The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1898-09-13
Pr88id8nt KilQo8 Speech
Review of the Evidence at the Investigation Before the
Trustees of Trinity College.

ne L. llbi III lulS tOuiL TINS -
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 1t,
The Board will be unfair to me unless
it investigates these reports and makes
Judge Clark prove his charges Is i
statement like that the scheme Of a man
e~ndeavoring to eyade facts! Isn't 1t 4
public challenge. issued to the Board OF
Trustees of Trinity College. to defend
him. a mere employee. to bring him and
the accuser face to face and let them SCI
tie the truth of the whole matter: \
man who wishes to evadel truth. does
he publicly challenge any man to an
open investigation of a 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-
ions 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 defance
for an emplOye to issue such Il 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 70 evade the
ISSUES, and not the President of Trinity
College. He was not present at the
June meeting. mark you, though fully adj
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 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 fric-
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 Il man unfit for
Il 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 yet left the front of the battle
and skulked off into some hiding place
like Il 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
ing of July 18th Judge Clark failed to
produce a single word Of evidence he
had in his possession. He said he could
have lone 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.
Il 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 an 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 OF
ten days given him he had brought his
friends who could testify 10 these things
and said. Gentlemen. l am ready" You
did not postpone that meeting 0 n his
account. Is that evasion! If he had
wanted to evade it he would have said
"Gentlemen. | I'M not ready: give me
more time But he said. Il am ready:'
and. mark YOU, when more time was
asked by Judge Clark and the limita
ions proposed which did satisfy him
your defendant said, Give Judge Clarl
till Christmas" Was that an effort t.
hinder Judge Clark from the production
Of testimony which he had had in his
hands for weeks? Is that the spirit of !;
man who wishes to get round what :
man has and has not?
Now [ ask you as honest mon, in thu
sight of these facts, who evaded the is
sue? What is the record or this EN-
plOyee's dealings with this Board? Ha
it been that of q skulking man. or of
who were always came to your Board
gave you the advantage of all thu
knowledge he had, and presented to yo,
) every suggestion possible to him for tn,
: good of this college? No. sir. We sa,
to your prosecutor that the crime o
this charge rests. not at the feet Of tn,
defendant, but it does rest at the feet o
the accusing witness.
The next charge refers to the spiri
which animated the defendant in tn,
Serenade Of Mr.. Duke on the night o
June 18th. The words which .Judg,
Clark used are "affuence Of sycophan
: cy." This is a grave charge. and it mean
: that the defendant is a base parasite
| You can't find Il word that sinks a ma,
to a lower depth when you fasten it o.
him, than that word "sycophancy.' An,
. it was not ordinary ~sycophancy, but n
"afflunce of sycophancy" which animate
: him on that occasion. Now where is tn
proof as to this charge? What evidence d
they produce to prove it? Not one wor
:! that's worth Il notice. They bring in q
| honest. open-faced young reporter. MI
| Council, and put him on the stand t
> ask him about the speech, to prove tn
, sycophaEcy of the defendant. He test
T fed that the spirit of the defendant O
; that occasion was that of humor an
: of mere outburS of imprOmptu eXulta
; ton witt Il crowd of his scoilege boy
t round about him. Where is the sycC
phancy? What does Mr.. Wilson sa
about the defendant toadying to men
: Says his knowledge of the man is tina
!. he is incapable of that kind of thing
= What does every witness for the defer
0 dant state? That he is an open. a franl
t independent. self-assertiye man VIII
r stands on his manhood. They are mo
I who know the defendant. they are nc
men who dreamed one night they sa,
e him. and woke up the next morning t
t retail about his reputation.
s They are men who have stood nv hi,