Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-04-30
FIGHT FOR A CHURCH.
Result of the Conflict Over the Fam
GUS East End Platform.
SUIT AGAINST THE SECEDERS.
Judge Stowe Hears Arguments on the Title
to the Property.
THE LEGAL STATUS OF LAY MEMBERS

An argument was heard by Judge Stowe
Yesterday in the case OF the East End He-
formed Presbyterian congregation against
Rev. o. B. Milligan, J. NJ Denholm, w.
J. Barnett, William Ross, J. c. Ewing, G.
7. Denholm and T C. johnson. The suit
is contest for the church property, the de-
PENDANTS having left the Reformed Presby-
terian Church as a result of the conflict over
the famous East End platform,
and formed United Presbyterian con-
gregation, taking possession of the
church property. The plaintiffs are
the members of the congregation who re-
mained in the Reformed Presbyterian
Church. They want possession of the prop
erty and to have the defendants restrained
from interfering with them.
The argument yesterday was on demur-
rer fled by the defendants to the plaintiffs
bill, asserting that there is no ground on
which to ask the interference of a court of
equity and asking that the bill be dis
missed.
Title Vested by a Charter.
Major A NJ Brown argued in behalf OF
the demurrer and S. Schoyer, Esq, ap-
peared for the plaintiffs in the suit.
Major Brown, in his argument. made dis
tinction between the congregation and the
chartered corporation in which the title to
the property is vested. He said that the
title is in the lay members of the corpora
tion. Under the laws of the State and the
charter granted by the court the title is in
them and not in the General synod, PreSpy-
terry or Session. 1t had been SAID that the
names OF the defendants had been purged
from the roll of the congregation, but
who purged them? They could not
expel them from the corporation,
that the majority of the members of the
corporation shall govern the property, ex-
pei or admit members, etc. person could
be a member of the corporation without
being a member of the religious body ct al.
The Synod Presbytery or Session had moth
ing to do with it, the very purpose OF the
law being to prevent the head body OF a
church obtaining control of vast amount
of proper ty and becoming dangerous by rea-
son of such wealth and power, as was the
case in olden times in the old country. In
consequence of this, the title is IN the lay
members of the corporation.
Continuing, he said that the plaintifs
suffer no injury that requires the interfer.
ence of court of equity. The purpose of
the property is for use as place of religious
worship, and 1t is being used as such.
Difference Between the Two Churches.
In that usage there is nothing that can in
jure or inconvenience the plaintiffs, the
only difference between the United Presby-
terian and the Reformed Presbyterian
Churches (both are psalm singing
churches) being that one exercises the
right of suffrage and the other does not.
As to purging the names of the defendants
from the congregation that did not put them
out OF the corporation in the manner pro-
vided by law. The session could not e1pel
or admit member to the corporation. The
trustees were under the control of the lay
members of the corporation, and If the ma
jOrity OF these lay members voted to give
the use of the church property temporarily
or on certain occasions to any minister,
Methodist, Episcopalian, etc., he doubted il
any court could restrain them. In the pres
ent instance there was no disorder
or interference with the plaintiffs
use of the property and no disorder to
inconvenience them. As to the only question
of difference or dispute between the United
Presbyterian and Reformed Presbyterian
churcnes he had no doubt that if it was left
TO the people of Pennsylvania the ajoriuy
would say that it was very foolish pro-
ceediug for any religious body to throw a
man out because he says that it should be
left to a mans own conscience whether he
should vote or not. In conclusion Major
Brown maintained that on the face of the
bill the court had no Jurisdiction and he
RAkeo that it be dismissed.
The Contention for the Plaintiffs.
Attorney Schoyer spoke next for the
plaintiffs. He said that the demurrer itself
practically admits the right of the plaintiffs
TO sign itself as the corporation and thus
acknowledges that the title is in it. When
members of a corporation, he continued, re-
fuse to act as such or perform the duties
they should as such members, then indi-
vidual members have right to appeal to
court The defendants, by their own acts,
had ceased to be members of the
congregation, and undertook to prosti-
tute the church to use tor
which it is not intended or chartered. 1t
was chartered to worship Almighty God
according to the faith, doctrine, discipline
and usages of the Reformed Presbyterian
Church of the United States of America" J"
The defendants had resigned from the r. P.
Church and done everything TO disconnect
themselves with it, and they haven't the
right to use the edIfice, devoted by the char
ter to the usages, ETC., of the Reformed
Presbyterian Church, to worship in
as a United Presbyterian Church.
There we're many questions raised
by the case which must come before the
court on all the evidence and not on the de-
murrer. Admitting one proposition made
by Ma ioT Brown, he said, the church could
as easily become the harbor of agnostics and
infidels as of United Presbyterians, if few
lay members OF the corporation so desired,
oven though it was chartered as Reformed
Presbyterian Church. In conclusion he
asked that the demurrer be overruled.
Judge Stowe took the papers and reserved