The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1880-04-21
For the Central Presbyterian.
A Needless Blot Upon Our
system.

A Needless Blot Upon Our
System.
The system here meant is that con-
tanned in our Book of Order for conduct
ing judicial trials; and the blot referred
to is one which relates to the competency
OF the members of our Church courts to
SIT therein as judges. Not only is the
blot we refer to a needless one, but also
most hurtful one. 1t is one which re-
quires us to ignore and trample under
foot certain great principles Of equity and
policy, recognized by all civil tribunals
and the courts Of several great Churches
as OF the first Importance in securing i'm
partial trials. This. ugly feature of our
system, whilst it secures to us absolutely
no real advantage, does a great deal to
bring our courts and their decisions into
contempt. 1t appears to be simple
enough, but in the long run it makes,
instead of preventing, trouble. 1t is
easily remedied, however, by amending
our present Book of Order; and the OBJ
ject of this article is to call attention to it
in the hope that the remedy may be APP
piled.
Some may feel that it would be unwise
to begin amending our Book so soon after
its adoption. This surmise is removed,
however, by remarking first, that the
longer any bad feature in such a system
is allowed to remain unaltered the more
difficult it is to remove it; and, secondly,
that many. of those who, like ourselves,
voted heartily for the adoption of the
New Book as being, on the whole far
preferable to the old one, did so with
some mental reservations respecting vari-
Gus particulars therein, and with a tacit
understanding that proposals for amend
ing it afterwards would, to reasonable
extent, be allowed 1t would, therefore.
be as unfair as unwise to resist all at
tempts to have the Church consider, at
least, certain proposed amendments.
The feature of our system which seems
to us to be blot is found in a great many
provisions bearing upon the competency
of those who sit and vote as Judges in
our Church COURTS To show what we
mean, summary of those various pro-
visions is here presented. The real i'm
port, and not the exact words, of them is
given.
(o) Whilst both an accused person
(minister) and his counsel are expressly
prohibited from having vote in any part
of the trial, not word is said about ex-
Guiding the prosecutor from voting, who
may not only be member of the court,
but the accuser.
(b) Whilst certain qualifications are
demanded of those who are to testify as
witnesses, making age, intelligence, belief
In God, etc, Indispensable to their being
heard not word is said to intimate that
the competency Of a person to sit as j1tozoc
IS affected by any nearness Of kin to the
parties, deep personal interest in the re.
suit, previous bias of mind, want of sound
mind, and the like. AL these conditions.
which are universally regarded by civil
tribunals as utterly disqualifying a man
from being judge Of either the law or
facts in the case, are silently passed over
as if they were matters too trivial to de-
serve mention.
(c) Mepbers Of the court itself are ex-
pressly allowed to bear witness against
an accused person, and even be present
whilst other witnesses are testifyine and
then afterwards to sit in Judgment on the
case, weighing their own testimony
against that Of others,-or it may be they
are ohe only witnesses in the case. Nav.
this man who is both Judge and a wit
ness may also be the accuser and the
prosecutor ]
(d All the members of the court dur
ing the progress Of trial may play the
part Of adUocates, too,-making many
warm speeches designed to influence the
other judges, and then sit and vote in
the case. Every man who ever witnessed
an exciting trial in Presbytery will re-
call the farcical spectacle, often present
ed, Of judge (0 declaiming away, at q
white heat, for or against the accused in
the hope Of affecting the other judges