CONSOLIDATION HAND BOOK I Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2017 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates https://archive.org/details/consolidationhanOOunse J U i t TABLE OF CONTENTS. § 1. What the Consolidation Bill means’. § 2. Early history of the consolidation movement. § 3. History of the present bill. § 4. Reasons for limiting the site to Bozeman and Missoula. One reason for the commission form of selecting the location. § 5. The expenditure argument of the opponents of consolidation. § 6. The land needed will be obtained free of cost. § 7. Buildings will not cost more for the consolidated university than will be needed at once for the separate schools. § 8. Cost of equipment less in consolidated schools. § 9. Saving $100,000 a year for maintenance. §10. Saving equal to an endowment of $2,000,000. §11. Comparison of expenditures in Kansas and Nebraska and in Montana and Idaho. §12. Instances of misleading statements by politicians. §14. Reasons for greater expenditures in Wisconsin. §13. Reasons for greater expenditures in Illinois. §15 Cost per capita of higher education in Montana, Wisconsin, Illinois and Michigan. §16. Value of having students of all kinds mingle. (From Nebraska report. ) §17. The students of agriculture are not looked do'WTi upon in the consolidated schools. §18. Schools of agriculture in consolidated universities attract a larger number of students than do the separate schools. §19. Consolidated schools attract more students of agriculture from other states than the unconsolidated schools. §20. Neglect of agriculture in our own agricultural college. §21. The consolidated universities develop better agricultural experi- ment stations than the uncons'olidated. §22. Separate schools do not serve a larger number. §23. Consolidated schools are better as proved by the number of students which migrate into those states. A degree from a large university is worth more in dollars and cents than one from a small university. §24. The stronger universities have undertaken a large amount of public service. The Wisconsin idea. §25. The present situation in Wisconsin. §26. Is Butte the best place for the School of Mines? §27. Harmony impossible in unconsolidated schools. §28. The value of a united alumni. §29. The separate schools are a “trading asset to our politicians. §30. Selection of location by a commission. §31. Consolidation not a breach of faith with towns where schools are now located. §32. General opinions of great educators. Consolidation Hand Book WHAT THE CONSOLIDATION BILL PROVIDES. 1. The Consolidation Bill provides (1) that the present Univer- sity of Montana, the College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts', and the School of Mines be consolidated into one institution, to form the University of Montana; (2), that the consolidated school be located either at Bozeman, or Missoula; (3), that the choice of location is to be made by a commission, of five members chosen from the Presidents of consolidated State Universities; (4), that on or before March 1st, 1915, this commission be appointed by a committee consisting of the Governor, the Chief Justice, and the State Superintendent of Schools ; (5), that this commission must render its decision on or before August 1st, 1915, (6), that the cities of Missoula and Bozeman may make offers of tracts of land available for a site for the University, and the terms upon ‘which such site may be obtained. A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CONSOLIDATION MOVEMENT. 2. It is now an admitted fact that when the state schools were located in the early nineties, the point of view which prevailed was that as far as possible the various towns and cities of the State should be given some state institution. This was done as a mat- ter of political expediency in spite of the opposition offered by those more interested in the educational welfare of the state than in divi- sion of spoils. At that time some of our leading representatives and senators openly stated that separation of the state schools was a crime. At that time also, the State Council of Education and the State Teachers’ Association adopted resolutions in favor of consolida- tion. The leading educators' of the country were asked their opin- ions, and they unanimously urged that the higher schools of the state be organized as one institution. Among these educators were the presidents of Leland Stanford, Johns Hopkins, The University of Chicago, Harvard, Cornell, the State Universities of Minnesota, Illi- nois, Iowa, and Nebraska ; and the United States Commissioner of Education. After this initial calamity, the friends of consolidation took no active steps until 1908, when President Duniwa^^ of the University of Montana presented a recommendation for consolidation to the State Board of Education. The recommendation was pigeonholed. Two years ago the coming winter, a bill for consolidation was introduced into the state legislature, but was’ defeated in the senate by a vote of 17 to 12. At this time the State Board of Education adopted a resolution favoring consolidation. 3. The present bill was drawn by the UNIVERSITY CONSOL- IDATION COMMITTEE, the chairman of which, Mr. Paris Gibson of Great Falls, fought for consolidation twenty years ago in the state legislature. This committee, consisting of representative men from the various' cities of Montana, but not including any represent- ative from either Bozeman or Missoula, drew the bill so that by its terms the consolidated University can go only to Bozeman or Mis- soula. 4. The reasons assigned for this limiting of the location was that the most important of the schools to be effected were located in thes'e cities, and that therefore the rest of the state would lose noth- ing by the limitation, and that at the same time it was highly desir- able to avoid a state-wide fight of the character of the capitol fight. By the original form of the bill, the location as between these two towns was to be decided by a popular vote. This, however, would have involved delay until the next general election, or an expensive special election. For these reasons, representatives of Bozeman pro- posed that the matter of selection of location be delegated to a com- mission. The Missoula Chamber of Commerce agreed to this plan, and the University Consolidation Committee therefore modified the bill by adopting the present commission plan. WILL CONSOLIDATION BE A GOOD FINANCIAL INVESTMENT? 5. The opponents of consolidation know that the majority of the people of the state are interested in the rate of taxation. Accord- ingly, they have made their first and most elaborate argument on the question of expenditure. We have been told that one million dollars will be needed to launch the proposed institution, and that besides this the state will have to surrender property to the value of many hundreds of thousands of dollars, and that consequently “the state will have to assume large burdens of taxation with verv^ remote pros- pects of gain.” This is precisely the ground on w^hich those favoring cons'olidation are most anxious to meet those opposing it. The quse- tion of expenditure may be divided into two parts ; first, the expendi- — 6 — ture for plant; that is, for grounds, buildings, and equipment; sec- ond, expenditure for maintenance. 6. Let us consider first the matter of land. Both Bozeman and Missoula are exceedingly anxious to obtain the consolidated univer- sity, and there is no reasonable doubt that both of these cities will offer to provide, free of expense to the state, all the ground that is required both for campus and for experiment station ; that is, if the consolidated university goes to Bozeman the city of Bozeman will give to the state free of cost all the land that the consolidated univer- sity will require for all its purposes. Indeed, the school at Bozeman now possesses the 1,000 acres specified in the bill. If the school goes to Bozeman there will therefore be no need to obtain land either by gift or purchase. If the university goes to Missoula, citizens of Mis- soula will provide the land that is needed. They will have precisely the same reasons for donating land now that they had for doing the same thing twenty years ago. The people of Missoula have come out practically unanimously in support of consolidation, and they are fully prepared to offer to the state free of cost the finest university campus that the neighborhood contains. This offer will cost Missoula nothing if the university goes to Bozeman and will be the best invest- ment Missoula could make if as a consequence the university comes there. Unscrupulous politicians have already attempted to appeal to prejudice by suggesting that the bill plays into the hands of real estate sharks. Would it not be astonishing if Paris Gibson of Great Palls, Superintendent Davee of Helena and others' should be in league with the real estate interests in Bozeman and Missoula? 