CHAPTER XII.CHURCH SEIZURES—CONTINUED.

Church at Lexington—Suit Brought for it by the Methodist Church—Statement of Mr. Sawyer—Suit Dismissed—Salem, Arrow Rock, California and other Churches—Lagrange Church History—How the Church North Borrowed and then Seized it—Notice Served—Colonel W. M. Redding the “Faithful Guardian”—Rev. W. C. Stewart—Christian Charity—What a Southern Methodist Says—Central Advocate—Mr. Stewart’s “Honor” Transmitted—Suit for Possession—Arbitration—Louisiana Church—Its History and how it was Seized—Civil Courts and Church Trustees—Names Forged—Counter Petition—Decision of Court of Common Pleas—Supreme Court of Missouri—History of the Case—Opinion of the Supreme Court—S. S. Allen, Esq., on Church and State—Rulings of the Court—The Case Reversed—Efforts to Compromise—Five Years’ Possession—Reported in Church Statistics—Supplement—Able Argument of Smith S. Allen, Esq.

In 1860 the old Methodist Church in Lexington, Mo., was torn down and a new one erected on the same lot. The new edifice was modeled mainly after that at Independence—a little larger, finer and costlier. Up to the time of its completion, in 1862, the Northern Methodists had no permanent organization in the city, except one improvised for the army and other purposes the year before. Since the division of the Church they had never had any hold in that section of the State, and but for the presence and power of the army it is reasonable to suppose that no claim upon that property would have ever been set up. They had a few adherents, and about the last year of the war they instituted suit for therecovery of that Church property. The following statement furnished by Mr. Sawyer, the counsel for the M. E. Church, South, will explain the nature of the suit:

“The suit at Lexington, as you are probably aware, was instituted by certain persons assuming to be the Trustees of the M. E. Church against the Trustees of the M. E. Church, South. It was an action of ejectment for the recovery of the possession on the ground of title. The answer set up the action of the General Conference in New York in 1844, embracing the whole Plan of Separation, as also the action of the Southern Conferences in convention at Louisville in 1845, as well as the action of the Missouri and St. Louis Conferences in reference to the Plan of Separation; all of which action, it was insisted, was in effect a contract between the parties, and valid and binding as such. This was the main ground of defense to the action; and when I went to the court last fall, expecting to try the case, I found the suit had been dismissed and the M. E. Church, South, left in the undisturbed possession of their property.”

Finding that they had no shadow of claim to the property, and no pretext even for getting possession by military interference, they withdrew the suit, paid the costs, and turned their attention to other places where they had a better show of success.

The Northern Methodists took possession of Salem Church, in Pettis county, on the Georgetown circuit, held and used it for several months, and finding that they were not sustained by the citizens, and too remote from military posts, they abandoned it from very shame.

Arrow Rock and other Churches.

The Rev. M. M. Pugh writes:

“They made an unsuccessful effort to appropriate our church in Arrow Rock. The Rev. Mr. Hagerty, one of the most active men in this church-seizing business, made a visit to that place for the purpose of making that church the property of his organization. Our friends watched him closely, and he signally failed.

“They also tried to seize our church in California. I believe they were persuaded to desist in this case. Our church in Warrensburg was burned. I do not know the particulars. So, also, was our church in Miami, but we do not know by whom it was set on fire.”

In 1838 two lots in the town of Lagrange, Lewis county, Mo., were deeded to B. W. Stith, C. S. Skinner, John Lafon, Middleton Smoot and others, trustees, for the use and benefit of the Methodist Episcopal Church, as then constituted. In the following year a small brick house was erected on the lots and used by the Church in an unfinished condition until 1844. It was then finished, and upon the division of the Church passed into the hands and ownership of the M. E. Church, South. The membership in 1845 voted to adhere South, with only three or four dissenting voices, and they acquiesced in the will of the majority and remained in the Southern Church until after the repudiation of the Plan of Separation by the General Conference of 1848. Up to that time the Northern Church attempted no organization in Lagrange. But soon after that event the Church Northsent a Rev. Mr. Chivington (the same who made himself notorious a few years ago in the indiscriminate massacre of Indians near Fort Union) to that place. He sought and obtained permission to preach in the church. After sermon he organized a class of seven members, and publicly thanked the members of the M. E. Church, South, for the use oftheirhouse.

The members of the Church North recognized the validity of the decisions of the courts in the Maysville, Ky., and New York and Cincinnati church property cases, and set up no claim whatever to the property in Lagrange, or elsewhere in Missouri, until after the beginning of the war.

