xt7sxk84nj8k_96 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7sxk84nj8k/data/mets.xml https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7sxk84nj8k/data/L2021ua019.dao.xml Kentucky University 18.26 Cubic Feet 32 document boxes, 5 flat boxes, 21 bound volumes archival material L2021ua019 English University of Kentucky Property rights reside with Transylvania University.  The University of Kentucky holds the copyright for materials created in the course of business by University of Kentucky employees. Copyright for all other materials has not been assigned to the University of Kentucky.  For information about permission to reproduce or publish, please contact the Special Collections Research Center.  Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Transylvania University Library. Record Group 5:  Collection on Kentucky University Address of the Board of Curators of Kentucky University to certain churches and donors....together with the minority address to the same (5 copies) text Address of the Board of Curators of Kentucky University to certain churches and donors....together with the minority address to the same (5 copies) 2024 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7sxk84nj8k/data/L2021ua019/Box_5_18/Folder_14/Multipage4561.pdf 1873 September 16 1873 1873 September 16 section false xt7sxk84nj8k_96 xt7sxk84nj8k  

 

 

 

ADDRESS

i

BOARD OF mmmroas ;

Hi"

KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY,

'1“)

CERTAIN CHURCHES AND DONORS

311*313‘4[(§)RI ALT XXIXW}, FIFO.

PUBLISHED RY ()KIHCR HI" THE BOARD.

 

 

 

  

 ADDRESS

01"

THE BOARD OF CURATORS

KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY,

Certain Congregations and Menlbers of Congregations
belonging to the “Christian Church in Kentucky,”
and to certain Donors to the Endowment and
other Funds of Kentucky University ;—in re-
ply to sundry Memorials, Petitions, awn,
submitted to the Board at its Called

Session, September 16th, 1873.

TOGETI-I ER ‘W IT H

THE MINORITY ADDRES$ TO THE SAME.

Published herewith, by permission of the Board, and prepared by \V. T. Wither».
Andrew Steele, and R. J. White, 21 Minority of the Committee

that was appointed to reply to said Memorials, etc.

‘.

LEXINGTON:
DAILY PRESS PRINT.

1873.

 

  

 

  

MAJGRiTY ADDRESS.

+._.—_

 

To certain Jilembers and Congregations of the Christian Church in
Kentucky, and to certain Donors of KENTUCKY UNIVEa’sirY,
petitioning, etc..-

The sundry memorials recently addressed by you to the Board
of Curators of KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY were presented at a called
session of the Board, held September 16th, and, after being re-
spectfully received, were referred to a committee, with instructions
to report at that meeting. The committee having failed thus to
report, they were instructed to prepare and publish an Address in
answer to your several memorials, embodying, if possible, the sen-»
timents of the entire Board; or, it they should not agree among
themselves, then to publish together a majority and a minority
Address33<

Some delay in discharging this duty has necessarily arisen from:
the fact that the committee, immediately after the adjournment of
the Board, were compelled to return to their homes, so that an
early c0nferenee was impracticable—some of them living several.
hundred miles apart.

We now find it difficult to respond briefly, and yet, at'the same
time, satisfactorily, to a file of papers so diversified in their charac-
ter as those which have been laid before us.

Some are respectful petitions, others are remonstrances or
protests; others profess to set forth facts for the consideration of
the Board; while others again are simply demnds, or, if we may
so describe them, denunciations.

All of‘ these papers, the committee have very carefully and:
patiently considered; and they now desire to communicate to you,
in reply, some facts for your information and dispassionate con-
sideration. . '

We are satisfied from the. reading of these papers, that some of
the friends of the University wholly misunderstand the nature
and design of our Institution; that they are ignorant alike of its
history and its laws; and that they, consequently, very innocently
misinterpret the action of its chief officers and the views and feel-
ings of the Curators.

 

*See Appendix A.

 

  

( ‘3 >
_ That many of you, on. export? statements alone, should haveun-
dertahen to decide grave questions of fact, as well as of law and
order, which have arisen within the University, and then have
proceeded, without a hearing, to condemn and censure officials of
the institution, is to us surprising. We propose, however, respect-
fully to examine somewhat the grounds on which some of you
thus authoritatively criticise, condemn and censore.
I.

