Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-04-23
DIR. ARMSTRONG.
a REVIEW OF his CASE BY A LAW
YER.
soms Of the Evidence Against HIN -
Defence Of the Court and
the Bishop.

drawn from Mr.. Frank A. Arnold,
leading lawyer Of that city, the follow
ing, which appears in the Constitution
/ had hoped that DR.. Armstrong
friends would allow his case at least
season Of rest, but they insist on con
slant agitation, and also in keeping thu
Doctor himself prominently TO thu
front, so that it is high time, | think
that the Doctors case and the Doctor
himsslf be understood, il 1t is possible
to do so. The verdict Of the ecclesias
tical court in firding DIR. Armstrong
guilty can be understood by q glance a.
the evidence, but to account for much
Of DR.. Armstrong; conduct since judg-
ment was passed upon him is much
moro puzzling.
Complaint is made Of the way the
Doctors trial was brought about, he
having been induced to ask for it as the
most appropriate method of vindicating
himself. Perhaps he is sorry be asked
for it, and / do not blame him. Per-
haps, also, he omitted to tell the court
it was organized for vindication merely,
and not for an honest trial Of his guilt
or innocence. But since he was tried
the only pertinent question is, did the
court have sufficient evidence before il
TO authorize it to convict? If it did,
then the discussion on this point should
end, for IL the judgment of q court OF
competent jurisdiction is to be deded,
then might is right, anarchy prevails,
and we are barbarians once more.
The following is some Of the evidence
before the court:
DR.. Armstrong confesses--
THAT drank beer while | was in
Cincinnati-yes, every day while | was
there; have already confessed, and |
do now confess, was not total alb
stainer while | was there"
lie further confesses--
Sand, while | deny was intoxi-
Gated on the Goth, 9th, or 2Sth
August, yet confess, as have already
confessed, that in two Of those houses ="
tmeaning two of the houses Of ill-fame
be visited" l gave in each twenty-five
cents for the purpose. as stated by the
inmates, Of buying them beer. l now
freely and from the heart say to you
that in the latter act feel | was guilty
Of violating my ordination vow, in that
l was not making myself as much as in
me lay q wholesome example Of the
flock Of Christ"
Mr.. Moses S. Foote, a former pa
rishioner of DR.. Armstrong, and also a
brother Sir Knight Templar, testified
for the prosecution that his feelings to-
ward DR.. Armstrong were of the most
generous kind, that the details Of this
transaction are most painful to him.
He was in Cincinnati and saw the pub
LEGATION about DR.. Armstrong being
drunk and visiting Longworth street.
He was very indignant, aud felt sure
it was case of mistaken iden-
tity, and with view of ascer-
tanning the truth and having the
matter corrected he went at once
to Hunts Hotel. He describes at
length his efforts to see DR.. Armstrong
at the hotel, beer sent to the Doctors
room twice while he was waiting, and
finally the Doctor answered his card
by saying she did not know the gen.
tleman." Mr.. Foote left the hotel with
his faith shaken, but he was not con-
vinced. He was very much troubled
over the matter, and in the afternoon
started out again to ascertain the
upquestioned truth if possible, and
met DR.. Armstrong on the street,
and be thus describes the Doc
tor 81 recollect distinctly that he
looked like he was recovering or trying
TO recover from an excessive indulgence
in intoxicating liquors. He talked
with difficulty both as to utterance and
what he said. lie did not seem to have
full control Of his nerves or muscles,
being in very debilitated and shaky
condition. His face very shrunk and
shrivelled and his tongue very thick.
He had every appearance to me of man
just recovering from hard SPREE"
Mr.. ID. S. Hounshell, friend Of Or.
Armstrong and his witness, testified
be was with DR.. Armstrong on the 9th
and 2sth of August; that DR.. Arm
strong was not drunk /; that DIR. Arm
strong drank beer at different times
how much he kept no account, and that
" the effect was safety"
It was before the court on July
Is, 1868, that Hopewell church,
Presbyterian church in the Presbytery
of Southern Illinois, preferred charge
against Rev. j. G. Armstrong for the
sin of intoxication. and upon the trial
be was unanimously adjudged guilty and
suspended indefinitely until he should
return from the error of his way and
give solid evidence Of unfeigned repen-
lance. Afterward, on January l3,
1869, the Doctors name was stricken
from the roll Of the Presbytery because
he had not given evidence Of repentance
and reformation, and because he had
exercised the ministerial Office by
preaching in one or more churches 10
another denomination, thus treating the
act of the Presbytery in suspending
him with contempt, and adding sin to
sin, and because the said j. G. Arm
strong had united with another branch
of the church. DIR. Robert P. Farris,
. prominent Presbyterian divine Of St.
Louis, is authority for the statement
that DR.. Armstrong appealed his
case to the Synod Of his Church, but
got noredress. DR., Armstrong applied
to be admitted to the Presbytery of St.
Louis, at that time an independent Pres
byterian church, with which DR.. Farris
Was connected. Convinced, technically
ct least, DR.. Armstrong had been
wronged, he was admitted into the st.
Louis Presbytsry, and "aimost imme-
diately," says DR.. Farris, "played us
false by conniying at the transfer of the
congregation and property to another
PresbyteTisl connection. At the same
time he renowned Presbyterianism and
applied for orders in the Episcopal
Church"
Lille Shaw, an inmate OF house of
ill-fame on Longworth street, Cincin-
natl, testified DR.. Armstrong was in her
house twice--the first time about a
a. IL Al On.l r