The Birmingham age-herald., 1904-07-17
REV. EWING WRITES
 TO BISHOP BRATTON
Continued from Fifth Paoe)

Continued from Fifth Paoe)
 letter given to MT. Ewing. This, think is an absolutely accurate statement of the status of his case. I have been at pains to explain to him the difference between the question which you in Alabama and l. in Mississippi, have to solve, viz, l. as new diocesan INHERIT an extraor- dinary condition. l inherit a clergyman who, in spite of having broken a canon, has been received as a priest of the church in good standing by the authority which preceded me; moreover. although the standing committee took cognizance of the case, action upon 1t was suppressed and MT. Ewing left for two and a half years in undisputed possession of his min- isterial rights and standing. Upon my | assuming charge, 1 inherit this condition and accept it. deeming it right not to take steps which would be an effectual rebuke to my predecessor and the past acts of the diocese. So much for my position.
 YOURS IS UTTERLY DIFFER ENT. You have not inherited this condition, but on the contrary must freight into your diocese a question (still unsettled in an- other) which may in its unsettled state operate dsastrous1y upon your diocese and bear fruit throughout the church. In this I have warmly and unqualifiedly up- help your action in the face of these men.
 Now, my letter last night was intended to give you further light upon the mat ter from still another view point.
 Having such assurance as MT. Ewing has given me, and being greatly reassured as to his loyalty to the faith and obed- ence to authority tell you the fact be- cause I think you ought, or at least might, take it into consideration when he D. 4sents his letter, if he ever does.
 God help us both, my dear bishop, for I know you are still feeling young in this holy state, as I do most painfully.
 Faithfully and affectionately yours
 "THEO D. BRATTON." l This. I repeat is your private letter to i Bishop Beckwith. as Dr. Cobbs quotes it. i I have done him the service of capitaliz- 1 ing the worls that were capitalized by 1 him.
 l Your private letter has become public property; it contains statements which Bishop Beckwith and Dr. Cobbs construe as seriously damaging to my character as a clergyman, as meaning, in brief, that was a disqualified clergyman of the church. at date distant in the past by not so long a space as twelve months. l Therefore the obligation is upon me to ad- dress you a letter that will be much public property as Bishop Beclwith and Dr. Cobbs have mae your private one. As you have been publicly quoted in or der to establish conclusively a most dam- aging charge against my record and repu- tation as a clergyman, you owe it to me | beyond question either to deny publicly that your quoted words can reasonably l bear the interpretation that has been put upon them, or to explain certain express sions ascribed to you In such a way as to justify the Beckwith-Cobbs interpre | tation.
 The Question at Issue.
 Let me be explanatory and explicit | lest you should miss and avoid the ques- ton at issue
 There is a canon of the diocese of Ala 1 bama which directs that, after nomnat- ing a clergyman to a rectorship, vestry, before proceeding to election, shall re- ceive from the bishop sufficient evidence in writing that the nominee Is "a quail l fled clergyman of this church." CThe Pro- 1 testant Episcopal in the United States.) l There is nothing in this canon which so much as hints at any obligation the part of the bishop of Alabama, to re- ceive into the diocese. without or with a letter dismissory in the usual form the man whom he has declared to be "a qual- flied clergyman of this church." A dio- cesan canon. of course, were void which deprived the bishop of a right and privi- lege conferred by a general canon.
 So, then. the question is not at all as to Bishop Beckwith's right and privilege to decline to accept a letter dismissory in some other form than that suggested in the- canon of transfer. I have not raised the slightest objection to his ex- ercising any canonical right, or avaiing | himself of any canonical privilege.
 The question is. simply and solely, Would Bishop Beckwth have testified to an untruth, if on October 4, 1903, he had given to the vestry of the Advent parish | a written statement in the following words or words of like import: 'I hereby certify that the Rev. Quincy Ewing is a qualified clergyman of this church." Dr. Cobbs says that he would; that, had he written such a statement at earlier date, 1t would have been his duty to 1 withdraw it on or about October 4, be- cause you letter convinced him at this date that I was not qualified clergyman of the Protestant Episcopal church! I must have been, October 4. 1903. either a qualified clergyman or a disqualified one. So, then. Dr. Cobbs charges that less than twelve months ago I was disqual- fled clergyman of the Protestant Epis- copal church and he make you responsi- ble for this charge.
 Ot may be well to state here. in paren- | thesis. that Bishop Beckwith had not l seen the private letter on which Dr. Cobbs lays such great stress. and on | which he rests his case, when he-Bshop l Beclxwith-refused to certify that I was | qualified clergyman. Dr. Cobbs' facts" 1 decline to dove-tail in a most remarkable manner. It may be well to state also | that Bishop Beckwith still declined to certify that I was qualified clergyman. after he had read the letter dismissory in which you certified that I was "a presbyter in good standing in the diocese of Mississippi" and that you accepted me | as "a qualified clergyman" The letter
 
 thereof was handed to Bishop Beckwith on or about October 6 by the Rev. J. A Van Hoose, with the remark: Bishop, I think you will find this satisfactory" Bishop Beckwith, after reading the let ter. declared according to Mir. Van Hoose: Wan Hoose. this is not satisfac- tory: as for the Morris marriage. that