The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1886-12-30
CONTINUED BY PROPS. DWIGHT
AND SMYTH,
In Which the Salient Points Of the
Controversy Are Brought
Out.


alumni. The object OF this deecrip-
ton, apparently, was 10 gain credit
for the charge by appearing to act in
representative manner. There was
suggestion Of meeting Of certain
of the alumni by whom the commit
fee was appointed The statement that
there were alumni bshind them WIS
calculated, and il is believed dt signf d,
to make an impression upon tue com.
munity; and it now appears that these
four men comprise all the trustees and
ell the alumni who were engineering
the movement. Sensation. II these
who sign themst Ives Committee ave
a true committee, they are sc f-ap.
pointed c0mmittee-a true committee
Of the whole. Laughter. One fatal
defect in thess proceedings is that
there is no legal representative Of the
interests adverse 10 their core pond
ents." Upon this point counsel
argued at length to show that this
being in effect trial involving prop
erty rights, the signe's Of the
charges having no interest cannot
possibly be parties to the case. But
what is still m 70 decisive ard abso-
lItely conclusive, he continued, is
that the Court has no power to pro-
coed by Its own sslfwith criminal CASES.
Ecclesiastical law follows common
aw in this respect. But this ia moth
log hut case in which there ia a
charge OF violating of trust. 1t is a
civil case, and rs in all other civil
cases, the party bringing the case,
must have some interest in the mat
ter. The most serious practical objtc-
ton to these proceedings is this: Sup
pose they should not be successful,
what is 10 prevent four other alumni
from inslituting similar proceeding,
I there be any such) and treating
the whole ground over sgainf In an
iuegularly instituted suit between
proper parties, jud 9ment is bar TO
further original proceedings. This
tribute should pause before 1t faces
such consequence" Diminishing this
branch Of the subject" said Prof.
Dwight, "lst Us consider the charges
themselves. AS the matter now
stands there is great uncertainty
prejGdicial to the respondents. Do
the Old complaints remain ? (referring
to the charges in their first form) they
have not bsen expressly disposed of.
If these remain then there are
two series of complaints covering
the came general ground, and were
that they can be carried on to-
gether, hut II the amended complaint
be substituted we insist that 1t is in
competent for the signers to proceed
as they had done. They have ss
sumed 10 divide the former general
proceedings into five separate pro-
ceedings This cannot be done. We
insist that seyeral cardinal rules have
been violated. Three of the original
charges are without specification. No
offence las been charged over which
the Board OF Visitors has original
jurisdiction. A professor may he re-
moved for mi3oebavior, heterodoxy,
iHcapacity or neglect Of the duties OF
his office. The power OF re.
moval is far more restricted
and sreoiGed 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 the proceedings, for
only one is over all to theee charges,
and that is heteroGoxy. 1 was very
glad to hear this morning my friend
Judgs Hosr say: There is no heresy
here, no gu stion Of heresy" Where
is your csss? Moreover, heterodn KY is
not even charged, but only alluded to.
Il claim" ead Pcof. Dwight, "that
endowments for msintaIning unalter-
able opinions are among the greatest
public evils, for they tend to produce
profession without belief" Prof.
Dwight quoted extensively from
the dec sion Of Judge Thatcher in the
case OF the trGstees of Phillips Acad-
envy vs.. Jas. King, to the effect that
the two cret d. of Andover-that Of
the original and that Of the associate
founders must so be interpreted as
to secure the great and lesding pur-
poses OF their authority, aud that no
inconsistency was to be inferred on &C.
count Of slight and technical devia-
| tons.
Counsel then proceeded to examine
at great length and with great acumen
the charge OF teaching second proba-
ton, showing that not only there is
no line or lette in the seminary creed
against this doctrine, but that it is a
natural inference from the doctrine OF
universal atonement, which the asso-
Gate foundation makes a prominent
feature OF the creed.
At the close of Prof. Dwight's adj
| dress Prof. Simon +. Baldwin, OF the
Yale Law School, put in documentary
evidence for the defense, consisting OF
thirteen exhibits, mostly sermons,
letters, lectures aud records, tending
10 show the liberal construction which
has been put upon The Andover creed
from the days OF the original founders
until Low.
Prof. emyth, whore case is bsing
tried frat, then took the floor and be.
gan an address in his own defense.
He had not concluded when the court
adjourned. He will continue his ad-
dress tomorrow.
The trial was resumed this morning,
The question whether the evidence
in regard to all the accused professors
should be put in aud the arguments
made before the conclusion OF Prof.
Smy this case was argued at the outset
today, as it was yesterday, Judge
French stating that the complainants
had made no preparation for prosecut-
ing any other case than the enc
against Prof. SmYth, and Prof, Bad
win, urging that while each case
should be decided by itself, the evi.
dence and arguments applicable to all
alike should be heard once for ell.
Or erwise, be said, the trial would be
| indefinitely prolonged. Again the
| question was left undecided.
Prof. Smyth then resumed bis ad-
dress in lis own defense which was
begun yesterday.
Following is a synopsis OF Prof.
smyth's address yesterday: They
chsrge tina. l teach that men
are not sinners, who have
not heard of Christ, or at
any rate, are not in danger Of beirg
lost. Now, on pages A and AZ of Pro
ore,sip 0rihodory, sipiulness Is predi-
ca,ed Of mRu universally. The quota.
ions they make In support Of this
change are gsibled, like 30 many ether
| ~ THAR ouotAtiODan Prof Smyth