The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1882-09-27

volunteer defence of this decision o
the Supreme Court. Do not love O.
truth and desire for fraternity consti
tute reasonably sound inward impulse
He comes forward now to reinforce
and, il. possible, to defend this position in
his long line of battle; but have strong
impression that his reinforcement is in
sufficient, and his defence very feeble
AS preliminary, he ventures upon a rash
assertion, viz: that if R. R. HI. knew
as much of this case as he affects, he
would know that the expedient by which
1T was gotten into the Federal court after
having been decided oppositely in all the
State courts, did well deserve the Car
lylean title of -" here repeating an
epithet which is doubtless English and
may suit Carlyle and "R L.. d." but
which is not fit for use in the families in
which the Central circulates. Now,
assert expressly that all the facts regarded
as material by either side appear in the
record in Watson Us. Jones, and that the
record distinctly negatives this statement
of R. L. D.
The facts laid full foundation for the
jurisdiction of the Federal courts under
the venerable Judiciary law of 1890, and
the objection founded upon the idea that
the case had been adjudicated, or was
then pending in the State courts between
the same parties, upon the same facts,
and for the same purposes, was carefully
considered and justly overruled by the
Supreme Court. See PIP. 714-722. The
facts were distinctive to the objection.
In truth, although ar L. D." states
that he has read call the legal documents
mentioned by "R. R. II" and perhaps
nearly forty times as much more" on this
subject, yet 1 find it difficult to believe
that he has ever read attentively and
with calm and unbiased Judgment the
reported case of Watson Us. Jones. OF
course do not mean that the attentive
reading of this case would have altered
R. L. DIS" opinions, for he would doubt
less still continue to prefer the unan-
swerable arguments" and the irresisti-
bic force" of his essay" to the unani-
nous views of the Supreme Court of our
country. But l think if he had read it
carefully, his sound common sense would
have admonished him to avoid some of
the grave errors into which he has fallen
both in his essay" and in his article in
your paper of September 18th.
His illustration to show "the iniqui-
tous drift of the decision" in Watson Us.
Jones is worse than weak, and is plainly
condemned by the principles of the Eng
lish common law in force in nearly every
State in our Union. He attempts to erect
three contingencies each upon the top of
another. He supposes a free, law-abid
ing citizen of Virginia to have secular
property right in some real or personal
estate legally conditioned upon a certain
construction of certain religious or &C.
clesiastical compact and that this right
is contested by somebody so as to make
it needful to enforce it. Now such con-
tingency is not legitimately supposable.
1t is potential renaotiSSinaa-a most impro-
bable possibility. But, on this hardly
supposable contingency, he proceeds to
erect another contingency even more I'M
supposable, viz: that the Christian
Church tribunals of the very Church to
which this citizen belongs will in the
teeth of plainly right construction of
their religious or ecclesiastical compact,
put aOrong construction upon it, and
thus deny him his secular right; and on
this contingency on contingency, he
proceeds to erect one more contingency
more improbable than either of the others,
viz: that, in case of final resort to a
purely civil court, that court will prove
so much wiser, more p;ous and more COM
petent to deal with religious and ecclesi-
astical questions than the Christian
Church tribunal that it will decide right
what the Christian court decided aOrong
Thus r. L. D. attempts to build up an
illustration upon three contingencies Of
which the bottom one is barely suppose
BILE and each of the others less supposable
in ascending ratio. All such illustra-
tons are condemned by the common law
which never permits one contingency to
be erected on another; and which ignores
all offered help frem incredible illustra-
tons. "R. L. DIS illustration stands
on the same footing with that of the re-
nowned Vanini on the subject of comb
nation lotteries: Suppose the sky should
fall, won't you catch larks ?"
He then proceeds to repeat the charges
against the Supreme Courts decision
which he had made in his long " essay"
He pronounces this decision "monstrous,"
ubiquitous" tyrannical," this pecu-
liarly black spot on the escutcheon Of the
Northern Presbyterian Church" and es-
pecially "Popish' in its nature. Now it
is surely surprising that man 80 well
informed as "R. L. D." should apply the