1. Failure to show Probable Cause for Charges involves Censure for Slander.

a. The unfinished business of Saturday, viz., an appeal by Mr. William L. McCalla from a decision of the Synod of Kentucky, in which decision the Synod declared, that Mr. McCalla had failed to prove certain charges which he had brought against the Rev. James Blythe, was resumed, and the appellant was heard till he declared himself satisfied. On motion,

Resolved, That the judgment of the Synod of Kentucky, with respect to the charges brought by Mr. William L. McCalla against the Rev. James Blythe, be and it hereby is affirmed.-1815, p. 596.

b. The complaint of J. W. Davidson, W. C. Koons and J. McElhinny, against the Synod of Baltimore.

This case originated in the Presbytery of Carlisle, as the result of the trial of a minister, by which the complainants were severely censured for presenting a certain paper containing allegations against the character of the said minister, which allegations, though not tabled as charges, were adjudged to be slanderous.

The parties censured complained to the Synod of Baltimore, and the complaint was "sustained in part," by a vote of 17 to 12.

The Synod, in its final minute, still inflict a modified censure, of which the said Davidson, Koons and McElhinny complained to the last General Assembly. This last complaint was laid over to this Assembly, to enable the complainants to correct an informality; which they have since done. The Committee report the case in order, and recommend that it be taken up according to the directions of the Book of Discipline.

The Committee recommend, that the only part of the record to be read in evidence be the paper originally read to the Presbytery of Carlisle, at Newville; and this may be waived by the parties agreeing; that the paper contains charges, which, if true, would be scandalous. This recommendation is based on the following reasons:

I. That it is found by the Synod, in their judgment, that the paper presented by complainants was so presented by them without their being prepared to table charges, or to appear as prosecutors, and that they refused to appear as accusers after having presented such a paper.

II. In the complaint presented to us, these findings of the Synod are admitted, in that the complainants allege (as the ground of their complaint in this regard) that the Synod decided that the paper presented at Newville by the complainants, was of such a character that it should not have been presented, unless the parties presenting it were prepared to table charges upon it; when, in fact, as they allege, it was but an offer to aid Presbytery in investigating the difficulty in the congregation of Big Spring, to which complainants belonged, and not as the ground of charges. Thus it will be seen that they not only admit such findings of the Synod, but distinctly allege another and different reason in justification of such presentation, viz., that it was but an offer to aid Presbytery, etc.

III. If it be claimed, on the second ground of appeal, that the testimony adduced on the original trial be read before the Assembly, then we say that it should not be read, for the following reasons:

1. The accused minister, after a trial (declared by the Synod to be fair and impartial) was acquitted by the Presbytery, and no appeal was taken from such judgment of acquittal; so that the same thereby long since became final and absolute, and this Assembly has no power to reverse this judgment of the Presbytery, for the purpose of relieving these complainants from the censure of the Synod; to do so would be to pronounce two conflicting and contrary judgments upon the same evidence.

2. Because it has been already adjudicated, in the case of William S. McDowell (Assembly's Digest, Rev. Ed., p. 159), that "no discussion ought to be allowed (involving the character of an absent person) in his absence," much more should this rule be applied to the exclusion of the remaining record, in this case, from its peculiar character, and all the circumstances attending it.

Resolved, That the judgment of the Synod of Baltimore be sustained pro forma, and that the following paper of E. Thompson Baird be admitted to record, viz.:

The undersigned, counsel appointed to manage the case of Davidson, Koons and McElhinny, versus the Synod of Baltimore, begs leave to submit, that through an oversight of the complainants in stating their causes of complaint on the one hand, and on account of the rulings of the Assembly as to technical points on the other hand, it is impossible for the case to come before this body on its merits. The complaint ought to have brought up the whole proceedings in the courts below, in order to a judgment on their regularity as well as justice; but by an omission of the complainants, in stating the grounds of their complaint, this matter cannot be reached. The second cause of complaint is ruled out, because it requires a cross issue, involving the rights of a party not involved in the case. And the first cause of complaint--i. e., as to the rights of the complainants to place on the table of Presbytery the statement alluded. to-cannot be justly investigated without taking up all the records and ascertaining all the circumstances which led to its presentation. Under the rulings of this house this cannot be done, since it would involve an absent party. We are thus on technical grounds shut out from a full presentation of the case. All that is left for us is to request the Assembly to admit this paper to record as our reason for waiving a trial, and agreeing that the judgment of the Synod of Baltimore be sustained pro forma. E. T. BAIRD, On behalf of Complainants. -1860, pp. 31 and 35, O. S.

