Morning journal and courier., 1889-12-20
TUE REREsY 0AaE.
The Arguments Begun in the Noterl.
 0us AnAover Case.

The Arguments Begun in she Noterl-
 ous Andover Case.
 BOSTON, Dec. 19.-A very large audience assembled in the Judicial court room this morning to hear the arguments in one of the many issues of the celebrated Andover hsresy case.
 Among those present were Dr. Theodore W. Dwight of the Columbia Law school. who makes the argument in behalf of Professor Smyth; Judge E. R. Hoar, of counsel for the visitors; Dr. Henry M. Dexter of the ConRre- gationalist, Dr. E. B. Webb, Dr. Newman Smyth of New Haven, Professors Tucker and Harris of Andover, Professor J. H. ThsyeI of Cambridge. Dr. J. W. Wsllman of the Andover trustees and many divines, lsymen and lawyers.
 The hearing was before ex-Governor Robinson, who, as a commissioner has taken testimony at great length to determine whether or not the late Rev. Dr. Eustis who was one of the board of visitors that tried | the case of the Andover professors, was so influenced in his Judicial capacity" by bias | and prejudice as to render him unfit to act. The taking of testimony was concluded some time ago and the hearing today was for the | purpose of listening to arguments of counsel l in the case.
 The first argument was made by Professor | Dwight, who addressed the commissioner in behalf of Professor Smyth, claiming that in the Eustis case there was prejudgmsnt. MT. Barrows in behalf of Professor Smyth | confined himself to the charge that Dr. Eus- tis had formed and repeatedly expressed to l divers persons the opinion that the profess sors were guilty of things charged against them and quoted from the evidence to sus- tain this position. Recess.
 After the noon recess Judge F. E. French | fc~A AIc un al al ate statement of the circumstances attending the founding of the seminary, and read from the statutes of foundation to show that the l board of visitors was expressly established to guard the institution against heresy. On this basis he laid claim that Dr. Eustis must of duty and necessity be on the watch to know whether or not any of the professors were teaching contrary to the creed; and that he was at liberty to have and express opin- ions a to that. Then, taking up the svi- dence showing that he had declared his be- lief in Dr. Smyth's guilt pending the trial, he dwslt on the fact that the witnesses were not in various instances able to swear to the exact time of the conversations.
 Judge Hoar followed, making the closing
 argument for the visitors. After general
 review of the ground previously covered, he
 laid down three propositions which he asked
 the commissioners to endorse in the report
 First, that there is no evidence whatever o1
 any undue influence. Secondly, that pr, Eustis was not biased. Thirdly, that there ii
 no sufficient proof of tho formation or ex
 pression of an opinion concerning any mat
 ter involved in the trial such as to disqual
 fly him from acting as judge in the case. The arguments closed with an address by Professor Baldwin for Professor Smythi
 side, who argued that the evidence proved
 that Dr. Eustis had frequently expressed ? before and during the trial his opiniol | IAy-. Al ka~ n,.S that the binding of the visitors, should, fo that reason, be set aside by the Suprem T court.
 , MT. Robinson reserved his decision.