In 1853 the old church was displaced by a new and a more commodious structure, erected and paid for by the members and friends of the M. E. Church, South, at a cost of over $6,000. In this the M. E. Church, North, took no part, paid no money and claimed no interest. In 1863, ten years thereafter, a Rev. Mr. Stewart was sent to Lagrange by the M. E. Church, North. This man professed great friendship for Southern Methodists, and made himself free and easy in their homes. The church was only occupied two Sabbaths in the month, and Mr. Stewart applied for the use of it when it was unoccupied. To this the owners objected at first. Mr. Stewart was offered the use of the German Methodist Church, but it did not suit his purpose, and he urged his application for the Southern Methodist Church. It was objected to by a large number of the members upon the ground that other churches in the State had been seized and possessed by them, some in one way and some in another, and they feared this might be aruse de guerre.Mr. Stewart finally pledged his honor as a Christian gentleman and minister to return the key every week to the trustees. This he did regularly until January, 1865, when his quarterly meeting was held in the Church, and the Quarterly Conference appointed a board of trustees and authorized them to hold possession of the property. Upon this action Rev. Mr. Stewart went out in town, purchased a lock, employed a carpenter and had it put on in place of the old one. He could then return both lock and key with impunity.

The trustees thus raised and authorized to act for the M. E. Church served the following notice on the trustees of the M. E. Church, South:

“Lagrange, Lewis County, Mo., Feb. 13, 1865.

“To John Munn, J. C. Goodrich and others, Trustees of M. E. Church, South:

“Gentlemen: Having a just and legal claim to the property of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Lagrange, as trustees of said church, we hereby notify you that we intend to hold said property for the use and benefit of the ministers and members of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States of America, according to the Discipline and Rules of said Church, and the provisions of deed recorded in Book C, page 341, Lewis county Records. We have accordingly taken possession of the herein mentioned property.

“Done by order of the Board of Trustees of Lagrange M. E. Church.

W. M. Redding,“President Board of Trustees.

W. M. Redding,

“President Board of Trustees.

“W. C. Stewart, Sect’ry pro tem. and Preacher in charge.”

They had either been waiting a suitable opportunityor a new light had suddenly dawned upon them from some Episcopal, military or other throne of light and power, that they had been using, by gracious privilege and courtesy, property to which they had “a just and legal claim,” and they acted accordingly. It may be characterized as at least very cool.

Possession is said to be nine points of the law; and, if the adage is true, the manner of gaining possession will not necessarily raise any curious questions of casuistry. The how will not vitiate the nine points, when a new lock and key with an extra share of loyalty can make up and meet every other point in the legal decalogue. It only remained for them to serve the usual notification, to save the form of the thing, and appoint Col. W. M. Redding President of the Board, and Colonel of a regiment of Lewis county militia—not a member of any church—to hold the property in peaceable possession. This duty he performed faithfully; for which service he received, in theCentral Advocateof Dec. 20, 1865, the title of “the faithful guardian of the interests of the M. E. Church in LaGrange, Mo.”

A member of the LaGrange Quarterly Conference, M. E. Church, South, from whom much of the above information was obtained, writes as follows:

“The next step,” after taking possession and serving notice, “was the exhibition of Christian charity (?) to us of the M. E. Church, South, by a polite offer to loan us the use of their (?) house for our religious worship. But we ‘had not so learned Christ.’ How could we be partakers with thieves and robbers? ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer, but ye have made it a den of thieves.’

“Our house had been solemnly dedicated to the worship of Almighty God by Bishop Marvin when there was no name or membership of the M. E. Church, North, in the place; we say, let that consecration abide, and let God defend the right. We can worship there no more until the law, with the whip of justice, shall drive those who trouble us to their own place.”

A letter in theCentral Christian Advocate, of Dec. 20, 1865, from Rev. W. C. Stewart, contains the following paragraph:

“When I was in LaGrange I had the honor to organize a Board of Trustees of the M. E. Church, and by their authority to take possession of the valuable house of worship there, previously in the hands of the Church, South. In this movement Col. W. M. Redding took a most prominent and efficient part. He is still the faithful guardian of our Church property in LaGrange.”

This Col. Redding was once a member of the M. E. Church, South, but withdrew some time before this transaction, declaring when he did so that the time would come when a Southern Methodist could not live in that county. He was a prepared instrument of the M. E. Church, North, and well fitted for their special work, as he had once been a negro trader to the South, and had the price of that human chattel in his pocket. A little power makes good Radical leaders and instruments of such men.

