The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-10-28
REV. C. O. BROWNS TRIAL
LIVELY SESSION OF THE COURT OF
CONGREGATIONAL MINISTER'S.
The Accused Preacher Calls His OPP
pOnents Hard Names-A San Fran
cisco Scandal Rehashed.

OA1lA<11Ob Oct Ill HcICs was a ldI 8 .
audience of Congregational ministers and
session of the inquiry into the
charges against the Rev. c. o.
Brown, made by the Bay District
conference. Mr. Brown, accompanied by his
wife and son, came early to the church and
shook hands with everybody, even his ad-
versaries of the Bay conference greeting
him with the most stately courtesy. When
the moderator, DIR. Little. of Boston, called
the meeting to order, each minister sunk
in his seat and the gathering instantly be-
came a session of grave and earnest pas
tors. intent solely on the momentous bust
ness of the day. DR.. Little declared that the
first thing in order would be the Bay con-
ference's presentation of it's case.
While the Californians were consulting
DR.. Brown arose and remarked that he
would reserve the right to object to GER
tain paragraphs in the Bay conferences
findings. He denounced these paragraphs as
perfidious and untruthful. The Bay people
came back with similar adjectives and for
a few minutes the reverend gentlemen, with
the softest tones and the gravest of be-
havior, showered charges of ''perfidy,"
malice" etc., ad libitum on one another.
DIR. C. r. Brown, of Oakland, who is the
speaker of the Bay conference, took the
stand against his namesake. After explain
ing that he was not at San Francisco dur
ing DR.. c. o. Browns trouble, and had no
personal feeling in the matter, he stated
frankly that he had every reason to be-
lieve that the Bay conference had done
rightly by the accused minister, and that
the latter's suspension was not, as he had
claimed, causeless and without investiga-
ton DR.. Brown concluded by declaring that
the action of the Bay conference was i'm
peratively necessary.
DR.. Hatch, another of the Californians,
next arose He pleasantly remarked that he
and his friends had been called little dogs.
hypocrites and liars, drunkards and SER
penis in the grass.
sHypotheticalIy. DR.. Hatch" interrupted
wei, then, we have been alphabetically
called all these things-also Idiots and
mildest and gentlest of tones. DR.. Hatch
then said that he went to the Bay con-
ference as a friend and ally of the &C
cused minister, and was actually forced 10
believe the charges made against him.
The venerable DR.. Mclean was the next
speaker any PeTs9 35a l nosdg
affecting that minister had seemed over
whemingly strong in their character. The
suspension was justified by the following
reasons: That Dr. Brown had paid $5OU 10
escape public notoriety IN the case; that ne
had failed to explain discriminating letters
and that he had paid witness TO leave san
Francisco 1T the time Of the original in
vestlEaton,'
Yes answered the speaker.
A lively wrangle followed. the Bay con-
Brown had no right to interrupt the ora
tory The moderator was uncertain what
to say, and DR.. Mclean, DR.. Brown cnleI
opponent said he wanted civ1lty to prevail
DR. Mclean then added a fourth charge
that of using threats against young wom~
an of his congf cation. The conferences
continued the speaker had acted without
a trial simply because the original council
and the crede ntials COMMITTEES had fully IN
charges DR.. Brown, he said, had been
given every opportunity to defeno himself
and had made elaborate speeches in his own
behalf. The vote in the Bay conference
said the speaker. was 40 to 80 against DR..
Brown, and the conference simply confirmed
the judgment already given by the san
summoning the Bay conference TO mutual
council was also commented on. Incident
ally, the speaker said that Dr. Brown
guilt or innocence In the OVefmdn scandal
was not proved, but that the charges aris-
ing out of DIR. Browns actions toward Wit
nesses in that case were so discreditab BILE
mai full investigation was necessary. The
council he went on, had met with hopc
of clearing DIR. Brown, but as the invests
CATION continued it had been compelled To
admit his guilt. BY his own friends,
claimed the speaker, Dr. Brown had been
condemned.
Dr Mel can continued his address after
the noon recess 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 wers ambiguous owing to the
desire of the majority of the council to
shield DR.. Brown as much possible from
the unkind comments of the public. The
findings seemed to show conclusively that
Dr. Browns clerical brothers on the Pa
cihc were far from satisfied with the ex-
plantations he gave of his conduct.