The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1847-10-19
Protestant Ep,soopa, General Convention.

HOUSE OF NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. DAY
Morning prayer was read by Rev. Dr. Bnoox, and the
lessons by Rev. DR.. CRors
After passing vote of thanks to the president and
directors Of the institution for the deaf aud dumb
DR. RIca.Ro MA'os called up the business which was
LETT diminished on saturday; the matter of the election
OF an assistant bishop in illinois, and desired make
few observations on il 1t seemed to him there
Of the certificates the legality of the election
apd whether there are any mpediments in the way Of
gard to the generally admitted that thew
def-ctve but there has, however been testimsuy
produced which 1t supposed will make them perfect
he would not say that such testimony sufficient
The deficiency in the documents this they state that
In consequence OF age of the bishop the diocese OF
Illinois has elected an assistant bshopthe words "old
and permanent are left out but the most important
deficiency In them that they do not stats he IA old
and disqualified The omission of the word old Ia not
In his opinion very material and the omission of the
word permanent does not vitate the bv anv
because the declaration Of ageh is SUFFICIENT 70
show that there ID an impeachment in the way of the
bishops performing his functions But the main diff
Guilty s that the certificate does not state thai the
bishop il permanently disabled from attending to his
duties. This he considers serious defect But It NAV
be asked Is there not other testimony which re-
NEEDLES these defseta: He thinks there must be-.
what shall be done, and giving the form In which
It shall be done. If the canon under which the cleo
ton held prescribes the form, would have pre-
vented from going into It, but the canon does not
prescribe the form He thought from the documents pre-
scented the house. that they may infer that the bhop
is old to discharge his duties and we can't on that
account refuse voting for the conservation Of the asss
ant bishop elect But 1t may be objected at the same
time that If to other for information
In this respect that should refer the
to whether the election properly made or not
must look for the "c0ns OF the question well as
the "pros'-otherwise would ACTIN partial manner
In matter which is Of vital Importance to the church
At large This would open the subject to a great ex
tent IL said here Saturday in reference to the
seats of the New York delegates that when documenta
ry evidence is brought forward 1t Is sufficient for the
purpose, and we have right to 60 behind It, The
different. Ii N ela IN
seat in this house that involved in tit matter of
more Importance There are other considerations in
voved In 1t, which ought to have influence on our
ads. The gentleman from Mississippi said the docu-
ments are not perfect, and therefore we must go
for the canons, that we might find the true
Of action to be taken in tho premises He has not
yet seen them and he could not act conscientiously
until he had ascerained whether the documents were
legal or not. We have not them yet but from all
he he speako has been able to gather the election
not egal-that 1t not in accordance with the
csnons Of the church. Until he 10 satisfied therefore
on this point this would be nsuperabe objection
his signing the of the election of the asss
tant bishop There other considerations of magn.
tude 1t has been stated In the debates the question
that there undue influence sxerted the election
One point stated here that the bishop assembled
the clerical deputies Of the convention and be-
fore them insisted their eectng this very person. aud
none other One gentleman states that it was done in
convention, and another that 1t done privately
The bishop reported t. have said that II they did not
elect this man. he would never bring the subject for
saying you will be under the necessity Of eecting Mr.
Britton. You know very we'll that the wants of thu
diocese require that bishop should be elected but If
you d. not elect the man choose YOU shall not elect
anether' This, certainly the plain meaning of
the declaration and he therefore, contended there
an undue influence exercised by the bishop One gen.
teman afterwards comes forward with regret he
signed bis name to the document certifying to the
farther and say that that why Mr. Britton
should not be elected
Rev. MIR. KELLY wished to correct statement which
the gentleman had made. The gentleman who opposed
tha vuea OkQd Ha in
uenced by the bishop for he voted against the bshop
nominee
DR. MAsoN-But he signed the document certifying Il
the election.
Dr. KrLLY-Yes, he signed it after the election.
DR.. MASON said he would merely take the documen
tary evidence.
Rev. MIR. GIDDrros said gentleman at least viz
the delegate from Gssna voted for Mr. Britton the
Dr. Masonic the gentleman at liberty to mention his
name!
MIR. GrpprSas-He has written to me to authorize me
DR. GRiswoLD-Another gentleman who voted for the
assistant bishop after the vote taken entered pro-
test against the in which the election was
DR.. MAsOS-Here IL another instance of undue infu.
snce. Here have three instances Of it. lie was
very glad indeed that he interrupted because Il
brought out the facts more strongly But this Is no,
all Another why Mr. Britton should be elected
WAS that he q man of fortune, and the dioces,
would not be put to the expense OF supporting him.
DR.. KELLy-You are mistaken, sir wish coult
say, for his sake, that Mr.. Britton was q man
fortune.
DR.. MAsoN-Is he without MEANS then?
The Observation-Disclosures this is out of order
DR.. MAsoN-I understand the bishop offered one thou
sand dollars from the Missionary Board in case Of Mr.
Britton's election. Is 1t 80!
Dr.. KELLY-No, sir The Rev. Mr. Kellogg, Of Chicago
of his election The bishop said be would give up hi
Office missionary bishop and Mr. Kellogg would resign
his rectorshp in favor OF any assistant bishop who might
be elected.
The PRESIDENT Gentlemen, this is out of order
DR.. MAsoNI have stated all that understand Of the
matter. paper has just been handed to me stating
that bishop would provided fort ha
port of Dr. Brtton as an inducement fol his election
IL 1t so?
the election took place In lSi7.
Mr. DRESSER Of Illinois, said he present and could
say there allusion made to Mr. Brtons privat.
Means for 1t was well known that he had none.
Mr. GipDsGs did not recolecl that Bishop Chase said
Mr. Britton had private means, used that argu
ment He did, however, use argument that the
parish Of Chicago offered him In of his election
He used this inducement Tor his election
-Mr NEuryILLE would ask whether there was auv ex.
cepon made In the convention to Mr. Brittons private
means
MIR. CoLsroN would ask whether the bishop stated
that Mr. Britton would get the parish OF Chicago as
consideration for the election Of assistant bishop
Mr.. GIDDIros.-Ths parish Of Chicago WAS not per
haps named The strongest parish in the diocese wal
named, and having been offered to the person VIII,
would be elected assistant bishop the bishop
nominate this gentleman and having stated his qua
fcations he commanded the convention to elect hin
their bishop, their clergy their canoncal OATH
and the laymsn rs communicate
Rev. Mr. FORBES thought this discussion was entirely
out Of order.
Dr. Mason said, he had objection to these expana
tions. He does not want to state any thing that wa
not true
The President thought the best way for the gentle
to proceed with bis remarks. IL he is contra
dicted, the house will hear the contradiction.
DIR. Mason said, far as he could ascertain the pa
IRISH offered for the assistant bishop, but In tn
Of events that followed it Ia clear 1t intence
only for a particular assistant bishop. Now he con
tended there Is difference between presbyters resign
ing for the benefit of the church. and making such re
sgnation smonacal contractthat rs will resign 70
particular one and no other. The gentleman went
to say that he could not sign testimonials Of which
had doubt, much lees when he has reason he has
this case to believe the election based on conrac
Of this kind. In regard to what the gentleman ffor
Louisiana states, he trusts there Is difference be
tween negative action and positive action betwee
the bishops saying, I do not approve Of the man
and saying you shali elect such n person, AM
II you do not elect him, you shall not cleo
any other man. The difference IL obvious Now 4
must be that to certain extent bishop would inter
fere to prevent the election person nimical to him
for various other when he no
icsl objections TO him. but that he should attempt
impose person the church Is another thing Flo
the which he he could not sign these docu