In addition to his accomplishments as a clergyman, prelate, and scholar, Bishop Cheshire attained considerable skill and reputation as a sportsman. Fishing and hunting were the sports he liked best and the only ones he indulged in. He once remarked that he had been fond of fishing from his boyhood, but he thought his liking for it increased with age. His prowess as a fisherman was well known to his churchmen from the coast to the mountains of North Carolina. During the 1890's, when he was building up his mountain work, he would sometimes allow himself a few hours of relaxation to fish for the fine trout in the cold mountain streams. As a good fisherman should, he always carried his tackle with him when traveling near promising streams. In later years, whenever he had the opportunity, he returned to the mountains for a brief vacation of fishing.

On one of these trips, accompanied by his son, Joseph B. Cheshire, Jr., he was fishing in the Watauga River. When they came to a ford, the Bishop recalled that he had an old friend, Bill Holler, living a short distance away, whom he would like very much to see. Accordingly, they walked up the road about a half mile. Pausing at the foot of a mountainside, the Bishop asked his son to climb up and tell Mr. Holler that an old friend wanted to see him, but not to mention his name. Shortly afterwards, his son returned accompanied by a little old man, with long white hair and beard and a pleasant, wrinkled face. As soon as the old man saw his visitor, his face lit up with a smile, he threw open his arms, rushed up to the Bishop, and embraced him, crying: "Lord! It's the old Bishop, the old Bishop, the old Bishop!"

The Bishop's fondness for hunting was almost as great as that for fishing. He began hunting in early boyhood but, according to his own statement, he never became a good shot. Many of his hunting companions, however, would undoubtedly contest the point. Among the people of his Diocese he was famous for his skill in wild turkey hunting. Strange as it may seem, he did not kill a wild turkey until he was sixty-four years old. Up to that time he had hunted partridges a great deal, but as he grew older, he had to give it up because it required so much walking. Hunting wild turkeys, although strenuous enough, was better suited to his years. After his first kill, scarcely a season passed that he did not bag at least one turkey. As the Bishop's enthusiasm for this sport grew, he made an interesting collection of turkey calls. They ranged from several varieties made from the wing bone of the turkey to the box type, which was usually made of cedar.

Less than a month before his death Bishop Cheshire went turkey hunting in the Roanoke River swamp, near Scotland Neck. On this occasion, at the age of eighty-two, he killed a fine gobbler. About a week later he was to go to St. Stephen's Church, Oxford, for a visitation and planned while there to go turkey shooting with his friend, Rev. Reuben Meredith, rector of the church. His son Godfrey was to join them for the hunt on Monday. A few days before leaving home, however, he did not feel at all well and, after consulting his physician, informed his daughter, Miss Sarah Cheshire, he would give up the hunt. But by Saturday the Bishop was feeling so much better that on his way to Oxford he wrote his daughter the following letter:

"Dear Sarah:

When Godfrey comes to Oxford tomorrow have him bring my gun and the bag in which I keep my hunting clothes and turkey calls. I am going turkey hunting on Monday.

'When the devil was sick the devil a monk would be,
When the devil was well the devil a monk was he.'

Bishop Cheshire had an enviable reputation throughout the state as a raconteur of rare charm. Some of his best stories came from his fishing and hunting experiences, but they covered many other subjects as well. Most of his best anecdotes of personalities and events in North Carolina history are found in his book Nonnulla. It was not always the content of his stories which caught and held the interest of his listeners, but quite as often the manner in which the Bishop told them. For this reason they sometimes lose their color and charm when read or repeated by someone else. When he told an amusing story, which he often did, one of its best features was his own enjoyment in the telling and his hearty, contagious laughter. Another characteristic of the Bishop's stories was the natural way they appeared in his conversation, usually graphically illustrating or emphasizing a point. He never dragged a story into his conversation merely for the pleasure of telling it.

As a conversationalist, however, he did not depend upon his ability to tell a good story. He could talk interestingly to persons from any walk of life, seeming always to know just the right thing to say to each. He never flattered, but gave freely his candid opinion whenever requested. Although he talked a great deal himself, the Bishop made his listener feel that he was interested in his ideas and wanted to hear them.

In his role as a preacher of sermons Bishop Cheshire did not resemble his modern prototype, who quite often is more of a brilliant lecturer than a preacher. The Bishop employed no oratory in his sermons, but preached very much as if he were talking to a group of friends. He took a text from the Bible, most frequently from the New Testament, and proceeded to expound and interpret it, seldom using stories or anecdotes to illustrate his ideas. They were unadorned, straightforward expositions of religious truth. Of his sermons, the Bishop remarked to one of his clergymen, "Because a man is not converted to Christ through my teaching and preaching, I do not on that account conclude that he has rejected Christ; he has only rejected my representation of Christ."

