engaged in a common cause; all this you solemnly promise 
on your sacred honor. 

The taking of this pledge plus the reading of the constitution 
seems to have been all that there was to an initiation rite in 1864. None 
of our sources intimate in the slightest degree that any other pro- 
cedure was followed; indeed very little comment appears in any of 
the extant records. An opinion, however, was forming which was 
favorable to something more elaborate, the first intimation of which 
is met in a letter from Washington and Jefferson to Rutgers, October 
15, 1864. In this communication the former chapter inquired as to 
initiation practices and remarked that merely taking the pledge and 
reading the constitution seemed altogether too cold and barren. And 
while we do not have Rutgers* reply, it is evident that the chapters 
discussed the matter by correspondence as a Committee on Initiation 
was created by the 1866 Convention. At this gathering the delegates 
accepted the report of this committee which read in part as follows: 480 

The pledge shall be administered to members-elect standing. The 
candidates and President shall stand in the centre (directly in front 
of the President's desk) , with the members of the chapter standing 
about them. The pledge having been assented to, the President shall 
address the newly elected members assuring them of the cordial sym- 
pathy of the society, and defining the relations in which they stand 
to the Fraternity. He shall then give them the hand of fellowship 
in the name of the entire Fraternity. After this the other members 
of the Chapter shall also welcome them as brothers. Upon taking 
their seats all shall join in singing the "Initiation Song/' 

A reading of this provision reminds one of certain features of the 
present ritual. One will note the "Charge" as well as the singing. It is 
evident that as the present ritual is in part the product of past pro- 
cedure that the rite of 1866 must have been based upon local prac- 

488 Quinquennial (1884), p. 79. 


lices even though our sources refer only to a reading of the consti- 
tution and the taking of a pledge. Whether the organic law was still 
read after the adoption of this rite we are not informed, though it 
is likely that all candidates were aware of the content of the consti- 
tution. Finally, it should be noted that the appearance of this more 
impressive service coincided with the newer Fraternity idea as ex- 
pressed in the 1864 Convention. Delta Upsilon had supplanted the 
Anti-Secret Confederation and with the advent of the new order the 
older antagonism against formalism tended to disappear. Delta 
Upsilon, in other words, was leaving behind its former opposition 
to ideas and practices comparable to those held by the secret fra- 
ternities. A keener appreciation of the ideals of brotherhood de- 
manded that the Initiation Rite should be drafted so as to impress 
upon the novices the significance of their vows and upon the older 
members of the responsibilities that they had assumed in the past. 

The Initiation Rite of 1866 served the Fraternity for many a year. 
It is to be noticed that while the chapters were supposed to comply 
with this procedure there was no restriction as to the use of other 
features. Uniformity, therefore, did not exist, though the records of 
the several chapters reveal but little as to the nature of these varia- 
tions. Quoting from the Syracuse record for March i, 1878, one reads: 
"The candidates were presented to the President who administered 
to them the pledge, portions of the Constitution and By-Laws re- 
lating to the duties of a member were read by the Secretary, after 
which the Fraternity song was sung. Speeches followed. . . ." Al- 
though this source does not mention a "charge" as prescribed by the 
1866 rite, it is likely that the "speeches" were considered as a fitting 
substitute. By 1878, however, opinion seems to have been expressed 
in many quarters that a new ritual ought to be adopted. The Con- 
vention of that year debated the matter but finally upon vote it was 
decided to leave the affair "to the taste of each chapter." 487 

Nothing more is recorded in the Annuals relative to a ritual until 
1885 when the Executive Council was authorized to construct a new 
form which was to be based upon chapter practices. It was also voted 
not to print the rite with the constitution but to have die Executive 
Council forward copies of the same to the chapters. Although none 
of the correspondence of this Council has any comment on this matter 
it is evident that these instructions were carried out as the Executive 

487 Annual ', 1878. Among the records preserved at the Fraternity headquarters 
there is a small four-paged printed tract entitled "Ritual." It is evident on the basis 
of internal criticism that this "Ritual" was published by the Fraternity some time 
between 1883 and 1885. 


