Mabch «, 1903.] 



SCIENCE. 



365 



constantly increasing financial requirement 

 by constant additions to our endowment? 



Kather, it seems to me, that because of 

 the great work accomplished primarily 

 through the instrumentality of the Stevens 

 endowment, the community and those who 

 have directly and indirectly profited by the 

 advances made in technical education dur- 

 ing the last thirty years— and it would be 

 hard to find in the United States those who 

 have not so profited— owe it to E. A. 

 Stevens, his heirs, Dr. Morton and those 

 who as trustees and instructors have faith- 

 fully worked with him, to provide the 

 means to maintain, extend and perfect that 

 which is alreadj' a powerful agency for 

 good. 



I have gone so far in speaking on a 

 somewhat delicate subject, I may as well 

 go farther in the hope of disposing of this 

 question once for all. 



It has been further suggested, that as 

 the institute carries a family name, we 

 have but little chance of securing aid from 

 sources outside of that family. I do not 

 doubt that this may influence some narrow- 

 minded men against coming to our relief. 

 But we can show against this that it has 

 not staj'ed the helping hands of Henry 

 Morton and Andrew Carnegie. 



The e'vidences are on every side that our 

 rich men are exercising more intelligent 

 discrimination in the effort to secure full 

 returns on their philanthropic investments. 

 As with their personal investments, they 

 are coming to investigate in advance, to 

 make as sure as possible that their bene- 

 factions will secure full returns in per- 

 petuity. To such a man it could be readily 

 shown that a million dollars added to our 

 present endowment and plant, would give 

 a far greater return than could possibly 

 be derived from the same amount employed 

 to establish a new institution. 



And now why .should not the name of 

 'Stevens' be attached to our institution? 



Our original endowment was a large one 

 for the time when it was made, and it was 

 most natural that the institute should have 

 been named after our founder, though it is 

 a fact that some of the family opposed that 

 course. I can say that, while in my opinion 

 any change would be most unwise, the Ste- 

 vens family would be the first to urge a 

 change if they believed that a majority of 

 the alumni were in favor of it, or. if by 

 so doing we could secure the cooperation 

 which would enable us to enlarge our use- 

 fulness. But it can not be supposed that 

 the aliunni would be willing to surrender 

 the prestige which is theirs through being 

 known as graduates of Stevens. 



If we must consider the question of 

 name, it should be seen that we offer an 

 advantage rather than otherwise. Such 

 an addition to our endowment as I have 

 spoken of would be naturally individual- 

 ized under the name of the donor. That 

 name would not be alone, but would stand 

 with the three great names— Stevens, Car- 

 negie, Morton— and this should attract 

 rather than repel. 



In estimating our future requirements 

 we should not fail to recognize that there 

 has been within the last few years a marked 

 increase in the demand for technically edu- 

 cated men. It is beginning to be recog- 

 nized that the commanding position which 

 the United States to-day holds in the fields 

 of industry and commerce, is in consider- 

 able measure due to the intelligent and 

 conscientious work done during the last 

 thirty years by our technical schools. 



While our country has benefited by a 

 imique combination of natural advantages, 

 it needed the men technically educated, 

 working in an atmosphere most favorable 

 to the full utilization of their best powers, 

 to secure from these conditions the excep- 

 tional prosperity of to-day. 



We can better appreciate our advan- 

 tages, both as to superiority in the line of 



