Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1894-04-28

luGOiOSlCUl OCLlluuil WI ANSW w -
The case is now settled so far rs DR..
Briggs is concerned. But the trial has
left matter which can only be settled
by amending some OF the rules laid
down for the government of its courts.
Some of these rules were tested in
such way on the trial of DR.. Briggs
by the Presbytery of New York, us TO
show, what some think to be IL radical
defect. AS everyI.ey knows, on the
first trial of DR.. Briggs before the
Presbytery of New York, he was ac-
quilted of the charge of heresy. JUS
tice seemed to demand that the matter
end there so far as that court was con-
cerned. 1t had done its duty. 1t had
heard the case, presented by its own
committee of prosecution, and had de-
cided the case on its merits. What
more should it do. In justice nothing
more. as court. But the prosecuting
committee OF the court did not think
so. 1t contended, and rightly, that in
the trial it represented the Presbyter-
ian church of the United States, which,
under the new rules, for such cases,
was an original party and had the
right of appeal. A minority OF the
Presbytery held, that as the committee
of prosecution was creation OF the
court, created for this specific work, it
should be discharged since its work
was done. Under the rules, however,
the majority voted that they had no
right to discharge the committee If it
chose to continue the case OF appeal.
The committee was thus continued,
and at once entered notice by appeal.
Thus, rules which were made. as it was
supposed, for the removal O. Difficult
ties, and the promotion OF justice, were
found to be instruments for turning a
prosecution into persecution, and III
irving power to the court, TO refuse to
stand by it's own decision and to use its
officers TO appeal to higher court. a
most singular course for II court TO pul
sue. Aud one entirely out OF The
course persued in civil courts, against
whose decisions in state cases, there
may be appeal from the defendants
but none from the prosecutors, who
represent the state. Constitutions
law, prohibiting the putting of mar
in peril a second time for the same
offense. That is to say the COURT has
no right of appeal, while the convicted
man has. Now it would seem that OF
the discovery of such working OF the
rules there would at once be a univer
sal demand for some correcting ol
amending which would restrain |
prosecuting committee from commit
ting such an outrage against common
law, while at the same time leaving
them the power to defend the body o.
court, which they represent agains
any appeal of defeated party. 1t il
not so, however. The amendments
which have been proposed are looked
upon with suspicion because they have
grown out of the Briggs trial. Th'
Briggs trial only served TO bring ou
this defect in the rules and advertised
the church that what was meant TO
the forwarding of justice could be uset
against the purpose tor which the.
were made. For it cannot for a mo
ment be supposed that the distin
guished jurists who assisted in tn
formation of the rules ever INTENDED
to confer upon our ecclesiastical court
the right of appealing from their owl
decisions-a right never conceded 1,
civil courts. To correct these rules
so that, they cannot be used for such III
immoral purpose, is not destructive c
any right OF appeal, which is piainl
secured by our laws: but out of a seem
ing or inferential right which does moi
and cannot exist, by any constitutions
law, which looks to the discouraging {
legal contentious and vexatious suits.
The constitutions and rules of tn
Presbyter church were formed i
the interests of justice, and the pre-
servatlon Of the rights OF laity an
clergy, and they should be interprete
in that larger and broader spirit whic
looks at the INTENTION rather than
verbal rule; which, If read withot
regard to the intention, would max
them the trainers of instruments of i
Justice and wrong and deny to the
: | ,,ncpocs;nn nf tho nplinnl
sense which sees an absurdity in
S court through it's own appointed pros
: cutor appealing from its own decision
u Such right of appeal was, certainl
$ never Intentionally given, AS it h
'' never in the history of the chur
bean possessed. 4s~s
VI DR.. Prices Cream Baking Powder