ae ine pees BX ¥ 36) AY C7l 1403 Cornell Alniversity Library BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME FROM THE SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND THE GIFT OF Henry W. Saqe Ala UIE Se a illo oa ele ee 6896-1 THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS OF THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH BY R. J. COOKE, D. D., Dr. Litt. WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY THE REV. DR. JAMES M. BUCKLEY Bassanio: I beseech you wrest once the law to your authority: to doa great right, do a little wrong. Portia: °T will be recorded for a prec- edent. And many an error by the same example will rush into the State. It can not be.—Merchant of Venice. SECOND EDITION REVISED AND ENLARGED CINCINNATI: JENNINGS AND GRAHAM NEW YORK: EATON AND MAINS a ou A33¢675 ) CoPpyYrriGHtT, 1903, BY JENNINGS AND PYE INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST EDITION. To inrropuce Dr. R. J. Cooke to the Meth- odist Episcopal Church was long since rendered an impossibility by his established reputation as an Educator, Professor in Divinity, Preacher, Legislator, and Author. To introduce this, his latest production, to the favorable consideration of all who have to make laws for the Methodist Episcopal Church or administer them, can be fitting only as it emphasizes the aim of the work, its need and the manner of its performance. The aim is not to furnish the reader with the text of the rules and regulations which gov- ern the Church—the Book of Discipline con- tains these—nor to describe how and why they were enacted. The Journal of the General Con- ference is the final authority upon these points. It is to state and, when necessary, to explain the judicial decisions which have been made in the 3 INTRODUCTION. lengthening history of the Church. If such a work is necessary to the State, it can not be superfluous in any organized ecclesiastical body in which exists a final court of appeal. It is all the more valuable when the powers center in one deliberative assembly meeting but once in four years. Reports furnish to Supreme Courts all the precedents and their grounds. But unless the administrator of Methodist law carry with him in memory or in print all the Journals, he can not be sure whether he is not inconsistent with some previous decision. Even the Judiciary Committees and the General Conference have been frequently delayed or embarrassed for lack of accessible materials for forming a judgment. This need is so great that certain individuals have made summaries for their own use. The Bishops have also prepared similar compilations for their guidance. This work will enable all interested to learn in a few minutes what has been decided on every adjudicated question which has originated in or been sent on appeal to the General Con- 4 Intropucrion. ference. It bears marks of care and thorough- ness; its comments are lucid and pertinent, and it can but be helpful both to those who know, and those who wish to know but can not pay the price, in time, for original research. It should be a work of permanent value, and in succeeding editions a few supplementary pages with current decisions will keep it in time and tune with the progress of the Church. J. M. BUCKLEY. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Tue work herewith presented to the respect- ful consideration of the administrators of the Discipline must not be accepted in any sense as an intended Treatise on Ecclesiastical Law, nor as an Interpretation of Law, nor as an Expo- sition of the Jurisprudence of the Methodist Episcopal Church. It makes no pretensions to the importance such works might justly claim, since its only object is to contribute what it may to convenience, consistency, and continuity in the administration of the law of the Church. It would have been much more agreeable to trace the evolution of our Church Courts from the fractional and irregular Conferences of early Methodism, and, therewith, the development of our Ecclesiastical Law from the period of the personal administration of Wxstry to the ju- ? PREFACE. dicial utterances of the Delegated General Con- ference; but this would have led far away from the primary, and while less ambitious, yet no less useful, purpose of gathering in compact form the decisions of what had legally become the highest judicial body in the Church, and extracting from these decisions the fundamental principles which may serve as precedents in judicial administration. The Journals of the General Conference are a rich mine for historical investigation, and he who would know the fons et origo of Methodist history must devote himself to the study of these documents, for here may be seen the play of those forces which are at once an expression of, and a contribution to, the world-wide expansion and internal development of the Church; the beginnings of institutions, and of far-reaching movements, the foundation and growth of that system of law, itself an illustration of our mar- velous history, which, while being strong is yet flexible, while grounded in justice is yet tem- pered with Christian charity, and which seeks 8 PREFACE. only the purity of the Church and the protection of the rights and privileges of her members. In these Journals there are contained de- cisions on legal questions of the highest impor- tance, which, taken together, constitute a body of precedents as valuable to the administrator of the Discipline as the decisions of a Supreme Court are to the student of civil law. It may be that here and there a decision will be found which has become obsolete by reason of subse- quent legislation, as is often the case in civil law, but that decident specimen is still valuable as material for history. The supremely impor- tant matter, however, is that consistency in the judicial decisions of the General Conference should be maintained. The importance of this will be readily conceded. Let it once become a justifiable opinion that the decisions of the highest Court of Appeal in the Church are purely arbitrary, and neither based upon nor in any degree influenced by precedent, and at once the authority of that Court is contemned. Now, since each General Conference has a new 9 PREFACE. Committee on J udiciary, it will not be surpris- ing if opposing judgments on similar cases should be found in cases where the decisions of previous Judiciary Committees have not been consulted. But such a consultation at the Gen- eral Conference during the trial of a case in- volves an examination of the Journal of each General Conference from the beginning, a duty which for its careful performance, at such a time and amid such circumstances, is almost, if not wholly, impossible. The task herein undertaken, therefore, was to assemble these decisions together, to classify them, and to ‘state in unambiguous terms the fundamental principle of each, thus affording a convenient handbook of reference for all ad- ministrators of the Discipline to any case upon which there is a recorded decision. It may possibly occur to some that, since all judicial decisions of the General Conference prior to 1844 are common to both the Methodist Episcopal Church and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, it would have added to the in- 10 PREFACE. terest, if not to the importance, of this work if the judicial decisions of the General Confer- ence of the Church South were also included. It is perhaps true that such an inelusion would show the agreements which have been main- tained and the differences which have arisen in the judicial economy of the two Churches since that time. But while this might prove to be of some value, it is clear that to have done this would also have been a departure from the orig- inal object in view. Finally, it should be noted that not all the decisions here cited are judicial in a technical sense ; 2. e., they did not emanate from the Com- mittee on Judiciary in the trial of a case. They are, nevertheless, of a judicial character, since they were adopted by the General Conference in the exercise of its judicial powers. Such excep- tions are marked N. J. A few notes have also been added. They are not intended to be, and it is hoped that they will not be understood as being, controversial in any sense. They are simply intended to be helpful to a clearer un- 1i PREFACE. derstanding of the text or of the principle in- volved. It gives me great pleasure to express my thanks to the Rev. Bishop D. A. Goodsell, LL. D., for eminently judicious suggestions, and to the Rev. Bishop Isaae W. Joyce, LL. D., and Mr. Robert T. Miller for the loan of Gen- eral Conference Journals now becoming very scarce. In this revised edition the Judicial Decisions of the General Conferences are brought down to date by the addition of the decisions of 1904 and 1908. The rulings of the Bishops on various questions which were approved by the last General Conference are also included. A few changes have been made. The ‘‘ Notes” in the first edition are omitted, as are also some de- cisions which, by reason of a change in the law, have become obsolete. With the hope that this volume, like its predeces- sor, may be of value in its special department, it is submitted to the service of the Church. Weve 12 TABLE OF CONTENTS. OHAPTER PaGE InTRopUCTION, - - - - =~ = 3 I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES, - - - - - (| II. Apprats, - - s - - = - 38 III. BisHops, - - - = = - = 7 IV. ConreRENOES, - 7 - - = - 104 V. Exvsctions, - - - - - - - 127 VI. MEMBERSHIP, - - - - - - 142 VII. OrpeErs, - - - - - - - 147 VIII. PREAcHERs, - - - - - - 152 IX. Triazs, - - - - - - - 161 Routines or THE BisHops, - - - 203 APPENDIX—THE ConsTITUTION, - - 220 INDEX, - - - - an” os - 295 13 THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS OF THE GENERAL CONFERENCE CHAPTER I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES. In the Methodist Episcopal Church supreme Legislative authority within prescribed limits to enact all Power. laws necessary for the government of the Church is vested by the Constitution in the General Conference. The granted right is given en bloc. Article X of the Constitution reads: “The General Conference shall have full power to make rules and regulations for the Church under the following limitations and _ restric- tions; namely,” ete. Full power is supreme power. Supreme power has its limitations; absolute power is superior to and independent of any power, check, or restriction whatsoever, and is vested in the Church, that is, the min- istry and laity. This is not the character of the authority vested by the Constitution in the General Conference. Nor is this authority despotic, which is a form of power less by little than absolute power, but greater than supreme 2 17 GENERAL CoNFERENCE DEcISIONS. power; for this power of the General Confer- ence is limited by Six Restrictive Rules, which can not be altered or annulled without due con- stitutional process. It will be observed, how- ever, that within the limits of these restrictions the General Conference has the unquestionable right to make any rule or regulation for the welfare of the Church. “Rules and regula- tions” signifies laws in general, as in the Con- stitution of the United States, Art. I, Sec. 8, 14, Congress shall have power “To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.” “Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property of the United States.” Art. IV, Sec. 3, (2). Rev. Jesse Lee, Short History of the Methodists, pp. 298, 299, says: “We had sev- eral new regulations made at this General Con- ference; one was as follows: “The Bishops shall allow the Annual Conferences to sit at least a week.’ Before this rule was established, the Bishop,” ete. “The following rule was also formed: ‘The Bishop shall not allow any preacher to remain in the same station or circuit more than ten years successively.’ 