Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1901-03-14

The matter of the removal Of DR.. w.
]. Hartigan from the Professorship OF
anatomy al the State University, by
the Board of Regents Of that institu-
ton, has been a subject for wide
spread discussion and criticism among
the people Of the State, and particular
~ so since the recent decision of the
Supreme Court, in favor of the Regents
and antagonistic to the Doctor.
Yesterday a reporter for the Regis
ter asked Col. w. w. Arnett, of u
sci for the Doctor, for a statement OF
the case, and the following facts were
given in concise form:-
IN June, 1898, and again in April,
1899, complaints against DIR. Hartigan
were laid before the Board of Regents
by President Raymond, Of the Uniyer-
sity. The objections and causes OF
complaint were never specified, and DR..
H~artigan was never notified of any OBJ
lection, but one of the Regents, in an
incidental conversation, told DR.. Harti-
gan that President Raymond was max
ing some charges before the Board. DR..
Hartigan at once went before the
Board. HE was not advised officially
that any charges had been preferred,
and had no knowledge of-what they
were, if any, but the President of the
Board Of Regents told him they would
listen to him if he had anything to say
upon the general status of the Univer-
sity, meanwhile assuring him that no
charges had been preferred. DR.. Harti-
gan responded that if the Board of
Regents would indicate subjects con-
nected with the University upon which
they would like to be enlightened, he
would talk briefly thereon. The Re-
gents agreed to this, and in response
to questions and suggestions, DR.. Harti-
gan spoke for about three-quarters of
an hour, and then left the meeting.
"After that he was reelected Pro-
fessor of Anatomy, and was unaware
of any other charges until the Board
of Regents met in Parkersburg in De-
cember last. Then, without notifca-
ton of charges given him, or to- any
one, the Board proceeded by resolution
to remove both DR.. Hartigan and DR..
Armstrong.
among the best lawyers in the
State, their opinions being given in
writing to DR.. Hartigan, it was held
that he and DR.. Armstrong could not
be removed without charges having
been preferred and the defendants no.
titled of the character of the charges,
as also of the time and place where
the charges would be heard by the
Board. DIR. Hartigan was of opinion,
as was his counsel, that the statutes
of the State of West Virginia requir-
ed that anticedently to the time of
meeting of the Board of Regents at
which charges looking to the removal
of a professor of the University would
be heard, notification must be given
TO each member of the Board that such
charges would be preferred and such
hearing take place; and also held that
the statutes provide that he could only
be removed for cause, and that where
cause is necessary preceding notice to
the party whose conduct is to be in
v~estigated must be given. This view
being held by defendant and counsel,
they decided to bring the case before
the appellate Court on a writ of prohi-
bition, especially so in view of the fact
that the removal was not to take effect
until March /, 1901.
such being the conclusions of DR..
Hartigan, a rule in prohibition was is
sued and rejected by request on the
part of Judge Mason, so that it might
ut once go before the Supreme Court,
and be appealed regularly to that tri-
bunal.
1.-The argument took place late in