, 1869-07-28

rseseat. instead o., a. be c!atus, egcs Tao shou
oe hsEsenl. and thar these Gre declined to Be- E,
% SHOW TINT in N tribunal this pfiytieee Il M
sa anted h :. o. Tgnt and - n .naogous procee,
ln4 he oFtcfed attention to the Uteh Cocft oS r.,
peac1ment Grated under tho constitution for N
@ n t1sAdsnt Of tno United S.a,cz, where !
orin'ont Or PRIOR utteranees rs 10 me question
. ELL Ing claiu MAS ~ absurd as lhopvh IL th
seI! ease thc 2on1cnts should caiu nt,t 10 nr,
sGuGe hhs formed an opinion and gtaaied m II
1u1etian, Hsa ~ -
an an,;on nS moad inl~ated That he had not tosmo
usoa ne case - ccade upon the face Of Tic ftIl
~ts - -, ~ did rot mean to be understood othe,
might as we'll object because IN lntuact,nn i.
peSn Erautcd, @N@'S1' 40
The ncx1 allegation Is that since tho stt of Jul
| complainant flAA hecp informed rhst Vev III
Snyder has formed mud expressed an nmnion i
the original case. That Ia illuateria.
Ded protest sss.nss !hs n1e @ atas n
nrst, complainant had 10 uppurtunttr =, r1rmin ~
aud select; and scconu, because Vi the tacuIupe
tcney Of suluer. '''~''D''
seulcrr for thetI cotsson Win ,e1 " ur.,ucs rnI pt
aud lbnt It was void. counsel state, III rrounS -
X that Mr. Elieuey uas no rickt to On hehinS N,
citation; tnat he has noting 10 ,I Win fbs nm,
mission The cnnou Giving lin no rsaht 70 In1u;r,
The c1ration Ct tuc,I a com,nIsslon 'so'' q
Tic nc1t allegation Is tbat he took c1csntlon n
tic Jurisdiction became Hr;t of fhs Ins ttiin. ~
tie npf4,tp,trrnt Of fhr rresrnfrrs. ana ..r55,,;
| The rFcstEtInrLt charged IN tnrfIcr jnr ,rnIet
taHtla,naLt IA lluttJc And tbr ,,nrt r. ,.h.,e- s :
il That the arIrndoua IN u, t"e targa,, cnn1Gt ns
str.r ponis the Cont fnnkrs no TerS h, tcn,nn y
wanr Ut knowledge On js mart. bur ~ 4, III Ithe,
aIni; a1 1T an,,! pf nasence' they Iu'eEose at en-
| The uext Ayptu,rnt Ia that thn tr,h,, ,,,..o,
cucn ,IrtutiiIDp. mad cnrnn1sIr,.ni i"j}.rr. M
,rlrnnrk !nnUr t;tIjcr ic sntts,sIi,nn th.t .nc r
seulrnce fp,ist tr In s.ed II tb nnGinr .,,,,, ~ ~
"guIlty" In hts atj1,,srl; liz lls,m. sc"iss ts m
rnshln of The tLfrnf, and sr,r,,,jali. tlrn1 ill
tlY jnI1Ir u,pr ft,, sa,,w,.it,nu .tstad 49,, .|ss
IL ihr rAnnn. tn .ihw tIn, ih",c ssn ,,,r.n In.
1rnrtf, ettnr me vi rLch mi, fnltnw r nyicu N
mn r. - tn !, that ,ra an,sa or nso.iiaun
,,tt,t,uti II arfrndsu.. ri rtat ,smS H.. m ~
ri I,ul n IT, inu n ny l,+ Inc rir. in I'M
1nrht hr,t IN t.,ta ,.tt " ~ NJ t ~, ~ i ~. -
ts,t, thu, ill., rrsut 'n,,i ~ ~ ~ '"o' " III"
Tic mex; ayprnrnl II vr,,rtn, .,tu,ps t,t IT.,
rx.s"t 60. .'s @ ~ - - sti.ehn' t, M.v ~ tlh
r. - tttr,. sma ",s ~ ,,,a !. ~. ny ~.
ri the ,s,,r; i, rrrr,t,uv in tbIs ,.Int n ,hn
n,e n" ,a, ~" u" .ahua !" en,w shnt ttla rantns
| .nd s.i, .tl,,, ~ x.s".+ - 'c' ~, ~" eHhamni mL
| rsI,u ttW,Ih,r I. ,'n, ~" a",n, "''s
trt,rt,t i. ,,,,x,c, r. ~ ,,nH t,n III. ~ I ~
T. XII , - ,''' ~ ~, "'' '.h'" iln, ''s nhu
iii II, s,r 's, ~. ~ r hnr sus"n" r., IL,
.t ," ~ ~ i".'i - SH!It; iHfIr Gun iio !0
r"nI . "h'M a. .r" nlaI" ~ or fn ~" ~
H. Xxi II tn' , j., ',',nt " ni "G,ln lhp hih*rT III
LIZ in.m"n Neh h'hl,1ta " NC Itlocttah t"hteli
h'rurtinn q tltr law npan thn tn'nt
~, ts =, - H. t"unnn! -. Hou'a 'Ie!nlti iphn
shr iin.r,
MI. 1rI'h. Tho net. proposition of tim ILL ~
Mhtr pnriAAe., ~IIlrh hr had trfusr,l tp a,rcpi.
