LCRBMRP-T0B02

ARGUMENT.

May it please the Court, we have happily reached that stage in this case at which we may expect an authoritative settlement of the great and grave issues arising in this most remarkable action.

This case is one of great notoriety. The circumstances out of which this litigation grew occurred in this city, but they affected a class of citizens spread all over these United States, and who to-day anxiously await your Honor's decree. It affects a religious denomination of nearly a million of people, not only in their property rights, but in their very existence; for should your Honor refuse the relief prayed for in this action, the African Methodist Episcopal Church in the South is at an end.

I will not, at this stage of my argument, enter upon the sickening details of evidence which shocked the sense of Christian propriety as they occurred, from the commencement of this controversy even unto its tragic end, which so disturbed the peace and good order of our community, and cast a direful stigma upon the Christian portion of 00033our colored citizens. Such would be of no benefit to either side of the litigants, who belong to one race of people--unhappy in this matter widely divided. I will only say, that since to the peacemaker the inheritance of being children of God belongs, it must follow that we must relegate the mischief maker to the realm of his satanic majesty. They, therefore, who have caused all this trouble, which has separated a congregation of people, who hitherto worshiped God in Bethel Church, in this city, in union and brotherly love, but who are now divided; they who have caused families to separate, husband from wife, father from children, brother from sister, are, according to Scriptural instruction, "in danger of the judgement" decreed for their kind.

But let us go to the case upon its legal merits. I submit, from the pleadings your Honor will readily perceive that there is but one single real issue in the case, and that is the right of the Plaintiffs to the uninterrupted use of Bethel A. M. E. Church in this city, according to the Discipline of said Church.

To settle this issue it must be determined, through the evidence and the law applicable thereto, what rights the Plaintiffs have as members or corporators, as well as Trustees, of Bethel Church, as they allege themselves to be, and whether the Defendants have violated said rights of Plaintiffs.

It is to be observed that the Plaintiffs allege that they are both members or corporators of this Church and Trustees, and that the Defendants are not.

Upon the correctness of the proof of these allegations depends your Honor's decision. Now, as to the first part of our allegation that we are members or corporators, the Defendants have not denied; we are, therefore, as members of this Church, one though we be, entitled to its uninterrupted use according to the Discipline; and the Defendants have admitted this when they admitted 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6, except so much of paragraph 4 of the complaint as alleges that Bethel A. M.E. Church became a branch of the corporation of the A. M. E. Church.

Now let us read these admissions * * * But we have also alleged that we are Trustees of Bethel Church, and as such the legal title is in us, and under the law of the Church we have a right to the temporal control of said edifice during our term of office, and that the Defendants have not such possession and control.

In order to prove our claim, we must now enter upon the evidence, and show, if we can, that these Defendants are not now either members or Trustees.

It is in evidence that in the month of December, 1885, the Right Rev. Bishop James A. Shorter, Bishop of the Sixth Episcopal District, of which South Carolina is a part, held his Annual Conference at Greenville, S. C., at which Conference, by virtue of the authority vested in him under the Discipline, he appointed the Rev. R. E. Wall, one of the Plaintiffs in this action, the Pastor of Bethel Church in this city. This is admitted in the third paragraph of Defendants' answer.

It is also in evidence that the Rev. Wall in attempting to discharge his duties, was given a written notice by some of these Defendants 00044not to enter upon the same, because of certain charges made against the Bishop in reference to some promise made to these Defendants by him. It is also in evidence that this notice was subsequently modified, and the Rev. Wall allowed to enter upon the discharge of his duties, with the consent of these Defendants, who were then Trustees, and did perform the functions of Defendants, who were then Trustees, and did perform the functions of his office for several weeks, having the use of the church and the possession of the parsonage and its belongings, with the knowledge and consent of these Defendants. It is also in evidence that the Rev. Wall. wrote Bishop Shorter, asking him to come down and settle whatever dissatisfaction existed between him and these Defendants; for, by their second notice, they assured the Rev. Wall, who afterwards became so "obnoxious," that they had nothing against him. Let us read that notice. * * * Shortly after this acceptance, or, more properly, induction of Rev. Wall. into his newly appointed position, which, in evidence, is shown to have been done in the presence of these Defendants and all the officers and members of the church, an evil spirit arose, unseen but felt, more direful in its work than can possibly be described, and these Defendants suddenly concluded not to allow the Rev. Wall to enter said church and perform the functions of his office, nor to admit any member of the church who did not agree with them in their course to enter said church. It is shown in evidence that they barred said church, and kept relays of men within said church, who refused admittance to the duly appointed Pastor and his followers. It is also in evidence that Bishop Shorter came from his home in Ohio at the request of the Rev. Wall, and, on arriving in this city, in consequence of communications received from these Defendants, attempted to enter the building on the evening of theday ofwith his appointee, the Rev. Wall, his Presiding Elder, the Rev. Silas Jefferson, and other clergy and members, and that the doors of the Church were barred in his presence by L. L. Brown and other of these Defendants; that he demanded admission by virtue of his authority as Bishop, but no notice was paid to him.

