n p3
nn
fo)o)prpjo)
11 Iniviiin)
t
rrfo)pr
3 I .itmtm
I
JUL
U U Oils.
9 l i IT - .
uu u uuu
VOL. 13
RALEIGH, N. C, SEPT. 6, 1898
NO- 31.
(3n n
ESSSWE
Li
I .7
u u
Judge .Glark'8 SpeeGh.
What he Intended to Say to the Trustees of Trinity Col
lege Last Wednesday.
At the late Clark-Kilgo trial the board
refused to let Judge Clark speak unless
he would promise not to print his speech,
(which he had with him reduced to
writing). He would not accept the terms.
The speech he desired to deliver is as
follows:
JUDGE CLARK'S SPEECH.
Gentlemen of the Board of Trustees:
If this were an oratorical contest I
would say what I have to say without
manuscript. But as I might have the
fate of Dr. Kilgo, at the coronation of
Mr. Duke, and the notes of my speech
taken down by another might differ
from my recollection. I have reduced my
argument to writing that I may read
it. EsiKt-ially is this prudence when
Dr. Kilgo' s unsworn stenographer alone
is allowed in this room, and my request
to have a stenographer present at my
own expense lias been refused at Dr.
Kilgo s instance. I regret that it may be
more tedious to you. but it will prevent
all controversy as to what I shall say.
At the meeting in July. 1897, Dr.
Kilgo made a report in waich he rec
ommended as follows: (I quote from
Mr. Southgate's letter.) "That the law
which requires the election of the fac
ulty every year,
bo so changed
as to
elect them not oftener than every four
years." I opposed the proposition. It
was referred a committee of which
1 was a member, and which reported
against it and it did not pass. The
Trinity Catalog .f ISUt-o, which I hold
in my hand has tlie word. '"Faculty" in
large Utters, and the first line under
it is
"JOHN C. KILGO. A. M..
President and Profcsor of Philosophy."
In the present Catalog, it is headed:
FACULTY AND OFFICERS.
And the iirst name under that is:
".JOHN C KILGO. A. M.. D. D.,
President and Professor of Avera
School f Bibli.-al Literature:"
So -it is 1 'ear. K-yur.d cavil, that if his
recommendation had been adopted. Dr.
Kiliro would have had a four years'
term instead of ne year. It is alleged
that he distlainu 1 at the time, includ
ing himself. The place to have done
that was in the recommendation itself,
or by amending t. 1 ! he made such
oral disclaimer, it ltust have been when
I was out on the t-oimnittee, or when
my attention was iithorwise occupied.
I did not hear it. jSme weeks later,
having visited the T l-acco section and
heard large number: f Methodists ex
press themselves ads :-t'v to Dr. Kilgo,
nn my return I iciitioned this to
Mr. Jos. G. Brown, a fellow trustee,
with whom I had transacted my banking
business for over 1a nty-tive years, and
said to him that I was well Ave had
defeated the restl,?ion for a four years'
term. This gettb Ato Dr. Kilgo's ears,
lie seemed vey muel offended. Whether
it was because he vllied to pose as be
ing so altruistic th
lie was only look-
mg after the rest i
tho Faculty and
was absolntelv indifferent to his own
interest, or whothef
lie would have it
understood lhat he vns absolute master
here, and ii'. thing coild shake him out,
I do not know.
To his letter I replied, endeavoring to
avoid a difficulty. I thought when I
showed him it was a private conversa
tion he would desi t. In truth. I did
not wish to tell h'm what I had said
about his unpopularity. lie persisted,
and when he finally threatened to lay the
matter before his board. I ?r ave him, in
my letter. July 1 1th, 1S97. the conver
sation and the reasons in plain Anglo
Saxon. When that
"Chunk f old red sand-stone
"Struck him in the abdomen."
there were no subsequent proceedings.
The correspondence suddenly slopped.
When the board met in June. INKS, I
did not care to come here to vote for
his n--election, and not knowing any
proceedings alTecting me were in prog
ress, 1 staid at home where 1 had some
business needing me.
When I received the short note in
forming me that in my absence, a com
mittee had sat 011 me, condemning me
and ashing me to resign, and the board
had adopted their report, I was deeply
pained that men who had been my as
sociates for years, and whom I had
deemed mv friends, could have taken
such steps.
especi-nllv without any no
tice to me or opportunity to be heard.
