Martinsburg independent. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1875-1900, 1882-07-01

NJ. n. Church VS.. M r..
Church south
lontinlted I.rom lIst meek

continued rom tuSt Ubeh.
/ Last, but not least, he SAYS, "Un.
/ der the Cape May decision, the
/ church ought to be ours, for at that
/ time they had less than we, but the
4 members we SO near eqnal that by
/ tacit consent nothing was done
under IL The brother was pleased
to refer To the Baltimore Methodist
OF April p. IN order To show the
/ material difference between, mot
otu church, but thiS church, but, |
| presume, conveniently overlooked
the same paper bearing the date May
%, III which there was Il fiat contra.
diction of his Cape May assertion
as the following article viii! show
GERARDsTowN CHURCH.
"The attempt Of a preacher of the
Methodist Episcopal Church South,
to take possession of our church in
Gerardstown, West Virginia, re-
ported by the pastor of Bunker Hill
Circuit In the issue of April %,
reminds us that the spirit and
conduct that marked the intercourse
OF the two churches Immediately
after the war, still obtains.
This is certainly TO be deplored
after the earnest efforts OF represent
atives OF both churches to adjust
difficulties and remove obstacles to
formal fraternity. A correct under
stending of the peculiar case now
under consideration, demands q
fuller statement of the facts than
that given in the report referred to
above.
ut is we'll known that much of the
property now owned and occupied by
the Methodist Episcopal Church,
South, within the bounds of the
Baltimore Conference of said church
was once owned by the Methodist
Episcopal Church. Much the larger
part of this property has been occu-
pied and controlled by the Church
South exclusively since the war,
while the remaining part has been
occupied jointly by the two churches.
Concerning some parts of this prop
erty there was Improbable conten-
tion and litigation, much deplored by
good men of both churches. To end
these unfortunate disputes was, in
part 1T least, the purpose Of the Cape
MAY Commission. BY the rules
adopted by the commissioners for the
adjustment of disputes as to property,
some Of the property in question
went to the Church South, and some
to our church. While the instances
Of our yielding to the claims of the
Church South, assisting them in
establishing their legal title to the
property which came to them under
the ruling of the Cape May Commits
sion, within the bounds Of our con-
ference, are numerous, we have yet
to learn Of a single instance OF their
Yielding to US. They have on the
contrary continued to sue us in law
and to appoint trustees to take pos
session of our property in violation
of the Cape May agreement.
It'll now, our title to the church
at Gerardstown was never questioned
The Church South had occupied the
church by courtesy only. In addi-
ton 10 our legal title, the property
was, by their own acknowledgement
ours under tile ruling Of the Cape
May Commission. When the ques-
ton Of continuing both societies in
Gerardst0wn was under consdera-
ton two years ago, AMI both parties
the unwi9dOm Of such
course, the fact that we were entitled
to the property by the ruling of the
Cape May Commission was brought
to the attention Of the presiding
elder with the request that his
church should withdraw. He &C.
knowledged our title under the Cape
May rule, but after advising the peo-
pie declined to withdraw, giving as
his reason for SO doing, that he UNI
derstood that part OF the Cape May
agreement under which we were en-
titled To the property, to be only adj
Visofy Now, not content with hav-
ing refused to comply with the
agreement, they undertake TO secure
a legal title to the property That
this undertaking will result in de-
privng us OF our property we have
not the least fear. What we regret
is, the injury that must thereby come
to the church. We cannot believe
that this proceeding is approved by
the church in whose name it is had,
and if it is not, is there not occasion
for an expression Of her disapproval
of the conduct of those who thus
disturb the peace Of the church, and
who for her tacit endorsement,
would be powerles5 TO do harm.
MOsT WONDERFUL. Very sell
dom do wa read Of an actual case of