Council reported a new ritual to the 1886 Convention. This form 
was accepted and referred to the Executive Council, evidently for 
minor corrections. Later in the same year the Executive Council pub- 
lished and distributed the new form. 488 

The ritual adopted in 1886 served the purposes of the Fraternity 
for several years. In 1890, however, the delegates at the convention 
instructed the Executive Council to consider the improvement of the 
initiation rite. Nothing seems to have been done by this body in 
consequence of which the following convention voted the appoint- 
ment of two committees of five each, one representative of the East 
and the other of the West, to prepare a ceremonial rite and submit 
the same to the Executive Council not later than April i, 1892. While 
these agencies were at work the Executive Council also took the 
matter under consideration. It was soon found out by these three 
bodies that the 1891 proposal was too cumbersome to be effective. 
Accordingly nothing was done except to report in 1892 that a smaller 
body should be placed in charge. The delegates accepted this recom- 
mendation and asked the new committee which was created to make 
a statement at the next annual gathering. To what extent this com- 
mittee functioned is not known as nothing relative to the proposition 
was brought before the 1893 or 1894 Conventions. 489 

In 1895 the matter was brought before the convention by the re- 
quest of the Technology delegate that the Fraternity adopt a non- 
secret grip and by the proposal of the De Pauw representative that 
there be a new Fraternity Yell. The first of these suggestions was 
tabled, the second being referred to the Executive Council. The 
significance that should be attached to these suggestions is simply 
that there was a growing demand on the part of some of the chapters 
in favor of a more elaborate ritual, one moreover that approached 
in procedure that followed by the other fraternities. The Executive 
Council recognized the existence of this demand by discussing the 
matter at several of its meetings. Positive action, moreover, was 
hastened by the activities of the 1896 Convention which devoted 
considerable time to the topic of a grip. At that meeting, Howard C. 
Johnson, Swarthmore '96, representing the Philadelphia alumni, pro- 
posed that a committee be appointed to report on the question of a 
grip as soon as possible. The delegates voted accordingly and at the 
next session the committee stated that it favored a non-secret grip. 

***Ibid., 1886, 1887, Quarterly, Xigis. A copy of the 1886 ritual is preserved at the 
Fraternity headquarters. 
* Annual, 1890-1894, Minutes of the Executive Committee, Jan. 16, June 4, 1892, 


The committee, however, suggested that a body o five be appointed 
to sound out the attitude of the alumni and report at the next con- 
vention. It was also suggested that the matter be discussed by the 
delegates then present. No action was taken on this report though 
a motion was made by Almon H. Fuller, Lafayette '97 and seconded 
by William P. Stewart, Pennsylvania, '98 that "Whereas, We have 
a number of alumni who, in accordance with the conservative prin- 
ciples of our Fraternity, do not wish to have a grip sanctioned by 
our ritual, and Whereas, a goodly number of our Chapters consider 
that a grip should be to their interests, and as several of our Chapters 
already have individual grips, I move that this Convention grant to 
the Chapters ... the privilege of establishing a uniform grip among 
themselves." Fourteen chapters voted to lay the motion on the table, 
though nineteen were in favor of further discussion. Whereupon, 
Clarence A. Bunker, Harvard '89, sensing the inherent possibilities 
of the situation, moved to amend Fuller's motion by referring the 
entire matter to a select committee to consult with the alumni and 
chapters and report at the next convention. This amendment seems 
to have been carried, although the language in the Annual is none too 
clear. 400 The 1896 Convention also voted to instruct the Executive 
Council to revise the ritual and report its findings as soon as possible 
to the chapters. 

Small wonder was it, therefore, that the Executive Council took 
its task much to heart and secured the services of Rossiter Johnson 
of Rochester to prepare a new ritual. This fact was reported to the 
1897 Convention at which time the Grip Committee also made its 
report. This latter body, which was headed by Frank R. Morris, seems 
to have sent out in October, 1897 a circular letter to the chapters 
which is significant enough to be quoted in full: 

Dear Brothers: During the past few years there has been a feeling 
in various chapters of Delta Upsilon that the Fraternity has not 
reached the ideal of unity. It has already been urged by other Greeks 
that Delta Upsilon is an aggregation of individual societies and not 
an organic fraternity. Its origin accounts for this seeming or real de- 
fect. Two remedies have been suggested to secure closer unity; one 
internal, consisting of a more symbolic ritual and of by-laws involving 
inter-relations of the chapters; the other remedy is external, at least 
in its beginnings, a fraternity grip. 

