The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1869-08-04
FROM CHICAGO.
7he Ecclesiastical ImbPOgIiO Judge
JamesOn's Decision.

1he Ecclesiastical ImbPOgiiO Judge
JamesOn's Decision.
CHICAGO, August 3. - The public
announcement that Judge Jameson,
of the Superior Court. would this
forenoon render a decision on the
motion to dissolve the Injunction
against the Ecclesiastical Court con-
vened for the trial Of Rev. Charles Il.
Cheney, Of Christ Church, brought a
large audience in the Chambers, in
cluding a number OF prominent law
yers, clergymen, &c. After some pre-
liminary matters had been disposed
of, Judge Jameson announced his de-
cision. 1t occupied about half an
hour in its delivery, and was listened
to by the crowded audience with
marked attention:
HIS DECISION AGAINST TIE DIssOLU-
TION OF THE INJUNCTION.
The old maxim, bodied 10 the 9th
chapter of Henry Eight, that causes
spiritual ought to be tried by spiritual
judges, and causes temporal by tenn
poral judges, the Court admitted In
its fullest force; but it was because
here is a temporal cause, right of
property, civil right threatened, or
upon the statements of the bill, a
civil right is threatened by the action
of the Ecclesiastical Court; therefore
this Court interferes to protect 1t, and
this is acknowledged to be within the
jurisdiction of u temporal court, while
an ecclesiastical tribunal is en-
gagged in the trial of an
offender ia act of discipline on the
rules and canons of the Church. If
they proceed according to those can
ons, civil court has no right to IN :
terlere, but if it transgresses its own
rules and regulations, and if the fate
Of that transgression be to seriously
injure the temporal rights of the party
accused, then the civil courts have 4
right, aud it is their duty, to interfere.
What, then, is the wrong in this case,
stated briefy2 The respondents are
here charged with sitting, or attempt
ing to sit, as an Ecclesiastical Court,
to try Rev Charles Il. Cheney, and
that they are proceeding outside, and
In violation of their rules aud canons.
An Ecclesiastical Court in this coun-
try Is nothing more than a mere vol
untary Association of individuals.
Not to state the fact invidiously,
it is perfectly true that an
| ecclesiastical tribunal or Church
| Association is no more In the eyes OF
| the law than an association for any
/ temporal purpose waatever-a Base
Ball Club, Lyceum, or an organiza-
ton for the construction and opera
tiOn of a railroad-aud the Courts
place the right to interfere In these
eases, upon the violation of the con
tract or stipulations of the Associa.
/ ton. 1t is charged here by the Rev
/ @. f. Cheney that the so-ealled tri
bunal is proceeding to try him IL
| violation of its own canons and Ordi
nances. LII that be so, then the civi
court is authorized to interfere foi
his protection, and it is its dut!
to do so. Several objection!
have been devised by the com
plaiDant in this case agains
the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical
| Court, and l may state that every ont
of the objections raised by the Rev
C.E.Cheney are,in myjudgment,s sound
and should have been sustained by {
court, a statement that perhaps coulC
not be made In a similar tribunal IL
one case In a thousand. The frs
| objection that was raised was that tn
Bishop who instituted the proceed
ings in this case was attempting t
do so In violation of the canons o
the Church; that the commission
issued by him on its face was a viola
tion OF a canon of the Church, ant
he had no jurisdiction, or tn
presenters, or the Court, to tr.
him. Canon twenty, of thl
Diocese Of Illinois, provide
that the Bishop may institute proceed
ings for the trial OF offences on in
formation coming to him from eithe
of three sources-from a majority O
the vestry, from three presbyters o
the Church, or from public rumOr-
has be5n held by this Court In th
Hager case, and the Court though
with perfect justice, that this canol
and ordinance of the Church afford
an exclusive rule for the Bishop; tina
he had no right TO proceed outside III
canon, and should have proceeded o.
one OF the three grounds mentioned
: The call or commission for this Cou1
does not purport to proceed on sue
: information, but upon credible in
( formation. The Bishop saws: Bein
/ eredibly informed that Chas. X Chene
= appointed you, &c, &c. The Coul
= holds that this being the foundatio
t of the whole court, unless the Bisho
4 brings himself inside the provision
n OF the canon, he has no more right t
e proceed to try the Rev. g. e. Chent
d than any four men who may meet
It the street and say to each other Il