The Kennewick courier-reporter. [volume] (Kennewick, Wash.) 1914-1938, 1917-02-22
Letters from the People
Editor Courier-Reporter:


$aIIuuuIIumIIIIluuuulIuIu
Editor Courier Reporter: $500
Dear Sir: ~ =
In the issue of your paper under
date of February LIST, was found let
ter from Representative Gordon c.
Moores, purporting to explain his OPP
position to House Bill No. Is, intro
duced by Zednick, of Seattle. 1nas-
much as that pernicious bill has been
dead for some time and the issue it
raised satisfactorily settled thru pas
sage by both Houses and signature by
the Governor of Substitute House Bill
No. Is, this answer to Mr.. Moores' ar
ticle can have no object Of influencing
his action upon the subject of the bill.
Mr.. Moores' letter, however, by rea-
son of the mis-statements of fact it
contained, reflects so seriously upon
the State College as to demand an
answer. The letter further places in
a wrong light those of his constituents
who have opposed House Bill No. Is,
This answer is therefore made in or
der that the facts in the matter may
become known.
Mr.. Moores states in the letter he
writes, "Of the large appropriations
given by the last legislature less than
three per cent was spent by the State
College in experimental work for the
benefit of the farmers of this state.
That statement, unfortunately, is alb
solutely false. The total appropria-
ton by the last legislature for the
State College for buildings, mainten-
ance and any other purpose was, In
round numbers, $670,00O. Three per
cent of that amount would be $40, 100.
There was spent out of that $670,0OO
for the. Puyallup Experiment Station
alone 100000, or three times three per
cent, before coming over the Cascade
mountains.
In addition to a sum of 100000 ex-
pended upon the home Experiment
station in the last two years from the
United States fund, there was added
in direct appropriation from state
funds for that work $37 900, or nearly
twice three per cent, and in indirect
appropriation to experimental work.
in round numbers, $4,000, total of
$4,000 from the state fund for the
home experimental station for exper-
mental work. This is more than four
time the three per cent of which Mr..
Moores speaks. He is therefore in
error in that more than seven times
as much as his letter tells his constitu-
ents has been spent upon experiment.
al work in agriculture out of the state
funds in the last two years.
In addition to this there has been
spent upon agricultural extension
work out of the state funds during the
two years an amount in excess of $780,
600. The above includes no part of
the large expenditures for agriculture,
horticulture and veterinary science.
The agriculture, horticulture and vet
Urinary science instruction, together
with the experimental and extension
work take fully one-half of the entire
funds of the institution.
Again Mr.. Moores says, 81 believe
that the commission appointed two
years ago was absolutely fair. They
agreed to House Bill No. Is, or the
provisions therein Mr..
Moores here has assumed that the re-
port of the commission was fair and
correct and reliable, and that the led
nick bill blouse Bill No. 15) carried
out this report. How does he explain
the fact that Senator Sutton chairman
of the commission, who has never
shown any more partisanship toward
the State College than for the Uni
versity, declared before the committee
at Olympia that the Zednick bill was
a libel upon the report of the commits
sion? How does he also account for
the fact that two other members of
absolutely repudiated the Zednick bill
as not being in accordance with the
report of the commission, altho all
these men accepted the recommends
ton of the commission? No man who
can properly read a bill would say
that House Bill No. Is was in any
true sense fair representation of the
report of the commission, or that its
enactment would not have been dis
astrous to the State College. 1t would
have cut off more than one-half of the
entire departments of the College.
Mr.. Moores, in discussing the effect
of the bill in question, states: "The
State College has the exclusive right
to teach agriculture and domestic
science in all it's branches" That
statement, likewise, is incorrect.
House Bill No. Is did not give the
State College the exclusive right to
teach domestic science; but on the
other hand, it gave the right to teach
domestic science to the University,
and cut off all right to teach domestic
science from all the normal schools
an absurd provision entirely contrary
to the report of the commission.
The report of the commission did
not recommend excluding architecture
and forestry from the state college,
but the Zednick bill did provide that
they should be taught exclusively at
the University, thus going far beyond
the report of the commission.
Altho the State College is the scien-
tiic school for which the United States
government made provision, and there
can be no question on that point, it
would have been impossible under
House Bill No. Is, to have main
tanned at the State College chem
istry leading to degree, a de-
partment of botany, entomology,