18 GenerRAL PrRINcIPLes. “The following rule was formed respect- ing the President of the Annual Confer- ence. “The following new regulation was also formed: ‘The Presiding Elder shall not em- ploy a preacher who has been rejected at the,’ ete. “The above rules and regulations I have taken from the first part of our Form of Dis- cipline.” An analysis of this authority to make rules and regulations, as described in the Book of Discipline and the Records of the successive General Conferences, shows that it is of a threefold nature—Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. But while this vested power is of this threefold character, it must not be concluded therefrom that there are three separate and dis- tinct divisions, or departments, of government, each intrusted with its appropriate duties and exercising its authority independently of the others. The General Conference is a unit, one body in one place, at one time; and, as such, possesses sovereign authority in all three di- visions of power. Nevertheless, the distinction between the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial is definite and pronounced. The Book 19 Final Court of Appeal. GunERAL CoNFERENCE DECISIONS. of Discipline, paragraph 284, provides “The General Conference shall carefully review the decisions of questions of law contained in the records and documents transmitted to it from the Judicial Conferences, and in case of serious error therein shall take such action as justice may require.” This provision is essentially ju- dicial, and designates a function already exist- ing and distinct from the legislative power, which has previously enacted the law in accord- ance with which the decision is to be made. There is no infringing of one function upon the other. Legislative authority determines what the law shall be, the Judicial declares what the law is. Among the restrictions referred to as im- posed by the organic law, and which are for the purpose of safeguarding the rights and liberties of the Church, are the following: “The General Conference shall not deprive our Ministers of the right of trial by the Annual Conference or by a select number thereof, nor of an Appeal; nor shall it deprive our Members of the right of trial by a Committee of Members of our Church, nor of an appeal.” (Discipline, Paragraph 46, Section 5.) In addition to this the General Conference itself is constituted a Court of Ap- 20 GENERAL PRINCIPLES. peal, and since litigation must stop somewhere, some time—being the highest authoriy in the Church—it is a final Court of Appeal. From its organization till the institution of Judicial Conferences in 1872, the General Con- ference had original jurisdiction in all trials of accused Bishops, who were amenable to the Gen- eral Conference only, and appellate jurisdiction in the trials of Traveling Preachers. Now it has original jurisdiction only in cases of epis- copal maladministration: “Complaint against the administration of a Bishop may be for- warded to the General Conference and enter- tained there; provided, that in its judgment he has had due notice that such complaint would be made. (Dis. par. 230.) In all other cases the jurisdiction of the General Conference is appellate. But just as the Supreme Court of the United States and others Courts of Appeal have juris- diction only in certain classes of appeals, only three classes of appeals may be entertained, if legally made, by the General Conference. First. From the decision of a presiding Bishop on a question of law in a trial before a Judicial or an Annual Conference. ‘A Bishop shall preside in the Judicial Conference, and 21 Jurisdiction. Appeals Must be Heard. GeneRAL CoNFERENCE DeEcIsIONs. shall decide all questions of law arising in its proceedings, subject to an appeal to the General Conference.” (Dis. par. 276.) Second. From the findings of a Judicial Conference in the trial of a Bishop. ‘‘A Bishop shall have the right of appeal to the ensuing General Conference, if he signify his intention to appeal within three months of the time when he is informed of his conviction.” (Dis. par. 277.) Third. From the decision of a Conference outside the United States upon a case tried by said Conference. “Appeals from an Annual or Mission Conference not in the United States may be heard at the discretion of the Bishop in permanent charge thereof (due reference being had to the rights and interests of all concerned), either by a Judicial Conference called by said Bishop from neighboring foreign Conferences, or by a Judicial Conference called by him to meet at or near New York, or by the General Conference through a special Judicial Com- mittee appointed for the purpose.” (Dis. par. 281.) The General Conference must entertain and try an appeal within its jurisdiction if per- fected and presented in proper form. An ap- 22 General PRINCIPLES. peal is within the jurisdiction of the Conference if it belongs to one of the classes mentioned, and the legal requirements necessary to its va- lidity have been complied with according to the Discipline and ordinary usage. These having been observed, the General Conference is not at liberty to ignore, or to refuse, or to throw any impediment in the way of, or to prevent, in any manner whatever, the hearing of any law- ful appeal. To do so would be a violation of the Constitution, of every sense of justice, and an unjustifiable disregard of fundamental rights. It is not to be deduced from this, however, that the General Conference is compelled to de- cide upon every question of law referred to its decision. There must be a concrete case. To make decision compulsory, there must be an ap- peal. Many illustrations of this may be found in the Journals. In 1876, for example, the Bishops submitted to the General Conference the question of the legality of their deciding all questions of law arising in a Judicial Confer- ence, but the General Conference did not take the subject under consideration. It was under no obligation to do so. Of course, the refusal of the General Conference to decide either way 23 Decisions. GENERAL CONFERENCE DECISIONS. gave tacit consent to the legality of the custom, since the question was so framed that, if erro- neous, the custom would be challenged. But in the case of an appeal from the ruling of a pre- siding Bishop in an Annual or Judicial Confer- ence, the General Conference would have been compelled by the supreme law of the Church to hear the case and deliver its judgment. In the General Conference of 1900 a resolu- tion was adopted that, in reporting their de- cisions to the body, the Committee on Judiciary should give the reasons for their judgment in each case. The resolution was important and necessary if decisions were to be of any value in ecclesiastical jurisprudence, for the reason that it is the doctrine of law, the legal reason, which determines judgment in a particular case that establishes that principle of law, so that the principle may be applied hereafter to similar cases. Lord Kenyon observes that it is the prin- ciple “which we are to extract from cases, and to apply it in other cases.” But the reason for the decision is not the decision. Decision alone makes precedent. Decisions are made upon questions raised in issue, and upon no others. They do not cover — questions which are not presented in dispute 24 GENERAL PRINCIPLES. and considered by the court, even though such questions are involved in the case, and if pre- sented and argued might have changed the ver- dict. A decision may be given on one point, or fact, only among many before the court, on the ground that the principle of law applicable to that particular point disposes of all the others in the case. But as in civil law, if a decision goes beyond the facts presented, if the reasoning leading up to the decision is irrelevant, or if it is evident that the case was not clearly appre- hended, then the decision is of no value as a precedent. “Just as a trial court acts without jurisdiction if.it assumes to go beyond the issues in the case and pass upon matters not submitted by the parties and not connected with the con- troversy raised by the pleading, or to render a judgment or decree not invited or asked by the litigants, so it is with the decision of an Ap- pellate Court when the opinion does not cor- relate with the questions actually raised by the record.” (Black, On Interpretation of Laws, p. 838.) It would follow from this that the language of judicial opinion must always be construed and interpreted with reference to the exact ques- tion decided. 25 GENERAL ConFERENCE DECISIONS. Have the = Just as a large part of the civil law has not Force of Law. been sanctioned by the Legislature, but is em- bodied in the decisions of the courts, so Church law is found, not only in the express letter of the Discipline, but also in the decisions of the Bishops and of the General Conference which have not been adopted by that body and formulated into enactments. For ex- ample, in the case of Counsel for defendant claimed that there was no specific prohibition in the Discipline forbidding an ex- pelled minister from exercising his ministerial functions pending an appeal. This was cor- rect; for, while there were certain prohibitions in cases remanded for a new trial, yet there was no express prohibition of the exercise of ministerial functions pending an appeal. But the Committee on Judiciary, considering this claim, decided that it is the intention of the Church that an expelled minister should not exercise ministerial functions after expulsion and pending an appeal. This subject is broadly stated by Pomeroy in his Constitutional Law (third ed., p. 67), “The judgments of the United States Courts,” he affirms, “expounding a statute, construing the Constitution, or adding a new rule to the 26 GENERAL PRINCIPLES. vast body of judicial legislation within their especial jurisdiction, are as much laws of the United States as the formal acts which have been passed by Congress and have received the assent of the President.” And all this is con- sonant with the dictum that nothing is law which is not in the law. Decisions, then, have the force of law when they are of such a character as to be accepted as precedents. “A solemn decision,” says Chancellor Kent, “upon a point of law arising in any given case becomes an authority in a like case; because it is the highest evidence which we can have of the law applicable to the subject; and the judges are bound to follow that decision so long as it stands unreversed, unless it can be shown that the law was mis- understood or misapplied in that particular case.” (1 Kent Comm. 475.) But not every decision is a precedent, though every precedent must be decision. And among precedents there are varying degrees of value and importance. What, then, is a precedent? A precedent is a decision which furnishes a permanent rule for the adjudication of similar cases to the one decided, or similar questions of law. Such ju- dicial judgments are not to be lightly regarded. 