There was a telephone in the building
in Raleigh, where I sat, connecting
with one in this building, where you
were sitting, and four trains a day each
way between the two places, and your
board was in session two days or more.
Yet not a whisper of those proceedings
came to my ears. I respectfully asked
for information. Your secretary pu
me off several days. Possibly Mr
Duke was absent. Then I received
curt note, in effect that I knew th
verdict, and sentence, and that wa
enough for me to know. Still I said no
a word to any one. The punishmen
for questioning Dr. Kilgo's supremac
here was not enough. It must be pub
lished to the world. In the Charlott
Observer, June 2., appeared the follow
ing: "JUDGE CLARK'S RESIGNATIO
AS TRUSTEE ASKED FOR.
"It is learned in Charlotte that a con
troversy by letter has recently been i
progress, between Judge Walter Clark
of the Supreme court, and Dr. J. C
Kilgo, D. D., President of Trinity col
lege and that at a meeting of the trus
tees of this institution last week. Dr
Kilgo laid the correspondence befor
the Board, asked for an investigation
and stated if they were sustained hi
resignation would be forthcoming. Th
investigation was made, the result bcin
that Dr. Kilgo was sustained, and tha
the resignation of Judge Clark as
member of the Board was requested."
This was the first time that the matte
was nut in the miners. It did not com C
from mo. I did not know then of Dr.
Kilgo's threat to resign if you did not
find his way. This going into print
came necessarily from some one who
was on the Board. A telegram from
the Charlotte Observer has been print
ed to the effect that it did not receive
the news from any one connected with
the, college, which is true, so far as the
paper is concerned. But a part of the
process was disclosed at the meeting
here on July 18th, when Rev. N. M.
Jurney stated that Major Jas. W. Wil
son told him a preacher had told him
(Wilson) and he was going to have it
published in the Charlotte Observer.
Mr. Jurney said Major Wilson did not
" ' i . i-vuiuj tvFiieci, uuu ne gave iti
to him straight. So we have an aii-1
thontic statement of the threat, and the
resultant proceedings, for Mr. Jurney is
not only a member of the Board Avho
voted for the resolutions, but he is
traveling agent in the employ of the
college,sand so a member of "the ad
ministration" that was endorsed. Who
the preacher was who first told Major
Wilson, and who had not told it exact
ly straight, according to Mr. Jurney, I
do not know, but he must necessarily
have been a memlter of this board, or
have gotten it from one who was.
When it is published that any one has
been requested by his associates to re
sign, no matter from what kind of a
board, it is a stigma (and this publica
tion was so intended) and calls for ex
planation. To the reporter who called
on me for an interview, I gave the cor
respondence, including my letter to Mr.
Southgate. in which I said that if I had
been asked in a proper manner for my
resignation, it would have been cheer
fully given, but that it was unheard of
to try me in my absence without no
tice; without opportunity to be heard or
submit evidence, and to condemn me
and publish that, and that my resigna
tion had been asked for. I said further
that the Board had no jurisdiction to
try its members for their individual
views, and if it had. why had the Board
not tried and condemned him (South
gate) for his speech condemning public
schools, which was calculated to le far
more inujrious to the college than my
unpublished views as to Dr. Kilgo.
And especially why did they not try
Dr. Kilgo. for whose views the Beard
is responsible, being the employe, for
his excessively laudatory speech to Mr.
Duke, of the Cigarette Trust, which was
a deification of wealth. I spoke of his
reputation as a wire-puller in South
Carolina, and that he had not reformed
in North Carolina, and mentioned that
a clergyman in Tennessee had said he
was a scrub politician. Mr. Southgate
replied, saying among other things. I
had not been on trial, only Dr. Kilgo,
to which I replied that if I was not on
trial, then the condemnation and sen
tence passed upon me was still less
justifiable.
Dr. Kilgo then came out in an inter
view. I could have answered him very
conclusively, but believing that the in
terest of the church and college could
not be served by a continuance of the
controversy, at a sacrifice of my impulse
and to my own injury possibly. I wai
silent. The other side having had till
Iirst article in the paper, and the last,
the opening and the conclusion as it
were, it would seem the "incident was
closed."
