The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-06-09
THE SMITHFIELD CHURCH
PROF. LYON q. TYLER REPLIES TO
Mr.. h s. THOMAS,
All Charges or InsInnations Of Prejudice or
JesIou.y Ate Denied and HIS Origi-
nal Position strictly Adhered to.


seem 10 imply answers convicting me OF
prejudice" and even Jealousy but he
graciously declares az length that Il do
not for a moment believe Prof. Tyler
meant 10 be unfair, but ! do believe ne
was a little thoughtless and incOnsider-
ate" 1t is a very fortunate thing that
Mr. Thomas put IN this express disciain-
er. for ! am quite apprehensiVe that any
one reading his letter would have mis-
understood Il and supposed that he as
cribed TO me sentiments quite al variance
with his intentions. / have perfect
right 20 discuss any plbnc matter IN
Virginia. and il would certainly be unfair
and unknd in Mr. Thomas or any other
person. to impugn my motives for so DO
ing In my address at jamestown l
made no personal attack on Mr.. Thomas
and Mr.. Thomas has no right TO make an
Sir. Thomas does say in his letter that
| made IAN attack" on Smithfeld church
and that he does not believe Prof. Tyler
would be as unjust as that 70 anything
or about ANYTHING that related 10 James
town or " illi0mshurg. Certalnly at
first sight this language would seem 10
imply much more than tnoughtesshess
and Observation-Disclosures on my part. But
/ take Mr.. Thomas at his word, and II Is
in fact much more cOngenlal 70 my ma
turs 10 suppose that Mr.. Thomas himself
was "tnougniless ana lnSohslltiale III
the use of conflicting words than 10 as
sumo he intended an unprovOkcd attack.
IL ought 10 occur 10 Mr. Thomas that ne
is quite as subject TO the influences or To-
4
credit for admitting that he never would
have replied except for the solicitation OF
others. who overruled his own excellent
mn / NAV be permitted 70 say here
that the subject is a little too remote 10
admit Of prejudice. Ny purpose was to
state history as | found II, and the allu-
sion 10 tine brick church al Smithneld was
nor intended as an attack, but as state
mcnt of truth At jamestown / proceed
ed. in a perfectly natural way, 20 discuss
the rise and growth OF the Colony, ana
naturally / discussed the houses OF the
inhabirants. Far from pandering 20 local
prejudice ! showed That there was no
brick church at jamestown till l55s Blsn-
op Meade and Mr. Howe had given an
antiquity 10 the brick church there ante
dating 1872 but I became satisfied from
the land grants which Meade and Howe
never saw that the church I'm which fo-
cahontas is said to have been marr is.li
was a wooden structure situated AT tAe
eastern end of the island.
The age Of the first brick church AT
jamestown was fixed 10y Governor liar
vev an lGls II appears that the autnori-
tics I'm England had instructed him not
10 let the cOlonists build slight cottages
as hitherto" and he wrote with evident
| uride that Richard kempe. the secretary,
had erected a brick house and that a
brick church at jamestown was then
building. After reading this letter
could not overlook the claim insisted upon
by some as 10 the antiquity OF Smithneid
church IL appeared 10 have "A direct
connection with the subject before me,
! for II the claim was correct the letter ca
| Harvey seemed unntellisiple, as ne Mouiu
| scarcely have omitted mtntOn-Oi Sliuc
ure that has stood, according 10 MI
| Thomas 253 years. when reprOached Win
permitting cottages that tumDled down
every few years. ,
feeling than TO state the truth, tnen
/ examined MIR. Thomas paper on Smltn-
field church. and found that the evidence
that Doe rellcl upon was ti, ,.,.., I, !.
