New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-05-29
NEW-JERSEY.
Episcopal Convention, Yesterday.

The Report of the Committee on the
Presentnen of he Bisnop under consideration at
the close Of our yesterdays report 1t expressed cont
dence in the Bishop, claimed the right TO have the trial
in this diocese, recommended the appointment OF a
Committee to investigate the charges &C
After Mr. Southard's remarks Mr. James Parker rose
and argued against the proprety of the
mended. An investigation has been refused because i,
was deemed improper 10 try a Bishop on common rumor
The three Bishops had sent letter to the Bshor-which
he (Mr p did not deem at all impairment and recon-
mended special Convention This called aud did
not he think take such course tended TO mOiv the
complaints. In the resolutions passed at that Conven
ton resolved that while the Bishop had ever been
willing meet investigation, yet such inves,iga-
tgation deemed unnecessary. Is this not refusal
OF the Convention to exercise their right of trial
There presentment therefore not before us, but
the House of Bishops, and have nothing do with
them. His sympathies were with the Bishop, bat he
thought his friends had taken the for his
comfort peace and safety. This investigation should
have been made years ago. The people would now
think there something wrong. Why should not the
charges 90 before the Bshops' Are they no. capable,
and as much so AZ any seven men out of this body ali
of whom have their prejudices and opinions Better
let the Sheriff appoint an impartial jury
Mr. Cortlandt Parker spoke OF the soemnity OF the
question before the Convention, and OF the soemnty OF
his feelings in its consideration tie opposed the recon-
mended action of the Committee-he did friend
of the Bishop. lie had been taught that man should
ALWAYS submit law and he considered that this action
was an unlawful intrusion on right and on law. The
canon of the Charch provides that the trial of Bishop
shall be special pressntment made BY the Conyen
ton of the Diocese, or three Bishops.
On reception of the presentmen, the presiding Bish-
op shan serve copy the accused, giving notice Ut
trial Mr.. p challenged any one who understood and
could interpret law to prove that the trial by Conven-
ton should take place before the tal by the Bishops
Two modes OF bringing TO trial existed in law by
information brought by the Attorney General, and the
other by Indictment OF the Grand Jury. The present
ment has been made by the Bishops, and our duty now
is TO submit members of this diocese, and ofthe
Church. TO their action in the solemn forms Of law.
Ii made no difference if the Bishops in their letter al.
lowed that the Diocese must first try the But they
aid that it could not reasonably be expected to inter
fere" till the Diocese refused sc. He inquired If the
Convention Of NewYork had ever claimed the prior
right of trial when the Bishop Of that Diocese pre-.
sentedi lie claimed, therefore that we have right
10 this recommended action. Moreover, what would Ii
accomplish II would be useless formula 1t could only
reasser. what have already assered-Our confidence
in the Bishop The tendency of this action could only
have effect 10 distract the course ofjusrce
And be thought that the object was b demonstrate
that the Bishops should therefore not have their trial and
the presentment should fall TO the ground Wss this
setting up the Diocese OF New Jersey against the Church
Of the United States Perhaps there another OBJ
iect 10 raise moral opinion which should help the
Bishop his trial He submitted that gentlemen should
net raise the fearful hend OF public opinion 10 interfere
With justice. The matter should be left with God and
nstce. The natural effect of this would be pref.
judicial TO the Bishops cause rather than beneficial He
warned the majority who intended TO pass this thattbey
woult regret IT, that It Of the greatest dagger
blows that had ever been aimed.
He defended me course OF those who had formerly
moved iOf an investigation on account OF Iney
had been detained, and their motives soed with impi-
tatons. But 1t was njudcious movement on the part
OF the Bishops friends though the Bishop ready 20
meet the investigation. All the circumstances connect
ed with this had produced bad effect and so had the
subsequent movements of bis friends I'LL now II as 10
be feared that public opinion would have more effect
than il ought 10 in this trial
The Bishops had not threatened In their letter to
present The painful duty alluded 70 was only hat OF
waking inquiry.
He did DOT wish to be understood as conuendur al
together the action OF the three Bishops They had
made MISTAKE In selecting the messenger they did and
IN supposlng mat The Convention would not do its duty
he disagreed entirely with the cOuuseis which had hith-
erto allied, and this action were now called on 10
perform seemed TO him 20 complete their bad effect Il
would convey the idea 20 chrsendom that we dare not
leave our bshop 10 the law, but bsve an nvesr
CATION OF fFiends-a white washing Committee Public
opbon was me most fearful enemy that innocence had
10 encounter on trial
!usee ogden said he yas sorry that the gentleman
had Lot before volunteered his counses go that the ur.
yIous advice gwen 70 the Bishop might have been cor
rected lie stated thatthe object Of the ConlEree IN
they report Vas 10 the ends Of Justice sus.,in ~,
dignity OF the diocese, aud protect the Bishpo froa, i'm
properecuon. Tie only question it, are the r.ol,,s
Csnonca, ust and proper. The actions Of The sreiI
Convention were On record; they were sustained Nv
the majority.
he supposed TIA. the General Convention q, f-s,;,
tie canon for The trial OF a Bishcp had two oie.t.
their mrds trst the trial Of Bishop for ian m lrsv
ard secondy. ifg heresy. When Bshop ia a. 10 "a
for irncrsiiy the pressr tnent mus. De mad. ~
ciocts@ net 81 r'rnoF cN' y twolsiIds of each rd