North Iowa times. [volume] (McGregor, Iowa) 1867-current, 1869-08-11
RrIIcIous CANYONS VS.. cvvll LAW.

An eAcltInk case WHICH, the dooNc cap
ton cmbodies is now going on in Chicago.
Rev. Charles E. Cheney, rector of Christ
Episcopal Church, omitted to use the word
''regenerate' in the baptismal rites. lie
was complained of. hauled up and tried in
the Cathedral Of St. Peter aud st. Paul,
on the 2lst of July. On the second day
Of the trial, the Ecclesiastical Court was
enjoined from further proceeding by a
writ from the Superior Court of Chicago,
on the ground that "said ecclesiastical tri-
bunal was combining and confederating to
injure Rev. Mr.. Cheney, and that its pro-
ceedings were contrary to equity.
The trial was then postponed by Bishop
Whitehouse, and the case came up
before Judge Jameson, of the Superior
Court. The injunction was sustained by
Jameson in singularly clear and, as we
think, able decision. If space would per-
nit We would give every word of it to our
readers. Following this are a few points
having tendency to set up inquiries as to
the strength of corporation under the
Consultation and Laws in Civil Life or the
irsi dir;t Of a Bishop, backed by cring-
ing worshipers of priestly regimentals.
We confess to horror of control, ana
perhaps this half>gypsy disposition of
ours may lead us to differ with people who
have been regularly tanned, but it does
seem that no man can read the decision
of Judge Jameson without admiring the
manner in which he handles this great
subject. In Italy now, perhaps in Aus
tria now also, and late in England, such
ecclesiastical untoucAability by civil courts
might have received Difference, if not en-
tire obeisance, by the populace; but to-
day, in AMERICA, the demands of pre-
tended connection with God Almighty
and the defiance of civil authority will not
do. Priests and Ministers of all grades
have been thrusting their fingers into all
that concerned the world, whether par
tisanly political or legally civil: it is time
the Civil Power of the country informed
this class of excellent men that our ,cell !.
kno,rn uritte,a la,cs, open to The examine
ton of all men, must not be trampled on
by anybody. Mr.. Cheney was not proved
to have violated canon or rule of his
church--he simply omitted word that
was usage or fashion, and for this he is
branded as a hereto. This case is attract
ing much attention, and we extract iber-
ally from Judge Jameson: eE.5.g.. gsra4,.,,
Before commencing, may state that
considerable question has arisen in the
case, and there is some confusion in the
public mind in regard to the right Of a
temporal or civil court to interfere at all
in case like this, where an ecclesiastical
tribunal is claiming to act. The civil
courts disclaim, and here disclaim, any
power or amy desire to interfere with the
action of spiritual court proceeding with.
in and according to its canons, and the
laws and regulations Of the church itself.
The old statute, made and in force dur,
ing the time of Henry WILL, that "causes
spiritual ought to be tried by judges of
the spirituality, and causes temporal ought
to be judged by temporal judges is al.
mitted in its full force in the civil courts.
And it is because here there is a temporal
course,-a right of property,--a civil right
threatened, or upon the bill the accused is
met and civil right threatened by the
action Of the ecclesiastical court, that this
court attempts to intervene. 1t is to pro-
tcos ss1sAS 70 ar~irrr~lss.1od 70 hc ,v;s,,;,,
the S5nsiediction of temporal court--a
temporal right.
Where an ecclesiastical tribunal is en-
gagged in the trial of an offender in the act
of discipline, under the rules and canons
of the church. if it proceed according to
those carSons, civil court has no right to
interfere. lit transgress its own rules
and regulations, and if the effect of that
transgression be to seriously injure the
temporal rights of the party accused, then
the courts have the right to interfere, and
it is their duty to do SO.
What, then, is the wrong in this case?
Stated briefly, the respondents hero are
charged with sitting, or attempting to sit,
as an ecclesiastical court, to try the Rev.
Charles E. Cheney, and that they are pro-
ceeding outside of and in violation Of their
rules. An ecclesiastical court, in this
country, we're nothing more than volun.
tary association of individuals. Not to
state the fact inviGiously, it is. briefly,
true that an ecclesiastical tribunal or
church association here is no more in the
eye of the law than an association fer any
temporal purpose whatever,-a base-ba
club, lyceum, n commission for the con-
struction or operation of "a railroad, and
the courts place the right to interfere in
these cases upon the violation of the con-
tract or stipulation which constitutes the
association.
1t is charged here by the complainant,
that the so-called tribunal is proceeding to
try him in violation of its own canons and
ordinances. If that be 90, and the effect
be such as the law recognizes as an injury
to him, it is the duty of the court to inter>
fere. Several objections have been rails
by the complainant in this case, against
the proceedings of the ecclesiastical court ;
and | may state summarily, in common
cling, that every one of the objections rails
ed by Mr.. Cheney-every one Of them-is,
in my judgment, sound, and should have
been sustained by the court-a statement
that perhaps could not be made in civil
Tribunal in one case in Thousand.
The first objection that was raised was
that the bishop, who instituted the pro.
ceedings in this case, attempted to do
so in violation of the canon of the canon
of the church, and gave no Jurisdiction to
the prosecutors to inquire into the offence,
nor the court to try it. Canon 20 of the
diocese of Illinois provides, that the bishop
may institute proceedings for the trial of
offences upon information coming to him
from three different sources-from ma
jority of the vestry Of the church, from
fhraa nrahvtaru nr rrnn, ,nlaia r,,rnor II