, 1874-02-19
THE UNIVERSITY FIGHT.
Mas tito Standard Been Impnr-
tinl In 1t?
". ". Erqrts, Jr., Says II ilas Not and llas
Dealt Unfairly Dy Ills Father.

Dealt Unfairly Dy Ills Father.
CHICAGO, Feb IS, 1874.
10 The Editor qf Tie Chicago Tribune:
SIN: 1t is with oxtromo regret TINT foclcom-
polled to ask further l,oaring lit your columns
in a.controvcrsy in which havo boon lod by cir
cumstances rather than inclination to partici-
pate.
Tho partisan course OF tho Standard however,,
has forced the necessity upon mo, and required
MO to choose botwoon silence while my futhor
was being miBquotod, nniuropreBouted, aud u.s.
porsod in tho donominatioual proBs, or to soolz
In tho columns Of tho public journals that JUS
tico that Inns boon donied by tho organ Of tho
Baptist body.
Why course 80 unusual and so mauifostly
unjust aa tho insertion OF ono aido Of @ contro-
vorsy and tho exclusion of tho olhox, has been
rcBorted to, is difficult to determine, The secu-
lar press has acted with grontor fairnoss than
this. In son1o instances both sides have been
granted hearing, in othors both hayo beon
ruled out.
can only account for 1t upon tho hypothesis
that !" Ho that dooth evil lateth the light,
neithor con1eth to tho light lest his deeds should
bo roproyed." noticed, indoed with regret, In
tho letter Of the Executive Committee, to which
tho signature Of tho editor Of the Standard was
Affixed, TINT tho authors Of these injnriouB
charges had no claim "to bo heard at the hAr OF
public opinion but folt at tlo Same tlme tint
theory go mich ut VARIANCE with tho principles
Of our Republican institutions, aud tho spirit Of
our Chriatinn filth, could not consistently DO ro-
luccd to practice by All American editor in
charge Of a Baptist paper. An injurious charge
ofton proves truthful charge, and, III this cnso,
tho greater tho truth, tho groater tho libel. OF
tho exclusion from ita columns by tho Standard
Of tho statement mado by DR.. Everts to his
church, no complaint waB in tho first instance
mado. It was Understood to be tho dosire OF its
q very painful subject. Tile Executive
Committee, however, saw ft to reply to
that Btatcmcnt nnd wl,io tho lattor had boen
suppressed, tho roply to tt was published. ,As
DR.. Everts had committed himself to Blonce,
and as tho reply Of tho Committee WAS generally
regarded Us being nH much an attack upon him
as q defense of DR.. Burroughs I deemed it q
duty Incumbent on mo to respond. No QUO could
question my right to do 80, for tho reputation Of
my father is aH dear to mo as that OF Dr. Bur-
Standard.
a copy Of my communication was offorcd to
tho UNCONVENTIONAL orGap and its publication
requested. Tho justice Of the demand was
frnnkly admitted, insertion, promised. ana tho
rapder tardy Justice by presenting both sides
wis ahort-liyed, aud, after a woek's delay. the
announcement reached me TINT tho commuui-
cation was to bo suppressed. Stlu,g with tho
injustice and bnd faith OF this proceeding, I
request TINT I should bo heard at least
in tho yindication OF DR.. Eyorts from
tho injury sought to DO inflicted upon
lin by Tho Executive Committee Of tho Board
Of TrustcoB, and to TINT request, also, . refusal
has been returned. Tho statement has been
n,ado TINT tho privilege OF a hearing would bo
extended to my fathor, over his own signature.
This, bo It observed, was not tie original agrco-
mont, and was not ulado until it was known that
DR.. Eycrts Ind withdrawn from tho controversy.
However, this offer was dotatorial in the limita-
tions, and especially unfair, as it demanded
while DR.. Burroughs WAS allowed to appear by
proxy that my father should appear in person.
This action furnishes conclusive proof that d
disposition exists on the part OF tho Standard
to do my father wrong, and determination
show friendship for DR.. Burroughs without
eyincing such as,imosity for DR.. Evcrta. asked,
In my last communication to tho Standard:
Fi,.st-Th1t it should ut loast be stated that
answer had been n,ado to tho letter or the Com
mitteo. The simple announcement OF this fact
would lnvo led all to understand that tho reason
why the Inter remained unanswered III the
Standard was not becausoit was regarded as un-
anawerable.
Second-TAat the circumstances under which
tho stato1nent Of DR.. Eyerts waa drawn from
him should also be clearly set forth. It waB not
by Way Of attael upon DR.. Burroughs, but in lls
own dofenae, tho Executive Committee or part
OF it, sookiug to n}uro him in conuection with his
own people, nd1rcssed Il letter to the Dencons Of
Ills church charging him with having slanderol
DR.. Burroughs. Solf-preseryaton Is tito first
instinct In human nature. It bocamc duty
forced upon him to state his accusation and the
oyidenco on which 1t rested. This announco-
mont would have led The unprecedented to inquire
whether DR.. EvertB, instead OF porsecuting Dr..
Burroughs, WAS not himself tho victim Of per-
Bccnton,
1hi,u-That thofactBlould bo announced that,
whilo DR.. EvortB had nude the charge md still
ment, pori!ous to any great financial entorpriso,"
in connection with tho atfairs Of tho Chicago
University under tho administration of Dr.. Bur-
ronghst that he hnH also i'll tho most emphatic
language affirmed TINT " no charge OF dofalca-
tion was ever maao;" that la had not aaporsed
tho moral reputation or Christian character OF
that gentleman. This would have led tho
rcadols OF the Standard to determine for them
solves whether tho Executive Committee Ind
properly construed tho Language Of DR.. EyortH
understood AZ Il charge Of dofalcat!on," or
twl1at is equivalent to IT, that "tho natural
interpretation Of tho languago would load une to
suppose that In othor words llo was q dofautor."
TINT the wayfa.ing mau, though a fool, mood not
err therein. This migrant misropresentaton
might have induced some to ask whether Or.
Burroughs OF Dr. Eyorts had boon most sub
tectGa to slander.
Fourhh-That 1t should be plninly stated tlat
tho charges mado by DR.. E7erts in relation to
tho mismauagoment OF tho financial affairs OF
tho Chicago University. and DR.. Burroughs re-
sponeibility thorofor, did not originate with
him, and Ii corroboratol by many witnoHses Of
men w4o labored nntiringy III tho intoroBt Of
tho University for years. who know whereof thoy
Bpoak-mon whose standing ~ tie Christian
wofa ~ wtoat IopeHe aM sI TofaGS
readers Of tie Standard, o,lght to hayo induced
oven tho prejudicel to admit that thoro woro
possibly two aides to tho question, instead Of
ono, as thus fur presented to tho baptist public
through tho columns Of that journal.
Fifh-Tlat it should DO announced that DR..
Eyerts uuoquiyocally diso!aimed any feeling Of
malico to n,ly III tho prolnises TINT what llo
Ind Bad or dono was not out Of onnity for DR..
Burroughs, but loyo for tho University; tint
tho incapable direction Of its afrairs had, In his
ylow Of tho case, caused tho institution to lan-
guish ~ the past, and It porpotuatod, might
nr1vn fte rtlt In fo futflrn ft'IiH ut,tlni,flrn,