27 Precedent. GENERAL CONFERENCE DECISIONS. If they were so esteemed, nothing in law would be certain, and justice would vary with the personal opinion, the learning or ignorance, the fairness or prejudice, of every judge. It is among the unwritten laws of Methodism that one General Conference can not bind an- other; a popular notion which is subject, like many other notions, to modification; for the law of the Church, adopted by a previous Gen- eral Conference, is the existing law up to the moment of its repeal, and by this law is the General Conference bound as certainly as it is by any law of its own making. Moreover, one General Conference can not lawfully annul the acts of a previous General Conference which created new rights by constitutional process. So the judicial decisions of the General Conferences in identical or similar cases, or questions of law, can not be held as hav- ing no continuous force, or as having no force as precedents. If they are not binding, and are subject to reversal without legal reason, then precedent has no place; it does not exist; and can never be cited in Methodist law. But such is not the case; nor can ever be, since such an arbitrary method of determining litigation 28 Gen=zRaL PRINCIPLES. would be so uncertain in its judgments, and so essentially antagonistic to the most elementary principles of justice, that it could not be sus- tained if attempted, nor command respect for its decisions if practiced. In civil law prec- edents are of the highest importance, and they can not be of less value in ecclesiastical law which takes cognizance of moral character, of our most sacred rights and privileges and ec- clesiastical reputation. “It is,” says Black- stone, “an established rule to abide by former precedents when the same points come again in litigation” (1 Black. Comm., 69), and in his Constitutional Limitations, 49, Judge Cooley ob- serves, “All judgments are supposed to apply existing laws to the facts in the case, and the reasons which are sufficient to influence the court to a particular conclusion in one case ought to be sufficient to bring it or any other court to the same conclusion in all other cases where no modification of the law has inter- vened.” This principle must also, in the very nature of things, apply equally to the Judicial Decis- ions of the General Conference; for, although the laws and legal methods and procedures in 29 GrnERAL ConFERENCE DEcisIons. Church and State are different, the rational ground, the fundamental principle of rightness and justice which is back of all law, and of which law is the expression, and which gives moral authority, majesty, and force to law, is the same in both. For illustration, the Gen- eral Conference of 1848 decided that a travel- ing preacher who has been suspended by an Annual Conference, and appeals from its de- cision, forfeits his right to prosecute his appeal in the General Conference if he withdraws from the Church prior to the adjudication of his case. In 1872, Judicial Conferences were instituted for the hearing of appeals from Annual Con- ferences. Now, the establishment of this new court did not, could not, nullify the principle underlying the decision of the General Confer- ence of 1848, which is, that he who legally with- draws from the Church is beyond the jurisdic- tion of the Church. Of course, it is not to be inferred from this that, if one dies while his perfected appeal is pending, the appeal is va- cated or forfeited by his death. It must be heard and passed upon as if he were living; for his cause is not dead, nor has he taken it out of the jurisdiction of the Church by any act of his own. 80 GENERAL PRINCIPLES. The value of a precedent depends upon the Value of reputation of the court, or of the judge giving the opinion upon the thoroughness of the dis- cussion of the case decided, and certainly upon the completeness of the report of the case ad- judged. For it is evident that, unless there is a clear understanding of the issue and of the questions raised during its trial, and the reasons for the rulings made thereon, it can not be de- termined whether the decision was conform- able to the law, or to rules of reason, or whether it is applicable to any other case or not. The mere statement that a case was decided in a certain way is of no value as a precedent. Such a decision is not a permanent rule. What a precedent is worth is determined by the com- pleteness of the record which evidences the de- cision and contains the legal or logical reasons for the judgment rendered. An examination of the General Conference records will reveal the fact that the Reports of the Judiciary Committee are, to a large ex- tent, until comparatively recent years, of no value as precedents, since they contain no further record of the cases tried than a mere statement of the findings, and this without any assigned reason for the conclusions reached, al Precedents. Presump- tions. GenzRaL ConFERENCE DEcIsIons. But there are a sufficient number of Reports which state the issue involved, and the reason for the verdict given, to afford us a body of exceedingly important precedents, which should be in the possession of all who may be called upon to sit in Courts of Appeal for reaching equitable conclusions in all identical or similar cases. Finally, it is a well-grounded presumption that, as in civil law, the proceedings of the judicial tribunals of the Church are according to the law of the Church. An Appellate Court presumes, therefore, on the review of a case, that in the trial court all legal requirements were observed, and that the evidence there ad- duced justified the decision. The burden of proof to the contrary rests on the appellant. This is not at all times an easy task. He can not rebut this presumption with a mere decla- ration, nor support his contention in general terms. The record of the case is before the court. He must show affirmatively and clearly from this record, and not from anything out- side the record, the facts which constitute the error complained of. This must be done also without recourse to doubtful interpretations, or to supposed inconsistencies in the record; for the court will presume, what is certainly a most 32 GeneraL PRINCIPLES. rational presumption, that the decision of the lower court was based upon the interpretation of the facts which do sustain it, and not upon those that do not. All the facts, then, upon which the claim of error is based must be in the record. This is the only evidence of the error, as the record, or transcript, is the only evidence that there was any trial. If any fact essential to the es- tablishment of the claim is omitted, the court will presume that such fact would have sus- tained the decision appealed from if it had been presented. The presumption is, that the record certified to by a lawful person as con- taining all the proceedings and evidence in the case is correct and inclusive. The court will not presume that other facts affecting the judg- ment exists; they do not exist, in the mind of the law, if they conflict with the facts in the record. Even “where statements in the record conflict on a material point, the construction which upholds the judgment will be deemed con- clusive. And where the omissions of the record raise conflicting presumptions, or its arrange- ment is capable of different interpretations, or it is unintelligible because of a confused ar- rangement, the construction maintaining the 8 33 The Record. Reversible Errors. GENERAL CoNFERENCE DecISIONS. judgment will be adopted.” (EHncy. Pleading and Practice: W. Kinney. Vol. II, 436.) But if the record, or the transcript, which is the copy of it, containing the history of the ease from its beginning in the trial court and the judgment thereon, does clearly and affirm- atively set forth facts which are inconsistent with the presumption that the formal acts of the inferior tribunal were according to law, then the judgment appealed from will not be sustained by the Court of Appeal, even though it should be shown that the record is incom- plete, in that all the facts are not presented; for, obversely to what has already been stated concerning the presumption that other facts if presented would sustain the decision, the court will not presume that omitted facts, if presented, would correct the error complained of. An error to be reversible must not be merely of technical character. It must involve rea- son and justice. It must materially affect the judgment rendered; for it is the general opin- ion of the courts that, unless an error can be shown to be prejudicial to the rights of the appellant, changing or in any degree modify- ing the result, the decision of the trial court 34 * GeneraL PRINCIPLES. should not be reversed. It is true, however, that, generally, the opinion is held that an error does give rise to the presumption that it is in itself injurious to the interests of the appel- lant, though it may not be possible clearly to trace, mark out, and define the extent or degree of its influence on the final decision, and that the appellee is bound to show that it is not in- jurious. Several cases are cited in the Lncy. of Pleading and Practice referred to, illus- trating this principle. We read: “Error is pre- sumed to be prejudicial. To justify an Appel- late Court to affirm a judgment when error has intervened in the trial, the burden is upon the party claiming the benefit of the judgment to satisfy the Appellate Court that the error was not prejudicial. “The Appellate Court will not support one presumption by another; it will not presume that error was harmless when the record does not show it to have been so, in order to support the presumption that the judgment was cor- rect.”’ “While it is true that error will never be presumed, the converse of the proposition is equally true. Where error does affirmatively 35 GENERAL CONFERENCE DECISIONS. appear it will not be presumed that it was ren- dered harmless or removed.” “Injury will not be presumed from error, unless the record shows affirmatively the con- trary.” “The rule is, that every error is prima facie an injury to the party against whom it is made, and it rests with the other party to show, not that probably no hurt was done, but that none could have been done.” But, as has been stated, there is a contrary rule, which is that the appellant must not only clearly show error from the record, but also that it does prejudice his case. The mere fact that an error of any kind is in the record is no clear evidence that it is injurious to the appellant. The judgment of the trial court will not be reversed if it is correct on the whole case, and if it can be shown from the record that the error could not have injured the ap- pellant’s cause in any degree. Description or enumeration of errors re- versible does not fall within the scope of this general view. For this inquiry special works treating on such questions must be consulted ; nor does it come within the limits of this sec- 36 General PRINCIPLES. tion to discuss many other subjects which be- long to this important and most difficult branch, or division, of jurisprudence. Our sole aim has been to indicate in a most general way some primal facts which must necessarily be kept in mind. Other fundamental principles will develop themselves in a study of the follow- ing decisions. 3% CHAPTER II. APPEALS. An Appeal is not admissible if appellant does not appear in person or by representative. An appellant from the Conference was expelled from the ministry and membership of the Methodist Episcopal Church, by the ac- tion of said Conference, on a charge of immor- ality. The Committee resolved, as he had not appeared in person or by a representative, that this appeal be not admitted. (General Conf. Journal, 1864, p. 268.) An Appeal is not admissible if not made within the time prescribed by the Discipline. , of the Conference, had made a demand of said Conference for missionary money he claimed as due him. The demand not being granted, he appealed. The appeal was not admitted, as the appel- 38 APPEALS. lant did not appeal for between two and three years after the trial, and after he had notice of the Conference action. (Journal, 1864, p. 268.) An Appeal is not admissible if appellant has placed himself beyond the jurisdiction of the Church. The Committee have considered the second appeal of , who appeals from the action of the Conference, whereby he was ex- pelled from the ministry of the Church. The representatives of the Conference objected to the admission of the appeal on the ground— 1. That , subsequently to his trial and condemnation, joined the Methodist Episcopal Church as a probationer, and thus, at least tac- itly, confessed the justice of the action of the Conference in his case. 2. That , since he was deprived by this expulsion of his ministerial authority and standing, has continued to preach, and has thus rebelled against the authority of the Confer- ence and the Church. 