May 6, 1910] 



SCIENCE 



703 



sion it should not be dependent upon the dis- 

 ability of a professor, nor contingent upon his 

 ability or willingness to become the head of 

 an institution. 



" The action of the board in peremptorily 

 abrogating- one of the two specific objects of the 

 foundation, is justly looked upon with great 

 disfavor by a large body of men engaged in 

 college teaching, nor can it be justified by the 

 arguments advanced. The system has not 

 been working a sufficient length of time to 

 frame accurate conclusions or to draw infer- 

 ences which would warrant such drastic meas- 

 ures." 



Professor Henry J. Fletcher, of the law 

 school, in discussing the legal aspects of the 

 situation, spoke as follows : 



" The Carnegie Foundation is now organ- 

 ized under an act of Congress. It is the 

 trustee of an express trust. It holds a fund 

 the income of which is to be distributed among 

 beneficiaries. These beneficiaries were not 

 named by the founder, but the 25 men selected 

 as trustees (who have now incorporated them- 

 selves) were authorized to designate benefi- 

 ciaries. They have done this, not by name, 

 but by defining classes of persons. When 

 trustees, in addition to their ordinary duties 

 as trustees, are empowered to name the bene- 

 ficiaries of a trust which they are to admin- 

 ister, and they do name them, a named bene- 

 ficiary becomes the owner of a definite en- 

 forceable, equitable interest in the fund. This 

 equitable interest, so fixed, is vested; it is 

 property; it can not be destroyed by a revoca- 

 tion of the designation, either by the action of 

 the trustee alone, or by the trustee and founder 

 acting together, unless the right of revocation 

 has been reserved. If acting under the au- 

 thority of the deed of trust, the trustees, in- 

 stead of naming beneficiaries, define a class, 

 all of whose members are declared to be en- 

 titled to participate in the fund as benefi- 

 ciaries, each individual member of the class 

 has exactly the same rights as if he had been 

 named. 



" As I understand the facts, the trustees of 

 the Carnegie Foundation defined two classes: 

 First, those professors in accepted institutions 



who should have served 25 years — service 

 already performed to count toward the period 

 designated; second, those professors in ac- 

 cepted institutions who should continue in the 

 service until they reach the age of 65 years. 

 If the principles outlined above are correctly 

 stated, professors belonging to the first class 

 who at the time of the announcement were 

 engaged in the designated class of work in 

 accepted institutions, and were therefore 

 eligible to a pension on completing the re- 

 quired period of service, have a vested prop- 

 erty interest in the fund, subject to be de- 

 feated only by their failure to remain in the 

 class for the requisite length of time. For 

 example, if a professor were designated by 

 name, and informed that he was eligible to 

 the service pension on condition that he con- 

 tinue in service until he shall have taught 

 25 years, his rights would thereby become 

 vested. If, instead of being named, he were 

 a member of the first class, the case would be 

 the same. His rights could no more be de- 

 stroyed without his consent than the rights of 

 the beneficiary under a life insurance policy 

 can be cut off without his consent prior to the 

 death of the life-insured. If the trustees have 

 the power to annex new conditions to the 

 receipt of a pension by members of the first 

 class, they can cancel the designation of that 

 class entirely; and if they can drop the first 

 class, they can drop the second as well; they 

 can abandon the present plan and adopt a new 

 one, with wholly different beneficiaries. 



" The only theory under which the trustees 

 can claim a legal right to change beneficiaries 

 at pleasure is, that the trust is a charity, or 

 that the right to change has been expressly 

 reserved. A charitable trust does not require, 

 nor permit, definite beneficiaries. No indi- 

 vidual can claim the enforcement of a charity 

 in his behalf. But the trustees of the Car- 

 negie Foundation have taken especial pains to 

 make it certain that this is not a charitable 

 trust. They have declared that the pensions 

 to be paid are payments for services rendered, 

 to which the recipients are to be entitled as of 

 right, and not as a charity. If that is true, 

 any man who entered the class before the 

 trustees declared their intention to practically 



