The San Francisco call., 1904-12-30

SACRAAENTO, Dec. Ze.7Jonn r.
Davis. E. II. Hatch and G. R Lukens,
who were appointed by Governor Par
Gee 70 investigate the charges OF mis-
conduct preferred against the State
BOARD q Pharmacy, have completed
. their labors and fled e report which
practically exonerates the accused Of
hcials. II is admitted that the board
was careless II some particulars, but
the inquiry failed 20 substantiate the
charge. OF dishonesty. The report is IN
part ss follows:
Ths funds q TIE board were properly
counted 1or. The once of the state Controller
made 8 sonp,ets Investigation of the financial
vestigatioz began and Colonel ". ". Douglas,
Deputy state Controller. testified al the hear
Tx Ths board made & settlement with the
ststs July 26. 1905, under which II paid into
g. special fund II the State treasury balance
q $50 = os1Fec rom the pharmacy Law
; Esneer law CT March 20, 1900. EEE7eEating
Previous boards had never paid anything
iLte the STATE treasury. though there was a
. small balance o. hand each year Il IL true
&c settIsineu1 was ever made by this board
r%tth the sffcs ot the State Controller until
this year but * IS also trus that the board
settled as soon as requested and that no re
cuesC tcr settlement by the state was ever
MADE ultl this year.
..Tw5 items were disclosed during the exam
bpen 10 objection, one being set of per
ceeus snc fees Tor hoi1-over meetings OF g
board which viii be commented OF later.
ard The other being three items aggregating
S2s7 for attorneys fees for looking after two
legislative bills requested q the board, one an
'az5en6ment and one an original bill. 10 be
e. acted b. the state Legislature.
WANTS LAW AMENDED
-his expenditure was unnecessarily incurred
AZ is e kind o. expense not 10 be encouraged
gesIs that the law should be amended 50 as
- place e limit on the amount OF compensa-
'-ior that could be drawn in any one year.
a. IL the case q the managers q cur state
hospitals for the insane, and IN this sugges-
zion we concur. Whatever change may be
Gll isable IN this direction, however the fsct
remains that the financial affairs of the board
are u correct shape the accounts and vouch-
e-s are cor-e-t and rhere IS no controversy be
rs7eer rhe board and the Controllers Office
Ne come then 70 the matter which pre-
cip-sted THIS inquiry soon after the an
bell ay the board CT April i, 1904 and the
- - following days. FOR admission 10 prac-
rsrlous interviews and articles appeared in
fte public press q san Francisco and Oak
land charging the board broadly with favorit-
ISM - -1cse examinations stating tnal certain
questions given al the examination had been
given out IA advance 20 certain favored pupils,
.tlat cribbirg had been allowed, that ciscTim-
lnarlcn had been practiced IN the tine allowed
for answering in some examinations. that dis
elimination had been prscticed IN marking
papers and that outside friends of certain
scholars had been allowed 70 be present and
aid them These articles held Up the conduct
e these examinations as q fraud and fright
CHARGES NOT SUSTAINED.
f1u- committee made very close and pa
-lelt examination Of al the evidence obtain
ate on rhis point There are Two vacancies
may BE- remarked IN the beginning. was not
present a. the holding Of these examinations
and therefore tbs phase Of the investigation
ces NOT concern him, but refers 10 the other
-iuS members OF the board Il may be re-
ms-Tked also that there were no formal charges
0[ any kind presented against the board. yet
the hosrd offered every facility for a complete
From the evidence presented we do not be
= lieFe that there was any conscious fsvOritisn
a. sly pupil or class Of pupils IN the ex-
animation room though. as shown below, GER
tain liberties given 70 outsiders did operate
To- thu oisacrantage q certain pupils We
. feel satisfied that the board tried 10 maintain
= ~ !. lls eA-il iI-.l3 3n TON alo 70 pTe.eilt
= ss-sing ana crio6-nE- snd that, until this
invest. cation. they believed they had succeeded
That there was some eT1bbing, as Is apt 70
laIp pen .lp any eNaIlllstlln room, We are satis-
fed.ih. feet that there was considerable.
We feel certain. however, that the board
. dc theif best 20 prevent f. but in their care
U WATCH. come pupils OF whom they were sus-
e-te-s u-bo1a fhev we're not vTstcEfnr Tbev
z.ere not uD-to-6ate IN the methods Of pre-
venting cribbiug. and al the investigation
themselves learned at least one new method
souroefulness OF the modern female student.
EVIDENCE INCONCLUSIVE.
With reference 70 the time allowed the iden-
- alton q drugs. II the examination held IN
that subject. Miss Ruby Fisher complained
that she cid not have sufficient time 10 finish
End that others had more time than she did
Part q the scholars were examined upstairs
and part downstairs Those downstairs could
easily be seen through skylight by any one
desiring from point on the floor above
outside the place where those upstairs were
examined Miss Fisher did not have z watch
TIE cay she vas examined n this subject. and
does not claim that she actually timed any
cre not even herself.
There tG 10 evidence that exactly the same
number q pupils went upstairs as remained
downsrsirs and the fact that some time after
Miss Fishers examination over she went
back upstairs. and. upon looking down through
the szTlightt saw pupils still taking the ex-
sn1nstlo1s downstairs IS not conclusive that
they were being given more time downstairs
The evidence IS undisputed that the pupils
both upsteirs and downstairs were examined
n relays of four a. q tine. and that Miss