Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-10-20
BRIGGS SIDE STATED.
His Pr esbytery Declared Superior to
Its Creature, the Committee,
WHO PROSECUTED TIE PROFESSOR
The Episcopalians Decide to Meet in San
Francisco Next Time.
ACTS OF PENNSYLVANIA BAPTIsTs

ALBANY, Oct 19.-The Judicial Com
mittee of the Presbyterian Synod, which is
considering the complaint of Dr.. Briggs re-
garding the action of the New York
Presbytery and the committee ap-
pointed by that body to investigate
tho charges against him, met again at
o'clock this afternoon. and after .
half hours session adjourned until 8
o'clock in the evening. At that hour the
committee met and were in executive ses-,
sion for over two hours No one of the
members of the committee would divulge
the nature of the proceedings to any ex-
tent
On the question of DR.. Briggs complaint
lively discussion ensued. One of the
resolutions offered and discussed was that
it is the opinion of the committee that
in the interests of harmony no a.
tion be taken in the matter. This
is just what DR.. G. w. Burch,
Of New York, chairman Of the Prosecuting
Committee, who is here, wants. He says
Dr. Briggs and the Prosecuting Committee
have made all preparations for the formers
trial November 9, before the New York
Presbytery, in accordance with the dec ision
Of the General Assembly.
DR.. Brown, who is here in the interests
Of Dr.. Briggs, requests the Synod to pass
upon the question as to whether or not the
Prosecuting Committee is in authority and
had any right to act in this matter after
the charges had been dismissed by the Pres
byterY which created the committee. The
Judicial Committee finally appointed SUBJ
committee of three, whose names would not
be divulged, to prepare a report in accord
ance with the ideas expressed by the differ
ent members Of the committee, such report
to be submitted at meeting of the COM
mittee at 1890 o'clock in the morning. The
expects to submit its report to
The Synod tomorrow.
Both Sides Are Represented.
''The subcommittee of three" said Dr.. |
Miller, the chairman, els composed of |
three gentlemen who favor three different |
IDEAS a. to the disposition of the case. The
general sentiment seems to favor decision |
which will do justice to both sides and tend
20 harmony. We have arrived at no de-
mite conclusion as yet"
The full text of the long complaint of
he friends of DR.. Biggs, as presented to
he Synod to-day, is as follows:
That the committee which prepared
charges against DR.. Briggs, presented to the
'resbytery October 8. 1891, was committee
If prosecution under section II of the re-
7ised Book of Discipline. That this COM
nittee was in the house on the day on which
he citation was returnable, November 4,
89l, as aforesaid as an original party. That
he committee, as an original party, was vir-
ually and practically Independents of the
'resbytery. Against this action complaint
> made for the reasons that.
R1~,oA hkn ~~a. 80 - De- =
ot show that the committee was appointed
9 committee of prosecution under section |
OF the revised Book Of Discipline. i
Second-Section 10 of the revised Book Of
ution is fntimidated by q judiciatory the
Church in the United States of
america shall be the prosecutor ana an
riginal party" But the Presbyterian
epresented in the house by the Presbytery
I New York itself, and not by committee
4 the Presbytery.
Third-Every committee appointed by
'resbytery is subject to the control Of
resbytery, otherwise the creature is |
reater than the body creating it; the sover-
ignty OF PresbyteTy over its members, 1ts
D it by the laws of the church is seriously
impaired, and an undue power Is placed in |
he hands of a few persons.
A Creature of Presbytery,
Fourth-1t was, therefore, competent for
be Presbytery to dtschargethe committee |
n dismissing the case against DR.. Briggs;
ut motion to this effect was ruled out of
rder by the Moderator on the ground of
he Presbytery's action in sustaining him as
tied above In complaint 2. The COM
ltttee being creature of Presbytery had ]
o right to appeal from the decision of Pres
ytery in voting by large majority-A to |
ne action Of Presbytery in sustaining the
MOQ6rAt0r Qhnva |
lifted them to do 30.
Sixth-By This appeal of the committee
le Presbytery is placed in the absurd posi- |
on OF being compelled to defend its own |
ct1on In dtsmfssfng case, not against the |
of any individual nor against tho |
ppeal OF one who has suffered personal
3 triment by judicial decision, but against |
committee which was appointed bv and
rives all its authority from the very BODY
yainst whose Judgment it now proposes to |
atntain its opinion.
This anomalous situation results from the
,tion OF the Presbytery in sustaining the
oderator as above For these reasons. due
otice OF complaint having been given to
le Stated Clerk Of the Presbytery OF New
ork within ten days after the action com.
aimed Of according to section 81 of the
v1sed Book OF Discipline, complaint is
sreby made in due form to the next higher
dicfatory, being the Synod OF New York. |
,ainst the action of the Presbytery of New
ork above described, and the Synod ia
ost respectfully and earnestly requested |
entertain this complaint and to take
erefn such action as shall, in its judg- |
ent, appear wise and likely to promote
OQ order, Justice and the peace nuritv |