Martinsburg independent. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1875-1900, 1882-06-24

/ SdIUllIS the statements Vi lu6
| question at issue" Now / charge
him and the members of his
church at this place, with raising
the question of ownership on Sun
day evening April End, 1882,
when on his own confession he
proceeded to elect a Board of
Trustees for the property. 1t was
then and not till then. that | be-
gan 10 look into the ownership of
the property and defy him or
anybody else to show that there
was aay official interference be-
/ fore that date.
Next he asserts "that / proceed
ed to take formal possession, etc."
What, take formal possession af-
| ter being in possession for fifty
seven years Query. Does a
farmer proceed TO take formal
possession every time he buys
material to build a tenant house,
cow shed or hog pen ? Strange
"To erect building thereon as
we see proper" Why did he not
tell the readers of the INDEPEN-
DENT that consulted with sew
eral persons representing all par
ties interested about the said bull
ding, and told them it was to be
occupied by the sexton; said sex
ton to open the church for the
Union Sunday School and all the
services held in the church. Each
person consulted endorsed the
movement. This action says the
Rev. gentleman, excited the MEM
bers OF the NJ. e. Church South to
demand the appointment of Trus-
tees. What the M. E. Church
dare not build a house for a sex
ton upon its own ground, without
exciting them thus We think q
little more religion and less eX-
element would be wholesome for
them, and advise itas remedy to
cool them down.
He then says "this | proceeded
to do under the code ofthe State.o
We deny the existence in this
State, of such a code as would
make it his duty to comply with
the excited demands of his church
members to elect trustees for 9TH
er peoples property. "Not for
our church as brother Wood was
pleased to say etc., but for this
church." Was the Rev. Wolff
acting in an official capacity ? Did
he represent his church ? Was
he simply complying with an ex-
cited demand of his members as
he allows ? Ifso, had he succeed
ed in the scheme, how would it
have been understood, this church
or our church. Where would the
material difference come in /?
Next in order, the assertion Is
made that | have been bitterly
pursuing him. If he inter-
prets my defence OF our church al
bitterly pursuing him, well.
Here follows the official greet
ings and tender TO the M Z.
Church South, Of the church for
their use, from the NJ +. Church,
and their response. The former
bears date of april 9th, 1882,
twenty five days after the action
Of which / complained. Durinq
this period, viz. April Dad and
the offer of the NJ. Il Church
made 10 the M. il. Church South,
April 9th, the M. +. Church
South had tried in vain TO secure
deed for the property under
false pretenses, also part owner
ship by verbally Offering april
| 14th) 10 settle the trouble between
us, if the NJ. + Church would con-
sent to let them have one half the
trustees. This proposition was
respectfully declined in writing
April 10Th, for the following rea-
sons: First. The trustees had no
power to divert the property, in
part, from the control OF the M.
e. Church. Second. If the prop
erty belongs to the M. Il. Church,
as we believe it does, the NJ. +.
South has no right to make the
demand. Third. fthe property
belongs to the M. +. Church
South, we do not ask to be given
one half of il by having one half
of the trustees. The scriptural
ground the M. e. Church takes
for the above conclusion are in
Matt. VII, VS. II. 1T is but just to
say, that, when Mr.. Stump made
the above proposition, l assured
MIN in the presence of a witness
there was no objection for the NJ.
e. Cnurcn South to use the prop
erty, if they would accept our Of
fer of its use.
From april 14th to April 9th,
we waited, but received no reply
Did brother VOLTS desire for
candor and to have all the CORE
spondence published, his "aense
OF trutn and justice" toward
brother minister, compel him to