CHAPTER XIII.CHURCH SEIZURES—CONTINUED.

Church in Boonville—One of the Oldest Religious Centers—Rev. J. N. Pierce and his Exploits—“An Honest Looker On” in the St. LouisChristian Advocate—Circuit Court vs. County Court and J. N. Pierce—Supreme Court—Howard et al. vs. Pierce—Report and Opinion—Circuit Court Sustained—John N. Pierce et al. Exhibited in no Enviable Light—Legal History of the Case—Decision—Points to be Noted—Moral Travestie—Judgment of Posterity—Church in Springfield—How Obtained—How Long Used—How Released—Particulars Reported by a Committee of the St. Louis Conference—Church in Potosi—Statement of W. S. Woodard—Plattsburg, Fillmore, Macon, Glasgow and other Churches—Strange Assertion—Statistical Value of Churches Seized over $100,000—How Restored—Property Rights Secured to the M. E. Church, South—Great Moral Courage or “Hard Cheek”—“Making History”—Martyrdom of Principle.

The church in Boonville is one of the oldest and most honored houses of worship in the State. Far back in the history of Methodism in Missouri the Church in Boonville became quite a center of religious influence and power in the rich and fast-filling counties south of the Missouri river and near the geographical center of the State. It was for many years a strong base of operations for the hardy moral pioneers who first penetrated that part of the State, planted the first standard of Christianity and laid broad and deep the foundations of Methodism in the wilderness made famous by the exploits of the illustrious hunter and pioneer, Daniel Boone.

Bishops and other distinguished men of the Churchhave stood in its pulpit and preached life and salvation to the multitudes. Conferences have been held, and ministers ordained, and sacraments administered in its sacred walls, and for long years it had been a solid, substantial station, supporting some of the finest talent in the pulpit. No one ever thought of disturbing the rights of property. Before the division in 1844 it belonged to the M. E. Church. After that event, to the M. E. Church, South; and for over twenty years the latter had been in undisturbed possession. If the M. E. Church, North, had an organization in Boonville at all before the war, it was very feeble, and never set up any show of claim to the old church until after the war had come and gone.

In February, 1866, a Rev. J. N. Pierce, of the M. E. Church, North, obtained an order from the County Court of Cooper county putting him in possession of the church in Boonville. The first notice or information the Trustees of the M. E. Church, South, had of the proceedings was a demand upon them for the key of the church by said Pierce, by the authority of the order of the County Court. The trustees promptly refused to give up the key, and denied the jurisdiction of the County Court over such matters. But Mr. Pierce was not to be defeated in that way. He soon obtained skillful and corrupt help, went to the church, forced an entrance, removed the lock, put on a new one and took formal possession in the name of his Church.

The following account of the affair was furnished at the time for the St. LouisChristian Advocateby one who subscribed himself “An Honest Looker on,” and who was fully endorsed by the editor:

“Mr. Editor: It affords the people of this communitypleasure to hear from other quarters: perhaps others would be equally interested to hear from us. I write more especially for the Church which I believe your paper represents.

“The pastor of the Southern Methodist Church, appointed by the last session of the Annual Conference, took charge of his congregation a few weeks ago. He had not been here more than two or three weeks before he and his congregation were turned out of doors by the Methodist Episcopal preacher in this city. First, under pretense of an order from the County Court, he demanded the key, with all the authority usually exhibited by his class on such occasions. Failing in this, he secured the co-operation of a few kindred spirits, and having secured the services of one skilled in such matters, proceeded to the church about the going down of the sun, effected an entrance, removed the locks, replaced them with new ones, and took possession in the name of the Lord. It was not the last of the old year, but it is said they kept watch-night, it being, as they supposed, the last of the old church. Whether their devotions kept pace with their watchfulness we are not informed. We are told that they affected an exercise of the sort, at least for a time. Meanwhile, in strict conformity to the Scriptures, they watched, also having their sentries, armed it is supposed, stationed at the door; and, not knowing at what hour the thief would come, they watched, it is said, until the morning. If they expected any interference from the owners and former occupants, they have yet to learn that it will not do in every case to judge others by themselves. No Judas came to betray the Master, with his disciples, into the hands of thechief rulers, for it is said that some of the latter joined that night the worshipers and watchers. For the first time in many years their hearts inclined them to go to the house of prayer.

