Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. FESS (reading):

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.

Mr. DOUGHTON. If you should open it to the youth of the country, have you any idea what number would be entitled to attend such a university?

Mr. FESS. We could not do it in that way. Dr. Hulley does not mean what you have in mind. If we did that we would have the opposition of every university in this country, simply because we would be undertaking what the States do well, which is unnecessary on our part.

Mr. DOUGHTON. But I asked you whether you had any idea what number that policy would open it up to.

Mr. FESS. Thousands, I should say; unlimited thousands. However, we want a research institution.

Mr. DOUGHTON. I want to get in the record what you do want. Mr. FESS. Yes; we want a research institution; to do the sort of work for matured scholars of promise that no institution can do. I offer for the consideration of the committee a letter received by me from the president of the University of Alabama, which is as follows:

Hon. SIMEON D. FESS,

House Building, Washington, D. C.

FEBRUARY 9, 1914.

MY DEAR MR. FESS: I greatly regret my inability to be present at the meeting of the Committee on Education at the time of the hearing on the national university bill.

You perhaps know that this bill has been several times approved by the National Association of State Universities. I earnestly hope that the committee may take favorable action concerning this great matter. I feel that nothing can be done in behalf of higher education in this country that will approach in importance the establishment of a great national university in Washington. Assuring you of my regard, believe me,

Yours, sincerely,

GEORGE H. DENNY, President.

One of the very strongest men in the country is President Charles W. Dabney, for a long time the president of the University of Tennessee, and called, if you remember, to become the head of the Municipal University in Cincinnati, and it is under him this wonderful cooperative work is being done by Dean Schneider. He is perhaps the best-informed man in the country along the lines we are working. I will read his letter:

FEBRUARY 10, 1914.

MY DEAR DR. FESS: I am trying to make my plans to be with you on the 27th or 28th. I have a letter from President James, also asking me to come. Having served in an executive position in the Department of Agriculture, and thus had an opportunity to study this matter for a number of years, I am much interested in it, and shall, if possible, prepare a paper presenting some of the results of my experience. I should like to have about 25 minutes in which to present this.

I am glad to hear of the progress you are making.
Very cordially, yours,

Dr. S. D. FESS,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

CHARLES WM. DABNEY.

I take a great deal of interest in the letter I have received from the president of the University of Chicago. I have feared that the highly endowed institutions might oppose it, and I have feared they might say it was unnecessary because they could do this work. You know something of the great endowment of this university.

Mr. DOUGHTON. That is the Rockefeller institution, is it not?
Mr. FESS. Yes. [Reading:]

CHICAGO, February 5, 1914.

MY DEAR SIR: Your favor of the 26th of January, with inclosure, is received. I am interested in the bill to create a national university. Of course the idea of the university as contemplated by Washington and the ideas which may exist at the present time are materially different. I should not regard the ideas of a century ago or more as being very valuable under our present conditions.

Of course no one does. Everybody up to date would see the difference between the standing of a university in Washington's time and now, but what was needed then was not more imperative than what is needed now. [Reading:]

The purposes of the university, as provided in section 2, seem to me on the whole proper. At the same time the only one that especially appeals to me is the first. If the third is to be construed as simply an application of the first, I should approve that. I hardly see the advisability of the second.

You recognize that we thave given three purposes of the university. Section 2 provides "That the purpose of said university shall be threefold," and the second purpose, which he is questioning, is “To provide for the higher instruction and training of men and women for posts of importance and responsibility in the public service of State or Nation, and for the practice of such callings and professions as may require for their worthy pursuit a higher training." I am rather of the opinion that President Judson has not thought of the cooperative plan that we have been discussing.

Mr. TOWNER. Perhaps he may have in mind that it would be unnecessary to provide a national university because of the statements made at the close of that paragraph," and for the practice of such callings and professions as may require for their worthy pursuit a higher training."

Mr. FESS. Yes; that may be.

[Reading:]

The first part of the second may possibly be of use. The last part would merely involve the duplication of existing agencies. Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 I should approve. Section 7 contains desirable material. Perhaps there is no other solution, in case there is no State university in the State, than to ask the governor to appoint. At the same time I think it would be better to keep all appointments of that character in educational hands, if possible. The remaining sections seem to me desirable.

Very truly, yours,

HARRY P. JUDSON.

The question of the organization of the board of regents, together with the advisory council, will come up as probably the most intricate problem to be discussed.

