A __^_ , 
 
 MEMORANDUM 
 
 TO THE 
 
 PRESIDENT AND DIRECTORS 
 
 OF 
 
 BRYN MAWR COLLEGE 
 
 ■€30" 
 
 In Behalf of 
 MARGERY BARKER 
 
1 
 
 ii 
 
 be 
 
Tlie foUowLo? letter and tlie accoiupanjrlii^r xuezuorandtuu was sent 
 to the President and to> eaoli member of tlie Board of Directors of Bryn 
 Mawr Colleg-e prior to the meeting* of the Board on May 20th, 1921. 
 
 Despite the fact that IMCr. Bnst was readily accesslhle his reqnest for 
 a hearin£f was Ignored hy the Board. 
 
 Pittsburgh, Pa., May 17, 1921. 
 
 I hand you herewith copy of memorandum in behalf of Miss 
 Margery Barker, copy of which I am sendijng to each one of the Board 
 of Directors of Bryn Mawr College. I would greatly appreciate it if 
 you would kindly read this paper over carefully and take this subject 
 up for formal action at your Board meeting on the 20th. I will be at 
 the Bellevue-Stratford Hotel on Thursday and Friday and earnestly 
 request that you give me an opportunity to appear before your Board 
 for a discussion of this very important matter before final action is taken. 
 
 Before I became interested in this subject Mrs. Barker had re- 
 tained Counsel; intending to take the matter into Court as the College 
 management had refused to further investigate or to reconsider its 
 action. Mrs. Barker and her daughter both agreed that, in considera- 
 tion of my taking the matter up, they would suspend all legal action 
 until I had a reasonable time to clear up the situation without the in- 
 tervention of the Courts. They also agreed that if I were convinced 
 that Margery was guilty, and properly dismissed, they would take no 
 further action. 
 
 In an interview with Mr. White he stated to me that he felt that 
 if I had talked personally with the Misses Kennard, Cadot and Foot 
 that I would be convinced of Miss Barker's guilt. I asked permission 
 to meet these young ladies for a free and full discussion, but he felt 
 he could not agree to this. Had I been permitted to interview these 
 young ladies, I feel quite certain that, instead of being convinced of 
 Miss Barker's guilt, other facts would have been developed that would 
 tend to prove conclusively that the whole thing has been handled in a 
 very unfair and irregular way. 
 
 Every move that Miss Barker has made since this unfortunate 
 occurence has been to her credit; clean and conclusive of innocence. 
 
 Miiss Kennard was not at that time a member of the Board of 
 the Students Association for Self Government. The Students Asso- 
 ciation for Self Government was not a party to this transaction at all 
 and I am told that they refused to endorse Miss Barker's dismissal. 
 The stealing is still going on. 
 
 Since Miss Barker has protested that she was not guilty and has 
 taken steps to prove her innocence, the College has appeared to resent 
 any attempt on her part to prove her innocence and has thrown every 
 obstacle in her way to prevent her securing evidence of her innocence. 
 Students who have made appointments to see her have been prevented 
 from keeping those appointments. 
 
 The College has been placed in a position that indicates clearly 
 that, in the judgment of the management, it is much more important 
 to prove the College has not made a mistake than it is to prove one 
 of its students is not a thief. 
 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 H. B. Rust. 
 
Pittsburgh, Pa., May 12, 1921. 
 
 To the President and Directors of 
 Bryn Mawr College. 
 
 Ladies and Gentleman : 
 
 Acting on the suggestion of one of your number, I 
 have prepared a statement regarding the ease of Miss 
 Margery Barker, which I respectfully submit herewith. 
 The facts set forth in this statement agree, so far as I 
 have been able to check them, with those given me by 
 Mr. White, except in a few details on which I have 
 learned he was misinformed. 
 
 Due to the college's attitude, I have not had access 
 to certain witnesses in the matter ; but I have given the 
 subject a great deal of attention and have investigated 
 the case as thoroughly as possible in an effort to arrive 
 at the truth. 
 
 Prior to four months ago, I had never heard of Miss 
 Barker or her family. Having met my daughter, who 
 is a Freshman at Bryn Mawr College, she visited my 
 house for eight days in January. I have taken an in- 
 terest in this matter at the request of Miss Barker 
 and her Mother. I have felt that she was not equipped 
 to combat the situation without assistance. During 
 the last few weeks I have seen a great deal of her and 
 feel that I know her very well. In my estimation she 
 is decidedly above the average in intelligence and 
 integrity. I am convinced that a serious mistake has 
 been made and that Miss Barker is entirely innocent 
 
of the alleged offense for wMch she has heen dismissed 
 from Bryn Mawr College. 
 
 This is a very serious matter. A similar occur- 
 rence in another college led to the suicide of the girl 
 who was accused. I earnestly urge that each of you 
 think first how you would feel if a daughter of yours, 
 whom you knew to be absolutely innocent and most 
 worthy, had been treated as Miss Barker has been 
 treated, and, in consideration of her and in order to 
 protect the good name of Bryn Mawr, that steps be 
 taken immediately to see that she is reinstated and an 
 announcement made to the student body that a mistake 
 has been made in her case which the college deeply 
 regrets. 
 
 Miss Barker has documentary evidence covering 
 all of the essential facts in this memorandum, which I 
 have endeavored to make as short as consistent with 
 an adequate presentation of the subject. For your con- 
 venience I have had the memorandum printed. 
 
 Thanking you for the courtesies which I have re- 
 ceived at the hands of all of you whom I have had an 
 opportunity to meet, believe me, 
 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 H. B. Rust. 
 
MARGERY BARKER. 
 
 Family : ' 
 
 Margery Barker is 20 years of age. She was raised 
 on a small farm three miles from Michigan City, In- 
 diana, comes of good stock and is well connected. Her 
 mother pays for her tuition and board and gives her an 
 allowance of f 100 per month, which is supposed to 
 cover her pleasures, incidental expenditures and clothes 
 while at college. In addition to this, her mother gives 
 her additional money from time to time and pays half 
 of her traveling expenses. Her mother does not have 
 a large income, but one ample to pay for Margery's 
 education and give her everything she needs or wants. 
 The connection is a wealthy one. The financial status 
 of her family is such as to make dishonesty on her part 
 altogether unnecessary and unlikely. 
 
