if IENTINEL & REPUBLICAN MIFFLINTOWN. Wednesday, March lO, 1SSO. 13. F. SCHWEIER, EDITOB A! PEOPBIETOB. Republican State Ticket. SUPREME JUDGE, ni;KY ;iti:i:, OF KOBTHA MPTOS COIKTT. AUDITOR GENERAL, JOUX A. L.E3I03T, Or BLAIE COINTT. Argument in the Church Case, in Equity. Reported by B. F. Sckweier. Last week, William Seibcrt, Mister in Eqtfity, hi the case between John N. Moore, President of the Board of Trustees of "The Presbyterian Congregation of Cedar Spring comprising the Congregations of Mifflin and Lost Creek, lor and on behalf of the Con gregation of Lost Creek, Plaintiff, and Ezra D. Parker, George Wilson and David Cuu ningham, Committee, and T. J. Sherrard, Pastor of and representing the Congrega tion of MilHintown, Defendants," came over from his borne in Blonmfield, Ferry county, to hear tbe final evidence in the case, and to hear the argument of the sev eral lawyer. Several days were consumed in bearing evidence, and tbe argument was not begun until at 11 o'clock on Friday forenoon, w hen it was opened by Charles A. Barnett, of Blootutield, Perry county. Mr. Seibert ruled that all questions should be ruled out, excepting the question atfect tbe corporate rights ol the parties, but still by such a confinement of the limits of the argument, it was not meant to prevent a free discussion of the question. Speech or Charles A. Babxett, Esq. Mr. Barnett, of Bloomtivld, opened tbe argument on behalf of Lost Creek congre gation, the plaintiffs In the case. lie said that it is only a question of prop erty right, an important question at all times. It is a source of regret (hat the dis pute has arisen among one and the same people, but the plaintiff are not in ccurt of their own tree will j they are before the court because thev have been driven there because their property rights have been questioned, and yet it is not their purpose to inflame the question. It is not proposed to enlarge the breech between the parties It shall be their endeavor to pour oil on tbe troubled waters. In meeting the trouble they have recourse to a case in equity. w hich tbe defendants allege in their answer Is not the correct method of proceedure. The great point of their answer on the trinity point is found in section 8 of tbe answer, and read 'We deny the authority and power of the Trustees of said corporation to authorize, by the resolution of 29th May, 1877, part of which is contained in paragraph o. 8ot plaintiffs bill, the institution ot such a suit in eiiii- as has been tiled against the de- fendwts, or to make use of the corporate name tor the purposes therein set forth. And the defendants aver that Ezra D. Par- ker and George Wilson are two of the six trustees of said corporation, and that said bill was framed and tiled without their knowledge and consent, and the same is disavowed by them." The Sth section may be said to reach the foundation of the question on tbe equity point ; it is tbe authorization of the work of the Trustees of tbe church, aud we do maintain that the Trustees of Lost Creek are the proper authority to see to the tem poral wants or requirements of the congre gation. There is nothing in tbe Bill in Equity to prevent exact justice from being done between the parties. No complaints have been made by any on? who is not a party to the biTl. The answer is simply a technical answer. Technical answers will co longer do ; the time has gone by when courts may be held down to technicalities Equity, justice, stands high above a tech nicality. What is wanted here is justice. It is immaterial whether the bill was signed by E. D. Parker and George Wilson or not Trustees will be always compelled to give their names to any and all movements in a congregation to secure justice between all members, and whether the names of Mr, Parker and Mr. ilson was on tbe bill is not material. Here the plaintiffs claim the right to maintain the rights of the congre gation, or the church. The remedy is a Bill in Equity. Mr. Barnett read from manv books to maintain the position that he took on this point. He continued : 1 hey discard the bill, or profess to do so, and say that a writ of ejectment should be onr remedy. They maintain that ejectment would be the proper rtmedy. They are in great error. A bill in equity is our remedy, and the board of trustees are the legal offi cers of the church and corporation to see to tbe application of the remedy. A bill of ejectment would not be our remedy in a Case like this. They put great stress on the action of the Ecclesiastical or Church courts ; but all of their action is entirely outside of the case. The action of tbe Ecclesiastical courts cannot interfere with the operations of the civil courts. The laws of astronomy, laws that govern the moon and stars, might as well have been brought in here and an eff ort made to apply them in the case. The Ec clesiastical courts have no civil powers, and consequently have no application in this case. When a man withdraws from a cor poration, or partnership, he leaves behind him all the laws by which the corporation or business was conducted. He m iy join another corporation, or form a new partner ship, but that is a new concern aud has laws of government th it have no connec tion whatever with the one from which he withdrew. Illustrations were introduced to prove the point of withdrawal, and that withdrawal or secession does in no way affect the laws that govern the body with drawn from. Where then are the parties of the other side 1 Tbey are outside the cor poration. Ecclesiastical courts cannot sever corporation rights. The property right is a question of law, and the Ecclesi astical court has nothing to do with the law Reports read Ecclesiastical courts can only-advise. At this point the court adjourned for din ner. After dinner Mr. Barnett resumed the argument, and re-stated the points of the morning speech. Resuming. The action of tbe Ecclesiastical court is important in one point. It is an important tact Chit it has departed from tbe prescribed duties or the trustees in this corporation. They do not as they used to do. Instead of tbe regular action, they have a Committee B'" Equity, to show that the idea of se of Wavs and Means a body not recognized cession was not indulged in by tbe Plaiu- by the corporation, committee, or body outside, and entirely unknown to the cor poration. They bave added a new congre gation to Presbytery. Dr. McLean in his testimony said there it one more new con gregation on th roll of Presbytery separate and independent congregation, gotten np by your committee. A