Barkley v. Hayes

• Decision Date: 16 August 1913
• Docket Number: 3,546.,3,540
• Citation: 208 F. 319
• Parties: BARKLEY et al. v. HAYES et al. SYNOD OF KANSAS OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al. v. MISSOURI VALLEY COLLEGE et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri

208 F. 319

BARKLEY et al. v. HAYES et al.

SYNOD OF KANSAS OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al. v. MISSOURI VALLEY COLLEGE et al.

Nos. 3,540, 3,546.

United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Western Division.

August 16, 1913

Frank Hagerman, of Kansas City, Mo., and Virgil V. Huff, of Marshall, Mo. (J. W. Suddath, of Warrensburg, Mo., W. M Williams, of Boonville, Mo., and John M. Gaut, of Nashville Tenn., of counsel), for complainants.

W. C Caldwell, of Trenton, Tenn., S. B. Ladd, of Kansas City, Mo R. M. Reynolds, of Marshall, Mo., and T. B. Allen, of St. Joseph, Mo., for defendants

VAN VALKENBURGH, District Judge.

These are cases brought by representatives of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America to define the status of a large number of church properties in the state of Missouri. The first commonly called the 'Church Case,' is brought by the moderator and stated clerk, who are, respectively, chairman and secretary of the Executive Commission of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, who act individually and as such officers and representatives of the members of said Presbyterian Church, against certain representative members of those who claim to form the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, to which church it is conceded that the property which is the subject of this litigation originally belonged. This property consists of numerous churches located in various parts of this state, and used for purposes of congregational worship.

The second suit is brought by the Synod of Kansas of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, a religious corporation organized and existing under the laws of Kansas, and also by certain individuals who are officers members, and representatives of the Synod of Kansas, a voluntary organization and part of said Presbyterian Church, against the Missouri Valley College, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Missouri, and certain individual defendants as members, agents, and representatives of what formerly was, and is by them still claimed to be, the Missouri Synod of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church in the State of Missouri, a voluntary religious organization. The controversy arises out of the alleged reunion and union in 1906 of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America and the Cumberland Presbyterian Church. The former church claims that by virtue thereof the property, church, educational, and otherwise, of the Cumberland Church, passed into the ownership and control of the united church represented by complainants. The defendants, and those whom they represent, deny the validity of the merger, and consequently such resulting effect upon the property involved. The object of the bills is to quiet the title to all the property therein described in the united church, to wit, the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, fixing and determining the interest acquired therein by virtue of said alleged contract of merger; that the defendants, and all persons acting in concert with them, be enjoined from in any wise interfering with the use by complainants and the members of said united church of any of said property in Missouri held by trustees for the benefit of the Cumberland Church at the time of said merger; that an account be taken of all the property in Missouri heretofore held in trust by the Cumberland Church, and the same be impressed with the right of the united church to the use of the same. In the College Case the relief prayed is to this same effect, varying only to conform to the peculiar nature of the property therein under consideration.

This merger between the two churches, and the title to property claimed thereunder, has been the subject of decision by courts of last resort in twelve states, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas, Tennessee, and Missouri; also, by the District Courts of the United States for the Middle and Western Districts of Tennessee. ^[1] Certain preliminary questions have been dealt with by the Supreme Court of the United States. ^[2] In all of these jurisdictions except two, to wit, the state Supreme Courts of Tennessee and Missouri, the contentions submitted have been resolved favorably to the complainants in this case. The Supreme Court of the United States, however, has not yet considered what may be termed the full merits of the controversy

Exhaustive opinions in the several cases heretofore decided should make unnecessary, and indeed unwarranted, a similarly extended discussion in the case at bar. Further accumulative repetition, either of argument or citation, must impose but additional burden upon those seeking the light of precedent. The very great learning, ability, and industry of those who have voiced the judgment of their respective courts have left little that can be supplied with profit in support of the divergent views expressed. These views have been read and considered with the care and interest which their merit and the vast importance of the interests demand, and I shall content myself with announcing the conclusions I have reached with no more elaboration than is thought to be required for clearness of understanding. Even so, the discussion is unavoidably extended.

The Cumberland Presbyterian Church had its origin in 1810, through certain ministers of the Presbyterian Church who had separated themselves from the parent organization because of differences in doctrinal belief. The church grew until it embraced many churches, presbyteries, and synods, and a general assembly. From time to time throughout the succeeding century a reunion of the two churches was considered and desired by both associations. Their form of organization and methods of administration were practically identical. They were kept apart by what seemed to be distinctive and controlling differences in faith. In 1903, the Presbyterian Church, through the authoritative voice of its general assembly, made such an explicit revision and interpretation of its doctrinal standards as, in the opinion of the general assembly of both churches, removed all substantial differences between them and rendered their reunion not only possible, but desirable. In 1906 that union was declared to be effected. It did not meet with unanimous approval in the Cumberland Church. A strong minority opposed it from the outset, and still contests its validity; and it is claimed that the properties, church and educational, of the Cumberland Church as it theretofore existed, remain in and should be devoted to the use of those who still adhere to the separate organization and claim to be the legitimate representatives of the latter church.

In resolving the many questions presented, some of which meet us at the threshold of the case, it will aid materially if we first determine the essential character of Presbyterian-- and by this I mean also Cumberland Presbyterian-- property; how it is held, by and for whom, and in what such Presbyterian property rights consist. In this church the religious congregation or ecclesiastical body holding the property is but a subordinate member of the general church organization in which there are superior ecclesiastical tribunals with a general and ultimate power of control, more or less complete, in some supreme judicatory over the whole membership of that general organization. The local congregation is itself but a member of a much larger and more important religious organization, is under its government and control, and is bound by its orders and judgments. Therefore, when the property held by the church is that purchased or conveyed for the general use of the religious congregation, not devoted forever by the instrument which conveyed it nor by any specific declaration of its owner to the support of any special religious dogmas, or any peculiar form of worship, it is and remains the property of the general church which exercises such general and ultimate power of control. It does not belong to the particular congregation which uses it, much less to the individual members of such a congregation. It does not belong to the presbytery or the synod, nor, in a strict sense, to the general assembly. It belongs to the church which is composed of its entire membership; that membership being governed and controlled by the organic law of the church, the administration of which is lodged in certain judicatories rising, in regular succession, to the general assembly or court of last resort, embracing in itself legislative, administrative, and judicial powers. The government of the Presbyterian Church is republican and representative in character. Its administration is vested, not in the individual members, not in the congregations, but in the general assembly and the presbyteries; and the church as a whole, acting through its supreme governing bodies, exercises the ultimate rights of ownership and control over all its properties.

The Constitution of the United States and of the several states guarantees to the individual absolute independence of religious belief and worship. He need associate himself with no religious organization if he does not wish to do so, and he need remain identified with one no longer than he may desire; but when he does unite with a church, and becomes a member of that ecclesiastical body, he voluntarily surrenders his individual freedom to that extent. So long as he desires to avail himself of such a relationship, and to enjoy the privileges and benefits flowing from that association, he must conform to the laws by which it is governed. He cannot complain if its articles of faith be changed, nor if its property-- in which he has no individual...