Birmingham state herald., 1895-10-04
EPISCOPAL CONVENTION.
At the Afternoon Session They Got Down to Real Business-The Anti-Reyisionists
 Won an Overwhelming Victory.

claration of faith with which the pro-
 posed new constitution and canons was
 preface6 and refused to concur in the recommendation of the committee that
 the names of the triennial gathering be changed to the general synod, and
 likewise rejected a proposition to recog- nize the title '"The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States" The over whelming victory of the anti-revisionists in the matter of the declaration of faith
 and principles and upon which the com
 mittee of 1892 had expended much time,
 thought and labor, apparently demoral ized It's supporters and to the motion to reJect the new name of the asSemblage they maue but a feeble resistance. When the hour for adjourning arrived d warm debate was in progress on the question ot reinserting in the first paragraph Of the constitution the clause making erfec tive Legislation originating in the house of deputies and in which the bishops had failed to concur within three days. This feature of the Philadelphia consu tuition of 1879 and which is stlll in force, had been omitted by the revisionists and their action was regarded by many of the delegates as a dangerous infringe ment of the rights of the lower house. At the rate of progress today, debate be ing unlimited, it would take over five IlOutHS u COHlplcle ol lhC report. The anti-revisionists abandoned | their intention of endeavoring to shelve | the report at the outset, and as the | document when revised by the present | gathering must be submitted to every | diocesean convention in the United States | for its action, the contest between the | two elements will necessarily be renew | ed in the convention of 1896. Meanwhile | the old constitution remains in force. The only action of interest in the house | of bishops was the adoption of resolu- | tion approving by implication the sup | pression of the FitzsimmonsCo Corbett | fight by the Texas legislature. Bishop Deane of Albany was placed in Episco- pal charge of the churches and congrega- ton in continental Europe.
 When the delegates met in committee of the whole after the midday recess,
 code of rules designed to prevent repe- tition of the parliamentary tangle in which the morning session had involved itself was adopted and thereafter there was smooth sailing.
 Debate was inaugurated on the propo- stion to adopt the declaration and yer bal changes were presented by Deputies Taylor of Springfield and Scott of Vir- ginia. Dr. Spalding of Alabama took the ground that no declaration was nec- | essary. There were, he said, sufficient
 number of affirma tions of faith in the prayer book. Dr. Beverly Tucker of South Virginia concurred Dr. Elliott of Maryland urged that it was serious question whether the general convention should establish new constitution un- til expressly instructed to do so by the dioccsean convention. Under the prece- dents of the general conventions of 1876 and 1879 it certainly had no such power. It was appealed to the delegates as to whether they had been empowered to set forth, establish or adopt a new law for the church, and there was a great shout of "No!' The debate was con tinued by Drs. Edgar of New York, Froude of Minnesota, Davenport of Ten nessee, and ex-Gov. Bradford Prince of New Mexico all opposing approval of the decision. Finally Dr. Tucker moved that it be stricken out but gave way to
 Lay Delegate Hill Burgwinn, one of the oldest and most skilled parliamentarians in the thousand who voiced the opposi- tion in a resolution, setting forth that it was not desirable that any preamble or decision should precede the constitution now submitted for action. This was adopted by a wye voce vote and the mi
 norlty did not care to challenge divi- sion.
 The constitution itself was now before the committee and by vote of 147 to
 104 it was decided to pluraliZe it by call
 ing it constitutions"
 On the proposal to substitute the title
 general synod" for general convention"
 Dr. Jewell of Milwaukee made vigorous
 speech
 The so-called Presbyterians used the
 title to designate a secondary body, and in that church it was a kind of third
 wheel The so-called Lutherans also
 used the title, and in one parish there
 were no less than four Lutheran synods.
 and all by the ears. Dr. Carpenter of
 New Jersey favored the term, general council"
 fervid speech against the change was
 made by Dr. Fulton orPhladelphia
 When the vote was taken the "coun- cil" amendments were defeated and the
 proposal of the commission to adopt the
 designation, general synod" met a
 similar fate. No ballots were demanded.
 A resolution by pr. Garnet of Virginia
 to insert in the paragraph a general
 convention of the Protestant Episcopal
 this church" was voted down-131 to
 151. At this stage the paragraph which
 merely defines the status of the conven-
 tion was about to be adopted without
 further delay. when pr. Taylor of Spring.
 field discovered that the old provision
 by which legislation enacted by the dep-
 uties becomes a law if not objected to
 by the bishop within three days had
 been omitted Then there was a breeze.
 pr. Taylor insisted that without this
 saving clause the bishops could "pock-
 ct" all undesirable legislation; and J. c.
 Riddle. the eminent Philadelphian, nov
 ed that the clause be restored. The bish-
 ops he said, ought to lead in obedience
 to the. law. but they did not. At the
 convention of 1889 they refused to concur
 in a certain measure because they want
 ed more time, and these measures never
 became law of the church, despite the
 three-day rule. He would like to know
 what the country would say if the pres
 ident fthe United States sent message
 to congress with veto on the ground
 that he had but a few days to consider
 the matter at issue. The bishops ought
 not to set the example of evasion of the constitution of the church.
 A warm response was made by Dr.
 Spalding of California. who said the preceding speaker had implied an un- worthy suspicion of the house of bishops. Ut was the last fag-end of an unjust sus- picion of the bishops and their motives that too long had existed in the church on the part of the people who wanted to stop up some little holes for fear of some miserable parliamentary trickery. The committee rose at this point Before the delegates dispersed it was announced that the days offerings of the woman's