Omaha daily bee., 1888-07-14
THE UNIVERSITY MIDDLE.
Result Of Yesterdays Investigation
By the Board Of Regents.
THE PLuMED KNIGHT r%EsTlFIEs.
Judge Reese of Wahoo Takes the
Stand in Behalf of Chancellor
Manatt-The Testimony
Adduced.
LINCOLN BuREAu or THE OMAHA BEE,
1929 l. SrHEEr,

l'AlitAN " 10 '7bAAAN NAAA'
ing before the board Of regents. Permission
was granted the respondent TO introduce
Judge Reese, of Wahoo, 10 testify in his be
half, as he was compelled to. leave on the
noon train for home and could not remain.
He was therefore called first and sworn,
testifying that he had a general acquaintance
over the state of Nebraska, and knew and
had knowledge Of the general reputation of
the management OF the university under
Chancellor Manatt. and that the reputation
was good and met with the general, If
not universal cOmmcndatiOn of the
people Of the state; that under its present
management it had been brought into bar.
monious and working relations with the high
schools Of the state, and through them with
the common schools, thereby reaching the
people Of the whole state; that its work was
of a high order and its discipline and fuan-
cial condition in every way improved that
he was not familiar and had no personal
knowledge of the relations existing between
the chancellor and the faculty: that the
chancellor and university were entitled TO and
enjoyed great credit, and received general
commenda;iou from the people throughout
the state for the work which had boon &C
complished by the administration. CrOss-CX-
amincd, the Judge said: ~ do not say that
this prosperous state has been reached by
the work of the chancellor alone. The
faculty and board of regents may come in
LOT n proper snare OF lnp credit
Prof. George f.. Howard, regarded as the
'plumcd knight" of the opposition, and who
gave his evidence in chief at the conclusion
Of last nights session, next took the stand to
undergo crOss-cXalnination, He said that he
became a student of the university in the
year 1872, and graduated in 1876. Since
that date he had been constantly
In the employ of the university; was present
at the meeting so often referred to when
the first outward trouble arose between the
chancellor and Mcmillan. 81 certainly
could see nothing in the statement of the
latter that would have given offense to any
man with a clear conscience said the pro-
fessOr. The reply of the chancellor was
substantially as given by nearly every for
mor witness on the stand to-day. II was
an attack upon the professional stand
ing aud character of Prof. Mcmillan. 1T was
followed by. precipitaCe retirement from his
chair and the room. He stated that lie had
appealed from the decision of the chair Just
four times during the chancellor's admins
~tration, and with one exception he was the
only professor who had done so. / speak
under oath. The chancellor Is generally of
fcnsive in his address, but it is of such a
nature that you can not resent, however
keenly you may feel it."
The witness stated that the manner and
method of the chancellor in addressing his
questions to the witnesses since this exam
inatiOn commenced furnished a fair |illustra-
ton of what the faculty had endured during
bIC IuSu Jul years. IA IltClillSS VI llc
faculty were always made unpleasant 10y the
manner and bearing of the chancellor. He
could not endure opposition to his Expressed
opinions, however open they might have
been to criticism and objections, and when
ever ventures were made in this direction the
irritable temper of the chancellor was al
ways manifest. 1.-THE great trouble, gentle
men," said the witness, ''iies in the fact that
he lacks sincerity, and this leads to the sus-
picion that he is not honest. | do not re-
tya,.l IA lin nl pnpn hpnnEf and irrrrnn,,nd1G
distrust him in all his relations with the
faculty..
The witness cited one or two instances
that gave him personal knowledge. One
was of n business character and related. to a
raise of Prof. Caldwells salary. The chan
Cellor opposed any advance and opposed
whatever recommendations that may have
been made by the faculty: afterward, when
comprehending the scope of CaldwelPs work,
so stated, he consented 10 the raise asked,
and so recommended the matter to the board
of regents. "But his method in this matter
30 impressed me that l seriously question his
candor and honesty said the witness. "The
university has continued to grow in spite of
the chancellor, but under unfavorable cir
rumstances."
The gist of Prof. Towards tes-
timony was given by Profs. Mcmillan, Hicks,
Little and Mrs. Lloyd, involving the chan
cellor's irascibility, dictatorial spirit, inter-
'ferences in the relation of the faculty TO their
glasses, interventions, mannerism and bear
Ing. in alrthe Just and legitimate and as
Sumed responsibilities as the head of the
university of the state. He added but lit
bic that would give new light upon the
charges and complaints preferred by the
alumni association. But as before stated, he
Is recognized as the ''plumed knight" of the
opposition to tho administration, and what
he had to say was looked upon as the cream
of the announcements He simply made the
testimony of the preceding witnesses more
positive. He stated that he never had had
any thought of aspiring to the chancellor
ship.
Prof. Towards cross-examination, con-
Quoted by Judge Mason, was keen and
searching. Sharp ''bouts and pleasantries'
were freely INDUCED in between the exam
mer and examined. But the testimony was
In no material way shaken. Many sharp ut
%terances made by the witness on his his ex-
animation in chief against the chancellor
provoked ''audible smiles from all who
were in sympathy with the alumni associa-
lion, but proved to be opinions based upon
his personal convictions and facts perhaps
Earranting the sharp expressions. Prof.
Howard was seemingly very frank, and once
er twice during the examination rather
sought to 'tell more" by turning inter
locutor. But his answers to the respond
ent's questions were keenly ironical and sar-
castic. Prof. Howard admitted that he was
indebted to the chancellor for the richest
plum he has aside from his university chair,
viz: the secretaryship of the State histor-
lcal society.
Miss =. Il. Moore, who is in charge of the
art department, was called and sworn. She
stated that she had no personal knowledge
that the chancellor ever treated the faculty
unkindly IN Official relations; that her griev-
auces were personal and separate. She then
recited that she came TO the university to
take charge of the art department by the
written request of Prof. Sherman, in 1884.
who acted upon the authority of the chan
cellor. The letter rendering the position to
Miss Moore was introduced in evidence. 1t
9imply stated that Lincoln was a city of
3ome twenty thousand people, but that the
department was not directly estab-
lished as a work of the univer-
sity; that there were students
who desired instruction in art and that she
could have what there was in it. Matters
went smoothly for a time. Clashings fol-
lowed. The chancellor opposed her work,
and contemplated progressions. Witness
worked with the assurance of no minimum
fees and was bitterly opposed and discouraged
in establishing a college of fine arts by the
chancellor.
Regent Burnham asked here what this
Testimony had to DO with the charges or in
vestigation, Satisfactory explanation was
not given, but the witness was put upon n
cross-examination, the chairman of the board
evidently having concluded to give the in
vestigation the widest possible scope. 1t,
however, ELECTED nothing Of any special m
tcrest, Miss Moore simply wanted to estab-
hsh a college of fine arts and was vigorously
H.