Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1874-05-15
SOUTHERN METHODIST CONFER
ENCE.

ENCE.
INTERESTING DEBATE ON THE CASE OF
REV. DIR. HUsToN-THE MESSAGE
FROM THE NORTHERN GENERAL Con-
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES OF THE PER
sONELLE OF THE SOUTHERN MINIS
TIERS.
&C., &C., &c.
The General Conference of the M. E.
Church, South, is still in session. We
give below some interesting extracts from
it's proceedings:
THE CASE OF REV. LORENZO DOW
HUSTON.
On Friday the chair announced the fol
lowing appeal committee in the case of L.
D. Huston from the Baltimore conference ::
Baltimore, John S. Martin Virginia.
john G. Granbery Western Virginia, I,
S. Wade Holston, Carroll Long; North
Carolina, L. S. Burkhead; South Carolina,
W. H. Fleming ; North Georgia, Fl. J.
Adams; South Georgia, j. O. A. Clark
Florida, Samuel Woodbury. Alabama.
Written Louisiana, John Pipes; Missis-
sippi, H, II. Montgomery North Missis-
sippi, Thomas Y. Ramsay Memphis, John
Moss; Tennessee, William Burr Ken
lucky, J. W. Fitch Louisville, Timothy
G. Frogge; st. Louis, A. T.. Scruggs
West st. Louis, G.. M. Winton; Missouri,
H. A. Bourland; Western, D. G. O'How
ell Indian Mission, J. Fl. Walker Ar
kansas, I. L. Burrow; White River, ].
Jacob M. Binkley !; East Texas, Daniel
Morse; Texas, 1. G.. John; Northwest
Texas, Thomas Stanford West Texas, B.
Harris; Los Angeles, A. Adams Pacific,
George Sim; Columbia, B. r. johnson );
Illinois, J. w. Westcott. Bishop Keener
is to preside; J. D. Vincil to be secretary.
DR.. McFerrin will represent DR.. Huston.
This case will, no doubt, provoke warm
and lengthy debate.
Before the appointment of the Commit
tee in the Huston case, there was an ami
mated debate on allowing the appeal. DR..
McFerrin appeared on behalf of DR.. Hus-
ton, and, after reading the law in the Dis
cipline regarding travelling preachers, pre-
sented the following:
| REASONS FOR AN APPEAL.
First-Because the bill of charges is
vague and indefinite, neither time nor place
is given in specification 3, which might
enable the accused to prove an alibi
sickness, &c.
Second-After the bill of charges had
been made out, theycourt organized, and
issue joined in trial, a new specification
was brought in, which was virtually trying
the accused on a charge for which he had
not been indicted, and of which neither
himself nor counsel had been notified.
Third-The verdict was contrary to the
evidence in the case.
The main ground of his appeal is that
the evidence did not sustain the charges
Now, l say to you that it is with great
degree of reluctance, that enter upon
this. [ have great respect for the Balti-
more delegation, but if none of them will
come forward in this matter I think that
justice ought to be done, and will try to
do my duty in the fear of God.
DR.. s. RegiSter-If it is the pleasure of
this conference to entertain the appeal on
the grounds which have been stated, the
Baltimore Conference will be represented
by DR.. y. w. Wilson and myself We had
hoped that this case would not come up
here, and we had reason to expect that it
would not. DR.. Huston's case came up
before the Baltimore Conference year be-
fore last. He was not there in person, but
DR.. RoSZell, who rer resented him, notified
the committee at the rendition Of the find
ing that he would appeal from their decis-
ion, but did not state the groundof appeal.
We knew nothing of this which has come
up to-day, but all undertone murmur that
| DR.. McFerrin would represent Dir. Hus-
TONS case before this Conference Moth
ing has ever been heard of the grounds OF
appeal until DR.. McFerrin's bill Of eXcep-
tlons was read here to-day, and it strikes
me that they are mere assumptions. DR..
! McFerrin, if [ understand rightly, has
never seen the proceedings Of the trial.
DR.. McFerrin here interrupted Dr. Reg
ester, but the chair decided that DR.. Reg
ester was in order.
DR.. Register say the grounds of the
appeal are mere assumptions. DR.. Hus-
ton was not at the trial, and DIR. McFerrin
has not seen the record. The statements
of the Committee of Investigation were
not the same as those upon which the final
decision was made. The action of that
committee was merely preliminary. After
this, Dr. Huston instituted suit against
one OF the city papers for libel, and placed
the damages at one hundred thousand dol
larg,
DR.. McFegrin-Does the brother object
to my representing Dr. Huston because |
have not seen the records of the trial
1 DR.. Wiley-What is before the house !!
Chair-Whether the Conference will ell
| terrain the appeal OF not.
DIR. Regester-My remarks were pre-
| limnary to the main remarks that the
question was one OF grave Importance to
| US,
OF PROFOUND AND soRRoWFUL INTE-
REST.
DR.. McFerrin can't present an intelli-
gent statement of the case because he has
not seen the records of the trial. DR..
Huston himself was not there, and moth
ing was published but the proceedings of
the preliminary trial. We never heard of
DR.. Huston's appeal until to-day. We
though we are ready to defend our action
DR.. McFerrin-Yes sir. It was done
by DR.. Roszell as soon as the verdict was
rendered. DR.. REGISTER thinks do not
understand the nature of the case. Now,
sir, this case has history. Two years
ago last March, at Warrenton, the Balti-
more Conference appointed seven men,
| bers on a committee of investigation,
| which committee decided that there was
no ground for trial. DR.. Huston went
home acquitted, but when the annual Con-
another trial was called for, A new bill
was in the West. A committee was APP
pointed, and majority thought there was
| ground for conviction. DIR. Rozell notified
them that he would appeal
DR.. Lee, after reading the Discipline
said 1 don't know the object of this
| skirmishiHg. Icannot suppose that there
! is any desire on the part of the Baltimore
delegation to deny the right Of appeal.
DR.. Wilson-We desire only to vindieate
our action in the premises
DR.. McFerrin-Dr Huston is not pres
ent, and, according to your ruling, no man
can represent the appellant unless he is a
member of this Conference, and now when
his next friend comes to represent, him,
you try to rule him out on the ground that
he has not seen the evidence Won thing