Chicago Daily Tribune Newspaper, August 16, 1874, Page 5

e The Long-Expected Decision of Judge Williams, e Bill of the Complainants Is Put Out of Court, i ‘chency’s First Trial Vold Since one Presbyter Was Absent 1o the Second Trial Was Void Since It Depended on the First. gherefore Tie Is Still Technically in the Episcopal Church. hers Civil Courts Will Criticise Ec- clesiastical Omes. An Appeal to Be Teken. Juige Willisms delivered bis decision_yoster- iy sfternoon 1a the case of Allen C. Calkivs et " ¢ the Rev. C. E. Chieney et al., or, as it is wu?u; called, *‘the Cheney case.” Besides pesttorneys in the case, only a few persons were present. As it is over two vears since the bill was filed, & brief Listory of the case may not I¥ THE STMMER OF 1869 o Rov. Charles Edward Cheney was put on wial before an Ecclesiastical Court, com- peed of fivo members, on the gen- el charge of violiting the Constitution of the DProtestant Episcopat Charch, shich, among other things, established a Book of (ommon Praer, ete,, and proscribed that no Lerations or additions should bo made thereto. r, Cheney had repcatedly, in sccordance with s convictions, omitied the word * regencrate " fmmthe service at iafant baptism. This tenet ofinfant ssivation, or the saving efficacy of in- fut baptiem, was one of the doctrines of the Protestant Episcozal Church. To deny it was soulter the services as laid down by the Consti- fosion ; it wasmorsover to plawe tho party guilty, pantagonism to the Church, azd render him snemable to 1ts authority. THE COUNCIL s therefore calied to inguire into the matter. The proceediugs were, on tho second day of the tral, enjoined bv & bill flled in the Superior Court. An appeal was taken, and the decision ol the court beiow reversed, and the Ecclesias- £l Court allowed £o proceed. Subeequently, and in 1871, & SESTENCE OF SUSPENSION wurendered sgaiust Mr. Cheney, but time was givenkim to retract and confess: This ho re- fuedto do, aud a second Lcclesiastical Court washeld, which, on the 4th of May, 1572, gave & SENTENCE OF DEGREDATION from the minietry for bis contem,it of the sen- teace of the first” court.® Previously, however, it should be etated, aud during the time the first court was epjoined, ong of the members of that ok, the Ry, Lenry N. Pierce,was conseerated “Bishop of Arkansas. At tho resumotion of the alio 1971, Mr. Pierce could mot appear as peber of the court. Notwitbstanding Mr. Cueney's objection to the procecdings 03 ac- wmtof Mr. Pierce's sbseuce, tue remaring cembeny went ou wilh the wial, aud iendered a serdict a8 above gtated. 03 the 2tth of Miay, 1572, the bill in the present aiewas filed in the Citcuit Court by Allen C. (s aud two other members of Christ, (Cred, agaiust Mr. Cheney and the trus:ees. to mrent the former from further using the ey or putsvnaz. Tie defendauis auswered alleging the invelid- kyof the sentence of suspeunsion, and the con- sequent invalidity of the seulavce of degradution skich was founded upon it, ovaccowss of the emunuation of the trial with only four mew- kr, wsiead of tho full number of fre. aud elso aileping various otber irregular- ies. Previously, however, a demurer had been fled to the Lill buc overiuied, and the cave was fut abirsue on the question of the legality of tae eenleiice of muspeusion. A enormous 2mount of evidenco in the shape o depositions vas taken, Promivent among the Winesses were the Hou. Murray Holman, Prof. Sermour, the late Lishiop W Litchouse, Drs. Dix, Adumg, Locke, Clase, Dean, and the Bev. Mr. ey for thie complaiuants, avd. for tho de- feudants, Bishops Vaul, \Whittte, Cummins, Drs. Guodwiv, Trng, Newzon, and Lowers, the Very Les, the Dean of Westminster, aud the Lev. 3. ¥. Mloswwan, aather of ** The Catholic Chiareh.™ mf;:nx neariy eigiiteen mouzks' prepuration the CAME ON FOR TRIAL the 10th of Febeuary luxt, and consumed in all toout thisty days in the trial and arguments, thie arenments of Ar. S. C. Judd, for the com: Painuuts, occupying seven Gaye, and {hose of Jir. Melwille W, Friler, for the defendants, fous Gasaand abalf, and the decision given yesterday I prinicd beiow. Asbort time g0, however, and when nearly all t9e .estimony Lad' beeu taken, a new phose was 5iven o (Lo case by IZE WITHLZAWAL OF ME. CHESEY Eom the Protestaut Epascopal Church, and his Ecciation with what is calied “the Keformed Iiscops] Churel.” A saort time after this {inst Churel was sold under a foreclosure of fRotrust-deeds which wero unpaid. and the title Meurchaced by oueof 3lr. Chiency’s fuends 2daduerents, and turred over to hisuse. 'To Deet tus 3 eupplomental bill was filed stating fest facts, but on objcctions being made, Judise Tiliisws refaned to ailow it to be filed on the ksal ground that it contained new matter suili- tet m itsglf 1o form u cause of action, Tuus ruling feft the cano OX TIIE OMIGINAL GROTNDS, = particularly on o dead issuce at least to the Eenl publc, msemuch as, bad the decision Seabecn the- other way, snother action would bara Lecn. necessary to reinstato the Bishop in teproperts, and declare the sale, if possible, To the Episcopal denomination, however, ud mpecially to the clergy, this decision & of ths greatest importance, as it W tend to settle the question, Shether ‘the decirion of the ecclesiasticul Owis can be inquired into and reversed by furg of- law, The complamants feel very con- Hent that sucl: is not the case, and projose to T the Supreme Court, to which au apreal was Sed restorday, while the defendants are equally Emof their positiou, and more coutented, in- €0 a4 thoy lLavo the church wti'l m their ion, end, it is said, no steps will probibly ¢ tehen until the flncl disposition of the case the Supreme Court. ¢ decikion of Judge Williams i8 as follows : Mfldm of this bill may be briezly srated, thus : ™ ml-m sht by the compiainants, communicants in ¢ Potestant By copl Churelr, and pew-boiders in $iias Chiarcb, in the Cily of Chicago, to restruin tho k‘-\_cnmm}_ Cheucy frow oflicialing as Rector, aud (Aleinmen and Wardens from Jeemitiing him to {ipaets B ctor in kaid Cirist Claured, o the ground 16434 Chevey 1ad been, §n May, 1871, in due form aner, i compliench with it Laws of the Prot- o Episcopal Chureb, put upon lis tricl G ofemes aguinst | the laws - ‘of maid and ujon said trial fornd' guilly, e Werafter sentenced sud deporod ' froam P hood minivtry in said Episcopal Church 4 that by reasou of said deposition said Cheney Lad lngut 1o tho use of sald charch =8 Rector, and ZeRmomage connected therewith, and the other de- a8 were perverting tiscir trust in’devoting tho SZueof mald church to tho support of 2 depc Sswer. Tho 3ill yrayed for s perpetnal injunction r‘h@nsmch use of the church property azd such e of the church income. r:;f;;ldmu.upon the hearinz of this cause, Wi AANT ORJECTIONS et Fig:t of this Ceurt to grant any relief under the 28 and prayer of coniplainanis’ Lill. Saveral b are as foilows : H~The civil courts in tho Unitea States do not %%'-\hlnreguln:e church affairs, and dictate the Of Caurch Trustecs. Sty d-A civil court would not doclare that the ma— Tzg] 8 acougregation had lost their rights untii snch e been declared by the proper ecclesiit= tepoonsl, and Christ Church is yet recognized 1y Eenyseopal denomination in this didcese as {n regul:x g, 1ap=The bill is broaght sgainst the principal do =T 2s oflicers of a corpoation, and Dot against ,Wflfln_fi:m itself, o complatnsnts are not shown fo oceupy ;’g:’rqau«n % Christ Church ns gives them & P2 bring this suit. £622%=Tue proper pirties havo not been made de- Thens i |28 only 5 part of {L:e objections o i bill thete nze orhcrs of a similar charscter, s All the objections above-men- tioned, and now ineisted upon, were then rased upon the trgument, It iy now sald that some of them wers premstorely raised, snd can now be mere properly copeidercd, the prodfs being sll before the Court. mfihm poluis could as well be decided then us now, TIIS covnT THEX HELD, after careful consideration, as foliows : That the com-— Plainants had, upon the face of tho bill, set forth euch, 3 councction’ with Clrist Church and it property 38, i proved to exist, would entitle them to coms. into 3 Soust of equity for relif. Jrovided tho defendants of e counduct wif i 2 charged tn The bt whick ey e at tho Lill had proper pas lainan sepd proper parties complainant and de- hat Christ Church, by resson of Fporat- €4 under tha laws of thix State, did pet- Koemmen Ty e depeudent corporation ; but tHat, if conuected with the Protestant Eplscopal Church,’ as_ averred In the Uill, it was subject toits supervinory disciplive and con- trol, aud {ts proverty was beid in trus for the mainten. ance of the faith and worslip of it founders ; and if preverted from such trust, even by & majority of iis members, 8 court of equity would interfere to pre- Touttlio diversion at e istance of ever ko emalla 1 2 Te tl i 4 ip- e he original fulta and discip: these positions ure correct they dispose of the five objcetions ubove niated, aud of all oliers of a Shnilay charscier. The ext:nded 2nd {ngenfoys nrguments of the defendants" rolicitor have fuiled fb make me seo that these positions were not well taken. They ure abundautly sustained by the decisions of the moot row spectable Courts, whieli. baving been_ouce cited by e, upon the disjosal of {he dewiurrer, T need not now IT 13 TURTIER INRISTED that the proof in this cuse bus negatived the sver ments of the Lill, and cetablisned the fact it tho Property of Ciris} Church was acquired for tho dno of that particuiar sucicty, inde; codent of. the control of :x&z ‘n:x';z‘xl:;?