New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1854-10-05

Tins TO Grnly sectsriau test in the election OF
Professors the matter was brought before she
Legislature, sad the Senate appointed Commit
tee to inquire into i; The Investigations OF 'e''
Committee have new for some days occupied a
portion Of cur columns, but the question las nos
fairly been opened Until the last two days.
Those of our readers ghO have followed our re-
ports must, We think, be struck by the great deli
csey and sensitiyeness of most Of the trustees.
They shrink from any oSerhsulirg Of their set,
much ike a witness who declines To testii! be-
csuse il might crimirase himself; and generally it
mus; be comics .ed that the Committee gam but
little light as To the point in question.
Two considerations seem to be urged for the
reticepce OF the trustees. One is that the cleo
ZION having been by ballot it is not within the
province of tie Legislature 10 penetrate the Sc
oresy Of the transsction and consequently NJ
trustee can be required 10 state how or why he
voted. Tie other consideration presented BY
Mr.. Belts. is to the effect that he voted agaisS:
nobody; all he did was to vote for one OF the
candidates but this was not 20 vote against
either or al OF the others. OF course he cannot
be Intercepted why he voted against or b,
when he simply gave his ballot for {, without
saying anything al all about the others. On such
clubbing As this Mr.. Belts seeks TO preserve his
conduct from that trial and condemnation BY the
Legislature which it has already received at the
hands OF the press and the public.
lie argument, from the provocative OF the
tri*tees and the secrecy Of the ballot is fortified
by the opinion of two distinguished lawyers, and
is plausible. but we spprehend that III not mu,h
sounder than the position Of Mr.. Belts The
question relates not to the action Of the trustees
~ individuals or as citizens, but as trustees in
regard to point concerning which the charter
makes special provision. Tney are not Inter-
rogated in their personal, but in their corporate
capacity, and that not generally, but as TO wheth-
er particular law has or has not been broken.
Under such circumstances the pretense that the
ballot mus, be hedged around with impenetraole
secrecy is untenabe, especially against the trlbu-
nal now engaged in the investigation. Thess
gentlemen hold al importantly public trust in whose
correct and lawful administration the People have
q paramount concern, and they have no right TO
dodge behind fictitious technicalItes aud formal
ties when the People are to examine into their
Stewardship Besides, it does not speak well for
the moral courage Of the trustees that most of
them should hesitate to avow To the Legislature
their motives for such an act, especially as those
motives were of so solemn and imperative char
acter as should govern religious act. If they
Ii erely obeyed the awful dictates Of conscience,
why should they scruple to say so or to give the
reasons for their course II looks much as if
in rejecting teacher OF Chemistry on theological
grounds, some of them did not altogether enjoy
the approval of either their own reason or con.
science, or else they would not now seek so
strenuously to prevent the investigation from
having useful result