J 
 
 v». 
 
 iSii 
 
 L ^^Jmii\\ 
 
 r^/ ■, \ 
 
 ^^^^^ > '/ -• - Mr 
 
 
 '*'• 
 
Digitized by tine Internet Arcliive 
 
 in 2010 witli funding from 
 
 CARLI: Consortium of Academic and Researcli Libraries in Illinois 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/presentmentofrevOOwalk 
 
PRE SENTMENT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Kev. WILLIAM F. WALKER, 
 
 HIS ANSWER, 
 
 AND 
 
 THE VERDICT OF THE COURT. 
 
 5Prteat« Smprcggbiu* 
 
 CHICAGO: 
 
 GEER & WILSON, Book axd Job Printers ; 
 
 Daily Journal's Printing Establishment : 
 
 MDCCCXLVI. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 THsfiictof a clergyman having been presented and tried is commonly received as 
 prima facie evidence against him. A knowledge of the facts in tlie case can alone cor- 
 rect or modify such unfavorable impression. In this belief, the following Presentment, 
 Answer and Verdict are now printed for such as may receive ihcm. 
 
 It is not the intention here to furnish a history, but an explanation. This, it l8 
 thought, will suffice to prevent some harslincss of judgment in a case that has been 
 widely reported ; and save froBsi utter condemnation one who has not the heart to nar- 
 rate in detail a history. wliich,'it is believed, would, beyond a peradventure, elTectually 
 and forever vindicate him from reproach, because on ex parte statements alone, without 
 a notice to the accused, and contrary to tlie Canon, three presbyters and two 
 laymen of the Diocese of Illinois, who were known to be " not with" him, four 
 of whom were, on very distinct grounds, esteemed partial in themselves, and had 
 previously comjdained of him, one of whom had solicited of the Bishop a pros- 
 ecution of him, and, at the same time, with others, had given a pledge for the costs at- 
 tending the same, should it be granted, by appointment of the Bishop, presented him; 
 and because tiie Bishop, who could appoint such a committee of investigation, employ 
 counsel to prosecute the accused, declare him criminal, and, at the same time, wish to 
 eit as a Judge to try him, and finally appear as a witness to sustain charges which him- 
 self had caused to be preferred, entertained such presentment. 
 
 The desire is to submit to some friends of the Church what rresenters alleged of the 
 accused ; what there was really in their charges, and what they would have found to have 
 formed their substance had they " examined the case" impartially ; and what the Court 
 adjudged upon the same. Tliree authentic, un(niestioned papers— the I'resentmeut, An- 
 swer, and Verdict of the Court— with those to which they refer, and which, therefore 
 form a part of them, contain sufficient for tliis end. To do more, to narrate in full de- 
 tails preliminary to and connected with the presentment and trial, would harrass anew 
 one's feelings to such an extent as to render the attempt inexpedient, at least for the 
 present; though a perfect record of all has been carefully preserved. May the follow- 
 ing avert a measure of the disgrace and ruin which have been attempted! May tlic 
 Spirit of God speedily brood over all passions that have been tumultuous, heal all di- 
 visions, and subdue all, of every order, in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, 
 to unity, love and i)cace. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Canons under wliich the Presentment tliat follows claims to 
 liave been f^und and tried. 
 
 Of Offences for which Ministers shall he tried and punished. 
 Section 1. Every Minister sliall be liable to j)resentment and trial, 
 for any crime or gross immorality, for disorderly conduct, for drunken- 
 ncsijl^for profane swearing, for frequenting places most liable to be abused 
 to licentiousness, and for" violation of the Constitution or Canons of this 
 Church, or of the Diocese to which he belongs ; and, on being found 
 guilty, he shall be admonished, suspended, or degraded, according to the 
 Canons of the Diocese in which the trial takes place, until otherwise pro- 
 vided for by the General Convention. 
 
 Section 2. If any Minister of this Church shall be accused, by pub- 
 lic nnnor, of discontinuing all exercise of the ministerial office without 
 lawful cause, or of living in the habitual disuse of public worship, or of the 
 Holy Eucharist, according to the offices of this Church, or of being guilty 
 of scandalous, disorderly, or immoral conduct, or of violating the Canons, 
 or prcacliing or inculcating heretical doctrine, it shidl Ije the duty of the 
 Bishop, or if there be no Bishop, the clerical members of the Standing 
 Committee, to see that an inquiry be instituted as to the truth of such 
 public nmior. And in case of the individual being proceeded against and 
 convicted, according to such ride or process as may be provided by the 
 Conventions of the respective Dioceses, he shall be admonished, suspend- 
 ed, or degraded, as the nature of the case may require, in conformity 
 vrith their respective Constitutions and Canons. — Canon XXXVII. of the 
 Geneial Convention. 
 
 Of the Trial of a Clergyman, not being a Bishop. 
 
 AVhenever any minister of this Diocese, not being a Bishop thereof, 
 shall become "liable to presentment and trial," under the provisions of 
 any Canon of the General or Diocesan Convention, the mode of proceed- 
 ing in this Diocese shall be as follows, viz : 
 
 Sect. 1. Whenever the Bishop shall have reason to believe, on 
 information given by a major part in number of the Vestry of any 
 Church of which the 'accused is a minister — or by any three Presbyters 
 of this Diocese entitled to seats in the Convention — or from public rumor, 
 as contemplated by section 2, Canon 37, of the General Convention,* that 
 
 • Information was not given to the I'.ishop in tlic case now submitted in eitlier of the 
 first two modes pointed out by the Canon ; that is, either " by a major part," or any part 
 " of tlic Vestry of the Church of whicli tlie accused" was and " is" now '• minister ;" or 
 "by any three Presbyters of this Diocese entitled to seats in the Convention." A let- 
 ter of misrepresentation was addressed to him by eight laymen— four of them uncon- 
 nected with the Church, three of them not regular attendants on her services, two only 
 of them communicants — who, under the inliuence of a single master spirit among them, 
 — a communicant, — whose motto seems ever to have been, "rule or ruin,'' in whoso 
 way, iu effecting the diversion of certain monies raised for a specific object coiniected 
 
any clergyman is under the imputation of liaving been pruilty of any of- 
 fence or misconduct, for which he is liable to be tried, and that the inter- 
 est of the Church rcf[uires an investigation, it shall be his duty to appoint 
 five persons, of whom three at least shall be presbyters, to examine the 
 case ;* a majority of whom may make such examination ; and if there is 
 in their opinion suflicient ground for presentment, shall present the cler- 
 gj'man accordingly. 
 
 Sect. 2. A presentment being made, in the mode above pre- 
 scribed, the Bishoj) shall cause a copy of it to be served on the accused ; 
 and shall also nominate eight presbyters of this Diocese, entitled to seats 
 in the Convention, and not being parties in the presentment, and cause 
 a list of their naxnes to be served on the accused, who shall, •within thirty 
 days after such service, select five of them and notify their names in wri- 
 ting to the Bishop; and if he shall not give such notification to the Bishop 
 
 with the Church to another interest, he had suiiposed the accused to have stood, whose 
 hostility was thereby provoked, and who. in coiiso<iviPiice. liad resolved on causing the 
 eeparation of the accused fi-om Trinity Cliurch, (this was the ultima Thnle of the 0))p06i- 
 tion,) — had come to act together for the same object: that letter, asking that the ac- 
 cused might be tried, and giving a pledge for tlie costs attending the prosecutitm, sta- 
 tedj*' we propose to prefer other charges against him." 
 
 Whether on such information the Bishop, without calling on tie accused for an ex- 
 plauaUoB, and without any notice to liim whatever of what was proposed, had ''reason 
 to believe" that the case of his presbyter should be investigated, — whether such infor- 
 mation is " public rumor, as contemplated by sec. 2, canon 37, of the General Con- 
 vention," is not to be determined here. The Bishop acted in the atfirmative. To que.s- 
 tion his course is not intended; for, in the language of one whose oi'inion is always re- 
 vered himself a Bishop, — " a Bishoj) I consider, is the triend and brother of his clergy, 
 and always acts towards them as innocent until they are proved to be guilty." 
 
 * This did not the " five persons" in the case now .submitt^. They sat as " a commit- 
 tee to get up charges." They did not what an impartial Bishop has said they " ought 
 most unquestionaoly to have done — attbrd the accused opportunity ' to make explana- 
 tions and offer testimony to e.xplain or rebut the charges.'" " How else," asks one, 
 " than by admitting upon their enquiry the statement and evidence of the party con- 
 cerning whom the enquiry was made, could they be said to ' examine the case V Is not 
 the answer of the party himself as much a part of his own ca.>;e as the aflirniation of ru- 
 mor concerning hmi?" Their proceedings — against the spirit and letter of the Canon, 
 and against the sen.se in which it was adopted, and in which it has invariably been act- 
 ed on m the Dioceses of New York, from wlmse codes it was extracted, — and against the 
 rules laid down by our Divine .Master, (.'^t. JIatt. xviii. 1.5 — 17,) which forbid one-sided 
 and partial proceedings in such cases — were fx parte. They neither required nor re- 
 ceived testimony. Rumor had satisfied their Bishop; why should it not have satisfied 
 them? Nor weie they impartial ; for of them the '• master spirit," referred to in the 
 preceding note, '• was a great part," acting among them as informant, ])rosecutor and pre- 
 senter j and three others of them were, to say tlie least, •■ not witli'" the accused, — they, 
 with the former, being at the time complaiiiants of him: — and, in consequence, their 
 " ways" were " not ecjual,'" — they having allowed the opponents of the accused the lib- 
 erty of communicating and being prc-ieut with them, and of giviuf^ in statements at 
 pleasure, of which the accused was debarred ; and which in the civil cases to which it 
 nas been claimed their duties were analogous, would have vitiated their entire ])roceed- 
 ings. " In their opinion," however, — an opinion forn\ed under such circumstances, 
 without " an enquiry as to the ti-utli" of what was alleged, without '• an investigation," 
 without "an examination of the case." — there was •■ sutticient ground (or presentment,"' 
 and they did " present accordingly." Their presentment is, therefore, to be viewed 
 simply as the re-affirmation of rumor: as a return to the Bishop in solemn form — for it 
 i8 really very solemn and imposing, like that after which it almost bears the appearance 
 of having been fashion<-d— of just the information which he gave them at the outlet. He 
 had committed to them the one-sided .story, which had given him prima facie '' leason to 
 believe," &c. : tliey returned to him in the Presentment the same one-sided story, on 
 the same authority on wliich he had at first received it ! Thus they accused, but. thanks 
 to God ! the Court, acciinliiig to truth, found their accu.sations uusustained ; that the 
 charges were false. (Sn Vinllrt.) 
 
 How wholesome would be the rule relative to accusers embodied in one of the Canons 
 of the Council of Constantinople, held in A. D. 3f<l : -They must not advance the 
 charges before thev have agreed in writing to submit to an ecjual penalty, if, u^)ou ex- 
 amination of the matter, thev should be convicted of bringing false charges against the 
 [Presbyter] whom they accuse."— ( Canon \l.) 
 
 But more important is the question. How " far distant is the time when the adminis- 
 tration of ecclesiastical justice shall be regulated by one set of Canons, under the au- 
 thority of the General Convention, securing to the dissatisfied party, in every instance, 
 an appeal to the House of Bishops," or to a Court of Bishops, consisting of three or 
 five, from the decision of each Diocesan tribunal .' 
 
 What has occurred in Chicago, in the last three vears, in the way of Presentmentx, 
 causes one heartily to concur in the hope expressed by a Bishop of our Church, " that 
 the time will come when any man or men who will attempt a public accusation before 
 the rules laid down by our Divine Ma.«ter (St. Matt, xviii. L5— 17) have been coii>r''cd 
 Kith, will l>e considered by the Church as heathen and publicans" 
 
■within the said thirty days, the Bishop shall select five ; and the presby- 
 ters so selected shall ibrin a board for the trial of the accused, and shall 
 meet at such time and place as the Bishop shall direct, and shall have 
 power to adjourn from time to time, and from place to place, (but always 
 within this Diocese,) as they shall think necessary. 
 
 Sect. 3. A written notice of the time and place of their first meet- 
 ing shall be served, at least thirty days before such meeting, on the ac- 
 cused, and also on one of the persons making the presentment. 
 
 Sect. 4. If at the time appointed for the first meeting of the board of 
 presbyters, the whole number of five shall not attend, then those who do 
 attend may adjourn from time to time ; and if, after one adjournment or 
 more, it shall appear to them improbable that the whole number will at^ 
 tend within a reaasonable time, then those who do attend, not being less 
 than three, shall constitute the board, and proceed to the trial, and a ma- 
 jority of them shall decide all questions. 
 
 Sect. 5. If a clergyman presented shall confess the truth of the facts 
 alleged in the presentment, it shall be the duty of the Bishop to proceed 
 to pass sentence ; and if he shall not confess them before the appointment 
 of a board for his trial, as before mentioned, he shall be considered as de- 
 nying them. 
 
 Sect. 6. If a clergyman presented, after havlug had due notice, shall 
 not appeal- before the board of presbyters appointed for his trial, the board 
 may nevertheless proceed as If he were present, unless for good cause they 
 shall see fit to adjourn till another day. 
 
 Sect. 7. When the board proceed to the trial, they shall hear such 
 evidence as shall be producied, which evidence shall be reduced to writing 
 and signed by the witnesses respectively ; and some officer, authorised by 
 law to administer oaths, may, at the desire of either party, be requested to 
 administer an oath or affirmation to the witnesses that they will testify the 
 truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, concerning the facts 
 charged in the presentment. If on or during the ti'Ial, the accused shall 
 confess the truth of the charges stated In the presentment, the board may 
 dispense with hearing further evidence, and may proceed at once to state 
 their opinion to the Bishop as to the sentence that ought to be pronounced. 
 In regulating the admission, and in determining the effect of evidence, the 
 board shall be governed by the practices and principles of courts of law 
 and equity in analogous cases. 
 
 Sect. 8. Upon the application of either party to the Bishop, and it 
 being made satisfactorily to appear to him that any material witness can- 
 not be procured upon the trial, the Bishop may appoint a commissary to 
 take the testimony of such witness. Such commissary may be either a 
 clergyman or a layman, and the party so ajiplylng shall give to the other 
 at least six days' notice of the time and place of taking the testimony ; 
 and if the person on whom the notice shall be served shall reside more 
 than forty miles from the place of examination, an additional day's notice 
 shall be given for every additional twenty miles of the said distance, and 
 both parties may attend and examine the witness, and the questions and 
 answers shall be reduced to writing and signed by the witness, and shall 
 be certified by the commissary, and enclosed under his seal, and trans- 
 mitted to the board, and shall be received by them as evidence. A wit- 
 ness examined before such commissaiy may be sworn or affirmed in man- 
 ner aforesaid. 
 
 Sect. 9. The board having deliberately considered the evidence, 
 shall declare in a writing signed by them, or a majority of them, their de- 
 cision on the charges contained In the presentment, distinctly stating 
 
6 
 
 wbetlier the accused 13 guilty or not guilty of 6uoh charges rc^pectivelt, 
 ami also stating the sentence which in theiropinion should be pronounced ; 
 and a copy of such decision shall be without delay conimunicatt^d to the 
 accused ; and the original decision, together with the evidence, shall be 
 delivered to the Bishop, who shall pronouncc'such canonical sentence ax 
 shall appear to him to be proper, provided the same shall not exceed in 
 severity the sentence recommended by the board ; and such sentence 
 shall be final. Before pronouncing any sentence, the Bishop shall sum- 
 mon the accused, and any three or more of the clergy, to meet him at 
 such time as may in his opinion be most convenient, in some church to be 
 designated by him, which shall for that purpose be open at the time to all 
 persons who may choose to attend, and the sentence shall then and there 
 be publicly pronounced by the Bishop. But the JJishop, if he shall be 
 satisfied that justice requires it, may grant a new trial to the accused ; in 
 which case a new board of presbyters shall be appointed, the proceedings 
 before whom shall be conducted as before mentioned. 
 
 Sect. 10. All notices and papers contemplated in this Canon may bo 
 served by a summoncr or summoners, to be appointed for the purpose by 
 the Bishop, and whose certificate of such service shall be evidence there- 
 of. In case of service by any other person, the fact shall be proved by 
 the affidavit of such person. A written notice or paper delivered to a 
 party, or left at his place of residence, shall be deemed a sufficient service 
 of such notice or paper. And in case there is reason to believe that a 
 minister, against whom any ecclesiastical proceeding has been instituted, 
 has departed from the United States, or that the place of his sojourn can- 
 not be conveniently ascertained, then it shall be suflicient to have a copy 
 of the citation published three times in some newspaper printed at the 
 seat of government of the state in which he last resided, and also three 
 times in some newspaper printed at the scat of government of the state in 
 vrhich he is cited to appear, at least six months before the day of appear- 
 ance. 
 
 Sect. 11. The defendant may have the privilege of ajipearing by 
 counsel ; in the case of the exercise of which privilege, and not other- 
 wise, those who present shall have also the like privilege. 
 
 Sect. 12. The necessary expenses incurred in a trial under this 
 Canon shall be reported to the ensuing Diocesan Convention ; and when 
 audited under its direction, shall be paid by the treasurer of the Diocese. 
 
 Sect. 13. Canons XIV. and XV. of 1838 are hereby repealed. — 
 Canon I. o/1815, oflhe Diocese of Illinois, — adopted., with verg slight inodi- 
 Jicalio.n,from the Codes of the Dioceses of Netc York: 
 
 
I. PRESENTMENT. 
 
 To the Right REVERENim Philander Chase, Bishop 
 of the Diocese of IlUnois : 
 
 .The undersigned, Ezra B. Kellogg, Rector of St. James' 
 Church in Chicago, Charles J. Todd, Hector of the Parishes of 
 Christ Church, JoUet, and St. John's Church of Lockport, William 
 Allanson, Rector of St. Paul's Church in Batavia, Sjiitii J. 
 Sherwood, layman of Trinity Churcli in Chicago, and Gurdon 
 S. Hubbard, layman of St. James' Church in Chicago, all in the 
 Diocese of Illinois, do hereby under and by virtue of the authority 
 vested in us by the appointment of the Bishop, made in conformity 
 with the eanon of said Diocese, in such case made and provided, 
 respectfully represent that the Reverend William F. Walker, 
 Rector of Trinity Church in Chicago, in said Diocese\ of Illinois, 
 has been accused of gross immorality and scandalous conduct in the 
 several specifications hereinafter more particularly set forth, contra- 
 ry to the Canons of the Church in such case made and provided, 
 and to the ordination vow of said William F. Walker — 
 
 Article 1st. — The said Board presenting as aforesaid do here- 
 by present and allege, that said Rev. W. F. Walker, at a meeting 
 of the Vestry of Trinity Church, held on the seventh day of April, 
 in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-six, 
 he then being Rector of said Church, did pledge his word, that at 
 the annual election on the ensuing Easter for officers of the Church 
 for the year 1846, he Avould allow no person to vote at said elec- 
 tion that the Vestry or any of them should object to, but that at 
 said annual election the said Rev. AV. F. Walker acted as chairman 
 and judge of the same, and did wilfully, wrongfully, and contrary to 
 his said pledge, so made at the said Vestry meeting, receive the 
 votes of mmibers of persons not entitled to vote, contrary to objec- 
 tions of said Vestry, or some of them, openly made at said election, 
 whereby the said W. F. Walker committed wilful and malicious 
 falsehood, contraiy to his duty as a minister and his consecration 
 vows, and to the scandal and injury of the Church — 
 
 Article 2d. — The said Board do further present and allege 
 that during the connection of said W. F. Walker with Trinity 
 Chiu'chj he, the said Walker, was accustomed to call the stated 
 
8 
 
 meetings of the Vestry of said Church, to be held on the first Tues- 
 day of each and every month, in the Vestry -room of said Church — 
 that the said Walker had refused to call the regular meeting of said 
 Vestry to be held on the Tuesday of INIarch in the year of our 
 Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-six, and that in conse- 
 quence tliereof, said regular meeting of the Vestry of said Trinity 
 Clmrch was called by the Vestry in accordance to the By-Laws of 
 paid Church, in the office of Mr. L P. Hatfield, to be held at three 
 o'clock in the afternoon of that day — tliat pursuant to said call, after 
 most of the members of said Vestry had assembled at Mr. Hat- 
 field's office at the time api)ointed, about ten minutes after three 
 o'clock a note was received from Mr. Walker addressed to the Ves- 
 try, stating that the Vestry-room of the Church was the proper 
 place to hold the meeting, and tliat he would meet them there to 
 preside at three o'clock — upon receipt of said note, the said Vestry 
 did thereupon proceed to said Vesft-y-room, when and Avhere they 
 found the same locked and the key gone, and further that the said 
 Walker was not present, nor, so iar as they could learn, had he been 
 there, nor did he afterwards or at that time appear or attend the 
 same ; on account of which said misrepresentation the said Vestry 
 •waiting a reasonable time for the arrival of said W. F. Walker, 
 came to order in the vestibule of said church, did adjourn — which 
 said conduct the said Board present as contrary to his ordination 
 vow in that behalf, and to the scandal and injury of the Church — 
 
 Article 3d. — The said Board do further present and allege 
 that on a certain Sunday, sometime on, or about the last of Septem- 
 ber in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty- 
 five, immediatel}' after service in the afternoon of that day, the Rev. 
 W. F. Walker, then Rector of said Trinity Church, proceeded mto 
 the country for the professed purpose of holding divine service — 
 that on said Sunday the said W. F. Walker did take into the coun- 
 try his gun and hunting dog — that afterwards when said Wm. F. 
 Walker was asked if he did take his dog and gun into the country 
 on Sundays as aforesaid, said Walker openly, falsely, and distinctly 
 denied the same — which said conduct of the said William F. Wal- 
 ker the said Board present as contrary to his ordination vow in that 
 behalf, and to the great scandal and injury of the Church — 
 
 Article 4tb. — Tlie said Board do further present and allege, 
 that some time in the month of July in the year of our Lord one 
 thousand eight hundred and forty-five, on, or about the time of the 
 visit of the Bishop of said Diocese at Chicago, the Reverend Wil- 
 liam F. Walker, then being Rector of said Trinity Church, did 
 state to certain persons, members of said Church that he had re- 
 ceived a letter from the Bishop informing him, the said Walker, of 
 his, the said Bishop's, intended visit to Chicago, and at the same 
 time requesting one of said persons to entertain, at said person's 
 house, the Bishop when he should come — that after said Bishop 
 had made his said Aasit as aforesaid, the said Wm. F. Walker did in 
 the presence of various persons, members of said Trinity Church 
 publicly, openly, falsely, and wrongfully deny that he had ever re- 
 ceived any notice or letter from the Bishop as aforesaid, informing 
 
9 
 
 said Wm. F. Walker of the BL-^hop's intended visit as aforesaid^: — 
 whicli said conduct of said Wm. F. Walker, the said lioard do pre- 
 sent as contrary to his ordination vo\v in that behalf, and to the 
 Bcandal and injury of the Church — 
 
 '•1 
 
 Article 6th. — And the said Board do further present and al- 
 lege that on or al)out the first day of July in the year of our Lord 
 one thousand eight hundred and forty-four the Bishop of said Dio- 
 cese of Illinois was on a visit to Chicago, being then on liis way to 
 the East — that on or about said first day of July the Bishop left 
 Chicago on said journey, and that soon after the Bishop left as 
 aforesaid, the said Rev. Wm. F. Walker did pubhcly, openly, and 
 knowingly state to various persons, membej-s of Trinity Church 
 aforesaid, and others, that the said Bishop did i\'hilst on the boat 
 on the eve of its departure, cordially and affcctingly embrace him, 
 the said Wm. F. Walker, then being present, and did then and 
 there state to him, the said Walker, that the said Bishop was con- 
 vinced that the charges then recently made against him, the said 
 Walker, by the members of St. James' Church in Chicago, were 
 made out of a spirit of persecution — that he, said Bishop, had suf- 
 fered such trials, and that he, said Bishop, Avould write him, said 
 Walker, a letter when he arrived at Detroit that Avould be to his, 
 said Walker's, heart's content ; that said Wm. F. Walker, further 
 publicly, knowingly and falsely stated to various persons members 
 of his Church as aforesaid, that said Court of Inquuy, above men- 
 tioned, at St. James' Church had failed to find any charges against 
 him, the said Wallvcr ; and further, that said Walker did pubhcly, 
 openly and knowingly state that said Bishop did not write to him, 
 said Walker, any such letter as he, said Bishop, had promised to 
 write — all of which declarations of said Walker the Board do present 
 as fixlse, untrue and malicious — which said conduct of the said Wm. 
 F. Walker the said Board do present as contrary to his ordination 
 vow in that behalf, and to the scandal and injury of the Church 
 aforesaid — .- 
 
 <'i 
 
 Article Gth. — The said Board presenting do further present 
 and allege that on or about 
 
 in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty- 
 that said WiUiam F. Walker then being Rector of said Trinity 
 Church, did in company with William Stuart and James Glass, go 
 into the country for the pui*i)osc of hunting ; that said Walker took 
 with him at the time of said excursion, a bottle of wine, that said 
 Walker did at the time drink of said wine, and offered the same to 
 the said Stuart and the said Glass, and at the same time did advise 
 the said Glass, though being a young man and a member of the 
 Temperance Society, the said Walker well knowing the same, to 
 drink said wine, saying that it c^uld be no violation of his pledge 
 as no water was at hand — on account of which, the said Glass ■ 
 taking the advice of said Walker, did drink of said wine — wliich 
 said advice the said Board do present as being unjust, improper . 
 and immoral — which said conduct was contrary to the ordi::ation 
 vow of the said Walker, and to the scandal and iniury of the 
 Church^ 
 
 2 . 
 
10 
 
 Article 7th. — The said Board presenting, do further present 
 and allege that on the nineteenth day of January in the year 
 of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-six, that 
 the Rev. W. F. Walker, then heing Rector of Trinity Church 
 aforesaid, was called upon hy Isaac P. Ilathold Treasurer of 
 Trinity Church aforesaid, for an account of the ofl'erings received 
 by him on a Sunday morning previous, to wit, on the eleventh day 
 of January A. D. 1846, which said account he refused in anger to 
 give, saying that the money was his own and that he would do 
 with it as he saw fit, and that he, said Hatfield, must not say. 
 *' must" to him, said Walker, for any one who says " must" to me 
 insults me, and any one who insults me in my own house, may 
 walk out of it ; on account of which language of said Walker, said 
 Hatfield left the house much grieved — which conduct the said 
 Board do present as contrary to his ordination vow in that behalf, 
 and to the scandal and injury of the Church aforesaid — '■ \ 
 
 Article 8th. — The said Board presenting do further present, 
 that on or about Epiphany Sunday in the year of our Lord one 
 thousand eight hundred and forty-five, the said William F. AYalker t 
 then being Rector of Trinity Church, did on said Sunday, being-') 
 Communion Sunday, preach a sermon unsuitable to the occasion, 
 not having in view the celebration of tlie Communion aforesaid, but 
 seemingly for the purpose of bringing to task the ladies of the Sew- 
 ing Society, as was by them supposed, for not having appropriated 
 the monies belonging to said Society as he, said Wm. F. Walker, 1 
 had desired — -inconsequence of which said sermon several mera*i I 
 bers of said Trinity Church did absent themselves from the Commu- 
 nion, feeling scandalized by said sermon, and which said sermon 
 was the cause of offence to many persons, members of said Church — 
 that said William F. Walker has not made any explanation or re- - 
 traction of said sermon, nor has made any inquiries into the cause! 
 of said members absenting themselves from the Communion since 
 said sermon — whicli said conduct was contrary to liis ordination 
 vow, and to the scandal and injury of the Church — 
 
 Article 9th. — The said Board presenting do further present' 
 that on or about the month of July in the year of our Lord one 
 thousand eight hundred and forty-five the said Wm. F. Walker 
 then being Rector of Trinif}^ Church did publicly avow, declare • 
 and state that he said Walker did see the Bishop v.hen, and at the 
 time of his arrival in Chicago, and added that he. believed he would 
 go into the country and that said AValker did go into thf> country 
 at that time ; said Wm. F. Walker did not call on the Bishop du- ' 
 ring his said visit, and did not invite the Bishop to consecrate 
 Trinity Church, or confirm those whom he reported of his Parish 
 at the Convention in Springfield of the year A. D. 1845 as being 
 ready for confirmation—which said conduct the said Board do pre- 
 sent as contrary to his ordination vow, and to the scandal and in- 
 jury of the Church — 
 
 Article 10th. — And the said Board presenting do further pre-' 
 sent and allege that on or about the month of May or September 
 in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-five, 
 
11 
 
 the said Williiuii F. Walker then being Rector of Trinity Cimrch 
 did in tiie store of Jacob ilu^sell iu baid city of Cbiciigo have 
 mixed for him some brandy and sugar, giving as an excuse, sick- 
 ness, tliougli said "Walker appearijd well tuid in high spirits — that 
 at same time said William V. Vv^alker being told that a certain man, 
 his name being mentioned, formerly a friend of Mr, Walker but 
 then au enemy, was carried home drunk a few evenings previous to 
 this time from the Lake House a hotel iu said city of Chicago, did 
 instantly reply that he was glad of it, indulging in a loud and hearty 
 laugh at the same time — that the said Walker did then immediately 
 change his manner and add that he meant he was glad that he had 
 such veiy good friends to carry him home — all of which said con- 
 duct the said Board do present as contrary to the ordination vow 
 of said Wm. F. Walker and to the scandal and injury of the 
 Church— 
 
 i> * 
 
 ■"■ Article 11th. — And the said Boai-d presenting do further pre- 
 sent that on or about the month of August or September in the 
 year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and Ibrty-five, the 
 said Wm. F. Walker then being Rector of Trinity Church, did in 
 a certain transaction of business with one Silas B. Cobb in the 
 said city of Chicago, in an angry and passionate manner intimate 
 to said Cobb that he, said Cobb lied, but that said Walker did af- 
 terwards retract his words, stating that he, said Walker was prob- 
 ably mistaken, and wished the matter forgotten — which said con- 
 duct said Board do present as contrary to the ordination vow of 
 said Walker, and to the scandal and injury of the Church. 
 
 All of which we respectfully present. 
 
 (Signed.) 
 
 EZKA B. KELLOOa, 
 
 Ufccor of St. James' Churcli iu Chicago, 
 
 CHARLES J. TODD, 
 
 Eactor of the Parishes of Christ Church, Joliet, und St. John's Churcli of Lockport, 
 
 WILLIA^M ALLANSON, 
 
 Kector oi St. FaiiTs Church, Batavla, 
 
 SMITH J. SHERWOOD, 
 
 Layman of Trinity Church, Chicago, 
 
 GURDON S. HUBBARD, 
 
 -f*' ■■ Layman of .St. James' Church, Chicago. 
 
 "This paper"— the forc^'oiuj,' Presentment— printed after the copy to a point— to- 
 gettier with a •' uotico of taking te:?taniouy''— the depositions of certain uidividuals— 
 ^ toucliing the charges ai;d specitications agair.st the accused, was " served" on him 
 ''May 14th, 184*;," by a •■ Cornniissary" duly appointed. Before that -'Commis.-ary" 
 about three weeic's were sr.eiir. at a cosr of time and trial to the accused, who had the 
 '■ li'jorty to be present and cro.ss-exaniine the witnesses," suclt as may be neither named 
 nor estimated. In the mean while. Galena was designated by the Bishop as the place, 
 and the latter pai-t of June— the month following- as the time, of trial. The accused, 
 anxious for the is.sue, a\ itli his Counsel and a witness, made the jouiney of crossing the 
 State by stage, and was present punctually at the place appointed. It was, however, iu 
 vaiii: 110 Canonical Court was organized, though imploringly sought; of coursCj no 
 trial was had. It was urged by the accusi'd, that he had macTe every preparation for a 
 trial at that time; that he had been atgieat expense in procuring testimony and ob- 
 taining Counsel for the pui-pose ; that to iiieet tiiif? expense he had been forced well 
 nigh to take the necessary bread from his family ; that he could not endure the cost of 
 a new preparation for auotlier time and place; that all things were then leady ; that 
 the peace of himself and family, which had been long distui bed by a threatened prose- 
 cution on the part of the Bi.-hop, recjuired ihur a hearing should then be granted him 
 and the end be met ; and that his reputation, •■ already very much injured," as the Bish- 
 op had said, and likely to suffer more and more by every day's delay, and ths interests 
 oihii pariih, latl though by no mcan= le.^st to be coiioideied, demanded it. gtill th8 
 
12 
 
 trial was ilelerrcd I'or two mon11>s then fo como, and the place clianged to Chicago; 
 circuiiistiinccff :i3 clearly gijjnilicant ol" tV;eliiif;;s toward the acciis^d on the part of Iiis 
 Chief l'uslor,as had been his! course I'or the two yearti prcccdin;;, and as they were known 
 to be harassing to the accused and distressing to his friends. This will be understood 
 end appreciated, when facts are stated to which the concluding paragraph but one of 
 the note on the following page refers. 
 
 The names of the members of the " Koard of Trial" present are given in the Answer. 
 The accused proposed that neither himself nor the presenters should aii])ear by Counsel ; 
 ,but in this he was overruled as regards the presenters, lie, in consei|ueuce, felt it to bo 
 due to himself to avail himself of the services of a portion of those members of the Chi- 
 cago bar who, having sympathised with him in his trials, and, in a sj)irit of magnanim- 
 ity and charity which may not be uttered, had considered him in his low pecuniai-y 
 estate, and attached themselves to his cause, because they rcgardsd it as that of one un- 
 reasonably oppressed and persecuted 
 
 It was so freely and fre<(ucntly denied by opjionents. during and subsequent to the 
 trial, in the face of declarations made by the Counsel themselves, that their servicea 
 were really gratuitous, as to cause the accused to deem it a duty to jjublish the follow- 
 ing, which he did in the Chicago Daily Journal. It is inserted here for a two-fold pur- 
 pose, to wit: l.st, to witness to the fact referred to ; 2d, to furnish the oi)inion of able 
 Jurists, to whom the case was open, and who were thoroughly conversant with it, re- 
 epecting it. — 
 
 Cmc.iGO, Sept. 14, 1846. 
 Messrs. .Wilson ^' Geer : 
 
 Dear Sirs.— Now that my case hashecn terminated by the finding of the Ecclesiasti- 
 cal Court, which you have announced, it seems to be due that the following correspon- 
 dence should be given to the public. Declarations, touching the matters wliich it cov- 
 ers, having been conlidently made in certain quarters, justice requires that the truth 
 should be given as a rebuke to their presumi)tion. 
 
 "When will the unmeiciful come to comjireliend the spirit of mercy? the unforgiving 
 the temper of forgiveness .' the suspicious and rancorous the habit ot' trust and charity ? 
 That the good in this case may not be evil sj/oken of unknowingly, is the object of 
 ■ this publication. Yours faithfully, 
 
 W. F. WALKER. 
 
 Chicago, 1st September, 1845. 
 Rev.W. F. Walker: 
 
 Dear Sir,— From the time that we became professionally interested in the charges 
 pending before the Ecclesiastical Court now in sessicm here, we were of opinion that 
 they originated in iierseeution. The evidence already adduced has satisfied us of the 
 correctness of that opinion. Vi'e, therefore, from a .-ouse of the duty we owe to youi'self, 
 and from respect to your station as a Christian minister, beg to say, that our services, 
 past and to come, are freely tendered to you. 
 Trusting that you will long remain in our city. 
 
 We remain your obedient servants, 
 
 J. A. McDOUGAL, 
 1'. l?ALLIN(iAJJ>, 
 JK^.SE B TllUiMAS, 
 J. ItUlTKKKIELD, 
 J. J. BKOWM. 
 
 To the Hon. Messrs. J. A. McDovgal, Jesse B. Thomas, and J. Buturjidd; and Messrs. P. 
 Bntliii^nU, and J. J. Bnnrii. Es(/rs 
 
 Very Dear Sirs, — Y our polite iind more than kind note of to-day prompts an imme- 
 diate, cordial, and thanktul acknowledgment. To be so ■' remembered' ju " mercy, in 
 the midst of seeming "judgment." inspires emotions for which 1 may not attempt to 
 find expression. IMay the Almighty Lord reward your generous interest with Ilis 
 blessing, and grant tjiat " inasmuch as you have shown it to one of the least of those" 
 whom he is pleased to own as •■ lirelhren," it may be accounted as '• done unto llim- 
 self!'' 
 
 The opinion entertained by you from the time that you became jirofesfionally con- 
 cerned in the charges against me, of which your note informs me, viz. " that they orig- 
 inated in ])ersecution" — of the correct no.-is of which, you say, the evidence already ad- 
 duced, which has been that of the presenters only, aiid is tliat which is relied upon by 
 them to maintain their cause, has satisfied you— is very comforting to be assured of, 
 and will alleviate in a quarter for which concern is deeper on my part than for myself. 
 From that (piarter, I can safely say, will fervent prayer ascend for you, and holiest 
 thanksgivings be i)Oured out for tiie tender consideration which your note bespeaks. 
 Together, we feel that '• we have no might against tliis great company that cometh 
 against us, to cast us out of God's possession, which he hath given us to inherit ; neither 
 know we what to do; but our eyes are uponllim;" and to you, under llim, is our 
 cause entrusted, confidently and hopefully. 
 
 Should we be brought safely 1 hrough this intensely "healed furnace," we shall doubt- 
 less remain, should it so please, while God shall spare us, or till duty shall elsewhere 
 call, still in this city, pursuing, though faint, the line of our duty ; and seek to build 
 agam, with a faitli and energy quickened by chastisement, the places that by this storm 
 shall have become wasted orbeiiten down. 
 
 To know that, while we may rcninin, that we sliall share in your confidence and re- 
 .eards, will, gentlemen, be very inspiriting under trial, very encouraging in the path of 
 duty, and give a fulness of hope in all the changes and chances that may befall us. 
 
 In duty, in gratitude, and in love, 
 
 I am, gentlemen, ever yours, 
 
 W. F. WALKEK. 
 i' .'t'llicago, Sept. 1; IS 16. 
 
ANSWER.* 
 
 To the Rev. Messrs. Dresser, Gitldinge, Do Pui, and Darrow, 
 now sitting as a Board for the trial of the undersigned, on two 
 several Presentments — one of 18445 the other of 1846 — in 
 Trinity Church, in this city : 
 
 Dear Bretiirkx — 
 
 The undersigned, respondent in the case now before you, begs 
 leave to submit the following, loucliing the several charges and 
 specifications in the Presentments above noted, as his answer to 
 the same. 
 
 " Not guilty in the form and manner charged," was the general 
 plea of the respondent at the opening of this case. lie now pro- 
 poses to make a particular ansAver to each specific allegation against 
 him, beginning with the Presentment of 1846. 
 
 I. With respect to article I., in that Presentment, the respond- 
 ent avers, that at the " meeting of the Vestry of Trinity Church" 
 therein referred to, " he did" not " pledge his word that at the an- 
 nual election on the ensuing Easter for officers of the Church for 
 
 * It was the right of the accused to offer this ans-wer in evidence. Thi.s, however, was 
 not done ; it was simjily read as tlie explanation of the cliarge.s embodied in tlie Pre- 
 sentment, at the conclusion of the ca.se, and this with tlie explicit understanding that 
 the Counsel for the presenters might reply to it should they see lit. No portion of it 
 having been questioned by them, the wliole was considered as admitted. It will be 
 seen that the tinding of the Court fully sustains it. 
 
 It may be here stated that, at the opcnin;;'of the case, on the trial, exception was taken 
 to the Presentment, in the form of a motion to quash it, on the ground that the whole 
 of the proceedings connected with the finding of it, were a dcpaiFture from the Divine 
 Law, from the laws of the Church, and from those wise and .just regulations that govern 
 in all analagous cases in this country and elsewhere, wherever individual rights are 
 regarded, — wherever there is a ju,st sense of the responsibility of proceedings involving 
 interests corresponding with those which were depending in this case, — and in these 
 several particulars, to wit: 
 
 1st, In that it ^va» er parte. — the accused not having been allowed to meet the pre- 
 senters and confront his accusers, either to rebut or explain what was alleged ; 
 
 2d, In that it was not founded ou evidence, but on the simple unsupported statements 
 of hostile parties ; 
 
 3d, In that the presenters were not impartial, but the reverse, and were therefore dig- 
 qualified ; 
 
 4th, In that parties and witnesses opposed to the accused were permitted freely to 
 communicate with the presenters, and to be present during their session, at pleasure, and 
 that while one or another was retailing his or her story. 
 
 These points having been raised, and sustained by what was deemed competent au- 
 thority, the accused withdrew his motion, and asked to be tried both on the Present- 
 ment of 1846, and on that of 1844, to which reference is made in the former and in the 
 Answer, which had been dead more than a year , but which, by ardent cherishing, had 
 been made to possess a seeming life, till IMoiiday, Aug. 24, — the Festival of St. Barthol- 
 ontew I — when its most staunch maintainer, the Bishop, was forced to enter a nolle 
 prosequi, as he termed it, in that case. That paper will appear in its order in the Ap- 
 pendix, which will embrace all the papers referred to in the Answer as on the files of 
 the Court. 
 
 The names that are introduced in this Answer, and in the papers connccled with it, 
 Jiad become familiar to the Court. 
 
14 
 
 the year IS-iG, he would allow no person to vote at said election 
 that the Vestry or any ot" them should object to ;" and that he 
 could not have so pledged himself, because he never supposed that 
 it was Avilhin his power to say who should or who shfjuld not vote ; but 
 that what he said was in substance, and nearly in words as tbllows : 
 " The Vestry is the creature of the congregation, and for executive 
 purposes only ; and therefore may not control the superior body, or 
 go bej'ond either the source or limit of its power ; — the Canons of 
 the Diocese provide that '' the parishioners of each church shall 
 elect a Vestry ;" by the statutes of Illinois the members of any 
 religious society or congregation may vote ibr Trustees in the so- 
 ciety or congregation to wliieh they respectively belong ; — who are 
 parishioners according to the Canon, or members of the society or 
 congregation, according to the Statute, must be settled by each con- 
 gregation for itself, as is done in legislative bodies in determining 
 the right of members, when contested, to seats. Such is the way 
 in which other religious bodies conduct their elections, for all are 
 organised under one and the same genei'al law. I do not believe 
 that the members of this congregation are worse than others, — in- 
 deed, such is my conlidence in the members of Tiinity congrega- 
 tion, that I would not hesitate to pledge myself that no one will of- 
 fer to vote who shall not be considered a legal votei"." And, in re^ 
 ply to the question addressed to him by some member of the Ves- 
 try, " Who would you consider a ])arishioner, or member of the 
 the congregation ?" the respondent added, "■ One who attends the 
 church and hails from it as his place of worship ; — such is the 
 way the matter is determined in IS'ew York, and I believe prop- 
 erly." 
 
 The respondent further a\ ers, " that at said annual election" he 
 did not act " as judge of the same," or " receive the votes of num- 
 bers of persons not entitled to vote," nor of any person or persons 
 whatever. By resolution of the congregation he was called to the 
 chair ; on the taking of which, after the election of a Secretary, Mr. 
 C. Holland, he invited Dr. Maxwell and Wm, Stuart, Esq., to sit 
 "with him as Assessors, and act as Tellers ; — the former gentleman 
 ,not being present, Mr. Jacob Russell was invited to his place. The 
 election then proceeded according to rules adopted by the congre- 
 gation at the time, and without the agency or iitterference of the 
 respondent, except in two instances ; — one, that of Thomas Brown, 
 who, though a parishioner Avho had contributed towards the build- 
 ing of the church edifice and the support of the Rector, had not so 
 attended on the services of the church as to i)ut his vote beyond 
 question ; and, as it Avas understood that he would vote according 
 to the respondent's interest, he thought proper to say to him that 
 he had better not vote, &c., which at first rei)elled him, but he af- 
 terwards claimed his right, and, under the rules prevailing, voted. 
 The other Avas that of Charles Torode, a communicant of the 
 church at a station Avhere the respondent has peiibrmed some mis- 
 sionary duty, seventeen miles in the countiy, but not a member of 
 Trinity parish or congregation ; he had been in the church but 
 once, it is believed, since Christmas, 1844, and claimed no rights 
 in it. His name is on the Records of the respondent, it is true ; but 
 so are the names of all to whom he has ministered at ditierent sta- 
 tions 5 and this because at those station; no parishes had been or- 
 
15 
 
 ganized, and consequently there wa,s no Register at either of tliem ; 
 therefore Canon viii. could be fulfilled onlj^ by making the required 
 entries in the Register of Trinity Church. Mr. Torode was under 
 the spiritual oversight of the respondent, tliougli not his parisli- 
 ioner. When Mr. Torode walkeil up the aisle, the resjjondt^nt con- 
 jectured that he might be coming forward to vote, under a misap- 
 prehension of his rights; and not knowing, then, or even now,' 
 whether it was his intention, if lie voted at all, to vote according 
 to or opposed to the respondent's interest, the respondent admon- 
 ished him that he was not of the parish, and could not rightfully- 
 claim to vote.* 
 
 Sucli is the answer of the respondent to Article T. i 
 
 IT. With respect to Article IT., the respondent allows, that du-' 
 ring his " connection with Trinity Church he was accustomed to 
 call the stated meetings of the Vestry of said Church to be held on 
 the first Tuesday of each and every month in the Vestry-room of' 
 said Church ;" — but that he " had refused to call the regular meet- 
 ing of said Vestry on the Tuesday in March" last, he denies ; also ! 
 that any *' meeting was called by the Vestry in accordance to the 
 By-Laws of said Church." 
 
 *The ofBeial record of the proceedings at the election referred to, certified and 
 sworn to by the Clerk, is as follows : 
 
 Easter Monday, April 13, 1846. 
 After morning prayer by the Rector, the male members of the congregation of Trin- 
 ity Church organized a meeting for the purjioso of liokling tlie annunl election of 
 Trustees of said Chiircli, and Church Wardens and Vestrymen, for the current year, ' 
 pursuant to prievous determination. 
 
 On motion, the Rector was called to the Chair, who, on taking his seat, called tlie 
 meeting to order, and invited >Iessrs. Jacob Russell and William Stuart to sit with him 
 as assessor.?. Jlessrs. Russell and Stuurt complied, and took their seats accordingly, one 
 on either side of the Rector. 
 
 On motion. C. Holland was elected Clerk of the meeting. S. J. Sherwood then mov- 
 ed tlie following lesolution, which was seconded. 
 
