The Birmingham age-herald., 1908-05-16
CONTROVERSY GETS
 INTO THE COURTS CumberIandS Seek Possession
 of Church Property HISTORY OF THE SPLIT Bill Filed Asks for Decree Sustaining Right of "Loyalists" to Church
 Property as Against the
 "Unionists."

The Cumberland Presbyterian church
 controversy took on a legal aspect yes-
 terday when a bill to recover possession
 or the church property at the corner of
 Fifth avenue and Eighteenth street, north. was filed in the city court by At torneys N. L. Miller and T. c. Selheimer
 The bill was filed ir the names of Philip II. Harris, W. NJ Franklin and
 r. E. Perkins, as trustees, and J. L. Staggers, D. c. Savage, R. P. Yancey, J. H. Savage, G. G. Halliburton. F. M. Savage, H. NJ. Stiles, J R. Massey and J. D. Lewis of the Cumberland Presby- terian congregation against w. M Cosby. W. F. Tyler, w T. Brooks. J. S. Bridges, E. P. Lewis. R. F. Lewis, Arlie Barber, Joe C. Hail, Charlie Barber Don Barber, C. E. Lewis, II. D. Breeding, R. L. Cross. J. w. Hood, C. E. Massey w. T. Cart
 wright and I. b Steele of the Cumber- land Presbyterian church, S. A, con
 gregation.
 This trouble arose over the merger sev- eral months ago of the Cumberland Pres
 byterian church with the Presbyterian
 church in the United States of America.
 In most of the churches the membership
 
 number of them there was distinct
 split. This was true of the local church. part of the congregation with the pastor the Rev. I. D. Steele, accepting the
 change, while the others refused to ac- cept it and called the Rev J. D. Lewis For quite a while services were held in the church edifice by both congregations, | finally resulting in Dr. Lewis congrega- ton being locked out of the building by Dr. Steee's congregation. Since then services have been held in the Blrmng- ham Seminary chapel by this congrega- 1 ton.
 1 The church property is worth about 1 $75,0 900 and the membership of both con
 gregatons contains the names of a num- 1 Der of the most prominent business men | of Birmingham. The deciding of this l case will have much to do with the de- l ciding of similar cases throughout the state, and will very probably go to the | supreme court, both sides having retained
 some of the best attorneys in the state
 The bill is vouminous document re-
 lating the history of the church from it's foundation on February f. 1S1O con- |
 follows was attached:
 Sketch of the Controversy.
 The bill filed by P. H. Harris and
 others is on behalf of the Cumberland Presbyterian church of Birmingham
 against the Presbyterian church in the United States of America, seeking to
 have the court determine which church | ic anti tn ha which hP-
 longed to the Cumberland Presbyterian
 church of Birmingham lror to the at 1 tempted union of the two churches The
 oomplainants claim for themselves that l they are the regular successors of the people who originally organized the 1 church, and that notwithstanding the at l tempted union of the two churches that l the Cumberland Presbyterian church has l been maintained as separate and dis | tinct ecclesiastical body and that those | who have adhered to it are entitled to the property as though there had never been
 any attempt at union. The bill charges
 that those who treated the attempted
 union as effectual and announced them
 selves members of the Presbyterian church, U. s. A., thereby abandoned the l Cumberland Presbyterian church and
 have lost all right and interest in the property.
 1 The bill then gives history of the es l tablishment of the Cumberland Presby- l terian church, beginning in 1SlO and a 1 history of the movement by which tile union of the two churches was attempt l ed This attempted union eliminated at l the meeting of the general assembly of | the Cumberland Presbyterian church in
 Decatur, H., in May, 1906, at which time
 the general assembly undertook to ad- 1 journ to meet no more a general as-
 sembly but to meet in the following year with and as a part of the 18th general
 assembly of the Presbyterian Church. U. l S. A. large minority of this general | assembly at Decatur protested against the action of the majority as being beyond | the power of the general assembly, and | notwithstanding the declared adjournment l a sufficient number of them to constitute l a quorum of the general assembly con | tinued in session and selected another place for the meeting Of the general as- l sembly in May, 1907, at which time it
 met in Dickson county, Tenn, and held it's l regular session ana duJOurHeu to meet | in Corsicana, Tex, Fist day of May 1908.
 The compliments alleged that in this way l their separate organization has been l maintained and that they remain an in dependent, distinct religious body just as | they were before the attempted union. Charges Sharp Political Methods. | The bill then charges that to secure | majority of the presbyteries to vote for l the union at the meeting in Decatur, H., | sharp political methods were employed l The next paragraph of the mill assails 1 the action of the general assembly at De- l catur as being in conflict with the consti- l tuition of the Cumberland church and as- 1 serts that there was no power in the general assembl nor in the assembly and l presbyteres to effect said alleged union. l It alleges that the constitution conferred l cn the general assembly and presbyteries only enumerated and limited powers which l did not include the power to destroy or l extinguish the ecclesiastical existence of
 the church, and that this action of the l general assembly was illegal, ultra wires l and void.
 | Doctrinal Differences. l Paragraph seven @ of the bill sets l forth the dectrinal differences between the l two churches. It alleges that the Pres