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

before Deing considered The complainants pro-
duced three specihcations in which the illegality
was declared 70 rest. Seventy nine voted to sus-
tain; 80 not to sustain; II to sustain in mart Thee
IL were declared to have the effect of sustaining
and being added to the zo made co. majority
of one
1t is evident of course, that these eleven con-
sidered the charge of egality to have been prov
in one or two of the three points but not as to
all. was 1t, then, the right method of ascertain
ing the real mind of the Assembly, to consider
these as having the effect of sustaining in full?
or should the procedure have been to ascertain
which points they sustained; to have found wbetb
er there was a majority for any of these taken
separately; and then settled the case accordnplv7
The Chief argument for the action of the AS
sembly is as follows:
The complaint was ''illegaty" 1t has been
settled that illegality,' as distinguished from
irregularity," is sufficient to sustain a complaint
or appeal, (See the Digest for abundance of proof
either reversing the decision of the lower court,
or sending 1t back for trial Taking it for
granted that these charges were grave enough to
be real 'lllegallties, (Which they certainly were)
then, II majority of the higher thinks there
was illegality, the essential matter of the COM
plant mas been sustained. 1t does not need that
all who think there illegally shall agree as
to the precise portion of the law which was vio-
lated-the complainant holds that he was not
legally treated and if majority of the appellant
court agree that the case was not legally tried
no matter on what point, then his complaint is
sustained. Now, it is clear that majority of the
last Assembly did think in the Caldwell case
Tor seventy-nine agreed that illegality found
III all three points, and eleven concurred as to
some OF them-all of these eleven, however,
agreeing that there illegality-so that the
complainant has gained his case.
lhis sounds convincing at first hearing, but
grows doubtful on examination. Throughout the
whole discussion, it is needed that we keep in
mind that such cases the Caldwell case, and
indeed, nearly all of complaint or appeal
nave two results: (a) they settle the status in the
church OF some members; (b) they serve as au-
'noritative interpretations of our Law, acting as
vital precedents for future guidance of lower
courts.
Passing to the examination of the above argu-
ment:
l. We deny in toto that an act of a court can
Just be illegal without being illegal in some par
ucular point. 10 be illegal" it must break the
law IN some specific particular Doubtless no
one Will controvert this. Now, we are found in
the following extraordinary condition if the above
position for the Assembly be upheld.
Inc votes to sustain in part meant if they
meant anything, that those so voting held the
synod to have acted illegally in either two or one
ol the three points charged Now, there is the
pare possibility that all of these eleven might have
oeeh found to have agreed upon the
TWO of the points. If we were endeavoring to
ascertain the facts in this immediate case SO as to
o'0ure grounds tor reversal of the Assemblies
uecision of curse, the first thing would be to at
Tempt to ascertain this by writing to these eleven
D'ethren But it is distinctly not purpose in
s paper to do this, but rather 10 discuss it pure
y as an academic matter-as a case "in thesi" so
~ speak, and, by the mathematical rules of prob
doiltles (The matter submitted as an abstract
question to very competent mathematician, Pro-
eSSor K A. Wells of Westminster College. All
"iathematcians know the difficulties of the Theory
vi Probabilities, but the opinion of Professor
wells as to the correct theory of this problem
was supported by another professor of mathe-
"'aucs), it stands the most favorable SUPPOSE
"on as one chance to $4,000, that these eleven
would not have agreed upon the same point We