The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1871-08-02


would have their own opinion on that point
Though under the necessity of laying bare to
the bone this array of aneies put forward as facts
to convict us of slther "a blunder or SANDER in
connection with what we have felt it to be duty
to say concerning purely public matter, we do
not sit in judgment on the motives of the Observer.
1t has tried hard, but in vain to make the i'm
preston that we have already done so. We have
not, and do not now. Let motives go where iudg-
ment belongs Indeed we greatly prefer account
ing for the extraordinary figure our cotemporary
is made to cut BY his extraordinary fancies In
dulged so freely, in the same way that good old
DR.. Specie u7ed account for the soaring Of his
horse. He horse of considerable parts,
he said d. y IS afflicted with bad memory,
weak 4cE es, and lively imagination
But these accusations are really unworthy of no.
tee, and should have received none had they not
been connected with what was calculated to cover
up the true and only question with which the o.
serrer had any thing to do, or in which the public
have any interest. To that we now return and
will once more state it distinctly. Notice, then
l. The character of the charges made against
Drs Wilson and Woodrow. When asking an in
vestigation by the Assembly, these gentlemen said
they were charged, the one with neglect Of official
duty and the other not only with neglect of official
duty, but as generally understood, with dishonesty
in the management of the funds of the Church s"
In the report Of the able committee of investiga-
ton they say, among other things, respecting the
character of the charges against these brethren:-
1t is intimated that there has been embezzle-
ment or culpable expenditure of the funds placed
in their hands, which has been covered up by false
or defective reports.
1t is insinuated that they have taken ad-
vantage oftheir position to pay themselves more,
in the way of salaries than was authorized or pro
per under the circumstances.
Now, what we have said is that these charges
injurious and defamatory in their character
Manifestly that committee thought so. Notice,
now
2. The relation of the Christian Observer to
these charges. 1t published them, and thus gave
them circulation over the Church. We have heard
no one speak of this who does not condemn it as
highly improper. The Assembly's Committee so
viewed it when in their second resolution of eau
ton to the Editors of our religious journals Jap
plicable here to those of the Observer only they
implicitly refer to these things, and caution them
against publishing charges which if true would
result IN the remoral of those complained Of
No one has accused that paper of originating
these charges; but it circulated them. They were
comparatively harmless without this help. But
notice
g. That the Observer has defended its course in this
thing. The author withdrew his allegations pub
Icly, both to his credit aud he qualification of
all Not SO the hey said that
their iujuriop perceived,
and that tbeir pt egretted, that
would have been an enoe iatter Or, after
the Assembly, retaining from passing resolution
of censure, lit would have been virtually so, had
disposed of the case as gently towards them as
possible, had they then kept silence, not word of
criticism would have found place in this paper.
But instead of this they were in haste to enbrace
the very first opportunity to declare in substance
that in publishing those articles they had done ex-
aetly right and that any other course would have
been entirely wrong. Whoever may read their ar
tice of May 81 will see the entire correctness of
this statement. 1t was not consistent with our
views of public duty to pass such declaration in
silence. If journal of our Church, after doing
very wrong aud injurious thing, condemned in the
public judgment, and virtually condemned by the
Judgment OF the Assembly itself, must be allowed
boldly to defend that wrong and no one must utter
word to condemn it, then indeed are we fallen
upon evil days We said nothing till nearly
month after. The effect of one or two sentences in
our article of June 81 brought out in the Observer
very little bit Of modification. Those PERSONAL
ties, they say, may not have been happily word
ed, and members and friends of the Committee
saw, or thought they saw in them, personal refec,
tons which were not perceived by the public gen
orally" This is truly soft self-impeachment;
exceedingly soft and tender The circulation of
these little personalities" was all owing to IAN
urgent pressure that was brought to bear upon us
from friends of the Commute" cit was Ia
difference to them and against our olon better judy
ms'.t" That is to say, the whole publication
amounts only to few thoughts that may not have
been happily worded, and evenas to that the blame
rests upon Square Jonesi"
TO this extent the Observer has owned its fault,
no further. For helping it this little step on
the right way we are soundly abused, as benefac-
tors often are 1t may use its pleasure in ascrbing
our criticisms to Jealousy, and any other motive
that suits its very exuberant fancy. If all who
most decidedly condemn that journal in this thing
that it alloWeth, are moved by jealousy, our whole
Church must have great 'rottenness of the bones.
The precise character of what it circulated has
been designated in the report of the Assembly,
Committee; it was not originated by US. No man
can be at loss to understand whether it was sin
furious" and "defamatory." Does the Observer
think that throwing the blame on Squire Jones"
for the publication of only few sentences mot
happily worded, is an adequate and honorable
clearing of its skirts? Ordoes it go back and stand
in its out and out defence of May 81? 1t is not
com Portable for it to be held calmly and with an
anreaxed grasp to the real and only matter it has
to deal WITH but it is necessary. We, therefore,
here leave it, under the eye of the Church, face to
face with a" The True Question:" Did the Observ-
sr do right or s0roa9 IA Publishing those Injurious
and detamatory charges against Drs. wilson and
Woodrow? IF lorong, aohy did 1t not Mag 81, |
make an open, honorable acknowledgment instead
IF an attempted defense?
Rev. John Todd, D. D., the delegate who so
q sfactoriiv raDraseDted tho Reformad Oburcb IN