Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1908-04-04

WIlllNk W H. W. AANANA " 49,"
n Stanford student sends the follow
ing able review Of the whole matter;
Stanford University, Mar. 81, 'OS.
I am In receipt of your letter OF
the 26th and have read the Orego-
nian editorial headed Anarchy az
stanford"
Your letter commenting upon the
absurd and erroneous sentiments en-
tertained by our people at large
concerning the situation at Stan
ford. and the ridiculous oregonian
editorial, which is no doubt respcn-
sible for much Of this sentiment,
puts the matter before me In an im-
personal light. And from this
view point can and have
a right 10 discuss the subject
for the people at large, to try II
oan, to vindlcate the good name OF
Stanford, to show who is RESPONSE
BILE for the unmerited disgrace that
has seemingly fallen upon IL, aud
the almost unbelievable methods by
which II has been brought about.
shall try 20 deal with oregonian
editorial in n dignified manner,
though whether shall succeed or
not do not know. II this editorial
we're the only thing TO be considered
/ should not think OF bellttleing my
self by any attempt TO answer it.
But am Informed that this brand
OF editorial abuse Is prevalent
through the entire northwest, and
that even in the Eastern states the
situation az Stamford IL viewed In
much the same. although In less
absurd ana puerile fashion than that
indulged by the Oregonlan. This
IL not surprising. since In a case Of
this kind the prejudice Is naturally
IN favor OF the authorities aud The
burden OF proof rests with the stu
dents. However. cannot believe
that the obviously ridiculous attl-
tudo taken by this oregonian writ'r
IL typical OF the sentiment In my
home community. Nev-rtheleas.
such charges, absurd as they are, tire
apt TO be believed, and for this roa-
son they are direct slander on
the good name OF stanford and call
for on answer. ! shall therefore
touch upon some OF the most nng-
rant falsehoods contained IN the ed
torial ana for the rest oonfne my
seh 90 a statement OF fact concern
ing the situation at Stanford.
In tho first place that writer has
said what ho has said upon his own
authority. apparently having made
no attempt 20 inform himself con-
cernlng the matter he has tried to
handle. lie has charged the Stan
ford students with almost eveiy
crime under tho aun: oomparing
them with Emma Goldman and her
followers and with SohmitE and
Ruef. Tie has expressed amaze
ment at the fact that we have not
murdered our professors lie has
called us anarchists, dehauehees,
thngs and drunkards. and he de-
clares that we are In the same cat
egory aud are the logical success
ors 10 those who are now upholdinH
the San Francisco grafters.
Had this writer put himself 10 the
aronhle OF reading the San FranoilcS
newspapers, which being nearer ih'
scene OF action are obviously bette
Informed on the situation than he Is
ne would have found that every op
Of the San Francisco dallies with th
expectlon OF the Chronicle Is on th
side OF the students In this con
troversy Every paper except IN
Chronicle believes that Or, Jorda
and the committee he appointe
have made ludcrous and unealle
for mistake. and that the attitude q
the students Is right and perfect
justified. And Il may be well
mention In passing for the ben Z
OF this brilliant editorial writer th'
the Chronicle. which Is the on
paper against the students, Is n
only SAN Francisco daily that Is col
tinuOnsly ana systematically -uphoh
ing the cause OF Calhoun, Ford an
Glass aud OF Ruef and schmitE' the
aliies and tools.
am not fond OF superlatiVes, b.
IA dealing With the idtorial I ha'
before me oannt consloentously =
train from using them, have re'
the article through carefully seve
al times. aud l am siating exact
What mean and what ] know VIII
- lhnl lhnra NJ not ono sin.