The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1851-05-24

detstocd by the minority. 10 dsgrafs and puMxh
the Rev. James g. Andrsw, one of tha bishops
oftae thodiet EBseohl chuHh. BY desiafing
it 10 beshe ~ ~ d Judgment OF The general
cohfers1e tef heg4esist &6m the exercise Of
hi> cpd bpaES 4unct u.s., without the exhibition
of any Wege&oftesEe akainst tie laws or ditci-
pIne Of the church. without form or trial, or legal
Of any kind, and in the absence Of any
charge OF want Of qualification or Mlthtulness in
the performance Of the duties pertaining To his
Office.
We protest against the act of tho majority
in the ease of Bishop Andrew, as extr1Judcial
TO all intents and purposes being both without
law, aud contrary To law. We protest against
the act, because we recognize In this general
conference mo- right power, or authority, minis
terial, Judicial, or administrative, to suspend or
depose bishop of the Methodist Episcopal
church, or otherwise subject him to any official
disability whatever without the formal presen-
taton of charge or charges, alleging that the
bishop to be dealt with has been guilty OF the
Of so,n--ihw or at least sone-dlscpin-
airy obligation of the church, and also upon con-
victioa of such charge, after due form Of trial.
We protest against the ACT in question, as u vio-
lati0n OF the fundamentals Jaw. usually known
as the comprnmiss law Of the church, on the sub.
jeot of slavery the only law which can be bro't
to bear upon the ease of Bishop Andrew, and the
assertion and maintenance OF which, until il is
revoked, is guaranteed by tine
honor and good faith Of this body, as the repre-
sentative assembly Of the thirty three annual
conferences known as contracting parties In the
premises sss.,,..:
sAnd we protest against the act, further, as
an attempt to establish dangerous precedent.
of the union and stability of the Me-
thodist. Episcopal church, and especially plae-
ing in jeopardy the general superintendency OF
the church, by subjectiug any bishop OF the
church, at any time, TO the will and caprice Of n
majority of the general conference, not only with
out law, but in defiance of the restraints and
provisions Of law The undersigned, a minority
of the general conference, in protesting, as they
do, against the late net Of the majority, in the
virtual suspension of Bishop Andrew, regard it
as due to themselves and those they represent,
as well as the character and interest OF tho
church at large, to declare, by solemnand formal
av0wal, that after careful examination of the en-
tire subject, in all its relations and bearings,
they protest as above, for the reasons and upon
the grounds following, whilst sFhs proceed
ings against Bishop A. in this general Conference
has been upon the assumption that he Is con-
nected with s!avery-that he is tho legal holder
and owner of slave property. Ga the subject
Of slavery in the Methodist Episcopal church.
both AS it regards the ministry and membership,
we have special law, upon which the adudica-
ton of all questions of slavery inust, by inten-
ton of law, proceed. The case Of Bishop An
drew therefore, presents simple question of
law and fact, and the undersigned cannot consent
that the force OF circumstances, and other mere
" extripsc considerations shall be. allowed TO
lead to any issue, except that Indicated by the
law and the facts in the ease. In the late act
Of the majority, law. express law, is appealed
from, and expedency in view Of circumstances
relative proprety---assumed necessity-is sub
sttuted in its place as rule ofjudgment.
I" The law of the church on slavery has al
ways existed since 1885, but especially since
1904, and in view of the adjustment of the
whole subject in 1916, as a virtual, though in
formal contract OF mutual concession and for
bearance betweentbe North and the South, then,
as now, known and existing distinct parties,
in relation to the vexed questions OF slavery and
aboiition-those conferences found in States
where slavery prevailed constituting the South
ern party, and those in the slaveh0ldint
States, the Northern, exceptions to the rule be-
ing found in both. The rights of the legal
owners Of slaves, in all the slaveholding States.
are guaranteed by the Constitution of the United
States, and by the local constitutions of the
States, respectfully, as the supreme law Of the
land, to which every minister and member of the
Methodist Episcopal church within the limits of
the United States government Processes subiec-
ton, and pledges himself to submit, as an arti-
Gle of Christian faith, in the common creed of
the church. Domestic slavery, therefore, wher-
ever it exists in this country is a civil regula-
ton, existing under the highest sanctions ofcon-
stitutonal and municipal law, known to the tri-
bunals of the country; and it has ALWAYS been
assumed at the South, aud relied upon ms cor
rect, that the North, or non-slavehoding States.
had no right, civil or moral, tointeffere with re-
lations and interests thus secured to the people
of the South by all the graver forms Of law and
social order, and that it cannot be done without
an abuse of the constitutional rights OF eitiz n
ship. The people of the North, however, have
claimed to think differently, and have uniformly
acted toward the South in accordance with such
opposition of opinion. Precisely in accordance.
too, with this state of things, as it reg,rds the
general population of the North and South re-
spectvelv, the Methodist Episcopal church has
been divided in opinion and feeling on the sub
iect of slavery and abolition since It's orgapiza-
ton in 1854: two separate and distinct parties
have always existed. Toe Southern conferen-
ces, in agreeing to the main principles of the
law in 1904 and lsi6s eonoedsd, bv
express stipulation, their right to resist North
ern Interference In any form, uJon the condition,
pledged by the North, that while the whole
church, by common consent, united in proper
effort for the mitigation and final removal of the
evil of slavery, the North was not TO interf re,
by excluding from membership or ministerial
offices in the church persons owning and hold
ing slaves in States where emancipation is not
practicable, and where the liberated slave is not
to enjoy freedom. Such was the COM
pact of 1904 and 1916. finally agreed to by the
parties after long and fearful struggle, and
such is the compact now--the proof bring de.
rivcd from history and the testimony Of living
witnesses -oi
SIS there anything in the law or its reasons
creating an exception in the instance Of bishops
Would the South have entered into the arrange
ments, or in any form consented to the law, had
IL hcpu minated hv the North fhat h;sb,ns yo,,ot