The Professor, the President, and the Champagne College Deal

PULLMAN, Feb. 17.—[Special.]—A lively scene occurred today during the proceedings of the investigating committee.

Prof. Hendricks in his testimony had criticised the fact that President Heston was absent from the college and in Olympia during the session of the legislature, and that some features of the organization of his (Hendricks') classes were not satisfactory. Upon cross-examination by President Heston it was developed that Prof. Hendricks, since his connection with the college, had been secretly opposing the president, and never called his attention to the things which seemed to him objectionable. It was further developed that Prof. Hendricks had never been connected with a college faculty before, either as a professor or executive, and President Heston showed very clearly to the committee that the criticism of one thus totally unacquainted with the methods of college organization and discipline was of little value. The humiliation occasioned by the exposure of the professor's hostile attitude to the president makes it almost impossible for him to do anything else than resign his chair immediately. In fact, it is rumored that the president has intimated to him that such a course would contribute greatly to the peace and prosperity of the institution. It is expected that he will resign.

In the college investigation today there was introduction of proof that neither ex-Acting Gov. Laughton, Miss Bertha Denton, Conover, Black nor Smith own any real estate in Pullman or vicinity, and that there was no bribery in selecting the location.

The principal part of the morning session was consumed in taking the testimony of H. Preusse, the architect. He first drew plans of a college building to cost $65,000, for which, if the building had been constructed under his supervision, he would have been entitled to 5 per cent. This plan was accepted by the regents, but for reasons unknown to him the construction of that building was abandoned. He continued:

"The reason was kept very quiet. Whenever I came up with the big plans they were afraid, and I was afraid. That building was 400 feet long, with three stories and basement. When its construction was abandoned, President Lilley drew a sketch of the plan for the dormitory and other small buildings. I made the drawings and the contracts were awarded as follows: Dormitory $21,950; college hall $4,300; shops $1,600; farm house $1,650; pumping and boiler house $7,443; plumbing, etc., $4,424; total $41,867."

Some alterations were made necessary and there was a bill of extras which he (the architect) deemed fair and reasonable. He received no compensation for making the plans for the large building. Under the rule prevailing among architects he was entitled to 2½ per cent if the building is not erected or if he does not superintend the work.

In answer to a question by ex-Prof. Scobey the witness said Regent Smith had told him that the original plans contemplated too good a building for Pullman. This created quite a sensation in the lobby.

Subsequently Regent Smith inquired: "Did I say it was too good a building for Pullman?" "Yes," was the prompt reply; "that was in Tacoma." The regent endeavored to convince the witness that what he did say was, "that if the building was located in a city stone trimmings would be necessary, but standing off by itself such trimmings might be dispensed with." "No," the architect replied, "that referred to the dormitory." Smith asked him what he meant by the statement that the regents were afraid and he was afraid. "We all knew there was opposition to Pullman," the witness replied. Smith—"Where did that opposition come from?" "I understood that it came from you," answered witness.

W. A. Windus, ex-mayor of Pullman, explained the condition of the title to the college lands, and stated that there was a cloud on a small part of it, but that it has been cleared away, and the state now has a good title to the entire tract, Paul Gaston having no title whatever. The whole tract was donated by the citizens of Pullman. He had no knowledge of any money having been paid to the locating commissioners or to any one else on account of the location. About $1,000 was raised for expenses in the effort to secure the college, but, as far as he knew, it was used legitimately. He could testify positively that Bertha Denton had no lots in Chambers' addition, owned by himself and Chambers. He did not believe that she or Laughton, Black, Conover or Smith owned any land in the vicinity of Pullman. Smith had won some lots off Letterman in a bet, but he did not know that the bet had been paid.

The noon recess was then taken, and the investigation had practically ended.

After recess Ex-Senator Hurrsh testified that he thought the title to the grounds had been perfected. He gave a history of the contest over the location, including the payment of a committee's expenses to Olympia. The locating commission received no part of the money subscribed by Pullman people. When they came the people met them with a brass band and put on all the style they knew how. They also "set up the champagne." In fact, they extended to them the hospitality of the city. Witness had no conference with Laughton pertaining to the college.

A Pullman banker testified that he had paid to Smith, treasurer of the college regents, interest at 6 per cent on deposits. He did not know whether or not the state was credited with the same.

O. J. J. Nicholas, clerk at the Artesian hotel, testified that Smith paid certain amounts for hotel accommodations, and Scorer represented that he signed the vouchers in blank, Smith filling them out afterward.

Prof. Hendricks was questioned by President Heston. This resulted in exposing personal animosity toward Heston on the part of Hendricks. Hendricks requested that 100 students be called to testify in his behalf, to which Senator Frink emphatically objected.

President Heston was called and made a lengthy speech in his own behalf. Hendricks insisted upon his right to interrogate the president, but was unanimously overruled by the commission.

Paul Gaston testified regarding his interest in the title to seventy-two acres, which was supposed to be part of the college ground, claiming that his suit in the court against Dr. Herman was also against the land, and that the Pullman people contend that while Gaston may have a good claim against Dr. Herman it does not affect the latter's warranty deed to the state.