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

unanimlty, WIN Out one eXcepIl0n, 70 the
= conclusion arrived at in the report. Before
: taking my seat, would say that, whatever
: else you do, you cannot adopt the report of
f the minority in its present form; you pre-
r judge the case when you are not court at
all. In this report you cay that the judg-
} ment of East Hanover Presbytery was one
of excessive severity. You decide the case
by this snep judgment.
, Mr.. Veitch-The only reason given why
, we should not entertain this COM plant is
bare technicality-that Dr.. S. J. Baird had
, published that DR.. E. T. has taken an ap-
, peal. l deny that newspaper article is an
J official document A mere statement of the
case decides it.
Now, notice that adopting the minority
report does not adopt the articles of CON-
plant. You see that from reading the re-
port in it's proper form. l only state the
subject of the complaint.
i Considering the facts of the case and it's
relation to the General Assembly, say that
it is not only the province, but the duty of
this Assembly to take up this case.
Mr. Mcconnell thought the body ought
not to oentertain the complaint, for the COM,
plant ought to have stated atirmatively The
il is gsssseos grounds witL anarnn
the provisionS Of the b0os
! Mr.. CaldweU wanted TO know ~
ords show that al appeal was taken.
Mr. Amderson said that this was not ne
cessary. All that was necessary was to know
that such an appeal had been taken. He
read from the Richmond Dispatch an article
signed E. 7. Baird, announcing that he had
taken an appeal to the Synod Of Virginia.
If the Assembly takes up this matter,and acts
upon it, it will be doing that which is abso-
lutely without precedent in all courts of JUS
tice. He argued that the evidence that the
appeal was taken was sufficient. The question
was one of evidence, and the evidence was
abundantly sufficient. 1t is furnished by the
appellant himself.
| have stated that it is contrary to all iu-
| risprudence that two tribunals should have
jurisdiction over one case at the same time.
1t brings the courts into conflict; it tends to
endless litigation, and of all tribunals which
have endless litigation, ecclesiastical courts
are least commendable. They are not gov
erned by such accurate rules as other courts.
They sit for short time only. Then it is
contrary to acknowledged good practice, and
it is not consistent with the action of previous
Assemblies. l find no precedent in Baird's
Digest. One of my friends remarked Just
now that an appeal and complaint are intend
ed to reach the same end. That is only par
TALLY true; they are intended to be distinct.
Brother Berry said that there was danger of
confusing the two remedies; that confusion
he had fallen into himself. They are in.
tended to run in perfectly distinct lines, and
though they accomplish the same ends, it is
only incidentally accomplished. In the first
place, the party aggrieved has the right of
appeal, and it would be unprecedented that
man should be deprived of that right when
condemned in an inferior court. Say, then,
the party accused has taken an appeal: who
shall interfere with it? Who can take it
away from him? If another party can Jump
over the next superior tribunal. and carry his
case by complaint TO the-cour beyond which
the aggrieved had appealed, he might fore.
stall him, and thus cut him off. II, in this
case, the complainant, instead of being
friend Of the appellant, should be opposed to
him and want to cut him off from the appeal
he might come to the Assembly, (which sits
before the Synod get it to hear him and de.
termine the case adversely to the appellant,
in advance Of his being heard in the Synod;
and in that body the Synod has no right to
sit or be heard. Can you suppose that those
who framed this book would have made such
glaring mistake as this? Not at all. 1t
will be observed, on careful examination of
this book, that the right of complaint is con-
fined to three cases. The rigat of appeal,
when sentence has been rendered against an
individual, is personal right which no one
can do for him. When he has taken an ap-
peal, it involves the whole question. No one
has the right to anticipate him. By this re-
cord it appears that the appellant to the
Syncd of Virginia was subj ected to trial in
East Hanover Presbytery; that the EXTREMIST
penalty which that body could inAict they
did infict; that the appellant carried his ap-
peal to the next court, and there it is pend.
ing. All the members of that Presbytery
are subject to the jurisdiction of the Synod
of Virginia, and if their fading be not sus-
tanned by the Synod, all the members of that
Presbytery are liable to its oensures. Now,
sir, while these proceedings are pending,
friend of the complainant-in this instance,
bis brother-makes complaint to the AS
sembly, and he sets forth the same griev-
ances they cover the whole ground. The
minority report proposes that the Assembly
shall review this proceeding. The majority
report describes this proposition as improper.
But would go further with my construction
of this book. I would say it is not compe-
tent for this General Assembly to entertsinni
jurisdiction i'll the matter, BY virtue ~
general principle that one court vii, r.
jurisdiction of that matter which anotheI
court has 10 charge.
Col. anderson concluded bis argument by
a reference to the grounds he had laid down
10 his argument, viz: that one court must not
handle case that is already within the ju.
risdiction of another court; second, that the
provisions of the B1ck of Discipline prevented
the complaint from being received: none of
the cases in which complaint may lie, be-
ing complied with.
Ia the question Of justice, the matter of
sympathy ought not to be admitted. Every
udH IulphS lis U"u Odro VI thO uUSb lmp
tance. The only question is not the merits
of the complaint, but simply, will the Assem-
bly, take Jurisdiction? But where is the
poOer to exercise jurisdiction. The appel
liant is not here. We must confoe ourselves
to the written law; upon the face of that
law there is no provision for this case. If
there were no appeal pending, the Assembly
could not take jurisdiction on this complaint,
for the book gives US no right to do it. But
uLon kbst av1aol - toLap ~ 10 yiolot;on