The grip idea was discussed at the convention of '96 and a com- 
mittee was appointed to 'ascertain the sentiment of the active chapters 
and alumni with regard to the adoption of a grip by the fraternity/ 

490 Annual, 1895-1896, Minutes of the Executive Council, Nov. 21, 1896. 


This committee after consulting with many alumni and finding much 
opposition to the grip idea, have thought it best to obtain the final 
vote of the active chapters before proceeding to canvass the alumni. 
In order to save time in the discussion and secure immediate replies, 
the committee suggest some of the arguments already advanced in 
favor of the grip and also some of the replies thereto. 

1. A grip will make us like other fraternities. 

Reply. Delta Upsilon has gained much of her power by her un- 
likeness to other fraternities in a fundamental principle: non-secrecy. 

2. A grip will help to distinguish a member in shaking hands. 
Reply. A secret sign would be needed to show him a member before 

any attempt to give the grip is made. 

3. A grip gives display to fraternal feeling on meeting a brother. 
Reply. Though this argument might have some weight with a newly 

entered freshman, only real fraternal feeling is worthy of college 
men. A warm handshake and brotherly treatment are a sufficient 

4. If a grip is non-secret, it is not opposed to the constitution. 
Reply. The logic of the grip is a password, with secrecy as the next 

step. This means re-organization of the fraternity. 

5. Unity is above all things desirable even at the expense of re- 
organization on a secret basis. 

Reply. This acknowledges the failure of the fraternity to accom- 
plish its ends without exact harmony with other fraternities. It 
would make Delta Upsilon the 'guy* of other fraternities on the one 
hand and alienate the sympathy and support of the older alumni 
on the other. 

The question is whether to begin externally with a grip or in- 
ternally with more ritual and more organic by-laws. 

Does your chapter favor a grip? Give exact number of 'yeas' and 
'nays'. In the judgment of the committee only members o three 
months standing at least should discuss the question. 

It is evident on the basis of this letter as well as the discussions 
that had taken place on the floor of convention that sentiment existed 
favorable to a grip. And while some of the sentiment behind this 
rested on the assumption that only a non-secret grip was needed, the 
fact remains that there was a body of opinion demanding an organi- 
zation more like the secret societies. The entire situation was indeed 
a critical one and called for the most careful handling. It is of interest, 
therefore, to see how the matter was disposed of and what final 
conclusion was reached. In reply to the circular letter, Middlcbury, 
Rutgers, Colgate, Cornell, Michigan, Lehigh, Minnesota and Tech- 
nology were all opposed to a grip. Williams, Colby, Bowdoin and 
Northwestern were all in favor. Brown and Adelbert took a neutral 
position, the former though favoring a grip left its delegates freedom 
of action at the next convention, while the latter instructed its dele- 


gates not to oppose if a number desired the grip. Hamilton and Penn- 
sylvania were evenly divided on the question, while Columbia, De 
Pauw, Swarthmore, Stanford, California and New York gave ma- 
jority votes in opposition to a grip. In addition to these tabulations, 
which appear in the report of the Grip Committee, Syracuse was 
unanimously against the idea. Of the other societies, no information 
is at hand. All in all it would seem that the majority of the active 
members were not in sympathy with a grip, a view which seems to 
have been held by most of the alumni consulted. 491 

The findings of the Grip Committee seem to have been carefully 
considered by the delegates with the result that a motion was passed 
at the 1897 Convention declaring that a grip was contrary to the 
principles of the Fraternity. 402 Although this matter was disposed of, 
the Fraternity was brought face to face with the question of a more 
elaborate ritual as through such a device the elements that favored 
a grip might be appeased. In answer to this demand, the Executive 
Council announced that a revision was already under way. Delay, 
however, seems to have taken place. Whether Rossiter Johnson ever 
completed his task or not is not known. In any event at the 1900 
Convention a committee of five was appointed to draw up a uniform 
method of initiation and report at the next annual gathering. This 
body prepared a definite rite which after some change was accepted 
by the delegates in 1901. This ritual seems to have been published 
separately by the Secretary of the Executive Council. 498 

