January 10, 1948

The administration and operational problems at Fort Lewis are being closely scrutinized and has been the subject of much criticism.  It is very apparent that if complete information had been available, certain actions of the past weeks and months would never have occurred.

The beginnings of Fort Lewis as a State operated institution were small and as a consequence did not present problems of sufficient magnitude and complexity to justify the establishment of administrative and business procedures that should have been adopted as growth progressed.  Fort Lewis has come of age, as it were, and is now 36 years old.  The annual budget is several times the monetary values of the operations of a few years back.  The present crisis calls for serious consideration of what may be done in the way of improving operative procedures at Fort Lewis.

I am making suggestions, which are based upon past experience and upon a study of similar situations in neighboring states.  Fort Lewis has arrived at a stage in its development where the following should be seriously considered along with other ideas that will, no doubt, be projected into this situation.

Proposed Plan for the Administration and Operation of the Fort Lewis Branch of Colorado A & M College

     A.                 State Board of Agriculture, the governing board.

B.                 President of the Fort Lewis Branch, Colorado A & M College appointed by the Board and directly responsible to the State Board but in no way under the supervision or direction of the administrative officers of the Colorado A & M College.

C.                 Fort Lewis Business Office established to completely handle all Fort Lewis business under the direction of the President of Fort Lewis and through him to the State Board of Agriculture, State Controller, State Auditor, and State Treasurer.

D.                 The Registrar’s Office at Fort Lewis to be the repository for all grades and credit records, and that all official credit transcripts for Fort Lewis students be sent by the Registrar of Fort Lewis.

E.                  A representative committee of Basin citizens of three or five to be appointed by the authorized groups selected, which committee would be charged with the responsibility of meeting with the State Board of Agriculture at stated intervals and to act in an advisory capacity.

There will probably be other ideas that should be presented.  The above may be of assistance in the critical and certainly constructive studies that should precede official actions.  No future administrator should be placed at Fort Lewis under the bottlenecks that have existed in the recent past, and certainly there is much need for closer contact with the governing board so that the members may have first hand information of the Fort Lewis situation.

These suggestions are offered in the spirit of helpfulness with hope that here may be complete clearance of misunderstanding and misinformation.

January 14, 1948

The controversies relating to Fort Lewis and its future have created much of a serious study and I wish in this way to present some facts that may be of help to those who are working on this problem.

The older residents of the Basin will remember, I am sure, that many efforts have been made to bring about changes and to try new ideas, all for the purpose of helping this Branch of Colorado A & M College to adequately find its place and to render fully the service that should be expected of it by the State of Colorado and the residents of the San Juan region.

At times in the past definite appeals have been made to the citizens to aid in crystallizing policy and procedures.  One such effort in 1925 resulted in an overwhelming vote for the establishment of college work at Fort Lewis.  The support for this effort has been most gratifying; with the accomplishment that many students have been introduced to collegiate training which they pursued to graduation at the home institution and in other colleges and universities.  Vocational work has been offered; in fact the School of Agriculture was the first effort.  Each has been important and helpful but collegiate training in the several fields of major study has seemed to most nearly answer the wishes of students and parents and has predominated during the immediate past.  In the light of the experience of those of us who have been privileged to work at Fort Lewis, I wish to present the following as proposed future objectives of the services for which Fort Lewis should be maintained and improved:

A.                 To serve the youth of the San Juan Basin for training beyond the high school.

1.      By offering strong courses in Agriculture, Engineering, Home Economics, Pre-veterinary and Pre-forestry leading to the Bachelor degree.

2.      By strengthening its training in the fields of Science and Arts and the included courses for rural teachers and business training.

3.      By extending the collegiate curriculum in any fields that are practical and in demand.

4.      By offering practical terminal and vocational courses that are applicable and as the demands require.

B.                 By increasing its service to the people of the Basin.

1.      Through a capable and adequate research staff and the extension of research activities to meet the agricultural problems of the Basin and State in cooperation with state and national experimental programs.

2.      Through the continuance of extension service in cooperation with established county agent and state extension activities.

3.      Through the operation of the Fort Lewis land areas so that they may be productive and exemplary of the best agricultural practices.

4.      By providing first class library facilities.

5.      By furnishing the best possible facilities for 4-H Clubs, Farmers, Homemakers, Teachers, and other groups for meetings, camps, institutes, field days, and regional conferences and demonstrations.

6.      By cooperation with all groups interested in the cultural, economic and agricultural, business and industrial development of the San Juan Basin.

The above represent much that has been done, perhaps in some instances in a very small way, but with such results as to encourage their continuance and thus their inclusion in the future objectives.  In this crisis with reference to the Fort Lewis Branch, it is most important that every citizen interested in this great inland empire should register approval of this program or make changes, deletions and additions which are desired.  Certainly the taxpayers of the San Juan area and the State of Colorado have a right to expect and they deserve nothing short of a broad progressive and forward looking program of institutional development and service at Fort Lewis.

