St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1886-12-29
The Now Famous Heresy Case On Trial
at the United States Hotel
in Boston.
The Evidence for the Prosecution Made
Up Mainly Of Printed Docu-
ments.
A Plucky Defense Undertaken by
the Counsel for the Re-
spondent.
The Accusers Terribly Scored--A
Large and Interested
Audience.

| tnlS morning the now famous And0ver trial
began at the United States hotel in this
city. There were present the full board of
visitors, the compliments, respondents and
counsel on both sides. The large dining
room OF the hotel was filled. even standing
room along the sides being occupied. A
con siderable portion of the audience was
made up of clergymen, but many laymen
and number OF ladies were present and
the large audience paid the closest atten-
ton from the opening to the close of the
long session. After considerable time had
been Speut in preliminary debates Judge
French offered in evidence an editorial ar
ticle In the Andover Review for April last,
entitled, 1.-The Bible Theme for the Pull
pit" and Prof. Smythe's speech at the
American board meeting at DesMoines, La.
last October, said speech being printed in
pamphlet entitled 1.-The Great Debate"
Counsel for respondents asked that what
ever portion of any book or any argument
was to be argued against them sould be
! DEFINITELY POINTED OUT.
On this point Gov. CASTOR, one of re-
| SpOndents counsel says:
Prof. Smythe is willing, not only that this
| tribunal shall know, but that the world shall
! know, all that he has said and all that he has
| taught and all that he believes but in the
trial against him it is but fair and Just, as it
| is legal, that what the charge against him is
| shall be specified.
| At II o'clock, the complainants having
rested their case without offering any
other evidence than that specified above and
citations from the Andover Review, and the
book made up mainly of republications
from editorials in that review and entitled
Progressive Orthodoxy" as specified in the
charges, Prof. Thomas Dwight, of Co.
| lumbuS law school, opened for the respond
ents in an address of great length, learning
and vigorous eloquence. His mastery pre-
sentation Of his clients case won at an
early stage such al outburst of applause
| from apparently the entire audience, that
President Seeley, of Amherst college, chair
man of the board of visitors. the tribunal
before which the case is being tried, an
nounced that if in future there were any
demonstrations of approval or disapproval
the room would be cleared of spectators.
Prof. Dwight was still speaking when the
hearing was adjourned until p. m. After
the recess Prof. Dwight continued his az
gument. the following being some of
THE MOST IMPORTANT POINTS:
| This is an extraordinary case in many re-
| spectS / will first Call attention to the way
| in which the matter is presented to your
board (board OF visitors), to the self-constitu-
| ted accuSeIS OF these professors. | call par
| ticular attention to the evidence of dupicity
| to the underhand manner, the apparently I'M
| truthful manner in which the subscribed
| their charges. They described themselves as
"a committee of the alumni" The object of
| this description. apparently, was to gain
| credit for their charge by appearing to act in
| a representative character. There was sug-
| gestlon of meeting Of certain of the
| alumni" by whom the committee was ap-
| StJfQ hat
| alumni behind them was calculated and it is
| believed designed to make an impress ion upon
| the community: and it now appears that
| these four men comprise all the trustees and
! all the alumni who are engineering the move
ment. ISenSaton If these who sign them
| selves COMMITTEE are true committee they
are a self-appointed committee, q true CON-
mttee of the whole. Laup liter 80 One fatal
defect in their proceedings is that there is no
legal representatives of the interests adverse
to the respondents.
UPON THIS POINT ," ~
counsel argued at length to show that this
being in effect question involving property
rights the Signors of the charges having no
| interest cannot possibly be parties to the
case. .l.tl .4-.-
But what is still more decisive and abso-
lutely conclusive" he continued, lis that the
court has no power to proceed by itself, ex-
cept in criminal cases. Ecclesiastical law fol-
lows common law III InlS respect. BuC InlS
is nothing but case in which 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 serious practical OBJ
lection to these proceedings is this: Suppose
they should not be successful what is to pre-
vent four other alumni from insttuting SIM
liar proceedings Gf there be any such four)
and treading the whole ground over again in
an irregularly instituted suit. Between
proper parties judgment is a bar to further
original proceedings. This tribunal should
pause before it faces such consequences
Diminishing his branch of the subject said
Prof Dwight, "let us consider the charges
themselves. AS the matter now stands, there
is great uncertainty prejudicial to the re-
spondents. Do the old complaints remaint
(Referrlng to the charges in their first form.)
They have not been expressly disposed of.
If these remain, then there are
TWO SERIES OF COMPLAINTS,
covering the same general ground and all
claim that they cannot be carried on together:
but If the amended complaint be substituted
he insist that it is incompetent for the signers
to proceed as they have done. They have as
sumed to divide the former general proceed
ing into five separate proceedings. This cam
not be done. We insist that several cardinal
rules have been violated. Three of the
charges are without specification. No offense
has been charged, over which the board of
visitors have original jurisdiction. A pro-
fessor may be removed for misbehavior het-
erodOxy, incapacity, or neglect of the duties
of his Office. The power of removal is far
more restricted and specific than that granted
to the trustees. Nothing is said about other
and sufficient causes. Now, of the four
causes named, only one can possibly be in
these proceedings, for only one is ever alluded
to in these charges, and that is beterodoxy.
was very glad to hear this morning, my
friend Judge Hoar, say: There is no heresy
here, no question of heresy.' Where Is your
case? Moreover, heterodoxy is not even
charged, but only alluded to. claim" said
Prof. Dwight, that endowments for main
tanning unalterable opinions are among the
greatest public evils, for they tend to produce
profession without belief"
Prof. Dwight objected extensively from
the decision of Judge Thacher in the case
of the trustees of Phillips academy vs..
James King. to the effect that
THE TWO CREEDs
of AndOver. that Of the original and that of
the associate founders. must be so inter-
preted as to secure the great leading pur-
poses of their authors. and that no incon-
siStency was to be inferred On account of
slight technicality RCouusel then proceeded
to examine at great length and with great
acumen the charge Of teaching second pro-
baton, showing that not only is there no
line or letter in the seminary creed against
this doctrine, but that it is natural infer
ence from the doctrine of universal atone
ment, which the associate foundation makes
a prominent feature of it's creed. At the
close of Prof. Dwights address. Prof.
Simon E. Baldwin. of the Yale law school,
put in documentary evidence for the de-
tense, consisting of thirteen exhibits, mostly
of letters. lectures and records, tending to
show the liberal construction which has
been put upon the Andover creed from the
Il 80 rr;rr