their order. We expect to prove them all-but one link at a time.

The Court intimated to Mr. Hubbell that he might proceed.

Mr. Hubbell then argued, that, as the respondents do not set up the pretence that the act of the Clerks refusing to receive the commissions of the claimants from the detruded synods, was a mistake, the relators could not bring evidence to prove that it was not a mistake; that they were precluded by the rules of evidence, from going into an inquiry as to the designs of the adverse party. If the relators (he said) can prove their positions, before adverted to, respecting the incipient measures for organizing the Assembly of 1838, then they have laid the basis of their superstructure; but they must not be allowed to anticipate our defence against their allegations. If the proceedings of 1837 dismembered and destroyed the General Assembly, then our trustees, previously elected, are entitled to hold. If this were alleged, it would defeat the issue chosen by the relators. It would put them immediately out of Court. They therefore admit that the trustees, which were elected in 1837, were legally chosen, notwithstanding they were elected after the acts of excision, of which they complain.

If, then, on the other hand, as appears to be admitted by them, no dismemberment of the General Assembly was effected, what can be the influence of the evidence offered by the counsel? The General Assembly of 1838 was the judge of the qualifications of its own members; and in this respect was entirely an independent body. The rejection of commissioners by the Clerks in 1838, was not, and could not be influenced by the proceedings of the General Assembly of 1837, except so far as they furnish us with an excuse, or a reason, if you please, should we choose to employ it, for our defence.

The relators themselves contend that the proceedings of the General Assembly of 1838 ought not to have been influenced by what took place in 1837. They say that the acts of 1837 were null and void, and that therefore the rejection of certain commissions by the Clerks, in 1838, was a bad procedure; and shall we be denied the advantage of these admissions, by their anticipating our defence? We will show the reason for the rejection of those commissions, in our own time, and do not intend to allow our case to be anticipated and mangled by our opponents.

Judge Rogers said that he did not like, at this stage of the proceedings, to decide the question, whether the testimony now offered involved the merits of the case or not. He did not see how the defendants could do without it. It might be admitted now, unless they had something further to object to its character; and its bearing could be decided afterwards.

Mr. Ingersoll said he should like to say one word more, perhaps half a dozen, in explanation; whether the testimony were admitted

or not.

If it resembled the testimony offered by reading the minutes yesterday, was intended to prove the same thing, it was merely irrele

vant; but if it proceeded one step further, it was decidedly objectionable, inasmuch as it presented a false-a dangerous issue, and might be highly injurious and fatal to the defendants. There were two courses which the New School party might have taken. They might have applied for a mandamus, and this court would, at once, have reinstated them in the full enjoyment of their rights, if they had been unjustly deprived of any right. If, as they allege, one hundred and eighty thousand worshippers were, without form or reason, excluded from their connexion with the Presbyterian church, they could have brought an action, such as was instituted against Mr. Breckinridge, Dr. Elliott, and Dr. Plumer, in May last, and this court would have restored them. They had not, however, chosen to take that course as a remedy for their grievances. They chose to try a bolder course. They chose to meet in Ranstead court and offer certain motions and resolutions, and at a certain period of their proceedings, to resolve the body into its original elements. It was a bold and intrepid measure, surely. But they did not succeed, for having reached a certain point of these proceedings, and meeting some unexpected obstacles, they openly seceded from the body. They withdrew from the General Assembly, and created another Assembly, and it is for them to prove that theirs is the true and lawful General Assembly. The question now at issue is, did they secede in a proper manner? Under this writ of quo warranto, the remedy of their own selection, it is for them to show their title.

They say that we acted irregularly in the General Assembly of 1838-and therefore ask the judgment of this court in ouster: but the General Assembly of 1837 was entirely dissolved by the very terms of its adjournment. Look at what is prescribed in the

constitution.

Form of Government, Chapter X11. sect. 8. Each session of the Assembly shall be opened and closed with prayer. And the whole business of the Assembly being finished, and the vote taken for dissolving the present Assembly, the moderator shall say from the chair-" By virtue of the authority delegated to me, by the church, let this General Assembly be dissolved, and I do hereby dissolve it, and require another General Assembly, chosen in the same manner, to meet day of A. D. after which he shall pray and

at

on the

return thanks, and pronounce on those present, the apostolic benediction."

The General Assembly of 1837, then was dissolved, entirely extinguished and annihilated, as though it had never had an existence. It was not an adjournment of the General Assembly to meet again, nor a curia advisare vult, as is the practice of the Supreme Court of this state. As to the General Assembly of 1837, then, when it adjourned there was an end of every thing. It was dissolved. If any had been unjustly excluded from that Assembly, their proper remedy was to apply for re-admission to the General Assembly of 1838. They should have so applied. But instead of doing so, they chose to secede, and it is not competent for them now to prove that the proceedings of the General Assembly of 1837 were wrong, but they must prove that their secession was right, and conducted properly. We say that they never were excluded from the General Assembly of 1838, that they never sought

admission there in a proper manner; that they never gave that General Assembly an opportunity to decide their case.

Judge Rogers said that the evidence appeared to be one link in connexion with the testimony which had already been admitted. The proceedings of the Assembly of 1837, were necessary to explain the proceedings of 1838; and if not necessary for the relators, it would be for the respondents.

The Court therefore overruled the objection, and admitted the minutes of 1837, as evidence in the case.

