Chicago Daily Tribune Newspaper, October 20, 1874, Page 2

2 —ee e - THE CHICAGO DAILY TRITUNE: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1874 cluding Mr, Trowbridge, Dr, Bwazoy, and Mr. Nuyes, desired the motion to ho withdrawn, na hay lind nolhing o kay in justitleation of the action of tho Prosbytory, ‘fho rerolution wns {hon withdrawn, and the membors of the Cliteago Presbytory, undor tha 1ulo, were roquented by tho Moderator to retire, On motion, they woro allowed Lo rotire *in spirit,” thoir bodio to romaln I tho room, The memhots of tho Bynod thon gave thelr opiuions on tho complaint,” ench oue Leing lim- ited to throomniuntes, Tt wag very ovidanl from tho opinione what the declsfon of the Bynod will lo on tho l')ypanl of Prof, Palton, The mintake was constuutl, mnds of eahing tho * complaint " the * appon),” nud many safd tho **appeat was well-founded, the mindu of tho majoriuy being made up regard- ing thio appoal, Many whoro countenences indi- cated that benovolonco and kindliness wero in their hoart, thought the complaint shionld Lo dis- missed, and all theso undonbtedly cchioed tho ut- torod rontiments of ono—* Brother Swing, go Ifl poace, and may tho blesslng of God bo with you, AHE DTN OF OPINIONG ghown bv the following ¢ “Mr. MofIatt—I th(nkgum complaint s well founded, both in tho constitutional and common law of tho Chureh. Mr. Galt—I considor tho complaint has no foundation in conatitutional luw, usnge, or rolig- on, Many thought iho prescrvation of peace in tha Church required tho enforcomont of tho law, snd others that wirict mterpretation and adher- enco to it wounld nut promote harmony and urity, “ b Mr, Sickles quoted, an illuatrativo of his posi- tion, the nurkory rhymio: Tlumpty Dumpty sat on a wall, Tunipty Duwnpty had a fall, Thros kcore meti aud thres #rore moro Couldn't pu hin whoro bo wae liefore, Mr, Fox was convinced that the appeal should bo sustained by Dr, Ilurd's argument. [Laugh- ter. Tle vote wns then taken on the complint, and resulted us (ollows: Bustalned, To anslain—1 reaport Presbytery—Tho Reva. M, D, TPatterson, J, 8, Braddoci, dohn Bantley, Jacolb Lies~ feld, J, Gritli 3, Sulzer, A, O, Smith, Lewis Mitch- ol Smit! o, and Eiders John T, 1t Morcdith, O, L, Foote, Thomas Fot- Lor, Jobert Barr. Oliwwa Pronbyiory—The Revs, Ron Len Frawe, Jobn Ustick, I'homas 8L, Gann, James E, Mogrtt, Alexander 8, Pack, and Witliam C, M¢Dougal, and Yldeis A, J, Armoug, Joln Foley, A, Dreese, II, b, Aloxandor, Georgo Gy, I, W, Moors, J, T Doreu, Eil Etslge, Kook River Preehytery—] 1ol, IO A, Bhesrer, J, M, Moore, Moses Nm.l'rz J. I, Tiaaloy, J. @, Condit, 1, W, Crawford, I, W, Fisk, 8, R. Johuson, J, C, Ill, N, I, B, ¥ife, Jacch Coon, Jeuiah Leopard, N, G. Graves, and ¥, J. boffatt, and Tldurs 3, M. Walson, dames Boygs, J. Dixon, 1L, Doule, ALK, Dlifllén, A, L, Movrls, T.d. Darlon, . Snyder, iflier, J, G, Gilmore, 8. P, Soluun, J. MCKinxry, VLitsitt, Cou, Taaustaih i pari—Fresport Presbylory—Tiso Tora. W. 8. Curti, Thomas C, Easton, J, M. Linn, 1 Fatkin, and H, M, Colllkon, aud Eldets Qharles izs 0 8. €, Griifen, Rotk Kiver Peexbytery—Thi Reya, M, M. Cordett, G. T, Crissman, D, 1. Wells, b wualinei—Krocport Presbylory—Tho Noys, Bavjamin Foltz, 4, D, Jenkius, R, Proctor, aud A. 3, Dizoy, and Eldera O, B, Bidweli and Wililam Andrews, Oulewa Presoytery—Tue Revs, 8, M, Gates, Theodors ¥, Jessop, and Thonsus Galt, amd Elders Jusspl H\\’nzy and O, C. Jubneon, Rock liver Presbytery—Ta . 0. Slekies, 4, 8, Lutz, Israol ootly, and’ Eiders Louty Lee e, nud J, A, Bteel A rewwss way then taken for an hour anda half. AFTERNOON BIBSION, BEPORT OF TUE SUDICIAL COMMITTEE. Upon reassombliug at half-past 2 o'clock (the attendance being larger than at any provious so8- sion), the speoiat order was taken up, aud tho Judicial Conimitteo presenced the following : The Judictal Cowmittco ask leavo ta report upon the .al'of ¥rancis L, Lation from the decision of {uo g0 Presuytery in tho cuse of Patton Ve, Bwing. The pager §i ks 100wy mod ' Hifnols North, in Session in the reh, Chicagu In’the month of Aprillast the undezelgued preterred charges Lefore tho Presbyteey of Cuicago agafnst the Rev, David Swing, a member of thst Prosbytery, For o copy of the ebargen, and tho Dintory of (hu §1§al which wax bad, you are respectfully referred 1o the printed votume Which forms part of the rosord of the rreabytory, Tuo Prosbytery decided svatained, Yo toat tho charges wers nob yroscentor, uow tho appellant, s opo of tho original parties, gave molico of his intentiou to appenl frow the declslon (o the Syuod of Tihnois Notty, uud lodged bis ra:son for Bo doiby with tho Modeyator of the Lrunbytery within ten duyi aftur {he nstug of thst Judicaory, “Tucud rersonk are on Tecord, Aud now, budeving thut the devision of the Prestylery jues reforred 10 won contrary to tho law 2nd 10 the evidence, the undersigned Leroby appeals from (o detnfiive’ #entency of tho ald Vresbytery, sud uoks your reverend body to reverso tho action o the Conrt uelow, aud dsonu tho case, Prayiug that divine wiedom miay gakle the Hynod in tho ndjudien- tich of this fmporiaut maiter, tho appellant pub- seribes binpelf your brotlier a the Gospel of our Lord Josus Chridt, Faanouw L, Yarzow, Cioado, Vet 10. Autlicntic copies of {he rocords of the Lower Court hiave been placed i the handa of your Comuiitee, sl they find tust tho eppellut, ort bia purt, ‘cou- duéted it _(the nppew) Tegulatly, Your Commiltea recommend that th sppeal ve iszic Book of Discipiine, Cliap, Vil., Sec wigio oxveption, 10 wit: thirdly, %o req record of tho proceeutugs uf (ko inferior judicatory in 1hio case, mciudicg nil the Wstimony and’ tho reasons for il deeislon,” Inesmuch as this sy ocifieation has been practically complied with by the publication of the triul under the supervision of ‘the Pres. bytery duly suhenticated, and placed in tho hinda of uearly i not ll of the membens of the Syuod, your Commitec, tosavodays of Lrecious time, Fecommend eomuch of (he readivg Ve dipensed with, Your Cominittes also recommind that the feeuo of ‘thia upe cal bo mxdo thio order of the day fmumodiately foi- Jowing the nnal disposal of 1ho campIATt how peads g pefore the Synod, W, 5. Cunrs, T. A. Surancn, B. P, Sazyion, X. C, Tuoxesoy, A MINORITY REPORT. 5. H. Woller submltted tho following minority report: o the Synad o7 Minols North : Your Commiltee, huving carefully oxamined ihe facts connected with the nppeal of Lrof, Fatton from the action of the Tresbytery of Chicago in the cute of DProf, Bwiug, ond havitg rdached couclusions in which * the majority conctr, the undersigned regrets the necezsity of prosenting & counter-roport, e paper ls distinetly sn appeal, Our Book uzaws the lines very closely Letween a ** come lafut * wud an *appeal,” Tho luiitatious of appel- Tunty aro sich that Lrof, Patton's right to uppeal may fuirly bo ealled §2 question, Tor tho reasous follow- iug, the plojiosed uction i beileved o be a2 varlunce Voth with the letter und tho spirit of the law in the caze, und it i necordingly recommended that tho ape Feal'be not entertaiued § First—An uprellavt must bo on sggrieved party, and 1aist have wowitted to trislina lower coirt, ‘Cho Tindtations of sppelisnta ors” these, to-vit.: (n) Au an Rppieliunt mast bu an erigtonl patty s (6) 7o, mist uvo cubmitted to n regulur trial in an "futerior Judic- atory ; (¢) Ho must Lo in aggiieved porty, | Now, whilo the Houk is explicit in tho satement that only un original party muy apgeal, it s to bs observed that ic does not ka5 that Aby uud overy criginel party mey sppenl, Tho appollant n this case, though an aripiual purby i3 not o poreovaly aygrioved yoris, 1o dous not clufinl tuy persoual griovatice nn bia fipuse %o the prasecution, ~Falling iu the prosecution, the tocurds of tho lower sours khow DO vole of censuro which coulid huve Lren cauga of griovance, Thio only coustituliozal ulternative, therefule, would liuvo Leen a compiuiut dustead of ‘an uppeal, on thu grounds wpecified fu tho oppeal, Tuls opiuton I sustsiued by »dcliverance of thu lnst Genorul Assombly, Hers, in & pireetouly parallel cavo, thy appeal was dismished rrimarily, for the reason that, aithough the proscs culor was eu orighwul pasty, be was not an aggrievel party, It will nut Le claimied, iu referenca to the accod limdtation clted, that I'rof, Vatton hac been arzaigued and irled ot the bar of the lower court. Second—Tho firat speciticution of grounds of % com= plotut * sssutucs thot, in # cuso lilio this, tho prose cution may uot app 7'liri—Lhu fuicrest of the cause which wo ropre- sout aud love requires that thls unfortunats casw bo arrcsted and saitled, 1 entertained and $ssued b this court, it I8 certuin ta bo prolonged to the Incale culuble hurm of tho Cliurch, Thie, widlo not offered a8 o conetitutionul ground for _ dfeminalug the appesl, 18 certaluly nut out of aceord with (o spiit of the by by which wo ure gutded. No ool cun come of uny yossiblo dssuc of thio chsy, and 1o one will Lo injured or compromised by arresting it ut this point, 8 M, WxLien, PRELIMINARY DEDATE, Mr, Foltz moved that the minority report bo sdopted, Not ugreod to, ir. Framo woved tunt tho majority repore ho edopted. Mr. Noyes rulsed tho point of order whether it ‘woro competent for the Synod to order the tak- ing up au sppenl, or thu adaption of a report which recommended e tuking up, against o ernon Wl Wau 1ot & momber of the Presbyterian Shureh, Tho Moderator said the Synod would declda that by their voto on the repust, Mr. Noyes anked that he bo heard, before o wvote wus taken, on the right of L'rof, Patton to De heard os an sppollant. Mr, Bwith remnrked thab the parties Lofora tho Synod wera