3. That , since he declared his inten- tion of appealing to the General Conference, has connected himself with another organiza- tion. contemplating Church ends independent 39 GENERAL ConFERENCE DEcISIONS. of and hostile to the Church to whose General Conference he now appeals. The Committee, after hearing the state- ments and pleadings of the representatives of the parties, resolved that the appeal of be not admitted. (Journal, 1860, p. 253.) The Committee took up the case of 5 who appeals from a decision of the Con- ference, whereby he was expelled from the ministry and the Church. The representatives of the Conference objected to the admis- sion of the appeal on the ground— 1. That the appellant, since his expulsion, has continued to preach as if still in full pos- session of ministerial powers. 2. That the appellant, since his expulsion, has allied himself to another organization, in- dependent of the Methodist Episcopal Church and hostile to it. The Committee, after hearing the state- ments and pleadings of the representatives of the parties, Resolved, That the appeal of be not admitted. (Journal, 1860, p. 253.) , an appellant of the Conference, was deposed from the ministry of the Methodist Episcopal Church, by the action of said Con- ference, on the charge of immorality. The Com- mittee did not admit the appeal, as the appellant 40 APPEALS. had withdrawn from the Church, and had taken a license and continued to preach in another Church. (Journal, 1864, 268.) Right of Appeal is forfeited if one ceases to be a member of the Church. The Judiciary Committee has duly consid- ered the appeal of in which he alleges that he is still a member of the Con- ference, and ask: the General Conference to establish his membership in said Conference, and to grant him permission to transfer his membership to an Eastern Conference. The papers filed in the case by Presiding Elders : , and , of the Conference, show that after the action taken by the Conference of which said complains, he, the said . united with the Methodist Protestant Church and entered its ministry, from which he was subsequently expelled. If any irregularity was committed by the Conference, concerning which it is un- necessary to express an opinion, no right of ap- peal exists, as the said , by formally uniting with the ministry of another Church, thereby ceased to be a minister of the Meth- odist Episcopal Church. 41 GeneraL Conrerrencs DEcIsIons. It is not within the power of the General Conference to reinstate him in the ministry of our Church, or to direct the Conference to reopen the case. (Journal, 1908.) An Appeal from an action of an Annual Confer- ence, and not from a decision, is not admis- sible. The Committee, having examined the case of , of the Conference, who com- plains that the said Conference caused to be entered on its records a minute to the effect that he had withdrawn from the Conference and the Church under charges of immorality, which minute he claims is incorrect and unjust, Re- solved, That, in the judgment of this Commit- tee, the complaint of against the action of the Conference is one over which, as a Committee of Appeals, we have no jurisdic- tion. (Journal, 1860, 223.) An Appeal to other than the Court of Appeals is not admissible. The printed “Appeal” of , being more properly an appeal to the public than a com- plaint of the ruling of a bishop, is dismissed. (Journal, 1860, 427.) 42 APPEALS. Want of documentary evidence bars Appeal. in the matter of the appeal of , @ re- spected member of ' Conference, from a decision of Bishop ——, your Cofhmnittee re- ports as follows: When what was known as the Hamilton Amendment to the Second Restrictive Rule was before the Conference, a motion was made that the Conference refuse to vote on the proposed amendment. objected to the motion as illegal, and appealed to Bishop : presiding, to decide the legality of the mo- tion. Bishop decided that the motion was in order and legal. From this decision appealed to the General Conference. The above statement of the case is gathered from a paper signed and presented by said The appeal is not accompanied by a transcript of the Journal of said Conference relating to the case. We therefore recommend that the sub- ject of the paper be dismissed. (Journal 1896, 424.) Suppression of documentary evidence is no bar to Appeal. [a local elder] was tried on a charge of dishonesty by a Committee of Investigation 43 GENERAL CONFERENCE DECISIONS. in the Church at , and, being found guilty, was suspended. Upon trial in the District Conference he was found guilty and expelled. On appeal to the Annual Conference, it would appear that the Select Number dis- missed the appeal in the absence of the appel- lant, and without giving him or his counsel any opportunity to appear before them and present the case. It is due to the Select Number to state their action was based partly on the fact that the records of the trial did not show on their face any exceptions taken. It is also due to state that he claims that the record before the Select Number was not cor- rect; that the preacher in charge, who was also secretary of the District Conference before whom he was on trial, had possession of the rec- ords, and refused to allow him to make a tran- script thereof, to the end that he could perfect his appeal to the Annual Conference. It would also appear, from the best evidence ob- tainable, that the secretary of the Annual Con- ference did not retain possession of what few papers were before the Select Committee, and that the same can not now be found, thereby rendering it impossible for to present his appeal in due form of law. . . . Your 44 APPEALS. Committee is of the opinion that exer- cised due diligence in trying to get his appeal properly before the Annual Conference, but that he was practically denied this right by a suppression of the papers and records in the case. Your Committee would therefore recom- mend that the case be referred back to the District Conference, and that the said be restored to the rights and privileges of an ex- pelled member seeking appeal. (Journal, 1896, 425.) Material deficiency in the records of a case may be sufficient grounds for a new trial. On motion, Resolved, That we now take up the appeal of Da at os 1G then came into Conference, and, after stating the grounds of his appeal, the papers were called for, which, it is said, can not be found. The Journals of the Conference were then read. On mo- tion of , seconded by , it was resolved that, Whereas, the Journals of the - Con- ference are materially deficient, and do not pre- sent the case in tangible form, so that this Con- ference can act understandingly on the subject; therefore, Resolved, That the case of be referred back to the Conference for a new 45 GENERAL CoNFERENCE DECISIONS. investigation and decision. (Journal, 1832, 420.) Resolved, That the decision of the Conference in the case of be reversed for the want of documentary evidence. (Journal, 1840, 64.) Resolved, by the delegates of the several] Annual Conferences in General Conference as- sembled, That the decision of the Confer- ence in the case of , by which he was lo- cated without his consent, appears, from the Journals of said Conference, to be defective for the want of documentary evidence. Resolved, That the decision of the said Conference in the case of said be, and the same hereby is, reversed. (Journal, 1840, 85.) Resolved, That in view of informalities in the manner of taking and recording testimony in the case of it be referred back to the Con- ference for a new trial. (Journal, 1848, 51.) Exceptions. Contrary opinion prevailed in a similar case during that same Conference, but the reasons determining the decision of the Gen- eral Conference are not given. The case is as follows: Counsel for appellant, ——, presented a paper of exceptions to the Journals of the Conference, in the trial of 46 APPEALS. 1. Because the secretary of the Con- ference did not keep regular minutes of the trial. 2. Because the charges and specifications on which said was arraigned, tried, con- victed, and expelled from the Methodist Epis- copal Church, by said Conference, do not ap- pear on the record, nor is there any reference to any minutes kept by the secretary of said Conference, in which they are recorded. 3. Because of the omissions and irregular- ities, the evidence if there be any, does not come before the General Conference, in the manner prescribed by the Discipline in such cases. moved that the excep- tions taken iy the counsel are not sufficient to bar the appeal or prevent its being investigated by this Conference. . . . The Conference affirmed the decision of the Conference in the case of Without sufficient record there can be no Appeal. Your committee, having carefully consid- ered the petition of , now a member of the Conference, purporting to be an appeal from the ruling of Bishop , in 47 GENERAL CONFERENCE DECISIONS. the case of charges against , of the said Conference, report as follows: The records on appeal are absolutely de- ficient and contain no statements, documents, or evidence upon which your committee can act. Said appeal is therefore dismissed. (Journal, 1908.) An expelled member may appeal to an Annual Conference on a complaint of maladministra- tion against a pastor or presiding elder. , an expelled member of the Church, presented complaint before the Annual Con- ference against , presiding elder, and ; pastor, for alleged maladministration 1n his case. In the hearing of the complaint the following question, answer, and exception were noted. Question. Is an expelled member entitled to be heard in an Annual Conference on com- plaint against the administration of the pastor and of the presiding elder in his case ? Answer. Such a complaint is of the na- ture of an appeal to the Annual Conference on the questions of law concerned in the case, and a hearing can not be denied on the ground that the complainant is not in the Church. . . . 48 APPEALS. Exception. The following paper was im- mediately presented by “The Bishop having ruled that an expelled layman can bring charges in his own name against a member of the Conference, I ask that an exception to said ruling be entered in the Minutes.” Stripped of all unnecessary verbiage, the real question is this: “May an expelled mem- ber, in any case, be heard in the Annual Con- ference on a complaint against the pastor or presiding elder for maladministration ? We answer that he may be so heard. It is conceded that, while the expelled member labors under the disabilities of his sentence he is denied the religious privileges of member- ship ; nevertheless he still has legal rights which can not be denied him until he shall have ex- hausted all the remedies which the law of the Church accords him. We concede that the trial before the Quarterly Conference on appeal is the final trial on the facts, but the accused mem- ber may be heard further on questions of law. I. He may prosecute an appeal, in the na- ture of proceedings in error on exceptions to the rulings of the administrator in his case. This appeal is to the president of the Annual Con- 4 49 GeneraL ConFERENCE DEcISIONS. ference. If serious error of law has intervened to the prejudice of the expelled member, the sentence of expulsion will be set aside, and a new trial awarded him in the proper court below. II. He may also complain of the admin- istrator in his case to the next Annual Confer- ence, and if, upon proper inquiry, the com- plaint be sustained, a new trial will be awarded the expelled member, and the administrator may be censured. We therefore recommend to affirm the rulings of the Bishop. (Journal, 1880, 355, 356.) The same rulings and de- cisions were made in the General Conference of 1864, pp. 358, 363 of the Journal. (Journal, 1908.) Plea of Appellant that he possesses testimony not before the Court, but which, if heard, would, in his opinion, have exculpated him, is suffi- cient ground for a new trial. Resolved, That inasmuch as Brother alleges that he has in his possession testimony which was not before the Conference, and which, in his opinion, would exculpate him from one of the charges upon which he was expelled from the Conference, said Conference be, and hereby is, directed to grant him a new trial. (Journal, 1840,77.) 