The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1877-05-30
PRESBYTERIAN GENERAL ASSEMBLY,
iRcpor,cd for the nlspatch.l
NEw ORLEANS, MAY %, 1877


WEDNESDAY. eSS3 ssa. ((ss6S III
Yesterday. after my report was sent on,
the renort OF DIR. Smith on theological edu-
cation was further amended and passed.
It's general report is the same as Wfose
Yesterday. IL prescribes certain mcthoos ~.
which sPresbyteries and Seminaries sna''
deal with candidates for the ministry.
. telegram was sent to the Genera, AS
semhly North. now in session ut Cmcaso'
teiEna them OF the action held this morn
inc. that IL they are ready TO meet Us "" .re
basis OF the Baltimore Conference We "o
ready to receive and send Delegates; =. 10
At night large meeting was heio IA W
half of foreign missions. 80, a.. s,,,-
This morning was occopieu wis -"
Ie. Az overture from Florida Presbytery,
ostinp. for the formation OF SYNOD, was
cont hack. with directions to apply hfst 20
the Synods of Georgia and Alabama.
An overture asking for the aboiishing OF
+ha term {" stated supply" in our minutes
wes after some discussion, laid on the table:
Tbe terms " acting pastor" and local
evangelist" were suggested, but did not
meet the appreciation Of the Assembly;
The Judicial Committee-Dr. Woodrow
chairmau-reported on Dr.. ). D. ba'ras
complaint against East Hanover Presps-
terry, recommending that as Dr. n. l. air1'
the partv aggrievcd in the case, has appeai-
ed to the Synod OF Virginia, TINS cohpiath1
be referred to that body.
Mr.. I. NJ. Veitch, OF st. Louis, presented
a minority report, recommending that the
Assembly now hear DR.. Baird's complaint.
Mr.. Veitch, in presenting this, held that the
Enowledpe that DR.. +. Il. Baird had APP
nea]ed had only come to us through ietter
nubIished in the Richmond Dispatch OF
NAV 10th. and therefore, being non-ofllciai,
could not be the basis OF any action on our
mart. Besides, he considered the sentence
of Fast Hanover Presbytery as harSh ana
the action hasty, and the complaint proper
one. ..o
Mr.. Berry, OF Virginia, supported ing
minority report. He thought that appears
and compiaints ought not to be confounded,
and this complaint is proper, and 1t IS no.
thing but right and just that he should De
heard. :s
Colonel Bilups, OF Augusta, Ga, sald
that in our Book there are only three occa-
sions in which complaint was proper. he
read from the Book, and held that this COM
plaint came under no one OF these speclhed.
In addition, he was opposed to so much
Itieation-to hear this complaint whilst an
appeal on the same matter is pending in the
Synod Of Virginia.
Colonel Anderson, Of Mobile, argued in
favor OF the majority report that the ques-
ton here was first OF jurisdiction. lie
thought this court entirely incompetent TO
touch this case, because the same IN anotne.
form is now pending before the Synod OF
Virginia, the next superior court. AS to
official information, what is official? In the
nature OF the case no official communication
on this matter could come before this body.
The real question is: Is this fact authentic
This the complainant admits; it has not been
denied. Again, it is a principle in all law
that no two courts can have cognlzance OF
the same case at the same time. 1t would
necessarily produce confusion. BE showed
how this might occur in this case. This APP
peal before the Synod may be issued next
fall in Virginia, and then may be appeaied
by either party to the Assembly OF 1878,
and thus come before court where Inc
question has already been decided. Be
sides, if this could be done it might operate
very iniuriously to the appellant. II thus
complainant, instead of being the brother
and friend, were the enemy Of DR.. E. I.
Baird, then his complaint issued here might
forestall the rights Of the appellant before
the lower court.
DR.. NJ. D. Hoge spoke very feellngiy OF
the affection of all the members of East
Hanover Presbytery for DR.. r. L. Bard:
They did not want to stand in the way OF
his having right and justice done. DR..
Baird had no better friends on the CONT
nent than the members Of East Hanover.
Their affection for him is only surpassed by
their love for the honor and purity OF the
Church.
The question being called, DR.. Adger
called for the ayes and noes, saying that as
there might be considerable minority ne Tor
- \ fn6 0f
for the minority report. The ayes and noes
being ordered, the minority report was re-
jected by the following vote: 112 against,
for. The majority report (referring the
complaint to the Synod Of Virginia) was
then adopted with but one dissenting voice.
THURSDAY.
The subject occupying the attention or
the Assembly to-day was the report OF the
Committee on the New Book Of Church
Order-Dr. Armstrong chairman. The re-
port brought up about twenty-five or thirty
amendments from the suggestions OF the
Presbyteries to be embodied in the new
Book, and recommends that the Book so
amended shall be sent down to Presbyteries
for adoption or rejection.
Besides these, seven distinct amendments,
deemed more important, are to be sent dow
for a separate vote by the Presbyteries.
They are as follows: N Whether ministers
not in the regular work shall vote. (2) The
whole subject of ecclesiastical commission.
(3) The subject of electors for pastor. "a
The question whether Presbyteries shall eX-
anime men coming from another Presbytery.
s5) The subject Of judgment without pro-
cess. (6) The subject OF transferring per-
sons from the communicating to the non
communicating roll. ~ The demission of
the ministry. Considerable discussion took
place. 1t is still going on as close for the
mail.
Interesting Report Of the Discussion
ON DIR. Baird's Case.
THURSDAY EVENING. ~
After my report left this evening the re-
port on the Book Of Church Order was re-
Committed to the committee to bring in an
overture in due form to the Presbyteries on
the subject.
The report on sustentation, presented
last night, was taken up.
DR.. Woodrow objected to many things in
the report. There was something like a
censure Of certain Presbyteries because
: they did not Just as the committee thought
best. He thought this committee was the
executive agent OF the Church, and it was
not its province to pass censure on any SOW
ereign Presbytery.
DR.. Rutherford defended the general pol
:. icy OF the Sustentation Committee. He
thought it had done great good, and many
4. churches without Its aid would have be-
come extinct.
DR.. Armstrong defended East Hanover
Presbytery for taking an independent posi-
ton In this work His Presbytery occupied