Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1910-06-04
DIR. MARSHALL MAY DECLINE
Minneapolis Mans Acceptance of
Seminary Presidency in Doubt.
PROTEST TO GENERAL ASSEMBLY
students, Alumni and Trustees Oh
ject 10 Methods, Not Man, and Rc-
Election il Advised by As
sembIy Committee.

DR.. A. b. Marshall of Minneapolis, elected
to succeed DIR. NJ. b. Lowrie as president of
the Omaha Theological seminary, has not
and may not accept the office.
Alumni students, some trustees and others
united in a protest to certain methods en-
ployed by the board.-in providing for the
presidency. They presented a remonstrance
to general assembly, the highest court Of
the Presbyterian church, through Rev. c.
w. weyer of Hastings, a seminary trustee,
alumnus and president of the Alumni as
ISOLATION and the seminary committee of
the assembly decided to advise DIR. Mar
shall not to accept the presidency until he
had secured a meeting OF the whole board
/ II trustees and obtained a complete review
| Of the matters This committee, on which
was a brother of DIR. Lowrie. the retiring
president, adopted the seminary trustees
report only on condition Of DR.. Marshalls
| complying with its recommendation,
The protest was not personal or aimed
at DIR. Marshall but, as Mr.. weyer stated
to assembly. against methods employed in
his election. 1t was so emphatic that un-
dergraduats students have declared they
will not return next fall unless things
change.
Both sides Of the case were heard at gen.
| go o~0SSAAAbigg NIL "HgeI p6lnk opposed by
Robert Dempster and Judge Davidson Cof
Tecumseh) for the board; II. M. Maxwell
and Rev. r ID. Braden.
Points in Protest.
Mr.. Weyer and his side based their pro-
test on these points, chiefly:
First-That the full board of trustees was
not notified Of meeting to elect n nres.
ldent, that only eighteen of the thirty-nin
attended and that but twelve were present
shall. Avn III MAR
Second-That certain correspondence
which trustees averred influenced them Il
. vote for DIR. Marshall was never disclossS
to the entire faculty, although addressed K
It; that the faculty, as a whole had N,
knowledge of the election of a presiden
and asked the question, win you worI
7 harmSo,nIiously with DIR. Marshall as pres
Third-That two trustees in this meetir,
pleaded to defer the election until a fui
; board could be summoned and were over
: ridden.
Fourth-That the nominating commit
forced the hand OF the board-those mem
bers not otherwise informed-by brin2in
IN one nomination with the statement tina
II was concurred In by all of the executiv
a | committee. when one member of that corr
mittee strongly opposed it.
CritIcises the Procedure.
/ The assembly committee severely cr,t
y icized this procedure.
$ DIR. Marshall, before assembly met wa
e informed by letter and in persona Orc
$ testing trustee calling on him ,at Mime
apolis--of the remonstrance. Some of hi
v friends believe he is not the man to accer
o the place under the circumstances. He ha
, been president of the board for some YEAR
The students, alumni and protestin
e trustees favor DR.. D. E. Jenkins of III
D chair OF systematic theology for the pres
o dency. declaring him to be the only logies
man, because of his ten years service Their,
his vigor and progressiveness and nation,
reputation as theologian. Members {
. the board who voted for DIR. Marshall ha
repeatedly declared that Dr. Jenkins wa
the man when DR.. Lowrie retired.
1t is the belief that matters will be ar
n justed and DR.. Lowrie will consent to r,
= main for another year as acting presiden
by which time his successor will be electe,
: DR.. Lowrle is now in Europe.