It is in evidence that he once saw the church door open after this first refusal, and on approaching the door was shut against him and the Rev. Wall and other members who were with him, and that they were told to see the Trustees and were refused admittance. It is also in evidence that the Rev. Wall and several of his members, having obtained possession of the edifice wrongfully withheld from them, never mind by what means so long as it did not produce a breach of the peace--and this is law as to a wrongful withholding of property--were suddenly entered upon while holding Divine service in said church by a large crowd, among them these Defendants, or most of them, the doors of the church broken open, the services interrupted, and the worshipers' lives put in danger, especially that of the Rev. Wall, who was locked in said church from about 1 P.M. until nearly 6 o'clock, being refused even the merciful gift of a drink of water. I would feign draw a veil over these disgraceful and unchristian scenes, did not my professional duty compel me to recite them. I would pity the Rev. Wall and his followers, locked up in the building, hooted, menaced and abused, did I not remember the fires of Smithfield and the persecutions of Crammer and Ridley in planting 00055the seed of the Christian Church; did I not remember the massacre of St. Bartholomew and the flight of the Huguenots to this land, the asylum of the oppressed in every eye. I might offer these Plaintiffs pity, but said Him for whom they suffer: "You must need suffer for my sake." Now, may it please the Court, can any one acquainted with the laws of any religious denomination say that such conduct on the part of these Defendants were not insubordination to the laws of the Church? No; these Defendants themselves do not say so, but excuse themselves in their answer by alleging in paragraph 7, "that after said Richard E. Wall had been installed as Pastor of said Bethel A. M. E. Church he acted in so high-handed and arbitrary a manner, and so much in violation of the Discipline of said Church, that it became impossible for him to serve the spiritual interest of said congregation, and these Defendants, together with more than three-fourths of the members of said society, numbering many hundreds, after vainly endeavoring to procure his removal by the presiding Bishop, were, in justice to themselves and their sense of right, compelled to refuse to allow said Rev. R. E. Wall to occupy the pulpit of said church." What a legal defense for the violation of a right? What an excuse for the gross violation of the laws of the Church? Did not these Defendants well know that if Mr. Wall had committed an offense against the laws of the Church, that the Discipline provided in such cases an adequate remedy? Did they not know that if the Bishop transcended his powers, or refused to perform his duty, that the Discipline provided a remedy, and that remedy, too, was not to lock the church against the Pastor and Bishop and the loyal members, and to threaten their lives in riotous conduct, but as the Discipline says?--See Discipline.

Now for the violation of the laws of the Church in the manner which the evidence shows, these Defendants, then Trustees and members of the Church, were charged by one of these brethren with acts of insubordination and sowing dissension. That they were duly tried, convicted and expelled according to the Discipline. If this be proven, can there be any doubt in your Honor's mind that these Defendants have no status in this case, nor any rights arising from their alleged office as Trustees of Bethel Church? In order to prove the regularity of the trial and expulsion of the Defendants, we will just read the law and then the evidence applicable. See Discipline, Chapter 6, Sec. 1, pages 177--178, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3. Sec. 2, paragraphs 1 and 2. Sec. 3, page 179, paragraphs 1 and 2. Sec. 4, page 180, paragraphs 1 and 2. Sec. 5, page 388, paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4. Sec. 8, page 390, paragraphs 1 and 2; all 18th Edition of Discipline. See also, Baker on Discipline of the M.E. Church. Let me take occasion to say here that this book is only a guide, and regarded as authority in such matters only, as it does not conflict with the Discipline of the A. M. E. Church. * * * Now this is the law. What is the evidence? By affidavit we have shown that charges of insubordination and sowing dissension were duly made by a member against these Defendants; that the Pastor furnished them with copies of the charges and notice of trial as to time and place; that he selected a Committee to try the accused; that they did not appear to defend themselves, but sent a written protest to the place of trial; 00066that an unanimous verdict of guilty was rendered against them; that they were consequently declared expelled as members of said church; that they were duly notified of their conviction and expulsion, and a demand made upon them for the keys and records in their possession as Trustees, and that they refused to surrender the same.

