The Dominion. THURSDAY, MAY 27, 1909. CONFLICTING MORALITIES.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 518, 27 May 1909, Page 4

The Dominion. THURSDAY, MAY 27, 1909. CONFLICTING MORALITIES.

' It is reported to-day that the Victorian Presbyterian Assembly is discussing the attitude. taken up by Mr. Justice Hodges in connection with the refusal of tho Eev. P. J. Murdoch, the clerk of the Melbourne South Presbytery, to produce in Court a certain document required during tho hearing of a libel action. Mr. Murdoch, it will be remembered, claimed that he could not give up a document belonging to the Presbytery without being authorised by the Presbytery to do so, and he was accordingly committed to. prison for contempt of Court. He was released on the following day, tho Presbytery having authorised him to produce the document in question. A point of much importance is involved in tho case, and it can best be realised by a statement of tho conflicting positions taken up by the Judge on tho one hand and the Presbyterian Church on tho other. The attitude of tho Church was very clearly stated to the Melbourne Argus by a leading minister at the time of Mr. Murdoch's committal. To the Church " the case appeared to involve tho whole question of religious freedom, spiritual in.jdaniuidonco. and CJbixah tUnrijjUms, T2ia

relations of the Church to civil matters and civil authority are defined in Chapter 30 of the confession of faith: "The Lord Jesus Christ, as King and Head of His Church, hath herein, appointed a government in the hand of Church officers, distinct from the civil Magistrate." "We hold," said the Argus's informant, "that the word 'distinct' in Chapter 30 makes us supremo in our sphere, just as the civil Courts are supreme in their sphere." The demand of the Court that Mn.Mundoch should produce a Presbytery document was regarded as implying one of two theories to neither- of which the Church could subscribe: (1) that the Presbytery was not a Court in any sense of the word, but merely a committee or board of voluntary association (a voluntary association being subject to a civil Court), or (2), that even if the Presbytery were a Court in some sense, it was yot an inferior Court, with its officers subject to the ; civil Court. To the first theory it is opposed that the Church is not a voluntary association, but a Divine institution whose members came together in response to a conscientious and religious conviction. As to • the second theory, it is held that a minister cannot obey the command of any civil Court at the cost of violating the confession. In short, the Church held that the. order to ■produce the document meant "that we are not to be allowed to have a Church hero corresponding to our conscientious convictions of what the Church is, and what the powers of the Church are." The Presbyterian Assembly is taking just that stand in regarding the Judge's ruling as, an "interference with religious liberty."

The Judge put his position very plainly. He holds that the civil law, in requiring persons to give such evidence as justice demands, is supreme over all things; that the safety and integrity of our society demanded the unfettered authority of the civil Courts to insist on tho full elucidation of the truth. • He was, as a Judge, no respecter, of persons or creeds:

I could no. more allow mombers.of 'the Presbyterian Church, through oaths administered to one l , another, not to produce' documents necessary for the vindication of a man's character, or for the conviction of a criminal, than 1 could allow two thugs, by virtue of similar datns, to do the saint tiling. It would bo 'an amazing thing, subversive not only of .the -administration of justice, but, consequently, of all order and decency in ino cui.-iuuiiuy, it' any religious saw;, ue they Quakers or. Shakers, could make an agreement amongst themselves not to produce documents, or to give evidence material for the conviction of a murderer or the acquittal of an innocent man charged with murder.'

He could not distinguish between great bodies and small in tnis matter, The essence of the judicial .theory is contained in this passage of his Honour's review of Mr, MuitDocirs case:

...1 have a difficulty in uwlcrstaudri.s ■ hew any man who professes to bo a good citizen can take an oath to violate his auty- as a cucx-n. i liavu a un.cua;, ui L..tic.ovjuuiiig bow'any. body or iiic:umm tibumio.uli from a man that he will yiolato hi 3 duty as a citizen. I have only to say if oaths are construed in tint way, and, if oaths are taken to break the Jaw, are made to break the law, that the gentlemen who do so will find themselves,; not in the witnos's-box, but iu tho adjoining criminal Court, to answer to a charge of conspiracy.

So : far as the Presbyterian Church is concerned, wo can conceive of no' such overlapping of the spheres as would.bring the principles of tnc, Church into irremediable collision with the civil law. The one weakness of tho Judge's contention; that he is not a good cifcizon ; who can "take an oath to violate his. duty as a citizen," lies in the fact that the violation of that duty may. be more in the public interest"than> the violation of the oath or abstention from taking it. .'A newspaper editor, for example, is commanded by tho Court to divulge the authority of an anonymous "letter to the editor," or of a leading article. Ho refuses, and is sent.to gaol.. He is convinced that he is serving the interests of society better by violating.the I .duty imposed on 'him by tho law than by obeying the Court; and practically always ho is N right in thinking so; There mußt'be some duties which conflict with the duty of obeying tho civil Courts. Of' course thore must be an ultimate law which can docido the. precedence ■■■ of conflicting moralities, but it remains hidden. Yet it can have its effect if each morality fixes its own rules and penalties, and leaves them to operate freely. In the case of the Presbyterian Church in Victoria the conflict is more theoretical than practical, but even if it'werc practical, and the Church and the law both insisted on their canons, the final result would in most instances be without material injury to either body. : ;