Upon receipt of the news of Gov. Ijuce's unaccouutnble conduct in reffard to the Univer8ity appropriations, Hod. A. J. Sawyer of this city, sent tlie following dispatch to that oñicial: To HU Ezcellency, Governor Luce, of Lanting, Michigan : IÍ I coinprehend your raeRsage you do not oppoHe higher educatlon by Ihe State, bat il Jeel toan approrlation for the Laboratories for the Unlversity. Is It true that a strong etfort has been made and fa lied to glve the liiboratorles to the Agrlcultural College t Would you have approved such an approprlatlou? Was lt the pollcy of the üoverninent mui ihi' siiitr In foiindlns these Instltutlons to build up two competlng Unlveraltiex ¦.' Has not each a broad fleld or uaefiilness, and siuuiM not each be conttned to and generounly supportert wllhln lt? Is lt Htnlesinan 8hlp to brlug Ui.iii luto confllci '.' Would not the attempt to build up two Unlrersltles destroy botn? To change the Agrlcultural College would be to admlt we biundered when we foundfd lt, and that our support of lt since has been a wast of the pe ple's mouey. Let the outslde world envy ana defanu- them, but wlthiu our borders let no Blrlfe csM, but permit all our people to love and geuerously support their college of Agrlculture and their great ITnlversltj. Wiih great respect, A. J. SAWYKK. Th this dispatch Mr Suwyer received tlie following peculiar reply : Statk ok Michigan, i Exkcittite Office. } Lansinu. June lith, 1887. 1 Hon. A. J. Sawyer, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Uk.vkSik: Your telegram of the 4th lust. recelved In due time. You are certainly correct in itupposing that I donotoppose hlgner education. Indeed, I glory in auythiug tliat elévate and educatea the people, rlcb and poor uliko. Nor am I opposed to the conalructlon of the Jjaboralorles askrd for by the University. The ground of objeclion to the apprlation bil 1 lies In the fact that the amount reqtilred Is constautly lncreasing yearbyyear. Thls has aroused a sentiment thrnughout the country of opposltlon to the Universlty. Thls 1 certainly would gladly allay. Ilseems to me that the interest of the University and it permanent prosperity dependa very mucli upon the good wlll of the cltlzenH, and wil li thls in view lt has seemed to me that the authorltles sbould be wllliug to nnposi' a part, perhapg hut a ginall part of the fncreased expense upon those more directly interested and beneflted by the Unlverslty. To indícate that there was Kood liiiili and genulne dexlre upon the part of the regent and the legUlature, I earnestly hoped they would be willlng to reduce the aeventy-flve thousand dollar approprlation and manage lt somethiug llke Milu: They will in 2 years recelve 914,000 more from the 1-201)1 mili tax than they have for the lust two yeara. TIhs mtght be utillzed toward ttie coHtructlon of laboratorios. I ouly ank them to strike out 40,0U0, leavlng $.10,0(10 in the approprlallon ; the 14,000 would make $44,OOU. Now, lt dld not seem preposterous to aHk them to coilect In some way from their own resuurces (31,0(10, and go on and construct the laboratorios Just as tbey had lntended to, and lt would in a meabure have sattsfied the people that the University itself was wllllng to divide the additlonal burdens Imposed, Now, my dear sir. if there 1 anythlng wrong in tliU, I cerlalnly fail to comprehend lt. Very respecttully youis, C. O. LUCE. It will be noticed that not one single point made Ity Mr. Siwyer s answered. All interrogatorios itre avoided, and a plea of economy "for the jfood of the liiivcrsily" entend. The statement "1 only asked tliem to strike out f40,000," is not true. In both his metiMJ(M lie asks tci Imve $7.j,000 stricken out. VVliy, the man must be in ! Or did he wriUi tlita letter without asking liis private secTctary lt Is astoninhlng that the statement of thls letter shoiild sostrongly conflict wit h bis public mes.sat;e8. Then nguin, for the University authorilies to 'Vollect in some wsy, froni their OW0 resources. $31,000, umi f;o and construct the laboratories." What renources does the Uovemor refer to? The Univeisily Ims no resources but the people. And had the (iovernor possessed enou;li munhood to have come here and looked over the University, and studied Illtu its necessitie8somewhat lie mijiht havesaved liini.-elf th is display of dense i;norance. Perhaps the Governor means that the professors and others counected with the University should contribute thls out of their piivate ncoiiies? Or wh'it does he mean f "I do iiot oppose liigher edueation." No, Imt. voii oppose the eiluoition of the poor. Yon want the fees raiged so that none Imt tlie ricli can aft'ord to enter. on want it turncd into an aristocratie collecte, wluri' the poor boy and the poor ííirl símil be driven out. The governor sliould reniember that oí 1,500 studenta in tlns llniversity three-fifth of them are puylng tlii'ir OWH way througli either wholly or in part. Do you want the tees mised so as.to dcbiir these students? Tliere is no other con.it ruction to your aclion. Of the 1,000 liiilints here over 500, Mr. Luce, me the gons and daughters oí fiummi. iNyuíHEit: No, the lellow who wr.g so ecoiiomtoal thnt he used a wurt on tlie bnck of neck for :i collar button was not our governor. Our governor' private secretHry is accusod of iisinjr the governor's liead for that pnrpose, however. (iov. Lnc wants the entrunce fees to onr iiniversity ralsed. He wants an institntlon built up bere for rlcli nien's sons and daughters alone. The poor have no business to dmln U education. Will you be kind enougli, my dear private secretary, to teil lis what the ot)jpct of the general govrrnnicnt witg iu givinir this uni vrity its land yrant, if it was not to eütablish practically u free uuiversily?