the Presbytery of Uhicago _and Trrof. P'utton, It made no ditieronco whero Prof, Bwing was; they had no supervision over lum except througl tha Prosbytory. [t soemed to him thaat it did not iake any difforenve whethor 1hwy bnd wlegally, na tho Synod had alvesdy de- eidad, ok lius namo from cho rolls tha woutd not interfera in tho least with the original right of the Byno to tuke up tho parties,—thn Irosby- tory and Prof, Patton. My, Noyen did uot undorstand (hut the Prenby. tory wau iv purly in tho casa, Prof, Intion sgrecd with bin, The puarties wero uppellunt (himuelf) and appoiles, Nr, Buwing, 1f Profegiving’s numo was nob ontho yoll it wis but t]l uppattuut'y fuuly § and that (ho Preabytory, or Mr, Noyes, should rafde a8 n bar to tho npponl tho fact ihat the namo was not on the ral}, wonld bo for Mg Noyos or for the Pros. bytery to tako ndvantage\ of their own ron whicti lio aupponecd the 8 \flud would not pormit. Mr, Noyes aid not think 1t wan competont fora Bynod Lo act upon o repork which contemplated the arraigumont of & man bhfore tha body who waa nat smonablo to It, 11o (Swing) was not o momber. of any of tho Preibyterics, which way ro(luh'efl, in ordor to arraign him, by tho decision of tho Genernl AunemhI‘v. B Mr. Bicklen moved fo strikq out that part of tho raport whioh rolalad to dispensing with road- Ingr of tho record, 5 Mr. Noyes bogged leave to remind tho Lody that Prof. Bwing had no reprosentativa on tho floor, and that tho dooumentary.avidonco was nn ensontial prrt of hiu case, and ought to bo rond, 1t was not safo to armime that overy momber of the body hintt road tho tustimony, Drof, V'atton did not sea thint tho ocaso was mntortally changod hofore tho Bynod from what it was boforo tho Presbytory, Mr. Noyes know as nell as anyvody thint tho evidonce was not read in tho Preshytory. Tho printed volumo of the trial coniafued o stipulation betwaen bimself and Ar, Noyes whoreby it was ngroed that tho doou- mentary gvldonoe should not bo road, that it should be waived biy both partios exoopt ao far a4 it should bo used by oach {n srgument of the caso pro and con, 1lo could not moo by what right ono part of tho testimony should bo read rathor than anothor, Mr. Noyos repliod that the stipulation oxpired Dby limitation at tho end of the trial, aud ho had 1o authority to make any atipulation with regard to tho disposition Lo be made of tho evidonco. Altor & protraoted dlscussion, the motion of By, Sickles to strilko oute was agroed to, thus making tho 1ording of the testimony nocessary, 3B, NOYEA' ARGUAENT. Mr. Noyes asked permission to présent an argumott #a to tho right of I’rof, Patton to take an apperl, and, being allowed to doso, addressod the Bynod an fotlows : Mn, Mopenaront Tefors o vote In taken upon the Topori of the Judiclul Committas, which I8 wow tndor considoeation befors this body, I desire to submit some Towarks in nupport of tho minority ropurt. NO APIEAL ALLOWLD PROF, PATTON, It swo micun Lo bo govetned Ly the law aud by tha precedenta whivh ara fn conformity with the law, as I doubt atat wo all do, T thiulca caretul examination of thiese will bring ua {o the conclusiou that Prof, Patton bns no right of appeal to this Synod, This muy seom @ novel porfifon to lake, and tha suuouncement of it amay conrequently lartle with surpriso thiono who liays readily takon it for granted that thu right of appesl, in canes like {his, was unquestioned and indefoaslble, But, fortunately for the Presbyterian Church, trisls for heresy linve heon very fufrequent 1 her history, Very seldom, therafore, Liua thers beeu any occanfon to inquiro particularly futo the provisions of the law of appeal, or to aearch out vory carefully tho precedents which Lave Leen eatabliehed under 3, “Anpellonts from the lower courts havo frequently appeared befora Synody and dencral Assemblies, whero they lave asked and obfulued a readjndication of their cagos, Fawilinrity wilh (heso facla bas perbaps led many to supposa that every cass, of whatever obaracter, may Uo carrled ap by “I’“"“ at the instance of clther the prosecutor or the defoudant, I propose to show hnt this is on error, 1propass to show that Prof, ZTatton cannot appeal hiis cane toa higher court, bee causo (1) the Jaw of the Church 18 agolust him; bes cauee (2) there aro no precedents ia his fayor; becauns (3) thery aro precdents against him; and bocauso () ustice 1o au’ accnued party forbiia ' that e shiouil Jongor play the part of proscoutor. 1 mafulu that rot, Patton caunot appeal, becauvs, WIIO SAY AFTEAT. T, The law of tue Churchcloarly denfes his right to do #o, Towhom docs the luw sccord this right? OQualy to nygrieved original partics. Tho last sub-acotion of {he luvwr, as found ‘in the Book of Discipline, Chap. 7, §cc. i, declares Wit **an appeat sl i 1o cise b tered,’ except by ono of {he orlginal partics, first sub-scetion of the law def an sppeul to **the removal of A cause already decided from an § ferior to a superior fudicatory, by a parly agarie ik confer the Fight of appozht 1 ol cuiigh, théa, thnt onoshould bo an origiual party. Ifo mist bi tht, but ho must be more than that, - He must by ag- firlu\'cd, personally wronged by the court from whoso colslot ks appeals, Hense, in the case of privafe offonscs, an appellant may be elther tho prosocutor or the prosecuted, But, in pubie offonnes, only tho prosecuted may sppeal, Why? Bocauss heaulons s Habls to b agarioved by the decision of the court. - Nomen sn apposl unless he hna hoon oy grievad, that b fujured, opprosied, ‘or porsonally weotgod by the doelsion appealed from, Prof, Fatton caunot claim that be hus been wronged by the decieion of tho Prosbytory fn any senso or degres boyond thut in which all whio votod to suntain bia Indlclinont niay clulim that they also have auffered wrong, ey sy allaliko any thnt the decirlon Liaw dutlicted a griovoun Luert upon (o Chutrch of which they aro members, and whote doctrinal parity and welfare thoy Lava deeply athout, Al thik, from their poiut of view, {8 true, Bat then, nous of thess persous Who cumposo tha mi- nority of the Preshytery ¢an appeal, On two grounds they ure deburred from doing to by tho luw, They wro'not orlgiual parties, nnd they ars not aggrleved, Trof. Yultow's positioi differn froms that of his sup- potiers only n ono respect, (ife I8 an ovlginal pariy, and, so far an thie gocs, would bo eutitled to sppeal.y Dut this, ns we havae scen, Is not cuough to invest u person with this right, 1o order o this, it is just as eseentinl that ono should be an apprieved Enrly an that ho shiould bu sn original party, ~ And (o bo aggrioved by a declelon, oue must suer personal injury or dam- oyie from it, o this Prof, Patton can lay no cliim, ™ D ng Jio 8 sggrleved in mo ofhier way, and to no greater oxtunt, then all others (hroughont the who'e Oanred’ who aro lko-nfmled with himaclf &0 aggrieved, o bnn prosocuted Prof, Swing, not for an_oileuso against Lim pereonally, Lut for i alfcnsy sgainet tho Church. Fho scquittal of Swlny cannot,then, & sy {ujustice o vroug to lilns Foramially, tholweh 1 miglit be, aud 1 bis view Is, to tho Chureh, ' Henco Lo i3 not rgérieved, sud, thercfors, cannot appeal. That 1hara gisen ' right dednition of the term 4 purly nggrioved,” niny Lo een by 8 raferenco lo de- clalous in ¢ivil cotirta : “for where logal torms are used i our ook of Dlecipiiue without express definition it 18 proper to resort to legal suthorities to eecertain tho preciy songo in which tiey aro wsed. Tn the 161 Conn, Rep,, pego 58, Inthe case of Tho Etato va. Drown, the Supreme Court of that State, whitlo Lioldiug thiut the poople have 1o right to apneal in cases of publis or criminal offonscs, may : * Tt tlie statuto of Connecticut was never intended to in- vac® this common liw by giving lo the State tho power of putting nu ncsused yerson tipon & second trial for the sune ofienke after his falr acquittal, It pravidea for tha party agricved, which, I common accepla- tlon, means tudividual partics, or the State in it cor- porate churacter, aud not tho public orthe people,” It (ha can of “The Commonwealth va, Cuniininga, 3 Cushiug, 216, 217, tho Supremo Court of Mansachusetts eny that, aithough the atatuta of that State gave tho Tliht o bxeeyt 1o (ho party ugyrieval, yot t nover wan glstaied, whilo tucdo provislous wero il fores, that (o Commonwealth coafd allego exceptions In’ crimiunl cases ; sud thoy hold In thut caoo that an sppeal could not Lo sustatucd in behalf of tho people where tho defondunt had een acquitted, Theso cases—and many similar ones might bo cited —tneke it ovidont that a party nggrioved 1s one who Lian Leen on trial, and whoso rights inve been fuvolved and fujured ko the result of that_ irial, This DLus not been tho casa with Prof, Patton lio in, thereforo, not angrioved, aud cunnot appeal, Tt tliero arc othor unalogics of practico in tho ciyil courta which thorougbly confirm this viow, In auy alleged offcuso aguinst the State, rosecutor appears, not. i his own behalf, Lut in behulf of the Btute whose lawa1tis cluimad have Lesu violated. o ropresents, not himaelf, Lut the State, Iv ecoks to vin- dicate, not bis own violated rights, bul the violated lionor'and mujosty of tho State, in which ho s only an equul Sntercet with all othor citizens, If the allegedt offender whom ho prosceutes 18 acquitted, that requit~ tul carries with it no perrounl ojury to the prosceutor, Lis personal iutorests huva uot been iuvolved I the prosucution, aud #o it 18 not possiblo that a verdlet of acquitial eah bo Injurious (o bim pereonslly, It may Lo # dumsgo to tho Statos it tany Lo an nfury to thie causo af Juatice, and to tho sucunity of socloly, ‘Tu this senso tlio