Newspaper Page Text
Proceedings of the Synod of Illinois North. Hr. Noyes Completes Mis Argument Against the Right of Appeal. Prof. Patton Replies, and the Synod Sustains Him. Prof. Swing to Bo Invited to Ap pear at the Trial. Patton Will Speak To-Day. Unfavorable Report In the General Epis copal Convention on the Propo sition to Revise the Ni. cene Creed. Xlio Vote on Bishop Seymour’s Confir mation to Be Taken To-Day, SYNOD or ILLINOIS NORTH. MORNING SESSION. Tbo Synod of Northern Illinois resumed its Boeeion at tbo First Presbyterian Church, corner of Indiana avenue and Twenty-flrat street, yes terday morning, tho Bov, Mr. Wilson In tho cbalr. MB. NOTES. t Tbo Rev. Hr. Noyes, on behalf of tbs Chicago Presbytery, resumed bis argument against tbo right of Prof. Patton to appeal,—speaking to the motion to adopt the majority report of the Ju dicial Committee, which recommended that tbo appeal bo taken up. i After recapitulating tho points mado by him Mondoy afternoon,—that under tho law a prose cutor bad no tight to appeal, and that precedents sustained his position, bo spoke as follows: 111. And not only lo this negative statement true, but it may bo said positively (hat there is a precedent directly and squarely against him. This is tho third puiut in my argument. There is in the Digest a case which, os it stands re corded there, might naturally bo regarded oa conclu sive in support of my position. ,U is the case of Dr. J. L. Wilson vs. Dr. Lyman Beecher. Many persons knowing that Dr. Wilson prosecuted Lyman Beecher for heresy, and not knowing all tho material facts of (hat history,wo naturally conclude that tbo record of (ho caw given In the Dlccel referred lo nn appeal brought by Dr. Wlleon after ho had unsuccessfully prosecuted Dr. Beecher in Presbytery and Synod. Such were not the facte. Dr. Wilson endeavored to get tho Presby tery to Inquire, by a committee, into Beecher’s ortho doxy. They refused. Then ho endeavored to Induce tho Synod to order tho Presbytery to appoint tho Committee for tho purpoeo named, Tho Synod de clined to do it. Then he appealed to tho Oencr.il Assembly; and tills ia tbo appeal which, as tho Digest records, was.thrown out. Afterwards ho prosecuted Beecher before tbo Presbytery of Cincinnati. Hla charges wore uot sustained. 110 appealed to tho Synod, which affirmed tho decision of tho Presbytery. 110 gave notice that ho would then appeal to the Gen eral Assembly, but, being assured by some of his own friends that they could not sustain him, he gave up tho fight, so that his ease never came before the As sembly. Thin ease, therefore, which seems lo hun precedent directly in point,—cad it Is ou this account Mono that I have referred to ll,—is no precedent ut oil, ou either side. AN ILLINOIS PRECEDENT. But there Is a precedent which is In point, r.nd to the mam facts of that I now desire to call attention. Tho record of this caso Is not to ho found iu the Di gest, but may Ito found in tho minutes of tho General Assembly for this present year, page C 2. It is tbo case of George Fallback vs, Tbo Synod of Illinois South. The appeal was diemlrsed, and, among tho various reasons which were assigned for dismissing It, the first ono named is, that “ tho appellant Is uot a party aggrieved.” Now, the loading material facts of this case am these: A year or two ago, tho church In Carlinvllio decided to adopt tho rotary principle, or tho principle of limit ed term-service in the election of Elders. By the adop tion of this rule, and the putting of it in practice, certain Elders in tho cburcu were relieved irom ser vice. Upon this. Mr. Fishhook, who was not one of these honorably retired Elders, brought tho church at the bar of tho Presbytery, by complaint. 110 alleged that ibis action of tho church lu adopting the rotary system of eldership was unconstitutional. This was tho charge. (And tbio.lt might besaid parenthetically, was heresy—a very heretical action upon tho impor tant, not to say vital, subject of church polity.) But the charge wac that the church had violated tho con* stltutlon. By the decision of tbo Presbytery, tho ac tion of the church was sustained. Mr. Fishbnek then appealed to tbo Synod. The Synod aillrmcd tbo decis ion of the Presbytery. Tho ease was then carried to the General Assembly, who dismissed the appeal, as signing as the first and chief reason therefor that Mr. FishbaoEwns uot an aggrieved party. Such is tbo history of tho case, which tho brief embodies all tho essential facts. And now, as regards this case, there are several things which ought to ho card ullv noted. It ought to be observed that Mr. Vishback was im original party, «nd that, if this alouo entitles a man to appeal, then hi* right to do so could not have been questioned It ought to bo observed that Mr. Flfhback’a complaint embodied only a public offense. Ho did uot come to the lower courts before which ho brought bis caso with a private grievance to bo righted. If ho had, an adverse decision would have made Aim, though & prosecutor, sn aggrieved party, nud, inasmuch as bo was also an original party, hu could then have ap pealed. It ought to be observed that tho decision of the lower courts must have been, In tho Judgment of Mr. Flehbaek, a grievous Injury to the Church. Id bis view, sanction bad been given to a false and hurt ful principle. Wo cannot suppose that he would havo initiated this proceeding, and have taken all tho trouble and sorrow that must have resulted from car rylng It on, unless he had been profoundly convinced that the welfare of tho Presbyterian Church was deeply Involved In tho Issuo, It ought to be observed, also, that Ur. Flehbaek was undoubtedly grieved and distressed, first by tho decision of tho Presbytery to him, and then by tho decision of tho Synod. Hence, if to feel a keen sense of discomfiture at being defeated In an ecclesiastical trial Is to bo aggrieved, then bo was an aggrieved party. If to bo deeply convinced that the verdict in such atrial was uncon stitutional and Injurious to the interests of tho Church is to be aggrieved, then thin man was aggrieved, and, therefore, entitled to appeal. Hut, evidently, some thing more than this is necessary in order that one should bo aggrieved. Evidently it Is true, as Webster says in his definition of tho word, that to aggrievo Is “to bear hard upon, to oppress, or tnjuro In one’s rights." Evidently nothing less than this in meant by Ue General Assembly, when they formally and anani. mouslv decide that Mr. Flshback “ is not an aggrieved party." It is within roy knowledge that tbe prosecutor of Prof. Swing has declared,‘with emphasis and with en thusiasm, that tho General Assembly which sat in St. Louis lost May wus “sound," That is, or was, his Joyful conviction. So far as lam aware, that opinion was not expressed specially in view of this action upon Fiahback'n appeal. Hut while, in uttering this emphatic commendation, ho may have had something else In mind, 1 am happy to bgruo with him in hli rommcudatlon, and to say that, as regards this action In dismissing the appeal before it, the General Assem bly was unquestionably “ sound," They could have made no other or different decision without violating the law,—that law of which they are tho servants and not the masters. It was an eminently Just aud true decision that tho appellant In this case was uot an aggrieved party, aud as such It is a fair precedent by which to guide your action in this esse. It is a precedent which is in perfect har mony with all tiro Judicial decisions of the General As sembly for a period of fifty years, And surely you will not violate botb hw and precedent by bearing un appeal that is brought before you by one who is not sn aggrieved party. ne APPEAL ALLOWED EXCEPT TO THU INJUJUSD PARXT, IV. To do oo would involve something more than a violation of low and a contempt of precedent: it would Involve also a grievous wrong to tho original respondent in this esse. And this la tbo fourth and last point in my argument. The original defendant lisa a right to bo protected from further pursuit by the prosecutor, but it is said that the right of appeal Is Inalienable; that it is a right which bus been demanded and freely accorded among every civilized people of every age. finch an affirmation Is simply not true. From the day that the Apostle Paul, In the prcsoucu of threatened wrong, uttered those manly words, “ I appeal unto to thopresent hour, no well-governed people uavoevtr allowed the right of appeal except to an injured party, Tbo Jurisprudence of too whole world, civil and ec clesiastical, bases Itself upon that fundamental Idea expressed by Dr. William Health in bio Dictionary of Greek and Homan Antiquities, when bo