‘ u:;h_:éa; und ';ln:n»lun: that tha property ed with no trust e tion of Christ Church, S ey It i, indecd, yroved that thare were certmn of the cantributors to the purchire of the property of Christ Church who wers éepeciully anxious that the property #hould be vesled in Trustees, to be chosen by tlie conw gregation. A stetute was then in force, or supposed to be, making o Biskop of Tiinois x" coromain roie, and tome fceliug adverse to the vesting of church prop- erty uudder that act had grown up among some Lpisco- 1alians in Chicago. and especialiy :mong tie congre gation of Christ Church, Feeling strongly opposed to tho vesung of title fo ehurch projerty in any uno man, severul, perbips many, of the concributors to Chrin Church strenuourly ilsksted that the property should be Invested in a Board of Try lees, to he selected Ly the cougregation, and not in the Bishop us sol Trustec. : Legal advico was had as to the proper method of con- veying the propurts, and it was a: length convered to the * Trustees of Chirist Cliurch,” such teing Lo dos- iguation of the grautecs in the died then exveuted. Lhoro 14 nothing i the evidenre to indu-e thy con- viciion that any oue of the founders of Carlst Church, Dy making the conveyance in this manuer, inteuded o desired to pluce the church property bevond the sa- pervisory control of the Protestant Episcopnl Churels, in the Divcese of Iilinor, und of the Guneral Church in the Us States, On the coutrary, ALL THE ¥ACTS GO TO TROVE that the propetty was actinu.! for the nointenance of the faith, Worskip, aud disipune of that Church, The relutions which the congregation of Christ Churel, when Grst organized and song aftervard, wistamed t the Diocesau Consention and to the Bichop of the Diocese, were substentially thoso of other Episcopal churehes in Linois. The Articies and Ritual of Christ Chnrch was the same as of aif other Episcopal churches, and the mera vesiing o the property in number of trustoes chosen by the congregation matead cf the Vishop, in 10 re npect gave 1o’ tlio church 3 non-Episcopal character, 1f it dud, then it foliowa that there are no Episcopal churches in this State now, for the title of all Episco- pal church properly is in ‘Irustecs selected by the sov- eral congrogatiuas. The Itustees of Christ Church onginaliy held and Dow Loid the legal utie zu such titie is held by tho Trustees of uther Episcopal churches, in trast for the beueiit of all the adiierents of the fuith and_ diacipline of the Protestant Episcopal Caurch who might bo or remainin said Clrist Cuirch, and subjsct to the usual supervisory control to which their siiter chur e were euijectd. It cannot be denied that it was the Tight of the fouuders to have impressed upon ths property an cxpreas trust for the beuefit of themselyes and their successors, and frecd it from the domination of the Protes pal Chureh in tho Diose<e, bit there Is 1o evidencs in tho Tocord tit they or any of thom desred or at- terapied to do anything of the rort, It is sgeia urged, upon the behalf of the defend- ants, that the Eible canuot be refaincdl Lecause the evidence hias establishied tao fart tiat th-property of Chris: Church was accumulated for the uas of thoss Rolding the views of THE EVANGELICAL SCHOOL of the Protestant Bpis-op.i Canrch, in other worde, of the Low Chiarcl paity; and from eilch views this con- a has never departed, s objection might be answercd by saving that it entirely ignores the whole theory upon whish the com- piaiuants’ bid wa framed, and the Court haa held that that thears 1r ascorrect orie. ‘What thut theory i% hus been already stated, and need not be repeated. But thero is yet another answer. In the view of the civ:l courts the Protestant Episeopal Church cannot be Tegarded us & cailection of vriauz s2hoobs of religious opinion, but s a united body of worshipors. The Eriscopal churchex in lilinois, and throughout the United Statew, give their aesent o the rame Atti- cles of Belief, thoy uso the same Lituny, they sdopt the fame nitual, and have but one code of discipline, Tho ditlerence in echools is the resuit of ditference of ine terpretation of the same Church standards, WITH THFSE DIFFERENCES OF INTERPRETATION civil courts have nothiug to dn, Sach qucaidous must be settled by exch laymin und clergyman for himsell in foro couscientre, Tic civil law rezarde the Episco- pal Chrcl a8 one ecclesiustical family, having the eame fuith and the same worship., Wuatever und Low- ever wide the diversities of juterpretation, the mem. bers are bound to its stundard by their aseent form: given, and st buund to each_otlier by the law of eration. All of them, however much they disagroe, would alike Tesent this charge of not bemg Eplaco- palians, - ‘Fhess differences havo cxisted for generations, but the Chburch has neverthelos memtained it unity. That it bas ke o alle to reriain nvited is due fo this acknowleged law of tolc GURITA: The cazo of Gorbam v e casE, Tio Wihop of Exeter,—a eare cited and relied ou by defendunt’s couns:l,—was decided 10 Bugland in the year 1350, Ly the Court of last resort in sneh casee, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It then couristed of Dr. Lusbing- ton, Lotd Langdale, Lord Camptoll, Sir Jarmos Fark Sir Koight Druce, and )Ir. Pemberlon Leigh, ssisted {2 their defiberations {n thia above case by the Arch- inzhops of Canterbury and York, and by the Bishop of London, Tae Court, in the decision of the case, stated the Tuin wiich #hould govern tho interpretation of tho Arlicles, Lubrice, and Formularics of the Eplscopal Ciareh ' to_be thin (Kcclesiastical Judgments of Frivy Co uncil, rage 92) ¢ “Bat it (e Chnreh) could noj have intended to attempt the dstermination of all the questions whick had ariren or miglt arise, or to include iu ths Artiles s authoritative statement of il Christinn dostrine ; and in waking the nereskary clostion of {hoso points which it wan intended to decide, wo may be allowed to presumo that regurd was hal to ke points deemed =08t smportant fo Le made known to, and to bo ac- cepted by, the members of the Church, and to thnso questions, upon whick members of the Church could agree; that other points to other questious were loft for future discustion by competent uutkority aud in the iuie Lo the privatld judgment of piody aud cou- stious persona.” . L, 4 Aad in all cases in tlie Artivles, considired asa test, admit of dif- interpretations, it mast bo beld that any seuss which the words fiirly sdmit_may be allowed, if thzt Fense be not_contradiciory to eomething which the Church hss elsewhero allowed and requized.” I thera be auy subject on swhich the Acticles aro silent ur smbiguously expresscd, 80 a3 to by capabls of two meaningw, we must snupose that it was intended 10 leave that doctrize to private judgincat unless tie Tabrics und Formularies clearly and distinet'y deeido it. If they do, wo mast conclude that the docarine ko décided is tho doctrino of the Church, =But, on the other hand, if the cxpressions used in the Itubric and rmularies are ambiguous, it is not concluded that the Church meant to establish indireci- Iy 8 a doctrine that which it did not establieh direclly a8 such by tho Articles of Tuith,—the code avowodly mado_for the avoiding of diversities of opinion and for the establishing of consent touching true roe- ligion.” ek being tho Tule of Interprotation as to the Arti- cles, Rubrics, 3ud Formuliries of (ke Protestaut Epis- copil Churels, it was to bo expected that a wide dider— ence cf opinion should exist anwug its members s to the teachingy of the Churc) Simlar, if not as g; 3 differences exist amone the members of other churches in the interpretation of their Church stand- ards. But the Churches are not for such differences . 10 b regarded as two Churches, or mauy, but as one Chrurch, When, therefore, Christ Church was founded, it matters' not in Jaw whether its founders were Low alists, if o Lo that they wery churcamen attaclied to the doctrines, worship, and disaapline of tha Protest- aut Episcopal Churek 24 the same were set forth in it Articles, Rubrics, and Formularica. Aud thus connected with that religions denomina- tion, and attached to 145 doctrine and worship, and not having imparted to tho property an express trust, the founders impressed upou the properly of Cirist Church an implicit trust in favor of the Prolstant Episcopal Church as o unit, and not o favor of any ‘particuiar school of belief existing therein. Tho defendants assert that TUE SENTENCE OF DSPOSITION passed upen Dr. Chency is void, for the reason that b Court which first tried and found him guiity, was not properly constituted, and the finding of the sec- ond Court was baxed only upon the decision of the first Court, The facts in reference o these trials are as follown In June, 1663, & presentment was mado fo the Bishop of Lilinofs of the Rev. Charles E. Ciener, Ly thirce prescnters, which presentment was lased upon the alleged inténtional neglect of said Cheney to nse ,tho Words ‘regenerate” and *‘Tegenera- tion” o the sdministration of public bap— tism to infants, A kst of eght Ires- byters was subscquently furnished by tho Lisbop to tho Rev. Ar, Cheney, in pursnanco of Sec. 3 of Canon 20 of the Diocess of Iilinois, from whick list said Cheney was informed that he might select not less thun turee nor_more than five, who #hould be assessors Lo try the issue of fact under the presentment. In the Disliop's notico to Sr. Cheney, he was fn- formed that in caso he (Cheney) should, Within twelve days of tho service of the citaiion, neglect or refuse to make the selection, and 10 notifiy the Dinbop of the pames of the Presvyters selccted. then the Standing Commttee wouid mke tho se’ection, and_the Prosby- ters thus selected shall be the aercesors I the cace, the same as if selected by himsatf.” The defendant, Clene, faiiiug to make his eelec— ton of assoexors from the Lt furnished. the Stnding Committee of thie dioccse made the gelection of five was demurred to by & pert of tho defend. I“:h 18 the ear. 1572, sud elaborate argument had Frestiyters, 1o wit : the Rev, Samuel Chaee, D, D, the Bov, Honry N, Plerce, D. D, the Bev, Thomas N, Benw Churchmen or High Church:nea, Evangelical or Ritu- © edict, the Rev. John Burson, and the Tev, A, W. Sny- der, who met ‘and provecded with the trial. * While the tril wus prozroasing they were scrved by & Writ of in- Juuction sued out by the defeadunt, Chaney, from the