“The eyes of the community have since regarded some of these with peculiar solicitude, looking for further indications of a continued and growing concern; but the proverb is verified: ‘The dog is returned to his vomit again, and the sow that was washed to her wallowing.’ Alas for Ephraim! his goodness was transient as the morning cloud and early dew.

“The day of their calamity did not overtake the poor Southern Methodists unprepared. They were found with their lamps trimmed and oil in their vessels. There was a good supply of fuel, also, properly prepared; carpets, Sunday school library, etc. The house itself they found swept and garnished. The ladies, only a day or two before, had given it a thorough cleansing. Poor souls! their labor was not in vain in the Lord. * * * *

“Southern Methodism in this city, though cast down, has not been destroyed. Sister churches felt and manifested sympathy. The Presbyterians kindly offered the use of their church on the following Sabbath, and a gentleman, who makes no pretensions to religion, generously tendered the use of a hall, which at present they occupy. The varied character of the seats—chairs, boxes, rough planks, old sofas, etc., might excite a smile, but, under the circumstances, they are regarded as very comfortable. The attendance on the services of the sanctuary has doubled since this wholesale excommunication. The same is true of the Sabbath School; and on every hand there are manifestations of increasinginterest. The Church is said to manifest a very good state of feeling, exhibiting very little of that bitterness and malice which such injuries are apt to engender. They forgive and commit their cause to the Lord, exhibiting much of that ‘charity that suffereth long and is kind.’

“A writ prohibiting the interference of the Methodist Episcopal Church with the property and rights of the Southern Methodists was granted by proper authority and sustained by the Circuit Court last week. The former occupants patiently wait for the officers of the law to execute their trusts. When this shall be done you may expect to hear from us again.

“An Honest Looker On.

“Boonville, March 10, 1866.”

The Circuit Court granted a writ of prohibition, and the defendant, J. N. Pierce, appealed to the Supreme Court, and made a motion by his attorney that all proceedings be stayed till the decision of the Supreme Court could be had, which would leave him in possession of the Church until the slow ploddings of law could be made. The court would not grant his motion, but ordered a writ of restitution to issueinstanter, to which defendant excepted.

The legal history of the case can better be seen in the “Missouri reports,” vol. 38, p. 296, a part of which may well be transferred to these pages.

“This case was commenced in the Cooper Circuit Court by filing a petition praying for a writ of prohibition to issue against the County Court and John N. Pierce, stating that the plaintiffs were trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, situate in the cityof Boonville, on the south half of lot 238 on the plat of said city, and that they, as such trustees, were in the actual and rightful possession of said Church property, and that they and the persons under whom they claim have had the actual and adverse possession of said church for more than twenty years, claiming the same as the property of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South; and that the defendant, John N. Pierce, applied by petition to the County Court of Cooper county at the February term, 1866, and in said petition asked the said court to put him, the said Pierce, in possession of said church; and further stating in said petition that said County Court, or a majority of the members of said court, assumed to act on said petition, and did in fact entertain said petition, and made an order and caused the same to be entered upon its records, declaring in said order who are the owners and entitled to the possession of said church. The petition further stated that said court, in assuming to act on said petition, exceeded its powers; that said court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter in said petition, and praying a writ of prohibition to the said County Court and John N. Pierce to prohibit them from proceeding to enforce said order, &c.

“Upon this petition a writ of prohibition issued, returnable to the Circuit Court on the 19th day of February, 1866, and upon the return thereof the defendants moved to quash the writ of prohibition, which motion was overruled, and judgment was entered by the court making the writ of prohibition absolute, and ordering a return of said Church property to the plaintiffs. The court adjourned till the fourth Monday of May, 1866.Upon the fourth Monday of May, at a session of the Circuit Court, the defendants, by their attorney, filed and argued a motion to vacate and set aside the judgment. The motion was overruled, to which defendant excepted.

“The defendant, John N. Pierce, at the session of said court made and filed an affidavit and recognizance for an appeal to the Supreme Court, which was approved by said Circuit Court and an appeal allowed. The defendant, Pierce, then made a motion that all proceedings be stayed till the decision of the Supreme Court be had, which was refused by the court, and a writ of restitution was thereupon ordered to issueinstanter, to which the defendant excepted.”

