The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1885-11-04
Mr.. Chandler on TIE Kingstree Exam

TO THE EDITOR OF THE MANNING TINES
The Clarendon Enterprise Of last week oc-
cupied nearly all Of its valuable editorial
column with criticism upoa the competl-
tive examination recently he'd in kingstree.
/ have no objection to the Enterprises crit
cisrn so far as It's views only are given, TOR
these will never cause much stir on earth.
But when the Enterprise attempts to doal
with facts" it must observe the ninth CON-
mandlnent.
The statements and charges made by the
Enterprise in regard to the said examination
are quoted and corrected as follows
O7 Tue examination did not begin un-
til Friday afternoon.
The examination Was somewhat delayed
on account of the illness of the Chairman Of
the examining board but DR.. J. S. Brock
ington, medical examiner, began the pays,-
cal examination about 10 o'clock, A. 81. and
the applicants commenced the written ex-
animation before - N.
(2) ''Mr Chandler alone conducted the
examination.
ghe examination was conducted by Messrs.
II. J. Haynesworth and E. G. Chandler, the
former acting by reques: in place of Prot.
Allen, the Chairman of the board, who WAS
/ i'll
(sl Undue partiaGty was shown IN favor
of one of the applicants. in ono instance 90
ing so far as to suggest the rewriting OF o
part of the examination paper.
What the classic Enterprise means by ''un-
due partial1ty" l shall not attempt to d.
vine but the charge that partlahty was
shown either contestant Is false. l suggest
cd TO the young men, when about to begin
their work. that they write their answers
first on scrap-paper and afterwards copy
them on the papers to be submitted us. No
assistance was given either youth in answer
ing the questions placed before him. At
tee request of one Of them, explained the
meaning of 8 certain question. Dir. Haynes
worth was then present. Ne ther OF the
applicants was alone with ME during the
examination, and each heard what had to
say to the other.
~ The examination papers we're exam
ined bv the board separately, and different
result was reached by the two examiners"
The result as ascertained by each exam
!! iner was the same, superiority being by
! each accorded the same set Of papers. !
made cursory examination ot the papers
immediately upon receiving them, and while
subject to Interruptions by persons coming
into the Office where was engaged IN the
prosecution of my duties, then enclosed the
papers to Prof. Allen, with note stating my
findings. That evening went by request
to Prof Aliens, for the. purpose of joint
examination of the papers and q decision as
tol { relative merits. Prof. Allen said he
thought had rated both applicants little
too high We then went into careful and
complete examination Of the papers. which
resulted in lower grading OF each, but
with aboutthe same proportionate difference
] between them as had been determined by
nv first examination. These last ascertain
ed gradings were sent the Citadel author!-
ties
(5l "Near the close of tie examination
when one of the candidates acknowledged
his inability to answer a certain question
correctly, while the other asked for a longer
time in which to answer the question. ar.
Chandler peremptorily closed the examina-
ton, on the ground that it would be giving
the latter applicant an advantage over the
8 former not to close the examination then.
The examination was closed after having
given the applicants more than ten hours
in which to answec the questions. The
adjournment over night ] regretted. but it
could not be avoided Arithmetic had been
| disposed of the first day. and both appli-
cants had failed to do one example given
the extraction of the cube root of q common
fraction Had either done this example
mex. morning, he would not have been cred
tied with IT, rs access meantime might have
been had to textbooks, or assistance other
wise Obtained Some time before closing
I stated to the contestants that could allow
them to work only a short time longer.
When that elapsed must close. Both I'm
lished within the time, aud just did finish,
one little before the other. One asked If
there was time to try the example above re-
ferred to again. Of course did not allow
him to do So Each appeared fully salts
Lied with his treatment at my hand.
Mr.. Netsles must allow ne to question the
motives for his attack. I am credibly IN
formed that he predicted the success Of one
applicant before trial. He exhibited preJu-
4 dice in favor of that applicant, who received
instruction in Mr.. Nettes's academy. He
/ has published reflections upon one unknown
to him, and these are based upon evidence
from one side; only. 4 ''bor1 examiner
should look better to his: foundation for
i statements. He has evidently not sought
the truth in this matter of the competitive
examination. Errors may have been COM
m,tted in the examination, but some things
are more cul pable than errors.
E.. G. CHANDLER.