 Resnlvd, That the election shall bo conducted as follows : That the votes shall be re- 
 ceived in two liats ; in one shall be put all the unchallenged votes; in the other, the 
 votes that shall be cliallenged ; and six persons shall be choseuj three from each party, 
 who shall be judges of the election, and decide on the admission of the challenged 
 votes. 
 
 Whereupon C. H. Larrabee, Esq., moved as an amendment, to be inserted in the 
 above, immediately after the word Resolved, that the election shall proceed as the meet- 
 ing is at present organized ; and that the following questions shall be addressed to 
 each voter wlio may be challenged, an aflimative answer to which shall be necessary to 
 entitle tlie iiulividual to vote. 
 QcESTiox 1st. Are yon twenty-one years of age? 
 
 Question' 2d. Do you ijrotess to belong to the congregation of Trinity Church? ' 
 
 The amendment of Mr. Larrabee wa.s seconded and carried. The election then pro- 
 ceeded, Jacob Russell receiving the votes, Wm. Stuart propounding to those whose 
 votes were challenged the above questions. All who were present having had an op- • 
 portunity to vote, the polls were, on motion, closed. The a.ssessors, Jacob Russell and 
 \Vm. Stuart, counted the votes cast, and announced the result of the election to be as' 
 follows : Whole number of votes,cast, sixty -live ; forty-five* of wliich were for the foJ- ■ 
 lowing : 
 
 Geore Davis. | AVird^nq 
 
 C. R. Vander Cook, j ^^ araens, 
 Daniel Elstou, 1 
 Isaac Dike, 
 
 Herman Warner, i Trustees. 
 
 Horatio O. Stone, (• Vestrymen, ) 
 
 E. J. Hamihon, | I ' 
 
 Carlton Holland, I I 
 
 Obadiah Jackson, J j 
 
 Who were accordingly declared duly elected. On motion the meeting adjourned. 
 
 (Signed,) CARLTON HOLLAND, Clerk. 
 Records of Trinity Church. 
 
 ♦This vote would have been 53, but for the necessary absence of eight persons like 
 minded. 
 
 The Court seem to have thought that the respondent should not have been present at 
 the Easter election ; hence their hnding, if censurable at all, that he was " censurable 
 only for having any thing to do with all election under such circumstances." The re- 
 spondent would respectfully submit that there is room for an honest difference of opin- 
 ion on this point. 
 
16 
 
 The By-Laws of the Vestry of Truilty Churcli provide that 
 " stated meetinijs of the IJonrd shall be held on tlie first Tuesday 
 in each month ;" but of the time and place at which such meetings 
 shall be lield they make no mention.* After the completion of 
 Trinity Churcli, the Vestry-room of said church became the " ac- 
 customed" place of holding Vestry meetings ; and the time was in- 
 variably fixed by the respondent, unless defined by an adjourn- 
 ment, of which the members of the Board were notified by the 
 Clerk, under the direction of the respondent, by means of certain 
 printed notices furnished him for tlie purpose. Tlnose notices 
 were never issued by order of the AVardens and Vestry, either or 
 both, either collectively or individually ; [nor, " in accordance to 
 the By-Laws," could a " meeting" be " called by the Vestry," but 
 in the absence of the Rector.] From September to March no meet- 
 ing of the Vestry was held ; — there being no business demanding 
 their attention, they did not come together. 
 
 On the first Monday in Mai'ch, in the afternoon, the Clerk o' 
 the Board called on the respondent, as had been his custom, to 
 learn for what hour of the next day the Vestry meeting should be 
 notified. The respondent told him not to issue notices tiU he 
 should hear from him. During that evening the Sen. Warden of 
 the Church informed the respondent that he was engaged in the 
 Court of which he is Clerk, and that he could not therefore attend a 
 Vestry meeting ; that himself and some members of the Vestry did 
 not tliink a meeting at that time necessary, or even expedient, and, 
 therefore, he was of opinion that no notices should issue. On the 
 morning of Tuesday, a note was sent to the Clerk of the Board to 
 this etfect.f Thus the respondent rested until 2 o'clock P. M. of 
 ithat day, when, while at the dinner table, a notice was put into his 
 ijbands of a Vestry meetmg proposed to be held at 3 o'clock then 
 following, at the office of I. P. Hatfield, and purporting to have 
 been issued and signed by the respondent.* William Stuart, Esq., 
 who had received a similar notice, called upon the respondent at 
 that instant. Surprised at the extraordinary attempt thus made to 
 get the Vestry together, not only not in recognition of the Rector, 
 but in opposition to the expressed pleasure of the .Sen. Warden 
 and a majority of the Vestrymen ; indignant at the imposition 
 which it was evident was sought to be practised by causing the no- 
 tices to issue as from the respondent, to bring together those who 
 thought a meeting not necessary, as though the respondent finally 
 desired it; hurt by the unwarranted and unprecedented liberty 
 which had been taken with his name in subscril)ing it to the no- 
 tices without his knowledge, and against his expressed will ; pained 
 .by the insult, as it was deemed, of making the appointment for Hat- 
 field's office, a place to Avhich it was well known the respondent 
 could not go ; and grieved at what was supposed to be an effoi't 
 to inflict upon him uijury and wrong, almost unwarned, Mr. Stuart 
 and the respondent together framed a note to the Jun. Wai-den of 
 the Church, W. li. Adams, protesting against what was conceived 
 to be an outrage upon right, propriety and duty, pronouncing the 
 notice for the Vestry meeting a forgery^ stating that the Vestry- 
 
 » Appendix, A. t Apppndix, B. J Appendix, C 
 
1'7 
 
 toom was the proper place for holding Vestry meetings, as the pre- 
 sentment itself alleges it was the " accustometl" plaee, and saying 
 that he should be there at three o'clock. &c.* This note was submit- 
 ted to the Sen. Warden of the Churcli, by whose approval it was 
 sent, agreeably to its address, a few miniites before three o'clock. 
 The respondent then left Messrs. Davis and Stuart, — Avho said they 
 should not go to the meeting at all, .and that those Avho had sought 
 to get it up would accomplish their purpose at Hatfield's and would 
 not go to the Vestry-room, — and Avent immediately to the Church 
 and Vestry-room. There the respondent remained until about 
 twenty minutes past three o'clock, when he locked up the Church, 
 returned to his house, made some alterations in his dress — by 
 whii-h means the key of the Church, which had been in his pocket, 
 M-as throAvn uiwn the bed in his bed-room — and went, quickly as 
 possible, to call on Mrs. Coon, a sick parishioner and comiuuni- 
 cjuit, who had previously sent for him. When the respondent re- 
 turned to his house, it was twenty-five minutes pa-st three o'clock by 
 the time in the house, — Avhich was usually that of the bell,— and when 
 he left it for Mrs. Coon's it must have been aljout half-past three. 
 
 It was remarked to the respondent by his little daughter, while 
 he was dressing, after his return from the Church, that Mr. Jacob 
 Eussell had gone by on the walk; and, soon after, that he had re- 
 turned and gone towards home. When the respondent Avent out, 
 he saAv neither Mi*. Russel nor any of the Vestiy. 
 
 The respondent denies that he had any design to elude the Vestry 
 at the date referred to. On the contrary, he had, on the morning 
 of that day, expressly offered to Mr. W. H. Adams to call a meeting 
 of the Vestry for that afternoon, if it Avas desired. He Avas per- 
 fectly Avilling and ready both to notify the meeting and to' meet the 
 Vestry, properly convened. Hence his declaration that he Avould 
 be at the Church at three o'clock, in tlie note to Mr. Adams. 
 
 [That he Avould be at the Chin-ch at half past three, or later, be- 
 fore whrch the Vestiy could not have arrived there, he did not say. 
 That he was not there, agreeably to the tenns of his note, at thrpe 
 o'clock, Avas conjectural only Avith his opponents ; and he av«rs^>aa 
 he has proved, Avas not according to truth.Jf ' "■'■"'' "' "' ■' ' ■" ■ '" 
 
 Such is the ansAver of the respondent. to Article IT. ' 
 
 HI. With respect to Article III., the respondent begs leave to sub- 
 mit, though said article has not been tried,J a full denial of the al- 
 legation, "that on a certain Sunday some time on or about the last 
 of September, in the year of our lord one thousand eight hundred 
 and forty five, immediately after service in the afternoon of that 
 
 • Appendix, D. ^^^,1 
 
 t If one were to bo extreme to mark in all, things corresponding with tl>e allesjations 
 in Article 2d, which might seem to bu amiss, who might not be accused ? In iilustra- 
 tion, it may with propi iety be a^ked, whether the. jiishop laid himself- q\h!v\ to pre- 
 fentnieiit by appointing the basoment of 6t. James' f'nurch bf theplace^ and 9 o'clock 
 A. M. of AVednesday, August 26th. as the time, for the trial nf the respondent, when and 
 where he declared he would "be present and preside as Moderator ;" and, when the 
 time came, absenting himself? The Bishop doubtless had his reasons foi' his course. 
 Perhaps, he had concluded that to do as he had proposed was not expedient. At all 
 events, he was excused '. 
 
 Suppose the presenters had made ■ enqniiy as to the truth" of the charge in Article 
 2d; would that article in that case have appeared in their presentment? Had this course 
 have been pursued, would either Articles 1st or 2d have appearea ? Audi oJt-rorA pa'- 
 tc-.i. however, is a maxim otjuctite to which they were piacticaily strangers. 
 
 i See Terdict of the Court 
 
18 
 
 day," he "being then Rector of Trinity Chureli, proceeded into thf^ 
 country for t]ut professed purpose of holding divine service," and 
 " tliat on said Sunday" he " did take into the country his gun arul 
 hunting dog."* 
 
 [The respondent allows, that during the spring and summer of 
 1845, he was in the habit of going into the country each Sunday 
 afternoon, at the conclusion of Evening Prayer in Trinity Church, 
 '' for the professed purjjose of holding divine service," and that he 
 was often accompanied by a dog belonging to liis little son ; and 
 asserts, that, on those occasions, he statedly perfonned the servic*?s 
 contemplated. A report of the same, up to the meeting of the Con - 
 vention in that year was made to the Bishop, as follows : " I have 
 oflBciated eleven times, and administered the holy Communion onw 
 in the country, 20 miles north of Chicago, where is an interesting 
 body of people, retdly attached to the Church, and whose claims 
 are urgent for a missionary to gather them together permanently 
 in one, and break to them the " bread of life." Subsequent to this 
 report the respondent officiated for the same people six times ; but] 
 he avers, that after the third Sunday in August, he did not go into 
 the country on Sunday, at all. On the 4th Sunday, he was not 
 able to go. The child of Col. Greo. Davis died on the morning of 
 the 1st Sunday in September, and the respondent staid from the 
 country on that day, on that account, to render the family such as- 
 sistance as he might, Col. Davis himself being al)seiit. Mrs. AValk- 
 er was soon alter confined in child-bed, by which he was kept at 
 home until he went to the South, whence he did not return till about 
 the middle of October; after which he did not go into the country 
 on Sunday at all.t 
 
 Therefore, if the denial charged in the latter part of the article, 
 to wit : " that afterwards when said Wm. F. "Walker was asked if 
 
 •This charge haTing been broadly made in the Presentment, the propriety of this 
 answer will be allowed by lovers of truth. 
 
 t A deposition on this subject, that of Mr. W. H. Davis, Junior Warder of the parich 
 the organization of which resulted from the services noticed— a deposition taken lor the 
 trial— is as follows : " In the summer of 1H45, Mr. Walker beinjr acquainted with myself 
 and some others, who are Episcopalians, we solicited his assistiince in prcacliingto us. 
 He consented so to do, and was in the habit of being with us almost invariably every 
 Sunday evening from May or June to, I think, some time in August. I'art of the time 
 Mr. W. officiated in a [log] house belonging to me in Lake i)recinct, and some part of 
 the time in a house belonging to Mr. Bennett ; and the balance of tlie time, when the 
 congregation became very large, and the weather was very warm, we had services in 
 Sherman's Grove. For those services we felt gratetnl to Mr. Walker, and still do t that 
 I can answer for all the parish; it being the only remuneration we could, give Mr. W.— 
 our thanks— for we were too poor; and that is all he did get, to mv knowledge. 
 
 The neighborhood in which Mr. W. thus officiated is about 20 miles from Chicago. 
 His arrival was usually about 6 o'clock— bijfore dark. , I don't recollect our ever having 
 services by candle light " 
 
 The afternoon services of the respondent In Trinity CHiurch were held during this 
 season at 2', o'clock. He usually started from Chicago about ten minutes before 
 4 o'clock, and performed his drive 'bv ahout 6. as stated by Mr. Davis. 
 
 " That on said Sunday the said W. F. Walker did take into the country his gun^ and 
 hunting dog," is a charge that was ben;otten, it is believed, in the suspicion.^ and ran- 
 corous imagination of a presenter; and was brought forth to aid him in his work of 
 creating a prejudice against the respondent, and eff'ecting his separation from his 
 Church and people It is in his evidence, for he is a witness in the case, " I wanted 
 that he," Mr. W., " should leave, that another person might be substituted in his place. 
 1 am opposed to him." t i j u- 
 
 That the opposition of this man was active is in the evidence in the case. It led him 
 to declaim against the respondent among the members of his parish ; to treat him with 
 rudeness when he met him; on the public street to heap upon him opprobrious epithets; 
 to incite members of his Vestry to act against him; to evince violence of manner at the 
 Kaster Election; to write to the Bishop complaining of the respondent, and, at the same 
 time, asking that he might be tried, and pledging hinL-self, with others, for the costs of 
 his trial, should it be granted. Yet was lie. by the lii.Miop, appointed one of the '■ live 
 persons' to "enrjuire as to the truth of the charges ' again.st the resiiondcnt; " toexnmme 
 the case ;" to aecerlaiu whether there was '• sufllcicut ground for his presentment :'' 
 
19 
 
 he did take his dog and G:iin into tlie country on Sundnys, as afore- 
 said, denied the same," is to be understood of what is alleged in tho 
 former part, it is repeated and mainttiined. 
 
 Or, if the latter part of said article is intended, as has been sug- 
 gested to your Board, to assert a habit in the respondent, and the 
 denial is to be understood as relating to that, it is still maintained. 
 The respondent denies the charge in any and every sense that has 
 been put upon it. 
 
 Such is the answer which the respondent desires to make to Ar- 
 ticle III. 
 
 IV. With respect to Article IV., the respondent submits that 
 truth is at the basis of the article, though that truth is not so stated 
 jis to convey a true impression of the facts alleged. The entire 
 truth relative to the matters referred to is as follows : 
 
 April 24th, the respondent addressed the letter to the Bishop, 
 which is on the files of your Board, marked E,* on the subject of 
 consecrating Trinity Church and confirming therein, and invitiug 
 the Bishop to accept the hospitalities of the respondent's house ; . 
 but, at the same time, intinfiating that Mr, Sherwood, Warden, would 
 probably claim to entertain him. May 6th, a letter was received 
 from the Bishop in reply, under date of April 30th, which is also on 
 3'our iiles,t propounding certain queries relative to Trinity Church, 
 and concluding thus : " When I shall coinmerice my visitations of 
 the, Diocese 1 am unable to say. I trust to be well enough to at- 
 tend the convention of the diocese on the IGth. of June, at Spring- 
 field. From there 1 shall try to visit Alton, Albion, Chester and 
 Quincy. Perhaps I may go to the northern parts of my diocese* 
 in the fall." May 6th, the day following, that letter was laid be- 
 fore the vestry of Trinity Church, and, from their minutes, it ap- 
 pears that " the Corresponding Secretary was requested to answer 
 the same. That officer, Wm. Stuart, Esq., made the answer con- 
 templated at once, and gave the Bishop a full statement of all the 
 particulars to which his enquii-ies had regard.f About that time, 
 Mrs. Sherwood was spoken to by the respondent on the subject of 
 the proposed invitation of the Bishop, and of the respondent's sug- 
 gestion to him that her house should be made his home during his 
 stay. Not far from one month subsequently, the respondent met 
 the Bisho}) in convention at Springfield. During that convention, 
 iie your Board are aware, the Bishop announced that Trinity 
 Church in Chicago was in debt, and he would not consecrate it un- 
 til its debt should be paid off". AVhen the respondent returned to 
 Chicago he told the friends of Trinity Church what was the mind 
 of the Bishop, as he had stated it. July 18th, the respondent re- 
 ceived the letter from the Bishop, under date of July 12th, on your 
 files marked G,§ in Avhich he says : ''If you will do the same with 
 Trinity," that is, " pay off the debt which it at present owes, 1 
 will do the same duty," that is, " consecrate the church in Chicago 
 on AVednesday, the 29th of July." That nothing could or would 
 be done by the vestry of Trinity Church at that time relative to 
 what was termed the " church debt," the respondent well knew, and 
 was assured of; and as the Bishop had been addressed by the ves-', 
 
 ■'•'JSLpilenii'ii'l'k." '' " 1 Al'l'CudLS; F. i Aiipeudix, G. ? Ajiiicudix,!!. 
 
30 
 
 try on that subject, the respondent thought and believed that the 
 matter was then between his vestry and tlie Bishop; and feeling an 
 unwilingness to enter into the linaucial affairs of the Church at 
 all, he left the matter with the vestry. No turther eommunication 
 from the Bishop was received, nor was any notice or appointment, 
 either for the consecration of Trinity Church, or lor the adminis- 
 tration of confirmation therein, ever brought to the knowledge of 
 the respondent. To this did his denial that '' he had ever received 
 any notice or letter from the Bishop," extend ; it was so made 
 to Wm. Stuart, Esq., and others, at a meeting of ladies at Mrs. 
 Foote's. And it is here renewed : the respondent still avers, that 
 he had no notice that the Bishop was coming to visit Trinity 
 Church. Neither his parishioners, nor him^ielf, therefore, expect- 
 ed him. That he did frequently say, after the Bishop had been 
 here, and he had been told that the Bishop had claimed that he 
 should have consecrated Trinity Church, and confirmed therein, 
 that he had received no canonical notice that the Bishop was 
 coming to Chicago for any such purposes, or, indeed, any notice at 
 all respecting confirmation, he admits, and maintains. "" 
 
 Such is the answer of the respbndeilt to Article IV. ^ ' '' 
 
 V. With respect to Article V., the respondent submits as follows : 
 That at the time the presentment of 1844 Avas made to the 
 Bishop, he was anxious for an immediate investigation, and urged 
 the Bishop to allow the provisions of Canon with respect to time 
 to elapse before trial, assessors, &c., to be waived, and to inves- 
 tigate all the matters charged against the respondent himself;* that 
 he had hoped this would be done, till the morning of June 12th, 
 when a letter from the Bishop was put into his hands by Rev. Mr. 
 Kellogg, and he was, at the same time, informed that the Bishop 
 was then on the steamboat, and was to leave the city in a few mo- 
 ments ; that the respondent was exceedingly grieved by the 
 thought of being left by the Bishop with that presentment over 
 him ; and that, under the influence of highly wrought and most 
 anxious feelings, he run to the boat, eagerly sought the Bishop, and 
 on finding him, the following conversation, &c. occurred : — 
 
 " Ml?. Walker." — Wliy, Bishop ! you are not going away now to 
 leave me in this position — with these charges over me ? Do stay, 
 and let the whole come up before you to-day for investigation and' 
 trial. You must not go ; you cannot go and leave me thus. Dp 
 stay to-day. ,,' 
 
 "The Bishop. — I cannot. I must go;— but you write rae a let- 
 ter at Detroit, such as I have suggested in the letter handed you 
 
 * Canon XIV. of 1833, fseejpage 6, Sect. 13,) was nt tlijs time in force.— Sect. 6 of that 
 Canon provided, that " the time between the day of service" of the Citation and "the 
 day ,of upiiearauce-' showW bo " not less than t:\venty day," over and above the ordinary 
 time re(iuired to travel to the place of ap])earance." — Sect, 5 of the same Canon pWJvi- 
 diBdithat " not less than three or more tlian six I'l-esbyteri*, selected by the accused out 
 of a list of twelve, ' shoujd "be assessors with the Bi'shoi),'' presiding " on thetrial 88 
 judere." — Sect 2 of the same made " the house of the 15ishop tlie rejjular place of trial." 
 
 These and such like provisions favoring the accused, under ordinary circumstances, 
 ■were those which, in this case, the Bishop wa.s urged to allow to be waived. The ac- 
 cused wished to make answer to the charges against him at once before the Bishop as 
 Judge, and final arbiter. 
 
 For (anon XIV. of 1838 in full ; the Tresentment of 1844 ; and the papers above, re- 
 Jerrcd to, with others in the same connection, see Appendix I. '' 
 
21 
 
 by Mr. Kellogg, and I will give you a letter iii reply that shall be 
 to your heart's content — all that you can wish. 
 
 " Mr. AYalker. — But, Bishop, I Avould rather have the matters 
 investigated. I do not want them dropped so. These things have 
 been alleged against me, and, I think, without reason. I can show 
 to you that they have resulted from local feelings and personal 
 hostility, and are, for the most part, mere misunderstandings; and 
 that I am persecuted and oppressed without cause ; and if so, and 
 I can show it, then those who have pursued me should themselves 
 be admonished. It is better that the matters be investigated as I 
 have proposed. Do therefore stay, and let tliis be done. 
 
 " The Bishop. — {Putting his arms around the respondent, and 
 emhracing him) — Walker, I love you. I have suffered the same 
 things myself. I got up from my prayers this morning feeling just 
 so — (pressing the respondent.) You write me the letter, attend 
 to the scholarship, and all will be well. I can admonish tliem, 
 {alluding to the responde7ifs pursuers) better by letter ; and the 
 Avhole matter can be better settled so. Send Haff to Jubilee right 
 away; and if we don't do every thing just to your satisfaction, or 
 that should be done for him, you may say that old Bishop Chase 
 has bamboozled you. , . . f 
 
 "Mr. Walker.-^ — "Well, Bishop, it must be as you say. Good- 
 bye," &c. &c. 
 
 So much for that part of the Article which relates to th0,'int^ri! 
 view with the Bishop. i 
 
 In relation to the " Court of Inquiry at St. James' Church," the 
 respondent avers, that he never " stated to various persons, mem- 
 bei's of his Church," or to any other persons, that said Court " had 
 failed to find any charges against him ;" but admits that he has 
 characterized those charges, at various times, as based on light and 
 frivolous grounds, or in local feelings and personal variance ; — has 
 said that they arose to a great extent out of a Ladies' Society, &e.* 
 
 As to the last clause of the Article, to wit: that the respondent 
 " did publicly, openly, and knowingly state that the Bishop did not 
 write to him any such letter as he, the Bishop, had promisecj to 
 write ;" the respondent admits, that he has frequently and openly 
 expressed the deep disappointment which he did feel on the re- 
 ceipt of the letter from the Bishop from Buffalo, under date of 
 June 20th, — a disappointment the sadness of which your Board 
 may gather from a perusal of a letter from Bishop Chase of date 
 of June 12th, and that of the respondent to the Bishop of the same 
 date, both of which are on your files ; and that he has said that the 
 letter received from the Bishop last referred to is not such a letter 
 as was promised him, he does not deny, but rather admits, — whe- 
 ther justly or not your Board wiU determine.! , 
 
 Such is the answer of the respondent to Article Vl.J "> 
 
 * The charges alluded to are those in the Presentment of 1844. See Appendix J. 
 
 t Appendix K. 
 
 t It will be seen, that Articles 4th and 5th in the Presentment essentially depends for 
 the maintainauce of the allegations which they contain, upon the testimony of the Bi- 
 .«hop. That the Bishop was not in Chicago to furnish statements on -which to found 
 those articles is certain ; that he could have furnished statements to support their alle- 
 gations will hardly be believed by any who may read the papers referred in connection 
 with them in the Appendix. 
 
 But that the Bishop appeared as a witness against the respondent, on the trial, istrue7 
 and that he deposed according to the tenor of those articles is also true, — with what 
 gentleness and kindness, and consideration for the respondent was observed by a nu- 
 merous congregation in attendance at the time. 
 
S2 
 
 r VI. ^W^th respect to Article VJ., the respondent ofTers a tlienml 
 of the alU'^iUicm that he, on the excursion therein refeiTed to, 
 " t(K)k with liim at the time of said excursion a bottle of wine ;" and 
 allirms that the wine was taken by his companion ; — the respondn 
 ent further denies, that he " well knew" that the " younj? man,' 
 Glass," was " a member of the Temperance Society ;" — on the 
 contrai'y, he would have inferred the opposite from the fact of his 
 being a communicant in the Church ; the Church not recognizing 
 Temperance Societies, and few, comparatively, of her members 
 having any coimection with them. To the other port^ of the Ar- 
 ticle, answer does not appear to be required. Whether or not the 
 things thei'ein alleged occurred seems to the res})ondent to be im- 
 material, as no moral delinquency is involved.* 
 
 yil. With respect to Article VII., liie resiiondenl deems it suf- 
 ficient to say, that the ofierings and the entire income of Trinity 
 Church were voted by the Vestry, Sept. 2, 1845, on motion of S. 
 J. Sherwood, as his salary, subject only to the payment of the cur- 
 rent and contingent expenses of said Church. The minutes of the 
 Vestry containing that resolution, are on your files.f The de*: 
 raand of Mr. Hatfield was, therefore, for a matter that was purely 
 
 •The " young man, Gla-^s."' called hy.the presenters, was the onlv witness with re- 
 sj^ect to the matters charged in Article 3il. 3Ir. Stuart was in Xew York at tlie tihie ; 
 and the allegatious were not deemed, by the respondent's Counsel, of .sullicient iinp.ort-f 
 ance to warrant the trouble and e.\])ense of iirocurinp him as a witness, or of {jeftiiif^'h'iis 
 deposition to rebut or explain thein. The result satislied aa to this ondssioa ; the -viit- 
 r.essofthe presenters having done both sufficiently. As a key to some things con-, 
 nected with this ca.xe, let the allegations of the pre8enters,and thb statements of tbtSr' 
 wituese be seen side by side : ,, ,|i|.. .' ' ) • (,; . , 
 
 ARTiCL^eth.— The Presenters. Ghuu 'he K'tneas : 
 
 " We had some wine alonj 
 know by whom it was taken- 
 by Mr. Stuart or Mr. Walker.' 
 
 " Said Walker took with him at the time " We had some wine along ; I do n'dt' 
 of said excursion a bottle of wine." know by whom it was taken— whether, by 
 
 " Said Walker did at the time drink of " I do not recollect certainly whether, 
 eaid wine, and oifered the same to the said Mr. W. or Jlr. S. drank ftrct ol that whic ' 
 Stuart and the said Glass." 1 have an idea that Mr. W. drank linst, but 
 
 I do not recollect. 
 
 '• The two gentlemen drank about a Wine 
 gla.«s a piece. I drank of what wa* handed 
 to me, aud threw the rest out." 
 
 "And at the same time did advise the ' \ .' 
 said UlasB, though being a young man and , ■ • : -i » : .■ I'll 
 
 a member of the Temperance Society." ,;' .^j j (■).);j;ir,'i(i z-> 
 
 ,,")Sai(i .Walker well knowing the same." "I do not know whether or Aot'MfirJV.' 
 , ^j- was at that time aware that I was. a mem- 
 
 n'lfiOO. 'Ill'' ber of the Temperance Society. 
 
 "I don't think he is or waa a member; 
 the 1'. l-;. Church liiis no cynunction with 
 Temperance Societies." 
 
 I, 
 
 " Saying it would be no violation of his •' Mr. W. made the remark. • this cannot, 
 
 (Glass'J pledge as no water was at hand.'' be considered a violation of the Tcnip^J' 
 
 ^ auce i)ledge,as there is po water at hauij.' Jj. 
 
 "On account of which, the said Glass "I think tire remark made by Mr. Wtt 
 taking the advise of said Walker, did driuk about the Temperance pledge was a gen- 
 ofsoidwine." eral obsenation; I do not know that it 
 
 was made to me particularly. 
 :'- ■ • "I was, in a measure, induced to drink 
 
 by this remark." 
 
 ',-an..>-i ),■■ 
 
 Glass i« believed to be a young man of truth. If he be, his storv before the present- 
 ers was sub.stantially the statement above given, which wa.s his testimony on the triai. 
 But howdothe allegations of the presenters ditier from that tcMimonv : How far be- 
 yond the testimony does the 6th Article of the Presentment go ! Did the " good of the 
 Church" require this? Why was it so laid? And why was not a statement obtained froni 
 Air. Stuart ? See Pre/act ; anU nolef on pagfs 4 and 13. 
 
 -lid «7d \,;ivMQ tr'il JfWbUOfpvl f.lAPWftWlct^ ' '•»« 
 
23 
 
 withiii the ri'jjhtji of the respomlent. He was at thnt time, by 'tacit 
 consent, TrciL^urer for the rcspoiKJcnt only, anJ not for the Vestry^ 
 in so far a,s tlic revenues of the (Church were concerned. ' 
 
 ■•■■ iThere had been excitement in the earlier stage of the interview 
 ^between Hatfield and the respondent, [regarding interests foreign 
 to Trinity Church.] The respondent, [at the time of Hatfield's 
 rail and during his stay,] was driven by private matters requiring 
 his attention, being engaged in ]>reparing matter for the press, 
 which was then urging him. Hence, [he was naturally somewhat 
 impatient at Hatfield's continued interruption of him ; and, per- 
 haps, W!is somewhat excited by his peculiar and imperative man- 
 ner, and the indelicate and otFensive pertinacity of his demand.J 
 He was informed by the respondent that the matter which he had 
 required could not then be attended to ; moreover, that he should 
 not be so importunate, for the interest was the respondent's solely ; 
 and that, if he continued his demand, it would not be granted. 
 The respondent, at the same time, claimed, what the manner of 
 Hatfield most naturally and properly suggested, that he should bo 
 treated as a gentleman in his own house. Not a word escajied the 
 respondent on the subject of Hatfield's leaving the house, or of the 
 house being left by one Avho might insult the respondent, as is al- 
 leged in the Aiticle. The imagination of the com|)lainant Hat- 
 field must have caused him to magnify the occurrcjices of that in- 
 terview ; and led him, under the influence of tlnvaited feelings, to 
 aJlege occurrences which never happened, or as they never ha})- 
 pened. 
 
 It was matter of surprise to the respondent subsequently, to 
 know that Hatfield had asserted that on the occasion referred to, 
 he " had been turned out of the" respondent's " house." 
 
 As, however, Hatfield })rofessed to have been " grieved" ! by 
 what had occurred, the respondent was willing to [consider his 
 weakness, forgive his insolence, and] make peace. He, therefore, 
 offered him his hand as a pledge of reconciliation when next ho 
 met him. That it was accei)ted, but without a response from Hat- 
 field such as the overture demanded, is not the fault of the re-* 
 spondent. 
 
 Such is the Answer of the respondent to Article VIL* 
 
 • The testimony offered with respect to Article 7th, was that of the single witness' 
 Uatfield, and was as follows :— 
 
 '• I did call on Mr. W.. as Treasurer of Trinity Ghnrch, on Monday mominjr, Jan'v 
 19 — last January. I asked Mr. W. to give me an account, and not the money, of thti 
 otferinofs by him received on Sunday morniiijr, Jan'y 11, previous. Mr. W. .said that it 
 matters not now ; when I said, in my usual way of speakine, ' Oh, yes. you must pive,' 
 — ae by re(iuest only, I used the words must. — -must give me an account of the offer- 
 ings ;' and, at the same time, extended to him a blank piece of paper, for him to write) 
 down the amount. He replied very harshly and in anger, that the money was his. and 
 he would do with it what he ])!eased, and that I should not say must to him ; ' any man 
 that says must to me in my own house insults me; and any man, sir, that insults me itK 
 my own house may walk out of it.' I accordingly took my hat, made a bow, and bid 
 him good morning. 
 
 '• It was my custom, as Treasurer, to receive the weekly ofTerings, and to kPCp an aOii 
 count of them in the books as Trea^iurer. 1 generally took them from the plate. Hei 
 took them on Sunday, Jan'y 11th ; I was not present. _ i' 
 
 ■■ Mr. James A. Marshall was present at the interview between me an^ Mn W.'inli'e-i 
 lation to the oft'erings. . . vii ■ j: t; > 
 
 '• My opinion is that Mr. W. ought not. from the manner in which 1 spoke, to hare 
 understood me as using commanding lanpiage. 1 did not so intend it ; but he might 
 so have considered it. lit was at Ihc time 1 calkd engaged in other business. I eaw 
 
24 
 
 yilt "With respqct to Article VIII., the respondent will say, 
 that he never preached a sermon on " Epiphany Sunday," and for 
 this most conclusive reason, that there is no such Sunday in the 
 Calendar ; that the sernlon complained of was preached on the 
 fourtii Sunday alter Epii>hany, (Feb. 1 ;) that said sermon was not 
 intended lor the special application alleged, having been written 
 eleven years a^o, and i'ov a parish in the East of which the re- 
 spujiident then had charge ; that it contains no matter for just com- 
 plaint; that it can be esteemed personal or special in its bearings 
 or teachings by such only as by previous circumstances may have 
 come into that peculiar intellectual and moral state which leads to 
 the attribution of imagined evil as though it were real; [that it 
 makes no reference eitker dii-ect or by implication to " the ladies of 
 the tSewing Society ; that it contains not a word or intimation on 
 the subject of the appropriation on non-appropriation of moneys, in 
 any way; nioreover, that it had "in view the celebration of the 
 C,o^ft>iftnnipn ;!': ao4, i(itlj(e ix?spondent may say it, against the jjdg- 
 -id hUi^rA- ill Ji...i Jyil-">V^ 
 
 ■'• ' ■ :■; !''i'i ' ■• 
 that lt« ^-as cii{!;ap;e{l when 1 went in. ITp niifrht have said he was too much engaged 
 wJtli otl;er busiiiefs at that tiine: 1 do not recollect of his saying it. 
 
 '■ JLr. \y. liad received the oftR'rings beiore, oiioe or twice, iu which cases he gave me 
 an accoii lit of tlieni. 
 
 "1 amnot a communicant of the P> E. Church ; do not know that I have ever been 
 bapti/.cd. 
 
 *' 1 arii21 years old and over; am collector and general agent." 
 
 Article 7th was deemed by the Counsel of the respondent frivolous, and unworthy of 
 notice ; tlievefore they were unwilling to weary themselves and the Court by thecxami- 
 nation of Mr. Marshall, who was present and would have testified, to rebut or explain 
 it», Thev believed tlie Court would view it as they did. The contrary lias transpired. 
 Tienqe it has been deemed a duty to iiieseut the testimony on wliich the verdict of the 
 Oonrt ne,sis, tliat others also may juilgo resjieefing it. 
 
 The atiidiu it of Mr. Jlarshallis hereto subjoined. j)re8euting that to wliicli he wouJd 
 have (lejiosed on the trial, had he JiCen called. It \\ ill be jjudi^e<l tiom an e.xuiiiiiiation 
 of this altidavit, with the testimony of ilatlield— a '• switt witness in the cote"' — liow 
 ■wisely, and witli what a measure of regard tor the " good of the Church"" Article 7th 
 Was laid ! and in bow severe a sense the verdict of the Court should be understood. 
 
 How impartiully the presenters proceeded in laying Article 7th, may be inferred 
 from the fact, that they did not call >Ir. Marshall ; that one side, that of Hattield — 
 {(gainst th(? accnp«l,-^was all they heard or regarded! Was this to '-examine the 
 case;" to J' enquire as to the truth ;■' ' .r 
 
 The solemnity of an oath in the' estimation of the witness, Hntfield, may be partially 
 inferred from liis testimony as to his age, given above ; he is in fact nearly 40 years old! 
 
 His opposition to the resiiondont, sworn to by himself before the Court, and openly 
 avowed ; his manner in testifying, and luimerous incoiisisfencies and contradictions of 
 which he wai< convictetl, were within the kuowledsro of the Court. 
 
 It was supposed that he was so far impeached tliat no credit would be given to hia 
 statements. 
 
 The Court were not of the same opinion. The following aflidavit will show their mis- 
 take, iu part. 
 
 .Tnmes A. Marshall maketh oath that he was present at the interview between Isaac 
 1'. Hatfield and the Kev. W. F. Walker on thelyth January. lS4i5. referred to in Article 
 7th of the presentment against said AV. F. Walker, and that during said interview said 
 Hatfield became boisterous in his conversation, and grotestpie in his gestures, and de- 
 manded rather than asked lor the oll'erings reterredto ; that said Walker was at the 
 time very much engaged, and informed said Hatfield that he could not then attend to 
 the application ; siiid Walker, however, claimed the offerings as his own, as having 
 been made so by a vote of the Vestry ; therefore said Hatfield should iiot ,eav that he 
 must have them or an account of them, (which in the mean time he bad demanded,) for 
 that if he did so peremptorily insist, that he, Hattield, should not have them ; Mr. 
 Walker saying at the same time that he would be treated like a gentleman in hi.s own 
 house ;— whereupon said Hatheld replied, " Veryhvell, sir; very well, sir— good morn- 
 ing, sir," and left the house in a rude and ungentlemanly wav, pulling the door to be- 
 hind him in a violent and insulting manner. Mr. Walker did not evince any temper, 
 that could be considered unchristian, although he seemed excited under the unreasona- 
 ble provocation given him by Hatfieid ; but Mr. Walker did not say any thing to Hat- 
 field onthe.subject of his (Hatfield's) leaving the house. That this deponent is a mer- 
 chant in the city of Chicago, and a communicant of the Second Presbyterian Chnrch in 
 said city. JAS. A. MARSHALL. 
 
 Sworn to before mc this 13th day of November A. D. 1846. 
 
 F. A. HOWE. J. r. 
 
25 
 
 ment of Article Stli, w;is siiitiible to the occiii^ion, If the Epistle for 
 the day may be deemed suggestive of a tit topic tor discourse.* 
 
 It is also a part of '' the truth" in the case — and duty requires 
 that " that the whole truth" should be told — that the respondent 
 had not, '*' as was by them supposed," requested the appropriation 
 of " monies belonging to said sewing Society ;" that, " in conse- 
 quence of said sermon," bat two members of said Trinity Church 
 did absent themselves from the communion, feeling scandalized by 
 said sermon ;" that " said sermon" '' was" not, therefore, " the cause 
 of offence to many persons, niembers of said Church ;" find that 
 the respondent would at once have made all and any requisite " ex- 
 planation of said sermon," had he been informed, by the parties 
 professedly " feeling scandalized" by it, of the scandal they pro- 
 fessed to feel. 
 
 The respondent could not have made any " retraction of said 
 sermon ;" but he would have " made enquiries into the cause of 
 said members absenting themselves from the communion," had 
 such absences been unusual, or had there been reason to believe 
 that, in the cases of the said two " members," either themselves or 
 the Church were likely to suffer. Indeed,] he did " make expla- 
 nation of said sermon" soon after he learnt that it was complained 
 of; and that in the same public manner, in which he was accused 
 of having sinned. f That the complainants were not thereby sat- 
 istied, is not to be charged upon him. For some cause, it suited 
 them rather to retain their harsh judgment, and to continue to this 
 
 The fol!owin;j tostimony toiwliiug the witness Hatfleld with respect to the respoudent 
 was given on the trial : 
 
 " He (Hatfield) said he hoped Mr. AV. would resiarn ; tliat if he would resign honora- 
 bly, they should be glad ; th;it if he did not re.-ign, charges would be preferred against 
 him, and he would be presented to the Hishop ; that if no one else would do it, he would. 
 
 " i think I told him it was useless to report such .stories, [alluding to stories that had 
 been circulated by himself and others,] us they did not do any good. He made the re- 
 mark, that it was nccessary.to keep stories in circulation to get rid of or cause an Epis- 
 copal mini.ster to resign ; that the excitement should be kept up, as it was rather a difli- 
 cuit matter to get rid of an Episcopal minister ; that what stories there were against 
 the minister should be kept in circulafiou previous to [the Easter] election." 
 
 '■ I consider it a difficult job to get rid of an Episcopalian clergyman ;■' and, " I would 
 not compromise my opposition to Mr. W. as Kector of Trinity Church," were in the tes- 
 timony of Hatfield himself. 
 
 Jfow this is the party in Article 7th, and the witnes.s upon whose unsupported, yea, 
 conflicting testimony the f'ourti rendered their decision as given in the Verdict on that 
 Article, tie, an unchristian, hostile man,. judged of the temj.erof the respondent; tho 
 >. ourt adopted his judgment, and it staml.s as their "decision'' in their verdict. 
 
 * The text of the sermon complained of was. Heb. xiii. 17; its subject was, '• The mu- 
 tual duties, rosDonsibilitic?, and privileges of minister and neo])le". it was a plain, 
 hortatory discourse, unmarked by any of those hi'^her, and, to the meek and sub- 
 missive .spirit, more consoling views, which, had the sermon been recently written, 
 would surely have cliaractcrizcd it. Its negative character, in this respect, is striking; 
 and so dissatisfied the respondent at the dati" in question, that nothing but lack of oth- 
 er preparation, suited to the day and the occasion, could have induced him to preach it. 
 His choice of subjects being invariably detei mined by the services for the day, he chose 
 rather to preach that sermon, in harmony with that day's oflices, unsatisfying as it was 
 to himself, than another that might be out of harmony with those ottices. 
 
 The respondent was, perhaps, never more surprised than lie was when informed that 
 "said sermon'' had been characterised as '-a Fu.-;eyite sermon ;" and been deemed per- 
 sonal, in its application, to '• the ladies of the Sowing Society." He could hardly credit 
 the information, till the presentment came. Article 8th left no room for longer doubt. 
 That sermon was the basis of its allegations. The presenters having adopted the opinion 
 of two ladies on the subject, that article had been laid accordingly. And that, be it 
 remembered, without the sermon ; for it was neither had nor applied for by them ! 
 Did they fear being esteemed disrespectful to the ladies, if they should seek to ^iiow 
 something of the sermon, to form opinions ot their own? Or did "the good of tho 
 Churcii" r -quire that they shoidd charge without knowledge, that they should not "ex- 
 amine the case .'"' 
 
 + The sermon wa? re-preached, and explanation made of it,— due notice haring 
 been previously given. 
 
 4 
 
S8 
 
 time their complaint ; and for this they shall be left to make their 
 own answer. The respondent was always in charity with th^m ; 
 and was ready to forgive, and did forgive as he hopes to be forgiven.* 
 Such is the answer of the respondent to Article VIII. 
 
 ♦The explanation of what has occurred with respect to the " Epiphany Sunday" 
 Sermon, is as follows : A small organ had been rented by some persons interested in 
 the music in Trinity Church : and, for reasons sufficient lor theniselvts, a portion of 
 " the ladies of the Sewing Society" liad supposed that ii had hcei' done by the respond- 
 ent, and that their Society was expected to pay the rent of it. though the respondent 
 had never exchanged a word with any of theih on the subject. In the meanwhile, 
 "the ladies of the Sewing Society" held a "Fair," which proved successful, and 
 put them in possession of some funds. Those who had interested themselves in 
 getting the organ into the Church, favored the Fair; and, as there were not other 
 special demands tor its receipts for parochial objects, they thought that payment for 
 the use of the orgau to that date, from those receipts, would be legitimate aiid proper. 
 A bill sent to them for the same, in amount !*20, it is believed, was accordingly diiect- 
 ed to "the ladies of the Sewing Society," and its payment asked by one of tlieir num- 
 ber. "The ladies 1" very promptly decided that the bill had been .sent by the respond- 
 ent, who, they said, had "put the'organ into the Church without consulting them 1 — 
 and, therefore, he might pav for it ; they would not." 
 
 Supposing that they had thus greatly crossed the respondent, it was a ready imagi- 
 nation, for such persons- under such circumstances, that he luubt so feel it as to " visit 
 their otfence with a rod" when opportunity should offer. 
 
 Such was the .slate of things, of which, however, the respondent was entirely una- 
 ware, when " said sermon" was preached. The parson's feelings, and what were sup- 
 posed to be hia wishes, the interests of the parish, and the peace of the Church had been 
 valued ; and §20 in money had been deemed of more worth than they all 1 
 
 By tho.^e who know the respondent, the extent to which that sum would influence 
 him" will be at once climated. But sad to say, it forms the entire toundatiou of the al- 
 legations in Article Sth. 
 
 Some extracts from the testimony in the case, will illustrate these statements, and 
 perhaps, throw some further light upon the spirit with which the respondent has been 
 brought into conllict. 
 
 It will here be seen how the leaven of the master, already noticed, had at this time 
 begun to work. His wife was of the Ladies" Society. (See notes on pages 3 and 18, last 
 paragraph.) 
 
 The two lema'e "members of the Church" who "did absent themselves from the 
 communion, feeling scandalized by said sermon," were the witnesses. 
 
 The one testified thus : "The subject of the sermon was obedience, that we must 
 obey Mr. W., and do as he said. The text was. I think, ' Obey them that have the rule 
 over you ;' or, • Be in subjection to them that have the iiile over you ;' that was the im- 
 port of it. 
 
 " It was verv severe, and seemed to be a very f«vere whipping to the ladips of the 
 Sewing Society"thal had not done as Mr. W. wished. It seemed to lay down the rules 
 that we had not obeyed him. and we must obey him. 
 
 "We had not jjaid some orders that he had drawn upon our Treasury; we had not 
 appropriated our money as he wished we should." (?) 
 
 " There was a demand sent in for us to pay, and I for one refu.eed that the money of 
 the Society should go to pay that order. It' was an order, or a note, orapa_per, or a bill 
 that came to us ; and, if 1 understood it, and as the other ladies understood it, il came 
 from Mr. W. to pav for the use of the organ in the Church, and the platform on which 
 it stood. AVe refused to pav it. I understood the organ had been hired by Mr. W. 
 
 " Mr. W., never called upon us lor the money : I do not know that his name was to 
 the order. I think there was never an order"signed by Jlr. W. at any time for pay- 
 ment of the organ ; as I said before 3Ir. W. never called on us." (N. B. Compare this 
 with third narasraph above.) 
 
 " The bill sent to us was ?2 for the platform, and .?18 for the organ. 
 
 " The ladies were not named in that discourse ; neither was JSlr. W., nor Mr. D-, nor 
 appropriation of monies. He didn't use the words plain ; I inferred it; 1 understood 
 it ; I think the sermon was jueaclied expressly for us. He did not mention the Sewing 
 Society, but might as well have done so. It w as perfectly understood what he meant. 
 
 "Miss said if Mr. AV. preached many such sermons, he would preach to bare 
 
 walls ; she said it was a verv ridiculous sermon. 
 