Mr. TOWNER. The advisability of advisory councils is always seriously to be questioned, in my judgment.

Mr. FESS. I offer for the consideration of the committee a letter received by me from the superintendent of public schools, Detroit, Mich., which is as follows:

Hon. S. D. FESS,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

FEBRUARY 5, 1914.

MY DEAR MR. FESS: I wish to thank you for sending me a copy of the article on 66 The national university" together with a copy of the bill which you

have introduced looking toward the establishment of a national university. You can certainly count upon me as being a hearty supporter of this effort. For many years I have advocated the establishment of such a university, and hope that your efforts to bring about something definite may be crowned with

success.

The existence of such a university would prove a stimulus to improvement in the character of the work of all of our great universities, and would certainly cap in the most effective way the educational system in the United States. In examining the provisions of the bill I am impressed by the simple yet effective system which you contemplate.

Very truly, yours,

C. E. CHADSEY, Superintendent.

The next letter is from the president of the University of South Carolina, at Columbia, one of the most interesting, historically, of all the State universities of the country, and his letter reads as follows:

Hon. S. D. FESS, Washington, D. C.

FEBRUARY 4, 1914.

DEAR SIR: I have your letter of January 26 inclosing the bill introduced by you in the House of Representatives for the establishment of a national university. I wish to congratulate you upon the directness and clearness of the bill, which, it seems to me, meets the requirements completely. I am heartily in sympathy with the movement to establish a great national university at Washington. It seems a great waste of resources not to be able to utilize in this way the vast facilities of our Federal Government. I trust that this bill will be passed at the present session of Congress.

Very truly, yours,

A. C. MOORE, Acting President.

I offer for the consideration of the committee a letter received by me from the president of Lafayette College, Easton, Pa., which is as follows:

Hon. S. D. FESS,

FEBRUARY 3, 1914.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SIR: I beg to acknowledge your recent communication, together with your bill for the establishment of a national university.

The matter is an old friend, as I was on the committee, or council, which endeavored for many years to secure the establishment of such a university by Congress. At various times we seemed very near success, but the matter finally was abandoned by those who were in charge in Washington.

I am in favor of such a university, and shall be glad to do anything I can to promote its establishment.

Very truly, yours.

E. D. WARFIELD.

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

Hon. S. D. FESS,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

FEBRUARY 3, 1914.

MY DEAR FESS: I tremble to address an honorable Member of Congress, but inasmuch as he has seen fit to write to me perhaps it is not improper that I should acknowledge the letter that he has written.

I am in favor of the national university, and can see no good reason why Congress should not make liberal appropriations to establish in the Capital of the Nation a splendid institution of learning which should be the pride of all our people and a stimulus to all our scholarship. It would give us a recognized standing throughout the civilized world in a way that the same amount of money would not secure in any other way.

The bill to which you refer seems to me to be very well drawn and covers the ground satisfactorily. If I have any criticism of it, it is that the board of

trustees is large; but perhaps for a national institution it is well to have a trusteeship large enough to be fairly representative of the different sections of the country.

With best wishes for your continued success, I am,

Very sincerely, yours,

M. G. BRUMBAUGH.

The CHAIRMAN. Your bill provides for 12 trustees, I believe? Mr. FESS. Thirteen; twelve in addition to the Commissioner of Education. Mr. Brumbaugh, as you know, was commissioner of education at Porto Rico.

Mr. TOWNER. He instituted the public-school system there?

Mr. FESS. Yes; and was also at the head of the department of pedagogy in the University of Pennsylvania. He is now superintendent of the public schools.

I offer for the consideration of the committee a letter received by me from the president of the University of Maine. I am certainly glad to get this letter, since Dr. Aley is an expert himself in some lines. It is as follows:

Hon. S. D. FESS, Washington, D. C.

JANUARY 29, 1914.

DEAR MR. FESS: I am certainly glad to know that matters are moving along in such an encouraging way with reference to a national university.

I think that if you could arrange the hearing either on Friday or Saturday of the week of the Richmond meeting, it would be largely attended by men interested in the bill.

You may count on me to do all I can to help in the matter.

Sincerely, yours,

ROBERT J. ALEY.

I offer for the consideration of the committee a letter received by me from the president of the University of Florida, which is as follows:

Hon, S. D. FESS,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

JANUARY 30, 1914.

