, 1869-07-23

Specification the language u Hnnat1atla,l tng
fame. NoE We have tSs his:pFs5sasn, 1r,:,,oS now
,Ss hass sa,x ~ Ii g 9sap r nasssta sa +
the Diocese o. Rhode iaands !, IT. aaa M y ths
cnaTEes ID that 1t xns At divers times and ptssGa.
and sl,hough i wss present at some pafti," q ths
ts dns1, 70 st,1ss 10 e. Of @
sid space, We hare tlec1sion Of this kind By
Honoaan, on the trial Of Bishop onderiops, L. L.
ih1.t eonuiIy. great In Importance aud great by
tea1on Of The parties interested nnd enanse1 10
H. one Of the charges Tss ssso 81 co. ~ tas ae
that TO sec whether ~ pressntnent = gooL u
enstsea .Reciass VIZ Of ercsn' con-
ass ~ sa ~ Mns " stseeea oat s. 1he
- to lime agd plsee: The ,.t; es1!e:c yas INT ;
ssrcu Jsasr. and ~,thin the linlltt Of
ns 1hs 81, s,aoP In,. naco ha been
u ,ssrs Ss ot line a.d te shoe tloss Or Ssn @
YORK. or course they sall that was not sultlc!ent
not tue! did pos unuertake 10 nay what wAa or
yssfs yI% time sol fanga of shc vhoIc sta1, Or thc
whole diocese wss moi sufficient We hase also
reference III Huffman to q case that occurred III
Connecticut IN 1ssS
In thc ycnr l.2s tho following proceedings took
pinle III Connecticut: The Key, Mi. Nsynos waA
prosecuted, Il Is quoted, :" "for being IN ths halAt ei
EriscoraI Church IN lhc Unitci states; Tor peng
III Ibu hphlt Nf public t.IvsChlng wthUt using the
G1 sap ,Ia, =, s ns.t s9s ~,
4nulGl ~ |! Il WAS tho ianxnaxc u Tic present.
lneht - The etRn'..pg C0ultn.itCo i'c!ng Informed
hy tho nlHhop that dr 1lnynar would lnlupslniclY
,nnlr Inc defamation required BY Iuc sorclth
rnuVn 6r la2a tn cnalu &AG iIlshpp ~ xnspc.i III him
rum the 'nlhi.trJ rlthou! trial proceedings on
ttrccdrnt, InA il can show lhh. 0hio hns aIopi.
t shtx furI or snl,at a!nlly Ilku ourr or tias
Cunncrilcu:, or ihnt Sow iGtk. or any oao rIso,
huut gIt Pkt,hN tLt4.. S.f
lice, sud tho rulcs laid down ~ sufficient 10
proceed with reasonable certainty II all HAT il 70.
vii, ROW answcr Ar. ThonpaonA point on TITO
eighth nstctr. u proYht1 tuRt u lloes vi Cotunon
rin,c und administration u tho sacrament slalt
wLisa my friend Thosnrson dwrl4 gooi deal up
OH thr pGns OF altering. Two tIraches NAY bo
properly Usgnctt under thla article. Onn Ii ihat
.S S IL ssegy uee.a Taat L onu
thing md alteration Il auothcs NOW Jon luAy coni-
t ss1 beasa o. r. oa az wne D9nt 9t sso e eaao
Mon Prayer. aud particularly that part relative 70
the nltulhistfnt!un oi the zacEamcnts which II
s ioamsn III IL = psEo T 81 ia5. il do@n v;is speeii
caliy ihat laiiurp 10 uso Il OF couIso
~ Msssn.ahls ot1sass. a v'e!s'ion %, Of
t,nu Ut the ordination has always been held TO bc
ptcxcntai'1e offence. II Is certainly prescntA,lo u
proved OfcuuEae, IN Ill this speak hyp,tnct4-
thing. fonlJ act Upon tho evidence VIC have n.
gupIst to exit think havu sxid NIL tnA. de-
.s snoa o 5 nHn TftsF T. ,as 70 s4es e
In Ito Oudcnlonk ca4e, which rvs -stricKcn out
because tho wholc State waa ranged over and
tentio1 to the iact that here is specinc parish
charged 10 every Instance aA tho plAce; the lIt1t
We have put Ut near - VIZ could, and aa near AZ
Was nceesBaE!. lbcleSc l have ssld Hll deslrs
iii. FuELEK. II tho court please. ! cannot
but exp1ess my susps9e that ny friend saoud Gu
the authority Of hts tavuriie Hodaan, " present.
Ing 10 this court. AZ precedent nad authority, a
rtcaentmcnt IN IN Ohio case which pever came 70
objection obtaining 10 Tint u to this except that
that Is little better than this ono. ns VIII show.
Msn 'ls ee II which th1t pFe;entmsat Tas
tSe sou;t W ',s ,ns'Shs :,.,,' aaa &c
eurItA!tlcn that Rouc coUr5, some time 10 be or
ganztd III The s,ate q Ohio. viii bold that iocu-
ard rased an objection nrst, and 1t sill be consid.
Of ohio. Again. be haa thought beioze the court
the celebrated Ondsraonk case. lie qu0fes from
Hofrn; IN. and shall quote nom HOFFMAN Hc
are ali agreed utUut hitn. But ou The article stsick-
ITSELF which Is bett1r snthoiity than uon.nan : On On
that point The article Has stricken out because
indefinite -. -..
