National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1875-12-16
BROWN AND HINE.
Decision of tn. rr..br..ry in tn. Case.

pearsd in your paper Tuesday as the report o
the committee Of Investigation IN my case is onl,
an abstract OF that which was presented By TIL
committee before the Presbytery; that this alb
stract was prepared for publication in you
paper, and the names Of the COMMITTEES signed 4
it without their knowledge and authority. Il
justice to them I nov ask that the report which
they did present, and which was unanimously
adopted by the Presbytery, may be published Fl
fall In your columns. JOHN BRowE.
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE.
The committee designated by the Presbytery
Of Warrington city at It's adjourned meeting held
into the truth OF certain allegations against the
Rev. John Brown. Q member Of this body, beg
best Of their ability discharged this duty, and a
the result they present the following for the con
sideration and action Of the Presbytery:
body, consisted Of i've members, to wit: Rev. DIR,
Wills, (chairman,) and Messrs. Mitchell, Bit
finger, Westcott and Sunderland.
sole and urgent request Of the Rev. John Brown.
3. That on Monday, November s, four OF the
committee. to vii. Msssrs. wis, Bittinger,
Of Vienna and at 10 O'Clock q. m. OF that day the
committee, having been organized with prayer
tinses as cIerF commenced tbe inSs;tiraton s
and, with the exception Of two brief recesses con-
tinued their labors till about the hour Of $50
inquiry having been concluded the committee
closed its session with prayer.
4. That Msjsr o. s. Hine, who "a not q member
as the responsible accusing party, and the Rev
John Brown Is the respondent, and that q very
large number Of the members Of the Church aud
congregation and residents Of the village aud the
vicinsge were also present, many Of whom, male
and female, made statements before the commit
s. That at the beginning Of the INQUIRY It was
fully explained TO the assembly that the com
mittee were not there to conduct q Judicial trial
but TO elicit all the light that any one present
could throw upon the subject in hand; that the
committee had In itself no power to compel any
one to testify under oath or even to make any
statement, and that whatever was there stated
by any person must be voluntary and upon their
individual responsibility and honor All state
ments received were made in this manner, the
principal porIion!of them being put In writing
making them were then authenticated BY their
own signature.
6. That for the sake Of convenience and to
ting the widest scope of investigation, the CON-
mittee followed the order Of q written document
Charges and specifications against the Rev. job n
Brown, and signed by o. E. Hine. They directed
Mr.. Hine to call up such persons as he desired
charges, and after he had signined his sstisfac,
tion with each attester 10 turn, Mr.. Brown was
permitted to crossquestion the same to his salts
faction, and after these the mem bers Of the COM
mittee put to each person such questions as they
judged would most efectuslly elicit the truth,
AND. and aiter this an appeal was made from time 70
to any one in the assembly who could make
clearer any point in the case, and during the
whole investig alton the committee are not aware
that any one who wished to spe Ik was refased
the privilege and all such statements, so far as
they seemed to have any bearing on the case,
case Of person who, after making statement
bearing against the accused, refused to be cross
questioned by him. The committee for this
reason excluded the statement OF that person
:. After the whole matter had thus been care
July gone over point oy p oint.tnere oeing eight
Hine was permitted TO mike a final state ment,
which consumed an hour, and Mr.. Brown TO re-
hour The question was then put BY the commit
tee to each OF them IL they were satisfied with the
action of the committee in the premises, and they
and Of the assembly that they were substantially
satisfied, or words TO that effect.
g. The committee have thus labored to reduce to
definite and written shape the Information thus
acquired, and they herewith respectfully present
to the Presoytery sll the matter of the case COM
ing into their possession in documentary form,
and upon which the committee have based the
conclusions following, to wit:
/. Charge first is for conduct unbeconing
gentleman and o minister Of the Presbyterian
Church" comprising eleven specifications, based
upon matter by the Rev. John Brown, published
in Newspaper styled the Fairfax Farmer, under
the dates Of June Is July s. July Is, July 2 and
We are Of opinion that these letters were, to
say the least, unwise and calculated to produce
rather than prevent injury, although they may
while We cannot fully acquIt him OF this impru-
dence We are not disposed to make that which is
Roud cOunss hm 10 Srss sra e We
cumspectien in the future. When o brother is
called to encounter peculiar trials in his minis
Of bis own body rather than Without such sdyics
TO choose his own method Of vindication.