MY DEAR SIR: I have carefully read your bill (H. R. 11749) to create a national university at the seat of the Federal Government, and I wish to say, without the least hesitation, that every detail of this measure has my most hearty approval.

The matter of a national university has been the subject of discussion before our most prominent educational bodies in the United States for the last quarter of a century. This bill represents, for the most part, the crystallized thought of the educational leaders of the country. I deem it unnecessary for me to state in detail my reasons for indorsing this measure, as you have covered the ground in your address, published in the Antioch College Bulletin, of December, 1913.

It would gratify me, and, I believe, would be heartily appreciated by others engaged in educational service in the State of Florida, if our Congressmen and Senators and Senators and Congressmen from other States should unite in a majority necessary to pass this measure at this session of Congress.

Cordially, yours,

A. A. MURPHREE, President.

I now offer a letter from the president of the National Association of State Universities:

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE UNIVERSITIES,
Seattle, Wash., February 9, 1914.

MY DEAR REPRESENTATIVE FESS: I write to acknowledge the receipt of a copy of the bill to create a national university of the United States. We have been watching for the introduction of the bill. As you mention in your discussion of the subject, the National Association of State Universities have been actively interested in this movement for a number of years and have felt more en

couraged in the matter since the conference with you and other Members of Congress in November than at any time before in the 14 years that I have been connected with the university work.

The presidents of the State universities have all committed themselves, as I understand, to try to enlist the help of their respective Congressmen in the interests of this bill. I have just been in correspondence with President James, of the University of Illinois, who is chairman of the committee of our association on the national university, and with President Benton, of the University of Vermont, who is secretary of the association, in regard to the work to be done by the members of our association. President Benton, as secretary, is making a canvass to see that all of the men have taken up the matter with their Congressmen and to learn what assurance of support they received from their respective Congressmen.

I heard a few days ago that two or three different forms of bills to this same end, for establishing a national university, had appeared and were likely to be introduced in one House or the other. Possibly, you on the ground have already gotten these different views reconciled. If your bill does not represent the plan agreed upon by the people who are actively interested in the purpose of the bill, I trust that such a reconciliation of views may be gained in a short time, so that all persons actively interested in the same end may put their full energies into an effort for the accomplishment of that end.

Your bill is laid out on broad lines, so that most differences in detail could be taken care of later under your plan of organization and management. It would be a great satisfaction to me, as a university man, to see an educator in Congress lead this movement which, when it comes, will be an educational epoch in this country. If one looks over the record of the efforts that have been made from Washington's time to the present, it is something of a surprise to see that a national university has not been estabilshed already.

I wish you success, and I write to assure you that anything that our association can do and that the members can do will be done in support of this great

cause.

Cordially, yours,

Hon. S D. FESS,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

THOMAS F. KANE.

Here is a suggestive letter from Dean Schneider who was before us on the cooperative plan of education and who delighted us all: UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI, Cincinnati, Ohio, February 6, 1914.

Hon. S. D. FESS,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

66

66

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

DEAR DR. FESS: I have given thorough consideration to the details of your bill to create a national university, a copy of which you gave me while I was in Washington, and I have the temerity to present the following suggestions: Page 2, line 8, the word scientific" is too restricting. The national university should cooperate with all the departments of the Government. Of course, there is a science " of library operation and a science" of diplomacy, but the word "science" as here used embraces only the natural sciences, physics, chemistry, biology, etc. I would suggest the elimination of the word scientific" entirely and have the paragraph read "to cooperate with the departments of the Federal Government, etc." I should like further to see in this paragraph a more definite statement of the cooperation, if this is possible. The cooperation as you suggest it in the bill is not very tangible, since you follow with the idea of cooperation also with the colleges of agriculture, etc. The two types of cooperation are so distinct and separate that I feel they should have separate paragraphs in order that the cooperation with the Government departments may be clearly set forth.

Everyone with whom I have talked believes with me that the requirement under section 3 is unwise in that the degree of master of arts or science is made a prerequisite for admission. I am very strongly of the opinion that this should be changed to bachelor. Understanding the cooperative system as you do, I think you will see the necessity of this. If my point is not obvious to you I shall be glad to furnish arguments.

I think section 7 is a bit unfortunate. An advisory council composed wholly of educators is a decidedly unbalanced body, and with all due respect to our profession, I fear the influence on the national university of many of the un

« PreviousContinue »