7. Now as to buildings : Under the heading ‘‘COST LESS FOR NEW BUILDINGS,” State Superintendent Davee in a recent letter has put this matter in a nut-shell. “They say it will take a million dollars to launch a con- solidated institution. I find on looking up records that these three schools, separated as they are, asked the last legislature for buildings to cost $315,000, and no one who has ever been at either place will contend that they do not need them. If we could combine these requirements, and put the buildings actu- ally needed at both Bozeman and Missoula at one of these places, the consolidated university would be cared for more efficiently than it is now at the three places.” When we observe that the total cost of all the buildings on the city campus’ at the University of Nebraska, with its 3,500 students, is only about $800,000, it is evident that $300,000 to $400,000 additional either at Bozeman or Missoula would be adequate for some time. Even — 7 — if we do have to abandon a few buildings, that is not a valid objec- tion to consolidation if the net result to the state is a financial gain. In the business world such things are done every day. Machinery that costs millions' is put in the scrap heap in order to save money by installing more efficient machinery. Manufacturing plants are aban- doned for the sake of economy in order to do the work at more favor- able places. 8. Again, as to equipment. State Superintendent Davee’s words are to the point: ‘‘The statement has been made that it will cost more to maintain a consolidated institution than to run the three insti- tutions separately. Such a statement needs no answer. Every- one knows that it need cost no more, even if we carried dupli- cation to the extent that we do under the present arrangement. Every business man knows that one set of administrative offi- ers could manage the affairs of a consolidated institution. One library, one chemical laboratory, one gymnasium, one set of buildings, and so on ad libitum. ‘The duplication of equip- ment and instruction is a policy which leads not only to eco- nomic waste, but what is more important, to a lack of highest efficiency in teaching and investigation. ’ ' ’ CONSOLIDATION WILL SAVE UPWARD OF $100,000 PER YEAR FOR MAINTENANCE. Again we quote from Superintendent Davee : 9. “The appropriation for the School of Mines for the year just past, was $32,500, and just one additional professor, at $2,500, added to the faculty of the Agricultural College would have made it possible for that institution to handle this work, in splendid shape, without interfering with its regular classes, except to make some of them large enough to be really worth while. “Not only this, but the mining students would have a much better opportunity at the Agricultural College, for the present course at the School of Mines is purely technical and there is no opportunity for any of its' students to take advan- tage of courses in literature, history, economies, sociology, or any of the courses which vitalize and make college life worth while. So, by combining the School of Mines with the Agri- cultural College, we could not only give the boys a better train- ing, but we could actually save $30,000 in cost of maintenance each year. — 8 — “In regard to the cost of maintaining the other two insti- tutions, for convenience I am going to take the Agricultural College as a nucleus, becaus'e of the fact that this institution gets aid from the Federal Government in addition to its state appropriations, hence its funds are not so easily analyzed. The appropriation for the University at Missoula last year was in round numbers $157,000. Of this amount approximately $66,000 was' spent for a faculty and $10,000 for the summer school, making a total of $76,000, thus leaving $81,000 for maintenance over and above the cost of the faculty and the summer school. Now, Mr. Taxpayer, suppose we would take the entire faculty of the University and combine it with the faculty of the Agricultural College, no one would pretend that they could not do this work as well as they do now, and any- one who knows A, B, C, about this work, knows that at the present time they would not have places for all the members of the combined faculties. In fact, less than half of the Univer- sity faculty added to the faculty of the Agricultural College would give more efficient instruction than both of the institu- tions, separated as they now are. But suppose that we add all the faculty of the University to that of the Agricultural College and throw in $10,000 for the summer school, we would still be able to save the state $81,000 on the appropriation for maintenance. This leaves only a problem in addition, $81,000 from the University plus $30,000 from the School of Mines make $111,000 saved to the people of the state. SAVING EQUAL TO $2,000,000 ENDOWMENT. 10. ‘ ‘ But some say that it will cost more to maintain an insti- tution of this kind than either one of the present schools. No one will deny this, but we have already thrown in enough for the extra office help, heat, light, and general upkeep that would be required, by allowing for salaries of all the teachers of both faculties. However, just for good measure, we will thrown in an extra $11,000 and still be $100,000 to the good. Figured as an endowment, this would be equal to an invest- ment of $2,000,000 at 5% and this annual saving of $100,000, which would be greater as the years go by, would provide for all the buildings the state will ever need for its educational institutions. ’ ’ 11. When we come actually to consider the expenditure of main- tenance in American universities, difficulties arise because some of these Universities perform more services for the people of the state than do others. After looking over the list of universities with this' in mind, it appears that the two higher educational institutions of Kansas (unconsolidated), and the consolidated University of Ne- braska, perform very near the same services for their respective state. The cost for maintenance for one year per student in the consolidated University of Nebraska is $170, while the cost of maintenance per year per student in the two separate institutions of Kansas is $224. That is, performing the same services for the state of Kansas in two separate institutions costs $54 per year per student more than it does in the consolidated school of Nebraska. If the cost in Kansas were the same per student as in Nebraska, this would afford an annual saving to the state of Kansas of $290,000, which is equivalent to 5% interest on nearly $6,000,000. The people of Kansas could afford to abandon or give away both of the present higher educational plants, and build one of the best equipped universities in the United States and still come out ahead on the deal. The same sort of a comparison may be used with regard to Montana (unconsolidated) and Idaho, (consolidated). Montana for the year closing last June had 615 col- lege students, at an expense of $410,000 or about $670 per student. For the same year Idaho had 479 college students, at an expense of $234,000, or about $490 per student. Thus for substantially the same service Montana spent about $125,000 more than Idaho. 