The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1906-07-18

Naiu"ei MS rights, he should have retrial. so
conducted as to give them to him. In other
words, two points clearly call for retrial bv the
synod one would deny the consttutionality of
such trial. in toto But these are essentially
contradictory
RAISING now to the second general head the In
depreciation OF Law in the decision of appeal and
complaint cases, we note that this method of reg
lsterng the effect of votes in part" might make
IL either wholly doubtful what the Assembly real
ly judged, or else might make it seem to decide
what 1t perhaps did not decide. For, take this
Caldwell case. Three very important constitu-
tlonal questions were in the complaint. Does anv
dare to say that majority of the Assembly really
declded that the Synod had no constitutional right
to try this case? No one can say that a majority
OF the Assembly SO voted, for no one knows Can
any one assert that the Assembly has decided
that DIR. Caldwell was deprived of his rights as a
member of the Fort Worth Presbytery? No one
can say SO, for no one knows Nor does any one
know what the Assembly really thought as to the
question whether Dr. Caldwell was made finally
a member of that Presbytery by its original &C
ton Nor will 1t ever be possible to know just
what this Assembly thought these specific
points, unless some one secures the precise
opinion of those who voted to sustain in part and
ascertains whether their votes made majority
on any specific allegation But to do this, is to
vote strictly seratim, and is to admit the conten-
ton OF this paper, that the confused method
adopted recently is improper. Surely, Church
WILL not admit any such method of interpreting
law, on the part of her highest court nor can she
afford to accept the recent action in the Caldwell
case as decisive on any of these points. And as
a last proof of the essential absurdity of this
method, and of its liability to register the unreal
opinion of the court, we note
hat it renders the court liable to vote precise
ly opposite to itself, or to be made to to
vote both yes and no on precisely the same propo-
siton. Suppose that precisely opposite condi-
tons had prevailed in the lower courts of this
very case. Suppose the Presbytery had refused
to admit DR.. Caldwell and he had appealed to the
Synod. (And, Presbytery might refuse
absurd grounds to admit a minister and thereby
do him grave wrong, it is quite clear that he would
have right to appeal for justice to the higher
court) Suppose the Synod had sustained DIR.
Caldwell and ordered the Presbytery to admit
him. Suppose the Presbytery had complained to
the Assembly, alleging precisely the same grounds
of complaint: 1. That the Synod had no right
to hear such case at all. Precisely what DR..
Caldwell and his friends urged). That the
record not the the original 3.
That the Synod gave DR.. Caldwell rights he had
no fair claim to, instead of taking them away 1t
is perfectly evident that in this Gas abb
stract proposition) these eleven votes would have
sustained the Presbytery in part just they
tanned DR.. Caldwell in part this time. And, the
Synod having then done just the of what
it did do the 70 and 50 votes would have just
been reversed, and now the being added to the
affirmative simply because they sustain its conten-
ton in part the decision Of the Assembly on pre-
cisey the same legal points would have been
versed, simply because this method gives unfair
advantage to the side that happens to complain.
The ma ority would have been larger, but that
does not matter The essential point is, that
whenever the votes close that those who
sustain in part, make the majority according
they added to the side the other then
they will always give the case by this method to
the affirmative, and thus make the Assembly COM
NIT the absurdity of voting differently the
same questions, just because different side
planned.
These considerations seem to leave no doubt
that this method of permitting and counting votes
to sustain lin part is essentially unfair, and abb
u nalA = IL.