The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1880-04-21

(e) All those who act as Judges in a
court OF first resort are expressly allowed
when sitting in the appellate court on
the same cause, to act and vote as Judges
there, unless the injured party is able to
get majority of the court to sustain him
IN challenging them, or unless both par
ties can be induced to consent to the ap-
pointment of commission as provided
for In chap. V, sec. 8, subsection g. of. the
Form of Government.
Cd When the appellate court has re-
versed a wrong decision which did the
accused gross injustice, the case is re-
manded for new trial. not to a court
composed of judges whose minds are I'M
BIASED, but of those who have tried and
decided it before, and whose minds are
fully made up and who will be tempted
by the ambition of consistency to stand
fast to their former decision in spite of
new testimony.
Here, now, we have six provisions of
our system having one common feature
that OF unfalrness-which are disgraceful
to any people. They are features which
we defy any one to find a parallel for in
any civilized nation on earth. Let any
man look at the Rules of Discipline of
both the Methodist and Episcopal Church
es, and he will find that they are framed
so as to exclude even the appearance of
all these things, and are so manifestly
fair and just that Presbyterians may we'll
blush to read them over.
We well know what some good brethren
are going to say in answer to all this
they are going to point to two special
provisions of the New Book, to wit, chap
VI, sec. l6, of the Rules of Discipline on
the right of challenge, and % the pro-
vision in the Form of Government for a
commission above referred to, and they
are going to say that in those two pro
visions everything is set right. But we
want to scrutinize those very provisions,
for 1t can be made as plain as day that,
whatever the good intentions of their
authors, they are utterly insufficient to
remedy the evils complained of. The
first of these read thus: Either party
may, for cause, challenge the right Of any
member to sit in the trial of the case
which question shall be decided by the
members of the court other than the one
challenged. This provision, which is in
the right direction, and excellent SO far
as it goes, is fatally defective in three
particulars. First, it leaves us entirely
In the dark as to aOhat is cause" for chal-
lenge, and gives no hint as to where we
shall go to find out what is cause. -
There are a score of causes" from very
good to very insufficient, and no two Pres
byterles or Sessions would agree as to all
these causes. Our standards no where
speak on the subject, and they nowhere
authorize the Assembly to settle such
questlon-we are utterly at sea as to
c'7ter!a for determining what would, or
would not, be cause" Confusion and
diversity of decisions are the sure results
of such an indefinite law What we need,
and what all civil courts afford is, not
only specific list of disqualification, but
also right of challenge without any
cause at all, to limited extent. Sec
ondly, it makes no provision for supply
ing the places of members who may have
been successfully challenged, and so pro
vIdes club for breaking its own head
Many court at a trial has no members
to spare, and the rejection of few mem
bers would leave no quorum: for supply
ing the deficiency there is no provision
made. Neglect of discipline, or else far
cical trials by mere fragments of courts
would be the result. Thirdly, in many
cases this rule couldn't be worked, be-
cause large majority of the court might
be Justly challengeable In that case if
only one, at time were challenged the
other challengeable members would vote
to retain him-if all of them were chal-
lenged at once there might not be quo
rum to vote on the question. 1t is in
Sessions especially-which are often com
posed of only two elders-that these
practical difficulties would arise. In or
der to make this provision of practical
value the causes Of challenge must be
named distinctly, the right of challenge
without cause, to limited extent, granted
and some provision made for summoning
other competent judges from contiguous
Sessions or Presbyteries who can act in
the place of those who have been rejected
as Incompetent.
When we come to examine the com
mission we find it to be provision like
the last one-good as far as it goes, but
not suited to meet all the requirements
of the case till amended. In the first
place, the consent Of both parties has to
be obtained in order to get commission
at all, and then the Synod or Assembly