New-York tribune., 1902-05-15

show the status of the case. and has been widely
circulated. This correspondence was originally
printed for the use of the trustees and bears the
date of May l.. The letters have never before
been published. The first letter reads as fol-
lows:
scarborough. y. Y, April 10. 1902.
My Dear DR.. Richcy:
The standing committee of the seminary has in
structed me to communicate to you the following
res0lution adopted at its meeting yesterday:
sdv That b the R SandnE nd Of the
pcation TO the board Of trustees. at their next
m nuai meeilng' TO retire hlm as emeritus professor
and long service as professor of ecclesiastical his
AS you had failed at the time of the adoption Of
the statute as to the retiring fund to avail your
rally feel some decacy in making such application
without this formal action on our part.
THOMAS r. HARRIs.
Secretary of standing committee.
Before Dr. Rchey had made any reply to this
letter-his delay being due to the fact that
nearly a month would elapse before the trus-
tees met-and while he was out West attending
the conservation of Bishop Olmstead. OF Colo
rado, the following letter was sent to him:
New-York. May 3 1902.
The Rev Thomas .Richey, T. D. ----,
cate to you the following resolution:
Resolved, That the secretary OF the standing
notice to the Rev @ 6P Richey M MARX
In the Bowere, professor of ecclesiastical history
tees. be held on Tuesday May i8. 1902 in sherred
that professorship will be made the following
q. That owing to his advancing years and in
S,teasing intrnities the welfare Of the seminary
-, That he absented himself from the semi
naPy aaP ana the duties Of his chair since ApriI y
as required by the provisions Of chapter B. sections
''3. That ne has absented himself from the an
nual examinations Of the classes In his department
Tor the current academic year. and has failed TO
ne
vision required by chapter .. section t9 Of the
THOMAS r. HARRIS, Secretary.
It was this second letter that was recalled on
Tuesday. This letter called forth Dr. Richy's
reply This reply together with the two letters
was printed in the pamphlet DR. Richeys let
ter is rather long. and takes up the entire ques
ton IN detail. After noting the charges con
tanned in the second letter, he writes.
! have not heretofore been conscious that my
trmities.' that the welfare Of the seminary
demanded my retirement. II had been conscious
me seminary would have induced M 10 take ar
II yd9p e6n no no tae 6sd 5e ormcd
that my removal was 10 De- urged upon this ground
last would hay" caused me surprise. ] should not
feel called upon to resent as unfair this attempt
The other two grounds alleged. however, seem TO
object is arcomDlIsbod and without a vcry sCrtIpu-
Ious regard to the methods resortcd to These
charges manifestly mer" aftcrthouEht. in
tended 10 furnish excuse upon which the origi-
nal purpose might be accomplished.
However precise may bc the details OF these
statutes. tho administration OF affairs in the sem
mary has hitherto proceeded. so far my knowl-
was required i'm cases OF temporary absence was
such mutual understanding between the dean and
the professor would naturally result from Tho
CourteSieS usually prevailing among gentlemen. No
effort. far | am aware. has ever been made
10 enforce strictly the requirements of the statute
IN regard to such casual and temporary ahsence
For nearly twenty fiVe years | have faithfully
and diligently performed To the hest Of my ability
my duties to tn" seminary. without ever having re-
CeiVed an ntmatiou that work not salts
factory. | am now informed that because Of such
brief absence has been above described | TO
hc removed for neglect Of duty Conscious as
Of the falSity Of this charge and it's Eroundlcss
nature. cannot quietly submit 10 a violation Of
my contract with the seminary upon such teChni-
cal and dishonest grounds
The second and third alleged grounds OF removal
arc Of such character mat believe every hon
est will recognize them unfair, and 50
urged solely for the purpose OF carrying out a pre-
conceived plan. The unjust character of these
grounds also reflects upon the honesty of the first
alleged ground Of removal II the welfare of the
seminar demanded that | should sever my CON
nectiOn with It ! should be prepared 10 make even
the personal sacrifice which this would require
But the alleged welfare Of the seminary does
require permit to submit TO removal
after all these years Of service behalf of the
seminary. upon the technical and dishonest charges
which impute 10 a failure to perform duty.
me- and protest against the board of trustees pass
ing any resolution on May Is, 1902 which shall i'm