decision of the Moderator (contrary, however, to Dr. Marshall's own private judgment), the merits of the case are not before the House. We ought to abide by the decision.

Judge Fine would begin at the other end of the case. What did the Synod determine? They determined that the Presbytery had a right to enter on this case. Was the Synod correct or not? That is one question for decision. Now, he maintained that there was no ground for an appeal by Mr. Shafer at all. A Session is bound to try men according to rule, and, if any part of the proper proceedings is omitted, the whole is a bru tum fulmen. It is stated that a copy of the charges was served on the wife. There is no evidence that this was the case.

Dr. Junkin rose to a point of order. Are the merits of the case to be brought up here? The Moderator replied not.

Judge Fine-I wish to show that the Presbytery was right in examining the case, because the man had been condemned without complying with the rules of the Book. We have no right to try a man without telling him plainly what he is charged with. He would not himself feel obliged to answer any Session, until a copy of the charges should be given him.

Rev. Dr. Benedict-It is not true that a man must always have a copy of the charges. It depends upon the question, whether the charge is a public or private one. In certain cases mentioned in the Book, they may be dispensed with. He wished to know from the Session, whether they proceeded according to the Book.

Dr. Junkin wished to know whether our decision is to be made on the merits of the case, or on the acts of Synod alone.

The Moderator reiterated the statement that the merits of the case are not before the House, but stated that yet it seemed necessary that some little reference to the history of the case should be made.

Dr. Junkin accepted this view. He thought the simple statement of the Synodical Committee, that the Synod had to return home hastily on account of Thanksgiving-day, was a sufficient reason for saying to them that they must review their decision. They did not investigate the case, and it ought to be remanded to them. Their reasons given were insufficient in such a grave matter. He maintained further, as to the acts of the Session, that no Court is bound to ramble over the world after a man who refuses to come to trial.

At this point, Dr. Prime read again the Minutes of the Session.

A motion being made to reconsider the vote by which the Assembly determined that the Synod of New Jersey must literally leave the house; it was lost. The Moderator announced that dark though it was, the Synod must leave the Church. He hoped, however, that inasmuch as they were an enlightened body, they would carry light with them. (Laughter.)

Rev. Dr. Junkin moved that the case be remanded to the Synod of New Jersey. He contended that the Synod had not given it the attention it deserved. Various other considerations were urged, to show that Synod should be required to go into it again. He had known Mr. Shafer, and he was a very good man, perhaps a little too decided sometimes. He was afraid the name of this Stillwater church was a misnomer, unless it was the sort of still which turns people upside down; for years it has been troubled water.

Mr. Jones explained in reference to what he considered a misapprehension of Dr. Junkin.

Chancellor Johns thought he could present the subject in a succinct and conclusive light, in five minutes. We had been travelling out of the record in the doings of all the lower judicatories. He then made a lucid statement vindicating the action of the Synod. Inasmuch as the Presbytery still had the case in their hands, the Synod did right in dismissing it.

Mr. Jones contended that the whole question was one of jurisdiction, and the Presbytery had no right to entertain the case, because the constitutional time of ten days, within which an appeal must be taken, had elapsed before the appeal was made.

Rev. Dr. Rice-The Session of the Stillwater Church does not complain on account of a wrong decision, but because the matter was dismissed by the Synod. If this is so, then the question is, were the Synod bound to hear the complaint? If they were bound to hear the complaint, we must decide that they were wrong; but if they were not thus bound, they were not wrong, and the complaint should not be sustained. Dr. Rice argued that, in the first place, the question proposed to the Synod was a fair one for its adjudication. This all admit; and, in the next place, that the Synod was bound to consider, as it was fairly before it. The fact that the Presbytery had taken it up again did not set this aside, for the Session. had had no notice from the Presbytery that they were about to take it up. The Session, therefore, were justifiable in supposing the Presbytery had finished adjudicating when the complaint was made to Synod. The Synod ought, therefore, to have heard and adjudged the matter. They did not do so, and were wrong; and the complaint, he thought, ought, on this single ground, to be sustained.

Dr. Hewit argued to show that the subject was still in the lower court when complained of to the Synod of New Jersey. His sentence, therefore, was that the complaint be dismissed.

Dr. Junkin, on the contrary, maintained that it was still in Presbytery only by their own error, and they had no right to take advantage of their own wrongs. The facts of the case are contrary to the suppositions of Dr. Hewit and Chancellor Johns.

