New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-02-15


white congregation Or church. The church
boldly attacked the cOll>titUti0naiity of the
act and ordinance. but the Supreme Court
III iNt1, held them valid: the cOrporators
had no vested rights which were Violated
because they were not "ptrsous' within
the meaning of the act OF 1871. which au-
thoyizct interpretations for religious pur-
poses. The church was closet. and re-
manned SO until the occupation OF the city by
the nation" forces, when Il military order
reolcncd the building. III all these affairs
the lucurporatorS were the only representa-
tivcS OF tie church.
tt.er he war a conference OF The African
Methodist Episcopal Church was organize.
Iii louisiana. III iSGS the presiding bishop
appointed Rev Vi. VI. Clari, 10 tie st. .iaulc>
Chapel. WHO was accepted by the trustees.
After which Il majority Of them disagreed
with hln. and ahodt Il yrar later tllcy met
and expelled hilM from his charge. hstl4a-
tlon cn>lltd. and the trustees who ha,; !'ar
tclpatcd in eXp~iing tlic preacher tnioia-I
hitn from assuming TO act. The learned
judgr ot the Sixth District Court, IN max
lHG ne llilunctl"n ll'I1tc,uai. proceeded upon
the doctrine laid down hy .Gudgr Martin III
the ease of Church of -. Francis W Mar
tin e Rob. 11l. that the courts in This State
Will not interfere with the spiritual affairs
% 4 religious organization, and Will rccug-
M the full power OF the representatives
OF a church corporation to control It's PROP
eity IL cvery respect.
But the evidence taken III this case and
iii thar, which has been flied herein shows
vonclusivrlv that the contest between :,
majority OF the incorporators and the
preacher n charge did not arise solely from
an opposition 10 him personally. It is a
movement 10 sever the church from is con
ncct!on with thr denomination to which Il
had been So long connected. This is rot
denied In tact. one of the incorrer@t"!-.
on behalf OF the others. swears that they
longer recognize the discipline Of the Air
can Methodist Episcopal Church; have no
di>cipln" hnt the Bible, and intend to
organize an independent church judge
from the whole testimony that there was an
effort being made to change the organization
into a Congregational church.
hen Tie preacher, Clark, WAS expelled.
a very large proportion of tie congregation
followed him. They net in another place
and tIc!d service, claiming tn he the cungr"-
CATION OF the st. james Chapel. African
Methodist Episcopal Church..
On February ~. 1870. this con grrgltiOn
proceeded. after ncticc. 70 elect Il board OF
ulne trustees Of the church. The persons
50 chosen assume 70 represent the corpora
t"n. plaintiff as aforesaid.
he ScNrra! persons lEaGc defendants are
ciih.r original >ignciS ot the act OF iucor-
fncy claim TO be the African Methodist
Evl>rul,iI Churcl: - own the property
NEl,h has been hou.h IN that maine. and to
have ;Lc exclusive right Of control over
everything rrla.in@ :" the cooperation.
On the other hand i = insisted that the
election O. the new board TERMINATED the
existence al the Old: thai the !ncnrporat"rs
were never ail ,thln- hut die agents OF the
con@re- cation. that tie church has a cor
Il. -, -
that III" congregation has the ultimate
power o. gnVcinmcuI.
AfIcY !natjirc reflection ISnavc concluded
that the claims Of the iueorVorator> ANA
their successors 10 possess and control the
property and -i.ltS acquired by The cor
polTltion. have 10 foundation in equity or
reason. They >i"ncd the act which gave
corporate Iii" I" the church hrcaU>e they
We're free persons and could he better pro
tected than thrir brethren vino were slaves.
Tie mere language OF the act could rive
them no greater rights than they possessed.
The purpose OF forming the con Cregdtiun
into a body capable OF holding property j.
apparent. They WcIe authorized 10 elect IL
members all qualified persons who might
apply Ia be 50 elected. The name tah"n
further indicates the puIpo>" ot the organ
Zatinn. Not allowed to worship ss NcthO-
diStS within the mother church. arrested
when they attempted to nrgamiz" a. an iii
dependent body. they sought the protection
of the forms OF law within the jurisdiction
ot denomination composed oi their own
race.
Every dollars worth of property that was
acquired was not for .hc inc"ipuratoys. hut
Tor the church Is which il belongs.
The attempt of the board of incorporttors
to sever the church from its connections are
ullwarrantcd, and can not rrcciv" the coun-
tcnancc OF the courts. According 10 the
decisions of the courts. in r"nouncing their
connection with the denomination 10 which
the church organization belongs, they lose
all claims upon the property ">"ccders
from the Methodist Episcopal Church
are not entitled to ;Ay part OF the property
of the society from which they Scce'!".
Methodist Episcopal Chnrci OF incinnati
vs. Woods. } Ohio. :,S}. " In case OF division
of IA religious corporation, the It'll" to the
church property will remain with those who
retain their connection with and continue to
conform 10 the uSagcs amt discipline of The
organization with which they have been
before counoctcd although they may cnm-t.-
tutr only minnritv.' Illinois Supreme
Court. lSG0 Fcrrar'ia vs.. NaSconccllr-. -
Illinois. iJ6
This is peculiar and a rcnaTkahl" case.
It can not Justly be determined by the o,-
Ginary rules which govern corporations III
litigation. | have hcsitated long in deciding
il, bccau>e wish to be just, and Yet dale
not violate the forms of law. I'll" defend
ants are wrong: the congregation with
whom the issue is made are right. and YET
that congregation has no standing in court.
The suit is brought in the name Of the
African Methodist Episcopal Church, us
a body corporate and polite in law.
But corporations can not appear III court
except by such agents as tho charier has
designated for that purpose. Her" the
charter recognizes DO election by the cUI-
grcgation, and persons so selected have no
right to use the corporate name. lhiS rule
is fundamental and without exception.
The suit could only he brought against the
defendant by the indiv iiual mtmbers "I TIE
body, or by the minority of the board claim
ing to be the board.
| have stated MY views upon the merits,
though ii was apparent that the case must
go off upon Il technical point. venture 10
hope that the renewal OF such an UnseeinIy
contest may be averted.
The Injunction will be dissolved. ant the |
suit dismissed.
Eighth District Confederation in Favor
of the City.
Judge Dbble yesterday read an opinion, |
written by Judge Hawkins. who sat upon
the bench of the Eighth District Court re- |
Gently. in the case OF a Metropolitan police |
man named Spalding. who brought silt |
a gain~t the city OF New Orleans. claiming |
Sj0, 900 damages for the wounds received III |
the so called Jefferson City riots.
In his decision Judge Hawkins says that |
the city is not liable for the damages
caused to the plaintiff while IN the dis |
charge Of his duties aS an officer. hecarISe Il |
public or political corporation, as such. Is |
not responsible in damages tol Injuries done |
' '. Il. =,