The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1859-05-27
PRICE TWO CENTS

vention, he offered an amendment directing the
question to be referred to the vestries of the diff
ierent parishes and that the sentiment of the same
De secured, and the result Of the same be placed
before the Convention" Mr. Clarke then pro-
ceeded to discuss the legality of the proposed
change. lie cOntended that to change anorganic law
~ ~ was necessaryto appeal directly to the people.
II proposition was made in the Leoislatnre of tha
State to change the Constitution of the State with
ONT taxing the sense Of the people of the State it
would be Illegal, and violation of the funda
PinGiple OF the land In the proposition to
divide this Diocese the preamble was nraciseI tbe
same, and II carried out the Same cbaroctor oor ~
oience VIII be done to the fundamental law which
governs the Diocese. He Continued for 60 ~
demonstrating the truth of his position, when he
was followed by "He4 "'
II. ID. Evans Esq, who contended that the car
tleman had misconceived the 18th article of the
Constitution. The division of the diocese was IN
perfect Keeping with the action of the Convention
of 1888, which settled the point at ISSUE
DR.. kerfoot said that the principle under discus
sion had been settled by the division of the New
York Diocese. The Constitution of that diocese
ana the Constitution of the Diocese of MARYLAND
were similar The Constitution of the United
Church settled the point and gave the right TO di
vide the church.
The question on the amendment of Mr.. Clarke,
TO seier the question to the vestres was put and it
was lost.
Dr. Norwood said that he was opposed to di
VISION. why, what authority had the advocates
lor dlvlslon for saying that the church could sup
port two Bishops? 1t was but two years since
that the present Bishop was compelled to ask for an
increase of salary.
Bishop Whittingham-''If the gentleman is going
10 discuss the personal action of the Bishop he will
vacate the chair
Here the Bishop left the chair and the Rev Mr.
w Waters presided
Several members rose and asked DR.. Norwood
not to proceed.
ceed. e "O"" pi'
Dr. Cox moved that the gentleman be allowed
to proceed. Carried.
Dr. Norwood said he asked no favor of the Con-
ventiOn. He had the right to proceed and intend.
ed to do so. He was going on to say that but few
years since, the Bishop was compelled TO ask for an
increase OF his salary. Personal friends of the
itnIP SngP hau came TO his relief. while the Church
STOOD py and allowed him to be surrounded bv
hnanclai difficulties. If but two years ago the do
cese hau oeen unable to support one Bishop why
should gentlemen assume that it could now support
Two lie doubted the ability of the diocese to do
so. ne knew that the parochial clergy were but
parely supported, and he thought if wouId ha nm
wise 10 burden them with the expense of an episco
pacy. Another view was that it would be a diff
eut Gu maIter 10 secure man who would be able to
hll the place OF the present Bishop He had brcupht
to the discharge of his duties such eminent nietv
ana nnWearylng exertion that he had but few EQUALS
IN ONCE. There no Incidence about him He
was the spirit OF the diocese, and although he had
ullerGd win MN on some points, he had ALWAYS
looked up to him the father of the diocese with
reverence and respect which it would be diAicuIt
tor almost any other man in the same capacity
to command
Gen. TiIghman, of Talbot, was in favor of the di
VISION He felt assured that as soon as the demand
was made upon the laity for the support of the new
diocese it would be met
Kew. Mr. Rolfe, of Baltimore, said that he be-
lleVe9 'nat all the lalty required to have the
gospel presented to them in its purity and force
and generous response would be made to every
call OF the Church. He did not think that it re-
CURED the most eminent abilities to constitute a
lin nFrhf fho,,
virtues, deyout pietv, and a heart consecrated To
the work OF God These were what were necessary
for the proper filling of the position and he felt as
sured that they could always be secured
kev. W. }. Clarke, Of Kent, was in favor of the
division. His parish were almost unanimous on
the question of division. They felt the need of the
services of the Bishop. They knew that the BisbOp
was unable TO spend the time with them which the
parish really required The Eastern shore was
isolated and 1t was impossible for the head of the
diocese to visit them. Some persons turned out to
see the Bishop as they did to see an elephant TThe
speaker here turned and begged the Bishops par
doh Tor the remark just made, saying he meant no
dlsrespect He said we want the people to become
familiar with the Bishop and all his duties As far
as the support of the Bishop was concerned that
was not even question. There was not a shadow
OF doubt about it. The Eastern shore were able
and anxious to support diocese. He asked in the
name OF the Eastern section of the State.