Dr. Hewit insisted that Dr. Junkin was incorrect. An error had been made by the Session; and he that offendeth in one point is guilty of all. Beware, said he, of infringing one single technical point. Take away your technical points, and what will become of justice?

Dr. Marshall would respectfully beg Dr. Hewit to remember that it was not right for a member to speak thrice at this late hour.

Dr. Hewit-It would be strange if I were here arguing for the law, and yet were violating it. I am not violating it.

The Moderator decided that Dr. Hewit was in order, and he did not feel at liberty to interrupt him.

Dr. Hewit-Thank you, sir.

The Moderator begged the members, however, to remember that the Assembly was very restless, and that no one would be heard patiently unless his speech was very short and very much to the point. (Laughter and applause.)

Dr. Phillips argued to show that the Presbytery was right.

Dr. Thornwell thought the whole question was one of technicalities. He feared that we might, therefore, do injustice in such a case. He moved that the complaint be sustained pro forma, and that the Session be directed to give Mr. Shafer a new trial.

Dr. Rice accepted the amendment.

Dr. Thornwell, in a very clear manner, stated the reasons for, and the operation of his resolution.

The question on the amendment was put and carried almost unanimously.

The question was then put on the original motion, and carried almost unanimously.

Thus the complaint was sustained pro forma, and the Session are directed to give Mr. Shafer a new trial.

CASE No. II.

MEMBERS OF FRANKLIN STREET CHURCH, BALTIMORE, AGAINST THE SYNOD OF BALTIMORE.

Complaint of B. C. Howard, William F. Murdock, and H. Easter, against the Synod of Baltimore.

The Judicial Committee report, that in their judgment this complaint cannot be laid before the Assembly for final action, for the following reasons, viz.:

1. The record of the proceedings of the Presbytery of Baltimore, which are directly involved in the consideration of this complaint, has not been exhibited to the Committee; and without such record, the complaint cannot be intelligently investigated and decided.

2. The above named B. C. Howard, William F. Murdock, and H. Easter, are the persons who sign the notice of an intention to complain of the action of the Synod of Baltimore; but neither of them appear to prosecute the complaint before the Assembly. The Committee regard this as an abandonment of the complaint, in accordance with the 11th Article of Section 3, Chapter VII, of the Book of Discipline.

The Committee therefore recommend that this complaint be dismissed. Adopted.

CASE No. III,

SYNOD OF WISCONSIN.

Rev. Dr. Campbell, of the Judicial Committee, reported the complaint of the Rev. H. B. Gardiner against the Synod of Wisconsin, reversing the proceedings of the Presbytery of Dane, which recognized the election and ordination of J. T. Clark and others, as elders and deacons of the church at Madison, and also a complaint of the said J. T. Clark against the same decision of the said Synod, and also against their decision reversing the action of the Presbytery of Dane, in putting a call from the said church of Madison in the hands of the said H. B. Gardiner to become their pastor. The parties in this case having agreed upon a statement which was laid before the Judicial Committee, the Judicial Committee recommended the following action in the case, which was agreed to.

1. That the complaint be sustained pro forma, and the decision of the Synod be reversed so far as it pronounces the election and ordination of the elders and deacons invalid; the Assembly being of the opinion that the informality in the call of the congregational meeting was not so serious as to vitiate the election and ordination.

2. That the Synod was right in pronouncing the call of the congregational meeting irregular.

8. That although the Assemby thus recognizes the validity of the election and ordination of the said elders and deacons, they yet recommend the said elders having assented thereto by their representatives, that in view of the past and existing difficulties the said elders cease to act, according to our Form of Government, until such time as in the estimation of the Presbytery of Dane the church can be reasonably harmonious in receiving them in their official capacity.

It was moved that the report of the Judicial Committee be adopted. Dr. Junkin stated that this decision would satisfy all parties. The question on the adoption of the report of the Committee was put and carried.

CASE No. IV.

OF THE MUNCEY CHURCH AND PHILADELPHIA SYNOD.

Rev. Dr. Campbell, in behalf of the Judicial Committee, read a report, presenting Judicial Case No. 4, embracing two papers.

1. A complaint of the Rev. D. J. Waller and Dr. W. J. Gibson against the Synod of Philadelphia. 2. An appeal and complaint of the Rev. John Smalley against the same Synod.

The particular act complained of is the decision of the said Synod, dismissing the appeal and complaint of W. A. Petriken against the Presbytery of Northumberland. The case is not brought up to the Assembly on its merits, but on the act of the Synod dismissing the appeal.