The plaintiffs then read in evidence, an extract from the minutes of 1837, page 520, viz.

Synods and Presbyteries.

The following summary account of synods and presbyteries, together with the statistical reports of presbyteries in detail, present the Presbyterian Church as it was at the commencement of the sessions of the General Assembly. During these sessions, four of these synods, with all their respective presbyteries, were declared to be no longer a part of the Presbyterian church in the United States of America, viz. the Synod of the Western Reserve, [see Minutes, page 440,] and the Synods of Utica, Geneva and Genessee, [see Minutes, page 444,] and the Third Presbytery of Philadelphia was dissolved, [see Minutes, page 472.] The Assembly directed the Stated Clerk, having inserted a note to this effect, to publish the statistics of these judicatories for the past year. [See Minutes, page 494.]

The General Assembly of 1837, at the commencement of their sessions, had under their care twenty-three synods, comprising one hundred and thirty-five presbyteries, viz.

2. The Synod of Utica, containing the five Presbyteries of St. Lawrence, Watertown, Oswego, Oneida, and Otsego.

3. The Synod of Geneva, containing the nine Presbyteries of Geneva, Chenango, Onondaga, Cayuga, Tioga, Cortland, Bath, Delaware, and Chemung.

4. The Synod of Genessee, containing the six Presbyteries of Genessee, Ontario, Rochester, Niagara, Buffalo, and Angelica.

9. The Synod of the Western Reserve, containing the eight Presbyteries of Grand River, Portage, Huron, Trumbull, Cleveland, Maumee, Lorain, and Medina,

In explanation of the document just read, Mr. Randall said he would read the following extract from the same minutes, (1837,) page 414.

In answer to a request of the Stated Clerk, for direction in making out the general statistical table, for the current year, the Assembly ordered that he should insert in that table, the statistics in his hands for the past year, of those judicatories that have been declared by the General Assembly to be no longer parts of the Presbyterian Church, and to insert a marginal note to this effect; and that hereafter, those statistics shall not appear in the general table published by the General Assembly.

The plaintiffs next offered in evidence, a list of the presbyteries within the bounds of the four excinded synods, with the dates of their erection by the proper judicatories, by which it appeared that there were connected with those synods, twenty-eight presbyteries, five hundred and ninety-nine churches, with five hundred and nine ministers, and fifty thousand four hundred and eighty-nine communicants, as officially reported; and by an estimate founded on the number of churches not reported, the whole number of communicants is stated at fifty-seven thousand seven hundred and twentyfour.

The list is here subjoined.

Rev. Eliakim Phelps was called to testify to the correctness of the statistical list, but he was not examined; the counsel for the respondents, being informed that it was prepared from the published minutes, agreed to admit it without proof, subject, however, to be corrected, if any error should be discovered in it.

Mr. Randall then said, there is another case, which I think proper to mention here. Though somewhat isolated in its character, it yet forms a link in the chain of testimony which hitherto had been kept out of view. I now speak of the Third Presbytery of Philadelphia, which contains thirty-two churches, thirty-three ministers, and four thousand eight hundred and fifty communicants. At the same meeting of the General Assembly, (in 1837,) this presbytery was declared to be dissolved-but without attaching, according to the principles of the constitution, the ministers and churches belonging thereto to other presbyteries. They were left to apply for admission to other presbyteries, and, of course, to incur the risk of being told, if they applied, "We do not know you." This act, like the excision of the synods, was wholly without citation, trial, or proof, and without accusation.

Mr. Randall then read from the minutes of the General Assembly of 1837, beginning with the organization, as follows: (page 411.)

The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, met agreeably to appointment, in the Central Presbyterian Church, in the city of Philadelphia, on Thursday, the 18th day of May, 1837, at 11 o'clock, A. M.; and was opened with a sermon by the Rev. John Witherspoon, D. D., the Moderator of the last Assembly, &c.

The Standing Committee of Commissioners reported that the following persons present have been duly appointed Commissioners to this General Assembly.

Here he presented the list of members of the General Assembly of 1837, pp. 411 to 414, showing that every one of the presbyteries in the four synods of Utica, Geneva, Genessee and Western Reserve, were represented, their delegates amounting, in all, to the number of fifty-one, of whom thirty-five were ministers, and sixteen elders. These voted in the choice of moderator, and up to a certain period, took a part in all the proceedings of the Assembly.

From the same minutes, page 419, remarking that here commenced the record of that series of acts which resulted in the excision of these synods, he read as follows:

Monday morning, May 22d.—The Assembly met, &c.

The Committee to whom overture No. 1, viz:

"The memorial and testimony of the Convention," had been referred, made a report, in part; and their report was read and accepted.

It was moved to adopt so much of the report as relates to doctrinal errors, whereupon a motion was made to amend the report by adding to the specification of errors, certain others, when, after some debate it was

Resolved, That the whole subject be postponed, and made the order of the day for to-morrow.

Resolved, That that part of the report which refers to the Plan of Union between Presbyterians and Congregationalists in the new settlements, adopted in 1801, be made the order of the day for this afternoon.

Monday afternoon, &c.

The Assembly proceeded to the order of the day, viz. That part of the report of the committee on overture, No. 1, which relates to the "Plan of Union" adopted in 1801.

The report was read and adopted, in part, as follows, viz: