The herald., 1896-12-15
FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

To the Editor of the Los Angeles Her
aid: In the recent meeting of the South
ern California Teachers association
The University" was ably represented.
Probably each section more than once
heard what the university aims to do,
the university desires, the university
expects, the university requires.
At least two of the Berkeley faculty.
President Kellogg and Professor Moses.
maze carefully prepared public ad-
dresses by which they seemed to seek to
Justlfy state support Of state uniyer-
sity. presumably their arguments were
the best they could formulate What.
then, is the strength of the case for tax
alton for higher education?
President Kellogg in his felicitous
manner discussed the objection that we
are over-educating; that the college
graduate finds the professions crowded
and himself compelled to step down into
lower calling than he has fitted himself
to pursue. But even so, he does not fall
back; but from his assured standing
place steps back; and if at last the
blacksmith's son finds himself by stress
Of circumstances standing at his faith
er's anvil with the ancestral lha MINER,
beating out livelihood, he has a con-
sciousness of rich resources within,
which makes him wiser, stronger, hap
pier man for his higher education; and
so. perforce, a more contented intelli-
gent and capable citizen. Thus the
state is gamer by his training and cul-
ture. Hence the duty of taxation for
furnishing university education. The
hence marks great hiatus in the
thought, the connection of premises and
conclusion is certainly not necessary
not even an evident one. The logic is
not convincing.
Professor Moses, in his elaborate dis
cusSion on 1.-THE State and the Univer-
sity," gives an analysis of benefits af-
forded by great free university which
is just, discriminating, able, and exceed
ingly interesting and inspiring; but the
conclusion it logically justifies is sub
stantially the same conclusion warrant
ed by that of President K ellogg.
He summarizes thus: A great and free
university in the state stands as the
most efficient contributor to equality on
the higher plan of social equality, as the
only guardian and inspiration for sanity
of understanding and clearness of moral
discrimination, as the only instrument
for the achievement of social and intel
lectual independence fine literary culti-
walton and lofty artistic elimination in
and through group of buildings en-
bodying the highest architectural skill
and taste, for university uses. In a
word, university education benefits So
ciety.
All that these able advocates have so
admirably said in favor of highest edu-
cation and the best educational advan-
tages is just as applicable to it's rival
university at Palo Alto as to the Uni
versity of California at Berkeley-"the
university" for whose sake it was
spoken.
The strength of the argument as an
argument for taxation for higher educa-
ton may be easily tested. Supply the
suppressed major premise and the syl-
logism would stand something like this:
Whatever in anywise benefits society
should be supported by taxation.
Higher education incidentally benefits
society.
Higher education should be supported
by taxation.
The presidents discussion very fairly,
and the professors broader and more
elaborate treatment, with equal fairness,
develop and illustrate the minor pre-
mise, but the major is by no means
automatic. This premise opponents Of
state support Of higher education stren-
uously dispute; and to the strength and
authority of this disputed premise
neither gentleman has adduced any
proof of the shadow of an element. We
submit that to make case for Nry
some attention should be given to the
establishment Of this underlying propo-
sition. There is no presumption that the
state may logically tax for whatever
benefits society.
T. NJ. STEWART.
Los Angeles, Cal, Dec, 12