Keowee courier. [volume] (Pickens Court House, S.C.) 1849-current, 1898-05-19
LPublistied by Request.j
A Judioial Case.

IS.iSE y
any one suppoges our form Of govern.
ment Is an fnfallible protection from In
justice aud unfairness, | think what 1
shall say in this article will disillusionize
him somewhat. 1t may be all right as a
theory, but In practice the infallibility
fails to materialiae. With all my love Of
the Presbyterian polity over Indepen-
express my very cordial approval of that
proposition in our Confession of Faith
which asserts that "all Synods and count
oils since tho Apostles time, whether
general or particular, may err and many
have erred.n .sr e.. s..s :,
What ! shall here rotate is, plain
statement of facts of what occurred in q
meeting Of one of our Presbyterios. l
will not give tho name of the Presbytery,
but will only say that it is one of the old.
est aud most respected in our Southern
Presbyterian church. -.%...
1t is judicial case that am to speak
of. An appeal came up in tho regular
way from. tho action Of tho session of
------ church. The appeal was from
tho second finding of tho sessions deoi-
sion. Thore was no objection to tho
first finding, nor was there objection to
tho sentence imposed. Tho trial was
carried on rs the book required. Au ef-
fort was made to limit tho speeches, but
this was voted down. Tho counsel for
the appellant said all he wished to say
with ut any restriction and So did tho
| representative Of the session. Then tho
roll was called and evory minister and
cldor allowed to express all his mind
about tho matter. Then followed tho
vote, which tho Moderator said would
be thus classified; W to confirm tho ac-
tion of tho session; (2) to modify that
action; (3) to reverse tho action; W for
u now trial. Tho roll was then called
and tho voto declared to DO 20 for con
firming tho sessions action, II for revor-
sal, 7 for now trial and nono for modify
ing. The Moderator thon ruled that the
II and 7 should bo classcd rs opposing
tho sessions action and supporting tho
appeal. That was q most fair and right
cous ruling, for surely those who voted
Tor rcvorsal and for now trial could not
hGvo bcon satisfied with tho sessions ac-
ton and of course approved of tho appeal.
But somo objection was mado to tho rul-
ing OF tho Moderator and after considora-
bio discussion, an appeal was mado to
tho house and whom put to voto tho
Modorator's ruling was sustained,
think by unanimous vote. If tbcro
was any vote in tho negative | did not
hear it and thoro woro ovon 40 members
present.
AT this stage tho case was arrested and
did not como up again till tho ncxt day
when as tho book required, tho Judgment
of tho conrt was to be formulated and
sont down to tho session, tho lower court
i'll tho case. Woll, when tho next day
came, tho Moderator, bcfOro whom tho
previous part cs tic tG;aI vas hold, was
for sufficient reason absent and another
brother occupied tho chair. Also, it is
proper to state, that moro than ono half
tho prosbytery woro absent. That was
tho third day of tho session and two
days arc about as much timo as can be
given to arcgular meeting of Prcsbyiery.
When tho stars begin to appear on tho
second day, tho membors look around
and ask anxiously, "what is to do yct,"
whats on the dockct' and "can't We
adjourn this evoningp" Thon many
whom the committee on lcave of absence
havo given permission and sOmo without
any permission, depart for their homes
and tho business is concluded with very
slim house.
After tho proliminarics had boon dis
posed of on tho morning of tho third
day, tho Prosbyterytook up tho uniin-
ishcd appeal case and what remained
was to formulate the vote that had boon
rendered the previous day, to bc sent
down to tho lower court. It was soon
developed that there was n division
among tho members as to what the Mod
orator had ruled about classing tho II
for reversal and tho 7 for now trial as
opposed to tho action of tho session and
not to sustain tho appeal. There was
quito diversity of views as to what tho
Moderator had ruled, some said ono
thing and somc another. The clorls had
made no record of tho ruling, which
sOmc thought ho should havo d0no aud
II he had dono it would havo saved us
from good deal of timo wasted over Il
dispute that had to be left unsettled. 1t
was also soon developed that on tho third
day majority of those present wcro of
the 20 who had voted to confirm the scs-
sl0n's action. Whether this fact had any
influence in determining tho final action
l 40 not assert; | only state it as fact
deal or discussion, which was not worry
cdlfying, the committee that had tho
matter in charge brought in majority
and minority report. The majority
report stated in substance that tho Pres
Dytcry had voted to sustain tho appeal
the minority report asserted in substance
that the Prcsbytery had voted to sustain
the action of the session. Tho minority
report was passed by large majority of
those present and of course the majority
report by implication was rejected.
what tho Prcsbytery did by its first
vote, ~ sustaining the session and n
sustaining tho appeal was one thing and
what tho Presbytory did in tho formu-
lated Judgment, to be sent to tho session,
was another thing, Il different thing, an
opposite thing, a contradictory thing.
it is certainly to ua understood as q prin-
clplo of ecclesiastical law that tho for
mulated Judgment should accord with
tho v0to takcn. This formulated iudg
ment is to be based on the vote prcvi
Ously taken, to sustain or not sustain tho
appeal. Tho Judgment should be deter
mined by tho vote, should agree wiSh
that vote, should reflect fully that vJtc
and not be controlled by the moro acci-
dent that the ma ajority of tho small num-
Der present at tho closing hour of tho
session desired different decision. A
formulated judgment that is not in ac-
cordancc with tho vote previously taken
is contrary to fairness, to common sense,
to the actual facts, to written law, as
stated in our book and hence is worthless
and not valid. The requirement of tho
book is mandatory. "rho final decision
OF n causo' is the previous vote and not
the vote of the formulated Judgment.
L think have stated the action of tho
Prcsbytery in reference to tho judicial
case fairly and correctly. If have mado
any mistake it was certainly not intended.
must also say that tho MOdcrators who
presided did their duty faithfully and
fully. Tho members listened ycry
patiently to the reading of tho testimony
in the case, which was voluminOus. All
tho discussions wore courteous and in
good temper, no disrcspcctful words
wore spoken. | think the vote on tho
formulated Judgment was mistake, q
porvorsiOn of tho facts and contrary to
what was right and proper. And in max
lug this statement | want it distinctly
understood that do not boiiovo that any