The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-11-22
C0NDElH!N.ATI TIOy
FOR THE TINES
Resolutions By Virginia
Conference.
PRESS RE P0 IS.
Reports in Them Similar to This
Paper.
BUT IT Is. SINGLED OUT.
There Is Anirnus Il. the Case, and the
Conference, Under Misappre-
hension, Does Correspondent
and the Paper IL Grave Lnjus-
tice-Pl,rascs Not Used
as Charged.

The Times was singled out by the Fir-
ginia Conference yesterday as The object
of attack made in series of resolutions
printed below.
The Conference evidently labored under
a misrepresentation of the facts for the
resolutions attribute to The Times eN-
pressions which did not appear in Tie
Times report in the connection alleged.
1t is charged in the resolutions that the
report of Tho Times reflected upon the
character of member of their Conference
and upon the conduct of majority of
His body, uncovering. as is alleged by
expert parliamentary tactics the con-
duct OF the member referred to-
THB TIMES CORRESPONDENT.
The correspondent of The Times, who
is a gentleman of good standing in his
community and an accomplished news
paper writer connected with ,the City
Press Of Norfolk, gave a. running account
of discussion Of the report of the Board
of Education, at the conclusion of which
ne said: THE report was then, by expert
parliamentary tactics, pushed forward and
was a6oFted.'
This expression referred in terms and
explicitly to the report of the Board of
Education which followed and which was
printed in full, and cannot by any impli-
cation be construed as a reflection upon
the Conference
DID NOT COVER UP.
The correspondent did not say or init
mate that the Conference tried to cover
up any transaction. On the contrary, hs
said, at the outset that "a fire which had
been smouldering for some time and which
had been smothered at the Norfolk preach
e,rs' meeting last April burst into flame
during the session Of the Conference (of
Monday.
A substantially the same report of the
Conference proceedings as printed in The
Times was printed in various other news
papers, a reputable paper in Norfolk even
going far as TO say: THE tactics were
hose Of political body rather than
State Conference Of a large and influential
church.
ANIMUS IN THE CASE.
And as no papsr was condemned by
he Conference except The Times, there
aust have been some reason for the severe
resolutions against The Times which does
not appear on the surfacs.
Thereby hangs tail.
The Tines published report OF preach
ers' meeting that took place at Epworth
Church, Norfolk, last April, when the coll
lection for the twentieth century fund
was under discussion, ard stated that a
member Of this meeting took DR.. Cannon
to task for collecting money in this men,
ber's territory and outside OF his own.
PoACHING.
The Times headed this article '.2oaching
GU Another Preachers Premises. DR..
James Cannon became Very angry ana
wrote several very violent and insulting
letters 10 the editors Of The Times deny
ing the published statements, and COM
mittee OF the preachers meeting referred
TO published in a Norfolk paper a series
OF resolutions denying that Dr.. Cannon
lad collected money in another's territory,
and condemning The Times for publishing
sensational and untrue reports.
A TRUE STATEMENT.
This statement was made by The Times !
correspondent upon the representation |
made in writing by a gentleman who was !
present and this gentleman's written re- |
port is now in the possession of The |
Times. |
Yet in spite of the resolution then |
published denying the ti-1thfulness of the |
Times report of that meeting. and de- |
nying explicitly that any charge of |
.'poaching'' had beer made against DR..
Cannon, Chancellor w. ". Smith ad- |
mitted on the floor of the Conference dur
ing the session of Tuesday, that DR.. |
Cannon sent out $50 cards, and those which
designated the Blackstone Female In
stitute; of which DR., Cannon is president.
as tho special beneficiary of gifts, were in
some cases sent outside of the district,
and that about $4,000 was thus raised by
DR.. Cannon n these outside districts.
SIX MONTHS AFTER.
And SO it is revealed six months after
these Norfolk resolutions were adopted
denouncing The Times that the state
ments then made, and denied in the pub
lished resolutions aforesaid, were alb
solrtely correct.
The Times relates these facts In JUS
:iee to its Norfolk correspondent and in
reri:lcatioa of tie report which he made
of the Norfolk preachers meeting held
last April, and cannot but think that the
resolutions then adopted and the resolu-
tons adopted by the Conference yester-
day had their Inspiration from the same
source.
PRINT THE NEWS.
The resolutions censuring The Times ap-
pear neiow as a part of the Conference pro-
ceedinss, and in accordance with the rule
Of this paper to print the news. but in no
sense as compliance WITH the somewhat
arrogant demand of the Conference that
they be published in these columns.
SOURCE OF RIGHT.
The Times regrets that this controversy
has arisen, biu IT does not believe that
the members OF the Conference would
do this r,aDer an tic corre
an Injustice. Tie Whole trou-
big grows out OF a nsapprehens!on on +
the part of the Conference That this
paper would .maliciously asperse the char +
acsers OF such a religious body is mani +
sectiy too absurd for serious considerat ton.