56 APPEALS. The Committee having taken up the appeal of » of the Conference, the appellant, through his counsel, stated that new and im- portant evidence has been obtained, and that the case is yet undecided in the Criminal Court, and, in view of these facts, requested that the case might be remanded to the Conference for a new trial. The case was so remanded by the Com- mittee. (Journal, 1860, 169.) An Appeal is not annulled by the death of the ap- pellant if regularly taken and perfected. In the matter of , an elder and mem- ber of the Annual Conference, your Com- mittee, to whom was referred the above en- titled subject matter, beg leave to report, that the only question involved and submitted by your honorable body is whether, in the ease of an expelled member of an Annual Conference who dies pending an appeal, said appeal survives to his heirs or legal representatives, or is the appeal determined and ended by the death of the appellant ¢ The facts disclosed by the records submit- ted show that this case has been finally deter- mined by the Annual Conference to which the appellant belonged ; therefore, leaving the right of appeal to a Judicial Conference. 51 GENERAL ConFERENCE DEcISIONS. It further shows that the appeal was regu- larly taken and perfected by the appellant, and was at his death pending. This appeal could only be disposed of by the appellate tribunal, which alone had jurisdiction. The legal effect of this appeal was to sus- pend the judgment or sentence until the case was heard and disposed of upon appeal. (He- clestastical Law, p. 416.) We are, therefore, of the opinion that the member’s death did not affect the appeal, but that it is now pending and undetermined, and that the matter may be prosecuted by the de- ceased member’s heirs or legal representatives, the same as if the expelled member of the An- nual Conference were living. (Journal, 1884, 3875.) The right of appeal is forfeited by a minister if he continues to exercise ministerial functions after his expulsion from the ministry. (See p. 87.) In the matter of , your Committee finds said was tried before a Select Number of the Conference upon the charge of defamation of character, and that he was, by said Conference, expelled from the ministry, 52 APPEALS. but not from the membership of the Church. His appeal from the action of the Conference came before a Judicial Conference, held at Upon hearing, counsel for the Church claim— 1. That said had forfeited his right of appeal by continuing to preach after he had been duly expelled from the ministry. 2. Contempt in the publication of sundry defamatory articles named. Upon motion, duly seconded, the Judicial Conference declined to entertain the appeal of said , for reasons above stated. Counsel for accused entered objection. Afterward, to wit, in , said was tried before a Committee of Church, of which Church he was at the time a member, upon the charge of defamation, and upon the further charge of insubordination; the specifi- cation under the charge of insubordination set forth that said claims to be an ordained minister, and to have authority as such to marry people, baptize, and administer the sac- rament of the Lord’s Supper, and that he did, at given times and places, perform such acts as an ordained minister. The Committee found said to be guilty, 53 GENERAL CONFERENCE DECISIONS. and expelled him from the Church. An appeal was taken to the Quarterly Conference, which body, after a careful examination, affirmed the judgment of the Committee. Counsel for the defendant gave notice of an appeal. Both in the trial of before the Annual Confer- ence and in the trial before the Committee of Church, counsel for defendant claimed that there was no specific prohibition in the Dis- cipline forbidding an expelled minister from exercising his ministerial functions pending an appeal; that the taking of an appeal vacated the judgment pending the appeal. The above points were submitted to Bishop , and . . . he decided the same in terms as follows: 1. The chairman presiding at the appeal of ruled properly in admitting all the evi- dence offered at the trial. 2. A suspended preacher has no right, much less has an expelled preacher any right, to ex- ercise any ministerial functions until his legal disabilities have been removed. Par. 222, Sec. 3, of the Discipline provides that a minister, suspected of a crime, may be suspended until the meeting of his Conference. Par. 270 also provides that when a case is re- 54 APPEALS. manded from a Judicial Conference for retrial, the preacher shall not thereby be authorized to resume his ministerial functions. While the Church has been thus careful in the cases named, we think it is evident that it is the intention of the Church that an expelled minister should not exercise ministerial functions after expul- sion and pending an appeal. An appeal does not vacate a judgment in the sense suggested by counsel for defendant. Your Committee, therefore, recommends that the decision of Bishop be affirmed as the law in the case. (Journal, 1900, 456-458.) Right of Appeal is forfeited if one withdraws from the Church or from an Annual Conference while under charges. When a member of an Annua! Conference gives notice to the Conference that he has with- drawn from the Church or Conference, and at the same time there be charges ready to be pre- sented to him, and he has knowledge of such charges previous to his notice of withdrawal, and he has been marked upon the Journal of the Annual Conference as withdrawn under charges, has such member the right to appeal to the Gen- 55 GENERAL CONFERENCE DECISIONS. eral Conference from such record of the An- nual Conference ? Answer. He has not. When an expelled member has, by neglect or otherwise, forfeited his right of appeal, may a subsequent Quarterly Conference, if it desire to do so, grant him the privilege of an appeal ? Answer. No. (Journal, 1860, 298.) Withdrawal from the Church under charges does not bar notation of the same in Confer- ence records. In the matter of the memorial of é of South America Annual Conference, relative to the. case of : -, sent to the Judiciary Committee by action of the General Conference, . we respectfully report: It appears from the memorial and record in the Minutes of said Annual Conference that the said , a member of said Annual Con- ference, was brought before a Committee of In- vestigation, charged with insubordination. The charges were entertained, a hearing was had, the charges were sustained, and said was suspended from ministerial services and Church privileges until the next annual session 56 APPEALS. of said Conference. He thereupon sent the Pre- siding Elder a letter withdrawing from the ministry and membership of the Methodist Episcopal Church. At the ensuing session of said Annual Conference the Presiding Elder moved that said be allowed to withdraw and that the entry in the Minutes of the Con- ference be: ‘Withdrawn under charges.” The motion prevailed and the entry was so made in the Minutes of said Annual Conference. No charges of immorality were made against the said He now complains that a gross injustice was done him by such entry in the Minutes and asks that the notation, “Withdrawn under charges,” be declared null and void, and that the case be remanded to said Conference for rehearing. Inasmuch as the charges and specifications, the action of the Committee of Investigation, the action of the Annual Conference, and all proceedings appear at length in the Minutes of the Annual Conference, so that there can be no misapprehension concerning the nature of the charge and the facts in the case, your committee are of the opinion that no injustice has been done to said , and that the prayer of the memorial be denied. (Journal, 1908.) 57 GENERAL CoNFERENCE DecIsIons. Change of venue and failure to hear appeal does not deprive appellant of right of appeal. The papers show that » a member within the bounds of Charge was regularly tried, convicted, and expelled from the Church. Thereupon he took an appeal, and, fearing that justice could not be secured in the Quarterly Conference of Charge, he requested to have it heard by some other Conference. The presiding elder granted the request, and carried the case to the Quarterly Conference of Station. When the time for the hear- ing arrived, the presiding elder presented the appeal, and, after a statement by the parties had been made, submitted the question, “Shall the appeal be entertained ?” A vote was taken, and the Quarterly Con- ference refused to entertain the appeal. Thus ended the matter there. “The presiding elder now holds that he has no further jurisdiction in the case, and that ’s rights are all exhausted.” We think not. The papers show that the said —— had availed himself of his right to appeal in a regular manner, and had never for- feited the right; that the appeal was before the Quarterly Conference in due form; 58 ‘APPEALS. and, further, there is testimony submitted tend- ing to show that it was not heard, partly, if not chiefly, because the members of that Quar- terly Conference “thought they had as much business of their own as they could attend to, and that they could not take up this appeal without neglecting their own business to some extent.” Upon this statement of facts it is the opinion of your Committee that the said has never had accorded to him the right of appeal which is guaranteed to every member of the Meth- odist Episcopal Church. (Journal, 1888, 455, 456.) An appeal based on informality not of serious error in a trial court can not be sustained. In the matter of the appeal of Rev. ; of Conference, from the decision of a Judicial Conference, the Judiciary Committee report, that while an informality occurred upon the trial before the Conference Committee, it does not appear to have been objected to, and it was not of a nature to give rise to any sus- picion of injury to the accused. If objection had been made at the time, the irregularity 59 GENERAL CoNFERENCE DeEcISIONS. could have been avoided; it should, therefore, be regarded as waived. There does not appear to have been any serious error committed, nor any injustice done to the accused. We therefore recommend that the appeal be not sustained. (Journal, 1880, 354.) Papers used in evidence and the charges and speci- fications upon which appellant was tried must be specifically referred to and definitely iden- tified by Journal of the Conference. On proceeding to read the charges, specifi- cations, and findings of the Conference (in the case of ), it was found that the document containing the charges was not so connected with the Journal as to be certainly identified by the record; whereupon, on motion, the fol- lowing resolution was adopted, namely: Resolved, That in consequence of informal- ity in the records of Conference, in the ease of , the case be remanded to the Conference for a new trial. (Journal, 1856, 77.) When decision of trial court is affirmed. Resolved, That it is the sense of this Con- ference that, when the motions to affirm, to re- 60 APPEALS. mand, and to reverse have been successively put and lost, the decision of the court below stands as the final adjudication of the case. (Journal, 1860, 248.) New evidence is not admissible in case of appeal. The Committee on Questions of Law have carefully considered the interrogatories pro- pounded by the Bishops to the Conference, and by the Conference referred to said Committee, and they present their answer in the follow- ing resolution. . . . 