says that tbo word apptllatit or appeal is used to sot forth (be M ap plication of an Individual to a Magistrate, la order to protect himself from some wronu utjUctcd, or threat cned to be indicted." This, ho declares, was the moan* Ing of the word among the ancient Homans, The right of appeal rises out of personal injury done to tbo appellant by the person or persons whoso decision is appealed from. Where that injury exists the right of appeal is Inalienable. Where no injury baa been dene, that right does not exist. The right Inheres In the injur}'* Accordingly we dud the two ideas appear* fog together all along in the hlntory of the Church: but never separately, unless in some corrupt state of cociely or of the Church, where Justice was confessed ly turned aside from its true course. The sense of Justlco in every ago of the Church, with scarcely an exception, If any, has been strong enough to secure for an acousca or Injured party adequate protection of bis interests and rights, but we <lO not hud—unless in the period where the Inqul cillun, with all Its unimaginable horrors, was regard ed us tho special glory of the Church—wo do not hnd a prosecutor Invested with a right to pursue a mau •ftia court to court until ho bad compassed his do strucllon, Let me die yon authorities to show that Ibo Church, Id generally recognising the Justice of offering a chance of vindication to those who had been wronged, ban thereby testified to tbo gross Injustice of bringing Hie sanctions ond tbo aancllUea of law to the nlcl of a prosecutor in putting a nun in Jeopardy again, and again, and agnlo, for the a»mo offouse. “Only they (I. o„ tbo clergy) had liberty to appeal, aa all others, in cane of injuri/ done to thtm .” Bo says Bingham, Antiquity of Christian Church, Vol. ] p SO. And this provision for (ho redress of grievances woe ordained by tho great Council of Nice. 80 also (vol. 1, p. to) Bingham says that tho Molropol. Kane wore required “to hoar tho accusations of those who complained of injury done them by their own Bishops, from whom there wax liberty always to arv peal to their Metropolitan.” y ylO rMtU . “ M«ny man is fit n£tL SSi?,- brln H, caUHO flwt before hla own fiSSkite 1 b£si° . after that before 0 ? £.* , ftn( ? •N before the Patriarch, fj®”' Judgment there lay no appeal.” in al( fln^ tt /^n) A^«? 8 c WC ii hATO *K ei ‘ lcaof done to the SSKitttiho‘.S” tbo “ ,cnll “ *“i-ai’p-fwo Ss SSfPOrt ™ r«(l (Glosclor Ohnrch 111..- h &.' , Z O-8o) thnl lhll s r»°<l ol Sanllca (A. D. . 5 011 £ ullufl of Romo tlio right to “.p --point Judges to bear tho appeals,” of whom t Of unsuc cessful prosecutors for heresy? No, bntof “«m --aemiKa Lfeho ns,” that Is, of persons aggrieved. So also, MUmau (Latin Christianity, vol. 1. p. 270) saj s early In tho fifth century men began to ho driven to Romo, “the aggrieved for redress vs. the oprres slon, the turbulent for protection vs. tho legitimate authority of their Bishops or Metropolitans.” “No where can Iho origin of appeals be traced more clearly as arising out of the state oftbe Church.” Hero two causes arc assigned for appeals. But what shall wo eayofouoof these? Will any member of this court claim that tbo right of appeal should ho granted to “(ho turbulent for protection vs. legitimate authority?” But there can bo no other class of appellants except “ the aggrieved; ” and to this Jailor class tho Presby terian Cimrch grants tbo right of appeal, but not to “the turbulent.” It would seem as If (ho abuse of tho right of appeal might bo taken aa a sure token of (ho decline of tho spiritual life of the Church, aud of the dominance and oppressive exorcise of ecclesiastical power. Accord, ingly we find Mauder making effective use of this fact In his portrayal oftbe hfo of (ho Church during that period which Is perhaps tne darkest of her his tory,—the twelfth century, Ho says: “They (appeals) no longer served the purpose of procuring protection for tlio weak and oppressed vs. (he wilt of (ho mighty, but much mure of scouring for arbitrary power a con venient handle by which lo thwart tho execution of (bo laws and defeat tlio cuds of justice. Every sentence, however Just and lawful, could, by an arbitrary appeal on tho part of him whoso selfish Interests it opposed, or whoso solo object It was to roveugo himself on an enemy, bo cither reversed, or, at least, seriously retard ed in Its execution.” Now, lot mu bo particular to put In hero a disclaimer, ami nay that I do not quote this passage with any view at all of reflecting upou Ilia motives of tbo prosecutor Ju this ease. I quote it only for the purpose of showing that you would be inking dangerous action If you allowed sn appeal In this instance, for it would bo couforriog a privilege in defiance of law, of preo* odont, of history, and of justice. this scotch cuubor. Tbo anoient Scottish Church took good care t# guard (ho right of appeal. It inrooted only uu injured party with It. by tbo Anficmbly of 1581—nearly IWO yearn ago, and nioro tbau slaty years before the Westminster Assembly—lt declared that “appeals «ro properly made from definitive sentences, but they arc llkowlsa mndo from interlocutory sentences, where they contain aueh daiaage to the party whereof no reparation can bo expected from, the definitive sentence that la to ensue.” 1 quolo from Stewart’s Collodions (p. 231), an old and curious volume published In 1770. Nothing can bo more plain than that tbo provision of tho law of appeal in the Old Kirk of Scotland, from which I have Just quoted, presumes ami intends that the appellant shall bo only an Injured parly. The Scottish law, like our own. Is colored throughout by the idea of personal Injury inflicted as being tbo ground of appeal. That Is tho underlying basis of (ho right of appeal. “ All persons loscd (damaged) by tho procedure of wmfonce of a kirk session may appeal to tho Presbytery.” “ If, on trial of tho pro cess, tho Presbytery find tho session hath unwarranta bly proceeded m inflicting the sentence without a suffi cient cause, and thereby tho appellant leecd (suffer injury), (ho Presbytery is uot only to ossollzlo (acquit) tbo appellant, but (o take such ways oa may be proper and effectual to vindicate tbo appellant's innocoucy. And (hero is much more in the law to the oamo affect, but not a word nor n syllable contrary to what I have quoted. There cannot bo found a clause ora word that lends'any countenance whatever to tho doctrine that nn unaggrloved party, an unwronged prosecutor, may pursue an acquitted defendant through all the. courts of tho Ohnrch from tho lowest (o tho highest. And this provision of tbo law is right; it is essen tially just; the practice of tbo Church in every ago ▼lndicates tho wisdom and Justice of tho law. I mean no reflection upou tho motives or character of Prof. Patton when I say that it cannot conduce to the interest of Justice, or to tho welfare of the Churcli, either ns regards the purity of her doctrine or tho spiritual beauty and fruitfulness of her life, that ho should longer bo permitted to bear (he office of a prose culm* In this ease. He Is human, like tho rest of us. And where one hue embarked on a difficult and peril ous undertaking on hla own responsibility, taking counsel only of his own Judgment, aud per haps illercgardlug tho remonstrances of friends, it Is simply human that ho should desire to succeed, just as a matter of personal achievement, and qulto apart from a consideration of the great interests involved, though there may bo a sincere concern for these. It is a wise and witty saying of George Eliot, that “ one’s Belt-satisfaction is *tx uuiuxcd kind of property which It is very nuplcaoant to find depreciated.” None of us like to have our opinions discredited. Wo do not like to abandon any undertaking upou which wo enter before wo achieve complete success. Wo necessarily make a percouol matter of it. Our feelings become cnlbted, our passions ore aroused by opposition, and often to a degree of which wo nro quite unconscious. •‘Sentence is used ouly for the declaration of Judg ment against one convicted of a crime.”