The record-union., 1897-10-28

HIS Guilt.
CHICAGO. Oct. 27.-There was a
fairly large audience of Congregational
ministers and laymen present at the
second days session of the inquiry into
the charges against Rev. c. O. Brown,
made by the Bay District Conference,
San Francisco.
DR.. Brown, accompanied by his wife
and son, came early to the church, and
shook hands with everybody, even his
adversaries of the Bay Conference.
When the Moderator, DR.. Little of
Boston, called the meeting to order,
each minister sank into his seat, and
the gathering became a session OF
grave and earnest pastors
DR.. Little declared that the first thing
in order would be the Bay Conferences
presentation of its case.
While the Californians were consult
| ing, DR.. Brown arose and remarked
that he would reserve the right to OBJ
ject to certain paragraphs in the Bay
| Conferences findings He denounced
these paragraphs as perfdious and un-
truthful.
The Bay people came back with sim
liar adjectives, and for a few minutes
the reverend gentleman, with the soft
est tones and gravest of behavior,
showered charges of "perfidy," "mal-
ice.' etc, upon one another
DR.. C. r. Brown of Oakland, who is
the speaker of the Bay Conference, took
the stand against his naNesaEe. He
stated frankly that he had every rea-
son to believe that the Bay Confer
ence had done rightly by the accused,
and that the latter's statement was not,
as he claimed, causeless and without
| invetigation.
DR.. Hatch, another of the Califor-
mans, remarked that he and his friends
had been called dogs, hypocrites,
drunkards and liars.
alphabetically, DR.. Hatch,' inter
rupted Dr. Brown.
well, then, we have been hypothet-
ically called all these things" resumed
1 DIR. Hatch. He then said he went to
the Bay Conference as a friend ana
/ ally of the accused minister, and was
actually forced to believe the charges
made against him.
Dr. Mclean was the next speaker.
Disclaiming any personal hostility to
DR.. Brown, he said the scandals affect
ing that minister had seemed over
whelmingly strong in their character.
The speaker then declared that DR..
Browns suspension was justified by the
following reasons: THAT Dr. Brown
had paid $500 to escape public notorie-
ty in the case; that he had failed to eX-
plain discriminating letters and that he
had paid a witness to leave San Fran
cisco at the time of the original investi-
CATION,
"No, no." exclaimed Dr. Brown.
Yes answered the speaker.
A lively wrangle followed. The Bay
Conference people angrily protested
that DR.. Brown had no right to inter-
rupt the oratory.
The Moderator was uncertain what to
say, and DIR. Mclean, DR.. Browns
chief opponent, said he wanted civility
to prevail.
DR.. Mclean then added a further
charge to the three alleged against DR..
Brown-that of using threats against a
young woman of his congregation.
Reports of the California Credential
Committee, which were given at the
findings of the trial council, and in
turn passed the findings on to the Bay
Conference, were then read.
The conference, continued the speak
or. had acted without a trial, simply
because the original council and the
Credential Committee had fully inves-
tigated the four specific charges. Dr.
Brown, he said, had been given every
opportunity to defend himself.
DR.. Browns delay in summoning the
Bay Conference to a mutual council
was also commented upon. Incidentally.
the speaker said that DIR. Browns guilt
or innocence in the Overman scandal
was not proven, but the charges aris-
ing out of Dr.. Browns actions toward
witnesses in that case were so inde-
scribable that full investigation was
necessary. The council, he went on,
had met with the hope of clearing DR..
Brown. but as the investigation con-
tinued had been compelled to admit his
guile. BY his own friends, claimed the
sneaker. DR.. Brown had been con-
demned
DR.. Mclean continued his speech in
the afternoon, and aside from frequent
Interruptions and objections, consumed
the greater part of the afternoon He
took up the findings, and endeavored TO
explain what the council meant in each
instance. This action was necessary,
he said, because the findings were am
biguous owing to the desire Of the ma
jo4-ity of the council to shield Dr..
Brown as much as possible from the
unkind comments of the public.
The findings seem to show conclusive
ly that DIR. Browns clerical brothers
on the Pacific Coast were far from sat-
isfied with the explanation he made OF