LETTER OF HON. ANDREW D. WHITE, CORRECTING ERRONEOUS STATEMENTS CONCERNING CORNELL UNIVERSITY.

WASHINGTON, D. C., March 3, 1896.

DEAR SIR: On looking over the stenographic report of the remarks made by Bishop Hurst and Dr. Beiler before your committee, I observe that they have fallen into one or two very serious errors regarding Cornell University.

The first is shown in a statement to the effect that the charter of the institution has been changed so as to restrict the choice of professors to certain Christian denominations or "evangelical" denominations. This is completely an error. No such change in the charter has ever been made; none, so far as I know, has ever been thought of. The original charter provides that persons of all political parties and religious sects, or of no party and of no sect, shall be equally eligible to all offices and all appointments, whether in the board of trustees or in the faculty; and this feature in the charter, which was suggested by myself, and put into shape by the late Charles J. Folger, afterwards chief justice of the State, remains to-day, and has remained from the beginning, a part of the fundamental law of the institution. There is also another statement which may mislead, i. e., the virtual assertion that the professors of the university are confined to these "evangelical" denominations. This also is utterly contrary to fact. From the first there have been and are now Catholics, Episcopalians, Unitarians, and Swedenborgians in the faculty. I may also add that we have had in our faculty, and it is quite likely have now, a representative or representatives of the Jewish community. None of these, of course, are classed among those who call themselves "evangelical denominations." Besides these there are professors who are not connected with any sect whatever. The question has never been raised, in all these thirty years, regarding the political or religious views of any member of the faculty. Indeed, the tendency has been more and more away from everything like sectarian trammels, whether disguised in the name of evangelical" or not, and among the latest members of the board of trustees there have been elected at least one Roman Catholic and one Hebrew.

66

I also note another point-the supposed difficulty arising from the teaching of political economy. No such difficulty has ever been experienced at Cornell University, for the reason that political economy, not being an exact science, various controverted questions have been presented by eminent authorities from different points of view. Beside this, there has been presented what is known as the "historical view;" i. e., that even if political economy be an exact science, it is still a question for statesmen to decide as to how far it should be applied under existing conditions in any given country at any given time.

I wish to say distinctly that neither of the questions above referred to have ever been found difficult to deal with by our trustees. The board has included men of both political parties and of every phase of religious thought, yet neither politics nor religion has ever caused, during these thirty years, even a momentary difficulty among them.

I remain, dear sir, very respectfully and truly, yours,

Hon. JAMES H. KYLE,

ANDREW D. WHITE.

Chairman of the Senate Committee on a

National University, Washington, D. C.

LETTER OF EX-GOV. HOYT, IN REVIEW OF OBJECTIONS OFFERED BY OFFICERS OF THE "AMERICAN UNIVERSITY.”

No. 4 IOWA CIRCLE,

Washington, D. C., February 22, 1896. DEAR SIR: While the friends of a national post-graduate university have met with some surprises during the progress of their labors, the one of yesterday, at the hearing accorded by your committee to representatives of a denominational institution now springing up in the District of Columbia, surpassed them all.

It was perhaps not unnatural that a few of the older and more powerful institu. tions for higher education, with very considerable endowments, with able faculties and large bodies of students, with beginnings of post-graduate work in some departments, and hence with no little pride of honorable rank in the educational world, should at first see only the promise of a formidable rival instead of the friendly supplementer and co-worker which lies in the plans of those who would promote the establishment of a university of the United States. But that any representative of an enterprise at once strictly sectarian, and entered upon so long since even the more recent beginning of efforts for a national university of the highest rank should have felt justified in making an assault upon the movement is strange indeed. Stranger still when that assault is made in the name of religion, not of learning, and in terms which clearly show that the real motive is not even religious, but denominational at the very best. I say “at the very best" because I refuse to believe that the great religious organization thus seemingly represented is indeed responsible for this attack. It is too practically wise and patriotic a body to approve of what has been done in this matter. Indeed, the leading assailant, when questioned, was forced to admit that he spoke for himself alone, though afterwards claim was made that he represented "the adverse sentiment generally.”

What, now, are the points made at the hearing in question? Let us briefly examine them in the order of presentation.

The chief opposer's first argument was to this effect, namely: There can be no university without a school of theology. A national university, which must be impartial, could not teach theology without teaching all the religious faiths, which would be impossible. Therefore, it could never become a university-an institution embracing the whole circle of the sciences, arts, and letters.

It seems not to have occurred to this reverend advocate that so much of theology as is dearest to him is a matter of belief only, and hence not of science at all; or that if some religious belief must be taught in order to constitute a university, the institution which he proposes as a substitute for the National University would find itself about as badly off, since in the estimation of all the other 142 religious denominations in the United States, the educational organization which he represents would be but the one hundred and forty-third part of a university, according to his own theory.