That dwzors finite certain rights, and a proper remedy to enforce
these rights, is evident, for the Charter, § 14, provides:

_“All lands, money, or other property, which may, by donation
devise, deed of gift, or otherwise, be contributed to said University,
shall be strictly applied according to the instructions given by the
donors or testators.”

And it is further provided, '3‘ 19:

“That in any county of this State, where the sum of fifteen
thousand dollars may be subscribed to the endowment fund of the
University, there shall be a rcgwrsznfaz‘z'on of (12‘ least one (meriibcr in the
Board.”

Any donor to the Fuiversity, therefore, has the right to see that
the trust which he created has been faithfully executed, according
to its original intent. The Board of Curators have accepted a great
variety of trusts,- and, if they have diverted any gift from its
original purpose, or neglected to carry out the object for which it
was bestowed, the donor, in such case, has a simple and effectual
remedy at hand. ’

But the Board emphatically declare that every doilar'which has
been given by any of you to Kentucky University has been strictly
applied to the object for which it was given ; or, in the absence of
specific instructions at the time, it has been faithfully used for the
general purpose set forth in the Charter, to wit: “To promote the
cause of education, in all its branches, and extend the sphere of
science and Christian morality.”

' We add, that the recorded proceedings of the Board from the
beginning have eva‘ been open to your inspection, and the proper
officers have been ready to give you any information touching the
'inanner in which your contributions have been applied. So con-
fident are we that you will find no instance in which any of your
gifts have been misapplied, that we new challenge your most
critical investigation of those records.

There is another right which, under the Charter, belongs espe.
cially to the donors of the Endowment Fund; and that is, the right
of representation. This right is restricted within local limits and,
conditioned upon the contribution by any county of fifteen thoui
sand dollars to that special fund.

 

F1: re «a my. es

2??»

. 9,, .

{fir-H

PH PL“.

if}

a“:

if"

r,

"in
ink
..,
Y]

3.

 

 )1).

as

Y:

.16

18'

8f
18

11‘
st

<3)

Such right of representation on the part of this class of donors,
‘iiowever, is not to be understood in any other sense than that they
may always have in the Board, Curators duly elected by the Board
that shall guard their donations against any misapplications, and
see that the original purpose ct their benefactions is faithfully
carried out. -

New, this right, also, has been always recognized by the Board,
and the provision of the Charter has been faithtully complied with.
From every county in the State that has contributed that amount
to the Endowment Fund, the Board have elected at least one rep-

rresentative to sit in their body. But theyCurators have always
aimed to be guided by the spirit as well as the letter of the Charter;

they have, therefore, as far as practicable, elected representatives

for otherfmzds of the Institution.

in all their acts of legislation, and in all their elections, they
have unitormly recognized the fact, constructively declared in the
Gharter, and consistently set forth by the Regent, or general agent,
in his argument with the public, that the University is held by the
Eduard in trust for those who gave their money to endow and maintain it.
ti'fiommon law, common justice, and common sense, as well as the
fiiharter, recognize the fact. The Board of Curators, who have ac-
cepted all the trusts thus created, duly realize their corporate and
indiwdual obligation to all the generous parties that have given
their money to the Institution. '

in a word, they regard themselves as the trustees of the donors; and
they declare that they have faithfully applied, and will continue so
is apply, all your donations strictly according to their original
intent. .

