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

N'uE Sourl vi -&ppeuiS nus Stllu III IL IL
cent case. in reference to a so-called trial
conducted as this was:
IT obviously lies at the foundation Of
Justice that in any forum whore the
determined, he has a right to be presen!
and to be heard through Ills witnesses
and counsel, and to hear the testimony
OF his aaversarys witnesses, 10 cross
examine them, and to rebut their testi-
mony." And that any trial which does
not conform to this rule is "a mock trial,
and should be SGT aside" That these. or
similar rules, "ARB FOUNDED IN
nrEEy NbchssAisY For H T1in H1 DHE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN
EVERY FORM WHATEVER"
Fortunately, for us. before Colonel
give his testimony, he had written out
n statement OF what he saw and what
had occurred In Bowly's room. but which
we could not see until II was furnished
time the record of the Judgment was.
mis- written statement Of Colonel Bro
dies differs materially from his oral tes-
timony; and we leave 1t to the public
either is--e. g., In regard to the time 1t
took him TO get In the door, he says III
this written statement. 1t took him Some
seconds" There is not word IN nj, It
BoNlv telling him some tline after that,
'nll four had struck him; which last
hcarsny statement was not evidence at
all, and which, 1t will be seen from Bow
IL these accused students had been al
lowed TO be present when Colonel Rrodie
gave his testimony, and had heard him
say these shutters were closed. ana that
Bowiy had told him call four had struck
him. they would have then had an op-
6ortunity Of contradlcting the last state
ment and OF explaining tho first, If such
was the fact, but which We never heard
of in this case until we appeared peiorc
the board.
But, as We have seen. they were af-
fordcd no such opportunity IN the so
called trial rs conducted by this faculty,
its records showed is irregularity and
Injustice that they declined to let us see
them, or TO furnish me with alcopy at
my. expense. 80,
called separately before the faculty. Iach
one admitted that he was IN the roorl'
but denied positively that he had any
thing w,atevcr to do with the s,n haz Ing
and tho man who did The hazHlg says
that this was literally true.
But the faculty say they were IN the
room and did not protect; and this: It
seems, is the sole ground OF accusation
against these boys.
In the first place, there Is no regu!a-
ton Of this college for Furnishing stu
dent for being In a room where haz'Ig Is
done. nor Is there any law IN TINS land
there any law anywhere Tor Furnishing
one who is present when n crime Is COM
United, unless he is participant IN that
crime, or In some way conspired to COM
init It? There Is not a particle OF test1-
mony In this case to show that my son,
Eubank or Sallee did either of these two
things, but all the testimony Is to the
contrary. nor is there any regulation OF
this college requiring those. present to
protest against hnzing, and especially is
this true where the party hazed did not
protest himself, and did not REGARD
THE MATTER SERIOUSLY AT ALL,
as he says.
We see them
/. There was no law Of this college
which these three students had violted.
Q There was not only no proof that
positive statement, both of the boy hazed
and Of the one who did the hazing, is
that they had nothing whatever to do
with the matter.
But there was another student in
I3owly's room. his roommate. He did
not protest either. Why, then, was he
not equally with my son, Ecbank and
sallce? And yet he was not punished at
all.
think I have demonstrated then
l. That my son, Euban1 and sallec had
nothing to do with this hazing
.. That the only evidence connecting
them with it was the illegal and i'm
proper hearsay testimony of what Brode
says Bowly told him some time after
and which Bowly says is not true.
3. That the socalled trial OF these stu
dents was what our Court OF Appeals has
termed mockery and a travesty on the
administration Of Justice.
But before leaving this branch Of the
case, let us examine more closely the
testimony of Colonel Brodie. as reported
in the letters OF the president, and see
| how these reports compare with his
verbal statement before the faculty, and
his written statement made before going
| there to testify
| /. In his first letter to me. the president
says Colonel Brodie could not gain adj
| mittance to the room until he had knocked
time and again. and not then, until
thinking him student, they lei him In
We have seen how Colonel Brode's
verbal and written statements differ about
the time, and in neither of these Is
there anything said about their thinking
him a student" Andrews says he was
Immediately admitted, which is corrob-
Grated by my son. Eubank and Sallee.
and this statement more nearly accords
with Colonel Brodie's written statement
that 1t took him some seconds" to get in.
2. Again. the president says. when
Colonel Brode entered. "he found new
boy with a paddle in the act of striking
him IN neither his V, jal nor written
statements does Colonel Brodle say
Bowly was Stretched across a trunk
and the truth Is, there was no trunk
8. Again Colonel Brodie says, when ne
entered, Andrews was standing "ns IL in
the act of beating him C3owly) with IL
paddle and he then goes on TO describe
The shape Of the so-called paddle" as
being ''made out of u board narrowed at
one ond." have the so-callcd paddle
in my possession brought TO me by Bowly
himself, and II shows by its own shape
IN no uncertain way, that it has never
been touched for the purpose of being
converted into paddle at ALL but is
only a thin piece OF pine box top, picked
up, as Andrews says, on the porch near
Bowly's door, with which II would be
almost impossible to inlet a serious in
jury, which Bowly himself says Andrews
applied moderately, not to hurt much
and he further says he Ibid not regard
Gu seriously ut ALL"
l. But, again, says 3rodie, when he
entered, Bowly was bending over ana
Andrews was lin the act Of beating him
tEowly, with paddle" Salce tells us
the door was opened by either Andrews
or Eowly How, then. could Bo%ly be
bending over with Andrews IN the act
OF striking him, If one or the other of
these two opened the door? And is 1t
rcasonnb bic 10 believe that Andrews would
have been 'iU the act OF striking I!OWly