8. Resolved, That in no case of an appeal can new evidence be admitted. (Journal, 1848, 126, 127.) The failure of a Committee to express penalty is no ground for Appeal. The paper of , complaining of a de- cision delivered by Bishop in the Conference, by which he claims to have been wronged, has been before us. We did not see any right to go into the merits of the case, but confined our attention to the single question of law. The question, as stated in the paper sub- mitted by differs from the form found in the Journal of the Conference. The Jour- nal reads thus: 61 Generat Conrerencre Decisions. ‘When a member of the Methodist Epis- copal Church is charged with immorality, and brought before a Committee, and found guilty of a crime forbidden by the Word of God, and so make out their verdict, but fail to affix the penalty, can the preacher in charge rightfully expel said member without first having a pen- alty affixed by the Committee ? This question the chair answered affirma- tively. recites two grounds of complaint. 1. The Committee failed to declare him guilty of a crime “sufficient to exclude a per- son from the kingdom of grace and glory,” and that this failure vitiated the verdict. 2. The Committee failed to affix a penalty, and therefore the exclusion was void. The Bishop presiding holds that when an accused person is declared by the Committee “guilty of a crime expressly forbidden in the Word of God,” it is not necessary to afford a basis for the pastor’s action to add “sufficient to exclude him from the kingdom of grace and glory,” as the immorality is explicitly set forth in the former clause. As to the second exception, he holds that when a member is tried and found guilty, as 62 APPEALS. above, “of crime expressly forbidden by the Word of God,” the Discipline declares the pen- alty, and adds, “Let the minister or preacher who has charge of the circuit expel him.” Believing these positions well taken, the Committee recommends the following resolu- tion: Resolved, That the ruling of Bishop in the Annual Conference in the case of be approved, as in harmony with the law and Discipline of the Church. We also recommend that the complaint of be dismissed. (Journal, 1864, 358.) A Question of Law is not an Appeal. Your Committee on Judiciary, having care- fully considered the petition of several mem- bers of the — Annual Conference, asking for decisions in certain matters of law relating to the standing of , a member of the said Conference, report as follows: The petition above mentioned asks for rul- ings on certain questions of law suggested to the petitioners by reason of the judicial pro- ceedings in the said Conference, but which ques- tions, in so far as papers submitted to us show, were not ruled upon in such proceedings, and 63 GENERAL ConFERENCE Decisions. the said petition has no appellate features what- ever. For the above reasons, in our opinion, there is no warrant for action by this Conference. (Journal, 1908.) A Bishop may not change hearing of appeal from one district to another. A District Superin- tendent may refuse to set aside decision of Appellate Court. By action of the General Conference, your committee has been asked to answer the follow- ing questions: 1. The right, in general, of a Bishop to change the hearing of an appeal from the dis- trict where the first trial was held to another district. 2. If so, on what grounds? 3. Did the above case have such grounds of appeal ? 4. Was the ruling of the Presiding Elder, in refusing to set aside the decision of the Appellate Court, in harmony with the evidence and in harmony with our law? These questions we answer as follows: 1. We find no provision in the Discipline authorizing the Bishop to change the hearing 64 APPEALS. of an appeal of a member of the Church from cne district to another. 2. In answer to the question as to the right of the Presiding Elder, presiding in an appeal case, under paragraph 273, to deny the motion to set aside the decision of the triers of the ap- peals of members, we reply that he has such a right. The rulings of the President of an Annual Con- ference must be included in the record on appeal. Your Committee on Judiciary, having care-— fully reviewed the records on appeal in the case of the Church at ; Conference, against , respectfully report: The said , a member of the said Church, was charged with insubordination and defiance. He was brought to trial before a Com- mittee of Nine, duly appointed by the pastor in charge, and found guilty under all specifications and expelled from the membership of the Church. The said then appealed to the District Triers of Appeals and the decision of the Committee of Nine was reversed. The Church then appealed on points of law to the , 65 GENERAL ConFERENCE DEcISIONS. next Annual Conference. The rulings of the President of the Annual Conference are not in- cluded in the record on appeal and are not be- fore this committee. Therefore, in the opinion of your committee, the appeal should be dis- missed. (Journal, 1908.) Agreements, whether oral or written, between Churches may not be annulled. Your Committee on Judiciary have examined into the appeal of members of the Marie Church, of Rock River Conference, bringing to the con- sideration of your body a controversy existing between said Church and the Trinity Methodist Episcopal Church of Chicago, concerning the title and right of possession in and to property which for many years was occupied by the Marie Church as a place of worship. This appeal is reinforced by the appeal and memorial of Rev. and eleven other members of said Con- ference. The appellants also seek a review of certain orders and rulings by Bishops ; , and with relation to said con- troversy. The material facts, as disclosed by the records and papers presented, are substan- tially as follows: 66 APPEALS. In the year 1883, Trinity Methodist Epis- copal Church of Chicago had in contemplation the founding of what was then known as the Wentworth Avenue Methodist Episcopal Mis- sion, which mission afterwards developed into the Marie Church. In aid of that enterprise, Mr. , a member of the Trinity Official Board, proposed to donate the lot on which the mission building was to be erected. In seeking gifts with which to erect the building, applica- tion was made to the First Methodist Episcopal Church of Chicago, whose trustees held certain funds in trust for the building of Methodist Episcopal churches. The application was favor- ably considered, and the trustees of First Church adopted a written resolution agreeing to donate the sum of $10,000 to said building, on the express condition that Mr. would undertake to convey the title to the property to the First Church within three years from that date, from incumbrance, which title was to be held by First Church in trust and conveyed to the new Church to be organized out of the mis- sion, whenever it should become duly incor- porated. On receiving this proposal, the Official Board of Trinity Church, including Mr. held a meeting and formally ac- 67 ? GENERAL CONFERENCE DECISIONS. cepted it and caused a written record of said offer by First Church, and its own acceptance thereof, to be entered in the books of the Church and signed by its president and secretary. The donation was paid, and applied to its intended purpose. The mission appears to have pros- pered, and in 1901 was incorporated as the Marie Methodist Episcopal Church. In its re- port to the Annual Conference, it shows a list of members, 302; probationers, 77; Sunday- school officers and teachers, 38; and Sunday- school scholars, 327. During its last year, under pastoral care, its receipts were over $4,300, and at the close of the business year it was without debt. It had accumulated a Sabbath-school library of liberal proportions, and was reasonably well supplied with furniture and conveniences for the comfortable use and enjoyment of the building as a place of worship. The entire property is represented to be worth about $40,000. Returning, now, to the history of the dis- puted title, it appears that Mr. never conveyed it to First Church, according to the terms of said donation, but did, after an in- terval of a few years, make a conveyance thereof to Trinity Church for a nominal consideration. 68 APPEALS. The reason prompting this diversion of the title from the First Church to Trinity is not dis- closed in the record. When the Marie Church had become incorporated and competent to take the title to itself, it called upon Trinity Church to recognize the trust character of the title which it had received from Mr. , and to make conveyance thereof according to the spirit and intent of the agreement under which the dona- tion had been made by the First Church, but this demand was refused. Thereafter, and after unavailing efforts to secure a settlement by amicable methods, Marie Church brought an action in the courts of the State to have the trust established. Unfortunately, at that time the written evidence of the agreement had been lost sight of, and the suit was based “upon the oral understanding. Trinity Church appeared to the suit and made objection that under the laws of Illinois the alleged trust agreement could not be enforced by the courts unless it had been reduced to writing. This objection was sustained, and the plaintiff’s bill was dis- missed. Since that time, the records embodying the agreement have been found, and so far as appears, their verity is denied by no one. Trinity Church continued, however, to deny any 69 GenEeRAL ConFEeRENCE DeEcIsrons. right of ownership in Marie Church, but offered to make to the latter a lease of the property at a nominal rental, but Marie Church refused to accept the position of tenant of property of which it claimed to be the equitable owner. In December, 1905, a commission appointed by the Rock River Conference to negotiate some settle- ment of compromise of the difficulty reported a pian of compromise, by which the title to the property should be placed in the City Mission- ary and Church Extension Society. Marie Church promptly signified its readiness to ac- cept the compromise, but Trinity Church re- fused to concur. Later, another commission was appointed by the Conference to consider the matter, and reported that Trinity Church should make a conveyance of the property to First Church, to be held in trust for the use of Marie Church, but Trinity also declined to comply with this finding. After refusing to accept the tinding of the commission, Trinity Church adopted a resolution that if Marie Church did not at once abandon its claim to the property and enter upon cordial relations with Trinity, the Episcopal authorities should be appealed to for an order “to unite Marie Charge with the Trinity Church for the Quarterly Conference 70 Apprats. purposes,” or “to discontinue Marie Charge as a preaching place.” The Marie Church still declining to submit, Trinity took steps to carry out its threat of benevolent assimilation by force of an Episcopal order eliminating so far as possible the separate and independent existence of its opponent. In September, 1906, a short time before the assembling of the Annual Con- ference, over which Bishop side, Bishop — having first urgently ad- vised Marie Church to yield its claim of owner- ship and accept a lease of the property from Trinity, addressed a letter to the Presiding Elder, ordering that “Marie Chapel be discon- tinued as a separate charge,” and that it be “connected with the Trinity Church of Chi- cago.” Acting presumably upon this authority, but without obtaining the consent or concur- rence of the Quarterly Conference, the Presid- ing Elder caused notice to be given to the effect that Marie Church was discontinued as a preach- ing place until further notice. Since that date, Presiding Elder has held no Quarterly Confer- ence upon the Marie Charge, and said charge has been without the services of a preacher and without pastoral care, though it has appeared before each Annual Conference and asked to be 71 was to pre- GeneRAL Conrerencr Dectstons. placed upon the list of appointments and given a pastor. Soon after the adjournment of the Annual Conference of 1906, Trinity Church, by its officers and agents, took forcible possession of the Marie Church property, and locked