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

suer they should table charges or not
mus inns committee appointed TO ..arranet
and prepare the necessary nroceed;,,s a,',.,ss
P'in.e 70 .ne case Of DIR. Briggs" had a suf,i.
cientiy responsible task in the terms of thei,
appointment 1t was within their right TO rec
onmsna u mat the presbytery 60 20 trial: (2l
tnAt tne presoytery initiate process: 90 that
prosecuting committee be appoin ted: fxl fh.,
the charges which they had prepared lie ..ry-S
upon the accused. Instead of limiting thernss,-o.
to these their legitimate tunctions thew tooL N
these things Tor granted. they set up the clam
70 be themselves the prosecuting COMMITTEE.
an original party representing the Presbyte,,.,,
Church in the United States Of America ar
they insisted tina: the presbytery had no optica
In the matter but to take the decisions of thi-
committee on these preliminary matters !.
final and 20 on with the trial in all it's stses.
in any way and before any court that this CON,
mittee, in its extraordinary power and wisdom.
might determine.
THR BARNES CASE
So much was this the established usage O, thu
Presbyterian Church that in the Barnes case
when the whole church excited to an ex-
traordinary doRree, and when, il ever. a speed,
settlement OF tbs irsue was desirable, Dr. Jun-
kin courteously asked Mr.. Barnes and the pres
byterv to agree harmoniously in carrying the
case directly TO the assembly. But when M
Barnes declined, DIR. Junkin recognized the
right OF his opponent. and appealed to the
synod Of Pennsylvanis. Such courtesy has been
conspicuous by its absence in the case against
DR. Briggs
Since the reunion there have been two ex.
ceptional cases in which the general assembly
allowed the appellants TO leap the synod. One
o. these was the case OF the Rev. w. ". Nc
Lane. This appeal of defendan: against
the hna! judgment oI liis pres5ytery ccndenning
him ~ guilty Of he-esy. This case was not tied
because the appellant was granted leave 20
withdraw ms appeal Ii is q precedent ttn
fbat nT Nr a
lSl6. But even if these two cases OF appeals
OF defendnnts should be regarded valid pre-
cedsats, they do not justify the leaping OF the
synod and the entertainments OF an appeal of q
prosecuting committee against q verdict of sc-
ouittal. These two appeals OF Bourne ana
McLane were exceptional, because a minister
had been deposed.
All law protects the innocent and gives the
presumption 20 the defendant & min .stcr who
has been declared guilty by a presbytery might
suffer seriols injury il an appeal had 10 60 ia
Its regular course through the synod to The
general assembly. Such man might prefer q
speedy decision of his case Dy the supreme
court and waive his right of appeal 20 the In
termediGte court
Bot prosecutor is in a different situation
BE suffers no injury by delay. he j. deprived
OF no right by the trial OF the case before the
intermediate court in the regular way. There
II no -easo. why he shoald insist upon a speedy
determination Of the oese.
ANOTHER EXCEPTIONAL CASE.
The other exceptional case was the action Of
the general assembly at Portland last year in
which they perm .tted these appellants TO leap
the synod Of New York and entertained the au-
peal against the presbytery OF New YORK IN dis
rnissing the case against DIR. Briggs. THIS aeci-
sion Was influenced, II not determined, bv the
opinion of the moderator OF the lsst asserubl-
who seems not 10 have known % the usage OF
the supreme courts OF the church, wncn in
answer 10 q question. he said: "In NV mi-d
there Is no constitutional provision by which.
without new trial, this appeal could be sent
TO the synod Of New YORK" Cease, p. ilg.)
In fact. as we have seen, the general assembly
has more than once sent appeals 90 svaois
But this learing o. the synod OF New York last
yea has not yet received the consent OF tho
synod Of New York. for the synod OF New York
has taken jurisdiction OF n complaint which, II
sustained, renders The decision of the last
assembly null and void, and makes the whole
process since tho dismission of the case by tie
presbytery unlawful. BIT even il the action O.
the assembly of last year should be regarded us
inal, constitutional and a lawful preceaent
IL is no precedent for the present appeal, fog
that was an appeal against dis1ais scl OF a cnse
and aimed at ne,c frfci-tnis il an ap.,esl
against .insl Judgment in \ case. and acain-, =
verdict Of dc2ai'tal and & aims reversal o.
the acquitssi and final judgment OF condcmna-
tion Tor heresy wItn q sentence of saspensiou
or deposition. There is no precedent whatever
for the leap;nc Of the synod bv sucb an s,,r.i
or.,s,.,, =
OPPOSED TO POLICY
IL Is c3Ginst the policy II The PresILte-
ri0n Church that there should De a 1ec,.., N,
the court Of lhe s,.nod In 1850 /. ,r,., .,s-..ns
,r.. "a. a. -...,,-.--.. :, -
eo ~ reoui.s.L ucllnS tie synoas, 80 AZ
ence They wers snI.-,,., Ia ~ in .l
snvods M,,y Of ,hs,n ~. IN ~ n'Ss Sue
York ana .he synod Ts pa,,...,,,'G - Nc"
40 jsrcs th., tls;- '.s;, In oecsne
,a,as En-, ,i,o ,,-asI,.,.. e-s were oe-e-
Tna 80 -, - 80 80 .,-,7t
the srnoa ~, .,,,a..'l Ills tne oeclsions o.
tne SYNOD on Appeals. complaints and refer
.;,,;;,,,' "a ~ aS,., tIs eocsrins or con
M ooverrment VI a. w Ahi' Nform
The synods have TINS be.o,,a ,,a,...or;., =,
vastly more importance than ,hey used 20 be-
van this general assembly now take action
,'a.a.s =, ,s sne,r aisnity influence and
Of the svnods NAV \. avar,aDs .ne .arsee
sake of = sneeav .e.tlo,nan. 20 S ua. .o' ", "
Bripcs. what sv,,od =, 81. " - We AS Oh II
escsne ,on,orro. - N.' euursu can nope
nrosecutor NAV ,,-r" a.. some otner amoiuow
the case ~ sorna o,s.s rpeeuy se,,le men,
easy TO see thai IL ,bss cs.ns ea nenenc. ~. ~.
place. the svnoas will -. S y. Po,ey
have oainod In 1890 Asr "ore tnsn 'ns
III ths cenerai ..-.,.,,
thew will hrsar Sa euter,Ain tins appe3
stitut;o, rh;ch sU VIC CURRIERS' OF our con
svnods thev s,;l, s l tne rigns OF tns
centionsI c.s.s ar. niaree ,ne ioophoie on er
~ ar -, As e.ceptions VIII nefeai'd