To this trial and expulsion I understand the Defendants to make two exceptions. First, because the trial was not held in the proper place, and second, because these Defendants had entered into an obligation by bond and mortgage for the payment of a certain sum of money for the use of the church, and that during the existence of that obligation they could not be expelled as members, or at least from their office as Trustees, resting this objection upon Sec. 8, paragraphs 1 and 2, page 39, of Discipline.

To the first objection I would say, what cheek, (for grace these Defendants do not possess.) It is in evidence that these Defendants had at the time of their trial, the church doors barred against the Rev. Wall and the loyal members of the church, so that they were compelled, for a time, to hold Divine service in this Court by the kindness of our estimable Clerk of this Court, who, with others in this city, sympathized with us in our troubles and showed by their acts that they considered we were badly treated; also in a small building called "Odd Fellows Hall,"which we were compelled to rent until relieved by the injunction of Judge Fraser. But is the objection otherwise tenable? Let us see. See Angell & Ames on Corporations, page 501, Sec. 497 of the 9th edition. This completely disposes of this objection. The next is as to the terms of the Discipline, which the Defendants claim make them joint security for debt. A joint security always implies a collateral or secondary obligation to an original one. Let us read the bond and mortgage. * * Does not the use of the word successors in this mortgage plainly show that these obligors only intended to bind themselves as long as they were in office, and their successors afterwards? No other interpretation can be put on the use of this word, though a thousand analogies be brought to bear to prove the contrary. The word speaks for itself, and has no other legal meaning when construed in the light of the fact that these Defendants were Trustees of a religious society.

Now, we have shown, as we claim, the due and legal expulsion from office of these Defendants, except that we forgot to notice another objection, namely, "that the Quarterly Conference of this Church has the right to confirm or reject the election of Trustees or the expulsion of their predecessors." This, I suppose, is another objection which the Defendants make to their expulsion. If the Defendants can show me any law in the Discipline making the Quarterly Conference a court to ratify the election of a Board of Trustees, or to in any wise control either their election or expulsion from office, I shall be glad. I do admit this is true as to the powers of the Quarterly Conference of the M.E. Church, but not of the A. M. E. Church. In this respect the Disciplines are in conflict, and we must surely be governed by our own and not that of another denomination. See Discipline, Section 445, page 104: also Wayman, Chapter 17.

But let us now see if we ourselves are legally in office. This must 00077be done by first referring to the law of election of Trustees in the Discipline, and then apply our evidence. See Discipline, Section 3, page 387, paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Have we complied with this law? Let us read affidavits. * * * Do not these show the proof? Most assuredly so, and with scrupulous exactness.

But these Defendants make a further objection in their answer, in paragraph nine, which I will read. * * * Judge Fraser very properly asserts in his decree that this allegation is not material in its objection to our rights. Your Honor, this is not a question of title to this property; if so, this is not the proper action. But we say, nevertheless, that these Defendants are estopped from denying our right of possession and use of this building. We have shown that the church was organized an A. M. E. Society; that it purchased the property as such. Let us read the deed of conveyance, also that these Defendants have accepted our use and possession for nearly twenty years by receiving the Conference appointees from the first down to the incumbent Wall. The allegation that we were in ecclesiastical connection with the A. M. E. Church is not true, and is not shown by the Defendants. To the contrary, since 1817 this denomination organized itself as an A. M. E. Society after with-drawing from the white M. E. Church.

