The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-04-29
DR.. CRkPSEY AWAITS VERDICT
HIS FATE NOW IN THE HANDS OF
FIVE CLERGYMEN.
Many Predict That He VIII he Convicted
OF Heresy and some Hold That He Was
FOredOOmed-The Defence Say They
VIII Appeal-The Closing Arguments.

FOredOOmed-The Defence To- They
WIN Appeal-The Closing Arguments.
BATAVIA, n. Y, April 2s.-The fate OF
DR.. Reginald S. Crapsey, rector Of st.
Andrews Church Of Rochester, Is now
in the hands Of the five ~clergymen who
compose the ecclesiastical court Of the
western New York diocese. 1t may be I'M
just to anticipate the verdict Of that court,
yet there are many doing 1t, nj the pre-
ponderance OF opinion Is that DR.. Crapsey
will be convicted Of heresy; some say be-
cause the defencegreallya madeFnoi ease;
more hold and nave held that the clergy
man was foredoomed. These latter see
Ia at least a majority Of the court the ap-
pointed agents of officials charged with the
preservation Of the discipline Of the Protest.
ant Episcopal Church in this diocese. DR..
Crapsey has been too radical in his preaoh-
ings and he must go. That is the prevailing
belief.
Three punishments are prescribed by
the o. for the offence Of heresy. He
may be '~admonished, suspended or de-
posed from the ministry" The court in
rendering It's verdict also imposes the sem
tence. The Bishop has power To re-
verse or modify the Judgment and sentence
and to grant a new trial but nc one imagines
that Bishop Walker will do any such thing.
Attorney Perkins said to THE SUN oorre-
~spondent to-day that IL the decision Ia
adverse TO his client the case will surely be
appealed. Even though the court Of re-
view Is expressly forbidden to pass on ques-
tons Of faith and doctrines, he says, 1t
could If 1t 30 desired act on the Crapeey
caseon the ground Of e~xpedlenoy or other
general grounds, without touching on the
questions of faith and doctrine.
II DR.. Crapsey Is deposed the court will
have apparently substantial ground for It's
action in the final arguments advanced by
the counsel for the standing committee,
John Lord O'Brien, and his associate ooun-
sci, Judge Stiness. Their summing up fol-
10 red that Of Mr.. Perkins's associate,
EDWARD NJ. Shepard, who occupied almost
the entire morning session.
Judge Stiness twitted counsel for the
defence Of trying the case to the public
than to the court. There was, he
said, much eloquenoe but no argument.
He wished to bring the court down from
the dizzy heights of their oratory to mother
and the courts plain duty.
lou df6 uOG W JuuRo VI tie uoClilncS
and change the status Of the Church. he
said, nor are you to commend 1t to the
world. You are simply to determine
whether DR., Crapsey has violated his ordi-
vows and preached contrary to those
doctrines. This question itself the court
decided last week when you refused to grant
an adjournment to enable the defence to
prepare for a trial OF the doctrines instead
IF a trial of the defendant
Zone remarkable thing has happened
hat has led me to doubt the good faith Of
he defence. Instead Of going on the
stand, where he could be CROSS
examined, he hands in a statement. This
staten 1t, the court should remember,
not a part of the testimony. Mr.. Perkins
ngeniously got it before the court as part
If his argument; that was the only way
he could do It. From a leg al viewpoint,
t is, therefore, not DR.. Crapsey's State
nent, but Mr.. Perkins's statement
THE charges of the ~presentment stand
inquestioned The defense has not re-
uted them. 1t has simply sought TO
Justify the statements which the defendant
6 accused of making. Mr.. Perkins in
,oing over the specifications skipped those
the virgin birth and the bodily
e surrection. He did not inform the court
low these passa ges from DR.. Crapsey's
,ook are consistent with his denial Of the
Legations against him, or with the creed
tself. nor has he attempted to harmonic
)r. Crapsey's statements with the Scrip
sOne new point the defence has made in
Is summing up is perhaps worthy of con-
Mr.. Shepard points to the
act thai the defendant is accused OF violat-
NJ general canon No. 29, which, he says
lid not exist when DR.. Crapeey's alleged
fence was committed, because the new
anons took effect on January /, 1905. This
a teohnicality that will not hold, as the
p~pealing canon provides for continuing
ne old canons so far as concerned any case
Z a violation Of existing canons committed
efore that date. owever, if there is
ny doubt on that point the canons Of this
iooese, under which this trial is being held,
uthorize the amendment Of presentments
nd direct the court to disregard any error
them that does not involve any sub
antial right Of the defendant"
Mr.. O'Brien moved to amend the present.
Ient to meet the objection raised by MIR.
Mr.. Perkins opposed it, on the ground
nat the change would involve the SUBJ
antial rights of the defendant, as in the
,se of an indictment found in the civil I
,urts, in which are not permitted any !
nendment that will charge a man with |
Of another law than the one he ,
as originally charged with violating. :
The Court, on advice Of Judge North, :
scided to reserve its decision, and renderit I
ong with its decision on other questions {
-eviously raised and on the whole case. |
Mr.. O'Brien in summing up said the issue
the case was the old, old one of expert
zee versus truth. With kind words for |
Crapsey personally, he proceeded to !
~ him simply as a factor in a great or !
He said the primary pur- !
Use of the prosecution was not TO drive {
~ man out of the Church, but to protect
at institutions fundamental doctrines. s
Q characterized the defencs as merely a
of avoidance and a plea of justification g,
ong the line of federation. II
Attorney Edward M. Shepard's plea, s
hich preceded the address OF Judge Stiness a
I'd Mr.. O'Brien, was eloquent and earnest. q
q minated that Bishop Walker had HIM n
If violated the canon by appointing Frank s
|, D.. Locke, who is not of the Episcopal r
lurch, as counsel in the case. There was g
50 an intimation that the bishop and the i
anding committee had laid themselves open n
the charge of the heIesy of tritheism by +
e wording of the presentment. h
Shepard fOTesaW that the prosecution q