The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1851-05-28
THE GREAT METHODIST CASE.


dts a. the United States a America II WAS from the
nature o. its constitution, American institutions
States IL cannot 60 beyond the territory; II may go 10
the boundaries and there shake hands With another
church but cannot that line and must there re-
main independent American church. lie dcduced
this from Wesley himself who said that upon the indie
Canadian Conference counsel said that the political dis
tinctons between the countries rendered separation
necessary The proceedings Of the Conference o. 1874
will not be much regarded 20 the law IL had assem-
bed In the ordinary way, without any intmaton that
question q such transcendent interest 70 be brought
The agitation TO Bishop Andrvw required r.pose
But instead Of that the Saturday the resolution
to Bishop Andrew they cut the church in tive A. per-
| would cut a cucumber There l. not particle Of
proof that there any intmation that there
aparsgraph In newspaper preparing the public Tor ths
thunderoolt out 81 an unclouded sky lie who be-
Of South, bereayes ~ precious jewel
Mr.. Choate then referred the Court 20 Ben MonrosI
Kentucky, Reports 507 and contsnded that the aban
donment by the benehcaries totally unauthorized
abandonment and forfeiture of their claims the
| fund. From l7eo to this day by law re-cnacted in
1904 and 1905 the fund has unqueSiionaby stood de-
voted TO the superannuated preachers their families &c
being the defendants say all the time in connection
with the church Under that law, many members have
come into the Church The trustees his clients.
Mr. Choate then passed 20 the legal points % ths plain
t and said that he attached Importance 70 the fact
dwelt upon by the gentleman on the other side MT
Lord) Of the fund being by the sale Of books
through the fundamentally and exerton Of the preach
There right acquired by that act Of labor;
the right is acquired by becoming and conn within
its pale The preacher who carried book Is as
completely within it, grant as he who carried libraries;
of them carried any IL Is said these plain
tifs labored 10 create the book fund. Did they own
them! No. Did they write them No They were
told that If they worked they should have their share;
but in the meantime, the profits belonged TO their
poyer Mr. Choate continued TO contend that the con-
tinuance of membership indpensaby necessary for
participation in the firm, and that the General Confe
renee had right TO divide the church without the
sanction Of the Annual Conference. He submitted that
the plaintiffs had established legal equitable right,
and he could not believe that they bad been led 10 the
separation by any act Of the defendants The General
Conference did all they could for them and the plaintiffs
knew well that every step they took they took under
the of the Annual Conference and that they the
risk Of every unfavorabe judgment In conclusion the
honorable and learned gentleman said that he did not
know that there was anything which wise and good
man should much desire the result Of this
minating in the Methodist Episcopal Church being
church for North and South He felt that the law Of the
case was with the defendants lie felt also that deci
sion to that effect would do something towards bringing
back to its everpen arms those who had strsyed from
| its household faith.
have weakened him very much, quite exhausted at
the termination of his address lie spoke four hours and
half on Monday, and upwards Of two hours to-day.
Mr. George Wood then and said $50 much time
has been already occupied in the investigation OF this
and the evidence has been fully and ably fted
that think it would BE- a waste Of time In the closing
counsel occupying much Of the attention of the
Court shall, therefore endeavcr TO conderse in as
narrow space as possibly can my observations and
will conue myself the facts which have been already
fully developed before the Court 1t important that
should understand at the threshold of the proceed
ings, what the precise issue is. The plaintiffs claim
proportion Of this fund corresponding with the number
ofthose who have gone off with the church South they
have brought this suit for that proportion Of the pro-
perty. There has been actual separation, and the
question IS whether this separation entities them TO
raeabe proportion Of the property which belongs the
Methodist Episcopal Church. and that the important
question which presest itself in this The con!
troyersy is most unfortunate for If there is any
subject which ought to be kept out Of court-ifany
subject should be preserved pure from legal dispute 1t Is
religious subject because the rising generation lose In
great measure their respect for religion when they
the heads Of the church quarreling. We have seen
such results and | venture to say the Methodist
Episcopal church will soon discover II by sad
experience. This church is co-extensive with the
territorial limits Of the country; 1t is the largest
in this country it has been the precursorl Of re-
gion 1t has gone with its extension and carried rc
gion along with settlement to the borders Of
try concern Of this kind may be said to BE- national
concern And when 1t Is admitted on all hands that
rous dangers threaten the unity Of this government IL
is all important that such controversy should be adj
usted and Is sincerely to be regretted that should
have arsen-t is extremely be regretted that 1t
should have been brought into court Of Justice when
there every probability that IL would have beeo sd
justed but they have thought il proper to bring their
suit, and We the defendants here bound H. meet
them They have brought their claims grounds
which look upon a extremely faacious they seem TO
think they have vested right in this property, and in
tie Of division, that they have right to
able proportion Of the funds This seems 10 me to be an
exceedingly erroneous view Of the subject. The Mays
Vile has been referred to- but trust shall be able
TO show that the principle upon which that adj
justed was unfouudei A charitable use l. a public
use. IL Is called charity, because In every Chris
tian country 1t il based upon charitable founda-
ton Frst there the founders of the charitythose
who create it, fund; there next the truseethose
who hold the gal estate in trust then the Managers
/
the bensfciaries among whom the charity Is distributed
Now, TO the management Of the charity let me refer
the court to 9TH vescys Reports. These benehciaries
have in this case no vested right and have no power
ALLEVIATE They cannot dispose of this property sup
pose before this separation tcok place all those who
we're under the description 81 bcnefciaries had atemlt
cd 10 ALLEVIATE the prop,rty, Why il would have been
perfectly VuixotiG They would have no right 10 do So
refer Tue curt 10 9th New Hampshire Reports, If in
b case, the counsel 10 think the property be-
onged to the benehcaries they would have right 10
dispose q i as they pleased but II Is held under
charitable use why then they take the fund.- aoed out
to them charity but they have no right to them in
any other way. A to the Law If charity, refer the
court TO Paige rs shwell vs. Mott "a sandfords
Chancery Reports 242 And this doctrine has been
fully adopted and settled in the United States.
refer to Niden Girard's executors, "a How
ards Reports, p. 1876 The subject had been
yeloped in some doubt by the Gaze in lth Whea-
protected at all by the law Of England except where the
statute Il Elizabeth specially provided refer to Bcale
v Fox 9Th Georgia Rep 4o4 and think may now be
set down settled question that independent Of the
Law Of Elizabeth, charities are protected question
arises whether this law has been repealed In this state
under the revised statutes but IL may be said II II has
been repealed by the revised statutes al the property u
this fund Il not protected by the aw Of charitable
admit That Of the Supreme Courts-I mean
Of the dozen supreme Cours that have been esabhed-
have decided that II has been rcpeaed hut Il has been
adopted In law. and think this Court viii to the
conclusion that Il Il entirely aacous and unfo unled
A. 60 the doctrine Of charitable 1t i different from
public rusts public crimes from private trcspascs
and you might well say that the statute which refers 10
public crimes would refer TO private trepasses They
entirely different In their nature aud character and they
treated differently Mr Wood here referred 10 the
law Of perpetuity and cited Thslluson's will case
and continued Ia say The Court will find In this
ali the ,euis ns which have considered ~ existing in
charitable You have The founders who have taken
up the fund and enlarged il from three four thousand
dollars 20 about seven OF eight hundred thousand All
contributed to the charitable fund hy labor and
they all TO be considered founders Of this charity
You have 10 tho next place thu trustees who brought
before this Court parties Defendants r. this suit Mr
Wood then stated the nature Of The Incorporation AZ this
body and referred to the cnse q Decor endrckson