Saperi - Court of Chicago, restraining them from fur- tier progress, The mjunction not having been diseolvad, a pro Jorma decrec wns rendered sgamat defendant in tho Conrt below, making tho injunction perpetua’, and the cago was carried to the Supreme Conrt whers tho de- Croa was reversed. When the Tresbytera sgain con- Yened for the triai of Mr. Cheney, aftor the reversal of tho decree Ly the Supreme Court, the Rev. Dr. Plerce Laving in tie meantime beon elocted Bishop, and therefore biug no longer competent fo sct, wan.ab- sent, and the four other asscasors procceded in the ab- #euce of gaid Fierce to try the s1id Cheney, and _found him guilty under the presentment, and recommended that be bs SUSPENDED FTOM THE MINZTRY. The Bishop of Tilinols, in pursuance of said finding, passed upon the kaid Cheney the sentence of suspen- slon ; but, notwithstanding the same, he continued to olictuto s Rector of Chnat Church, Unon the 2ith of March, 1871, another presentment of raid Cheney was made to the Bishop on the ground that having been previously suspeuded by the Hishop, behsd nevertheless contumaciously continted to offi- clate in the offica of priest in Christ Church. Under the eecond proscntment Mr. Cheney was tried by five ussessord, found guilty, and thercupon sentence of deposition was pronouuled upon him by the Birhop. All churches iu the United States aroregardud by the law 88 voluntary eocicties for religious purposes, Clergymen, an well a8 laymen, join such associtions of thuir own free will, and can withdraw from them nt plessure. But whilo they romain in_connecrion witl the reifgious bocicty, they are bound to obey all tho laws and rules of the body not in- contravention of civil Law or public policy, or. in tis event of disobedis enee, must vuffer such ezclesiastical penaltics us may be prescribed by the organization. cIvIL counts are careful never to prohiLit tho exeention of ecclesi- astical senteuces, unless such sentences ubridge per- sonal righte, or rights of property. DBut civil tribu- wsls in many fustances recognize the validity of eccle- siustical sentences, duly rendered, and give them an effect beyond that’ which could 'be glven to them by the cour:s in. which they are entered. Thue, us was formerly stated upou the docision of the demarrer to complafbants® bill, * the rule of Jaw s, that 3 rightful sentenco of deposition precludes the doposod minister from the right to occupy the pulpit, or to administer divine orditances in the church to which bo s ut- tached. And it s in the power of o court of chancery to intorpore, by its writ of injunction, and restrain such unauttiorized use of the church Property.” What whall bo regarde d as & RIGHIVUL GENTENOE OF DEPOSITION 7 If the question is one exclurively of rehigious faith and practice, 1t belongs wholly to the ccclewiustical tri- bual to defermine, aud a civil court will nut review the action of the chuzch court, Aud In some cases whiere tho quetions are not solely a8 to faith and practice, but tbe jurlsdiction of the gcclonfastical coutt depeiias upen tho polution of ibo quentions maiuly theological and oceleafastical in their character, it han been beld that the civil court will ro- fuse to examino fato the jurisdiction of the church court. Whon and in what class of cases will civil courts re- fuse to examine into the jurisdiction of coclesiatical tribunals 7 The cases most relied upon, in the argu- ment of the demurrer, aad upon the hual heating to establieh the position that the findings of the Assess— ors were conclurive upon the questinr: of jurisdiction in the two trials of tho defendint, Clieney, wero the cases of Watwon v, Woues ct al. aud Cliase ¥s. Cheney. In tho former case (13 Wallace, 732) the Court said 3 * There is, perhaps, no word o Jegal terminology £0 frequently used as the word Jurisdiction, 8o capuble of use in a generxl and vague séuse, und wiich is used 60 often by e learned iu the law, withoat 3 due re- gerd Lo prevision in it applicition, As regards its te iz the matferwe hava been discnsting, it may ery woll b conceded that If the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Cuietch sliould undertzke to try ono of its memlers for murder, and punish Lim with death or imprisunment. its seutence would be of no validity inu civil court or unywhere else. Or if it should, at the instance of one of its members, cntertain juris- diction a4 between him and anotber memler us to their individual right o property, real or personal, the Tigit i no sense depending ob ceclesiastival questione, its deciejon would Le ntteriy disregarded by any civil court where it might bo set up, And it might te ssid 13 a general sense vory justly, that It was becauso the General Aseembly had no jurisdiction of the case. “Bat it ixa very different thing whero a subject matter of dispute, stricily and purcly coelestactical in its choracter—a matter over waicn the civil courts vxercie o jur. ou—t matter Wi theological controversy, church disciplive, ecclosi- astical goverument, or the couformity of the members of the Church to the mtandard of morals Tequired of them—becomes tho subject of uction. It may bLe said here, slso, that no jurisliction has been conferred on the trbumal to try tho particuiar cavo before it, or that o 3ts judgment it exceeds the powers conferred upon it, or that the liws of tho Church do ot suthorire the putticular form of proceeding _adopicd, and, in a sense, often used inthe courty, all of tioug amay be said to be questions of jurisdiction, But i is easy to see that if the eivil courts are to juquire into all these miters, the wiols subject of the ductrinel theology, the usiges and_cnstoms, the written laws, and furdumental orgamzation of ‘every reiimious dv nomination may and feust be examined with minute- uess uud care, for they would become, in wlmost cave, the criterin Iy which the vaidity of tho ec astical decreo would b determived by the civil cour 1u Lhe caxe from which tae above quotation is made, tic Unted States Court ulludo to tue decirion of the Court of Apj eals of Kentucky iu the case of Watson v, Avery, in which the lztier Court weut iuto an elatorate ezamination of the priuciples of I ‘terian Courch goverument, and overruled tho decision of the higa- et juiicatory of that Circh, both on the jurisdistion 2nd the mer s, znd substituted its judgment for that of the ecciessiastical court, deciding tuat Ruling iders deciared to be such by that Court ure not suck, and muast not be recoguized by the congrogation. The case was decided in the Supreme Court Ly a di- wided Court, and a baro majority, one Judge Luing alecnt and two dissenting, but it certainly is not au- tlority Tor the position thit the civil courta will allow the ecelesizetical courts {0 be the sole judsies of their Jurisdiction iu every cwse, On the contrary, It ox- ressiy declares bt there are cases in which they will not regard their judg:ents upon that question 38 cone clusive, Dut it furtner decides that where the subject matter of dixpute is ecclesiastical and Qacological iu its cter, that it will perimt tha ccclevamneal cou: to determiue as 0 ts Juvisdiction of such subject mat- ter, wilbout any interierenco of the civil court. IIE CHEFEY CASE. In tho case of Chasz et ul. v. Chenes (38 Iil. 540), the Supreme Court of thia State sald * Five infrilizent men of the Church, presumed to be decpiy versed iu biblical and capouical lore, were more ou: petent, thun this Court, to deside the peculiar questions raised. Wiy shoull o review that and Dot every other derwion which involves tho inter- yretation of the canonw? Tt i coureded that, where Jurisgiction attachee, the judgincut of -the Church Court is conclusive £8 to purely ecclesiastical oficnacs, It shouid be equally conclusive upon doublful and techuival questious inulving a eriticinm of the canons even though they might comprise jurisdictiona| farts.” . Whiat were the fzcts 68 to which tho Snpreme Court used the above Languzge 7 There wore the folioving objections mado before the sor4 Lo their jurisdiction : nse ciglit Fresbyters were not | date of the return of the citation. Bocause the assossors refused to be czamined touching their qualifications (1 sit on the trial in re- spect 1o the formation or expression of thelr opinion. Bocause oue of the assesyors had formed and ex- pressed an opinion of the guilt of the acenred. Because 0o list of izl Preabyters qualtficd to sit bas Leen furnished to the accured, Becauso the commission and presentment were ille- gal aad void. Becanse thic Bishop did not have reason to believo the aceured guilty of any offenze, Bicause the presenunent contains {he statement of 10 offensc or mixconduct for wincis respondeut conld be tried under the canons. Tiso nLove are only a part of the objections of the respondent made before tho assessors, and also “raied in the Supreme Court, DUT TNESE INVOLVE TUE QUESTION whether the non-uee of the rate ™ and “ regeneration ” in the ba 2 was an offense against the cauund, us wel as other questions of o theviogical and eeclceiustical charact Ttis very casy to see how the Judzes of the Suprcme Court should deem it proper to leave such a question a8 (1o on abovo siated to bo determined by clergymen versed in ceclesiaatical and theological fore Father than personally to atlempt its selution. Aud in saying that $¥e clergymen swere moro com- petent than they to pass upon such a guestion, aud othors of a like chavacter, tho Court dovs not tsy that five clergymen, or cny num- ber, . uro mere competcnt (lan they to pass upon every question upon which the jurisdiction of an ecclesiastical tribunal may depenil. The Court sutliciently indicated the class of juris- dictional facts, which, when once passcd upon’ by a chureh court, it would'not review. “Thus rule o laid down obtadns only in refereuce to chureh courts, and 21 to them only in defined class of cases, TUE REARON OF THE LULE is, that when the jurisdictiondepeuds in large part upon theoiogical and ecclesiastical questionn with