The age-herald., 1899-12-20

Tuscaloosa, December 9.-(Speclal)-The report of the Investigating committee Of the University Alumni association, as sub mitted at the meeting of the Alumni asso- citation, is as follows:
 To the Society of the Alumni of the Uni versity of Alabama:
 At a joint meeting of the executive, ad- visory and legislative committees of the Society of the Alumni of the University of Alabama held in Montgomery, Ala. on Tuesday, November 2S 1899, the under signed committee was appointed ito fully and carefully investigate the facts and cir cumstances regarding the recent sale of lands belonging to the university to the Sloss-sheffield company. and also whether or not the sale is legally valid, and report the facts developed from such investigation, together with their conclusions drawn therefrom to this meeting of the Society of the Alumni.
 ferred to, this committee has devoted much time to the investigation of the sale re- ferred to. We have had no authority to summons witnesses, to compel their attend ance or to administer oaths, but we have, as Tar as pOSSlDle, SOne to OrlBLndi SouIcSS of information and have gathered every fact which we could bearing upon this question.
 Manifestly, the first proposition is, wheth- CT or not the sale mentioned Is valid. The only authority for this sale was a resolu- ton passed at meeting of five of the trustees, together with the governor of the state, held on the 22d day of September 1899. Under the law, five members of the board constitute quorum when the board has been regularly called together but not otherwise. The question then is whether or not the meeting of September 22, 1S99 was duly called together. Secondly, if 1t was properly called, whether or not the resolution referred to is void on its face.
 The Meeting Clearly Illegal
 The alleged meeting of September 22. 1899, was special meeting, and the only author ity for special meeting of the board of trustees of the university Is conferred by section 3677 of the code of Alabama, which is follows:
 ''3677 Time and Place of Meeting of Trus- tees--The board of trustees shall meet at least once dn each year, and on the last Wednesday in June, unless some other day Is selected by them; and the board may, at any session, appoint special meeting, and upon the written duplication of any four members, or of any three members with his concurrence, the president pro tempofe shall appoint a special meeting and issue notices thereof to the several members; but such meeting shall not be appointed for day less than twenty days subsequent to the date of the notice. All meetings of the board must be held at the university"
 The meeting referred to was never called in the manner required by that section. A call for the meeting was issued from the governors office September IS, R99. We have been furnished with a copy of the original call, which Is as follows:
 State of Alabama,
 "Governor's Office,
 Sept ember IS, 1S99 "Dear Sir:-I have the honor to Inform won that the governor has called a meet ing of the board of trustees of the univer- sitv to be held on Saturday. the 23d inst, tn the office of James F. Webb.
 "Very respectfully,
 fsiened1 "CHAPPELL CORY,
 Private Secretary. "Hon. Daniel Pratt, Prattville, Ala Afterwards upon attention being called to the fact that meetings could only pe held at the university. ehe place was changed from Birmingham to Tuscaloosa, and the date changed to the 32d. At this lime the Hon. M. L. Stansel of Carrollton, Ala, was president pro fempore O. the board This call was never made py Coi- onel Stansel, nor upon the written apphca- nor did the notice specify an hour for the meeting
 An examination of the question shows that the authorities, without any conflct, hold that all acts and resolutions passed at a meeting held under the circumstances above referred to, unless all the memoers should happen to be present, are utterly void. And in cases where the time of the notice is fixed by statute, many cases hold that acts done at such a meeting are void, eeyen though all the members shoul1 be present We have not pursued the latter inuury however, with a view of reaching conclusion, since the invalidity of the meeting is made plain upon at least four other distinct grounds. First, The meet ing was called by the governor, who was totally without authority. Second, The meeting was not called upon the applica- tion of four members of the board. Third, Instead of twenty days notice being given the outside notice was four days, and, in some cases, probably less. Fourth, Though the meeting was called by the governor for a definite purpose, no notice of the purpose was given to the trustees.
 - This is apart from the fact that less than i a ma jority of the trustees were present, and the question of the invalidity of the resolution on its face, which will be dis cussed subsequently,.
 Some Authorities
 of law, we have deemed it proper to quote from portion of the many authorities which we have examined upon this ques- tion all of which, as above stated unani- . morsly agree upon the absolute nullity of the acts done at the meeting. It was held tn the case of trustees of the State Univer- sity9vs. Winston 0 Stewart & Porter. ID.