The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1902-05-30

nounce that on the day on which the re-
MORT was published he would not be the
editor OF the Daily Advocate.
This remarkable statement was tho
foundation for all the talk that followed.
It was reinforced by statement OF Dr.
Rankin. the editor OF the Texas Christian
Advocate, published in Dallas. to the Ell
feet that no had been in Texas long
enough to know Just what one coula
efford to put in public print, and that
he hardly thought it possible that sol
vent printing establishment cou.o De
fu,nd in Texas that would publish the
document.
WAS NOT PRINTED.
The minority was not swerveo from no
nurpose by these very rsna rkaole utter
nnces. but Saturday afternoon sent inc
report to Or. Hoss for puDlcauon'
Nothing was heard from him. The re-
mort was not returned, but on MONDAY
morning, when the Daily Advocate ap-
neared. the report was not In IL :" heN
INQUIRY was made DR.. Hoss was absent
but the publisher was present ana ne
said that he had presented the repo'.
to his attorney. and was dlrectso oluet
no circumstances, to undertake inc pup
fcation Of the document IN .ne ~
Advocate or in pamphlet form; that ne
would lay himself liable to q SUIT 1oI
damages. The publisher admitted that
he suggested to his attorney that ne
feared a suit.
In the face Of all this talk. immeol-
ately upon the adtourHment OF tae con-
ference, the writer was approached oy
the most promi nent Methods. lawyer III
the city, who said he had heard the re-
port read; that the idea thas II was
libeIous was ridiculous, ano that II there
was any difficulty in getting 1t printed
he would leas the machines and the
material and do it himself. There was
no difficulty however, for on going to
the leading type-setters in the city, they
undertook the job at once, putting three
machines at work on 1t. one menlpe1
of the firm said he was present when
the report was read and heard every
word Of it. nd had no fear whatever
of a suit. He also stateu that the pub
fishers Of the Daily ---vocate naa tele-
phoned to him and urged him not to
handle the report. but that he believed
in fair play" and was very glad to set
the type. The writer then went to
press-room and had no difficulty in hav-
ing the report printed. In both cases
the first man approached was not only
willing but seemed eager to do the work.
On Tuesday morning the reports were
distributed in the conference room. and
nothing further was heard Of libel, and
thus the remarks of Drs Hoss AL Ran
Kin made on Saturday and the remarks
of the publisher of the Advocate made
on Monday We're met By the actual fact
of publication on Tuesday. with no libel
suit filed UP to the present time
WHO VOTED FOR IT.
Ifsre is not one word one line In
the report which is uaparliamentary or
rnduiy severe, unless the facts stated
are severe, That our Virginia people
may fully understand how unjust are
the criticisms which have been maue
on the report. the fact should be re-
1Dembered that 10 members of the con-
srrenoe voted for that report. and that
this number of liz included q great
number OF the most prominent men in
the conference. some of whom I men
ton for the information Of the read
eIs; DR.. Gross Alexander, professor Of
New Testament Exegesis in Vanderbilt
Universitye Dr. c. Z. Downnan, presi-
dent of Emory College. Georgia: DR.. w.
F. Glenn. late editor of Wesleyan Advo-
cate: DR.. J. D. Hammond. general sec
1etary of the Board of Education: Dr.
T. N Ivey. editor of Raleigh Christian
Advocate; DR. w. c. Lovett. editor of
Wesleyan Advocate: DR.. w. B. Pal
more. editor or ST. Louis Christian Ad-
vocate; DIR. w r. Richardson. editor
OF SOufhbrn CHRISTIAN Advocates: Dr.
John j. 1igert. editor of Quarterly Re
view: DR.. w. F. Tilett. professor OF Sys-
tematic Theology in Vanderbilt Unver-
sity: DR.. g. H Prtchett. missionary sec
rotary: Drs. Richardson and Neghbors,
leading men of Holston Conference, and
all the missionaries from China, Japan
ard Brazil. Among the laymen We're:
Hon. NJ. z. Benton. member of Con-
gress from Missouri: Judge S. B. Adams.
of Savannah: Judge Stokes. Of Nash
Vile: Ex-Governor Hindman, of Ken
utcky: II. w. Palmer, A leading law
yer of Atlanta: Judge Sha ckleford, OF
Missouri: Professor Clinkscales. Of Wof-
ford College: President Craighead. Of
Missouri State Normal College; Judge
Critz. of Mississippi; Professor r. w.
Jones. of University of Mississippi; Judge
Strother. of California; Professor w. K.
| Webb, of Tennessee. and c. w. Iillett,
| a leading lawyer of Charlotte N. G.
| Eight of our Virginia delegates voted
| for it-namely: Revs. B. F. Lipscomb, J.
| c. Reed. James Cannon, Jr., Dr. w. w.
| Smith. and N1essrs. E.. G. Moseley. Of
| Danville: w w. Vicar. of Norfolk: F. T.
| West of Louisa. and Judge T. J. Bar
ham. Of Newport News.
I think that the above facts should
| be sufficient to convince any one tina.
| there is nothing libellous or unchristian
| in the minority report. T am glad to
| have my name recorded on the General
| Conference Journal in such noble COM
| pany.
JAMES CANNON, JR.
4