, 1864-11-19
TIE Observation-Disclosures
CONTROVERSY,
ANOTHER LETTER. FROM JUDGE
LAWRENCE.
Significant Letters from Rev. Mr..
Cracraft and a G. Fiske, Esq,
Of Ga1esburg.

REILLY OF JUDGE LAWlENCE
TO the Right Reverend Henry J. Whttehousc
Bishop Of the Diocese OF Illinois
SIR: do not propose to answer ia eztenso
your letter published in the TRIBuHEof the12th
inst desire merely to re-state tue issues
between us, in order that our readers may see
how remote from those issues 's your laonred
Fe,mit mc first, however, to congratulate
you On the improved tone Of your. corrcs-
pondence. The snpcrcilious bearing and e.
edfhrdya style Of your FIRST letter you have
wisely, laid aside. You have doubtless learned
TINT in controversies like this, there are
tb1ows to be taken us well as olowsto give"
hope the lesson may be worth your rame'n-
Tic greater part Of your last letter is de-
voted to II discussion Of the question whether
the Canon which giyes>a clergyman, remov-
ing int9 another p9sese sla months xitnln
applies to such cases as that Of Dr.. Cracraft.
I understand you to say that it only applies
to clergymen who remove into another .DlO-
cese foT the purpose Of following secular pnr-
suits, and that, # they remove With intent to
continue to act as clerCymen, they must Pre-
gin to preach. You say, "Apart from a1l
questions Of parochial relations and diocesan
franchises, Dr. C1ncrnft by that clause IVES re-
Quired to present Letters Dimissory a. 1iring
On his fdrm," (Thc italics arc mine.} I ina
| gine this viii be new and astounding
| reading Of the Canons to most Of your
| Prcsby tcrs. For what did Dr.. Cracraft
! require letters dimlssory as living on his
| fsr1ns'' Are they needful to enable him to
I reap the abundant harTe Of his fields! What
| sort of discipline would you administer to q
gentleman .Tho had been aclergyman in Ohio,
but had come toreside in Illinois simply rs q
| farmer, because he did not choose to present
you these letterss Would you write him,
threatening to publicly admonish' him, Of
forbiddinE him to gather his crops, or feed
his cattle, until he had acquired Economical
residence?' Don't you think be would pua
in plea to the jurisdiction Can It be seri
ousl1 pretended that Clergyman coming
from Ohio to live in Illinois, Us q private gen
tleman, must present Letters dimissory tc
you within six months, or else be liable to be
publicly .admonished By you as guilty: Of
s'c1ime or misdcmcanor" within the meaning
| of the canons
But YOU are too acute not TO sec that al
your laborcd argument In regard to the Isl,
1uonths'' is entirely beside tie real controyer
s., ard propose simply to state the mail
questions again, and then leave the mattcl
without further argument.
/ You have administered two distinct Kind
Of discipline to Dr.. Cracraft, under two dis
tinct Canons. Under Canon III, you hav'
threatened to silence and admonish lin if ht
should continnc to o1iciatc in Grace Church
Under Canon Il, you have rcnanded him t
Ohio for trial, upon formal complaint mad
10 YOU, that he bad improperly discussed po
litfcal subjects in the pulpit. 1,hisis SO statet
in your first letter addressed to nc. Ton
action undar Canon III, was taken because hi
| had not presented his Letters Dimissory
Now. stated in my letter that he had beer
officiating SIX months and two days, SO tina
on my own Interpretation, hc had violated
the later Of Canon ], in regard to Letter
Dimfssory. Iwas thus accurate in regard t.
time, in order to show how slight, as q matte
Of fact, had been the inflnction, and in orde
to infer the real antmus Of your action.
But so far as the construction Of Canon III
under which you acted, is CONCERNED. 1t mat n!
or six days, within which to present his Let
tcrs. The simple question which raised va
this; Il the 1ni1ure to present the Letter
either within, or beyond, six months, "crirn
or misdcrncanor,' within the meaning Of Cano
III, unless such failure is contumaclous or II
such contumacious intent, aud infitct the di.
cipline, without first calling upon the clergJ
man for explanation or defense? These wer
the questions under that Canon, and thes
questions you have barely touched.
The question under Canon II was: IA
under charge Of involving hts character
without some preliminary examination and
p,isra. facie case made2 In your first 1ette
You seek to rid yourself Of oil censure in Ii
matter by the following language: WIN
possiLle responsibility did this impose upo
he Of forming any Judgment, making an
inquiry, or taking any test1monys'' and ~
ther on, ~ have no knowledge Of what b
said. or what -he did - and again, 81 neyt
heard the specific language, nor heard Il
testimony even prina .fdcie; = and finally, q
had not even private opinion On the sui
ject." fastened upon this language On
showed beyond the power OF denial, now q
| rectly opposed it all was to the duty Th1c
the Canon required you to perform betor
remanding DR.. Cracraft to Ohio tor trial,
And now, how do you seek 70 exlf1ca
yourself! I quote again from the fourth co
umn Of your last letter: "The Pri7aa .5dt
. evidence Was sufficient to amount to probab
correctness Ind duty to perform Jt
may call 1t judicial; do not; before
mand, 1t is to determine whether the oticns
alleged arc such as q clergyman may bc IT.
for; whether there is reasonable prooaoat
= that hc did commit them, and whether pape
| and other testimony are OF reasonable validit
r This, and more than this, owing to the natn
, Of the case, haxe been enabled to do, b
cause q fair portion Of the Imputed 9fien
I WIS within my own k1owledge." Now
E these two extracts from your two letters
not disenlbowel each other, In the style tn
wc have learned from our japanese friends
cali .hari kari, ,"-thcn am not able to u
dcrstand the meaning Of words. nm qui
willing here to leave the case.
Your account Of the proceedings Of the ye
try in reference to my first letter, is 90 ina
curate, and your recollection Of what occl