The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-10-09


Resolved That this House do no. in the action
OF the House Of Clerical and Lay Deputies respecting
canops and OF 1868.
These stand now upon our statute books In full
force BY virtue Of this now OF the House OF
Bishops. Turn now 70 the constitution under which
living and which Is proposed 70 amend tomorrow
It being already made the order of the day for that
time and see what are s provisions they relate 70
this particular question In Acts, it is provided that
1he Bishops OF this Church, when there shall be three
or more SHALL whenever general conventions held,
form separate House with right TO originate and pro
composed Of clergy and ay and when any proposed act
shall have passed the House Of Deputies tho same shalt
negative tereupon and ali acts Of the Convention shall
be authenticated BY both houses And in all cases the
House Of Bishops shall signify 70 the Convention their ap
probation or dsapprobaton he latter with their reason
In wrtng) within three DAYS after the proposed act shall
have been reported to them tor concurrence and in
The House Of Bishops continued Dr. w. have given no
for their under the constitu
ton the canons had therefore, the operation Of law He
moved that the secretary be directed 70 strike these
now and notify the same the House Of Bishops
He then proceeded 70 give analogy this course Of
vention OF 1850 upon subject originating in the adms-
sion 70 official functions in the d0cess Of Illinois, by the
bishop Of that dioccss Of presbytor who went there
from Missouri without the necessary sanctions In the
discussion Of this question reference had canon
Of similar import TO that under consideration, which
had been passed BY the lower house two conventions pre-
yious and which had been declared unconstitutional the
House Of Bishops having failed in its notification of
concurrence therein TO give its reasons for such noncon
maintained that, nasmuch the House Of Bishops failed
to give the reasons for their in the action
Of this House upon canons and q within three days from
tho date Of such action the canons in full operation
DIR. CHAMBERS, Of Pennsylvania, agreed with the gentle
man from Now York. CDR yinton,) that the canons con-
nued In full force the House Of Bishops having failed to
give their reasons for their nonconcurrence within the
period designated In the constitution He regretted how
ever that the question brought up this morning. be-
eyng the better course to have been to defer the discus
sion until to morrow, when the constitutional question
which was made the order Of the day would be under
ntAxtla thn 1ngtN Stg
up on the second day Of the session. message
sent to the House Of Bishops informing them Of the pas
sage was answered on the last day Now, counting this
last day, yesterday and to-day have the three days
within which IL would be competent for the House of
Bishops TO give the reasons for their
By sending up the matter TO the House OF Bishops
might not this requirement Of the constitution be fulfilled
and the whole difficulty be thus seteds the question
could not be disposed Of he hoped ii would be dropped
for today and taken up tomorrow, when the House
would the amendment to the third act Of the constu
ton.
DR.. HowE, the Secretary said:--He understood the
gentleman from New York say that in the Convention
in the passage OF the They sent back
message ALL and with regard TO the other matter OF
fact atcdto Wit that the Of 1858 did not become
statute in consequence Of its similarity to that only that
the Of 1850 declared TO be the law the church
he would state that the secretary recorded the Of
1850 referred to Of that date but the canon
proposed in 1858 did not in associate ofthe
Of 1880 These references he made TO correct mere state
ments Of fact.
posed In 1858 was associated with that of 1850 He
y wanted to show that the action proposed the
same taken in the House Of Bishops before; and that
therefore, there nothing invdiOus in taking this
course.
Dr. MEAD was of opinion that technically speaking,
than three days had elapsed since the House repeat
ed these canons and he believed that the subject might
now be sent up to the House Of Bishops for its action,
without violating any constitutional requirement He was
glad however that the subject brought forward
this time He would speak invdiousy, but would
mark that was easy thing to give the goby TO pro-
position opposed by that House, the in 1850.
not then acted upon, the object being evidently to
let it fall still born He was happy that the subject had
up that the House may the great improperly Of
attempting they will be called upon to do tomorrow,
to amend the third article Of the constitution by strik
fng &C this worry feature, which than three in
stances has compelled action upon here
tofore.
DR.. STEVENS, Of Pa moved that the subject be referred
tothe Committee on Canons to report what is the
DR.. SroRER, Of KY. made some remarks in which he
traced some analogy between the constitution Of the Pro-
testant Episcopal church and that Of the United States
He was almost utterly naudbe ut the point occupied by
the reporter.
DR. vrNToN said there analogy between the two
constitutions for the constitution of the United gave
special directions what should be done Ia case veto
OF the Presdenwhat should be the majority that could
overrule that Veto Our constitution makes mandatory
the House Of Bishops of disapprobaton OF any
measure Of this House. that they shall give their reasons
for within three days He quoted from
the constitution the provision making this requson As
TO the distinction between the two constitutions he would
ask the gentleman to examine the third article OF the
House Of Bishops, well as of this House. under the
constitution were qualified. He had objection to this
presented question the House because the amend
ment OF the third article OF the constitution the
order Of the day for morrow and was before that
article was changed that he wished to take advantage OF
The law and constitution under which they had hitherto
been living.
Judge CoxYNGIAM said there was one matter to which
he desired to call the attention Of the House. In the pre-
sent case the Bishops acting upon this very subject did
return to this House stating that they did not
ho1o
ecvc action inasmuch they did give their reasons
But when that was received from the House Of Bishops
was accepted by the House of Deputies action of
the House OF Bishops, when il nothing more than
defective execution of duty which was in the power
Dr. ViNoN said II was the last day when this report
came in and this the first opportunity they had to
bring the matter up for discussion.
Dr. HAWKS of New York said the last observation that
fell from the gentleman from New York (Dr vnton) /,
suggested to him why they should consent to the pro
position Of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Dr.
Stevens The only rigid consideration in connection
with the question Of non concurrence which should
its reference, seems to is that Of legal bearing
lnasmuch, while there is technical rule, il better
known in the experience Of this body than that we can
better dispose Of all such difficulties by their reference to
committee which can examine the whole question
fully. 1t is true, understand that there were not
three days left of the session OF the last Convention after
the action Of the House upon these Am right
am wrongy
Dr. HOWE the Secretary said that there were not three
days left.
DR.. HAwKs-Tbe observation of the lay gentleman from
garded as Of great weight The distinction one
between act effectively performed the failure
to perform 1t at al He would remark In answer to the
statement made, that this is without precedent It
mas been acted on in this house, and this house has de-
caed against the matter being law in virtue of its
failure lie hoped the motion Of his brother from Penn
sylvana Dr Stevens) would PREVAIL and that the sub
ect would be referred to the Committee Canons and
that they would be instructed to report tomorrow.
Dr. CHAMBERS said there necessity under the
constitution that the House Of Bishops should assign rea
for their concurrence If the Constitution has not
been complied with There is not law OF the church.
here IS no provision in constitutional to MAKE
laws by courtesy. in this there be any obligation
to obey mandates Of the constitution, and If this
action not regarded as preventing the efficiency Of
inc law why would not the next passed by this
House and returned without reason be really obligatory
and why should not every other which this House
passed and TO which the House Of Bishops objected be
returned here without any reason and still be obeyed9
His friend from New York (Dr Hawks) says there are
Precedens Ia principles. While principles very good
IN their place, he Or CO maintained that was the
time above all others to take stand upon this question
He thought if the whole question sent before the
MI ut..lo