Richmond planet., 1901-08-10

7. Johnson which contained the follow
ing:
II VIII have to give my people here
three months notice should 1 come. So
you see how important it is for me to
hear from YOU"
AT the meeting July list, it was illegal
ly decided that he be notified that his
salary would be $1,000 and that he would
be expected October LIST, 1901.
Instead of this he gave his church less
than two months notice of his inten-
tions, for if the church meeting was
held July list and he was notified the
next day, he could not have notified his
church until that time. From July list
to September lst, '01 is but two months
! instead of three months.
LRoTHER MTcHELL's CASE.
Then the case of Brother John Mitch
ell, Jr. was called. Brother William
Henry Davis, who had previously made
a most disgraceful exhibition of himself
moved as substitute to the ten minutes
resolution that each member be limited
to five minutes.
this.
Brother H. F. Jonathan opposed this,
ueclarlng IT 70 be an outrageous lmita-
ton of free speech. The case could not
be properly discussed in that time FL
nally the explanation was made thaa
this rule did not apply to Brother John
Mitchell, Jr. The five minute rule was
adopted.
WANTED 10 LIMIT THE DEFENSE.
Then a motion was made by Bro. r. 7
Bass that Bro. Mitchell be allowed half
an hour in which to conduct his de-
tense. 1t was then IL O'Clock. This
was bitterly opposed by Brother H. F.
Jonathan, Deacon j. 9. Farley and Dea-
con Harrison Smith
Deacon Farley declared it to be a
most outrageous proceeding TO talk of
limiting Brother Mitchell.
1t was contrary to evrey principle of
right and justice. The courts of the
| land granted to the humblest greater lafi-
| tude than that how much more nee
essary was 1T forithe church to do even
more than the courts.
Finally the resolution was defeated
| no limit being set and Deacond Wilder
was sent to request Bro. Mitchell to come
| forward. He did so, bringing under his
arm the Code of Va, the Baptist Church
Directory, Hiscockls New Directory for
Baptist Churches and the Holy Bible.
He politely expressed regret that he
should have been the cause of any trouble
and If what he had heard was true, he
did not see why he had been called for
at all. The church might as we'll .go
ahead and do what it had decided to do.
He was unwilling TO proceed unless
the chair would assure Kim that he would
not be interrupted.
A POINT ON THE CHAIR.
At this point Moderator Tom H. Briggs
stated that the church desired to know
whether or not he was guilty. This led
to a discussion in which Brother Will
lam Henry Davis, II. F. Jonathan and
j. Q. Farley engaged. Brother Mitchell
stated that he was ready TO retire, that
the chair had not stated the matter pro-
perly.
In the meantime, Brother II. F. JON
than arose as counsel for Brother
Mitchell, but Brother Briggs would not
recognize hiA ss such.
EHS LAW CITED.
However, Brother Jonathan had sue
ceeded in reading the following from
the church polity, page 1873:
"Note 4-Anyone tried by a church
should be allowed every opportunity,
both as to time, place and circumstance
to vindicate himself. The very Justice
of Christ's house should incline to mer.
cy. 1t should be made manifest that
the object is not to punish, but to re-
claim.
Note 5.-"Every person so tried has a
right to demand and receive copies 70
all charges against him, the names of
the accusers and witnesses, both Of
whom he shall have the privilege of
meeting face to face, hearing their
statements, bringing witnesses on his
side, and answering for himself before
the Church itself, as the ultimate and
authoritative tribunal"
Under these sections of the church
law, Brother Jonathan claimed that
BpesAG Mitchell had a right to know
and face his aocusers. Moderator Tom