The Morning Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Okla.) 1919-1927, 1922-04-09

! WIN lAlfiI llAtlNC ana a'lNlhNIHs MAI
| gerry wired to II. y. Rust OF Pitts
/ burgh, whose daughter she had vis-
/ tied a few months earlier. lie be
/ came very interested, and worked
/ hard 10 help her.
President Thomas Stand.
During April Mrs Barker and Mar
] gory Mr.. Richardson. q cousin of tho
/ Barkcrs; Captain Tualc, MarEcrys
/ fianCc, all came to Bryn MaWr.
/ There were countless interviews with
| Miss ThomaA and Miss Smith. with
| students and with various members
/ or the board OF directors, but no
| amiCable settlement could be
| reached. Tho authorities at Bryu
| Mawr felt that their stand was justi-
fled. No amount of talking could
| alter President Thomas stand
/ Mr.. Rust prepared an elaborate
m M oran m stating the case
as ne saw Il and seeking to prove
/ tho injustice OF Bryn Mawr's action.
/ lie sent copies of Il 20 every mem.
| her of the board OF directors before
| their meeting of May 20. lie inter-
viewed Thomas Rhcburn White and
ELECTED from him n promise to bring
| the matter up before the board.
Mr.. White kept his word. Ole
D
/ Barker. Miss Thomas spoke in de-
/ fcnse OF her position. The board
unanimously decided that the disCre-
/ ton of President Thomas had been
properly exercised and refused to re-
| open the ease.
/ Then the Barkers doridcd to bring
| the matter into court. In June Mar
Ngcry Barker and her mother issued
a writ OF mandamus against the
| trustees OF Bryn Mawr college and
| NJ Carey Thomas president OF tho
l college. In the court OF common
/ pleas OF Montgomery county, Pa.
/ Their attorneys were Isaac A. Penny
| packer George Wharton Pepper,
now United States senator from
Pennsylvania, and Montgomey Ev-
ans. The writ stated that:
/. The actioh of tho dean I'm in
terrogating Margory Barker I'm the
| presence of stcnographeT and stu
| dent witnesses was equivalent to pre-
/ ferring charges against her, and, ipso
/ faCto, bound the college to give her
a fair hearing before any disciplin-
airy action was taken against her.
2. The disciplinary action taken
/ by the president on March 2G and
| April > was in effect an expulsion
/ from college and was not prece-
Cuscd as satisfies the ordinary re-
quircments Of fair play and simple
| justice.
3. An unjustifiable expulsion
having thus taken place, Margery
Barker's right to reinstatement is
not displaced by a subsequent un-
/ successful attempt TO induce the
board to reverse the presidents aC-
tion.
The casa was bitterly fought and
skillfully presented. At the bottom
OF all the questions and tho arguing
two issues seemed to prevail. was
MarGory Barker guilty. and was
President Thomas fair to her?
Certainly there WAS much to be
said on both sides. When the CirCum-
/ stances ConneCtcd with the stealing
at Pembroke West we're considered
I they formed an imposing problem for
/ Miss Barkcr's counsel to explain
away. Money constantly disappeared
when Margcry was one OF the few
persons about; Miss Mearns lost
stamps which she was said TO have
| hidden; Margery visited the rooms of
girls who were not her friends when
/ they were not about; she had opened
[ Prue Smiths bureau drawer and
/ taken out her poCketbopk; she was
| bill in her possession, and made
misstatcment concerning where she
| had received it. She was subject
/ TO fits Of depression and to severe
/ headaches; she was nof doing we'll
with her work. Besides, she had
never been accused OF stealing; she
/ was simply dismissed as an undesir-
able student
Miss Barker's Sidc.
, Still. there was much TO say on
Margcry Rarkcr's side of the question
| that she had been made the victim
/ OF rroundless and unjustifiable
! suspicion. Several students had de-
/ CidCd that she was thief and had
/ set traps in every direction to prove
| her one. Instead OF letting incidents
prove conclusions, they had jumped
/ at conclusion and tried to make the
] incidents tit o.. Marggry had no
| recollection Of Miss Mearns' stamps
! She went into other girls rooms I'm
/ the morning TO study while her own
I was being straighteued; every one
| else did the same thing at college
| there was nothing incriminating
/ about Il. The marked So bill had
/ been found in her possession six
| days after IL had been missed; II had
1 had time TO wander all over Bryn
/ NIawr before reaching her. Besides,
| the dean had Inundated her in the
presence OF other studcnts she had
promisod Margery a chance 20 clear
/ things after vacation ana had broken
| her promise; the president had dis
missed Margery when she had never
| seen her or talked with herr she
| had informed persons who came 10
| see her I'm Margery's b0haf that
nothing they could say could alter
| her opinion or her course or action.
/ There Is no denying that Miss Bark
er had her grievances.
The court refused the wrlt or
maudamus. Judgment was rendered
| I'm favor OF Bryn Mawr by the fol-
/ lowing general conclusions;
1. Where a student is WrOngfully
expelled from college which Is
/ maintained by private corporation
/ OF the first class that obtains all MS
| funds from private benetactions, and
I the relation between the student
/ and the college is solely contractuD
/ IN character, the court or common
pleas does not have jurisdiction TO
/ issue a writ OF mandamus 70 COM
pei her reinstatement,
2. When regulation Of such a
/ college, and one OF tho CONDITIONS
/ under which students obtain en-
| trance 10 II, provides that The coll
| lege reserves the right 90 exclude az
| sny time students whose conduct or
! nadau,ig sfaudlng IL regards as un-