Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. PLATT. Just as the Bureau of Soils now works with universities in making soil surveys all over the country?

Mr. FESS. Yes.

Mr. DOUGHTON. If that would be true, how could they find time to be instructed? If these men were here for the purpose of attending this university, how could they stop their work for that purpose?

Mr. PLATT. They would not stop their work, but they would go on working under the direction of the bureau.

Mr. DOUGHTON. If a man were here attending the university for instruction purposes, how could he teach a force out over the country? Mr. PLATT. He is not supposed to teach; he is supposed to work with them. We could send him, for instance, into Virginia to make a soil survey of such-and-such a county.

Mr. FESS. This is to render services to the Government for the privilege of studying in this university, if it appears wise to those in authority of the university to inaugurate such cooperation.

Mr. DOUGHTON. If we are going to work it in that way, that is to attend this university and go out under the direction of these departments, why not send them out direct?

Mr. FESS. But where would you get them?

Mr. DOUGHTON. You could get them from the same places you get these other experts, from these institutions.

Mr. FESS. But I think it would be better to have a corps of trained men here; that is, coming from the different institutions to be trained in advanced work, so that they could be picked up at any time. It would be less difficult to secure the needed expert if we had a graduate institution whose duty it was to train such experts.

Mr. DOUGHTON. They would not want to go out as subordinates. Mr. FESS. But that is the condition. This feature will come up again. Now, I offer for the consideration of the committee a letter received by me from the president of the State University of Indiana, Mr. W. L. Bryan, one of the great educators of the country:

BLOOMINGTON, IND., February 9, 1914.

I

DEAR SIR: I am very deeply interested in the national university bill. agree with the view expressed by the late William T. Harris, United States Commissioner of Education, that the desire for the national university represents a national instinct. I sincerely hope that Congress will move forward in this extremely important matter.

Very truly, yours,

Hon. SIMEON D. FESS,

House of Representatives. Washington, D. C.

W. L. BRYAN.

I offer for the consideration of the committee a letter received by me from the president of the University of Oregon:

FEBRUARY 4, 1914.

MY DEAR SIR: Your favor of January 26, accompanied by a copy of your bill in Congress to establish a national university, is just at hand. I am heartily in sympathy with the provisions of the bill and sincerely hope that this Congress may add to its already great achievements by establishing a great national · university which shall ultimately compare more than favorably with the great universities of Europe.

Very sincerely,

Hon. S. D. FESS,

tatives

P. L. CAMPBELL, President.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

I offer for the consideration of the committee a letter received by me from the first American to take the doctor's degree in the University of Athens, Greece, an author of a Greek textbook, and a man who taught in Greece eight years. He is a leading Catholic of the country and writes from the rectory of St. Vincent de Paul, Cincinnati, as follows:

Hon. S. D. FESS, Washington.

FEBRUARY 9, 1914.

IDEAR DR. FESS: Thanks for the education literature kindly sent to me, and also for the speech on Government-built railways in Alaska. Your exposition of the advantages of such railways in that country has taught me and convinced me.

I am in favor of a national university and hope that your bill will be accepted. My notion would be that the university gradually come to include higher studies and research in all science and fields of knowledge. Not all of its schools need be located at Washington, but wherever the work of that school could best be done. Many of the schools, however could best be located at Washington. In some respects the work of a national university, such as ours should be, would be higher than work done at other universities, and in other respects parallel with what the other universities do, and model to these others. Only in one matter do I differ that of giving degrees. I believe that the national university should confer them; only the doctorate, however.

We ought to have schools in which young men and women could prepare for Government positions. But it is doubtful whether these schools should be under control of the university. My own opinion is that such schools should be university schools, and all higher Government positions should be filled by graduates in such studies as fit them for their public duties. In this way two sets of students would be provided for, one set being those who do research work, and the other set those who are being thoroughly trained (and highly) in preparation for high and important posts. The utmost freedom, both lehrand lernfreiheit, should be a matter of course. Any individual who feels that he has something great to teach should be permitted to present himself to the proper board, and on showing his worthiness be allowed to teach. But, as with the privat docents of Germany, such a teacher would receive no salary and no special assistance from the university. His future and the future of what he teaches would depend on the reputation he would make for himself.

