The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1897-08-04

uu
tie of Technology. All his published
works on the subject are opposed to the
resumption of free silver coinage by the
United States except with the co-opera-
ton of foreign nations. The only time
he ever went further than this was last
fall. when in a private letter, he ex-
pressed the opinion that our government
could safely risk beginning alone the
coinage of silver, since he believed that
European governments would follow us.
All his published works, however, are
| opposed to this country's undertaking
free coinage alone. Prof Gardeners let
ter was written to correct the erroneous
| impression that President Andrews had
been constantly and widely preaching
free coinage by the United States alone.
Twenty-four of the professors of Brown
University have united in writing an
| open letter to the corporation criticizing
its action in the case of President An
drews. Addressing themselves first to
the pecuniary question raised by the cor
poration by their statement that the uni
versity had lost large gifts owing to the
free silver views of President Andrews,
they point out that this statement rests
for the most part on pure assumption. On
the other hand they show that since Mr..
Andrews became President the income of
the university has increased form s67, O64
to $159,S2S. chiefly as the result of the
large increases.ain the number of stu
| 6antG drrQ tc Nd
and they claim on the strength of these
facts that restraint of President Andrews
cannot be justified on pecuniary grounds.
Viewed from higher grounds they claim
that his restraint is still less defensible.
| They contend first that it is not goo d
thing for the com munity that the public
statement of unpopular opinions, or opin-
| ions judged erroneous, should be re-
strained, resting their case where Milton
rested it in the Areopagitica: "And
though all the winds of doctrine were let
loose to play upon the earth, SO truth,
be in the field, we do injuriously by Ii
censing and prohibiting to misdoubt her
strength. Let her and falsehood Crap
pie; who ever knew Truth put to the
worse in free and open encounter?"
Secondly, they contend that the presi-
dent of an institution is under no obliga-
ton to conform his public expressions to
the. views of its trustees, or of the COM
munity in which it is placed. If he must,
then if the views of the majority of the
community or of the trustees should hap
pen to change he must whiffle about to
conform to them. Thirdly, they con-
tend that it is not for the good of Brown
University itself that its President should
| be restrained. Confidence in the instruc-
ton of university whose President is
under such restraint will be fatally i'm
paired. The authors of the letter point
out to the corporators that they them
selves have conceded that college profess
sors may with propriety give utterance to
their political opinions, by granting a
member of the faculty leave Of absence
during seven weeks of the last autumn
term, in order that he might make Re-
publican political speeches in the West.
The letter is an exceedingly able one, and
the ground it takes is perfectly sound.
The thing that is attacked by the corpor-
alton is freedom. The same line of argu-
ment by which the corporation justifies
it's interference in this case will Justify
its interference in any case where the
views held and expressed by the college
President are not popular with majority
of the influential people of the community
where the institution is situated. If such
doctrine obtains it will be but little
while before Republican communities
will be insisting that the Presidents of
the colleges and the teachers of the schools
in their midst shall be Republican, while
in Democratic communities it will bt
held that only Democrats can be safely
J placed in charge of the education of the
young.