open up new fields."25 Wishart's reply did not come to Stockwell until the next year. Wishart apologized for the delay but indicated that he felt it necessary to discuss the topic with "the friends of Wooster." Then, despite his public promises of support for Cedarville, made to both the Board of Trustees and the Ohio Synod, Wishart proceeded to undermine Cedarville's request. He outlined the many needs that remained at Wooster College; pointing specifically to the need for greater efficiency in service, higher standards for teaching personnel, more and better equipment, and a greater endowment. He concluded: The very grave question in my mind takes this shape. The Synod has as yet scarcely begun an adequate support to its own synodical col– lege. There are the resources in this state to make the outstanding college of Presbyterian– ism and one of the great outstanding colleges of America. The question in my mind is as to whether the Synod, with the present favorable outlook, should not go on developing one really outstanding institution rather than to divide her force so that in the end there would be the old story of two under-equipped and under– supported institutions struggling along to make bricks without straw. Will you allow me to say, too, as a former member of the General Board and intensely in– terested in the whole educational problem in Presbyterianism, that it seems to me this is a very fundamental question as to the Board's policy? Does the Board favor the development of perhaps two or three outstanding institu– tions across the country, which shall be able to take their place academically with Amherst, Williams or Dartmouth, and to do this is it prepared to deal perhaps somewhat heroically, even in seeming hardness, with small and struggling institutions in overlapping territo– ry? Or is the policy to be rather to scale down the larger institutions at least to the extent of allowing them to sink or swim, while putting time and money back of the small ones?26 Immediately, the interest of the General Board of Education in Cedarville College. evaporated. In February Stockwell informed Graham that no decision had been made, although the information he had gathered indicated that "no further steps" could be "taken just at this time."27 Several months later, rather than reject the Cedarville request in a straightforward manner, Stockwell blamed the consolidation of the Boards of Public and Sabbath School Work with the General Board of Education in the formation of a new Board called the Board of Christian Education. He said the new arrangement required "an entirely new adjustment in the matter of the support of 66/Chapter VIII various branches of the work committed to the new Board." Consequently, he concluded nothing could be done in the near future. 28 For the next five years, the Cedarville Board of Trustees continued to work toward an alliance with the Presbyterian Church in the U.s.A., not realiZing the door was already closed. Eventually they concluded that the only means of achieving their goal would be to sever completely their ties with the Reformed Presbyterians. The Board met on May 7, 1928, in the Exchange Bank Building in Cedarville to discuss the dilemma. They authorized Dr. McChesney to attend the General Synod meeting in Coulterville, Illinois, later in the month of May to request that the Synod relinquish all control of the college. Then they formed a committee headed by McChesney to negotiate with members of the Dayton Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in the u.s.A. "looking toward an alliance between said Presbytery and the college."29 Recognizing the financial plight of the college, the General Synod granted the request of McChesney and the Cedarville College Board of Trustees: Therefore, be it resolved by the said General Synod, now in session in the Reformed Presby– terian Church, Coulterville, Illinois, this 18th day of May 1928, that all right, title, interest, jurisdiction and control of the General Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America in and to Cedarville College, Cedar– ville, Ohio, including property right of every kind, endowment, real estate, and equipment, also all object, purpose, right of control and jurisdiction now held by said General Synod therein, be, and the same hereby is, relin– quished, transferred, conveyed and vested in the present Board of Trustees of the said Cedar– ville College, ... and their successors in office forever. JO Immediately upon achieving their independence from the Reformed Presbyterians, the Cedarville College trustees applied to the Ohio Synod for membership and support. Again they were disappointed. Though they had sought their independence from the Reformed Presbyterians on the basis of meeting the requirements of the Presbyterian Church in the u.s.A. for financial support, they were turned down once more! The Committee of Christian Education of the Synod of Ohio declined to bring Cedarville under its care and control. "It gave as reasons that it has a sufficient task in raising funds for the College of Wooster, the Aged People's Home, Lane Theological Seminary, and the other boards of the church."3l Consequently, Cedarville College became a