prosocutor may Do infurcd by the ver. dict, bub then only in such degres a4 pit othor cliizons are_fwjured, Dut tho prosocator canuot oppeal. Only tho defendant can do that, becauika only his persoun] rights sud interests aro put in fsene In the talal, aud 0 he unly con b oge gricved or injured by an adverso verdict, Dt it uay o sad that here 14 00 analogy betmoon tho position of 17of, Vatton iu thin cusu aud that of 4 prosecuting attovney in - criminal prosecution, fnase much as the one appuints himscll “for this servico, while the other 1s appointed by the people, Ido not sco how (hiK nuknowledged difforcuce subatantially af- feeta tha relativo rewpounibilities of tho two partice, or why It shionld be mada the reason for granting faclli- tied du o prosecution to one which are denfed to the othor, 1f favor should bo shown {o cither party, cer- tafuly wo should suy It ought to be shown, not’to the Yolutors prosseutor, i o tho ony who {h solomuly called and formally sppoluted by the peopls for thix aurvico, Awraun who s thus publicly eot apart for this wark of codvieting criminuls, and Dringiug thom 10 punishuent, fa far ho leas likely, ns any olio cuil 508 1t a glunice, $0 bo moved by pevsoiial prejudico or msliguity ; cull, when once Lo has entarod upon a prozccution, ho o fur lees lilely—Liiman natirs tolng what it ir—to bo_overconio by e uuworthy and un- scrupulous ambition (o achinve wuocess by ohtaiulug conviction, For these reasous, speciul fucilities, if they uze given at ull, should Dy givan to him, ruibior than (o An: Luppointed progeculor, who muy b impelted to Wk ek, fh fhe Arat instauce, by prejidics or revenge, or wio, entoriug upon Lln tuek from honest miotives, muy afterwards givo Wiy 10 a1 overmautoring ambition to succeed ut whte wver coet, IHimeo 1 ausiutain that my ergnvient, drawn from tho practics of elvlt courts, $4 uot at all fuvulidated, but rather strongtlioned, by tho fact of thiy differenco betweon o solf-appoluted prosecutor anda provecutor chosen by (ho peoplo (0 roprosent thein, protect tolr Inloreets, and defend {hulr rights, A'ag distoreuce §a all (o favor of the chossy Jroseeutor, und agaiust the volunteer one, Bt womay find umoug 1o usaes of civil conrta still stronger evidoncs (a show thut o Lyety not or- sounlly uygrioved shonuld not bo atlowed tlio right of Bryedt, It ds in the case of & rra:nuunn.{ wilness whouppeara volunturily fu behalf of tho peoplo and unieriukes tosueuro the convictlon and punirinient 4f oty wham he belloves to bo au_offender aguist the Btate, Betwiun such o proseeutor aud n proseentor {ox lorewy, o for auy pablio offenso fu tho Preshy~ terlan Ghurch, thioro 18 not even tho differencs tikt a’||n Iu clectiva anad thy other yoloutary, Buth are yoluutury urvicen, und undertaken, prosumptively, from unselficl oud'ontively worthy wotives, And yob B prosecuting witneaw cnuob appesl from an cdvero doclvlon, Tuough he miny fool thut 1ie hios Licen nete natedd ouly by o o for o publlo weltaro. i hring, fug hiw prosccutiou, tough i oy regart the avqulj ,l:\l-ru'shx‘:upm*l“l\:l.lfi (r;nukle ‘tu‘ hitmeelt, sud of fnporle i ) yul 8 wively ¢ B that o i) e apgieay, el Orduttied by th VATTON Not GexevneD, "Ll friends of tho prosceitur, or perliapy it sy ststevientuto ik moro z'uf..H.f&}'Jl'.“',‘f Duva vought 10 vl It Appear ket the verdicl Lresbytery b dpeo fucto, a coneurs npon hxm‘r‘aru :l;‘:\'-‘ paatcd oxcopt by formal voto of tho judleatory, dnd en only n case (ho prosecutor han exhibited ‘rash- 11088 or mAlignity in bis prososution, Irof. Tatton, thew, might well nelc to Lo dolivered from bia friouds Who, fn being ee swilt to declars that tha declajon of tho Tresbylory hine niado him o slendorer, linve thore- Dy virtually accuned him of heing rash or maliguant, or both, But the almplo fact is that a vordict of quittal, whother given iu a clvil conrt nndor a crin nal prosecution or in an an cccloafastical court on an Indfetment charging a public_offonse, doca not necea= nurlly carry’ with it any retroctlve andl damagiug force againat tho prosceitor. The prosecuting wit~ nean in tha former canc, and tho volunleor proscontor i tho Iatter, havo acted, in tlie presumption of charity, wholly fron conalderations of publlo good, Not ase) g tlie redress of auy personsl wrongs, or the vindis cation “of any violated rights, an _adveras verdict could “not possibly inflict wpon olihor of thiem any personal Injiiry, "And as the vroscontin wltuess in 5 civil conrdis donlad the right of appeal, #0010 who brings a prosocution for & publio anenne i ah occlonlastical dourt ought to be, and i, for U Aamo reaon, farbiddert to appeal, ITo 18 Dot 'sn ag- grievod pariy, n private offenses, whollier tried under olvil or under acclostastical Iaw, the casa fa dliferent, Then Lol proseattor anc, protonted csn appediyand for thie very obvious and wuflclent reason that both aro linblo £ bo aggrieved,—1, 0., porsonally injurad or Trougod by tio verdict, ok examplo: A clinrgen with defrauding him (1ot the general charge of fraud, but the specifio ouo of fraud), snd on that clargs proscatites him in an eocloslastical court, he vordict af tho courl fa that the chargo is not suataed, 1io A s pucloved: portonally. wrongad by the decislo aud for thia xcason msy appeal, (0. F, Loweris & Kelao, 00.) But In the ca¥s beforo ua thero n no porsonat In- torelt, Patton {a bub thio raprescntativo of common ame, aistaining the ame rolation to the caso, under ecolonluntical Jaw, that a prosccuting attornoy, or a prosocuting witness, undor clvil law, ustaine o criminal proseention, Neithor cau, legally or squlta- bly, appeal from an advorso decitfon, TRE LAW ON ATIPEALY, Thst this fn o lrio atstomont of the case may bo made atil mors ovident by A careful aludy and enalysls of tho difforont provislous of our Iaw of appoul, T hinve so far brought under examination only the first nad Inst sub-sections of thot I, Let mo now ask your atteution to such of the othor sub-sectlons as bear upon tho right of appeal, X abiall exarnine them in {hetr order, Ouap. VIL., Boc, IIL, Bul-Sec. 1I., B, D,, says: * All ormos who haes sushuiied to' @ Turidar tral o s nferlor, may appeal to a higher, judlcatory,” But Prof, Palton lias not submitted to any trial at wll, Tie isa bot bean arraigned ; ke was the arraigier, "o submit to a trial is not 3 bring, but to suswer to, u formal Indictment, It fs to confont to have otie's rights sud jutcrents ataked upon the trylug of thnt indictment, A man who consvnta to run thot rik, and loos, may apposl, Litt no other. Prof, Putton bus takon no Bich rink, aiil consequently L’ cauuol g pezk, Not invtug & submitted to u roguiar tria," le uot 3 poultius to deianiid an sppesl, The ncxl subesection of tho luw i that on which Prol. Pation bases his right to appoal, and tho phrn~ aeology of Whoao meparalo clausca ho'smploys {0 st fortl o reasons for his apperl. It roada thus: “ Any irrogulatity $n tho procectiugs cf the huferior Judicatory ; a refunal of reasonable indulgenca lo purty on trinl; decilning 1o reclva Important toatl- imoay; hurrylng to e decision befora the testiniuny s fully faken ; a mianifestation of presudico In the cise § aud mistaka or injustica fut tho docision, aro all proper gronnds of appesl” . . . Now it miglit povm, ot Hirat viow, 3 though flie” lingtiage Lero employed Ac~ corded equul priviicgos to th brosceutor and tha pros. ccuted, and a5 though it applicd to tle oue precisely thowatie 81 tho other, And doubtlces this in trus wliore the two partles ars cqually Hable, un, i the caso of privato offeukos, to bo_ukgrioved ot fujured by tho ducision, But I huvo alraady shown, from tho fore- goluig provisions of tha law, that the right of appeal in absolutely deniod to any aud all persous excopt aucli a8 thoso who, In addiilon 1o belug origiunl partles, hiavo alao been_peraonatly wjured by tha dechiion upe pealed from, T huvo alao shown that Prof, Patton has ilot been 80 injured. Thoso points Lolng extabilshed 1t follows that the reasonn which &ro hera recited und doclured £o be valld reanons for an appeal, bro such as only an aggrioved party ean make usoof, Prof. lat- ton, tlierofore, can lay no clalm to them, Thoy aro ho exclusive property of a party aggrioved, Of this wo tind singular aud striking confirmation in ono of thio very reasuns liero euunioraied, sud wiich fa tuo ouly oue that Prof. Patton does not ‘enploy o hia uotica to Xrosbyters it Lo will sppesl, 6T o saidthat “a refusal of ressonabln indulgenco o a parly on tuiai? is “a proper gronud of sppeal,” Taking tus clause i connection with the provisions of tie law which I buve alroady cxamiuad, it s very - evident thaf, in - all public offensen, such a8 this ‘case Deforo' um, only a defendant csn pload thess roasone aa entitling Diin to au appieal. ‘e prosocutor is Dok party ag- griercd, neitherIa dc, nor dia bo beep, “a pasiy on teal, Nov, 1t mny te sald that, in a trial for,a privataof- feuss, and whero tho decison hus gong against th prosecutor, that thera tho prosccutor has not been o party on triul," while ot lio can appeal, - This lo true, Bt Tucw in. this eauo of & privato onease, e Ia » phriy aggrioved, and on this ground can eppenl, whilo the proseculor who asks for & reboaring at tho bar of this Gourt 1s_neillior aggrieved nor lus he heet » party on trfal, and thus ho Js doubly barred, One who arralgna another for a private offense hina one valld ground on which, {f ieis beaton, ho may bane bis riglit to s re~ Learfug; but a prosceutor for s public offente has ab- solutely 1o grouud ou which to baso an appeal. Tho main postifon which I have hera taken, and which, a I think, T lixvo succosstully maiutainod thus far i {his