Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1894-12-10
A STORMY SESSION.
The Episcopal Convention Of the Diocese
of Iowa and the Bishop.

S.SSuS0No
The Episcopal Convention Of the Diocese
of lows and the Bishop.
The 42nd annual convention of the
Episcopal diocese of the state of
Iowa, over which Bishop William
Stevens Perry, of Davenport, pre-
sided at Des Moines last week, and
which adjourned to meet in Daven-
port next year. proved stormy one,
in the sense relating to the PROPOSE
ton to give the diocese an assistant
bishop. and Episcopalians here. as
elsewhere, watched the proceedings
with more or less interest. The
bishop occupied the chair at all the
sessions. The bone of contention
arose over the fact that the bishop in
his Episcopal address had seen the
wisdom of withdrawing his assent 10
the appointment of an assistant
bishop Of the diocese, and there were
quite a number of pointed remarks
over the disposition to conceal the
discussion on that subject from the
secular press, Rev. DR.. Thomas f.
Greene, of Cedar Rapids, who is
mentioned as prominent candidate
for the proposed new ecclesiastical
duties, assuming the position that
nothing should be done behind closed
doors, and his opinion finally pre-
vailing. Despite the attitude of the
bishop, committee had been at
work in the diocese for months OBJ
tanning consensus of opinion
throughout the diocese, with the
bishops sanction, and this commit
tee did not propose to have its re-
port ignored. The committee there
fore held that the bishop having orig
inally given his consent in writing
to the appointment of an assistant
bishop, he could not now withdraw
it without the conventions consent,
and the committee having been ap.
pointed by the convention was an
swerable to it and not to the bishop,
and could be no more read out of ex.
istence than the convention which
created it. Furthermore, the com.
mittee maintained that the bishor
having given his consent to the dio.
cese of the appointment of an assist.
ant bishop, he could not withdraw il
without the consent of the conven.
ton.
The bishop had in his letter of as.
sent held certain requirements nee.
essary for the appointment of q CO.
adjutor bishop. and the committee
reported that it had been unable tc
comply with all these requirements,
as some of the parishes opposed the
plan as leading to possible division
OF the diocese, others riticising the
administration of Bishop Perry o.
diocesan affairs. charging him with
seeming want OF appreciation of the
needs Of the diocese, and still others
prayerfully approving of the move
ment, refused the financial aid neces
sary to establish it. Financially, the
committee reported manifest I'M.
willingness of the diocese to sub.
stantially aid the movement to sup
ply the need of increased Episcopa
jurisdiction.
The Discussions.
The consideration of the report
that followed brought out a long dis
cussion. during which, according tc
the Democrat, the bishop was sub
jected to many severe criticisms as te
his administration of the diocese. the
chief complaint being that he had
been away too much, while other:
were equally outspoken in their 10y
atty to the present head of the do
cese of Iowa. The convention, after
going into the committee of the whole
on the discussion of the matter,
adopted a resolution asking the
bishop to recall his withdrawal O.
consent to the election of an assist
ant bishop, and new committee be-
appointed on the subject of raising
funds for the establishment of a new
diocese or dioceses. The committed
reported this resolution back to the
convention and it was adopted.
The bishop maintains that when 8
sufficient endowment has been made
to satisfy the house of bishops, he
will make recommendation, and fol
the present he declines to change hi.
position in withdrawing his assent tc
the appointment of the assistan,
bishop. He says: when the con.
vention assures me that it is in earn
est and has the means to sustain an
assistant bishop, shall give it fur.
Their consideration