New-York tribune., 1875-02-25
THE BLSHOPRIC or ILLINOIS.


REPLY OF THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DIOCESE TO
TIE MEMORIAL ASSERTING THAT THE REV. Dr.
DE KovES's ELECTION WAS ILLEGAL
The Standing Committee of the Protestant
Episcopal Diocese of Illinois replied, on Saturday last.
the memorial lately addressed TO the Standing Com
nees OF the other doceses in the United states Pc
tionng them TO give their consent to the oonsecra
ton OF the Rev. DR.. De Koven, the Btshopelec1 The
memorial referred to alleged that the election was
illegal because the votes Of certain parishes were
thrown out and officers Of tho diocese we're
permitted to VOTE who In tho opinion OF the petition
ers, had no right TO do SO.
George y. Cushman President OF the Standing Com
mtee Of the Diocese in short letter addressed 10 the
Bishops aud Standing Committees Of the Church. states
that the Standing Committee had authorized him, Oy
way OF solemn protest against Their possible
refusal to give their consent to the conservation
OF the Rev. Dr. DE Roven-an action which he be-
lieyos would only engender bitterness and strife
to send to them the opinion OF the Chancellor
OF the Diocese regarding the legal points raiseu
in the memorial This opinion, Mr. Cushman states mas
met with the approval OF several OF tue most Ieare~
lawyers IN Chicago In conclusion, he states that the
theology of the memorial was Its own best answer ana
that the memoralsts spoke only for themselves and
not for a considerable minority OF the Diocese.
s. Corning judd Chancellor Of the Diocese, gives the
opinion He says that 1t had been claimed that the
vote of the one parish which was divided upon the ques
tion the confirmation by the aity Of tho nominat0nor
the Rev. DIR. Do Koven, instead OF being neutraised
and therefore thrown out, should have been counted
against him" In reply this Mr. Judd argues that as
the parish referred divided the question OF ap
proya and yoted neither for against such approval
tho divisiou among the delegates amounted simply
10 refusal tho part of the parish to vote either
aye" no." and that t could not be construed as
vote in the negative 1t wellsettled principle of
lanla mn nnf ha
In Jefferson's Manual, on page 1876, the following
sentence might DO found: SIN all balOtings
blanks shall be rejected and not taken
into the count In the enumeration or votes
or reported by the ellers" Tie practice Of the Do-
cesan Convention since 1851 had been uniformly TO treat
divided parish "neutrllized," aud not as repre-
sented Nor mad there been any attempt 10
change the practice until the recent Special Convention,
when motion In regard the division OF the lay dele
gates from the made and defeated by
decisive vote. II had been suggested by the persons
who desired to count in the negative parish, half o1
whose delegates had voted In the affirmative that this
neutralzng clause related to legislative action only
The rule said nothing of the kind aud the idea pro-
posed was "the fruit of q vivid Imagination" To his
mind the suggestion as absurd as the proposition
to count affirmative votes in the negative was mon
strous II was In the power of the Diocesan Conyen
ton say what votes should be counted and what nos
and that body having determined that "an equal
division Of the lay delegates from congregation shoud
neutralze the vote Of such congregation the matter
ended and placed beyond dispute aud beyond ap"
peal. Mr. Judd then Gays: IL have discussed thu
matter at length because its correct determine
ton dispes all cavil as TO the legality OF Dr.
De KOyen's election, matter what view may be taken
in regard the right of the Chancellor OF the Cathedral
and of the Chancellor OF the Diocese u vote Tor bishop
for only 80 vOGes cast on the question OF ap
proving ehe tpn aat o fne pSpsh referred to- m
infvs divide
and from 50 votes the votes Oh GAe Two Chan
cellors are deducted, 20 votes would constitute tho
majority being two less than were cast III the
armatye; nence II tho votes OF the twO Chanceliors
were favor OF approving the nomination, ana II they
were deducted trOm the 81 affirmative votes, the re-
CURED majority Of 20 votes stiI remains, anu , Dr;
d. Koyons election complete regardless Oh the Two
disputed votes" o,.,,.
OF the Diocese and Chancellor of the Cathedral Mr.
ndd argned tnat there was no evidence that the two
Councillors voted at all in the matter OF elecung
voted Ia case they did vote. The voting was
BY ballot, and the ballot implied secrecy;
illinois decided that they had right TO vote. Behind
THIS neither bishops nor standing committees pad .
right to go IL was argued at the recent COnyenuSn
Ior the first time In substance that the provisions o. the
Diocesan Convention excluded all other factors besides
clergy aud aynen at an election of blslOp. Ihers
was no provision Of the constitution that admitted the
cergy OF the Cathedral to membership in The Cohvsn
ton that did not apply TO the TWO Chancellors' Ino
OF annual conventions Afforded con-
sructon and interpretation OF the membership pro
visions the constitution entirely foreign 10 the ueA
hat the canon respect to the privileges OF the Cnau
celior o tne Diocese at ali in conlIcs WIN sueo
membership provisions ~ III, ,,.u,
The election Of DR.. De Koven had been duly decarsd
and esnoniLls had been duly signed oy oi % @ sno
81 clergy attended the Convention ana Dy 40 o tno
So parishes represented also by the CnaneeIor t tuo
Diocese and the Chancellor OF the Cdthedra- ~ tnis
was true lie ia the power OF any man OF sc. y.
men 10 question the legality OF the election foI .no
stading committees or other dioceses 10 atenp. @ ,ns
would be trenehng upon the Independence oi tue DIG
cese of Illinois. There was no provision ior ah apo.
from tue Diocesan Convention Ia tne matter, ana srI
| neddliug from without with the pferogat'es vi ruo
Convention would DO nothing short VI usarpatlOh LAG
dYren standing committees dealt vita the lestlmohi
ala and could lawfully 10 behind them o. make any
ngury whatever iuto the proceedings oi the Son'ea
ton.