Evening Star Newspaper, June 1, 1893, Page 7

one ‘TAKING THE VOTE. ‘The Charges Against Dr. by = Large Vote. TEE CLOSING SCENES OF THE BRIGGS DEBATE IN THE ASSEMBLY LasT EVENIXG—oNLY 116 VOTES MUSTERED AGAINST THE CHARGES. The call of the roll was resumed at the even- ing session, members who desired to sveak be- ing given the floor when their names were called. Only a small percentage, however, took advantage of the privilege, preferring to follow the advice of the Rev. George D. Baker of | sustain Philadelphia, in yielding the floor that a vote Might be reached sooner. Rev. Dr. Thomas A. Hoyt of Philadelphia spoke of the great wave of rationalism from Germany that was sweeping over this country. Is the reason, he asked, compe- tent to sit in judgment on’ the Scriptures? He took it that the statements of Christ and His ‘sponties on the subject of the divine origin of the Scriptures were conclusive. . Briggs’ doctrine, said the speaker, was identified with rationalism. When Rev. Dr. Charles A. Dickey of Phila- delphia arose there was @ flutter of expectant interest, for Dr. Dickey is considered one of the strong men of the assembly. He said he would vote to sustain the first, second, third and fourth grounds of the appeal, because he Proposed to set them aside in order to get nearer the main matter at issue. He would Tote to sustain in vart the fifth ground of ap- Rest: Decause he considered the finding of ‘ew York presbrtery as not sufficient to meet the exigencies of the case. He found himself ORF to Dr. Briggs on two points, one of which was the defense of the three doctrines of divine inspiration, with which he was not quite satisfied. Dr. Dickey.in conclusion, the assembly to give Dr. Briggs a chance, and he appealed that the latter might be allowed to give a full, free deciaration of doctrine. Elder Franklin Shepherd and John Meigs and Rev. U. H. P. Nason of Philadelphia read care- fully prepared statements of their reasons for opposing the reversing of the judgment of the New York presbytery. ONLY ONE BRIGGS MAS. Rev. James M. Maxwell of Pittsburg said he had kept a careful tally of the gentlemen who had spoken today and none of them “save the illastrious junior member of the assembly from New Mexico” had approved or defended the teachings of Dr. Bi “If you would not ordain him,” he askec,“‘is it fair to ask me to Teceive such a man into my pulpit? against all ideas of fairness and the law of the Presbyterian Church.” Rev. Abel M. Work of Central Dakota said he was sorry for Prof. Briggs because of some of his friends. These had declared that unless his views of Scripture were accepted by the church there was schiam in the air. “There are some people in this country,” said Mr. Wood, “who go about bearing the flag and giv- ing warning of the chaos that is to come unless they have their way.” Mr. Work said he was Ketting weary of the oft-reiterated statements on this floor that Dr. Briggs was the only man whose scholarship entitled him to the respect of the church, that he alone was competent to teach and interpret the Seriptures and stand- ards of thy Presbyterian Church. ‘The lasf speaker of the evening was the Rev. Samuel H. King of Alaska. He said he had found all the way from Alaska here that the ‘bers to Dr. Briggs. The launched a sermon that was decidedly against Dr. Briggs, and the leac- ing pastor of Washington had declared that he would not stand in Dr. Briggs’ shoes. Mr. King said he was satisfied now that he couldn’t exchange those shoes. ‘These divines had endeavored to induce the rand his fellow missionaries to believe that Dr. Briggs was attempting to tear the Bible | from its covers, but he himself told the j assembly, and been supported i his statements by Drs. Herrick Johnson, Spinning and Chas. L. \ Thompson, that he believed in the Bible. “That [angel from New Mexico,” continued Mr. King, j “wanted to give Dr. Briggs a bath in one of the mudholes in that territory. Why, he isn't an j*narchist that needs soap and water treatment.” VOTING ON THE CHARGES. It was 8:45 o'clock when the moderator put the question, “Shall the specifications of error ‘be sustained,” and Dr. Roberts, the stated ‘clerk, read the first specification in substance {that the presbytery of New York on objections made by Dr. Briggs. required the prosecuting , Committee to amend the amended charges and \specifications by striking out charge four. ang Mr. Hall of Chicago was on his fect in instant to give notice that he would call for ivision and tellers on six of the thirty-four specifications The question was then put by moderator, “Shall. the specification bo sus- 2” and upon a viva voce vote he declared it sustained. “Division,” went up from the Briggs men. All the members rose and the joderator in his usual terse way called out A great shout of “count,” rose from all parts of the church, and the moderator directed the clerks to make the count. The specification was declared sus- tained by a vote of 282 to 190. This vote showed that the attendance was seventy-seven Jess than the number present when the vote was taken Friday on sustaining the appeal, the vote on which was 405 aye and 144 na; Specifications second to twelfth, inclusive, under the first grand appeal, all reiating to ir- regularities in the proceedings of the New York presbytery, were sustained seriatim, some by tally and some merely by viva voce or rising vote. The Briggs men showed their greatest strength on specification fourth, which alleged tuat the action of the presbytery in giving Dr. Briggs an opportunity to present alleged new matter. without specifying the new matter. was irreguiar. ‘The vote resulted 238 to 195, sustain- ing the specification. OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL SUSTAINED. The second ground of appeal alleged the re- ceiving of improper testimony, and was based Upon three specifications. They set up that the defendant should have been «worn: that the statements and matter interpolated by the de- fendant into the record were permitted to re- main, and that the quotations and extracts ‘Yered by the defendant were received as evi- dence without his having been sworn. On the first specification a division was taken, the re- sult being that the specification was sustained— 262 to 185. Tho others were sustained by viva ¥oce votes. 3 ‘The third ground of appeal was that of ‘‘de- clining to receive important testimony” with ‘two specifications, that charges 4 and 7 were Stricken out. thereby preventing the prov- ang of the charges. These specifications were sustained without a division. * The fourth ground of a alleged “‘mani- fostation of profutice in the conduct. of the .”" and of its six specifications the Briggs men carried two and came fearrying another. which alleged that Revs. George Alexandi Antonio Arreghi, Henry M. Field, Thomas stings and Henry Van Dyke made prejud! Statements on the door and afterward voted in {he presbytery not to sustain each and every one of the specifications and charges, a viva Yoce vote was taken only, but the moderator feclared the specification lost. There was some attempt at applause when the decision was an- nounced, but it was quickly quelled. CHARGES OF PREJUDICE. _ Specifications second, third and fourth, alleg- ang that the presbytery did not try the case on ‘ts merits, attempted to terminate it without attaining the ends of discipline and evaded the ue, were sustained by vive voce votes. Spec- m fifth, alleging that Revs. Francis Brown, Henry M. Field, Thomas 8. Hastings, 5. Hall McIlvaine and Henry Van Dyke. mem. bers of the presbytery, voted to