Of the various reviews of the General Conference action on the appeal cases, none has more ably and fairly presented the case than has the Rev. William Hosmer, who wrote and published the following, in the Northern Independent:
 

     The General Conference assumes powers which do not belong to It, when they make the right to have an appeal heard depend upon anything the appellant has done since the decision from which he appeals.

     In doing this, they must first try the appellant upon his general conduct since his trial from the decision on which he appeals, in order to determine whether his appeal shall be entertained or not! But the Discipline does not give the General Conference original jurisdiction over any of the ministers except the Bishops. They have no more right than Judge Lynch has to try a preacher unless his case comes before them on an appeal, and then they must be confined to the testimony taken in the lower court.

     If the conduct of an expelled preacher pending his appeal has not been correct, let him, if unjustly deposed, be restored, and then he is responsible to his Conference for his actions while suspended. The General Conference is authorized to try appeal cases, but not preachers. For them to undertake to do that, is an unwarrantable and odious assumption of power.

     What does the right of appeal amount to, if the security of its exercise depends upon the prejudice or caprice of a majority of a committee!

     The appeal of Mr. Roberts should have been heard, because the majority was committed against him BEFORE ANY COMPLAINT WAS MADE OR CHARGE PREFERRED.

     There is nothing guarded with greater jealousy by the common law, than the impartiality of juries. A person put on trial before its tribunals may challenge all day “for cause.” Let it be shown that the jury had, by any acts, committed themselves before the trial, and the verdict would be set aside.

     The necessity of an Impartial jury is as great In ecclesiastical as in criminal trials—when character, as when life is at stake. The credit of religion as well as the security of the individual, demands no less. A verdict obtained by connivance, or by partisan excitement, is none the more to be respected because it was rendered under religious forms, by men professing godliness.

     It is well known that at the time of these trials, the Genesee Conference was divided into two parties ;—that this partisan feeling, which has existed for years, was wrought up to the greatest intensity—that at the Conference which instituted the first of these trials, the party opposed to the appellant for the first time became a majority, several of the opposite party having been transferred to other Conferences—and that it was by this accidental, excited and thoroughly partisan majority that Mr. Roberts was tried. This being the case, and the trial resulting as it did, if there ever was an instance where the corrective agency of an Appellate Court was needed, that case was the one under consideration.

     If there is any analogy between an Ecclesiastical Court and a Civil Court, then the necessity was even greater than we have stated, and so far from not entertaining the appeal, the Court should have annulled the previous trial, and sent the case back for a new investigation, If a trial was judged to be necessary. But, admitting the validity of the action of the Court below, we see not how it was possible for this Appellate Court to refuse to entertain the appeal. The hearing of cases is not optional with such a Court—an appeal always lies if the party appealing gives due notice of his intention, and Is on hand to prosecute his claims. Not to entertain an appeal is, therefore, a palpable dereliction from duty; and, in this instance, it was equivalent to saying that, so far as these expelled brethren were concerned, there should be no Appellate Court in the M. B. Church—thus practically annihilating one of the most important branches of our judiciary, and rendering it forever impossible to correct the errors of the Court below.

     Well might the appellant stand aghast at such treatment, and make his appeal to God and the people. The judicial infatuation which has rendered it necessary to transfer this and other like cases, from an earthly to a heavenly tribunal, we deplore, but cannot help. The deed is done, and, with all its appalling consequences, the record must go up to God. We have the satisfaction of knowing that we have not been awed by authority, nor terrified by threats, into silence in the presence of such wrongs. The senseless, shameless cry of “Nazanitism,” we fling back with the hearty contempt which it merits. Those who indulge in this low style of abuse, should remember that there are people in the world who are not afraid of slang, and who will not desert the innocent because malice, for the accomplishment of its own purposes, heaps upon them disparaging epithets. To defend the injured should be regarded as a virtue, not as a crime; and whatever the meaning or the madness of persecution may inflict, we had far rather share it with the oppressed, than betray them to the clutches of a relentless tyranny.

     Brave words of a brave man! When half a century and more has passed since the events to which they refer occurred, any man may utter his sense of righteous indignation at such travesties on justice in the name of Christianity, and display no very great moral heroism in doing so. But in those days, and under those conditions, to have written as William Hosmer did, in registration of his protest against the crooked administration of the Genesee Conference and the unrighteous support of that administration by the General Conference, required and exhibited a degree of moral courage which should class him with the Reformers of the sixteenth century for moral courage and noble doing.

