The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1906-07-18
THE CENTRAL PRESBYTERIAN.
Yet, the official decision is

But, this is strange condition of affairs! That
the Assembly could have decided that the Synods
action was illegal when upon every point on
winch lllegality is charged, it would have voted
ITS action not illegal. This is manifestly an alb
solute contradiction and absurdity. If the action
OF the Synod was not illegal in any specific point
then it was not illegal anywhere. And if not il
legal anywhere it was not illegal at all If in
the mind of majority of the Assembly on every
actual question at issue, the Synod really acted
legally, then it acted legally in its whole action
And 1T is manifest that method of either so TAX
ing the vote or of deciding as to its effect which
reverses this judgment, must conceal somewhere
an error.
2. 1t is not difficult to see where the error lies
We have permitted to grow up in our church
courts an impossible and contradictory method of
voting, upon complaints and appeals. After dis
cusson on complaint, even though it have many
heads, of quite different import, touching quite
different portions OF the law still put the vote
on the matter as whole, and yet permit any
voter who wishes, to say he sustains the matter
in part" AS we have before had a case
where the votes lin part" would have changed
the decision, have never decided how they
should be counted, until in the Caldwell case
when it was ruled that they had the effect of sus-
tanning; precisely $50 far DR.. Cadwell's status
is concerned0 as if cast to sustain as a whole
But this whole method is really absurd, and the
Caldwell decision probably wrong.
We note the following: When a measure comes
before body, involving number of propositions
regarded in different light by the various men,
bers, 1t is a wise and common method to vote
seriatim This more effectually ascertains the
wish OF the body than any other method. But at
times, even such measures, the BODY NAV de-
cline to take the vote in this way but may decide
to vote on the measure a whole in spite of
the varied nature of the different sub-measures
contained therein In such case each member
must for himself judge to the relative value OF
the different propositions, and decide whether on
the WHOLE the entire measure is wise or the con,
trary. And, we note, that by either way, the mind
OF the body is accurately ascertained If it be de-
sired to have its mind, each point separately
the serlatim method secures it. If it be thought
best to secure it on the measure as a whole the
other method secures that. But suppose it is
decided to vote on a measure as a whole and vet
that at the same time, the members be permitted
to vote to support in part, that is to vote as if
voting seriatim what would be the result? Here
we need clear thought.
1T is manifest, that if this be permitted and if
all so voting, state what parts of the measure thew
are IN favor of, and are registered; while all
In favor OF the bill whole, SO vote; and if
only those parts of the measure which receive
majority are declared carried then we have
vote which is really and truly voting seriatim and
accomplishes precisely the same ends
But, suppose, on the contrary that those who
choose may apparently vote as if seratm Chat
Is, say that they favor part of the measure but
not all,) but still not permitted to say what
parts they favor, or to have their votes counted
only in favor of those parts, what then results?
(a) These members must, if they follow their
consciences, say they vote for the measure in
part, Tor they would actually so do But thew
might not by any means favor the measure as
whole They might, if the vote was strictly on
the measure whole and if this had to be
their manner OF voting, vote against it. Yet
when permitted to vote seriatim or on parts
they would necessarily, to be truthful, saw thew
supported it in part
(b) 1T now, these voters were all counted as if
IN favor OF the measure because they supported
part OF 1t, is 1t not manifest that great error
IN he Tod Ara