Wilmington daily commercial., 1875-09-15
- ----=-------------------
,t'lie Rkenncy Case.


TIoa-soME OF IT'S INoossI4rENcis SHOWN
TUE VOTE OF The oMMITrEE-suPPosED mo-
TIVE FoH THE CHANGES.
10 TIE Editor of the Commercial:
The main facts i'll the preliminary investigation
into the charges which have been made against
the Rev. l.. I. Ksnney, with the finding of the
committee, have already been reported in your
columns. There are other facts, however, that
should bo known Permit the writer, then, who
is thoroughly familiar with the case in all its
bearings. to produce some unpublished details III
connection with this case
The committee, in its investigation, resolved
the charge into three separate subjects OF i'll
uify-drunkenness, immortality, and immoral
conduct, in the examination OF which several
witnesses were called, the prJaecution relying
upon the same witnesses principally for the
substantiation of each specification This testi-
nony was reduced to writing, and by other than
the commlttee, one of which copies your cores
nondent has soon aud therefore is not writing at
random.
Inns testimony is very conflicting i'll many es-
sentlal points. So long as all the Witnesses
were permitted to hear each others statements
(an1 none of them were put on oatlI,) they all
agreed. Hence it is that there is no difference
in the statements of each of the witnesses on the
specification OF dlunkenuess They all relate
the samn story of Dir. kenney's erratic conduct
when first he appeared iu Mrs VanaIeters tent.
rhey say III effect that his actions were strange
and unusual, that his conversation was peculiar,
that his eyes snapped, that his breath smelled of
liquor, and that his general demeanor was that
ut a man under tho Influence of strong drink.
they all further agree i'll the time OF Mr. Ken
npy's entry into the tent, VIZ Two or three MN
utsa before eight o'clock, at which time they
were all present, and remained from fifteen to
twenty minutes after ei9ht-so that tho whole
time he was in the tent was not more than twen-
ty-three minutes During the first part of this
time all these witnesses claim to have been pres
euJ aud Mira. Van Meter, III her statement, says
she was in constant codyersation with Mr.. Ken
ney during the whole time, was by his side, and
snellsd his breath frequently.
Now these witnesses further say there was no
light IN this tent, and d far in relation 10 the To-
cation OF tho lamp on tho outside, one witness
saying it was not lighted at all. If then there
Was no light III the teut. how was it possible to
see the "snap" of Mr., kenney's eYes9 Furth-
er, ii all th3se Witnesses were present as stated,
how can it be possible that MIR. kenney could
have performed the immoral act towards Mrs.
anAeter's daughter, she charging it was done
in her absence Now mark you, Mrs VauMett r
states that this act was committed very shortly
after Mr. Kenney5 entry into the tent, but she
further says that she was called from another
tent to witness Mr.. kenney b conduct And yet
-he claims, i'll order TO be positive about the
charge OF drunkenness, that she was in Mr.. Ken
ney's presence IN conversation with him during
his stay at her tent.
These two statements, it seems to me, are so
irreconcilable, that Mrs. VanAleter's testimony
is worthless. As for the other witnesses, their
evidence is equally at variance in many import
ant particulars, and oGe of them asserted after
he waa released that " L ain going to lie any
for them" Again when tho witnessea were ex-
amined on the second specification, they then
coming in separately, they eontradicted them
selves point blank that na-much as they had
previously stated they We're all present, they
now say that only one or two OF them were
there when MIR. Kenney first came to the tent.
Mr.. Kenneys sou says that only one or two of
these witnesses were present when he and his
father went TO the tent and that he remained
during his fathers entire stay and says he saw
no such Conduct as was charged
Ii necessary can pfoducs humorous other in
stances of conflicting testlmcny for the prose-
oltion, or ii desired the evidence i'll full on both
sides. Again, may allude to the character and
cediblly Of the witnesses for the pros ecution, as
compared with those of the defence, the latter
belny well and favorably known in the commu-
nifty III which they llye and are of undoubted
integrity. Notwithstanding the directness OF
their tee imony,tile C Jmmittt have recorded by
their votes that there is sufficient foundation in
the charge for Il trial by the Conference. In
their vote the committee stood as follows: For
trial, Revs. Mers srs Welsh, HuIlock, Hood, Ash
ton, and RAkestraw; for Dismissal of the charge,
Rev. Mes9rs. Knrtz, Patterson, McClary and
Carson. 1t would seem from the previous yutes
Of AT least portion of the Committee that they
vere preiuiiced against Mr.. Kenney, and this
feeling is very strongl shown III their refusal of
his request that the doors be thrown open aud
tho public be admitted TO the investigation.
This feeling was further displayed in the remo-
val of the case. and very notably when it was
attempted TO dag Mr. Keuney's witnesses to
Philadelphia to there give i'll their testimony;
aud III the final removal of the case to Chester
for argument it would ,aom that they were in
llIenced by pressure outside the evidence.
There was one point which the Defence wish
ed to lay before the Committee, viz the motive
which prompted the chSrge, but this was snc-
cesafully resisted by Rev. hlr Mast. counsel for
tue prosecution, although very proper subject
of inquiry. The Dtteuce think they under
stand this motive, and iuasmuch as it was not
permitted to go before the committee, Will lay
it before higher court that of Public Opinion,
for it is here that MIR. kenney is suffering the
most by tho singular action of the committee.
The whole caso Is believed to hang upon spite,
if it is not an attempt to blackmail Mrs. Van
Meter and Mr.. Kenuey's step-mother are very
warm friends, while between the latter and Mr..
kenney there is not IL m0therly affection be-
cause of the refusal of MIR. Kenney as the
champion of the rights of the other heirs to his
fathers estate, amounting to some S25 600 or
$50, 600 to allow as funeral expenses bill of
about $3.50. for clothing contracted by this step
mother. BY virtue uf her friendship it is the
general belief among those who arc cognzant
of tue facts that this step mother has concocted
the whole Charge in order to revenge herself
upon MIR. Kenney. and some even hint that it ia
also an effort at blackmail.