Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-04-11
THE EXPELLED STUDENTS,
Messrs. Birney and Leighton Argue In Behalf
of the Faculty.

For two hours yesterday afternoon District
Attorney Birney and Mr.. B. F. Leighton. the
counsel for Howard University in the suit
brought against the faculty by the students re-
Gently expelled for alleged improper conduct.
argued before Justice of the Peace O'Neal the
| case for the defendants.
Mr.. Birney said that the case was not one Of
landlord and tenant. as Mr.. Vim. A. Cook, the
| attorney for the students, asserted, the aues-
ton being: Had the university the authority to
enforce its rules and regulations? With these
rules and regulations every student was made
acquainted upon entering the institution. and
they thereby became part of the contract en-
tered into by each party. 1t would not do,
therefore, to say that the students did not sub
scribe to them. The rules and regulations
prohibited the acts complained of and pre-
scribed the punishment which would follow a
violation Of them. which punishment included
that inflicted in the present case-the forfeiture
OF the rooms and rights of the students. MIR.
Birney then quoted a number OF authorities,
which he claimed clearly set out the right OF
school authorities to instantly expel a student
whenever, in the opinion Of the au-
thorities. the retention of the offend
ing student would endanger the good gov
eminent or morals Of the school, Mr.. Cooks
contention that the offending students should
have been permitted the privilege of calling
witnesses, putting them under oath and cross
examining them. and also the further privilege
of appearing with counsel. was simply absurd
and unheard Of Howard University and its
students stood in the same relative position of
parent and child. and as well might an offending
child demand the right to call witnesses and
employ counsel in defense as the offending stu
dents. 1t was not true that the students had
been denied the right to be heard in the present
case by the faculty. On the contrary. they had
been duly notified to appear. but instead of
doing so they had written an offensive letter to
the faculty demanding the privilege of counsel
and the right to put upon oath and cross-ex-
anime witnesses. things unheard of in such
cases. No reply made TO their letter and
the students therefore declined to appear. and
the fault was their own. The authorities quoted
by Mr.. Cook. said Mr.. Birney. dealt with the
expulsion of members of societies end corpora
tons who had property rights. There was no
question of -uch rights in the present case. the
sole question being one of good government
and discipline.
Mr.. Leighton in his argument said that the
landlord and tenant act not enacted for
the purpose OF dIsc;p iininS refractory students.
and the present case was the first of the kind
ever seen here. If the contentious of the plain
tiffS were sustained institutions of a similar
kind would hereafter be compelled, in order
to eSpel offending students. 20 give them thirty
days notice and invoke judicial aid to make
that notice effective. MIR. Leighton cited
number of authorities in support of the posi-
ton that Institutions of learning were fully
empowered to deal instantly and directly IN the
matter of students offending against the rules
and regulations. and said not only was Howard
University deeply concerned In the outcome OF
the present case. but as well was every other
similar institution in the land.
At the conclusion of Mr.. Leightons argu-
ment the continued until 3 O'Clock
Friday afternoon next. when Mr.. Cook, for the
students, will close the case.