The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1908-07-13
=. =. LII CSOXho d.
"a. w. WILSON.
paul WHITEHEAD,

This was before the Carnegie Foun-
cation came into existence, and Ia It
ton Of the trustees In 1908 to the ex-
lstence OF that foundation?
/, repeat that few boards OF trustees
have. done better with the property
or Randolph-M In 1854 the rc.
pert OF tho treasurer showed that tho
property In the hands OF the trustees
was valued at $50 5000. In that year a
Branch was chairman. was appointed
to raise an endowment. AS result
of this movement 100000 was secured.
The committee employed DR.. W. ".
offered him 10 per cent. OF what Ito
could secure. but after raising part
OF It he informed the committee that
50 that the donors might be assured
that all their money went directly 70
the cause for which they gave r. and
Dr.. Smith contented himself with re-
as chancellor OF $500. There are not
mSney Collected : has zSse Into The. the
calise for which 1t was given.
THIS property which, when this for
ward movement was started. was
worth $4,000 Is now worth $1,06s.00O.
A board OF trustees that can show
such record Is surely net a badly
be said that individual members OF
the board gave over 100000 OF this
amount.
But 1t is urged that money was
that they We're giving to institutions
which were owned and controlled" by
the conferences. or by the church. or
sshh the and ha woua no,
have given this money II they had not
been SO told. or II they had not SO be-
lieved. That being SO. It is argued
20 make the ins,itutions the res
property OF the church, and then the
charter viii conform to the underestimate
ing OF the donors. But, without stopping
to consider whether y Is the part OF WIS.
which over s1,ooo.oOo worth OF pro.
perty Is held. willtsimply state that
great deal of this properH was
Siven BY the people Of Bedford City,
for purely local reasons. This would
never have been given except to bene-
fit their own communities, and was
not therefore given because the donors
tutions owned and controlled" by the
church. In fact, they were told. what
the trustees have been saying In their
catalogue for years. that Randolph Ma
tered, self-perpetuating board OF trus-
tees" which would conduct the insti-
tutions In non-sectarian way, as the
college at Ashland had been conduct
ed, that is. as educational institutions.
and not as institutions for propagat-
Ing denominationalism
It would seem then that the trustees
have received money from two sets o.
people who have had different ideas
OF how the property was to be held.
How arc these different sets of PEG.
pie to be fairly treated? What do they
both agree In? They both agree that
their gifts have been used In the past
for the purposes for which they We're
given and in satisfactory manner.
II, therefore. the board pledges itself
to continue to administer the property
as 1t has done in the past, surely It is
to continue its work under the present
charter. And the board has pledged
itself to administer the property IN
the future as 1t has done in the past.
Should not all parties in interest, there
fore, be satisfied with the present ar
rangement and cease agitating for a
chango?5 r. Il. BLACkN ELL.
Ashland, Va. July 10, 1908.