The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1851-11-22
to pursue this branch Of the case any

10 pursue this branch Of the case any |
further.
As it respects the powers of the General Con- |
ference since the modlficatons of 1903, it is the
same as previously existed, subject 10 the six re.
strcive articles; and neither Of them has any |
with or bearing upon the question we |
have been considering. They relate to the doc |
trihe OF the church, it's representation in the Gen.
eraI Conference, the EpIscOpacy, discipline Of |
preachers and members the Book Concern, aud |
Charter Fond.
These concern the exercise OF the administrative |
powers of the Conference, and are intended az |
upon them, unless concurfed In by the
Annual Conferences.
The powers conferred upon the General Con. |
ference are broad and unlimited. subject only to
these checks in regulating the doctrine and disci.
pline and property of the church. In oil other
respects, and in every thing else that concerns it,
the body still represents the sovereign power, the
came as before
The practice of the General Conference, since
the change in 1908, confirms this view. The con.
nection Of the Annual Upper Canada Conference
with the Methodist Episcopal Church was dis
solved in 1928, and that body authorized to erect
itself into independent ecclesiastcal establish-
ment. -.a
The force Of this precedent has been attempted
to be weakened upon the allegation that this con.
nection differed from that OF the Annual Confer
ences within the United States and that it rested
upon sort Of compact between that Conference
and this church, and, therefore, held different re-
ation to it. But, on looking into the history and
discipline OF the church, this will be found to be
Misrepresentation OF that relation and that the
Canada Conference was brought within Its folds in
the same way those lying upon the frontier set
Elements within the United States
1t will be found that as early 1904, the Upper
Canada districts were included in the NewYork
Annual Conference, and continued . part of it,
the same other districts, till 1912, when these
districts, and also the Lower Canada districts,
were included within Geneses Conference In
1916, the Lower Canada districts were embraced
within the NewYork and New England Confer
ences. In 1920, both Upper and Lower Canada
were again included in one Genesee Conference
and In the same year, the Bishops were author
ized, with the concurrence OF this Conference, to
establish an Annual Conference in Canada, and
in 1924, the Canada Conference included the
whole OF the Upper Province-and thus it stood in
1925 when erected into an Independent establish
ment. C
We have seen nothing in the history, discipline
or practice OF the church, restricting its organza-
ton or Christian abors to the territorial limits of
the United States; but much to show that both
have been steadily devoted to the accomplishment
OF the high and holy mission avowed in found
ing the church, namely, Ito reform the conti-i
nent and to spread scriptural holiness over these
lands"
As early as 1910, the republic of Texas was in.
corporated into its bosom, and an Annual Confer
ence established. And We doubt not that as
the principles of civil liberty and religious toiera
ton work their way in the advancement of civlliza
uon over regions hitherto impenetrable TO the mis-
slonary unless of particular faith this great work
OF organization and Christian labor will be carried
ON regard ess of errorial boundaries or forms of
secular government.
ln referring 10 the practice of the church, we
must not overlook The action of the General Con.
l ference OF 1874 in tie instances now before us
The vote upon The fl st resolution stood one hun
/ dred and forty y-seven 10 twenty two, a body
| representing more than four thousand travelinl
preachers in this communion; and, among whom
| IL Is lalr to suppose, We're included men OF tn,
greatest experience and knowledge ia the admins
| lraton OF The pOliiy of the church. Indeed, OF
looking INTO the report OF The debates Of this ses
sion, and into the discussions upon the report o
the committee on The division of the church, ano
especially upon The all absorbing subjects that lee
| to It's necessity, no one can fail 10 be impres esseC
| with the eminent ability ana intelligence of the
| leading members of that body; nor for a moment
| doubt that they were profoundly skilled in all
| the history, practices and usages of the church
government, spiritual and temporal, and in the na.
lure aud extent of their powers as the hghes!
Judcature belonging to it.
As 1t respects the action of this body in the mat
ter OF division, no one can pretend but that it pro-
ceeded upon the assumption OF unquestioned power
TO erect the church into two separate ecclesiastical
| establishments. The only doubt entertained or
expressed in the plan of separation related to the
division of common property, on account of the
sixth restrictive article, which we have conceded
all along was not within its competence but which
we shall presently notice more particularly in
another part of the independently of this
| question OF property, the power Of severance is
written upon every page of their proceedings.
Having now arrived at the conclusion that the
General Conference of 1874 was competent to
make the division, and that the only condition an
| nexed to it has been fully complied with, we are
prepared to apply the principles Of law, which, in
| this posture OF the case, must govern it.
We have held, in a previous part of this opin-
ION, that the complainants must bring themselves
within the description Of persons entitled to the
benefit OF this charitable fund prescribed by it,
original founders and that, when they have done
this those who deny or withhold the charity musl
present case to the court taking them out of the
description. This has been attempted, by show.
ing that they have wrongfuly separated from the
| connection and communion OF the Methodist Epis
copal Church, and erected themselves into an indie
pendent ecclesiastical establishment; and have
| therefore, deprived themselves of the character O
benehciaries Of the fund. Having arrived at tn.
conclusion that there is no foundation for this al
legation, the ground of defence, of course, fails
| and the complanants still continue clothed witt
the character and rights belonging to them previ
Gus to the separation The separation having
| taken place in pursuance of the action of tn,
competent ecclesiastical authorty-by the &C
ton OF the founders Of the fund themselves
how can it be maintained that the beneiciaries
falling within the new organization, have forfeie,
the character which entities them to its enjoyment
what act have they done TO deprive them of tn
description Of the persons for whose relief its pro
ceeds have been permanently devoted?
1t is not pretended but that they are still travein
preachers in the Methodist Episcopal connectio
and communion, subject to It's doctrines and dis
cipline and devoted to the accomplishment, of tina
mission for which this church was planted in thes
United States; nor but that the field of their labor
Is within the domain covered by its original organ
lzaon. A new construction of it's pOty, with
this limit, has been determined upon by It's hipfe,
Judicatory, In order that the great mission may
more harmoniously and more eHeclually carried OF
For this purpose, two distinct ecclesiastical organ
cations, We may say ideD,ically the same hay
taken the place of One-the same discipline, faitl
and doctrine--and, all united in spreading tt
same gospel teachings throughout the land. A
sumo, therefore, that the General Conference wei
disabled, on account of the sixth restrictive arlicl
from apportioniDg this fund sill, if the complain
ants bring themselves within the description of Il
benefciares, they are not thereby deprived of
The law steps in and enforces The right. Hodiu
this relation to it, and not having forfeited by al
wrong act OF their own, or by any cause set I
against Them, 1t Is not in the competency of Il
General Conference and Annual Conferences cor
bined TO deprive them. Their right rests upon 9
tabiished principles of law and equity, which NAL
II the duy OF Court of Chancery to interfere, al
see that the fund is properly administered.
Looking at the position of these complainant
OF the General Conference of 1874 dividing Il
ecclesiastical or yani cation, and substituting in
place two DISTINCT independent judicatories, it is
no m ans certain that the distribution is in contr
ventlon even of the sixth restrictive article, III
approprlates the fund for the benefit Of the travt