argnment, may be sl fur.ler strougthen- il by ozaunaing tho nezt sub-scction of iho luw, Hars “ Appenls vy o, elthier froni 3 pu the procoslings of & Judica tory, or from n deflultivo nonlence,” | Then tue prosecntor, in his notice lodged with the Moder- ator of Presbytery, makes no moutivn of any_* part of tho proceedings of tho Judicatory,” 1o declares ouly thiat by ¥ appeal §s Trom o dotiufiive sontence, WHAT 18 A BRNTENCET It bocomes, then, yery fmportant for us to ask, What {n o sontonce’? Ttie ward bas, it wil bo Teadlly adufited, various meantngs, 1t may mean mero «poreonal” opinion, as whero Jamen, tafiing part in the dispute about clfcumeludon, ealdt * Wiierefore, my eentence in {list wo trouble not them waich ' fror among the Gentlles aro turued to God," It may mean “a ghort eaying containing: woral instruction.” Whon wsed fn_gramuiar it donotes n nwmbor of worda put togetlicr 80 a# {0 make completosenso, Tutdn Inw tha word_alivays mans the Judgment that is declarod by a court, or Judge wyuinst a criwinal, According to Webster, fn law tho word sentonce fs uscl ouly for the declaration of judgment ugainst one con nctod of & erinie,? Webster ‘further declares thut, n elvil cases, tho decision of a court i1 called a judgnicnt, In crime {nal canes, sentence 18 a judgment pronounced ; dowm,” With_this definition agree alt law writcra who nudcrs tako to sct forth the meanmng of a seuteucd, Even in the Beriptuiren, the word bus no othor mieaning than thin, when usod {n connection with luw, We read in tha Gospels that when the multitude, tncluding the chlef priosts, clamored for tho eructfixion of Christ, * Pilato uve eentence that it shouid be as they reyuired,” that fl. Lo condemned tho Lord to death by the cross, In tHo aamo scnde, tho Wiso Preacher omploya the word wltou Ho eays, * Becauso senfence aguiunt an ovil work 18 not exccuted spocdily, theroforo tho Leart of tho sons of muen 8 fully sot 1 thom to do evil,! This Inepired has of the word is that which obtains nniyersally in all books, and courts, and usoges of law, And thus while the ne enteuce hies a variely of sig- nifications, yetin law 1L liss but one mowning, fixed and coustunt, nnd that s, a donunclation of pains and penaltios npon oo who hoa been adjudged to bo guilty of a public offcuse. And this fs absolutely tie only meaniug of tho word wiien It is used s 3 verb, To sonience, accordiug to Webater, 8 * fo con- demn, to doom to punishment, g, 0 8- fice a conviek to death, to transportation, or to imprisonment,” And yow let us apply this dofinition, tho correctness of which it is imposaiblo to guiusay, to the facts of tho trial eforo Presbytory, Wl anybody in Lis scnses undertake to claini that the prosocittor was sentenced, thnt Is, condemucd, doomed to punishment? Cortain’ Iy not, 'Then ho eannot appeal, 1t a dmpossiblo thiat ay senienco should havo been promownced upon bim by the court, for wuo sentenco was pronounced upon any one, mob oven wpon tho defeudant, Prof, Swing was acquitted, That was this verdict of the Courl, - But sentonco follows tion, & there was 1o’ couviction in the caso, 1t wonld be nbuurd tospeak of & verdict of ucquittal on a uentence, It js never a sentonco, and It is never followod by3 sontouco, for thut, as ‘T bave said, al. ways signilies, in tha usige of luw, ths denunclation of na aud penoitfes. But an appoliant, us our book vory pludnly teaches, muat Yo ono on whom sentonca lias heen passed, for uvery appeal must be from pro- coedings ™ which nro_fnjutious, or eise from * a de. finltive sentence,” which, iu ita vory nature, must bo oppresalvy, vlse [t would'not ho a sentonce at all, e defendaunt in (his caso, wun ot soutenced, but aequit. tad, and hiouce ho hes no motive to apjeal, aud Lin prasccutor bus 1o right o appoal, beenuno the action of th Prasbyteryhaa in no way iuficted upon him ity wrongs vhioh call for radress, Tint peritops 14 muy ho contonded {hné the word aentence docs not, us uscd In our Book of Dicipiine, huve this precive meaniug which I havegiven it, But that it docs huve this meanluy, sud this meaning alou, th testimony of the bouk ilaelf mukos abmas lutely sure. ‘This, T thiuk, must b udmittod by al wha wil carctully ttend to {hat tenttmony, In Yook of Dieclpliuo, Chap, B, ec, i, Sui-Seo, 15, we lud langungs whicl'elearly raveals thie moaning of 2 detinitivo sentoncy, from which appead nuy bs taken, “uoss aro tho worda * e neceasicy operation of o appeal fu o suspeud all further provoediuga ou tho ground of tho Aentenca appealed from. But If o Kono teucs of sunponsion or excomimunication from churel privileges, or of dopoaition from ollico, be the eeutencs anpoalod from, it slinil be conslduted a4 i forca unil tho appeal aball bo iusued” 8 Oan sy ono full to see Lhat this languago elearly pro- autuva hat it v Dia defeudun who, appesin. frop duliuitive seutouce,” aud thut Lo dove so beewuss ho Las been tnjured by tho sentenca (a sontenca must alwaya injuro), and dnjure, it may be, to the extont of *ausfiennion ov oxcommuunication from ehureh privileges, or of “deposition from office”3 Irof, 'atton lies wndor no siich sentence, or wndor any suntenicn, 10r Lian any seutonce boel Prononiicod Iy the Preshylery, nor ban any netion heen {aken whicl infiicts one pariielo of {njury upoun him, "o uoxt fow sub-sections of the Law aro made up of directions o an appeilont and to tho Appellate Court how tlioy nro to procoud. Au thoy do nob wear upon the question fu Liand, they muy bo pusned by Without remarly, Itis not until wo come to Sub. Hootiou X, that we find unyibiog furtlor to our pur. poss, T'rom this wo learny that tho appellunt fe ons ‘whom {he higher Court may Judge to Lo entitied o #a new trfal” heno words polut vinmiatakably to one whio hwa ‘beon tha defondant {u n case, sid Who, hue sides belug fnjured by thu resull of tha'trial, has'alig Dbeen njnred by (he untate mawner i which 1t ey boen cunduoted, as this fu fnplicd by (ho *ingorract and defective’ yorord hora spoken of, \Who ovor heard of “n new trial" bolug geanted to a publio prasecutor? Huch u favor er- tondud to ous, who bud not suffored trisl, wonld U w groes anl flagrant injustive to nn seoused party, Tt would bo strauge indeed i€ tho Taw of uppeal n ti cubyterlun Oluiroll hog Leen framed 5o carolossly to retuder auch 1 oulrago upon justice ; owihle . deeit, Dl it bas not Leew so franid, 'This wul-geos ton, il il tho others that luvo beo faund to Lear upoiy (o cano before s, hud buen framed witl wiuifost und exclusive roforencos to the proloction of der, Tali bvou cutiro ibstake, Colsura chunol bo tho rlyhto aud futerents of an sgzrioved parly, 1bwas never acsigued to vpen tho way for au uusggrioved ‘proncentor fo puratio bis apponont from ono court ta anothor, It 8 fncrediblo that in this Churol, which {s o church of Iaw, &nd of Itharty regniated by law, (hat anch urentricte 1iconss ehould by nllowed—3 licones hich na clvil Goutt on earils would tolorato {0 & mo- mot FOR WIOM. NEW TRIATLS ADE ALLOWED, Bub that 4t 1oy bo mado clear bagond all question in whiose favor & 13tw Lrial muay bo granted, T rofor yoi to Book of Disolgdl e, Gliap, Ix., on now toatimony, 1 olo: ** If, aflcr a trial before nny judlcatory, now cstimony ba discov ered whiuh {x suppased o bo Highly {morlaiit fo the exo ulpation of the accnaed, it fa propor forhira o aak, aud for tho udlcatoiy to iranty o new trial” Pha yoxt tection doclares that auich toshimany fvnometiino_discov ered dnwing “the prosecution of appedls.” Thia lin gusge t (oo plain to Uy misnder eloud, 14 shors onziclusivaly that au sppellant cau_be 1o olhier than a conclemued party, and that, as a con- demued party, the Judicatory nost above may grant D a now trlil {n’ cass now testimony s diavovored which may tend to ifs ¥ oxculpation,” Bt this ta uot alll. Bo Jealous 18 the law to proteot {ho individua) whoito rights may have beon uninton- tlonally violated, tiint it in careful to provida for the specdiont and. flicat, renaeution posibio, Soc, vi, of the saino chapter duclaros that If vary kerfous injury {a Itkely to happen, eftler o tho appotlant or to tho Qlirehy by the detay which & uow. trlal would oo~ canlon,” thion tne auperior judicatory may Hself, in- atond ‘of orlering & new' trial, proceed fo (ryaud decide the casn {n Gt light of the slowly discovered testimony, i both. tho appeliant snd tho court appealed from unite in such a roquost, Thus does the Iaw taks cara to provide specdy retiel for n injured parly : and It docs 0 for the Indlvidual's own pako, and for {lie saka ¢f tle Church ; for, *whon ong member aufces, all the members suffer with 16, And in Uhin thio oceldsiastical inW i 1o mote humano thian the oivil law, That fs cqually just ih offering a o trlalLoa party fugurad, fu cebe diovs pliguld appar to be any good roason’ for dolugso. Lt it gives mo such opportunity Lo o prosceutor, Hlackutons declares (Fourth Dook, 301) ¢ * In many {natances whero, contzary to ovidence, the Jury havo found tho prisonor (kulty, theit verdict Jiath Leon mercifully wob aslde, taid & now trial grantod by the Gottrt of Elng'a Botich, for_Ih auck casg, a3 hath beeu sald, it cannot bo set right by attaint, 1int thore lintl yot been no nstance of- grauting a new trisl whora the prisonor was acqiutted pon tho fivat, But ot only daea the civil authority deny to @ publio prsccutor tia right of aubjecting & d2fondant ta the tlska of trixl again lu the same cotirtin which be hus ouco beou tifed aud acqnitted, bul. It also dondes him tho Tight to sppeal {0 a higher conrl, and thioro comapel the do- fendunt to atand anothiar tiial, On ilfa polnt the pres cedonta ara all 1o way, aud 2re slmply averwholming, 1 will not tax your