The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1898-10-16
THE EVIDENCE EXCLUDED
JUDGE COMMON, HON. f. A
GIVE A CERTIFICATE.
Mr.. CREWS SCORES DR.. klLGo
He Resents with vgor the Suggestion that
he is Not Entitled to be Believed.

w S.,
To the Editor:
In the sO-called investigation of DIR.
kilgo by the Trustees of Trinity Col
lege, he saw fit to do me Il cruel and
unprovoked wrong | have waited pa
tiently till now to see if in the minutes
which it was advertised would be publish
ed, the wrong would be righted. DR.. Kill
go's speech, as printed by him in the
newspaper supplements, differed, / am
told. widely from the speech actually
delivered. and it is certain the speech as
now printed in his pamphlet minutes
differs from that first given to the pub
lie III the supplements, but. flexible as
1t has been, no sense of wrong has IN
duced DIR. Kilgo to amend it to do JUS
tice to me, though he has had ample
means and the greatest abundance OF
time to learn the truth in regard to my
character. Now, the minutes, as pub
lished. omit the evidence brought out
on cross-examination of Messrs. Ivey
and Hurley, which was printed in the
press at the time. This evidence. as it
seems to me, of a deliberate and con-
tinued purpose to injure, requires me to
submit the facts, as | understand them,
to IL candid public.
At the Atlantic Hotel in Morehead
City, in June, 1897, during the Teach
ers' Assembly. while in conversation
with Dr. Kilgo, he sent message to
DIR. Kingsbury by me. What that mes
sage was the public knows, as it was
given to the public over the names of
myself, Mr.. ]. ]. Royal and by DR..
Kingsbury. DIR. Kilgo has never denied
this in affidavit form, and what he did
publish in reply was a shifty evasion
of parts of the conversation and ignor-
ing of other parts, with a lofty asser-
ton of his superiority to be called in
question for any of his words or act
ions. At the late investigation of DR..
Kilgo. at Durham. the affidavit of DIR.
Kingsbury as to this message was put III
evidence, in which it was stated that |
was the bearer of the message. The fol-
lowing deposition of Mr.. James w.
Jackson, one of the proprietors of the
Wilmington Messenger, taken by the
regularly appointed representative of the
Board of Trustees of Trinity College.
was then offered
North Carolina. New Hanover County.
In the matter against Dr. John G.
Kilgo Before the Board of Trus-
tees of Trinity College.
james W. Jackson, being sworn, says:
That he is a resident and citizen of
Wilmington, said county and State.
That he is Il proprietor of the Whining
ton Messenger; that he knows the gem
eral character of Mr.. ]. A. Crews, and
that he is ii man of character and We
racity; that Mr.. Crews has been in their
employ for seven years. and he tack
SOM has never heard his character for
truth and honesty questioned.
tSigned) JAS. W. JACKSON.
Sworn and subscribed before me this
25th day of August, 1893.
w. A. CUMMING,
Notary Public.
On DIR. Kilgo's objection, this was
ruled out on the technical ground given
by him that he was not present, but he
had been served with notice that al
that place and time the dispositions of DIR
Kingsbury and myself would be taken
and that proof of the good character OF
the witnesses would be taken was III
incidental matter of which he should be
deemed reasonably fixed with notice
1t was certainly intolerable and unjus
that, after ruling out competent evi
dence as to my good character. he
called to the stand Reys. 1vey and Hur
lev. neither of whom were asked il
they knew my general character, bu
who testified to the bare fact that my
wife and / did not live together, which
was not only hearsay (which DIR. Kilgt
had so strenuously objected to wher
offered to prove character and therefore
incompetent to prove substantive
fact The circumstance of our MOI
living together, no reputable person il
Wilson, where we have both lived fol
many years, will impute to moral obi
putty on the part of my wife or myself
1t is capable of satisfactory explanation
if it interested the public. DR.. Kilgt
dared not ask the direct question
what my character was. He especially
avoided doing so. He knew, if he hat
inquired, he could find no respectable
witness who would testify that it wa!
not good. He had rejected evidence o
high authority that it was good. III,
knew that the question he asked wa
incompetent but he used the reply a
the foundation Of sheer in his speed
TO the purport that on account of tina
fact nv evidence ought not to be be
lieyed. He said: "Mr. Crews, who CAV
this message to DIR. Kingsbury, wa
proyen by Rev. Mr.. Hurley and Dl
Iyey to have severed his marriag
vows. Yet you are asked to beliey
him." Neither one of these witnesse
proved anything of the kind. me as
sassin who plunges poisoned suiett
in to the back of an unsuspectlng enemy
is gentleman compared TO the ma
who would thus stab private characte
by insnuating what he knew he coui
not prove. The message l took 10 ~
Kingsbury has been proven by mysei
Mr.. j. j. Royal and DR.. kingsbur'
Statements from us all were on nan
at the trial to prove this, and DIR. klig
did not go on the stand TO dens it. Their
was not a particle of evidence befor
the Trustees to the contrary. II true
it proved DIR. Kilgo was a boastcr, ma
evolent and a wire-puller. After all tn
terrible evidence brought against ID
Kigo as to the message. he did no