Ottumwa weekly courier. (Ottumwa, Wapello County, Iowa) 1872-1899, 1876-10-25
Judge knapp's Notion About
organs.
The CHRISTIAN CHURcH OF OTruMwA.
Us
Il. j. HALE AND OTHERS
injunction.

| do not profess to be familiar with
the government and usages of the
Christian church, except in so far as
I learn them from the parties to this
proceeding, and from the papers in
the case; but from these sources of
information learn that they are sim
liar to the government and usages of
the Congregational church, with
which do profess to be familiar.
l take it that the government of the
Christian church is "pure dcmocra-
Cyl" the best government church ev-
er had, in which the youngest mem
Der and the least in wealth and in
luencc, has the same power, by or
through his or her vote, as the Oldest
and greatest in wealth and influence !;
and that in all things the majority of
members must govern, that is, in all
things with regard to which the
church, as such, has right to act !;
such as are not criminal or unlawful,
and not in violation of, or rcpugnant
to, the rules of deccncy and common
propriety.
A church could not by a majority
vote establish in its elificc or in some
room or part Of it, q house of ill-famc
nor dram shop, nor could they in
imitation of the infidels of France,
elect as their pastor some lewd
female, who, representing the goddess
of liberty, would occupy the stand in
a nude condition; but, with regard
to the use or non-use of an organ as
an accompaniment to their vocal
songs of praise, see no reason why
the majority may not rule and decide
that matter if in dispute.
But l leave that matter and that
question out of the case entirely.
though have no doubt but that it is
the sole cause of the difficulty, which,
think, has SO unfortunately arisen
in a church which appears from the
papers before me to be eminently re-
spectacle, both in members and in
| fluence.
Isay, leaving that question out of
the case, how does the matter stand ?
Assuming that all the allegations of
the answer Of the defendants to be
uncontradicted, and all their showing
by affldavits and exhibits to be as
claimed, are they legally entitled to
what they ask
They claim the right to be left free
to do as they have done, or if not that,
then they claim the right to have the
use of the house one-half of the time,
and to use and control it for such
time, to worship God as they prefer
to worship Him.
1t is said that defendants represent
all the contributions OF money that
bought the grounds end built the
church edifice. 1t is of no legal con-
sequence, whether that be true or not !;
q member who has not contributed
anything has tho same controlling
power with his ballot as one who has
paid his thousands.
A member who pays nothing either
for place of worship or pastor to
preach, must answer to his conscience
and his God, but his legal rights arc
not affected.
Now the legal right of every men,
Der is to worship God in the church,
but in accordance with, and subject to
the rules and regulations of the
church, made and established by a
majority vote of the members.
And such majority can elect such
officers as they choose, and no tech
meal question can stand in the way of
making any changes they choose to
make at any time. if so be they hare
in fact such majority, and not a ma
jority of number present at a meet
ing fraudulcntly gotten up or con-
vened contrary to, or not in accord
with, the provisions and rules of the
church then existing with regard to
the calling of such meetings, but all
such rules can he changed by a ma
.jority vote of the members of the
church.
If these principles of law are not
correct, then the church in its govern
mcnt is not democracy.
| And, again, an officer, however
legal his election, or however undis-
putcd his right to possess and dis
charge the duties of the Office, can
not, because he is such officer, thwart
the will and wishes of the majority
of the membership, because he may
: think they are not acting in accord
with divine truth or divine law he
cannot lawfully lock up the organ,ii
the members have decided to use il
though he may think it device OF
the devil, gotten up to pander to the
vitiated tastes and aristocratic relig'
ion of these latter days, nor can he
lock UP the church building to kccl
it from being polluted with such az
! instrument, nor yet to prevent q de-
parture from the true worship, or .
violation, as he may honestly think
, of plain injunction of the Bible.
The writ of injunction in this cas-,
is not before me and l can only judg,
what 1t contains from my order o
allowance which l find with the pa
pers.
But if it contains any restriction
upon the rights of the defendants t,
!, worship in said church editice in &C
! cord with the rules and regulation
made by a majority of the member
of said church, or to attent
Sabbath schools, prayer meeting
!, or business meetings undisturbet
and unannoyed by the plant
L ifs. then such restrictions are so ia
modified as to allow such privilege
o without any hindrance or opposition
0 or annoyance by any one; and if tn
# plaintiffs should make an unlawful
rule or regulation in regard to churc
4 worship, or if they should discrimin
# ate against the defendants by maxim
d any rules applicable to said defend
q ants that do not apply to all standin
l. In the same relation to the churci
e then a motion will be entertained I
correct such abuses.
The motion to dissolve the injunt
ton is refused, and the motion t
further modify the same, except O
herein done, is also refused, to whic
the defendants except.