pillenca to multiply citations, Tho underlying principlo of them ali i tho same, snd ibat s that 8 purly cantiat bo placed fa fooardy tho accond tins for tito sam o offense. Tn tho caso of tho Stale v, Brown, in tho 18 Gonn, Rep., G4 and 63, Oburcl, ., fu defivering the opinlon of tiis Buproms Gourt af tho Stata of Connecticut, an Thfe dofondans. was tried in tho Swpetlor Courl, and, upon a heariiz'g, has beeu avquitted by tho Jury there, aud yet tho pu bilo proacoutor on tehulf of 1ho State demands a new irial, This Is a bold experte wment, and han nover, to our knowlodizs, been m.da befors fu tils Btate, *We 11eed not go into'sn_oxamin. ation of the Law of Engiaitd or of uursister States in regard to tho grautiig o wow triala upon_ convietion iu erimiual prosocations, ‘whother thoy bo for treason, flony, or misaomeatiors, * 'Thia {8 8 caro of acquitta’ and it s concoded everyw)i ero whero tho princples of tho comuwn law of Eughad aro recog. nized ~aud provafl, tit n all cascs of indictments or informatle 8 for matters criminal in which tho acoused bao b en azquitted, and his uc- Quittal hna not been proct el Ly Lis o fratid or evil practice, boatull uot agdla o pub fu jeopardy b s tow trisl granted upou the: molion of tho Siate ot b= lio proscentor,” Mo o tion for & new trial was de- nied. This declalon is ooz one of & multitudo that are preciaely likv it in priu ti plo, In it Baid 1bat tho practico in clvil courls cannot bo taken s a rulo for our actina’ in- thls cae? lhen L answer that the General A si embly itsolf bas given its oxprees aud golomn sanotfiszi to the vory principlo for which I am contendiug, 13 the Nuw 8cnnol Dizeat, p, 909, you will find (his signifi ant dechration mudo by the General Ansembly. Lt1u a purt-or the netion tak i tho cao, of Albort Burnct, Tho Asdcmbly say #+Tlo nttempt to coudewn ¢, Darnes by & condemnas tlon of bia book, uftor hie En beon acquitted on o hearingt on chiargés wholly sta-unded on o book, fs viulution of the Tundameitale mzim of law,—thit no mau alall bo bvlco put 0 J©opardy for tig samia of— feuse.” Aud now If this api. u M bo allowed, it must by 1n tho vedy faco of this dectsi ® 1 of tho Assémbly, But rottruing now 1o 1ik0 faw of appeai end prssing on to tuo iext ulesectiou, ‘we flud it pro- yiden thatun appollaut niay {1 va his case poatponed when in any instance o fs | T sventod from caveyiing it on ¥ by the providence of \thal” Tuis, Tightly e terprotad and appilod, s wie b aud morciful provision of ‘tho laws but, wheb elsimodl and used by a party not aggeioved, 18 Lecomea an instrumont of oppres. slon aid wrong. Thn framer 1 of the Inw nover could liave Intended that this provis s.on of it should evor be 60 used, Aud certafnly the ad tolnfatrators of tho law havo nevor, 60 far, sllowed ft 1> bs 50 wwed, for the only cases ih which appeals ha ¥11 beon postponed luvo boott the czdcs of parties who ero .zgieleved by tie declsion appealed from, The Vvery fact of postpones mont presupposes that tho s pacllant iy an aggrioved party, 1 hiavo thus brought under ea: 6 ful aud erftieal exam- fuation all those pravisfous of £ 113 1aw of appual whick Dear upou the caso boforo uk. . 1\zom this exsmination 1 thifu §t muss bo ovhlent to all’ th'st the prosceutor for o public ollense has not a shadorv of rlght, In law, to sppeal his eabo, £ thore woro r witling. 10 forbid litm but that provision which requir u tat & party. et by aggrived in order o b entlth ¥l to appou, this, of itaclf, would Lo entirely conelu. ve sgainst him, As wwoll imight it bp clnfned that ona Wwho i nt an original party can appeal 3 clufm thut one who s uot an og- grivved party cun doso, The v av §s perfoctly cloar, 3 Not a soiltary one of (he conditions uf appeal in et | Dy the progocutor in this case, txcopb that Ly is an original party, All tho other ¢ ia ditlons aro wanting in his cave, 'ffo 18 not uggrievod; 11s hasnos 4 oubmit- 1o a regutar trisl e haa _wot been “a party on + e ins ot Liad fmposed v pon bim o gricvous and injurious sentenco; aud ho {4 ot one Lo whom & higher conrt would evor think of according * a now trial " Al thiesn considerations oc tzbiued mterpose & most offictual Lar (o an appeat n 1 &t 8 case, o position which I have taken ' and_ maintained fn ihis argument _is sustajued by i authority of tuo Presbyferian Manual, published by onr Board'of Pub- ileation, ‘Chat saya < % Thocompli iut differs from an appeal chlely in this that thoappe: 1l must b made by aparty to an investipation, climin, g to hiavo Leen in- Jured by tho decilon of tue fuforioi* Judieatory, The comglafut moy by brought by any p arsun who' is ot a party.” Bo trua s thig roprosentat um, that the adop- tlow'of the majority report beforo y ou ' would bo beo- lutaly to oblitérate ol distinction “iottween an appeal and a compiuint, and thus to conforizid things whlch boths the Jaw of tho Church uud Ha Jakgbest Judicatory uuite to declars uro didierant, TOSITION OF A'PROSLOT!ION, And hiers I nw bronghst to consider tho trno positioi of & propocutor o such a caso s thiv, It not that of su appellant, but that of a com ¢lalnant. 1f tho ‘prosecutor claime, a8 ho 1u substanes d.oes, that ho can be an appeliant on the ground thuts tho decision Iy unconatitutional, thut {¢ * s fnjurior is to the Interosts of velijpion,” or that it §s “calelated to degrads tho character of thoss who have pronous ced It tho law offera him o chunco to repair this pul bic aud gonoral injury as o complainaut, but not . un appellant, “A comploint 18 a roprosentation made to o euporior, by any momber or mewbe::s of a minarlly of an ffarlor Judicatory, or by ny ciilice yoraon or crion, respeoting decfslon by a1 slurior jidica- vy, which, in tho opibion of the cai u plainants, haa been irregularly or unjustly mude,” (B, D,, Gisap. i, Sco 1v, Sub-Soc, 11,) Such” s the defiilion of a complafn givn by our Bock of Discipline, It will bo oxervecl that 1t pro. vides for u resort fo the higher courls by uny one, though bo 1ay be neither ui origiual party, hor an aggneved party; nor a party that Lau " subinittod fo a regular trial” nora party under so:) tence, nor a party to whoin a new trial mmay lio gruutiul, 18 it not pertectly manifest, from this languugo., that the only Proper und legul courso for tho prosecut 6T to pursio would iaso been o compluin? 'he Juw guts bim un- dor munifold diiflouldes as an sppolli 34, und nbso- lutoly forbids that hoshall appeul; but §t.3ives bim an opeu way a¥ a complainont. Of tho truth of this statoment, *asstura nco may bo muda doubly sure” by uoticing thio cara 8 which tho Book of Discipiino deflues ns cnes 11 which com- plaint is proper and advisable, The casus deseribed aro threo (. D., Ghap. vk, Bec, ir., £nib-Soc fii.), namely s Where * the Judgmont of an’h ii'erior Judi- catory ™ has been # favorable 1o the oulj7 party who hud been placed at teir bar, whore “ihe Fudguient in question ¥ has dono * on wrong to an ludi yidusl,” and where tho party who Ia sggrieved by thul judgment # declines b tronble of conducting svi appeal,” low exactly do tho firat fwo of ihes 3 suppu canca fit tho facts of thi actual caso whicsh you are callod upon to dectde, Tho Judigmont of 1410 Chicago Jreabylery hos boau ¥ favoralilo ¥ 1o Prof. 3 wit, wiig 18 %t odly party who lias boon placed at ¢ heir bar," and it fen judgment which hus dono *ney wroug fo ay Individusl? 1€ uny, mon was diszal Gifled witl that Judgmout, if any man felt it to bo * iy jurlpus to tho faterosts of roligion,” were Lo the orlg li 1l prose- cutor or any othior peraoi, Lis only wiy of ¢\ ittiug tho ercor corrected wus by cotplat o tho bigdier judl- catory. Appeal io could not, i Uyion tha third suppored atato of facts whi'ch conld make a complaint proper I noed not remurit, se thut appliea ratbor to & defendant snd thoso nym)st ithizing with hlm, If tho verdict of the Tresdytory ) ad boeu vorwus Drof, Bwing, und e had refusod 1o appeal, thiun uny perwon o pordous who might have folt thut thiat veriict wus wrong could taye curried up tho case by complufut, LAW OF COMPLAINT, Tint there aro somo otlier aspacts of thiu law o f conte plaint which ouglit nobto be passed Ly wit b out ro- ik, 1w aleady callod your iention Lo tho Taot vt forth o this law, that 1o apyosl is tcijo ox- pecicd wh on, 1n s 1 ave befara s, tho Ju et [ beet favoratilo to Lo only party piaced cai telal, and where tliat Judgmout husdons o wrong \to un)y Individual, Lut wiy b thoro o be no appeal:ia such “Pho fuforciice 18 fulr und obyious i title catgo tho prosecutor In Bllch canea hiaw no 1! bt to appeais whilo the dofendunt, having beon acy i ltod, Tivh 310 molive to do mo, A 'compluint fy alio pid to Tiown who regard Judgmeut oa couteary to tho ¢ inatl- {ution of the Ohrcl, &e, Now, bygny fair {nlor- pratation of tho luw, the procecdiig by complal ut will D found not to conltomplite auy such chunge 1 u tho £ the party [who hag Leen tried as o f titbis ofn i peril,_ Tho powor of ravoraul, wl i ch s givon 10 (o superior Judivatory in » proceodi n g by complaint, avem 10 bo givon chfely, Ifuot wholly for tho purpose of counteracting nuy pussibly fuj iz lous stTact which deolsion migiit have as a precedo od for fatara uction, ‘Lho grand objoct of @ compls dtit ly thitia ot o put sgaii i Jeopariy & man Who ks 4 neo Deen aequitted, bt to viudieats the purlly of ~ the Qhittreh, | Whatver the Iaw of complatut muy be & up: ‘Fosed 10 tutend in rogard ton party oneo tilod aud Lequitted, it certalnly stops shurt of sayhig that lie 112y agiin s put on ell for tho suno offerive on i leh 1ia hiaw onco beon tricd, 1L stopa uborl of sayivg i ho mny bo condvmucd, Nor doea it say anytling I ke thes thingy, vor auything from wiiol {hes thiJi g8 i rousonably be fufervod, It cannot, thew, bo pisi b= crly olatmod, und it cortuimly ‘cauuot Do clearly st i - lahed, thut the procecding by complint wan (v or futended to take away from & party onco acqulize d upon triil for & publio offency the Vindivallon whii i thu verdiol of suniittal yave ity il leas (o subjod | him (o penaltica from which, by thie judguent in' bid £avor, o Lad » right 10 vlui oxetaplion, ca b right Tu atrong confirmation of thln viow In the fact that there ato cares fu our 1) st whoro the Uoneral Ay- bly consuired amd condemuad o sction of the fufeilor coutrt, whillo ab the fatuo tne tio Judgaont, which (u- volyed Indiyvidual rights, was sllowod 0 staid, A cang of thin kdud was thnt of e ftev, Jolm Bheplord, k\nm-! 