sustain the aceused after they had been charged in appeal with prejudice, was lost by a viva voce vote. Specitication sixth alleged that sundry diirect- ors, officers and professors of Union Theologi- wal Seminary, namely, Rev. Francis Lrown, Edward L. Clark, Charles R. Gillett, Thos. 8! Hastings, J. Hall Meflvaine, Philip Schaft. W. ‘M. Smith and M. KR. Vincent and Mr. Wm. A. Wheelock, voted to acquit the accused upon each and every specification and charge after ther had approved of Dr. Briggs’ inaugural address, which contained the alleged erroneous doctrines for the holding and publishing of which the accused was then on trial A viva voce vote was followed by a count and the stated clerk announced that it «tood 236 to 234, put suggested that another count be taken on sccount of the closeness of the vote. There were cries of “no,” however, and the clerk pro- eecded to read the fifth ground of appeal. "The fifth and last ground of appeal contained eleven specifications of error, and it charged ‘mistake or injustice in the decision.” The ifteations charged error in the failure to convict the defendant on competent charges, THE EVENING STAR: WASHINGTON, D. C., THURSDAY, JUNE 1. 1893—TWELVE PAGES. it vote “to missioners might but that such votes would be total to sustain the of the The roll mittee today. The assembly then adjourned at 10:25 p.m. until this morning at 9, to reconvene as a court at 9:30. Closing prayer was offered by Rev. George D. Baket of Philadelphia, chairman of the judicial committee, who pleaded for the blessing of Almighty God upon the decision reached and for continued manifestations of favor toward the church. eee THE VOTE IN DETAIL, How the Members of the Assembly Stood ‘on the Final Test. When the vote on the Briggs appeal had been counted last night, the clerk announced that 499 votes had been cast and that the vote stood: To sustain, 298; to sustain in part, 85; not sus- tained, 116. Under the raling of the moderator, that those voting to sustain in part rhould be counted as voting to sustain, it was announced that the vote stood 388 to 116. SUSTAINED WHOLLY OR IX PART. Synod of Atlantic—Adam Frayer, Daniel N. Freeland, Thomas A. Thompson, H. B. Wilson, George 8. Rice, Nelson Bailey, Hampton T. Gregg and Byron F. Marsh. Smith, D. D. Synod of Baltimore—Joseph T. LL. james Turner Leftwich, D. D.; Samuel Puri mond, D. D.; John 8. Howk, Gillespie and John M. T. Kelly, E. F. Witmer, William H. L P. Bush, William E. Randolph. Synod of Californis—William H. Darden, Anthony C. Junkin, John T. Hopkins, Robert M. Stevenson, James M. Matthews, D. D.; James M. Newell, Alfred H. Croch, Ezra W. Woolsey, A. D. Seward, Prof. John “M. Coyner, W. F. Poor, Wilham H. H. Hamilton, B. F. Butter- field, David Jacks and John K. Law. Synod of Catawba—John A. Savage. D. J. Sanders, D. D., James A. Wright, Charles H. Caldwell and J.’ Monroe Carter. Synod of Colorado—Frederick R. Wotring, John Ferguson, Thomas ©. Kirkwood, D. D., Thomas H. Stockton and George H. Sanford. Synod of Illinois—John M. Robinson, John W. Pugh, D.D., George W. Bainum. D.D.. Frank Y. Hamilton, Augustus T. Stone, M.D., H. M. Wagner, James H. Malcolm, David Clark, Archibaid J. Smith, William O. Wilson, William C. Magner, Charles M. Taylor, George’ Ruther- ford, James W. Skinner, William L. Mitchell, Edwin J. Rice, James H. Wilson, David J.Strain and Albert Walker. Synod of india—James J. Lucas, D. D., and Galen W. Seiler. Syned of Indiana—James Williamson. J. Frantz Myers, John M. Boggs, F. W. Antrup, E. P. Walion, D.D., Albert N. Covert, 5. Aikman, William 0. Lattimore, John B.Fowler, Joseph H. Barnard, D.D., Smith W. Story and Henry G. Pollock. Synod of Indian Territory—Arthur F. Cham- Fife, William berlain, Samuel R. Keam, B. Robe and David C. Thompson. ‘Synod of Iowa—William J. Bollman, Ph. D., John S. Stanley, Thos. D. Ewing, D.D., Robert A, Wills, Edward Dickinson, # i. Woodbury, Hubert 'G. Herring, Walter Waugh, Linn, Evert G. Beyer, Charles E.’ Merriam, George C. Lamb, Andrew @. Riley, M. D., Wil- lis G. Craig. D. D., William Fulton, Join F. Henderson, William M. Robinson, Thaddeus}S. Snell, William M. Evans, George H. Cummings, George Graham and Robert Cowan. Synod of Kansas—S. M. Davis, D. D., Louis H. Shane, William N. McHarg, A. Forbes Irwin, Samuel C. Kerr, John N. McClung, Theodore Bracken, Frank E. Thompson, John W. Bailey, D. D., Washington C. Long, William G. Patuen, H. W. Partch, Cornelius W. McNeil, J. E. Jewell, M. D., Elam Bartholomew, H. W. Garrett and Spencer P. Barrett. Synod of Kentucky “John & Heys, D. D., Donald McDonald, W. C. Young, D. D., LL. D., James A. Curry, John M. Armstrong and R.’M. Alexander, M.D. Synod of Mic! i—Geo. H. Wallace, Wm. Law, Chas. B. Hooker, Thos. W. Monteith, Harry 8. Jordan, Wm. H. Babbitt, John Red- ath, Enooh K, Robinson and Prof. Joseph W. ‘wing. Synod of Minnesota—Wm. B. Greenshields, Jacob E. Conrad, Henry C* Cheadle, James 8. Black, William R. Reynolds, Alfred C. Pettitt, Alien Bell, D.D., Ernest C. ‘Brown, Donald Me- Donaid, Wm. P. Jewett and R. B. Skinner. Synod of Missouri—Jobn C. Taylor, Rollin R Marquis, James E. Leyda, Chas. P.’ Blayney, Geo. Miller, D. D., 8. L.’ McAfee, James H. Brookes, D. D., 8.’ J. Niccolis, D.D.. LL. D., Thos. C. Ogburn. Geo. W. Cummings, Milo E. Stearns, John D. Abbey, S. A. Meridith, Logan Maxwell, Oliver P. Torrance, Gen. E. Anson Moore, Selden P. Spencer and J. W. Masse; of Nebraska—Wm. A. Pollock, Edward Ye Synod L. Dodder, W. W. Harsha, D.D., LL.D., John Kerr, D.D., Berk, John C. Sloan, David Jobn Bell and Clarence A. Starr. Synod of New Jersey—R. H. Nassau, D. D., Charies Everett, William C. Alexander, A. Nel zon Hollifield, D. D., John T. Duffield, D. D., John Dixon,’ D. D.,’Thomas S. Long, ‘William Thomson, William J. Bridges, Alfred J. Snyder, David C. Lewis, Daniel Cook, Charles H. Jones, Edward T. Green, William M. Lanning, George W. Mount, John D. Simmons, Joseph Garrison, Thomas W. Synnott and Morris H. Stratton. Synod of Mexico—Calvin R. Nugent, Joseph J. Gilchrist and Robert Harvey. ‘Synod of New York—Samuel R. Biggar, John J. Henning, John Van C. Nellis, Ph. D., Robert Court, D. D., Louis R. Foote, Richard D. Mc- Carthy, George LeFevre, H. W. Congdon,Slator C. Hepburn, Rockwood MacQuesten, Christian A. Berger (2), Adrian V. S. Wallace, Robert H. Carson, Charles 8. Ricbardson, Robert L. Bach- man, Thornton M. Niven, Frederick Carr, Henry C. Knight, Oliver 0.’ Jones, Walker M. Aikman, James M. Ham, Dwight B. Hitchcock. Samuel T. Howard, Alsop 8. Corwin, Perey B. Bromfield, David McNair, William S. ‘McKenzie, Gilbert B. Manley, Donald McClellan (2) and Timothy Parker. Synod of North Dakota—John B. Hobart, Jas. S. Boyd, Robert J. Cresswell, Wm. H. Bratton and E. Hugh McDonald. Synod of Ohio—Jos. E. Andrews, Hugh W. Guthrie, D. D., John P. Scott, D. D., Wm. H. Roberts, D. D., LL. D., Peter Robertson, Geo. H. Fullerton, D. D., Wm. F. McCauley, Wm. T. Hart, David F. Dickson, Welling E. Thomas, D. 8. Tappan, D. D., Howard N. Campbell. Samuel Patterson, D: D., Homer Sheoley, Albert W. Knowlton, Thos. 8. Hi i A. Wilber, John Henderson, Thomas Me- Dougall, Wm. A. Eudaly, Thos. J. Duncan, Edward’ P. Noyes, Wm. T. Bell, Milton Clark, Jas. M. Stokes, Jas. Park. Isaac Cusac, Geo. N. Gray, Jchn W. Laughlin, John W. Adams, Jchn R. Donaldson, Isaac Buchanan and Jas. L. Moore. Synod of Oregon—Jas. V. Milligan, Wm. A. , Moses Minthorn and W. H. West. nod of Pennsylvania—Gilbert M. Potter, David M. Miller, William E. Oller. Oliver B. Mc- Curdy, Samuel. Alexander. Henry A. MeKub- bin, Prof. Jonn B. Rendall, Hugh F. Earseman, Waiter L. Breckinridge, James P. Irwin, Joseph C. Kelley, Jobn W. Bain, Andrew J. Gregg, Fer- dinand Von Krug, Leonard W. Church, Leigh- ton W. Eckard, D. D., David Harbison, Andrew A. Hersperger, William Lang, Frank Anderson, H. Murray Graydon, Da john A. Mor- rison, M. D., Jesse L. Test (2), Wm. D. Brown, ‘ompton, Geo. M. B Samuel M. Jackson, Eli G. Fitch, John W. lenback, Ethelbert D. Warfield, LL. D., Cyrus L. Pershing, Jas. W. Boul, David J. Waller, jr., Aaron M. Buchanan, Thos. A. Hoyt, D.D., Geo. D. Barker, D. D., Alexander G. McAuley, D.D., Charles A.’ Dickey, D. D., Loyal ¥. Graham, D: n Peacock, D. D., Joseph Beggs, D.'D., T. McClelland, D. D., Cornelius W. Thomas on Stewart, Thomas R.’ Alexander, D. A. Cunningham, D. D., Chauncey T. Edwards, James ¥. Mitchell, D. D., Archibald T. Stewart, Charles C. Shopbell, William C. Lawson, Benja- min D, Williams, Robert H. Hinckley,’ Asahel re id uumwar, Andrew Blair, William Graydon, | M. D., George Stevenson, W. F. Bernstein, Charles B. Adamson, Elmer E. Fulmer. R. Van Eman Jobnso1 Dunn, M. D., Albert W. the facts being admitted by the defendant: that the Judgment was not warranted by the law and evidence; that the judgment is, in fact, az approval of the views embodied in the in- ‘ugural address; that the judgment is vague, Znjust and misleading: that the presbytery was moved by unsworn and improper testimony: that the Judgment is contradictory in form and tte votes on these specifications were taken withont division, resulting in declaration that Sach and every one had been sustained. THE VoTE ON THE MAIN QUESTION. This part of the proceedings baving been of Kev. W. C. Young of Kentucky Skea that the roll be called and the assembly | Finley, Marshail Glover, A. Wylie Smith, James . Marquis, Prof. John R. Groves and’ James ans. nod of South Dakota—Samuel Millette, ward J. Nugent. Abel M. Work, Edwin 8. Lindsey, Ludwig Figge. J. M. Adair, James H. | Kinzer, Chauncey MeAilister, Henry T. Smith | and E th. Synod of Tennessee—Calvin A. Duncan, J. Allin and Frank E. Moore. Synod of Texas—De Costa Dodson, Montgom- ery May, Matthew A. Taylor, M. D., Howard L. Parmele and William Shields. Synod of Utah—James P. Black, Sidney Allen, John Reid, jr., Puilip T. Bohback, Thomas Me- Kee, George W. Wragg and J. M. Coombs. | Hays s vin W. Stewart, D. D., Alexander Adair, Issac Goclared that the greatest works per- Ns. Kellogg, Edwin formed in those parishes there was the and 8. Erwin. most toleration. ‘an of Wisconsin—C. beg oom goa Dr. Duftield of Princeton said there was a Blake, Duncan D. to decide, not Millan, Walter 'P. Winchester, Lowis A. pera pee r NOT SUSTAINED. - Bynod of California—Robert F. Coyle, D. D. Synod of China—William H. Lingle, Virgil F. Partch, Gilbert Reid and James B. Neal, M. D. _ he Siege rer. Synod of Dlinois—JK James G. E. Barber, Herrick Graves and 8. M. Morton, D. D. ‘Synod of Indiana—Lucius P. Chapin, Charles F. Griffin, Charles A. Parsons and Amzi W. Freeman. Bynod of lowa—Joseph B. Little, D. D. Synod of Kansas—William Morrow. Syiod of Michigan—W. 8. Jerome, Frank G. Ellett, Leonidas H. Davis, Charles D. Ellis, John Cameron, Charles Kelsey and Abraham J. Synod of Minnesota—Elgy V. Campbell, Rob- ert A. Carnahan, M. L. P. Hill, D. D., John Wilson, Charles T. Thompson and Francesco V. De Coster. Synod of Nebraska—N. 8. Harding, A. C. Montgomery and James C. Robinson. Synod of New Jersey—J. Garland Hammer, D.D., Kneeland P. Ketcham, D. D.. Vernon B. George R. Garretson, Henry M. Storrs, LL.D., William W. Halloway, jr., D. D., A Frank 8. Bryant, Se. M. Baker, , and John L. Meeker. Synod of New Mexico—H. Milton Shields and R. W. D. Bryan. Synod of New York—Fletcher Barber, | An- drew V. V. Raymond, D.D., Henry Herrick, J. petit Robertson, Eben M. McPherson, Lans- ing Van Schoonhoven, Prof. Horace Briggs, Henry D. Lindsay, Edward P. Sprague, D.D., Jared T. Newman, Albert Livermore, Charles Bodle, James F. Garvin, William S. Carter, Stephen W. Hopkins, Ninian Beall Remick, D.D., Clarence H. Wilson, Jeremiah G. Tuthill, Matthew Gaffney, William H. Kent, Charles H. Lester, Oliver P. Scovell, Cornelius 'S. Stowitts, Charles Z. Snyder, Thomas C. Straus, Frank H Seely. 8. P. Ives, Louis F. Ruf, William R. Tey- lor, D.D., Henry H. Stebbins, D.D., Samuel A. Hayt, D.D.. William F. Skinner, Erwin C. Hull, Levi N. Beebe, L. Mason Clarke, E Dwight Loomis, William R. Adams, John H. Trussell, Henry ‘Parsons, John 8. Penman, Orson W. Sloat and Samuel H. Wilson. Synod of North Dakota—W. Holliday. Synod of Ohio—Vinet L. Taylor, James D. Williamson, Thomas H. Kobr, J. BR. Mitchell. James A. P: McGaw, D. D., and E. J. Forney. ‘Synod of Oregon—Connell Cox, Elbert N. Condit and Joseph P. Galbraith. Synod of Pennsylvania— William H. Swift, C. P. H. Nason, Franklin L. Sheppard, John Meigs, Ph. D., and Edward Haymaker. Synod of Texas— William Bloys. Synod of Warhington—Samuel H. King and William H. Cornett. Synod of Wisconsin—Archibald Durrie, Al- bert V. Gulick and John E. Chapin. ‘The pres- bytery of New York was not allowed to vote. ‘THE VOTE BY SYXops. The vote on the motion to sustain the appeal, by synods, is as follows: The aggregate differs slightly from that announced by the clerk. The votes “To sustain in part” being in effect to sustain the appeal are included in’ the columa with the latter: To sustain. Not to sustain. 8 lPoulnil ewatbeue (ats) un ieapie teil 5 THE THREE-MINUTE SPEECHES. The Debate on the Briggs Case Yesterday Afternoon. MINISTERS AND ELDERS EXPLAIN THEIR SENTI- ‘MENTS—QUITE A NUMBER OF BRIGGS MEN EX- PRESS THEIR VIEWS—THREE SOLID HOURS OF TALKING THAT PRECEDED THE VOTING, (From yesterday's Assembly edition. } The afternoon session was opened promptly with prayer by Rev. Dr. Joseph T. Smith. The calling of the roll was continued and first to respond with a speech Rev. John Berle of Nebraska City spoke, urging that they must stand there for the Bible, the whole Bible and not less than the Bible. Elder A. C. Montgomery of the same pres- bytery spoke of the gravity of the charge, and urged that they consider what they were doing. He believed that they should not give Dr. Briggs the benefit of every doubt. He believed the Bible was more intelligently stuaied and better un- derstood today than ever before. He believed the churches were the better for the study that was given to it. Rev. Dr. J. G. Hammer of Elizabeth presby- tery, New Jersey, said he thought Dr. Briggs had been skating’ on very thin ice. Personally he accepted Dr. Briggs’ disclaimers. He was in favor of liberty under the constitution of the church, and so he would vote. Rev. Vernon B. Carroll of Jersey City said Dr. Briggs’ condemnation would certainly vindicate the orthodoxy of the church, but he feared the ef- fect of a reversal of the judgment of the pres- bytery. He would vote to sustain the — tery, not on theological grounds, but on purely legal grounds. He believed the trial in New York was conducted before a court as fair ond im as this assembly could be. George R. Garretson of Jersey City said that he believed he had as good « certifi- cate of orthodoxy as any one could have. He had been brought up in the Dutch Reformed Church. He & conservative of the con- servatives, yet after listening atter:tively to the arguments he found no inconsistency in voting not to sustain the sppeal. Dr. Briggs, he said, tay there were errors in the original Scriptures, but there may be. He did not believe that thero was any heresy in afirming anything about something they had never seen. | He could not see any error in Dr. Briggs’ teachings regard- ing Martineau, der Geo. M. Baker of Jersey City said the judgment of the lower judicatory was presum- ably correct. The appellant must show that beyond a reasonable doubt that verdict was wrong. Otherwise they should give the benefit of the doubt in favor of sustaining the presvytery. He wae not willing to believe that the Presbyterian Church was so small that it could not contain a man so big as Dr, Henry M. Storrs of Orange, N. J., said that ail his life he had been a close student of the Bible, and should be false to his teachings if he did not believe it absolutely. But it became the more dear to him the more it was studied. He would throw open the doors to study and would have every student find out if possible all about the books of the Bible, find their authors. ‘The more it was studied the more one would become imbued with its truth, and he, for one, did not fear higher criticism. Rey.’ Dr. Wm. W. Holloway of Morris and Orange presbytery said if he could take the word of a Christian Dr. Briggs held the Bible as dear 94 any man in the church. He had not only his evidence, but the evidence of students Dr. Briggs had taught, who had told him that they had never loved the Bible so much as they had since they had come under Dr. Briggs’ teachings. He was not afraid of scholarship. He eaid let them go on. Higher criticism could not hurt the Bible, but would make them love it all the more. Rev. Dr. Hollifield of New Jersey said that if a tree is to be judged by the fruit it bears, he must convict the indugural of Dr. Briggs. Higher criticism is making agnostics and atheists today. The higher critics are neither evangelists nor evangelical. For practical rea- sons, be enid, he would vote to sustain the ap- ‘e must stamp out thishigher criticism or it will stamp us out, and we will have re- ated in our country what has happened in urope.”” This was Dr. Hollifield’s idea of biblical study. Elder John Y. Foster of Newark, spoke of the declaration that if the judgment of the New | York presbytery was permitted to stand it would menace the existence of the Presbyterian Church. He said that never had the church borne such fruits as during the past two years edge. the Bible, the church and the reason. Is the Bible subject to the reason or the reason to tho Bible? Elder Wm. M. Lanning of tho presbytery of New Branswick, N. J., spoke in favor of not fustaining most of the grounds of appeal, but wed that the errors inerraney ehodld be sustained ee Rey. Robert A. Bryant of Newton, N. J., said the question was not the effect these teachings would have upon the young of the church. The quostion was whether Dr. Briggs’ views over- threw any essential features of the Scriptures, not whether the individuals presentagreed with theso views, and in case of doubt this must. be given to the defendant. The case had been tried on its merits by a competent judicatory, and in point of brains and ability the presby- tery of New York need yield to none in the country. Elder John D. Simmons of Newton presby- tery, New Jersey, said the old Bible was good enough for him. Rev. Alfred J. Snyder of the West Jersey Presbytery said he could not accept the acknowledged teachings of Dr. Bri Elder Morris H. Stratton of New Jersey held that the decision of the presbytery con Dr. Briggs’ views within ‘the confnes of the church. Many of the discrepancies noted by Dr. Briggs were unearthed ninety-nine years ‘ago by Thos. Payne in his “Ago of Re and yet the church has lived. Some one all the time been advocating these same views, and the only novelty now was that they should be by a Presbyterian minister. As a result he would be willing to vote to terminate the relations between Dr. Briggs and the church. Rev. H. Milton Shields of Rio Grande pres- bytery,New Mexico,who said he was the young- est member of the ‘assembly and the youngost alumnus of Union Seminary. He said Moses and others had no canon or Scriptures as au- thority yet he found God. He argued vigor- ously to maintain Dr. Briggs’ position. Union Seminary men were preaching the gospel of Christ and were true as a needle to the Presby- terian Church. He urged them not to issue a heresy trial on mere w. R. W. D. Bryan of New Mexico spoke for- cibly and ably against sustaining the appeal. The only question was whether the presbytery erred in its verdict, It was a mistake to say that the church or the Bible was on trial. It was not: the only thing on trial was a man. It was an unfortunate predicament that they must vote to acquit a man and yet at the same time to refute his doctrine. ‘This was not the fault of the assembly. It was the fault of the prosecuting committee in the careless manner they had drawn up the charges. Mr. Bryan spoke in the highest terms of Dr. ory scholar and a Christian, Rev. Joseph J. Gilchrist of Santa Fo, New Mexico, spoke of mud baths. and said he never heard before of muddying up the water in order to get clean baths. He ‘ised Dr. Briggs, and said he had not acted in good faith in not having chauged his utterances in later editions of the inaugural address, Dr Brown protested against the speaker's language as an attack on Dr. Briggs’ character, but as the moderator had not heard the words, the speaker was allowed to proceed. Rev. Dr. A. V. V. Raymond of Albany, N. Y., entered a plea fora Bible that he could trust. False doctrine had never been stamped out by Judicial action. Falsehood was downed by truth not by votes. He believed in the Bible ashe had never done before and only those who had bad doubts about the Bible could realize the importance of this trial. If his sons ever came into the shadow of a doubt as he had done he prayed God there might be a man like Dr. Briggs to lead them out into the light of truth. He spoke earnestly for liberty in thought and study. Rev. J. Lovejoy Robinson of the Binghamp- ton, N. Y., presbytery said he belived the ver- dict of the New York presbytery was just. He did not believe it necessary to hedge the Serip- tures about against the studies of loving and Teverent friends, He was not content with his vote to lay condemnation upon one who was living so near God as Dr. Briggs’ words showed e did. Rev. Dr. John Van ©. Nellis of the Bing- ytery spoke of Dr. Briggs’ teach- isleading and dangerous. Dr. Robert Court of Boston, said they were not in assembly to decide rules for action for other souls, nor to look into the future for Probable effects, but simply to sce that the lenominational ' rules of the Presbyterian Church were maintained. Since Christ and the Apostle Paul had quoted Moses he must believe that Moses had something to do with the book that bears his name. ELDER M'PHERSON, Elder Eben M. McPherson of Boston pres- bytery said the errors which Dr. Briggs as- serted might exist in the Bible were not essen- tial and did not affect the Bible as the infallible rule of faith and practice. He had seen asa Sunday school teacher no injurions effects from Dr. Briggs’ utterances, but he had seen injur- ious effects from the dismal doctrine of fatal- ism taught in their confession. Men changed their minds. In twenty-five years the men who are prosecuting Dr. Briggs may change their minds. Rev. Lansing Van Schombaven of the synod of New York said that they were asked by the prosecuting committee to condemn as a heretic the man who was pre-eminent in the land as a scholar and hand him over to the devil. In searching the Bible as a student he had but fol- lowed in the footsteps of Christ. Christ him- self had said that the truth was in Him more than in tho Seriptnres., A devoted Chriatian had searched the Scriptures and had there found Christ, and for this the