New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-10-21
DIR. BROWN BEFORE THE SYNOD.
ABLE ARGUMENT OF UNIONS PROFESSOR
DEFENDING HIS COMPLAINT AGAINST THE NEW
YORK PRESBYTERY FINAL ACTION IN
THE BRIGGS CASE TO-DAY.
[BY TELEGRAPH TO THE rRIBUSE.1

TIE BRIGGS CASE TO-DAY.
[BY TELEGRAPH TO THE rRIBuSEl
Albany oct. 2O-In India Dr. Pentecost met
Brahmins anxious TO hear the latest phase OF the
Briggs case. II one OF those Hindoos were In Albany
tonight ne would find the air full OF ecclesiastical
dust that hardly two men would tell him the same
thing regarding this important subject. He would
find knots OF discussing the difference between a
report which contains no recommendations and an
alleged identical report with motion pending to cur
tail the recommen ndauons. lie would find q judicial
committee reporting unanimous action before dinner
and two reports the same three hours later
lie would find synod struggling vainly preserve Its
dignity, with capital ID; asserting It's rights with a
capital r. ard avowing It's loyalty the General As
scmbly with n capital l.. He would find busy pastors
and elders anxious to leave the Capital city, yet eager
TO perform their duty TO the church whose servants
they He would find the Committee on Entertain
md the benevolent hosts Of the with
conflicting emotions regarding the possible limits Of the
debate whose termination will dissolve the synod
But whatever else the Indian philosopher found In
the city given TO Columbus ard Briggs he would
find only option regarding the able address Of
lroscss0r Francis Brown, OF Union Theological sem
mary. Whether viewed as an argument I'm behalf Of
the complaint which he and l3 others sent here
agninst the action OF the New York Pr,sbyt terry for
styling DIR. Birch and his colleagues 4 committee Of
prosecutions, special plea In behalf of his per
sona friend and fellow instructor, DR.. Briggs an
attempt to ALLEVIATE the Syiild from the Assemby-a
these views prcvall-fcw listened 10 the scholarly
professor without thrill Of admiration, and the feel
Ing that DR.. Irigg, has advocate who VIII care
fully protect nj, interests Calm and seltpossesscd
Dr. Brown read his address without the least be-
rayal OF personal feeling The synod must defend its
constitutional rights. II must defend IT, PTesby
teries II should recognize the right Of complaint and
the number and character of the compliments. The
for adjournment arrived, and The discussions went
until morning.
The Judicial Committee. in final majority report
had recommended that although DR.. Browns com
plant was In order. it incNpcdicnt TO take action
at The present tiuc the General Assembly has
taken action covering the points at issue. and the
New York Pre>bytcry is now ccding under IT,. The
minority I'm the COMMITTEES reported that they agreed
with the majority. with The exception that they did
not ion in the recommendation dcemng 1t unwise
and ineXpctlent IT, coming from tie Judicial Com
mlttec. motion 10 substitute the minority report
for the majority ruled ont Of order I'm ms case,
as one contained recommendations and the other did
not. DR.. rskc, Of Ithaca. appealed from this de-
cisiOn, but Dr. Parsons was sustained BY vote Of
"a To 20. This IL taken indication Of
the strength Of the 20 called Briggs and anti Briggs
votes respectively. james Tereance. Of Now York
moved to adopt the recommendations Of the majority
report and on this motion DR.. Brown spoke Later
10
report except the rocOmnenda'Ipns. Witch is prac-
ucaiy the minority report over a1in. which has
been declared out Of order. This amendment Will
be discussed when the synod convenes In the morning
The only speech Of any length made So far has
been that of Dr. Brown. u which the following is an
abstract:
Dr. Brown begged the synod to consider the
representations Of the complainant as matter Of
constitutional law and 10 determine the issues In the
spirit Of constitutional liberty. Hs points itsc
First, the action II the General Assembly OF l-J2
was no bar TO the entertainment OF the appeal The
question that arises T. this: since. II the position
OF your complainant be ooucct the committee hAd
no evidence function apart from the Pr'styiery
Of New Yor, and right Of appeal against decision
u the PIcsbytcry. does not the action o. tho Gen
cra Assembly ia entertaining the appeal finally scil"
the standing of the comm.tic. n scn-e adverse to
The belief of your complainant. thereby removing
Lhc complaint from thc jurisdiction oi TIL
synod A. a matter already d po,cd of finally b'
decision Of higher court Your complainant hold thi'
question should be- answered In the negative, for
such reasons ~ the following: First. bc'au-c the
question was not formally and directly brought be
fore the General Assembly ~ ondy, because the As
sembly DID pass upon the matter. except by nda
lions.
