The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-02-21
INSTITUTE FOR THE BLIND.
Reasons Why 1t should He Retained
i'm Its Present Location.

To the Editor OF the Indianapolis Journal:
The directors of the Institution for the
Blind in our State, so far as some OF us
know, are reputable gentlemen. 1t is IN
derstood that they are men of ability in
their lines. One hesitates TO call in ques-
ton the judgment Of men of whom they
nave never heard anything derogatory, but
rather the reverse. However, these gentle
men are in charge of a public institution.
They nave recently made a recommendation
that is astonishing to many citizens. AS
citizens we have a right to sit in Judgment
upon the policy pursued by those who have
charge of our public institutions. In the
exercise of that right for one L desire to
protest against the recommendation made,
as 1 understand from the public prints, by
the superintendent and by the directors (or
trustees) of that institution. There is
a general suspicion that real estate
agents, contractors, etc, will have an OPP
portunity to become interested in this
change If the recommendation of the di-
rectors should be carried out. There Is
danger of a grab. Not only so, but these
gentlemen have failed TO show conclusive
ly that any money Will be either made or
property on Pennsylvania street and NOV
ing TO the country. / see they claim there
will be a saving, but those familiar with
the price which the grounds would likely
command and the price that would be
necessarily paid in the country, plus the
buildings for workshops, living and school
purposes, must know that the exchange
could not be made for even money. Be
sides, the property in indianapolis will in
crease in value as the years go by. IL has
increased during the last ten or twenty
years. If by and by for any reason Ii would
seem best to sell the present property, in
the Judgment Of many good financierS as
much or more money would be made by
holding it as could possibly be made or
saved by the exchange at the present time.
But these reasons are of the least i'm
portance in the consideration of this sub
ject. There are more potent reasons why
this change should not be thought OF by
the Legislature or by the people of In
diana for a single momen Many or
us are impressed that the Blind Institute
should not be so much a hospital as an edu-
cational institution. L understand that the
facilities for learning trades and carrying
on school work have made no particular
advance in that institution for several
years. 1 may be mistaken as to this point,
but that there has not be IN the advance
made which has been made In many other
similar institutions in the land many OF us
know. / see that the superintendent does
not ask of the Legislature money for i'm
p~rovements. There is room for improve
ment in a number Of directions. Besides,
as has been well said in the papers recent
ly, a large part of the education OF the
blind consists in what they are able 10 hear.
Take them to a remote place and their op-
will be greatly limited. 1t would simply
be outrageous to take them away from
the many musical and educational oppor-
tunities they have in a city. 1t is hoped
that public sentiment will be thoroughly
aroused upon this subject and that the
citizens of the State will protest against
the recommendations OF these gentlemen,
who mean well, but who, 1t is feared, do
not have a proper and full appreciation of
the work an institute for the blind should
perform. Even were their suggestion for
removal a good one from an economical
point of view, let it be forever m
that with the blind people there are higher
considerations than economics. We want
TO do the very best by them that can be
done. r. v. HUNTER.
Indianapolis, Feb. 20.