The daily palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1904-1905, 1904-03-22
EARLHAM'
STATEMENT
THE FACULTY OF EARLHAM
PRESENTS IT'S SIDE OF THE
oRATORICAL CONTEST.
Mr.. FEEGER is BARRED
Because He Cannot Accept Proposed
Changes in His Grafton.

The following article was prepared
bv the faculty of Earlham college In
regard to the oratorical contest, CIV
ING Earlham s side of the story:
Soon after the state contest at
which Mr. Feeger was chosen as In
diana's representative In the inter-
state, the president of Notre Dame
notified the president of Earlham that
the grafton of Mr.. Feeger could not
be delivered at Notre Dame. The
president of Earlham, therefore, III
order to reach happy solution OF the
situation, encouraged Mr.. Feeger to
negotiate with Mr.. Kanaley of Notre
Dame, the vice-president of the Inter
state association, with view OF
changing the interstate contest to
some other point, preferably Rich
mond.
Mr.. Kanaley made a proposition, IN
which he agreed upon certain condl-
tions to allow the contest to go to
Richmond, and the proposition was
accepted by Earlham without quail
fication, and preparations began at
once for the contest Mr.. Kanaley
advised that the proper bond be sent
in by Earlham, and two forms OF
bond were prepared by the college at
torney and submitted to Notre Dame
that they might choose the one they
considered the most desirable. Mr..
KanaIev then wrote that all negOtla-
tions were off and that it must be
assumed the contest would be held at
Notre Dame At the very time he
was urging Mr.. Feeger to have the
bond sent In and assuring. him that,
in his opinion, the contest at Rich
mond would be a success, it develops
he was using his best efforts to un-
dermine Mr.. Feeger's cause in the es-
timation of the other Indiana colleges.
Upon Mr. Kanaley's demand the
meeting of the state board was called,
and the members had already been
preiudiced against Earlham con-
testant
1t was demanded that Feeger
change his oration as matter Of
courtesy. Earlham did not desire to
be discourteous and did not demand
the privilege of delivering the Grafton
at Notre Dame. It was Earlham s
courtesy and her vote that admitted
Notre Dame to the State association
two years ago. After Notre Dame had
extended. the invitation for the con-
test it was discourteous to bar a
speaker legally chosen as Indiana's
simply because the
oration contained some things they
did not accept. Had the question
been simply matter Of courtesy it
could have easily been settled. But
Notre Dame made demands the com
pliance of which would have taken all
the motive out Of Feeger's grafton.
It was demanded that he omit the
statement that Professionalism vindicat
ed the "sacred rights of private
Judgment and individual belief,' that
it had brought about "freedom Of
and liberty of thought
that "Lutzen was the battle of DEM
ocracy against autocracy; the conflict
of freedom against feudalism; the
struggle of intellect against medieval
ignorance, ETC., etc. In other words,
it was demanded that Mr. Feeger
the very principles of hu-
man liberty, the freedom of thought
and speech which have been pre-em-
inently the message of Protestanism
from its inception. He was asked to
turn Catholic in the name Of courtesy.
This Mr.. Feeger was not disposed to
do, and Earlham college is with him
in his stand.
Notre Danes attitude upon the
whole question is sufficient commen-
tarv upon Mr. Feeger's Interpretation
of history. What does it mean that
Mr.. Kanaley was willing for Mr.
Feeger' oration to go to the Judges