Clarksville chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 186?-1872, 1872-08-31

took in agitating q question which
had been settled by the Church, viz /:
that of the request in the letter to
Bethel Association, after said ques-
ton bad been carried by the Church
in regular session, with the exception
Of one dissenting voice at the time OF
its passage; and as penalty for said
ofense, We require Bro. Herring to
make acknowledgement to the
Church rs a body, and ask forgive
ness for said ofiense."
Madam Rowland, on her way to
theguillotine, as she pissed the statue
of the Goddess of Liberty, erected
during the reign of terror, exclaimed:
20, Liberty, how many crimes are
committed in thy name.r And /
say, o, Church Of Christ, how many
wrongs, are committed in thy name !!
For of all the edocuments ever written
In behalf of justice this Is the most
remarkable. 1t .fres the penalty.
The motion appointing them did not
require them to fix q penalty.
l. There were parties present, not
members OF that Church, whose affi-
davits can be obtained to that effect.
2. The morning the committee as
sembled to investigate, they received
an anonymous note requiring them
to fix a penalty. This can be proven
IL desired. 3. The committees re-
port itself, referring to the purposes
Of their appointment, bears upon its
face positive evidence that their au-
thority was limited to All inpcstigu-
ton of the origin of the supposed
schism, and not to fla penalties.
What does 1t say? "Your committee
appointed to Investigate the origin of
the schism." What schism The
schism referred to in the motion ap-
pointing this committee, aud report
on same at prayer meeting Friday
night. "Would most respectfully re-
port" &c. Not one word about their
having received delegated Church
authority to fix penalties. Nor did
they receive such authority. They
have minutes, am told, to this effect,
but they are not correct. Besides, in
such an important matter as the ar
raignment and expulsion of a men,
Der, shall committee, or the Church,
fix the penalty? Who is safe if such
a precedent be established? Upon
shAo thCiC ttO oCCuAitJ W
any member Of any Church.
Let our Churches pause before they
confirm such precedent. The COM
mittee report, "they find my guilt to
consist in the active part took in ag-
itating a question that had been set
tied by the Church" "yiz the request
In the letter to the Association. My
guilt then consisted In the active
part took in opposing" what the
Association saw iii not to grant, viz
"the request / did not want the
request made. The Association did
not want it granted. For this I am
turned out. They say "his fuiN con-
sists in the active part he took in ag-
itating the request in the
letter to Bethel Association. If Bethel
Association saw good reasons to reject
the request so had I. But I did not
tied, for the night the committee was
appointed to investigate my guilt,
that very night the letter containing
this request was laid upon the table
sotely because it did contain 1t. Had
it not been for this request the letter
would have passed. The fact that IL
alone caused the letter to be laid upon
the table, il sufficient to show that it
had not been settled? Does not this
plainly show Eld. SIS fixed determi-
nation to expel me anyhow.
Although | felt myself innocent of
any charge, l was willing to bear all
things In defence of the truth. so
when the committee reported, said
in these words: If / have given Of
fense to any one, am truly sorry for
1t, and ask forgiveness, as IL was not
my wish to wound the feelings of any
one."
Ed. s., Moderator, Without asking
the Church If she would accept my
acknowledgements, rose, declaring
he would have the matter settled. i
called for the second reading of the re-
port, and requested any member Of the
Church or the committee to point out
where had failed to comply with
the report, and / would use my best
efforts to DO 50. But no one objected
to my acknowledgment as being in
sufficient whereupon Ed. 5. still
failing to put the question, rose, de-
claring 1t personal matter two or
three times in an abusive speech he
made. i then asked for protection,
but he continued his remarks, inter-
spersing them with personal and un-
ehristian-like attacks upon my pri-
vate character. There being much
confusion and excitement caused by
his remarks, the officers at this time
took possession of the Church, but he
demanded my expulsion from the
Church, declaring if L was not ex-
PEELED he would leave the Church,
and would not remain another day,
and taking his hat he started out be.
cause they would not turn me out,
but was seized by four or five OF the
members and held until the motion
was made by w. j. Ely To expel me.
He then took his seat. The motion
was seconded by f.. Is. Ely, brother
of w. j., and he had the committee
appointed. The vote was then called
for, when about twelve, not more
than fifteen, voted, the majority re-
naming silent, probably for fear of
falling under the condemnation of
Ed. S. not voting at all.
Now, object to this expulsion for
the following reasons: lst. IL was a
cdH meeting, and not regular con.
ference, and notice had not been sent
to any, much less all the members, as
should have been done in such cases.
2. l was not cited to appear before the
Church ~ answer 10 the charge of
schism. 3. was not informed ,0hdt
il was l said, or to whom said it,
that constituted the schism or dis
turbance. (See the report Of the
Committed 4. was not permitted
to bring any i0itnoSSes, or hare any
time 10 propc my innocence, being ex-
PEELED the night the committee re-
ported. 8. was not permitted TO
meet my accuser face To face. How
could | tell who was my accuser? II
was not Il. j. Ely, who had the COM
mitteo appointed, for then he would
not have accused himself. Ii was not
the committee, for they were appoint
= 2 A Il