Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1855-12-15
DRs. SMITH AND DEEMS.

|
menced DIR. Smith submitted his points, which he
proposed to prove and prefaced them with some re-
marks As we have published the charges preferred
by DIR. Deems against DIR. Smith, it is but Just that
We should also publish what DR.. Smith expects to
prove in selfdefence and against Dr. Deems. We
copy from the Petersburg Express:
| POINTS BE PROVED BY DR. VIM A. SMITH,
!. Testimony to rebut the evidence of the accus-
| ing witnesses t,-wit:
! l. In the remarks they testify made in nv ope-
ming speech before the Peterborough Conferences in
| 1854
! 2. Rebuff the account they give of the causes
which led to the raising of the Committee of settle
ment, and the further account they give of Bishop
4 Ptcrces statements about that Committee.
.. Rebut the account they give of nv remarks
before the Conference after the report of this Com
mittee was submitted to the Conference by Bishop
Pierce, Chairman of Committee and after the Con-
ference had adopted the report and by separate
vote passed DIR. Deemss character
4. Rebuff the declaration, than implied in the
remarks OF my accuSer and attempted to be proved
by the testimony of Rev. G. W. Langhorne, to-wit:
that the private Conference had with portion of
my friends, members of the Conference at Norfolk
twelve months since, IA midnight attempt to
assasslnate his DIS character submit testimony
to rebut the caumny, and to confirm Mr. Lang
horne's account of this meeting by showing, that
the meeting, its object and the statements from me
on which my friends gave their advice, were all
known to Bishop Pierce.
/ ii. propose submit direct testimony to prove
the following points:
l. That c. F. Deems is not man of veracity, for
the reasons ist That he wrote the Christopher
Duncan letter. which was in itself a great outrage
and disgrace to any gentleman in Deems relations
to the Tucker family to have written but in Deems
relations Christian Minister it was an INSURER
u6Le outrage.
3 That he has denied being the writer of this let
ter in repeated instances; or what is worse, preva
ricated about it i'll manner dSgraceful to any gen
teman, not to say Christian Minister.
g. That few evenings before the session of the
Virginia Conference S4S) the r. G. Adrocate reach
ed K. NJ. College, containing announcement by
the Rev. j. E. Edwards of Deems resignation as
Professor, on the ground Of his preference for the
pastoral work. but which announcement was in Vio-
lation of Deems asseverance to me that no such
nouncement should be made until l should be pre-
pared to announce his SucceSSor-that Prof Blanche
called his (DeemsD attention to an announcement SO
obviously premature and he " blamed" the Rev j.
E. Edwards for the publication, l. e. denied having
authorised him to make it, and affirmed that he had
only written MIN confidential letter informing him
of the fact o. his resignation.
+ That he made similar denial in the presence
of Professor d. Duncan on one occasion, and anoth-
err denial in the presence of Col. Geo. Rogers, and
Rev. II. u. Leigh, on another occasion.
B. That it was, nevertheless true that he had made
a well defined arrangement with Mr.. Edwards to
nounce his resignation-that Mr.. Edwards did not
do it until urged by Deems. who dissatisfied
with his hardness. That he distinctly acknowledge
ed in letter Mr.. Edwards that he had authorised
his announcement i'll the RichaOnG ChEistinn 1dUO-
cate and denied distinctly in the same letter,
that he had ever denied to any that he gave Ed
wards that authority question: but that he did not
vindicae Mr.. Edwards until threatened with
posture.
6. That on the 25th of December, 1913, L met him
in friendly conference on the more material points
which have stated, in the presence, (as mutual
friends, (of Rev. H. G. Leigh (now deceasedD and
Col. Geo. Rogers, of the county of MeckleIburg,
Va, land both at that time trustees of the Collcge)
that then he Inundated, by being constrained
to the reluctant admission that he the author of
the " Christopher Duncan " letter. and that he had
repeatedly denied to one of the gentlemen present,
that is, the Reverend III. G. Leigh that he was the
author-that acceded to his appeal to spare his
honor e. e. not make him responsible for his
duct, the ground of his aSseverance that he would
in reasonable time make apology to Mr.. Tucker
and family, and disabuse the minds of the members
of the n c. Conference, of the impression he had
made that he was not the author of the " Christie
pher Duncan letter; and that | waived the COM
plant in regard to the Rev. Mr.. Edwards publica-
ton the ground that he could and would satisfy
brother Edwards that he misunderstood him.
7. That he never redeemed his obligations in Ell
ther of the above named instances; but on the con-
trary, by showing letter from Rev. l.. NJ. Lee, con-
frmed his friend Gloss in the belief that he not
the author the Christopher Duncan letter and
further denied to the Rev. Mr.. Edwards that he had
made any such denial, given any such
assurance.
g. That he Deems) himself violated the agree
ment settlement Pittsboro', a few days after
the close of the Conference; and he or his friends
acting in his behalf, publicly through the secular
papers Of North Carolina, violated the settlement in
terms calculated to impicate my character. and pre-
judice the patrons of the College in North Carolina
against Inc.
Also direct testimony to the following points, to
wit:
/. That ch4rtably bore with him in two settle
ments had upon the matters between
2. That did with charitable intent forbear to
bring charges against him at his Conference in 1854,
until he constrained me to do it-as he has himself
said
g. That charitably allowed him to go before the
Committee of settlement at PittsbOro', 1854, and
make his own disclaimers and explanations in my
absence and that he used the privilege to deceive
the committee by actually making false statements.
And
a. That in my address to the students of the Col
lege spoke nothing that not strictly true; and
that both in the statements made before them, and
in any other similar statements proved to have
been before others in regard to the Pittsboro
trial and settlement was fully justified by the re-
laons sustained to the persons or parties to whom
l made the statements
In vew the refore of the showing of this testimo
ny-direct and rebutting-I claim to be entirely
Quilted that u.s. in whole and in part from his bill
of charges; and that continue to enjoy hereto
FORE the undimnished confidence of my brethren
and all the ground that this is both false and
malicious prosecution.
The Bishop prefaced the business of the meeting
with some very wise remarks to the effect that cour-
tesy between prosecutor and prosecuted would save
considerable time, &C., hint that those who were