Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1889-02-18
THE CHURCH SHOULD PAY.
Report of the Committee on the Col
claser Case to the Presbytery.


An adjourned meeting Of the Washington
City Presbytery was held this morning in the
Fourth Presbyterian church, on 9th street
The moderator, Rev. DR.. Hershey, presided
Rev. DR.. Noble, Of the Congregational church,
and Rev. Sheldon Jackson were invited to sit
as corresponding members. At the request Of
Rev. Mr.. McIlvaine, Rev. Mr.. wynkoop was
appointed in his place as member of the COM
mittee to Cooperate with the synod commit
tee on foreign missions.
MIR. John Leach made a statement relative to
the debt upon the churches in Amelia county,
Va, and the matter was referred to the stand
ing committee on the freedmen.
SPECIAL OBJECT OF THE MEETING.
The moderator stated that the special object
of the meeting was to consider the report of
the committee in the case of +. W. Colclaser
against the Assembly church. The chairman
of the committee Rev. DR.. Sunderland, said
the committee had given the matter great
deal of attention and thorough investigation.
The results had been embodied in a report
prepared by Judge Drake. a member Of the
committee. He added that this report was
signed by four of the five members comprising
the committee, ana that minority report had
been prepared by the other member.
stated that the case involved
AN ALLEGED LOAN OF MONEY
to the assembly church by Mr.. Colclaser more
than thirty years ago. The report said that all
the parties in interest had made statements be-
fore the committee and they weres atisfied that
all the material facts had been obtained The
committee regarded the matter of grave inn
portance, involving as it did the honor of the
church on the one hand and the deprivation
on the other hand to a man now a hopeless
paralytic OF a sum of money important for his
support. The report then gave extracts form
the minutes of the board of trustees showing
the condition of the church finances prior to
March, 1859, when the alleged Indebtedness
began. The records showed that the church
was unable at times to pay the pastors salary
and that a debt was contracted for improve
ments and alterations in the church building.
The pastor. Rev. Mr.. Caruthers, was a member
OF the board of trustees. In 1859 ii was pro-
posed by Rev. Mr.. Caruthers and also by
Mr.. Jameson, a member of the board,
to Mr.. Coclaser that he should lend the
church the sum of $1,000 which he had saved.
MIR. Colclaser was employed in one of the de-
partments, and in his sworn statement he says
that he was offered by the gentlemen named u
per cent for the use of his money. At first he
refused but finally consented, taking deed of
trust and notes for that amount TO run two
years and pay per cent. At the same time
the trustees gave Colclaser four interest notes
for $3.50 each, secured by deed of trust on the
church property, to make up the
TWELVE PER CENT INTEREST.
The report gives extracts from the minutes
of the board of trustees referring to this loan
and the various means adopted for securing
the payment. 1t is recorded that at the meet
ing of the board in May, 1862, Colclaser APP
peared and made a statement relative TO a deed
OF trust and notes amounting in all to IS, 500
Al htr,af al, u
meeting of the congregation was held at
which reference was made to a published no
tlce in the National Iateaiqenot- that J. g. Nc
CURE, auctiOneer, would sell the church prop
erty under deed OF trust 20 Colclaser. Reso-
lutions were adopted declaring that this loan
was made without authority of the church. and
no accounting for the money thus received was
made.
THE LOAN DECLARED ILLEGAL.
The sale took place and the property was
bought by Amos Kendall for $1,000, but the
trustees were unable to give title. suit was
entered by Kendall in the Supreme Court of
the District. and it was decided against him.
the court holding that the trustees had no title
TO the property. and therefore they could not
borrow money upon 1t.
The committee, in commenting upon this
case, added that the court had thus rendered
void loan which Colclaser had made in good
faith and which the church had used. The
report further adds that there is no record of
meeting of the congregation to ratify the
loan, and that they did not know of the debt
until the property was offered for sale.
The committee concludes that if the church
owed the money in 1859. the obligation for paw
ment remained good to this day. The decree
of the court in tins does not. in the opinion
of the committee, change the character Of the
obligation. While admitting that the trustees
ought to have consulted the church before
ma KING he az too n
think that it affected the validity of the loan.
neither did the committee think that the fail
ure of the trustees to account for the disburse-
ment of the money impaired
THE OBLIGATION OF THE CHURCH.
The fact remained that Colclaser loaned the
money, and there is no evidence to show col
fusion between him and the trustees. At the
time the loan was negotiated the report states
that the church was in debt to the pastor. The
report quotes from the sworn statement of
John I. Hoover, one of the trustees, which was
made in 1878, that he (Hooyer) was instructed
to pay the pastor IL 700 due him on his salary
out of the money borrowed from Colclaser.
The committee find other evidence pointing TO
this, and conclude that the 81. 200 was paid out
of the $4,000 loan. Other evidence is given
showing that 5000 of the Colclaser money was
expended on the church building. This is re-
garded by the committee overthrowing the
allegation made that at the time of the loan
the church was not in debt nor in need of re-
pairs.
AS TO THE LEGALITY OF THE LOAN
of Colclaser the report discussed the effect of
the usurious interest charged, and expressed
the opinion that under the usury laws of the Dis
trict the notes could not have been collected.
But in view of the fact that the church had OBJ
tanned and used the money, the question of
usury would not be considered. The notes
were now barred by the statute and this plea
was set up by the church in the suit in 1875
But the report concludes that
THE MORAL OBLIGATION TO PAY
this debt rests now upon the church, or at least
the acceptance of the compromise now offered
by Colclaser, which was to take $3.50 in full
payment of the debt, being the original amount
of 5000, less two of the small notes which were
paid. As to the question now presented,
whether the church or Colclaser should suffer
ha loss tho rpport fbouubf that +bara .l,o,,lI