Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1867-06-25
Interesting Church Case.

4utcT6SClLH CuuTcu OdoC.
We had in our Circuit Court last week case
which excited good deal of attention and in
terest. The Methodist Congregation of Staun-
ton, worshipping in the Church property which
they have occupied for over fifty years, recently
took vote under the act of the last Legisla-
ture to determine towhich branch of the Church
they would for the future belong. 1t appeared
that there were 11S persons entitled to vote, OF
whom l0l voted to adhere to the Methodist
Church South, and the other II either failed or
refused to vote.
This action of the congregation was reported
to the Circuit Court to be entered upon the
record as the law requires.
When the papers were presented In Court
by COL Baldwin as counsel for the congrega-
ton, he was met by Mr.. Woodson, of Harrison
burg, and Major Bell of Staunton, who offered
a petition or remonstrance signed by Rev. Con-
ser, who claims to be the preacher in charge of
the true Methodist congregation at Staunton,
but who seems to be without a flock, and by
Rev. Lawson, a colored preacher who has charge
of the large colored congregation worshipping
at their own Church in Staunton The petition
was also signed by five other persons of whom
Mrs. Rachael Phelps, the mother of the Presi-
ding Elder of the northern branch of the Church,
is the representative of Rev. Consers party,
and A. Shoveller, P. Rozele, P. Ransom and
d. Davenport are colored men well known in
Staunton and belonging to the flock Of Rev.
Lawson. These petitioners objected
IL Il
is built upon a lot which was conveyed for the
use of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and
that it belongs of right to the members Of that
Church.
2 That the congregation now in possession
of the Church do not belong to the Methodist
Episcopal Church-but have resolved to go
with the Methodist Church South, and conse-
quently have lost their right to the property.
8. That the petitioners and others, belong
ing to the two congregations represented by
them, are the true members Of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, and as such are entitled to
the Church property, and sta
4. That the act of the Legislature under
which the proceedings have been had is uncon-
stitutional and void, and the whole movement
without validity, and that the papers relating
to it ought not to be admitted to record.
For the congregation it was replied:
l. That the title to the Church property
could not be tried in this proceeding except SO
far as this congregation has right to it, and
that if others claim an adverse right they must
sue for it in regular form.
2. That the object of the law Of the last leg
islature was to protect local religious congrega-
| tions who when their Church divided were COM
PEELED to make choice between the different
branches of it, and to allow them in such cases
to take their property with them, and that il
| was the purpose of this congregation to claim
the benefit of that protection.
3. That the petitioners, while they claim te
be Methodists, do not pretend to belong to this
congregation, and of course have no right to In
terfere with proceeding which concerns this
congregation alone and cannot effect the rights
of any other parties, and that the law of Vir
gnia recognizes only ''religious congregations,
each of which is, under the law, distinct from
| all others, even of the same Church.
4. That in this proceeding the Court will con
fine its inquiries to the regularity and fairness
of the steps taken to ascertain the determine
ton of the congregation, and will hear no OBJ
lection which is not founded upon some sug
gestion that by reason of fraud, accident OF
mistake the vote has not been correctly taken
or reported.
5. That the Court will not undertake to pass
upon the constitutionality of the law until the
question is distinctly presented in an issue fair
ly made between proper parties that a de-
cision will end the controversy.
| The discussion took wide range upon all the
points and upon the issues hereafter to arise
out of the subject-but the Court refused to en-
terrain the objections of the Petitioners upon
the ground that they did not claim to be mem
bers of the congregation whose action they op
posed, and that in this proceeding the only le
climate inquiry is as to the regularity and fair
ness of the congregational vote according to the
provisions of the act of Assembly.
The papers being found regular were ordered
| to be entered on the minutes.
We are not informed whether the controversy
is likely to be prosecuted farther-but we have
heard that there is some talk of claiming the
| Church for the negroes, on the ground that
they constituted a majority of the congregation
and that they were unlawfully, and against then
consent turned out of the congregation and
elected from the Church. On the other hand
it is stated, and we think truly, that as soon as
the war closed the negroes Of their own choice
separated from the white people in their relig-
ious matters-withdrew from the congregations
| to which they had been attached, and formed
| two new congregations under their own preach
ers. Certain it is that for two years past the
worship of the two races in our town has been
entirely separate, and we have been under the
impression that the separation was not only
| voluntary, but in perfect good will, and that
the white people contributed freely toward
building churches for the negro congregations.
Some of the questions presented in the argu-
ment of this case, and in the opinion of the
Court, are of grave importance, and Of general
| interest, involving not only large amounts of
| Church property, but principles much cherished
by our people.
The law of Virginia, while it refuses to recog-
nize churches as property holders, allows local
''religious congregations to hold such property
as may be necessary ''as q place for public soor-
ship, on as q burial place, or q residence for q