In 1904, following a suggestion offered by the Executive Council 
in the interest of internal improvement, the Convention authorized 
an immediate revision of the ritual. During the course of the next 
two years the Executive Council appears to have given the matter 
some consideration. Correspondence passed back and forth between 
the members of this body and consideration was given to the various 
practices followed by the chapters. Copies, moreover, of a proposed 
new rite were sent to the chapters in the fall of 1906 with the request 
that the rite be tried and comments forwarded to the Fraternity 
Headquarters. Seven of the societies failed to respond to this com- 
munication. Of the other thirty, twenty were favorably disposed; 
seven opposed while three were as yet undecided. In the face of these 
returns the Executive Council wisely referred the entire affair to the 
convention which in 1907 voted to ask the Executive Council to ap- 

401 Annual, 1897-1898, Minutes o the Syracuse Chapter, Oct. 19, 1897. 


408 Annual, 1900, 1901. 


point a group of undergraduates to cooperate in revising the ritual 
and report at the next meeting. Before appointing this group the 
Executive Council asked the chapters to express an opinion as to the 
form that had been submitted. In reply twenty-nine societies voted 
in favor of the new rite, five were opposed, while one was non- 
committal. Brown and Colby failed to vote. Accepting this response 
as indicating a preference for the proposed rite, four undergraduates 
were added to the original committee. The enlarged committee then 
studied the entire affair and mailed their results to the chapters in 
the fall of 1908. The convention of that year revised this form some- 
what and voted to recommend its use for one year, during which time 
criticisms might be forwarded to the committee. 494 

During 1908 and 1909 the chapters seem to have used this tem- 
porary form, while the committee undertook to digest the returns 
made by the chapters. Although progress was reported in 1909, the 
Executive Council requested further time. This seems to have been 
granted as the Executive Council reported in 1910 that a number of 
alterations as to length and style had been considered and the fin- 
ished draft handed over to John Erskine, Columbia, 'oo, for final 
revision. Copies of the completed ritual were forwarded to the chap- 
ters and discussed by their delegates at the 1911 Convention. This 
body accepted this revision with the single exception that pledge 
was lengthened somewhat. In the fall of 1913 the Fraternity pub- 
lished this ritual. 495 

The ritual consisted of three rites. In Rite I the candidates took 
pledges of a negative character and were informed of the general 
nature of the vows to be taken later on; an opportunity was also given 
for each man to express a willingness to continue the ceremony. 
While this was in progress the rest of the chapter and visiting alumni 
were called to order by a Master of Ceremonies in another room and 
informed of the names of the candidates. Opportunity was afforded 
at this time for the registering of any objection to any candidate. 
Rites I and II were to be conducted at the same time so that when 
the Examiner and Conductor in charge of the candidates should 
hear the singing of the Fraternity Ode, they should then be led into 
the room where the chapter was waiting. On their appearance Rite 
III followed in which a prayer was offered. A formal charge might 
then be given to the novices, after which the following pledge was 
exacted from each candidate: 

1904-1908, Minutes of the Executive Council, 1904-1908. 
496 Annual, 1909-1911, 


Do you solemnly declare that the principles of this Fraternity as 
they have been explained to you, accord entirely with your own views; 
and do you solemnly promise that as members of this Fraternity you 
will faithfully adhere to those principles, endeavoring in every way 
to perfect yourselves morally, intellectually and socially, and endeav- 
oring also to act towards others according to that high standard of 
conduct required by the Fraternity? 

Do you also solemnly promise that you will be loyal to the Delta 
Upsilon Fraternity and to this Chapter, abiding by their rules, dis- 
charging your obligations to them faithfully, and using all honorable 
means to promote their interests? 

And do you further solemnly promise that you will share with 
your brothers the duties of your Chapter; that you will uphold and 
encourage them in all that is honorable and right; that you will ever 
extend to each brother the right hand of sympathy; and that at all 
times and in all circumstances you will endeavor to cultivate those 
sentiments which should ever exist between brothers? 

All this do you solemnly promise upon your honor, without any 
mental reservation or secret evasion of mind whatsoever? If so, you 
will answer to your name, I do. 