11. The opponents of consolidation have shovui a singular in- ability or unwillingness to handle statistics decently. They are evi- dently assuming that the voters will not take the trouble to verify their figures. We have been told that the Universit}^ of California spends over $3,000,000 a year for maintenance, whereas the truth is they spend less* than half that. A million and a half was given to the University for endowment and this the anti-consolidationist statis- tician proceeded to spend for maintenance. (See an anonymous letter in the current number of the Inter-Mountain Educator). We have been told that the University of Wisconsin cost every man, woman and child of the state $6.50 per year. The truth is that the greatest expenditure ever made in any one year for the University of Wiscon- sin was less than one dollar per capita for the state. This included a half a million for new buildings. They are telling us that taxes in Wisconsin have gone up on account of the University. The truth is that the rate of taxation has been falling steadily in Wisconsin since 1900 though the total amount has risen. The corporation tax alone yields over $2,000,000 yearly in that state. — 10 — 12. But wc may safely assume that before the campaign is over this grosser type of misrepresentation will give way to more subtle Avork. The opponents of consolidation Avill be sure to point out that the expenditures of such Universities as' those of Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota are very large in comparison vdth the expenditures for the separate schools in such states as Iowa, Indiana and Ohio, and they aatII give apparently accurate figures to substantiate their statements'. It is quite true that the Universities of Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota are expensive, but the reason is not that they are consol- idated, but rather that they are such excellent institutions that the states are entrusting to them a large amount of work, which the other states do not entrust to any of their schools. Thus the University of Illinois is undertaking an agricultural survey of the whole state Avhich Avill describe every ten-acre lot in the state. When this survey is completed any farmer in the state may write to the University to obtain expect advice on how to treat every piece of field on his' farm. Lavst year the University of Illinois employed 103 salaried workers besides ordinary laborers in the division of agricultural experimenta- tation. The following bureaus are also parts of the University: The State Laboratory of Natural History, employing five investigators; the State Entomologist’s office, Avith a staff of 8; the State Water survey, with a staff of 16 ; the State Geological survey, Avith a staff of 16 ; the co-operative investigators of Illinois coal problems and the Mine Rescue Station with a staff of 17. The University of Wisconsin among the many other activities maintains an extension department which last year enrolled over 6,000 in correspondence study. When besides all these expensive actiAuties which these states have seen fit to center in their Universities, we consider their magnificent equipments, their libraries of from tAvo hundred to three hundred thousand volumes each, their engineering schools Avhich compete on a basis of equality with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, their Schools of Agriculture, which rank AAuth that of Cornell; when we consider the high character of the graduate departments Avhich attract graduate students to these Universities, tAvice as great as the number of students at J ohns Hopkins, and nearly equal to the number of graduate students at Chicago and Harvard; when Ave consider all these things, the higher cost of these Universities to their respective States, is more than accounted for. We must remember that these extra activities are by no means the direct consequences of consolida- tion, though they Avould be utterly impossible AAuthout consolidation. — 11 — 13. After the University of Montana is consolidated it will lie entirely with the legislature of the state to decide what extra services' are to be demanded of the University. If the University is to be limited to its teaching functions there is no reason why it should be more expensive for maintenance than any other school thus limited. 14. Let us look at this from another angle. The population of the State of Wisconsin is about five times that of Montana, counting the population of Montana at present as one-half million; while its yearly expenditure for maintenance of the University is just a little more than three and one half times Montana’s total expenditure for the maintenance of her three schools. The population of Illinois is at least ten times that of Montana, while the yearly expenditure for the maintenance of her University is less than four times that of Montana. The population of Michigan is nearly six times that of Montana, while the yearly expenditure of the University of Michigan for maintenance is just about twice what Montana pays yearly for. higher education ; and still there were forty-three Montana students in the University of Wisconsin last year, and also forty-three at the University of Michigan. It should be understood that in computing the cost of maintenance to the state, only such sums have been given as actually were appropriated by the state for Maintenance, together with incomes from public endowment and from other public sources. Items like tuition fees and payment for board have been omitted, as have also appropriations for buildings and enlargement of plant. THE AGRICULTURE SCHOOL IN THE CONSOLIDATED UNI- VERSITY IS BETTER FOR THE STUDENTS AND THE STATE THAN THE SEPARATE AGRI- CULTURE SCHOOL. 16. A commission of college presidents, consisting of W. 0. Thompson, Ohio University (unconsolidated), Charles R. Van Hise, Wisconsin (consolidated), John L. Snyder, Michigan Agriculture College (unconsolidated), a separate agriculture college, George E. Vincent, Minnesota (consolidated), in a report submitted only two or three months ago to the people of Nebraska, find without qualifica- tion that the consolidated school is better for the agriculture student and their statement follows': “The separation of any class of students into separate institutions because they are studying agriculture, engineering or any other special subject is not regarded as wise public pol- icy. The state university should be a source of unity rather —II— than division. In working out the problems of society it will be the battling ground of democracy. Here more than else- where as reference to the sources, religious, social, political and occupational from which the students come will show, there is’ to be found the most typical and representative American con- stituency. Under these conditions it would be most unfortu- nate for any State with its revenues derived from taxation to give the slightest countenance to stratification in education. The free mingling of all classes of students in the same class rooms, upon the same campuses', in the same athletic sports and in the same social life will profoundly influence the ideals of these students during life. In the student companionship as every college bred man or woman knows, the acquaintances are most thorough going. No sham or pretense passes unnoticed or without rebuke. The students of agriculture, of engineer- ing or education in preparation for teaching, of science or of law, come to know each other intimately and to estimate each other upon a basis of merit or the lack of it. This mutual acquaintance and sympathy furnishes a splendid foundation for the unprejudiced consideration of the vexatious but not insoluble problems' of American Democracy.’’ 17. Contrary to the view of some people the Agricultural stu- dents in a consolidated university is not looked down upon. He stands distinctly on his own merits just as any other student does. The following are statements' made during the last month by presidents of consolidated Universities. President Benjamin I. Wheeler, University of California: ‘‘The students themselves' scarcely know that a man be- longs to the Agriculture College. Naturally, students of agri- culture take part of their work in other departments of the University, for instance, chemistry, botany, biology, and they all mix together in the great mass. ’ ’ President A. A. Murphree, University of Florida: “The Agriculture College has a large representation in the fraternities, and some of the best families in the State are represented in that College. Some of the most popular men in school are students from the agriculture department, who are attending college on their own resources.” President Edmund J. James, University of Illinois : “The ‘Aggies,’ as they are called in a term of affection, rather dominate the situation.” (About one-third of the reg- — 13 — ular undergraduate registration in tiie University of Illinois is in the College of Agriculture). President George E. Vincent, University of Minnesota: “Agriculture is so popular in Minnesota, and the young men and women who are going in for Agriculture, Forestry, and Home Economics, are of so fine a type that any patronage might easily run in the other direction.” President A. Ross Hill, University of Missouri : “I cannot tell an Agriculture student from any other until I am informed, and in all matters of student politics, social recognition, fraternity membership, and in other re- spects, agricultural, academic and professional students asso- ciate on equal terms. At present the president of the student body, elected by the students from all divisions of the Uni- versity, is a senior in agriculture. Last year the president was a senior in law, and the ear before he was a senior in arts and science. ’ ’ The use of such expressions as “Cow College,” “Farmers,” “Corn Huskers,” and etc., are reserved for those schools of agri- culture which are separated from the great university. 