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

age; that upon the completion by them OF
the building, IL was, In strict compliance
with and pursuance OF the determination,
and contract based thereon,
(all Of which was known to, acquiosed and
In by the rector, In full knowl- !
edge OF all the circumstances), rendered TO
him for his use as a parsonage; that IN or.
der fully 10 carry out the undertaking and
in the premises, 1t was ab-
solutely essential that the building should |
be accepted, and inhabited by him as such;
that the offer of the building to him was
made at vestry meeting, admitted BY the
reply to have been on the oath Of March, |
1880, the offer being in terms that the rec |
tor be rendered the use OF the parsonage' |
that In utter violation OF good faith, |
the rector refused to accept the |
offer as made, but imposed as q requisite 10
his acceptance certain conditions, assent TO
which would place II In tho power OF the
rector to delay or, II he should see flt, alb
solutely to defeat the very object OF erect
ing the building, and TO add largely TO his
own salary and the burdens OF the parish,
at the expense Of It's credit and good faith,
SO long as he might choose 10 Insist upon
enforcement Of those conditions; that In the
end he did Insist upon their enforcement
for several years, and until the unlted ves-
try demanded that the intended sale should
be carried out without further delay, and
draw a proffered subscription Of $4,000
unless the rector would permit the original
understanding TO be carried out In full, aud
that the result of the rectOr's action was to
require payment for the parsonage out Of
the proceeds Of the rest OF the old church
site, thus reducing the expected proceeds
of sale Of the old site by both the cost OF
the parsonage and its sale value. The charge
Is thus seen TO be, in effect, the display Of
bad faith by the rector, 70 his own
personal advantage. No one Of the several
specifications OF this chargeis denied by the
reply the whole charge thus standing ad-
Initted. Indeed, the cnse Is worse than this,
for In the reply the rector declares that he
had heard of intended sharp practice to
obtain the title, and resolved that he would
be no party to such proceeding Now. on
which side was the sharp practiceN With
this noble resolution In his heart, unex-
pressed to any one in the world and un-
limited at in any OF the many conferences OF
the vestry on the subject, he actually stood
silently by in seeming concurrence OF all
that was going on, and allowed tue building
to grow up under his very eyes without one
word Of dissent, criticism, doubt, or sug-
gestion to the contrary Of tho oft-expressed
Intentions in the premises. If he had this
high resolve, was he not clearly by this
silence guilty Of gross dereic-
tion in not warning the vestry,
and was not his conduct purposely
false and misleading? Hemust have known
that suggestion OF his conditions In ad-
vance would lave put an end TO the whole
matter, for the vestry would not have
moved hand or foot merely to build n house
which he might or might not see At TO nj
low to be utilized for the only purpose in
the world entertained In building II. AS
already pointed out I'm the statement the
conditions were imposed under such cir
cumstances and at such time that the
vestry had no alternative but to accept
them; and the rector's letter OF April 81,
1880, a month and three days after the offer
0fthc parsonage, In which conditions were
for the fret time heard Of, Is Itself conclu-
sive confirmation OF what Is claimed IN his
behalf In the statement; for as that letter
requested consent TO his conditions 'ds q
record against The public should any need for
10 arise a refusal OF such assent would
have been simply fatal TO any demand Of
the traEsfer Of the title.
"The second typical event being, as
charged in the 'statement,' the rector's ap-
peal 10 the congregation from the refusal
Of the vestry 10 give him an assistant, is
also admitted by the reply 1t Is charged
that he applied to the veetry for an assist
ant. This is not denied. II is further
charged that the vestry 'discredited the
proposition and that 1t was thereupon
rector that he would renew It at subse.
quent time. This is not denied, the only
pretense at denial being the uncandid state
ment that there Is no record TO show that
in the latter part of the year 1879
the vestry discredited the proposition
The application Of the rector having been
only In the nature OF proposition, Il
would not, as so good parlamentarian as
the rector must know, appear Of record.
1anv a
osition was discredited by the vestry, In
stead OF making the other statement, In
tended TO mislead, that there is no record of
the fact? And the real point OF the charge
is, that having thus been refused by the
vestry, In disregard Of his promise to bring
the matter again to its attention, he ap.
pealed directly to the congregation. or
this there is even no pretense at denial.
"The third typical event is the action OF
the rector at the last Easter election. The
charge Is, that after regularly constituted
and organized meeting Of the parishloners
had elected a certain gentleman as vestry-
man, and had some twenty-five or thirty
minutes after the hour designated for the
meeting adjourned and dispersed, the
rector learning and openly expressing dis
approval Of the choice made by the meet
ing, procured the attendance Of certain of
the parishioners, organized q new meeting.
nominated a gentleman whom he desired
for yestryman, procured his choice by that
meeting, caused immediate public au.
nouncement to be made Of the election Of
the gentleman SO chosen as vestryman,
and endeavored to induce the secretary OF
the first meeting to suppress Its minutes.
OF all this what does he denyP Absolutely
nothing. The expression In the reply
that he had requested several OF the
paTishioners to be present. is intended to
convey the idea that this was before the
meeting or hour Of meeting; whereas,as the
majority is prepared to prove by the
mouths OF two witnesses, he bent out and
procured the attendance oft wo Of the
parishioners, after he had learned Of the re-
suit Of the first meeting, thereby making
the vote for his candidate one greater than
that cast for the candidate Of the first meet
ing. The abatement that the rector has
never ascertainep that therewere more than
| three parishioners present at the first meet
| ing, is:simply amazing; for not only did the
secretary OF that meeting so inform him on
the spot; but also the statement that four
| were IN attendance at that meeting was re-
| peatedly made, and the names given, at the
subsequent organization Of the present
vestry whom the question OF the
| election was under confederation.
| Finally, In this connection, the reply
states that the notice Of election was from
@ TOT p. M II was on this assumption
that one Of the present majority, as is
| claimed in the reply contended for the
election Of the nominee at the second meet
ing, upon the ground as he stated, that
II the polls were announced to be open from
9 to Z o'clock all votes east within that
period should be counted. But the closest
inquiry since has failed 10 sustain the pre-
tente that the notice was from tot p.
m.,' and 1t is accordingly said In the state
ment' Of the majority that, beyond the
mo other time for balloting was men
toned This is not denied by the reply,
except inferentially, and shortly after the
last election, when specially inquired II
the rector would not say that the designa-
tion Of time was other than al Q p. IN.