The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1912-02-12

Gates OF this measure. who at that
hearing showci themselves unwilling
mat tho bill be changed to moot his
views, are claiming Or. Aldermans
Character of D,. AIderman's speech.
as his argument fair and accurateY
~ an example. call attention TO tho
! fact that In ordnr to illustrate his idea
81 q co ordinate women's college and
as as, effect on q mans university. DR.
systcm as he says 1t is In operation
AZ oxford. He described the cond.-
vtomn there as not unlike those tina,
az he said. oxford has social pop,,,
lat!on OF about 5000 persons. DR.. Ai.
6ee nIn entirely failed to state that
and distinct colleges and halls. each
entirely Independent of ELL the Others
, with it6 own college rules and re-
yeraity ITO as we know and have it
In America. Moreover, as was later
pointed out to him. instead Of tho
small village no described 1t to be. the
census shows Oxford 10 have had
more than $4,000 Inhabitants ten years
and Loyalty.
How DR.. Alderman has satisfied him
SER and Mr.. Harmon that his sense
OF duty would permit him to fail to
TO the committee hearing on the Vital
question as to the course to pursue
AT this time. they two can best do
termine-and so as to his avoidance
or this question In the public hearing,
hetore the senate committee when tho
BOARD had decided on Its course with
bered that this attitude or DIR. Alder
man was and is urged as an argu-
n o.eht IN favor OF the Immediate pass
faculty require such action Of him. az
claimed by Mr.. Harmon? This is din
S"It 10 understand. seeing that the
adopted adopted In r sisy ,a,, which were
published. drawn by DR. Alderman him
ser. q 8 Mr. Graves has shown, do not
p Pro l for any such college as that in
t ture DR.. Alderman did not deny that
me one large majority OF the alumni ara
or visitors showed that they REGARDED
any action that promised to ALLEVIATE
re re alumni as one Of grave menace to
no such r!ak. Where u.aa Dr. Alder
mans loyalty to his board? where
was his LOYALTY TO the alumni OF the
nniversity, who according to MIR. Har-
mon. are so dear to its president? IA
q: matter or fact when the welfare OF
IN. ne university Is at stake and Che
TO DR.. Alderman's loyalty. unless II be
the other friends" OF co-ordinats
colleEo mentioned by Mr.. Harmon
and looked upon him as an ally? Tho
other friends" do not follow DR.. AL
derman. It seems that no cIeaves to
them but not they TO him. He admits
mat the bill should DO changed but
they do not agree. He IL on record. az
shown by the resolutions Of the Board
or Education, passed In December, as
not IN favor OF the establishment OF
q college for women by this Legfs-
iature because 0! the financial condf-
tion, OF the State. yet his attitude Is
cited rs supporting those who Wish
this hill passed without delay These
other friends" use him as an advocate
OF their measure. md it's Immediate
enactment, yet neither he nor they
can show how. tho states finances have
SO improved In scant six weeks rs
to permit the state to incur such nm
9q6liEation az this bill contcmnlatcs
What injustice has been done DR.. Al
derman by me? Was his action that
Of "a great public servant" "frec.
frank and manly" with an eve single
to the welfare OF the university and
the State. and can the advocates OF
this measure Justly claim snDpnrt from
his actions on my such ground?
MURRAY M Mcguire
Richmond Fahrnarv 10