The Circular of Rumors That Landed a Minister in Court

The hearing of the charge of criminal libel brought against M. H. Nichols by Rev. Dr. T. E. Ford was held in Justice Humphreys' court yesterday afternoon. After a four-hour session, Nichols was held to answer before the superior court, and $500 bail was fixed; he was committed to the county jail.

When the case was called at 1 o'clock the little courtroom was crowded with leading lights of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Rev. Dr. T. E. Ford was present as prosecuting witness. The state was represented by Assistant Prosecuting Attorney McBride and J. T. Ronald, and Nichols was defended by Frank Spear.

The typewritten circular on which the libel was based was used in evidence by both sides. It brought out that Nichols could not substantiate any of its charges with positive proof, and he was forced to admit that his knowledge was only hearsay. From Dr. Ford's testimony, Nichols was shown to be a dyspeptic crank and a generally disappointed man whose ministry had been a succession of failures.

The state's case was brief. Dr. Ford identified the circular as having been given by Nichols to Dr. Griffith of Cincinnati and other parties. Rev. W. T. Ford testified to seeing Nichols on July 31 at the First M. E. Church circulating the document concerning Dr. Ford, and saw him give Dr. Hartzell of Cincinnati a copy, also to two ladies who were strangers to him. Rev. W. A. Shanklin testified that on Friday afternoon, August 31, in his church, Nichols handed him a copy. The paper was submitted in evidence, and the prosecution closed.

The defense moved for dismissal on the ground that no case had been made out. The motion was denied, and Nichols took the stand. He testified that he united with the Arkansas conference in 1872, transferred to the Southern Illinois conference, then to the South India mission, thence to the Austin conference, thence to the Texas conference. About three years ago he united with the Free Methodist Church; he had been in the Sound country four years. He first made a statement of these accusations to Rev. Mr. Gilbert, then pastor of the First M. E. Church, and since then to other ministers and leading members.

Nichols' attorney took up the circular paragraph by paragraph. Nichols went back to the early history of the church in Arkansas, where Ford had been a minister, and tried to bring in what certain people in Arkansas had said about Ford. This was ruled out of order because Ford had not been present at those interviews. The witness was confined to facts within his own knowledge, and the ruling materially checked the flow of his evidence. Every time he attempted to make a statement, the question "Was Rev. Mr. Ford present at that conversation?" put a stop to his eloquence. Every allegation in the paper was put through the same test, and Nichols, finally cornered, said he had no personal knowledge of any of the charges he brought against Ford, having made them on the hearsay evidence of others. He believed them true when he made them and still believed them true.

By "ringed, straked and speckled," a phrase in the circular, he meant that the conference voted exactly as Ford wanted. He knew that of his own knowledge. About Rev. Dr. Gillam being an opium eater and a drunkard, he gave that on the evidence of others. About Ford "deserving a patent on a new method of securing the degree of D.D.," Nichols said that was also hearsay and he had no personal knowledge of any of the facts in that paragraph. Nichols could remember the name of only one man who had told him of some of the charges—Judd. He could give no other names. He could not say of his own knowledge whether Ford ever resided in Little Rock, nor whether the Little Rock matters were of general notoriety. He had no malice and no personal feeling against Ford. He was simply doing what he thought was his duty. He believed every word he had written.

On cross-examination Nichols admitted writing the article and delivering copies to Rev. Mr. Shanklin and others. On going to Tacoma he took a number of copies and circulated them, though he never sent any by mail. He authorized a certain man in this city—Dr. B. Johnson—to use the facts in the circular. He knew that no man except one in good standing could prefer charges in the church; he took copies to members of the conference. He went to Dr. Johnson after Johnson was put out of the church and sympathized with him, thinking it an outrage, and thought that if Johnson was to be put out, Ford ought also to be put out. He worked to that end. He had heard of other immoral people in the church, but did not know their acts to the same degree as Ford's. When he was a minister in good standing he did not bring charges because he had been in the church only about a year. The circular was not a set of charges against Ford, he said, but a set of statements covering rumors heard, to be used by others who could bring charges.

