-
Articles/Ads
Article BROTHER J. LEE STEVENS. ← Page 6 of 23 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Brother J. Lee Stevens.
So that , thus far , of these three witnesses , Brother Barnard invalidated his own evidence , positively and distinctly , as to the accuracy of the paper , by proving that a very important part of the proceedings , which his own recollection supplied , was omitted . Although , as he subsequently admitted , he saw the statement in MS ., and added , I should not have hesitated to have suggested an alteration if I thought it to have been inaccurate . AVhy he did not correct it in this particular is evident . Had he done so , the denial of
Brother M'Mullen ( or the appeal , as Brother Barnard otherwise termed it ) , would not have stood so conspicuously recorded , if followed by the version given by him—lame as it is—of Brother AVatkins' reply . It was never the object of either Jackson , Barnard , or their abettors , to elicit the truth . Brother TRUMAN invalidated his own evidence upon the same point , although not so completely or directly as Brother Barnard . And Brother JACKSON having declared that the contents of his paper were true , as generally applied , when asked if the paragraph respecting Brother
Farnfield ' s resignation , " is that paragraph correct ? " replied , " substantially it is ; for Brother Farnfield told me so since it was printed . " Yet , when Brother FARNFIELD was examined with direct reference to this point , he testified thus—Brother STEVENS . —Refer to that paper . Have you ever admitted to Brother Jackson that the contents of that paper are true ? Brother FARNFIELD .- —No I I never spoke to him upon the paper since he brought it to me at the office . Brother STEVENS . — -Did you admit that the contents were substantially true when he brought it ? Brother FARNFIELD .- —I did not . I had never read it .
Brother S TEVENS . —Did you ever admit that the last paragraph was substantially correct ? Brother FARNFIELD N EVER ! And in this manner , to the fullest extent possible , falsified , unhesitatingly and emphatically , one of the most important and ( with one exception ) most easily tested points in the evidence of the most prominent party in the inquiry . A direct and unqualified assertion of the chief witness for the complainants irrevocably demolished by the clear and unquabfied
contradiction of another , and one whose evidence is unimpeached by either party . Let us estimate the value of Brother Barnard ' s and Brother Truman's evidence by the same standard . The former was re-examined by Brother King , with this question—Brother KING . —Brother Stevens asked you a question about Brother p " "amfield ' s resignation . Did he resign at the close of the meeting , or after the resolutions of the preceding meeting were confirmed ? Brother BAIINABD . —Distinctly not immediately next—not the very
nextafter the confirmation ofthe resolutions of the previous meeting . Brother TRUMAN having been referred to the paragraph respecting Brother Farnfield ' s resignation , fixed the period still more definitely by an affirmative reply , than his colleague by a negative , thus—Brother TRUMAN , —Brother FARNFIELD tendered his resignation at the close ofthe evening , very shortly after the remark about Sam Slick . Now Brother Farnfield , independently of his positive denial that he had made any admission to Brother Jackson in the words already quoted , when re-examined by tbe Complainants , who called him as their witness , as to whether Brother Jackson had not shown him the last paragraph in the printed paper , and whether he ( Brother Farnfield ) had not admitted it to be correct ,
says—Brother FARNFIELD . —I don ' t think he pointed out or said a word about it I went to the meeting prepared with a letter to resign my situation as Secretary I therefore COULD NOT have said so . Having previously given the following evidence—
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Brother J. Lee Stevens.
So that , thus far , of these three witnesses , Brother Barnard invalidated his own evidence , positively and distinctly , as to the accuracy of the paper , by proving that a very important part of the proceedings , which his own recollection supplied , was omitted . Although , as he subsequently admitted , he saw the statement in MS ., and added , I should not have hesitated to have suggested an alteration if I thought it to have been inaccurate . AVhy he did not correct it in this particular is evident . Had he done so , the denial of
Brother M'Mullen ( or the appeal , as Brother Barnard otherwise termed it ) , would not have stood so conspicuously recorded , if followed by the version given by him—lame as it is—of Brother AVatkins' reply . It was never the object of either Jackson , Barnard , or their abettors , to elicit the truth . Brother TRUMAN invalidated his own evidence upon the same point , although not so completely or directly as Brother Barnard . And Brother JACKSON having declared that the contents of his paper were true , as generally applied , when asked if the paragraph respecting Brother
Farnfield ' s resignation , " is that paragraph correct ? " replied , " substantially it is ; for Brother Farnfield told me so since it was printed . " Yet , when Brother FARNFIELD was examined with direct reference to this point , he testified thus—Brother STEVENS . —Refer to that paper . Have you ever admitted to Brother Jackson that the contents of that paper are true ? Brother FARNFIELD .- —No I I never spoke to him upon the paper since he brought it to me at the office . Brother STEVENS . — -Did you admit that the contents were substantially true when he brought it ? Brother FARNFIELD .- —I did not . I had never read it .
Brother S TEVENS . —Did you ever admit that the last paragraph was substantially correct ? Brother FARNFIELD N EVER ! And in this manner , to the fullest extent possible , falsified , unhesitatingly and emphatically , one of the most important and ( with one exception ) most easily tested points in the evidence of the most prominent party in the inquiry . A direct and unqualified assertion of the chief witness for the complainants irrevocably demolished by the clear and unquabfied
contradiction of another , and one whose evidence is unimpeached by either party . Let us estimate the value of Brother Barnard ' s and Brother Truman's evidence by the same standard . The former was re-examined by Brother King , with this question—Brother KING . —Brother Stevens asked you a question about Brother p " "amfield ' s resignation . Did he resign at the close of the meeting , or after the resolutions of the preceding meeting were confirmed ? Brother BAIINABD . —Distinctly not immediately next—not the very
nextafter the confirmation ofthe resolutions of the previous meeting . Brother TRUMAN having been referred to the paragraph respecting Brother Farnfield ' s resignation , fixed the period still more definitely by an affirmative reply , than his colleague by a negative , thus—Brother TRUMAN , —Brother FARNFIELD tendered his resignation at the close ofthe evening , very shortly after the remark about Sam Slick . Now Brother Farnfield , independently of his positive denial that he had made any admission to Brother Jackson in the words already quoted , when re-examined by tbe Complainants , who called him as their witness , as to whether Brother Jackson had not shown him the last paragraph in the printed paper , and whether he ( Brother Farnfield ) had not admitted it to be correct ,
says—Brother FARNFIELD . —I don ' t think he pointed out or said a word about it I went to the meeting prepared with a letter to resign my situation as Secretary I therefore COULD NOT have said so . Having previously given the following evidence—