The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1904-06-28
DR. COBBS REPLIES
TO REV, Mr. EWING
Controversy Over the Advent's
Rector Warns Up
QUOTING FROM RECORDS
DR.. r. H. cobbs, Secretary of the Do
cesar Council of Alabama, Justl.
flies Bishop BeckWlth In
His Action.

The Rev. DR.. r. II. Cobbs, secretary
of the diocesan council of the Episcopa
church in Alabama, sends the Age Herald
the following open letter in reply to the
letter of the Rev. Mr.. Ewing, rector of
the church of the Advent which APP
peared in yesterday mornings issue:
Rev. Quincy Ewing, Birmingham, Ala,
Rev and dear sir:-Your letter of June
9th in the Age-Herald claims my prompt
attention.
In regard to your standing on the nth
of September, 1903, | made no comment
whatever. Col. Pearson states, in his
open letter, that Bishop Beckwith met the
vestry that day and made known for
the first time his objections to Mr. Ew-
ing. But after much discussion agreed to
| give the evidence in writing
| He adds further on that the friction be-
tween the vestry and the bishop grew
out of the refusal of the bishop to keep
that promise. Ny statement refers to
the condition of things on October 4,
1908 On or about that day Bishop Beck
with received a letter dismissory from
Bishop Bratton which was unsatisfactory.
and 1t was in regard to the contents of
that letter that l made my statements.
Bishop Bratton, in this letter, followed
the regular form up to a certain point,
and in declining to give 1t entirely, he
stated by way of explanations:
(a.) That the difficulty presented by
your connection with the womans mar
riage was one thatyhe inherited" in COM
ing to Mississippi.
(b) That charges of violating the canon
of marriage and divorce had been pre-
ferred against you; and
(c.) That those charges had been sup
pressed. | quote Bishop. Bratton's- letter
from memory and am willing to be cor
rected If am In error. If Bishop Brat
ton, for these reasons, declined to give
the letter In due form.
Bishop Beckwith was certainly Justified
In declining to receive such letter, and
with the contents of that letter before
him. | still think 1t would have been his
duty to have withdrawn the evidence If
he had given 1t. In regard to your chal-
lenges, l reply by quoting from the re-
port of the standing committee of the
diocese of Mississippi as published in the
journal of 1902, page IS:
1.-THE president submitted a complaint
and allegation signed by two presbyters
of the diocese against the Rev. Charles
Morris and the Rev. Quincy Ewing, charg-
ing them with yilation of canon law as
specified in said allegation, after lengthy
discussion of the matter the committee
adjourned to meet at o'clock.
1.-THE committee met at o'clock, p. M.
pursuant to adjournment. The same
members being present. On motion the
following resolution was adopted Re-
solved, That 1t Is the sense of the COM
mittee that there shall be no presentment
made of the Rev Quincy Ewing for the
celebration of the marriage of the Rev.
Charles Morris and Mrs. In June,
1901 under Title 3 Canon 10, Section 2 OF
the digest, because of the settled interpre-
tation by the bishop OF the diocese of the
canon of marriage and divorce
As the first step in the trial of clergy
man must be preferr~l; as the second
step the bishop of the diocese must en-
dorse the action of the standing commit
tee 1t was we'll known that the Bishop
of Mississippi had officiated at a marriage
under similar circumstances and openly
justified the act settling for himself the
Interpretation Of that canon. The stand
ing committee referred to present you for
trial, because they had every reason to
believe that the bishop would stop the
proceedings. 1t seems to me that the re-
port of that committee. just quoted fur
nishes ample foundation for the state
ments made In Bishop Brattlon's letter.
But again, on the same page in the
journal of 1902 you will read as follows:
1.-THE council went into the committee
of the whole to consider the report of
the standing committee. The Rev. G. C.
Harris, S. T. ID. in the chair After lengthy
discussion, the committee rose and report
ed to the council that 1t had concluded
its deliberations"
What was said there l have never
heard. but cannot understand why IL the
council endorsed the report of the stand
Ing committee 1t did not say so, for such
action l am sure would have gratified the
bishop of the Diocese and would have
been relief to the committee.
| have made these statements and ex-
pressed these opinions, believing that l
was justified by facts in so doing AS yet
I have seen no cause to change my opin-
lon or to withdraw my statements II
am ever convinced Of error will public
ly admit II. Very truly.
r. II. COBBS.
Greensboro, Ala. June N, 1904