But since I would not furt" reply,
Dr. Kilgo had the ingenuity to re-open
the light and selected his own ground.
He asked for an investigation of him
self by this Board which had just, en
dorsed him under threat of losing his
valuable services if they did not, (for
Mr. .Jurney said the article containing
that statement had been corrected by
him for Major Wilson) and summoned
me as a witness. I received the follow
ing letter:
Durham, X. C. July 7, 1S9S.
Judge Walter Clark. Raleigh, X. C:
In your recent letters to me given to
the public through the press, there are
accusations against the President of
Trinity College, which require investi
gation' by the Board of Trustees. As
Dr. Kilgo is an employe of the Board
this investigation which will be con
fined to him, is not in order,
but is necessary for the protection
of the Trustees in their purpose to em
ploy no man in any capacity, whose
character is not worthy of the fullest
confidence.
Among others your attention is called
to your statements that Dr. Kilgo wish
ed to evade the evidence you had against
him; the speech which you quote him as
making on Mr. Duke's porch and other
references as to this speech; his reputa
tion in South Carolina: his residency and
reputation in Tennessess and his record
in North Carolina.
The Board will meet Monday, the
ISth inst., in the Benefactor's Parlor, of
the Duke Building at 5 o'clock p. m.
It is earnestly desired that you present
to the Board at the mentioned time and
place in person or in writing all the. evi
dence you have which will go to estab
lish these accusations.
Very truly yours;
(Signed) J. II. SOUTHGATE,
President Board of Trustees Trinity
College.
In obedience to that request I attend
ed here on the 18th. What then hap
pened and how I was received are fresh
in your memory. Rev. Dr. Oglesby,
(pastor of Mr. Duke's church and chair
man of the committee which had con
demned me unheard) was appointed pro
secutor and I was required to give the
names of my witnesses to him and time
was given both sides till Aug. 30, to get
up the evidence.
This brings us to the evidence submit
ted here on this occasion. This resume
has been necessary to its better consider
ation. Before I enter upon it. I wish to
call attention to two points in Dr. Kil
go's interview which I refrained from
answering in the vain hope thereby to
end this controversy. He said therein
that on a rising vote at June session.
1807, I endorsed him. It is true that at
that time I was willing to re-elect him
for one year, but I knew enough to be
opposed to risking him for four years.:
WThen shortly, thereafter I found my
views confirmed and told Mr. Brown we
had done wisely to defeat the four year
term, this racket began. Till then there
had never been the slightest friction be
tween Dr. Kilgo and myself.
In the same interview, he said on a ris
ing vote to thank Mr. Duke and accept
his gift I was present and did not pro
test. Note the difference. On the rising
vote to endorse Dr. Kilgo, he says 1
voted (as I said above) but on a rising
vote to thank Mr. Duke he merely says
I did not protest. He is correct that
there was a difference. The fact is when
the rising vote was taken to thank Duke
I (and I believe one other) did not rise.
I thought that protest enough, if protest
were ncessary. While I did not vote 10
thank Mr. Duke I wish to call attention
to the fact that nowhere in this contro
versy have I raised the debateable ques
tion (whatever my opinions may be)
whether the College ought to receive
money made by a cigarette trust, which
is a business not only condemned by the
church, but which like all other trusts is
illegal. What I have condemned was
the laudation which endorses the method
of making the money. Whether eating
meat that had been set before idols was
unlawful the great apostle left an open
question but he certainly condemned the
worship of the idol.
Nor have I, said aught against the
Methodist church or college. I know
Dr. Kilgo's friends would like to give
it that turn but he is neither the Metho
dist church nor is he Trinity College. To
criticise him is not to attack either. With
out my knowledge or desire the Confer
ence elected mo a Trustee of the college
and I have endeavored to serve the best
interests of both. If I shall satisfy you
that Dr. Kilgo is not a proper person
to manage this institution it will be no
pleasure to me. I sha'i col that I have
discharged a painful duty.
I will now proceed to review the evi
dence brought out on this investigation.
In no court of justice could matters be
properly investigated unless there was
process to compel the attendance of wit
nesses. You have no compulsory pro
cess for witnesses and that has been the
only chance of escape for the defendant
Of course those not Methodists can not
be made to obey your subpoenal but
when I accepted your request to get up
the evidence, I understood that Metho
dists, especially ministers would obey It.
