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

Fl Numerous propositions were made
ana II was evident that either the
charter must be amended to provide
definitely that the conferences should
have a voice In the selection OF trus-
tees by legal enactment, or an agree
ment must be reached which would
satisfy the church and yet not be sub
/ tect to the objection that there had
been definite delegation or trust
4 which delegation would. of course,
be contrary to the charter as II now
stands.
Il The conference insisted that the
amendment TO The charter was the
n better plan end requested that this
be done. Such acton had been taken
by several colleges of tire State and
1t presented no yali1 legal objection,
| provided the majority Of the board
OF trustees voted for the same and
| gave adequate reason to TIE corpora
ton commission for the change. But
the board was unwilling to TAXA this
step and finally presented thess lesG-
tuition to the confei renee as COM
promise proposition, thc items OF the
i compromise bsing:
I The Compromise.
! Cd The -ssc,nd:ny of the reso.u-
ton Of 1905. declaring that ''in the
selection Of trrstoas there is no de-
nominational test This action It.
self was fundamental and removed
the original cause Of nffensc. Had
this action been taken rs soon as the
conference objected to 1t in 1907, this
would very likely have settled the
matter. But the board of trustees re-
FUSED to take this action for several
years, and the dissatisfaction and UNI
rest steadily increased and something
additional was needed.
(2) Provision was made to secure
the views OF the conference on the
persons to be elected as trustees.
This second action was necessary
not only to satisfy the conference. but
to meet the action taken by the zen.
eral conference of 1910, which pro-
v1ded that three-fourths Of the trvs-
tees shall always be members Of our
church and all OF them shall be con-
nrmed. nominated or elected by some
governing body OF our church. How
could the Randolph Macon board
bring itself into harmony with the
action OF the general conference with
out the amendment Of the charter?
what was necessary to bring the
board into harmony with the spirit of
the discipline? The board was al
ready composed entirely OF Methodists
as the Discipline provided and. there
AcASt hothih6 W69 RAlu on tnlS point
IN the resolutions passed by the board
IN October, 1911, unless the repeal OF
the resolution that in the selection
OF trustees there is no denominational
test" may be 4 negative statement to
that effect.
4 ca The resolution did not attempt
to comply with the provision Of the
Discipline by a legal enactment, but
1t did attempt to comply with the
I NJ Nr - l.,
from the conferences their views as to
the suitability OF the persons whom
they proposed to elect as trustees
They adopted q resolution which was
recognized by all parties as having no
legal weight, but which complied in
spirit with the Discipline, so long as
1t was not rescinded. 1t was simply
modus vivendi, adopted for the best
interests OF the institutions. 1t was
SO recognized at the time that the
resolution was passed in October,
1911.
The Advocate Editorial.
4 just one week after the passage
of the resolution in an editorial in the
4 Christian Advocate. DR.. Cannon de-
clared that he stated that 1.-The reso-
lutions were faulty in that they did
not make any agreement with the con-
/ ference. but only with the board it
SELF 1t does not say that the resolu-
tions shall not be rescinded without
the consent of the conference. 1t says
that the resolutions shall not be re-
scinded without the consent of the
board itself. which, of course, means
/ nothing more than that 1t will not be
rescinded until 1t Is rescinded, but 1t
gives the conference no voice whatever
in determining whether it shall be
rescinded. AS the question now stands
II leaves the whole question to be de-
termined by expediency and that ex-
| pediency rs 1t may be determined by
the board Of trustees"
4 The conference was fully aware of
the nature of the resolution and never
considered it binding in law and knew
that 1t left the whole matter in the
hands OF the board of trustees.
i But when Joined to the first resolu-
| ton which was a resolution resembling
the Carnegie resolution of 1905. the
conference accepted the action as a
compromise and accepted it as set
Element OF the question.
1t has accomplished the result de-
sired by the trustees and the confer
ences the schools have entered upon
a new era of prosperity. there has
been a large increase in enrolment
and the only element Of discord is
these four trustees from the Balti-
Personal Privilege.
H And now ii becomes necessary to
pay a few words on matter Of per-
sonal privilege. Mr.. Armstrong has
referred to me as an ecclesiastical
politician "storming at the doors of
the board of trustees" leading by this
ear three hundred preachers to ac-
complish my purpose. He has stated
that these institutions are q great
property and that l desired to get
by finger in the ecclesiastical pie.
These statements are absurd in view
OF the men who are associated in this
movement. Are such well known men
as DIR. Young, Judge Barhan, DR..
4 christian, Hon. J. C.. Parker and
Frank Talbot, are the members OF
the great Virginia conference q set
Of puppets to be led about by the
ears at the will Of any one man. Such
accusations are contemplate and are
an insult to the members OF that
great body. How will he describe
Bishop Denny. Did he dominate the
Baltimore conference and coerce It
to do his Will?
| These accusations are the more In
excusable because Mr.. Armstrong had
heard the testimony Of Bishop Denny,
which In contained in the records In
this case, that DR.. Smith admitted to
him that he had selected me to be