The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1905-12-28

could tho faculty determine whether tn ny
new aud material" evidence which ., o,r
sufficient Importance to justify them IN
reopening" the case, without either nav
Ing that now evidence before IT., or allow W.,
Ing me to a,nte what \ MaS 70 80 30
EITHER OF THESE TWO iliiNGs HINES;
Is this the course Of procedure ;tdoitcu
by those who really seek tio eiias OIL
Justice?
But this action of The fac,lltyy. implied
ttnt 7 wns guilty OF some dcrcliction in
not laying before IT at thht ncclillg
written statements setting fori, IN, the nT r%
evidence which p lt,I,y 70 o'Aer
~ NV principal witness fas before
stated the only man who did, OF was
at all concerned in. the hnzihg1 was ab-
gent, and could not be gotten to Blacks-
burg before the honr of the meeting
f2J 1t never occurred TO nle that the
faculty would wish TO use WRITTEN
STATEMENTS wien tnc y. l,aa the !, living
especially did this seem to be so, in view
OF the presidents letter, just then re
:scived. stating that the faculty had let
in preference to using his written state
menl Which was lying before them ut
tile time
90 That ike the alleged offence Of
w
there was nothing in the regulations on
this subject and | could not therefore,
be cognsant of the existence of any
such requirement.
received about two hours before the
meeting. did not indicate, In tho slight
est degree that any such Requirement
would be made of me, but stated only
That tine specific grounds on which /
asked the rehCaring should be stated in
writing; and these specific grounds wcrc
stated IN as piain language as l knew
how to employ.
90 But even ii the presidents letter
had made this requirement, 1t would
have been physical mpossihillty for me
10 have gotten the witnesses together
Hnd reduced their statements to writing
letter and the hour Of the meeting OF the
faculty
IN the account of the Interview CON
tanned n the anonymous pamphlet, called
+ ANSWER OF THE FACULTY. 10 my
letter. between the president, two other
nembers OF the faculty and myself,
which account contains many miscon-
ccptlons and nisstatemcnts Of what ac-
,'ially took place. it Ii stated that the
president fui's explained to me the
method of procedure Of the faculty in
cases Of appeal for the rrecopcning Of a
case and that the faculty always re-
fuacd TO reopen n case, unless some
~eigh,y, new matter was presented be-
fcrehand FOR It's consideration, etc.
e made. This pamphlet states that 1t was
made both then and in the presidents
letter and that this new matter had
TO be IN writing The presidents letter
( itself contradlcts this, and the existing
circumstances, as well as my own denial,
contradict the statement as contained in
\ the account Of that interview. The dis
cussions In that interview were solely for
the purpose or obtaining 9, meeting OF
the faculty; 1t was all could do to get
the president to consent TO call this meet
Ing; we never reached the point of PRO-
CEDURD before it Mt all, the president
stating It would be for the faculty to de-
tarniine when Il met. whether / would
hear either Senator Daniel or myself.
But. admitting for the sake Of tho
arg ument only, that was told that this
new and material. evidence had to be
laid before the faculty nj their meeting
In writing. was on hand ready to cx-
plain why this had not been. and could
not be. done: ana j. 1t consonant with
the ends OF justice. or do thosc who wis!l
really to do Justice stand upon technical
nrethods OF procedure in order to reach
Hat end? Tho courts Of this Common
wealth do not do this even in cases
against the rilcst criminals of the land.
Senator Daniel reached Blacksburg that
evening October I'D. but after the fac
ulty had acted and adjourned. For some
reason Andrews did not come. Very
soon after Senator Daniel arrived. we
gothic witnesses on the ground together.
and Senator Daniel wrote down their
these were scveraliy signed. We then de-
termined to appeal to tho board of visi-
tors las the president in my only inter-
view, said We might as well 40 at ilrst;
4 mt which declined to do. Eincc l.
wished the Judgment OF the, faculty on
tic new and material. evidence which
I knew they had not heardl
Suppression Of the Recird.
BEFORE leaving Blacksburg The next
morning. I requested In writing to be
l-,-ttb ne
he record of the cases. was Informed
By thc secretary just as | was getting
on the train that these records were
under the control of The faculty, ana That
II meeting would be called as soon as
,,,.ae ,icabln t.to consider my request.
y Later on ! was Informed by the. secretary
illat the faculty had determined that
their records were mot open TO inspec-
ZION. and could not be demanded by any
EXCEPT tho board of visitors
senator Daniel and myself left Blachs-
burg on TUESDAY morning; OCT oper 80.
lrews's statement, which re gave cheer
FUZZY, withsthe utmost candor and frank
ness. n which, as we have seen he as
been done mss. and fully eSonerated my
ron. Eubank and Sallee from all blame.
After We Ind rotten this statement from
Andrews and found 1t 50 thoroughly sat-
lsfactoly, both Of us concluded at once
It was only necessary TO lay the matter
before the faculty and let them see the
whole case, which We knew they had not
hone before and to ask for rehearing
10 that end | wrote letter to tho
faculty, setting os:t the whole testimony
Except that OF my sou, as TO which T..
only stated 1t would oorrohoratc that of
Eubauk. Sallco and Andre"s), deter
'nipcd TO print this let{cr, so that each
member OF the faculty could have Il
ropy, and was greatly delayed In getting
his done, because OF the strike among
the printers in Richmond, and this | ex-
planned IN my letter 10 the president:
so That, although this letter was dated