But many of the most material witnesses
among them ministers who would have
readily proven the charges in a few min
utes, by testifying to what they had
repeatedly stated, have refused to testi
fy and you admit you are powerless to
compel them. Some refuse because it
is unpleasant and they do not wish to
mingle in the affair. Others frankly say
they fear they will be injured by the in
fluence of the agents of the Duke Cigar
ette Company, and of Dr. Kilgo. Others
still, who had promised to testify after
their names were furnished to the defen
dant were touched by some magnetic in
fluence that changed their minds. Wih
this absence of power to compel wit
nesses the prosecution is called to prove
a case. We have done so we think, but
it is nothing to the case we would have
proven if witnesses could be compelled
to testify here as in a court of justice.
In reference to the charge that Dr. Kilgo
was a wire puller in South Carolina, the
following evidence has been offered you:
B. C. Beokwith, a graduate of this
college, a Methodist, a gentleman of the
highest character, a lawyer of fine abili
ty was sent by you to South Carolina
to get up evidence. He testified here
that he was absolutely indifferent and
told Dr. Kilgo who went with him that
he would report the fact as he found it.
He went through South Carolina from
one end to the other, stopping at several
important points. He said he conversed
with fifty to seventy-five gentlemen of
standing in the Methodist church includ
ing four out of six delegates to the Gen
eral Conference, and with note book in
hand he told you could tell what each
one had said, that witnesses would talk
freely, but that few were willing to have
depositions taken. He teld you that
while Dr. Kilgo has some strong parti
sans there that his character is that of
a wire-puller and ecclesiactical politi
cian, that it is generally believed that he,
John O. Wilson and Dr. Kirkland form
ed a combination at the Memphis Gener
al Conference to secure certain offices.
Dr. Kilgo's share to be the presidency of
Columbia Female College. He took two
depositions. Rev. T. C. Ligon and J. K.
Jennings, which supported this view, but
after that those who expressed those
views would no longer go into deposi
tion. As soon as Dr. Kilgo got a state
ment from Bishop Duncan favorable to
him, the preachers possibly out of re
spect to him, ceased giving depositions,
but they continued to give Mr. Beckwith
statements which he took down. On
cross-examination Dr. Kilgo drew out of
Mr. Beckwith the conversation he had
with three men who were favorable to
Dr. Kilgo, but when Mr. Beckwith ask
ed in justice to himself to give his con
versations with others, and I asked :t,
Dr. Kilgo strenuously objected. The door
was closed that you might not have the
truth. My charge was that his reputa
tion in South Carolina was that of a
wire-puller and this could only be shown
.,y statements of people who knew it.
Reputation is what people say of a man.
It is necessarily hearsay. Yet Dr. Kilgo
had further examination of Mr. Beck
with as to his reputation ruled out be
cause it was hearsay.
R. B. Boone, a lawyer of this place,
a gentleman of well-known character,
the son of a Methodist minister and a
Methodist himself testified to you that
he formerly lived in South Carolina, has
two uncles who are Methodist ministers
in South Carolina and on a recent visit
to Spartanburg, S. C, he inquired par
ticularly as to Dr. Kilgo's reputation in
that State and found that it was that
of a wire puller and politician, who had
made combinations to run the Conference
and had split it up badly. He offered
to give the names of parties with whom
he had talked, who he said were gentle
men of high social and church standing,
but again Dr. Kilgo objected. Evidently
he wanted an "investigation that does
not investigate."
Rev. T. J. Gattis, a minister of the
North Carolina Conference, whose char
acter has never been impeached, told
you he had travelled in South Carolina
two and a half years and in that time
he had attended every District confer
ence in that State, 2G in number, and
knew personally every Methodist minis
ter in it and most of the leading laymen.
He said that Dr. Kilgo's general charac
ter in South Carolina was that of a
wire pulling politician, that he had badly
split the church there by his "combine"
with John O. Wilson and Dr. Kirkland
and the church was much relieved, when
he left, but that Dr. Kilgo still had his
friends and partisans there.
