Evening journal., 1916-12-16
PUT RESFO ST IuTy
Oh PASTOR Cooke
Counsel for Mr.. Crew Say
They Tried TO Prevent
Church Trial
CONSIDER TRIAL
DISGRACE TO CHURCH

Caleb Z. Burchenai and the Rev. E.
II. Dashiell. counsel for Clayton l.
Crew, trustee OF Wesley NJ. u.
Church and superintendent OF the
Sunday school OF that church. who is
charged with causing dissennon in
the church. gave an interview to THE
EVENING JOURNAL today relative to
their efforts to have the trouble ad-
Justed without the publicity OF q pub
lie church trial. Testimony was taken
In the case several nights this week
before the church tribunal. and the
hearings are scheduled to be resumed
next Tuesday night
In their interview Mr.. Burchenal
and Mr.. Dash!ell say that they con-
slider the trial disgrace 70 the
church. and place the responsibility OF
the case coming to public trial up TO
the Rev. George A. Cooke, pastor OF
the church.
Mr.. Burchenai and Mr.. Dashiell In
their joint interview said:
I'VE were very much surprised to
see published In THE EVENING
JOURNAL OF December 15, the fol-
lowing statement: The hearing was
preceded by a conference between
counsel and clients, and according to
Mr.. Isaacs. counsel for the church, a
proposition had been made by the
pastor and trustees, who made the
charges, TO settle the case n Mr.. Crew
would apologize. This hfr. Crew re-
fused to do. Mr.. Isaacs said, although
he was willing TO enter into a mutual
forgiveness
NDarhana H.. rrrCv-fnr ss,f1uwdnF.
stood Mr.. Isaacs. as this interview
appears to fix the responsibility for
this trial upon Mr.. Crew and his
counsel, which Is absolutely incorrect.
Counsel for Mr.. Crew both VISITED the
Rev. George A. Cooke on one Friday
evening nearly three weeks before the
trial. at his home and labored with
him for about an hour % see Y II
were possible to have this matter COM
promised on the basis that both sides
would forget the past and attempt 70
put themselves back IN the same po.
sition which they occupied toward
each other before the lamentable DC.
currences now being brought into
light. We thought we had accomplish.
ed this, but we are informed that the
pastors conduct toward Mr.. Crew on
the following Sunday constitu'aI a
virtual breaking of o. negotiations al
that time
Before the opening OF the case on
the last night OF the trial. in order tc
prevent any further proceeding
which we consider a disgrace 20 the
Methodist Church, we approached this
counsel for the prosecution and made
the proposit on that our client wal
willing to forgive and forget, provid
ed the prosecution was willing TO dl
the same. We wish Il distinctly IN
derstood that this proposition orig
mated with US, and so strong was on
desire 10 terminate the matter tina
we made Il in the face OF the fact tina
almost the entire case or the prosecu
ton had been heard, whereas not {
single witness IN exoneration OF Mr.
Crew had been examined. Counse
for the prosecution insisted upon Mr.
Crew acknowledging his wrong anc
thereby showing his repentance. This
we refused to do. because our client
feels he has done no wrong. and can
not conscientiously confess wrong and
pretend repentance when In his heart
he feels (Which feeling we believe q
be fully supported by the factsl thai
ne mas oo"e tne very utNt tHHN ht
knows 10 DO for the interest OF Wesley
Church The counsel for the prosecu.
ton then con~ulted with the pastor
and came hack 10 us with the state.
ment that thye would not accept the
proposition unless Il involved renent.
ance unon tho mart OF our client.
1--WE have endeavored 10 take every
step possible 10 prevent this trial and
~ end Il after u was begin. and We
deeply rerret that our efforts have
been unavailing."