The Red Cloud chief., 1892-06-03

REV. q. A. emn business OF the
assembly az n court Of Jesus Christ, en-
joining due deliberation and warning
speakers that they must not refer in any
way to the merits of the case, as II was
to be IN entirely constitutional argu-
ment. DR.. 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 102 Of the book Of discipline that
appeals shall generally be taken to the
next superior judiciary.
When DR.. Bush took his seat n point
OF order was made that the appellee in
the case Ia the P~resbytery Of New York.
The moderator decided II 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 presbytery, and for 1t he
had not asked, yet he is compelled to
appear, seemingly, to defend the pres
bytery. He proceeded to give some nc
count Of the history Of the Ease and
stated his reasons for appealing.
In conclusion DR.. Briggs said:
Mr.. Moderator, Ministers and Elders: I have
limited my argument to one simple point that
Is the appcllants-if they are appellants, which
we do not cOncede-if they have the right TO 8p-
peal under any circumstances which is open 70
grave doubt, ought to go 70 the synod Of New
York. Tho reasons they present why you
should entertain their appeal are invalid. You
could not admit them without prejudicing the
m - - sha ..-..--l-- 49,
which belongs TO the lower court and acting In
ahasty. illegal and revolutionary manner. OBJ
~1ections have been presented against the enter.
tainment OF the appeal which seem 70 be IN
superable. The law Of appeals does not Justify
passing over the synod In tho interest Of the
appellants. The precedents Of appeals before
the general assembly arc against this appeal.
To entertain IL would be 70 deprive defendant
Of his right.
DR.. Briggs then summed up the fur
Their points he had made In his a,R,-
ment and continued:
! submit this argument 10 your venerable
body with the request that you do Justice to
the appellee, that you will recognize the right
OF his co-presbytery, that you will credit the
presbytery Of New York, and that you will
trust the synod Of New York. all Of which you
con do only by Diminishing the appeal ind re-
ferring the appellants " the synod OF New
York, where they must appear in any case to
maintain their own complaint before that iu.
dictatory and to resist tho complaint of 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 il a committee of prose-
cution and an original party. The COM
mittee was appointed as q 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 p~resbytery
erred, as II did also in Fastening to the
constitution, which Is a recognized
ground of appeal. The moderator then
stated that the question was whether
the appeal be entered.
After considerable debate a vote was
taken and the motion carried in the If.
firmative.
The question was then upon the 10
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 1856 to
l22.
The majority report was then adopted
without division.