A portion of the opinion of the court throws additional light on the subject, and will be sufficient to place all the material facts in the case before the reader. For the questions of law involving the powers and jurisdiction of the courts respectively the reader is referred to the case as reported in “Missouri Reports,” vol. 38, pp. 296–302.—Howardet al.vs. Pierce.

“Holmes, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court. This was a writ of prohibition against the defendant, Pierce, and the Justices of the County Court of Cooper county, upon a suggestion, supported by affidavit, but without an exemplification of the record of the proceedings being filed therewith. The suggestion, or petition, contains but a very vague and imperfect statement of the facts, but we are enabled to gather from it that the defendant, Pierce, had filed a petition in the County Court praying to have the plaintiffs ejected from thepossession of a lot of ground and a church building situated thereon, in the city of Boonville.

“The plaintiffs do not appear to have been made parties to the proceeding, whatever it may have been, and had no notice thereof; but it appears that the County Court proceeded to entertain jurisdiction of the matter, and made certain orders, the effect of which would be to put the petitioner in possession of the premises in question, ejecting the plaintiffs. This was certainly a very summary process of ejectment. We can only say that it is clear for one thing—that the County Court had not jurisdiction to entertain such proceeding.

“It was said in the argument that the title to the property was vested in the county, and that the defendant’s application was only to have the liberty of taking possession of the church; but nothing of all this appears on this record. So far as we can see by the record before us, the prohibition was properly granted.

“It further appears that, in the judgment which was entered, an additional order was made, upon facts made to appear to the court, directing the clerk to issue a writ of restitution to restore to the plaintiffs the possession of the premises which (we may infer) had been taken from them by virtue of the orders which had been made by the County Court in disobedience to the prohibition. We find no warrant in any authority for such a proceeding. The proper remedy for a contempt would seem to be an attachment, to be enforced by fine and imprisonment. The sheriff’s execution shows that he had made restitution by putting the plaintiffs in possession of the church from which they had been thus unlawfullyejected. The defendant, Pierce, moved to set aside the judgment, for the reason, among others, that this order of restitution was irregular, and his motion was overruled. The Justices of the County Court appear to have acquiesced in the action of the court below, and refused to join with the defendant, Pierce, in this appeal. * *

“We see no better way than to affirm the judgment, and it is accordingly affirmed.

“Judge Wagner concurs; Judge Lovelace absent.”

The following points should be noted in making up the public verdict upon the action of Mr. Pierce and the Church which he represents.

1. Mr. Pierce obtained from the County Court an order putting him in possession of the church upon a false plea—that the property belonged to the county—without notifying the trustees or any other parties, and without making them parties to the proceeding.

2. Mr. Pierce acted as his own sheriff, and executed the unlawful order of the court in an unlawful manner, by forcing an entrance to the church, removing the lock, substituting another, and, with a self-organized posse, guarded the church all night with arms in his hands and the order of the County Court in his pocket.

3. He tried to quash the writ of prohibition issued by the Circuit Court, failing in which he tried to stay its execution by his appeal to the Supreme Court until that decision could be had—to keep possession of the property and use it in the interest of his Church.

4. The M. E. Church, North, of which Mr. Pierce was a minister in good standing, indorsed the proceedings as a part of her policy—announced by herConference—to get possession of the property of the M. E. Church, South.

5. The unlawful means used in this case was fully sanctioned, if not instigated, by the Rev. Mr. Haggerty, presiding elder of the district, who was present and aided in nearly all the proceedings in the church and in the courts.

6. The act has never been disavowed, disowned, disclaimed or condemned by any Bishop, Quarterly, Annual or General Conference of that Church; nor was Mr. Pierce’s character ever arrested in an Annual Conference for his conduct in this Boonville church affair.

The same may be affirmed of each and every instance of church seizure and appropriation in Missouri.

If they can escape the judgment of Conferences and Courts while party blood is still bounding and burning, they may not escape the just verdict of posterity after the passions have cooled down, and when the names and character of men will be judged by the history they have made and the shadows they have thrown forward upon the world.