But these indisputable rights of donors by no means include

that of legislative control over the internal affairs of the Institu-

tion, which some of you seem to claim. All such control belongs,
by law and reasOn, to the Curators in their corporate capacity ;

, and nothing could be more untenable, under the Charter, which

you have already accepted, than that, because you are donors,

therefore you may prescribe, dictate or administer at will within

the University.-
llf such an assumption of prerogative is, on your part, thus un-

warranted, how much more so is it on the part of others who are

not in anywise benefactors to the Institution—of congregations,
for instance, that have never bestowed a single charity, and among
whose entire membership there cannot be found a single donor to

any fund of the University! The Board will not be expected,‘

therefore, we presume, to give up their own responsibility in the
government of Kentucky University and consent to distribute it

" among the multitude of friends that may be scattered through the

 

  

< 4 )

land. Much less can they, without official centradiction and
absurdity, submit questions of discipline, expediency or law to any
One or more of the five hundred congregations scattered through-
Out the State.
' \Were we even to concede the supposed right of coogregations to
legislate or govern at will in such matters, the papers before us
would present no sufficient grounds for such action on the part 0;?
the Board, as you suggest; for the memorials submitted representhni'
a minority of either donors or churches!

The Board would be compelled, therefore, even under the sup
posed rule, first to ascertain the will of all the donors and all the
congregations in the State; and that, too, only after all the facts

pro at (2022.. had been definitely and fairly submitted to them.

The Board is fully advised that your recent action has been
brought about mainly by certain documents issued from the city of
Lexington, and signed by parties that have no official connection
with the University.

The Board is aware, also, that during the interval between the
suspension of Prof. McGa-rvey from his chair, by the Executive
Committee, and the meeting of the Board of Curators on September
16, requested by hisfrz'ends to adjudge his case, certain persons actively
moved among the quiet congregations of the State, and labored
to induce in them a belief that the churches of Kentucky, as such,
are the legal owners of the University preperty; that they have
consequently the right also to direct at will the Board of Curators,
and to control their legislation; that the present Board are actually
turning over the Institution to other parties, and violating their
sacred trusts, their Charter and their pledges; and that the churches
and donors together have a kind of joint right to control the In»
stitution, and to execute their own will and pleasure directly upon
the corporation, officers and professors!

The Curators are satisfied that among those who took part in
creating this unnecessary and unwholesome alarm, there are‘good
men who had no partisan purpose whatever to subserve, but who
joined in this movement from an honest, though mistaken, view of
the whole subject. To all such we offer the following statements,
expressed in earnest, but respectful terms.

II.

You were told by certain parties, in a hand-bill or half-sheet of
printed matter, distributed among you in August last:

1. That the Executive Committee of Kentucky University has
no authority to suspend a professor, or to remove him from his

place, ad interim, either with or without cause. , g
2. That there were no grounds for the suspension of Prof. J. W;

McGarvey.

 

 

 and

any
ugh-

is to
e ns
t oi
that

sup-
! the
facts

)een

tion

t in
end
vho
r of

nth,

or

has:
his-

<5)

3. That Kentucky University belongs to the Christian Church
in Kentucky.

4. That the majority of the Executive Committee‘are not mem-
bers of the Christian Church.

5. That the minority of that committee are not sufficiently pro-
nounced in their advocacy of the rights and interests of the
“Church as connected With the University.”

6. That the present blow—the suspension of Prof. McGarvey—
strikes the Church and the Bible College through him.

Now, concerning these statements, as we find them in the cir-
culars which you received last summer, we assure you that they
contain many errors and betray great ignorance of both law and
tact; all of which will be conclusively shown to you in the present
.riddrcae. ’

III.

From the various petitions, demands, remonstrances orlccnsures
that are contained in the papers before us, we extract as tollows,
eubstantially, and we ask you to reflect on our answer:

1. ,“The Church is the proper owner of the University.”
‘ 2. “We avow our right to, and control of, the University.” .
3. “The exclusive ownership of Kentucky University is vested
in the Christian Church of Kentucky.”

4. “We demand a distinct and unequivocal avowal by the Board
that Kentucky University is the property of the Church of Christ
in Kentucky.” .

5. “It is a fact not to be denied that Kentucky University
exists in the interests of the Christian Church of Kentucky; and, for
this purpose it was chartered and the money raised by the donors
to endow it; so that it is (.78 fricto the property of the Christian
tylliurch in fiiznz‘ucfrg/W

6. “The Christian Church of Kentucky is the legal guardian of
the University.”

