The Corvallis gazette. [volume] (Corvallis, Or.) 1862-1899, 1890-05-30
THOMPSON'S VOTE.
ON THE COLLEGE BILL DEFENDED. A MERIT
ED REBUKE To UNJUST CRITICISM.

EDITOR GAZETTE:-The last issue
of the Corvallis Times contains an
article by NJ. L. Pipes which is a
great surprise to me as it must be
to all his friends who have hereto
fore admired his very candid and
logical style of writing, and proves
that one cannot support the cause
of an unworthy person without
taking on himself part of his IN
worthiness. The article referred
to is entitled "Tholnpson's Posi-
ton" and the writer undertakes to
make votes for Governor Pennoyer
by drawing conclusions unfavora-
BILE and unjust to Mr.. Thompson
because he did not vote for the
appropriation for the Agricultural
College in the last legislature.
Mr.. Thompson fully and, | believe
to all but Mr.. Pipes, satisfactorily
explained why he did not vote for
the appropriation. He was willing
to vote for any reasonable amount
to any public school but did not
think it safe to endoW a college
with money belonging to the peo-
pie while suit was pending i'll
court which would decide whether
the state or M. Il. Church, South,
should control the college with all
its funds. Many warm friends OF
the college shared these views with
him, and every lawyer in the state
except Mr.. Pipes knows that the
suit then and now pending will
decide not alone who shall control
thirty-fve acres OF land but who
owns the Agricultural College and
all its endowments, both state and
national.
Now, as there is only one lawyer
to convince of this fact he Shall
have his own language for proof.
He says 1T was already the suit
of the state. 1t involves The right
Of the state to control the Agricul-
tural College and its funds '-TAia
admission, too, after he had just
said, The lawsuit is about the old
college farm and the money appro-
priated, or the property purchased
by it, could not by any possibility
be reached by the Judgment Of the
court i'm favor of the chur"ll.H >
Again, he argues that as the bill
contained an appropriation for
d dafraying the expenses of the suit
and Thompson did not vote for il
he was opposed to the state paying
such expenses. In other words,
because Thompson did not vote for
a bill giving $4,000 to a college
whose title was in dispute. and
which would be entirely lost
should the decision be adverse to
the state, he would have opposed a
bill for an amount sufficient to Ge-
fend the state in its rights.
Oh, Pipes! "Who hath bewitched
you" that you reason thus? You
know there were grave doubts
entertained by the best lawyers in
the state as to the result of this
pending suit and that Thompson
but acted the part of a prudent
business man when he said, The
title of the college should be deter
mined before making it large
appropriation" You also know
that fears as to the result Of the
suit were entertained by the mem
bers of the legislature when, as
you say, a provision was put in the
bill that the money should not be
spent on the thirty-fve acres of
land then belonging to the col
lege. Now, suppose the decision
should be as that provision in the
bill admitted it might be, what
possible use could the stale make
of a farm in Benton county without
the college? Thompson's record
shows that he has always been a
patron (not Pennoyer friend) of
the public schools, and he but
showed by his. vote on the college
bill his usual business foresight
and caution, while our democratic
senator voted against Pennoyer's
celebrated veto on the water bill
that he might secure assistance on