Year: 1878

dlcial cause, and they may both be legal


incompetent" to act in the eye Of Chrlstls


ethics, bat competent in the eye of our Boo


to degrade and ruin man they don't like


or whose ruin would be pecuniarily to thel


advantage. If the condemned man appeal
upon the sole ground of the personal inter
est of mis- judges, his appeal would not lie
for no such ground Of appeal is known t.
our system. If he cant prove actual cor
ruption, or uconstitltionality of procedure
he must wait for justice till that solemn hour
when we shall stand at bar whose Judge
cannot possibly be interested in anything bu'
righteousness and truth.


(2) Little need be said of appeals, for as
already said they come too lste,to do more
than partly remedy wrongs already commit
ted. The members of the judicstory sp-
pesled from cannot vote-let US mark that,
and be thankful; but before we rejoice let us
observe that the "New Book" proposes to
rob us of even this morsel of comfort in many
cases. 1t says thss in cases of review, sP-
peal and complaint, the members of the lower
court shall not lose their right to vote unless
they are challenged by one of the original
parties, and the challenger is sustained by a
majority of the court-the members of the
lower court not voting on the challenge. As
for complaints they differ from appeals only
in that any person can make them in regard
to almost any decision whatever, but they af
ford no relief whatever in the class of cases
referred to, which are believed to be abso-
lutely without any constitutional remedy.


The New Book has two significant little
sections in the sixth chapter of its Rules of
Discipline, (sectiOns xvi and XVIII worthy of
special notice. One reads thus" Either
party may, for cause, challenge the right of
any member to sit in the trial of the case,
which question shall be decided blythe mem
bers of the court, other than the one chsl-
lenged." This is in the right direction, but
it needs to go further than it does, in order
to be valuable; and it must be reinforced by
a collateral provision to render it practices
bic and efficient. say it must 60 further,
because it leaves it wholly undecided and in
definite as to what is "cause' for chslleng
ing uember-it ought to specify the causes
plainly, and declare that when those causes
exist member shall not sit in the case
Under this indefinite rule we could never
know what was just and proper ground of
challenge, and gross injustice might be done
in different courts by applying it too rigidly
so as to exclude brethren who have a right
to act, OF too loosely by tolerating those who
ought not to act at all. say it needs also
collateral provision-one that shall enable
court to supply the places of excluded
members. Most of our church Sessions are
500 small now TO transact Judicial business
properly, and some Presbyteries are in the
same condition. If you provide for decreas-
ing them, and fail to provide for supplying
the vacant seats, you will either have causes
issued by courts ridiculOusly small, or, what is
more likely, discipline will bs neglected al
together The other provision referred to
follows the one just considered. cannot
dwell upon it. Like the other one it is in
the right direction, out doesn't go far enough.
If there is good reason for excluding from
voting member who has expressed his opin-
ion on the merits of the case before its de-
cision, is there not greater reason for say
ing be ought not to sit in new trial of a
cause, upon which he has already given SOL
emn and formal decision :?


Next week | hope to conclude this subject
with brief presentation of those amend
ments to our present rules of procedure
which, in my humble judgment, would secure
an impartial trial even to the worst man, and
render it nearly impossible for judges to de-
eide any matters to which they were parties.


(TO BE CONCLUDED.