Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1893-05-26


ting the defendant in jeopardy again
for the errors charged against him. No
civil court could do such wrong. 1t would
be new and iniquitous precedent IN an
ecclesiastical court The civil courts
might feel compelled in the interests OF
equity TO interDOse. The General Assem-
bly cannot entertain this appeal without
doing violence to the sense OF rlght,
which is exhibited in the constitution
of our country, in the maxlms OF
common law. iu the statutes Of our COM
monwealth and in the practice OF our civil
courts, without establishing an entlrely
new aad dangerous precedent in ecclesias-
tlcal law, without doing grave injustice to
the defendant and 70 the Presoytery OF
New York, and without undermining
public confidence IN the equity OF
the Presbyterian discipline. Is not
this too heavy a cost 70 pay Tor
the sake Of securing condemnation or
one man, however objectionable he may
bei Isit not too great strain to put upon
our constitution in order 10 gain decision
on questions of doctrine which may be
more clearly and satisfactorily defined by
procedure prescribed in the form Of gov
ernment! The common law lays down this
fundamental principle, which applies TO
this case, if TO any; 1t is for the public
good that there should be an end to the ut
igatiOn.
The distinguished Doctor went over the
whole report Of the whole proceedings
leading I'D 20 his trial by the New York
Presbytery, and Of the trial itself, point
ing out where points of law and fact had
ali been in mis- favor, and also pointing out
where rulings had been made unfairly
against him.
Although the the rule Of the Church does
not allow a Moderator Of Presbytery to
decide constitutional questions, the Mod
orator Of the New York Pres0ytery de-
Cided such q Question-One of the most
vital in this whole case-against the de-
rendant, without giving him an opportunl-
" 10 debate the question.
The question was as TO whether the So
called prosecuting committee was an orig
inal party 70 this case or not, and when the
Moderator decided il in the affirmative, in
the unfair aud Overbearing manner stated,
the defendant carried his wrongs to the
Synod Of New York and appealed from
the decision.
Until that appeal has been passed upon
the General Assembly has no right what
ever 10 consider tais case. The committee
having determined to continue the prose
cutiOn Of the case, in opposition 10 the eX-
pressed desires of the New York Presoy-
terv, they say that they act independently
and as representatives Of the Presbyterian
Church Of the United States Of America.
Is il not gratifying that there should be
az least a few members Of the New York
Presbytery who are determined TO stand oy
the old faith against the majority OF their
colleagues.
The General Assembly cannot take this
case under consideration. The matter is
in the hands OF the Synod of New York.
That synod has thrown its shield over the
defendant and will protect, not only him,
but its own rights of hearing the case,
without having its jurisdiction interfered
with rashly Oy the Assembly.
There was no precedent, whatever, for
the leapiug Of the Synod by an appeal
from an acQuittal. 10 was also bad policy
for the Church TO have intervening courts
overleaped. IL the largest Synod, that of
New York, should thus be overleaped
OF Dr. Briggs to q speedy conclusion,
what is there TO prevent the leaping of
any other synod to satisfy the ambition OF
some other aspiring prosecutor.
What right have the commissioners to
the General Assembly 10 entertain this
appeala The Assembly has been informed
that this case has been taken under con-
sideration oy the New York Synod.
II, therefore, the Assembly should decide
10 come to a final decision IN the matter
and overturn the final decision of the New
YORK Pres5ytery, it would not find the
hual decision for the defendant, the Pres
byterv and the Synod could not accept it
as either constitutional or valid.
Before the decision could De made it
would be necessary in the interests of COM
mon sense and common justice, 10 have the
interlocutory appeals passed upon. These
are in the hands Of the New York
SYNOD, and it attempted 10 brush
aside all Of these In the effort 10
bring the matter to speedy
conclusion when the time saved could not
be more than year. Here In the capital
OF the nation, it is being attempted to over
ride some Of the common principles of the
law in order 10 crafty the vain ambition OF
these prosecutors.
WHY should the case Of DR.. Briggs made
so prominent and pushed to the front as
the most important ecclesiastical discus
sion in the closing decade of the nineteenth
centuryl They say that it is case of vi
tai Importance. DR.. Briggs thought they
exaggerated.its Importance, and he had al
ways thought so.
At 11:25 DR.. Briggs yielded for a mo-
tion TO adjourn.
The Moderator stated that the COM
mittee on closing the Worlds Fair on
Sunday would visit Attorney General
Olney in the noon recess.
At the opening of the afternoon ses-
sion OF the General Assembly DR.. Craig
stated that committee appointed to
visit Attorney General Olney had done
so during the noon recess, and had to
report:
The committee were most courteOuSly re-
ceiyed by the Attorney General, who as
sured the committee that himself and the
District Attorney in Chicago, who was in
this city, were watching the Sunday clos
ing matter with the greatest care in order
TO see to it that the United states laws
should be strictly enforced regarding the
closing of the Fair gates on Sunday, and be
desired the committee TO say TO the assem-
bly that the government would take proper
measures for the protection Of its rights.
The announcement was received with
rounds Of applause.
After recess DR.. Briggs spoke extern
poraneously until the end of his ad-
dress.
He called the attention Of the Assembly
to the stars at the bottom OF page in the
brief Of the prosecutor They were not
stars of glory, be said. but stars of shame.
for they indicated an omission which should
not have been made.
What right has these appellants to omit
such matters as they pleased from an OIL
cial or semi-oficial document DR.. Briggs
asked this question with some feeling as II
felt that an attempt has been made to
strengthen the case Of his opponents by
omitting sOmethingin his behalf.
He wished, he said, 70 make an explicit
denial OF the charge that he had preached
doctrines against the fundamental doc
trines Of the Church. Il affirm that be-
lieve.n he said, turning with out-stretched
hands 70 the audience, 1.-The holy scriptures
TO be the word Of God.n
He affirmed his faith honestly and up-