The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1866-06-23

80 4 V4sA o14s46H wv 4
1A91F For it's a lad, Degrading part, 'its5-e 0s9'
lA TO make another's bosom smart. ~ mas
-t Aud plant dagger In the heart s5zaszz
We ought to love and cherish;
Then let us evermore be found @s,
rs. In quietnesg with al around ,5g
While friendship. peace and joy abound
49, And angry feelings perish.
- @.1.u...-..l.z...... .1.u..-..l.z.... ....x.z...z.@a =if sA
METHODIST CHURCH IN COURT.
: = ~ ARGUMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.
OF" 5Natsii ~ u: e. i5i3l5. ~ i.
ytiAay please the Court: In what shall be urged be
half Of the plaintiffs this case they ask only for jus
dec, ana that they mny be heard as you yourselves
oud be entitled to be heard should the great
of events, in the mysterious yicasttudes Of e place
Ithas been we'll remarked by Captain Pyne the Judge
tAdvocats for this departments in the re-
Of this case to the Of this honorable
Bbg that IF which 81 the parties before this Court
lure legally entitled to the property in question IN re-
m p e ldsa hat has been m99te %te here that & vast
xteisve interest. are included In this cassi Is
Se ossstion Il an excited Imagination. II merely
afcal matter affecting the support OK the Methodist
episcopal preaching in this city and i9 nowse known
NGSnsa Ss ,hreRnRh hs publication Of our city
pspSs and might never have been known here but for
ihe Of the defendant % eject the re.
now Occupies until thequestion now before the Court
shall be- decided This person is legatee under the
WILL but was sought 70 be excluded from her rghts and
sess Sy fos
Mckee the leRsee above mentioned, is entitled to
ay i aS se psapsss w s rss
low hex Reasonable support Upon tne oGcupa.9n &c OF
.the city by the o. g. forces, the Rev. W. Lewis. OF
Episcopal Church was Raeea sss 4 Kan
.the facts OF this case came TO his Rnowledge and
S7sc,np :, charitable and just construction r. on the
b sossa ssass. sn3s esnnssssa xe e
this property, free of rent Beyond Inis VI
has In no way interiered with the property OF this es
but the woman has remained IN Ne os
fused to eject her from the premises thouoh applied TO
by the DEFENDANT And the effort Of this defendant py
in Beaufan street upon reverend gentleman OF the
tN H. Ohutch is without cause which was SHOWN on
B1 70 70 5s OF
this property We fortunately brought within narrow
limits by the will which our claim Is based ana no
wide range CT CONTROVERSY Is open beiore us
ownership In himsef Hemerely claims as the admin
srstor On the estate Of Abel McKee, which ceased by the
=-'- should have passsd to the church
bs saf dssh e. Dsvd Gibson he being sns
shtyiyor Of the testator II is olaed py M ahaa
ii this property That thls property wed
- narIa,n church there can be doubt as will be
Seen 81 the will before you and that only one a
Hor0pd
African M g. Church. nor the Protestant Metnoaist
Ohuroh; neither is 1t the Methodist
South but the Episcopal OnprGn hnown ana
Rut he defendant claims that the Church South mas an
interest here that the property mentioned IN tnls wv
belong to Them IT. @ II ~ that the Church
Soh had sny existence until some fifteen years aiter
tie death Of the testator. What then Is the basis OF
their claima Why, that this property OF nght neoage
70 the Methodist Episcopal Church; that 1t was wed 70
this Church land by virtue Of supposed division OF
The property of the Methodist Episcopal Onurca tne
Church South should have all the properly ol me e,
Eouthern boundary We are referred TO the action
Of the General Conference of 1884, in proof of such d.
vision Of property or plan Tor the ~ Of
should find 1t desirable to seoede ID OF the
action taken by the General Conference OF l84 on the
subject Of slavery The General ava approyo
ment Of commissioners provided Q sufficient number
three-fourha OF ths Annual Conferences should 30
approve Of this plan to render IL legal or Of bind
E force II viii be seen by reference to Che oonsti.
tutional powers OK the General Conference that there
are some things which General Conference of the NJ
e. Church cannot do There are six restrictive rules
and you viii notice among these, they cannot change
the articles of religion, they cannot change the
general rules They cannot oeptlve 70 OF the
me General Conference cannot appropriate certain
funds Of the Church to other objects than those apo
oiedby the regulations Of the Church. lany changes
ar made it must be affected by vote OF twothrds OF
ihe General Conference and conourrenca of three
fourths of all the annual Conferences. It must be OBJ
;vious thst question affecting the organic structure
of Church its separation hioh implies the right OF
menbershp, and the division OF its property both of
which guarded by restrictions could not be eect
ed short of the of OF the An
nual Conferences. is enough to in regard to this
Plan Of searaton that the Annual Conferences never
concurred. The commissioners were not appointed
and could not act if they had been because the Plan
Separation had no legal force power. or eject. The
Southern Church took with them into their new organ
izston the same restrictons in regard to the pow
ars of the General Conference, that existed in the
old Church at the time Of their accession. In theil
General Conference of 1854, they passed. by
large majority, q regulation which was incorpora
ted into their discipline giving veto power
ence treated the regulation as dead letter, and al
lowed their Bishops no such power for the simple
reason that this change In their administration had
not hean submitted to the Annual Conferences, and
hence Ind not received this threefourths approval
Hero let me call your attention to speech in the
Chrstian Advocate of April 26t made by ono OF tue
most able Bishops OF tue Church Soath at sher recen
General Conference. The reverend gentleman, speak
ING of tho veto power above mentioned said: II confess
to astonishmelt at hearing an opinion, from those
whose opinions greatly respect that TINS proVlso con
terring tho veto power the Bishop ls law 10 my
mind it is clearly not q law, and doubt whether D.
any actil of ours it can be made one Nobody VII
say that it has baon submitted to Tho Annual Contor
ence concurrence; and without this, no funda
mental or organic changes be introduced. 1t is
therefore dead latter, though it may have found Its
way into tho discipline, and remained unquestloneo
until now -
raj Conference wanted to change the nano OF the
Church, and longer have attached to 1t word tha
would indicate that they wero sectional But tho South
ern General Conference had not i'll their estimation
power even to change the Of the Church; they
acted upon the subject far as they had powor III the
premises but tho name is not regarded changed u
iess threefo, tbs the Annual Conferences approve o
this action of their General Conference Look at the
9Th article OF the CONSTITUTION OF the Unised Sates and