The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1875-12-30
MRS. M0ULTON'S COUNCIL.
TtE THRTSTING AND PARRTTNG or
COTNSEL OTER DETfILS.


TIE situation NJ viewed nv Que who Urs
Hcen Kcen Observer of the ScnudnIs
fhrso-- What Mrs. Noultou may Do.
In reply TO Mrs. Moultons letter dcclin-
Inc to meet the mutual council committee Of
Plymouth Church to decide on the letter mis-
sive ani the list Of churches to be called, that
committee Yesterday replied that they had no
desire to hasten her, but a. her previous letters
seemed To- complain Of DELAY. they supposed
that she would be ead OF prompt action. They
ask for meeting in person TO settle questions
Of detail that otherwise might occupy weeks of
correspondence. They also urge that the letter
misslye shall be issued In the name Of the
church as Is the custom, and add that tho
right of a member to call council cannot he
recognized. The letter savs 1.-THE letter mis-
sivc Itself Is very simple document, IN which
there can be nothing important, except the
statement OF questions TO be considered, and
this the church has agreed to make, IN your
own language. word for word" They offer to
meet her at any time this week 10 name the
churches aud ministers, and they assure her
that they desire to make her way easy and meet
her III spirit Of the utmost accommodation.
Mrs MOultOn sent the letter to Mr.. V an Colt,
her counsel. who Is to decide on the prOposi-
uOns The very simple document" which
the committee cali the letter missivs, Ia what
Mrs Moulton's friends are suspicious Of, inas-
much a. II forms the basis Tor tho council's ac-
ton aud If It is so adrotly framed that It will
prevent the ministers from going beyond the
minutes OF the church, II will work very much
to Mrs. MoultOns disaG vantage.
One OF the most conscientious observers of
the Brook lyn scandal said yesterday:
II think that In the end the action OF Ply
mouth Church taken Monday evening VIII
amount to nothing. and was taken, technically,
because, In face Of the simple issues presented
~ MIS-. Moultnn, they were deprived OF all justi-
hcatton Tor calling an advisory council. | thiuk
that when the letters missiye come to be dis
their adroit player, Mt. sherman, that the sim
PIE questions proposed by Mrs. Monitor should
be submitted TO the council according to tho
records of the society, without either Of the
principals, Mr.. Beecher or Mrs. Moulton. being
heard and II this view IL insisted on, naturally
enough Mrs. Moulton would not acqulesce. and
nobody knows that better than Mr.. Shearman
aud Mr. Beecher, because IL would give her no
opportunity before the council OF stating tile
painil influences under which sho had acted,
OF Of presenting those witnesses ana giving
edge OF her pastors crimes was based.
Therefore In my opinion the action Of Plymouth
Church wa ~ disingenuOus and tricky AZ ia lite
nrst communication TO Mrs. Mout0n, when II
undertook TO state al the points upon which IL
ing To Mrs. MOulton no voice whatever In the
points u be submitted. which were even more
essential than the constitution of the council
itself. In my opinion there will be no mutual
council. because plymouth Church aud its pa
tor 90 not mesn and have not meant that there
shall hc II thev can helm 10, any INVESTIGATION bv
church council OF his perjury and adultery.
think that the course Of Alr Nuulton in cnfh-
m ncins a suit for malicious pro,ecut ion entire
Is Iustihable aud Just. II .INft 60 hinIs,If l.
he own yindication. ana his duty to The rublc
u TO rid 10 Of "A pastor who's" rre-ru4e IN the
pulut l. An insult to Christian Intelligence aud
ara offence to God; aud 10 no way can the
trilth b. wholly known, except through "A tribd-
nI that can compel testimony, IN order tina.
justice shall tie established. IL ought also 10 he
remembered that Plymouth Churcn ordered
that Mr. Mnulton's letter ia reply to their sub
misslon Of points. aud winch 30 moved the COM
munitv, should not pass upon its records, ~
tuAt therefore her deCliuution II the frs ttchni-
cal acceptance bv l''mouth Church Of mHtull
council and OF her reasons therefor (which
would De uf the utmost importance II the Couu-
ell should bc called without ethor OF the princi-
y j. being hearCJ, would be denied to Its deltu-
eratton-. In short, think that Shearman and
Bcechcr have adroitly attempted To place
Plymouth Church and ts records as defendant
against Nrs. MOuiton. whereas Mr.. Beecner Is
the criminal at the bar"