The Evansville daily journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ia. [i.e. Ind.]) 1848-1862, 1858-09-30
BLOOMINGTON, Ind, Sept. n, 1853.


Nh. EDITOR: Ny attention has been called
TO two column article, which appeared in
the Enquirer of the 10th inst. in which the
writer attempts to demolish citizen of our
town, for the benefit of the Rev Dr. William
NJ. Daily; and it is to correct some Of the
errors into which he has fallen, that write.
That writer speaks very positively, from
which it may be inferred by some, that he
knows what he says to be true; but either
his information is faulty, or he has wilfully
written falsely.
The prosecution before the Board Of Trus-
tees against DR.. Daily, was commenced in
the name Of one of our most respectable
citizens. There were eleven charges filed;
some of them the Board refused to iuvesti-
gate. Among the latter was one that DR..
Daily was q common liar. Whether We are
60 understand from the actions of the Board
IN this matter, that it would be no objection
TO President of their University, for him to
be a common liar, is a question which /
leave to others to decide.
An investigation of some of the charges
was had, and Dr. Daily was acquitted by the
Board. Ut is due to Hon. James Hughes
that they were not present at that meeting
of the Board.
There was one charge for plagiarism,
under which it was shown that DR.. Daily
had taken whole pages of one of his Bacca-
laureates from the writings of another,
without giving that writer credit for the
same. This, however, IN the opinion Of the
Board, does not constitute plagiarism; but
whether that opinion is correct or not is an
open question. f-a
There was charge that Dr.. Daily was
dishonest that he would not pay his debts,
and that he boosted that be would not
This charge was sustained by the testimony
of three or four witnesses of unimpeachable
standing and veracity. But three or four
witnesses swearing to the same fact, did not,
an the opinion Of the Board, establish the
truth of that fact Perhaps the same
amount of testimony would have satisfied
an ordinary jury, but, for the, Board, it was
not enough.
DR.. Daily was charged with having made
indecent propositions to two females both
of whom came forward and testified to the
truth of the charges. One of them had
proved to be a woman of bad moral charac-
ter, the other IS a maid, against whom
nothing has ever been said, before she in
formed her friend and guardian, that DR..
Daily had made such proposals to her.
Since then, his partisans haze. been very
active in trying to defame her. In her case
the DR.. tried TO prove an qli6i, and failed to
do it. am informed by an attorney that,
in a case of that kind, the prcsulnptious are
all against the defendant z-ze--
Again, the DIR. was said to be Incompetent
to discharge the duties of the President Of
The University, in a manner creditable to
the institution, and it was further alleged
that he was no discipiinarian. To establish
the truth Of these allegations his own
students were placed upon the witncs:
stand, and when under oath, they where
compelled 10 acknowledge that they were
true. But On these allegations there wa:
quite conflict of testimony, and it may b.
that a tribunal which IS slow to runisb
would have been apt to have found for tn
defendant. However this may be, tn
Board did not think that any of the charge
were true, and of course they ought to hav
done just as they did. 1t is true that the
passed resolution in which they in etfeC
tell DR.. DAILY that he must not steal an
more of his lectures or Baccalaureates; br
that does not imply, by any means, that h
IVES gasilty Of anything of the kind; at lea'
nobody would think 81 except those VII