The Washington times., 1908-07-02
Williams Attorney ReUiezUs
Trial Of Dismissed Clergyman
Court Did Not Have Required Number and One Member
Was Accused of PrejudiCe-Gir'S Story
Was Denied.

canon. as it hal but six instead of the
required seven members. One member
of the court. from knowing the condi-
lions. from acquaintance with the par
ish and the congregation, refused 10
serve because he said he knew his EEL
low-ciergyman was innocent, but others
on the court who were violently pref
udiced against him served. one mem
Der was challenged on the affidavit or
a creditable witness that he had al
ready Drejudiced the case against the
defendant, but with no explanation ne
continued TO serve. The church advo-
cate was unfortunately a man who had
personal difficulty with and passionate
resentment toward the defendant.
We bring no charge against the IN
tegrity or conscientiOusness OF any
member OF the court; they are perhaps
clear in their view of the right, but
they were only human The church
advocate was the legal and confidential
adviser OF the court, both in the court
room and when the court retired. He
could conduct and advise as he saw
fit
IN brief. the young woman's story
was that from childhood she had been
a member Of the defendants church
oS its Sunday school, it's choir. its
| Chancel Chapter. its Daughters Of the
| King. and one Of the collectors Of Ehe
/ assistant minister's subscription fund
| and that she had sometimes gone W III
| Mr. Williams 10 visit the sick wher
he administered thu communion. and
/ had partaken OF the sacrament on such
| occasions; that he was always kind
and she loved him as any one should
! critics with her twice-both times IN
March, 1896. first in the study. opening
directly into the chapel and church
/ on one side, and on the opposite side
/ directly 10 his house door; a second
about two weeks later. in the rectOry
both times during Lent.
Clergyman Denies Story.
THE accused clergyman on his par
denied categoricaly in clear and ex
I plcit manner every material statement
made by the young woman
How could they Che court so dis
| believe him unless, ike the two Roman
| eugurs Of Gerome, they were conten
! 70 acknowledge among themselves tina
what they taught IVES q professions
| fraud
1T was testified by TIE secretary o.
I the chancel chapter that the youn.
! woman was not the one designate,
| during the month Of March 10 care To-
/ the altar dxtngs. when she said she was
| and further the secretary said that ST.,
| distinctly remembered the young woman
/ clo not perform this duty. The vouu,
/ lady, whoSe's month II was. testife,
4 THAI she had herself performed the du
! ties
! His 2ccuser was sure that the event
| she toll Of occurred during Lent. TX
/ pert medical opinion declared thar /
! was impossible, and IN the face lf thI
/ the court md the jadge advocate de
/ liberately switched the time OF the san
/ posed occurrences 70 the month o
/ april without cause OF reason. and IL
/ the face Of the young wOman's own pos
/ itive statements"
/ The pamphlet also declares hat r.
! court refused % let Mrs Williams ties
! tlfy. because she was legally inCom
! petent 20 testify in the District of 60
! lumbia. unless she was an accessory q
/ the alleged OGense.