New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-03-12


termination whs'.ver ron eqgs liberty and sdvsotags
education or from any o. the liberties.
'P.isculsr isnes. is matters a. religion. ead
Hhyoas sad provision eui, c,na' med sy the sil.
tBre o. the state Of Ne passed April 49, 1871; And
Hh1ea' Sad Le by further Asi. March
ordinances and ByLs~s 'hsl not m,Ao the res Gus ten.
e Of Ah5 pef'n condition OF ana s.i,e 10 ssy p'eso OF
Gaze IA he said Cosse be ~sh Che Con't
'iation aid law. 81 the Stsie and
Whe'". The seosII s~. of this state COR the GOV.
snnent Of COLLEGES snd provides ih. no re sou'
soS or test sb. b. required ron any ifa-.e rf~s
dent Principal other officer Of incorporated 'eirse
Academy a. condition for admission 90 any PnV"ese IN the
With the spt it, charter provides thst any religious de
.omDson or any person or re,;o.. mai snsow pro-
scL sc,nee or Ia the OF OF Ancienl
'NoS, 10 the .rnount OF twenty THOUSAND sr
shall forever have Of nominsg Professor for the
same subec, the spprobaron OF the Board Of TItess aud
s..pce by the Col ese OF The es. above referred
repeatedly endowed By and liberal Of
LsDd ard money; now, therefore.
kesoied That In fnieg the Profe.o.hip Of Natural
ard kxpeinenlsl Philosophy and Chemistry, now va
fslly exclude Object any Of his
ps.tieu.1 tenet. IN matters Of Iehs,on nor gsss the re,
zach Pit.soThip uound Of exclusion th-refron nor
reqve any religious qusiihosions or e' from suon can
Re.o,ed That in Sling said Professionally the Trustee. are
legally morally select such Professor with REFER
solely hi. fitness for the place without regard 10 MS
isiou, opniors"
These resolutions after discussion were indefinitely
Postponed. $50
The question at length assumed more publcnature
and freely discussed the daily secular papers OF
the CITY. and at length drew out from the hon. sam
uel Il. RUeeles oDs of the Trustees letter or pam
pble. entitled The Duty of Columbia College to
.'tbe Community, and lis Right TO EXCUSE Unitarian
"fTom ITS Professorshp of Physical Science. Inns
letter or pamphlet was written witn great force ana
cIesrness ana was published and RS ID, undoubtedly,
with gI eat interest by many who did not subscribe TO
.he doctrines it contained and perhaps did not credit
the assertions the conclusions TO who he arrived
This drew out from the Hon. q NJ. Ogden another
.Iv nptttf Cd IL m
"Couee froa the Attacks OF Samuel Is Ruggles."
The question in regard to the religious views of Dr..
Gibbs AID the dutes and powers OF the Trustees of
the COLI ge discussed with great ability, in these
pan pbles and with warmth Directing, on both sides,
perhsps not sltege TIER justfisbe.
These facts, however. not stated by the Com
nittee for the purpose Of showing violation OF the
Charter Of the College bat to show the great excite
nent and ifeeiDg that this religious question creatsd
in the election OF the Professor 10 the vacant chair
foresad and to fhOw ALSO the reason that the inter-
position Of the Legislature was invoked TO investigate
and if possible, by further legislation protect the in
et ute q from the recurre nee Of Ike contests
To what extent the reis ious question Influenced the
election of the present Professor DIR. McCuloch or
tended to the defeat Of DR. Gibbs it il iwpossi for
the Committee. with the evidence before them, to
says but that it permitted to enter into the cleo
ton, to some extent can scarcely be doubted.
The testimony Of Mr. Rugsles, who fully answered
all the questions put TO him by the Committee, estab
fishes almtst exclusively that DR.. Gibbs defeated
"UDtsrian." He says several of the Trustees who
voted eghiDst him asserted that they voted against
him on that ground, and that, if be had not been
"Unitarian, they would have voted for hin. And
there is no evidence to contradict this.
The Trustees could have each denied that they
voted on any such grounds; 6m they did not. The
only testimony the Committee have on tina. subject
is the testimony OF Mr.. Ruggles, Dr. Spring, and the
Hon. Hamilton Fish, all of whom deny th.t they
Individually, voted on such grounds but none, ex-
cept RuRgles, speak Of the acts or declarations OF
o'hers. so that on the testimony before them as q
Question Of fact. the Committee would be compel ed
- fnu that DIR. Gibbs excluded from the benefits
and in mures of the College, by reason Of his Pc
cular teDe in matters of religion.
But this brings up the examination and considera-
t0n Of the terms of the Charter The restriction in
the Charter is found in Section g and is follows
md nhey enacted That the said Trustees and their
successors shall have u power and authority to make ell or
carrying into effect the designs of the institution; Provided
a!o, That such ordinances BY laws shall not make the
privilege oce In the said College be Inconsistent with
the constitution and laws of this State with the Consu
ticn al d laws Of the United States"
This is a restriction upon the passing or making
"byla~s" or " ordinances" oniy II persons can be
excluded in any other way than by ordinances aud
flaws, what is there in the Charter to forbid it
1t may be said that corporations only act by
iution &C.. and that this restriction is Broad enough
to reach al corporate acts But suppose that 10 be-
So The Trustees are the chartered agents of the
College snd have large discretionary power that
they are 10 exercise as individual Trustees.
This discretion IL not controlled by any restriction
IL the Charter. 1t is left, and must necessarily DC
left to the independent judgment OF the lndividuai
Trustee, and If he should allow an unworthy motve
10 influence his action a particular question: II
could OF be sold 10 be the corporate act OF the Ooly
Such is not the law in regard TO corporations In the
relation Of 4 corporation to government, however,
there NAV be cases where the corporation would be
charreable with the individual acts and neglecs OF
its agents so as to authorize proceedings by the State
for the forfeiture of its Charter
But il is said that the general law of the State IL
s. eec 40 page 400 which dec ares that no reiigous
"ouslifcation test shall be required from any
trustee president principal, or other officer or
"any INCORPORATED college academy, as con-
"dition for admission TO any privilege In the same
has been violated
That section is very broad, but it is not easy to see
how it can be broken without violating the condton
and restriction IN the Cnartef "iu'in '"e "o@iiA0
above LAID down.
The State must deal with the corporation, ana mol
With the individual trustee and the motives, oplec's
and intentions or even the acts, OF the indiViouai
trustee are not always the actions OF the ot
The individual trustee may be guilty OF breach oil
trust but can hardly be said to be guilty OF VIOLA
ton OF the charter, so as 10 warrant diSsoia'oh u
the corporation.
II is claimed that
~Eysp n the law ard our with the State plainly
yiIt t religious prescription both may neverthee be
safely honorsby essded and nuiihed tear any
fe,r he may lawfully the fact into account giving
vote nssmuch the vote neec not De oy "a,
that because the motive IL secret and Incapable 81
viii be presumed 10 be sueh as the law SHOWS sua ma i
one has any rsht that the vote was not sven
eiytly with reference TO the htnes oil me
nom any RELIGIOUS test Qualification sammea up 10
i; Il mai the ksber law of conscience oyede tue Obligation
Of snv human law the solemnty of any human conus:
ana i1.fes their yiosion the act he Known only u III
vote equally demands ana ordnsoce or bylaw es.oh,hn
the qu.6c which the u the one
be Of law and duty is not the other Sill less
eusabie o.