Cooper's Clarksburg register. [volume] (Clarksburg, Va. [W. Va.]) 1851-1861, 1851-11-26
The Decision in the Case of tho Nee
thodist Book Conccrn.

District Court, at New \ DIRK, in the impor- II
tant case'of the Methodist Book Concern,
briefly mentioned in the Sun of Wednes-
day. It will be remembered that the
case was argued several months ago, by
George Wood and Rufus Choate, Esq,rs,
for the defendants and Daniel Lord,
Esq, and the Hon. Reverdy johnson for
the compliments. We copy the ABSTRACT
from the Express:
The Judge reviewed the various points
IN the case, referred to the fact that the |
Methodist church was organized in the
United States in 1884, under the super J
intendence and sovereignty of the travel
ling preachers, who 10 General Confer
ence, were the whole power Of the church,
the lay members then and now having |
no voice in church government.
Before this. che Methodist Church was
conducted by John Wesley and his agents;
and the change was made by his assent
and wish, The church was never incor.
porated. but held together and kept or.
gained ~ certain printed rules.
The plaintiffs say that the difference
between the Northern and Southern bran
Ches of the church sprung up previously
to 1914, as to the ownership Of slaves
This breach threatened to impair the
safety of the church, The questions
'arose in 1914, whetheror not there should
be separation, and resolutions were pas
sed, by large majority of the confer
ence Of that year, held in New York, de-
Gliding that should the annual conferen-
oees in the slaveholding States consider it
best to separate. they might do so.
All the Southern annual conferences
were in that event to be organized in a
separate church, to be called the "Me-
thodist Church South" 1t was also de-
ocided that travelling ministers might at
tach themselves TO either the Northern or
Southern Church.
The plaintiffs alledge that the Confer
ence had this power, and this was con-
filmed in 1914 by council ofthe North
ern Bishops.
The church. the plaintiffs then say, be-
came divided into two distinct bodies,
northern and Southern, and that the
South was entitled no its share of the pro-
perty belonging to the body. The church
owned large amount of property, among
which was the New York Methodist Book
concern worth $3.50, 900, but the agents
o of this concern as we'll as the principals
refused to allow any division.
The plaintiffs further say that part OF
them are travelling ministers, and that
they and 800 other travelling ministers
have an interest in this fund~that the
church has about 100000 members
south, and that there are about 639,0oo
north.
The defendants (Messrs, Peck, Bangs,
and others, agents of the Book Concern, J
acknowledge the adoption of the Resolu-
tions, but state that they were intended
to meet contingency which never occur,
red, and that the plan of separation was
illegal because unconstitutional, and fur
Their, that the south in Withdrawing did
SO voluntarily, and thereby renowned all
their privileges as owners of the Book
Concern.
They acknowledge that the Book Con-
Germ was established by travelling prea-
cheers, and that it isOto be applied to their
relief, aud the relief of their orphans,
and also to the relief of superanuated
preachers.
The Court stated that the travelling
preachers claim their share of the fund
now, as before separation. The estab-
lishment had produced large profits, had
been conducted with great judgement,
but owed their prosperity mainly to the
efforts of the travelling preachers. The
fund was originally intended for their be-
neft, and if ATTEMPTED to be changed, it
would be the province of this court to
prevent ito
The court also consider that the Thus,
tees of the Book Concern stood in the
light of the Benefciaries of charitable
Fund, which had been endowed by third
parties. According to the decision of the
original founders, the proceeds and profits
have been devoted to their use, and if
they came within the regulations. they
were still entitled to such proceeds and
profits.
The Court desired to administer the
law in behalf of the claimants, their case
exciting peculiar sympathy. The plan of
separation in 1914 provided that there
should be a pro ratio distribution, and
that each should have their share. II
bore the impress of good will and good
feeling, and was founded, as far as the
Court knew, on strictly equitable princi-
pies. 1t was adopted by vote of 147 to
22 in body where more than 1000
preachers were represented.
AS to the power of the General Con.
ference, the Court considered that they
were as they were originally, and that
they were not affected by being delega-
ted to any lesser number, on the repre-
sentative principles being necessary in
cident to the growth Of the country
They originally had the power to make
as many distinct organizations as they
pleased. The conference had the same
power in 1914 as in 1894, when the whole
body acted for itself.
The members were free to say what
was the best policy of accomplishing the
great design of the Master in whose ser.