Analysis and refutation of the Statements of facts in relation to the expulsion of James C. Cross from Transylvania University --recently published by Dudley, Mitchell & Peter / by James Conquest Cross.

  • Cross, James Conquest.
Date:
1846
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Analysis and refutation of the Statements of facts in relation to the expulsion of James C. Cross from Transylvania University --recently published by Dudley, Mitchell & Peter / by James Conquest Cross. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the National Library of Medicine (U.S.), through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the National Library of Medicine (U.S.)

    21/42
    who shall I summons first? Let us hear what Professor Lawson, his colleague, has to say on the subject: Maysvii.le, Ky., August 20, 1838. Professor Cross—Dear Sir: The first charge which particularly demands my attention is, that during last winter, you play- ed off a continuous round of manoeuvring, and intrigue to entrap the students, and to use them in furtherance of your ambitious views; that you were as obsequious as the Janitor; and that you entered into schemes, to injure two of the Faculty. These reckless and profligate assertions, bear the image of falsehood, on their Iront. All who were acquainted with your conduct, last winter, will unite in one general exclamation of contempt and indignation, upon reading these diabolical charges. That you attempted to manoeuvre, or to entrap the students, for any purpose is, accord- ing to the best of my knowledge and belief, utter- ly false. Nothing of that character, was discov- ered last winter, and if not then, when and where was it made? By Ur. , in ? Doubtless, it originated there, and like its au- thor, is a tissue of meanness and falsehood. That he was as obsequious as the Janator, is an in- significant charge. Your intercourse with the students, so far as I observed, was open, famil- iar, and courteous, yet noble and dignified. I be- lieve it is false that you entered into schemes, to injure two of your colleagues. Again, you are charged with attempting, by the basest means, to obtain the chair of Theory and Practice. This charge, is as false as the heart of him who made it. At the time the me- morial, signed by 163 students was circulated, you expressed publicly and privately, a desire to remain in your present chair.* My recollection of your opinion is, that you did not, believe that any of the professors should be transferred to that chair, that it should be re- served for some one not then in the school; but if any of the professors were to be transferred, you did not object to your claim being laid be- fore the Trustees. The charge, that you summoned pupils to Bacchanalian revels and plyed those with wine that loved it, is at once, a libel on yourself, as well as the students. I neither saw, nor heard these revels spoken of, nor do I believe, they ever had an existence. I believe the 163 names were willingly and voluntarily signed. When the balloting took place among the stu- dents, for a professor of Theory and Practice, I was absent, but on my return I was informed of the circumstance, and also that Professor Short *A word of explanation in relation to this memorial. Immediately after the death of Professor Eberle, the trans- ference of either Mitchell or Professor Short, to the chair of Theory and Practice, was spoken of, and the idea ex- cited great dissatisfaction, and much opposition in the class. When this contemplated movement came to the knowledge of the students, a memorial requesting the Board of Trus- tees to transfer me to the chair of Theory and Practice, was, without any agency on my part, drawn up and circu- lated through a class of two hundred and twenty-seven students, the number of which that of l837--'38 consist- ed; one h-indred and sixty-throe of whom signed it in the course of a few hours. received but one vote. It was a matter of curi- osity with us to know who this minority of one was, who could be ?o simple, as to wish Dr. Short to lecture on Theory and Practice.* Of the letter complimentary to Professor Mitchell I know but little. As Dr. Short, how- ever, signed the diplomas, as professor pro. tcm., it would seem that he had claims over others, but no one seemed disposed to pay him that com- pliment. Your own lectures, were fewer in num- ber than either of the others, but their charac- ter was such as to delight and instruct all who heard them. I think I risk nothing in saying, that they were received by the class as a desider- atum. The last sweeping denunciation which caps the climax is, that the fortunes of the school will be fatally sealed, if you are permitted to remain in it. Fortunately for the school and yourself, the author of this discovery can have no agency in effecting your expulsion. The friends of the school prize too highly your services to listen to such an idle declaration. Doubtless the envious author of that paragraph, would delight to see one whom he cannot rival, removed farther from him. In conclusion, permit me to say, that I believed your governing principle to have been to make yourself useful to the class. That such was the case last winter was obvious to all. The general character of the charges which have been arrayed against you, proves that they must claim as their author an envious, desper- ate, disappointed, and uncompromising enemy; one who will not scruple to herald forth any charg- es which his corrupt nature can fabricate, and for which the English language can be a vehicle. Yours, very respectfully, L. M. LAWSON, M. D. [From the Kentucky (Lex.) Gazette.] We observed in the , of the 27th ult., a violent attack upon the character of Professor Cross. This article appears under the editorial head, but judging from its phraseology, as well as from public rumor, we have no doubt that Ur. is the author of the article—and had he only heaped his slander and misrepresentations on Prof. Cross, the article would have passed un- noticed by us, as we know that gentleman is am- ply able to defend himself. But the author, not satisfied with his denunciations of Dr. Cross, has implicated, in his libellous productions, the 163 students that signed the memorial referred to, charging them with being his ready accomplices in crime, and compliments them by saying, before his personal appeals were successful, they were brutalized by bacchanalian revels in his own rooms. As we are a part of the students that signed the memorial, we feel it our duty to pronounce this charge a gross and palpable violation of truth, and should bring down upon the author of this illiber- al and slanderous production the execration of the *I trust Dr. Short will not suppose any feeling of hostility to him causes his name to appear in this publication in con- nexion with a matter that should be forgotten. If it should, however, give him dissatisfaction he ought to blame his ci-devant or rather soi-disant friend Mitchell for attempt- ing to revive a stale and an exploded calumny.