The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1895-10-11
Charged With Violation of His
Ordination Vows
MERELY A MATTER OF FORM
A Adverse Decision Is a Foregore Con.
clusiOn
The Temper Of the Presbytery Only
Feebly Observation-Disclosures

The tIiai of Rev. Burt Estes Howard for
violating his ordination vow, promising
subsection to his brethren in the Lord.
was begun before the Presbytery of Los
Angeles at the Second Presby terrain
church in East Los Angeles at 1880 yes
terday morning.
The trial is an outgrowth of the trouble
arising some time ago in the division of
the old First Presbyterian church and the
subsequent, esta plishnent by the presby
teryl of the Westminster church. full par
ticulars of which have already been pub.
lished iii The Herald.
Rev. Burt Estes Howard appeared on
the scene OF battle early in the day, &C
companisd by his two most staunch sup
poEters, Judge J. W. Mckinley and Elder
a. T. Gordon. He wore his customary
friendly smile, though it was evident
from the outset that the whole affair mad
bsen cut and dried and the trial was
mere matter of form. Even the form of
an impartial hearing was but feebIy
maintained and the sem blance OF judi
cial Investigation but poorly carried out.
The body which was to act as judge
ana Jury was com posed almost entirely
Of those opposed to Mr.. Howard and his
followers, and they did not hesitate to
express their feslings upon every possible
occasion. Rev. Wiliell Thomson, who
oficiated as moderator was himself the
chief witness of the prosecution. He did
not wait, however, until called to the
stand to lshow his colors. His attitude
was manifest in every ruling upon ques-
tions submitted to him as presiding Off
Ger, and in no single instance did he
s..k T. 60 i L. 30. he
defendant.
The proceedings were opered by
reading the charges against the Rev.
Howard. which were as follows:
Charge 1.-The Presbyterian church in
the United States of America charges the
said church, and a member OF the pres
bytery of Los Angeles, with violation
OF his ordination vow. promising subjsc.
ton to his brethren in the Lord.
Specification He declared to the
special committee of five, appointed ~
and session OF the Westminster church, at
meeting held June 26, 1895, in reply 60
question that he would not submit to-
the authority of the presbytery.
Specification 2-To the said committee
and at the same time and place, in res
pohse to question 3, put to him as q
member of session by the said committee,
will you submit to the action of presby-
terry constituting the Westminster church
Of Los Angeles?' ne answered No."
Specification BIN an address deliver
ed TO the congregation of Westminster
1895, inslllino,s hall. Los Angeles, and
published Monday. July l, 1895. in the
Los Angeles Herald, newspaper of gen.
eral and large circulation, he declared
The tSird question asked me was in re.
lation to our position IN the future as tc
xkAkk yhr,,ie 20 fho n
'Westminster' and use it in our future
proceedings and letters, we answered
unanimously that, while offering no dis
respect to the presbytery, we could not
submit. E. The real question which
you must decide by your vote tomorrow
night is whether you will stand by the
presbytery which removed, first your
+ name, and with it your honorable place
in the history Of Pres by terianism in Cali
fornia, then removed your session and
will remove your pastor; or whether you
will stand by the pastor and the session
and share the eccleiastical fate which
awaits them.
Specification Ain said address he ad.
vised the congregation not to submit TO
the authority of the presbytery, but al
vised them to abide by the decision of the
pastor and session in refusing to subm it
to preshytery's authority, claiming if
they did so. that presbytery would sever
them from the denomination and disband
them as church, advising the congre-
CATION to refuse the action of presbytery.
claiming thereby, that they would be
cast forth and that he woul1 go forth
with them without the gates of denom-
inatiopalism.
Mr.. Howard requested the right to rep
resen tation by an attorney, naming Elder
n. T. Gordon as his counsel. The prose-
cution entered an objection to Mr.. Cor
don's serving in that capacity, as he was
mr. q m f hat of md VTrnt
that technicality he was debarred, and
Mr.. Howard, though uhprepared having
left the matter of his defense entirely in
the hands of his chosen attorney. was
compelled to conduct his own case. A
motion by him TO have the trial post
poned to allow time for preparation of a
proper defense was warmly con tested by
the prosecution and declared out of order
by the moderator. An appeal from tue
decision showed the temper of the
judicatory. as the presiding officer was
unanimously sustained.
MIR. Howard at this point filed his OBJ
tectious, the first one being an exec ption
to the jurisdiction OF the presbytery.
This was declared out of order by he
moderator on the ground that the defend
ant had waived his rights to objections
on that score by appearing in court and
announcing his readiness to proceed
with the trial.
heated discussion was raised by Will
liam T. Craig of the prosecution upon
the point that Mr.. Howard was holding
consultation with several of his friends
who were professional attorneys. Not
centent with having denied the accused
the right of representation by counsel,
the prosecution requested that Mr.. How
ards friends be- removed from the room.
by way OF further exhibition of his feel
ing against the defendant. the reverend
moderator declared the point well taken.
This unfairness was too apparen, to re-
ceive the sanction OF all mem bers pres
ent, though some heartily expressed their
approval. One or two objected to the re-
moval of Howards advisors, afler which
the prosecution Withdrew their objection.
The second demurrer to the proceedings
was question as to the legality of the
service of the summons and charges. A
brief debate followed and it was submit
sed to a vote of the judicatory AMI de.
s 1eated.
Recess was then taken until 80 D. m
AFTERNOON SESSION