The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1897-12-25
THE SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY.
Rev. DR.. Days Side of the Controversy

unOli 1t had done showing"
Tefnap3 the heated passion of the uni
VeFslty's traducers and the excitement
created by sensational newspapers have SO
lar suoslded as to permit the university
calm hearing.
Inc university is an institution of such
importance to this city, it is SO vitality
related to 1ts.fair name and contributes
SO many tens of thousands of dollars an
nually to It's prosperity and brings SO
many families into its permanent. popula
ton that anything that it does or auy
shape that its policy takes concerns all
of our reputable citizens. We're it not so
the chancellor Of the university would he
inclined to treat with the silent contempt
which it merits attacks inspired by per-
sonal vindictiyeness. In the nature NJ
the case from time to time there must he
those with grievances. Some of these
persons failed to obtain coveted degrees
or to receive an appointment to the facul-
tysor to apass up'' when students, OF re-
ceiyed some other fanoied injury. There
are many of these personal resentments
in all colleges we'll known to those inside.
If the people could know the animus as
we know it they would have the explana-
ton of accusations like those Of the past
week and need no explicit statements or
refutations.
| The public would like undoubtedly the
plain facts concerning the estate of
Bishop Peck and the university.
| The facts are these:
| /. Bishop and Mrs. Peck gave their
estate TO the university and received GER
tain leases, agreements, ETC., from the
university expressing and defining the
university's obligations to them.
| 2. Neither the bishop or Mrs. Peck at
any time communicated to the chancellor
or trustees the slightest grievance with
the university or made any request to
have any extension or more generous in
depreciation whatever made Of the terms
settled by them aud the trustees.
=. Mrs. Peck repeatedly has said to Il
prominent lady of the community, who
was her confidential friend, that she had
| no causesfor complaint against the uni
versity and that all of her wants were
provided for in the moneys she received
from different sources and that she was
never without money in the bank which
hadsbeen placed there by 1.-The bishop to
meet any emergency She had considera
interest of which she had not used.
A.r. Rockwell has admitted within three
days to q well-knoWn person 81 200 of
these moneys, but. refuses to tell where it
isAto be found. Within the year Mrs. Peck
in speaking of her condition said:
"Chancell r Day would not permit mo to
suffer. II I were in need he wound help
me-. There is not a person among her
intimates whom we can find who ever
heard her complain of her income or
charge the university with neglect.
4. Everything done in Mrs. Peck's case
has BEEN done upon advice of the attorney
Of the university and by the unanimous
approval OF the trustees at their regular
meeting.
Rs5. The books and papers concerning all
of these transactions are open and any
reputable citizen of Syracuse is at liberty
to examine them. We invite such e.
scrutiny of all of these matters as they
appear in the written agreements and the
records of the trustees.
6. The man Rockwell who makes the
attack upon the university, 1t must be
remembered, was an inmate of Mrs.
Peck's home and was personally interested
| in these moneys in di pute, as all know
who arc Intimate with the case. He is
the only person who complained that the
payments were stopped for he WAS the
only person affected by them. When they
were eUupp6u lie udu W go 10 WOrks
Z. The property in California WAS sold
after representation which came to the
university that it was Mrs. Peck's wish.
The university is accused by Mi. Rock.
well of selling this land for its own use.
What use did it make of itP Every dollar
of it was paid to Mrs. Peck. Did the
university sell it ''for its own use'' and
pay the money to Mrs. Peck without any
request when it might have kept it and
sold it after her death, retaining the
money? No candid person could believe
this. No one ever has denied that the
! money was paid her and that she received
81, 1875 more than the amount received for
the property. This was just 81, 1873 more
than the agreement gave her or she ex-
pected
s. 1t is true that the residence of Mrs
Peck was not kept in the outward appear
ance that we desired. Several times the
university carpenter was sent to the
premises to secure the house from injury
by the weather or any le axis or other con-
ditions that might discomfort Mrs.
X, and was warned TO do as little
hammering or disturbing work as possible
beca Sc Of her nervous complaint from
which she suffered
9. Rev. L. G. Curtis thrusts himself
into the case. His animus toward the
university is we'll known to those who
have not forgotten the events Of past
years. He was once employed as financial
agent of tie university. He says, as is
stated by Mr.. Rockwell, that the annual
payments should have been continued to
Mrs. Peck. Is his opinion an author ity
with which to set aside legally exc
cuted document defining the university S
obligations in the case? Is his judg-
ment to be set up against that of the ex-
ecutive committee and the board of trus-
tees. among whom there was not dis
senting voice?
The chancellor was not responsible for
precipitating this discussion, but pro
tested against it as unseemly and begged
that it might be deferHed for at least g
| week after Mrs. Peaks burial as he has
ample proof. He is responsible for only
one statement of the cage and that was
signed article covering the matters as
clearly exhibited in the records and doou-
ments of the institution.
That thing which should be resented
by the friends of the bishop and Mrs.
Peck is the implication that they felt op-
pressed VI were dissatisfied with the treat
rnent which they received. This is o base
SANDER which cannot be resented too
earnestly. But the greatest outrage in the
whole dark plot of blackmail which has
been threa teniDV the uniyersitv for ,o.nv