The New York herald., 1871-01-17
THE MErHoDIsr MUDDIE
the Book Concern 6catdaI-The squabbIea
OF tho Faishinl-Tho Lsnahan Persecution

The Book Concern ScasdsI-The sauabhies
| of tho Faithtml-Tho Lsnahsn Persecution
An Attempt to Shelvc the Examination.
The Methodist Book Committee met yesterday at
half-past nine A. M. After the religious prelimi'
naries Rev. DR.. Curry was recalled ana examined
rect in regard to matters TO which he had testified
substantially on saturday He was then cross
examined BY Judge Reynolds In regard to the
| conversation which took place IN the Office OF
Harper Brothers. heretofore referred to- lie was
surprised to hear the subject OF the concerns
agement talked or by DR.. Lanahan before third
person as it then was This was before the appear
ance OF the Times article, ana he considered the
matter then as confidential. He did not advise or
suggest but rather consented that Mr. Harper
should be consulted in the matter. He did suggest
that he was good adviser in matters OF publishing
Quest0n--Did you say that DR.. Carleton was a
man
WHO KILLED ny sIIENCE?
Answer-l did say that or Its equivalent and
verify believe it; don't think said that Dr. Garlic
ton could not be moved in this thing.
Q. DID you say that Dr. Carleton cxcelled In one
attribute OF human nature, and that the lowest
cunnngs A. l don't think did.
@. Did Mr. Harper say sof A. l did not say he
did; the conversation was very FREQ one, aud the
character and conduct OF the agent was discussed,
not to but rather in regard to different
Of mind that were needed for different kinds OF
work; the assistant agent and myself were some
what constrained in this regard, but Mr.. Harper
was not so constrained and spoke freely;
don't think DR.. Lanahan made use OF this
language toward DIR. Carleton. and ! am very
tain / did not; two or three days after the
publication or the Times article DR.. Lanahan and
myself ceased to converse freely or frequently
we stood opposite sides OF the case; Dr. Lanahan
offered to sign card excupating the agents, past
and present. from all connection or knowledge OF
frauds provided that the admission OF frauds In the
concern was allowed to go forth with 1t; to this the
witness strongly objected; he could not remember
any specific amounts of losses mentioned by DIR.
Lanahan, but he knew that sans were mentioned; ;
the Doctor acknowledged his disagreement with DR..
Lananan, but denied that he had taken any active
part against hm In this case until the present time.
short editorial article from the CHRISTIAN AdrO-
cate OF March 3, 1870 read, In which the word
infamous Is applied to DIR. Lanahan's DIR.
Curry was questioned In regard TO It's authorship.
He was responsible for it. though his assistant, DR..
Dupuy, wrote 1t. DR.. Curry admitted that when the
committee met here last February he made sugges-
tOns individual members, but took no part In the
debates actions OF the committee He refused To
endorse the action OF the committee IN one particu-
lar where MIR. Pike, three days before the aJlouin-
ment
Sr. Pike subsequently rose 10 question OF priv
lege, and stated that the witness had misrepre-
sented hlm altogether, and he appealed TO the
records in proof OF his position.
Extracts were read from supplement" TO the
Chrfstidn Adrocdte which exhibited the condition
OF the Book Concern, and stated certain facts which
tended to disprove some, bEt to confirm others OF
DR.. Lanahan's charges OF fraud and mismanage-
ment, and IN answer TO questions DR.. Curry lc.
knowledged himself the author OF that paper,
and stated that ne obtained his information
from various sources. but he refused to name
parties. As Judge Reynolds continued to read nr-
ther extracts Mr. Fancher objected unless the paper
itself was first placed In evidence. Judge Reynolds
unf nrnd fnr md fTar zion,
the cross-eXamination on thus point ceased for tue
time being.
Mr. buckley called attention to the presence OF
DR.. Dupuy IN the room, contrary TO the rule which
excludes more than one witness from being present
resolution admitting reporters had passed the
mitiee subsequent to this the rule was nuiliied
on motion OF DIR. Bannister itwas rescinded.
General Moore moved, at nal1-past eleven A. NJ,
to adjourn until half-pas nine A. NJ to-day, and. as
his motion looked to a ana adjournment he stated
his reasons for making it. When the committee in-
yestigated those charges before 1t found them
tanned, and he then favored an adjournment OF all
further investigation until the meeting Of the Gen.
eral Conference OF 1872. unless any new matter
should come up before that time; and being now
convinced tnat there is nothing new before the conf
mittee he believed Ii would be OF the happIcst
things Tor the Church II this thing could stop here,
and his motion would enable the committee and the
counsel on both sides TO consult upon TINS matter.
The motion was voted down.
General Moore again renewed his motion for the
purpose OF eliminating from the charges everything
that did not relate directly TO the official conduct Of
the accused.
The motion was laid on the table.
The rules allow any three members or the CON-
mittee to call an executive SESSION, ana, upon the
call of Messrs. Moore, Rawlins and Blades, 1t was
voted that alter the recess lone r. MI the committee
meet in executive session.
DR.. Kennedy gave notice that he should move for
q dissolution OF the executive session.
The bishops were invited TO be present at H. and
the business before them was understood to be to
prune the charges down to such points the bishops
can concur with the committee During the ses-
sion 1t was agreed that at lis close the committee
should adjourn for the day, SO That the reporters
and counsel were relieved iron remaining outside
unless they desired to stay. The committee will
meet this morning ut half-past nine O'Clock.