—(Webster’s Dictionary.] These considerations eervo to show how wise is that provision of our law which requires that a prosecutor vacates bis ofllce as a prosecutor when onco a verdict of acquittal has Leon entered in favor of tbo defend ant. It is in mercy to him, ss well as to his would-be victim, that tbo law commands that tbo pursuit shall cease. Aud certainly, as regards this painful cose, the ends of Jnstlco cun best bo reached by removing tho review of it os effectually as possible from all per sonal Influences which ovoko partisanship, and from all personal prejudices ond passions which cloud tho Judgment, cud render a fair review and a Jnat decision impossible. It wore well to mako this examination wholly impersonal. Bo It may bo mado. Tho original defendant, partly fop the purpose of obtaining per sonal relief from a strife exceedingly distasteful to him, and partly from a desire to prevent, if possible, hurtful aud dangerous asperities of feeling in tho Church, has withdrawn absolutely from our Jurisdic tion. Wo may say that ho is still in the Church, aud so wo might say it if he were dead. But, so far as our ability to exercise ecclesiastical control over him Is concerned, ho la as oircctuully removed from ns ns if ho were dead. If he had committed suicide In the face of this pending prosecution, and as a moans of avotd log It, you might declare that action, ho far as It con* temptated an escape from tho Presbyterian Church, was Irregular, contumacious, unconstitutional, and, there fore, null, and you might proceed to try him all tho same as If he had not committed hari-kari, and try him for tho reason so often and mo eloquently instat ed ou by Mr. D.igucl, that “ discipline must bo main tained.” But really would it be wiso to do so? And so, now, Isn’t it better to treat him as if ho were no longer amenable to us? As if. ecclesiastically, bo were dead to us ? Is it not belter to acknowledge that wo have no Juris diction over him than to attempt, by some futile exor cise oftho fancy, to take Jurisdiction, and proceed to try him again ? Tho attempt to do no, in tho present circumstances of tho caso, would certainly have the appearance, before the general public, of a design on the part of a high Church judicatory rather to do grade and disgrace an individual, than to vindicate the purity of tho Church. It if not enough that this body should ho freo from all personal and improper motives, but they should also bo careful to obey the injunction and ovoid oven “ lit* appearance of . • ? W)Une "111 accredit the Christian char acter of this body before tho world, aud will relieve It of any aspersion upon its motives. It will also, I doubt not, quite as effectually subserve the cause of truth, and the purity and welfare of the Church. _ TIIK BARNES CASE. i??»* mi . J UHt,c * “Mwt hedone though tbe hear /i a ll^tly.that for which lam pleading. Justice requires that we should have a reverent regard for the rights of otnera.and a determination to preserve them on all occasions sacred and Inviolate. Hut jus tice cau never consent that a man should bo twico plucod in jeopardy for the same offense, there Is not a lawyer la this Bynort, nor out of It, who would so fur compromise bis professional standing as to claim that Prof. Bwiug may Justly be prosecuted again and for tho very same public offense on which he has onco been prosecuted and honorably aemiittni Hut It Is said that the opinions of Inl and the usages of civil courts cannot ho admitted as authority lu this body ? M ell, then, I beg to refer you again to that decision eftho Asoembly In the Barnes <ase.to which I have already called attention. That decision. In its obvious spirit, forbids the plac- Ing of Prof, bwiug again on trial, aud especially since in fact the prisoner has escaped. Permit the t»o»n. cutor, then, to withdraw U oppoul, .id litT£ °lrarchcs havo rut from ltd. dl«traclln B unit dnolallug Jlrlftd M tml, junto tho EamnlM, In its Issue of Juno 18, whoa it said that tho continuance of this process could “ accomplish no desirable result su«l -clcuf . tO .. u, oa '*?\, Irritation which must Inevitably follow the prosecution of the appeal. Tbero la work enough to be done in our own and other lands to absorb tho undivided en ergies of ull portions of tho Church without havlmr them frittered away lu controversial dlHousalouH. pro ductive only of alienations and divisions, ’’ \Vo de plored tho opening of this conflict, and wo shall stilt more deeply, because uuaralltugly, deplore Us continu ance If you decide that ft must go on. Our churches havo had sorrowful proof that “the begin ning of strife is indeed an when one lettetb out water.” All the more earnestly, therefore, do we pray you to “ leave Off contention before It bo meddled with." Ami now, Mr. Moderator, 1 shall tax your patience, and tho patluncu of this body,but a few momenta moro. 1 have argued, and, ns 1 think, have conclu sively proved, that it is by no countenance of law or precedent of Justice that tho prosecutor comes before you and asks you to allow bim still further to pursue the orlgluul ucftmlaul In (his case. My iu tenao convictions have been wrought into this argu ment. I have sought only that which la orderly, legal, right, aud Just. If anybody supposes that 1 have been laboring to protect tho Presbytery, whom it la my great honor to represent, from meeting all Just rsiuuustbtUty for their action he Is greatly mistaken. This Presbytery, sir, are mure than willing to buvo their proceedings In this cose Investigated. They de sire that the Bynod shall make the fullest Inquiry Into Ihotr actions. And lam profoundly; convinced that, as tho conduct of this Inquiry by the way of “ general review and control N is now the only legal way In which U can bo carried on. so it Is tbo best way. Everything can bo sccorajilUued by this mtthod which can be reasonably doslml. Ami, even if this wore not the caso, there Is no help for It now, except by (ho revolutionary uud destructive remedy of sotting aside the law and precodouta applicable to the case. If we have done anything in an Irregular or disorderly man ner, o» a we have otherwise conducted ourselves uu THE CHICAGO DAILY TRIBUNE: WEDNESDAY. OCTOBER 21, 1874—TEN PAGES. becomingly, or If we have given a decision contrary to truth and righteousness, you can readily ascertain these things by general rovlnw, and. if you flud them. It will bo your prerogative to rebuke us. And here! may nay, sir, that if you do rebuke us, wn shall loyally submit. Wo have done our duly, as wo understood it, in tho fear of Qod, and os we shall on to Him. Hence a censure, if It la visited upon ua, will bo iuiilcted because wo hare done wlmt wo understood to bo our duty, and therefore it will not bo likely to make any sore places In our hearts. TDK fIEKTKHOF. IRRXVKRRIDLB. There la, I presume, no omanlon for dealring the J lower to rovorao tho Judgment of tho Presbytery, even f that power could now bo secured In any legal man ner. To reverse that Judgment can never, I lake it, bo done by auy Judicatory of tho Church, Onaroundo eferinence. no power onearlh can over rovorao that verdict. Either Prof. Swing Is an orthodox man In a seme so true and full as to glvo him a complete title to a place In the Church, or else bo is a liar. Thin is (ho plain and unavoidable alternative; and between these two things every man must choose. If ho is adjudged to be orthodox, tho party so Judging obviously cannot condemn him. If ho is adjudged to bo a liar, ovou then be cannot bo condemned on this indictment, be cause this view assumes that thoro are statements In bis published writings which make his avowal before tho Presbytery of an evangelical creed false, or olso tbo avowed creed makes the statements In the publish ed writings false. Now oomau con Judge between these alleged contradictions. Only Omniscience can tell which one of theso two classes of avowals—tho alleged heret ical or the alleged orthodox ono—reflect# hla true senti ments. Between these two, and, aa it la claimed, coo (radiotory utterances, clearly no proof ot heresy can bo made out; and, in tho Presbyterian Church, It won’t do to condemn a man without clear and unmistakable proof of guilt. Hence, for .this renaon, to menllon no others, I do not suppose that tho power to reverse (he decision of tho Presbytery cau be desired by auy reasonable persons. All (bat will bo desired by such persons will bo the opportunity to have a free, fair, and fraternal examination of tho coae, with a view to a wise treatment and Just settle ment of it. This la what the Presbytery of Chicago desires. A spirit of considerate kindness, and a contin ual exorcise of that “charity which thlnkotb no orll,” wlllflnd a way but of nil encompassing perplexities, and secure a happy deliverance from all threatening perils. It In a time for .moderation, for calm delib eration, for Christian forbearance, but not for Judicial processes and judicial rigor. Brethren of tho Synod, if any of yon have come to this city thinking that wo are enemies of the truth and of tho Church, vro nssuro you that wo are friends, loving the same church which you claim to love, and loving it, If uol oa "wisely,” yet at least as “well.” Wu shall be able to show you, If you will believe us, that, If you are Hebrews, so aro wo; If