Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1818-03-13


ION ~ TIE It,ii ect. We reminded the tacuitv
,iat ne y u r- rfnortuoity 10 receive "A com
n'tie so1r,' arcs had not arisen from
amy default 81 'srse.Nes but from causes which
II was irupossi Tor us to ccnlro " Z con-
Guided by stating that though MANY III a., had
originally leff our homes, aud had sub scGuei,tIv
remained here. IN the vacancy of iAc char OF
the proiessorShip of chemistry and natural
philosophy, priucipaliS 10 attend the Iectnres
IN Those subjects, yet wa were determined TO
torego altoge ther the advantages 10 De derived
from Sush Attendance, rather than Sabmit to
an act which we deemed an imposition When
this remonstrance was delivered to ne ptesi
dent as the representative of the society haV.
ing been advised by ms Gifts object he return
Ell u, without perasing il, stating that the Zee
OF the professor was, in this respect Il subject
o. hiSownregulation. Tne same remonsti a,,ce
without any change of the address, was tiea
referred TO DIR. Hare, with the addition of an
endorsement, notifying him that we expected
an answer, as necessary to determine our future
conduct. This remoustrance was Construed
by Or. Hare into a personal insult, and under
that IMPRESSION, was submitted by him 10 the
society. The president recommended 20 Us.
as the only medus OF avoiding an arraignmeut
before the society, 10 offer DIR. Hare suitable
apology: Accordingly, twenty six of us pre-
sented tie following explanation;
WILLIAM q MARY coLLEGE,l
March End, 1915.
Agreeably to the recommendation OF the pre.
sldent, we, whose names are hereunto sub
scrbed, this morning convened And, after
e.
hection, which we have been able 10 bestow on
the subject of the late remonstraBce presented
TO Dr. Hare by portion OF The students we
do resolve, that the only apology, which we
can censciehtiousiy ofer him, is, that il pro-
cseded not from any luminosity towards hin,
either as man or as a professor. We dis
claim any intention to insult DIR. Hare: or TO
wound his feelings. Ii is against the act alone
mar we demonstrate, as Is evident from the
face pi the remonstrsnce itself, which, not ten
minutes before II was sent TO Dr. Hare. had
been presented to the president as the repre-
sentative OF the society. The act, we still
conceive, Justities the terms w. Tetract no.
thing contained in the remonstrauce II This
apology be acceptable we shall be yratitied
Il not, we shall console ourselves with Tie ne.
neenoh that, IN our recent conduct, we have
only performed orr duty"
This explanation was not deemed satisfacto.
ry BY DIR. Hare, but, suffering the fate of tin.
remembrance, was laid before the society-
Inc ensuing day, the twenty-six "culprits''
were suRmohed before the tribunal OF the
faculty, who had already decided our fate. hui
kindly SAT, with our sentence in their hands
prepared 10 hear our defence! PuI,iuat audi
qnt4ue do'os Ii was not thus with Alinus and
itiadamanthus Of old, who il is recorded i'm
| the Pristine simplicity of Their hearts, made a
merit or hearing the accused, and passing SEN
tence afterwards. After this trial, this mock
| cry OF the right of defence, the decree was nro
hounced, by which we excluded from all
The privileges of Students until we sim The
following declaration:
we, whose names are lIereunto subscribed
DO all, and each of us here hy declare Thar ln
our recent conduct with regard TO the profes
sor OF chemistry, we had TO Intention whatever
OF insulting either him the facuty-that oar
WISH was TO bring the affair OF the fee under
consideration, aud that we, are now convinced
| ia so doing. we made use of expressions i'm
proper III themselves, and such as uuy ht moi In
| have been employed. These exnresxIons
therefore, we recall, and acknowledge our Ie-
eXceptonabe."
We acknowledge that the terms used in the
remembrance are harsh, and, under different
| circumstances, had been improper None. we
aver, are more Sensibiy alive than ourselves to
the respect due from pupils To professor
But, however harsh those terms are we feel
satisfied that we shall be BILE to Justify them
HAD Dr. Hares charge been resolution Of
haSty adoption, II had perhaps been orr dutv
to object in mllder terms But the cbargc
whether regulated by the society generally or
by DIR. Hare himself, was evidently deliber
ate act. We have been told, however, in its
Justification. that the statutes of the coIIeoe
confer on DIR. Hare legal right TO exact p,
this case, the whole fee. This assertion we
4 DO not hesitate to deny. We have NOT been
aoIe TO discover any positive statute concern
\ ing this subject. In review ofthe records of
the proceedings of the visitations we observe
| that the salaries of the different professors
commence only from the period or their obaIi
ncdtionLtnat is. commence with the perform.
ance or their duties Now we will appeal tn
| any Candid, any honest man. whether The case
OF The fees is not parallel with that ofthe saIa
RES. The salary becomes due only i'm conse
qnence OF services performed. Aud shall we
be told That professor is entitled to fee
during months before his services commence
why thus Odious distinction between the visit
orS and the students! But Or Hare addressed
nInseif 10 me generosity of Virginian youths
Had his appeal not involved principle we
should not now be accused BY him with sordid
ness. Deluded mani Know that Virginians
afenot less characterized by an extravaganza
generosity IMAM by spirit OF prompt resist
ance 10 any encroachment on their lust rights
In the absence of express statute we are TO he
governed by The probable intention of the
legislator. But, that il cannot reas onably he
presumed that the intention of the visitors of
TINS seminary ever was TO make such distinc-
ton between the salary and the fee of the pro-
fessOr; between the funds of the college and
those OF the students, we think we have SuHici-
emily proved.
But, let us admit, for a moment, that the
professor is authorized, in such case. as Inv
the eXistings statutes the president had asserted
to exact from us the full fee. Does this adj .
mission affect the real merits of the case
Can any man be so stupid as to contend that
any statute will enttle professor for services
OF four months, to a reward (Which he is iusiiy
entitled only for services of eight months
Or Ought any professor to avail himself of such
statute To argue in favor fsuch doc
tTine, would be TO argue that laws can change
the Intrinsic character of acts can max O what
Is lntrlnsicaily wrong morally right. BuLifi is
auPeiEuouS 10 pursue tlls part OF tie subject
any farther. Though the president had. Will,
much adroitness, pronounced that there exists
such statute, he has discovered himself 10 be
as ignorant of the statutes of the college as of
the charter under which he acts which. ac-
corHing hts own ackuOv ledgment he has moi
read during The last four Yeas. lie has accord
lnglN been obliged TO abandon this position.
aud now virtually comedies thai there does NOT
exist any such statute. In the very impartidL
circular 20 which We have before alluded. he
observes, to use his own language that " there
is no tribunal 10 which immediate appeal
can he made on the subject of fees, this point