20 and 205 of Moore's New-Schoal Digest, \Mr, Shephierd had been deposed from the Goapel min- iatry, and was {mproperly restorcd by tho Preshytery of Onondaga, Tho Asseinbly sustained the action of the Synod n consuring the Prosbytery for rostorlng him, but they rovorse:d (ho action of the Bynod for Daving rovarged tho actlon of tho Preahytory, therehy aeposing Mr, Buaphnrd agaln, and thoy dhi fo for tho avowod purpovo of protucting tho fudividual rights which wore fuvolvad, Hence I maintsln that fhe Taw of com- rlmm cannot Lo uuderstond lo Justify honrraignment ot nn_acquitied party agaln, nnd for the samu public offonsn, It contemplston, not the punishment of a porson henorably vindleatod, but the Protection of ho Church from [njury, And thle Is whiat the prosecutor fn thin cago ‘shiould, witls his viewn, liavo dought, 116 aliould have complaind, o remedy from tho uso of which ho is now dobarred by conatitutional snactimont, Thero fs, then, a right 'and & wrong way of doaling with carea of prosccution for publlo offonses, Having thus briedly mdlcatcd the right way,—tlo way which should linve beens purstied by the proscotitor,—lot mo now roturn o the bustncss of showing atill move fully that tho way upon which Lie han aclually cutered fn o wwroug way—a way which cantiot bo puratied oxcept by firat beatiiig down the dofensea of law, and by disre- garding tho suthorlty of precodents, T hiavo shown thint tho law forbids that tho prosecator siould La cue terinined and hoard in this Bynod as nn appelian Thore cannol, be tonid in the law any shadow of wa Tunt for hoaring him, KO PRECEDENTS ¥OR PATTON B OLAIM, L, 33 tuext poiut Iy hut iers are up vreceilents to support his clalin, Not & caso ean be found fu auy of the Digests thnt 1ives any sort of support to thls o= tlou of I'rof, Patlon’s, It was not untii {ho yesr 1820 {hat oy distinglioy wag miulg betwean an apyoal smid a complaint, Provious to that data the wanal formula wns, “Wo appoal and compluin (Maore's Digeat, Now Botioot, p, 210.) Lt shncs thiat timo the dlatince tion Lius beon shiarp and well-dofined u 2l the de- cislons of the Goneral Awsombly, Not an fustance can ba cltod of trial efmiiar to thls of Tatton va, Bwing, wheru the prosccuior ' Lns Leen llowed an appea 'he Digeats report, if 1 have connted correctly, suve iy-foar. casea of apreal, evary ouo of whiclh was broughl by an aggrivved party, if It waa brought since the year 1§20, I ot a xolitary inatanco dv we find an appoliant who sustains any such refation to this caeo, Aud surcly this Synod will not undertake to mnka a procedent Which will be ditoctly contrary to all {lto ulliigs aud dectslonn of o Gsuoral Assembly for Ly years, ‘Cliat it wny bo seen hiow undeviatingly true it in that nn appollant must como befora a higber court s an in- Jured party in order to. bo ontitled o be heard, lot mo mk your ‘atlention fo & claseitied statement, of the eanes of appedl whioh are recorded in tho Digest, Fourteen of theso spnoals wars branght by ministors Who had been formally consurud, ar auspended, o de- pored ftom tho ministrs ; twentysthrea wera brouglit by berwous who il been susponded or excommunicat- ad from tho chureh ; nine wera brought Leforo 1520, nud thereforo need not b considered ; seventeen woro dismlennd for {rreguiarity of one sort 'or auotlior, such 38 fallurs to givo tmoly notlco of appod, or tlo ab- #nco of papera or records ; ruven wore cuhea brought Ly defendants or by person othetwika clearly nggriov- rtics ¢ two aro cases on witleh I wboli hisvo oceas ; aud as to tho ro- maining two cages, the fucta ura not given #o as to ad. mil of n Judgment concorniny thelr character, Thoy gunnol, (harcfore, Lo 1egardei us precodsala for any- 32, ra TUEVIOUR OAKLE CONMIDERTD, But perhapn 11 provcoutor may urge, 88 precedents inhis fuvor, the appeals of Dr, Wikon aud Dr, Jun- kin, cach toa Synod waleh entertained them, The aetibu of the Byhod of Philadelphia can hardly bo quolud a8 3 procodout for anythiuy oxcept for amaz. it Lawlosnucas ; for its trial of Albert Barues was chinraclerizad by a degreo of iufustico unparaileled, doulitless, 1n ali” the sunuly of jmiisprudence, whether ceclestustical o clvil, Certainly it Is to bo oped that 00 court hefors or sinco has ever tried & man on an appeal without Laving befors i une scrap of tho rec- oxds of tho lower court, Bul this Is what the Syuod of Philadeiphia dicd with Albert Barnes. 8.41l, doubtless, it will Lo clatmied by the proseouter that thio Synod of Philadelphia and ths Synod of Clucinnut! bave estab. Ushed precedeits 1l Lfh favor, o haw view, then, 1 Teply s 1, “Chat those precedonts ars in clear violation of the law, and ave, thovefors, cutitied to no conslderation whiltaver, *o precedent can snnul the faw ; lor can ono disuliodiends of tha law bo quoted as tho grotmud ard tho Justification of auotlior dlsobedloncs, This answer Ia concluslvo fn tself, bul thera ar otbier valid and adequsts answers that cdn ho given. 2, Tt cau properly ho answerod Liint, 83 the appelices i1 Tliesn cnses did Dot object to the entertaiuicnt of 1ho appasis, the Synolls were not called upon o do ko, A court, 2ull capeclally hn coclestastienl court, will Yory ofien Isave o doubiful or on uncoustitutionel cotirae t0 50 unchalienged whero =n intorcated purty £als to give a chiallengo. Nob purposely, not froin de. liberato ugaitbfuluos fo ita trast, Gut through funde Yertenca. "o altouton was i lfed Lot parlionc far point, aud es ft dld mob arrest mitention, it could’ ot Lo mauo tho wub of judiclal action,’ Thls is n _well-known principle “fu vl fwy' and procedents, mud declsions embodyine 1t infght be quoted to almost any extent, 1t will bo stiliciout o cito barely o anthori- liea wbon Uils polnt, iviopia' First Luok of L, 8ce, 303, declares, coucerning the. declston of o coutt, that #1{ fs not biuding an Lo any matier to which the mind of the Court did not udvert, oven thougls within the rocord facts,” Judge Daly, Speaklug ot the decis- fot of a court, sy : ¢+ ¢ {Lis cuea in to o considered &3 a precedent and bindiog =5 sn_sutbority upon the polut 1ot takun, nor fuguired into, though fuvolved, theu it wonild be controlibig upon the matiou, But I do nal thiuk t is, 1 a polit 8 esseutlul to s dockulou voudored, ft will b preaumed tbat it was duly cousid- ered, and (it all that could be urged for or sgalust it was presouted to the court; but, if it ppoars from tho rapuit of th casg that ¢ was’ not takeu or fuquired futo at all, thero u 10 ground for the presumption, 8ud tho alitioriy of the'eass {3 proportiouately weakt encal Navw, applylog thcso principles, 1t doea appear trom there Synodteal trials that tho prosecutor's tight Lo appoal was o question not raisod at nil. 1t was 1ot be- fore tho mind of e:thur court, Neltlier uppelloo ohisl- langed the prosecutor's right (o appeal. 1¢ thls nnuie Ty liad Deen rafuod, and §f cither Synod, after fully counidering tha question, badl decided tiat the prosce culor’s tigiit to appeal could w0t bu- deuled, tho thelr decislon, 80 glvcn, wonld hiave Leon 3 praccdont in Lo rrosocttors futeroat, 80 faras o Bynod, which {8 an uferior court, oy bs rogirded s compuotent to cstab ish an authoritative precedent, But us no ncl in- quiry \was ever raiccd In atbior’ Synod, thelr notiun in tho preniiges cannt bo quoted a8 n precedent, - Thin fortu of auswor by 3o completa ad couclusivo i it ez, 5. Tt may be stfil furlber roplicd, that a Synod, bo- Ing an inferior judicatory, is ot ‘compotent 10 ox- poitud (ho law, fi o inal ‘snd_outhoritative way, by embodying ts meaning In declalons which suall s xc- ceptod e4 Lindig even upon inferior, uud siil losy 1pon co-ordlnate, courts, Tio Goneral Assombly alons 13 the court of vitimute rezort, That sions can miko procedents of authoritativo niid Lindiug forco, Lut tho Genoral Agsombly Mas made 1o precedents, nor cut any procedents be found anywhoro n the Judieial ilstory of {hie Churel to ustaiir tho Prosuoutos's mo- tion for an appeal, 2 EVENING SESSION. The Synod ook u racess ut half-past § a’clocl, and mot again at & quarter of 8, tho continuation of Mv, Noyes' argument Leing doferred until this morning, The nttondanco was' very small, oot over fifty Presbyters and s dozen spectators being present. therefors, BUNDAY-S0HOOLS. The Committeo on Sunday-schools submitted their report : Thoy bolioved tho Church at largo was rising to au incrensing intorest in the diguity sud valua of Sundes-gchool labor, and the nacessity of full proparatton for it. If thearoa of the work bad not crensed, nt loast the staudatd of jt was bo- ing lirted up, snd the Church was doing bet- tor Sunday-school work than over before. They noticed particuinrly the gronter atteution thnt was boing giveu to tho difticult art of teaching, anid to tho cousequont duty of having tralned teachers, No kind of education so mmparatively domanded normn! classen, Yho Church was be- ginuiug to understand