Following this series of pledges the Master of Ceremonies then 
proceeded to invest each candidate with the pin of the Fraternity 
after which a short speech of welcome followed by the same officer. 
In closing this brief rsum of the ritual one may get an appreciation 
of the beauty of style and imagery contained within the ceremony 
by reading the following address to the candidates by the Master 
of Ceremonies: 

This hour, to all of us impressive, to you, sirs, should be especially 
solemn. We initiate you into no meaningless mysteries, but into a 
brotherhood founded upon a principle which it is our duty to ex- 
emplify in our lives Dikaia Upotheke Justice, our Foundation. The 
relation of brotherhood is a sacred one. Its ties arc pure and noble, 
for it has been divinely established by the great Exemplar as the 
proper bearing of man towards man. It is therefore the ideal of human 
relationship, an ideal which we seek to realize in our fraternal life, 
thereby learning from our Fraternity the highest lessons of human 
duty and opportunity. In this brotherhood, justice is our guiding 
principle and as justice is but truth in action, it is our deeds which 
testify our loyalty to the ideals of our Fraternity and our worthiness 
to conserve the heritage handed down to us by the past generations 
of Delta Upsilon. In purity, in uprighteousness, in nobleness, in 
consideration for others and fair dealing with them, in constant en- 
deavor to promote truth and equity in every relation in which we 
may be castin such ways do the lessons of our Fraternity bear their 
richest fruit. Into uch a brotherhood, we offer you the opportunity 
, to enter. But in entering you must pledge undying loyalty to Delta 
Upsilon and to its ideals. 


The delivering of this address as well as the taking of the pledges 
and charge in Rite III were set in a simple but impressive manner. 
Those attending were to be uniformly dressed, either in formal 
evening dress or in an informal suit of dark color. Uniformity was 
also to prevail among the initiates. Academic gowns might be worn 
by the officials. The lights in the room were also to be softened. All 
in all an attempt was made to create an atmosphere that was con- 
ducive to the importance of the event. Further, as in the words of 
the Executive Council, "This ritual is the only one by which a mem- 
ber can be initiated into the Fraternity and it is incumbent upon 
every Chapter to adhere to it strictly." 496 

No alteration of the 1911 Ritual took place until 1919 when the 
convention of that year provided for the insertion of a clause bind- 
ing the initiate not to allow his badge to be worn by any other than 
a member of the Fraternity. At the same time the Council was in- 
structed to take steps towards the composition of a new rite which 
might be used in the formal entry of members into the alumni of 
Delta Upsilon. For the next two years a special committee of the 
Council, headed by Clifford Swan, worked on the matter of a revised 
ritual. This revision was submitted to the 1931 Convention and there 
adopted. In general the 1921 Ritual followed that of 1911. Beyond 
certain changes in style the more important modifications were: first, 
that in Rite I the candidate was required to inscribe his name in a 
Roll Book which contained the pledges he would take in connection 
with Rite II; second, Rite II and Rite III were merged into one rite 
known as Number II; third and last, that the wording of the pledges, 
but not the content, was altered to a slight degree. To many the 1921 
Ritual seemed more attractive than that of 1911. The simplicity and 
yet withal the beauty of style has endeared it to the hearts of many. 
Since 1921 no changes have been made in the Initiation Rite of 
Delta Upsilon. 

The discussion relative to a grip and ritual resulted in a reorgani- 
zation of the Fraternity Insignia. It will be recalled that during the 
period before 1881 a rather simple insignia existed. Since that date 
various changes, detailed in nature, have taken place. For example 
upon the incorporation of the Fraternity in 1909 the seal and 
coat-of-arms was altered. Further modifications and additions have 
been made from time to time, concerning which no elaborate dis- 
cussion seems necessary. At present according to the constitution the 
coat-of-arms is to be uniform throughout the chapters and consists 

409 Annual, 1912. 






o x 

S uj 

UJ y) 

2 u 

J J 










of certain descriptive devices and emblems that signify the Fraternity, 
Convention and Assembly. The colors of Delta Upsilon are listed as 
old gold and sapphire blue while the badge was to consist of a plain 
gold pin, with no jewels, bearing the arms of Upsilon and the motto 
of the Fraternity. This badge is provided by the Fraternity and must 
be worn by all undergraduates. Members are allowed to wear a 
recognition pin or button which is a miniature of the badge. Neither 
badge nor pin may be worn by any person other than a member of 
Delta Upsilon, or the mother, wife or fiancee of such a member. 
Badge, pin, pledge button, and any other insignia used by an under- 
graduate is obtained solely through the Fraternity office. Graduate 
members may purchase, through the Fraternity, jewelled pins. Pro- 
vision also exists for Fraternity hat bands, banners and china. 

