The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1894-11-13
The synod end fhe Seminary.

A distinguished gentleman of Richmond
remarked 10 me a few days ago thar ne
was sorry To see that the Synod OF VIZ,
GINA had laid on the table the proposal
to remove the Union theological semi
nary and dcrIuCi ~ allow even me rtS-
cussion Of such a movement any further
\ number Of other persons nave maze
similar remarks. showing that the acton
of the Synod was misunderstood rms
was to be expected, because, though per-
fectly Ineligible TO person attending
the synod one VINO read the reports,
correct though they were, might easily
get a wrong impression Of the mind OF
the body.
Instead Of the Synod laying on the table
and forbidding the proposal TO remove the
Union Seminary this is precisely what
as follows: Last spring the board of
directors appointed a committee 10 re-
ceive proposals looking towards the re-
moyal Of the Seminary to some other
locality. the board not committing ltseH,
of course, in any way.
Dr. Mciiwaine the president or Hamp,
deu-Siduey College, came to the synod
with a resolution, which he asked that
body TO adopt. which, in effect would
have been 10 forbid the further agiiation
of the question OF removal. This the
Synod refused 10 do. Or. Kerr had nro-
posed as a substitute 10 Dr. McIIwalne' 5
resolution a motion that the synod take
no action at the present time. the erect
of which would be TO leave the hoard free
TO receive proposals for the smoVal or
the Seminary. After long debate a
motion was made to lay Or. kerrs sun
sutute on the tahle. II being understood
by the mover and stated by the modefa-
tor, that the vote 10 lay Or. kerr's reso-
luton on the table would. according 10
parliamentary law. Law DR. Mcllwaine
resolution on the table also. Or. Kerr
also rosep 10 his feet and stated the same
thing, and he asked those VINO had IA
VOred his motion TO vote 20 lay IL on tne
table because it would lay Or. Nell
waInp's resolution on the table also, for
all his substitute asked for was that the
Synod take no action which would hamper
the board Of directors IN their enquiry.
Dr. Kerr, DR.. Moore. and all others who
had favored DR. Kerrs resolution voted to
lay IL on the table. and Dr. Mcliwane
and other opponents OF removal voted
against laying Or. kerr's resolution on
the table. which shows clearly what the
action which was taken meant, and that
all parties present understood what they
were doing So the vote was really 20
lay Or. McIiwaine's resolution Oh the
table and by an overwhelming majority
the Synod did so. thus refusing TO say n
word which would commit the body
against the removal OF the Seminary II
the way should be opened for such re-
moval, and the Synod when the vote was
taken. did what ! never knew g TO do
before. and which hope II viii never
dc again. broke out i'm applause. IL was
perfectly evident TO all that the Synod
was more than willing TO have the ques-
would be dad If some city like Rich
mond would offer the financial induce.
ments that would make the removal
practicable.
One Of the oldest members OF the Synod,
who was understood 10 be opposed 10 re-
movaI told me the next morning that If
a resolution pleiging the Synod to re-
moya1 of the Seminary had been offered
II would have been overwhemlnSly
adopted
The matter now rests IN this position
the Synod is waiting for offers from the
cities Of Virginia. and so IS the board OF
directors Of proposals Of suitable sites
OF the Seminary TO some locality more
advantageous than it's present Isolated
location in Prince Edward county. seven
miles from any railroad. ,e, MR.