The home journal. (Winchester, Tenn.) 1858-188?, 1883-05-30
Another Gard from Professor
Barrett.


Wv" "7N'u SCNciui uucSllOnS,
but given the glorious privilege of doing
as | ptcased about answering them. How
thoughtful Of him to give his consent !
| might otherwise have abored under
the ballucination that | had no choicc
in the matter.
AS to the conversation to which he
has referred, and in which he made
the startling discovery SO vehcmently
reclted IN his correction" two weeks
ago, have this to say; If the unquali.
he'd statements contained in his " cor.
rection" accurately indicate his inter
probation Of my remarks, he (to put il
mildly misunderstood me. The whole
OBJECT Of the conversation was to correct
an impression which was feared might
have been made upon the minds of some
OF the Trustees, to-wit: That the Facul.
ty were usurping the authority of The
Board. Il don't know that Capt. q.
had such an impression.) 1t was stated
that the Faculty understood fully their
relation to the Trustees, and had recog-
nizcd it throughout. We did not pre-
sumo to advise or suggest as to the dis
posal Of any question; this would be
with them whatever they did would
be satisfactory to the Faculty; we would
not oppose their decision either way.
That we could have no selfish interest
was evident from the fact that, 80 far as
! was concerned, all had was here,
and if il was decided to move | would
of course suffer loss. Still would not
ola this account oppose II decision Of the
Board to move. This was my position
then, has been all the time, and is NOR
While have no reason to doubt that
my statements in this connection would
be accepted by your readers, | wish to
avoid even the suspicion Of interpreting
my own language, and therefore make
of Capt. Il. the following request: Ask
Prof. Blcdsoe to make Il public state
mcnt Of his understanding Of that con.
vcrsation. Prof. Bledsoe was present
and heard all that was said. am
willing to abide his decision; are you ?
The Professors testimony will be compc.
tent | suppose, aud perhaps more salts.
factory than either of ours, to any who
shall take the trouble to read what any
of us write.
We now come to the list of questions
which | would prefer not to consume
time in answering except that some
might misjudge my motives i'll passing
them III silence.
The removal question so touchingly
illustrated BY the new and exquisite O.
tale Of the "mil.dam," think comes
first. Ii is patent to any one that the
author Of friendly criticism" construct
ed his OWm dilemma and therefore can.
not force any one to take either of its
horns. But taking his O,cn version and
accepting his orn selection as the
" dramatis pcrsonn," it will be observed
that he appointed me to play the part
Of general somebody, and if my memory
is not at fault he (the GcncraD was not
the party who wanted grinding done "
or was sick" The parties who asked
for the Generals opinion were the ones
who Lad either clever" or Il "grist.
Who asked for my "opinion y? Such
IN argument may do before twelve men
and one Judge, but with the world it
proves too much. TO be for or against
removal when none of the elements
which affect the prosperity Of an nst-
tuition are considered is n third class alb
surdity, and to he talking about it ataN,
if impossible, is still worse. You pro-
pound Il question requiring Il categorical
answer. Give me the data necessary to
comply, and you shall have it. Give me
on at least t,co points. LIST.
What Is the proposition from abroad
and 2nd, What the probable result of
this interesting controversy in which
the Trustees appear in Chanccry by
proxy? No one can give an Intelligent
opinion ON removal " without con-
sideration of both these elements. With
out II proposition no one thinks of re-
moval, and unless the present location
is Threatened, no one thinks Of propo-
sition But, to carry out the humorous
side of the mlll,dam figure, | would say
if the College, like the mill-dam, is
likely to produce sickness only to those
on one side, remove the patients to
higher ground, and let those below the
dam be allowed to come along with their
grst as usual.
Who started this thing, any wayf"
In answer to this ! am compelled to ac-
acknowledge that it did not originate
with any member Of the Faculty, and
also to confess that it was born in the
brain of Il Trustee 1t came to us full
panoplicd from Il member of the Board,
than whom there is none more dignihed,
efficient and worthy, or more devoted to
the best interests Of the College.
That lawsuit hangs over the Col
lege in some way, is a fact very widely
known And abroad as well as at home
there is great diversity of opinion as tc
how it will be decided, And don't
wonder. For while there are few whit
seem to kno,c how it is, with the most o
us it depends on which side Of the whirl
pool we ride, how the current moves
No: that lawsuits are whirlpools, which
sooner or later swallow up achatere
drifts into them without any partcula
reference as to which side it is on, bu
to the unsophisticatcd there is more o