The Paducah evening sun. [volume] (Paducah, Ky.) 1906-1929, 1909-03-17
PRESBYTERIAN
szzrssukzzEzxzs=srppo~s
CHURCH.UNION
Effect of Decision of Texas
Supreme. Court.
Extensive Property Interests Involved
Which May Go Under the Con-
troll of Church.
ACT OF THE UNION BINDING

Dallas, Tex, March 17.-Requests
for copies of the decision just rem
Idered by the supreme court of Texas
in the case styled William Clark ct
al VS.. G. w. Brown ct al are being
received from Presbyterian leaders
throughout the country. The decis-
ion in effect declares that the union
tbetween the Cumberland Presbyter-
ian church and the Presbyterian
church of the United States was law
fully and properly effected, and that
all property formerly belonging to
the Cumberland church Is now the
property of the United church.
The case originated in the town Of
Jefferson. this state. where the Cum
berland church sued to recover prop
lerty which the United church claimed
as its own through the act of the
union. The district courts verdict was
for the defendants, the United States
church, as II is called. The Sixth dis
trict appellate court reversed the
Judgment. deciding for the plaintiffs,
the Cumberland church.
In the opinion just handed down,
the supreme court of Texas answered
two questions. Did the general assem-
bly, of the Cumberland church have
authority to consummate the union of
that church with the Presbyterian
church? and what effect did the union
of the two churches have upon the
property in controversy?
The opinion recites the facts of the
breaking away of the Cumberland
Church from the parent church in
1910. the subsequent attempts at re-
union, which were consummated in
1906. and showing that the union was
lconsummated in strict accordance
with the constitution, and therefore
Is binding upon all the members of
the church. The two contentious of
the plaintiffs. that the obnoxious sec
tons Of the confessions of faith of
the United States church, which were
the primary cause of the breaking
away, have not been eliminated. and
second, that negroes may take part
in the proceedings of the parent
church, are not considered in the
opinion. it being held that the general
ASSEMBLY of the church is of compe-
tent jurisdiction to decide these ques-
tons, and that II has therefore de
|cided them. The second question, re-
lating to the effect of the union upon
the property of the Cumberland
church, is answered thus:
The deed for the property was made
to the trustees Of the Cumberland
church at Jefferson, Texas. 1t ex-
pressed no trust or limitations III
follows, we think, as a natural and
proper conclusion, that the church to |
which the deed was made still owns
the property, and that whatever body |
is Identified as being the church to |
which the deed was made must still
hold the title.
The local church was not disor-
ganized by the lack of union. II re-
NAMED intact as a church, losing |
nothing by the name Cumberland |
from its name. Being a part of the
Presbyterian church, the
church was by the union incorporated
into the Presbyterian Church of thel
United States of America. The plain
tin in error and those who recognize
the authority of the Presbyterian |
church of the United States in Ameri- |
ca are entitled to the possession and
use of the property sued for"