Farmer Vs. Professor

Editor Argus : Tweuty-íive years ao tbe law departmeut üf the U. uf AI. ranked high in tbe list of law schools. The ñames Cooley, Kent, Campbell I and Walker commanded respect in two ' hemispheies. They were anthorities ' and fountain heads in the law and others emólate but do uot attain their level. In those days 2,000 bushels of whoat secnred their services for one year. Today over 4,000 bushels of ourwbeat are required to pay the salary of a law professor. Our tax isdoubled and the quality of the services rendered has depreciated. We claim we are entitled to the entire efforts, time and abilities of a law professor, at least until he attains tbe level of the law faculty of 1873. Wbeu we pay a man 4,000 bushels of wheat per year, we claim we are entitled to all the fruits of all of bis study. He is oar hired man and bas no moral right to work for anyone else either by practicing in our courts or talkiug gold bugism. Iu equity ne should pay into the treasury all sums so earned, thus lessening this wsight of taxation that bears so heavily upon us farmers. Our income is year by year growing less aud soon we oannot afford to seud our chilcJïen to the university. Really we think a professor shnuld willingly cousent to a reduction in pay and anffer a little with us, or else migrate to that oily, golden institution at Chicago, where he can aocumulate, board and was rich by serving tbe king of gold bugs. The auriferons, nniversity professor is an undesirable acquisition, especially when he pleads in public in his own interest as a mere lobbyist. The nobility of the true educator scorns such an iudelicacy Let us restore onr law departnieut to the oíd standard of 1873.