Burlington hawk-eye. [volume] (Burlington, Iowa) 1845-185?, 1851-06-05

An INTERESTING TRIAL--This case. inststr,
ed by the Methodist Episcopal Conference .Sou,a
against the Trustees of the Methodist Boot 80
Germ, in New York, was taken mp i'm the d.
Circuit Court, in New York. on Monday r..
Hon. Reverdy Johnson and Daniel D. Lar. =
n. Y, appeared for the eomnlainants. Mr. Wa
ster is also one of the counsel on the same "a.
Hon. Rufas Choate, of Mass, and Geo. VI.
Esq, of N. Y, appeared for the defendant, n,
Hon. Thomas Ewing was also present, he be;,.
counsel for the defendants in similar suit -.
the branch Methodist Book Concern Of Ca
natl
Mr. Lord. In opening the case. STATED H., a
stringent measures operating in the Mefhos.
church in this country, whereby ID, r,s-rs.e
were prohibited from owning slaves, led II 49,
to the proposition for a division. which ~, ~
coded to, and. consequently, a separate 80 IL
tinct organization took place i'm l-lJ. darer;--.
ed the Methodist Episcopal Church SogtE 80.
the Methodist Book Concern i'm N. YorL -. 80
about $4,000, was established with a rirr =
furnish books to ministers OF the rhu-ra NV.
sold them to members and others and fhs rrn
ceads, after defraying the expenses of th4 80
lishment, were to be devoted To ,he -
nance of travelling and superanuated minixt.
widows and orphans, SC; that the said rhnrrr
south was declared to be composed Of the Msth.
odist churches IN the saveholding States; that |,
was fully understood that the annual eopfsrsr..
in New York in 1914 agreed to the measure -.
IT was subsequently urged BY the church MOTH
that the measure of division was uneooxtitus;a'
al, and that the churches at the south were sers
ders, and not entitled TO participation in the nro.
fits of the establishment and have refused ~ n
| low division Of said establishment. or TO pav =
the church south Its appropriate share, agreesbIy
to the division. The present suit, in Consequence,
as, If the church south are declared to Be sere,
ders, they lose title to all the Methodist ehnrss
es and other property at the south.
The complaint states that the church il , ro,-
| untary institution, and unincorporated. II eon.
sists of Bishops, i.S2S preachers-and IN hish-
ops, ministers and members under the orran;,.
| ton in the United States, 1,190,a60 on th.s.
about 639 900 belong to the North and l65DOOto
| the Church South.
1t was stated by Mr. Lord in opening. thu, "A.
stringent measures prohibiting minister. NM
members of the Methodist church i'm relation n
slaves prevented the action of the church in dave
holding States and separation became neressa.
nv. Previous to this it was shown that exerr
tons had been taken to a minister named Hzra
ing, at Baltimore land to Bishop Andrews ofGecr-
gia, who had become by marriage or dssr,nt
owners of slaves, and who could not by the Law,
manumit them.
One of them held by Bishop Andrews had ben
devised with directions that she should be sent Is
Liberia, but she would not 90, and the Bishon.
although nominally her owner, exercised no aeis
of ownership over her, and she went where sbe
pleased. Mr. L. made remarks in relation 10 he
facts.
Mr. Lord then read the complaint After which
Mr. Johnson, "a son of the Hon. Reverdy John
son, read portion of the answer, and Mr. T. L
Fletcher concluded the reading Of the same N
reading of the application was dispensed withand
Mr. Lord proceeded with his argument
At the conclusion of his remarks, Mr. Reserdv
Johnson, for defence, alluded to portions OF The
constitution of the church, by which he WILCOX
tend, analogous to portions OF the constitution ii
the United States, as relates to Congress, that The
General Convention had no power to anthori1ea
separation. He merely stated the point.
Mr. Fancher then rose and argued for the dt-
fence.
Mr. Choate would probably open the case On The
part of the defendants.