Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1874-11-20
TIE FATAL LETTER.

SEYMOUR UP-IT WAS INTRODUCED BY
JUDGE SHEFFEY-WHATD DR.. SEYMOUR
SAYs-JUDGE SHEFFEY's HISTORY OF
Its INTRODUCTIoN-TnE INSIDE Ops
RATION OF THE SECRET SESSION.
&c, &C., &C.
The New York Herald" contains four
column letter from DR.. Seymour, whose
nomination for Bishop was rejected by the
Episcopal General Convention, OH account
of his ritualistic views. In it he com
plains OF the Way he was treatel about
its introduction into. the body (the words
Of his complaint being quoted by Judge
Shelly in his letter below, and goes on at
length to defend his position. Tnef ,llow-
ing is The fatal letter with which the OPP
position to his confirmation first opened
fire:
BISHOP CoXE's LETTER.
! Tread by Judge Sheffey, of Virginia, on
| Wednesday afternoon, the 21st of October.]
| New RoRK, Oct. II, 1874.
M Dear J,.dye Snaith-Tne facts are sub
| stantial.y as they have been reported to
YOU. [ could say many things in favor of
| this candidate with entire truth, and tes-
| timonials might he multiplied in his favor
without any dupicity. But the whole
truth would reveal another class Of facts,
and suppose of Dr.. $. himself would not
deny that, us a professor in the seminary,
he has steadfastly resisted the noble efforts
of his colleagues, such as Drs. Seabury and
| Vinton, who have labored to maintain the
doctrine of this Church, respecting the
Holy Eucharist, and the provisions of the
| of the RUbrcs for it's solemn celebration,
| pure and indebted.
These things became known to me in the
| discharge of official duty us a ''Visitor"
and d member of committee, and I re-
| grit to say that the learned professor was
| forced to confess to me that, with his
| knowledge and consent a reverend gentle
man, we'll known as all active agent Of the
! q. B. s, or Of the system it sustains, Was
| permitted to lecture to students of the SEM
| iliary, in I; private room on his peculiar
views of the Holy Eucharist. 2"
1t is with extreme regret that mention
these facts, which have desired an oppor-
unity of stating in the Board of Trusters
Of the seminary, aud only there. AS yo,.
well know, however. the impossibility Oh
assembling that board. Or any fair proper
tion OF them, has operated to render th,
Investigation of facts an mpossibllity for
many years. The facts ought to be known.
however, and the Church must be awaken
ed to her responsibilities i'll such moment
Gus concerns. Faithfully yours,
A. CLEVELAND COKE.
Bishop of Western New ork
The H m. Judge Smith.
On getting the Herald'' we mmediatel,
sent a reporter to Judge Sheffey, to obtain
his Statement with regard to the facts.
which is given bel.,W and which will BIZ
found very interesting:
SrAUNToN, Nov. 16, 1874.
EDITOR OF THE SrAUNToN VINDI
CAroR:-DEAR SIR: You have shown M
the New York 'IIeraid,' containing /,
copy of Professor Seymour's pamphlet en-
titl-d The Issue of Fact Between Bishop
Coke and Professor Seymour. l reply t.
your request for an explanation of the
| STATEMENTS MADE BY PROFESSOR sEY
MOUR
in respect to mys If, by first quoting al
| the Profess " Says that can in a,lv Way IL
fer to me, as follows: Goa the seventh d,e
OF the secret session, and only about tw,
hours before the time first liked for the
| decisive vote, Judge Sseffey OF Virginia
from Bishop Coxey: He had it in his pos
session, have been told. four days befor.
it Was read and | AIN inform u Jnat WHIT
asked for Il copy of it i'll advance, he rt
fused, on the ground that he was special ,
charged only to read it TO the House AL:
to SNOW it 70 none but to certain lllenaioers
After it was read, d copy OIL it Was agar.
refused Oh the ground tnat it was in til.
possession Of the House, and that the pro
ceedings We're IS cret.' When the obllga
ton of secrecy was removed, u copy Was
unattamable, because the documents wer.
sin the hands OF the printer The frs
sight OF them was gaiied only on the En-.
day evening after the question was d..
ciQed, When [ received proof SneetS con
tanning the LETTERS
the above statement, which are alleged
have occurred after | closed my Speech
When r tired from the platform. the let
ter of BIsiOp CoXt, W.Iicn [ had read fu
the Information of the House-follnwins
the example Of q friend of Prof Seymour
who had previously read, as evidence t,
the House, Il letter Of Bishop Potter in his
favor-Was handed by me To a NJ mber 0
the Illinois delegation, a frlt nd OF DE-. S-y
mour and | have never ten it Or exer
cised any control over it since.
Professor seymour undel takes to state
from information,
WHAT OCCURRED IN THE SECRET SESSION
Without close scrutiny, the public might
vel suppose that the decisive vote was
taken two hours after | read Bishop CuXe's
letter. when, in fact, that vote was not
taken uttil the next afternoon at tIret
O'Clock. Professor seymour may be ex
cused for not Statlns--doubtlt SIS his III
tornant forgot to say to llim-that after ]
mad read the letter [ urged the Houst
several times to postpone the vote, sc
us to affnrd full opportunity to Pro.
fessor Seymour's friends to furnish ex.
PLANTATION or contradiction OF the charges
contained in Bishop Coxe's letter. Pro.
fessor Seymour ought however to have
remembered and to have statrd that betort
tine hour first fixed for the decisive vote
on Wednesday, a member Of the House
who. after tile letter Was read, had gone t.
see Prof. Seymour and had returned
brought from him an authorized denial OF
the charges contained in Bishop Cnxe's
letter; and further. that the next morning
several hours before the vote was taken
DR.. Fulton Of Alabama. read to the Hol.ss
a paper containing full response from
Prof. Seymour to various Charges con-
tanned in said letter and otherwise pre-
ferred against Professor Seymour.
The letter of Bishop Coke was placed in
my hands by Judge Smith VI Western New
York, AS he said, at the request of mem
bers of his delegation,
TO BE READ TO THE HOUSE
as part Of Il speech expected to deliver in
the course of the debate. | would not
agree to use the letter at all until Judge
Smith procured Bishop Coxe's consent to
the llse of his name without restriction in
connection with the letter, and this neces-
sarily caused some delay. This consent
was made known tn me on Monday, the