Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-05-25

against the decision OF the presbytery and
ordered a new trial
THE TRIAL BEFORE THE pREsBYrERY
The presbytery met on November 9, 1899,
under the influence Of this unfavorable action
OF the general assembly at Portland. overcame
the preliminary objection of DIR. Briggs. re-
fnsed to hear his argument on the preliminary
objection and allowed the committee to table
new charges
The defendant on November %. 1892. made
preliminary objections to the amended charges
showing that they were insufficient in form and
iegai ehect, insisting upon several of these OBJ
Jections, but waving his objections TO six Of
the charges In order to go TO trial in accor-
dance with the directions of the general assern-
sembly. II the defendant had appeared
before the presbytery under more favorable
circumstances and had not been confronted by
the adverse decisions Of the general assemblies
at Detroit and at Portland be should have
claimed as his right that these six charges
should be dismissed as insufficient in form and
legal effect. As it was. he personally waived
his objection. to them and threw the response
bllity upon the presbytery whether they were
ready to 60 to trial on illegal and invalid
charges
Notwithstanding the concessions made by the
defendant the presbytery overcame several of
his preliminary objections upon which he took
his stand, forced him 10 make several COM
plants TO the synod of New York and then pro-
ceeded to trial. The defendant felt deeply the
disadvantage of the situation. and vet after the
full hearing accorded to both parties during
which the court in every way favored the COM
mittee of prosecution and even allowed them to
act in defiance of the ruling of the presbytery
SO as TO argue on two Of the charges
which had been thrown out. and 10
review the whole case and introduce
new matter under the guise of rebuttal, the
court acquitted him on all the charges by ma
these circumstances of a dismissal in 1891 and
an acquittal in 1892 by court which showed SO
evidently, TO say the least. that they were not
biased in favor of DIR. Briggs and which was
under the external pressure of the unfavorable
action Of two general assemblies and which
was compelled to acouit him by the evidence in
the case. is it equitable to put the defendant in
jeopardy again for the offenses charged agains st
him? No civil court could do such a wrong
1t would be a new and an ubiquitous precedent
in an ecclesiastical court. The civil courts
might feel compelled in the interests of equity
to interpose.
The general assembly cannot entertain this
appeal without dong vioIerce TO the sense Of
right which is exhibited ia the Constitution OF
our country, in the maXims Of common law. in
the statutes OF our commonwealth and in the
practice Of our civil courts. without establish
ing an entirely new and dangerous precedent
in ecclesiastical law, without doing grave in
justice to the defendant and to the presbvtery
Of New York, and without undermining public
confidence in the equity of Presbyterian disci-
pline. Is not this too heavy a cost to paw for
the sake Of securing a condemnation Of one
man, however Objectionable he may be? is il
not too great a strain to put upon our Consti-
tuition in order to gain a decision on questions
of doctrine which may be more clearly and
satisfactorily defined by procedure prescribed
IN the form Of government The common law
lays down this fundamental principle, which ap-
plies to this case if to any:
at is for the public good that there be an
end to litigation"
The Assembly and the Synod.
Pending the Complaint TO the Synod Of Neu
York on The question uhether the appellant,
are an original party and before the deter
mindtion Of the synod of 1tdt question ati.
assembly cannot entertain the present appeal
The general assembly meeting at Portland
while considering the question Of the entertain.
ment Of the appeal against the presbytery o.
New York in dismissing the case against DR.
Briggs we're informed by the appellee on May
26, 1892, that a complaint was pending before
the synod Of New York against the decision OF
the presbytery of New York November 4, 1891
in sustaining by q vote Of GA to 81 the ruling Of
the moderator, as follows:
81 That the committee which preferred
charges against DR.. Briggs (presented to pres
bytery October 5, 1S9l) was q committee o,
prosecution under section IL of the Revise
Book of Discipline.
49, That the committee was in the house on
the day on which the citation was returnable
(November 4, 1891, as aforesaid) as an original
party.
.'3. That the committee, as an original party
was virtually and practically independent Of
the presbytery."
This complaint bears the signature of one
hundred and fourteen ministers and elders Of
the presbytery of New York
According to the Book OF Discipline
(S3), complaint is a written repre-
sentation, made to the next superior Judi
catory. complaint cannot be carried from
the presbytery to the general assembly. There
fore the only redress the defendant had against
the decision of the presbytery in these import
ant matters was by complaint TO the synod OF
New York. This complaint involves the very
existence OF this committee which has ap-
pealed; whether they were appointed as a pros
ecuting committee, whether they are an origi-
nal party. whether they have any right to act
independent of the presbytery and against the
presby.ery. If the synod should decide any OF
these questions in accordance with the views OF
the complainants. the appellants would have nc
present right of appeal, and could not, there
fore, appesr before you as appellants at this
time. The defendant does not raise those OBJ.
jections here, because they 60 before the synod
OF New York for its decision. and he reserves
the right with others. his co-complainants. 10
argue these questions before the synod of New
York
PORTION NOT ADOPTED.
The general assembly at Portland, after hear
ing this statement of reservation. adopted the
report Of the majority Of the judicial committee
that the appeal was in order and that the appeal
should be entertained and o time set for hear
ing the case. But they refrained from adopt
ing the report Of the committee as Q whole, or
that part of the report which recognized the
appellants rs a committee of prosecution and
and an original patty. The part Of the re-
port not adopted is as follows:
THAT in the opinion of this committee
the appeal taken by the Presbyterian Church
in the United States of America, an original
party, represented by the committee Of pros
ecution.' appointed under section IL OF the
Book OF Discipline. has been taken from the
final judgment of the presbytery in dismissing
the case; and that the said committee had the
right to take this appeal representing the said
original party"
The reasons for not adopting this part of the
report OF the Judicial committe were doubtless
that az the appellants had not asked the assem-
oiy TO decide that question and (2) the appellee
had distinctly reserved it tor the jurisdiction of
the synod of New York in the complaint pend
ing before the synod: and 80 the assembly de-
sired to avoid any possible conflict of jurisdic-
ton between the general assembly and the
synod q New York.
The appellee was so extremely careful to re-
serve this question Of parties for the decision
OF the synod of New York that at the very be-
ginning Of his argument against sustaining the
appeal he said:
The apneliee is now CALLED imam 20 raeisl