The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1895-11-20
PROFESSOR .BEMIS.
HIS ELECTION FROM ROCKA-
FELLER'S UNITERSITY-
WHAT HIS CRIME WAS.

We pointed out, the other day. that
the millionaires of this country, not
content with wringing millions from
the poorly paid toll of farmers and
mechanics, we're establishing univer-
stiles everywhere; so as to poison the
minds Of the new generation of the
well-to-do class with unchristian and
un-American ideas; and thus pave the
way for the eventual overthrow Of the
Republic and the Establishment of an
empire.
Among the meanest of these money
grabbers is Rockefeller, who has fas-
tened his grip upon the coal-oil pro-
duct Of the whole world; and has, in q
few years, built up the most gigantic
fortune ever known In the history Of
the human race. He is even invading
Minnesota. and, by false representa-
tions, as was shown in q court and
affirmed by . jury, he has seized upon q
large body Of our iron deposits, and is
now reaching out to take possession of
our railroad system.
He had established, from the over
flowings Of his gigantic plumber. an
university at Chicago. and has lately
made it present of three million dol
lars more, land the institution, like
an over-fed hog. stands knee.deep in
useless affluence, and knows not what
to do with it.
Among the faculty was distin-
guished scholar, author. thinker and
lecturer. Prof. Bemis. It seems that
this Gentleman had some broad-mind-
ed, liberal ideas, and could not see
wherein this great republic was to be
benefited, In purse or morals, by re-
ducing its labor population to serf-
like condition; and, In moderate way,
he took the part of the STRIKERS" In
the great struggle growing out of
Puilman'e punishment of his men for
voting the Democratic ticket ate he
had pledged their votes to the Repub-
lican party. The result was the Pro-
lessor was kicked out of the Untver-
sity, and turned adrift, branded,-so
far as Plutocracy can brand a man.
The Professor has made statement
in which he says:
II spoke in the First Presbyterian
church of Chicago, July Is, 1894, In con-
demnation OF the great railway strike;
but ventured to suggest that the rail-
roads had also been law. breakers in
the past and should set better ex-
ample. Realizing the gravity of the
situation and my position in the uni
versity, spoke from carefully pre-
pared manuscript, and can publish it
II any doubt the general verdict of
very prominint men In the congrega-
ton who have commended its moder-
ate tone. The only sentences after
ward criticised were these:
"'If the railroads expect their men
to be law-abiding they must set the
example, Let their open violation Of
the Interstate commerce law, and
their relations to corrupt legislatures
and assessors, testify as to their part
justify the strikers in their boycott of
the railroads: but the railroads them
selves not long ago placed an offending
road under the ban and refused to
homer its tickets. Such boycotts on
the part of the railroads are no more
to be justified than Is a boycott OF the
railroads by the strikers. Let there
be some equality in the treatment of
these things
The rest Of the address criticised the
strikers more than their employers.
"a prominent railroad president,
Immediately after the dismissal of the
congregation, challenged me for proof
Of boycotting, and I replied that not
only were the newspapers full of such
things, but had proof in my study
which would send him in writing.
He said: 1T is an outrage. That
man in your position should dare to
come here and imply that the rail-
roads can not come into court with
clean hands Is Infamous He COM
planned to one or more trustees and to
President Harper. The latter then
wrote me, July IS, 1893: Your speech
at the First Pres byterian church has
caused me great deal of annoyance.
1t is hardly safe for me to venture In
to any of the Chicago clubs. / am
pounced upon from all sides. pro-
pose that during the remainder Of
your connection with the university
you exercise great care in public ut
terances about questions that are agi-
tating the minds of our people,"
The result was, as we have said,
L q
And thereupon that great man, H.
D. Lloyd, Of Illinois, in an interview.
Oct. 20, In the Boston Daily Globe,
says:
1.-THE point / make is that this cpl
sode alone shows perfectly plainly that
President Harper was trying to hush
Prof. Bemis up-that Bemis was not
left q free man In the expressions of
his opinions. A friend of mine, here
ia Boston, who has large knowledge of
University life, and whose judgment /
respect, said to me yesterday, that
such letter as this of President Har.
per to one of his professors would be
impossible in any college in New Eng
land; and, I believe i'll sincerely
hope it. Think of 1t at Harvard Uni
versity from President Elliot! Did
not President Eliot himself take the
stump in 1884, the bitterest campaign
we ever had, with three.Quarters of
the Harvard constituency against
him? The Republicans may have
thought his speeches sad ones; but
who thought Of hushing him up. or
what professor would he have hushed
up?
Hasn't professor in an American
college as much right to speak to the
public and walk the earth under his
own hat as any other citizen? We are
| come to pretty pass II this is not SO.
Some Of us had supposed that our pub
lie teachers had larger rights and du-
ties than other people in this respect.
We may be very sure that q university
nresidAnf rhO will cOarce his DrOfoS.