The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1898-09-11
Pr08ident KiIQO8 Speech
Review of the Evidence at the Investigation Before the
Trustees of Trinity College.

question of personal privilege, and laid
that correspondence in the hands of the
4 Board and never had aught else to do
with il.
Besides that, gentlemen this investi-
CATION was not forced on the defendant.
He is not in this court this afternoon by
virtue of such power which you brought
to bear upon him, but go to his published
interview, as published in the Raleigh
Post, and you will find that he says in it,
/ THE Board will be unfair to me unless
it investigates these reports and makes
Judge Clark prove his charges" Is a
statement like that the scheme of Il man
endeavOring to evade facts? Isn't it Il
!. public challenge. issued to the Board of
Trustees of Trinity College, to defend
him, mere employee, to bring him and
the accuser face to face and let them set
tie the truth of the whole matter? a
man who wishes to evaae truth. does
he publicly challenge any man to an
open investigation of q question: Be
sides this. his honor knows quite well,
that as the chief officer of this Board.
the defendant went into his office and
said, Nothing will satisfy the condi-
tions of justice and right in this mat
ter except an investigation of it,
Where is the effort at evasion in that
conduct? You might call it high hand
ed impudence, you might call it defiance.
for an employee to issue such demand
to his superior, and official authority:
but you are not asked to call it such, you
are asked to call that kind OF conduct
evading facts.
! Now, the facts show that Judge Clark
was the man who wished 20 evade the
! ISSUES, and not the President of Trinity
| College. He was not present at the
June meeting, mark you, though fully ad-
vised of what would occur The defend
ant was at that meeting. In the meeting
of July 18th Judge Clark emphasized the
| fact that he did not reopen this case
| Certainly he did not reopen 1t. He was
quite willing for it to stop, he did not
wish controversy, he did not wish fTic-
ton, he was anxious for peace in the
church. Then who did reopen it? The
very man that's accused of evading the
facts in his possession. Why did he not
wish TO reopen it if. loaded with so
much evidence and so much truth as
he claimed to be, knowing that this in
stitution had at its head a man unfit for
n Janitor'S position, or to shovel coal in
its furnaces? Yet he makes almost crime
out of the fact that the defendant had it
/ re-opened Where is the evasion in the
conduct of the defendant? Has the de-
PENDANT vet left the front of the battle
4 and skulked off into some hiding place
| like a Spanish soldier behind the shrub
berry of some Cuban hill? He stands
fully open and begs you to come here
and reopen and investigate his record
to the bottom.
Not only this, but in the same meet
- I'll OAl. t..
produce q single word of evidence he
had in his possession. He said he could
have done it at the June meeting.
There is no future tense about that dec
laration of his. The very charge that
the defendant wished to evade shows
that something first existed to be evaded,
and then, when he faces the issue, said,
II know nothing. Give me time and
will get it. | have no evidence to put
before your board" What did the de-
PENDANT say at that July meeting? Gen
tenant am ready" By day and by night
he had toiled from one end of the State
to the other, had held close to the duties
and responsibilities of his official relation
to this institution, but inside of nine or
ten days given him he had brought his
friends who could testify 10 these things
and said, Gentlemen, | am ready" You
did not postpone that meeting on his
account. Is that evasion7 If he had
! wanted to evade it he would have said,
| "Gentlemen, / am not ready; give me
more time But he said. II am ready
and, mark you, when more time was
asked by Judge Clark and the limita-
tons proposed which did satisfy him,
your defendant said, give Judge Clark
till Christmas" Was that an effort to
| hinder Judge Clark from the production
of testimony which he had had in his
hands for weeks? Is that the spirit of a
man who wishes to get round what a
man has and has not?
Now / ask you as honest men, in the
sight of these facts, who evaded the is
| sue? What is the record OF this en-
ployee's dealings with this Board? Has
it been that of a skullzing man, or of a
4 who were always came to your Board,
gave you the advantage Of all the
knowledge he had, and presented to You
every suggestion possible to him for the
good of this college? No, sir We say
to your prosecutor that the crime of
this charge rests, not at the feet of the
defendant, but it does rest at the feet Of
the accusing witness.
The next charge refers to the spirit
which animated the defendant in the
serenade of Mr.. Duke on the night of
4 June 9TH. The words which Judge
! Clark used are "affluence Of sycophan-
cy." This is a grave charge, and it means
that the defendant is a base parasite.
4 You can't find a word that sinks a man
to a lower depth when you fasten it on
him, than that word 'sycophancy." And
it was not ordinary sycophancy, but an
'affunce of sycophancy" which animated
him on that occasion. Now where is the
proof as to this charge? What evidence do
they produce to prove it? Not one word
that's worth notice. They bring in an
honest. open-faced young reporter, Mr..
i Council, and put him on the stand to
ask him about the speech, to prove the
4 sycophancy of the defendant. He testi-
i fled that the spirit of the defendant on
/ that occasion was that Of humor and
Of mere outburst of impromptu eXulta-
ton with a crowd Of his scoiIege boys
round about him. Where is the syco-
phancy? What does Mr.. Wilson say
about the defendant toadying TO men ?
Says his knowledge of the man is that
he is incapable of that kind of thing.
| What does every witness for the defen-