The daily morning Astorian. [volume] (Astoria, Oregon) 1883-1899, 1893-05-20
The Presbyterian
Church Controversy.

AS already stated, the following con
municatlons were received on Thurs
day, but owing to pressure of othe
local news, the publication Of them ha
: been delayed until this morning:
Astoria, Or, May 1S, 1898.
1t is not in a spirit of criticisr
or with any uncharitable feeling W
would consider the statement of tn
elders of the session Of the PresbyteI
ian church, also concurred in by tn
reverend gentlemen from Portland, bu
spirit of justice would suggest som
notice of this statement published II
yesterdays Astorian. Had the gentle
men in question kept their delibera
tions and conclusions to themselves
then, of course, none would have ven
tured to make any suggestions or in
quiries concerning such deliberations
and conclusions; but when those gen
tlemen make public statement Of
these things they become public proper
public has then a right to consider
and question such statements.
The paragraph introducing such
statement says "a special meeting of
the session of the Presbyterian church,
called at the request Of the pastor,
Rev. r. b. Dilworth, to investigate GER
tain newspaper statements, prejudicial
to his ministerial character, was held on
the 10th inst"
So the meeting was held to investi-
gate certain newspaper statements.
There seems to be little misunder-
standing in the minds Of some as to
the method pursued in conducting this
investigation, and in order to answer
some criticisms as to the means en-
ployed by the session in getting at the
bottom of the matter l shall deal with
this matter first. To some it seems to
be taken as a matter Of course that If
the truth of the assertions of news
paper or individual were to be investi-
gated, that such paper or individual
should be allowed a representative
present during the whole Of such in
vestigation. The reason which allows |
an accused man such privileges in all
courts might lead some Of the public
to expect this much. But the rules gov
erning the session, in such cases, do
not demand this, and although Mr.. Dill
worth and counsel were allowed to be
present during the entire session, the
newspaper representative and others
concerned were called only as witnesses
and dismissed, as soon as evidence was
given and they had been subjected to
cross-examination. The result would
then be that if Mr.. Dilworth endeav-
ored to break down or weaken the evil
dence of witness for the newspaper,
he could, unknown to the newspaper
call witness to testify
in his (Mr. Dilworths) behalf, and of
the calling of such a witness or his tes-
the newspaper representative
would be ignorant, and consequently
could not introduce any rebutting evil
dence.
To illustrate this point, let us suppose
a case. Let US suppose that Mr.. Dill
worth wished to destroy the evidence
Of witness for the newspaper. Sup
pose Mr.. Dilworth had called in a lady
who testified that the witness for the
newspaper was not accountable ION ac-
count of sickness or nervousness for
testimony given. Supposing we say,
his had been done by Mr.. Dilworth,
hen would have the newspaper rep
been none the wiser and
'ould not have had an opportunity
suppose he had been able to do so) to
Introduce testimony of physicians and
as to the entire respons-
bility Of the witness whose evidence
Mr.. Dilworth might have wished to
weaken. This statement is not made
q criticize or question the motives of
he session, but to explain to the pub
ic the method of the Investigation
md the rules of the session which
made any other methods of proceed
Ire impossible, If the writer be cor
'ectly informed.
The session says first, in this state l
nent of May 1S: THE statements pub /
ished are mostly untrue"
/ would respectfully say in regard to c
his that what the newspaper in ques- I
ion said was published openly and
Without attempt to evade, and it would I
eem to an ordinary observer that IL l
he session wished to make public any L
onclusion concerning the alleged truth
II falsity of such newspaper state
nents, 1t would have been only fair to /
IL concerned and to the public that !
hey, the session, state clearly and 9
Tithout reservation which charges S
'ere untrue and which true, for they I
Omit that some were true. |
1t is not the intention of this article I
0 question the motives of the session, !
ut simply to point out where the
ession might have made the matter y
lear to the public mind. 1t may be b
lat the members Of the church are a
illing to take this non-committal state
ent without questioning, but while h
lis may be so, the public upon whom 1t
le session has obtruded its statement, 81
'uld not. in the nature OF the case, be
'pected to do so without manifesting
desire to have more satisfactory
Id definite statement
The session, again says: while we
nsider some acts were injudicious,
ey were not immoral in their charac-