The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1921-04-05

committee which recently reported to-
the Earlham college board of trustees
after an investigation to determine
whether teachings at Earlham were
in conflict with fundamental Friends
doctrine. Tuesday submitted the fol-
lowing statement:
1.-The general public should not be
too ready to accept statements to the
effect that the report of the Earlham
college investigating committee will
only add to the unrest among
Friends.
81 note that the compliments,
through their subcommittee. promise
that there is forthcoming publicity
that will either place the investigat-
ing committee and the college board
in the position of having been mis-
led by the cavils and sophistries OF
designing persons, or, on the other
hand, of having purposely suppressed
the truth
"Of course, the compliments can
take certain portions Of the testimony
and ignore all else, and thus estab-
lish their case Our Investigating
committee considered all testimony
and had to weigh all the evidence,
with the inevitable result that was Set
forth in the committee report made
to the Earlham board on March 26.
IF now the complainants, who insisted
at the last session of Indiana Yearly
Meeting upon having an investigating
committee, persist in repudiatlng the
careful and thorough analysis or the
whole situation as set forth IN the
committee report and set out upon
some sort of propaganda against the
college by detailing their own evi-
dence in support of their propaganda
the Yearly Meeting will not be slow TO
see where the causes of unrest really
are.
II have sent the following letter to
Charles T. Moore and S. Adelbet
Wood: ,oo,
"Charles T. Moore
and
S. Adelbert Wood.
Dear Friends: have asked for and
read copies of your letters to the Earl
ham Board of Trustees. OF course it
was your right to present a minority
report in review of the evidence and
embodying your conclusions thereon.
These letters however appear to be
in the nature of protest against the
Iopoi dLto IllOi . Oil coihS
statements which we cannot afford to
let go unchallenged.
You object to the report because
it was prepared and brought before
us by the chairman / have been
chairman of too many committees not
to know how important it is for some
body to prepare something TO serve as
basis of consideration and discus
sion. Especially is this true where
the report calls for an analysis OF
yoluminous testimony, as in this case.
If this is mant to be an implication
that forced my own draft of report
through, it is a reflection upon others
Of the committee that is certainly not
justified in the least degree. IF the
report did not represent the Judgment
of the majority they were competent to
have changed it SO as to harmonic
with their wishes.
1t is surprising TO me when you
quote George Moore as saying the re-
port was far from satisfactor to him.
against two or three paragraphs, he
always said he was in submission, and
in conference with him the next even
ing, did not get any impression that
the report was far from satisfactory
to him. However he is capable Of
speaking for himself on the matter,
and l have no doubt if he dissents, he
will make his position clear to the
board.
You say the report ignores the
testimony of worthy men in whom our
church has confidence etc. But when
you say This report does not give
credit to actual facts, You must also
ignore the testimony Of other worthy
men in whom the church has con-
fdence.
At different places in the report we
have recognized the conflicting nature
of the testimony. We either had to