By Section 1, Chapter 16, Session Laws of 1911, the State of Colorado accepted the grant and, by Section 3 of said Act, provided that:

 “**** The State Board of Agriculture shall take and assume control of the lands, buildings and equipments at Fort Lewis School, now owned and held by the state, and the said lands, buildings and equipment shall thereafter become a part of the Agriculture College System of the State, ****; provided that Indian pupils shall at all times be admitted to such school free of charge for tuition and on terms of equality with white pupils.”  (Underscoring supplied)

Section 1 of said Chapter 16, Session Laws of 1911, provides that:

“There is hereby established at the Fort Lewis School in the La Plata County a school of agriculture, mechanic arts and household arts upon the grounds here-to fore accepted by the Governor of the State of Colorado  * * * *.  (Underscoring supplied)

By placing the Fort Lewis School under the State Board of Agriculture as “a part of the Agriculture College system of the state”,  (Sec 1, supra), the legislature, by the use of the word “system”, ranked the Fort Lewis School with and not under the Agriculture College as a part of the Agriculture College system of the state.  This is apparent from the separate tax levies made for the college, and the school; those made for the college are specifically allocated to and appropriated “for the support and maintenance of the State Agriculture College located at Fort Collins;” those made for the school are specifically allocated to and appropriated “for the support and maintenance of the Fort Lewis School of Agriculture”, while those made for the Colorado Agriculture Experiment Station ** operated in connection with the State Agriculture College.”  (Chapter 38, 1935 C.S.A.).

This interpretation is further supported by Section 27, Chapter 155, 1935 Colorado Statutes Annotated, which is similar to the stature here under consideration.  This section relates to the Normal School at Gunnison (Western State) and provides that after the school is constructed “it shall be turned over and delivered to the trustees of the Sate Normal School at Greeley and thereafter said school building and premises shall form a part of the Normal School system of the state, and shall be controlled and managed under the same laws and by the same board of trustees as have charge of the Normal School at Greeley”.

It is, therefore, my conclusion that the title to the Fort Lewis School is vested in the State of Colorado for the purposes set forth in the grant; that the state legislature has given the control of said Fort Lewis School to the State Board of Agriculture to operate *** are specifically allocated to and appropriated “for the support and maintenance of the Colorado Agriculture Experiment Station (omission) the said school, as “a part of the Agriculture College System of the state”, in such manner as to it shall seem most advantageous, whether that operation is through the College at Fort Collins, partly through the College at Fort Collins, or independent of Fort Collins.

It is my conclusion that under the power granted to the State Board of Agriculture “to take and assume control” of the Fort Lewis School, the Board in its discretion can set up such internal organization as to it shall seem best suited to accomplish the purposes of the school and make it function as “a part of the agriculture system of the state”, whether that internal organization works through the college at Fort Collins or independently as requested.

Specifically answering your question number 1:  It is our conclusion that there is no legal objection to a complete separation of the administration of Colorado A & M College and the Fort Lewis School, with both schools remaining under the jurisdiction and control of the State Board of Agriculture.

Specifically answering your question number 2:  It is our conclusion that it is possible for the State Board of Agriculture, under present statutes, to designate an individual at the Fort Lewis School, as Assistant Treasurer or similar financial officer for such school, to act independently of the Agriculture College at Fort Collins, but under the direction of the State Board of Agriculture.

All expenses incurred by the Fort Lewis School must be considered as expenses of the State Board of Agriculture and subject to the following statutory provision:

“All expenses of the State Board of Agriculture shall be paid from the amounts duly set aside by the board for said purpose, by warrants duly signed by its president and counter-signed by its chief financial officer as appointed by the Board.”  (Section 1, Chapter 236, Session Laws 1945)

H. Lawrence Hinckley, Attorney General, signed the letter.

Since you have left I have talked with Mr. Camp (Member of the State Board) who concurs with you fully as to my case.  I have weighed carefully all of the conditions as you and he have given them to me and, as I see them, I still have no course to follow other than not to resign or to sign the agreement.  The following are the reasons for this decision:

1.                  The only written charges that have been made against me to substantiate the general statement of “unsatisfactory administration” were those contained in President Green’s letter of October 23, 1947, the chief of which was a “revealed shortage” and attending statements designed to be substantiating this principal charge.  Mr. Camp and you have assured me that no member of the Board holds this charge against me.  However, there has been no letter of press release to clear me in the public mind.  I asked for a recorded vote of the Board on charge #1, when I last appeared before them, and I also have repeatedly asked for a complete investigation, including an internal inter-departmental audit, none of which have been granted to date.

