The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1898-09-12

W.
ed 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 a man endeavOring
% evade facts? Isn't it public chal-
enge, issued to the Board of Trustees
If Trinity College, to defend him, a
mere empiOYe, to bring him and the
Iccuser face to face and let them set
lie the truth of the whole matter? A
: nan who wishes to eVade truth, does
.e publicly challenge any man to an
pen investigation of a question? Be
sides this, his honor knows quite well,
hat as the chief officer of this Board,
he defendant went into his office and
said, Nothing will satisfy the condi-
Uions of justice and right In this mat
ter except an investigation of ii. p"
Where is the effort at evasion in that
conduct? You might call it highland
ed impudence, you might call it def
ance, for an emDloye To issue such a
demand to his superior, and official au-
| thOrity; 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
I Clark was the man who wished to
eVade the issues, and not the President
of Trinity College. He was not present
at the June meeting, mark you, though
! fully advised of what would occur. The
defendant was at that meeting. In the
meeting of July 18th Judge Clark en-
| phasized the fact that he did not re-
| open this case. Certainly he did not
reopen it. He was quite willing for it
to STOP he did not wish controversy,
he did not wish friction, 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 10 reopen it if,
| loaded with SO much evidence and so
much truth as he claimed to be, know
ing that this institution had at it's
head a man unfit for a janitOr's posi-
tion, or to shovel coal IN It's furnaces?
Yet he makes almost crime out of the
fact that the defendant had it reopened.
Where Is the evasion in the conduct
of the defendant? Has the defendant
| yet left the front of the battle and
skullIed off into some hiding place like
a Spanish soldier behind the shrubbery
! of some Cuban hill? He stands fully
| open and begs you to come here and
reopen and investigate his record 10 the
bottom.
, Not only this, but in the same meet
| ing of July 18th Judge Clark failed to
| produce a single word of evidence he
had in his possession. He said he could
have done 1T at the June meeting.
There is no future tense about that
declaration 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, ''I know nothing. Give me
time and / will get it. 1 have no evil
Idence to put before your Board" What
did the defendant say at that July
meeting? Gentlemen, l 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 response
biIities Of his official relation to this in
stitution, but inside of nine or ten days
given him he had brought his friends
who could testify to these things and
said, Gentlemen, I am ready" You
did not postpone that meeting on his
account. Is that evasion? If he had
, wanted to eVade it he would have said,
Gentlemen, I am not ready; give me
more time" But he said, L am ready;
and, mark YOU, when more time was
4 asked by Judge Clark and the Simita-
tiOnS proposed which did satisfy him,
{ till Christmas" Was that an effort to
hinder Judge Clark from the prOduc-
ton 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 I 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 skulking man, or of a
man who 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
June 7th. The words which Judge
Clark used are "affiuence of sycophan-
cy." This is a grave charge, and it
means that the defendant is base par
asite. You can't find word that sinks
man to a lower depth when you fast
| en- it on him, than that word 'SycO-
phancy." And it was not ordinary
sycOphancy. but an ''aff1uence of sycO-
phancy'' 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 a notice. They bring in an
honest, Open-faced young reporter, Mr..
Council, and put him on the stand TO
ask him about the speech, to prove the
SyCOphancy of the defendant. He teStl-
fed 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 college boys
round about him. Where is the syco-
iphancy? What does Mr.. Wilson say
about the defendant toadyzng 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-
dant state? That he is an open, a
frank, independent, self-assertive man
who stands on his manhood. They are
men who know the defendant, they are
not men who dreamed one night they
saw him, and woke up the next morn
ing to retail yarns about his reputation.
They are men who have stood by him
in the pulpit all over his native State,
who have gotten down with him in the
straw at Methodist camp-meetings and
talked with poor penitents, who have
bowed with him at the bedside and
offered their prayers unto their God,
who have sat at tables and talked one
with another, who unbosOmed their in
nermost souls to each other-and these
men come here and say, This man is
incapable of sycophancy, he toadies to
nobody"
What is the testimony of the defen-
dant's colleagues? They are men who
see him here under every trial incident