The herald., 1897-09-26

Institution as to arouse the indignant re-
monstrances of the great body OF the
Baptist people OF the United States.
1t is pleasant. however, to learn that
the popular idea Of the position occupied
by the trustees regarding DR.. Andrews
views on silver is somewhat strained,
and It Is only fair that the trustees should
in this behalf be placed right upon the
record. In their letter to DR.. Andrews.
urging him to withdraw his resignation,
the trustees assure him that they in no
way sought to sever his official relations
with the college, which had been most
cordial from the time Of his acceptance
OF the presidency. and say:
1t was not In our minds to pre-
scribe the path in which you should
tread. or to administer to you any
Official rebuke. or to restrain your
freedom Of opinion or reasonable lib
erty Of utterance," but simply to inti-
mate that It would be the part of wis
dom for you to take . less active part
In exciting partisan discussions and
apply your energies more exclusively
to the affairs of the college.
While giving the trustees credit for all
this paragraph demands, yet when it is
remembered that DR.. Andrews dis
claimed taking any part whatever "in
exciting partisan discussions" it would
seem that the trustees are defending
themselves by a paper somewhat in the
nature, of plea Of confession and avoid
ance.
In DR.. Andrews letter to the trustees.
explaining the propriety of his conduct
he says:
While interested in politics, as OF
course any citizen ought to be, and
neither ashamed nor afraid to take
sides, I have never been a partisan.
He claims that he was not in the usual
meaning Of the word a champion or an
apostle, or even an advocate, Of his views
on silver; that he had been ''reticent and
careful to the very verge of self-respect-
ability" touching these questions. Where
then, it may be asked. did the trustees
get their information Of his activity as
partisan in exciting political discus
slons?
But as the whole matter is now closed,
the trustees letter may be accepted as
not having had vicarious inspiration
but az being an honest expression of
their interest in the welfare Of the uni
versity and Of its popular president.
The interest taken by the whole coun-
try in this matter and, in the main, in
favor of DR.. Andrews, is matter of
congratulation to the people of the
United States. 1t shows clearly on which
side the masses stand when great prin-
ciple Of constitutional liberty is in
volved. And it is gratifying to know
that others than the rank and file took
an interest in the controversy, and that.
too, upon the right side.
At the September meeting of the cor
poration Of Brown university petitions
were received asking that action be
taken by the trustees in the interest of
freedom of teaching, signed by the heads
OF the most eminent institutions of learn
ing in the United States. Among these
were Presidents Gilman Of Johns Hop
kins, Eliot Of Harvard, Low Of Colum-
bia, Tucker of Dartmouth, Capen of
Tufts Ewing Of Western Reserve,
Rogers Of Northwestern, Priest Of Buch-
tel. Crawford Of Allegheny and Whitman
Of Columbia, together with many
university professors. Still another
petition was received, signed by pro-
| fessors Of economics in Harvard,
Columbia. Cornell, University Of Penn
sylvania. Yale, Smith, University
Of Wisconsin, University of Chi
cago. Wesleyan, Bryn Mawr, vasear and
other institutions. In addition to these
a petition signed by over six hundred
alumni Of Brown was presented to the
| ting.
These are cheering facts and point to
the practical freedom OF our cherished
institutions Of learning from the cor
rupting taint Of gold,as a. factor in shap-
ing their teaching of economics or any
other element Of their curricula.
By the way, at this September meeting
aforesaid letter was presented from
Richard Olney, ex-secretary of state,
which shows that whatever position tina t
astute statesman may occupy touching
economics, he is sound on the doctrine
ct free teaching in our colleges. Among
other things his letter says:
The true objection, however to the
course pursued toward DR.. Andrews
by the corporation of Brown univer-
sity is its implied inculcation of the
doctrine that an institution of learning
should, above all things, get richer.
and therefore should square its teach
ings and limit the utterances of its
faculty by the interests and sentiments
Of those who, for the time being, are
the rich men Of the community. The
demoralizing and degrading character
Of this doctrine your letter fully ex-
poses, and thereby entities you to the
gratitude not only of American citi-
zens generally, but of all we'll wishers
to Brown university in particular.
1t would thus appear that after all is
said and done, the true American prin-
ciple Of freedom of speech, in or out OF