whieh clergymen, by the naturo of their studies, are presumed 10 bo very familisr, snd_of which lawyers are presuwed to kuow little, the courts wall leave the determination of these questiors to those who are the Deet informed and most capubls of judging. Civil courts, even of superior and genersl jurisdio- tion, are bable at all times $o_have such jurisdiction inquired into, Jurisdiction, in its widest tence, {a tho power and right of declariug and epforcing the law. Tu considering what is jurisdiction it is dificuit to dissociate tho cicment of power from that of right, Jurisdiction cau never oxist without power, but power moy exist without juriediction ; for the want of Jurisdiction is often becsuse of the irregular exercise of po A court may exist, and bave judiciul power, but If may exercise its powr contrars to an existing statute, or in defiance of the sottled princi- ples of jurisprudence; aud it may bo proper to ay that, because of euch improper excreise of an admit- ted Tunction, it oltained uo jurisdiction in the par- tieular case. But suppose that certain persons, without any au- thiority whatover, call themselvca a court, and proceed to (heexercice of judicisl functions, There might Le the strictest adherence on their part 10 tho forms of procedure in courta of justice, and thelr decisions might be emiuently just, but, there being no judicial power in the s0-culled court, in themoet obvious senee of the word, there would bo'no_jurisdiction, There wouid be neitber the powcr 207 the right {0 declaio and enforve the law. “The gencral rule govcrning all courts iy, that if jurisdiction of the. person and subject natter is not acquired, the judgment i8 void, and may be- resisted successiully, either in's direct or collatersl proceeding, and tke findings of the courl upon tho question of juris tion are not conclusive, +ven though the prestmpt may bo in faver of jundiction. % L, 116, Goudy et al, ve. Hall; 3310, 163, White ¥s. Jones ctal.; 41 Campbell et al, vo, McCabian et al.; 47 IIL, 55, Vi, Thompeon ; 47 1iL, 309, Huls vs. Boutier, if the wbove rule 3pplies to coiirts of general and preseut at tho superior Jurisdiction, as the cases cited and multitudes of otliefs aftirm, it applics with yet more forco to civil courts of wpecial and linited jurisdiction, as to which mothing is intended to bo within the jurisdiction but what is e: 1y alleged, 1 Sauzders, 74, Peacock va, Bell; 50 e, 5, Haywood v3, Colling et e, IN EFERENCE T0 ECCLEAASTICAL COURTS, the rule has been laid down in mauy crses that the civil court will examine whether taefe was juri:dictio over the person and subject matter. 16 Barbour, 487, Walker vs, Bishop Wainwright: 18 Vermont, 511, Smith vs. Nelaon; 7 Pick, 153, Thompson ww, Cath Cong ; 15 Wallace, 131, Bouldin v¥. Alezander ; Long v, Bishop, of Capo Town (Ecclesiuatical judgments of Lrivy Council, 233), Haftman (Law of the Church, p. 480) sayn {hat the true foundation of this subject ia that the sentences of church courts should be placed on the san:e and no highor authority thon those of other courts, and that their jarisdiction u to the person and subject matter sliould be scrutinized. That this is the correct rule moro fully appears when 1t is remembered that church judicatorien ere of spo- cial creation and limited authority, deriving thelr only power overtho offender by virtuo of his owx voluntary stipulstion, Lo establish tho doctrine that church courts ehall, in all cases, be the sole judges of their jurisdiction, ‘would mot only be to give them precedenco )n this r— gard over all civil courts, but to yiela them pow- ers dangerous in the extreme to civil liberty. Courts of Chancery are often invoked, as this Court is in the prorent case, to recognize us valid {hs sentences of church_judicatories, and to give them an effoct ns to progerty righta which the Courts which renacred them would themselves Lave no power to do, Could any one contend that in Buch o case ‘the civil court might not even cxamizo tofeo whether 1 Was in fact any court to reuder a sentence, or whetkier tho condemned Liud submitted bimself o the eccluxl- astical jurisdiction ? Grant thut the questions pissed upon by the court are of the character referred to 10 the cases of Watsan V8. Jones and Chiase vs, Clieney ¢ till, if the sentences were rendered by Do court, or sgainst a party who had never submiteed himself to tue Jurisdiction of a conrt, the Court of Chancery ought ot to be ccmpeiled to uso {ts strong orin to execure the seutences. 1 considering the estent of the decision in the case of Chaso vs. Cheney, it should also be Lorne iu mind thnt the caso befors the Court was one relating to the suthority of the Church in spiritual matters, aud property rights wero not involved in if, And, beaides, If fn that cass, instend of the questio ‘Whetlter the neglect to use thie Words * regenerato and “ regeusrat on "ina part of the Church scivica Wwasan offense agalut it canoug, the question hzd been whether, in view of un oxisting tipulation mada Between Mr. Chicny oud the Church of which he wan & memler, the conrt befors which ho should be tried was slegally constituted,—tlat i, whother the Gourt ehotild consiet of ive Presbters or a smalicr number, —could itgwith any propriety be safd that tho question was one for clergymen rather thet Judges to dectde 7 It ir no question of theology, but one of law, snd law- yers can d-cado it better thun the clersy, and so the Teson U3 01 which the excepifon of jufiediction was founded uves not exist. It would, iu'the cso I Lave supposed, bo A QUESTION OF JURIRDICTION dcpending upon a naked question of power ; nnon ita exiatence uncon:pidzated with uny inquiry w to itx ex- ercire. I (he power did uot exiet, there could be no ‘pretenso of juriediction. 2 UL, 231, Courts ar created aod Ju:dges elected and commis- sioned to paea upon just theso questions, and they Lave been docided upon often in reference to civil courts, and (0 arbitratious, aud are to be found scat- tered turongh all our reports. To transfer such a question from the civil tribnuslx to the Churcl judicatories wonld bo for the Jucyes of the former to aldicate thrir long-admitted and vever- Tenounced juridiction. 5 THE CASE OF NOULDIER ¥, ALETANDER {15 Wallaco, 131) was decided by the United_States Su- preme Court stibsequent 10 tio case of Walson v, Joncs, and thercfore merits consideration. ing thiat the Court Lad 5o power to revise or quc: ordinary acts of church discipline or of ths excision of church members, but bad only to do witl: rights of property, tho Court proceeds : ** But we may inauire whether the resoiution of expulsion was the act of the church or of pereonx who were not the church, and who consequentiy had no Tight to excommunicate others.” And the Court, holding that o miuozity of the church only had scted, 8iy: “An_oxpuision of the majority by minority 18 void act.” The defenidant, Cieney, objecta (hat all the acts of the four asressora who found bim gullty aua recom- mended bis sentence of suspensfon were void, for the Teanon that, under the canon, five, atd 1ot four, cou- elituted the Conrt. If the Suprems Court of tha United States liad the right to inguire in tho case kst above cited, whether ibe act of expulsion of the mem- bers and Trustecs was the act of the church or of versons who were not the church, that care s suflicient. autbority 1o pesit the inyulry m this case, whetber 1hio finding of the defendant gudlty upon the first trial bufore thy assessore was the act of un eccleaiastical court or of four estimable gentleraen who, though ot & court, fully bilicved that they wero one.” All the licable in similar cases do- principies of law ap; mand that tho inyuiry should be made. For in the langusge of Lord Langdale, Master of theTtolls, used n refercuse to a cae of arbitration, but applicable here, “Tais 8 not a matter of mers privato consderation between twe adverde partics, bnt 5 matter concerning the due sdministration of justice, in which all persous who may ever chance to De litigant in courts of justice or Lefore arbitrutors Lave the strongest intercst in miutaiging that the principles of justice shall be carcfully adhered to in ‘every case.”~-7 Deavan, 464 ‘Tho stiptlation of defendant, Cheney, in case he ehould ever be put upon trisl for an ccclealstical olfense, was, that *“not less tlhan three nor muure than five Presiylers, sball bo Ins mssessons to try the facte in iswue, which Iresbyters sball ko seieted by {ho uccused out of = list of eight, whoshall be uncounceted with party by telationship or narriage, sud not particr in the prosentment : wni if the aceured shall neglect or refuse to makp Lia selection, the Stauding Cunumities shall kclect fof him. Ser. 7 of the sune canon farther providel “ Tha Conrt, Leing duly constituted by the presenca of the requisiic muulcr of Presbyters, they shali re coive suck evidenco as myy be adduced in fecordance with the provisious of this canon, and, kaving deliber- etely considered the ssue, shall declare ju writing, edzzed by tnem, or & uajority of thew, their verdict, etc. While this body of asscrsore, wiacn convened, ia styled @ court, yet, in law, it i3 regarded a4 ex- ercising only quasi-jndicial powers, whivh bave becn voluntarily couferred Ly the rtipumiion of tue purtics, Tathier than 8 exercising purely-judicial fun=tios, IN TIE CASE OF LONG V5, LISHOP OF CAPETONS, = cane which camo before thio Judicial Committee’ of the Privy Conn-il of England in 1863, by appeal from the "Suprems Court of the Capo of Gaod Lnpe (Boe, Jud, of Privy Council, page 23), the Cour: held that the Clinr-h of Eugland in places where no church was establiskied by law was in the same condition as other fous bodier, and, ke any other relizions bady, ‘wan to be governcd by rules of its vwn adoption, winch were bindmg upon all thoso who, either expresely or by implieation, had acvented to them, And the Court furtber keld that, n the cases sbove mentioned, *the tribunals ro constituterl are mot in any sence courts ; ttey derive no anthority from the Crowa they bave 10 powers of their own to enforre their et tences ; they must appiy for that purpose to the Courts estavlished by law, :nd such Courts will give offe-t to thelr decision ax they mee eject to the decisions of ar- bitrators, whose Jurisdiction rests entirely upon the “ Theve are the principles npen which the conrts fn this country Lave always acted in tho disputes which have arisen Letween membors of tha famo_reilgious Dody, not being memberx of the Church of Engiaud,” ASSISSORS, in the method of their appointment, and the estent of their functions, more nearly rescinblo arbitrators than Judges. Like arbitrators they cre selected by (be par- ties to (o controvarsy by atipulation and for a arectal duty, which, being performed, their powers aud dutfes aro ended. 