The San Francisco call., 1896-02-05

printed, made it. 1t was for the appointment
of a committee to do whatever seemed wise to
be done in Dr. Browns case" OF course this
included investigation, If that were seen to be
a wise and timely move. And it suggested the
possibility that an investigation, if made,
might be conducted by others and not by the
original committee. The original committee
wes one with full power so far as the associ a
tion could confer any power
1t has never entered my mind at all and no
such intimatioE ever escaped my lips as that
Mr.. Tubb especially prepared" his record with
purpose either favorable or unfavorable to
DR.. Brown. He is incapable of such false
the motion; but failed to get the motion ex-
actly as twas made. ] am sure that Rev. DR..
Mclean would corroborate my statement.
II you Will give me further space VIII make
statement of the facts concerning this COM
mittee for which / am willing to be held re-
sponsible:
The Bay Assoeia ton is a club OF Congrega-
tional ministers, meeting at stated times for
fellowship and mutual improvement. 1t has
nothing whatever to do with what is technic-
ally called ''ministerial standing" But like
any other club of decent men it would take
cognlzance of immortality or indecency in any
OF its members, and an expulsion from it on
sueh grounds would doubtless ruin the stand
ing both professional and social OF any of its
members.
certain board of directors to which DR..
Brown belongs was called to meet during the
recess OF that meeting OF the association at
which the committee on DIR. Browns case was
appointed. After the board had concluded its
business, DR.. Brown requested the members to
remain few moments as individuals, and to
ADVISE with him. The result OF this consulta-
ton was this motion of Dr. Mclean, and the
appointment of this committee. There was at
tnat time, on the good old Anglo-Saxon ground
that "a man is presumed to be innocent till
proved guilty" a conviction in the minds of
all his brethren that DR.. Brown was guiltless.
1t was believed, and hoped for by Others
that II. say. three brethren universally trusted,
could examine these proofs of Br. Browns in
nIoeence, which he is compelled at present to
keep in reserve, and could report that these
proofs were conclusive, amounting to moral
demonstration, this would lead the public
generally and Christian people particularly
TO wait in patience and hope till the time
should come when they might safely be pub
iished. AT that time the committee appointed
by the association believed that this would be
names would probable carry greatest weight
they requested Rev. Drs. Mclean and Mooar
and Hon. E. D. Sawyer to examine the proofs
ana maze the report; But unavoidable delays
AT length the original committee, acting in
concert with Drs. Mclean and Mooar, after a
careful and protracted canvass of the situa-
tion, decided to wait upon DR.. Brown and ex-
press TO him their conviction that no such ex-
animation of his proofs, however conclusive
they might be found, could meet the case. 1t
would bear the appearance of a one-sided in
vestlgatlon and could not set things at rest.
Ana IN view OF this we announced our de-
cision not 10 attempt the impossible, and not
TO see one side until we could be free to take
In all sides. He was at first manifestly disap-
pointed, but finally appeared to be convinced
that the decision we had reached was WISE
The result to which we came was with some
notifications in the expression of 1t, adopted
by the joint committee of the church and the
association, and it virtually included these
points,
l. An investigation of the most thorough
character to be made as soon as present obsta-
cles to it can be removed. and the sooner the
better.
2. Till such an investigation becomes posi-
BILE, Judgment TO be suspended and confidence
to be continued. The grounds of this "confi-
denee" will be different in different persons;
doubtless they were different in the minds of
differing members of the joint committee.
With some it may have been nothing more
than the principle OF Christian charity an
Anglo-Saxon justice above referred 10: with
others 1t was this with the addition of DR..
Browns record in the past; with others it may
have been both these and the bad record of his
chief aceuser; with others it may have been
grounded in complete conviction, unshaken
and immutable, in Dr.. Browns purity of con-
duct and character. Is was with the posi-
bility and perhaps the consciousness of this
diversity in the bases of confidence that the
declaration was made. And this is where ac-
tion must cease for the present, unless the
First congregational Church, which is the
Supreme Court in this case, sees fit to press it
to quick as well as decisive inquiry. This
it can do, but what it will decide to do, it alone
can tell. Respectfully, WILLIAM G.. POND.
Bethany Study, February 4, 1896.