The San Francisco call., 1896-04-26


ing where the council left it.. The commit
tees report went to the table for consid-
eratlon at an adjourned meeting OF the Bay
beieye tba one week later Al appealea I no 70
SUBJECT for discussion and action by the
Bay conference at the ad journed meeting.
W " neh the BODY assembled ana was reaoy
ioI BUSINESS an effort was maze 10 con,
siuer the committees report, but instead
tnereof member offered resolution OF sus-
pension The member offering the resolution
sMaia M ne represented others by whom the reso-
iullon, with It's whereases was prepared. The
discussion OF the day brought out the fact that
aeh rara4us prtVale conferences nad peen neiu py
members OF the Bay Conference, the principals
having peen members of the said council, the
ctiiHa& OF surprise coming when the moderator
ol lne SAID council claimed The floor, with eX-
pension.
The friends of DR.. Brown claimed that they
weie surprised, and having no notlce OF such
actloh were not prepared 10 contest the case
tnere ana then. But the battle was on and ne
Isht 10 finish was fixed event The Bay
o3ntsreHce ne was composed OF all the ministers
OF the congregational body and two delegates
.on .T eacn church within given dlstrlct
many aged dlvines were there, several beard
iess youths in the conference, and many
women, delegates from the churches, eighty
one voters all told. The discussion, IN the
main, was very unlike the sweet and fragrant
memory OF the Pilgrim fathers. DR.. Brown
anu Ut. Mclean made the two speeches OF the
day, and from opposite grounds The result
was 40 to 30 for suspension.
Inc inquiry before us is, Was tina act OF SuS-
pension intended to deprive man OF ms
Stan1lng In this life and of a means OF ilvel1-
nood Ior himself and family, in accord with
eHe law OF civilization, with the law OF the
9@ta'e @ OF our adoption, and in harmony with
Ine law ana usage of other ecclesiastical courts!
beyonu doubt, it is not sustained by the great
qnWrltten law OF equal opportunity TO all men,
9uuees on the bench, attorneys at the bar ana
Jurors IN the box know that it is contrary TO
the municipal, State and National law, practice
and usage.
How was it in the case of DIR. Brown?
he and his friends and the great outside
popIlc UNDERSTOOD that the council was the
maj court OF appeal. 1t was so understood
When testimony was being taken. So was 1t
tne maj court to the accused but not so to the
accusers' Now comes the mystery which as
founded the writer and scores OF others
present at the Bay Conference meeting.
Win put one or two exceptions the mem,
pers OF the said council were hand in hand
pay conference, more nearly prosecutors.
then and there constituted a court of appeal
plead the case and sat in judgment on the in
depreciation of their own findings. Not an
hour notlce of intention to suspend, not a
sclnt1lla OF new evidence claimed or offered
ana at meeting. when the committees report
was pending action, new, and to DR.. Brown
an unexpected, resolution to suspend was
made the issue, which. by the opposition to
Dr. Brown, was confessedly prepared a. private
meetings and then forced by superior num-
pers, suspending brother from their fellow
snip until he disproves what all the accusers
ana council could not prove. An impossible
task. Shot to death DR. ELLIS