Dear Dr. Fess, thanks again.

Sincerely and respectfully,

That is a very significant letter.

DANIEL QUINN.

Mr. TOWNER. Let me say that the suggestion that only the doctorate degree should be given is, I think, entirely unreasonable, and if any degrees are to be given at all, I want to say here so that it may be considered by the gentlemen present-that, as is well said there, if this university is established it will have two objects and purposes. Mr. Fess has explained them very well in his opening statement. One of the objects will be the higher education of college graduates, and to them, of course, it would be entirely appropriate to say that no degree should be conferred except the doctorate degree. However, there will be young men who will desire to enter the university for Government service, for instance, in the department of biology and the chemical departments, who would desire to prepare themselves for such service, and if this university is established as an aid to Government service, certainly that would be one of the proper things to do. Now, to say that after they had earned the degree, for instance, of Ph. D., or even some inferior degree, they should not receive it, I think would be putting a disqualification upon these men.

Mr. FESS. That is on the question of degrees?

Mr. TOWNER. Yes.

Mr. FESS. That will come up, evidently, with a great deal of interest. There is no unanimity among educators on the matter of degrees. We will reach a decision doubtless upon that point.

Another very significant letter is from the former Commissioner of Education, Dr. Elmer Brown, now president of the New York University. Dr. Brown has just published in Science magazine a splendid article upon the subject.

Mr. TOWNER. What university is that?
Mr. FESS. The New York University.

Hon. S. D. FESS,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

FEBRUARY 7, 1914.

MY DEAR MR. FESS: I have read with deep interest your letter of January 22, together with the copy of your address on the national university and your draft of a bill for the creation of such a university. The matter is of the more interest to me because of my five years of experience as head of the Bureau of Education in the Department of the Interior. I have, moreover, recently written a brief article on the subject, which will appear in the near future in Science.

That was evidently commented on in the Post this morning. I clipped out something, but did not have time to read it. It referred to the position of Dr. Brown on the proposed university.

Referring to the draft of your bill, I may venture to make the following comments:

First. I note the fact that the dissemination of knowledge does not appear to be included among the three purposes for which the university is to be established.

Mr. TOWNER. That could not be done because that is already within the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Education.

Mr. FESS (reading):

Secondly, you doubtless realize that the term "some institution of recognized standing in section 3 would place upon the national university, at the very outset, the task of determining the standard of higher education in this country, and of classifying our colleges and universities according as they do or do not come up to that standard.

That is an important point, and it is a question whether we should do that or whether we should leave it to such institutions as our university councils and the Carnegie Foundation to do it.

Mr. TOWNER. I do not think either ought to do it. I think the granting of degrees by this national university should be done by the university itself, but that is a matter for discussion.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand that all of these letters will go into the record, and that at the proper time they will be taken up and the subject thoroughly discussed.

Mr. FESS. Yes. What I am most concerned about just now is to get such a familiarity with the general wish of the men in the country who are at the head of university work, and then to study this bill carefully so that when we have these open hearings, when educators will be before us, the committee individually can question them in the light of the needs and possibilities of the institution. That is the main thing now. These letters will all be in the record. [Reading:]

Thirdly, as a minor point, I should question whether a ory council should be required to constitute a quorum. that body would seem to me desirable and practicable.

majority of the advisA smaller quorum of

Mr. TOWNER. Let me suggest that that ought to be omitted entirely; that is, as to what constitutes a quorum. That would best be determined by the practical operations of the board itself. For instance, it might be deemed best to have this board of trustees inaccessible a great portion of the time; they might determine that no particular action should be taken-that is, no important actionexcept there was a certain number present, and that the less important and merely administrative functions might be performed by a lesser number of the body. So I think to put that in the bill would be unfortunate.

Mr. FESS. As perhaps you are aware, most of the university organizations maintain an executive committee to do the work in special cases, when at times it is difficult to get the board together.

Mr. TOWNER. Yes; that might be all right.

Mr. FESS (reading):

Fourthly, the wording of section 15 seems to me open to some objection, inasmuch as it seems to imply that the fostering of research by university students is no part of "the real function of the various museums, etc., belonging to the

Federal Government.

