Cooper's Clarksburg register. [volume] (Clarksburg, Va. [W. Va.]) 1851-1861, 1854-07-19


theen ennuGt conferences met in conven-
ton, IN pursuance ofthe plan of3separa-
ZION, and determined upon division,
and resolved thatthe annual conferences
should be constituted into separate ec-
clesiastical connection, and based upon
the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, comprehending the doctrines and
entire moral, ecclesiastical, and econom-
ical rules and regulations of said Disci-
pline, except only so far as verbal altera-
lions might be necessary, and to be known
by the name Of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, South.
The division ofthe Church, as original
~ constituted thus became complete and
from this time two separate and distinct
organizations have taken the place of the
ono previously existing.
The Methodist Episcopal Church hav-
ing been thus divided, with the authority
and according to the plan of the General
Conference. it is claimed, on the part of
the complainants. who represent the trav-
cling preachers in the Church South, that
they are entitled to their share Of the cap.
ital stock and profits of this Book Con-
Germ; and that the Withholding of it from
them is violation Of the fundamental law
prescribed by the founders, and, conse-
quently, of the trust upon which it was
. placed in the hands Of the defendants.
The principal answer set up to this
claim is. that, according to the original
constitution, and appropriation of the
fund, the benefciaries must be travelling
preachers, or the widows and orphans Of
travelling preachers, in connection with
the Methodist Episcopal Church as or
ganized and established in the United
States at the time Of the foundation of the
fund and that. as the complaiuauts, and
those they represent, are not shown to
be travelling preachers in that connection,
but travelling preachers in connection with
different ecclesiastical organization,
they have forfeited their right and are no
longer within the desert ption of its bene-
iciaricS.
This argument. we apprehend, if it
proves any thing, proves too much; for
ifsound, the necessary consequence is.
that the benefciaries connected with the
Church, North as well rs South. have
forfeited their hight to the fund. 1t can
no more be affirmed, either in point of
fact. or Of law, tnat they are travelling
preachers in connection with the Meth
odist Fps, opal Church as originally
constituted. since the division, than
of those in connection with the Church.
Their organization covers but about half
OF the territory embraced within that Of
the former Church and includes within
it but little over two-lhirtls Of the trav-
cling preachers. Their General Confer.
ence is not the General Conference of the
old Church, nor does it repre- sent the in
ity of the same nor are they the body
under whose care this fund was placed
= by its founders. 1t may be admitted,
that. within the restricted limits. tie or
ganization and authority are the same as
the former Church. But, the same is
equally true in respect to the organi2a-
ton Of the Church South.
Assuming. therefore. that this argu
ment is well founded. the conse uence is.
that all the benc6ciaries of the fund.
whether in the southern or northern di-
vision. are deprived of any right to a dis
tributiOn, not being Id condition to
bring themselves within the description
Of :persons for whose benefit it was estab-
lished in which event, the foundation OF
the fund would become broken up, and
the capital revert to the original propri
etors, a result that would differ very little
in its effects, from that sought to be pro-
duced by the complainants in their bill.
1t is insisted. however, that the Gener-
al Conference Of 1914 possessed no power
to divide the Methodist Episcopal Church
as then organized. or to consent to such
division and, hence. that the organza-
ton Of the Church South was without au-
thority, and the travelling prea hers
within it separated from an cccleslHs-
tical connection which is essential to en-
able them TO participate as bCneGcaries
Even il this were admitted. we do not
perceive that it would change the relative
position and rights Of the travelling preach
ers within the divisions north and south.
from that which we have just endeavored
to explain. If the division under the d.
rection Of the General Conference has been
made without the proper nu thorlty. and
for that reason the travelling preachers
within the southern division are wrong
fully separated from their connect ION with
the Church. and thereby have lost the
character of bpnefciaries, those within
the northern division are equally wrong
fully separated from that connection AS
both divisions have been brought into cN-
istence by the same authority. The same
consequence would follow in respect to
them. that is imputabIe to the travelling
preachers in the other division and
hence, each would be obliged to ti:ll back
upon their rights as original proPtietors
OF the fund
But we do not agree that this division
was made without the proper authority.
On the contrary. we entertain no doubt
but that the General Conference of 1914
was competent to make it; and that each
division Of the Church under the separate
organization is just as Legitimate, and can
claim rs high a sanction, ecclesiastical