New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-10-03
DORNITORIES FOR COLUMBIA.
THE ALUMNrs ADVOCACY OF THEM
a RESOLUTION FAvORING THE SYSTEM PASSED
AT A MEETING OF THE ASSOCIATION.

a RESOLUTION FAvoRING THE SYSTEM PASSED
AT A MEETING OF THE ASSOCIATION.
As was reportei In Yesterdays Tribune. the Alumni
Association Of Columbia College at its annual meet
ing on Monday night. passed the following resoIu-
ton. which was offered by Dr. StuyvesAnt T. NOT
rls:
Resolved That the trustees ought to provide dormi-
tories for the Undergraduate department
This was passed unanimously. but there was con-
siderable discussion over the preamble. which was
to the rec, that because of the want of dormitores
the academic department of the college had not IN
creased IN numbers As soon DR.. Norris READ
this Professor John II. Van Amrlnge got up ana
vigorously opposed ii. As far as can be learned ne
thought It bad policy to publish to the word the
fact that the academic department OF the co..ese
did not increase as rapidly as Yale Harvard or
Princeton for Instance. He said 1t was untrue Ma'
the department did not Increase. There was d
steady increase. After some further discusson IN
which Alexander f. Smonds took the side Of Dr.
Morris the preamble was killed. and the resolution
was passed without dissenting voice.
There has been for long time strong feeling
among Columbia graduates that dormitores should
he rrovlded for undergraduates. What called forth
m. Nat footed expression OF opinion on Monday
night was the conviction that this was the time to
strike as plans would soon be presented TOT the
buildings on the new site In Professor Lows re-
port which he read at the annual meeting OF inc
trustees Monday afternoon, NJ gave HSt VI
the ncyy buildings needed. hut made no mention OF
dormitores. This fact, however mad nothing 70 "o
II ls said with the action taken by the association
Or Norris when yesterday. said he knew
OF no one among the alumni OF Columbia VINO was
opposed TO the idea OF dormitories. 81 far as he
knew they all thought 1t would be the best thing
possible for the college There never had been az
Columbia the genuine college feeling ana nost
graduates felt that It was largely due 10 tle lack
OF dormitorics For himself. ne saii 49,, a., .,.,..
Il am heartily I'm favor OF dormtorles Tor under
graduates OF the School of Arts believe 1t would
h"lp the college In It's academic dePa' '"'c"' I'M
President Low was -committal When told or
was Interested 10 know what they Thought about
the subject. In answer to thu question. w QUA You
mind saying what you think OF -: ne sald; 20.
4 must decline 10 discuss that now anu ''
fused 10 answer any more questions
Professor Van Amr!ngc did not hesitate 10 , say
that he MAS decidedly IN favor oi dormipre' "
sentiment OF Columbia graduates had for a ions
time been I'm favor of dormtOries for the students
he said. and led the reporter 10 inier thati dc-
listen 70 the voice OF the Alumni Assoca'1h; re -
doubted there would eyer be he ian ,bo%a nI 4
at tn other biz colleges in the country one reA-
son was that large number 81 me men VINO A SSi1
York. and would prefer TO go to A college WhiIe
II was the biggest thing II The town. At tn9:e
by themselves, and his was not possible az Oolum
ba even II II had dormitories. He thought how
ever. that they would benefit the college. and for
that reason was IN favor Of the idea - H.
There l. doubt IN my mind. he said ~
closing. that the question VIII work iisei out.
sald that everybody at tnc meeting On Monday
night seemed 20 be- IN favor 81 the dormitory pan
I~ thought u wa the one thing which Columbia
Prnca5 53 or Yae and koped ina; tho reports
cefning the trustee Gpposi'gn 70 hormt9r,eS werS
ai the alumni meeting would receive careful con-
SHERATON from the Board Of Trustees