separate and independent organization was establish ed at MilHintown by the Ecclesiastical court an organization that is cut loose from all cliartered right, of the trustees, or officers of the corporation. That ia an Important fact. The Ecclesiastical court cnt them loose i it bad tbe right to do so, but that also loosened their hold on the property rights of tbe corporation" and established them as separate congregation. Can tbe chartered rights of 7V years' stan ling be set aside by an Ecclesiastical court in the interest of a new and sepvrate church or ganization, and bring in the new organiza tion as a just claimant of property owned by the corporation f The Ecclesiastical action was not regular, and proper, and had resulted in violating the chartered rights of the corporation. It bad violated and ignor ed the rights of the trustees acting under the charter. What are the chartered rights ? In an swer to tbe inquiry Mr. Barnett read the charter. The charter contemplates that the six trustees four of which shall constitute a quorum shall provide for tbe temporal re quirements ot the corporation or church. The parties were held together by the char ter, and when a number of tbe membership was cut away by the action of ecclesiastical bodies, it waa a violation of the charter. W bether or not Lost Creek U able to main tain a preacher for themselves, that is oue of the great grievances in the case. Sup pose they are able to support a preacher, must they be shoved away f Suppose that thry are too poor, must they be shoved away f Either of w hich states of finance may be accident. Laws are made tor all, rich and poor, and they should not have been cut away because they were either rich er poor, and the property rights should not be withheld from any people because of riches or poverty. If they Lave withdrawn is unimportant ; it is an accident. If they are outside, they are as much outside of the charter organization as if in a foreign country. 1 bey are like a broken mirror that is in two pieces and reflects two per sons, or ol'jecie. It is a fact in the case that there are two separate organizations. This organization in Mifttintown is a unit in itself. That is a Tact. What is the law I A fact ot separation is clearly established. The law is that the title of tbe church prop erty is in that w hich is acting In borniuuy with Its own law or tbe law of the corpora tion. For 70 years, ever since the organi zation of the corporation, one minister baa served as pastor lor both Of the congrega tions; oue set of trustees hive managed the corporation business until the action of the Ecclesiastical court. What is the action of the Ecclesiastical court At this point Barnett read from reports on .the question of the establish- tuent ol independent churches, showing that title remains with thecbuich that has been seceded, or withdrawn from. Reports make mention ol no class of cases in which two congregations are precisely like this, but the principles as laid down in tbe books, as decided by the courts, are applicable to Uiis case. The report are clear that the organization in combined church organiza tions, that adheres to the forms of agree ment, or corporation, are the ones that have held the property right. The question has been c.irried so far as into notions ol doc trines, in the church, aud it has always been decided that the organization that clearly adheres to the doctrines, usages and legal forms is the one that holds the title ol property. Tho congregation that secedes cannot carry pioperty rights with them. Which is right Tne way that, accord ing to law, for a period of 70 years has called a preacher, and provided for him under tbe law, aud provided tor the man agement of the property of the corpora tion under the law. Which is right f Con sider that Lost Creek has not become i wandering body, outside of the old ways of the corporation. The admitted evidence in the case shows that this is a separate organ ization at Mitliintown, and is on tbe rolls of Presbytery as such, and is subject to new laws, not tbe eld 70 year laws, or the char ter laws. Tbe Lost Creek congregation is the one that is moving in accordance with the well known charter law. They are right in ac cordance with the law that has been con sidered right law. Mere is there any othsr rule to apply f Bamett here read reports, as to the ques tion of majority in the question of church division, or organization. It is tbe steady practice of tbe congregation under the written law. aud the common law, that de termines the question of property right, as distinguished from a majority part, or mi nority part ol a congregation that moves off like a comet to set up a course, or some thing for itself somewhere else. Lost Creek has ever been uniform in her prac tice Ked from report on same point. How are tti2 f icts 1 Who has the law of the congregation of 70 years Who are they aa enrolled uin the minutes of Pres bytery as a new congregation Who elect ed the Committee of Ways and Means 7 Who gave them rights, such as the Com mittee claim 1 Who f Nobody; they have no constituency ; they have no corporate constituency, like Lost Creek. No they bave seceded from the corporate authority of the corporation, and have set up for themselves; they have left their father's property behind them. Reports read. Corporators may change, but the corpora tion never. Men are but members of a cor poration and may go out ff the corpora tion, but when he goes out he leaves the corporation, and its rights. Any other prin ciple iu corporations would be the death of corporations. RejurU read on tbe uuity of corporations. SPEECU OP A. J. PATTF.nSi'.V, Esq. A. J. Patterson, of Mifilintown, next ad dressed the Master. He spoke iu the inter est ol :he MilHintown congregation. lie expressed himself as glad that a con clusion iu the case had oeen reached. With Mr. Baruett he was full of sorrow that such adifbeultj exists among one and the same people, but such cases sometimes arise, and must be met. We are to meet this one. The learned counsel on the other side bad placedreat stress on Certain cases cited. The cases differ from tho present case. In the case cited by the gentlcViutn for the plaintiffs, the trouble was about money in part, arid in part about landed estate. In the present ease there is nothing of the kind. There is nothing of the kind men tioned in the prayer ol counsel on the other side. Mr. Patterson here read Irom reports, and, proceed.