 " It was called a good Roman Catholic sermon. It seemed to be his purpose to incul- 
 cate in our minds that we must obey him in regard to the Church and to our religion ; 
 and as far as he said we could go, we could go. He was very severe on that particular 
 point, that we must obey Jiim as Hector of the Church ; and when we had anything^to 
 give, and he called for it, we mu.st give. It was new to me, the idea of our obeying MrTW. 
 
 "He has never spoken tome on the subject. He has never called at our house but 
 once since. I said that if he called upon me during the week following, and asked the 
 reasons why I (absented myself from the communion,) I should think he was a good 
 man ; if not, I should never go to the communion again while he was iu Trinity Church"! 
 
 The other witness testified thus:—" The sermon alluded to in Article Sth in the pre- 
 sentment, kept me away from the communion. I didn't think it was a suitable sermon 
 for the occasion at all. It was his manner as much as anything. I didn't think that 
 he was in a fit state of mind to administer the communion at that time. His manner 
 was excited, verv much so." (Query, when was it not so ?) 
 
 " I cannot state in what month Epiphany Sunday is without looking to the Almanac. 
 
 •' I can tell the text of that sermon, but not the book, chapter or verse ; it was, " Sub- 
 ject yourselve* to them that have the rule over you." 
 
27 
 
 IX. With respect to Article IX., the respondent submits as 
 follows : 
 
 It is not true, that the respondent " did publicly avow, declare 
 and state that he did see the Bishop when and at the time of his 
 arrival at Chicago, and added that he would go into the country." 
 But that the respondent did go into the country at that time, is 
 true ; also, that he " did not call upon the Bishop during his said 
 visit, and did not invite liim to consecrate Trinity Church, or con- 
 firm those whom he had reported of his Parish at the Convention 
 at Springfield in 1845, as being ready for confirmation." 
 
 The facts and causes in relation to what is here denied and admit- 
 ted are as follows : 
 
 At the visit of the Bishop to this city in June 1844, the respond- 
 ent and the Bishop, as your Board are aware, were thrown into a 
 position of coldness and distrust with regard to each other. An 
 interview took place between them that was neither cordial nor 
 pleasant, and which inspired feelings in the respondent of a very 
 painful character.* The bearing of the Bishop towards the respond- 
 
 "Ho did not in that discourse say Ladies' Society ,but wc all understood what he meant. 
 
 " It was a good Koman Catholic sermon. The particular tenet advanced which I term 
 Roman Catholic was, that we must obey him iu all things, as to our religious duties ; he 
 had the rule over us."' 
 
 "If lie had called to see me it would have been all explained. I said going from 
 Church, we should think Mr. W. a Christian if he called to see why we didn't stay ; and 
 if he did not, we should nof'l 
 
 Now, in view of what is thus submitted, will any think it a matter of complaint that 
 the two ladies, •' members of Trinity Church" did absent tliemselves from the com- 
 munion, as they are allecred to have done ? Had the Rector previously have known their 
 state of mind and feeling, would he not have been required to insist that they should 
 abstain until they should " repent and amend ?" 
 
 But, for the conclusion of this matter. The sermon was produced in court, identified 
 and read by the respondent. Instantly, and as by acclamation, the court and the coun- 
 sel for the presenters ! agreed that it was a most proper sermon — expressing at the same 
 time, the wish that many more such might be preached in the Church. 
 
 How scrupulouslv the provisions of the laws of the Church and the laws of delicacy 
 and propriety are observed in respect to the preaching of sermons by the '• live persons," 
 the presenters in tiiis case, may be gathered in part from a fact which shall be here 
 stated touching their chairman. 
 
 From Advent to Easter, it has been the custom of the Rector of Trinity Church to 
 open his Church for a third Sunday service. During this season, on the evening of the 
 fifth Sunday in Lent, (March 10th,) 1845, the "Rector of M. James' Church iu ChicagOj"' 
 did, in the First Presbyterian meeting-house, next adjoining Trinity Church, in said 
 city, preach a .sermon from 2 Tim. iii. 16. the Rev Wm. Oliver, Methodist, having con- 
 ducted the preliminary devotions, said Trinity Church being open for its usual services 
 at the time, " the said "Rector well knowing the same.'' 
 
 On this occasion, the Book of Common Prayer was neither introduced nor recog- 
 nised. 
 
 Kow Canon XLV. of the General Convention thus provides: 
 
 "Every minister shall, before all sermons and lectures, and on all other occasions of 
 
 Eublic worship, use the Book of Common Prayer, as the same is or may be established 
 y the authority of the General Con\ention of this Church. And in performing said 
 Service no other prayer shall be used than those prescribed by the said book." 
 
 It may be stated that St. James' Church is in the northern part of Chicago, and that 
 the river which separates it from the south, forms a natural " local boundary" between 
 it and the parish of Trinity. How far the spirit of Canon XXXI. of the General Con- 
 vention of 1844. on the subject " Of the officiating of ministers within the parochial 
 cures of other clergymen," may be here applicable, others may determine. 
 
 That the Rev. Rector, on the occasion noticed, did cross the river, and in a house ad- 
 jacent to Trinity Church, then open, as he was perfectly aware, " officiate by preach- 
 ing," as has been stated, i> perfectlj' true. Others may decide on liis regard for law ; 
 in this the respondent has only to show that his '• ways are not equal." Of his activity 
 in serving to present the respondent tkricr (!) for alleged violations of law, while he him- 
 self could do, as has been stated, there shall nothing be here said. 
 
 * At this interview, for adhering to what he believed to be canonically right, the re- 
 spondent was angrily and harshly received ; sahited as " the man thathad refused to 
 obey his Bishop ;" declared to have been presented, according to a paper shown to 
 hiiri, then lying on the table ; and informed that he was thought to be " ipso facto sus- 
 pended !" 
 
 On the present trial the Bishop testified, that at the date referred to, he " required 
 three clergymen at that time in Chicago, to present" the respondent ! 
 
 The testiinony given was this :—" For some reason or other, known to himself, Mr. 
 
 • 
 
28' 
 
 cnt during the said visit was not such as to toothe or dissipate 
 them, tlioiigh the respondent exerted liimself and did all in his ]>ow- 
 er to restore proper relation? between the Bishop :nid himself. He 
 invited him at that time to lay the corner stone of U'rinity Church, 
 and to ofiiciate for him ; asked him to ])artake of tlie hospitalities 
 of his house, and invited the members of Trinity I'arish generally 
 to meet him there, to pay him respect ; and sought to favor the in- 
 terests of the Bishop by enlisting some of his parishioners then 
 assembled in behalf of Jubilee College.* On the eve of the Bish- 
 op's leaving, in the cordial interview between the Bishop and him- 
 self on board the steamboat, all the wishes of the respondent seem- 
 ed to be realized. Under the conviction that this was the case, he 
 •wrote the letter of June 12, 1844, to the Bishop at Detroit, which 
 is on your files. The letter of the Bishoj) in reply from Buffalo, 
 under date of June 20, was not a resjjonsc to the letter the receipt 
 of which is acknowledged, and indicated, as it seemed, to the re- 
 spondent, a relapse on the part of the Bishop into the state of mind 
 and feeling with respect to the respondent, which had existed in 
 Chicago prior to the sieamboat iiitcr\iew.t That the letter written 
 thus by tlie respondent Avas framed in (sxact accordance with what 
 he understood to be the feelings of the Bishop when he parted with 
 him on board the steamboat, is evident irom the re])ly of the Bish- 
 op, wherein he says, " I Avish you had iuade my written communi- 
 cation to you while at Chicago, instead of the oral conve}-8ation on 
 board the steamboat the subject matter of your letter. 
 
 I referred you to that communication, and noAv repeat that ref- 
 erence." 
 
 It -will be recollected that this conversation was sid)sequent to 
 the letter referred to ; and was thus naturally made the principal 
 basis of tlie respondent's letter to the Bishop ; though the respond- 
 ent intended it to cover both, as U'ill appear from the letters now 
 on your files ; that it did cover " the oral conversation on board the 
 steamboat," the Bishop's letter, above quoted, clearly, though im- 
 pliedly, admits.f 
 
 TV. had (lisobevpd my order? ns his Bishop. There were ihen three clerfrymen in town, 
 to vhom I cave the iiil'orrnntion, ai:d required them to jireseiit >lr. AV. lor trial, in con- 
 sequence of his breaking his ordination vows. 'J'hey did present him as having broken 
 his ordination vows. It was on this occasion tliat 1 iiddre.^.'ed Mr. \A'. with some de- 
 gree of earnestness, thouch certiiinly with affection, (I) and lold liim that the Court 
 would certainly go on, rfnd very likely he would be i)ut into a state of suRpcnsion, 
 which I shouldVegret.C)'' Sec Appendix, M. 
 
 * The respondent at this time thought Jubilee College an Institution of the Church in 
 Illinois, llis mistake was not at once discovered. The last Convention of the Diocese 
 sought to set forth the right in respect to that Institution by the adoption of the report 
 of a'- Committee to whom was rclerred so much of the Bishop's Address as relates to 
 Jubilee College,"' and which is in these terms, to wit : 
 
 " GnUna. June 22, 1846. 
 
 " Tlie committee to which was referred so much of the Bishop's tdflress as concerns Jubilee College, 
 
 " That the clciieal and lav-members of this Convention have the most lively interest in the prosperity 
 of that t.'oUcge ; and that, tt"s thev disavow all claim to any control over it, or to any ripht to imiuire into 
 any act of the Bishon in relation thereto, as vested in this Convention : therefore thev tender to the Bi- 
 shop most resj.c itfullv Uieir thanks lor the information whioh he has voluntarily laid before them ; and 
 declare their enntiuued c Lifidenec that the inteutions of the donors to taid College will be carried into 
 effect by him w isclv and faithfullv. 
 
 " They unile in I'lravir to (iod, that life and health and means may be atiorded to him to conduct this 
 offspring of his last days to greater \ igor and maturity. ^^ \K LES DRESSFR, 
 
 K. ij. KKI.L(J(;(i." 
 JNO. r. AVOHTIUNGTON. 
 
 "Which report was, on motion, received, and the sentiments thereiu e.\pres8ed unanimously adopted.'' 
 
 There is a slight mistake here. The respoudent did not concur in the above report ; 
 but moved that it be laid on the table, 
 t Appendix K. 
 
29 
 
 The next meeting of the respondent with tlie Bi.shop was at the 
 Convention in S])ringfield in 1^45. At thut meeting, and during 
 the Convention, your Board iu*e aw<are that llie Bisiiop did not re- 
 ceive tlie res;'ondent in a cordial manner, or recognize liim in the 
 relation of his Presbyter, as lie did the other Presbyters thenjn-es- 
 ent, and members of the Convention ; tor tliat he alone of all pres- 
 ent, was invited to participate in the conduct of no offices of the 
 Church during the session of said Convention. June 23d, a few 
 days after the Convention, the respondent addressed to the Bishop 
 a letter asking for a reconciliation, putting himself before the Bish- 
 op for admonition and correction whereinsoever he thought him to 
 liave erred, or for a letter dismissary to another jurisdiction. This 
 letter, though written in the most humble and respectful manner, 
 was not deemed by the Bishop worthy of reply. It is upon your 
 files.* 
 
 The letter of July 14th, 1845, from the Bishop, saying that he 
 would conditionally come to Chicago and consecrate Trinity Church, 
 but saying nothing on the subject of confirmation in an}' way, was 
 the next communication from the Bishop to the respondent. That 
 communication was upon a subject in correspondence lietween the 
 vestry and himself, and respecting which the vestry had caused him 
 to be addressed by its Corresponding Secretary.f 
 
 No letter or notice of any kind was afterwards received from the 
 Bishop by the respondent up to the time of his arrival here. The 
 respondent had in the mean time been informed, that an appoint- 
 ment had been made by the Bishop for confirmation in St. James' 
 Church in a letter to Pev. ]Mr. Kellogg. 
 
 Soon after the Bishop's ai-rival in Chicago, Col. George Davis 
 was sent for by him, and enquired of in regard to the affairs of 
 Trinity Church, propei'ly nnder the cognizance of the Rector ; and 
 he was directed to obtain the infoi-mation sought in respect to the 
 same, and report to the Bishop. This course of the Bishop came 
 to the resjjondent's knowledge, and seemed to him to indicate that 
 he and the Bishop were again really in the position with respect 
 to each other, which existed during the visit ot the Bishop in 1844. 
 He thereupon came to the conclusion that the Bishop did not in- 
 tend to recognize him in his official relation, either to himself or 
 Trinity Church. He felt that the justness of that conclusion would 
 be determined either by the Bishop's calling on him, or by his giving 
 him information that he was here — which would be an indication 
 that he might call upon him, and his otficial position, at least, be 
 recognized. Up to the hour for the services in St. James' Church, 
 in the morning of Wednesday, the respondent waited in vain for 
 any token of recognition on the part of the Bishop. 
 
 The Bishop arrived in this city on the evening of Monday. On 
 the morning of that day, the respondent left a sick friend in the 
 country, Avith whom he had spent the night previous — one of the 
 members of a congregation for which he officiated on Sunday eve- 
 nings dui'ing the last summer — and returned to this city, in order 
 to be here and wait upon the Bishop, should he come, as he had 
 heard he was to do, and be pleased to receive the respondent. 
 
 * Appendix, N. t Appendix, G. 
 
3« 
 
 Waiting until Wednesday morning, as before stated, and construing 
 the course taken by the Bishop into an intimation that he cared not 
 to see the respondent, and feeling that he could not, therefore, for 
 reasons before stated, call upon him, he returned to the friend in 
 the country, -whom he had left on the Morning of jMonday. 
 
 Had the respondent seen the Bishop at that visit he could not 
 have invited him "to consecrate Trinity Church," because it was 
 still in debt — under a debt whicli the vestry would not then remove ; 
 the Bishop, by his own declaration, having precluded an invita- 
 tion to consecrate under such circumstances ; " nor confirm those 
 whom he reported of his parish at the Convention in Spring- 
 field of 1845, as being ready for confirmation ;" for, not hav- 
 ing received any notice whatever from the Bishop that he would 
 visit Trinity Parish for the purpose of holding confirmation, 
 he had prepared no candidates for the reception of that rite. 
 Though several had the moral qualilication recpjisite, and had 
 been " ready and desirous" to be confirmed, there Avould have been 
 no time or opportunity to prepare them intellectually, as is contem- 
 plated by the Church, and as is necessary to such an appreciation 
 of the rite, as would enable them duly to profit by it.* 
 
 Such is the answer of tlie respondent to Article IX. 
 
 •The respoDflcnt deems it to be due to liiinsclf to state, tliat, at the date in fiuestion, 
 Bishop Chase was on his way to tlie East, to attend the consecration of Dr. Potter, Bish- 
 op of Pennsylvania, and that Ciiicago was on liis route. This may prevent the impres- 
 sion that the " visit'' spoken of in Article 9th, was an " Episcopai Visitation,"' accord- 
 ing to the Canon. It was in fact purely incidental. 
 
 By what law the res])ondent was '• censurable in that he did not pay his respect* to 
 the Bishop, and present his class for confirmation," on the occasion of such a visit, he 
 knows not. The onlv law of the Church on the subject " Of the duty of ministers in 
 regard to Episcopal Visitations," of wliich he is cognisant, is Canon XXYI. of the Gen- 
 eral Convention of 1844, and which is in these terms, to wit : 
 
 '■ Sec. 1. It shall be the duty of Ministers to prepare young persons and others for the 
 holy ordinance of Contirmation. And on notice being received from the Bishop, of his 
 intention to visit any Church, which notice .'-hall be at least one month before the in- 
 tended Visitation, the Minister shall give immediate notice to his parishioners individ- 
 ually, as opportunity may oilier; and also to the congregation ou the tiv.st occasion ol 
 public woishi]) after the receipt of said notice. And he .«hall bo ready to present for 
 Contirmation, such persons as he shall think properly qualified; and shall deliver to 
 the Bishop a list of the names of thoso confirmed. 
 
 " Sec 2. And at every Visitation it shall be the duty of the Jlinister, and of the 
 Church wardens or vestry, to give information to the Bishop, of the state of the con- 
 gregatiouj under such heads as shall have been committed to them in tne notice given 
 as atoresaid." 
 
 By this law, it will be seen, that the respondent owed no such duty to bis Bishop at his 
 "visit" in Chicago in 1845j as the censure of the <,'ourt would imijly". That " visit" was a 
 surprise, and not a canonically notified " visitation." Tlie Canon devolves certain du- 
 ties upon the minister of a parish at an " Episcopal Visitation," ivhen certain things linve 
 been done by the Bis/iop. In this case, the Bishop had i)erformed nothing on his part 
 which was requisite to bind the respondent to the perlbrmance of any duties in return. 
 
 If the censure of the Court be not for a violation of a law of the Church, but for a 
 breach of what they supposed to bo courte.sy, the resjiondent would respectfully submit, 
 whether it waspro])erly within their province to adjudicate on that point! 
 
 What has been stated in the " Answer" of the bearing of the Bishop towards the re- 
 spondent, notwithstanding repeated efforts on his part and that of his parishioners to 
 bring about a different state of things, may be thought to furnish at lea.st some ground 
 to justify the course of the respondent. Such a conviction will not be weakened by the 
 following, in support of the Answer, and illustrative of the Bishop. 
 
 The matter is m the testimony of the Bishop thus, in his cross-examination : 
 
 " It was my pleasure, soon after ray arrival, to send for 3Ir. Davis, and because I 
 wished to enquire of him of the state and condition of Trinity Church in respect to 
 Mr. W." [It should be borne in mind that at this date Trinity Church was united and 
 prosperous, of which the Bishop had information; 1st, through the Corresponding Sec- 
 retary of the Vestry, about three months previously ; 2d, through the Rectorj in his re- 
 port to the Bishop'at Convention in the month previous. Of course, the object of the 
 Bishop was not to work disaffection !] 
 
 " CouNSEi.— Is it usual and respectful for the Bishop, when he visits a parish in his 
 Diocese, to send for a lavman to enquire into the situation of the Church, instead of 
 sending tor the Rector of the Church ? 
 
 " Bishop.— No, where the Rector is supposed to act correctly himself; but in the situ- 
 
31 
 
 X. With respect to Article X,, the respondent admits, th.it he did 
 *' in the store of Jacob Rnssell have mixed for liim some brandy 
 and sugar," as alleged therein, being unwell, which he did give at 
 the time" as an excuse," and that he was probably in " high spir- 
 its" — for that he is very rarely deprei^sed whether sick or well. 
 And he does not deny, that on being told " that a certain man, his 
 name being mentioned," to wit, A. C. Beclcer, " formerly a friend 
 of the respondent, but then an enemy, was carried home drunk 
 a few evenings previous to this time, from the Lake House, a ho- 
 tel in this city, did instantly reply, that he was glad of it," and that 
 he probably laughed " at the same time," stating, in explanation, 
 that he Avas glad " he had such good friends to carry him home," 
 although he has no recollection of these circumstances. 
 
 To understand the transaction here alleged to have occurred, it 
 is only necessary to recal the fact that the respondent had repelled 
 said Becker from the communion some time previously for drunk- 
 enness, among other things, and that he had been censured for so 
 
 ation I was then, 1 could not otherwise do. He had paid great disrespect to my com- 
 mands. He had behaved, in my opinion, very di.srespsctful to his Bisliop Having no 
 visit from any in tlie parish. I tlioii -{ht it was a concerted plan to pay me disrespect. 
 
 " Cou.NSEL.— In what manner and on ■\\hat occasion did Mr. W. or his parishioners 
 show great disrespect to the Bishop ? 
 
 " BisHoV. — By not meeting me according to appointment ;" (? — thcra was no appoint- 
 ment, — see Answer and references ;) '• hy not receiving me, and spealcing friendly with 
 me, as is always expected between a Church and its Bishop ; I mean at the time of my 
 arrival and during my stay here. 
 
 "Counsel.— Did'you expect, after you had sent for a layman to enquire into the affairs 
 of Mr. W.'s Church, that he would have called upon you .' 
 
 " Bishop. — Most certainly ; it was always his duty to call upon me. I expected him to 
 come. My bosom was always open towards him." (1) 
 
 Now for the fashion of the Bishop's "open bosom" towards the respondent, at this 
 time. It is furnished in a statement by Col. Davis, the parishioner of the respondent 
 who was sent for by the Bishop. 
 
 He says, " after some preliminary conversation between myself and the Bishop in re- 
 lation to Trinity Church, I enquired of the Bishop what Mr. W. could do that would 
 promote a good understaudiag between them. Whereupon he went into a desultory 
 accusation of Mr. W., stating that he had no right-mindedness ; that he was a piece of 
 Jesuitical twistitication ; that ho had promised on board the boat to write him a peniten- 
 tialletter, instead of which he had sent him the 90th tract ;" (see the letter, Appendix 
 K ;) " that he was a Benjamin T. man," &c., &c. 
 
 Such was the Bishop's " open bosom'' towards the respondent ! The same as it was in 
 1844, when he sent to the respondent's Vestry that he should officiate for Trinity con- 
 
 fregation on the Sunday then following, (June 2,) and bring with him a presbyter, the 
 lev. Kector of St. James' Church, Mr. Kellogg 1 to read the services, and that Mr. 
 Walker should be told to take his seat among the congregation; and when, on the 
 Sunday subsequent to that, (June 9,) he did take the place of the respondent over his peo- 
 ple, by assuming to officiate in the afternoon's services, having sent to the respondent to 
 take his seat among the congregation, and told him that he thought he would not re- 
 cognise him by officiating with him ;that he thought him ipso fano suspended I So accu- 
 sing, condemning, and suspending, by displacing from his rightful position, the respon- 
 dent, without a fiearing, a trial, or a warning 1 
 
 If these things were not too bad to be done, they are not too bad to be told. 
 
 Duty requires the respondent to speak the truth plainly, that the difiiculties of his 
 position in the Diocese of Illinois may be understood, and a key furnished to his prc- 
 sentmehts and trial. 
 
 The Utica Gospel Blessenger, of Nov. 20, furnishes the following, embracing prin- 
 ciples which are quite appropos to the points now considered, Irom authorities that can- 
 not be suspected : — 
 
 " We cut the following from the Witne.ss of the 6th : 
 
 " With the editors of tlie Recorder we fully agree, that no ' bishop has a right to en- 
 join any t/iing upon his clergy, respecting matters wiiich the church has chosen to leave 
 to their own decision.' 
 
 " As successors of the a])0stles, they have sole authority in the exercise of certain 
 functions in the Church ; and as bishops of particular dioceses, they have ceitain con- 
 ventional rights and powers, which are matters regulated by legislation, and are there- 
 fore clearly ^lelined; beyond these, they have no right whatever to go in theexeicise 
 of assumed authority. Their privileges and duties, like those of deacons and presbyters, 
 are limited, and should be fully understood by both clergy and laity, that they may be 
 sustained to the very utmost, so long as they exercise their powers within apostolical 
 and canonical bounds, and promptly reeisted when they transcend their legitimate au- 
 thority." 
 
32 
 
 doing by some who were associatetl with ]Mr. Becker.* "Whi.-n in- 
 formed, therefore, that those same persons, who hail so pursued tlie 
 respondent, had now the evidence thus carried liome to them tliat 
 the course of the respondent in relation to said Becker was right, 
 and he came to know that he must now be justified even by those 
 who had before censured him, he very Hkely laughed and remark- 
 ed, he was glad of it; glad, not that a fellow-creature was thus de- 
 based ; but, being so, that his '• good friends" had such evidence of 
 it as was furnished them, when they were called '' to carry him 
 home."t 
 
 Such is the answer of the respondent to Article X.. — the last 
 Article sought to be maintained in the presentment of 1846. 
 
 * Appendix, M. 
 
 tTlife author of the charges, in Article 10th of the rresentment, was the sole witness 
 called to substaiiTiate them. The dccipion of the Conrt renders proi)er the introduction 
 of his testimony here, that the means may be all'orded for the formation of ojunion as to 
 kow " far-' the respondent " exhibited an uncliristian temper,"' (sec Verdict.) on the oc- 
 casion referi-ed to. 
 
 On taking the stand, the witness remarked, in a manner evincinj; with sufliclent 
 clearness his feelings towards the responder.t and his interest in (he case, " I am very 
 glad to have this opportunity to tell wliat I know ;" and tlien proceeded as follows : — 
 
 "I called at tlie store of ^Ir. Kussell o-.irly in Alay, 1845, possibly .Septendx-r. about 
 dark, and found Mr. K. and 3Ir. W. in conversation behind the counter. I think there 
 ■was a clerk in the store — one other person. ,^Ir. W. was having some hrainly and su- 
 gar mixed for him. Mr. W. made the "eiuark soon after I went in, that he was un- 
 well, or something of that sort, and hoped that I, or we, would not circulate any bad 
 stories about him on account of his taking some brandy and sugar. 
 
 " Mr. R. observed to Mr. NV. that he understood a friend of his was carried home 
 drunk from the L.ake House a few evenings previous ; Mr. Hecker, I think he said. >lr. 
 AV. instantly replied, in a very earnest manner, that lie was • glad of it,' suiting the ac- 
 tion to the word. After indulging in a very hearty laugh, he instantly changed his 
 manner, and said, ' that is to say, that he "had such very good friends to carry him 
 home.' 
 
 " Mr. W.'s manner during the whole time, except when he altered his manner, was 
 one of extreme Icvitv. 
 
 " I think I never saw him look better than he did at that time. He appeared to be in 
 very high spirits. 
 
 " I never repeated this conversation, except to two persons in private, nearly a year 
 after. 
 
 " Mr. Eussell's store was not a place where liipior was sold by the glass to be drank 
 there. 
 
 "Mr. R. was, I believe, a Vestryman of Mr. AV.'s church. Jlr. AV. stopped, when he 
 first came here, awhile at a public hotel kept by ilr. Russell ; had been boarding at his 
 house a year or a vear and a half previous to tliat time. 
 
 "After the conversation at 3Ir. Russell's about liec!-er. I did take a pew in, and, till 
 last April, attend Mr. W.'s church, on account of my family." 
 
 In answer to the questions, •■ Are you one of the instigators of this propecntion ? Did 
 you write a letter to the lM.«hop on the subject .' Or, have you contributed any money 
 or means for carrying it on. or obligated vourself to do so .'" the reply was: 
 
 " I signed a letter to the IMshop with others,'" (see Rrcfaee, and page .3, note,) " asking 
 that Mr. W. might be tried on the charjes preferred against him bv St. J-.imes' Church. 
 In that letter the signers pronii.'ed the Bishop that we wo\iId pay the expenses in carry- 
 ing on the trial, (1) and that we wished to prefer charges against Mr. '\V."(1) 
 
 " I think it likely there was a pledge given that money should be contributed to pay 
 the expenses of tile second trial ; don't recollect particularly." 
 
 " I have sent A'iO to the Rishon to pav the expen.ses of Mr. Worthnigton."' (the Coun- 
 sel employed by the Bishop to prosecute,) -'to (ialena. Mr. Arnold culled on me to 
 know who was going to indemnify him as commissary. I gave him !i?20, and told him 
 that he mu.st consider that as an evidence that he was not expected to labor for noth- 
 ing. Have given in all SSO ; expect to give more if necessary. Have made no agree- 
 ment with the Counsel," (Mr. A.) " but assured him that we expected to pay him for hi.i 
 labor." (3Ir. "\V. was l.st Counsel employed by the Bishop ; Mr. A. 2d, employed by tho 
 persons referred to bv the witness.) 
 
 " I do hot feel indifTerent as to the result of this trial ; I think Mr. "NV. a very bad man, 
 and think he should be stopped jn-eaching. 
 
 " I am not a member of the Protestant Episcopal Church ; have never been bap- 
 tized ; was brought up among the Quakers." 
 
 The sister of this witness is the wife of the man noticed on page 18, in last two para- 
 graphs of the note; in Preface; in note on page .'j; and elsewhere, as the originator and 
 Fomenter of discontent with respect to the respondent ; and the sister of that man is 
 the wife of this witness ! That the witness should sympathise with his brother-in-law, 
 and act with him against the respondent, is no marvel. That brother-in-law n-ns thr. 
 author of the letter to the Bishop noticed in the testimony ; was one of its signers, and 
 wasbv the Bishop, in return, appointed one of the '-five persons'' to present I 
 
 In liii deposition before the Commiisary; thio witness tcitiliert of that perion as fol- 
 
33 
 
 [XI. With respect to Article XL, it may be proper here to 
 state, that the occurrence on which it is founded was simply a mis- 
 understanding in relation to a contract, in which each party held 
 his own vicAvs, and thus impliedly reflected on the other. The 
 matter was almost instantly amicably adjusted ; and the relation 
 of the parties has in no degree been interfered with by the occur- 
 rence. How the mole-hill became a mountain would, under other 
 circumstances than those which have attended the presentment of 
 the respondent, be inexplicable.] 
 
 That the foregoing answers contain a full and complete state- 
 ment of the facts to Avhich the several Articles in the presentment 
 of 1846 relate, so far as tliose facts rest in the memory of this re- 
 spondent, is solemnly affirmed. 
 
 In full view of his responsibilities, the respondent here, in the 
 presence of Almighty God, of the angels who may inhabit these 
 courts, and of the witnesses now present, declares, that in so far as 
 fault unexplained is involved in the allegations against him, that 
 fault is to be attributed to the head and not to the heart. 
 
 At the same time, the respondent acknowledges, that he has often 
 and again " erred and strayed from God's ways ;" that he has re- 
 peatedly " left undone the things he ought to have done, and done 
 the things he ought not to have done ;" that he has in many ways 
 " offended against God's holy laws ;" in short, that there is " no 
 spiritual health in him." But, thanks be to God, " there is mercy 
 with Him." He is " not extreme to mark what is done amiss." 
 
 lows : — " He, (Sherwood,) with others, signed the letter to the Bishop calling for this 
 trial, and saying in that letter that he, with the others, would pay the expenses of the 
 trial. He gave something towards the expenses of those ministers that were here," (hia 
 associate presenters.) 
 
 Now this is the witness and thi' thetestimonv that servfid for the decision of the Court 
 on Article 10th ; and this, too, witli the adili'ioiial qunlit'ying particular, that 3Ir. Rus- 
 sel himself testified, — ■' I have no recollection of 3Ir. W. ever drinking any thing at my 
 store." 
 
 The facts in connection with the "brandy and sugar" are those, to wit : The respond- 
 ent had been some days ill from disordered stomach and bowels ; and during the time 
 had tried several si.mple medicinal assents without effect. On the occasion referred to, 
 he was on his way to his house, which led him to pass Mr. Kussell's store ; Mr. R. wa8 
 standinar in the store door ; and as the respondent came up, he accosted him, and said, 
 " How do you do?" The reply was, '-Not well," and the particular ailment was named ; 
 at the same time Mr. K. was asked if he could not furnish the respondent some brandy 
 and sugar, which he said he would like to try, for that he had none at home. While 
 the brandy and suc;ar was preparinj;, Mr. Collins, the above witness, cam'! in, to whom 
 the respondent mentioned his illness, and what he proposed to trv, at the same time 
 paying jocosely what the witness alleges. Collins was at that time friendly ; hence the 
 respondent was somewhat unreserved and familiar in his presence. 
 
 Of the other allegations in the Article, no more can be said than is given in the An- 
 swer. 
 
 So unimportant were the occurrences at Russell 's deemed at the time,that they made no 
 impression whatever on the mind or memory of Mr. R. himself; nor did the witness at- 
 tach importance to them -'till nearly a year after I" when, after the defeat at the Easter 
 election, charges were to be preferred against Mr. W. 
 
 The " high spirits" of the re.^poudent then, when Collins had become enlisted against 
 him, came to be deemed '' levity ;" his '• having mixed some brandy and sugar"— (that 
 it was drank is not charged .') — to he taken medicinally for nn illness for which it is con- 
 fessedly an appropriate remedy, at the store of his Vestryman, whose house had been 
 for some time hishome, and telling of the matter himself, but for which it need not 
 have been known, were now, all too obviously, sin ; and the remark, certainly not un- 
 natural under the circumstances, (see Appendix, M,) and by no means necessarily indi- 
 cative of improper feeling in the breast of the respondent, had come to be considered 
 immoral — a •■' scandal and injury to the Church 1" 
 
 The hostility of the witness indicated by the letter to the Bishop, the money he has 
 eiven, and his readiness still to give, with his own declaration that he was " not indif- 
 ferent as to the result of the trial," and his opinion of the respondent, furnish the key to 
 the change which came over his mental vision in resre ct to the moral qualities of what 
 fook place at Eussell's store Tt seems strange that the Court did not see, or seeing, did 
 not apply it. 
 
 5 
 
34 
 
 " He is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kind- 
 ness," as He is " faithful and just" to forgive, according to His 
 promises in Christ Jesus our Lord. Still, with respect to the alle- 
 gations against the respondent, to which answers have been made, 
 the declaration is true — " not guilty in the form and manner sta- 
 ted ;" — not guilty in intention at all is equally true. 
 
 To you. Rev. Brethren, the respondent now commits his case. 
 To you, under God, he is to look for a verdict upon it, which will 
 have a vastly controlling influence, for his weal or his wo. Your 
 power, with respect to him, may be a savor of life or of death. 
 Oh, may you be saved from the fearful error of causelessly breaking 
 the bruised reed ! 
 
 May the Almighty Spirit, which was sent to the holy Apostles 
 to guide them into all truth, be poured upon you, to save you from 
 all error, ignorance, pride and prejudice, and be to you a spirit of 
 vdsdom and understanding, that you may have a right judgment in 
 all the matters before you pertaining to this respondent ! Breth- 
 ren, realize I pray you, the responsibility resting upon you with 
 respect to this case, and seek of God His grace to enable you so to 
 quit yourselves as shall find favor for you in the Church here, and 
 of the Great Head of the Church, both here and hereafter. Seek 
 to render such a judgment as shall meet with approval when we 
 shall all finally be gathered before the Son of Man, sitting as Judge, 
 and have rendered unto us every man according as his work shall 
 be. In full confidence in the fairness and impartiality with which 
 you will make up your final estimate on his case, the respondent 
 will wait in patience, under God, for your verdict. Asking you 
 to remember that an error against him will be irretrievably fatal, 
 and that the most vital interests of a hopeful branch of the Church, 
 not less than those of the respondent are at stake, the case is now 
 submitted, — the assurance being added, that the respondent will 
 continue instant in prayer for you, that you may be saved from all 
 error. Faithfully and affectionately. 
 
 Your brother in the Church, 
 
 W. F. WALKER. 
 Chicago, September 9, 1846. " 
 
 A brief history will furnish the key to this trial. 
 
 Trinity Church was united, and, for an infant congregation, in the enjoj;ment of an 
 almost unexampled prosperity, till September 1845. The first schism in its councils 
 took place in that month. S. J. Sherwood, W^arden, was the party in it. Feeling him- 
 self to have been crossed in effecting the diversion to other jiurposes than those for 
 which they had been raised, certain moneys that had been collected, through the in- 
 strumentality of the respondent and his friends, for a specific object connected with 
 Trinity Church edifice, he became indignant at the respondent, and sent him his re- 
 signation ; and this, notwithstanding the following opiniim of the Bishop, by which 
 the respondent would have been sustained, had Sherwood's supposition and allegation 
 been true: — "The right of donors to designate the object and conditions of their do- 
 nations is a principle in law of the most sacred character. I know of no authority to 
 set this aside, either in Church or State. It is above Canon Law, and the Law ot Le- 
 gislatures ; and has been so determined by Chief Justice Marshall." 
 
 In reference to the same, Sherwood testified on the trial as follows : — 
 
 " The day I resigned my office as Warden, and immediately after, I met Mr. W. and 
 told him that I was satisfied that he was at the bottom of it ; and if that was to be his 
 course of proceeding, I had made up my mind to have nothing to do with Church af- 
 fairs ; and that I had sent him my resignation I spoke in an animated 
 
 manner to Mr. W., and expressed my indignation 1 told him his conduct 
 
 •was outrageous." 
 
 The effect of Sherwood's treatment on the respondent at this interview, is in the tes- 
 timony of a witness on the trial, thus : 
 
 " While passing up Lake street, and when opposite Mr. Sherwood's store, Mr. Walker 
 
35 
 
 came across the street and met me, apuarc-ntly in much aflliction, with tears in his eyes. 
 He stated to me that he had been insulted anil abused ; and that the only way for him 
 to secure his own peace ot'miud was to resign. " 
 
 The truth is, the respondent had no heart for the struggle which he clearly foresaw 
 Sherwood's displeasure would cost him, should he retain his position. Peculiar asso- 
 ciations and circumstances seemed to have given Sherwood a power in Trinity Church 
 against which, it was believed, it would not be easy to stand. The respondent was 
 tiierefore disposed at once to sever the fie between him and that Church, and so escape 
 the conflict. His friends remonstrated, and he yielded to their wishes. 
 
 " Previous to that time," testified Sherwood, "the intercourse between myself and 
 
 Mr. W. liad been of a friendly character I don't remember that there had 
 
 been any didiculty in the Society previously. 
 
 " Since that time, I have been opposed to Mr. W.. and have expressed myself as op- 
 posed to him. I had no other motive than the good of the Church. I did not think he 
 did right. My only object in opposinj; him was, that there might be a change in the 
 ministry in this Church ; that we might get back again, and enjoy its privileges." 
 For, he might have added, at the date in question, 1 ceased my attendance on the 
 Holy Communion, and almost entirely on the services in Trinity Church. This was his 
 testimony in effect. 
 
 The opposition of Sherwood led him thenceforward to employ himself, with a zeal 
 and assiduity which may be inferred from this statement, in manufacturing a senti- 
 ment among the members of the congregation corresjjonding with his own ; " doing 
 nothing further,'' in this way, however, w as his testimony, " tlian to state to my friends 
 and to others interested in the Churcii, ray opinion of Mr. "W". and his conduct, and 
 state to them what were the facts in the case." (1) 
 
 Notwithstanding this adverse iuflupnce, the then Treasurer, now an opponent, testi- 
 fied, that " the revenues of Trinity Church were greater during the last two quarters of 
 the year," and that '• there was a gradual increase in the congregation up to Easter 
 last." 
 
 In the deposition of another witness is the following, on the same subject, from the 
 Junior Warden, who subsequently became " a Sherwood man." 
 
 " I had a conversation with him," said the witness, " some time in January or Febru- 
 ary last," — two months before Easter. " I remarked to him that I thought they were 
 trying to get up some disturbances against Mr. W. He remarked that he had not heard 
 any thing of the kind, and that he should be sorry to have any disturbances ; be thought 
 the Church was getting along finely, and he was not aware that there was any thing 
 against Mr. AV." 
 
 This may serve to show that an issue foreign to the real "good of the Church" had 
 been made by Sherwood. 
 
 Such was the state of things down to Tuesday, March 3d. In the course of the morn- 
 ing of that day, the respondent found that Sherwood had been active in calling upon 
 members of tlie Vestry, himself not of the Board, and urging them to hold their regular 
 meetingthat afternoon, and pass a resolution that had been drawn up requesting the 
 respondent to resign. The trap thus set, and all ready in a few hours to be sprung, was 
 mercifully disclosed. But unwilling now, as before, to engage in any struggle in con- 
 nection with the Church, having a primary reference to himself, the respondent said to 
 his friends that he should resign ; though he would not be driven by the course an op 
 position had proposed. A major part of the Vestry, friendly to the respondent, decided 
 that they would not attend the meeting for that day, unless the respondent should him- 
 .self call them together. At this time, and under these circumstances, the forged notice 
 issued. 
 
 Sherwood, from this time became open, unscrupulous and violent. Being informed 
 that such was the fact with respect to him, the respondent determined to seek an early 
 interview with him, and, by explanation, endeavor to allay his irritation. Opportunity 
 soon offered. The testimony of a witness as to what occurred at the interview on the 
 evening of March 3d, was as follows : — 
 
 "Mr. Walker, Mr. W. Stuart, and Mr W. H. Adams, of the P. O.," (not the Junior 
 Warden of the same name,) '■ and myself, met Mr. Sherwood on Clarke street, near the 
 Post Office. Mr. W. stopped Mr. S. and offered him his hand, which he did not take ; 
 and said to him (Sherwood) that he wished to talk about the Vestry meeting. Mr. S., 
 in a very angry, exciting, and insulting manner, said, ' I will hear nothing from you. 
 I consider you a tricky and dishonest man.' Mr. W. then attempted to expostulate 
 with him. Mr. S. replied, ' Mr. W., I wish to hear nothing from you ; I will not hear 
 it ;' and turned on his heel and left us." 
 
 Foreseeing that the long-threatened issue now open was inevitable, if the respondent 
 retained his position ; against tlie wishes of his friends, he addressed the following let- 
 ter to the Bishop : — 
 
 " Chicago, March 3, 1846. 
 " Right Reverend and Dear Sir : 
 
 "Please oblige me with your consent to my resigning the Rectorship of Trinity 
 Church in this city, and a letter dimissory to the jurisdiction of the Et. Kev. Bishop 
 Kemper. 
 
 "My conviction is that the interests of Trinity Church will be subserved by the 
 change contemplated, while a sphere of at least equal usefulness may be opened to me. 
 " Yours faithfully, 
 
 • W. F. WALKEE. 
 " To the Rt. Rev. P. Chase, D. D., Bishop of Illinois " 
 
 To this letter the following reply was received March 16th. 
 
36 
 
 " To tht Rtv. W. F. Walkee, Rfctor of Tiiaity Church, Chicago. 111. 
 
 " Jldile£, March 10, 1848 
 " Rev. Sir— 
 " I received }'efiterda5' your letter of the 3d instant. 
 
 " You say, 'Please Dblige me with your consent to my resigning the Bectorship of 
 Trinity Church in this city." 
 " Mr. Walker : I consider this request as out of place. 
 
 " I cannot give my consent to a thing which, on examination, I may think ought not 
 to take place. 
 
 " For this reason I say : When I shall have been informed that you h:ive resigned, 
 and the Wardens and Vestry shall have accepted your resignation," both having given 
 their reasons, I shall think it my duty to consider'the matter, and give or withhofd my 
 consent, as the case may appear to require. 
 
 " It seems proper that the Yastry of Trinity Church, Chicago, should be apprised of 
 your movements ;— 1 therefore shall send them a copy of this letter. 
 " 1 am your friend and servant iu Christ, 
 
 " PHILA^'DER CHASE, 
 
 " Bishop of Illinois." 
 
 In the mean time, the friends of the respondent rallied, and insisted that he should 
 not resign, certifyiiig to him that a very large majority of the congregation and com- 
 municants were in his favor. The letter of the Kishop concluded the matter in accord- 
 ance with their wishes, by precluding a resignation. 
 
 On the concluding paragraph of that letter comment is unnecessary; but it may be 
 stated that the intimation was deemed sufficient to justify Sherwood in the supposition 
 that he had the Bishop with him. He accordingly, on the day after the receipt of the 
 Bishop's letter, addressed him, and gained his ear against the respondent. 
 
 The reply of the Bishop was written April 2d. and inviied a trial of the respondent, 
 thus: "If lie be a had man he never can be regularly dismissed, neither from the parish 
 or the diocese. If he be a good man and wrongfully accused, the Church and the world 
 ought to be disabused, his reputation being very much injured as it is." 
 
 It was now given out that the respondent must resign or he would be forced to do so ; 
 if not otherwise, that charges would be pretcrred against him, and he would " be si- 
 lenced." 
 
 Sherwood had by this time succeeded in leaguing together with him in his mea- 
 sures of hostility some six or seven male members of the congregation ; and, through 
 the Ladies' Sewing Society, and directly himself, iu enlisling some others in the belief 
 that so prominent a man as himself, and some oi the six or seven who were with him, 
 having become opposed to the respondent, it was expedient for him to resign. Of the 
 former class were the witnesses on this trial, Hatfield and Collins ; (pages 24, '25, 32, and 
 83;) from the portions of their testimony, which have been submitted, it will be in- 
 ferred how faithful as allies they proved themselves. 
 
 The Easter election was now looked forward to as the time when an expression would 
 be made relative to the respondent, that would be decisive. " Previous to the Easter 
 election," testified a witness, the Senior Warden of the Church, " I was told it would 
 be of no use to make much exertion in favor of Mr. W., as the Sherwood men would be 
 on the ground and beat me. 
 
 " I then determined to enquire, for my o^vn satisfaction, how the parishioners were 
 affected towards Mr. W. The result of the enquiry was, that there was a majority of 
 two to one of the congregation iu favor of Mr \V., and a large majority of the commu- 
 nicants." 
 
 At the election it transpired that Sherwood had succeeded in securing the co-opera- 
 tion of nineteen in the warfare which himself had begun. 
 
 His bearing at the election was given by a witness thus : 
 
 " Mr. S. was very much excited ; from "his language and manner, I should think he 
 was very angry. I do not recollect the words used by him ; only the impression left 
 upon my mind at the time, — that 1 could not myself calmly listen to such language had 
 I Deen in Mr. W.'s position , and wondered lioiv Mr. W. "could. 1 was observing Mr. 
 W. very closely, feeling very anxious that, in the midst of such exciting elements, he 
 should preserve his calmness and composure. Mr. W. comported himselt with a dig- 
 nity and calmness with which I myself was astonished, as well as gratified, in view of 
 the violent language used by those who were ojiposed to him. He undoubtedly felt 
 some interest in the icsult, but I unhesitatingly sav, that his whole conduct was calm, 
 
 and in accordance with his position 1 judged Mr. W. by myself. I knew 
 
 him to be a msn of a generous and ardent temperament. ai d felt that 1 myself, under 
 such circumstances, could not have maintained the composure that he did." 
 
 The secret is, the respondent " knew Whom he had believed, and was persuaded that 
 He was able to keep that which he had committed to Him." Hence, he was "in nothing 
 terrified ;" but his " heart was fixed, trusting in the Lord." 
 
 With Sherwood were " his men :" they were all " on the ground." But, in the result 
 they were found to have been defeated by a large majority. (See page 15.) Immedi- 
 ately, several of them took up, some tore up, their cushions, '&c. in the Church, and left, 
 bearing them away under their arms. 
 
 The hual step remained to be taken. Sherwood now became the author of a letter to 
 the Bishop, (page 3, note,) suslung that the respondent might be tried on charges which 
 he himself had characterised (and the opinion now stands over his own hand) as •' un- 
 just aspersion and malicious ])eii;ecution," to wit : the charges in the 2d presentment of 
 1844; (see Appendix, I ;) pledging himself, with others, thus : ■• We hold ourselves re- 
 sponsible for the expenses of the tiial, should it be granted;" and stating, '-if acquitted 
 we propose to prefer other charges against him." This letter was signed by seven be- 
 sides Sherwood. The Bishop thereupon decided to grant more than tlie boon nsked ; to 
 wit : a trial on the former charges, and a chance for a second, irrespective of the condi- 
 tions of the letter. 
 
