The Hartford herald. [volume] (Hartford, Ky.) 1875-1926, 1875-11-10

gard as either intentional, or uninten-
tional, thrusts at the District Confer
ence, l consider it my official duty to
reply. Having hitherto had nothing
to do with the troubles as between ].
a. Humphrey and the church at No
creek, it is not now my purpose to dis.
cuss the merits or dement's of either
party in question, but simply to defend
the District Conference in its action as
above. AS to your challenge to the
defense of the resolution in question, /
presume some one of the parties to that
paper will be heard from soon. We
would not, if we could, detract from
the popularity of j. A. Humphrey in
Hartford, or any other locality. We
have always admired his intellectual
ability. We think, in many respects,
he is without a superior; but, we think,
that like other men, he is liable to
misguided actions.
You say, eff Mr.. H. had assumed
a pastoral position over church in Mr..
Gardeners circuit, then he was
acting wrong" &c. This is not the is
sue, as before the District Conference.
We do not arraign Mr.. H. for usurpa-
ton of Mr.. G's PASTORAL authority, but
for invasion of his PASTORAL territory,
and for conflict of operations. As for
instance, preaching at Hartford when
Mr.. G. was holding two-1ays meet
ing in the bend of Rough creek, in less
than three miles of Hartford his preach
ing last Sunday in Hartford while the
District Conference was in session at
No creek. All classes of men have
their ,lwritten codes-so have Metho,
dist preachers. All class Of men claim
the right in some way to enforce those
unwritten laws; and, it is very rare that
purely outside parties, except it be
journalists (who claim an inalienable
right to attend to everybOdy's business);
challenge such right. The District
Conference had perfect right to at
tend to its legitimate business in its
own way. 1t had a perfect right, with
the facts before it, to pass upon Mr..
HIS conduct, as above, and pronounce
it violation of that courtesy which
is ever due from one Methodist preach
er to another" You ask several ques-
tons of those who 81 neil the resOlu-
tons in question, which it is not our
province to answer. You say The
passing Of the Neutrality-suspicious.
giving Mr.. H. hearing or a chance
to explain, is very strange indeed" On
behalf of the District Conference, we
say Mr.. H. was net denied the right to
explain. He was present by special
invitation by the Secretary when the
action was had, and no one thought OF
denying him the right to explain or to
make any defense he might have
thought proper, but he asked no such
liberty of the conference, and no one
saw fit to ask it for him. This differs
very materially from the impression
made by your article. Your closing
words leave the impression that Mr..
H. was positively denied the right to
make defense, which was by no means
the case. We hope, brother Barrett,
that before you use your columns for
another unprovoked attack upon a
church conference, you will take the
time to inform yourself as to the merits
o. the case in question; at theleast, give
both sides of the question critical re-
view before going into print.
WILL Il. BARNETT,
| Co. G.oonv;lIa hist Tor,