The Stanford interior journal. [volume] (Stanford, Ky.) 1911-1912, 1911-06-23
IRELAND REPLIES
TO PROF. C0LVIN
FURTHER DISCUSSION OF THE
SCHOOL TOURNAMENT At
SPRINGFIELD

In as much a. We offered a prelude
/ 90 the article from Prof. Cclyin in
Tuesdays issue. We deem it but fair
to oner one 20 the article by PIbr
. ireland Since the Gown publica-
ton we find that citizens from
LawrencpWg, one. from Harrodsburr
ana one from Lancaster, the latter
a minister OF the gospel, have stat.
ca that the Stamford end Of the con
IIoversy as published In our issue Of
last week, was correct, and vouching
as they viii Tor the correctness there
of, IL necessarily follows that they
can not youch for the truth and cor
Icctncss OF conflicting statement.
We purposely withhold the names
OF these disnterested parties for it
is not desired to draw them into the
discussion, but if it becomes ueces
sary their names can md will be
given and that too under a signed
statement that Stanford is correct in
every detail.
THESE people were eye witnesses to
| the Stanlord-Springiield game AMI
from the number Of other witnesses
/ who corroborate them, it would seem
that Prof Gown has filed a minority
| report, which in democratic coun-
try like this, amounts to naught
/ His defense, though exhibiting some
adroitness, is pointless in place
/ and reminds us OF the retort Of the
body servant OF Gen. Bragg to the
Iacky boy OF Gen. Forrest during the
civil War The discussion was ovef
the relative merits Of the two gencr
ais and Bragg's man after listening
10 hisadversary's long eulogy re-
spouded: C"Niggcr, you talks and You
talks, but you never ocate', you ar
cuiies and you arsulies but you neY'
or asceytains no subiect).
Following is Prof. Irelands reply
Editor Interior Journal:
In answer to Prof Cclvin's article
we have this TO say We wrote the
rart Of the article in the lntericr
Journal beginning wei the headline
"Tho Tournament" Th.re is no dis
rcsition on the part of the represen-
tatives here to make any Unjust
charges. The facts in our column of
issue of June 18th we are able o.
substantate in regard to ringers,
prizes and interference with tie ba /
game.
We do not deny the fact that rules
Of Tournament We're tacitly supposed
tc be the same az Apt governing
tournaments held previous to this
time, but | ask Prof Colvin if they
were enforced. | think he will not
state on Ids word Of honor that all
Of his entries in athletics and other
wise were regular, bona fide students
OF the Springfield High School
These facts, he has not stated in his
article. Md Springfield WIN as many
prizes at Harrodsburg in 1906 as they
did at home? Stanford had the yari
ed Sc ections because there was no
understanding prior TO the Tourna-
uient. as to character Of selections,
lat thought that there would be an
Iouncemont made from platform or
60 the Judges in pre- ence Of heads
of schools Of departments and
Stanford would then be ready 30
meet demand with some OF the selec-
tons. We consented to Caidwells
entry, but under protest, Tor We could
not prevent il. Stanford did not re-
fuse 10 go into contests because OF
bu- did protest as a
letter vii. attest which II preserved
will speak for itself. Prof Colvin was
during the game and We
stated to him that we considered /
from the contest be- /
cause OF the ringers. and Springfield .
citizens attested to this Iaet. We /
did not withdrawn however. because
we had no opportunity to safe to the .
people our reasons in full. Prof /
rolvin did agree twice 10 play for the
Tenant on the third day but after
he first agreement. withdrew the
,ennant proposition in the Opera
House that evening before the arge
'rowd
The Springfield Sun says, that
'rowd of men and boys rushed onto
he diamond, interfering with the
'ame and that il was unfortunate,
'et no attempt was made TO have
he runner return after the player
oored. The score stood two to one
n favor OF Stanford in the first hall
# the tenth inning and one man out.
@ the iterlerence did affect the