Dr. Robert B. Drane, for more than fifty years rector of St. Paul's Church, Edenton, once wrote of a rather typical reaction to the Bishop's sermons. He invited a man, who scarcely ever came to church, to come to St. Paul's to hear Bishop Cheshire. The man said he would be glad to, that he had heard the Bishop preach several times, and that he "always talked sense." Dr. Drane remarked that if the thousands of persons who belonged to no church could be made to realize that "preachers did really talk sense," the membership of the churches would increase and religion would be more respected.

While not meaning to belittle the value of sermons, Bishop Cheshire sincerely felt that the prayers, responses, chants, and hymns of the church's service, climaxed by the supreme act of Christian worship, the celebration of the Holy Communion, held a greater significance for mankind and better satisfied spiritual needs.

Bishop Cheshire's interest and activities extended to all phases of the church's life in his Diocese. There was scarcely any work or endeavor of his people too small to attract his attention. He often remarked that it is "the little things that count." It was his capacity to understand and sympathize with the everyday problems of his people that so greatly endeared him to them. Although the Bishop never in any way permitted himself or his clergy to become involved in controversial political affairs, he displayed at all times a vital interest in the social problems of his state. When he felt it to be the duty of the church to take a positive stand on a social question, he did not hesitate to make clear her position and to take what action he believed best suited to the occasion.

The increasing number of divorces in North Carolina and the growing laxity of the laws on that subject was a problem which gave the Bishop much concern. In 1904 he called the matter to the attention of his diocesan convention and suggested a remedy for the situation. The Bishop asserted that there had been sufficient talk and theorizing upon the divorce question and that now was the time for positive action. The apathy of the public conscience, which had permitted the divorce law to be greatly modified, was, in his opinion, the cause of the divorce evil. Bishop Cheshire believed there was only one true reason for divorce: adultery. For many years it had been the only cause recognized by the state law, but in recent years frequent changes in the law to meet individual cases had created an unjustifiable condition. Not one of these modifications of the law had been adopted upon "any general principle of morals or of social science."

The Bishop called upon the convention to express its condemnation of the present legislation on the divorce question, and to issue an address to the people of the state urging the necessity of reforming the divorce laws. He also suggested that the convention appoint a committee to communicate with the other Christian bodies of the state in order to secure united action on the subject. After serious deliberation, the convention indorsed the Bishop's position. It authorized him to appoint a committee, of which he should be chairman, to publish an address to the people of the state expressing the sentiment of the Episcopal Church on the divorce question; and to prepare a memorial to the General Assembly requesting that the divorce laws be restored to the status of the code of 1883. The convention sent a request to the Diocese of East Carolina, the Jurisdiction of Asheville, and all the other denominations of the state to join in this memorial.

Bishop Cheshire lost no time in forwarding to every church conference or synod, meeting prior to January, 1905, the resolutions of his diocesan convention. Favorable action was taken on the resolutions by the Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, and Methodist Protestant churches. The Bishop attended the Presbyterian Synod and the Conference of the Methodist Church, and was cordially received.

When the General Assembly met in 1905, Governor Robert B. Glenn recommended that the divorce laws be restored to the form as found in the code of 1883. After a close consideration of the memorial of the North Carolina churches, the legislature enacted a law which embodied in substance the request of the memorialists.

Bishop Cheshire once more concerned himself with the divorce problem when the legislature of 1931 was considering several bills for modifying the conditions for granting divorces. At the time the bills were under discussion he was visiting his daughter in Louisiana. In order to place his views on the subject before the legislature, the Bishop addressed a letter to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives. It was published in the News and Observer of February 12.

He again attacked the practice of enacting special laws for particular persons, and asserted that in some incidents the laws were unconstitutional. He reviewed the efforts which he and many other citizens had made about twenty-five years before to restrict the causes for granting divorce. With public opinion behind them, their efforts had been successful, but since that time many of the old abuses had reappeared. The Bishop declared that from his knowledge of public opinion in North Carolina, sentiment against relaxing the divorce laws was as strong then as it had been twenty-five years before. In his letter he confined himself to one principal idea, "the will of the people of the State against personal influence in behalf of individual parties," believing that it would produce a greater effect than if he merely reiterated the usual moral and social arguments.

