The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1886-09-29

by the Assembly sending down to the
Synods its opinion as to any acts of the
Directors or trustees objected to by the
Assembly. Under this the Assembly
might have expressed its opinion to the
Synods upon the acts of the Directors of
Columbia Seminary in regard to DR..
Woodrow. 1t is very clear though that
the Assembly had no right, as it claimed
to have, to direct his removal, nor had it
any right to recommend the Synods or
the Directors even, to remove him oSaer-
wise than in accordance with the pro-
visions of the constitution of the semi
nary. These constitutions are to be re-
garded in the nature of compacts between
anteeing that the latter are to be dealt
with only in the manner therein pro-
vided, until the constitution is amended
as pl escribed. Here let it be noted that
while the General Assembly has power
through the inferior courts, and only
through them, over all of its members
and ministers, it has none oUer Professors
GS such save what is given in the agree
ment between the Assembly and the cor.
poration or body employing such teacher.
To show how untenable and impracti-
cable of exercise is the claim to control
the seminary through the constitutional
channels of authority, let us apply this
to Union Seminary. l affirm, without
fear of successful refutation, that, under
the charter of incorporation and the con-
stitution of that seminary as approved
by the Assembly and which cannot be
altered without the consent of the trus-
tees, neither the Assembly nor the Syn.
DDS of Virginia and North Carolina can
direct or control the election or removal
of any Professor therein. The charter
creates certain persons trustees and gives
to them and their successors, and to them
alone, the power to appoin or remove a
Professor or a trustee, and the Synods
have no VetO upon or control over their
action. These trustees are empowered
to fill vacancies in their own body and
thus appoint their successors, with these
restrictions only that the persons elect
ed to fill such vacancies must be chosen
from the Directors appointed under the
provisions of the Plan and Constitution
of the Seminary and that the trus-
tees hold office as trustees, no longer than
they remain in Office as Directors or untlJ
their successors enter upon the discharge
of their duties as trustees" By the con-
stitution, as 1 understand it, the Direc
tors hold Office for four years-one.fourth
going out every year. They are to be
appointed by the Synods, each appoint
ing one half, but the Synods have no
power to remove Director from office
during his term, nor does Director have
any control over the Seminary until he is
elected trustee by the trustees in Office.
Now, suppose the Synods direct or re-
commend the trustees to remove DIR.
Peck and the trustees decline. What
can the Synods do? They cannot re-
move the trustees They are not bound
to obey the orders of the Synods. Can
the latter require the Presbyteries and
Sessions to which the trustees belong to
discipline them for doing that which un.
der the civil law and the constitution oil
the seminary they had the right to do
Can it discipline the Synods because they
cannot control the trustees under the
law, and therefore cannot remove DR.
Peck? Certainly not. What then be-
comes of this claim of control through
the channels of authority? 1t does not
exist and cannot exist over this corpora
ton without its consent; and it has not
consented. The constitution of Columbis
is different from that OF Union, especially
in regard to the removal of Professor
From the extracts from its constitution
published in the Observer of August 4th
it appears that it has always provided
that a. Professor could not be removed
without a trial. From 1929 to 1868
while the seminary was under the control
of the Synods the trial was to be By TIKI
SynodS. From 1863 to 1877 it was tC
be by the assembly. In 1877 the Gen
eral Assembly changed the constitution
so as to give to the Board of Directors
for the first time, the power of removal
OF any Professor for assigned causes, after
full trial, and the power to suspend unit
trial, all subject to the veto Of the AS
sembly. In 1882 the seminary wat
transferred to the present Synods with
the same provision as to trial except thai
now the removal ie subject to the ap
proval or veto Of the Synods instead o.
The Assembly.
1t will be seen from this that so Ions
as the institution was under the absolute
control OF the Assembly, u could not re-
move Professor without a trial unless
1t had annulled its own regulations. o
course without trial it could not declare
him guilty of that which would author
ize his removal. During the last FIVE
j vears If tbis control tho Fri al nnust he hv