At your last meeting Dr. Kilgo had
this same Rev. John O. Wilson here and
asked leave of you for him to sit at the
table as his counsel. Afterwards he took
his deposition. In it, Mr. Wilson has to
admit that he had heard that Dr. Kilgo
had been charged as being a wire-puller,
but said it was not true. Of course he
thinks that, for if Dr. Kilgo is a wire
puller, the evidence is that Wilson was
his associate. He also took the deposi
tion here of Mr. Chreitsburg who former
ly lived in South Carolina and who it
seems now has made friends with Dr.
Kilgo, though there are depositions here
showing it was- not "ever thus." Dr.
Kilgo told us at our last meeting that he
could bring the whole South Carolina
Conference here. In truth, besides the
two just mentioned, which were taken
here in July, in his late tour through the
State of South Carolina he got ten de
positions. There are largely over a
million of people in South Carolina. He
formerly lived there, still has his parti
sans there and he brings you from his
torr ten certificates of character. Some
of ihose say they have heard these charg
es,but disbelieved them.he also found some
who said that they had not heard them.
Two of the ten were Senator McLau
rin and his former class-mate Gov. El
lerbee. These gave him a good charac
ter, but there was no one present to
"cross-examine them when Dr. Kilgo
took their statements and who would ex
pect two public men to volunteer, with
out cross-examination, a modification of
a certificate of good character. Possi
bly these gentlemen may have
thought wire pulling a necessity
and not a reflection upon or abate
ment of good character. Then he relied
greatly on Bishop Duncan's statement
that he had no knowledge of his being
a wire-puller. As the Bishop is his
known friend the Bishop is the last man
to whom such reports would be carried.
The Bishop has been placed, out of his
turn, in charge of South Carolina Con
ference this year and when it was known
he had given this certificate, the preach
stopped giving depositions which would
clash with it. They, however, talked
freely and Mr. Beckwith stood here,
note book in hand, to tell you what
the leading preachers and laymen . in
South Carolina said about Dr. Kilgo's
character as a wire-puller. But Dr. Kil
go shut this off, except as to three men
who had spoken favorably to. Beckwith
as to him.
In his speech Wr. Kilgo bitterly de
nounced Rev. Mr. Gattis ror testifying
against him wrhen he had been kind to
him. Mr. Gattis told you he came very
unwillingly nnd only in obedience to your
summons, and his kind relations to Dr.
Kilgo heretofore did not require him to
testify falsely. You heard Dr. Kilgo's
thinly veiled, if veiled at all, threats
of vengeance. As surely as Dr. Kilgo is
the wire-puller and politician this evi
dence abundantly proves him to be you
will see his efforts to have Mr. Gattis
removed from his position at the next
annual conference not because Mr. Gat
tis is not faithful and competent and has
been so deemed all these years but he
has testified against Dr. Kilgo, he has.
revolted against his "machine." The
ward politician and "boss" must punish
him. Watch my prediction.
Mr. Beckwith was sent by you to
South Carolina to learn what Dr. Kilgo's
character was. Dr. Kilgo thinks that
Mr. Beckwith took his mission too se
riously. He contends that Mr. Beckwith
should have formed his opinion of Dr.
Kilgo's reputation in South Carolina
from the ten who gave depositions in his
favor who were of course specially se
lected by Dr. Kilgo and not from the
fifty or seventy-five others whom Mr.
Beckwith selected at random among
Methodist preachers and laymen, and
who talked freely with him. It is com
mon sense that from the latter a more
accurate opinion can be formed of the
truth as to Dr. Kilgo's reputation. I
have lived in Raleigh twenty-five years.
There are men there whose general char
acter I do not know. A man does not
know Dr. Kilgo's reputation simply be
cause he lives in South Carolina. If I
wish to know a man's general character
in Raleigh would I confine myself to a
few selected names he gives me, or would
I go generally to people of his associates,
his church, his trade, his lodge? This
latter course Mr. Beckwith took. He is
intelligent, he is impartial, he was selec
ted and sent there by this board, and he
tells you "Dr. Kilgo's general character
in South Carolina is that of a wire-puller
and ecclesiastical politician."
After Mr. Beckwith and Dr. Kilgo
who were traveling together in South
Carolina separated, the latter took the
statements of Senator McLaurin and
Gov. Ellerbee in Mr. Beckwith's absence,
the being given notice just as he was
leaving on the train) and those deposi
tions were admitted. Mr. Beckwith pro
cured the following affidavits from two
laymen of high standing in the church,
one of them assistant secretary to the
annual conference in the absence of Dr.