Chapter XVII 

-TTJTERETOFORE the narrative o this volume has been directed to- 
JLJL wards sketching the genesis and development of the General 
Fraternity, its chapters and alumni clubs. Attention has also been 
paid to those men, like Crossett, Thomas and Fairbanks, who gave 
most generously o their time and treasure so that Delta Upsilon 
might become what it is today. Significant as these facts are, and 
every student of history will recognize their value, fraternity mem- 
bers in general also take great pride in pointing to services which 
certain individuals have rendered to state and society. Every na- 
tionally minded American knows of the efforts of fellow citizens in 
contributing to the material and spiritual well-being of man the 
world over. In the field of science, for example, the research of a 
Thomas Edison or a Henry Ford leaps beyond the confines of the 
United States and spreads its benefits over Europe, Asia and Africa. 
Or again, in the cause of international peace, what American is 
ignorant of the work of an Andrew Carnegie or of a Woodrow 
Wilson. Indeed, he not only knows of their accomplishments but is 
proud of the fact that these men were Americans like himself and 
that through their efforts a better world order and civilization has 
been evolved. In much the same sense each member of Delta Upsilon 
notes with justifiable satisfaction the deeds of those brothers in na- 
tional and state activities. 

For purposes of organization and convenience this material may 
be grouped under several different headings and that which first 
demands attention relates to the field of education. Leaving to one 
side the very worthy efforts of those who have labored in our coun- 
try's secondary schools and confining our attention to colleges and 
universities the reader will notice that Delta Upsilon has had a fair 
share of presidents and professors. Among the former there stands 
out the name of David Starr Jordan (1851-1931), Cornell '72. Dr. 
Jordan's interest in education is well attested by his presidency at 
the University of Indiana (1885-1891) and at Leland Stanford from 


1891 to the time of his death. Dr. Jordan was also a prominent figure 
in the peace crusade, a scientist in the field of natural history and the 
author of a number of well known books and articles. In the mean- 
time William H. P. Faunce, Brown '80, was winning a name for 
himself in academic circles. Dr. Faunce (1859-1930) for a time was 
a notable figure in the Baptist ministry but in 1889 was called to 
the presidency of Brown University, an office which he filled until 
his retirement in 1929. His interests were many as may be shown by 
his activities in the cause of temperance and peace and by his several 
stout volumes and stimulating articles. Another member of Delta 
Upsilon who directed the destinies of a great university was Elisha 
B. Andrews (1844-1917) , Brown '70. Like Faunce, Dr. Andrews was 
educated for the Baptist ministry but in 1875 became president of 
Dennison College. Later in 1894 he was made president of Brown 
and in 1900 he became Chancellor of the University of Nebraska 
where he remained until 1908. At present, Frederick C. Hicks, Mich- 
igan '86, is president at the University of Cincinnati, James B. 
Conant, Harvard '14, president of Harvard University, Ralph D. 
Hetzel, Wisconsin '06, president of Pennsylvania State College, and 
Remsen Du Bois Bird, Lafayette '09, president of Occidental College. 
Delta Upsilon is also proud of its many sons who have earned for 
themselves names as prominent professors and teachers. Of these spe- 
cial mention should be made of the work of Jeremiah W. Jenks, 
Michigan '78, James Harvey Robinson, Harvard '87, Victor C. 
Alderson, Harvard '85, Trevor Arnett, Minnesota '94, Howard Ayers, 
Michigan '83, Arthur E. Bestor, Chicago '01, John C. Branner, Cor- 
nell '74, John Henry Comstock, Cornell '74, Byron Cummings, Rut- 
gers "89, Herman L. Fairchild, Cornell '74, Archer B. Hulbert, 
Marietta '95, Robert H. Lord, Northwestern '06, David S, Muzzey, 
Harvard '93, Curtis H. Page, Harvard '90, John D. Hicks, North- 
western '13, Arthur L, Cross, Harvard '95, and George T. Hargitt, 
Syracuse '02. These and many others have been known not only 
for their records as teachers but as authors of special note. In ad- 
dition many Delta U's are particularly of interest for their writings. 
James Ford Rhodes (1848-1927), New York '67, is well known to 
all students of history for the memorable History of the United 
States, Henry M. Baird, (1832-1906) , New York Honorary, for his 
Huguenots in France, Stephen Crane (1891-1900), Lafayette and 
Syracuse '94, for the Red Badge of Courage, Rossiter Johnson, Roch- 
ester '63, for the Great Events by Famous Historians, and Ralph W. 
Trine, Wisconsin '91, for his In Tune with the Infinite. Others who 