-ni?, said thit the argument of Mr. Bamett Was based on the idea that we have seceded. I read the 6th section of the tiffs at the time the bill waa framed The 6th section reads : "Tbe Lost Creek congregation are una ble to support a Pastor, and although they bave always been willing to contribute their proportionate share of the expenses of main taining a Paator employed by the corpora- tion aa practiced for 70 years, before the resignation of Rev. Sherrard, and hereby offer to continue to do so, and to join with the MilHintown congregation in electing and calling a Pastor to and for said corporation, yet their application haa been refused and assistance hi that behalf haa been denied and withheld by the congregation of Mif- nintown, and tbey are now, and bare been siuce the aforesaid resignation of the Rev. Sherrard, without Pastoral ministration, and their rightful enjoyment of public re ligions worship." As to the matter of the charter, permit me to recite the history of the church from the daya of the earliest organization of the church within the limits of the congrega tions now in controversy. Mr. Patterson went into minnte history of Cedar Spring church, from the days of the Glebe land pateut to tbe present time, which will furnish first-class data (or true history of tbe church in this vicinity. Mr. Patterson argued from the history which be recited that the late action of Presbytery, and the other Ecclesiastical courts did not change the action of 70 years of the peo ple who were working under tbe charter. There has been no departure in the nsages, in the practice, and spirit nnder which the congregation understood tbe charter. Tbe financial part, or history ol the con gregations was recited. Tbe manner of the distribution of the money obtained from the Glebe land was pointed out, and very many other financial transactions werenentioned from the books of the churches, from which was deduced that the churches in their man agement were careful to distribute the finances upon each end respectively. How can Lost Creek claim interest in a three- acres grave-yard which in part was donated by John Harris, and in part the grave-yard was bought from other parties by tbe Mif- tlintown congregation. There is no such case like this in the books, and tbe acts of those who applied for the charter and for many years governed tbo church under it are the best interpreters of tbe spirit and letter of the instrument. It was always held to be for the nse of both ends. Tbe officers, treasurers and trustees were for the common use. See 5th section of plaintiffs bill. Tbe allegation in the section is hard to sustain. I do not see how it can be sua tained. The solution depends upon the de cision of the Ecclesiastical court. Mifflin congregation was not alone interested Agitation of division was agitated in 1871 ; a notice waa road in Mifflin congregation from the pulpit iu 1872, asking for division It set forth : 1st. We are no longer one congregation, except so far aa we are made such by our charter. 2nd. Each part of the congregation is amply able to sustain a Pastor, 3td. The field is entirely too large to be successfully cultivated by one minister. 4th. The interests of the Master's king dom demands it. The notice was signed by eleven nienl- bers of tbe Mitliin congregation, and w tne cause of a meeting being held by t! Hie Lost Creek congregation to take action on the question. From the preliminary meetings, M"r. Pat' terson followed the proceedings in tbe case of separation through the several Ecclesi astical bodies up to the time when the Bill in Equity was framed and issued. From the actions thus bad he concluded that Lost Creek understood the movement in the light of a sejaration, and not as a se cession movement. It is a well established principle that an Ecclesiastical court should be the best judge of the action of the church and its powers. Read records on this point. Presbytery baa power to make a division, on the petition of a majority or on the peti tion of a minority, when notice has been served. It seems to be clear that regular notice waa served upon both parties. Has there been a violation of chartered rights ' To a certain degree Certain members of Lost Creek participated in the preliminary steps looking to separation, prominent among whom are Mr. Doty and Mr. North. They also worshipped with tbe Mifflin peo ple, and by reason of this conduct they sanctioned the work of separation, and they should be estopped from coming in here to complain. He spoke of tbe order of preach' ing in the old order of things. The question ot abandonment. There was nothing to show that the Mifflin con gregation thought of abandoning the church property after the storm. On the contrary, there is evidence in abundance that the question of abandonment was not thought of. The walls of the abandoned church showed that the building was not in a prop erly safe condition, and the Mifllin congre gation were justifiable in leaving the build ing. There is nothing to show that when tbe storm came along and nnroofed the building that the thought of abandonment had ever been entertained. Mr. Barnett's argument is based on the assumption that this people bad seceded. All the evidence cited from the books by linn shows that a scbisra existed to a cer tain degree ; that is what they say. It has not been shown Ibat a schism exists here. If the people of the congregation could live so long nnder the charter, where is the suffering to complain of ? Where is tbe in jury i IT tbe action complained of is not outside of church rules and regulations, where is the just thing to complain off If it is not schism, it should bo dismissed. Speech or Ezra D. Parks, Esq. Ezra D. Parker, of this place, next ad dressed tbe Master on the same side with Mr. Patterson on tho side of tbe defend ants. He expressed great admiration for the speech of Mr. Barnett, and asked Mr. Sponsler, who exp.