, 1874-08-16
THE CHICAGO DAILY TRIBUNE: SUNDAY AUGUST ,8 1874


IN REFERENCE 70 EccLksIAsT1cAL COURTS,
the rule has been Laid down 1uauy raaes that th
casil court will examine whether there ur4tlictio
over the person and subject natter Ii Barbour 4s7
Walker ys. Bishop Wainwright: 18 Vermont, 5l1
Smith "a. Nelson; Pick, 159, Thompson w. Cat
vs. Bishop Of Care Town Ecclesiastical Judgments
pFiyy Council, 2JJ)
Hoffman tl.aw Of the Church. p. 4eo) says that tn
true foundation OF this subject s that the sentences
church courts should be placcd the zane and II
higher authority TINA those OF other courts and ha
their jurisdiction to the person and subject matte
Should be scrutinized.
That this il the correct rule fully appears whe.
It ia remembered tina: church jndisatories spe
cia creation and Limited authority, deriving their on1
power the offender by virtue Ut his own rouuta5
stipulation.
To establish the doctrine that church courts shall
In a cases. be the sole judges Of their Jurisdiction
would only be to give them precedence this
gard all civil courts, but to yjela them pow
dangerous in the extreme to civil liberty. Court
Of Chancery often invoked, AZ this Court is II
the present case to recognize Us valid the sentences
Of church judictories. mud to give them effect
to property rights which the Courts which rendered
them would themselves have power to do.
Could any contend that In such the civil
court might not examine to whether there
In fact ANY court to re.der sentence whether
the condemned had submitted himself to the ecclcEi
astical jurisdiction 7
Grant that the questions passed upon ty the court
OF the character referred the eases Of Watson
Vs. Jones and Chase w. Cheney ssi If the sen euccs
rendered by court, against party who had
submitted himself the urisdic:iou Of court,
use Its strong nr1n to execute the sentences.
IL considering the extent Of the decision III the
Of Chase Cheney, It sanld also be horne i'll mind
t.at the case before The Court relating to
the authority Of the Church in spiritual matters,
aud property rights not involved III 1t.
And, beclrs, II III that case, ins:ea Of the question
whether the neglect to the words "rcgentrato y
aud rcgensrat on In part Of the Churrh service
was ohcnsc against ita canons, the question l.tl
been M in We" o1 i'm IN es hra H. md'
Eenfcr, the court before which ho should be tried
illegally co1,stite,i,-that II, whether the Court
should consist of iye ireo1, tiers OF smaller number,
was for clergy raher than Judges tu decide
It il no question Of theology, but Of law nd law
yers H. eide 1t better than the clergy, and thu
re:4ou u. Q which the exception of Jurisdiction was
founded .iccs not exist It would, III the csc lave
supposed, be
QUESTION OF 1rR1sprcT1uS
depending upon naked question of power its
existence unconp"ate With sny inquiry t. its
ercise. II The power .l,d uni exist there could be
pIctcnse Of Jurisdiction. % Ill.,. 93l.
Courts arc created and Judges elected and commits
STONED to pasa upon just these questions. and they
have been decided uton often in reference to civil
courts. aud 10 arbitTatiols, aud to be fouud seat
tered through all our reports.
To transfer such question from the civil tribunals
to the Church udsa,ores wo,lld be tho Ju:gei Of
the former to atdsate their ted and
reuouncel jurisdiction.
THE CASE OF nouLn1ER vH. ALEXANDER
as Wallace, 13l) decided by the United States ST.
pTcne Court s,lbsegl gle,t tus case Of Watson W.
Joncs, End therefore merits consideration. Cu:ced-
Ing that the Court had power to question
ordinary acts Of church discipline Of the excsion
Of church members but had only to do with rights Of
property, tho Court proceeds - But may inquire
whether the resolution Of e1pusion was the act of the
who consequently had no right to exeomn1,tnicate
Others" And ths Court. holding that minority Of
the church only had acted, a.y: g. An expusiun Of
the majority by a minority ia void act.r
The defendant, Cheney, objclts that u the acts OF
the fnr asfessors who found him guilty aud recon-
enrt his sentence OF suspension were void, for the
n,
stitutcd the Court II the Supreme Court Of The United
States had TIC r5gL: to inquire in the case List
hers and Trustees Was the act Of the church or Of
ressons who were not the church, that s sufficient
authority TO permit tho inquiry in this case, whether
tho finding ri tie defendant guilty upon The first ttnl
befoEe Ii. the ct Of ecclesiastical
court or Of four csmsb]e gentlemen WHO, though not
principles Of law applicable il similar casea d.
mand that tho inquiry should be made. For
in the language Of Lord LangInlc, Master Vt
but applicable here, ''Tnis is not matter Of
private consideration l,etwccn two adverse parties,
bnt matter concerning tie due administration Of
justice, in which all persons who may ha1lcc to
he 2Ant III courts of justice tefnre aIbltrrtors
Layc the strongest interest in niutaiung that tins
principles Of justice shall be carefully adhered to in
every case."-7 Dcavan. 4G4
Tho stipulation of defendant, Cheney, in caHe he
should ever be put uison trial for ecclesiastical
ot5ense, wls that not less than thrce nor u.yro
than hro p1rSl,y,ers, shall bo his assessors
to try the facts in isaue. which IresayterA
shall be selected hy tho uccu.ed cut Of
= lAt Of eight, WHO shall be uncounettcd with said
party By relationship marriage nuu tars;rF
tic rcseilltncn au.. il the acc-eu shall neglect or
refuse to mako hta selection, the Sau.:ug Committee
shall select for l,iu1n
See. 7 Of the H11ne canon further provided:
*s Tnn Court, being duly constituted i,y the presence
OF the requisite number f Pre-bytcrs they sh: re
ccive such evidence may be adtced III accordance
with the rsrisiu,s OF this canou and having dclbcr-
ecly considered the slle shall d.clara il ~ritirg
signed by them, majority Of thr their VERDICT"
etc.
While this body Of asse*sore, when convened. Ia
ssyied " court,n set, in law it Is regarded ~ e1-
ercising only quasi -iical power. whih hare tecn
conferred y the nGruution oi the p.ries
rather than exercising p1rely-is,1iri.l functions
IN TIE CAS-. or LONG vs. pisi1op or capEynws,
which ca1ie before the Juicial Cou1,ittee OF
the Frivy Connri of England in 1865 bv appeal from
the Supreme Court Of the Cape of Good Ini,r {l.cc
JHd. Of privy Council! page oJJ the Colr; held that
The Churi1 IT England in paces where no church Was
By law in the same coalition as other
religious botier and, :tlc any other religions body
wss to be governed by rules Of It's adoption, which
binding uu1i a those who. eithcr expressly or
By implication had as*rnsea to them And tue Court
further held that IN the c1ses above 1.c,foned the
tribunals constituted not in any courts;
key derive authority from the Crown
hey have powers Of their to enforce their
ences they must Apply for that purpose to the Courts
by law, Ind such Courts will give eGe.t to
heir decision then re eJtct the decisions af Gy-
5itrators whose Jurisdiction 1csts entirely upon tho
agreement Of the partea.
's These the principles npcn which the courts in
his country have always acted in tho disputes which
iave arisen between members Of tho sa,no religious