18. In general the consolidated university attracts a larger number of students in proportion to the rural population, than does the separate agriculture school. Number of students in Agriculture for every 100,000 of rural population. ( Consolidated ) ( Unconsolidated ) Illinois 120 Indiana 47 Minnesota 217 Iowa 118 Nebraska 130 Kansas 102 Wisconsin 109 Michigan 73 The average number from the four consolidated states is 144, while from the unconsolidated states it is 85. In the case of Iowa, 230 non-collegiate students are included which runs the number up rather high in that state. In general the catalogues of unconsolidated schools are so padded that comparisons of this sort are more in their favor than they should be. Dr. Henry S. Pritchett, president of the Carnegie Foundation, knows the general conditions in American colleges better than any other man. In an address delivered at the University of California in 1910 he spoke as follows : (See the “Sunset” for May, 1910.) “The strongest appeal to the legislator has hitherto been — 14 on the score of numbers. When the member of the legislature was told that the state university or the state school of agri- culture and mechanic arts was overcrowded by the hundreds of students which thronged its halls, he has not generally given any thought to the method by which these students were brought there ; still less did he appreciate that in many cases they were obtained by the rankest advertising and by openly robbing the high schools. For the purpose of impressing the legislature, a student was a student, whether he was studying elementary arithmetic in the sub-freshman classes or scientific agriculture in the college. The registration lists in some of these colleges of agriculture and mechanic arts remind one of the inventory of a Kansas' farmer who, in advertisment of an auction sale, announced thirty-two head of stock. When the stock came to be sold the thirty-two head were found to embrace two horses, one mule, a cow and twenty-eight chickens.^’ At this particular time and for some years past the unconsoli- dated schools of Iowa have been engaged in an unusually fierce strug- gle which makes any statistics from them open to grave suspicion. 19. The consolidated university attracts more agriculture stu- dents from outside the state than does the unconsolidated. This is one way of showing the superior excellence of a school of agriculture. The following table shows the migration of students in agriculture in the four states of Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan and Indiana. (Wis- consin and Illinois are consolidated, Michigan and Indiana are uncon- solidated). Year 1913-14. Students from Indiana at Wisconsin 15 “ Wisconsin at Purdue (Ind.) 0 “ ‘ ‘ Indiana at Illinois' 40 Illinois at Purdue (Ind.) 7 ‘‘ Michigan at Wisconsin 9 ‘‘ “ Wisconsin at Michigan 2 ‘‘ ‘‘ Michigan at Illinois 8 “ ‘‘ Illinois at Michigan 2 These figures show that while 15 families in Indiana thought that the Wisconsin School of Agriculture is' sufficiently better than that of their home state of Indiana to justify them in sending their boys several hundred miles further from home, there was no family in Wisconsin which thought it worth while to send their boys to Indiana rather than to Wisconsin to study agriculture. There were forty — 16 — families in Indiana who thought the school at the University of Illinois was sufficiently better than the school of agriculture at their home college at Purdue to send their boys out of the state, while only seven families in Illinois found reason to send their boys to Indiana. The ratio between Michigan and Wisconsin in this respect is 2.9 and that between Michigan and Illinois is 2.8. These figures are too striking to be accidental, and it is not at all likely that the people of these states are mistaken as to the relative merits of these agricul- ture colleges to the extent indicated by these figures.' The following table shows the total number of students from other states studying agriculture at these colleges : Unconsolidated. Indiana 34 Michigan 86 Consolidated, Illinois - 182 Wisconsin 229 It is perfectly evident that people who are vitally interested in the character of agricultural colleges believe by a large majority that the schools' at the consolidated universities of Wisconsin and Illinois are distinctly superior to the separate agricultural colleges of Indiana and Michigan. 20. In comparison with the other schools of agriculture our own state college has failed signally in interesting young people in the study of agriculture. Of a total of 63 degrees conferred in the last three years, only 12 were in agriculture. During the last four years about one-eighth of the reported number of students were in agriculture. In Illinois and Wisconsin about one-third of the student body are in agriculture and in Minnesota about one-half are in agriculture. By the catalogue of 1912-13 of our state college of 161 alumni 26 were reported as in agricultural pursuits’, 14 in actual farming. The catalogue of 1911-12 reported five farmers in an alumni of 139 ; compare with this the fol- lowing data as to Illinois and Minnesota. Prom a recent letter from the United States Department of Agriculture. Former agricultural students on farms or in allied pursuits'. University of Illinois: 99 per cent or 502 out of 506 former students are in farming or allied pursuits. Farmers, 349 or 69 per cent. Teachers and investigators, 104 or 20 per cent. Veterinary sur- geons, 49 or 10 per cent. Pour in work unrelated to farming. University of Minnesota: 72 per cent of all farm students of — 16 — agriculture are in farming or in allied pursuits. Almost 100 per cent excluding boys and girls from Minneapolis and St. Paul. In a personal letter President Vincent of Minnesota writes, (September 10, 1914). “Of our college of agriculture students’, 95 per cent are engaged in pursuits which have a bearing on agricul- ture. Of our agricultural school graduates 66 per cent are on the farm, and 14 per cent go into work directly connected with farming.” THE CONSOLIDATED UNIVERSITIES DEVELOP BETTER EXPERIMENT STATIONS THAN DO THE SEPARATE SCHOOLS. One function of the Agricultural College is to conduct investiga- tions on the problems of Agriculture. Such investigations when con- ducted by able men and with adequate equipment, will always attract advanced students who will work for the higher collegiate degrees. During the year of 1912-13 the degree of Master of Science with Agriculture as the subject of research, was granted in the following six institutions in numbers as follows : Unconsolidated Consolidated Indiana 1 Illinois .. 10 Kansas 1 Nebraska .. 5 Michigan 1 Wisconsin .. 13 The difference between these two columns is too marked to require comment. The subjects which were investigated by the candidates for these degrees were such as “Agricultural Economy,” “Plant Path- ology,” “Experimental Breeding,” and “Agricultural Chemistry.” The total number of graduate students in agriculture for the year of 1913-14 in these schools were as follows : Unconsolidated Consolidated Indiana 3 Illinois . 33 Kansas 7 Nebraska . 25 Michigan 5 Wisconsin . 