'They are not Jike Judges who are_clectod Dy the people, or avpoiuted by the Exccutive, foa permanent ottico, the duties of which relate, not to tho clecting or sppoluting partics slone, but toail the Utigauts who, in pursusnce of the law and the practice of tlio Conrts, may be brought before tuem, The jowers of arbitrstom and the rules governing their conduct are to bo clearly necertained by reference fo the text-books and the adjudyed cases, S Afors: * It 14 an imperative rulo tliat, where the s 1mis<ion i8 to soveral srbitrators jointly, all must act together during the proceedimg.” ~ Englieh and Aucrican authorities nre alike ayreed upon this, Al 1must bo prescut, throughont each and every mesting, equally, whether tha mecting be for hearing the evi dence or arguments of the parties or for consultation or determination vpou the award. The disputants aro entitled to tho exercise of the judgment and discreuson, and to tie Lenefits of the views, argumneuts, and i ence, of eachi of 1y perrons whom they have chosen to Jjudge between them, and they are cutitied to 1hesc mot only on the award, but at every #tage of the arbi- tration,—Monve, @ Ath, nnd Award 151 and 2, No excoptior. (o the general rule obtains even wheto a statutory provision or 3 stipu tion in the submistion declares {bat sward of & mzjority shall bv binding. ‘must, nesertheles 5, mee the All Uoth for hearing aul consitl= tatien, and the fs ¢t that tho bearing or coneuitation Bas boen conducked in whole or in nart by a mijerity only will suftice o avoid the award, It is one thing to agree o be bound by the decision ‘which a m: stiall come to, and quite a ditlaent thing 10 a: ouly a mujority will nred their atlention to tan case. The rule ix themimo whetker the tribanal be arbitrators or rferecs. The oward moy be mode by a a part, but tho submission is 10 sil. Tho opinions and gquments of one way bave such cffest npon the rest that he will turu them foLia view of the case. Tiso partics have rtipulated for tho leaeit of the thonght and consideration of cach of lhe arbitratars and for thic influenco of cach pon the rest ; and that which the porues havo stipulated for they mmet Lave, i the award 18 to be upheil—diorss on Arb. ond Award, 152, 83 2 Vermont, 492; 35 Maine, 281 ; 11 Jobn, $57 5 13et., 409 ; 14 Jax., 143; 7 Wenl., &2 B., 84 3515 Tugel on Arb., 200 4 Greenleaf, 1,599 17 John, 461 3 7 Cerven, 2005 1 27ler; G04; " 6 Mass,, 4555 7 Cund 9 Dowl, 4375 2Dowl & Low, 424 6 Od, &EIL, N. 8., 845 ; 5 Bued, 635 ; 7 Beavao, 45 Tt 33 1ruc that kome cascs iavo Beld ihat a neceasary exception to tho foregiing rale s in the cnse whero an orhitiator refuses to act or withdraw from fhe arbitration. In that cvest, if o miajority bave power o decide, the majority tuzy rocced in the abience of the person 20 withdrawing. Tho ezcoption exteads oaly o ho caso of & < witbdrawal, and the reason of the exception is, that an arbitrator, by Lis own deiiberate and wikiful uci, may not have it in his power to anuul the rubmissios. —orse on Arb. and Award, 133 : 1 Me'.. 413; 29 New York, 233; Barnes' Notes, 57 (Willis, 215); 2 Wend., i, But if the assessors should b - BLGALDED AS JUDGIS Tatber than arbitrators, then what would be the Jaw governing thelr action 2 In the leading cas of Grind- Iy ve, Baker (1 Bos, & Pul, #29), #ix persons having ‘been constituted triers, it was beld that the whole six must Le proseut, although a majority miglt decide. Eyre, C. ., declated the law to be_then * pretry well estabiished ” upon that point, and Rooke, J., said * all six must undoultedly try,” This Las frequently beca declared to be the Law in Tefereuce to courts porszsred of guasl-judicial powers; and such, ecclesiastical courts have been hield to be.—21 Wend.. 182, and cases there cited. 1t 16 5aid, upon the part of the complainauts, that thin eccleaisstical court more nearly reembles, in the maaner of its constitution, & court-marsial than a board of arbitrators, But COUBTAABTIAL aro creatod by Iaw, not by the sgroement of parties =nd tho law plices the discretion aa to the number carstituting the court in the commanding ofiizcr. The accused i no right of sclaction. Tha law declares tliat the froner ofiicer “ may appotnt general courts- martisl wheu nocessary.” And it is in his discretion of what number they uhall’ consiat Letween five and thirteen ; but not less than thirteen, if that *‘number can be couveucd without manifest’ injury to tho ser- vice” Tho commanding omficer is {o delermine whether the pablic rorvice will permit thirteen, and if ot then be ia to fix the number, Tisere fs no analogy hetwoen 6nch a conrt and one that derives all its power from the stipalation_of the purties Jitigant. Uron the fiest trial of Me. Cheney, Ise having f1iled tosclect from the st of cight Prexby ters, furniched by the Bishop, the thrve or the five by whom he wonld be tricd, five YTesbyters were sclected by the Stauding Commiftee of the dioceso in Lis be- DLalf, Tuat Mr. Coenes might bavo selected only threa from the eight, or. upon bik default, the Standing Committce mighit bave sclectod only three, cannot ade mit of doubt. But the canon declares thst the num- ber selerted (whotover it be) * aball Lo Lin asseesors 1o {7y tho facts fu fusne,"~that . . . ‘the court be inig duly constituted Ly tho presence of the requisite number of Preibyters,” they sholl procecd to a trial, and a majonty may reuders verdict, What was the requirite’ (or required) number? Not the uumber fied by the canon, for that Jeft the number fivo or three, as miglht tliereaftor bo dotermined by the party maklng the cloction, The required number was the gumber which in pursuance of the canon the nccnsed?” or the standing Conunittey in bis stead, might demand to try. tho jseuc of fact, Unless the number. o selected, o elected, was present, the Conrt was not and COULD NOT BE A COURT within tho meaning of the canon, ulated that a majority might decide, but Lo mowhero stipulated that w majority sfght try Lim, 1 the w 1ixa Loen correetly eLited, and the sfipuintjon of tae 2o cueed was that the number selected wero to be tho court, then, whethier you hiken tho axsessors, whon couvened, o a board of arbitrators, or tou _corrt with quani-judicial powers, in neither eveut coald the ne- +ed be legally tried if all tho members of the conrt were ot presetitat all stages of the trial, inciuding the final consultation mud jndgment ; unless one or ‘Tre of the persous acting aa arbitratars had willfully withdrawn from the arbitration, There is nothing in the evidencs to sbow that the Rz, Dr. Pierce willfully withdrew from the Court. In thointraal between the first commencement of thetrial und its resumption, after the decision in the Supreme Conrt, having become legaliy disgualified to act, he took o farther purt in the proccedings, I havonot been cited o any case, nor have I ever secn a case, which held that a disqualimeation was cquivalent to wilifal withdrawal, It s ncitier withia the lauguage nor reason of the cxception. A DISQUALIFICATION would more nearly reserublo a doath in its effoct upon the srtatrution, The deatis of a urbitrator before the waking of the award operates us a rovocation of the powers of hisassociatea, even though tho submission +uould in terms have empowered them to act jointly and severally. Morsa on Arb. and Award, 235, % Yenn, State 411, 2 Keut Com, I caunot avoill the conciusicn that the Court, which the Standing Commitiee of the Diocese had selected for the trial of the defeudant, Cheney, was, In view of his express s:ipulation and their election, uuder the weli settled rules of law, A COGDT OF FIVE TREADDYTERS, and thelr prescoco ard consequeut aciiou wag neces- sary atall stazes of thotrial. Althoughall being preseat st the rendition of tho verdict, the verdict of the ma- jority was suilicient ; and that the action of the four Aseeasors (0o one of them having willfully withdravwn), i tindiug said Cheney guilly, was unauthorized au Thie defendant stip- E 1t might have been & greater, but not in law 3 more certziu, violstion of the etpulation upon which the tnal was had, if Mr. Cheey bad Leen tried by two, in- stead of four, Assersors; a&d it makesno difference, an to the question of law, whether the Ascssors belicved they bad jurisdiction over Mr. Chieney or not. Itina quésiion of power, and not of good faith. It appears, from the evidiuee in this case, that Judge Otis, tho proctor for the prosecution, upon the firat trial of 3lr, Cheucy, after it became known that tho lev. Dr. Fierce coutd not looger act as ome of the Asessars, wrote to the Hon. Murray Hoffmen 28 to the legality of proce:divg in bis absence, To that letter Mr. Hotfmau repliod, on the 36 of December, that lius opinfou was not & decided oue, but voncluding his Jet- ter thus s Upon the whole, I think tho Lest conclu- sion is that the canon,in 1ta trucst reading.contemplates that all tie members should me 1, ana sueh conclision is in accordance with much analogous law ; heace, that the Court ougit to bo constituted ancw »ud the notices freshly served,” Hoalso, 10 thar letter, went to the trouble of citing a large Dumber of antloritivs to_istain bis poxition. On the I7th of Noveuwber, 