that overy converted per- son was not necessarily qualitied to be o teachor, and that tho grace of conversion must bo sup- plomented by other graces of Lnowledge, apti- tude, esnd practico to voustituta the ideal, or even tho properly furnished, teachor, ‘I'he work called for wpeclal culture as truly as tho work of tho pulpit. In {llustration of tho snwukoned intorsst aud oclovated views in this regard, thoy reforred not only to tha Chrutaugqua Inutitute, but to tho orgauizationy of nswocistionn aud justitutos for toachors uud novmal ¢lanses i so many placss,—io the moro goueral holding of Leachors” moatings ouch weok tor the atwdy of tho lessons of the susecoding Babbath, wud alio to tho may Lolps of, papurs, magazmes, and toaohors’ booky, viath which tho | echools wore being Lvoely nupplied, Ouo of (ho L'roubytoies (Chicago) had m succenstul opora- tlon an association of tenchiors end ollcors for tho speciul task of muking Sunday-sohool worlke nion that nood not be ashamod. It bold month- ly mootings in difurout pavty of tho eiby, ras coivod ropotts from the schools (whieh Lound them togother iu s comuon work), discusued subjocty germaue to its aims and plany, wud souglit 1o olovilo tho standard of quallfications, and 50 inorenso tho wonkura of success, ‘I'hey bad no reporly Irom Iresbyterlos, and, theretoro, could not give detailed statistics of tho numbor or_ work of the sehools within the bouuds of tha Bynod, Yet, gudulng from snch information s “hud como Doforo them, . thoy fearad ouol an oxhibit wonld uot bo of a specially eucouragiug natie, B(nrapm recontly inuds to the Sunday-Hohool Awvsovciution of tho Lroy. bytory of Chieago L nppeared liat, within the bounds of thut Prosbylery, thora had, within tho puat o yoars, boon i mnrked-decline in nam- Imrn. ‘U'hoy hud the imprecsion that m the othor Prosbytenios thoro had “nt loast been little in- crenso, An oxplanition of the fact was probubly to bo found in the withdrwwnl of the urr(e fleinl means (o wseewro attondunco. Tho onorgion had boon givan moro Lo Biblo study niml #pintual worlc; consequontly, if thero lnd boew o climinution of membors, it hail, porhupy, Leon moro than compeusated forin the better kind of work which had buon stiempted and porformod. Thoy thought, in tho knowledgo of Gud'y Wordnnd In tho converalon of children, there Iiad boon no falilng off, but u marked incrcaso, Tho Committve rocommended, First—As o condition necosnary to a mora rlluiuhonml Hundny-school interest, that the ’rosbytorica be urged to obtnin from tho schools nunder their caro such {nformation us woull Lo Liolpful to an underatanding of the condition of thgwnrk within the nds of the Bynod, and I2eward tho same tarough tho Sunduy-Sehool Committea Lo tho Bynodiosl Committeo in timo for tholr annual roporr, Second—That the Presbyterios take such stapn a8 should soom boat to thom, oither by organ- fzing an association, or Toncliors’ Institu tes, for tho purposo of *alsing wp togchors who ehould be rightly qualifiad to tonoh tha Word, Aftor some discussion, In which tho lack of interast nmong pnators aud paoplo for tho Sun- dn.\'-;«hf}nl wn:l:h;plnlru;l. and al) wora tirged to awako from their lethar, 5 dgpted. ks RYy tho roport was A rocess was then talien untfl 9 o oty 0 o'clock thia —_— THE EPICCOPALIANWS, . Bnectat Dispateh {o The Chichgo Trivune, New Yonx, Oct, 10.~The tenth day's nossion of the Protostant Epfacopal Genoral Gonvontion was passed almost entiroly, in scerot session {n conalderation of Prof. Soymour's qualifieations for thio Dishoprio of Illinofs. Thoro wasn very shm attondanco both of dologatos and speotators at tho openlng of tho House of Delogates, Many aro weary of tho protractod disoussion, and do not hesitate to snyso. Tho delogates ars getting norvous, too, at the prospect of n pro- louged session, ny they have yot touched littla of the importrut business which is loading tho Liands of tho Communsionors, A motion to admit tho publio was lost bya amall majority, < At voon, the church was carofully cleared of oll intrudors, and the consideration of Prof. Soymour's quahification—~porhaps more truly of Ina disqualilfeation—for the Bishop's chinir of lllll:mm woy rosumed, o mowmbors uppear to bo + _TOSING THEIR INTEREST in this, Tt is oven hwted that nomo of the speakers appoar to bo taluluq’ ngainet timo, Tiyo days bavo been takon up by about twenty mon, sud thore aro snid to be atill as many more who want to lift up their voicon, ‘ho gonoral opinion I8 that Prof, Seymour will bo contirmed. I'hoss \who aro most sangu-ne haya now advanced their estimation from clafin- ing four-fifths of the foude in his favor to nine- tenths, Auothor result of Lhe discussion, whick is clained by ono who says that ho in & groet Nitnalist, and who deflnes Ritualivm a4 tho adorution of tho Sacramont, bub admires othor charactoriatic taatures, i that the Prot- cstant fooling has boon strengthened to such a degreo that (L viitually amounts to the DEATH-DLOW OF THE RITUALISTIO PADTY. It jo gaid by others that tho opposition nro beginniug to fear that thoir efforts mill bo fruit- lous, but expoct that a lang discussion will leave a blot upon Prof. Seymonr's uame, oven aiter lig 18 con''rmed, Tour upenkors occupiod the floor to-dsy, The Rtov, Dr. Edward Sullivan Goshed bis speoch in opposition to confirmation. ‘I'ho_prote-t wihioh wah recolved by iitm was presonted to the IIuuse ou Baturday, ~ No intimation of ita contents cauld be " pot. Cambridgo Livingstono, of Now York, fulloned, and a8 ho in roported to bo a Low-Chiurchman, o probably Joined the ory of the oppomtion. 'The Rov. W, G, Farrington, D, D., of New Jersoy, wus thie third spenkor, and ig srid to have spolten favor- ably to conflvmation. The last apealier waa the Rov. Dr. A 11, Vinton, of Boston. 7o the Annciated Prees.] TROCLEDINGS IN TNE GENERAL CONVENTION IN = NEW YORK. Nrw Yorx, Oct, 10.—In tho Protestaut Epts- copal Convention, this morning, Mensaza No, 23, rolating to the esnou ou church musio, wau takeu from tho calendar aud referrod to the Coing mitlco on Canony. EVENING RESSION. Mr. Trelsh moved thau if tho sesaionn of the Convontion oxtond ovor next weok, the body Lold night gessions, aud that the Borrd of Mig- sions ba notifled: ‘he Rov. Mr, Barber moved, as an amendment, $hat durlng the proeout weal tho House shall Lold ovening seasions from 7:30 to 10 p, m. #I'lie Rov. Dr, Stearns moved nu amendment to Mr. Barber's, thab in it all the'words after tho word *'Rekolved” bo stricken out, and zdd the words: *Chat on aad after to-day the Ilouso ait in open scskion ovory day from 10 to 4, nnd thas the discussion of thio question of confirming tho Binhop of Tilinois will bo takon up in tho even- ing sosslon, every evening, uutil this discunsion shall havo closed, nnd that, on tho day attor tho dikcussion shall bave clused, 8 voto shall bo taken at moridine," Dr. Stonrns' amendment was put to vots and loat, s was aluo Alr, Barbor's, while tho original resolution of Mr, Welsh was adopted. Mr. Welsh thon moved that the essions of tho Houso, this wock, be from 10 a. m, until 5 p. ., excopt on Saturday. This was also adopted. . BECRET SE8SIONA TO CONTINUE. Mr. Blair, of Maryland, moved that tho Ionse take up his motion offored ou Saturday, with re- 'gord to Rule 17, ou mecret scsxions being re- \'sked. His motion was lust, by n vote of 75 Lo REPRESENTATION. Tho Committeo on Amondments to tho Con- stitution, to whom was referred the resolution of tho Rtav, Dr, Burs, of Onio, 18 to the oxpodi- oney of proposing sn amendment to the consti- tutlon reducing tho number of olerical and lay doputies from cach diocese, and the resolution of the Rev. Dr. Beardsly, of Connectlcut, ns to rearranging tho same on o new basis, reported that such an amendmont would be inexpediont ot the prosont time, aud askad to bo discharzed from further considoration of tha subject, The roport wag pliced on the ealondar. STATE OF TILE OHULCH, ‘The Committco an the Stato of tho Church re- ported that 1a conformity with tho requiramouts of Canou 1, 'litle 8, of tho Digest, tho Committeo nominate five lavinen to coustituto n Doard of ‘rustees of the lissionary Bishope' Fand. Tho Committes oxpressed their rogret that so littlo bad Leon contributod to this fund, and recom- raended that stops bo tuken to inorense the sub- soription, The Cowmmitteo aléo raportod grent dalay in tho reception of the journu! and othor documonts which bould be roceivod by the Com- mittee, and olfored a resolution makinz it tho duty to liavo tho prosonted documents promptly placed on tho calendar, NEW OANONB, 3r. Bonjamin, fiom the Cotmittes on Canons, to which wua referred Messages 12, 18, 16, aud ' 17, from the llouse of Bishops, roportod that tho Committoo had considorad tho anme, and recommeoaded that the Houso coscur in tho fist two, und do not coneurin the last two. RULL OF CONGURRENCE, Mr. l\lontgamm‘l{, of Georgir, proposod o sub- stiyute for Art, 8 of the Constitution with re- gard to tho Joink sction of both Ilowses, providing that the House of ' DBishopa shall ~signify thoir approoation or dfs- approbation “of mvy aoct proposed withn three days afterit shall have been roported to them for concurrenco, and, fu the failuro there- of, 1t ehall have tho operation of alaw nuless tho Convontion shall adjourn in thrao days attor tho dnly-propused net shall have becn roported to tho Louse of Bishops, in which ovent tho pro- poged act sball bo inoperative. "Lhis wyas roferrad to tho Committos on Conati- tution, . STATUS OF pIsioLs, ‘The Rov, Dr. Bubeuck presonted tho following rosulution Reaolved, That 1t be reforred lo tho Committes on Aunouduonts to {uquire and report to this Honss wiat amendments, if auy, may be no-casaty to equalize tho statug o the Bishops of this Churel having elther dlocesau or missiouary Jurladiction, for tho purposs of uscuring (o all alike the following franchise, viz, 1 (Lt all havo sexts fu the Huuso uf Bishops, upou the autne lerma of mcmbership, 2, That all may be ellgiblo and trausforabls to any of the duly coustiiied Jurledietlons of tho, Chiureh, whether dlocesnn or wtsslonury, to whick they may bo cleoted or appointed, 9. That all sliall Lave, a8 far s practicablo under the clreumatunces, tho sawo Jurisdlctional organtzation, £0the offact. that co-ordinate ecclasiastionl nuthoritios of the Btauding Committeo muy by the same fu the wislonary Juvisdiction ag in the dlocesan, 4. That tlie titnlar distinction Lulwean tho diocosan and i-slounry Dishops tuy Intter b wtyled Jurladiction, G, That tho foregolug rosolution aud its woveral specifleations bo ulso rofoired {o tho Committeo on Oanous, to report to this Houso whut new canons, chunges, or awchdments may be nocessary to carry same tnfo oilect, Thun waa roforred to the Committeo on Amond- monts to tha Constitution, “Iho Longo then went into eoorot saralon. 