 Preparation for College: 
 
 As is the case in most country districts, the educa- 
 tional facilities at her home were not good, therefore, 
 until about six years ago, Margery did not have the edu- 
 cational advantages of a girl living in a city. Ever 
 since she was 12 years old, her great ambition has been 
 to be a graduate of Bryn Mawr College. Preparation 
 for entrance to this or other Eastern colleges being in- 
 adequate in her home community, tutors were employed 
 by her family. She attended the Brearley School in 
 New York for two years, then the Misses Kirk school 
 at Bryn Mawr and the Bryn Mawr Camp. At all of 
 these places she had an excellent record, especially for 
 integrity. She entered Bryn Mawr as a freshman at 
 mid year, 1920, under something of a handicap, as re- 
 gards previous school preparation. 
 
 3 i 
 
During the past few years she has had a great deal 
 of trouble. Her only brother was seriously injured in 
 an automobile accident a few months ago, and this and 
 other things she felt very keenly. At times during the 
 past year she has been depressed, but not more than 
 would be expected of any normal sensitive girl. 
 
 Visit to Pittsburgh : 
 
 She visited my home in Pittsburgh for 8 days dur- 
 ing Mid Year examinations in January, 1921. Although 
 we live very quietly, she seemed to enjoy her visit thor- 
 oughly. She was very enthusiastic about Bryn Maw^r 
 and talked a great deal of her life at college and her 
 friends there. What she told me tended to intensify 
 the good opinion I had already formed of Bryn Mawr. 
 
 While in Pittsburgh, she impressed everyone whom 
 she met as being an unusually sensitive, tactful, simple, 
 unpretentious, nice, clear-headed girl, apparently giving 
 little thought to clothes and things of that character, 
 and not given to gossip or making unkind remarks 
 about others. After she went back to college, she w^rote 
 an unusually nice and appreciative letter to us. 
 
 Personal Impression of Her: 
 
 Since her trouble at Bryn Mawr has occurred, I 
 have seen a great deal of Margery and have had many 
 interviews with her, varying from a few minutes to four 
 or ^Ye hours at a time. I have put her through several 
 severe and grilling examinations, with the result that 
 the good opinion I had formed of her has increased. 
 
 In my conversations with her it was my natural 
 feeling to question the motives of the three girls who 
 had been largely instrumental in bringing this terrible 
 trouble on her. Margery insisted that these three girls 
 
were all nice girls, that she did not know Miss Cadot so 
 w^ell, but did know the other two girls and was sure 
 they w^ere conscientious, high €lass girls. She spoke well 
 of every other person involved in the matter at Bryn 
 Mawr, saying that she was positive that they were thor- 
 oughly convinced that she was guilty, that there was 
 nothing malicious in their attitude, but that they had 
 made a horrible mistake. 
 
 Margery spoke in the highest terms of President 
 Thomas, saying that she had only met her once before 
 this occurence, and that was several years prior to her 
 entering Bryn Mawr, but that she had always retained 
 the excellent impression that Miss Thomas had made 
 on her at that time. 
 
 I have never heard her say an unkind word of any- 
 one connected with this affair. I have talked with 
 several of the girls at Bryn Mawr. One in whom I have 
 great confidence, whom I know very well and who has 
 seen a great deal of Margery during this year, assures 
 me that she is a high-grade, clear-headed girl — ^that she 
 is positive that Margery is innocent of all guilt. Other 
 girls who have known Margery for years have told me 
 the same. 
 
 I am morally certain that Margery is absolutely in- 
 nocent and that she is well above the average in clear- 
 headed intelligence and in character. 
 
 STATEMENT OF THE CASE. 
 
 Stealing in January: 
 
 On January 22nd, approximately $30 was missed 
 by various students in Pembroke West and reported i-o 
 Margaret Kennard, a Junior and Head Proctor of that 
 
 5 
 
Hall. This money was reported to have been taken be- 
 tween the hours of nine and ten in the morning, during 
 mid year Biology examination, at which time it has 
 been stated there were only four students that lived 
 in that hall who were not absent from the hall. Suspi- 
 cion centered on these students, who were Margery 
 Barker, a Sophomore; Louise Cadot, a Senior, and two 
 others. 
 
 Suspicion Centers on Margery Barker: 
 
 In answer to a question from Miss Kennard as to 
 whether she had lost any money, Margery told her "No," 
 but that evening or the next day, she told Miss Kennard 
 that she had discovered that f 11 of hers had been stolen 
 sometime during the day. Miss Kennard states she im- 
 mediately jumped to the conclusion that this was a 
 blind on the part of Margery and that Margery was the 
 thief who had taken the money. 
 
 Miss Kennard took into her confidence Miss Ma- 
 rynia Foot, Miss Louise Cadot, Miss iVtterson, the 
 housekeeper, and one of the maids. Thereafter, Mar- 
 gery's movements were carefully watched. 
 
 Marked Bill Lost: 
 
 Miss Kennard states that sometime between Janu- 
 ary 22nd and March 17th she marked a $2 bill and 
 placed it in a drawer in her room. It had been there 
 several weeks prior to March 17th, on which date Miss 
 Kennard missed this bill. She states that it disappeared 
 between the hours of 4 :30 and 5 :30 on the afternoon of 
 March 17th, while she was absent from her room. 
 
Decoy Attempted : 
 
 Early in the morning of March 23rd, Miss Cadot 
 placed a f5 bill somewhere around the desk in Miss 
 Prue Smith's sitting room. Miss jSmith's room is next 
 door to Margery Barker's. 
 