-cted to follow on tbe same side with Mr. Barnett, whether he would touch on the question of church abandonment. He realized that the case is near an end, and that the Master' tribula tion is about to begin. The rights under the law ; rights of the charter ; rights of tho rules of the church, are to be considered. The application of authoritits cited by Mr. Barnett would be like pouring oil on the troubled waters like pouring coal oil. Tbe dry questions, as used, do not apply here. We cannot get away from facts. The dry law cannot be applied outside of the facts. Facts cannot be discarded. It ia not true that Ecclesi astical proceedings can be excluded. See the tacts and see how Uie law applies. I propose the same points of law that they do. The facts as found in the. answer are true, is true in 1st, 2nd and 3rd answer, excepting the Hutchinson clause. So all the others are true, aa stated in the answer. The first organization of tbe church or churches is not stated in the records, and we cannot give a continuous chain of his tory from lire first organization to this time ; but Rev. Allison was the first preacher after the charter waa received, which conclusive ly shows that the cot gregation was not al ways acting under the charter. The his torical statement of the church should im press Lost Creek that there is no more of the Glebe land fund for them. Sir. Parker here went into a long narrative of tbe finan cial management of matters as between the parties. Lost Creek did not contribute to tbe en largement of tbe grave-yard in this place, and yet they claim tbe grave-yard. They talk about .outraging the charter. Ker. Hutchinson collected bis own salary tbe trustees did not do it lor hint. What a ter rible violation of charter rights that was, and it was of 40 years' standing. Oh, it was dreadful ! After his death, pew rent ; the salary was collected by other officers of the church. Tbe point of ail tbe financial aud historical history is to show that for 70 years the congregations were separate in their action, and that has something to do with the consideration of the question. On tbe point of separation. Lost Creek expressed themselves as opposed to separ ation of charter, and ecclesiastical union. The Lost Creek congregation asked Pres bytery not to grant a new church, and it was not Mifflin that got np the impression of a new church. The organization of tbe committee by Presbyter-, to examiue into the question of separation. The question before Presby tery ; before the Synod ; before the Gen eral Assembly, were interesting and highly important movementa that in the main went up on appeal from Lost Creek. They ap pealed to Ecclesiastical courts, and yet my learned friend says tbey bave aothiug to do with Ecclesiastical Law. Was that pouring oil on 7 Mr. Doty was spokesman for the commis sioners ol Lost Creek that appeared in the General Assembly, in New Tork. He asked the Assembly to reverse the action in favor of separation that had been passed in the lower bodies, Presbytery and Synod, and he would guarantee that separation would be made with consent of Lost Creek in less than three months. They complain ol a want of spiritual warmth in the church, but who ever beard of men going to a corporation charter for spiritual comfort 7 Spiritual want ! Why, Huntingdon Presbytery supplied Lost Creek with 19 different preachers, who preached for them since the action of the General Assembly, and that was service by more preachers than they ever had before. They have changed the system of paying for the preaching that they receive, and that change was nude in violation of Pres byterian laws. Why don't tbey come in here with clean bands 7 In 1875, members of the Board of Trus tees of Lost Creek congregation notified the Committee of Presbytery to consider the question ol division, and not to hold the meeting to consider the question of sep aration. Mr. Parker at this point went into a recital of church history from an early date, up to 1877, which is omitted here, but w hich he concluded by remarking that dur ing the period of 70 years the Elder were never all present at a single meeting, ex cepting at the funeral of Kev. Allison, and that was out of respect for the memory ol the deceased Pastor, aud an act of sym pathy. It was significant in this, that it showed that each congregation was attend ing to its own organization, and that no in terests were strong enough to bring about a full meeting of officers of both organiza tions, exceqting tbe cold messenger death. It is also a noteworthy fact that James North, Judge Burchfield, E. S. Doty, and others, have attended upon the worship ol the Mifflin congregation in tbe church in this place since separation. We have seven points of facts to present. The first is, that the bill in equity is not the right remedy for the plaintiffs. Their rem edy is by ejectmeut. A bill in equity will lie in such cases as were cited by Barnett. Equity is the remedy in the cases that he quoted from 17 books, but the cases are not like this case. The trouble was in congre gations that worshipped in one building; the trouble was not among people that had two separate congregations, and two separ ate meeting houses. In the cases cited it waa schism ; here there is no schism, and here Lost Creek comes in and claims a building that they never occupied. The case would lie where the learned counsel applied it, where there was a joint occu pancy of a building. If their rights have been invaded their remedy is by ejectment. Doty and Burch field aud North could come in with a bill as in tbe cases cited, but they are not Lost Creek congregation ; they could come be cause they attended in the church building here, but tbey are not the Lost Creek con gregation. If you have no right in law by bill in equity, you have no standing. Read same reports as read by Barnett. The case does not apply here, because the trouble was about the one and same building. Other cases were cited. How will you get us out excepting by ejectment. Reference to reports. A second fact is, that of tbe Ecclesias tical bodies separating the congregation, installing a pastor at Mitliintown, is within the jurisdiction of tbe civil judicial tribu nal. I meet you broadly, unless it affects the title of property. On the right of an Ecclesiastical standpoint you bave no right to touch it. On tbe property question tear it up by the roots. Tbe instalation of a preacher la beyond the court. Lost Creek appealed to every tribunal from Presbytery to the General Assembly, yet in section 6, they declare it was in violation of the constitution of tbe church. Parker here read from court records. In one sense I go with them, and say that the Ecclesiastical courts cannot take away the property rights. Presbytery has the right to divide congregations on the request of people, a majority, or a minority. I talk from the book ; the form of proceedure is not laid down. Was the proceedings of division done in accordance with justice, and equity. Here Parker went into a lengthy history ef the separation move ment. We were told, "You can go out." We were told, "We can divide you." We did not want an act that would have put us in the position of seceders, and were not so put. If it had bead , then