New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-05-29
BALI Of the clergy. and it takes swotAId. for pre~.,

BALI Of the clergy, and takes twohirds for prcsu,
ment
ton on the clergy.
Anoeher gentleman called the last to order
The Bishop explained how f was according 70 Ia
canon that Church Il not allowed TO vote b sv a..
gates until year after ifs admission.
Mr. H. disclaimed any intention 10 reject on Ac cic
~ They were men Of pure tntention. But he und.r.
stood bur an nature and understood how il was dat
men might honestly have their minds affected Aad -
found also that among the prominent lay fends Of hc
Bishop were men who were his creditors endorsers q.
And they might unintentonslly and unknowlngy h.ys
their minds operated upon
Mr. H. defended his past conduct in this matter and
said that now the responsibility transferred 10 ths
three Bsshops who In addition to the charges presepseS
to them have made charges Of their own Tie cAsrys
of falsehood s transferred from the four lsyme. :,
them The Bishops, and those who assisted them IN
collecting evidence have been snecfed at Bat D.
Bishops either had right or MOTTO collect evidence
they have why they sneered at for performing their
dutyi II they should not DO l., to whom could they
apply better ,lsn clergymen
His resolution In 40 bad been voted down On TIA
ground of mere rumor But Is there anything better
nows The Convention has refused TO so the dom
ment TO be read. We bave no charges before US No
man has presented charges to W.
Mr. Hasted, in closing. read report from Tie We.
York Times concerning a collision between him ana
the Bishop and asked the Bishop ii Ii was correctly re-
ported. 80
Mr. H. said he should then take it to be correct
Several called Mr. H. to order as being isrelesani&
Mr. H. claimed his right to reply 10 personal 4.
tack upon himself, ard put himself right lie then
proceeded TO comment tse language OF the report
lie did not sneak the bill relayc 10 procuring wit.
in ecclesiastical cours into the Legislature Ha
never sneaked any where or behind anybody. lie IN
roduced the bill into the Legislature last year, and nd
% TO nil defect in our law, TO give man whose
reputation ssssed in ecclesiastical courts toe SAND
rights and privileges as man whose property "a 10
rlolno h;a.f 3sasfr
the Church Mr. II. entered into bold DEF nse OF he
past course and denied the charges made by the bsp
as reported. Mr. H. reiterated his charges made sc
night night that two friends OF the Bisnop were scyd
In defeating the bill
Col Trsyers stated that he had sent copy Of the a
to the Bishop while IL was before the Senate.
Mr. Joel w Condit stated that when he irst Saw the
BILL the section concerning ecclesiastical courts was
stricken cut That Mr. Zabriskie, OF Hudson, had In,
formed him that lie Of bis accord, made the motion
to strike out deeniDg that there was something more
in il than appeared on the surface.
Judge Ryall wished to kaow whether the objections
raised to the resolution were because was too soon
too late But has there ever before been charge In
tangible form for inquiry and acuoni The Convention
OF isig had right to decide whether there was evi.
dence enough before II for Inquiry. They refused Il
with unanmity Yet we are told that they committed
great error and the friends OF the Bishop were a
blame In 1850 who raised suy charges None; and
what Is the inference Because none believed them,
and considered Inquiry necessary IL said thss
this silence L. refusal In ls5l II was also So and the
gentleman says tnM nc ndd TIE papers ia MS pucNt out
had no opportunity to present them. Why did be not
make It known The Special Convention could not act
as II convened for particular purpose. And why d
this too late Aud why did not the gentlemen then
come forward with their advicei lie claimed then
was the fret time the Convention had an opportunity
for investigation.
He also argued that the General Convention was cons
posed only OF delegates from Diocesan Conventions
which had previously existed Aud the General Com
venton had power except such as were resigned To
Il by the Diocesan Convention Ii was a similar casa
with the adoption of the Constitution OF tho United
States Is il to be supposed that those Bishops far
away from the Diocese shall have power to makea
presentreu,, the complaint Of four laymen
And then when will they have their trial II is stated
that they have postponed it to October Why may they
not again and again, and the trial never
cur How eau the Convention with any consistency
refuse investigation, when In le49 they daclared
themselves ready to have an investigation
Rev. A. b. Patterson said he had changed his mind ~
to the prOprieiy of the action recommended hayin2
disspproved Of it. IL question OF policy and
expedency, rather than of law and the very fact Of
the adjournment OF the trial, called for Il for should
the matter be held over the Bishops and Diocese foe
months 1t would be great injustice, and we should
act to counterbaance H. He understood that this action
had even been recommended by some OF the Bishops.
Mr.. J. w Copdit concurred, and thought that com.
honesty called for this action since the postpone
ment ano also that the pc tponement had made tho
court perfectly dead, and the Diocese at bery
take such action as il pleased.
Several other speeches were made, and the rescla'
tons were finally adopted as reported by the Com.
mittee
The following gentlemen were then elected the Con,
niftee of investigation
Daniel b Ryall John H. Wakefield John l.. Mcknight,
Charles Charles NJ Harker
After the transaction OF some ordinary business and
the usual exercises, the convention finally adjourned
s-x~.ass~s~.~~s~-