The Marlboro democrat. [volume] (Bennettsville, S.C.) 1882-1908, 1905-03-31
CALLED DOWN.
A Gentleman's Reply to an In.
suit by a Bishop.
A SLANDERER ASKED


Politely to Give Some Reason for In.
sultiug Charges Made Against Judge
Benet and Proof of Charges
Made Against the South
ern People Generally.
Columbia, s. c., March 81. 1905.
Rt. Rev. Henry Q. Potter, Bishop Of
New York.
Right Reverend aud Dear Sir. 1t
was my earnest hope that your answer
to my letter OF the 9th iIst. would be
OF such nature as to call for no re-
joinder. But unhappily you did not
give the soft answer" but made use
Of most "grievous words" 1t was,
however, still my intention to keep
your private letter to me out OF the
public prints for your own sake, but
when l saw your second interview In
the New York Globe and Commercial
Advertiser and read in The State of
Columbia, S. c., yesterday, the Goth
inst, your letter to Mr.. Gonzales, the
editor, in which you said "the criti.
cisms OF Judge Benet and your own
are equally unwarranted and imperti.
nent," there was nothing left for me
to do but to make the whole matter
public. am forced to speak out and
to show the public what manner Of
man the bishop of New York Is, and
how he comports himself in what was
expected by me to be friendly and
courteous correspondence. 1t will
surprise everybody and it will shock
churchmen to read your letter to me,
even II they should think my letter to
you gave you sufficient provccltion.
Ever since receiuing it the words OF
the Psalter have been haunting my
memory:
Let the righteous rather smite me
friendly and reprove me; but let not
their precious balms break my head. ;"
1t Is proper that should first exhi-
bit my letter to you:
Columbia, S. O., March 8, 1905.
Rt. Rev. Henry 9. Potter, D. D.,
LII. D., Bishop Of New York, New
York.
Right Reverend and Dear Sir: In
The State Columbia, S. o. OF the
7Jh inst, the editor commented on
and quoted from some statements OF
yours recently publis led in the New
York Globe and Commercial AdverIis-
or, on the subject Of divorce legisla-
no
There would be no virtue in abol
ishing divorce all logether. We have
an example Of what would result from
such measure in South Carolina
Prohibiting divorce Is merely putting
concubinage at j premiu H."
Thls Is a serit US c!.a!ge to make
against South Carolina. And When
1t Is made by one who desclvedly
holds ole Of the highest petitions IL
the church, 1t com mant attention
and ilfiuences and mDlds pinion. l
do not kuow where you found any
authority for the assertion, but l co
know thai yGu have been miSled, and
that J I ave unwittiugly uiiare pre-
sent The people OF TINS State. N #
do doubt that when you have Care
fully and caudidly Considered the
matter, you will maks the amende
honorable IN as public 2 manner as
you lave made ia unfortunate
charge.
When you say that prohibiting
divorce IL merely pu. log cOncuuinape
at pr, m!um," aie you not relying II
President WoJls"y AID the xtwrlter
Joel Prcntis, Bishop, as au nority?
That iS tile burden OF their inuict
mel against South Carolina, and you
make use OF their very worcs. A few
months ago l reviewed the reckless
and gruun less charges made by those
authors. Tuis dld al tile r, qu st or
the Rev. Robert A. Holland, d. D.,
OF St. Georges chuIcu, St Louis, ana
my dear friend and bisiiup, the Rl
Rev. Ellison Capers, ID. ID. My re-
view TOOK the form OF un open letter
to DR., Holland. which was published
in The State and other newspapers In
this and other States. Will you
kindly take the trouble to read it-I
enclose copy-and then let the pub
lie, as well as me, know whether or
no you still can assert that the prohi-
bition OF divorce in South Carolina re-
suits In merely putting concubinage
at premium?
Enclosed you will also find copy oil
the editorial article, which comment
ed on your interview, In The State of
the 7th inst, and copy of the ex-
tended editorial comment Of The
Living Church Of November II, 1904,
strongly and warmly commencing my
open letter
Although have not the honor OF
personal acquainl nlance with you,
have enjoyed the privilege Of sitting
as lay delegate In the triennial
council of our church with you as a
distinguished member OF the house OF
bishops. But II you desire 10 know
more about me, l refer you to Bishop
Capers, your very good friend and
mine. also refer you to the Rev. G.
NJ. Niles, D. D., Of Trinity church,
Columbia, S. O., now my rector, and
formerly and quite recently one Of
your own clergy and we'll known to
you.
Both my bishop and my rector,
know, are Of one mind with me on
the subject Of divorce and on the
happy moral result OF the no.divorce
law Of South Carolina. 1t was Bishop
Capers' intimate acquaintance with
me for over 80 years Of my life as law
yer and circuit judge that Induced |
him to request me to examine inJo