The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-01-24
REV. DIR. BROWNS REPLY
10 The PUBLTCATION BT THE
WAsHINGTON-SrRE CHURCH.
Denies Having Made Any Nominations for
That Puipit-ssys They Had No
Right TO Retain Rev. DIR. starr.


yesterdays Richmond Christian Advo-
cate "A lengthy communication IN answer
10 the recent publication made by the
Washington-Street Methodist church, Of
Petersburg, in reference 10 the transfer
OF Rev. Or. Starr as pastor Of that
church. to the Broad-Street Methodist
church. in this city.
After some introductory statements.
Or. Brown says that. having been mis-
represented and misunderstood, he thinks
he should have the privilege Of saying
First that he utterly denies having
made any nominations for the pulpit Of
Washington Street church at the recent
session OF conference, or any suggestions
in that direction. except such as are
common I'm similar cases, and as were
drawn from him by the Bishop and pre-
siding elders In council.
Secondly. he soiemnly afiarms that
IL was no part of his original plan or
purpose, when the conference met In
Richmond TO seek the removal Of Or.
Starr to Broad-Street church, unless the
Bishop for the larger good Of Virginia
Methodism,' should deny to that church
their first and second choice, which con-
tingency he thought ought not TO and
would not arise; and that when il did
arise. and he put Or. Starr I'm nomi-
nation, he distinctly stated that he did
so by the request Of the Broad-Streot
Board Of Stewards, as their third choice.
Thirdly. he emphstically dsclams the
use Of a word, or the existence Of a feel
ing In his heart, then or now, against
Washington-S Street church. among whose
official and private membership he has
some warm friends, and whose long ca
rcer OF loyalty and fidelity 10 Methodism
is worry Of all praise.
"And all this he is prepared 10 prove. II
necessary, on the testimony Of his as
ciates in council which for the present
rs withheld"
40 RIGHT TO RETAIN HIM.
Or. Brown then takes up the claim Of
the Petersburg people that according to
the unwritten law. the church had the
right to retain the services Of Dr. Starr.
He denies that proposition. and cites sew
eral removals by the last conference Of
Wilson, and others. who had not served
ont their full term bait who were changed.
In spite Of the earnest request Of
their several charges. lie next says
that the claimants have not onlyl no
claim In law, but none IN fact lie then
takes up the charges that Bishop Gallo
way removed DR.. Starr "withouf giving
the church any opportunity Of informing
him Of it's needs. that he did H.. confess
eddy. without "a fun knowledge Of the
facts. that he further stated that n he
had been fully informed Of the facts be
fore he left Virginia, the case would
have been different: that the action i'm
this case was taken in secret and
clandestine manner. and 10 is more than
limited that "a conspiracy or combination
Ia N.I Inc
church."
I'm reply 10 these charges he says that
opportunity extraordinary was given 10
Washington-Street church 10 make
known her wants and that the Bishop
has since said. I'm n private letter.
"All the facts presented. ON which the
requested change Is based were consid-
cred by rs I'm council No new light
was given. SO. I could not accede 10
the request Most sincerely do / regret
these things, and certainly / have never
consciously Disseminated against one I'm
favor OF another church. Our assign
ments seemed necessary for the larger
good of Virginia Methodism"
QUOTES DR.. WHITEHEAD"
As 20 the charge OF secrecy and star
chamber proceedings, ne quotes Dr.
Whitehead, as follows:
1T (the promise in the Bishops cabi-
net Of secrecy had no imaginable rela-
ton 10 or connection with the proposed
removal OF DR.. Sarr: nor was anything
done or said bearing In any wise upon
his appointment. more than upon any
other preachers There was
nothing connected with the meeting diff
Ierent in any respect or particular from
what / have observed again and again i'm
the course of the fourteen years l have
served as presiding elder. The usual
nominations and discussions took place.
No fact I'm reference 90 DR.. STAIRS work
at Washington-Street-h usefulness. his
popularity, his influence on the commu-
nity-which is contained In the published
statement of the stewards, but was known
in the council. The case could not have
been more fully ventilated II is not,
and never was. customary when an APP
pointment has been determined upon. UNI
der circumstances such as these % give
the church officials notice Of what Is in
tended. and invite them 10 come and say
what they can 10 prevent its consum-
nation. Three was absolutely no token
or indication Of conspiracy 10 iniure
or It's pastor. or to
mar its usefulness in any respect"
Other presiding elders are quoted. much
TO the same effect. In conclusion. Dr.
Brown gravcly arraigns Washington
Street church. for refusing 10 Sup
port the institutions of the Church. its
appointed agencies" calling attention 10
the VOW Of all churches iY the conference
'to obey the discipline and 10 support
the institutions of the Methodist Church"