The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1877-12-26
THE QUESTION OF COMMISSIONS.

A remark made by the Rev. D. W. Shanks
in the Synod of Virginia, concerning the pro-
per Disposal of Dr. Bairds appeal, was IN
intentionally misstated by the reporter, and
it was therefore proper to desire the cOrrec-
ton which appeared in the Richmond Dis
patch, and which was by request copied into
the Central Presbyterian. Inasnuch as we
could not agree with the opinion expressed, as
to the power of the Synod to appoint Com
mission to try the case de nOuO, it was also
proper to state the grounds of that belief
At the same time it seemed only an act of
common polteness, especially under the cir
cumstanees, to intimate to any who thought
differently, and were disposed to sustain their
views, that ''the space in our columns neces-
sary for that purpose was at their disposal"
This was the only agency We had in making
the brother conspicuous" No one is to
blame: it is difference of opinion on an i'm
pOrtant question of ecclesiastical law. Re-
cent circumstances have brought that ques-
ton out in prominent form, and on this &C
count dispassionste consideration may be
of profit to many. And at the outset let US
hasten to relieve the brother of unnecessary
uneasiness. No "skinning operation on
either side is called for, or would be seemly;
and we must beg to be excused from entering
upon this discussion under the very belliger-
ent proposal g" to lock horns, as all men
know We are not of the horned kind. If the
brother will be satisfied simply to "try con-
illusions "a more moderate way of stating
the matter-it will be cur endeavor to hold
the position taken IS best We may. Mr..
Shauks is we'll able to take care of himself
whenever he has fair chance; the great
difficulty in the present instance being that
he has fallen upon the wrong side, and, as
we shall show, into some bad eOmpaOy-for
which last misfortune alone poor Tray" (in
the fable) was once ''mOst cruelty beaten"
For convenience, and to avoid too much
quotation, the points of the article 10 hand
will be noticed in their order, and the reader
may perhaps find it NEST satisfactory to 60
through by taking up the several parts of
both sides alternately. And first as to the
PRELIMINARIES
l. The only remark that we care TO make
on this is that, while disclaiming-and no
doubt sincerely-all PurpOse to do SO, the
writer does nevertheless reAaot upon the
Presbytery of East Hanover, and severely.
OF this more hereafter
2. Yes; it may be so; and the same also
if the order of the Synod sending the case
back to the Presbytery for new trial and
a "thorOugh investigation" had been CON-
piled with on the part of the accused. The
value of the criticism depends not upon what
might have been done if Commission had
been appointed, but upon the question back
of that, whether such an appointment was
lawful. That is just the question between
US; please do not beg it. Again, if ''all the
facts of this unfortunate affair never come
out, it will not be from any hindrsnce on
the part of the Presbytery.
3. When we get through perhaps the read
or can Judge somewhat better about the silt
tie fingers" and ''the back bone" of the Con-
ssitution, and who it is that would deal it
mortal blow; also as to that fearful act of
"stripping the accused of his constitutional
protection against injustice"
4. What the writer meant was determined
by what he said-the only means then in our
power. But Mr.. Shanks has the right to
explain what was ambiguous" or, rather,
defective. Take it now as intended: :"
Notice the expression between two eOnsti-
tutional tribunals" etc. OF course then be
would have the hight to choose; but please
do not beg the question again. What We
deny, and what the Synod refused to sane
ton, was the idea that such Commission
would be " constitutional"
Tn "bran new idea" In our civil courts
the accused has to limited extent choice
as to the selection of the jury, none as to the
Judge. The charge of venue also is deter
mined by the judge upon motion of the &C
cused, and granted for cause shown. But
whoever supposed that the mere declaration
on his part that the judge was biased by
selfinterest, or that there was prejudice in
the community, would be- listened to for a
moment? As to the other part of the para
graph, about the Presbytery, more will be
said hereafter.
5. The Synod of Virginia is composed of
ministers and elders having at least the az
ersge amount of intelligence, and if majority
had approved the idea of Commission, in
stead Of rejecting it, neither the suggestion
of DR.. Dabney, calls for the question, nor
the lateness of the hour, would have pre-,
vented them from carrying out their wishes.
AS to what the Rexs Assembly may do, it
will be time enough to cross that bridge when
We come to it.
WeeOme next to consider what Mr.. ShankS
calls
THE MAIN QUESTION.
We do not see that his conclusion as to