By Mr. Alexander: Q. Was it not that if he could not govern them by moral suasion he would by muscle? A. I was not present, and could not tell. It has been nearly two years since it occurred. I would not pretend to give the exact words. I was a friend to Professor Shortlidge, and had been the means, with General Beaver, of electing him. I did everything I could to smooth over his course, and tried to reconcile the students and the faculty. I am satisfied that the faculty would have assisted him in his trouble, except that, in their judgment, his course was ruinous to the college, and they dissented from it for that reason and no other. At the meeting of the board, in June, 1880, after his election, the first meeting during commencement week, a resolution was adopted placing almost absolute power in his hands. To me that was an apparent supposition upon his part that there was to be opposition to his authority. The members of the board wanted to satisfy that they were putting all confidence and trust in him. Q. In consideration of the fact that he had brought ninety-nine per cent of the students with him? A. He had not brought any with him then. That was not until the fall term began. The resolution would have been perfectly harmless in the hands of a prudent, practical man, but it was exceedingly dangerous in the hands of such a man. I attended all the meetings of the executive committee, of which he was a member, being president of the faculty from that time until late in the fall, either November or December. He was secretary of that committee. He kept the minutes, and I would ask this committee to examine that minute book when they get to the college and see the manner in which he kept the minutes, and they can possibly form a better idea of his qualifications as a literary man than anything I could tell them. Q. How long did his term extend? A. Namely, from the 1st of June, 1880, until about the 1st of April, 1881, but a long vacation came in in the meantime, so he began his actual career as president the 1st of September, 1×80, and continued until last of March or the 1st of April, 1881. I was in the meetings of the executive committee before that fall term ended, and I was thoroughly satisfied and convinced that we had made an egregious blunder in the selection of that president, and it was a kind of a blunder that I did not care to take the responsibility of, nor did not care to cure, and, in consequence of that, I sent in my resignation to General Beaver. I had seen him, and said I would not act as a trustee until that difficulty was got rid of. The general requested me to give him authority to withhold that letter from the meeting of the board in January, for reasons that he suggested; consequently, my resignation was not presented at that meeting. At that meeting the board appointed a special meeting to inquire into the affairs of the college, and a resolution, containing some six or seven points, was passed, instructing them what to do. That resolution, if I remember rightly, was offered by Mr. Gordon, a member of the board, one of the alumni members. President Shortlidge was secretary of the board of trustees, and as well as secretary of the executive committee. He furnished that committee with a copy of that resolution, in which one of the items of instruction was omitted, and a different one substituted in its place. The committee, when they met at college, Mr. Gordon, who had offered the original resolution, proceeded to show the interpolation. I was not present at the meeting of that committee, and, therefore, cannot say what occurred there, except from report. It resulted, however, in their accepting the resigna tion of Professor Shortlidge, to take effect forthwith. That committee consisted of General Jacob M. Campbeli, of Johnstown; Victor Piolette, Cyrus Gordon, I think Mayor Starkweather, and I think General Beaver. By General Beaver: No; I was not on it. By Judge Orvis : Who was the fifth member?-Colonel Jordan? By General Beaver: I am inclined to think it was. By Judge Orvis : But I know those four members, and they were satisfied that that was the only remedy, and they accepted his resignation, to take effect at once but his salary was continued for three months afterwards. That is the only instance that I know of where any portion of the funds of the college was expended, and it has received no recompense. They paid Mr. Shortlidge three months' salary where no services were rendered, but we would rather pay the salary than keep him for three months. Q. Then, in your opinion, one of the mistakes was the selection of Joseph Shortlidge for president? A. That is not an opinion, but an absolute certainty. I admit my responsibility as one of the persons who made that mistake, but we are not in the habit of keeping incompetent men there. He was there less than a year. By Mr. Alexander: Q. You are judge of the court of common pleas and quarter sessions? A. Additional law judge of the Twenty-fifth judicial district. Q. Do you remember a case that was tried before you in which the Commonwealth was plaintiff and Gotlieb Haag was defendant? A. Very well. Q. Do you remember who was prosecutor in that case? A. Joseph Shortlidge. Q. Mr. Shortlidge, in speaking of that case, says: Judge Orvis, as you were the judge upon the bench, I ask you to state whether or not General Beaver did not try that case as well as it was possible for an attorney to try the case, and whether it was not lost from the want of facts, as proved before the jury. A. It was tried by the district attorney and General Beaver for the Commonwealth and Messrs. Alexander and Bower on the part of the defense. Both sides tried all there was in the