New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-12-20
CHANCELLOR DAY REPLIES.
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITIES TREATMENT of
BISHOP PECKs WIDOW.
CHARGES MADE By TIE REV. W. u. ROCKWELL
DENIED. AND A CHALLENGE lS0O"D
INVITING HIM TO MAINTAIN

DENIED AND A CHALLENGE ISSUED
! INVITING HIM TO MAINTAIN
THEM If HE CAN.
Syracuse y. Y. Dec $50 many reports nave
been circulated recently charging gross neglect of
the widow Of Bishop Peck h. syria use University
The beneficiary of his property. that Chancellor
James r. Day has prepared official statement OF
tho facts. Some time before his death Bshop
Peck decided his property, valued at about 5000
to the University. provision being made Tor me
sale OF certain real for the support OF Mrs
PEEK should she need IT, After Mrs. Pccks death,
when occurred about ten days ago. the Rev. w.
ID. Rockwell who lived at her house and took care
i OF her in later wears said In a published commupi-
cation that a contract was entered into between
Mira. Peck and the University tina; she should rc-
ccve 500 yearly from the University. which should
come from the rental of land in California Mr..
Rockwell said that this land was aNerward sold
10y the University. and not at the insligaton OF
Mrs. Peck. and that about three years ago she re-
ceived communication from the University au-
thortics stating that the 500 annuity would no
longer 10 paid and that thereafter tho University
did not contribute TO her support. intimatng that
in consequence she was in straItened circum-
stances
Chancellor Day. In a published communication
made soon after denied Mr.. Rockwes statement
regarding the agreement between the University
and Mrs. Peck. and said that she had income
moro than ample to supply her wants. He said
that the agreement with Bishop Peck was that in
case OF need the property in California should he
sold and the proceeds Of II given to Bishop OF
Mrs. Peck they nigh. request payment to be
made in sums not TO exceed $40 a year The Chan
ccllor said that. soon after the death OF Bishop
Peek this properly sold at a request sup
posed to have come from Mrs. Peck, and the money
therefrom paid 10 hor from time to time until the
proceeds were entirely exhausted. and sl,l3 more
than tho contract required paid over to her
win the approval Of the University trustees pay
ments to Mrs. Peck then stopped.
other communications have been published. the
result being the official statement. which will be
published in Tomorrow Syracuse Post" In It
Chancellor Day says: Tho facts concerning the
estate % Bishop Peck ma the University are these
Bishop and Mrs. Peck gave their estate to the INT
v"rsity and received certain leases agreements ETC.
from the University. expressing ard defining the
tnivsrStty,s Obligations to thcm Neither the Bishop
nor Mr. Peck at any tmc communicated 70 the
Chancellor or trustees he slightest grievance with
extension or more generous Interpretation whatever
made of The terms settled upon by them and the
Mrs. Peck repeatedly has said to prominent
womin % the community. who Wa' hcr confidential
IRE" o. nat she had no cause foI complaint against
the University. and that all Of her wants were
dlneren sources. md that she wa never without
money In the bank, whicl had been placed there
considrrab'" sums OF money loaned in this city.
The incest Ct which she had not used
done upon adyc. o; the attorney OF the Iniv"r-
sity. and by ia" unanimous approval Of the trus-
tees * their regular meeting
IN" man Ro kwel!. VINO makes the attack upon
t." Uni. eTsltV. u must De remembered. was an
inmIj" %. Ms P.ch's home. ard was personally
Interested 10 these moneys Ia dispute. as ali know
who az" intimate win the case.
The property IN California was sold after q
APPROXIMATION which snme to the University ths,
wa Mr.. Pe,ks wish. The University Is accused
D. Rockwell u selling thiF land for Us own u.s.
What did Il make OF it, No one ever ha@
denied that tho money was paid her and that she
received H.l25 more than the amount received Tor
the property This Just til25 more than tn,
agreement gave her or she expected.
In conclusion. the Chancellor makes this pro
posaI: The trustees meet on January j. ] pro-
pos" that Mr. Rockwell and any other party "a
complainant IN his case OF the Peck estate come
before the trustees and state their grievance Ihey
shall have fair and courteous hearing ana ever
facility TO substautiatc the Charge that ter" mas
been any violation o. It's obligation upon the part
% the University or It's Chancellor. They shall
take tho consequences OF failure 10 support tneT
culumnics We challenge and demand from thoS"
who ASSUME 20 cri'icisc the University N" most
searching examination o, our present business
methods ard our treatment OF our h"n"fdciorS.
from non. Of whom has there ever come a COM