85 In a bulletin issued by the U. S. Bureau of Agriculture, which gives popular resumes of useful work in the Agricultural Experiment Stations for the period of 1897 to 1914, the name of the Montana Station is mentioned nine times, while 87 Wisconsin experiments are described ; Cornell has 72, and Illinois 52, of its experiments described. Perhaps' the greatest reason for the neglect of agriculture in the sep- arate agricultural colleges is that nearly all such schools are striving to become Universities. This they seek to do by developing strong schools of engineering. On this point a late report of the Carnegie Foundation says : — 17 — “Unless’ experience fails, the concentration of engineering at the college of agriculture will cause the engineering to run away with the agriculture. This is only natural, because engi- neering is a standardized subject, easy to establish and admin- ister, while agricultural education is still in the formative period, and presents constructive problems of much difficulty. Nor does the history of the Montana College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts hold out much hope that it will avoid this danger. That history is the familiar one of attempting every- thing except the principal duty straight ahead. Its recent pub- lication indicate that the latest action of the Board of Educa- tion has filled it with the hope of becoming a large institute of technology. It is to be regretted that the admirable movement to create a ‘greater University of Montana’ has not led to more practical results.” The following letters throw a flood of light on the subject. OPINIONS OF EDUCATORS. President George E. Vincent, University of Minnesota, September 9th, 1914: ‘ ‘ I firmly believe that the agricultural education gains im- mensely from the scientific atmosphere and social spirit of the unified University. It is also true that the agricultural group makes' a valuable contribution to the work and ideas of the academic and professional group. To segregate agricultural education is to attach a stigma to it and to curtail its influence and efficiency.” President Brown Ayers, University of Tennessee, September 16th, 1914: “I do not think there is any question of the great advant- age, both from an economic and social point of view, of the consolidated University as against the separate agricultural and other colleges.” President Frank B. Trotter, (Acting President) University of West Virginia, September 15th, 1914: “In my opinion the advantages of a consolidated Univer- sity are very much superior to those of the separate schools. In our case it would require us to duplicate our departments of English, Chemistry, Botany and Biology", which would almost double the expense. ’ ’ — 18 - r President Benjamin I. Wheeler, University of California, Sep- tember 8tli, 1914: ‘ ‘ There can be but one answer to the question of consolida- tion. Anybody who has had any real experience with it knows that segregation of the Agricultural College can be brought about only with injury to itself. The leading Agricultural Colleges of the country, beyond a doubt, are those which are merged into the Universities. Take for instance Wisconsin, Illinois, Cornell, Minnesota.” President Melville A. Brannon, University of Idaho, September 8th, 1914 : ' ‘ I believe very decidedly in the consolidated University of Idaho. It seems to me that in this State, at least, the agricul- tural interests should be backed up by the intensive and reliable research laboratories of the University. ’ ’ President Edmund J. James, University of Illinois, September 9th, 1914: “I have no doubt whatever that the consolidated Univer- sity, i e., the University with all the colleges in one place, and under one administration, is far superior to a divided Univer- sity for the Agricultural students as well as* for the students in other departments.” 22. It is claimed that the separate schools reach a larger number of students than do the consolidated schools. On this point we again quote Mr. Davee. '‘We hear it stated that these schools' reach more people, scattered as they now are. This can only apply to the work in liberal arts given at both Missoula and Bozeman. It does not apply to the College of Engineering or Agriculture for this work is given only at Bozeman. It cannot apply to law or forestry, for this work is all given at Missoula. Nor can it apply in mining, for this work is' all given in Butte. Thus a boy living in Missoula must go to Bozeman if he wishes to take engineering or agriculture, and a Bozeman boy wishing to take law or forestry must go to Missoula. In order to make this segregation argument effective, even more schools should be organized especially in engineering and agriculture, for these should be the most popular departments and hence should be put as near the people as possible. ’ ’ The argument, therefore, dwindles into significance. It applies only to those young people in Missoula, Butte and Bozeman, w^ho are willing to study those particular subjects which are offered in their — 19 — own schools, just because the school is conveniently located. We must make it clear to ourselves that this argument applies only to a very small class of students' in these cities and in their vicinity. All the rest of the state is left untouched by it. In legislating for the State the people at Bozeman, Butte and Missoula should not receive a consideration above that given the people at Billings, Lewistown, Helena, Great Falls, Kalispell and numerous other towns throughout the State. If we disregard Butte, which has only the School of Mines, where about thirty-five young men from Butte are studying, either of the remaining two places, and its imme- diate vicinity, does not contain one-twentieth of the population of the State. How far are we justified in considering the welfare of this one-twentieth over and above the welfare of the nineteen-twentieths of the population of the State. Are we justified in making it more convenient for one-twentieth of the population of the state to attend a college of moderate excellence if we thereby deprive the whole state of a first-class University? Since the program is the greatest good to the greatest number we inquire whether the existence of one strong central University in the state would not create a more generally widespread sentiment for it and whether the net result would be a larger total attendance than we now have at the separate institutions? If this should be the case the argument for schools in different parts of the State as it is' made by the spokesmen for the opponents of consolidation falls to the ground. Again we look to the experience of other states. Total number of students for each 100,000 of population. Consolidated Uncons'olidated Minnesota 201 Indiana . 166 Nebraska 303 Kansas 238 Wisconsin 192 Michigan 169 The average for the three consolidated states is 232, and for the unconsolidated states the average is 191. In this table the number of students in each University which are not residents of the state are omitted. Thus, in the case of Wisconsin we omit the 2,343 stu- dents who came from other states. Iowa is omitted for reasons given in paragraph 18. Illinois is’ omitted because that state has two great Universities besides its State University. 23. Not only do the consolidated schools attract a larger propor- tion of the people of their states than do the unconsolidated schools, but they actually give them a better quality of education. The smaller and less known unconsolidated schools cannot retain their best teachers, even at the same salary a teacher will move to the stronger — 20 — school. The prestige of the school, the stimulus of a strong intellec- tual center are of considerable value to the intelligent young instructor. The consolidated schools have better libraries' and laboratories. The standard of work is likely to be higher because the scramble for stu- dents which often causes the smaller schools to admit and retain unfit students now, would not effect the stronger schools’. There are more lectures by great men, more high-class musicals, more opportunities in every respect. A degree from a strong University is actually worth more than one from a small college. Manufacturing concerns look to the strong schools’ for their experts. City Superintendents take the graduates of the strong Universities in preference to those from the smaller schools. Big business is always looking for young men of broad intel- ligence in the hope that they may develop the element of leadership and administrative ability. The strong Universities and not the small obscure college are looked to for such men. For this reason University students migrate from states with weak, unconsolidated schools to the stronger schools. Last year there were at the University of Wis- consin 2,343 students from other states, while at the two separate schools of Indiana there were only 437 students from outside the state. Of these the larger number were studying engineering at the com- paratively strong engineering department at Purdue. There were only 58 students from outside the state at the State University of Indiana. Three unconsolidated schools of Ohio had 947 students from out- side the state, while the University of Illinois had 1600. Up to this time the number of students from Montana which have gone out of the State to attend the larger Universities, has' been as great as the com- bined actual college attendance at the three State institutions. About 80 per cent of the teachers in our high schools' were trained outside the State. 