 A little before 9 A. M. on March 23rd, Margery 
 was waiting before Dean Smith's of&ce to consult with 
 the Dean regarding a matter of cuts. There was a group 
 of about six girls there and as she had arrived first, she 
 would be the first to go into the Dean's office. Miss 
 Prue Smith of Brooklyn, who roomed next to Margery, 
 asked her if she would inquire from the Dean whether 
 students might attend an Artists' Exhibition in Phila- 
 delphia that afternoon, or whether the quarantine regu- 
 lations would endure throughout vacation. 
 
 About ten minutes later when Margery went into 
 the Dean's office, she neglected to ask about the quar- 
 antine regulations and after consulting with the Dean 
 about her own matters, she went out. She then recalled 
 the favor asked of her and waited her turn to go back 
 into the Dean's office. While waiting, she heard that it 
 had been announced in Chapel that morning that the 
 quarantine would endure throughout vacation. 
 
 Prue Smith's Room : 
 
 As this gave her the information that Prue Smith 
 had asked her to secure, Margery went to Prue Smith's 
 room to leave a note for her, about 9 :25 A. M. As she 
 walked into Prue Smith's sitting room, she noticed that 
 the desk was cleared and no pencil or paper were on top 
 of it, but that there was paper in the waste basket and 
 that a large drawing board was leaning against the desk. 
 As Margery had no pencil with her, she walked into 
 
Prue Smith's bedroom and looked on top of tlie chest of 
 drawers (over which there was no mirror) in search of 
 a pencil 'Not seeing one, she opened the right hand lop 
 drawer of the chest of drawers and found a green 
 leather hand bag. This she felt without opening, ex- 
 pecting to feel a pencil. There was no pencil in it and 
 she rei3laced the bag, closed the drawer and turned to 
 leave the room. 
 
 There was a full length mirror on one wall 
 of this room and as Margery turned to leave the room, 
 she saw, reflected in the mirror, a girl in the closet who 
 was evidently watching her. Margery was very much 
 surprised but said "Hello" to the girl, who proved to 
 be Louise Cadot. Mis Cadot was evidently trying to 
 hide from Margery and kept her eyes averted, but after 
 a moment's hesitation she said "Hello" and stepped for- 
 ward to the threshold of the closet. She had some knit- 
 ting in her hands on which she worked nervously. Mar- 
 gery thought she would probably leave the room ahead 
 of her, but as she made no move to do so, Margeiy left 
 the room. 
 
 About 9 :45 in Pembroke West, Margery asked one 
 of the other students if she saw a girl hiding in the 
 closet of some one else's room would she report her. 
 The other student answered that she would talk to the 
 other girl first because, otherwise, she might get her 
 into trouble when she was entirely innocent of any 
 wrong-doing. Margery asked her what she would do if 
 it was a Senior who she did not know very well. The 
 other girl said she did not know. 
 
 Asked for Explanations: 
 
 At 11 :00 A. M. that morning, after Spanish class, 
 Margery was called by a stenographer into Dean 
 
Smitli's office. There were present : Dean Smith, Louise 
 Cadot, Marynia Foot, Margaret Kennard and a ste- 
 nographer. Margery was asked to explain her presence 
 in Prue Smith's room, which she did as stated above, 
 but without mentioning having seen Louise Cadotj 
 in the room. She was told that she was one of four 
 girls in Pembroke West who had no classes between 
 nine and ten in the morning and that she had been seen 
 going into other girls' rooms when they were out and 
 was asked to state the reasons. She said she would 
 have to know what rooms and what time, as she could 
 not think of any at the moment. She was told that they 
 could not tell her at the moment, but would get the in- 
 formation later. This interview was conducted mostly 
 by Dean Smith and lasted not more than eight minutes. 
 
 Told Matter Would be Cleared Up After Vacation: 
 
 At 12 o'clock, after English class, Margery went 
 into Dean Smith's office and found her alone. Margery 
 told Miss Smith that she was leaving for home on the 
 1 :16 train that day, but would be glad to stay at Bryn 
 Mawr to clear up the matter if she was under suspicion, 
 and particularly requested that the matter be not men- 
 tioned to her mother, whom she did not wish to be 
 worried. Dean Smith spoke very kindly and said she 
 did not think it would be necessary to tell her mother 
 and said there would be plenty of time to clear the 
 matter up after vacation. 
 
 Accused of Improperly Visiting Other Girls Rooms: 
 
 A few minutes before 12 :30 the Laboratory Assist- 
 ant came into Physics class and told the Professor that 
 Dean Smith wished to speak to Margery Barker. 
 
 9 
 
Margery reached the Dean's office about 12:30 and 
 found there: Dean Smith, Miss Adair, Miss Foot, Miss 
 Kennard and a stenographer. 
 
 She was told that she was one of the few girls free 
 at the time of the Mid Year Biology Examination when 
 $40* had been stolen from various rooms. She was 
 charged with having been seen in the rooms of the fol- 
 lowing girls at times during the preceding two months 
 when they were absent : 
 
 1. Margaret Kreck and Elsie Parson, rooming to- 
 gether. 
 
 2. Eleanor Brush and Jane B. Yeatman, rooming 
 together. 
 
 3. Prue Smith. 
 
 4. Henrietta Baldwin, 
 
 and was asked to give the reasons for her visits. She 
 answered as best she could recall at the moment. She 
 was told that stamps had been stolen between nine and 
 ten o'clock in the morning from Louise Mearn's room 
 and that they had been taken from a hiding place where 
 Margery had seen Miss Meam put them. 
 
 Margerey was asked why on that morning she had 
 visited Miss Bunch's room. She answered that Mis'S 
 Bunch, a sophomore, was a friend of hers and she had 
 gone to tell her good-bye. She was asked why she had 
 visited Miss Steven's room and gave a similar answer. 
 She was asked why she visited Miss Bolton's room and 
 she said to buy some chocolates. 
 
 This interview was conducted principally by Miss 
 
 *It is to be noted that of the f 40 named in this im- 
 plied accusation, fll had been stolen from Margery 
 herself. 
 