yon are Israel ites, so aro we; if you aro the seed of Abraham, ao aro wo also. Thunklngyou for your patient attention, I now ask that you will adopt-the minority report now before you, and thereby dismiss this appeal. PROF. PATTON. Prof. Patton occupied an honr In answering Hr. Noyes, claiming that be was an aggrieved party, and therefore had the right to appeal, and quoting from ecclesiastical law-books to substantiate his assertions. Tho Synod thou took a recess until half-past 2 o'clock. AFTERNOON SESSION. Tho Moderator called tbo Synod to order at tbo appointed hour. MR. TUOWDRIDOB said that Hr. Patton’s argument lacked the ele ment of strength. In his opinion, tbero was nothing valid to sustain tho appeal Hr. Moore considered that enough time had boon wasted in debate, and moved tho previous question, which prevailed. Tho majority report of tho Judicial Committee was then adopted. It was moved to appoint a committee to bring in tho finding of tho Court, with its reasons, or a minute upon tho subject of complaint. A CALL FOB RESOLUTIONS. Hr. Crawford asked whether some ono had not resolutions to offer on tho subject. Tho Moderator suggested that any ono having a resolution on hand had hotter report to tbo Committee, which ho would appoint bb follows : Tho Hot. Mosers. Findley, Gunn, and Dixon, aud Elders Williams and McKintry. THE RECORDS. Tho following report was then presented by Mr. Crawford: The Committee on the Records of the Presbytery of Chicago beg leave to recommend the following resolu tion ; “ i?«rofr«f, That tho records of (he Presbytery of Chicago bo approved, it being understood that tbo Synod here expresses no opinion concerning the ac tion of tho Presbytery referred to in the cases of ap peal and complaint, Inasmuch as it has been regularly brought before the Synod by the Judicial Commit tee,” THE MINORITY REPORT. Mr. Gunn them submitted tbo minority report, as subjoined: The majority report Is agreed In. with (bo exception (1) that tho Chicago Presbytery, having warned tho Ninth Church of Chicago to discontinue the services of the llov. Dr. McKuig, April It, 1874, who, according to the expressed judgment of that Presbytery, has preached “ sentiments lu palpable conflict* with tho fundamental doctrine of plenary inspiration,” have yet permitted said church to continue his cervices for over nix mouths, and have been derelict in duly in uot re quiring speedy obedience to their mandate of April H, or in not proceeding to dissolve said church. Tbo reports were productive of somo debate, in tho course of which it was said that tbore bad boon an overstepping of tbolr duty on tbo pari of tbo Committees. A motion was mado to strike tho resolution from tho majority report, but it did not prevail, Tho two reports wore then accepted, and a motion to adopt was mado, which produced anotbor debate in wblch somo of the members denounced tbo conduot of Dr. McKnig in some what harsh language. Tho Presbytery was also censured for allowing bis retention as a min ister. The Presbytery found a defender in THE REV. MR. KITfREDOB, who remarked that they bad been occupied by tbo groat trial, and bad bad no time to attend to attend to other matters. A committee was ovon now investigating tbo matter, at-tbo suggestion of tbo Presbytery. Ho hoped tho Synod would have confidence in the Presbytery. Mr. J. E. Moffat moved to commit tho reports with instructions to bring iu a minute urging continued effort to settle tho matter. Tho Bov. Mr. Crawford warmly defended the majority report, and said that, as an individual mombor of tho Committee, ho would not bring in a report under such instructions. Tho Secretary (Mr. Bmith) thought that the Committee had exceeded their duty, and wished to havo tho report amended. Tho minority report, on motion, was laid on the tablo. Tho majority report was adopted. ERASING PROF. SWING'S NAME. Tbe Judicial Committee then presented tho following report: Your Committee appointed to bring In a minute in reference to the complaint against the action of the Chicago Presbytery for erasing tho name of David Swing from the roll, bog leave to present tho following report: The complaint against the Presbytery of Chicago for their action in erasing the name of the Rev. David Swing from the roll of membership in said Pres* bylory while charges were pending against him hav ing been sustained by the Synod: therefore, Jiesolved, That the following final action be taken; “Whereas, Said Duvid Swing has withdrawn from tbe Presbyterian Church, and declared himself Inde pendent of its Jurisdiction ; and “ Whereas, The Presbytery has sanctioned the same by erasing his name from its roll of member ship: therefore, “ Jlesoloaujirat, That it is the judgment of this Syn od that tho action of tho Presbytery in this caso was unconstitutional, wrong, and therefore censurable. “ Jlesolvcd, second, That whereas tho eald David Swing has, by his own voluntary act, put himself out side of the Presbyterian Church, therefore wo concede the earns an a finished fact, but declare that (his is uot to bo construed eo as to invalidate or affect the appeal case or prevent Us prosecution before this body." All of which is respectfully submitted. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS. The Rev. Mr. Smith moved to amend tho re port bo ah to insert in tbo first resolution tho words “nulland void” hi placoof “consnrablo," and in tho second, that the Chicago Presbytery bo onjoinod by tho Synod to restore tho namo of tho Itov. David Swing to tho roll of membership. Mr. Noyes romarltod that it would be absurd to doolaro tho action of tho Presbytery null and void. If that wore so, there would bo no occa sion whatever for tho amendment to tho second resolution. Tbo lattor ought to be loft un changed. Several other gentlemen expressed themselves in language somewhat similar, and a kind of desultory talk washed all around. Tho report was finally adopted as amended b/ the motion of tho Rov. Mr. Smith. A DKLIOATK POINT, The Moderator said that the next business In order would bo tho hearing of the appeal. It was a question with many whether Mr. Swing's name had to ho restored in order that they might bo able to proceed. Mr. Walker requested some advice for tho action of tho Presbytery under the amended re port. The Moderator remarked that tho Chicago Presbytery should interpret tho action of tho HnioJ accorOlug to thoir uuUorutaiidlnK. [Laughter.] ° INFOimiKU pnop. BWINO. Mr. Crawford moved that Prof. Swiug bo in formed by tho Clark that tho action of tho I’roskyteiy dropping his name from membership was declared null and void, which w&a carried. Prof. Patton suggested the postponement of tho trial until Frol. Swing could be present. A motion to that effect was carried, end the Bynod adjourned until 0 o'clock this morning. OARD FROM OCR. NOYES, To the Editor of The Chleago Tribune 8m: Tho present , number of The Tatamra will put beforo Us readers a report of tbo pro ceedings of tbo Synod of Illinois North to-day. From that report It wilt Do seen that tho ques tion of Prof. Patton's right to appeal was dis cussed somewhat at length by him and by my self. Soon after Prof. Patton had replied to my argument, ono of bis supporters moved tho previous question* which was put and carried, thus cutting off flit further debate. This precipitate action, makes it necessary for mo to correct, -through the press, a very strange oversight of Prof. Patton's in ibo quo tations which ho.made from tho “Compondi once of tbo Laws of tho Scottish Church.'' In his reply to mo he accused me of dlsln gonouanoas in not quoting from this volume (from which I hod previously quoted) a passage which scorned to usoibo word sentence in a uouso different from that which 1 had assigned to it, and in a sonao confessedly different from that which It has in-our Book of Discipline. It was enough for mo that I used the word as signifying that which our own Church law makes it to moan. But now Prof. Patton quoted from those lawn of tbo Scottish Church. Ho quoted from them to prove that the decision of tho Chicago Pres bytery In the Swing case had, Ipso facto, roodo him a slanderer, and* this, notwithstanding the foot that our own law expressly provides tnat ho cannot ho declared a slanderer except by formal veto of tho Presbytery. No such voto was passed. Hence, to prove himself a slanderer, and therefore aggrieved, and there fore entitled to appeal, ho quoted from tho Scottish law. What did he quote, and bow much? Here it Us “Matters may fall under cognition of Church Judicatories several ways, as first : By accusation where a party formally appeareth as an ocousor and is content mschbcrc crimen, that is, to bind himself to un derlie tbe same censure (ho not proving tho ac cusation') which tho defender would have merit ed had tho libel been proven.” And hero Prof. Patton stopped. Tho very noxt sentence, found upon tbo samo page of tho book (807), ho omitted to road. 1 make tbo quo tation from tho very samo copy from which he road. It is this: “If upon trial there be found any presumptions of gout, or If It appear that there was a fanxa clamosa (common fame) for what is libeled, tbo pursuer in that caso ought not to 6e repute as a calumnious accuser, even though ho succumb to bis probation.”