37 
 
 Accordingly, Sherwood was appointed one of "five persons:" Gurdon 8- Hub- 
 bard, a complainant of the respondent, another ; the Kev. William Allanson, like- 
 wise a complainant of the respondent, another ; the Uev. Rector of St. James' Church, 
 Chicago, E. B. Kellogg, likewise a complainant of the respondent , another ; and the 
 Rev. Charles J. Todd another ; who, by their act, are now known as •' presenters." To 
 speak of persons occupying the po.sition previously towards the respondent which they 
 occupied as the committee of "investii^'ution," contemplated by the Canon, is prepos- 
 terous. They could not " examine the ca^e :'' and they did not attempt it. They were 
 agreed in the opinion of the Kev. E. B. Kello^^g, that it was their " duty to proceed ex 
 parte"! Consequently, during their session, "tney were teimed, by those in the same 
 interest, a " a committee to get up charges." This duty they performed. There was, 
 " in the opinion"' of Sherwood and his lour associates, " sufficient ground for prosent- 
 ineut," and the respondent was ])resentcd accordingly 1 That presentment wus enter- 
 tained by the Bishop ; and both he and .Sherwood were witnesses against the respond- 
 dent on the trial '. 
 
 Thus, Sherwood, by his zeal for " the good of the Church," was induced to serve, in 
 this case, as solicitor lor the trial ; as accusing witness; as supporter, at the same time, 
 by his means, of the prosecution ; and, at the same time, asjudge to decide upon the re- 
 spondent's probable guilt or innocence ! 
 
 Of the Bishop's testimony it is not necessary here to .speak. That of Sherwood was 
 most remarkable. It aflbrded a striking illustration of the power of passion so to 
 delude a man as to cause him to '• believe a lie." 
 
 This must be the apology for a witness who, in his zeal to prove disrespect shown by 
 the respondent to the Bishop, at his visit in Cliicago in 184-5, could testify, — " I was 
 here when he arrived ; 3Ir. \V. called at my store immediately alter, and stated to me 
 that he had seen the Bishop; and that day, or the day after, lis called again, and pro- 
 posed to go into the country for the purpose of avoiding the Bishop;" and that he af- 
 terwards •'repro\ed him for it, telling lumitwas his duty to return good for evil;" 
 when, in fact, he was in New York at the time of the Bishop's arrival in t hicago, and 
 on Lake Erie at the date of his departure ! That he meant to state an untruth i.j not be- 
 lieved nor intended to be intimated ; indeed, '■ after conversation with some of his 
 friends on the subject," he did correct himself in part; the matter is stated simply to 
 illustrate a temper which has been so zealous for " the good of the Church," and which 
 is the key to, as it was tlie cause of, the respondent's trial. 
 
 That temper, it is proper here to state, does not appear to have been improved by the 
 Verdict of the Court. Indeed, that Verdict seems to be taken harder than was the re- 
 sult of the Easter election. Not understanding how it has come to pass that the Court 
 did not find as he had sousrht to have them, and unwilling to own the interposition of 
 Mercy on the behalf of the respondent, Sherwood attributes it to another agency ; and 
 now, in a communication to the Senior Warden of his Church, characterizes him (the 
 respondent) as bearing '• the hook and the claw." ! 
 
 In this state of mind he does not of course attend on the public duties of religion in 
 Trinity Church. Not having recovered from a dislike to St. James", which resulted in 
 the first schism in that parish, under the re.^pondent's faithful and self-denying prede- 
 cessor, who first occupied this field as missionary, and established the Church here, he 
 cannot, or will not, worship there. In his zeal for " the good of the Church," he has 
 thus cut himsell ort' from the congregations here,aud brought himself to live in the prac- 
 tical disregard of his highest duties. 
 
 Such is the temper that has here worked against the respondent ; such the spirit by 
 which he has been pursued to the hazard of all that he in life holds dearest; such the 
 instrumentality by which the preceding Charges were aggregated ; such the key to the 
 respondent's presentment and trial. 
 
 It occasions sincere pain to the respondent thus to write. But the duty seems to be so 
 laid upon him, that he may not shrink from it. His friends abroad claim to know^ 
 the things which he has suffered, with the facts attending them. For them, chiefly, 
 this paper is intended. At home, it is neither required nor needed. 
 
 In the language of the judicious Hooker, slightly accommodated : "The greater part of 
 the good people heie at this day already peiceive, and others be like hereafter a great 
 deal more plainly to discern, not that the respondent in the case now submitted, has 
 been thus heaved at because he is wicked, but that these means have been used to put it 
 into the heads of the multitude that he is such indeed, to the end that those who thirst 
 for the control of • the inheritance which God hath given him to inherit,' may, till such 
 time as they have their jjurpose, be thought to covet nothing but only the just extin- 
 guishment of an unreformable person ;'^so that in regard of such men's intentions 
 practices, and machinations against him, the part that sutt'ereth these things may most 
 fitly pray with David, 'Judge Thou me, O Lord, according to thy rigViteousness, and 
 according unto mine innocency : O let the malice of the wicKed come to an end, and be 
 Thou the guide of the just.' 
 
 "Notwithstanding, forasmuch as it doth not stand with Christian humility otherwise 
 to think, than that this violent outrage of men is a rod in the ireful hand of the Lord 
 our God, the smart wdiereof he deserves to feel, let it not seem grievous in the eyes of 
 his Right Rev. Fathers, theBishops of this Church, or of his bretliren of the clergy and 
 laity, who may see these pages, that the respondent should offer these things to their 
 good consideration." 
 The history is submitted without comment. 
 
 The foregoing Answer is printed as it was read, with some slight exceptions, 
 which are, for the most part, indicated by brackets. It deserves to be stated, in bar of 
 a ri^id criticism, that it was drawn up in Court, during the last hours of its session, 
 while the Counsel were engaged in summing up the case, and under the excitement 
 and distraction necessarily incident to such a scene, and to an hour on which such is- 
 sues were depending as the respondent had then at stake. It was not intended as evi- 
 dence, but as an explanation. As such, it was unquestioned at the time, and is sus- 
 tained by the decision of the Court. It therefore accords with the evidence adduced on 
 
38 
 
 the trial. Hence, there is here furnished the data by ivhich the presenters were influ- 
 enced to present, and the Bishop to put upon trial the subject ol their united dislike- 
 By a comparison of all with the 37th General Canon, (see Introduction, page 3,) where- 
 in is set forth the '■ olfences for which ministers shall be tried and punished," it may be 
 judged whether these charges were exactly measured by tliat law, as it is commonly re- 
 ceived ; or w'.iether the sense of that law was expanded to suit a case, according to a 
 principle set forth by Bisliop Cliase, and believed to be peculiar to himself, to wit: 
 "The Canon of the Church refers to the Rubric, and Kubric carries into itlcct the in- 
 junction of Holy Scripture; and wherein the Hubric is silent as to the wifMoc/ of carry- 
 ing the Scriptural injunctions into eJlect, it is the duty of the Bishop to jud^re whether 
 the intent of the Kubric as founded on Scripture has been fullilled or not." — [Decision of 
 Bishop Clidse on the case of Becker, June, 1844, Appendix, M.) Hence it is, probably, that 
 Bishop Chase has been wont to sign himself " Bishop and Judge."' 
 
 The charges preferred against the respondent never of themselves gave him but small 
 concern. He telt, it is true, keenly felt, the odium attached to a jiresentment ; and was 
 not insensible to the fact that abroad, where the circumstances were not understood, 
 and the parties not known, as at home, he would inevitably sutler from such priOTaj^a- 
 cie evidence of faultiness. But he has ever believed that the matters aflecting him 
 would come to be understood eventually ; and because of this hope he has, for the most 
 part, been of good courage. 
 
 There have been circumstances connected with the finding, entertaining, and trying 
 of those cliarges which have inspired deeper concern. Episcopal influence, and the in- 
 lluence of wealth, are stern matters for a dependant presybyter to encounter and stand 
 against. They are sometimes fearful in their bearings upon the administration of jus- 
 tice.* But in this case, thanks to God 1 the weak things of the world have confounded 
 the mighty. The respondent has escaped the snares ot the fowlers ; and with a united 
 and increasing congiegation, bound to him and he to them all the more closely for the 
 things he has suffered, strives to glorify his Lord and Master on this behalf— for that He 
 has been to him a present help in ail the time of his trouble ; for that He has proved 
 Himself, in his case, a strenutb to the poor, a strength to tub seedy is his distress, a 
 
 REFUGE FROM THE 8T0R.M, A SHADOW FROM THE HEAT, WHES lUK BLAST OP TH« TERRIBLE OSEfl WAS 
 A8 A 8T0BJU AGAINST THE WALL. (Isa. XXV. 4.) 
 
 KIT' Answer could not be here made, as was proposed, (pa,gel3,) to the presentment of 
 1844, because the Court declined to sit to try it— deeming it out of Court, and defunct ; 
 though the respondent asked and urged that he might be tried on it on his own motion, 
 and tiie same had been consented to by all parties at the opening of this case. 
 
 "We accept the proposition to nroceed upon both presentments,"' was the declara- 
 tion of the presenters' counsel. The counsel employed by the Bishop, and the Court 
 acquiesced. 
 
 A brief answer, or explanation, shall accompany it in the Appendix. 
 
 *In illustration it maybe stated, that in this case. Bishop Chase, while on the stand, 
 as a witness, and in a manner that will not soon pass from the memory of those who 
 witnessed it, shook his hand emphatically at the Court, and said—" They may remember 
 that they too are amenable '." 
 
III. VERDICT OF THE COURT. 
 
 The Ecclesiastical Court convened in the city of Chica"-o on the 
 26th of August in the year of our Lord 184G, lo try the Rev. Wm. 
 F. Walker, on certain charges and specifications alleged against him 
 in a Presentment bearing date the sixth of May, after patiently 
 listening to the evidence adduced by the parties, and the aro-uments 
 of their counsel, and carefully deliberating upon the testimony, 
 have agreed upon the following verdict, to wit : 
 
 Specificatiox First — Not guilty in the form alleged, and cen- 
 surable only for taking any part in an 
 election under circumstances so exciting. 
 
 Specification Second — Net guilty. 
 
 Specification Third — No evidence received. 
 
 Specification Fourth — Not guilty. 
 
 Specification Fifth — Not guilty. 
 
 Specification Sixth — Not guilty. 
 
 Specification Seventh — Guilty, in that he exhibited an un- 
 christian temper. 
 Specification Eighth — Not guilty. 
 
 Specification Ninth — Not guilty, in manner and form alleged, 
 
 but censurable in that he did not pay his 
 
 respects to the Bishop, and present his 
 
 class for confirmation. 
 
 Specification Tenth — Guilty in so far as he exhibited an un- 
 
 clu'istian temper. 
 Specification Eleventh — No evidence adduced. 
 (Signed,) 
 
 CHARLES DRESSER, 
 GEO. P. GIDDINGE, 
 JOSEPH L. DARROW, 
 JAMES DE PUL 
 
 To the Right Rev. P. Chase, D. D., Bishop of the Diocese of 
 Illinois : 
 
 The Court above named, in accordance with the provisions of 
 Canon first of the Diocesan Convention of 1845, still further ex- 
 press and recommend as their opinion, that he pronounce upon the 
 Rev. respondent the lightest penalty that the General Canon al- 
 lows, viz. admonition. » 
 
 Still farther, in view of what the respondent has already suffer- 
 ed, and the expense of a journey to the Bishop's residence, the 
 
40 
 
 Court would respectfully suggest that the admonition be adminis- 
 tered without exacting; his attendance. 
 Signed in behalf of the Court, 
 
 CHARLES DRESSER, Pres't. 
 Chicago, Sept. 10th, 1846. 
 
 I certify that the above is a true copy of the verdict and opinion 
 of the Court, as originally given. 
 
 GEO. P. GIDDINGE. 
 
 There are some striking peculiarities in the above " Verdict." 
 
 The " decision on the charges respectively,'" it will be seen, 
 
 First, is, in fact, an acquittal " on the charges contained in the presentment." 
 
 Second, that it convicts for certain, /a 'frti not ^'■contained in the presentment," but de- 
 duced by the Court. {See Dioces. Canon, page f, sec. 9.) 
 
 Third, that the faults thus deduced by tlie Court are not recognised in the General 
 Canon, which specifies the " offences for which miuit^ters shall be tried and punished." 
 (&e Gea. Canon, pa^e 4, sec. 1 and 2.) 
 
 Fourth, that the Court " still further express and recommend as their opinion," a 
 "sentence which should be pronounced," to wit: "the lightest ])enalty that the Gen- 
 eral Canon allows, viz., admonition, administered without cxactnighis,'' (the respond- 
 ent's) "attendarice," which contravenes the following provision in tlie Diocesan Canon : 
 
 "Before pronouncing any sentence, the Bi-hop shall summon the accused, and any 
 three or more of the clergy, to meet him at such time as may in his opinion be most con- 
 venient, in some church to be designated by him, which shall for that purpose be open 
 at the time to all persons who may chose to attend, and the seuteuce shall then and 
 there be publicly pronounced by the Bisho])." 
 
 Fifth, that the " penalty" " recommended bv the Board," an'! allowed, as lecomme/id- 
 ed, by ^^ the General Canon'," may not be exceeded, because of the provision in the Dio- 
 cesan Canon, that the sentence which the Bisho]), (who is executive of" the Board" in 
 so far as relates to the pronouncing of the sentence,) "shall pronounce, shall not exceed 
 in severity the sentence recommended by the Board ; and such sentence shall be final." 
 
 This, then, in short, appears to be the state of the case with respect to the " Verdict;" 
 to wit: that the Bishop should declare judgment to have been rendered in favor of 
 the respondent, notwithstanding the " Verdict;" and lor the reasons, 
 
 1st, That the " decision" in the Verdict, " on the charges respectively," so far as it 
 finds the respondent guilty, does it not for "olfonces" recognized by Canon, and 
 charged in the presentment, but touchiu" such indiscretions of the res])ondent as the 
 Court seemed to have thought incidental to the subject matter of such charges, and, 
 therefore, as to the Court, '• coram rwnjiidice." 
 
 2d, Because the sentence in the Verdict, if executed, must be taken in its integral 
 character; but the sentence recommended, a.? rfc<)»i;7!rii'yff/, and manifestly allowed as 
 recommended by the General Canon, cannot be pronounced, because of its contrariety 
 to the Diocesan Canon ; and because the same Canon will not allow that sentence to be 
 so pronounced, as to be in accordance with it. 
 
 All this is submitted without intentional disrespect to the Court, in whose conscien- 
 tiousness and disposition to perform their duty in the case, the respondent has and baa 
 ever had the most entire confidence ; and towards every member of which he cherishes 
 the regard of a brother in the Church. He is duly sensible of the difficult and embar- 
 ■rassing nature of their position. Therefore in scrutinizing and criticizing thus their 
 Verdict, he bars the supposition that it is his intention to liud fault with or to censure 
 them. 
 
APPENDIX, 
 
 Containing tlie papers referred to in the foregoing, and 
 matters connected witli tliem. 
 
 A, page 16. 
 
 The following is so much of the provision in the " By-Laws of 
 the Vestry of Trinity Church" on the subject of " meetings of the 
 Board," as this issue involves : — 
 
 There shall be stated meetinj^s of the Board on the first Tuesday of 
 each month, and occasional meetings at any time, on the request of any 
 three members of the Board ; provided, in such case, at least one day's 
 notice be given in writing under the hand of the Hector, if there be one ; 
 if there be no Rector, or he be absent, of one of the Church-wardens, or 
 the time be fixed by adjournment at a previous meeting. — By-Laws of 
 the Vestry of Trinity Church, Article V. Sec. 1. 
 
 B, page 16. 
 
 The following is the note referred to : 
 Major H. : — 
 
 There are no notices to be given for a Vestry meeting to-day. The 
 Sen. Warden is engaged in Court, and, together with several members of 
 the Vestry whom I have seen, thinks a meeting not necessary. 
 
 Yours, AV. F. WALKER. 
 
 [Chicago, March 3, 1846.] 
 
 C, page 16. 
 
 The forged note referred to was as follows : 
 Dear Sir: 
 
 Please attend a stated meeting of the Board of Trinity Church on the 
 3d instant, Tuesday, at 3 o'clock, P. M., at the oflSce of the Clerk of the 
 Board of Vestry, No. 144 Lake street. 
 Yours truly, 
 
 W. F. WALKER, Rector. 
 Isaac P. Hatfield. Clerk. 
 Chicago, Tuesday morning, March 3d, 1846. 
 
 6 
 
42 
 D, page 17. 
 
 The " note" alleged, in Article IT. of the Presentment, to hare 
 been " received from Mr. W. addressed to the V(\stry, stating that 
 the Vestry-room of the Church was the proper place to hold the 
 meeting, and that he would meet them there at 3 o'clock," (see page 
 8,) and referred to in page 17, was the following : 
 
 Mr. W. H. Adams, Warden of Trinity Church. 
 My Dear Sir : 
 
 There has this moment been put iato my hands a notice for a meeting 
 of the Vestry of Trinity Church, at the office of the Clerk of the Board 
 of Vestry, this afternoon at 3 o'clock, purporting to be signed by myself 
 as Rector. The object of this communI(;ation is to inform you, and any 
 others who may assemble pursuant to such notice, — Avhich probably haa 
 been circulated among the Vestry, — that no such notice has issued from 
 me ; that, on the contrary, I instructed the Clerk to call no meeting to- 
 day, and to pronounce said notice a. forfjcry. 
 
 Disavowing entirely the notice, which was unnecessar)- as it was sinful, 
 for that the By-Laws appoint the stated meetings expressly for the first 
 Tuesday in each month, I shall be at the place at which our stated meet- 
 ings have ever been holden — the Vestry-room of the Church — and be 
 ready to open and be present in a Vestry meeting, should a quorum be 
 present, and at the usual hour of 3 o'clock. 
 Yours faithfully, 
 
 Tuesday, March 3, 1846. 
 
 W. F. WALKER, 
 Rector of Trinity Church. 
 
 E, page 19. 
 
 Letter to the Bishop. 
 
 Chicago, April 24, 1845. 
 
 Right Rev. and Dear Sir: 
 
 Shall our Church be consecrated, and confirmation be administered in 
 it for my parlsli this season ? 
 
 Many are the enquiries made of me almost weekly on these subjects, 
 whicli I am unable to answer. Several candidates await confirmation, 
 and all interested would be happy to have our neat and conmiodions 
 Temple consecrated to Ilim for whose worship and service it has been 
 erected. 
 
 If you should visit us for the purposes named, it would gratify me and 
 mine to have you make our house your home during your stay here ; 
 though ]Mr. Slierwood, Warden, will claim the favor of entertaining you. 
 
 That a visit to Chicago now would prove more grateful to }'ou than was 
 your last, I may assure you with some confidence. 
 
 That it would give me pleasure to hear from my Bishop, I need hardly 
 say ; and to meet him as we parted on board of the steamboat, since 
 which he has encountered such duties and trials, would make me espe- 
 cially happy. I had hoped to have heard from him since his return ; but 
 have not, except in the communication of the sentences of the suspended 
 Bishops. 
 
 Those sentences were pubhshed by me as required. 
 I am, Bishop, yours, 
 
 faithfully and dutifully, 
 
 W. F. WALKER. 
 
 Rt. Rev. P. Chase, D. D. 
 
43 
 F, page 19. 
 
 Reply from the Bishop. 
 
 Jubilee, 30th April, 1845. 
 
 To the Rev. W. F. Walker. 
 Dear Sir : 
 
 I received yours of the 24th of April, desiring me to come to Chicago 
 and consecrate the new Chuich, for the building of which I gave SlOO 
 when last in that city. 
 
 Is this Church finished ? Is it out of debt ? Is the lot of land on which 
 it is built deeded to a body corporate in law, or to an individual in trust 
 for the Protestant Episcopal Church ibr ever '? Is there no mortgage or 
 other lien on this pro])erty ? 
 
 Please answer me the foregoing questions at your earliest convenience. 
 
 My health is quite iTifirm, by reason of the injuries received in several 
 falls, both in the steamboat, and since my arrival at home. In the night 
 I have but little rest. Such is the diHiculty in any rccumJtent position, I 
 seek repose in a chair. When 1 shall commence my visitations of the Di- 
 ocese, I am unable to say. 
 
 I trust to be well enough to attend the Convention of the Diocese on 
 the 16th of June at S])ringfield. From there, I shall try to visit Alton, 
 Albion, Chester, and (^uincy. 
 
 Perhaps I may go to the northern parts of my Diocese in the fall. 
 Your faithful servant in Jesus Christ, 
 
 PHILANDER CHASE. 
 
 G, page 19. 
 
 A copy of the letter referred to is not to be found among the pa- 
 pers of Trinity Church, which have come into the hands of the 
 present Vestry. Application was made to the Bishop for a copy, 
 but he " could not lay liis hands upon the letter at the time ;" there- 
 fore the favor asked was not granted. 
 
 The facts communicated in that letter, and for which chiefly it 
 would be of value here, were substantially the following : 
 
 Trinity Church edifice, the corner-stone of which was laid June 5th, 
 1844, was completed in September following. Its cost was a trifle below 
 $3000. Two-thirds of this amount were contnbuted by friends of the 
 enterprise, in small sums varying from $100 down to SI. The balance 
 was obtained thus : $345 on individual notes for one year, at 12 percent, 
 interest ; $630 on scrip — in sums, for the most part, of $50 — in form as 
 follows : — 
 
 Due from Trinity Church, Chicago, dollars, which it prom- 
 ises to pay to , or order, out of the first surplus funds ot said 
 
 Church, with interest at the rate of twelve per cent, per annum, which 
 interest is at any time appUcable to the payment of pew rent in said 
 Church. 
 
 (Signed,) , Clerk 
 
 and Treasurer of the Board.,. ^, 
 Chicago, , 1846. 
 
 No part of this indebtedness is a hen on the Church lot or edifice. Thr 
 amount of S345, with interest, is all for which the congregation may be 
 called upon till it has surplus funds; save that the holders of the $630 in 
 
44 
 
 •crip may have their interest applied in payment of their pew rent at anr 
 time ; if not thus applied, that interest is payable at the same time with 
 the principal. 
 
 The lot on v/hich the Church edifice stands was obtained through the 
 instrumentality of the Rector from the Canal Board ; its title is in the cor- 
 poration. 
 
 The income of the Church has been more than adequate to meet its 
 current and contingent expenses thus far ; and the congregation is uni- 
 ted, increasing, and prosperous. 
 
 Such was, in substance, the letter of the Cor. Secretary of the 
 Vestry, to the Bishop, in May, 184.5. The debt of the Church, 
 which precluded its consecration, is thus shown ; together with the 
 fact of the Bishop having been officially informed by the Vestry of 
 the state of the parish but two months before his visit in Chicago, 
 which took place in July following. 
 
 H, page 19. 
 
 One month subsequent to the letter of the Cor. Secretary, the 
 respondent reported to the Bishop, in Convention, as follows : 
 
 I accepted the rectorship of St. James and Trinity Churches, in the 
 city of Chicago, about the first of August, 184.3. My connection with the 
 two parishes continued till the following Easter, (April 7, 1844,) when 
 that with St. James' was terminated by my resignation, the Bishop con- 
 senting. During the period of my charge of the two parishes, I officiated 
 twice each Lord's day in St. James' Church, achninistered the Holy Com- 
 munion on the first Sunday in each month, and on Christmas day, and 
 opened the Church for morning prayer and an occasional lecture on the 
 other stated Festivals and Holy days. 
 
 From Advent to Easter, on Sunday evenings, in addition to the two 
 regular services in St. James' Church, I officiated more particularly 
 for Trinity parish in a public " Saloon" immediately within it. In the 
 same period,! officiated four times and administered the Holy Communion 
 once, in the country, 15 miles west from Chicago, in a neighborhood em- 
 bracing some few members of our communion who desired my services. 
 
 The children sent to me were instructed catechetically every Sunday. 
 
 My charge consisted of about 110 families. I baptizt-d 52 (infants 44, 
 adults 8) ; presented for confirmation 22 ; added to the communion 45 ; 
 making the whole number of communicants 131 ; buried 10 ; and united 
 10 in holy matrimony. 
 
 With the approbation of the Bishop, the system of weekly Sunday of- 
 ferings, in connection with the " Offertory," was commenced by me at my 
 entrance upon my joint charge, and was happily continued till its close. 
 The amount thus received exceeded by a trifle 1 70 dollars, exclusive of 
 the alms received at the Holv Communion. These oflerinss were appro- 
 priated in part to the N. Y. B. & C P. B. Society ; to the N. Y. P. E. T. 
 Society ; to the Domestic and Foreign Missions of the Church ; to the 
 Bishop to defray the expenses of his visit to Chicago to institute me, &c.; 
 and, in part, to aid in defraying some contingent Church expenses ; and to 
 purposes of parochial charity. In addition to the Sunday offerings, funds 
 were raised to pay for alterations and improvements in the Church edifice, 
 for the Bishop, and for the Hector's salarj'. 
 
 Since Easter, 1844, my connection has been with Trinity Church ex- 
 clusively. Our services, which were two on each Lord's day, were held 
 
45 
 
 in a public " Saloon" until September. In that month, we commenced the 
 occupancy of a new, tasteful and commodious Church edifice, the corner 
 stone of which was laid in June preceding by the Bishop, and which, with 
 a most praiseworthy zeal, the congregation had brought to such happy 
 completion. Tliis Church has since been open for the stated morning and 
 evening services each Sunday, and lor instruction by mc, catecheticaliy, 
 of such children and youth as have been sent to me for the purpose ; for 
 morning prayers on other Festivals and Holy days ; and, from Advent to 
 Easter, for a service, additional to the two stated Lord's day services, on 
 Sunday evenings. 
 
 I have administered the holy communion, during this period, on the first 
 Sunday in each month, and on the Festivals ot Christmas, Easter, and 
 the Ascension ; and have oiiiciated eleven times and administered the 
 holy communion once, in the country, 20 miles north of Chicago, where is 
 an interesting body of people really attached to the Church, and whose 
 claims are urgent for a missionary to gather them together permanently 
 in one, and to break to them " the bread of life." 
 
 My charge at present embraces about 93 families. The whole number 
 of communicants within it is 89 ; 5 have withdrawn, and 4 removed; 28 
 have been added as new. I have baptized 38 (infonts 35, adults 3) ; bu- 
 ried 14 ; and married 1 2. None have been confirmed, for the want of op- 
 portunity : several are " ready and desirous to be confirmed." 
 
 The system of weekly Sunday otlerings, in connection with the "Of- 
 fertory," has been observed in the parish, and with gratifying results. 
 The amount received has been about S250. This has been appropriated 
 to the Domestic and Foreign Missions of the Church; to purposes of pa- 
 rochial and general charity ; and to aid in defraying contingent Church 
 expenses. In addition to the offerings, the gentlemen of the parish have 
 twice made generous contributions to the Rector, over and above the sal- 
 ary ; and erected the beautiful temple in which we now assemble, and 
 which awaits only the convenience and pleasure of the Bishop to be for- 
 mally consecrated to Him for whose worship and service it is intended ; 
 while the ladies, most zealous in the cause, have procured carpets, lamps, 
 and trimmings for the Church, and furnished the Rector with a beautiful 
 robe. 
 
 The parish appears to be united and prosperous. May the blessing of 
 God Almighty still be upon it I 
 
 Immediately after the reading of this report, the Bishop stated, 
 in open Convention, that Trinity Church, Chicago, was in debt, 
 and could not be consecrated till that debt was paid off. The re- 
 spondent attempted to explain the amount and character of the 
 debt, to show that it was not a real obstacle to consecration, it be- 
 ing, for the most part, merely nominal ; but the Bishop declared 
 that he should adhere to his determination. 
 
 On his return to Chicago, this was stated, by the respondent, to 
 members of the Vestry of Trinity Church, and othei's. They felt 
 aggrieved by it, and decided not again to seek the consecration of 
 their Church, nor further to exert themselves to allow of its being 
 consecrated on the Bishop's terms. 
 
 Thus this matter stood, when the letter that follows, of July 
 12th, was received : 
 
 JuBijLEE College, July 12th, 1845. 
 
 To the Rev. W. F. Walker. 
 Dear Sir : 
 
 I have appointed to consecrate the Church in .Juliet on Sunday the 
 27th, if the Vestry and friends will pay off the debt which it at present 
 owes. 
 
4^ 
 
 This being so small a sinn, (only $100,) I trust they will liquidate in 
 good faith, and thus enable me to consecrate. 
 
 If your people wiU do the same with St. Panr.<!, [Trinity is meant,] I 
 will do the same duty in Chicago on Tuesday, 29th of July. 
 Trusting it will be so done, 
 
 I am, 
 Your faithful servant in Christ, 
 
 P. CHASE. 
 
 I, page 20. 
 
 Canon XIV. of 1838, in full, which was repealed June 1845, 
 (see page 6, sec. 13,) was as follows : 
 
 Caxon XIY. 
 llie Trial of Clo.rfijjmen. 
 
 Sect. 1. In all cases of presentment contemplated by the Constitution 
 and Canons of the General Convention, a copy of the charge or charges 
 and specifications, together with a citation to aj)pear and answer, shall be 
 served upon the party accused, in the manner hereinafter provided, with 
 all convenient speed. 
 
 Sect. 2. Tlie regular place of ti-ial, and the office for the records of all 
 ecclesiastical proceedings, shall be the house of the Bishop. But if there 
 be no Bishop, the Standing Committee shall appoint tlie place for these 
 purposes ; and the Bishop, by and with the concurrence of his council 
 of advice, may appoint any place within the Diocese for the trial, if there 
 be any special reasons moving liim thereto. 
 
 Sect. 3. All testimony atlduced upon the trial shall be in writing, ta- 
 ken on due notice to the parties either by a commissary appointed for 
 that purpose by the ecclesiastical authority, or in the manner of commis- 
 sions or depositions in civil cases. But tliis provision shall not prevent 
 the appearance of the witnesses and the licariug of their testimony on the 
 trial, whenever it shall be preferred by either ])arty. 
 
 Sect. 4. Advocates or proctors shall bt' allowed, on both sides, at the 
 pleasure of the parties, provided they are clergymen canonically resident 
 in the Diocese, or laymen who have been communicants of some parish 
 of the same at least two yeai-s before the trial. 
 
 Sect. 5. The Bishoj) shall preside ujjon the trial as Judge, and not 
 less than three or more than six Presbyters, shall be assessors with 
 him, the names of which Presbyters shall be selected by the ac- 
 cused out of a list of twelve, who shall be unconnected with said party by 
 relationship or marriage, and can declaj-e that they have not expressed an 
 opinion as to his guilt or innocence. But if there be not so many Pres- 
 byters in the Diocese, then the Standing Committee shall fill up said hst 
 with the names of all the Presbyters, and if the accused shall neglect or 
 refuse to make his selection, the Standing Committee shall select lor him. 
 On the verdict of the majority of these assessors, the Bishop may rest his 
 judgment in the case, or may, if he think proper, order a new trial, and 
 the sentence which he pronounces shall be delivered and recorded before 
 the rising of the court : Provided, always, nevertheless, that if the Bishop 
 be related to the accused, or if he be a party concerned, he may, with the 
 advice and consent of the Standing Committee, request some neighbor- 
 ing Bishop to preside upon the trial, and if the Diocese be vacant, th|e 
 Standing Committee shall request the services of such Bishop as they may 
 find most convenient. 
 
 Sect. 6. All citations and notices in any ecclesiastical proceedings, 
 whether to parties or Wtnesses, may be served either personally or hj 
 leaving a copy thereof at their residences respectively, the time between 
 the day of service and the day of appearance being not less than twenty 
 days over and above the ordinary time required to travel to the place of 
 
417 
 
 appearance, and in case there is reason to believe that a minister, &c. &c. 
 (as in sec. 10, page 6.) 
 
 Sect. 2 of Canon XV. of 1838, repealed with the above, (see 
 page 6, sect. 13,) it may be well to insert here : it was as follows : 
 
 In all cases of presentment whether of Bisliops or other ISIinisters, 
 where the party accused sliall neglect or refuse to appear, sentence of 
 suspension sluiU be declared for contumacy; which sentence shall con* 
 tinue in force until the party consents to a regular trial. 
 
 " The Presentment of 1844," for which reference was made to 
 this place, has gone from the respondent's possession and control- 
 One in the opposing interest, a presenter, yea, a Rev. brother ! took 
 it from a place in which it had been allowed to remain for some 
 time, and, knowing, as he has admitted he did, whose it was, sent 
 it to Robin's Nest ! From thence it has not been retumed, though 
 itself, or a copy of it, was applied for in time for inseition here. 
 
 Deprived tlius unfortunately, as it seemed, of a most important 
 paper, it was hardly known how its place could be supplied, when, 
 by a merciful interposition, more than had been taken away was 
 furnished ; even the statements on which the respective specifica- 
 tions were based, together with those specifications ; not only the 
 presentment, but all that out of which it was made up ; not only 
 the " crimes" of the respondent, as the Bishop is pleased to charac- 
 terize these ex parte accusations, embodied, but the several and 
 separate parts whence that embodiment resulted. 
 
 The paper is the record of the presenters made at the time of 
 their session. Tlie charges, it will be observed, ax'e " Immorality 
 and a violation of Ordination vows." 
 
 Readers will see that the specifications are of two classes ; one 
 having regard to and depending chiefly on A. C. Becker, the key 
 to whose opposition, Avith that of his ftmiily, is presented in Appen- 
 dix, M ; the other having regard to and depending chiefly on a la- 
 dy, Avhose position in the case sufficiently indicates that an inde- 
 pendence on the part of the respondent of an accustomed dictation 
 in the parish is their basis. 
 
 And it must be obvious to all, that the whole is as a family jar, 
 in which each in his fret, with what measure of impropriety shall 
 not be here stated, tells of the other whatever may have been dis- 
 closed in the confidence of friendship, or familiarly said or done 
 under the fancied protection of its sanctities. 
 
 The " prefixed" '' instructions from the Right Rev. the Bish- 
 op," who was in Cliicago through the whole tune these grave mat- 
 ters were acquiring the solemn and imposing form in which they 
 were presented, aiding by his counsel, from time to time, have not 
 been received. It is only known, that " to the persons therein 
 named," consisting of seven laymen, with the Rev. Rector of St. 
 James' Church in the accustomed position of chairman, " the Bishop 
 stated that things had come to his knowledge touching the charac- 
 ter of Mr. W. which demanded his stay in town untU the matter 
 should be set at rest, and he be acquitted or condemned." 
 
48 
 
 Four laymen, among those " persons," were accounted friends of 
 the respondent. The reasons for their concurrence in the present- 
 ment were stated by them soon after, in a letter to the Bishop, 
 which >vill appear, in its place, in this connection. 
 
 Matthew xviii. 15-17, was overlooked and neglected in this case, 
 as in that which has already been submitted. The paternal and 
 fraternal duties therein pointed out, were unperformed. The re- 
 spondent was unwarned of what was going on with respect to him 
 during the entire session of the presenters. And this notwith- 
 standing his nearness to the house at which his Right Rev. Father 
 in God stopped, and the fact that he saw him within that time. 
 That it all took place subsequent to the events stated in the note on 
 page 31, may suffice to be said till the key shall be finally given. 
 
 The paper containing the charges and specifications in the pre- 
 sentment of 1844, now considered, with the statements out of which 
 they were made, which has been mentioned as having come into 
 the hands of the respondent, is as follows, — with the exception that 
 under the head of " Remarks," is matter in answer or explana- 
 tion now added by the respondent : 
 
 In pursuance of instructions from the Right Rev. the Bishop of Illinois 
 hereto prefixed, the persons therein named assembled in the Vestry-room 
 of St. James' Church, on Thursday the Gth day of June, and proceeded to 
 investigate the charges submitted to their consideration by J. H. Kinzie 
 and A. C. Becker, Esqrs.,* under the following heads or specifications, 
 to wit: 
 
 First, Immnralilj/ — In that in reference to an altercation between Mr. 
 Walker and Mr. Becker on Clarke street, Mr. Walker told Messrs. Kinzie, 
 Strail, and Hamilton that Becker called him " a damned liar." (B.'s 
 charge.) 
 
 Mr. Becker called — States that he did not call Mr. Walker " a 
 damned liar," and used no profane language on that occasion. 
 
 A. C. Becker. 
 
 Jno. H. Kinzie called — States that Mr. AValker told witness that during 
 the altercation alluded to, Mr. Becker called him, Walker, " a damned 
 liar." J. II. Kinzie. 
 
 An affidavit signed by J. J. Stewart was submitted, marked A.f 
 
 Mr. Strail called — States that immediately after the altercation, Mr. 
 Walker called at his store and said Becker had called him " a damned 
 liar," " cursed Uar," or words of like import. 
 
 Remarks.— The matter alleged in the specification is re-affirmed, with the addition 
 that Becker at the same time said, " If it were not for your profession, 1 would give you 
 a d — d thrashinor." 
 
 It is in the testimony of a witne.s8to whom Becker himself spoke of the interview im- 
 mediately after, that he used profane language in giving his account of it. 
 
 The " altercation" was as follows : 
 
 The respondent was passing down one of the streets of Chicago, on the side-walk, 
 when he was suddenly interrupted by A. C. Becker, who, stepping in before him, said, 
 " Sir, have you received a communication from me on the subject of an anonymous let- 
 ter you have received ?" The reply was, " I have, sir." Becker then said, •' Have you 
 retracted your charges that I am the author of it ?" To which it was replied, " I have 
 neither affirmed nor denied any thing on the subject, further than my own belief and 
 that of others, formed upon a carelul comparison and examination of the hand writing 
 of the letter." Then followed from Becker the language which the specification affirm* 
 the respondent ascribed to him, with the addition heretofore given. 
 
 The respondent made no reply, but continued on his walk till he met Messrs. Strail 
 snd Hamilton, to whom be related the assault that had been made upon bim 
 
 •An initial letter following each eharge will indicate who preferred it. 
 t This affidavit the recpondent has not. 
 
49 
 
 Second, LiiinomlUif — In that Mr Walker told Mr. Kinzie that Mrs. 
 Becker had severely censured Mrs. Kiiizle's conduct at the parsonage, and 
 expressed herself to have been tempted to iuilict personal cnastisement on 
 Mrs. Kinzie. (B.'s charge.) 
 
 Jno. II. Kinzie called — States that Mr. Walker told witness Mrs. Becker 
 said she was so indignant at the conduct ol" tlie ladles, that she wanted to 
 choke tlieiu or shake tliem. Jxo. H. Kinzie. 
 
 Mr.^: IJecker called — States she did not tell Mr. Walker any thing of 
 the kind. S. C. Beckeh. 
 
 ,1/w.s (.%trlof((^ Whiting called — States she was present at the conA*ersa- 
 tion between Mrs. Becker and Mr. Walker, and heard no such remarks 
 from Mrs. Becker. C. L. Wuitin'G. 
 
 Remarks.— The allegation studiously leaves out Mr. Becker as authority given by the 
 resijondcnt lor wluit he is represented as having allirmed of Jlrg. Becker. Let this be 
 supplied, and tliespeciricatiou ivill present the truth almost liturally. 
 
 Becker stated tlie same to one of tlie presenters, and to several others. Sherwood te«- 
 tilied, in his depofition for this case, as follows :— " I heard Mr. Becker say that his wife 
 was at t!ie meetinj^ at the parsonaiije, and entirely disapproved of the conduct of Mrs. 
 Kinzie. I told it^to J[r. VV., I believe, and to a f;"ood many others." 
 
 In the deposition of another witne.ss is the following: — -'Mr. Becker said that Mrs. 
 Becker fait very indignant, and was tempted to take Mrs. M. and Mrs. Jiiuzie by th« 
 jieck and put them oiit of tlio door." 
 
 The same wiis said by Becker to two others, besides the respondent. 
 
 Ihe athdavit of Mrs. W. on the subject is subjoined. It is as follows : 
 "Mrs. Alida K. Walker maketh oath, that in the afternoon of the sixth of November, 
 1813, after the meetiuj5 of ladies 'at the jiarsona^e,' Mr. Becker called at the house 
 while the family ivere at tea ; that he came immediately to the table, on invitation, and 
 at once said to Mr. W., ' Well, how did it •;o .' How did it go at the meeting?' To 
 which Mr. W. replied, • Ask Mrs. Becker : I will abide her jutlgment ;' that to tnis Mr. 
 Becker rejoined, ' 1 have asked her about it.' Upon which Mr. W. asked, ' What did 
 she say?' that to this Mr. Becker re))lied, ' Mrs. B. felt indignant, very indignant, and 
 was templed to take Mrs. 31. and Mrs. li. by the neck,' (or shoulders, which is not 
 recollected,) 'and put them out of the door ;' that he then turned to this deponwit, and 
 said, 'Why! Mrs. W., how could you stand it? Mrs. B could not have done so.' 
 
 '\ALIDA R. WALKER." 
 
 " Sworn to and subscribed before mc this 22d day of December. A D. 1846. 
 
 " GEO. DAVIS, Clk. Co. Com. Court." 
 
 Becker, at this time, was professedly with the respondent, and opposed to Mrs. K. 
 in an issue which she had just made with him. Becker, before the presenters, stat«d 
 that issue, in its effect on the respondent, tr) be, that ■' Mrs. K. should rule the parish 
 no longer as she had done for nine years. Either he or she would be rector." 
 
 • Third, Immorality — In that at ]\Ir. Becker's house in November last, 
 Mr. Walker drank one-third of a bottle of claret and one hall" bottle of 
 Madeira wine. (B.'s charge.) 
 
 Mrs. Bcclcer called — States she was present, and the specification is 
 perfectly true. S. C. Becker. 
 
 Miss Ckarlolfe Wkilinfj Ci\\\ed — States that she remembers Mr. AValkftr's 
 dining at Mr. Becker's in Nov. last, and thinks he drank half a bottle of 
 Madeira and some claret. C. L. Whiting. 
 
 Fourlh, Immoralili/ — In that at supper at Mr. Becker's house in De- 
 cember last, Mr. Walker drank very nearly a rpiart of Madeira. Mr. 
 Tuckerman remarking at the time to his sister, "I think the parson has 
 taken too much." (B.'s charge.) 
 
 Mrs. Becker called— States that Mr. Walker, with Jlr. Tuckerman and 
 Mr. Warner, and her husband,drank two bottles and a half of Madeira wine. 
 Mr. Warner drank very little, not being well. Her brother remarked to her 
 he thought the parson ha,d rlrank too much. She replied, " I trust not." Mr. 
 Tuckerman said, " You will find it so." Mr. AValkcr drank more than 
 gentlemen usually do at her table, and more than her husband was in the 
 habit of doing. Thinks he drank nearly a decanter full. 
 
 S. C. B-ECKER. 
 
 3Ir. Tuckerman called — States he remcmbei'S the time spoken of. 
 Thinks Mr. Walker drank a larger proportion than either of the others 
 
 7 
 
50 
 
 at the table. Thinks he drank two-tliinls of a bottU? of wine, either sher- 
 ry or Madeira ; does not remember which. They sat, perhaps, one and a 
 half hours at tlie table. He remarked to his sister that Mr. Walker had 
 taken too much. Thought Mr. Walker's example a very bad one, espe- 
 cially to his brother-in-law, Mr. Becker. 
 
 L. TUCKERMAX. 
 
 AFixa Charlotte Whiting — Thinks Mr. Walker drank as much as any of 
 the other gentlemen at the table. She counted five glasses that he drank 
 of Madeira or sherry. Cannot say whether he drank one or more glasses 
 in addition to the five. C L. Whiting. 
 
 A. C. Becker states that at the supper at his house in December last, 
 Mr. Walker drank very nearly a (juart of IMadeira ; it may have been 
 two or three glasses less than a quart. That witness and 'Mr. Walker 
 drank after the others left off drinking. Mr. Walker did not refuse to 
 drink when asked. Thinks he, witness, should have stopped sooner if 
 Mr. Walker had declined. It was his custom to fill for his guests before 
 his own glass, as he did in this instance. A. C. Beckek. 
 
 Remarks.— Specifications 3d and 4th are denied, in so far as they charge excess upon 
 the respondent ; and against the assertions ot Becker and his family, 5Irs. B., iliss W., 
 and his brother-in-law, Mr. T., tlic resiiondent would submit all that is known of him 
 through his whole life on the subject of wine-drinking. 
 
 Appendix, M, will probably satisfy as to the motives which prompted these charges. 
 
 It deserves to be noted, however, that the specifications and witnes.«es are confined to 
 a single house. If the respondent wore in any degree justly obnoxious to a charge of 
 drinking, would it not have been elsewhere discovered and known, and would not 
 other occasions and witnesses have been adduced? In preferring the.se charges, have 
 not the presenters, in effect, declared the respondent innocent of other similar offences? 
 If this be so ; then, in view of the position oi ]5ecker and his family with respect to the 
 respondent, he feels that he may justly claim that his eutii-e innocence be concluded. 
 
 Fifth, Immorality. — Mr. Walker told ^Mr. Becker repeatedly of his be- 
 ing a decided Puseyite, and that he intended to engraft the principles, 
 doctrines, and practices of the Oxford Tractarians in the parishes here. 
 This he subsequently denied. (B.'s charge.) 
 
 Mr. Becker called — States that in sundry conversations with Mr. 
 Walker he avowed himself to be a decided Pusej-ite, and that it was his 
 intention to introduce gradually the doctrines and practices of the Ox- 
 ford Tractarians in the parishes here. A. C. Beckee. 
 
 Mrs. Kinzie called — States that Mr. Walker told witness that he had 
 said to the Rev. Mr. Patterson he, Walker, was a red-hot Puseyite, 
 and he now knew what he had to depend on.* Mr. Walker never denied 
 to her that he had made such assertion. 
 
 Mr. Walker told witness that he, W., was one of a band of young cler- 
 gymen in New York who had promised to sustain ISIr. Newman, and that 
 he had written to him to that effect. That Mr. Walker's name had been 
 particularly mentioned to Mr. Newman, and that he, Mr. N., had prom- 
 ised to write to Mr. Walker. Juliette A. Kixzie. 
 
 Mr. Iluhhle Johnson called — States that last winter at Capt. Russell's 
 office, he, Mr. Walker, denied ever having acknowledged himself to be a 
 Puseyite. Capt. Russell asked him if he was a Puseyite. He said he 
 was not. 
 