 10 
 
Foot and lasted about 11 minutes, and Margery was 
 left under the impression that the investigation would 
 be continued after vacation. She suggested that she 
 should remain in Bryn Mawr during vacation to clear 
 the matter up, but was told that there would be plenty 
 of time to clear it up after vacation. 
 
 Incident of $2 Bill: 
 
 After this interview, on her way back to Pembroke 
 West, Margery was overtaken by Margaret Kennard, 
 who asked her to come into her room. Miss Kennard 
 told Margery that some bills were missing and asked to 
 see Margery's money. Margery took her money from 
 her pocket and Miss Kennard immediately seized a ?2 
 bill in Margery's hand and said it was hers. Margery 
 disputed this, stating that she had gotten this bill from 
 Miss Bunch as change from the purchase of a ticket 
 the day before. Miss Kennard then gave her two one- 
 dollar bills and insisted on keeping the $2 bill, without 
 explaining why she thought it was hers. Miss Foot 
 appeared in the hall about this time, but was not a party 
 to this occurrence. This interview did not last more 
 than two minutes. 
 
 About 1 :00 P. M., on the way to her train, Margery 
 took her railroad ticket from her purse and saw on the 
 envelope containing the ticket the notation, "f48.69." 
 She immediately realized that this must have ibeen what 
 Miss Bunch had paid for her ticket; and deducting 
 this from the |50 check used by Miss Bunch, she knew 
 she had made a mistake in telling Miss Kennard that 
 she had received the two dollar bill in change from Miss 
 Bunch. The bill given her by Miss Bunch had evi- 
 dently been a f 1 bill, which she had used in paying to 
 have her trunk taken to the depot. 
 
 11 
 
A few minutes later, on lier way to the baggage 
 room, she saw Miss Bunch and went up to her, draw- 
 ing her aside from the friends she was with and asked 
 her how much change she had given her the afternoon 
 before in the Pullman envelope. Miss Bunch replied 
 that there had been a little over a dollar. Miss Bunch 
 then told Margery that Miss Kennard had asked her 
 if she had given Margery a $2 bill in change after buy- 
 ing her ticket and that she had replied that there had 
 been a one dollar bill and some change. 
 
 After checking her trunk, Margery immediately 
 went to the telephone in the station and tried to reach 
 Dean Smith, but as she failed to do so, she left a mes- 
 sage that she was writing her in regard to a mis-state- 
 ment she had made to Miss Kennard and that she would 
 mail her an important letter regarding the matter be- 
 fore night. Miss Smith did not wait to receive this 
 letter, but before leaving Bryn Mawr that night signed 
 a recommendation to President Thomas asking that 
 Margery be not permitted to return to college for the 
 present. 
 
 Miss Thomas was away from Bryn Mawr at the 
 time and was not a party to any of these occurrences. 
 
 Dismissed for Stealing: 
 
 Miss Kennard left for her home in Massachusetts 
 on the afternoon of March 23rd and wrote a letter 
 within one or two days to another student, telling her 
 that a marked two-dollar bill which had been stolen 
 had been found in the possession of Margery Barker 
 and that Margery would not be permitted to return to 
 school after vacation. 
 
 In the letter that Margery wrote Miss Smith, she 
 
 12 
 
told her she had received the two-dollar note from a 
 taxi driver on the 13th of March in change for a five- 
 dollar hill and gave Miss Smith the telephone number 
 of the taxicab company. She also mentioned two occa- 
 sions when she had visited Miss Kreck's room which 
 she had not thought of in the morning interviews. 
 
 Miss Thomas w^rote both to Mrs. Barker and to 
 Margery on the 26th of March, stating: "On account 
 of serious circumstances that took place on Wednesday, 
 March 23rd/' she thought it would be undesirablo for 
 Margery to return to college after vacation, but would 
 write her further after she had had time to look into 
 the matter. On April 2nd, she wrote Mrs. Barker tell- 
 ing her positively that Margery would not be permitted 
 to return to college. Later Margery's furniture and 
 other effects w^ere shipped back to her home. 
 
 Reconsideration Refused: 
 
 On April 2nd several friends of Margery's called on 
 Miss Thomas and endeavored to prevail on her to stop, 
 look and listen, before branding Margery as a thief, as 
 the cause of Margery's dismissal was well known among 
 the students and this was the only construction that 
 could be placed on it. Miss Thomas refused to recon- 
 sider the matter and refused the several appeals made 
 by Margery's mother to have a thorough investigation 
 made of the matter or to permit Margery to return to 
 school. 
 
 18 
 
DISCUSSION OF CASE. J 
 
 Not Conclusive that Resident Stole Money: 
 
 There is no conclusive evidence that one of the stu- 
 dents living in this Hall was the thief. Students from 
 other halls run in and out of the different halls promis- 
 cuously and no one questions them. Thej run all over 
 the place, making free use of each other's rooms, and 
 in some cases of their clothes. When something is lost 
 they search each other's rooms, even in other halls. 
 
 A student from another hall has stated that prior 
 to March 22nd of this year she studied twice in Miss 
 Kreck's room, once in Miss Coleman's room, twice in 
 Prue Smith's room and several times in Miss Bennett's 
 room, between nine and ten in the morning. All of these 
 rooms are in Pembroke West. This shows clearly that 
 students from other halls frequent that hall during 
 that hour and other hours of the day. 
 
 A Maid May Have Been the Thief: 
 
 Furthermore, there are several maids employed in 
 Pembroke West, any one of whom could readily have 
 walked into these rooms without being detected. While 
 it may be that a resident of the hall was the thief, there 
 is nothing sufficiently conclusive to justify such an as- 
 sumption. 
 
 Evidence of Honesty: 
 
 The incident of opening the drawer in Prue Smith's 
 room is not evidence of dishonesty. On the contrary it 
 is evidence of honesty. A bill was planted in Prue 
 
 14 
 
Smith's desk — ^Margery Barker was asked to do some- 
 thing that would logically and naturally cause her to 
 visit this room. She did the logical and natural thing 
 and visited the room. She did not "fall" for the f5 
 note that was planted there. She did open a drawer 
 and take up a purse containing money but did not take 
 the money. She did not even open the purse. This is 
 clear evidence that she was not looking for money; but 
 these amateur detectives were evidently so bent on prov- 
 ing Margery guilty that they construed conclusive evi- 
 dence of honesty to be evidence of guilt. 
 