Just before the war the members and friends of the M. E. Church, South, erected in the town of Springfield, Green county, Mo., one of the largest and most elegant churches in Missouri outside of St. Louis. It was the religious centre and pride of the southwest. That part of the State was fearfully desolated by the war, and Springfield was an important base of army operations. It was a depot of supplies, and a rallying centre for all the large armies, the scouting parties and maraudingbands that operated against the rebels of the South and the citizens of that portion of the State. While the torch was applied to nearly every church in the whole of southwest Missouri it is a little singular that this one should be spared. But so it was.

At what time it passed into the actual possession and use of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and precisely how long it remained in their possession, the subjoined report made to the St. Louis Conference sets forth. Many things are assumed to be of such general knowledge that no particular and definite information is necessary. The authentic information upon the subject is a follows:

1. A copy of a deed of conveyance of a lot or parcel of ground in the city of Springfield, made by Daniel Polk and E. A. Polk, his wife, to Daniel D. Berry, Jas. R. Danforth, Robt. J. McElhany, Warren H. Graves and John S. Waddill, trustees of the M. E. Church, South, for the use and benefit of said Church, to erect thereon a house of worship, &c. Consideration, $350. Dated October 11, 1856.

2. A statement of the debt incurred in the erection of said house of worship, amounting in the aggregate to $4,695.

3. A copy of deed of conveyance of October 22, 1866, made by “Robt. J. McElheny, Warren H. Graves and John S. Waddill, as trustees of the county of Green and State of Missouri,” to Richard Gott, John Demitt, J. D. Perkins, James Baker and E. S. Gott, trustees, in trust for the use and benefit of the Methodist Episcopal Church, &c. Consideration, $4,700. One thousand ofwhich was paid to them in cash, and the balance to go to the creditors of the M. E. Church, South.

Suit was brought by the Church, South, to recover the property upon the ground that the remaining members of the original Board of Trustees had no legal right to sell and convey the property for their own benefit.

The case, like nearly all others, was compromised, and both the church and parsonage were given up and turned over to the trustees of the M. E. Church, South.

The history of the case, as gathered and reported by the committee appointed by the St. Louis Annual Conference, M. E. Church, South, will be found sufficiently full in the following statement of facts and report made by the committee to the Conference in 1868. The reader will appreciate the irony scattered here and there through the report if he can not excuse it. The material facts will be found without the publication of the correspondence to which the report refers. It should not be overlooked that the Northern Methodists took possession of the church at the same time they seized the parsonage, viz., in 1863.

“To the Bishop and Members of the St. Louis Conference:

“The committee to whom was referred the subject of your church property at Springfield, Mo., instructed to ‘take such measures as they may deem proper to recover the property,’ beg leave to submit the following

“One member of your committee, R. P. Faulkner, residing at Arlington, Mo., and two members in St. Louis, and the property in question and parties holding it being at Springfield, Mo., we have had to labor atconsiderable disadvantage and loss of time owing to these distances.

“Yet we have endeavored to give the matter all the attention so important a trust deserved; and for the sake of common justice and our sacred Christianity we regret to state that our house of worship at Springfield is not yet in our possession.

“But we are happy to state that we have reason to believe we shall soon regain that which is justly our own.

“A part of your action on this subject at your last session was ‘that the Presiding Elder of the Springfield District should see that the Board of Trustees of our property at Springfield be immediately filled according to Discipline.’

“We take pleasure in stating that your instructions in this matter have been complied with by Rev. G. M. Winton, P. E., and the following named gentlemen appointed trustees: Lawson Fulbright, Elisha Headlee, Thomas W. Cunningham, Adam C. Mitchell and William Montgomery.

“Parsonage Property.—In the examination of this question we found that the house was taken possession of about the middle of the year 1863 by the authorities of the M. E. Church, under an idea that it would be destroyed as an enemy of the National Government if not protected by them; and subsequently held and used by them under the discovery that it was deeded to the M. E. Church—a Church without representative or existence in that part of Missouri at the date of said deed.

“The facts in regard to the title to this property are best explained by reference to a letter herewith submitted,marked A, from Rev. B. R. Johnson, formerly a member of your Conference, now of California.

