The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1891-10-30
DIRECTORS STAND FIRM.
nxlDLoCK IN THE CONFERENCE WITH
raE GENERAL ASSEMBLE, rs COMMI11EE

- Jetnt Meeting ConeIud<s VITA m InAeG-
s.,te Postponenent Of the Oussttea OF Hr.
charles A. nrigss's Professionally.
rns Joint meeting Of the Board Of Directors
,sthe Union Theological Seminary and o COM
,nlt,ee Of the General Assembly OF the Presby.
s.r,au Church. appointed to consider how far
,hs authority Of the General Assembly extends
aver the seminary in regard to the transfer OF
rrot Charles A. Briggs from one chair 10 an
.ther. came TO an end for the present ut O
o'clock last night The conference. which was
s.eret was held In the seminary building ut
no Park avenue. and lasted two days. The
General Assembly committee consisted Of
President Patton Of Princeton: Dr.. W. II. Rob-
s,,a. stated clerk OF tho Assembly: DR.. q J.
N,ccolls, DR.. Herrick johnson Of Chicago. DR..
J. s. Macintosh Of Philadelphia. DR.. George
Alexander Of this city. and Elders George
Junkins. Col McCook. Russell Murdoch. George
r. Ely. s J. Droadnell. E P. Durant. and E. W.
Kstcham.
An outline Of what had occupied the DELHI
srstons OF tho council was given out for pub
Ncstiou last night, and II was learned that on
The day preceding DR.. Patton had opened the
procecdlngs In behalf Of his committee with
he statemen that the committee had a. yet
received no information In regard to the exact
attitude OF the Board OF Directors In regard to
DO pending case. DR.. Patton stated that the
position Of the committee wns that the Board
had no right 20 appoint Dr.. Briggs TO chair In
he seminary without the General Assembly's
approval Dr.. Hastings then In behalf OF the
seminary arose and read this statement:
"The Board Of Directors has considered the
question Of tho relation Of the seminary to the
0outral Assembly. In regard to which there
.to d.
Tbs report that q large number Of Pres
hgteries had memocialized the approach
ing General Assembly to disaprrove
anthoritntively the transfer OF one Of
cur Professors to the Department Of
biblical Theology. indicates. a. We believe .
understanding In regard to the position Of
The General Assembly In this mattor It is not
10 DO assumed In advance that the General As
eembly Will misconciovo the extent Of It's pre-
rogstive. and We do not deem It necessary that
any resolution In regard to It be transmitted
10 that body. Nor do we deem It advisable. oven
though The Assembly take formal action. for
tie Board to raise at this time An issue In re-
differences u opinion: but inasmuch as the
recollection OF members Of this Board. who
were members In 1870. whom the seminary
then made. and inasmush a. this Beard hs.
always clearly distinguished In Its mode OF
aaS 9, q II 9fs
ulty from one department to another. we REG
omniend that. in order to prevent future mis-:
n fis mater the fslssiSR Minute p s H RSa
vIs passed BY the Board In May. be read:
.inasmuch A. there appears to be in some quarters
III
= WERE 70 " rspaS.sd to The Genera! Assem-
S:s sss
Ct r: H.: Il. al: ss
seen Of lo va. then Understood and has ever since
smsy seem expedient TO the Beard.
TO this may be sdied the simple. state
nent that before the lnte meeting OF the As.
se Pr
4. and positive denial 9n each ehalss on
solved to sustain him. u saying that t W. Would
stand BY him heartily on the ground Of this
report that is. the report Of his denials re-
the adi as 4 Il the HsssmSly Il
vas called on the ttR Of June to arrange
r. II. bs SSa Ss Chair
eaaasss had been arranged the Board consid-
I'D ecnsdersd that Il vas due e is students
{sar q instruction. and due To- Itself and
p promIse made to stand By him. t there,
mat this Board Director. .ftsr having taken legal
;ssss r. q 8: .ssS:!sl p
VAT and that the transfer Of Dr. Briggs did not. In
" Judgment. come under the arrangement OF 1870.
t.. ,-fo, -Axk n. T.
ply that 0 transfer did not make any cnange
further say that the transfer did not max. any
Bbsa theology ,si for tsn seaa e Tse
week ovcr to his colleague. DR.. Brown, No
our action. nor did 1t occur to our minds that
the the Assembly had any jurisdiction in this
The committee Of the General Assembly re-
tired upon hearing this statement, and DELHI
Grated until o'clock in the afternoon without
coming 70 any definite conclusion. and then
o'clock yesterday afternoon the session. con-
apart and sometimes together. They then
Tesas Of dss eS
s salsat2n. The first. os follows was from the
This committee states that the General
assembly has always regarded the said
LnmnSement as binding legally ana NOR
nily on both parties TO the same. and It de-
siles TO know the views OF tho directors upon
tnls fundamental point For II the arrange
hment or agreement is not legally and morally
Dindlng on both parties It Is OF no practical
Use 70 discuss what Is the true construction Of
me sela agreement or arrangement"
Inc directors answer to this was the follow
A.. Whreas. The question has been raised BY
tne committees Of the General Assembly now in
SSonntterence with this Board as to the attitude
VI !his hoard toward the arrangement OF 1870.
hes9lrsd. That this Board, without surren-
aerlng its Interpretation Of the said arrange.
y meht. July recognizes It's binding force until
nrn snail b proved to be illegal or shall be
r0 Dr. Hastings. when he gave out the state,
s nents also made these remarks: The Board
rsGassts ne to say that We have carefully End
S sn.1 tfs ., Legality or wisdom Of the arrange.
tOthe COMMITTEES d tho Assembly" '
N .t fhs SdS9rnment which leaves the whole
t Sthat the committee asked the Hoard 70 state
, Amt to delegate certain powers to the. As
~ ~ 1910 The directors were not prepared
% answer this question. and an indef-
me- adjournment was taken ~ o result
ne question as to this right has two
p!anases-the lcga! and ecclesiastical Il Is as
neither sido has. given
eesnnte expression to its position In the mat
sot-that tho General Assem- hlv RSaerts that IL