The New era. [volume] ([Portsmouth, Va.]) 1845-1847, 1846-11-03

y f'o''" "sSo the meaning al the resolution,
some surprising it 10 be advisory, and others
mandatory. But | know no difference as to it's
a'nd,ng character. As FAR as ! know, none are
prepared to %concede, that a bishop may with i'm
punity violate even the adUice of the General
Conference when formally and explicitly given.
30 that with US the difference is a very incon.
siderable one at most" From the aboye ex-
tIac's' does 1t not appear that the DR. thinks the
BISHOP compelled, not advised, To desist from his
office? But how does the Conference cons,rue
the resolution passed in this case? On the day
alter ITS passage, Messrs. Slicer and SARGENT.
oiiered a resolution as explanatory Of The design
of the Conference in adopting the first. IL was
IN eftec, as follows " Rcsotped, That ths vote
in the case of Bishop Andrew. be understood as
advisory only. and not in the light of a judicial
mandate" This was rejected by a vote of rs to
65-Journal, 1914. p. IS.
From this act, we cannot but infer that il was
the intention Of The General Conference, to sus
pend Bishop A. from his office. Mr.. G.. states
several facts which he considers q sufficient proof
that he was not suspended" His enumeration
embraces the following, that the rule in rela.
tion TO a Bishops support applies to Bishop
Andrew and his family" and also. I" that his
name stands in the Minutes" If the simple re.
cording OF a mans name in the Minutes, and the
reception OF a mere support, are the oniu aualii
cations of a Bishop, we are willing to confess.
notwithstanding the action Of the General Con
ference, snspending him from the exercise of his
duties, that he is still a Bishop.
The argument of W." in reference In MIR
Harding seems To have been as much misunder
stood, and consequently as much misrepesented
as the one pertaining to Bishop Andrew. "W."
did not say that Mr.. Fl. was disonali6ed as a
member of the church, bat in using the term ex
pulslon, his meaning was, that he was deprived
OF his ministerial character. The reason alleged
by the Conference for degrading him from his
nffcp0I pocittnr ,rac H., l.
slaves. 1t was commended by Z" w" that this de.
cision was in violation of the Discipline, which
neuer compels a preacher TO forfeit his ministe-
rat character schen The emancipation OF his
SLAVES IS impracticabIe, and ,chere. after libera
tion. they cannot enjoy their freedom. Mr.. Fl.
could never resume his ministerial character until
he executed a deed of emancipation. The ques
tlon then arises. " was emancipation practicable
by the laws of Maryland 2" TO this we reply,
that it was absolutely impossible for Mr.. ii. to
manumlt his slaves, SO that they could remain
and enjoy their freedum. Judge Key, whose
opinion was taken by the Baltimore Conference,
says that, by an act of Assembly no person can
manumit a slave in Maryland" To prove that
emancipation was practicable. Mr.. Garrison, re-
iers TO Dorsey's Laws of Maryland, 1881 49,
The statute thus referred to, has M bearing upon
this case. AS Mr.. Garrison has his information
from undOubied authority he surely could moi
have been Ignorant of the existence of the law Of
1913. Ii ne is, he can find most of its provisions
quoted in the debate of the General Conference,
p. %. %.
Mr.. Harding derived his slaves by marriage,
or more correctly, acquired a right to their labor
during his life. But the entire law. pertaining to
this matter is condensed in the following brief
opinion of Judge Kew
"The Rev. Mr.. Harding having married Miss
Swan, who, at the time OF her marriage, was
entitled 10 SON e slaves. | am requested to saw,
whether he can legally manumit them, or not ?
by an act of Assembly. no person can mannmit a
slave in Maryland and by another act Of our As
sembly, a husband has no other or further right to
bis wife's slaves than their labor, while he lives.
He can neither sell, nor liberate them neither
can he and his wife, either jointly or separately
manumit her slaves, by deed, or otherwise. A
reference to the acts of Assembly of Maryland,
Will show this. EDMUND KEY"
April 25th, 1874.
1t is therefore, as it seems to us, very evident,
that NTH. was suspended from the ministry, for
not doing that which the laws of his State rem
dered impossible. and SO long as the Conference
Is consistent IN its action, he cannot be reinstated
until a repeal of The act of lS43. As the organ
of the church in this county, Mr.. Garrison is to
be presumed, TO be acquainted with the facts
relative TO the subjects under discussion. 1t is
therefore somewhat surprising that he should
have committee this egrPglous mistake about the
law bearing upon Mr.. Harding's case. If igno.
rant of its existence, he is inexcusable, for the
records OF his own church would have informed
him of 1t. If he was aware of il he is guilty of
wilfu! concealment Of the truth, and gross mis-
representation. In any point Of view, he exhibits
great presumption in %arraying his opinion in op
position to that of a gentleman accurately learned
IN the law of his own State.
In a former communication of " w" the Phil
adelphia Conference is charged with being aboli
lion in its feelings. In his last letter Mr.. CARR
son makes no attempt TO Tepel the accusation. A
Number OF circumstances were adduced by W."
to sustain the charge, and to show the real feel
ings of that body upon the subject of slavery
But since the publication of the letter containing
this imputation, a fact of more moment than any
therein contained. relative to this point, has been
brought to the notice of The writer.
The Rev. TT. Thompson, a member Of the
Conference alluded 10, and Presiding Elder of this
circuit, has been accused of giving a vote in the
General Conference, which renders him exceed.
ingly obnoxious to the South and all men of South
eTn feeling. His vote upon the Resolution pro-
hioIting negro testimony in the trial Of white per-
sons Is here referred To. BY reference 10 the
journal OF General Conference 1910, panes 60
and NV, IT will he seen that Resolutions were
adopted, declaring the improperly of the recep-
lion OF negro testimony by any minister AGAINST
white persons. Mr.. Thompson voted To repeaI
these resolutions-or in other words, he voted to
ADMIT negro testImony-io place the character of
the white man, no matter what may be his stand
ing in society, how high his reputation for unsuI
lied piety, at The mercy of the degraded negro,
with whom malice is more potent than principle,
and TO whom revenge affurds greater pleasure
than the consultations Of his religion. In reply to
the charge, Mr.. II. publishes a letter rather ex
e~ulpatory in its character, which regret 10 say,
contains three " palpable mistakes, errors, or
whatever else they may he called" but which
seem TO be necessary 10 make nut his case. His
hrst mistake is in attribnting language to The Rev.
j. Early, whilst in Northampton, which was
never uttered. am inEnImed nv snveraI Of tic