Letter to Dudley Chase

Authors

Philander Chase

Files

Description

A circular in which Chase publishes a private letter to a friend. In the letter, he rejects the notion that he should share power with the faculty and defends his complete authority as president of the College.

Date

7-14-1831

Keywords

President, trustees, presidential power, constitution, bishop, faculty, professors, standing committee

Transcript

Circular

The following Letter was written with a view to send it in manuscript to the friend, who addressed me on the subject of its contents. But finding that I must repeat the same matter many times if I would disabuse all who had addressed me, and by their kind of inquiries and advice, had shewn they were misinformed on the same subject, I have thought myself privileged to give a circular form to a private letter as follows:--

Gambier, 14th July, 1831

Rev’d & Dear Brother, I received lately a letter from you, by which it appears that you have received information from others that I have pursued, and still intend to pursue, a course of conduct inconsistent with the rights of the professors and teachers of Kenyon College.

You throw before my mental eye, a sad picture of things, and call upon me in most earnest terms to obviate and blot out its deformities, by my future deportment.

In answer, I now beg leave to remark, that if I have done wrong, I will, to God, to the persons concerned, and to you who have so kindly offered me your christian advice, confess my fault and try to amend; and if you will be so good as to point out the particular instances in truth and fairness, I will make this reparation with sincerity and promptitude. But, as you do not even attempt to do this, alleging that your remarks are founded on report, coming, however, from “most respectable sources;” and as your statements are professedly imaginary, will you allow me a word or two in my own defence. “Audi alteram partem” is yet a good motto, although I have suffered, and still am suffering, (as it appears,) from its supposed inutility. I should not impose upon you the trouble of reading these preliminary remarks, concerning any matter of a trivial importance, or which might concern myself alone; but when I am speaking of matters which concern the vital interests of Religion and Learning, I am constrained to utter before you my most humble entreaties that you will not rashly, nor unjustly, nor prematurely, judge me. Your pen has so much of the race in it, and your powers of imagination to give it wings are so fine, that I dread the consequences, and tremble with awful forebodings whenever you may, by the force of imposing misrepresentations or mistakes, be drawn into error of judgment.

It is, as I have understood, the opinion of one of the Professors in Kenyon College, to which there has been obtained the assent of several others of the Faculty, that the President shall be governed by a majority of voices in that body, and have no negative on their proceedings, but in a case of a tie-vote.

This, as I have apprehended the matter, is their opinion while the contrary is mine; and I might further state, that as it respects myself, this is the whole point as issue.

As reasons for the stand, which was taken against me on this question, it was urged that “in the multitude of counsellors there is safety;” and that there were objections to the principle of throwing so much power into the hands of our Bishops, as is the case in some of our Conventions. On the other hand it was maintained that this is not a case to which the text of Holy Scripture quoted seems applicable. It appears unreasonable that a person having arrived at the age and experience, and possessing the qualifications which our Canons require in every person before he can be consecrated to the Episcopal office, should have no more weight in council than an ordinary tutor in the Grammar School. And it appears still more unreasonable when we take into consideration that even this weight he cannot have, but in the event of a tie in a casting vote, which in the nature of things can happen but seldom.

This being the case, may we not ask: Was it intended by the Laws of God as set forth in Holy Scripture, and practised on by our Primitive Church to reduce the Bishop of any Diocese, especially when presiding ex officio over a literary Institution, whose government and welfare are interwoven with the prosperity and being of the Diocese, to such a condition as this? I think not. The principle is absurd in any case: especially in those instances which concern his station. There might be: – yea there must often be presented questions, which involve not only the prosperity of the Intitution, but his Episcopal character, to be decided by the faculty; and could it be intended by any law divine or human, ecclesiastical or secular, to place the Bishop, (because a President of that Institution, wherein a multitude of Counsellors are necessary for safety,) in a condition in which he must experience such evils; that especially of seeing his professional rights taken from him, and measures pursued which, in his opinion, would be destructive to the best interests of the College; and all this without any power to stop proceedings, even so long and so much as to appeal to the Trustees; except what is involved in a casting vote, in the event of a tie, which would but seldom occur?

