Hunt Institute Archives Text Discovery Platform

Page transcription

We believe that an impartial consideration of the facts will show that
whatever the advantage to Harvard and its botanical or biological departments
from moving important parts of the Arboretum's library and herbarium to Cam-
bridge, this would be disadvantageous to the Arboretum. It would, we believe,
be disadvantageous to its usefulness to the public, to its achievement in its
general scientific field, to its contribution to horticulture and botany in its special
fields, to its future financial support, and to the reputation and prestige which
are essential for its greatest usefulness.

The Arboretum can best be described as a horticultural-botanical institu-
tion because two separate yet interrelated and mutually supplementary sets
of activities are carried on there. The institution is admirably equipped for
this interrelated work. It has:
(1) a fine collection of some 6000 species and varieties of trees
and woody plants in an area of 425 acres (including the Weston
property) of which it was recently said by a good authority that
"there is no other comparable collection and there is not likely to
be for many years";
(2) an outstanding and unique library;
(3) an excellent herbarium;
(4) an endowment of over $4,000,000. and many loyal friends;
and
(5) an excellent staff combining horticultural with botanical
knowledge and skills.

It is, therefore, a well rounded and integrated institution, which is a
prime reason why it enjoys such great prestige here and abroad.

The effect of the removal of the main body of the library and collections
to Cambridge would be to break up this integrated institution. By dividing
the facilities it would also divide the time of the Arnold Professor and his
staff between Jamaica Plain and Cambridge. It would require some or all of
them to shuttle back and forth to a disconcerting and wasteful extent. The
net result would be gravely to impair the Arboretum's work; some say virtually
to destroy it.

In thus impairing its work the removal would impair the Arboretum's
reputation and make it difficult or impossible to find a man of first class ability,
with proper qualifications in horticulture as well as in botany, who would be
willing to accept the position of Arnold Professor.

On the other hand, if the present integration of horticultural-botanical
activities can be not only maintained but developed, there is a great future
ahead for the Arboretum, both scientifically and in serving the vast new public
which is just beginning to be interested in horticulture.

We feel that many of those who have advocated the Bailey Plan, including
the removal feature, as applied to the Arboretum, have not done so with the
basic principle clearly in mind that the trust of the Arboretum's property and
endowments must be administered with an eye single to the Arboretum's interests.
We feel that if they approached the matter as tested by that criterion, rather

than from the standpoint of the general effect of the removal on the University's
botanical interests as a whole, many of them would be unable to say that the
removal could or would benefit the Arboretum.

It may be that some might still argue that the removal would benefit
the Arboretum itself as well as the combined botanical activities; but we judge
that any such opinions would be more than offset by the weight of impartial
testimony to the contrary.

We hope that the Corporation will see fit to recognize that there is at
least grave doubt as to whether the removal would be in the Arboretum's
interest and will, consequently, cancel that feature of the Bailey Plan. If so
we believe that it should be possible to agree on language covering the various
points on the administrative matters. If not, we believe that the best course
would be a submission to the Courts through a petition by the Corporation
as trustee.

We wish to add our regret that conferences on this matter were not
held long ago. After receiving the Co-ordinating Committee's resolution of
November 7, 1952, we met on November 23rd with the Co-ordinating Committee
and with a committee of the Corporation on December 15th. These meetings
were the first opportunity the representatives of the Visiting Committee had
been granted to confer with the Co-ordinating Committee or the Corporation.
We feel that an earlier meeting would either have resulted in an agreement,
or in submitting the matters in question for judicial decision as to the duties of
the trustee. In either case, the present questions would already have been
settled or be in a fair way to be determined.

The long delay and uncertainty have been damaging to the Arboretum,
partly because under the circumstances it has been impossible to seek large gifts
or legacies. As a result of the recent meetings we think it should be possible
to reach an understanding without much further delay. It is our belief that
these matters should now either be agreed upon or submitted to the Courts.

We are sending copies of this letter and the enclosed draft to Mr. Laird
Bell as chairman of the Co-ordinating Committee.

We shall be glad, if desired, to confer further with the Co-ordinating
Committee, the Corporation's committee or counsel.


Sincerely yours,
Robert G. Dodge
J. W. Farley

Enc.