Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1881-02-22

H..s s 49, eAaimlnE % Be q
S.4..eAeaA 4ueEt conference
OF the chu s-ovrlzaa - nseessn7 - 4.
conference. $40 sssaaae<A 49, approved It's aes
tlons then that action became binding upon the
ca1rc1. Inat Il was ever so ratified and sp-
makes question OF fact for your decision
under the evidence. :.
We now proceed q step further in the case
! nope VII not be considered as invading the
province OF the jury, when say that It APP
pears from the record Of proceedings In this
court that Young, Baker and Butler were an.
pointed trustees by the church. and upon ap-
p pncaelo1 . tins court by petition. they were
PENDANTS say this court had no
jurisdiction to appoint It is by no means
necessary to decide this question of iurisiic-
tlon, for. admitting that the court had no
Jurisdiction, its appointment cannot invalidste
the appointment by the church if the church
made an appointment. If this court had NO
jurisdiction. its appointment is mere surplus
the church -
But defendants also say that they, Young.
Baker and Butler, have not been appointed bv
me cnurch, because the appointment has not
Deen recorded in the Clerks Office of the Su-
perlor Court If you find that ii has not been
recorded ~. the book containing the record of
1eeds, out that 1t has been recorded in the
SleEA once IN the minute book of the Su-
PeEIor court, tnat 1t seems to me, is sufficient
AT any rate gentlemen. / charge YOU if YOU
ind these facts. that Young. Baker
and Butler were legally appointed trustees,
and that they are trustees now unless thew
nave been removed by the church and by the
church mean legal judicatory Conferences
OF the church. This brings us one step farther
IN Inls investigation. Have they been remoy-
ear CoInplainents say they have never been
legally removed: that they never were notified
or any charge against them; that they never
received any notice to attend any conference
TO answer charges; that they have never been
afforded the opportunity to defend themselves;
that they have been condemned UNI
heard. They invoke the protection Of the
maxim, which IS both common sense and
common Justice, that no man should be con-
demned unheard. This is a strong appeal to
sense OF right and justice and ought to have
availed in the ecclesiastical court The court
ought not to have proceeded against the old
trustees and deacons without notice. and with
out giving them the opportunity to defend
themselves. But has this court Jurisdiction
to review and correct the irregularitY in.not
giving notice, the injustice in not affording the
opportunity of defense to the parties In
my opinion the only question bearing upon
this matter, Of which this count has jurisdic-
ton, is whether the 1udicatory or the ecclesi-
astical court whose action is before us, was
legal judicatory of the church. If it be legal
judicatory this court has no jurisdiction to re-
view the irregularity OF its proceedings, or the
injustice of its decision.
If the civil courts have this power. where
ask, is the limit to It? What decision of our
ecclesiastical court may not be brought before
the civil courts on the ground that the pro-
Ce6QlnRS were irregular or the decision wrong
or unjust? 1t does seem to me that this ming
ling OF Church and State ought to be most care
fully avoided.
There is. it seems to me, a difference In this
case as between the old and new deacons and
the old and new trustees. Deacons are officers
OF the church, and the right of the church to
remove them and put others in their places is
undoubted, at least not doubted by me. Trus-
tees are nor officers of the church; they need
not be members of the church; and at first
doubted II the church had the power to
remove them. My idea was that the civil
courts alone had this power. In this,
however, was mistaken. The Legislature mas
conferred this power upon the church. and hos
put trustees, officers and members on the same
level The Code says; All trustees TO whom
c0ugeyance9 are or SHALL ba made for che Ugr-
poses expressed iu tbs preceding sactidp atat
Is for the purpose OF erecting churches Or
meeftnS ncUSeS} s3hali be sui jegr 10 Authbri-
~ OF tne church or RELIGIOUS society for
which they hold tue same ic trust ana no. be-
81 D1Iie1 tFom A0ld bruft ny .a-eh church or
spc'sGys sc-ofotne 70 GGd ICrLa OF governments
or ruit9 o. disc,piipe By which tfey mey be
g0Yt%4SU. Code, Sz348 The only limitation
on she power is that Il Hluss be done &C.
