The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1910-11-14
I1fE VIRGINIA METHODIST CONFERENCE
AND TIIE PRESS

81 concerning Or James Cannon. a member Of that
body. which action Aas been referred to IN the
I news columns Of this paper This somewhat M
usual action Vas brought about BY chain OF cir
ss cnrassanees which must be carefully considered
B IL formne an accurate estimate OF the justice
1 aud wisdom 81 tie course adopted by the Con
. ference.
q la November l9oo the Virginia Annual Con
d Ference VAS in session In Norfolk, and in the
Z report of the proceedings Of that body In the
b Richmond Times there was an attack upon the
4 character Of Reg, James Cannon aud upon the
b action Of the Conference On the day following
this attack a resolution was introduced in the
~ fonference signed by DIS. Coke Smith, b +
81 I.ipseomn J. b. VIM and others denouneing the
b specification as an abuse of The privileges OF the
ri 6oor granted 10 the representatives Oh the press,
#Sand demanding publication of the resolution IN
xhe Times
&@xThis action understood as calling for the
8fthdrawal of the representative Of the Times
azfom the floor OF the Conference. and he with.
ssx
The following das. DIV ". Smith arose,
TSd read a telegram ssnt By him 10 the pro.
IIRie4or Of the Richmond Times" as follows;
s'ro Jos Bryan. Esq. NEa..As- Aiehnond Times;
Please say that the statement M The Times
2rsaay that 'Chaneellop Smith admits that there
- ground for dstriist Of Rev James Cannon.
8r. Ii absolutely untrue. What Chancellor
y3mfth did say was that he believed that there
rns absolutely nc ground for distrust. tsigned)
Eth. W. Smith,
Drs Lpscomb and Christian offered reso
1nflon which was adopted. endorsing the tele-
rrasn Of Dr. Smith to the Times correct
&atenents of the facts. \ cory Of the action oil
sShe Conference taken from the Virginia Confer
sn6xce Annual of 1906 will b, found in another
esls1nn.)
@ X bout Christmas, 1900 nearly six weeks after
@1he offense was committed, the Times published
Sn editorial entitled AN Amende Honorable iii
Nhich Ii expressed regret that IL had printed
1he offensive matter,
Thus ten years ago. reporter OF the Times
ma make an unwarranted attack on Dl Cannon.
nd on that occasion the Virginia Conference de-
6unced the conduct of the paper and of the re
nxtar. and the reporter Withdrew from the Con
pologized for it.
From that time the Times, and later the
41nes Dispatch. has had no word of praise for
Cannon Within the last year or so that
S1per and the News.Leader and the journal OF
Richmond have all criticized DR.. Cannon very
2narply especially in connection with his reh
S1cn TO the Anti-saloon League work of the
yr.1,>
League some OF the reports published in the
St0hmond papers. concerning the conduct of Or
nnon in the Convention. denounced by
e Convention false and unwarranted
On February "a. 1910, there was three-coi
mn editorial in the Times Dispatch of in
1Seeiy personal character. la which DR. Cannon
M charged with hypocrisy in order to gravity
1s eovctousDess and ambition,
When the Virginia Conference assembled in
M city last "Wednesday i, was known that DR..
1nnon OF the men who were leading
The effort to secure such changes III the Ran
glph-Afacon charter, would conform it to the
nnirements OF the discipline of the Methodist
IArrh. and that he would in all probability. be
- 81 the central figures in the debate. In view
me Te1dtlUH SUSTAINED III. 1dnnOn by tue
Gaes Dispatch, and By the News-Leader and
Jcurnal special care should have been taken
rive an absolutely accurate report OF anything
~ which he was concerned, But what hap.
III
" only IMAM concerning whom damaging
omaent made Dr. Cannon. la the
11t or the debate between Mr.. John p. Branch
IN. Cannon given in the Times Dispatch
NFjday, Mr.. Branch reported as saying
fk. Cannon NOW | want you TO tell why you
Inst confidence and TO ten the truth il non
(1talic type ours.) On Friday morning DR.
80 rose to a question OF personal privilege
n1ad statement which he had carefully
aad which il follows:
ne tissue Of the Times Dispatch OF Frday.
1her II. there appeared the following
nEnts concerning ths speech OF Brother
R Brunch on the Randolph-Macon ques.
addressing his later remarks to
In Common rather than to the bishop
~ house. Mr.. Branch concluded: You
114 n the last Conference that yon
on0 not ask for nomination or con-
kkicn. bit asked that we agree TO-
16k thrive fourths Methodist. | did
- A9Ar one word shout q charter
~o until months afterward told
4MGt you seeaned To have gotten