, 1875-08-22

| TIE PROTEST AGAINST HIS CONSIDERATION.
It will be remembered that, at the time OF It
election Of DR.. Eccleston as Bishop Of Iowa |
May last, q protest was presented against th
declared election. It has been prepared for Gil
cu1ation. and gives the following az the ground
On which it is based:
First-A5 to the legality Of the declared election:
found the following: In e!ectng Bishop, tho Con
venton sha vote BY Orders aud BY ballot Tha clerg
shall vote first, and majority Of each Order shall
necessary to choice" Here 1t Is distinctly state
that majority Of each Order. not majority Of th
| votes cast. shall he requisite 70 choice
In the Convention held at Cedar Rapids there wer
and thirty-four parishes ware represented, ant
as each parish WIS entitled to only one vote
ths g0*s ef eighteen p.,sse and
election 0n the sixteenth ballot, which decarec
to elect, Dr. E:cltston received II clerical votes
majority Of the Clerical order, but not constitutions
majority Of the Lay Order We do therefore, conent
that the election invalid from legal point Of view
seeond-The manner OF the election from mora
point OF view:
We do mos: seriously contend that II thern Is any
place more than another where political tricry log
rolling bargain and sale Of Eoes II ont Of place, It Il
in the election Of Bishop in the Church OF God Bu
that attempt made to such, and that such
were by friends Ut Dr. Erlesou in the dcelre
election, VIC have direct ~ well ~ strong drcunsstan
Ha1 evidence.
After tedious ba1loins through the greater part Of
two days. without concurrence in choice Of tho clergy
and laity, committee OF conference vas called and
appointed for the purpose OF h2rmoniug. possible
the action Of tho two o1derr. To this end It pro-
posed By the portion Of the COMMITTEES selected BY the
new ono be brought forward upon whom al could
unite, but from tho responses which from tho
portion Of the Committee selected By the clergy, was
with divided diocese, was Of more Importance to
them than harmony With any other man. Tho only
t@vt thmr tn
name thAs there should be three ba1otings more
before The new name should b announced.
Opposition lay voe fell from 20 to IL, showing sa1.
the three Of Dr. Eccestons supporters who had voted
with the opposition on tho eecond ballot. had re-
opposition, thus giving Dr. Ecc'eaton majority Of tho
1ay vote cast
We do contend and believe that this Was brough:
tho only rational explanation Of the increase Of the op
nosion ]ay vote tho second ballot, aad s decrease
and defeat upon tbs last ballot We believe this b.
cause several who hsi 4oted steadily with tho oppoei-
hon have declared They were spproached By friends
aud supporters Of Dr. Ecleston with the proposition
to trade votes this true In the Ct tbs dele
gate from st. Peters Plrieh, Fairfield. a11 not
denied another delegate has made ike declaration,
vhoso nau1e can be given, With his consent It may
10 said that this IL not positive evidence that such
harRain and sale Of voteg made. We have to ray
in reply that many msn has been convicted Of crime
In courts Of Law ei1eunstanal and moral evidence
Of less strength than this We arc willing to leave It
not justified in our allegations 1that the duAl result
was produced BY me1ns Ct this character.
Thyd-As to the testimonials Of the Rev. Dr. Eccee-
ton now laid before you.
II you will carefully examine those testimonials, you
will see that they signed BY majority Of the dee
gates representing on1y seventeen Parishes only ono
half OF the Parishes represented In the Convention,
and not najorty. Seventeen parishes, b5 their dele
Rates refused TO sign these Testimonials II convention,
and continued 20 to refuse up to the ums the testt
rpouiAis were Forwarded to the Standing Committees.
This refusal is the most solemn protest TINT be
made against tho manner Of the election Of Dr. Eccles
ton, Those parishes that signed the Testimonials,
cordinR to tho journal OF tho Diocesan Con1enton,
have In aggregate Of 1,0D com0uuicButa Those
parishes that refused to sign tho Testimonials have
aggregate Of OIL couomuuicAots, Or only eight 1eaS
lhan oneh4H Of al the comnaunic7uts Of the Church
the parishes Of the diocese represented IN tho Con-
teutfon-
Thus one-haH II tho parishes represented In the
Convention saw rezsons sadafzctory to themselves
Why thsy should not Sign tho testimonials OF the Ror.
Dr. Ecxlnston and II weeks and months have passed
svxy theJ have reason 70 recou11der the posi-.
ION taken in the Convention although repeatedly 80
icsed TO do Co. hut the contrary, facts and ev
dence have come to light which hATa added strength
o their convictions.
Nor Is this opposton to the eonsecratoo of Dr. Ec-
Jeson partisan one, for among the n2mes Of those
yho refused Sign the tesmouias those proteatinR
md those who have ah11ed their nsnes TO this memo
al axe men Of almost Ill shades Of chu1thuausntp:
,or IL their oppoaition based upon the character OF
,e1sonA staits OF the Roy Dr.. Eeson, but upon ths