The Emporia news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1859-1881, 1878-09-13
THE BANCROFT CASE.


day was taken up with empanneling a
jury, which was at last accomplished as
follows: Edward Davis, J. J. Swan,
William Burns, Philip II. Horst, Rich
ard Hughes, w. o. Ferguson, o. NJ.
johnson, NJ. c. Stark, Hugh williams,
W. H. McNIullen, 7. Mcdonald, John T.
Galbreth. Gillett & Forde, Attorney
General Davis and J. II. Crichton are
acting for the prosecution, and Ruggles,
Scott s. Lynn for the defense. On Tues
day morning testimony for the prosecu-
ton began TO be taken, J. H. CrichtOn
being the first witness called to the
stand
He stated that he resided at Chetopa,
Labette county, Kansas. That he had
been appointed Regent of the State Nor
NAL school in 1873 and first attended
meetings of the Board in 1874. CTesti-
mony continued later)
H. c. Cross testified in substance as
follows:
Had "A conversation with Bancroft
early in 1873; called on him to notify
him of his appointment by the new
board. The executive committee, DIR.
Hoss and witness, had been authorized
to appoint an agent. Bancroft said he
had an appointment from the old board of
directors. Had not less than three other
conversations with defendant about Nor
NAL lands; he said the lands were APP
praised too high and they could not be
1 sol 10 a, l. 4 L 4
not sold any; witness knew of no sales
being made; resigned January or Feb
ruary 1877, DIR. Wright being appointed ;
discussed in board that no sales were
made; last conversation with Bancroft
was in Nov, 1876; always left impress
sion that no sales were made. Board
talked of re-appraising lands; talked of
bond, but thought that if defendant sold
no land there was no use of taking his
bond. In November conversation we
were talking of the necessity for the sale
of lands; he made the same statement
as before. Witness thought he knew
signature of defendant. Was shown va
rious contracts and receipts the sigma
ture and body of which instruments he
thought were in the handwriting of the
defendant, but could not say positively.
DIR. PomerOy was called and sworn.
He testified that he had been President
of the Normal school since the winter of
1873 and 1874; was, up to the spring of
| 1877, eX-officio member of the Board of
Regents. Witness was asked what posi-
| ton Bancroft held with reference to the
sale of Normal school lands. Question
was objected to on the ground that it was
indefinite as to time. Objection over,
ruled. Witness said at the beginning of
his connection with the Normal, Ban
croft was agent for the sale of lands, and
continued so until his (BancrOft's) re.
moval. In the spring of 1875 Mr.. Pom
erOy called at Bancroft's Office, and asked
him whether those lands were being sold d:
Bancroft said there was no demand for
them, and no sales. Witness had spec
iai reasons for asking this questiOn-was
at the time satisfied with its answer; had
been Secretary of the Board of Regents
| during all the time of his membership
in it, also member of the executive com.
mittee. The question, what were the
duties of the executive committee with
reference to land sales ~ was objected to
by the defense, and discussion ensued.
Held by the court that the record re
quired by law was the best evidence to
determine the duties of the Board. Lynn
& Scott raised the question whether the
executive committee had any right to con
trolthe sale Ofthe land. Claimed that that
power was vested by statute in the Board
as body, and that they could not dele
gate it to a smaller number, except as
the law provided for the appointment Of
an agent. 1t was unjust that Bancroft
should be bound by his statements to in
dividual members of the Board. If thai
was so, the State should also be bound
by their acts as individuals. Gillett
thought it was universal rule of prac
tice to appoint subcommittee to dc
business for larger body, their acts be
ing valid when afterwards ratified by
that body. Davis took the same ground
| NlAC vi ldDOI IL
the Supreme court, board of county com
missiOners, &c. The ruling of the cour
was that the board had right to appoint
any one as Il committee, their acts to BIZ
ratified by the board Gillett offered il
evidence so much of the record of pro
ceedlngs of the board as embodied the
following facts:
list, on January 18th, 1867, page so i
was decided that the disposal of the lands
be left for the year to the discretion O
the executive committee, subject to hold
or sell, according to their Judgment
March %, 1871, page 67O at which time
E. P. Bancroft, S. B. Riggs and H. Ban
croft were the executive committee, thai
committee was instructed to examine the
question of the sale of lands, and repor
at the next meeting of the board. Jan
uary 18th, 1872, page 49, on motion o.
III. ID. McCarty, the subject of the sale O
lands was referred to the committee. will
instructions to prepare a bill embOdyins
their recommendations, to present to thu
Legislature. March 9Th, 1872, (page SO,
the executive committee were instructed
to place the lands in market, in accord
ance with a law passed by the Legisla
ture. May 9th, 1878, page 1867 the ex
ecutive committee were instructed to EN-
: ploy E. P. Bancroft as agent for the sal
of lands, provided he could be had a
satisfactory terms.
CDR. POmeroy. (-Testimony of the wit
ness was continued. He said that h,
went to see Bancroft with atwo-fold pur
pose. He had private purpose, and al
so had in view the interests of the school
He went to satisfy his own mind; his &C
; was official only in view of the fact o
his position; although he did design I,
use the information gained to report I,
} the board. CNO ross-examination.)
Judge Ruggles, for the defense, nov
asked the court to throw out as ineOm
petent all the evidence given, basing hi
argument on the following grounds
: This prosecution was first institutes
March 3rd, 1878. Section 80 of the stat
ute of limitations establishes that prose
cution for crime must be commence,
within two years after its commission
lnrovidad lCao lQA that tI,s ,,,;,,;v,.I ,,,,,