The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1913-05-24


- - asssna ~ Ahe sas ny DE-
CAnNoa~ va m insult TO tho MEM
t1Sp Of the conference.
N. Patterson Opens.
A. ". Patterson opened the arxu-
went FOR the defendants. arguing the
demurrer and then. without waving
~ 1emurrer. treating the case on Its
mtf1fn. tho request being made later
~ 1t1acp Denny that Judge Christie
pher decide the case upon both iasues.
Nr. Patterson held az that the bill
lhiled to show any title. right or tp-
eerest on the part OF the plaintiffs to
The action OF the majority of the
board was legal: 90 that the agree
ment was no contract OF which the
law could take cognixance. and t1
that even II 1t were q charter amend
ment II would not impair contract
sbiieations nor be illegal.
No rights OF the minority MEM
bers could be infringed by the act of
the majority Of the board, Mr.. Pat
tsrson contended. and II any suffered
they were the students, faculty and
contributors Of the college who should
be represented by the attorney gen.
erAl of the state, who alone had the
right to bring action. The minority
trustees he said, have no standing in
court Moreover, he claimed the
agreement between the board and the
conferences was an agreement, and
nothing more II was no legal con-
tract. was not and 10 not binding in
law, and the court cannot take cog
uisence Of Il.
Passing ON to the merits OF the case.
the attorney entered into q history of
tho college foundation. and conduct
to ehov that IL 10 in essence church
Institution. founded by the church,
nurtured by IT, Its board Of trustees.
composed OF Methodists, exclusively.
since 1871, and the endowment raised
by Methodists or through their ef-
forts, and those of the churches and
conferences. Quoting freely from
the records of the minutes OF the
hoard OF trustees, the Virginia and
Baltimore conferences, the Winchester
district conference at the time of the
founding OF Front Royal academy, the
Virginia conference committee. the
Carnegie Foundation and other bodies.
he attempted to show that through
out the history of the Randolph
Macon system II had been recognized
a. q denominational institution, con-
troiled In some measure by the con-
terence of the church.
Takes Up Dispositions.
He then took up the dispositions In
the case TO show that subscribers TO
the various colleges and academies Of
the system recognized the fact that
the colleges were under the control
OF the conference.
From the beginning he said.
''the trustees have been chosen d.
rectly or indirectly by the support
ing conferences on a certain basis OF
representation to each and In GER
tain ratio OF lay to clerical delegates"
referring to the fact that the South
Carolina conference and others on be-
Ing invited to patronize the schools
were offered representation on the
board of trustees and that these con-
ferences had nominated members,
which were elected by the board.
Was this a delegation OF author
ity?' he asked. He referred TO the
fact that the four minority trustees
bringing the suit against the major
ity were named in accordance with
an agreement giving representation to
the Baltimore conference. TO whcfh
they belong, and declared that II the
agreement with the two conferences
now assailed be Illegal. the other
agreements were Illegal and the plain
fiffs In this case should vacate their
positions on the board.
Even II the agreement were in the
nature of charter amendment, Mr..
Patterson commended it would be va
lid because II Is mere license with
out adding to the powers of the board.
All corporate Institutions may require
alterations and trustees can assent to
such changes. However. he contend
ed there was no occasion for an
amendment, for a proper interpreta-
ton OF the charter gives the board the
right TO make the agreement.
Hill Carter For Plaintiff.
Attorney Hill Carter opened for the
plaintiff. He read the clause Of the
charter which declares that in the
case of vacancies these shall be cup
piled" by the remaining members of
the board There is no more i'm
portant provision of the charter. he
said, than that relating TO the method
of selecting the board OF trustees.
This charter says that the board is
self-perpetuating body: 1t says that
the remaining members shall" fill
vacancies. This agreement Is con-
tract. By it the board of trustees
bind themselves TO, elect after the
conference has confirmed. They are
bound by solemn promise to submit
their nominations to the conferences
for approval and to abide by the
decision OF the conference. In so
doing they delegate part Of their
powers TO the conferences and vio-
late their oath to abide by the terms
OF the charter which imposes upon
them the duty of electing trustees.
Mr.. Carter quoted several cases to
sustain his contention.
After an hours recess Attorney G.
II. Armstrong. OF Baltimore, took up
the argument for the defendants. Mr..
\ Armstrong Is one of the trustees who
Wrought the suit for an injunction.