The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1870-02-09


.l51e, ana L
ong with my answer,
l Sc of all the contributions
made ersl Assembly'a fund for
Domestic ms and Sustentation, since
May 1, Is, = each church in your Pres
bytery; and requested you to inform me
more particularly wherein you wished fuller
credit to be given to the Presbytery, by
pointing out any errors in the list, expressing
my readiness to publish at once all the cor
rections which should be needed. also in
timated to you my reluctance to draO upon
your Presbyterial treasurer, and requested
you to cause the funds to be forwarded to
the Assembly's treasury, if it was designed
that they should take this direction. 1t
would appear that my reply was not salts
factory; as you write the same letter to me
through the Central Presbyterian, merely
adding sentence or two in reply to re-
mark l had made. 1t has not been possible
for me to answer your published letter until
tonight; but as you had received my private
reply, my delay must be matter of COM
parative Indifference to you.
You say my "fgures do her CWest Han
over Presbytery) unintentional injustice, -
and you ask me to "give the culprit her
DUE" The only injustice, unintentional or
otherwise, that l can have done her, is in
not reporting all her contributions to the
General AsSembly's treasury; and the only
way can have failed to "give the Presby-
terry her due" is by failing to credit her on
my books with contributions sent to me.
The only possible reply to your request is
the one l made in my private letter: COM
pare the lists sent you with whatever in
formation you can collect from the church
treasurers and whenever full credit has not
been given, let the matter be carefully traced
up. You will have no difficulty in doing
this, as my reports have been published
every month in the Central Presbyterian
and no doubt they have been carefully ex-
amined by the officers of all the churches
to see whether or not their contributions
were acknowledged. 1t is for this very pur'
pose that they are published from month tc
month. And with the aid of the summary
of these monthly reports which | mailed tc
you in pamphlet form, you can easily collect
the particular information needed.
But you refer me here, as you had done
in your private letter, to the Minutes of the
General Assembly. In my official letter tt
the Rev. DR.. J. Leighton Wilson, prepared
at his request, containing report of all thu
contributions of the Synod of Virginia tt
this treasury since May 1, 1865, say tina
l received from West Hanover S8O90l
from November l, 1866, to Nov. 1, 1869
You quote from the Minutes to show tina
the Presbytery'S contributions during tn
same time, (you should have said from No
vember 1, 1866, to Aprt7 l, 1069-for tina
is the period covered by the Minutes,
amounted to 1881, and probably more
You say that "Presbyterial statistics oftel
err by defect, but they never err, in tn
money columns, by excess" Your conclu
sion is that 1 should have reported even NOR
than 1881, instead of only $500. Now
certainly would have afforded me grea
pleasurc have reported this larger amount
but not report it without becomin
LA and could not become iabl
had received it. You seem
the fact that I was report
,eived by this treasury
a5nn In the Pre-,
.. reports. I prepared m
~ Wilson from the treasurer
b, ot from the Minutes of the A:
sen l am to be guided by these re
ports, not by my receipts, you will reaC
} lily perceive that the Assembly has called m
to an office which would soon swallow u
any ordinary private fortune. If you wi
compare my report in the last Minutes wit
the Presbyterial reports, you will see that
} say 1 received S26, ,948; while the "gener'
view on page Ats, reports $30,814 as COZ
tributed for Sustentation. l do not kno
f how much you think should be added to tn
latter amount on account of "errors by d.
fect;" but taking it as it is, you observe
, would have cost the Treasurer nearly So
, 900 to hold his Office last year, if he is to
governed by the rule which you lay down.
What is true of the whole Church is tru
also of your Synod. For example, tt
Pre8bytery of East Hanover reports contr
g buttons to the amount of $2,411 last yea
e while l have published that l received fro
!, it only 81, ,163. Chesapeake reports 50, Y
: while 1 report but s., ,226 from Chesapeak
: The reason of these differences is pla
e enough, viz: that in the SustentatiOn coluu
: there is included not merely what is sent
r this treasury, but everything contributed f