New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-12-21

| ,ervs in Wednesdays Tribune is 80 untruthful ana
simple, M statement Of facts is all shall attempt
can furnish indsputable proofs :arseiE r aoc leu.
ter referred to is rather confused in its matter
therefore ! shall not follow It's order s,,.oros IN
the superior Court Of New-Haven County Conn =,
then and S for n in e that coun
This divorce was granted In open court on .re
ground of T n nocs of the suit had
my wife four months previous a Shs med per no de-
epcs on he divorce was granted Everything
was open regular and In strict conIotmy s1t
ing assertions TO the contrary. do not facilitate d.
vorce.
NO DECEPTION WAS USED.
A very serious charge. however is made against
| me by the member Of Monmouth Presoytery' IN
this connection. He asserts that mad separated
from my wife by articles Of mutual agreement that
this agreement was bar to the divorce. and that
obtained the di, by deceivng the court These
assertions are absolutely false. The facts are
these: was deserted in 1872. For five years USED
every effort to secure my wifes return Out III
vain never even receiving any explanation OF her
absence In 1874 through an influential friend' she
urged me to consent 10 legal separation by mutual
consent | refused In June. 1877. 1t became neces-
sary to adjust with her some financial matters
went to see her, and again pleaded Tor her return
She refused and said she would never live with me
again. | then wrote q paper personally, arranging
statement that had lived apart for five years and
should continue to live apart. This we both signed
Before signing II. however, took legal ADVICE as 10
its effect in other than financial matters. The
lawyer said: 1T is of absolutely no value the law
does not permit people to agree not to live together
| then stipulated in writing that ! waived no legal
right to her return by my signature to this paper
She signed with this distinct understanding This
pa per did not create the separation she had been in
wiful desertion for five years. 1t did not continue
it, for an hour before 1t was written she said; i
will never return to YOU" Her continued absence
was as much against my will the former deser-
ton All this she understood | subsequently sub
mitted tho agreement 10 lawyer OF eminence IN
Scs of rhe wfins sad aE 1T
worth the paper IT is written on hen l dpplied
Connecticuts foremost lawyers, who said: This is
no defence for her; under our law ii IS OF no value
not 10 attempt any defence In at least three in
stances the courts of Connecticut have decided that
such a writing is void. So much for the legal aspect
as to the moral side of the case, knew that it was
have no legal force, binding neither her nor me in
any way, by express written stipulation therefore
If the defendant had regarded it otherwise. would
she have suffered the decree to be granted against
| l subsequently married lady whom had never
met at the time the divorce was granted For
were spent in the diocese Of Pennsylvania no one
questioned my actions though my h divorce ana re
bishop In Philadelphia took church which en- had al
tnres Years. r Se was nearly
hundred After five years of service there. three
Charged me to the bishop with violation OF the
Episcopal canon Of divorce by my second mas mas
of the public which would not understand the
nice Of aT aRd ToI the
Of an American citizen these m'ns I so a1b bs
! had deceived the divorce court, as above re
lated. After two months careful inyes,ga &c
oh
| agreement matter. and said emphaticaily that /
o ene Of a any 1 Of
VOCATION Of canon Law, without intent TO v0ia i
exoneraed.
REFUSED TO DESERT HIS WIFE
The canon law OF Pennsylvania allows the bishop
10 pronounce no sentence more severe than that
recommended by the court In my case the court
recommended no sentence; therefore the o.shop
could pronounce none. But rising superior to the
law he sentenced me to be snspended tTG
Wife living with whom my sin in his eyes; put
| with her for five years, should be fully restored
to the ministry; The, canon allows ne biSnG,
aDdIngs or order new trial He id neither but
published in the Philadelphia papeEs 10 long Gan ana
bishop Of Pennsylvania" and so made man. many
think an olG 6aI paper whereas 1t was simply
1t was this paper which the Presbytery Of MOI Ion
not the record of the court. They knew from iet-
tiers had shown them written by eminent min
lated But the minister whose influence is pre-
eminent in that Presbytcry has 2 brother who Is
one '. Of my pronounced i enemies there
Deposed at my own d from the as
received into the CONGREGATIONAL body by our emf
n n kno%sge Of ali hese facts Aer
ful four years ministry WITH p9e9 Was hnrch
Of Newark 1t seemed desirable TO enter Newark
Presbytery and accordingiy brought clear creden-
which Newark Presby;ery RECEIVED me.
But the committee 0 nat az az a y
ecclesiastical life, especially the trial in Phisdel:
pha Thy kne Consisting Of e R bs
Holasi and Haey
that the facts were not before them" they assert
a falsehood But they do not 50 assert Absolutely
tee and tbsrefore the Presbytery is to be held tc
their committees knowledge
DISMISSED AT HIS OWN REQUEST
was dismissed from Newark Presbytery at my
own request This is sef-eviden', for by Pres6y
terrain law I could not be dismissed In any Other
way, except by charges, trial and deposition /
there ever were any charges against me in Newark
Presbytery, / never heard of them. have IT d.
rectly from two members Of Newark Presbyterl
that the large number OF bishops OF the Protestan
Episcopal Church whom they consulted on the mat
ter OF ordination unanimously declared my or
dlnation TO be unaffected by deposition. and to b.
indclible. However, that IL only technically o
1t Is noteworthy that Monmouth Presbytery in
dorses heartily. even greedy. any action anywher
ngs of the Episcopal court which exonerated m
} from all wrong-doing and the testimony Of n
bishops 70 my standing as an ordained minister
Heads win tails you lose Is Monmouth Pres
bytery's motto.
One word more: have lived In Asbury Park TO
nearly two years. under the mercless search-ligh
OF n criticism which has scrutnized every act an
word and almost every thought. The people o
Asbury Park which Is no, yet twenty-five years oil
and it's people above the average in intelligence