Now, may it please the Court, this is our case as resting upon the laws of the Church. But we have rights arising from the custom and usage of the Church and the laws and decisions of Courts upon like issues, which show that the Pastor, one of these Plaintiffs, and the members of the church, are entitled to the relief claimed, which is to be found in paragraph twelve, Sections 1, 2 and 3 of our complaint, * * * and is supported by the Discipline, Section 11, page 378, showing the nature of the Board of Trustees of the A. M. E. Church, as appeared in the form of deed prescribed by the church, also Chapter XI, page 287. These laws entitled us to the relief prayed for, even though these Trustees still held their office and were never removed therefrom. But I am afraid, as in another transaction (the house) these Defendants believe that they are the owners of these premises and may give them away to some pet of theirs, or hold it for his use, to the exclusion of the people who bought and paid for it by their hard earnings. What bold and daring effrontery!

But we say we have rights under the custom of the Church. Let us see. The Methodist Episcopal Church of England emanated from the P. E. Church of England, and was established by the Rev. John Wesley, who withdrew from the Protestant Episcopal Church, not being satisfied with certain tenets and methods. He established the Methodist Episcopal Church in reform of these obnoxious methods; but the Church retained all the customs and laws not in conflict with its new methods. This Church was also established in America, and it likewise retained the customs and laws of the mother Church. The African Methodist Episcopal Church emanated from the Methodist Episcopal Church in America, as its history shows, and it retains the customs and laws of the mother Church not in conflict with its reform methods, so that we find an unwritten law governing this denomination of Christians, as well as a 00088written one. Among these customs and laws, having their origin in the P. E. Church, and retained by both of these branches, namely, the M. E. and the A. M. E., are the rights and duties of Rectors and Trustees found. Baum, a highly respected writer on these subjects, says in his book, on page 13: "The corporate body (meaning the Church) consists of three integral parts, namely, the Rector, the Church Wardens and the Vestrymen, and each part has rights and duties peculiar to and inherent in itself." On page 52 this author continues: "We next proceed to inquire what, if any, are the exclusive rights of the instituted minister in controlling the use of the church. * * * Many who would deprecate the desecration of our churches are of opinion that the rights of granting the use of the church belongs to the whole corporation. * * * Others contend it belongs to the instituted minister alone. (page 53.) In determining, however, what is the law, it may be of great importance to understand * * * what the English system was and what our (the American) connection with the English Church. (page 55.) "Trustees in the P. E. Church," says Baum, are "called the Wardens and Vestry. In them the legal estate was placed. They hold as a corporation in fee simple, but they hold in trust for the congregation. Another high authority on Church law, Hoffman, says on page 266 of his work on Ecclesiastical Law: "The law of the Church at large * * * vested the right over the church edifice in the Rector. The authority of the Church Wardens was subordinate to his. * * * The title then to the church and all church property is in the Trustees collectively for all corporate purposes; that is, when the church is incorporated. but there is another class of purposes purely ecclesiastical, as to which the statute did not mean to interfere or prescribe any rule. These are to be controlled by the law of the Church. One conclusion," says Mr. Hoffman, "seems, for example, deducible from these principles, viz.: That the control and possession of the church edifice upon Sundays and at all times, when open for divine services, appertains exclusively to the Rector." Baum, in discussing this point, also says, page 57: "We cannot * * * but believe that the Church meant by the delivery of the keys to confer the exclusive control of the church, as to its uses, upon the minister. But admit," says Baum, "that such was the intention of the Church, it will be said this is but Church law. But will * * * not the law of the land so far respect the laws of any religious society in it as to oblige the members of that society to abide by the true intent and meaning of their own Church law, and thereby, as between such members, make the Church law the law of the land?" This question, your Honor, we fully endorse in this case. Continues Baum: "The incumbent, by his induction with the real and corporal possession of his benefice, * * * becomes invested in particular with freehold rights in all the lands and buildings which are enclosed within the church yard. The rights thus acquired carry with them the exclusive right of access to the church, so that none can lawfully exclude him from any part of them, nor any enter them of their own right, but only by his permission, so long as he is incumbent." In the case of the Rev. William J. Lynd vs. George Menzies et al., quoted by the Rev. Baum in his work, an 00099action was brought for forcibly preventing a minister from preaching in the church.

In this case, on page 52, Baum gives the following as the decision of Chief Justice Beasley in the matter: "A minister of the Protestant Episcopal Church has either the possession of the church edifice, or a right, in the nature of an easement, to enter therein on all occasions set apart in the Parish for Divine services, and substantial interference with such right will lay the ground for an action at law. The English ecclesiastical law forms the basis of the law regulating the affairs of this denomination of Christians.

