National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1886-04-24

The rector and two Of the vestry Of the
Ascension parish having promulgated
pamphlet in reply to the pamphlet Issued
last month by majority Of the vestry, a
reporter of the REPUBLICAN yesterday saw
member Of the majority, end inquired
when the majority replication might be ex-
pected He was Informed that no replica
tion would be issued, the majority deemIng
the reply, when taken In connection with
the statement, self-snswering and utterly
evasive Of the questions presented TO be an
swered.
The reporter called his attention to the
fact that the Star Of last Saturday contained
what purported to be n summary Of the re-
ply Of the rector and these two members Of
the vestTy. In reply It was stated that this
publication had been noticed on that day by
the majority Of the vestry, and that an Of
fort was Immediately made by some mem
bers OF the majority to obtain copy OF the
reply, but II was discovered that at that
time It had not been sufficiently advanced
in printing to enable anything except the
proof to be seen, and that II was not ready
for distribution, or at least a copy OF II could
not be obtained until Tuesday night. "As
the election was to take place next Mon
day." said the member OF the majority, "a
gain Of four days was probably considered
valuable by the rector and minority In
shortening the time that any analysis OF this
reply could be made, and ut the same time
they could obtain all publicity through the
columns Of the daily paper by furnishing It
with summary OF the statement which
was not yet printed, and as to the ac-
curacy Of which the majority could only
Conjecture
ri OBSERVE" said the reporter "that II
is claimed that the statement was in fact
not the statement of the majority"
F.tAs to that can only say that OF tho
vestrymen there were absent from the
meeting at which the statement was
adopted, only two, namely, Messrs. Cor
coran and Falls. Any one in doubt as to
the attitude Of these two men respecting
the statement, has but to inquire OF them;
and In addition TO this the rector was well
aware OF the fact that this statement had
Falls, and was presented TO the vestry for
their approval and publication, with the
express concurrence OF one and without
any objection whatever on the part OF the
other. Being aware of this fact, the fair
ness and honesty OF the rector In allowing
this part Of the reply, under the names OF
two Of the vestry, which, II not written by
him, was certainly written under his super
vision, and with his concurrence, is mat
ter as to which the public is left to Judge
for itself.n
"Complaint seems also to be made that
the statement OF the majority was not
signed" said the reporter.
ayes, and It is also intimated that the
failure to append the signatures was In vlo-
lation OF an alleged understanding on the
subject. As to this, 1t is only necessary to
say that no such understanding was had, or
could be had in the matter. There was no
two parties between whom such under
standing could be had. In fact the state
ment was read In a regularly constituted
meeting OF the vestry, at which both Of the
minority members were present. They ex-
pressed no opinion as to the recitals of the
statement, made no criticisms thereof, or
objection thereto, and when the question
of the adoption and PRONUNCIATION of the
statement was put to vote, both remained
silent. 1t was not promised or understood
that the statement should be signed. 1t was
the expectation Of the majority at the time
that their signatures would be appended,
but upon reflection, the action on the state
ment having been the corporate action OF
the vestry, 1t was conceived irregular to
publish such action as that Of individuals.
The perfect knowledge of the congregation
= and community as TO responsibility for the
statement would surely seem to have made
any comment on the absence of signatures
II Ndbbc VI DOtl piuCC Ou buO pulJ
Of the minority and rector"
'Since the question Of responsibility
seems to have entered into the case, who is
responsible for that replyg l notice that
the reply is in two parts, one signed by two
members OF the vestry and the other signed
by the rector.n
"In view OF the fact that for more than a
month past the rector has been most dill
gent caller at the office OF the register, and
has been engaged In examining and taking
notes from the books and records Of the
church, and openly preparing to demon
strate the success OF his ministry, and the
further fact that the greater part OF the al
legged information contained In the reply
could have been acq lired by, through, OF
from the rector himself, and that neither OF
the gentlemen Of the minority have been
identified with the church sufficiently long
to enable their knowledge in the premises
TO be personal nor have they at ,any time
applet for or examined the records Of the
church since this controversy commenced,
IL would be natural expectation to find
both portions Of the reply signed, as they
in fact evidently prepared and inspired, by
the rector alone. The reason OF this diyi-
sion is probably TO be found in the highly
flattering expressions used toward the rec
tor In the first part Of this paper, he doubt
less remembering the Scriptural Injunction,
Let another man praise thee, and not thine
own mouth.'n
"Was II the intention Of tho majority ia
pass either Of the two resolutions set out
on pages 8 and Of the reply, and charac
tertzed on page 30 as threats OF dismissal ~
"No; on the contrary, each Of those reso
lutions, as shown by the record, was intro
daced only for the purpose OF raising fol
discussion the question Of the legal relp
tions between rector and vestry In this
diocese, about which so much has beer
said. Each gentleman, secondlng the reso
lntfOna hietipntlv frou motion a thu titna
that he would not vote for their adoption
but that his second was only for the pur
pose Of bringing each resolution up for dis
cussion. In addition. the author Of one o.
those resolutions hsd beforehand assured
one Of the minority that hewould under NJ
circumstances vote for such resolutions.
ought to be conclusive OF the want OF can
dor on the part Of the minority In publish
ing these resolutions, that the majorit,
could, at any time, had II seen flt to do so
have passed either Of them, yet fOrebor
even 60 bring either to vote"
"What does the majority anticipate a
the determination OF the issue presented
by its statementSn
''The majority have presented, and in
tended TO present, no Issue to be deter
mined by the parishioners' The recttud,
of It's own intentions and reasonable groun'
for its action being In seeming question
the majority sought only to acquaint tn
congregation with its attitude and moJiv
in the premises. This alone was the objee
OF the statement. No issue was intende
10 be raised, and in the nature OF the cas-
such intention would have been absurd
the majority were we'll aware at the time O
making the statement, that by means O
personal solicitation on the part Of th
rector and hts friends, by appeals base
upon his domestic Affections, by statement
that he would resign Immediately after th
Easter elections, even II he was sustained
and by direct representations that the sur