Brownlow's Knoxville Whig. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1866-1869, 1867-03-13

Fslsehoods corrected.

The editor of the Episcopal Methodist (Richmond,
Virginia. and the editor of the st. Louie Christian
Ad0ocats both organs of the MethodisE Episcopal
Church. South, sre sorely exercised about the pur-
chase Of the Athens Female College property, BY
loyal Methcdists They denounce the purchase as
a traaaA and the purchasers as grand there's and
rGscals because forsooth, they obtained the prop
erty for less than half its worth" desire to call
attention to several of their errors and msstate-
ments. rrr
My article, about which they make so much splut-
ter, is rs follows:
@AN IMPORTANT RESULT REAcHED.-The Hol-
sson Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church.
tb -; session last May, appointed Committee
carafI 20 locate and establish a College. After
anu long attention to the subject and una
Athens Fer,y, they have at length purchased the
MINI county Uo.lege property at Athens, Nc
three-st9ry brick edihce and .Tu % lSrse,
land on which it stands adioin The Ac1ss u
The whole is well adapted for the Of Asnens.
College, and is worth probably SO, 900 Poses Oh
The Female College was under the nat,o..
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. II b.so o.
involved, and it was sold for its debts. Rev n
Rowley, ID. d. now President of the New Albany
Female College, Indiana, was the principal auditor
1t was sold to him under an order rom the Chan
Gerry Court. In due time the sale was confirmed,
and Dr. aowley conveyed the same to US atthe price
he paid, although he could have received much more
from the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. BY
his true cooperation and the aid of liberal citizens
of Athens, we have secured this valuable property
for less than half its worth
Concerning all which, the editor of the Episcopal
Methodist says: "The cause of congratulation here
is that oRe religious body has got possession of the
property Of another, for less than half its worth"
From this beginning the aforesaid editor proceeds
to call the writer and the Methodist Episcopal
Church al sorts of hard names No epithets are
too VILE No severity of speech and spirit too sharp
and biting 20 describe his estimate of our ofense
herein. A few plain words will suffice to dssipate
into thin air bis intense objurgasions The College
property in question l7as not the property Of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, Soat tsse1s Il i0ds pls-
chased By as. Nor does my statement above insin-
uato or imply any such thing affirmed by the ed
itor. From my statement-and it is every word
true-is viii be seen, 1st that the Female College
was-i e. had been-ander the patronage of the
Methodist Episcopal CHtach, South. It is not al
legged that it was, therefore, the property Of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, South 1t may or it
may not have been. do not undertake to decide
which.
3D. 1t is equally obvious that whoever may have
had ownership in it prior to its sale by order Of the
Cbancery Court, when it was sold to DR.. Rowley,
and the sale confirmed, IL became his prooerty
whether he paid little or much for it. Tothose who
know the law in such cases. it is hardly necessary to
say that the Church. South or any other party, had
the right to bid for the property-it was sold openly
oft dto nd Il
even after the sale so made they had the right, at
any time before the sale was confirmed, to ask and
demand the re-openng of the sale and another COM
petition for the property. This the Church, South,
did not do in the first second instance but they
permitted the sale to be confirmed without aYailing
themselves of these rights in the case
Sd. After it became De, Rowleys property he
had right to sell it to whom he pleased
and for what amount he pleased or even to give Il
away We bought it of him, paying him bis price
for the property. Is there anything wrong in all
this Is there business man-christian or other
wise-who would not have done precisely as we
did, True, we considered the property to as, and
for our use, worth much more than it cost vet il
does not follow that DR.. Rowley wronged himself
Or others, or that we wronged any one-when he
sold and we bought the property at his price Sup
pose he had sold it to at one-eghth of its value
and made donation to us of the other
Of its price, had he not perfect right to do it2
Suppose he offered two thousand or three thou
and dollars more for it from the Church, South,
han he sold it to for, had he not right to de-
late that or any other sum to the Methodist Epis-
opal Church ?
4th. In view of the fact, that while the property
vas under the patronage of the NJ E. Church. South,
became hopetessy invoIred, is it not evidence of
FOOD judgment and sound discretion that he choose
o sell to US at less price, and especially when IT is
considered that he must have known that selling il
o us was guarantee both of its success and loyal
y? Results, these of which he could have had no |
ssurance; but the contrary, had he sold to the NJ.
:. Church, South: instead of to us.
The misrepresentation of these editors are as /
Ollows In stating that we got the property of the
L. E. Church, South, for less than half its value.
We did not obtain the property of the M. E. Church
Outh at all, much less at half price. This state
lent then, is taqualifedly false! Second, in rep
asenting that had used sharp practice in get
ng the property. The property was procured in
raight-forward, legal way according to law, and
o advantage was taken of any one. This repre-
entation is therefore, false.
So also are all the implications and allegations Of
aud and roguery 1t is very easy to handy epithets
nd call hard names. If the reverend editors of
lose Christian papers find satisfaction and pleasure
! heaping abusive terms US and on our Church, |
ley are welcome TO do so. But when they utter
Use and lying SANDERS, We shall take leave to re-
tie the falsehoods and brand them as they deserve
THOMAS II. PEARHE.
Knoxville, Tenn, March 8, 1867 L
Chattanooga Republican Jones5oro' Flag, Greene
lie e'0 Era and Nashville Press aud Times please
m, /