the argumcut of the learned counsel on the other side would lit. It was division, but they call it by another name. A tbiid fact is. where dies the act of Presbytery, or the Ecclesiastical courts con ftict with the charter 7 Because Lost Creek dissented, aud Mifilintown assented to Ui division ; how does that affect our right of property 7 If tbey have suffered in spirit ual comfort tbey cannot receive redress In the Civil courts. The Ecclesiastical court says, get comfort by getting a preacher for yourself. Where does it conflict with the charter 7 Tim charter docs not say that there shall be only one preacher ; it does not say that the preacher shall not go into school houses to preach j it does not say anything about preachers, one or two, or any number. The charter and the corpo ration are subservient to tbe church. It is vital to the charter that they conform to the doctrines of the church. It is a fact that they had two pastors at one timet Rev. Allison and Rev. Sher rard that did not violate the charter, for tbe charter is silent on that point. Never heard from Lost Creek then. What eqnity, , to give Lost Creek title to property that they never ocenpied. It is true that trustees have control of tbe temporalities of the church f they see that the temporalities are properly conduct ed. AU other office 'bat they may exercise is usurpation. Tbey claim thit we have abandoned the church ; that we' seceded t that we departed from the Corporation. I deny it. We are paying our pastor; if the congregation w ill pay the preacher, and that is our business, we hare not seceded. Tbe authority that counsel read does not lit this cae., It is a fact that Lost Creek bas been ac cepting the situation ; it bas been accepting a preacher for a period of four years, and that is accepting the situation. If they ac cept the situation for six months why not lore'er 7 It is a fact that the charter is not the original grant or government ; the original government is the (ilebe land grant ; that's the original document that controls when in trust. It is the original grant, and not tbe charter. If there is a conflict between tbe charter, then we fall back on the Glebe land claim. It is a fact that we have not abandoned the property. At certain preliminary meet ings in the church building in Mitliintown, Lost Creek people would not meet with ns in the same room. We are not in posses sion of our prorty because cf the certain acts and events over which we have no con trol. The right of property cannot be affected by tbe mistakes of Ecclesiastical bodies. If they suffer, whose fault is it 7 There fore there is no probability of a decision against us ; the bill must be dismissed. The principles of the books are with ns, and can't apply in their case, for all the cases mentioned bve reference where the church building waa used in common, and the trouble waa a schism in the congrega tion ; the principles are in our favor, and are as solid as tbe floor of the old church. It is not true that we are Christian bull dozers, as waa intimated by an editor who is now sitting by, when we urged that no preaching be held in the old church. We were not doing more than the editor did when be posted notices on his farm forbid- ng men from hunting and trespassing on his property. We were only trying to protect, as he was trying to protect his property rights. Mr. Parker spoke strongly on the question of the effort to take the property right of the grave-yard away, and conclud ed by saying We have then on our side an impregna ble front or position iu First. That their B'll in Equity is a mis take. SkCOD. That the action of tbe Ecclesias tical Court is final." Third. The action of the Ecclesiastical Court is binding, final, unless the title of the property is s fleeted. Foraru. The charter is not violated by the employment tf two preachers, for it is silent on that point. Fifth. Lost Creek has accepted tbe sit uation. Sixth. If a conflict exists between the charter, then we fall baca on tbe Glebe land claim. Seventh. There was no abandonment of church property in the case. Spitech of Wm. A. Sponsleb, Esq. Win. A. Spnnslcr, of Eloomfield, fi.ilowe l Mr. Talker, in tlio tlihcua .sii.u. lie said i Order is Heawn's first law ; antag onism can got result in frien.l.shiji to jietre and harmony. I shall speak of the ca.se only aa the reconl.t i evt.il it. Vi hut w the Kiilijwt ma Iter between the parties T The preat m:in of the record is not applicable ; it is nteil out. It is of no aeionnt where the church sprung from, but the fact is that a corporation was started in ISO" the Cedar Sprif;j Congrega tion. That was the manner ; what Wivs the object f It waa of a spirit trd character to worship God; tliat was the object. It was a christian act, and from 1S07 to 1875, for near iy a period of 7l years, it existed as a christian unity. But in 1H7. seeds of discord were sown, and sprang forth, and grew, and nnfolded itself till it permeated the whole commu nity. Was it Father Hutchinson, or Father Allison t No. No seeds of discord were sown by them, and whenever the poisonous plant aj- peareii while they were anion; you. they plucked the noxious weeds. If they could be here to-day they would sen ! yon back to your lirst love. The gentlemen on the other side have mistaken the facts of the case as to the distribution of the Glebe land fund. You have had a history an-1 d:il3 of the churches, that the Glebe lands were sold and the pro ceeds divided between the congrega tions, and they wind up their nicely woven history by telling that each congregation got iim proportion of the funds arising therefrom. The testimony of the old records show no such thing. But instead of that, I hold a book in my hand (showing book) that proves that one thou sand dollars is due Lost Creek since the year 1822, with interest That covers a period of over fifty years. The fact is, tho churches existed be fore the building of tho brick churches, which were built by the common congregations, and that is where the one thousand dollar in debtedness comes from. Lost Creek did not get the money that has been so nicely set over to their Bide by counsel for the defendants. Lost Creek complained of the acts of the Ecclesiastical bodies. Their complaint is set forth in the legal papers before the Master in this case. They complain of a prayer by the Mifilintown people, that declared that the unity of the congregation no longer exists ; a prayer that declared that Lest Creek by herself can sup port a preacher ; a prayer that de clared that the