Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1851-11-21
From the n. Y. Evening Express, Nov ii.
IL DetisIoi Ease of the Methodist Bool

Concern.
In The u. s. Circn Court Judges Nelson and Be,,
upon the bench. decision was given this morning. by
Judge Nelson
The Judge reviewed The various points in he case
referred TO the fact that the Methodist Church was Or
ganiZed in the United States in 1884 under the SUPER
nendence and sovereignty of The travelling preachers
who, in General Conference. the whole power OF
he Church. the lay members then and now, having no
voice in Church government.
Before this the Methodist Church was conducted by
John Wesley and his agents, and the change made
by his assent and wish The Church was never moor.
poated but held together and kept organized by certain
printed rules.
The Plaintiffs say that the difference between the
Northern and Southern branches OF the Church, sprung
up previously 20 1874, 10 the ownership of slaves
This breach threatened the safety of the Church The
question in 1914 whether not there should be
separation, and resolutions passed by a large
majority OF the conference OF that year. held in New
York, deciding that should the annual Conference in
the Slave holding States consider it best TO separate
they might do so.
All the Southern annual conferences were, in that
event TO be organized in separate church TO be called
the Methodist Church Soulh.' II was also decided
that travelling Ministers ght attach themselves TO
either Northern Southern Church.
The plaintiffs al!ege that the Conference had this
power, and this was confirmed in 1916 by council
of Northern Bishops.
The members were free TO say what was the best
policy OF accomplishing The great design of the Master
in whose service they were engaged, the bec being
the spread of the Gospel The Court also thought
that the idea that the Church had but limited and pre-
scrbed powers erroneous The Canada Confer
ence originally part Of the American Methodist
Church. but in lS2S was allowed 10 separate. The
Texas Conference also brought into the American
Church, and in both by the act Of the General
Conference.
The Court considered that the complanants had the
right previously 10 the separation-that the
claimants still travelling preachers and their field
of labor within their original Jurisdiction Assuming
that the General Conference unauthorized TO make
the division, still the complanants not deprived of
their ghtS 10 share III the fund, not having forfeited
it it was not in law in the power of the Confer
ence to take 1t from them.
The Court concluded, but whether pro rata or in
proportion to the capital is left for future adudica-
ton.
The Court also earnestly hoped that the difficulty
might be amcaby settled by the parties interest
ed If the conclusion arrived al should restore har.
mony IN the Church, it would not regret the labor
which had been expended upon the case.
The Court also considered that the Trustees Of the
Book Concern stood in the light of the Benefciares of
a Charitable Fund, which had been endowed by third
parties. According TO the decision of the original
founders the proceeds and profits had been devoted TO
their use, and if they within the regulations they
were still entitled 10 such proceeds and profits.
The Court desired to administer the law in behalf of
the claimants, their exciting peculiar sympathy
The plan OF separation in l844 provided that there
should be pro rata distribution, and that each should
have their share 1t bore the impress of good will and
good feeling, and founded, so far as the Court
knew, on strictly equitable principles 1t was adopt
ed by vote of TAT to % in body where more than
1000 preachers represented
/ AS to the powers of the General Conference the
Court considered that they they original
ly, and that they were not affected by being delegated
to any lesser number. the reduction of numbers, or
the representative principle, being necessary Incl
dent to the growth OF the country. They originally
had the power 10 make many distinct organizations
as they pleased. The conference had the same pow
er in 1874 in 1874, when the whole body acted for
itself.
The Church, the plaintiffs then say became divided
into two distinct bodies, Northern and Southern, and
that the South entitled 10 IFS share of the proper
ty belonging TO the body. The Church owned large
amount OF property, among which the n. Y
Methods Book concern worth $3.50, 900, but the
agents OF this we'll the principals refused
. to allow any division.
The plaintiffs further say that part of them arr
travelling ministers. and that they and 500 other trav
cling ministers have interest in this fund-tha the
church has about 460.0 900 members South and tha
there are about $50 900 North.
The defendents, (Messrs Peck, Bangs and others
# agents of the Book Concern,) acknowledge The adop
# ton of the Resolutions. but state that they in
n tended 10 meet contingency which occurred
and that the plan of separation was illegal because IN
constitutional, aud further that the South in with
drawing did so voluntarily, and thereby renowned
oil their privileges as owners of the Book Concern.
They acknowledge that the Book Concern es
tablished by travelling preachers and that it is 10 b.
applied to their relief and the relief OF their orphans
+ and also 10 the relief of superannuaed preachers
: The Court stated that the travelling preachers CLAIM
their share of the fund now, before separation
The establishment had produced large profits, had bee
conducted with great Judgement but owed It's pros
perity mainly to The efforts OF the travelling preachers
The fund originally intended for their benefit an
if attempted to be changed, it would be the province
:. this court TO prevent it.
- EXPLOSION, ATTENDED WITH Loss OF LIFE.-An &C
cident occurred our Rail Road, Friday night las
which are sorry TO say, caused the death Of thre