Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1886-07-10
A CARD.

MY attention has been callc, to n letter from
Rev. O. S. Bartcn, Of Norfolk, to Rev. j. G. Ann
strong, of Atlanta. published "arcidcntay in 4
volume entitled, "Otlical Record al the Armstron"
Trial, and circulated through the United States
of cOnrso among many people who will never
SEQ this antidotc. In it DR.. Bartcn represents me
as "the principal enemy Of Dr. Armstrong in Nor
folk, and then proceeds to assll me with cpthets
and other xprcssions-coar4e, ill-naturcd and
reckless.
TO which production I oppose tho following
statement of facts When read the public an.
nouncemcnt in 1S>1 that Rev. DR.. Armstrong
was discovered in OWL house in CINCINNATI
remarked, "DOubtleSs he was under the influence
OF alcohol | saw him in that condition three
years ago, ut my house, during the session Of tho
Episcopal Council in Norfolk.
No accusation at any time or place founded
on that observation nor upon information de-
rived from or through mo directly or remotely.
was not one Of tic witnesses, Am not acquainted
with member Of the court, and had no earthly
connection with the trial. But members of tho
vcstry of st. Lukcs church, Norfolk, did testify
in tho case that Dr. A. was under the influence
Of alcohol" while officiating there in tho presence
of three clergymcn, on Sunday of the session OF
the Same Council and Dr. Bartcn knew that such
testimony was to be given.
1t is rot a fact that was ever an enemy of
DR.. Armstrong. 1fc was new acquaintance
met him at the Council; VIC have been together
once since, and under very pleasant c circumstances
| am still disposed to crtrnnat, the charge against
this gifted and attractive man; would not will
ingly or carelessly contound inirmity with crime.
The language, tone and temper Of DR.. Birten's
letter are of a character to arouse Indignation
but prefer to subdue tho impulse to become az
gressivC-I stand upon my own defence.
This line of action is satisfactory to me for Sew
oral reasons. One OF them is obvious; DR.. Bartcn
is teacher of Christian ethics, and has read GER
tain celebrated passages in the Holy Scriptures
which carry clear conviction to all fair and dis
passionate minds, that tho mission of tho worlds
divine Prophet, Priest and King" was not under
taken for the purpose Of insulting his "miseraJh
ftltow' mcn-thc sinners or tho saints In time
DR.. Bartcn will study those texts, and then un-
dcrstand their deep meaning well.
Absolutely apart from that consideration l dare
not, if would, disregard the admonitions of the
unwrittcn law-made and administered in every
wcll-brcd community by its scIf.rcspccting mem
bcrs--in the interest OF the pcscC and dignity Of
society. My OWN observation Of the ultimate an
aysis of all Tttaiit0ry controversy, especially in
the columns Of the press, leads me to be cvc that
it is repulsve rs we'll mischicvous and for the
following reasons: When angry individuals,
blinded by cgOtsm, and loaded with railing
cusations, thrust upon the pubic tho wcarisomc
details of their own grievances, they nlay secure
certain contemptuous compassion for cXhibl-
tions Of ovcrwrought sensibility; but they gcncr-
ally realize something less than compassionate
contempt for manifestation OF mAlcvolence-
since malice is in every feature low ana mean, anu
ITO be hated. needs hui |" lr. seen
CHARLES SHARP.
NORFOLK, July |, lSSh.