As to any objections founded on the fear of giving the Bishops too great power I see no manner of reason to call them up in this case; for it is a case in which, so far as human foresight reaches, all abuses are provided for. I have said and now reiterate with emphasis, that I never had any wish to give to the President of Kenyon College, any unreasonable power; especially such as would, in its exercise, deprive the other Professors of their privileges. As their ecclesiastical Father nand Friend, I trust, I should be the first to see them righted, were they so abused by others: and should despise myself were I to find in my heart so cruel a sentiment.

In perfect consistency with this state of feeling it has been and is maintained by me that by the expression in the Constitution of our Seminary “The President shall have a general superintendence of the Institution,” must be understood that he nerve suffer any thing to take place in it; much less any measure to be established by rule which in his opinion shall have a destructive tendency; and that when such appears to be the case by the exercise of any principles or measures, it is his duty to stop proceedings, not by any unlimited power, but by an appeal to the Trustees for their decision in any important matter involving the rights & privileges of the parties, i. E. of the Teachers as well as of himself. This was the essence of the rule which I proposed, which if agreed on, all would have been , so far as my feelings were concerned, conducted in harmony. Let the President of this Institution have power to negative the councils of the Teachers till the next meeting of the Trustees: which meeting of the said Trustees by the Constitution MUST BE, whenever two of the members of the Standing Committee of the Diocese shall see fit to request the Bishop to do it. This was and is the substance of what I wished and still wish to be the rule. And is not the door of abuse,-- of all possible abuse of Presidential power here closed? When the President does wrong the Trustees can control him, or nullify his proceedings; these Trustees are by the Constitution chosen every three years. Is not this sufficiently guarded? On one side it is. On the other that of making the President a cypher in council and destroying his salutary influence, there ought also to be some salutary guards; and it is my serious opinion that well meaning persons ought carefully to guard against extremes on the one hand as well as the other. And those who object to the rule I have proposed should keep this in mind when they find themselves inclined to be jealous of a power thus under the complete control of the Trustees and eventually of the diocese itself. For it is worth or repetition, should the President so far forget himself as wilfully to do wrong or seriously to err, even with good intention, in such wise as to require an immediate remedy, that remedy is always at hand: for the Constitution says, the President shall immediately call the Trustees together at the instance of the members of the Standing Committee.

Kenyon College is like other Colleges in some respects, and unlike all in many other respects. One fundamental principle in which it differs from all others is, that the whole Institution is Patriarchal. Like Abraham on the plain of Mamre it hath pitched its tent under the trees of Gambier hill, it hath its flocks and its herds, and its different families of Teachers, Scholars, Mechanics and Labourers; all united under one head, pursuing one common interest and receiving their maintenance and food from one common source, the funds and farms of the College. This Patriarchal establishment must, it is obvious, have a Father, & that Father must be ruin. Guard his power against abuses, but for the common interest preserve it entire. In its exercise it must count. So long as the Trustees (who possess the power by correcting abuses) are elected every three years, and can meet whenever they please to investigate all subjects of complaint, there is safety. This is the multitude of counsellors mentioned in Holy Scripture and thus interpreted, I heartily join issue in its free effect. This multitude of Counsellors are Episcopalians in the Diocese of Ohio in communion with the P. E. Church in the United States of America. These choose every three years the Trustees of Kenyon College, who meet whenever necessary and take counsel, advise, direct and control the President of Kenyon College. If here be no SAFETY I know not where it is.

You must excuse me very dear Brother, from animadverting on those parts of your letter which seemed to insinuate that you had heard from respectable sources, that I had at the expense of charity tried to carry erroneous plan of my own into execution. All I would remark is – that on this and other occasions I have tried to avoid offence, and whereinsoever I have failed in my intentions, I have never been unwilling to ask forgiveness, and the same would I attempt to verify in my close of this letter. If in it I have said any thing that is not agreeable but offensive to your sentiments and feelings, it was unintentional, and with your accustomed goodness I hope you will forgive.

Your faithful Friend and Brother in the Lord.

Recommended Citation

Chase, Philander, "Letter to Dudley Chase" (1831). Philander Chase Letters. 899.
https://digital.kenyon.edu/chase_letters/899