Judge Otis argument Is that, because tho court,
Of la 0w Dot1on, struck that article out for In
uthniteness, this court ought nat to strike these
I..e'ss ost nseasse tnes S, e. not qslte es r.
10 my favor, a. matter Of coufse- Erery Que
Of the eight articles on Which Bishop onderdonE
vas tried tEec!tsd time as well u piace, and
mas the ninth arilcle7 '*Sad bishops further
present AID aleGe TINT, at sunuJ other tnnea
within the seren Years Last past, ne sald Hepja.
MIN 7. CndtFdonG, Bishop Of Eall Diocese Of New
Yors, nnu within the limits Of said diocese. bus
done DC, &c, IN great many instances;
po 80 'ss asu ne fE % & Tie s ai q ~ Il
other paris Of the Protestant Episcopal Church in
the United States OF Anenca. to the manifest
q the FaIa DenjsmIn T. onderioni," md fte how
msrk, "and nothing prevents the presentation Of
these cases on 6eparae specifications, hnt the
ncssea 10 testify to the truth OF those matters"
aeht Reverend benjamin 7. Ondenion1, I'D,
iiou stsuck oul the nlnth article. i.was ortlcrcl
~ ne cousf as 20 mqsa o. re-
a. oe II e 70
taniy as to time place o. circumstances. " and
;hey did 20 on and corTtct ihat Bsaop Under all,
cles charging m offence committed eight years
before, and : good deal oi doubt has been enter
M brother on the other side Was sneeFfn8 at had
Ect better have been taEen In that case, mud
%hens. was not oghu a1 nds5 n s
should IL 50 condemned aiter The lapse o. 50
Rany x5Sess,,r 5ess but ;nsy dssnss, nans slsfss ss
length e s he'd oq the eeaa e MAKE R
Gle which was stricken out, that his conduct dur
when We cons1le1 II, 1t viii be found not to be
quite 20 !ndennite as my friend Judge OILS sup
roses. Sow, because that was utterly VOID. there
lore Judge OTIS can Justify his p1eseptmerL be-
eaEse 1t Ii not as bad as that. Now ! haye been
waiting all day With Kind Of feelng that this
question would at last arise. thought TIC court
cause the aw Is IN al con11s Of specific creation
and limited iu1tsd!ci!on-to use those words again
aas aa an .!sS Sesf0n a 70 any toe ,s aoa
that the cour., e. rnerp ,ro.u would act upon them
whenever those objections TtEc tEoaght u ~ no.
II has not been suggested to the coua before, but
now ut last we hase arrived at poEnt where
ny trend's tasoEte lioaEan ,ssy + directly asaass
friend stuck to the canon- We put the second o5.
jcctiupa, and he rather abandoned tho canon, mud
SS deIsfand m F him he i is eusns to To- no@au. @ bat
have: got MIN where Il he sucks to Hoffman bis
presentment Is not worth the paper 1t = Written
presentncnt In the State Of ohio was better than
this one. and tell him that the omission OF The
wort "repeaieoly makes g7e3; az d!aeTsnee @ 9Th
haeit m of t'on, this Thing. Bns la Ills present:
ment it does nowhere appear that the Rer: elias.
cuscd, WIS ID The habit Of leaving This wor! ont
Thai Is what complain OF. II tat irtend will al:
that can meet: II my friend will Allege taat he
did II any certain Sunday, IN any certain year.
Will meet It. II he does not 80 charge, why does
he not present \ canon 10 support the charge be
makes3 lie always has canon TO refer 10. He
rays that . registry OF bnptlsms should be Kept
Well. We naye Kept such Iestssry; Tnat u
70 Eany tsptitna during the Fast two Jears that
L the trsa1 proceeds might hare 10 bring IN
y 1S ,S,I huna u 10 ssse
menI Am 10 he called upon 70 bring
IN SIX hundred witnesses by anticipation. OF twelve
70 right to prove my innocence. There Is 3
pres sunptton in coaItsfn IN favor o! innocence.
hrt never hare heard that q man is TO be cut Oh
charged As ! an. under this prcsentnen. hare
got TO summon nn nJ congregation IA order 70
meetiL say that u unreasonable. II not .:e-
IL; no precedent can be shown for It Now, this
preseuimcnt IN Ohio, ln some of is specifications,
stsss1 that us nan dla aas1sg ,f d9 sosa aaa
Inuln9 to do 60, and on specified day the Bishop
y rote 10 him, and on smother specified day tne
ed that, and continued this practice Of having |
surpced chor1hteEs, or whatever y Wns. i eeeus
H.: S sno1seI y ~
Cnurca. InAt presen:ment nrose In altogether |
aas and Is IN poin1 ior 4 tne t1s hsre
stated and u viii b r@e enough when II Is adia-
dlcaied upon to bring Il here as precedent The
csse Of slr. Smith. IN Cou1ccttc1t- |
Ar. OTIS RaJnor
NE. FULLER l have forgotten the page Let
~ see what that VAS. It WAS RaJnor, perhaps, |
u the gentleman says It does not xaJ It was |
bat We viii assume, for the purpose
Of this case, that It HasL He Was present. !
ID for being IN the habit of pe1foru- |
Ing hts III ach. ] do not think the pre-. !
cedcnt Is In roiut, even II It easa precedent.
YVES about to admit that that waa the language |
ol the presensment, but there IS nothing to de- |
naud IL It Is placed n quotations lnarH; tha.
another source But thcre Il nothing TO Indicate