The Newark star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1909, 1909-04-13


was refused. upon the ground that
there was not time.
Bishop Nicely hen named some
men rs available for our church.
Mr.. Sterling refused to accept the
responsibility of passing upon go
grave a Question as the selection of
a nan to take DR.. Mead's place,
but he did not say that. in his opin-
ion, one of those named by the
bishop would be satisfactory to our
church. The bishop pressed Mr..
Sterling to submit the names of
men whom he thought might be
satisfactory, and Mr.. Sterling did
name two.
DIR. HcCrea Not Mentioned.
The bishop declared that these
men were fixed" Mr.. Sterling an
swered, SO Is Centenary fixed" DR..
McCrea's name was not mentioned
by either party. Nothing was ac-
complished at the interview. Later,
not far from l O'clock. DIR. George
r. Kent. as the president OF the
board of trustees of this church,
who had learned of the bishops ex-
pressed intention, called upon the
bishop. That interview resulted the
same as did the interview of Mr..
Sterling. Nothing was
plished.
Centenary Church is loyal to
Methodism, and although deeply
grieved at the loss OF DR.. Mead,
accepts the situation and makes no
complaint. Indeed. that this would
be done, was foreshadowed in the
remarks of some of our officials
which appeared In the press on
Wednesday evening.
Feel Sighted.
We do feel. however, that disre-
garding our being one of the larg-
est churches in the conference, the
fact of the commitment of both DIR.
Mead to our church and our church
to him, being we'll known to the
bishop, and that we were acting as
the host of the bishop and the
members of the conference and en-
tertaining him and them at a great
expense of money and labor, which
WY 1a1oi idiis 6iNtitY Siiouih nafS
secured for us that consideration
and courtesy from the bishop,
which, by reason of long usage, of
right belonged to us, and which in
fact were given to the other church
interested. We feel that the ignor-
ing of us by the bishop was unkind.
ungentlemanly, and not such an act
as a bishop of our great Methodist
church should have practised upon
us. or. indeed. upon any church.
Making right certain things which
have appeared In the press, we say
that we have never decided to pro-
test against the removal of DIR.
Mead, and certainly not against the
sending. to us of SO fine, able and
Christian a gentleman as DR.. Nc
Crea, and no committee which
could make such a protest has ever
been appointed.
Peculiar Attitude.
1t is a fact that talk of DR.. Mead
being removed to Hoboken. Bal
timore. Washington and Buffalo
and many other places, has come
to us frequently, but we learned
from experience long ago. to put
no faith in rumor. Besides that,
when Bishop Nelly told us on Sat
urday that there was nothing in
the ronor which was reported to
him, knowing as hes must have
known, that we had no interest in
the rumor, except as to the point
which related 10 us, and when he
at the same time discouraged the
appointing of a committee, we be-
lieved that the whole rumor was
baseless. and we had a right to
that belief.
The bishop says Centenary took
DR.. Mead from Hoboken, and now
after a lapse of years. Hoboken
says that it needs him." True. but
we extended a call to DR.. Mead
many months before the sit
ting of the conferences, and not
then until after we had been in
formed by the then presiding
elder, DR.. Hoagiand, that DR.. Mead
was open to a call and that the Ho-
boken people were aware of that
fact and that he was In no way
pledged to Hoboken; and the Ho-
boken people had many months in
which to appoint their committee,
the situation. make their
choice of a pastor in the place of
DIR. Mead, and to present that
choice to the bishop who held
that conference, all of which they
did.
Not Asked to Reconsider.
Also the bishop did not
the committee of our church who
visited him in New York last FRI
day, April 8 that he would not re-
consider the assignment of DIR.
Mead" There was n o call for
such announcement. He was not
asked to reconsider. On the con-
trary, he was clearly and plainly
told at the beginning of the inter-
view that we accepted the pastoral
situation. With much of the article
published Saturday night We could
take issue. but we deem 1t unwise
to prolong the controversy fur
Their, and content ourselves with
saying that many of the insist
mehts'' of the bishop were proved
to him to be wrong.
Left Bishop disappointed.
We do not assert that he accepted
the proof bur IL WAS such proof as