St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-05-22

AoSo I'D uuty III GIlS IcSpCCl. Ouc CUuI-
missioner was anxious to oppose one of
the commentators of the committee,
and npon the refusal Of the assembly to
extend its session the matter went over
as unfinished business.
The evening session was in the in
terest of freedmen's board. Dr. Nc
I Cook. of Philadelphia, presided. DIR.
Sanders. president of Biddle university.
and other cniored clergymen look part.
Prof Smiths appeal begins by reciIing
the charges and specifications which
| are in brief that in pamphlet, entitled
! biblical Scholarship and Inspiration"
issued while he was professor in Lane
/ IheOi0gical seminary at Cincinnati, lie
taught that the Holy Spirit did not SO
control the inspired writers in their
| composition of the holy scriptures as to
! make their utteranceS absolutely truth
, fut lie. tree from error when Interpret
| ed in their natural and intended sense.
! The appeal further reciteS the trial and
! conviction of Prof. Smith 10y the Gin
! cinnati presbyteIy, and its finding of
! suspension
! FROM THE MINISTRY
i until he should renounce his errors;
/ also the affirmation of judgment BY
the synod of Ohio. Oct 13. 1893.
Prof. Smith then says: Deeming
! myself aggrieved by this sentence, and
uni Justly deprived of my rights and
] privileges as minister of Jesus Christ.
1 gave due notice of appeal to the
/ synod of Ohio, and filed the SAME with
/ the state clerk OF the presbytery within
the time required by the book of disci-
pline. At the meeting of the synod of
| Ohio, held III Cincinnati Oct. 10 to Ii.
1903. presented my appeal with specl-
cations OF the errors of tue presbytery.
| f..it Sad tlno
| to the synod, as follows:
They are in substance similar to those
ascribed to the synod given below.
| As Prot Smith says, the appeal with
these specifications of error was found
| in order by the synod. after which the
/ Judgment, the notice of appeal and the
! appeal were read and the synod decided
; that the appeal should be entertained.
! After the parties were heard and op-
! portunIty 10 be heard had been given TO
members of the synod, the synod pro-
ceeded 10 vote Oh each OF the above
| twelve specifications of error. No one
OF these was sustained, the highest vote
| to sustain being 81 against 70 not TO sus-
tain. Thereupon the moderator de-
clared the Judgment ut the presbytery
| of Cincinnati To be affirmed.
Having obtained no relief from the
synod of Ohio, l now appeal to the gen.
eral assembly. the highest court OF the
church. l pray your honorable body to
| review the action of the synod by which
the decision of the prrsbytery was con-
tirmed. pray You to issue the case in
accordance with justice and the consti-
tuition of the church. to
.. REVERSE THE DECISION
of the lower court and To restore me TO
the exercise of my ministry, from which
| hpnn pvnindad havjDr in nj
mission to the discipline of the church,
suffered this prlvation for the space of
eighteen months.
In support of this appeal. as already
fecited in the notice OF appeal, l aliege
twelve errors in the action of the synod,
each being refusal on the par, Of the
synod to correct erroneous action taken
,, by the presbytery of Cincinnati.
l. The synod erred in not sustaining
my first specification of error in my
appeal from the presbytery OF Cincin-
natl, which was as follows:
Allowing members of the presbytery
to Sit in Judgment in the case latter they
had published opinions on my guilt
2. The synod erred in not sustaining
my second specification of error in my
appeal as aforesaid, 10 wit:
Refusing 10 sustain my objections to
the preliminary proceedings.
3. The Synud erred III not sustaining
my third specification of error. to wit:
Not sustaining my objections 10 the
sufpciency OF charge 2 i'll form and lesaf
effect.
f. The synod erred in not sustaining
my fourth specification and error. to
wit:
Not sustaining my objections to the
sufficirncy OF charge in form aid legal
effect
5. The synod erred in hot sustaining
my fifth specification of error, TO wit:
Not sustaining my objections 10 the
various specifications under charge as
Insufficient in legal form and effect.
e. The synod erred III hot sustaining
my sixth specification of error. to wit:
Declining to receive testimony.
Z. The synod erred in not sustaining
my seventh specification of error, to
wit:
Allowing the vote of member of the
cout 10 be recorded and counted in his
absence.
s. The synod erred in not sustaining
my eighth specification of error, to wit:
Sustaining charge II. and finding me
guilty.
g. The synod erred in not sustaining
my ninth specification of error, 10 wit:
The action of the court sustaining
specifications l, 2, 8, 4. ), +. 8. 10, IL. un-
der charge H., was against the evidence
and not supported by sufficient evil
dence.
10. The synod erred in not sustain
ing my tenth specification OF error, to
wit:
Sustaining charge Ill. and finding me
guilty.
IL. The synod erred in not sustain
ing my eleventh specification of error,
to wit:
Sustaining the specifications under
charge Ill.
IL. The synod erred in uot sustain.
ing my twelfth specification of error,
10 vii:
Imposing Oh me the penalty of sus-
pension from the ministry. which pen
atty would be excessive even if L were
guilty of the 0tfense charged.
These errors. as alleged. having been
committed by the presDytery of Cincin-
natl. and having been confirmed by the
synod of Ohio. are brought to the notice
of your venerable body and submitted
to your Judgment, in the hope that your
action may be in accordance with just
ice and right, and may promote the
peace and purity of the church.
HENRY PRESERVED SMITH,
Appellant.
Tissue Paper Company Assigns.
ELKHART. Ind, May 81. - General
dizziness and tight money market
caused the Lane Tissue Paper company
tn ASSIGN Assets SIoS ONO. Eahii-