The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 18??-1935, 1909-04-16

Their litigation. and 70 settle property
questions By conferences OF the parties
involved
The decision Of the supreme court
of Tennessee. according TO the courts
own statement, determines finally the
rights in only one piece OF property,
namely. that at Fayetteville. Tenn;
vet we recognize that in this decision
the court has interpreted the civil
Law Of the state OF Tennessee with ref
erence TO local church property ques-
lions arising out OF the union of the
Cumberland Presbyterian and Presby-
terrain churches.
we feel, therefore, that our mem
bers should not assume an attitude OF
resistance to law as interpreted by the
court, but should plan. at the proper
time and in the proper way, with due
consideration for all interests involved,
TO comply with the law as so deter
mined.
There is no legal reason for not
taking sufficient time to comply with
the law in an orderly and Christian
manner, hence We counsel our people
not 10 allow themselves TO be dis
turbed by the demands OF those OPP
posed to union, but TO take ample time
for the adjustment of property inter
ests. under the direction and with the
counsel of the church courts.
ION the other hand. there are good
and sufficient reasons why our mem
bers should not be In haste to comply
with demands made upon them, some
of these reasons being as follows:
Il. Each congregation and each
church session should have due re
spect for the church courts, and should
not surrender property without the adj
vice and consent of the higher courts.
All of the civil courts, including the
supreme court of Tennessee, have
held that under the Presbyterion form |
of government the congregations and
sessions are under the control and |
subject to the orders of the presby-
terry. and that the congregations, ses-
sions and presbyteries are under the
control Of the general assembly and
and session cannot trans
Ter or release local church property
@ another denomination without au-
.hority to do so from the higher courts
If the church.
az. The question of local church
property in other states is not yet
inally settled, and it is evident that
/ fairer solution may be reached by
aking into account the entire situa-
ion and the interests of the denomina-
ion as a whole
%. If the assemblies at their meet
ngs in May, 1909, should see fit to APP !
oint commissions to consider and set
lie these property questions, it is easy 8
o see that the process would be sim ,
Ter and the result likely to be much ,
1ore equitable if our people should 7
lake no move in this state until such {
general policy is undertaken. !
I'm view of the facts stated above, \
re advise our sessions and members ,
) courteously but firmly decline to Y
lrrender any property, with the ex- I
option noted below, until after the T
leetings of the general assemblies
/ May 1909. 1t being so manifest r
lat this policy of mutual concessions, T
the various states, between the two
is to the interest of c
9TH as we'll as to the interest of
it is believed that such
course will be approved and adopted
Y both churches, and that the fac r
Ons in congregations will take and C
low time for the higher church s.
,urts to take action on the subject; ,
specially as it will be only about six II
eeks until the two general assem- H
les shall convene. But if in any
Use an anti-union faction shall refuse
do So and attempt, by force or suit =,
court, to get possession of property,
en- the local church authorities
ould defend themselves and their
operties in such manner as a COM q,
tent lawyer may advise. s,
Exceptions.
at is our judgment that exceptions
ould be made to the course suggest y,
above in cases like the following:
81. If any of our congregations n
We entered into written agreement IN