case. General Beaver was particularly zealous, I won't say unusually so, for he is zealous in all his cases, but he was particularly so in that case, because it was an alleged sale of whisky to the college students and he was a trustee of the college and had the morals of the students very much at heart. There was considerable conflicting of testimony. It depended very much on the view the jury took of the testimony whether the defendant was guilty or not. If they took the defendant's stand-point, there was a strong view in favor of the Commonwealth. He might have sold unlawfully. One of the students had who was of age, and he did not think Haag saw him get it. It was not a very clear case, but there might possibly have been conviction upon that evidence but for the very strong prejudice existing against the prosecutor in the county. I think that had more to do with the verdict than any one thing. I submitted the case to the jury as strongly as the evidence waranted on the part of the Commonwealth, as I wanted to see the President Shortlidge expressed himself very well pleased with my charge afterwards. The defendant was not convicted, and Joseph Shortlidge, the prosecutor, had to pay the cost. As to the discipline at the college and the conduct of the students during and at the middle of the fall term in 1880, the discipline was not good, and the conduct of the students was much worse than it ever was before and ever has been since. Professor Shortlidge seemed to have no capacity to manage the students and drove them into open rebellion and mischief, and the boys did all they could do to make a noise and disturbance and difficulty. Prior to that time the conduct of the students as well as the discipline was as good as that of any equal number of students as in any college in the country. Since he left there I believe it has been as good as it has been at any ordinary college in the country. Acts of mischief have been committed by some of the students; but, as a rule, the conduct of the students is exceptionally good, and has been for the last fourteen years, except during the brief residence of Joseph Shortlidge, and even then it was not as bad as reported to be; but had not the respect of the students, he did not have their confidence, and he could not control them. As to the temperance or intemperance of the students, there is no place where liquor is sold, permitted by law, within two miles of the college, and in fact there has not been any license granted within eight miles of the college since I have known anything of this county. There has been, possibly on an average once a year, that a student will go away from the college and get under the influence of liquor. I do not know of single student or students that are habitually intemperate at the college, and it is not true. All of the testimony on that subject by Miss Bell Shortlidge is entirely over-stated, and a great part of it is undoubtedly mere imagination. There has been perfect quiet and order and harmony at the college since April, 1881. The only disquiet has been the anxiety of the faculty that the board should elect a new president. As we made a great mistake in the selection of Professor Shortlidge, we have not selected one, although over a year has elapsed, and we do not propose to until we are satisfied we have the right kind of a man. None of the members of the faculty are candidates for the office, and I do not believe any one of them would take the position if offered to them. Professor Hamilton has not been a member of the faculty for two years or more I think it is two years this June-in consequence of ill health. He was professor of agriculture. He is now business manager, and as such, has charge of the business of the institution, but he has nothing to do with the control of the students. Professor Smith has resigned the professorship of chemistry, to take place this spring, in consequence of an offer of a salary double what we were paying him at the college. All of the members of the faculty that have been there any length of time, I believe to be thoroughly competent for the positions which they respectively fill. There are two or three new members of the faculty that have been there so short a time that I have had no means of judging of their ability. The course of studies there, as you see by the catalogue, is full and thorough, and I believe that the education that the student who graduates there gets is superior to that of any of the ordinary colleges throughout the country. I noticed in the testimony of Miss Bell Shortlidge that the facilities offered are deficient. I cannot pretend to itemize what they are in the laboratories, cabinets, and museums, but I would ask this committeee, when they go there, to make a personal examination and see if they are not equipped as well as in some of these large colleges, and I am satisfied none of them are better equipped or have a more competent corps of teachers. Q. Could it be possible to decrease the number of professors in that institution and comply with the requirement of the act of Congress? A. I think not; but on the other hand I think there ought to be several additional professorships that we have not the means to establish. Q. How do you account, Judge Orvis, for the small number of students that are in attendance at this institution? A. For various causes. The college is away from any large town. It is secluded. Sometimes parents object to sending their children because it is not in immediate communication with telegraph and railway with their homes. Many of the students object to the labor required of them there in the practicums. By Mr. Newmyer: Q. Isn't that optional now? A. No, sir; not with