Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1885-10-10


of weakness or malice, rather than of wisdom
ard desire to be just.
The resolution passed by the conference
at Roanoke was doubtless intended to shield
Mr.. Vaughan from the effects of Mr.. Bald
wins charges against him, as the committee
at Waterford did. But persecution and
falsehood never were and never will be
profitable, either in church or State, any
more than any other vice, except to disgust
people with those who indulge in it, and
prevent them from engaging in such de-
testible wrcng. So much forthese noble
minister's
l return to the manifesto of the commit
tee issued two weeks after this trial, that
they acquitted Mr.. Baldwin on technical
grounds
In order TO q proper understanding Of
this case, will here insert the charge and
specifications upon which Mr.. Baldwin was
tieA and acquitted.
Charge-Lying. 1st. "The said Isaac P.
Baldwin, in the above named protest, did
say that the committee appointed by Bishop
Warren to inquire into the charges pre-
ferred against Rev. E. Fl. Vaughan dis
missed the charges without al Investigation,
knowing such statements to be misleading
and false.
ID THE said Baldwin did say in said
'layman's protest that the above named
com mittee were closeted with the Bishop,
ut the same time not knowing that such was
the case; the statement of which Is mis-.
leading and false.
Sd. THAT the said Baldwin did in said
protest say that one of said committee
was rewarded with the Presiding Eldership
for his decision on said committee, or words
to that effect, knowing such statement to
be false and misleading"
This is the head and front of Mr.. Bald
wins alleged offending for which he has
been prosecuted with degree of malgnity
and SANDER for which it would be diff
cult, if not impossible, to find parallel
in church or political history.
And what is Mr.. Baldwin's offence? Not
high crimes and misdemeanors, but simply
prcfcrring charges against a Methodist min
ister of The Virginia Conference for malad-
ninistration and deception, as was his right
and duty TO do.
He presented the charges in due form at
Che Waterford Conference as testified to by
Mr. Vaughan HIMSELF but instead of their
being fully and fairly investigated by COM
mittee Of Investigation, of not less than five,
nor moro than nine ministers, as the law OF
tbs church requires, they were referred to
| Il committee Of iaqHiry Of three ministers,
%ho being intimate friends of Mr.. Vaughan,
failed to investigate according to the dis.
cipline aud for Mr.. Baldwin's statement of
that fact III the "Layman's Protest" he was
charged with lying.
Now for the testimony:
First, let it be remembered, that the bur-
den Of proof lies with the prosecution, and
not with the defence.
| Rev. S A. Ball, secretary Of the commit.
! lee, testified that the committee did not CO.
anime any iCiinesses: that they were simply
committee of inquiry of three.
Geo. G. Round, attorney at law, testified
that there was no investigation, such az is
contemplated by the discipline. That it
would be- q misuse of the English language
TO call it an investigation.
S.W. Burdge testified that one person OF.
fered three times to testify, but was not in.
vited by the committee.
J.P. Baldwin testified that it was in no pro-
per sense IN investigation; that the Metho-
dist discipline requires, paragraph PA, q
committee Of not less than five, nor more
than nine ministers or elders, to Investigate
4 Case that Bakers exposition of the dis
ciplne, page 147 section says The pre-.
siding officer of al Investigating committee
must cause exact minutes of the charges,
specifications, testimony, and examination
TO be taken, tho same as in the trial of a
member, none of which requirements was
observed by this committee of inquiry at
Waterford.
II is thus positively proved that there was
no such investigation of the charges as the
discipline of the church requires, and Mr..
BaldWin's assertion in the protest, that the
committee dismissed the. charges without an
investigation is substantially and literally
true; and that the charge that Mr.. Baldwin
made false statement in reference to this
matter is absolutely false, as the testimony
shows
The averment in the 2nd specification is
doubtless the most ridiculous ever penned
by sane man.
II AYERS that the said Baldwin did say, in
said "Layman's Protest." that the above
named committee were closeted with the
Bishop at the same time, not knowing tn at
such was the case; therefore, Mr.. Baldwin
lied.
In the same way of absurd reasoning, the
ministers who prosecuted Mr.. Baldwin
might be charged with lying for preaching
tina; there is God at the same time, not
knowing that such is the case, and the state
nent OF which is misleading and false. But
we know from scripture, experience, and all
tho phenomena Of nature, that there is
God. And in The same way of reasonable
inference, Mr. Baldwin knew or believed,
FROM observation and report, that the com.
mittee were closetcd with the Bishop; or if
ii be preferred, were in a room with him,
which is the same thing.
In regard to this matter, Mr.. Baldwin,
Mr.. Round and Rev. DR.. Poulson all test.
fed that they heard it 80 reported at
Waterford. Mr.. Round and Mr.. Baldwin
both testified that Rev S. A. Bal stated in
their presence that the Bishop saw all the
papers, and approved the action ofthe com.
mttee.
Mr.. Baldwin testified that while waiting
that night to see the Bishop, man came
down stairs. and in reply to questions, said
the Bishop was in his room, and that he
thought the committee had about come to
conclusion concerning the charges; that
he saw papers spread out on the table,
from which he, Dir. B., inferred that
the committee were with the RishOD |