7. “The Kentucky Christian brotherhood own Kentucky Uni-
versity.” *

8. “Kentucky University is, according to the original charter,
the property of the Christian Church in, Kentucky.”

9. .“We hold the ownership of Kentucky University as being in
the Christian Church, except the A. 8; M. College.”

10. “We, the Church at , are part owners of the University.”

ll. Kentucky University is ever to be owned and controlled by
the Christian Church of Ifmituc/ry, according to the Charter.”

 

To these declarations sent up to the Board by certain congrega-
tions and certain individual members of congregations, the Board,
through its committee, would respectfully reply:

The Charter declares, § 2: “The Board of Curators in their cor-
ipoli'ate name are hereby invested with the legal right to all the
property and estate, real and personal, as well as all the rights
and claims heretofore vested in the Trustees of. Bacon College.”

§3. “They and their successors shall furthermore have full
power in their corporate capacity, to hold by gift, grant, demise,

 

  

(6)

devise or otherwise any lands, tenements, hereditaments, moneys,
rents, goods, chattels, or interests of any kind whatever, which
may be given, granted, demised or devised to or purchased by them.
for the use and benefit of said University.”

'-§ 8. “For the ownership and control of said University, at least
two-thirds of the Board of Curators shall always be members roll
the Christian Church in Kentucky”

§ 2 and § 3 thus vest the property of the University in a Board:
§ 8 simply creates an element in the Board. It does not vest. the
property of the University in that special element, however, but
in the Whole Board flue-3 constituted; much less does it by any
possible construction of language legally vest the property of the
University in that congregational community of which the “tire-
thirds” are required to be members.

1We add, further, that the C‘lu‘éstlcm Church [22 fifenfucky neither
holds nor can hold, legally, any property whatever, and that all the
declarations that we might make on our part, and all that you
might say or do on your part, could not possibly invest one cent of
property in our unincorporated brotherhood. If our deciswn on this
point is not in accordance with your own views of the matter, we
beg you to submit the question, for your own peace and satimihr,»~
tion, to the proper legal tribunals of the land.

IV.

In the next place, in reference to the emf-rel of the University,
it appears from your several papers that you are in a similar con-
tusion of mind. Some of yon seem to claim only the simple ugly
of appeal to Hit? Board “lit iizcrffei’s jiertm'm'ng in the arzaiaagemem of file
Institution.

Some of you request the resignation of every Curator and teacher
that will 7201‘ carry out the erpzw'zssscl and known will girlie 071723332333
Church.

Some of you request us to carry out the Charter by conducting;
the University in the z'nfcrrsfs and by flu? direction of flee Christian
(flame; {is Katina-la . ‘

Some of'you declare that flee Lastllcclion should 5):; controlled by flit“
_ legally conslllufecl Boartl‘of Carafe/~38 .I' . ‘

Others of you inform us that the University is ever to be owned
and controlled by the Chi-wishes Clerc-rt in Ifentacl‘r.

Some ofyou declare the Board to [26 file legally consiitufed giant
cleans cf flee interests of flee Gateway.

Some of you again say that flee Christian C’le'zu‘elz 28 flat: legal gum:—
dlan of flee Ezefil‘ufz'on'.

Some of you, recognizing the existence of a Board, demand that
said Board shall ccnfral fle University in the spirit and for the
purpose for which it was originated, viz: toradvance and build up
the Church of 07271196 3'22 ffimf-zzcl'y.

 

 

 oneye, it

which

7 them.

t least

ere oi

5’0 are}: n

it the
‘, but
'7 any
at the
“tire-

iither ‘

ll the

you
:nt of“
i this
r, we
ciao»

city?
con~
itght
ffifif‘

cher
starts

7152?ng
the a

lathe
noel

an 7-»

hat
the
up

(7»

Some of you claim a right of the brotherhood in ordering Ken-y
tacky University. ,

Some of you demand that the Board shall provide some guarantee
that they will ooz‘nply at all times with the wishes of the Church. ,

- Others declare that the Board has the authority to act for the,

Christian Church, under its instruction.