2.                  In the Fort Collins Coloradoan issue of May 13, 1948 I found, “the Board accused Mr. Bader of laxity in administrating the Fort Lewis School’s finances and after long discussion Mr. Bader admitted he was unable to account in itemized detail for nearly $70,000 in expenditures made at the school.”  I cannot and will not accept this accusation for these reasons:

a.       I was operating under a system which had been adopted by Board and executive order which directed that we were delegated the responsibility of taking care of accounts receivable and the proper preparation of requisitions, orders and bills to be sent to the Colorado A & M Treasurer whom we understood was keeping a register of accounts payable, the proper budget controls, and records of all tax and other income.

b.      Monthly reports from the Treasurer’s office were supplied until July 1, 1946.  After that time when we were not getting any kind of reports I talked with President Green and was assured that no reports were coming from the Treasurer’s office to any department of division of the college and that I was to leave the responsibility of our finances to Mr. Whalley.

c.       A year ago I consulted with Mr. Whalley at length about our budget before it was presented to the Board.  There were then no indications that there would be other than a balance in our funds July 1, 1947.

d.      After my hearing before the Board last November, I went to Mr. Whalley’s office where I asked about our budget situation and was given to understand that while our finances would be close and even tight, we were not in serious financial trouble.  A few days after my return to Fort Lewis from this trip a copy of the State Auditor’s report came and to my surprise showed that there were accumulated at Fort Collins a large backlog of unpaid bills, which were being held there.  These had not been reported to me previously.

e.       Since that time it has been impossible to get any firm figures of the true status of our financial situation.

For the above reasons I cannot accept total responsibility when the man whom I was directed to trust to keep us informed and who was, by a directive letter from President Green, placed in complete charge of finances at Fort Lewis, made no regular or other reports.

3.                  With reference to the earned leave of absence, for the sake of the record I wish to state again that I have earned four years of sabbatical leave.  In addition, I have a large number of years of service when the work at Fort Lewis did not permit my taking rightfully earned annual months of vacation.

There was a time in this controversy when I had confidence that after all the facts were assembled; this situation should be resolved satisfactorily and in all fairness to those concerned.

You have informed me that my further employment under the State Board of Agriculture is now absolutely impossible.  While I have stated I cannot resign under the conditions that have been meted out to me, I have no intention to do other than abide by the final decision of the State Board of Agriculture.

May I repeat again, Dr. Newsom, that it will not be necessary for you or the Board to employ the law to get me off of the campus.  I shall leave before or on the date you set, if it is humanly possible.  Furthermore, I stand ready and am more than willing to do anything I may be permitted to do to help my successors.

Your visit, which I am sure was not pleasant to you in many respects, was most helpful in giving us more complete information and understandings and we do appreciate your coming.                                                               This letter was signed by E. H. Bader, Dean

Fort Lewis was established as a cavalry post in the early 80’s, was converted into an Indian school in the 90’s, became a branch of the Colorado A & M College in 1911, and reached the status of an independent state institution in July 1, 1949.  It now carries the name Fort Lewis A & M College.

Fort Lewis, comprising 6318 acres of land, was turned over to the state of Colorado in 1911.  This federal property to remain state property as long as a school is maintained there and Indian pupils be admitted to such school free of charges for tuition and on terms of equality with white pupils.

Fort Lewis A & M College provided the only source of culture and higher education for the residents of the great San Juan Basin.  This includes an area roughly 200 miles wide by 100 miles deep totaling 20,000 square miles.  In this area there reside 80,000 people.  The San Juan Basin comprises five counties of Southwestern Colorado.  The area is blessed with much undeveloped resources including vast deposits of coal, heavy standing timber, minerals, and fertile valleys of farm and ranch land.  It is presently the sight of considerable geological survey activity.  Although the potentialities are great at present the total assessed valuation in less than $28,000,000.

Fort Lewis A & M college at present offers two years of fully accredited courses in agriculture (professional courses leading toward a degree, and a terminal vocational agriculture curriculum in which the more practical aspects of all phases of agriculture are taught), forestry and range management, pre-veterinary medicine, elementary education, business administration, engineering, home economics, science and arts, and pre-professional training in other major fields.  The institution has a faculty of 19.  The academic training of the faculty as a group is comparable to that of any of Colorado’s institutions of higher learning.  There are four administrative members including the President, Registrar, Business Manager, Assistant Business Manager and ten state civil service employees working in such capacities as dairyman, farmer, stenographer, cook, night watchman, etc. to summarize briefly: there are four administrative employees, nineteen faculty members and ten operational employees.

There are at present 158 students enrolled at Fort Lewis A & M College.  Of this number 127 are on the campus and 29 are taking work by extension in Durango.  Also enrolled in the Institution on the Farm Program are 462 Veterans.  The College employs twenty instructors and a director to carry the college program to these veterans throughout the San Juan Basin.  Cost of this program is reimbursed 100 percent to the college by the Veterans Administration through the State Department of Vocational Education.  This is the largest program of its kind being conducted in the state.  This vitally needed federal project could not be conducted in the San Juan Basin without Fort Lewis A & M College.