@ n,m' I"a ~ ~" fHatG' !nhi lftrfafa'H nsi'Ihke
W. ~ 'rt,,r." s" q. ~ h X, ~ '4. rr. 'hrtr
tohHsrl rtnM utIr rrr \ roasihIliy vt af,r nuIt,
I'm, n,". ,, "r ~. @ ~ rnI,''n 'aW sI' % 'he
~ IN, u" .,ri ,G c @ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~" s.f q" ri
q
ttnhrrft Interfering IN prevent tnrtI Hn. Irln.
Ent"l,la sInt'kvn ls n'y 4! lftss Character xAlEh
hheriA lifnl" ny eight.
itr un,tl.l,"nl lint there wAs mi hiitglr hier.
t"tna dula*.il"n lu ip"a1'! ~ Ii4u I'LL, al' ttr
complainant roHlrs tn'u f"Erl with rIrun
hutns. Thrtp II AaIa iu nsrrI,,rnt ihRi et4n.
tl.naut !. mi guilt, If .hr rhaEg" ~htrM IL In.
i'atr1 aKa't'st him. tut lu ".ilY nsEts thAt hu ,na
hot isIttr hihs.lf I'at'c- That Is tIHnsl.nn fur
fl1r E'ltAisatIss ctnrt ~ tlstrr'nIGt uni nut Tor
III In, ,nn, .u.l uro,,,, q, Inn M, :. III, c,,,,
*h1 rohtr''rfa'lliK tlnt.Ar. 1hr nuSHcr dcnlrs II
h'i ,,..,, 80. ,,,..u,, ,
llt hrlItFa MI hlhn md rnnlIce that would dis
tluaiity him flnn' u.tinK IL tln cs.t rnt tlto" lie
Etssr n'* vt5,'n'! 81 tnr eenT.naon ~ i, r!th
:tn1i raEr I" MN, ani then he denies the alleged
t.oulsti thru t''ul W the law PoiIss luvol,r,L
=. Iht nfrt hstrinrnt WIS That the comnslrslnn to
shr rtrsen!tts nal iol ifuctth according I" the
cn1uIlA lie iuAte tho Iht IN ttc t'tet place that
the words ''rHtlihly Informed were HuEllc!rnt,
'!l'R information IN kae way. 1t was equiv
neut tu Mlsa. In colusuon parlanC4 wAs public
ruihnr. lie referred to f,lAekstone. marginal
paxe la. Tue lislur tf the Episcopal Church. he
htli, hnd au snlIefent power to proceed lu AlI
cnres regardless of the Cannns which we're lister
than his authority, aud lid takr II awa}. When
eser !he conditions tleched In The canons occurred
the BIsnbp was bound to proceed III tlr case, nud
thu ulabneE III " ic.a he MRS to proceed uas uxcti
by tic canons. l'nt he could procceA in cases
not mentioned in them. il was not necessary for
Iu1l call Upon the assistance ot eatuluIx xstnu
The commission nclcd III The relation Of q grand
jury The fact that nu Indictment had been
round In oue case OF q p1ebeut4ueut in the otnc1
NaG sufficient, The FACT that M offence wan mt
named III q caDon las not seasou that person
could not be tried jpr It.
the Church were the constitution aud cauuus OF
The General Conr cutcn a. the constitutions and can
ons uf the kcycrl siloceseE, the ruf,rcs Of the
Chur,t aud lie civil laws OF the Stafe. nf7rctInv
rate aud perkpnA rstil, aid aIbo portion uf tic
efelcstast:oa' law o! England. In the 1faple1l
cast the objection Wa2 IhAs the offence way not
enuEler1tth iH the Canp.l6 OF The General ConfeD-
tiG1, Though It vas ia the MARYLAND canon,
and the Objection Has oFcIrued. The question
WIS ngain revived III Maryland III 1ssu, hut uIct
with llc aAnle result. md the position thlt the
lisbon h4d no authority autecedcnt to eccles1asu.
words employ I'd In the general csan- according to
oan.An, would r,unpft~e every fs,sslbe viul4!on
oT the r'ht!se law O: The Church The saup author
helc tia: .ht T1thrp held Al Inherent powrF iute-
Ecnde7r of uuy canon. The CASE Of I}Ishop Smith,
tf kcntEcky, was cltetl 10 hhow tint lie had been
t,i<d for an offence not sxc,tcuIy namei
In the canons. lie also ctrd from tic.
treatise on The E,,i.co1ar, 10 maiutsJn uost or
lEc Ahove named ruuis, liz also uuuted Hates
pIuccteEt., VIM Es1rn and Blackstone ns 10 thr
roW c1s If ihc N,sh6r and OF the Church,
CG1IntlE ~ tl3t 3,unt whether tHn omission of
HE word - teEeterate' In tl1n baptdusI scryl,
IN oneutr, lle called attention to the c 4nou