The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-08-20
MATTE OVERMAN Was ON SHORT RAT|ONS

have published it. was in favor of CIV
ing the letter to the press, but others OBJ
iected, so / refrained. The letter was re-
ceived by me on the 7th of the month,
having been written the day before in Los
Angeles.
al called meeting of the members OF
the council that l could reach and laid
the matter before them. l told them that
l was in favor of giving it to the public
through the press. but that would abide
by their decision. l then showed them
the letter, and after some discussion they
overwhelmingly voted not to let the press
know anything about 1t or its contents. L
am very much surprised to know that 1t
has become public matter. l assure you
that the letter will not be given out for
publication, and any purported letter pub
ished will not be the Matte Oyerman
letter that was sent TO me-"
A member of the council who had read
and reread the letter of Mattie's and is in
position to speak, but preferred not to
have his name mentioned owing to DR..
Browns friends who insist on trying to
injure every one who believes word of
the charges against him, had this to say
regarding the letter:
1.-THE statements in the letter are gen.
eral in character. 1t was q closely written
letter of ten pages of ordinary letter paper.
The general superstition that the Tunnell-
Overman letters had not been changed
but were true proves to be correct, accord
ing to Miss Overman's last letter. She
makes no mention of any time or place
where improper relations were main
tanned, but is positive in the statement
that such relations existed.
''The letter is personal and not in any
form to be made public. There are some
things not vital and there are some state
ments in detail that would not be nice to
turn out. The terms used are very mod
est and on the whole the face of it bears
the impression of sincerity on the part OF
the writer. OF course it is not believed by
all of the late council mem bers, but it will
be given considerable attention.
$50 far as l have been able to follow
them. Mrs. Tunnell's confession and this
last letter of Mattie's are entirely in har-
mony with each other. Mrs. Tunnel
goes more into detail on some subjects
than Miss Overman, but both cover the
same ground.
1.-THE letter carries out the theory sug-
gested to the minds of the minority of the
late council by the testimony then pre-
sented. There is hardly deviation from
any point in the conclusion reached by
them at that time.
sit is of some Importance to know that
this letter was mailed on the 9Th and
reached Oakland on the 7th. Mrs. Tun
nel's confaSSi0p Uas DuhliSbad on RI 81
day, which proves that neither had en-.
tered into an understanding as to what
should be said. Mrs. Tunnell told u.
that she had an idea that Matte would
write DR.. Mclean.
These two statements made by Mrs
Tunnel and Miss Overman wilt be re-
duced to affidavits and filed as basis of {
complaint charging Rev. Charles O. Brown
with adultery. He was simply suspended
from the ministry by the council because
his character was under a cloud, which ht
was unable to remove to the satisfaction
of the council. Now charge of adultery
will be filed and he will be given an oppor.
tunity to disprove it. If it stands and
he fails to disprove the charse he will be
found guilty. The conference will ther
take action by absolutely expelling him
from the ministry, which will entirely re-
move his ministerial standing. At present
it is simply in allegiance by our former &C
ton. There will be no meeting held a.
the present time, but when the affidavit.
are prepared and filed the conference will
take action. What may transpire at thai
time is too far in the distance TO think of o.
talk about