 Kemarks.— The denial charged in the specification is repeated and maintained. 
 
 Let it be called to mind, that at this date the Carey ordination, &c., and Dr. Pusey's 
 sermon on the Eucharist, were fresh topics of interest and excitement. In his inter- 
 course with various classes, these and kindred subjects were frequently brought to 
 the notice of tlie respondent, and his own views sought to be educed. At such times, 
 whenasked," Are you a Puseyite?"— he has i)ften replied thus,— and this has been his 
 fullest admission on the subject,— "If to receive the teachings of the Book of Common 
 Prayer is PuEeyism,then I am a Puseyite." To the Rct. Mr. Patterson, Pastor of the 
 
 • In the deposition of the same witness, and snch, cloubtles«, is the meaning here, ft 
 is.-" that he and Ut. P now knew the ground which they stood upon in relation to 
 each other, or words tu that eflVof ■' 
 
01 
 
 ■Second Presbyterian Society in Chicago, lie once said what the witness alleges, but in 
 this connection ;— Mr. r. said of ceitain views wliicli the respondent had dropped, 
 " Wliv, that is I'useyism — red-hot l*u:^eyism !" to which tlie reply was, ''Very well; 
 then 1 am a red-hot I'useyite." This was re|)eated to Airs. K.; and hence the partial 
 statement above given in support of the sijecitication. 
 
 In aliirniing that Mr. 1'. now knew upon what ground he and the res))ondent rela- 
 tively stood, the respondent had respect not onlv to what is here related, but to a letter 
 which had just before been addressed to the liev. Mr. Basconi, with others, among 
 whom very prominently was the Kev. Jlr. P., which is as follows : — 
 
 " Rev. Mr. Bascoh, and others. 
 " Gtntlemtn : 
 
 " Were there no other cause for my not meeting with you this evening, in my health 
 would be found ample reason to prevent it. A threatened lever has kept me to my bed 
 throughout the day. But, if this were not so, allow me j)lainly to .»ay, that there are 
 such moral imix^diinents in the wav as would efleetually i)reclude my "being with you. 
 These are to be found in those ecclesiastical diderences between us, which lead lis to 
 pursue courses well nigh antaj^onist to each other for the accomplishment of those moral 
 and religious ends which we, I doubt not, with eoual honesty a)id earnestness, are en- 
 daivoring to promote. The view which Kpiscopaliaus entertain of the organization of 
 the Church, and of Christian doctrine, discipline, and worship, so differs from that of 
 thoi* wlio are not with them, and this diflerence so binds their consciences, as to make 
 it impossible for them to unite with others in the manner and for the objects now pro- 
 posed, yucli a union would involve the recognition of orders not admitted by uf>, the 
 sanction of doctrines not approved, and the promotion of a worship which opposes our 
 view of expediency and duty. The object you have in view commends itself at once to 
 our understanding and our affections. 'J"hc means by %vhich that object should be pro- 
 moted, we conscientiously believe, are to be found in that ' Church' which is ' founded 
 upon the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone;' to 
 this, tlierefore, that we may not depart from the 'Apostles' doctrine and fellowship,' 
 must we limit our efforts for its promotion. What I can do, througli the Church, lor 
 the improvement of the condition of Seamen, will be cheerfully done : and, as evidence 
 of my good will in this regard, I now offer to officiate for them in my church gratuitous- 
 ly, twice in the week, on tiie evening of each Sunday and that of any other day in the 
 week that may suit their convenience. 
 
 While we have to difl'er thus much religiously, gentlemen, it will give me pleasure to 
 be one with you socially, and to be free m the'interchange of the courtesies of private 
 life. You will, I am sure, appreciate the frankile.ss of this .statement, with the addition 
 that the views herein expre-ssed govern me in regard to all religious movements which 
 are carried on by a professed union of all denominations of Clu'istians. 
 " I am, gentlemen, 
 
 " Most respectfully and truly, 
 
 " Your obedient servant, 
 
 " W. F. WALKER. 
 
 "Chicago, Oct. 20, 1843." 
 
 Upon the copy of this letter retained, there was made at the time the following, 
 
 KoTE.— The occasion of the above letter was this : the Rev. Mr. Bascom called on me 
 yesterday, the 19th inst., and invited me, on behalf of himself and " the different min- 
 isters in the city," to meet them at his house this evening to co-operate with them in 
 arrangements for a public meeting of " persons of all denominations'' to awaken an in- 
 terest m behalf of Seamen, and to raise means for the erection of a "Bethel," and the sup- 
 port of the Rev. Mr. Roulette (Prosbyterian) as preacher in it. Thinking my reasons 
 lor not assenting might not be appreciated, and so be misrepresented, I waived the pre- 
 sentment of them to Mr. Bascom, informing him that he should hear from me in the 
 course of the following day, in fuKilment of which this letter was sent. 
 
 That the respondent received the views of Mr. Kewman so far as they approved them- 
 selves as Catholic, and declared hi? determination to abide by them, and so support Mr. 
 N., is true. His confidence in Mr. N. was such, that he was ready to repel with the con- 
 fidence with which the same was once done by the sound and accomplished Bishop of 
 New Jersey, the imputation that he was looking with desire towards Rome. 
 
 All that there ever was of the "band of young clergymen," and of the respondent 
 in connection with Mr. Newman, is in the following from a letter received trom the 
 Key. James C. Richmond, bearing date 
 
 " Oxford, January 1, 1842, ) 
 " Mr. Newman's Study, 5 P. 31., in Oriel College. ) 
 " My Dear Walker : 
 
 "A happy New Year to you, and the Troy boys all." (By Troy boys was understood 
 a number of young clergymen, friends of the writer, then in and around Troy, who 
 held common or similar theological views.) 
 
 ******* 
 
 "This morning, accidentally. I went into St. Mary's Church, and there I heard a man 
 reading, and, as soon as I looked at him, 1 knew him to be Mr. Newman : and here I 
 am. in nis very ,ii(7)!c<i/»; sa)K(or»m, just in the very heart of the way called 'heresy,' 
 wluch is shaking the Church for good or for evil. 
 
 ******* 
 
 ''After the service, at the door of the large Vestry-room, I met him. 
 
 'Mr. Newman?' He bowed. 'I bring you the congratulations of the New Year of 
 
 i*ome thiity young men and others in America.' He sliook hands 
 
 with me in tiie most cordial manner. I told him of the interest awakened in the U. S., 
 and of the use the conclusion of his Lecture — (delivered to 16 women and 8 men ; .it 
 daily prayers be has less, — encouragement and comfort for us brethren.) — might be in 
 undeceiving those who misunderstood him. &c. He was much gratified, and begged i 
 would dine with him. I bade him good morning, and went to deliver other letters," &c. 
 
" At 6, you will see. (by date ) 1 was in liis «liiily; niul lu- I.('{;:m-(1 me to n-iniiin \\\n\e 
 
 he praparuil for dinner lit- left ine tui nuniiti-s. \Vlien lie returned, 1 
 
 ■wrote down at his rc'iuest, Kev. W. F. W. : Uevd>. B.. and C . uiid E., &c . as bcii\g 
 ' gomeof tnc stirring men of " pff u.'m'', or Catholic, old or new views, ' which ever epithet 
 yoTJ please, Mr. N ' said I. 
 
 "I told him that you were all as much again on the qui rivr to pet every thing from 
 Oxford as the people of England are. He caid it would he a jfreat encouragement to 
 the young men, cowed here by authority, to hear ol symjiathy in a distant part of the 
 Church. 
 
 ******* 
 
 " You will psobably, some day, have letter."* direct from Newman, or some of ;/if party, 
 ('pshaw I y«u say,) in consequence of my visit. 
 
 ******* 
 
 " Take notice, the first part of this Icttei- is written with Jlr .'Newman's pen. AVhen 1 
 a.iked him for it, he laughed, and said, ' Vou had better take a new one ; I'm afraid it's 
 a very bad pen.' " 
 
 ****** * 
 
 "When I wrote the two other letters, I meant them, as tliis, for t)ie whole ot my 
 friends in Troy, and the Trey boys. 
 
 (Signed) KICHMOND." 
 
 The account of Mr. Newman which the body of the letter from which the above ex- 
 tracts are made contains, is so remarkable as to have given it great interest at the time , 
 and causes it, when 5Ir. N. was so much before the Church, to ue often spoken of by the 
 respondent among his friends 
 
 The following, from the deposition of Mrs. K., may possibly serve to connect the 
 above with what she asserts was said to her, as near u& memory may be supposed to be 
 faithful : 
 
 Ck)D5BEi,. — " You have alluded to a band of young clergymen, whom you state Mr. 
 W. said had written promising to sustain Mr. N. m his doctrines; that Mr. \Y. had 
 reason to know that his name had been particularly mentioned to 3Ir. N., and that Mr. 
 W. was then expecting a letter from him; let me here ask you, whether, about that 
 time, Mr. W. ever mentioned to you the name of the Rev. James C. Richmond, and 
 whether Mr. W. did not read to yon a letter or letters he had received from Mr. B,., or 
 tell you the contents of such letter or letters ? 
 
 Mas. K.— " It is possible that Mr. W. may have quoted to me, though I did not see 
 the letter; I have no recollection of seeing it." 
 
 The respondent regrets to occupy himself thus with what may seem to m.iny simply 
 tattle ; but as a mountniu of "criines"' ha.« been attempted to be built u]) out of such 
 mole-hills, there is no resource kit tor him but to notice the parts, to ellect the de- 
 struction of the whole. 
 
 Sixth. — Mr. Walker has charged A. C. Beckei* with being the -writer of 
 aa anonymous letter, and upon his solemn denying in writing, refused to 
 retract (B.'s charge.) 
 
 Mr. Jacob Russell called — States that Mr. Walker showed him an anon- 
 ymous letter which he said resembled Mr. Becker's handwriting, and that 
 he thought it was from him. Becker denied it to witness, and wrote to 
 that effect a respectful note to Mr. Walker. 
 
 Capt. Rus.<>eU called — States that Mr. Walker brought to his office an 
 anonymous letter, which he said he believed was from Mr. Becker. Wit- 
 ness was of opinion it was Mr. Becker's handwriting until Mr. Becker as- 
 sured him to tJie contrary. Mr. Walker charged the writing of the let- 
 ter u]wn Becker, and expressed himself confident of it. Said there Aras 
 no doubt of it Becker wrote a note to IMr. Walker denying the imputa- 
 tion. Xhe letter is on file marked G.* 
 
 ***** * 
 
 Mr. Becker submitted the accompanying affidavit marked D,t denying 
 the authorship of said anonymous letter, and states that Mr. Walker j^er- 
 sated in charging him with the authorship after he, Walker, had received 
 both a written and verbal denial thereof. A. C. Beckek. 
 
 REM4RK8.— The respondent did not retract his opinion as to who was the " writer of 
 the anouvmous letter' before the " altercation on Claike street," (specification 1st;) 
 subsequent to that " altercation" he could not. 
 
 The " anonymous letter" itself had no special importance ; it was simply a cowardly 
 attack for a suppo.«ed endeavor on the nart of the respondent to have a young man who 
 was a candidate for Orders, then in Chicago, appointed by the Bishop, lay-reader for 
 
 * This letter, by some means unknown, got out of the possession of the respondent 
 into the hands of these pre.^entcrs ; it lias not come back with this paper. 
 t This affidavit is not In the respondent's possession. 
 
53 
 
 St. James' C'lnii-cli attwr Kasteiv 1«44, mid so put it to a disadviintage as cuui])ared with 
 Tiiulty. One nliu lias Kitice buconii' a incsciitir, asstilfii tliattlu' iijiiondent had 
 sotiglit this, and took imioti iiitorost in iiroiiidiciii}; him on iiecoiiiit of if. While the 
 fact is, the yoinij; man was appnintc-d 1h> -i-eadci- by tlie liishop only two days after the 
 date of the re.spoiident's institution as lii-ctor of , St. James' Cliurch, Oct. 3, 1&13. The 
 instrument of apijointmeut is as lollows :— 
 
 "Chicago. Oct. 3d, 1S43. 
 "During the pleasure ofthe Bishop, Mr. r?aiiklin R. Ilaffis hereby appointed a l.ay- 
 Jleadcr in Chicago, on Salt C'reoJx, and on Anplaines J{iver, Id., to be under the direo- 
 tion and oversight ofthe liev. Mr. "Walker, JJeclor of St. .lanu-s' Clnu-eli, Cliieago. 
 
 • I'lilL'K CHASE, Bishop of Illinois." 
 
 Who should rc)>ent himself for the injurious suspicion which prompted the " anony- 
 mous letter,'' and the evil that ha.s hence resulted, is not kuovvn. 
 
 Seventh — In that lie has usetl the name of the Creator in a common and 
 irreverent manner, thercliy violatiiin; the 3d couuiiandment (B.'s charge.) 
 
 Mr. A. C. Becker called — States that he has frequently heard Mv. 
 Walker use his Maker'.? name on trivial occa.sions. In common conversa- 
 tion, he freciuently appealed to the Deity as -witness of the truth of what he 
 was saying. The expressions were, " God is my witness," " Good God, 
 is it possible !" Has not hoard him swear, but his appeals to the Deity 
 were more frequent than he has heard from any layman in this country. 
 
 A. C. Becker. 
 
 Mr. Kinzie does not think he is in the habit of using the Lord's name 
 in vain on trivial occasions. Has heard him use such expressions as 
 " God is my Judge," &c. Jxo. H. Kixzie. 
 
 W. L. Whltim] states he has heard iMr. Walker appeal to his Maker in 
 the manner described by I^lessrs. Becker and Kinzie, not irreverently, 
 but unnecesxarUij. W. L. Whiting. 
 
 REM.4.RKS. — This specification is deemed to be sulficjently explained by the statements 
 on which it is based. The opportunity is taken, however", to deny that the expression 
 attributed by Becker was ever made by tlie respondent. 
 
 It is believed to be known to all his acquaintances, that he is characterized by an ap- 
 propriate reverence for sacred names and thincs. The statement made by Mrs. Kinzie, 
 but, because of its not being in the risht vein probably, not given above, was, that she 
 was " not aware that lie is in the habit of using the Lord's name on trivial occasions." 
 
 Eighth — Violation of Ordination Vows — In that the Rev. W. F. Walker 
 has not maintained and set fbi-th as much as in him lay, quietness, peace, 
 and love, especially amongst those committed to his charge, to wit: 
 
 That he remarked to Mi-s. Ivinzie on Saturday before Christmas, that 
 "Mrs. Whiting, with her shallow mind and great pretensions, had, 
 throughout the whole of the affair, endeavored to make herself of a vast 
 deal more consequence than she would ever succeed in doing;" and then 
 related some anecdote to prove how LIrs. Whiting had endeavored to set 
 herself up for a theological reader. (B.'s charge.) 
 
 Mrs. Kinzie called — States that the above specification is substantially 
 correct. Thinks Mr. Walker has not conducted towards his communi- 
 cants as a pastor should do. That there are but few of them of whom she 
 has not heard liim speak disparagingly. His conversations with witness 
 have not been calculated to promote peace and good will, kind feelings, or 
 a high estimation of her fellow Christians. Juliette A. Kinzie. 
 
 Capt. Russell called — Was asked the question whether Mr. Walker, 
 " when reviled he has reviled again ?" He answered, " Yes, in saying 
 many things against members of his Church calculated to produce harsh 
 feelings." 
 
 Jno. H. Kinzie states lie knows of instances where Mr. Walker has vio- 
 lated his ordination vows, to wit : in endeavoring to create unpleasant dif- 
 ficulties between Mrs. IGnzie and Mrs. Whiting. 
 
 Jno. H. Kinzie. 
 
 W. B. Ogden called — When asked if Mr. Walker had violated his ordi- 
 nation vows, replied — That he thinks he has in a wanton and intentional 
 
manner by -creating difffrtMiccs and din.<t^n.sions anionirst liis parishioners. 
 That he has understood ]Mr. ^Valke^ to attempt creutiug (lilKrulties be- 
 tween Mrs. Kinzlc and Mrs. AVhiting, who are bin authority. From wliat 
 be has seen and known of i\Ir. Walker, be thinks thi' latter an improper 
 person to be retained in tlie ministry, because he has used impi-oper means 
 to sustain hnnself'by exciting the prejudices of one portion of the commu- 
 nity against another when lie Ibund himself in difficulty.* 
 
 W. L. Whiting states he is of opinion that Mr. Walker has riolated his 
 ordination vows, and knows that his course of conduct with reference to 
 his, Whiting's, family, baa produced much dlsfjuiet. 
 
 W. L. Whiting. 
 
 Remarks, — Tlie fcittimony under this specification was that of Mrs. K. alone, and 
 stands in )ier deposition as follows: — 
 
 " I think he has disturbed the quietness, peace and love amongst his parishioners by- 
 speaking unkindly of tlium,— in stating lo ilr. J5. that he was pained at the indignity 
 
 with which Mrs K. treated Mrs. W. in company And spoke in a most 
 
 disrespectful manner of Mrs. W., saying, among other tilings, that with her shallow 
 mind and great pretensions, Mrs. AV. hud endeavored to make herself of a vast deal 
 more consequence than she « ould ever succeed in doing. ..... 
 
 " Mr. W. related an instance of a call lie made upon Mrs. W. Mith aTract he wished 
 to show to one of her daughters ; it was by one of the Oxford Tract writers, or of that 
 school, which, he was afraid, might not be e.xactly interpreted riglit by them ; he said 
 'You must bear in mind that these Tracts were not"de?)gned for common readers.' Mrs. 
 W. replied, 'I am not a common reader.' Mr. W. then .»a)d. ' IJut, Madam, they are de- 
 signed for theological readers. ' Mrs. W. replied, ' 1 am a theological reader.' 'But, 
 Sladam,' said Mr. W., ' tliey are designed for the clergv ;' and Mr. AV. made an excla- 
 mation, expressing his wonder that Mrs. W. would set herself up in that way for a the- 
 ological reader 
 
 "We, Mrs. W. and myself, were both communicants at this time." 
 
 In the same connection, and with reference to the same matter, the following qties- 
 tions were asked, and answers returned : 
 
 " Q. Do you know, or can you state anv other instance in which Mr. ^y. spoke dispar- 
 agingly of other communicants or parishioners of St. James' Church, while he was 
 Itector thereof? If so, when and whom ? 
 
 "A. 1 do not know whether M)-. W. designed to be disrespectful. I have heard him 
 nse such expressions as these, — ' Do tell nie if that is the best stuff you can tind to make 
 V^estryraen of ;' that there was but three Churchmen in his Church : and s]>eak harsh- 
 ly of the opinions which diflered from his own, expressed by his parisliioners. Mr. W. 
 expressed himself very much di.ssatislied, when he had propased preaching a course of 
 sermons upon the doctrines of the Church to Mr. S.; Mr. 8. rather objected, and thought 
 it would not answer to enter at once upon those subjects. Mr. W. repeated Mr. .S.'s 
 words, shrugging his shoulders, saying, ' IVople were so timid and so afraid.' Mr \V. 
 imitated Mr. tj. m his way of speaking. 
 
 " Q. Do you know or can you state other instances where Mr. W. spoke contemptu- 
 ously or uncharitably of other communicants of his Church? 
 
 •' A. Mr. W. on one occasion, . . . asked me what I thought of baptism accord- 
 ing to law ? I told him I did not understand him. He then repeated a conversation 
 he had had with Mrs. Whiting the day before, at Jlrs. S's, in which Mrs W. had made 
 the remark, that ' she believed in any baptism that was according to law.' Mr. W. 
 laughed so loud and talked so vehemently about the absurdity ofthe answer, that it 
 seemed to attract the attention of the passers by."' 
 
 " I told Mr. "W.that Miss Emma AVlnting was a Unitarian. I had it from her own 
 lips; openly and avowedly so. Miss E. AV. made no more of a secret of it than I did 
 of being an Episcopalian. I never said that Mrs. W. favored Unitarianism, for she was 
 grievedthat her daughter was one ; that Mrs. W. fold ine that she was a decided I'l-es- 
 oyterian, and had been educated so; and that Bishop Stuart, of Canada, had admit- 
 ed her to the communion, though she had informed him of it her herself 
 
 It may be well to note the remarks under the 10th specification in connection with 
 what is here given. 
 
 NlntJi. — Mr. Walker has abused the confidence extended to him in his 
 clerical capacity, by repeating conversations and ridiculing them in pub- 
 lic. (K.'s charge.) 
 
 A. C. Becker called — States that on the occasion of the death of Beck- 
 er's child, Mr. Walker abused their confidence and hurt their feelings by- 
 ridiculing, in conversation with others, Mr. and Mrs. Becker's wishes ixx 
 regard to the burial service. A. C. Becker. 
 
 •The person who thus judged of the respondent was at the time a member of the fam- 
 ily of Whiting; has, perhaps, read the Ordinal, but is in no wise connected with the 
 Church,— not even by baptism. lie has certain property interests in the vicinity of 
 St. James' Church, by which he is rcgjirded as being in an especial manner influenced 
 in his sympathies with that side of the river. 
 
66 
 
 W. B. Ogden states, he mot Mi-. Walker near Becker's house, who said, 
 in his usual rapid manner, that ^Ir. and Mrs. Becker had some very ri- 
 diculous notions, " very ridiculous, indeed," which he had settled or re- 
 moved. Did not then know to wliat he had reference from Mr. Walker. 
 It was between the death and burial of their child. 
 
 A C Becker being asked by ^h: Kellogg whether he proposed to bring 
 forward further witnesses to sustain this charge, he, Becker, pledged him- 
 self to do so, if necessary, herealler. A. C. Becker. 
 
 Eemares. — It will be noticed how logically the specification is deduced from the 
 stutemeuts; — a K^'ieral charce. from a single vajjue anil almost unmeaning case! 
 
 Mrs. 15., nurtured in the Lnitarian system, had rciine.sleU that, at the burial of her 
 child, the accustomed ceremony of dropping the earth be dispensed with, 'i'he respond- 
 ent satisfied her that it was better otlierwi.-ie ; and then spoke of the objection, and of 
 its having been obviated 1 And this \va.s an abuse of ' the contidence exteuded to him 
 in his clerical capacity !"' O tempora 1 O M»res 1 
 
 Tenth, Immorality — Tn asserting to Mr. Bockor and Mr. Kinzic In the 
 Vestry-room, on 22d Dec. 1S43, that the ladies of St. James' Society 
 hissed and stamped at him on the occasion of the meeting at his house 6tli 
 Nov. preceding. Mr. Walker next day attempted to explain by saying 
 he had been told so, but refused to give his authority. (K.'s charge.) 
 
 A. C. Becker called — States that Walker said to him, witness. In the 
 presence of Kinzie at the Vestry-room, that, at the meeting at the Rec- 
 tory, Mrs. Magill, Mrs. Kinzie, and ]Miss Williams stamped and liissed 
 while he. Walker, was addressing the ladies. A. C. Becker. 
 
 Mrs. Kinzie called — Sa}-s that at the meeting at the Rectory, there was 
 no hissing or stamping by the ladies, to her knowledge. 
 
 Juliette A. Kinzie. 
 
 Remarks.— To an understanding of specifications 10th and 14th, with which also the 
 2d may be connected, it is necessary to be stated, that many professed friends of the 
 Church, feeling that the time liad come for commencing the erection of a church edi- 
 fice on the south side of the Chicago river, where is by far the largest portion of the 
 population of the city, with a view to the establishment of separate services for Trinity 
 congregation, agreeably to an understanding between both parishes and the respond- 
 ent, at the time he accepted the Kectorsbip of the two. had come forward and oiTered 
 certain specific cotitributions to the object, provided the Ladies' Society would co-op- 
 erate and raise .$500 for the same ; and requested the respondent to propose the subject 
 to the ladies, and, if possible, secure the desired co-operation. 
 
 It is true that a jealousy on the part of some on the north side of the river, of any 
 movement in favor of the south side, had shown itself previously. A witness of the 
 presenters thus testified : " I inferred there was a jealousy existing on the part of those 
 residing on the north side of the river towards the building of a Church on the south 
 side." 
 
 But as the establishment of Trinity Church, organized, with the approbation of the 
 Wardens and Vestrymen of 8t. James', for the south side of the river,* was in the com- 
 pact with the respondent, he felt that good faith towards those on the south side of the 
 river, no less than very obvioiis duty, demanded him to regard them as far as duty to 
 the whole people committed to his charge should seem to require, and occasion .should 
 be given. He, therefore, readily consented to serve the interest named, by making the 
 desired proposal to the ladies at an early opportunity, anticipating no other than a cor- 
 dial and almost unanimous response to an application so proper to be made, and, if ac- 
 
 * The following is a resolution which was adopted at a meeting held June 28, 1842, 
 preliminary to its organization : 
 
 " Resolved, That in the opinion of thi.s meeting, it is important and necessary to the 
 interests and increase of the Episcopal Church in this city, that a Church be perma- 
 nently established on the south side of the Chicago river." 
 
 This being approved by the Wardens and Vestrymen of St. James' Church, and 
 other persons connected with that congregation, the organization took place on 
 the 5th of March next following. The faihire of all efforts made to secure the services 
 of a clergyman for the newparisli. caused the interest in it gradually to subside, till at 
 the respondent's arrival in Chicago, Trinity Church existed only in name. But that 
 the respondent might legally and canonically have the oversight of the entire field, the 
 Wardens and Vestry 'of that Church invited him to their spiritual oversight in con- 
 junction with his rectorship of St. James' ; both congregations, however, forming but 
 one, worshiping in St. James' Church edifice; and it being understood, at the same 
 time, between all the parties,that Trinity Church should receive some distinct services, 
 be revived, it possible, and, in due time, be permanently established. 
 
 (Query. Does not the resolution above throw some light on the subject of parish 
 boundaries in Chicago? Let this be considered in connection with a statement invol- 
 ving this subject in the note on page 27.) 
 
56 
 
 riuiesced in, so proiiii-^iiis; of gooil to ilie Master's ciiusc. The contrary, however, trans- 
 pired. 80 soon as it came to be nnderstooil that at a };in;ii niiH-iinj; of the ladies tho 
 liroposal named would be submitted, an u|>i)Osition to the plan and tlie respondent 
 urose among liis parisliioiieis in the nortli. ForeniO!-t in this o|)position was Airs. K., 
 who, till then, liud expressed herscU', toucliin;; tlic respondent, in terms of hi-'h satis- 
 faction, nieir relation may be gathered from Mrs. K.'s testimony; it was as iollows : 
 "I became aciiiiaiutfd with Mr. \V. in 1S43. He remained an innnitc of our family a 
 little more tlian tiirec weeks. After he left our house, we frequently invited liim 
 there. He came to our house more familiarly and intimately than any other ac- 
 iiuaintance." — Her local relation to St. James' Church is in her testimony thus: "St. 
 James' Church is opposite to our house; the street divides us from the Church." — Her 
 interior relation to tlie parish may perhaj's be inferred tVom the declaration before no- 
 ticed, attributed by lieckcr to the res]>oiident as liavini; letii made just at this juncture, 
 to wit. that'- he would ])ut Mi-s. K. down. She should rule the parish no longer, as 
 .she had done for nine years. Kither he or she would be Hector." 
 
 At the lime contemplated, the pi-oiiosai which the responclcnt had been desired to 
 present to the ladies was made. JVIrs. J\. hastestilied of it thus:—" Mr. W. did in ray 
 
 inx'fence propose to the ladies of St. James' Sewiuf; Society, which at that time em- 
 traced a number of the ladie* who, it was sui)posed, would become a part of Trinity 
 congregation, to go to work vigorously and prepiu-e for a Fair, at which be said he liad 
 no doubt they could raise i^!')W ; that with that money they would go to work and lay 
 the foundation of Trinity Church ; and there was no doubt that the gentlemen would 
 use every effort to complete it." 
 
 The manner in which Mrs. K. received the proposal, and tlie character of her oppo- 
 siticjn, aje thus given by a witness of the prcenters : — ■' We had some money on hand, 
 and a good many articles. AVe were preparing for a Fair, wlien we were expecting to 
 receive a considerable sum. Mr. W. wi.slied tiiat the money should be approjiriated to 
 the building of a Church on the south side of the river. He wished the ladies to co- 
 oper:ite, as I understood it. 
 
 " 1 have said that 1 thought Mrs. K. said loo much, and that I did not like to have it 
 ridiculed — our having a Church on this [the south] side of the river." 
 
 " Mrs. K. said if the geutU-nien were going to appropriate the ladies;' money, they 
 had better come and cut out tJio aprons and work, and have some knitting." (.') 
 
 The meeting of the ladies at which tliis took place being but partial, not embracing 
 the entire ladies of his charge, the respondent, on tliu Sunday following, uotilieda gen- 
 eral meeting to be held at the parsonage tlie next day. to allow him to submit the pro- 
 posal to and invite the co-operation ol all. 
 
 On Monday afternoon, Ts'ov. fjth, the meeting was held. The respondent addressed 
 the ladies pres'-nt on the subject whicli had been the means of their assembling, and 
 urged a general anil united co-operation with the gentlemen in an ell'ort to builil Trin- 
 ity Church ; insisting that sectional leclings and local interests should be disregarded 
 in view of the char:icter and magnitude of the results sought to be accomiilished ; that 
 the division of the city by a email river should not be allowed to divide Churchmen in 
 a great efloit for the Church, like that proposed. This is the meeting referred to in spe- 
 cification loth. 
 
 In the light of what has been stated, it may be judged from testimony educed from 
 presenters' witne.s.ses, wkether the respondent might not have .said " that ladies hissed 
 and stamped at him on the occasion of that meeting ;" and, to substantiate tho asser- 
 tion, might not have said that others knew the .same, for they had told him so. 
 
 It is proper to state, that what Mr. AV. asserted to Jlessrs. Becker and Kinzie in the Ves- 
 try-room, (see specification ,)was said in answer to a reouest that he would state his causes 
 ol grievance, with a view to explanation and reeonciliatiou. It was said, therefore, aa 
 to the chief party herself— to 3[r. K., that he might state to Mrs. K. what were the re- 
 spondent's views and feelings with respect to thecouise she had taken. 
 
 Sherwood testified thus :— '■ I heard ladies, who were present at the meeting, censure 
 Mrs. K.'s conduct at that meeting. I do not remember any more except my wife ; there 
 were others, but I have foi-'jottcu who." 
 
 Mrs. Sherwood thus : '• I have .said that ths manner of the ladies was not respectful." 
 
 Another witness thus : '• I don't remember much about it, it was so long ago. They 
 showed no respect to Mr. W." 
 
 Another thus : " I presume Mrs. W. and Miss R. heard me sixjali of signs of disap- 
 probation exhibited by the ladies towards Mr. W. at the meeting referred to, as I have 
 done to others. 
 
 '• I heard Mrs. JI., tapping the floor with her foot, sav, ' Walker wants to be Bishop 
 himself.' 1 consideied Mrs. M.'s conduct a very great disrespect. 
 
 " Mr. W. said he showld not think they would allow a little stream, Chicago river, to 
 make any difference towards this [the south] side. Alter this remark, Mrs. M. made 
 the above remark, and tapped witli her foot as above stated. 1 did not hear the ex- 
 pression, ' Shame, shame I' but I was told it was said." 
 
 A witness of the respondent testified with respect to this last point thus : "When Mr. 
 W. said the ladies ought not to let it appear that the river would divide their feelings, 
 he was interrupted by, I think, **»**»**» **•**»•», saying, ' For shame, Mr. W. for 
 making such a remark.' I sat ne.xt to her." 
 
 The same could have been corroborated by other witnesses. So much may suffice, 
 however, for a fair judgment on speciticatiim lOtli, and to aid somewhat iu the forma- 
 tion of the same on the 'Zd and 14th, and, perhaps, some others. 
 
 Elevenih — Mr. Walker asserted to Mr. Becker that he was pained to 
 see the indignity and contempt -with which Mrs. Kinzie treated Mrs. AVhi- 
 ting in company. This he admitted that he had said in the meeting at 
 Mr. Kinzie's lioiise iu the aflcrnoou of the 22d December, in the pres- 
 ence of Jlci'srs. Rogers, Saltonstall, ^^^^iting, &c. ; but the next morning 
 
i>7 
 
 retracted it, with uiauy otLer thiugs, in coiiversatiou with Mrs. Kinziti, 
 on tlie ground that he had not understood what was attributed to him. 
 (K.'s charge.) 
 
 Mrs. Kinzie states that Mr. Walker admitted his having said that Mrs. 
 Kinzie had treated Mrs. Whiting with contempt and indignity. The 
 following day he denied having ever said what was stated by Mr. Becker, 
 and when reminded that he had edmitted it the previous day, said he 
 would not have done so, if he had understood it. 
 
 Juliette A. Kinzie. 
 
 A. C. Becker states that Mr. Walker expressed his surprise to him that 
 Mrs. Whiting should so warmly sustain Mrs. Kinzie in her opposition to 
 him, Walker, after the indignant and contemptuous manner in which 
 Mrs. Whiting had been treated by Mrs. Kinzie, at a party, when the 
 Bishop was present A. C. Beckek. 
 
 Remarks. — The respondent did say to Becker, when told that Mrs. Whiting sustained 
 Mrs. Kinzie against him, that he was surprised at it, after having herselfbeen treated 
 with such disitispect by Mrs. Iv., but a short time before. When this was complained 
 of by Mrs. K. to the respondeat, (for IJecker soon communicated it to her,) he said that 
 «uch was his impre.s.«ion other course towards Jlrs. W. ; but, as it was a matter of opin- 
 ion simply, if Mrs. W. did not so view her conduct, did not feel that she had been treat- 
 ed contemptuou.sly., the respondent was ii.dilferent. Uis own tastes and habits led him 
 to a difl'erent estimate of the case ; and he spoke of it from his own impression. The re- 
 traction referred to is to be found in tlie above explanation, and there only, whatever 
 may have been Mrs. K.'s understanding of it. 
 
 It is submitted whether Mrs. K.'s teeling and interest in this case, would be most fa- 
 vorable to a precise and literal reoollectiou, such as is professed, of conversation* had 
 long before. It is upon this very exact memory that the main points in several of thes* 
 specifications depend. 
 
 The following question and answer from the deposition of Kinzie, may serve to show 
 that very possibly there was smne foundaUon for the respondent's impression : 
 
 " Q. Did you or your family speak lightly to Mr. Walker of Mrs. Whiting, because 
 ot a certain matter in regard to wliich appeal was made by Mrs. Kinzie to Bishop 
 Chase ? 
 
 " A. There was a question upon a passage in the Bible, about which Mrs. K. and 
 Mrs. W- were in conversation one evening at Mrs. Magill's, Bishop Chase being pres- 
 «nt. They both agreed to leave it to him to decide. He cttncurred with Mrs. K. 'When 
 we returned honte in the eveuingj Mr. Walker being present, the subject was moved, 
 and remarks made both by Mrs. Kinzie and Sir. W. about Mrs. Whiting's ignorance or 
 the passage in question. I do not recollect what expressions were made." 
 
 Twelfth, Immorality — In calling his Maker to witness that he was not 
 on the building committee, by directions of whom the alterations in the 
 Church were made. (K.'s charge.) 
 
 Jno. H. Kinzie. — A minute of the proceedings of the Vestry held at 
 Capt. Russell's office on the 19th September, marked B, was read.* Mr. 
 Kinzie states that this minute was read to ]Mr. Walker ; that the latter 
 subsequently told witness he had nothing to do with superintending al- 
 terations in the Church, and did not know he was on the committee. 
 He, Walker, directed the alterations, and they were made under his su- 
 perintendence. Parry was the carpenter employed. 
 
 Jno. H. Kinzie. 
 
 Y 
 
 W. L. Whiting states that Mr. Walker called God to witness he did not 
 know he was on the committee of alterations, until long after the altera- 
 tions were completed. W. L. Whiting. 
 
 W. W. Sedionstall made some explanations — States that he was present 
 at the Vestry-meeting, and was not himself aware of Mr. W.'s being on 
 the committee. Wm. W. Saltonstall. 
 
 Mr. Parry called — Says Capt. RusseU engaged him to do the work 
 and referred him to Mr. Walker for instructions. Mr. Walker took 
 charge of the alterations. Mr. Kinzie requested his pew to be made of a 
 certain size. 
 
 •'- BxxABEe —The case of the respondent wm precisely that of Mr Wm. W Saltonstall 
 "given above ; he did not know that he was or the committee, but supposed that in all 
 
 * This minute came not to the respondent with thlp paper 
 8 
 
58 
 
 ne did he wbs acting for the coininlttoe, BRreeably to s request by C apt Rtusell that li« 
 would do 80. This was the view wheu Capt. R. eniployea tliu tarpcuter, Parry, aud 
 told him to abide the directions ot the respondent. 
 
 There was no complaint on tliis oubject until Kinzie's, Whiting's, &c., fell out with 
 the respondent, when it became an object for Mr. K. to change tlit- responsibility of hia 
 pew being made, in the course of tlie alterations, more spacious than that of Whiting, 
 of which the Whitinj^s had seriously complained, by placing it upon the respondent. 
 This point is providentially settled by the statement of I'arry, givea above. 
 
 Tlie respondent could never have said that he had nothing to do with superintending 
 the altsrations ; this was toooiieu aud manifest : 3Ir. K. is mistaken here. 
 
 Thirteenth. — Mr. Walker assigned as a reason for not complying •with 
 Mrs. Kinzie's request for an interview and explanation of matters in 
 which she felt aggrieved, that he had acted entirely by the advice of Mr. 
 Saltonstall, -who thought Mrs. Kinzie's letters "so improper," that Mr. 
 Walker could not, in justice to himself, take any notice of them. On the 
 same occasion, he gave as a reason for not acceding to the above request 
 for an interview, that Mr. Becker told him it was to be a meeting pre- 
 liminarj' to forcing him to resign the rectorship of St. James'. (K.'s 
 charge.) Juliette A. Kinzie. 
 
 Mrs. Kinzie called — States the above specification is entirely correct 
 
 Mr. Saltonstall called — States that Mr. Walker called on him. and 
 showed him Mrs. Kinzie's first letter, (marked E,) requesting an inter- 
 view. He told Mr. Walker as it was an important matter, he should pre- 
 fer having Mrs. K.'s specification. On receiving the second letter, 
 (marked F,) witness advised him to take 24 hours to consider of it, and 
 give it serious and prayerful consideration. 
 
 A. C. Becker states, that he did not tell Mr. Walker it was to be a meet- 
 ing preliminary to his being forced out of the parish. He told liim noth- 
 ing of the kind. A. C. Becker. , 
 
 Remarks.— Of the latter clause in the specification, a re-affirmation of what Becker 
 told the respondent may suffice. 
 
 The correspondence itself, taken in connection with the above statement of Mr. Sal- 
 tonstall, may be sufficient respecting the former. It is as follows ; 
 
 " Sir,— 
 
 " If you think proper to accede to the request of Mrs. Kinzie contained in the 
 accompanying note, will you please specify to me the time at which it will be most con- 
 venient to you to call at our house, in order that Messrs. Whiting and Becker may bo 
 at leisure to meet us. 
 
 " Respectfully yours, 
 
 " JNO H KINZIE. 
 " TOBSDAT MOWJISO, Dcc. 12, 1843." , 
 
 "Rev. Sib,— 
 
 " A very painful impression has been left on my mind by certain injnrl- 
 ons statements respecting ine, reputed to have been made on your authority. 
 
 "In the relation in which we stand, of clergyman and parishioner, I cannot doubt 
 you will hasten to offer such an explanation as will remove all cause of complaint. I 
 trust, therefore, you will think me justitied in requesting you to name the earliest hour 
 convenient for an interview, in ordur that the truth may be made manifest. 
 
 " As parties concerned in the statements in question, I should wish that both Mr. 
 Whiting and Mr. Btcker might be present on the occasion, and it would also be ray 
 wish to invite the attendance of an old and valued friend in the Church, who may 
 Judge impartially in the matter. 
 
 " Very respectfully yours, 
 
 " JULIETTE A. KINZIE. 
 "Chioaoo, Dec. 12, 1843." 
 
 ".J. H. Kinzbb: 
 
 " My Dear Sir:— A reply to the letter of Mrs. Kinzie, enclosed in yours of to-day, to 
 me, is herein sent to you. By handin" it to Mrs. K., you will oblige, 
 " Your friend and pastor, 
 
 "W. F. WALKER. 
 " CnicAoo, Dec. 12, 1843." 
 
 "Mb8. J. H. KutZIE: 
 
 " Dear Madam .—On being informed what are the ' statements raipecting y«n, repu- 
 ted to have been made on my authority,' by which ' a painful impression has beea left 
 on your mind,' as is stated to have been the case in your note of to-day, I ' will hasten,' 
 as you have not doubted I would, 'to offer such an explanation' as I shall be able ; and, 
 by making ' the truth manifest,' will endeavor to ' remove all canse of complaint.' But 
 while, as at present, ignorant of tht ' statements,' the utter impossibility of my replying 
 to them, or pronouncing upon tht-m, must be apparent. Whether ttiey have been 
 made by my ' autherity' or not. presents, lo far as I can diieover, no question for arbl- 
 
5U 
 
 tration i for lu eo ftir ae thev are true, iiivolviug no mijapprelieusiou or niiirepresenta- 
 tion, 1 Bliall oertaliilf aiinilt them, aiid so far shuil cheerfully consent to be lield an- 
 swerable to you. IJut, in so fur us tUey Involve miaapprehension or luisreprestntation, 
 1 shall as certainly deny tliein ; and hold it us a case solely hotween niytelf and thti 
 Xjersou or per^ons'tlirouf^h whom the ' statements' have been made to you. 
 
 " Ko ' statements- which 1 have made or authorized regarding; you, Jladam, not mis- 
 apprehended or misrepresented, can. I am pure, be otherwLse 'injurious' than as the 
 truth may so jirove : and this certainly could not liav»i given the • painful impression' 
 which ' h"a.<! been left on your mind,' or proved 'a cause of just 'complaint' There 
 must, therefore, be a wrong somewhere, through fault, in the misrepresentation or 
 misapprehension of some reporter or reporters un from me, which deeply concerns me, 
 and which i)oint,s to my being put in passession of the ' statements' as necessary to ena- 
 ble nie to decide where lies the accountability, and to secure justice to you and to all 
 concerned. 
 
 '•A remembrance of our relations as Christians, with a simple desire for truth, and 
 that only, will, J am sure, speedily rectify all that is at ])resent false in our position, 
 and restore us to that ' peace and good-will,' to the cultivation of which, at this holy 
 Eeason, the Church especially calls the ntteiition of her children. 
 
 " M;',y ' t'le crooked' speedily ' be made straight.' and all ' tlie rough places plain,' so 
 that we may again 'withoneniind and one mouth glorify (jod, even our Father,' 
 through our liOrd Jesus Christ! 
 
 " I shall hojie to be furnished the ' statements' complained of at your earliest conve- 
 nience 
 
 " Very respectfully and truly, 
 
 '• Your friend aiid pastor, 
 
 "AV F WALKER. 
 
 *■ CaicAGe, Dec. 12, 1M3." 
 
 " Ebv. Sib :— 
 
 " It was precisely for the purpose of making known to you the statement! 
 reterrcd to, that I requested an interview with you, in my note of yesterday. 
 
 " In the presence of those who profe.«s to hare received the statements from you, it 
 will be ca.«y to avow or disavow them — to ascertain where lies the ' misapprehension or 
 misrepresentation.' 
 
 " If you are conscious that the ' law of truth and kindness' has been ever on your lip» 
 since you have ministered among us, vou will court, rather than avoid such an expla- 
 nation. 
 
 " Statements have be?n made, professedly by yon, wliich I pronounce, and can prove 
 
 to be, utterly end jinequivocally false. You surely will not rest under the imputation of 
 
 having made them, but will come boldly forward, as a (Christian l'a.=tor should do, and 
 
 without evasion or circumlocution, prove that you are clear from the charge. > • 
 
 " Verv respectfully yours, 
 
 "JULIETTE A. KINZIE 
 : " Chicaqo, Wednesday. Dec. 13. 1843." < i 
 
 To this letter no reply was made, because, under the conviction attained through the 
 adviee of Mr. Saltonstall, it was forbiddpn. 
 
 Subsequently, the meeting with Kinzic and Becker in the Testry-room took place, 
 where a meeting with Mrs. K ., for a mutual statement ot giievances and explanations 
 was agreed upon for the 23d of December, and which is often mentioned in these 
 charges. 
 
 The meeting was ultimately productive of no good, as this paper sufficiently shows. 
 
 Fourteenth. — Mr. Walker asserted to Mr. and Mrs. Kinzie on the 1 2th 
 Not., that at the meeting of the Ladies' Society at j\Ij-s. Foot'.", one of the 
 ladies had told him something with regard to Mrs. Kinzie, but which of 
 the ladies it was "7;e could not furhii^ life recollect" when urged to give 
 his name ; but afterwards, on tlie '23d Dec., in the presence of Rogers. 
 Saltonstall, &o. admitted that he "■did recollect" and denied that he had told 
 Mr. and Mrs. Kinzie that " he could not do so." (K.'s charge.) 
 
 Mrs. Kinzie states that every word of the above is true. 
 
 Juliette A. Kinzie-.. 
 
 Jno. II. Kinzie states that the above specification is true.* 
 
 ■Jno. H. Kinzie. 
 
 John Roqers states, that in the interview at Mr. Kinzie's house, Mr. 
 Walker denied saying to Mr. and Mrs, Kinzie that he could not recollect 
 
 • And yet this same person, under oath, depo.'ed as follows : " Mr. Walker told Mrs 
 Kinzie, iii my presence, that, at the Sewing Society at Mrs. Foot's, he had been told 
 that she had said something against him: and when she asked what it was, and who 
 told him, he said he ' would not teil,' or ' could not tell.' When that convcrsiition was 
 referred to subsequently at my house, he said he ' knew the person, but would not give 
 the name;' the witness gnre it first, and then erased these words, and said instead, 
 ' could not for his life recollect' who told him." 
 
 By this testimony tlie offence of the alleged deniaj.at least, is removed; while it 
 shows how very uucerfnin, after al!. ie the exacteat lutmoiy in regard ro precise word* 
 used in conversation. 
 
60 
 
 the name of the lady who gave him the information. He was then asked 
 to give the name, which he declined. John Rogers. 
 