Mr. Stewart exults in “the honor of organizing a Board of Trustees, and by their authority taking possession of the valuable house of worship formerly in the hands of the Church, South.” The said “honor” is now made permanent and transmitted to posterity.Some honors burst like the bubble, others are as enduring as marble. “Some men’s sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment, and some men they follow after.” This same Stewart went over to the Congregationalists.

The trustees of the M. E. Church, South, brought suit for possession in a civil magistrate’s court. It was appealed to the Circuit Court for Lewis county by defendants, and then by same party, upon a change of venue, taken to Shelby county. When called in the Circuit Court in Shelbyville they were not ready for trial. But they had brought suit in the same court to test or recover the title, to which a demurrer was filed on the ground that they had not kept up a perpetual Board of Trustees from the date of deed in 1838. They had a Board whose history and authority dated back only to January 30, 1865. To prevent a non-suit they asked a continuance, which was granted. Before the session of the Court in November, 1866, they asked the Church, South, to compromise, by referring the whole case to three men for arbitration. When this was agreed to both parties gave bond in the sum of $500 to abide the decision. February 1, 1867, was set for hearing by the arbitrators. When the case was stated by the Church, South, the other party asked leave to withdraw the bond. To this objections were made, and they wrangled over it till four o’clockP. M.The Church, North, asked a continuance till nine o’clock the next morning. This was granted, and at the appointed time they appeared and revoked their bond, saying that they preferred to have the case tried by the Supreme Court of the United States, and would make it a precedent forMissouri. Whether this course was intended only for delay their subsequent declaration—that they did not expect to be ready for trial for ten years—is the best interpretation.

Wearied out of all patience with such miserable tergiversation, the trustees of the M. E. Church, South, headed by their pastor, Rev. T. J. Starr, prepared to bring suit again, believing that their only hope was in the civil courts. As soon as Col. Redding and those who acted with him found that they would have to meet the case in the civil courts they proposed a compromise, which, during the absence of the preacher in charge, was accepted. This compromise gave the M. E. Church, South, a quit-claim deed to less than half the two lots with the new church, and the M. E. Church, North, a similar deed to the old church with the rest of the two lots. The old church was just back of the new, and within a few feet of it. To settle the difficulty and have peace, the rightful owners of the whole property had to quit-claim half of it to their enemies, and pay more than half the costs of suits, for the gracious favor of a quit-claim deed to the other half of their own property, and the peaceful possession of their own house of worship in a greatly damaged condition. But, then, our people have so long been inured to privation, wrong and persecution, that they will purchase peace and the privileges of unmolested worship at almost any price but that of honor and integrity. What are houses and lands and earthly possessions to the integrity and purity of the “Kingdom of Heaven” and its unperverted institutions?

In the statistics of the Missouri and Arkansas Conferenceof the M. E. Church this Church property at LaGrange is returned as the property of that Church, at an estimated value of $12,000.

The Conference session of 1866 adopted the following:

“Resolved, That the pastor of LaGrange be authorized to go outside the Conference limits to procure funds to meet the expenses of defending the title to the Church property of the Methodist Episcopal Church at LaGrange.

(Signed) “W. C. Stewart.“T. B. Bratton.“T. J. Williams.”

(Signed) “W. C. Stewart.

“T. B. Bratton.

“T. J. Williams.”

Comment is unnecessary.

The history of the Church property case in Louisiana, Missouri, furnishes peculiarities of a nature that will bear a little attention to the details. It is about as follows:

In 1853 a deed to a lot of ground in the city was made by Edward G. McQuie and wife to Edwin Draper, John S. Markley, John W. Allen, Samuel O. Minor, John Shurmur, Joseph Charleville, Ivey Zumwalt, David Watson and Thomas T. Stokes, as trustees of the M. E. Church, South, to hold in trust for the use and benefit of said Church. Consideration, $500. Soon thereafter a commodious church edifice was erected on the lot and dedicated to the worship of God in the name and for the benefit of the M. E. Church, South. It was occupied and used by them unmolested until 1862.

In the meantime vacancies had occurred in the originalBoard of Trustees by the death of David Watson and the removal from the State of Thos. T. Stokes.