Kilgo and they have been reject
ed. As we justly complain of the rejec
tion of valuable evidence which would
have aided you to a just conclusion, 1
read them:
State of South Carolina,
Sumter County.
Personally appeared John M. Knight
who, being duly sworn, deposes and
says:
That he is editor and proprietor of the
Sumter Herald, a newspaper published
at Sumter in said and State, and resides
in the city of Sumter. That he is a
member of the Methodist E. Church,
South, and has attended as delegate from
his church several sessions of his Dis
trict and Annual Conferences. That he
is now a member of the Board of Col
portage of the South Carolina Confer
ence. Deponent further says that he has
long known Dr. J. C. Kilgo, formerly, of
S. C. Conference, now president of Trin
ity CN. C.) College and that his relations
with Dr. Kilgo have always been pleas
ant. That at the 1803 S. C. Confer
ence held in Sumter deponent first heard
of the said Dr. Kilgo as a politician; and
knows that he made himself very offen
sive to former friends, at the
1893 and other conferences by
his manipulation and wire-pulling
and is sure that the church :n
S-uth Carolina suffered much injury from
the coterie of wire-pullers composed of
Dr. Kilgo and others, who directed their
efforts in controlling appointments to
the hurt of the church and injustice to
meritorious ministers.
Deponent further says that in making
this deposition he is not. actuated by "any
ill will, prejudice, or improper motive of
any kind whatever, but simply in the
interest of what he conceives is truth.
Subscribed and sworn before me at
Sumter, in the county and State) afore
said, this August 27th, 1S98.
J. M. KNIGHT.
(Seal.) E. C. HAYNSWrORTH,
Notary Public.
State of South Carolina,
Sumter County.
Personally appeared . Charles Hurst,
Jr., who, on oath, says that he is a resi
dent of the City of Sumter, in said
county and State. Has lived the greater
part of his life in said city, and now
occupies the office of 'City Clerk and
Treasurer. He is a member of the
Methodist Episcopal Church South, and
one of the stewards of Sumter Station;
that he has a casual acquaintance with
Dr. J. C. Kilgo, formerly of the South
Carolina Conference; and that the limit
ed intercourse he has had with that
gentleman has been pleasant; that he
knows something of the reputation of Dr.
Kilgo among the Methodists of Sumter,
and he does not regard it as an enviable
one for a Christian minister. Deponent
attended the 1891 session of the Con
ference at Charleston. He thinks the
year 1891. It was plain to be seen that
there was an influential combination
which dominated the Conference, and
that Dr. Kilgo was a leading spirit in
the combination. Deponent believed
that Dr. Kilgo was regarded as a manip
ulator and wire-puller, and for some
years watched what he considered the
hurtful effects of this in the South Caro
effects of this in the South Carolina
lina Conference. Rev. H. F. Chreitzburg,
now of North Carolina, a Christian gen
tleman of un-impeachable character,
deponent believes, was practically driven
from South Carolina by the adverse in
fluence of Dr. Kilgo and his ring of
ecclesiastical politicians. Other valua
ble men have felt the effects of it, and
deponent was not sorry when Dr. Kilgo
was transplanted to another State, but
hoped he would use differently his large
natural ability for the upbuilding of
the valuable interests committed to his
charge in North Carolina. This depon
ent says this in the interest of truth and
right not one word in malice, but all
in sorrow.
Subscribed and sworn before me, at
Sumter, S. C, this August 23rd, 1898.
C. M. HURST, JR.
EDGAR C. HAYNS WORTH, '
Notary Public for South Carolina.
(Seal.)
As to Dr. Kilgo's remarks about the
"Holiness Band" the evidence here prov
es a most excellent character for Rev. T.
C. Ligon and Mr. Beckwith said not one
in ten of those whom he asked about Dr.
Kilgo belonged to that band.
It is not surprising that Dr. Kilgo has
offe-l son.e evLence to the contrary.
That he has partisans and frien Is in
South Carolina, is not to be questioned.
Besides it is always easy for any man to
get certificates' of good character. That
angers no one not even the opposite par
ty. But when the evidence is that a
man's character is not good, few men
will give it, unless compelled. That lay
men and ministers of the highest staud-
ing in South Carolina have refused to
obey your subpoena to testify as to Dr.