the ordinary student. They require him to do so much work, but it is systematized, so that it is in the line of their studies. The misfortune we have had in the presidents of the faculty has been another cause. In my judgment, students have been expelled for causes that I do not think were adequate to expel a student from the college. I remember on one occasion after the faculty had expelled a student that, General Beaver stated to the meeting that he did not think it was sufficient cause, for a member of his class at Washington and Jefferson College would not have been expelled. Then, in some parts of the State there has been a persistent opposition to the college for other reasons, and that is particularly true of Chester county. The college has not given as much money to the Eastern farm as those Chester county people thought they ought to have to expend there, and they have been fighting the institution for the last seven or eight years for no other reason than that, that I am aware of. When that farm was bought, my information is that it was in a good state of cultivation. The buildings and fences all in a good state of repair. It was well stocked and furnished with all the necessary implements. The entire proceeds of the farm have been given to it since, and for some time, $2,000 a year out of the college fund, and when that was reduced to $1,000 a year, down to the last two years, the board of trustees said that a farm in as good state of cultivation as that one was could not be run on one or two thousand dollars a year, over and above all that it made; that farm could not be made profitable in that section of Pennsylvania, and we refused to give any more. It has, on an average, received double the amount that the Central farm has had, and it has been kept in a good state of cultivation. The Western experimental farm has not been run to any very great extent for an experimental station, for the reason that most of the land requires under-draining before winter crops can be raised upon it, and the board never had the funds to make that improvement on the land. Since I have been a member of the board, it has been run as an ordinary farm, and we have been making such improvement as the income of it would allow. Q. Has there been anything like an adequate return from the Eastern and Western farms? A. No, sir; no return at all, but a constant drain upon the college. They refused to inaugurate the system of experiments under the direction of the business manager and professor of agriculture. We have resorted to all the expediencies that we know of to satisfy those people of Chester county. We placed the control of the farm under the local committee who had it in charge and directed its management, but it has been permitted to run down. The men who thus controlled it permitted it to go down, notwithstanding there has been a deliberate and constant demand for more and more money, and it has had, I am satisfied, very nearly, if not fully, double the amount of the appropriation from the college treasury that the farm here has had, although they are situated far more favorable, as to markets, than the Central farm. Adjourned to meet at 9 o'clock, a. M., June 26, 1882. Met at 9 o'clock, A. M., June 26, 1882. BUSH HOUSE, BELLEFONTE, PENNSYLVANIA, Sub-committee met as above. Present: Messrs. Newmyer, Chairman Roberts, Mr. Bierly, Alexander, and Hall was also present. Minutes of the proceedings of last night's session were read, and on motion, approved. Hon. Judge Orvis was recalled, and gave further testimony at some length. General James A. Beaver was called, sworn, and gave testimony fully. At noon-day a recess was taken for dinner. Sub-committee reconvened at 2 o'clock, P. M., when General Beaver was recalled, and further testified at some length. Mr. Cyrus Gordon, trustee elected by the alumni, was sworn. Graduated in 1866 at the college, and was elected trustee in 1876, and testified. Mr. J. C. Harper, clerk of the quarter sessions of the county, was sworn, and testified as to certain matters in connection with the suit versus G. Haag, for selling beer to the students. Mr. D. F. Fortney, district attorney of the county, testified in the case against G. Haag. (See stenographer's transcript.) Moved, 4.30, P. M., to adjourn to meet at the college at the call of the chairman, to-morrow, Wednesday morning, June 28, 1882. Adopted, and on motion, adjourned. G. W. HALL, Hon. JOHN H. ORVIS, recalled, examination continued: By Mr. Alexander: Secretary. Q. You are familiar with the early history and the original organization of this institution, were you? A. Not particularly with its organization, except as I have learned it since I have been a member of the board of trustees. I was not a citizen of this county when the college building was erected, or when the college was opened; I believe it was opened in 1859. I came to this county in 1862, three years after, and for four or five years after that I was not particularly familiar with its management. Q. Your subsequent connections with the college made you familiar with the several acts of the Legislature in relation to the State College and the act of Congress making the land grant? A. Yes, sir; I believe I have attempted to study them all. I had occasion to do that in, I think it was, 1880. I was appointed a member of a committee to prepare an address in reply to the report of the investigating committee that was appointed by the Legislature, and, in preparing that address, I examined fully and carefully all of the legislation, general and special, appertaining to the college. Q. In that address have you cited all of the acts of Assembly in relation to the Pennsylvania State College? |