Martinsburg independent. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1875-1900, 1882-06-17
GERARDSTOWN.
M. r.. Church VS.. M. l..
Church South.

cation from Rev. Thomas WOOD,
pastor of the M. E. Church at
Gerardstown, w. Va, claiming
TO give a statement of facts In re-
lation to the church troubles at
that place. If it was the inten'
ton of Rev. Thomas Wood to
mislead the public in reference to
the mater it was certainly no fault
of his if he failed to do so.
Had he given fair and candid
statement of the question at issue,
/ would be content to let the pup
lie draw conclusions therefrom,
without one word of explanation
from me. There is such a perver-
sion of facts, and garbllng OF
statements, that unpleasant as II
is for me to call in question the
candor and fairness of a brother
minister, truth and just regard
for the right, compel me to do SO.
1t is known that in 1861 the Bal
timore Conference by large ma
iority voted to ignore the authori-
ty of the General Conference OF
the M. z. Church. Without GO
ing into detail with regard to the
causes of the disruption of the M.
f. Church in 1874, and the rela-
tons of the Baltimore Conference
to the M. E. Church South, the
war found us in possession of Ber-
kelley circuit, of which Gerards-
town was part. For four years
and more we were the sOufOccu-
pants of the ground, and alone
ministered to the Methodist peo-
ple. Thus 5 years of Bro Woods
81 wears are disposed of. AT the
close of the war the minority of
the Conference sought to take
possession of the property and
membership. In this they failed,
as the great boGy OF the people re-
fused to submit to them, and
when they came to enforce their
claim to exclusive control of the
church property they could find
no deed Here the matter ended,
and both parties continued to use
the church without question until
Rev. Thomas Wood came, who
soon began to assert ownership,
saving that the properly belonged
to them. and the use of the house
nv the M. Z. Church South. was
bv simple courtesy. Mr.. Wood
proposed to take formal possession
bv purchasing material to erect a
building thereon, as they might
see proper.
This action excited the MEM
hers of the NJ. + Church South to
demand the appointment of trus-
tees to fill the vacancies in the
Board, (there being but two trus-
tees living to protect whatever
interest they might have 10 the
property. This proceeded to do
hinder the code of West Virginia,
not for "our church." as brother
Wood was pleased to say in his
letter to the Baltimore Methodist
of April 22nd; but for "this
church"-a material difference.
After this action, Of which he
complains. and for which he has
been so bitterly pursuing me, the
following letter was addressed to
G. Stump, and if he was not au-
thorized to receive the PROPOSE
ton. then it was to be written to
brother J. W. Wolf:
April 9th, 1882.
To Mr.. CASPER STUMP.
Dear Sir: am requested to
inouire if you officially represent
at GerardstOWn, the M. E. Church
south, and if you do to bear you
fraternal greetings from the Trus-
tees and Quarterly Conference of
the M. +. Church, and on their
behalfextend to the M. +. Church
South, through you, their repre-
sentative, the use of the M. e.
Church al Gerardstown, for public
worship. If you do not officially
represent the M. f. Church South
/ am requested TO communicate
with the Rev. J w Wolff, to the
same effect, and request a reply at
an early day.
Signed on behalf of the Board
of Trustees and Quarterly Confer
ence ofthe M. f. Oh rch.
Very Respectfully,
THOS. WOOD.
shall be very happy to receive
a reply.
Bros. STUMP AND HOUsEWOR II
TO REV. WOOD:
Dear Brother: Your favor o.
April 9th, 1882, inquiring wheth-
er or not / officially represent at
Gerardstown, the M. E. Church
South, is before me. My answer
is / do-as one of the surviving
trustees of the house of worship
used by the Methodists of this
E.- 4