Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1885-03-19


ton elected Deacon Bedott, Moderator, and
| the clerk of the congregation and D. HI.
Palmer, Prosecuting Attorneys.
| 1t may be stated here that the clerk of the
congregation is the Hon. Peter Philip Carty,
late County Judge Of Reynolds county.
| AS this arrangement would have made the
appeal farce, Mr.. Russell objected to the
record, and the council, detecting the swim
die, refused to act Jointly, and took the mat
ter into its own hands. This reduced Dea-
con Bedott to the ranks, and the defense
scored the first knock-down.
Inc council organized by electing Rev.
GEORGE Steel, Moderator, and Rev. j. F.
Baker, Clerk. Taken as a body, the council
was composed of intelligent, earnest and
honest men, who came in the interests of
truth, righteousness and peace, and who did
their work in singleness of heart, fearing
God. The Rev. Steel is exceptionally an
admirable man.
The congregation, by its attorney, objected
to Rev. Hardy as member, but the council
refused to sustain the objection, and the de-
Tense scored the second knock down.
The council called the parties, and asked
for the charges. Mr.. Russell answered, and
the prosecutor stated that the first charge
was for Disregard of Church Authority.
Specification-In this, that he wrote let
ter recommending +. A. Mcfarland to an
other Baptist church, he having been ex-
PEELED by Deacon Bedott.
Mr.. Russell acknowledged writing the let
ter, and assigned his reasons for doing so.
In sustaining his reasons for doing so, Mr..
Russell called several witnesses, but as it
appeared that they were all under censure,
they could not be admitted to testify. This
mark weak place in the church law, but
! the council could not amend it. At this
point, the council seemed, at first view, to
blunder. Having heard, under their law,
Mr.. Russell's testimony, they admitted the
church to bring its records, which Mr.. Rus
sell was denied the right to rebut. But it
/ all came straight, for the records had been
doctored until it took three men to read
them. When it was proposed to bring in
the records, a lady in the audience objected
| that they were not correctly kept. The
| Moderator promptly sat down on her, but
the records justified her objection.
| Messrs. Steel, Frazier and Baker were APP
pointed Il committee to formulate the judg
ment of the council. The committee report
ed, and not only acquitted Mr. Russell of
the charge, but gave him very high praise
for his course in the matter.
The council then called for the second
| charge against Mr.. Russell.
This was for Siding in Stirring up Conten-
ton and Strife, In violation of the brotherly
covenant.
Spectication-In this that he associated
with Jesse E. Lowe, a Presbyterian, and F.
A. Mcfarland, and other bad men, in or
ganizing Union Sabbath Schoolin the town
of Belleview, Mo-, contrary to the statutes in
such cases made and provided by, and
against the peace and dignity of, Deacon
bedott. And inasmuch rs it appeared that
Mr.. d. II. Hartman and Mrs. Belle Lay, not
having the fear of the Devil or Deacon Bedott
before their eyes, had feloniousy, and with
malice aforethought, aided and abetted the
aforesaid Jefferson Russell! in his nefari-
GUS attempt to afford the uncircumcsed par
ties show for eternal life, and were still con-
tnuing to do so, more and more, they were
put on trial Jointly with Mr.. Russell. Mr..
Russell admitted the fact that they did join in
that Sabbath school work, but denied that
there was any violation of the law of God or
of the Baptist church. In support of the
charge it was proven that both bells were
rung at the same hour, but as it appeared
that the people at the Union school were not
riotously disposed, but attended at their own
place, and seemed to enjoy their work, the
case was rested by both parties. But it
furthermore appeared that Mrs. Belle Lay,
aforesaid, had not only aided and abetted
Jefferson c. Russell and ID. Ii. Hartman,
aforesaid, in their nefarious work of afford
ty of learning the ways of life, but that being
plucky woman, and withal slightualy mad,
and knowing that any attempt to obtain red
ress would only lead to additional injustice,
had refused or neglected to seek redress mt
the hands of those who had injured her.
The two prosecuting attornes certified
that they had waited on Sister Lay and eX-
hausted the Bible remedies in the case, and
that she obstinately stood to her guns.
The council went into executive session.
After somewhat more than an hour, the
council reported its action, not only acquit-
ting the accused of all blame in regard to
the matter of the Sabbath school, but COM
mending them. In regard to the second
charge against Mrs. Lay, the council decided
that it must go out of court for want of ju-
rsdiction.
The council formulated its report to be
presented to the congregation. By vote of
eight to two it sustained its action in acquit-
ting the accused parties.
Messrs. j. F. Baker and A. j. Carly read a |
minority report, going squarely in the face |
of the action of the majority, but without !
assigning any reasons. They evidently took |
advantage of the technical fact that the ma |
jority did not put its record in the best shape.
1t should have reported no cause of action,
and that the case be dismissed.
Both reports were submitted to the con-
gregation, achich adopted the minority re-
port, and, very much to the honor of Mr..
Russsll AID his friends, they were expelled |
from the church. A review of the legal prin-
ciples involved in the above trials will ac-
company this article.
*Unavoidably crowded out for want of I
space.-ED. REG.
March 18th. THOMAS CALLAHAN.