Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-11-29

are likely to come up during the meeting
the high churchmen are apt to control un-
der a two-tEirds rule by a vote slightly
more than one-third. II this should be the
outcome of the meeting the high church
men would, under the old constitution of
the diocese of Maryland, be able to dictate
the choice of bishop. or to prevent an
election. Sc that the condition preceding
the choice of Bishop Whittingham might
again be experienced and the diocese Of
Washington might be two or three years
without bishop.
This claim on the part of many low
churchmen that the two-thirds and major
ity rules will be considered solely with a
view to their effect on. the election of a
bishop, is causing considerable comment.
Some delegates who have commended for
the majority rule because they believe
it would allow expression of the
preference of delegates better than the
two-thirds rule. view the tendency to decide
1t solely with reference to the effect on the
coming election as unfortunate. They say
the two-thirds rule nearly always results
in the selection of bishop who is received
as a compromise rather than as the choice
of the delegates.
Discussed by a Committee.
At the convention of the Episcopal do
cese Of Maryland in 1894 an effort was
made to amend the constitution of the do
cese SO that the majority rule instead Of
the two-thirds rule might prevail in the
selection Of bishop.
The constitutional amendn ent which was
considered in 1854 was offered by Rev. Hall
Harrison. and was referred to a committee
consisting Of the following: Hall Harrison,
chairman; Charles c. Griffith and James
H. Watmough. The committee reported in
favor of the change of the constitution,
and embodied their views at length in a
report, but the convention did not adopt
nrOnOSPI amendment The M
the committee. however. is now quoted with
satisfaction by those who are in favor of Il
majority rule. The report said:
The present article looks and sounds
very fair. but-|upon closer inspection, the
practical effect of 1t is found to be this.
Under the semblance of protecting the mi
nority from hasty or tnjudicious choice,
the two-thirds rule really gives to small
minority, who may sometimes be no better
than clique of obstructionists, the power
to dictate who shall be bishop. To break
yield and take the bishop whom the minori-
ty impose upon them. 1t is indeed. per-
fectly true that a deadlock may occasion
ally occur even under the majority rule
1t cannot always be avoided.
The two-thrds rule was placed in the
constitution in the year 1880, at conven-
ton held in the town of Easton. in Talbot
county. 1t was then article XIV. 1t must
be freely admitted that at that time, and
under those circumstances, the two-thirds
rule was a wise and necessary measure.
The whole state then formed one diocese
and Maryland is peculiar state geo.
graphically. No other state has a great
Chesapeake bay dividing 1t into two large
sections, which in earlier times were nearly
equal in social. ecclesiastical and political
Importance. In 1880 travel was difficult
and expensive. There We're no railroads in
the world. There We're no steamboats, ply
ing across the bay and connecting the two
shores, nor were there any for many years
after. The whole number of clergy in the
U lie VQrNr
important, there was at that date no canon
of the general convention which required
the consent of the standing committees
and house of bishops, as to make sure
that diocese would choose man fit and
qualified for the high office of bishop. When
1t was So difficult for the clergy and laity
to get together in convention, it was emil
nently wise and proper to provide that no
man should be chosen bishop unless he
could command the votes of at least two
thirds of the small number of clergy scat
convention of only little more than half
the clergy and laity might have met and
chosen bishop. In the present day of
easy and rapid travel such a thing is i'm
possible. and therefore this reason for two
thirds does not any longer exist
The report proceeds to give a rumber of
instances in which deadlocks in the cleo
ton of bishops have occurred, preventing
any one being elected bishop for long
periods.
Not m "Undivided Diocese"
I'm the case of the diocese of western
Missouri said Mr.. Charles Albert to a
Star reporter today, speaking of the recent
letter of Bishop Paret, 1.-The bishop of Mis-
souri, assumed the presidency of the prim-
airy convention and assigned as his justif-
cation therefor, regarding the primary con-
vention for the time being as a special con-
vention of the. old diocese, altered as local
circumstances require, and until by the
election of your standing committee YOU
Place yourselves under the competent &C.
clesiastical authority etc. etc. Now, here
was, case where the bishop had called
the primary convention of the new diocese.
The diocese of Missouri had been divided.
The new diocese was oply part of the old,
and I do not understand how the primary
convention of the new diocese could be
considered at a special convention of the
old diocese when only part of the old
diocese was represented in it. Could this
special convention of the old diocese have
legisla ed for the undivided diocese?
I'm a letter from the bishop of the diocese
of Maryland. published in The Evening
Star Washington of the 18th instant he
says: After conference with Mr.. Packard
and others well qualified to advise. | am
sure that there is no new diocese of Wash
| ir gton fairly in existence until it shall have
| been organized. There may he an embryo
| diocese, but it is not yet born, and until it
snail De, must REMAIN DlSnOp the pres
| Ont undivided diocese l am very reluctant
| to antagoniZe this position, and had ex-
Eected that some ADLER layman would have
| done so, but as no one has, l feel that l
must state what appears to me to be the
| correct state of the case, and that is that
| the diocese of Maryland has been divided,
| and the territorial limits which once con-
| stituted the jurisdiction of one bishop now
constitutes two territories for the julisdic-
! ton of two bishops.
The conventions of the diocese of Mary
| land in 1894 aud 1895 passed, by an over
WI Ginning vote, resolutions dividing the do
cese, to which division the bishop of Mary
| land gave his consent, and without which
| the division could not have been made. One
of the resolutions was: Resolved, That the
| District of Columbia, together with the
counties Of Prince Georges, st. Marys,
| Charles and Montgomery, constitute the
| territory Of the new diocese, leaving the re-
naming part Of the present diocese to con-
stitute the diocese of Maryland
| This action was. as 1t had to be, ratified
| by the general convention. and thus was the
| act Of division consummated,a and the general