The San Francisco call., 1897-08-11
A Council Will Be Formed
to Look Into His
Case.
His Suspension Here Must Be Rec
ognized East, Say His
Judges.
OAKLAND OFFICE SAN Francisco CALL, |

report of the Brown committee. TINS
committee, consisting of Rev. j. A. Cru
zan Of Berkeley, Rev w. w. Seudder OF
Alameda, Professor George Moore and At
torney S. w. Condor, was appointed last
October to take such action as they might
consider proper to prevent DR.. c. o.
Brown from again entering the ministry.
The committee communicated with the
Dubuque Association and the Chicago
Conference, but with no result. as Brown
was admitted by Dubuque and later trans
ferred 10 Chicago. Some time ago Brown
wrote a lengthy communication to the
conference, and to consider this the COM
mittee met this morning before the assem-
bling OF the Bay Conference.
The delegates 10 to-day's conference
were;
San Rafael-Pastor, w. b. Atkinson; dele
gates, Mrs. S. Clifford, Mrs. W. II. Atkinson.
Olivet Church. San Francisco-PaSt tor, A. L.
Shepard; delegates, Mrs. Isabella Barto, Mar
guerite Osborn.
Third Church, San Francisco-Pastor absent;
delegates, John d. Mckee, J. S. Hutchinson.
Plymouth Church, San Franelseo-D. Nj.
Cove.
Richmond Church-Pastor, p. Coon be; dele
gates, II. N Turner, Mrs James Nicol.
Decoto-Pastor, Gas; delegate, Mrs. John W.
HAYES.
Cooper Church, San Francisco-R A. Tuttle,
Mrs r. A. Tuttle.
Bethany-Mrs, A A. Chamberlain, William
Johnston.
saus alito-Mrs. Nelson, Mrs. Smith.
Plymouth AVenue-Rev. a. o. Stevens, MIS-
w. A Tenney, Miss Merritt.
Fourth congregational, Oakland - Rev. 0.
Lucas, C. +. Irving.
Second Congregational. oakIand-Rev j. w.
Phillips Miss Wacott, Miss Williams.
Mission San Jose-Rev. Henry Perks.
Bethlehem-Rev. w. H 1uhl, Miss Laura +.
Kuipe, Miss Penelope V. Tubbs.
First Congregational, Alamo da-J: II. GEN.
der, J. L. Agar.
scattering-Rev. F. W. Foster, C. S. Nash,
Loyal L. Wlrt.
The report of the committee was
lengthy and recited the nature of the
dealings with the Dubuque and Chicago
sscciations and the little saticfaction de-
rived therefrom. 1t was as follows:
Conveniently after Its appointment your
committee met, and in accordance with the
instructions transmitted to Dubuque associa-
tions the resolution adopted by this confer
ence last October.
Having sent this communication your COM
mittee awaited reply. No reply came. Not
even an ackno nowledgment of the receipt of the
communication was youchsafed. But your
committee ielt assured that in due time fl
ting notice would be taken OF document at
once s O formal and SO iTaternal as that trans
mitted 10 the Dubuque association and await
ed the issue with appropriate patience.
1t was with something more than surprise
therefore that your committee received news
indirect, but authentic that the Dubuque as
sociation at lis next meeting following the
sending of a communication from the Bay
Conference not only gave that communica-
ton no proper attention, but proceeded still
farther in its course OF antagonlsm toward the
Bay Conference by attempting to dismiss the
Rev. c. o. Brown from its membership and 10
transfer him with what it alleged to be proper
credentials to the Chicago association.
The news reached your committee on the
m mi pd q da n
pointed for the meeting ol the Chicago asso-
citation. Interpreting the will of the Bay Con-
ference according to the resolutions that had
passed the conference your committee tele
graphed to the Rev. William Scott of Chicago
and also to the moderator of the Chicago asso-
citation, protesting against the reception of
the Rev. e. o. Brown, and asking opportunity
to be heard In support of the protest.
Chicagos association listened to the protest
so far as to defer for time consideration of
the matter of receiving the Rev. c. o. Brown,
appointing committee which in the mean.
time should listen to the statements of the
Bay Conference and report al a special meeting.
Your committee of five thereupon drew up,
with much labor and care, a statement of the
posi- ton occupied and maintained by the Bay
Conference and transmitted the same to the
committee o the Chicago association.
This presentation of the case of the Bay
Conference so far Influenced the committee OF
the Chicago association that the committee
decided to ask whether the Bay Conference
would unite with the Rev. c. O. Brown in a
mutual council before which the matter in
controversy might be presented by which it
might be adjudicated. The Rev. ]. l.. Blan-
chard was empowered to send such tele-
gram. The telegram as received by the
registrar OF the conference read as follows:
VIII Bay Conference unite with Brown In coun-
Gil In Chicago 10 consider only ecc esiastcal pro-
priety OF suspension In council finds without
sidering question of guilt or innocence Answer
yes or no Immediately. j. r. BLANCHARD
Such members OF your conference as could
be seen were shown the telegram. but 1T was
impossible to answer yes no, for the reason
that the question OF guilt or innocence is
necess sarily lneXtrcably involved in the other
question proposed Tor consideration. Accord
ingly reply was made:
Bay Conference will Join Brown In council on
whole question OF alleged injustice.
The former reconsidera ton carried, where
upon your committee addressed to the Chicago
association through its registrar the follow
ing comm unication: (See document d.
In addition 10 the action then reheard your
ommittee also addressed to the Rev. Henry
A. Hazen, editor of the Congregational Year
Book. the following communica tion: (See
document E.)
This report carries the work Of your committee
to the present time, this that letter having
been received from the Rev. @. o. Grown addressed
to the conference, your committee has considered
recomme endetion OF action to be taken by the con-
ference IL the conference de Ire TO listen such
recommendation. Respectfully,
At the adjourned meeting of the Chicago
association several members of the committee
recommended that the association receive
Rev &. o. Brown upon the papers from the
Dubuque association, while the two remaining
mem bers recommended that action be de-
ferred and that Rev. c. o. Brown be recon-
mended to call mutual council with the Bay
Conference to consider the ecclesiastical pro-
priety of that conference suspending him in
view of the findings of the San Francisco
council.
After the adoption of the report the
conference listened to the recommends
tons of the committee as 10 further pro-
cedure in the case of Dr.. Brown. 1t was:
First-That his request for mutual council
be aeceded to, and that the Bay Conference
unite with him in a mutual conference.
Second-That the council be called to con-
slider the question, 'Was the Bay Conference
justified in suspepding the Rev. c. o. Brown ?''
Third-That DR.. Brown be asked TO join with
the Bay Conference in requesting the council
TO consider and pass upon the following ques-
ton: WAS the Rev. &. o. Brown justified In
seeking and accepting membership in the
Dubuque Association while under suspension
in The Bay Conference?
Fourth-Inat a committee of seven be
chosen by the conference, whicn committee
shall be endowed with full power TO do what
ever Is necessary to secure such council and
TO present before 1t the case OF the conference
Tbis report was unanimously adopted.
1t virtually takes the whole case out OF