The Denison review. [volume] (Denison, Iowa) 1867-current, 1913-01-22
FRANK RANDALL
DEFENDS ALUMNI
Says the State Board of Education
Bubbles Over Engineering and
Disregard Statutes of Iowa
NO BRANCHES OF UNIVERSITY
Declares Law Provides University
Shall be Maintained at Iowa City
Without Any Branches.

Attorney Frank Randall, formerly
OF Denison, now of Cedar Rapids, pub
fishes the following letter in the
Cedar Rapids Gazette to the people
OF Iowa, regarding the state unive;
sity squabbe:
10 the People of Iowa-A commit
tee OF the state board of education
composed OF J. H. Trewin, D. D. Muir
phy and Fl. M. Eicher, attempted to
reply under date of Jan. 4, 1913, to the
argument OF the alumni, and the opin.
ION OF Hon. F. D. Lehman, solicitor
general OF the United States, in which
he held that the action of the board
IN stripping the university of the col.
lege OF applied science and concentrat
ing engineering at Ames, disregarded
alike the constitution and the statutes
or Iowa. The above named committee
nrst states enormously the conten.
lions OF the alumni of the university
and then proceed to answer them
Consider the following statement of
the committee: 1T is claimed (by the
alumni: That the board of education
has no power OF authority to 'discon-
tinue' the college of applied science at
the State University"
Nothing OF the kind was claimed by
the alumni or contended for by Mr..
Lehman. The claim of the alumni
as stated in the pamphlet, Iowa
Educational Problem" on page 81 was
THAT the constitution of Iowa and the
statutes forbid the removal of the COL
lege OF applied science from the uni
versity.' Mr.. Lehmanns opinion as
stated by him on page Is of the same
pamphlet was upon the question of
stripping the State University at
Iowa City and establishing it at the
agricultural college of Ames." Notice
the difference between the commit
tees statement of the contentious of
the alumni and Mr.. Lehmann; and
their claims as actually made. The
committee say that the boards right
to discontinue engineering at the uni
versity has been denied, when in
fact the alumni have attacked the
boards right to discontinue engineer
ing at the university and place it sole
ly and exclusively at Ames. The two
actions are vastly different. Let it be
concluded for the sake of the argu-
ment only that it would be within the
boards authority to discontinue, a
particular department of the univer-
sity; it would not follow that it could
establish such department at some
place in the state, other than at Iowa
City, the state of the university, be
cause of the explicit mandate of the
constitution to the effect that "The
State University shall be established
at one place without branches at any
other place. and as so clearly point
ed out by Solicitor General Lehman
to discontinue department of the
university and establish such depart
ment at another place is actually to
establish branch of the university
To illustrate, the board might have
discontinued the college of homeo-
pathic medicine at the university,
within it's authority, let it be conced-
ed for arguments sake; would any
one contend that college of homeo.
pathic medicine could have been es.
tablished at Keokuk or Cedar Rap
ids; and yet there is no specific men
ton of the college of homeopathic
medicine or of any other college of
medicine in section 264O of the code,
relied upon by the board for the reas-
on that it does not mention by name
the college of applied science. But
of this section of the code l shall
speak later.
1t may be said by the board Tin
deed it has been said privately by
them that to concentrate the work
at Ames, where it is already in ex-
istence, is not to remove it from Iowa
City, but this is futile quibbling, and
there is no court in christendom that
will hold that to discontinue the work
at the university, establish it at Ames,
and there construct buildings and buy
new equipment, is not in effect a re-
moval of such department, though
there were no removal of tangible
property.
Before leaving the discussion of the
question of what constitutes removal
of department, note the resolution
of the board set out in their reply:
"That all work in engineering be cen
tered, at the college of agriculture and
mechanic arts, and that the college of
applied science at the university be
discor tinued." People of Iowa, is
there any substantial difference be-
tween the foregoing resolution and
one lie the following: Resolved, that
all work in engineering be removed
fror ne university to the college of
agric, 'ture." 1t is the belief of many
that e board, instead of using Ian.
guaee o indicate removal, employed
the other phraseology, to-wit: Cen
tered at the college of agriculture"
and discontinued at the university"
for express purpose of avoiding
the large of removing college of
the y; ersity to Ames and thereby
estat hing branch of the univer-
sity Ames. the very thing forbidden
by + constitution. And now this be-
lief IS strengthened by the evasive
star6 { the board in it's recent reply
whe~ it AYERS, as set forth at the
beg'r rg of this article, that the
alumni and Mr.. Lehman contend that
"Thc ard of education has no power
or thority to discontinue the col.
lege applied science at the State
Uni sity."
" are not unmindful of the COM
mitts confession that "The action of
the ne board of education discon-
tiprce the college of applied science
at T. University, but does not estab-