24. The strong consolidated Universities have undertaken a large amount of public service that is not performed by any of the uncon- solidated schools. Mention has been made of the many scientific and public service bureaus of the University of Illinois. There is no doubt that the value to the farmers of Illinois of this agricultural survey now in progress will far exceed the total cost of maintaining the whole University for all time to come. The University of Wis’consin has, no doubt, paid for itself in actual money returned to the state through its legislative advisory bureau. The State of Wisconsin is covered with a network of extension centers. Last year the University had 6,126 students registered in correspondence study. Through its exten- — 21 — sion department this University reaches several times as many people as actually come to it to study. The ideals of such a University may be gleaned from the following; ‘‘The modem commonwealth University recognizes three main functions'. (1) That of teaching the properly qualified student who is admitted for residence instruction ; (2) of carry- ing original investigations, or research, and promoting the spirit of creative scholarship; (3) of disseminating iLseful knowledge that has been accumulated through productive schol- arship to all classes of citizens, and of adopting it to their requirements as far as possible. “The object of this University in carrying on extension work is to serve the citizens of the commonwealth who are unable to attend established educational institutions, to stimu- late and guide them in the pursuit of a higher and more effec- tive education, to enable them to achieve more nearly the best things in life of which they are capable — in short, to build up an extra-mural University, which shall embrace the whole state and which shall have live, active members in every community, who are in intimate connection with the mother institution. The constant aim of the Regents has been to make the Univer- sity the center of every movement which concerns the interest of the state — to give every man a chance to obtain the highest possible education at the smallest possible cost — to bring the home and the University in close touch.” Similar work is being instituted in Minnesota and Illinois. Is it not striking that in Indiana and Michigan such work is almost entirely lacking ? 25. The situation in Wisconsin has received special attention by the Montana politicians who are opposing consolidation. The Univer- sity of Wisconsin has made enemies by the splendid work it has done. The corporation tax which pays the state $2,000,000 a year, was due almost directly to the enlightening Avork of the departments of econom- ics and social science in the University. The enemies of the University of Wisconsin are backed b}^ such men as Senator Ike Stevenson, who was ousted from the United States Senate, and men of his character in Wisconsin who do not Avant the people to have too much control over their oaaui affairs or to be too Avell educated in political, governmental and economic matters. The opponents of consolidation are giving their approval to the vicious and hypocritical attacks being made on the UniA’^ersity of Wis- consin by the old political bosses of that state. The old political bosses —22 have been ousted in Wisconsin and their places have been taken by men who have been single-minded in their devotion to the purposes of furnishing the people with correct information and with expert advice upon questions which concern them. This situation the politicians are distorting by telling us' about a fight which they say the people of Wisconsin are making on their University. These unprincipled men do not hesitate to attack the one institu- tion which has brought the state more fame than all her other institu- tions combined. The University of Wisconsin has paid for itself many times over by the extra activities alone. The corporation tax is enough to defray all expenses of the University. And yet this institution costs the people of the state only about 90 cents for every man, woman and child. Would not the people of Montana be glad to spend that much to have an institution like the University of Wisconsin? 26. It is frequently asserted that Butte is the proper place for the School of Mines, and that for this reason the consolidation bill should be voted down. They say that in Butte mining is “in the air” and that students absorb it unconsciously. Now the simple fact is that the students in the School of Mines spend only a very small frac- tion of their time in the mines. Further, Butte has only one kind of mines, the Copper Mine, with the by-products' of zinc, etc. To get a broad view of mining the students at Butte are obliged to take trips to other parts of Montana, to Idaho and other states. Last spring the papers of the state mentioned that the senior class of the School of Mines took a trip to the Black Hills in South Dakota. Copper mining is only one of the many different kinds of mining. If the School of Mines' were at Missoula or Bozeman the result would simply be that the students would be farther away from one kind of mining (copper) and nearer to some other kind. A one or two weeks’ trip to Butte or Anaconda would suffice for the copper mining. Those who think that a successful School of Mines must be located in a mining city, should remember that the greatest schools of mining in the United States are in New York and Boston. The greatest Schools of Mines in Europe are in London, Paris and Berlin. The simple truth of the matter is that over 80 per cent of a mining course is ordinary engineering of one kind and another. It makes little difference whether you make a hole in the ground to dig iron, coal or copper, or whether you make it for a tunnel for a railway. The engineering problems are very much alike. But let us look the facts squarely in the face about our own School' of Mines. During the past year fifty-five students were registered, which means an average attendance of less than fifty. There were seven different teachers, each giving instruction in several subjects. One taught — 23 — t mathematics, English and physics. Without saying unkind things about the School of Mines we may nevertheless tell the truth about it. In no well-equipped school would a man be allowed to teach more than one of these subjects. A man who is teaching several subjects cannot possibly be an authority on any one of them and he is probably mediocre in all. In the stronger high schools in this country each teacher specializes in one department, devoting all his spare time and energy to keep abreast with the scientific and pedagogical progress that is being made in that department. It would take at least $100,- 000.00 a year to run a separate, well-equipped School of Mines even if it had only a dozen students. Last year President Bowman calcu- lated that by adding one professor to the staff of a University having a well equipped school of engineering we should have a complete school of mines’. The students of the School of Mines of Butte have not even the merest taste of college life. Instead of the various groups at the Uni- versity, where young men discuss the ideas of youth, and form life- long and numerous friendships, the students at the School of Mines, unless they live in Butte, drift into the city to spend their spare hours. How much college life is possible at the School of Mines, when the college has only twenty students who do not live in their own homes. It is' commonplace to remark that the real college life is made by those who live at the school, that is by those who do not go home over night. This is so well understood, that in cities like New York, Boston and Chicago, young men and women whose homes are in these cities, fre- quently go to live in one of the University Dormitories during one or two years of their college life. Will it not be far better to have this’ school a part of the State University ? Let thes'e boys who are study- ing mining get the benefit of the teaching of specialists. This is an age of specialists. The world is so complicated that he who is not a specialist is not much of anything. Let these boys have four years of real college life. Let them breathe the atmosphere of the University. Let them be able to say when they graduate that they have actually been to college. Let them benefit by the social and intellectual life of a clean University group. By so doing you will immeasurably benefit the students in Mining, and at the same time help the Univer- sity by giving it greater breadth and more points of contact with the world of affairs. Last year only 8 boys from Montana and from out- side of Silver Bow county attended the School of Mines. This shows' how little this school now means in the state as a whole. It would be as cheap for the state to send these boys to Columbia or to the Massachusetts Institute and to pay aU their expenses as to keep this little school going. If you add $10,000 a year for mainte- — 24 — nance in a well-equipped University, you will get a school of mines incomparably stronger than the one you now have. V. HARMONY AND CO-OPERATION ARE IMPOSSIBLE IN UNCONSOLIDATED SCHOOLS. 