The Committee reported the case ready for trial on that single issue, and recommended the order in which the papers should be read.

This is the complaint of Messrs. Waller and Gibson against the Synod of Philadelphia, and also the appeal of Mr. Smalley in the same case. The report of the Judicial Committee was again read, and then the several records and papers, according to the recommendation of the Committee.

In this case it appears that the Session of the Church of Muncey arraigned General William A. Petriken on three charges. On two of these he was condemned; but on the first charge, the ruling elders of the church being interested, the case was referred to the Presbytery of Northumberland, who tried and condemned him on this first charge. The Synod of Philadelphia afterwards, on the alleged grounds that one of the ruling elders had not been installed, and also that the Session were interested personally in the case, declared the whole proceedings null and void. The Rev. Messrs. Waller and Gibson now complain of the said action of the Synod; and Mr. Smalley appeals.

Rev. Dr. Gibson and the Rev. Mr. Waller appeared in their own behalf and that of Mr. Smalley, and the Rev. D. V. McLean, D.D., and the Rev. Dr. Leyburn in behalf of the Synod of Philadelphia. Some discussion as to the proper order arising, it was on motion resolved that the appellant be heard first.

Rev. Mr. Rodgers proposed the reading of Mr. Smalley's speech before the Synod in the case.

Dr. Leyburn objected on the ground that the Assembly must then go into the whole of the documentary evidence.

The Rev. Mr. Waller replied that the speech did not go into the merits of the case.

The Rev. Dr. D. V. McLean supposed that the single point was whether the Synod was right in dismissing the appeal. The merits of the case

are not involved. He had read Mr. Smalley's speech. It gives six points, and enters into the merits. Mr. Waller was incorrect in his statement. Dr. Gibson said he had not seen Mr. Smalley's argument. He proposed that the argument be read, and if it is perceived that it goes into the merits, the Assembly can stop the reading.

Dr. Leyburn thought the Assembly had gone far in hearing the papers already read. Mr. Smalley's speech was prepared on the supposition that the entire merits of the case were to be discussed; which is now not to be done. He thought the whole subject could be put into a nutshell and briefly argued, to the great saving of the Assembly's time.

The Rev. Mr. A. Phillips thought the Assembly ought to confine itself to the order and the points, proposed by the Judicial Committee, which had been approved.

The Rev. Mr. Waller asked for the reading of the close of Mr. Smalley's complaint.

Rev. Dr. Ryors-Does not this require a vote of the Assembly?

The Moderator thought not. He stated that he was waiting for the action of the House as to its course.

The Rev. Dr. Marshall moved that the Rev. Mr. Rodgers be appointed as associate counsel to represent the Rev. Mr. Smalley, who was absent, and be allowed to read Mr. Smalley's speech.

The Rev. Dr. Junkin thought it unnecessary, as the Rev. Mr. Waller was perfectly competent to do justice to the case, as he was unsurpassed as an ecclesiastical lawyer.

Rev. Mr. Rodgers-Suppose, sir, I declare that I am here as associate counsel, by request of the Rev. Mr. Smalley?

The Moderator-Then a vote would be unnecessary.

Rev. Mr. Rodgers-Then I do announce that I am here as such counsel. (Laughter.)

After some further desultory conversation Mr. Rodgers was allowed to read Mr. Smalley's speech, wherein he discusses and argues the whole case at length. It was understood that the reading might be interrupted at any moment.

During the reading animated discussions arose as to whether certain points presented involved the merits of the case, and particular portions in the speech were passed over.

Rev. Dr. Gibson was then heard. He said he was advocate for Mr. Smalley only as to seeing that no injustice was done him. There were three parties before the Synod. First. Those who believed the acts of the inferior Courts to be invalid, on account of a Ruling Elder in that Church not having been installed. Second. Those who had no confidence in this reason, but objected because the Ruling Elders of the Church were interested parties, and hence the acts of the Court were invalid. Third. Those who, like himself, thought the reasons assigned by the Synod were insufficient. He had no confidence in the reasons given as to the non-installment of the Ruling Elder in Muncey Church. All the essential points had been observed. He regarded indeed formalities, and would himself observe them, but certainly the absence of some of them in this case does not invalidate the installation. There were hundreds of

Ruling Elders who had been installed in the same way.

Rev. Mr. Waller waived his right to be heard now.

Rev. Dr. McLean spoke in behalf of Synod. He thought the case