The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1898-12-27
THE PRESBYTERIAN usrvEn.rr.
= Arotest AEntn~t the Action Taken
by ~ prcsbytery.

rsn iAN lNIVEHSITY.
frotest ARafn~t the Action Taken
by n Prcsbytery.
To tho Editor Of The Post.
iayior Texas.-in the notices published of
I'd" proceedings of the Presbyterian SYNOD nj
Weatheriord, recently adjourned, was the as
,onithing announcement that that body passed
resolution disappearing OF tho Texas Pres
cSterian University II Is also stated That
pretest against this action was made BY the
INTEGRITY. but the papers themselves were not
published AS very many of your readers ar,
subscribers to, and hundreds more deeply In
tercsted in the Texas Presbyterian university.
as president of the board of trustees OF tina.
Institution, will you kind, give me space for
this remarkable paper passed by this synod
and tho protest against It. | make no com
ment. The reader can draw his own con.
sclrsicns.
lows:
81. Since Austin college and Daniel Baker col
iesc arr now IN more prosperous condition
titan formerly, and since the synod IA taking
steps to establish school of theology, these
interests demand thelSyal support q all cas
prayers. Influence and contributions Of the
churches. therefore.
Resolved. That synod reaffirms the action
takeE ut brentwood In reference TO the pro-
posed university, of which Rev W. IL. Clagott
Is president and financial agent, and our min
listers are requested 10 read this action to
thei churches, and urge the people to give
thotr united support to our educational Gu
tCrprises. j. ID. leslie,
Temporary Clerk
Special attention is called to the fact that
the resolution as here presented Is an CT
ficial copy, furnished by the clerk of the
Synod over his signature
The circumstances under which this action
was taken are SGT forth in the protest here
presented.
That the references in these protests may
be understood. would say that there are two
Presbyterian bodies in Texas, one known as
tn. presbyterian Church in the United States
Of America and the other as the "PresbyA
terrain Church in the United States 1t Is
with the latter body that the synod which
convened at Weatherford is connected. My
own church connection has also been with
the seme body during nearly all of a ministry
Of tNentyseven years. At present under a
plain call of God. l am connected with the
other body and was not. therefore. member
Of this synod. BY Its invitation to sit with 1t
as corresponding member, was Its guest
the syLod except the right to vote. Moreover.
j was entitled to the courtesy due an invited
guest.
TO this action of the synod. myself sent
the following, protest:
To the Synod of Texas.
Weutherford Texas, October IS. 1S9S.-Fath-
ers anc brethren. / do hereby solemnly pro-
test against the following action Of your
body. a copy OF which has been furnished me
b. your clerk (llere follows the synod's reso-
luton as above, which ] need not rercat.) :.
nf M m nf
would state that | was not present when this
resolution was introduced. When l entered
the building. only about five minutes before
the adjournment for recess. a member OF
the synod upon the floor was making yio-
lent attack upon myself by name. In which
h. also dragged the name Of another party
who was not present. Claiming the floor on
adjournment to continue his speech, this
same member, Immediately upon reassembling
OF the synod. without giving any opportunity
whatever to myself or my member a 81 tue
kind to his public attack upon an invited
guest in your midst. moved the previous quss-
ton. ] Immediately arose. the first oDnartu-
nifty had had to utter word, and although
claimed the right TO be heard on cues
ton of privilege, the previous question thus
moved was forced, and was denied the privi-
leee of word Of reply or explanation of any
Kind.
protest against this action.
i. Because the synod of Texas in passing
it has stated, and requested the minister's
throughout its bounds to read from It's pull
pits that which Is not now. and never has
been, fact. Passing by other inaccuracies
In the paper. am not now. and nI never nave
university. I rose on question of privilege
before the action was taken TO correct this
misstatement. but the moderator was com
PEELED TO rule 1t out of order by the forcing
of the previous question, by which the synod
was compelled to vote at once. The rcading
of such a misstatement from the pulpi,s o.,
this synod will of necessity carry the con-
Intinn that The action not taken Will
that careful deliberation and investigation
that should characterize court OF Jesus
Christ. especially I'm an action aimed at par
ticuiar individual and institution mentioned
by narne neither of which is under It's con-
tro! and which action the ministers are ra-
qcested to read for the information OF the'r
congregations
@ i protest against this action because,
while taken In the interest OF certain instiiu-
t.ans named In IT, some of which are uhusr
the control of the synod, and some are nor, n
npm!ng myself and the university with which
| am connected as the objects AZ which .ps
resolution Is aimed, and using the previous
QUESTION TO force n vote. the synod has justly
laid its action open TO the Interpretation ny
every unprejudiced and fair minded man. az
a thrust at that institution and private m
divicual, and of taking advantage OF the pre-
yious question to accomplish H. .,
2 protest against this action because, IN
passing this resolution In which myself aho
the institution with which nave rae nonoI n.
ed by name. with the request that 1t be reao
from the pupits, without asking or permit
Tins che word Of explanation from myself;
is personal wrong to mo that this SYNOD
ought not to do. 4 ..
4. protest against this action because
higher and more potent than all OF these req
sons stated, tho synod allowed one OF ~
members. on its floor in open session, 10 msks
n personal attack upon me by name while
was a guest OF this synod by It's own invita-
tion us a corresponding member. to drag mt
that attack another also by name, who wa
no, present, In which attack statements were
made both in regard to myself and the an,
sent brother. which ! mere declare were no
correct. The synod further allowed this
member, after making his public attack, ahe
while still claiming the floor TO move IN,
previous question. and then not only aid no
ASK or allow any answer or explanation ir9iI
myself but used and forced this motion ici
the previous question. thus MADE ny tne very
member the synod had allowed to puniieiy az,
tack me. 10 prevent the explanation ! sougn
to make under question of privilege. ans
somneiled a vote In the face OF the protest
of a very large number OF its members. y
oi;owing this, the synod has done wrong, no
omiv TO a guest and stranger within us sates
hit IN itself which as high court OF !esus
r,rlst this synod can not aifcrd TO do
II Is with feelings Of the deepnsss saa ,.at
that / feel constrained to make ibis pfo.esi
and / request that II be admitted 70 record