He did not charge Ford with these things eight or ten years earlier because he had no confidence in the preachers of the Arkansas conference, who were all so corrupt and under the influence of T. B. Ford that no charges against him would ever have been given a hearing.

The paragraph reflecting on Mrs. Ford's character, he said, was published on the testimony of D. W. Culver. He knew nothing about her character, but had no reason to disbelieve the parties who gave him information. He did not know of his own knowledge that Ford had embezzled church or missionary money, or any of the charges in the circular. He said he had never been married. Some statements in the circular might not be correct; he could not say positively. His opinion that Dr. Ford was a scoundrel was based on Ford's defending Ramsay. To defend a scoundrel, he said, makes the man who defends him a scoundrel. He admitted he was an iconoclast, pronounced in his views, and proposed to continue his fight against certain persons as missionaries, and especially against Freemasonry.

The minutes of the Arkansas conference were introduced, showing that Rev. T. H. Ford, having labored in that conference for many years, had the confidence of its members. The pamphlet was admitted in evidence. Nichols' attorney said the most corrupt religious body on record was the Little Rock conference, and the next was the Puget Sound conference, "which was a ring that was more dangerous than the Roman Catholic Church." His client, he said, was persecuted by these men, who were making the same fight against Dr. W. P. George, a man of unblemished record, and there were thousands of good Methodists on the Coast who would testify at the coming trial in the superior court as to the character and doings of ministers and delegates in this Puget Sound conference.

Rev. G. A. Larden was called for the defense. He had asked Nichols whether he could prove the charges in the circular, and Nichols replied no—that it was only hearsay. Larden told him such evidence could not be used against Ford unless better authenticated, and he should not make such statements unless he could prove them. This closed the defense.

For rebuttal Dr. Ford was recalled. He did not know any Rev. Farmer mentioned in the circular and never knew such a minister connected with any conference. He denied all references to himself. He had a degree of D.D. and a diploma, and received the degree from Chattanooga University without soliciting it; it was given without his knowledge. He denied ever committing the crimes set forth in the circular. He married his wife in her father's home in Arkansas in 1873. They had five children, the first born three years after marriage. He knew nothing in his life that would give color to the accusations. Nichols' assaults, he said, were the result of general disappointment.

Ford testified that Nichols was appointed to Pine Bluff as his successor to organize a new society and congregation of leading citizens, one of whom was now on the United States circuit bench and others held important state and federal positions. Through his crankiness and unacceptability the congregation scattered. He left the field, abandoned his charges and went to another part of the state, where he undertook to teach colored schools. He came to the organization of the Arkansas conference of 1873 and chose to remain a member of the old conference, thus avoiding answering to the new one. He refused the appointment given by the St. Louis conference, went into Illinois for a few months, went to India under Mrs. Taylor's self-supporting missionary work, returned after failing there, and entered work in Texas, where he again proved unacceptable. He transferred to the Arkansas conference, refused his appointment, and was requested to locate by action of the conference. He had always been dissatisfied, criticizing bishops and general officers and alleging grave offenses against prominent and useful members. He railed that the officers were all Freemasons and circulated anti-secret-society publications exposing Masonry.

On cross-examination Ford said Nichols could have been tried by the conference for abandoning his work and for a rumor connecting him with the wrecking of a home in Pine Bluff. Nichols denied the latter statements.

Dr. Ford attempted to introduce sworn statements of good character from Dr. W. H. Gillam of Chase, Kan.; Rev. D. H. F. Church of Oklahoma; and Rev. L. C. Obarr of Russellville, Ark. One was read but ruled inadmissible.

The case was then submitted without argument. Justice Humphrey held that it was a case on which a jury should pass, and bound Nichols over to the superior court in $500 bail.