On the other hand, our ecclesiastical opposer does not seem to have had in mind that the greater part of what is taught in a theological course may be as properly taught in the National University as in his own; nor that we are now neither in foreign lands nor in the dark ages, where and when theology led the way, but in the midst of very different conditions, and living under a Government which left the church responsible for its own affairs. Possibly it has not occurred to him that, with the University of the United States at the National Capital, there will still be

42

room for as maný purely theological schools as the 143 denominations are likely to find the means to set up; each of them sustaining friendly relations with the great central university and drawing freely from its fountains of pure learning. Nor, last of all, does it seem to have entered the bishop's mind that, with the rapid enlargement of the vast field of human knowledge which the whole world accepts, there has gradually come a new conception of things, and such revision of terms that the mere beliefs of the multitudinous sects are no longer of necessity constituent parts of a true university.

2. This same objector inquires, "How could you teach political economy in a national university?"

What a question! In the first place, what better means of teaching political economy would his own denominational university possess? Would it teach one or both sides of the party questions? If but one side, then he is his own accuser; and if both or all sides, why could not the national university do the same? Does he seriously doubt that the National University would have all the conflicting economies taught, and by representative men of such acknowledged competency as would satisfy all demands? Political economy is taught in the undergraduate courses of all our higher institutions, so that graduates would come to the National University already familiar with the general principles, though ofttimes with a bias, one way or the other, because of the narrowness and unfairness of a professor who could not honorably state the whole argument, pro and con. At the National University they would hear both or all sides, and thus be competent to reach a just conclusion. This objection, like the other, does little credit to the information of the opposer, who ought to know what is already done in this regard at leading institutions, American and foreign.

Touching this whole matter the pending bill distinctly provides that "in all the operations of the university neither sectarian nor partisan preferences shall be allowed." Does our objector's charter guarantee as much? Does he not practically admit that his own proposed institution is to be one-sided in this regard?

The other objections, concerning modern history, etc., are not deserving of confutation.

3. Next it was urged that the non-denominational universities are not extraordinary successes, and in terms which made it very apparent that the reverend objector is not in sympathy with the public-school system of the country, of which so many of said universities constitute a part, and that he would have the American people go back to the good old times when the ambitious lover of learning must choose his creed and pay, or starve.

The assertions as to this matter are not sustained by the facts. Many of the State institutions are so new that it is unfair to compare them with those whose beginnings go back one or two hundred years. But, regardless of this point, it is beyond question that several of these State and other non-denominational universities are at this very hour leading the ancients in most important matters, while yet others are rapidly moving to the front. The statement that the present tendency is rather toward denominational control is not true. Nor is the specific statement concerning Cornell University, to the effect that it had been necessary to change its charter, giving to the evangelical churches a majority control, correct. It is flatly denied in every particular by ex-president Andrew D. White, who drafted the charter and has been familiar with the institution from its very foundation.

As a matter of fact, everything like intensity of denominationalism is on the wane among the greater institutions. Men everywhere are broadened and liberalized by the higher studies. To effect this very thing is one great office of the higher education. The friends of the coming National University have nothing to say against the denominational institutions. Not a few of them bravely, and with sacrifices to be ever gratefully remembered, met as they could the intellectual cravings of our youth in the times ere there came any just recognition of the obligations resting upon the State and National governments to create and perfect a series of public schools

from lowest to the highest possible-a series that should be worthy the high title of American system of public education—and to throw around that system every possible safeguard, as though it were the very cradle of liberty. Let the denominational schools flourish. They meet a demand that will continue. We lay not one straw in their way. Nay, as said before, by the founding of the National University there will be secured to them, as to all our educational institutions, a needed service such as no other instrumentality could offer.

As touching the claims of this denominational opposer, we simply urge that, since only a portion of the 70,000,000 of Americans are of his particular faith, it is illiberal, unpatriotic, and absurd for him, as the self-appointed champion of an incipient sectarian institution, intended, as shown by its charter, for but a new university of the ordinary type, to claim the whole remaining ground, to the total exclusion of such an one as George Washington and other founders of the Government originated and outlined; as eight other presidents of the United States have favored; as so many of our most eminent citizens have at various periods most earnestly advocated; as chiefs of the great body of the higher institutions have strongly recommended and are now recommending; as is warmly urged by State superintendents of public instruction in every State of the Union; as is heartily approved by leading scholars, scientists, and statesmen of the whole country.