Here, then, we find alcontrariety of demands and declarations“
which, we respectfully suggest, is evidence sufficient that, were the
Board legally authorized to refer the management of their Institu»
tion to the congregations oi the State, the Curators might be very
much perplexed to ascertain their views on any given question of
law or policy;

We also respectfully inquire, as a matter of practical importance,~
HOW is it proposed thus to order or direct the Board in their man:
agement of the University? In all of our congregations of men?
women and children, white and black, shall a vote be taken on.
every question of importance that may come up"? If so, how shall.
the Board, be informed as to the sense of the majority of the
several hundred congregations oi the State? Shall a majority ct
cluerciws or a majority of Christ/ans be the directing and controlling
power? When questions of law, fact or expediency arise and are
submitted by the Board to the congregations, who shall be author-
ized to go and lay the facts and arguments before them, so that
brethren and sisters may 3 able to vote intelligently and impar-
tially? And, if questions of a delicate or exciting nature should
arise, how shall needless publicity, scandal and popular exciton
ment and partisan feeling be prevented?

Or, on the other hand, shall the fresco/ms be allowed to act for
thcpcoptc and be authorized to assemble in councils or synods, to
enlighten and direct the Board?

Many other difficulties suggest themselves to us in getting prac-
tically to work on the principles some of you propose to adopt for
the control of the Institution, which we need not present here.

Some of you, perceiving the practical absurdity of such a popu—
lar, congregational control oi a great and complex Institution,
actually ask the Curators to have the Charter amended so as to
pass the government of the University to a Board of gentlemen to
be elected by the State meeting of Ifcvztioffi.’g,.'.'

. But we cannot, without some words of comment, pass by another
feature in these proceedings, which indicates an alarming departure
from the doctrine and the practice of the Church. That departnie
is in thefllct that certain congregations have permitted themselt‘rs to be
betrayed into an assumption ofpower and authority over institutions amt
Mtcrests outside of, and beyond, their (frong/y'egavttom'tl juristictios!

No two dogmas are more firmly established among us than-u-

 

  

(8)

First, That each congregation is a government independent of all
others; Second, That thejurisdiction of each congregation is confined ‘
to its own bodily limits. In these two propositions lies the-safe-
guard of congregational and individual Christian liberty. The one
is the complement and necessity of the other. Let the first be
violated, and congregational liberty is sacrificed to some usurping
power which destroys its individuality. Let thesecond be ignored,
and a congregation, or a class of congregations, assume jurisdiction
and usurp authority over other churches 'or some outside institu-‘
tion or interest; and an inchoate ecclesiastical tyranny begins at
once, and threatens the religious liberty both of the congregation
and the individual.

Such is the nature of this assumption ofjurisdiction and control
over Kentucky University by certain congregations .of the Chris-
tian Church. If the Curators should yield to their assumed
authority, what will hinder a like control over the Apostolic Times,
the Transylvania Printing Company, Eminence College, Christian
Academy, Hopkinsville Institute, etc.? What will hinder such
authority from dictating in the end who shall be pastor or bishop
of Main—street Church in Lexington, or how local troubles in the
several churches shall be settled?———or whether a single bishop or a
plurality of bishops shall rule over the church at Covington?

Admit once the existence and authority of such a distinct eccles-
iasticism as “The Christian Church in Kentucky,” with jurisdiction
over all our religious institutions within the State, the power and
control of which ecclesiasticism may be asserted through a majority
of congregations, or a majority of the members, and all liberty,
congregational as well as individual, within such a body, is at an
end. There would be nothing left to the lovers of religious liberty
but to brush the dust from their feet, to repudiate such a tyranny
and to separate from its embraces. , ‘

