The National Banner, Volume 8, Number 37, Ligonier, Noble County, 8 January 1874 — Page 5

The National DBanner.

C. G. FAIT'S RESPONSE TO "HOMO'S” SLANDER, IN THE " “BANNER” OF DEC. : 18th, 1873, FRIENDS AND FELLOW-CITIZENS -~ Most of you have, no doubt, noticed that some defender of secret, oathbound societies, over the ficticious name of “Homo,” has made a desperate attempt to injure me for daring to use the liberties that belong to every American citizen—for simply reviewing a masonic, lecture and publishing to the world some of the false claims and absurd reasonings of Prof. Ray and others, as published in the BANNER of November 27th, which article please read ence more and be satisfied in your own minds whether there is any just cause for all the per‘sonal abuse given me by this secret “Homo.” i - Many of yeu, fellow-citizens, would like a fair and honest discussion of the principles of secret institutions. 1 would love a discussion of this kind . myself, but I am riot prepared to believe there are very many honest readers who ‘love to see a guerrilla or bushwhacking mode of warfare. But it seems to me this secret writer, “Homo,” must court that kind of warfare, he having adopted it. Why did he not attempt to answer my. article

by fair and honest means—Dby refuting ‘my arguments in a manly way? I answer, simply because secret insti- " tutions will not bear investigation, ox an honest discussion of their principles. As the institutions he is trying to defend are tyrannical in their government, and false and deceptive in their claims, they can only be maintained by slander, burlesque and .de- . eeption. - -

I am of the opinion that the rules and regulations of the secret fraternities which “Homo” is trying to defend are in perfect harmony with the above declarations, as these ingtitutions obligate their members to refrain from discussion but binds theem to defend the reputation of the institutions, as well as of individual members. = Consequently it is but natural to gonclude that,- in order to fulfill their lodge obligations{, they are bound to injure each and every person’s reputation who by discussion, writing, lecturing, or otherwise, is bringing these secret institutions into disrepute. And this combined effort of secret order -men ‘to injure the character, or reputation for honesty and :integrity, all. those who openly oppose these institutions is a terror to most men, and “Homo’s” object would have been accomplished had he forever silenced my pen, or weakened the people’s confidence in what I say about these secret fraternities. Do vou not recollect that “Homo” in his last article complains that I am insensible to ridicule and ignorantly proof against censure? I hope.l may, with the aid of Divine Providence, never he swerved from doing my duty ag a Christian or as a citizen of our common country by the sneers, ridieule and censure given by this secret "“Homo." I remember the saying of our Savior, as recorded in Matthew Vil 12; o Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. = : Rejoice, and be exceeding glad; for great i 3 your reward in heaven; for so persecuted they the Prophets which were before you. . : But I regret the existence of institutions among us that bind their menibers to protect the reputation of individual members, and, also, of, the institutions themselves, without being permitted to do so by argument. Therefore, you need not wonder at the course of defence adopted by this secret writer. He has simply adopted the usual mode of defense enacted all over this beautiful land of ours for

SUPPLEMENT.-LIGONIER, IND., JANUARY Bth, 1874.

‘the protection of secret fraternities, whexfever there is any discussion at all upon the principles of these insti‘tutions. And I .believe this writer has simply fulfilled his lodge obliga- | tion in writing as he has. : ; Notwithstanding the majority of secret order men advocate the silent ' tougue, “Homo,” you remember, in his last article intimates that 1 am not his personal enemy, which, if true, is further proof that his lodge obligations have brought forth his articles “of personal slander, simply to destroy my articles. o P In the second paragraph of “Homo’s” last article, he says he acknowledges no superior to whom he is responsible, save the majesty of the law.. Now,lf “Homo,” in his opinion, is no€ accountable even to God for his utterances, and withholds his.name to avoid pub‘lic censure and disgrace, how much confidence do you think you ought to place in him ? < ~ Again, “Homo" intimates that I ~ have aragged into the public prints the names of my fellow-citizens without their consent and made .them appear as advisors, or backers, against their will. Fellow-citizens, this was not my object, but simply to show|you the class of men this secret “Home” considers as the low, the degraded, the ignorant and uncharitable, simply because they are opposed to seeret societies. I,however, mentioned the name of one professed anti-Mason who, by the burlesquel and ridicule of secret order men, became dissatisfied with having his name mentioned simply as a co-laborer. - s But who, my fellow-citizens, do you ~ really think is the party trying to hide behind a name not his own? Isit not