. This language is oven more strong*than that of our own law, and it completely refutes Prof. Patton’s argument. Tho public will certainly agree with mo that it was a strange oversight on tho part of tho prosecutor that ho did not sec this sentence. Geo. C. Noies. OiUOAao, Oct. 20,1871. THE EPISCOPALIANS. Special Dispatch to The Chicago Tribune, PROCEEDINGS IN THE GENERAL CONVENTION. New York, Oct 20.—The discussion in tho Episcopal Convention over the confirmation of tho Bishop-elect of Illinois has now occupied nearly a week. Considerable business was crowd ed into a short open session. A long' necrologi cal report was road, and a proposed amendment to tho canons relating to Bishops who abandoned tho communion of tho Church was submitted. A letter from tho Archbishop of Canterbury was presented in reference to tho alms-Basin which was presented to him at the General Con vention of 1871. The secret session began at noon, and members of the House of Delegates engaged in the discussion lof the confirmation of Dr. Seymour. ' It tv as understood that the clergy had exhausted all their argument, and the principal epoohore wore laymeu, who, from the loudness of their tones, evidently spoke in on excited manner. An attempt was made to close the debate by 5 o’clock, and to take the vote at noon to-morrow, ■ but the effort evidently failed, as the secret session will be resumed. It is, however, understood that the vote will bo takou to-morrow afternoon, and, should that bo the case, business will bo resumed on Thursday with open doors. (To the AteodaUd Preet.) New YonK, Oct. 20.—Tho General Protestant Episcopal Convention continued its session to day. OPEN SESSION. After morning prayer, at tbo suggestion of the Chairman, tbo Convention resolved to sit in open session till noon, to clear oil accumulated busi ness. Tbo Rev. Mr. Durgwino, of the Committee on Canons, moved, and it was adopted, that tbo standing order reported by Ibom for reorganizing tbo Ilouao be committed to thorn. TUB NIOBNB CUBED. The Bov. Dr. Beardsley, of tbo Committee on Prayer-Book, to whom was referred sundry memorials from the Dioceses of Alabama, Albany, Arkansas, Connecticut, Eoaloru Mississippi. Pittsburg, Texas, Vermont, and Wisconsin, all in nearly tbo aamo language, and petitioning this body to take such measures as in their wis dom they may deem proper towards securing for tbo nse in diviuo worship an English version of tbo creed, commonly called Nicwio, as conform able as may bo to the original text, reported un favorably to tbo memorialists. Tbo Committee say the reasons assigned for tbo now transla tion revolve in a cirolo about tbo fllioquo, It is true these words were not in tbo Catholic creed of tbo Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, but since they bavo been so long used by tbo Western Church and inexplicable in an or thodox sense, it would not bccomo tbo body to enter upon measures for revising the creed with a view of striking them out, or of securing an English version as conformable as may bo to tbo original text, until it can bo done in conjunction with tbo churches in communion with the sarao, and with ibis church. Tbo Committee, there fore, respectfully submit for adoption the follow ing resolution: Jlenalted, That the Church ought not to enter upon any consideration of a proposition to revise the Nlceno creed until It can be done in a united council of all tnoeo Autonomous churches using the Kugllub rite and lu communion with this church and the Church of England, DECEASED MEMBERS. The Bev. Dr. Burgess, of Massachusetts, from tbo Committee on Memorials of Deceased Mem bers, submitted a long report, lamenting tho death of tbo Bov. Charles B. Dana, D. D., of Mississippi; Maj. Josiah Luut, of Missouri; Poter W, Gray, of Texas: tbo Bev. P. Brooks, of Ohio; the Bev. Dr. Aimer Jackson, of Con necticut; John Duncan, of Mississippi; Goorgo Anderson Gordon, of Alobama; the Bov. N. W. Taylor Boot, of Maine; William T. Bead, of Del aware; Thomas B. Johnston, LL. D., of New York: Bicbard D. Mooro, M. D., of Georgia; tbo Bov. Francis 11. Banaom, of Alabama; tbo Bov. Bumuol B. Babcock, of Massachusetts; and the Bov. Biobard Sharpe Mason, of North Caro lina. Tbo Committee recommended,tho adop tion by tbo House of suitable resolutions ex pressing their profound regret at tho loss they bad sustained. The report of the Committee was referred back to the Committee, as being incomplete. NEW DIOCESE. Mr. Fairbanks, of Tennessee, offered the fol lowing memorial: That the proviso contained in Art. S of (he Con stitution. whatever may bo its value in reference to older and stronger dloooaca, must neccaiarlly operate as an absolute prohibition of the erection of now dio ceses m those parts of tbo United States where the growth of the church is retarded by the great extent of tenltory and the eparscncss of the population, ren dering duo Episcopal oversight always dilllcult, aud to a considerable degree impractlble, aud where tbo work is altogether of a missionary character. Your memo rialists, therefore, would respectfully urge upon the General Convention of the Church an amendment of Art. 5, by the omission of tho following words: “And such consent shall not bo given by the General Convention until it lias satisfactory assurance of suit able provision for tbo support of su episcopate In tho coutomplatcd new diocese.’* Placed on tho calendar. STANDING COMMITTEES. The Committee on Canons recommended con currence by tho Jloubo hi the amendment to ticc, 7. Canon 18, Title 1, relating to standing Committed! in misHiouary jurisdiction!! oa pro posed by message from tho House of Bishops. Tho report was placed on tbo calendar. DIVISION ON DIOCESES, A message from the House of Bishops was read, concurring with the House of Deputies in the division of tho Dioceses of Ohio aud Michi gan. MISSIONARY TERRITORY. Tho Bov. Dr. Hall, of Long Island, on behalf of tho Committee on Amendments to the Con stitution, to whom was referred a resolution di recting them to consider whether anv Constitu tional amendments wore necessary to empower a General Convention of this Church to set off a missionary territory from the bounds of a dio cese ot tho request of said diocoHC, reported that there was no provision whatever in regard to missions in the Constitution of tho Church. BISHOP -SEYMOUR. Tho House wont into secret session. It was stated when tho recess was taken for lunch that a conclusion would be arrived at to-morrow in tho case of Bishop-elect Heymour. The sessions will be open to toe public from that time. It is endentood that (be vote will be taken in secret. mcflflAcißs moil this iiontuo or runners. At tho afternoon session the following mes sages wore received from tho House of Bishops: (Message No. 37.] Itmlvtd, Tho House of Clerical and Lay Deputies con curring, that Canon IS, Title 1, be amended as follows hr adding the following t Bro, 3. Bishops, priests, and deacons, in their re rtite offices and cures, shall bo diligent in Inculcation, both publicly aud in private, of pastoral teaching for Christian or holi ness of life by the duo maintenance of family worship, the religious training of children, In tho observance of baptismal vows. In such abstinence from gaming and amusements, Involving cruelty to the brute creations, theatrical representation* and tight and vain amusements tending to withdraw affeu lion from spiritual things, as in required by (he epos lallo injunction not to bo conformed to thia world. „ (Message 28.] The House of Bishops gives its consent to tlio conse cration of (he Rev. E. R. Welles as Bishop of Wiscon sin/ and has requested tbs presiding Bishop to lake order for the same. Theso were placed on the calendar. The following message was also received, tnd referred to tho Committee on Canons j ADAMDONitSNT OP COMMUKIOJf. ws wvnoiuniu.ia fMeounge 2y,l .7?