Litchfield enquirer., 1879-01-16
Brother Linkhaw's Singing.
When "The State versus Linkhaw" wase


 lel, the Common wealth of North Carolina ap- peared as the plaintiff, and an earnest Metho- dist brother of RODesOn Caunty responded as the defendant The latter had not broken any of the Ten Commandments, nor had he violat- ed any written law of the land. His moral character was above suspicion, his piefy was unquestioned, and it was conceded even by his prosecutors that he was law abiding citi zen, a member of the churchin good standing. and man of exemplary department. Yet he wss indicted by the Grand Jury of Robesop County, found guilty of nlisdemeanor by twelve of his peers, and the Supreme Court oi North Carolina was called upon te determine whether the majesty of the law demanded that he should suffer punishment. It appears that Brother Linkhaw took leading part in the congregation ill the church of which he was 4 member and that while he labored with fer vor to produce harmony in the rendering of the hymns, he contrved. unfortunately (but un- intentionally, all do him the justice 10 say, to create great deal of discord in the congrega- ton. In fact, it was his fervid singing that finally brought him to grief, ,as it had previous ly been a cause of grief to many of the breth- ren and sisters. The truth is that shortly after Brother Linkhaw had been received into good fellowship and the communion of the church, and as soon as his voice was heard in tuneful praise it become painfully evident to many that his part in the service of song was not cal culated to give unmixed pleasure to the devout of the congregation, nor to promote the good ends of devine worship which all had at heart Gentle hints of this unwelcome truth were first thrown out and when no notice was talk en of these it became necessary to bring the delicate matter openly to the attention of the brother in fault. AS this did not have the de- sired effect, the members first expostulated and afterward reasoned with hlm, then tried to move him by prayer, and finally appealed to him as man and Christian to have a lit tie consideration for the feelings of the con- gregation and some respect for the sacred. carse of religion When all these efforts had failed to have any perceptible effect in abating the hvmnal fervor of the determined brother, the congregation with one accord voted that his singing was nuisance which the church would not and could not tolerate, and resolved that, unless a compliance with their demands was promised, the circumstances would justi- fy resort to extreme measures. To all of which Brother Linkhaw calmly but firmly re- piled that ''he would worship his God, and that as a part of his worship, it was his duty to sing" No course was now left to the SOci- ety but to appeal to the law. Accordingly, legal proceedings were begun, and the misguid- ed brother, whose only sin was his excess of ardor, was indicted and brought to trial, ,charg ed with misdemeanor in disturbing the peace of the congregation.
 What were the specific criticisms on Brother Linkhaw's vocal performances whether it was that his tuning fork was wont to deceive his ear in the pitch, or he invariably struck the wrong key, or was never in time; whether it was that he persisted in rendering the psalms in long metre while the rest of the congrega- tion labOred to give them Tn short, or that the nasal was so dominant in his tones as to mar the general effect of the singing-these are critical matters, in which the musical public will be interested, but which unfortunately do not appear in the official report of the case. It is clear, however, that in the opinion of the majority the singing complained of was decid- edly more fervid than was called for by even the strictest requirements of divine worship and that there was altogether too much of it. The complaint of the church, as far as it ap- pears in evidence, though sweeping, was gen eral. It was charged that Brother Linkhaw was wont to sing in such way as to disturb the whole congregation and to make the sa- cred services ludicrous; that at the end of every verse of the hymn, his voice was heard loud and long after all the others had ceased that the annoyance was great and gricvous; that the effect of it was ''tO make one part of the congregation laugh and the other mad ;" and that the irreligious and frivolous enjoyedit
  ed with righteous indignation" It was also in evidence that the Pastor often became SO dis turbed that he lost control of his temper re- fused to sing the hymn, and shut up lis book in disgust that the Presiding Elder could not be induced to preach ill the church unless Brother Linkhaw would covenant to absent himself from the services or to refrain from taking any part in the singing; and that on one occasion the Senior Deacon observing the profound solemnity which prevailed the con- gregation Tn consequence of the sermon just closed and fearing that this effect would be lost in ridicule when Brother Linkhaw should open his mouth to start the singing, was oblig- ed to hasten to the latters pew and beseech him, flor heavens sake, to keep quiet"
 At the trial in the lower court the State did not attempt to show any intention on the part of the defendant to disturb the congregation. On the contrary, it was admitted that he had been conscientiously taking part in the relng- ious exercises. The court was asked, bat re fused, to instruct the jury that the accused was not guilty unless he intended to create dis turbauce. The question was, said the Judge, whether his singing had that effect, and wheth- CT he intended to do the singing On this point there was no room for doubt If the testimony of the Pastor, the Deac0ns the leader of the prayer-neetings, and the whole roll of members had been impeached, there was one witness whose evidence alone would have convinced the jury and saved the State from defeat. Being asked to describe the pc culiarties of the obnoxious singing, he re- sponded with hymn given with such perfect imitation of Brother Lnkhaw's voice and fer vid manner that it ''produced burst of pro longed and irresistible laughter, convulsng alike the spectators, the Bar, the jury, and the court" The devout defendant alone was un- moved to levity. This settled the matter and Brother Linkhaw, but only for the time be- ing. The latter, as determined to assert his rights in law as he had been to exercise them in religion, appealed to the Supreme Court of the State, which reversed the judgment of the lower court, remarking that the defendant was "a proper subject for the dicipline of his church, but not for the discipline of the courts" '" Thus in the end did Brother Lnkhaw triumph ouer his enenlieS " ' IILaaa