Pullman herald. [volume] (Pullman, W.T. [Wash.]) 1888-1989, 1894-02-23
APRETTY MESS, THIS.
Ridiculous Charges Made Against the
College Regents,
The Charges were Anonymous, ana are
not supportedb by Fact,

Again have the agricultural college
snd school OF science been brought be
fore the Iubic in scandal and calumny,
he effect of which can only work an in
Jury to that noble institution however
groundless the charges brought may be,
Anonymous charges of fraud were
placed in the hanGs of Governor Nc.
Graw, during the early part of January.
The fraud, it was alleged, had been
committed by the regents of the college
In the management Of the college affairs.
Last Tuesday Boyd Tallmau, a Seattle
attorney. arrived in town as the repre-
sentative of the governor to inv stigate
the charges. and to probe the matter to
the bottom.
Tuesday afternoon a meeting was
called at the Palace hotel. there being
present the governors representatives,
the college regents, and citizens Of the
town Regent Tannatt opened the meet
ing with speech in which he requested
that the authors of the charges come
forward and sign them, and that the in
vestigation he most thorough, as by
that method the regents would be fully
exonerated. Mr.. Talman then stated
that he could not investigate anonymous
charges. He said the governor had
told him that the document would be
signed, and the charges substantiated
by s. A. Madge and A. I. Fariss on his
arrival here, He had approached these
parties, but they had refused to sign
them, saying that they wished more
time in which to engage an attorney,
etc, and requested till Friday in which
to prepare their case. Mr.. Tallma
ceuld not grant such an extension Of
time, and returned home Wednesday to
report to the governor that there was
no one to uphold the charges The re-
gents have each prepared an answer,
which they have forwarded to the gov
ernor, in which they show that every
charge of fraud was false.
The following statement of the case is
furnished us by Pres. Bryan:
The charge against the regents of the
agricultural college, Of what virtually
auoun s to petty larceny against the
So rests on two bases, viz: An over
cnitrge for per diem ana II charge for
greater expenses that were actually in
cured. To prove the first charge the
records Of the regents are alleged to be
quoted. The first meeti.g of the board
as shown by the records was held on
May 4th to 1lth, incIusive-eight days.
1t is alleged that seven days was all that
the members were entitled to charge for,
3 4 l.fE,r,,,p, in, haiy,,f tla
day, on which day the board worked.
The persons making the charge admit
that the next two meetings were charged
lor correctly, but claim that for the June
meeting there was an overcharge of two
days. The board on this occasion met
on June l3 and adjourned late at night
on June -, returning home on June 20
eight DAYS for which they charged.
The 18th was spent in inspecting the
farm and in attending the commence
ment exercises-both necessar~ duties,
though the record does not sho q meet
ing on that day. The first meeting in
July was on the 18th as is shown by the
charges, and adjournment was on July
% as alleged, but adjournment was had
late at night on the 22d, requiring re-
turn on the 23d, making seven days
not five as alleged.
The August meeting was held August
2l to 81. incusive-ll days. The per-
sons making the charlie and giving these
dates say that nine days should have
been charged for. The September meet
| ing as charged, began on September %
and continued through October 2-eight
days. The ANONYMOUS charge says that
seven DAYS should have been charged
for. The October meeting, rs is admit
ted, is charged for correctly. In each
case have given the number OF days
put in by hose attending the whole OF
the session. The days charged for by
the regents were the days actually put
| in in work. Their accusers say that they
ought not to have worked Sunday, and
they do not allow that any days put in
in the service OF the college should be al
lowed for unless the regents rendering
the service were reeo 'ded as present at
the meeting.
The charges allege that Connor put in
10 days, Tennatt 38, Sterns Al, Bland
ford SO, and Ingraham 48, while the ac-
tual number OF days put i'll in the SER
vice OF the board and charged for was;
Connor So, Tannatt 48, Stearns go, Bland
ford 48 and Ingraham Sc, the latter re-
quring more time in coming from Sc
attic and returning. Even if the num-
ber OF days alleged were correct, and
even if the expense account were correct,
neither OF which are true, yet the over
charge for expenses w uld not be alarm
ing. The charges assert that Connor for
his 40 days collected from the state for
expenses $40.50, while he actually paid
out but $26.75. Tannatt Tor his 3S days
| they allege. collected S6S, less than 81
per day, while his real expenses, as they
assert, were but $32. Stearns has the
art of economy down to a fine point.
They allege that he put in Al days and
collected from the state the exorbitant
expense bill OF $34.25, while he should
have charged but $l6,25, or less than 10
cents day. Blandford for his 38 days,
collected the exorbitant sum OF $44, SO
they alIege. He paid out for this 3S days,
is charged only $l3oodi q doys ipsPSnem 81
collected from the state $5S, but really