The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1875-03-01
The gtxtonr,. of Illinois.

The Btshoprie OF illinois,
REPLY OF THE CHANCELLOR OF TIE DIOCESE TO
THE MEMORIAL ASSERTING THAT THE REV. DR.
DEKovEh's ELECTION WAS ILLEGAL.
The Standing Committee Of the Protestant
Episcopal Diocese of Illinois replied, on the
Doth utimo, 10 the memorial lately addressed
to the standing committees OF the other do
ceses of The United States petitioEiUg them
not to give their consent to the conservation
or the Rev. DR.. DeKoven, the bishop.elect.
The memorial referred to alleged that the
election was illegal because the votes In GER
tain parishes we're thrown out, and because
two officers in the diocese were permitted
to vote who, in the opinion OF The petition
ers, had no right TO do so.
s. Corning Judd, chancellor Of the do
cese, gives the opinion. He says that it had
been claimed ."that the vote Of the one
parish which was divided upon the question
of the confirmation by the laity of the nomi.
nation of the Rev. DR.. DekoVen instead Of
being 'neutralized,' and therefore thrown
out, should have been counted against him."
In reply to this Mr.. Judd argues that as the
parish referred to was divided on the question
ofapproval, and voted neither for nor against
such approval, the division among the dele
gates amounted simply to refusal on the
part Of the parish to vote either "aye" or
"ne," and that it could not be construed as
q vote in the negative. 1t was ga well-settled
principle Of parliamentary law" that blanks
must not be counted. In Jeterson's Man
uai, on page 1856, the following sentence
might be found: lin all balotlngs blanks
shall be rejected and not taken into the
count in the enumeration of votes or
reported by the telers." The prac-
tice of the Diocesan Convention since
1851 had been uniformly to treat q
divided parish as neutralized," and not
as represented in the vote. Nor bad
there been any attempt. to change the
practice until the recent special CONVEX
ton, when a motion In regard to the divi.
sion of the lay delegates from the con-
gregation was made and defeated by
decisive vote. 1t had been.suegested by
the persons who desired 10 count ia the neg.
alive a parish half Of whose delegates had
voted in the affirmative that this "neutral-
lziug" clause related to legislative action
only. The rule said nothing of the kind, and
the idea proposed was "the fruit Of vivid
imagination" To his mind the suggestion
was as absurd as the proposition to count
affirmative votes in the negative was mon
strous. 1t was in the power OF the Diocesan
Convention to say what votes should be
counted and what not; and that body hay.
| ing determined that Gan equal division OF
the lay delegates from congregation should
neutralize the vote Of such congregation,
the matter was ended and placed be-
yond appeal. Dir. Judd then says
~ have discussed this matter at
length because its correct determination
dispels all cavil as to the legality OF DR..
DeKoven's election. no matter what view
may be taken in regard to the right OF the
char cellor of the Cathedral and Of the chan
celor OF the diocese to vote for bishop; for
there were only fifty votes cast on the ques-
ton of approving the nomination, ii, as to
nv mind seems demonstrated, the ballot OF
the parish referred to, indicating divided,
could not be counted as vote; and If from
these fifty votes the votes Of the Two chan
celors are deducted, twenty-nlne votes
would constitute the necessary majority, be.
ing TWO less than were cast 10 the attirma-
tive; hence if the votes Of the two chancel-
lors were in favor of approving the nomina-
lion, and If they were deducted from the
t5irty-fye affirmative votes, the required ma
jority of twepty-nine votes still remains, and
Or. De Koven's election is complete, regard
les of the two disputed votes"
duly declared and bis testimonials had been
duly signed by fifty.one Of the sixty-seyen
clergy who attended the Convention, and 10y
torty-tbree of the tifty-eight parishes repre-
sented, also by the chancellor of the diocese
and the chancellor of the cathedral. If this
was true, it did not lie in the power Of any
man or set of men to question the legality Of
the election. For the standing committees
of other diocesos to attempt this would be
trenching upon the independence OF the Did,
ccse of Illinois. There was no provision for
an appeal from the Diocesan Convention in
the matter, and any meddling from without
with the prerogatiyes Of the Convention
would be nothing short of usurpation. The
different standing committees dealt with the
testimonials, and could not lawfully go be-
hind them or make any inquiry whatever
into the proceedings Of the Convention.