In cooperation with the Colorado Experiment Station, Fort Lewis A & M College, is conducting experimental work in agronomy and beef cattle inbreeding.  The findings of this experimental work are of ever increasing value to the farm operators of the Basin.  The cattle inbreeding experiment may be of national scope if allowed to continue.  This is an example of how Fort Lewis A & M College serves the people of the San Juan Basin in addition to providing an academic program.  For many years the College has sponsored a program know as “The Fort Lewis Institute”.  This is a two or three day program given in February or March each year.  It is open to the public and all current information from the experimental research, new marketing data, tax problems, irrigation developments and other problems the farm operator is faced with is discussed.  At this year’s “Fort Lewis Institute” 587 persons attended.  These were all adults actually working in the field.  In this manner the college renders them a real service.

Except for approximately twenty acres of land upon which the actual campus is located the remainder of the 6318 acres making up Fort Lewis is devoted to experimental plots, grazing pastures and hay or grain fields.  This area is divided into fourteen pastures for use in the inbreeding cattle experiment.  Approximately 300 acres are in hay and grain and 30 acres in experimental plots.  The majority of the grazing land is covered with scrub oak trees.  The College Agriculture Department has determined the maximum number of animal units that area can graze is 375.  An effort is now being made to place under cultivation sufficient acreage to raise enough hay and grain to feed the maximum number of animal units, thereby using the facilities to the maximum.

In addition to the 242 head of registered Herefords maintained for the inbreeding experiment the College maintains a dairy herd of approximately forty.  In addition to using these animals for instructional purposes they furnish meat and milk for dining hall consumption.

Fort Lewis is located 14 miles south and west of Durango.  The nearest other state institution of higher learning is Adams State College, a teachers college, 135 miles to the east over 10,830 foot Wolf Creek Pass.  Western State, another teachers college, is 180 miles to the north and east.  Colorado A & M, the only other college in Colorado offering similar services as Fort Lewis A & M, is 440 miles away.

One proposed function of the Commission on State Institutions is to eliminate duplication.  It is interesting to note that with a radius of 120 miles of Denver there is located Pueblo Junior College, Colorado State Teachers College at Greeley, Colorado A & M at Fort Collins, Colorado University at Boulder and Colorado School of Mines at Golden.  It is possible there is some duplication in their curriculum offering.  To say the least there is a definite overlapping in the geographical area covered.  Also, good highways on relatively flat terrain connect them.  There is no duplication of services in the San Juan Basin.  In fact, there is a definite need for expanding the academic program of Fort Lewis A & M College in order to provide equal educational opportunities for the citizens of the area.

Resulting from a recent visit of four members of the Commission on State Institutions to the Fort Lewis A & M Campus the institution was charged as having too high a per student cost.  Based on the 1948-1949 expenditures the per-student cost averaged over $1,400.  This amount is slightly in excess of the per student cost at the Colorado School of Mines and considerably in excess of the per student cost at Colorado University.  Taking the total expenditures as paid by the State Treasurer and dividing it by the total fall quarter enrollment obtains this figure.  It is interesting to note that these total expenditures included the $83,000 Fort Lewis deficit voted by the last legislature and a $70,000 Institutional-on-the Farm training program expenditure for which the institution was reimbursed 100 percent by the veteran’s administration.  Mr. James Noonan, State Controller, will verify the fact that this total of $154,000 was erroneously included in computing the per student cost.

Included also in the computation of per student cost were the self-liquidating enterprises.  This includes such items as the 6,318-acre farm, the dairy, the men and women’s residence halls, the dining hall, the commissary, the snack bar, the operating agronomy experimental station and the cattle inbreeding experiment.  By grouping these auxiliary enterprises they are self-liquidating, however, they are at present included in the academic budget.  Under the present arrangement every time a faculty member buys a loaf of bread at the commissary the per-student cost is increased because the baker is paid from the Fort Lewis A & M College general fund by the State Treasurer.  In fact, every expenditure except actual new building construction which is paid for from a special building mill levy increases the per student cost.

The administration of the institution and the State Board of Agriculture are very much aware of the necessity of separating the self liquidating enterprises from the academic budget thus changing the statistical cost per student at Fort Lewis A & M College to a status comparable to Colorado’s other six institutions of higher learning.  This involves setting up a separate account in a local bank through which all cash receipts and disbursements would be made by Fort Lewis A & M College for the above mentioned self-liquidating enterprises with the financial results of these operations to be reported each fiscal quarter to the State Controller and to the State Board of Agriculture.  Present plans call for this separation on July 1, 1950, subject to the approval of the State Attorney General.  This action was taken prior to the recent visit of the Commission on State Institutions.  For the institution's own information this proposed separation was long ago made in the school’s business office and in turn gives a true per student cost of approximately $600.

