[Letter] February 5,[1895] [to F.H. Giddings]

February 5, [1895], n. p.

Dear Friend:
        The call
to the Johns Hopkins
has come. It followed
immediately the
decision of the Clifton
sale question; and it
appears to be
accompanied by an
amount of cordial
and earnest feeling
that entirely removes
the reluctance that
I felt ( ) accepting
a call from Baltimore.
I am obliged to give
to this call a real and
a fair consideration;
and therefore it is
necessary that I should
regard myself as
not definitely committed
to the acceptance of 
a call from Columbia,
in case one should
come. I have said to
you and to Professor
Seligman that I
preferred Columbia. I
have said to Professor S.
that if the two were
open to me I should
choose Columbia. This
expressed a decided
feeling. The only thing
that modifies it is
the removal of an
irritating influence
that repelled me
from Baltimore. I am
quite convinced that
Adams was right in
saying that only the
financial uncertainty
caused delay. They have
made the salary $4,000.
This is more than
most of their professors
get, though three or four
have 5000. Baltimore
is a place in which
money goes a long way
in maintaining a
family. It is President
Gilman's wish that
the appointment should
not be known till my
decision is reached, and
it will be a favor if
you will kindly keep
the knowledge of it.
within the little circle
in which most of the
facts are known already.
 Now, as you
nearly always do
understand me, I am
sure you will understand
me now. I am not,
if I understand myself,
hedging. The personal
circle in which I
should work at
Columbia would make
the place delightful
to me. The strong
graduate school that
is gathering there would
be a very large
attraction. May I
say again what I
think and feel without
prejudicing what I have
said at the beginning
of this letter? I
think the New York
position would be the
better one for me,
as I understand the
nature of it. To
the management of
Columbia I have had
no cause to say
anything, and to the
Dean of Barnard College,
have said nothing that
is decisive. I want
now to make sure
that you and Professors
Seligman and Mayo-
Smith will not think
me vacillating or
untrue to implied or
suggested pledges if I
go to the length of giving
to the Baltimore call
a real consideration.
This I have promised
to do; and I can only
do it by being
uncommitted in any
definite way elsewhere.
Is the situation clear?
Of course all this
explanation may be
made unnecessary
by something in the
situation at Columbia.
Miss Smith wrote that
Barnard College could
only guarantee the salary
for three years. 
May I ask whether
you understand that
there would be a
seminary to be
conducted at Columbia
in addition to the
four hours a week of
graduate, or at any
rate classroom work
spoken of by Professor
Smith? I understand
him to suggest six
hours of lecturing a
week, of which four
would be at Columbia
and two at Barnard.
At the Johns Hopkins
there would also be
four lectures a week,
and two hours of
seminary work, making
six in all. If there
is a seminary at
Columbia in addition
to the four lectures,
the amount of work
would be slightly less
at the Johns Hopkins;
otherwise it would be
less at Columbia. The
Barnard work would be
a little easier than the
seminary at Baltimore.
I ask this not from
laziness, but because,
as you know, private
work has to be ensured,
and over-working is my
danger.
 I hope Mrs. Giddings
is better now. Please
give her our best
regards and wishes.
 Possibly you may
find an opportunity to
explain to Professors
Seligman and Mayo-
Smith my position.
It is that I must
be sincere and honest
toward the Johns
Hopkins.

     Yours Very Truly,
        John B. Clark