2. The Character of One Absent, and not on Trial, not to be Impeached.

Resolved, That no discussion ought to be allowed which may involve the character of Mr. McDowell in his absence.-1823, p. 74.

3. Censure for Slander may not be Inflicted upon a Private Prosecutor unless the Case be fully Issued.

In the complaint of John Mack et al against a decision of the Synod of Illinois, the Assembly, inter alia, declare: The action of the Presbytery upon a certain resolution was extra-judicial.

Our Book of Discipline (Old), chap. v., sec. vii., pronounces a man a slanderer who, on trial, fails to make good his charges.

S. L. Hobson was censured as a slanderer without the court reaching by trial the point contemplated by our Book.*-1867, p. 355, O. S.

*The Revised Book of Discipline directs censure for slander only when the prosecutor fails to show probable cause. Sec. xiv.-M.

CHAPTER III.

OF CHARGES AND SPECIFICATIONS.

XV. The charge shall set forth the alleged offense; and the specifications shall set forth the facts relied upon to sustain the change. Each specification shall declare, as far as possible, the time, place and circumstances, and shall be accompanied with the names of the witnesses to be cited for its support. [IV. 8, amended.]

1. The Charge must be Specific.

a. Mr. Ewing complains against the Commission that they received. charges against him which were vague and indeterminate. The Synod agrees that these charges are rather deficient in point of specialty, but are of opinion that the Commission acted with prudence and integrity in receiving said charges, inasmuch as they endeavored to reduce them to a specialty, and as Mr. Ewing submitted so far as to plead to them, and as the particular circumstances of the first and third Presbyterian congregations in Philadelphia were viewed by them as so critical as in their judg ment required an immediate discussion of the affair.

Yet the Synod orders that all their judicatures shall for the future be particularly careful not to receive or judge of any charges but such as shall be seasonably reduced to a specialty in the complaint laid before them.-1770, p. 406.

Especially in Cases of Heresy.

b. There was a great deficiency in the charges preferred against Mr. Craighead as it relates to precision. All charges for heresy should be as definite as possible. The article or articles of faith impugned should be specified, and the words supposed to be heretical shown to be in repugnance to these articles, whether the reference is made directly to the Scripture as a standard of orthodoxy, or to the Confession of Faith, which our Church holds to be a summary of the doctrines of Scripture. But in none of the charges against Mr. Craighead is this done, and in two of them (third and fourth) it would be very difficult to say what articles of faith are supposed to be contravened in the errors charged on Mr. Craighead. And the last two charges appear to be so vague and indefinite as to be incapable of proof. In the fifth Mr. Craighead is charged with perverting, etc., the sentiments of the preachers and writers in our connection. Now, in our connection there are a multitude of preachers and writers differing by many shades of opinion from each other. How, then, can this be a just ground of accusation? In the sixth he is charged with the false coloring of facts, etc. But no facts are established by evidence, none are specified in the charge; and to make it a just ground of accusation, it ought to have been a designed and malicious discoloring of the facts, etc.-1824, p. 121.

c. The Assembly would further advise that all the charges against Mr. Spillman which may be wanting in definiteness be made, if practicable. more specific, so that they may be conformable to the directions of the Book of Discipline.-1860, p. 46, O. S.

XVI. A charge shall not allege more than one offense; several charges against the same person, however, with the specifications under

each of them, may be presented to the judicatory at one and the same time, and may, in the discretion of the judicatory, be tried together. But, when several charges are tried at the same time, a vote on each charge must be separately taken. [New.]

[See under sec. xxiii., below, 3.]

XVII. In all cases of alleged personal injury, where the prosecution is by the injured person or persons, the charge must be accompanied by an averment that the course prescribed by our Lord, Matt. xviii. 15-17, has been faithfully tried. [New.]

CHAPTER IV.

OF PROCESS: GENERAL RULES PERTAINING TO ALL CASES.

