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

matter was In litigation In the courts OF the
State of Kentucky. The other point was,
that the ipso tacto, and other deliverances
adopted by the General Assembly of the
Northern Church, which produced the
division in the Walnut Street church,
were atsaupationS of power, and that the
assembly had no "4ight or poaOer accord
ing to the constitution of the church to
adopt them.
This was the main point of the case
the one on which it turned-tfe ground
alone on which the Southern party based
their claims to the property. The Su-
preme Court was asked to consider this
question; to examine the constitution of
the church, and to decide whether or not
under it, the General Assembly had the
right and power to adopt those acts and
IF not, to give the property to those who
adhered to the constitution, and not to
those who adhered to the violators of the
constitution. The court, Enthusiastically
refused to consider whether the acts of
the Assembly qOere within the authority
conferred upon it by the constitution,
and held that the Assembly's decision as
to its oa0n authority in this matter was
conclusive, and could not be inquired
into by the civil courts. THIS was 1.-the
rule" that DR.. Dabney referred to, and
which he and DIR. Stuart Robinson have
denounced as Popish, etc.
DIR. Robinson, in an article in the
Southern Presbyterian Reviea0, January,
1878, to which DR.. Dabney referred " R.
R. Hs" reviews most ably this decision
and shows most conclusively, that on this
point, it was erroneous. There was
probably no man in this country who
had so thoroughly mastered the law of
this subject as DIR. Robinson. To his ar
gument l have never seen a successful
answer, nor do l believe one can be
made. He admitted, "that decision of
a question of doctrine or order by the
supreme church court is final as to the
property trust, aohen the constitution of
the church authorizes such supreme
judicatory to decide such question )" but
condemned the decision in Watson Us.
Jones because it went further, and de-
cided "that this ecclesiastical decision
must be final even when wholly I'M
authorized by the church's own constitu-
ton, and when violating the real original
purpose of the trust.
Where, l may enquire, has r. R.
II. been all these four years since DR..
Robinson s article was published? Where
has been his consuming love for the
truth, ETC., which has now burst with
such fury upon the head of DIR. Dabney,
who has only restated what had been
stated and published years ago.
But Drs. Dabney and Robinson are
far from being alone In their understand
ing of this decision. 1 believe those of
the legal profession generally, who have
given any attention to this question have
so understood it.
Since the decision in Watson Us. Jones,
similar questions have been before the
courts of several of the States The Su-
preme Court of Kentucky, IL. Bush and
the Supreme Court of Missouri, as I am
informed, have had the question before
them, and both have understood the de-
cision in Watson as. Jones as DR.. Dabney
did, and haze expressed their dissent.
Alexander Taylor Innes, ESQ, of Scot
land, in an article in the Princeton Re
vieaO of January, 1878, page %, clearly
states his understanding of the decision
to be the same; and in note, page As,
he says, In at least one recent case the
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, after an
able argument, has decided this con8tital-
tlOna1 Question in the opposite way from
the United States Supreme Court in
WatSon Us. Jones; .. e., it has declined to
take the churchs judgment on its own
constitution as conclusive The same
court of Pennsylvania, has re-afirmed
this decision in more recent case Ker' 8
Appeal, 80, Penn. State Reports, 81.
The Commissioners of Appeals in the
State of New York, in the case of Con-
nit et al. Us. TIE Reformed Dutch
Church Of NeaO Prospect, ct. aJ., 81,
New York Reports, SCI, say that Justice
Miller in Watson u.s. Jones, and presses
the opinion that the decision of an &C.
clesiastical court upon an ecclesiastical
matter, as to its own jurisdiction is con-
elusive upon the civil COURT" dissent
from that opinion. And the Northern
General Assembly, in its Minutes Of 1872,
page 1T, state Watson Us. Jones as de-
Gliding that, "a spiritual court is the er-
elusive Judge of its o10n jurisdiction ITS
decision of that question is binding on
the secular courts, and ordered this de-
cision to be embodied in its Digest.
Thus we have the opinions of the
courts of Kentucky, Pennsylvania, New
York, and Missouri, and of Alexander
Taylor Innes, Esq, DR.. Robinson, DIR.