Kilgo's character is strong evidence that
they could not say that it was good. If
they could, they would have obeyed the
subpoena and so answered. But the posi
tive testimony offered you by the prosecu
tion should be sufficient to convince you
that Dr. Kilgo's reputation in South Car
olina was that of a shrewd, sharp mani
pulator and wire puller.
RESIDENCY AND REPUTATION IN
TENNESSEE.
The invitation of the President of your
Board is to show that Dr. Kilgo was a
resident of Tennessee, and his reputation
in Tennessee. Dr. Kilgo in his interview
puts aside with scorn the idea that he
over lived in such a place as Tennessee,
or that even any relation of his ever
lived there. Yet I have never alleged
that Dr. Kilgo ever lived or resided in
Tennessee. If 1 had intended to do so.
I have enough knowledge of our lan
guage to say so and I did not. Nor have
I any information that Dr. Kilgo is
well enough known in Tennessee to have
any reputation there. The charge is a
straw man put up by Dr. Kilgo to knock
down again. My language was
explicit. I said Dr. Kilgo "was a short
time in Tennessee, and that one of the
most distinguished members of our
church in that State not a layman, said
to me: "We know the fellow well he is
a scrub politician." Dr. Kilgo was a
short time, three weeks possibly in that
State, at the Memphis General Confer
ence, and I have had letters as to certain
conduct of his there from ministers in
Virginia, North Carolina and South
Carolina, but I made no charges as to
that and hence have offered no evidence
in that respect but the evidence taken by
both sides in South Carolina has develop
ed that there is a wide-spread under
standing that at that General Conference
Dr. Kilgo and others made a combination
to get certain official positions. I con
tented myself .with saying he was there
a short time, referring solely to the Gen
eral Conference at which I was also a
member, and had met him. I did not
understand the Tennessee gentleman I
quoted when he said: "We know him
well," as meaning by "we" the people of
Tennessee. The conversation took
place in the very words
I used and with one of the
of the most distinguished members of
our church. I have had two letters from
him, since this publication In Charlotte
Observer of the Jas. W. Wilson-.Turney
item in which he admits the conversa
tion and states the grounds of his opinion,
but declines to give his deposition or al
low' his name to be used in this contro
versy. As he does so decline, I can not
force him by your subpoenas, and there
fore if you wish you may disregard that
incident in making up your verdict.
HIS RECORD IN NORTTI CARO
LINA. Your invitation to me to prove that is
broad. y It is impossible to cover the
whole ground. You know that from the
time Dr. Kilgo sat foot in this State till
now there has been a continued turmoil.
The effect can be better seen than the
incidents described. You know that
notwithstanding this maginficent plant
and the "largest endowment" in the
state (as Dr. Kilgo advertises)
Trinity had last session few
er students by a good deal than Dr.
Craven ran your attendance up to in
Randolph. WTe have hardly half as many
as Wake Forest under the quiet, peace
able management of Dr. Taylor. Wre
have not as many as Davidson College,
which represents a denomination of 30,-
000 members, while we have a member
ship of about 135,000 to draw from and
at Chapel Hill there are more Methodist
students than of any other denomination
and the number of Methodist students
there has steadily increased ever since
Dr. Kilgo started in here. There were
115 Methodist boys at the University
189G-7. There must be a reason for
this. Methodists are as loyal to their
church and. its institutions as any people
and certainly as loyal as when with half
of our present membership they gave
Craven 171 students. Yet last year (ex
cluding young ladies who were not ad
mitted in Dr. Craven's time) there was
here 141, counting every one who at
tended any day during the year. Aal
that reason must rest, where the praise
would be claimed, if there was a large
attendance, i. e. with the administration
of your President. I said In my letter,
1 thought he had proven himself unfil
and this result is strong evidence of
it. Then there are the difficulties he
has had especially with that much-loved
minister of the gospel, Rev. Jesse H.
Page, and with that genial gentleman
and Methodist, who has fHonds where
over he is known, T. B. Kingsbury. L. L.
D., and many other difficulties might be
recalled by you. Then I offered you evi
dence of his sermoi in which lie said,
that "the average woman can be led
anywhere by a diamond ring." It was
excluded from this investigation, but it
has not been excluded from the knowl
edge of the people of North Carclina.
