The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1898-09-02
4 CHALLENGE TO The JURY
AN APPEAL FOR IMPARTIALITY
BY JUSTICE CLARK.

O0f -
who'Have Expressed Themselves as
Favorable to DIR. KiIgo and a. Ad.
verse TO Himself, 10 Sit ON His Case as
Judge
Especial to Charlotte Observer)
Durham, August 30.-The investiga-
ton by the board Of the trustees OF
Trinity college in the Clark-Kilgo cor
troversy began here today. Justice
Clark submitted the following:
CHALLENGE TO TIE JURY.
This board ha met for the investi-
cation of matters CT fact. Its duty Is
similar to that of a Jury. In order that
it's findings may a weight outside
of this room the board must present to
the world the stern neutrality Of I'M
partial Judges of the facts. 1t is an in
herent principle of justice nat no man
should sit in determination of disputed
issues Of fact who has any bias, or is
in any wise Interested in the result, or
who has formed and expressed his de-
cision in advance. Having myself ex-
pressed an opinion adverse to the de-
PENDANT L should not think Of voting
upon any question in this trial, and as
a member of this board, as we'll as in
the capacity of one who has been re-
queSted by you to procure and present
evidence and is therefore entitled to
have it impartially weighed, l have a
right to ask hat no one shall vote who
has formed and expressed opinions in
favor of the defendant, or who sustains
relations to him or to this controversy,
which would d~iSqualify him as a juror
I'm making this demand for an irn-
partial jury / intend no reflection upon
the moral character of any one present,
since the similar challenge in courts of
justice is not so held. 1t is not a reflec-
ton upon the party challenged but a
demand for impartiality. 1t would be
no benefit to DR.. KiIgO, or to this
board, if a result is declared by those
who in part or as a whole have already
prejudged the case.
Wherefore with the greatest person.
Al respect l call the attention of this
board to the following facts: On Jun
18th, this board adopted, in my absence,
the report of a committee, that after
careful consideration of the matter of
correspondence between DR.. Kilgo and
myself, they found me unfair and UNI
charitable heartily endorsed DR.. Kill
go and his administration and asked
me to resign. And now | am asked to
lay before this board evidence which
calls in question this endorsement Of
his administration and this cOndcm-
nation of myself. This is to require tbs
matter to be considered by the very
jury hat has once decided it and to
ask you to sit in your own cause and
condemn your own conduct. This would
not be permitted in q petty case in
vOlVing the petty sum of S. in a court
of Justice. No matter how honorable
the members of the board may be they
cannOt be absolutely impartial in pass
ing upon evidence calling in question
the correctness of their former find
ings. Mr.. SOuthgate says that the fol-
lowing tWenty-One trustees voted on
that resolution, only one Of them being
against it's adoption i. e., ReVS. N. M.
Jurney, r. N. Ivey, w. G. Wilson, @.
A. OgIesby, r. A. Bishop, j. r. Brooks,
A. =. Tyer, J. b. Hurley, w. S. Crea-
sy, p. L. GroOme and Messrs. b. n.
Duke, W. II. BransOn, V. Ballard, r.
A. Mayer, A. H. Stokes, J.. H. South
gate. E. J.. Parish, P. II. Hanes, w. r.
Odcll, G. w. Flowers and O. w. Carr,
all Of whom have thus formally passed
upon the controversy, though L have
been informed that Mr.. SOuthgate was
in error as to two of those named,
who, it is claimed, did not vote upon
the resolution.
Furthermore, at the called meeting
on the 18th of July, | was present in
COIlHtH ut1ltt vi SobI lNtoOSb NI1'N L cNA
you with evidence in the investigation
begun at his instance, [ presume, as he
had stated in the press that he would
call for it. l stated that not having
laid any charges before your board, L
was not prepared with legal evidence,
but if the board WOuld give me time l
would try to furnish it, if desired. That
| believed every word l had stated in
respect to DR.. Kilgo was strictly and
literally true, and | a stated moth
ing except upon good authority, but
being matters not upon my own knoWl-
edge it would require some time and
trouble to get the evidence in Legal
shape. On his return home one of the
trustees stated to a gentleman who
was not a trustee that the entire board
was for DR.. KilgO to a man, and
against me. This expression of a jury
as to a cause pending before it would
~disqualify it in any court of justice.
The trustee referred to is a careful
and observant man and his conclusion
agrees very nearly with my own on
that occasion when | was received
not as an invited witness to aid the
board in a bona fide investigation, but
rather as If | were defendant in the
cause and your board were Co-pruSe-
CutorS with DR.. Kilgo.
Furthermore, since the 18th of July
at the meetings of the district confer
ences, pending the investigation of this
very matter whether the board Should
endorse the administration of DR.. Kill
60, and while he was under inVeStiga-
ton by you, many of this board have
voted, 1 am informed. for resolution
endorsing DR.. Kilgo, and some of them
1 am told, were influential in having
such resolutions passed. After this tri
pie decision of the issue before you, /
would be difficult to convince youl
board to a contrary effect, unless mem
bers who have been so decided in thei1
convictions in favor of DR.. kilgO art
eliminated from the hearing.
In addition to these, and other Oc'
casions still, in which members of thi:
board AVE expressed themselves upor
DR.. Kilgo's side as to the matter nov
to be investigated, l respectfully sub
NIT there are personal reasons Wh1
several of the board should feel them
caluaS inca naPitatnI RI cit