The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1882-12-27

safety of the principles decided in Wat
SON Us. Jones, except q teaO atttratSts an
the Southern State" m
And can there be more Unfair pre-
sentation of the views of another, than
R. R. HIS" statement in his last para
graph, of the principles and practice
" favored by Dr. Dabney and those who
agree with him." viz: "that the civil
court in deciding controversies as to
church property, in which religious and
ecclesiastical questions are involved, shall
decide these questions for itself, without
any regard or Difference to the decisions
upon them made by the church courts
having proper jurisdiction? DR.. Dab
ney l venture to assert, never advanced
any such doctrine If "R. R. H." had
inserted the word mot" before the words
" having proper jurisdiction" he would
have been nearer the truth.
"R. R. 81. may have been led into
these grave errors by Justice Millers
statement of instances in which the civil
court would Inquire as to the jurisdic-
tion of the ecclesiastical tribunal. They
were case of murder, and case involv-
ing the right of property between two
individuals. 1t will be seen that the
Justice stated these instances as ercep-
tons to the general rule he was laying
down, that the civil court would take as
conclusive the decision of the ecclesiasti-
cal court as to it's jurisdiction, and they
are exceptions which prove the rule.
They are cases which the civil law does
not allow any tribunals, ecclesiastical or
civil, to try, other than those appointed
for the purpose. Who ever imagined
that in this land a church court could
try man for murder? But from the
beginning to the end of his opinion JUS
tice Miller does not give the slightest in
timation that any limitation could be i'm
posed on the jurisdiction of the church
court by the constitution of the church,
which the civil court would enforce.
THIS remember, was the question of the
case. Mr.. Wallace in his report tells us,
page 7l3, that he omits the able argu-
ment of Mr.. Bullitt on the constitutional
question, because the court decided it
was not competent to consider that ques-
ton.
"R. R. H." has cited numerous author
tiles as sustaining Watson Us. Jones' All
of these authorities, except one, strange
to say, are cited by Mr.. Bullitt to sustain
the opposite view. have access to but
one of these cases-the one not cited by
Mr.. Bullitt-viz., Brook Us. Shacklett,
Ii Graf. 30l, which certainly does not
sustain Watson Us. Jones.
This case grew out of the decision of
the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1914
The Northern Methodists instituted a
suit against the Southern Methodists to
recover the church building at Salem,
Fauquier county, Va. = The latter based
their claim on the provisions of the Plan
of Separation adopted by the General
Conference in 1914. The question arose
as to the authority of the General Con-
ference to adopt that Plan under the con-
stitution of that church. The Court of
Appeals of Virgiuia-Judge Daniel de-
livering the opinion-examined the con-
stitution of the church, and held that the
General Conference had the constitutional
power to adopt the Plan of Separation
Opp. 3245) and gave the property to the
Southern Methodists.
In the "great Presbyterian church
case" between the Old and New School
| VI clOhCoJ IuS 1NeW OCuOOl luSJlJuI6u a
suit to recover the property in the pos
session of the Old School, claiming the
property on the ground of the unconsti-
nationality Of the extending acts of the
General Assembly of 1887.
Judge Rogers, of the court below, de-
cided in favor of the NeW School OH the
ground that those acts aOere unconstitu-
tional. An appeal was taken from this
decision to the Supreme Court of Penn
sylvania. This court also examined into
the constitutional power of the General
Assembly, and came to the conclusion
that it had the power to pass those acts,
and therefore decided in favor of, and
gave the property to, the old School.
In both of these cases the parties, all
the very able and learned counsel, and
all the Judges concede the right and the
duty of the civil court to inquire into the
power Of the ecclesiastical court to do
what it did. No intimation, by any body,
or any where in either of these cases, is
given that the decision of the church
court was conclusive as to its constitu-
tional power-as was held in Watson Us.
Jones'
! Well may Dr. Dabney call this new
rule" in the Presbyterian church, and
well may he direct the attention of South.
ern Presbyterians to the significant fact
that this new rule has been embodied in
| the Digest of the Northern General AS