The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1902-09-13
The Eben P. Davis Case.


Editor of The Tribune.
Sir: Kindly allow us an inch or two
of space to correct one thing said by
your reporter in his notes OH the case
of Eben P. Davies against the First
Welsh Baptist church. We beg this op-
portunity, not that we think the er-
roneous statement will have any effect
on the outcome, but because ninetyfive
per cent. of even the church itself know
absolutely nothing of the case, except
what appears in the papers. hence our
desire to see the matter stated correctly.
1t was said that Eben p. Davies 're-
fused to apologize; the truth is this:
Those few persons, acting in the name
of the church, refused to accept an apollo
gy, though rendered to them more than
once. The members of the committee,
whom Davies said were ashamed of their
inaction. admitted having spoken to him
on the matter, but contended that he had
misunderstood them. which contention he
accepted. and for which he rendered an
apology-verbally and written.
Both We're satisfactory to the members
of the committee of whom he mad spoken
and they all signed the written apology
as an evidence of it's sufficiency, but the
leading spirits in the instigation of the
case refused to accept either.
1t was not an apology they wanted, but
an admission on his part that he had told
wilful untruth, and this is what he
refused to do" Failing to get the said
admission, charge was preferred and
a committee was appointed to investigate
the charge, but this committee never
pretended to do anything of the kind,
but satisfied itself with demanding de-
claration of sorrow on his part for that
which they had been appointed to inves-
tigate and had failed to do.
After his exclusion without any form
of investigation into the charge pre-
ferred, he appealed to a committee of the
nearest four churches. and the decision
of this committee was the very thing he
had already conceded, and for which
he had rendered an apology, viz, "A mis-
understanding" This committee also di-
rected him to write letter Of apology TO
the members of the committee. This he
did, and the same was signed by them. in
evidence of their satisfaction. Notwith-
standing his compliance with the terms
of said committees decision and its ac-
ceptance by the aggrieved parties, yet the
three members having charge of the case
refusd to accept the said apology and
even refused to report anything to the
church concerning it. They never gave
an explanation of their conduct until one
of them was asked on the witness stand
why did they refuse to honor Davies
written apology. and this was his an
swer: "lIe used the words, i am
grieved,' when he should have said, I
am very sorry"
All we have said is in evidence and we
think, Mr.. Editor, that we have said
enough to prove that the statement that
'Eben P. Davies refused to apologize is
entirely erroneous, and the above-quoted
answer, given by the church's chief wit
ness Is, In Itself. sufficient to indicate the
spirit he had to contend with until he
was eventually compelled to bring his
David w. Vaughn.
John M. Bevan.
Deacons.
las proof that The Tribune did state
correctly the facts In connection with the
hearing of the equity suit in question
before Judge Kelly last Monday, We
quote from the testimony of John r. Will
who was very positive that Mr., Davies
had not apologized. Excerpts from the
evidence of Mr.. Williams follow:
@. Do you remember conversation
between him tDavies) and B. Hughes?
A. i do.
Q. What did b. Hughes say? A. He
wanted him to make an apology, so he
business meeting.
Q. He asked HIM to make an apology
for what he said? A, Say that you are
sorry for what you have done, and that
will do"
O, He would do it? A. He wouldn't
do it; no.
Q. You tried to get him to be peni-
tent and say he was sorry2 A. That is
what we did; called him there and
talked to him long time there, and
Mr.. Hughes said to him, "Just say you
arc sorry and we will take that to the
business meeting" and he CHughes) said,
81 think that will cover It,
@. He had already said that In the let
ter he wrote, had he not? A. No.
.. Didn't you always go at him with
the proposition that all yeu would take
from him was the declaration that he
was sorry? A. No. we even would take
that; we were willing to take anything.
That The Tribune did not mistake the
facts is shown by the aboye.-Editor
1iibune.l