STUDENTS VS. FACULTY.

There are very few students who have the courage to appeal to the courts of law when they consider that they have been wronged by the faculty of the institution to which they belong. Several cases of this sort have occurred, however, within the past two months. One of these, mentioned in our columns lately, was decided as follows: "The case of the students of Madison University against authorities of the college in regard to some extra charges, has been decided against the students."

The other case to which we refer, and which occasioned considerable comment at the time, was decided against a young man, Hawley by name, who applied for admission to the Indiana State Agricultural College, better known as the Purdue University. He tendered the required fees, affirmed that he was in all respects a fit person to be admitted to the institution, which he declared was maintained by donations from the General and State Governments, a tax-payer of which he was. Mr. Hawley had previously been a student at the university, and at the close of the term last spring had received an honorable dismissal. When he renewed his application for membership in September last the question was asked him if he had not, since his withdrawal from the college, connected himself with a Greek-letter society. His reply was that he had, and that he was then a member in good standing. The faculty thereupon called his attention to a regulation of the college, adopted by the trustees, wherein it was expressly set forth that no student at Purdue of the college should be connected with any Greek college society under a penalty of a forfeiture of the class promotion at the close of the term and of an honorable dismissal from the institution. In Hawley's case the faculty asked that he sign a pledge promising to withdraw from all active connection with the Greek society during such time as he remained at Purdue University. Hawley refused to sign the proposed obligation, or any other that compelled his withdrawal from the society, and thereupon the president declined to receive him.

Hawley, through his attorneys, filed the necessary papers asking for an alternative mandate requiring the faculty to show cause why he was denied admission, or else permit him to enter college. This complaint was afterward amended, wherein the plaintiff alleged that he was excluded upon the ground of his refusal to take the obligation prescribed. The faculty based their defence on the claim that the board of trustees and the faculty had the right to enact and enforce rules, prohibiting the existence of Greek-letter societies in their college. The plaintiff claimed that the rule in question was one that was unreasonable, and could not be legally enforced, as its tendency was to abridge the freedom of thought and action of individuals. The decision of Judge Vinton was delivered on Saturday morning, the entire bar being present to hear his rulings. The opinion was quite lengthy, and went over all the ground, and was replete with quotations from decisions bearing on the subject. The gist of the decision may be gleaned from the following summing up :

That the board of trustees are clothed with the power to make all rules, by-laws, and regulations required or proper to conduct or manage Purdue University; if the board have the power, it is presumed that the faculty are acting by their authority; in addition to the powers exercised by the faculty under the authority of the board, they (the faculty) have certain inherent and necessary powers as teachers. They stand in many respects in loco parentis; the making of the rule in question, forbidding a student to hold active connection with a secret Greek college fraternity is within the general powers of the board and faculty, is not in violation of the constitution of Indiana, nor of any act of congress in relation to agricultural colleges, nor of any legislative enactment, and, unless unreasonable, is valid; courts have the power to review the action of the board and faculty in certain cases, but can only do so where the power conferred on them is abused; an unreasonable by-law is invalid; but, before a court can declare a by-law void for unreasonableness, such unreasonableness must be demonstrably shown. It must be plainly and palpably unreasonable; in prosecutions to force or apply by-laws, courts will give them a reasonable construction with a view to sustaining them; the rule or by-law in question, viewed by the light of the circumstances and the law applicable in such cases, cannot be declared void for unreasonableness; the matter sought to be stricken out, and which, for the purpose of the motion to strike out, must be taken as true, does not render the rule in question invalid, nor have any legal effect upon its validity, nor any legal effect upon the validity of the complaint, and therefore ought to be stricken out.