The Evening critic., 1883-06-01
DIOCESE OF MARYLAND.
Election OF the Standing Committee
and Delegates by the Diocesan
C0uventton-The Sunday Question.

Election OF the Standing Committee
and Delegates by the Diocesan
Convention-The Sunday Question.
At the Diocesan Convention in Baltimore
yesterday tho standing committee of the
Protestant Episcopal Church of the Diocese
of Maryland was elected. This is the ques-
tion on which the conservative and ritual
ist party lines are always drawn. Tho vic
tory was won by the conservatives as usual
Two regular tickets were nominated. The
conservative candidates were the Rev.
Messrs Samuel r. Gordon, Meyer levin,
George G. Stokes, John II. Elliott, Alfred
NJ. Randolph, Augustus P. stryker and
George Leeds. The other ticket had on it
the names of the Rev. Messrs. George
Leeds, J. s. B. Hodges, John II. Chew,
James Stephenson, Walter A. Mitchell,
Wm. s. Southgate and VIM. Paret.
There was also q contest when the elec-
tion took place for clerical and lay deputies
to the general convention. The names on
the conservative tickets wero the Rev.
Messrs. Meyer Levin, Orlando Hutton
John II. Elliott and Walter W. Williams,
and Messrs. Reverdv johnson, Skipwith
Wilmer, Charles Albert and Lloyd Lowndes.
On the other ticket were the Rev. Mcssrs.
VIM. Paret, j. S. b. Hodges, George Leeds
and Hall Harrison, and Messrs. Daniel NJ.
Thomas, Bernard Carter, Charles Ii. Wyatt
and Hon. Morrison r. Waite. Mr.. levin
| said that Chief Justice Waite was no. eligi-
BILE because he represented the Diocese Of
| Ohio in tho general convention. Mr.. Paret
| said that Chief Justice Waite was at one
| time Representative from Ohio, but that
| he had recently become n communicate of
| Epiphany Church, Washington. Then /
| withdraw my statement" said Mr.. levin.
The successful clergymen were the Rev.
| Messrs. levin, Hutton, Elliott and Leeds.
| A dispute arose Immediately as TO whether
or not the Rev. Mr.. Williams who had re-
ceived SO lay votes, one more than was
| needed to elect, was not entitled to be q
cal votes the Bishop decided that he was
not elected. 1t was then argued by some
that it was mathematical possibility for
the convention to have elected five or six
or seven clergymen by voting by orders.
Other speakers denied that the problem
could be successfully worked out, and
for while nearly everybody in the
convention was figuring away for dear
life. The Bishop said that he had decided
that majority vote Of both orders .,, was re, 70,
quired, and that the matter was settled. Oi
the lay candidates Messrs. Reverdy Johnson
and Charles Albert were elected on the first
ballot. Judge Stewart, Mr. VIM. Keyser
Mr.. Joseph Packard ,jr., and others received
scattering votes. Another ballot was ther
taken, and Judge Stewart was elected.
The contest for the fourth lay delegate
was between Chief Justice Waite and Mr.
Skipwith Wilmer. Four additional ballots
were taken. The clergy gave the Chic
Justice majority three times, but in the
fourth count the ballot was even. The laity
led with Mr.. Wilmer until the fourth
when they changed to the Chief Justice
| There was no election, however, and th
matter wentover till to-day.
Mr.. William Woodward brought up th
Sunday question with resolution askin
the convention to try to prevail upon tn
railroads, telegraph companies and Sunda.
newspapers to give their employees NOR
leisure time. The resolution condemne,
Sunday excursions and other like diver
sions. The Rev. James B. Purcell oppose'
the resolution. He said that it was re
Election on the convention. 1t was full 0
the old Puritan spirit, and, provided !
could have any effect, which was doubtful
it would destroy by its aus.erity tn
simple love felt for the day.
could do no good to man, wOma
or child, and was an infringement
, on individual liberty. Instead of benefi
', ting poor people, it would deprive them (
! many privileges. He thought the railroad
, | would laugh at committee waiting upo
, them as indicated in resolution. I'll
: speaker reoiced to see the Art Gallery 0pe
on Sunday and was glad the law office
winked at some things. The Rev. NJ
, Paret said the question had q theologc;
as well as practical bearing and wonl
require time for thought. He moved th,
it be referred to committee, to report ,
i the next convention. The motion wi
{ carried and the Rev. Messrs. Paret an
8 Purcell and Mr.. Woodward were appolntt
| as the committee