2 . 
opportunity had occurred, voted on that side of the question. I agree 
with you in thinking that the final action of the Union was a mistake- 
not only of principle but even of policy, for I believe that the case 
came within our jurisdiction, that the grounds for expulsion were suf¬ 
ficient, and that the risk we ran was less than that which we have now 
incurred. There is much truth in what you wrote me to the effect that 
Dr.Shufeldt may prove to be more dangerous as a member than he could 
have been as an outsider-provided of course that his expulsion could 
have been accomplished on technically just grounds. 
But beyond this point our views diverge. It does not seem to 
me to have been either right or wise after deciding that the Union had 
no jurisdiction to add, to the formal motion to that effect, a statement 
that "the Union has evidenoe to show that the charges x*x are substantial¬ 
ly true as alleged". What -would be thought of a judge who should say , 
"This court has no jurisdiction in the present case but I have looked 
over the evidence and I am convinced that the prisoner is guilty"? Yet 
obviously the action of the Union was scarcely less extreme. By "no 
jurisdiction" I suppose the Union must have meant that the nature of the 
charges was such that we had no right to take up the case. If we had 
not this right what business had we to examine the evidence-still more 
to pass our verdict on it? 
Presumably.the underlying motive was to back up you and Dr. 
Merriam. If so the principle was right enough for inasmuch as the case 
was made up with the knowledge-and to a large extent the approval, 