Hon. James A. Pearce was opposed to the divi-
SION so tar as the parish to which he belonged was
Il
church express himself favorably to the propo-
siton In regard to the county of Kent he was sure
that 1t was opposed to the division. He believed,
and he gathered his information from the report,
that four OF the counties of the Eastern shore were
opposed to the division. He thought there should
De more unanlmlty on question of such magni-
tude, and he was sure that it would be difficult to
say how the Eastern shore section stood on this
question. lie for one thought it would partially
destroy the influence and power of the church and
perhaps awaken heart-burnings which it would be
a difficult matter to heal. He was opposed to
division.
Bowie Davis, Esq, of Montgomery, had come TO
the Convention with the intention of voting for the
division under certain contingencies After the
remarks of the gentleman who had lust taken his
seat he was convinced that there was not sufficient
unanimity from the section of the State as1nr for
the division to warrant the Convention in comply
ing with their request. He would be compelled
therefore to vote against the resolution
The question was called ResoIred, That it is ey-
pedient to divide the Diocese of Maryland into two
Dioceses.
The Bishop said the vote would be taken by or
derS I and the Secretary proceeded to the call.
The ballot was as follows:
Clergy-6S yeas; 2S nays
Lay Delegates-4l yeas: 40 nays
The Bishop then announced that the resolution
had been adopted by both orders
A member moved to adjourn
Inc BiShop then stated that he wished the men,
pers OF the Convention to meet in the basement at
haItpast II t., eight O'Clock in the morning.
oN.i. iIsumdu moved Il reconsideration of the
vote Just taken. - Wv
Mr.. Hare moved to lay the motion to reconsider
on the table.
After some discussion the Bishop put the motion
10 lay the motion to reconsider on the table, A
division OF the house called, aud after the afir-
native vote had been counted a discussion arose az
to the effect which the motion to lay on the table
would have if carried
Mr.. Hare asked leave to withdraw his motion to
lay the motl1n for reconsideration on the table
lie said that he would cry mercy to the majority
lie hoped they would leave the question until the
morning.
The Bishop decided that the request of Mr.. Hare
could not be entertained, as the motion had been
partially voted on.
The negative of the question was taken and the
motion to lay on the table was lost
At this juncture it was announced that lay del
egate, Mr.. j. c. Thomas had voted on the oues-
tion of division Of the diocese but his vote had
not been recorded by the Secretary
The name OF j. c. Thomas was then called and
he voted may on the proposition to divide the d-
This vote made tie in the vote of the Iaitv, and
the Bishop stated that it changed the complexion
of the question before the house.
DR.. Broom, lay delegate, then stated that he de-
sired to vote on the question Of a division of the
diocese.
Some little confusion occurred here, and the
Bishop said he hoped the members of the Conven-
tion would not allow their feelings to lead them too
far. This was secular meeting, and if anv gem
tleman, who had right to vote, desired to do so,
he knew the Convention would concede the
privilege.
motion then made that the name of Dr..
Broom be called, which was carried.
The name was called and DR.. Broom voted ''nay''
on the resolution to divide the diocese.
The Bishop then announced that a majority of
the clergy had voted in the affirmative on the ques-
tlon OF division of the diocese, and a majority of
the laymen had voted in the negative on the same
oposition-therefore the resolution attached
to the report of the Committee, ''that it is exped
ent that the Diocese of Maryland be divided into
two Doceses," was lost
A motion to adjourn until this morning at eight
o'clock prevailed.
BALTMoREAN SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN KILLED By
NEW YORK ROwDIEs.-The New York Times of yes
terday says: Charles c. Cochran, Young man
who was employed as book-keeper in the store of
Buckley & Co., No. College-p place, and who board
ed at No. q Amity-place was found dead Yesterday
morning in his bed. From the circumstances, it is
believed that his death the result of violence.
On Tuesday evening he went to Wallack's Theatre
with FRIEND but left before the performances were
concluded, promising to return and meet his COM
panOn in the saloon underneath the theatre after
the theatre had closed. He failed to keep his ap-
pontment; but where he went after leaving the
theatre is not known. little after midnight he
made his appearance at his boarding house. Both
eyes were blackened, his face was covered with
lacerated wounds and bruises, and he bore other
external indications of having been assaulted. lie
asked what the matter was, but refused to give
any account of himself and went Immediately to
bed. Yesterday morning he did not appear at
breakfast, and on going to his room he was found
dead. post-mOrtem examination ol the body re-
vealed fracture of the skull, about two inches in
length between the frontal and parietal bones and
congested blood upon the brain. An inquest was
held by the Coroner, but no testimony was elected