The daily morning journal and courier., 1907-10-31

OPEN ALL NIGHT, EVERY NIUuI' ------------------------- mated against?" The answer was, Well, I am unable to tell. cannot as- certain my position"
 "so far as you could see publicly you were treated like the others?" The reply was that as far as he could see he was.
 MT. Andrews took up the reply for the board. He stated that the board did not believe that the committee had jurisdiction over 1t but was willing to appear and do what it could to bring the matter to a settlement. He said that the board was glad to have the papers of MT. Carroll reviewed With the aldermanic committee present. He continued by saying that the commits sion had endeavored to treat Carroll with the utmost respect, that he came in late for the examination and that as matter of courtesy to him part of the oral spelling had been repeated, He declared that the papers were marked with the same consideration as the oth ere,
 Carroll began to take up allega- tions regarding things which had oc- cured in the board some years ago and which he introduced as instances of leaks in the board in regard to ex- aminations and methods which he did not consider right, He made a charge that when Samuel Well was secretary of the commission he had seen men, one of whom was Edward Maroney, go to the secretary's desk when the latter was not there, unlock | it and take from 1t papers which were then taken to another room and after wards returned. He could not say what the papers were This aroused Chief Wrinn to a contest with Carroll which at times approached a great degree of warmth He declared that at no time was Carroll refused by the board permission to look over the rec ords of the commission and Carroll at once interrupted him to declare that permission had been refused him,
 The chief then went on to state that he had never appeared before the commission and asked to see his rec ords, and maintained that speaking to Individual members or to the secre- tary and president did not constitute making a request to the board. He Twas asked what he thought should have been done, and he said appear before the commission; and when asked whether the commission had held any meetings since the dispute arose, which he could have appeared at, he said he could not say, but that ! Carroll should have waited to appear before the board fnd made his re- quest
 Evidence was introduced to show that there had been meeting since the trouble arose and that it had been voted to allow Carroll to see the rec ords in accordance with the corpora tion counsel's opinion, but that Car roll stated that was not what he want ed, therefore he did not feel that the
 board had compiled with his request.
 MT. Andrews in reply to questioning
 by the chairman stated that when he
 was secretary persons had been allow
 ed to see their own papers if dissatis-
 fled, but never any one elses. He ad-
 mitted that Carroll should, of course
 be given the same treatment thai : others received and said he was will
 the next meeting of the board. The other members of the board agreed tC
 this.
 Carroll here insisted that he must bt
 allowed to have his expert look ove' , the paper which was emphatically re
 fused by the commission. Professor
 Reed stated that this would be equiva
 lent in his opinion to admitting that h. , and his fellow members were incompet
 ent for their duties and while tha might be so he was not willing to admi } | it. If it was so he said he should b
 at once removed.
 The question of how the examination
 papers were made up was gone into
 It was stated that in the case of thi
 examination two experts in the lin of work were independently asked t submit a series of questions and an ! swers and from these the board SC
 leeted a composite which they use
 for the exam. The secretary had tf papers only a few days before the eS animation for preparing copies. It WE Q brought out that they were typewrit 9 ten by the secretary's stenographe 0 and it was admitted that this was DO n sible, but MT. Andrews declared in hi :. opinion a very improbable leak. e Themanner of marking was also tal 5 en up. It was stated by the member U that all present went over the paper !, and that they were not marked by an
 technical questions were determined |
 the experts consulted, a sit was admi l. ted that the board was not compete1 q to determine the answers in technics l, questions.
 In rebuttal Carroll stated that he q s not think he came in late. as the pi 1t pers were not given out until he WE n there. According to the statemel :, made by the commission the dictatic u and spelling part were in part ov' q | when he arrived.
 Chief Wfinn and Carroll at times a
 most forgot the chairman and were el ;" teFing into personal arguments whiC q were interrupted by the cnair. At eI @ time the chief objected to being que ., toned as a commission by a man vi II found fault with the examination b n cause the questions were too hard f, IS him to answer, whereat Carroll flash, l. back that he objected to being insultt
 in that manner, The chairman inte r. rupted the altercation. Wrinn also sa d he felt offended that the matter h. d been taken up to the aldermen, and sa " that Carroll would rather get permi '- sion to see his papers or records fro
 the board than from the commissiC Il itself
 The committee will meet again ne Wednesday evening, and MT. Carroll h