Coming less than six months after the College was established as an independent state institution, and within less than three months of the first two years which the state legislature had given the institution to show what could be accomplished during the 1950-51 biennial appropriation, the untimely and unnecessary press release by a single member of the commission has psychologically stopped the institutions progress.  Realizing the critical need for a Student Union Building the Fort Lewis A & M Alumni association was requested to sponsor a drive to raise money for such a unit.  Up to the time of the commission visit the populace of Durango alone had subscribed more than half the amount needed to erect a $40,000 wing of a Student Union Building.  With the “abandonment” cry contributions immediately stopped as citizens of the Basin rightfully asked themselves, “Why should we give toward a building which may, in another year, be turned back to the state”.  All the work that had been accomplished in building for a bigger enrollment next year, still a year ahead of the two-year probation period, had been nullified at one stroke.

The San Juan Basin, with most of its resources still undeveloped, needs an institution of higher learning.  The Basin is many mountain miles from the Denver area.  With the abandonment of the Denver and Rio Grand Western Rail Road passenger service into Durango it is even further.  The proposal of establishing a junior college district in the Durango Area is not feasible because it would take a combination of the assessed valuation of the five counties of the Basin to meet the minimum assessed valuation as required by the statues for establishing such a district.  The outlying counties would never vote for such a district.

Reliable sources predict the population of the San Juan Basin will double during the next ten-year period.  This makes the need for an institution of higher learning in the area even more critical.  If given a reasonable amount of time to work out its problems and allowed to expand its academic program to meet current needs, Fort Lewis A & M College enrollment will increase and the services rendered to the state and community will be one of the most valuable of any institution.

We are herewith requesting that you consider the approval of expenditure not to exceed the sum of two thousand dollars ($2,000) by the Fort Lewis A & M College for the purpose of retaining the services of an outstanding educational consultant to make a survey to include the following:

1.                  The extent of the need of higher education in the San Juan Basin.

2.                  The type and scope of curricula.

3.                  The advisability of separating the present school from the Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station and putting it in another location.

4.                  The advisability of placing the institution under a separate board of control, except for the work of the Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station.

The selection of the personnel for this work shall have the approval of President Charles Dale Rea and of the Interim Committee.

It is of course understood that if you approve such an appropriation, it must also have the approval of the State Controller.

Upon a motion and second the expenditure requested in the foregoing letter, signed by Representative Steele, for the purpose therein outlined and with the conditions therein suggested was authorized.

The City Council of the City of Durango has been asked to donate, for use by one of the State’s educational institutions, a tract of land owned by the City, but lying outside of the corporate limits.  It is proposed that the land would be used as a campus for the buildings of the educational institution.

Durango is a home rule city, but its Charter makes no provision whatever concerning the acquisition or conveyance of real estate except to state:

“By and in the corporate name, the City shall have perpetual succession, shall own, possess, and hold all the property, real and personal, now and heretofore owned, possessed and held by the City of Durango, and shall assume all the liabilities and obligations of said City of Durango, and, except as otherwise provided in this Charter, shall have and exercise all powers, functions, rights and privileges now or hereafter given or granted to, and shall be subject to all of the duties, obligations, liabilities and limitations now or hereafter imposed upon municipal corporations of its class by the Constitution and laws of the State of Colorado, and shall have and exercise all other powers functions, rights and privileges usually exercised by, or which are incidental to, or inherent in municipal corporations of like character and degree.”

I would like your opinion as to whether or not the City of Durango has the right to donate the City owned real estate, lying outside the corporate limits, for the use herein described.  The Council is being urged to make a decision immediately and I will appreciate very much you earliest attention to this matter.

John Metzger states that since he is the legal adviser to the state officers, agencies and institutions only, that he cannot render an official opinion on the powers of the City as described in Hatfield’s letter but he does state the following: 

Your inquiry, however, does concern me as it involves the authority of the State Board of Agriculture to accept a donation of land by Durango for the use of the Fort Lewis School.

In an opinion dated February 15, 1950 (opinion No. 1771-50), I held that the Fort Lewis School is not a separate legal entity, but is an appendage to the Agricultural College system of the State of Colorado, controlled, managed and supervised solely by the State Board of Agriculture, and that the School may take no action without the approval of the Board (Citing Sec. 90, 91, and 93, Ch. 38 and Sec. 21, Ch. 38, 1935 C.S.A.).  That opinion further held that the Board cannot purchase property or erect buildings off the Fort Lewis campus, but is limited by statute to expend all money received under applicable laws in the construction of buildings on the school grounds at Hesperus, and that the Board must obtain further legislative authority to do otherwise. (Citing Sec. 92, 95, 97, 101, Ch. 38, 1935 C.S.A., and Ch. 194, S.L. 1949).

I am also of the opinion that the Board, on behalf of the Fort Lewis School, may not accept the donation of a site by Durango, or otherwise, for use in the erection of buildings for the School without further legislative approval.