field or charge is too large for one man to work ; a prayer that the unity of the congregations must be broken because the interest of the Master's kingdom demands it. They complained of all that, because if such a remarkable prayer as that could be heeded and answered, it would put Buffering and death upon Lost Creek. The prayer seemed, or professed to long for the promotion of the Mas ter's kingdom, but when tbe Ecclesi astical committee that had buen charged with the momentous ques- i: , 1 m lion ot tooKing ior a clear way, lor an answer to the prayer, came to con front the situation they found that, instead of tho way being ciea an actual state of confusion existed even among the prime movers for separa tion or independent church organiza tion. And when the Mifilintown con gregation was assembled, they voted down the question of separation that was submitted. Did that make the "w'ay clear" for the committee that was sent by Presbytery t Who did the committee meet f The plaintiffs are in court to save their life. How they have set Lost Creek adrift to wither and di& That is what the committee did. They say the committee had the right to what they did, nnder the Ecclesi astical powers. Perhaps they had, but was it discreet? Presbytery have the right, if they lielieve the in terest of religion will be pnmoted, to separate a congregation, if the "way be clear." Did the committee do that? If they found John N. Moore, and E. S. Doty in the way, the com mittee should have returned and re ported no division. Wiiat was the separation desired for? Here Mr. Sponsler read from books, showing that Presbytery has in a number of cases refused to divide congregations because division would be death to a portion of the congregation. He ar raigned Huntingdon Presbytery for indiscretion. The committee came in the interest of MilHintown ; shall they Btrike the match of life here and sheatli the dagger in the heart of Lost Creek ? Was that the spiritual mission of the committee of Presby tery ? They did not report on the question of a "clear way." No ! They separated the congregations. They established the chnrch in accordance with the several propositions tliat was voted for, and set the MilHin town congregation in the old place. They cared nothing for Lost Creek ; they considered them old fogies, whose Sabbath ilays begin on Satur day at noon and last till Sunday even ing. Go out I You may starve and die on the cold hills of forgetfulnt-ss. Oh ! go back to God and pray for forgiveness for your bad acts of sev erance. They try to make a point by de claring thitt Lost Creek has more preaching than it had In-fore the per petration of the acts that they com plain of. If they have mre preach ing, it is not owing to the men who separated them. Let no one get such a mistake into their mind ; let no one get it into their mind that they want to have preaching without limit to the Lost Creek people, for that mistake would have to be got rid of in the light of tbe fact, that when Huntingdon Presbytery sends a preacher to preach, they set the watch dogs all around to give notice that he shall not preach anywhere but at Lost Creek. The corporation had two objects. The primary object was to worship God ; it is tliat which gives life and vitality to the church. It is a fact that they have broken asunder the cord that bound the congregations together. It is a fact that Itev. Slier rard ceased to be the preacher of the common congregation, not because he was not wanted, but because Mif ilintown severed or cut the cord. The congregation here is a new and distinct organization, and is no part of Lost Creik. Where would lie v. Sherrard get his salary, in case it should not be paid ? 1 the trus tees of Lost Creek provide for the payment of his salary? Under the charter the trustees have the control ing of the temporal powers of the church. Mr. Sponskr drew a pencil drawing to illustrate the strangula tion process that had been put upon Lost Creek. The edicts cf Ecclesi astical courts cannot affect the law ful work of the trustees. If the Master in this case, or if he. Spong ier, should turn infidel, or should de clare that there is no G.d, then they would become subjects for expul sion by the Ecclesiastical cotu ts, but so long as they ore orthodox in their doctrines the Ecclesiastical courts cannot touch them. Church courts affect only spiritual things. Mifilintown says, get out. But yon cannot blow hot and cold. No, no. you canni t say, we are with you in the property, but we are against you ecclesiastically, and just there is the point in the case. We are all sorry, Barnett fall of oil and he poured oil over brother Parker, bat brother Parker is fall of powder ; if be had followed the chris tian spirit as expressed by McWilliams, aod others when tbey asked Ecclesias tical bodies not to seperate tbe congre gations, that the "way waa not clear," we would have no sonow. The com" uiittee was ordered to come here aod organize a new congregation, but law yers told them that would sever the corporate interests for tbem. Lost Creek could not bave prevented toe organization of a new congregation. Look at the work of the committee, in Presbytery at Port Royal, see the railroad speed with which the case was there put through, look at tbe record in the ca?e for that. I call particular ly oo tbe Master to examine tbe action of the Committee and Presbytery oo the case at Port Royal. The people of Lost tree bave only put np their hands to save their face. They gave Lost Creek notice that tbey would organize a new congregation, that was the notice Lost Creek got, and instead of that the divided the eoo. gretation. It was saying, I'll take off your foot and then proceed to take off your bead. The Master here interrupted" 51 r. Sponsler, aod asked him what be meant when be said toere was nothing to pre vent the crgauization of a new church. Mr Sponsler said that Mr. Doty cr any other member of the Presbyterian church, could withdraw on certificate from a congregation, aod then organ ize a new congregation and ask to be recognized by Presbytery. A min ister can give certificate of withdrawal to members io good standing but he caooot divide a congregation The MifBiotown people seemed at first to go ioto a movetueot to withdraw on certificate, aod organize iu that way. Tbey did not do that, however, very long. They were instructed against the certificate business. Whes they ceased drawing the certificates for new organization, tbey failed to notify Lost Creek that they proposed to di vide the congregations. Tbey did di viie the congregations through the in strumentality of the Ecclesiastical Courts without having served notice on Lost Creek They did that which tbe law forbids. The attention of the Master wss par ticularly directed to tbe law that Park er spoke to, wbicb was relative to the legal quality of tbe Glebe land gTaot as preceding the charter nnder certain circumstances. It is old law. He pronounced tbe Uolmsbarg charter, to which Parker referred, as not a parallel charter, excepting in one or two unimporiant particulars. 