"In order to vest the Pastor with the ordinary rights in the temporalities pertaining to his office it is not necessary for the congregation to be incorporated, nor that the title to the church should be lodged in such congregation. A Protestant Episcopal minister was barred out of the church building on a Sunday by his Wardens and Vestrymen: Held, That a verdict for substantial damages for such an act in a suit by the minister should not be disturbed."

Here let me say, that some may object and say this right of a Protestant Episcopal clergyman of England rests upon the common law right of advowsons, and we have no such in America. In answer, hear what Baum saith, * * *

This shows that our method of contribution or salary gives the same rights as the English advowson or tithe gave the English Parson. C.J. Beasley says: "So far as the law has to do with the relationship of the Rector with his flock, such relationship is to be regarded as the effect of a contract. What, then, is this agreement into which a congregation of this denomination enters upon the call of a Rector? * * It plainly appears to be this: They offer to the minister receiving the call such rights in their temporalities as by the ecclesiastical law of their sect belong to the office which is tendered; one of such rights being that of preaching on Sundays in the church provided by the congregation. Such an offer, therefore, can have nothing to do with the title to the church edifice. No matter in whom the title may reside, if the congregation has the use of the building, the Rector must, of necessity, have the right to partake in such use; whatever place the congregation provide for the purpose of public worship in the Parish, into such place the Rector, by virtue of his office, has the right to enter in order to conduct such worship."

This, to my mind, your Honor, is sound law and wholly applicable to our case, in which it is shown that the congregation, as members of the A.M.E. Church, are bound by its rules of Discipline. Upon the appointment of a pastor to a church and their acceptance of him, a contract of $400 a year is entered into between him and them and all the rights of his ecclesiastical office follow. See Discipline.

But a few years ago the case of Greensdale vs. Darly was tried by the Court of Queen's Bench, (L.R.3, 2 B. 421,) in which Chief Justice Cockburn declared "I quite agree with the former decisions, that an incumbent has possession of the church yard as well as of the church for all spiritual purposes."

In the case of the Presbyterian Church vs. Andrews, reported 1 Zab., 328. Chief Justice Green says, speaking of the right of a Rector to the use of the church: "It is an incorporeal hereditament. 001010It is in the nature of an easement--a right of privilege in the lands of another. For an interruption of this right an action will lie." Now we have endeavored to show the law of our case as best we can. I will only, further, add, that as we have shown to have exercised and exhausted our ecclesiastical powers in defending ourselves from the violation of the Church law by these Defendants, this Court cannot inquire into our methods whereby these Defendants were tried and convicted, unless they conflict with the civil rights of the Defendants. See on this point High on Inj., page 131, Section 230, page 133, Section 231, and note 5 of the case of Walker vs. Wainwright, reported in 16 Barb, and the view of Justice Edmonds thereon.

As to the nature of the trust, High says, pages 139, 140, Sections 241, 243: "And where property is conveyed to trustees for the use of a religious association upon the condition of its being forever used as a place of worship in accordance with the doctrines of a particular Church such doctrinal points are proper subjects of investigation by the Court in determining whether such a perversion of the trust exists as to warrant an injunction." Let us apply this rule by the investigation of the doctrine of insubordination and sowing dissension in the A.M.E. Church and see whether or not these Defendants have perverted their trusts? Again, I have mentioned that we are not only a religious society, but are incorporated by Act of the General Assembly of 1869-70, as appears on page 323. Read Act.

The members of this church, one, as well as all, having established and built the church by their voluntary contributions, become donors of the corporation, and the Trustees, whoever they may be, hold in trust not for a part of the members, not for such only as choose to drive a regularly appointed Pastor out of his pulpit and bar the doors of the church against him and the Bishop; threaten and menace their lives. No, they hold for all and singular the members of the corporation. Even one, as Judge Fraser has truly said in his decree; and that one has equal right with all the others to the use of the church.

In the case of Salter et al. vs. Trustees of the First Reformed Dutch Church, reported in 42 Pa. St., 510, 511 and 512 pages, it was decided: "That before civil authority the question is not which party has the majority, but which is right according to the law by which the body has hitherto consented to be governed."