As parents of a student now enrolled at Fort Lewis A & M College you are likely more concerned than the average citizen of the San Juan Basin or the state of Colorado about the immediate future of this institution.

Recent publicity concerning Fort Lewis A & M College may have alarmed you; may have logically caused you to ask yourselves, “Should we continue to send our son or daughter to Fort Lewis A & M College – the last quarter of this year and next year?  In fact, will there be a school at Fort Lewis next year and will this year’s credits by honored at full value at another college later?”

To acquaint you with the true facts about the current situation and to assure you that it will survive and that credits earned here will be accepted at full value at other institutions of the nation.  I am writing this letter and asking that you continue your support of Fort Lewis A & M College.

News releases over the past few weeks, which have hinted at the abandonment of our institution, have overlooked one very significant fact; that is, no change in our present status can be activated without State Legislature authorization and the next session of the Legislature does not convene until January or February of 1951.  Under no circumstances could the institution be closed before the end of the school year, 1950-51.  At the last meeting of the Legislature they appropriated the institution funds to operate until July 1, 1951.  Therefore, it could not be discontinued before that date, a year from this July, if at all.

The academic qualifications of our teaching staff and our exceptionally fine library facilities are such that credits earned at Fort Lewis A & M College are honored at full value at any other institution of higher learning in the United States.

There is no immediate danger of the San Juan Basin losing Fort Lewis A & M College and very little danger of losing it in the future if parents in the future continue to support the institution by sending their college-age sons and daughters here.

These same disconcerting news stories are really the growing pains that every young college goes through and should not be regarded too seriously.  This institution will outgrow them and, in all probability, live a long and useful adult life.  These news releases had their origin with a member of the Commission on State Institutions who spoke unofficially and possibly indiscreetly too often and too soon, before newspaper reporters, after a hurried visit to the campus a few weeks ago.

As you can see, however, by the enclosed copy of a letter from the Chairman of this Committee to the governing board, the State Board of Agriculture, the group really feels quite differently about Fort Lewis A & M College, quite reasonably we might infer.

Out of these recommendations could grow a bigger and better Institution with a new college plant in a new location.  This request from the sub-committee to the State Board of Agriculture has been approved and plans are progressing to carry forward the recommended educational survey by an educational consultant.

It does not seem possible to me how the results of this proposed survey could be anything other than favorable.  Therefore, I am confident for the continuance and expansion of the Fort Lewis A & M College.

We will consider it a pleasure to continue to serve you.  The continued attendance of your son or daughter is requested.

As you know Raman Miller and myself met with the Interim Committee in the Statehouse on Monday afternoon, June 12^th.  The committee members included Representative Lupton, Chairman, Senators; Rogers, Dunklee and Representatives; Steeled, Carpenter, Lehman and Miller. Additionally present were Miss Clair Sippel of the Budget Commissioner’s office and a stenographer who took down the conversations verbatim.  Representative Lupton opened the meeting by producing a sealed package of printing which turned out to be the Koos report, and made it very clear to Raman and myself that none of the committee has ever seen this report before, and had no time to look it over, and that all the facts therein were being presented for the first time to the committee as a whole.  A little later in the session it developed that the sub-committee had seen the typewritten report, as it was first prepared, and had gone over it very carefully; but, apparently, had not made their report to the whole committee.  It was quickly called to our attention that the meat of the entire report was contained in the last paragraph on the last page, “Summary of Recommendations”, and more explicitly that, of the seven recommendations, number one and seven were the ones that the State Board was to concern itself with.  Number one calling for the discontinuance of the College and number seven recommending continuance of the Fort Lewis Experiment Station.  Representative Lupton’s remarks were to the effect that he wanted a statement from Raman and myself that the State Board would go along and accept the Koos report.  Raman explained that we were not in a position to speak for the State Board and that the matter would have to come up at the next regular meeting.  At that point Senator Rogers started talking and wound up by blowing his top, making all the accusations that everyone has heard already about Fort Lewis – including his feeling that a deliberate plan of subterfuge had been entered into in setting up the curriculum in order to justify the need of the School.  He told us that he himself was an engineer and no one was kidding him.  He reminded us of the imported football team situation, and of the expenditure for a $12,500 bus to take this subsidized football team around the country at the taxpayer’s expense.  Also of the fact that many of them were on the payroll at Fort Lewis and were doing absolutely nothing for their money; concluding his remarks by pledging himself to go into the next Assembly with at least one objective of closing up Fort Lewis as soon as possible.

Raman and I were about to excuse ourselves and leave when Clair Sippel tossed a remark on the table that changed our whole plans and we spent the rest of the afternoon in this room.  She stated that Jim Noonan had had a request from the Business Manager at Fort Lewis asking him to release the $32,071.62 on the building and mill levy funds for completion of repairs and remodeling of the dormitories.  She said Mr. Noonan would not release the money in view of the fact that the Koos report was ready for the consideration of the Interim Committee.  Mr. Noonan was unable to come to the meeting but two of his assistants were called on the phone, and after a fifteen minute recess we took up the matter from the Budget Commission’s point of view.  When Representative Lupton called attention to item one of the Koos report, to the representative of the Budget Commissioner’s office, the gentleman explained that he was absolutely certain that Mr. Noonan would not release these funds in view of this report.