     We have already seen that the General Conference made an exception in the case of the Rev. C. D. Burlingham, and entertained his appeal. The final action of that body in his case, however, was such an insult to justice and common sense as to merit universal condemnation. The case was remanded for a new trial. Mr. Burlingham admitted, on his trial, the facts alleged in the bill of charges, but pleaded certain other facts in justification of his conduct. Thus, it will be seen, the General Conference took no action regarding the merits of his appeal, but dodged the issue by sending it back for a new trial, when there was absolutely nothing to try! Here again we quote the editorial comments of the Northern Independent as apropos to the situation:
 

     That the Court of Appeals, constituted by the last General Conference, did not do its work so as to secure either divine or human respect, is a conclusion forced upon us by every view we have been able to take of the subject. Gladly would we pass by these judicial proceedings without further notice, if it were allowable, but they are of too serious a character, and will be found too far reaching in their consequences, to admit of silent acquiescence. Ecclesiastical Courts are not famous for liberality and justice, but we believe the Courts of Methodism have not generally sunk to the level indicated by the trial of these appeals.

     First in order, was the case of Rev. C. D. Burlingham. He was expelled from the Genesee Conference, and from the M. B. Church, for doing three things:

1st. Admitting B. T. Roberts into the Church on trial.

2nd. Licensing him to exhort.

3rd. Officiating with expelled preachers at a General Quarterly Meeting held in a Wesleyan Church, at the same time that his Presiding Elder was holding a regular Quarterly Meeting in the same charge, about three miles distant. Mr. Burlingham admitted the facts alleged, but pleaded other facts in justification.

     These were the only offenses with which Mr. Burlingham was charged.

     After his expulsion, he waited silently for the General Conference. He did not preach, nor lecture, nor exhort—did not attend meetings held by expelled preachers—but did penance up to the session of the General Conference. He should have been restored on the ground of having expiated his guilt, if he were guilty of any ordinary offense, if on no other. When his appeal came up, Mr. Fuller, who has been chief prosecutor in all these trials, challenged several of the committee who had manifested a desire to have Genesee Conference matters fairly investigated. Though the General Conference, in constituting the committee, or Court of Appeals, had given to parties the right to challenge for cause, yet Mr. Fuller, after the first instance, was not required to give cause, but challenged as many as he chose, and they were set aside. He simply said of the challenged, that “he considered them prejudiced.”

     Mr. Olin, of the Oneida Conference, managed the case for Mr. Burlingham with consummate tact, and great ability. His plea was a masterly effort, and carried conviction to the minds, we believe, of all who heard it, except the committee. They sent the case back to the Genesee Conference for a new trial. This we regard as a remarkable decision. Neither party asked for it. We never heard before of a case being remanded for a new trial, unless there was some alleged informality in the Court below, or defect in the record, or unless one on the other of the parties claimed to have new testimony which could not be introduced into the first trial. But nothing of the kind was intimated in this case. There can he no new testimony, for Mr. Burlingham admitted nil the facts with which he was charged.

     Do these facts, mentioned above, constitute a crime, for which an able minister, of spotless reputation, who has served the Church for over twenty years, devoting the vigor of his manhood’s prime, in self-sacrificing efforts to promote her interests, should be expelled? Then let the General Conference say so, that all who henceforth enter the Methodist ministry, may understand that they are expected to lay their manhood in the dust, part with the right of private judgment, and yield a servile, unquestioning obedience to all the behests of their ecclesiastical superiors.

     Was Mr. Burlingham, through party malignity, treated unjustly? Was he wrongfully deposed from the ministry, and excluded from the Church? Then the General Conference should have restored him. This was due to him; it was due to outraged justice—it was due to the M. B. Church, whose Discipline, confusedly more susceptible of abuse than that of any other Church in this country, has been used for the purpose of inflicting ecclesiastical oppression without a parallel in the nineteenth century.

     But the General Conference, through its committee, on Court of Appeals, after gravely listening to the testimony and pleadings, sent the case back for a new trial, without a motion to that effect, from either panty. What, we ask, is there to try? There can be no issue on the facts—these are admitted.

     But Mr. Burlingham contends that these facts do not constitute a crime for which he should be deposed from the ministry, and excluded from the Church.

     The Genesee Conference has said that they do. Here is the issue—who shall decide? The Discipline vests the power in the General Conference—the body to try appeals. The case was properly brought before them, and they have sent it back, for the Genesee Conference to decide over again. What an absurd decision! What an insult to Mr. Burlingham, and to common sense! Suppose the views of law and justice entertained by the Genesee Conference remain unchanged, and the same sentence be again pronounced against Mr. Burlingham, and he again appeals. After waiting four years for another General Conference, if he still survives, there will not only be the same reason for sending the case back for a new trial as now, but the additional one of precedent. Thus, this mockery of justice may continue ad infinitem.

