The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1910-02-02

I
present character Of the George Wash
ington University as if he were the head
of the University of Kamchatka instead
of being president Of a great institute of
! learning, Rev DR.. Richard ID. Harlan
yesterday, In forcble language, replied
/ to President James charges that the
| George Washington University is sec
tartan institution and therefore ineligible
to administer the Morrill, appropriation
which the Gallinger-Boutell bin would
I make available for the District of Colum-
/ bia.
Dr. Harlan's reply was IN part as fol-
/ lows:
81 am glad Dr. James has at last come
out with definite charge on this point.
/ In the memorandum on this Subject which
/ he sent out in December he contented
/ himself with a disingenuous insinuation
that this university was sectarian.
In letter which President James sent
/ last week 10 the press Of the country,
transmitting the definite charge that We
were sectarian, he says that in his former
memorandum he had based his argument
/ against this bill simply on the ground
/ that this university was. as he said. "a
private institution but that his further
investigation had raised the grave doubt
as 70 whether II ought not also 10 be
classed as sectarian
/ In view OF the fact that thousands
of people had understood his first circu-
I lar to make such an assertion, and are
now protesting to Congress on that &C
count, leave IL 20 the readers OF The
Washington Herald to say whether that
circular was characterized by the frank
ness and scrupulous accuracy which one
/ looks for in the case Of a president Of a
university when he goes so far out of his
way to attack a sister institution.
Lacking in Frankness."
The insinuation contained in that
! memorandum was not only lacking IN
/ frankness, but, In view Of certain cor
respOndenCe between Dr. James and my
self. it was objectionable.
Last April. President James, in the
course OF a conversation with a citizen
Of Washington, said that If the Gallinger
bill were passed il ought 20 be amended
so as 10 divide the Morrill, appropriation
I between the. American University, which
is under Methodist auspices. and the
George Washington University. which he
F. spoke Of as a Baptist institution.
Hearing Of this remark and sssum-
/ Ing Or. James had not Known Of the
radical change made six years ago in
our UNCONVENTIONAL status, wrote him
/ fully on this subject last April.
/ Il informed him that in 1904 Congress
had changed the charter Of this univer-
sity, or rather re-enacted a clause OF the
old charter OF 1921, which provides that
persons OF every religious denomination
shall be capable Of being elected trustees,
nor shall any person, either as president,
professor, tutor. or pupil be refused adj
mission into such college or be denied
any OF the privileges. lmmunites, or ad-
vantages thereof. for. or on account OF,
/ his sentiments In matters Of religion"
Il told him that the personnel OF the
board Of trustees had been changed. by
means OF the resignation and subsequent
retirement Of a sufficient number Of Bap-
list trustees, 50 that. at the time I wrote
! President James. the Baptists did not
constitute even one-third Of the board.
and. as a matter OF fact. were outnum-
bered by the Presbyter.ans. I further in
| formed him that IL was now the settled
policy OF George Washington University
never again 10 permit any one group even
10 approach one-haIf Of the full member
ship Of the board.
! 7 next reminded President James Of
the nonsectarian significance OF the uni
versity's change Of name. This point can
hardly be overstated.
Says He Knew the Facts.
President James knew the facts in
the case when he sent out his 'memoran-
dunn all through which there runs the
subtle insinuation. amounting TO a decla-
ration Cfor he knows how to use the
! English language. that the George
Washington University was a sectarian
institution.
After reading his memorandum of De-
cember. / wrote President James. and
reproached him for the disingenuous per-
version of the facts Of which be had
been guilty right in the face OF the in
! formation which I had given him. In
reply he now writes me that In the light
OF the past history Of this institution he
| did not see how. on the score of secta-
rianism. wa could draw any marked dis
| tinction between the George Washington
! University and the three avowedlv de-
nOminational universities Of the District.