These vacancies had been filled by the regular authority of the Church, and according to law, by the appointment and election of Samuel S. Allen and Wm. A. Gunn, as seen in the records of the Quarterly Conference for Louisiana Station. But this fact did not prevent the tools of the M. E. Church, North, from devising a bold scheme that would put them in possession of the Church property. They could not claim that the property was originally deeded to the M. E. Church and afterward wrested from the rightful owners, as in the cases at Lexington, Independence, LaGrange, Boonville, etc. That plea could not serve them in this case, and to accomplish their purpose they devised another. It was this. Anex partepetition was filed in the Louisiana Court of Common Pleas, setting forth the fact of the above mentioned vacancies in the Board of Trustees, and praying the Court to fill the vacancy occasioned by the death of David Watson by the appointment of Charles Hunter, and to appoint Robt. S. Strother to fill the vacancy occasioned by the removal of T. T. Stokes. This petition, as it now stands on the records of the Court, was signed by Edwin Draper, John S. Markley, John W. Allen, Ivey Zumwalt, Samuel O. Minor, Jos. Charleville and John Shurmur, and was granted July 21, 1862.

On the second day thereafter (July 23, ’62,) Samuel O. Minor, John W. Allen, Ivey Zumwalt, W. A. Gunn and S. S. Allen filed a petition asking the court to vacate the order appointing Hunter and Strother, and set forth the following facts why the order should be setaside: They admitted the vacancies occasioned by the death of Watson and the removal of Stokes, but set forth from the Church records that on the 21st day of January, 1861, Rev. W. M. Newland, then preacher in charge, nominated, and the Quarterly Conference elected, W. A. Gunn to fill the vacancy occasioned by the death of said Watson, and that the other vacancy was filled by the nomination and election of Samuel S. Allen, April 23, 1862, Rev. W. G. Miller then being preacher in charge. They, therefore, allege that at the time of the appointment by the court of Hunter and Strother no vacancy existed, the same having been filled according to the law of the Church made and provided, and therefore the order of the court ought to be vacated.

They further represented that the names of John W. Allen, Samuel O. Minor and Ivey Zumwalt were used in the original petition without their knowledge or consent, and insisted that the order should be set aside for that reason.

Both the petitioners and community were astonished when the court refused to vacate the order, and the only recourse was an appeal to the Supreme Court of Missouri on a writ of error. It may not be improper to state in this place that Judge Gilchrist Porter, then on the bench of that Judicial District, presided; and Thos. J. C. Fagg, then Judge of the Louisiana Court of Common Pleas, was counsel for the M. E. Church, North, in his own court.

The cause was argued July 24, ’62, and the petition overruled. The petitioners filed a bill of exceptions and the case went up to the Supreme Court.

The case was not heard in the Supreme Court untilJanuary 10, 1866, when the judgment of the court below was reversed and the case dismissed upon the ground of irregularity and informality.

As this case may involve several legal points of importance to the Church, it may be proper to transfer so much of the decision and rulings of the court to these pages as will be of general application.

S. S. Allen, Esq., for plaintiffs in error, submitted the following points of law, and the court ruled accordingly:

“1. The Church, by means of its preacher in charge and Quarterly Conference, had full and ample power to fill vacancies in its board of trustees (see ‘Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church,’ p. 254).

“2. Over the Church, as such, the temporal courts of this country most clearly have no jurisdiction, except to protect them, and to protect the civil rights of others, and to preserve the public peace, none of which were necessary in this case (see Baptist Church in Hartford, vs. Wittnell, 3 Paige, Ch. 301; Sawyer vs. Cipperly, 7 Paige, 281 etc.)

“3. There were no vacancies in the board when the court below acted, said vacancies having been duly filled by the preacher and Conference long before the court acted. (See ‘Minutes of the Conference.’)

“Dyer & Campbell for defendants in error.

“Lovelace, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.”

In this opinion the court holds the following language, after a statement of the case:

“The case is not free from difficulties. The court below seemed to be acting under the statute concerning ‘Trusts and Trustees.’ But this case does not fall within the statute, for that only provides for appointing trusteesin deeds of trust made to secure the payment of a debt or other liability. (R. C. 1855, p. 1554, §1.) So in this case, it would seem that the parties must resort to their equitable remedy to prevent the trust from being defeated for want of a trustee.

“There are more informalities than appear upon the record, but they are not alluded to by either party. The question presented by the parties is, whether there are vacancies in the Board of Trustees to be filled. Both parties admit that there have been vacancies, but the defendants contend that the vacancies have been filled by the Church according to the rule and discipline of that Church, and the evidence proves conclusively that the board of trustees for church purposes, under the rules and discipline of the Church, had been filled; but whether, under the peculiarities of this deed, the legal title to the property described in the deed will descend to the trustees thus appointed seems doubtful.