assembly was asked to convict him. He must protest against any such decision, Rev. Dr. Edward P. Sprague of Cayuga said he was indebted to Dr. Smith for saying all but those set forth in the fifth ground of appeal were minor and important errors. The onl: question was whether the presbytery bad erred in their verdict. He insisted that 1t had not been proved that the presbytery had erred in its verdict. IN FAVOR OF DR. BRIGOS. Elder Jared T. Newman of Cayuga presby- tery spoke on behalf of an element not hith- erto represented—thowe who had not always been believers. He had found Christ through the reason. It was not Dr. Briggs’ teachings that made skepticism. but the hardness that would shut out all study and liberality. Rev. James T. Garvin, a_missionary in Chile and a gruduate of Union, held that the inerr- ancy of the Scriptures was but a theory, and he for one wonld not limit its sphere of useful- ness by circumscribing it with such a theory. Its value was not limited by the question of errancy or inerrancy. Rev. H. W. Congdon of Genesee, said that the question of inerrancy was largely whether inspired men in writing could have made mis- takes when recording matters of fact. Dr. N. B. Remick of Geneva, said that, be- lieving Dr. Briggs was a worthy disciple of the Master and in love for the church, he would vote not to sustain. Rev. C. H. Wilson of Long Island said that he did not believe a man_had ever been led astray by Dr. Bri His own confidence in the Bible was due to Dr. Briggs more than to any other man. Elder J. G. Tuthill of Long Island said that he would vote against sustaining the appeal on the ground that he believed the verdict of the presbytery was just. Elder O. P. Scovel of Niagara did not believe that the ministry could be bound down by an iron rule, but must have some liberty of thought and action, The appeal should not have been . Straus of North River, N. added a word of testimony in favor of the goo effect resulting from Dr. Briggs’ teachings. Elder 8. B. Ives of North River took for the subject of his three minutes’ talk the verse, ‘Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” Louis F. Ruf of Rochester said that the ques- tion was not one of opinion as to Dr. Briggs’ views, but a question of the law and justice of the appeal. He would vote against sustaining. Dr. Wm. R. Taylor of Rochester, said that the errancy of the Scriptures in unessentials did not in any sense invalidate the Scriptures as}aground of faith and practic. In this twilight region of uncertainty there was room for opinion, study and argument. Dr. H. H. Stebbins of Rochester, said that he had reached conscientious and’ cordial co clusion and that was that the decision of thi presbytery should be affirmed. Five valid Teasons had contributed to this. Dr. Briggs might be extra-confessional, but he was not n fessional. Sami. A. Hayt of St. Lawrence, took the (aay simply that the prosecuting committee d failed to make out a case. FOR TOLERATION AND GENEROSITY. Rev. Chas. 8. Richardson of Utica, |he was for sustaining the appeal. The fifth | charge was so clear to him as to remove all doubt as to the merits of the case, Rev. Robert L. Bachman of Utica, who voted tery. nman, a recent graduate of beso and nowfrom West Chester, argued that riggs had not violated his ordination vows. The men who had studied under Dr. Briggs would arise on masse to assert that he had made the word of God a living trath and power to them. Rev. Thornton M. Niven of West Chester said that a verdict of acquittal would warrant the faculty of Union in all disseminating, the same doctrines that minimize the authority of the Scriptures. ‘When New York bad all been heard from Dr. Craig said that it would be well if the other synods would each select two or three oJ to express their views instead of continuing this seemingly endless discussion. A MOTION TO VOTE SIDE-TRACKED. Elder McDougal moved to proceed at once to a vote, waiving all farther speaking, but the motion was side-tracked and never put. Rey. J, E. Andrews of Bellefontaine, Ohio, argued to sustain the appeal on account of the peril that menaces the church. All personal Considerations should be left aside. Dr. Hugh W. Guthrie of Chillicothe, said that he was fully convinced of the righteousness of aes of the scents That, of the Ps was untenable as con- femion and word of God. is Dr. John P. Scott of Cincinnati considered the question not one referring to the character of the accused, but as to the orthodoxy of his views. He was convinced that the inaugural was contrary to the standards of the Presby- terian Church. Elder Thomas McDougall of Cincinnati made asbarp attack upon Dr. Briggs for his views as to the authorship of. the Book of Isaiah. Dr. by his statements had called into ques- tion the veracity of Christ, who said that Isaiah wrote the book. Dr. Storrs of Orange, N.J., rose tos point of order and called upon’ Mr. McDougall to show quotations to support his| statements, for be was charging Dr. Briggs with blasphomy. A LIVELY SCENE. ‘This gave rise to the liveliest scene yet wit nessed in the assembly. The members came very near to calling the veracity of the speaker into question, and a dozen men were on their feet at the same time. finally restored and Mr. Mo- Dougal rmitted to finish his remarks, which were bitter in the extreme. Dr. Roberts of Cincinnati, stated clerk of the assembly, argued that the presbytery had erred in acquitting Dr. Briggs and that the church in future must, as in the past, limit freedom of thought to non-essential. Elder Wm. A. Eudaly of Cincinnati said that he had come prejndicedand still was prejudiced in favor of the Bible. Ho objected to Dr. Briggs’ believing in the Bible only in accord- ance with his own interpretation. ~ Rev. Peter Robison of the same presby- tery attacked Dr. Briggs’ views as to the au- thorship of the books of the Old Testament that are the subject of discussion. THE TIME EXTENDED. At 5o’clock,the time set for the adjournment,a motion was made and carried extending the time for half an hour. Rev. Jas. D. Williamson of Cleveland, said that many men had entertained the ‘samo views as Dr. Briggs and yet bad not beon charged with heresy. Rev. Thos, H. Kohr of Cleveland said that justice and brotherly love were in favor of the appele. r. Geo. H. Fullerton of Dayton, thought that the most important thing to do was to vote, and he urged that they get to a ballot before all the commissioners had left town. Rev. Wm. F. McCauley of the same presby- tery argued that not to sustain the appeal would be to leave all the questions in the air and undecided. Elder James W. Stokes said that when he went back to Dayton he wanted to know whether he would have a Bible that he could believe with- wut some one to explain what was not essential. on ‘He would, for that reason, vote to sustain. Rev. J. R: Mitchell of Lima, said that the presbytery of New York had spent a month in considering the case while assembly had only given it two days before going tos roll call, The chances were that the presbytery had not erred. Dr. James A. P. MoGaw of Maumee, said that he would vote not to sustain because he thought the prosbytery had committed no error. © WILL ore To susrarx. Dr. D. 8. Tappan of Portsmouth will vote to sustain because he did not think Dr. Briggs could preach the doctrines contained in the inangural and keep his place in the church. Elder John A. Donaldson of Steubenville will also sustain tne appeal, because he docs not think Dr. Briggs’ explanations are satisfactory. Rev. P. W. Knowlton of Wooster, said that he most