The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-03-26


DANE LAW SCHOOL, CAMBRIDGE, March a. 1856.
Rejection of the Hon. Ed,oard g. Loring from the Uni
versity Lectureship -Rcsolutions Thereon
Enclosed send you copy of resolutions expressive
Of the of the Law School concerning the rejection
of Hon. Edward G. Lorng from the post OF University
Lecturer in the Law School, which he has filed for
time past. having been intimated in certain quarters
that the students OF the Law School acquiesced in Judge
Lorngs removal and differences injurious to that gen
tleman having been drawn tberefrom, the students
have thought it due to Judge Loring and themselves to
correct any impressions derogatory to their true
upon the subject and this they have done by
pressing their views Of Judge Lorings worth and ability
contained in the resolutions annexed, which
passed yesterday by vote of Sc yean to IL nays It
may be improper to state that the resolutions
moved and seconded by gentlemen from
By publis the following resolutions in your valua
bic journal Jou will prevent misconsructi Of the
pressed views of the School, and viii much oolige
The following are the resolutions expressive of the
of the Dane Law School, in regard rejection
Of Hon. Edward G. Loring from the University Lecture
Whereas, the Corporation of Harvard College selected
and appointed Hon Edward g. Lcring University Lee
turer in the Dane Law School, and tho Overseers have
bitrary refused to confirm the same therefore be it
Resolved by us, members Of the Dane Law School, in
assembly convened That fully in the opinion
Of the Corporaton as by their election Expressed that
the personal worth and intellectual and legal abilities
and requirements Of Mr.. Loring eninenty qualify him
for the Office OF Lecturer.
Resolved, That Mr.. Loring's system OF instruction.
comprising clear analysis Of common Law principles
and exposition Of their and application,
riched by frequent illustration from the ivil law,
was calculated to rare degree to ao I'd kao Wedge of
the topics embraced in it, at once broad and minute;
and that deeply regret his removal, bringing .
loss upon ourselves and the science of law
Resolved, That we regard the removal Of Mr.. Lorng
tending to restrain the freedom Of judicial opinion
and sanctioned neither by justice wise policy.
Passed March 23d, BY yeas 5e-nays H.
CAMBRIDGE, March 20, 1866.
Judge Loring's Rejecion-The Organization Of the Uni
persity.
noticed in your paper lately article containing Sc
structures Harvard University and its Professors
account of the recent action Of the 0verseers In
jecng the nomination Of Judge Lorng as Lecturer in
the Law School In another morning paper OF the
date there attack equally severe upon the Cor
poraton of the University for attempting to keep him
there against the will of the Overssrs Neither Of these
writer's appear to understand precisely the organization
Of the University and the legal distribution Of the pow
ers among the several bodies In the present commun
cation, shall limit myself TO few words upon the or
ticle in the HERALD.
The University o. Cambridge consists Of the Under
Graduate Department, the Law tchool, the Divinity
School, and the Medical School The Professors in these
several departments constitute the academical bodythe
President OF the University 10 the presiding officer OF
each Faculty The acacemical body embracing the four
Facu have the general drecoo OF the studies
University, eubect to the control Of the Corporation
The Corporation consists Of gentlemen Who hold
the property and make the appoint subject to
confirmation OF the Overseers vacancy 10 the Corpo
ration is filed by the remaining hers subject again
to the confirming vote of the 0verseers
The overseers are body Of thirty men, appointed by
the legislature from time to time. The Governor Lieu
Governor President Of the Senate the Speaker Of the
House OF Representatives the Secretary Of the Board OF
Education the President and Treasurer of the University
being also members sx oficio.
The writer in the HERALD that Judge Lorings
rejection was by the Uniyersy-tsat is by tie profess
in the Unversty The facts that Judge Loriug
recommended law lecturer by the
in the Law school He was nominated BY the President
and appointed by the Corporation and then confirmed
by the 0versetrs by n large majority.
1T was afterwards thought expedient, account Of
ne increased number OF students in the law school
establish additional permanent professorship This
suggested by the professors approved by Corpo
ration and laid before the Oversee last for their
sanction The 0verseers at to withhold their
ton to the professorshp and, consequently Judge
Lortpg no had been appointed 20 fill It. continued
Law lecturer opiy. Al the recent meeting of the Over
the nomination of Judge Loring Law lecturer
was agsin laid before the overseers and by them re
ected Thus instead Of being rejected by the Univer
ny, he has been rejecred BY body having only po
ntcal connection with affairs OF the Usiversi,y
who Only clothed with general vsitatonal power
and the right Of veto upon the proceedings of the corpo
Judge Loipg. but ~ political supervisors rejected HIN
This they bad legal right 20 DO and the University
have remedy Nevertheless In applying the veto in
this particular case, they have been guilty Of gross
abuee OF power for Judge Lring had by the Ia
OF year and half or two years proved msen to be
upeommonly veil qualified for professor lad eAcher Of
the law and his character Ia above reproach both
public and 10 private fe II evident that h.
has no reference to his personal intellectual itness
for the Office and, TO reject for any other
than pndtress, or on account OF any local popular
excitement, Is breach OF high trust, which, this
the phrase the orty q the Overseers have
clearly been guilty Of But the University aud the pro
fessors are In no way implicated TO- respou sbe for
the proceeding lie Believed 20 be subject of sincere
regret the academic body the members OF which
and esteem Judge Lorirg highly, as man, magis-