St. Paul daily globe., 1892-05-27

judiciarywho appealed from the presbv
terry of New York and the members of
the assembly. A vista of possibilities
in the case is too long to be followed
out III detail here. Only one thing will
act as bar to indefinite. continuation of
the reading, and that is a growing de-
sire for the close of the case, desire
which became evident in a vote to can
eel the acceptance of the invitation to
go on an excursion.
The spirit of the assembly was made
evident this afternoon when the QueS-
ton in debate was whether the stenO
graphic record of the proceedings were
to be regarded as part of the records
of the court. 1t was hotly contested
but after long debate the assembly de-
cided affirmatively in the face of the
fact that the records in question had
never been read or approved by the
Presbytery and in opposition to the
opinion of three superior court judges.
A protest was entered against this de-
cision by one of the judges mentioned
on the ground that thereby the consti-
tutiOnal rights of the defendant were in
vaded.
Prof. Briggs, and DR.. Birch, the head
of the prosecuting committee, sat on
the platform. DR.. Young, the modera-
tor, announced that each side should
occupy an hour and half discussing
merely the constitutional questions
without referring at all to the merits of
the question. DR.. Birch in clear, dis
tinct tone read his argument. He
claimed that the appearance OF the
prosecuting committee at the assembly
was strictly constitutional, although it
was usual to go directly from the pres
bytery to the synod.
The case, he said. was of intense in
terest to all ChristendOm, and no other
question i'll the history of the Christian
church had been more important or
touched a more vital doctrine, viz: the
authority of the Scripture. The case
also involves doctrines which are fun
damental to the church and of greater
Importance than any other question
which has ever agitated it. A great
question Is now to be settled. The plea
of appellants is enforced by presbyter-
| les represented, which have spoken to
number of more than four-Scure in
trumpet tones in opposition to the views
referred to.
The presbvtery of New York, he con-
tration of law. and compelled the COM
mittee to appeal. If the prosecutor
were an individual. some show of rea-
son might be presented why regular
procedure should be followed; but the
appellant is the Presbyterian church in
| the United States of America. By i'm
pIication, faithleSsneSs 70 ordination
vows was alleged. "In the name of the
church, and with abundant precedent"
| said Dr.. Birch, in closing, sin the name
of the administration of the law, your
| appellants respectfully and earnestly
| ask the general assembly to entertain
| our appeal"
When DR.. Birch took his seat point
of order was made that the appellee in
the case is the Presbytery of New York,
| but the moderator decided the point not
| we'll taken.
DIR. Briggs Defense.
DR.. Briggs then took the floor to OBJ
| ject to the entertainment OF the appeal.
| He stated that he is not responsible for
the action of his presbytery, and for it
he had not asked. yet he is compelled to
appear, seemingly to defend the presby-
| terry. He proceeded to give some ac
| count of the history of the case, and
| stated his reasons for appealing. He
| asserted that strong reasons must be
| given why any departure from the ordi-
nary method should be allowed. EX-
ceptions are not always even at the dis
| cretion of the assembly without COM
manding reasons for such course. In
| this case there are no exceptional rea-
sons why an appeal should be enter
tanned. and there are supportable rea-
SONS why it should not be entertained
| The points made by DR.. Briggs were as
| follows:
First-The reasons presented by ap-
| pellants are not such as to justify the
general assembly in entertaining their
| appeal. Four reasons are given first,
their belief that this is one of the most
important questions in the history of
| the Presbyterian church. 1t is valid
reason why they should appeal to the
synod of New York. provided they have
a right of appeal, which we do not con-
cede; but j.. it is not valid reason why
they should pass over the synod of New
| York and appeal to the general assem-
bly,. If they think they can sustain their
charges, the synod of New York is the
judiciary before which they should 60,
| otherwise they must assign valid rea-
sons for the opinion that the synod of
! New York
May Not Do Them Justice.
| But the importance OF the trial is an