The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1906-05-09

related to the situation Kentucky at that time to
the wider questions of organic union now
Thirdly-The two quotations do not show that
was then in favor of organic union, much less that
adduced by the OBSERVER he seeks to divert atten-
ton from the real question by descending to person
alites. He repeats his charge that | am dislOyal
to Church and adduces certain alleged reasons
to support his charges. L deny this charge with
added emphasis. / have turned 'somersault'
to organic union between the Northern and South
Churches l have never at any time, or IN any
way advocated such union, and my critic ought to
know this. The proof which he adduees from the
CHRISTIAN OBSERVER does not touch the point he
seeks to prove ALL for the that the OBsER
YER is not advocating organic union, and that [
have never raised the question in its columns. 1t
is my critics construction of the facts, not mlhe
which raises the question of organic union his
therefore is the responsibility. The alleged proof
of my disloyalty which my critic so carefully gathers
from what he designates an interview with me-
reported in the "Courier-JOurnal' of August a.
1908 demands some rigid scrutiny, for 1T reveals
the method of controversy which my critic resorts
TO when he feels that his main contention has tailed
He saws that this article interview of over col
,mn "was evidently written by me-" How could
he prove this If he not sure. why ana he
NOT ask me- Why did he readily conclude thaC
this socaled interview fairly represented my views
upon this subject then and now?
[ assert most emphatically that did not 'orte
the article in question: any part of 1t, nor am
responsible for it, I have discovered the reporter
of the Courier Journal" who wrote the article lie
is an able and reliable man, and l have his testi-
mOnv over his signature, to support my ue-
NAL His testimony is as follows:
"Touching an article which appeared in the "Cour-
ier-Journal" of August IA, 1904, have to say:
/ ."That the idea of this article my own, and
that / wrote the whole of it,
9 "That Dr. Francis r. Beattie did not suggest
the article nor did he supply the materials for it,
g. ''That after I had prepared it, called up DIR.
D. nj eI.o6 ahOnt tbp q
it related The substance of his reply, as | under
stood it, / put in quotation marks i'll my article
Only this brief paragraph could be called an inter
view with DR.. Beattie'
4. "That I may have made the mistake of think
ing of organic union, when DIR. Beattie had only the
plans of consolidation in College, Seminary and Hos
pital work in view in his conversation with me over
the phone"
(Sgned) A. R. DUNLAP.
This testimony speaks for itself, and puts the case
simply and accurately But I wish further to show
how he has manipulated the reporters article into
a personal assault upon me. In ALL he makes nine
quotations and puts them all under the heading of
interview which the "COurer-Journal" article is
made to represent. What the facts? Let the
reader note. Three of these quotations from
recent articles in the CHRISTIAN OBSERVER four of
them from the body of the article in the Courier
Journal" which the reporter wrote throughout, and
only two of them from the little section of the arti
Gle which by being put in quotation marks by the
reporter, thus indicated to have been Gin
terview with me-" Now let it be noted that my
critic groups all of these quotations under sim
gle head in such way to have the impression
the reader that they all belonged to this inter
view. This may have been due to carelessness on
the part of my critic; but such carelessness greatly
discounts the use he makes of these quotations.
Moreover this laundering illustrates my critics we'll
known methods of controversy, and renders his ex-
position practically valueless.
Then in regard to the two quotations above noted,
/ beg to make three remarks First-This "nter-
view" as my memory serves me, was the result of
n brief conversation the telephone with the re-
r--Ln Ll.c Iii in The