The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1875-12-08
Parliamentary Principles their Applica-
ton to the Courts of the Presbyterian
Church.

Church.
The Rev. r. K Smoot, D. D., of Kentucky,
has prepared small volume of l4S pages, under
the title mentioned. The rules VI ich govern de-
Lucrative bodies are the result of long accumulated
experience and wisdom. While there is not entire
uniformity in different parts Of Eaglish-speaking
countries, the general principles are row very much
the same. DR.. Smoot is known to rave cultivated
this department Of knowledge with much care, and
in the preparation of this work lie has consulted
and freely used Gas was proper he best standard
works on this subject All such publications are
kind Of public property
After as careful examination as it is now ID our
power to make, we take pleasure In commencing
the volume as excellent reduction on para-
mentary law. There has loDP been need OF some
work Of this kind. Il can ardly be expected that
all our ministers and elders shall become accom-
plished In this line, but the almost total Ignorance
OF the plainest rules Of proceeding in which not
few contrive to get along, is surprising. The In
competency Of brethren sometimes called to pre-
side over our larger bodies-Synods and General
embies-taken in connection with the many
hno,onottings around them, has sometimes pre-
ssnted mortifying spectacle, and consumed pre-
cious time in points of order which ought not to
have detained the house two minutes.
While cheerfully according general and decided
commendation, there are things here laid down
from which we must empbaticay dissent. Some
of them will be noticed enough it must be with
great brevity.
Ga page IA, the authod aecides positively that
there cannot be lawfully instituted Presbytery'
Synod or General Assem- kithout the presence
of one or more ruling cid S. We do not enter
into that question on its merits tits enough here
to state that after long and full discussion over
the Misunderstanding through many years, the
General Assembly of 1914 decided by vote OF
1876 to 45 that there could be. The majority OF
delegates from the South We think, voted in the
affirmative
The Interpretation aud precedent, thor fore, is
against DR.. Smoot, and our Assembly when organ.
lied in 1861 formally agreed to accept these former
decisions, in their legitimate influence The author
therefore, should not have propounded his OWE
opinion as the law of the Church.
On pages II, 10. Ga and 65 the point seems not
to be clearly and consistently stated about the right
of debate on questions of order. The respective
duties of the Stated and Permanent Clerks of the
Assembly are laid down on pages 81 and "a With
out raising an objection to the distribution of du
ties, it may be remarked that the author seems tc
make law, instead of stating it.
On page "a it is said that they IA. e. the Clerks
are not to take part in any proceedings of the AS
sembly, etc., Not entirely accurate. By reso
luton of the Assembly they can do this in any
matter pertaining personally to them.
Again, Neither can they make suggestions or
points OF order or rules of proceeding. The Mod
orator is the official person to do this. and if he be
at loss, he has the whole Court from which tt
receive light, guidance and counsel"
Does this mean merely that they are not entitled
to make such suggestions from the floor, as mem
bers may PROFESSIONALLY they are not But if il
means that the Moderator may not ask and receive
privately, and for convenience, the opinions Of one
or both, rather than 60 through the impracticablt
operation of consulting the whole house; it is
mistake There is no rule against it, and it hal
always been followed not only in the General As
semby, but by the Speakers in Congress anC
State Legislatures.
Ga page 6S, 1.-The Moderator may not partici
pate in any debate or discussion, or any other pro
ceeding in any capacity whatever, except as thu
presiding officer"
There is only one instance, we believe in which
q Moderator Of tie Genasal Assembly LEFT th,
chair to engage in debate. DR.. Beman did so il
1880, and touching party question of an exciting
nature for which he was much and justly blamed
In the Synods it is seldom done. In the Presby
teries, so far as our knowledge goes it occurs no
unfreuuently In the church session, whore tn,
discussions are more conferential in their character
it is we suppose thing Of universal practice ant
very properly. There is no rule against it, anC
this statement cannot be accepted in the absolute
way propounded. The matter is best left to b
regulated by a sense Of propriety.
On page 50 it is said to be perfectly legiti
mate " for member to make his speech first, anG
present his motion afterwards, provided he states
what it will be. We dissent; the rule (231) is ex
plicitly against it and he must have second also
which would be impracticable on this plan.
On page II it is said to be a general principle
that in all discussions speakers must confne them
themselves to the question under debate, and not
make sashipg remarks, random shots, or buncomb
speeches" Good doctrine, but in Slashiag style.
Better expressed in rule OH.
Some other items have been marked concerning
which we should raise question; but it will not
do to extend this notice further. The author has
begun an excellent service in this line and with
such improvements as further criticism and reAec-
ton may suggest, we hope Shoots Parliamen
tary Principles" may come to be sort of standing
authority for US.