The herald., 1895-10-12
TRIAL OF THE ELDERS

Iue preSDytery was IeCOnveneu 81 Z 40
as court to try the case of the elders.
J. C. Salisbury, ]. X. Hoffman, II. G..
Wiley, M. N. Avery and II. T. Gordon,
upon the following chaIgos, specitica-
tions of whicn are also appended:
The Presbyterian church in the United
States of America charges Ruling Elders
J. G. Salisbury. J. X. Hoffman, II. g.
Wiley, M. N. Avery and II. r. Gordon,
constituting the session of the Westmin.
ster Presbyt erian church Of Los Angeles.
with contuInacy in resisting the author
itv and orders OF the presbytery of Los
Angeles.
Specification lin response TO the ques-
tion of the special committee OF presby-
terry appointed to meet the session of the
Westminster church Of Los Angeles and
which met with the said session June 81.
1895, "Will you by a formal act of session
submit to the action of the presbytery
constituting you the Westminster cfiurcn
of Los Angeles?" they answered in the
negative.
day of June, 1895. the said ruling elders
at a session willfully disregarded and
ignored the action Of presbytery on the
18th day of May, 1895, in dividing the
former First Presbyterian church and or
ganizing portion of the mem bership of
the said First church into the Central
Presbyterian church; and upon their own
motion and without any request there
for. issued letters of dismission in the
name OF the First Presbyterian church"
to all said portion of the former First
church which the presbytery as afore-
said organized into the Central church.
Specification 3-Flagrantly disregardIng
them the session of the Westminster
Presbyterian church of Los Angeles in
this. viz: The said rnlile elders as
session have, subsequent to said action
of presbytery, dividing the former First
Presbyterian church, issued letters OF dis
mission in the name of the First Presby-
terrain church.
Specification 4-Disregarding and ignor-
ing the action of presbytery on the 18th
day of May, 1895. in organizing them in
to the Westm mister Presbyterian church.
they have repeatedly advertised their SER
vices as those of the First Presby terrain
church."
Specification 5. The said ruling elders
cs session have not appointed delegates
to presbytery as the representatives OF the
Westminster Presbyterian church OF Los
Angeles ard have refused to respond
when the stated clerk in calling the roll
of churcnes has called the name OF the
Westminster church OF Los Angeles, and
persistently refused to recognize the ex-
istence OF the said Westminster church.
Specification 4. The said ruling elders
as a session have frequently and persist.
emily sought recognition on the floor OF
this presbytery as representatives OF the
former First Presbyterian church of Los
Angeles subsequent to May 7, 1895, the
date of the division of The said First
Presbyterian church by the presbytery.
As in the case of the Rev. Burt Estes
Howard, William r. Henderson, William
P. Craig and E. L. Galbraith appeared
ho cop, IA faa nf pros.cu tim
After reading the charges and specih-
cations II. r. Gordon, who conducted the
defense, filed the following objections and
pream BILE:
and answer the citation served upon
them, and they appear specially and
plead to the charges served upon them
in the above styled action, and by SO ap.
pearing they do not admit. but EXPIRE ssiy
deny, that they are ruling elders in
Westminster church of Los Angeles.
They appear IN response to the citation
out of respect to the presbytery and as
ruling elders.
And not admitting anything nor waiv-
ing any of their rights by appearing at
this time they file the following obiec-
tions to the charges and specifications
served upon them:
of this judicatory because the presbytery
has no origi nal jurisdiction over them as
ruling elders. nor power or authority to
issue process or sit In judgment in this
case.
Secona-They object ~ the sufficency
of the charges and specifications for the
reason that there is no offsnse under &C.
clesiastical law set out in the charge and
specification.
Third-They object to the sufficiency
of said charge and specification because
the same are vague. uncertain and indefi-
L. Nf
tense has been committed, and do not
charge an offenso, and Go not specify
when nor where nor how any offense was
committed by the accused, and because
said charge assumes TACT that does noe
exist.
\ urth-They object to rthe sufficiency
OF said charge and specifications because
they assume as fact that me accused are
ruling elders in the Westminster church
of Los Angeles by virtue of appointment
as such ruling elders by presbytery,
which appointment was and is unconsti-
tutional and void, and the assumed fact
is not legal nor constitutional.
Fifth-They object to the sufficiency of
said charge and specification because
they have never been legally constituted
q session OF Westminster church OF Los
Angeles, and there is nothing in said
charge or specification to show that they,
or either Of them, is or has ever been a
II
or mas ever acted as such.
Sixth-They object to the suficiency
of the SAID charge and specification be-
cause they assume that the presbytery
had the power to create and constitute a
session of said Westminster church, which
assumption is unconstitutional, illegal
and void.
Elder H. T. Gordon then announced
his intention to argue the objections
seriatim. After a preliminary speech. in
which ne stated his attitude as one OF
brother before his brethren, standing
on trial, but feeling no malice to ward
anoyne, yet occupying position OF de-
fence which be intended to meet frankly
and with all necessary hrmness, which
the seriousness of the situation: forced
upon him, he proceeded to the consider
alton OF the objections.
Speaking first upon the objection to the
Jurisdiction, Mr.. Gordon argued that the
judoatory could not Try the pending
case, as the offense charged assumed the
existence of the Westminster church and
the accused as it's octiiers. This, he said,
was never admitted by the defendants,
nor could any proof be produced show
ing the formation OF the aforesaid church
in accordance with the law of the church
the book Of discipline and church law,
quoting passages in substantiation of his
position.
Upon the second objection, stating
that no offence had been set out in the
charges. the counsel maintained his point
with great strength, backing up his
position by reference to the church law
upon every item mentioned. THE
charge of contuinacy," said the speaker,