“The uses and purposes for which the property is to be used is not expressed in the deed, but the property is merely deeded to the petitioners, naming them, together with Watson and Stokes, describing them as ‘Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South,’ and to them and their successors in office, lawfully appointed, forever, for a consideration of five hundred dollars. It is not stated, except as mentioned in the deed, though it may perhaps be inferred that the petitioners at the time of the conveyance were in fact trustees of the Church, appointed by the Church under its rules and discipline; nor does it appear who furnished the money to purchase the property. If it was furnished by the Church, then, most certainly, the court, upon proper application, wouldorder these plaintiffs to convey it to such person or persons as the Church might name, to hold it for their use and benefit; but if, on the contrary, the money was furnished by these plaintiffs, the naked fact that the grantors in the deed have described them as ‘Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South,’ would not of itself operate to destroy their interest in the property. In the former case they would hold the property in trust for the Church, and would be compelled to convey to any persons the Church might nominate to receive it; but this could only be done upon proof of the fact that the Church furnished the money with which the property was purchased.

“3. Upon the face of this deed the property belongs to the grantees in the deed; and to divest them of the title it must be shownaliundethat the purchase money was furnished by the Church. The legal title is in the grantees; but in case somebody else furnished the purchase money, then the grantees will be regarded as holding the property for whomsoever furnished the purchase money.

“If, then, the above views be correct, there can be no question of vacancy in the Board of Trustees as respects this property until the question of the title is first settled. If it belongs to the grantees, no trustees are necessary; they can manage it for themselves. If the Church is entitled to it, then the grantees must first be divested of their title, and the title vested in some person or persons for the use of the Church. The proceedings here are irregular and premature. The judgment must be reversed and the cause dismissed. The other judges concur.”

Pending this case Mr. Allen, counsel for plaintiffs in error, made a very able argument upon the relation of the Church to the civil government. He took high ground upon the separate and distinct jurisdictions of Church and State, as understood by our fathers and as developed in this country under the genius of our government. He characterized severely the efforts made by partisan fanatics to confound in fact what was distinct in law, and to unite the Church with the State for purposes of ecclesiastical power and political corruption. His argument was well worth preserving.

The decision of the Supreme Court in effect sent the case back for a trial of the rights of property, for which suit was immediately brought in the Circuit Court. But under the operation of the order of the Court of Common Pleas of June 31, 1862, the church property passed out of the possession of the M. E. Church, South, to whom it was originally deeded, and into the possession of the self and court-constituted Board of Trustees, for the use and benefit of the M. E. Church, North. The property was used by them from July 21, 1862, to some time in the spring of 1867. In March, 1867, a letter was addressed by a number of the trustees to the presiding elder and preacher in charge of Louisiana Station, who were supposed to have influence with the authorities of the Church then holding and using the property, asking their kindly offices and services in an honorable and amicable adjustment of the difficulty and the return of the property to the rightful owners.

The following answer was elicited:

“Louisiana, Mo., March 21, 1867.

“Messrs. Sam. S. Allen, W A. Gunn and others, members of the M. E. Church, South, Louisiana, Mo.:

“Gentlemen: Your communication of the 4th instantis received and would have been answered sooner but we have not had time since its reception for consultation until yesterday. We would gladly do anything in our power to bring about an honorable adjustment of the matter of which you write, but as the controversy is between you and the trustees of the church, we are wholly without authority in the premises, and therefore have no right to advise the board of trustees how they shall settle the matter. If we had the power to act, our action would fully recognize the asserted rights of the trustees until the proper legal tribunal decides the question. We will not, however, be in the way of any compromise which the parties may be able to make. With assurances of personal regard, we are, gentlemen,

“Yours very truly,“Nat. Shumate.“J. S. Barwick.”

“Yours very truly,

“Nat. Shumate.

“J. S. Barwick.”

They declined to interfere in the matter as long as they could hold and use the Church property. But, as in other cases, when they found that they had no shadow of title, and could not even frame another pretext for holding on to the property, they were magnanimous enough to propose or accept a compromise by which the property could go back into the hands of the rightful owners without the humiliation of being forced by law to pay damages and rents, which a common honesty demanded.

The suit for title was stricken from the docket without being heard, and those who bought the lot and built and paid for the church are again in possession of their own; albeit they were kept out of the use of it for nearly five years, and then received it in a condition that requiredextensive repairs, for which those who had used and damaged it had no disposition to pay a single dollar. Thus one by one the property that was taken from the Church, South, was restored, after being used and abused by “our friends, the enemy.”

