Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1906-12-14
I TERMS...$2.OO 4 YEAR ~ ADVANCE.
SINGLE COPY, FIVE CENTS.
no. 100.

without legal protection and absolute
! ly at the mercy Of the presiding ell
ders VIII" for any cause can wrong
them with impunity and il has been
done
If specification >. charge |. is true
and the committee sustained ii. then
1t follows that charge 3 falls with It,
Specification under this charge was
supported. on the part Of the defense
| by five Of the best men i'm the state.
who had been dropped from the board
of district stewards by presiding eld-
ers. The defendant supported the
] truth of specification by the resOlu-
| tions of the annual conference passed
at Abbcvillc and evidence that the
| resolution had been pcrSiStently viola
| ted I'm every district I'm tn" conference
| except one: by the testimony Of for
mcr presiding elder that when the lay
men sought the removal Of presiding
elder because of this action in c0nnec-
ton with the percentage plan the pre-
siding elders supported him in thu
| cabinet: that when presiding elder
| had signed a written confession Of i'm
proper conduct In securing the fixing
Of his salary and making contradictory
statements Ia justify his conduct. his
| character was not challenged In the
cabinet or on the conference floor. al
though known to a bishop and gener-
ally known in the conference.
Snapi6patinn woS by
the testimony OF perhaps a dozen wit
nesses for the defense.
Specification 3 was supported on
! the part Of the defense as follows:
| The word graft" Is underlined and
was used in the sense of a special
preference and privilegc-the presid-
| ing elders are paid the largest salaries
Of any preacher i'm the conference
and given a special lien to secure 1t.
3. They had violated the Abbeville
| resolutions and i'm doing so Increased
| their salaries. 3. Two of them had
collected money on districts for trav-
cling expenses while riding on annual
railroad passes (. Others had de-
manded of preachers per cent Of
monies to which they had no claim.
On each of these points positive tes-
timOny was offered and IL was not
cOntrovcrted.
In supporting the truth OF speCifica-
tion 10 the defendant offered evidence
that he had been forced into a rOntru-
verSy by the party mentioned I'm that
Snariti "a inn and that Ia. h,,1 r,.Ili.1
to an offensive publication i'm his own
defense. .. That much of the imfur-
nation upon which ne had acted in
his editorial course came from that
party and that he could not be either
ignorant or innocent Of the things
stated by the defendant and therefore
his conduct was nSincere. This was
not rebutted by the evidence.
Specification l3 grew out Of the fol-
lowing facts: The percentage plan Of
raising the salary of the presiding
elder was in force i'm Orangeburg dis
prominent layman that the per cent
was based on the assessments of the
year in which the salaries were paid
| instead Of the previous year This
| was violation of the Abbevillc rcso-
lutions and naturally raised the preSid-
| ing elders salary. We held that in
equity and good conscience the pre-
siding elder could not retain that in
crease and asked why not credit that
increase To the conscience fund.
Specification |. charge .. was met
with conclusive proof Specification
was met by documentary and oral ev-
idence from the aCcuSerS that they
had given the matter of preferring
charges against the accused. little or
no attention until they met at night i'm
Spartanburg i'm 1905. that they did not
have the papers before them; that
they did not know its contents and
had no idea of bringing a charge
against him until they met at that
time. and. therefore. brought a charge
against him which they could not rra-
sOnably believe To be founded i'm fact
or true. This charge now falls by the
act of the committee.
The defense met the charge i'm spec
ifications ; and 6 by producing the
original notice in writing. signed by
the accuSer. stating that the charge
had been agreed upon at a meeting
held at night by the presiding elders.
and the further fact that they had
reached Il decision by vote: that that
proceeding was in violation of the dis
cipine and that Bishop Gambler had
publicly repudiatcd it.
Specification was dSprovrd by the
production of the original letter Ia K.
L. Freeman the positive testimony Of
NJ l.. Carlisle. \. coke Mann and the
defendant
1t now appears by the report of the
committee that constitutional Mrth"-
dism does not exist i'm South Carolina:
that the presiding elders max" thu
appointments and select their success
s0rs i'm office We have succeeded i'm
establishing the existence Of the most
powerful ecclesiastical combination
ever known t. MethJdiSm. We went
up against that combination. We made
a manly. honest. tight; the pr"Seru-
ton packed one committee with the
blood kin of the accuScrS and their
SympathiZerS. destroyed records and
they could not be- had. The bishop
would not rule on the questions of law
involved i'm the case and thus hung up
every legal question until the meeting
of the next General conference.
We are not vindicitivr. We entertain
no malice. We have taken up tight
for liberty. right. justice. freedom "t
speech and constitutional MethodiSm
i'm South Carolina: i'm such a fight We
knew the danger tn be- great We ram
great risk and We accept what has be-
fallen Us a. our part Of the price
which every true man must pay VIII"
stands for conviction. liberty. right
justice. freedom Of speech and r"mSti-
tutiOnal MethodiSm.
We are still IL Methodist and will
continue to remain loyal and true to