The Ocala banner. (Ocala, Marion County, Fla.) 1883-194?, 1903-03-13
THE STETSON SCANDAL.
ET-Eoitor cslhoun's Very Able Do
fence of Or. Forbes.


From the TaiaTa Tfjbuie
Editor Tribune: So much has been
said in the state press about the diff
Guilty and scandal al Stetson Uniyer-
sity. and there is a such an evident
trend in a portion of the press to ia
vor one side of the controversy. that
I ask room for summary, brief as
may be. of the circumstances attend
ing the affair from the beginning. l
have had personal interest and reason
10 induce me to give the matter a
thorough investigation from an en-
tirely unbiased standpoint | would
like to make my conclusions public
through your columns.
The main point at issue is whether
DIR. Forbes. president OF the institu-
ton. has been guilty Of criminal mis-
conduct with one of the female teach
ers. This has been charged upon him.
II true. he should have been removed
from his place. IL untrue, the pro-
ceedings OF the trustees who removed
Mr.. Stetson from the presidency OF
their board and confirmed DR.. Forbes
in the presidency and administration
of the institution are fully justified.
I will first consider the question OF
.ho s-,,sl. rs, iunnaanCa Of Dr Forbes
Last July an attorney Of DeLand, who
represented himself as acting for Mr..
Stetson. exhibited to me mass of af-
fidavits which he had secured against
DR.. Forbes and the lady in question,
and which. believe, comprise all he
has been able to obtain up to this
date. In il all there was not a shred
OF what any court would call evil
dence. | gave il careful considera-
ton. There was absolutely nothing
in il but hearsay and rumor, the idlest
chaff of idle gossip. The foundation
OF il was the surmise of a man whom
Or. Forbes had detected in stealing
Systematically from the University
and whom he had discharged from his
connection with it, a man who was
afterwards dismissed in disgrace from
the Methodist ministry for theft, ~
ing. profane and obscene language
and wife beating. His testimony, ev.
identity rank perjury. based upon a de-
sire for revenge-equally evidently
prepared with much skill TO steer
clear of any assertion OF fact which
could be rebutted TO prove its falsity
was not OF the slightest force in
showing a state of facts as alleged.
This testimony was unsupported by
4 solitary assertion of fact in the &C
companying afldavits, numerous as
they were.
The matter has been the subject OF
three official investigations. The first
was by a committee. composed OF Mr.
Stetson. Rev. William H. Stewart and
Rev. DIR. George B. Foster, of Chicago
the latter being a special representa-
tive OF the University Of Chicago
with which Stetson University is
closely affiliated. This committee, o,
which Mr.. Stetson was a member, un
reservedly exOnerated and acquitted
DR.. Forbes. The second examination
was made by a large committee
which arrived at the same conclusion
The third was made by the entirt
board OF trustees-twenty-on gentle
men OF the highest standing-and thu
board was unanimous in the sam,
finding. 1t is a we'll known principle
OF law that a man shall not be twice
placed in jeopardy for the same OF
tense. Yet DR.. Forbes was thret
times brought to trial for the same al
legged misconduct. Each time he wa,
honorably acquitted with the supple
mentary verdict that there had never
been shown against him a circum
stance which justified the slightes
suspicion.
II would ordinarily be supposed tha
this would be sufficient to settle tn,
matter foTever-but il seems not &
have done so in this case. The pur
suit OF Or. Forbes continued, and hi:
assailants appealed to tie newspapers
and 10 public opinion. Unable tc
make a case against him before the
proper tribunals, they undertook II