TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page

Preface

Contents

List of Illustrations

PART I

GENERAL HISTORY

INTRODUCTORY PERIOD—1752-1774

Preliminary

Ch.1—Philip William Otterbein

Ch.2—Mr. Otterbein in America

Ch.3—Otterbein and Boehm

SECOND PERIOD—1774-1800

Ch.4—Mr. Otterbein called to Baltimore

Ch.5—The Otterbein Church in Baltimore

Ch.6—The Movement Toward a Separate Church Organization

Ch.7—The First and Second Conferences

Ch.8—Newcomer and Associates

THIRD PERIOD—1800-1815

Ch.9—The Conferences of 1800

Ch.10—The Conferences of 1801-1814

Ch.11—Friendly Correspondence

Ch.12—The Departure of the Leaders

FOURTH PERIOD—1815-1837

Ch.13—The First General Conference—1815

Ch.14—The General Conferences of 1817-1833

FIFTH PERIOD—1837-1885

Ch.15—The General Conferences of 1837 and 1841

Ch.16—The General Conferences of 1845 and 1849

Ch.17—The General Conferences of 1853-1861

Ch.18—The General Conferences of 1865-1881

SIXTH PERIOD—1885-1897

Ch.19—The Nineteenth General Conference—1885

Ch.20—The Church Commission

Ch.21—The Twentieth General Conference—1889

Ch.22—A Period of Litigation

Ch.23—The Twenty-First General Conference—1893

PART II

DEPARTMENTS OF CHURCH WORK

Ch.1—The United Brethren Publishing House

Ch.2—The Home, Frontier, and Foreign Missionary Society and Its Work

Ch.3—The Church-Erection Society

Ch.4—The Woman's Missionary Association

Ch.5—Colleges and Academies

Ch.6—Union Biblical Seminary

Ch.7—The Board of Education

Ch.8—Sunday-School Work

Ch.9—The Young People's Christian Union

Ch.10—The Board of Trustees of the Church

Ch.11—The Historical Society

PART III

THE ANNUAL CONFERENCES

Ch.1—A Group of Early Conferences

Ch.2—Other Conferences Organized from 1835 to 1853

Ch.3—Conferences Organized Since 1853

PART IV

HISTORICAL AND STATISTICAL TABLES

Bibliography

Appendices

  Confession of Faith

  Publishing House Suit

Index

NOTICE OF ATTRIBUTION

Work originally published in 1897.

Scanned, proofed and minor spelling corrections by the United Brethren Historical Center.

Electronic edition ©2006 United Brethren Historical Center

Suggested Citation:
[Identification of Item]. Available at the United Brethren Historical Center website; http://www.huntington.edu/
ubhc/publications/ebooks/
newcomer/title.htm

History of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ

by Daniel Berger

CHAPTER XXII

A PERIOD OF LITIGATION

I. THE PUBLISHING HOUSE SUIT.

^p.391 As was anticipated when the seceders withdrew from the General Conference at York, Pennsylvania, on the fourth day of the session, they went out and organized themselves into a body which they claimed to be the General Conference of the Church, and further assumed to act in the name of and for the Church, and under this assumption elected persons to fill the various general offices and boards of the Church. In pursuance of these assumptions it was expected that they would also, in due time, lay claim to all property, of whatever kind, belonging to the Church. It was not long until this expectation began to be realized. And thus began, not long after the adjournment of the conference of 1889, in the civil courts, a contest which involved so much annoyance and trouble, and so great an outlay of time, money, labor, and anxiety, as to prove exceedingly harassing to the Church generally. This struggle continued until, after years of effort, the decision of the highest court in one State after another had overthrown the last hope of the seceders for success.

The first formal claim for the possession of church property was made when, one day in July, 1889, Ex-Bishop Milton Wright, who claimed to be the publishing agent for the Church, appeared at the office of the United Brethren Publishing House, and served upon the ^p.392 publisher, William J. Shuey, a written notice demanding possession of the House, with all its appurtenances, including real estate, machinery, stocks, accounts, the keys to the House and safes, and all property of whatever kind belonging to the House. The demand was refused, and immediately thereafter the board of trustees, of which body David L. Pike was president, filed a petition in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Ohio, for the quieting of the title in their favor. Halleck Floyd being president of the pretended board of trustees of the Publishing House, the case became known in the court records as D. L. Hike et al., Trustees, v. Halleck Floyd et al. To the petition of D. L. Pike and others Halleck Floyd and others filed their answer.

After several preliminary motions and postponements the defendants, in March, 1890, made application to the United States District Court at Cincinnati for removal from the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County on the ground of local prejudice. Judge Sage, of the United States District Court, overruled the application for removal.