#«n/ceJ, The Hourc of dork*! and L\y Deputies concurring, that Canon 8, of Title 2. be amended lo read as follomi: Canon fi, of abandonment of the com tmmton qf tho Church of RUhom. If any Bishop flhall, without availing hlraaelr of the provision* of Beo. 2, of Canon l!l, Title 1, abandon tho communion of this Church, It shall be the duly of tho Standing Committee of the diocese of *aid Bishop to make cer tlilcnte of tho fact to the presiding Bishop, together wtlh,a statement of tbe facte or dccluratlona which prove such abandonment, which oortlficslcn shall be recorded by tho presiding Bishops, and tho presiding Bishop, with tho consent of three Bishops next in seniority, shall then suspend said Bishop from the oxercise of his office and ministry, until such llmoosthsllonso of Bishops shall consent, or refuse to consent, to hla deposition, Notice shall then ho given to said Bishop by tho Bishop receiving tho certificate that, unless he shall, within six months, make declaration that tho facts alleged In said certificate sro false, he will he de posed from the ministry, and if such declaration be not made within six months, ah aforesaid, it shall be (bo duty of the presiding Bishop to convene tho ITouso of Bishops, amt If a majority of (ho whole number of Bishops entitled at tho tlmo lo scats In (ho House of Bishops shall, at such meeting, giro their consent, said presiding Bishop or senior Bishop, pres ent, shall proceed to depose from the mlnlatry tbe Bishop bo certified as abandoning, and pronounco and record In tbo presence of two or raoro Bishops that bo has been ho deposed; prodded, nevertheless that If tho Bishop so certified as abandoning shall transmit to the presiding Bishop a retraction of the acta or dec* laratlons constituting his o(Tours, tho Bishop may, at his discretion, abstain from any further proceedings. It was stated by several delegates that tho qnostioo on the confirmation of Bishop Seymour would bo put to a vote to-morrow afternoon, ond tbo sessions thenceforward will bo conducted openly. MISCELLANEOUS. NATIONAL GERMAN LUTHERAN SYNOD. Special Dispatch to The Chicaao Tribune. Fort Wayne, Ind., Got, 20.— 1n the National Gorman Evangelical Lutheran Synod to-day it was resolved, by a vote of 117 to 20, to remove tho Practical Seminary from St Louis to Spring licld. The appointment of Prof. Stellhom in Concordia College was confirmed, and salaries of the Directors iucreaaod to .131,200 per annum. THE COURTS. Record of Business Transacted Yester- day. DAVID A. GAGE. Corporation Counsel Dickey yesterday filed a bill on behalf of tho city against David A. Gage and his wife to foreclose the trust deed given by Gage to George Taylor in trust for tho city, to secure $507,704, the amount of his default when City Treasurer. Tho land embraced in tho deed has already been repeatedly described, and is well known. Default has boon made in tho pay ment of tho amount as promised. A FAITHLESS F3UEND. Hszcd Cheney filed a bill in the Circuit Conrt against Joseph White, W. JL Bwett, Elizabeth 3. Bush, and H. L, Hammond, to redeem a piece •£ property 231 feet front on Nineteenth street by DO foot on Blackwell stroot. Ohcncy states that, some time in 1857, bo was the happy possessor of this lot. About that time, Joseph White, an old acquaintance and chum in col lege, wroto him, stating that ho had about $3,50(1 ho wished to invent in somo Chi cago land. Cheney replied that ho would sell one-half of Ins lot for just that price, and White bought It, In 1850, White's confidence In the future greatness of Chicago became suddenly shaken, and he wroto to the complainant that ho feared ho would never get his money back. To Cheney, however, the future of the Garden City appeared over glorious, and ho told White that so sura was ho of the value of the land that ho would deed his own half to secure his $3,500. This was kindly accepted, and White's confidence wan recon firmed. Years passed along, until 1801, when Cheney became embarrassed, and desired to sell the laud, but was dissuaded from his purpose hy White, who now became the comforter, and advised him to hold on. as the proportyjwonld doubtless increase in value. In 1870 Cheney again desired to soli, but White was not willing. The complainant says that on those and many other occasions White bos acknowledged iliac ho only hold the title to ono-hulf the land in trust. In Septem ber last, to make a long story abort, Cheney came hofo to boo about the land, but was aston ished to find that it hod boon sold m 1872 to W. H. Swott, of the firm of Swotb & Crouch, who bad previously hod a lease of tho promises. Ho immediately started for Boston,, wboru Wbito lived, to know the reason why tho de fendant professed that he had done no wrong intentionally, and would make matters right, which, however, he bus never done. Complainant claims that White has received a largo sum from rents, that tho property has largely increased in value, and is now worth 812,000 or 815,000, that Swett, who bought it for 89.500, hod knowledge of tho facts, and that White only hold tho title in trust. Complainant therefore usks time it may no roconvoyod to him on payment of tho amount actually duo for taxes and interest. BAM ASHTON AND HIS LITTLE SUIT. Although Air. Hamuol Ashton began a suit against the Times some months ago, the mental shock of the injuries done him, or tbo physical task of drawing bis declaration,—for he wont on tbo economical plan of doing bis own work,— has caused a delay until tbo present time in presenting a statement of bis grievances to tbo public. Ho claims that until tbo SOtb of May, iB7B, bis gonoral reputation for truth and voracity was good—at which timo tbo defendant, '■W. F. Storey, published some articles advising the public to *• Bowaro of Bam," calling him an ‘•lncorrigible ofllco-bflggar," *‘a scamp,” “a man who is on the make,** and “a lawyer of inferior grade,” and a “man of inferior mor als.” For thoso and many other like ossortions, Aashton claims that be has suffered damages to tho amount of at least SIOO,OOO. Fifteen counts covering ISO pages are employed in describing the enormity of tbo defendant’s offenses. DIVOUOE9. Anna Holbein complains (bat her husband, •Henry Jlolboin, is in the habit of “ becoming boAßtly and insanely drunk,” but that neverthe less he is possessed of abotit $15,000 in lauds and chattels. Hmdrunkonncas sho cannot longer onduro; his wealth she would not willingly re linquish ; and she therefore asks that she may bo rid of the former, and yet allowed to retain some of the latter. Annio Baggs filed a bill against James Baggs for a divorce. UNITED STATES COURTS. Ezra White filed a bill against Charles 0. P. Holden, E. B. Sherman, Harriet G. Sherman, Sarah J. Holden, Samuel Colo, aud ttie Com mercial National Bank of Chicago, to foreclose a mortgage for SBO,OOO on Lot H, and a strip of land 12 5-0 foot wide of the nest side of Lot 13, in E. B. Bogors* Subdivision of original Lots 1 and 2of Block 6, in Duncan's Addition. Also, tho whole of Block 1 in tho Canal Trustees’ Subdivision of tho W. y, and tho W. U of tho N. E. K of Soo. 17, 30, li. BANKRUPTCY ITEMS. a. W. Campbell was appointed Provisional Assignee of tho estate of Jacob Eberhordt. lu tho matter of It, W. Dyball, the I 'order of sale of tho bankrupt’s property for $1,600 was confirmed.' SUPERIOR COURT IN BRIEF. The First National Bank commenced a suit for SO,OOO against S. J. Walker. Tho First National Bank of Eau Claire also began a suit for $15,000 against the same party. F. W. Foob began a suit against Emily B. Card and E. J. (lard, claiming $6,000. Spruauco, Preston & Co. sued J. W. Sykes for sl,llOO. William Hafnor brought suit for $2,500 against the Oennan-Amencan Bank of Chicago. fcMay Mulke commenced a suit in trespass against tho Town of Lake, laying damages at tau.ooo. ° CIRCUIT COURT. ' Chat lea H. Bood. Htato’s Attorney, filed an in formation to establish the record of tho plat of Ketttestring’s Addition to Harlem, being a plat of tho northern part of the N, W. li of tieo. 7, 30, 13. THE COUNTY COURT. Grant of guardianship was Issued to John Keefe, under an approved bond of $2,000, as guardian of Katie Connors. - The will of Frapz Oollopt was proven, and let tors tootamouiary loaned to Caroline Collnol, under an approved bond ef 50,000. A. L. Sweet was appointed guardian of James Maroney et al,, inhioro, under an approved bond of $2,000. « In the matter of tho estate of Dennis Traonr, his will was proven, and letter* testamentary lo aned to M. O. O’Connor, under an approved bond of SIB,BOO. Johanna Ortlopp waa appointed admluletra* trix of the estate of Henry Ortlopp, under an ap proved bond of SIO,OOO. Administration wan Issued to Joseph Bohacok as administrator of tbo estate of Prank Bnmni, under an approved bond of SI,OOO. In tho matter of tho estate of KallHo Caproni, administration irsnod to Mary Cainoul. under an approved bund of SO,OOO. Tho claims of John Clark for 81,012.43, and William O. Colo for 8080.47, against Uio estate of Laward I*. Branghal, wore allowed. In tbo matter of tho estate of Conrad Houska ot al., minors, accounla approved and ioavo to BOli personal property at private sale. Grant of guardianship was Issued to Charles M. Campbell, as guardian of Charlotte O. Lake, under an approved bond of $2,000. _ „ THE CALL. i 2 ;’"o Da i28 M m«r n " 610 U7 ’ 119 > 121 - 122 - 123 ' J™*** JAME9QH—III l 0 182, OXCOpt 112 and Judge Rogers— loo to 125, ' Judge Booth— l7l to 100. Judge Tree— Bl to 101, except 82, 07,00,92, 03, 07, 103* JUDGMENTS. Superior Count—Coheerhions—A. Loob k Brothers vs. James Maloney, $323.35. —Tames Forsythe & Co. vi, John nml Jacob linger, $720.60. Junes Murphy—Swift’s Iron and Steel Works th T. K. Holden, $110,40, F. Ilhouor et al. tb. Aswsld Kuhllschky, $420.8.1.