Staunton Vindicator

In our Circuit Court last week the question came up as to which branch of the Methodist Church were the real owners of the church property located in this place.

The Congregation now worshipping in the church property have held undisputed possession of it for upwards of fifty years. The last Legislature, with a view no doubt to make a peaceful solution of the question as to the right of property, passed an act granting the privilege to the members of the various churches throughout the State to take a vote as to which branch of the church they would adhere to.

The Methodist Congregation in this place, in accordance with that act, took the vote and out of 118 persons entitled to vote, 101 voted to adhere to the Methodist Church South, while the remainder either failed or refused to vote.

The result of the congregation was reported to the Circuit Court to be entered upon the record as the law requires.

Col. Baldwin as Counsel for the Congregation South, presented the papers in Court, when Mr. Woodson of Harrisonburg and Maj. Bell of Staunton, counsel for the Northern branch of the church, offered a petition of remonstrance signed by Rev. Mr. Consor, the preacher in charge of the Northern Methodist Church at Staunton, Rev. Lawson, colored preacher in charge of the large colored Congregation, now worshipping in their own church in Staunton, by one member of Mr. Consor's Congregation, and three colored persons, members of the colored Congregation.

These petitions objected.

1. That the Methodist Church in Staunton is built upon a lot which was conveyed for the use of the Methodist Episcopal Church and that it belongs of right to the members of that Church.

2. That the congregation now in possession of the Church do not belong to the Methodist Episcopal Church South, and consequently have lost their right to the property.

3. that the petitioners and others, belonging to the two congregations represented by them, are the true members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and as such are entitled to the Church property, and

4. That the act of the Legislature under which the proceedings have been had is unconstitutional and void, and the whole movement without validity, and that the papers relating to it ought not to be admitted to record.

For the congregation it was replied:

1. That the title to the Church property could not be tried in this proceeding, except so far as this congregation has a right to it, and that if others claim an adverse right they must sue for it in regular form.

2. That the object of the law of the last legislature was to protect local religious congregations who when their Church divided were compelled to make choice between the different branches of it, and to allow them in such cases to take their property with them, and that it was the purpose of this congregation to claim the benefit of that protection.

3. That the petitioners, which they claim to be Methodists, do not pretend to belong to this congregation, and of course have no right to interfere with a proceeding which concerns this congregation alone and cannot effect the rights of any other parties, and that the law of Virginia recognizes only "religious congregations," each of which is, under the law, distinct from all others, even of the same Church.

4. That in this proceeding the court will confine its inquiries to the regularity and fairness of the steps taken to ascertain the determination of the congregation, and will hear no objection which is not founded upon some suggestion that by reason of fraud, accident or mistake the vote has not been correctly taken or reported.

5. That the Court will not undertake to pass upon the constitutionality of the law until the question is distinctly presented in an issue fairly made between, proper parties, so that a decision will end the controversy.

The question was extensively argued, but the Court refused to entertain the objections of the Petitioners of the ground that they were not members of the Congregation, whose action they opposed, and that the only legitimate inquiry in these proceedings was as to the regularity or fairness of the vote of the Congregation, under the Act of the General Assembly, The action of the Congregation being found regular was ordered to be entered upon record.

Whether this controversy will be prosecuted further, is not known. If it should be the final result will be of considerable interest to our people, involving, as it does, a large amount of church property.

A correspondent of the Anti-Slavery Standard, writing from Virginia with an evident understanding of the party machinery among the negroes, gives the Republican party fair warning of what is in reserve for them. The negro vote, he says, will decide the Presidential election. The negroes understand this perfectly and are laying their plans in accordance with it. "There are several negores," says the writer, "fitted for the position of Vice-President, and that race claim that the second office in the nation shall be filled by a negro." The correspondence fully indorses their claim, and wishes it distinctly understood that it must be conceded or the negro vote will be cast against the Republican party. The party, he says, dare not refuse it as its defeat, without the negro vote and the vote of Northern men who will back their claim, is certain. What will Senator Wade do in this contingency? He has pledge himself to "keep ahead" of the people on all questions of radicalism, and here is one which demands its immediate attention. Threre are negroes who, we are satisfied, would preside over the Senate with quite as much dignity, intelligence and grace as Senator Wade himself does:--but will he think so? Perhaps he can get the negroes to postpone this question until that of the "redistribution of property" is settled.--New York Times.