The State Planning Commission was in session that day and they were called, and Mr. Williamson and five of six members of the State Planning Commission then entered the room.  Representative Lupton acquainted the Commission with the proceedings of the afternoon and Mr. Williamson informed all of us that Fort Lewis’s request to release these funds for maintenance and repair of the dormitories, or making improvements on any self-liquidating project, was entirely illegal and stated they absolutely could not be used for these purposes.  Two or three members of the Commission spoke and it was very apparent that all of them had visited Fort Lewis and knew the situation first hand.  Senator Briscoe, of the Planning Commission, wanted to know who authorized the College to ask for release of these funds, and Raman and I admitted that this was authorized at our Board meeting held on June 8, 1950.  Because of this action, Senator Briscoe allowed a bit of ridicule to creep into the discussion and, by his own words, stated, “I am going to toss this right back in the lap of the State Board”.  General Larson, a member of the Commission, stated that in view of the Koos report, and recommendation Number one, that the State Planning Commission couldn’t possibly allow this money to be spent for repairs or remodeling dormitories; because, in his opinion, there will be no question of the abandonment of the institution as a School.  I explained to the Commission that these repairs were absolutely necessary if there was to be a School there this coming season.  I explained the toilet facilities, the bad floors and all of the things that we have discussed among ourselves.  The General was very critical of the fact that these repairs had not been made from time to time in the past and not allowed to accumulate to the point where it seemed almost necessary to do some rebuilding.  He stated further that there was enough cash on hand, in the Fort Lewis account, to make the type of repairs that could carry over until the institution was liquidated.

It appeared that Raman and I were very much on the hot seat, having been a party to the authorization for request of these $32,000 to spent on buildings, when, apparently, we knew the School would be junked.  I stated emphatically that we did not know of the Koos report and that if the Board had known of the recommendations made by Dr. Koos that this request, in all probability, would not have been authorized.

The hour was getting late and Raman and I asked to be excused, with the statement that the State Board of Agriculture would take up the matter at their next regular meeting to be held in Gunnison on July 18^th.  Representative Lupton asked that a recommendation be brought back to his committee accepting and endorsing the Koos report.  We told him that we couldn’t promise anything other than the report would be accepted and that the Board, as a whole, would have to take action on endorsement.  The consensus of opinion of the Interim Committee and the State Planning Commission, and the representatives from the Budget Commissioner’s office, seemed to imply that the State Board of Agriculture could do nothing other than endorse the Dr. Koos report.  All Raman and I promised was that the State Board of Agriculture would report to the Interim Committee immediately, after our meeting in July, of our actions.

President Mac, this is about all other than to express my personal conclusions.  I am quite sure that Fort Lewis will receive absolutely nothing in the way of funds to repair or remodel the dormitories.  There is no doubt in my mind that those members of the Interim Committee who are in the next General Assembly will do everything they possibly can to close the Fort Lewis School and perhaps support the other recommendations of Dr. Koos.  Everyone that we talked to seemed to be strongly in favor of maintaining the Fort Lewis Branch Experiment Station.  Other than one time when Senator Rogers blew his top the discussion was very friendly throughout.  Although it was not said in just so many words it did look a little bit as though the State Board was under critical fire for having authorized Fort Lewis to ask for these funds, and our only out was a definite statement that we had not seen the Koos report.  letter signed by W.G. Lehrer and Raman A. Miller

Mr. Franklin McKelvey of Durango has just finished briefing me on his conversation with you, concerning the mineral rights of the Fort Lewis A & M property.

It has come to our attention that the federal mineral rights of the Fort Lewis A & M College property have been allegedly sold by a Mr. R. Y. Austin, 7438 8^th St. Durango, Colorado, to the Southern Union Oil Co., which has an office in Farmington, New Mexico.  R. Austin is a lease broker supposedly working with a Mr. George Fahr, also a lease broker, who resides part time in Cortez, Colorado.  Mr. Fahr apparently has received a fee for negotiating this sale, which we believe, took place within the last 30 days.

I would like to invite your attention to the 1935 Colorado Statutes Annotated, Chapter 38, article 4, sections 98 & 99, page 517, wherein it is stated that all rentals and royalties derived from leases from the coal measure of mineral deposits and oil structures shall constitute a permanent endowment fund for the Fort Lewis School and that the sale of such mineral rights shall be made by the State Board of Land Commissioners and the State Board of Agriculture.

The purpose of this letter is to notify you, as Attorney General elect of this developing situation.  It is requested that you review the Colorado statutes concerning this matter and the Federal statutes authorizing the sections of the Colorado statutes referred to above and advise us as to what action we should take.