—A. L. Hale et al. vs, M. D. Brown, $077.53.-11. B. Barclay et at. vs, A. O. and O F. Badger and W, W. Hilton, $5,3.10.00.—8. B. Mann et al. vs. William and Richard Baxter, slo9.33.—Same vs. A. D. Hchaedel, $205.60.—P. Whalen vs. O L NlohofTandO. Tr0081,5750.41.—F. 11, Luehrs vs j’ A. Brown ; verdict, $793,44, and motion for now trial. JUDoxOAnT—John Milton ct al. vs, A. O. Badger. |15,076.—J0c0b Kelley ctal. vs, Isaao H. Van Slyke, JtiDdK Jamkrok— AlonzoElwoll va. Ambrose Fax* verdict, SIOO, and motion fop now trial. OinouiTCoußT—Jodoe Booth— Joseph Hchlemltz anor vs. Alice Dupont s verdict, $53, and motion for new trial.—Philip Kruft cl al. vs. Moritx Wcyh ; ver dict, s62.—George D. Lincoln vs, J, Sherman Hall and W. J. Pope; .Indgment for $90.1.59 restored.— Samuel P. Leach vs. Frank Leach and James Nottingham: verdict, $463.09. b ’ Judqk Rooebs— Peter Johnson vs. A. G. Webster ami W. W. Perkins ; verdict, $08.45, and motion for new trial. supreme court of Illinois, northern grand DIVISION*. Ottawa, 111., Oct. 20.—Tho Supreme Court mot pursuant to adjournment, with all the Judges present. MOTIONS DECIDED. 410, Stewart Kiel vs, Don Aioiuu Cummings; appeal from Livingston. Motion by appellee for extension of time to Ulo briefs; motion allowed. 417. Henry Bailsman vs. O. P. Blsscll etal.; appeal' from Livingston. Same motion; motion allowed. 716. Grey ot al. vs. Morey; name. CO3. Motion allowed, and cause continued at tho coat of the appellant. 004. The Peoria, Pekin k Jacksonvilleßallroad Com pany vb. William aIL Barton; appcol from Peoria. Same order. COS, Henry Kruse vb. John Wilson; appeal from Peoria. Same order. 1102. Nelson K. Farnhnm vb, Helen M. Fimhnm ; appeal from Superior Court of Cook. Motion by the appellant for time to file additional records. Motion denied—comes too late. 203. William B. Hsyos ot al. vs. WlUlnm Pormnlco • appeal from Superior Court of Cook. Moliou to set aside the order to dismiss the appeal, and for leave to lilo abstracts and briefs. Same order. 495. John King, Jr., vs. Nathaniel P, Wilder et al.; appeal from Cook. Tima extended twenty days for appellant to file briefs and amend record. 316. Motion denied. 80S. Ton days’ additional time allowed appellee to flic briefs. 4CO. Time extended to the 28th lust, to flls briefs, :WO. Chicago, Burlington k Quincy Railroad Com pany w. John C. Chamberlain etal.; appeal from Cook. Order of submission sot aside, and time ex tended ten days for appellee to reply. 420,v2/'tiou allowed, and leave given to Ale briefs. *377. Judgment reversed and cause remanded by re quest of parties. 91. Motion for supersedeas overruled and decision reserved to Anal hearing of the cause. 371. Time extended live days for appclloo to Alo briefs. 279. Same order. 394. Cause stricken f\ m the docket. 720. Howell vs. Goodrich. This was a case tried in 1873, and reversed and not remanded. This is a mo tion to remand. Wo think tho Judgment iu the Jus tice's Court is conclusive, and we therefore refuse to remand the cause. - UORNSKS will bo grauled to John J. Jones, Charles Fowler, and John W. Jones to practice law in this State. CALL 0(* THE DOCKET. 021. John F. Bailey et al. vs. Horatio Seymour etah: appeal from Bui>crior Cook. Takeu on call. (122. L. O. T. Freer vs. John K. Bailey ct al., Asslgn ocb ; appeal from Superior Cook. Same. 022. Gooigo W, Gage tb. Mechanics’ National Bank of Chicago; appeal from Cook. Same. 021. Ambrose Trumbro vfl. Tho People, etc, ; ap peal from La Salle. Same. 025. John Coldvvell vs. Bulb W. Brower; appeal from LaSalle. Same. 820. Vera Bates King ct el. vb. John T. Avery ot aU; appeal from Superior Court of Cook. Same. 027. William M. Sturgcs vs. Tho First National Bank of Chicago; appeal from Superior Court of Cook. Same, 028. J. & W. Graveaon vs, Charles Tohoy ot ol,; error to Cook. Same. 029. John Cocbrono vs. Jane E. Tuttle; error to Cook. Some. 030. James Pratt ot al. vs. Horatio Stone; appeal from Cook. Same. 637. Continued. Rehearing docket—Nob. 2, 5, 7, 13, 27, 28, SO, S3, Taken on call. No. 12. Passed, and elands on motion, 39. Oral argument by Kales and Hebert for ap pellant, and Winded und Goudy. 6’r«ial Ditpatch to The Vh\eago Tribune, Ottawa, 111., 111., Oct. 20—In caso No. 601, tho City of Chicago vs. Washington Ilesing, Ad ministrator, tho Court, by Judge McAllister, mado a ruling to-day striking the case from tho docket, on tho ground that uo an poal-houd bad been tiled. Mr. Fran cis Adams, on behalf of tho city, has this evening sued out a writ of error to re verse tho judgment, and to-morrow a motion will bo made by him to transfer tho record, abstract, and briefs to tho causo in error, ond that tho writ of error bo mado a supersedeas. Tho case —which is ono arising from personal injuries— is specially tho business of City-Attorney Jamieson. LAKE ZURICH. Lake: Zimion, Oct. 10,1874. To the Editor of The Chicago U'ribune: Sm: Who in Chicago, except those who knew Both Paine and a few zealous knights of rod and gun, over know that wo had ft Lake Zurich, only 110 miles away, until brief mention of it was made in your columns, in the early summer, by some grateful visitor? I, certainly, am one among many to whom this communication brought the first knowledge of its existence mid hint of its attractions. During the past sum mer, however, enough have found it out to tax to the utmost the limited accommodations which havo as yet boon provided for the entertainment of visitors. Its easy access from Chicago (being only 4 miles by stage from Dar lington) ; the varied beauties of lake, and groves, and pleasant drives; the facilities for boating and fishing ; and the good-cheer to be found in its houses of entertainment,—cer tainly render it aMoalrablo resort for summer sojourn or occasional visit; while, added to those attractions, the excellence of the fall fishing, and the abundance of game iu season, now oiler especial inducement to sportsmen, and to .those who, from choice or necessity, take thqlr vacation iu those pleasant October days. There is now fair duck-shooting for export hunters on the lake; wiulo Fox Itivor, only 5 miles away, swarms with duck and othor game. This has boon a day of superb sport for those who Lave tried the fishing. Twenty-six fine pickerel have been taken with rod and reol, iu ouo piaco, by a smart part)*, besides some bass. Wo lost several splendid follows; who proved too much for shill or taoklo, and, after a bravo figbt, made off with hook, lino, and sinker. One of those taken turned the scale at 13 pounds. A lady was fortunate enough to hook him, but masculine assistance was called to the rescue be fore ho could bo landed. Ik seemed impossible that the slender tackle could stand tho strain. What a gallant fight it was! What a small eternity ot anxious suspense before ho was tired of fruitless rushes and lay paosivo beside tho boat I What a moment of triumph whoa he was securely grasped by eager hands and lifted safely into tho boatl To-day’s snort glvos promise of ft good pickerel season. If yon oomo to fish, don’t boliovo tho man who says that it is too lato or too early in the season, or'that tho day is too hot or too cold, or that tho wind blows north or blows south; but catch your minnows, be sure of your tuoklo, anchor in duop water, go at work resolutely and patiently, and you wilt bo reason ably sure of excellent sport. If, however, tho fish aro obstinate and resist all your blandish ments of minnow, worm, spoon, or mutton, you can drop the rod, pull over into (ho rice-marsh at tho head of tho lake, amt take your chunccu at tho duck; ami, if the duck don’t lly well, and you have no sporlman’s pride to preserve, you can havo revenge on tho mud hens,—only don’t tako thorn in for ducks. If you tiro of this, aud aro fond of handling a sail boat In a good breeze, you can pull back to tho landing, whoro tho whlw salts of tho Flora gleam In