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.
CHURCH IN LEXINGTON.
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
the recovery 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.
SALEM CHURCH.
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.”
CHURCH IN LAGRANGE.
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 North sent 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 of _their_ house.
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 a _ruse 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. C. STEWART, Sect’ry pro tem. and Preacher in charge.”
They had either been waiting a suitable opportunity or 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 the _Central Advocate_ of 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 the _Central 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’clock P. 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 for Missouri. 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 Conference of 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.”
Comment is unnecessary.
CHURCH IN LOUISIANA.
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 original Board 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. An
_ex parte_ petition 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 set aside: 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 until January 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
trustees in 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, would order 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 shown _aliunde_
that 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 instant is 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.”
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 required
extensive 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.
SUPPLEMENT.
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 parte_ petitioners 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 the _ex
parte_ petitioners 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 the _ex parte_ petition, 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 seven _ex parte_ petitioners 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 that said _ex
parte_ petition 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 no wrong is
sought to be prevented; and _sixth_, 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 force of 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 this _ex parte_ petition to have 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 the _ex parte_
petition herein. With this evidence before him can any man believe, or
can any court decide, that the Watson vacancy existed in the Board of
Trustees 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 this _ex
parte_ petition 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 to deny 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 be _lawfully_ done 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
said vacancies 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. But when 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.