The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1851-05-31

tfiOutl0n OF these profits under the control OF
the General Conference but without an utter
had nothing to do with them, except to see that
they were passed over to the annual conferences,
to be by them distributed according to the intent
and purpose Of the original establishment Of this
fund t.it,,l,., -
There was discretion in this subject in the
conter@ces. Their duty was simply to ascertain
what persons within their limits came under the
class Of benefciaries In this Court it is unneces.
sary for ascertain whether the estate of these
benefcares is legal or an equitable one in the
profits of the Book Concern.
They certainly had right to the profits, and the
perv accounted for, and paid over. Why have
they not those rights still Are they not Metho.
dists! Have they abandoned one lot Of doctrine
or disciplinea Are they not in communion with
the Methodist Church, The defendants saw in
ther answer that the plaintiffs have all forfeited
thfir rights in consequence of secession.
Rtire Court order distribution of the profits. il
does not follow that the fund must be divided Il
can still be employed in carrying on this Book
Concern, and The profits may be divided pro rata
There need be no technical difficulty on tbis
point ''''
The relief asked can be afforded without disturb
ing the fund in any manner whatever, if the Court
should find any difficulty in that respect Mr. Lord
here cited Field VS.. Field, 9 Wendell 400; Miller
vs.. Gable; DEMO 5ls; 10 Paige GAG; Davis and
and Pearson, 8 Merrivale 352; Smons 29o: '' 10 ID
Eng Ch Rep. 6l; Leslie VS.. Burly, Russell
ia; Eng. Chan. Rep 46; Attorney General
and Shore, Z Simons 29O, noie; MIliken and
Mitchell Milne & Craig H.
There is in the very nature Of the subject light
TO guide us In all this matter. We find from Emo.
rvs History that this fund originated with the
preachers Every preacher was an agent in the
distribution OF this literature. They selected the
books, and they sold them, and it was thronuh
their labors alone that this Book Concern reached
its present magnitude.
Have not these men then something mora III. ~
mere right to aims at the hands of this Concern
Nothing seems to be clearer than that after provid
ing religious literature, the very design of the in
stlIulon was to establish fund for the support of
distressed preachers and their families. This was
the stimulus which encouraged them in their lahoys
for years.
They looked forward with confidence to a pro
vision tor their support in old age out of the funds
accumulated by their joint labors Spending The
nes n portion OF their lives on poor pitlance of
SZoO year. this fund was the only hope for them
selves in old age and their families after death No
mere technical objection can be permitted in anv
Court OF Equity to forfeit the rights of such benef
Charles. My learned friends will have 10 make
their doctrine of forfeiture as clear as noon dav
before this Court will consent to deprive The BE-.
reaved, the distressed and the fatherless. of the
provision which has been so hardly earned,
This fund has been created BY the labors of the
worn-out and superannuaIed preachers who now
claim their proportion in its profits. 1t is a com.
mon property of earnings. and can only be called
charity by techncaIity of law.
If the forfeiture to be according to the doctr;ne
OF our opponents, not only the preachers who par
tclpated In the Conference, but the widows and
orphans who had no share in the action of the
Conference, are to be deprived of their support for
offences in which they have no possible share.
ms IS SO manlfestly UNJUST that it is absolutely
TTevoltlng and repugnant to every sense of right.
1t Is as severe the laws of Draco. excent that
instead OF dealing in blood, it deals in starvation
suppose for moment that some foreign power
should conquer portion Of the territory in which
this Methodist Church is now existing. and nro.
hiblt ITS form OF worship from being observed by
any OF Its Inhabitants. Should the Methodist cer-
gymen, who happened to reside there with their
families, be at once cut off from all participation in
these profits springing from a fund which had
been created in part by their labors?
~, he defendants are carrying on an Indian war.
They spare neither man, woman nor child. All
must be scalped l absove them in my heart from
any desire to do injustice, but they are driven on
by the multitude behind them
l now propose to examine the grounds of for
feture which these defendants set up. One is,
that even if the General Conference did grant
power for this separation, they had no power 10 do
so In the next place, they say that the power was
only granted on the contingency of its passing the
Annual Conferences.
On the power Of the General Conferences to
authorize separation of the Church. remark in the
first place, that there is of pretenae of apy
deviation In doctrine, practice morals, rites, cere-
monies or usages. In every other case of similar
character, there has been change of doctrine.
The only change here has been from unity to
duality OF the governing power. And il this
separation is to make a forfeiture of the fund wbv
then it has been forfeited by the North as we'll as
the South, and nobody can claim it except some
old superannuated preacher, who was unable to be
present and take part in the General Conference of
1874.
submit that the Conference had power to divide
itself. II it were not for the great facilities of
travel which have been discovered, | suppose that
no man would have disputed the right of the
General Conference to say that there should here
alter be two General Conferences, East of the
Aieghany mountains, and another West. The
mere difficulty of travel would have been considered
sui1cent cause for a separation by every rational
mind.
He cited Emory's History of the Discipline. to
show the power of the General Conference even to
change the whole discipline, and read volumnous
extracts from the Book OF Proofs No. l, showing
the manner in which the separation was effected
between the Methodist Churches of the United
ao,sd a 10d England, and between those of Canada
Ws,hodsts was .stss costtssi. The General Conference
II is true that vote was affefop OF the Canadian
but it was on the ground OF inexpedie"t.
there is no reason to suppose that the 1O4 members
who voted the resolution of separation originally,
had changed their deliberate views as to its consti-
tutonality. There was no difficulty as to the
separation of bodies but the whole trouble grew
out of the separation Of funds. And must confess
that in the course OF my examination OF this case
have been surprised that body which has, in its
| discipline, manifested such devotion to honorable
poverty, should always have much difficulty
| when there is any money to be divided.
] loft Mr. l.nr ad hopn
| nearly three hours, and the Court suggested tina
minutes, but he declared that he not tired, ant
thanking the Court for its courtesy proceeded witt
| his argument.
The audience was not quite so numerous to-da,
as at the early stages OF the case. Among thos
present we noticed Judge Storrs, OF the Suprem
Court of Connecticut, and the Rev. DR.. Spring, q
this city, who seemed to listen to the proceeding
with much interest.
| FOURTH DAY.
| Mr. Lord resumed his argument, by reading po
tons of the defendants answer, to show that the
| admitted the right Of the plaintiff, but took Il
ground that it had been forfeited by breach
| condition.
He then reviewed the position which the Meth
dist Church had assumed on the subject OF SLAYER
ever since the Conference of 1854, when DR.. Col
introduced his rules prohibiting the members OF
: Church from buying or holding slaves.
clause was adopted, providing that these rul
should not be enforced when the laws Of the Sta
s couflicted with them and yet with that modihc
ton they were found to be SO impractioable Il
! they were repealed in less than year afterwa
u In 1896 this matter referred to the yearly &C
ferences. In 1901 distinct submission OF |
'e subject to the local law was made. In 1904 mi
" ters in communion with the Methodist Chur
We were required to instruct their servants, and s
4 wants tn obey their masters In 1905 and ag