Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-07-06
Defense of the Lane Seminary Pro-
fessOr Accused of Fraud.
WHYTHELETTER WAS DESTROYED.
DR.. William E. Moore Scrapes Off the Mud,
and Two other Doctors
ADVISE THE WHOLE THING DISMISSED

tei is udteu Ut Clnclnnatl, ana reaQS as 10l-
lows:
The attacks made upon me in certain re-
ilglous and secular newspapers eliminated
lnst week In the revival and publication in
cincinnati of story which has been current
for some time past, and concerning which,
at a. the suggestion of the Rev. Thomas H.
Robinson and the Rev DIR. w c. Roberts
nave said nothing for four years. The
charge was published in the Commercial
Gazette OF June 80, and was to the effect that
letter intended for DR.. W. C.. Roberts. con-
cernlng profcssorship at Allegheny Theo-
ioS1cai Seminary, had been taken and used
Dy ME for the purpose of securing my cleo
ton at Lane Theological Seminary. With
respect to the Lane prOfessorship it is suffi-
c1ent to state that said letter was not even
mentioned by me to any of the trustees or
friends of Lane Theological Seminary until
some time after MY election. The facts of
letter, printed in the Commercial Gazette of
July 3. and written by DR.. E. r. Mont fort in
1887, and by DR.. E. d. Morris on the day of
my my. ELECTION to Lane as professor, June 10,
1856 To complete the evidence in connec-
tion with my election, furnish for publica-
ton the following letter recently received
from Dr. W. E. Moore, another trustee of
Lane, who, with DR.. j. G. Monfort and Pre-
served Smith, Esq, deceased, were the COM
mittee of Lane trustees to nominate a pro-
fessor:
The Letter From DIR. VIM. r. Moore.
COLUMBUS, o., July 2, 1891.
my Dear Mr.. Roberts:
Someone called my attention to the
screed in the Commercial of June 80. 1 at
once set my memory to recall the facts as
they occurred in Minneapolis. Captain
Elias Monfort gives the origin and sequence
of what occurred in the Assembly in refer
ence to the choice of YOU as professor at
Lane just as they occurred. DR.. j. G. Mon
fort first mentioned the matter to me as hav-
ing occurred to Mr.. Preserved Smith and
himself. MIR. Monfort has correctly stated
my concurrence. You showed me, whether
before OF after the mention of the matter of
the professorship, do not remember, let
ter or telegram from the Fourth Church,
Albany, requesting prompt answer to their
call or proposition. 1t was that fact which
led the trustees who were there to issue
call for the meeting of the board.
II did not hear at Minneapolis from any
one the breath of suggestion of a call to
Allegheny as being probable and SO a mo-
tive Tor haste.
81 did not hear of the letter referring to
DR.. W. G. for, should say, two years after,
when it was referred to very much as in the
Commercial Gazette. 1 at once denied the in
ference that the committee had been SO in
fuenced, and even question the fact of any
such letter having been written, showing
that the letter from Albany, which did
hasten committees action, might give some
color to the other story, which l regarded as
somebody's mistake.
Il am very sure the papers which return
IL
DR.. Robinson's letter was known to anyone
of the committee it was not known to me at
all. 1t was not used to influence the commit
tee either as to choice or haste
81 sincerely pity the necessity as it seems
OF scrapinS off this mud. Yours truly,
CIVILIAN E. MOORE"
A Consideration of the Stray Letter.
DIR. Moore's letter, in conjunction with the
letters of Drs. E. r. Montfort and E. d.
Morris, are conclusive proof that the ALE
gheny had no connection with my election
as Professor at Lane Seminary. / now pass
to the consideration of the Allegheny letter
apart from its disproved connection with
Lane Theological Seminary. The letter was
written by Professor Thomas FL. Robinson,
of Allegheny Seminary, and was enclosed i'll
a letter written by him to the Rev. Dr.
Sample, of Minneapolis. as appears in the
following quotation from letter written
by DR.. Robinson April 90, 1887: 81 enclosed
it in letter to Rev DR.. K. F. Sample, re-
questing him to place it in DR.. W. C. Roberts
hands, as he would doubtless be at .he
Assembly, That letter was handed to me
at my desk at the Assembly, was carried to
my room at the hotel with other MAIL and
was answered, if l remember rightly,
some "a hours after it's reception. My reply
began with thanks to DR.. Robinson for his
good opinion, and closed by discouraging
the movement toward a call to Allegheny. 1
did not and could not state the chief reason
for thus replying, viz, the definite proposal
from the committee of Lane Seminary, and |
| remained under the conviction that the |
letter was my letter until on
June 8. at Princeton, n. j., received for the |
first time notification of the fact that the let
ter had been intended for DIR. W. C. Roberts |
My reply from Minneapolis was received by |
Or. Robinson in due. time, and in |
writes: "My first fntimation of mis- |
nap in the matter was the receipt |
If your letter acknowledging mine, with |
hanks for the confidence expressed, etc,
ato Ha tter
Dr. Sample to make the mistake he did, for |
vas not careful to add to DR.. Roberts name |
secretary of the Board of Home Missions, |
which would have been a better safeguard |
han placing it in the hands of DR.. Sample, |
. e., L do not think that gave him any such |
designation. The mistake between w. c. |
nd w: H. could readily have been made, |
specially by one who had a poor memory
or initials. There was nothing in the first |
etter, aside from the address, which would |
how that the letter was not intended for
ou. have not copy of it."
DIR. W. c. Roberts on the Subject,
So much for DR.. Robinson's connection
nth the matter. What of Dr. W. G.. Rob-
rts? In a letter dated April %, 1887, he
rites in reply to inquiries from me: ''I have
ever told anyone, much less parties, that
,r Robinsons letter to me was sent to
our care. nor that you were solely respon-
ible for its failure to reach me-. If have |
,ld IL word on the subject have given the |
Nact facts OF the case, VIZ: That n letter |
to me fell in some way into your
ands, and that though you were written to
V Dr. Robinson that the letter belonged to
ie and not to you, it never reached me-" 1t
true that DR.. W. G.. Roberts never re-
eiyed the letter of DR.. Robinson. Dr. Rob-
lson was absent from home when my reply
D his first letter reached Allegheny, and
is second letter arrived at Mime
polls after my hasty departure, occas-
Ioned by q telegram from my wife,
tati1rg that my youngest daughter
-as seriously i'll. On June 8, as already
tated, L received DIR. Robinson's third let
er addressed to Princeton, and two days
liter the delayed second letter from Mime
polls came to hand. In his letter of April
], 1887, Dr. Robinson confirms these recol-
,ctions of mine by stating: Il wrote re-
nlling the first letter and received q postal
-om you dated Princeton, june 8, i'll answer
} the third one from me stating that my first
nd been destroyed some days ago and that
" second had not yet reached you.' 1t is ey-
lent therefore, that DR.. Robinson desired
nat should rettrn the letter to him. The
tier, however, had been destroyed with
ANY other letters.
Why the Letter Was Destroyed.
Why did destroy the letter? First, am
busy man, i'll receipt of an immense cor
spondence, and destroy very many letters,
pecially at General Assemblies. To sort
I'd file all my letters would keep clerk
lsy continuously. Second, the importance
the letter has been exaggerated. The
ttcr was written by friend, who was