New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-10-25

,o,o raiect,ne ,hese resolutions which viii bear to
the world at large and the intellgences OF men the
tIon n, the convention that these statements
not true 10 ~
We OF the minority believe with all our hearts that
they are true and therefore we are determined TO vote
for them and present them 70 TINS convention DO not
80, hov other churches Christian bodies this
oues,on know that the color line has been a cause
Of dinicuity in OF them again and again But do
not care TO examine their records 90 not care to com
nara Chuch with Church But DO pray for the Church
a love that she shall be leader in the worlds progress
toward the time in the Church Of Christ there shall
be no lines drawn simply mark the color of mems skins
ARGUMENTS FOR THE MAJORITY
The Rev. DR.. Kedney, Of Minnesota, supported the
report of the majority.
The Rev. DIR. Gray, Of Tennessee, also spoke 10
favor OF the majority report saying In part
In the minority report there IS great dos OF preamble
preceding the resolutions that conceive has bearing at
all ON the Question before maintain as to the
ton at that the 30 IT in the majority report
is as full complete. as unwavering in IFS
tone in its meaning the resolutions presented
by the minority report What do lind in the majority
report which learn by message Was unanimously
adopted by House Bshops' II IS made Just clear
in the Church recognizes distinction in color
and II be put down. and 1t rests on the M
dubtabo authority Of the Word Of God
The Rev. Dr. j. Avery shepherd of Northern Cali
fornia. also "majOrty' man. and took the
position that the negro race In the South was not
yet prepared to he put on terms OF equality
The Rev. DR.. Huntington also ranged himself with
the supporters of the majority report He gave his
reasons In a speech Of which this Is part:
have had the honor, and count II Of the greatest
OF my NE have been asked 30 present here the memorial
OF our coofed brethren For that feel entitled
to ask your attention the adoption Of the majority
report frs appears IN me b meet fairly and
squareIy without evasion subteruge, the questions
asked in the memorial Secondly because the only coiored
a, putty on this entitled speak and vote said two
ha Nsle majority
By every consideration OF honor bound 10 stand by
the memorallsus. 1 my reverend brother from Texas
whether / right or wrong in my impression
Mr.. Cain, the colored deputy referred TO- answered
that he was in favor Of the minority report.
DR.. Huntington said he would discuss at onos the
point of difference. and continued thus:
preence is that in two doceses OF this Church GER
tain legislative action has been had with reference 20 the
coored 1 wish to say here that agree entirely
with INV reverend brother from Massachusetts, In his e't
mate OF the character of that legislation. deeply feel
that Diocese OF Virginia and tho Diocese OF South
Carolina in error in that matter. But does our Ia"
Try any before 1t hears him We have spent TWO
DAYS Of ia discussing the question OF the
righteousness OF court Of final appeal for an injured
clergyman. He have every safeguard given him
But OF this Church be put IN trial here and
condemned by minority report say no. We have heard
trial by newspaper but worse than that woud DC ta
spch as this Moreover until Northerners come into
question with clean hands 1t is not for them to araSn
this floor elsewhere the action OF doceses In the South
Our sister struggling with problem OF
tremendous difficulty. They have earnest and hearty
sympathy. thoroughly believe that the best friends Of
the to-day be found south OF Mason ana
Dixon's line believe L right in the statement that
greater number OF the missionaries OF our Chufch VINO
are dcvoty serving the colored race are southern
men Until Northern churchmen willing. in the case
OF recorshp, cseters padbus, TO cell 70 thst
rectorship coore1 presbyter they are in no situation
consistently pass judgment on Southern doeeses Tor
dealing with the social question OF the status OF Oe negro
ding 70
COLoRED MAN FOR THE MINORITY.
The Rev. Mr. Cain made an energetic address in
favor of the minority report He sa d IN part:
1t is not a subject Of Church legislation 1t Ia sub
iect Of politics and discrimination on political lnes tht
now confronts u.s. regard to which legislation has been
taken already TO deprive certain OF their nights as
priests AID deacoDs this Church, solely on Che GROUND
OF color. The question we ask is whether this CAuioh
ndorses that which seemingly in the majority report
Endorsed by saying that the Convention has no cohtro
over questions OF Jurisdiction representation as much
as say these churches which excluded oeacons IN
their had perfect right to do So Notwithstanding
that they not mere priests and deacons OF
South Carolina Virginia but priests and deacons oil
this Church
The vote was taken az O'clock by dioceses and
orders. The question OF the aioptlon oi tne nnot
Ayes, clerical %. lay 10 nays clerical 80 lay 20
The vote on the question of concurrence with the
House OF Bishops IN adopting S esrs ass7s M sy 54
m mao 9ec plf' 11' lay divided clerical none
h lay /. 'i0'''S' 49, '''
THE COLOR QUESTION REVIVED.
The race question came up again in the afternoon
on the report OF the Committee on Canons ON
missionary Episcopate for the colorcd people, which
ran follows
The Committee Canons, TO whom referred a
proposed for erecting Missionary Episcopal iurs
dcon associated parishes OF the coorei race, re-
specially report;
Even II this Church were prepared to recognize by
rbo bel -
hers aud provide their separate organization either
into parishes episcopal Jurisdictions we think $st
Of doing provided IN this p0pose1 canon
would be many reasons ineXpetien', and that 1t
could be pdoperly aud efficiently done only H'er ehAse
in the constitution.
While we do not absolutely that the proposed
canon would be unconstitutional yet 1t trenches 80 closely
on Article " for this reason alone we would dene
cato ,is adoptjon But waving for the plesent the
constitutional objections and those founded Oh the pro-
nosed line OF distinction between the white and ooored
races We Of opinion that other ana iaGu oOIscIohs
present them I. Ives the proposed canon
II we had the right TO provide by canon Tor the
erection Of mi sionay jurisdiction within one OF more
organized doceses, with the consent OF the DshpS ana
conventions Of respective diOceses yet the dhcuy
II not mpossbility Of obtaining such consent which
ON change of views could not and death Of the bishop
would not be withdrawn, and the many computations
which would almost certainly rise under such ehdhse
OF views. under many other supposaoie eoh'hsehcea
should deter from adopting the system mere proposed
for solving problem inherent difficulties OF which
we all fully recognize
I'd. THIS Canon proposes Episcopal jurisdiction
n personals within the territorial Jurisdiction Of another
bishop. We think such proposition antagonzes the
history traditional policy Of the Church and The essen
tlal elements Of Episcopal jurisdiction which from the
arst, has been territorial and not personal
But essential question which meets US at
the forefront matter, ana which We think
Church should first determine before discussing plans
and Of procedure, that first alluded 10 in this re-
port namely, shall the Church, in its law Of paroehia or
diocesan organizations draw recognize line OF dsnc
ton between its white and IL coored membcrsl We
think this should be DONE AMI IN re;orc, FOR this
yea alone, and without reference t. those founded on
unconstutiOnalty inoxpeiency recommend that the
canon adopted and present the following resolution