Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1885-11-27
The Correspondence Between onvers
d Co. and DR.. Robt. L. Breck
WAS Published In
The Appeal by Request of the Lat.
ter, and Not by Drs. Boggs,
Daniel and Martin.

To the Editors of the Appeal:
In our paper OF November 22d we find
the following correspondence between the
Louisville Christian Observer and the Rev.
DR.. Robert l.. Breck, a distinguished Pres
byterian minister, formerly Of Kentucky,
but now of California:
What b T.. Breck Has 10 Say
About IL.
To the Editors of the Appeal:
san LUIS 0BrsPo, CAL, November 12.-The ac-
companying copy of correspondence is for the
writer in your columns in the controversy to
which it relates. 1t is just to him to know what I
have written. and is for his use in any way it can
serve him, only in case any question is made
about my position in the R1perb;r RaespsSstSf11liiy'
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN CONVERSE 4
co. AMI ROBERT L. BRECK.
LOUISVILLE, KY, November 8. 1885.
To the Rev. R. L. Breck, DID,:
DEAR BRorHER-Copies of the Memphis APPEAL
tons that will doubtless surprise you as much as
ourselves; They are in these words:
THAT the Chrtstian Observer has been declared
regardless of truth by every paper in our church."
andm
generally and unquestionably bad. and has been
SO for many years.
The names of several ministers of our church
are given in the APPEAL in support of these state
ments, and among them is your name. We are
confident that this use of your name is utterly
unauthorized, that you never entertained such an
opinion or used such an expression about us, that
you never wrote or said anything which can be
that you have no sympathy with its spirit. We
have NO doubt of your respect and esteem. But
name is cited in support of the SANDER, we like
to be able TO say to the APPEAL in unm:stakable
as this. ~
. 4 ! line from you will be aPPSSsSeissssds Ffster-
San LUIS 0BIsPo, CAL, November Il, 1885.
Converse & Co., Louisville, KY:
DEAR SIRs-I have yours of the Sd instant, con-
namely; THAI the Christian Observer has been
declared regardless, of truth by every paper in
for veracity is generally and unquestionably bad,
and has been SO for many years. in support of
which statements you say my name. with the
names Of other ministers, is given. and asking
thatI "in unmistskable language" "repud ate
any such position as this"
Ihave no knowledge of the article, or articles,
in the APPEAL beyond what you have written.
The issue between you and the writer is clearly a
can say now only that I have suffered much in
Justice in your columns,. and shall expect more if
this answer is not agreeable Ro r yST' + keRfpssfFsfqRlly'
An impression prevails TO the effect that
the above correspondence came to the AP-
PRA through us. We ask the privilege
of saying, therefore, that we knew moth
ing whatever of the writing of these let
tiers, or of their publication, until they
were shown to us in the APPEAL by othera.
The correspondence is valuable as exhib-
iting C) the uaderhand method which
the Observer is pursuing in order to induce
men to testify in behalf of its character,
and (2) the superlatively limited success
with which it is meeting. Our thanks are
hereby rendered to DIR. Brock, who evil
IDENTIFY understood thoroughly the charac-
ter of his correspondent and refused to be
misled by the false statement that any
unauthorized use had been made of his
name.
L. DANIEL,
W. Z. B0GGS,
JAMES L.. MARTIN.