sincerely believed that a victory for the higher critics would be hailed as a victory by all who seek to disprove the divinity and authenticity of the Scriptures, Elder Jaa. L. Moore of Zanesville will vote to sustain because of the princivies that under- lie the question at issue. Rev. £. N. Condit of Willamette, Ore., said that he could sce no such mistake in the action of presbytery as to warrant the sustaining of the appeal. At this point in the pee an_adjourn- ment was taken until 7:45 p.m., and the session was closed with prayer by Dr. Graham. —-2- —___ Suppose Dr. Briggs is Right. From the Philadelphia Press. It may be necessary for » church to part company with its leading scholars, to close its pulpits to their preaching and to expel them ly | from its theological seminaries. The decision is one which no secular journal is called upon to Judge. But such a decision, at the present time ‘and in the present posture of religious thought, criticism and discussion cannot fail to chal lenge the attention of thinking meu. A majority of the general assembly is fully competent, legally and morally, to decide what the Preaby- terian Church believes; but this majority is wholly unable to decide what is the truth about the Bible and ite interpretation or inspiration. tter the opinion of scholars out- weighs mere numerical majorities, and when the majority chooses to array iteelf against the very men who are giving their lives to these studies, the risk is great that the majority will d by putting Presbyterianism on one sid and scholarship on the other. In such acon- test scholars like Dr. may suffer, but scholarship will win. Majorities are | weak against it. ‘Dr. Briggs may be wrong—in which case he will be forgotten, whether acquitted or held a heretic. But suppose he proves right and the Presbyterian Church hained to angassertion in regard to inspiration and the “inerrancy” of the original ie phs which other churches, both Roman and Reformed, have wisely avoided, how eerious will be the consequences to the de- nomination, to thinking and studious laymen and to ministers of ‘obolarship and research? Scientific Work Recognized. From the Philadelphia Press. President Cleveland in appointing Dr. George M. Sternberg surgeon general of the army has made the first appointment in many years to the head of this staff corps which recognized scientific work. The selection has usually been by seniority, though strong efforts have been made to securo the appointment of Dr. John 8. Billings, a man thoroughly fitted for the ost. He is about a dozen numbers below rr. Sternberg and Dr. Sternberg i# about the same distance from the head of the corps. Dr. Sternberg is an accomplished bacteriologist and has for neariy fifteen years been making important discoveries. and __ re- searches, It has aiwaye been questioned by military men whether the administrative work of the surgeon general’s office would be best done by a scientific man, and always urged by doctors that this post ought to be given to ability rather than torank. If Dr. Stern- berg is successful, his appointment will con- stitutea useful precedent, and it is in any case a recognition of high attainmenty, ———_+eo— Villiers, the Correspondent, in Trouble. Frederick Villiers of London, the famous cor- | respondent, was arrested on Midway Plaisance, at the world’s fair, Tuesday for carrying a camera without a permit from, the person Known as the oficial photographer. “MP Vil- liers was immediately released, as is everybody else arrested by the Columbian guard, but he | was highly indignant and said he did not think it was treatment due a correspondent who was taking pictures solely for publication. He pro- poses to make a test case of it. ees During the cyclone which has been raging in the Bay of Bengal the ship Germania was wrecked and sixty-four men who were on board the vessel lost their lives. DIVIDING THE DIOCESE. Probability of the Baltimore Convention Petitioning for It. BISHOP PARET DECLARES THAT IT WILL BE- COME NECESSARY—HOW THE MARYLAND DIO" CESE HAS GROWN—THE MOVEMENT FOR & CATHEDRAL. Special Correspondence of The Evening Star. Barrons, Mp., June 1, 1898. It is more than likely that the Protestant Episcopal diocese of Maryland, which embraces the District of Columbia and Maryland, with the exception of the eastern shore counties, will petition the general convention when it meets in Minneapolis in October of 1895 for a division of its territory. The Maryland diocese is a large one, as dioceses go, containing over 30,000 communicants, and is perhaps the only one in the country containing two such large cities as Washington and Baltimore. Bishop Paret, in his annual message to the diocesan convention yesterday morning, recommended such a division, provided it was equitably made so far as territory is concerned, and that suffi- cient provision is made for the support of the two bishops. ‘This was Bishop Paret's first official utter- ance on this matter and it took a great many of those present at the convention by surprise. It is looked upon by many as an evidence that the prospects for the erection of a grand cathe- dral in the national capital are assured. Bishop Paret says that he is not ready to talk about the cathedral project as yet and that matters with reference to it stand just where they were some months ago. The project, however, is looked upon with the greatest favor throughout the diocese, and with hardly an exception the clergy are ‘willing to give it their support. In connection with the bishop's suggestion for the division of the diocese the sermon of Rev. Clarence Buel,archdeacon of Cumberland, is looked upon as being rather significant. Arch- deacon Buel's sermon was on “‘The Ca os the Integral Unit of the Church in the Vine Expression of its Completeness.” ‘God be thanked,” he said, “that our chief pastor in this diocese has been moved to bring the sub- forward in the most convincing terma, y He give to the project thus happily in- tes fleets | such complete success as I! find ite result ina noble Christian temple not un- worthy of His acceptance for whose glory it shall be reared and for whose worship it shall be amply provided. May it be worthy, too, of an honorable place among all the noble build- ings in the beautiful city of which it may prove the crowning monument of grace.” He alluded to the special needs of the cathe- dral, the objections that might be made against it and the great advantages it would be to the diocese, “Had cathedrals come with the first planting of the church in this country,”he con- tinued, “they would probably have brought in with them some of ite abuses which, though not inherent in the system, had yet grown out like excrescences and which it has been the aim of recent efforts to remove. While the contrary system of absolute parocRial thde- pendence has certainly discouraged unity of action andled to the waste of power, ithasalsoled to a deeper feeling of existing deficiencies and toaclearer perception of the means by which they can be remedied. “Having in view the whole working of the system, both as it was manifested in the ancient church and alto as it appears in the English es- tablishment, we are quite free to take up and modify and adopt the cathedral so as to make it serve in the mos judicial way the great needs of the church in our own land. And just here I take itis the great secret of the ‘cordial approval with which the project for a cal in this important diocese has been generally received. ‘That is to say, it is not to be an English cathedral, with all its insular tra ditions transported