The Emporia weekly news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1881-1889, 1885-03-19

OF an order of the board. I was author.
Ized to sell the lands at $3.50 per acre
in gross. No application Tor the pur-
chase OF this land having been made TO
me, on the 10Th day of July, 1884. I re-
ceIVed paper Of which the following is
copy;
EHFoRIA, Kan, July 10, 1885,.
Ven r; Holmes, Agent for Sale OF Kansas
DEAR sIA-1ou are hereby instructed to
Issue 20 n. 9. Gross, Esq.. Of EmPoria, Kan
feIted stats Normal school lands now remain
ing In he counties Of Mitchell and Lincoln,
amounting in the aggregate to seven tnous-
three and hfty one-hundreths (S.50l dollars
per acre. one-tenth Ci-I0j OF the purchase
money In cash and balance payable at the
option OF the purchaser, with interest at
seven a. per cent. payable semi-annually.
By order OF the board Of regents;
President Of the board and Chairman OF the
GEO. D. oRSER
Member OF land cOmittee.
BY Isaac Sharp.
do hereby certify that the above Is a true
and correct copy OF the original now on nle
In my Ofice. s. b. BRADFORD.
Topeka. Feb. 10, 1885
This instrument effectually disposes
OF the charges that no authority was eyer
given TO me TO execute the contract OF
sale 10 Mr.. CrGss. The committee of the
legislature endeavor to impugn the val
Idly Of this order 10 the following
words:
That on the 18th day OF July. 1884. when
such contract WAS executed Agent Holmes
IRON the board 70 that effect; that President
sharp directed Secretary Dickson 20 write ap
s b an sIR to &c an order ,S %
ground that that the board had never mace
such order. That hereafter an order was pre-,
the lands 20 II &. Cross for $3.50 per acre.
signed by sharp and Thanhouser, and puF-
0rner's name was written BY sharp. without
his knowledge or authority.
There Is Just about fact enough in this
presentation Of The matter to give II the
semblance Of truth, nevertheless IL is
false, because IL does not express the
whole truth. Ii IL true that requested
from the board written order to execute
the contract to Mr.. Cross, but l dld SO
because the application ~ purchase had
not been made directly to me. II is true
that Secretary Dickson objected to exc
cutting the order as an act OF the board
of regents, but his objection was based
upon the tact that tue board, as such,
had not directed the execution OF this
particular contract of sale; that while
the report OF the special committee OF
the board was TO stand as the order OF the
board without q formal subsequent
ratification as 10 the price per
acre of the land. the designation
of the party to whom the contract
should be executed was the duty of the
members Of the board, who had conduct
ed the negotiations for sale with the par
~ TO whom the contract was 10 be exc.
cuted. did not understand Secretary
Dickson To claim that there was Any
necessity Of having the formal action OF
| the board upon such q matter.
This explanation OF my request for u
written order TO execute the contract and
Of Secretary DickSon's refusal tends 10
show either that the investigation of the
committee was partial and therefore IN
adequate, or that the motive of the COM
mIttee was not disinterested In con-
clusiOn submit that, Whatever. If any,
may be the irregularities of the board Of
regents or Its special committee, my re
sponsibilitY as agent acting pursuant 70
and in strict conformity with the official
instructions received by me, cannot be
prejudiced or affected by such irregular
tiles. My instructions were direct and
unequivocal. i was not q member of the
board, but simply its agent acting for a
| compensation fixed by the state. l had
| no reason to doubt the genuineness of
the instructions. If there was fraud in
the transaction II was not known to me.
| ! Dever lad any interest whatever direct
or Indirect, present or prospective in the
subject of The sale. If the lands had
been sold In separate tracts my aggre-
| gate compensation would have been the
same as that received by me on the sale
OF this land In gross. acted through
out the whole transaction TO the
extent OF my agency in the same, intel.
lIgenLly and IN exact compliance with
the instruction of my principals and 1
think am justified in the assertion that
If the evidence upon which the commit
tee of the legislature has based the
charges affecting the principal parties
to the sale is as vague aud shallow as
that upon which my conduct has been
indirectly assaulted in the report public
opinion will not be tardy in relieving
the seller and purchaser from sll impu.
talon of fraud. VAN r. HOLMES.
Dated Emporia, March 10, 1885.