Nebraska advertiser., 1869-08-12
THE CHENY MJUNC-
TION CASE.
Decision Of Judge Jameson Against
Dissolution Of the Injunction.
Counsel for the bishop ASH 60
File an Amended Bill.
CHICAGO. August 2.


The public announcement that
Judge Jameson, Of The Superior court
would this InOEEiing render q decision
on the motfOntO dissolve the injunc-
ton against tie Ecclesiastical court,
c0nTeRed for EtIe trial Of the Rev. @.
u = 1olley q 6 Is G ll1ufels k5f0tig Ri
q large audieBce TO the chambers, In
eludinE q number of prominent law
yeFss clergymen, dc.
After some preliminary matters had
been disbosed Of Judge Jameson an
nounced his decision. It occupied
about hall an hour in its delivery, and
was listened to by the crowded audi
ence with marked attentions yHak =
His decision WAS against the disso-
luton of the injunction. Tire old
maxim embodied in the 24th Of Henry
VIII, that causes spiritual ought to be
tried by spiritual judges, the court adj
mitted In its fullest force. But it was
because here was a temporal cause-a
right of property, civil right threat
ened, or, upon the statements of the
bill, q civil right is threatened by the
action of the Ecclesiastical cOuFtZthat
Therefore this court interferes to pro-
tect it, and this is acknowledged to be
within the jurisdiction of a temporal
scOurt. While ecclesiastical tribunal
is engaged in the trial of an offender
In an actpf discipline the rules and
cannOns Of the church, &c they proceed
accordf1R to those eanons, q civil court
has no right to interiors; but if &c
transgresses Hs own rules and regula-
tiOns, and if thefateef this transgres-
sion be to seriously iniurethe telnpor-
al rights THE PaftY accused, then
the civil courts have q right, and it is
their duty to integfere. @
What then Is the wrong I'm the case,
stated briefly 26sFhe respondents are
here charged ltll Sitting or attempt
ing tOssft asEaI1 ecclesiastical court. to
tfY Revs rfes E. Cheney, and that
they aEesp5f ed11g outside of and in
violations of their rules and canOns.
An eceaesfastic eourtin this country
is nothing more than mere voluntary
assOeiafiohZS0fs individuals. Not to
state the fact invidieusly, it is perfect
lY .trllet th&t an tecclesiaStieal tribunal
Or'ehukclf ass6ciatiOn is no more in the
eyes Of the law than anassOciatiOn for
any temporal purpose whatever, a
base ball club, alyceum, or an organ
iRaGiOn for the construction and oper-
ati6n ola railroad and the courts place
the right to interfere in these cases
upon the violation of the contract or
stipuIations which constitute the asso-
citation.
It is charged here by the Rev. G. E.
Cheney that the sO-called tribunal Is
Br0e8e dtngt TO try him I'll Violation OF
its own constitution and ordinances.
If that be so, then the civil court is
authorized to interfere for his prOtec-
ton, aud it is its duty to do so. Sew
eral objections have been devised by
the complainant in this case against
the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical
court, and may state that every one
of the objections raised by the Rev.
Mr.. Cheney, every one of them is, in
my Judgment, sound, and should have
been sustainedby a court-a statement
that, perhaps, could not be made in a
similar tribunal,in one case in q thou
sand.
The first objection that was raised
was that the Bishop who had institut-
cd the proceedings in the case was
attempting to do so in violation OS the
canOns of the church; that the COM
mission issued by him on its face was
a violation of a canon of the church,
and he had no Jurisdiction or the pre-
senters or the court to try him. Canon
second of the diocese of Illinois pro-
vides that the bishop may institute
proceedings for trial for Offenses on
information coming to HIM from either
of three s0urces-from the majority of
the vestry, from three presbyteries of
the church or from public TumOT.
It has been held by this court in the
Hager case, and the court thought,
with perfect Justice, that this canon
and ordinance of the church affords
an exclusive rule for the Bishop that
he had no right to proceed outside the
canon, and should have proceeded on
one of the three grounds mentioned.
The call or commission of this court
does not purpOrt to proceed on such
information, but upon creditable in
formations The Bishopsays that being
credibly informed that Chas. Z. Che
ney has done soand so, have appOin-
ted YOU, DC; &c. The court holds that
this being the foundation of the whole
court, unless the Bishop brings HIM
self inside the provisions Of the canon
he has no more right to proceed to try
the Rev. Chas. i. Cheney than any
four men whOmay meet in the street
and say to each other he has done thus
and so, let us proceed to try him.
The court had no doubt that this
restriction upon the Bishop was meant
as eIiard, and he had no more right
under such commission as has been
issued TO oappoint such presentation,
than any body else where we have and
of course the presenteFs have no right.
The coming together of the five per-
sons and assuming TO act as a court,
the court thought was q violation OF
the canOns which requires that the
Bishop shall select six persons out Of
which the accused has the right TO
select five, and as he construed the
canOns the party accused has a right
of a notice from the Bishop, and Of 20
days in which to make this selection.
Then there is according 20 the canon
necessary a notice of 80 days Of the
trial, this also constitutes a jurisdiction
in fact, the fact that only IL days even
by the extension granted were allowed
Mr.. Cheney to select those parties.
It is true there is some difference OF
opinion among the counsel on the con-
structiOn of that canon, but in my
Judgment it is impossible for it to be
construed otherwise than as have
done. The court coming together, it
is alleged by the bill that it had been
selected by the Bishop, organized by
the Bishop TO convict; that the Bishop
had prejudiced the case, and was bias
ed dagainst the complainant and had in
timated to him that in case his cOntu-
macy led his being brought before q
court for trial, there could be but one
result-depositiOn; and he further
stated that it should be so, for the
cause that in this decision no one
would be competent to sit Onthe couri
who had signed certain protest, qpOtl
which also was the name Of the Rev.
Mr.. Cheney, and the right to sign
which was part of the Offenses, OE
involved an issue in this case.
It was claimed there shOnld be al
lowed therightof challenge; the right
to ask members Of the court whether