The Portland daily press., 1897-09-03
THE CASE OF PREs1pENr ANDREWS

SdSC Vt
The action of the trustees of Brown
University in requesting President An
drews to withdraw his resignation was
wise. Indeed it was tho only course to
pursue it. the university was to be relieved
from the odium of having turned out q
President, whom the trustees confessed
was an exceedingly competent educator
and under whose management the uni
versity had greatly prospered, because he
had expressed views on public question
which "were likely to lose" gifts that
otherwise might come to it. Whether
it was wise for trustees who were respon-
sible for the university to retain at it's
head a man who cherished a doctrine
which a great many people believed to be
contrary to good ethics and the reduction
of which to practice an Overwhelming
number of New England's people i be-
lieve would be exceedingly perilous to
the interests of the country-whether it
was wise or even right for the trustees to
continue such man at its head, and thus
to certain extent allow the influence of
the institution for which they were re-
sponsible to be exerted on behalf of this
generally regarded pernicious doctrine
was debatable question, concerning
which fair minded men. men who would
body the right of free speech, might
differ. But unfortunately the committee
of the trustees which conferred with
President Andrews lost sight of this
question and in their formal letter present.
ed another, which was in effect whether
a man at the head of university should
stifle views which he might hold on a
public question, if those views happened
to be disagreeablc to the wealthy portion
of the community, and so phrased the
letter in which the question was raised as
to seem to answer it in the affirmative. Il
makes no practical difference whether this
committee was strictly authorized by the
trustees to place the matter in this light.
1t appeared to the public to be acting for
the trustees and with their approval, and
| no amount of reputation by the latter,
had the result of the letter been allowed
" stduu, WOulu nave convinced the
public to the contrary. The truth is that
| that letter obscured the issue of the pro.
priety Of keeping an apostle of free silver
at the head of Brown University, and
made prominent another and very differ
ent one. AS Secretary Olney says in his
letter, 1.-THE true objection to the course
pursued toward DR.. Andrews by the cor
poration is its implied incubation Of the
doctrine that an institution of learning
should above all things get riches and,
therefore, should square its teachings end
limit the utterances of his faculty by the
interests and sentiments of those who for
the time being are the rich men of the
community" 1t was this. doctrine the
trustees had to face on Wednesday and
pronounce Judgment upon. There was
nothing to do but to repudiate it unless
they were ready to degrade their uniyer-
sity in the eyes of all intelligent and
rightnnminded men, ssand.the only defective
way to repudiate it was to ask President
Andrews whose resignation had been
called forth by it's PRONUNCIATION under
circumstances that made it look as If it
was regarded as sound by the trustees to
withdraw his resignation.