The Hillsdale standard. [volume] (Hillsdale, Mich.) 1851-1909, 1878-02-26


would be justihable. Douglas saved;
Rose thrust out, branded as thief
without a trial-turned over-already
prejudiced 20 the tender mercies Of
Judge Huhtington--shackled by the
action OF the Regents the crippled
scape goat pleading in ironsl Was
this justp Is this equality or legal
usage? At this untimely June meeting
Regent Grant introduced the following:
Resolred, That the executive committee Le,
and are hereby instructed TO take immediate
steps for commencing suit against Preston
| B Rose. 20 recover from him the amount OF
money claimed 10 be In his hands and 20 be-
long 10 the University, aud 10 proceed 10 a
trlal or hearing Of the same at the earliest
practicable moment, at the present June term
Of court. II possible
This was, of course, adopted.
In contrast with this note. the fol-
lowing. introduced on the same day by
the venerable Z. @. Walker, Regent:
Rssolccd, That the finance committee 10
settling the amount due Prof Douglas from
the University, prot. Douglas having con-
sented therelo), charge him with the amount
I Of the deposit money reported due from him
In the report OF the committee made this day.
subject 10 correction by any future legal de-
/ clsiOn as 20 the genulneness Of bis INITIAL
]
question growing ont OF laboratory accounts.
This was adopted. Indeedl "ProE.
| Douglas haring conDnt6d therefor Such
consideration Such tendernessl This
man. through whose svarice or negli-
geuce oil our loss and trouble had
grown, "having consented thereto"
This was in the same strain as the
December, 70, resolution Of the same
Regent;
"Resolced. That eenJormably pin ne re-
guest Of Prof. s H. Douglas, etc.
All our relations with this distinguish
ed gentleman must be at his request,
rather than in the interest OF common
honesty.
The committee found Rose guilty 10
the extent OF 81, S32. .65, and Douglas q
defaulter to the amount OF Sl.l74.65.
On the evening OF June 10, 1876, / in
troduced the following, accepting, for
my purpose, the one-sided report Of
the McGowan-Grant committee:
WHEREAS. The Board OF Regents have this
day. by vote. expelled Preston b. Rose for al
legged retention Of University funds ia lis
hands, 10 the amount Of SI3S2. 65; and
WHEKEAs, IL appears from the report OF
the committee that there Il also IN the hands |
OF Silas II. Douglas funds 10 n considerable |
amount-to-wlt. Sl.i7l 65-which belong 10
the UniyersarY, and that portions OF the total
amount in the hands Of said Douglas have
been retained by said Douglas for several
years past; and
WHEREAS. PURTHEH. II Is evident that he
has been recreant 10 the trust fepOsed In him,
10 that he has, by his own confession. habit
ually neglected 10 examine the accounts Of
the laboratory; therefore
Rssolued That sllas n. Douglas be aud he
Is hereby dismissed from service in the Unl-
yeisity
The vote stood:
ATE-Regents Rynd and Clinic.
NAY-McGowan, Grant. Il. @. Walk
er, s. s. Walker.
The MCGOWAN committee had nd-
judged both defaulters. We asked
then 10 treat both as such. The above
vas the answer. We were told by
Regent that "the difference between
them was that existing between q thief
aud an honest man." Rose the thief,
Douglas the saint-and this was equal.
ity.
EVERY AVENUE or ESCAPE CUT OPT.
II was not enough to expel this man
Rose, covered with disgrace; every
avenue OF escape must be cut OF. Re
gent L. G. Walker denied him the
means OF vindication. as follows:
Res0lced That the resolution passed by the
Board OF Regents NJ their late December
meeting. permitting Prot Rose TO make cop
les Of the records Of the Board. be aud the
same is hereby rescinded aud made void.
This was our idea Of equality. Rose
may be honest, but we do not propose
TO give him the means OF vindication.
The books are denied him. He is 10
be treated hepceforth "a n vagabond on
the earth. Douglas afforded all the
books, reports and papers Of the Uni
versity, and 81, 900 per year 10 aid in
his vindication, and in the ruin Of the
| crippled assistant. Is this the equali-
~ we hear so much Of at present? Was
this putting them on the same footingp
Study the pictured Rose wandering
about detected and forlorn-his family
| depending on the kindly charity of
those whose hearts God had touched,
for bread; the director supported by
the Regents and furnished the sinews
Of war for the utter ruin Of Rosel And
we call this justicel Oh, Godl how
| long shall injustice and fraud trample
| out the poor but honest man and sti1e
his piteous appeal for fair plsyl
Nr. Beal at this period gave o bond
10 secure the University, pending the
resnlts OF suit in law. Here is his
affidavit, which shows the understand
ing:
(Mr. Beai's affidavit shows that the
bond was given with the understand
! ing that suit in law, with jury trial,
should be Immediately commenced and
/ pushed 20 q conclusion, and that be
only agreed 10 sign the stipulation for
the interlocatory decree by the private
assurance that Judge Huntington
would not sit on the case il he could
procure another Judge, &c, kc)
j believe this has never been ques.
| toned. The very fact that suit in
/ law was commenced affords internal
evidence Of the truth of Beal's state
ments. A part OF the executive com
mittee without the consent OF General
Cuicheon) could not trust n jury in a
case involving the charge OF forgery
/ Tie situation was becoming critical.
On being notified by the coun,el for
DIR. Rose that he was ready for action,
the combined artillery Of tho Regents
and the Douglas was withdrawn from
the jury point Of attack, and was di-
ree,ed toward the fling Of
/ An INFAMOUS BILL IN CuANCEhY.
This chanccIy bill was carefully
worded. Legal ingenuity had taxed
itself 20 the utmost 20 condemn Rose
and furnish Douglas a means Of escape.
The court is told that Rose had fraud
ulently appropriated, &c.;" is prayed
20 not find more against Douglas than
"his credit for advances" and 10 save
him from the loss Of any money which
Douglas had paid TO the Regents, and
"N hich he had not received from de-
fondant Rose" Read the bill Study
It's dishonesty! An equitable bill thisl
Douglas honestl-his leading lawyer
! (Mr. Kinne) acting as the solicitor Of
the Regents in a suit against his own
admitted client.
Rose IraUd-erpelled; Douglas paid
$500 per year TO aid him in his
trouble, his attorney in the empoly OF
the executive committee Of the Re
gents; n jury trial denied him; Rose
and his alleged forgeries 10 be passed
upon by Judge Huntington, based on
the prayer Of the partnership chancery
bill of the Regents and the Director
the bill never ordered by the Board;
an able lawyer on the committee who
refused TO be the tool of the compnIt
/ Gen. Cutcheon) never consulted, and
I wat flfa rnsarralfa s.rtt,f.~~t.