Glasgow weekly times. (Glasgow, Mo.) 1848-1861, 1855-05-24
For the Times.
IOT inc llluCS-
A Neighborhood Virdicated.

In recent issue oil your paper, Mr.. Ed
itor, observe the publication of the pro-
ceedings of a meeting, held at Mt. Carmel
church, Saline county, pending the trial Of
the Presiding Elder of Boonvile District
BY your leave / will make few comments
upon the proceedings and resolutions in
question, believing that they do great in
Justice TO the citizens Of the neighborhood
of Mt. Carmel, as well as TO other individu-
rls. Many of the neighbors are unwilling
that these resolutions should go forth as the
resolutions Of their neighborhood, without
contradiction. They are free TO admit that
the resolutions express the "Sense" of the
meeting; but beg leave to say that are not
the "SenSe" of the neighborhrod.
In my opinion, the holding of public
meeting, pending the trial of the defendant,
for the purpose of influencing the action of
the court, was decidedly in violation of the
rules of proprety, and of that courtesy due
TO tribunal composed of.worthy ministers
of the gospel. The COURAGE" referred to
created quite storm Of excitement in the
breasts of the friends of the defendant, and
it was determined to hold public meeting
TO give expression to their opinions. When
madness rules, all gentle measures are dis
regarded.
Accordingly, with great flourish of
trumpets, the neighborhhood was called up
on to assemble in mass meeting. A courier
was dispatched in all haste to this neigbbor
q runner sent to hurry on that-a friend
to bring up another-and after ''much ado"
Just bakers dozen assembled outside the
church, raised quite u tempest in a teapot,
and gave vent to their pent up Indignation
in the resolutions under considerations
The meeting, so far from comprising ma
iority, contained but ten citizens of the
neighborhood, of whom only fire were mem
bers of the church. A portion of these
gentlemen, Furthermore, had witnessed none
Of the proceedings which they so unspar-
ingly condemn. Now, sir, it seems that in
an ecclesiastical trial, where the church is
prosecutor-where the judge, the jury, and
the defendant are all ministers Of that
church, and where the proceedings are reg
ulated by church law, good taste and pro-
priety would have told gentlemen, not mem
bers of the church, to keep aloof and let
the court, duly appointed, control and decide
the matter.
But this trial seems 70 have begotten
quite lively interest for the church among
those who seldom put their feet within her
doors, and rarely come within the sound oil
the preachers voice. When a church trial
is on hand, however, and there is pros pect
for pickering and dissension, then they car
be very diligent, and challenge the most reg.
ular attendant; when they Can assemble in
the face of the court of investigation, de.
nounce distinguished members Of the church
in opprobrious terms, and undertake TO in.
iluence and control matters about which
from the very nature Of the case, they car
know but little.
Suppose, sir, that the Masonic fraternit,
should put one of its members upon tri
al, and the proceedings should not be sat
isfactory 10 the friends of the accused, out
side of the order,-would they, in conse
quence, be justified in interfering and de
nouncing the triers? The cases are paral
lei. In a civil court such interference woulC
be severely censured. An ecclesiastical
court in this country has no power TO pro
tect itself from insult, but must rely upol
the good sense and courtesy Of the commu
nifty for guarantee Of freedom of action
Surely that Difference which the arm Of tn
law insures 10 its tribunals, the courtesy O
a neighborhood should extend TO an ecclesi
astcal court.
The citizens of Mt. Carmel are unwilling
that resolutions, gotten up as these were
should be foisted upon the community as til
''Sense" Of the neighborhood. They do nc
intend that minority, led on by gentle
man, not a member Of their neghborhOoG
shall publish its resolutions as theirs, with
out protest on their part.
The first resolution does not charge tn
presiding officer with intentional wrong, b,
declares that his decisions thus far are CT
: tirely one sided, Sc. If the resolutic
q means anything, it means thai the presidir
officer knew nothing about his business
= OF course the indignatiOnists were full
: posted in all matters pertaining to eccles
astical trials. 1t is the opinion of mar
persons present at the trial that the cou
was impartial in its administration of Il
= law; others think that too great lattuc
Y, war allowed 10 the defendant.
le In the next resolution we are told that Il
rs members CONFUSING the meeting had had