 Remarks.— An extract from the deposition of a witness of the presenters, taken in 
 connection with tho Itemarks under Speciiication 10th, may perhaps sufficiently explain 
 Specification 14th. That the testimony was elicited in a cross-examination will be ob- 
 vious. It is as follows : 
 
 " Q. Does it consist with your knowledf^ that any lady at that meeting [at Mrs. 
 Foot's] informed, Mr. Walker that Mrs. Kiuzie, during that afternoon, had been ridi- 
 culing the plan that it was understood Mr. W. intended that evening to propose — to 
 have the ladies co-operat* by lending their eft'orts and appropriating money to build 
 Trinity Church? 
 
 "A I don't know of any lady informing Mr. W. that Mrs. Kinzie ridiculed 
 
 his plan, but I know that it was talked of in his presence, but don't know that any one 
 particularly told him. 
 
 " Q. Did not you state, in abed-room in your house, at that meeting, to Mrs. Walker 
 and another lady, that Mrs. Kiuzie had ridiculed Mr. W ■.« plan that day ; and did you 
 not express yourself to them as much injured in your leeliiigs by it ? 
 
 " A. I don't remember of .saving it to Mrs. W. 1 liave said tliat 1 thought Mrs. Kin- 
 zie said too much, and that I did not like to hear it ridiculed — our having a church on 
 this [south] side of the river. 
 
 " Q. Did you not, among other things, say on that day, or at any other time, to Mr. 
 W. himself," that Mrs. Kiuzie had said that if the gentlemen wanted the money, they 
 had better oe furnished with some knitting, &c. &c.? 
 
 " A. Mrs. Kinzie said if the gentlemen were going to appropriate the ladies' money, 
 they had better come and cut out the aprons and work, and have some knitting ; and I 
 presume I told it to ili>. W." 
 
 The witness did tell it to Mr. W., and that too on his entering the house at the meet- 
 ing of ladies referred to. When the respondent mentioned the circumstance, he wa« 
 pressed to disclose the name of the lady who told him. Not wishing to involve her 
 ■with Mrs. K., he declared that he could not give her name. That " he could not re- 
 collect," is a misunderstanding of his words, lie believes that he always " did recol- 
 lect" the witness above quoted as the author of what was referred to, wliich was what 
 is given above from her deposition. The denial on the 23d of December, was in correc- 
 tion of the misunderstanding referred to. 
 
 Fifteenth. — IMr. "Walker told Sir. and ISIrs. Kinzie, that he had left his 
 parish in Troy voluntarily, and in consequence of some misunderstand- 
 ing with Dr. !MiInor. (K.'s charge.) 
 
 Mr Becker states that Mr. Walker has told him the same thing, and 
 that he had never been except on terms of peace and harmony with any 
 of his congregations. A. C. Becker. 
 
 Mr. Kinzie heard Mr. "Walker say that he left his parish in Troy volun- 
 tarily, in consequence of a difficulty with Dr. Milnor. 
 
 Jno. H. Kinzie. 
 
 Mrs. Kinzie states that she has heard him make the same assertion. 
 
 Juliette A. Kikzie. 
 
 Remarks.— That the respondent did resipn his rectorship of Christ Church, Troy, 
 " voluntarily," and without its being anticipated either by tne Vestry or congregation, 
 or ever suggested by either, is here affirmed. It is believed that, at the time, it waa 
 neither thought of nor desired by any. The harmony that was in the relation which 
 was thus severed, may be inferred from the fact, that the Wardens and Vestry empow- 
 ered the respondent to call his successor, by a resolution like the following : 
 
 " Resolveri, That the Rev. W. F. Walker, understanding the wants of this parish, be 
 
 and is hereby authorized to call the Rev. , at salary, to the 
 
 rectorship which he has just resigned." 
 
 By virtue of this resolution, the Rev. Edward Ingersoll was invited, by the respond- 
 ent, to the position named; and the vacancy, at the expiration of about six months, du- 
 ring which time tlie chip-ch was supplied by the respondent, was thus filled. 
 
 Tne determining cause which led to the respondent's resignation at that precise junc- 
 ture, was an occurrence that took place on occasion of a visit to his church of Bishop 
 Meade, and the late Dr. Milnor. That occurrence is stated by tho witness, Mrs. K., as 
 having been related to her by the respondent, two and a half years before, with an ex- 
 actnes.s with the facts themselves sucti as will bring a .scene of painful interest to the 
 memory of the Rev. Dr. Barry, of Jersey City, and those brethren of the clergy, then in 
 and about Troy, who were present and witnessed it ; and to some of whom w'as at once 
 communicated by the respondent his intention in view of it ; an intention which was 
 executed within a few hours after. 
 
 The occasion on which the occurrence referred to took place, was that of a visit of the 
 Rt. Rev. Bishop Meade, the Kev. Drs. Milnor and Barry, and the Rev. clergy then 
 in and about Troy, to the church of the respondent, on the evening of the 23d Sunday 
 after Trinity, it is believed, 1839. Bishop Meade preached ; the respondent said prayers. 
 Dr. M. had expected to have done this ; out the respondent having been informed by a 
 brother that he had said he should, by his manner, "give Walker a brush in his own 
 church," he was not asked ; but was seated with the other clergy within the chancel. 
 
61 
 
 Says the witness, " the Bishop had hardly finished the Benediction, after hie sermon, 
 and the congregation had not left the cliurch, when Dr. JI. jumped up and danced 
 about, exclauning. ' Oxford Tracts and Popery ! Oxford Tracts and Popery !' He, Mr. 
 W., was very much mortified, and told Dr. M. he desired to know what he alluded to. 
 Dr. M. said, in the first place, the very lorm and finishing of the church was objection- 
 able. Mr. W. told him it was built, [arranged rather, as rcjjards the chancel,] upon a 
 plan recommended by Bishop O., and had been followed in instances before, and he 
 did not suppose that any fault would be found with it. Dr. M. then objected to the 
 bowings and gestures [?] that Mr. W. had made use of in the service. Mr. W. replied 
 he was not conscious of^having made use of any bowings and gestures, except the bow- 
 ing at the name of Jesus in the Creed, as is cu.'itomary in the Church. Dr. M. replied 
 that he should bow his head reverently, and not the knee, or in some way found fault 
 with Mr. W.'s manner of doing reverence. Dr. M.'s remarks were of such a character, 
 and made openly, before many of the congregation, who had stoi)ped to listen, and Mr. 
 W.'s feelings were so much hurt, that lie went home and wrote his resignation to the 
 Vestry that very evening, and that he would not remaiu in charge of the church ano- 
 ther dav after such an occurrence had taken place, lie stated that the parish had been 
 gathered together by his, Mr. W.'s, exertions; that he had embarked a good deal of his 
 own property in it;" ($500 were given by the respondent towards the building, besides 
 gratuitous .services for a long while;) •' that they were not a very strong Church people, 
 and he was afraid of the cfll-ct of remarks coming from such a source on people of tnat 
 character, that it would occasion trouble in the parish," &c. 
 
 This scene was related by the respondent before the venerable brother whom it in- 
 volves had " fallen asleep." It is due to his memory to state, that to a Rev. brother 
 now in Is'ew York City, he subsequently expressed his regret for the occurrence, and 
 thought he had gone too tar. 
 
 Sixteenth.* — Mr. Walker reproved Mrs. Kinzie for using the expression 
 " Trinity Parish," and told her to say " Our Church over the river" that 
 there was no such thing as " Trinity Parish," that " it had ceased to exist," 
 and subsequently claimed to have been called conjointly to St. James' 
 and Trinity parishes, and assured Anson Sperry that the call he received 
 was by a conjoint letter from the two parishes, written at Mr. Norton's 
 store. (K.'s charge.) 
 
 Mrs. Kinzie con'oborates the above so far as it refers to herself.f 
 
 Juliette A. Kinzie. 
 
 Mr. Kinzie confirms the specification, and .states he was present when 
 Mr. Walker reproved Mrs. Kinzie for using the term " Trinity Parish." 
 
 Jno. H. Kinzie. 
 
 Mr. Anson Sperry states, that three or four weeks before Easter, Mr. 
 Walker told witness he had received a call from Trinity Church as well 
 as St. James', and the call, as he understood, was given by both parishes 
 at the same time, written at Mr. Norton's store. He heard Mr. Walker 
 state at Mr. Skinner's, before he went East for his family, that they had 
 done the fair thing by him ; that he had received a call from both 
 churches. 
 
 Semasks.— The note to " Kemarks" under Specification 10th, page 65, will explain 
 what is alleged to have been said by the respondent touching the existence of Tnnity 
 Church ; and the fact that the canonical certificate of his election to its rectorship waa 
 sent by its Wardens to the Bishop August 9th, 1843, might be sufficient to substantiate 
 the claim asserted to have been made. But as concluding more perfectly, if possible, 
 that point, and at the same time evincing the present relation of the respondent to his 
 parish, the following, from the Records of Trinity Charch, officially communicated to 
 the respondent Feb. alth, 1844, is submitted :— 
 
 " Whereas, in the month of August last, the Rev. W. F. Walker accepted the Rec- 
 torship of Trinity Church, in conjunction with that of St. James', in this city, on an in- 
 vitation from this Board ;— and 
 
 "Whereas, it was then believed that such partial services as it was supposed he would 
 be able to render this parish, in connection with those required by hjs other charge, 
 would be commensurate with its wants, the contrary of which is now indicated, by the 
 unexpected prasperity of this Church and its promising prospects for the future ; — and 
 
 " Whereas, a change corresponding with the change in our circumstances, it is be- 
 lieved, should be made in the relation to us of our Rector,— the substitution of his en- 
 tire services for the partial oversight contemplated in our present relation : — Therefore, 
 
 " Resolved, That the Rev. \V, T. Walker be invited to the Rectorship of Trinity 
 Church exclusive of St. James' ; and that he be requested to enter fully upon his duties 
 as such Rector, at the earliest period compatible with the engagements by which he is 
 at present holden." 
 
 * This specification was not in the Presentment which was served on the respondent. 
 
 t " Perhaps I should rather have said that he corrected the expression than that he 
 reproved me," explains the witness, Mrs. K., in her deposition. 
 
62 
 
 Ibe canonical certificate uf tbe ivbovc was at once sent to tht Uishop by tbe Wardeui 
 It was in form ae fulluwit : 
 
 "We. the Churelnrnrdenp, do certify to the Ri^'ht licv. I'hilander Chase, D. D., 
 Bishop'of the Diocese ofl'linoi-;. tli:\t llie Kev. W'm. P. Walker has been duly cboteu 
 Eector of Trinity Church, in the City of Chicago." 
 
 • 
 
 The above Charges and Specificationp were served on the re- 
 .«;pondent, in the form of a Presentment, June lOth, 1844. 
 
 A Citation Avas prefixed to the document, calling on the respon- 
 dent to appear and answer thereto, in the basement of St. James' 
 Church, Chicago, on the 8th of July then folloAving, before a Court 
 consisting of "the Bishop as Judge, and not less than three or 
 more than six presbj-ters, assessors with him ;" said '• presbyters" 
 to be " selected by the accused* out of a list of the clergy of Illi- 
 nois,"t which w^as therewith furnished. 
 
 The following note accompanied the Citation and Presentment : 
 
 (Private.) 
 To the Rev. W. F. Walker :— 
 
 Dear Sir, — I have fixed the time of your trial according to the Canons. 
 It can be altered, should you wish an earlier period. Please to let me 
 know before I write to my Counsel. 
 
 Your obedient servant and friend, 
 
 PHILAN. CHASE. 
 Monday, lOth June, 1844. 
 
 As soon as these papers were received, the respondent sought a 
 friend, whom he induced to accompany him in a call on the Bishop. 
 At the interview then had, the respondent asked, 
 
 1st, That "some neighboring Bishop be requested to preside 
 upon the trial," as the Canon allowed, where the Bishop of the T)ir 
 ocese was " a party concerned ;" — 
 
 2d, That the time for the trial be some two or three weeks later 
 than "that appointed, to allow of some testimony being obtained 
 from Troy, touching Specification 15th ; and from New York, 
 Philadelphia, and Boston, to impeach the " swift witness," Becker. 
 
 In relation to the former request, such solemn asseverations of im- 
 partiality were made, that it was at once waived ; and txa the latter, 
 it was replied, that Specification 15 did not belong to the Present- 
 ment ; that it had been ordered to be stricken out, and that the tes- 
 timony of Becker might be set aside. " . ' 
 
 Two great impediments being thus removed, the respondent was 
 anxious for an immediate investigation, and urged the Bishop to 
 allow the provisions of Canon with respect to time to elapse before 
 trial, (as suggested in the note from the Bishop above given,) as- 
 sessors, &c. to be waived, and permit the whole case to come at 
 once before him alone, as Judge and final arbiter. 
 
 He seemed disposed to listen to this proposal, till dissent was 
 expressed by the Rev. Ezra B. Kellogg, then present. To Mr. 
 K. the respondent simply remarked, that he had called to see and 
 consult with the Bishop ; and to him, therefore, he renewed hi? 
 proposal, and urged its adoption. ' 
 
 At this stage of the matter, the Bishop demanded, " You must. 
 sir, enter into a recognizance for the costs of the trial, before any 
 thing further can be done !" Startled by the introduction of so 
 
 • See Canon XIV. of 1838, sec. 5, page 46. 
 
 t Nine in number, exclusive of two of the Bishopj family, and the B#v. presenter. 
 
63 
 
 extraordinary an issue, the respondent and his friend both object- 
 ed to the demand as novel and oppressive, and claimed that of 
 those who had sought the trial the demand should have been made, 
 — of the plaintiffs, and not of the defendant. 
 
 With the exception that the time for the trial was postponed 
 one week, to the 15th of July, and the new issue respecting a recog- 
 nizance, which might result in the postponement of the trial in-, 
 definitely, was made, the interview was without account. 
 
 At 4 o'clock P. M, of the day following, a letter, of which the 
 following is a copy, was sent to the Bishop : 
 
 Chicago, June 11, 1844. 
 Rt. Rev. and Dear Sir : 
 
 From the hst of the Clergy in the Diocese, wlilch you kindly furnished 
 me last evening, I would select the llev. Joseph L. Dai-row, the Rev. 
 Geo. P. Giddinge, and the Rev. James De Piii, to " sit as assessors "with 
 the Bishop," on the trial of myself, appointed for the 15th of July. 
 
 I shall, God ■willing, be ready, at the time and place appointed, to an- 
 swer to the Charges preferred, and I hope to the satisfaction of my 
 Bishop. 
 
 As regards provisions for the expenses which will be incident to the 
 trial, not including those to which I must be subject in procuring my tes- 
 timony, it can hardly be that the prosecution will claim an exemption 
 from the rule which Is ever observed in civil cases. The rules which pre- 
 vail in such cases, we have been taught were to govern here*, and if so, 
 that matter is settled at once. It is ail that I can bear, and more than I 
 ought to be subjected to at this time, for I am truly poor, to secure the 
 testimony and the counsel which it will devolve upon me to procure. I 
 cannot, therefore, do any thing towai-ds defraying other expenses of the 
 trial. The feelings of my friends generally are like those expressed to 
 you by Mr. S******* this morning, as far as I can gather. 
 
 Could the proposal which I made this moruing, to dispense with the 
 forms of law, and seek at once the merits of the Charges, be acceded to, I 
 am of opinion the cause of right and the good of the Church would be 
 promoted. If this may not be, I abide within the rights secured to me 
 by the Canons, and conceded by my Bishop, and hold myself ready for 
 the trial as appointed. 
 
 DutifuUy, 
 
 Your presbyter, 
 
 W. F. WALKER. 
 
 Rt. Rev. P. Chase, D. D. 
 
 At 5 o'clock, P. M. of the same day, the following was received :t 
 
 To the Rev. W. F. Walker : 
 
 Dear Sir, — I gave you the list of the Clergy of Ulinois, from which you 
 were respectfully requested to select such as you desire to be assessors 
 with the Bishop on your trial. 
 
 You have not as yet made the selection ; and if you had so done, I am 
 precluded from writing to them to attend at the time appointed, ^•iz. on the 
 15th of July next, by the fact of your friends having refused to enter iiv! 
 to an agreement to pay their expenses in travelling to Chicago. ' 
 
 I am not able to bear this expense ; nor they to endure it without in- 
 jury to their famihes. '^ 
 
 * Allusion is here made to declarations made by the Bishop on the trial of Becker. 
 Appendix, M. , 
 
 t It would appear that the letter of the Bishop was written before that of the respond- 
 ent reached him. If so, it narrows the time allowed the respondent for deliberation 
 and decision, from the time the Presentment was served on him, to less than one day. 
 Still the Bishop says, " You have not as ypt," &c. Cyf thi» haste to conclude a pcint 
 against the respondent, otheri may judge. 
 
64 
 
 I am compelled, therefore, to postpone your trial till a sufficient sum 
 of money has been raised to bear the expenses thereof. 
 Your friend and servant in the Lord, 
 
 PHIL'R CHASE. 
 Chicago, 11th June, A. D. 1844. 
 
 The Bishop having succeeded in getting the respondent pre- 
 sented, had caused him to be thus brought more especially under 
 his power ; and while a time had been " iixed" for a trial, had in- 
 troduced a foreign and before unheard-of issue, by which to keep 
 the respondent " fast bound," until, perhaps, lie should be finally 
 broken. For this is the complexion which the course of affairs, at 
 this time, assumed. How true is this judgment the sequel will 
 show. 
 
 On the morning of the 12th of June, the following letter was put 
 into the hands of the respondent by the Rev. E. B. Kellogg, who 
 said that the Bishop was then on the steamboat, and was to leave 
 the city in a few moments : 
 
 Chicago, 12th June, 1844. 
 To the Rev. W. F. Walker : 
 
 Dear Sir, — I cannot require the presence of the named assessors on 
 your trial in Chicago, at their own expense, nor at mine. They are poor, 
 and I am without means of support. More than SI 00 will be required 
 to indemnify them their loss ; and only one half of this sum is promised 
 to be raised by the members of St. James' congrcojation. Unless, there- 
 fore, something be done, I must of necessity be obliged to defer your trial 
 till we all meet in Convention in Springlleld. 
 
 As to the matter of " equitj-" in " dispensing with the forms of law," 
 I have no right to do so ; these forms of law meaning in this case, the 
 Canons of the Church.* These we are all bound to obey by our ordina- 
 tion vows. By no other means can " the merits of the case," as mentioned 
 by you, " be attained," and legal sentence pronounced. 
 
 I can on this head, add no more than this ; that if, when Mr. Becker's 
 testimony, (against which you so strongly object,) is withdrawn, you can 
 say you have done wrong, and are willing to stand corrected and advised 
 by your Bishop, and promise to do so, no more ; asking God's forgive- 
 ness . In this case acting sincerely, by divine assist- 
 ance, you can live down all things now alleged to your disadvantage. 
 
 Your faithful friend, 
 
 P. CHASE. 
 
 The respondent hastened to the boat, where he found the 
 Bishop ; when there followed the interview related in the Answer 
 on pages 20 and 21. Of that interview, the Bishop testified thus : 
 
 " The boat was just going off. Mr. "Walker appeared in great agitation, 
 and requested that something might be done before I went off. I told 
 him I knew of nothing to be done, excepting his confessing his crimes. 
 His crimes were stated in the presentation. I observed to him that al- 
 though there appeared to be an impossibility in bringing him to trial, 
 that there was one way he might evade a trial, and that was by peni- 
 tence ; that his accusers would, and I knew, if he was truly penitent, God 
 would forgive him ; and thus he might be restored to peace and useful- 
 ness in the Church. He professed to be very sorry, and I hoped he was 
 sincere ; and, under the influence of that hope, felt very friendly to him. 
 spoke friendly to him, and expressed my sincere wishes that Grod would 
 
 * By the note of .Tune 10th, page 62, it win be seen that the Bishop offered thip very 
 thine, thus, to wit : " The time ot vour trial, fixed accordirjr to the Canons, can be al- 
 teped," &c. 
 
65 
 
 bless him. I accordingly desired him, as tliere was uo opportunity tlicu 
 to write any thing to my satisl'uction, as the boat was going otV, I desired 
 him to address me at Detroit. He promised so to do. When in Detroit, 
 I waited for his letter with anxiety. 1 received a letter, and it was en- 
 tirely unsatisfactory. lie treated the subject as il" it was a quarrel be- 
 tween him and his parish, instead of his being guilty of crimes. lie foi^ 
 gave them, and hoped they Avould forgive him." 
 
 The letter referre(4 to \va.s as follows : 
 
 Chicago, June 12, 1844. 
 To the Rt. Rev. V. Chask, D. D. : 
 
 Ml/ Itcar Bishop. — Gratitude for tlu; termination of one of the mo.xt 
 trying dillicultics I could be called to encounter, prompts a hearty ao- 
 Jcnow^ledgment tor the kindness of your manner to nic this morning, and 
 of your parting assurance. 1 trust in God that henceforth you shall 
 liave cause only to be satisfied with the faithful service of one who has 
 ^vithout intentional tiiult, been the occasion of so much suffering as you 
 must have endured on this account during your late stay among us ; and 
 that by a walk chastened by the heavy titrokes with which I have just 
 been visited, I may more en inently glorify the Master Avhom we together 
 own and adore as our Hiiad and Lord. 
 
 That I have been without fault in all that has oecured here, I would 
 not pretend ; to tiiis extent I have never sought to justify n)ys(;lf. For 
 iill the wrong I have done, I certainly " am willing to stand corrected 
 and advis-ed l)y my Bishop, and to promise, ' God being my helper,'" to 
 endeavor hencetbrtli so to live and serve as shall meet your tavor, and 
 secure for myself and for that loved branch of the vine over which I am 
 placed, that "blessing by which we may together be built up and mtido 
 '• strong in this grace wherein we stand." Further, I most cheerfully pro- 
 fess that I '• am content to Ibrgive from the bottom of my heart all that 
 any here or elsewhere have trespassed against me, and to make amends 
 for all that wherein I myself have offended." 
 
 In the exer(!ise of such charity, I hope, "by Divine assistance," to perform 
 the duties before me, and so to commend mj-self to men's consciences in 
 the sight of God, as to *' live down all thijigs now alleged to my disadvan- 
 tage." I should be glad to meet all who have set themselves against me. 
 and to have that reconciliation which must be effected here in order to 
 the admission of us all into the kingdom glorified hereafter. 
 
 I shall attend to the matter of the scholarship, to which no thought 
 could before be given by me, because of the overwhelming pressure of 
 the cares that have been upon me. 
 
 Mr. H*** will be made ready for Jubilee as soon as possible. We shall 
 get him off, in all probability, in the early part of week after next. 
 
 Command me as yoii will. Bishop, and T shall prove myself most truly. 
 Your affectionate and faithful presbvter, 
 
 'W.'F. WALKER. 
 
 Such was the. letter which the Bishop has characlerizerl as '• the 
 00th Tract I" (See the statement of Col. Davis, page 31, note.) 
 And, in the above testimony, is his judgment rendered on the case 
 of the respondent in the Prepentment before given of 1844, to mt: 
 ** Guilty of crimes ; the crimes stated in the presentation !" And 
 yet, -will it be believed ? in June, 184t% and again in August follow- 
 ing, he claimed to sit as a "Judge" to try the respondent, on that 
 very Presentment, upon which he had already, in efiect, rendered 
 such a judgment ! And that, too, it Avill presently be ?cen, not only 
 withoar, but contrary to Law '. For Canon XIV. of 1838, had, in 
 the mean time, been rcy)ealed. and Canon I. of 184.') been ndopied. 
 
 The Bishop's reply to vrhni he has termed tlic " OOth Tract," 
 was as follow? : 
 
 9 
 
66 
 
 Buffalo, 20th June, 1844. 
 To the Rev. W. F. Walkkk : 
 
 Dear Sir, — I received your letter while at Detroit, but had no time to 
 reply. 
 
 I wish you had made my written communication to you while at Chi- 
 rago, instead of the oral conversation on board the steamboat, the sub- 
 ject matter of your letter. I referred you to that communication, and 
 now repeat that reference. 
 
 I have the promise of the gentlemen of Trinitj'Tarish Testry concern- 
 ing the payment annually in advance of S50, for a scholai-ship in Jubilee.* 
 The other SuO I have received in advance from St. James' Vestry 
 already. 
 
 The vacation in Jubilee, 3 months, ■\vill commence on the 1st of Au- 
 gust . It would not be advisable for him (Mr. H***) 
 
 to go to Jubilee till afler I return, which will, if the Lord will, be about 
 the first of November. ' 
 
 With kind regards to the members of Trinity Church, " , 
 
 I am, 'I', 
 
 Your obedient servant in Christ, 
 
 P. CHASE. 
 
 Finding themselves thus disappointed by the Bishop, in the non- 
 fulfilment of the assurance he had given them, that he should stay 
 in Chicago till all the matters touching the respondent, concerning 
 which he wished to institute enquiry, should be set at rest, and he 
 be acquitted or condemned, and by which they had been influenced 
 to serve on the enquiry and to join in the Presentment, four of 
 the presenters, laymen, addressed the Bishop as follows : 
 
 To the Right Rev. P. Chase, D. D., Bishop of the Diocese of Illinois: 
 
 The undersigned beg leave respectfully 1o state, that, in June last, 
 they were by you appointed members of a Committee of Enquiry into 
 alleged charges against the Rev. W. F. Walker ; that, impelled by a de- 
 sire to elicit the truth, by an impartial hearing of the charges preferred, 
 and the assurance that it was but preliminary to a full, speedy, and final 
 trial, — thus affording the accused an opportunity to adduce testimony and 
 offer explanations which they were confident would rebut entirely, or 
 materially qualify, the charges preferred, — they concurred in his present- 
 ment ; but, being now satisfied that the design and object of their acqui- 
 escence in the presentment of INIr. Walker have been entirely frustrated, 
 by the postponement of his trial to an uncertain and distant period, 
 thereby subjecting him to unmerited reproach, and them to the painful 
 conviction that their own act (intended solely to afford him the occasion 
 of exculpating himself) has been misintei'prctcd, to his injury, as an ex- 
 pression of their helief in his moral guilt ; they are constrained to with- 
 draw their names from the Presentment submitted to you by them, as 
 members of the Committee of Enquiry. 
 
 In thus relieving themselves from the false position In which they have 
 been placed relative to Mr. Walker, they deem It not less their duty than 
 pleasure, to express their conviction, of his innocence of moral wrong as 
 alleged, and then* full and cordial satisfaction with him as their Rcctor.f 
 His steadfast devotion to the cause of his IMastcr through trials, we be- 
 lieve, ■without a precedent, they have witnessed with pride and gratitude. 
 
 * This was giren in oonformitv with wbnt is stated in ttie Ailftwer, on page 28. TJie 
 position subsequently assumed by the Bishop towards the respondent and liis parish, 
 prevented it* fulfilment. 
 
 : Thus, four of the presenters liclieved the respondent " innocent of moral wronr as 
 alleged;"' he beliivcMl himself innocent, and tliiiiks he b&e shown, in his "Hemarks^' 
 under each siicciticution, that ;lic was so; and vet the Bishop helioved him "guilty,"' 
 (•haracterize<l thi' otfenccH chaVL'crt as ■■ crime?','' and demanded their confession '. A 
 demand which, if complied wifVi, would both have convicted and stultified the respon- 
 dent, as all may see. 
 
67 
 
 His fitnesij and success are Lappily exemplified in the regard of a numer- 
 ous, uniteil, and attentive congregation, whoso chief aim it now is, to en- 
 joy his " labor of love" without '' let or hindrance," assured that the wel- 
 fare of the j)arish now under his charge, as well as that of the Church 
 generally, will be greatly promoted by his zeal and talents. 
 Very respectfully and truly, 
 (Signed) GEO. DAVIS, 
 
 S. J. SHERWOOD, 
 • JNO. BRINKERHOFF, 
 W. W. SALTONSTALL. 
 Chicago, Aug. 27, 1844. 
 
 The Bishop being asked, while on the stand as a Avitness, whe- 
 ther lie received this letter from four of the presenters, replied : — 
 
 "I did receive such a letter : I received that, and regarded it as a pa- 
 
 Eer written entiiely by Mr. Walker, and coincident with his character, 
 [' Mr. W. was on the stand he would say he wiote that letter." 
 
 The respondent rose and said, '' W". "W. Saltonstall wrote that let- 
 ter. I make the assertion bel'ore God and this court." 
 
 The Bishop, not satisfied with this declaration, called on Mr. S. 
 in Lockport, the next day, and asked him " who wrote that letter ?" 
 Mr. S. avowed himself to have written it. t 
 
 The respondent assumed that his letter to the Bishop at Detroit, 
 perfectly fulhUing the terms of the Bishop's letter of June 12th, 
 had cancelled the matters held by the Bishop against him, and that 
 he was therefore free. But his friends felt that it was best to make 
 assurance sure, by the withdrawal of the presenters, as above ; 
 deeming such withdrawal valid, on the gi'ound that their concurrence 
 had been granted ccnditionally, and that the condition had not been 
 met. 
 
 Thus matters stood, when, in April, 1845, the letter was written 
 and the reply received, which are presented on pages 42 and 43. 
 
 In that reply, it will be noticed, the Bishop says nothing of a trial 
 at the Convention, or of the pendency of the case. The convic- 
 tion, therefore, became absolute, that " the matter" was " set at 
 rest," and that peace was established between the Bishop and the 
 respondent. 
 
 The respondent then sought peace elsewhere, desiring that it 
 might be universal, as folio w^s : 
 
 Rev. E. B. Kellogg — 
 
 My Dear Sir : — Has not strangeness between us and ours, and 
 especially between yours and myself, existed long enough ? Time suffi- 
 cient has been allbrded us all for reflection ; and the painful position of 
 aliens, with respect to each other, been long enough endured for the ex- 
 tremest penance for mutual faults. The church now invites us to turn 
 from such and all evil, to break off fi-om malice, let go uncharitableness, 
 and, in view of the love as at this time displayed in the humiliation for 
 our sakes of the Son of God, to learn, ourselves — members of Him — to love 
 as brethren, be pitiful and courteous. This present address is intended 
 as an advance on my part, in obedience to her summons. I wish for my- 
 self and mine to be reconciled to jou and yours, — acknowledging uninten- 
 tional faultiness in many resai'ds, avowing myself ready to " make amends 
 for all that wherein I myself have offended," so far as is vrithin my power, 
 asking forgiveness for my offences, and giving the assurance that I " am 
 '•ontent to forgive, from "the bottom of my heart, all that any, here or else- 
 where, have trespassed against me." Why may we not, then, '' let all bit- 
 
68 
 
 terness, and wrath, and anger. an<J clamor, and ('.vi!-«;ppnkJn/T. lip put away 
 from us, wi:h all malice: and be kind one to anotlu-r, torider-hparted, for- 
 giving one another, even as Ood tor Christ's sake harh for^ven ub ?" — 
 My heart's de.sire and prayer to God is, that thi.s may lie. I should be 
 glad to meet all those who have been opposeil to me. and to whom I have 
 been opposed, and have that reooneiliation which must be effected here 
 in order to our admi.ssion into the Kingdom glorified herenlTler. 
 
 Please serve the cause of peace, and of tlie cliiircji, as this may suggest, 
 encouraged by the promise of bleSsing to the pcarr-mah-r. 
 Your friend, and brother in the Church. 
 
 W. F. 'WAT.KER. 
 
 Chicago, Festival of St. Matthias, 1845. 
 
 To this letter no reply has ever been vouchsafed. 
 
 In June, 184o, the respondent met the Bishop in Convention, a 
 notice of Avhich is contjiinexl on page 29. During that Convention, 
 nothing was said by the Bishop of the pendency of any present- 
 ment ; though his manner indicated, with sufficient clearness, that 
 it exi.sted in effect, if not in fact. He has himself testified in regard 
 to his feelings anterior to that Convention, the year before, as fol- 
 lows : " I should have been sorry to have embraced a person un- 
 der ]Mr. W.'s circumstances, by putting my arm around him, though 
 I felt friendly to him;" (!) and that, " at the Convention, he had 
 but little conversation with hitn." 
 
 At this Convention, Canon I. of 1845, (see pages 3, 4, '">, fi,) was 
 adopted; by which. Canons XIV. and XV. of 1838, (see sec. 13, 
 page f),) were repealed. 
 
 A few days after the Convention, the respondent met the Bishop 
 on the IMississippi River; and, by his manner, was so pained that 
 he resolved to seek peace once more, or a separation. He. there- 
 fore, addressed to him the following : — 
 
 Afitsissippi River, June 23, 1815. 
 Ht. Rev. axd Dear Sir — 
 
 Since leaving Springfield. I have thought much upon our position 
 relative to each other ; and the conclusion to which I have come is, that 
 you would feel it a relief to have me leave your Diocese. Painful, there- 
 tore, .as it will be to my feelings to break up thus my connection with the 
 Diocese of Illinois, T will yet observe what T believe to be your pleasure, 
 by asking a letter dimis.sory to Bishop Kemper, stating, of course, all the 
 circumstances of my present position; and that T be allowed to resign my 
 present rectorship. 
 
 Ff the Bi.shop prefer otherwise, "will he please regard me as betorc him 
 for admonition and correction whereinsoever he niay have thought me to 
 have erred, and let me thereupon be restored to a measure of that favor 
 which T hoped to enjoy when I came into his Diocese ? The present es- 
 tr.angement is too trying. My chastisement. Bishop, h.as been a sore bur- 
 den : relieve me, if you can consistently; if not. let me encounter the 
 lesser pain of separation, as above requested. 
 Faithfully and dutifully. 
 
 Your Presbvter, 
 
 W. F. WALKER. 
 Bt. Bkv. r. Chase, D. D. 
 
 "With respect to this letter, the Bishop testified : '' T did receive 
 that letter : I received a similar one to that now read me, and did 
 not answer it, for the rea.son that he had refused to do the acts of 
 penitence expected before." 
 
 Under these circumstances, two weeks later, came the letter from 
 
69 
 
 fhc Bishop, of July 12th, (sec page 4,"),) of which siifTuMent has been 
 said in tlie Answei* on piijii-s !?9 uud 'MK 
 
 April 2^5d, 1846, is tluMliiteol' the next comniimication : it result- 
 ed iVom Sherwood's application, (pasre ^0, last paragrapli,) and wa^ 
 as follows : — 
 
 Jnhilre Cnllege. April 2S, 184t). 
 To the Rev. W. F. Walkf:i?. of Chicajro: " ' 
 
 Dear Sir — Your trial, which I was compelled to postpone fi-om 
 the Ifith d.av of July. 1844, till T slionid have a suHicicnt sum of money 
 raised or pledged to bear tlic expenses thereof,* is now appoiulcd to take 
 place at G«lena, on the 18lh of Jiuie. 1846; the Court opening at 10 
 o'clock, A. j\l., in such building in that town as the Rector of Grace 
 Church, or any of his friends, may designate and prepare for that pur- 
 pose : the difficulty which occiisioncd the postponement, as above named, 
 having now for the first time been removed. 
 
 For thistrial it is my duty .'solemnly to advise youto prepare. by confes.s- 
 ing your faults or proving your innocence. 
 
 Your faithful Pastor, 
 
 PITILAXDER Cn.YSK. Bp. of Illinois. 
 
 A comrais.5ion was issued at the same date for the pre.sentraent 
 of 1846. (See last par<'igra])h on page 36.) By May 14th that 
 presentment was made, a Commissary appointed to take testimo- 
 ny, and a notice of all duly served on the respondent. 
 
 Under a protest against the entire proceedings had, and proposed 
 to be had, in whole and in part, as uncanonical, unjust, and oftpres- 
 sive, and with an express re.«erve of the right of exception subse- 
 quently, the respondent engaged in the taking of testimony before 
 the Commi.ssary. by depositions, (see page 11,) "touching the 
 charg(!S and specifications" contained in the presentment of June 
 1844, and in that of IMay, 184<), with a view to the trial of the 
 former June 18th, just before, and of the latter "on the d;iy imme- 
 diately following the rising of, the Convention, at Galena," on or 
 about June 24tli, agreeably to an appointment by the Bishop,, for- 
 mally communicated through the Kev. Ezra B. Kellogg. ., _ |r,. 
 
 In a letter irom Bishop Chase to P. Ballingall, Esq.', ai that 
 time received, was the following, by which the respondent was 
 warned that hi.s Bishop was no more favorably di.spo.sed towards 
 him than he had been judged to have been for the two and a half 
 years preceding ; and that nothing, therefore, nuist be left o|ien or 
 undone in reliance upon his clemency : 
 
 "If he, the Rev. Mr. "VValker," is the language, "be not prepared to 
 come to trial on his presentment to me in 1844. and for good and suffi- 
 ■cicnt reasons postponed, on the 18th of June, 184fi, the fault is his own. 
 
 " The Counsel on the part of the Church will be there, 
 
 and if the Board of Trial do their duty, they will be present al.«o on that 
 day, viz. the 18th day of June instant, at Galena, that justice may be 
 done — the innocent cleared, or the guilty punished, as the case may be,*.' 
 
 This, in connection with the peculiar introduction into the 
 
 • Compare this with the closing sentence of the first pamgraph in the letter of Juub 
 12th, 1844, page 64. where, it will he seen that the trial was never postponed as is here 
 stated ; but is set down for ,Sprinj,'licld, at the time of the Convention, absolutely, " un- 
 less something be done," that is,nuinoy raised by the respondent or his friend.s, to bring 
 it on earlier. 
 
 It is remarkable that all failures of memory scorn to be againstthe respondent. The 
 discrepancy in these letters is striking, and is of this character. 
 
70 
 
 Bishop's corrosiKdidence ot" tliat time of tlie expression, "I am not 
 irquired to be present at either of Mr. Walker's trials," had the 
 effect, strange as it may seem to those unacquainted with Bisho{» 
 Chase, of awakening fear, and causing the suspicion that an at- 
 tempt was to be made to spring upon tlie respondent, suddenly 
 and unexpectedly, the repealed Canons of 18-j8, by which he 
 would be placed in the power of the Bishop as his judge, who, at 
 his pleasure, might suspend him, should he " neglect or refuse to 
 appear." (See Canons, pages 46 and 47.) ' ' 
 
 Hence, anxious for a canonical issue of all the matters affecting 
 him, and equally deprecating extra-canonical proceedings against 
 him, in order, if possible, to secure the one and frustrate the other, 
 should they be attempted, the respondent crossed the State to Ga- 
 lena, and was there, with his Counsel, ]>unctually at the date ap- 
 pointed ; but found neither Court nor Bishop to meet him. 
 
 On the morning of the next day, June lOth, he received the fol- 
 lowing : 
 
 Galexa, 19th of June 1846. 
 Rev. W. F. AValker : 
 
 Rev. Sir — You are hereby notified that the Court for the trial of the 
 case wherein you are defendant, against certain charges as specified in a 
 presentment against you, in the year of our Lord 1844, will open in the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church, Galena, at hidf past (3) three o'clock (P. 
 M.) this afternoon. 
 
 Your friend and 
 
 Obedient servant in the Lord, , »rw 
 
 PHILANDER CHASE,; -f 
 
 Bishop of the Prot. Epis. Church in Illiiiois.i,.t 
 
 The point that was to be met was now foreseen. But, having 
 ascertained that the civil power might be successfully invoked to 
 stay, by injunction, from the unlawful extreme that seemed to be 
 threatened,* the respondent was i^ronipt in his compliance with the 
 above notice. 
 
 The Bishopt took the chair as Court and Judge ! declared thfe 
 Court open, and called on the respondent to plead to the " Indict- 
 ment," which, however, Avas not read. Thereupon the respondent 
 rose, and begged to introduce J. A. McDougal, Esq., Attorney 
 General of the State, his Counsel, through wliom he would an- 
 
 * On this subject of the inlerpo«i(icn of courts of laiv, so " as to ol liL'e the members 
 of any religious society to abide by tlie true inttat and meaning of their own Church 
 Law, and thereby, as betveni such members, makctlint Church Law tlie law of the land," 
 the learned author of '• Contributions to the l-"x;clesiastical History of the L. S. A.," 
 himself an accomplished civilian, thus ohuerves —"The courts of Jaw enter not into 
 investigations of ortliodoxy and heterodo.xy, they undertake not to settle what is, or is 
 
 not doctrinal ly tnic in religion; but into Church law and Church 
 
 usage, into the polity of the Church, into the rules of conduct wherebv itj? members 
 have voluntarily bound tliemselvos, by joining the Church, our courts of justic«do 
 and will inquire : and they will uphold such rules, and deem every member of the so- 
 ciety to be bound by them, so lonR as such Church regulations or canons violate no 
 principle of the constitutional, cemmon, or statute law of the laad.'^—EccU.siastkat 
 Contributions, page 286. 
 
 The same author, on page 364 of the same work, says,—" Under onr system of gov- 
 ernment, a bishop has no right, directly or indirectly, to try a clergyman fhe is entitled 
 to be tried by his brother presbyters, because, among other reasons, they are supposed to 
 have some sympathy with him, and to understana from experience something of the 
 
 troubles he has to encounter It is of vast impostance to the well-being 
 
 of the Church to preserve their just rights to that large body of real operatives, the pa- 
 rochial clergy." 
 
 t What tollows, to the adjournrniit from Galena t o Chicago^ is from a repori made 
 at the time by competent hands. 
 
71 
 
 « 
 
 8wer, so far as it might be proper for liim to make answer in the 
 case. Tlie Bishop replied tiiat the Counsel offered would be re- 
 ceived, if qualified according to the Canon ; and called for the 
 reading of the Canon on that subject. Whereupon "J. T. Wor- 
 Ithingtou, Counsel for presenters," read Sect. 4 of Canon XIV. of 
 1838, (page 4G,) and remarked that the law of 1838, being that 
 under which the Presentment wa^ made, was that by which 
 the cnse was to be tried. " The Court being informed that Gen. 
 McDougal is not a conununing member of the Church, he was not 
 received as Counsel."* 
 
 The respondent made answer that there Avas now no such law 
 in force as that which had been read; that Canon XIV. of 1838 
 was unqualifiedly repealed Ijy Sect. 13 of Canon I. of 1845, (page 
 6 ;) and that in the Canon under which alone any trial might be 
 had, there was no restriction whatever on the subject of Counsel, 
 except that the presenters should not appear by Counsel unless the* 
 defendant should exercise thdt privilege. (Sect. 11, page 6.) 
 Moreover, tliat he had been taken by surpinse by the question thus 
 raised, for that he had been assured by the Counsellors for the pre- 
 senters in Chicago, neither of whom were comnmnicauts in the 
 Church, that the holding of a Court under the Canon of 1838 was 
 not contemplated ; that the Bishop had given his sanction to this 
 view by the statement above given, that " under the new Canon he 
 was not required to be present at either of Mr. "W.'dker's trials ;" 
 that thus assured, lie had induced Counsel to accompany him all the 
 way from Chicago, at a great sacrifice to his Counsel of time and mo- 
 ney ; that the point made was of real importance, and, if main- 
 tained, would deprive him of a just and canonical right, and leave 
 him dependant on his own efforts, which, not having been contem- 
 plated, he was not prepai-ed foi*. He, therefore, asked that the 
 question thus raised be treated as an independent preliminary 
 question, not as a part of the case, and that he be permitted to be 
 heard in respect to it by Counsel ; and, at the same time, suggested 
 that even Sect. 4 of Canon XIV. of 1838, need not of necessity be 
 interpreted so rigidly a? it had been ; that it was intended to ren- 
 der the reception of Counsel, qualified in a certain way, obligatory 
 on the Court, but not to prevent the reception of Counsel without 
 such qualification, should the Court so please ; deeming the clause 
 as intended tor the protection of the Court simply, and thei'efore 
 within its discretion. 
 
 During, and before the conclusion of, the argument by the re- 
 spondent, the " Judge" decided against him. Upon Avhich the re- 
 spondent observed that the decision having been made while he 
 was arguing the point, further argument seemed to be unnecessary. 
 
 The Counsel for the presenters replied as before ; and stated 
 that the privilege asked could not be granted, though he would not 
 take the respondent by surprise. He would be in favqr, thej'efore,, 
 of giving him time to prepare for his own defence. ,' ^ ,; •' .,{t 
 
 The respondent said this would be neccsstiry, in case the decisiort 
 of the Bishop already given was maintained ; and that he believed 
 he should be able to satisfy " the Court" that his view of Canon 
 
 ' Courti Record. 
 
XIV. of IH'iS was just mmI triK*. from u<»uge in civil pouits, and 
 from the pruotice in civil legislatures — law-interpreters and law- 
 makers. 
 
 To this " the Court" replied, — '• This Court is a Court of equity, 
 and will not regard the tochnicid I'ules of Canon or Statute law; 
 these, therefore, will Ik- submitted in vain ; i-iiles of equity alone 
 will jrovern flii# Court. 1 hope Mr. W. will not introduce any 
 sueh matters ; it will not be so well ibr him thus to meet the case ; 
 he should meet the case otherwise; and I hjpe he will prove him- 
 self clear of the charires. 1 intend to (h'cide imjjartially." 
 
 The Court then said the jury would not be called till the next 
 day. " Thereon he gave .\ir. W. time, till 10 o'clock, A. M. of 
 June -iOth, 1846. 
 
 " The Court then," at 5 o'clock, P. M., " ailjourned to meet in 
 the same place at lU o'clock, A. M., of June 20, 184G."* 
 
 The next morning, June 20th, " the Court" took his Chair pur- 
 suant to adjournment, and ajipointed the Re^'. C. Dresser to act as 
 Clci'k jijro te)i/. 
 
 The minutf'jsof the day before having been read, "the Court" enqui- 
 red if there wei'e any objections to them : upon which the respond- 
 ent observed that he wished to say nothing respecting them; that 
 he intended neither to say nor do any thing which might be con- 
 strued into an acknowledgment of the jurisdiction of that " Court ;" 
 that he had bel'ore entered a Ibruial jn'otest against it, and that he 
 adhered to the views then entertained ; that he would make no ob- 
 jections to the minutes as not stating things substantially as they 
 took place ; but his objections went to the right of the Court to ad- 
 judicate upon the matter in question. 
 
 "Mii. WoKTHiNGTON. — Then I ask the Court to sign the min- 
 utes. . 
 
 "TijE Court. — I shall sign the minutes as they are." 
 