It does not add any thing to the credit of the Northern Church to record the fact that this church, also, was reported in the statistics of the Conference, valued at $5,000.

To those who have believed the reiterated statements of the Northern Methodist preachers and press, that they never seized, possessed or used any property that belonged to the M. E. Church, South, these facts, furnished by reliable men and taken from official records, are commended. The facts are humiliating enough without the reflections suggested by them.

The following able argument in the Louisiana Church property case, before the Supreme Court of the State, made by Smith S. Allen, Esq., of Hannibal, Mo., counsel for plaintiffs in error, is not only a part of the history of the case, but too valuable and vital to the great questions at issue to be lost. It may very properly supplement this chapter, as its merits demand a more permanent form than the newspaper columns. It will be perused with interest, especially by the legal profession, and will not be without interest and profit to the general reader.

Edwin Draper and others, }ex partepetitioners and }defendants in error. }Error from the Louisiana}Court of Common Pleas.Sam’l O. Minor and others, }plaintiffs in error. }

Edwin Draper and others, }

ex partepetitioners and }

defendants in error. }Error from the Louisiana

}Court of Common Pleas.

Sam’l O. Minor and others, }

plaintiffs in error. }

If the Court please: The extraordinary conduct of part of theex partepetitioners and defendants in error in this case is perhaps sufficiently disclosed in the written statement of facts filed by plaintiffs, which I have already drawn up and placed on the files of the Court. This part of my subject I will, however, with the indulgence of the Court, consider more fully hereafter.

This case, on the face of theex partepetition, appears to be an application by seven of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, at Louisiana, Missouri, made to the Louisiana Court of Common Pleas, to have two pretended vacancies in that Board of Trustees filled by appointment of that Court. These sevenex partepetitioners on the face of the petition are Edwin Draper, John S. Markley, John W. Allen, Samuel O. Minor, John Shurmur, Joseph Charleville and Ivy Zumwalt.

But in fact this is not the application of three of the pretended petitioners, to-wit, Samuel O. Minor, Ivy Zumwalt and John W. Allen; on the contrary, these three gentlemen are indignant at the proceedings. As evidence of this I will here state that they became, and are, parties to the motion to set aside the order of the Court below appointing Strother and Hunter to fill the pretended vacancies. By their affidavit, appended to said motion, they and each of them solemnly swear thatsaidex partepetition was gotten up, and their names used therein as petitioners, without their knowledge or consent and against their will; and that the same was filed and the unjust and illegal action of the Court below had thereon without their knowledge or consent.

These gentlemen must not, therefore, be considered as acting in concert with Draper, Markley and others, but must, in justice to them and to their action in the premises, and to their said affidavits, be regarded as honest and candid objectors to the petition and to the action of the Court thereon.

These three gentlemen stood before the court below on the hearing of the motion to set aside its illegal order and made known these facts and verified them by their affidavits, and asked the court to revoke and set aside its order. And they, with Minor and Gunn, now stand before this court in the person of their counsel and ask that said order may be set aside. And in this they simply ask that that justice may be done to them which was strangely and wrongfully denied by the court below.

Here we have the strange spectacle of three men, on whose petition this order seems to have been made, coming in and disclaiming the whole thing and asking this court to set it aside.

As a legal proposition I maintain: First, that in this country the widest latitude is given by law to religious sentiment; and second, that the temporal courts have no jurisdiction over churches or church judicatories or church members, as such, except simply to protect them, to protect the civil rights of others, and to preserve the public peace.

In the case of the Baptist Church in Hartford vs.Witherell, in the Court of Chancery in the State of New York, Chancellor Walworth, in delivering the opinion of the court, says:

“Over the Church, as such, the legal or temporal tribunals of this country do not profess to have any jurisdiction whatever, except so far as is necessary to protect the civil rights of others and to preserve the public peace.” (See 3 Paige Reports, 301.)

So in the case of Lawyer vs. Cepperly, the same court decides substantially the same thing. (7 Paige Chancery Reports, 281; see also Angel & Ames on Corporations, sec. 58, page 28, note 1, page 29; Stebbins vs. Jennings, 10 Pickering Rep., 172; Gable vs. Miller, 10 Paige Rep., 627.)

I am fully aware that courts of chancery have ample jurisdiction to determine questions touching the legal title to church property, real or personal; and that in order to protect a Church in the enjoyment of its corporate property that court might appoint trustees.

