Fayetteville observer. [volume] (Fayetteville, Tenn.) 1850-1966, 1851-12-02
The Methodist Church Case.

niSilcS Tue loAiOWiDS Diiel SActCfl VI
the history Of the Methodist Church
Case recently decided by Judge
Nelson in New York:
Under the judgment Of the
court, the Methodist Church South
lis entitled to and will receive its
share Of what is called the Book
Concern. The amount involved in
the case is estimated at The
counsel for the South were Messrs,
Webster, Meredith, Johnson, Lord,
Corw in and Bryan.
AS the case is one of much in
terest 10 a large portion of our read
ers, we propose p recall a few Of
the prominent fact 5 in the contro-
.versy which led to the suit which
has just been decided. At the Gen
eral Conference held in New York,
May, 1913, the following resolution
was adopted against Bishop An
drew, who resided ii this State,
simply because h + had married a
lady Who owned slaves:
"Re solved, That il is the sense
of this General Conference that he
desist from the e xercise of his Of
flee (of Bishop SO long as ibis i'm
pediment remains P
Tho southern members Of the
Gen erhI Conferc ice presented a
protest against til is action; and a
declaration that lie interest OF the
Church in the slaY Ye holding States
demal Ided separ ation. This mat
ter wa referred TO committee
with distractions, that if they could
not deFise plan tt adjust the diff,
Guilty, E'they devise, if possible, a
constitutional plan for mutual and
friendly division Of the Church" >
The Committee reported plan for
the division of th E Church, which
was adopted.
The first resolution in this plan
left it to the Annual Conferences in
the slave holding States to decide
whe ih fr they W puiE organ ize a
separa tie Church or not; and pro
ceeded to specify the rule that
would regulate tlIe boundary line
betwcfn the two Churches, should
the SEPARATION take place. This
was adopted, yeas I35;
nays I5. The pldn then goes on TO
provide + for an ''eqIlitdble divi{ sion Of
The book concern and cha Ftered
fund.- which pas ssed by V ote Of
yeas l 47; nays 10.
The Annual q Conference in the
slave-Holding State :, except Mary
and an d Delawafe, elected dele>
gates { b a Convention which met in
LouisT lille, Kebtu clly, May, 1S45,
to decide upon til B necessity Of a
separation under the above cited
plan. The Conferences wer fully
represented and after mature de-
liberation and free discussion, the
Conve htion by vote Of ydas 81,
and na Us 3,
ResbIyed, That it is right expe-
llient, and necessary to erect the
Conferences represented in
this Cd invention, Into a distinct &c
clesiastical connection.
. The three in the negative were
from the Kentucky Conferen ce.
Anxious still TO keep up friendly
md fraternal feelings and inter
coul Sc with the Nprth, the Church
South, thus organized, appointed
Dr.. L.Pierce, of G eorgia, q delegate
10 the next General Conference to
he Methodist Episcopal Church
North, to tender tbe Christian salu-
ations of the CHURCH South, Ibut he
was upceremoniousl usly rejected.
Three commissioners W IRE ap-
by the Geheral Conference
n 1914, s.like number to be ap-
pointed by tie Church South,
should one be formed Ito make
he division of tie property|as pro
,ided lor by the plan Of sep phrallon
hus adopted. The Convection of
he South, after resolving tp sepa-
ate appointed three comn i ssioners
o act for the Church :So4tIl," in
out Tie division of alle pro-
1ertF. But the commissioners for
he Church South refused I'd act.
This left the question unsettled
i'll the General Conference Of the
Church North met in I94S, when
he Conference assumed To annul
he whole proceedings Of tie Gen