11. Nor in a Case of Mere Review of Records. In the case of the complaint of Nathaniel West and Thomas H. Skinner against the Synod of Cincinnati, in a case of review and control, the committee recommend that, it being a question of mere review of records, a judicial complaint does not lie, and that the case be dismissed.-Adopted 1877, p. 576.

12. Nor against the Refusal to Read the Printed Minutes. Case of Rev. J. W. Martin vs. the Synod of Cleveland.

Mr. Martin complains of a suggestion of the moderator, sustained by vote of the Synod, that the minutes of the previous session need not be read at the beginning of the sessions in October, 1872, because they had been printed and were in the hands of the members; also that the moderator refused to hear him speak against this action, and requests the Assembly to express a judgment respecting the authority of moderators and church courts under our Book. The committee find that the minutes of the previous session had been read and approved by the Synod at the close of that session, and therefore would have been read only for information, which was already in possession of the members in the printed copies; that they have no proof that the complainant was unjustly treated by the moderator, beyond what often occurs in such cases; and that our Book of Discipline very definitely states the authority and prov ince of moderators. Therefore, we do not deem the case of sufficient importance to require the action of the Assembly.-Adopted 1873, p. 509.

13. Nor against Postponement of Action.

In the case of Thomas H. Skinner and others against the Synod of Cincinnati for not taking up and issuing a complaint of Dr. Skinner against the Presbytery of Cincinnati in the McCune case, then pending, the committee recommend that, as there had been no judicial action of the Synod in the case, against which a complaint could lie, but simply and only a postponement of action on a report of the Judicial Committee of the Synod, therefore the case be dismissed.-1877, p. 576.

14. Complainant has Leave to Withdraw for Reasons Stated. a. The complaint of Alexander Guy, M. D., against the action of the Synod of Cincinnati.

The complainant, Dr. Guy, having reason to believe that the language employed by the Synod, in determining the case, was inadvertently used, is on this account willing to withdraw his complaint. The committee recommend that leave be granted, and that Dr. Guy be allowed to withdraw his papers.

The report was accepted and adopted.-1867, p. 331, O. S.

b. The complaint of the Rev. S. J. Niccolls and others against the action of the Synod of Missouri, passed at its sessions in October, 1865, whereby it declared the previous meeting of its own body "not a free court of Christ, and its entire acts null, void and of no binding force."

This complaint was found in order, and referred from the last General Assembly to this; but inasmuch as the Synod has reconsidered and reversed the action complained of, and reported the same to this General Assembly, in accordance with the requirement of the last Assembly, passed with reference to the Synod of Missouri, the complainants request leave to withdraw their complaint.

Your committee recommend that their request be granted, and the case dismissed.

The report was accepted and adopted.-1867, p. 331, O. S.

c. The appeal and complaint of D. W. Irvine and others against the action of the Presbytery of New Castle. The committee, having satisfactory evidence that the ground of the appeal and complaint in this case has been removed by the subsequent action of the Presbytery complained of, recommend that the appeal and complaint be dismissed without prejudice. The report was adopted.-1867, p. 327, O. S.

d. A complaint of certain members of the Session of the church of Eaton, Ohio, against the Synod of Cincinnati.

The committee recommend that the complainants have leave to withdraw their complaints without prejudice, and that they be advised to present the same to the Synod of Cincinnati.-1871, p. 547.

[See also Digest, 1873, p. 604; Minutes, 1833, p. 399.]

15. Withdrawal of Complaint may have the Same Effect as its Dismissal.

The Judicial Commission to whom was referred the complaint of the Rev. John W. Martin against the Synod of Philadelphia in the matter of the Hermon church, reported that after the announcement of their decision in Case No. 1 the complainant, by his counsel, the Rev. Robert Herron, D. D., asked leave to withdraw his complaint, which was granted; and the committee adjudge that such withdrawal shall have the same effect as if the complaint had been dismissed.-1878, p. 43.

16. Leave to Withdraw, the End desired being Accomplished. a. "Inasmuch as the complaint of W. W. Colmery and others against the Synod of Cincinnati was made wholly in behalf of our excellent standards of doctrine and order, and as these have been sufficiently vindicated by the discussion and action of this Assembly on the complaint of Thomas H. Skinner and others, I respectfully ask leave to withdraw the complaint. WILLIAM W. COLMERY.”

The request was granted.-1878, p. 81.

b. On the adoption of the report of the committee to review the records of the Synod of Cincinnati (see the report in full under sec. lxxii., iii., 4, above), Drs. West and Skinner asked leave to withdraw their complaints against the Synod of Cincinnati, the grounds of said complaint having been virtually covered by the report. Leave was given the complainants to withdraw their papers.-1878, p. 118.

