New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-11-30
READY TO BEGIN PROF. SMITHS TRIAL.

READY TO BEGIN PROF. SMITHS TRIAL
THE sUFTCIENCY OF THE THIRD CHARGE
AGAINST HIM srSTMXED-A TILT BE-
TWEEN TWO MEMBERS or THE COURT.
Cincinnati. Nov. oo.-Thc entire forenoon session OF
the Cincinnati Prcsbytery spent In discussion
OF .hc Suciency in form and legal effect Of the third
charge and specifications which Professor Henry !
Smith which efficiency later In the dnv was sns
tanned speeches the question were made BY DTS
Roberts Robertson. Lord ard Richie. on behalf OF
sustaining the work Of the committee; and by the
Revs Mcssrs Taylor. Aclsmann and Gllchfst against
such action.
DR. Roberts. with the main question evidently IN
hIs hand said with emphasis that there was crisis
Of the grlvcSt nature in the Presbyterian Chnroh
Professor smith asked II Dr. Roberts meant that he
II sustained by the Prcsbvicry. would bring those 10
trial who did not agree with him.
Dr. Roberts answered that he referred TO forcihe
OF a theory hy other methods than judicial process
He went on 10 explain his view Of the Inspiration
Of the scriptures. by saying he did not believe Ut
n verbal Inspiration. hut In plcnary Inspiration
lie did not believe. rs Professor smith apparently
Taught. that the Scriptures contained the word "'
God A. water is contained In cup. but ns silver
l. contained in @ doar-evcry grain silver.
A. tho afternoon session. after two hours moro OF
discussion a yea and nav vote was taken on ih"
question q sustaining the suricency In form ana
,e- object q the third charge II showed what had
,oeu forcshadowcd I'm the dchat". that az least TWO
nnn,cr, o. the court had come over 10 the side of
,ne accused professor. One the Rev. Hugh Ill
christ pas,or 81 the church In which the court sits.
ard the other was the Rev. &. T. Waller.
Tho snliciency OF the third charge sustln"d-
vcos 10 navS -. Whom II came TO approving the
first specification. the prosecuting committee asked
,cavc IN amend by Inserting additional citation
from Professor smiths pamphlet. Professor smith
Objected that this deprived him Of his right to ten
DAYS. notice 81 charges and specifications against him
So,nc heated debate followed as 70 whether TINS was
moi evidence Of which the accused man was not en-
rtlei In notice During is progress Professor Nc
t,iecrt \ Young member OF thc court. who J. pro
nounced champion Of Professor Smith. asked the
nro,ccuinr committee when 1t discovered that this
addition was necessary.
Dr McKnAen o. the committee with some sharp
c.s asked what d. YOU mean by that question -
Ouite a, sharply Professor McGIrcrt retortd " !
mean just exactly what say"
DR.. McKibhcn-Thc question is impairment.
Professor MoGGcrt Then ~" committees rcques,
IS Experiment.
The Moderator declared both ont 81 order. Suhse-
ourn'lv Dr. McKlbbcn publicly asked pardon 81;
Professor MrGlnert md % he BODY for the language
he had us,A. and said De had "Ncried himself %
much 10 keep on friendly terms Win The accused
professor that h. had overlooked ID" court Pro.
lessor McGincri said b" accepted The apology OF
Dr. McKlhbcn with thanks.
But do yOu apologize ~ asked Tie MODERATOR.
| . ! declared Won both out ~ order
Professor McGlnrIf-i sad. " nv question wa
impairment. the committee f"lIr't wa, a''o' J
have no apology 10 make except 10 the court.
TIT, episode happily ended Oh" amendment was
not allowed aad The specifications were all approved
The court IS now ready 20 begin The formal tral.