Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1881-09-15
BURR'S MILLS CAMP GROUNDS.
The True Inwardness Of the Squabble
for Possession of the Grounds.

The True Inwardness Of the Squabble
for Possession of the Grounds
EDITOR CHRoNICLE-In notice OF
the closing of the Burr's Mills camp
meeting, which appeared in the Wheel.
ing Daily Ihtelligencer, OF August 90
there occurs the following paragraph:
"We spoke of committee of confer
ence yesterday. They met and adjourn
ed until Tuesday. AS near as We can
understand the difficulty is about this
This ground was paid for by subscrip-
tion, the understanding being that if ey-
er sold the proceeds would be divided
pro-rata between the subscribers. But
this was found to be unsatisfactory
for property, for religious purposes, 50
it was proposed that the grounds become
the property of the district, and if ever
sold the proceeds be divided among the
churches of the district. a large ma
jority of the stockholders, or subscribers
rather, acceded to this, and donated their
shares, but few refused not only to
enter into this arrangement, but also to
sell their shares. The majority, howev-
er, proceeded to so deed the land. Ev-
er since there has been dissatisfaction.
Efforts have been made to compromise,
but in vain. In June the disaffected
party employed counsel with the inten-
tion of commencing proceedings in
court. Suit has not yet been commen-
ced, and it is for the purpose of averting
such calamity that the conference has
been appointed"
This is the language of some one,
whom we suppose has been attending
the camp-meeting at Burr's, and we re-
gret to see so gross blunder, following
so much that is grand in the foregoing
paragraphs of the same article. Surely
the writer is not stockhOlder, for it
seems to us strange that any person
would so pervert the truth, and yet con-
tribute his money for the promotion Of
any truly benificent enterprise. Now,
why was it that the property offered by
the original stockholders was unSatisfac-
tory for religious purposes? There
were surely no restrictions that did not
harmOnize with religion, nor that ought
to give offense to any great religious bo-
dy. the enterprise was originated
wholly by men about Burr's Mills-men
who have spent the best part of their
lives battling for the Methodist Episco-
pal Church; to use the sentiment of one
who has nearly reached his four-score
years, "That it might be- the means of
building up the Redeemer's kingdom in
that community" Anything unsatis-
factory in this? Again, thestockhold-
ers laid the property at the feet of the
church authorities. to use for religious
purposes, so long as they saw proper SO
to use it-no rent to be paid, nothing to
be received for its use. only to revert to
the stockholders, or their heirs, when the
church ceased to use it. Anything OBJ
jectionable in this? The writer again
says, so it was proposed that the
grounds become the property of the dis
trict." By whom was this proposition
made? Was it made by the men who
paid for the ground, or by some over
reaching, Jesuitical person, who aimed
at diverting the scheme from its legiti-
mate channel, to some personal uses.
Again the writer says, "a large ma
jority of the stockholders, or rather the
subscribers, acceded to this" What con-
stitutes a majority in a stock associa
tion? Is it the men or the money? In
either case we can not understand the
writer's arithmetic. In note from the
President of the original association,
which lies before US, We find that two
bundled and thirty-seven persons con-
tributed, and of these, fourteen have re-
leased. The whole amount of money
was about $1,000, and that released about
Sl53, Will some schoolboy solve this
question of ''large majority" and tell on
which side to report2
Again we quote, "A few refused not
only to enter into this agreement, but
also to sell their shares" Why did the
writer not tell the offer made by this
H6erat minded majority, and save us the
modification Ofsso unpleasant task, for
we are informed that it was this-that
the stockholders should sell to the COM
pany, fixing the time that the church
should use the ground, at fifty years,
they proposing to pay to any stockhold-
ers wishing to sell, the present worth of
their claim. discounting at the rate of
per cent per annum. Here is another
question for the mathematician. This
is no boys question. Can some of the
lay members of the ME-. Church answer ?
"The majority. however, proceeded to
deed the land" You fourteen, claiming
to be the majority of two hundred and
thirty-seven, tell the public how you
made that deedP
efforts have been made to compro-
mise, but in vain" Who made these
propositions for compromising? Was 1t
this glorioRs fourteen, claiming the ma
jority, or the two hundred and twenty
three, the insignificant few, constituting
the minority?
If the foregoing paragraph, which we
have glanced at, be true. it certainly af-
fords matter for reflection, 1t surely
foreshadows disposition on the part of
the few to divert the property of the
many, to any purpose that caprice or
ambition may suggest. But we feel sure
that although the church government is
Episcopal in form, there are checks
enough in the power Of the people, by
the blessing of Divine Providence. to
guide, it to glorious destiny.
ENQUIRER.
~ The many reports of the efficacy OF
1 y Nl..Nk,