THE CHAIR OF PHILOSOPHY.

Evening Star, Issue 6806, 21 January 1886, Page 1

THE CHAIR OF PHILOSOPHY.

The following is the communication from the Church Board of Property to the Synod on the subject of the vacant Chair of Mental and Moral Philosophy:— Dunedin, January 19, 1886. At a meeting of the Church Board of Property held this day, inter alia the Board of Church Property regret the action of the Synod in taking advantage of the Board’s communication in reference to the measures to be adopted for securing the best possible competition for the occupancy of the Chair of Mental and Moral Philosophy to bring forward candidates, putting the Board in the position of accepting the nomination sirnpt idler, without the exercise of any judgment on their part. They therefore feel compelled to protest against the course adopted by the Synod, and, while on this occasion accepting the nomination, they do so with the express statement that this will not be considered by them as a precedent to be followed in future appointments to chairs, in connection with which there is a distinct responsibility laid upon them by the Presbyterian Church Lands Act, 1860, and resolve to appoint the Rev. William Salmond, D.D., to the Chair of Mental and Moral Philosophy in the University of Otago at a salary of L6OO per annum and class fees, for a period of three years, subject

thereafter to six months’ notice on either side, and direct that notice of this appointment be sent to the Synod for their eoneunenee, and also the University Council. It was further remitted to Rev. Dr Stuart and Mr Keith Ramsay to give any explanations that may he desired. Extracted from minutes of Church Board by E. Smith, Church factor and clerk. The following deliverance was adopted by the Synod in reply to the Board s appointment of Dr Salmond and its request for the concurrence of the Synod :-*■ That the Synod acknowledges the receipt of the intimation of Dr Salmond s appointment to the Chair of Mental and Moral Philosophy, and thanks the Board for its courtesy and promptness in dealing with the Synod s recommcndation. , . ~ That the Synod hereby concurs m the appointirfcnt of Dr Salmond to the Chair of Mental and Moral Philosophy, in so far as in accordance with the powers of the Board and the regulations of the Synod. , , The Synod regrets that the Board has attached to the appointment of Dr Salmond a condition that is ultra vires of the Board, illegal hi itself, and which it is not in the power of the Board to carry into effect. While the Board has power to appoint an occupant of a chair instituted by the Synod, it can do so only in accordance with regulation adopted by the Synod in terms of section 14 of the Church Lands Act, If-bo. With a view to the establishment of the above chair, and the enabling ’of the Board to appoint a professor thereto, the Synod passed the necessary regulation. Under that regulation Mr Macgrcgor was appointed, holding his office on terms that appointed him to the chair as other professors wore appointed, including those appointed by the Synod —viz., Mr Brown and Mr Shand, who hold their respective professorships ail viliim aut culpaiii, unless they resign, as Professor Macgrcgor has done, who held his office as professor on the same terms as do tho others appointed to chairs in the University of Otago, No other regulation has been adopted by the Synod than that under which Professor Macgregor was appointed. Under that same regulation, with which tho Board cannot intermeddle, the Board can only make t,its appointment of a successor to Mr Macgregor. Appointed under that regulation his successor enters the chair on the same terms as did the late occupant. The proposal of the Board now under consideration violates that regulation, and is therefore contrary to the Act which creates the Board and empowers it to act. In these circumstances the Synod confidently expects that the Board will at once withdraw the conditions which it has attached to Dr Salmond’s appoint-ment-conditions which, in the opinion of this Synod, ai-o ultra vires of the Board. The Synod is prepared to consult with the University Council anent tho tenure of office suggested by the Board with reference to all future appointments. That the above resolutions be forwarded to the Board, and that it be requested to meet with the Synod’s committee and confer with regard to them. Last evening the clerk read a letter from the Church Board of Property, stating that the Board had determined to adhere to their former decision regarding the three years’ tenure. The power of the Board having been called in question, the Board had consulted their solicitor (Mr W. D. Stewart), and they enclosed a copy of his opinion as follows: , Dunedin, 20th January, 188b. Under section 12 of the Presbyterian Church of Otago Lands Act, 1860, it is provided that all professors appointed to any literary chair endowed as therein mentioned “shall be appointed and removable by the trustees with the concurrence of tho Synod.” The trustees (now the Board) are the contracting parties with a professor, and to them he is entitled to look for payment of his salary. I am of opinion that the trustees would be justified in declining to make an appointment which might