1 T , P.rkr rvrrlitlOO that whichever position ia right the MifSui town eougregation could not be destroy ed, Sponsler said if yu do something that is incompatible with the constitu tion, you will not be destroyed, but you will be put back to regular opera tion under the constitution, you will not be allowed to violate but must go back to first principles, you are not es topped ol power but pot back to be have yourself. The illegal preliminary - act in this case was followed up, if after the fir.t violation of tbe constitution they bad gone back, it would bave all been right but they did not do that, they Lave abandoned constitution, and are out side of its provisions. Tbey are se cessionists. Tbey persisted in the wrong and put themselves outside of tbe pale ot tbe congregation. The Master asked" Mr. Sponsler a question relative to the power of the Trustees under the corporation. Tbe trustees are in possession of rights of the congregation. Tbey held in trust for the corpora tion and tbey are the proper parties to act for tbe corporation as in this case. An action ftf ejectwest could never be sustained here; its operation is to re cover something, but here there is nothing to recover because tbe trus tees are in possession. Tbe title of the property has always been with the corporation, it bas never been lost or abandoned by tbe Trus tees. We would be called a set of boobies to bring a case of ejectment for property now in our possession. Tbe corgregatiou is in possession Bow and tbe bill in equity is tbe remedy. Come back ; enjoin Mr. Sherrard from preaching in our pulpit. We invoke the Jaw ! obtain our rights, it is not to get spiritual comfort. We want none of the prave yard, that was un kind in the counsel on the other side to speak of tbe dead as be did. All that we want to do is to discbarge our duty to ourselves and our Gud At the conclusion of Mr. Sponsler's speech, the Master stated that prob ably in two months he can file an opin ion, after which be adjourned the court. Legal .Yutictt. IVotlce la Partition Juniata County S. S. At an Orphans Court for the County of Juniata held at Uifflintowa on tht lf.th day of December A. D. 1879. Bel Ore the Honerable B. IF. Junkin President aud Associate Justice of said Court present. In the matter ol the partition of the Seal Estate of Jacob Ilostetier deceased. iiid now to wit December 16 A. D. 1879, inquisition confirmation and rule granted on all parties in interest, ti wit, Jacob Hostet ler, Sarah Lanis, Henry Sauaman, K!izabeth Khrenaellrr, Lvdia West, Barbara Wuiegard ner, Jane Baaum, U inriah Crater, and Jon athan Hostetler to appear at an Orphans Court to be held at MilHintown on Tuesday the 10th day of March A. D. 1820, to ac cept, or refuse to accept said real estate at the valuation, or show cause why the same should nut be sold. J. R. KELLY, SberilT. Feb 15 1KKO. Re?Iter's Notice. Xotici is hereby given that the following persons have tiled their accounts in tbe Reg ister's Office, iu .Miltiintuou, and that the same will ba prtoented to the Court tor con firmation and allowance, on TlEiiDAY, MAh' H 16, ltt-50: 1. The first ami Snal account of Chris tian G. 6uelly, (iuardiaujof Henry A. Ben ner, minor child ol Nancy Beuner, dee'd, late ol Uclaware township. 2. The first and final account of Abraham Partner, Administrator ol John Partner, deceased, late of Milfurd township. 3. The lirst and final account of I. D. Wallace, Executor, &c., ot Joseph Hostet ler, deased, late of Walker townstrp. 4. The final account of Ezra Smith, Ad ministrator of Jiancy Cotiuuan, deceased, late of Fayette township. 5. The first and partial account of David G. Shel'enberger, Executor, of Chris tian sjiellenberger, deceased. i. The account of Samuel Stimeling, Ad ministrator of Jacob Mini, ling, deceased, late of Oreenwood towuship. 7. The account of J. Porter fTolmac, Ad ministrator of JohnS. Cargill, late ot Greenwood township deceased. 8. Account of Kcbbecra E. Smith Ad ministratrix, and James North Admistrator of J. M. Kepner deceased. 9. First and final account of Joseph Bell Administrator of Daniel Andrews, late ol Tuscarora township. 11. First and partial accounts of Jona than B. Okeson, and James B Okeson ene cutora of William Okeson deceased. J- M. J!cDOXALD. Register. Register's Office iliflliutown. February 16 1SW Administrator's Tlotlce. IVTOT ICE is hereby given that letters of J. ' administration, on the estate of R. E Thompson, late iif Delaware township, de ceased, have been granted in due form of law to the undersigned. All persons know ing themselves indebted to said estate are it quested to make immediate payment, and those having claims will present them prop erly authenticated. URIAH S HUMAN, Feb.ll,80-4w. Administrator. Administrator's Notice. IV OTICE is hereby given that letters of -L 1 administration, on tbe estate of Peter Beshoar, late ol Fayette towuship. dee'd, bave been granted in due form of kt to the undersigned. All persons knowlnr themselves indebted to said estate are re quest to make immediate payment, and those having claims will present them prop erly authenticated for settlement. ANDREW BESHOAR, Feb.ll0-4w. Administrator. CACTIOX. ALL persons are hereby cautioned not to allow their dogs to run, "or themselves to fish, hunt, gather benies, break open fences or cnt wood or young timber, or in any way trespass on tbe lands of th im.ir. aignea Isaac Kiric James Wallace. Benjamin Moore. Lemuel Ramsey. Matthew Clark. Jan 28, l880-ly John Woodside. Alexander Wallace. J. H. Wallace. Joseph A. Ross. CAUTIOX NOTICE. 4 LL persons are hereby cautioced against trespassing on tb lands cf tne under signed in (vFeemrruuf ar.,1 Q n., v. " " w uujUCIUQR townships, for the purpose of bunting, fish ing, cutting timber, or for any other pur pose. Levi Lioht. sept 2, "79-1 r liABEisoa Met tux. Sotlce to Trespassers. NOTICE is hereby given that all persons found tresDassinr on the lnf. .r ik. ' . . . . UU nndersiened in Delaware town.h)n h-v fishing, hunting, cutting timber, build ing fires, or in any way whatever, will be dealt with as the law directs. r. w. hcmpreet. Geobob Speaemas. M. C. Fabba. mayl4,1879-tf alas. Mabt Keech. 