New-York tribune., 1897-08-04
TIE CASE OF PRESIDENT ANDRET-S.


The letter addressed to the corporation OF
Brown University by professors In that insf!tu-
tion expressing their disapproval OF the action
which resulted in the resignation of President
Andrews dscloses q more important division
of opinion in the University than had been gen
erally supposed to exist Doubtless 1t will tend
TO cause some additional anxiety as to The con-
SEQUENCES of his retirement. but nevertheless It's
publication is not to be regretted. The feeiing
which is shared by so many deeply interested
persons was sure to he made known IN one
way or another, and the expression of it in
formal and deliberate manner should prevent
exaggeratlon and misunderstanding, and enable
all concerned to give 1t such consideration as II
deserves. Even though the letter is not signed
by those professors who have been longest and
most conspicuously identified with the Univer-
sity, and whose sympathy with It's honorable
and priceless traditions" is certainly not less
sincere and strong than that Of the protestants,
the significance Of an appeal issued by twenty
four of the thirtyseven members OF the faculty
will not be denied.
The letter from Professor Gardner which we
published Yesterday in connection with the ad-
dress to the corporation Is interesting not mere
" because it declares the position of those who
also because 1t asserts a somewhat different IN
derstanding Of important facts from that on
which the action of the corporation was based.
That Is to say, the writer represents that Pres
ident Andrews has not made his advocacy Of
free-silver views especially conspicuous. II II
is true that he has been responsible IN only
slight degree for the publication OF his opn-
IONS lie and his supporters are obviously en-
f.1 ol1n 1nrlx 1npct Nod
asmuch as It undoubtedly affects the position
Of the trustees. who objected not to his opn-
ions but to his promulgatlon OF them. 1t does
moreover, tend to sustain the argument OF those
who have contended that the corporation had
not the right, but only the power, to take the
course which caused President Andrews to re-
sign.
The question which the trustees took into con-
sideration was whether or not the highest well
fare Of the University demanded that Its pres
ident should cease to be an Industrious advo-
cate OF free-slver coinage or be virtually re-
Quested to resign his office. Manifestly, if they
exaggerated the extent of his public cOntribu-
tions to the free-sver propaganda, and wrongly
accused him Of taking pains to inculcate opin-
ions as to which he was in reality reticent. they
are to blame for neglecting to ascertain the
truth This WAS their chief ground Of action,
and they could rot afford TO misunderstood the
facts. But It Is by no means proved that they
made such a mistake, nor has President An
drews himself sought TO avoid responsibility for
the dissemination OF his views. On the contrary,
he apparently conceded that point. and resigned
because he was unwilling to relinquish his free
dom Of speech. The trustees were at least not
wrong in regarding him as prominent and In
fuential figure IN the free-coinage movement;
they became convinced that his Identification
with II was detrimental to the University whose
interests they were under the highest obligation
to guard and promote the responsibility was
theirs, and we have no doubt that they decided
the case according to their Judgment and con-
science. The dissenting professors believe that
the presidents acknowledged services far out
weigh the possible harm which his position on
the coinage issue may do, and that is certainly
q debatable question; but 1t appears 10 us that
ths trustees are better qualified to reach sound