The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1904-06-26
R. H, COBB MAKES
REPLY TO PEARSON
He Answers Senior Warden's
Charges Against Beckwlth
He DEFENDS THE BISHOP
Says That He Has Acted Consistently
and Justly Toward the Church
of the Advent-The Con-
troversy Reviewed.
He DEFENDS THE BISHOP

The Rev. R. H. Cobb, secretary of the
Episcopal diocese council of Alabama
has sent to Col. R. H. Pearson. the fol-
lowing letter in reply to Col. Pearson's
open letter, criticising Bishop Beckwith
which appeared in the Age-Herald Of
June /:
Col. r. H. Pearson, Senior Warden
Church of the Advent, Birmingham:
Dear Col. Pearson
On the Both of May, 1904, I received from
you, communication containing the
substance of your statements in the open
letter which appeared over your sigma
ture in the Age-Herald June LIST. l an
swered it promptly pointing out the err
rors and positively denying certain as
sertions as to matters of fact. l had
every reason to believe that you would
correct those eros over your own sigma
ture; but. as you have not done so, and
as your letter has been reprinted and
is now being distributed over the do
oese, 1 feel that 1t is my duty to notice
its statements.
And l begin by protesting. in the name
of the Justice you have invoked. against
the REPETITION of statements which l, as
an officer of the diocese. have officially
denied and to which l will call more
particular attention in the latter part
of my letter
Referring then to the "open letter" I
call attention to the portion which speaks
Of promises made by the bishop. From
your statement 1t appears that the bish-
op met the vestry of the Advent on Sep
TENDER 9th, 1903; that he expressed GER
tain doubts as to Mr. Ewing's qualifica-
lions; but after much discussion finding
that the vestry insisted upon calling Mr..
| Ewing as their rector, he promised he
would give the evidence In writing and
accept the letter dimissory when present
ed. Unfortunately there was no record
of this agreement, because mo pen, ink
and paper" were at hand; but it is evil
dent from your own account. that the
bishops promise was conditional. being
| dependent upon the reception of the
letter dimissory. That letter dimissory
was presented on the 4th day of October
and being unsatisfactory to the bishop he
refused to receive it and declined to give
the evidence in writing. You add that
the friction between the bishop and your
vestry began right there: the vestry con-
tending that the letter was satisfactory
! and should be accepted, the bishop de-
| claring the letter unsatisfactory and re-
fus1ng to accept it.
| In regard to this ] observe: The letter
was not addressed to the vestry of the
| Advent but 10 the bishop of the diocese
| of Alabama and that it was his duty to
| decide whether or not it was satisfac-
! tory.
Bishop Was Consistent.
| In my Judgment Bishop Beckwith was
perfectly just and perfectly consistent
In his course I will go farther and say,
| that had he on September 27th 1903 given
| the "evidence in writing based upon in
! formation then in his possession, it would
have been his duty after the reception Of
| the letter dimissory October 4th, to have
withdrawn that evidence.
| | notice next the statement that Bish-
| Up Beclxwith was Instrumental in securing
that letter. In using these words you
| mean to say that Bishop BeclSwith per-
| suaded Bishop Bratton to write a letter
which was intended to be unsatisfactory
| and which he knew would be rejected.
| Such a course Of action might be adopt
| ed by politicians but In charging two
| bishops with entering into such an agree
ment, you offer them both deliberate
| insult But whatever may have been
| the ground upon which the charge was
| first made, I here call attention to the
fact that when that statement appeared
| in the "open letter. your vestry held
| written denial of the fact by bishop Brat
ton and I leave the public to Judge of the
| business of the cause which is supported
| by such statements.
| As regards the bishops powers beg to
refer you to the journal of the general
| convention of 1901, title |, canon 1877, sec
ton 8. pages IS and So You will there
| find that authority Is given the bishop
even when in due form, II from rumor
| or therwise he has heard statements
which need investigation. And acting I'M
der that authority his course was perfect
ly right. -.
| A. In 't,,af bp That
after full discussion an agreement was
| reached and was afterward reduced to
| writing and was signed by Bishop Beck
] with You refer also to letters which
| Bishop Beckwth wrote to Bishop Brat
ton and to Mr.. Ewing and you add that
| such letters proved unsatisfactory to the
vestry, when informed Of the contents,
| but that you will not ''go into that now"
Required a Condition.
! 1 ask you to observe here the adj
mission that Bishop Beckwith required
| condition and that was that his action
| should depend upon the receipt of
letter from Bishop Bratton in proper
| form; and now / will add some facts
| which seem to have escaped your men,
ory That written agreement was sign
ed by the bishop and by you, officially,
as the senior warden of the Advent.
Four copies of that letter were prepared
ana edcn one was siBicd bOth ~ A'io'icP
Beckwith and yourself in your official
capacity One copy was given to Bish-
Cd Beckwith, one copy was retained by
you. one was sent and mailed by you
to Bishop Bratton and one to Mr.. Ewing.
| Within a week Bishop Beckwith re
ceived a telegram from you stating that
you had signed that letter individually
without due considerations" that the
vestry did not endorse it, and that by
| order of the vestry you repudiated the
| whole transaction. / state this upon
| personal knowledge l have read the
| telegram In regard to this point L
| make no remarks. That you, an ex-
| perfenced man of business, signed pa
! per, not once only but four times and
| with your own hands mailed a copy of
| 1t to Bishop Bratton and to Mr.. Ewing
and then admitted that you did that
without understanding its contents, 1t Is
| to me a most remarkable statement.
| And here l ask what right have you to
| hold Bishop Beckwith to written agree
| ment which you as one of the parties,
have repudiated? I know but little of law
| but I claim to have some ordinary COM
mon sense, and II seems plain to me
that on the day you sent that telegram
Bishop Beclkwith was released from all
obligation to fulfill his promise. But the
Bishop did not take advantage of this
action as l shall proceed to show.
You state that the letter dimissory In
due form was accepted by Bishop Beck
with on Nov. 4th, 1903; that you regarded