Letterhead
Brooklyn, N.Y., March 18th, 1905.
Hon. Timothy L. Woodruff,
339 Broadway,
New York City.
My dear Woodruff:-
I enclose herewith a copy of the resolutions that I presented at the last meeting of the Board, and I have made upon the copy some annotations which
useful.
I have this morning a letter from Mr. Grout, which shows that he has by no means decided to drop his scheme. He says that he intends now to call a meeting of the Plan and Scope Committee at an early date, and he trusts that as a result of the conferences inaugurated by that Committee the public university will grow naturally out of an alliance between the existing schools and the city. He says that he does not think any proposition for legislation will be brought forward until the next session of the legislature.
He also directly answers the question which I previously asked him, and which call ed for an expression of opinion by him upon the idea embodied in these resolutions which I presented to the Board. His answer is, that he doesn't think it wise to put free scholars side by side with scholars paying tuition. This answer seems to me to indicate a too hasty examination of the question which I raised. We all know that in all our eastern institutions the winners and holders of free scholarships are at no disadvantage in the student body on account of the exemption from tuition. My proposition as formulated in the resolutions would make the city scholarships in our College, or the Polytechnic, or both, a distinct badge of honor, since they would be won only by usually capable work in the final High School examinations. A company of free scholars in our College who were known by the students to have won their free scholarship as a distinction, would be a sort of Legion of Honor. That is the way in which our present twenty-three scholarships (for which nobody pays) are now regarded among the students in this institution.
[marginalia] Please notice that the last paragraphs of this too long letter call for an immediate answer.
There is another matter which is troubling me sorely and concerning which I feel that action must promptly be taken, You will recall what was said & done at our meeting about Miss Scharff, professor of French, now on leave of absence for one year. In the pressure of business Monday evening I failed, & we failed, to give to that case all the examination that it demands and in thinking it over since I have nearly fallen into nervous prostration. I had overlooked entirely one important fact. Last year in April Miss Scharff came to me & said that he had a chance to go elsewhere & that if I did not want to keep here after her leave of absence had expired she wanted to know about it then so that she could get an appointment elsewhere - I replied then that I expected her to resume work in Sept. '05. I see now that we are not dealing justly with her unless we put her now into as good a position as she stood in at that time & give her a fair chance this Spring
(over)