176 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY, 



McCosh, President of Princeton College. In that paper, the whole 

 national and State policy regarding scientific and industrial education 

 was condemned. The decision arrived at by two difierent Congresses 

 of the United States, and by nearly thirty State Legislatures, the plan 

 adopted by nearly thirty Boards of Trustees and Faculties in the vari- 

 ous States — many of them after careful study of institutions at home 

 and abroad — were dismissed with contempt. The main argument 

 was, so far as argument can be detected among the multitude of asser- 

 tions, that Scotland, from which the doctor had not long before emi- 

 grated, had got along well enough without any provision for agricult- 

 ural instruction. 



Never was there a more admirable illustration of the thoughts put 

 forth by James Russell Lowell, on " a certain condescension in for- 

 eigners." To two institutions the doctor paid his respects by name, 

 one being Rutgers College, in New Jersey ; the other Cornell Univer- 

 sity. The first of these, Rutgers College, it would appear had com- 

 mitted an unpardonable sin. While the doctor's learned predecessors, 

 at Princeton, had been preaching against " science falsely so called," 

 the Rutgers College authorities had received that portion of the col- 

 lege land-grant fund which came to New Jersey, and had established 

 an admirable school for applied science. This it was, doubtless, which 

 led the doctor, in the heart of this State of ours which glories in its 

 descent from the men who founded the Dutch Republic, to stigma- 

 tize his sister institution in New Jersey as " managed by a pack of 

 Dutchmen." 



His reference to the Cornell University was of another character, 

 and not all my respect for the doctor's ability as a metaphysician will 

 allow me here to suppress the fact that his whole argument was based 

 upon one of the most astounding misrepresentations ever attempted 

 upon an American audience. 



This misrepresentation was in regard to the law of Congress of 

 1862. Throughout the doctor's address the idea is conveyed that the 

 law of 1862 contemplated solely the establishment of exclusively agri- 

 cultural colleges. 



Nothing could be mora wide of the fact. Had the doctor ever 

 read that law he would have seen that, while " subjects relating to 

 agriculture and the mechanic arts " were named as " leading branches," 

 it was expressly declared in the act that other scientific and classical 

 branches should not be excluded. Nay, more, he would have seen 

 that so broad was the intention of Congress that the wording of the 

 act is, that " subjects relating to agriculture and the mechanic arts " 

 shall be taught, thus giving the authorities permission to extend their 

 teaching into every field of learning which could strengthen these de- 

 partments or elevate them. 



I am aware that, in opposition to the plain intent of the act of 

 1862, the doctor may fall back upon its title, in which, for the sake of 



