Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-01-23
ANOTHER DIOCESE
Episcopal Situation as to Baltimore
and This City.
SEPARATION Is WANTED HERE
DR.. McKim's Argument Against a
Vague Project.
BISHOP PARET'S POSITION
Is WANTED HERE
BISHOP PARET'S POSITION

| The Episcopal churchmen of this city are
| very much interested in the proposed sepa-
ration of the District of Columbia and the
| four Potomac counties of Maryland from
| the diocese Of Maryland, the formation OF
| a new diocese and the consequent election
| of bishop, to be known as the bishop OF
Washington The division of the Maryland
| diocese was recommended at the Maryland
convention held last year. 1t was decided
that the work of the present diocese is too
great for one bishop.
| The territory embraced in the proposed
new diocese includes the District of Column
bia and the counties of Charles, Montgom-
cry, Prince George and st. Marys, Mary
land. 1t contains Il parishes,1S churches and
chapels, and more than 1900 communi-
cants. 1t is argued that such field IN any
part of the country would demand the
| whole time, strength and energy of one
| bishop. 1t is all the more necessary, there
FORE it is claimed that this territory,Whlcn
includes the capital of the nation, ana
which is each year becoming more ana
| more the center of educational, ScieEtilic
| and religious effort, should have a bishop
| to be the leader in every good work, ana
| stimulate its present encouraging CROWN
and plan for the chureh's future develop
| ment
Endowment Fund.
The first step toward the founding of a
| new diocese is the establishment of an en-
| dowment fund for the bshopric. The do
] cese of Maryland has a fund Of about w.
| GOO The interest upon this is insufficient,
| of course, to support the bishop SO the
deficiency is made up by assessments upoi,
| the parishes. Bishop Paret has insisted
that he will not consent to DIVISION VI nc .,.e
| diocese if it is to increase the tax upon the
| parishes AS soon the diocesan conven-
| ton recommended the division, therefore
| steps were taken toward securing an . en-
a., hnfh for
| cese and the proposed Washington diocese:
The Washington diocese decided that IL
would not start with less than s.u,c'". -
| committee was appointed to ralse TINS sum
| consisting of Rev. Randolph IL. Mchirn'
| Rev Alfred Harding. Rev. Albert RStuart,
| DID,. and Messrs Henry e. PeIieW, LEWIS LEWIS
| J. Davis S. w. Tullock and H. K. Niele
| The committee has now secured money ahd
pledges amounting to $4,000 and is very
cor fident of completing the quota OF S3o,Woo
| before next May. At that time the olo-
| cesar convention will assemble in this
city, and it is proposed to report the
| progress of the efforts for division and
| convention, to be held in Minneapolis next
| October and there present formal petit
| ton for a division of the diocese. FINAL
action lies with the October convention.
Unique Suggestion.
In the meantime another project for a
division has been formulated and is being
discussed in some quarters. The plan Is
rather vague in detail. but in general out
line it proposes to establish in the Dis
trct of Columbia a diocese unique in the
order. The idea is to have diocese which
shall bear the same relation to the church
that the District of Columbia bears to the
| general government. The diocese is to be
Controlled solely by the general conven-
ton and the bishop of the diocese is to
| be the prmus performing the functions
new devolving upon the presiding bishop
of the general convention. The parishes Of
| Washington would have no voice in the Sc
lection of bishop and in every way would
| be subject to the control of the general
Columbia is subject to the control of Con-
| gross. The benefits to be derived from
this plan are not fully explained. 1t is
urged in a general way that the new do
cese would take rai.k and precedence of
| all other dioceseS, and that the fact of
| its being the residence of the primus would
make the diocese of greater Importance,
| make it a center for the most progressive
efforts of the Episcopal Church.
Opposition Arguments.
This plan Is being vigorously opposed 10y
the Washington clergy. great many OBJ
jections are urged against it, In The first
place it would deprive the Washington
clergy of the privilege of choosing their
own bishop and would place over them a
bishop chosen by the general convention.
The principal objection, however, seems to
be that the adoption of the plan would
| cause delay of four years or more in the
division of the diocese. The idea is novel
| one in the history of the Episcopal Church,
and lhere is no law to warrant its adoption.
| The constitution of the general convention
would have to be changed, and this, it is
said, is tedious operation. The proposed
| change must be submitted to and ratified
| by the several GioceSeS of the country, and
| then, after there is warrant of law for the
change, the plan can be carried out.
| 1t is also urged that if the District OF
Columbia becomes legendary of the gen.
| eral COW ention the result will be a condi-
| ton very much like the situation now eX-
| listing between the general government and
| the political District of Columbia. The new
| diocese will be nobOdy'S ward, and in the
| allotment of favors at the general conven-
ton every other diocese will see that its
| own interests are served before the w ash
| ington diocese is taken into consideration.
DIR. Mc<in,'s Letter.
This question was discussed in a recent
communication to THE Churchman" by
the Rev. DIR. Mckim in behalf of the COM
mittee appointed to raise funds for the
| Few diocese.
I'm the first place." said DR.. McKim, II
deprecate the discussion at this time of a
proposition to completely reverse the de-
| Hberate action of the diocese of Maryland,
by creating not a new diocese, but de-
| tendency, a jurisdiction of the whole
church, and upon different lines to
those carefully drawn by the convention.
The plan which you advocate was before
the church. 1t was considered by the
bishop and the diocese of Maryland, with
others. 1t not adopted. 1t may con-
ceivably be the best plan, but the consti-
tutional judges-that is, the churchmen of
Maryland-decided otherwise. To reopen
the question now is to produce confusion
| and uncertainty in the public mind and
to embarrasS the efforts of the committee
appointed to gather funds for the organiza-
ton Of the new diocese. 1 most respect
fully submit that the following points have
been, after careful and long consideration,
deliberately and with great unanimity de-
cided by the bishop, the clergy and the
laty of the diocese of Maryland: a. That
the new diocese shall include four counties
of the present diocese besides the District
of Columbia-tne Potomac counties "a line
of division long ago suggested by Bishop
Whittingham); ca that the division of the
diocese shall be pushed forward as rap
idly it can constitutionally be done; C)
that the new organization shall be auton-
omous, diocese, not jurisdiction of the
whole church, and clothed with all the
rights and privileges of its sister dioceses.
IL hold therefore, that it is too late to
discuss this question now. The process of
creating a new diocese, independent au-
tOnomouS has been entered upOn deliber-