The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1873-11-06
CHURCH CONTROVERSY SETELED,~

I We take the following synopsis of aecis-
iou recently made by Judge Keith, OF the
Lopdon Circuit,in which is involved cheques
aon Of church property right; in the Metho-
dist Church, from the Washington Chronicle
of. the lst.. AS similar suit is peudlng in
the Circuit Court Of Augusta county, we
publish: the opinion Of Judge Keith, as a
matter Of interest to those concerned here {:
The Circuit Court Of London cousty, Va,
| Hon. James ID. Keith, presiding, now sitting
at Leesaurgs has ipstadecidad Two Eases in
volving questions Of. very great interest, es,
pecial!y to the Methodist Church.
Upon the separation of this Chusehiato
two bodies-that of the Methodist: Episcopal
Church, land OF the Methodist Episcopal
IChurch South-,hrvusbou large portion of
the Southern States, and especially III Vir-
Eeia;a, there has, been a contest involving
great bitterness Of feeling, as to which Of the
two Churches was entitled toitEe Church
property Soon after the close of the late war
the Legislature provided that this might be
determined by a vote OF the congregation, and
lin nearly. ali cases, BY this means, the prop
]esty- came into the possession ofthose belong
Ing to the Methodist Episcopal Cha. ch South.
The late constitution provides, however, that
such property should be hela.by, the parties
described in the conveyance. Still, it was
contendvd by the S!eihodist.Is piscopal Church
South that they were entitled to retain posses
sion acquired by their action under the act of
the Legislature. They also claimed (withip
the bounds OF the Baltimore Conserence) that,
under the plan Of separation, adopted by the
General Conference In 1914. and the action CT
the Baltimore Conference in relation thereto,
aud especially the action Of the majority at
1<Staunton in 1861, and, alFerWard ,eoflhe body
claiming to be the Baltimore Eoniefence,
4 which adhered to the Methodist Episcopal
/ Church South, 10 1866 they were jastlGed by
tbs rules and dscip line Of the ChnrcH, and by
the fact that they had not ohangedstheir faith
in retaining possession.
1.-The members Of theME Church at Ham
ilton, and those interested in the parsonage at
Efillsboro', i]ed lin equity to.compel the
Trustees to apply the property to the use CT the
J. NJ Il Church. The conveyance was toetrns-
tees for the use of the; nj Z. .Church, according
to the form adopted by the discipline CT the
Church. Tile questions invoked required
discussion ard discrimination OF the constrNc-
zion and effect Of the plan Of separation, OF the
sactson, of the Baltimore Conference, the action
ef the Legislature, the constitutional provis-
ion, and an examination Of the structure and
policy Of the Methodist system OF goveTnment,
and Of it's HISTORY for the last thirty years; and
in all respects these cases must be regarded as
test cases.. determining the title to nearly all
Church property in dispute between the two
Churches In the territory embraced by what
was the Baltimore Conference.
'sThe cases we've argued. on behalf the NJ.
t.. Church, by Judge w. Willoughby, of Alex
andria; and oa behalf of the Methodist Epis-
copal Church South. by General Hunton,
member Of Congress from that district. and
by H. Harrison, and J. n. kilgour, Esqs ,
of Leesburg. The court decided that the
Methodist Episcopal Church was entitled to
the property. and directed DEGREES that those
claiming to act as trustees be removed. and
new ones, members Of the Methodist f.pis-
copal Church, be appointed, and that the
property be Immediately surrendered to
4 them