, 1874-10-20

court Whllo A. tn ahfno tlin0 lilo 1uGGtcnts which n-
fnlyca individual rights, wis nowou 10 snnd. case
lmgca 2Vl and ao5 of Mooro's New-school Dlgest.
Mf. Shepherd hn,l been dcpoacd frun tho Gospel nu-
of onoulaga. rlo Assembly sustained tho action of
s aesn o s nod u
having rogarae tho action Of tho rrcahyery, thereby
sssf r sssis sss IL ss 'at ssss Is
Witch wore involved.
o nrralsnmenl OF m acquitted party again, md for
,as ;,%s IaS|ie % oIsn'S; soa::%pste,, % ny IL
what tho prosecutor III thia case should, viii his
! constitutional onacment, -,
with eases Of prosecution for pnSlo olronses Hav!,Is
.hta hrieay indicated tue rlgnt way-the way which
eatn s - Is y y s srs @
that tho way upon which lie has actually entered IL
Wron way.s Wy Witch sannot b naraod except oy
hst 81 aw ioEIlds int .ha prosecutor Boula !. Gu.
There cannot be found In the law any shadow Of var
| rant for h0aring him.
| NO rnEoEDESrs ron rArroH CLAIM,
II. A1y next lolnt Ia that thcru prs.cents to
snpnort ha claim. Not caso cAn be found In my u
the Dgcsts TINT gives any aors OF support this mo
ton OF Prof. attons 1t WAS not Until Tho year 1890
complaint: preylou. to that dats ~ 1ua formuia
Now School, T. lo Dnt sice tas limo ,he d.F.nc.. nn;.
ton las becn sharp snd well-dohned In all lilo de-
10 cito ot trial simar to tlls u paon W. swing,
Mhero tho prosecutor has been allowed MI uppca.
The Dgests report, II have counted correctly asycn-
brought BY aggrlsYel party, II waa brought snro
tho year 1920. Iii not solitary inatauce % ne mud
case. Aud surely this Synod will not undertake 10
nko procelcnt which will he directly contrary to all
,o rulings aud decisions Of tho denora Assembly for
That nny DO seen 1ou n.lcviangly true 1t Ia tns
n, appellant must COMO before higher court In
ask yonr attention to classified statement Of lilo
ssses of aproai which rccort!ed In the Dgests.
who hsd been formally consrr, or aaspsnled or e-
posed 1tom tho ministry; twcnty.threa wera brought
ad from tho church 1slno brought before lS.U,
mud therefore nccd r4u be considered seventeen woro
dismissed for tregulsrity VI sort another such
nf iai!nro to Eiso timely notice Ut appeal, tho
scnGo Of ralera or records; brought
by deenta'ass or By pcrson other clearly aggrlev
ci rartics two arc cases Oh which shall layo
nion to remark Under another head aid ~ to tho re-
mnntng Wn Cases tho facts ura not given ~ 70 all
thing.
PnEy1oua oAsEs coss1pnnrp,
Dut pcrhnpa The prosecutor may lrgc. :. n1eccleuts
II bis fayor, thu appeals Of DR.. Wilson aud DR.. Jnu-
aeos a aas a .s, t. syaSa " us Tns
or it, iii Ssest sess Bile. .ss .a ~a
doubtless IN all tle allnaly Of juiisprudanoc whether
ecclesiastical q civil Certainly It i 10 DO hoped that
appeal without having before II ono acrnp Of the rec
o,ds u he lower court But this is what the synod of
It will 10 claimed by ts prosecutor that tho Synod Of
lhiIaelpha and tbs Synod IT Cincinnati have esab-
lshca precedents lii l.s favor. 70 Tins view tleu
l. That these prceedonts IN clear violation OF tho
law and are therefore, entltled to NO consideration
WhalQfer. No lrcEcdet can annul tho LNt Cali
uiSUlJCtljtNus tim
aId tho Justification Of snothor tli.obe.tsouce. TAis
answer is concntru iii tsr but thera otLer vaLil
q It cau properly 10 answered Tint as tho appeoes
~ these cases di,i not object to tho Entertainment Of
court, snt especially coccslastital court. will
very often losye n doubtful or unconstitutional
o v Nj erS sa 5 PITY
lbcrate hfAthfunaxs to ta trust, int through nns-
ysrtenee The atteution was not called to ths parv'.
lar point, aud su It did not arrest nttcnton,
sssa ,ae4 'h:sssss sssa II, n;'s IL own
eeIsona emhody.ny II might lie quoted to almost any
escnt. 1t will DO aulicicn to cto barely two autlor-
s: ,sss s s sbs:ern nG s ss.da s nsf & eds I
Mind q e: cenrt did 'ot ads<rt, thoug. withln
ion oi t Il 10 sa 81 coasasas snS
precedent and binding II IN authority upon thu
thcu Il would y controlling uron tho u1otion. Dut
DO not shtnk f. II pon: Is esEeltlu! to decision
.cuuesst II VIZ ho presumed tnat vas dti!y conaid
was rssas tn ~ I'm sort @ "o LUZ OF @ ~
report Of tho that 1t wss not taken or inquired
n nso A. T. a tnesS - 1G gton"u ior ne pesmptlon
cned," "sAA7
No." applsing these principles. Il does snpear from
anpe.l was question no. raiso q II! It w.s not be
~ had heen ratHcd, aud II either synod. after iy
considering thu question: hsl decided t4t the prose.
nj
urosnsnto. 3n,ercn ao ~ Nc svna mi, u 'uo m
inferior co,s ,uny bs regarded competent to esta-
i.aa IN atnosative pEeeeent ~ rs no h',c IN
In rsn,issn c,,,n II hn onntn ~ ,,ran e r.t -