 The Minutes having been disposed of, "the Court" said he would 
 proceed to the consideration of the subject postponed from last eve- 
 ning, and that the respondent would then be heard. ; 
 
 ■The respondent opened by an allusion to the position in which he stood. 
 He stated that he had prepared himself with (•ounscl, upon whom he had 
 relied ; and he would be believed when he said that he was taken by surprise 
 in having his counsel excluded from appearing on his behalf, in the inves- 
 tigation of the subject then in hand. Tliat surprise, he stated, was great- 
 ly heightened by the fact that he had been justified in anticipating a con- 
 trary course ; 
 
 1st, By a precedent furnished by the same " Court," in a case, the aual» 
 ogy between which and that under consideration was so close, in refer- 
 ence to tlie same matter, as to make it conclusive ;t 
 
 2d, By the assurances given, by the Counsellors for the presenters, that 
 the case would be tried under the Canon of 18-15; and by the decl.ara- 
 tion of "the Court"' himself, that "under the new Canon he was not re- 
 quired to be present at either of Mr. AV;dker's trials."' thereby recognizing 
 the abohtinn of the old Canon, and the authority of the new in respect to 
 the then proposed trial ; and, 
 
 3d, By the practice of the presenters, tolerated in the very ra.'ie under 
 con$iderajtion ; Coiin.spl having been ;illowed to ihem in direct oontmriety 
 
 •• C'nurt's Rprord. 
 » The r!i«e nf Becker (Appendix, M ) wa« here reffrrrd to 
 
73 
 
 to what the respondent had been denied ; two out of three of their coun- 
 sellors not being communicants in the Church, one of them not even an 
 attendant on her services; while the Counsel offered by him was not only 
 an attendant on the services of the Church, but her liberal supporter, her 
 true, and, it was hoped, through Grod's grace, might soon become her loy- 
 al son. 
 
 He conclu.led that he had, therefore, a right to believe that the Coun- 
 sel whom he had offered would not be denied him ; yea, that he had no 
 right to anticipate that such a question would be raised. Hence, he had 
 never for a moment supposed that he should be called upon to make an- 
 swer for himself. He felt that he was now disqualified for the task. Ho 
 had given to the subject but a few hours' consideration, and the main 
 points connected with it lay in a proiession to which he was well nigh a 
 stranger. More, that the uuitteis pending were of such vast importance 
 to him, that it might well be presuni«d, from his known temperament, 
 that his feelings would be too deeply wrought upon to allow that he 
 should even ivttcinpt to make answer tor himself. But, he said, the ne- 
 cessity being laid upon him, in weakness and much fear, he must proceed ; 
 stating in ailvance, as a bar to any improper interpretation of what might 
 fall from him, that. If his feelings should betray hun into any seemingly 
 harsh or unkind expressions, he hoped they would be overlooked and 
 forgiven, in view of his ])osItion, especially when he gave the assurance 
 that he would not willingly or intentionally injure the feelings of any one. 
 
 "The Cottrt — {Here interrupting.) — It is thebetterway, Mr. Walker, 
 for you to go on and state what you have to say, and the Court will hear 
 you. 
 
 "Mr. Walkkr. — I wished to make these observations in explanation 
 of any remarks that might fall from me. 
 
 " The Court. — The, Court will hear you so long as you are in order ; 
 but, when you shall say any thing improper, the Court will of course stop 
 you. The Court sits to hear and do justice ; but it cannot listen to any 
 thing out of place." 
 
 The respondent then argued against the jurisdiction of "the Court" 
 before which he then was, substantially as follows : 
 
 All Courts, ecclesiastical or otherwise, are the creatures of law. By 
 law. Courts arc created and invested with all their authority; and upon 
 the same law, their existence and authority continually depend. As there 
 could be no civil Court without a municipal law, so there can be no ec- 
 clesiastical Court without a Canon law. 
 
 When a law is repealed its existence ceases, and every thing depend- 
 ing thereon must fall, unless preserved by some excepting or saving en- 
 actment ; an authority or juristllctlon resting in the repealed law, falls 
 with the law repealed. 
 
 This is a rule universally recognized, and its operation is constantly 
 witnessed in the course of uumicipal legislation. 
 
 In a few instances, the question has come before the civil courts, and, 
 in every instance, the rule contended for has been recognized as unques- 
 tionably true. That there are not more decisions on the same point, i.-i 
 owing to the very obvious character of the rule putting it above question. 
 
 In Harrison's Digest, vol. 3, p. 2063, It Is said, that " no proceedings 
 can be had under a repealed statute, though commenced before the re- 
 peal." 
 
 Bacon's Abridgment, vol. 6, p. 372, quotes tie decision of fho King's 
 Bench in Miller's case, in which the Court held, tiat " no act of jurisdiction 
 oould be done by the Sessions after the repeal of the statute, though the 
 proceedings had begun before." 
 
 The eaine casM is reported in T7m. BIack?toae's Eej>orts, ■''ol. 1, in 
 •which *-fce Co-art say, "VoThiPj; i? iuore«"Ie«r thsv: ♦>.!*• ■inr:J"':":i'n '? n'^'w 
 jT'Sne." 
 
 10 
 
'74 
 
 Bacon's Abridgment, page .T72, before referred to, lays down the rule, 
 " That if a statute directs that trom and after the passiii"; of it, no person 
 shall be subject to prosecution by indictment for a ]>articular offence at 
 common law, it nuts an end to the prosecution ot that offence, com- 
 menced and carried to conviction before the passing of the statute, but in 
 which no judgment has been pronounced." This text in Bacon is taken 
 from the decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in " the CJom- 
 monwealth vs. Duane ;" reported 1st Binney, p. 601. 
 
 Upon the same page in Bacon, it is further stated, that "after an amend- 
 ment to the Constitution of the United States, taking from the Courts of 
 the United States jurisdiction in certain cases, no jurisdiction can be ex- 
 ercised by those Courts in such cases, though suits had been previously 
 brought, and were depending when the amendment was adopted." 
 
 This rule, exactly in point in this case, rests upon the authority of the 
 decision of the Supreme Court of the U. S., in the case of " Hollings- 
 worth vs. the State of Virginia;" reported Dallas, vol. 3, p. 381-2, in 
 which "the Court delivered a unanimous opinion that there could not be 
 exercised any jurisdiction in any case of the kind past or future." 
 
 Hill's Reports, vol. 1, p. 324, gives the decision of the Supreme Court 
 of the State of New York, in the ease of Butler vs. Palmer, m which the 
 precise rule now contended for is thus laid down : " The repeal of a stat>- 
 ute conferring jurisdiction, takes away all right of proceeding under the 
 repetded statute, even In regard to stiits pending at the time of the repeal." 
 
 And Cowan, Judge, in the same case, p. 334 of Hill as above, says : 
 " The amount of the whole comes to this, that a repealing clause is such 
 an express enactment, as necessarily divests all inchoate rights which 
 have arisen under the statute which it destroys. These rights are but 
 an incident to the statute, and fall with it, unless saved by express words 
 in the repealing clause. * * * * 
 
 " The statute being simply repealed, the very stock on which they 
 were engrafted is cut down, and there is no rule of construction by which 
 they can be saved." 
 
 And on page 336, he further says, " It seems to be equally a violation 
 of principle as of authority to say, that any one of its provisions can be 
 enforced or executed after it has been repealed by a general clause." 
 
 It will be perceived that the rule recognized by these authorities, and 
 here insisted on, is no technicality in law ; but rests on laws and princi- 
 ples that lie at the foundation of all human authority. It rests in that 
 great truth, that the power that gives may also take away ; that the power 
 that creates a Court and clothes it with authority-, may, at any instant, 
 withdraw that authorlt}-, and, If proper, confer it on another. 
 
 By virtue of law — the power of the Church in Convention — this Court 
 was created and invested with a specific jurisdiction. The power of the 
 Church in Convention has abrogated that law, and thereby withdrawn 
 from this Court the charter or commission under which it was created. 
 The law of 1838 was the "power of attorney" from the Convention to 
 this Court ; that " power of attorney" having been revoked or rescinded, 
 this Court is without authority ; as it regards jurisdiction in this case, it is 
 dead. 
 
 It is not contexded that the rights of the presenters 
 have been vitiated or in any degree impaired; but that 
 THEIR REMEDY IS CHANGED. Their Case is simply dismissed in one 
 Court, and they are directed to another ; a very common occurrence in 
 civil courts. And to obviate all difficulty on this score, it was proposed to 
 bring the case, now out of Court, immediately Into a Court canonically 
 •constituted; that Is, constituted under the Canon of 1845, and to ask that 
 it be tried, with the presentment of 184H. But there being now no au- 
 thority in C'anon for this Court to act, its acts mu?t be totally void of 
 force or effect as regards this rcspnnflcnt. •* " 
 
 Again, proceedings in this case have been discontinued; 
 
75 
 
 ,- Ist, For the reason that on the day named in the Citation, to wit : on 
 the 8th day of July, A. D. 1844, at the Vestry-room of St. James' 
 Church in the city of Chicago, the respondent was preparei], willing, and 
 desirous to respond and answer to the charges and specifications ; but 
 there was no Court then and there convened ; nor did the Court ap- 
 pointed to try these specifications and charges convene at the place 
 aforesaid at any time thereafter ; whereby the said Court, and this cas« 
 depending before, it expired ; 
 
 2d, Because, on the 12th day of June, A. D. 1844, in a letter address- 
 ed to the Bishop of the Diocese, the respondent fulfilled the condition up- 
 on which, in his letter to the respondent of the same date, and in a verbal 
 conversation on board of the steamboat, the said Bishop had made the, re- 
 mission of these charges and specifications to depend ; and they thereby 
 ceased to exist. (See letters herein referred to, on pages 65 and 64.) 
 
 3d, Because four of the presenters in this case, on the 27th day of Au- 
 gust, A. D. 1844, withdrew irom the presentment, on the ground that the 
 condition upon which they were induced to concur in it, had not been 
 met, (see letter, page 66 ;) by which it failed to be the expression ol a 
 majority of the committee of enquiry ; by which its existence was termin- 
 ated.* 
 
 4th, Because, afterwards, in June, A. D. 1845, in obedience to a notifii 
 cation from the Rt. Rev. the Bishop of the Diocese, the "Judge" and "Court'* 
 now addressed, (see first paragraph of the letter of June 12th, page 64,) 
 the respondent appeared at the city of Springfield, in this State, then and 
 there to answer to these specifications and charges, and was then and there 
 ready, willing, and anxious, to be heard respecting them ; notwithstand- 
 ing which, this "Court" did not then and there convene ; nor was any op- 
 portunity ofiered to the respondent then and there to appear and answer 
 to these charges and specifications ; and, therefore, he said that, by rea- 
 son of these premises last mentioned, he had good reason to believe that 
 «aid charges and specifications had been abandoned ; and he insisted that, 
 by the operation of rules recognized in all like causes, this Court expired, 
 and this cause was discontinued. 
 
 5th, and last, Because, after these charges and specifications were pre- 
 ferred, the respondent, by one of the plainest rules of equity, as well as 
 by the plain intent of the Canon, was entitled to a hearing, trial, and de- 
 termination of his case, without delay ; and notwithstanding he never so- 
 licited for delay, never consented to postponement — but was, at all times, 
 ready, willing, and anxious to be heard In the premises ; yet the Court 
 never, until this 19th day of June, A. D. 1846, convened or offered to 
 examine into these matters alledged against him; thereby permitting these 
 charges and specifications to sleep for the space of more than two years, 
 and now to be revived against him ; all of which, he insisted, is manifestly 
 unjust, and against the established rules of law universally recognized. 
 
 In consideration of each and every of these reasons, the respondent in- 
 sisted that this case had no existence, so far as Canon XIV. of 1838 and 
 this Court are concerned ; that it is dead. 
 
 Relying upon the Canons of the Church, as intei-preted by rules uni- 
 versal in their character ; relying upon Canons confessedly in force, whose 
 meaning Is unquestioned, for protection in his just. rights — for protection 
 against Episcopal usurpation and oppression, on the one hand, and lay 
 aggression on the other, the respondent insisted that that tribunal had no 
 authority to sit in judgment on this case ; protested against Its further 
 proceeding ; and claimed for himself a trial according to the Canon of the 
 Diocese, adopted in Convention June, A^ D. 184-5, and a9w poijjfessedljf 
 
 in force. 
 
 -T'-J' ■; -■1 
 
 J. T. Worthington rising to reply, ^e' respondent enquired of " the 
 
 * Had the four who withdrew concurred in the presentment unconditional Iv. it is ad - 
 mitted that their withdrawal would have hccn vofd of force with respect to that instru- 
 ment. But here the case was otherwise. Hence the validity ot their act of ^vithdrawaJ 
 
76 
 
 Court" whether he might be permitted to answer Mr. W., should it seem 
 to him necessary. '■ The Court" intimating that he would not be heard 
 again in reply, the respondent made a few additional remarks, and, by 
 reading a letter from an able jurist, one cf the Standing Committee 
 of the Diocese, sustaining the position he had taken, closed his argument. 
 
 " Me. Worthixgton. — The only question wc are to discuss here^ is as 
 to the jurisdiction ; that is the only point, and the only one to which I 
 shall direct the few remarks 1 am to make. The gentleman has spoken 
 of being surprised in having to take this matter up in this way, and at this 
 time; but I am convinced that this point was not prepared here : it haa 
 been prepared before ; and the surprise cannot be so great. The ability 
 of the gentleman's argument is such, and evinces so much labor, that I 
 cannot believe it was prepared here. 
 
 Mr. Walker. — It has been prepared since the adjournment last night 
 
 Mr. Worthing ton. — I acknowledge my error, and in doing so, I pay 
 the highest compliment to the gentleman. 
 
 The gentleman has spoken of the feeling under which he labors in this 
 case ; that is natural. But I have no feeling in this matter. I should be 
 
 flad to be spared the performance of the duty which devolves upon me- 
 am no prosecutor; I stand here as the advocate of the Church, and my 
 duty is plain. I make no argument but to the Court, and to the question 
 before the Court for its present consideration. I shall make no addres* 
 for the benefit of other persons, and turn my back upon the Court. Ha» 
 the Court jurisdiction, and should this case bo tried V These are the ques- 
 tions to be determined. 
 
 Mr. Worthington then went into an argument of considerable length, to 
 show that it was the duty of the Court to go on and try this case, under 
 the old Canon of 1838; that the gentleman had prepared himself and se- 
 lected his triers under that Canon, and it could do hira no injustice to be 
 tried under it ; that if the case was not tried under the present proceed- 
 ing, it would probably never be tried, and the Church would sufier.(!) The 
 assurances oi counsel to the gentleman are not binding : they might have 
 been wrong. This Court is to decide. The Bishop might have been 
 wrong, too, in his opinion ; and if so, he should change it, and act accord- 
 ingly. 
 
 The Bishop. — If the question is whether this Court has jurisdiction, I 
 say yes. The Court is in existence. So far as this case is concerned, I 
 declare it in existence, and demand assessors. 
 
 Mr. AVorthington. — We have only a copy of the presentation. If 
 Mr. Walker will admit the copy, I presume the case can be tried. If not, 
 we must have it continued, for the purpose of procuring the original. 
 
 Mr. Walker. — We were instructed by the Bishop to be ready for tri- 
 al, at this place and at this time ; that the case would be tried at all events ; 
 and if we were not ready, we should have to abide the consequences. Af- 
 ter this admonition, it seems strange that the prosecution should not be 
 prepared. 
 
 Mr. Worthington. — It is not our fault that the original presentment 
 is not here. Its absence would be good cause of continuance. 
 
 Mr. Walker. — I came here prepared to have this case tried, lliese 
 charges have been standing since 1844, and I have never been able to ^et 
 a hearing. I have sought and desired investigation. I now desire a lull 
 canonical investigation of everything. It has given me great trouble. 
 From the assurances I received, I had supposed, until very recently, that 
 
 the chaises had been dismissed 
 
 The Bishop, (interrupdi^ff.) — They are not dismissed. You are accus- 
 ed of immorality, sir. It will affect you through life. I would advise 
 you, as a friend, not to be finding fault with this Court, but to have these 
 charges investigated. If such charges were made agjunst me, nothing 
 should prevent an investigation. I would almost throw this book (taking 
 
77 
 
 up a large Prayer Book) at the man's head who should stand between m« 
 and such an investigation. 
 
 Mr. Walker.— -1 now address j'ou as my Bishop, and not as a Court. 
 I have determined upon the course I shall pursue, under a full sense of the 
 duty I owe to myself, my family, and the Church. I have made every 
 preparation for a hearing of this case at this time. I have been at great 
 expense in procuring my testimony, in preparing and coming here for this 
 trial. I have almost taken bread from my family to prepare myself for 
 the trial of this case here. 
 
 I was going on to remark that, until recently, I had supposed these 
 charges had been dismissed — '- — 
 
 The Bishop, (interrupting.) — They arc not dismissed ! Sit down, sir. 
 I call you to order, sir. If you will not avail yourself of my advice, I will 
 adjourn this case. I think I know my place. 
 
 Mr. Walkkr. — I ask pardon, Bishop, if I have said aught that is im- 
 proper, or anything that is calculated to create unpleasant emotions. I 
 did not intend 
 
 The Bishop, (interruptimj.) — I would not have such charges against me. 
 
 Mr. Walker. — All I can do, is to ask that my protest may go on 
 record.* 
 
 Mr. Worthixgtox. — It is, perhaps, proper that the protest should 
 become a part of the record ; but there are some parts of it to which I ob- 
 ject 
 
 The Bishop. — The Court will read over that protest. If it be proper, 
 it shall go on the record ; but I will not have anything irrelevant placed 
 there. You are weaving toils, sir, to entangle yourself with. 
 
 Mr. Walker. — They have been woven by others, sir. 
 
 Mr. Worthingtox. — The protest can go on file. 
 -* The Bishop. — Yes, so much of it as is proper. 
 
 The consideration of the case was then postponed until the 24th day of 
 August, 184G, at Chicago.f 
 
 Under the above terms, the respondent concluded to retain his 
 protest. He felt that, if he should throw it into the proposed cru- 
 cible of revision, it might subsequently fail to exhibit his position 
 correctly ; and therefore, he would forego, with respect to it, what 
 he had asked, — certainly what was offered. 
 
 In consequence, the following correspondence was subsequently 
 had: 
 
 Chicago, Aug. 22, 1846. 
 To the Rev. W. F. Walker : 
 
 Dear Sir — I wish you to return to me, to-day, the " Protest" which you 
 filed by permission in Court at Galena, June last, against my decision. — 
 After filing it, I permitted you, on your request, to take the Protest with 
 you, for the purpose of making some corrections. ^The Protest, having 
 been filed, became one of the Papers of the Coiul, and must be preserved 
 as such in the oflice of the Cour(. 
 
 You will 2)lease return it to me forthwith. 
 
 Your faithful serv't in Lord, 
 
 PHILAIJDER CHASE, Bp. 
 
 Chicago, Aug. 22, 1846. 
 To the Rt. Rev. P. Chase, D. D. : 
 
 Dear Sir — I requested that the " Protest" which I made against your 
 decision at Galena, might be embodied in the records of yourself, sitting 
 
 •This protest embraced substantially the argument of the respondent given above. 
 
 t It is just that it be stated again that the above account of this case, so far as relates 
 to what took place at Galena, is from a report made at the time by one whose character 
 and standing avouch sufficiently for its general correctness. It its, of course, for the 
 most part, but an abstract. 
 
78 
 
 as a court, and it was clenieJ me. Permission was, however, granted to 
 have it, under certain limitiitions — being modified, corrected, and portions 
 of it, which might be deemed objectionable or irrelevant, stricken out — 
 placed on file. At the moment, I thougiit I would copy it, and allow it 
 to go among your pa[ier9 on the terms named. AV'ith this view, I retain- 
 ed it On reflection, my convictions with rc?pect to it were changed. I 
 came to the conclusion that, in the process ot revision contemplated, it 
 was not unlikely those portions of the " Protest" to which I should attach 
 importance, might be deemed irrelevant or objectionable, and be stricken 
 out; and so the paper that should finally be filed, fail to exhibit my argu- 
 ment as it was made, and be not, therefore, my real " Protest." I came 
 thus to the determination not to be under obligation to "the coui-t" for favor 
 on this wise at all. That which I had asked having been denied me, I 
 resolved that I cared not. on the whole, to avail myself of what was offered 
 in its stead. The original is, therefore, one of my private papers, and is 
 preserved by me as such. I have made no copy of it, and have not now 
 time to make one. 
 
 If you desire a copy of the "Protest," and can cause it to be made, I shall 
 allow the use of the original, at my own rooms, for this purpose. 
 Faithfully vours, 
 
 W. F. WALKER. 
 — fi 
 
 Chicago, Hi, Bishop's Chamber, Aug. 24, 184(5;->(, 
 
 Rev. Wm. F. Walker : j 
 
 Your letter of the 22d inst., in reply to my requisition of the same day, 
 that you should forthwith return to me the Protest filed by you in court 
 at Galena, in June last, was received and duly considered. 
 
 On further reflection, my opinion is unchanged. I insist that that Pro- 
 test became, by filing at your request, one of the records of the court, and 
 now belongs to this court. 
 
 Therefore, I now issue this my positive command, that you return the 
 said paper to me this day by 3 o'clock, P. M. 
 
 Signed, PHIL. CHA6E, Bp., -i 
 
 and Judge of the Ecclesiastical Court, i^ 
 
 To this remarkable letter no reply was given, nor attention paid. 
 
 On Monday morning, August 24th, about 9 1-2 o'clock, the re- 
 spondent was informed by the person who served on him the above 
 extraordinary ecclesiastical quasi chancery order, that the Court, 
 for his trial, was to open at 10 o'clock, then following, in Trinity 
 Church, and that the Bishop and others had already gone there. 
 
 Astonished that he should have received no notice of the meet- 
 ing of the Court, and that Trinity Church should thus, by an as- 
 sumed right, have been designated as the place for holding it, with- 
 out an application for its use, either to tlie Rector, the Wardens, 
 or Vestrymen of the parish, the respondent replied that Trinity 
 Church could not be used as was proposed ; that neither himself 
 nor the officers of the Church would consent to its being thus taken 
 possession of. 
 
 Trinity Church accordingly remained closed. 
 
 Very soon, it was reported that the Court had assembled in the 
 basement of St. James' Church. By advice of cotmsel, thes respon- 
 dent repaired thither without delay, , 
 
 The proceedings there, as reported for the respondent, were as 
 follows : 
 
 ^> Prayer by Bishop Chase J. V. Smith was then appointed Clerk ; up- 
 
79 
 
 on which the Bishop callod for the minutes and record of the Court at 
 Galena. 
 
 Mr. Worthington moved an amendment as to the time that the second 
 Court was to be held, to wit: " That the trial on the 2d presentment be 
 held immediately after the conclusion of the trial on the Ist presentment." 
 
 The amendment was ordered. 
 
 The Bishop then informed the assessors that, accoi-dinirto Canon, every 
 thing had been done to bring on the trial legally. '• I am authorised," 
 said he, "to appoint time and place. I appointed the time, to-day ; and 
 Trinity Church the place. I went there, and found the ('hurch shut. I 
 wrote an adjournment to St. James' Church, immediately.* 
 
 I declare, therefore, that this Court is regularly open for the trial afore- 
 said. 
 
 (To the Clerk.) Let the names of the assessors be called. 
 
 Clerk called G. P- Giddinge, James De Pui, Joseph L. Darrow : each 
 answered, and the Bishop declared ■' all present." 
 
 Mr. Worthington. — I ask that the Defendant be called by the Clerk. 
 
 The Bishop. — Let Defendant be called. 
 
 Clerk.— The Rev. W. F. Walker. 
 
 Mb. Walker. — Present. 
 
 Mr. Worthington. — About a paper that was filed at Galena by Mr 
 Walker. I made application for it to Mr. W. there soon after. 1 wished 
 it, to prepare an answer. I now ask to file and read an answer. 
 
 Mr. Walker. — I move that the proceedings at Galena be read. 
 ^ The Bishop. — I wrote a note to Mr. W. I ask to have his reply read. 
 
 Mr. Walker. — I renew my motion relative to the reading of the pro- 
 ceedings at Galena. 
 
 The Bishop. — To whom belongs our records on file ? 
 
 Mr. Giddinge. — Are our consultations to be public or private ? 
 
 The Bishop. — We had better hear what I want to have known. I 
 have made application for a paper, and been denied. Let the letters be 
 read. 
 
 Mr. Giddinge. — If the Court were properly constituted, the paper in 
 question [the protest] would belong to the Court. 
 
 Mr. Worthington. — This question is to be decided by the Judge 
 alone. Let the Bishop decide. This is not a question for the jury. I 
 consider the desire of the Bishop coirect. The paper filed at Galena is 
 part of the record. 
 
 Mr. Walker. — I object to the reading of the letters here : they are pri- 
 vate letters. 
 
 The Bishop. — Let the letters be read. 
 
 Mr. Worthington. — They are official letters. (There was here read 
 the first two of the last three letters given above ; the letter from the 
 Bishop to Mr. W., and his reply ; also a copy of Mr. Worthington's ap- 
 plication to Mr. W. at Galena for his protest.) 
 
 The Bishop. — I addressed Mr. W. again on the subject ; has it been 
 served on him ? 
 
 Mr. Worthington. — It has. 
 
 The Bishop. — Here is a paper which I request to be read. 
 r (Here was read the above quasi Chancery order.) 
 
 Mr. Walker. — I deny that the protest was ever filed. Here is the 
 paper ; there is no mark of its having been filed upon it My Counsel, 
 General McDougal, who was present in Galena, knows that the protest 
 never went into the hands of " the Court ;" that it was' always in my 
 power alone. 
 
 '■♦The notice, posted on the Church, was as follows : — 
 
 " The Ecc'l Court appointed to be held this day at Trinity Church, is hereby adj<MU%| 
 ed, to meet immediately at St. James' Church, basement story, in this city, Chicago. 
 
 " Half paet 10, A. M., 24th AuRugt, '46. 
 
 Signed, Ph'r Chasb, Bishop and Judge." ■ 
 
80 
 
 Mr. WoRTHiNGTON. — I will read the record. 
 
 Mr. Walker. — I propose to read a report of what took place, made 
 by Mr. Hempstead. 
 
 Mk. Worthington. — I object. 
 
 The Bishop. — Let it not be read. 
 
 Mr. Wai-kkr. — I appeal to the assessors. 
 
 Mr. Darrow. — I hope the record will be read. 
 
 The Bishop. — Let it be read. 
 
 Mr. Worthington then read the record of the proceedings at Galena. 
 
 The Bishop. — Let the protest be filed. 
 
 Mr. Worthington. — Let it be filed as in June. 
 
 Mr. Walker. — Let facts be given. If it may be filed entire, I oflFer 
 it to be filed to-day. I have no objection to its being possessed by others, 
 provided I have a copy of it. On the condition that u copy of it be made 
 for me, I will allow it to go on file. 
 
 The Bishop. — Let it be filed as in August. 
 
 Mr. Walker. — I now appeal to the assessors as to Avhether I can be 
 tried under the Canon of 1838 ; begging leave to read my protest against 
 the jurisdiction of this Court. (The proles/ was here read?) I now give 
 up the protest, on condition that it be copied, and the original or a copy 
 returned to me. 
 
 The Bishop. — Let it be copied as requested, Mr. Clerk.* 
 
 Mr. Walker. — I ask to read the Canons of 1838 and 1845. 
 
 The Assessors. — It is not necessary. 
 
 Mr. Walker here read a letter from a distinguished jurist, sustaining 
 his views against the jurisdiction of the Court, the author of which he de- 
 clined to name. 
 
 Mr. Worthingtom. — Let the name be known. 
 
 The Bishop. — The name must be known. It is one of the Standing 
 Committee ; and there is no man whose advice I would take quicker. 
 The Court will make the name known; and shame to him who would 
 conceal it ;t it is Judge Treat. Let us have no attempts at concealment. 
 The paper belongs to the Court until a copy be made, and then returned 
 to Mr. Walker. 
 
 Mr. AVorthington then commenced speaking professedly in reply to the 
 protest of Mr. Walker. 
 
 The Bishop — (To Mr. Walker.) — Mr. Walker, let there be no whis- 
 pering ; we attended to you while you were speaking. 
 
 Mr. Walker. — I was merely seeking to know what the gentleman 
 is speaking to. 
 
 Mr. Worthington. — I will speak plainly enough for the gentleman 
 to understand mc. (He then made some remarks, and read his reply to 
 Mr. W.'s protest ; taking the ground that the Bishop's right to judge and 
 determine this case is divine, inherent in his office, and that he cannot be 
 divested of it by Convention, nor restricted in its exercise ; that the 
 Canon purporting to do this would be, for that reason, null.) 
 
 Mr. Walker. — Am I permitted to be heard? 
 
 The Bishop. — Certainly, sir. 
 
 Mr. Walker then replied to Mr. Worthington, stating that, high 
 Churchman as he was, he felt himself unable to reach even the first round 
 of the ladder at the top of which the gentleman had rested Episcopal ju- 
 dicial prerogative ; that he had been taught to regard Canons as obliga- 
 tory on Bishops as well as Presbyters and Deacons ; that he believed the 
 Episcopacy to be one thing, and Episcopal government another thing; 
 that these might and did exist separately, though in our Church they are 
 
 * The riehts of the respondent do not appear to have been oared for since ; neither 
 the protest nor a copy or it having been returned to him, though most respectfully eo- 
 licited. 
 
 t The letter was private ; permission was however civen to show it to the Bishop, the 
 Afisessors, and the Counsd. These had all previoufly stxn it, and knew ite author 
 
81 
 
 united ; that the Bishop received all his official power under conditions ; 
 th;it the Ordinal, the Rubrics, and the Canons settle those conditions, 
 and limit his prerogatives, so that by them he is circumscribed and limit- 
 ed in their exercise ; that in this case the law was clear, by which the 
 Bishop was without jurisdiction as a Court to hear and determine it ; that 
 the Bishop is not above law, but is himself amenable to it, and ther,efore 
 is bound to observe it. 
 
 Mr. Walker then cited the Bishop's letter, intimating that he should 
 not try this case. 
 
 Mr. "VVortiiixgton. — The Bishop does not say in his letter that he 
 has no right to sit. The Bishop has not said that his authority is cut off. 
 He can no more cut off his authority as Judge, than he can his authority 
 to ordain. 
 
 Mr. Walker. — Let me have the decision of the Court. 
 
 Mr. Worthingtox. — There was a decision at Galena. 
 
 The Bishop. — AVho has ever heai-d that I have asserted the high pre- 
 rogatives that have been the subject of declamation here to-day ? 
 
 Mr. Worthixgton. — It is decided, I believe, that the trial is to be 
 held under the Canon of 1S38. 
 
 The Bishop. — Certainly, as long as I am alive. 
 
 Mr. Giddinge. — I wish to understand whether the Bishop Is to de- 
 cide that question. If so, I must decline serving as an assessor, beheving 
 it to be uncauonical. 
 
 The Bishop. — No, no; nothing is decided; time is given for consulta- 
 tion. 
 
 The Court is adjourned till 4 o'clock, P. M. 
 
 At 4 o'clock, P. M., present as in thei morning.* 
 
 The Bishop. — ^I declai-e the Court now open. 
 
 Mr. Giddixge. — I understand that the decision has been given that 
 the trial is to be under the Canon of 18.S8 ? 
 
 The Bishop. — It has been given, at Galena. 
 
 Mr. Giddixge. — I am bound t6 object to a decision upon that subject 
 independent of the assessors. I am satisfied that the assessors constitute 
 a part of the Court. The Bishop Is not the Court. I consider the pro- 
 ceedings under the Canon of 18.38 uncauonical. I have pi'cpared an 
 opinion in writing on the subject, which I had intended to submit. I had 
 hoped to have an opportunity for private conference on this subject, 
 when my views might have been presented, and have avoided this public 
 dissent. I must positively and without reserve decline sitting upon this 
 trial, whatever may be the consequences to myself, unless the respondent 
 prefer a trial under the Canon of 1838. 
 
 The Bishop. — You are not forced. I have waited for you. Did you 
 want me to come to you ? I am very happy to see you at all times. 
 
 Mr. Giddixge. — I am bound to take this course. 
 >; The Bishop. — Your opinion, sir, is respected. 
 
 Mr. Giddixge, — (Taking Jm hat.) — I must take leave of this Court. 
 
 The Bishop. — Yes, sir ; you are excused. 
 
 (To the other Asspusors.) — The majority of the Court can now proceed. 
 
 Mr. Darrow.— I am sorry to say that I am of the same opinion, {at 
 the same time rising and taking Ms hat.) 
 
 The Bishop. — Do you speak for yourself alone, sir? 
 
 Mr. Darrow. — I have heard Mr. DePui say the same. 
 
 Mr. De Poi, (rising and taking his hat.) — I am, sir, of the ?ame opin- 
 ion. 
 
 The Bishop. — Very well, sir. 
 
 Upon this, the last two named assessors followed Mr. Giddinge, and left 
 the Bishop sitting alone. 
 
 * The respondent Uavins: prepared himself with a Chancp.rv injunctior, ard havicg^ 
 tecnred the presence of the Sheriff to execute it vrhen ordered, was prepared for the 
 ■worst frat might be threatened, and thus apceared again as in the momiDg. 
 
 11 
 
82 
 
 The Bishop, (as if in amazement.) — Well ! well ! this is a new era in 
 
 the history of the Church. I have no desire 1 regret it on accoant of 
 
 the gentleman ; 1 regret it on account of Mr. Walker. There are thincs 
 on record against him. of a criminal nature.* I must now desist. I should 
 have been pleased had the assessors seen fit to have gone on. 
 
 Wkether the arguments brought forward by counsel for the prosecu- 
 tion have weight or not, I know not ; they are mine. 
 
 I would have been the first God forgive me, if I have done wrong. 
 
 The counsel have nothing to say, of cour.sc. 
 
 It only remains that I order a nolle prosequi to be entered in this case, 
 when the good people present shall have joined me in prayer, for forgive- 
 ness wherein we have done wrong. 
 
 Let us pray. (Here teas a prayer.) 
 
 I order a nolle prosequi to be entered, Mr. Clerk. You will deliver all 
 papers in this case to me. 
 
 Thus was concludedf what, by way of emphasis, is known as 
 " the Presentment of 1844." It was, in fact, however, the second 
 of that year ; another, to be hereafter noticed,t having prior rank 
 in the order of time. 
 
 A verdict on this case, for which a canonical Court was repeat- 
 edly and earnestly sought, but in vain, will now be rendered by 
 those who may receive these papers. This verdict, the respondent 
 will hopefully await, for reparation, in some degree, for his " very 
 much injured reputation." By it, he is free to say, he will be 
 content to abide. If it be that he is '•' a bad man," '• guilty of the 
 crimes in the presentation," according to Bishop Cliase, he will 
 submit, and withdraw from his position, so far as he may ; if it be 
 the reverse, and that he has been " wrongfully accused, the Church 
 and the world ought to be" thus " disabused," and he to enjoy the 
 benefits of an acquittal, " his reputation being very much injured aa 
 it is," by the means of these presentments, as Bishop Chase has 
 truly said. (Extract from letter to Sherwood, page 36.) 
 
 Till this time, the respondent has made no appeal but to the ec- 
 clesiastical authorities in the Diocese. He has " refrained even 
 from o-ood words" to his friends abroad, and from acting on behalf 
 of many interests connected with the Church, which he was wont 
 to cherish, that he might not even seem to be attempting to make 
 weight for himself, by enlisting other influences than those immedi- 
 
 •Soe testimony of the Bishop, page 64. 
 
 t This was supposed at the time, and is still maintained ; thongh, lor the purpose of 
 •xhibitinp; and refuting the Charges, the respondent asked to be tried on them, upon 
 his own motion, under the Canon of 1845 ; and to this end offered to waive all prelim- 
 inaries, and consider himself regularl)- before the Court in the presentment containinz 
 them, accordine to what is stated in the laet paragraph but one of the note on iMige 13, 
 and at the conclusion of the matter, immediately preceding the note, on page 38. 
 
 The Counsel for the presenters, Mr. Worthing'ton, employed by the Bishop, and who 
 may be supposed to have spoken for him. tonka ditfercnt view, which, in a letter to 
 the respondent, he, the next day, presented thus : 
 
 " Consider, sir, the effect on you of tjie proceedings In Court yesterday. 
 
 " You were not iicr|uitted. The charges still stand against yon ; and, unhappily, 
 there is now but one way to be relieved from them. 
 
 " You were presented to your Bishop by a high and honorable Court. Many and 
 reputable witnesses have testified against you in confirmation of that Court." (Two 
 wftnesses only were adduced by the presenters, Mr. and Mri. Kinzie; and thej only 
 "testified in confirmation of that Court.") "All this is of record in the Bishop's 
 Court. 
 
 " Yoti are, of course, prima fade guilty in hi.s sight, and can never, under existing 
 circumstances, demand or receive from him letters of credit to another Dioccse." 
 
 It is proi)er to state that this letter was a gratuity ; uncalled for by any address IJroiB 
 the respondent, to whom its author was well nigh a total stranger 
 
 i Appendix, M. 
 
S3 
 
 ately and neoefisarily allied to his cause. It is kuowu to his Right 
 Rev. Fathers, and to his brethren of the clergy, with whom he has 
 communicated, that he has never, even in connections, at times, 
 very inviting, obtruded his difficulties upon their notice. He 
 knows that he has greatly suffered by his silence. But it has been 
 his choice rather to bear and suffer thus, striving, in all lawful ways, 
 for the restoration of unity and peace, than, by act or word, to jjut 
 " a stumbling-block" in the way, such as an earlier vindication 
 might have proved. Duty to himself, to his family, and to the 
 Church, it must be now everywhere conceded, requires that he 
 should " keep silence" no longer. This, therefore, is now given ; 
 and other matters pertaining to the Church in Elinois will, at a fu- 
 ture time, follow, should the sense of duty remain as at present. 
 
 J, page 21. 
 
 Pages 55 and 56, it is believed, sufficiently vindicate the admit- 
 ted declaration. Should any think otherwise, the entire of the 
 next preceding papers may be referred to ; and they, surely, will 
 not fail to satisfy on this point. 
 
 K, page 21. 
 
 The letter of June 20th, from Buffalo, may be seen on page G(j; 
 that of June 12th on page 64 ; and the reply of the respondent, of 
 the same date, on page Go. 
 
 L, page 22. 
 
 The resolution of the Testry was as follows : 
 
 Resolved, That so much of the revenue of Trinity Church, arising from 
 pew rents and offerings, as shall remain and be collected after payiug the 
 mterest on the Church debt, contingent expenses, and such amount as 
 may be collected for special purposes, shall be paid over to and consti- 
 tute the Rector's salary ; this resolution to take effect on and after the 
 24th day of September, 1845, it being the first day of the third quarter 
 of the ecclesiastical year of 1845. — Records of Trinity Ohurch. 
 
 M, page 28, note. 
 
 The testimony in the note on page 27, and the case for which 
 reference, there and elsewhere, has been made to this place, are 
 thus introduced by Bishop Chase in his testimony on the trial : 
 
 " There was another case in 1844, separate from all that have been 
 spoken of. It related to Mr. Walker's disobedience to ray orders as a 
 Bishop, requiring him to sustain his charges against Mr. Becker in per- 
 son ; on which charges he had suspended Mr. Becker, and Mr. B. had 
 appealed to me. For some reason or other," &c., as in the note on p. 27. 
 
84 
 
 The case referred to must, of necessity, occupy considerable 
 space ; but as it contributed essentially to give tone to the bearing 
 of Bishop Chase, subsequently, towards the respondent, — as out of 
 it sprang the embodiment of charges which has been termed 
 " THE presentment of 1844," — as a prior presentment, the first of 
 that year, was immediately connected with it, — and, more particu- 
 larly, as it involves pi'inciples in which the whole body of the 
 Church have an interest, it will be presented at length. 
 
 When the respondent came to Chicago, in 1843, he found, in 
 St. James' congregation, the person whose name distinguishes the 
 case now to be presented. A German by birth, though quite at 
 home in the English language, less than middle aged, active, ar- 
 dent, apparently generous and ingenuous, intelligent, a professed 
 admirer of the Church, though a communicant in the Lutheran 
 connexion, zealous for the Church's interests and interested in all 
 that pertained to them, (as Lutheran offices were not then adminis- 
 tered in Chicago,) of social pretensions, claiming to be consul for 
 the Autocrat of Russia, a gentleman in address, and in the enjoy- 
 ment of comparatively full leisure, his assiduous attentions were 
 received by the respondent, his professions credited, hospitalities 
 were exchanged with him, — in short, he was very soon regarded 
 and treated by the respondent as a warm-hearted, generous li'iend. 
 All the freedom and familiarity of friendship were, therefore, per- 
 mitted and manifested. He came to the respondent's house and 
 study at pleasure, and entered into all his interests, opinions, and 
 wishes, as though they were his ovra. 
 
 Some time after this perfect freedom of intercourse had been es- 
 tablished, he proposed that he be admitted to the communion of 
 the Church pro tempore, declaring that he could not attach himself 
 to the Church peraianently, because of his determination never to 
 renounce Lutheranism, in which he and his fathers before liim had 
 been reared. The respondent referred him to the rubric, at the 
 close of " The Order of Confirmation," in the Book of Common 
 Prayer, to-wit : " There shall none be admitted to the Holy Com- 
 munion, until such time as he be .confirmed, or be ready and desi- 
 rous to be confirmed ;" and told him that he was bound to observe 
 that law ; that, agreeable as it might be to his feelings to grant the 
 proposal, duty forbade it. 
 
 In frequent interviews, the proposal was renewed, and urged with 
 especial reference to Christmas, then approaching. At length, the 
 respondent consented to address the Bishop on the subject, and to 
 abide his decision. The character of that address may so readily 
 be inferred from the reply, as to render unnecessary the insertion 
 of the letter here. 
 
 Under date of Nov. 16th, the Bishop made answer as follows: 
 
 " Ml/ very dear Sir : — I received your letter, anti answer it by i-eturn 
 of post, about admitting the Lutherans ^^ro tern. 
 
 " The subject has long occupied my mind ; (for many such cases there 
 are in these Western States ; and I suppose also tlirough the IT. States ;) 
 and I think ought to be decided on by general consultation of all the 
 Bishops. If / were to decide on it, and require my clergy to conform to 
 what / deem the right course ; and, at the same time, a neighboring Bish- 
 op were to require a contrary course ; it would be entirely schismatical — - 
 a thing which my soul abhorreth. 
 
85 
 
 " You must, I think, follow the dictates of your own consfieiice, on the 
 case before you, and act on the rules of general charity. Perhaps, when 
 we meet in General Convention, (seeing It promises to afford such great 
 subjects to set us on talking, and every one speaking his own sentiments.) 
 seme course may be agreed on by us all, in which the matter you men- 
 tion may be put at rest." 
 
 This answer from tlie Bi.>hop, was very soon shown to Becker ; 
 and, from it, he so contended that his desire might be granted, that, 
 unhappily," consent was finally given ; and he was told that he 
 might offer himself for communion on Christmas day. 
 
 In the meantime, discrepancies and inconsistencies came tQ be 
 detected, such as diminished the respondent's confidence in him ve- 
 ry greatly ; but yet nothing was discovered so openly and manifest- 
 ly wrong as to cause a denial of the privilege which had been conce- 
 ded. Accordingly, on Christmas' day^, Becker received the Holy 
 Communion at the hands of the respondent, in St. James' Church. 
 Directly after, one and another spoke to the respondent on the sub- 
 ject, alleging Becker's moral unfitness for the privilege Avhich had 
 been allowed him ; representing him as a Sabbath-breaker, a profane 
 person, and an excessive drinker. This led to a closer observation 
 of him, by which all that had been alleged of him, togetlier with 
 his treachery and double-dealing with respect to the respondent, 
 came to be discovered. 
 
 In view of all, the respondent resolved that he would no longer 
 continue to him the privilege of communion in the Church; but, that 
 the act of refusal might not appear to him as simply personal with 
 the respondent, his repulsion was made in conformity with the 
 Church's law, as though he were of the Church. The following 
 was, therefore, privately addressed to him : 
 
 ^Ir. a. C. Becker : 
 
 Sir — By a law of the Church, for the execution of which every minis- 
 ter is pledged by his ordination a'ows, it Is made the duty of the minister, 
 " if, among those who are partakers of the Holy Communion, he shall 
 know any to be an open and notorious evil liver, or to have done any 
 wrong to his neighbor, by word or deed, so that the congregation be 
 thereby offended, to advertise him that he presume not to come to the 
 Lord's Table, until he have openly declared himself to have truly repent- 
 ed and amended his former evil life, that the congregation may thereby 
 be satisfied ; and that he hath recompensed the parties to whom he hath 
 done the wrong ; or at least declare himself in full purpose to do so, as 
 soon as he conveniently may." And Canon 42 of the General Conven- 
 tion declares, that, " If any persons within this Church offend their breth- 
 ren by any wickedness of Ufe, such persons shall be repelled from the Ho- 
 ly Communion, agreeably to the Rubric." Such is the Church's law. 
 
 That these rules of discipline are after the pattern presented in Holy 
 Scripture, and have ever been acted upon by this Church, as good and 
 wholesome. It is unnecessary here to prove. Painful as is often the per- 
 formance of the duty thus imposed ujjon the minister, he is, nevertheless, 
 as he would " be accounted faithful," not permitted to waver in its dis- 
 charge, or neglect to " advertise" as required. 
 
 As " an open and notorious ovil liver," as stated in the Rubric, or " by- 
 wickedness of life," as It Is In the Canon, exemplified in profanity and in- 
 temperance, as is commonly reported, and is sufficiently known to me, 
 and by " uncharitableness" manifested in " hurt done to" your '' neighbor 
 by word and deed," you have given such offence to " bretiren" and caus- 
 ed the Christian name and profession so to suffer, as to make It my duty 
 to " advertise" you t!iat, without " repentance," " amendment," and " re- 
 
86 
 
 compense" so far as may be, and a return to godly unity, you *' cannot be 
 sufliered agaiu to be a partaker of the Lord's Table." You are, therefore, 
 hereby repelled. 
 
 An account of this act of canonical discipline has been submitted to '^h« 
 Ordinary," to whom, I may inform you, you can appeal, and by whom 
 alone you can be restored. (See Art. XXXUI.) 
 
 That you may speedily obtain a just sense of duty, and, "by God's 
 grace, return to a better mind, we shall not cease to make our humble 
 petitions unto Almighty God our Heavenly Father." 
 Yours, &c., 
 (Signed,) TV. F. WALKER. 
 
 Easter Even.., 1844. 
 
 The Bishop was thereupon notified as follows : 
 
 Rt. Rev. P. Chase, D. D. : 
 
 My Dear Sir — I have this day repelled from the Holy Communion, A. 
 C. Becker, in the manner and tor the causes set forth in the following notice 
 to him of his repulsion. 
 
 His profanity is notorious, his excess in drinking as much so, and the 
 hurt done by him, by word and deed, to his neighbor, is not slight. 
 
