The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1854-06-09

1ESSfS. LiIiOTS: Circumstances seem 10 cou-
ncl me 10 present the following correspondence i"
inc public 10 defence of my reputation and position
in the Church. On the IOrh Of May the Rev.
Prof Ship of the University Of No/H Carolina
heinz a delegate from the South Carolina Con-
ference presented to the General Conference OF
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South then III
Session in Columbus, Ga, paper touching The
RoupAary between the North Carolina, and South
Carolina Conferences, which was referred 10 the
Committee on Boundaries. The document turned
out 10 be a letter. in regard to delegates expenses,
consisting Of very few lines and followed by
long postscript | give the postscript entire.
Rev. j. NJ Bradley, preacher in charge of Charlotte
Circuit. - he Rev A. NJ. Shpp.
"P s. Ga lie euainct of Boundaries OF the Con-
ferenccs. there Is some interest felt here by few.
In the circuit Bro. Lee is busy in getting petitions
signed by such he can Influence to have the
circuit transferred to the \. G.. Conference; this
he is doing according TO Bro. Decms's suggestion
to hin, sc~rCtIY. without letting the preachers
know H.; aud | expect the petitions represent the
circuit as desiring such change generally. where.
as but few Of the people know that any such
matter is agitatrd nor has It Deen talked of in the
circuit only BY a few in three four Societies,
and then there many against 1t as for i,
except IN two places where Bro Lee has been gi-
taling this subject, in exparre manner for the
last 3 or 4 years. But The wish of the has
not been consulted on this subject all, and if
were rid of abnur two restless spirits that sub
irct all would be at peace. In Charlotte, Bro.
Farrow informs me that ALL except two or three.
desire To remain they are.
''As to Bro. Deems, his course is not of that dig
niiieJ character that we would expect from him :;
he writes 20 Bro. Farrow in reference to the mat
ter of transfer of territory, 1T IL Il matter that
the people have no voice in : and to Bro. Lee he
ference on the subject aud nor let tn" preachers
know it, lis drift YOU may nj glance is To
gag the Charlotte people. who he knows wish To
remain they are, and to encourage Bro. Lee to
get up petitions amongst such as would agree TO n
transfer. You may show This 10 the committee on
Boundaries, If you see fit. Signed.
J. NJ. BRADLEY"
al certify that The foregoing is true copy OF
the entire = letter from J. NJ. Bradley to Rev. A.
NJ ShIpp, dated Charlotte, N. c., May >. 1851.
"TIIOS. O. SUMMERS,
Sec G"nI- Conf. NJ. T.. Church, South"
"CoIumbus, Ga, May 81, 1851
have omitted the letter rs not important.
call special attention IL the fact that the word
secretly i itaIiciScd by Mr.. Bradley self, and
the words "wIrh"ut letting the preachers know it, :"
nre placed by himself in quotation marks To midi
cate that they the words in my letter TO ID. NJ.
Lee, E~q. When it became known tina, paper
representing me acting with dupcjrv was in
possession of the Committee Boundaries | ad-
dressed letter to ID. VI. Lee, Esq, of Mecken-
burg. Y. C., of which have no copy and received
The following reply:
David VI. Lee, Esq, 10 Charles F. Deems, of date
May Is, 1>5l.''
"DEAa SIR: Your letter of the IIth instant,
has lust been received. | never received letter
from yuu stating that the people of Chnroite Cir
car might get up petitions The subj OF houn-
dari"S, Without The know ledge of the p:rachers.-
You wish To answer the three following ques-
tons. VIZ:
/. Did you Or. Drcms) suggest TO me ID. NJ
Ley to prtilinm til" General Conference ! | an
swcr, yot nercr did, This thing was suggested
To me, and To others, more than four years ago,
by the 0ctiou Of tie So"ih Car0lina Conference. if
| mistake not, and by the action of a Quarterly
Conference held for Charlotte circuit Just before
the LIST General Conference. OF this am GER
tain; Tor he p. f. took IA vote neither we would
remain in the s &. Conference, or be transferred
the n. &. Conference. and | recoiIrc very well,
and others might gs'ca''"cr il too that voted with
upliltcd hand 70 e. transferred to the n C.. Con-
ference.
=. Did | ID. NJ. Leg n: have petitions out be-
fore | ever received Il line from you Or. Drems)
upon any subject? | answer that have letter
lying hctnrc m" ol yours, dated Oct. 6, IS5
in answer to one wrote YOU about obtaining a
female teacher for my school. There is
word about petition, boundary, or any such thing,
in It, The :irSi Of our petitions were gotten up in
April, the day they were written, the day the
first signature was pa, down, | cannot now rcrol-
lect. think there may he petition IN Nav.
In; am confident that the form was written out
and some of them al least finished before the arri.
val Of your t'cr. Bu; this there is no uncertainty
ahOat-thIt the thing WAS resolved on four wears
aTn.
>. DID yoT Or. Dncm>) ever suggest secret
mode ct action ! | answer. vOH never did 10 me-
nor To any one else To my knowledge nor any
Oh"r KIND of mode. And further say, that as
far rs my kNnwieigr OF the transaction gon<. there
has been m secret IN 'j. q! action, nor do be-
lI"vc thcr" has been any. The views Of some Of
Us wrr" known 10 tn preachers four wears ago
"nd h1V" all along since been expressed when oc-
cnSInn required.
have rerelyrd only three letters from vou,
Oct l6. 1851, April 10. 1872. and MY IL, IsJI
April 10, l~52, WIS Ia reply Ia one | wrnt,. YOU
| read 10 Bro. B-adiey.Ihc portion referred to hv
him. read 1t correctly To him, and read il to
contradict what he said Bro. FIrrow had told him.
that YOU had written To the church in Charlotte in
answer to their letter, VIZ: that y1u deaicI tic
I'"DPts HE righ To pctifiDg.
believe have now answered YOUR letter I, /
has been don" ia haste therefore beg the proper
allowance. Yours, &C., respectfully.
ID. NJ. LEE"