The Baltimore County union. [volume] (Towsontown, Md.) 1865-1909, 1884-03-01

a., and If there is. the records will show whose
memory is at fault. No such plan was ever be-
fore the quarterly conference in conference assem-
Med, In fact the plan was never before the con-
ferenee at ALL for the good reason that that body
obiected to an unauthorized agent appearing be-
fore It with disputed claims. What he may have
"clearly and fully" stated in an informal way to
anv of the members of the conference is quite an
other question.
calls attention to a nameless generous friend" OF
his who "ofered to pay each year one hundred
dollars-one- third of the ground rent" and who
wonld have "preferred" to "donate one-thrd OF
the six thousand dollars" 1t is to be regretted
that the name of this "friend" is withheld, as his
was generosity equalled only by the patriotism
of certain historical character, who said he was
willing to shed the blood of all OF his 'oJes rela-
rtions to save his country.
He speaks of "$2, 900 loaned to the church" and
SAYS "the four trustees named had advanced money |
to the church." How does he reconcile this state
ment with the following testimony OF one OF his |
clients, sworn to before the Commissioner OF the |
Circuit Court of Baltimore county, sitting IN |
equity "Mr. Boyce refused to take any obliga- |
ton from us in our capacity as members OF the
building committee as trustees OF the churcn,
for any money which he had or might expend on
the church." Now we will cross-examine this wit
ness elias the church any means of repaying
any sums for which it may be liable, except by the
sale of the church property" Answer: of you
mean the church congregation, as located mere,
say mo-" To question relative to the cost OF
| the church, he further answers, 81 had no idea,
| nor had Mr.. Boyce any idea, of this congregation
| being able to build such church, or that this
| church property would be responsible for the
same" And when this witnesses attention was
| called to the fact that each of the committeeman
we're to pay one fifth of the amount necessary to
the completion of the church, after deducting all
| donations and collections from the amount thus
| nd ha asked what to become OF
the uncovered fifth to which he answered, 81
understood it was a risk taken by us as ndvidu-
ais and that if one lost we would share equally"
And this witness, who was one of the defendants,
if not the chief defendant, in the BOyce suit, in
fling his answer to the bill of complaint, uses the
following language relative to the much talked-Of
bonds: "If there had been a corporation, legally
sof7ds, and neither said bonds nor the mortgage
on, or deed of trust intended to secure their pay
ment would have created any lien said church
baiding the said land upon which it was
erected"
The ex- Elder publishes to the world that this
witness, though not church member, was left out
Of the board of trustees CONTRARY to the disci-
pline" Such ignorance of ecclesiastical law, upon
the part of Presiding Elder, is unparalleled in the
history of Methodism. He says, "Mr. Davis did
intimate to me that he thought of removing the
four trustees" The intimation was in the form of
an emphatic declaration of q purpose to nominate
four other men better suited to the places. And
this is all preacher or Presiding Elder can do in
making trustees. The quarterly conference must
elect. At the close of my first year he urged me
to leave Mr.. Boyee out of the board. then made
the suggestion that he should make the nomina-
ton, which he declined to do. Thequarterly con-
ference was not then, nor do 1 believe it now,
willing to substitute the name of Mr.. Boyce by
that Of any other The ex-Elder further states
81 thought Mr.. Davis might change his purpose"
Gle invited me to attend the adjourned confer
ence" He was invited second time at his own
home Just a few days before the adjourned meet
ing. "But official engagements ON the district
rendered it impracticable" for him to be present
The conference excused him. But the change in
the board of trustees was, in his opinion, "con-
trary to the discipline" If contrary to the dis
cpline why did he not apply the remedy and have
+ the four reinstated? This would have been an
easy thing to have done,
When I went to the Towsontown charge the
Boyce suit had already been argued in the Court
of Appeals and the opinion of the Court well
understood 1t was not long until was made ac-
quainted with the church's troubles. After con-
sulting the trustees and examining other sources
of information on the subject, my duty in the
was at once made clear. Two of the four trustee
claimants lived in the bounds of and held their
membership in other charges and therefore not
members of my quarterly conference. The other
two were in my charge. One not church.
member, and hence had no rights under the law
~
claim. The civil courts were open to him. The
other, though a church member, was soured and
seldom attended service in the church. There
had been but few meetings of the board for some
nine years, and then the proceedings largely kept
on slips of paper. Such condition of affairs
never in board of trustees, but not the fault
of my predecessors. 1t was plain that the four
trustees must take steps to make good their claims
or their places in the board be filled by others
Hence requested them to institute proceedings
under the discipline, but this they absolutely de-
clined to do. then requested that they go into
the civil courts which two of them promised to
do. engaged counsel to defend the church, and
yet no proceedings were instituted during my first
year. Notwithstanding these trustees were con, q,
any hasty action on my part and to give them every
| opportunity that reasonable men could expect to
come forward and make good their claims; and
not until the close of my second year, as have
said, were they left out of the board. This action
in no way whatever endangered any just claim
which they might have against the church, as
every rational man must see By no Just inter
probation or construction of the church law gov
erning the case can it be made to appear that nv
action was contrary to the discipline, the opinion
OF the ex-Elder to the contrary Notwithstanding.
| And now because of this action and not con-
senting to grouHd-rent upon the church proper
ty, my reputation and that of the trustees has
been assaulted and motives impugned. I
| here venture to assert that there has not been a
pastor of that church since the day of its dedica
ton that would have consented to give ground
rent. Since the present authorities of the church,
to avoid what was believed to be the beginning of
series of vexatous law suits, felt justified in ad-
ministerng the same medicine as was given Mr..
Experimentation name has been blazoned
before the public as though it were who owned
the church property, borrowed money upon it,
composed the official board, and repudiated just
debts. But | assume not to speak for the present
authorities of that church. Thoy are fully com
petent for their vindication where it is need
ed. In conclusion I would say that those who
condescend to deal in offensive personalities, and
who shift issues, must not expect to be noticed.
March lit. J. N DAVIS