Approximately a year ago Judge James Noland requested and obtained from congressman Wayne Aspinal, a copy of all Federal statues from the Library of Congress concerning the Fort Lewis School and Federal grant of land.  Judge Noland has informed me that he will make available all this data for study and review.  Mr. McKelvey, an attorney in Durango, has on previous occasions handled legal affairs for this institution.  He is acquainted with the current situation concerning the leases.  Should you deem it advisable to appoint a special assistant, it would seem that he would be the logical one.

It is our opinion that this development warrants immediate action by the State Attorney

General, we would appreciate an early reply from you.

Immediately upon receipt of you letter of January 2, 1951, I made inquiry concerning the mineral rights of the Fort Lewis A & M College property.  An investigation in the Office of the State Board of Land Commissions and also an examination of the pertinent statutes fail to disclose that any reservation of mineral rights was ever made either directly of indirectly by the government. 

The records of the Land Board show a clear listing.  In fact, the records disclose that at one time the Land Board actually granted some coal mining rights a number of years ago.  At the conclusion of this preliminary examination, I took no further action on the matter preferring to wait until I took Office and assigned on of my assistants to represent the Land Board.  This has now been done.  Should it become necessary to engage the services of Mr. McKelvey, I will take the matter up with you.

My conference with Mr. Mather (Manager, Land Office, Denver, Colorado) was satisfactory.  He states that mineral deeds or leases on federal lands in this area must go through his office, and that none would be issued for the Fort Lewis Mineral Rights.  As a basis for his statement, he showed me a letter from William Zimmerman, Jr., Assistant Director of the United States Department of the Interior, which dealt with the Fort Lewis Reservation insofar as the legal aspects of the grant are concerned.  A copy of that letter is enclosed herewith.  The broker will probably base his claim on the telegram mentioned in Mr. Zimmerman’s letter.

Mr. Mather states that Mr. Fehr has applied for oil and gas leases to the Fort Lewis property, but that his application will be refused this week.  Any litigation will be based upon this refusal.  I think that our best course of action should be to wait for them to act in this matter.  In the meantime, we have assurance of the Land Office in Denver that no deeds or leases will issue on the Fort Lewis Reservations.

In response to your memorandum of August 15, 1950, you are advised that all sections 33, 34, 35, T. 35 N., R. 11 W., N.M.P.M., together with other lands, were granted to the State of Colorado under the act of April 4, 1910 (36 Statute. 274) for use as an institution of learning.  According to our records the property was turned over to the State April 18, 1911.  In a telegram dated April 15, 1911, the Department stated to the Governor that no right to mine coal or other mineral deposits under the soil was conferred upon the Sate without further legislation.  This view requires modification, however, in the light of the Solicitor’s Opinion of April 19, 1937 (39 Op. Atty. Gen. 39) holding that under similar legislation relating to the abandoned Fort Hays Military Reservation, title to the minerals passed to the States, subject to the possibility of reversion on breach of a condition subsequent.  In his opinion at page 42, the Attorney General stated: “Whether the use of the land in this case by the State of Kansas for the mining of oil and gas would conflict with its use for the educational and public park purposes specified is a question of fact of administrative determination if necessity therefore should arise.”

Consequently, the lands are not open to filing of applications under the leasing act of February 25, 1920 (41 Stat. 437, 30 U.S.C. sec. 181) so long as the grant to the State remains un forfeited to the Untied States because of failure of the State to hold and maintain the lands and improvements thereon for the purposes for which they were granted.

As a result of the activities of the Commission on State Institutions, better known as the Little Hoover Commission, Senate Bill 208 to discontinue Fort Lewis A & M College as a state institution was introduced by Senators, Don C. Collins, Donald P. Dunklee, and Edwin A Rogers.  This bill was referred to the Senate Finance Committee for consideration.  These three senators were members of the Little Hoover Committee.  It so happens, that Senator Tom Kimball of Durango is a member of the Senate Finance Committee.  I visited with Senator Kimball last when I was in Denver and he feels very certain that the bill will not leave the Committee.  Should it leave the Committee and be introduced to the senate, there is an even chance that it would be defeated.  However, there is apparently more opposition in the Senate than there is in the House.  Representatives Bruce Sullivan and Mrs. Elizabeth Pellet feel very strongly that should the bill reach the floor of the House that it would be defeated there.

When Governor Thornton visited Durango a few weeks ago he announced that before he acted on the proposal to close Fort Lewis College he would appoint a new committee composed of three members to investigate further and report to him, not in secrecy but in private.  This committee would be composed of a member of the legislature, a member from at large, and a member from Durango.  I interpret this statement to mean that in the event the bill should eventually pass both the House and the Senate and reach his desk for signature, he would not sign it until this new committee had been appointed and had investigated the situation further.