tin, imullgnt—or, If you know how to h.an 110 a fnnl homo, perhaps mine host Pol will lot V o,i mount tho sullioy boblnd Orcopor, who 5003 wSy down to tho lion, and promisee ellTl bolter Ibingsi or •■Charloy,” who will noon touch do! AUd to those, bud many other onjovehlo 01. porlonccs, tho ovor-pronout hoauty of tho laha ami nlitumn-Untecl woods, ami tho doop, roatfnl !nni«a«n Q ii“ g ovorl , ull > enilho must bo hard to ploaao who cauuot greatly oujoy a fow Java lloro ' Pmoiion. THIRD TERM. Oon. Dix Should Speak Out. An Ontapoken Article from an Admin* istration Paper. Pram th* New Tork Timet, THIRD TERM, - Mncb has boon said, and much will doubtless still bo said, about "Cieflarlsm” and tho dosirs of tho President to seouro a ro-olocllon in 1870, Tho facts of tbo case soom, however, to Ho in a very small compass. Thoro oppoara to be no certain ground for be hoving that Gen. Grant has any idea of working for a third term. Ho has said nothing whatever on tho subject, onowayorthoothor. Butltmust bo admitted that a newspaper at Washington, which tho Administration undoubtedly controls, —wo may almost say owns,—has on several oc caslono published articles, supposed to b« !!l nf 5Pj rct V’ which defend and advocate tho third-term scheme. These articles bare boon quoted all over the country as repre senting the real wishes and ooinlons of Gen. Grant. It is quite possible that tbo President know nothing of those articles until they actual ly appeared. Ho may yet find that a bought and paid-ior “organ" has power to do him harm.— to misrepresent him, ami place him la a false .position before the public,—but no power to do him good. Independent support Is suro to bo HWrtUme. with adverse criticism, ud to forf h0 " c ° rt “ llll y medo no secret of nla«! act *'9 n °t brook adverse criticism. y i t° Wll lmvo “ or R anH " repre sent him: and ho must not ho surprised If they 5?” t0 x 9 18 , c1 . 1i0f ‘ There is nooatlmat mgbow many of bis supportors tho “homo °SP. a .9, Washington has estranged from him, place ® Von m 110 now flll PPortera in their Again, the Opposition papers hare been assort iup for a year and a half that Qon. Grant is do ljJo Republican nomiuatiou In 1870 if ho possibly can—that he is bringing all his enormous patronage and inlluenco to bear on that particular object. Those statements, inces santly repeated, have derived some show of plausibility from the articles In the Washington paper, which, if not actually " inspired," could not Imvo appeared without aauollou from Uich quarters. " Thus it has happened, iu one way and another, that the third-term bugbear begins to bo serious ly regarded by tbo people. They think there mwst bo something m it, or they would not hear so much talk on tho subject. The consequence is that the Republican party is really being in jured by it. And this injury is all tbo more vexa tious because the Republican party has never given tbo slightest countenance to this project. If it has been entertained seriously at all, it has only Leon by a little knot of persons who havd their own ends to servo. Tho party is innocent of any complicity in the scheme. This being tho case, wo no longer boo anv rea son why Republicans should bo sileut on tho question. If they choose to speak out, by all moaus lot them do it; and the drat to speak should bo Qeu. Dix, who is at present being struck at over other people’s shoulders, and who is described by tho Democrats as an active con federate in tho tbird-tonn M plot.” Wo see no reason why Gen. Dix should allow himself to bo hounded down by a /also charge. His defeat would bo a very great misfortune to tho Stats, and alt proper moans should bo taken to avert disaster. If Gou. Dix fools oa all sensible men mnst do on this question, consideration for tho “ feelings of others " should not. induce him to keep silence, for it is pretty certain that tho “ others " have not much consideration for him. LOCAL LETTERS. THE UEABON WDY IT DISTD&DB TTTKM - , To the Editor of The Chicago Tribune. bin: “ Witness " makes piteous complaint that some stonecutters employed on tho now custom house aro allowed to disturb tho quiet of Sun day by tho click of their tools. “Those who love tho Sabbath," ho says, “ are much disturbed in their meditations thoiehy." Now, 1 do nob wish hero to discuss tho Sunday question, but I wish to call attention to tho real ani mus of zealous. Sabbatarians as shown in this complaint. Tho noiso of a stonecutter's tools could not bo a very serious disturbance of tho meditations of any one shut up in a house a block away, or across tho street. In the week time, tho idea of such noiso interfering with meditation would bo simply absurd. Tho real source of tho disturbance to “those who lovo the Sabbath," methinks, is simply this: they think to themselves, “ over yonder are men who don’t be lieve as wo do ; down with them." Then bad. intolerant feelings rise, driving out at once all tho calm, loving religious, modilationegthat they had been indulging, and they feel decidedly “disturbed.” “What," they say, “ docs this mean? Wo have laws compelling men to ob serve our sacred day, whether they bollovo in it or not. Lot those laws bo enforced." But “Witness” does not know bat those stonecutters are Israelites, or perhaps Seven- Bay Baptists. In that case, as the law permits their labor, "Witness,” perchance, would not bo disturbed if ho know the fact. I can’t help recanting these outcries against Sabbath breaking as on & par with those made by the old Pharisees, . when they beheld Jesus at work getting liis breakfast in the corn-field on the Sabbath day. Christ's reply nt that time is sulUclent, oven yet, as a reply to all worshipers of sacred days. I holiovo it is right that those engaged In devotional exorcises should be protected from disturbing noises, so far as reasonable, at all times, and particularly on Sunday, but \re must not take everybody’s whim os to what is a disturbing noise. Whj is nu orchestrion or a brass baud more disturb ing than an organ ? Why is street music, if iu a funeral procession on Sunday, quito unob jectionable. but if escorting a 'Turner Society very annoying to religious people. 1 recollect a year or two ago a clergyman in this city made complaint in The Tiubdse of a hand disturbing his congregation at sorvico by passing in full blast. The next day ho neologized, saying that if they had known it was* a funeral they would not have minded it. Religious intolerance is the inspiration of all these complaints. Chicago, Oct. 20, 1874. CLANK STREET SIDEWALKS. To the Editor of The Chktvio Tribune; Sm: As u taxpayer, I would like to call the atten tion of The Tiudune, aud, bv moans of Tire Tiuuune. the attention of tholloard of Public Works, to the outrageous condition of Clark street sidewalks between Washington and Ran dolph streets. This portion of Clark street, in wot weather, is positively impassable to ladies, unless they are willing to destroy theirdresses, op wftdo ankle-deep in tbo mud *aud slush. The state of affairs on the streets and sidewalks, hounding tho old Court-House Square, is every day becoming more Intolerable, aud unless Ur. “ Tom Alackiu "ia immediately overhauled by Supt Watson, that individual will ef fectually oloso navigation iu tho vicinity of tho old Court-House 'Square by moans of his old junk, distorted iron booms, galvanized tm drays, ami derricks, tbo sight of which un couth objects frightens horses and causes many a runaway accident. This individual, who bought tho old Court-House, but not the square and ad joining streets, not satisfied with having torn op tho fiaggod sidewalks (hi open violation of a city ordinance), and appropriating them to his own use, thereby more than realizing tho sum which ho originally paid for the privilege of removing the debris, is now engaged ia constructing on unsightly wooden fence 10 foot high, ostensibly for tho purpose of protecting his old stono and worthless junk, but virtually to rout for advertising purposes. How long will tho authorities permit this roan to uso tbo old Court-House Square ah personal property, teoiv ing up tho sidewalks with tho most unblushing offrontry, making pedostrianism impossible in the finest business street of tho city, and now, to cap tho climax, and, as it wore, break's the camel's hack, construct an unsightly wooden fence, half a mile long, to ho by him (Maokin), leased to tho slobbering, dirt-producing bill poster fraternity ? As Indignant Citizen, (Juicauo, Oct. liO, 1674. Tho writer of the above is mistaken as to tho fence around tho square. Mr. Mackm has noth ing to do with it. It is being constructed in ac cordance with a permit executed by tho Board ot County Commissioners, 9 Hudidqas.