1870, the Chancetior of the Diocese addressed a leiter to Mr. HoTman, in opporitivn Lo the opinion thereto- fore expressed by him, znd, in a short renly thereto, Mr, Homau says ho is glad o a3y thet be has been convinced by the srgnment of the writer of tho latter that his furmer impressions wore wrong, and that et was uuly one poiut iu tho lelter which bo dis- puced. I'J Cannot but think, however, that tho opinfon of thy learned canonist, given after su apparently careful examination of, aud_certaiuly after a qaatation of many_ autboritics, and_Leing, as he theu declared, “in’ nccordance with much analogous law,” is tho better opinion, TIE SECOND TRIAL of MMr. Cheney was Lused upon Lis contumacions con- duct it Dot suineiting to the former : entonco of sus- pension. The Supremne Cuurt of this State, in the case of Clase ve. Chency, often above referrcd to, uses this Linguaga: “If the Court (the Assessors) usl jurisdiction of the subject-matter nd the persou, it bad jower to procced, The subject-matter was contzined i the presentmant,” In the first trial the Curt had neither Jurisdiction of tbe person mor the subject-matter, for it waa no Court; in the sccond cute, a3 'contained in the presentment, only thy the cubject-matter of the chargs oficnse of tho accuted fn not toa reatenco based upon void Sading, by four Assessors who were n) court. A vold act wiy 09 act, und Mr. Chency, haviog been illogally suse pended, was guiliy of 1o offeuse, uuless thie position axsumed upon the part of the complawants be correct, that, by the law of the Episcopal Church, the Bisiop is vestel with an inberent power, Ly virtus of which De csu coudernn and punish for ecclesiustical offerses, in the atgence of any iinding by the church courts. To prove what is LNE LAW OF THE CHURCT upen this eubject, feveral of the mest learned pro- lates, professors, authors, and canonists ia the Eplsco- pul denomiuation ia the United States and Englind have u examined, and some of their depasitions, for their learniug aud ability,might be regarded a8 well worthy of a plsce in the standard literature of the Church, They are eiegant treatises upon the subjects incnssed. More than'3 whole week was devoted upon the argumont exclimively Lo this qnestion, and to the citution of euthorities from the carly ages of the Chris- tian Cuurch to the presont time, ~The great lnzth of tuls opinion forbids me from assiguiug to thi question the time which, from the fmportance given 10 it by the eharacter and amount of the evidence, sud tho elaborate and learned arguments of counsel, it would scem to Le entitled, The defendint, Ch-noy, ad evory other clerayman joining himazif to the Protestant Episcopal Church, baa voluntarily submitted to fta laws and rules, exit- ing at the-time of his conmecting himself with tha Caurch, o1 thereafier made, whether those rules aro fo be found fn the unwritten common law of the Church or in it3 statntory law. ‘What is ths etatutory law of the Church is to be as— certrined by an examination of its canons, ancient aud modery, What is the common law, may bo proved from the works whicli are gencrally recoived by the Church us sutharity upon questions of doctrine and discipline, and by the statement of witnesses Iearned iu church law, TIE WRITINGS OF THE FATHERS 870 10 be counulted o aacertain what the common lw was in the aze of whicis thuy wrote, und the ovidence of learned cuurchmen of tie present day is to be ro- culved to determine whether such s now the common Ia' s accepted by the Church, The canous more re- cuutly euacted by the Cuurch are to be examived to axcertain wheiliér the cummion Law or the ancieut can- non law bes by modified or repealed by subsequent cveleniastical leislation. We are to determiue what tie law of the Courch s af present ; and the law, s it existed in formercenturies, i8 only a matter of cu- Tivus inquiry, unless by the general consent of the Caurch it has been lirought dowu to this age and ac- auiescad in‘and subwittid to by the Protestunt Episco- pal Church in the nivetenth century, THE FOWEI OF A BISUDP. That thero is a fower of guvernmert and discipline inherent in the oflice of a Bishop wust be re- cd, in view of the uuthoritis and tho evide ¢, @8 {he universally - accepted doctrine of the Protestunt Epfscopal Church . in America, Evir sinre the Cliurch ;hiad un existence this jotwer e veon clnitned to exist aud bas been exercised, Even if it were udmitted that in the progress of -the agea it bl been greatly curtailed and resiricted, it would bo impoesible ta prove that it Lad bren entirely sbolished, \TUE REAL CUNIROVERSY apon fhis subjost i, as to the exient of the pawer, not ax to it existence ; £or it in almost nniversally conced- ed in the Caurch that sume power inbires in tho Epircopal oilice, and o one now aererts that power 0 be arbicrary and abeolute. Lab it umst be sdn.iticd that 2ume of the carly Fathers of tho Church chidmed for the Episcopate unnmited, and illimiatable, authority, Csprian, one of the Apuktuiie Fatlers, to whoee writings upou the subject of pretatical power, Teforonce was bad upon the argumeut, neid that God w2k the enly judge of Li-hops, aud to Him lone were they sceounluble for their conduet, 2 Moshelm Com., page 134, note. FINILAL OPINTONS are to be foudd expressed in the writings of many of thie Ajpen tolie Fatiiers to which I bave been referred as authority fur the position that the Cirurch, in the Srst centuries of ti: Chiristian cra, held to the docirie of an inber.ut Episcopal power. Tho clafin of the larned counsel for the complainants it, that thes apostolical suthoritios prove that it wat, iu these carly ages, tho common law of the Church; that the Bishop was jindex vrdivatius f Lis dioce:¢, and that, Ly virtne of Bis Ejiscopal anzliotity, he might condemn and punish au offeuder vithout the intervention of any Church urt., ““In ‘reference to the aimost numberless citations made from the worky of the curly Fathers, it is 0 Lo oleerved that, whil: such testimony is competent, TH(E WEIGHT TO BE ATTACHED toit e, a8 t2it, as toall other Luman testimony, fo bo affecied Ly the question of the existence or mon- existence of intercst and prejudico in the witucss. et it bo admitted that all ‘the Apostolic Fathers have asserted that in thelr timea toe Blshops claimed and exercised the power of condemning and sentencing offénders of their own volition, and with- out tbo intervention of ecclesiuaticul judicatories. Who were the nien who aserted the existence of this power? In almost every case they wero themselves ‘Bisitopw, and were MAGXIFYING THEIR OWN OFFICE. Augustine, Clement of Rume, Chrysostout, Ambroee, Treneus, Eusebius, Csprian, and a host of others among the Apostolic Fathérs, were clothed with tho Eplscopate. However holy they might bave been, they woro yet human, and the ove of power and the desire to extend the youndaries of suihority existed in them ss well 28 in others. Men posseseail of power rarely fail to claim all and even more than they pos- fesn.. Their writings go fur to catsblish that tho com- ‘mon law of the Church in their times was, that the Bishop war, as Csprian_ claimed, responsible only to God. Taking thcir statements’ of the tten existing ccclosastical Law, it may well bo_clafmed that. esen fu the absunce of any canon ehanging i, such cannot be genius, objects, aud apirit of the institutions of a fres Government. IN THTS STATE we have'adopted the common law of England by an act of onr State Legislature as it existed i the fourth year of James L. o far as applicable. But it hes been repeatedly holl by our courts, thut the common law was only appiicable licre go fer as it was 3dapted to our national habits and the geniua and spirit of our tree institutions 3 that as {o us the comuson law * had been ‘modified by the prevalence of fres principles and the general improvements of jroclety,”—3 Srammon 1201 U01-5; 404 And such hast een boid tobe Fiw in other Stater,—Sedg. on Stat. and Cunst, Law, 12, 2 Peters 144, If civil courts thus hoid in regard to tlie Commoun L, which ws derived from Englind, tle sanre principls would ohtain, with even preater ropriet¥, in raf-renco toan ceclesiastically common Iaw, wiich' ! in tho Roman Einpire moro than twelve centuries iz, For the Apostolic Futhers were, almost withoui excep- tlon, the ~ SUDSECTS OF THE BOMAN GOVERNWENT in Rome itself or in the Provinces of the Empire. When they lived, and where they lived, the clvil Tigits of the Individual wers well-nigh ignored by the Emperors and all civil rulers, The itmitations of im- Dpesial authority were few and ill defined. The exer- cise of drspotic power met with little or o resistance, Amid such svrroundings, it could not be expected that 142 Aportuiic Fatuers sbould bave found an ecclosias- tical common jaw, which, witkout any modifications, would Le adapted o the Epiicoral Church in tho Uited Statea in the Ninrieeuth Century. If the Epincopal Church in the United Stales had never enacted & canon, from {ts firat establishment to tho present tirar, it would have baen comgpelled to 1gnoro much of toe common law and canon law of the Ancient Cliurch, because it was not adapted to our Government and uzsitations; 2nd in this respect its ecelusiastical tribunals would Bave only followed out tho principles which govern our American civil courts in adniinisterivg the Euglish conumon Law, 1t does not certaiuly ollow, that because the Church, ia one centurs, bield toa particuiar mods of Charch diecipline and polity, that the same never showd be changed, The Protestant Episcopal Church han NEVED ASSERTED THE INSALLIDILITY OF ITS DISTIOPS or the Church at lsrge. If 1t had, that would bea very stroug fuct in favor of the exictenco of procisely tho same Cuurch polity in the nineteenth century that obtained in tho socond and third. Tho most emineat writers upon Church government have beld that tho polity of the Church could be to a certain extent modi- tled without in the least affecting ita distinctive Epis- copal character. And the practico of that Church in England aud the United States bas sanctioned such modifications. In the Church, as well as in the State, in passsges, there has boen upon ons hand assumaption and asurpa- tion of power, aud upon the othor denial of its cxist— ence and reistance to its exercive. Rights, civil nod exclesizatical, have been the outcome of these contlicts. 