Repository: UIHistories Project: Board of Trustees Minutes - 1916 [PAGE 160]

EXTRACTED TEXT FROM PAGE:

160

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS,

[pec.

8,

a judgment of $10,0.00. It is defended upon the ground that the University was authorized in its discretion to discontinue the .plaintiff's attendance as a stud'ent, she having failed to meet the requirements undes established rules. This action is a tort action against President James and others, members of the Council of Administration, for wrongfully excluding the plaintiff as a student after she had been admitted as such and allowed for a certain length of time to pursue her studies. The special plea under which the case will be defended sets up certain rules adopted for the guidance of under-graduate students, the enforcement of which is necessary. The defense is the same as in the case last above mentioned. The power of the Council of Administration in its discretion to exclude poor students will be put to its test in this case. This is a suit pending in the Circuit Court of Champaign County, in which the plaintiff claims rent -on 40 acres of land purchased from him by the Board of Trustees. He claims rent at the rate of $12 per acre under an agreement made with Prof. Blair, of the Department of Agriculture. Prof. Blair denies that any agreement to pay rent in the event of the purchase of Mr. Douglas' land was ever made by him. The suit is defended upon two grounds; first that no such contract as that set up by Mr. Douglas was ever made by Mr. Blair with him, and second, that Prof. Blair had no authority from the Board of Trustees to make any contract whatsoever with Mr. Douglas.

T H E BOARD OP TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OP ILLINOIS V. HENRY RIETZ, ' NELLIE WALTON, AND CHARLES W. WALCOTT. GEORGE DOUGLAS V. T H E BOARD OP TRUSTEES OP THE UNIVERSITY OP ILLINOIS. MARIE SEEBACH V. EDMUND J. JAMES, AND OTHERS.

This is a proceeding which was commenced before the County Judge of Champaign County to condemn lots 23, 24, and 25, in the Forestry Heights Addition to Urbana (property situated on Nevada Street) for university purposes. After a trial in which considerable evidence was heard as to the value of the lots, the jury returned a verdict fixing the compensation of each property owner at $3,500. The University announced its election to stand by the verdict and prayed for an order allowing it on the 15th day of December, 1914, to pay the compensation and the costs of the proceedings. On the payment of the amount and the costs on or before the 15th of December, the University will go into possession and ownership of the three lots. This was, a petition for mandamus filed by the petitioner to compel the University authorities to admit him as a student, and allow him to pursue duties as such. His petition alleged that he reigstered as a Freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences in September, 1913; that he was dropped for poor work; that he was admitted again on probation at the Summer Session, 1914, and that he applied for admission in September, 1914, and was denied. The suit was begun immediately with the beginning of the school year and' as it was important to have an early decision in the case reached, I waived want of service in time for the September term of the Circuit Court and interposed answer admitting the refusal to allow the petitioner to register and justifying it upon the, ground that his work was so exceedingly poor and below that of an ordinary student that the general welfare of the University required that he be excluded. A jury was waived and a trial had before the Hon. Frank H. Boggs, presiding judge of the Circuit Court. The ease is similar to the Seebach case, excepting that the method of procedure is different. Each involves the power of the University authorities in their discretion to exclude students because of poor scholarship. The court, -after taking the case under advisement, rendered an opinion fully justifying the action of the Council of Administration in refusing to allow the petitioner to continue as a student. He holds that the University is invested with large discre tionary power in carrying on its work of education, and the courts should not interfere except in case of abuse of that discretion. The petitioner prayed for and obtained an appeal and the case is now pending in the Appellate Court at Springfield. I have the utmost confidence that the decision of Judge Boggs will be sustained. Respectfully submitted, O. A. HARKER, Legal Counsel.

DAVIS MCCONNOUGHEY V. BOARD OP TRUSTEES OP THE UNIVERSITY OP ILLINOIS.

This report was received for record.

PLYM FELLOWSHIP IN ARCHITECTURE. (6) A letter from Francis J. Plym, President of the Kawneer Manufacturing Company, Niles, Mich., concerning the permanent endowment of the Francis J. Plym Fellowship. October 26, 1911,. President Edmund J". James, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois. MY DEAR DR. JAMES: In answer to your letter of the 15th of October, I was aware that the Fellowship had only been made for five years and this was the last year. I have thought this over a great deal and of course we are not definitely sure of anything, particularly our income, but as my business was going on, I assumed I would soon be justified in offering to the Trustees a sum of money, the interest of which would be sufficient to permanently endow a Fellowship for European study and travel. Until this time had arrived, I had fully intended to maintain the Fellowship as I had been doing, remitting to the Trustees at least $1,000 a year.