The Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, S.C.) 1866-1891, 1889-10-24
(From the SoutherW PreSJyterint)


boycott" which was instituted year
before last by the faculty, then consist
ing of Professors Tadlock, Girardeau
and Hersman. Last year, so far as we
know, no case arose TO test the views of
Drs. McPheeterS and Beattie, who were
then associated with DrS. Tadlock and
Girardeau. But this year, as we have
learned from different sources, an event
has occurred which shows that the pres
ent faculty unanimously concurS 10 tue
.sboycott" with the faculty which insti
tuted it.
A young gentleman who had recently
graduated at the University of South
Carolina, where he had studied geology,
astronomy, physiology and physics
under Professor Woodrow. presented
himself before the faculty Of the
Seminary, desiring admission TO the
.:unior Glass. There were present Pro-
SsorS TadlOck, Girardcau, McPhccterS,
and Beattic. During his examination
he stated that he desired to pursue the
study of mineralogy at the University
under Professor Woodrow, and asked
whether he would be allowed 10 do so.
To this DR.. Girardcau replied, urging
him not to press that request, as II
would be opposed; tina. permission
would be readily given to attend the
instructions of any other Professor in
the University, but not Dr. WOodrOw's.
TO this statement no objection was made
by any one present, all by their silence
giving their assent. The student, see
ing the state of affairs, forebore to urge
his request, and so the matter ended
the Faculty unanimously acQuiesclng in
this ending and thereby becoming parties
to it.
Thus the war is continued. Some had
supposed that the originatOrS of the in
famous ''boycott" had repented of their
act, and that it would be allowed to fall
into q state of ''innocuouS deSuetude;"
and especially that DrS. McPheeters and
Beattic would not allow themselves to
be drawn or driven into participation in
it. But such persons did not appre-
ciate the fidelity Of the "Old Guard,
who for years had been pursuing his in
tended victim. Their longing for peace
had misled them. They ought to have
known, what is so plain, that the only
peace possible to them consists in abject
submission to the will of the originatOrs
of the war and their followers, not
merely in regard to this outrageous
boycott" but with regard to all the
vastly more impartant matters involved.
We confess that we are not little
surprised at the course of Drs. McPhce-
tiers and Beattie in failing to repudlate
g the sentiments of DR.. Girardeau, when
acting as:members Of the faculty. upon
the students application for admission.
BY their silent acquiescence when their
colleague Informed ne applicant that
he might attend the classes of any Uni.
yersity Professor except DR.. Woodrow,
they have vindicated their right to
share with Drs. Tadlock and Girardeau
in the honor or the disgrace, whichever
it may be, of the "boycott," and of
keeping the Seminary in its narrow par
tiSan course. While we do not know
much as to their opinions, we have
been inclined to respect them and had
expected better things of them. We
did not suppose they could by any pos
sibility share the feelings of their active
colleague, and had not supposed they
could be cowed into silent submission.
This "boycott" has been strongly con-
demned by the Synod of South Caro-
lima. Last year the question was thor
oughly discussed by this Synod in the
case of Mr.. W. W. Elwang, a student in
the Seminary in 1875 The following
resolutions we're adopted by Synod by a
urge majority:
81. Touching this matter, your com
mittee recommend to Synod the adop-
tiOn of the following resolutions:
II. ReSolced, That this Synod dlSap-
proves of the action of the Faculty in
ordering Mr.. W. W. Elwang to cease at
tending upon the lectures of the Rev.
Prof. Woodrow in the South Carolina
University; and also of the action of
the Board of Directors in sustaining and
confirming this interdict.
''2. This Synod disavowS the inter-
probation placed on its previous orders
touching the Perkins Professor upon
which the Faculty and the Board claim
to base their late action"
This boycott" certainly seems COW
ardly. The faculty are evidently afraid
of something-eithcr of what is taught
or of the teacher. Perhaps the apprc-
hended danger lies in the thing taught.
What, then, is mineralogy? 1t is 1.-THE
science which teaches the properties,
composition, ard relations of mineral
bodies, aud The art of distinguishing and
describing them" What danger can
the faculty see in this science or art.
Are they really afraid of all science and
all art? Will it hurt a student of the
Bible to know the chemical composition
Of mineral! To be able to distinguish
a dimetric from an insomctric crystal?
To learn how to tell gold from iron
pyriteS or fools gold'l Is ignorance
essential to riety and success in the min
istry? Do they reason thus: All, but
it is science, and science is a dreadful
thing! Mineralogy may seem harmless,
but trust ii not Beware!- for are not
minerals the materials of which the
earth consists, and are they not the con-
StitucntS Of the rocks, and are not these
rocks the foundation stones of the science
Of geology, and is not geology that bug
bear that all good men must be made 10
fear? Alas, it is too true, and therefore
We must at all hazards shield our pre-.
cious charges, our tender lambs, from
the malign influences Of your insldious
mineralogy.
Perhaps it is the teacher they fear.
But why! Are they not four to one {?
Are they afraid that incidentally Pro-
feSsor Woodrow may show to hisstudcnts
that science is moi such q hurhCar after