, 1874-01-04
THE CHENEY MATTER.
Reply of Dlr. S. Corning Judd to the
Letter al MIR. Cheney.
tn fhe Edffer of Yhe Chfc1oo Ttibuue.

To the Editor Of The Chicago Tribune:
SIR: a communication appears in your issue
Of this morning, over the signature Of Charles
Edward Cheney which, from come OF it's Pc
cu1iar characteristics, and particularly from it1
lurking ipsinuations, demands reply; aud, be-
cause of my connection with the '' Cheney case"
aud familiarity with the matters referred to in
the communication, take the responsibility Of
making that reply.
For soma reason best known to himself, Mr.
Cheney seeks to lend your readers into the be-
lief that his opposition ia from Bishop White
house, and from him alone. 1.-THE questions ut is
sue between Bishop Whitehouse and myself" u,
he writes. Que would suppose that man Of
sufficient force to become great Martyr and Re-
former (7) would be capable OF comprehending
the simple and well-knoWn fact that there is
no pending tissue between Bishop Whitehouse
and Mr. Cheney. "The questions at issue be-
tween" the two we're long ago settled finally and
irrevocably against the latter. The pending
litigation in a civil court was instigated by the
Convention OF the Diocese Of Illinois, while the
parties complainant Of record are three pew
owners in the church~bullding Of Christ Church
parish. II other Questions at issue " with Mr.
Cheney are referred to, they are at issuo be-
tween the latter and the entire Protestant Eps-
tween him and Bishop Whitehouse alone.
Mr. Cheney insinuates that some designing
person has made suggestion to your re-
porter to select for publication from q the mass
Of evidence" tho paper puTPo1tlng to b Letter M
Bishops. Had any such suggestion been
deemed expcdient it would have been made long
ago, for the testimony IN reference to thus
memorial WAS taken several mouths since The
publication of that paper came about IN this
wise, as suppose On the 31st of December,
Judge Williams, on my motion, set the case OF
CalEius ct al. rs. Cheney ct al for final hearing
on tue 4th day OF February next. Subsequently,
and on the same day, one OF your reporters made
inquiry Of tho writer hereof whether there
would be much oral proof taken on the hearing.
My reply was, that most of the proofs we're al
ready taken III the form Of dispositions. In reply
to further questions in the matter, your re-
porter was informed that these deposlt'ons were,
part of them, among tho files Of the court, and
the rest in possession Of Mr. Butler, the Master
in Chanc6ry !; among which, I also informed
him. were the dispositions Of Bishop White
house, Mr. Cheney. and many others IL,
Mr: cherey's deposition was not COM
plete,-he having denied that letter or
memorial produced st tho taking OF his testl,
mony WIS 3 copy Of any such letter or memorial
written by himself :; and having also refused to
regard to the preparation by himself, or under
his authority, Of memorial Of the same or like
character and purport. The reporter inquired #
he could inspect these dispositions to which
replied that I had no objections and knew OF
none whereupon he left my Office. and have
no knowledge OF what followed, save only as in
formed By your issue Of the 1st inst.
Now, as to the memorial, tho authorship OF
which AIr. Cheney denies, let me- suggest that,
while be regulates, * in the most explicit man
ner possible, the paper which you published
Thur1day" last, as being his own, he admits
that he did prepare memorial, but care
fully avoids denying that the sentiment
that Of the paper published. And venture
to PREDICT that Mr. Cheney could best satisfy tho
public ~ to the real purport Of the memorial
that he did prepare By furnishing copy thereof,
which hitherto he has declined to do,
published document, nnd says it WAS never pre-
tented to the General Contention, 1t tcds, how
ever. brought before tho Bishops, Of the Epis-
copal Church during the session OF the General
Convention Of 1871 and i vas 30 O. brought a. oe-
Diocese, and who allowed 3 copy thereof to be
taken. without any hesitation whatever. am
bold to say that h1r. Cheney will not presume to
deny this assertion. And, moreover, the bishop
who thus brought forward the matter was as-
sured By q particular friend Of Mr. Cheney that
the memorial WAS fully authorized BY III. Che
| pey himself. And that particular trend vas
prominent and distinguished Low-Church cler-
gyman then and now Of the City Of New York.
Mr.. Cheney's denial Of the authority or au-
thentic1ty Of the published memorial involves
an imputation of forgery against this dist1n~
euished Clergyman who acted al his friend. For
nv own part, shall not believe. until compelled
bic Of forgery And I charge it be true,
either that Mr. Cheney wrote or authorized the
memorial as published, or else hlr. Cheney's 8
friend is guilty OF high-handed outrage. They
may settle this between themselyes: Tes.o r,nn
ru1naeo Jnn 8, 1874.