Arizona republican., 1910-01-08
FINDINGS OF THE BOARD
In Its Judgment the Testi- mony Did Not Remove all the Conflicting Statements But Evidence Was Not Convicting.

The territorial board of education last evening announced its findings in the matter of the charges preferred against Professor A. H. Mcclure by Dr. Kendric C. Babcock in the fol- lowing language:
 The Territorial Board of Education. Coming on to be heard. this 9th day of January. 1910, the charges preferred against A. II. Mcclure by Dr. Kendrick C. Babcock, member of this board, all the members of the board being present, and appearing also respondent A. H. Mcclure, with his attorney, Thos. D. Molloy, and the attorney general likewise ap-
 bearing in behalf of the board, thereupon the charges were read. and evidence, both oral and documentary. adduced in support of the same, and by the respondent in defense thereof. and the board having fully consider ed the same, finds as follows, to-wit:
 l. As to the first charge the board finds that the evidence adduced at the hearing was too conflicting and un- certain to enable it to determine with certainty whether or not A. H. Me Clure, in his letter to Dr. Babcock soliciting the latter's endorsement for appointment to the position of prin- cipal of the 'Uniod High School at Yuma. wilfully misrepresented the att titude of D. l.. DeVane. probate judge and ex-officio county school super
 intendent of Yuma county, in the matter of his candidacy. and there
 fore dismisses the charge.
 ?. As to the second charge the board finds that A. H. Mcclure has a diploma purporting to be that of Graham College. of Graham, Vir- ginia. conferring upon him the de-
 gree of Doctor of Philosophy. It further appears that Graham Col
 lege does not appear in the list of colleges of the United States as pub lished by the United States Bureau of Education. and that it is unknown in the office of the United States commissioner of education. Inas- much, however. as there was intro duced in evidence a certified copy of the articles of incorporation of Gra- ham college, from which it appears that it possesses the power under the laws of the state of Virginia to grant degrees. the board, while of the opinion that the title evidenced by the diploma is of little value. cannot say that it is fraudulent. and it's use by Mir. Mcclure unprofessional con- duct under Sec. 112, Par. 2242 of the Revised Statutes of Arizona. 1901.
 .. In the absence of proof being adduced to sustain them. charges numbers 3 and were dismissed and nc findings are needed.
 4. In support of the fifth charge that certain oil paintings. purporting to be the work of Yuma school chill dren, were submitted. or caused to be submitted by Mir Mcclure as a part of the Yuma school exhibit at the territorial fair of 1907, when in fact said oil paintings were not the work of pupils of the Yuma school, 1 the court finds that no representa- tions were made by the said A. II. Mcclure as to the time when said work was done, but the representa- ton was made by him that it was work done by pupils in the Yuma schools.
 The board further finds from the evidence that said paintings so ex- hibited were in part the work of a pupil in the Yuma schools before she i became such pupil. and in part by
 
 ter person was ever enrolled as a pupil in said schools the board is un- able to find from the evidence. The | board, however. does find that if the latter person was ever enrolled as a pupil in the Yuma schools this was for the purpose of having said oil | paintings, which had previously been ! painted, put into the Yuma school l
 ,tr,er that said person was so enrolled, that l this was reprehensible conduct, but is of the opinion that is not such | misconduct as authorizes the revoca- | ton of Mr. McClure's diploma under | the statute.
 Prof. Mcclure, when seen after | having read the findings of the board I was much gratified at his complete | legal exoneration, though he indicated | some disappointment as to the yer biage in which the findings were couched as rather belittling the dig | nifty he believed was due to his school and his credentials. In view of the charges not being proved he was asked as to what he attributed the attitude of Dr. Babcock in opposing | his interests, or rather. what was the cause of the differences between them
 He replied that they had been 'n | very friendly terms mt. the meeting | of the te.rit.-ial telchars association | in, Tucson in Noycnbe-. 1908, and that sreaking for himself he had been | friendly to Dr lsabcock ever since un- ] til the filing of trese charges. On the | occasion of the convention referred to | he said that Dr. Babcock had support ed resolutions before the association that he, Mcclure. regarded as of per sonal nature between Dr. Babcock and another person. and that he. Mcclure, had opposed the resolutions vigorously, believing it was not the proper place