New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-05-21
MOVEMENT AGAINST DIR. LoRING.
49, rrropr To HAVE HIM RENOvED-DR' COLLIER
srnN1CES PRAISID.

An EFFORT TO HAVE HIM REMOVED D''
SERVICES PRAIsTD.
INV TELEGRAPH TO THE TRiBUNE'l
v.smvcroy. May 20.-It is understood tna' "
.-a,ont ;s on loot having for its ohJect the re-
-, from office of Commissioner Lorlh9' Vi
49, nenortmcnt of Agriculture, and the appoint
80 IN his place of Dr. f. Lewis Stur'e'aht,
a,.ootor of the agricultural experiment station d.
Geneva. n. Y n cu;or
letters received in Washington by Dr. Coilier
ord others. who are opposed to Commissioner ho'-
inc are said to show. that the movement against
,u receives the aid and approval OF large MAORI
70 of the agricultural chemists, as well as Vi 'n0
agrcultural periodical of the country.
The removal of Dr. ollier seems 10 nave p'ouE"'
to tbe surface much dissatisfaction WHICH oot'i'
that had existed in ference to commissioner '-oi
ing For example, ! r. Collier has recei'cu 'e',,i
from an eminent agricultural chemist, persoha'N
unknown TO him, who says: Though my "cqu''!u''
once with YOU scarcely jusifes it, cannot refrain
f,o,, assuring YOU that am one of the hundreds
f American chemists and of Thousands OF American
citizens who feel simply outraged by the rece""
action of the head of the Agricultural Bureau IL iS
moor comfort yet comfort, to know that h''',o
vigorous effort 10 secure the appointment OF
man as Commissioner, who would nave Iecos"'%eu
merit and respected justice"
IA Jattlmorc. Professor of Chemistry IN the
University at Rochester, and Analyst to the New
York Stat. Board of Health for the western
District. has written a strong letter 10 tuo
pros,dcrt in favor of tho restoration
of DIR. Collier to his former place PROFESSOR La'N
NOVA writes that he has had professional reasons for
r,aLirg himself thoroughly familiar with Dr.
Callers work in the Department OF Agrcui .ure'
esnccislIy that in respect to the development Ol
.orgbun sugar, and therefore. feels justiiicd IN
saving with all the emphasis the words can contain
that he regards Dr. Golfers removal as an act OF
iuiuStice In this utterance MT. Latlin"le says lie
feels sure that he expresses the common s'hu-
meut of the chemists of the whole country,
NOT knowing or caring what may be Dr. CoillcT
political creed.
Professor baltimore SAYS that as matter OF
prnciple he regards tho removal as an act OF hus-
tice 10 a man who, as he personally knows. mas pY
wears of faithful devotion to his official duties
placed a new industry of vast Importance upon
solid basis; man whose scientific merit has been
oporoved NV the unanimous sulfrages of the most
6ietinou1shod scientific body III the land-tbe Ma
tional Academy of Sciences.
Not only docs Professor baltimore regard Dr. Col
Iers removal as grossly unjust to the man. ana IN
direct violation of the spirit OF Civil Service REFORM
but what is of vastly greater Importance as a
calamity TO a great industry, which, although SO
new. is already of great magnitude, and slves
abundant promise of speedily becoming vast
sonrce of national wealth Already IN most
of the Northern States strong organizations
formed 10 foster the industry, fully
annreciate the services of DR.. Collier and VIII not
onietly submit to beng deprived of them Profes-
,or baltimore remarks that while the foundations
of the sorghum industry have been scarcely laId'
much vet remains to he done in perfecting details,
and he disparaccs no man in saying that the years
spent by Dr. Collier In the patient investigation oi
this subject give him an Incompatible advantage
over any other man who might undertake to take
it up and continue it. ,.c,.. =.
Professor baltimore concludes: "Ihc most ee-
mentary principles OF business and economy
of time-ln this case, imperatlve-no less than
mare iustce TO a public servant who has so con-
neteiy demonstrated both his scientific competence
and his fidelity and the real interests OF national
indusiry all conspirc in the demand that lie De
nernitted TO resume and continue this mpol t1nL
work" , -, N .,. l.,
There ia reason to believe that the President does
not consider that he can properly interfere WIN
Commissioner L0rugs action III respect to In COI,
her OF any other subordinate Of.the Agricultural
Department The Commissioner Is hy law vested
with the authority to appoint the subordinate
officers OF thc DepaIim