XVIII. Original jurisdiction, in relation to Ministers, pertains to the Presbytery; in relation to others, to the Session. But the higher judicatories may institute process in cases in which the lower have been directed so to do, and have refused or neglected to obey. [New.] [As adopted in 1884, after the word "ministers" were the words "and acting ruling elders," which were stricken out.-1885, p. 601.-M.]

XIX. When a judicatory enters on the consideration of an alleged offence, the charge and specifications, which shall be in writing, shall be read; and nothing more shall be done at that meeting, unless by consent of parties, than to furnish the accused with a copy of the charge and specifications, together with the names of all the witnesses then known to support each specification; and to cite all concerned to appear at a subsequent meeting of the judicatory, to be held not less than ten days after the service of the citations. The citations shall be signed, in the name of the judicatory, by the moderator or clerk, who shall, also, furnish citations for such witnesses as either party shall The accused shall not be required to disclose the names of his witnesses. [IV. 5, 6, 7; V. 8.]

name.

1. Censure without Trial Unconstitutional.*

a. Messrs. Ker and Rankin, the commissioners to this Assembly from the Presbytery of Lewes, in behalf and by the order of the said Presbytery, applied to the Assembly and remonstrated against a decision of the last Assembly in the case of Mr. Hindman, in which they conceive the Presbytery of Lewes is virtually condemned without their having had an opportunity of defending themselves, which they conceive they could readily have done.

After considerable discussion, it was

*No. 1 above does not apply to "Cases without Process," as specified in Book of Discipline, chap. vii.-M.

Resolved, As the sense of this house, that no man or body of men, agreeably to the Constitution of this Church, ought to be condemned or censured without having notice of the accusation against him or them and notice given for trial; and therefore, that if the General Assembly of last year meant by the minute in question to pass a censure on the Presbytery of Lewes, it was informal.-1793, p. 71.

b. There was an error in the Synod of North Carolina in expressing a judicial opinion in relation to charges against Mr. Davies which did not come before them.-1849, p. 264, O. S.

2. A Judicatory may not Suspend without Trial.*

The Committee appointed to examine the records of the Synod of the Carolinas reported, and the book was approved to page 28 of the twentythird sessions of said Synod, with the exception of the resolution to make a minister liable to suspension without trial for three years' absence from Synod, without sending forward his reasons for absence.-1811, p. 468.

3. Censure upon an Absent Person without Citation Disapproved of.*

The Assembly, moreover, cannot forbear expressing their regret that the Presbytery of Washington should have passed a vote of censure upon Mr. McCalla without citing him to appear before them or giving him any opportunity of making a defence, since this mode of proceeding seems to have occasioned a portion of the irregularity in the Presbytery of West Lexington, of which the Presbytery of Washington have complained.1821, p. 21.

4. Exclusion from the Pulpit or from Communion may not be without Trial and Conviction.*

Whereas, It appears from memorials sent up to this Assembly, that several of our Presbyteries have adopted resolutions excluding slaveholders from their pulpits and from their communion: And whereas, our Constitution requires that no member of the Presbyterian Church shall be thus disfranchised without a regular trial and conviction, . . . therefore;

Resolved, That the said Presbyteries be requested to rescind such resolutions.-1840, p. 24, N. S.

5. The Accused may not be Required to Declare what he Expects to Prove by his Witnesses.

The Judicial Committee in reference to Judicial Case No. 4—the case of J. H. Spillman against the Synod of Kentucky-after a further conference with the parties representing this case, would recommend to the General Assembly the adoption of the following minute disposing of the

same:

While this General Assembly do not undertake to reverse the decision of the Synod of Kentucky against Mr. J. H. Spillman, it cannot be doubted for it is admitted by the Synod's and the Presbytery's repre sentatives here-that there were some informalities in the proceedings of the lower courts against Mr. Spillman, which this General Assembly is bound to disapprove; in particular, that the session had no right to insist upon Mr. Spillman's making known beforehand what he expected to prove by his witnesses as the condition upon which he should be allowed to proceed in the examination. On the other hand, it is equally clear that Mr. Spill*Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 above do not apply to "Cases without Process," as specified in Book of Discipline, chap. vii.—M.