Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1882-09-04
WAnIntereatIng Cases.,


SAVANNAH, September 2.-EdItor Morning
Ae,Os: There appears In your paper Of to-day
an incorrect and unfair local under this
caption. Your reporter did not get some
Of his statements or differences from the
record.
There was not any evidence showing that
this "old church was built about one hun
bred years ago, in the early settlement Of
Georgia, for the accommodation Of the
worshipers of the Presbyterian faith. "
The charter, granted at the in
s'ance Of the people Of the dis
trlct incorporated the members Of
the congregation of the Congregational
Church or Meeting House of White Bluff "
Inc word Presbyterian" or anything tan
fmouHfto it, docs rot occur, directly or
fh2 rlsss.z with reference to it..
ne incorporE5Ors or
fhelr successor hBdA8eef gone oyer to that
church. Il did appear, however, that
no to the late war, PresbYSerians
had mainly composed the congregation,
that Presbyterian divines had (probably as
The result of this been always called to the
church, that Presbyterian adherents and
logically faith had controlled, and that in
garded as Presbyterian. 1t was admitted,
nevertheless, that, even in those days, mem
bers of other evangelical churches could
iliu, While stating this much, desire
also to say that our movement was not
aati-Presbyterisn Il have the profoundest
respect for this venerable churchl except in
50 far as we claimed that the church was I'm
UNCONVENTIONAL.
II Is not true, as stated in the local, that
the defendants 1.-THE old board) asserted, and
'sshowed by sfidavits that the so-called
trustees (mesning myself and cO-trustees)
were self-elected without warrant In law CT
equity; that, so far from being PresbYterians,
they are BaptIsts and Roman Catholics, and
dfi not even belong to the congregation Of
the church at the time they were elected as
trustees The charge that our purpose was
to convert the church into Bsp
fist Church is also entirely unsupported
by even the evidence for the defendants "a
remarkable purpose for Roman Catholics,
bv the way) No sfflsnt undertook to
state that he or she had ever heard one OF
us saw ANYTHING that would Justify this con-
c,usIon as to our purpose; on the contrary,
the evidence of the defendants showed that
we claimed only that the church was unsec-
tartan. 1t wss not denied nor disputed that
st the last election three of our board re-
ceived twenty-one votes each (sl OF those
of the old board), one nineteen and one
eiphteep: that these were the votes OF the
Deople present. Among these twenty-one
the defendants claimed that there were sew
eral Baptists and two Catholics. 1t was
abundantly proved by US land not denied by
the other side that all OF these electors
were. at the time Of the election, and had
been for some time previous, residents OF
the White Bluff district, members
of the congregation and regular 81,
PENDANTS at the services. No one
asserted that we were ''self-elected."
The evidence did show, however, without
denial or contradiction, that the only per-
sons who voted for the old board at this
election were three of their own number
Il was not pretended that anv one else voted
for them or attempted to. We also proved,
without denial, that we were elected oY the
same class of people members OF the con,
other boards, and by,whose votes, chiefY,the
defendants themselves were put in office at
The act of 1929 confers the right to elect
trustees upon ''the m members and supporters
Of the gospel In the church" 1t was held
by the Judge OF our Superior Court that no
one could vote unless both member OF the
White Bluff Church (bY profession OF faith
or certificate). and also a supporter OF the
Conferred the right upon two classes, and
that our electors being supporters OF the
gospel in the church, were qualified voters.
This contention will be passed on by our
Snnrame Court. II the view OF this
court is proper construction
of the meaning Of the law, the corporation
Is an exceedingly close one=-there being
only two persons lone man and MS daugh-
teri now living in the district, or who have
ifvsd there FOR wears past, who have ever at
any fine become members OF the church.
There probably are not five In the county
certainly not more than two in the whole
county-vho possess this qualification and
the other of being supporters OF the gospel
in the church. OF course this practical re-
sult would not change the law, II 1t De as
contended for by defendants. II was also
proved land not deniedl that only one OF
the five members OF the old board now lives
in the district or has lived there Tor more
than eight years past.
desire also to say that my course has
been taken st the request of nearly all the
people who are now and have been for st
least two years past the members OF the
White Bluff congregation and regular at
tendants and supporters OF the church. The
old board did not produce the name of 8
single adherent or supporter imam, woman
or child) among sill the people now living in
the White Bluff district, or who have
lived there for several years
past, or among those now compos-
ing the congregation or supporters OF the
gospel in the church, except only two chill
dren of one OF the defendants and three
members of another family related to two
Of the defeudants-only one Of these five be-
ing a member Of the church, and 1t was not
claimed that any one Of these five voted for
the defendants at the last election. There
can be no question but that we represent the
people OF the district who compose the con-
gregation. very few OF whom are Bsptists Il
40 not know Of more than two Bsptists in
the whole district, and none OF whom ex-
neet or desire to make the church Baptist.
". W. CHISHOLM.
s--~-------s@-e-><----