Clarke courier. [volume] (Berryville, Va.) 1869-1997, 1903-06-03

time. They are up against il good
and hard. There is no further
occasion for Democratic dumps.
for the clouds are fast blowing
over. The party is in better fix
to-day than it has been since 1892.
All this ! have told you is still an
undercurrent and has not come to
the surface, but it will in the near
future and all will see it as plainly
as | do. Democratic victory is in
the air.
Nights candles are burnt out
and jocund day stands tip-toe on
the misty mountain tops"
There has been much unfavora-
BILE comment here in Washington
this week in both social and politi-
cal circles concerning the mac-
countable omission made by Presi-
dent Benjamin Ide Wheeler. of the
University of California, in read
ing out the list of the donors to the
University on the occasion of the
visit of President Roosevelt to that
institution of learning. In read
ing out the list President Wheeler
did not fail to mention the donors
of books and small sums of money.
but ne forgot utterly to mention
names of the largest donors to the
University, viz: Mrs. Phoebe A.
Hearst, who is givinga million dol
lars TO the University and who last
year gave more than one hundred
thousand dollars, and who is a re-
gent of the University and the
only woman regent in the United
States; also, the name of William
Randolph Hearst, who gave the
University the splendid amphithe-
atre in which President Wheeler
read his list and in which Presi-
dent Roosevelt made his speech of
reply and which was mentioned in
this correspondence short time
ago. This amphitheatre bore mute
but eloquent testimony TO the
elimination of these names and the
people here are asking why the
omission was made. Mrs. Hearst.
who lived in this city for many
Years and who is beloved by many
thousands of people for her gentle
ness and benevolence, is one of the
few women in this country whose
acts are followed 10y the people of
the whole nation and especially 10y
the people of this city, and they
all knew of her donations to the
University of California. There
fore, they were intensely surprised
and hurt when the President of
that University omitted her name
as the chief donor to the Univer-
sity and especially rs she was pre-
sent on the occasion.
Was the failure TO mention these
names an OverSight-or WHAT
The President of the United
States was there. Did his presence
have any connection with the sin
gular omission! 1t is almost in
conceivable that President Wheeler
omitted the names without having
been specifically requested to do
so by somebody. Who was that
sOmebodyl Can it be possible that
the President of the United States
made such Il request! 1t may be
doing him an injustice to even
think such a thing, but we here in
Washington know of his deep an
tipathy TO Mr.. William X. Hearst
on account of the latter's work for
the Democratic party, and mas
much As there were about eight
thousand persons in that audito-
rum donated by Mr.. Hearst and
the mention of his name would
have created much enthusiasm. it
is barely possible that Roosevelt
may have asked President Wheeler
not to mention his name as the
donor. If he did, it proves that,
instead of being n broad-gauged
man he is so small that his soul
would have as much room in
mustard seed as bat would have
in church. But, even if political
littleneSs was the cause of the omis-
sion of the name of Mr.. Hearst,
why should the name of Mrs.
Hearst have been omittedl There
might have been some excuse if the
names omitted had been merely the
names of some small donors, but
Mrs. Hearst is practically the en-
tire backbone of the University of
A ~ . A