New-York tribune., 1868-10-20

dcuv In getting Assistant Bishops under the present
canon and he thought the only difference between the
Old canon and the proposed amendment would DC nd'
The latter would put in the power of the Diocesan Con
venton to make the Bishop so uncomfortable that he
The Rev DR.. shelton Of Western New-York thought
the existing entirely adequate for the present re-
The Rev DR.. MARBLE of Pennsylvania was satisfied
that there was generally mo diihey a, Sr os abso
uely necessary that some provision should DC ade o
the relief OF oyerworked Bishops. .., ,,o oo,ond.
The Rev. DR.. Andrews OF virginia favored the aieh"-
The Rev Dr Haight were but two new
noints i'm the amendment reported by the Committee
One was that it allowed the election OF an Assistant
Bishop IN Of the temporary disability OF the a,o
cesan whereas under the existing canon, an assistant
could be had only IN cases OF permanent disability ne
Thought there cases known to ALL where had lne
Language OF the canon been loss stringent great gooa
would have been done to both the Bishop ana te M ohrv
by the election Of assistants anp ne referred 70 te case
~ the Bishop OF Maryland IN illustration OF this view
The Rev Dr. shelton thought the safest means OF re-
small dioceses to aid them during their disability
The Rev. Dr. Hodges thought the eHstng iegisaiiD iia
ton and the provision that Convention might erect an an
Assistant Bishop whenever the diocesan was gong 10 pe
nermanently disabled thought mpractlcabe. because
Of the difficulty OF foreseeng when man was Sohs 10
DC me Rey Mr. Rogers Of Texas thought the proposed
canon might properly bo styled canon OF OPPRESSION PRESTON
and division because Is pn. ~ .ne 70 appont his own
successor: the other hand IL woud sape IVY VI
three shrewd presbyters to so worry ana tease tne
Rbop from year to year to force another man into
his chair. &C. 49,, ,o,or ,rown n casa
The Kew lr Hleau Noih''p "'" 40 enahIad In
where Bishop by having an assistant was ehaOled 10
nont b own successor and he thought there was no
danger to be appreheuded from that source As 10 te
fear mat Prcsbyters and Diocesan Conventions would
crowd their Bishops he thought II totally unfonndcd
because Of the strongest tendencies IA Tue h
was not 10 crowd Bishops, but to worship thel anu inc
one.nnn power OF Bishop in his diocese nearly always
made his little finger potent than the oins OF al MS
clergy and aity together lLaughter he was III ia'or
OF the amendment. ,. -. A.. ,,oxs,
mittce and 1t adopted by vote OF 80 Yeas 10 nays
The Rev DR. Hubbard. NewHampshirc offered reso-
lution authorizing the Joint Standing Committee on the
PRAYER Book to report the next General Convention
upOn questions relating TO the proper pointing OF the
standard Prayer Book and to the restoration o words
left out Of IL by clerical errors. Adopted. .
The Rev. DR. Hodge OF NewJersey moved to SEND back
10 tho Committee Canons their report ON the res0iu
ons by him proposing to alter Canon II relative
officiating Of persons not minister's After some
discussion the report was recOmmitted.
The House adopted n resolution To SIT to-day ana sue
cecdng days from 10 a 10 y. NJ. and from p H. 10
4p.m
At4p. IN. the House adjourned