The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1895-10-12
THE CHICAGO UNIVERSITY AND
TRUSTS.

| trusts ana the RUE Oh money. IeS4dchC
Harper denied that Prof. Bemis was dis
missed for such reason, and Prof. Bemls
says the President is privately saying
that he lost his place because of his in
competency He prints extracts from
letters written by President Harper at
testing to his "widely recognized abil-
ity," and saying II am personally very
much attached to you," and also one IN
which President Harper suggests that he
cannot do his best work unless under
''the best environment" and "above all
things else, independent. Again Presi-
dent Harper wrote:
sit is not question of competency;
simply the general situation Is against
you here. OF course you are an A No. l
man just as much as when We got you,
but you are mistit here.
Prof. Bamis believes and advocates
the policy of cities owning the gas
monopoly, as do most of the students in
America who have given the matter con-
sideration. Referring to this, Prof
Bemis says:
Yet the then president of the so called
gas trust of Chicago refused in 1898 to
render financial favor to the university
because was on the faculty. President
Harper has since denied that he was in
huenced thereby. The manager of the
largest aggregation of gas capital IN
America, outside of Chicago, referring
to my monograph in the publications of
the American Economic Association, and
to other writings on municipal gas works,
such as IL the February, 1898, issue OF
the Review of Reviews, declared to me,
in the summer of 1898: "If We can't
convert you we are going to down you.
We can't stand your writing. 1t means
millions to US.
In an interview, March 10, 1895, as at
other times before and since, President
Harper fully agreed with my assertion
that | was not radical, and that 1t was
true conservatism to favor moderate
social changes; but when / asserted that
the university ought to be in close touch
with the labor question and with NUM-
cipal and monopoly problems in the way
/ had been trying in moderate spirit,
in the civic federation and elsewhere, to
effect, he replied: eyes, it is valuable
work, and you are good man to do it,
but this may not be-this is not the in
stitution where such work can be done. "
The benumbing influence Of a certain
class of actual or hoped for endowments,
whether this influence is directly exerted
by donors, or only instinctively felt by
university authorities and instructors, is
a grave danger now confronting some of
our best institutions. A wealthy and
leading trustee of the university spoke to
me in 1893 of ''our side" in some club
discussion of a noted strike. 'By 'our
side you mean-g'' asked. "Why, the
capitalists side of course" was the quick
reply. To gentleman of unquestioned
veracity the president, when referring to
me, said in substance: at is all very
well to sympathize with the working
men, but We get our money from those
on the other side and we can't afford to
offend them" The name of the last
gentleman quoted cannot be given to
the public or to the university, but he is
ready to assert the truth of the above to
any any disinterested and honorable
gentleman the president may name.
On every hand there is commendation
when rich man uses his money to estab-
lish universities or 10 increase the useful
ness of those already established. We
believe that most of these donations are
given from generous and worthy motives,
without any desire to hamper or narrow
the instruction given. But the difference
between President Harper and Professor
Berris, no matter which is right, Illus
trates danger which ought to be pointed
out and emphasized. If men Of wealth
give to colleges to prostitute them to plu-
tocratic teachings, and scholarly men
accept the money with the condition
annexed, the waters from the fountains
are poisoned at the source.
n. Rockefeller has made his money
as the head of trust that enriched it.
self by driving weaker men out of trade.
He made it as breaker, though
the able lawyer he employs enables him
by fnesse to eyade the penalties of the
law. a man may make his money in
this way and give it to the cause of edu-
cation from lofty motives. The best of
motive is easily found Does he seek to
control the teaching of the college? Does
he cause teachers, who denounce
his methods, to be driven out
of the faculty. Does he have
an espionage upon them to dis
miss them for any teachings that will
lift up the masses, and that severely de-
nounces the conduct of men who are
amassing wealth at the expense of the
masses2 If he does, his money will do
more harm than good, and no self re
specting teacher could accept it. But if
he gives it to be used to educate, lift up,