he who is'agshamed to let the public know who is the author of his slanderous and ungentlemanly attacks? 1 will now pay particular attention to the insinuation thatl“betrayed my reverend counselor.” The facts are, the counselor referred to (Elder R. Faurot) betrayed me, and every antiMason of our town so undc;rst.ands it. Some Masons, also, admit the fact. I propose now to portray the betraying and betrayed, by giving a true and faithful extract of the action of each in regard to said council: - In view of an impending trial, I wrote to R. Faurot, of Newville, this State, about the 20th of last September, asking him to eome to Ligonier ‘and act as counsel for me- during the trial, which was to take place on the evening of the 26th, or, at all events, to come and see that justice be done all parties. He accordingly came, but {in his own lapguage) “merely as mediator,” instead of being my counselor. He, acting in the capacity of mediator, learned the cause®and nature of the difficulty from both Masons and antiMasons, his sole object being, apparently, to effect a compromise. He went to the pastor and church officials and drew up a paper, such a 8 would suit the parties bringing charges against me, providing I would put my name to said paper.. This paper was first presented to me about three hours previous to the time set for the trial. Faurot urged and expostulated; said he would abandon me and publish me in the public print as being unwilling to accept a fair proposition if I did not sign the paper containing the demanded concession. Failing in his attempt to obtain my ‘signature, he then :proposed that I might scratch off, interline and change some objectionable parts ; and further, agreed that I should have the privilege of commenting opon and making verbal explanations of said paper, and all to be taken together as.any concession to the church. Whereupon; by this arrangement, I thought I could remove the more objectionable parts, save my membership in’ the church, avoid having my name east out as

evil by false brethren, and, last, but not least, avoid being censured, as threatened by the counselor; through the public print. - Ini view of these shings, after some interlining, and with the assurance of R. Faurot that my. verbal exp;anation' should accompany the readiflg of said concession, 1 appended my signature. A few minutes after my name went upon the paper it was read, and when I made the explanations I wished to accompany said concession .the masonic brethren began to object to this, that and the other, and it soon became evident they were determined that the interlining should be stricken off, and it was finally decided by vote that the original written part of the statement, without note or comment, sheuld go in the public lirint as my concession. Thus the church transcends the agreement made with me by Faurot when my name went upon the paper, and by so doing has forced upon the public. a concession that I never could make with my own heart and hand, and one which I believe in part to be incorrect. And I'am only to be censured for being influenced by the persuasions and threats of my counselor to sign said paper, and for sitting by in silence when the vote was taken to publish the original as my coneession. ! In justice, however, to all parties 1 would here remark that I believe Mr. Faurot, over-anxious to effect a compromise, failed to inform the church authorities, as a mediator should, of the stipulated conditions. upon which -1 signed the paper and, also, sat by in silence while the conditions of my signature were being violated. ‘ So closed the trial on the evening of September 26th, 1873., The next Sunday, only two days after the trial, I _asked of the church authorities the privilege of requesting the congregation not to insist upon putting in the " public print the concession, except it be accompanied with the interlinings and explanations, as agreed upon by our mediator. But I was denied even this privilege. : , ¢ After due deliberation, I determined that I could never submit conscientiously to this extorted concession—- " a concession made with other hands, and subsequently the conditions upon which my name went upon the paper were violated without so muech as even agking'my consent. And because I became dissatistied with this extort‘ed concession and publicly stated that I was sorry my name went u’pbn the paper, because of its incorrectness, - “Homo” makes ' hig insinuations of “hypocrite,” “broken terms sf repentance,” etc. But I deny ever having been the first party to break any térms, even of a compromise or reconciliation, much less being insincere in any statement made. In proof that there is no grounds for the insinuation of hypocritical repentance, I cite you to the fact that a considerable portion of the church—from eighteen _to twenty-five members —have already " withdrawn their féllowship from “Homo's” friends, the rulers of the socalled Disciple church, and all others upholding them in their unchristian conduct, while many others are highly displeased because of the trickery, insincerity and partiality on part of the rulers of said organization in exclud_ing me from their number. I cite you, also, to every intelligent antiMason of our town. : b

Four days after witnessing the trial (October Ist), R. Faurot wrote me, advising that the brethren preferring charges against me be called to an account, stating that said charges from the beginning showed nothing but wilful and malicious persecutions, and that I had manifold better grounds for preferring charges against them (the persecutors) and demanding action by the church, adding that there is no bitterness in words can

equal in heinousness, in the sight of God, the fact of living and defending an unchristian institution with oaths and obligations that bind its members to cut out each other’s tongues, hearts, vitals, eté,; that these masonic brethren claim that they alone have a right to be offended, and at words simply spoken against their secret brotherhood; that they deny me the rights claimed for themselves, and ‘which belong to every American citizen.— Which statement I believed then, as now, to be true. | , \

