The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1886-12-29
Prof. smyth's Case the First One
Called.
Long and Able Argument by Prof.
Dwight OF Columbia College.
Prof. Smyth Begins an Address in
His Own Behalf.

gun Nv Az SiOck tniS morning IN tine large
dining room of the United States Hotel At
the outset the room was crowded, all the
seats being taken and many people standing
along the walls.
The full board of visitors, the counsel on
both sides, and the eomplainants and re-
spondents were present. Although the spec
tators were largely clergymen. many laymen
and number Of ladies were among the
eager throngs who followed every step and
watched every phase of the already famous
contest.
Promptly at the stroke Of 10 the proceed
ings began. The first matter of Importance
was the announcement that no decision had
yet been reached by the Visitors on the ex-
ception taken by Prof. Churchill namely,
that his chair In the Institution does not rest
on the creed foundation
After some discussion in regard to whether
the evidence applicable to all the professors
should be repeated on the trial of each, and
also whether each case should be entirely
concluded before proceeding to the next,
Judge French referred to Professor Smyth's
claim in his answer that where sentence
was cited the ccntext should be taken; where
paragraph was cited the page should be
taken; that where part Of book was
cited the whole book should be taken, and
the book as whole, and said they accepted
tnat, and, with the consent of the other side
the complainant would put In all the AndO-
yer review editorials and the whole book
emitted Progressive Orthodoxy" In re-
sponse TO an inquiry whether this PROPOSE
ton was accepted, Professor Baldwin for
the respondents said the question had not
come before them, and they would take the
earliest opportunity to consider it.
=, After ashort recess for consultation, Judge
French offered in evidence an article in the
April Andover Review entitled .'The Bible
a Theme for the Pulpit and a speech Of
froIess0r Smyth at Des MOines. published
by Houghton, Miffiin & Co., under the title
OF .Ihe th;. Great Debate" page IL;
oyer the question in what sense the whole of
Progressive Orthodoxy and the Andoyer
dence ''
After recess Prof. Dwight continued his
argument, the following being some of the
most important points: This is an ex-
traordlnary case in many of its aspects. /
VIII hrst call attention, said the learned
counsel, to the way in which this matter
was presented to your board board of visit
ors) by the self-constituted accusers of these
professors. call particular attention to the
evidence OF duplicity, to the underhanded
hammer, the apparently untruthful manner
In which they described their charges.
lhey described themselves as COMMITTEES
tion apparently was to gain credit for their
charges by appearing to act in representa-
tive character. There was the suggestion of
meeting Of certain Of the alumni, by whom
a committee was appointed. The statement
tnat tnerei was an alumni behind them was
calculated and it is believed designed to
make an impression upon the community
and 1t now appears that these four men
comprise all the trustees aild all the alumni
VINO are engineering this movement (Sen-
sation.) Ii those who sign Themselves
COMMITTEE are true committee. thew are
self-appointed committee,-a true commit
tee OF the whole. Naughter) One fatal de-
iect IN these proceeding is that there is no
legal representative of the interests adverse
70 the respondents. Upon this point the
counsel argued at length to show that this
being In, effect trial involving property
rights, the signers of the charges, having no
interest, cannot possibly be parties, but
wnat is still more decisive and absolutely
conclusive that TIE court has no power to
proceed by itself, except in criminal cases.
Ecclesiastic law follows common law in
TINS respect, but this is nothing but case in
Wnlch there is charge of violation of trust.
1t is a civil case, and as in all other civil
cases the party bringing the case must have
some interest in the matter. The most seri-
GUS practical objection to these proceedings
IS THIS. Suppose they should not be success
Iul, what Is to prevent four other alumni
from lnstituting similar proceedings? liz
there are any such four, and, treading the
tnted suits between the ,proper narties !.
Judgment Is bar to further original pro-
ceedings,, this tribunal should pause before it
faces such consequences.
Disnlssing this branch of the subject. said
Prof. Dwight, let us consider the charges
themselves. As the matter now stands there
is great atuncertalnty, prejudicial to the re-
spondents. Do the old complaints remain?
@ S@reierrlng to the charges in their first form.
Ii they remain, then there are two series of
complaints covering the same general ground
and we claim they cannot be carried on TO-
gether, but If the amended complaint be
substituted we insist that it is incompetent
Tor the signers to proceed as they have DONE
They have assumed to divide the former
general proceeding into five separate pro-
ceedings This cannot be DONE Such has
been the decision of a case like the present,
except that 1t was sought to divide the COM
plainants instead of the respondents. But
assuming that the original proceeding can be
split into separate proceedings, we will con-
slider the subject matter of the amended com
plaint. We insist that several cardinal rules
have been violated.
First, the three charges are without speci-
hcatlon. No offence has been charged over
wnicn the board Of visitors has original
jurisdiction. The constitution of the Semi
nary provides that professor may be re-
moved Tor 'mis6ehavior, heterod0xy, inca
pacity or neglect of duty of his office" In
these complaints heterodoxy is not even
charged, only alluded to. The statutes gives
TO the visitors no power of removal because
OF teachings in opposition to the creed. Pro-
ceeding to consider the alleged departure
insisted that the only question is, has there
Deen such departure by Prof Smyth from
tne aims and purposes of the foundation as
TO the amount of violation of the contract be-
tween him and the Seminarv This he de
MED.
claim, said Prof. Dwight that the en-
dowments for maintaining unalterable opin-
Ions are among the greatest of the public
evils Tor they tend to produce the profession
Without belief In the name, not only Of the
professors under trial, but of all teachers in
the land, including, l trust, the chairman of
tne Doard OF visitors, respectfully protest
against iron shackles upon education.
frof. Dwight quoted extensively from a
decision rendered by Judge Thatcher in case
of the trustees of Phillips Academy against
James King, to the effect that the two creeds
OF Andover, that of the original. and that of
the associate founders must be so Interpret
ed as to secure great and leading purposes of
tneir authors, and that no inconsistency was
70 De inferred on account of slight and tech
meal devlations. This decision, said Prof
Dwight is the law of Massachusetts. and bv
it we are all bound to be governed in this
case. Inc counsel then proceeded to exam
Inc at great length and with great acumen
the charge Of teaching the second probation.
showing that not only is there no line or let
tei, teL IN sne seminary creed against this doc
trlne, but that 1t Is a natural Inference from
the doctrine Of universal atonement which
the associate foundation makes prominent
feature of its creed.
The address Of Prof. Dwinht occupied
three and Lalf hours in delivery, and was
tention. e 0ioSo'' "'
AT the close Of Prof Dwight's address,
idS. pIof, simeon me =! Z. Baldwin, of the Yale law
sSno9i; si.n pue IN tne documentary evidence for
mostly sermons, letters. lectures. ana records
tending to show the liberal construction
which has been put upon the Andoyer creed
from the days of the original founders until
now. oi' "
Prof. Smyth whose case is being tried first
took the floor and began an address in his
own defence. He win continue tomorrow.