The Portland daily press., 1881-05-09
Case OF 0. M. Cousens.

To the Editor Of the Pres:
do not appear before the public in this case
to enter into newspaper controversy with any
one, for this article is the first and will be tie
last upon this subject from me or in behalf CT
the action of the committee in his case, unless
it may be found necessary to correct mis-
statement of facts.
Neither is it my design to vindcate the ac-
ton of the committee They acted impartial
ly and conscientiousy, aud there the matter
must rest.
Mr.. Cousens had a long, fair and impartial
hearing. He was not only at liberty to testify
in his own behalf, which he did at length, but
also to present all the testimony he could in
his favor. Moreover he was defended by coun-
sci of his own selection, from among the ablest
members OF .!ie Conference and they per-
formed their duty faithfully. The committee,
fifteen in number, was composed of some oil
the most pious, candid and able members Of
the conference, among whom were the Rev. G.
f. Allen, d. d., S. f. Wetherbee, Joseph
Colby, E. w. Hutchinson, E. Marten
After hearing all the testimony iu the case,
aud the pleadings OF his counsel, the commit
tee found the charge of "cruel and unchristian
conduct to bis wife and children" fully sus-
tanned.
1t appeared by the testimony OF witnesses
that were unimpeached, that in several in
stances that he struck, choked and badly
scratched his wifs-that he threw biscuit at
her head and pear preserves in her face, that
at one time he made an attempt to thrust her
head into tub of water at which she was
washing. That this i'll treatment commenced
some two years after they were m,rried and
continued from year to year up to the time of
their separation. That he treated his wife
with cruelty aud did not give her suitable care
while she sick. Also cruel treatment
against his children was proven. For this
conduct the committee expelled him from the
ministry and membership Of the NJ. e Church.
The other charge was "culpable negligence
10 business transaction with Hoyt, Fogg g.
Breed". Upon this charge the statement OF
your reporter is substantially correct, as ap-
peared by the testimony of Mr.. Hoyt, one of
the partners of the firm Your reporter is not
quite correct in his report of my statement
with reference to the charges Of profanity and
falsehood. What intended to say was that
while the son, who appeared to be some twelve
or thirteen years old and stood before the COM
mittee unimpeached, testified in the case of
profanity, that Mr.. Cousens in the hearing of
the lad at different times did use the express
sion therein stated with reference to Mrs.
Cousens, the mother of the boy, yet as there
Was no other witness to confirm the boys state
ment, the committee seemed unwilling to con-
vict brother minister of such an enormous
crime upon single testimony, and therefore
voted the charge OF profanity was not sus-
tanned. Upon the charge of faschood there
was testimony both ways; the committee
judged that there was just ground for mistake
and therefore judged that the charge was not
sustained. This was in substance what 1 in
tended to state to your reporter. AS 1 was at
the time he called sick in bed l, perhaps, failed
to make myself fully understood
The above, Mr.. Editor, is plain statement
of the facts IN tho case, as they appeared be.
fore the committee, and their action in the
premises. They are made without any design
to wrong or affiict Mr.. Cousens, nor with any
i'll will towards him, for L have been on terms
of friendship with him for years.
Allow me further to say that my official act
in the case was one of the most painful of my
life, but duty demanded it.
This communication would not have APP
peared had not the matter got into the papers
through other agency than my own.
D. B. RANDALL.
May 7, 1881.