Martyrdom in Missouri, Volume 1 (of 2)

by W. M. Leftwich

Church in Louisiana.

The history of the Church property case in Louisiana, Missouri, furnishes peculiarities of a nature that will bear a little attention to the details. It is about as follows:

In 1853 a deed to a lot of ground in the city was made by Edward G. McQuie and wife to Edwin Draper, John S. Markley, John W. Allen, Samuel O. Minor, John Shurmur, Joseph Charleville, Ivey Zumwalt, David Watson and Thomas T. Stokes, as trustees of the M. E. Church, South, to hold in trust for the use and benefit of said Church. Consideration, $500. Soon thereafter a commodious church edifice was erected on the lot and dedicated to the worship of God in the name and for the benefit of the M. E. Church, South. It was occupied and used by them unmolested until 1862.

In the meantime vacancies had occurred in the original Board of Trustees by the death of David Watson and the removal from the State of Thos. T. Stokes.

These vacancies had been filled by the regular authority of the Church, and according to law, by the appointment and election of Samuel S. Allen and Wm. A. Gunn, as seen in the records of the Quarterly Conference for Louisiana Station. But this fact did not prevent the tools of the M. E. Church, North, from devising a bold scheme that would put them in possession of the Church property. They could not claim that the property was originally deeded to the M. E. Church and afterward wrested from the rightful owners, as in the cases at Lexington, Independence, LaGrange, Boonville, etc. That plea could not serve them in this case, and to accomplish their purpose they devised another. It was this. An ex parte petition was filed in the Louisiana Court of Common Pleas, setting forth the fact of the above mentioned vacancies in the Board of Trustees, and praying the Court to fill the vacancy occasioned by the death of David Watson by the appointment of Charles Hunter, and to appoint Robt. S. Strother to fill the vacancy occasioned by the removal of T. T. Stokes. This petition, as it now stands on the records of the Court, was signed by Edwin Draper, John S. Markley, John W. Allen, Ivey Zumwalt, Samuel O. Minor, Jos. Charleville and John Shurmur, and was granted July 21, 1862.

On the second day thereafter (July 23, ’62,) Samuel O. Minor, John W. Allen, Ivey Zumwalt, W. A. Gunn and S. S. Allen filed a petition asking the court to vacate the order appointing Hunter and Strother, and set forth the following facts why the order should be set aside: They admitted the vacancies occasioned by the death of Watson and the removal of Stokes, but set forth from the Church records that on the 21st day of January, 1861, Rev. W. M. Newland, then preacher in charge, nominated, and the Quarterly Conference elected, W. A. Gunn to fill the vacancy occasioned by the death of said Watson, and that the other vacancy was filled by the nomination and election of Samuel S. Allen, April 23, 1862, Rev. W. G. Miller then being preacher in charge. They, therefore, allege that at the time of the appointment by the court of Hunter and Strother no vacancy existed, the same having been filled according to the law of the Church made and provided, and therefore the order of the court ought to be vacated.

They further represented that the names of John W. Allen, Samuel O. Minor and Ivey Zumwalt were used in the original petition without their knowledge or consent, and insisted that the order should be set aside for that reason.

Both the petitioners and community were astonished when the court refused to vacate the order, and the only recourse was an appeal to the Supreme Court of Missouri on a writ of error. It may not be improper to state in this place that Judge Gilchrist Porter, then on the bench of that Judicial District, presided; and Thos. J. C. Fagg, then Judge of the Louisiana Court of Common Pleas, was counsel for the M. E. Church, North, in his own court.

The cause was argued July 24, ’62, and the petition overruled. The petitioners filed a bill of exceptions and the case went up to the Supreme Court.

The case was not heard in the Supreme Court until January 10, 1866, when the judgment of the court below was reversed and the case dismissed upon the ground of irregularity and informality.

As this case may involve several legal points of importance to the Church, it may be proper to transfer so much of the decision and rulings of the court to these pages as will be of general application.

S. S. Allen, Esq., for plaintiffs in error, submitted the following points of law, and the court ruled accordingly:

“1. The Church, by means of its preacher in charge and Quarterly Conference, had full and ample power to fill vacancies in its board of trustees (see ‘Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church,’ p. 254).

“2. Over the Church, as such, the temporal courts of this country most clearly have no jurisdiction, except to protect them, and to protect the civil rights of others, and to preserve the public peace, none of which were necessary in this case (see Baptist Church in Hartford, vs. Wittnell, 3 Paige, Ch. 301; Sawyer vs. Cipperly, 7 Paige, 281 etc.)

“3. There were no vacancies in the board when the court below acted, said vacancies having been duly filled by the preacher and Conference long before the court acted. (See ‘Minutes of the Conference.’)

“Dyer & Campbell for defendants in error.

“Lovelace, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.”

In this opinion the court holds the following language, after a statement of the case:

“The case is not free from difficulties. The court below seemed to be acting under the statute concerning ‘Trusts and Trustees.’ But this case does not fall within the statute, for that only provides for appointing trustees in deeds of trust made to secure the payment of a debt or other liability. (R. C. 1855, p. 1554, §1.) So in this case, it would seem that the parties must resort to their equitable remedy to prevent the trust from being defeated for want of a trustee.

