The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1886-11-18
The REV. DR.. DANIEL,
BEFORE TIE LOUISVILLE PRES
BYTERY, MAKES A MANLY
Statement Of the Reasons That Urged
Him TO Join the Prose
cutOn OF
Tbs CONVERSE BROTHERS, OF
THE "OBSERTER."
What He Was and Was MOI Response.
bic for That Appeared in
the Appeal.

We copy from the Louisville Courier.
JON nal, OF Tuesday last, the following
statement, made by the Rev. DR..
Daniel, of this city, in the case OF the
the Presbyterian Church VS. Converse
4 Converse, in regard TO which we
publish dfily reports, as furnished by
eur special telegIaphic cor espon ent I:
DR.. Daniel took the stand and tetti-
hed az follows:
Nrst-I am the ron Of a PTesby-
terrain minister, born in Alabama in
1S49; reared in Southern Mississippi /:
took my literary course at Oakland
College; my theological at Columbis,
8 o.; graduated in 1871; preached in
Camden, Ark, until June !, 1875 /;
have been pastor Of the First Pfesby-
terian Church Of Memphis, Tenn,
irom 1875 to this da,e; passed through
two ep denies in that city.
StCond-I bave slight personal ac-
suaintanS5 with the defendants in th 8
cause. have taken their psper, fnd
paid for il, ab)ut ten years. Ssptem-
Der 80, 1885, they published in said
paper that tn 70 existed a plan for
rupturing the Southern Presbyterian
Church. In that article they used my
name and that Of DR.. Martin and DR..
Boggs in such way 80 TO make The
impression artfully that we knew OF
such scheme, approved it, and that one
OF us dlTec ", and all OF us indirectly,
weTs responsible for ii. That state-
ment was falfe aud slsnderouG. No
such plan OF ruptnre ex sted. There
never WIS any foundation for publish
ing that charge. Said charge was
highly injurious to Presbyterians In
Memphis. The ObserUer circulated
among the members of the churches
Of which these prosecutors were pas
tors. AS pastors We felt compelled to
defend oursslves,,t,5m 30 gIievOus an &C.
susation circulated among those whose
col hdenee We must re ain II We would
do them good. We felt that Whatever
hotion we took, must be taken prompt.
ly. l announced to DR.. Boggs that my
own mind was clear rs to the course to
be pursued; and that, whatever Others
might do, should defend myself be-
lore my own people and the commun-
ity by making known the Observers
bad reputation as to verscity. l did
not choose the Observer az my medium
oil communicating with the public for
obvious reasons. / did not choose
any other paper OF our church because
NO enc of them is generally read in
my congregation. / did rot choose
my pulpit, because / hold it sacred
from thiugs OF that sort. ! chose the
Memphis APPEAL because Is came
nearer TO reaching the class amongst
whom the SANDER had been circulated
than any other medium OF communi-
cation Of which l have knowledge. In
doing this | did not intend TO indorse
either the religion or the the
Ol0gy Of the APPEAL, l
do not understand that / indorse
svery thing about paper, or any
other medium OF public communicR-
ton or transportation, simply because
l use 1t. l publishsd together with |
DR. Boggs and Martini card In the
APPaAL of October IL, 1885, making
known the fact that the Christian o.
fuVW hbu DStH pronounced
RrGARDLEss OF Truth
by every journal in our church, and |
that several of our church courte, in
GLIDING the General Assembly, had |
been called upon 10 pronounce its
statements without foundation; that,
in view OF that fact, we won d de inc
10 take any further notice OF the
Christian Observer OF September 80,
1885. Before publishing this card |
had 1t distinctly understood wi. n DIS
BOggs and Martin that we would as
same all The legal responsible lities that
might be involved in said publication,
and especially, that We would give 10
the editors Of the Observer ell Just op-
Of self defense acrording 10
the principles of law snd reason. |
distinctly mentioned to those gentle
men then that If the Converses de.
q trial they ought to have It,
and that II published the card
should feel myself under obligation to
put The matter before Louisville Pres.
6ytery in legal form II the Messrs.
Converse asked me to do il.
The reply Of the Messrs. Converse
TO this card (Memphis APPEAL, Oclo-
Der 20, 1885, was denial OF the fact
alleged and challenge to produce
proof. Said reply 10 in evidence.
Upon demand, published the proof
required in the Memphis APPEAL Of
November l, 1886. Said proofs con-
siAed of quotations from clippings of
the papers OF our church, which clip.
pings | now put In evidence. / OBJ
tanned them from DR.. Woodrow. DR..
Boggs told nue. that DR.. Woodrow had
them, and wrote to DR.. Woodrow for
them. He did not volunteer 10 send
them, nor did he directly or indirectly
advise their publication. As far as l |
now remember, he sent them to me
without note or comment or writing OF |
any kind.
Among the clippings received by |
me was one which, in type and gen.
eTal style, bore to my mind evidence
OF coming from the Southwestern Pres.
byisgiGn. ! was morally ctrtsin that It |
was clipping from that paper. Yet,
ae the rame Of the paper wss not |
uIon II, / published il and credited II
TO "a Presbyterian Paper" / sent il
subsequently {, DR.. Smith, and he, in
an editorial, publicly avowed il as his,
and defended every allegation in il.
Said editorial is herewith submitted.
Or Smith never returned the clipping
30 me.
Nor has DR.. Woodrow anything to
do with initiating this prosecution.
After, or during the corr espon dence
in the APPEAL met him at the Synod
Of Alabama, and spoke to him as to
the possible prose In the pres
ence Of DR.. U. A. Stillman, DR.. Wood.
row discouraged me from the under
taking, not because he did not think
the
ooNvRRAEs WERE GUILTY,
but because he thought that under all
the circumstances OF excitement In
the church, II would be hard TO con-
Wet them, end because they ought 10
prosecute me II my publications were
not true, and not wait for me 10
prosecute them. just before publish.
Ing the exttaots, we published a sec.
ond csrd (APPEAL, 0ctober), announc-
ing that we wou d publish extracts