     This looks more like the tiger playing with the victim he Intends to devour, than like a body of Christian ministers, bound by every consideration that can influence to right action, to “judge righteous judgment.”

     Another fact is worthy of especial notice. Though the decision in the case was not asked for in Court by either party, yet it is precisely what partisans of the Regency I)arty of the Genesee Conference have been endeavoring for months to persuade Mr. Burlingham to consent to. These efforts were continued up to the morning of the day on which the appeal was heard. Yet neither in their pleadings, non at any time while the appeal was being heard, did the counsel for the Conference signify their wish that the case might be remanded for a new trial. At whose suggestion was It done? When was the suggestion made? Was there any collusion in the matter? It is impossible for us to answer these questions. View it in whatever light you may, the whole case has a dank and suspicious aspect.

     Perhaps some clue to an explanation of the strange proceedings in relation to the Genesee Conference appeal cases may be found in the action had upon the slavery question.

     The Genesee Conference has heretofore been one of the strongest anti-slavery Conferences in the connection. The proscribed party have, from the first, been uncompromising in their hostility to slavery in the Church and in the State.

     The Genesee delegates to the late General Conference were once regarded as anti-slavery; what they are now their votes will show. We asserted last fall that the Conference had become pro-slavery, and gave as proof the fact, that while it condemned this paper, it refused to take any action against slavery. The truth of our inference was denied by some, but the recent course of their delegates has made our words good. When the important question was decided In the General Conference upon a change of Constitution, so as to prohibit slave-holding in the Church, the delegates of the Genesee Conference voted against a change, and their vote turned the scale. And when the Genesee Conference matters came up, the border pro-slavery delegates voted solid with the representatives of the majority of the Genesee Conference. This may be nfl fair. It may be that men who, four years ago took the stump to keep slavery out of the territories, have suddenly become convinced that it should be nestled and fostered in the bosom of the Church! We should like to know by what arguments they were converted, and when it was done! Was this a part of a scheme to keep slaveholders in the Church? Did the border delegates understand that if they voted as desired by the Genesee delegates, they would reciprocate the favor, and assist them in their extremity? Or did this strange coincidence come about by chance?”

     If the foregoing comments appear to be somewhat caustic, we ask, Does not the case deserve the stinging rebuke therein given? Could timidity and tameness be more out of place anywhere than in an editorial review of such action on the part of a General Conference? Were not those brave words of the Northern Independent worthy of general commendation? And were not the men who dared to speak and write thus plainly in defense of righteousness, and in condemnation of wrong, even though that condemnation was necessarily a reflection upon the Church and likely to incur ecclesiastical wrath, the salt that preserved the Church itself from moral putrefaction?

     The question will naturally arise, What were the reasons why the General Conference took such unwarrantable action in dealing with the appeal cases. This question has been so clearly answered in “Why Another Sect ?“ that we reproduce the answers here:
 

1. The charge of doing any specified wrong Is not met by claiming or conceding general respectability for the body which did it. The Congress which passed the Fugitive Slave Law was a highly respectable body. President Fillmore, who signed It, was a highly respectable man. Yet that law made every free man at the North liable to become a slave-hunter or a law-breaker.

2. This General Conference had in it a large number of Masons and Odd-Fellows. When it is known beforehand that the Secret Society question is to be made an issue it Is an easy thing for those belonging to these societies in the various Conferences of the M. E. Church to send an unusually large proportion of their friends to a General Conference.

3. In the Discipline of the Id. E. Church are important rules which the preachers not only openly disregard, but teach the people to disregard. On dress, their rule forbids “the putting on of gold and costly apparel ;“—in practice they generally put on both,—of ten beyond their means,—and many preachers defend the practice. In Church building, the rule required them to be plain and cheap ;—the practice was to build as expensively as credit,— and means not infrequently obtained by pew-selling and Church-gambling, would permit. The result of “holding the truth in unrighteousness” is the demoralization of the conscience. The law of present expediency comes to be the rule of conduct. Policy takes the place of conscience.