 Should he appeal, particulars will be mven. f 
 
 Yours, faithfully, 
 (Signed,) W. F. WALKER. 
 
 Easter Even., ^April 6<A,] 1844. 
 
 P.S. Mr. Becker is a Lutheran ; one of those who, having never been 
 confirmed in the Church, was by me admitted to be a partaker of the Ho- 
 ly Communion, for the time, in the exercise of the discretion for which 
 vour permission was given in the fall. Fer restoration, therefore, not on- 
 ly " repentance, amendment, and recompense," will be necessarj' ; but 
 he " must" also " be confirmed, or be ready and desirous to be confirmed." 
 
 To this letter was appended a copy of the preceding letter to 
 Becker. 
 
 Two weeks after, the following was received from the Bishop : 
 
 To the Rev. W. F. Walker : 
 
 My Dear Sir, — I received your letter dated Easter Even, notifying 
 me of your suspending from the Lord's table of Mr. Becker. 
 
 The same mail brought his appeal to the Bishop. This is to inform you 
 that the trial of Mr. B., wWch you have mentioned to me, and which I 
 request you to make out in regular form, with specifications and the evi- 
 dences sustaining the same, will take place, if the Lord will, at the time 
 of my next visit to Chicago, which will probably be within a month or 
 six weeks from this. 
 
 With devout prayers that God may direct us in the way of truth and 
 righteousness, 
 
 I am, dear sir, 
 
 Your faithful servant in the Lord, 
 
 PIHLANDER CHASE. 
 
 ISth April, 1844. 
 
 Supposing that the " particulars" of the case had only to be given 
 to the Bishop to satisfy him, and put the whole matter at rest, the 
 respondent had resolved to await the Bishop's arrival in Chicago, to 
 lay them before him, when he was surprised by the following : 
 
 To the Rev. W. F. Walkek : 
 
 Dear Sir, — At the instance of Mr. Becker, I have ordered a Court of 
 Investigation to take place on the case of your charges against him. This 
 Court, the Rev. Messrs. Kellogg, Bostwick, and Allanson, will at the timo 
 and place mutually agreed on by Mr. Becker and yourself, meet ia 
 Chicago. 
 
87 
 
 The papers will be in the hands of Mr. Kellogg. 
 You will be particular in all your specifications in proof of rour 
 charges. The rules of justice will be most strictly observed, and all will 
 await the final decision of the Ordinary. 
 
 Your faithful servant in the Lord, 
 
 PHILANDER CHASE. 
 Jubilee, April 27, 1844. 
 
 It is to be noted that, at this time, the separation had taken 
 place between St. James' and Trinity parishes, and that the oppo- 
 sition of those who figure in " the presentment of 1844," was at its 
 height. With those persons, without conferring with his presbyter, 
 the Bishop had been so in correspondence as to have espoused 
 their cause. This was first shadowed out in a letter of Jan. 9th, 
 wherein the Bishop says, " I have given the above," (the opinion 
 on page 34, of " the right of donors," «&c.,) " as my opinion to pri- 
 vate persons in your congregation, touching some pretensions which 
 you are said to have made to the contrary ;" but was most fully 
 confirmed by the following, in a letter of Jan. 19th: 
 
 " As the Chief Shepherd, I am bound by an oath to the Great Heav- 
 enly Lord to see that His lambs be fed and not devoured ; and for this 
 reason, I must deal plainly with you, and insist on an alteration for the 
 better in your mode of treating your parishioners." 
 
 How far his suspicions of the respondent, and his jealousy of a 
 foreign influence being exerted through him, had been excited, id 
 shown by the following : 
 
 " You mention ' our Bishop' in your letter. Wliat personage didjyou 
 intend I should have in my mind's eye when you wrote these words ? 
 Whoever he may be, please to inform him that I shall never consent to 
 become the tool of a party ; no, not even in redressing my own griev- 
 ances. In common with the rest of the Bishops, I have by the Constitu- 
 tion (I wish you and he would read it) a " visitatorial power to put things 
 to right when they are wrong in Kenyon College; and this right will be 
 soon exercised if the Court of Chancery in Ohio will gi-ant a 'Writ,' em- 
 powering the ' Visitors' to make inquiry for $15,000 kot yet ac- 
 counted FOR.* P. C." 
 
 The Rev. E. B. Kellogg, too, had now arrived in Chicago. Al- 
 most with his arrival, and immediately in connection with the last 
 letter given above, was commenced by him the performance of 
 those peculiar duties, which led the respondent, on his trial in Aug. 
 1846, to speak of him ofiensively, as it proved, as having "dis- 
 charged the duties of ecclesiastical constable," in the service of a 
 summons, mandatory, respecting the points stated in the letter ; at 
 the same time requesting an agreement as to " time and place" at 
 and in which the Court should be holden. 
 
 The respondent refused to come to any agreement on the sub- 
 ject, denying the right of any such jurisdiction over him. He, ac- 
 cordingly, addressed the Bishop thus : 
 
 Chicago, May 4, 1844. 
 To the Rt. Rev. P. Chase, D. D. : 
 
 My Dear Bishop, — Your letter of the 18th ult. informing me of Mr. 
 Becker's appeal, gave me notice that you expected him to have a " trial," 
 
 • The explanation is thns, and was immediately so made to Bishop Chase : The re- 
 spondent used in bis letter the expression 'one Bishop thinks,' &c., in whision to Bp. C.'» 
 complaints of Bishop Mcllvaine. The 'one' was read ' our,' and hence, under the influ- 
 ence of the feelings which had been excited, this outburst- 
 
S8 
 
 ami that " at the time of your next visit to Chicago, probably within a 
 njonth or six weeks." I wa? at no pains, therefore, to " give" you " par- 
 ticulars" in the case, which I .saw you had misapprehended, thinking the 
 •whole could better come before you when I should see you ou your pro- 
 posed visit. 
 
 Your letter of the 27th ull. intimates a change in your formerly pro- 
 posed course, by a notification of your having " ordered a court of inves- 
 tigation on the case of my cliarges against him, to moot at the time and 
 place mutually agreed on by Mr. Becker and myself;" and a request to 
 me to " be particular in all my specifications in proof of my charges." 
 
 Soon after the receipt of tlii? second lotter. the Rev. ]\Ir. Kellogg wait- 
 ed upon me, with a communication empowering him to act as Chairman 
 of the " court of investigation," and requested me to name a time for the 
 holding of said comt, which sliould be in concert with Mr. Becker, agree- 
 ably to the tenns of his commission, and also of your letter to me. 
 
 The change thus indii.'atod in your plan relative to this case, renders it 
 necessary that I should now give you a st^itement of it, which will enable 
 you to understand it, and not wait for the personal interview and oppor- 
 tunity for verbal explanation at first contemplated. This I am especially 
 required to do, since I have declined to name a date for the holding of 
 the court, of which Mr. Kellogg is to inform you, or to be engaged in a 
 trial to which no duty calls me. 
 
 I promised you, in my notice of the repulsion of ilr. Becker, that 
 " should he appeal, particulars should be ^iven." 
 
 This I shall fulfil in my exposition of his case, and of the grounds of 
 the course I take relative to his trial. 
 
 First, then, Mr. Becker is not, nor was he ever, in any sense, a member 
 of the Prot. Episcopal Church; he was never received into it, either by 
 baptism, confirmation, or by the reception, to this end, of the Holy Com- 
 munion. On the contrary, he came before me as an avowed Lutheran — 
 a member of that Society by baptism, confirmation, and communion. His 
 application for the communion at my hands was made under a profession 
 of Lutheranisra, as laid down in that Confession, which he could not re- 
 nounce. He wished It as a privilege jiro tempore, because of their being 
 no Society, holding his views, here, with a clercyman to administer the 
 offices of that system of worship, and to relieve bim from coming forward 
 in an effort now to procure a Lutheran clergvTnan for this place. He 
 appeared to me, at the time, to be a devout man, my actjualntance with 
 him having been short and partial, an intelligent man, and one who 
 would value the Communion properly, could he be admitted to partake 
 ofit. 
 
 The terms of communion m the Church I put plainly before him, es- 
 pecially the provision that " none shall be admitted to communion until 
 he be confirmed, or be ready and desirous to be confirmed." And here 
 was the difficulty. To submit to confirmation at your hands would in- 
 volve a renunciation of Lutheranism, and an adoption of the Prot«stant 
 Episcopal svstem ; and for this he was not prepared, nor could he ever 
 be. His fathers had been Lutheran, as he could trace regularly back to 
 Luther, and the succession 3hould not be broken in him. He wanted to 
 use our system as provisional simplj' ; and he wished it much, for unless I 
 could yield to his wishes, he must live at present without the higher offices 
 of religion. Embarrassed by the application, — because his case was not 
 alone, (" many .such cases there are" here,) — and wishing to do what I 
 might, (indeed the strength of this wish caused my embarras.sment, else 
 the law being plain, I should have settled it by a dircf^t negative,) I ad- 
 dressed my Bishop, and asked his directions. Under date of Nov. 16th, I 
 received in reply the following : 
 
 " I received your letter, and answer it by return of post, about admit- 
 ting the Lutherans pro tern. The snhieet has long occupied my mind, 
 (for many such cases there arc in these Wertem States, and I suppose alf Q 
 
89 
 
 through the U. States ]) and I thiuk ouglit to be deelded on by general 
 consultation of all the Bishops. It" / were to decide ou it, and requirw my 
 clergy to conlbrni to what J deem the right course ; and, at Uie same time, 
 a neighboring Bisliop were to reiiuire a t-ontrary comse ; it -would be en- 
 tirely" schisniatieal — a thing which my soul abhorretii. You must, I 
 think, follow the dictates of your own conscience on the case before you, and 
 act on the rules of general charity. IVihaps, when we meet in General 
 Convention, (seeing it promises to aflbrd such groat subjects to set us on 
 talking, and every one speaking his own sentiments,) some course may be 
 agreed on by us all, in wliich the matter you mention may be put at rest." 
 
 This letter I showed to Mr. Becker, and, his urgency continuing, " the 
 dictates of conscience" prompted a compliance with what seemed to be 
 '• the rules of general charity ;" thus influenced, I told him to have what 
 he had asked. He accordingly offered himself lor the Conmiunion, and 
 •was entered on the Parish Register, " Communicant, temporarily, being 
 Lutheran." 
 
 Subsequently, my views of Mr. Becker's fitness for the continued ex- 
 ercise of my discretion in his belialf, underwent an entire change. '"The 
 rules of general charity" could no longer re(iuire me to extend to him 
 again a privilege, whose enjoyment rested alone on " the dictates of my 
 own conscience." He was a Lutheran, receiving the communion as such 
 at my hands, without a claim for the favor, and 1 was administering it 
 without any warrant of the Church for so doing ; rather, was transcend- 
 ing law for the purpose, though under permission Irom my Bishop, if my 
 conscience should thus sanction.* 
 
 When, therefore, 1 "heard with my ears" Mr. Becker say, "Damn the 
 Church !" " Damn the Ritual !" and use other like expressions ; and on 
 
 another occasion say, " You are a d d liar !"' and, " It is only one of 
 
 the many d d lies you have told since you have been in Chicago I" 
 
 When I became satisfied, from what my eyes saw and my ears heard, that 
 he " was a busy body in other men's mattei's," and talked of his neighbors 
 to their hurt, some of whom were communicants, and others not ; and, 
 finally, when I heard him commonly spoken of as an excessive drinker, 
 the quantity which he was known from actual observation to drink being 
 named ; when he was seen to be in the habit of resorting to bars tor drink 
 on Sundays, and spending his Sunday aflernoons, not as " Canon 41 of 
 the General Convention" provides, but in " eating and drinking," and 
 this so as to prove a scandal, and caus(! it to be reproachfully siiid to me, 
 '• You have in that man a, consistent Cliurch member I" and when, at last, 
 I saw him, as I should at once have said, well-nigh drunk ; when all this 
 was seen, and heard, and known, by mo, I would not again admit him to 
 our communion. 
 
 I had reason to think that, at Easter, he would offer himself for the 
 communion ; and so I met my duty the day before by sending the notice, 
 a copy of which you received. 
 
 I regarded the act as a simple withholding of a privilege, which my dis- 
 cretion alone had granted, and for which, either way, my conscience was 
 to answer. 
 
 Still, it was a repulsion, and the letter of the law required that I should 
 report it to you. This I did on the very day of the act. And my notice 
 to him stated that I had done this, with the information that he could ap- 
 peal to you, by whom alone he could be restored. Fori supposed you to 
 be competent to permit to another the exercise of the same discretion you 
 had permitted me ; and that Mr. B., if you were disposed, might, my suc- 
 cessor being willing to admit him on such pemilsslon, be allowed to par- 
 take of the Holy Communion again, as he had done before. 
 
 Now, agi'eeably to my view, in the repulsion of Mr. Becker, I simply 
 freed myself from a responsibility which my Bishop could not decide tiiat 
 
 • This permission was understood as simply securing acoinst prosecution for a breach 
 of law. 
 
 12 
 
90 
 
 I sbofnIJ assume, and which, therpfore, 1 certainly could not he required 
 to bear longer than conscience should dictate. I cannot, therefore, prop- 
 erly, justly, or canonically, be called upon to be a parly to a trial in this 
 case. 
 
 He not being a " person within this Church," (Canon 42,) our law ex- 
 tends not to him in such wise, that I should consent to have more to do in 
 the case. Accordingly, I have not, nor do I now, prefer charges. I have 
 only stated the reasons which governed my action. 
 
 That the Bishop may " institute an enquiry," in the case of " any per- 
 son or persons within this Church," on their making complaint to him. 
 Canon 42 of the General Convention expressly provides. But, even then, I 
 do not see that it must be in the form of a trial, to which the repelling 
 clergyman is a party.* However this may be, the present is another case, 
 as this statement has shown. 
 
 I think my view and my course correct, and flatter myself that they 
 must so appear to my Bishop. I shall so hold them till otherwise advised 
 by you, at least. 
 
 I am, Rt. Rev. and dear sir, 
 
 Your faithful Presbyter, 
 
 W. F. WALKER. 
 
 To the above, the following reply was duly served by the Rev. 
 Mr. Kellogg : 
 
 Jubilee College, May 9th, 1844. 
 To the Rev. W. F. Walkek : 
 
 Dear Sir — In answer to your letter of the 4th of May, which I received 
 by last mail, I would say that it seems to me reasonable that a person ac- 
 cused of immorality, ought to have an opportunity of making his defence. 
 
 Mr. Becker, having been admitted by you to our conununion, has been 
 by you accused of immoral conduct ; and pleading not guilty, has sought 
 for a hearing of his case from the Ordinary, as the rules of our Church 
 direct. To put him by, and say we cannot give him this hearing, on the 
 ground of his not having been dull/ admitted, seems to me unreasonable 
 and unjust. 
 
 Whatever irregularity there may have been in admitting him, the same 
 does not affect the main question. You used the Canons and Rubrics of 
 our Church in directing you how to accuse him. He ought, in my hum- 
 ble opinion, to have the benefit of the same Canons and Rubrics in mak- 
 ing his defence. 
 
 You will, therefore, consider yourself as respectfully requested by the 
 tenor of these presents, to attend at the Vestry room of St. James' Church, 
 on the thirty-first day of May, instant, at 10 o'clock in the morning, then 
 and there to substantiate, by lawful evidence, in a court of inquiry which 
 I have appointed, the charges you have made against the moral character 
 of A. C. Becker, as contained in a letter, sent by you to me, dated " Eas- 
 ter Even, 1844." 
 
 Your friend and servant, 
 
 PHH^AN. CHASE, Bp. of lU. 
 
 The following reply was addressed to the Bishop ; and informa- 
 tion having been received that he would be in Chicago in the 
 course of the day in which the letter was written, it was enclosed 
 to the Rev. Mr. Kellogg, with a request that he, who would see 
 the Bishop earliest, would hand it to him, on his arrival : 
 
 Chicago, May 30, 1844. 
 To the Rt. Rev. P. Chase, D. D. : 
 
 My Dear Bishop, — Your letter of the 9th inst., permit mc to say, pre- 
 sents no grounds sufl5cient to induce a change in the conclusion I nad 
 
 • The present General Canon is silent on this subject, and there is no Diooesaa Canon 
 
 with respect to it. 
 
91 
 
 formed, and expressed to you, under date of the 4th inst, relative to the 
 case of Mr. Becker. That which is urged as a reason why I should take 
 part in the "inquiry" appointed for to-morrow, — that "Mr. B. has been 
 accused by me of imnioral conduct," and that " I used the Rubrics and 
 Canons of our Church in directing me how to accuse him," — is a mistake, 
 and consequently the conclusions btised upon it cannot hold. Mr. B. has 
 never been accused by me in any way. In my repulsion of him, I sim- 
 ply assigned " causes" for the act. " The dictates of conscience" had 
 prompted me, under permission from my Bishop, to " act on" what seem- 
 ed to be " the rules of general charity," with respect to Mr. B., and to 
 extend to him, for the time, the enjoyment of a certain privilege. When 
 circumstances became developed, aflecting, in my view, the moral fitness 
 of Mr. B. for the further enjoyment of that privilege, "the dictates of 
 conscience" prompted my withdrawal from the responsibility of longer 
 extending it to him. That he might not have just cause of complaint, I 
 did this in the form of a repulsion provided by the Church for her own 
 members. Here was my "use of the Rubrics and Canons." I employed 
 them, that Mr. B. might sec how clear was my duty in the case of those 
 of the " members of this Church" who "come to be partakers of the Holy 
 Communion," who should olFeud in a specified manner, and so, by an easy 
 inference, justify my course towards himself who was without, — who was 
 was with us only on the sufferance of my conscience. My letter to you 
 containing my notice to Mr. B. of his repulsion, and mailed at the date of 
 that repulsion, presents at its conclusion the following, afi[brding this same 
 exposition of my act, contemporaneously with it : " Mr. Becker is a Lu- 
 therian ; — one of those who, having never been confirmed in the Church, 
 was by me admitted to be a ' partaker of the Holy Communion' for the 
 time, in the exercise of the discretion for which your permission was giv- 
 en in the fall. For restoration, therefore, not only ' repentance, amend- 
 ment, and recompense' will ba necessary; but he 'must also 'be confirm- 
 ed, or be ready and desirous to be confirmed.' " 
 
 Here was distinctly presented the view, that this was not a case to 
 which the Church's law, regarding expulsion and restoration, could be at 
 once applied ; but, that, in addition to all which is required in cases of 
 which the law takes cognizance, the cases of her own members, before 
 Mr. B. could be restored through me, even by the Bishop, " he must be 
 confirmed, or be ready and dcsii-ous to be confirmed." I supposed that, 
 on his appeal, this would be pointed out to him ; and that he would, in 
 consequence, see, that to again enjoy the privilege of communion, he 
 must " prepare himself according to the preparation of the sanctuary." 
 This supposition arose naturally out of the position which you had taken 
 in your letter to me of Xov. 16th, not to decide on the admission of such 
 persons, for, that it might be, in a certain event, " entirely schismatical ;" 
 but to leave them with the clergymen in whose charges they might be, to 
 be admitted or refused at their discretion, unless they should aoply as is 
 required of the children of the Church; in which case, conformity to the 
 Church's law would entitle them to communion, or to an inquiry, as the 
 Rubrics and Canons provide, on an .appeal, if they should be repelled. At 
 the same time, I believed, as stated to you in my letter of the 4th instant, 
 that if he could justify himself to j'ou, you were "competent to permit to 
 another the exercise of the same dis.',>retion you had permitted me, and 
 that Mr. B., if you were disposed, might, my successor being willing to 
 admit him on such permission, be allowed to partake of the Holy Com- 
 munion again as he had done before." 
 
 You will, therefore, please excuse my declining to be considered Mr. 
 Becker's accuser. I stated to him and to you "causes" for my discontifi- 
 uance of the exercise of a certain discretion in his behalf: this is all. I 
 preferred no charges, for I anticipated no trial in a case to which there 
 was no law to apply- I promised you that, •' should he appeal, particulars 
 would be given." That promise I made good in my letter of the 4<^ 
 
92 
 
 Those particulars were with me " causes" which determined my action,' 
 if my Bishop deems them insufficient, or doubts my ooui-se, 1 shall re- 
 gret not to be allowed more of his ronfidenee. With Mr. Becker, I can 
 have nothing to do. My vie^vf of him was partially given in my letter of 
 the 4th, since which he has further so prostituted liim^oit before me, that 
 I must regard him, mor.ally, as one of the most undeserving of men. 
 
 That it was within my province, under the circimistances, now famil- 
 iar, under which Mr. B. came to be a partaker of the Holy Communion 
 in the Church, at any time when it should cease to be my pleasure longer 
 to continue to him the privilege he had enjoyed, through me, to withhold 
 it from him, and so to repel him, without assigning " causes" for the act, 
 without a reference to the Ruljrics and Canons, and without giving an 
 account of the same to the Ordinary, i.=-., I suppose, unquestioned. There 
 could then, of course, be no " inquiry," and certainly there could be no 
 direct restoration ; for the Bishop could not more consistently readmit 
 than he could in the first instance decide that his pres])yter should admit 
 such a person ; the principle involved in both cases would be the same. 
 Can my consideration, then, in assigning "causes" for what I did, and in 
 adducinff the IluV>rics and Canons to show that the course observed to- 
 wards him was only that which I should be bound to observe towards 
 " the members of this Church," so change the whole case as to place 
 Mr. B. in possession of rights, — otherwise confessedly not his, — the 
 rififhts of the children of the Cluirch ? Can it have made him a " member 
 of this Church" Avho was no member, and so render me justly liable to be 
 challenored by him to the vindication of a course which rested with my 
 conscience simply, on his appoal, " in a court of inquiry," " by lawful ev- 
 idence ?" I cannot so view the matter. 
 
 Tiiat the case of Mr. B. has gone to the public, is to be attributed sole- 
 Iv to himself / gave it to you and himself only. If, thereibre, he com- 
 plains of being aggrieved, because of the position into which he has been 
 brought relative to the Church through me having come to the knowl- 
 edge of the public, the complaint must be against himself simply. 
 
 My complaint might be that I was so imposed upon by him in the first 
 instance ; and then, when I have discharged a duty for which I alone 
 must answer, at the tribunal of conscience here, and at that of my Maker 
 and my Judge hereafter, this should be laid hold of, as I will assure you, 
 Bishop, it seems to have been by some here, as another and available 
 means of oppression and persecution. But as I have borne, so will I still 
 bear, God helping me, ivithout complaint. I rely upon I he integrity of my 
 cause, upon the faithfulness of the Master I ser\e, " Who knoweth how to 
 succor," and upon the dispassionate consideration of my Bishop. " Audi 
 alteram partem" is a rule which I have full confidence will be observed 
 with regard to all the matters concerning which complaint has been made 
 to vou.* That the Spirit of Grodmay then guide to a right judgment is 
 all that I can ask. 
 
 I trust my Bishop will appreciate the assurance of unfeigned regret 
 which is experienced when, on the strength of views now before him, I 
 decline a compliance with his " respectful request" to me to participate 
 " in a court of inquiry" " appointed" on the case of IMr. A. C. Becker, to 
 be holden " at the Vestry-room of St. James' Church" to-morrow. 
 With sentiments of dutiful regard, 
 
 I am, Rt. Rev. and dear sir, 
 
 Your faitliful presbyter, 
 
 W. F. WALKER. 
 
 It subsequently transpired that " the Court" met at the time and 
 place appointed ; but, the respondent not being present, broke up, 
 without considering the case. 
 
 * In this confidence the respondent was most sadly disappointed. Hi« Bishop ad- 
 judged him " guilty" without a hearing in any way. 
 
93 
 
 Having heard of the Bishop's arrival in the city, asreeablj to' 
 expectation, and of his having taken up his quai'ters with the fam- 
 ily of Kinzie, known to himself to be most opposed to the respond- 
 ent, where his ears must of necessity be filled with prejudiced state- 
 ments, and w^hcre very few of the respondent's friends cared to go, 
 instead of with his presbyter, who had cordially invited him to ac- 
 cept the hospitalities of his house, anticij)ations of a no very pleas- 
 ing or promising character wei'e entertained, when, on the morn- 
 ing of Saturday. June 1st, a call upon him was resolved upon. 
 
 About 10, o'clock, A. M., the call was made. The Bishop's tes- 
 timony sets out what had taken place. " For some reason or oth- 
 er," said he, (and those reasons are contained in the above corres- 
 pondence,) " Mr. Walker had refused to obey my orders as his 
 Bishop. There were then three clergymen in town, to "whom I 
 gave the information, and required them to present Mr. W. for 
 trial, in consequence of his having broken his ordination vows. 
 They did present him as having broken his ordination vows." 
 
 That presentment is as follows : 
 
 Chicago, June 1st, 1844. 
 At a meeting composed of the Rt. Rev. P. Chase and four of liis Pres- 
 byters, the following question Avas put by the Bishop to each of his Pres- 
 byters, viz : Do you think that the Rev. W. F. Walker, in refusing to 
 appear at the time and place appointed, to make good his charges against 
 A. C. Becker, has violated the spirit of his ordination vow? 
 
 The answer to this question was in the aifa-matlve, by the following 
 Presbyters : — 
 
 E. B. KELLOGG, 
 Wm. ^Y. BOSTWICK, 
 
 Wm. allanson, 
 dudley chase. 
 
 This document is addressed to the Bishop, here present. 
 
 E. B. KELLOGG, 
 
 Secretary of the meeting. 
 
 The respondent had but just entered the room, when he was ac- 
 costed by the Bishop, thus : " You, sir, are the man who has bro- 
 ken his ordination vows ; and you are presented, sir — you are pre- 
 sented. There — read that," — pointing to the above presentment ! 
 lying on the table. Then, shaking his hand, clenched, with start- 
 ling emphasis in the respondent's face, he said, with an eai'nestness 
 almost peculiar to himself, " You have got to come down, sir, — you 
 have got to come down !"* The respondent took up the paper and 
 read it ; when the Bishop said to him, " When will you be ready 
 for trial, sir ?" The reply was, " At any time, — on Monday next, 
 if you please." But, after a moment's reflection, the answer was 
 varied, thus : " I will take some tune to consider my position, and 
 wiU then communicate with yon." After which, i-ising to leave, 
 the respondent said, '" Bishop, I suppose you will officiate for me 
 part of the day to-morrow ?" When, with an accustomed and pe- 
 culiar emphasis. Bishop Chase said, " No, sir, — I dont't think I'll 
 officiate for you at all: I regai'd you as ipso facto suspended, sir ; 
 the case is so clear." 
 
 * With what devotion the purpose thus declared has been pursued, from that date to 
 this pteseat, the papers wliicn this publication presents sufficiently show. 
 
94 
 
 The respondent counselled with his friends, as to what course he 
 should now take; Canons XIV. and XV. of 18.'3« were examined, 
 by which it appeared that the Bishop, though a party in the case, 
 might be Judge ; hence it was thought that the respondent might 
 as well admit the penalty at once, as to submit to any such trial as 
 he would be able to obtain. It was decided, therefore, that, while 
 he should reserve his oion vieio of the case, he should " bend to the 
 powers," against which to attempt to stand, under the circumstan- 
 ces, as the law then was, would be to be broken. Accordingly, the 
 followijQg note addressed to the Bishop that afternoon : 
 
 Chicago, June 1, 1844.. . 
 
 Right Rev. and Dear Sir, — Allow me to assure you that your " request" 
 to me to appear before the " Court of Enquiry a])pointed" by you " on 
 the case of A. C Becker," was not understood in the sense oi an admoni- 
 tion to which a canonical obedience would be required. Since that con- 
 struction has been put upon it by yourself, my view of the case must yield 
 to my conviction of the duty of submission to my Bishop, and I hereby 
 consent to " substantiate in a Court of Enquiry," on Monday morning 
 next, at 10 o'clock, at the Vestry-room of St. James' Church, the causes 
 I have alleged as the grounds of my repulsion of JNIr. Becker. 
 Yours dutiiully, 
 
 ^Y. F. WALKER. 
 
 P. S. — May I ask that the Chairman of that Court summon the late 
 Wardens and Vestrj-men of St. James' Church, or so many of them as 
 may be now in the citj-, to appear at the time and place mentioned, to 
 give in evidence what they may know toucliing the charges alleged in 
 this case ? 
 
 On Monday morning, the Rev. E. B. Kellogg called on the re- 
 spondent for " specifications of charges," which he said the Bishop 
 required ; also that the respondent should appear by Counsel.* 
 Thus was a regular suit insisted upon. 
 
 B. S. Morris, Esq., in a spirit which has ever chai*acterized him 
 with respect to the respondent, a spirit corresponding with that of 
 the Counsel in August, 1846, came generously forward, without 
 fee or reward, or hope of the same, and gave himself to the respon- 
 dent's defence ; for in a trial of him it, in effect, resulted. The re- 
 port of the trial is interesting, corresponding very nearly with the 
 two reports already presented, but is too long to be inserted here. 
 
 The Bishop was trier, or Judge, and finally gave his decision 
 thus ; 
 
 In making known my decision in the case of the appeal, made to rae 
 by Mr. A. C. Becker, against the sentence of the Rev. W. F. Walker, 
 repelhng him from the Holy Commuuion, it is necessary to review the 
 grounds upon which the decision is based ; for that purpose the foUowiDg 
 paper, read at the opening of the Court, will first be read. 
 
 Be it kxowx, that the Rev. W. F. Walker, did, sometime in A. D. 
 1843, being at the time, Rector of St. James' Church, in this place, admit 
 to the privileges of a communicant of the Protestant Episcopal Church 
 of the United States of America, Mr. A. C. Becker,! * confirmed mem- 
 
 * The inconsistency in requiring Counsel at one time, and denying the same at an- 
 other, is etriking. The Counsel now demanded and accepted wasnot a communicant. 
 
 1 Kot so; he was permitted to commune in the Church temporarilj ; fcut was not 
 admitted to the "jvift/fgcj of a communicant'' ,, . 
 
\xt of the [Danish] Protestant Episcopal Church,* in the use of a discre- 
 tion generally conceded as being the right of the Rector iu such cases, 
 of which the Rev. ^V. F. Walker was duly advised by the Bishop of the 
 Diocese, on application made to hira for information. 
 
 On Easter Even last, the said Rev. W. F. Walker did proceed to repel 
 from the Holy Communion, the said A. C. Becker, and duly notify him 
 of the same, and also the Ordinary, according to Canon, and referred it 
 to him as "a case of Canonical discipline," alleging as the grounds of said 
 repulsion, notoriously immoral and uncharitable conduct in the party re- 
 pelled. Said Walker did also inform the repelled party that he might, 
 according to Canon, appeal to the Bishop, and that he could alone be re- 
 stored by him to Communion. The repelled parly, did rightly make 
 such appeal, and demand an investigation of the alleged causes of his re- 
 pulsion. Agreeably to such request, the Bisho^t of the Diocese did nom- 
 mate the Rev. E. B. Kellogg, the Rev. Wm. AV. Bostwick, and the Rev. 
 Wm. AUanson, to be a Court of Inquiry, to investigate facts, and to ob- 
 tain evidence, upon which the judgment of the Bishop might be based, 
 and inform the parties of the same, and request the Rev. W. F. Walker 
 to appoint a time of meeting. The Rev. W. F. AValkcr did refuse to fix 
 any time, and allege as a cause of said refusal, that said A. C. Becker had 
 never been a member of the Church. Upon the case being again refer- 
 red to the Bishop, he overruled the Rev. W. F. Walker's judgment in the 
 case of Mr. Becker, and adjudged that he was entitled to use the Canons 
 of the Church to whose communion he had been admitted, in defence of 
 his character in the alleged causes of his repulsion, and moreover did 
 fix a day, Fiiday, .31st of M.ay, 1844, for the meeting of tlie Court above 
 named, in the vestry room of St. James' Church, Chicago, and respect- 
 fully request both parties to attend. The Court assembled at the time 
 and place mentioned. Mr. A. C. Becker appeared. Rev. W. F. Walker 
 did not appear personallj- or by proxy ; whereupon the Court adjourned. 
 The Bishop having been Informed of the issue, required the opinion of 
 four of his presbyters whether they judged that the Rev. W. F. Walker 
 had broken the spirit of his ordination vows, by neglecting to attend the 
 Court of Inquiry, when officially requested so to do '? The four present 
 answered in the affirmative, viz : Messrs. Kellogg, Bostwick, Allanson, 
 and D. Chase, and signed an mstrument of writing addressed to the 
 Bishop, to that efiect, (a copy of which instrument was furnished Mr. 
 Walker.) 
 
 Whereupon, after deliberation, the Eev. W. F. Walker addressed the 
 Bishop, alleging that the cause of his non-attendance was a mistake in 
 not consldermg the official request in the fight of an injunction to attend,f 
 and offering to meet the Court of Inquiry on Monday, June 3d, at 1 A. 
 M., for the purpose of submitting to the investigation of the case. 
 
 Whereupon tids Court is now opened for that end, 
 
 (Signed) P. CHASE, Bishop. 
 
 Monday, 10 A. M., Jur.e 3, 1844. 
 The Court duly assembled in the Vestry Room of St. James; Bishop 
 Chase, presiding. Counsel was allowed on both sides in this case. Rev. 
 W. F. Walker appeared by his Counsel, B. S. Morris, Esq. ; Mr. A. C. 
 Becker appeared by his Counsel, I. N. Arnold, Esq. ; Mr. A. Hunting- 
 ton, Secretary for recording evidence. 
 
 ♦This pretension was entirely new, set up expi-cssly for tliis defence of the Bishop ; 
 or in his own words, '' review of the grounds upon which the decision is based." A 
 plausible fou.,dation for the course re,';olved on was felt to be needed ; and an ingenu- 
 ity equal to the emergency supplied this before unheard-of pretext. It was never a.?- 
 serted or made till presented by the Bishop in this pap'^r. It is therefore a fraudulent 
 plea, introduced for a make-weight against the respondent. 
 
 t The respondent never said a word about " mistake," as is here asserted ; there was 
 no " mistake ;" he retained his original understanding of the case throughout, and re- 
 tains the same to this day. His letter to the Bishop, (page 94,) wonld seem to be too 
 plain to allow of Eucb a statement. 
 
ye 
 
 The first question raised in the regular course of (rial, was that of Ju- 
 risdiction, i. «., the right ot the persou appealing to be heard on that ap- 
 peal. This, it was contended by the repelling party, he had not, because 
 lie was not regularly admitted to the privileges of Church Communion. 
 It was decided by the Court that the question was settled by a common 
 principle of justice, — that he who was subject to the rf/sc/^j/me of the 
 Church, was entitled to the benefit of her protective laics, in the defence 
 of his Christian Character, when accused, whatever informality there 
 might have been in his admission And as, moreover, in this case, the 
 Rector used the authority and directions of the Canons and Rul)rics of 
 the Church in repelling, and did himself acknowledge the right of ap- 
 peal in the person so debarred from the Communion, it was decided by 
 the Court that he had a right to be heard on that appeal, and have his 
 case adjudged by the Bishop.* 
 
 The second question raised was a request by the repelled party to be 
 furnished with specifications of facts, under the general charges of im- 
 moral conduct, by which it was alleged the act of repulsion was sustained. 
 It was decided that it was the duty of the plaintiff to furnish the accused 
 such specifications, that a just opportunity might be given to produce 
 rebutting testimony. Accordingly the following alleged causes of the 
 repulsion of Mr. A. C. Becker,irom the Holy Communion by Rev. "W. 
 F. Walker, was produced in Court.f 
 
 The causes alleged by me for the repulsion of ]\Ir. A. C. Becker, and 
 which I shall endeavor to substantiate by lawful evidence in the Court of 
 Inquiry appointed on the case, are : — 
 
 First, Profaniti/ — i. e., the use of language commonly deemed profane, 
 in the presence of J. B. F. Russell, in ti\e City of Chicago, prior to his 
 repulsion at Easter last, and since the first day of October, A. D., 1843; 
 and before others in said City. 
 
 Second; Excess in Druxkinc] ; — i.e. the use of intoxicating liquor or 
 liquors to such extent as to be commonly deemed excessive, at the City 
 Hotel in the City of Cliicago, since October last, and prior to his repul- 
 sion ; and at divers other places in the City of Chicago ; also in carrying 
 it in his pocket for his use at his pleasure. 
 
 Third; Hurt done to his neighbor bi/ word and deed, — i.e., having so 
 spoken of his neighbor, and so given himself concern in his affairs as to be 
 commonly regarded as inflicting essential hurt; to wit : to the Rev. W. 
 F. AValker, and through him the Church, by the use of abusive language 
 addressed to him on Clark st, in the City of Chicago, on or about the 
 23d March, A. D. 184-i, and also in being actively engaged in fomenting 
 ill-feeling against said Walker, about tlie time last albresaid, with and 
 amongst the brethren of the Church, and in pursuing (by his opposition) 
 him, said Walker, to the breaking up of tlie said Walker's Pastoral 
 connexion with St. James' C'-urch, to the hurt of said Walker, and of a 
 large body of his parishioners, as they have formally alleged. 
 
 (Signed) W. F. WALKER. 
 
 The 3d charge and the specifications accompanjing it were not sus- 
 tained, no evidence being offered to that effect; upon trial it was with- 
 drawn.J 
 
 • The " Court" here means Bishop Chase. 
 
 It was a further decision of this " Court," "that any person who has received baptism 
 in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, may claim the Gom- 
 munion.and cannot be deprived of it;" thus null il'yinp; every restrictive provision of the 
 Church, though bound upon Bishops and Clergy by the oaths of ordination. 
 
 t This question was raised and determined by the '• Court," before it opened in the 
 Vestry-room. (See statement on page 94.) The "specifications," so termed, were 
 banded to the Rev. Ezra B. Kellogg, in obedience to the Bishop's mandate, in the 
 morninff. The Bishop had them, therefore ; and by him they were " produced in 
 Court ;" not, however, until there had been some contradiction about their having 
 been furnished, and some confusion tending to the prejudice of the respondent. 
 
 t No evidence was offered under " the 3d charge." It bad come to be pretty well 
 
On the Isl and 2il cliar^fs and .^pfxnlio.atioiis, tin- loUowinj^ is tlic opirl* 
 ion and decision of the Bishop. They are both fsnstaincd, in part, iti 
 POINT OF FACT. Thc acoused, therefore, stands reproved, and is herf(l)y 
 solemnly exhorted to repent and amend. "' 
 
 But in point o{ moral turpitude, the true intent of the Rubric author- 
 izing a repulsion from the Holy Communion has not been fulfilled. It 
 is as follows : 
 
 '* If among those who come to be partakers of the Holy Communion 
 the minister shall know any to be an open and notorious evil liver, or to 
 have done any wrong to his neighbors by word or deed, so that thc con- 
 gregation be thereby offended, he shall advertise him that he pi esume 
 not to (>ome to the Lord's Table until he have openly declared himself to 
 have truly repented and amended his former evil life, that the congrega- 
 tion may thereby be satisfied, and that he hath recompensed the parties 
 to whom he hath done wrong ; or at least declare himself to be in full 
 purpose to do so as soon as he conveniently may." ■•) 
 
 This Rubric is founded on the Word of (xod, Avhicli is as follows, JMatt* 
 18thc., 15, 16, 17 vt;.* 
 
 " If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault be- 
 tween thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, tJiou hast gained thy 
 brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take M'ith thee one or twO' 
 more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be es- 
 tablished. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the Church ; 
 but if he negle(;t to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a heathen 
 man and a publican." 
 
 Gal. 6:1. " Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are 
 spiritual restore -euch an one in the spirit of meekness, considering thyself 
 lest thou also be tempted." 
 
 The Canon of the Church refers t© the Rubric, and Rubric carries into 
 olTcct the injuncj;ion of Holy Scripture, and whei"ein the Rubric is silent 
 as to the inethod of carrying the Scriptural injunctions into efiect, it is the 
 duty of the Bishop to judge whether the intcni of the Rubric, as founded 
 oi* Scripture, has been fulfilled ornot.f 
 
 In this case of the repulsion of Mr. Beckr- troni the communion of St. 
 James' Church, Chicago, the injunctjious of the Rubric, as interpreted by 
 the Word of Gk»d, have not been complied with. It was the duty of the 
 Rev. Rector of St. James' Church to have admonished Mr. Becker before 
 he repelled him from the communion, of the faults contained in his charge 
 of being an excessive drinker. Instead of this, it appears, on evidence, 
 that he was intimate with Mr B. for some time, and drank "with him, one 
 
 understood that the aim was indirectly to try the respondent ; and that " tJie 3d charge'" 
 was to be the available means " to that effect." Tlierefore. it was withdrawn. 
 
 " Notes," by a friend, taken at the time, furnish thc folIowinf{ : 
 
 " The Counsel for the Hector here offered to withdraw the third spocifitation ; but the 
 inipartiiil Court decided it would be evidence the plaintiff could prove nothing. New 
 as this charge embraced • tattling,' and that amony women, it was thijught advisable 
 to withdraw it, rather than liave an infuriated Sewing Society brought on to the stand. 
 
 " Some desultory conversation ensued, and the third charge, by agreement, was 
 dropped." 
 
 * This assertion so unhesitatingly made, is original with Bishop CSase. And by all 
 who examine the matter, it isust certainly be admitted to require a degree of theologi- 
 cal acumen not less than th«t which distinguishes hira, to discover the shadow of a re- 
 lation between the Rubric and the Scripture, so undoubtingly alleged to be its foun- 
 dation. The discovery was timely, and valuable for its application to this case. It af- 
 forded a turn upon tlic respondent that probably was as gratifying as it certainly was 
 indelicate, unkind, and unjust. 
 
 It will here be seen that JIatt.xviii. 15-17, was once in the mind of Bishop Chase, 
 in connection with what was professed to be ecclesiastical ju.stice ; however aeeply it 
 may be rec;retted that the impression was not such as to iufiuence him permanently in 
 the line of its teachings. But when its application would require duties to be perform- 
 ed that might favor the respondent, it appears to have been entirely lost sight of; in 
 no instance has it been recognized in respect to him, except in the above, when it was 
 wrested into a connection in which obviously it does not beloug,^and, contrary to testi- 
 mony, made to bear against him. 
 
 t This opinion is so monstrous, beyond any precedent that has ever been furnished 
 by a Protestant Bishop, that it cannot fail to attract merited uoticc, and show the loae 
 at its author, without comment by the respondent. 
 
 13 
 
time, a glass of spirits," and Rt another, ** in company with a third pcreoc, 
 one bottle of Claret, and half a quart bottle of Madeira or Sherry wine."* 
 
 From this testimony, it appears that Mr. A. C. Becker has not been 
 dealt with according to the true intent of the Rubric, which is to promote 
 penitence in the offender, as well as to remove scandal from the Church. 
 
 The Bishop, therefore, does not sustain the repuhiun of Mr. A. C. Beck- 
 er from the Holy Communion, by the Rev. Mr. Walker, but considers him at 
 a communicant admonished of his fault, and exhorted to repentance and a 
 godly life.\ 
 
 PHIL. CHASE. 
 Bishop of the P. E. Chh. in 111. 
 
 Jtcne 4th, '44, Chicago, 111. 
 To the Rev. W. F. Walker. 
 
 Thus was Becker restored to what the Bishop had decided h^ 
 could not say should be granted him, lest it should, in a certain 
 event, lead to results " entirely schisraatical ;" restored to what was 
 never his, and what, within a very few days, on the steamboat, be- 
 tween Chicago and Buffalo, by the grossest dissipation, he proved 
 himself unfit to enjoy. 
 
 And thus vN^as fastened on the respondent an enemy whose boasi 
 it was that he could and would crush the respcuident, for he had the 
 Bishop on his side. 
 
 His work was immediately commenced; with what succes.s he 
 andKinzie prosecuted it, aided by some few, mostly of, or in alli- 
 ance with their families '^the presentment" that followed, " Mf pre- 
 sentment of 1844," is evidence. 
 
 N, page 29. 
 The letter referred to may be seen on page 68. 
 
 • To the statements in this paragraph, the respondent excepted at the tinsc. as foI!ow» 
 
 " 1st. That I did not admonish Mr. Becker before lii« repulsion, does not appear in 
 the evidence, and cannot tlieretbre, consistently, be so stated ; and, 
 
 ".2d. That I ' drank with liim, and a third person, one bottle of Claret, and half b 
 (luart bottle of Madeira or S^herry wine,' the ovidiuce does not show. It was in evi- 
 dence most expiicitiv that; on the" occasion lelerrcd to, ladie.> '.vere at the table, in ad 
 dition to the gentleriien named; and this was true to the nuniliur of three ; thus making 
 the total who participated in the wine six, at least, iu-'^tcad of ihrec only, as the d*-cii- 
 ion untruly asserts." 
 
 Why were these points thus strained beyond the testimony ? Did justice, or cliarity 
 or truth require it? 
 
 tOn the decision in the case of Becker above given, a friend propa^ed, at the tim< ,ili« 
 following queries : — 
 
 '■ 1st. Can a Lutheran, communinp in the Church on sufferance, if repelled, have the 
 right of appeal as contemplated in Canon XLIL? 
 
 • 2d. Becker having been a communicant on sufl'ernnce simply, can Bishop Chaw, 
 under the advice ijivcn in hi.s letter to the Kector of Kov. lUMi, coDiisteutly or rieht- 
 I'ully entertain his appeal ? 
 
 '■ M Can a Lutheran, or other dis.<=enter, who lefuscs to submit to the Rubrics and 
 Canons of the Church, specially a^ regards conflrmation, claim, to ttaud on a footing, 
 iQ point of jjrivi'eRe, with loyal members of the Church ? 
 
 ■'4tli. (;an a dissenter who owuh not allegiance to the Church, and contemns her 
 laws, claim the i)rotection of the ( hurch, orthe application of her laws, in yindicatinj 
 iiimself against the e.\pres9 torms of those laws' 
 
 ■' 6th. Can Bisliop Cnase compel hi.s prc-bytcr to appear as prosecutor on appeale, in 
 ,iHf case; but nivire especially in the ca.se of a dissenter? 
 
 •' Gth. Does the right of appeal extend to Mormons, who, under the decision of Bian- 
 i>p Chase, hat^i;? been bapjiwd Uttj^Cl >>«^|SiOf the Trinity, may claim the right oi 
 Communion in the Church ?" ' ' ' ' 
 
 — ,<.j '.i iii-y.: ■'•■■I' '" '•'■ '■■■ 
 
 <d.t baa .jx' .u beth^w 
 
6)C 
 
Efci2 
 
V 
 
 
 V^' 
 
 ^