The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1882-09-13
For the Central Pregbyterian.


MesSrs. Editors, Doubtless ar. R.
81. finds it very cheap and easy way
let us not apply the description of old
Carlyle, who said that we Americans
prefer to work in a cheap and nasty
way) to neutralize the unanswerable ar
guments of my essay'by insinuating that
| am too ill-tempered to see straight.
And no tribute to its irresistible force
can be more comforting to me than the
fact that the only point supposed vulner-
able is this monstrous Walnut Street
church decision. To the representation
so neatly made, that had misiudged in
my ignorance a matter which, as being
no lawyer, did not understand, have
this to reply: That 1 did not form my
unfavorable opinion, without reading
carefully all the legal documents men
toned by "R. R. H." and, per-
haps, nearly forty times as much more,
nor without getting the opinion of the
ablest LGaOyerS in my reach; that DR..
Stuart Robinson, who was supposed in
his day to be no fool. thought worse than
l do. if possible, of the new principle of
the decision, and SO thought and think
the bulk of the able ruling elders of our
Kentucky churches.
{" R. R. H." seems to think, with Mr..
Justice Miller, that the principle in the
Walnut-Street church case was new
one. I reply it was only new to the
Federal courts-old and familiar enough
in the State courts-all of whose deci-
slons are virtually with me, and novel in
the Federal courts, because under the
righteous usage of earlier DAYS, these
had no business with this class of issues,
belonging Constitutionally only to State
tribunals. And if "R. r. H" knew as
much Of this case as he affects, he would
know that the expedient by which it
was gotten into the Federal court. after
having been decided oppositely in all
the State courts, did well deserve the
Carllylean title of nasty" But if your
readers, Messrs. Editors, wish to under
stand the facts and reasons of this mat
ter (they will have noticed that ar. r.
ID. has only given them names and as
SeTtaomS) they will do well to read dis
cusslon Of it in the Southern Pres5vterion
ReveeaO for January, 1878.
AS to the iniquitous drift of the deci-
SION Mr.. S. Taylor Innes and "R. R.
ID. may not see it, but its meaning can
be made very plain to all sensible.
straightforward Presbyterians. The
meaning Of the matter is this Here is q
tree, law-abiding citizen of Virginia, for
instance, who has a secular, property
right in some real or personal estate. le.
gally conditioned on a certain construc-
ton of certain doctrinal or ecclesiasti-
cal compact. The true and fair con-
struction thereof clearly gives him that
proPerty-right. But, supposing the case
that the General Synod, or General AS
sembly,' or Triennial Convention. or
House Of Bishops, or whatever is the
head-church body Of his Church, chooses
70 get ng-headed enough to deny
that true and fair construction of his
doctrlnal contract that free citizen is
to be denied his legal remedy for this
ROBBERY OF his secular property before
the secular courts Of his country. He is
10 be, to that extent left in the condition
oI an outlaw. The secular courts
charged to protect impartially all secu
lar rights OF all citizens, are, in this con-
tlngency, to abdicate their function and
DOW helplessly before the ukase of this
church court. And this church court is
wholly unrecognized by law as a tribu-
nal to try secular rights in this func-
ton it is to the civil government no more
than any other chance assemblage Of
people. That is the meaning and effect
OF the new law promulgated bv Mr.
: ustlce Miller and "R. r. H." But I
iearlessly assert that it is not Justice. nor
common sense, nor freedom, nor Ameri-