in course of time involve them in financial or other difficulties. It seems to me, therefore, that the trustees, liaving regard to the state of the funds likely to be at their disposal, may decline to appoint a professor the duration of whose tenure of office would extend beyond what they considered a reasonable Synod, by an interim Act or regulations, have the exclusive power of determining how the education fund shall be applied; but these regulations, although they may fix the amount payable to a professor, cannot restrict or qualify the power of the trustees to decide what, under the circumstances in which they aro placed, would be a proper appointment to make either as to the fitness of the candidate or the duration of his appointment. Under the Act it was intended that a professor should hold office only while lie possessed the joint confidence of the trustees and the Synod—that is to say, if he forfeited the confidence of both the trustees and the Synod, they could exercise the power of removal conferred on them by section 12. I am inclined to the opinion that the present trustees and the existing members of the Synod cannot enter into a contract which would deprive their respective successors in office of the power of removal should such a proceeding be found desirable or necessary, A case involving a somewhat similar question as to the right of removal was decided in England some years ago. Dr Hayman, tho head-master of the Rugby School, brought an action against the governing body of that school for what ho alleged was a wrongful removal from office, under an Act ■which stated that all the masters should “be removable at the will and pleasure of the trustees, or tho major part of them. The Court decided that the governing body of the school had absolute power to dismiss tho headimaiter of the school ”at their pleasure without assigning any reason, and that so long as the power was fairly and honestly exercised the Court womld not interfere. Dr Hayman had beeu appointed by a prior governing body in existence before the Act came Into force, and whose power of dismissal was subject to restrictions. Although the facts of that case are not similar, the principles enunciated in the judgment of the Court apply to the language of section 12. The Court admitted the apparent severity of the Act under which Dr Hayman was removed, but added that “the power is mitigated hy the appointment of men of high position, honor, and integrity as members of tho governing body, by whom it is assumed that aucli power, arbitrary as it is in terms, would not be harshly, unjustly, or inconsiderately exercised, ” I think that, by way of precaution, the appointment should be made subject to the Synod keeping alive the interim Act under which the salary is authorised to bo paid. It is true that the Synod must concur in any appointment made. However, it is not an incorporated body, and it is not clear how far tho Synod can legally hind cither its present or future mcmIt'is not absolutely clear what the effect of a general appointment under the Act would he, but if the trustees, for financial or other reasons, consider it expedient (subject to tue provisions of section 12) to limit the term of the appointment, they have, in my opinion, a right to do so. IV. Donate Stewart. The Rev, Air Bannerman considered that the opinion would not satisfy anyone who was acquainted with the facts of the case, and he would move that a committee be appointed to obtain legal advice on the matter. The Board were to blame for not intimating before to the Synod that their funds were likely to be insufficient. The Rev. Mr Finlayson moved—“ That the communication from the Board, together with the legal opinion from the Board’s legal adviser, be received; and that the Synod record its protest against the decision of the Board.” This was seconded by the Rev. Mr Kirkland. The Rev. Mr Lothian proposed a motion providing for doing away with the Chair of Natural Philosophy, remarking that, seeing that there was likely to be a scarcity of funds, it would be much better for them to keep the old chairs in existence. The motion was ruled to be incompetent. The Rev, Mr Will said the Board had acted injudiciously hj) determining to abide by the decision, but it eea.ld in no way affect the Professor, so long as the Synod protested against it; and he believed the new Professor would be quite prepared to face all the liability. The Synod could protest, ana matters would just go on as if the Boards resolution never existed. Tbo Board could keep the resolution on their bocks, and the Synod could keep the protest on their books against it. , Mr Ramsay pointed out that if the bynod refused their consent there was a danger of the Board not making the appointment at all. Ti , . The Rev. Mr Finlayson : It s made. Mr Ramsay said in that case the Board might be unable to carry it out. Professor Salmond had said in his speech the other day that the new rule should come from the University Council. He (Mr Ramsay) had the information from one of the Council members that they had Agreed to the three years 1 tenure in connection with all future considered tint t step had been taken at the beginning in .trying to “ put the cart before the hors^,

