The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1877-11-14

terry they desired that his wishes should be
gratifed He thought the Judicial Commit
tee had not transcribed their functions. 1t
was inconceiVable that they were only to re-
port PAGERS and not to frame report.
DR.. J. A. Lefevre referred to the Assem-
bly's Digest, pages 219, 1852, &c., to show
that the Assembly had disposed of similar
cases merely on the report of the Judicial
Committee.
Hon. Isaac D. Jones, Attorney General
of the State of Maryland, said the point at
issue had been clearly stated by Judge Odld.
Did DR.. Baird waive his privileges? Could
it be inferred from bis paper? He inter-
preted the paper as DR.. Baird says he de-
signed it, Mr.. jones argued that an ir-
in any stage renders the whole
proceeding illegal.
Dr. Pryor said that Pfesbytery had ap-
pointed two lawyers to cross examine the
witnesses.
Mr.. Jones said the accused was not
there, and he only could indicate the ques-
tions necessary in his defence. Mr.. johnson
exonerated the Presbytery from any inten-
tionsl Injustice
DR.. Smith pressed his amendment to the
report of the committee, which was that the
whole proceedings in the case be received
and the parties heard and it was carried by
a rising vote of "a to Ga.
Rev. w. W. Houston said if the proceed.
ings we're illegal the testimony was illegal,
and moved it be not received.
DR.. Peck said that question had just been
decided, and the question would now be on
the adoption of the committees report as
amended.
Pending this motion DR.. Hoge presented
a paper remsnding the case back to East
Hanover Presbytery, and prefaced it with
remarks. He said two things were now de
sirable-to save the valuable time of Synod
and do justice. He would be glad if he
could be an humble instrument in attaining
these ends, and more glad if he could secure
the latter; all other considerations fade away
in view of that. If we go into the case we
cannot close it this week. 1t will be re-
handed to Presbytery. Who does not know
that this will be the issue? Why 60 through
all this when iu one minute you may dispose
of the case? If we have committed an ir-
regularity we desire to do far and exact jus
tice. In all the Synods of Virginia and in
all the General Assemblies there had never
been body of men so DESTROYS to avoid the
least shadow Of injustice. When great Ca
lamity has fallen, as has been the case with
this most unfortunate brother, instead of put
ting him down we would be the first to hold
him up, and say, "You shall have your
rights" We need never to have troubled
the Synod with the case. DR.. Baird has
been assured that if he thinks injustice has
been done him Presbytery is ready at any
time to 90 into new trial. | speak for my
Presbytery now. There has not been time
when we have not been willing to take up
the case ab initio.
He then read the paper which he had pre-
pared. After expressing the desire of all
parties to exculpate Dr. Baird, it proposed
that Synod should, without passing upon the
guilt or innocence of the accused, remand
the case to Presbytery for new trial.
DR.. Bullock said he was willing to adopt
this paper if DIR. Baird was willing.
DIR. Baird preferred that his appeal shall
have its course in Synod. He wanted a
chance to vindcate himself here. He spoke
of the proposition which it was said had been
made to him by members of East Hanover
Pregbytory for now trial. They had nosor
informed me of their action. | would not
open up intercourse with the body under
these circumstances. He was absent, but HE
post-office was Richmond. After he returned
they could have written to him. He had
received nothing but semi-official commun-
ication from the clerk requesting him to file
his amended reasons of appeal.
DR.. Pryor said he was one of the commit.
tee appointed to represent the Pfesbytery
here, and if the Synod could feel itself JUST,
fed i'll clearing DR.. Baird he would thank
God. He had been shut up to conclusion
painful, and painful in the extreme. If it
comes back to us, and there is love of truth
and justice or love of Christ in US, we would
sooner lie down and die than do Dr. Baird
injustice. There is not person in this body
whom | more respected or for whom l have
now warmer sympathy. If there was pre-
cipitate action it was under constraihipg
sense of duty. 1t is said we did not give
him the benefit of cross. examination. 1t was
known he had left the city, and We did not
know where he was.
DR.. Baird said he went away by the advice
of member of the Committee of Publication.
DR.. Brown inquired if DR.. Baird alluded
to him as giving advice.
Br. Baird said DIR. Brown suggested it.
DR.. Brown, not consenting to, the correct.
ness of Dr. Baird's recollection in the case,
DR.. Baird said that he would withdraw the
statement.
DR.. Baird explained why he had not ad
Verted to the paper of DR.. Hoge offered be
fore dinner. He had had more time to re-
feet upon the subject, and adhered to what
be had said. The Presbytery had made up
their minds, and were not fit as jurors, &C
,ording to the question asked every juror in
A civil court. DR.. Baird suggested com
mission of the Synod to try the case.
DR.. Read: Who are the parties?
DR.. Baird said the Presbytery was a party
Dr. Hoge's paper was objected to by Rev.
W. W. Houston and DR.. Leyburn as contain
ng q proposition to remand the case, which
had already been voted down, aud was with.
lrawn, DE-. ShepperSon Withdrawing his sec
md to it.
DR.. Baird and DR.. Lefevre said DR.. Hoges
PAPER was different.
The question was taken on the report Of
he committee as amended, which brought
he case before Synod, and after the charge
# the Moderator the papers were read-viz.
he sentence appealed from, the appeal, and
he testimony; and then the Presbytery took
recess to = P. M.
The Finance Committee reported the fol-
owing assessments. which were adopted