 Stamps: 
 
 Louise Mearns, a Junior, told Miss Kennard and 
 told President Thomas that she had never said the 
 stamps disappeared between nine and ten o'clock. She 
 told President Thomas that she had seen a great deal 
 of Margery this year and last and that such a thing as 
 she was accused of could not be true. She also did her 
 best to impress on President Thomas that going into 
 other people's rooms was not proof of anything. 
 
 Girls' Rooms Visited: 
 
 In regard to the matter of visiting other girls' 
 rooms. Margery Barker's relations with these girls, 
 whose rooms she visited, was as follows : 
 
 1. Margaret Kreck and Elsie Parson, roommates. 
 The former is a Junior and the latter a Fresii- 
 man. She has knoT\Ti both for six years. 
 
 2. Eleanor Brush and Jane B. Yeatman, room- 
 mates. She had known these girls about a 
 year. Miss Brush is quite a friend of hers and 
 has asked Margery to visit her this Spring and 
 
stay at her home this June at the time of Miss 
 Brush's wedding. 
 
 3. Henrietta Baldwin is a Senior whom she has 
 known for three years and with whom she is 
 on terms of close friendship. Miss Baldwin 
 asked Margery to room next to her this year. 
 
 4. Prue Smith is a Junior who roomed next to 
 Margery and whom she has known for over a 
 year. 
 
 All of these girls, except Miss Baldwin, have sitting 
 rooms, and aside from the regular practice of the girls 
 in visiting each others rooms, it is entirely natural for 
 one like Margery, occupying a single room and needing 
 to study between nine and ten in the morning, to occupy 
 someone else's room while waiting for her own room to 
 be cleaned by the maids. 
 
 No one, knowing of her relations with these girls 
 and familiar with the common practice of girls visiting 
 each other's rooms at Bryn Mawr, would be justified 
 in having any suspicions aroused because of her visiting 
 the rooms of these acquaintances. 
 
 Protest from Girls : 
 
 Early in April, Miss Brush, Miss Ann Rupert and 
 Miss Louise Mearns went to see President Thomas on 
 behalf of themselves and Margaret Kreck, Eleanor Par- 
 sons and Jane Belle Yeatman and declared to Miss 
 Thomas that Margery's visiting their rooms was no 
 proof of anything and that she was welcome to visit 
 their rooms and borrow anything they had at any time 
 she chose. These girls did everything in their power 
 but were unable to prevail on Miss Thomas to give 
 Margery's case a "fair consideration." 
 
 16 
 
President Thomas stated to these girls that she 
 thought the stealing was still going on. This has been 
 confirmed from other sources. ' 
 
 Incident of the $2.00 Bill: 
 
 On March 23rd Margaret Kennard went to Dean 
 Smith and showed her a |2 bill which, Miss Kennard 
 stated, she had marked several weeks before and placed 
 in a drawer in her room. She asserted that, between 
 4 :30 and 5 :30 P. M. on the afternoon of March 17th, 
 the bill was stolen from her drawer and that she had 
 just taken it from Margery Barker. Therefore, Miss 
 Kennard reasoned, Margery Barker had stolen it and 
 this, taken in connection with the fact that Margery was 
 suspected of having stolen other money, and the fact that 
 Margery Barker had gone into Prue Smith's room that 
 morning, had walked past a desk where there was 
 money and had not taken it, and had picked up a purse 
 containing money without opening it or taking any 
 money from it; this — all taken together — proved con- 
 clusively that Margery was the thief who had been 
 operating in Pembroke West and that she should be dis- 
 missed from college. She stated that Margery had told 
 her that she had got this $2 bill in change from Miss 
 Bunch, but that Miss Bunch had since told Miss Ken- 
 nard she only gave Margery a one dollar bill. To her, 
 this w^as further proof of Margery's dishonesty. She 
 did not stoj) to consider that in the six days that had 
 elapsed since she thought she had lost the bill, there 
 was ample time for the bill to have w^andered all over 
 college and all over the tow^n of Bryn Mawr. 
 
 17 
 
The Verdict: 
 
 Notwithstanding the inadequacy of such evidence, 
 Miss Smith accepted Miss Kennard's point of view. 
 Without waiting to hear from Margery, without seeing 
 her, and without any teacher or oflBlcial of the College 
 discussing the matter with Margery, Miss Smith wrote 
 President Thomas recommending Margery's dismissal 
 from college. Before Miss Thomas even received such 
 a recommendation, Margaret Kennard wrote another 
 student, telling her that Margery had been found with a 
 marked bill on her and would not be permitted to re- 
 turn to College. 
 
 When Miss Smith received the letter from Margery 
 telling her that the latter had made a mistake as to 
 where she had obtained this |2 bill, that she had re- 
 ceived it from a taxi driver, and telling her how to ver- 
 ify this from the taxi driver himself, no attempt was 
 made to investigate this, because Margery said this bill 
 was received from the taxi driver on March 13th and 
 Miss Kennard had said she lost the f2 bill in question 
 on the 17th of March. 
 
 Premature Conclusions: 
 
 Evidently, from the time Miss Kennard jumped 
 to the conclusion that Margery was guilty in January, 
 she took into her confidence these other people who have 
 been mentioned and their entire efforts have been cen- 
 tered not on finding the real thief, but on proving that 
 Margery was the thief. She was the only one of several 
 girls, who might have been suspected, whose money was 
 examined before she left college. 
 
