Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-06-06
A DIRECT DEFIANCE.
Union Seminary Directors Resolve
to Stand by Briggs and
OPPOSE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
The Power of That Body to Veto Trans
fer Not Recognized.
LATEST PHASE OF THE HEREsY CASE.
ESPECIAL TELEGRAM TO THE DISPATCH. ]

NEW YORK, June 5.-With the fullest
meeting of the board which has been held
for years. the directors of Union Theologi-
cal Seminary decided to-day by practically
unanimous vote to ignore the General As
sembly's disapproval of the appoint
ment of DR.. Charles A. Briggs to
the. chair of Biblical Theology in the
seminary. In the minds of far-thinking
Presbyterians who have followed the pres
ent controversy throughout, the board has
practically cut itself off from the General
Assembly. Its action is certain to provoke
very widespread discussion in the church,
the end of which neither friends nor foes
OF DR.. Briggs care to predict.
The directors met at the seminary at
o'clock. Of the 26 all but three were pres
ent. The absentees were John Taylor, DR..
johnson and William E. Dodge. The
treasurer of the seminary, Mr.. E. NJ. Kings
ley, called the reporters together after the
meeting and gave them what the board had
! decided to make public. This was the reso-
luton adopted by the board, and it read:
The Official Action Taken.
Resolved, That this Board of Directors,
after having taken legal advice and after
due consideration, see no reason to change
their views on the subject of the transfer of
DR.. Briggs, and feel bound, in the discharge
of their duties under the charter ana con-
stttution, to adhere to the same.
The resolution was proposed by Elder
Henry Day, the lawyer of the board, who
has openly given it as his opinion that the
board cannot without invalidating its char
ter recognize the interference Of the Gen
eral Assembly in its internal affairs. Two
| legal opinions were laid before the board
One was from Noah Davis, who, although an
| Episcopalian, volunteered an opinion upon
| the legal aspects of the case. His opinion,
| which is very full one, follows practically
| the same lines as that of Elder Henry Day,
! to the effect that the seminary charter will
not allow of the interference of an outside
body in the affairs of the seminary Will
! lam Allen Butler, the counsel of the board,
also submitted an opinion which dealt with
the compact the directors of Union entered
| into with the General Assembly in 1870, in
which they undertook to grant to that body
| the power to disapprove. In referring to
this compact, Mr.. Buffers opinion said that
| the seminary had given up certain of its
| privileges and had received nothing in re-
| turn. This compact must be strictly con-
| strued and nothing could be taken as un-
| derstood from its wording
Only a Transfer of Chairs.
Allen Day proposed his resolution as
given above. 1t was prefaced by long pre-
| amble, which went into the history of DR..
| Briggs connection with the institution. 1t
| said that his election to the present chair
| was purely transfer; that there had been
| none of the usual formality of an election;
| that the months notice usual when a new
member of the faculty is to be elected had
| not been given.
| When it came to a vote on this preamble
| and resolution, Dr. John Hall had departed
and there were 21 directors present. But two
| of these voted against the resolution, the
| Rev. DR. Robert Russell Booth, who is
recognized as decided opponent Of DIR.
| Briggs, and William A. Booth, one of the
| lay directors.
| DIR. Booth was very emphatic in his re-
quest that his vote against the resolution
should go down on record. There is no like
| lihood that there will be another meeting of
| the board before October. The Directors
| think to have made their action fully strong
| enough to show their position and
at the same time have they de-
ferred some matters until the Gen.
eraI Assembly is officially heard from.
| The effect of the boards action upon the
Presbyterian Church in the United States
| will be watched with the keenest interest
| by DR.. Briggs friends. Union Seminary
may suffer through the individual presby-
|
| tors say there is bound to be reaction in
favor of DIR. Briggs and the plain rights of
Union Seminary by the time the next As
sembly meets.
Possibility of a Boycott.
| The presbyteries may show their disap-
| proval of Union Seminary by boycotting
her This might be effected in two ways.
| 1t might prevent young men from these
| presbyteries entering Union, and at the
same time the presbyteries might refuse to
| receive Union graduates to fill vacancies in
their pulpits.
"Still,' said director tonight, eve
| firmly believe that there are enough young
men of independent minds who will not be
frightened off by the feeling of the presby-
teries, but will gather in our halls. Our
step to-day may result in cutting us off from
| the General Assembly, but it will not cut
us off from the Presbyterian Church. AS
before 1870 we will be an independent
here to Presbyterian policy. Our
faculty and doctors have to subscribe once
every three years to the Westminster con-
| fession, and we will remain Presbyterian in
| every sense of the word Our only connec-
| tion with the General Assembly is now
through this power of dlsapproval and
through the reports which we make annually
to the Assembly as a matter Of
courtesy. These reports will probably be
| discontinued. Ofcourse, the question of DR..
Briggs soundness may come up before the
| General Assembly upon an appeal from his
trial before this Presbytery. If he is de-
cided to be hereto, then L suppose Union
Seminary will have no option, but will
necessarily have to drop him. The question
before us at present involves vital right of
the seminary, and the facts had not been
lost sight of that DR.. Briggs dase is only an
incident, and that through him the question
was raised which affects our rights to govern
| ourselves"