, 1876-02-04

una (Jah. 7o). ssfAnRelY, atsifma that Mrs.
bccnuae ve o1erelsod ON nnnitp.s right Of sug.
costing to her the ,tal'sa sre re-, curl reasons for
in .heir report, admit saa oomr!eto fact that
mo quo Gu. he pnators lstotra and lu1inKtonl.
Mr.. Van Colt and tho commtteo, hhonld know
that any objection had been made" Mt: Beech.
Jan, ~. This ono omitted fact ohanGen tho
whole oAao, For IL iucApacitstesl theso tso 9ou-
tlomen from accepting nominal invitation.
4, llo aaye. "Tley odorod 70 waive tLcsr OBJ:
Iections." Yos. whom tho Rhot had tpld, aud
when sllc otlor was y = an empty word. .,
o. Ho says. "iho ahfnest otlor Of plymouth
Church 20 40 on tn spite OF tAem Tho oblcc-
t.ons - Itself proof oR ftR Eenu|ne with for
to aceapt this etatenent.-she easnoatnes. Of
an '.omer' vttthtci and tr1'attatea beforehand
By tho very party that made III For consider:
szcoxDIr-7nx zryxcr or "7an so.cA1tEp
PROTEST." -.
/. II was certain 10 prevent tho acceptance OF
thosc two gcntlonon OF, Hl,ould they by hny
possibility denrn 1t thcir duty 70 accspt. It wAa
certain to cripple the'r se.ien and % furnish
81 faF joas sauso Of honor would have fcit cutn.
peIisd 70 decline. They felt 40 compelled.
2. Those cfYccta were distinctly fo1oHoop and
intended. aIr. DeecAcr In sno ,witneas: IA
Tho objection vouid hAve appealed TO tho con-
ss!sness q .he parties '%9'"n,o'stey caneerasl,"
tiou fully implies, would have prevented their
acceptance. (t) II theBe mon cana to tho
Council, sheJ did DO. waut 10 iii a. duza,ngos,"
ns this objection would hhyo pressed item to
do tspcoeh Jsn; ig. tc) They know. as well
"a VIC, tlAt, " thoy said anyshlng. and 1t "an
known that We oD}eetcd nofofahanu l!ot tho read"
or ob6orgo tho p!an on the gtonni that thoy
wcre n1elndicea, that laet wonId XVI dehd any
moral edect *hlc,' tacy otherNsAo might have
had on tue Cotlnci! lsAtn6 speccn.) tO "Ot
course the TACT o. ltb e. OF the protest.
Would haSo ptoolnaed OIL of them from asacfling
that Plymouth Chuci had. ny inviting tho
cllutchos Into Councs' ceftIllcd 70 thc Impair
tiallty OF their naatorH aud MANAGERS" (edl.
torlh') Ilts plan s sufficiently inteligtblo, aud
tls wltness ~ ~ Eood,
y. Tic Intended onoct OF th!8 movement was
not leseoned By tho ofior to Gcop it "prsvato.."
Although Nj. Beechnr, 10 one passago 1rst c'tod.
II thoy said anything" air. Hceclor again H.
valid wftncsn; =" VIC simply tes'Htctod onr 1,1dE-
mint that VIC did not think II would 10 right for
tlom 70 10 chosen, n,-slthough wo did not inslas
Wil tho reader mafE sills EXPLICIT asown', taken
from tho Christian Utsio' 'teport OF hta Bpnnch,
Jan. Il
4. Tho aottlcd turnoso in ylsw is Lett in no
nyowal In the Same speech. "Bolore tribunal
3. -. with NichArd ). Storrs and William Ives
1'usllngton AZ my Juror! VII not go. =, j..
A 70 submitting to such lodgo-podge trtsl, I
TlllRpLr-As TO TIE coIroa1f1oS OF TIE COUNCIL.
= f6w words. We will not entor upon the sub
tect Of legal "n1bitratlona and "parallol !"
casos. -
a Council Ia Council, and ltG ruothod is wol
sottle1. 4 Mutual Council gra,,ts to each party
tho power OF naming ouo-IIh!f Of itB uernbern.
Tlo 1 theory and settled practice allov each
party unrestricted rango Of tho dcnomina-
accredited authoritics steadily sanction tiio idea
that rim ordinary caaca Council ought to bo
paIo up ctliot!y Of churc,es iu the vicinity" !"
with tho caYeat that, III nattors or exciting local
posed. So snt tho boston Uonuuii Of 1865
fho tdoa OF excluding all tho churchog OF Now
York and Brooklyn was, therefore, wholly un-
| wornntel
TAe vide range is liable TO DO abuaed. The
| remedy for '1raclod" Council ia fouuu partly
| III its lnvk Of nl moral weight nnd advisory "
iulluonca It is only al ok-{arte Council that can
| bo packed. l. il undoubtedly tho common prAo-
tica mud understood expectation that tho parties
III a Mutual CdunaEi will, to moderate an1 roa-
sonaplo extout, select, opob. those whom he
dcon,s specially Attod to Bynapaihizo With his
| yiowa of tlo case. Tho diverse views aud
syn1pathios insure full consideration nnd
! Of tho mutual SELECTION. Aud this indood (aae
cotdipg to Morso on Arbitration, H. 1Ua) ID q very
common and permitted practice Ia cascs OF le9a!
arbitration, md tTho a*ards made by such
referroo cannot bo i,npoachcd." .'.'
I
| Eo!octiopH for tho Council It must bc by IL
mutual agreement Of tho pa1tica (2) proviousIy
| mndc. Ii, tho uhseuco OF nuch agroed linith-
tipnB, tue matter must thko isB us,tai course ;
| mad noithcr party then i.as right. openly OF
nri7ate,y, directly or indirectly, " interiors with
Tho other
| Plymouth Church accpptcd Airs. Aionlton'e
proposal without limitation. "Your right tc
J name ono.half tho Council in unuiapusnd,' ARy
the Committee. Jan. II, altar all thoir " objoc-
tton." Il could osbo disputed. The objections
we're still further procluded by the fact that loi
we're too lato. TIE parties had hccn consulted
without previous objection, and had oonaontod
Furthermore. tic objections wero still moro Ia
o1cusahIy mado to DO communicated at this
| stage to tho subjects OF tho objection, and mo-
merely to tAe Committee. Il was . palpabl'
wrone aud has bcon mostly kept out Of alg,.t
| While one might conceda tho priultege OF
friendly suggestion absolutely private, question
ing tho oxpel4euo7 OF o certain Invitation, th
moment such question IL pushed SO AZ in an,
way to f.ustrate tho Invitation, 1t Is violation
OF privilege and right.
II may OF may nat have been cxpadient TO