News and citizen. [volume] (Morrisville, Vt. ;) 1881-current, 1914-04-29
JUDGE POWERS
ADDRESS ar
MOnRlSVlLLE
Makes Strong Defense of the
University of Vermont and
Denies that Any Funds Have
Been "WaSted."

Chief Justice George NJ. Powers OF the
Vermont Supreme Court at a discussion
of the Carnegie Foundation report be-
fore the Young Mems Improvement
class of the Methodist Church and the
Brotherl ocd of the Congregational Church,
held in the Universalist Church in Norris
vale Sunday evening"
I do not come here as a lawyer, to de-
fond another charged with an offence, but
] come to defend myself. For, as l hap
pen to be a trustee of the University OF
Vermont and State Agricultural College,
! am the prisoner at the BAR AT least,
] am one of them; and standing in the
dock with me are NJ. H. Buckham, E. j..
Phelps Senator Proctor, Senator Morrill,
Judge Wales, G. G. Benedict, II. II. POW
ers, John Converse, Governor McCul-
Tough, D. P. Kingsley, Senator Dilling-
ham, Senator Page, Governor F. d. Proc
tor, and the long line of Industrious ana
patriotic Vermonters, living and dead, who
have, at different times, served our state
as trustees of its highest Institution or
learnng,-the University of Vermont and
State Agricultural College.
It is customary in criminal ,rials to read
the indictment to the jury, that they may
know of what the respondent stands ac-
cused. So | will read the charge which
am here to refute. 1t appeared, a few
weeks ago, in our own paper, the Morris
vile Messenger and in this editorial Ian
guage:
Those of our readers who have careful
ly read and considered these reports Che
installments of the Carnegie Foundation
report as printed in this paper, can judge
e. ., ~, On ic a q
u. " M. faculty has made no attempt to
explain why State and federal funds in
tended for the Agricultural College have
been used otherwise, An institution that
stands convicted by it's own books of mis-
use of funds had better keep still"
This false and libellous statement, and
others of like import, appearing in few
othe. State papers furnish my excuse for
taking part in this discussion.
l may say at the outset, that the faculty
at Burlington have nothing to do with the
expenditure of the funds referred to. The
responsibility is wholly with the board of
trustees. Nor is any question raised in
the Carnegie report or elsewhere regard
ing our expenditure of the State appropri-
alton. So l treat the references to these
as editorial inadvertancies.
When | called the editors attention to
the falsehood of his comment, he referred
me to the published utterances of the
Foundation and it's officers, and insisted
that his statement was thereby warrant
ed Turning to these | am obliged to ad-
NIT that neghbor Thayer finds therein
some justification for his charges. For,
ON page 1863 of the report appears this
statement:
This expenditure of the federal appro-
priations on subjects other than agrcul-
ture ma. or may not be strictly legal"
The natural, and no doubt intended, eff
feet of this language is to create the i'm
ppession that, in the minds of the Carnegie
experts, the expenditure is illegal.
But this is not all, nor is it the worst.
In his letter of February 7, 1914, pre-
pared FOR publication by Mr.. Clyde
Furst, secretary of the Foundation, in
summarizing the report, it is said that
1.-THE report shows that the University of
Vermont neglected agriculture and used
its appropriation fo- a medical school
.
: Small wonder then, that neighbor
Thayer accuses us of the misuse of funds;
for he was justified in understanding that
using an appropriation intended for agri-
culture for the support Of our medical de-
partment So interpreted, the statement
was wholly and absolutely false. The
weak and unsatisfactory explanation made
by the secretary himself, makes the state
ment wholly unnecessary and meaning
less; for everybody knows that the State
money used for the medical college is ex-
I'd hot nd
no other Not a penny of federal funds
ever went to the support of the medical
college.
Federal funds come to the so-called
gricutural college from three sources:
/. The act of Congress of 1862, known
throughout the country as the First Nor
rill act"
. The act of Congress of 1890, known in
like manner as the Second Morrill, act
g. The act of Congress of 1907 known as
the Nelson amendment"
leave out of consideration the agricul-
tural experiment station, which was es-
tablished and is supported by other acts
If claim is made that any of the expert
ment station funds have been diverted, L
need only say that the federal department
of agriculture makes an annual visitation
and inspection of the station, and rigid
examination of all the expenditures from
the federal funds in connection with the
work which is conducted" and that "only
after approval of these financial reports
Is the payment of funds to the station
continued"
Under the first Morrill, act we receive
$3.50 per year. This sum represents the
interest on the avails of the land scrip,
which was sold and the funds received
therefor turned over to the State as trus-
tee. The act provides that this interest
'shall be inviolably appropriated by each
State to the endowment. suppo t,
and maintenance of at least one college
where the leading object shall be, without
excluding other scientific and classical
studies, and including military tactics, to
teach such branches of learning as are
related to agriculture and the mechanic
arts in order to promote the lib
eral and practical education Of the indus
trial classes in the several pursuits and
professions in life"
Language could not be much more COM
prehensive. 1t is frequently and correctly
said that Greek, Latin or Sanscrit could
be taught under this grant The Founda-
st,n appreciates this and 1Hes not dTes-
fjon the legality of our disposition of this
mart of the federal funds. Indeed,
If further and convincing evidence
were needed as TO the wide scope
- -