The Birmingham age-herald., 1904-07-06

a good man has done, for one reason and another, and asked to be deposed as many good man has done, for one reas- on ana another You surely have not | forgotten that but a short while ago. so able, upright, and distinguished cler- gyman as the Rev. Edgar Gardner Mur- phy was at his own request deposed by l the Rt' Rev (. NJ Beckwith fn this dio- eese ot Alabama. Would I could feel that all the clergymen 'in good standing who are undertaking "to preach the truth as this church hath received the same were as ht to preach it as Charles Nor rls, who for what appeared to him good and sufficient reason resigned his min isterial office.
 @. You quote only part of the ehurch's marriage and divorce canon. Had you quoted it all. you would have shown the public that 1t could not be violated by any clergyman who interpreted it as it was interpreted by his bishop. Here Is the part omitted by you: Sec. ". Questions touching the facts of any case arising under Section 2' (the part you l quoted) "of this canon shall be referred to the bishop of the diocese. or mission ary district in which the same may cur or if there be no bishop of such diocese, or missionary then to some bishop to be designated by the standing com mittee; and the bishop to whom such l questions have been so referred shall thereupon make inquiry in SUCH MAN NER AS HE SHALL DEEM EXPEDI- ENT and shall deliver his judgment ig the premises"
 Questions touching the facts of the i Morris case were referred to Bishop 1 Thompson. and he delivered judgment in 1 the premises, as by the law he was l bDlIn1 Ind mi bpi | by him, what canon confers authority l upon any other bishop to override. or re- | verse the said Judgment. Bishop Thomp- son assuredly was mot infalible.' but neither Is Bishop Bratton, and neither is l Bishop Beckwith. The late great bishop 1 Of Mississippi was, doubtless. as infallible l as he knew how to be; he was rugged. honesty incarnate; the church has not had her divine faith defended in many a day by a more potent and loving. and loyal servant. and he never unceriook to 1 violate her law by overriding the legal Judgment of another bishop.
 But, accepting as the entire canon of marriage and divorce the fragment you l quote, I should not hesitate to challenge l you to show either (a) that the Rev. Mi Morris had divorced WIFE living at the time I officiated at his wedding; or (b) that any wife of any description had been
 
 that the canon must be construed as it Is. not as you or anyone else thinks 1t ought to be.
 An Implication.
 (3 You imply that 1 made a promise to Bishop Bratton which 1 did not intend to keep in regard to this canon. The inn plication is unwarranted Bishop Brat ton wrote that the bishops construction of the canon would regulate my ACTS Tn | future cases. Certainly; ana wno will say that the bishops construction of the canon did not regulate my act in the past case under discussion? Most assuredly, l have no disposition to act upon an in- depreciation of the canon of marriage and l divorce known to be in conflict with the | interpretation of the bishop in any dio- eese in which l might be economically res ident. There may be many cases in which it would be my duvy 10 shape and | regulate my acts in accordance with the judgment of a superior officer, while re- serving to myself the right to believe most emphatically that my judgment was better than his. l have done many acts | under direction in the past, and expect to do many more in the future; but so far | as I know, l have never adopted an opin- | ion under detation, and never expect to.
 (D. You "affirm," quoting the Misss- | sippi Diocesan Journal of 1902, that there is not word in the report of the acts of the standing committee, published in this journal which Speaks of my acquittal'' or states that the charge against me was withdrawn. Yet in your letter in the Age-Herald, June 28, ult., you copy from the above mentioned journal giving the page. the following resolution of the standing committed: "Resoived, That it is the sense of this committee that there shall be no presentment made of the Rev. l Quincy Ewing for the celebration of the marriage, etc, etc. (See your letter or June 2S). What am l to make Of such astounding forgetfulness and inaccuracy on your part?
 l (5). You endeavor to create the im- pression that 1 was formally acquitted" l by the Mississippi standing committee l October 23 1903, after publishing in your letter of June 2S the committees official resolution. of acquittal from the journal of 1902 My dear sir, with all respect for your age, office, and reputation I must emphatically protest against such un- fairness. It is utterly out of place in controversy between gentlemen. You know that was not formally acquitted of any charge by the Mississippi stand ing committee October 23, 1903. You know that at that meeting, October 23, the committee simply declared my acquittaI ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE, near lv two years before this date namely, in February, 1902 Why do you decline to argue on the basis of what you know on sthe basis of what the record before you compels you to know?
 As to Explanations.
 In your letter of the 3rd instant you asked me for an explanation. l have given it. I now going to ar.1 you for one I want you to explain why the bishop of Alabama certified to the Advent vestry that l was "a qualified clergyman of this church." and received me economically" in the diocese of Alabama, though he knew that within less than three years last past 1 had officiated at the mar rage of the Rev. Charles Morris My standing as a clergyman was unques- toned in the diocese of Mississippi prior to october 23, 1903. (You admit this). 1t could not have been something BETTER THAN UNQUESrIONED after October 23. 1903. l was qualified" in Mississippi l prior to October 23 I was not more than .tquaifed" after that date.
 If Bishop BeckWith was free to reiact