and this action had caused great irritation. He did not wonder at the trustees standing up for themselves, and he thought the Synod should fall in with them, for the latter deserved humbling. Mr Will had written to the ‘ Times ’ asking it to show flow the Synod hail acted illegally, and in reply had caught it, and no mistake. He hoped that an amicable arrangement would be come to now. Ur Salmond very much regretted the controversy which the trustees had raised, for ho held -that they were to blame in the matter. So far as he was concerned he did not suppose that it would matter in the end whether ho was appointed under a life tenure or under this tenure. He knew it would not affect anyone unless they turned out dishonorable, bad, and incompetent, and he had not the least intention of turning out that. He did not expect there would be any financial difficulty either. At the same time he very deeply regretted that the trustees had not seen their way heartily to acquiesce in the wish of the Synod. He regretted that they had been misled by such vile law as that which had been supplied them by their legal advisers. He had never spent sixpence on lawyers in all his life, and he did not intend to do so ; but if ever he did require a legal opinion, he knew where he would not go for it. Mr Ramsay objected to any member referring to the legal opinion of the Board's solicitor as “ vile law.” Dr Salmon i) replied that it was bad law ; though, using that expression, he did not mean that it was bad in a moral sense—it was the intellectual blundering that he referred to. If the view taken by it was correct the sooner legislation stepped in the bettor. The power should not be left in the hands of either the Synod or the Board for a single day longer. He would not accept office if Mr Uownic Stewart’s law was right, and he was placed in that way at the disposal of the Synod and the trustees. But he did not believe that to be correct. He felt so perfectly clear in this matter that he would be quite content to abide by the motion of Mr Finlayson. It was just as clear as light. The trustees could do nothing without the concurrence of the Synod. This protest declared that the Synod would never give them the power. Further, he wished to be as well assured as he could be of what Dr Stuart had said, that a professor once appointed could not be touched in his capacity except by the University Council. If that was the case, how did it stand with regard to this legal document ? If he was to be under the control and at the disposal of so many bodies, tossed about like a feather or ball, he would have nothing to do with this business. He did not, as he had before remarked, believe this to be the case, but there was confusion somewhere, and it should be put right. If this protest was carried he felt his path clear, and other things being right, that would be no obstacle in his way.—(Applause.) Mr W. D, Stewart said that though only consulted in the morning with reference to the matter, he had given it his best consideration, and he had so much confidence in the opinion he arrived at that he was willing to submit it to any respectable solicitor in the city. The Synod, he held, had no right to make a regulation except as to the distribution of the funds, and they certainly had no right to fix the tenure of office. The Synod had no right to fix the tenure of office by the interim Act. The Synod had power to fix the salary at L6OO, LBOO, or LI,OOO, and so long as the Church Board had funds they would have to obey that decision, but anything done by the Synod beyond the mere distribution of that fund would be held to be ultra j aim. During the discussion that had taken place in the Synod he had not failed to notice some measure of selfishness that rather surprised him. It would, he thought, have been more becoming on the part of the Moderator if he had refrained.from taking any part in that discussion,—(Hear, hear.) The Mayors of the city when the question of their salary was discussed retired gracefully, and the Moderator, he thought, should have acted in like manner.

Dr Salmond said he did not think they could say he had been other than impartial in the part he had taken—(applause)—and he had retired from the chair when wishing to speak. Mr Stewart did not complain of his conduct in the chair, but when out of it-he took part in the discussion. When a discussion was coming on between two parties he thought it was out of the question for the occupant of that chair to step forward and state what terms he wished.—(Applause). Dr Salmond : I did not do that. Mr Stewart : Then my understanding seems to be failing me here. On the first evening I understood the Moderator to state that he looked to this Synod to act jealously towards him, so that he would not lose by the appointment. Dr Salmond ; Certainly. Mr Stewart continued that if that was not an appeal to the Synod he did not know what was. But that was beside the question. He would, however, point out this : that whilst the Moderator endeavored to lecture others, he should first take the mote out of his own eye. Dr Salmond said he regretted that he had used such strong language in criticising Mr Stewart’s opinion. He felt that he had gone too far then, and he was very sorry for it. However, he did not accept the opinion as a correct statement, Mr Stewart said that if he had been placed in the Moderator’s position he would have refrained from taking one single part in that discussion from beginning to end. It was unseemly, to say the least of it. While the Moderator was acting as chairman he (Mr Stewart) did not call into question a single word he had said. It was plain that if the Synod did not concur in the recommendation of the Board nothing could be done, for it was quite obvious that the appointment must be a joint appointment. The Rev. Mr Davidson moved that the Synod concur in the recommendations of the Church Board of Property. The Rev, J. M. Sutherland seconded tho motion. Dr Stuart said that he rose to speak with much reluctance ; it might be that age was making him more nervous than he used to be, but after the manner in which he had been treated there that year he had been almost silenced, and had almost resolved to malic this appearance at the Synod his last appearance there,—(Cries of “No, no.”) He must say that he felt very much the way in which he had been taken to task about opening his mouth on the matter. He regretted that he was not in accord with some members of the Synod in this matter, but lie had an opinion as a trustee, and also as a member of the Synod, and as such he was prepared to support Mr Davidson’s motion. He had been surprised to find the clerk of that court—a paid official, and one whose business it should be to keep the court right —attributing to the Church trustees motives which any honorable man would abhor.— (Hear, hear, and applause.) Mr B,\nni:kc.ln said he had imputed no dishonorable motives to the [Board. He had only said-that the question of financial difficulty seemed to be an afterthought on their part. Dr Stuart continued that it was not fair of tho clerk of Synod, who should be next to the Moderator in preventing aspersions on the honor of any member, to suppose that the trustees were capable of an afterthought to justify an act of theirs that had occurred si;: weeks ago. But he would pass away from that, anfl express the hope that the Synod would be ja»t and straightforward and wise in concurring in tills suggestion regarding the tenure of the professorsiiip; and so settling the matter. The trustees had groat faith in Dr Salmond, and he was sure that while ho had health and strength he would faithfully discharge his duties. But he (Dr Stuart) deeply regretted that he had allowed himself to look at this situation. He honored him in the work he had beeu doing for years, but bad told him that he could iiop on that ground support his nomination to the Chair of Mental and Mora) Philosophy, He wished him to rebate where he wp.3, in a position where he had given satisfaction to the students and all attached to‘ blip. It was only the other day that fie (the had a letter from one of his pwpijs lamenting the that he was going to vacate hjslpreaent position. But he had made his choice, and fie had a perfect right to make it. Mr Ramsay said the trustees were very desirous to see Dr Salmond appointed to the chair, but they could not complete the