“Thus it appears that the title of the M. E. Church to this property is from a clerical mistake and a strong desire to protect our interests from destruction.

“We would further state on this point that our examinations satisfy us that the rental for the use of this property should be at least $25 per month for the whole time—four and one half years—it has been saved from destruction by our friends (?). As will be seen in a subsequent part of this report, a claim, equal to the sum of the rental, is made by those who have possessed and protected this property for ‘needed repairs.’ We will recur to this subject again in its place.

“House of Worship.—We regret exceedingly to have to report a sad disappointment to our friends, the occupants, who were deprived of the use of this house, after great preparations had been made for a fair, festival and feast of fat things, by a thunder storm, whose lightning struck the church and well nigh settled the controversy in regard to it.

“As soon as practicable your committee convened at the St. Nicholas Hotel, St. Louis, and among other things determined that it was necessary for one or more of the committee to visit Springfield.

“Shortly thereafter R. P. Faulkner went to Springfield, and on an inquiry into the matter, elicited from the authorities of the M. E. Church a proposition for settlement, which will be presented presently.

“Just previous to this Wm. C. Jamison, a member of your committee, received the following letter from Judge Baker, of Springfield (marked B).

“We here present the propositions referred to above (marked C), with a letter from R. P. Faulkner to the committee (marked ‘one’).

“On receiving this communication your committee convened at Arlington (Wm. C. Jamison absent, being at that time in Wisconsin), and on due consideration of the propositions, made to them the following answer herewith submitted (marked D).

“This, our answer to the committee on the part of the M. E. Church, we enclosed to the Hon. Jno. S. Phelps, of Springfield, with the following letter of instructions (marked E).

“Immediately after closing its session at Arlington your committee received the following letter from Rev. J. J. Bently, P. E. of Springfield District M. E. Church, North, relating to the parsonage (marked F).

“This communication was immediately sent to Hon. Jno. S. Phelps, our counsel.

“Thus we have given you all that we have been able to do in this matter, simply adding our opinion that we will ultimately recover our property.

“The condition of the church at Springfield, as will be seen by reference to the letter of R. P. Faulkner, who examined it, requires immediate attention.

“The damage done to the house on the occasion of thedefeat of the religious fairis thus reported on by R. P. Faulkner:

“Though seriously damaged, yet it can be repaired for much less than I had any idea of until I visited it. I had a builder go and examine and make a rough estimate of the cost to repair the damage, including everything but seats, pulpit, &c., who reported to me that,if a thousand dollars would not do it, twelve hundred would.’

“From a careful survey of all the interests of our Church in Springfield, we recommend to the Conference that measures be immediately taken to secure for that station a man of experience, who shall take the charge of the society and the oversight of the repairs of the church. And to this end we submit the following resolutions:

“1.Resolved, That the Bishop be requested to station one of the most efficient pulpit and business men at Springfield.

“2. That the Missionary Society be requested to make as liberal appropriations as they are able for the support of the preacher stationed at Springfield.

“3. That with the approval of our counsel at Springfield and the recommendation of the Board of Trustees, the preacher in charge be authorized and requested to visit such places as he may see proper to raise means to pay debts and repairs on the Church.

“4. That the whole matter pertaining to the church and parsonage at Springfield be referred to the Presiding Elder of Springfield District, the Preacher in Charge of the Station and the trustees of the church.

“Respectfully submitted,“W. M. Prottsman,“W. C. Jamison.”

“Respectfully submitted,

“W. M. Prottsman,

“W. C. Jamison.”

The worthy Presiding Elder of the Potosi District, St. Louis Conference M. E. Church, South, makes the following statement of the attempt to seize and hold thechurch in Potosi. It furnishes at least an illustration of the fertility of resources possessed by these church seizers, to use a soft term, and the facility with which they could take advantage of circumstances.

“Mississippi County, Feb. 6, 1867.

“Bro. M‘Anally: I send you, for the benefit of your correspondent—a member of the Missouri Conference—some statements of an attempt of ‘our brethren, the enemy,’ to take, hold and possess our church in Potosi.

“Some time during the year 1865 a Mr. or Major Miller came to Potosi and reported himself a minister of the ‘Old Wesleyan Methodist Church;’ that he was neither North nor South, but belonged to the good old Mother Church.

