Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1889-03-18
DOES THE CHURCH OWE 1T?
The Presbytery Considering a Case
With Many Curious Aspects.

With Many Curious Aspects.
A DEBT WHICH ASSEMBLY CHURCH REPUDrATED
AND WHICH THE COURTS DECLARED voIp-A
COMMITTEE HOLDS THAT THE CONGREGATION
Is MORALLY BOUND TO PAY-A LIVELY SESSION.
Civil Service Commissioner Lyman, as ruling
elder Of the Assembly church, stood up before
the Washington city presbytery in the 9th
street Presbyterian church this morning, eye
glass in one hand and manuscript in the other,
and protested in behalf of the church against
the pending proceeding before the presbytery
| involving the honor of the church. Near him
sat Rev. Geo. o. Little, the pastor of the
Assembly church, and MIR. l. G.. Kimball, the
| lawyer and member of the church, who had
piled up in a chair before him, number Of
books and manuscripts. At the other hand Of
| DIR. Hershey. the moderator, sat Mr.. Justice
| Drake, who also had pile of papers. and near
| him was Rev. DIR. Sunderland, with a roll of
| manuscript in his hand, which DR.. Bartlett
called his ''blunderhuss." 1t evident that
| the presbytery was in for long session and a
combat of keen intelects. There was full
attendance of members of the presbytery and
/ besides, number of laymen, and laywomen,
too, members of the assembly church, and
others who were interested i'll the question.
/ The presbytery sat in the Sunday school room
/ OF the church.
THE ASSEMBLY CHURcH's REPUDIATED DEBT.
The special matter before the presbytery was
contained i'll the majority and minority reports
made to the presbytery month ago, and pub
lished in The STAR Ike subject was brought
| before the presbytery last November. through
letter from a representative of F. W. Colcla-
zier, setting forth claim cuiqiazier had
against the Assemblys church for a loan of
$1,000 made to the church in March, 1859,
thirty Va has hDnn
paid. Mr.. Colclazier. who is now an invalid,
and said to be in need. made, through his rep
resentative, an appeal to the presbytery to aid
him In recovering the principal of the loan,
waving all claim to interest. The claim has
been before the civil courts under an action
based on deed of trust taken by MIR. Colcla-
zler as security for his loan. The result was
that Mr.. COlclaZier found that the deed of
trust he held was worthless, inasmuch as the
persons signing II and purportinS to be trus-
tees of the church property had no title to the
property. Ecclesiastical law, however, takes
no note of deeds of trust.
SOME OTHER CURIOUS FACTS
relating to this loan have come out in the court
proceedings and during the inquiry by the
committee of presbytery. The loan was made
at interest at II per cent, rate that would
have worked the forfeiture it is held of both
principal and interest under the old usury law.
To conceal the rate of interest agreed on the
at per cent, and then additional notes were
given TO cover the excessive interest. The
congregation, 1t appears. repudiated the debt
when 1t became due. Some members of the
congregation go so far as to assert that the
church had never received the benefit of the
loan. Some members even assert that the loan
was made by bogus trustees, and that both Mr..
COlclaZier and the church was defrauded.
The reputation of the pastor of the church at
that time. the late Rev. Mr.. Caruthers, is in
hold hot hn viz TO or11
alleged to have been committed. The reports
on the case are full of figures given i'll
attempts to explain the disposition
of the $4,000 loan and make it fit the theory of
the majority or minority of the committee. As
the records of the church are said to be
defective, the whole matter as to what became
of the money is involved in some obscurity.
The majority of the committee of the presby
terry, composed of Rev. Drs. Sunderland and
hamlin. Mr.. Justice Strong and MIR. Justice
Drake took the ground that the church was
morally liable for this debt. as Mr.. ColclaZer
had advanced the money in good faith. DR..
Fullerton, as the minority of the committee,
reached the same general conclusion that the
church should pay the debt, only he boldly
characterized the transaction as a wrong done
TO the church by its officers and an imposition
upon the credulous though too avaricious
Colclazier."
JUDGE DRAKE EXPLAINS.
When the presbytery took up the question
to-day each member had in his hand printed
copies of the reports of the majority and mi
nority Of the committee. Judge Drake moved
the adoption of the majority report DIR. Bart
lett asked that MIR. Justice Drake state clearly
the differences between the two reports. Judge
Drake thereupon rose and spread out his pa
pers before him. Judge Drake looked earnest
and it might be said that his cOuntenance was
grim and stern he glanced through his
glasses at the representatives Of Assembly
church.
The point of the first report is, d" he said
''that the Assembly church is, aside from the
operation of any statute of limitation, legally
liable to-day for debt its trustees contracted to
defense that might be made in law
that was usury. But the COM
mittee assumed that no body of Christians
would compel the forfeiture of an entire debt
because its trustees saw hit TO contract debt at
usuriOus interest. Above and superior to legal
liability is the moral obligation to pay this
man his money. The church now is made up
of almost different body of people from
what composed il in 1859. The majority, how
ever. claimed that the organized body is still
liable; that the obligation did not die with the
people who composed the church in 1882
Judge Drake took up some papers and began
TO look over them, when Mr.. Lyman made the
point that Judge Drake seemed about to pro-
coed TO an argument in support of the majority
report, whereas he was simply asked to state
the difference between the two reports.
Judge Drake held that ne was speaking to a
motion to adopt the report, and had right to
argue the whole question.
|. MR.. LYMAN MOVES TO DISMISS.
Mr. Lyman said that before this matter was
argued he had statement 10 make in behalf of
the church as a representative Of the session of
the church. He then took up a manuscript and
read at length. The substance of it WAS that
the session objected to the whole pro-
ceeding, on the ground that it was irregu-
lar and unconstitutional; that the mat
ter had not been brought before the
judicatory by appeal in any other
regular manner. The proceedings were uncon-
stItutiOnal. il claimed, because they as
sumed TO review and pass judgment on the ac-
tions of the church when the matter had not
been properly presented. The matter, it was
claimed, was not properly the subject of eccle-
siastical control, but wholly within the jursdic-
ton of the civil courts. Having been adiudi-
Gated by the civil courts, agreeably to the
wishes Of the church, it could not now be
brought before the presbytery. They OBJ
jected also and denied the jurisdiction of
the presbytery on account of the limit
OF time The alleged offense was committed
when the alleged debt became due and the con-
gregaton repudiated it, declaring that no legal
or moral obligation rested upon it to pay it.
This was in November, 1862, more than 20
years ago. 1t was and had been public mat
ter well known in the community. More than
one year having elapsed under the laws of the
church, the Presbytery had no jurisdiction.
Judge Drake said this matter was not brought