The Appeal. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. ;) 1889-19??, 1906-02-10


represent the Trustees Board and was
not prepared for the occasion. Every
thing seemed to be going smoothly at
this point in the interest of Rev. R.
Seymour, but the members cried out
ed that others be heard There was
charges, r. r. Morgan and myself.
The Bishop met it all in the most
austere manner and ruled them down
and even called out that the men were
not acting like gentlemen and the
women were not acting like ladies',
This did not stop them for they kept
at him and when he wanted Mr.. Strong
and Mr.. Morgan to lay down their
grievances and make up with the pas
tor they refused to do so. They said
Rev. r. Seymour had slandered them
and that they wanted an investigation
of the matter. Mr. Strong made
strong plea to the Bishop for fairness
and told him what he had said about
himself being as true as STEEL Then
the Bishop in most pathetic manner
almost broke down and cried out
Brother Strong, I do not believe you
are guilty of what Rev. Seymour has
charged you with" He then dropped
the silver bound Episcopal gavel and
turned pointing to his friend, Rev. R.
Seymour with his right hand, with
trembling voice, which almost brought
tears to the eyes of all present and
cried out again How can l destroy
this man? If l did l could never look
his dear wife in the face again." This
told the whole story and he ought to
have made a complete confession that
he came to St. Paul, not to save St.
James A. M. E. Church, but to save
his friend, Rev r. Seymour When
the audience had fully realized the sig
nificance OF this confession by the
Bishop they became disguised and
cried out to those who were Glamour
ing to be heard What is the use?
The Bishop came here to save his
friend, Rev. R. Seymour and not the
Church" Although l would not be-
lieve Rev. R. Seymour under oath I
must give him credit for making one
truthful statement and that was the
statement he made on the 18th of De-
cember when he said that Bishop c.
T. Shaffer was his personal friend, and
he certainly told one truth.
After Mr.. Strong and Mr.. Morgan re-
fused to lay their grievances down and
demanded complete Investigation, the
Bishop appointed committee to in
vestigate the matter but instructed
them that the report must not be made
public. think Of it, the idea Of Rev.
r. Seymour publishing a false and
slanderOus pretended interview in
which he slandered these two men and
yet the investigation was to be kept
secret The Bishop believing that Rev.
Seymour had slandered them demands
that the Investigation be kept secret.
Rev. Graham, l doubt if the ON. church
will live Is years under such ruling.
This committee met on the 25th just
two days after the Bishop left the city.
Mr.. Strong and Mr.. Morgan presented
to the committee indisputable evil
dence over Rev. Seymours own sigma
ture. that he, Rev. R. Seymour, had
published false and slanderous state
ment against them. Little did Rev.
Seymour think when he was signing
receipts for coal in January, 1905, that
the receipts would ,be hauled out from
among thousands and laid before the
eyes to prove that he had made false
statements and he had to confess it.
Thus the Bishop calls this Greek meet
ing Greek but. it looks more like
falsifier and slanderer meeting hon
est men and women. Rev. r. E. Will
son Of Minneapolis, was at the head of
the Committee and if he has reported
his finding to the Bishop, he, the Bish-
op, knows at this time that the Rev. r.
Seymour slandered these two men in
his presence and before the audience
on the night of the 22nd, at the very
time the Bishop was lowering the
standard of his high office to save
him. Now if Bishop C. r. Shaffer
knows this, and if Rev. r. E. Wilson
has made his report, what will he do?
The members and friends of the ST.
James A. M. E. Church throughout the
land ought to demand that the Bishop
lay aside his sympathy for Rev. r.
Seymour's wife and preform his duty
as Bishop Of the A. M. E.. Church:
Surely the Bishop will not stand up
any longer for this man when he can
not himself give his ministerial rec
ord. although the people demanded it
Of him when he started out to speak
IF Rev. R. Seymour's record as a pas
tor. He only named Detroit, Mich.
but I doubt if there is much there to
boast Of. When the audience asked
the Bishop to name other churches
that Rev. Seymour had pastored, he re-
fused How can a Bishop of our great
church stand up for a preacher when
he himself cannot give his ministerial
record? Certainly not if he is honest
and faithful to his duty.
Now under the rulings of the Pre-
siding Elder and the Bishop. The Pre-
siding Elders rulings we're that
Steward held his Office for one year
AMI if no one was appointed in his
place the Office was vacant at the end
of the year, then under this ruling
every Steward, that was appointed by
Rev Gaines, time had expired after
that first official meeting OF Rev. Sey-
mour, held Oct. 10. 1904. The Pre-
siding Elder had held five Quarterly
Conferences before that secret one that
was held January IS, 1906, and he
knew or he ought to have known that
st. James A. NJ E. Church all this
time And Presiding Elder Thomp-
son says that no charges could be plac-
ed in his hands by an accuser if they
had not come through the Stewards
Board, and he knew that there was
none in the st. James A. NJ. E. Church
at the time of this ruling. Bishop c.
T. Shaffer ruled that Presiding Elder
H. H. Thompson was right and he
also ruled that he would not consider
any charges unless they came through
the Stewards Board and official board