Los Angeles daily herald., 1874-10-01
Light on the Subject.

Professor CARR has published long
reply to the defense of the Regents. 1t
is strong document-doubly strong
from the fact that it exposes and
proves something like cupidity on the
part of certain members of the
Board. We refer to the matter now
in order to place before our readers q
letter from Hon. A. HIGBIE, Assem-
blyman from this county which eX-
plains how the Regents prevented the
passage of bill which would have
changed, if not entirely prevented the
carrying out of the programme then
marked out by the Board. Near the
close of the legislative session, the
House Committee on Education re-
ported bill embodying their views
on the changes which should be made
in the management of the University.
Why this bill did not become a law is
explained by Mr.. HIGBIE, Chairman
of the Committee, in the following
communication to w. II. BAXTER,
one of the Grange memorialists, after
the Regents had asked for Professor
CARR's resignation. The letter bears
date of July Both 1874 and does credit
to Mr.. HIGBIE's head and heart. 1t
reads as follows:
When the bill proposing a radical change
in the Board of Regents was introduced and
referred TO the Committee on Education, Re-
gent Dwinelle and others were very active for
its defeat.
had a lengthy conversation with Dwinellc
in which he admitted that he and other Re-
gents mad been opposed to Professor Carr; but
since the investigation OF the University mat
ters before the committee at Sacramento, he
and other Regents were fully satisfied with
him, believing that the cause of the difficulty
and disafection was found in Professor Swim
ton. While he admitted the Justice OF the
bill, he thought that enough had been said
and done for one session. / replied that too
much had already been said and done, and
that he was one Of the active parties; that he
had threatened to a member OF the Commit
tee on Education that Carr had to go out
meaning, as understood, that the Char OF Ag-
riculture would be vacated. | further stated
that the people, the Committee of InVestiga-
ton from both Houses, as we'll as the Com
mlttee on Education, were not satisfied with
the management OF the University, and espe-
cially with the Agricultural Department.:
therefore, we proposed the plan to select Re
gents representing the various callings and
interests OF the state. He replied: I'VE now
understand things better than we did, and
pledge you my word on my own behalf and
on behalf of the Board of Regents, that no at
tempt shall be made TO remove the Professor
of Agriculture only for such causes as would
remove Professor from my Chair" My re-
ply was: Judge, if you feel free to say that
this pledge shall be faithfully kept, the
friends of the bill will not urge il; il not, it
will pass in less than one hour" said the
Judge: " feel free to say that it will" l re-
piled: " hope that it will, not only for the
benefit of the Agricultural Department OF
the University, but for the credit of the Re
gents.
In few moments after this conversation with
Regent Dwinelle, Alfred A. Cohen of Aame-
da sent for me, wishing an interview on the
same subject, viz: Professor Carr and the
Chalr OF Agriculture. Our conversation was
very much like that between myself and Re
gent Dwinelle. He said that he was prepared
10 say that the pledge made by Dwinelle
should be faithfully kept, in case the friends
of the new bill would not urge it. My reply
was, " Omnid jLtSttcid." SO the friends of the
bill, thinking that the results contemplated
therein, viz: justice to Professor Carr and a
more careful consideration of the College of
Agriculture, would be secured by the action of
the Regents under these pledges, concluded
not to urge it predicating their action on
the pledges made by the gentlemen just
named.