The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1882-10-11
CoRREsPoND DENCE.
Explanatory.

MeSSTS. Eo1tOTS,-1ne following ap-
peared in the editorial columns of the
Presbyterian NeaOS for September:
" The vote of Montgomery Presbytery on the
Assembly's action in regard to Fraternal rela
tions has been published-and correctly. But
without any explanation it is liable to mis-
lead
Two papers were voted on. One proposed to
the next Assembly line of conduct looking to
an essential change in the programme. This
was rejected by vote of 19 to 10. One or
more was absent who would have voted against
the paper. 1t was virtually rejected by ma
jority of more than two to one.
The other paper, endorsing the Assembly's
action, was adopted by bare majority. 1t was
manifest that as many, or nearly as many, were
IN favor of the Assembly's action as had voted
against the resolutions condemning it. Several
of these, however did not think it expedent
under the circumstances to say so. They voted
agaiLst the resolution, not because they were
opposed to its spirit. but because they thought
the Presbytery should not interfere with the
Assemblys action in any way"
The Rev. P. B. Price, our venerated
Stated Clerk, in your issue of October
4th, enters protest against the Ne,OS
In its attempt to explain away the vote
in our Presbytery." "Such statements" {"
he adds, "are altogether too indefinite,
and ought not to be made about the de-
cision of SO grave subject. He also
contrasts these statements with those
made by another of your correspondents.
l wish to say:
l. That your correspondent an" is
abYndantly able to take care of his own
statements, and | have no concern to re-
concile mine with his.
2. AS to the accuracy of my statement
In the Nea0s, appeal to the facts The
paper proposing change in the Atlanta
Assembly's programme was rejected bv
vote of 19 to 10. The Rev. DR.. Shep-
person stated on the floor that he was
out of the house when the vote was taken
that he would have voted mo" had he
been present. His absence was uninten-
tional on his part. There were one or
two others known to me absent or not
voting who were opposed to the paper
under discussion. Surely these facts
warranted the statement that it was yir.
tually rejected by vote of more than
two to one
In regard 10 the second statement. the
paper endorsing the Assembly's action
was adopted by vote of 13 to II. /
nave personal knowledge of the views oil
two Of the IL who voted no, not because
they disapproved Of the Assembly's ac-
tion but for other reasons. There were
four others who did not vote, and who
certainly did not desire to see the AS
sembly action interfered with they had
just said 50 there was one out Of the
house who, had he been in, would have
voted aye. He so said. Unquestionably
some Of those who did not vote, or who
voted nc" did so because, like myself
they thought no action on the part ol
Presbytery was needed or called for. One
may have tlgo reasons fer doing thing
Surely these facts warrant the second
statement that as many, or nearly a,
many, were in favor Of the Assembly.
action as had voted against the resoiu
ton condemning it"
3. As to the propriety Of making the
above statements, have this to say Il
is not usual to publish the vote when the
ayes and noes are not ordered. II
Is perfectly proper for the Stated CLERK
or any one else to do so, if he pleases
and on important questions it is some.
lines done. Certainly there is no i'm.