The new dominion. [volume] (Morgantown, W. Va.) 1876-1904, 1885-02-28
A POstp0nement.

This result has been brought
about, not by square test of the
sense of the Legislature upon the
merits Of the measure, but by adroit
manipulations and false issues, di-
verting the attention of Legislators
from it's merits.
For example, the Legislature was
deceived into believing-by what
means we are not fully informed.
that there was a Job set up here
at Morgantown to push Mrs. Moore's
Seminary property ON the State at a
good, round figure-that there were
parties who held liens on it who
were trying to lead the Legislature
into a trap--and, if the reports Of
the papers are to be accepted, tran
scripts of liens purp orting to come
from this county were exhibited in
6eSLegislature to show thatst the
Seminary property was virtually
sunder the Sherif's hammer.
Now, we undertake to say that
there cannot be found upon the re-
cords of this county single un-
liquidated mortgage, judgment lien,
trust, or any other kind of incum-
brance whatever, to the amount of
single dollar, on the Seminary
property owned by Mrs. Moore. We
further undertake to say that no man
or woman, save Mrs. Moore herself has
any debt or claim of any kind upon
which to set up title or prospect of
title to the aforesaid building. We
further undertake to say that no man
or body of men had any interest in,
or knowledge of, any Job or ar
rangement by which they could put
that property on the State at any
price or on any conditions; and we
further undertake to say that the
owner of that building, Mrs. E. l.
Moore, never offered or proposed or
even suggested any plan or arrange
ment by which the State was to take
her building, and never mentioned
the subject until approached by a
committee of the Board of Regents
in regard to using her building as a
ladies' dormitory. And zee dare any
man to deny any one Of these state
ments over his oeon signature.
But it was by such decisions as
this that the Legislature was led in
to voting down this measure for the
co-education of the sexes.
Take another example of legisla-
tive strategy engineered by the OPP
ponents of the measure. A question
was raised as to whether the legal
effect of admitting ladies to the Uni
yersity would not be to forfeit the
endowment derived from the U. S.
Government With great pomp and
show of seriousness, this question
was referred to the judiciary com
mite, which is accepted as author
ity by the Legislature on legal ques-
tions. AS ex-judge Raymond was
chairman Of that committee, we were
a little curious to see how he could
be made to do service in this behalf.
But 10, the resources of the opposi-
ton were equal to any emergency.
Here was a trick that was worth two
reports in the ordinary way: Judge
Raymond and some other lawyers
were temporarily suspended from
duty on the committee-that is, the
question was referred to a sub-com-
mittee of the judiciary, consisting of
two who were opposed to co-educa-
ton and one in favor of it. There
upon the first two brought in a re-
port that the endowment would be
forfeited, and the other minority
report that it would not be; and
Judge Raymond, as Chairman of
the regular committee, was made to
do duty and dignity this little piece
of Legislative burlesque by present
ing the report to the House.
Strategy, me boy!r
But it was not alone by this par
liamentary gymnastics that the
friends of co-education were outgen-
eraled. They placed themselves at
a disadvantage and wasted their
strength by making a fight on an
immaterial issue. It was not neces-
sary for the Legislature to pass an
act forbidding the exclusion of
ladies from the University. They
have right there without any such
legislation. There is no law to ex-
clude them, and there is no necessity
for any special act admitting them.
All that was necessary or expedient
or pertinent was to pass a joint res
ofution directing the Board of Re
0antS to lnake nrnui sion for racaiv-