But even this is to be understood with some limitation. Suppose, for example, that a church has full and ample power by its own church laws, church courts and judicatories to protect itself or to put itself in a condition where it will not need the action of the temporal court,ought the temporal court to interfere?Most clearly not.

And more particularly the temporal court ought not to interfere in this case, for the following six plain and sufficient reasons:First, because there is no contest in this case about property;second, because no title is involved;third, because no possession is asked for;fourth, because no obedience to rightful authority or authority of any kind is sought to be enforced;fifth, because nowrong is sought to be prevented; andsixth, because no injury to the church is sought to be avoided.

If protection to church property required that Hunter and Strother should be put into this Board of Trustees, the Church, by means of its preacher in charge and Quarterly Conference, had full power to put them there to fill vacancies without action of the court below,provided vacancies existed. The church law on the subject of appointing a Board of Church Trustees and filling vacancies therein is found on page 254 of a book entitled “The Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South.” It is a book of universal authority in that Church, as we all know, and was largely referred to by all parties to this contest on the trial in the court below, as is fully shown by the Bill of Exceptions. At page 254 I find the following plain and simple provision:

“In the appointment of Trustees, except where the laws of the State or Territory provide differently, the preacher in charge, or in his absence the Presiding Elder, shall have the right of nomination, subject to the confirmation or rejection of the Quarterly Conference. All vacancies in the Board of Trustees occasioned by death, separation from our Church, or otherwise, shall be filled without delay.”

This, then, is full and clear, and confers ample authority upon the preacher in charge and Quarterly Conference to appoint trustees for the Church and to fill vacancies without the aid or interference of the temporal courts. It is the identical same provision of the “discipline” under and by virtue of which Draper, Markley and all the other trustees of that church were themselves appointed. They were appointed under and by forceof this provision long before the date of the deed of McQuie and wife to them in trust for the Church. McQuie and wife did not appoint them. They—McQuie and wife—had agreed to convey to the Church at Louisiana certain ground for a certain money consideration paid to them by the Church, and were directed by the Church to convey, and did convey, to its board of trustees then existing. As the ground was purchased from McQuie and wife, and full value received for the same, therefore McQuie and wife had no right to appoint the trustees, as they would have had if they had donated and given the lots. The Church having purchased and paid for this ground, had the sole right to say to whom it should be conveyed. If the Church had the exclusive right then to say who should hold its property in trust for it, surely it has that right now. But the Court below has destroyed that right by placing in the Board of Trustees two men—Hunter and Strother—whom the Church did not select in its appointed way, or in any other way, and by vesting in them the legal title to its property without its consent, and perhaps against its will. Against Messrs. Hunter and Strother I have nothing to say; but there is not the slightest evidence on the record, or anywhere else, to show that the Church at Louisiana is pleased with them or desired their services in the Board.

But the Church, through its preacher in charge and Quarterly Conference, as we have seen, not only had power to appoint trustees and to fill vacancies in the Board when vacancies existed, but I now proceed to show that it actually did fill said vacancies—the identical same vacancies stated in thisex partepetition tohave existed at the time of the filing thereof—by appointing said William A. Gunn to fill the vacancy created by the death of said Watson, and by appointing said Samuel S. Allen to fill the vacancy created by said Stokes ceasing to be a member of the Church and leaving the State. To prove this fact I beg to be permitted to read to this Court so much of the minutes of said Quarterly Conference as may be necessary, and which was copied into the bill of exceptions from the minutes themselves, and proves the fact beyond all doubt, and is as follows:

“On motion of Brother Newland, preacher in charge of this (Louisiana) Station, Brother W. A. Gunn was nominated and confirmed as trustee in place of Bro. David Watson, deceased.”

Immediately following the above evidence in the bill of exceptions I will read further evidence in these words:

“The proceedings of said Quarterly Conference, of which the above is part, was had on the 21st day of January, A. D., 1861, and are signed by B. H. Spencer, presiding elder, and attested by William A. Gunn, secretary.”

Surely the minutes of the Quarterly Conference is the best evidence of what it did. The minutes thus authenticated by Spencer and Gunn are as conclusive in fact as they are valid in law, and do show that the Watson vacancy was duly filled by said preacher and Conference just one year, five months and fifteen days before the filing of theex partepetition herein. With this evidence before him can any man believe, or can any court decide, that the Watson vacancy existed in the Board ofTrustees when the petition of Draper & Co. was filed? Surely not. Then what right had the Court below to fill a pretended vacancy that in fact and law did not exist?Certainly none at all.