Finally the case came on for hearing, December 4, 1890, before Judge Henderson Elliott, of the Common Pleas Court of Montgomery County. After hearing and refusing two motions of the defendants, and listening to the pleadings of both parties, the judge, by mutual consent and at the request of counsel for the defendants, entered a decree, pro forma, in favor of the plaintiffs, with the understanding that the case be carried to the Circuit Court of the said County of Montgomery.

The trial before the Circuit Court, to which appeal was taken by the radicals, began on June 17, 1891. The presiding judges were Charles C. Shearer, of Xenia, Ohio, Gilbert H. Stewart, of Columbus, and James M. Smith, of Lebanon, Ohio, the last named sitting in place of Judge ^p.393 J. A. Shauck, who, as a trustee of the establishment, was one of the plaintiffs in the case. Counsel of high distinction for ability was retained on both sides, the attorneys for the Church being Hon. Lewis B. Gunckel and Hon. John A. McMahon. Among the attorneys for the defendants was Judge William Lawrence, for whom special eminence as an ecclesiastical lawyer was claimed. Nine days were spent in the trial, seven in presenting documentary and oral testimony, and two in argument. Among the witnesses for the plaintiffs were Bishop J. Weaver, Bishop E. B. Kephart, Prof. A. W. Drury, Prof. J. P. Landis, Rev. W. J. Shuey, Rev. D. Berger, Rev. William McKee, Rev. B. F. Booth, and Rev. G. M. Mathews; for the radicals, Bishop Milton Wright, Rev. C. H. Kiracofe, Rev. Halleck Floyd, and others. A number of depositions were introduced—for the Church, those of Dr. Philip Schaff, of Union Theological Seminary, New York City, Dr. James Strong, of Drew Theological Seminary, and Bishop J. M. Walden, of the Methodist Episcopal Church ; for the seceders, those of Dr. Herrick Johnson, of Chicago, Dr. J. G. Carson, of Xenia, Ohio, Dr. Willis K. Beecher and Dr. Sprague, of Auburn, New York, and Dr. Lewis Davis.

In this trial a wide field was covered, and every inch of ground was contested with distinguished ability. The importance of the case was fully comprehended not only from the standpoint of the large amount of property directly involved, but from the probable bearings of the decision in this case upon millions of dollars' worth of other property. The main point sought to be established by the radicals was that the Church, through its adoption of an amended Constitution and revised Confession of Faith, had ceased to be the Church of the United Brethren in Christ and had become another and different church— ^p.394 that the Confession had ceased to be Arminian and had become Calvinistic; that the General Conference which elected the publishing agent and trustees was not the General Conference of the United Brethren Church, and that therefore the publishing agent and trustees now holding the property were not entitled to such possession; and that they themselves, as elected by the small body of seceders who left their seats in the General Conference and organized for the transaction of General Conference business, were the rightful representatives of the Church, and as such entitled to hold and control the property.
It would be a wearisome task to place in review before the reader the methods resorted to, the arguments used, and the sophistries employed to establish these claims. It will be sufficient to say that the findings of facts and the legal opinion and decree of the court were a complete overthrow of all that was claimed by the radicals. The very able rendering of the court was unanimously concurred in by the three judges.

The case was carried on appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio. Four years elapsed before it was reached in the course of business before that high tribunal. The day for hearing was set for the 13th of June, 1895. An exhaustive examination was here made by a full bench, excepting Judge Shauck, who had then become a member of that body, but did not sit in the case. This court regarded the reasonings and conclusions of the Circuit Court as being so thorough and satisfactory that it did not deem it necessary that a new finding of facts or opinion should be written. On June 27, 1895, it handed down its decision, in which it declared: "The case has been fully and exhaustively considered in the opinion of the Circuit Court, as announced by Shearer, J. . . . We fully affirm the reasoning of the court and the conclusions there rendered. ^p.395 Judgment affirmed." The court was unanimous in this decision. For some of the essential points in Judge Shearer's lengthy and very able rendering, the reader is referred to Appendix II.

An incident of the Circuit Court, as illustrating the temper of the judges in the case, is well worth recording. When the long strain of the trial was at last relieved by the rendering of the court, there was naturally a feeling of pleasure on the part of those who were vindicated, and Mr. Shuey, in speaking with Judge Shearer, thanked him for the decision. The judge, with a quiet smile, but an air of unmistakable firmness, replied: " You need not thank me for it. If the facts had been the other way, I would have given it against you in cold blood."