have written are Paul S. Reinsch, Wisconsin '92, Augustus H. Shearer, 
Rutgers '99, Joyce Kilmer, Rutgers '08, and John Macy, Harvard '99. 
Recently considerable recognition has been accorded John Erskine, 
Columbia 'oo for his writings in the field of drama and fiction, Hey- 
wood Broun, Harvard '10 for his editorials in the New York World 
and Rupert Hughes, Western Reserve '92 for his many novels and 
histories. Closely akin to their efforts is the work of a number of 
men who have figured prominently in journalistic and editorial ac- 
tivities. Here mention should be made of the services of William 
Bross, Williams '38, one time editor of the Chicago Tribune and 
lieutenant-governor of the state of Illinois, Erman J. Ridgway, North- 
western '91, publisher of Everybody's, 1903-1917, and contributor to 
the New York Sun and Herald, Alexander D. Noyes, Amherst '83, 
financial editor of the New York Times, and Frank H. Simonds, Har- 
vard 'oo, at one time an editor of the New York Evening Post and 
Tribune and at present a well known writer in the field of current 
international affairs. 

Probably a large share of the alumni for the past thirty years or 
more have gone into the professional or business fields. Among these 
mention should be made of the work of Albert Warren Ferris, New 
York '78. Dr. Ferris from 1907 to 1911 was president of the New 
York State Commission on Lunacy, from 1913 to 1916, director of 
the Saratoga Springs Reservation Commission and senior physician 
at Glen Springs Health Resort. Melville T, Cook, De Pauw and 
Stanford '94, as plant pathologist at Insular Experiment Station in 
Porto Rico, William B. Greeley, Stanford and California, '01, as chief 
forester, United States Forest Service, Leland O. Howard, Cornell 
'77, chief of the United States Bureau of Entomology and Edward 
C. Potter, Amherst '82, prominent American sculptor, are worthy of 
notice. Again, recognition is due to Alfred P. Sloan, Technology '95, 
for his services as president of the General Motors Corporation, 
Charles L. Edgar, Rutgers '82, as president of the Edison Electric 
Illuminating Company of Boston, Charles L. Eidlitz, Columbia '88, 
as chairman of the New York Electrical Board of Trade, Otto M. 
Eidlitz, Cornell '81, as capitalist, contractor and civic investigator, 
Robert J. Eidlitz, Cornell '85, president of Marc Eidlitz 8c Son, Wal- 
lace T. Holliday, Western Reserve '05, president of the Standard Oil 
Company of Ohio, Frank B. Jewett, Chicago '02, vice president of 
American Telephone and Telegraph Company and president of the 
Bell Laboratories and George F. Rand, Pennsylvania '16, president 
of the Marine Trust Company of Buffalo, New York. William S. 


Barstow, Columbia '87, of the General Gas and Electric Corporation, 
Edgar S. Bloom, Pennsylvania '95, of the Western Electric Com- 
pany, Samuel H. Cook, Syracuse '02, of the Brown-Lipe Manufacturing 
Company of Syracuse, and James L. Pierce, California '12, of the 
Pacific Manufacturing Company should also be noted. Finally, ref- 
erence should be made to Edward J. Pearson, Cornell '83, president 
of the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad. 

