The southern press. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1851-11-15

must not overlook the action of the general con !
| ference of 1874, in the instance now before us ]
The vote upon the first resolution stood oneI
hundred and forty-seven to twenty-five, in &
body representing four thousand travelling
preachers in this community ;and, among whom
it is fair to suppose, were included men of the|
greatest experience and knowledge in the ad. J
ministration of the policy of the Church. In
deed, on looking into the report of the debates
of this session. and into the discussions upon|
the report of the committee on the division of
the Church, and especially upon the all-absorb-|
ing that led to its necessity, no can fail to|
be oppressed with the eminent ability and INTEL
| lgence Of the leading members of that body 4
nor for moment doubt but that they were pro-
foundry skilled in all the history practices and|
usages OF the Church government spiritual and|
temporal, and in the nature and extent of their
powers as the highest Indication belonging to it..
| AS it respects the action of this BODY in the
matter OF the division, no one can pretend but
that it proceeded upon the assumption of un.
questioned power to erect the Church into two
separate ecclesiastical establishments The onlv
doubt entertained or expressed in the plan Of
separation, related to the division of the COM
mon property, on account of the sixth restrictive
article, which we have conceded all along was
not within its competence, but which we shall
presently notice more particularly in another
part OF the case. Independently of this question
of property, the power of severance is written
upon every page of their proceedings.
Having now arrived at the conclusion that
the general conference of 1874 was competent
to make the division, and that the only condition
annexed to it has been fully complied with, we
are prepared to apply the principles of law which,
in this posture of the case, must govern it.
We have held, in previous part Of this opin-
ion, that the compainants must bring themselves
within the description of persons entitled to the
benefit of this charitable fund as prescribed by its
original founders and that, when they have done
this, those who deny or withhold the charity must
present case to the court taking them out of the
description Phis has been attempted by show
ing that they have wrongfully separated from the
connection and communion of the Methodist Epis-
copal Church, and erected themselves into an in
dependent ecclesiastical establishment and have.
therefore, deprived themselves of the character Of
benehclaries of the fund. Having arrived at the
conclusion that there is no foundation for this
allegation, the ground Of defense, of course. fas
and the compliments still continue clothed with
the character and rights belonging to them previous
to the separation The separation having taken
place In pursuance of the action of the competent
ecclesiastical author.ty-by the action of the foun-
ders OF the fund themselves-how can it be
maintained that the benefciaries, falling within
the new organization, have forfeited the character
which entities them to its enjoyment What act
have they done to deprive them of the description
of the persons for whose relief its proceeds have
been permanently devoted'
1t is not pretended, but, that they are still tray-
cling preachers in the Methodist Esiscopale con-
nexion and communion, subject to its doctrines
and discipline; and devoted to the accomplish
ment of that mission for which this Church was
planted in these United States nor, but that the
field of their labors is within the domain covered
by its original organization. A new construction
of its poty, within this limit, has been determine
ed upon by Its highest judcatory, in order that
the great mission may be more tremendously, and
more effectually carried on. For this purpose,
two distinct ecclesiastical organizations, we may
say identically the same, have taken the place Of
one-the same discipline, faith, and doctrine-and
all united IN spreading the same gospel and teach
ings throughout the land
Assume, therefore, that the general conference
were disabled on account Of the sixth restrictive
article, from apportoning their fund still if the
compliments bring themselves within the descrip-
ton Of the benefciaries, they are not thereby de-
prived OF It, The law steps in and enforces the
right. Holding this relation to it, and not having
forfeited it by any wrong act Of their own, or by
any cause set up against them, it is not in the
competence of the general conference and annual
conferences combined, to deprive them. Their
right rests upon established principles Of law and
equity (which make the duty ofa court of chancery
to interfere, and see that the fund is properly
administered.
Looking at the position of these complaints, and
those they represent, on account of the action Of
the general conference Of 1874, dividing the ecce-
siastcal organization and substituting in its place
two distinct, independent iudicatores il is by no
means certain that the distribution is in contraven
ton even Of the sixth restrictive article that ap-
proprlates the fund for tn benefit of the travelling
supernumerary and worn out preachers, their
widows and orphans. 1t is this description Of
persons TO whom it is destined by the adiudica-
ton Of the court. They are not only within the
description, but are, also, the very persons here
totore IN the enjoyment Of it, and for whom il was
originally designed.
Granting that these persons have done no wrong
fu act, but are still laborng in the church, here
tofore, except under different merely territorial
organization, they are covered by the spirit, if not
by the letter Of the restrictive article.
Upon the whole, our conclusion is that the COM
palnants are entitled TO their share of the produce
o: the Book Concern, and decree will be ordered
accordingly. Whether the funds shall be admin
istered by an application Of the produce, pro rata,
or by an apportionment Of the capital, are aues-
tons reserved until the settlement of the de-
cree.
We had hoped that this unfortunate controversy
would have been amicably justed by the parties,
agreeably to the suggestion Of each Of the learned
COUNSEL at the close ofthe argument, and in which
the court cordially concurred.
But, II the views we have taken Of the case and
conclusions we have arrived at, shall tend in the
degree, TO heal the unhappy divisions, and restore
brothery affection and Christian friendship among
so highly useful and distinguished a body Of
Christians, we shall not regret the labor we have
bestowed in deciding it.
AWEsrERS sroRr.-Some one writing from
the Arkansas Hot Springs, relates the following
amusing incident:
ItMu friend has honn ain ,,iru n.....I L.. ~.