I am, believe me, very sincerely, yours,

ELMER E. BROWN, Chancellor.

That is a very valuable letter, from the former National Commissioner of Education,

Mr. TOWNER. That could all be cured by omitting the entire phrase. Mr. FESS. I now want to read a letter from the dean of the University of Louisville, Louisville, Ky.:

Hon. S. D. FESS.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

FEBRUARY 5, 1914.

DEAR SIR: I enthusiastically indorse the bill for the proposed national university to be established in Washington.

In section 7 of the bill, I should like to propose that the heads of municipal universities, be represented in the advisory council. With high compliments and regards, I remain,

Yours, faithfully,

JOHN L. PATTERSON, Dean.

That can be easily understood, because he is identified with a municipal university and sees the field of its activity.

Mr. PLATT. There are very few municipal universities in the country, are there not?

Mr. FESS. Very few. There are three fairly well-known institutions as municipal universities. There is one specifically municipal and that is at Cincinnati, and your New York university is more distinctively municipal than anything else and stands as a municipal university in the country.

Mr. PLATT. Does the Boston university stand as a municipal university?

Mr. FESS. No. I think not. I now want to read a letter from George E. Vincent, formerly dean of the University of Chicago, head of the mother Chautauqua of New York, son of Bishop John H. Vincent, and now head of the University of Minnesota:

Hon. S. D. FESS,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

FEBRUARY 5, 1914.

I

MY DEAR MR. FESS. Thank you for sending me a copy of House bill 11749. am in hearty sympathy with the idea of establishing at Washington a center for

research and higher instruction.

It seems to me the bill is admirably designed to allow those who may be put in charge of the institution to adapt it to the actual conditions as these develop. It seems to me distinctly wise not to specify more definitely the type of organization and the routine procedures. With best wishes for success with reference to this bill, I am,

Yours, sincerely,

GEORGE E. VINCENT.

I offer for the consideration of the committee a letter received by me from the superintendent of the public schools of Boston, which is as follows:

Hon. S. D. FESS,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

FEBRUARY 6, 1914.

MY DEAR SIR: I have examined with some care House bill 11749, to create a national university at the seat of the Federal Government.

The purpose as set forth in this bill seems to me ample to justify such an expenditure on the part of the Federal Government as would make such an institution command the respect and admiration of the civilized world.

I am in hearty accord with the measure and wish you success in securing its passage. F. B. DYER, Superintendent of Public Schools.

Very respectfully, yours,

Some of these letters are in reference to our open hearings. This is a letter from the president of the John B. Stetson University, of Deland, Fla.:

Hon. S. D. FESS,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

FEBRUARY 6, 1914.

DEAR SIR: For a long time I have been familiar with the efforts made to establish a university in Washington in accordance with the plan of George Washington, the first President of the United States.

The wisdom of such an institution no one can doubt, it seems to me, who has had knowledge of research work in this country and abroad.

The only objections that I have seen to the proposition have been dictated either by superficial fears of its falling into the hands of sectarian interests or else of jealousy that it might overshadow some other institution.

The Carnegie Foundation is projected along good lines, but does not go far enough. It does not have a large enough financial backing, nor does it plan the work usually carried on in a graduate school. It has its place and will do a good work.

But a national university of liberal construction, offering an opportunity to the educated youth of the country to conduct research work, with the advantage of the accumulations of the Government in Washington, would be of great benefit. This, I am aware, is not identical with the idea of Washington, but it is his idea made conformable to the growth in educational ideals since his day.

Germany does its best work in education at the national capital, Berlin: France does her best work at Paris. The American youth would find Washington an ideal university city.

Respectfully, yours,

LINCOLN HULLEY, President.

Dr. Hulley is a graduate of Harvard and took his postgraduate work and his doctorate at the University of Chicago. He had the honor of being a prize essayist while he was at Harvard.

Mr. DOUGHTON. It would seem from his letter that he wants to educate the youth.

Mr. FESS. No; not if you mean by youth undergraduates. It is a term loosely used.

Mr. DOUGHTON. He says the American youth would find Washington an ideal university city. Please read that last paragraph again.

« PreviousContinue »