and secured it against use by said Church, and there- after leased it to the Baptist denomination, which is now using this Methodist Church as a place of worship and for the building up of a society of its own faith and order, while the large membership of Methodists, who for twenty- three years had been accustomed to look to it as their religious home, is left homeless and shepherdless. At all times, in season and out of season, in each recurring Annual Conference, and before each Bishop holding or exercising jurisdiction in that territory, Marie Church, its members and friends, have sought for relief, but without avail. Bishop , presiding in 1906, appears to have felt bound by the order of Bishop and refused to listen to any application or demand for the appointment of a pastor to said charge. Bishop , at the 1907 session of the Conference, also declined to interfere, and when asked to answer certain questions as to the law governing the situation, declined so to do, at that time, but said he would 72 APPEALS. take them before the next meeting of the Epis- copal Board. Thereupon, this appeal was taken, and the matter brought to the attention of this General Conference. The case calls first for inquiry into the claim of Marie Church to the property in controversy. The facts which we have recited admit of but one possible conclusion by any unprejudiced mind, upon this feature of the appeal. Trinity Church, having obtained the donation from First Church on the express condition that the property should be conveyed to the latter in trust or the new Church thereafter to be organized from the mission could not, upon any sound principle of law or moral, defeat that trust by taking title to itself, and when the mission was organized and incorporated as a Church, it was clearly entitled to demand the execution of said trust according to its terms. The fact that did not personally sign an agreement to make the conveyance is immaterial. He was a member of the Official Board of Trinity Church, which applied to First Church for the donation. He acted with said Official Board in accepting the donation upon the terms proposed, and when, in violation of those terms, he con- veyed the title to Trinity, the latter took it, 73 GENERAL CoNFERENCE DECISIONS. charged with the trust, and was bound to make the conveyance which it had agreed should be made for the benefit of the newly organized Church. It follows, therefore, that in repudiat- ing the trust, and ejecting Marie Church from the property which it equitably owns, Trinity Church was wrong, and that in refusing a lease and demanding a conveyance of the title, Marie Church was right. Without attempting to pass upon the merely technical legal rights, if any, growing out of the failure of the suit brought by Marie Church in the civil courts, we hold that the claim of Trinity Church to own said property and to exclude Marie Church there- from, and its assumption of authority to lease the same to a Church of another denomination, is unfounded, inequitable, and contrary to good conscience and the plain teaching of God’s Word. Trinity Church should right the wrong by restoring the property to the possession of Marie Church and by executing all papers neces- sary to perfect its title beyond controversy in the future, and it is so ordered. Turning, now, to the complaints based upon the rulings of the Bishops, we have to say: 1. That in so far as the order of Bishop contemplated a union of Marie Church 14 APPEALS, with Trinity, he appears subsequently to have withdrawn it, as being based upon a misappre- hension of the law, and therefore we need not consider it. 2. The order to discontinue the Church as a preaching place, and the notice of the Presid- ing Elder to that effect having been made in the interval between Conferences, without the con- currence or consent of the Quarterly Conference, was in excess of authority as limited by the Discipline, paragraph 193, section 32. 3. In view of the withdrawal of the Epis- copal order for the union of the two charges, and the strong probability that if our findings with respect to the property are approved by the General Conference and accepted in good faith by the parties, it will put an end to all strife and lead to a prompt restoration of Marie Church to the list of appointments, we are not disposed to enter upon any attempt to define or measure the limits of the Episcopal prerogative to summarily or arbitrarily order the discon- tinuance of a preaching place, or to refuse a pastor to a self-supporting charge which asks for such appointment, and is able and willing to receive and support such pastor. But we think it proper to say that, in our opinion, the time- 45 GenERAL CoNFERENCE DECISIONS. honored rule of the common law of our Church, which assures a preacher to every pulpit and a pulpit for every preacher, is one not to be lightly disregarded. Marie Church has proved its right to live. It is in a neighborhood not other- wise supplied with Methodist preaching places. It has done a valuable work and gathered about it a strong and loyal membership, more than twice the membership of First Church and more than two-thirds of the membership of its parent Church, to which, against its protest, it has been sought to attach it, or be left without pas- toral care. Such a Church should not be left to disintegrate and be lost to Methodism for want of a shepherd, nor should it be denied the recognition or the rights which have always been accorded to Methodist Churches in general, unless it forfeits the same by insubordination. Above all, it should not be subjected to a depri- vation of such right as a punishment for refus- ing to submit to what it justly esteemed a wrongful demand for the surrender of its right to the ownership of its own house of worship. (Journal, 1908.) 76 CHAPTER III. BISHOPS. Complaints can not be made to the General Con- ference against the administration of a Bishop unless due notice has been given to him in writing. Wuereas, It appears that individuals some- times forward to the General Conference com- plaints against the administration of the Bishops without due notice being given them, and Wuereas, We consider that our superin- tendents should be apprised of these proceed- ings beforehand in writing; therefore, Resolved, That, in the judgment of this General Conference, it is improper for such complaints to be made without due notice being furnished to the Bishops in writing. (Journal, 1860, 281.) v7 GzenERaL Conrerence Decisions. A Bishop may not submit to a vote a question of obedience to a law of the Church. The following question was submitted to Bishop in the Conference: “May the question of electing a brother to local deacon’s orders, who has not passed ex- amination in the Course of Study prescribed tor local preachers applying for deacon’s orders, be submitted to a vote?” The answer to this question was, “No.” The Committee on Judiciary approve this answer. A Bishop may not submit to the vote of an Annual Conference the question of obe- dience to a law of the Church, (Journal, 1884, 376. See also Journal 1904, 514.) A Superannuated Bishop may preside over a Gen- eral Conference Committee. The following resolution was submitted to the Judiciary Committee by the General Con- ference, upon the request of the Confer- ence, to-wit: “Resolved, That the Committee on Judiciary be requested to consider and report to the Gen- 78 BisHops. eral Conference whether a Superannuated Bishop can legally preside over the Committee on Boundaries.” To this resolution we answer, “He can.” (Journal, 1908.) A Bishop may consolidate Churches and appoint a pastor to the united charges. The Committee on the Episcopacy, having carefully considered the question as to the pow- ers of the Bishops to consolidate two or more Churches, declares that the Bishops have full power under the law and usage of the Meth- odist Episcopal Church to consolidate Churches and appoint one pastor for the united con- gregation. In so doing they exercise an authority which, from the beginning of our distinct Church life, has been held to be resident in the Bishop pre- siding in an Annual Conference by virtue of his power to “fix the appointments of the preachers.” (Journal, 1900, 422, N. J.) A Bishop has no legal authority to judge of moral or religious character. Concerning a memorial that Bishops be in- structed to transfer no minister from one Con- 79 GENERAL CONFERENCE DECISIONS. ference to another ‘whose moral and religious. character is not absolutely without question,” the Committee on the Episcopacy reports that there is no provision constituting a Bishop the authoritative judge of moral and religious char- acter, and, therefore, legislation on this point is inexpedient. (Journal, 1900, 423, N. J.) A Bishop may not forbid the names of candidates who have passed required Disciplinary exam- inations to be presented for admission on trial. Your Committee on Episcopacy would re- spectfully recommend that the characters of the General Superintendents and their admin- istration be approved, with the exception that while the ruling of Bishop in declining, in the Conference, to allow the names of certain candidates who had passed the pre- liminary examinations, and had been duly pre- sented for admission on trial, sprang from a regard for the efficiency of the Church, in view of the law in the case, and the danger of jus- tifying a precedent, we are compelled to dis- approve the said ruling. (Journal, 1892, 489, N. J.) 80 Bisuors, The Appointing Power is in the Episcopacy. In the matter of A. B. and C. D., of the — Conference, relating to the questions arising out of the administration of Bishop , we respectfully submit the following: On the 22d day of February, 1908, Bishop left for New York, via Eng- land, having closed the session of the Confer- ence on that date. On March 3d, Rev. i dean of the theological school of the Confer- ence, died. It appears that the Presiding Elder of the District, Rev. A. B., after con- sulting C. D., who had been appointed Presid- ing Elder of the District, decided to appoint said C. D. dean of the theological school. It appears that the said C. D. was not to be removed from the presiding eldership of the District, but to assume the duties in the school immediately. On March 9, 1908, it appears that said A. B. wrote to Bishop , informing him of his action, and added, “All this, of course, is subject to ap- proval or modification on your part;” where- upon Bishop replied April 18th, in which reply he stated that he had written to the said A. B. immediately upon his first in- telligence of the death of the said Mr. —, 6 81 GenERAL ConFERENCE Decisrons. and directed the said A. B. to take general charge of the theological seminary and call to his assistance Mr. and Mr. » who were appointed professors ; also Dr. and Dr. It appears that Bishop stated that C. D. was absolutely needed in , and that the work of the presiding el- dership of from would never do, for even there he was more than Presiding El- der. To make sure of this word reaching Mr. A. B., it appears that the Bishop sent a cable- gram containing these words: “C. D., i does not appear that Bishop interfered in any way with the prerogative of the Presiding Elder, as set forth in paragraph 190, sections 2and 3. The action of the Bishop is sustained.” (Journal, 1908.) A Bishop may appoint a preacher to a Church of another Methodist denomination. Wuereas, The Bethany Independent Meth- odist Church is closely allied to us in doctrine and usage, and has for years employed Meth- odist Episcopal ministers as pastors to supply the pulpit, and has taken the regular annual benevolent collections, and during the last five years paid over to the Baltimore Methodist 82 BisHoprs. Episcopal Conference seven thousand one hun- dred and sixty-five dollars, thereby manifesting its love for the old Methodist Episcopal Church ; therefore, Resolved, 1. That we recognize the ex- pressed wish of Bethany Church, and recom- mend that the request be granted. 