The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1851-05-22

: q ! .s:sI d ss . :: = VI a. o. =
esiIs1 : - II s,aaes&lon.s vksaA~s ssmnai4~-
tiousl AZ - wss sssss m1lnsA ~ ~ amnnnf
eou1se.aoes lAsssin unmsx and thssuAses eass
The 0owthseu ssssAt ~wa1ksvaess ~ ssaass<>ey =
nct Il tho aesnss~s anA bsaas. ~ 10 A~5snA-
ants subunh snA insiuh the 8sxtAssa ssau~l eme~
fsrsocss hsvs, Ia IN s~~psrt~, - " shs sesFss
South. acted on their ewa rs&eomsthaAAy. VIA.
out any authority lsom ~ esssrsi esstssencs u
l8&4. Wherefore. these dxssaAs~ts sass.s sss1
submit. that the Methodist Essssspsi ehssua-
south" extsss A. q separate seei~~a~~tSesi ~sss-
,nunion solely by ths sssulk and IN vsftss. of
the arts snd doInas Of the isdisidual hashsf~,
m,nistsrs. and members attached Ia sssA rAssrh.
Sou'h, procsejisR In ths pssmisss uess ea<s
own responsibility; and shas ssrh sssh";'s- msn'
is'ers, and members, hsye voisatassay wtss'@s~ws
them sslvss from the Methodist Esassos'Al
church, and hare rssouncsd III their rsxhss sas
privileges ia her communlsn, ard under hss gov
ernment Aud these defendants 4~ay thai ta's
annual conferences Represented r. said LOUIS.
vile convention. were. ~ v srssas0ssiy stated
in the first Of the resolutions " th~ cvavsaas"n
set forth by the plaintiffs, canatitassd ssp~ssts
ecclesiastical connection under t'ss prestsSSns'
plan Of separation, so-cxlIed, aforesaid.
And these defendants submit, thai the sspa'
ration and voluntary withdrawal from ths charch
of portion Of her bishops, minister ard us~us.
bers as herein mentioned, WAS an ufAuthof'xsd
separation from the church. Whersfos~, sh~ss
defendants further insist and submit, tsAs--s"'
stead Of tne division Of the Methodist Episeopsi
church Into two distinct churches, sndsr and Ia
pursuance of said 20 called plan Of separation, A.
is alleged by the plaintihs--sI hose bishops,
ministers and members, who have attached them
selves, by their own act and deed. " tbs Mstho.
dist Episcopal church South, Including ths
plaintiffs, and all those represented Ia Of BY them
in said bill Of complaint, have voluntarily with
drawn from the Methodist Episcopal church,
and separated themselves from IL privileges and
government; and have thereby renowned and
forfeited all right and claim, ut law or In equity,
to any portion of the funds and property In
question in this cause. And these defendants,
further answering, deny that, By force OF The
proceedings alleged by the plaintiffs, or otherwise
the Methodist Episcopal church South, became,
was or is entitled, at law or in equity, to any
proportion of all, or any Of the property, real or
personal, or of all or any of the funds or eie;ts,
other time, belonged to the Methodist Episcopal
church, in ire United States or elsewhere; and
especially do these defendants deny that the
Methodist Episcopal Church South, VIVA, or is
so entitled to any produce of the book concern
or chartered fund, or any property or fund per-
tanning thereto, without any change or alteration
OF the sixth restrictive article above mentioned
or that. as enormously alleged by the PLAINTIFF,
majority of tlree-fourths Of all the members
of the several annual conferences which voted
directly on the question in view of a division OF
the property has been obtained in favor Of any
alteration of that article. And these defendants,
with respect to the allegations Of the plaintiffs,
that "said property and funds of the Methodist
Episcopal church had been obtained and col
lected by voluntary contribution, in which con-
tribution the members of the church South, con-
tributed the largest portion of the same" deny,
that far as the allegation has reference to the
property and funds of the shook concern" in
the city of New York, and its appendages, the
same, or the greater portion thereof, have been
obtained by voluntary contribution. Where
fore, these defendants, as touching the allega-
tons and claimsin the plaintiffs bill, with regard
to the property denominated the sioux concern,
and chartered fund.-" and the moneys. effects,
and credits pertaining thereto, insist and submit
that the Methodist Episcopal church South, is
not entitled, at law or in equity, to have divi-
sion of such property made, as claimed by said
bill nor is such church South, thus entitled to
any share or portion thereof, nor are any of the
ministers, preachers or members, attached ia
such church South, thus entitled to any portion
Of the same; and that they-being no longer
travelling preachers belonging to the Methodist
Episcopal church. could not be 80 entitled
without n constitutional change in the said sixth
restrictive article, which would authorize such
division. After some further defences, the de-
PENDANTS contend that plaintiffs are not entitled
to pro rata portion of the funds in question.
Mr.. Lord then stated that to that answer 9
replication had been filed, which it was not ne.
cessary to read. A paper was put in, by con.
sent substituting the name of VIM. A. Smith
in the place of Mr. Bascom, now deceased. II
is also consented that the Book Of Discipline
be considered in evidence. Mr. Lord mentioned
other documents which were, by consent, in EVIL
dence. He then read from page 80 Of the Book
of Proofs, No. -" The profits arising from
the book concern, after sufficient capital to
carry on the business is retained, shall be regu
lnrly applied to the support of the deficient
travelling preachers and their families, the wild
ows and orphans Of preachers &c, &c. A yearly
report was TO be sent TO the conference, and
each conference may draw for ts-proportionate
part" Page II. Of the printing and circulation
of books, and of the profits ari-ing therefrom
Page % Extracts from the Book of Discipline
of 1870; the articles of religion; the suficiency
of the Holy Scriptures, &c. He then read the
sixth restrictive rule, which prohibits the nppro.
priation Of the funds of the book concern tc
any purpose other than for the benefit of trav-
cling, supernumerary, worn out preachers, Their
wives, widows or orphans, &c. Page Q. Elk.
tracts from Emory's History Of the Discipline
Question l6.-Ought not this conference tc
require those travelling preachers who hold
slaves, to give promises to set them free? A.
Yes. O. Does this conference acknowledge
that slavery is contrary to the laws of God, and
man, and nature, and burtful to society; con-
trary to the dictates Of pure religion and doing
that which we would not others should do tQus
and ours9 Do we pass our disapprobation or
all our friends who keep slaves, and advise Their
freedom? A-Yes Q.-What shall be done
with our local preachers who hold slaves con.
trary to the laws which authorize their freedom
in any of the United States Ave will try