Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-05-25
DR.. BRIGGS SPEAKS.
CONTINUED from First Paqe.)

party whose right was not questioned hesor.
them; but thev did not undertake to decide III,
question whether they were real parties. wbich
question was reserved for the decision of ths
synod OF New York.
1t is evident that the general assembly reserved
its opinion on this question Of the right Of pub
lie prosecutor to appeal rs an original party 70,
it was brought before the assembly by an over
ture from the presbytery OF Cayuga. asking
that an Interpretation of the Book of Discipline
be given, which shall cover the points.
This overture was referred to the same judi
cial committee which had reported that the ap
peal on the Briggs case was in order. Their re-
port was made subsequent to the decision Of
the assembly on the Briggs case. and In the
light OF it. Nevertheless the ssembly adopted
as its reply the recommendation OF the com.
mittee, viz: THAT the subjects referred to arr
presented in thesi, it is inexpedient for the as.
sembly to make any answer" (Mluutes, p. %.
DIR. Brown is certainly right in the dilemms
which he states (his article in Evangelist). i,
has also been argued that the protest signed by
DR.. Mcpherson and some ffty-three others i'm.
Plies that the general assembly decided the
question whether the appellants were an origi.
nal party. This is the language of the protest:
I'VE, the undersigned. ministers and elders,
commissioners Of the l04th general assembly,
do hereby enter and record our protest against
the action OF the general assembly In entertaining
theappeal in the case OF the Presbyterian Church
in the United States Of America against the Rev.
Charles A. Briggs, d. d. and so giving to the
committee which preferred the charges against
Dr. Briggs standing before the assembly and
right OF appeal as an original party" beyond
DISCHARGE them when d;.,ni.,;n, ~ - - a.,
what answer did The .ss.r,hI, -. -. -
tes,2 No -. III my hi'o W 'ne Pfo-
initial, notwithstanding the fact that the mod
orator was authorised to appoint q committee
70 answer the protest. The protest was ordered
without answer " CN,nn,ss = o. assemo,y
therefore that the sssernb,y ,l.ci;naa g. go,
the question whether IN. ,.oro,n;,,, -, .
original party. Tbey dsrI;nsd 80 S.,.r.,;na
the question in face n, tho $1,000, ~. ~ :
appellee OF his own rieht.. OF The r,cbts =, h;s
co-compiainants, OF the rights of his pre,by-
tery aud of tie rights q, III. srn,s4 90 y. ~
clined to answer ,be onss,;an -, !, ~.
raised before them a sscand ,;,a. D.. a. :. ~as
bytery of Csvuoa- They a.ci;nsa p.os
the ouest;on when IL mas ,oraaa - S
third time by a nro,est Of efsv-"r. .u.m VIC
sioners 81 the assemble ybar 80 III 1
sistently declined 70 nnswsr the nya ~ r.
cause thew saw CLEARLY Tho, .han -, I $3.50
be involved in AN inev,.shis cors;.t -. go.
diction with the SYNOD If ~ 80, VI JUL
AN IMPORTANT QUESTION.
This question OF the original party is not
a merely technical question. but one n, the
,ooot ;,,-ort.,,. 81.
~, -. 'een drought
oeioie Juuicatory, one which has far-reach-
ns oonee fuences' anec.ing tne rights or every
yu ,,,' ever! Once bearer and every COM
,,lan.Sar.. - ~; ..e 'e,Ian onurch' IL Is
~ nss you SHOULD patenty CONSIDER
nection with this Co.. 'o'u''oh IN CON-
April IS, 1891, on motion OF DR.. Birch g.
committee was appointed to consider .sThe in
augural Address Of the Rev. Charles A. Briggs.
- ~ ~, rs .eiHt!oh 20 the confession OF
-, a,o. ol tlis eohH,1'ee re-
-, - ''' tnst me pres
..t;. - 81, 80 :, tRy. No !uu4eiai .n'esu-
So 81 " $3.50 iis rsfos' WIS adopted.
. .nen. on l.o.ion Oh III. nniiand, committee
az al Ana prepare the
~ nv pr;ars ;. "spiop-iA'e AZ 'ns case
m - ..--.- e.
,ion sct TINS Il .ba i.S;s ~, VIC p,osecu
49,; -. =. =, e aet' W "n.Sn an Ileir
or;a;-.i 49,, 81 p,s sei,ie eosnn'',ee, IN
and rs--asar;.,l. - p.eah, y, tne P.espy'ery
,hs r-ri.ad So, ,n:: cram .nurcn ~
90 - - - 60 euiy one
~ t,a;r .,Ua;,..,s.,. an .ne erHls
Va apooII'u.en'' mere " not
"oro soout .neF oeinS prosecuting commit
p...,..s-. .' T 20. 'Ie MINES, reie,ence 10 the
,,.sr;.a Ts.,. 80 ~ VIC oueu sM.es OF
-, =. eoaii'tee oi P.esp!-
.sa,, 49,. - s "aa something wnien
80 $50 " ,SpoI. 10 'ne p'esoy'ery. ,ney
,,.,o...,,. -, a -. -. \ A.-tHs 70
.'. 81. WA un.en' DC appropriate 70 re-
ror',,,;,.oo , .S is aio no. Saoow the
.na.,..ei,,a. "" - p'-. 49,. 70 oeecinne OF
,--osi,,a.,, ~. ~. ssa.u W ne MSues OF tne
r..oss ""e "pF'op'ia'e Sn0 "uH' "as
THE BOOK OF DISCIPLINE.
IT is claimed that the presbysery had no
alternative than TO appoint a prosecnt;oo com-
tee. .,,,-,,;,o 81 az. -. %
-, :. ~ 'N'pAH''
WV. IN, pies.-ioes
Mnen 'ne prosecution IL initiated by q
oNn nienoers a committee TO conduct the
prosecution IN sii its stages IN whatsoever Judi
Ga 70 VII ,he maj issse De reached
AZ tae P'e,oytsry haa cete-minei TO initiate
Ptoreeu.ioh .! lne ,uoicatory, certainly II was
required oy Jaw 20 appoint such prosecuting
co.dm,l.ee' bur the presoytery may have dis
ooe.ea tee law and SO MADE themselves liable
10 sensure. IL ooes not FOLLOW because there is
such Ia" tnai me presoysery must certainly
nave ooeSeo u. Inc terms OF the appointment
Oh Aiis cotnnittee show no recognition OF such
"a" el'her In the matter or form of their ap-
PolntmehL
but mere Is no sumcient evidence to show
tnat ,he presoyterv nad reached the point when
.Iet Hau oeciueu - tfat'iGIe proceedings ty Gae
luatcdloTy.. (al The mover OF the resolution
Wnich appointed the committee signed the COM
piaiht 10 tle SYNOD OF New York. in which he
saws WIN liS Others. ministers and elders OF
.ne Presoy'ery OF New York, that this commit
zee was NOT appointed as prosecuting commit
zee. 70 ihe presbytery May IL were con-
lronted DIV protest and complaint TO synod
made by Dr. Briggs against their preliminary