a brick, and the testimony Of Mr.. Thomas
| himself as 10 what he had heard
! others say about the date and the found
| er's name / maintain that the Whole
| case was covered by the reference IN my
| address Mr. Thomas complains tuat
! ana NOT give the audience the benefit Of
| ali his address of 3 pages. Inis, thihh,
| would have made him the orator al
| jamestown and not myself. More IMAM
| three fOurths Of his address is taken ~
| with an account OF the splendid old people
| OF Isle of Wight, which account, however
! excellent in a genealogical way, mas hoth-
isg 10 do with the argument. gave tne
| substance OF the claim, and that was
/ ali that could be expected. Mr.. Thomas
! Complains Of my laying so much stress
! upon the evidence Of the brick FOUND win
a date upon IL. and l am frank 10 say
| that IL was because / thought 10 more I'M
! pOrtant than any other point. / think
| So still and am glad TO say that hdu
what Mr. Thomas seems % have forgot
| ten, his own concurrence ~ lAdl opinion:
| To quote his address: "Ils last pftOt
| (the brick with l6}2 stamped upon ~ Is
| absolutely conclusive, ana might rely on
| IL solely and alone. but IN one or TWO nun
dred years hence its sehuiheness mlsh, ne
| questioned, and hence, wnlst priceless
| records are still eNiant ana important
| witnesses still. alive. II Is matter OF the
| eravest moment and Of the highest duty
| 10 preserve their concurrent testimony
IN is clear that Mr.. Thomas, In his adj
| dress. deemed the evidence or these WIZ
| nesses entirely superiiuous, ohif Naiua"le,
| PERHAPS zone or TWO hunuieQ years
| hence" / now understand him to say
! that the brick is OF litue value without
| the other evidence set forth in nls ad-
| dress In stating that Il was lQth 10 1ls-
| pute the claims of the SmlthhtII cuulcu,
| i referred of course, 20 tre very NIX
| nnssos which Mr.. Thomas says / passed
| by ANY evidence which ~ not PROOF
| is a claim. and al the evidence Whlch ar
| Thomas Saws ] overlooked cannot Ne re-
| garded other than as a claim. II amount
| "a To- a tradition that the cnurch was
| founded in 1922, and 10 had only one de'
| termining circumstance contempordncous
! with it-arl that was tnat me churcH
| US founded bv one Joseph Brldger
| Here was test admitted 10y the claim
| ants themselves but unfortunately thg
| test did not materlaliZe. stated IN III.
address that no sucn man alucdItl III
! Inc land records or IN the records OF Nor
| f,il, county adjoining. or in any OF the
| confemrorary records Of Virginia Here
| in g. plain that meant To H'i,f 10y
| isfpuce so far as All our records aNoiiti
| evidence to Joseph frideer contempt
| raneous with the erection OF the cnuich
! Hfrt WAS IL fair for Air. InnmoS To sup
| prn-- the last clause Of my statement
| ana e0nfne my remarks 20 denial mere
! IL OF Erifger's appearance in the land
! records and the records OF Norfolk coun
| rv2 Ills quotation Of me Is AS follows
| "But no such man appears in the iand
| records or the records or Norfolk county
adjoining. etc Mr. Thomas does not
| venture 10 say that any o. the contempt
rarv records-the land grants, Sansburl
| mss Eohins1n's notes, ctc.-saf Wofo
! M Iceaph Bridger as early as 1852, or fc'
| many wears later. but he directs ms ar
( tack pn.r the Norfolk county books %
| which the "etc" D. employs gives {
! much greater Importance than designed
| But his attack against my reference t'
! these books sigrally fails.
His objection 10 my referring 10 Lower
| Norfolk county as adjoining" is not
| deemed necessary fer comment othe.
| than 10 say that the three counties o
| Lower Norfolk. Upper Norfolk. or Nan
| samond. ANA Isle OF Wight were un.-eo
| frgathcr I'm an association Of which Gen
| Politically. they did adjoin. and 81
| far as their contemporary character T.
| concerned. the books In Portsmouth VII
| sneak for themselves | have notes from
| those books as early as i637-onlv three
wears after Isle Of Wight was itself form
ed into a county. / MAINTAIN, therefore
| that the silence of these books respecting
| Joseph Bridger. but above all the silence
| OF the land books mot 10 speak Of ne
| other sources OF authority is fatal 10 th'
| tradition as II now stands. IL must ne
| remembered that the burden OF proof Is
| always upon the person who asserts the
| fact. not uron him who denies it. Mr.
| rhonas has referred I think not as pleas