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

=, ~ LIZ mi os aanaretion was unconstitutional 10
a1 tnae Itlan a' r. kaan thosa os obsarvations:
'hs ~ roc n acnuiesoed In by the whole Ohuroh
f yoora than twenty years. The Southern Ohuron
oto1 Srectlv mon It and formed its orga' zauon. Ah
th Nartbarn Church have never made claim TO .ne
.o,,ertv or ateuntad to establish Conference ou'
ance and that futile EFFORT III the limits OF the eou!
ern oroanization Consider the immense value VI .ne
ohurchas naraonaQes and other property all heo the
name Of Trustees Of the NJ f. huroh IN the SCUM ~
tore 1914 That oil of this property passed lnto .ne
hands Of the Church South, and was taken OUT Dy
THAT mt one effort can be shown on the part u te
Northern Ohuroh for over twenty years to MAKE max
claim to this property although du ing all that time
the State and United States Courts were open TO them
can Won explain this course Of conduct on any
other ground than that the Northern Church felt bound
by Tho stpulations Of the Plan OF Separation
all this property to the Southern boan se
tha love of nunder Which lives in the hearts OF the
oamn So1owera had heen nurtured-it was not until
th tt hict of nrostrafe aud conquered foe
ne ., not until the conflict Of
was finanumrate1 that any such claims was nanufac.
tired '1e'N''0>1' N'''' ~,.s
I'd. The whole question has been judicially deter
mined and the Plan Of Separation sustained 7 quote
from the case Of Gibson vs Armstrong, b. Monroe's
Kentucky Reports. That case arose In this ways The
plan ~ genaraton nroyded that the northern boundary
Of the limits Of the two divisions of the Church should
be determined by the votes Of majority of the mem.
bers of each congregation At Maysville, Kentucky,
waa ono 81 these Congregations and majority adhered
tn the C1turch south. Tbs church building was held
IN thns Mama of Trusteea of the Methodist Episcopal
church. and question arose as to the right Of posses
IN and nan NJ r. AQlef00
GSnreh North contendne that as the building Was held
inthe name Of the Trustees Of NJ 3. Church the ma
jority who had Joined the H. Church southh had no
further right Tbe case was carried to the Supreme
eeborsta and able opinion that the General Conference
had f power and au horty to make the Plan Of 8epa-
ration and 10 divide the Church. That the Southern
pnulon san9s no. ay or aasv rom the original
Hbmroh and CARRYING off uc memhers and such rights
onlv "a It NAV succeed in abstracting from the
other e but us lawful ecolesastical body, erected
Ey e portion Of the
osel S tbot Ghnrc aa its prouer
within s limits That
tS sontbarn nburcb ratainino the same faith doc.
trine and aonlina and assuming the same organiza
tion and nauoe aa tha orainn Church is not only
Methodist Episcopal Church, ut is in fact, to the
SOUTH the Methodist Episcopal Church. truly as the
other Church the North and s not the ess 30
locality" "That the members Of local society," en-.
titled to the of local property under this or any
otter similar deed before the division 40 not lose
right by adheng to the Methodlst
South under the resolutions OF the General
Of and the Of h9
to the who wens WITH ae araned y
o. ~ Hs m ~ Rascom ys Lane be-.
sa IS Naison 4 6f tho gmnrema Court We have not
Iore Juuee Ne!son' - sne =! 9Soo tbat the re
, .H - tha a,tsr tn refereaa and
SUI Mss t e as rovdaa IN The plan
~ ~ n0 Sa case was seed IN 1851 seven
e s"paaas pet ~. 5aton y'o ~ this ~ nai,
years aser sne ~ sns na o ,n+ onn
mAea ,. ~ az 'hnrch yaw months aao
.nb nHnro .ed that thew had forfeited
me Not!heIn a ~ 4ha Wh g,aarso haoanse
as not IN acordance WITH the Plan Of separa
.oa sns,r ao' "as nos ~ "A'A WY -
II ID not in yiolation Of any restrictive article The
~ 5 o. tha s Raatrc.ivs Artolaa Theae are
as as sestr,u'eo fesoaa fRaad ~ sle theml am
The plan OF Separaton does not run counter to the
Tha plan Of Separation contemplated q d.
vision NJ the Church. q setting of to each section
ita own territorial property and division Of the Book
Concern and the Chartered Fund. The 9Th Restrictive
Article relates only the last the Book Concern and
II nok oonneoted with these The plan Of Separation
10 noasihiitu ha void as to the Book Concern &C.,
hf bs amrav wond not aeot the validity Of the other
narts of the plan Of separaton-he surrender OF all
other property and the surrender of that
now q nnastinn
The ath1 Reatrct,ve Article does not forbid d.
don ~ thasa nnscai fnnda II forhids their sppoa-
lion 70 other than Certain specific purposes Now tho
noarn Ohuroh has tha oama ds .nlina with the same
paatot A,a 1' ~ ~ onr.e ita share Of the Book
a. sonIa bo honnd hv he seme reatriotions
d S hs he,d 10 tha same naes M tb
hasd IN tha nnt.s ey M .h AZ t,
rv purposes not authorized py Tue on
and 1t would not be 1nfringed. 49, .oo,,, r.,
O. As have shoWn before the mat.er nas peon Ja
dlclaAy deooeo has oeen acteu w ~ @ ~ tIo ~ hoth
sectops and 1t now too ate 70 reopen tae ad
II Is suomlsteo tnas' as any faso' .nt' eou1'
noT 40 60 tha. h, Tho plan of sanaraton the Church
Ihus we see thas ny tIe riau VI ~ ~
now called the ~. u. Onuson so.euIy r.na, St ~,
!hat secaon Q. now oAgu ,u nthin tho limits Of ta
the Onurch properly iSlue si.lln sns -! .II " oaa
organization ana tnls properly oo1 o. @ 9
given by viii whch went nto eneot ~ iSo,, 1ea
which the rignt vestea II n les.s 4, ~ & n
passes under ana 10 oonroea oy LUIS ~ h +ha+ +ba
acn testimony mas peen dio W. IN ~
colored people dlo aot 1aYot tuo o1sAeion AZ Ao.
th!R answer: ,,o., =, oo,au, INV orov,de on
lst The 1st Article OF the pan OF
that the question OF the dvleon sna % or nsdaE
the mjorsty III case OF onurones ylng 9u e ~
s'but not to interior changes which shal IN a cases,
be left to the care Of that ohuroh within whose
they are situated: - .,on ot,on At
EXPRESSION WHB OAo6ht1e4ootAoA