The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1898-03-15

Eds. Record Union" Trusting
that YOU are not merely representing
one side of this question concerning the
Rev. Leslie r. Drake, the former pastor
of the First Christian church. / would
like to present a few facts for your
readers.
When this matter first came up Rev.
Drake wanted the church to grant him
an open as we'll as a full investigation
concerning all the reports. But for
some unknown reason, the officers
wanted the investigation behind closed
doors. Whose sins did they wish TO
hide from the public? The pastors
whom them accused, or their own?
The committee were above reproach
bur when the report was sent in, a howl
went up from the officers. Not single
charge rejecting upon the morals or
honesty of Rev. Drake was sustained
Why? They lacked evidence to sub
stantiate them. They could not pro-
duce a single witness that proved any
thing Then there was not one of ms
accusers that had the courage to sign
the charges Phillips, the ring LEADER
trembled like leaf, when he was told
that he must put his signature to them
Rev. Drake was considerate enough TO
let the case proceed without a formal
signing of the document. Then all
were nut under a sacred obligation to
never give to the press, or make pup
lie the evidence. Yet S. s. Culver has
deliberately broken his honor, and come
before the public with evidence that
was given before the committee, and
some that was not, and asks the public
to judge of the guilt or innocence Of
Rev. Drake. without hearing both sides
of the case.
Now as a man that wants to see only
justice done, let me say, there was no
evidence before the committee, show
ing Rev Drake ever refused to pay
rent due Scott or that he was threat
ened with the police. But there was
evidence before the committee showing
the church had failed to pay him dur
ing his three months trial service one
half what they usually pay their pastor.
And out of this meager support they
wanted him to flourish and prosper.
Why did they not pay him as they did
their former pastor, if they wanted to
be what they pretend to be-Chris-
tians?
Rev. Drake never lived in San Jose.
Never spent but q few hours in the city
at a time He was located at Sara
toga, paid all his house rent and has
the receipts for the same, and the
writer viii give $50 in gold for wit
ness that viii prove the contrary. He
will also give another $50 for Culver,
or anyone else to prove that he Drake)
ever bought a dollars worth of grocer
les that he did not pay for in San
Jose
AS to the copyright affair, Rev. Drake
has IN his possession the papers from
Washington. ID. c., that substantiate
all he claims TO have sold. These were
before the committee. and are open to
inspection now at his residence, 123A
K street.
Rev Drake has never broken up"
any church that he has served. but on
the contrary has been the means Of
uniting one congregation after il had
divided. The writer will give to any
charitable organization in this city
800 If the Board of officers can show
that the Rev. Drake ever left a chal ge
of his anywhere divided, through his
instrumentality William Fritz did not
give Mr.. Drake S,ib, or any otneF sum
of money but had attached Rev.
brakes salary. and when he found out
that the money was exempt from exc
cution gladly released ii upon Drake
paying the costs. However, he still
holds brakes note and Will no doubt
collect 1t the first change he gets.
Rev. Drake did not agree 70 leave the
city by daylight, or any other set time
He did keep his contract. when he left
Wednesday for the city TO make it his
home. But during his absence. the
Central Christian church was organ
lied. and he has been called as our pas
tor. We believe in sustaining and help
ing those that are in trouble. and do
not intend to desert our pastor in this