1t 14 nuddoratood that durlng tho neorot ression Dr, Bullivan, of Ilinols, made n vory biltor apocch donunciatory of Bishop-sloct oyinour, Aflor tho recess tho aoysion, with olosed dours, Was ovutinued, bo abrogated, and the Bistiups of such or such unssionary " JUIIDICTION, Mosnngon 17 and 18, in rogard to Canon 13, were recalled from tho House of Bishops for tha puspose of substiiuting the tollowing amond- maeut 3 'I'he proposed amondmont of Canon 12, Seo, 0, on- ll‘l\).\ul Ou ofticialing of miokitocs withiu cuies of oflers, Jresolved, That the Committes on Canone hio raqueat- il to conclilor tho expedionoy of amending Canon 13 by striking out Att, 1, 560, 0, oF of addiug thurolo Lo foliowitig 2 * Thin canon eliall not apply 1o olergy- mon nunistering 40 their own purlshionusy o the say- eral norvices, mich nn hapttems, mazetn whienovor sneh iy be rerguirer], ack or biiclals Ttatercad to this Comuilites on Canons, Adjourned, .. p'ulu:,m: TIE LPISCOPAL CHURGH H0CIETY, Nuw Yout, Ogt. 19,—At tho wixt -liftl 1;:ml- versary of tho-Now York Bialo Bociety of the Lpacopal Chureh, Yosterdny, addreaion warg mndo by Dishop Hoborwon, Assour ; Drs, Crauo, of Missiaslppl ; Nooloy, of Mainas T hot, of Indiann: and Clarkson, of Nobiaka, The Socloty is ina Hlourishing condition, ) —e "TAIL, Judgo Mcilean Anstriets the Graud Jury to Investigiito Certrin Chargen Agaunst Hlm-'t'ho Cuse of Ltder Canvon~nliscelliuncons lems, BarT LArs, Oct, 10.—On Bunday morning tho Salt Lake IHerald publiehed an nrdlels falken from tho Virgloin City, Nov., Independent, which, commonting upon the chargo of Judie MoKenn to the Grand Jury to look after the dlaposal of vast tracts of land and vaut forosts of timber by the Torritorial Logiulafure, says: * What will bo done with thom alter thoy have been jue quired into, wo do not kuow, nnloss, in- deed, with the accommodating spirit for which the Chilof-Justice uf Utuh .ls o 1omacknblo ho aporopriates them to s own ' use and protit, u8 ho did tha Silver Bhield and a couplo of otlior minca,” Phiis morning tho Chiof-Fustico ealiod tho Grand Jury fnto the court-room, nnd rend thia Liom to thom, which be called upon them Lo inveatignte, and if fonnd Ruilty to fncict him, g) r“l‘luhlxil talso, to indiet tho oditors of tho Herald Goorge G tannon {s upon tho stroota to-doy, and shows no dispoalifon to run away. If ho han beau indicicd for luscivions cobabitation, as wia tolegraphed from hore soveral days ngo, tho outl~ cors seom to bo dilatory in malting any arrest, L. N. Daskin will gontest bia voat In the noxs Congresa as Dologa:o from thiy Torritory. BaLr Lake, Utah, Oct, 17.—Tho monto mep, who Lave beou for o loug n timo_plying thole ealling nlonfi! tho Central Prcifio Ruflrond, aro reportad as leaving thut ficld on account of tho afforts of that Company f i T punishmont. DPAF tos el atrostdud Tho Melfonry Mino, stopped work, nving d. "igwrrmoy'% Canon, MS ro1a 5,000 Lo 9,001 tons of oro on baud. Troubla Is' balloved to h\wnL hl?ut:ix lcxmmml b‘{ o failura in the ptl{- ment of elr uew nad oxpous it 1 orfirilau. beustve mitl, recoutly 'his Aenson's miniug oporntions in beon mora suceensful thm? any m-evxux:'nmvcg(n}-j':." Lhe ‘Territorial Allornoy-General rerurned from Bountiful last ovening,. whoro hio had boon conducting an inveatigation in_ tho cayo or tho mutder of Mra. Adams, Ier husband way ar= rested on suspicion of having murdersd nor, bubuo ovidenca of his somplicity u the wrime wan proven, It was ab fliat supposed that pivo wan shot througls tho window from the outuide of tho houso, but 1t is now bolioved that sne as ahot by somo ouo mside. 'Lhe afuiris as much s mystery as bofore, = Georgo Q, Uannon (M. 0.) Is not yat arrosted, and it is not positively kuown outside ths ofiie cors of tho Court and tho Grand Jury that an iud,ctment Las boon fonnd against him. No declslon s yobt givon in the Ann Ellza alie mony caso. IDiigham Young's liealth is reported as ver poor, and his hite is believed to be of short durg~ tion. THE SNY LEVEE. Tho Attempt to Cut the Levee Litely to Lead to Protracted Litigation, Speciat Disnatch to T'he Chicago Tribune, Qurxcy, 111, Oct. 19.—Tho eighty-cight men who woro arrested on Sunday morning whilo at- tempting to cut tho Boy Loves ara atill in custody in tho city, and will probably have an examination to-morrow. Messrs, Rupert & Sbaw, in whoso sorvice tho men wore engnged, 210 now in thiscity, anddeclare thomselves roady to assume all responsibility for the attempt to cut ho lovee. Thoy cluim that thoSny i a nav- igablo stream, and that tho Leves Commisalonera had no right to obstruct 1t. Thoy claim further that, bsviog beew in posssssion and use of the water-poweor a4 the mouth of the Say for over forly years, they have uived. rights of which thoy cauuot be lawtully doprived by lsgisiativo onoctment, Thoua ara the main poiuts thay will Do set up by the attornoys for Mesurs. Shaw & Tupert. Cap:. Westlako, tho Obairman, and Mr, Jaaes, the Sccrotary, of the Lovoo Commission, who arrived in thocity to-day, dony and will re- sist the claima put forward by Mossrs, Ruport & Shaw, Thoy aay that after tho lovoo had been built tho owners of the Rockport wator-power askad Ehat wator be supniiod to Sny by monns of o canal, and offered £5,000 for thin purpose. But the Commi:soners insisted that thoy had no au- thority under tho Loveeact to undertako such aa ontorprise. ‘Thoy further claim that the wator shed for a distance of over 60 miles, togethor with o multibude of small atroams that ompty lnto tho Sny, are sullictont to uu[Rz ly tho water-powes in ordinary seusons. Tho Rockport mills have Deon iu oporation for the last two years unutil within a few woels, and the Commirsioners arg of the opinion that the defloienoy of wator com« pluinod of by the mill-owners is due to the dry seasou aud not to the building of the loves. At noy rate, thoy dony tho authority of, Mossra. Blaw & Rupert to cut the loveo, and also deny their claim for dumages. Over 100,000 aorcs of land have been reclnimed by means of the levee, 40 milea of which have boen complated at an oxpense of over £400,000, and the Commissionors declara that, if the work of outting tho embankmont had boen successful, immonso damagoe must huve onened. Tho alfair has alrondy sssumed ime portanc Pmnnnionu, and ia likely to lead to pro. wacted litigation. —— THE WEATHER. Wasnixaron, D. 0., Oct. 19.—For the North« west and Upper Lakey, and southward to Mise souri and Kountuoky, falling baromoter, southe cast to southwost Wwinds, veering to northywest in tha Northwest, cloudy weathor, aud occasional Taiu. LOCAL OYERYATIONA. Jiicaco, Oct. 10, 1874, 5 H Hour of ob- & |Directian andl servation, & lorce of wing,| Meathen 83 6.\, gontle, Fogay, 80 |8., tres, 9 8., fresh, Thormomeler, 63, Maxtimim Ainimum thormomoter, 4J, GENERAL OBSZRVATIO] Oitiosuo, O Siution, Bar, 29, 9| Chr|Bain Fand, o fresh|iair, il Gloar, Ngut. 8., geutle. . Olear, (8., gentidiClear, 4N, W!, freshs|Gloudy, 18, W1 fresh!Fute, Luaveuw i Marquetto, Milwaukos Omalia Toledo, Yanklow FATAL RAILROAD COLLISION. Speciat Disvateh to The Chicaaa Tribune, Moxgor, Mich,, Oet, 19,~A turible collision oveurted botiweou £wo construction-traing on tha Lake Shore & Michigan Southorn, near Docr- fioly, Lennwoe Guuuty, this morning about half- past 7 o'clook, A donse fog prevailed st tho time, aud the two trainy approacbed unsoen by cach other at the yato of about 1B miles &n hour, The crash waa tewdfle, and tho wrack of both engines aud wmost of tho cars was comniote, tho trine being pilod upon cuch other to »_contiderablo ‘hoiglit. Tho firoman on Lho Mourve teain, Joseph Cramer, was_fustautly killod, ond nearly evor wan on both (ralns, more than twonly in all, wero more or leas injured, three or four proba~ bly fatafly, 1t {8 rumorcd that ono has sinca dicd, Tho passago of trains on that llue has boon dolvyod by tho doebyls which lien upon the traek, but traluy aro sont around vin Lolodo, e ———— THE CAPITAL-TAQVERS, Toumvius, Ky, Oct. 19.—Rul fow delepaton, and thoso mostly from Kontucky, huve ay yot arrivod for tho Convention eallad to constdor the romoval of the Oapienl from Washington to St. Lionig, which maots in th olty to-morrow, The Gounvuntion meots in tho Publio Livracy Hatl and ik js num‘muud that iho wesslon wall oxtend oyer thice duys, No ono promiuont in the moyowonut suving yob to buve roachud tho oity, and dofluite nformation regnrding it onunat by obtained, Ilezvls wod the Bt Louls party wil not arive vusil to-morrow mosning.