I now proceed to show that the Stokes vacancy was also a mere pretense, and did not exist in the Board when this petition was filed, having been filled by the preacher in charge and Quarterly Conference in like manner long before this petition was filed by Draper and others in the court below. The evidence to prove this fact is equally clear and conclusive. I will read to the court from the Bill of Exceptions, in these words:

“The petitioners also offered and read in evidence another portion of said minutes, proving that on the 23d day of April, A. D. 1862, and at said Conference, the Rev. G. W. Miller, then preacher in charge of said Louisiana Station, nominated Bro. Samuel S. Allen as trustee, to fill the vacancy created by the withdrawal from the church of Thomas T. Stokes; and proving, also, that said nomination was confirmed by said Quarterly Conference on the same day.”

Thus the court will readily see that the Stokes vacancy was duly filled on the 23d day of April, A. D. 1862, just two months and twelve days before this petition was filed. To say, therefore, that the Stokes vacancy existed in this Board at the time of the filing of thisex partepetition is to make sport of language, and is, in my humble opinion, wholly untrue. To say that the Watson and Stokes vacancies existed in this Board when this petition was filed is to deny that Gunn and Samuel S. Allen were members of it. And to deny that Gunn and said Allen were members at that time, is todeny that the petitioners themselves were members of it; for they were all, as we have already seen, appointed by the same power and in the same way—that is by the Church, through its preacher and Conference. In short, to deny that Gunn and said Allen were members of said Board when this petition was filed is to deny that the Church had any trustees whatever.

The Board, in fact, when this petition was filed, consisted of nine members, namely, Draper, Markley, the two Allens—John W. and Samuel S.—Minor, Shurmur, Charleville, Zumwalt and Gunn, nine in number, and it could not lawfully contain any greater number. (See Discipline, page 254.) There is, therefore, no room in the Board for Strother and Hunter. Samuel S. Allen and William A. Gunn must first be ejected from it, and this can not belawfullydone without first giving them reasonable notice and a chance to be heard in the court below. In this case there was no notice until after the court below had acted; and of course no defense was made. The action of the court below, taken without notice to these parties, is void; and this court ought, for that reason (if for no other), to reverse and set it aside. Draper, Markley, Shurmur and Charleville well knew when they filed this petition that Gunn and Samuel S. Allen had been appointed by the preacher and Conference to fill the only vacancies mentioned in the petition. These gentlemen—Draper & Co.—were both attending and attentive members of the Board. They took a lively interest in whatever affected the welfare of the Church. They had acted in the Board with Gunn and Samuel S. Allen, and knew when they filed this petition that said Gunn and Allen had been appointed to fill saidvacancies and claimed to be members of the Board. But why they desired to ignore their authority and purposely avoided disclosing the fact to the court below in their petition, we are left to conjecture.

A few more words and I close. The very aims and objects of the Churches in this country constitute a powerful reason why the courts should refuse to interfere with their affairs. No man can reflect upon these aims and objects for one moment without rejoicing that he lives in a land of Bibles and Churches. These Churches, including the one in question, aim at nothing less than the promulgation of the doctrines of the Gospel among all men; the due administration of scriptural ordinances; the promotion of works of piety and benevolence; the revival and spread of scriptural holiness, and, in short, the conversion of the whole world to the faith and practice of Christianity.

An organization of men and women for these high and holy purposes ought to be permitted to choose its own officers and to manage its own affairs in its own way. Whenever the courts of the country have interfered to settle Church difficulties, they have in almost every instance created new and more serious difficulty in the Church. In this very case the action of the court below has already produced discord and alienation in the Church, which perhaps will never be cured. It has in that way, beyond all question, done the Church ten times more harm than good.

When there were vacancies in the Board the Church filled them, as we have seen, by its own laws and in its own way, and there were no complaints, no law-suits, no alienations, no withdrawals from the Church. Butwhen this petition was filed in the court below, and acted upon by that court without notice to anybody, and the names of trustees used without their consent, a large portion of the Church was uncharitable enough to suppose that advantage was sought and wrong intended. Besides, this court having large experience in the affairs of men will readily see that action by our courts in church cases gives great encouragement to discontented and litigious persons to annoy the Church with fruitless legal proceedings, and thus retard its progress in its great work of mercy and benevolence. Better, far better, is it for all parties, and for the cause of Christianity itself, to leave these difficulties to be settled in the Church where they originate.

Thanking this Court for the patient hearing which it has given me in this case, and hoping your Honors will give to the case that consideration which its importance requires, I now take my leave of it.

Back to Index Next