Can the pure and noble women of our
church be expected ro send their sons
to a college whose President says lhat
the average woman has her yielding point
in a diamond ring. Did he speak this
upon his own experience or from near
say? I cannot trust myself to speak)
my sentiments upon this declaration as
to my fair countrywomen, who are as
pure and as chaste as any that adorn
God's footstool. I am not here to de
nounce, but to suppress my indignation
as best I may. Here is the affidavit:
"Roxboro, N. C, July 2G, 98.
We hereby certify that we were pres
ent at a lecture delivered by Rev. Johni
C. Kilgo in Roxboro and heard him use
the following language, "The average
woman can be led anywhere with a dia
mond ring." The ladies present were se
vere in their condemnation of the state
ment and the low estimate placed byi
the speaker on the fidelity and constancy
of our women.
The above language of Dr. Kilgo was
published in the next issue of the Person)
county Courier and has never been de
nied so far as we know.
"IDA LANSDELL."
Many other ladies have concurred in
this statement.
Noell Bros, editors of the Courier
confirm the statement as to the publica
tion of this language and that no correc
tion has ever been asked. The paper
signed by parties of high character that;
they heard the words used and were very
indignant is in my hands and was ex
cluded because your appointed Prosecutor
did not think it tended to prove Dr.
Kilgo's "Record in North Carolina," or
his "unfitness" which charges you had;
requested me to prove. He (the prosecu
tor) also objected because the paper proof!
is not in form a deposition. But Mr.
Southgate notified me through the letter
I have in my hands that Dr. Kilgo did
not wish to be represented at Roxboro,
Hamer and Madison (at which points
this and two subsequent pieces of evi
dence were taken) and as the only ob
ject of a deposition is that the other
party may be present I told him I would
not go through the form of again taking'
these affidavits. The correspondence is
present. I did not suspect that Dr. Kilgo
who has strenuously insisted that this
was not a technical jury, and hence that
witnesses before you must not be sworn,
the stenographer (his own) should not
be sworn, the jurors unsworn and hence
that yon should hold that thse jurors
who have voted to endorse Dr. Kilgo
heretofore and in recent District Con
ferences are competent to sit I did not
suspect that when we got to evidence of
his public, utterances, going to prove his
"Record in North Carolina" and his "un
fitness," he wTould suddenly become so
technical that he would object to this evi
dence because not strictly in deposition
f orm.Yet if we had gone on and taken the
same affidavits over a second time, he
would not have been represented. In truth
he had nothing to gain by being represent
ed. He knew what the charges were. They
have been published in the press. He
said he did not wish to be present at
taking of the affidavits. Now he uses
the highly technical objection that he
wns not represented in taking an affi
davit, when he said he would not be rep
resented. Dr. Oglesby, the prosecutor,
admits the objection and rules the evi
dence incompetent and by a new techni
cality because the evidence was offered
by me, who was requested by you to
produce the evidence, and not by your
technical Prosecutor, on Dr. Kilgo's mo
tion yon refuse to let it go on the min
utes (which yon are to print) that this
evidence was offered. Dr. Kilgo could go
on the stand, and he owed it to himself
and to this college to go on the stand
and deny this charge. He dared not
do so. Any one who will visit Roxboro
or write there will find that beyond all
dispute, the sentiment and those words
were used by Dr. Kilgo on that occa
sion. (The names of those who will sub
stantiate the undoubted fact are many
of them ladies and of the highest stand
ing, and hence all are not given in this
publication.) If Dr. Kilgo could have de
nied this charge would he not have done
so?
Then I also offered yon, as further
proof of his record (whicn yon asked
for) the personal evidence of Hon. John
R. Webster, ex-Speaker of the House of
Representatives, a Methodist, a graduate
of this college well and favorably known
all over North Carolina, that he beard
Dr. Kilgo lecture in Madison last year
and he said that the primary depart
ment of our graded schools are "baby
ranches into which paretns, care
less of their children, pitched them and
if he was looking for vice and immorality
he would not go into the so-called dark
comers but into the graded schools."
He testified in person, but the evidence
was voted out on objection from Dr.
Kilgo, on the ground that it did not
tend to prove Dr.Kilgo's "record in North
(Continued on Second Page.)