Barton County democrat. [volume] (Great Bend, Kan.) 1885-1915, 1892-06-02

REV. G. A. BRIGGS. emn business of the
assembly as q court Of Jesus Christ, en-
joining due elaboration and warning
speakers that they must not refer IN any
way to the merits OF the case, as 1t was
to be an entirely constitutional argu-
ment- DIR. Bush, for the appellants,
then took the floor to speak on behalf
of himself and colleagues
In his address DIR. Bush gave some
reasons why the appellants have over
leaped the synod of New York This
course is based upon the provisions of
section 1o2 of the book of discipline that
appeals shall generally be taken to the
next superior judiciary.
When DIR. Bush took his seat a point
of order was made that the appellee in
the case is the Presbytery of New York.
The moderator decided it not well taken.
DIR. Briggs took the floor to object to
the entertainment of the appeal He
stated that he is not responsible for the
action of his presby terry, and for it he
had not asked, yet he is compelled to
appear, seemingly, to defend the pres
bytery. He proceeded to give some &C
count of the history of the case and
stated his reasons for appealing.
In conclusion DIR. Briggs said:
Mr. Moderator, Ministers and Elders: have
limited my argument to one simple point that
is the appellants-if they are appellants which
We do not concede-if thew have The right to OPP
peal under any circumstances, which is open to
grave doubt, ought TO go to the synod of New
York. The reasons they present why you
should entertain their appeal are invalid You
could not admit them without prejudicing the
cause Of the defendant usurping the authority
which belongs TO the lower court and acting in
atasty, illegal and evolutionary manner. OBJ
jections have been presented against the enter
tainment OF the appeal which seem be in
superable The law of appeals does not justify
passing over the synod in the interest of the
appellants. The precedentS OF appeals before
the general assembly are against this appeal.
To entertain il would be to deprive defendant
OF his right
DR.. Briggs then summed up the fur
Their points he had made in his argu-
ment and continued:
I submit this argument TO your venerable
body with the request that You do Justice TO
the appellee, that you viii recognize the right
OF his co-preSbytery, that you will credit the
presbvtery OF New York, and that you will
trust the synod of New York. AL Of which you
can do only by disrnissing the appeal and re-
ferring the appellants to the synod Of New
York, where they must appear in 3nI case to
maintain their own complaint before that ju-
G1c1atory AMI 10 resist the complaint OK others
in the presbytery OF New York. which must be
considered and decided by the synod OF New
York at their next meeting.
Elder McCOOk asserted at length that
the past history of the case showed that
this committee is {; committee OF prose-
cutiOn and an original party. The COM
mittee was appointed as prosecuting
committee, and every act has been done
in the name of the whole church He
quoted from the book of discipline the
grounds of appeal, one of which is the
refusal to receive important testimony,
and said in this last the presbytery
erred, Us it did also in fastening TO the
constitution, which is n recognized
ground OF appeal The moderator then
stated that the question was whether
the appeal be entered.
After considerable debate vote was
taken and the motion carried in the al
frmative.
The question was then upon the re-
port of the minority, recommending
that the case be sent back to the synod
of New York. Upon motion the report
was Laid on the table by vote OF SS5 to
1a2.
The majority report was then adopted
without division.