The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1901-12-18
BISHOP REPLIES
TO WILLIAMS
Question Of Jurisdiction in
CleTgyman'S Case.
ECCLESIASTICAL COURT SUPREME.
Rt. Rev. Henry Y. Satterlee Con-
tends that No Civil Tribunal
can Interfere With Findings
of the Church Body.

In the case of Gilbert F. Williams yTEo
seeks to have the Supreme Court Of the
District Of Columbia review by way Of
eertiorari the findings Of the ecelesiasti-
cal court deposing him from the minis
try. the respondent, Rt- Rev. Henry Y
! sattsrlee. Bishop Of the Diocese OF Wash
ington. has fled. through his attorneys.
Charles H. Stanley. Of Laurel. Nd. and
H;.Iam & Hallam. cf this city. his an
sver.
The answer denies the right in the first
Place Of the civil court to review the pro
/ ceedi dings Of the ecclesiastical court, and
holds that this court is without jurisdfc-
! ton in The matter. or that the eeelesias-
teal court is court OF inferior juris-
diction subject to review IN any manner
by the civil courts.
| Court of Discipline.
1t is further ccntended that the ee-
clesiastieaI court was created as matter
Of discipline Of the Protestant Episcopal
Church. under ecclesiastical and canon
law and not under or subject to the civil
law. and that the civil courts have no au-
thority to enquire into or adiudicate
question as 10 the proper interpreta ton Of
( any cancns Of the church; that tae. &c
j clesiasticaI court alone had jurisdiction
and power 10 pass on the evidence ad-
duced ard the guilt or innocence CT The
accused and it is final and not subject to
review by any civil court
Denies Charges OF Haste.
Bishop satteriee denies ali charges of
undue haste in the matter OF his passing
on the findings OF the ecclesiastical court
and says that he carefully read and con-
sidered the evidence and verdict and took
. the advice OF the chancellor OF the do
eese il the matter before finally pass
ing on the ease, solely with q view to
doing his duty 20 the church and accused
impartiaIly.
No Bias or Prejudice.
The Bishop denies that one Of the mem
bers constituting the court was biased or
prejudice,; against the accused or had
prejudgea the charges against him
Bishop SatterIee says that the finding
Of guilty was coneurred in by FIVE of the
six members constituting the court, and
that their finding and Judgment became
that Of the entire court and contained
the following recommendation:
And further, as required by Canon xix
of the Diocese of Washington, we dc
hereby declare that in our opinion the
punishment which such offence deserves
is degradation from the sacred ministry
This was signed by the five eoneurring
members.
The Dissenting Opinion.
The Bishop explains that the dissenting
member wrote at the foot OF the above the
following:
Z deem the evidence insufficient to dis
pei all reasonable doubt. Therefore I dc
not join in the verdict"
The Bishop adds that the second charge
OF specification was impure and Illicit
conduct He denies the charge that there
was only one witness examined, that oi
the female prosecuting witness, and says
that there were large number of wit
nesses who testified and were examined
ana that there was developed theFefron
circumstances sufficient in the judgment
Of the court TO eorroborate the materia
testimony of the principal female witness
referred to. as to petitioners guilt, whiel
court alone could pass on that question
Believes Accused Guilty.
The Bishop further says that. hougl
reluctantly, he was forced to believe frou
the evidence and still believes in the gull
Of the petitioner, Williams The Bishop
says that three and one-haIf years nay,
elapsed since the finding of the ecclesias
teal court and the filing of this suit an
that by so long delaying Williams ha
teen guilty of such gross neglect and tar
diness as to debar his right now to pro
ceed in this manner even had this cour
jurisdiction TO review the eeelesiastiea
: courts finding
. | Norfolk & washington Steamboat C.
Delightful trips daily at $50 p m from foe
Ill -