The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1880-06-09
LAST PROCEEDINGS OF THE
qENERAL ASSEMBL

down 10 Its action on II ONE Missions on
Friday afternoon, May 28th Immedi-
ately after that the subject of
REFORM AND RETRENcHMENr
was taken up An indefinite postpone
ment was proposed But instead of this
motion was passed providing that an
abstract of each report shall be printed at
the expense of the Assembly, to be cir
culated among our ministers and elders,
and that the whole matter be laid over
till next year. This, we think, was the
wiser course. If it can be shown that
any changes may be made securing
greater economy in the work of the
Church without impairing its efficiency,
by all means let them be adopted with
hearty unanimity. But this inquiry
should proceed with very great caution
Change may bring healthful reform, or it
may bring destructive revolution. The
Church should be slow to give up long
experience, to embrace the uncertainties
OF theory; to overturn what is estab-
hshed, because there are some who think
all these things could be better recon
structed after another fashion. The two
schemes now fully confront each other
let them lie over for another year; let
the alleged facts be sifted, and their re-
spective claims be weighed and decided,
and then " let us have peace. All rea-
sonable complaints should be heard, and
whatever is shown to be wrong should be
rlghted; but the Church cannot afford
to have perpetual agitation on this sub
ject. For if these objections are not sub
stantially established, their constant re-
iteration among our people is injurious
and ought to cease.
COLUMBIA THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.
An outline of the report presented to
the General Assembly by the Board of
Directors of this institution was given
last week. The standing committee of
the Assembly to whom it was referred,
made report recommending its approval.
Thereupon the Rev DR.. Plumer sent a
communication to the Assembly, request
ing to be heard in person concerning the
matters involved. This request was
granted, and upon his representation that
an hour was insufficient for what he de-
sired to say, all restriction as to time was
removed. His objections to the measures
taken by the Board of Directors, related
% to the legality and expediency of sus-
pending the exercises of the Seminary,
and (2) to the (alleged) injustice towards
himself, in removing him, without his
consent, or even his knowledge, from the
chair ne occupied. 1t is not our purpose
to enter into any detailed consideration
of troubles belonging to this subject
There are, however, a few points which
1t is deemed proper to note.
l. We think DR.. Plumer failed to show
that there was anything contrary to the
constitution Of the Seminary in the action
of the Board accepting DR.. Girardeau's
resignation aOitholtt sir months notice.
They could have required it, no doubt,
but were not obliged to do So That pro-
vision was simply safeguard-a right,
the exercise of which was optional not
compulsory. No one raised such an OBJ
lection in 1874 when Drs. Adger and
Wilson resigned summarily.
g. He also failed to show that tenn
porary suspension of the exercises of the
Seminary was in violation of its constitu-
ton, and such perversion of its trust
funds as made it liable to suits at law.
Granting there might be lapse in case
of the total abandonment of the institu-
ton, yet a brief suspension for the avowed
purpose Of avoiding disastrous financial
embarrassment, was in fact a measure to
protect such trusts
9. He also failed to show that the
Board had no authority from the oonsti-
tuition to make the change referred to
concerning himself 1t was clearly shown
by the Rev William z. Boggs, D. D.,
who replied on behalf of the Directors to
DIR. Plumer, that they had authority for
all that was done. We must think, more
over, that in assigning to DR.. Plumer q