27. Those who oppose consolidation say that they deprecate strife. They may well deprecate the strife which has been going on in this state for more than twenty years. But we may be sure that if the his- tory of other states means anything, this strife which has been going on for the last twenty years will never cease until the crime which was committed at that time shall have been set right. There is strife in every state in the Union in which the University is not consolidated. There is strife in Oregon, in Washington, in Kansas, in Iowa, in Indiana, and in Michigan. The state of Iowa is some 50 years older than Montana and still the struggle which has been going on for the last few years in that state has been far more bitter than anything we have yet seen in this connection in Montana. To one who studies the history of Iowa, the hopelessness of her Higher Education situa- tion is brought home with irresistable force. Judging by this, when may we hope for the strife to cease in Montana? We, too, deprecate strife. We believe that the inevitable strife which always exists in the states having separate institutions is a powerful factor in keeping those institutions below the first rank. There is no real team work in those states ; there is no great pride in the institutions of higher learning. But deprecate the strife as we may, it will continue as long as patriotic and earnest people see that another system is better and that it can be obtained at a comparatively insignificant temporary sacrifice. You may cry “Peace, Peace, but there is' no Peace!” Is it not of the highest significance that in the states that have consoli- dated universities there is not even a suggestion that the state should build other competing colleges' in various parts of the state. There is not even a suggestion in Illinois, or Minnesota, or California, or Mis- souri, or Wisconsin, or Nebraska, that the agricultural college should be moved away from the University. 28. If the University is consolidated we shall have one body of alumni working in harmony for their alma mater, not as now, spend- ing a large share of their energy in finding the weak points' of their rival. This unity and harmony in a large body of alumni is one of the things which makes it worth while to be a graduate of a University. When each town and city in the state shall have a number of gradu- ates of the same State University, a strong institution of which the state is proud, then the boys and girls will begin to find it really — 25 — worth while to go to their home University and become members of these same groups. The voters of the state can secure this oppor- tunity for their sons and daughters if they vote now to consolidate these schools. 29. The separate institutions have become a permanent asset to those who are engaged in political barter. This is how it is worked. The president of your State University goes to Helena to ask for an appropriation for the University. Before it is granted it becomes nec- essary for the political leaders of Missoula to go to Helena, and if the request is granted it is usually part of a bargain in which the politicians’ of Missoula surrender some advantage to the State Admin- istration. When the president of the Agricultural College lays his needs before the rulers’ of the state the process is the same. The result is that these separate schools are a permanent “trading asset” to our politicians. “Will you have so many game wardens appointed or will you have an extra appropriation for your school”? That is the sort of a question the politicians of these towns are fre- quently pondering over. The schools are played off one against the other to the supposed advantage of the state administration. This is not due to the particular personnel of any one administration, but is the inevitable consequence of a system which invites this sort of thing. VI. SELECTION OP A LOCATION BY A COMMISSION IS NOT UN-DEMOCRATIC AND IS ADVISABLE 30. The history of this bill as given in Part 1 shows why it was concluded to leave the selection of location to a commission. It is a well-settled principle that the voters may delegate to experts certain technical work. Not 10 per cent of the voters of the state have ever seen either of the cities and obviously it would be impossible for them to make the proper investigation personally. Those who will select the location of the University are men who are intimately acquainted with the needs of a University. They will pay no attention to local preju- dices. The voters of the state may rest assured that the selection will be made wisely and for the best interest of the whole state. Again we quote Superintendent Davee: THE NEBRASKA COMMISSION OP GREAT EDUCATORS A PRECEDENT. “There are those who oppose consolidation on the ground that the present bill provides for a commission of great educa- tors to decide the location as' between Bozeman and Missoula. —2 6 — I hope the voters of the state will remember that this is a mere detail. The great question is that of consolidation. But if we want a precedent for the use of a commission in such matters we need only to go to Nebraska. The people of that state are to vote this fall on the question whether they shall continue the college of liberal arts in the heart of the city of Lincoln or move it just out of town with the Agricultural College. The Nebraska Farmers ’ Congress passed a resolution inviting Presi- dent Vincent of Minnesota, President Thompson of Ohio, President Van Hise of Wisconsin, and President Snyder of Michigan, an outside commission, to make a survey of condi- tions in Nebraska and report their recommendations to the peo- ple. The commission has just reported and their unanimous recommendation is to move from the city to the farm. The farmers of Nebraska realized that they did not have the time and ability to investigate this great question and they preferred the recommendation of a commission of experts' whose ability and character are above suspicion, to the recommendation of local “campaigners whose impartiality is often far from being above suspicion.” I believe the voters of Montana will take a similar view of our own situation and will not allow the great issue of consolidation to be clouded by minor details.” VII. THE ‘ ‘ BREACH OF FAITH ’ ’ ARGUMENT IS NOT SOUND 31. The opponents of consolidation have made much of what they call “Keeping faith with the people,” in the cities in which these schools are now located. They even make the point that we should fail to keep faith with the U. S. Government if we consolidate the School of Agriculture with the University. The last point is so hopelessly silly that it requires no attention. There is not the slightest suggestion that the United States Government feels that states like Nebraska, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New York, Missouri or Cali- fornia, are not keeping faith with the United States. There is every indication that the U. S. Government is highly satisfied vdth the arrangement in these states. If the U. S. Government desired sep- arate schools of agriculture, they would surely object to the practically complete Universities which have been developed at these schools in such states as Indiana, Iowa and Kansas, and such as our good friends in Bozeman are trying very hard to develop there. We now turn to the question of “keeping faith” with the cities in which these schools are located. They weep over those who come to Missoula or to Bozeman, bought property there and built homes in the expectation that these schools would remain where they now are. But precisely the people — 27 — who are entering this complaint were instrumental in removing the school of engineering from Missoula and the school of pharmacy from Bozeman. Now let us see just what the theory is. It seems* to be about as follows : If the state creates an institution which increases the value of real estate in its vicinity, then the state is morally bound to keep up such institutions, whether the best interests' of the state require it or not. Surely no such principle has been recognized heretofore in the United States. The U. S. Government has built forts in various parts of this country, and especially here in the northwest, but this principle has never yet been invoked to compel the Government to continue them when they were no longer necessary. The Government has built ship yards in various ports which have enhanced the value of proper!