Martinsburg independent. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1875-1900, 1882-06-17

cate; the tender of the use to the
M. E. Church South of a house OF
worship in GerardstoWn, by the
parties you represent, cannot be
accepted, as by so doing we would
surrender right of the use OF
said property which we claim in
equity aud law, as equal at least
to any claim that may be set up
by the Meth odist Episcopal
Church.
We are extremely sorry that the
question has been agitated and
had hoped that matters should
have remained as they were, in
view of the increasing sentiments
of good feeling brought about by
the leading men of both branches
of Episcopal Methodism on this
Continent. We desire nothing
but what is right, and especially
do we desire to avoid all strife
and contention. The undersign-
ed surviving members of the
Board of Trustees, having been
such for more than twenty five
years, beg leave. in the interest of
peace and fraternity to submit the
following proposition; namely.
4 hat by mutual agreement be-
tween the contending parties, the
property in dispute be regarded
as the joint property of the two
churches, each to occupy one half
of the time, (cOurteOusly giving
away TO each other on special oc
casions) having a common share
in the incidental expenses, such
as repairs, etc.; each party to have
an eqnal number in the Board of
Trustees. Furthermore. if either
party shall cease to occupy the
church, the party continuing to
serve the people at Gerardstown to
have entire control and ownership
ofproperty. This proposition we
regard as being in accordance
with Justice and due regard for
the interests of our common Meth
odism.
Very Respectfully,
L. HOUswoRTH.
G. STUMP,
Rev. Woods sense of right and
desire to satisfy friendly inquiries
induced him to make his publica-
ton. Why, if he was so anxious
that the public should understand
this whole matter, did he mutt
late the letter ofreply from Messrs.
Stump and Housworth, and with
hold from his friends and the
public, that part of their CORE
spondence intended to show their
fairness and the Cancellation with
which they were disposed to act
toward their brethren of the M.
E. Church. The public can draw
their own conclusions, as | have
mine. Our people, anxious to
settle the matter, renewed the
search for the lost deed-if there
was one--since 1865. The Clerks
Office had been examined time
and again without success, until a
short time since, when John S.
Bowers, a friend of our church
and J. p. Stump looked up the
original deed from McKeever TO
M. E. Church. Then and there
our claim under the civil law end
ed.
Under the Cape May decision,
the church ought to be ours, for at
that time they had less than we,
but the numbers were SO near
equal that by tacit consent moth
ing was done under it. Both
churches occupied the house con-
jointly until brother Wood come.
When brother Woods title (if he
had ANY, was questionable, he
magnanimously rendered us the
use of the church. We were then
using the church and had been
using it for many years without
question, but so soon as he found
out Through our industry and re-
search) that the property was his
in law, he magnanimously and
unanimously requested us to with
draw, as the following extract
from his letter, handed me by
Mrs. Wood after the close of SER
vices at my last appointment in
Gerardstown, will show.
May 9th, 1882.
To REV. JNo. w. WOLFF.
Dear Brother. / now call
your attention to the fact that
since your refusal of our offer, you
e the M. +. Church South have
continued to use the Church. We,
e the M. E. Church, now respect
fully ask you, in the interest of
peace, religion and common
Methodism to withdraw.
Signed in behalf of the Board of
Trustees and Quarterly Confer
ence of the M. 4. Church at Ger
ardstown. THOs. WOOD.
We have complied gracefully