The Pastor, the Missing Husband, and the Seattle Libel Trial

Yesterday Judge Humes gave over the entire day to a hearing of the case of the State vs. Rev. M. H. Nichols, charged with criminally libeling Dr. T. B. Ford, presiding elder of the Puget Sound Conference of the M. E. Church. The state rested after introducing six witnesses, and the defense closed its side of the case, at which time the court took a recess until 9:30 o'clock this morning. The courtroom was crowded with perhaps the most intelligent audience that has attended a trial since the noted prosecution of Ursula [illegible], in whose welfare many church people took an abiding interest. The First Methodist church was well represented, both by ministers and laymen, and many ladies were in attendance. Inside the bar, mingling with the crowd of attorneys, was a great number of pleasant-faced pastors, many of whom had grown old in the service, and on all sides were people who marked every step in the proceedings. Among those present were Revs. W. A. Shanklin, G. H. Few of Tacoma, H. D. Wadsworth, [illegible], T. E. McMullen, A. Atwood, W. T. Ford, S. Davis, W. P. Mallory, M. A. Covington, E. R. Hayward, T. B. Ford, W. H. Johnstone, Dr. J. E. Martin of San Jose, Cal., R. Hatfield, H. White, and F. S. Pearson; Mr. and Mrs. George Kinnear, Mrs. John R. Kinnear, Mrs. A. Atwood, Mr. and Mrs. A. H. Foote, C. F. Kaggert, E. L. Blaine, Mr. Ritchie Kinnear, Mrs. Mary Scott, Miss Mabel James, Ed Reese, Robert Ford of Olympia, Dr. and Mrs. M. L. Alderson of Olympia, K. B. Fowler and wife, Mrs. W. T. Ford, Judge Ladd, and others. Dr. E. G. Johnson, whose unpleasant experiences in the First Methodist Episcopal church had been made a subject of widespread comment, was also seated just outside the bar. An interested spectator was Rev. D. W. Calfee, a modest, unassuming man seated near the attorneys' private entrance. He wore the regulation black suit and a closed standing collar, giving him the appearance of a Catholic priest; Mr. Calfee said he had been addressed as 'Father' a number of times while on the street Tuesday. What his testimony would be no one could tell until today, when he was to be placed on the stand by the defense. The task of selecting a jury proceeded with unusual dispatch for a criminal case, and soon the twelve men were chosen. The only peculiarity of the jury is that with but a single exception they are non-churchgoers, and on this account perhaps will be considered impartial arbitrators of a controversy between ministers of the gospel. They are: H. Coombs, P. Stewart, J. R. K. Cook, M. Bronson, T. J. Quigley, A. Lynes, J. W. Young, H. G. Turner, F. H. Renick, T. C. Hopkins, P. C. Shannon, and G. M. Leighton. The alleged libelous document circulated by Mr. Nichols was dated Seattle, Wash., April 29, 1890, and signed M. H. Nichols, care George W. Knowles, Room 9, Llewellyn Lodge Building, Seattle. It charged, among other things, that Dr. Ford had used his influence in the Arkansas Conference to protect a preacher accused of embezzling missionary money; that Ford had secured an appointment as presiding elder by misrepresenting his work to Bishop Scott; that Ford had been involved in the removal of Dr. G. W. Gray from Little Rock University; that Ford had once seduced a young hired girl and later married her; and that Ford had an illegitimate child in Argenta, opposite Little Rock. Nichols wrote that he gave the facts 'just as they were given to me, or as they are personally known to myself,' and that 'the interests of public morals and the cause of Christ demand that they be made public.' After ex-Justice of the Peace Burt J. Humphrey had been called to identify the document issuing from his court at the preliminary examination, Dr. Ford, the principal witness, took the stand. He detailed the occurrences of his work in the Arkansas Conference, told the story of how he met the present Mrs. Ford, then Miss Mary Ivy, how he became engaged to her in the late 1860s, how the engagement was broken, then renewed after the mysterious disappearance of J. N. Burke, who in the meantime had married Miss Ivy, and how the second courtship was followed by a happy married life. The testimony developed a bit of tragic history. Mrs. Ford's first husband was a Reconstructionist and went to Arkansas in the stormy days after the war, in the height of Ku Kluxism. He had been married only a few months when he left home, never to return, and to this day nothing has been heard of him. After he had been absent about a year, Mrs. Burke commenced an action for divorce and obtained a decree on the ground of abandonment. Dr. Ford was questioned closely on this point and on his right to marry the divorced woman. He said: 'I supposed that Mr. Burke had been murdered; if not, that he had abandoned his wife. My position was that legally, under the law of the state, and morally, under the law of Moses and of Christ, I had a right to marry her. Her father, as I understood it, had advised her to procure a divorce and restoration of her maiden name to avoid any complications that might arise. There was never any return to the original affection between us until after legal separation. At the time I advised fully with my fellow elders and other associates.' To clinch this point the state introduced as an exhibit a certified copy of the divorce. It showed that the case had been heard before William N. May, judge of the Sixth Judicial District, holding court at Ozark, Franklin County, Ark., March 1871, the ground alleged being that Burke had willfully deserted and absented himself from his wife for more than one year. Dr. Ford was also questioned as to the 'if' of his character, and he declared that a conspiracy had been entered into while he was in Arkansas to oust all the preachers. Two of the charges had been investigated by Mr. Calfee. The trial had been an open one before the conference and not by a committee, and Dr. Ford stuck to that statement during a severe cross-examination. Explaining the procedure of the church, he grew very earnest, enforcing his remarks by emphatic gestures and striking the arm of his chair with his closed hand. He said: 'I was not tried, if the court please, gentlemen of the jury, by Mr. Winsor or by a committee. The trial took place in open conference, and that was the only time my character was ever arrested