The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-04-15
REGULAR COLLEGE WAR
DE PAUW BACKS UP HER SERIOUS
CHARGES AGAINST EARLHAM.
Methodist Debaters Claim They Were
Blown Up by "A Quaker Torpedo on
the Port Side-State News.
Special to the Indianapolis Journal.

DE PAUW UNIVERSITY, Greencastle,
Ind, April 1.-THE Earlham debate teams
weak explanation of the intentional misquo-
| tatcn made at the recent Earlham-De
Paw debate, together with the silly charges
made against the De PAW team in to-days
Journal have caused great deal of amuse-
| ment in De Paw. There remain, however,
| just few more points to be cleared up and
we are through with the affair. 1t is no
wonder that Earlham is willing to rest her
case, but De PAW does not see fit to do SO
after Earlham's weak explanation. In the
first place, we acknowledge defeat by the
Earlham team, the report of the debate
in the journal stated, and we did not affirm
that the misquotation had any direct effect
upon the decision of the judges. The facts
which have been disclosed show that the
| supposed quotation from Professor Ely was
done with generalization on the part OF
| Earlham. To lay all the blame upon the
| typewriter is pretty story, but does not
| fit with the corresponding circumstances,
which were as follows:
| The De PAW team had based great por-
| ton of its arguments from statistical deduc-
| tons and reasons put forward by Professor
Ely who is one of the leading authorities
on the income tax question. Now near the
| close of the debate Mr. Widup sprung the
astonishing statement that Professor Ely
repudiated in his own words great part
| of the arguments which the De Paw team
| had attri to him. The e-written
| copy which Mr.. Widup used was underlined
| in ink to bring out the very opposite TO
what the De Pauw team had quoted from
Professor Ely. If the quotation in question
had been isolated from other circumstances
1t would have been the mole hill' which
the Earlham team calls it, but the malicious
intent to destroy the basis of De PauWs
argument with the false quotation is a
mountain of dishonor worthy of the con-
tempt of every honest college man. AT the
close of the debate Mr.. Mead, of the DE
PAW team, challenged Mr.. Widup, who at
once laid the burden on Mr.. Gordon. This
gentleman had forgotten the page but
upon being told that it was not the page,
bered it was in Elys Taxation in Amer
lean States and Cities" Mr.. Mead then
produced this book to Mr.. Gordon's dis
| comiture who, after fruitless search,
Mr.. Mead then in very plain words gave
MIR. Gordon three or four days to prove his
statement from Ely The De PAW team
| waited four days, and falling to hear from
Earlham gave the matter to the Journals
correspondent in this city.
Tie De Pauw students, however, admit
that the names of Richard Il. Ely and
Worthington c. Ford closely resemble, but
take Earlhams explanation, in the light of
developments, with pound of salt
The Earlham team said in to-days Jour-
| nal: I'VE submit that If we had been I'M
ScrupulouS enough to miSrepreSent Mr..
Ely Intentionally that we would have been
shrewd enough not TO nave allowed De
IduW TO OBTAIN our manuscript WITH WHICH
to directly condemn u.s.
The Earham team must remember that
many men are INSCRIPTIONS who are not a
bit shrewd. The Earlham team did not in
tentionally give the quotation to the DE
Pauw team. Mr.. Widup, after tiourishing
the typewritten sheet and shouting twice.
That's your Ely" threw ii down upon the
table, and the next speaker for De Pauw,
Mr.. Beard, confiscated the paper, and 1t
was no fault of the Earlham team that
they did not carry away their witness which
SubStanttateS their dishonesty.
We now wish to answer the three charges
made by Earlham against De PAW. First,
Earlham charges that we asserted that
there is no political economist who denies
the practicability of the income tax: De
exact words of Mr.. Beard regarding the
above are: II challenge my opponents to
cite any modern political economist OF repu-
tation who denies the practicability of an
income tax. If Earlham intended the quo
tation from w. Q. Ford to answer this chal-
lenge, she made egregious blunder, for
w. G. Ford lays no claim to being a political
economist. 1t would be ridiculous for De
Paw to have made such a sweeping aSSer-
ton. for they had in mind the Hon. David
A. Wells, who is an authority against the
income tax. In answer to the second charge
tive statement made by Secretary Gage in
which he announced that there will be a
deficit in our treasury for the remainder OF
this year and for the year 1899, we would
cite our friends TO Secretary Cages report
to Congress at the beginning of December,
1897. A condensed summary of the report
Reviews Page 81 Q29) under the depart
ment of the World sof Thrift and Money
Matters which gives the deficits for three
years, as the De Paw team stated.
AS to the third charge, 1t must be remem-
bered that the chart in question was a
graphic production of facts which
planned as based on the census of 1890, and
for collateral authority would cite the Earl
ham team to Charles r. Spahr's Present
Distribution of Wealth in the United
States" Page 143
1t may not be out of place to state that
this is not the first time Earlham debaters
! have been guilty of such dupicty. In last
years debate, just at the conclusion of the
debate, they sprung supposed statement
from President Gompers in REPUTATION OF
De PauW's argument on labor organizations.
De Pauw passed this by unchallenged, be-
leving in the honesty of their opponents,
but President Gompers, on receiving
copy of the speech. unsolicited made the
following reply to Mr. T. w. Nadal, one
of De Pauw's debaters last year:
THE remarks of Gordon are misquota-
ton of me- either msconStrued or miSrep-
resented what l said"
This letter is now in possession of Mr..
Nadal We would like to ask if this like
wise is an ''unintentional mistake" of the
typewriter" and mistake only in not
reading the proof carefully"
DE PAUW DEBATING TEAM.