The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1892-06-03


REV. c. A. BRIGGS emn business of the
assembly as a court of Jesus Christ, en-
joining dee deliberation and warning
speakers that they must not refer IN any
way to the merits of the case, IS II was
TO be an entirely constitutional argu-
ment DR.. Bush, for the appellants,
then took the floor to speak on behalf
of himself and colleagues
In his address DR.. 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 DR.. Bush took his sect q 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 toes the floor to object to
the entertainment of the appeal He
stated that he is not responsible for tho
action of his p5esbytery, and Tor it he
had not asked, yet ne is compelled to
appear, seemingly, to defend the pres
bytery. lie proceeded to give some ac-
count of the history of the case and
stated his reasons for appealing.
In conclusion DIR. Briggs said:
Mr. Moderatc-, Ministers and ElderSt 1 have
limited my argument 10 one simple point that
is the appeIlanfs-if they are pFella1tG- which
we do not conosHe-if thew have the rigat 20 ap-
peal under arr. circumstances, which IS open TO
grave doubt o.1ght 20 60 10 the synod OF New
York The reasons they present why you
should entertain their appeal are invalid You
= ~. e.,
cause Of the defendant usurpiH- the authority
which belongs 70 the lower cou1t and acting in
ahasty, illegal and revolutionary manner Oh
jections have been presented against the enter
tainment OF =de appeal which seem 30 be il
superable. TIE law OF appeals does not Justify
passing over the synod in tbs interest Of the
appellants. he precedents q appeals before
the general assembly are against this appeal
To entertaiz ft would be 10 Is prive defendant
OF his right
DIR. Briggs then SUMMED up the fur
Their points he had maae in his argIf-
ment and continued:
/ submit tslis argument tS your venerable
body with TIE request that you do justice Is
the appellee, that you viii recognise the right
OF his co-r7e- bytery, that W.T. viii credit 1he
presbvtery CT New York and that you vii,
trust the SUI ID q New Yorz AL OF which you
can do oaly Ny dismissinz u appeal aud re
feTring the appellants u tts synod Of New
York, wncgc they must appssr in ans case &c
maintain EiFS-r own conplsfEt before that ia.
diciatory AL 70 resist the complaint Of others
in the Dres!Jl terry OF New NE-iz- which must be
considered and decided by tAe synod OF New
York at tiTir next meeting.
Elder McCool1 ASSERTED at length that
the past HISTORY OF the Gose showed that
this committee is 4 cors-2tittee OF prose
cution and an original party. The COM
mittee w'es appointed as a prosecuting
committee. and every acs. has been done
in the name Of the whole church He
quoted f-lEl the book az discipline the
grounds % appeal, one srf which is tbs
refusal to receive important testimony,
and said IN this last the presbytery
erred as * did also IN fastening to the
ronstitutiKl. which Is recognized
ground Of appeal The moderator then
stated thar the question was whether
the appeal be entered.
After considerable DEBATE q vobe WIS
taken and ale motion cs-ried in the at
frmative.
The question was then upon the re-,
port OF tir- minority. recommending
that the cslse be sent back to the synod
nf New Eozi.. Upon rncaion the report
was laid on che table by vote OF S6S to.
IT,
The major<ty report Wa then adopted
without diva on.