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

WI. IT.. Church VS.. Nh. n.
Church SOnth.

In last weeks issue Of the In
DEPENDENT, the Rev. John w.
Wolff undertakes to defend him
self and church, and therefore JUS
tifv his relation to the church
trouble at this place. Ii in my
statement "there was such a per-
version of facts and garbling of
statements" as he claims, he has
undoubtedly the right to defend
himself and church. "If it was
the intention of Rev. j w. Wolff
to mislead the public in reference
TO the matter, it was 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 public draw
conclusions therefrOm, without
one word of explanation from me.
Here is such a perVersion of facts
and gar5ling of statements, that
unpleasant as it is for me TO call
in question the candor and fair
ness of a brother minister, truth
and a just regard for the right
compel me to do SO"
The manner in which the Rev.
Wolff reduced the fifty-seven
years of ownership is very unique.
He says that in 1861 large ma
jority of the Baltimore Conference
voted to ignore the authority of
the General Conference of the M L.
Church and touched upon the dis
ruption of 1874, but did not say,
nor can anybody else say, how an
annual Conference which was cre-
ated by the General Conference
can even, by majority vote Of its
members, ignore the authority of
such General Conferences and
thus acquire possession of proper
ty decided to the church.
He further says that "the close
of the war found them in posses
sion of Berkeley circuit, Of which
GerardstoWn was part. For
four years and more we were the
sole occupants of the ground and
alone ministered TO the Methodist
people. Thus five years of broth
err Woods fifty-seven years are
disposed Of" We deny that the
M. e, Church South had any or
ganization in GerardstoWn, until
about the close of the war; but adj
hitting for argument sake they
had. how could that invalidate
the title of the M. E. Church, to
property decided to it in 25,or JUS
tify his action Apri! 2nd, 1882?
Again be says the majority of
the Baltimore Conference sought
TO take posses ion of the property
and failed. here the matter end
edu Did it end there? We
think not, for about the close of
the war, the M. Z. Church pre-
sented board of trustees 10 The
County Court, which was confirm
ed and nut on record in quarter
hook 8, fol A. date Dec 1860. Ii
that is where the matter ended, L
fail 10 see where tDr reduction Of
nv finv years come in, but l can
see enough TO show that the M.
r. Church has had possession for
fftv-seven year.
Next in order comes the asser-
ton tina. "b0th parties continued
TO use the church without question
until Rev. Thomas Wood came,
who soon began 90 assert owner
ship, saying that The property he-
louged to them and theuse of house
by the NJ. L. Church South, was
by simple courtesy. Mr.. Wood
proposed to take formal possession
by purchasing material 10 erect a
building thereon rs they might
see proper" This garbling of
facts is in part true, in part false
and in part absurd, and the whole
putting, misleading. If brother
Wolf has been misinfOrmed, |
am sorry; he certainly should have
been more guarded before rushing
into print. He does not say how
soon, whether few weeks or a
few months. Soon may mean one
thing with him, bat understood
differently by the readers OF the
INDEPENDENT. When did i be-
Gin to assert ownership? To
whom ? And under what cir
cumstances ? / was appointed to
this circuit March 1881 and for
twelve months l lab0red amongst
this people and never q word on
the subject was heard by ne. |
preached for BIN by request of
his members in his absence. Dur
ing the year he received from me
ministerial and social cOurtesies,
and the Conference year closed
and no question OF ownership,
Joint occupancy or any difficulty
arose between the two churches.
Yet ne says | soon began to as
sert ownership and proposed to
take formal possession, etc, with
out giving any intimatiol OF the