to our soil, but it is to be a grand exponent of the catholicity as adapted to the special demands of our n church.” BISHOP PARET'S RESIDENCE. Should the cathedral be built and the diocese divided Bishop Paret would have the choice of remaining in Baltimore as the head of what would be left of the diocese of Maryland, or of Geing to the natioual capital. With a eathedral jaahington would undoubtedly be the more desirable of the two places, but that would be no indication that Bishop Paret would choose it. He would be just as likely to remain in Baltimore, Should the division take place Washington and Baltimore would be the names of the two dioceses. Ashe said in his address yesterday, Bishop Paret has heretofore been ‘opposed to a division of the diocese of land. | The matter was suggested to him shortly after his consecration and he would not con- sider it for a moment. Under his vigorous ad- ministration, however, the number of commu- nicante bave increased to moré than 30,000, few work has been taken up throughout’ the District and in fact his labors are now twice as heavy as they were when he took charge. At the convention in the Church of the Epiphany last year he was compeiled to ask for a private secretary, which was readily given him. VIEWS OF THE BISHOP. “The wonderfal growth of our two great cities,” he said, in speaking of the matter, “will make division absolutely necessary in a short while. Shall we until the absolute neces- sity comes upon us; until the work suffers be- cause too great for one man to bear, or shall we by wise forethought go before the ‘absolute necessity and provide for it before it comes? I do not think for Maryland alone. I remember that in the city of Washington God has given us national opportunities and national responsi- bilities. Powers of all kinds ure centering there, and the church should be strongly repre- sented there. It was the rule of the church in the best and earliest days that every strong city should have its bishop, and if there is a city in our land where more ‘than in others that rule should be followed it is in Washington. Other religious bodies have already taken bold steps to take possession. “We should notallowany love for the dignity of our own strength nor any loving sentiment for the diocese as it isto stand in the way of the church's real progress. I believe that the time has come when it is oursacred duty to take this grand forward step. By the laws of the church the consent of the bishop is necessary for a division. Dearly as I love every part of the diocese, every parish in it, and painful as it would be for me to give any of them up, Yet if, the convention should approve the act I would’give consent. But I would require two things—such fair division of territory and work as would equalize the two burdens, and such honorable provision for the support of the two bishops as should forbid their becom- ing by serious annual taxation a burden on the parishes and people. THE GENERAL CONVENTION. “Tread of noble deeds and noble gifts, of grand endowments for universities and hos- Pitals, Surely there are men who can love Christ's church as well as men love merely human institutions, And to accomplish a result so important to the church as I believe there are hearts and hands ready to act. But, Desides the will of the convention and the con- sent of the bishop, the approval of the general convention is needed. That body does not hold ite regular session until 1895. We have time to consider the matter fairly. We ought to be ready to give our own decision at our conven- tion of 1894. I suggest that the subject of the division be referred to a special committee, who shall report both upon the advisability of the division and upon the lines and conditions which should be observed if the division be approved.” . A committee, consisting of Rev. Arthur Chil- ton Powell, Key. Dr. G. R. Stewart, Rev. Dr. J. 8. B. Hodges, Rev. A. C. Haverstick, Messrs, H. E. Pellew, Bernard Carter and Lloyd Lowndes, was appointed to take the whole matter into consideration. THE STAXDING COMMITTEE QUESTION. Alively debate on the standing committee question will come up before the election of the committee at noon today. Last year an effort was made to provide for the election of Inymen on the committee and thus put the Maryland diocese in line with the vast majority of dioceses throughout the United States. Much opposition was developed and the matter was finally referred to a committee with in- structions to repori this year. The committee Presented two reports yesterday, one from the majority represented by Dr. Southgate, oppos- ing the laymen, and another from the minority, favoring lay members on the committee and represented by Mr. C. N, Matthews of Wash- ington. The discussion of these reports was made the order of the day for today. An amendment to that part of the constitution relating to the election of bishops was offered by Dr. Hall Harrison. It was referred to a committee, which was ordered to report next year. Dr. Harrison's amendment provides that the clergy and laity shall sit and vote concur- rently, and that a simple majority of those en- titled to vote in each house be sufiicient to elect. As the lnw now stands it requires a two-thirds majority in each house to elect, This, Dr. Harrison claims, enables a minority of one-third and one to prevent the majority making its choice and can defeat elections. LAST NIGHT'S SESSION, Last night's session was devoted to the dis- committee, Archdeacon Gambrall chairman, as ‘ission to the SSE in eit Seats in the diocese. At the suggestion of Paret this was increased to @14,000. The total amount appropriated to beneficiaries di the year was $3,500, in sums from $200 to The fand for this purpose received a donation of 2500 and amounted to $6,118. There is now ‘a balance of 2,614. In general mission work $5,000 has becn spent, including $3,500 for a eburch at Brunswick, Md. The colored work is being earnestly prosecuted. The bishop's Denny fand is und for thin purpose, and $5,600 brads pre to it. total appropria- nay, ell purpuses during the year was saeaipinsiaties GEORGE DAHLE’S SUICIDE. Some of the ‘Circumstances Preceding the Commission of the Act. Yesterday afternoon Coroner Patterson viewed the body of George Dable, the grocer and saloon keeper at North Capitol and P streets, who committed suicide by shooting ‘hhimself in the head in an unfinished house in Eckington, as published in yesterday's Star, and gave a certificate of death from suicide, The suicide had been missing from his home since Sunday night, and his father, wife and North Capitol and P streets over to him about two years ago and went to Prince George's county, near Oxon Hill, to reside, ‘The son was married about that time and lived with his wife and child over the store. 