New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-05-29
THE VETO LACKS AUTHORITY
so GAYS HENRY DAY. THE wELLKNowN
LAWYER.
HE EXPLAINS LUuDLY THE RELATIONS BE-
TWEEN THE SEMINARY AND THE


The report of the committee vi iHcoioei.o' 80
inarics made by It's chairman Dr. Patton 70 tne "en
eral Assembly on Wednesday, in relation To the ap-
no,n+r.nt ~ Dr. Briggs to the Edward Robinson
1hoir NJ biblical Theology Of the Union Theological
Seminary. was q subject Of much interest to Presoy
terians In this city yesterday Among the hrst Questions
asked was whether the endowment OF the cha'r was
conditional In its fulflment upon the appointment VI
Dr Briggs 10 the professorship The first resoiuuoh
presented by the committee to the effect tnat III
the exercise OF It's right TO veto the appointment VI
professors" In the seminary. the Assembly alsapproVeu
the appointment of Dr. Briggs to this particular pro
fessorshIp "by transfer from another chelr III Siu
seminary The second resolution proceedeu ~ ohoe
10 provide for the appointment OF committees ooi'
sistng Of eight ministers and seven ruing eiuei' "
confer with the directors Of the seminary as 70 the
relations of the seminary to the General Assembly
This was considered by some as placing inc ueh
eral Assembly in an equvocal position. in that IL
thew should adopt the resolutions they would appear
nc first exercising the right OF veto and tnen ap-
pointina a committee to ascertain whether they pos
sessed such O right. comprehensive view OF the
actual situation of affairs was sought and obtained Dy
a Tribune reporter from Henry Day, the WehKnowh
lawyer and a director Of Union Theological Seminary
Mr. Day said:
at have noticed the action OF the General Assembly
in regard to vetong the nomination of DIR. Briggs by
the directors Of the seminary to the Char Oh BIBLICAL
Theology NV view as a lawyer and also as director
is that the General Assembly have no authority III
relation to the transfer Of professor who has already
been transferred from professorship to another
This is a part Of the management Of the internal
affairs OF the seminary which has never been COM
mitted to the General Assembly. BY resolution OF
the Board some twenty years ago. the seminary
authorized tho General Assembly to veto any nominal
ton of professor but they did not authorize the veto
Of any transfer of professor from one professorshp TO
another. This may seem o technical oblecton' out
Notwithstanding. 1t relates to the Internal management
of the seminary, which by it's charter and It's con-
sttuton belongs TO the Board, and which power and
discretion cannot be delegated by the directors to any
other body whatsoever.
"The relation Of the Union theological Seminary
to the General Assembly is entirely different, you
understand, from that Of the Princeton Theological
Seminary to the General Assembly In the Of the
Princeton Seminary It's charter provides that the Gen
eral Assembly shall have the power Of appointing the
professors In that of tho Union Seminary refer
ence is made to the General Assembly; It has no
legal connection In any way with the General AS
semby and Is entirely independent body, so that
apy authority that the directors Of the seminary may
give to the General Assembly In regard to vetoing Its
nominations may be cancelled or withdrawn by vote
Of the directors of the seminary at any time indeed,
nv personal view is that delegation Of the power
OF the directors to the General Assembly to veto a
nomination is good except In specific case to which
the resolution refers that is TO say, it cannot make
any general rule to bind any future board Of directors
II may be consistent for the directors OF the Union
Theological Seminary, whenever they elect professor
to say that his election Is conditioned upon the Cen
eral Assemblys not vetong the nomination, but this
delegation Of authority the General Assembly In law
can be good only for this one nomination that made
and cannot legally, In my Judgment bind or affect any
other nomination IN the future. One board OF
directors cannot bind another board OF directors
that has equal and coordinate power
"Now TO apply the action of the General Assembly
on this principle, my opinion is that the General AS
sembly has transcribed even the power that was In
tended TO be given them by the board Of directors OF
the Union Theological Seminary in 1870, which was
nothing more than that they might veto the original
appointment Of professor as a professor without
reference to what he should teach. 1t was never In
tended that they should interfere with the transfer OF
professor from duty class Of duties to another
II should be observed that the appointment Of Dr.
Briggs to the Chair Of Biblical Theology nothing more
than change Of the title by which he Is designated
He performs exactly the same duties, and will here
after as he has performed for eight years past and the
General Assembly cannot say that he shall not be
allowed perform the duties he has performed hereto
fore simply because the seminary has given him
another title.
"when this matter shall before the directors
Of the seminary 1t will be for them TO say whether
they will Yield this point that the General Assembly
professorship to another. II the board Of directors say
they cannot yield this point then the action OF the
General Assembly will be void and the General AS
sembly would In such case be left to say whether
they would be unwilling to have any further cOnnec
ton with the seminary The only connection they have
now Is that they receive reports from the seminary and
the seminary has volunteered to give them veto
power the original appointment of professor
II the board Of directors rescnd this veto power will
the General Assembly still refuse TO receive the
ports OF the Union Theological Seminary
at will be seen that the Union theological Seminary
has received consideration for yielding this veto
power to the General Assembly, while the Princeton
Seminary has been the gamer in this respect namely
that whereas formerly the General Assembly had the
power Of appointing the professors of the Princeton
Seminary, now the directors Of that seminary have
the appointing power and the General Assembly have
only the veto power such appointments The
General Assembly have given privileges whatever
TO the Union Theological Seminary, have already
stated but the seminary has merely yielded veto
power TO the General Assembly. Now this power, Il
1t Is power at ALL must be strictly construed in my
judgment IT cannot be construed to limit the transfer
of professor from one class of duties to another
simply because the designation Of his title is changed
"Now as to the question whether the endowment
recently made by Mr. Butler Of 100000 was con.
ditoned upon the appointment Of DR.. Briggs to the
professorshp, reply that Mr.. Butler made no con-
ditlons Whatever when the endowment was made
When the question Of filling the chair before the
board Mr.. Buffers wish asked In respect to the
incumbent he might prefer He expressed the desire
that DR.. Briggs should fill the chair. This met with
the entire appreciation of the board Of directors II
would appear then, to be very ungracious proceed
ing after Mr. Butler has given this munfcent donation
for the incumbent who suggested by himself and
approved by the board Of directors TO be from
the professorship without any charges being made
against him.
al think the reasons which governed Mr.. Butler In
regard 10 this nomination and also the board Of directors
follows: In the first place DR.. Briggs was q
favored student of the seminary in the second place
he has been professor for seventeen years and one
the most learned and popular teachers the seminary
has had and lastly the directors had the right
to suppose that he was acceptable TO the Church. mas
much all his peculiar views had been before the
Church by means Of his books for more than eight