1n the State, the result has been THE GEADUAL EXTINCIION OF ADSOLUTISM, and the wlow uprisiog of limited and _constitutional Governmenty, - The expericuce of the Church has not been dissimilar from tuat of the State. _This i true of ali churches ju which thero éxists no law forbidding @ chauge. If changes in chureh polity are not forbid- deu by the cecleiastical Iaw, then tho Church regi- men b universally conformed in some dearee to the civil government. ~The Epizeopal Church in the United States in iis polity difers in mauy important particulrs from that Church in England, and the dif- feronce is due lu part to the dissimilarity of our in-~ stitutions, Ihavo dwelt 2t langth upon this question, for tho Teason that the position L Leen assumed in argue meut, aud_earncstly isisted on, that the power of a Bishop to condema aud punish, in tho ak finding by an ecciesiastical court, can neitiier bo con- fessed or taken away, cid that an'act of the Bishop in SUSPENDING AND DEPOSING A CLEIGTMAN would b vulid, even if in violatin of o clauso of the diocese, of a general camon of tho Church, If such way the extentof Epitcopal power,as it ex- isted by common s:d canms luw moro than twelve centuries 230, iu the interval important changes havd” Dbeen mado in’ the Church polity. The vital queation is, what i3 tho law of the Protestant ipiscopal Cliurch iu the United States, now, upoa this subjec: Bisizop White eays that Church is it cxists Lere is 3 urch of faw and not of will, and Hofman, in his “Law of the Church,” assunics the same position. any canona have beeu pass:d providing for tue trisisof Loth Deacons, Presbyters,aal Bishops, II, by be common law and ancient csnons of the Church, the Bizhop had tis power, which Las now been msserted in bis belalf, that power has boen greatly abridged by thess canoos. The canons being, m law, regarded as the stipulac tions betwe.n the narties, an expresy wtipustion, i 3 receat eanon, for a trial azd scutence in 3 urticular wey, cxcludes o trici in_any other way itconsistent with the Iates! stipuiation between the partice. In that event, it matiers not what the previous law was, the Jatest stipnlation is TIE ONLY LAV 1'OR TITE CONDUCT OF TIIE TRIAL. To hold thst, in such a case, thi Bishop couid wiis- pend and depose a clergyman wilbout a trial, woald by ta overthrow the whole theory of the civil courts in this country iu refersnce to curels disciplino and gos- ernment, ai the same has becn developed _aud settied Dy a long series of adjudications, Tt would be subs tating Uic uncontroiled witl of yhie Bishop in the placo of the soletn agreement of the partics, and the limited supervision of the courts of law, ‘The question put io the Presbyter ot tho the timo of his ordiuation by the Bisbop and his anewer excludes tho idea of a power 1n the latter to sentence the former in opposition b existing canous, The ordinal preacrived that the caudidate for the priesthood, upon preseuting himseif for ordination, slall be zaked by the Bishop this question : % W tly obey yuur Bishe op, 2nd othier chief minister who, 3ccording (o tie canons of {he Church, may have the chirge and gov- ernment over you; foliowing with a gl inind aud will their Godly admouition, and submiiting yourseil to their Godly judgments?? "To_which the candi must reply: L will 0 do, the Lord Leing my b bk But whatever may bo the diecipline of the Church dsowhere, the Chuzch in tio Dioves of iinois Lias, by the different sections of Catow No. 20, provided fof A PARTICULAL FORN OF TRIAL AND SENIENCE for offenders: ** Whenuver auy minister of this Dio- cese, 110t Leing 3 Bishop thercot, sball boeame lisblo to presentment and trisl under any provision of {he neral ur Dinceran Couvention, llie mods of proceed= ing #ball b s follows :” By Sec.1 of this ceuon it in enactod, that when the Bivhop shall Lave reason to Lelieve, on wformation, etc., * that any clergyman is under imputation of haviug beeb £ailty of auy offense or misconduet for which be is liavo to be tried.” Le shall appoint three persons, two of whom ut least ebail be Presbyters, to examyae the case, who ehall, if tuez think there is sumlicient ground, mkea preséntment, Sev. 2 poovides that the Bisiaop, or I case there i3 w0 Binhop, the Standing Commiites shall appoint the place for trial, which mnust be within the diocese, and Ay pustpone tho trial for caure shown, or when jus- tice demainly It See. 3 declares HOW TIt7, COURT SHALL BI: GONSTITUTED, Sec. 4 provides for tho service of Bolices upon the ac— cused and upon une of the presenters, aud for tae sk Towance of advocates 02 prostors o eich party. Se 5 enacts that all festimony upon tho teal shall be in writing. Ses 6 declares thit in care of tho cuntes sion of tho accured beforo irial, *the Bishop shall, with tke consent and approval of tho Standing Cowe 1wiltee, proceed to pass sentence,” otiierwise the so- cused ahall o cousidered ua denyiug thw charges, Sec.7 provides that upon the Court being duly coustitute 4, they sl Teccive such evidence as mey be adduced, *in accordance with the provisions of this cauon,” aud presoribes the form o which tho ver- dict sball be rendered, and for ‘the service of 8 copy of the verdict upon the accused, ana toat the original verdict, withs the ev:dence, ehall be delivered to the Bishop, “ waoshail, Lefore the ad- jourument of the Court, if present, prouounce such canonfeal seutence thercon a3 shallappear to him proger, provided tho same exceed 1ot in severity the renteuce awatded by the asewors, aud such een- teuce slhali be final, *nnjess a new trial shull be grauted” Section 8 dcelsres Low citations and Botices o partica snd witucnes shall bo servel Section 9 provides how thie expenres of the trial sisll be paid. The last section (o, 10) is a3 follows ; “ No clergvman #ball be suspenicd, or receive any Public censtre from the Bisbop of_th dioccse, without fug been adjudged thereto in (e manner provided by this cano 1y the revoral sections of this canon o method of procedurcin provided for in any case whera any clergyrman fs under imputation of baving been guilty of sty offenso or miscouduct for which ho i Luble to betrisd.” 4 cniusci coczr i constitated, snd the wanuer of tridl defincd. Tn case the accused, after presentment and before trial, suall confess, the Bishop theu can only hentence * with the consent and approval of the Standing Cotn- mitiec.” 1f thoaccused procecds toa trial, and the Sudizg of the Court iy againt Lum, the Bishop's pow- er tokentence is again limited, o that it #lall * not exceed in severity the eentence awardrd by the asees- pors.” And then the last ecctivn of the csuon has de- clared that there ehall be no nentence of susycusion or censure by the Bishop unless the accused has bren adjudged thereto by tie ecclesiastical conrt created by the cauon. - Tn view of such clear and emphatic langunge, pre- seribing particulurly a mode of trisl for all ecclesiasti- cal ofnses, aud limiting the Episcopal power, it matters not what might Bave been the prior common lsw, or canon ki, of the Chursh. This canon ir the limit of the Episcopal prerogative, in the matter of Church discipline, and 10 _go beyond it 18 to infringe upon rights protecicd by eccleafastical Law. Bt it wonld be s furtker answer fo the position,— thiat the Birhop, by the pover izherent n his ofiice, conld have sentenced the defendant, Chency, to sus- peusion and deposition witbout a trial,—to aflirm, that hie never made tho attempt. THE DIsTOP : Das, in sl the proceedings, reciguized the validity of the cannn and the exisicace and power of the eccles- justical Courts, and has only-acted in pursuance of their verdicts, His sentenca of suspension recites : “Tnat atter a fair and patiest trial" . . . * the Conrt bas deliberately ccnsidered, . ", “do unsnimously declare by their verdict that yow” . . “ura gulity.” “Tho Onding and scntence of thin reverend Court, dehivered to us, are as follows {rectting the teatence).” *And 10w it only remains 1bat we, your Lizcoy, should solemnly adirm aud pro- nonunce the final rentence.” This is uo attempt on the part of the Bishop to cxer- cese an absolnte, independent, inherent power, flis act, by tLe express Janguzge of the fentence, is bat the clofing one in a serics which hod preceded it ; the af- firmance snd decaration of a reatence which had been ‘before (hat tin:e found by the Court and deLyezed b the Bishop to bo pubiscly and formally pronounced by hum, - The above remarks apply with equal force'to THE GESTENCE OF DEGIADATION subsequently pronvunced upon the defendant Chen although the Linguage used in the Lwo seatenre s i in ail respects similar, If the Bishop considered that he powscssed tha rickt to sentence an offender without a trial, there ia not s einglo act of hin, in-connection ‘witia these trials or sentences, which would indicate that such was bis opinion. From all bis procecdings, I fin eome to but one conclusion, that whatever might havo been his theory aa to inherent eniscral power, lic judged it wisest and best fo act in accordance with ‘the ‘provieions of Canon 20, to which I bave above referred 2t lenyith, 1£ tho tiews above exprensed are correct, it follows that neither of the verdicts of the Asseseors was of any validity, Upon the first trial there was no court prerent during the examination of witnesswsnorct the rehdition of tbe verdict. 