This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1936 edition. Excerpt: …every other consideration of duty, which was wrong. Remember that no one cadet, wearing our cloth, can do an act which does not reflect upon and greatly concern all; hence all are responsible for what any one may do; and unless the few, who may violate good order and discipline, can be found out, all must in some way, unnecessarily suffer. It is therefore, for the good of the cadets, one and all, for the well-being of the University, and for the protection of our neighbors from the rash and thoughtless conduct of our young people, that the Superintendent must have the right to interrogate each and every cadet, as to his complicity in any given act which he may have reason to believe was committed by members of the corps. May we never again experience an occasion of such sadness and sorrow as this; and may this misfortune in no wise affect in after life the prospects of our young friends, who leave us with none other feeling than feelings of sympathy, our respect, and our love, and with our best wishes for their future success and happiness. D. F. Boyd, Superintendent. The dismissal of the students aroused much opposition, and the state papers commented freely upon the episode. The Republican, which was then hostile to the University, condemned Colonel Boyd for punishing the students who had only shown a manly spirit in repudiating the extraordinary rules of jurisprudence which appeared to prevail at the University. The Times upheld Colonel Boyd’s action and remarked that cadets, as a class, exhibit much greater capacity for getting into difficulty than talent in extricating themselves. The Commercial-Bulletin, intimating that the whole affair was much ado about nothing, said: The occurrence was one of those internal troubles to which all…
