The Bamberg herald. [volume] (Bamberg, S.C.) 1891-1972, 1909-02-11
DISPENSARY BUILT CHURCH
Otis TRUE IT'S PITY, AND
PITY IT'S, IT'S TRUE"

Methodist Officials Accept Dispensary
Money for Church at Liv-
ingston.
The Orangeburg Evening News
says that the story which was printed
in that paper in regard to the church
at Livingston being erected with
money donated by the town of Liv-
ingston, which were profits Of the
dispensary, has caused good deal
of comment. Many have been talking
of the story and in last weeks issue
Of the Southern Christian Advocate
there appears denial that such was
the case, and calls upon the Metho-
dist preachers in this section to ex-
plain. AS result of this editorial in
the Advocate, Rev. C. B. Smith,
presiding elder of this district, has
formulated a reply, setting forth the
matter as far as he is concerned, and
says that the story is in the main
part true. The reply Of Rev. Smith
is as follows:
Concerning the Livingston Church.
Your editorial in last weeks issue
of the Advocate on this matter makes
necessary a reply from me. | am
loath to appear in any such role, but
Justice, both to the church and my
self, calls for this. That this leaven
OF unrighteousness should reach into
the church is not to be wondered at.
II is an easy step from the sordid in
iQuity of educating our children with
funds gotten from the debauchery of
our fellow men to that of doing
church work with the same.
The Facts in the Case.
The reports as set forth in the
newspapers are largely true. But the
onus of the affair is not properly
placed. The church as l understand
it, was built in the town of Liv-
ingston with the proceeds of the
dispensary money with the under
standing and consent of majority
of the members of Hebron church,
which church, the one at Livingston
was to replace, that it would be ac-
cepted as a Methodist church. Steps
were taken for the building in 1907,
and it is now about completed.
The Church's Part in the Affair.
Brother j. A. Graham, the then
pastor, told me on Sunday, July IL,
1908, that he had brought the mat
ter to the attention of his presiding
elder the year before, and that his
elder told him to accept the money
for the church He did so, and pro-
ceeded with the work on that an
thority.
MY Part i'm the Affair.
At the quarterly conference held
at Hebron, Saturday, July II, 1908,
on request of the pastor, Bro. Gra-
ham, building committee was ap.
pointed l was then in ignorance of
the state of the case. The next day,
Sunday, Bro Graham gave me the
facts as stated above and asked my
opinion. replied that was opposed
to the whole thing, and that it would
work incalculable injury to the
church OF Christ. Bro. L. E. Wig
gins, the present pastor, stands with
me in my opposition to the scheme.
Contrary to the State Constitution.
The town authorities of Living
ston cannot donate the funds accru-
ing from the dispensary or any other
source to any church or church en-
terprise. The constitution of the
State is very explicit on this point.
Art. II, Sec. 8, reads: The prop
erty or credit of the State of South
Carolina, or of any county, or of any
city, town, township, school district.
or other subdivision of said State, or
any public money from whatever
source derived, shall not by gift, do
nation, loan, contract, appropriation,
or otherwise, be used directly or in
directly in aid or maintenance of any
college, school, hospital, orphan
house, or other institution, or society
or organization of whatever kind,
which is wholly or in part under the
direction or control Of any church or
of any religious or sectarisn denom-
ination, society or organization.
This phase of the question is left
to the town authorities of Living
ston to settle.
We Cannot Accept.
) We cannot accept this church for
two reasons First, because it is il
legal, contrary to the constitution of
the State, and even if we had taken
any steps to this end, that part of
the constitution referred to above
would render such steps null and
void. At least that is my construc-
ton of it. Next it is contrary to the
spirit aud judgment of the Metho-
dist church. BY no act of mine could
consent that it should be accepted
formally as the property of the
Methodist church. So far no service
has been held in it by a Methodist
preacher. That no Methodist preach
er shall ever preach in it while am
on the district is not for me to say.
c.. B. SMITH.