The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1899-02-03
BISHOP CASE ON
Argument Made On English
Church Controversy.
ADDRESSES BY THE LAWYERS
Character of Contract an Import
ant ConsideratIon-Dis
sion of Differences.

The demurrer filed by the defend
ants in the injunction suit OF G.. s. Har-
ris ct al. vs.. Rt Rev. Alfred Willis,
Bishop of Honolulu, was argued yes
terday before Judge Perry. The de-
murrer sets forth that the matter is one
for ecclesiastical tribunals TO pass up
oil rather than a civil court. The bill
OF injunction, as was stated at the time
OF its filing, contains petition TO re-
strain Bishop Willis from revoking the
| license of the Rev. Alexander Mackin
tosh, pastor Of the second English
| speaking congregation at St. Andrews
Cathedral and further sets forth that
| by written contract, the doors of the
church cannot be closed to this congre-
cation. If the demurrer is sustained
the whole matter is thrown out of
court and the decision of the church
authorities will be final. In other
words the crucial point in the suit i
reached.
Mr. McClanahan, junior counsel for
! the petitioners. began the debate yes
'contended that the defendant was about
to revoke the license OF the minister OF
1.-THE second English speaking congrega-
ition of St. Andrews Cathedral, and fur
ther, that the Bishop refuses to license
any other. That act, he said, would
take the life from the congregation. IL
was as necessary to have a minister
as to have building in which TO meet.
! The two could not be separated. Nov
the congregation. he claimed. had Il
right to the building by contract, 4
contract every obligation of which the
congregation had fulfilled. Why should
the court support what was mere
whim of the Bishop? All that the pc
ititioners were seeking was the enforce
ment of that contract. Ii made no diff
ference whether the Signers of the con
tract were dead Or alive so far as its
present validity was concerned. II
is now in force and will remain in
force for all time by its own declard-
ton and confer the same privileges up
on all the members of the second con-
lgregation, whether they were the sign
erS of the contract or not.
| Mr.. Hatch, senior counsel for the pc
ltitioners, continued the debate The
body of the second English speaking
congregation was formally organized
by an instrument of writing. He con-
itended that it was not n matter for an
ecclesiastical court, because the rights
land privileges were granted to an Ha-
waiian corporation. Legally il was dis
ltinct from the English church and was
"a Hawaiian creation. The defendant
had entered into this contract. He is
about TO violate that which involves
property rights. The right to occupy q
church was not an ecclesiastical right
he contended. if the right is given in q
written instrument. II then becomes {
question of landlord and tenant.
If this congregation has any right:
at all. it has the right TO hole
meetings How can this right be vio
lated? First, by closing the doors o
the church. Second, by revOking tn,
license of the minister.
Judge Perry-'Do you contend tina
the Bishop has not the right TO pcmOv.
a minister. or revoke his license?'
Ans. He may under certain con
ditions have that right, but here h,
has not, for he declares that he VII
appoint no other one in his place an,
thus violates what is by conJruc a lesa
right. This is not question of ChurCl
law, belief or doctrine. but an action o
property"
Mr.. Hartweu briefly replied TO tn
- titiOners. He maintained that this Wa
an ecclesiastical question. EcClesias
teal law, he said, is part of the com
mon law of England. but IL cannot b
imported here nor can any other for
,. eign law. This congregation belong
9 TO the Church Of England. He con
! tended that no one other than signer
n had any legal rights under the Contrac
!. None Of the parties plaintiff in thi
i suit We're signerS of that contract. Nj
: McClanahan asked il the counsel con
:. tended that this congregation Othe
; lthan the signers We're not in eXistenC
II today. Mr.. Hartwell replied that h
made no such contention. Far from j
\ large and 4 very vigorous body &
7 members who have not signed tha
j. contract are alive today. daughter
None OF the signers have appeared j
the complaint.
Mr.. ThurstOn closed the debate. II
began by defining the word privilege
land quoted 10 prove that parties VIII
J. were not signers were not privilege
with those who were signers of the ir
strument. therefore the parties to th
complaint had no rights under the cor