Also, in the case of Windrenner et al. vs. Colder et al., reported in 48 Pa. St., 244, 248, in which it is decided: "That in Church organizations those who adhere and submit to the regular order of the Church, local and general, though of a minority , are the true congregation and corporation, if incorporated." And yet our friends on the opposite side flaunt in our faces the names of five or six hundred people who have violated the law of the Church in a most shameful manner and ask the Court to sanction their evil doings because they are a majority. So much the worse; so much greater the shame. It is better to be right as a minority than wrong with a majority. Nay, one with God is a true majority! These Defendants, even though Trustees, as I have said before, if they infringe on the civil 001111rights of one of the corporators in this case, the Plaintiffs are entitled to the remedy asked for. I cite 63 llow., 465, in support of this.

Bishop II. M. Turner's "Methodist Polity" was cited in support of church authority as to powers of Trustees.

Upon hearing the case on argument, as above, and upon the further arguments of Hon. F.W. McMaster, Senior Counsel, and John McMaster, Esq., who elaborated the civil portion of the case with much zeal and ability, Judge Pressley filed a decree November 4, 1886, and a subsequent decree November 20, 1886, granting the use of the church and its appurtenances to the Rev. Wall and his adherents, but remitted the question as to the legal Board of Trustees to the ecclesiastical head of the Church for its decision; meanwhile Defendants held control of the edifice.

The matter was submitted to the Annual Conference, and by it referred to the Bishop, James A. Shorter, who rendered the following decision: THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, ) In the Common Pleas.RICHLAND COUNTY.)J.W. MORRIS, et al., against S.B. WALLACE, et al.

Defendants apply for an order for injunction to restrain all interference with them in their peaceable possession of the church building involved in this action. The pleadings in the case before me on its merits admitted that Defendants were the Trustees of the Church, and Plaintiffs claimed only the rights due to their Pastor and to themselves, as members of the Church and congregation, through affidavits in the case, tending to show that the term of Defendants as Trustees had ended by their expulsion from the Church, and by the election of other Trustees. There cannot now be any change of the case as tried. My decree therein recognizes Defendants as the Trustees of the Church, and grants them leave to apply for further orders of this Court to maintain their peaceable possession thereof until such time as their ecclesiastical head shall recognize one or the other of the contending parties as constituting the Church. It is therefore ordered, that Plaintiffs and all other persons acting with them, or in any manner adhering to or in concert with them, be, and they are hereby, restrained and enjoined from interfering in any manner with the Defendants in their taking and holding possession of the said Bethel A.M.E. Church building until the recognition aforesaid. This injunction shall no wise change or weaken the injunction heretofore ordered in said case in favor of the Plaintiffs. Defendants shall in no wise restrict the free use of said edifice to the Pastor thereof, and all the members of said Church and congregation. The Pastor is entitled to occupy and control the pulpit at all and every of the usual services of said Church, as they were held and conducted before any division in said Church. The said Trustees shall direct the Sexton, as heretofore, to keep the Church edifice freely open for all such services, and to have the same lighted and made comfortable 001212as heretofore when said Church was at peace. If either of said parties, Plaintiffs or Defendants, or any other person adhering to or in concert or sympathy with either of them, shall intermeddle with or resist either party in the exercise of any right settled by this order and the former decree, or shall, in any manner, disturb the usual quiet and worship of said Church, as it is wont to be heretofore conducted, then, and in that case, the other party has leave to apply for an order attaching the persons for contempt of this decree and order herein of this Court.(Signed)B.C. PRESSLEY,Nov. 28th, 1886. Presiding Judge.

Resolved, That the matter set forth in the foregoing preamble be, by this Annual Conference, referred to the said Bishop James A. Shorter, the ecclesiastical head, for his decision.COLUMBIA ANNUAL CONFERENCE,

SUMTER, S.C., December 17, 1886.