Many of those already referred to and a large number of others 
have at some time or other held positions of trust and confidence in 
state and national governments. Frank C. Partridge, Middlebury '81, 
for example, has busied himself in the Vermont Marble Company 
and Clarendon 8c Pittsford Railroad and has also gained reputation 
as United States Consul-General at Tangiers, as United States Min- 
ister to Venezuela and as Solicitor, United States Department of 
State. Robert H. Lord, Harvard and Northwestern '06, though well 
known to students of history, served as technical expert at the Ver- 
sailles Peace Conference of 1918. Others who have been engaged at 
various times with the Federal Government are Edward M. Bassett, 
Hamilton and Amherst '84. Bassett at one time was a congressman, 
member of the New York Public Service Commission and a counsel 
on President Hoover's Advisory Commission on City Planning and 
Zoning. W. Randolph Burgess, Brown '12, an author, statistician, 
and agent of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, John C. Cald- 
well, Amherst '55, United States Minister to Uruguay, Orlow W. 
Chapman, Union '54, United States Solicitor-General, Arthur H. 
Vandenberg, Michigan '04, United States Senator from Michigan, 
Frank H. Hitchcock, Harvard '91, Postmaster General and a member 
of President Wilson's Cabinet, Daniel S. Lamont, Union '72, once 
Secretary of War, Sereno E. Payne, Rochester '64, father of the 
celebrated Payne Tariff, Arthur M. Hyde, Michigan '99, Secretary of 
the Department of Agriculture in 1929, Rexford G. Tugwell, Penn- 
sylvania '15, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, 1933, 1934, Redfield 
Proctor, Middlebury, United States Senator from Vermont and Sec- 
retary of War, Justin S. Morrill, Middlebury, Senator from Vermont 
and Charles C. Nott, Union '48, Chief Justice of the United States 
Court of Claims, are also of interest in this respect. 

Foremost among those who have gained national reputation at 
Washington, D. C., is James A. Garfield, Williams '56. Prominence 
in chapter and college life was closely matched by his skill as a lawyer 
and equalled by his services as a major-general in the Federal Armies 
during the Civil War. Later, his attention was directed to politics 


and from there his career led him to the White House, being Presi- 
dent of the United States in 1881. Although Delta Upsilon has had 
only one member to hold this signal office, Charles Evans Hughes, 
Colgate and Brown '81, as Republican candidate in 1916, all but won 
this coveted distinction. Mr. Hughes, however, has won lor himself 
a splendid reputation as a lawyer, jurist, Governor of the State 
of New York, Secretary of State of the United States, Associate and 
Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court and above all as a 
public spirited citizen. Among the many friends which Mr. Hughes 
has in the Fraternity mention should be made of Charles G. Dawes, 
Marietta '84. Mr. Dawes has held a number of important posts both 
in state and national governments. During the World War, he was 
a brigadier-general. Later he became the first director of the Bureau 
of the Budget, the father of the well known Dawes Reparations Com- 
mission, and Ambassador to Great Britain in 1929. Mr. Dawes was 
also comptroller of the Currency from 1897 to 1902, and in 1924 was 
elected as Vice-President of the United States. At present Mr. Dawes 
is a lawyer and banker of considerable reputation of Chicago, Illinois. 
In the field of state activities many a Delta U. has gained con- 
siderable reputation. Among these should be mentioned Austin Blair, 
Union '39, governor of Michigan during the Civil War, M. Linn 
Bruce, Rutgers '84, lieutenant-governor of New York, Nonnan S. 
Case, Brown '08, governor of Rhode Island, William G. Pickerel, 
Miami '10, lieutenant-governor of Ohio, Fletcher D. Proctor, Middle- 
bury '81, governor of Vermont, Marcellus L. Stearns, Colby '63, gov- 
ernor of Florida, and William Bross, Williams '38, lieutenant- 
governor of Illinois. Many others, too numerous to mention have 
held various state positions such as attorney-general, secretary ol 
state, senator and representative. Then again there have been many 
who have gained prominence in the legal profession, some of whom 
have gone far in state and national activities. Of these recognition 
should be paid to Sidney M. Ballou, Harvard '93, one time Supreme 
Court Justice of Hawaii, Fenton W. Booth, De Pauw '92, associate 
justice of the United States Court of Claims and dean of the Harvard 
Law College, Oliver W. Branch, Harvard '01, chief justice of the 
Supreme Court of New Hampshire, Andrew A. Bruce, Wisconsin '90, 
chief justice of the Supreme Court of North Dakota and later presi-