The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1904-11-20
Advocate Criticised.

1 AS soon as the report mad been offered
Rev. J.: Fl. Aniss took the floor, and In
a somewhat dscursive and not very deil-
mite speech criticised the clause OF the
report relating to the Baltimore and
Richmond Christian Advocate. He re-
viewed the recent his tory OF the publ
cation and of the merger OF the Balti-#
more and Richmond Christian Advocates,
the subsequent withdrawal of tho ,Balti-3
moro Conference from the arrangement.
Mr.. Amiss placed great stress upon the
fact that the gentleman who offered the
resolution continuing the committee then
existing and authorizing 1t to ascertain
the wishes of the Baltimore Conference
as to joint conference organ was one
OF those who had subsequently purchased
the paper. This was generally construed
as a criticism OF Rev. James Cannon
mad entered into his action. DR.. Amissa
later disclalmed any intention to reflect
upon any one. Continuing. he criticised
the action OF the owners In retaining the
name Baltimore and Richmond Advo-
cate, despite the fact that the Baltimore
Conference In April last had refused to
longer adopt it as the conference organ.
Mr.. Amlss charged that the name of the
Baltimore Conference had been treated
like a nigger"-that ts. sold without It's
consent This. too. the speaker subse-
8quently disclalmed.
The Advocate Defended.
Rev. B. #. I.lpscomb, In speech char
incteiized by solidlty and clearness, re-
piled to the criticism of DR.. Anllss. He
made q strong legal argument, stating
that he would favor dropping the name
Baltimore in the title OF the Advocate
IL it were agreeable 10 the owner, but
the conference had neither right nor
power to do 1t. 1t was matter for the
IN Iacian liz no.
ton of Mr.. Cannon and fully acquitted
him Of any selfish or questionable action.
Rev. James Cannon then rose and In
q statement rcmarlla BILE for clcarness.
reviewed the successive steps In tho Ad-
.yocate situation. He made It especially
clear that the name Baltimore was pur-
chased from the former owners for a
consideration. and that it was tho private,
personal property OF the purchasers. The
action of tho Baltimore Conference In re-
fuslng Its further endorsement to the
paper as Its organ did not and could not
affect the title of the present owners to
the name they had bought. The paper
stlll had a large circulation In the bounds
of the Baltimore Conference and Its ad.
vertising patronage was largely depends
ent upon circulation. Tho paper hud rs
much right to compete on Its merits with
the present organ Of the Baltimore Com
ference as had tho st. Louis or Nash
Vile Advocate to enter this fieldNns cam
didate for Virginia Conference patron
age. DIR. Cannon completely justified his
own action In every detail Of the proce-
dure since the last conference, as the
overwhelming vote OH the adoption Of
the report strongly pttested.
Rev J. s. Peters, CO. owner of tho pa
per. also made statement fully cor
roborating that OF DR., Cannon Rev.
Paul Whitehead D. d., ana Rev. John
B, Vim offered amendments proposing
to dispense with tho name baltimore"
hut on motion Of Kew, G, W, Cain. OF
Portsmouth, both were tabled.
Tile report then came M for adoption
as Whole, and the motion prevailed OVER
wheningly. The discussion had furnish-
ed some diversion; that was all.
BrotherlyS Generosity.
4 Rev. Jesse n, Whitley made a clear and
touching statement OF the III health Of
Rev. r.. r. Bentley, now residing at
.Urbunna, who is III of pulmonary tuber-
culosls Mr. Bentley had built him q
home. on which he still owed some $500,
He would never be able to resume active
. a. t,tx1nt Of facts sulflced to