17. Complainants have Leave to Withdraw-because, 1st, The Proceedings of a Civil Court are not Conclusive as against the Ecclesiastical; 2d, Trial by Commission is not Ground of Complaint; 3d, Informality in the Decision does not Invalidate the Result intended to be Reached.

The report of the Judicial Committee thereon was adopted, and is as follows:

The complaint of Joseph S. Van Dyke and others against the Synod of New Jersey for dismissing their complaint against the Presbytery of Monmouth, for acquitting Elder L. E. Brown of an alleged criminal

offence.

A brief statement of the case is as follows:

Brown was indicted in a civil court for a serious crime; was tried, and found guilty. The case was taken to the Supreme Court, which reversed the judgment at the hearing, and remanded the case for a new trial. The accused, under the advice of counsel, in order to save the notoriety, risk

and expense of a new trial, plead guilty to a lesser grade of offence, and was fined by the court.

He then applied at once to his Session for the most "searching investigation" into the charges made against him. The Session referred the matter to the Presbytery of Monmouth, which accepted the reference. The case was tried by a commission of the Presbytery appointed at the request of all parties. The commission, after a full trial, acquitted the

accused.

Upon his acquittal these complainants complained to the Synod of New Jersey. The Synod, by consent of parties, appointed a new commission, who again tried the case upon its merits, and also considered certain irregularities alleged to exist in the action of the Presbytery. The commission brought in a decision in these words: "The complaint is sustained pro forma; but, inasmuch as the informalities and irregularities complained of do not seriously affect the matters at issue, the case be and hereby is dismissed." The decision of the commission was accepted by the Synod, and ordered to be entered of record.

These complainants now complain of this action of the Synod.

They do not ask that the case be tried again by this Assembly, but that it be remitted for a new trial to the Presbytery of Monmouth.

The reasons given for this complaint are obscure, but, in the opinion of this committee, are as follows:

1st. The decision of the commission of the Synod was in conflict with the plea of "guilty" in the civil tribunal.

2d. Because the case was twice tried by commissions, and not by the Presbytery or Synod itself.

proper

3d. That the decision of the commission of the Synod was not in form; that, instead of dismissing the complaint as it did, it should have in so many words declared the accused "guilty, or not guilty," and have affirmed or reversed the action of the Presbytery.

In regard to the first ground of complaint, in the judgment of your committee all the presumptions arising from the proceedings of the civil courts adverse to Mr. Brown are overbalanced and neutralized by the much stronger presumptions arising from his acquittal, after patient and careful investigation, by two ecclesiastical courts in succession, and those among the largest and weightiest in our Church.

With regard to the second ground of complaint, that the case was tried by commissions by consent of parties, we do not see that it furnishes any just ground for complaint. Should the prayer of the complainants be granted, and the case be remanded to the Presbytery of Monmouth for a new trial, it would probably be tried again by a commission, for the best of reasons.

With regard to the third reason for this complaint, we think the commission of the Synod was not happy in the form of its decision. The intention of the commission was, it is evident, to acquit the accused and confirm the action of the Presbytery. The committee consider that this was the actual result of its dismissal of the complaint.

The form of the decision has harmed and can harm no one, and it is for the accused, if any one, to complain of the indefinite judgment in his own favor.

This committee are somewhat in doubt as to what was expected of them on the recommitment to them of the report before made in the case. They, however, report the case a second time, with a fuller statement of the facts of the case, and of your committee's opinion thereon.

Your committee deem it their official province and solemn duty, in

accordance with the long and unquestioned practice of the Judicial Committee of the General Assembly, to give to the Assembly their opinion as to the sufficiency of these grounds of complaint, and to propose to the body the course they recommend it to pursue in regard thereto.

In view of all this, it appears to your committee that this case has been sufficiently and properly adjudicated. We think, with the light now before us, that it would be imposing an unjust burden and an unedifying labor on the Presbytery of Monmouth to require it to re-try this case. We therefore unanimously recommend the adoption of the following resolution :

Resolved, That, in the matter of the complaint of Joseph S. Van Dyke and others against the Synod of New Jersey, praying that the Presbytery of Monmouth be required by this Assembly to readjudicate the case of L. E. Brown, their petition be not granted, and that the complainants have leave to withdraw their papers.-1880, pp. 64, 65.

18. Complaints Dismissed and Leave to Withdraw-Because, 1st, of Indefiniteness in the Complaints, and, 2d, that the Matters should be Left to the Wisdom and Discretion of the Synod. The report of the Judicial Committee was adopted-viz. : No. 8, Rev. Nathaniel West vs. The Synod of Cincinnati. No. 9, Rev. Nathaniel West vs. The Synod of Cincinnati.

