The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-01-31

ssty AMI theological seminary down there.
agasa1t whom Ford, Gillian ard Ean1aes'
had trauped up charges They got thear
rather plant conference breraren. who
we're 4 .r1nged streaked and SPECIFIED 10:
Of fellows. 70 vote for q resolution a1nast-
ting letters as testimony. The bishop
said ne allowed tssera 20 proceed without
sassrposlng any objection Before they
could proceed 10 the case OF Farmer the
bishop said:
" Now. brethren. have sufficient testia
rzsony OF this kind TO put the presiding
elders Of this conferences out OF the minis
try and out CT the church At the same
time anIoadgng both breast pockets OF his
coat and laying them On the table before
him Nov. said he, go on with the case
OF Brother Farmer, and we viii attend 70
your case afferward-f
They grounded arms and run UP the
waite nag. Thereupon the bishop deposea
Hamrmest ami Gillian from the presiding
eldershlp. Hzmzneff was not villain az
heart. but lacked the force < character
10 stand up against the vilialny Of others.
Gillian was an opium-eatsr and occasion
ally would get drunk. as Brother Bushong
us Oregon <Daference could testify. and
had, I think, been at one tire q good
man; but 1 never heard Ford accused OF
being anything bat . scoundres or some
thing worse.
Ford deserves a patent on q new
method of making oneself d. ID. In 1854,
Rev G. w. Gray tnow at the head OF the
Egworth Lacquer was president OF the
Little Rock university OF the Methodist
Episcepai church. A conspiracy was
Brewing 20 drive Gray out OF his position.
II afferward succeeded and one. Prof.
Lewis. q nephew OF Bishop Wiley. then a
professor. Was appointed by and with the
consent CT Or. Eusk. The means used by
Ford and his aeconpllces was lie to this
effect:
That DR. Gray had said In q lecture
In Little Rock that he had travelled ali
over Arkansas and taken pains TO inform
himself on the subject. and that there
of books In all the public libraries In the
state
'.what he did say was that there were
not more books IN all the common school
libraries than would fill a wkeeIbarrow.
Dr. Gray resigned, Lewis was appointed.
and afterwards. being transferred to Chat
tanooga university. remembered his bene-
factor. who was thereafter to be known
as 1. y. u. The method Is certainly orig
inai. and Ford deserves a patent.
After transferring from the 81. Louis
10 the Southern Illinois conference. and
while stationed 2. Anna. Ill. was told
49, - =.
oiIst Episcopal church. that Ford. when
a young man and while Ia the ministry.
seduce1 young Woman. hired or per-
suaded another man TO marry her. and
after the other man left her. married her
himself. after a short interview In a
smoke house. This account was confirmed
BY ID. w Caifee with additional particu-
lara. And while in Little Rock, in 1881, /
was told by leading men of the city. form
eriy megs5crs Of the Methodist Episcopal
church. that Ford had an ulegitimate heir
across the river from 1t.
These facts I give just as they were
given 10 me, or as they are personally
known TO myself. ] think that the inter-
eses OF public morals and the cause OF
Christ demand that they be made public.
M. H. NICHOLS.
care George W. Knowles. Room Lie
weiiyn-Dodgc building, Seattle
rresIatn. Elder Ford.s story.
After ex-Jussgce of the Peace Burt j.
Humphrey had been called TO identify the
document issuing from his court at the
preliminary examination, DR. Ford, the
prosecuting witness, took the stand. He
detailed the occurrences OF his work in
the Arkansas conference. told the story
OF how he met the present Mrs. Ford, then
a Miss Mary Ivy. how he became engaged
10 her In the later Cos. how the engage
fpent had been broken. then renewed after
the mysterious disappearance of j. r.
Burke who in the meantime had married
Miss Ivy. and how the second courtship
had been followed by a happy married
Efe.
The testimony on this poiat developed
a bit OF tragic history. Mrs. Ford's first
husband was rccoastructionist, and
went 10 Arkansas In the stormy days af-
ter The war in the height of kukiuxlsm.
He had been married emily a few months
" %Afb ne fEk& HbtfiNR EfEhGI 10 EtiuIu. AIiI
to this day nothing has been heard Of him.
After he had been absent about a year
Mrs. Burke commenced an action for a
divorce. and obtained a decree on the
ground Of abandonment. Mr.. Burke Is the
man referred To In the charges as the per-
ron hired by DIR. lord to marry his old
sweetheart. Or. Ford was questioned
closely on this point, and also on his right
to marry the divorced woman He said:
II supposed that Mr.. Burke had been
murdered. II not, that he had abandoned
his wife. Ny position was that legally,
unster the law Of the state. and morally,
under tho law OF Moses and OF Christ,
had a right 20 marry her. Her father, as
] understood it. had advised her to pro-
cure divorce ana restoration Of her
maiden name IN order to avoid any COM
rl.cassoas that might arise. There was
never any return 20 the original affection
between as until after legal separation.
A. the time advised fully with nay fell
low elders and other associates
TO eitnch this roIat the state introduced
as aa exhibit 4 certified copy ~ the d.
yorce- II showed that the ease had been
heard before William y. May. Judge OF
the SiSsA tuaiesal district, holding court
AT Ozark. Franklin county. Ark, March
4, ISL. the ground alleged being shat
Eurke had wilguliy deserted and ahseatsa
himself srom his sise FOR a period % more
tsan one year.
Conspiracy against Him.
Dr. Ford was also questioned az 10 TIE
"asress' o. bis character. and ne declared
that conspiracy bad been catered into
s-h{!a Ne MAS In Arkansas - avs, an -