This text is part of:
“
[28]
lawful color.
He protested, in the best-natured way possible, that nothing was farther from his mind than to disobey the college rules in all respects; but that the article of apparel in question was white: it might need the manipulations of a laundress; but it was certainly white.
The board dismissed him with the injunction not to appear again in public without a regulation-vest.
Conscious that his vest was white, he took no notice of the gentle admonition of the board, but continued to wear the same objectionable garment.
Two or three weeks elapsed; and he was again called before the board on the same charge.
He maintained with much eloquence that his vest was white.
He was told that the board would be obliged to report him to the faculty if he persisted longer in his course, and he was then dismissed with the same advice as before.
Disregarding the parietal board, he appeared the next day wearing the same colored vest.
This he continued to do for several weeks, when he was again called before the same tribunal, on the double charge of disregarding its admonitions and of disobeying the college laws.
The board threatened more earnestly than ever to report him to the faculty, and also to recommend to it a public admonition.
He was undismayed, and argued his cause with as much earnestness as he since has many questions in Congress.
He left the ”
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.