University of North Carolina (1793-1962). Board of Trustees. Executive
Committee
Battle, William H. (William Horn), 1802-1879
Mitchell, Elisha, 1793-1857
Swain, David L. (David Lowry), 1801-1868
Page 1
To the Executive
Committee of the Trustees of the University of North
Carolina
The undersigned, to whom was referred the subject embraced in the following
preamble and resolution "Whereas, in the account rendered to the Executive Committee of the burning of
the belfry lately at the University, there seems to have been a want of proper care in preventing
or extinguishing the fire, and of investigating the cause of the fire,
Resolved that the President of the
University,
Dr.
Mitchell
, and Judge
Battle
, be appointed a Committee to
investigate in what manner, and by whose agency, accidental or designed, the
belfry was burnt, and what measures were taken to prevent or extinguish the
fire, and whether there was neglect on the part of any person, and if so whom,
in attempting to extinguish the fire, and that said committee report as soon as
may be convenient," have had the same under consideration, and ask
leave to submit the following report.
In the communications heretofore made to your body by the President and Faculty,
are contained all the reliable information in relation to the burning of the
belfry which has come to the knowledge of the undersigned, or, so far as they
believe, of any member of the faculty. From this information which is manifestly
very slight, there
Page 2
is no clew which can enable the
undersigned with their limited powers to ascertain the facts connected with the
transaction. It is understood, and it certainly has long been the established
rule, that in the investigations made by the Faculty, of offences alleged to
have been committed by the students of the
University, no
student shall be compelled to give testimony against his fellows, or to
criminate himself. It is true, that if any student be found by a member of the
faculty under circumstances of suspicion in connection with a violation of the
laws of the
University, he may be called on for an
explanation, and, his silence, if he refuse to answer, may sometimes afford
strong evidence of his guilt. In times of disorder or disturbance, the Faculty
have often felt the aid afforded them by the following ordinances: "A
student seen in the campus after the ringing of the notice bell at night, may be
held to account therefore, and if found there at the time of a disturbance,
shall be deemed a participator." "After the ringing of the
bell at night till breakfast on the following morning, the time not devoted to
sleep is due to study, and it is the duty of the student, if not engaged in the
preparation of his lessons, to be in his room and to maintain order and quiet
there."
By virtue of these ordinances the Faculty can and do call to account every
student who, at the time of a college riot or disturbance, is ascertained to
be
Page 3
out of his room; and in this way they often
discover offenders, who could not be detected in any other manner. The
undersigned have not, in the present instance, any such means of investigating
the alleged offence of burning the belfry. The fire occurred so late at night,
and was attended with so little noise that those members of the faculty who live
in the
village were not aroused by it, and those of them who have rooms in
the college buildings have made written statements in relation to the matter,
which are already before you.
While the undersigned are entirely satisfied that it is not in their power to
make any effectual investigation, they believe that all the material facts
attending the transaction can be brought out by an enquiry before a grand jury
of the country. If the belfry were burnt willfully, it was, as we think, a
misdemeanor, under the 103rd section of the 34th chapter of the Revised Code. We
suppose that it was a misdemeanor also, if the extinguishment of the fire was
wilfully prevented, even supposing that it originated by accident. The students,
whose statements are now before you, could no doubt give such information as
would lead to a full discovery of all the facts of which you wish to be
informed. The undersigned, therefore, submit it to you as the proper persons, to
decide whether a criminal prosecution shall not be instituted. In doing this,
they are aware that an examination may, under certain
Page 4
circumstances be had before a magistrate out of court, but in order to that,
we suppose there must be some person or persons charged with the offence. In the
present case neither of the undersigned, nor any member of the faculty, can make
the oath necessary to procure a warrant for the apprehension of any particular
person or persons. Indeed the undersigned do not understand your resolution to
contemplate any such proceeding. They conclude by expressing their confident
belief that in no other way, than by an enquiry before a grand jury and a trial
upon a hill of indictment which they may find, can the object indicated in your
resolution be accomplished. All which is respectfully submitted.