Staunton spectator, and general advertiser. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 183?-1849, 1842-12-08


either Of the religious societies whose rights
have been brought into conflict in this investi-
CATION. This decision must therefore be free
from UNCONVENTIONAL influences II is as much
IN protection of parental authority among the
Baptists, as il is in a'lirmmce of similar right
among the Presbyterians. The principle oil
parental authority and tilial obedience has it's
home IN the human hearts, in accordance
with the law of nature, and will ever be near
and dear to every good man of every religion
under the sun. IL has already been remarked
that there is no limit to that authority, save
that which is necessary for the preservation off
the health and morals of the child Wi,hou,
the slightest disrespect for the Baptis;s. for
whom there is every respect for their virtues
and I'fety, 1t may safely be affirmed that the
morals OF the child were not endangered by
remaining within the folds Of the Presbyterian
church, IN which it had been baptiscd, and to
which It's mother belonged. There was, there
lore, no just ground for interfering with the
fparent's authority, or for participating in the
act OF filial disobeGience committed by the
child. This proceeding cannot he justified
under any claim founded upon the rights of
conscience. The child whose conscience
stimulates it into open rebellion against the
lawful authority of its father, stands more in
need OF proper Instruction and discipline under
that authority than any other. lr every child,
under claim founded upon the supposed
rights oil conscience, were allowed 10 carry in
10 elect every decision OF its immature iudg-
ment, where Is this 10 end Who shall pre-
scribe limits 10 the crude conceptions of its
youth and ineXperience Shall il be allowed,
under this pretence, To violate the law Of God
to repudiate the christian religion to become
Il Jew or Mahomedan Or, retaining the
christian NAME, shall it be allowed tc mingle
, with the hatle-aNe community, who make it
matter Of conscience to disregard the holy in
stiu'ion OF marriage Or, upon the pretence,
shall the beloved daughter of christian par
en,, in moment Of dclusion, and in the tender
e years OF her minority, be allowed to become
J.. one OF the secret wives of the Mormon Pro-
: phet?
c 1t is dangerous 10 depart from established
S principles. Parental authority is not to be
{ subvcred so long as it is exercised within the
limits which the law has prescribed. Ii is the
i duty OF the parent to regulate the conscience
1 Of the ehild,by proper attention to its cduca-
: non; and there isno security for the offspring
n during the tender years of its minority, but in
obedience to the authority of its parents, in all
things not injurious to It's health or MORALS
o We wish ii distinctly understood that no
5 lmputa;ions are cast upon the motives of Rev.
q Mr.. Hall. We believe tina, lie acted conscien-
# tlousiy as he conceived to be right. But, in
our opinion, he has transcribed the divine and
] human law, i'll dsrcgardng the authority of
the father over his own offspring while in its
minority. This is the opinion OF The consti-
tutional auhority-the result of our ccnscien-
tous convictions of the law, anG il is hoped
that he will feel himself bound to respect it
accordingly, in after proceedings. IN refusing
2 10 "render To- Cesar the things that are Cc-
/, sar's," he has fallen under the condemnation
e OF the law. IL rs therefore ordered that he
naY the c2flf oi iliS RPqlepatYaBa: JUDGE.
! Since The publication of the above interesting
decision, has attracted the notice Of ether judges
and Judge Lewis has been assured of the concur
: renee III his opinion of some OF the most able
Jarists. The following correspondence shews
, mat he is fully sustained by Chancellor Kent, of
/, New York:
Extract of a letter from Judge Lewis, 10 gen.
tIeinan In Harrisburg, and by him communica.
ted tor publication 10 The Pennsylvania Repo1-
ter.
CIV ILLIAM3poRT, Oct. 18th, 1872
I'm accordance with your request, / have this
day transmitted to your address copy OF my o.
pirlon ON parental authority and filial obedience
as delivered in the case of the Common wealth VS.
, Armstrong. AWARE ihatthe case was new in urs-
prudence, although the principles which governed
IL were Old and well settled, anticipated mucl,
more opposition 10 it than have yet seen. Inthe
criticisms which have fallen under my observation
find nothing TO shake my faith in the correctness
OF That decision, or to require answer. In ira
Yelling over untrodden ground it is pleasant to find
ones pat! illuminated by the brightest lights of
The profession. i have had that satisfaction in
ihiS case. III any ones opinion Of This character
Is entitled to weight. IL is that Of Chancellor Kent,
lie has had the advantage of sixty-one years an
plication of his powerful mind to the pursuits of
the legal profession-siy years Of which he was
Supreme Judge--ten years Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court, and nine years Chancellor of
New York. The degree of Doctor of Laws, in
consideration OF his great legal learning, has been
three times conferred upon him by three different
Colleges The various editions of his &" COnimen-
idr'eS, show that they estimated as they ought
: to be by the profession. He is now preparing
new edition OF that valuable work, which has
been appropriately called the '.American Black
stone
1t has been my good fortune TO he upon terms
OF friendly correspondence with that good and
great man. Awaiting myself of this privilege, |
sent him copy of the decision as soon as il was
published. Afterwards. | desired him to favor
me with his opinion on the case presented For
your satisfaction subjoin his answer
I Yours, truly, ELLIS LEWIS.
NEW YoRK, Oct. 5th, 1912.
Dear 81! II have received and read will, nnncI
pleasure your opinion on the case Of Armstrong.
and agree with you in gour reassnine and e0n
: ciuSiOn. Before | received your friendIv letter
(lpI for ,pt,i 4, 4 y