The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1886-01-20
A Card from MIR. H. l. Mckee.
SELMA, ALA, Jan. 18th. 1886.

SELMA, ALA, Jan. 18th, 1886.
MesSrS. EditorS,-I have before me the
issue of your paper (January 6th) con-
tanning the card of the Secretary of the
Board of Directors of the Columbia Sem
mary, which he writes in reply to my
| communication denying the statement he
makes In his official report of the pro-
ceedings of the Board, December 10, '85
The statement was that there was no dis
senting vote to the resolution recognizing
DR.. Woodrow as the "lawful incumbent"
OF the Perkins chair. To this resolution
did dissent, and the secretary will
doubtless remember that l not only ex-
pressed my opposition to this resolution
recognizing DIR. Woodrow as the lawful
incumbent tOhen the resolution aUos pe7ad-
ing, but that when the minutes were be-
ing read, before adjournment then OBJ
Jected to the reading, and asked to be
put on record as having opposed the res
olution.
The secretary says he did not hear a
negative vote when the question was put,
which is possible, in the vote taken on
each division of his set of resolutions,
as the whole of these were discussed, and
l did as each was offered object, and on
the final vote put myself on record as op-
posing the resolutions. l most readily
admit that had / been silent during the
discussion, and expressed no opposition,
then silence on the first, or on any re-
solution, might have been construed as
consenting to it. do not understand
why the secretary should select the first
resolution as one on which he says there
was no dissent, as the vote was materially
the same on all of his resolutions. That
1t was clearly understood that had dis
sented from the first resolution and desir-
ed to he put on record against it, the re-.
port made by member of the Board
from Georgia to the Observer notes the
fact.
Messrs. Editors, sro not seeking
notoriety, and am not disposed to be con-
troversial, but will, With your perrnis-
sion, give ve.y co,.c.s, ty ny reason Tor
taking The stand did. TIE Seminary is
governed by Board of Directors who
are chosen by the four Synods controlling
the school, and their scCion in all matters,
is subject to review by these Synods, and
stands or falls according as these courts
approve or disapproye their action The
constitution requires that majority of
these Synods shall approve, or disap-
| prove, their acts in order to make valid,
which in the case of the removal of DIR.
Woodrow was not, given, as there was a
tie, two on either side, and hence the ac-
tion OF the Board stands until changed by
a majority This can not be done
until the Synods meet again, and must
remain the same unless one of the Synods
changes its position. In the meantime
the acts Of the Board must necessarily be
the law, and remain so until the majority
of the Synods are on the same side of the
question. The opinion / hold is that the
Board, Gd interim, has the right to con-
troll the Seminary and all of it's acts are
valid and lawful, until set aside by the
vote of a majority of the Synods, or by a
majority of the Board.
| admit that the action of the Board at
It's last meeting in putting DR.. Woodrow
IN the chair again was valid act, but
based on a wrong premise, and must
stand until a majority of the Synods di-
rect a change. The difficulty in this case
is that there are four Synods and it is
possible always to have tie vote. II
there was an odd number the tie would
not have occurred. In the meantime the
action of the Board must stand until re.
versed by majority Of the Synods
In evidence Of this position that ma
iority must act in harmony to settle any
/ question, the case OF the payment of a
/ balance claimed to be due DR.. Boggs was
brought eiore the Board, and motion
YVES made to pay the amount, on the
ground that two Synods had ordered it
paid. The argument was made that two
Synods had approved the action OF the
Board in refusing to pay it, and there
must be a majority OF the Synods order
/ ing it, before the money could lawfully
be paid, on this question one Of the ma
| jority voted with the minority, Ia distin-
guished lawyer and gave as his reason
for voting so that two Synods had refused
payment and the Board could not legally
pay it. The secretary omitted this item
from his report of the proceedings.
With this am done with the question
so far as the public is concerned. / shall
ask the Board at It's next meeting to cor
rect its record in this particular.
/ III. L. MCKEE.