“I hope Professor X’s memory is usually more reliable than this. No question of salary was involved. Frankly, I do not _know_ what was involved. I was on leave of absence, in the East. My leave of absence covered the academic year 1919-20. Toward the middle of the year, finding that I was anxious to remain in the East another year, I asked the college authorities for an extension of my leave for another year. You can see that that request involved no financial obligation on the part of the college, as I was on leave without pay and merely asked for a continuance of that status for another year. That was the whole question. Moreover, the college authorities were never courteous enough to tell me what had happened in the case. However, a friend in the faculty who knew of the discussions wrote me that the council felt that in view of the general situation it was best for me not to come back to the college, and that therefore extending my leave would be an empty form. Those are the facts.” ----- Next for the state university. Here we have to deal with a “war case.” I do not plan to make use of “war cases” as such, for I realize that intolerance in war time becomes what Barrows of California said it ought to be—a virtue. The only war cases to which I shall refer are those in which the war was a pretext, and the real motive was to get rid of an enemy of the plutocracy. My investigations indicate that this kind of war case constitutes one hundred per cent of the total. There may have been some professors in American universities and colleges who sympathized with the German Kaiser and desired to see him win; all I can say is that I have not come upon such a case.