Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1852-08-13

NN' ~ -. 'p'tNcl1 "lIl "ll bClIlSllNC, thlN
in our judgment, the "Sutject," whether "purely
theological" or otherwise, of Gan ably writer
discourse, containing opinions not discredita
I" bic to the writer, nor Gale ulated in the least
4" degree to excite intolerance in any rcasona-
bic mortal, >" should not have excluded an ed
ucatcd gentleman from that participation in tho
intellectual celebration to which he had beer
specially invited by a public Corporation. In
deed, it appears to us that purely theological,
or purely ethical, or purely metaphysical, OF
purely political, "subiects," are just the ones
that are proper to be discussed on the A%nniver-
sary of a purely intellectual Institution. 1t Is
quite likely that our notions, on ''purely thco
logical subjects, would differ as widely from
MIR. HrGBnE's as those Of any other person in
the audience. But, obviously, this is not the
point at issue I!
Professor ToRREY will not probably have
forgotten, too, that not IN any years ago, the
Rev. Mr.. YALE, of Charlotte, 0ikc Mr.. IIIG-
BEE, an invited participant in our Commence
mcnt Exercises pronounced a purely t%rinitari-
an, land a rather Extensively trinitarian) dis
course, in the Unitarian Church in tn is village,
which had been courtcously rendered for Com
mencemcnt purposes. The discourse would
doubtless have been looked upon as appropriate
enough, and well enough, BY all classes of re-
ligionists, if it had been delivered on recogniz-
ed and conceded University territory. And it
icas well enough, though not, perhaps, very ju-
dlclous, or conslderatc for the place. But it
was not rejected by the Faculty, nor, we insist,
should it have been. "Freedom of opinion is
the boosted fright of everybody in this flour
ishing Republic, and tits bad policy, at least,
for any one of our Educational Institutions to
attempt to suppress or control il. The systems,
political or religious, that can be destroyed by
discussion and debate, by authority and argu-
mcnt, ought to be destroyed. No system is fit
to stand that cannot stand aionc,-on its own
merits, on its own basis, on its own intrinsic
strength. Therefore, it matters not what spec
ulative opinions any man may utter any where,
Theological, moral, or political. "MAGNA EST
yERIRAs. EFT PREVALENT !"
We are not making these remarks with
special reference to the exclusion of Mr.. IlIG-
BEE from our commencement exercises. We
understand fully the tenor of Professor Tor
REY's note, and know upon what ground Mr..
HIGBEE.s address was rejected the ground of
policy. But We feel obliged to express the
opinion that the less censorship the Faculty of
the University exercise over the %orations or adj
dresses of educated men, whom they inuilc to
participate in the exercises of our annual Com
mencement, the better it will be. Let them
permit their flowing audiences to determine
what is acceptable or not acceptable, thcologi-
cally or otherwise, and in our poor opinion the
result will be much more satisfactory and prof.
able. Free Trade and Sailors Rights is a
glorious maxim, in matters of opinion at least!
OFThe apparent controversy that has grown
up between us and the Faculty Of our Univcr-
sity, in reference to Mr.. I%lIGBEE's Grafton, ap
pears to thicken somewhat, and, quite late for
joined communication from a very responsible
and very chcertully insert it. We are
quite aware that our citation of the case of
Rev. Mr.. Yale was not specifically in point,
though 1t IS somewhat illustrative. Our cor
respondent below purpoScly avoids what is tie
only question at issue whether the censor
: mp exercised over the address prepared by an
educated man, invited to participate IN our
Commencement exercises, was iudicious and
proper or not We object to the ground of the
objection to Mr.. HIGBLE's Address. To say
to rule, Is no reply. Our objection is to the
custom and practice, for which our correspon-
dent apologies. We say that an educated
gentlemen, Unrited to make an Address at any
University Commencement, has a perfect right
to select his topic, and that ithi, is a right with
which the Faculty Of a public, Incorporated,
University have no righi whqterer to int .rferc.
THIS Is our point, and our correspondent does
not answer 1t in the least. To descend to par
t%culars, we say that the rejection of Mr.. IIlG-
BEES Address is wholly and entirely mdcfen-
slblc, either as respects the true interests of the
University or the ''inallenable rights" of lndi-
viduals.
For the Free Press.
Mr.. IIisbcc's Address, and the Faculty.
To THE Ep1oc OF The FREE PREsS:-l like your
notions on the SUBJECT Of Tree discussion, and beg
leave therefore to make a remark or two about the
Faculty and Mr.. II ghee.
I'm VOuT first DrtI.Ip cppSurcI tb, E,,n1,,, g..
refusing permission to Mr.. II gbec to deliver his adj
dress, because certain theological opinions in it were
found not IN taLiy with the opinions OF the Faculty"
This was a pretty serious charge, as intended to tx
upon the Faculty "A very intolcrable excess ct intole-
rance. II was, however, satisfactorily reiutcd by the
note Of Prot. Torrry, published yesterday IN which
he distinctly stated that the Faculty acted under no
such motives a. you had imputed TO thcm.-So
much for that point.
Prot Torrey next gives the real reason why Mr..