Daily Republican., 1880-04-21
FIFTH EDITIov
MIR. MAJORS CAgE

the Proeeedings Of the I,,,
Conference TO-dRy-The ann
Gaze orihe Rev. william xs,p rrsAi
Continued from the first Edition. ~
When the resdiug Of tho rtso,s.
testimonies IN the Major apnss, NlT' ana ana
before the Judicial Conference sPsas E.S case
concluded 4 In Union N. E. church a1s to.Sea 'sea
Rev. hT. Thomas addressed The I b"S,
in behalf of the appellant. ~ 'Ooy
He held in lcrg address vb;o,,
ted from $50 O'Clock 10 noou tS,t ,,t is
appellant was wholly inpoosn, 'as
the charges brought against him, w,,s
reference to the charge Of frapG la "l,a Wv,
that man might have connection rl, as.a
frand and still be innocent, bn, si ~
could not be innocent and have rom
plicity with translucent things, Tvu TSI,
was Mr. Miller's case, his copreo,;a' tl
with the College, which had not oa ns'a
fully proved fraudulent was mo,a u' !,
unsuspecting connection than Of int.V
tional completely.
Before the Reverend counsel had ,Or.
far, q question was raised as to tba o,I' .5
mission OF statements of counsel a,
evidence.
The Bishop decided that no nsw mat.
ter could be introduced, and that ~.
statement Of counsel must bs consr1S
to the evidence adduced b.io,a ,Ss
10" er court.
Rosuming Mr.. Thomas said Ia n.
lieved Mr.. Major an inrocsu, man anil
had known him through his ministerial
life. There were many things in hi,
favor even If it could be proved thattbs
college was fraudulent, because it ia clea,
that he signed the diploma, not knowing
but that they we're to be given to os.udeuta
who were perfectly qualified to recsIva
them. His Presiding Elder did not se.m|
to doubt his innocence, for his case wsl
not brought before the Philsdslphia
Conference, by previous arraignment
but by letter. Mr.. Thatcher had said
that there were not sufficient sroupda
for procedure against Mr.. Major. When
Mr.. Major appeared before the Conisrl
encs, he declared that he knew no vrOus
and he told the truth.
A member-He did not appear bsio,d
the Conference.
Mr.. Thomas-He was represented by
papers all the same. By glancing
the bill Of charges 1t can be seen ths
it was drafted for certain purpose 4
goes back in the history of the co!ss,
to 1928 TO show that it 10 q fraulu
lent institution ; that was long prior
Mr.. Miller's connection with 1t. M
whole case in the papers has been m
Of persecution. Mr. Major went to u
Record" which had attacked btm
and asked them to insert q reply. The
refused, aud he had to pay $l7jO
got i. In the advertising columns in Al
Obscure corner, whore no one C0ul
read it.
The prosecutors lay greatstreSs upo
the time when the Legislature declare
the College fraudulent, but this declars
tion was overthrow by the Suprem
Court, the charter was declared good
and it still continued under that chal
ter. Had 1t not been perfectly 600
would not the Jefferson Medical Celles
and the University Of PennSylVsni
legally proceeded against it long ago
The counsel also declared that BrOth a
er Major had a perfectly good medic
education. The appellant says he ne
er had the least idea that those WI
were to receive the diplomas, which
signed beforehand, were not proper
qualified to receive them. The actid
of the Conference in reversing the d
cision in Mr.. Miller's case shows tn
the charge of fraud against the collie
to be false. Even Il the college was
fraud Mr.. Major is innocent for be d
Dot know it.
AT II o'clock the Conference a5 j'nm'
until l 30, when counsel for the chNr'
will make addresses.