Hannibal journal and western union. (Hannibal, Mo.) 1851-1852, 1851-09-11

W IttOIus dlh lbAuNNo " iNhNt
the State. In her ease, therefore, b4ye been
made STAKEHOLDER legally, but DOT ~ith my own
CONSENT lif A55 - E5MTThUo ~
IDLY. About FIVE years since, The mother Of
my fOrmerwife left to her daughter, not 10 me,
a negro boy; and as my wife died without viii
more than two years since, by the ElwF Of the
State he becomes legally my property, in this
case, as in the former, emancipation Is impracti-
cable in the State: but he shall be at liberty to-
leave the State whenever shall be satisfied that
he is prepared to provide for himself, or can
have sufficient security that be will be project
cd and provided for in the place to which he
may 60 (. t'.'e..,ssg
3dly. In the month of January last, married
my present wife, she being at the time possess
cd of slaves, inherited from her former .hus-
band's estate, and belonging to her Shortly az
ter my marriage, being unwilling 20 become their
owner, regarding them as strictly hers, and The
law not permitting their emancipation, secured
them to her by deed of trust. .it lit1 ..ft
1T will be obvious to you from the above
facts that have neither bought nor sold a slave;
that in the only two instances in which, am le
gally stakeholder, emancipation is impractical
bic. As to the servants owned by my wife,
have no legal responsibility in the premises,
nor could my wife emancpate them il she de-
siICu W w SOs L IdNC llluo pldlliig Gtn'Nb wv
facts in the case, and submit the statement for
the consideration Of the General Conference.
I ~, Yours respectfully, l.at
.l JAMES o. ANDREW
The General Conference, holding their ses-
sions in this city in 1874, discussed this matter
for several days, with great ability and intense
feeling; but finally (ayes lilo, noes 68) the fol-
l. Il i,
Yf'Whereas the Discipline of our Church for
bids the doing of anything calculated to destroy
our itinerant general SUPPLEMENTARY, & whereas
Bishop Andrew has become connected with sla-
very bymarriage s otherwise, and this act having
drawn after il circumstances which, in the es-
timation of the General Conference, will great
ly embarrass the exercise Of his office as an itin-
Grant general superintendent, if not in some pla-
ces entirely prevent it; therefore,
sResolved, That it is the sense of this Gene
raj Conference that he desst from he exercise
of his Office SO long as this impediment re-
MAINS 800
This action and these votes led to the unhap-
ply sectional division of the Methodist Episco-
pal Church. The Southern Methodsts said,
Methodsm, South could not exist under such
vote, and that if they attempted to exist under
it, they should not only be put down, but that it
shut them out from all preaching te or teaching
of the Methodist slaves, of whom there were
million under their pastoral care, The North
erp Metho1ists then, it seems TO us, but OF
this there is dispute, agreed TO the separation of
the Church, into two sectional divisions. A
10 g =,
copy) and adopted, one item in which was a re-
commentator to all the annual conferences
Itwo-thirds vGting) to'give the Southern Church
a fair share Of the ''Book Concern" The an
nual conferences took vote on that, but though
a large majority voted aye, there were not two
thirds. Hence this suit.
Meanwhile. or soon after the General Confer
enee in 1874 the Methodist Church South organ
lied on the old basis & the Southern bishops act
edas bishops of that church; the northern church,
however, contend that they did not separate ac-
cording to the plan of divisions; that in fact they
are separaiSts-SectionaliSt that they have or
ganized neU Church; and that, if the plan of
division in 1874 had been truly carried out, the
General Conference had no constitutional pow
er to make such plan, ana therefore the Church
South ought not to have a share of the Book
Concern. a. ., ...' ... ..4.
The Lawyers arguments are long; the pro-
tests and contemporaries Of the Clergy very a.
Bile; the facts numerous and weighty, beyond
our power TO compress, even for "a newspaper,
in a way to be understood completely.
The Wesleyan Methodist Church was organ
lied in this country in 1884, it seems, by Bsh-
ops sent out from England, on an Abolition ba-
sis, even; but the Methodists Of this country
soon found they could not extend their Church
on that basis, and it was quietly dropped or
compressed by agreeing TO consider slavery an
evil but tOlerating, nevertheless, the holding of
slaves by travelling preachers in States where
slaves could not be manumitted The Church
went tremendously on, under these regulations
till 1910 and "A, when Aboltionism broke out
and passed the votes we have quoted in the ca
ses of Rev. Mr.. Harding and Bishop Andrew.
These votes threw the Southern Methodists
into fever. They broke the old liberation and
the old discipline OF the Church, they argued;
they established new laws; they condemned
Bishop Andrew without a trial, and doomed ev-
cry Southern Methodist to degradation, Hence
this separation, or secession, as the Northern
Methodsts contend but this reorganization by
agreement as the Southern Methodists explain
If they were schismatics, separatists, the South
has no legal right to the fund.- it is admitted; but
as they contend that they are the same old
Church, on the old Southern compromise plat
form, they demand in Law and Equity divi-
sion of the property. The question thus be-
comes a nice one as TO facts, and as TO the Law,
ecclesiastical and common.
We wish every statesman in this country
could read this book of Mr.. Sutton's, to show
how easy it was to break up great Church
Union, that had endured since the peace of 1885,
what really unimportant causes brought it about
! in 1874, and how little noise it then made; but
to reflect however, that this division of this