On the evening of the trial excluding me from the church, and after my exclusion, a secret order brother who was interested in the same having heard, through some of my friends, of the nature and tone of the letter, but being somewhat in doubt as to its‘correctness, called for the reading of said letter: As the letter contained nothing but advice in regard to myself and the church and, as I supposed, but little except what Faurot would, or should, say himself to the chureh, if he were present, in order to be consistent with said advice, I thought it right and proper to read it. . - Shortly after writing this advice, R. Faurot advised me personally to assist other aggrieved brethren in drawing up and @riting,out“charges to be preferred and send to him for his inspection and revision, which I accordingly did within a week. In about a week, or perhaps, less, he returned the charges with slight alterations. ‘;&ll._ however, had been re-written, as they came back in his own handwriting. Faurot also sent another letter of advicq.?with the returned charges, sta_t-' ing that Chapman-ought to be called to an account, as his course is a disgrace to the church, and that the’ brethren ought' to restore me to fellowship. A thing I never asked nor desired, unless G. W. Chapman was first required to cease. filling the office of Elder, because I believe, as Faurot wrote me, “the faet of being a Mason s 0 warps the judgment and influences the heart that Masons are morally incapacitated from doing justicé or reasoning the case impartially.” But R. Faurot, found that the secret order chiureh clique did not respect his here‘tofore good standing, but immediately on learning his disapproval of their unjust and impartial decision, the whole secret order power in the church became perfectly indignant. On learning of this state of things, R. Faurot found that he must change his opinion or be nade the subject of vile persecution. Unfortunately, he sacrificed principle and went back upon his advice and his word to satisfy the demands of the secret church clique who became offended at him for daring to express his opinion concerning their secret obligations and their unjust and partial decision. Faurot, being aware of the spirit actuating these brethren, as pictured out to me in his letter of advice, became exceedingly alarmed for his own safety and, therefore, determined to retract from his advice, and in order to do so, used the following stratagem to get hold of his letters of advice: =~ .

. Coming to Ligonier on the 30th of October, as we expected, to present these charges to the officers of the church with his own hands, as agreed, he asked me for all the necessary papers to refresh his memory of the exact nature of thecase. I accordingly furnished him al] the necessary documents, together with his last letter of advice to me, But the next day (Sunday) he came to me, at Matthias Marker’s, apparently in a great hurry, told me that he and Chapman had been disputing about the contents of his first letter of advice, which I still had in my possession, and asked me to let him have the letter. After securing his pledge to return the letter or a copy of it, in presence of Mr..

and Mrs. Marker and Mr. Hood, I gave him the letter. He then went immediately to G. W. Chapman and made arrangements to have him (Chapman) make a concession, or apology, to the church for him on that evening, which concession was made substantially as follows: °

Chapman arose in the_’ congregation, just before preaching, and, referring to the letter of advice which I had read to the church, stated that; “Fait, by his. unfavorable reading and emphasis, had placed Elder Faurot unfa--vorably before the brethren.” Then, to correct: my “unfavorable reading . and emphasis,” he read merely an extract from said letter, 'giving it the emphasis desired, and refusing to read the letter itself, though requested by, me to do so. The extract contained no allusion to the unjust and malicious . persecutions he had observed from the first by those who were from time to time the authors of charges against - me, leaving out, also, his statement that “Masons are morally incapacitated from doing justice or reasoning the case impartially,” also, that these brethren denied me the rights they claimed for themselves, and the rights that belong to every American citizen, barely stating I had better turn 'round = and prefer charges against them—referring to my persecutors. Q&n‘ld to set ‘himself right before this secretichurch clique, he permits G. W. Chapman to tead an extract from said letter of advice, and make a concession or an ex- A cuse for him 'to the church for the- - of Said advice. But, being asked the next morning concerning his acknowledgment, he said he did’ not, under the peculiar embarrassing circumstances, notice the absurd and false reason I claimed had been given - by Mr. Chapmdn for the .writing of said advice. He-also said if Chapman had actually stated what I affirmed he’ did, an apology was due me as well as himself. After proper investigation he acknowledges that I am correét. but is unable, as all others have been, to get an apology from Mr. C., altho™ the statement is untrue. I will repeat the false part of the statement referred to, viz: “The reason Faurot wrote the- - that he did is because Fait told Bro. Faurot that he could not be heard - inthe church.” Astonishing! to write such advice, because I told him Icould not be heard in the church, and only - four days after he had witnessed my hearing in the church, and before he and I ever talked together of any fur- 4 ther hearing. Neither would I have had any thoughts or intention of any . further hearing in the church had it not been for Faurot’s advice, both by letter and afterwards more particularly in pérson.'- Yet this extorted con, . cession is made and forced upon the . public by G. W. Chapman agaimt_ the will of the party for whom he is apologizing. Just think! of such a statement. An Evangelist whose business /it is to set the churches in order, tosee that dishonest tricksters (as in this. .gase) do not break down and ruin the churches by unjust, unscriptural and ‘partial treatment. An Evangelist, I say, whose province it is todo thisimportant business, Chapman states, took the advice of a single individual, and’ he being one who feels himself wrong--ed, advises charges to -be brought against those fourteen brethren preferring charges against me. If Fau‘rot had not observed any injustice during the trial he witnessed, nor been - convinced of partial and unscriptural treatment after two days investigation to effect a compromise, he would be considered insane to have given the advice that he did simply upon the tes- - timony of dne aggrieved individual.— But Faurot did not make this statement. Chapman made it for him,: Neither was Faurot aware of its being ' made until the next day. He knows, however, that he will be aceountable