Page:The Judicial Capacity of the General Convention Exemplified.djvu/8

6 church, until he had exhibited signs of sincere repentance, was it my duty to allow such a man to he foisted upon the Convention by the Executive Committee, and virtually made a member thereof, contrary to the provisions of its constitution? I thought not. I felt it to be my duty to protest against this arbitrary and unconstitutional method of making members of the Convention. But I did not wish to expose to the church at large the cruel wrong of which Mr. Wilks had been guilty. I therefore rose in my seat, and moved that the name of the Rev. Thomas Wilks be stricken from the list of names reported by the Executive Committee, on the ground that he was not a member of the Convention. This I deemed a good and valid objection, as it was a constitutional one. But it was not heeded. In spite of my earnest protest, based upon my constitutional rights, it was insisted that Mr. Wilks’ name should be retained where the Executive Committee had placed it. Seeing that this just and constitutional objection was altogether unheeded by most of my brethren (though I had never before known an individual out of the Convention to be made an officer in that body, against the remonstrance of even a solitary member), I stated, with much reluctance, that I had other, and still stronger reasons, for asking that Mr. Wilks’ name be stricken out, but that I did not wish to state those reasons publicly, before the Convention;—that I thought it most prudent, kind, and charitable, not to do so;—that I would willingly state them to the Executive Committee, or to any other committee whom the Convention might appoint, and they might judge of their validity. This most reasonable proposition —and one which, I think, ought to convince even the most prejudiced, how unwilling I was to give publicity to Mr. Wilks’ offence, was not listened to. So far from it, I was charged with uncharitableness for even making such a proposition. It was, some said (and said in not the most kind or Christian temper), dealing in innuendoes. It was virtually insinuating that there was something about Mr. Wilks a little too bad to be made public. By such uncharitable remarks as these, and by the unreasonable and vehement opposition which my proposition to refer this matter to a committee met with, I was constrained to say in substance, "Well, since brethren are determined to bring Mr. Wilks into the Convention in this peculiar way, and contrary to my solemn protest, and since they refuse even to appoint a Committee to hear and consider my objections, and since I dislike innuendoes and like plain speaking, probably as much as any other person, I will say that my principal reason for objecting to Mr. Wilks’ coming into this Convention, or being appointed to any office in it, is, that he has been guilty of a grave misdemeanor—a cruel slander—and one which has never been retracted nor acknowledged." Upon