The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-05-27


| The presbytery and synod share in the RESPONSE
| biiity. No one would suggest that all cases Of
| appeal are to be taken direct to the general as
| seEbiy without reference to the synod Appel
| liant must show that the general assembly has
| special responsibility Is to the doctrines con-
tanned in defendants address, which they do
not have rs regards other doctrines In other
| writings and by other persons, in order 20 make
this appeal an exceptional one under this reas-
| on. This proof they do not Offer.
| The fourth reason is that appellant desires
| speedy settlement OF the question. Why, then,
| did they not acquiesce in the decision of the
| presbytery of New York when they dismissed
| the case? II dissatisfied, they should have
| framed new charges and specifications sufficient
| in form and legal effect. Tpey might then have
had trial and a verdict during the past winter.
| But why Is speed necessary? The importance
| Of the case calls for cautian and deliburGtion.
| Second-This appeal cannot be entertained be-
cause there are precedents TO justify it. II Is
the established usage OF the supreme court TO re-
fer appeals back to synods. and the general as
sembiy has been reluctant to entertain appeals
| directly from the presbyteries.
| Third-This appeal cannot be entertained, be-
/ cause Il would deprive the defendant OF right
He has right to the consideration OF his case be-
fore his synod. OF which the entertainment OF
this appeal would deprive him.
Fourth This appeal cannot be entertained be-
| eause il might deprive more than 100 ministers,
/ .
taken action in the case by their complaint to
| the synod, OF their right of complaint Ii the
! question now here Is decided, you will damage
the rights OF complaint under the constitution
| OF the church or place tae synod in strange
| dilemma.
| s. The appeal cannot DO entertained, because
| the assembly would thereby intrude upon the
| functions OF the synod of New York.
| g. An appeal cannot properly be entertained.
| because It should consolidated with the COM
! plant from the same parties before the synod
| The committee has an appeal here and q similar
| complaint before the synod. The complaint is
in order before the synod, but not before the es-
! sembly.
| :. The appeal is irregular because notice was
| given TO the presbytery OF an appeal to the
| synod of New York.
g. The appeal cannot be entertained, because
| the complaint to the synod il signed by more
| than e-third of those who were present and
voting in the presbytery, which acts as stay
until the synod decides whether the committee
| has right to exist. and therefore right OF APP
| peal. A complaint is now pending before the
| synod and is in the hands of the stated clerk OF
| the synod, who is here present rs commissioner
/ aud can testify. Appellants have wronged de-
| PENDANT b. their coprse in passing over the
| synod and in holding up the defendant as
| though he were guilty of heresy even after the
| dismissal OF the case by his presbytery.
| There is pending before the synod OF
| New York complaint against an
| interloeutory decision OF the presbytery.
! Unt II this Ia sustained reversed the judg
| ment of the presbytery in disinissing the ease
| against DR.. Briggs cannot be final judgment
| and therefore cannot be appealed from. Appeal
is only possible on final judgment. and sich
dismissal of case cannot be so long as complaint
| against an inteSlocutory decision Is pending,
| for it involves question OF existence of COM
mittee.
| Mr.. Moderator, ministers and elders, have
| limited my argument to the one simple point
| that the appellants, ii they are appellants,
| which we do not concede, and IL they have the
| right to appeal under any circumstances, which
| is open to grave doubt; that in any case they
| ought TO go to the synod of New York. The
reasons they present why you should entertain
| their appeal are invalid. You could not admit
| them without pIejudgng the cause OF the de-
| fendant, usurping authority which belongs to
| the lower court, and acting in a hasty, illegal
| and revolutionary manner. Objections have
| been presented against the entertainment OF the
appeal which seem to be insupeiable. The
law of appeals does nof justify passing over o
| synod in the interest OF appellants. The
precedents of appeals before the general assem-
| bly, are all against this appeal To entertain 1t
would be to deprive thu defendant of his
| right under the constitution. 1t would wrong
| more than 100 ministers and elders Of the Pres
bytery of New York. by damaging or destroying
| their right of complaint; 1t would override the
| synod of New York, the most competent and
only proper judicatory TO determine the case; it
| would put that great synod in the awkward d.
| lemma either of disreg arding the right OF COM
| plainants representing majority of the pres
| bytery of New York present and voting, or of
| disregarding the decision Of the assembly and
| SO involving conflict OF jurisdiction; it would
! be against the preeedents OF the general
| sembly, which dismissed a case because notice
| was not given to the presbytery OF appeal 10 the
| SynOi and OOly subsequently of ANIMAL to the
| general assembly; il would prevent consolida-
! ton of the appeal ana complaint. You cannot
entertain this appeal finally, because this COM
mittee is stayed from appealing by the COM
| plant pending before the synod of Now York,
| signed by majority of tie voters in the pres
bytsry of New York, and because until this In
terlocutory decision is reversed and determined
| by the synod there is no final judgment in the
case from which an appeal can be taken.
/ submit this argument 70 your venerable
body with the request that you will do justice
| to the appellee; that you will recognize the
| right of his co-presbyters: that you will credit
| the p.esbytery OF New York, and that you win
| trust the synod of New York, all of which you
can do only by dismissing the appeal and re-
ferring the appellants to the synod OF New York,
| where they must appear in any case to maintain
| their own complaint before that judiatory and
! TO resist the complaint of Others in the presby-
terry of New York, which must be considered
| and decided by the synod of New York at their
| next meeting.
The reading of this paper took just an
hour and twenty-five minutes.
DR.. Briggs was followed by Colonel Nc
Cook, of New York, on behalf of the APP
pellants. In opening he said the defend
ant made the point that the complaint to
the synod acted as bar TO the proceed
ings in the assembly, but reference to the
record in the case in printed form and in
the house Will show that the complaint IN
| question was signed only by one member
OF the presbytery within the ten DAYS
limit provided in the constitution of the
| church. lie continued:
Il is believed, and l think conceded, that
| other names, llS in number, have been added
| since the expiration Of the limit So far as the
| power OF the complaint as Il stay is concerned,
these names might as well have been written
| on pieces % paper and thrown into the street
| BY elimlnstiUg this complaint you eliminate all
matters which have gone TO the synod OF New
| York. SO lar the objection is concerned
that the appeal should be consolidated with
the complaint, It Is 10 be said there
is no complaint here with which to
consolidate. All that is here is the
record of the thst is before YOU
and the only thing before you. Regret was ex-
| pressed that IL was necessary IN the cousidera-
ton OF the case now before the assembly to con-
fine attention 10 TECHNICAL grounds and 10
eliminate the merits. The action of the general
assembly in approving tho report OF the judicis al
committee and in finding the appeal in order
has decided several things. First, that this