The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1877-06-06

superior Ju0lcatory. NOW, az unueTslan
it, Brother Baird appears here as an ind,
pendent character entirely-not as his brotE
er's attorney, but on his own individual az
count, because he thinks the proceedings q
the East Hanover PreSbytery were irregula
and Injurious to the cause of truth. 1 can
not see now any objection can be made t
receiving this complaint. The complaint
not on appeal. There are different remedies
leading to an entirely different result. Al
though Dr. E. 7. Baird has appealed to th
Synod Of Virginia, there is no reason wh.
Dr.. S. ]. Baird cannot " complain to tn
Assembly He has right to do so. The tw
have no bearing on each other. For tbi
reason | desire the minority report to b.
submitted in place Of the majority report
The Moderator stated that both report
were now received, and the motion was OF
adopting the minority report.
Mr.. Watkins was in favor of discussing
the matter on its merits. IS it would save
trouble for him in the Synod of Virgins
next fall
Mr.. Bilups-I am in favor of adopting
the majority report. 1t is true that com
plants and appeals are. .sonS1E ent
i"s ss' 'Rs 'Rsa !!( Il Isa. |5s5
States that multiplicity Of lawsul!s should
be discouraged. Suppose the complaint il
entertained. Does that dispose of the ap
peal? Here is a judgment of this court on
a complaint that has not passed through the
Synod of Virginia The adjudication of the
complaint does not dispose of the appeal
The right of appeal from the Synod is not
taken away. When it comes to the Assem-.
bly, in 1878, the matter can be finally settled.
Does the Assembly wish to receive questions
just to discuss them? Adopt this minority
report and that appeal is still pending be
fore the Synod, and it may still be brought
before the next Assembly. The Assembly
of 1877 is engaged in useless work. 1t
certainly cannot take away the right of the
appellant to bring up his case next year
This Assembly does not desire to shirk it's
duty, but we do not wish to take action that
will accomplish nothing. By adopting the
majority report, We impose the settlement of
the question on one Assembly only.
True, there is difference between com.
plant and appeal, but both must come up
by regular gradation. This question was
considered in st. Louis; a complaint was
brought up skipping the Synod; but it was
by special request of DR.. Robinson and
Others, representing the Synod of Kentucky,
that that course was taken. But all parties
conceded that the proper course was to carry
it up through the Synod.
From a careful reading of the book, it ap-
pears to my mind that, where appeals are
a complaint is not the proper rem
edy. An appeal differs. from a complaint
only in this, that complainant need not be
. party to the case, while an appellant must
be-.
Mr.. Billups showed from the book that in
all cases where an appeal is taken COM
plant is neither proper nor advisable.
Mr.. Vance said that where two remedies
are given, which are concurrent in their ma.
ture, that court which gets jurisdiction first
has exclusive jurisdiction. If this Assembly
goes on and determines the case, the Synod
does the same, and they arrive at different
what a position is the Church
placed in! Let the Synod go on and settle
.he question.
DR.. Woodrow-I do not intend to enter
INTO any argument on the subject, but will
give you the motives of the committee in
presenting it's reports. suppose no mem
Der of the Assembly will be second to the
brother in his desire that there should be fair
play. We all desire not only that justice
shall be done, but that justice shall be tenn
pered with mercy; but every doubt should
be given in favor of the accused. Ia case
we speak of an accused party, one important
question is: Shall the complaint be enter
sained? In section 4, paragraph 3, of the
Book of. Discipline, it is provided that the
cases in which it is appropriate for COM
plaint to be made and entertained, are those
in which the judgment Of the inferior judica-
tory was favorable to the party placed at
their bar. Next, when it is not complained
that great and grievous wrong has been
done to the individual; and, third, when the
party aggrieved does not make an appeal, but
IN this case, the judgment of the inferior ju
1icatory was not favorable to the party. 1t
Is complained of that grievous wrong was
done to the individual, and the party ag
grieved has taken an appeal. might show
that every provision in our law book fails to
apply to the case in question; it is, there
fore, clearly within the discretion of the As
'embly whether this complaint shall be enter.
:ained or not. Of course, we may entertain
The complaint. | do not question the right
Of the Assembly to do that. If we desire it,
and sufficiently strong reasons are given, we
may entertain it; but we should consider
carefully the question, is there any specific
reason why we should override the Synod of
Virginia; and without such reason we ought
not to adopt the minority report 1t has
been said that the appeal and complaicSWay
refer to different matters, but in IL .se
they do not. The minority reports tellsyou
the subject matter in the two cases is ident.
cal. 1t has been intimated on the floor that
We do not know officially whether an appeal
has been taken or not. would remind the
Assembly that it is by the complainant (she
person whom we had received from our igno-
rance) that We are informed of the fact that
there is an appeal made by the party most
affected to the Synod of Virginia. And
special pains have been taken by the com
plsinant to inform each member of this Gen
eral Assembly of that fact. The complain.
ant publishes letter in the Richmond Dis
patch, accompanied by another, signed BY
E. 7. Baird, in which he publishes this to the
world, to you, Moderator, and to each one of
US. l cannot conceive that it is possible for
any member of this Assembly to be governed
by that barest of bare technicslities. We do
know, in way that would be recognized
anywhere in the civilized world, that an ap-
peal has been lodged, and We should act &C
IL