I, James A. Shorter, one of the Bishops of the A.M.E. Church, and by virtue of said office the ecclesiastical head of said Church in South Carolina, being required by the terms of a decree rendered by his Honor B.C. Pressley, presiding Judge of the Court of Common Pleas for Richland County, S.C., in the October Term, 1886, dated November 4, 1886, and by a subsequent decree dated November 20, 1886, a copy of which latter decree is hereto annexed, to recognize one or the other of the contending parties in the suit of J.W. Morris, et al., Plaintiffs, against S.B. Wallace, et al., Defendants, for the peaceable possession of the property known as the Bethel A.M.E. Church, Columbia, S.C.; and the statement of said case being referred to me by the Columbia Annual Conference, now in session, as set forth in the annexed preamble and resolution, for my decision, I do hereby decide:

First, That the act of the Rev. R.E. Wall, Pastor of Bethel A.M.E. Church, Columbia, S.C., and of those of the said church who were associated with the said Rev. R.E. Wall as Pastor, and who adhered to the Discipline and usages of the A.M.E. Church in the trial and expulsion of S.B. Wallace, L.L. Brown, A. Wise, A. Coultry, T. Bacon, Geo. Harris, Jas. Waties, H. Johnson, M. Deas. Defendants in aforesaid suit, as members and Trustees of said Bethel A.M.E. Church, was legal and in accordance with the Discipline and usages of the African Methodist Episcopal Church.

Second, That the act of Rev. R.E. Wall, as Pastor of said Bethel A.M.E. Church, and those members of said church who were associated with him as Pastor, and who adhered to the Discipline and usages of the said A.M.E. Church in the election of J.W. Morris, P. Pickens, M. Maybin, S. Wright, Jno. Johnson, E.B. Thompson, D. Miles, A.I. Bell and M. Williams, as Trustees of said Bethel A. 001313M. E. Church, to fill the vacancy caused by the expulsion of S. B. Wallace, L. L. Brown, A. Wise, A. Coultry, T. Bacon, Geo. Harris, Jas. Watics, II. Johnson and M. Deas, as members and Trustees, was valid and in accordance with the Discipline and usages of the A. M. Church, and that said J. W. Morris, P. Pickens, M. Maybin, S. Wright, Jno. Johnson, E. B. Thompson, D. Miles, A. I. Bell and M. Williams are now, and until their successors shall be elected, the lawful Trustees of said Bethel A. M. E. Church, and are the sole and only persons lawfully entitled to the peaceable possession of said Bethel A. M. E. Church, its property and appurtenances, and that these members, who, with said J. W. Morris, et al., Trustees, adhered to the Discipline and usages of the A. M. E. Church, and were associated with the Rev. R. E. Wall, as Pastor, constitute the true and lawful church.

Third, That the foregoing decision is based upon a mature deliberation upon the facts in the case as presented to me, and upon the Discipline and usages of the A. M. E. Church. See Sec. 3, p. 179; also, Sec. 3, pp. 387, 388 of the Discipline of the A. M. E. Church, adopted by the General Conference in regular session in the City of Baltimore, Md., May, A. D. 1884.

Rendered and delivered in and before the Columbia Annual Conference, held in Sumter, S. C., on the 17th day of December, A. D. 1986.JAMES A. SHORTER.Bishop 6th Episcopal Dist., including So. Ca.

We fully concur in the foregoing decision-JABEZ P. CAMPBELL,JOHN M. BROWN,Associate Bishops.

COLUMBIA ANNUAL CONFERENCE,Sumter, S. C., December 17, 1886.

Whereas, Bishop James A. Shorter, the present ecclesiastical head of the A. M. E. Church in South Carolina, has rendered a decision in the case of S. B. Wallace, et al., Defendants, and J. W. Morris, et al ., Plaintiffs, for the peaceable possession of the property known as the Bethel A. M. E. Church, in Columbia, S. C.; therefore,

Be it resolved, That we, the members of this Annual Conference, fully concur in said decision.JAMES G. SAMPSON.

Notice was subsequently served upon the defendants of the Bishop's decision, and a demand made for the keys of the church, which were refused.

Upon notice to A. Crawford, Lyles & Haynesworth, Esqrs., Defendants attorneys, a motion was made before his Honor J. B. Kershaw, at Chambers, January 22, 1887, in Columbia, S. C., for an order, and, on argument of Hon. F. W. McMaster and D. A. Straker, Esq., for 001414Plaintiffs, and Messrs. Lyles and ex-Judge S. W. Melton, the following order was granted: THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Richland County.In Common Pleas.J. W. MORRIS, et al., Plaintiffs, against S. B. WALLACE, et al.