As might have been expected, Dr. Taylor maintained that responsibility for the conduct and discipline of all parts of the University rested with the President. The Seminary had, however, enjoyed a certain degree of independence resulting from its prestige, age, and the mature character of its students who represented a powerful group united by close ties of vocational interest. Professor Edmund Turney and, to a lesser extent, Professor Eaton held that the Seminary faculty, rather than the President, should be responsible for the theological students. Turney, a graduate of the Class of 1838 and a former theological student himself, had joined the faculty in 1850 as Professor of Biblical Criticism and Interpretation in the Seminary and Evidences of Revealed Religion in the College. Conscientious and generally popular with students and townspeople, he steadily fought Dr. Taylor’s views in a long series of faculty meetings and before the Trustees.
The point at issue was so fundamental to the relationship of the Education Society and University that joint action by both Boards was required for its resolution. On February 9, 1853, they adopted four articles of Agreement, referred to as the Second Compact, which placed with the University Trustees ultimate responsibility for maintaining and managing all three departments of the institution under one faculty and one code of laws. Though authority for the government and discipline of the college and academic departments centered in the President of the University, he and “the senior Theological Professor”
were “associated as peers”
for preserving order in the Seminary. In these provisions the Trustees upheld Turney’s views in limiting the President’s power, but the bitter friction between the two men resulted in Turney’s resignation a few months later.
With the question of jurisdiction clarified, the faculty and trustees were then able to complete the revision of the Laws. As chief disciplinary officer the President was vested with parental authority and “expected in governing, to prefer the mildest effectual measures”
in punishing “all crimes and offenses committed by students.”
He was also directed “to deliver for the benefit of his pupils, familiar lectures in regard to their physical health, personal habits, manners and morals”
and “constantly to endeavor to promote a salutary mutual influence among the several officers, classes, and departments.”
Students thought Dr. Taylor “a brusk, stern, yet kindly man”
and an enthusiastic teacher. In his address to the graduating Class of 1853, he