In the early ages of the church the first departure from the
simple doctrine of congregational independency, h 1d sacred by
'primitive’Apostolic Christianity, was by usurpations of authority
on the part of certain congregations over other congregations,
institutions and interests of the church. These usurpations were
yielded to until assumed authority gradually crystalized into im-
prescriptive right; and the first germ oi the Great Apostacy was
developed inwrlfch‘opoliz‘an Episcopacy! The independence of the
weaker was thus absorbed, and lost 1n the usurpaticns of the
stronger, until, under the process of centralization, one powerful
city church, with its learned and eloquent bishops, came to rule
over the churches and bishops of an entire kingdom or state. In
your recent attempt to assume the control of Kentucky Univer-
sity, in the name of a distinct ecclesiasticism, which you call “The

 

 

 if all

fined _

safe-
eone
st be
'pins
ored,
ction
atitu-
is at
ition

:itrol
hris~
med
t'mes,
itian
such
hop
the
or a

:les-
tion
and
rity
r W ,
; an

arty
my

the

'ity
ms,
ere
im-
vas
the
the
ful

ale

(9)

Christian Church in Kentucky,” the majority is made the apparent
instrument of usurpation, instead of some ambitious church or
bishop. The form of usurpation, however, does not the less
destroy the two doctrines with which we set out, of congregational
independence, and a limited congregational jurisdiction, on which
we base all true ideas of religious liberty.

But you assert also, inadverdently it may be, in your petitions
and demands, the supremacy of such an ecclesiasticism over the Civil
authorities of the State! The Charter of Kentucky University is a
law of the State. By common consent, the ownership and control
of the Institution is vested in the Board ofCurators, with proper
directions and limitations for the donors, to be managed rep—
resentatively for the Church of Christ. .But you claim that the
ownership and control belong to an undefined body called “The
Christian Church in Kentucky," and further, assuming that a
majority of the'congregations or members may control said body,
you undertake to supersede the authority of the Board of Curators
—the legally constituted guardians and owners of the Institution!

In view of the exercise of such ecclestiastic power, men of pru-
dence and discretion will pause before they are committed too far
to innovations upon the simple doctrines of the Church of Christ.

It is plain, however, that some of you have not properly con-
sidered this question of control in the light of the Charter. That

instrument declares, § 4:

“That the Board shall have full power to make,’0rdain, establish
and execute, or cause to be executed all such by-laws, rules and
ordinances, not inconsistent with the constitution and laws of the
United States or of this State, as they may think necessary for
the welfare of the Institution, for their own government, the good
government of the professors, instructors, tutors, agents, ofiicers
and students of the same; and generally to do all acts necessary and
proper to promote the welfare and prpsperity of the University."

Now, the donors themselves, by their acceptance of this Charter,
have parted with all “visitorial control” of the University, and
vested it 1n the corporation. How is it, then, possible that the
multitudinous congregations of the State can legally claim such a
right, even were it practicable and prudent for them to ex-
ercise it? -

V.

'But‘again—in some or" your memorials, you request or demand,
that the ofiice 0f Begem‘ be abolished. We have carefully examined
your communications in order to learn your reasons for such a
request. In the opinion of the Board, such an office is absolutely
necessary to the unity and success of the University.

We extract as follows: '

 

  

(10)

“We ask that a Presidency be established according to the pro~
visions of the original Charter.”

“We ask for the abolition of the Regency, for which no provision
has been made in the Charter.”

“We demand that the Regency be abolished, and a President
elected, as the Charter directs.”

The request is thus made apparently on the sole ground that the
office of General Superintendent, or Regent, as an agent of the Bbard,
is in violation ofthe Charter! It is sufficient to say in reply:

1. That at the time of the removal of the University from Har»
rodsburg, in 1865, no regular college was in operation save that of
the Arts and Sciences.

On the establishment of the distinct and separate “College of the
Bible”-—about the expediency of which there was no little contro-
versy among you at the time—~and of the College of Law, and in
View oi the early opening of the Afiztional Scientific College,
founded by Congress and accepted by the State, it was deemed ex-
pedient by the Board to unify these several colleges under one
general representative officer. We extract from thewrecords oi the
Board the following for your information:

“July 17th, 1865. On motion of John Gr. Allen, JOHN B. Bow—
MAN was appointed Regent oi the University under the article of
the revised By—laws and Statutes designating and defining the
general cfiice oi the Regent.”