in Arkansas.' The next witness was Rev. W. T. Ford, brother of Dr. Ford. He manifested considerable feeling at the enormity of the charges and, after corroborating the statements previously made, told how he had met Mr. Nichols just after he had been examined by a committee in the Tacoma Conference. Asked if he had shaken his fist in Mr. Nichols' face, he said, 'No, sir.' Asked what he did say, he straightened up and hurled his answer at the questioner: 'I said this to him: If it were I in place of T. B. Ford, I'd yank you out of here so quick it would make your head swim.' Rev. W. A. Shanklin testified that Nichols had handed him one of the circulars similar to the one read to the jury. Mrs. Ford was then called to the stand and told the following story: 'I first became engaged to Dr. Ford in April 1868, but the engagement was broken the following year, and in February 1870 I was married to Mr. Burke, whom I had met the preceding August. He left home the following June, and I have never heard from him from that day to this. I firmly believe he was murdered. He was a Republican and therefore regarded by the Ku Klux with extreme disfavor. He was a kind-hearted and indulgent husband. His life had been threatened a number of times. Mr. Calfee was at that time our pastor, but I was married by a justice of the peace, because Mr. Calfee was not an ordained minister.' Asked, 'Did you not elope?' she answered: 'No, sir. I did not need to elope. My father and mother knew all about the matter.' Mrs. Ford next stated the reason she had brought proceedings for divorce. That course had been recommended by her father. If Mr. Burke was dead, the action did no harm; if he were alive, then he had deserted her, and she could not under any circumstances have consented to live with him again. Mr. Ford came some time after that, sending a letter the week before his arrival. She answered it, and the day after meeting him they became re-engaged. Her father had never threatened Ford in any way. The recital of the tragedy in the witness's life was listened to with rapt attention, and as she stepped down from the trying examination her husband met her and kissed her in full view of the court and the assembled spectators. John C. Whitlock, attorney-at-law, was the last witness for the state. He said he had been present at the examination of Mr. Nichols in the Justice court and heard him say he was the author of the charges. Nichols said he had no personal knowledge of them, but that they had been predicated upon information and belief. He declared that the congregation had 'fired' Dr. E. G. Johnson out of the church, and thought that Ford ought to go if Johnson had to go. The charges, witness said, had been published, according to the testimony, by Nichols and Johnson, one of whom had distributed them and the other circulated them through the mail. The prosecution at the close of Mr. Whitlock's testimony attempted to secure an adjournment until today, but the court refused and called for the next witness. Mr. Ronald, who represented Dr. Ford in the prosecution, said they had but one more witness to put on the stand, but that witness was not in the courtroom. Judge Humes insisted that the trial proceed, and the prosecution rested. John Wiley, of counsel for Nichols, moved that the court peremptorily instruct the jury for a verdict of dismissal on the ground that no malice had been shown and that the accused had exercised merely a privilege under the rules of the church. Judge Humes overruled the motion, saying that he would let the jury pass upon the facts of the case. Mr. Winsor then stated the defendant's case to the jury, occupying about fifteen minutes. He placed the defense on the ground that Nichols had the right to circulate the charges; that it was his privilege and he had been justified by the circumstances. The defense, Mr. Winsor said, would show that several of the matters mentioned in the charges did actually occur, and that they were sufficient to warrant an investigation of Dr. Ford in this jurisdiction, even after the lapse of many years. 'Further,' Mr. Winsor continued, 'we will show that Dr. Ford, while on the Ozark circuit, not only became engaged to the woman who is now his wife, but went to a distant part of the state soon after; that while there her father made a protest and threatened to bring charges against him in reference to his treatment of the daughter; that about this time, in connection with this transaction, Mr. Burke made his advent, and that he was introduced into the Ivy family through letters of introduction from Dr. Ford to Mr. Calfee, his successor; that although Mr. Burke was not a member of the church, he was recommended by Dr. Ford as a man one could tie to; that he was received by Mr. Calfee and became acquainted with the Ivy family at the instance and through the means of Dr. Ford as an instrument to relieve him from a most unpleasant predicament; that Burke and Miss Ivy became infatuated, and that the former spoke to Calfee, who remonstrated with him; further, that Mr. Calfee went to the father, telling him about the matter, but the latter said he was powerless to act; that when the couple went away they eloped, and without communicating with Mr. Calfee sent for a justice of the peace to perform the ceremony; that on the way this man Burke purchased some whisky, but the woman took it away from him and threw it into the road; that Calfee, however, was present at the wedding; that these facts came to the notice of Nichols, who said nothing until he learned of the difficulties in the church here; that when he heard of Dr. Ford removing men and putting in their stead men of not notorious characters, he thought it his duty to bring the matter before the church; that in doing this he had employed proper methods.' Mr. Nichols sat near his attorneys, now and then suggesting to them a point bearing on the examination. He watched every move of the proceedings, and while his face was free from excitement he did not manifest any very great concern. Today the defense will put forward the witnesses to establish the facts set forth in Mr. Winsor's remarks. It is thought that Mr. Calfee will go on the stand before noon. From present indications the case will tax the county court's memory to its utmost limit. The case was undoubtedly to go to the jury before night.