New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-03-23

BISHOP HARES TESTIMONY.
HOW HE ACTED TOWARD MR. HINMAN.


Mr.. HINMAN.
Justice Van Worst decided yesterday morn
ing that Bishop Hare the defendant in the libel sut
brought by the Rev. Mr. Hnman could state TO the jury
the views which held in regard TO his right to rohmt
Mr. Human from partaking Of the communion Bishop
Hare said: at held that Mr.. Humans right to receive
the holy communion was permanent ngnt
which, in the case Of Clergyman coulu
not DO taken away except after trial. Bis
appointment missionary on the ether hand was an
office renewed yearly, and could be withheld at the end
of any year. Moreover his right TO receive the COM
munion was privilege bestowed for his own Deneh'
with which ought not to interfere, while his appoint
ment as q missionary was trust bestowed on him TOT
the benefit of others, which it was my duty to with
draw. Again. while II may he proper for parish minis
repel lay COMMUNICATE who has the right to ap
peal to the Bishop wonld not have been right for me
repel Mr. Human, who could have no appeal from my
act" Bishop Hare declared that, on the Feast OF the
Annunciaton March "a, 1873 he, and not MI Hinnan,
had acted as celebran in the administration Of the com
munon An entry in his diary confirmed his recolec
ton In this particular He denied Mr.. Humans state
rnent that he nhe Bishop had not men,
toned Miss Kirbachs name ut the time ne
gave Mr. his letter Of dismissal He also denied
that the only charge mentioned by him was that
which related to Miss Kirbach He had mentioned
great many charges. Mr.. Human testified that Bishop
Hare had kept Miss Kirbach under close surveillance
and prevented him from seeing her This was not true
Miss Kirbach moved about the house freely ana Mt.
Human could have spoken with her OF any time II ne
had desired No obstacle to meeting between len
was ever nterposed 10y the Bishop He never rebuked
Miss West for speaking Miss Kirbach but he DID tell
her that Miss Kirbach not TO he abused or intmi-
dnted Mr. Human had never demanded. as stated IN
his pamphlet to be confronted with Miss Krbach ana
the witness had never refused 10 allow H. He had never
prohibited Mr.. Hinman from acting as
clergyman in the diocese Of NiObrara Mr.
Uinmnn had never dcmsuded trial until
be did so IN letter dated April IL 1873 Mr. Human
testified ths be made repeated demands for trial be-
fore that date H9 never told Mr.. Hinman that he
woula not give him letters Of dismissal nor did he ever
say that If Mr. HnInan attempted 70 oflciate else
where he would write and stop it.
The witness admitted that he had summoned tho
cateohists before him and questioned them about Mr.
Human lie had onjoined secrecy upon them but he
never told them hunt up evidence aGnst Mr. Hnnal
and he d not place Ir nman under their surveillance
lie told them find out whether the stories which they
had heard were really He had far from spread
ing runors against Mr. HnuaD, never breathed them to
anyone except prominent Bishops with whom he con-
suited In regard TO them, and perhaps 10 lay men,
bcrs of the Board OF Missions When
he dismissed MIR Hinman he told him
he would pay him for the furniture in the mousse
which Mr.. Human had occupied. He afterward t9ld
Mr. Human that upon further consideration he could
not carry the engagement, "a he doubted whether
the furniture belonged to him Inman) He never told
bin be would not pay for the furniture unless he
Hinman) resigned the ministry and submitted 10 pri-
vate degradation. He had, indeed, afterTard sug-
ersted TO Mr. Human that he should resign the ministry
and avoid the scandal Of n trial. Mr. Human indig
nantly refused. The suggestion was not made at time
when any question of property discussed between
them and had connection with any such question,
and Mr. Hnman's statement TO that effect wac not true
He told Mr. Human that he would continue his stipend
for three months, in Mr. Human acknowledged his
title to the mission property and submitted to his
authority as Bishop and did not stir up the Indians
against him otherwise Mr. ITinman cOuld only expect
what the rigid Justice would entite him TO- In re-
gard TO Mr. Humans charge that Bishop Hare had In
vcd the Indian chiefs TO feast at the mission mousse
Santee aud there attempted to make merry WIN them
over Mr. Humans dismissal Bsbop Hare sad that he
had Invited the chiefs TO dine with him There was
feast" in the proper scceptatlon OF me term Of
Though the Indians may have considered IL a feaat |
T6GTe %as n9 Of prond pcrvaded the
pany! Bis6oE Hare declared that Mr. Humans state
on every occasion nsnl;ed and humbed him,
and had a6nssa . and d, GTqT T%Sns5 paT lie
admitted that had been betrayed INTO saving to Miss
her io With such beast as Iinman" He aferward
explained that when he used this LANGUAGE he had Just
heard Of shocking net on the part Of Mr. HlnIean |
toward one OF the schOOl-glrs .
Mrsnth expressed surprise that such an outrageous
thing should be allowed in court OF Juslee as this
sttenen Of the BSh1P %hS a %@ ydrs ad sed T T 70
angrfly whom he was arraiSning.
bty of questions not the counsel
Justice van Worst however granted MI Smiths mo- |
scrbed the in which The first court for tho trial
of Mr.. Hinman organized in which he contrsdcted
pamphlet He did not select the judges, but drew six
BY o aed iese The three Selected by Mr.
Human afterward acted as judges. lie mad nOthlng |
ecutor MIR. Human in his pamphlet described Fox as
discharged soldier advenurer and dissolute and
habtualb profane man. and asserted that Bishop Hare
cont a
known to him. Bishop Hare declared that Fox cnrac-
ter was known to him. 1t was not true that Fox
came to his the Bishops house drunk, and was taken
in and kept all night, and appeared publicly with the
he charges against Mr. Hnmau on the first trial When
told that the Court had decided that the trial must be
The Indictment was SO untechnical that it
had advised that tie trial be discontinued asc de-
MED that he had ever said Only resorted tn this
try for Evidence against Er HinmanS He never told
the Indians that 1t crime to receive Mr Human,
TO imprisonment" He had not gone about among his
clergymen and asked them TO resolution declaring
olergymen had passed series of resolutions IN the first
Of which the Bsh9s Sonrse in regard TO Mr. Human ~
dian Affairs to write 70 the secretary Of the Interior to
dian iGn country He did not earn Of he existence
of this order until months after 1t had been
the order he Wrote to the Commissioner telling him thst
il would be very unfair if Mr. Hnman, Who was Oh trial
ectng evidence his defence by his expulsion from the
country The Commissioner at the Bishops request,
pended the order against Mr. Human until after his
trial should have been concluded
Bishop Hare then in regard n conversation
with Mr. Welsh In Philade phia 1877. Mr.. Welsh said
These stories about Mr. Hnman can no longer be re-
sisted II has Just come to me that he is regarded In
Indian country a very immoral man. have heard
revolving charge against him in regard to
his wife" II. l.. Wright was Mr. Wclsh's in
former, and he got his information about
Mrs. Hinman from DR.. Spencer Roberts.
General J. II. hammond told the Bishop that
lie had always kept out OF the middle y about Mr.. |
nman, bat IL the Bishop wanted TO know the truth ali
he would have TO do would be in disguise into any
public Of hotel, and in five minutes he would dis
cover that Mr. Humans conduct the common talk.
Bishop Hare told the Rev. MT Gasan OF his conyersa-
Wi uaInInnnd Ind GaEmln aail TINT