The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-05-26
DIR. Briggs's Defense.


Moderator Craig then resolved the as
sembly into q judicial court and DIR. Briggs
resumed his speech In defense of the action
of the New York Presbyter in the case Of
the prosecution against him and in opposi-
tion to the entertaining of the appeal from
the Judgment of the presbytery thereon.
After briefly restating the points made
yesterday DR.. Briggs said:
The Presbytery of New York. the largest In
the Presbyterian Church, after long and patient
consideration of the merits or the case, gave a
verdict OF acqulttal. Would the General Assem-
bly, be willing 10 give the same amount of time
and the same degree OF patience 10 the consider
alton Of the merits OF the case II the appeal
should be entertainedi The General Assembly
is composed of more than ive hundred members
from al parts or the United States. Is it likely
that SO numerous a body will be a more eQuIta-
BILE court than the Presbytery OF New York; Let
any one consider the situation OF affairs In the
Presbyterian Church since the process was be-
gun against DR.. Briggs, and honestly ask
whether the General Assembly is likely
TO be in a more judicial frame OF mind than the
Presbytery OF New York. IL the General Assem-
bly, should entertain this appeal. IL would be
necessary 10 consider the merits OF the case with
the utmost care. with evident impartality, with
entire freedom from party prejudice. and with
uDwearied patience for several weeks, you
could not win public confidence in your justice,
public respect for your decision. II you over
ride all the provisions OF the constitution. the
maxims OF civil law, and the usages OF civil and
ecclesastical courts In order 10 entertain an ap-
peal. and theL rush TO a hasty decision. you VIII
strike a death blow at the constitution and tho
discipline OF the Presbyterian Church.
Dr. Briggs then reviewed the history of
the case through Its various stages In
presbytery and General Assembly, show
ing the dismissal of the charges in 1881 and
an acquittal in 1892. "by court" as he
eaid which showed so evidently, TO say
the least. that they were not biased in
favor of Dr.. Briggs and which was under
the external pressure OF the unfayorable
action of the two general assem- blies and
which was compelled so acquit him by tho
evidence in the case. Continuing. he said:
Is il equitable TO put the defendant in jeopardy
again for the offenses charged against hint No
civil court could do such a wrong Ii would be q
new precedent. The civil courts might feel CON-
pelled, in the interests OF equity. TO interpose-
The common law lays down this fundamental
that it Is for the public good that there be end
To litigation. The assembly has been In
formed that this case has been taken under con-
sideration by the New YORK Synod. IL. there
fore. the assembly should decide come .
final decision in the matter and 0yerturn the
final decision OF the New York Presbytery 10
would not yet be final decision, tor the de-
feIdant, the presbytery. and the synod could noe
accept IL as either constitutional or valid.
MAY NEVER END.
Here something like o shudder passed
over the assembly. as the utterancs meant
endless further appeals IN case the assem-
bly, should not take the speakers view OF
the legal questions involved. The nsx