The daily morning journal and courier., 1895-05-24
Cconcluded.)
rHK PREsnYrnRIANs.
Their Meeting in Pittsburg What They
 Are Talking About.


 Twenty-Five years ago the writer was
 present at the time the old and new
 school assemblies united in one body,
 amid warm protestations of mutual af-
 lection, and solemn pledges of fairness
 and amity. Times have greatly chang
 ed in quarter of a century. Pitts
 burg itself, where this took place, has
 grown wonderfully. When one gets out
 of the business streets into the subur-
 ban regions there is everything beauti- full that culture could wish or wealth
 buy And there is a great deal of both
 in this smoky city It is said that in
 and around Pittsburg there are as many
 as one hundred and thirty millionaires, besides a swarm of men with their hum
 dreds of thousands My window opens
 upon Shenly Park, with Its lovely walks
 and drives, its rare conserVatories and the splendid Carnegie library-u ed as yet. We are promised general drive on Saturday to see the sights, and
 on next Monday some of us are going to explore the most extensive coal mines
 in the vicinity.
 But thus far our attention has been
 absorbed by the doings of the general
 assembly, of which the newspapers are
 full, with their customary errors and
 misrepresentations Ca remark that does not apply outside this locality of course)
 To judge by what the local papers say,
 you, might imagine that the assembly
 was a regular menagerie. Exciting de- 4.s. h. ik ;e.N nd
 there has been wire-pulling and strat-
 egy worthy of politicians; but the req son is that where 500 men assemble for
 deliberation and action on important
 matters such things are not wholly avoidable, even among the best of hu- man beings.
 But after having attended faithfully every business meeting thus far it grat- flies me to testify that for the most part good nature has prevailed. and that conservatives and radicals have tried to deal by each other honorably.
 Many overtures that seemed highly important to those that sent them in have had to be dismissed summarily. For instance, an earnest paper concern ing the use of individual cups" at the Lords table, and that may have cost it's authors much anxious thought was brushed aside in one minute. The burn ing question of the time has been the matter of seminary control" Tn order to understand 1t few facts must be given. In the early part of this cen tury, about the year 1909 or 1910, the need was felt of a denominational sem mary for the study of theology, and the question was raised if it would be best to found four such institutions in diff ferent parts of our growing country, l or only one. It was concluded to begin | with single seminary, and it's was cre- ated by the general assembly and To- | cated at Princeton N. J. In process of | time others were created, some by sym | ods, or presbyteries, or by private mu- niflcence At the reunion of the two l assemblies the so-called Compact of | 1870'' was entered into, by which all | these seminaries gave the general as- sembly the ''veto power" over the elec- ton of theological professors The first case to come up as a test was the now famous one of Professor Briggs of the Union seminary in New York. Right or wrong, the learned champion of higher was put under the ban, and afterwards the ban was extended to the Then the latter withdrew from the compact, and there was no legal power to prevent it. And sad to relate it took fully two millions of money with it. The fact that one sem mary did this caused the alarm to be sounded. How did they know but, un- fer sufficient provocation, Lane, Au- ourn, Mccormick, or even staid old might follow suit--if such a worldly term can be used concerning t such sacred things.
 Hence a strong committee was form Et d in 1894 to confer with the officerS-o ( III Presbyterian seminaries in order to { zee if they would not put clause into h charters making the general assembly h | "quasi-corporatio with right to l prosecute in the courts any seminary 10 bold as to disregard an assembly 2 ,ote Now it is important for the pub { ic to understand that very few really f bjected to this safeguard in itself con- ildered. The difficulty came with the practical working of the scheme. It is he singular fact that every one of the lder seminaries, from Princeton down, otnd what their managers regarded $ insurmountable obstacles. These | acts were stated fully in an appendix s 0 the committees printed report. Yet ( n spite of them all the committee rec a mmended measures that looked like onstraining the seminaries to accept t heir plan, under penalty of being ruled V ut of the denomination. This was what t ,ade the storm The discussion was a 1 ,ng one, mainly carried on by lawyers, ditors and professors; hardly pas t ,r participating or getting a chance to c o so. f President Young of Danville, Ky, t ,r. Mutchmore of Philadelphia, Hon. e
 A, McDougall of Cincinnati and Dr. ronfort of the same city, were the main F nampions of seminary control by the n lost rigid plans possible Dr. E. E. \ yhite, president of Lane seminary, r 1T. w. o. Thomson, president of Miami a diversity, President Knox, of a Ger u an theological seminary and Pro- II ,ssor Stevenson of the Auburn semin- e ", ably represented the opposition, o lough from different points of view N ldeed the minority, instead of being anded in @ conspiracy, as stated by le local press, suffered from lack of armony in their counsels. This was B oparent in the opening struggle for the a, the conservatives unit tc
 ID ! TT