“As our people had no pastor, they permitted him to preach in our church, and attended his ministry. He made an earnest effort to proselyte our members, but failed. Rumor said he intended to take possession of our church, but he denied it.

“Early in 1866 Mr. Sorin, his Presiding Elder, announced publicly from the pulpit on the Sabbath that the house belonged to them, and henceforth they intended to hold and possess the same.

“That week Bro. Wallace, one of the trustees of the church, who had been a member for two score years, locked the door, took possession of the key and notified Mr. Miller that he could not preach there any more.

“Mr. Miller then notified Bro. Wallace that he would bring suit for the church. Bro. Wallace assured him that when the law gave him the house he would give him the key.

“In the meantime the Radicals of the town rented ahall for Mr. Miller, in which they put an organ to help him make music.

“I held a quarterly meeting in Potosi in January, 1867, and while there I learned that the Rev. Major had sold his friends’ organ, pocketed the money and gone on a long journey toward the north pole. So Madam Rumor reports.

“Our people are in quiet possession of our church house, have an excellent Sabbath school, an organ to help the children sing, a very gratifying increase in the membership of the Church, and no fears of being disturbed by Messrs. Sorin, Miller and company, unless they do as their confederates did on Castor—burn the church.

“Several of our church houses at other points have been quietly occupied by them, but I believe they have run their race and are not likely to trouble us much more.

W. S. Woodard.”

This case, as it exists in the above statement, ought to be sufficient for all the purposes of history.

In Plattsburg, Clinton county, they purchased an old debt and in that way obtained a kind of title to half the church. They also purchased an old debt and got a title to the Plattsburg High School property, and retain it to this day.

The property of the Southern Methodists in nearly every part of the State suffered one way or another, and many houses of worship were seized and used by the Northern Methodists that were not reported in the public prints, adjudicated in the civil courts or published in their Conference statistics.

Amongst the latter may be mentioned the churchesat Plattsburg, Macon City, Fillmore, and a church at Glasgow, built and owned by the Southern Methodists for the use of the colored people. They purchased the other half of the Plattsburg church, gave up the Fillmore church after using it about five years, and never gave up the churches at Macon City and Glasgow.

In the presence of these facts the statement so often made from the pulpit and through the press, that the ministers and members of the M. E. Church never at any time engaged in seizing and appropriating to their use the property of the M. E. Church, South, sounds very strangely in the ears of candid, honest people. They evidently did not foresee the necessity for such a denial, and consequently were not very careful to cover up their tracks. They so far gloried in the history they were making as to report the property they had seized and appropriated in their Church statistics, which they published to the world.

The following list of property is taken from the published Statistics of the Missouri and Arkansas Conference M. E. Church for 1865–6, and whichdisappearedas fast as the suits were decided or the cases compromised:

To this may be added the churches seized and held by them for a short time only, and given up before they could be reported to the Conference, the property obtained for “less than half its value,” by buying up old debts and forcing sales, where that course was necessary, and the furniture and fixtures destroyed and damaged in the use and abuse of the property held by them for so long, and which was assessed upon the lawful owners in the claims of restored decency and comfort, and the grand total would reach over $100,000, to say nothing of rentals, costs of suits, the damage of deprivation, etc.

In the face of all these facts, it must require no ordinary degree of moral courage for men in high position to affirm that the ministers and members of the M. E. Church never stole, seized, pressed, appropriated or possessed themselves of property that did not belong to them. Only the moral abrasion of civil war could produce the requisite “hard cheek.”

The civil war has passed away. Missouri is no longer ruled by shoulder straps and bayonets—the civil law is supreme—and even by judges who “neither fear God nor regard man,” except of their own party, the M. E. Church, South, has been reinstated and secured in her property rights.

Those who figured conspicuously in this church-seizing business often and loudly proclaimed that they were “making history.” True, they made history, and now they should not complain if they stand before the world in the light of the history they have made.

If they could afford to make the history and then boast of it, we can certainly afford to record it, especially when it is a record of the martyrdom of those sacred Christian principles for which a discriminating, righteous charity has no mantle.

Back to Index Next