The Birmingham age-herald., 1904-07-17

is minor matter: my chief objection to MT. Ewing is on the ground of his the ology" Is it not trifle queer that Bishop Beckwith should have denied your author 1 ity to certify to his satisfaction that I i had been guilty of mo error in religion;" should have based his chief objection to me on ground that you had sought to clear; and should have so economically" allowed your authority to disqualify me by a reference to the Morris marriage reference in which you certified to your belief in my purity of motive?) 1 Now, then, are you willing to bear the responsibility that has been publicly thrust upon you responsibility for the i charge, that on or about October 4, 1903, the Rev. Quincy Ewing, rector of St. James church, Greenville. Miss. was not a qualified clergyman of the Protestant Episcopal church?''
 ] If you are not, you owe me the duty Of publicly saying so: and this opinion, I am sure. will be shared by every fair minded communicant in your diocese. and this. If you are, you owe Bishop Beck with and Dr. Cobbs the duty of publicly saying so--an opinion that will doubtless be responded to heartily by the fair-mind- | ed men and women of Alabama and else where.
 Private Letters Quoted.
 Since private letters have been quoted | or referred to in this discussion in order | to condemn, I am compelled to quote private letters and utterances in order to set aside condemnation.
 Writing to me under date of June II, 1904, you said; q quote your letter in part):
 "As to the question of your being a l qualified clergyman of this church. I have expressed no opinion to Bishop Beckwlth or to any one else other than that which was expressed to yourself. 1 I, myself, accepted you as I found you as "a presbyter in good standing in the | diocese of Mississippi This judgment I based on the general principle that the | acts of my predecessor should govern me in cases in which my predecessor had de- t, livered judgment"
 You said to me in Jackson, October 2. 1903 that my standing in the diocese of Mississippi was as good as your own; and | you admit having said this in the letter | just quoted from If you expressed to | Bishop Beckwith mo opinion' other than that expressed to me, you could hardly have said anything to him compelling, justifying or excusing the conclusion that I was not ''qualified clergyman" of this church. For your own standing in the diocese of Mississippi was absolutely per- feet; and, if mine was as good as yours, 1t could not have been improved, could not have been made better than yours by any action of the Mississippi standing committee, or ten thousand other stand | ing committees
 | take these sentences from your let ter to me of October 1T, 1903: q had writ ten to you expressing my determination | to insist upon trial in order to have my | status clearly defined in Mississippi, if | there was any cloud on my reputation; {; if l was held by any one justly liable to evil report for Terror in religion or vici- ousness of life') Your reply: "I must | again repeat my expressions of great sor- row that you seem determined to insist | upon a trial; for, whether you were ac- | quilted of all blame or convicted of technical breach of the law I do not see that it would change the status of the case, so far as your good character | is concerned"
 Your fine Christian character is just as unassailable without the trial as with it. That character has never been as- sailed by anybody as far as l know
 Your character in this diocese, and throughout the church, Is unassailable. I believe this to be true. Then why ask for a trial which touches only point of violation of canon, which point is dead, unless you revive it?'
 From your letter of October 8, 1903, I take these sentences:
 "Where one's motive is as clear as yours is, and the time for investigation almost passed, it seems unfortunate that it. Qhe Morris marriage) should be dragged into light any more However, it is not for me to express judgment, thought I cannot be debarred from ex- pressing sorrow"
 | I fancy you would have scarcely ex- pressed sorrow, had you dreamed that l was insisting upon taking such action as would determine whether I was or was not "qauified clergyman of this churchf'
 I have in my possession other letters from you from which 1t would be easy to quote a number of other sentences in en- tire harmony with the ones already quo ted desist here from further quotation for brevity's sake. But affirm most positively that every letter you wrote me prior to the meeting of the standing com mittee, October g. 1903, expressed in some form your conviction that my character as clergyman needed no vindication, and that no judicial pronouncement, or ecclesiastical process, in the diocese or Mississippi could affect for the better my standing as clergyman in or out or Mississippi These letters I am ready to publish in full at your request.
 Could you then, have meant to say to Bishop Beckwith. when you wrote that the standing committee of your diocese had taken "cognizance of the case" and Suppressed" action? Could you have pos sibly meant to say that this act of the Mississippi standing committee disqualified me as a clergyman? Could you have pos sibly meant to say that your standing committee, your canonical advisory coun- ell, your grand jury. face to face with broken canon and the breaker of 1t, lacked courage to do their plain duty. and that their lack of courage in the presence of plain duty stripped me Of my qualification as a clergyman? Could you have possibly meant to say that the members of your standing committee by 'suppressing' action. put. themselves in the relation to mean undisguised canon- preaker-of accessories after the fact; and that by this performance on their part my clerical qualification was denied or rendered doubtful? Were the Ven. George .. Harris, D. D.. arch deacon of the dio- cese and president of the standing com mittee; the Rev. Nowell Logan. D. D., ana the Rev. P q Scars members of that