“There are more informalities than appear upon the record, but they are not alluded to by either party. The question presented by the parties is, whether there are vacancies in the Board of Trustees to be filled. Both parties admit that there have been vacancies, but the defendants contend that the vacancies have been filled by the Church according to the rule and discipline of that Church, and the evidence proves conclusively that the board of trustees for church purposes, under the rules and discipline of the Church, had been filled; but whether, under the peculiarities of this deed, the legal title to the property described in the deed will descend to the trustees thus appointed seems doubtful.

“The uses and purposes for which the property is to be used is not expressed in the deed, but the property is merely deeded to the petitioners, naming them, together with Watson and Stokes, describing them as ‘Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South,’ and to them and their successors in office, lawfully appointed, forever, for a consideration of five hundred dollars. It is not stated, except as mentioned in the deed, though it may perhaps be inferred that the petitioners at the time of the conveyance were in fact trustees of the Church, appointed by the Church under its rules and discipline; nor does it appear who furnished the money to purchase the property. If it was furnished by the Church, then, most certainly, the court, upon proper application, would order these plaintiffs to convey it to such person or persons as the Church might name, to hold it for their use and benefit; but if, on the contrary, the money was furnished by these plaintiffs, the naked fact that the grantors in the deed have described them as ‘Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South,’ would not of itself operate to destroy their interest in the property. In the former case they would hold the property in trust for the Church, and would be compelled to convey to any persons the Church might nominate to receive it; but this could only be done upon proof of the fact that the Church furnished the money with which the property was purchased.

“3. Upon the face of this deed the property belongs to the grantees in the deed; and to divest them of the title it must be shown aliunde that the purchase money was furnished by the Church. The legal title is in the grantees; but in case somebody else furnished the purchase money, then the grantees will be regarded as holding the property for whomsoever furnished the purchase money.

“If, then, the above views be correct, there can be no question of vacancy in the Board of Trustees as respects this property until the question of the title is first settled. If it belongs to the grantees, no trustees are necessary; they can manage it for themselves. If the Church is entitled to it, then the grantees must first be divested of their title, and the title vested in some person or persons for the use of the Church. The proceedings here are irregular and premature. The judgment must be reversed and the cause dismissed. The other judges concur.”

Pending this case Mr. Allen, counsel for plaintiffs in error, made a very able argument upon the relation of the Church to the civil government. He took high ground upon the separate and distinct jurisdictions of Church and State, as understood by our fathers and as developed in this country under the genius of our government. He characterized severely the efforts made by partisan fanatics to confound in fact what was distinct in law, and to unite the Church with the State for purposes of ecclesiastical power and political corruption. His argument was well worth preserving.

The decision of the Supreme Court in effect sent the case back for a trial of the rights of property, for which suit was immediately brought in the Circuit Court. But under the operation of the order of the Court of Common Pleas of June 31, 1862, the church property passed out of the possession of the M. E. Church, South, to whom it was originally deeded, and into the possession of the self and court-constituted Board of Trustees, for the use and benefit of the M. E. Church, North. The property was used by them from July 21, 1862, to some time in the spring of 1867. In March, 1867, a letter was addressed by a number of the trustees to the presiding elder and preacher in charge of Louisiana Station, who were supposed to have influence with the authorities of the Church then holding and using the property, asking their kindly offices and services in an honorable and amicable adjustment of the difficulty and the return of the property to the rightful owners.

The following answer was elicited:

“Louisiana, Mo., March 21, 1867.

“Messrs. Sam. S. Allen, W A. Gunn and others, members of the M. E. Church, South, Louisiana, Mo.:

“Gentlemen: Your communication of the 4th instant is received and would have been answered sooner but we have not had time since its reception for consultation until yesterday. We would gladly do anything in our power to bring about an honorable adjustment of the matter of which you write, but as the controversy is between you and the trustees of the church, we are wholly without authority in the premises, and therefore have no right to advise the board of trustees how they shall settle the matter. If we had the power to act, our action would fully recognize the asserted rights of the trustees until the proper legal tribunal decides the question. We will not, however, be in the way of any compromise which the parties may be able to make. With assurances of personal regard, we are, gentlemen,

“Yours very truly,

“Nat. Shumate.

“J. S. Barwick.”

They declined to interfere in the matter as long as they could hold and use the Church property. But, as in other cases, when they found that they had no shadow of title, and could not even frame another pretext for holding on to the property, they were magnanimous enough to propose or accept a compromise by which the property could go back into the hands of the rightful owners without the humiliation of being forced by law to pay damages and rents, which a common honesty demanded.

The suit for title was stricken from the docket without being heard, and those who bought the lot and built and paid for the church are again in possession of their own; albeit they were kept out of the use of it for nearly five years, and then received it in a condition that required extensive repairs, for which those who had used and damaged it had no disposition to pay a single dollar. Thus one by one the property that was taken from the Church, South, was restored, after being used and abused by “our friends, the enemy.”

It does not add any thing to the credit of the Northern Church to record the fact that this church, also, was reported in the statistics of the Conference, valued at $5,000.

To those who have believed the reiterated statements of the Northern Methodist preachers and press, that they never seized, possessed or used any property that belonged to the M. E. Church, South, these facts, furnished by reliable men and taken from official records, are commended. The facts are humiliating enough without the reflections suggested by them.