 Every time she visited a room, the worst possible 
 construction was put on it with the result that these 
 amateur detectives worked themselves into the frame 
 
 18 
 
of mind that she was guilty and all that was necessary 
 was to prove her guilt. On the 23rd of March they 
 planted a |5.00 bill and made a deliberate attempt to 
 trap Margery. This failed so far as any wrong doing 
 on Margery's part was concerned, although she did what 
 was expected of her, so far as any normal, obliging, 
 honest girl would have done. She went to Prue Smith's 
 room and endeavored to leave a note. However, these 
 amateur detectives could not see this thing in its proper 
 light. Their brains were working overtime to prove 
 Margery guilty and even evidence of innocence they con- 
 strued as evidence of guilt. 
 
 What Probably Did Occur: 
 
 ^„ As there is conclusive evidence that Margery was 
 nat/Jn the hall during the time when Miss Kennard says 
 the bill disappeared, then Margery could not have taken 
 it. However, as the taxi driver has stated in writing 
 that he did give Margery a |2.00 bill on the 13th of 
 March, and as Margery has no recollection of receiving 
 any other $2.00 bill and there is no record of her hav- 
 ing received any other |2.00 bill, then it seems probable 
 that Miss Kennard's bill disappeared prior to March 
 13th, reached the taxi driver in some way and, through 
 him, came into Margery's possession. This is all on the 
 assumption that the hill taken by Miss Kennard from 
 Margery was really the one that the former had marked 
 and lost — an assumption resting entirely upon Miss 
 Kennard^s unsupported statements. It should be noted 
 that from the date the bill was missed by Misis Kennard 
 every expenditure made by Margery was watched by the 
 amateur detectives, which precludes the possibility of 
 her having spent the bill recei\'ed from the taxi driver 
 during that period. 
 
 19 
 
It is more than probable that Miss Kennard put 
 the 12.00 bill in her drawer and for some days or weeks 
 watched it carefully, hoping and expecting to see it dis- 
 appear, but as it lay there for some time and nothing 
 happened she became weary of her watchfulness and 
 ceased to inspect it and then some day prior to March 
 13th, it was either stolen or possibly she may have in- 
 advertently used it herself. However, she did not miss 
 it until March 17th, and then immediately jumped to 
 the conclusion that it had been stolen on that day dur- 
 ing the athletic meet when she and many of the other 
 girls were out of the hall. As Margery was lame at that 
 time, she assumed that Margery was in the hall and 
 had taken the money. 
 
 Unreliability of Miss Kennard's Statements: 
 
 There are indications that Miss Kennard^s memory 
 is not of the best and therefore her statements are not 
 entirely reliable. The mind of a girl of twenty does not 
 operate as an instrument of precision and, therefore, 
 her evidence in matters as serious as this should be taken 
 only after careful investigation and analysis. 
 
 In one interview, Miss Thomas stated that Miss 
 Kennard had said that the money had been stolen be- 
 tween 4 :30 and 5 :30 on March 17th. In a later inter- 
 view Miss Thomas stated that Miss Kennard had 
 changed her statement and had asserted that the money 
 had been stolen between 4 :30 and 6 :30 that afternoon. 
 In conversation with' another student regarding this 
 matter, Miss Kennard was very indefinite as to the time 
 the |2.00 bill disappeared, but stated that "she thought 
 it must have disappeared during the athletic meet on 
 March 17.'^ 
 
 20 
 
Miss Kennard further stated tliat Miss BuncL. ap- 
 proached Margery first at the station and told her she 
 had not given her a |2.00 bill, whereas Miss Bunch has 
 written a letter stating that Margery approached her 
 first. This is another indication of inaccuracy on the 
 part of Miss Kennard. 
 
 Had Miss Kennard taken the precaution of making 
 careful inquiry among Margery's associates she would 
 have learned beyond any question of doubt that Mar- 
 gery was not in the hall at the time she thinks this 
 money was stolen. 
 
 ATTITUDE OF THE COLLEGE: 
 
 The college apparently adopted the recommenda- 
 tions of Miss Kennard and her associates without any 
 investigation or analysis as to how they arrived at their 
 conclusions, dismissed Margery on one-sided, circum- 
 stantial, prejudiced evidence, without even discussing 
 the matter with any one but those who had participated 
 in building up the case against her, giving her no oppor- 
 tunity for a hearing. 
 
 Before taking final action, it is stated, the college 
 looked into Margery's past record and secured data 
 covering almost her entire life — all to her credit. But 
 even this did not cause the college to hesitate or to an- 
 alyze the matter at all before condemning her. It is 
 therefore proper to assume that they were looking for 
 evidence of guilt, not of honesty, something to back up 
 their original assumption that Margery was a thief. 
 Not finding it, they threw this evidence into the discard. 
 
 21 
 
Bolstering a Weak Position : 
 
 Since the question has been raised as to the pro- 
 priety of Margery's dismissal, the college, instead of 
 facing the issue frankly and endeavoring to learn the 
 truth, has "clamped the lid down tight.'' It has in- 
 structed students not to discuss the matter nor to sign 
 any papers on the subject, and has refused to permit 
 Margery or her friends outside of college to interview 
 any of the girls concerned in her dismissal. It evidently 
 prevented Miss Foot from keeping an appointment to 
 see her. 
 
 In an effort to bolster up a weak position, the col- 
 lege has stated that there were other reasons for her 
 dismissal that made her an undesirable student. The 
 college is responsible for the natural consequence of 
 its own acts. The natural consequence of dismissing 
 this girl' at this time, under the circumstances, is to 
 brand her as a thief. The entire student body is ac- 
 quainted with the actions taken by the college in its 
 efforts to find the thief. It knows that Margery was 
 under suspicion. Regardless of any other reasons given 
 by the college, the natural construction that has been 
 and will be placed on the college's action in not allow- 
 ing Margery's return is that she has been adjudged 
 guilty of theft. 
 
 None of the other "reasons" which have been ad- 
 vanced for her dismissal are based on facts, but are 
 largely matters of opinion or guesses, evidently worth- 
 less, introduced to support a weak case built on in- 
 tangible evidence — ^the kind of evidence which was used 
 for hanging women as witches some years ago in Massa- 
 chusetts — the kind of evidence that is sometimes used to 
 damage the reputation of good people in small village 
 communities. 
 