No. 10, Rev. William H. James et al. vs. The Synod of Cincinnati. The Judicial Committee have had under consideration these three complaints, and find that they are about the very same subject-matter, and may well be considered at once and together.

Two of the three are complaints (Nos. 8 and 9) by Rev. Nathaniel West against the action of the Synod, on the day of October, A. D. 1879, at its session then held at Lebanon. The Synod at that time and place did consider a certain complaint against the Presbytery of Cincinnati, did reverse the proceedings of the Presbytery, and at the same time, in severe terms, did censure the Presbytery. This we learn from the records of the Synod, and not from the complaints. The complaints, however, do complain that certain censures and requirements pronounced by the Synod are not sufficiently severe as against the Presbytery.

The complaint No. 10 is the complaint of the Rev. William H. James et al., members of the Presbytery of Cincinnati, complaining of the same action of the Synod. They complain, however, that the action is unwarrantably severe as against Presbytery. But, like the Rev. Nathaniel West, they fail to describe the action they complain of as being too severe, and we are left to examine the records of the Synod to ascertain what was done by the Synod.

The notices of complaint in each of these three cases, and the complaints themselves, were all filed in due time; yet they are all so indefinite that they would require much additional elaboration before the real points and issues, on which the parties seek the judgment of this Assembly, can be brought under its ready comprehension for intelligent judicial review; and therefore the committee find that neither of the three complaints is in order.

When we consider that the grounds of complaint are so indefinitely stated in each of the three complaints that we are not only left in great doubt as to the precise points complained of, but actually required to examine the records to ascertain these points, and when we consider the controversy itself, we the more cheerfully come to the conclusion at which we have arrived. The record shows that the whole matter might well be

left to be determined by the wisdom, and in the exercise of a sound discretion, of the Synod. The committee fail to find anything in these cases that should occupy the time of the Assembly. We are sure that by ending the controversy now the peace of the Church and the comfort and usefulness of all concerned will be promoted.

Of course it is the imperative duty of every inferior court to obey the direction and mandate of the superior, and such obedience, if necessary, should be enforced by the superior court.

We arrive at these conclusions all the more gladly, because a course different from that herein indicated does not appear to be needed for the vindication of Rev. Nathaniel West. That has already been done in the most ample manner. It appears that there is nothing derogatory to his moral, religious or ministerial character.

The premises considered, the Judicial Committee recommend that each of the three complaints be dismissed, and that the respective complainants have leave to withdraw all papers filed by them.-1880, pp. 80, 81.

19. Leave to Withdraw on the Request of the Parties. The complaint of the Rev. James P. Hendrick and thirteen others against the action of the Synod of Kentucky for rejecting an exception. to the records of the Presbytery of Ebenezer, which were before the Synod under general review and control. The committee report that in this case the Rev. Stephen Yerkes, D. D., who is one of the complainants, has appeared before the committee and asked leave to withdraw the complaint, which action he represents will be satisfactory to the parties. We therefore recommend that leave be granted to withdraw the complaint, and that this committee be discharged from its further consideration.Adopted 1882, p. 100.

20. Complaint Dismissed because no Parties were Aggrieved. A complaint of Thomas W. Hynes of certain action taken by the Presbytery of Alton and the Synod of Illinois, South. Whilst there is some ground, through a technical informality, for his complaint, yet, as no parties were aggrieved by the action of Presbytery, it is recommended. that the complaint be dismissed.—Adopted 1880, p. 29.

21. Complaint Dismissed, as not in Due Form.-To Strike from the Roll without Notice or Citation Disapproved.

A complaint against the Synod of Colorado in confirming the action of the Presbytery of Wyoming in striking the name of Rev. Thomas Cooper from its roll without notice or citation. The committee report that, while the Assembly cannot approve of the action of the Presbytery in dropping Mr. Cooper's name without notice or citation, nor the subsequent action of the Synod of Colorado in confirming the action in review, yet, as nothing would be gained by a reopening of the case, and as the case does not come before us in due form, the committee recommend that the case be dismissed.-Adopted 1875, p. 511.

22. Subject-matter of Complaints Entertained.

a. Relative to a decision of the Synod of Pittsburg reversing a decision of the Presbytery of Ohio, which had restored Mr. Wherry to church privileges.-1820, p. 738.

The complaint was sustained.

b. In the case of the complaint of members of the Presbytery of Carlisle against the Synod of Philadelphia, it was