70 A WEEK. $12 a day at borne easily Itlv Outfit frM- AilHmi sPI it made. Costly Outfit free. Tbce k. Co., Augusta, Maine. dec3-ly Sentinel and Republican CI .50 a yeai PENNSYLVANIA EAUEOAD. TIME-TABLE roa THaocon aid Local Passisoi Taatv Bitwies Haaaisacao a.id Altoosa. LEAVE WESTWARD. LEAVE EASTWARD i STATIONS. , 3 ' 5 !?!34l I 3 A.M. A.M. I A.M. 12 30 8 0i 1'hltadel'a 3 00 a.m. 'p.m. I P.M. ? 00: 1 30 llarrisb'g 8 1', 8 12 1 i-i kockvilie 7 o!. 8 19' 1 50 Marys vi'e 7 52 8 27j l Vl; Cove 7 44 8;i 2x; Duncan'n 7 32 8 4:Jj 2 14 Aqueduct 7 22 8 56 2 25; Bail 'a j 7 07 9 06 2 3-Y New port, 8 57 9 19 2 47 Millerst'n 6 43 9 31 3 01 I ho" p'n . 6 32 9 4'r 3 16; Mexico ! 6 IN P.M.) 5 30! a a. r- - 5 W 5 Tl 5 iS 5 ; 6 5! 6 Of 6 3- 6 V 7 H 7 'J6 7 4o 7 52 8 W 14 5 9 (jflr 1 1 M5 8 35 8-J4 8 13 8U3 7 47 'it 7 ltj 111 1 1,3 12 53 12Y 12 35 12 24 1211 1159 00 11 43 64(1 11 3 6 3J 11 34 6 11 Ot 9ul K1IW 10 4' 3 20 Perrysv'e, 6 12 3 27: Mn'tlin j 6 07 3 55 Lewisto'n 5 42 10 55 4 08 Anderson ! 5 2'. 11 12 4 24 McVeytm 514 11 24 4 37 Manay'nk 504 1138 4 52 Nllaiuil'n 4 51 10 52 10 35 10 26 10 11 10 9 57 1146 111 54 1 12 03: 4 59 Mt. Union; 4 45 5 07 Mapleton.' 4 38 515 Mill Creek 4 30 5 30 Hunting'ui 4 17 9 50 12 18 03'J il2 35 6 51 Petersb'g 3 58 12 44 6 02 Barree j 3 51, 261 6 10 Spr'ceCk, 346 1 04 6 25 Birmgh'mi 3 1 15 6 34 Tyrone 3 27! 1 21 6 46, Tipton 3 17! 1 30 6 53 Fostoria 3 12 131 6. '8 Bells Mills 3 Oh 1 55 7 20 Altoona j 2 50 S73 910 8 06 8 51 8 40 8 36 8 33 8 151 p. m. a. a. ' a. a. a. Westwaed Fast Tears. Pacific Express leaves Philadelphia 11 5J p m ; Harrisburg 4 20 a m ; Duticannon 4 50am; Newport 6 14 am; MitHin 5 56s m; Lewistown 6 18 a m McTevtotfn 6 41 am; Mt. Union 7 06 am; Huntingdon 7 28 a m ; Petersburg 7 44 a m ; Spruce Creta 7 55am; Tyrone 8 18am; Bell's Mills 8 33 a m ; Altoona 8 50 a in ; Pittsbuig 1 4 5 p m. Pittsburg Express leaves Philadelphia at 6 25 p m ; Harrisburg 10 25 p m ; MarysvMla 10 41pm; Mifflin 1 1 49 p ra ; Lewistowa 12 09 a m ; Huntingdon 1 13 a m ; Tyrone 1 53 a iu ; Altoona 2 25 a m ; Pittsburg 7 00 a m. Fast Line leaves Philadelphia at 11 50 a ni ; Harrisburg 3 45 p ro ; Mittiin 5 p ni ; Lewistown 5 27 p a ; Himtinir'lon 6 2 pni ; Tyrone 7 08 p iu ; Altoona 7 40 p 111 ; pitu burg 1 1 45 p ni. fast Line lift, on Snmiiyn, Kill stnp at Duncnnnon. Stwport. ytVeyttitc, ML t'nion, Petersburg and Bell's Mills, when t'lagii. Eastwaeb Fast Tati.vs. Philadelphia Express leaves Pittsburg at 4 SO p 111 ; Altoona 10 Oo p m ; Bell's Mills 1018pm; Tyrone 10 33 p m ; Spruce Creek 10 48 p ra ; Huntingdon 11 16 p ni ; Lewis town 12 30 p in ; MitHin 12 54 p m ; armes at Harrisburg at 2 4 J p m, aud Philadelphia at 7 00 p m. Atlantic Express leaves Pittsburg at 1 10 pm; A I toon:, 6 15 pm; Tyrone 651 pm; Huntingdon 7 38 p in; Mt. Union 8 0.) p m ; Mc Veyiown 8 25 p m ; Lewistown 8 50 pm; Mill! in 912 p m ; Newport 9 56 p m ; Dun cannon 10 20 p m; Harrisburg 10 55 p m; arrives in Philadelphia 3 00 a m. Pacific Express J. arts Pittsburg at 3 15 a . ni; Altoona 4 am; Tyrone 814 ami J Huntinzdou 8 49 a m ; Lewistown 955am ; I Mitliin IO 16 am; Duncannon 11 19 am; I Harrisburg 11 50 pru; arrives in Pbiladel- phia 3 40 p m. 1 Panfic Express East on Sun iuvr tciiritoa I A, U.I!'- S4.ll. . (- i.j 1 ' Milt Creek. Mt. Union, Mcl'eytown and New port, mhem flagged. .Itlantic Express on Sniulnys will slop at Mill Creek, Mapleton and Maryssilie, irft Elaesed. Philadelphia & Reading Eailroad, Arrangement of PasMenger Trains. November 10th, 1879. Trains leart Hirrisbnrg as follows : For New York via Allentown, at 6 15, 8 05 a. m., and 1 45 p. ni. For New York via Philadelphia and "Bound Brock Route," 6 20 (Fast Exp.), 8 05 a ni, and 1 45 p n. Through car ; arrives in New York. For Philadelphia at 5 15, 6 20 (Fast Exp.), 8 05, 9 55 a ni, 1 45 and 4 00 p m. For Reading a 5 15. 6 20 (Fast Exp.) 8 05, 9 55 a m, 1 45, 4 00 and 8 00 p m. For Pottsville at 5 15, 8 05 a m, and 4 OO p. m. and via Schuylkill & Susquehanna Branch at 2 40 p m. For Auburn, 6 20 a m. For Lanexstej and Columbia, at 5 15, 8 05 a m, and 4 00 p m For Allentown al 5 15, 8 05, 9 55 a m, 1 45 and 4 X) p m. Tbe. 5 15 and 8 05 a ra, at.d 1 45 p m trains have throagh cars for New York via Al- b-ntown. The 8 05 a. m. train bas through cars fur Philadelphia. The 8 05 a m ar.d 1 45 p 01 make close connection at Reading with main line trains having through cars for New York, via Philadelphia and " Bound Brook Route." SUSDjIYS. For New York at 5 20 a, m. For Allentown and way stations at 5 20 a a. For Reading, Philadelphia and way stations at 1 45 p m. Trans for Hamsbnrg leart anfollosei : Leave New York via Allentown at 8 45 a m, 1 00 and 530 p ra. Leave New York via "Bound Brook Route" and Philadelphia 7 45 a m, 1 30 and 1 00 p m, arriving t Harrisburg, 1 50, 8 20 v20pi. Through car, New York to narris93rgi Leave Lancaster 8 05 a m and 3 50 p in. Leave Columbia 7 55 a m and 3 40 p m. Leave Philadelphia at 9 45 a. m., 4 00 aa2 6 00 (Fast Exp.), and 7 45 p m. Leave Pottsville at 6 00, 9 10 a. m. and 1 40 p m. Leave Reading at 4 50, 7 25, 11 50 a m, 1 30, 6 15, 8 00 and 10 35 p m. Leave Pottsvjlle via Schuylkill and Susque hanna Branch, 8 25 a 11). Leave Auburn via Schuylkill and Susquehanna Branch, 1150 am. Leave Allentown at 5 50, 9 05 a m., 12 10, 4 30 aud 9 05 p m. SU.YDJTS. Leave New York at 5 30 p. ra. Leave Philadelphia at 7 45 p m. Leave Reading at 7 35 a m and 10 35 p m. Leave Allentown at 9 05 p ro C. G. HANCOCK General Pass'r Ticket Agent. J. E. WOOTTEN, General Manager. CAtTIO. ALL persons are hereby cautioned not to fish, hunt, break or open fences, or cuf wood or young timber, or in any unneces sary way trespass on the lands ot the under signed. R M Thompson J B Thompson Wm (i Thompson Davis Smith, Jr. Oct 9, 1878. T S Thompson E P Hudson Abrara Shelly C A Shermer C.41TIO, 4 LL persons are here 7 eaationed no 2X. to fish, hunt, gainer berries, ore -k or open fences, or cut wood or young timber, or in any unnecessary way trespass on the lands of tbe undersigned. SlMOS) McSMAH. LrDwrCIHBADIB.' Geo. DiFPE3iABf eb. William Peoples. Fbeoebice Ha is as. Fba.tcis Howeb. Fermanagh Twp., June 22, 1878. APO a week in your own town. Terms and IDUU So outfit Tree. Address H Co., Portland, Maine. Hallett Tbe Sentinel mmd RnuMirm nffica ia thw place to have your sale bills printed. i v t ; 2
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers