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

s'u; his failure to understand this
Dill; his recent discovery OF tho op-
position b. the large majority OF tho
I alumni. and had then added that the
step contemplated was TOO grave 10
.nke In haste? Could he not have said
mat however, his own views might
c,hlcse for women. tho views OF the
Alumni and other friends OF the uni
Dersiity who opposed this bill deserved
Gooo,naSSidera,ioI,, and action should not be
vented his going to those who looked
upon him as mn ally" before tho hear
aI,g commenced and explaining tho
situation? Surely they could no, have
Gensured him FOR acknowledging tho
iorcc or tho change in conditions. for
wishing to save to tho university the
united support OF the alumni. and for
abiding BY the resolution OF his board
or visitors. Or, has Mr.. Harmon him
sell unwittingly suggested the real
TO meet the Issue? And did the presl-
dent OF the university ninch from ap-
proaching those persona with such
20 Involved himself with tho other
friends" OF a coordinate college for
women that to tell them that the vel
tare OF tho universit- required him to
follow the course requeated OF the
Legislature by his board did not &C.
cord with his ideas CT honor and good
How Could DeIny sican Defents
In order to defend Dr. Aldermans
attitude II Will not do for Mr Har-
mon TO say they feared. and Justly
II wrong. tho bill should be defeated
II right. further conslde ration cannot
harm tho movement. No appropriation
can be made now In any event, and, II
support they claim. postponemcnt for
two years cannot affect the result
DR.. Aidermnn's Attitude Before the
Senate Committee.
Air. Harmon maintains that DIR, AL
derman stated that he was willing to
answer. any questions and give any In
of his statements wcro free. frank and
manly" II is not n mans assertion OF
mis- Willingness to make Fl fair state
that proves HE frankness. 1t is the
nature of q mans statements and the
character OF his answers that chow his
did so express himself. in opening his
speech on tho evening the debate was
closed. as to show that he desired 10
convey the Impression that he was
anxious 40 throw all the light IN his
An Unwilling Witness.
But has Mr. Harmon overlooked Or
Alderman's uRwillngncss to answer
any question before the midday adj
journmont on the last day of the de-
speech which he had prepared for de-
livery that night? There was abund-
ant time In which to do So Is Mr.
Harmon aware that In making the
final arrangements for closing the de-
bate II was proposed in DIR. Aldoruan's
presence that he should speak last, and
1t was only on the objection of the
representative OF the alumni that DR.
Alderman and those Other friends"
agreed thnt he should speak at such
n time as to leave opportunity for re.
ply? Mr.. Harmon cannot deny that
when Dr.. Alderman finally spoke, fol-
lowing closely tho notes which show
ed his painstakins preparation. while
he admitted he had misunderstood tho
Early Rison bill. he described tho co.
ordinate college he had conjured up
in his Imagination az though That were
what this biz provides for 1t cannot
Insistent repetition OF questions did
should be changed before his views
would be met. He first gave answers
to catch the ear OF the audience, and
only after thus breaking the force OF
the questions did he admit that the
bill must be altered. And then he mada
no suggestion as 20 how It should be
altered. Is not this attitude OF DR..
Alderman and its unfair effect proven
by the feet that even now the advo-