Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1893-05-25
TELEGRAPHIC.
DR.. BRIGGS HEARD.
he Argues That the Form Of Appeal Is
Incorrect and Invalid.
A GREAT QUESTION INVOLVED.
Can a Member Of the Presbyterian
Church lie Tried Twice for tho
Same Olfcns,i

WASHINGTON, May 2l.-At the
afternoon session Of the Pfosbyterians
Moderator Craig convened the as
sembly az court. DIR. Briggs ascend
ed tho platform amid intense quiet and
made n brief preliminary statement
regarding the time he would require
for argument, and DR.. w. >. Birch'
chairman OF the prosecution COM
mittee, then took the floor After
touching the history Of the case Dr.
Birch said;
awe here invoke this supreme court
to put an end to the dissonsion and dis
putation which tho Now York presby'
terry vainly endeavored to silence. The
form In which the final judgment OF
the New York presbytsry returned u
gives the impression that the alleged
errors OF Professor Briggs were unim-
portnnt pnJ that no essential doctrine
was contradictod. There has been q
tendency to minimixe the full force OF
the Indictment. The errors charged
are fundamental"
In reply TO tho argument that an
appeal canno, be- taken from verdict
OF acquittal, DIR. Birch said ho who
teaches that the power Of the general
nsaembly can be- nullified by the viii
Of q single presbytefy lifts the banner
OF treason against the Presbyterian
church. "Your appellant tesecches
this venerable court" he said, ITO ex.
ercise It's authority In n crisis 10
momentous Rs 10 makelevery plea for
delay of Judgme mt out Of order"
At8:l5 O'Clock DIR. Briggs arose to
roply tp the opening OF the prosecut-
ing committee aud protest against the
entertaining Of the appeal by the gen.
eral assembly. DR.. Briggs went on TO
argue that the form OF the appeal was
incorrect and there were many things
In Il which must be- removed before
the assembly could entertain II. He
also pointed out matter included In
the appeal which he tsid rendered II
invalid.
A much more fundamental Question
was ut stake, DR.. Briggs said, than any
principle or doctrine that had yet been
discussed. That was whether the
Presbyterian church should be consid.
cred Ms merely voluntary religious
society Of the church OF Jesus Christ.
1t was civil law OF the land, he said,
that no man should DO tried twice for
the same ofienso. Was the Presbytsr.
ian church ready to ignore or violate q
well.settled principle, found by cen.
turtles Of observation and experience 10
be essential 10 the wcll.being Of the
people, without any sufficient cause?
II this appeal should be SUSTAINED II
would become an unfortunate prece.
dent which would bo followed by pub.
lie prosecutors who would magnify
their Office and bring differences Of
opinion and establish nav and easy
way for ambitious litigantB TO secure
an authoritative decision Of the gen.
eral assembly In many matters which
are now regarded ~ legitimate matter
OF private opinion, and thus imperil
the constitution by an unsnding series
OF heresy trials and result In changes
In the doctrine and law Of the Presby.
terrain church. The general assembly
could not lawfully revise or amend the
constitution by final judgment In
heresy trials. The public proseoutors
were pushing the Presbyterian church
into very Inconsistent aud dangerous
position. They were endeavoring "a
secure new definitions OF the dogma by
mai Judgment In heresy trial when
they ought to aim 10 secure them by
oyefture8 In accordance with tho pro
visions Of the form of government.
DR.. Briggs spoke nm hour and hal
and then yielded for motion to I'D
JOurn.