III Charge second is for falsely answering
Erection Comprising four specifications, based
upon petition signed by three Of the board of
hve trustees Of the church, and forwarded to the
the alleged misrepresentation TO the influence
and action Of the Rev. John Brown.
We are Of opinion that the specif lions unde-
this head relating, as they do, to matters OF hu-
man Judgment, in which men may honestly differ.
are not such as form proper basis of grave accu.
sstion-thst in the premises they are trivial, and
that the charge they are brought TO support falls
III. Charge third Is "for inculcating ideas sub.
yersiYe Of the Christian religion" comprising
three specifications based on q remark cited from
q sermon which would tend to inculcate retaIia-
ton, and on another remark, made privately to
citizens Of Vienna, which would tend to foment
Nevada, narrated BY MI Brown himself whicn
would tend to show that he threatened violence
towards person who bad IN bis presence cast
obloquy upon the Saviour Of mankind.
As the Rev. John Brown denies 10 part and ad-
mIts in part these alleg atoms, while he utterly
disclaims the Idea OF wishing or attempting the
subversion Of the Christian religion, and expresses
regret that anything he may have said or done
should be SO construed, We are Of opinion that
that these particulars, so far as he admits them,
be correcte6 have neVef,SeIess Ses s somsWSSt
exaggerated by his accuser; and rs exhibited aud
explained before the coHmittee, and especially
when taken in connection with the general tenor
Of his public and private teachicg, they do not
furnish sufficient support Of the substance of the
charges 70 lay . foundation for fJrmal trial
~: Cnsrge fourth Is or failing to account for
eHnren comprising three stscinca ions, based on
the transactions with the treasurer OF the build-
ing committee, with the board OF trustees Of the
church, and with an Independent Organization,
known as the "Mite Society,""
We are OF opinion that this Is the most serious
charge In the entire list and the Investigation OF
slvey that it is entirely without foundation that
at the close Of It the aceusar himself Of his own
accord, rose in his place before the committee,
justice Of It, and ACKNOWLEDGED the wrong that
had been inflicted BY It on Rev. John Brown.
V. Charge NTH Is "for speaking contemptuously
terry and Of Individual members thereof" COM
prising three Specifications, based on two or three
Statements made in private and casual converse
far as admitted and explained by Rev. John
Brown before the committee, appear TO have been
made In sportiys manner, and without any de-
or the individual mem 6ers thereof. They may Be
regarded as not evincing proper caution IN the
promiseuous intercourse Of minister of the Cos
pei, but the Presbytery would be slow TO condemn
brother for . freedom Of indulgence, which,
while II cannot be approved, would II subjected 10
q severity Of discipline, be likely to defeat the
highest object Of such discipline.
vi The sixth charge Is Sfor applying insult
ing language TO bis church members" comprising
six specifications, based on alleged conversations
and remarks affecting Mr.. Edmund Flagg, Mrs.
NJ. NJ. Wright, Miss Martha Jones and the men,
bers Of his present congregation in Washington.
These remarks, as alleged, were met by the Rev.
John Brown in counter.statements and explana-
tions, and particularly in the case Of Mr.. Flagg,
who was present and made very clear and sat.
isiactOry statement before the committee and
also in the case OF the members OF his Washing
ton congregation, in regard to whom other per-
sons present before the committee made salts
factory statements. The ledies-Mrs. Wright
and Miss Jones-were not before the committee.
The alleged onense in regard to them was repre-
sented BY other parties. But from all the in
formation under this charge coming before the
committee, we are Of opinion that the grounds Of
II in the premises are extremely frivolous, show
ing excessive zeal Of accusation, which, If Sc
riously countenauced, would leave no security for
men or women in the usual walks OF life.
VII. The seventh charge is Tor ''vtolating the
rules and ussges OF the Presbyterian Church"
comprising three specifications, based on the allie
cations Of causing the election Of person 70 the
Of calling meeting Of the congregation for the
election Of trustees on the sabbath day, and Of
cautng such election aud the transaction Of other
secular business on the Sabbath. To these allie
cations the Rev. John Brown replied by denying
substantially the facts as alleged, and BY ex-
planning the peculiar situation Of the tnchoate
Church. He pleaded the unique condition and