The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-04-21


Iney have some canny people directing affairs
in the New Dominion.
Church and state Independenoe.
Some OF US very well remember the divi-
sions-the sectional and party divisions-that
arose in this country during the long and
heated controversies which prevailed on thu
slavery question before the war. And some Of
us also remember with what bitterness those
controversies were continued even during thu
years that we were fighting for the preservation
of the Union and the overthrow Of secession
and rebellion. Not only were the States,
North and South, arrayed in arms against each
other, but churches and denominations drew.
swords in defence of or against the hoary-
headed lie. Methodists and Presbyterians
and, to lesser extent Baptists, became
divided on this matter and SO cherished their
respective theories that they became as bit
terly hostile to each other as if they had not
been members of the same branches Of Christs
Church or citizens Of the same great republic.
Local communities and churches were thus
divided into cliques and parties, and neigh
borhood war was prosecuted with oil tho
rigor and hate of pitched battles between alien
it necessary that these hostile factions should
transfer the scene Of their battles and conflicts
from the open field and the bush to the eccle-
siastical and civil Courts And hence when
the war was over we had accounts from all
parts of the South and Southwest of civil suits
instituted by one party against another for
the recovery Of Church property. In some
instances, and in some places where martial
law prevailed, and while it was in force, the
government decided such suits by Selling and
confscating the property in dispute and hand
ing it over to that party which had proved
its loyalty to the government. Without en-
tering into review Of the merits of any such
case, or the law under which it might have
acted, we believe that as between loyalists and
rebels, the government did what was right and
proper in thus rewarding loyalty and furnishing
rebellion. Several such cases in the State Of
Louisiana were thus disposed of, we believe.
by the late Secretary Stanton.
There arose, however, disputes between
churches and congregations in tho 'border
States" wherein the question Of loyalty could
not be SO easily decided. The States them
selves, in their corporate capacity, had not
taken sides either with the government or
against it, and they had no power over their
citizens, individually, to hinder or to compel
them to join such side as they pleased. Those
disputes were consequently referred to the
State or federal Courts for their decision.
Kentucky was perhaps, the most unfortunate
of the border States in this regard. It's vacil-
lating policy reached down deep among the
churches, and they were morally compelled
either to declare or to renounce their allegiance
to the government of the United States. The
General Assembly Of the Old School Presbyte-
rian Church took its stand against slavery and
secession, and the result was, among other
things, rupture in the Synod of Kentucky,
and the partition of the Presbyterian Church
in that State into Northern and Southern. The
Walnut street Presbyterian church Of Louis
vile was one Of the unfortunate ones. While
the majority of its members remained true to
the old flag its ruling elders, or majority of
them, went with the South The members
brought suit in the State Courts to recover
their Church property and to decide who
should be the ruling elders in the Church. The
Court of Chancery had this last question under
consideration when the other aspects of the
case were brought. up for decision in the
United States Circuit Court This Court held
that while the ruling elders, whom the State
Courts had decided to be such, were trustees Of
the property they must hold it in trust for the
benefit of the majority Of the members. The
elders appealed from this decision, and the
Supreme Court of the United States few
days ago reafirmed it, and in addition, de-
cided that where ecclesiastical courts, recog-
nized by any church organization or denoni-
nation, as the proper tribunals to pass upon
any ecclesiastical question, shall SO decide, the
civil Courts must follow their decision, and
ought not to attempt to inquire into its
correctness. }
This is the true doctrine Of law to be held
toward On independent church in free State.
Were it otherwise we should soon have union
of Church and State among us, and have to
contend with all the evils incident to such q
union as we see our neighbors across the ocean
contending for. In this decision the Supreme
Court has followed precedents not exactly ON
the same technical points, but on others where
this principle was involved. We have had
several similar cases decided as this Louisville
Church case has been within recent period.
There was one such Methodist quarrel in or
near New Orleans, another Presbyterian in
Philadelphia, and still another Methodist ut
Rockville Centre, L. l., and we believe
another Presbyterian, in Rhode Island; and
still more recently was the case of the Ale
gheny church. in which the State Court of
Pennsylvania decided in favor of the Roman
Catholic Bishop and against the Rev Father
Stack. In all those instances and in many
mora the civil Corrts followed the decisions of