2. That the General Superintendents of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in making the appointments, be granted permission to appoint pastors from our Church to any Methodist Church not under our care, but having the same doctrines and usages, and operating with us in our benevolent work, who may ask of our Church said appointment. (Journal, 1892, 440,.N. J.) The President of a Conference may use his own judgment in not submitting to a vote ques- tions not pertaining to the business of a Con- ference. The President of an Annual or a Quarterly- meeting Conference has the right to decline putting the question on a motion, resolution, or report, when, in his judgment, such motion, resolution, or report does not relate to the proper business of a Conference; provided, that in all 83 GENERAL CONFERENCE DECISIONS. such cases the President, on being required by the Conference to do so, shall have inserted in the Journals of the Conference his refusal to put the question on such motion, resolution, or report, with his reason for so refusing; and provided, that when an Annual Conference shall differ from the President on a question of law, they shall have a right to record their dissent on the Journals, provided there shall be no dis- cussion on the subject. (Journal, 1860, 121.) The decision on a question of law by a Bishop pre- siding in an Annual Conference can not be set aside except by a General Conference. When a question of law has been decided by a Bishop in an Annual Conference, that de- cision can not be reversed or set aside except by the action of the ensuing General Conference, to which body an appeal may be taken by the Annual Conference or by any member thereof. (Journal, 1860, 297.) On the death of a District Superintendent a Bishop in interim may divide a District and appoint thereto Presiding Officers. Is it in accordance with the general usage of the Methodist Episcopal Church, with the 84 Bisuops, spirit of her economy, and with the law of the same given in the Discipline, Part 1, Chap. III, Sec. 1, in answer to Question 3, and in Chap. IV, Sec. 1, that on the decease of a pre- siding elder in the interim of an Annual Con- ference, a Bishop may divide the district into two or more sub-districts, and appoint thereto as many presiding officers, having power to per- form all the duties of presiding elders in Quar- terly Conference, and to represent in the en- suing Annual Conference the preachers in charge of the circuits or stations to which they were personally appointed ? We find among the duties of the Bishops the following: To form the districts according to his judgment. (Discipline, Answer 2, page 92.) The same authority (see Discipline, page 98) declares the presiding elders are to be chosen by the Bishop, thus referring the whole power in determining the size of the district, the number of its charges, and the selection of the presiding elders to the Bishop. We, there- fore, answer the question thus: He has the legal right to arrange the dis- trict according to his own judgment. (Journal, 1864, 140, 141.) 85 GenzRaL CoNFERENCE DEcisiIons. A Bishop may strike an insubordinate Church from the list of Conference appointments. Your Committee, having examined the me- morial of Chapel, Conference, com- plaining of the administration of the Bishops in their case, and also the official correspond- ence which it occasioned,—they find the facts to be, that in 1861 the minister appointed as pastor of Chapel was rejected by the officiary, not because of anything personally ob- jectionable in the appointee, but because the officiary aforesaid had not been consulted in the matter of the appointment, they desiring to retain the services of a man who had already been regularly appointed to them the preceding two years; further, that they not only voted to reject the pastor appointed, but advertised in the daily newspapers that Chapel was without a pastor, and locked the doors of the church on Sabbath morning, thus excluding the pastor and presiding elder, claiming for them- selves the right so to do because of the pecul- iarity of their deed. Under these circum- stances, Bishop released the minister appointed to Chapel, and notified the Official Board that he could not consent to the appointment of another preacher to the 86 Bisuops. charge except upon the following conditions; namely: “1, That the official and private members should jointly agree that hereafter they would receive and support such ministers of the Meth- odist Episcopal Church as her regular appoint- ing authority should from time to time appoint to the pastorate of Chapel. “2. That they should receive such presiding elders as should from time to time be appointed to the district, including Chapel, and pay their proper proportion of his claim, according to Discipline. “2. That the trustees of Chapel should guarantee to such regular appointees, whether as pastors or presiding elders, the free use of the pulpit.” He further stated to them as follows: “§ Chapel is in a state of insubordi- nation, and if it remains so till next Conference it will be left off the list of Conference charges, and cease to appear in our official Minutes.” In accordance with this, Bishop gave special instruction to the presiding elder to give certificates of membership to all loyal members desiring to remove their relation to some other Church. 8? GeneraL ConFERENCE Decisions. At the session of the Conference in 1862, these terms, not having been complied with, Chapel was stricken by the pre- siding Bishop from the “list of Conference charges.” In all this, so far from seeing anything to censure, the Committee believe the admin- istration to have been wise and just, and that Bishop is to be commended for the firmness with which he maintained the Discipline and order of the Church. (Journal, 1864, 857, 358.) A Missionary Bishop may ordain in a foreign coun- try outside of his jurisdiction if no General Superintendent is accessible and the Disci- plinary requirements have been observed. Concerning the memorial referred to the Committee on Episcopacy to ascertain “whether any Missionary Bishop has ordained any per- son to the ministry outside his missionary field; and, if so, by what authority?’ Also, “whether any Missionary Bishop of our Church has ordained any deaconess or deaconesses; and, if so, by what authority?’ we find that Bishop ordained in England a brother, recommended in Africa by the African Con- 88 BisHops. ference, and intended for the work in Africa, and, after investigating the facts, we report that it shall not be deemed a breach of order for a Missionary Bishop, while traveling in a foreign country, though outside of his mission- ary field, to ordain a minister belonging to that field, there being no General Superintendent accessible, and the Disciplinary preliminaries to ordination having been observed. (Journal, 1892, 440, 441.) In the deliberations of the Book Committee, Bish- ops are present only in order to concur or not, in the action of said Committee filling vacan- cies. Your Committee has considered the matter embraced in the following preamble and reso- lution, passed by the General Conference, to wit: ‘“Wuereas, The right of the Bishops to take part in the deliberations of the Book Commit- tee, pending the election of an editor or agent, has been questioned; and “Wuereas, Several members of the Book Committee of the last quadrennium have filed a petition (see page 15 of the report of the Book Committee), asking the General Confer- 89 GENERAL CONFERENCE DeEcIsIoNs. ence to define the duties and the rights of our General Superintendents in the election of an editor or agent by the Book Committee; therefore, “Resolved, That this question be referred to the Committee on Judiciary, with instruc- tions to consider it and report their conclusions to this body.” And it respectfully reports: While the Jan- guage of the Discipline bearing upon the ques- tion involved (paragraph 416) is obscure, and its meaning is not easily determined, the Com- mittee is of the opinion that when vacancies are to be filled the General Superintendents are not present as part of a joint committee, nor for the purpose of joint action in any particu- lar with the Book Committee, but they are present as a separate body to hear the action of the Book Committee, and their only function is to concur or refuse to concur in that action. They may take part in any discussion had by the Book Committee only by virtue of its re- quest or permission. (Journal, 1892, 487, 488.) Bishops may not vote in Annual Conferences. (Journal, 1904, 514.) 90 Bisuops. Legal decisions of Bishops outside Annual Confer- ences can not be pleaded as having the force of law. Wuereas, Under the rule which says, “A Bishop shall decide all questions of law in an Annual Conference subject to an appeal to the General Conference,” a custom has grown up of evoking Episcopal decisions touching the ad- ministration of the Discipline outside of the Annual Conferences; and Wuereas, These decisions and opinions are sometimes in conflict with each other, spring- ing up from questions growing out of peculiar and ever-varying circumstances ; and Wuereas, It is the judgment of this Con- ference that the use made of the rule aforesaid was not intended by the General Conference which established it, that General Conference intending it for the administration of the Con- ferences, and not of the individual pastors; therefore, 1. Resolved, That every administrator of the Discipline is responsible to the proper au- thorities for his administration of the rules of the Church, and may not plead Episcopal de- — cisions as law. 91 GENERAL CONFERENCE DEcISIoNS. 2. Resolved, That while the counsels of our Superintendents are to be highly respected, and to be considered of great value in the adminis- tration of Discipline, their decisions are not to be regarded as having the force of law out- side of the Annual Conferences. (Journal, 1860, 428.) In answer to the memorial of , in reference to the usage in Annual Conference of asking for Episcopal decisions when no case requiring them is before the body, the Com- mittee present the following resolution for the adoption of the General Conference: Resolved, That we deem it inexpedient for a Bishop, presiding at an Annual Conference, to render formal decisions of questions of law presented in fictitious cases, and where the sub- ject is not involved in the proceeding pending, nor should any such decisions be entered upon the Conference Journals. (Journal, 1868, 495.) The ruling of a Bishop on a question of law to be binding must be rendered in open Conference and made a part of its record. Your committee, having carefully reviewed the records of appeal in the case of the Methodist Episcopal Church, of 92 , Kas., Bisuoprs. to the President of the Southwest Kansas Con- ference, from the decision of the Presiding Elder of the District in said Confer- ence, report as follows, to-wit: It appears, from the records, that ; a member of the Methodist Episcopal Church, was tried on a charge of immoral con- duct. GenerRaL ConFERENCE DECISIONS. the District Conference of that district granted him license to preach in his absence. This ac- tion is challenged by the memorialists as being in violation of the law of the Discipline, which requires the candidate for license to preach to be present for examination in doctrine and Dis- cipline. This challenge is hereby sustained, as Paragraph 197, Section 1, of the Discipline, says that those who are licensed to preach must be “examined in the presence of the Confer- ence on the subject of doctrine and Discipline.” We find, therefore, that the said license is il- legal and void. Papers not owned by the Church can not be sub- sidized by the Church. At a recent session of the General Confer- ence, the following resolution was adopted: “Wuereas, Paragraph 46, section 6, of the Discipline, known as the Sixth Restrictive Rule, says: “