The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1871-06-24
MORE ECCLESIASTICAL LAW.
TO the Editor Of The Bvsntng Telegraph

Notwithstanding the conclusive and con-
vincing manner in which Judge Ludlow has
disposed of the assumption by vestry of the
right to arbitrarily dismiss minister from
his charge without cause assigned and investi-
cation, "A Student of the Oanons" has under
taken to make people believe that Judge
Ludlow in his argument is all wrong, by
stating emphatically that the vestry have the
power, in the hope that he may convince some
weak minds yet, by stout assertions and by
having the last word He states that ''there
is no law in Pennsylvania distinguishing be-
tween contract entered into by clergyman
and his parish and one made by any other
citizen" In vain does one look for any argu-
ment to support this statement, but ready
answer to it may soon be had by simply ask
ing him, Where is the law of Pennsylvania
which assmilates these different contracts
and subjects them to the same rules? Judge
Ludlow has stated that they are not alike;
what court has held that they are? The most
cursory examination will show how totally
unlike they are in every respect.
The law of Pennsylvania concerning con-
tracts between principal and agent is that
either party may dissolve the contract
at his pleasure. This was said in Coffin VS..
Landis, Peacock vs. Chambers, and Kirk vs..
Hartman, and an examination of these cases
will show that they are put upon the ground
that the relation of principal and agent has
always been in this State liable to be abruptly
dissolved at the pleasure of either party. Let
us analyze one of these cases as a type of all
of them. In the first, Coffin was employed
by Lands to sell lands for him at Vineland,
New Jersey, at a commission of one-half, or
fifty per cent. of the net profits above the
costs, interests, and expenses. There was in
their contract this clause, "This agreem ent
is not intended to create any partnership"
Afterwards Lands discharged Coffin, who
then brought suit for what he would have
made had he not been discharged and the
court decided that he had no right of action.
Peacock VS.. Chambers was proceeding in
equity for an injunction to restrain a dis
charge under circumstances nearly the same,
and it was refused. Kirk vs. Hartman was
an action for the salary of an agent, and was
not allowed
Now, do the Episcopal clergy minister,
serve, and preach at commission or per-
centage on the net profits of the parish above
costs and expenses? If SO, they can and should
be dismissed at once. Are ministers the
agents of the vestry? Can the vestry order
the minister, or the minister the vestry? The
attempt of vestry in Michigan to do this led
to an attempted dismissal and failure.
When minister is desired by parish he
is called to it, not hired by it. He then be-
comes an integral part of the parish (Wilson
VS.. McMath, 8 Phillimores Reports, page 67),
and his assent is necessary to sale of the
church lands, as was held by the Supreme
| Court of the United States in Wheaton,
454. But why require his assent if, upon his
refusal, he can be dismissed by the vestry
and a person who will consent put in his
place? The argument deduced from or based
upon the law of principal and agent, or the
law of contracts, has no place whatever in
this question, and in arguing the st. Gle
ment's Church case the solicitors for the
complainants did not put their claims upon
that grounds they carefully avoided it, and
contended for the rights of the ministers al
members of the corporation, who cannot bt
disfranchised except for cause, and after tria
according to the laws thereof.
We come now to the canon of title 2, as
amended in 1865, which "a Student of tht
Canons" says authorizes dismissal. 1t is il
these words:-'In case a minister who hal
been regularly instituted or settled in parisl
or church be dismissed by such parish O.
church without the concurrence of the ecclesi
astical authority of the diocese, the vestry o
congregation of such parish or church shal
have no right to representation in the con
vention of the diocese until they have mad
such satisfaction as the convention ma
require; but the minister thus dismissed shal
retain his right to a seat in the convention
subject to the approval of the ecclesiastics
authority of the diocese. And no ministe
shall leave his congregation against their vii
without the concurrence of the ecclesiastica
authority aforesaid" etc.
This canon in its preseut form is in effec
the same as canon 33 of 1904. We say thi
in answer to the claim that it was written b
a person now living, but who really did nc
write it, because he was not in existence i
1904. 1t was re-enacted in 1882, and re
written in 1865. 1t is penal statute, that il
it imposes penalty for doing an act withou
the ecclesiastical authority; and it is fam
liar rule of construction that penal ststut
, implies prohibition of the act subjected
, the penalty. Kepner VS.. Keepe, Watts
233. For instance, the act of 1894 impose
a fine of $4 for doing worldly labor on Sur
> day, but will any one contend that all kind