Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The independent. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1902-1907 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 26, 1905)
GEORGE W. BERGE, EDITORND PUBLISHER Volume 18 Lincoln, Nebraska, October 26, 1905 Number 23 Chancellor Lap Into Sophistry ' Chancellor E. Benjamin Andrews of the Nebraska university hW added zest to the campaign in this state by denying that he is i. . Ai;nt,va f Jr.hn 11 RnrVpfflW because, of the $67,000 donation.. " Our respected chancellor is very adroit in shaking off ob ligations. One month ago he felt himself so heavily in debt to Rocke feller that he publicly defended his methods of destructive commer cialism. But the chancellor is again free, and with all the joyous ness of his regained liberty he shouts the glad tidings from his house top. Those who have decided to vote for the reform regents, Messrs, Cole and Lightncr, should not be misled by the shiftness of the chancellor. The chancellor's career has been marked by an instability of mind that causes his critics to look upon each new change of oDinion with distrust. Probably the chancellor , is not conscious of his inconsistencies, but that tends rather -to shatter jhan to restore confidence in him. . ' The people of Nebraska will not soon forget the unfortunate series of events which Jed to the choice of E. Benjamin Andrews as chancellor of the state university. A sentiment of chivalry, a desire to rebuke the goldbug tories oi ninety-six, and to honor one : who, f it was kdieved. had sacrificed position to preserve his honor and independence, prompted a Nebraska board of regents to choose E. Benjamin Andrews as chancellor of the state university. A few years after the choice was made-the people of this state were sur ju'ised to hear from the chancellor himself that ho had suffered no. martyrdom in the Brown university affair, and that, in short, the story of his great sacrifice for conscience and honor's sake, was a myth. From that time until the present the chancellor has shown a decided bias for those things which the general public considers worst in modern finance. His appeal to his book on "Wealth and ' Moral. Law" should carry little weight. A chancellor who acknowl edges an obligation one month and denies it the next mouth, has not that fixity of mind or character which gives moral weight to an in dividual's acts and beliefs. , . This criticism is not made with the harsh purpose of suggest ing that the chancellor is guilty of denying in public an obligation which he acknowledges in private. Indeed the chancellor has made public acknowledgment of the moral obligation he, as chancellor of a subsidized university, owes to the individual who granted thy subsidy.- This in itself would indicate a peculiar mental process which is a trifle too complex for the Nehraska mind. A thing can not at the same time be and not be, the logicians tell us. And yet the chancellor in a public speech acknowledges an obligation which he denies in a letter to a Lincoln newspaper. Between the speech' and the letter only a' month has elapsed. The only conclusions pos sible are these: either the chancellor has changed his mind and knows, it, or he has changed his mind and docs not know it, or he is suf fering from a mental hallucination which permits him to believe that he can accept for the state university $07,000 from an indi vidual and defend that individual's generally condemned tamers methods and yet retain the freedom and independence of mind and the liberty of action and speech demanded of a state university chan- T the, fiiinnlc. sane and unsophisticated minds of the Nebraska prairies this latter position seems untenable. The Independent greatly mistakes the sentiment of Nebraskans if they do not con clude that a real obligation exists as a result of the Kockef el lcr do nation. That donation may never 'force the chancellor to do or say what he believes to be morally wrong, but the obligation exists and will have its influence in blinding his reason, if the donation is not returned to the donor in accordance with the demand of the reform forces and the pledges of the reform candidates for regents. - One of the most misleading statements in the chancellor's letter relates to the general educational board which is popularity known as " Jtockcf eller's educational board." The - facts that the board ' has been incorporated and that it has at its disposal a few thousand dollars aside irom JtocReieiier s donation oi $iu,uuu,vvu uoes wn change its status in the eyes of honest, observers. In time the Ne braska university may be popularity 'known as ".Rockefeller's uni versity'' if it continues to receive contributions from Mr. Rocke feller. In February 1002 John D. Rockefeller, Jr., organ ized the board to which Chancellor Andrews has been appointed and this inter esting young man has dictated the appointments of . all the mem bers who are to dispose of his father's millions. The chancellor's subtle effort to befog the issue will have a ten dency to convince the people that he is Nehraska s educational rep resentative of the Standard Oil trust. Cant of NinetySiA Revived to Frighten the Public Art ay From Reform in his speech at Akron, ()., Secretary Taft did not. add to his political stature. Ho revived the hypocritical cry against Bryan ism which was raised in ninety-six by the. Depews, McCalls, Blisses, 'McOurdys and the other frenzied financiers who have turned out to be common lawbreakers and dospoilors of widows and orphans. Huge Taft has become Tiny Taft. Hero is a .specimen of the old hypocrisies brought up to date: The truth is perfectly apparent thot Mr. Urynn Is gradually renaming control over tho democratic party and proposes to assume tho aggressive in a controversy in which he hopes to army the poor against tho rich, to shake the present system of private property ami freedom of contract, to cripple the federal courts that are now such a bulwark In the defense of the constitutional rights of individuals, to Kubstituto for our present system of railways, privately owned and maintained, government railways and lit ever) way to Introduce a system of paternalism leaning toward socialism which In the end would certainly paralyze the Industrial and social progress of this country. This movement in favor of gove rnment ownership of public utilities, to Include the commerce of railroads. Is not a mere chimera; it fl:tU Its beginning In the proiositli t:r nuaklpal ownership of street railways by Mayor Dunne. of Chicago, and Mayor McClellan of New York and even still more in the attitude of Mr. Hearst iu running against Mr. mcuieiian. Behold tho old, lying phrases, "poor against the rich," '''shako tho present system of private projierfy "cripple tho federal courts "paralvzo the industrial and social progress' of this country' etc." It is a relief to I urn from the demagogic deceits of Secretary Taft to tho downright utterances of President Uoosevelt. Whatever mis hikes tho president may have made in his southern sjaeoho ho did not descend io the cheap clap-trap and red tiro of his Sultanio Majesty, tho impcriali.stie governor general of all iho Philippine. Tho hypocrites of ninety-six, the pilferers of the jNope, tho barrel politicians, Iho campaign educators of the liauna stripe, will take new heart of liopo now that Tuft has raised the old war cry in an effort to arouse tho voters of Ohio against peri) invented by jsditical pandcrors for private profit. Is it possible that tho jhs pie of Ohio Din ! stampeded y the eric of ninety-six now that