Keowee courier. [volume] (Pickens Court House, S.C.) 1849-current, 1914-06-17

J or the conference to violate this
ties been guilty Of crime, he might
have forfeited his rights under his
contract. But you declare you in
tended to violate the contract and
deprive him of his rights under it,
whether he a innocent or guilty.
BY what authority or rule of right
cousness could you and your follow
crs induce the Bishop to try to VIC
late the laws Of the land and disre-
gard the legal contract of the church?
If you were the author Of those rcsO-
l%utions, and misled a majority of the
conference into attempting such an
act, it is small subject for Boosting.
And your attempted action was as
much in violation of the laws of our
church as it was a violation of the
laws Of the State. You say that you
believe the expressed will of the con-
ference should be obeycd. That de-
ponds on how that will has been ex-
pressed. The appointing power in
our church, as you well know, rests
entirely with the bishop and his cab
met. The conference has no legal
right or power to dictate whom he
shall appoint or not appoint to any
wOrk connected with the church. The
only time when the permission OF
Ihn nhnrnb l.. n,nnr.nr, l., ,,Io, H.
Bishop desires to appoint a preacher
to work outside Il church.
1t is rue that the conference can
entertain a complaint against a
preacher for 'unaCceptableness." and
your Resolutions" to have had the
semblancc OF legality, must have been
construed to be Of this nature. But
the church law expressly provides
that in all such complaints the
church shall investigate the case,
and that the accused minister may
defend himself in person or by rep
rCSentativC." The law is further laid
down in McTycire's Manual. page
1876. This should be conducted with
the formality to guard against hasty
and unjust action. 1t must not rest
entirely upon Opinions and sentiment,
but the complaint &C unacceptable
with sufficient allegations of facts
and proofs to give the accused an op-
p~Ortunity to make his defense and to
the conference a safe basis Of iudg-
ment the testimony taken
should look, nOt only to the fact Of
unacceptability, but to the cause"
The record shows that in pushing
through these resolutions you obeyed
none of these fair and Just REQUIRE
mentS. You merely charged that
there was opposition to him, and did
not even allege that such opposition
was just. When he asked to be heard
in his W defense, this clear legal
right was denied him-you con-
demned unheard! Not a particle Of
proof appears to have been laid be-
fore the conference to sustain the
complaint; the resolutions were
passed entirely on "Oplnion and sem
timcnt.' The law expressly pro-
vidcd that testimony should be Of
tercd as to the cause. If proof had
been made before that conference
that the charges against Mr.. Nettles
were false, and had been brought
against him in order to secure the
control Of the Advocate by running
his reputation, do YOU really think
that Those resolutions would ever
have been passed?
Would they have been passed by
the very men who a year before had
given him their hearty support and
endorsements No, DR.. Carlisle, if
YOU think so. you do the noble men
CT our conference grave Injustice.
Most OF them want only what is right
and Just and Christian. Those reso-
lutions were unlawful in their pur-
pose, unlawful in the methods by
which they we're passed, adopted un-
der a miScOAcoptiOn Of the facts and
are binding on no one, either in law
or in conscience. No bishop need
trcmblc at your threat if he disobeys
your resolutions.
But this is not a question OF APP
poIntm"nt by the bishop. The edi-
tor%hip of the Advocate, like the
presidency OF Wofford College, while
church work is not necessarily the
work OF a preacher Of the conference.
II could legally be done by a local
preacher or by a layman. There is