4. The General Conference at Buffalo was held just before the breaking out of the Civil War. The Nation and the Church were greatly agitated on the Slavery question. With many, it was the great question before the General Conference of 1860. The Genesee Conference had for years been classed as a radical Abolitionist Conference. The Baltimore Conference was considered on the point of religious experience committed to old-fashioned Methodism, but was at the same time the champion of the slaveholders in the M. B. Church. At the General Conference at Buffalo, the delegates from Baltimore and the delegates from Genesee, when these issues came up, talked and voted lovingly together. Herod and Pilate became friends. Baltimore helped Genesee to dispose of the “Nazarites ;“ and Genesee helped Baltimore to substitute for the rule against slaveholding, some good, but powerless advice. We do not say there was any bargain to this effect—we have no proof of it—but we do not believe that at that late day the Genesee delegates were really converted to pro-slavery doctrines. Nor do we believe that the border delegates were converted to the religious theories of the Genesee delegates. They still invite Fay H. Purdy, who was called the ring-leader of “the sect called Nazarites,” to labor in that section.

     The appeal cases were referred to a committee. Thomas Carl-ton had visited the Conferences as book agent, and was acquainted with the delegates generally. That he could exercise an influence in the selection of the Committee of Appeals is easily seen. That he would not scruple to do it is evident from the case mentioned by Dr. Bowen, in which Thomas Carlton bore a prominent part, as counsel for a so-called Regency preacher, accused by one of the members of the Church of gross, intentional dishonesty. Before the trial commenced, Mr. Carlton had the parties agree to abide by the decision of the arbitrators. Each party was to choose two, and the four were to choose the fifth. Mr. Canton selected two preachers; the other party, two highly respectable laymen. They could not agree upon the fifth. At length Mr. Carlton suddenly remembered that he had seen on the hotel register (it was at Niagara Falls), the name of a preacher from New York. He would help them out. All agreed upon him. The case was heard and the preachers gave a most unrighteous verdict against the laymen. This fifth man was afterwards found out to be Thomas Canton’s brother-in-law, whom he had brought there on purpose.

     Of the truth of what is here affirmed there can be no question. Yet, in that case there was nothing like the inducement to unfairness that there was in the cases appealed from the decision of the Genesee Conference.

     In the absence of any other solution of the problem, the foregoing furnishes a key to its solution. At all events it is evident that the delegates from Genesee were afraid to have the appeals come before the General Conference for a hearing. It is also equally evident that no stone was left unturned by them to defeat their entertainment, as also the measures by which it was sought to have a full and impartial review of the Genesee Conference difficulties with a view to correcting the administration by which so many worthy members had been unjustly proscribed. Moreover, judging from their past record, are we not warranted in believing that those same delegates resorted to most unrighteous measures for the accomplishment of their ends, whereby the majority of the General Conference were influenced, either wittingly or unwittingly, to unite in such action as can by no means be justified?

     It will readily be seen that the slavery question must have figured largely in the final determination of the appeal cases. It should not have done so, but it did. As touching the far-reaching effect of this action of the General Conference of 1860 on the slavery question, the American Wesleyan of March 27, 1861, contained the following eminently pertinent criticism:
 

     In the Baltimore Conference, recently in session, the following questions were proposed to Bishop Scott, and answered by him. We are glad that after so much evasion as has filled up the history of the M. E. Church upon the anti-slavery attitude of this body, we are at last in possession of an official decision, too plain to be misunderstood. Here are the points—look at them! A slaveholder can be admitted a member of the Church, ordained, and hold slaves for gain, and there is no Discipline in the Church by which to arraign him, or object to him. Can anything be more abhorrently plain than this?

     The following questions were presented to the chair, and promptly answered:

1. Is there anything in the Discipline which, in your judgment, would be a bar to the ordination of a local preacher holding slaves? Answer—No.

2. Anything in the Discipline which, in your judgment, would operate against the admission of a slaveholder into the Church? Answer—No.

3. Anything in the Discipline that would justify an administrator in arraigning a slaveholder? Answer—No.

4. Is there any process authorized in the Discipline by which a member can be brought to trial who holds slaves for gain? Answer—I know of no such process.

     Corrupt as was the action of the General Conference regarding these cases, God in His wise providence overruled it for good in the end, causing to issue therefrom a stream of “living waters”—a river whose onward flow should broaden, deepen, increase its momentum and bless the world to the end of time. “The so-called ‘Nazarites,’ who never thought of a separate existence before, now losing all hope of reconciliation with the old Church, resolved upon an independent organization. They felt they were shut out from all sympathy on the part of a Church which had thrust many from her bosom—their leaders in particular—with such illegal and malignant violence; and that they had no alternative left them but to provide for themselves.” [1]

[1] Bowen’s “Origin of the Free Methodist Church.”