}^ around them, but they have been abandoned from time to time as it was found the work could be done more economically elsewhere. Hun- dreds of millions have been invested in this country on canals and in deepening rivers, thereby enhancing the value of adjoining real estate, but these rivers and these canals' have been abandoned, both by the United States and by the various states from time to time when they were found unprofitable. Harbors have been built and improved and again abandoned Avhen they were found unnecessary. The govern- ment built post roads, which made living worth while in remote nooks of this and other states, and then abandoned them to the evident loss of settlers. A town is built on a railway, hotels are erected to accom- modate travelers. Ten years later increase of business makes it advis- able for the railroad company to straighten its road and this in- volves building the main station a mile or two away from the original station. A howl is set up because the value of the property around the old station is decreased, but the raihvay is straightened nevertheless. Factories are built and later as new developments and methods of business and manufacturing make it advisable some of them are abandoned, while others are enlarged. The doctrine proposed would, if carried out, stop all progress. Some inconvenience and some loss are inevitable accompaniments of change, and we can never have progress without change. But let us look a little more closely into this particular case. Those who' know just what took place when these institutions were located where they now are, and who are not anxious to conceal from us the truth about it, say it was one of the coarsest political deals' in the history of the state. There was a little pork barrel to be divided and each town which had the required political strength secured a _ 28 — slice of it. We are told that there was not the remotest thought even of considering which place was the best adapted for each institution. The main reason for creating three instead of one institution was that that would enable a larger number of politicians in Helena to come back with a piece of bacon to their constituents. This unctuous talk about how well our fathers wrought in this case is nauseating, and no man who knows conditions in Montana would ever indulge in it unless he is over anxious to find arguments, for a cause, the real reasons for which are very different and may even be carefully concealed. Do you mean to say that that political deal of twenty years ago shall forever damn Montana, to have a second rate higher educational system? We know it is written that the sins of the fathers shall be visited on their children in the third and fourth generation. In this case we are attempting to visit this abori- ginal sin of the state upon our children for all generations to come. Is this fair? Shall we permit this early blunder to inflict its evil consequences upon those millions to come who are not in the slightest way responsible for it? VIII. OPINIONS OF GREAT EDUCATORS. 32. In connection with the movement last year for the consolida- tion of our state schools, the committee for the Greater University received letters from the leading educators in various parts of the country. Almost without exception they support the consolidation movement. Their statements are of much significance at this time, for they are specialists in matters of economy and efficiency relating to educational administration. Following are a few of these letters : Consolidation is exactly in line with the policy which I earnestly advo- cated some years ago before the Association of Southern Colleges and Secon- dary Schools. I think that many of our states, which are now supporting a number of separate, more or less feeble institutions, would profit greatlj'' by concentration. D. F. HOUSTON, Secretary of Agriculture. President Washington University, St. Louis. (On leave of absence). I have placed myself upon record on various occasions; indeed I have repeatedly said that in those states of the West where the higher institutions have been subdivided, it would be a great blessing to the state and would save unnumbered millions, if by some disaster of nature all existing struc- tures and materials in them were completely destroyed; if, in consequence of this, one higher educational institution would replace the several separated ones. PYom the material point of view the advantages of concentration over dispersion are inestimable. As soon as the state of Montana becomes devel- oped, the savings will amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars every year, and that with greater efficiency than would be possible from a larger sum spent at the several institutions in different parts of the state. CHAS. R. VAN HISE, Pres. Univ. of Wis. — 29 — Every state that originally adopted a policy of separation is now con- sidering some form of reversal of its former policy. Idaho’s experience and decision is in favor of consolidation. JAMES A. MACLEAN, Pres. Univ. of Idaho. I think that there is no other matter so important in higher education in these Western states as to get these institutions all together. In a state as scantily populated as Montana every institution doing work beyond the high- school stage should be consolidated in one place where a competent body of teachers could be maintained and a library adequate for advanced work. DAVID STARR JORDAN, Ex-Pres. Leland- Stanford University. I give to the movement for consolidation of the higher educational insti- tutions of Montana my unequivocal and heartiest support. Montana can have one of the great universities of the land if it consolidates. If it tries to main- tain four institutions, it cannot. Everywhere in the country the tendency is toward consolidation. BENJ. I. WHEELER, Pres. Univ. of California. I am heartily in favor of centralization of higher education into an insti- tution under a single management. The unified administration of a state’s higher education is the only sound principle. Concentration means economy and efficiency. GEORGE E. VINCENT, Pres. Univ. of Minn. I have often wondered why a progressive state like Montana has been so long content to waste its energies in trying to make duplicate institutions answer the purpose of a true University. ROBERT LEWERS, Vice-Pres. Univ. of Nevada, By all means consolidate your higher educational institutions in one site and under one administration. J. T. KINGSBURY, Pres. Univ. of Utah. There is probably not a state in the Union which has already set out along decentralized lines, but what would now give much to have the state institutions together. JAMES E, RUSSELL, Dean Teachers’ College, Columbia University. Economy and efficiency both require consolidation. W. O. THOMPSON, Pres. Ohio State Univ. The general proposition of consolidating state institutions meets with my hearty approval. The states which have scattered these institutions have done so to the disadvantage of the efficiency of their educational wmrk, undoubtedly. HARRY PRATT JUDSON, Pres. Univ. of Chicago. I wish to say that I thoroughly believe in the consolidation of educational institutions. MASON S. STONE, Supt. of Educ., Vermont. I don’t know of any educator of first rank in the country who does not take this same view (for consolidation). EDMUND J. JAMES, Pres. Univ. of Illinois. The time has come for us to exercise in the administration of educational affairs the same practical intelligence that has impelled business corporations to unite and co-operate for a school of public welfare. There is the avoidance of waste and the increase of efficiency in such an undertaking, BRUCE R. PAYNE, Pres. Geo. Peabody College for Teachers. I am of the opinion that even better results could have been reached in Michigan if in the beginning all of our higher institutions had been located in one place and developed as a single institution. H. B. HUTCHINS, Pres. Univ. of Michigan. The plan has my unqualified approval. S. AVERY, Chancellor Univ. of Nebraska. This is unprejudiced and expert authority. The citizens of Mon- tana should consider the consolidation movement unselfishly and intel- ligently in the light of the evidence here presented. — 30 — [ > \ i ? t