The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1893-06-02
o ASSISTANCE.
Bishop Nichols Loses His
Fight.
After Hot and Long Debate the Dio-
cesar Convention Decides Against
an Assistant Bishop.

Bishop Nichols cannot have an assistant
yet awhile. The great fight in The Episco-
pal diocesan convention over this question
gave life. spice and a little acrimonious
feeling in the meeting in Trinity Church
yesterday.
Bishop Nichols wants an assistant
Bishop to help him care for the interests
of the church in California. and a majority
Of the gy cordially approved his re-
quest A majority of the laity opposed
the plan because the diocese would proba-
bly, be divided two years hence, but they
we're willing to give him n stenographer
aud typewriter, if that would 90 him any
good.
During the morning session two reports
were submitted from the special committee
of nine, to which the matter had been re-
ferred. Tie majority report was signed by
Rev. II. S. Clark of Los Angeles, j. Wigmore
of San Diego D. S. Payne. George w.
Gibbs, W. 3. Hooper and II. F.. HghtOn.
These gentlemen were opposed to the enl-
pioyment of an Assistant Bishop. The
reason assigned for this stand was that in
1895 the question OF dividing the diocese
would be brought before the General Com
ventiOn, and 1t would be advisable to defer
the creation OF a new Bishop till the mat
ter of Diocesan division was settled.
This report predicted by implication
that the General Convention would divide
the diocese. in which event an assistant
appointed now would be the Bishop of
Southern California. BY a vote being
taken now the northern members, who
are in the majority, would elect Bishop
for the southern parishes, and il would
only be just, they thought. TO allow the
southern members to elect their own
Bishop.
The minority report was signed by Rev.
X. c. FOuie Of San Francisco. Rev. IL. 3.
Resiarick of San Diego and Rev. B. 4. w.
Taylor of Los Angeles.
These delegates contended that the
present diocesan bounds should be main
tanned, and were anxious to allow the
Bishop an assistant.
A sharp discussion followed, and sar-
castle speeches were exchanged by the
clergy on one side and the laity on the
other The laity. upon several grounds,
but principally those of economy, wanted
a delay OF two years. The clergy with
few exec ptions were in favor of an assist
ant Bishop.
The convention at l clock to ok a recess
for an hour aud half.
At the time appointed the delegates
were in their places. and Rev. John Wig
more OF San Diego made a short, terse
speech against the minority report. He
was followed by Rev. H. S. Clark, rector
Of Christ Church. Los Angeles. who spoke
loud, long and bitterly against the appoint
ment of an assistant Bishop. Rev. b. r.
w. Taylor OF Los Angeles was next on the
floor. He was most emphatic in his ex-
DIessionS of approval of the minority re-
port.
lie thought that economical considera-
lions should not interfere with the cleo
ton OF an assistant Bishop. He said that
ne question at issue was not If they could
afford to have an assistant Bishop, but if
they needed one. He flung sarcasm.
satire ana righteousness right and left, and
had all his hearers, with the exception of
those whom the shoe pinched. in silent
Commissions OF laughter. His speech was
brilliant, but he talked for a losing cause.
When Rev. Mr.. Taylor had finished, in
fact, before he had finished, several others
were on their feet Everybody seemed to
have something to say, and those who
couldn't have their say called out ''Ques-
tioni'
Then tie Bishop hammered the table
with his gavel, and asked ii he should put
the question on the majority report.
Question! question: echoed through
out the room. A discussion then arose as
to whether the voting be done by ballot or
| should the ayes and noes be taken. The
clergy favored the ayes and noes and the
laity favored the ballot. A division of the
convention resulted in favor of q viva
| voce vote.
George W. Gibbs. who was In favor
OF ballot, explained his reasons as fol-
| lows:
Why shouldn't we have a secret bal
| lot? 1t Is My opinion that the clergy
would be influenced by the presence of the
Bishop to vote as he desires if compelled
TO make their vote known
Bishop Nichols looked panied and said :
III thought that my presence would
make the gentlemen Of the clergy EXPIRE SIS
other than their honest convictions
would walk out that door. but / hope that
nothing could influence the gentlemen of
| the cloth to vote in any way which their
conseiences would not approve"
mere were cries of mo! mol" from the
house.. and the voting proceeded The
ciergys votes numbered 81 ayes and 10
noes, and those of the laty Y ayes and 10
noes. -Four churches were divided. but the
blshop decided that under the rules of the
chuIcn they should be cast as negative :;
that gave the laity IA votes against and u
IN favor OF the majority report. So it was
| finally decided that Bishop Nichols could
not have an assistant
Inc standing committee was next
nominated and elected. The following
gentlemen were chosen to serve on this
committees: Rev. R. c. Fonte. Rev. Fl.
Chetw God, Rev. E. b. Spauldinc. Rev. A.
F. Perkins. George w. Gibbs, W. b.
Hooper, c. D. Haven, A. n. Drown.
a BOARD OF missions was elected to act in
conjunction with and to represent the
diocese OF California with the general mis-
slonary committee, which is to meet in
OF missions Is as follows: Rev. Z. j. Lion,
Rev. >. A. Emery. Rev. F. j. Mynard,
Rev. Z. L. Mel. G. ii. kellogg. ii. G.
Davis. w. A. Van Bokkelen, A. b.
Phelps.