Burlington hawk-eye. [volume] (Burlington, Iowa) 1845-185?, 1851-11-27
The thodist Church Suit.


Southern branches of the Methodist Episcopal
Church. The opinion is very long and elaborate.
but il gives complete history Of the controver-
sy, and is . legal argument Of great ability and
learning
. After stating the material parts Of the bill OF
the complainan.s, and of the answer of the de-
y PENDANTS, upon which according to the statement
OF the Court, its opinion is founded the facts
material to be noticed not being matters Of seri-
Gus dispute) the Court proceeds to decide the
following points. a h,.s.. ,,.s.g.4
! l. That by the ''plan of separation" adopted
| by the General Conference of 1914. the only con-
dltion or contingency upon which an absolute di-
| vision OF the Church was made to depend, was
the action of the several annual Conferences in
the Slave-holding States. lf these should find it
necessary to unite in distinct organization, such
division was to take place by the very terms of
the ''plan of separations" according to the boun-
dairy therein designated. TWAS left to the South
ern Conferences to Judge of the necessity, and
/ their Judgment was made final in the matter.
/ 2. When the Annual Conferences in the Slave
, holding States acted and organized Southern
| Church, the division of the Methodist Episcopal
Church into two organizations became complete
and so would the adjustment of the common
property between them, if the assent Of the re-
quisite number of the Annual Conferences had
been given to the change Of the restrictive ari-
Gle. The failure to give that assent, has left this
part Of the ''plan Of separation open the only
consequence Of which is to deprive the Southern
division of its share Of the property, dependent
upon this assent, unless right to recover its po-
sidon legally results from the authorized division
! OF the Church into two organizations.
/ 3. The General Conference of the Methodist
| Episcopal Church, composed Of all the travelling
preachers, and who established the government,
doctrine and discipline of the church, possessed
| the power to reconstruct anu re-organize its
government, ecclesiastical and temporal into two
| or more separate and distinct organizations
! These travelling preachers represented the SOW
reign power of the government, and were res
! ponsibe TO no earthly tribunal for the mode aud
manner of its exercise. The travelling preach
| ers assembled in General Conference embodied
in themselves the sovereign power, without any
Limitation or restriction until we come down, In
the history of their administration to the General
Conference of 1908, when the six restrictive ar
tic!es were incorporated into the Constitution of
| the Church.
! 4. The travelling preachers since 1903 have not
| parted with any portion of the sovereign power
that confessedly belonged to them at the first Or
ganizaton of the church. And to suppose that
previous to 1908 they did not possess the compe-
| tency to reorganize and reconstruct the govern
ment aud the Church as they might think best for
the great objects Of its mission. goes the length of
4 u
both the General and Annual Conferences, since
/ that period. ........ -. ---. =. .. .
/ J. The powers of the General Conference since
| the mod fcations of 1903, are the same as prey-
onsiy existed, subject TO the six restrictive art-
c.es; and neither of these articles has any con-
! neciion with or bearing upon the question under
consideration by the Court. (the power of the
! General Conference, TO divide the Church.)-
| Taese powers are broad and unlimited, sub
| iect only TO the checks aforesaid in regulating
| the doctrines, discipline and property of the
| Church. In all other respects, and in every
| thing else that concerns it, the General Confer
| ence represents the sovereign power as before.
&. As it respects the action OF the General Con-
ference Of 1911, in the matter of the division of
the Church, it cannot be pretended but that it
| proceeded upon the assumption of unquestioned
| power to erect the Church into two separate &C.
| clcsIastical establishments. The only doubt en-
teraned expressed in the s'pan of separation,:'
| related to the division Of the common property
| Oh account of the Sixth restrictive article liz
! dependent of this question of property the power
/ OF severance IS written on every page Of Their
! proceedings.
! Z. The methodist Book Concern in the City
/ Of New York. consisting of houses, lots, machl-
merry, printing presses, book hindery, books, pa
| pers, debts. cash, &c, amounting 10 about The
! sum OF SI5o,o0o, is charity, established by the
/ travelling preachers of the Caurch who have
designated The objects and purposes for which il
shall be applied, and if it is at any time wrong
! fully withheld by those in the immediate charge
of it, or diverted from the objects designed by
the founders, il is the duty of the Court TO inter
| fere and enforce the execution OF the trust.
s. The Foundation of the charity is peculiar
aud novel, differing essentially from the cases Of
this description that have heretofore fallen under
the equitable jurisdiction OF Court OF Caancerv.
| The travelling preachers are both the founders
aud beneticiaries. We do not perceive, however,
| that these considerations can In any way effect
the nature or character of the interest of the COM
| p.ainants, confers upon them title to the en-
| Joyment OF their proportion of the proceeds SUI
| perior to that Of henefciaries of pure charity,
| where third person has made the endowment in
! The ordinary way for charitable and pious uses
| or, that II can be administered upon any other
| principles than those governing Courts of Equity
in this class of cases. The proceeds and profits
must be devoted to the relief of distressed travel
| ing, supe:numerary and worn out preachers in
| the connection Of the M. f. Church, their widows
and orphans and to entitle the compliments and
| those they represent to the enjoyment, they must
| bring themselves within the description.
! .. 1t is not contended but that the complain
ants are still travelling preachers in the Metho-
! dist Episcopal conneNioa and communion, and
subject to its doctrines and discipline. The sep.
! aration having taken place in pursuance of the
action of the competent ecclesiastical authority.
the benefciaries falling within the new organiza-
ton have not forfeited the character which emit
| ties them to the enjoyment Of the fund. ans have
| done nothing to deprive them of the description
OF Tic parsons for whose relief its proceeds have
/ been permanently devoted. -.
10. Even if the General Conference we're dis
abed on account Of the sixth restrictive article
| from apportioning this fund still if the COM
plainants bring themselves within the description
Of the benefcariss, they not thereby deprived
Of it. The law steps in and enforces the right
Holding this relation 10 itand not having forfeit
cd it by any wrong act Of their own, OF BY any
set up against them, it is not in the compe-
| tence of the General Conference and Annual
| Conferences combined, to deprive them of it.
Their right rests on established principles of law
| and equity, which make it the duty of Court OF
| Chancery to interfere and see that the fund is
| properly administered.
II. Looking at the position of compainants
| and those they represent, on account of the &C
| ton of the General Conference OF 1914, dividing
the ecclesiastical organization and substituting in
| its place two distinct, Independent iudcator:es,
it is BY no means certain, that the distribution is
in contraventon even of the sixth restrictive al
tcle, that appropriates the fund for The benefit of
the travelling, supernumerary and worn out
| preachers, their widows and orphans. 1t is this
description of persons to whom it is destined by
| the adjudication of the Court. They are not on
ly within the description of it, but are also the
| very persons heretofore in the enjoyment of it.