Thirdly, bccnusc the right Of pro.ecuung this com
plant was expressly reserved before the Assembly by
the defendant In the oa-c. II Is evident that the
y
prosecuted and rcfraiDcl from mafng any objection
10 such prosecution; and that. thcrefrc the action
which the Assembly did take cAinot operate ~
barrier to actions on the complaint hv thus synod.
lourhly, because the General Aa-tnDy cannot d..
pose the Synof Of functions cpccally a-,i1n'd TO II
nv the constitution. The ac,ion OF Ia" Assembly
cannot De- determined To- cripple tA" synod IN
It's exercise OF ordinary and constitutional rights
fifthly, because no action OF the Assembly cdn dc
strOy the nght Of complaint. The right oi com
plant Is bound up win the existence oi free; or
expressly Reserved To ANY and every person ~ lhe
church. IL cannot be taken away without resolution.
VIII the synod permit body Of compainantS which,
,bir rrht of complaInt fhr0ngh the instrumcnality
roughly ignored the rights of the complainant ana
has Ignored in 80 doing The claims of The synod
After giving these reasons, showing the SYNOD
had the liberty. undcicrrcd by any action o. thc
Assembly, to pass upon 'hc complaint, Or. bto%n t
matter which it could not cvadc II has the duty
Of taking great and cGcctu care that the prcSbytercs
observe the constitution Of the Church, he said, the
duty involved In the righ' oi Complaint tlr uuN ~ ~
TO II that the action OF th" higher court be not
allowed to deprive give the appearance II depnvnS
Tho synod Ol any OF lis constitutional isht9 10 'hiUw
out the complaint would be- TO acknowledge practically
court Is bound 10 respect. II would practically arrn
that y nod exercises It's functions, not uhdef Tue
constitution and according thereto but AZ the pi ,asrs
# the General Assemble. ~ Would silhe pro" az AZ
constitutional liberty within our Church. ana leave
tho way open to Capitalization ana uNuTlaiioh. an
anxious. IN all cnlnncss, HDt I" p'i'upc A"h 10 cN
hiMt narrow or petty feeling. but to urge you ny
our actions in the matter before You 10 do whn,
lies In you restore and maiitan that Just and
delicate baancc Of responsibilities and p""cls az
rlbuted among the different counts Of onr thurh.
Shich recent proceedings have threatened, II not
actually impaired
Reference was here made to the argument Of Dr.
prigg, before the Portland Assembly. that he com
piant acted a stay To the fact that the Ffr-bltcH
Il New York. by the action complained Of condoned
Vi0atiOn Of the constitution iu idt The moderator
had given n decision without allowing the paric' 10
90 heard, and bad councnanccd an unconstitutional
sumption his part II power &, decide questions
constitutional int rpfctaiion. Il, distinguished from
IucsOns OF order and evidence; that the vote ol
The I'rcsbyfcy did not represent the matured opinion
4 the majonv of the Pre- bytcry and furihcr that
special possibility Ic>ia on the synod 10 exercise
its right without gard to the higher court, because
of the large number and the character Of It's complaints
LAST DAY OF THE NEW JERSEY SYNOD.
Belvidcrc. y. j.. oct. 20 (Spccal.-The synod be-
gan It's last day with prc."ntatiOn 0f the needs ol
f1rnlnn nnnul. lL.u IN lln E.N- ur. ChNrlrs u.