The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1882-08-16
A CARD.

A CARD.
In relation to an editorial article in the
last number of the Christian Observer
under the head of An Earnest Protest"
touching the refusal of the Executive
Committee of Foreign Missions to furnish
Col. Brown with a copy of the paper laid
before the last Assembly relating to the
Campinas difficulties, the undersigned
would state that if the whole of the cor
respondence between Col. Brown and
himself had been published, as ought to
have been done, it would have given an
entirely different complexion to the mat
ter In his published letter to me Of the
the 18th June, as will be seen by any
one who will take the trouble to refer to
it, he asks for "a copy of the Report of
the Committee, so far as it affects or re-
fers to him (Mr. Norton and copy of
the report and resolutions proposed by
the Assembly's Committee as well as the
resolutions actually passed" and then
adds, " If not In your possession, [ will be
obliged to you if you will inform me
where these papers, or any of them, can
be SEEN" l replied Immediately, that I
could not give him a copy of the paper
from our minutes which he desired with
out the sanction of the Committee, but
would refer his letter to them at their
next meeting, which, however, would not
take place for some time | stated fur
ther that the papers relating to the Off
cial action of the Assembly were not in my
possession, but that he cauld no doubt get
them by writing to DIR. Jos. R. Wilson,
the Stated Clerk of the Assembly.
stated further, and to this 1 call particu-
lar attention, that copy of the paper
from our minutes which he wanted was
in the hands of Rev Hugh A. Brown,
Clerk of the Roanoke Presbytery, and
that he might be at no loss in communi-
eating with Mr.. Brown, gave him his
post-office address in full. Col. Brown
did write to Mr.. Brown at once for copy
of the paper, and it is supposed, though
not certainly known, that he got it and
sent it to Mr. Morton by the first op-
portunity. More than this of the sew
eral applications made for copies of the
same paper, the only one granted was to
DR.. H. @. Alexander, who was member
OF Roanoke Presbytery, and who had an
nounced himself in the Assembly as the
friend and defender of Mr.. Morton, and
it was supposed that he would communi-
cate to Mr.. Morton whatever it was
thought important for him to know in
relation to that paper. When the Com
mittee met on the 2lst of June, l laid
before them, according to promise, Col.
Browns letter. But they declined to
grant his request, for number of rea-
sons lst. Because the paper had passed
from under the control of the Committee
by the action of the Assembly. Cd. Be-
cause the Secretary had already informed
Col: Brown where the paper could be had.
3rd. Because the Committee felt that
under the circumstances of the case, Mr..
Brown was the only person that had the
right to grant any one outside of his own
Presbytery copy of the paper. These,
as well as other reasons, that need not
be detailed, justified the Committee, as
they thought, in declining to grant the
request of Col. Brown. These reasons
were not incorporated in the Secretary 8
letter to Col. Brown of the 21st June. for
the simple reason that they were already
set forth in his letter of the 18th June,
the letter that was not published. But
besides all this, no one will say that the
Committee itself ought to have sent this
paper to Mr. Morton, when it is known
that he had cut himself off more than
two years ago from all direct communi-
cation with the Committee by treating all
their later communications with silent
contempt.
We would remark further in behalf of
the Committee, that it is in no sense re-
sponsible for the discussion which took
place in the General Assembly. Their
duty, was simple and plain, and they
could not have acted otherwise than they
did, without mourning the censure of the
Assembly and the Church at large. They
simply submitted their minutes, of which
the paper In question is mere extract,
to the inspection Of the Assembly, which
they had always done, which they were
bound by constitutional law to do, which
the General Assembly had repeatedly
instructed then to do and which tbey
were bound to do by the simple dictates
Of common sense. The difficulties con
nected with the Campinas Mission had
been brought in the same wav before the