II. OTHER SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.

In seven other States, namely, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Illinois, Missouri, Michigan, and California, suits have been carried up to the Supreme Court, and in all of these except the last named the decision of this final tribunal has been rendered. Five of these courts gave their judgment in favor of the Church; one, that of Michigan, in favor of the radicals. In California a case on appeal is pending.

The case before the Indiana Supreme Court came up on appeal from Wayne County in that State, in which the lower court had decided in favor of the Church, the contention being for the quieting of title to a church-house. The Supreme Court consists of five judges, one of whom did not sit in the case, having been consulted by one of the parties to the suit previous to his election to the supreme bench. The decision of the judges was unanimous. It was handed down on November 6, 1891.

The case in Pennsylvania was brought on appeal from ^p.396 the Common Pleas Court of Franklin County. The trustees of a church had brought suit to quiet their title to a church-house in Greencastle, in that county. The seceders were defeated in the lower court, and appealed to the court of last resort. The judges of this court are seven in number. They gave a unanimous rendering confirming the decree of the lower court in favor of the Church. The decision was rendered in July, 1893.

In Oregon the contention was for the possession of the property known as Philomath College. The history of this case is somewhat remarkable. The Supreme Court, having once decided in favor of the radicals, was petitioned for a rehearing by the trustees, which was granted, a very unusual thing for a Supreme Court to do. The court consisted of three judges. One of these had rendered a most able opinion in our favor in the lower court, and did not sit on the case in the Supreme Court. One of the two remaining judges wrote an elaborate and very able opinion, giving the property to the Church. The second judge dissented, but wrote no opinion. The two being unable to agree, the decree of the lower court remained undisturbed, and the property was left in the possession of the Church. The decision was rendered in October, 1894. In Illinois a suit was brought by the seceders for the possession of a church in Livingston County in 1891. The case was contested with great ability in the Circuit Court of that State, the decision being given in favor of the Church, in 1892. It was appealed by the radicals to the Supreme Court. This court consisted of seven judges. The case was submitted to them in March, 1894. On January 15, 1895, the court handed down its decision, the seven judges agreeing. The decision confirmed the decree of the lower court, giving the property to the Church.

 ^p.397 In Missouri a suit was brought for the ejectment of a radical minister from the occupancy of a parsonage property. The case was heard in December, 1891. In September, 1892, the judge decided in favor of the Church. The case was taken on appeal by the radicals to the Supreme Court. It was heard on January 16, 1895. On March 29, 1895, the four judges sitting in the case gave a unanimous decision, confirming that of the lower court.

In Michigan the contest was for the possession of Salem Church, in Allegan County. The trial court decided the case in favor of the Church. The case was carried up on appeal. The court consisted of five judges. One of the number did not sit, having been previously interested. Three of the judges decided the case in favor of the radicals. One wrote an able dissenting opinion. The case was filed in December, 1893. In this State a lower court has since given possession of a church-house and parsonage to the Church, notwithstanding the decision of the higher court. The case has again been appealed to the Supreme Court, with a changed bench. It is hoped, with good reason, that the Supreme Court will correct its error.

In the Dominion of Canada a decision has been rendered, in the Court of Appeal, of a very important character as affecting all the property of the Church in the Dominion. A case in a lower court was decided in favor of the radicals. It was carried on appeal to the higher court, the four judges sitting giving separate opinions, but a very thorough and unanimous rendering, reversing the decision below. In this case the radicals were represented by the Hon. Ex-Vice-Chancellor Blake, of Toronto, who is acknowledged to be without a superior as an advocate before a court. In the lower court he gained an easy victory; in the higher court he met with necessary defeat, the facts and the law being on the other side.

^p.398 A case at the present writing is pending in the United States Circuit Court at Cincinnati. There seems little likelihood that the judge before whom it is brought will differ widely from the consensus of seven of the high tribunals above mentioned.

In all these cases it was felt that issues of the highest importance were involved, and no effort possible to human industry and skill was spared to win. The side of the Church was defended with great ability in nearly every suit, and the radicals sought everywhere the ablest counsel available. During the tedious and wearisome conflicts the bishops of the Church and many of its ministers and laymen bore a portion of the burden. But it is due to say that throughout all the vexatious litigations no other one rendered the Church so eminent service as was given by William J. Shuey. As financial head of the Publishing House, he bore the chief strain of the litigation for its possession, and elsewhere, in most of the other suits, he rendered similar valuable assistance. Next to him in this defense of the Church and its interests stood the venerable Bishop Weaver, a tower of strength in every court. Others who were not so constantly in the work rendered invaluable aid. But now that the troubles are about over, the whole Church has reason for profound gratitude to God, who has led righteousness to triumph.

PREVIOUS