The Hattiesburg news. (Hattiesburg, Miss.) 1908-1917, 1912-01-16
THE HATTIESBURG NEWS

was far away. That Is job that no
member of the Vardaman family or
constituency could pull off with any
degree of certainty and it IS job
that is open to them at any time.
Brands Ross as a Liar.
AS to Ross assertion that I alb
stracted personal, negotiable notes of
his, l denounce that as a lie out of
the whole cloth and unless he proves
his assertion he stands a self-con-
victed liar.
l listed the notes of Mr.. Ross to |
show the fact that Chancellor Kincan- |
non owed him one thousand dollars
on a ten per cent note-it was no
torious fact that the tail was wagging
the dog at the institution-the secre-
tary being the boss and the chancellor
| the bauble, and il, was also a fact that
the standard of the institution was be-
ing lowered and ring formed around
these two men. By noticing the &C.
ton of the board of trustees in abol-
ishing certain positions and cutting
certain salaries it will be seen that
they took steps to remedy this situa-
ton.
| The repair fund of the University
residence for Ross.
Charges Ross And kincannon With
Population.
Ross and Kincannon created a sur
plus of over one thousand dollars on
the summer school (for teachers)
boarding house, run in the name of
the University, on the property of the
University, and split the profits be-
tween themselves. Kincannon also
drew 5000 or Whereabouts from the
summer school fund for directing this
summer school, this in addition to his
regular salary as chancellor of the
University.
Kincannon's salary was raised from
$4,000 to $4,000, but the increase of
$1,000 was drawn from the students
fees account as it had never been the
| custom at the University to account
for these fees to the legislature, and
} the legislature would therefore remain
T. under the impression that his salary
: was $4,000 per annum.
Chancellor kincannon's Record.
During the fiscal year 1909-1O Kin.
cannon drew upwards of $1,000 for
travelling expense" without filing
itemized accounts for same. report
ed the fact to the board and they
$ called on the chancellor for state
I ments covering same and after allow
ing him credit for every kind of al
item he could rake and scrape up thu
: board had to require him to refunt
about $500. The chancellor has mad,
d his own record in this case and tn,
Q books of the University will show tn,
l. shameful fact that a chancellor wa
e caught with the goods on and had t,
u NOiliC dSlOoos
r AS to the matter of the surplus il
r the students boarding house fund
r. the first year the new dormitory wa
n used it was advertised that it was t
s. be run on a cooperative basis an
e the students furnished board at az
l. tual cost, but instead Of carrying on
e this contract with the boys they wer
p charged a fiat rate of SIS per mont
e and surplus of S5,319.55 was created
l. which | contend, should have bee
d refunded to the boys, but instead c
Is that $2,536,20 was paid to the Soutl
e ern Coal company to cover a deficit i
e the fuel fund. Ross and Kincanno
q arguing that the deficit was brougt
H. about by the increased cost to ligt
a and heat the new dormitory. M
IS contention was and is that as the pull
g. lished fee for light and heat is 81
per year per student and that it col
q stitues contract to furnish sal
y light and heat to the boys for tbs
n amount. If the revenue thus derive
1 was inadequate then the specific fe
q should be raised and the deficit ne
e charged to the boys who happen I
e board in the dormitory, especially g
st the day students participate in tn
I benefits and the professors and Other
: on the campus are or were furnishe
n with free light and heat as an add
ton to their salaries to evadn th