The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1872-04-19
CHURCH AND STATE.
IMPORTANT SUPREME COURT DE-
USION
Binding Force of Decisions OF EccIesias'
tIcal Generating Bodies Established.

The Washington correspondent of the New
York Tribune, writing on the 18th, says:
The Supreme Court was called upon to-day
for the frat time to decide the relations be.
tween Church and State. The case, that Of
Watson against Jenner, was q controversy be-
tween the two bodies into which o Presbyte-
riau Church of Louisville, KY, became divi-
ded, about the close OF the war, and the ques.
these two bodies was entitled to the use Of the
church building and other property. The
schlsm originated In the questions growing
out of the war. The General Assembly OF the
Presbyterian Church of the United States,
sold School, !" to which the church belonged,
by various declarations and resolutions, pass.
ed at Its annual meeting during the rebellion,
expressed It's sense of the duty of all good
citizens to sustain the government In that
struggle, and Its adherence to President Lin
coins proclamation of emancipation, and
Its antagonism to slavery. AS soon as
the military possession was Withdrawn
and IN tn S,s sn Q s0T tSa s memper 81 Of thass
churches who sided with the Southern States
view of slavery, and other matters, declared
their hostility to the action Of the General AS.
sembly. This resulted In division In most Of
the churches, which finally extended to the
PresbyterIans and the Synods Of these States,
ana III IQe WllQQEdWal VI Lu6 lElGuU6 VI 6ldfSEy
from the General Assembly of Presbyterians
of the United States, and the union with o
body of the same character styling Itself s'of
the Confederate States" On q suit brought
in the State courts OF Kentucky, to decide who
were the lawful trustees and elders Of the
church in question, that court overruled the
decision of the General Assembly, and held
that the officers who denied Its authority and
refused obedience TO its orders were the true
church officers. Some of the members of that
church, who resided across the Ohio River, In
Indiana, having the requisite citizenship to
confer jurisdiction, brought suit IN the United
States Court at Louisville TO have their right
to the use of the church as q place OF worship
protected, and the decree of the Circuit Court
establishing those rights was to-day affirmed
by the Supreme Court.
The opinion, which was delivered by Mr..
Justice Miller, holds that when the property
which is the subject of a controversy OF this
supporting any definite religious doctrine or
form Of worship, by the deed or will of the
donor, or by the act OF purchase, the civil
courts will see that 1t Is not diverted from the
trust to which 1t Is thus devoted, and, II neces-
sary for this purpose, Will Inquire when OF Two
herents Of the faith or form Of worship to
which the property was dedicated, aud will
determine this for themselves. But when the
property Is given to or bought by q religious
congregation for the religious uses OF the
church, and no special trust is stated In the
deed or will, or declaratlve trust, In favor OF
specific or religious dogmas or form OF wor-
ship, when there Is a dispute In the courts as
to It's control, the question to be answered is,
Which of the two bodies claiming Is the true
original organization, or It's legitimate succes-
sor? In the case of Independent congregations,
whose government is complete within them
selves, this is not difficult, bus when the local
church which bought or built the prop
erty is itself but a part OF larger and more
general organization or denomination, 1t be-
comes more difficult. In such case, the court
laws do IN the principle that 1t will accept the
decision Of the highest ecclesiastical tribunal
to which the case has been carried within that
general church organization as final, and will
not inquire into the Justice or Injustice OF Its
decree as between the parties before IT, The
officers, the minister, the members, or the
the denomination recognizes, the court will
recognize. Whom that body expels or cuts
off the court will hold to be no longer mem.
bers Of that church. The opinion supports
this doctrine by an exhaustive review OF the
cases In England, Scotland and America, and
shows why q different doctrine established 10
England under the influence OF Lord Chancel-
lor Elder, and by the weight Of his Influence
in the House of Lords, forced on the Scottish
Court, ia not applicable to this country, under
our principles Of religious liberty and total
separation OF Church and State. And 1t shows
the overwhelming weight of judicial authority
in the State Courts In this country In favor OF
the doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court.
The case Ia one Of very general interest to
the churches whose vast property may be
affected by 1t In cases of separation, and 1t is
the first time the Supreme Court has ever
been called on to define the relations of the
civil to the ecclesiastical courts OF this coun-
try, and the effect upon that relation Of the
general principles which govern the relations
Of Church and State under our political sys-
tenn. The case has. been held under advise
ment for q year, partly In the hope hat 9
reconciliation would be brought about, but
mainly for q thorough examination of the law
and the facts involved In lt,