It cannot be said with certainty how much effect the Bishop's letter had on the members of the legislature, but coming from a man whose character and opinions were held in such high regard by North Carolinians, it must have had some influence upon the outcome. The proposed measures were defeated by large majorities in the General Assembly.

On one of the most controversial questions of the twentieth century, national prohibition, Bishop Cheshire held very definite views. He believed that each state should be allowed to decide the question for itself, and that a federal prohibition law would breed more evil than good.

Several years before the passage of the national prohibition law, Bishop Cheshire attended a meeting in Raleigh which was considering various aspects of social welfare work. He was present as an invited guest. The business of the meeting was moving along smoothly, when someone introduced a resolution to the effect that the meeting should memorialize Congress with a demand that the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages be made illegal in the United States. The resolution was received with much enthusiasm. Many speeches were made advocating its passage and all were applauded. After the enthusiasm had somewhat subsided and the question was about to be put, Bishop Cheshire asked permission to say a few words. He stated that he deplored excessive drinking and its evil consequences, suffered as much if not more by the innocent as well as the drinker. He sympathized with the purpose of the resolution to achieve more widespread temperance, but, he reminded them, good intentions unless intelligently directed often did more harm than good. Under the American system each state or community had the authority to outlaw liquor, as had already been done in North Carolina. So long as the prohibition of liquor was confined to those states whose public opinion was behind it, he believed it could be enforced. He did not think, however, that a federal law could be enforced in those states where public opinion and the state authorities were in opposition. He maintained that what had already been accomplished in some states in behalf of temperance would be jeopardized if an attempt was made to impose prohibition upon those states which were not yet ready for it.

Upon the conclusion of the Bishop's remarks, there was for a few moments complete silence. It was as if someone had thrown cold water over the entire meeting. When a member moved that the resolution be laid on the table, not a voice was raised in opposition to the motion, and the subject was dropped. The Bishop was never one to allow his intelligence to be overruled by emotionalism, and in stating his views on national prohibition he not only displayed his sound judgment but also proved himself a very good prophet.

Bishop Cheshire exercised a remarkable influence upon the people of his Diocese. One aspect of the effect of his character upon them is seen in the ready co-operation and assistance they gave him in his work for the church. The inspiration they caught from him was not a transient enthusiasm, but one which carried over from one endeavor to another. Above all, the Episcopalians of the Diocese loved their Bishop as a man—a vital, interesting personality who possessed none of the unctuous pompousness of the commonplace ecclesiastic. Miss Nell Battle Lewis once aptly characterized the Bishop as "much more than a Churchman, able Churchman though he is. Foremost, he is a man—a gentleman—of the most unswerving honesty, conviction, courage, kindness, humor, and charm."[42]

Throughout almost all of his Episcopate Bishop Cheshire had no secretary. By choice he attended to his correspondence himself, writing all of his letters in longhand. Towards the end of his life he employed a secretary for a short time, but soon found that he preferred to do the work himself. He kept letter-books in which he entered a record of every letter he wrote, giving the name of the person written to, the date, and the place he was writing from. According to his own records, he wrote during his Episcopate 66,778 letters. The Bishop never liked any help in doing something which he felt he was able to do for himself.

As a father Bishop Cheshire won the admiration of everyone who knew him. Each of his three daughters and three sons gave him their wholehearted love, obedience, and respect throughout his lifetime. He gained and held their devotion by his kindness, intelligence, and sympathetic understanding. He was a strict disciplinarian, but always preserved a tolerant and open-minded attitude towards the desires and weaknesses of youth. He treated his sons as men and expected them to act the part.

The Bishop gave his children all the advantages he could afford. Two of his sons were educated at the University of North Carolina, and the third attended the University of the South. His three daughters all went to St. Mary's School. When one of his sons was leaving home to enter college, the Bishop told him that he would not ask him to promise to refrain from forming bad habits at school, such as drinking and gambling, nor would he accept such a promise if his son offered it. He went on to say that he had tried to teach him right from wrong and that his son well knew what things he could do that would make his father happy and proud and those which would make him unhappy and ashamed. He wanted his son to conduct himself as a gentleman, not because of any promises made, but for the sake of decency. The Bishop asked him to remember that he would always stand up for him as long as he was in the right, but he would not defend him for a moment if he were ever guilty of misconduct. This straightforward, manly counsel made a lasting impression upon the son. It was typical of the Bishop's uncompromising and practical way of thinking on moral questions.