The daily gazette., 1881-12-22
THE FOREMAN-ANDERs0N scan. .
DAL.

HAVING THE SUIT IN COURT AGAINs
HIM wITHDRAwN-A BRIEF RryIE
OF THE DoINGs OF THE INvEsTIeA.
ING COMMITTEE AND THE JUDIcrA
COURT IN THE CASE.
The Foreman--Anderson scandal
still fresh In the minds Of your +. ader
and we will not attempt rehe arsal. .br
give some facts that have recently com
10 light. The friends Of the church I
we'll as the friends of Rev. Isaac N. For,
man Of the Wilmington M. K. Confer
ence, looked forward with much intel
est to the November term of the couu
for Kent County, held at Dover. As th
case did not come up at the spring term
IL was understood as matter of cause
10 wa laid over until the Novembe
term. But we have been greatly sur
prlsed, and disappointed to learn tha
Rev. Mr.. Foreman has made a compro
mise with Mr.. Anderson, ,bypaying Ger
tain sum of money, (Mr. Anderson say.
$l5O) and the suit for damages agains
him has been withdrawn. We are still
more greatly surprise TO learn that this
compromise had been effected, and the
money paid before the last session Of
the Conference, which was held March
h, al Lewes.
This will be astonishing news TO many
members of that body.
IL Will be remembered that the unfor
tunate girl was quite young, about six
teen years of age, ,aud had been employed
as servant In Rev. Mr.. Foreman's
family, while he was Pastor of Lslpsic
and Raymond M. E. Church. After Miss
Cora had become mother, she swore
her child to Mr.. Foreman.
This was unpleasant news coming TO
ears Of Rev. I. e. Martindale, Presiding
Elder OF Easton District, in accordance
with the provision of the Discipline (see
page 1879 appointed an investigating
committee, as q preliminary step In the
case. This committee, after due notice
summoned the accuser, and the accused
to meet In SMYRNA.
This was about the second week IN
January. The parties appeared, and the
investigation commenced, but we are
conformed had not proceeded very far,
wien 1t was ascertaiDed that the defen.
dant, was not prepared and wished the
case postponed few days, that he might
have time to have other witnesses sum
moned.
The second meeting was held In few
days afterward, at the same place Mr..
Anderson, wife and his daughter Cora,
were present and ready for trial, bat
Rev. Mr.. Foreman did not put in his ap-
pearance We learn from good authori-
TO that Mr. Enrarn ~ uuaa - ,I,n ,inao -
the tine.
Mr.. ADderson's counsel refused to
allow bis clients daughter to appear be-
fore The committee in Mr.. Foreman's
absence, unless he should be allowed to
be present; this the committee refused
to do. The committee violated the discl.
pline and usage OF the NJ. e. Church IN
Wishing to proceed with the investiga.
tion In Mr.. Foreman's absence-when
he was In town at the time. The ian.
guage OF the book Is 40 investigate the
case, and If possible bring the accused
and aecuser face to face" See page
1877, paragraph POO. section /. Can any
Of the members OF the committee inform
us why the defendant was not present at
their second meeting referred to? Who
will answer? 1t vas a. the first meet
ing at Smyrna that Rev. Mr.. Foreman
was arrested, bat gave security for his
appearance at court. So far as we can
learn the committee did nothing more
In the case, and here the matter rested
until Conference,
On Thursday, the second day OF the
Sc ssion, when the name of Isaac n.
Foreman was called, T. E. Martindale,
p. E., presented charges, which were
referred to Judicial Court. (See Spe-
cial Com, page 7, Com. Minutes by
referring TO the minutes II will be seen
that this Judicial Court was composed
of some OF the most able and prominent
members of the Conference. Consider
ing the ability OF this court, we expected
that the case would have been thor
oughly Investigated and the purity of
the Church woald have been vladicated,
but in this we have been greatly disap-
point'd d. If il was important that the
accused aud the accuser should be
brought face TO face at preliminary
hearing of the case, how much more i'm
portant to them brought face TO face al
the Hnal trial before the Judicial Court.
But we learn that Judicial Court pro-
eeeded to Trial OF the case without sum
moning Miss Anderson and her wit
nesses to be present. Mr.. Anderson
and his daughter beth informed the
writer that they told the committee they
were both ready and willing to appear
for trial at the Conference to be held at
Lewes. When this court NIT to try the
case and found the accuser aud the wit
nesses were not present, the case could
have been referred TO the Presiding
Elder, who may have had charge of the
accused. For trial see Baker on Dis
cipline, page los. We are perfectly as
touished when we learn that witnesses
had been summoned by the defense to
impeach the character OF the accuser
without her knowledge, but so far as
we have been able to ascertain tho tes-
tmony produced utterly failed TO break
the oath OF the once vlrtuous girl. How
unfair, unchristian and unjust to at.
tempt 10 further degrade Miss Ander-
son by trying to impeach her character
when she was not notified to be present
at the trial with her witnesses.
Now comes the verdict of the court,
AZ reported to the Conference on the
sixth day. 1.-THE committee appointed
In the case of Rev. l. N. Foreman re.
spectfully report that after careful
examination, it Is their unanimous
Judgment that the charges have not
been sustained in any of their specit-
cations, and they recommend the pas
sage of his character.
May we ask the question why none
of the charges were sustained? Who
will give us an answerp We are in.
formed by good authority that "Mr.