 22 
 
^'Reasons": 
 
 Among these "reasons", it is stated that she has a 
 tendency to he depressed more than most people. Sym- 
 pathetic and sensitive people are at times inclined to be 
 depressed more than the phlegmatic sort. The "Great 
 Carpenter" was known as a "Man of Sorrows." 
 
 Another "reason" is that she had frequent head- 
 aches. Many good people have headaches. Margery's 
 headaches were due to sinus trouble, which has been 
 cured. 
 
 It is further stated that to reinstate Margery would 
 not be "fair" to the other girls — that it would injure 
 them in some way. The truth is just the reverse of this. 
 Her dismissal as it has been conducted is unfair to all 
 the students and is an injury to them, in their relations 
 to the College, that can only be amended by her proper 
 reinstatement. 
 
 She has also been accused of extravagance, espe- 
 cially in the matter of horseback riding. The total 
 amount of money expended by her since September for 
 horse back riding was less than |15.00. It has been 
 intimated that she was so extravagant that her allow- 
 ance could not cover her expenditures and therefore she 
 had to steal. Those responsible for such an argument 
 did not stop to consider that all the money stolen dur- 
 ing the year, if added to her monthly allowance, would 
 not have been sufficient to make an appreciable differ- 
 ence in her expenditures. It would have increased her 
 total revenue for the school year by less than four per 
 cent, and increased her daily spending power from #3.33 
 to 13.44. 
 
 All of this goes to show that there has been a ten- 
 dency to manufacture evidence against this girl out of 
 trivial gossip. 
 
 23 
 
Responsibility of the College : 
 
 The clear duty of a college is constructive. It is 
 supposed to help, not to hinder, and above all it should 
 protect its students and especially their most valuable 
 asset, their reputations and characters. 
 
 Margery Barker entered Bryn Mawr having a good 
 moral reputation. It was one of the entrance require- 
 ments. By the careless way in which this matter has 
 been handled her reputation has been seriously injured 
 and her future standing with the public is bound to be 
 injured unless this matter is cleared up immediately. 
 
 SUMMARY. 
 
 Bryn Mawr College has permitted one student to 
 serve in the many sided capacities of Chief of Police, 
 Detective, Prosecuting Attorney, Judge and Jury and 
 to pronounce a fellow- student guilty of theft. 
 
 The College has held a star chamber session and 
 approved the finding of this combination Chief of Po- 
 lice, Detective, Prosecuting Attorney, Judge and Jury, 
 without giving the condemned girl a hearing; without 
 a single teacher or officer of the school taking the trouble 
 to discuss the matter with her and without making a 
 serous attempt to verify the evidence which was known 
 to be of a very doubtful, prejudiced and circumstantial 
 character. By this act, the College has done a serious 
 injury to one of its students and has broken faith with 
 the mother who has entrusted her daughter to its care. 
 
 Regardless of the formal reasons given for her dis- 
 missal and of all technicalities in the matter, the cir- 
 cumstances and handling of the case have been such as 
 
 24 
 
to give the dismissal of Margery Barker the effect of 
 publicly branding her as a thief. 
 
 The offense for which she is unjustly punished was 
 not of a character that endangered the life of any indi- 
 vidual or involved the risk of serious loss of property — 
 therefore there was no reason or excuse for hasty action 
 without conclusive evidence. 
 
 The evidence on which this young girl was con- 
 victed could not have stood in any criminal court in the 
 land against a prisoner at the bar with a known crim- 
 inal record. 
 
 The arbitrary, star chamber methods used in brand- 
 ing this girl as a thief on inadequate circumstantial evi- 
 dence presented by a fellow-student, without giving the 
 accused girl a chance even to discuss the matter for 
 which she was dismissed w^ith one of the teachers or 
 officers of the school, is contrary to all Anglo-Saxon 
 institutions and traditions and is' a serious blot on the 
 college management. 
 
 It is impossible for the College to apply a full and 
 complete remedy for the wrong which has already been 
 done Miss Barker. A partial remedy, however, is pos- 
 sible. That remedy is to ask her to return to College 
 immediately and to announce publicly to the student 
 body that, through a serious mistake, a great wrong has 
 been done her. Nothing short of such action will serve 
 to mitigate the wrong already done and even this will 
 not make amends for the mental anguish and suffering 
 to which she and her family have been put. Not only 
 is such action a duty to Miss Barker and her family, 
 but it is needed to strengthen and improve the standing 
 of the college with its student body and with all others 
 who are familiar with the facts. 
 
 9'r 
 
t: 
 
April 19, 1921. 
 
 Miss M. Carey Thomas, President, 
 Bryn Mava- Collcige, 
 Bryn Mav/r, ?enna. 
 
 My dear Miss Thomas: 
 
 before due to n^ .^slZ "^lulst^^J^' 'T^lJ^' ""'l '^"" acKnuwled,.d 
 copies of your two iKtt t^ rn f J^^^^'^f^* ^ ^^ank you for sending me the 
 
 None Of thes/ie: e I : ^JX^ofthrsr/'*" ''"'^"^^* "^ ^^^^^ ^-^• 
 you have issued to the student wo, ^f. ^ ^"^^ ^^" statement which 
 
 by them as meaning hat Mis^ Barker; '."?".''' '^^oumstanoes, be construed 
 possibly be due .f innct^riJl!;:: ;,:: LT^ftter^L^" ^^^ "^ ^'^^^ ^ ^^^ 
 
 this matter and permtt mll'T^^-l to'^^eturn L^'^'i f '° ^^ ^'^'^ ^° reconsider 
 must realize that T An r,nl\-t . 1 return to college imnediately. you 
 v/ould. rherefore Lfm^o tM X'^^^e^^-' ^" associate with a thief Ind 
 ious v.ong had tcerLrMisl Ba4r' '' ' ''' "' '"' ''"' ' "'" 
 