We further say to this ecclesiastical objector that the National University is not intended for undergraduate youth at all, but for graduate students who shall have already passed through the courses of moral training supplied by the religious agencies of the country, and are prepared in their manlier years to enter upon those studies which lead into special fields of intellectual activity.

4. Last of all, this distinguished champion of a denominational institution, under an "American" name, made an end to his series of misconceptions and misrepresentations with an attempt to weaken the patriotic sentiment which rightfully attaches to the national university proposition, by saying of Washington, "He spoke only of an institution for instruction in political science. He did not mean such a university as is set forth in this bill; not at all."

To show how strangely this bold declaration before the Senate committee misrepresents the facts in the case, I have but to quote from Washington's letters, as follows: (1) From his letter of December 15, 1794, to Edmond Randolph, Secretary of State: “For the reasons mentioned to you the other day, namely, the Virginia assembly being in session, and a plan being on foot for establishing a seminary of learning upon an extensive scale in the Federal city, it would oblige me if you and Mr. Madison would endeavor to mature the measures which will be proper for me to pursue in order to bring my designs into view as soon as you can make it convenient to yourselves."

(2) From his letter of March 15, 1795, to Thomas Jefferson:

"And, lastly, as the seminary is contemplated for the completion of education and study of the sciences, not for boys in their rudiments, it will afford the students an opportunity of attending the debates in Congress, and thereby becoming more liberally and better acquainted with the principles of law and government."

(3) From his letter of March 16, 1795, to Governor Brooke, of Virginia:

66

'Presuming it to be more agreeable to the general assembly of Virginia that the shares in the James River Company should be assessed for a similar object in some part of that State, I intend to allot them for a seminary to be erected at such place as they shall deem most proper. I am disposed to believe that a seminary of learning upon an enlarged plan, but yet not coming up to the full idea of a university, is an institution to be preferred for the position which is to be chosen. The students who wish to pursue the whole range of science may pass with advantage from the seminary to the university, and the former, by a due relation, may be rendered cooperative with the latter."

(4) From his letter of September 1, 1796, to Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury:

"I mean education generally, as one of the surest means of enlightening and giving just views of thinking to our citizens, but particularly the establishment of a university, where the youth of all parts of the United States might receive the polish of erudition in the arts, sciences, and belles-lettres, and where those who were disposed to run a political course might not only be instructed in the theory and principles, but (this seminary being at the seat of the General Government where the Legislature would be in session half the year, and the intersts and politics of the nation would be discussed) would lay the surest foundation for the practical part also.”

(5) From his annual message of December 7, 1796:

"The assembly to which I address myself is too enlightened not to be fully sensible how much a flourishing state of the arts and sciences contributes to material prosperity and reputation. True it is that our country, much to its honor, contains many seminaries of learning highly respectable and useful; but the funds upon which they rest are too narrow to command the ablest professors, in the different departments of liberal knowledge, for the institution contemplated, though they would be excellent auxiliaries."

It is everywhere manifest in Washington's correspondence and conversations on this subject that his far-reaching mind and patriotic heart were full of a demand for exactly the kind of an institution which, in honor of his name, for the cause of learning, and for the sacred cause of country, not only we at this distance in time have planned, but which such patriots as Dr. Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence, and a leading scientist of his time, had in mind when, in his appeals to the country in support of the national university proposition, in 1788, he said:

"To effect this great and necessary work let one of the first acts of the new Congress be to establish within the district to be allotted for them a Federal university, into which the youth of the United States shall be received after they have finished their studies and taken degrees in the colleges of their respective States."

5. The vice chancellor of the new denominational university was hardly more fortunate than his predecessor in the discussion.

Passing without comment his reference to the "question of constitutional right," brief notice may be taken of his question of "the moral right to take the money of the many and spend it for the superior educational advantage of the few."

Strange questions these from such a representative! Yes, it is the moral right— and the moral as well as the patriotic duty-of the Government of this Republic to do whatsoever is necessary to the highest possible culture, on American soil and in friendly intercourse from every section, of those to whom in large part are to be committed the destinies of our country; the security of our free institutions; the national development in every field of worthy enterprise; our dignity as a nation, honorably and liberally providing for its own; our proper place in the very front rank of an advancing civilization.

Some 3,000 American graduates are to-day seeking abroad the post-graduate facilities which they can not find at home; and, secretly, some of those who oppose this university movement are pleading for yet other favors of that sort in the universities of France.

Presidents Washington, John Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Jackson, Grant, and Hayes were moved by an honorable craving to be free from dependence on foreign powers in all these high regards, and hence officially favored the founding of a national university. The claim by them made is still urged, and with increasing earnestness by a multitude of the foremost of American citizens.

But for reasons not far to seek, this talk of the constitutional and moral right to