'The second presentwent " THE CHICAGO DAILY TRIfiUNE SUNDAY, AUGUST l6, 18T M‘M GALKINS CHENEY. Ipon the demurrer, tho luw of the Chirch now, because it is 6o hostile to the. a8 based wholly upon the contumselous condact a2 tho accuted in mot obesing a eentence which I nave declared void, and therefore the finding of that Court was of fo validity. The Bishop, under the Diocesan Canons, had no pover 0 sentence without 3 trial by a church court; and, even if he had had such power, he did ot 3 tiisitnst neo attempt to exercise it The diiferent centences having been proncunced apou serdicts of ecclesjautical tribupals, which, by tae well-sottied rules of civil courts bad mot obtained Jurisdiction, tho action of the church judicatorica Was oF ¥o vaumTY, and tho sentences pronounced Gpoa therr fndings void, Stch are the conclusions to which T have arrived after a very careful and extended consideration of the ficts in this caze, and the isw applicablo to them, The enforcement of discipline is 88 necessary in the Chureh a3 the punishment of crimeis in the State; and fn neither ecclesiastical nor civil Governments fa law austhing better than advice, unless behind the Law there {4 penalty in case of disobedionce. But it is nono the less true that discipline nncm- trolled by rules, and punishmont unregulated by Lw, swould both be dangerous to Liberty, Admitting In it ful forva tho truth of the statement of Hoffman (Law of the Cliurch, p. 430), that *ecclesiaatical jurisdio- tion in its legitimto suhere, that s, over ecclesiastical matters, must bo held, or Christianity will Lecome torpid,” Ihave itended to apply to this ciss the yriuciplo of that rule which has been laid down for the guidance of ail courts by that most loyal church— man and lexrned writer upon hurch law, which cannot Lut commend tself tothe judgnent of every lawver. *¢Let the seutences of Churcn judicatories b clothod with the same suthority that is'accorded to the Judge ment of all established courts, and with no moret ** Scrutinize the existence of their jurisdiction as to the party and the cause ; demand that due notice shall Liave been given, 2nd in & mods not alien to civil Tegu- Litions ; and watch that the judyment is unstained ith collusion or fraud."” (Law of the Church, p. 430.) The application of such a ruls sccording to my under- standing of ita apirit comrels me to refuse to perpet- nally eajofa the defendznt Chieney from oficiating in the priestbood in Christ Church, and therefors to dismiss complainant’s bill for want of equity. 2 —_— German Sajutation—Lifting the Hat. Stuttaart Corresvondence of the lioston Advertizer, In America bats are made towear, in Germany to tako off. Their chief use in tho one caseis to cover tho head ; iu the other caso to enablo tha owner to uncover. Yankeos ara permitted by the inscrutable Providence to exist,—not with- out remonstrance while Menzio lived,—though out of doors they commonly kept their’ Lats on ; here we understand our duties better, and donot draw upon the charity of the universe in thab way. Happy invention for Germany, tho hat! Witlont it, how cornld one uncover 7—unless hs should removo his ecalp! And without uncov- erg, how could ono bo a respectablo malo creature of tho humsu sort? I must doubt that in & hatless Germany the scaip wero safo! Unjust people say that Germany bas 0o religion. What are they talk- ing of 2 "\Where are their eyes ? It has ono of the strictest religions in tho world, in resect to which the very Atheists are orthodox ; aud its commandment is, Thou shalt take off thy hat. “This religious act 18 performed everywhere, by overybods, at all'hours of tho day, with a cou- staucy and assiduity. let me_tell the chevaliery. that put to shame our mero Soventh-day eervice. In the street overy man must urcover ta.every other whom he knows and does not mean to ro- ject 28 excommunicate and outlaw. The rule ro- quires that tho bat should not be merely raised, bur taken fairly off and drawn down by the side. By the old school of religionists this is really done ; but in our age of shortcuts » compromise iscommonly m2de. One knatches thearticle off, gives a sort of tlop with it, much as if beating off flies, and claps it bastily on, to bo in reati~ ness for the nest occasion. As thus practiced the act is beautiful to the mind, as all daty must bo, but to the mere profane eye is not gracetul. Somotimes, indeed, the impicus for- eign obsorver 18 inclined to laugh. Two men mcet and recognize each other only in the momentol passing ; not pausing, theyare back to back, uud threo pases apart, before thy ready boud can reach the waiting brim, but each punctually performs the whole duty of man, ro- moves tho beaver, eivesit the symbolic flop nod restores it a rod's distanco from the otaer. Neithier tees the other do it, for there is no look- ing behind, ror faintest motion towards it. Each knows, however, that it is doue, for is not the otherarespectable man? Tho profane observer, 1 say, is disposed to emile; taking off the has and flourishing 1t to vacancy seems to bim com- 1cal. He mistakes entirely, for his notion is that they are performing the act to oneanother mero- Iy a8 human indwviduals. Not o ; they zrs ren- dering their homage to the sacred proprictics, and, Scen or unscen of men, what mattors it 2 And wby should either look back? Would he 8py upon his neighbor to see if the latter isnot perhaps a beretic and an infidel 2 ‘Take off the hat! If there be a doubt whether the act is required on a particalar_oceasiun, orr on the safo side, aud taks it olf. Forciguers fall into diffic:lties Fometimes from a scaniy cou- etruction of their duties in this particuiar. An American youth went to the railroad station to* procure a ¢eason ticket—not #old by the ordinary ticket seller, but by an especial official. Enter- ing a public oflica, he kept his hat ondn addrexs- ing the said ofticial persunage. To his amaze- ment, the latter sprang from the_scat ard began tearing about the reow in the wildest agitation, with passionate ontcrics, stamping foet, tossi The you':, not then nuderstauding Ger- man well, could mako nothiug of his noises, and thonght Lim seized with a fit of frenzy. Our oflicial friend, observing at length the look of sheer, blank wouder and incomprehension on the other's countenance. composed him- self enough to Lecomo intelligible. Tho hat came off, aud the afilicted oflicer, after a manful strugglo with his feclings, euppressed them o ably that he could do the neccessary writing— “for tha eeavon-ticket affairis s somehat elamy- rate one—with a steady Liand. Again, at wo tain art school, a young American was visted by oo of tuy friends. ‘Thie latter, stoping in merely to fnvito the other to a walk—into a room where no professor was present aud whoro was nothing of the ordinary echool discipline—erred in a similac way. An older pupt, a married man, immediately cailed out: *¥as nennt man Fleqeled,” * We call that boorishness!” The twvo yonths went forth, whereapon the ditressed judividual relioved bis pain by rauing an hour against Americans, ‘¢ Al Americaner sind_unterscharnte engel,” “All Americars are impudert clowns,” the good eonl enid. This was, of course, an_exceptionally rude per- &on, representing thie Gerwans gonorally only in the stresn Iaid upon tha act of removing the hat. Well, it is good Lo have manners of some sort. The Ameticans are a littlo carelegs that way ; tho young prople, at least, are frequently somewhat freo in their air. When s German school-boy, meezing in tho city a strauger aud foreiguer with s graybeard and gray look, pulls off thorap io bim, s sometimes hiappens, the impreefion is not uzpleasing. And yet it does not seem to me that in nferior conrcesy the American peoplo aro bebind those of Germany ; certainly they aronot £0 in kindliness. L = Celebrities Photographel by Gentilo. Dariug the past few montls Geutilo Las not only Photographed distiuguished artists of world-wida Teputation, suck 26 the great Salvini, the Primna-don- na Piamonte, Capoul, Del Pricnte, and many ozhers of the 1taliau Ofiers, Mrk, Seott-Siddons, Master Iarry cex, Count Fosco, Barou de Palin, and last Lut not én great Indian chiefs ((be Omalias), now oG 3 0 Prestdenc Grant. Theabovecan bo seen at Gentile'a Stadio, routheast “corner of State and Wash- ing ton sircete. The chicfa expressed great delight at the wonderful clevator. Bessemer Steel Horse-Shoes. We would call the attention of the public to the sd- vertirement of R. Hale & Co., on anotlier page, who arc now for the first time patting in market an im- proved material, as sell 25 an improved boras-shoe, made of Beswncr steel. The wholcsate price of this e urticle wil be found 1a our market quotations for ouday. To Ladies Everywhere. Cheap imitatioils of ** Fhalon’s Night-Blooming Co- Teus " are being offered for sale. Eeject theso libels, The truo article in oltainable of all respectable drog- gists and fancy dealers. Dress your bair with the * Phalon Invigorator.” Miliions say it kas no equal in restorative pawcr, and it is very refreshing. Van Sclisack, Steventon & Reld, Norihwestern Agenta, A Fact. C.C. Holton & Co,, 2(9and 271 Btate sireet, are selling both parlor and chamber sets fully 20 per cent lower than other houses. Tiae only wsy ono can mo- connt for it s by their immense sales, They can work on smaller profits than other housex. > Assignment of E. F. Hollister & Co. Sorry indeed are we to announce the fact that the elegant stock of fine furniture of E. F. Hollister & Co., 117 and 119 State strect, 1 to be == crificed by the arrignee, W, D. Sloane, who clozes the businers. Sce advertisement, ——— Kingsford’s Oswego Corn-Starch. Pudiinge, jeliies, custards, and hlanc mange made of Kinpefurd's starch Lave a delicacy and favor that uothing sl can ghse, Dr. Robert Hunter's Practice. 1Inanother column will bs found s remarkabhs con= carzence of testimony as to the effective results which aticnd the peculiar practice of Dr. Bobert Hunter in treating the throst and lun Pianos for Rent. Fine new 7-octavo rosewnod plancs. Remt momoy deducted if purchased. Prices, $209 to $i00; war- ranted five years. Reed’s Templs of Music, No. & Van Buren street i SR Geyser (Saratoga) Water on Draught By Buck & Rajier, magars of the * Mars Cologe.? .