The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1866-06-21


1ntimation has been given at 1t will be contended
that this Plan Of Separation unconstitutional. tt
let. It has beon acquiosced In by the whole ohurol
for more than twenty years. Tho Southern Churci
tho Northern Church have never made claim to tho
property or attempted to establish o Conference tbu
ern organization. Consider the immense value Of thu
churches parsonases and other property oil hold IN h
iore 1874. That all this property passed into the
hands of tho Church South takon out by them
ihat not one effort can be shown the part OF the
Sorthern Church for over twenty years to make max,
S tns a 'as' to
and how can explain this Of Conduct on any
by he stpuaons of the Plan OF separston Which
cured all this property to tho Southern Church, was
the love plunder which lives in the hearts of the
camp followers. had been nurtured-it was not until
presented-it was not until tho conflict OF races
was tnaugurated, that any such claims manufac.
| I'D. The whole question has been judicially deter
mined and the Plan Of Separation sustained quote
kentucky Reports That case arose In this way: Tho
Plan Of Separation provided that tho northern boundary
Of the limits Of the two divisions the Church should
be determined by tho of majority Of tho
sers OF each congregation. At Maysvile, Kentucky,
to the ohurch South The church building was held
In the name of Trustees of tho Metho list Episcopal
sion and use Of 1t, The minority who adhered to the
Church North, contendDg that the building held
jority who had Joined the A. e. Church South had no
further right Tire case was carried to the Supreme
and able s
had full power and to mako the Plan of scpa
Church stands not seeding schismstic body,
breaking Off violently or illegally from the original
only as 4. may succeed in abstractlng from tho
other. but as lawful ecclesiastical body erected
Jurisdiction over designated portion Of the original
asseciat n. recognized BY that Church Its
successor and representation within its nts.' That
the Southern Church. retaining tho faith, doc
trno and discipline and assuming the Same organiza
ton and name the original Church. is not only Q
south the Methodist Episcopal Church, as truly as the
by the addition Of the word SOUTH to Designate Its
locality" "That tho members of local society," on.
or
right by adhering to tho Methodist Episcopal Church
OF 1s44 and the possession Of thu property given
| to the persons who went with the ohurch sou'h,"
eminent counsel in the case of Bascom o. Lane, be.
fore Judge Nelson, Of the Supreme Court We have not
record Of that case but evidence that the re-
suit was reference Of the matter to referees
division OF the Book Concern, provided in the Plan
years after the adoption Of this plan
4.,when tho Baltimore Conference came into oon
the Northern Church claimed that they had forfeited
the property held by them. Whyp Clearly because
their act was not In accordance with the Of separn
ton. b, ... - -.
g. 1t is not in violation Of any restrictive article The
as restricted by the Six Restrictive Articles These are
an follows. Read theml e., o A.. ..... .-O - -,
The Plan Of Separation does not counter to the
], 2, 4or5; Does 1t to the 6tha a.lI...-.r-- /
A. The Plan Of Separation contemplated o di.
vision Of the Church. Getting of to each section
it's own territorial .onerty. and division Of the Book
Concern and the Chartered Fund The 9th Restrictive
Article relates only to the last the Book Concern and
Chartered Fund The property in question in thiB
Is not connected with these. The Plan Of Separation
may by Possibiltv be void to the Book cocern. 6o
other property and the consequent surrender of that
p The EN- Restrictive Article does not forbid d.
ton other than certain specific purposes Now the
southern Church has tho dis pline with the
Concern 30. would be hound by the same restrictions
and would be held to the these funds
be applied to purposes not authorized by the 9Th Article
and 1t wonld not be infrnged. 80"
o. As have shown before the matter has been ju.
dioay decided has been acted for twenty years
hss until very recently governed the action Of both
II Is submitted that at any rate, this court should
Thus that by the Plan of Separation the Church
now called the NJ. E. Church solemny surrendered to
that section Of 1t called the NJ. E. Church south
Organization and this properly involved in this case
given by will which went into effect In 1884, aud under
passes under aud is controlled by this plan
Much testimony has been introduced to that the
eoored people did not favor the division In 1874 To
ls The st Article OF the Plan Of Separation provides
that the question the division shall be determined By
the m,orty in case of Churches lyrg ou the border
but not to Interior changes which shall in all
they are situated" ~" l''TI' l7'.1 :
I'd. No expression given to their al
contrary. they expressed In their deliveranoss un
bounded love and Affection for their "fathers and
brnthren Of the Southern Church. It Is late
to raise opposition for the sake property punder
Sd 1t Is In evidence that the colored membership in
charleston In 1854, was arge by $780, Mr. Lewis
has succeeded In getting some 1900 Of these. The resi-
go very naturally and properly to the African NJ. e
Onurch: 30 that not even majority OF the colored
people favor the "old Church" ~ ..r. .. .
| We come now to tho third position:
Srd Because this old Board is excluded from taking
under the VIII, and mono others III persons such az
| The petitioners who are Trustees of the M E. Church
can take the devise spsod, nssmuch the death
David Mckee there were no such Trustees Of the n
! Church in Charleston. - i.'s. D.. " y -
The petitioners claim that the old Board although al
one time Trustees OF the ~. Church. and, therefore
Church south they lost their rights the WILL and
that none can take under this will such as are Trus
tees OF the NJ E. Church now existing, There were
no Trustees Of the NJ E. Church it existed at the
North In charleston from 1914 to 1856. II none but
Trustees OF that Church take under that will in or
der to do 80 they must have been In existence ir
Charleston at the death Of David Mckee There mus
the eIistence In being OF the who to take
his death This is the inevitable law Of remanders IL
4th Kent Common, p. H8 It is laid down that he in
terest to be Limited remainder either vested or con
tingent must commence1 pass of the grantor ir
tho same instrument and at the time of the creation
the particular estate and not afterward It must ves
In the grantee eher in Tor In Deing) by right
entry during the continuance Of the particular estate
OF the very instant It determines an be given
f0rI tDda IN fba eId