appointment if the Synod did not agree to these conditions. The Rev. Mr Ross suggested that a division he avoided by the proposers and seconders of the motions conferring and bringing up a definite resolution. The Rev. Mr Bokhie agreed with the legal opinion, and hoped the Synod would agree to the trustees’ recommendation. They had made the trustees swallow a very large pill already, and the Synod could now afford to swallow this very little one. He hoped the Synod would not stultify itself, but would confirm the appointment, though for himself he almost thought that some insuperable difficulty would arise to keep their Moderator in the Theological Chair.

Dr Salmond said that he had often regretted making a speech—and if others did not do the same thing they ought to —but lie had seldom regretted a speech more than the one he had made that night. He specially regretted the harsh attack he had made, notonMrStewart, buton his document. Not that he agreed with that law yet, but there was a difference between a man and his document. He believed that practically this three years’ tenure would not affect him, and if he accepted the office he would regard himself as exclusively under the jurisdiction of the University Council.—(Hear, hear.) The question of tenure would therefore weigh very little one way or the other in determining his decision. There was one point that had nearly escaped his notice in the excitement of the evening. That was the reference that had been made to his interfering in the debate. He had so far conscientiously abstained from saying a word except in so far as to prevent his being laid open to the charge of misleading the Synod, or of leading the Synod to take a leap in the dark. He had not spoken on the question in the abstract at all, but only so far as he himself was a factor in the case. Air Bloc moved that the Synod simply receive the communication from the trustees. The previous resolution of the Synod, he said, covered all the ground, and there was no need for another motion at all. On a vote being taken, Mr Begg’s motion was rejected in favor of Mr Davidson’s motion by 27 to 10 votes. Mr Davidson’s motion was then put against Mr Finlayson’s and carried by 28 votes to 19. Dr Salmond said he did not know what to say at that juncture. There were (man, cial matters to be considered, and his connection with the widows’ and orphans’ fund and the aged ministers’ fund. He would like to have a committee appointed to confer with him in these matters before giving his final answer. The suggestion was agreed to. The Rev. Mr Bannkkman tabled the following protest:—“ That the Act of 1866, which has defined with great exactness the duties of the Church Board of Property, nowhere gives any power to the Board in connection with the professorial chairs, save to appoint, with the concurrence of the Synod, the occupants of the chair. The Act gives the Board no power to select a chair under which an appointment can be made, or to determine the basis on which the appointment is to be made. On the other hand, the Act strictly enjoins that the application of the education fund shall be applied by the Board on the basis of the regulations made by this Synod. Under the regulation made by the Synod there is nothing that makes the limit of tenure adopted by the Board a condition of the appointment, and such limitation being made on the part of the Board is virtually the making of a regulation which belongs to the Synod, and not to the Board, according to the Act, whilst the concurrence,of the Synod to the adoption of such a regulation as has been adopted by the Board is virtually to make the interim Act contrary to the Act of I860.”