The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1913-02-15


the friends and representatives Of the
State universities including the petit
ton of which l have spoken, then 1
am wrong in my surmise that Win
throp lost out because Of the 'activi-
ties OF the State universities, includ-
ing our own; but firmly believed that
1t was so influenced until hearing DR..
Roses testimony as to the inner facts
and influences.
'Dr. Roses testimony seems to in
dicate, although he does not say posi-
lively, that the universities did not
exercise influence in determining the
flnm policy. If he should say posi-
lively that the universities and the
petition referred to did not have any
influence with the Peabody board,
would accept his statement as final.
l have not talked with DR.. Rose about
the distribution of the Peabody fund
since 1909, as 1 have already said, and
did not know all of the inside facts
about the attitude Of the board and
the influences moving him, which he
gave at this hearing the other day.
And as you know have not talked
with DR.. Rose since 1909 about the
distribution and here is his telegram
testifying to that. 1 have not liked
with Dr. Rose about the distribution
since 1909"
Senator f. H. Weston, the chair
man, said: II want to say this in
reply to DR.. Johnson, that I appreciate
very much his manliness in coming
forward and making this statement;
that my only interest was to bring
out the facts and 1 trust that any une
can see that was my only motive"
w. II. Nicholson said: II want to
say in that connection that 1 am glad
that DR.. Johnson made the statement
for the reason that the questions that
i asked were only asked to elicit the
truth and l think were entirely per-
tinent to the record; and I must say
that 1 was very much surprised ut
DIR. Johnson's taking the position that
he did, and 1 am glad that he has
seen fit to make the statement that he
has"
j. E. Swearingen, State superintenI-
ent Of education, was the next wit
ness. Mr.. Swearlngen reviewed the
work Of the Peabody board and the
correspondence he had with DR..
Rose along with the work connected
with improving rural schools. Much
Of this work is now carried on by
Prof. w. K. Tate.
Il am a member Of the board Of
trustees of the University Of South
Carolina and of the board of trustees
Of Winthrop and when the appropria-
tions came up at the meeting I was
in favor Of giving the university as
mucn as any other Southern univer-
sity." This was the statement made
by Mr.. Swearingen. The State SUPER
intendent called attention to the need
for an educational building at the uni
versity and stressed the fact that Gov.
Ansel, a member OF the Peabody
board, said that he fought for the ed
ucation of women and that he was re-
sponsible for the introduction Of the
resolution providing for $4,000 for
Winthrop college.
"On the board of trustees Of the
university we were almost a unit
but on the board Of Winthrop 1 was in
the minority" said Mr.. Swearingen.
II wanted the additional $4,000 for
the university. The university was
given $4,000. BY this 1 do not mean
that there was any fight on Winthrop.
The Peabody fund has been a bless
ing on the Southern States as pointed
out by DR.. Rose. In May the uni
versities Of North Carolina and Geor-
gia dedicated their buildings as a re-
suit Of this fund. There Is no dedi-
cation in South Carolina. There is no
memorial to Peabody at Winthrop un-
less the gymnasium is named after
the benefactor. There should be no
conflict Of interests but 1 believe that
the board should have recognized the
need for an educational building"
Mr.. Swcaringen referred to the tes-
timony of Mr.. Rose and the letter in
which it was stated that on March 10,
1911, 1t had been suggested that $780,
600 be provided from the fund for
each Southern university. 1t was
finally suggested that $4,000 go to
Winthrop and that $4,000 go to the
university as an endowment for O.
school for teachers. Both of the above
failed. Mr.. Swearingen expressed a
Willingness to go to New York. ac-
companied by President Mitchell and