cofdlng 70 IRE fofIa Of government or rules %
discipline Now what is the form of govern
merit jn The Baptist church, It Is congrega-
CionaI ~ form OF goYerum in which the ma
1or5Y e an absclute and irresponsible despot-
isu1. Lnere is no higher tribunal than the
church conference to which party wronged
may appeal Whatever majority Of the CON
ference does is done, whether right or wrong
There Is no higher tribunal in the church, and
the civil courts have no Jurisdiction to supervise
and control it, In this respect trustees under
the act stand upon the same level with
deacons and members of the church. AS to
the rules or discipline the majority ought to
observe them, but if they do not, where is the
remedy? Echo answers where? The majority
has spoken, and the majority in the conore-
gational form of government is absolute. /
say again what have already said, that the
nVIa IN fhn DIV
body claiming to be a conference of the
church legal conference? If not legal. all
they do is void; If legal, all they do is binding
on the members OF the church, whether right
or wrong, just or unjust.
viii cite single authority to which have
been referred by counsel in the argument. as
sustaining, or, at least. tending very strongly
to sustain the views have expressed. Its
language as stated in the United States Digest
is, S'When persons have voluntarily associated
themselves into society of Christians recog-
MIXING no ecclesiastical tribunal, with authori-
ty to revise its final determination such a
church is what is denominated CONGREGATIONAL
and has the exclusive right to deal with its de-
faulting members, and the courts cannot SUI
pervise or control that jurisdiction" gu. S.
will add another authority. In 33d Ameri-
can Reports the court says: tItgbelongs not to
the civil power to enter into or review the pro-
ceedingS OF spiritual court. The Judgments
of religious associations bearing on their own
members are not examinaole here" A little
further on the court says: whether in what
the church did it acted right or wrong, this
court cannot approach its precincts to INQUIRE
and is powerleSg to redress any wrong inflicted
on appellant thereby. By becoming member
OF the church he subjected himself to its eccle-
slasticai power. and neither this nor any other
earthly tribunal can supervise or control that
jurisdiction" In another place the court
speaking of the church judicatory, saws; I'VE
cannot go behind its action to inquire whether
it acted rightly or wrongfully, Justly or unjust
ly, and its action is not examinabfe in q civil
court"
Much Importance has been given BY counsel
on both sides to the question, Where is the ma
jority? Not, however, more than il IL entitled
to, for wherever the majority Is there il the
church On this subject charge you that the
majority you are called upon to decide ia the
as it existed at the time of the split.
or at least at the time this bill was fled not to
the majority as it exists now. If the seceders
were the majority they are the church not
withstanding their secession. For while the
church has the right to worship in the building,
yet they may, IL they see fit, worship in any
other locality. They would only cease to be
the church by connecting themselves with an
other denomination. II those who remained in
the church. Wherever you find the major
ity, gentlemen, there is the church, wheth-
or you find it in the brick building
or at the Beach Institute. Neither
party has connected itself with anoth-
or denomination, SO far as the evidence shows
and defendants all claim to be
members of the First African Baptist Church,
and profess to adhere to its form OF govern
ment and discipline. They are all entitled to
the right OF worshiping la the building;
neither can exclude the other
/ have been referred to the decision of the
Supreme Court rendered in the very case we
are trying as settling all the law by which it is
to be governed. Irecognize that decision, as
! do all the dec sions of the Supreme Court, as
law. This l would do, even IL differed from
the Supreme Court. Much more viii do it
when / believe, as do believe in this case,
that the decision Is right. / have but one re-
mark to make: Before you apply the law,
find the facts that make the law applicable
AS the case stood before the Supreme Court,
the allegations OF the bill were true without
proof. for it was before them on demurrer.
The case stands before you on the evidence.
You must, under the evidence, find the facts
before you apply the law.
One remark, in conclusion: If you reinstate
the old trustees, or retain the new trustees,
is in the trust. hold the building in
trust as place of worship for the church
the whole church. Neither party can use it to
the exclusion of the other. This remark does
not apply to the case as between the contend
ing trustees AS between them, whoever you
find to be the legal trustees are entitled to the
possession of the building, to the exclusion OF
the others; but they hold it under the trust
which Is for the use Of the church as place
Of worship not for O part OF the church, but
for the whole church. No portion Of the church
is entitled to the use of the building as place
of worship to the exclusion of another por-
ton. m
RURNETTSS COCOANNE.