Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1885-10-30
NEAR EAnRoDsBURe, KY, Sept s. 1885

Bee. DR.. Man5y, Sr:-Your letter reached
me after many delays, being forwarded from
several places. In it you state that the same
communication sin substance" was sent to
the Baptist church at Staunton. THIS is NOT
the fact. Upon comparing the two I find o
serious difference. The words, evidence
since presented and not then accessible to us"
appear in your note to the church but not in
your letter to me.
I consider this most unfair and unjust to
me, and it is clear that I ought to have had
an exact copy of your letter to the church. In
substance" and meaning the two letters are
not the same and protest against being kept
i'll the dark and virtually deceived by you in
this matter; for any one can see that a very
different impression is intended by you to be
conveyed in the church communication from
what is contained in mine. Respectfully call
your attention to the following points
First The Council (called by the church at
my request), ceased to exist when its report
was given to, and accepted by the church.
The only matter left over was my pledge,
in writing, to send you certified copy of my
divorce obtained nearly years ago This I
did, and you had no power as council to do
more than express your opinion about it.
Its legality has not been questioned by you
to me, and have a letter from one of the late
council stating, ''We do not dispute the le-
gality of your divorce, " and in another letter
he writes: II am satisfied of the validity of
your divorce"
Except as to being furnished with copy
of the divorce, you, as council, had and
have no rights or power to go further.
If you objected to the reasons for, or the
method of obtaining the divorce, you had the
right to do so, beyond that y0u had no q5qtts or
poloer 00er me.
AS Secretary and acting for the late Coun
Gil, you have never stated to me any opinion
on the matter, or asked from me any informa-
ton on the subject, except requesting the
name of my attorney and the names of my ad-
visers, which gave you.
The church did not continue you in power
as council and did not and could not with
the sole exception already stated, and there
fore, what you have done or may do, you do
as individuals only, and upon y0u7 pers0na5
responsibility as individuals and NOT as coun-
Gil
The church in receiving your recall of your
first report was out of order; and struck
blow at church independence.
l believe Baptists generally will agree with
me when say that if you desired to recall
your first report, your only and orderly reme-
dy was to have laid the new evidence you speak
of before the church, and then the church
could. if it thought necessary, recall you as a
Council furnish me with said new evidence or
at the very least, give me the opportunity of
appearing before you and the church to answer
it, as best [ could.
This has not been DONE and whether l am
right or wrong in my conduct no chance has
been given me of any defence whatever. Is
this fair or just to me?
leave it to Christian people and those of
the world to judge between us.
Second. A member of the Council. in q let
ter before me says: ''Nothing will be done
without first communicating with you, and
giving You the opportunity of putting in your
rebuttal''
THIS pledge has not been hept
L never even saw your communication to
the church recalling your first report, until I
read it IN copy of the "Staunton Vindica-
tor"
This fact speaks volumes against your ac-
ton as violating the common justice due to
any one.
In any court of law man charged with an
ofense, is entitled to three things, at least:
First. plain statement of the charges
against him.
Second. To know who makes these charges.
Third. To have an opportunity of defend
ing himself personally or by counsel.
You have denied me these three rights of
the worst criminal
1h1r0. Your first report was based upon an
investigation in the presence of friends and
foes, and you stated it was most thorough
searching and satisfactory.
You recall your whole report and ask you
to state to me, what matters in that report
We're affected by your (then) inaccessible
evidence" and L request full and detailed
copy of that evidence.
There are several things in your first report
of 0stat moment to me and my future. and [
must know the evidence you soy you have
''eonstraining'' you to recall the whole it and
in detail.
Lastly. Your present action leaves me free
to act as please and releases me from all
pledges given you. If I SO desire I can re.
turn to Staunton and preach there SO long as
a door is open.
In withdrawing your first report you do not
make any direct charge against ne. From
the very nature Of the case and in Justice to
pQ as we'll as to yourselves, you should have
gone step further and plainly stated of what
you considered me guilty.
| could then have taken measures to dafa,d
myself hut you strike me in tue back and in
the dark by leaving me under an indefinite
cloud OF possible wrong doing, and without a
chance OF defense against that kind of attack.
L am not clear as to what is best to do in tte
matter, and meantimsy ] confidently leave The
t5ahlfest and gross injustice of your late ac-
ton to the judgment of all fair-minded per
sons
am, respectfully yours,
Allan CURE.