In July, 1866, the Board, then engaged in further revising the
by-laws, unanimously agreed to make the following a law of the
University:

“The University embraces several. colleges, each under the im-
mediate government ol its own faculty and presiding officer. The
general supervision of the University, as a whole, is committed to
a Regent who is elected from among the Curators and is at officio
chairman of the ExecutichCommittee, and whose duty it is, in
connection with the Executive Committee, to see that the general
laws and statutes of the University are faithfully carried out.”

2. The Charter, § 4, provides that “the Board shall have full
power to select and employ (my Qfiicers and agents they shall deem.

r0 er.” -
P l§§ 15, it provides that certain described parties shall notify
“the President or other head of the Institution.”

This clearly recognizes the fact that the University must have a
head, or chief officer of some kind; but whether he shall be styled
“President,” “Regent,” “Chancellor” or “General Agent,” the
Charter wisely leaves to the taste orjudgment of the Board.-

The office of a general supervisor er agent is, therefore, not for-
bidden by the Charter; but, by whatever name it may be known,
the ofiice itself is both neediul and lawful in such a University as
ours—an assemblage of distinct colleges, each under the govern,»
ment of its own president and faculty.

 

 

 l 11 l
V1.

But we must take the liberty, in all candor, to declare our con-r ‘
viction that the objective point of this movement against the Re-
gency on the part of some, is not the abolition of the oifice Itself,
but the displacement of. him who now fills that office!

Some of the memorials before us clea ly betray the ulterior de-
sign of those Who have alarmed you by this cry of lawlessness on the
part of the Board. We cite you to such sentiments as those con»?
tained in some of the petitions before us:

“Let all the Curators who are disposed to uphold one 111m; rather
than the great interests of the Church of Christ, resign ”

“We request you to fill the Regency with some one in sympathy
with the Christian Church.”

“We earnestly request that to Jim. B. ,Bmcmmi be removed.’

We call your attentio =1 to the fact that, wlnle some of these-
petitions pray us to abolish the Regency as an illegal ofiice, others
urge us in effect to continue it by filling it with some other person
than the present faithful incumbent; while others again requst us-
either to abolish the ofiice or to degrade the ofiicer—~-they sceni-
indifi'erent which course we pursue.

This should he to you another demonshation of the indiscretion
of those who have attempted to make a matter of discipline in the
University an apple of discord among the pe eaceful churches of
the State!

Your requests are contradictory, and the Board, were it to sur-
render its chartered prerogative of. government to the congregan-
tional masses in the State, would be utterly unable to reconcile
and obey such conflicting mandates.

But what sort ofspirit, we inquire, is that which. has thus moved
certain partie. to e1 :citc your prejudices against Mr. Bowman?
What has he done 1n his responsible office, that he should not have
done ,or What has he nevlected to do that he shoul :l have done?

During the last 3 Ighteen years, he has been devoting himself a1—
mostexclusively to the establishment, expansion and perfection of
an Institution which he himself projected in dark and discouraging
times, amid evil prophecies, derisivc smiles, or cold and repulsitc
indifference.

The Board of Curators have watched with close and critical ob—
servation, his Whole official career, and they have, from their very
first session in 1856, time and again, teen compelled, from a sense
of justice and gratitude, and on behalf of the good citizens of our
State and brotherhood of Christians around us, to approve, en-
courage, sustain, and bless him.

We extract the following 1mm our records for your special con.
sideration :

 

  

t 1‘2 f)

Nov. 7, 1856.——It was unanimously resolved,

WHEREAS, Our excellent agent, Mr. Jno. B. Bowman, has just
reported most cheering progress in the great and good work of
permanently endowing Bacon Colleg gr,e by obtaining tor that pur-
pose, the sum of one hundred thousand dollars in addition to the
sum already on hand, therefore,

Resolved, That the gratitude of ourselves, our brethren generally
and of our common country, is due to our beloved Brother Bowman,
for the zeal, the ability, and the wonderfully disinterested benevo-
lence displayed by him in presecuting this glorious work, without
money and without price, and that we bid hi