The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1915-06-17

working in an organized way for three
candidates which combination one of
them frankly dubbed in writing to me
the Russell ticket but that they
were actively opposing Mr.. Barrett on
the ground that he was Kelly candi-
date. A few of Mr.. Barrett's friends,
who had been interested in the matter
OF his candidacy from the beginning.
then determined that something must
be done to keep him from being butch
cred to make a Russell holiday, and
we accordingly sent out a circular let
ter to all the Alumni briefly stating
Mr.. Barrett's qualifications as we I'M
derstood them for the office of Alumni
trustee. We signed our names to our
letters.
Non.Partisan Document.
This was an absolutely non-parti-
san document and was also signed by
several Alumni of pro-Russell sympa-
thies. Nevertheless the attacks by
certain of Prof Russell's friends on
Mr.. Barrett's candidacy continued and
We were compelled again and again
to explain that he was not pro-kelly
or pro-Russell candidate. / finally
asked Mr.. Barrett for a statement OF
his position, which he gave me and
which was sent out to considerable
number of people, among them to
Prof. Russell.
MY election as one Of the Alumni
trustees of Earlham cannot be urged
as one representative of any faction.
If l am to be known as the candidate
Of any group taking partisan inter
est in the present faculty disturbances
l will not be known as candidate at
ALL l insist that the ultimate good
of Earlham college is the only issue
| in the coming election And if l can
not be elected on this platform,
will not be elected. have not pledged
myself to any person or group of per-
sons and will not make such pledge
If elected a trustee, l will do all
can for the college. If any other
Earlham Alumnus can do more, urge
my friends to vote for him as trustee
Let's keep our college in view, and
not allow the real issue to be clouded
by personalities.
r. WARREN BARRETT.
Barrett for Ear'ham.
Some of Mr.. Barrett's friends wen,
to the indianapolis meeting to which
your anonymous informant refers and
explained his position with absolute
frankness and accuracy as a pro-Earl
ham candidate. No man in the Indi
annapolis meeting was misled into
thinking that Mr.. Barrett was either
pro-kelly or pro-Russell and the state
ment which l have given above was in
the hands of some of those at the
! meeting and l suppose it was read
All this talk about what would have
| hammered if SOmehOdv else had re.
ceived the support of the Indianapolis
meeting is very amusing. Let me
ask your informant what would have
happened if it had been possible for
Mr.. Barrett's position to be similarly
understood by the Richmond Alumni
and by other Alumni all over the
country who are looking for fair,
non-partisan candidate and who were
driven away from him by the indus
triously circulated reports that he was
pro-Kelly.
Reterates Support.
Now that he has been elected in
spite of unfair newspaper attacks and
personal work, engineered by certain
of Prof. Russell's supporters, for one
of them to turn around and claim him
as a pro-Russell candidate requires
more than the usual allotment of
effrontery. Let me say once more
without pretending of course to the
slightest authority to speak for Mr..
Barrett, now that the votes are all
in, that Mr. Barrett as a candidate
or trustee is pro-Earlham and will
stand as trustee on the platform on
which he ran as a candidate and that
his attitude will not be swayed by the