11 o'clock his sister and she asked Fa taking Several weeks ago while out driving Mr. horse ran away and threw him to the At that time he sustained a E wement. severe it to his head, from the effects of which, it is | he never fully reco His funeral will take piace tomorrow. NEWS FROM ROCKVILLE. Items of Interest From This Progressive Maryland City. Correspondence of The Evening Star. Rockvi.rz, Mp., May 81, 1893. Edward Lewis, a colored man in the employ of Mr. Joseph N. Bailey. wood and coal desler at this place, suddenly dropped dead evening about 5 o'clock. During he was in his usual good health been engaged in driving a cart. In ing, while at the brick yard of Mr. about half a mile from town, and while on the cart, which he had just loaded, he denly fell over and died almost instantly. was about sixty years of age, was sober and dustrious, and had previously enjoyed health. His remains were removed to the dertaking establishment of W. R. Pum) where they were afterward viewed by numbev of people. It is thought that from a stroke of apoplexy. alt, Charles J. Corrick, has sold ura M. ‘ashington a dwelling and two building lots in Janetta, the eastern section of this town, for the $3,000. Mr. Corrick has also’ bought of Hammond of Fairfax county, Va. lots 27, blocke6, in Rockville Park, for which id $400. He is now making arrangements for the immediate construction of a handsome dweliing on the premises. Charles M. Butler, at one time one of the best known residents of the county, died last week at the residence of his son in Virginia in the ninetieth year of his age. At the breaking out of the Into war he his home in this gfe iigee i FG ' ge FEE boi HTH The clerk of the circuit court has issued mat riage Hcenses to the following : Jas. Coed and Annie ‘ML. Brown, George W. Mur- dock and Annie L. Norris. It in currently reported here that Mr. Hoke Smith, Secretary of the Interior, has engaged as very flattering. the straw is almost unprecedented in this The prospects for a heavy tering at present. ——— THE PRESIDENTS FISRING TRIP. seemed to be enjoying the southwesterly breeze which was blowing freely. He was the first to leave the steamer, but was closely followed by Mr. L. Clarke Davis and Dr. Bryant. Upon their arrival at the club house the Pres- ident was informed that he would occupy the same rooms on the first floor he occupied last The other gentlemon were located on the second floor. The President did not seem to beat all fatigued by his journey, and when breakfast was announced at 9:30 he was the first person to respond and ate heartily. Shortly after breakfast the upon the th of the clab house attired in their sporting costumes ready for a fishing ex- petition. The President, accompanied by Mr. vis, and with Tom Doughty as guide, were the first to make a start for the fishing grounds, reaching them about 11:30. The party could not have wished fora more favorable day for their sport, and took advantage of the oppor- tunity by ‘remaining until 7:50 p. m.. Siar cece Snes bas ae eens oe spots, ty were jue fish an: “f "frout. The President was, iors hog fish and trout. nt and said weather i than pleased with his first day's sport he would Uy i agin tly Boe continued favorable. en A Washington Man Honored. Mr. Robert Payne Bigelow of this city, who isastudent at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, has been appointed to the depart- ment of biology at the Institute of Technology in Boston, Mr. Bigelow has been the holder of the Adam T. Bruce fellowship during the present academic year. This f stowed by the appointing board upon the can- didate whom they consider most likely to pro- mote biological science, and especially animal morphology by original research. Mr. Bigelow was a university scholar in 1889-90, fellow in 1890-91, and holder of the Bruce i also in 1891-92. He isa B. S. of Harvard, 1887. Pesan "asco Quick W. be The dispatch announcing that Isinglass had won the derby race reached the United Press office in New York city before the third horse had passed the finishi The dispatch came’ by tho Western Unive Compeny’s able and was received at 22 minutes and 45 seconds past 10 o'clock. +00 ‘To the a Freight Car. A Inrge freight car is being fitted up at Bordentown, N. J., for twelve young men who propose spending two weeky at the Columbian exposition. The car will contain sleeping banks, a cooking range and a well- stocked larder,” It will be attached to fast freight trains. ‘The estimated cost of the round trip is only $10 a head. — $40,000 Fire at Baltimoro. The copper factory of Engel, Kirschner & Regner, 1609 and 1611 Thames street, Balt- more, was damaged $40,000 by fire yesterday morning; insured. ai aeons Endiny Did Labor Trouble. It is stated that an amicable agreement has been reached in the difficulty existing for nearly four years between Liggett & Myers, tobacco manufacturers, and the Knights of Labor at St. Louis, The particulars of the treaty have not been given out, but it is stated they are mutually satisfactory and that the knights will order the boycott lifted from the company’s product, ss Acquitted of Killing a Brother Editor. The trial of E. M. Tate, editor of the Hopkins county (Texas) Echo, for the killing of E. 8. Moore, editor of the Alliance Vindicator, at Sulphur Springs, in September, 1891, made famous by the prominence of the parties and the political phases that entered it, has been coneluded and a verdict of acquittal rendered after the jury was out only seven minutes, against the location of the contagious Cisease hospital on square 1112 He argued ‘that the Commissioners compelled applicants for liquor licenses to obtain the signatures of neighboring property owners before a license Was issued, for the reason that saloons were @ —— es THE NICARAGUAN PROTECTORATE. Senor Ortiz Says That Treaty Obligations Would Net Allow Such a Thing. any foreign power. Moreover,” said he, “che Nicaraguan people are 60 of their in- ! { f ed ie = 8 i ae FI E rf ie ! a il i: i i i i ! i i ¢ et g BE i i L | | t 3. ii Z £ tk i Hi [ 1 cE tl Ss # | 5 i if 8s g § i it i fs i RSA é i j j i vd Bs & F as follows: Lincoln Gerhardt, assignor of one- half to F. Hume, oar lock. Charles F. Randall, to Lowell Machine Shop, tmecbeniom for ring-epinuing frames. Robert 8. Avery, —_— for font of printing type. Nathan Fairfax Court House, assignor of three-eighths to 8. J. Meeks and A. 8. Johu- son, Washington, D. C., match safe. poaemnantsetandasnae He Salled for Bering Sea. ‘The Mohican and Ranger have sailed from Port Townsend for Bering sea, thus ecmpleting the United States flect in those waters. Mr. Brooks of Chicago, recently appointed consul at Trieste, Austria, received his final in- structions from Secretary Gresham and will start for his post at once. — A Melter of the Denver Mint. ‘Walter Alien bas been appointed melter of the mint at Denver, Col. ————— To Count the Treasury Cash. United States Treasurer H. N. Morgan as sumed control of his new office today. Yestere day he had an extended interview with Secretary Carlisle and spent the remainder of the day with Treasurer Nebeker. Today the committee, consisting of Mesers E. B. Darkam, A. T. Hant- ii and Charles H. Noble, appointed tyr the Boerciary, te const’ Got cu account of the treasurer's office will begin their work. This count 1s a laborious one and will take about two months to complete it. All the notes are counted separately, but the coin is ighed. Should there bea lack of weight im any of the bags in which the coin is kept that bag is placed to one side and each piece in it is counted separately. ‘There has never thus far been eny discrepancy found im the treasurer's statement SS Heavy Damages Asked for Assault. A special from Canton, Ohio, says: Gen, L RB. Sherwood, editor of the News-Dem= oerat and an ex-Congressman, has brought suit against J. J. Clark, a prominent G. A. R. man, for $25,000 damages, The suit grows out of an assault made on the general on May 19. The petition alleges that Sherwood was strack in the back of the head and perma- nently injured. The trouble grew out of art- icles which appeared in the general's paper, criticising Mrs. Clark, who was a mato! member of the Woman's Helief Corps. Gen. Sherwood was to have delivered the alernorial day address at Rhinebeck, but ts unable to leave the bed. 16,000 Physicians bndorse ~ Piatt Chlorides as the proper