The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1898-09-06
PRELIMINARY MOTIONS.

Mr.. u. w. NewSomc. DIR. XII
COS stenographer. was elected official
stcnographer to the board 10 record the
proceedings and take down the speeches
and evidence. \ motion on the part e
Judge Clark to have this stenographer
sworn was rejected. as was also Judge
CIarLs' request that he too be allowed
10 have Il stenographer at his own eX-
penSe. This latter request WAS made a.
the opening of the night session. 1t was
refused and the door locked against al
outsiders.
Mr. James II. S~outhgate. chairman Of
| the board. presided, and Mr.. V. Ballard
was secretary.
After some Unimportant preliminaries
Judge Clark read the following challenge
TO the board rs 4 jury and moved that
it be pollcd and purged:
CHALLENGE TO THE JURY.
This Board has met for the inyestiga-
tion Of matters Of fact. Its duty is sim
liar to that Of Il jury. IN order that its
findings may have weight outside Of
this room the Board must present to the
world the stern neutrality of impartial
judges OF the facts. 1t is an inherent
principle of Justice that no man should
sit i'll determination of disputed issues
OF fact who has any bias. or is III my
wise interested in the result. or who
has formed and expressed his decision III
advance. Having myself expressed IL
opinion adverse to the defendant | should
not think of voting upon any question IN
this trial, and rs Il member of this Board.
aS We'll as in the capacity Of one who
has been requested by YOU 10 procure and
present evidence and is therefore entitled
To have it impartiaIly weighed. | have
Il right to ask that NJ one shall vote
who has formed and expressed opinions
in favor of the defendant. or who sus-
tains relations to him or to this contro-
versy. which would disqualify him as 4
juror.
In making this demand for an impair
tiai jury | intend no reflection upon the
moral character Of amy one present, since
the similar challenge in courts Of justice
is not 50 held. 1t is not Il reflection upon
the party challenged but :; demand for
impartiality. It would be no benefit TO
Dr. Kilgo, or to this Board, if !; result
is declared by those who in part or as 4
whole nave already p%rejud@ed the case.
Therefore With the greatest personal
respect | call the attention of this Board
to the following facts: ON june Z. this
Board adopted, III my absence. the re
port of a committee, that after careful
consideration of the matter OF correspon-
dence" between Or. Kilgo and myself.
they found me unfair and uncharita-
be heartily endorsed Or. Kilgo and
his administration and asked me to re
sign. And now | am asked to lay before
this Board evidence which calls III ducS-
ton this endorsement Of his :ldminlStra-
tion and this condemnation of myself.
This is to require the matter to be con
sidered hy the very jury that has once
decided it and to ask YOU to sit in yonr
own cause and condemn your own con-
duet. This would not be permitted III a
petty cause involving the petty sum IF
So.0e in Il court of Justice. No matter
how honorable the member Of the Board
may he they can not be absolutely i'm
partial in passing upon evidence calling in
question the correctness of their former
findings. Mr.. Southgatc says that the
following 81 trustees voted on that resn
luton. only one Of them being against its
adoption i. e. Revs. \. NJ. Jurncy. Y. \.
Ivey. w. G. Wilson. G. A. Oglesby, +. 4.
Bishop. J. Il. Brooks, \. i. Tyer. J. Il.
Hurley, w. 5. Greasy, T.. l.. Groom and
McssrS. i. y. Duke. w. II. Branson.
Y. Ballard. K. \. Mayer. A.. II. Stokes.
J. II. Southgate. T.. ]. Parrish. +. II.
~iianes, w. X. OdelI. G.. w. Flowers and
O.. W. Carr, all Of whom have thus fo"-
mally passed upon the controversy.
though have been informed that Mr..
S~outhgate was in error as to two ii
those named who. it is claimed, did not
vote upon the resolution.
Furthermore. at the called meeting on
18th of July / was present in consequence
Q your request that | aid You with eyi-
dcnce in the Investigation begun at his in
stance, | presume, as he had stated in
the press that he would call for it. |
stated that not having laid any charges
before your Board. | was not prepared
with legal evidence but if the Board
would give me time | would try to fur
nish it, if desired. That | believed every
word had stated in respect to DR.. KiIgo
was strictly and literally true, and ] had
stated nothing except upon good authori-
ty but being matters not upon my own
knowledge it would require some time
and trouble to get the evidence in legal
shape. On his return home Mr.. Joseph
q. Brown. one Of the Trustees stated g
4 gentleman (who was not Il Trusted
that the entire Board was for Or. i\ilgo
TO Il man, and against me. This express
sion, Of 4 jury rs to a cause pending
before it would disqualify it in any court
Of Justice.
The Trustee referred to is a careful
and obScrvant man and his conclusion
agrees very nearly with my own on that
occasion when / was received not rs
an invited witness to aid the Board in q
bona tide investigation but rather as il
We're defendant in the cause and your
Board were co-proSecut0rs with Dr
;, Ailgo.
Furthermore since the Sth of July
ut the meetings of the District Confer
ences. pending the investigation Of this
very matter whether the Board should
endorse the administration Of DR.. kilgo
and while he was under Investigation by
you, many of this Board have voted | an
= informed for Resolutions endorsing Or
I\ilgo. and some of them. | am told were
influential in having such resolutions
passed. After this triple decision of the
issue before You. it would be difficult t'
convince your Board to Il contrary ef
! feet. unless members who have been 81
decided in their convictions in favor u