The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1882-09-13
CORRESPONDENCE.
"R. r. H." VS.. DIR. Dabney.

MessrS EditorS,-Suppose that DR..
Dabney's criticism upon the decision of
the Supreme Court of the United States,
in the Walnut Street Church case, was
altogether erroneous-how does that in
validate or throw suspicion upon all the
other points he makes in his article on
fraternal relations? Unless I have en-
tirely misunderstood the argument of
"R. R. H. this is what he insinuates.
He seems to think, ,.that what he supposes
to be DIR. Dabneys error in regard to the
legal question, throws such a "dark
cloud upon the Doctors entire argu-
ment, as to make it fatally defective in
every particular. Was there ever more
adroit attempt to weaken the effect of
masterly erpOS6, which, in all other re-
spects, is unanswerable. The trick is
worthy of that inventive Arab, the
Sheik of the subterfuges." Suppose you
find market-man having for sale, water
melons, sweet potatoes, cabbage, canta-
loupes, chickens, and butter (Such was
cargo of a country cart in my earlier
days.) Now if you buy cantaloupe,
and find it not fully ripe, have you good
reason to say that all the rest of the
market-man's articles are utterly worth
less? Or suppose a lawyer gives his
client an opinion in some intricate case,
which opinion is not sustained by the
courts, would you say that therefore,
that lawyer was an incapable ienoramus
Or, should historian be altogether
erroneous in his dates and statement as
to particular important event, would it
follow that every other historical state
ment made by him was false? Or, if
preacher should publish an elaborate
sermon full of errors as to the true
Scriptural theory of Church Government,
would 1T be fair to say that such mans
statements of the Gospel plan of saliva
ton must necessarily be dangerously un-
sound? Yet something like this, only
worse, is the skilful manoeuvre by which
an attempt is made to prejudice the
minds of our people against DIR. Dab
ney's article. DR.. Dabney is grossly in
error In regard to the merits Of the Su-
Preme Court decision-therefore every-
thlng else that he says in regard to a
matter deeply interesting to the Church,
is gravely suspicious or unworthy of be-
het What Daniel has here come to
judgment
Yet r. R. H." himself admits that
the ablest lawyers, both American and
European, differ as to the soundness Of
the principles upon which the Supreme
Court decision was rendered. And if I
am not mistaken, shortly after the de-
clslon was made public, an article, edi-
torlai L believe, appeared in the ablegt
Legal Review Of this country, strongly
condemning it. 10y
The final decision in the Wa lnut
street Church case did not turn unon
Ihe equity OF the matter at all-and 7
am Tree to say, that there are good rea-
sons Tor thinking that in equity, the
property really belonged to those to
"nom 1T was finally awarded, and our
people made great mistake in raising
an Issue In such case. But the Suoo
Preme Court went out of the record in
GIuer TO announce principles, in regard
70 Che soundness Of which DR.. Dabnev is
I9J 4I at all alone in his opinion. or. r. |
n seems to take great delight in the
Ill J-1tlce OF the decision, and he rejoices
p, pplyh great joy over its righteousness.
aFa.ia IEe mas ne ever thought Of the sweeping
IneoC OF It's application Does he not
a,:no", or does he believe, that if the de- /.
o,.a. o,olon were made practically effective all
~ er the land, nearly the entire property
~ ~ the Southern Church is held onfv at
.ue mercy OF the North? This at least
was was the taunt flung at friend of tbe
S%Ilter shortly after the decision Of tbe
supreme y Court, by an eminent LAWYER an
eloer IN the Northern Presbyterian
GGnurch. y r. r. II" shows very njainiv
.lat mat he is no stranger either to the |
tneory or the practice of the law Ard /
ne,,yS ne would be doing great service if he
could show that the apprehensions and