 take had been made, v;h^or-.;rd\epirrL-ett:d'''"H '"'^ *'"' " ^^^^""= ^^^- 
 return to coilegu at once vlr !?;^ rc.£,iettfcd, and that Miss Barker was to 
 
 and the approvaTof all S; hers who ^"^1^"^! "''"'"'^ ^''"^^^^ ''''' ^^^-^^^ 
 
 this matter in voui- atsp^""" ^ill^appen, tut the serious mistake in handling 
 
 be excusab e if"^ r. r ui::j;t S ^.T '" ^"%' '''''' '' ''''' ^^'^^'^ --'" 
 once. resultant injury was. as far as possible, corrected at 
 
 have taken, you viu'nof" f" inlJ'Tr ' '"''" ''" """'^ """^'^ P^^^^i"" ^"-^ 
 on Bryn Havr! Vnis matt .r i« ?'' ^''' ^''^''"^'" ^"' ^'^^^ ^^^^1^°^ fireat injury 
 but .L.,. o^^TlJ^l^JZi^s^^'l^J^ v.-hero Brynliwr is k^o-L", 
 family no alternative tut to si^hn? fSi v. f^^^^*^"" leaves her and her 
 facta. It is true that l.hn^ f ^ publicity is given to ail of the 
 
 but you have doL wo^t /J^utl^e'herd" iT^'^^'T'''' "^"'"^^ ""''' barker, 
 the maximum penalty without^ivIL- ^^^ star-chamter seosion and inflicted 
 
 Without firs? taki;;;tL'^"o^ut^\^^1:l^t:^s^y";i:Lrf.'^'^"' ^^^^^^^^^ -^ 
 
 Of playing fast and loose wifh^rhe^^Lr' ^'^'' '^' ^'^^^^^ in the positi 
 
 trusted to its care a^rvir^ii' aoinr.^f^ "'J '"'"'' ""' " ^^^^ ^''' ' 
 ttuu virtually aoing all in its pov/er to wi-eck her lif, 
 
Miss M. Carey Thomas. 
 April 19, 1921. 
 
 « 2 « 
 
 It is possible that technically you have, as you told 
 me, the power to deiaand any student to leave the college without stating 
 your reasons, but you have no moral right to do so under the circumstances 
 and I firmly believe that if these people' take this matter into court, as 
 I certainly would do if it were my daughter, it will not only reflect to 
 the discredit of the college but will cost it a substantial amount of 
 money . 
 
 The fact that before rsy daughter had definitely decided 
 to enter Bryn Mawr and before I had any direct interest there, I endorsed 
 and contributed to the inovemant in this corimunity for an endor-ment fund, 
 established my status as a friend of t he college. As such and as one 
 directly interested through the enrollment of my daughter as a student, 
 I feel it my right and my duty to ask your serious reconsideration of an 
 action which, under all the circumstances, must tend to shake the confi- 
 dence in the college of those who are familiar with the matter. 
 
 If the God of the Universe takes thought of even the 
 sparrow that falls to the ground, it would seem that the President of a 
 college can afford to be certain beyond the peradventure of a doubt 
 before fixing a permanent and disgraceful stigma upon one of her students. 
 
 Very trvly yours, 
 H. B. Rust 
 
April 5, 1921, 
 
 Miss M. Carey Thomas, 
 president, Brjoi Mav/r College, 
 Bryn Liavr, penna. 
 
 My dear Miss Thomas: 
 
 Referring to my conversation v/ith you Saturday, regardless of who 
 is to blame and of all technicalities to the contrary, in the opinion of the 
 student body at Bryn Hav/r, one of their number has been placed on trial for a 
 serious offense. The maximum penalty for one found guilty of such an offense 
 is, I judge, dismissal from college. If this young girl is not permitted to 
 return to college, in the opinion of the public, she will have been found 
 guilty and will have received the maximum penalty for such an offense. 
 
 You cannot afford to punish her as though she were guilty, on incom- 
 plete evidence, as you thereby run the risk of doing serious permanent injury 
 to a young girl entrusted to your care. You v/ould also' set a low standard of 
 right and wrong for the other students by failing to impress on them the nec- 
 essity of always being just. 
 
 Sue is one of three things: 
 
 1. V/holly innocent. 
 
 2. Morally deficient, 
 
 3. Mentally deficient. 
 
 If she is guilty through moral deficiency and is permitted to return 
 because of incomplete evidence, within a short time, vdth a recurrence of the 
 offense, the case would be proven and you could then properly dismiss her. On 
 the other hand, if the offense is not committed again, you v/ill have accomplish- 
 ed her reform. If she is guilty because of mental deficiency, it v/ill occur 
 again and you could then dismiss her. The offense is not of a character that 
 endangers the life of any individual or involves the risk of serious loss of 
 property. Therefore, there is no reason for action without conclusive evidence. 
 
 If she is not permitted to return now, you v/ill Le taking substan- 
 tially, the position that it is preferable to risk vn-ecking the standing and 
 character of a young girl rather than to risk losing a small amount of money. 
 There is no other rational way to view this thing. 
 
 If, for reasons other than those under discussion you do not consider 
 her a desirable person to' be retained as a member of your student body, you 
 cannot affora at this time to dismiss her, as you thereby inflict punishment 
 and its consequent stigma for an offense of a very different kind. 
 
Ml a a ghoroas ; 
 
 I wish to make it clear to you that my daughter is not responsible 
 for my taking this matter up with yoti* The little girl under suspicion 
 telegraphed me direct and asked me to ivlre you, but I thought I would 
 prefer to go to Bryn Hblmt and talk to you. 
 
 I was convinced that there was no conclusive evidence against 
 the child and that is why I asked for a fev; minutes of your time. I did 
 not for a moment desire to interfere with your affairs, but did feel that 
 if a totally disinterested person oould take tv;o days of his time in an 
 endeavor to assist in securing justice for one of your students v. ith whom 
 he had only a casi;al acouaintance that you oould v/ell afford to discuss 
 the matter with him for a few minutes. 
 
 Yours very truly, 
 (Signed) H« B- Rust